BMQ / BMOQ - Personal Electronics during course [MERGED]

[aesop081]

If staff are dealing with discipline as they always have, then no harm has been done here.

It works for people who can live without. Those who just use their things at the wrong times or have their phones go off during drill class. Instructors blows up, case closed. The recruit learns and moves on.

The ones who cant live without, used to VR. This was a desireable situation as those people would have difficulty down the line because reality out there is that you wont always have your toys and it could be for a while. No amount of correction by staff will help. In fact, the opposite effect is true, they just got out. Now, with this new policy, we are retaining these people and have passed the buck of weeding them out to the next training institution or employing unit. We changed the policy to coddle these folks but the root problem still remains, they are undesireable.

Saying "there will always be undesireable folks" is not an excuse to stop trying to weed them out.

 

[vehtech]

New recruits attending training also have families. These family members may not be accustomed to being out of contact with their loved ones. Minor issues that arise from life that can be easily solved by a text message or quick cell call should not be considered a detriment to the CF. These family members with this policy change are given time to adjust to a new lifestyle that they may not be in full support of.
If I were to meet someone that was so attached to a device that VR was their only option I would be totally with CDN Aviator holding the exit door open for this loser.  I also believe policies that make life harder on recruits is a good thing, in that it tests a person. In this case however think of the person on the other end of the phone.

 

[Maxadia]

The ones who cant live without, used to VR. This was a desireable situation as those people would have difficulty down the line because reality out there is that you wont always have your toys and it could be for a while. No amount of correction by staff will help. In fact, the opposite effect is true, they just got out. Now, with this new policy, we are retaining these people and have passed the buck of weeding them out to the next training institution or employing unit. We changed the policy to coddle these folks but the root problem still remains, they are undesireable.

Saying "there will always be undesireable folks" is not an excuse to stop trying to weed them out.

So this policy is  the only thing keeping these recruits from VR'ing?  That opens up  a whole became of worms.

I think you're grasping at straws now.

 

[aesop081]

New recruits attending training also have families. These family members may not be accustomed to being out of contact with their loved ones. Minor issues that arise from life that can be easily solved by a text message or quick cell call should not be considered a detriment to the CF. These family members with this policy change are given time to adjust to a new lifestyle that they may not be in full support of.

Nobody ever said it was a detriment. The issue not about the phones or other gadgets themselves. The issue is CFLRS's reaction to people getting out because of no access to toys for a few weeks. It could have been coffee, bubble gum or anything else, the issue remains the same.

Access to families is not a detriment. For reference, there were several folks on my basic who had families. That was in 1993 and there were no cell phones or laptops, skype or whatever. Everyone made out just fine. You used the pay phones, you wrote letters. If families had emergencies, they called the school.......the system worked very well.

It was only 4 or 5 weeks of no toys. Hard to beleive anyone could not deal with that sufficiently well that they would chose to leave the CF.

I think you're grasping at straws now.

Read the posts by "Bulletmagnet" that started all this. Trial at CFLRS showed that allowing gadgets from day 1 reduced the VR rate by 66% percent.

I'm not grasping at anything.

The Commandant has taken this step as it was seen to reduce the VR rate by 66% during the trial PL's that were run.

 

[Maxadia]

Read the posts by "Bulletmagnet" that started all this. Trial at CFLRS showed that allowing gadgets from day 1 reduced the VR rate by 66% percent.

I'm not grasping at anything.

That's the issue right there.  Its not the decision, its the results from it. Obviously if it reduced the rate, then the instructors weren't doing a very good job of weeding  - or their use of PEDs didn't affect their performance.

 

[vehtech]

Exactly. Anthing that causes a 66% drop in vr rate has to be at the very least considered very closely. A lot of time and money was spent on these people to this point. Are they all useless or is there a secondary underlying cause. Should the CO of CFLRS changed policy? Not for me to question. Having recruited and trained new employees in the private sector for over 20 years if someone told me changing a policy would reduce people quitting by 30% I would look at it. At 66% I would accept the change even if every fiber in my being was screaming no way in hell.  BTW 66% didn't stay in because they were allowed to use a phone or toy. Life is not that simple.

 

[Maxadia]

Excellent points, my friend.

 

[vehtech]

Not private sector. It the military.
Yes of course.
As I said in a previous post on this thread I'm not suggesting altering policies to the hello kitty side. This is to discuss a policy change by a CO. I made an assumption that he took all the life and death stuff into account before making such a policy change. My mention of the private sector was only meant to express that I have a back ground in recruiting, training and retaining staff. Not on my total lack of military experience or of the military itself. In all regards to that end I have yet to be informed of my opinion. :camo:

 

[Jarnhamar]

  BTW 66% didn't stay in because they were allowed to use a phone or toy. Life is not that simple.

Actually it can be. Some people just can't handle being disconnected from their "things". An instructor friend of mine told me about a recruit who with 3 weeks left on basic training quit because they had a weekend taken away. I recall him even saying it was not punishment, they were being held the weekend to work on kit.

It's fairly common knowledge among the instructors that the policy is aimed at keeping numbers up and has nothing to do with quality. It's all about the numbers.  If someone quits or fails their trades course who cares, the numbers coming out of basic training are "higher".

 

[brihard]

I spoke with a little birdy.

The 66% greater retention rate (sounds like a big number) turned out to apparently equal 2 troops.
The platoon involved in it was the "warrior platoon".  Electronics were taken away from a platoon of newbies who just started basic training. The platoon of warriors were allowed to keep their electronics, some of whom have been kicking around the system for a year +.
Some people when told they were loosing their electronics, quit. (Are those the kinda soldiers we want defending Canada?)

Quoting this again, because it seems to have been forgotten. Go back and read Grimaldus' posts on this. Now, my fancy education doesn't seem to count for a hell of a lot in the job market, but I know when a 'study' has been horribly botched.

If they wanted to do this properly, here's a thought for how to do the study: For a twelve month period (to account for possible variation in 'time of year'... People quitting because they don't like winter; people getting through easier because of a nice Christmas break, whatever) have one or two platoon at any given time given full personal electronic privileges from day 1 in accordance with such regulations as have been the case after the 'indoc' period. Using that sample, figure out over the course of one year what the VR rate from the couple hundred troops in that sample are. Any troops who VR in that time, have an exit interview with a questionnaire that asks about the influence of personal electronics. When the course graduates, same thing- did the troops in question feel better able to keep on for having access to iToys or Snozzberies and talking to family/friends/stock broker?

For a subsequent twelve month period, simply have the no PED rule aplied as has been the case in the past. Same deal with exit interviews and graduation questionnaires.

This gives you two sample of a few hundred troops, each spanning an entire calendar year (eliminates seasonal variables, if they in fact exist), and your samples were not in CLFRS at the same time- you won't have a sample that is aware of the other, and perhaps resentful/envious thereof. At the end of the day, figure out what the correlated VR rate is, whether there's a difference, and what that difference means in hard numbers.

Yup, it would take two years to do- but so what? Why rush things like this when the difference seems anecdotally to be at best a few troops per platoon, based off a horribly flawed sample?

 

[brihard]

Actually it can be. Some people just can't handle being disconnected from their "things". An instructor friend of mine told me about a recruit who with 3 weeks left on basic training quit because they had a weekend taken away. I recall him even saying it was not punishment, they were being held the weekend to work on kit.

It's fairly common knowledge among the instructors that the policy is aimed at keeping numbers up and has nothing to do with quality. It's all about the numbers.  If someone quits or fails their trades course who cares, the numbers coming out of basic training are "higher".

Yeah... It's not as if there's some magical pool of people who already have BMQ (and more) and who just might be clamouring to get into the regs and could easily make up the lost numbers being discussed here.

 

[aesop081]

I have a back ground in recruiting, training and retaining staff.

We train people to do things that the civilian world often has a hard time understanding. We demand things of our people that civilian companies cannot fathom. Our leaders have responsibilities for, and power over their people that civilian managers do not. We do not recruit, train and retain like the private sector does because it would not work.

Your experience and background will serve you well one day, but it will take more than 3 weekends of reserve BMQ to temper that with military reality.

 

[Maxadia]

We train people to do things that the civilian world often has a hard time understanding. We demand things of our people that civilian companies cannot fathom. Our leaders have responsibilities for, and power over their people that civilian managers do not. We do not recruit, train and retain like the private sector does because it would not work.

Your experience and background will serve you well one day, but it will take more than 3 weekends of reserve BMQ to temper that with military reality.

You're making it sound like all of that good stuff is out the window now due to the allowance for PEDs during Basic.  Trust me, western civilization its not going to fall because of this choice.

*Insert quote from Socrates about kids these days.......*

 

[brihard]

You're making it sound like all of that good stuff is out the window now due to the allowance for PEDs during Basic.  Trust me, western civilization its not going to fall because of this choice.

*Insert quote from Socrates about kids these days.......*

Socrates would have asked *you* what *you* thought about kids these days.  ;D

 

[aesop081]

western civilization its not going to fall because of this choice.

Never said it would, with almost 20 years of service, i am sure that i am aware of that. Problems will get sorted out. They will just get sorted out much later than they should and the expense in time and money will thus have been greater. It will just add more work to people who already have plenty and should be concentrating on other things.

That is the real shame in all this.

 

[vehtech]

CDN Aviator, well said. I fully understand that 3 weekends of BMQ is as green as cadpat and that the military by it's very function must handle things in drastically different ways then the private sector. Hopefully my opinions expressed hear have been at least food for thought. Remember I'm mostly in agreement with you.

 

[zerosum]

the military by it's very function must handle things in drastically different ways then the private sector

In 1990 I started with a private company. Three weeks later they sent me to "school". Day 1 of school they had a test on the stuff we had to learn in the first 3 weeks. If you failed (and there were several), you were sent home and fired (like forever), the manager that hired you was given a lot of sh*t.

After 2 weeks of school you were tested again. If you failed (and there were several), you were sent home and fired (like forever), the manager that hired you was given a lot of sh*t.

Those that were left, passed the final test ... 2 1/2 months later.

Oddly enough, we were not training for live and death situations.  Crazy as it sounds, I managed with about a 5 minute call a week to my wife (with my infant child).

BTW: In BC the "N" drivers are not allowed to use any electronics (even blue tooth with their cells). Others must use blue tooth. Guess what I see about every 4 or 5 blocks of driving? No problem here folks, move along.

 

[dogger1936]

So why cater to them ? We're not hurting...........

I agree. However it looks like he was given a task of increasing output and ensuring a lower VR rate and he seems to have done it. I don't like it, dont think it's a good idea or approve....yet here we are.

It's much easier to say yes to everything. Sadly I've been seeing this from all sides an an instuctor a leader during war to 2IC in a unit.

Spending time on facebook, BBM your friends, is not military like. IMHO your there to be tested for 10 weeks in a stressful environment to see if you can handle extreme change in your life, loss of freedoms, connection to family, and being there to work as a team to get through it. I believe we are doing our young soldiers an injustice. As when they get thrown into the field at their units it's a new stress to them that they cant BBM their wifes do their banking etc. In turn you get soldiers who do not grasp the fact that their personal life revolves outside of deployment time.

What happens when these youth are placed into country Sh*thole X and get a 5min SAT phone call once every couple weeks.

And how does this prepare the strongest part of the team...the families. Should we start off by letting them believe little johnny can keep in contact with them all the time?

Not fair to the soldier or his family.

big +1 to Cdn

 

[zerosum]

However it looks like he was given a task of increasing output and ensuring a lower VR rate and he seems to have done it.

Everyone gets a participant ribbon. Win-win.

 

[dogger1936]

Everyone gets a participant ribbon. Win-win.

Yup.

Careers before all else.