Interesting way to alleviate retention issues...

[Haggis]

This used to be even worse back in the early 90's. biggest case I dealt with was a CWO turned his Reg F posn into a PRes posn that happened to correspond to his retirement from the RegF after 35 years so he could step right into the Cl B PRes posn doing the exact same job. Gets better - somehow he had a year and a half of leave to use up so was on "retirement leave" for that period and at the time we had what was called VOLEM. This meant that for the 1.5 years of retirement leave he was getting both RegF pay and PRes pay then went to Pension and PRes after that. He was Admin CWO that had the contacts, knew the rules and how to play the game to the fullest for his own benefit.

I think there should be a cooling off period preventing members from stepping into the same job they were doing. Taking another PS position is fine.

I may know who you're describing.

 

[Furniture]

I'm not sure making CAF service less appealing will resolve recruiting or retention issues...

Maybe, rather than try to prevent transition to PS or contractors, we should be using the ability to "jumpe the queue" as a selling feature for people who want to serve, but want as off-ramp as well.

 

[dimsum]

I'm not sure making CAF service less appealing will resolve recruiting or retention issues...

Maybe, rather than try to prevent transition to PS or contractors, we should be using the ability to "jumpe the queue" as a selling feature for people who want to serve, but want as off-ramp as well.

As a reminder, this is what the Australian Defence Force is doing, not the CAF (at least I don't think so).

 

[Furniture]

As a reminder, this is what the Australian Defence Force is doing, not the CAF (at least I don't think so).

Understood, I was responding to the discussion that had wandered into CAF/PS employment, and the usefulness of something like this being repeated here.

The ADF is free to make their offering less appealing in the attempt to force members to stay in due to economic factors. Forcing people to stay because they can't afford to quit isn't exactly a recipe for high morale though.

 

[Navy_Pete]

If the CAF wants to keep people from going to the PS or a contractor, be a better employer than either. People have decided they don't like it, and took the advice to get out.

I can think of a few times where there was definitely a conflict of interest, but it was at the GOFO level, and it got papered over with a wink/nudge and a theoretical firewall. And frankly I think it overestimates how much anyone in the CAF can really influence something, because really, if you are going to bribe someone to get a decision your way on a big procurement, you are talking about a half dozen organizations with their stupid fat fingers poking into the giant pie until it's an unrecognizable mess and so old it's compost anyway. The brutally decentralized and overly onerous nature of our decision and approval process makes it a lot harder to corrupt just because there is no single decision maker (or two or three). But it's slow AF and I think I would take the occasional bit of corruption and waste if we actually got shit done and had things we needed.

For 98% of the CAF there are no ethical issues. Making it easier to jump into the PS or a defence contractor is in our best interest, as we still keep the decades of experience in the overall organization (generally; some people just add drag). And a lot of our stuff is so niche there aren't any real candidates outside of the CAF applying. We've been hiring a lot of people into the PS on the Mat group side, and it's an easy transition, especially with the CAF priority hiring. I agree with @Furniture that we should promote this, and stop thinking everyone needs to be a lifer.

I think coming into a trade that aligns with something on civvy street, getting the apprenticeship done and getting experience before walking away is still a really good option. A lot of people are doing that anyway so why not lean into it and turn it into a feature, not a bug?

A lot of the people would be getting out anyway regardless for whatever reason, and can be lots of things like not meeting universality of service, aging out, not wanted to move, or even just liking the type of job and wanting to get off the career progression merry go round (without a punishment posting).

If people are leaving because the CAF sucks, making it suck more in new ways won't make them stay, and if they thought people weren't committed to an organization and had checked out before, kill their opportunities in the same field outside the CAF and watch how twisted and bitter people get then that decide to stay.

 

[lenaitch]

Honest question, but if one retires from the CAF and takes a PS job (not a private contractor), are they limited how much they can earn.

Under the terms of my provincial pension, if I took a provincial PS job (which I did), I was limited on how much I could earn before they started clawing back my pension. I never quite understood the details - pension rules are pretty much Greek to me - but I was limited to x hours per quarter based on my pension and how much per hour I was making.

 

[McG]

The initial idea presented here was about preventing military personnel from retiring and coming immediately back as a contractor who is filling a vacancy in the PS or military establishment. This is to avoid industry poaching people from the same pool that the contract position is intended to shore-up. If your counter is that we should not prevent military from coming back in PS jobs or from going to work for a company building MBT, then then your position is fully compatible with the initial idea.

 

[Remius]

It's probably very trade dependent. As a Sup Tech there are tons of employment opportunities for me in the PS. As an infanteer, probably not so much.

But I stand to be corrected.

True. I’ve seen a lot of supply techs come into PG positions. Clerks is a no brainer. EGs is another that I see benefit from the CAF. DND is probably the lead department that hires ex CAF types.

But I will say that it is also very experience dependant as well. My time as a recruiter, an ARQMS, instructor and various leadership roles have been invaluable at making me competitive for a variety of jobs.

Some of the issues I’ve seen with some CAF members applying is that they sometimes have no idea how to explain and leverage their experience into the appropriate language. Or just list their experience in MPRR format.

I am a big proponent and advocate of hiring people with CAF experience. It’s a net win overall for the PS organisations and the individuals who bring a lot to the table. We shouldn’t be limiting them to make that particular change of careers.

 

[Furniture]

The initial idea presented here was about preventing military personnel from retiring and coming immediately back as a contractor who is filling a vacancy in the PS or military establishment. This is to avoid industry poaching people from the same pool that the contract position is intended to shore-up. If your counter is that we should not prevent military from coming back in PS jobs or from going to work for a company building MBT, then then your position is fully compatible with the initial idea.

If the ADF wants to stop people from getting out to do the exact same job as a civilian, they should make serving more appealing... Clearly it isn't the job that is the problem, so what other aspect of serving is causing people to want to get out?

It seems like a desperation move made by people who either don't know why people want out, or that don't want to fix the actual issues.

 

[KevinB]

We shouldn’t be limiting them to make that particular change of careers.

Government ‘Green Suiter’, (apologies to other Elements for using that to describe service personnel) to Government Civilian isn’t a bad thing in most cases. It can retain ‘corporate knowledge’ for some areas where that is a problem.

It is however really F*%#ing shady if you built a civilian position for yourself while serving though…

 

[Remius]

Government ‘Green Suiter’, (apologies to other Elements for using that to describe service personnel) to Government Civilian isn’t a bad thing in most cases. It can retain ‘corporate knowledge’ for some areas where that is a problem.

It is however really F*%#ing shady if you built a civilian position for yourself while serving though…

Very true. I’ve heard of at least two blatant cases. And in a strange reversal I tried to convert one of my civ positions into a military position. I was leaving and made a case to have the position reclassified. I was only partially successful.

 

[dimsum]

If the ADF wants to stop people from getting out to do the exact same job as a civilian, they should make serving more appealing... Clearly it isn't the job that is the problem, so what other aspect of serving is causing people to want to get out?

If they figure it out (and note that most of their bases are in cities, so the "CFB Cold Lake" thing isn't really a factor for the vast majority of the ADF), we should take note.

It seems like a desperation move made by people who either don't know why people want out, or that don't want to fix the actual issues.

Yup.