Recruiting Posters, Slogans and Commercials [Merged]

[George Wallace]

Perhaps, but he raises good points.

The only part he missed was the fact that, on operations, you'll be paid the same "hazard" allowance as people that are exposed to virtually no "hazard" in the interests of not offending anyone.

I have an idea for a new recruiting poster - hard hitting and designed to convey the gritty reality of the CF:

Double-amputees sitting next to desk jockies with a byline that reads "Equal pay for equal risk!".

It would certainly solve the problem of the infantry being over-populated. Don't even get me started on the EOD allowance.

Perhaps you should dig up the paper written on "Fraggin in Vietnam".  It may enlighten you on your personal conduct.

 

[ballz]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vf87lcjbcGM

This Swedish ad is posted somewhere but I can't find it. I'd like to see the USAF take some notes. Honesty is a good policy. I spent 3 weeks trying to find the lightweight oakley thermal-vision goggles that would find my targets for me that I learned existed in the USAF ad.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=izYAn7XDFys

I honestly thought it was a video game commercial. I think it toes the line of false advertisement too much for my liking.

EDIT: Someone commented on the video and I just realized... there are two effin' moons for god's sake!

 

[Pointer]

Perhaps you should dig up the paper written on "Fraggin in Vietnam".  It may enlighten you on your personal conduct.

By all means, explain.

 

[George Wallace]

By all means, explain.

Tell me what your gut feelings really are after you read this:

Perhaps, but he raises good points.

The only part he missed was the fact that, on operations, you'll be paid the same "hazard" allowance as people that are exposed to virtually no "hazard" in the interests of not offending anyone.

I have an idea for a new recruiting poster - hard hitting and designed to convey the gritty reality of the CF:

Double-amputees sitting next to desk jockies with a byline that reads "Equal pay for equal risk!".

It would certainly solve the problem of the infantry being over-populated. Don't even get me started on the EOD allowance.

Your profile says you are an Infantry officer, currently posting from work.  The paper "Fraggin in Vietnam" was written by an American Colonel as part of a study as to why "fraggin" was so prevalent in the American Army in Vietnam.  It boiled down to young officers, with attitudes similar to what is displayed in the above post, being so arrogant and disrespectful to their troops that their troops found 'novel' ways of 'dispensing' with them.

The display of your distaste for others in the CF is a grievous dishonour to them, and a discusting trait for anyone in any command posn.  Even an illinformed Pte has more cultural awareness than to serious spew those lines.

As has been pointed out in other posts on this site, it is one big TEAM, not just an Infantryman pointing a gun at an enemy.  It is the cooks feeding that Infanteer to keep him fit to fight.  It is the Supply Tech keeping him clothed in order to fight.  It is the Wpn Tech keeping his wpns working in order to keep him in the fight.  It is the Ammo Techs who keep pushing forward the bullets he needs to fight.  It is the Mechanics who keep his vehs on the road so that he can get to the fight.  It is the FCS Techs who are keeping his gunnery systems operating so that he can bring heavier firepower into the fight.  It is the Rad Tech who keeps his radios working so that he can call in Arty, Fast Air, Armour, Engineers, all to assist him in his fight.  It is the RMS Clerk who ensures he gets paid, housed, transported, etc to, from and in between fights.  It is the Postie who keeps his mail coming to give him a break from the fight.  Shall I go on, including the Padres, the Pilots and crew who fly him on operations, and the dozens of others who contribute so that the Infanteer can close with and distroy the enemy.  Your post was an arrogant, ignorant, insult to all the above.  You, in all seriousnes, are lucky that you haven't been fragged.

 

[57Chevy]

Well said G.W.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Perhaps, but he raises good points.

The only part he missed was the fact that, on operations, you'll be paid the same "hazard" allowance as people that are exposed to virtually no "hazard" in the interests of not offending anyone.

I have an idea for a new recruiting poster - hard hitting and designed to convey the gritty reality of the CF:

Double-amputees sitting next to desk jockies with a byline that reads "Equal pay for equal risk!".

It would certainly solve the problem of the infantry being over-populated. Don't even get me started on the EOD allowance.

George was too kind when he explained things to you.

Plainly, you are a friggin' idiot.

 

[Pointer]

Tell me what your gut feelings really are after you read this:


Your profile says you are an Infantry officer, currently posting from work.  The paper "Fraggin in Vietnam" was written by an American Colonel as part of a study as to why "fraggin" was so prevalent in the American Army in Vietnam.  It boiled down to young officers, with attitudes similar to what is displayed in the above post, being so arrogant and disrespectful to their troops that their troops found 'novel' ways of 'dispensing' with them.

Actually, my objection to the hazard pay issue and EOD allowance is motivated by quite the opposite feeling as that which you've attributed to me.  After watching subordinates and peers get blown up, I'm more than a little annoyed that "hazard pay" isn't scaled to the actual hazards. My objection to the EOD allowance isn't that it exists, but that regular Combat Engineers don't get any similar compensation when they're the ones usually involved in one of the most dangerous stages of counter-IED operations (namely finding the IED and confirming it).

The display of your distaste for others in the CF is a grievous dishonour to them, and a discusting trait for anyone in any command posn.  Even an illinformed Pte has more cultural awareness than to serious spew those lines.

What distaste for other CF members? My distaste is with our asinine compensation regime. Actually, maybe I do have a certain distaste for certain CF members - namely the ones that are responsible for designing said compensation regime.  If you're referring to the "desk jockey" crack - I'm now one of them. "Desk jockies" exist in all trades.

As has been pointed out in other posts on this site, it is one big TEAM, not just an Infantryman pointing a gun at an enemy.  It is the cooks feeding that Infanteer to keep him fit to fight.  It is the Supply Tech keeping him clothed in order to fight.  It is the Wpn Tech keeping his wpns working in order to keep him in the fight.  It is the Ammo Techs who keep pushing forward the bullets he needs to fight.  It is the Mechanics who keep his vehs on the road so that he can get to the fight.  It is the FCS Techs who are keeping his gunnery systems operating so that he can bring heavier firepower into the fight.  It is the Rad Tech who keeps his radios working so that he can call in Arty, Fast Air, Armour, Engineers, all to assist him in his fight.  It is the RMS Clerk who ensures he gets paid, housed, transported, etc to, from and in between fights.  It is the Postie who keeps his mail coming to give him a break from the fight.  Shall I go on, including the Padres, the Pilots and crew who fly him on operations, and the dozens of others who contribute so that the Infanteer can close with and distroy the enemy.

Right. Where does any of that mean that hazard pay can't be scaled to hazard? By your logic, we shouldn't pay spec pay, SOF pay, the EOD allowance, jump pay, etc.

Ignoring the ridiculously steep discrepancy in "hazard" experienced by different groups in the interests of "equality" and "the team" is outrageous. The hazard isn't equal, therefore the pay shouldn't be.  There are a million other areas where we aren't paid "as a team", I'm not sure why combat operations shouldn't be one of them. It could be $50 a month - it's the principle that bothers me.

I'm not arguing for trade-specific hazard pay. A medic and an infantryman on patrol face the same risks. Or a Sig Op, or whatever.

Your post was an arrogant, ignorant, insult to all the above.  You, in all seriousnes, are lucky that you haven't been fragged.

No, my post was a sarcastic jab at an utterly stupid policy.  Admittedly, I probably could have taken a couple edges off of it but I don't think it was overly cryptic in what it was getting at.  It certainly didn't warrant the equivalent of "you deserve to die". Knee-jerk sensitivity and back-shooting may be your chosen COA - that's your decision.  Your response, thus far, has been embarrassingly ridiculous with talk of "fragging", all motivated (apparently) by vicarious offense on behalf of a group of people whom, in every dealing I've had, agree with me entirely.  I'm not sure if it's just PC-ness or an issue of reading comprehension, but it's completely disproportionate and fails to address the issue at hand.

Yes - my troops, whom I had the utmost love and respect for and did my best to protect (unsuccessfully, at times), absolutely hated me for feeling that they should be better compensated for the risks they experienced overseas and for actively advocating therefor.  My overworked, sherpa-like combat engineers that had the admirable task of digging in the dirt to confirm if they were huddled over a padlock or a 120mm arty shell connected to some Iranian lamp cord and a motorcycle battery absolutely despised my respect for their intestinal fortitude and my feeling that they be justly and fairly compensated.  Same thing with my medic - when he got concussed and his eardrum blown out by the blast that almost killed the guy in front of him, he absolutely loathed me for believing he should be paid a little more than someone sharing the same risks as a Tim Horton's employee on KAF. They could barely contain their desire to shoot me in the back.

And no, I'm not going to tiptoe around the fact that a person that comes back home missing parts or disabled was paid the same "hazard" pay as someone that spent their entire time in a fortified sea container because some of the latter may get offended.  That's what the senior leadership in charge of such policy has decided to do. The issue of equal pay for completely unequal hazard is an absolute insult to the troops bearing the brunt of the hazard and just reveals how far down the PC, ignore-the-elephant-in-the-room, head-in-sand hole the CF has gone.

 

[RCR Grunt]

 

[ballz]

I don't have a dog in this fight, but since you're talking about "the principal," how would someone's wife feel when they become their widow instead, and their husband "wasn't even receiving hazard pay."

And how would you award hazard pay if not by trade? (which wouldn't work either...) Would you get "per foot patrol" pay and "per convoy escort" pay? On top of "which FOB you're in" pay? Like I said, I have no dog in this fight, but since you are advocating a better answer than the apparently stupid one that's in place, I would be interested in hearing what your better answer is.

Regardless, there is no winning an argument that's about someone putting their life on the line. Someone is always going to feel (and probably rightfully so, or maybe not) that they are getting screwed compared to the next person.

 

[George Wallace]

Actually, my objection to the hazard pay issue and EOD allowance is motivated by quite the opposite feeling as that which you've attributed to me.  After watching subordinates and peers get blown up, I'm more than a little annoyed that "hazard pay" isn't scaled to the actual hazards. My objection to the EOD allowance isn't that it exists, but that regular Combat Engineers don't get any similar compensation when they're the ones usually involved in one of the most dangerous stages of counter-IED operations (namely finding the IED and confirming it).

Sorry.  I missed that nuance in your post.  I will agree with you on your clarification.

What distaste for other CF members? My distaste is with our asinine compensation regime. Actually, maybe I do have a certain distaste for certain CF members - namely the ones that are responsible for designing said compensation regime.  If you're referring to the "desk jockey" crack - I'm now one of them. "Desk jockies" exist in all trades.

I am sure many others hold these opinions, but are not cognisant as to the difficulties to create a fair and just system to cover compensation.  I am sure that the CF members and their civilian counterparts are trying their best to create a fair system.  I am also sure that some CF members have ulterior motives as well; to promote change more for the points on their own PERs than for anything else.  Why else does it seem that we are constantly "reinventing the wheel", and not always for the better?  I also know that outside agencies, such as Treasury Board will dictate what we do or do not do.

Right. Where does any of that mean that hazard pay can't be scaled to hazard?

It is.  Are there not four different levels to Hazard Pay.  Afghanistan falls into the top level, if I am correct.  Other AORs are paid lesser levels.

By your logic, we shouldn't pay spec pay, SOF pay, the EOD allowance, jump pay, etc.

Are not those deployed also keeping their various Spec Pay, Operations Allowances, different levels of pay for time served outside of Canada, etc.? 

Ignoring the ridiculously steep discrepancy in "hazard" experienced by different groups in the interests of "equality" and "the team" is outrageous. The hazard isn't equal, therefore the pay shouldn't be.  There are a million other areas where we aren't paid "as a team", I'm not sure why combat operations shouldn't be one of them. It could be $50 a month - it's the principle that bothers me.

I disagree.  There are no frontlines in Afghanistan.  This is COIN.  KAF has been attacked.  People in KAF have been awarded medals for bravery,  Remember the Engineers who hopped into a LAV and fought off a bunch of insurgents infiltrating the wire?

No, my post was a sarcastic jab at an utterly stupid policy.  Admittedly, I probably could have taken a couple edges off of it but I don't think it was overly cryptic in what it was getting at.  It certainly didn't warrant the equivalent of "you deserve to die". Knee-jerk sensitivity and back-shooting may be your chosen COA - that's your decision.  Your response, thus far, has been embarrassingly ridiculous with talk of "fragging", all motivated (apparently) by vicarious offense on behalf of a group of people whom, in every dealing I've had, agree with me entirely.  I'm not sure if it's just PC-ness or an issue of reading comprehension, but it's completely disproportionate and fails to address the issue at hand.

Yes - my troops, whom I had the utmost love and respect for and did my best to protect (unsuccessfully, at times), absolutely hated me for feeling that they should be better compensated for the risks they experienced overseas and for actively advocating therefor.  My overworked, sherpa-like combat engineers that had the admirable task of digging in the dirt to confirm if they were huddled over a padlock or a 120mm arty shell connected to some Iranian lamp cord and a motorcycle battery absolutely despised my respect for their intestinal fortitude and my feeling that they be justly and fairly compensated.  Same thing with my medic - when he got concussed and his eardrum blown out by the blast that almost killed the guy in front of him, he absolutely loathed me for believing he should be paid a little more than someone sharing the same risks as a Tim Horton's employee on KAF. They could barely contain their desire to shoot me in the back.

And no, I'm not going to tiptoe around the fact that a person that comes back home missing parts or disabled was paid the same "hazard" pay as someone that spent their entire time in a fortified sea container because some of the latter may get offended.  That's what the senior leadership in charge of such policy has decided to do. The issue of equal pay for completely unequal hazard is an absolute insult to the troops bearing the brunt of the hazard and just reveals how far down the PC, ignore-the-elephant-in-the-room, head-in-sand hole the CF has gone.

Well then I apologize.  The "automatic sarcasm indicator" hasn't been implemented in the software running this site, and it is a bytch trying to read it in at times.  I am sure that when until such time thatMike develops a better website, where using software that marries SKYPE, Facebook, Chat, YouTube and whatever other programs necessary to present audio video posts on this forum, we will continue to have this problem of accurately reading what it truly is that a person is trying to post; sarcasm, humour, tongue in cheek, etc.

It will be a long day coming, however, when we will see any honest and fair compensation dealt out to our pers for their service and injuries incurred in the service of the nation.  We can call for perfection, but never achieve it.  Someone will always feel maligned.  Would inserting a chip into every CF Member be acceptable?  A chip that would record every movement they make in their careers, that would record their level of training, qualifications, time outside of country on missions or training, time at sea, time in the air, Spec Pay level, time they get on a plane to deploy, time they arrive in/depart an operational theatre, what level of Hazard Pay that operation theatre warrants, time they were in contact with an enemy, etc.  Would that be possible?  Would it even be acceptable under the Charter of Human Rights and Privacy Act? 

We can tinker with our Pay and Allowances all we want, but there will be no perfect solution that will be accepted that has no detractors.  Someone will always find reason to complain.

 

[dangles]

I don't have a dog in this fight, but since you're talking about "the principal," how would someone's wife feel when they become their widow instead, and their husband "wasn't even receiving hazard pay."

And how would you award hazard pay if not by trade? (which wouldn't work either...) Would you get "per foot patrol" pay and "per convoy escort" pay? On top of "which FOB you're in" pay? Like I said, I have no dog in this fight, but since you are advocating a better answer than the apparently stupid one that's in place, I would be interested in hearing what your better answer is.

Regardless, there is no winning an argument that's about someone putting their life on the line. Someone is always going to feel (and probably rightfully so, or maybe not) that they are getting screwed compared to the next person.

I agree. I mean obviously the infantry has a more dangerous time than the Tim Horton's worker at KAF [mentioned previously], but this is what the infantryman signed up for. I mean the whole infantry job entails an inherent hazard when it comes to fighting a war/in general. The same can be said for EOD etc. So I mean I guess the argument that other people could [not saying they'd be ballsy enough to ever do so] would be that since infantry are simply doing what they were trained for and were expected of, why should they receive any more hazard pay than the Tim Horton's worker? And also, the Tim Horton's worker who never expected to be in an operational theatre should be paid the same hazard pay as there is still a risk to their life and they were not as prepared/aware for Afghanistan. [But this argument is assuming they were tasked to KAF, and they did not volunteer...not being a member of the CF I am not sure how it works for them].

I am just playing Devil's advocate though, I mean I agree that certain trades should get more hazard pay. But sorry if I am stepping on any toes here, this is purely just a speculative insight into why maybe the hazard pay works the way it does.

 

[PuckChaser]

I would agree that KAF has its inherent risks as it's in an operational theatre and the rocket threat is always there. However, a person in KAF who has access to Timmies and a phone on a daily basis shouldn't be getting the same hardship pay as a member living in a seacan out in a FOB for their 7 month tour. I'm not advocating a decrease in the Hardship for KAF, but add another level for members who live outside the wire. It may go a long way to remove some of the animosity between the pointy end and their support elements.

Then theres the other end of the spectrum: You picked your trade, and the KAF person picked theirs. Don't be angry because they get a better go out of it.  >

 

[Swingline1984]

It's all semantics.  The same arguments could be made for peacetime where some of us folks play sports, clean guns and go home while some of us continue to work long days and weekends to ensure the machine runs smoothly (as smoothly as a machine with square wheels can run).  I think when you look at the big picture we are all compensated pretty well overall.  With regards to our injured personnel I think every effort should be made to ensure they get what is coming to them whether they stepped on a mine in Kandahar or fell off a truck in Shilo.

 

[MikeL]

why should they receive any more hazard pay than the Tim Horton's worker? And also, the Tim Horton's worker who never expected to be in an operational theatre should be paid the same hazard pay as there is still a risk to their life and they were not as prepared/aware for Afghanistan.

You do realize they volunteered for that job.. no one forced them to go.  I would bet they would be aware of the war going on there from the news, etc unless they are that clueless. Or at least from some kind of work up? 

 

[dangles]

You do realize they volunteered for that job.. no one forced them to go.  I would bet they would be aware of the war going on there from the news, etc unless they are that clueless. Or at least from some kind of work up?

Clearly I did not realize this as my post specifically states "[But this argument is assuming they were tasked to KAF, and they did not volunteer...not being a member of the CF I am not sure how it works for them]."

My post was not clear about what I meant about awareness though. I just meant when they signed up, they would not necessarily be as conscious of their requirements/ability to go into an operational theatre one day. I mean people should know the CF could send you to any part of the world, but this is something overlooked I am sure when people sign up for certain trades...whereas the infantryman would clearly [hopefully] understand this requirement.

 

[PPCLI Guy]

Then theres the other end of the spectrum: You picked your trade, and the KAF person picked theirs. Don't be angry because they get a better go out of it.  >

On the third hand, most, if not all, of the pers in KAF are from trades that have people outside the wire - and some would give their left testicle to switch places with those OTW.  Its the Army.  You don't get to chose where they send you.

 

[MikeL]

Clearly I did not realize this as my post specifically states "[But this argument is assuming they were tasked to KAF, and they did not volunteer...not being a member of the CF I am not sure how it works for them]."

My post was not clear about what I meant about awareness though. I just meant when they signed up, they would not necessarily be as conscious of their requirements/ability to go into an operational theatre one day. I mean people should know the CF could send you to any part of the world, but this is something overlooked I am sure when people sign up for certain trades...whereas the infantryman would clearly [hopefully] understand this requirement.

First the Tim Hortons thing, I'm actually kind of shocked that you believed Tim Hortons could just tell it's employees they are going overseas.  It's Tim Hortons, they are civilians under no contract, not CF members, etc.  They volunteer for the KAF location for X amount of months.  If they knew they could work in the KAF location when they first got a job at Tim Hortons doesn't mean anything as they are not told one day that they are going to Afghanistan.


If someone joins the Military and they believe they would just stay in Canada for their entire time in the CF, especially right now when a war is going on that involves large numbers of Canadians they would be quite naive. I haven't been in the Recruiting process for a long time so my memory may be off but I'm quite sure they ask during the interview if you are willing to serve overseas.

 

[OldSolduer]

On the third hand, most, if not all, of the pers in KAF are from trades that have people outside the wire - and some would give their left testicle to switch places with those OTW.  Its the Army.  You don't get to chose where they send you.

Bang on.

 

[catalyst]

I'm going to jump out of my lane here, but let me give my .02 cents as the ex-CFPSA worker.

First off - we didn't work for timmies, we worked for CFPSA/CFPFSS or whatever today's name is. We were all NPF folks - that includes gym people, the other retail outlets, the people that got the stuff to the retail outlets, the people that got you your beer (and the people who shipped stuff to the FOBs so y'all could have 'stuff'), the people who did your travel, and some other people whom I'm sure I've forgotten. Up until about 2000, when NPF took over (I think that was the year, so they tell us) a lot of the 'canteens' on deployment were done by military members.....but then the military decided to use its personnel for well, army stuff.

We all volunteered to go. We knew what we were getting into.

Yes, we got FSP and Hazard Pay. We also got HLTA. I cannot comment why we got the same allowances as somebody outside the wire - that decision as made way outside my pay grade and I'm told was dictated by the TB (who also dicated our non-tax free status). My gut guess is that for 'good' people to work in a war-zone, they would have to have an attractive compensation package, which includes 'danger pay' in addition to the base salary.  I was suprised to hear those outside the wire would earn the same base 'hazard pay' but was not suprised for those within the wire.  As staff of 'the non-public funds of the Canadian Forces', it would just make sense.

I had thought there was some provision for a commander to raise the hazard pay level for a 'hazard bonus' in times of increased danger.....although I could be very, very wrong - has this ever been done?

I now return you to your regular discussion.

(oh, and some CFPSA-ers went outside KAF, both at CNS, and other fobs (temporary, of course).

 

[dangles]

Edited so I do not detract from the point of this conversation.