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

Forces struggling to recruit...

Nothing is impossible, if we have the will to do so. Although the specific example is the United States, consider we were also there in strength (a million men under arms, the world's third largest Navy etc.), starting from virtually the same conditions.This is a classic example of what is possible, starting from pretty much 0:

http://www.jerrypournelle.com/mail/mail417.html

Subject: D Day thoughts

Indeed it is well to remember a few things about what these United States Of America accomplished on dune 6, 1944:

On D-Day, the Allies landed around 156,000 troops in Normandy. The American forces landed numbered 73,000. Ninety-five per cent of these American soldiers just 912 days earlier, on December 7, 1941, had been civilians with no military training, experience or even any great desire to be soldiers.

11,590 aircraft were available to support the landings. On D-Day, Allied aircraft flew 14,674 sorties. All of these aircraft had been built in less than three years. Ninety per cent of their pilots had never flown IN an airplane, much less piloted one, before December of 1941. Ninety-five per cent of the mechanics and other ground support personnel who maintained their engines and other systems had never set foot on an airfield, much less worked on an aircraft, prior to December of 1941.

Operation Neptune, the naval support operation for the Overlord landings, involved huge naval forces, including 6939 vessels: 1213 naval combat ships, 4126 landing ships and landing craft, 736 ancillary craft and 864 merchant vessels. Some 195,700 personnel were assigned to Operation Neptune: 52,889 US, 112,824 British, and 4988 from other Allied countries. A third of the ships were from the navy of these United States of America. 80% of those ships had been built since December, 1941. Ninety percent of the seamen and eighty per cent of the officers manning those vessels of war had never crewed more than a rowboat prior to December, 1941. A third of them had never seen the ocean before December 7, 1941.

A pipeline was laid under the ocean to carry fuel and lubricants to the allied forces. Two pre-fabricated harbors had been designed, built and towed through one of the most treacherous bodies of water in the world and installed on the Channel coast of France while under enemy fire.

All of this, and more, done in 912 days. All of it done without electronic computers. All of it done without fax machines, without cell phones, without voice mail, all of it done with manual typewriters and mechanical calculators and reams of paper and legions of men and women filing and stamping and checking and rechecking and working as if their lives depended on it. As if!

And today, with all our wealth and technology, our "leadership" tells us we cannot control our own borders, we cannot find Americans willing, at any price, to hew wood, draw water and break stone, that tell us daily that we cannot build a nation fit for heroes and the children of heroes without foreign labor to bake our daily bread.

The American military, despised in the 1920s and 1930s, under funded, officered by men who often came from the despised rural regions of the country. rose to the task and, for better or worse, did the job they were asked to do. Then they laid down their weapons, dismantled their armies and fleets, and returned to their plows, by and large.

When the leader of this great effort in due time rose to the chief magistracy of these united States, his final speech to the nation he had served so honorably was not a summation of military horns and laurels, all his to rest on, and more. No, he used that auspicious moment to warn his nation of the danger of the military if allowed too great an influence in society.

And today again the United States military is often mocked, easily despised, and all too often given tasks as "impossible' D Day in 1944. And it still accomplishes them.

You want industrialization of space? A moon colony? An outpost on Mars? Give the job to the military. While you whine about the militarization of space, they will quickly and efficiently accomplish it, and then hand the keys to your new world to you. And then return to their barracks.

We do not deserve them. We never have. But they are the best we have.

Petronius The Arbiter Of Taste

So Ladies and Gentlemen, that is the bar. We have every advantage over our predecessors and our American counterparts from the late 1930's, and a war to focus us on the task at hand. Let's go!

 
Applicants who are injured are not enrolled into the CF, period. Applicants are screened concerning their medical status right up to the last few hours before they enrol, and should they slip through due to omission of medical info on their part, my experience has been that they are promptly pulled from BMQ and released.

Applicants with certain medical conditions that do not interfere with geographic or operational employment are acceptable, and why shouldn’t they be? How many otherwise great personnel would we lose? And does a civilian who wants a $400 pair of boots really think three years in the mob is a cheaper price to pay? You could make $400 panhandling in less than a year. As already mention, the med portion of the recruiting process is probably the most restrictive of all the assessments an applicant goes through.

The Gomery Commission and the election that followed put a freeze of government advertising. Recruiting Group attempted to get an exemption to allow recruiting ads to be aired but was unsuccessful – it takes an actual act of parliament. So that’s why you haven’t seen a lot of advertising. Since the election, a couple ads were shot but were poorly received by focus groups, so the ad firm went back the drawing board. Could be a while before we see any new ads. Also FYI, “Strong and Proud...” is supposedly being canned – recruiting doesn’t like it either.

The reality of the current job market means that CF recruiting has to become less restrictive. There’s a lot of “benefit of the doubt” with borderline individuals. Send them to training, and let them prove themselves. If you send 20 suspect individuals to training and 10 fail, well you’ve at least got 10 acceptable ones. We can’t afford to turn people away because we think there’s a chance that they won’t make it through training, because there’s also the chance that they will. The cost of that is that there will be more duds. If we increase the enrolment standard, however, not only will the CF not grow, it will decline. Recruiting has a huge job ahead of it to make numbers, and the training system is going to have a huge job a head of it to bring these enrollees up to the standard require of them. But as mentioned, we’ve done it before.
 
Im new in all this and i only just enrolled in the reserves and im 17. I think i can have a different outlook on this since im the age group they are trying to appeal to (younger). The recruiters who come to my school litterelly sit in our office and wait for kids to come and talk to them they have absolutely no will to go talk to the students themselves. The ads put out are cool and exciting but alot of kids have no idea what the pay or benefits are in the military, they still figure its really low and only the rejects of society join up but that isnt true. Movies have a great impact on recruiting too, you think it looks cool and all but you also see the downsides of joining which sometimes make them not want to join. I had a buddy who works with me, he applied over a year ago and he was contacted twice by letter telling him that they still had his application in file but it had not yet been processed. they need to speed up the process, i also read in the paper that almost half the people who want to join are turned off by the amount of time and effort is needed just to get in for your interview, maybe this should be fast tracked if they truly wish to meet the goals they have. The whole recruiting process needs to be redone to meet todays world and they need to be alot quicker in processing and they need to grab the interest of teenagers and young adults. when my uncle joined up to the army in the late 70's he was on a train the next day, my dad was in cornwallis pretty much just as quick. Today there is to much politics in it all. They need to get back to they way it once was i mean today we have computers and all kinds of state of the art technology, well why is it taking longer now then when they had type writers and file cabinets?
 
Hey Pendant,

The above was a good post.  Well done! 
 
Pendant said:
They need to get back to they way it once was i mean today we have computers and all kinds of state of the art technology, well why is it taking longer now then when they had type writers and file cabinets?

I would suggest that the one question that has not yet been asked or answered is: what is the relative success rate based on the current system against historical attrition during training and basic engagement periods?  Simplifying and accelerating the recruiting system to norms of the 1970s or earlier may result in larger numbers being released during training, or during their initial engagement, for fundamental aspects of unsuitability.  Despite the common complaints of the duration of the process, we have yet to see any statistical analysis of the benefits of a more thorough recruiting process, which may well support a more thorough approach.

It may have been simpler to process a recruit applicant in the 70s, but I am sure it was undoubtedly easier to get rid of someone who proved themselves unsuited to military training as well.

 
So, why is it so hard to release those pers who so desparately need releasing?  Is there some secret course taught at RMC that instills in all attendees the premise that the military serves as well to employ society's degenerates, malcontents and chronic untrainables? 
 
exactly, people will obviously b*tch and complain about being released if they feel they were good enough but the military isnt something you join because there is nothing to do i mean some people who do join for that reason go on to have great careers in the military but for the most part if a recruit is unsuitable they usually will take themselves out of BMQ by screwing up in someway of simply leaving because they wernt prepared for the reality that is the Military. You are right that more people will get in and more people will fail but the people who are getting in today andpassing will still be attending this and you will also get alot of the people who wouldnt make it with todays system making it in which increases the amount of recruits we have to throw into the infantry and the navy and the airforce that are needed, I know i said infantry and not army well lets face it the infantry is pretty much what their recruiting for now anyways that and support trades for the infantry... I say mix a little of the old with the new the process used now is almost to thorough and needs to go back to the old but with todays technology the process will be more efficient
 
Perhaps we need some NCOs currently instructing BMQ to tell us if they think the bar should be significantly lowered.  They are, after all, the ones who would have to deal with a greater number of marginal candidates that are now being held back by the current strictness of the recruiting process.

Pendant, I believe you will also find the comment on the board that recruiting for the Infantry is not our current problem, it is finding those who meet the requirements for support trades.  Please let us know from your own experience how you justify that recruiting for the infantry and "support trades for the infantry" supports an argument that recruiting standards should be relaxed.
 
right now at this current time canada lacks "Front line" soldiers which are combat arms and the engineers which keep them going. The govt has already made it clear that the majority of their recruiting goals are for the Army. If you go on the recruitment website the Combat arms and Engineers section comes up under hot jobs aswell as doctors but they are always in demand.

Combat arms are the following trades

For NCM
Armoured Soldier
Artillery Soldier - Air Defence
Artillery Soldier - Field
Combat Engineer
Infantry Soldier

Officer
Officer - Armour
Officer - Artillery
Officer - Engineer
Officer - Infantry

Engineers are the following trades
Officer - Aerospace Engineering
Officer - Airfield Engineering
Officer - Communications and Electronics Engineering (Air)
Officer - Electrical and Mechanical Engineering
Officer - Engineer
Officer - Marine Systems Engineering
Officer - Naval Combat Systems Engineering
Officer - Signals

The logistics side of our forces obviously doesnt need a high number of recruits to come in it are the "front line" troops or combat arms that really need the fresh bodies. They are loosing alot of their soldiers to retirement, and medical problems and some just retire early because the life isnt for them anymore and due to the high operational tempo of the past few years.
 
and it isnt the recruitment standards necessarily that need to be relaxed but the amount of time they spend on determining those standards. They do every possible test to find this out and then they do it over from how long the process takes. ive never done recruiting so i really dont know how much time and effort go into determining these "standards" but as far as i can see and with all the knowledge i have it looks to me that the military isnt looking for a bunch of highly skilled highly trained people to join their ranks, it looks to me that they are looking for physically fit people with the determination to succeed. they need to speed up the process because alot of the people who are interested get bad impressions from just from the recruiting process. and the NCO's running BMQ run it with hooligans and rejects in it now i honestly dont think that they would care aslong as their workload doesnt become to much and if we get more recruits we would need more NCO's to run the BMQ we wouldnt load a ton more on the ones currently running it at St. Jean and other training facilities.
 
and im sorry if it seems like im arguing here i just enjoy a good discussion from time to time lol and i find i learn alot of useful things by doing so
 
Pendant said:
right now at this current time canada lacks "Front line" soldiers which are combat arms and the engineers which keep them going. The govt has already made it clear that the majority of their recruiting goals are for the Army. If you go on the recruitment website the Combat arms and Engineers section comes up under hot jobs aswell as doctors but they are always in demand.

So, exactly how are we doing in meeting those quotas?  Are we filling the training capacity in BMQ and the Training centres for combat arms trades training?  Do you have facts, or just conjecture?


Pendant said:
Combat arms are the following trades

For NCM
Armoured Soldier
Artillery Soldier - Air Defence
Artillery Soldier - Field
Combat Engineer
Infantry Soldier

Officer
Officer - Armour
Officer - Artillery
Officer - Engineer
Officer - Infantry

Really? Why thank you, I would never have known those trades all belonged to the combat arms?


Pendant said:
Engineers are the following trades
Officer - Aerospace Engineering
Officer - Airfield Engineering
Officer - Communications and Electronics Engineering (Air)
Officer - Electrical and Mechanical Engineering
Officer - Engineer
Officer - Marine Systems Engineering
Officer - Naval Combat Systems Engineering
Officer - Signals

So, these are different from the Engineers under combat arms?


Pendant said:
The logistics side of our forces obviously doesnt need a high number of recruits to come in it are the "front line" troops or combat arms that really need the fresh bodies. They are loosing alot of their soldiers to retirement, and medical problems and some just retire early because the life isnt for them anymore and due to the high operational tempo of the past few years.

Sources? Facts? Figures?

Thank you for the detailed explanation.  I guess I should have paid more attention during my Reserve basic training .... back in 1979.
 
Your writing skills showed great improvement there....well it did until you posted again.  Where did you find this info?
 
ive been readin crap all night, been a really boring night but ive been reading senate reviews on the military, older news i never read, and ive also been taking a look in this forum (i havnt heared anything on this in the forums,  just trying to get across the point that im bored haha)
 
Pendant said:
and it isnt the recruitment standards necessarily that need to be relaxed but the amount of time they spend on determining those standards.
They do every possible test to find this out and then they do it over from how long the process takes.

Perhaps it's a question of standards and resources - to maintain the desired standard with the available resources takes a certain amount of time.  You either compromise on the standard, or apply less resources per case (same result), or you stop doing something else to throw more resources at the 'problem.' In cases where the 'resource' is a specialist, it means they're not doing the job they had and that function gets backed up.  It's not a simple problem to fix, it's a delicate balancing act affecting many aspects of the whole system.


Pendant said:
ive never done recruiting so i really dont know how much time and effort go into determining these "standards" but as far as i can see and with all the knowledge i have it looks to me that the military isnt looking for a bunch of highly skilled highly trained people to join their ranks, it looks to me that they are looking for physically fit people with the determination to succeed.

Since you've never done recruiting, perhaps we should listen to those who have.

We are looking for highly skilled trained people - for the trades that will benefit from those intakes and save us years of training to get them to the point where we get our money's worth back.

We also want fit determined candidate - but we do need to make sure they have the appropriate aptitude, health and personal attributes (drugs, security check, financial responsibility, etc.) that will lead them to be productive members of the CF, and not an administrative burden.  It doesn't matter how fit and determined someone is, if we're spending our time putting him through disciplinary processes or administrative counseling, he's a drain on the system, not an asset.


Pendant said:
they need to speed up the process because alot of the people who are interested get bad impressions from just from the recruiting process. and the NCO's running BMQ run it with hooligans and rejects in it now i honestly dont think that they would care aslong as their workload doesnt become to much and if we get more recruits we would need more NCO's to run the BMQ we wouldnt load a ton more on the ones currently running it at St. Jean and other training facilities.

Yes, according to the reports we've seen here over the past few years (accepting that not all the stories may have presented all the facts) they need to speed up the process, which i believe has started.  They do not, however, need to relax the standard to achieve that.

Don't dismiss the ease by which 'hooligans and rejects" can be absorbed.  The ones you mention are the ones who met the standard; imagine adding the ones behind them. 

An example from my personal experience: I once ran a training course with an Threshhold Knowledge Test (TKT). The test had always been given, but had not in memory been upheld.  I convinced the School Commandant to uphold the TKT and we sent one-third of the course candidates back to their units the next day.  In the after action review of the course, my staff estimated that their workload on focussed one-on-one review was cut in half, and most lectures were completed in record time.  That difference was the cost of burdening the course with unprepared (or marginal) candidates.
 
Pendant said:
ive been readin crap all night, been a really boring night but ive been reading senate reviews on the military, older news i never read, and ive also been taking a look in this forum (i havnt heared anything on this in the forums,  just trying to get across the point that im bored haha)

Wonderful, next time you are bored try reading instead of posting. And I won't waste my time entertaining you by trying to explain the shape of the world.
 
you misread my post. Im bored tonight and i read and researched all this. I know i dont have the experience in this but i would like to learn from someone who does. im looking for constructive criticism on what i read and know not destructive.
 
This....
Pendant said:
and it isnt the recruitment standards necessarily that need to be relaxed but the amount of time they spend on determining those standards. They do every possible test to find this out and then they do it over from how long the process takes.

and this.....

Pendant said:
they need to speed up the process because alot of the people who are interested get bad impressions from just from the recruiting process.

are both very accurate. They are losing some good recruits because of the amount of time the current process is taking. Nobody wants to wait a year to get a job, and if they do there is most likely an interesting reason why, and that is where the hooligans come in. Back in the 70's, they gave criminals the choice to either join the CF or go to jail....so we do not want that system back, that is for sure. We also do not want to relax the standards to the point where we let in every tom, dick or harry(no offence to anyone with those names).

 
Springroll,

Having spent the last 5 months as a MCC in a recruiting det, I would like to address some of the issues in your last post.

First, I would like to suggest that an applicant is not applying for a job, but rather making a career choice.

Second, regardless of what one thinks, there are not unlimited positions within the CF irrespective of the trade. Thus, as in the civy world, this is a competitive process. Just because one meets a minimum standard for the trade does not suggest that they are competitive for that trade.

Third, "delays" are in fact part of the application process. Specifically, there are periods of time when files are reviewed by different people- med staff, security screeners, selection boards. Each of these periods are necessary, and require time.

Fourth, "delays" are not always as a result of the CFRC. Believe it or not, many applications come through the office that are incomplete- missing documents (letters of reference, transcripts, signed ERC forms, birth certificates, sin, etc). These missing materials are automatic stoppers. Then we have issues with drugs, dependability, legal etc... that cause "delays".

What I have found, is that some applicants don't relay the "whole story" when they talk about their processing. Due to the Privacy Act we are unable to refute what they may suggest. For instance, yesterday I handled a call from a father who wanted to know why SA Bloggins has to wait a year before applying again. I was bound by the privacy act.

Delays suck. No one like waiting (unless it is a Tantric thing).There are plenty of good stories coming from the recruiting centres as well.
 
They are losing some good recruits because of the amount of time the current process is taking.

Oh please provide me the names or even the numbers of these "some good recruits" that we are "losing" because of the recruiting process.  That is a common rallying cry around here especially for people who are being held up because they don't meet the medical standards, are counselled out for drugs, can't pass a simple aptitude test or can't meet the basic physical standards.

Nobody wants to wait a year to get a job, and if they do there is most likely an interesting reason why, and that is where the hooligans come in.

Well there is a well thought out statement.  So according to you anyone who is willing to wait a year to get accepted in the CF has some ulterior motive and is up to no good?

In my last few days of recruiting I would like to say that the recruiting standards are fine right now and could even be higher.  There is talk a high that maybe we don't need complete medicals, interviews, or drug screening so that the process can be sped up and to me that spells danger.  Does the process take a long time?  For some people yes but it all depends on what you consider a long time.  To me if a  'clean' applicant makes it in after one to three months then that is pretty damn good.  The people I have seen meet these standards and been enrolled in the CF, for the most part, are some of the best I have seen in 20+ years of service.  Is the CF for everyone? No it isn't but there are some people that continuously clog up the system that don't seem to realize that and then you hear "They are losing some good recruits because of the amount of time the current process is taking."
 
Back
Top