09/10 Budget Impact on PRes - Unit stand-downs, Class B Freeze, and so on!

[Haggis]

Haggis, could you expand a bit here?  My impression (as told to me by my current CO) is that while not obligated to recommend someone, he must forward the application onwards.

If the CO has no intention of giving concurrence in the event that the member is hired, then why nominate the member?

Your last line suggests that it is the CO, not the EU who has final decision on hiring as they need the CO's concurrence.  Is my view correct?

I can see where it could be confusing.  In many cases, the unit nomination (though higher) will contain the paragraph such as "CO concurs w nomination/potential employment" which tells the EU that the should the member be selected, chain of command concurrence has already been given.  It also infers that the CO supports the member's nomination.

If all prerequisites are met and concurrence is given by the parent chain of command then the decision to employ that member rests with the EU as the hiring authority.  The EU can choose not to hire that member but someone else who also meets the prerequisites, re-compete the position or no-fill it.  It's their position and their budget.

 

[Forgotten_Hero]

If the CO has no intention of giving concurrence in the event that the member is hired, then why nominate the member?

Shouldnt it be the employing unit that decides whether to hire the member in the end, as they know the details of the job and who they are looking for?

For example, with certain Class B or C employment, the EU is looking for a certain number of Ptes to Sgts for the job. The member's unit doesnt believe that they members submitting their names are ready for the job, for one reason or another, thus they do not forward the nomination and the member doesnt get the position. The member's unit, though, doesnt necessairly have the details on the position, whereas the EU does. Shouldnt the EU be responsible for selecting the member who they think is best suited for the job, in this case? The sodier's unit can voice their concerns,  but the EU is in the best position to make the final decision, no?

Regardless, I have heard this rumor floating around that a unit is not allowed to deny sending an application for a class B employment to the EU. I am not sure whether it is true or not, nor where it originated.

If all prerequisites are met and concurrence is given by the parent chain of command then the decision to employ that member rests with the EU as the hiring authority.  The EU can choose not to hire that member but someone else who also meets the prerequisites, re-compete the position or no-fill it.  It's their position and their budget.

If the CO does not concur with the nomination, does he still have to forward it? Does he have to explain why he does not concur?

 

[Jarnhamar]

but the EU is in the best position to make the final decision, no?

I don't think so.
Maybe we're arguing semantics?
How I see it;
Look at how some below average soldiers still get glowing PERs.
What if a member applying for tasking at PTSC in Kingston (for example) looks great on paper or even just has the qualifications (Cpl, Drivers course, comms couse) but what isn't reflected is that the member has RTUd himself from the last 3 taskings he's been on because of family problems.
He drinks and parties every paycheck away and is constantly making an adminstrative headache for the clerks because he "doesn't have enough money to pay bills" and needs cash advances. He also touches down with a pocket full of 'can't do work' chits and needs a bunch of time off for court dates weddings and anything else.

That makes a bad name for a regiment and probably affects future chances of employment for other members.
The examples I gave are common things I've seen on Class B and C work.

IMO a regiment's CO should have the final say on if a member is allowed to apply for a class B outside the unit and the EU get's the final say once the members CoC has said good to go.

 

[Larkvall]

I am really confused here.  ???

I was told my BMQ in January was cancelled because of the unexpected costs in refurbishing and replacing vehicles for Afghanistan. However, a number of people in this thread are blaming on class B contracts for the funding short fall. Does it cost more for a class B reservist to do a job rather a regular force member?

 

[dapaterson]

The Army's problem is poor planning, poorly implemented, assuming away problems that have now come home to roost.  It has nothing to do with a reset of vehicles from Afghanistan - that's paid from diferent sources of funds than the Army funds currently being reallocated / reduced.

The CF's accounting is opaque at best.  What's happening now is a traditional knee-jerk reaction, being caught at the last minute without contingencies in place - and the troops, in the end, are those who will suffer.

Thought for the day: The Land Staff has over 300% of its entitlement to full-time Reservists - if they were to scale back to even double their entitled level, how much money would that save?  And what difference would that additional funding make to part-time soldiers whose training is being cancelled entirely?

 

[Forgotten_Hero]

Look at how some below average soldiers still get glowing PERs.
What if a member applying for tasking at PTSC in Kingston (for example) looks great on paper or even just has the qualifications (Cpl, Drivers course, comms couse) but what isn't reflected is that the member has RTUd himself from the last 3 taskings he's been on because of family problems.

Sounds like more of an argument for writing proper PERs than for not submitting nominations.

Nevertheless, Im not saying the parent CoC does not have any say. There should be a position for the unit to voice their opinion on the member, but I believe the nomination should still be passed up to the EU, even if the parent CoC does not approve him for the job. That way, the EU can read the reason the parent CoC wont let him get the job, and if the parents CoC reasons are not valid, the EU can speak with the CoC and clarify. That way, in your example, the member not deserving the job still wont get it, but the member who the parent CoC wrongfully believes is unqualified for the job can still get the job.

IMO a regiment's CO should have the final say on if a member is allowed to apply for a class B outside the unit and the EU get's the final say once the members CoC has said good to go.

Very well, but I still say that the CO should pass the nomination up to the EU justifying why he wont allow the member to be employed.

 

[Haggis]

Nevertheless, Im not saying the parent CoC does not have any say. There should be a position for the unit to voice their opinion on the member, but I believe the nomination should still be passed up to the EU, even if the parent CoC does not approve him for the job.

And thereby cause the EU staff effort in screening an unsuitable candidate.

That way, the EU can read the reason the parent CoC wont let him get the job, and if the parents CoC reasons are not valid, the EU can speak with the CoC and clarify.

  And how does the EU, only knowing the applicant from a résumé, an MPRR and a cover letter, know the CoC's reasons are not valid?

That way, in your example, the member not deserving the job still wont get it, but the member who the parent CoC wrongfully believes is unqualified for the job can still get the job.

Again , how would the EU be able to know from what little information they have on the applicant, that the CoC's reasons aren't valid?  This clearly undermines the parent unit's authority over the member who, until the second he gets hired, is a member and under full command of the parent unit. 

Very well, but I still say that the CO should pass the nomination up to the EU justifying why he wont allow the member to be employed.

And allow a mere staff officer in the EU to second guess a Commanding Officer?  You're kidding, right?  Would you apply the same logic to a member who is screened out of a tour, JTF 2, CSOR or a CT by the unit, PSO, doctors, PSP?  Should the mounting unit, JTF 2 or CSOR have the (in your opinion) right to challenge the selection process results?

Seems to me that you have little faith in the CoC's ability to manage it's members and their employment.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Years ago I did class B as the RQMS for my unit, I was expected to be there 6 days a week plus thursday night (we paraded 1.5 days a week)  and any exercises, just part of the job.

 

[Spanky]

Our unit has a procedure for soldiers to follow should they request a Class B.  Sometimes it's even followed.  If a soldier wishes to apply for a Class B position they must submit an application through the chain.  It goes to the Tp Ldr/WO, then to the OC/SSM, then to the CO/RSM.  Each rung on the ladder either signs off or indicates concerns.  If there is more than one soldier who applies, they are merit listed.  The receiving unit has absolutely no idea who or what they are getting in terms of applicants.  If a soldier meets the job requirements in terms of rank and qualification, then I'm sure the EU would appreciate a unit doing the vetting for them.

 

[Forgotten_Hero]

And thereby cause the EU staff effort in screening an unsuitable candidate.

But what if the candidate is suited for the job, as the EU would determine, but the parent unit doesnt think so? Who better to determine the suitability than the EU?

  And how does the EU, only knowing the applicant from a résumé, an MPRR and a cover letter, know the CoC's reasons are not valid?

What I propose is that if the CoC does not believe the member is suited, they state their reasons on the cover letter. Then, the EU could read the reason, and determine if it is valid or not.  Do you think that would not work?

Again , how would the EU be able to know from what little information they have on the applicant, that the CoC's reasons aren't valid?  This clearly undermines the parent unit's authority over the member who, until the second he gets hired, is a member and under full command of the parent unit.

That is true. At the same time though, how does the parent unit, not knowing the full details of the job, know that the member is not fully suited for the employment?

I suppose this doesnt apply to the vast majority of those Class Bs available, but I've seen a few Class Cs come by with vague details as to what the member would be doing, and the parent unit saying they believe no one is "ready" to do it, hence they would not support applications for it. By ready I do not mean administratively ready, but rather refering to their capability.

And allow a mere staff officer in the EU to second guess a Commanding Officer?  You're kidding, right?

Not second guess, but rather be able to communicate with the CO, that way if there are any misunderstandings they can forward up on the application and attempt to clear them up. In the end, the CO can have the final call, but at least that way maybe misunderstandings can possibly be clarified.

While this may work in theory, I freely admit I can see problems with this system too.

Would you apply the same logic to a member who is screened out of a tour, JTF 2, CSOR or a CT by the unit, PSO, doctors, PSP?  Should the mounting unit, JTF 2 or CSOR have the (in your opinion) right to challenge the selection process results?
[/quote

That is an excellent example to use. Lets say you have a member applying for CSOR. CSOR has its own selection process to determine which members are suited for the job or not. Do you believe the CoC is better suited to determine whether the member is suited for CSOR than the selection process they have? I dont believe so. I think the guys who know exactly what they're looking for are in a better position to say whether the guy "has the stuff" to make it or not.

I suppose neither system is perfect though.

 

[Jarnhamar]

Nero, that's where faith in the chain of command and leadeship come in.

But what if the candidate is suited for the job, as the EU would determine, but the parent unit doesn't think so? Who better to determine the suitability than the EU?

Being suited for the job is one thing. Being an appropriate or wise choice is another.  The parent unit doesn't decide if I am suited for a job technical wise- their deciding maturity, professionalism, personal conflictions, work habits whether or not I'll make an ass out of myself.

I see your point of view but you're skipping a lot of steps in the process. Stuff like this needs to be weeded out for lack of a better term at the lowest levels on up.

Nevertheless, Im not saying the parent CoC does not have any say. There should be a position for the unit to voice their opinion on the member, but I believe the nomination should still be passed up to the EU, even if the parent CoC does not approve him for the job

I just don't agree with this.  Why even bother getting a units concurrence if their going to send them up anyways?

I guarantee when an EU starts getting flocks of soldiers with various administrative and behavioral issues they would  flip their lid and demand the parent merrit and/or sort their people out before sending them.

Also; A parent unit and chain of command has access to a members personal information and privy to personal issues.  I'd bet it would break some kinda rule forwarding that information on a cover letter to an EU.

 

[Haggis]

But what if the candidate is suited for the job, as the EU would determine, but the parent unit doesnt think so? Who better to determine the suitability than the EU?

Opportunity messages clearly state the requirements of the job.  It's up to the unit to match applicants to those requirements and ONLY forward those files that have a chance of being competetive.

What I propose is that if the CoC does not believe the member is suited, they state their reasons on the cover letter. Then, the EU could read the reason, and determine if it is valid or not.  Do you think that would not work?

  It could if only the desires of the member were being considerd.  However, the CoC also has to consider both the impact of the job on the member and the the greater needs of the unit.

That is true. At the same time though, how does the parent unit, not knowing the full details of the job, know that the member is not fully suited for the employment?

  So, why can't this happen informally?  Have the Trg O call the EU and say, "i've got XXX here intersted in position "y".  Tell me a bit more about it before we nominate him."

I suppose this doesn't apply to the vast majority of those Class Bs available, but I've seen a few Class Cs come by with vague details as to what the member would be doing, and the parent unit saying they believe no one is "ready" to do it, hence they would not support applications for it. By ready I do not mean administratively ready, but rather refering to their capability.

  Perhaps the parent unit, through experience and networking, has more insight into the position requirements than the member?  Again, I think you're not giving the CoC credit for being that smart/experienced.  I've done exactly that and I can explain a bit more via PM as it's a bit of a long story.

While this may work in theory, I freely admit I can see problems with this system too.

  Like usurping the authority and responsibility of the CO in determining what is best for his members and his unit.

That is an excellent example to use. Lets say you have a member applying for CSOR. CSOR has its own selection process to determine which members are suited for the job or not. Do you believe the CoC is better suited to determine whether the member is suited for CSOR than the selection process they have? I dont believe so. I think the guys who know exactly what they're looking for are in a better position to say whether the guy "has the stuff" to make it or not.

No, it's not a good example.  There are two separate processes here.  The first process gets the candidate only as far as attempting the second.  The second process gets the candidate into the training phase which is, in itself, a selection process.

The first process is the responsibility of the unit.  The second and third processes are the responsibility of CSOR.

Hey, mods, my apologies for pursuing this tangent.  Can we split this of into a "Class B Selection Process" thread, please?

 

[Forgotten_Hero]

Also; A parent unit and chain of command has access to a members personal information and privy to personal issues.  I'd bet it would break some kinda rule forwarding that information on a cover letter to an EU.

That is true. Maybe the better way would be for the unit to base their decisions solely the members performance at the unit and whether he deserves the position then.

Opportunity messages clearly state the requirements of the job.  It's up to the unit to match applicants to those requirements and ONLY forward those files that have a chance of being competetive.

I remember a certain DSS tasking message for overseas popping up previously. There was not much info on it, other than they required a certain number of Pte's to Sgts for a DSS tasking. The soldiers must be minimum DP1 qualified. That was, from what I remember, the gist of it.

It could if only the desires of the member were being considerd.  However, the CoC also has to consider both the impact of the job on the member and the the greater needs of the unit.

The impact of the job on the member, what do you mean by this? What would you be looking out for?

So, why can't this happen informally?  Have the Trg O call the EU and say, "i've got XXX here intersted in position "y".  Tell me a bit more about it before we nominate him."

That is a good point, but I havent seen it put in practice. I remember trying to get details from higher on certain taskings and not succeeding. Thats more of a CoC problem than a problem with the system.

Hey, mods, my apologies for pursuing this tangent.  Can we split this of into a "Class B Selection Process" thread, please?

Indeed, this discussion no longer pertains to the topic. I do suppose that now, though, we are no longer talking about the system set in place, as I concede that the system can properly work. What we're debating is what constitutes a valid reason for the unit not passing up an employment application.

 

[Haggis]

That is true. Maybe the better way would be for the unit to base their decisions solely the members performance at the unit and whether he deserves the position then.

Wheter or not the member is deserving should be secondary to whether the member is suitable in all respects.

I remember a certain DSS tasking message for overseas popping up previously. There was not much info on it, other than they required a certain number of Pte's to Sgts for a DSS tasking. The soldiers must be minimum DP1 qualified. That was, from what I remember, the gist of it.

  I believe I remember that one. We called the EU and were able to get far more info on the position(s).  Tums out the EU was unaccustomed to drafting oportunity messages and didn't know exactly how much detail was required..

The impact of the job on the member, what do you mean by this? What would you be looking out for?

For example, a member wanted an out-of-province job to "gain valuable experience with unit X".  The reality is that he wanted this job in order to run away from a bad domestic situation rather than deal with it.  Results in a divorce and child custody issue for the member and he ends up getting terminated for cause from his Class B. The EU was so pissed at this adminiatrative burden they had been sent that they swore to NEVER accept a nomination from that unit again.  So, the waters were poisioned for future employment prospects.

A second example was a three year Class C offer from an east coast EU.  Sounded good, but when I dug deeper I found out the members would be employed out of environment, out of trade and would have no opporunity for training other than that exclusively required for the job (i.e. no PLQ, IPSW etc.)  What I would've received back in three years would be a member who was more sailor than soldier and who was three years behind his peers in the Infantry.

Lastly, a young soldier was sent on pre-deployment training by his unit.  Upon arrival in Petawawa, this kid didn't DAG RED, he DAGed CRIMSON!  When the unit (and brigade) were questioned on "WTF were you thinking in sending him?" the reply was "We knew he wasn't suitable but he wanted employment and threatened a redress if we didn't nominate him.  So, we did, knowing that you'd screen him out and our hands would be clean".  How do you think the reputation of that unit, that brigade and the Army Reserve in general fared after that debacle?

In short, the unit responsibility is to ensure thier members are gainfully and properly employed in Class A and B jobs, which are commensurate with thier expereince, qualifications and suitability.

 

[Harris]

Haggis,  I agree with all your points.  However I've been told by my last two CO's that They are told they had to pass ANY application for a Class B posn up the Chain, regardless of wether their recommendation supported or did not support the Soldier's request.  I was told "The EU will sort it out based on all of the CO's requests they receive".

I don't agree with this and tried to stop applications at my level (Coy Comd), but was to to make my recommendations and send them to the CO regardless.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Class B aren't the only Reserve element that were blindsided by this. After 5-6 pages discussing who is responsible for Cl B contracts and why people shouldn't get them, it's time to move on. Either that, or maybe Harris can cut all the Cl B clag out into its own thread.

I'd like to know what they are going to do to progress all the Cl A pers missing out on career courses because of this. I don't know about other trades, but the armoured guys are way behind the eight ball for CC, Ptl Cmdr and Tp WO courses. Can't get slots at the school and then when we do they keep changing dates and our guys can't switch vacations.

I think everyone should be promoted one level, acting lacking and then let the army accomodate them for a change. That being, the army will have to make a concerted effort to get these guys substantiated. After this last kick in the nuts to Cl A guys, it's the least they can do for them.

 

[Spanky]

I think everyone should be promoted one level, acting lacking and then let the army accomodate them for a change. That being, the army will have to make a concerted effort to get these guys substantiated. After this last kick in the nuts to Cl A guys, it's the least they can do for them.

Failing that, at least allow us to run more courses at the unit level so we can look after our own.  Allow us to run DP2 with DP3 CC complete.  We're expected to keep our troops motivated and trained as much as possible on 1/2 day a month, then let us pick-up the pieces afterwards.  I highly doubt that the powers that be will go out of their way to get our troops caught up, so let us do it ourselves.  We have a number of PLQ candidates that had their course cancelled once begun.  We put together a plan to work around it and sent it up, but with the holidays and block leave going on, we have yet to hear back.  I'm anticipating nothing but roadblocks.  Cynical, jaded, and bitter?  Yup.

 

[dapaterson]

Failing that, at least allow us to run more courses at the unit level so we can look after our own.  Allow us to run DP2 with DP3 CC complete.  We're expected to keep our troops motivated and trained as much as possible on 1/2 day a month, then let us pick-up the pieces afterwards.  I highly doubt that the powers that be will go out of their way to get our troops caught up, so let us do it ourselves.  We have a number of PLQ candidates that had their course cancelled once begun.  We put together a plan to work around it and sent it up, but with the holidays and block leave going on, we have yet to hear back.  I'm anticipating nothing but roadblocks.  Cynical, jaded, and bitter?  Yup.

The problems at the Armour school have traditionally been a lack of equipment and personnel - the CC course and toher senior courses are resource intensive to run properly, and the resources at the school force an annual decision: run a DP1 for officers or a DP3 for NCMs - not enough time or personnel for both. 

As for the PLQ:  I suspect the course will pick up where it left off early in the new fiscal year.  "Local" solutions won't cut it.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

The idea of having to go to the G spot for Mod 3 of a GWagon CC course is getting really old. The typical answer is 'We have to maintain the standard'. Horsehockey. Every Reserve unit is more than capable of maintaining the standard, in situ, with unit resources. Is CTC telling us that all those RSS Staff at Reserve units are not capable of maintaining the standard? If not, what are they doing at those Reserve units when their job is to mentor? It's a heck of a lot easier to send someone from CTC, to a unit, for two days to ensure the standard is being maintained than it is to force Reservists from all over the country to stop drop on a moments notice and go to Gagetown because they switched dates again.

The rumour that it is nothing more than a money grab from the Reserves enabling the school to stockpile resources for the Reg force courses gains more credence everytime they revamp the course and make it harder for Reservist to attend.

I think these courses should be done at unit level and let CTC have that extra time to run more Reg force courses.

 

[Haggis]

Class B aren't the only Reserve element that were blindsided by this. After 5-6 pages discussing who is responsible for Cl B contracts and why people shouldn't get them, it's time to move on. Either that, or maybe Harris can cut all the Cl B clag out into its own thread.

That's what I suggested at reply no. 196.