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

[aesop081]

I am leaving the blame game for others.

Isn't it fun to be able to armchair quarterback everything from the small world of a Pte(R) ?

 

[Larkvall]

Isn't it fun to be able to armchair quarterback everything from the small world of a Pte(R) ?

Well it might fun except I know people who have been hurt by this from Private Recruits to Master Corporals. I don't need to play the blame game because if the people who screwed up don't see their errors then they certainly aren't going to listen to me.

 

[armyvern]

Well it might fun except I know people who have been hurt by this from Private Recruits to Master Corporals. I don't need to play the blame game because if the people who screwed up don't see their errors then they certainly aren't going to listen to me.

Lest there be any doubt, everyone is hurting because of this. Reg F and Res F and, seemingly, the ResF is bearing a great big portion of the fallout.

I think the flaw in your reasoning is that you really do think there exists a "person X" to blame for it all. I'm sure the recruiters would have performed 'worse' had their ESP been working and had they known that all those RegF pers who were forecast to pull pin actually did. I'm also quite sure that all those RegF guys would have pulled pin had their own ESP been working and they been privvy to the fallout that their collective "non-release" actions would have upon the budget; Likewise the bean counters if their ESP had been working; likewise had the recession fairy forecast the requirement for double SWE envelope etc etc ...

There simply is no ONE (or even a few) people to blame. No one pulled this shit on purpose. Time and circumstances all contributed. It sucks. It sucks badly. There's a whole lot of Canadians suffering job loses right now. Could our job loses (I mean in the way of hiring freeze, B Class etc) been handled differently --- I'm sure there are "fatty areas" that could have been cut first and should have been cut first. But I don't think there's any one person to blame for the CF ending up having had to have someone "choose" (seemingly very badly) to make any/the cuts that they did.

 

[aesop081]

I don't need to play the blame game

Oh but you have. You do it with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight. It is easy for you to say "it was predictable" knowing how events turnd out. Yet, as a Pte(R) i doubt you are made aware of all the issues decision makers had to wrestle with, i know i'm not.

if the people who screwed up don't see their errors then they certainly aren't going to listen to me.

You saying they screwed up does not make it so. I am also not prepared to accept that you would have done any better or that things would be better if "they" magicaly listened to you.

You point the finger at "they" with only a very, very small piece of the puzzle to base it on.

 

[CountDC]

I am leaving the blame game for others.

The recession started in the fall of 2008, long before the 2009 fiscal year started. The recruiting numbers are at people's finger tips. I bet historically people didn't get out during past recessions. It was predictable.

and you call that leaving the blame game to others??

almost forgot - the fall of 08 was not long before the 09 fiscal year started.  You obviously have no concept of how government and military budgetting works.

Instead of betting historically why don't you check the figures.  Assuming is so easy.  For example - I can assume that in the past they still got out because they had their 20/25 years pension and/or reached CRA.  Now CRA has changed, pension time has changed, the recession was worse than the experts predicted in 08 so people decided to ride it through.  Is this true?  Don't have the slightest idea just like you.

I do know that budget planning for 2011 is being started by some people already even though the 2010 fiscal year hasn't started.  For some  the process is now looking at years down the road. Unfortunately the Reserves are the easiest place to do quick cuts as it is a lot easier to cut a class b posn than it is to release a reg f member.  Ships need to sail, planes need to fly, soldiers need their supplies and everyone better get paid.

As you like 20/20 hindsight - historically reserves get the kick in the balls everytime the CF needs to save money so I guess the reserves should have seen this coming and done their own planning accordingly. 

 

[Remius]

As you like 20/20 hindsight - historically reserves get the kick in the balls everytime the CF needs to save money so I guess the reserves should have seen this coming and done their own planning accordingly.

I really hope that was sarcasm.

 

[Steel Badger]

- historically reserves get the kick in the balls everytime the CF needs to save money so I guess the reserves should have seen this coming and done their own planning accordingly.

An appropriate comment given some of the thoughts expressed in this thread. This surely isn't the first time cuts or "adjustments" have greatly impacted the Pres.

The first time I went through this though, we had "pink" pay sheets.... Unit's kept their integrity by continuing to parade, train and conduct FTX's on the strength of the promissary notes ( for younger members pink paysheets covered a member for training but meant that you would only recieve money for that training someday, if ever....)

While the backlash against pink paysheets was understandable ( asking soldiers to do something for nothing, and certainly many of my era recieved nothing from it); removing the voluntary service option has hamstrung the present PRES.   

Any formed activity runs into the legality issues answered by the old pink pay sheets.....
My troops want to train, want to contribute their bit to the CF....

My challenge is how to allow them to do it legally.......

 

[Journeyman]

Defence Department spokeswoman Kathleen Guillot [says] "Budget adjustments are not budget cuts."

She's correct, at the Departmental level.
But to the many units that have had the funds "adjusted" out of their budget, it most certainly is a cut.

Public Affairs can put all the lipstick they want on that pig; it's still a pig

 

[Larkvall]

You saying they screwed up does not make it so. I am also not prepared to accept that you would have done any better or that things would be better if "they" magicaly listened to you.

You point the finger at "they" with only a very, very small piece of the puzzle to base it on.

Sure I only have a small piece of the puzzle. That is why I am leaving the blame game for others.

Look when a passenger jet crashes into a subdivision I say that is a problem. But I am going to leave it those who are qualified to get to the bottom of it.

So when the CF is broke at 3/4 of the way through the fiscal year I am saying that is a problem. I am still going to leave it those who are qualified to get to the bottom of it. But I am just not buying the whole higher recruiting/higher retention argument.

 

[Larkvall]

As you like 20/20 hindsight - historically reserves get the kick in the balls everytime the CF needs to save money so I guess the reserves should have seen this coming and done their own planning accordingly.

You have a point. Most Canadians don't believe what comes out of Ottawa. Why should the Reserves?

I apologize for this comment. It's probably out of line.

 

[CountDC]

I really hope that was sarcasm.

Of course. As I believe Vern already pointed out - no one really saw this coming.

If we all were able to predict the future as some seem to believe then it would be a valid statement.  Although it is true that the reserves get it everytime there are budget juggles during peace time who really expected it to happen during a war??  I didn't expect any substantial changes until after things were done with.  Then I figured we would see the class b cuts that are happening along with some reg f posns. That is historical - war time - increase military, peace time - cut the military.

Steel Badger - remember those days well..  IMO it would be great if they could come up with something for those that want to volunteer their time but the problem would then be keeping units from abusing it and pressing members to volunteer just so they could stretch the budget.

Journeyman:  The departmental level is what Public Affairs is dealing with so it is not a matter of putting lipstick on it.  These are adjustments, happened in the past and will happen in the future - all part of the fun of budgets.  Funny how no one complains when they receive extra money due to budget adjustments (other than the clerk doing the budget).

In 97 when they did a major cut to reserve Cl B's the sympathy we got verbally was:  The reserves are meant to be a part-time volunteer force to back up the reg f when needed.  It is not a full time job or career and if you chose to treat it as such that is your problem (of course they didn't put that in our letters).  12 years later and back to it again.  Guess it is true that some things never change.

 

[gcclarke]

Sure I only have a small piece of the puzzle. That is why I am leaving the blame game for others.

Look when a passenger jet crashes into a subdivision I say that is a problem. But I am going to leave it those who are qualified to get to the bottom of it.

So when the CF is broke at 3/4 of the way through the fiscal year I am saying that is a problem. I am still going to leave it those who are qualified to get to the bottom of it. But I am just not buying the whole higher recruiting/higher retention argument.

It's a bit of a stretch to say that the CF is broke 3/4 of the way through the fiscal year. As was stated earlier, the Department of National Defence hasn't had its budget cut, but is dealing with higher than anticipated costs due to lower than anticipated attrition. As far as I'm aware, the various Level 1s (CLS, CAS, CMS, the dot COMs, various ADMs) haven't had their budgets meddled with excessively.

It's mostly just the Army reserve units that are currently broke, along with the CFRG, who is cutting back all processing to ROTP applicants only until April. The rest of the CF is dealing with their monetary adjustments by cutting things like sailing days, flying hours, some training, or just making do with less. Unfortunately, for those units in a stand-down, they were deemed to be either the easiest way, best way, or some combination thereof to balance the CLS's budget.

Is it a problem? Yes. Is it a disaster? No. Will we likely lose some good people over this issue? Yes. But considering that this problem was caused by the fact that we currently have too many people to pay, this would have happened anyways. It's just a matter of who would have "lost" those people.

An unfortunate situation arose, which forced some senior personnel to make some tough decisions. No matter what choice was made to fix this situation, people somewhere would have been unhappy. I'm sorry that you're unhappy with the choice that was made. But I can't really fault the people who made those choices without knowing what the alternatives were.

 

[Journeyman]

Journeyman:  The departmental level is what Public Affairs is dealing with so it is not a matter of putting lipstick on it. 

Yes, but the troops on the armoury floor aren't working at the Department level. It sure looks like a cut to them.

 

[Remius]

Ok, I'd like to know where people are getting this about us having too many people to pay?  I haven't seen anything about this.  The town hall meetings and briefings I attended seemed to indicate that the money needed to be adjusted to cover off capital expenditures and new purchases.  I find it hard to believe that the CF is over its established limit.  I also have a hard time believing that the amount of surplus people we have in the CF amounts to 190 million dollars at first then 233 million more.  It maybe a contributing factor (as are a great many things). The impression was that we all went a little hogwild and there were not enough checks and balances in place.

 

[ltmaverick25]

My impression of Ms. Blatchford's article is that she thinks the PRes is somehow being done wrong.  I understand the situation differently.  My impression is that the CF as a whole is under-funded, and because of that the PRes are taking a hit for the team.

I disagree with your assessment.  The reserves are indeed being hard done by.  I realize that this is not by some deliberate master design, but they are being hard done by never the less.

As we all know, many reservists have served in Afghanistan at this point, and now, they are thanked with having their jobs suspended and taken away.  Which has other side effects, potentially denying them of their support networks and peers.  I realize that they all have the freedom to hook up with one another outside of work, but that is not the point.  Parading weekly, and training, and interacting professionally with peers, in my humble opinion would be a necessary element for those returning home.

From another angle, we can all agree that the army relies on the reserves way too much.  Well, this is certainly no way to treat a partner that you rely on to succeed.  Granted it is not necessarily the army's fault, but at the end of the day, the amount of money that would be needed to keep reserve training going, is peanuts in the overall government budget.  The money should have been found.  The consequences of not finding that money, are simply too high a price to pay.  The government should not be allowing this to happen.

 

[armyvern]

Ok, I'd like to know where people are getting this about us having too many people to pay?  I haven't seen anything about this.  The town hall meetings and briefings I attended seemed to indicate that the money needed to be adjusted to cover off capital expenditures and new purchases.  I find it hard to believe that the CF is over its established limit.  I also have a hard time believing that the amount of surplus people we have in the CF amounts to 190 million dollars at first then 233 million more.  It maybe a contributing factor (as are a great many things). The impression was that we all went a little hogwild and there were not enough checks and balances in place.

The bit about the pers and wages came from a statement I made here ... which also included the phrase "coupled with the recession" ... which came directly from the briefing that I got from a CFRG higher-up. THEY have cut recruiting because "we" are at our numbers and ergo they have to find money to "pay" those we've got already. Apparently, you may also be surprised to find out just how much SWE actually does cost in relation to proportion of budget ... Sorry that you weren't in that CFRG briefing with me, but I wasn't in the LFCA Comd's town hall either ...

No one here has cited that as "the cause of this mess", that brief is only ONE of the factors affecting our current situation, "coupled with" the recession (thus higher costs the CF is now incurring for purchases etc), also coupled with the CFs being required to comply with "Canada First" ... ALL of which have been discussed here in this thread.

There are MANY factors that involve unforecasted, but now-higher costs to maintain daily ops and contracts put in place ... which causes money to have to be "adjusted" from one budget area to "another" in order to pay costs that we have zero choice but to incur; therefore, costs "not actually contracted to" that are only "would be nice to incur" (non-essential trg etc <--- not that I believe that ResF trg is non-essential per se, I rather believe the opposite. Someone obviously feels that it is a lower priority though) lose out.

No one here has said that any ONE of those things caused this mess, they have all "contributed" to the situation we are now dealing with --- and thus why no-one is to blame in particular --- way too many contributing factors in too many areas of the CF --- with no single pers/element of oversight who could have predicted all these contributing factors occuring at the same time.

Edited to fix "LFCA Comd"

 

[Fusaki]

I disagree with your assessment.  The reserves are indeed being hard done by.  I realize that this is not by some deliberate master design, but they are being hard done by never the less...

The money should have been found.  The consequences of not finding that money, are simply too high a price to pay.  The government should not be allowing this to happen.

Maybe I just wasn't clear on what I meant "done wrong".

There is no doubt that the PRes is important and that PRes soldiers have served admirably in Afghanistan. My point is simply that they (we) can't treat this "re-allocation of funds" to be a personal insult.

You can make a case that other areas of the CF should have been cut first, for the reasons you mentioned:  It's important for guys returning home to have a job they can come back to and re-integrate, and also that the PRes is of too vital a role to cut deeply into.  But if this is the case, it would only be as result of bad management - not to be taken as a disrespect to those who've served in Afghanistan.

 

[McG]

The town hall meetings and briefings I attended seemed to indicate that the money needed to be adjusted to cover off capital expenditures and new purchases.

I've wondered about this line every time I hear it.  As I understand things, we cannot legally move money between Vote 1 and Vote 5.  Not at the CLS level, not at the VCDS level, and not at the DM level.  There are, as I am told, ways to move this money at the MND level but only in quantities that are small relative to the budget as a whole.

 

[PanaEng]

Can't wait to read the next Auditor General's report on DND and the CF...
The last one was quite critical of the financial/project management in certain areas.

I like the saying "don't attribute to malice what can be explained by stupidity"

on another note, I found it quit funny that someone here dismissed the opinion of someone else because of the information on his profile - something like "what would a Pte (R) know about this"
For all we know this Pte(R) may be an accountant or have more knowledge about financial management than the critic.

cheers,
Frank

 

[armyvern]

For all we know this Pte(R) may be an accountant or have more knowledge about financial management than the critic.

Ahhh yes, but then an accountant would also be aware of a much bigger picture and all the bits and pieces at play and would be very careful not to 'judge' a small single bit without having the 'knowns' of the whole.