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

RCN seeks Candidates for Skilled Re-Enrolment Initiative

Ping Monkey

Member
Reaction score
68
Points
430
Saw this on the RCN's Facebook page...  https://www.facebook.com/RoyalCanadianNavy/

RCN seeks Candidates for Skilled Re-Enrolment Initiative

Royal Canadian Navy Thursday, 5 April 2018

Due to attrition rates in recent years, certain occupations have become stressed by the lack of personnel.

Individual letters are being sent to identified released members from the Naval Combat Information Operator (NCI Op), Naval Electronic Sensor Operator (NES Op), Sonar Operator (Sonar Op), Naval Communicator (Nav Comm), Weapons Engineering Technician (W Eng Tech) and Marine Technician (Mar Tech) occupations to invite them to re-enroll into the Regular Force in their former occupation and rank.

As the conversion training is still forthcoming for current Mar Tech members, candidates from the former Hull Technician (Hull Tech), Electrician (ET) and Maritime Engineer (Mar Eng) occupations will still be considered trade qualified who re-enrol because they can be employed in legacy positions.

Personnel who meet specific occupation criteria and who released favourably from the Regular Force within the last five years are eligible to re-enroll.

Additionally, for those personnel who meet specific criteria from the NCIOP, NESOP, SONAR OP, NAVCOMM, and MAR TECH trades, including having been favourably released for a minimum of 3 years prior to their date of re-enrolment, a recruiting allowance has been authorised in accordance with CBI 205.525 and an upcoming CANFORGEN.

If you are interested, email SkilledRCN.MCRqualifiee@forces.gc.ca or call 1-833-203-2698.  An applicant can expect a call-back within 5 business days from a dedicated member of our team to provide direction with regards to follow-on steps and answer questions.
If you know someone that may be interested, please pass this information along!


Any retirees looking for work (again)?

 

runormal

Sr. Member
Reaction score
0
Points
0
It's very interesting to see the comments. It looks like morale is in the shitter. In all honesty, I'm very glad that my CT took forever to be processed so that I was in a position to be able to decline it. It sounded like being in the Navy was a good go back in the day.

"Hmmm back in but this time no beers at sea after watch or steak night wine, oh wait treat you like a kid in a foreign port. I wonder when they are going to learn that it’s no always money that keeps them in. QOL is a big motivator."

"Agree about quality of life. A few beer was the one perk I truly enjoyed. Just sipping a beer and having a steak on the flight deck during a bbq was a real popular event. To go back and be treated like a child is not attractive.

They need to keep the Army from pushing their values on the rest of the CF. I can only guess that it is there that the idea of dry ships came from. Stuck in a metal box with no opportunity to relax can only add to the stress."

"Mass punishment killed and is still killing the navy.
Instead of disciplining the abusers, they removed the alcohol for all.
Instead of disciplining the drunken idiots, they came up with cinderella leave for all twice in every port. And if you happen to be duty second day, you don't have a port visit.
Hands fall in and supper onboard on the first day in is also a good way to ruin a day in port. What better way to tell people how good of a job they are doing and how they are the best ship in the fleet (and in the world!) Than keeping them onboard when they don't need to be there.

Keep asking more of the sailors and keep removing the perks and it will only get worse.

But... What kind of sign in bonus are we looking at? 100k, 150k?"

"As you once said it so elequently Jeff Parker... "I'll consider re-enlisting when the beer machine does as well!"  ;) haha!... even a rat knows when to abandon a sinking ship!"

"Yeah join the Navy, where they force you to only have 2 beers on your own time in port. Just what you need after a few weeks at sea, to go to a nice port and not be able to have more than 2 beers. Stop treating people like babies and maybe you can keep your sailors."
 

Pusser

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
1
Points
430
Some of those comments are somewhat true, but exaggerated.  The folks writing them appear to be drawing conclusions only from what they read in the papers, as opposed to actual service on board ships today.  Captains can still authorize beer for banyans, so having a beer and a steak on the flight deck is still possible.  The only real consequence of the so-called "dry" policy (HMC Ships are not actually dry) is that a few day workers can't have a beer at the end of the day.  Since we generally steam 1 in 2 nowadays, the majority of the ship's company would never have the opportunity to have a beer anyway.  The consequences of the new policy are not as dire as some folks seem to think.

I'm also not so sure that restricting leave is such a bad thing either.  I was somewhat shocked during my last sea tour when I saw virtually the entire ship's company disappear to hotels as soon as we got into port.  The result was that sailors were not bonding socially and more importantly, they weren't looking after each other.  Would the sailors that have died in hotel rooms recently, still be alive if they had been on board and looked after by their mates?
 

Eagle_Eye_View

Full Member
Reaction score
19
Points
260
With the difficulty of keeping qualified people in uniform, the RCAF could use the Skilled Re-Enrolment Initiative as well. Hopefully it works for the RCN. 
 

winnipegoo7

Member
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Pusser said:
I'm also not so sure that restricting leave is such a bad thing either.  I was somewhat shocked during my last sea tour when I saw virtually the entire ship's company disappear to hotels as soon as we got into port.  The result was that sailors were not bonding socially and more importantly, they weren't looking after each other. Would the sailors that have died in hotel rooms recently, still be alive if they had been on board and looked after by their mates?


If I'm following your logic correctly, then you must also believe that leave should be restricted in home port - because everyone going to their homes and apartments doesn't help sailors bond, nor are they able to look after each other. We could have all ranks live onboard for their whole careers.

And depending on which sailors dying in hotels you are referring to, do you really believe that those individuals don't do 'what they were doing' back in Canada - where no one is looking after them?



 

Pusser

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
1
Points
430
winnipegoo7 said:
If I'm following your logic correctly, then you must also believe that leave should be restricted in home port - because everyone going to their homes and apartments doesn't help sailors bond, nor are they able to look after each other. We could have all ranks live onboard for their whole careers.

And depending on which sailors dying in hotels you are referring to, do you really believe that those individuals don't do 'what they were doing' back in Canada - where no one is looking after them?

Don't be silly.  I'm in no way saying that we need to restrict leave in home port.  I can only draw upon 35 years of experience, but I've noticed that sailors tend to get in the most trouble in foreign ports.  Bonding with and looking out for each other tends to lessen the consequences of foreign port adventures.  I have seen a definite shift over the last few decades.  Even on board the ship, sailors don't socialize and spend time with each other as much as they used to.  Folks tend to keep to themselves - watching DVDs on individual players, web surfing, facebooking, etc.  They spend so much time staying connected with home, that they fail to connect with others on board.  It would seem to me that this makes being away from home that much harder, which in turn lowers peoples' inclination to continue serving.  I have friends from my early years of service in ships that I'm still in contact with.  From the later years, not so much.
 

cld617

Member
Reaction score
21
Points
180
The same can be said for everyone these days, you can't even go for dinner with someone without them being on their phone. We're a wired society now, and with that comes some additional isolation. The difference? We don't stick the general public in a metal bucket for months on end at sea, they need to get away. I think those 35 years may serve equally as a detriment to your ability to draw conclusions on the matter as they are beneficial.
 

winnipegoo7

Member
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Pusser said:
Don't be silly.  I'm in no way saying that we need to restrict leave in home port.  I can only draw upon 35 years of experience, but I've noticed that sailors tend to get in the most trouble in foreign ports.  Bonding with and looking out for each other tends to lessen the consequences of foreign port adventures.  I have seen a definite shift over the last few decades.  Even on board the ship, sailors don't socialize and spend time with each other as much as they used to.  Folks tend to keep to themselves - watching DVDs on individual players, web surfing, facebooking, etc.  They spend so much time staying connected with home, that they fail to connect with others on board.  It would seem to me that this makes being away from home that much harder, which in turn lowers peoples' inclination to continue serving.  I have friends from my early years of service in ships that I'm still in contact with.  From the later years, not so much.

My point was that if bonding is so important to you, why not do it at home too? Because I think it's an equally ridiculous idea as forced bonding in a foreign port.

I would argue that many people join the Navy just to go 'see the world'. If anything restrictions on foreign port leave cause sailors to release, not a lack of forced bonding opportunities. After 2-4 weeks at sea a sailor deserves a break away from the boat and their bosses. Just because you want to bond with everyone does not necessarily mean that everyone wants to bond with you. If you don't like going away anymore it might be time to hangup those seaboots.
 

Stoker

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
283
Points
880
Pusser said:
Some of those comments are somewhat true, but exaggerated.  The folks writing them appear to be drawing conclusions only from what they read in the papers, as opposed to actual service on board ships today.  Captains can still authorize beer for banyans, so having a beer and a steak on the flight deck is still possible.  The only real consequence of the so-called "dry" policy (HMC Ships are not actually dry) is that a few day workers can't have a beer at the end of the day.  Since we generally steam 1 in 2 nowadays, the majority of the ship's company would never have the opportunity to have a beer anyway.  The consequences of the new policy are not as dire as some folks seem to think.

I'm also not so sure that restricting leave is such a bad thing either.  I was somewhat shocked during my last sea tour when I saw virtually the entire ship's company disappear to hotels as soon as we got into port.  The result was that sailors were not bonding socially and more importantly, they weren't looking after each other.  Would the sailors that have died in hotel rooms recently, still be alive if they had been on board and looked after by their mates?

Some CO's have Banyans and some don't so while possible its not a certainty by any means. The drinking at sea is not about the fact we can't have a beer is that we can't be trusted to have that beer when drinking at sea was never the problem. Its nice that that pricing of alcohol has been relaxed a bit, $1.50 a beer vice $3.00 but that was just a response to profits being down and whole stores of beer going bad. The answer is not restricting the sailors freedom while ashore.
 

dimsum

Army.ca Legend
Mentor
Reaction score
3,883
Points
1,260
Pusser said:
I'm also not so sure that restricting leave is such a bad thing either.  I was somewhat shocked during my last sea tour when I saw virtually the entire ship's company disappear to hotels as soon as we got into port.  The result was that sailors were not bonding socially and more importantly, they weren't looking after each other. 

I wouldn't equate "going to hotels" with not bonding socially.  I'd imagine they prefer paying for a hotel for a night or two for comfort reasons, but still get together for meals/drinks/whatever.  Also, it's understandable that one would want a break from being in close quarters while in a foreign port.
 

SeaKingTacco

Army.ca Fixture
Donor
Reaction score
3,819
Points
1,010
Some ships have documented mould issues; mess decks are all over capacity as every ship sails with every bunk full. There is little privacy and and no comfort left as ships designed for a complement of 220(ish) routinely sail with north of 250 onboard.

I can fully understand why sailors want to get away from the ship and into a hotel room every once and a while.

I too, am not a fan of infantilizing sailors. We trust them with billion dollar weapon systems and send them away from home for 6-9 months at a time. But, since a small percentage of people are problem children, we find it easier to punish everyone than actually deal with individual bad behaviour.
 

Ostrozac

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
280
Points
930
I've seen a trade before that embraced the skilled re-enrollee with signing bonus option as the solution to their manning issues. It didn't work, for two reasons that should have been obvious in retrospect. First, most of these re-enrollees can't/won't stay for very long, they had already put in partial careers plus however long they were out, so they are already that much closer to retirement. Second, all these guys left for a reason, if you don't fix that reason, others will continue to leave for the same reason.

I suspect that until the RCN as an institution understands and fixes their dual issues with attraction and retention, skilled re-enrollees are just a bandaid on a continually bleeding wound.
 

winnipegoo7

Member
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Random story:

One time when I was in the navy I went to a career manager / MOC briefing. Someone asked the CPO what the navy was going to do to reduce the number of people releasing. The CPO answered that the navy wasn’t going to do anything because it was a self-correcting problem. He explained that the navy just had to wait for the economy to get worse and then people would fight to stay in the navy since there wouldn’t be any civy jobs.

- this was 6 or 7 years ago, so I guess that plan isn’t working so well.  :rofl:
 

Lumber

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
154
Points
680
When I got posted to an RSS position at a Naval Reserve Division, my unit had 160 sailors.

We've been one of the top recruiting units in the entire Naval Reserve, and in 3 years, we've recruited 105 sailors.

And today, our unit strength is now... 185.

How's that for retention.
 

dapaterson

Army.ca Relic
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
6,305
Points
1,090
Question is always: Where did they go?

About 12-15% of PRes attrition is CTs to the Reg F, there's another big piece from more remote units that is migration to larger cities (some of who stay in)... the devil, as always, is in the details.

EDIT: Quick math: with 35 in per year, and 3 year growth of 25 pers, that suggests a 15% attrition rate (annual).

Based on exit interviews, why are people leaving?  What are the time points when they leave?  When I had access to data from across the Army Reserve, spikes were Year 0 ("This is not for me"); year 1 ("Done school and leaving"); and year 12 ("Finally got my CD").  Interestingly, the proportion of year 0 leavers to the total year 0 cohort was about the same as in the Reg F, but that attrition is all but invisible at the Reg F unit level, since it's generally at St Jean and the schools where it occurs.

Understanding why people leave, and the point in their personal life / career when they leave, means you can (ideally) identify problems with (a) attraction - you're recruiting the wrong people; (b) career management - you're not giving people training and opportunities when they are able to take advantage of them; (c) leadership - you're not giving people what they want; or (d) a little bit of everything, and other stuff as well...
 

SeaKingTacco

Army.ca Fixture
Donor
Reaction score
3,819
Points
1,010
dapaterson said:
Question is always: Where did they go?

About 12-15% of PRes attrition is CTs to the Reg F, there's another big piece from more remote units that is migration to larger cities (some of who stay in)... the devil, as always, is in the details.

Indeed. If a good percentage of those people went to the Reg F, one could argue that there is no systemic loss at all.
 

dapaterson

Army.ca Relic
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
6,305
Points
1,090
Last number I saw was 750-800 CTs (Res to Reg) annually.  With a PRes of ~24K enrolled, 800 CTs represent over 3% of the total strength annually.

Reg to Res numbers are not tracked as closely (unfortunately); the one dataset I saw for about a one year window suggested that the number making that jump was about 1/3 of the number going the other way.
 

SeaKingTacco

Army.ca Fixture
Donor
Reaction score
3,819
Points
1,010
I have advocated since at least 1993 that the numbers of people going Res to Reg (and vice versa) should be tracked and Res units that are particularly adept at CTing people either way should be rewarded with extra resources.
 

Eaglelord17

Sr. Member
Reaction score
346
Points
810
Personally you couldn't pay me to go back to the Navy. I had way to many bad experiences by a poor CoC to even consider it (didn't even realize how poorly they were treating me in comparison to others at the time). Lack of training, no leadership or guidance, clear favouritism, failure to charge when charges were clearly required (not minor stuff, rather the stuff people spend years in jail for), no parts and tools, some really poorly behaving individuals which were ignored (things like scrapping their food off on the floor instead of into the garbage because the dish line up was long and they didn't like waiting), taking away of alcohol, and the treating you like a child.

This is literally a case of the grass being greener on the other side, and at least for the Mar Eng trade, it 100% is. I make more as a apprentice, have been given more responsibility, more time off, and the ability to refuse to come in (at least for OT). In one month recently I spent 150,000k on parts to fix equipment in my area, without even having to fight to get the parts.

When I was in the Navy I was given next to no trade training then sent to the fleet. Once in the fleet there was still given next to no training and guidance. Instead was given only the worst jobs because no one wanted to help train me on how to do my job and unlike everyone else I would actually do the worst jobs properly (bosns mate, scullery, etc.). I learned later on that most of them would purposely not do the job correctly as they knew our weak CoC would put them on a good job elsewhere and send someone like me up there to take their place as they then wouldn't be harassed by the cooks/bosns over why there sailor was doing a poor job.

Working civvy side I now know how poorly trained most our maintainers are. Literally we are a joke when it comes to maintenance and I am amazed that we haven't killed anyone yet though the Navys poor practices. Working on equipment without lockouts, using improper tools for the job, completely unguarded shafts and other moving equipment in a unstable platform (i.e. a ship), all sorts of very sketchy/unsafe methods of getting equipment into the spaces, etc. 1950s safety in a modern environment, simply not acceptable as that is how people get killed.

Leaving the Navy was the best decision I ever made.
 
Top