CFRG and the broken recruiting system-Split

[Remius]

The CF should hire "mystery shoppers" of a sort.  Hire  civilians to apply to the CF and track how the civilians and their files are treated by the various recruiting centers across the country and when the recruiting centers mess up piss around or drop the ball, start punishing incompetent people.

It's been done before.  Not to mention the eyes of other departments and agencies.


I'm going to likely take flak for this but some people spend way to much time in class b contracts at CFRCs.  I know some that have or have had 10, 12, 15 and in some cases 20 years on class b time in the recruiting system.  Complacency, indifference and a low GAFF does exist.  While not the only problem it can create issues.

 

[Shamrock]

There's a certain hilarity to all of this.

I recruited shortly after the World Wide Web came into being.  There was no automation.  Everything was done analog, in person or over the phone.  From me entering the recruiting centre to my getting an offer was less than 8 weeks.  Since then, cultural expectations have shifted.  We are very much entrenched in our instant gratification mindset, and computers enable that.  Indeed, we brought computers in to lessen our paperwork and accelerate our administration.  And yet here we are, expectations of instant gratification, the historical ability to hire quickly, and allegedly all the tools to enable it. 

I know, it's not so simple.  There are quite a few working parts involved in recruiting a person, the least of which being our ability to train the new hire.  And nowadays, we've got less training resources to deal with an undiminished demand.  But the potential applicants need to be apprised of this.  They need to be told it's not like civvy life that publishes its positions when it is ready to hire, and that hires are typically able to come right into the work force.  We have to sync everything up to get them trained up and on the front, and offers will only begin at date X, boards will sit around Y, and training will begin around Z.  We have the ability to have an all-informed net.  Perhaps the failure to communicate is where we should focus our attention.

And really, Ms. Blatchford's article is about our failure to communicate.  We have an entire organisation whose raison d'etre is communicating, and one of our strongest supporters fighting to get information from them - which will, in turn, support us more.

 

[Phoenix80]

I'll throw this out to you;  you're likely right in that there are problems with the recruiting system, in that it can be improved.  But here are a few facts IMO that make it so it won't likely happen with any amount of real focus.

1.  our numbers a strong and we always have or seem to have people waiting at the door to get in.  There is a supply for the CAF demand for recruits.

2.  The #1 focus of the CAF is operations, etc not recruiting.  You can only focus people and $$ resources in so many directions. 

3.  As pointed out, the CAF is facing budget cuts.  If sailing, flying and field exercises are all being cut back, do you really think there is going to be a big focus on recruiting system improvements by the top of the chain of command?

I'll suggest, and hope, the answer to that is "no".

well put. I agree with you.

 

[Journeyman]

From me entering the recruiting centre to my getting an offer was less than 8 weeks. 

I too sit on the sidelines with this.  From the time my Dad dropped me at the Recruiters (after I announced I'd quit highschool following Gr 11 football season) to Cornwallis was 5 weeks.

After several years' in I quit, and spent a few months wasting "return of contributions $."  Went to the Recruiting Centre and announced that I wanted any Combat Arms.  The MCpl said "take Armour and I'll have you on the next flight to Gagetown."  I left a note on the fridge, packed some things (with instructions to sell anything I'd left and enjoy the profits), and was at the Armour School that night.  I've been told repeatedly that that could never happen, but I assume phone calls were made and the paperwork eventually caught up. 


There was a Res Armd transfer also hanging around the Armd School's HQ Sqn racking up all the driver wheeled courses as well as we awaited a QL3 course..... I mention that only because we were both 6'(+) and our QL3 MCpl was Bob Lescombe (for the...experienced....black hatters....) 

 

[MJP]

???


It looks like part of the e-CFAT ( or whatever it is now ) should include questions on the use of:


THERE, THEIR, THEY'RE

I get emails all the time from some pretty senior folks that mix this kind of chicken shit all the time.  Are they retards unable to operate in a military? 

I don't disagree that an understanding of the language is needed but seriously?  Must be be my Dunning Kruger effect kicking in or my inherent dislike of the RMS trade amalgamation umpteen million years that I can't let go of kicking in but man I wish I could nit pick useless points all day.

 

[pbi]

There's a certain hilarity to all of this.

I recruited shortly after the World Wide Web came into being. ...A  We have an entire organisation whose raison d'etre is communicating, and one of our strongest supporters fighting to get information from them - which will, in turn, support us more.

Shamrock: your points are all good, but what I'm on about is not so much about systems or procedures (bad as those might be) but about the human factors of attitude, competence and GAFF.

Now: I am going to offend the decent, honorable and capable people who work in the recruiting system: sorry in advance, but I'm not talking about you.

My view when I was in the Army was that, very much unlike (let's say...) the USMC, the business of filling jobs in the CFRCs was not given much profile, despite occasional bursts of enthusiasm and rhetoric. There were, IMHO, far too many people (Class B or RegF: it's really immaterial) who should not have been employed within 100 miles of any recruiting centre. They were quite clearly "parked".

Now, you will immediately tell me that we can't fill all our jobs from the top 10% of the merit lists: got it. And I will tell you that if you are going to deal with the public in order to sustain an armed forces that is totally reliant on volunteer service, you better get the best people you can get in that job. You don't have to be a marksman or a really good bosun or a fighter ace: but you have to be able to deal effectively with people, to work hard, and to be flexible to deal with the needs of your "customer".

Oh, and don't lie to people. (My own CFRC interview  contained "information" that, had I not already been an experienced Res NCO, I would not have recognized for what it was. I have heard so many similar stories from many soldiers over the years that I doubt it was just me).

I don't think that these systemic problems in the recruiting system are really all that new: they just seem to be getting uglier.

 

[George Wallace]

Shamrock: your points are all good, but what I'm on about is not so much about systems or procedures (bad as those might be) but about the human factors of attitude, competence and GAFF.

Now: I am going to offend the decent, honorable and capable people who work in the recruiting system: sorry in advance, but I'm not talking about you.

My view when I was in the Army was that, very much unlike (let's say...) the USMC, the business of filling jobs in the CFRCs was not given much profile, despite occasional bursts of enthusiasm and rhetoric. There were, IMHO, far too many people (Class B or RegF: it's really immaterial) who should not have been employed within 100 miles of any recruiting centre. They were quite clearly "parked".

Now, you will immediately tell me that we can't fill all our jobs from the top 10% of the merit lists: got it. And I will tell you that if you are going to deal with the public in order to sustain an armed forces that is totally reliant on volunteer service, you better get the best people you can get in that job. You don't have to be a marksman or a really good bosun or a fighter ace: but you have to be able to deal effectively with people, to work hard, and to be flexible to deal with the needs of your "customer".

Oh, and don't lie to people. (My own CFRC interview  contained "information" that, had I not already been an experienced Res NCO, I would not have recognized for what it was. I have heard so many similar stories from many soldiers over the years that I doubt it was just me).

I don't think that these systemic problems in the recruiting system are really all that new: they just seem to be getting uglier.

Good points.  They sound just like the points being made about the calibre of the personnel units are sending, vise should be sending, to the Schools.

I remember vaguely, way back when, that at the end of my recruiting process at a CFRC having a document handed to me to sign, stating that the CFRC had not lied to me in any way.  As I came from a military background, I already knew what I was getting into, so I went through the formality of signing the absurd document.  Really?  How can a recruit, with not knowledge of the military, know whether or not a Recruiter lied to them until they had entered the Training process and posted to a unit?

 

[Remius]

The human problems that we had and likely still do.

-People didn't want to work there.   Some people viewed a posting at a CFRC as a career killer
For a while, and I'm not sure it still is, the CDS directed that a tour at Recruiting be viewed as being as important as an operational tour and be taken into account for merit boards etc etc.  I'm not sure that did much to help the perception.  But most guys/girls that have left recruiting were promoted or sent on their leadership courses.  Part of the issue was being out of trade for 3-5 years and very few leadership opportunities (a big complaint from the MCCs and recruiters).

-Class B types that spent way too long in recruiting.  Some of them as I mentioned have been there for far too long.  This makes change harder, concentrates the corporate knowledge too much, creates complacency.  Some that I  know have been there so long that their original trades don't even exist anymore.  one was a radio teletype operator that hadn't served with in any signals capacity since the 90's and a supply tech NCO that hadn't been in trade since the 90's as well.  Many of them cannot do their own trades anymore because of the time away from their trade and being on the PRL.  Some had never fired a C-7 until the mid 2000s.  These are some of the people advising applicants...

Edit: Pressed the post button too fast. Corrected.

 

[pbi]

I mentioned the USMC approach to recruiting earlier: I'll expand on it a bit. When I attended USMC C&SC at Quantico in 97-98, I was told that because of  the standard of recruit the Marines wanted, they needed good people in recruiting. I understood from my classmates that while a recruiting billet was very high pressure: produce numbers or suffer, career-wise; the reward was that a Marine leaving a recruiting centre was given preferential treatment for choosing their next billet. They were also very keen on staffing the recruiting centres with Marines who projected the right image (but then that wasn't as much of a problem for them: they had very few worn-out, overweight  sloppy sad sacks to palm off.)

I recall the CDS initiative that Crantor refers to: having sat on a few Regimental merit boards I never heard recruiting duty mentioned, and I don't know any infantry officer who asked for it (unless it was to get to a particular geographic location for some other reason). It was never discussed on any board I sat on as a good and useful option for anybody showing promise. So, I guess, you could say that we were the creators of our own problem.

But, I have to ask looking back, why did we think that way? Why didn't we see recruiting as a good career path?

 

[Tibbson]

I mentioned the USMC approach to recruiting earlier: I'll expand on it a bit. When I attended USMC C&SC at Quantico in 97-98, I was told that because of  the standard of recruit the Marines wanted, they needed good people in recruiting. I understood from my classmates that while a recruiting billet was very high pressure: produce numbers or suffer, career-wise; the reward was that a Marine leaving a recruiting centre was given preferential treatment for choosing their next billet. They were also very keen on staffing the recruiting centres with Marines who projected the right image (but then that wasn't as much of a problem for them: they had very worn-out, overweight  sloppy sad sacks to palm off.)

I recall the CDS initiative that Crantor refers to: havig sat on a few Regimental merit boards I never heard recruiting duty mentioned, and I don't know any infantry officer who asked for it (unless it was to get to a particular geographic location for some other reason). It was never discussed on any board I sat on as a good and useful option for anybody showing promise. So, I guess, you could say that we were the creators of our own problem.

But, I have to ask looking back, why did we think that way? Why didn't we see recruiting as a good career path?

There used to be a time when our training schools were viewed as a place to hide the deadwood.  Thankfully that attitude, for the most part, has been replaced with one whereby the calibre of instructor has been raised considerably.  Perhaps its time for the same approach to our CFRC pers.

 

[Journeyman]

....schools were viewed as a place to hide the deadwood.  Thankfully that attitude, for the most part, has been replaced with one whereby the calibre of instructor has been raised considerably.

    :rofl:  You must be posted to a school.



OK, to be fair, I do know of some competent people who have asked for a school posting, but ONLY because they'd heard the alternatives were NDHQ/subordinate HQ posting.

Leaving a Regimental posting, I asked for an RSS job....only because I was told going back to NDHQ was in the cards, and I figured that I could do some academic upgrading in a real city on a Reserve posting -- much the same as a 9-to-5 CFRC pers, if they wished.

 

[Towards_the_gap]

Absolutely agree with JM, I saw nothing but the true crud of my rank generation sent to the schools, I mean people who were known, throughout the corps, as borderline imbeciles.

 

[pbi]

Absolutely agree with JM, I saw nothing but the true crud of my rank generation sent to the schools, I mean people who were known, throughout the corps, as borderline imbeciles.

OK...I think we might be going a bit over the top here. While I was nevber posted to school cadre, I knew some very squared-away folk who were on permanent staff at the Infantry School, who can't be dismissed like that.

That said, I am also aware of some wretched people who were "parked" in school jobs, just as we often used RSS or recruiting as "parking spots" (not to say "dumping grounds"...)

I asked for RSS on my first ERE in 1986. The Adjt called  me in and said "WTF is the matter with you? Are you a f****g idiot? This will ruin your career!" In those days, and again from time to time in later days, RSS was very definitely seen as a refuge for the unwanted, drunken and incompetent. I did both a unit RSS tour (1986-89) and a COS Res CBG tour (2002-2005) and I know that while that was an exaggeration overall, there was a depressing amount of truth in it.

To me it goes back to what I saw as a  fundamental aversion to a simple approach of "fix or fire". Instead, we too often preferred to "park, hide and forget". I don't know if this is still going on, but I suspect it is deeply embedded in our military culture.

 

[Towards_the_gap]

You're right, it was an over-simplification and painted sone good people with the moron brush. That being said, there was a lot of dross that f'd up in the unit somehow, then found themselves promoted and posted to the school. Never to return to the field army....

 

[Journeyman]

OK...I think we might be going a bit over the top here.....

....and then you reaffirmed what a couple people said.

But I also said I know of some competent school/RSS people....some of whom actually asked for those postings. 

With some however, their Regimental families are content to have them 'go away'  -- Capt, Maj, LCol.

 

[OldSolduer]

I was posted to CFRS Cornwallis for three years. In my time there I observed some very good instructors, some very poor ones and everything in between. I met some very good human beings and some very poor excuses for human beings.

I did take a section through Wainwright TQ3 in 94, the Pl WO was Billy. Anyone who is PPCLI Or Airborne, CSOR etc will know of whom I speak. Very unorthodox, but we turned out good soldiers.
It was the same story for Wainwright - some good, some bad, most in between.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

Enough Gentlemen.
Thank you,
Bruce

 

[The_Falcon]

Removed the derailing comments, and merged the "Recruiting is Inept" with "The Government doesn't answer questions" as they are related.  Keep it civil and related to the discussion(s), or people start going up the warning system.

HM

 

[Colin Parkinson]

OK...I think we might be going a bit over the top here. While I was nevber posted to school cadre, I knew some very squared-away folk who were on permanent staff at the Infantry School, who can't be dismissed like that.

That said, I am also aware of some wretched people who were "parked" in school jobs, just as we often used RSS or recruiting as "parking spots" (not to say "dumping grounds"...)

I asked for RSS on my first ERE in 1986. The Adjt called  me in and said "WTF is the matter with you? Are you a f****g idiot? This will ruin your career!" In those days, and again from time to time in later days, RSS was very definitely seen as a refuge for the unwanted, drunken and incompetent. I did both a unit RSS tour (1986-89) and a COS Res CBG tour (2002-2005) and I know that while that was an exaggeration overall, there was a depressing amount of truth in it.

To me it goes back to what I saw as a  fundamental aversion to a simple approach of "fix or fire". Instead, we too often preferred to "park, hide and forget". I don't know if this is still going on, but I suspect it is deeply embedded in our military culture.

Guess I was lucky for the most part our RSS staff were excellent leaders and made a real difference.

 

[George Wallace]

Guess I was lucky for the most part our RSS staff were excellent leaders and made a real difference.

I would go with the 50/50 chance of getting excellent people in; RSS, the Schools, Recruiting, etc. 


(In some cases, the uneducated/less than knowledgeable/inexperienced will think that their instructor/RSS/etc. may be excellent and knowledgeable when in fact they only have the gift of gab and can sling the bovine excrement in a convincing manner.  It is only later in life, after gaining experience, that you may learn that they were not as excellent as you thought.  > )