When will the CF be hiring again?

[211RadOp]

If the CF recuited 17,000 as you have stated, that would be about 9,500 more than they recruited during FY 09/10 and about 9,300 more than FY 08/09 (the highest recruiting numbers in a few years).

According to an article at the link below, the CF had 68,136 members as of 31 Mar 10. Factor in an attrition of approx 5,500 (about average over the last couple of years) that would bring the total down to around 62,600. Add the number that were recruited between Jan and Oct 10 (approx 4,000) would bring us back to approx 66,000.

Further, if 17,000 pers were recruited, our stregth would be approx 10,000 (allowing for attrition at the above number) over our allowed manning.  I suspect you heard the number wrong from the CFRC and they said 7,000 which would be more inline with normal numbers.

http://news.gc.ca/web/article-eng.do?m=/index&nid=529399

 

[jemcgrg]

"I didnt dock points for you being incorrect. I docked you because you posted, in a thread filled with people in panic mode, "information" that is quite frankly a) improbable, and b) likely to cause seizures in applicants. And the manner in which you posted it held it out as fact rather than as a question as to its validity.

Its basically heresay- the dangerous kind. And they're milpoints. I didnt force you to donate blood."

So based on your comment you are stating that the information provided by the recruiting centre was essentially unreliable and therefore can not be trusted. I would say that in itself is enough to cause panic and seizures in applicants. The recruiting centre certainly didn't worry it's pretty little head when providing me this information and instilling panic in me.

Moving forward I will be certain to question all the information provided to me by the CF.

Also, I don't mind donating blood

 

[211RadOp]

So based on your comment you are stating that the information provided by the recruiting centre was essentially unreliable and therefore can not be trusted. I would say that in itself is enough to cause panic and seizures in applicants. The recruiting centre certainly didn't worry it's pretty little head when providing me this information and instilling panic in me.

Moving forward I will be certain to question all the information provided to me by the CF.

Also, I don't mind donating blood

And if you read my post above, you would have seen that I said you probably missheard the CFRC when they said 7,000 not 17,000.

 

[jemcgrg]

I'm certain I did not 'mishear' given that I questioned them on it at the time.

 

[jwtg]

"I didnt dock points for you being incorrect. I docked you because you posted, in a thread filled with people in panic mode, "information" that is quite frankly a) improbable, and b) likely to cause seizures in applicants. And the manner in which you posted it held it out as fact rather than as a question as to its validity.

Its basically heresay- the dangerous kind. And they're milpoints. I didnt force you to donate blood."

Meet the quote feature....

So based on your comment you are stating that the information provided by the recruiting centre was essentially unreliable and therefore can not be trusted.

I think he was saying YOU were probably mistaken, as in didn't hear correctly...but you chose not to respond to that until your next post...

I would say that in itself is enough to cause panic and seizures in applicants. The recruiting centre certainly didn't worry it's pretty little head when providing me this information and instilling panic in me.

The CF is a huge organization.  Every CFRC does things, hears things, and says things a little differently- ask anybody if/when you go to BMQ/BMOQ about their experience and I assure you you'll have a nice pow-wow and whine about how terrible your CFRC was compared to everyone elses, or brag about how awesome it was.  The formula is pretty simple though, as someone pointed out- available positions/applicants merit=hired individuals.  They details and conversations just tend to differ, RC to RC.

Moving forward I will be certain to question all the information provided to me by the CF.

Probably a good idea, however I would expand the information you question from the CF provided info to all info in general (including internet forums, people like me, media, friends, word of mouth, etc.)  That's why we as a species are capable of critical thinking.

Also, I don't mind donating blood

It's in you to give...

 

[jemcgrg]

Why thank you very much for introducing me to the quote feature, when I start dedicating my life to being on forums I will be sure to use them! The funny thing about quotation marks is that they are actually meant to quote things! Funny how grammer works!

I understood the NEXT post indicating that I probably misheard, I however was not responding to that at the time. It's weird how order works that way.

I also understand that the RC's give different information, that is what makes them unreliable as there is no consistency. Thank you for validating my point unknowingly.

We are a pretty fantastic species, also capable of sarcasm. It really is a beautiful thing.

 

[Sigger]

Here we go..

 

[Journeyman]

Perhaps that should be an additional feature of the recruiting process.....in addition to CFAT, Medical, etc....test how applicants behave in an "anonymous" internet forum.

If one is applying to be an officer, for example (purely hypothetical -- no reference to anyone here    ), does the person come across as mature, competent and officer-like.....or as a whiny dick?




With "dick" being non-gender specific, +/- 2, 18 times out of 20 

 

[Cammyyy]

Why thank you very much for introducing me to the quote feature, when I start dedicating my life to being on forums I will be sure to use them! The funny thing about quotation marks is that they are actually meant to quote things! Funny how grammer works!

I understood the NEXT post indicating that I probably misheard, I however was not responding to that at the time. It's weird how order works that way.

I also understand that the RC's give different information, that is what makes them unreliable as there is no consistency. Thank you for validating my point unknowingly.

We are a pretty fantastic species, also capable of sarcasm. It really is a beautiful thing.

Can we maybe stay on topic, instead of having petty arguments?

 

[jwtg]

All this thread needs now is someone to come in with an official source/document stating the number of hires last year.

Wouldn't it be priceless if it WAS 17,000  >

 

[dapaterson]

Back on topic:

The CF's fiscal year runs from 01 April to 31 March of the following year.  Annual reviews of occupations (called AMORs) are conducted in December/January, to assess the health of occupations - not only based on percentage fills at ranks, but also looking at demographic issues such as ages and years of service to forecast retirements, and make forecasts for promotions.  Based on that information the intake requriements for all occupations are identified; those are filtered to map against training capacity and overall force size to determine the Strategic Intake Plan (or SIP), which indicates the number of people the CF intends to recruit for the next year, by occupation and entry plan.

During the course of the year the SIP can be adjusted based on force structure changes.  For example, standing up a new helicopter squadron would mean more pilots and more AVN being recruited.  It can be adjusted based on differences between forecast and actual attrition - a sudden rush out of the CF to work in the oild fields of Alberta, for example, could lead to increased recruiting; alternatively, more CF members staying in longer could mean a reduction to the SIP.


All this to say: the recruiting cycle generally runs in parallel to the CF's fiscal year.



And, for the record: FY 10-11 was nowhere near 17K hires (regardless of whether you're counting Reg F, Res F or both)

 

[Scott]

Why thank you very much for introducing me to the quote feature, when I start dedicating my life to being on forums I will be sure to use them! The funny thing about quotation marks is that they are actually meant to quote things! Funny how grammer works!

I understood the NEXT post indicating that I probably misheard, I however was not responding to that at the time. It's weird how order works that way.

I also understand that the RC's give different information, that is what makes them unreliable as there is no consistency. Thank you for validating my point unknowingly.

We are a pretty fantastic species, also capable of sarcasm. It really is a beautiful thing.

Quit with the smug superiority schtick. You're new here and you posted some info that was incorrect. Big deal, it happens and people get corrected all the time. But instead of taking it like an adult you blow up and start derailing the thread further.

Stop. Now. If you want to keep your debate going then do it via PM's

Scott
Army.ca Staff

 

[IsraelC]

Any chance this Libya fiasco is going to up recruiting?

 

[agc]

Not likely.  We're still above our paid ceiling strength.

 

[aesop081]

Any chance this Libya fiasco is going to up recruiting?

Why would it ?

 

[Hammer Sandwich]

Why would it ?

I think this fella might be asking if the additional workload might require more hiring, (since a great deal of the CF is already committed to work in Afghanistan).

 

[aesop081]

I think this fella might be asking if the additional workload might require more hiring, (since a great deal of the CF is already committed to work in Afghanistan).

The additional workload is not exactly that high ATM.

 

[Hammer Sandwich]

The additional workload is not exactly that high ATM.

I'm not being a dick, I don't know what "ATM" is....(well, not in a military way). >

 

[Nostix]

At The Moment.

 

[Hammer Sandwich]

At The Moment.

:facepalm:
Sorry, my bad.