• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

What is up with all these CTs??

PPCLI Guy said:
That is actually the $64,000 question, and one the Corps is trying to come to grips with. 9% of all badged Royals are in SOFCOM for instance - and they are held against Corps numbers.

Unfortunately, unless you want to create a system where these individuals spend their whole career in SOFCOM, they need to be held against Corps numbers. Otherwise they won't be able to get back into the normal world because their position will be taken up by someone new.
 
PuckChaser said:
Unfortunately, unless you want to create a system where these individuals spend their whole career in SOFCOM, they need to be held against Corps numbers. Otherwise they won't be able to get back into the normal world because their position will be taken up by someone new.

There are other ways to skin the cat.  Establish x positions in SOFCOM, and transfer personnel into and out of those positions when they are employed in that world.  It is slightly less linear than the center prefers, but would paint a truer picture of Infantry Corps manning.
 
PPCLI Guy said:
There are other ways to skin the cat.  Establish x positions in SOFCOM, and transfer personnel into and out of those positions when they are employed in that world.  It is slightly less linear than the center prefers, but would paint a truer picture of Infantry Corps manning.

As all those positions in SOFCOM would all be listed(?) as temporary, what does that do to the organizational charts? Would that not just be labelled as an empty unit?  :dunno:

(I am thinking of the logististics of assigning material/buildings/etc to an empty unit....)
 
In theory, the CANSOF (less CJIRU) units are filled with ATR positions.  Unfortunately, the ATRs are allocated via formula, and not via ground truth.

One option would be to remove the CANSOF ATR positions from the attribution model, then manually add them back based on actual pers in positions.  That would somewhat mitigate the effect; not perfect, but better.
 
CDN Aviator said:
On the surface, yes. But you are then full of guys that you will have for 5-10 years less. The long term health of the CF require that we get a pretty constant stream of young, off the street recruits we can have for 25 years or more.


I understand that by hiring 50 CTs  over 50 recruits you (we) are potentially loosing, say, 10 years of of service.

But on that line of thinking, how many of those 50 recruits will make it through basic training and trades training.  How many will stay past 5 years.
How much is it costing the CF in resources for those recruits in terms of material and instructor hours. 

I would learn towards a CT being a better use of money and resources over someone from the street.
 
ObedientiaZelum said:
I would learn towards a CT being a better use of money and resources over someone from the street.

You would think so, but no.

My trade used to be 100% remusters (not the same but for this purpose, not much different than a CT) Everyone came in without the need for basic training, etc.......

Years later, you end up with 80% of the trade beyond 20 years of service. imagine what it is like when nearly your entire MOS can up and leave in 30 days. The trade was at the point of implosion. Only opening up to "off-the-street" recruiting solved that problem. the trade is now healthy, has a bright future on the long-term HR side.

ObedientiaZelum said:
But on that line of thinking, how many of those 50 recruits will make it through basic training and trades training.  How many will stay past 5 years.
How much is it costing the CF in resources for those recruits in terms of material and instructor hours. 

How many CTs will decide that RegF career management BS is not for them ? How many will quit because it is not all "Tours and shooting stuff" and that you don't get a vote on what tasks you take ? How many CTs turn out to be unsuitable ?

People quitting or failing happens in both off-the-street and CTs.
 
recceguy said:
This is starting to become another 'Us vs Them' thread.

Look, most Reservists were offered that CT, by the Reg force, especially during or after tours.

The Reg Force accepted them and put the conditions in place.

It's not the Reservists fault for believing the promises or accepting the contract offered to them.

You're blaming the wrong people.

No.  This is about us vs. th people that make these decisions (or whatever system is in place that results in them)

I don't, and have not, layed blame on the people themselves.  Who is the "Reg Force" exactly anyway?  It's not like the people on the ground at the units have any say.
 
CDN Aviator said:
How many CTs will decide that RegF career management BS is not for them ? How many will quit because it is not all "Tours and shooting stuff" and that you don't get a vote on what tasks you take ? How many CTs turn out to be unsuitable ?

People quitting or failing happens in both off-the-street and CTs.
Things are going to get worse before they get better IMHO.

The post-Afghan hangover around here is sending people for the doors in all directions.
 
Back
Top