Exploiting reservists' love of their regiments

[pbi]

The same way we did it before.

I'm not sure what "before" you're talking about. The last time Res units sent this many troops overseas was in WWII, after a General Mobilization had been ordered.  Unfortunately, since that time, we've placed increasingly greater training burdens on Res trying to reach NCO ranks, and made it more and more difficult to use unqualified soldiers in instruction or leadership roles. While these changes were all made with the best of intentions, and don't conflict too badly with the tempo of a peacetime Army, they make it more difficult to deal with situations like we now face. In wartime conditions most armies expedite training: I'm not sure we're doing this.

Cheers

 

[Haggis]

While these changes were all made with the best of intentions, and don't conflict too badly with the tempo of a peacetime Army, they make it more difficult to deal with situations like we now face. In wartime conditions most armies expedite training: I'm not sure we're doing this.

That brings up an interesting dichotomy between the warfighters and the administrators.  Who is really "at war"?  Canada?  Surely not.  The CF?  Not as a whole.  The Army?  Units maybe, but not the whole Army.

We are stuck fighting a war on a peacetime mindset.  HQs will trot out the "we're fighting a war, you know" excuse for not getting things done, such as expediting training, but yet business remains the same.

 

[Remius]

Haggis, the Reg force is not actively encouraging the Res force to CT.  The CF is.  It's an organisational thing as a whole.  And what does the "Reg force" get back for all the reservists it processes, tests, interviews, conducts recruiting medicals etc etc.  Nothing.  Not too mention all the attraction events paid for by CFRG that reserve units piggy back on and ultimately benefit from.  One of those national tv adds focuses on domestic ops.

Also keep in mind the Pres normal attrition rate.  2 or 3 years is it?  Of those that go overseas, how many are actually going to stay in the CF upon their return?  How many stay on and how many CT?

Through the reserves higher attrition rate, they already have a smaller pool to begin with.

 

[daftandbarmy]

Also keep in mind the Pres normal attrition rate.  2 or 3 years is it?  Of those that go overseas, how many are actually going to stay in the CF upon their return?  How many stay on and how many CT?

Through the reserves higher attrition rate, they already have a smaller pool to begin with.

[/quote]

IMO this is the key to the issue. If a reservist deploys and has no job to return to, because he's a student or whatever, then he is less likely to stay in the reserves, or the army, and deploy on future tours or stay to add value to his unit. More often than not (like I did) they will disappear after a few years and join the regs, or move to find work/ educational opportunities elsewhere - hence the attrition rate. What we need is a comprehensive nation-wide initiative to get a reservist TWO JOBS. One in the reserves, and one in the local community that will help him/her establish themselves and keep contributing locally. This has to go beyond the usual 'grip and grin' type events as run by the CFLC, which don't really do much for finding Pte Snooks a job at the Post Office, or whatever.

Implementing a  professional job finding program (job coaches, head hunters etc) for military personnel in local communities would go a long way to stabilizing reserve units, as well as providing regs leaving their full time jobs find a place in a local community where they can settle down and continue to contribute towards the reserves. there are hundreds of civilian organizations, little and large, who provide these services across the country, and it wouldn't take much to develop local contracts betwen units and these contractors.

We need to make it easier for reservists to stay and work, and soldier, locally.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

How about trying to keep those veterns in the reserves with some incentives and also contracting some ex-reg force members to carry out specific training, this would need to be done on a case by case basis.

 

[Yrys]

this would need to be done on a case by case basis

Doesn't a care to care basis require to much logistics, since things seem to be strecht out ?

Or is a strong effort need to be put out so things get better ?

 

[Haggis]

Haggis, the Reg force is not actively encouraging the Res force to CT.  The CF is.

Semantics.  Where else are they going to CT to??

And what does the "Reg force" get back for all the reservists it processes, tests, interviews, conducts recruiting medicals etc etc.  Nothing.  Not too mention all the attraction events paid for by CFRG that reserve units piggy back on and ultimately benefit from.  One of those national tv adds focuses on domestic ops.

That's CFRG's mandate.  CFRG employs an awful lot of Reservists who work in support of "the CF".

Through the reserves higher attrition rate, they already have a smaller pool to begin with.

So why doesn't CFRG compensate Reserve units by allowing them to recruit additional members, above and beyond those fixed recruiting ceilings to replace those who CT?  Wait... that won't work, because the number of soldiers you send on ARC BMQ is directly tied to the number of staff you can provide... and all your potential staff have CT'd.

 

[Remius]

Semantics.  Where else are they going to CT to??

That's CFRG's mandate.  CFRG employs an awful lot of Reservists who work in support of "the CF".

So why doesn't CFRG compensate Reserve units by allowing them to recruit additional members, above and beyond those fixed recruiting ceilings to replace those who CT?  Wait... that won't work, because the number of soldiers you send on ARC BMQ is directly tied to the number of staff you can provide... and all your potential staff have CT'd.

It's not semantics.  You made it sound like it's a reg vs res thing.  It's not.

Yes it is CFRG's mandate.  And those reservists are paid by CFRG.  Not their reserve units.  That's an awful lot of free labour for the reserve units that happen to own them.

CFRG does not generate those numbers.  The brigades do.  And actually that plan you mentioned has been proposed and can be implemented easily.

It's going to be a challenge yes, but it isn't all doom and gloom.  I think the reserves in the long run are benefiting from the increase in tempo.  Also a lot of these people going over have other jobs as well that they want to return to. Some are taking time away from better paying jobs to do this.  they have established families, homes etc and won't be keen on CTing.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Doesn't a care to care basis require to much logistics, since things seem to be strecht out ?

Or is a strong effort need to be put out so things get better ?

People who have worthwhile skills could be tagged by their CO's upon release as desirable contractors with skills listed and likely post CF-plans. The training staff could contact them and make an offer to teach their skills while not having to rejoin. Computers should make this task fairly easy (one would hope)

 

[Haggis]

It's not semantics.  You made it sound like it's a reg vs res thing.  It's not.

OK, I'll concede that.

Yes it is CFRG's mandate.  And those reservists are paid by CFRG.  Not their reserve units.  That's an awful lot of free labour for the reserve units that happen to own them.

You're working on the assumption that the employing CFRC/D has authorized them to parade with their parent unit and that it is practical for them to do so.  In many cases, like anyone on Class B outside their parent units, it's not.

CFRG does not generate those numbers.  The brigades do.

Partly based on the number of files the supporting CFRCs/Ds allow them to process in a given timeframe.  Some units have to turn applicants away because the supporting CFRC doesn't have the capacity to process those files.  (And yes, I know CFRC's also have a finite capacity to deal with Reg F files as well.)

 

[Remius]

OK, I'll concede that.
You're working on the assumption that the employing CFRC/D has authorized them to parade with their parent unit and that it is practical for them to do so.  In many cases, like anyone on Class B outside their parent units, it's not.

Partly based on the number of files the supporting CFRCs/Ds allow them to process in a given timeframe.  Some units have to turn applicants away because the supporting CFRC doesn't have the capacity to process those files.  (And yes, I know CFRC's also have a finite capacity to deal with Reg F files as well.)

I am working on that assumption because for the most part it's true.  One third of my unit's snr NCO mess is on Class B. And I'd say 90% of them parade regularly with the unit, more than some class A.  And the reservists that work at CFRC sign an agreement between the unit and the CFRC.  I'm a recuiter and have no problems parading.  I will admit though that this is in my neck of the woods.

Now, not working at a brigade, I don't know all the ins and outs of how they get their numbers.  Budget for training is probably the biggest factor.There is a finite capacity to process yes but normally numbers are given to the CFRCs on a yearly basis by whatever managing authority be it the brigades, Navres HQ etc etc. CFRCs try to achieve their targets with what they have.  Numbers fluctuate and CFRCs adapt.  Believe it or not but we process more for the army reserves than any other element.  This includes reg force army.

 

[Disenchantedsailor]

also keep in mind the CT program I mentioned is only within CLS, it doesn't apply to the airforce or the navy. As for recruiting people thats not really the issue, the recruits are walking in thanks to the national media campaign and OP Connection our largest problem by and far is retention. We can't keep people interested. As for whats the reserve's return to contribution on being a reg force recruiting pool, well suck it up buttercup that is the role of the reserves to force generate combat capable troops to augment/support/supply the reg force in addtion to the conduct of domestic operations (which with the new Canada First defence plan doesn't really matter anymore as it is now a national mandate). however, I would like to see it revert somewhat back to the way it was in WWII with a twist Designate reserve units that will deploy together say instead of 1 VP you designate C Scot R, Cal Highs, RNR and supporting arms as a battle group and deploy them in between the reg force battle groups, keep soldiers together, the problem that comes with that is "mobilization" of entire reserve regiments which can only be done by the Governor General or Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth Herself. Which in itself isn't a problem but creates a host of others such as public opinion and reserve force employment protection.

 

[Haggis]

I am working on that assumption because for the most part it's true.  One third of my unit's snr NCO mess is on Class B. And I'd say 90% of them parade regularly with the unit, more than some class A.  And the reservists that work at CFRC sign an agreement between the unit and the CFRC.  I'm a recuiter and have no problems parading.  I will admit though that this is in my neck of the woods.

Most Reservists who are employed on Class B within the geographical areas of their parent units still do parade.  However there are employing units who do not support the "divided loyalties" and any potential requests for short leave (as per CMP Instr 20-04 para 2.14(d)) since they are paying the bill.  I've seen it.  In most cases those members end up on someone's PRL.

In any case, I'm going to back off as this thread has been dragged too far from it's intended purpose, that of showcasing an exceptional effort by a fine unit.

 

[Disenchantedsailor]

In any case, I'm going to back off as this thread has been dragged too far from it's intended purpose, that of showcasing an exceptional effort by a fine unit.

Or it could turn into a forum for other units to take thier example, or brigade groups to do the same

 

[DG-41]

What is the current parading strength of the Calgary Highlanders?

Are they sending 64 of 120, or 64 of 250?

DG

 

[Disenchantedsailor]

64 of approx 158 (numbers down from 114 of 158 when they found out they couldn't deploy as a unit)

 

[John Nayduk]

Is that “on paper” strength or is it parading strength? 

 

[Disenchantedsailor]

thats parading, paper strengh including NES and ED&T is signifigantly higher