Do Canadians even care anymore?

[Chewy]

What we truly need is to take some Liberal government officials and make them live on a used british sub for two weeks alone and see how they like it. And although I hate to say this we kinda need to go the way of the americans and get aMajor polition Conservative or better yet a Liberal Who has served in the Forces into power and the spot light so that we can take our views and put them into a political context.

 

[George Wallace]

Slowly the word is spreading.......

http://www.canoe.ca/NewsStand/TorontoSun/News/2004/10/12/665475.html

Tue, October 12, 2004



Canada's forces: CFB Junkyard

Pundits, analysts agree - it may be too late to stop a catastrophic failure of our military
By STEPHANIE RUBEC, OTTAWA BUREAU

OUR MILITARY'S hardware is dropping like flies. Rust, electrical failures, leaks, cracks, malfunctions -- and that's not just the four Victoria class diesel-electric submarines.

Point to almost any piece of kit in Canada's army, navy or air force and chances are it's 20 to 30 years old.

There are a few exceptions: New Coyote reconnaissance vehicles, light armoured vehicles and forest-green camouflage gear.

But an overwhelming amount of vital equipment is expected to keel over within the next eight years.

Canadian Defence Association senior analyst Howie Marsh says it's a struggle to determine who is worse off, but puts the navy's equipment woes a razor's edge above that of the army and air force.

Marsh said equipment that isn't faulty is old and limping along, thanks to Band-Aid solutions dreamed up by the cash-strapped military.

"From 2008-2013 you're likely to see the disappearance of the air force and half the navy and half the army," Marsh said.

"There's a big gulf coming and it's going to be very difficult to get across that. We're into the vanishing phase."

IT'S TOO LATE

Even if the Liberal government begins placing orders today, it takes on average 10 years to replace vehicles, planes and ships, he said. That means there's no way to avoid the upcoming rash of problems.

The air force continues to depend on the 32-year-old Hercules transport plane and the army relies on the 18-year-old Jeep-style Iltis and 22-year-old, 2.2-tonne transport trucks.

"Soon we should start to see the Hercules try to take off and their wings fall off," Marsh said. "We should see old trucks going downhill and the brakes fail."

The Liberal government pumps just over $13 billion into the defence department annually. Less than half of that goes to equipment maintenance and purchases, the rest is for a variety of costs related to bases and personnel.

The military must pitch its need to replace hardware to the Liberal government, and then take it to Treasury Board for approval.

Once it gets the feds' okay, the military draws up what bells and whistles it wants, and public works puts it on a public bidding system. After bids close, a selection committee picks the winner.

It takes upward of a decade to get through the whole process. In terms of the Sea King replacement, it has taken two decades to award the $3-billion contract. The paperwork is still being completed and the military might have to wait longer than 2009 to take delivery of the first maritime chopper.

Conservative defence critic Gordon O'Connor said the Liberals can only blame themselves for failing to replace equipment at the end of its lifespan.

"There's not enough money to replace the equipment and there's not enough money to maintain them, so the whole system keeps decaying," O'Connor said. "And that's why every few days some other grand problem keeps popping up."

'PROBLEMS EVERYWHERE'

"Now the chickens have come home to roost and you're seeing problems everywhere," he added.

O'Connor said it would take major purchases within the next five years to counter the decline of the forces and "set this thing right again."

"To stop the rot, you've got to increase the budget substantially," O'Connor said. "You have to start putting effort into it, you have to start spending money."

Retired Maj-Gen. Lewis MacKenzie said the cash crunch has forced the Canadian military to go bargain shopping. The sale sticker on the Victoria-class submarines was too good to pass up.

The Liberals were attracted to a deal that seemed too good to be true, and inked a $750-million lease-to-own agreement for the second-hand British subs.

"Those are the deals that people are forced to go after," MacKenzie said.

The subs should have been patrolling Canadian waters in 1998, but upgrading 1980s technology and salt water-corroded equipment has kept them in dry dock until recently.

The last of the four, HMCS Chicoutimi, was accepted from the British on Oct. 2. Last Tuesday, an electrical panel on the sub caught fire and blazed through two levels before the 57 crew members could put it out.

DEADLY FIRE

It left the submarine bobbing on six-metre waves in gale-force winds. Lt. Chris Saunders died and two other crew are recovering from smoke inhalation in an Irish hospital.

The Liberals continue to heatedly defend their purchase of the subs, and adamantly deny they've saddled the military with lemons.

MacKenzie said the federal government has failed to apply one of the most simple business theories to the Canadian Forces -- replace equipment before it reaches rust-out.

"If you go through a decade without repairing or replacing, then all of a sudden you run into this brick wall," MacKenzie said.

"That's exactly what happened. It's an implosion they're already into."

MacKenzie said the problem is that the Liberals are stalling the creation of a new defence white paper that would lay out exactly what jobs the military should be able to do and what equipment soldiers, sailors and air force personnel need to get it done.

 

[Scoobie Newbie]

Well I guess I'm glad I'm not in the Airforce. :-[   Sucks to you Inch.

 

[Inch]

Hey man, I signed my IE, I'm getting a pension out of the deal even if I have to go to court! 

 

[Scoobie Newbie]

Roger that.  At least you have a skill thats transferable to civie side.

 

[Inch]

Good point, though I'll need about 1000hrs to get something good on civie street, only 550hrs to go!

 

[Scoobie Newbie]

Really.  I had no idea thats how it worked.

 

[pbi]

Roger that. At least you have a skill thats transferable to civie side.

So do you; in fact, you've got a whole bunch that most employers today would kill for :

-you know how to work as part of a team;

-you can take orders intelligently (ie: you ask questions if you don't understand);

-you understand getting the job done;

-you've seen lots of different leadership styles at work in lots of different situations, so you know what kind to apply if you are put in charge of other employees;

-you may already have had leadership training and experience;

-you understand why rules exist;

-you show up for work on time;

-you've been trained to take care of your equipment;

-you can adapt to different and difficult situations;

-you're in at least reasonable medical and physical shape;

-you can speak and write English clearly; and

lots more.

These aren't skills that fade because a piece of machinery or an industrial technique becomes obsolete-they stay with you. Ask ANY employer today if he wants an employee with all those traits, but without the technical training, and I'll bet you'll be surprised at the answer. My neighbour runs a carwash and he constantly bemoans the lack of these basic traits, and I've heard other employers do the same. The shortage of good employees today, especially in skilled trades, makes almost anybody with a good military record very desireable. Don't sell yourself short because you're an 031. Ducimus. Cheers.

 

[Scoobie Newbie]

I think I'll write those down.
I'm not selling myself short.  Don't get me wrong.
You sound like your counseling on of your troops with a release/OT in.

 

[pbi]

No, it's just that I can't stand hearing 031's run themselves down because "All I dun lernt wuz diggin a ditch". BS. You would be surprised how much we learn. Don't get too wrapped up over particular technical skills, although those are certainly important and desireable, because they change over time. There is a recognition out there in the business world that they need more generalists: people who can put various other technically skilled employees together and get a result, but without really detailed technical knowledge. There are literaly thousands of techs floating around-the computer world is a good example-but if these people are ever to be useful as employees and future managers they need human skills as well. And that, IMHO, is the most important thing the Infantry teaches you about: people. Cheers.

 

[Lance Wiebe]

PBI is bang on, as usual.

I was very surprised to find out that ex-military are in demand by many employers, especially us armour/infantry types.  Seems like we always think about ways of getting the job done, very low absenteeism rate, flexible, reliable and more.

We may not have many marketable technical skills, but we certainly have marketable job skills!

 

[pbi]

Yes, and the more I see of the civvy world the more I see how desperately these skills are needed, and indeed how rare they are amongst many employees. One of the obstacles that I think we may face is the misconception by many civilian people of what traits military people acquire (I listed a few...) I fear that some employers may be overly influenced by US tv/movie images that depict Army life as psycopaths shrieking at each other from two inches away, and think that a military person will automatically relate to people around him in that manner. I have often found that when civvies really get to know military people up close and personal, they are usually amazed by how "human" we are. Cheers.




Heh-heh. Little do they know > :rage: :skull:

 

[Danjanou]

PBI is bang on.

Those are the skill sets I brought to my present career and thay are a lot more valuable then the "technical ones" I picked up at higher reading and writing school. At least's that what my boss seem to think ( and probably why they put up with me, I get the job done, no matter how hard it gets)

Before he retired, My father used to look at resumes for new hires with his company. If he had two identical candidates and one had military experience, any military experience, on his resume, guess who git hired.

I worked until recently as an employment counsellor (still do a bit in additon to my other duties) and I can tell you, those with military experience including us poor  dumb grunts, have a better shot at getting jobs because of these highly desired soft skills. Sometimes it's just a matter of showing you how to market them on your resume for a layman employer.

 

[pbi]

Thanks for that Danjanou. On the subject of military experience on a resume, there is an excellent little book I picked up in a US PX a few years ago, called "Does Your Resume Wear Combat Boots". It was written by a retired Sgt Major of The Army, and basically it teaches you how to translate your military experience into "business talk" to let an employer understand what you did. It's great and I highly recommend it: anybody who can check out a PX could probably pick one up.

For example, instead of saying:

"I was the Squadron Commander of an Armoured Squadron including a tour overseas", you can say:

"I managed and led an organization of 100 employees of 12 different skill groups including junior managers, foremen, and skilled technicians, with 30 million dollars worth of capital equipment, four buildings and an inventory on hand of approximately 500,000 dollars value. I was responsible to train, lead, manage and discipline this organization for two years. I was also responsible for moving the entire organization with all of its equipment and personnel from Canada to Kosovo, employing it there and bringing it back to Canada. The possible consequences of error in my position were death, serious personal injury, catastrophic property damage, finncial loss and severe damage to the international reputation of Canada."

When you put it that way, it looks quite different, doesn't it? Some people have told me that they think this type of interpretation borders on dishonesty, but I do not see it that way, because its all true. Cheers.

 

[Kirkhill]

Some people have told me that they think this type of interpretation borders on dishonesty

What kind of people pbi? People that can't put the same kind of statement on their own resume?

 

[pbi]

Strangely enough, the couple of people who made this comment were both in the military. I rather suspect they didn't think much of their own abilities, or could not ever imagine Life Outside. Cheers.

 

[Kirkhill]

More fool them.

 

[LowRider]

Well i'm gonna present a different point of view here guys.I have found that putting military service on my resume,has actually been a detrement to getting a job.In my case it might be because i am in the reserves,but most employers want nothing to do with a reservist who is currently serving.
They don't consider the obvious assets of hiring someone with military experience,all they think when they see resevist is...This guy is gonna want a lot of time off.
Anyway that's my two cents.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

I'm going to wade in here with my own experience, I would have to say that those with military experience are held in a higher regard by most employers.
When I got out in 88 I thought like CFL, what kind of job can I get with the knowledge I have? Not much call for artillery on the street, well in the end it turned out I had to make choices of which job I should take. As it was I whittled it down to two choices, the Toyota factory in Cambridge or Corrections, well the rest is history. ;D
When I started there were 6 others starting at the same time and I was the only one who didn't have some post-secondary education [ I have a GED] and years later when I was talking to one of the interviewers he stated the military was the reason that I earned enough points to overcome the education thing.
And one more thing I have noticed, the effort that your used to putting in with the military to get the job done would normally be well beyond the call of duty in a civilian job. 8)

 

[pbi]

Well i'm gonna present a different point of view here guys.I have found that putting military service on my resume,has actually been a detrement to getting a job.In my case it might be because i am in the reserves,but most employers want nothing to do with a reservist who is currently serving.
They don't consider the obvious assets of hiring someone with military experience,all they think when they see resevist is...This guy is gonna want a lot of time off.
Anyway that's my two cents.

I'd be very interested to know if the employer actually told you this, and what reason he gave for considering military service as a negative. Or, did you come to that conclusion yourself? How many employers are we speaking about here? As I mentioned, there probably are some employers who, because of misconceptions, think that military types might not be desireable. In your case as a Res, it may be that the employer is not keen to give the time off you will need, rather than that he is against the military itself.  Cheers.