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

[rocket]

If it wasn't meant as a full-time gig, then why do reserve units have 3-4, established full-time position, beyond the RSS?

 

[PMedMoe]

If it wasn't meant as a full-time gig, then why do reserve units have 3-4, established full-time position, beyond the RSS?

I think there's a whole other thread on that one.

 

[CountDC]

Humourous is right!!! I had to do a report on the 14 odd people in my unit.  I asked why, the answer I got was because when they push the 'button' all they was unit X - 14 full time positions.  I laughed, god did I laugh.  Like I said when you hand out class b's like candy, the jar is going to be empty.  You would think that given the amount of class b's in canada, there should be some sort of acountabilty. 

I have been in a B/A position for more than 10 years.  I remember going through this in the mid 90s, and a whole bunch of positions (the casual ones) got axed.  Now they say that they want to cut 1000 or so positions.  Can you imagin a guy who has been on a casual contract for 5 years or so given his 30 days?  It makes me wonder if they are going to cut B/A esablished positions as well.  And what about the Reg Force back fills?  Doing more with less is the way of the future it seems.  Anyone know how long this review is going to take?  It seems to have started out east last summer.

As I mentioned somewhere else - I thought earlier in this thread but could be wrong. 1997 - major cuts to HQ's - LFAA (and I understand the others) were cut from 250+ to just under 100 positions.  Cl B/A positions cuts mainly.  Mine wasn't cut but was downgraded so I received the 30 days notice too (which I was the one typing them all so it was a bit odd telling myself I was fired). Same thing a dozen years later but now hitting the units.  I'll continue preaching for FPS instead of full time reserve.  That review took something like a year to complete if memory serves.

 

[dapaterson]

Anyone familiar with the story of Joseph (I'm getting biblical here)?  Seven years of plenty, followed by seven years of famine.  The Army (and larger CF) are faced with a similar situation here:  A long period of plentiful funds, where anyone and everyone started hiring full-time Reserve staff, with little thought of the future or of sustainability (arguably, we've already broken the Reserve Force, yanking much of its senior leadership into full-time service and leaving the units with only a shell of part-time leaders).

Now, suddenly (but not unexpectedly) the funding situation is changing; resources are getting tighter, and therefore a more draconian eye must be cast upon much of the growth (and indeed, a confirmation that the current baseline is correct).

Quickly, off the top of my head: over the last six years the number of full-time Army Reservists nearly doubled (2300+ in Dec '03, 4000+ in Sept 07).  While class C number spiked significantly upwards, so too did class B numbers - and that growth was almost exclusively within the Army.

Are those numbers sustainable, from a personnel generation perspective?  Are they financially sustainable?  To my knowledge, the answer to both is "No.".  But getting from here to a sustainable model is going to be painful for everyone involved.

 

[gcclarke]

Anyone familiar with the story of Joseph (I'm getting biblical here)?  Seven years of plenty, followed by seven years of famine.  The Army (and larger CF) are faced with a similar situation here:  A long period of plentiful funds, where anyone and everyone started hiring full-time Reserve staff, with little thought of the future or of sustainability (arguably, we've already broken the Reserve Force, yanking much of its senior leadership into full-time service and leaving the units with only a shell of part-time leaders).

Now, suddenly (but not unexpectedly) the funding situation is changing; resources are getting tighter, and therefore a more draconian eye must be cast upon much of the growth (and indeed, a confirmation that the current baseline is correct).

Quickly, off the top of my head: over the last six years the number of full-time Army Reservists nearly doubled (2300+ in Dec '03, 4000+ in Sept 07).  While class C number spiked significantly upwards, so too did class B numbers - and that growth was almost exclusively within the Army.

Are those numbers sustainable, from a personnel generation perspective?  Are they financially sustainable?  To my knowledge, the answer to both is "No.".  But getting from here to a sustainable model is going to be painful for everyone involved.

The problem isn't an excess of reservists being hired during times of plenty. The problem is the fact that there is a cycle between times of plenty and times of scarcity, and that when they do come, we can't really do too much about it.

It's not like a unit is allowed to save up funds during times of plenty so that it can sustain its spending levels during times of scarcity. When you've given a budget for a year, the money had darn well be spent during that year. So, if you have the funds available, you might as well hire more reservists to fill in some of the gaps.

And of course, once the money is no longer available, you'll probably have to let some of them go. But it's not like there's anything we can do about it.

It is not the Department of National Defence's responsibility to ensure that its funding and spending levels are sustainable. It is DND's responsibility to ensure that we spend the money that is allocated to us in any given year in a responsible and legal manner. If we are spending "too much" in any given year, that is because we have been allocated "too much" money, and that may be corrected down the road, especially when the economic situation in the country isn't as rosy. Yes, this may mean that we may not be able to "sustain" the same level of operations from year to year. Ensuring that budget fluctuations for any particular department aren't too drastic is up to the Finance Minister, and his department. If he is forced to cut spending in the Government's budget, it is between him and the rest of cabinet to determine where those cuts can be made. If some of them have to go to DND, and this negatively affects our capability to do our job, that decision may indeed still be made, with the men and women representing the citizens of Canada cognizant of that impact.

 

[X-mo-1979]

After reading this thread a good 10 times I still don't have a concrete idea of what is going on!Little above my head I guess.
Will there be a review of position's that can be filled by regular force members apres 2011?I have always seen certain position in our corp that didnt make sense to employ reservist in.Not when you go back to the same hanger the B class guy is working from and see 20 Tpr/Cpl's sitting around doing nothing.Seemed like a waste of money to me,as were already paying the regular force guys...why not use em instead.I do understand this gives some experience to the reservist,however with a army that is going to be sitting around on it's thumbs,wouldnt it make sense to gainfully employ the regular force?Saves money.

May be a little out of my lane.Just my observations.

 

[dapaterson]

Duing the years of plenty it is incumbent upon managers and leaders to ensure they are building a sustainable structure for the future.  This they refused to do.

Many "gaps" where we hired reservists are artificial.  We create gaps routinely - at times, deliberately - by mis-prioritizing or, in some instances, deliberately not doing core business while nice-to-haves are pursued vigorously - so we can complain of being under-resourced.

Again, much of this comes down to strong central leadership and strong controls to prevent creep.


X-mo:  In part, it's been easier to hire someone than to do the co-ord required to employ those we already have.  We've become an Army of little empires- and it's better to own your own soldier that to ask someone else to provide.

 

[CountDC]

The review that resulted in the 97 cuts had all the posns at the HQ looked at - regular, Cl B/A, Cl B, Cl A and civillian.  Most cuts were to the reserve positions that were mainly B/A ones. The Cl A ones cut were mainly LCol/Col level.  Left mainly with Reg F, mostly officers.

 

[rocket]

So does anyone find it funny that allot of reserve units got to hire CR3s last year and now there is a full time position review?  I find it very odd.  In my brigade, the HQ is full of Cl B casual.  My unit has 2 B/A, 1 B, 1 civilian, 1 Reg Force back fill, and 4 RSS.  And we are a small unit.  Do I think that we could lose a couple positons? Maybe the Cl B casual, but someone, somewhere, a long time ago gave us all these postions.  And now we are doing more with less.  How us cutting position going to to help overall, when we are going to be hiring people to help curb the backlog that OP PODIUM is going to create, let alone the vacancies created when people just quit.

 

[dapaterson]

(1) The funding for civilian clerks is about 4 years old; that it is only now hitting the ground is sad, but not a surprise.

(2) The standard template for reserve units (less Svc Bns, MPs and Sigs) is three Reg F positions: One Capt (unit trade); one WO (unit trade); and one Sgt (RMS).  Many units have a fourth position, either a Sgt (unit trade) or MCpl (Sup Tech).

(3) Units have a standard allocation of BA positions: One Sgt (RMS); one cpl (RMS); plus one MCpl (RMS) per company/sqn.

Casual class B are not part of the standard templates.  They are lower-level decisions to fill needs; a certain amount of funding is allocated for that purpose.  However, they are not an entitlement.


Note that the theoretical templates for units include more Reg F positions.  However, there is a limited number of Reg F positions that the Army has allocated in support of the Reserves.  Overall demand outstrips supply, so prioritization has been made in the allocation of positions.  (Relocating Reg F positions can be expensive, as cost moves must be funded by the originator of the relocation.  In addition, changes in rank and/or occupation may have other impacts; just tweaking a few positions has many more effects than most people realize)

Add to that that not 100% of Regular Force positions are filled (anywhere), and we have part of the current situation.  Note that the Army has been quite fortunate to receve additional funding in recent years to provide for backfill of Reg F vacancies in Reserve units.  Given the current "official" plans see an end to the current mission in 2011, that funding should not be expected to continue.

(And to one reader:  George, from an organizational and structural perspective, you're in the most screwed up unit around.)

 

[McG]

I recently heard it explained that manpower is the only place the Army has to save money.  The Navy (apparently) can save enormous amounts in fuel costs by operating the ships slower & even deciding to just drift through dark hours; the Air Force (apparently) can also save enormous amounts by reducing flying hours; but the Army (apparently) has most of its costs in manpower as opposed to the operation of its equipment.  Apparently, the only way for the Army to achieve the required moderation of costs is to stop employment: no new reserve hiring & all civilian staffing personally approved by the CLS.

... at the very least, I expect there is some exaggeration in the above.  However, it was the explanation recently passed on from LFDTS.

 

[CountDC]

I would agree with some exaggeration.  The Navy scenario could save some but not really to the full level.  Also operating at a slower speed is debatable for saving fuel as in the long run you still have to get to the same port and it will take longer to get there now.  You have to figure out how much are you saving by going slow and how much more are you burning by sailing the extra days. Not sure of the drifting during dark - never experienced it or know of it being done.  Would have to wonder about it though from a safety factor along with amount of drift off course.  Seems if you drifted too much the fuel saved would be burned getting back on course. Wouldn't be surprised though if it was done.

Usually we save on the fuel budget by simply not sailing at all. Jan-Mar is tight and some sails will be delayed to stay in budget.

 

[Grognard73]

Just a thought on the whole thread here.  There is no doubt that massive reductions in Class B are going to have second and third order effects that no one could expect.  The frustration and impact of long time Class B soldiers suddenly faced with reductions will be traumatic.  But, did anyone ever read their contract, did we all understand the potential temporary nature and inherent risks of what we were doing?  It is like being a contract employee in a civilian company, business good, jobs aplenty, business bad, reductions across the board.  There are some real impacts here that must be considered by the chain of command but making these decisions are not easy.  For arguments sake should we maintain all Class Bs and reduce the funding allocations for Class A?  How does that go down?

My advice is simple, if you have been on Class B for more than three years, your options are Component Transfer, or back to Class A and find another job.  I know our leaders are working on this and I know there is an honest concern for the impacts but we need sound leadership and information to all.  Those of us who are part of the chain of command should be seeking the rationale from our Commanders and then telling the truth about  the decisions not fueling our fears with cynical opinion and misinformation.  Dave, you need to help here not continue with what you are doing.

 

[Jarnhamar]

It's interesting that people still think reserve regiments can be run part time.
*shrugs*
I think it will be a bit of a shock the next time a taskforce says "okay, we need 800 trained and motivated reservists to deploy to Afghanistan!"

If anything this class B cut was/is a good way to bolster the ranks of the regular force.  80% to 90% of soldiers at my regiment who have tour experience are CTing to the regs.  People leave the reserves and go off to do other things, that's nothing new.  The class B cuts however are pushing the experienced soldiers and junior leadership out of the reserves much sooner and their not passing on their experience nor will they be able to help develop the next generation.

The Regs are getting more image techs, more tradesmen and a few more grunts- quality of the reserves will take a big hit however.

 

[Haggis]

It's interesting that people still think reserve regiments can be run part time.

The intent and design of Reserve units was that they would (and should) be run by part time members.  The "full time cadre" (call it RFC, RSS FTPS, whatever) is there for continuity.  Decisions are still made by the Class "A" Command Team and leadership.  However, the reality is that the logistical and administrative demands on the average Reserve unit now outstrip the ability of the Class "A" members to accomplish what is required by "higher" given only 37.5 (or even 80) paid days. Given that little "paid time" you can do admin and logicitics or training, but not both.

If anything this class B cut was/is a good way to bolster the ranks of the regular force.  80% to 90% of soldiers at my regiment who have tour experience are CTing to the regs.  People leave the reserves and go off to do other things, that's nothing new.  The class B cuts however are pushing the experienced soldiers and junior leadership out of the reserves much sooner and their not passing on their experience nor will they be able to help develop the next generation.

I disagree.  The rate of CTs in "your regiment"  ;D is no higher now than before the cuts (in fact, many of the CT requests were submitted prior to the cuts being announced or even considered).  It happens after every tour and is not limited only to soldiers with operational experience.

 

[Grognard73]

Let's be very clear.  The Army has about 1900 B/A or Permanent Class B positions, (Positions at units CBG HQ, etc designed to support the Reserve Force) of which only about 800 are filled.  In addition to that there are around 200+ Reg F backfill Class Bs currently serving.  There are around 600 Class Bs who work for agencies outside the Army but still remain on the Army Units establishment.  There are or were by the end Sep about 1800 Class Bs less than 180 days, taskings ad courses.  Most importantly there are arond 2000 Class Bs working in other places in the Army, (outside the B/A estb, in ASGs, HQ, Reg F units and such.  The Class B reductions are not aimed at reducing the number of B/As, reg f backfill and other key positions.  Decisions are being made by the chain of command to get under control the appetite for unconstrained Class B growth.  When the money gets tough we need to deal with the extra, Class Bs.  This will protect the Class A budget.

Everyone also knows that there are Class Bs at the Units, RQMS and storemen who are required to make the place work.  I think between 10-12 pers full time B and Reg F are required to make the Unit run.  Where we have units with more than that shouldn't we question what they are doing?  Do people in the Units really think the Army is like this?  Times were good, we had lots of flexibility, now those times are tough and changes need to be made to protect the essence of the part time soldier.  There will be issues and it is my hope the chain of command will deal fairly with all of them. 

The CT rate after an AFGHAN tour is still only around 11%.  I don't see massive CTs across the  country.

 

 

[dapaterson]

My knowledge is about a year out of date, but I think that B/A number is inflated.  After LFRR and the intgration of the Comm Res it maxed out at under 1500.

Units may well claim that only 800 are filled (dubious - units are known for taking "creative liberties" in their reports), but many "vacant" positions see the funding attached used to hire someone else within the unit.  So while the Sgt Fin BA may be vacant, they've oddly enough got a Sgt Inf working class B.

The optimal number of full-time pers to keep a unit ticking is an age old question.  It's rarely confronted, and no one ever seems willing to admit that we've padded units out with nice-to-haves in some areas.

No simple solutions; one problem coming to the front is a lack of discipline in past years, letting things expand out of hand to our current situation.  Nothing happening now was unforseeable; it's just that no one ever wants to be the one to have to say "good times are over".

 

[Monsoon]

Units may well claim that only 800 are filled (dubious - units are known for taking "creative liberties" in their reports)

To be fair to the units, positions where the incumbent is on MATA/PATA, sick leave or long-term TD to a school or elsewhere may be considered "filled" to the extent that someone is getting paid, while from a unit perspective there's no one doing the job.

I haven't heard anyone (anywhere) discuss the impact of the expansion of MATA/PATA benefits from 6 months to 12, but I would gauge the effect on lost personnel to be in a measurable single digit percent of the CF. That's a big deal, especially when you're talking about mid-career folk rather than newbies.

 

[dapaterson]

The overall Reg F MATA/PATA numbers are very low - indeed, surprising low for the size and demographics of the force.

The fill rate for Reg F positions within the Reserves is the lowest of any pri manning in the CF - notionally pri 5, pri 6 units have a higher fill rate for positions than Reserve units (based on the last CF manning report I saw). 

Not to say it's all sunshine in Pri 6 land.

Again, though, our institutional unwillingness to say "too many tasks, not enough resources" hurts us in the end.  My take is that we're excessively tactical in our approach, and rarely consider operational or strategic impacts of "just one more"...

 

[Monsoon]

The overall Reg F MATA/PATA numbers are very low - indeed, surprising low for the size and demographics of the force.

Really? Christ - they must all get posted to my unit before going on leave. We had all three Reg F guys out on MATA/PATA at one point.

I'm joking about that, but I wonder to what extent making it be known to your Reg F career manager that you're trying to have kids is a quick ticket to a two-year stint with the reserves.