Justin Trudeau hints at boosting Canada’s military spending

I'll believe it when I see it.

 

[Halifax Tar]

As infrequently as possible... The CAF should be considering members wishes before deciding "it would be good for their career" to move them across a continent to get a check in a box.

Its just not that easy. One release causes a ripple effect. You know that I know as you're in a very small trade.

I think the fix for this getting rid of the color purple. Not a fix all, but its probably a 70% fix.

That said, we need to provide clear information to people that is followed through on, so they can make informed choices about where they want their career to go. I shouldn't be sitting here 60% sure I'm going somewhere next summer, but not sure if/where I am getting posted. There are only 20 at my rank in the occupation, of that 20 there are only a few that aren't newly promoted/posted.

Absolutely. We need some definition in our career paths. The constant roll of the dice every year is nauseating.

Depends on the position, if it's a 1 of 1 that is highly desirable like Port Met Inspector, there should be a clear message that it's a 2-3 year posting, followed by a posting somewhere else. If you don't agree to the conditions, you don't get the job, if you don't like it after taking the job, your COS is your release date. If it's S1 observer on a Wing? stay as long as you like.

(1) This doesn't lead to geographic stability, which is what I though you were searching for.

(2) Bingo, I am in agreement to this. If you want geographic stability there are less career opportunities.

The problem right now is we treat all positions pretty much the same apart from CPO1/CWO jobs, that come with a timeline to release or SCP if you aren't picked up for anything further. If we had a more responsive HR system we could manage careers and positions more effectively, and maybe formalize all the "if you take this posting, I'll get you where you want to go next time", rather than it being the CAF equivalent of "the cheque is in the mail".

I'm going to need to expand on this before I respond.

Good conversation! I truly appreciate it.

Like I said earlier, "Breadth of experience" is of no use when the person with said experience is disgruntled and takes it elsewhere.

Breadth of experience cant be concentrated into a few individuals for what ever reason. We have to develop people, and we have to give people a tempo break; sometimes whether they think they need it or not.

After my 2020 deployment, I volunteered to go right back out the door. My MOC Advisor pulled in for a coffee and told me no. I needed a break. He was right, and I couldn't see it at that point. Thank you Danny.

Respectfully but how is that any different than line managers in civilian companies constantly reviewing their staff to determine if they are good fits and serving the needs of the manager and the company?

In a big company some people may have the luxury of being reassigned. More often than not people are handed their severance and replaced.

I'm not picking up what you're putting down.

 

[Halifax Tar]

Easter's a tricky one! It surprises me every year!

My wedding anniversary... You'd think after 10 years I would have it down. Nope.

 

[dimsum]

I think the fix for this getting rid of the color purple. Not a fix all, but its probably a 70% fix.

It's early here and I haven't had my coffee yet, but why would dropping purple trades be a fix, rather than stovepiping folks?

 

[Halifax Tar]

It's early here and I haven't had my coffee yet, but why would dropping purple trades be a fix, rather than stovepiping folks?

Not dropping the trades, dropping the tri-service-ness of them.

Eg:

I am a Navy Sup Tech. My career will be spent in the Navy, not posted on a whim.

FYI, my Keurig just finished and I'm taking the first sip of glory! Cheers brother.

 

[Kirkhill]

I get it, I really do. BUT I have a BUT. When do the requirements of the service supersede ones wishes ?

How long and what positions do we let people hold down indefinitely ?

Respectfully but how is that any different than line managers in civilian companies constantly reviewing their staff to determine if they are good fits and serving the needs of the manager and the company?

In a big company some people may have the luxury of being reassigned. More often than not people are handed their severance and replaced.

I'm not picking up what you're putting down.

Every organization deals with the human resource issues on a daily basis. More often than not it is managed by the line managers rather than HR. HR finds candidates for the line managers and looks to protect the organizations investments in those resources. But every organization has to deal with the trade-offs necessary between the good of the organization and the good of the employee. Constantly.

The CAF is not unique in that regard, Nor are any militaries.

The difference is that most companies run on the same basis as the Army Reserve: people work when they want to work. If they don't like the work, and they can afford to do something else, they won't work. Ultimately, the same is true of the CAF at large. If your people don't like the work they will release.

People will only accept orders if they want to accept orders.

Which can make operational commanders poor managers. And why leaders are few and far between. Good leaders need some of the skills of the politician and the salesman to convince their subordinates and co-workers, heck even their seniors, that the good idea is their own.

 

[KevinB]

Every organization deals with the human resource issues on a daily basis. More often than not it is managed by the line managers rather than HR. HR finds candidates for the line managers and looks to protect the organizations investments in those resources. But every organization has to deal with the trade-offs necessary between the good of the organization and the good of the employee. Constantly.

The CAF is not unique in that regard, Nor are any militaries.

The difference is that most companies run on the same basis as the Army Reserve: people work when they want to work. If they don't like the work, and they can afford to do something else, they won't work. Ultimately, the same is true of the CAF at large. If your people don't like the work they will release.

People will only accept orders if they want to accept orders.

Which can make operational commanders poor managers. And why leaders are few and far between. Good leaders need some of the skills of the politician and the salesman to convince their subordinates and co-workers, heck even their seniors, that the good idea is their own.

I’d argue that the CAF wouldn’t been in nearly the terrible shape for recruiting, if the CAF was in a lot better shape equipment wise.

Lots of folks release when they don’t see an end in sight for the rust out, or antiquated/missing kit. The lack of kit hampers mission readiness and deployments, which historically has been a good recruiting tool — by and large most people join a Military to do Military things.

Then due to those releases, others end up burning the candle at both ends — it doesn’t matter if you’re a fantastic manager, if your team has shit, and it’s 1/2 a team trying to keep the lights on, it’s not going to make folks happy.

 

[Good2Golf]

Not dropping the trades, dropping the tri-service-ness of them.

Eg:

I am a Navy Sup Tech. My career will be spent in the Navy, not posted on a whim.

FYI, my Keurig just finished and I'm taking the first sip of glory! Cheers brother.

The math to be done would be calculating if the ‘overhead of inefficiency’ of service-segregated trades was really any worse than the inefficiencies (and effectiveness challenges) of trying to bounce uniform-coloured but (on trade qual paper) purple traded around the services and joint world. At the worst, my gut feel (since I don’t have numbers, and I’m not even sure you could measure it accurately) is it couldn’t be much worse than what’s being achieved now…or at the very least. I do think folks tend to over-appreciate the ‘MBA-like’ savings of a pure purple set of support trades, and under-appreciate the sense of belonging that service-aligned employment and identification provide.

BLAB (bottom line at bottom ) - could it be any worse than what we have now? I don’t think so. If we’re experimenting with the CAF with all the other stuff, could it really hurt to do a decade-long or two trial of service-aligned support trades?

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

I’d argue that the CAF wouldn’t been in nearly the terrible shape for recruiting, if the CAF was in a lot better shape equipment wise.

Lots of folks release when they don’t see an end in sight for the rust out, or antiquated/missing kit. The lack of kit hampers mission readiness and deployments, which historically has been a good recruiting tool — by and large most people join a Military to do Military things.

Then due to those releases, others end up burning the candle at both ends — it doesn’t matter if you’re a fantastic manager, if your team has shit, and it’s 1/2 a team trying to keep the lights on, it’s not going to make folks happy.

Then they send us on multinational exercises with others and we truly realize how garbage our equipment is. For instance, I think one of the worst things the Navy can do is go on exercise in places like Australia.

We see quite clearly that the ADF is far better equipped and our fleet looks like garbage compared to theirs.

 

[Kirkhill]

I’d argue that the CAF wouldn’t been in nearly the terrible shape for recruiting, if the CAF was in a lot better shape equipment wise.

Lots of folks release when they don’t see an end in sight for the rust out, or antiquated/missing kit. The lack of kit hampers mission readiness and deployments, which historically has been a good recruiting tool — by and large most people join a Military to do Military things.

Then due to those releases, others end up burning the candle at both ends — it doesn’t matter if you’re a fantastic manager, if your team has shit, and it’s 1/2 a team trying to keep the lights on, it’s not going to make folks happy.

The equipment end of things is absolutely true. Most companies I know issue managers phones and laptops. Olivetti's and secretaries are hard to come by these days.

Those people burning the candle at both ends are the ones that care. The volunteers. Others, that care, release. So who does that leave?

 

[Furniture]

(1) This doesn't lead to geographic stability, which is what I though you were searching for.

(2) Bingo, I am in agreement to this. If you want geographic stability there are less career opportunities.



(3) I'm going to need to expand on this before I respond.

1. I am big on geographic stability, but it is a 1 of 1 PO 1/WO billet on each coast. If someone goes in there and sits in the position for more than three years, it prevents others from having geographic stability. The ideal situation would be that someone comes to the coast as a S1 or MS, and goes to Metoc for a couple of years, after Metoc they go to ship as a MS/PO 2 for a few more years, then get sent back to Metoc as the I/C or promoted to the PMI job as a PO 1. That's a lot of years in one place for my occupation, so expecting them to move after three years as a PMI is not being too unreasonable.

2. 100%. I believe members need to be given the information they need to make decisions about where they want their careers to go. I think there should be a way to get more geographic stability, but it comes at the cost of other opportunities.

3. My thought process is that we need to improve our HR systems so that we assign specific terms to some positions, or to "promises" made by the CM. Right now we can't designate positions as having specific terms, even though it would improve our ability to manage our people and their jobs. To go back to the PMI job in my trade, if it came with a set of terms that clearly laid out that "if you accept the position, in three years you will be posted to a different geographic location to make room for the next PMI", it would allow us to plan for progression. We already do something similar for CPO 1/CWO, so it should be too hard to come up with solutions for other positions.

As for the CM "promises", if we had a system that allowed specific terms to be applied to postings or positions it would be easier for people to swallow a posting they don't really want. eg. "If you take the posting to Cold Lake for three years, we'll send you to Comox for your next posting, if we fail to do it there is a $10K* cash payout".

*Just an example, the payout would need to be high enough to incentivize the system to follow through, and the member to trust the system.

 

[Navy_Pete]

I’d argue that the CAF wouldn’t been in nearly the terrible shape for recruiting, if the CAF was in a lot better shape equipment wise.

Lots of folks release when they don’t see an end in sight for the rust out, or antiquated/missing kit. The lack of kit hampers mission readiness and deployments, which historically has been a good recruiting tool — by and large most people join a Military to do Military things.

When I was recruited they were talking about maybe getting to do my training on a new support ship (about 20 years ago). It may be delivered before I retire, but as a commercial design with some MOTS features it's still a scaled back version compared to the 'big honking ship' capability that was the failed second procurement. Third time is the charm!

Then due to those releases, others end up burning the candle at both ends — it doesn’t matter if you’re a fantastic manager, if your team has shit, and it’s 1/2 a team trying to keep the lights on, it’s not going to make folks happy.

Yes, this. Even with a full team, trying to support 20+ year old equipment that is largely obsolete is a challenge. With a skeleton crew it's just a grind, and when you have more work at the end of a full day (with some OT) then when you started it's pretty demoralizing.

Nothing will break someone or turn them into someone that doesn't care quite like that feeling of mopping up a waterfall (or whatever Sisyphus kind of visual you like). Even if you leave things better than when you showed up slightly less shitty is still shitty.

 

[PPCLI Guy]

I firmly believe that there should be a binding contract between the member and the CAF that is periodically renegotiated. That negotiation would be free of coercion, and the penalties for breaking the contract should be spelled out - and in the case of the CAF, penalties should be quite punitive.

Example. CAF and member sit down to review next five years. CAF says we need you to do SLT, and a demanding staff job so that you are competitive for command in five years. Member says ok, but I need to be geo-stable in my current location for those 5 years because because my spouse has a good job, and my kids are starting high school, and I would like an operational tour. Both sides agree. Member decides not to do SLT, and commitment to remain in geo-location is rescinded. CAF decides to renege on geo-stability, and is required to pay member 100K payment for breaking their commitment.

This takes the transitory promises of transitory career managers and chain of command out of the equation. It empowers the individual. And it forces the CAF to start to manage people and talent, rather than succession.....

 

[Weinie]

I firmly believe that there should be a binding contract between the member and the CAF that is periodically renegotiated. That negotiation would be free of coercion, and the penalties for breaking the contract should be spelled out - and in the case of the CAF, penalties should be quite punitive.

Example. CAF and member sit down to review next five years. CAF says we need you to do SLT, and a demanding staff job so that you are competitive for command in five years. Member says ok, but I need to be geo-stable in my current location for those 5 years because because my spouse has a good job, and my kids are starting high school, and I would like an operational tour. Both sides agree. Member decides not to do SLT, and commitment to remain in geo-location is rescinded. CAF decides to renege on geo-stability, and is required to pay member 100K payment for breaking their commitment.

This takes the transitory promises of transitory career managers and chain of command out of the equation. It empowers the individual. And it forces the CAF to start to manage people and talent, rather than succession.....

WTF. Member said OK to SLT, IOT guarantee geo-stability. Now s/he says no to SLT. Post them the fuck out.

 

[Furniture]

WTF. Member said OK to SLT, IOT guarantee geo-stability. Now s/he says no to SLT. Post them the fuck out.

I read those two sentences as separate situations. i.e. Situation A: Member fails to meet obligations; geo-stability is rescinded. Situation B: CAF fails to meet obligations; member gets a payout as compensation.

 

[PPCLI Guy]

I read those two sentences as separate situations. i.e. Situation A: Member fails to meet obligations; geo-stability is rescinded. Situation B: CAF fails to meet obligations; member gets a payout as compensation.

That is how I meant it. No SLT means you get posted

 

[quadrapiper]

...and is required to pay member 100K payment for breaking their commitment.

On a similarly "make things too expensive for the CAF to casually break commitments," something in the nature of a differential payment for lost earnings by the spouse?

 

[Furniture]

On a similarly "make things too expensive for the CAF to casually break commitments," something in the nature of a differential payment for lost earnings by the spouse?

My issue with that is it would incentivize the CAF to continue to abuse single members, as it would be less costly. If the CAF has to pay Cpl Bloggins $10K to break the terms, but has to pay S1 Smith $10K, plus $60K for lost spousal income, the CAF will break Cpl Bloggins' terms every single time.

The CAF already treats single members as second class when it comes to postings, the last thing we should be doing is encouraging more of it.

 

[Brad Sallows]

In that vein, yes: approach any incentive scheme humbly, with the idea that you've overlooked some horrible unintended consequences and must first find them before proceeding (aka "wargaming").

 

[TCM621]

by and large most people join a Military to do Military things.

This is the thing that the CAF seems to be missing right now. The CAF can never be corporate Canada, people don't join the military for a job if they have other options. They choose the military because they want to do Military things and there isn't any other game in town.

 

[rmc_wannabe]

This is the thing that the CAF seems to be missing right now. The CAF can never be corporate Canada, people don't join the military for a job if they have other options. They choose the military because they want to do Military things and there isn't any other game in town.

Yes. I will agree with that. With one caveat.

People also join the mitary with the belief that the military will provide for them while they are asked to do the Military stuff. We are asked to do monumental things, with scant resources, in some of the worse places on earth. In days of Yore, we took care of our people and their family by providing housing, amenities, and a marginally good quality of life at the rate of compensation we were allowed to by the GoC.

Then we lost it all. Housing was a taxable benefit and RHU numbers are dwindling due to poor maintenance and divestment. We have a lack of single quarters that are derelict or non-existant for members in our lowest pay brackets. Our dining halls are charging members 700 CAD a month, only to have boxed lunches on weekends because the kitchen is too short staffed and the SWE is prioritized to other things. MFRCs became daycare centres and not much else. Our messes are no longer about serving those who pay dues, but are run militantly by CFMWS in pursuit of "revenue neutral" events vice providing services.

So what happened? The CAF moved off base. We moved our families into communities with infrastructure and supports we no longer were receiving on base. That all costs members much more than if the CAF stepped up and provided them. That cost being downloaded to our members means our competitive pay for crappy work conditions doesn't go nearly as far as TBS et al like to believe.

So yes, members are saying "pay us more." Why? The cool military shit is now coming with personal costs; both financially and domestically. That shouldn't have been the deal in the first place, but after being penny wise and pound foolish, we have outsourced supports to our members and the bill is due, figuratively, because everyone who would join knows the score thanks to the internet and places like reddit.

People want to join to do the cool military stuff, but not when the administrative impacts of service become infeasible. Logistical mismanagement has crippled armies in battle, and now, certainly will have an effect on people's willingness to be recruited and retained.