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

New Compulsory Retirement - 60 years

C

commando_wolf63

Guest
Depending on a persons heath and physical fitness I dont see a problem with raising the retirement age. If a person can still do their job why not. If a person were to take thier release at lets say between 50 and 55yrs what employer would want to hire that person when they can hire a younger person who would give the place of employment many more yrs of service.
 

Inch

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
0
Points
410
This whole retirement age is a mute point for most people, the CANFORGEN on the subject stated that it doesn't necessarily extend a person's career, 35 yrs is the max pensionable time and it's to be considered a full career, so unless you're over 20 when you start, you won't make it to 60 anyway.

My opinion on it, if they can do the job, have at 'er.

Cheers
 

ZipperHead

Banned
Banned
Reaction score
0
Points
160
I can understand the need to use soldiers over the age of 50 to train soldiers for overseas service in WWII, but what do you suppose the reason for that was? Could it be because these soldiers were WWI vets, many of whom were possibly injured during that war and would be unable to fight the new war, but were fully capable of instructing (probably not in the field though....)? Could it be because we had a huge military (I'm trying to find exact numbers, but am being stumped..... I remember reading/hearing that our military was over 1 million soldiers/sailors/airmen) and we didn't need the 50 year old soldiers to fight, only to teach? Unfortunately we don't have that luxury anymore. Our military is tiny, and we need every soldier in every possible position, in every unit. To say that someone will exclusively train soldiers is a pipe-dream. I currently work at the Armour School, and to say that every instructor is capable of going to the field, let alone overseas is very optimistic (I'd be more critical, but there are many instructors at the school who read this forum, and I'm one of the few who don't hide behind a nickname....).

If we could use the "old-timers" strictly as instructors, and it wouldn't affect our manning numbers, that would be great, but that isn't the case. I have seen many old guys who can out run, out ruck, out soldier the young soldiers any day of the week (mainly due to the higher standards expected of soldiers back in the old days), but what I can see happening (and I predict will continue to happen) is that it will be a case of too many people who couldn't hack it on Civvie Street staying in until 60 just to collect a paycheck (and the higher pension).

I would like to see some of the soldiers trained in the old days stick around just to make sure that the level of training that new soldiers get stays higher than what is being expected by those up higher (ie. making soldiers try to exceed the pathetically low standards expected of them). I just hope that these older guys don't fall prey to the current apathy that seems to be permeating many of the units and/or schools, where the 60% solution is completely acceptable, and even encouraged (would you want the Sapper who got 60% on his mine-clearing PO check come out to pull your injured ass out of a minefield, or the Sapper who tried to get 100%??).

I don't really care how old someone is (or what gender/orientation/colour/height/etc), just as long as they give 100% all the time. If a 59 yr old Sergeant can lead his troops to the battle at the summit, and not stay in the valley, that's great. I have a hard time believing that the AVERAGE 59 year old can do it, that's all. Remember, the military is a young mans game (why else would the British military impose the 22 years in, then you're out policy? They've been fighting wars a little bit longer than we have, haven't they???)

I know that people will say that we don't need to apply this 60 years of age retirement to members of the combat arms, but to only allow CSS trades to get the extra five years wouldn't really be fair to the people in the combat arms, now would it? Not that "fair" should apply, but that's what seems to make our army go 'round nowadays. Gotta be fair, and don't forget to have big group hugs......

Anyway, that's what I have to say about that....

Al
 

MJP

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
776
Points
1,040
Where does it end? Ever hear of Universality of Service? As it is, we already have people who can't go to the field, on tour, on taskings because they are unfit physically and/or medically, and somebody else (ie. fit, non-adminstrative burdened, etc soldiers) have to take up the slack. Every unit has the "usual suspects" who couldn't find the closest training area or training center with a truckload of GPS' and all the maps in the world. They still get the same pay/benefits/career progression as the guys who do all the heavy lifting, and help create the promotion log-jam that almost all trades experience, without really contributing to the CF.

WOW, I can unequivocally say that is probably one the best statements I have read here in a long time.   Well put Allan, I would use four paragrapghs to put what you said in three sentences.   We have a canteen in our unit that employs 1 Sgt, 1 MCpl and a few Cpl types, all drawing the same pay and benefits for serving coffee....   Don't tell me it doesn't demoralize soldiers going off to the field or to the fires to see these people work half days and get paid the same(oh did I mention they work half days?).

As for extending the retirement age,   Like many people here have said if they can carry on then there is no problem, it's when they become a burden and are shuffled off to some position to laze away the days until they retire it becomes a problem.
 
Top