Things very well could have changed. I find that the information that the recruiters receive isn’t always consistent from location to location. I also feel that there is a strong possibility that some applicants interpret said information to be a lot more positive than it really is. Basically I was told that nothing has really changed. MARS is not open and there is no plan to run an NOAB in the near future. Recruiter said to call every 6 weeks just to see if anything has changed. I will not be holding my breath waiting for this trade to open up as it is outside of my control. Summer is fast approaching. Time to enjoy myself :nod:
WHEN IS the next Naval Officer Assessment Board (NOAB) ?
- Thread starter Galahad
- Start date
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 110
I contacted my CFRC today and they said while MARS has (a very few) spots available, they didn't know when offers would go out or when a NOAB would be held. I remain merit listed and my file remains open, but beyond that they just don't know...I'm thinking late this year would be the very earliest for anything, and next year does appear to be a real possibility.
clarkyo said:
I've been reading these threads for a while, and I'd like to speak my peace.
I'm not exactly sure how a NOAB can be "off the table" when there are positions available that need to be filled. Yes, granted that there are very few positions available, (under 10 from what I can gather by what others have said on here) these positions still need to be filled. Furthermore, when a company has 1 position available, they just don't interview 1 person! They probably interview 10 or more, so they can narrow it down and pick the 1 person they like best [the person who gets the job offer]. It should be the same for the NOAB. Even though they only have a few spots to offer, they would need to "interview" a whole bunch to pick the best candidates. So I am not sure what is going on. We are well into mid-May now, and still no one knows what is going on, which is unacceptable. Totally unacceptable. People have been waiting for months, and with some more than a year and they "don't know" if it there will be a NOAB.
I thought the CF is all about respect and honour. Well then, show some respect for candidates lives and time, and give them an answer. At this very moment new applications are being processed for MARS at CFRCs even though there are only a few positions open, but according to the recruiter I spoke to, if it is open they process the application. And he refused to give me the number of spots available [just to be nice] as if it were top secret information.
My observation is that HR is not the CF's forte. Last year, the year before they were desperate for MARS and now they have only a couple of positions. Sounds like the CF has difficulty properly staffing its ranks and seems to be a systemic problem. In addition, many of the front line recruiters are crusty and rather abrassive. I have had two encounters with recruiters who really do act like professional recruiters and enjoy their job, but the rest seem to be just "hanging out" and killing a few years until retirement when their DB pension kicks in. I know that some of the regular posters on here blast sloppy and poorly prepared candidates, but every coin has two sides and some recruiters I have seen I wonder how they managed to get their positions with their poor attitudes and unprofessional manners. Those crusty recruiters would not survive in the civilian world, and I think they know it.
What I am going to say will provoke response from some of the regular posters [the "enforcers"] who will bash me no doubt, but I will say it none-the-less.
A candidate must ask himself/herself, do I want to give years of my life, or in some cases my life to an organization that doesn't really seem to be on the ball?
With regards to the Navy, here is an organization still using Supply Ships that are banned from some parts of the world due to their age [because of their hull].
Still flying choppers that should have been replaced ages ago, and just last year threats were made that the Navy fleet would have to be chopped in half almost. Remember that? Yes, this is mostly political some will say, it is the politicians who are to blame but who cares because the bottom line is it will affect you.
Or how about the the submarine issue? On the maiden voyage back to Canada a sailor lost his life because there was a fire and the sub became disabled in the ocean. Nice. That poor guy lost his life for nothing. The subs are all a piece of junk, just like a used car lemon. After all these years, who many are fully operatioanal?
For those interested in the navy, read the article below and ask yourself, do you still want to work for an organization that obviously is disorganized beyond belief or incompetent? It's an honest question, no disrespect is meant to the good sailors toughing it out, but it is time to question things and look at things for how they really are, and sadly in my view it doesn't look too good on a number of levels.
http://www.thestar.com/news/article/972061--canadian-navy-has-wrong-torpedoes-for-subs
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 360
Regarding the CF's attitude towards HR, there are definitely two sides to the coin.
You're correct that the recruiting system doesn't always present a good face to the public, and there's probably room for improvement. (I say "probably" because it's been about twelve years since I last had any contact with a recruiting centre and things have probably changed to some extent in that time.)
However, something that is probably not obvious from the outside is that the CF has a very different working culture from the typical civilian workplace. CF members are expected to be able to endure unpleasant conditions ranging from a cold and wet night in the field to the raging North Atlantic to the real prospect of being shot at in some of the most unpleasant places on Earth. If things seem rough around the edges, it's because an ability to live with rough edges is part of the job.
The other side of the coin is that the CF culture has strong values of loyalty and concern for one's subordinates. A good leader in the CF will take much better care of his people than just about any civilian manager you're likely to work for.
The same goes for peers. I read somewhere that you can step out of your barrack room for a few minutes (e.g. to take a shower) with your wallet and a bag of chips on your dresser and a case of beer in your fridge and come back to find the beer drunk and the chips eaten, but your wallet untouched. It was meant as a joke, but there's a bit of truth to it. You will find few workplaces where you can trust your co-workers in the way that you can in the CF.
You're correct that the recruiting system doesn't always present a good face to the public, and there's probably room for improvement. (I say "probably" because it's been about twelve years since I last had any contact with a recruiting centre and things have probably changed to some extent in that time.)
However, something that is probably not obvious from the outside is that the CF has a very different working culture from the typical civilian workplace. CF members are expected to be able to endure unpleasant conditions ranging from a cold and wet night in the field to the raging North Atlantic to the real prospect of being shot at in some of the most unpleasant places on Earth. If things seem rough around the edges, it's because an ability to live with rough edges is part of the job.
The other side of the coin is that the CF culture has strong values of loyalty and concern for one's subordinates. A good leader in the CF will take much better care of his people than just about any civilian manager you're likely to work for.
The same goes for peers. I read somewhere that you can step out of your barrack room for a few minutes (e.g. to take a shower) with your wallet and a bag of chips on your dresser and a case of beer in your fridge and come back to find the beer drunk and the chips eaten, but your wallet untouched. It was meant as a joke, but there's a bit of truth to it. You will find few workplaces where you can trust your co-workers in the way that you can in the CF.
Have you considered the possibility that there is already a lengthy list of candidates who have been successful at prior NOABs from which they can select the candidates to fill the available positions? Have you considered a possible backlog in the training system? (I have no information as to Naval Officer training, but if it's anything like the rest of the CF it would not be shocking to hear training was backlogged.) It's quite possible that the CF has no need to assess new candidates at this point, and to do so would be a waste of taxpayers money.malamud said:
The CF is not unique in this respect. Go and ask an RCMP recruiter what THEIR recruiting process looks like right now. They say '6-18 months' however '12-24 months' is a much more accurate application time frame (at least as of a year ago). There has been a serious reduction in CF recruiting, and I don't have the numbers but my guess would be there has not been a serious reduction in CF applicants- hence a giant backlog, lengthy wait times, more thorough filtering of applicants, and less offers of employment.
Serious recruiting and training backlogs hardly undermine the respect and honor of the CF; rather, they reflect the current economic and military state. We are scaling back/leaving Afghanistan and we are recovering from a recession. You can do the math and see the effect on CF recruiting. As to showing respect for candidates- the CF owes nobody a job. The CF offers jobs based on the current climate, operational need, projected attrition, etc. People apply and then receive or don't receive job offers based on the needs of the CF. If they don't like it, they need not apply. In fact, maybe it will help screen out applicants who will have a hard time understanding that their entire career will be subject to the needs of the CF.
Further, I speak from experience. I'm juggling a lot right now in my personal life, and the offer of employment I received from the CF threw all of my plans into the fan like a torn feather pillow. I evaluated my options and determined a course of action that allowed my personal goals and priorities to coexist with my employment in the CF. Thanks to some great, supportive HR staff at the CFRC and RMC, everything is working out.
The CF is a large organization and makes a lot of decisions based on projections. The people they're projecting about don't always act the way the CF thought they would. I will agree with you that I would love for CF recruiting/training to be more efficient; however, I will also mention that no system is perfect and to think that the CF (or any other organization) will ever be perfect is folly.
Maybe they get sick of people crying about the next NOAB. Maybe they got sick of working hard and being pleasant only to be met with anger, frustration and name-calling on the internet. (Crusty? Really?) You have no idea what is going on in their lives, what has gone on in their lives, what has led them to where they are, how long they've been in recruiting, how close they are to their pensions, or anything. I won't justify anyone's poor attitude- CF recruiters or angry internet posters, but I also won't assume that I know anything about a person because I think they're 'crusty.'
A candidate musk ask him/herself many more questions than the few you've listed here. Am I willing to take a bullet for this country? For Afghanistan? For people I don't know- so they can go to school, live free of oppression, farm their fields, police their own lands, etc. etc. etc.? Am I willing to go where I'm told and do what I'm told because I've been told to? Am I willing to work harder than most of the civilian world and watch the people I fight for prosper? Am I willing to make a fraction of what a professional athlete makes, and train just as hard AND go fight terrorists?
I don't pretend to have listed all the questions that a candidate has to ask- only a few. It's a pretty big decision, and if training backlogs, slow recruiting movement and perceived poor HR management are enough to make you not want this job, then you probably are better off looking elsewhere for work.
I don't know anything about submarines or the particular example cited, so I won't comment except to say that perhaps you're right- maybe someone did fail to exercise adequate diligence and ensure that the submarine was safe to operate. Or maybe this was one of many tragedies that occur in our world from electrical home fires to car accidents that couldn't have been foreseen.
For those interested in the Navy- as above, please ask yourself many more questions than the few being offered by our angry friend. If the compatibility of our torpedoes and subs- and the plans to properly weaponize Canadian subs, which our friend conveniently didn't comment on- is your only point of consideration in your decision making process, then please consider yourself poorly informed and go do some broad research in order to make a mature decision about whether or not you're willing to swear/solemnly affirm to serve your Country.
To malamud- it is quite simple: If you don't like it, don't be a part of it. The CF is what it is and you don't get to pick and choose what you get when you sign up for a career in it. You play the hand you're dealt, so study your cards well and decide if this is your game or not.
N MacKay: You make a good post and I don’t doubt that the care and loyalty towards junior personnel from their superiors is better than that found in the civilian world. CF personnel have to look after each other’s backs in a way that is different, and when people have to fight together and go through tough situations together, I am sure that close bonds are formed as a result of that.
Jwtg: First off, congratulations are in order on your acceptance. I am sure that being given the go-ahead to enter the CF shapes your opinion (and so does your help from the supportive staff from the CFRC and RMC) just as the run around for me from unsupportive staff has shaped mine. You’re right, maybe they do have NOAB qualified candidates all cleared and awaiting their “offers” but if that’s the case, why don’t they just say that at the recruiting centre to potential applicants? In the CF, does the right hand not know what the left hand is doing?? We are mid May now and surely they must know what their requirements are, who they plan on hiring and when, and if they don’t know that, then when the next NOAB will be so they can fill their quota for the year. From my understanding and from what I’ve been told, once you attend a NOAB and you pass, you are given an offer and if you accept there is one less “spot” that appears on the computer screens at the CFRCs because the position has now been filled.
You are right that there is by all appearances a reduction in hiring, which is the way it is. I understand that. Hiring less, there being cut backs, etc, however doesn’t mean that people should be left hanging and not have their calls returned. At the end of the day, even with reductions, cut backs, whatever, this still is a G8 military force, and not some McJob at McDonalds. I expect things to operate at a higher level. Things are going well for the CF from a recruitment standpoint, but this is a volunteer military, and I would imagine that if the CF is interested in attracting good candidates, now or in the near future when they are hurting again for people in who knows what trade, that it would want to maintain a positive image as an employer of choice.
The CF owes nobody a job as you say, true, and nobody gets rich being in the military, but the CF does owe candidates accurate info, prompt responses, straight up answers (and if they don’t know, to find someone who does know the answer instead of ignoring someone) and not a run around, respect for candidate’s time and life, and respect for the fact that no other “employer” asks their employees to make the ultimate sacrifice. If the CF expects this from its people and applicants, well then my expectations of them will be higher as well. Perhaps you view this as arrogant, but that is where we fundamentally differ my friend. If you are going to ask more of me (notably my life or health), I am going to ask more of you. That doesn’t make me any less patriotic.
The advice you give at the very end of your post is good advice.
Good luck with your career.
PS: The information (article) about the subs speaks for itself.
Jwtg: First off, congratulations are in order on your acceptance. I am sure that being given the go-ahead to enter the CF shapes your opinion (and so does your help from the supportive staff from the CFRC and RMC) just as the run around for me from unsupportive staff has shaped mine. You’re right, maybe they do have NOAB qualified candidates all cleared and awaiting their “offers” but if that’s the case, why don’t they just say that at the recruiting centre to potential applicants? In the CF, does the right hand not know what the left hand is doing?? We are mid May now and surely they must know what their requirements are, who they plan on hiring and when, and if they don’t know that, then when the next NOAB will be so they can fill their quota for the year. From my understanding and from what I’ve been told, once you attend a NOAB and you pass, you are given an offer and if you accept there is one less “spot” that appears on the computer screens at the CFRCs because the position has now been filled.
You are right that there is by all appearances a reduction in hiring, which is the way it is. I understand that. Hiring less, there being cut backs, etc, however doesn’t mean that people should be left hanging and not have their calls returned. At the end of the day, even with reductions, cut backs, whatever, this still is a G8 military force, and not some McJob at McDonalds. I expect things to operate at a higher level. Things are going well for the CF from a recruitment standpoint, but this is a volunteer military, and I would imagine that if the CF is interested in attracting good candidates, now or in the near future when they are hurting again for people in who knows what trade, that it would want to maintain a positive image as an employer of choice.
The CF owes nobody a job as you say, true, and nobody gets rich being in the military, but the CF does owe candidates accurate info, prompt responses, straight up answers (and if they don’t know, to find someone who does know the answer instead of ignoring someone) and not a run around, respect for candidate’s time and life, and respect for the fact that no other “employer” asks their employees to make the ultimate sacrifice. If the CF expects this from its people and applicants, well then my expectations of them will be higher as well. Perhaps you view this as arrogant, but that is where we fundamentally differ my friend. If you are going to ask more of me (notably my life or health), I am going to ask more of you. That doesn’t make me any less patriotic.
The advice you give at the very end of your post is good advice.
Good luck with your career.
PS: The information (article) about the subs speaks for itself.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 10
Apologies, had to create new user name due to technical difficulties experienced.
I'd like to add add another interesting reading piece on the Sub division of the Canadian Navy.
Hopefully the negative publicity shames/embarrasses someone in charge into actually do something about a multi-decade problem.
I'm scared to think what would be the outcomes if Canada actually had to use the Subs for combat operations.
http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/307643
Digital Journal
By: Andrew Ardizzi
June 6, 2011
Victoria - The Canadian navy is investigating after one of its submarines struck bottom during training exercises off the coast of Vancouver Island, injuring two sailors.
The HMCS Corner Brook was conducting advanced maneuvering drills while submerged off the west coast of Nootka Sound when the incident occurred, navy spokesman Gerry Pash told CBC news.
“The submarine’s crew, in accordance with their training, brought the submarine to the surface, conducted an internal damage assessment and carried out a series of safety checks," Pash told the Times Colonist. "No fuel was released into the environment.”
Pash said the Corner Brook will be housed at Canadian Forces Base Esquimalt where it will undergo further assessments, the Times Colonist reported.
The two sailors were injured when the submarine, originally purchased along with three other submarines from the United Kingdom in 1998 for $891-million, struck bottom while performing tactical maneuvers intended to foster the necessary skills officers need when piloting a submarine, Pash told the Times Colonist.
The sailors, whose names were not released, are believed to have only suffered minor injuries, CBC news reports.
An investigation will be ordered to determine what caused the submarine to strike bottom, although it's believed the submarine was over capacity at the time of the incident with 60 officers on board, the Times Colonist reports.
I'd like to add add another interesting reading piece on the Sub division of the Canadian Navy.
Hopefully the negative publicity shames/embarrasses someone in charge into actually do something about a multi-decade problem.
I'm scared to think what would be the outcomes if Canada actually had to use the Subs for combat operations.
http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/307643
Digital Journal
By: Andrew Ardizzi
June 6, 2011
Victoria - The Canadian navy is investigating after one of its submarines struck bottom during training exercises off the coast of Vancouver Island, injuring two sailors.
The HMCS Corner Brook was conducting advanced maneuvering drills while submerged off the west coast of Nootka Sound when the incident occurred, navy spokesman Gerry Pash told CBC news.
“The submarine’s crew, in accordance with their training, brought the submarine to the surface, conducted an internal damage assessment and carried out a series of safety checks," Pash told the Times Colonist. "No fuel was released into the environment.”
Pash said the Corner Brook will be housed at Canadian Forces Base Esquimalt where it will undergo further assessments, the Times Colonist reported.
The two sailors were injured when the submarine, originally purchased along with three other submarines from the United Kingdom in 1998 for $891-million, struck bottom while performing tactical maneuvers intended to foster the necessary skills officers need when piloting a submarine, Pash told the Times Colonist.
The sailors, whose names were not released, are believed to have only suffered minor injuries, CBC news reports.
An investigation will be ordered to determine what caused the submarine to strike bottom, although it's believed the submarine was over capacity at the time of the incident with 60 officers on board, the Times Colonist reports.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 360
malamudagain said:
However, is it clear that this incident is linked to the age of the submarine that was involved, or might this have happened to any submarine? There isn't necessarily a connection here.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 10
N. McKay said:
Who knows, but what I do know is that a persistent negative and embarrassing stream of mishaps and errors (some fatal) can't be very pleasing to the reputation of the Navy, the morale of Navy members and especially to those aspiring to join.
Furthermore, the article states that "it's believed the submarine was over capacity at the time of the incident with 60 officers on board, the Times Colonist reports". Of course it's only a news article (I have relative trust in Canadian media) but if that's really case, then the age of the sub in this case wasn't a factor.
Why not just call it a day, admit the failures, apologize for the failures, accept responsibility for the failures, and stick to surface vessels?
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 10
but no space for mars on any of those dates?
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 10
Everyone always says something different....
