Cyber Operator trade Mega Thread

[GAP]

Next step will be to NOT having to deal with those gun thingy's....I am a clerk, etc... I don't need to play soldier......


Ahhh.....snowflakes abound everywhere..... [

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

...and eventually they'll need a full-size unit where folks DO play with guns and practice deployment stuff........maybe have them jump out of planes, and wear spiffy boots, and post them within a couple of hours of the Nations capital.      Naw,....who'd even think such a thing could exist?

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

It's the CAF so first order of business is always dress and deportment.  Clearly we won't be able to fully leverage our cyber capabilities without a new set of Cyber "wings"

 

[Gunner98]

CDS is setting himself up for a utopian but impotent military - once you start ignoring Universality of Service and the 'bona fide' requirements set out after many Canadian Human Rights Tribunal rulings, then you open yourself to the vast range of ailments that currently prevents someone from serving.  Ailments from mobility, psychological, biological issues or even allergies - you know things that lead to 3B releases now.  CHRT has made it clear that you can't pick and choose, it is one standard for all.

CDS seems to think he can make up his own rules that ignore the laws of the land.  He will fill his numbers in a hurry because anyone ever released on a 3B will form two lines - one at the recruiting centre and the other at a lawyer's office for a class-action suit if they choose not to re-enroll or are rejected.

Excerpt from DAOD 5023-0, Universality of Service

2.1 The mission of the DND and the CAF is to defend Canada, its interests and its values, while contributing to international peace and security.

2.2 To execute this mission the CAF must be given broad authority and latitude in utilizing CAF members and their skills. The statutory basis for this authority is section 33 of the National Defence Act. The fundamental importance of this authority to the functioning and effectiveness of the CAF is recognized in subsection 15(9) of the Canadian Human Rights Act which provides that the duty to accommodate under subsection 15(2) of that Act is subject to the principle of universality of service. Under this principle, CAF members must at all times and under any circumstances perform any functions that they may be required to perform.

2.3 Effective performance of the broad range of defence and security tasks assigned to the CAF requires that CAF members be capable of performing a similarly broad range of general military, common defence and security duties, in addition to the more particular duties of their military occupation or occupational specification. This open-ended nature of military service is one of the features that distinguish it from the civilian notion of employment governed by a contract, which obliges employees to perform only those duties specified in their job description or contract.

Principle of Universality of Service

2.4 The principle of universality of service or "soldier first" principle holds that CAF members are liable to perform general military duties and common defence and security duties, not just the duties of their military occupation or occupational specification. This may include, but is not limited to, the requirement to be physically fit, employable and deployable for general operational duties.

 

[Loachman]

There is a chance that he may not agree with all or part of this, but has to sell it to the troops anyway.

 

[medicineman]

There is a chance that he may not agree with all or part of this, but has to sell it to the troops anyway.

After some of the PT stuff I was witness to in 2RCR, I'm sort of wondering if either the Minister or PET Jr himself told him "this is how we want our military to LOOK to Canadians...we're not really interested in whether it works or is even capable, just the LCF".

:2c:

MM

 

[Furniture]

The cons of this whole plan I will refer to as •the double standard plan• outweigh the pros.

We will have a very politically correct and even less capable force.  Quotas like this 1 in 4 must be women makes me want to kick someone in the nads.

We already have a double standard when it comes to single and married/common law members when it comes to postings and deployments. Adding a third tier almost ensures that any single fit members will spend their time moving and deploying even more, so that all the people with special requirements are taken care of.

Maybe they'll find the perfect solution that works for everybody, but I doubt it... The current system is broken, adding more complexity sure won't fix it.

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

Excerpt from DAOD 5023-0, Universality of Service

2.1 The mission of the DND and the CAF is to defend Canada, its interests and its values, while contributing to international peace and security.

You know what is funny here? Make the change I put in yellow and you have the primary statement that should have been the starting point of the allegedly extensive defence policy review that just came out, but does not really include it that clearly anywhere. (I say strike "values" for two reasons: first of all it is not a national defence function to advance "values" by force in other countries. Second I am not willing to give my life to go and fight to advance women's equality issues in say, Bangladesh, or defend multiculturalism in Indonesia, etc. etc., and I don't think any one in the CAF is willing either - those are things that are done softly through diplomacy over long periods.)

 

[Ostrozac]

We already have a double standard when it comes to single and married/common law members when it comes to postings and deployments. Adding a third tier almost ensures that any single fit members will spend their time moving and deploying even more, so that all the people with special requirements are taken care of.

Maybe they'll f ind the perfect solution that works for everybody, but I doubt it... The current system is broken, adding more complexity sure won't fix it.

There are people who enjoy a higher than usual op-tempo -- and allowing them to self-select for more deployments sounds good on the surface, but you are spot on correct that extra layers of complexity will be an absolute beast to manage. In theory, it could be done -- but I think we could do a much better job of using our existing tools. Our Career Managers, Corps/Branch Directors and often even Chains of Command have an uneven approach to knowing their troops and what they actually want. Career Manager interviews were a simple enough thing -- they are largely gone, and have been replaced by... not much in the last few units I've been in.

But then again, if our current system simply isn't retaining people at all, then we need to change something. But I'm not sure that re-arming the injured and re-enrolling our retired on Class B is a long-term solution -- it'll keep the numbers up in the short term, but we need to ask more fundamental questions as to why the Canadian Forces isn't attracting/retaining new members. And maybe talking to the troops is a start.

 

[meni0n]

No deployments and a stable work environment (no postings) is mostly aimed at the cyber trade I guess. Although, the only posting for cyber is currently only Ottawa and will probably remain that way The thinking is, how do you attract someone with a specialised skill set to a standard pay group trade and then keep them after they've had all their training. Imagine investing a lot of money training someone with very specific expensive courses and then a company will come along and offer 20-40k more. That trade will need to have some something at least to offset that. The only thing I guess they can offer now is no deployments, postings and an early pension. The pay will definitely not be competitive.

I've also heard the idea of running special BMQ or leadership courses just for people in that trade. Making those courses easier and with less or no field time. Not sure if that will pan out but it would make sense with the approach that's being taken.

 

[Jarnhamar]

lol

Now there's no reason not to allow beards!  PCat? Bring it on!

 

[McG]

There is a chance that he may not agree with all or part of this, but has to sell it to the troops anyway.

All the more likely given that it seems to be a trend across multiple government departments: https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/canadas-war-against-merit-marches-on/article35261591/

Liberals' reverse discrimination comes at a cost 
Margaret Wente
The Globe and Mail
Published Saturday, Jun. 10, 2017 8:00AM EDT
Updated Saturday, Jun. 10, 2017 8:15AM EDT

Kirsty Duncan, Justin Trudeau’s Science Minister, is on the rampage against Canada’s leading universities. She’s told them to improve diversity – or else. Unless they meet their gender quotas for new research chairs, the federal government will yank their funding. Despite a decade of concerted hectoring, Canada’s most prestigious researchers are still too non-Indigenous, too white, too abled and, especially, too male. “Frankly, our country cannot reach its full potential if more than half of its people do not feel welcomed into the lab where their ideas, their talent and their ambition is needed,” she sermonized.

At stake is hundreds of millions in grant money – as well as the ability of expert hiring committees to make their own decisions. (Universities must sponsor the grant applications, which are nearly all approved by the federal funding bodies.) From now on, these committees will be overseen by phalanxes of bureaucrats whose job is to ensure that they come up with the right answers.

The government’s emphasis on equity and diversity is central to its branding. Its 50-50 cabinet has won universal praise. But now it has embarked on a campaign of reverse discrimination that deeply undermines the concepts of fairness and excellence.

Academia isn’t the only target. Since last fall, the Trudeau government has named 56 judges, of whom 33 – or 59 per cent – are women. (Women made up only 42 per cent of the applicants.) It’s clear the Liberals will keep it up until the balance of judges is more to their liking. But at what cost? “In the old days, it was offensive that people got judgeships just because they were Liberals or Tories,” Ian Holloway, law dean at the University of Calgary, told The Globe and Mail. “That helped breed contempt for the judiciary. What we don’t want to do is replicate that in a different form.”

The definition of equality has changed dramatically in recent times. Equality used to mean fairness. It meant that everybody should be treated equally, and that discrimination is not acceptable. But the new definition of equality is equal outcomes. And if outcomes aren’t equal, they must be adjusted until they are.

No one disagrees that our institutions should broadly reflect the society we live in. No one disagrees that disadvantaged people and underrepresented groups deserve a helping hand, and sometimes preferential treatment. Many businesses and public institutions have an unwritten rule: If all else is equal, hire the minority candidate.

But what if it isn’t? What if fair hiring practices produce disparities in outcome – as they inevitably do? For example, it’s mainly men who like hard sciences – despite a generation of effort to encourage women. This effort has borne fruit. But it has not produced a massive change in women’s career choices, which are overwhelmingly on the “soft” side. There’s also a sizable body of research showing that even women who are highly career-minded are less intent on attaining senior positions than men are.

On the face of it, the Canada Research Chair numbers don’t look great. Women hold only 30 per cent of the 1,615 filled positions, a number that Ms. Duncan regards as “dismal,” and at some universities it’s much lower. Among the new applications, she notes disapprovingly that twice as many come from men. But these positions are heavily skewed toward hard sciences. Forty-five per cent are for natural sciences and engineering; 35 per cent are for health sciences; and just 20 per cent are for the social sciences and humanities.

But “fair” is no longer good enough. Only outcomes matter. The new quotas for Canada Research Chairs are: 31 per cent women, 15 per cent visible minorities, 4 per cent disabled, 1 per cent aboriginal. And woe to you if you do not comply.

Other institutions have gone much farther. At St. Michael’s Hospital in Toronto, a document called Gender Equity Guidelines for Research Search Committees states, “We are hoping to achieve recruitment of 50 per cent female scientists in the next 3-5 years, as well as to achieve 50 per cent female faculty in leadership positions in the next 5-7 years.” Given the natural gender imbalance in science research, they might as well just post a sign saying: Men, don’t bother! The document further states that all search committee members must take training in unconscious bias (an increasingly discredited idea), and that their work will be closely scrutinized by the diversity police to ensure the proper outcomes.

I’m all for diversity. But these future researchers have important work to do. They could save lives. Don’t we want people who can research and teach, instead of prove how diverse we are? I guess not. We’ve got quotas to fill.

 

[Navy_Pete]

All the more likely given that it seems to be a trend across multiple government departments: https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/canadas-war-against-merit-marches-on/article35261591/

This is one thing I don't get. If you look at the average university, engineering is hugely skewed towards men.  Even with all the emphasis on STEM in school, scholarships for women in science etc your average nerd is a guy.  Same thing for most trades.  If the required prerequisite training is predominantly male, why is anyone expecting the CAF to be some kind of social experiment and arbitrarily set quotas that don't reflect reality.  Conversely, something like nurses where most of them are female, I would kind of expect the CAF numbers to be heavily skewed towards females.

One good reason though to hire the cyber warriors as military (vice civilian) is cost.  The specialized skillsets pay way more on the civie side, but some people will stick with it when the recruiters come calling because of the uniform and the team.  They won't have the same commitment as a civilian because there isn't any kind of indoctrination where they sell you the koolaid.  Aside from them, there are lots of other people that I don't think you'd want to ever touch a rifle, but would be excellent at their job.  It'd be nice to have options for the to contribute but maybe not be promotable past a working rank if something like that came up.

 

[Gunner98]

You know what is funny here? Make the change I put in yellow and you have the primary statement that should have been the starting point of the allegedly extensive defence policy review that just came out, but does not really include it that clearly anywhere. (I say strike "values" for two reasons: first of all it is not a national defence function to advance "values" by force in other countries. Second I am not willing to give my life to go and fight to advance women's equality issues in say, Bangladesh, or defend multiculturalism in Indonesia, etc. etc., and I don't think any one in the CAF is willing either - those are things that are done softly through diplomacy over long periods.)

Oldgateboatdriver,

The statement you wish to modify states "to defend Canada, its interests and its values", not advance or enforce our values on others or other countries.  If we strike - defend our own values, then CAF will only defend Canada and our interests and in doing so are you proposing that we should withdraw from most of our international alliances.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

that is...magical.

 

[Jarnhamar]

While we're at it half the military should be female, up to and including forcing males to get out.  Or maybe 1/3 male female and transgender.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

While we're at it half the military should be female, up to and including forcing males to get out.  Or maybe 1/3 male female and transgender.

Seems like a good ol 5d or 5f would be a nice parting gift.  ;D

 

[SupersonicMax]

I honestly think that exceptions to UofS is NOT a bad thing.  We invest sometimes millions of dollars into an individual only to release that individual on the basis that he may not deploy (sometimes even that is ambiguous). There are positions that will never deploy, at least not in the conditions most infantrymen would.  Making exceptions and restrictions on deployments/postings/advancement could work.  In a military where we are chronically short on people, it is at least something we ought to entertain.

 

[brihard]

This thread has taken some odd drifts... Are we all going to suddenly act like we don't know a bunch of cases of people who were really solid soldiers, got injured/ill to the point of some sort of long term disability that would preclude them from deploying in a combat arms capacity, but who nonetheless have a lot of subject matter knowledge that is worth preserving in the training, planning, or administrative worlds? Absolutely we do need to keep an operationally focused military. We need to be able to send task forces out the door to kick ass and take names, but a lot of people are behind that effort at home. We sometimes are ill-served by our haste to remove people from service who breach UoS when they still have a lot to potentially contribute. Perhaps there would be other ways to administer of employees, such as a civilian instructor/civilian administrator category of employee for the medically invalided, if people really insist on getting these folks out of uniform?

 

[dapaterson]

The current system provides for retention of a limited number of personnel for a limited amount of time.  Is that inadequate?  How far can we go before we risk (a) severe impact on operational outputs and (b) losing U of S entirely in a tribunal or court?

Perhaps we need to understand the status quo before we propose any radical change.