Future of Government Pensions (PS, CF & RCMP) & CF pension "double-dip"

[armyvern]

So we put in our 20+ plus years, say goodbye to the CF and make our way in the civy world until CRA.  At CRA we get our CF pension, minus of course the clawback from CPP.  Wow, you really don't want us retirees to get ahead at all, do you?  As an aside, just how many of us get live to a ripe old pension drawing age after 20-30 years of CF life?  Every year I get to put more and more old friends in the ground who never make it to CRA.

Given that our pension works differently than the civil service exactly as our pay differs from their "benchmark rates" of pay as well due to that "military factor" ... I'm wondering exactly why anyone would want to join the CF (ResF OR RegF) given the proposed way?

I suppose though, just to make us even more-even with the civil servants, MCG could take away our "military factor" off the pay too ... so I suppose, that is about all that could make it worse.

Crap, I'll issue clothing over the counter as a civvie instead of joining to serve overseas at risk to life and limb for diddly squat that being offered up in "the new way". Good luck with recruiting ...

 

[armyvern]

As an aside, just how many of us get live to a ripe old pension drawing age after 20-30 years of CF life?  Every year I get to put more and more old friends in the ground who never make it to CRA.

I'd wager that it's a lot more than those who don't. I'd also wager it's a lot more than those double-dippers sitting in BClass jobs that collect PLD too.

 

[dapaterson]

According to the '07-08 CFSA annual report, there are over 85K people currently in receipt of an annuity, and over 22k surviving spouses.

Age breakdowns and other information are all in the report.

(Why the CFSA "annual" reports come out more than 18 months after the end of the fiscal year they pertain to is another issue... imagine if any real-world financial company didn't release its financial results for over 18 months - the directors would be in jail...)

 

[gcclarke]

I've said it before and I'll say it again. If you cripple the pension available to member of the Canadian Armed Forces, for whatever reason, you also cripple both the best recruiting and retention incentive available. Yes, I said bloody retention incentive. If your problem is that, in your humble opinion, too many people are hitting the point when they can draw a pension, and decide to leave the regular force to do so, while drawing a salary at the same time, either via Class B work or the Public Service, and you decide to "fix" the issue by reducing their capability to do so, you will certainly fix that problem. By ensuring that far fewer people decide to remain in the regular force until they reach enough time in to draw a pension.

Allow me to state this as well as I can. If I go into work on Tuesday (still being on leave for Monday), and I read that a change had been made to our pension plan such that when I retired, I couldn't get anything from my pension other than enough money to "top up" my income until I hit CRA, I would very likely start my new job search that day.

If the problem is that too many people are leaving the regular force for semi-permanent work as Class B reservists, the solution is to stop offering so many Class B positions. If the problem is that too many people are leaving the regular force for positions in the public service, the solution is to stop hiring so many public servants. If the problem is that people are leaving the regular force because of too many postings, the solution is to stop posting people so often.

Frankly, to suggest that the problem is that our pension is too good is asinine, and to effect any changes to "fix" this problem would have repercussions that would haunt us for decades down the road.

 

[George Wallace]

Your concern is not relevant here and a red herring in the argument.  This proposal has absolutely nothing to do with saving the government or DND money.
There are Class B positions that pay PLD so this is still a potential benefit to the double-dipper.  The expenses associated with a move are costs to the crown and not benefits to the individual, so (because my goal is not about saving the system money) I am not really concerned.

If it isn't a cost saving scheme, then why are you going on so much about cutting Class B positions, Double Dippers, pensions until CRA is reached, etc.?

However, if people want to consider costs to the system then it needs to be done at a higher level than just contrasting hypothetical individuals from Class B and Reg F service.  A Class B guy can sit fat & happy in a position that is of negligable significance to the CF while at the same time the system is forced to pay cost moves to regularly rotate Reg F pers through a nationally important possition in the same building.
How much does it cost the CF when higher priorety positions go empty while lower priorety Class B possitions are filled in the very same geographic location?  This is not only dollar value costs but opportunity costs & the cost of reduced effectiveness where it is needed.

 

So what?  Apples and oranges.

How much does it cost to maintain and staff the various PRLs in existance to administer the various full time reservists (and we have threads full of people calling for more & larger PRLs to get career Class B pers out of PRes unit establishemts)?  Sure, converting all of these full time positions to Limited Obligation Reg F would require a little more manpower in the careers shop, but not as much manpower as is currently consumed in manageing PRLs.
You've only half got it.  You could retire,  go Class B at 85% wages and get topped up to max 100% of what you would have earned as pay had you stayed in.  You could retier, go PS at whatever wage and get toppedup to max 100% of what you would have earned as pay had you stayed in.  OR, you could retier, get a job in the private sector and see absolutely nothing of your pension until reach CRA.

You said this wasn't a question of cost saving?  So this should be no problem.  If the positions cannot be filled by Reg Force, then fill them with Reserve pers.  It is cheaper, if you want to go back to the theme of "cost savings".

gcclarke has made a good point and one that would greatly affect Recruiting and retention in the CF.  Screw around with the CF Pension and you remove an incentive for people to join the CF and serve for any length.  And what happens if in a few more years, the Government decides to yet again raise the age limits or change the rules of CRA?

 

[Brasidas]

If it isn't a cost saving scheme, then why are you going on so much about cutting Class B positions, Double Dippers, pensions until CRA is reached, etc.?...

gcclarke has made a good point and one that would greatly affect Recruiting and retention in the CF.  Screw around with the CF Pension and you remove an incentive for people to join the CF and serve for any length.  And what happens if in a few more years, the Government decides to yet again raise the age limits or change the rules of CRA?

I'm looking forward to reading his spin on this. MCG, I'm going to summarize what I think you're saying, in my own words, and

From what I've read, I think that you're saying that you don't think that it's "fair" for folks who've served twenty-five years to get a pension in their late forties, and doubly unfair for them to earn an income from the same employer that they earned their pension in.

Said unfairness causes people to leave their career in the forces earlier than age 55 (or even 65). Attritions some of the most experienced people away from where they're most needed.

The "fair" way to address this problem is to grandfather the folks that have already been promised the old pension scheme much in the way the 20/40 plan was, and to allow those already on class B while receiving a pension to be allowed to continue to do so.

Meanwhile, there isn't going to be any more of this unfair attrition.

How competitive do you think it is for the Forces to only offer a pension that kicks in at CRA? That makes the pension laughable compared to as it is now, and I doubt you're going to see a hell of a lot of folks agree with you.

The folks I can see agreeing with you are going to be folks on the hunt for high-profile ways to save money, which you say you aren't looking to do with this.

 

[armyvern]

Meanwhile, there isn't going to be any more of this unfair attrition.

I'd wager that attrition would actually go up ... and we wouldn't be going to work for the public service or the ResF. I's still get out at 25 ... save my CF pension until retirement AND in the meantime earn 100% or more of my current wages working in the private sector all the while earning time towards that second pension. In order to get enough TI in the private sector to earn that second pension - I'd have to get out of the CF sooner rather than later.

Sad, I guess, but not for me.

Either way, the CF loses the expertize, skillsets and much required staff ... far too early - only difference is that now the private sector will benefit from that vice the feds as they do now.


MCG: Are you aware that there is NO CRA age for public servants in DND (IAW charter rights regarding "age discrimination")? I had an STS with 56 years of service working for me in Gagetown ... 73 years old.

What age are you going to implement this at? And are you going to change the PSAC tables to make retirement mandatory at whatever age you choose to go with?

 

[Brasidas]

I'd wager that attrition would actually go up ... and we wouldn't be going to work for the public service or the ResF. I's still get out at 25 ... save my CF pension until retirement AND in the meantime earn 100% or more of my current wages working in the private sector all the while earning time towards that second pension. In order to get enough TI in the private sector to earn that second pension - I'd have to get out of the CF sooner rather than later.

Sad, I guess, but not for me.

Either way, the CF loses the expertize, skillsets and much required staff ... far too early - only difference is that now the private sector will benefit from that vice the feds as they do now.

Those are my own thoughts too. I'm trying to make sure I'm understanding what MCG's saying. In particular, trying to make sure I understand where he's coming from with his changes. I think his two end objectives are to stop "unfairness" and avoid what he sees as a source of attrition from the reg force.

I don't see his solution as either fair or likely to keep more experienced guys in the reg force.

 

[McG]

I suppose though, just to make us even more-even with the civil servants, MCG could take away our "military factor" off the pay too ... so I suppose, that is about all that could make it worse.

Vern, this is a backhanded & dishonest argument you are making.  I have never suggested that service personnel should not be fairly compensated for the work or obligations placed on us.  I am not the boogie man trying to steal all the benefits of service personnel - you know this.  If you need to resort to petty personal attacks/suggestion, then please just sit on the side and read.

Screw around with the CF Pension and you remove an incentive for people to join the CF and serve for any length. 

... I'm wondering exactly why anyone would want to join the CF (ResF OR RegF) given the proposed way?

Crap, I'll issue clothing over the counter as a civvie instead of joining to serve overseas at risk to life and limb for diddly squat that being offered up in "the new way". Good luck with recruiting ...

I am going to call BS on this.  Vern, I do not know anybody who decided to join the CF because of its pension and certainly not for a comparison of the CF pension to the PS pension.  But lets assume for the sake of argument that the pension is the number one reason that people join the CF.  Even with my proposals, the CF pension still beats just about anything else out there.

If it isn't a cost saving scheme, then why are you going on so much about cutting Class B positions, Double Dippers, pensions until CRA is reached, etc.?

I have proposed cutting long-term Class B because full time service personnel should be regular force, and they should be subjected to the same training standards, the same promotion merit process, and the same career management as everyone else.  The double dippers need to go because long-term Class B needs to go.  The proposal to defer pension to CRA is because all the critics in this thread quite clearly voiced that great hoards would start jumping ship if they could collect a pension in the private sector but not in the government.

So what?  Apples and oranges.

So what?  Some participants in this thread wanted to discuss costs to the government, but they limited the analysis to filling a hypothetical job with a Class B guy or posting a regular force guy.  That is not realistic, and it does not reflect the full spectrum of the cost of rampant Class B bloat on the CF.  I presented real costs to the CF & DND in the section you quoted.  If you want to argue this on costs to the service, then you cannot just "apples and oranges" away what I presented.

You said this wasn't a question of cost saving?  So this should be no problem.  If the positions cannot be filled by Reg Force, then fill them with Reserve pers.  It is cheaper, if you want to go back to the theme of "cost savings".

I don't want to go back to the "theme of cost savings."  I have humoured a few people who wanted to go down that past by replying to their comments, but otherwise I have avoided that topic.  Cost savings are not what I want to achieve. 

I don't want to throw more "cheaper" reservists into filling positions.  I want the more valuable regular force personnel to do this.

MCG: Are you aware that there is NO CRA age for public servants in DND (IAW charter rights regarding "age discrimination")? I had an STS with 56 years of service working for me in Gagetown ... 73 years old.

I am aware that there is no CRA in the PS.  The CRA applies to service personnel only.  However, the PS also defers pension payments based on age (as you have read in that other thread you quoted from and in the first post of this thread) and there is talk of raising this age.

I chose CRA because once that age is reached, you are no longer in a position where pension offers a right-now incentive to get out.  Maybe CRA is too late of a deferment.  Maybe  55 is better.  Regardless, the PS arguments for raising the pension deferment age are also arguments applicable to the CF.

If the problem is that too many people are leaving the regular force for semi-permanent work as Class B reservists, the solution is to stop offering so many Class B positions. If the problem is that too many people are leaving the regular force for positions in the public service, the solution is to stop hiring so many public servants. If the problem is that people are leaving the regular force because of too many postings, the solution is to stop posting people so often.

Part of the problem is that too many people are moving from the regular force to long-term Class B (or from Class A into Class B).  They don't really want to leave the CF, but they don't want the typical full-timer hassles - it is an easy transition.  You are right that simply converting all these positions to regular force would close that path and force people to make the hard decision of stay in or get out. 

However, recognizing that the military is not the PS, I think there should be an option for a lower tempo career path for people who have done their time to slide into (maybe even before they are pensionable like birdgunnnersrule).  Reducing postings is not necessarily satisfactory, because many people have reached a point in their lives where one more posting is too many.  Limited obligation TOS would offer this, and it would provide an option for those who would otherwise release in the absence of the Class B option.

But, we cannot pay pension while the service person remains fully employed in the regular force.  The pension top-up is something we should be able to sell the TB.

 

[George Wallace]

I don't want to throw more "cheaper" reservists into filling positions.  I want the more valuable regular force personnel to do this.

And I call BS to this as well.  I am in a Unit that has two Regular Force positions (one officer and one WO) that have not been filled in the last five years.  They are filled by Class B Resevists, who have been former Reg Force, and have several Tours under their belts.  We also have one Reg Force posn that has been filled constantly by a Cpl RMS Clerk, promoted acting lacking MCpl and made CC in an OR for two and possibly three Reserve Units (if PsyOPs comes into being), one being CIMIC and has its members scattered across the country.  That Reg Force clerk has no knowledge of the Reserve System and if it wasn't for Class B Reservists, she would be lost.  We have lost three clerks, put into that posn in the last year, due to stress and other health problems.  So don't pull this "more valuable regular force personnel" crap.

Our Unit is also being trained to the same standards as those in the Reg Force.  We send people on Reg Force Crses, and we also train Reg Force on our crses.  Same Standard, same experience.  Approx 50% of the pers on Tour in my Trade are Reservists, so once again don't pull this " more valuable regular force personnel" crap on me. 

Your whole arguement, as I said before, if flawed and ill thought out. 

I do, however, like your suggestion of getting rid of Annuitant Lve, as that would make these guys more deployable, and I know of several who have deployed in Trade on TAVs or as Civilian Contractors.  So, once again, these people are just as valuable as your "regular force personnel", in fact in some cases, more valuable.  Your suggestions would mean that they would leave altogether, and I just witnessed a WO do just that.  He loved the unit, but couldn't put up with the BS coming out of Area.  Replacing the BS from Area, with the BS from the Regs, as you suggest, would not solve any problems, but create more.

 

[armyvern]

Vern, this is a backhanded & dishonest argument you are making.  I have never suggested that service personnel should not be fairly compensated for the work or obligations placed on us.  I am not the boogie man trying to steal all the benefits of service personnel - you know this.  If you need to resort to petty personal attacks/suggestion, then please just sit on the side and read.
I am going to call BS on this.  Vern, I do not know anybody who decided to join the CF because of its pension and certainly not for a comparison of the CF pension to the PS pension.  But lets assume for the sake of argument that the pension is the number one reason that people join the CF.  Even with my proposals, the CF pension still beats just about anything else out there.
I have proposed cutting long-term Class B because full time service personnel should be regular force, and they should be subjected to the same training standards, the same promotion merit process, and the same career management as everyone else.  The double dippers need to go because long-term Class B needs to go.  The proposal to defer pension to CRA is because all the critics in this thread quite clearly voiced that great hoards would start jumping ship if they could collect a pension in the private sector but not in the government.
So what?  Some participants in this thread wanted to discuss costs to the government, but they limited the analysis to filling a hypothetical job with a Class B guy or posting a regular force guy.  That is not realistic, and it does not reflect the full spectrum of the cost of rampant Class B bloat on the CF.  I presented real costs to the CF & DND in the section you quoted.  If you want to argue this on costs to the service, then you cannot just "apples and oranges" away what I presented.
I don't want to go back to the "theme of cost savings."  I have humoured a few people who wanted to go down that past by replying to their comments, but otherwise I have avoided that topic.  Cost savings are not what I want to achieve. 

I don't want to throw more "cheaper" reservists into filling positions.  I want the more valuable regular force personnel to do this.
I am aware that there is no CRA in the PS.  The CRA applies to service personnel only.  However, the PS also defers pension payments based on age (as you have read in that other thread you quoted from and in the first post of this thread) and there is talk of raising this age.

I chose CRA because once that age is reached, you are no longer in a position where pension offers a right-now incentive to get out.  Maybe CRA is too late of a deferment.  Maybe  55 is better.  Regardless, the PS arguments for raising the pension deferment age are also arguments applicable to the CF.
Part of the problem is that too many people are moving from the regular force to long-term Class B (or from Class A into Class B).  They don't really want to leave the CF, but they don't want the typical full-timer hassles - it is an easy transition.  You are right that simply converting all these positions to regular force would close that path and force people to make the hard decision of stay in or get out. 

However, recognizing that the military is not the PS, I think there should be an option for a lower tempo career path for people who have done their time to slide into (maybe even before they are pensionable like birdgunnnersrule).  Reducing postings is not necessarily satisfactory, because many people have reached a point in their lives where one more posting is too many.  Limited obligation TOS would offer this, and it would provide an option for those who would otherwise release in the absence of the Class B option.

But, we cannot pay pension while the service person remains fully employed in the regular force.  The pension top-up is something we should be able to sell the TB.

You can call BS if you like - that's up to you. If you think for one second that our pension plan is not an incentive that keeps people in at least until they hit that mark, good for you.

I'm not about to sit here with blinders on thinking that if you take that away that the status quo will continue. I just outlined what I'd do ... I'm sure I'm not the only one out there.

And, I brought up our pension plan because it is different precisely because WE are different from the civil service - exactly why WE are paid differently (over & above 'their' benchmarks for doing same 'storesman jobs' etc) by getting the military factor. Our pension plan is one of THE benefits, no where have I stated that it was THE benefit, or the only reason people joined.

You are proposing to treat our pension of that of the "regular civil service" ... why? If you can justify that when WE are different, then it's a logical next step for the bean counters to consider our "pay" in line with theirs too.

There's a reason we are not treated the same - that is because we are not the same ... we are very very different from them and you've yet to consider that factoid in your proposal to treat us as one in the same.

 

[gcclarke]

I am going to call BS on this.  Vern, I do not know anybody who decided to join the CF because of its pension and certainly not for a comparison of the CF pension to the PS pension.  But lets assume for the sake of argument that the pension is the number one reason that people join the CF.  Even with my proposals, the CF pension still beats just about anything else out there.

The generous pension plan that is currently offered is not "the reason" I joined up, but it is certainly in the top 2. And I frankly really doubt that I am alone in this.

I understand what you're getting at with this series of posts. You're concerned, specifically, with the retention of regular force personnel once they have reached enough time in to allow them to draw a pension, in order to address part of our general manning issues. But you're going about it entirely the wrong way.

Manning, as I see it, consists of three main elements. Recruiting new people, training them up, and convincing those we already have trained up to stick around. Recruitment, Training, and Retention. Two of those would be affected by your proposed changes. And not in an overall net positive manner.

You are suggesting that we disincentivise (I don't know why Firefox is telling me that's a spelling mistake, it's a perfectly Cromulent word) people from pulling the plug from the reg force and going to work elsewhere by making changes to the pension system that would allow people to draw only enough of a pension to "top up" to your original salary (In the case of someone joining the reserves or public service) or none at all (in the case of someone joining working in the private sector). Yes, in this case, some of those people with 20+ or 25+ years in would be more likely to stick around.

But you still haven't addressed the very very fundamental question of how your plan would affect people who currently have between 0 - 19 or 24 years TI, or those who are still trying to decide whether or not a career in the CF is the right thing for them. Your plan to change the pension to "punish" what you deem to be bad behavior is poorly thought out. In almost all cases, people do not respond as well to negative reinforcement as they do to positive reinforcement. For people considering getting out, the proper way to get them to stick around is not to try and change things so that it would be worse for them if they left, but instead to change things so that it is better for them if they stay. More leave, more pay, re-signing bonuses, or something new.

Personally, I'm not sure if I'm planning on sticking around more than 25 years, and I've plenty of time left to think about it. But if your plan is implemented, even making the (hopefully) unlikely assumption that I never get promoted again in my life, that change would cost me over half a million dollars if I were to get out at 25 years in and were to have to wait until I hit CRA to draw a pension.

You don't seem to believe me that people would "join up for the pension", but the fact that someone can join up at the age of 18, and "retire" with a full 50% pension should they so choose at the age of 43 is one hell of a recruiting pitch.

This manning issue is about recruitment and retention. You cannot sustainably boost either of those by crippling one of our key benefits. At best, your plan would temporarily convince some people to stick around for a few years past when they could retire. But when they do (and they will), there people who should have been there to replace them won't be, because it was no longer as worth while to bother sticking around till the 25+ year mark.

Until you can either convincingly demonstrate how your plan wouldn't negatively affect recruitment or retention up to the 25 year mark, or amend it accordingly so that it doesn't, I shall continue to have to dismiss it as a short-sighted strategic failure.

 

[George Wallace]

Retention of members in the Regular Force has absolutely nothing to do with the Reserves.  It has absolutely nothing to do with Double Dippers, or any other former Regular Force personnel who have joined the Reserves.

Retention of Regular Force members is solely a Reg Force problem; no one else's.

I have often wondered why so many guys got out after a Tour.  Was the Tour so bad that they had had enough of the CF?  No, not at all.  These guys were planning on getting out anyway.  They had extended their Release until after they did a Tour, so that they could become more financially stable.  Whether they got out to go back to school or work in the Oil Patch, really doesn't matter; they wanted a bit of a 'nest egg' before they got out.  Very few joined the Reserves.

I am of the opposite view of MCG.  I think that the CF should be encouraging Reg Force members, who are Releasing, to join the Reserves.  Look at the money, training and experience that has been sunk into them.  Loosing them completely from the CF is a total waste.  If MCG thinks the Reg Force is hurting, he should look at the Reserves.  Approx 50% of every Reservist trained and sent on Tour, in some Trades, CT within a year of becoming qualified.  That means the Reserves can barely sustain their skills.  They need Ex-Reg Force pers to maintain some of their knowledge base and train the next generations.  The current 'regime' is bleeding the Reserves dry and destroying them.

So a Reg Force member has reached the point where (s)he becomes an Annuitant.  So what?  Bring in the young bucks.  Train them.  Let the Annuitant 'Double Dip' and pass on their knowledge and skills to Reservists, many of whom will CT to the Reg Force.  The Recruiters are doing their job at bringing in new Reg Force pers.  The Training System is letting them down and not completing their end of the bargain--not 'Double Dippers' in the Reserves.

If you want to keep all the "Old Soldiers" (These are they guys who are collecting the pensions) then get rid of Age Discrimination.  Why must an officer be too old to become a Major at 30?  Why is a Cpl or MCpl passed over for promotion and courses when they are in their mid-thirties?  If you haven't seen this, then you are blind.

 

[armyvern]

Retention of members in the Regular Force has absolutely nothing to do with the Reserves.  It has absolutely nothing to do with Double Dippers, or any other former Regular Force personnel who have joined the Reserves.

Retention of Regular Force members is solely a Reg Force problem; no one else's.
...

But that retention issue does have a domino effect which ends up affecting the ResF ... when those Reg F posns sit unfilled because we don't have the RegF members of appropriate rank, qual, experience etc to fill them with because we're 'understrength' --- you start seeing "B Class Job Opportunities" posted and when we hire a B Class to fill that posn; the ResF suffers from the loss of experience etc or we're hiring a guy who retired from the RegF into that posn as a B Class ... so that it's filled.

We could NOT have operated or succeeded at my last Unit without those BClass posns filling empty RegF billets due to our trade being well understrength and "red" is the RegF - but we still had a war, ops & trg to support.

It may very well be our "own" problem, but we all affect each other. One area can not be foresaken for the sake of the other.

 

[George Wallace]

But that retention issue does have a domino effect which ends up affecting the ResF ... when those Reg F posns sit unfilled because we don't have the RegF members of appropriate rank, qual, experience etc to fill them with because we're 'understrength' --- you start seeing "B Class Job Opportunities" posted and when we hire a B Class to fill that posn; the ResF suffers from the loss of experience etc or we're hiring a guy who retired from the RegF into that posn as a B Class ... so that it's filled.

We could NOT have operated or succeeded at my last Unit without those BClass posns filling empty RegF billets due to our trade being well understrength and "red" is the RegF - but we still had a war, ops & trg to support.

It may very well be our "own" problem, but we all affect each other. One area can not be foresaken for the sake of the other.

True, but as I said, it is not a Reserve Problem.  It is a Reg Force problem, that they need to sort out.  They need to sort out the TRAINING SYSTEM so that there are no backlogs.  Putting new members through St Jean and Borden, and then putting them into a holding pattern for up to two years is the problem, not the Reservist backfilling a Reg Force posn.  Just be thankful that there are still some trained Reservists to fill those slots.  We all know (don't we) that this is only a temporary fix, until such time that a qualified Reg Force member can fill that slot.

On another track, back in the '70's there was a plan to do away with RSS posns at Reserve Units, and have the Reserves train themselves, having Reservists attend Reg Force crses and then return to their units to train their unit.  Train the Trainers.  That never happened as planned.  We have seen many RSS posns disappear lately, more due to the fact that Branches could not afford the pers to post into those posns.  Is it the plan to get rid of those Class B posns as well....................Sorry........LFC just did that in many places.

Fix the Training System.  It is broken.  It affects the whole CF, Reg and Reserve alike.

 

[armyvern]

True, but as I said, it is not a Reserve Problem.  It is a Reg Force problem, that they need to sort out.  They need to sort out the TRAINING SYSTEM so that there is no backlogs.  Putting new members through St Jean and Borden, and then putting them into a holding pattern for up to two years is the problem, no the Reservist backfilling a Reg Force posn.  Just be thankful that there are still some trained Reservists to fill those slots.  We all know (don't we) that this is only a temporary fix, until such time that a qualified Reg Force member can fill that slot.

On another track, back in the '70's there was a plan to do away with RSS posns at Reserve Units, and have the Reserves train themselves, having Reservists attend Reg Force crses and then return to their units to train their unit.  Train the Trainers.  That never happened as planned.  We have seen many RSS posns disappear lately, more due to the fact that Branches could not afford the pers to post into those posns.  Is it the plan to get rid of those Class B posns as well....................Sorry........LFC just did that in many places.

Fix the Training System.  It is broken.  It affects the whole CF, Reg and Reserve alike.

Here's the issue:

We grew recruting because we are at war and had no choice. We didn't grow a single support staff to provide support though (and by this I mean instructors etc). The CF hasn't increased it's number of posns ...

WHERE do you want us to grow these people from?

The "Home of the Army" doesn't receive field allowance, yet they are constantly in the field. Very few pers "want" postings here. LOTS refuse postings here.

The suggestion to "not move" people as often that was earlier proposed by someone is all well & good ... unless you happen to be one of the ones sitting in Gagetown getting shafted. They get to sit "there" longer because 'others" don't want to go there and thus get out instead ... and the cycle continues. The guys in gagetown then pull pin because they're sick and tired of being there in NB getting shafted on their provincial taxes and by their employer ... thus "others" get told "too bad, you must go to Gagetown". Well says they, "no I'm not ... My mommas had the benefit of this big city for 7 or 8 years now and there's no way in hell she or my family is moving there. She's got a good job, My mortgage is almost paid off, I pay lower provincial taxes (or none!!), and my kids are settled." We cater to those guys, and those who are in the shitty jobs are expected to sit there even longer.

My solution? No more of this "lifetime" posting crap. Everybody gets to take their turn - just like it should be. No one gets "used" to sitting on one base for years, that way, everyone is treated the same. Base to base to base. We used to be used to that in the CF, now we've got pers who whine if they have to go on ex for a month. This used to be normal, no one joined the CF or expected to be "left" anywhere for as long as "their own self" wished. Now they do. The decade of darkness and it's budget cuts put the nail in that casket quite nicely and the regF (and the ResF) are still suffering the reprecussions of such - evidenced by this thread.

BUT, now that the economy has sharply downturned ... the release rate has gone down drasticlly too. I've said it before on this site, want to solve the retention issue? Start an economic depression - it works every time. I know many pers who VRd during the boom times who all waitied until after they got that tax-free tour money to toss in the paperwork ... who are all trying to get back in now.

 

[George Wallace]

Let's touch on another subject here:  Promotions.

Stopping the long service member, who has now earned a pension, from Releasing and perhaps joining the Reserves, is tying up a whole string of promotions.  The higher that person's rank, the more promotions they are holding up.  Ask the Career Manager about his model.

Stopping promotions, stops younger blood from gaining the necessary skills and experience to step into the multitude of posns that will open up when the oldsters Retire en mass.  We have already experienced some of this in some units and Trades.

 

[Michael OLeary]

Fix the Training System.  It is broken.  It affects the whole CF, Reg and Reserve alike.

The training system (at all its levels) is stuck trying to manage limited resources to run the courses that have been designed by the various Corps, Branches, etc.  Maybe the first question we need to ask is why a Reservist trained on a shorter BMQ and (often) trades courses (and beyond in many cases) is acceptable for CT, but we still demand Reg F soldiers to have longer versions of the same courses.

We've created "Cadillac" versions of many courses, then stripped them to their essential training requirements to train Reserve soldiers - who are then readily acceptable for CT without any retraining.  Maybe there should be one standard in much of our training, but that doesn't mean that the current Reg F solution is the one it should be.

The issue at hand is far too complex and interwoven to say that any single simple "solution" exists.  There are issues in the way we train people, we need to re-examine why we depend on the Reserves and CT to fill shortfalls the training system no longer has the resources to meet, we need to examine sources of attrition in the Reg F to slow the demand that drains the Reserves and places undue demands on the training system ...

 

[aesop081]

The suggestion to "not move" people as often that was earlier proposed by someone is all well & good ...

I have to shake my head at the higher ups who think that posting people less often will accomplish anything. It might be a newsflash to them but its been tried before. The only result was a good chunk of the CF pissed off about being stuck somewhere and the other portion getting out if you even mentioned that they should move.

Pension ?

Dont touch my pension. When i joined the deal was i serve 20 and i get a pension every month for the rest of my life. If i get to 20, i get my money, that was the deal. What i do after that ( reserves, civvie, street bum) has nothing to do with what was promised me.

Yes i did join with that benefit firmly planted in my mind.........

 

[OldSolduer]

I concur with Cdn Aviator. I spent 24.5 years in the Reg Force and I earned the pension I receive. I do hold a Cl B position, but that position I competed for and won is a CL B Reserve position, not a Reg Force one.