Suggested changes to CAF TOS [split from changes to dress]

[ballz]

Eye In The Sky,

I like how you think.

So allowing a  "Releases should have a 365 day no penalty get back in clause, back into the same job in the same location"

How would you write an HR policy note to address and restrict abuse of the real issue you mentioned?
Part of the solution vice objecting to change.

I suspect there wouldn't be much abuse of this is the other piece to PPCLI Guy's suggestion was implemented... the geostatic / 85% pay idea.

You'd probably have to have a minimum amount of time i.e. you can elect to be geo-static for 85% pay, but it's got to be for a minimum of 5 years.

If you release after being told you're posted geographically, and then get back in after APS... you automatically go on geo-static status for 5 years.



I think HR can improve dramatically in the CAF... but I have to admit, it would be a f**king nightmare trying to draft all this up properly and not have people slipping through the cracks, and our grievance system isn't very good from the few experiences I've had with it (not personally but as an Assisting Officer).... and lord knows we can't have any kind of room for lower-level Command to use their discretion to deal with stuff.

 

[PPCLI Guy]

I'd amend it...365 day no penalty get back in clause but remove the 'same job, same location' part, that way people aren't guaranteed they 'keep flying in Shearwater and raking in the PLD/SDA/AIRCRA' bucks.  Or whatever made them want to avoid a posting.

However...if the TOS for both Res and Reg are modernized like some of the rumours are suggesting they may be, this wouldn't be a major concern.

Except CMs would immediately use this clause to fill a hard to fill posting.  If you want to fill a hard to fill posting, incentivize it in your contract negotiations - go to Cold Lake for 4 years, and I will guarantee you X - that kind of thing.  There are plenty of reasons not to change our current policies, and one big reason to change them, which we are headed for a human capital cliff.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

This is where we have to think outside the box, as in all of these suggestions.  We can no longer afford policies that are geared at the mean of a 100K personnel sized organisation.  We need the policy space to allow us to tailor our HR solutions - this is not about necessarily keeping a gal in for 25 years - it is about ensuring that at least 15 of those years are in the CAF.

There will always be outliers and abusers...who brought us the punitive door to door move bullshit, the IR clampdown etc etc.  So, we either continue to punish the 98%, or we either accept the 2% abusers.....or we have contracts instead of terms of service, and through the bums out who abuse the system.  As a leader, I would want the policy space to sweeten the deal for the high performers, and the top cover to get rid of the shitbirds, but as long as we have one size fits all restrictive and proscriptive policies, then leaders will continue to be eunuchs in the face of the HR system as it stands right now.

This is not an easy thing - it involves rethinking every aspect of our HR policy....but it needs to be done

Copy, and the yellow part summarized the choices nicely, doesn't it?  IF we could do the 365 day no penalty AND the contract/TOS stuff is changed the way I hear it may be (full time deployable, full time static [reduced rate of pay]), then it is entirely possible the 2% would have the option to take a pay reduction to be static/full time and not play the system for posting avoidance. 

And to think all this discussion starts because I'm likely going to be able to grow my hair like ABBA this summer  ;D

 

[armyvern]

Well then...lets replace those 3 fit keener with people who are willing to join now because they can keep their flowing locks and piercings 

Seriously?  Why can't we do both?

As another dinosaur said, overhaul the system and it's 1950s mentality and outlook.  Treat adults as adults.  Retain good people and vest ourselves of those not-so-good people.  Fact is, the retention of not-so-good people is leading to us losing good people.  I see it often - as have yourself and Jarnhammer.

Why are they still around? Because we are so hurting for people that even having them show up two days a week, being on chit the other three, at least helps us get stuff done on those two days.  As little comfort as that may be.

What any upcoming changes to dress regs would do is modernize us so that those actual people out there who would be good for this outfit, who would be good soldiers, sailors and airmen/women, who are not even thinking about joining us now, may just do so.  Maybe they like their long hair and their ear-ring(s).  That doesn't mean they'll suck in the CAF.  Letting them keep, or get those things, also doesn't mean they'll then suck at being productive members of the CAF.

Perhaps, just perhaps, we'll gain enough of them that we will once again regain the capacity to process releases for the bags of hammers we are currently retaining.

It doesn't have to be one or the other.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

Except CMs would immediately use this clause to fill a hard to fill posting.

On the flip side of the coin, CMs are filling them now with the people who can't release/chose to gut it out;  people with 2/3 kids and a mortgage, etc and are close to pension. 

If you want to fill a hard to fill posting, incentivize it in your contract negotiations - go to Cold Lake for 4 years, and I will guarantee you X - that kind of thing.  There are plenty of reasons not to change our current policies, and one big reason to change them, which we are headed for a human capital cliff.

This I'd like...and would be more willing to take that posting to 'the place I hate the most' if I knew there was a pot of something (good) at the end of that rainbow.  Maybe an OUTCAN, something.  It would have to be 'in writing', for me at least!

 

[Navy_Pete]

Were the beardless folks properly clean-shaven, or stubbly? Have heard comments from boatswains and others suggesting stubble's even worse than a grow-in beard.

(Apologize for the non sequitor, wanted to answer the question)

Note sure what they tested specifically, but had to throw on a Dragger at the tail end of a really long day somewhere around the 24 hour mark after my last shave and had a bit of a challenge getting it to stay sealed.  It was to inspect something after a fire, so I only had the BA on, but until I worked up a bit of a sweat and tightened it a few times it kept leaking by when I started moving around.

Personally I used to have hair past my shoulders and a goatee, which I doubt I would go back to because it was a pain, but it is a legacy thing from back in the day which adds to the overall feel of not being treated like an adult.

Maybe they should stop telling people to get out if they don't like it?  That would be a good start.

Personally I'm looking at the next decade or so until I hit my pension time and trying to figure out if I want to stay in. The tipping point is whether or not I can do meaningful work, as we've tended to kick a lot of that out the door to ISSCs (on the Navy side for engineering).  There are a few ways to do that, but if that doesn't work out, I'll be marking time while getting some various professional certifications in place and applying to civvy side.  I think for a lot of people it's the extreme process driven environment that we are shifting to that is creating mass amounts of paperwork, which people now have to do to get someone else to fix something, rather than fix it themselves.  If I can shift to the private side to do the work I like to support the Navy, while getting a raise and actually having bargaining power with my employer, it's pretty tempting, and run out of rules not to after the 10,000ndth DRMIS form, BN, etc.

 

[Edward Campbell]

I like everything PPCLI Guy said, above, and I agree with most of it.

I have often said that the military is not one "career," it's not like working for General Motors, or Motorola or a construction firm: you don't "join the firm" and have just one career ~ I had three or four, I like to say:

I joined and served as a soldier; then

  I was a junior NCO; next

      I was a junior officer ~ often a student and sometimes a teacher, too; and, later

        I was a senior officer and I tried to be something of a guide. 

Each was a unique and very different experience; maybe I was just lucky but when I became a (paid) lance Corporal my world did change: I had new responsibilities, a couple of new privileges, too, and new friends and new mentors. Ditto when I became a junior officer ~ and in some respect the "jump" from corporal to lieutenant wasn't all that great ~ I was still a "junior leader," it was just that, in that (my third) "career" I was with a different group of friends and very different prospects. The new responsibilities came later. Being promoted and given command of a unit put me in a whole and vastly different "career," one which, yet again, gave new responsibilities and new friends and mentors.

Maybe my "take" is wrong, but I don't think so; I think is was/is the same for most of us and I believe that we need to reinforce those differences again.

Anyway, just my  :2c: on one of PPCLI Guy's comments.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

Seriously?  Why can't we do both?

I wasn't being 'actually' serious, hence the 

As another dinosaur said, overhaul the system and it's 1950s mentality and outlook.  Treat adults as adults.  Retain good people and vest ourselves of those not-so-good people.  Fact is, the retention of not-so-good people is leading to us losing good people.  I see it often - as have yourself and Jarnhammer.

Why are they still around? Because we are so hurting for people that even having them show up two days a week, being on chit the other three, at least helps us get stuff done on those two days.  As little comfort as that may be.

Agree - as an organization we've made it rather difficult to get rid of non-performers and the easiest way to do that, sometimes, is 'posting'.  But that just moves the pile of pooh from one corner of the room to the other, not really a fix (most of the time).

What any upcoming changes to dress regs would do is modernize us so that those actual people out there who would be good for this outfit, who would be good soldiers, sailors and airmen/women, who are not even thinking about joining us now, may just do so.  Maybe they like their long hair and their ear-ring(s).  That doesn't mean they'll suck in the CAF.  Letting them keep, or get those things, also doesn't mean they'll then suck at being productive members of the CAF.

Perhaps, just perhaps, we'll gain enough of them that we will once again regain the capacity to process releases for the bags of hammers we are currently retaining.

It doesn't have to be one or the other.

Like I said...remember when it was decided squareback haircuts on guys was going to be allowed?  ;D 

Out of the people that were subordinates or peers that have left my line of work in the past few years, none of them said it was because of restrictive dress regs, but the HR policy stuff?  Career "management" stuff?  You betcha. 

If the 'relaxed dress regs' improves how many people are recruited into my trade, and the improved HR policy stuff can help keep them there so the MCpl/Cpls are leaving after their VIEs, that would definitely be a step or two towards improvement and I'll take improvement any day of the week.

Still need those flight suits though  rly:

 

[TangoTwoBravo]

I don't think that we need to radically change things for millennials, even if the TED Talk videos say otherwise. If you want career change then the CAF is already perfect for you. The longest I've done the same job is three years.

Some of the changes offered by PPCLI Guy and then mentioned by others actually seem punitive. What is the mechanism for the geo-stationary bit? Refuse a posting and thus go on geo-stationary? Some folks belong to ranks or branches that do not move very much. Others get moved all the time. Some favoured children get to do their ERE at their "home station" while others get to go out into the hinterlands. Are "geo-stationary" people a problem that you are trying to solve?

Are people really getting out because bad people are staying? I sense some mean-spiritedness. If the aim is to "clean house" then say so - don't call it modernization or getting into modern HR policies.

If we are unhappy with HR then look at the senior leadership that are the folks moving the pieces on the board. The career managers just cut the messages most of the time. Its the regimental godfathers that make the deals. I'm also uneasy with contractual leadership. I'm especially uneasy with taking an "HR Expert" off civy street and making them a Major. Have we devalued the profession of arms that much?

I think that we could sort out some simple things like moves before radically changing policies. Look at the recent move initiative and how well that has gone.

I do like the idea of making getting in and out a little easier. I wonder, though, about needing some provisos about ranks for that. Lets say a CWO or LCol with 31 years gets out, and then decides to get back in eight months later. You've already promoted his replacement. Now what?

Sabbaticals look interesting - an expanded LWOP program could be useful.

Sorry to be negative.

 

[kratz]

I don't think that we need to radically change things for millennials, even if the TED Talk videos say otherwise. If you want career change then the CAF is already perfect for you. The longest I've done the same job is three years.

Some of the changes offered by PPCLI Guy and then mentioned by others actually seem punitive. What is the mechanism for the geo-stationary bit? Refuse a posting and thus go on geo-stationary? Some folks belong to ranks or branches that do not move very much. Others get moved all the time. Some favoured children get to do their ERE at their "home station" while others get to go out into the hinterlands. Are "geo-stationary" people a problem that you are trying to solve?

Are people really getting out because bad people are staying? I sense some mean-spiritedness. If the aim is to "clean house" then say so - don't call it modernization or getting into modern HR policies.

If we are unhappy with HR then look at the senior leadership that are the folks moving the pieces on the board. The career managers just cut the messages most of the time. Its the regimental godfathers that make the deals. I'm also uneasy with contractual leadership. I'm especially uneasy with taking an "HR Expert" off civy street and making them a Major. Have we devalued the profession of arms that much?

I think that we could sort out some simple things like moves before radically changing policies. Look at the recent move initiative and how well that has gone.

I do like the idea of making getting in and out a little easier. I wonder, though, about needing some provisos about ranks for that. Lets say a CWO or LCol with 31 years gets out, and then decides to get back in eight months later. You've already promoted his replacement. Now what?

Sabbaticals look interesting - an expanded LWOP program could be useful.

Sorry to be negative.

Yes. Canadians have.

After 20 years of service, my trade is so disregarded, minimalized, marginalized, overlooked to the point of why having the trade?
Civy side, I can't get a job for any of the various "specialized" jobs that all demand their own certification.
This phenomenon is not a fault of the CAF, but recruits are looking at their future, compared to my time and don't see as many options. 

 

[PPCLI Guy]

Are "geo-stationary" people a problem that you are trying to solve?

Not at all - I'd like to see more of it....but to compensate those that do move, either for the exigencies of the service, or for career progression.

I have not laid out a nose-to-tail HR policy - I have thrown out some ideas that should get us to ask some questions about what a career model looks like, and how do we get the most out of our people, while meeting most of their needs?

As to the "Godfather" comment  could not agree more, but the system has lots of sea anchors attached to it, and senseless policies (that we wrote, and lack the drive to challenge).  They need to own this problem....which means breaking some shibboleths, stampeding some sacred cows, all in order to crush some rice bowls.

 

[TangoTwoBravo]

Not at all - I'd like to see more of it....but to compensate those that do move, either for the exigencies of the service, or for career progression.

I have not laid out a nose-to-tail HR policy - I have thrown out some ideas that should get us to ask some questions about what a career model looks like, and how do we get the most out of our people, while meeting most of their needs?

As to the "Godfather" comment  could not agree more, but the system has lots of sea anchors attached to it, and senseless policies (that we wrote, and lack the drive to challenge).  They need to own this problem....which means breaking some shibboleths, stampeding some sacred cows, all in order to crush some rice bowls.

Nobody wants to sacrifice their own sacred cows (especially if they are one), so I guess I'll reserve my judgement. Are you willing to sacrifice the godfathers?  Nobody wants their own rice bowl smashed, but some are happy to smash others'. Why do you need to smash anything? I thought we were trying to make things better?

As for rewarding those who do move, is that what you call cutting everyone else's pay by 15%? So those that move are spared but the rest get cut? Thats a heck of a reward. If you are looking to reward those who move then maybe have some positive incentives rather than introduce a punishment? Make the posting allowance a real bonus. Maybe make the move policy better. Otherwise, Cpl X who is chosen to go to Gagetown from Pet to be a Driver at the School is faced with having to take an 85% cut to stay in Pet while Cpl Y avoids the Wheel of Fortune by not being selected - he stays in Pet and keeps his 100%.

I have little trust in rushed changes to HR for the sake of rushed, dramatic changes.

I could get excited about positive HR changes. Make service more attractive, not getting out and then back in easier. Most HR changes I have seen, all under the guise of "modernization" have actually been clawbacks of benefits/services.

 

[ModlrMike]

I agree. I think that moving should be incentivized. A firm contract with the expectations of both parties clearly laid out, along with enhanced financial benefits would work wonders.

I also agree that the one year, no penalty release is a good idea. That being said, it should be clear that certain conditions, like posting evasion don't qualify.

 

[daftandbarmy]

Whatever we do on the HR side, if we don't figure out this 'Millennial thing', we'll have to extend CRA to 75

"A 2015 Gallup Poll found that Millennials are the least engaged cohort in the workplace, with only 28.9% saying that they are engaged at work. This, combined with high turnover rates and greater freelance and entrepreneurial opportunities, means that if companies want to retain these valued workers, they will have to double their efforts to meet Millennials where they are."

https://hbr.org/2016/02/motivating-millennials-takes-more-than-flexible-work-policies

 

[jollyjacktar]

One incentive you could give to moving is to bring it back in house again.  When we took care of our own, things were much better for the member.  Brookfield is not so concerned, unless it's the bottom dollar.  Which is understandable. 

Just as our in house dental care is superior to private practice from the standpoint of not worrying about costs in the same way.

I have had moves under in house, Royal Lepage and Brookfield.  Each change was a step down in quality for me and my family.

 

[SupersonicMax]

Just as our in house dental care is superior to private practice from the standpoint of not worrying about costs in the same way.

What?!  You need 2 appointments to get a check up and a cleaning and it can take more than a year to get a cleaning appointment!  My wife can get one next week...

As far as bringing back the moves in-house, you think our clerks have the time?! 

 

[jollyjacktar]

What?!  You need 2 appointments to get a check up and a cleaning and it can take more than a year to get a cleaning appointment!  My wife can get one next week...

As far as bringing back the moves in-house, you think our clerks have the time?!

As was explained to me by a dentist some years back.  They don't need to worry about the equipment and materials as does a private practice which allowed them to provide better service.  As l am not of that world, I'll take their word for it as they'd know better than l.

Clerks?  Can't say how busy or not they are.  All l can speak of is from my experience.  I had better moves in house than farmed out.

 

[dimsum]

What?!  You need 2 appointments to get a check up and a cleaning and it can take more than a year to get a cleaning appointment!  My wife can get one next week...

Does your base send people out to the civilian dentists for cleanings?  I've had a few done that way when the military one was too busy.

 

[Journeyman]

I could go on....

Please do!
I never took your post as a complete gospel, but as an excellent offering to a topic (HR, writ large) that desperately needs  discussion. :cheers:

 

[kratz]

Important enough to have it's own topic. That whole, "thinking outside the box" thing.