Suggested changes to CAF TOS [split from changes to dress]

[dapaterson]

And replace them with what...?  They can't attract enough now without taking out more who are in a shore billet that would also need to be filled.

That's the rub.  But beyond what point do we start to say "No, too many have restrictions, so we can't afford to retain more with restrictions"?

For example, should the MSE Op career manager retain folks unfit field, unable to drive DND MSE, because they can do static garrison work?

 

[jollyjacktar]

There are still MSE needs outside of the field environment such as bases and the school at Borden.  At the very least they should be in a position to train any such new QL3 that might be coming in the system.

You start to cut too far without new growth (new recruits coming in), then you may as well do this as a trade and organization.  Damned if you do and damned if you don't.  Or for we sailors, caught between the devil and the deep blue sea.

:surrender:

 

[dapaterson]

The challenge is always "where do you draw the line"?

We have institutional design problems that need to be rectified; training system capacity problems; and then we have to determine what we can afford to retain.  But "retention above all" at the expense of "deployability" leads to burnout and release among those who can deploy, and do deploy, but reach their limits.

 

[jollyjacktar]

The challenge is always "where do you draw the line"?

We have institutional design problems that need to be rectified; training system capacity problems; and then we have to determine what we can afford to retain.  But "retention above all" at the expense of "deployability" leads to burnout and release among those who can deploy, and do deploy, but reach their limits.

It's a Catch 22 vicious cycle death spiral.  It's not just the training system, as has been mentioned in other threads, recruiting is FUBAR.  Many whom might be interested in coming get tired of the run around and waiting game.

I don't know where to begin, there are so many things wrong with why we're hurting so badly.

 

[McG]

I've read this over a few times, and have a question.  I can see this working for the trades with larger numbers;  HR Admin, AVN Techs, etc.  What about smaller trades?  WFE Tech is pretty small IIRC, Geo Tech, my trade is PMLd around 200.

How would you keep the 'circulation' healthy enough with small numbers;  no every who wanted it could get limited liability.  Max 5 years limited, then have to go unlimited?  Or, would some trades just not have the option.  I'm sure the 1 Div boss would be quite interested in keeping planes crewed.

You are correct, and even large trades would be in trouble if too many people decide “to Journey.”  In addition to explicitly categorizing positions as suitable (or not) for accepting those pers desiring the static lifestyle, I think there would have to be a cap on maximum number of people who could enter the geographicaly static (or limited liability) stream.  I don’t know what that number is; it is possibly a percentage of the total number of positions managed by the occupation, or maybe it is a percentage of only the number of positions which which are open to limited liability personnel. 

And if demand for geo-static TOS significantly exceeds the number of such positions that the CAF (or a particular occupation) can support, how do we manage that? It could just be a first come first serve system where a few guys could occupy an MOS’s few limited liability positions for years.  Or maybe limited liability TOS are all of shorter duration and offers to renew limited liability TOS are not extended where an occupation has become congested (or TOS boards are conducted to determine who will be offered new TOS in a given year).

 

[PPCLI Guy]

I don't know where to begin, there are so many things wrong with why we're hurting so badly.

True enough.  It is a very complex beast to wrestle with, and the second and third order effects are often both significant and difficult to discern.

That doesn't mean that we should just tinker on the edges, or accept the current situation - it just means that a first principles review is in order, with a holistic and encompassing plan as the output, in the full knowledge that not everyone will be satisfied with the result.

I wish the "Journey Team" all the best!

 

[McG]

If youth today plan on having 7 different careers in their life, let's figure out how to make 4 of them on the military

Maybe this can be a piece of the solution to avoiding congestion within an MOS? "Sorry sergeant, I know you are looking for geo-static TOS but there are no accommodating infantry positions in this location.  However there are several entry level CSS positions if you are interested in taking an OT."  There are some people who would never find an offer like this interesting, and there are others who might. So maybe we could add this to the list of career options one day offered to those who want to transition between unlimited liability and limited liability service.

 

[Maj K.C. MacLean]

This is a very interesting discussion thread, as far as policy goes, we have a pretty agile service model already.  Technically you can go from full-time to part-time in the Reserve Force and component transfer between the Reg and Res Force.  There is potential to extend flexible work arrangements found in the Public service with the caveat of 'subject to operational exigencies' to the Regular Force.  I would suggest that this could be done now under a CO's authority.

What is lacking is an agile business process and related management tool to move people around and a more comprehensive career management capability that could move people between Regular, Reserve and potentially Public Service.  This can all be done without any changes to the NDA or QR&O and only minor tweaks to orders, directives and instructions.  Imagine a world where you could move between Reg/Res/ Public Service - fulltime/part time with the drag and drop of a mouse.

Moving to a Restricted/Unrestricted model is fundamentally flawed as it subverts the fundamentals of the Profession of Arms as outlined in the capstone document Duty with Honour and require significant changes to the NDA and QR&O .  I would also put forth that it would be a monster to manage, what do you do with those that declare to be unrestricted (ie Reg Force today) yet DAG Red or are left out of Battle for other reasons?

It would be better to equalize a base rate of pay and incentivize actions rather than gambling on future potential.

Applying a GBA+ lens to this, what demographic is likely to elect a ‘restriction’?  I would hazard a guess that you will likely find a good number of single parents, service spouses and more likely than not those in their child bearing years who desire to spend more time with the children in the early years. What about those that are subject to Medical Employment limitations? Do we pay the ill and injured less as they non-deployable?  How will this play out in the court of public opinion.  Would it survive a charter challenge?

Stuff to think about.

Recommend reading http://publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2011/dn-nd/D2-150-2003-1-eng.pdf

 

[Rifleman62]

I know a young fellow just starting DP1.1 after three years of waiting. Reg F.

He is going to quit once he gets qualified. Peeved "sitting around drinking coffee".

 

[jollyjacktar]

True enough.  It is a very complex beast to wrestle with, and the second and third order effects are often both significant and difficult to discern.

That doesn't mean that we should just tinker on the edges, or accept the current situation - it just means that a first principles review is in order, with a holistic and encompassing plan as the output, in the full knowledge that not everyone will be satisfied with the result.

I wish the "Journey Team" all the best!

As always, our best assets are our people.  I'm sure we have out there some innovative thinkers who would find the challenge attractive, interesting and ultimately, possible.

I always liked sitting down and trying to facilitate a solution to a problem or just a bit of good idea fairy "this would be good to have/do".  Of course, the solution to what's killing us is light years beyond and bigger than the small time things I'd try or attempt.  But l am positive that, that someone or group of people are out there that thrive on this shit and can take down the elephant.  I worked for one such person until last July, when she left us for Transport Canada. 

I agree, PPCLI, good luck to whomever that group will be.  And l do wish them every success.

 

[jollyjacktar]

I know a young fellow just starting DP1.1 after three years of waiting. Reg F.

He is going to quit once he gets qualified. Peeved "sitting around drinking coffee".

There are many young guys like that on PAT PL in Esquimalt.  We kill them with inaction.  They'll leave too.

 

[Loachman]

They'll leave too.

And talk about their experiences on social media.

Word-of-mouth - technically-enhanced, now - is the most effective means of advertising.

 

[jollyjacktar]

Sadly true.

 

[Jarnhamar]

More meaningful training and operational deployments for platoon and company sized groups. Europe dog and pony shows not so much. People joined the military to travel and for adventure, not spend summers in Wainwright validating a brigade we'll never deploy as.

Trash our procurement system and make a new one so we can get needed equipment next year not in 10 years.

Trash our recruiting system and make a new one so applicants aren't waiting months or years to join.

Bring back the requirement to pass a fitness test before joining the military.

Revamp our medical system so malingerers can't sit on T-cats until a sexy tasking course or deployment comes up where upon they miraculously heal. We shouldn't have someone collecting $64'000 a year (plus $500 a month LDA) for working in a canteen selling chips and pop for 3 or 4 years.

Get rid of caustic members faster.

Make promotions based on merit and standardized tests (like the Americans possibly?) and not a popularity contest (as it is in many cases it seems).

More white space for NCOs to conduct their own training.

Deal with the back log of people awaiting training.

 

[Loachman]

Agreed, plus:

Make promotions based on merit and standardized tests

And a credit for seniority. I've seen too many smart but, in many ways, clueless people promoted while too young and despite huge knowledge and experience gaps. Most of them eventually grow into their roles, but some don't. Some of them can be dangerous while acquiring experience.

"Good judgment comes from experience. Experience comes from bad judgment".

 

[PuckChaser]

What about those that are subject to Medical Employment limitations? Do we pay the ill and injured less as they non-deployable?  How will this play out in the court of public opinion.  Would it survive a charter challenge?

We already know what will happen. Media outrage for 15 minutes until they find another story. The CAF recently changed the policy to anyone on TCAT over 180 days was to lose allowances. We ARE cutting pay from members who are ill and injured (and retroactively recovering the allowances) and the public couldn't care less.

 

[dapaterson]

We already know what will happen. Media outrage for 15 minutes until they find another story. The CAF recently changed the policy to anyone on TCAT over 180 days was to lose allowances. We ARE cutting pay from members who are ill and injured (and retroactively recovering the allowances) and the public couldn't care less.

Allowances are not pay.

If you're unfit to conduct the duties that an allowance is additional compensation for, you should not be compensated for it.

 

[PuckChaser]

Allowances are not pay.

If you're unfit to conduct the duties that an allowance is additional compensation for, you should not be compensated for it.

Completely fair, especially if it was the Army that decided you should jump out of an airplane in parachutes with an ungodly descent rate where you shattered your back. Or if you got shot overseas and now have to come home and lose your LDA as well as your ability to walk while you recover.  :facepalm: 

We talk about trying to retain people, then dick them around on allowances for service-connected injuries. Especially with a medical system that is content to push people onto TCAT before a diagnosis, or throw them into physio before imaging can confirm exactly what's wrong. Then the guy sits on that TCAT for 6-8 months waiting for a specialist to do the surgery, and take their allowances away while they wait.

 

[PPCLI Guy]

So you are saying that allowances are not connected to the activity for which they are granted?  But rather to the fact that one had once earned them? 

 

[PuckChaser]

So you are saying that allowances are not connected to the activity for which they are granted?  But rather to the fact that one had once earned them?

No, I'm saying if we break someone temporarily, then we shouldn't be taking money out of their pocket causing both medical and financial hardship. If someone will never be able to return to full duties, then of course they shouldn't be collecting allowances for those duties anymore. Are we that hard up for cash that we cannot afford allowances for the roughly 12% (not all would be environmental allowance eligible) of the CAF who are on TCAT?