Justin Trudeau hints at boosting Canada’s military spending

I'll believe it when I see it.

 

[SupersonicMax]

You can mask your sentiment all you'd like but you've played this condescending 'if you don't like it you cand leave' card before; and its a sentiment that has played a role at getting us into the personnel position that we are in.

I'm here because I still give a shit. And I would like to maybe influence some change.

I still use that line for people that have unreasonable demands in order to stay in. When we cater for one, it has a demoralizing effect for others.

In your case, I am genuinely interested in what keeps you in if you’re so sour towards the organization.

 

[Halifax Tar]

Will we? From my side of the fence, a lot of the retention issues stem with 4th/5th duties and not having enough people already so that the rest of us have said duties, creating a spiral effect. In some cases, crappy leadership too.

Imagine if you were compensated for those 4th and 5th duties.

From the pilots side, many people join the CAF with the express intention of going to the airlines. That’s pretty much the unofficial reason, and it’s the same issue amongst all of our allies. Even the US military, with their GI Bill and all that, is bleeding pilots. A similar narrative can be said for ATC folks.

I am not, never will be and have no interest in becoming a pilot.

Yes-ish. I just took a look at the CAF pay scales and an S1 makes more than a SLt. And as far as I remember, NWO Lt(N)s were one of the few ranks that weren’t strictly time-based.

Sure. 10 IPCs.

It isn’t, and that would tangent me to the pros and cons of strictly separating the messes in the RCN vice other services, especially when the other services also operate multi-crew vehicles (to include aircraft) where officers, senior NCMs, and junior NCMs work very closely together. The Aurora crews manage to hang out together in their off hours - or don’t. The most well-attended parts of RCAF combined messes is the all-ranks bar.

We need a culture change around our ranks, no argument from me.

The CAF is bleeding everyone from MCpl on up for the NCMs, and Capt for the officers. But that is also a function of the (misguided) strategy that everyone will stay for 25 years, when that makes no sense - but that’s a discussion on a different thread.

Agreed.

In that case, all unit PT should be FORCE test prep. Just circuits of the 4 stations - not volleyball or whatever else. And it has to be mandatory for all people, regardless of rank or position, from the CDS on down. Because we’re all tested on the FORCE test, and not “how well do you play volleyball”.

I agree with this. PT should be challenging and aimed towards our duties.

 

[QV]

I'm here because I still give a shit. And I would like to maybe influence some change.

That is admirable. Too many don't these days.

 

[Halifax Tar]

I still use that line for people that have unreasonable demands in order to stay in. When we cater for one, it has a demoralizing effect for others.

In your case, I am genuinely interested in what keeps you in if you’re so sour towards the organization.

Discussing some points as ideas for improvements does not a sour feeling make.

I also already answered this in my original reply to you.

 

[dimsum]

Pay isn't the fix all, as I said, but I think it would help a good portion; in the NCM world.

Well yeah, pay would help a good portion in any world. Pilots and ATCs would stop leaving in droves too.

But, unlike civilian companies, we can’t just pay people more because we do not control pay and benefits. If that was a COA and the CDS or DM can do it without TB’s say so, we wouldn’t be having this conversation right now. I guess we can, as @Edward Campbell has mentioned previously, just pull a Hellyer and uprank every junior NCM to SNCO level to account for pay to do an end-run around TB, but I doubt that will go down well either in policy or CAF hierarchy.

You can mask your sentiment all you'd like but you've played this condescending 'if you don't like it you cand leave' card before; and its a sentiment that has played a role at getting us into the personnel position that we are in.

What the CAF lacks is an off-ramp or acknowledgement that not everyone will stay 25 years for whatever reason, and that is ok. Calling folks “quitters” for VR-ing doesn’t help anyone.

As I’m sure you know, there are limits to what we can allow. HAIRFORGEN and its backlash in some circles is an example of that - some of the Dinos said the same “if you don’t like it you can leave” referring to the pre-HAIRFORGEN grooming standards.

Imagine if you were compensated for those 4th and 5th duties.

Sure, but how does one quantify the compensation? Extra hours based on time used? How would that jibe with the fact that we already have different “work day” schedules depending on position? My work day as a MARS officer was wildly different than as an ACSO on sqn, and now as a staff officer.

I only ask bc at my current work location OUTCAN, there is a manning study where we are literally trying to see how much percentage of a day we spend doing X, Y, and Z. But not pesky stuff like “supervisory duties”, “writing personnel reports”, or “admin for trips”.

Sure. 10 IPCs.

I’ve seen this bandied about over and over. I personally have no issue with NCMs surpassing officers in pay (assuming you’re talking about the whole “10 instead of 4 IPCs for Cpl” thing, then MCpl getting more, Sgt more than that, etc).

The Australian Defence Force has an eye-chart of a pay/benefits scale (not kidding - it’s multiple pages and lists every single sort of pay and benefit, including language ability and stuff). Their big difference is that pay is based not only on rank but on trade. However, each rank only has 2-3 increments. So a cook and a clerk would have different pay scales, but each rank of such would only have IPC 0, 1, and sometimes 2.

The ironic thing is that the ADF also thinks they’re underpaid.

https://pay-conditions.defence.gov.au/sites/default/files/2024-10/ADF-pay-rates-current.pdf

 

[dapaterson]

FORCE is a test to ensure people meet the minimum CAF standard.

If a specific occupation has greater demands, they should work with defence scientists and exercise specialists to determine what the standard needs to be, and what training is needed to build to and maintain that standard.

Or you can pull something out of your ass, say "FORCE test, but with PPE, a tac vest and a rifle!" and pretend it's a logical, well-thought out, defensible standard.

 

[dimsum]

FORCE is a test to ensure people meet the minimum CAF standard.

If a specific occupation has greater demands, they should work with defence scientists and exercise specialists to determine what the standard needs to be, and what training is needed to build to and maintain that standard.

Or you can pull something out of your ass, say "FORCE test, but with PPE, a tac vest and a rifle!" and pretend it's a logical, well-thought out, defensible standard.

Or you can go the US Army route and have one of your test requirements be “throw a 10lb medicine ball over your head, backwards”.

Because that happens all the time, aside from Aussie Rules Football games.

Standing Power Throw (SPT) | ACFT Event 2

Find out how to train and how far you'll need to throw the 10-pound ball to pass the Standing Power Throw—the second event in the Army Combat Fitness Test (ACFT).

www.goarmy.com

 

[dapaterson]

Under the current CAF compensation construct, ranks have pay bands. The number of IPCs determines how that band is divided.

My minor tweak to NCM compensation would be the elimination of a pay scale for MCpl; replace it with a $300/month MCpl allowance, then use the MCpl upper limit pay band for Cpl, adding two IPCs to the broadened Cpl pay band.

Of course, there would be a cost associated with this - but I think (back of the envelope math) that that cost could be absorbed by not giving an inflationary pay increase to the CAF for one year.

So would all officers, and all NCMs Sgt/PO2 and above, be willing to forego one year of inflationary increases to give all Cpls (including MCpls) more money?

 

[Halifax Tar]

@dapaterson lol I am not defending the Force test. I'm simply saying it's a condition of employment and tested yearly.

So would all officers, and all NCMs Sgt/PO2 and above, be willing to forego one year of inflationary increases to give all Cpls (including MCpls) more money?

I'd have no issue with it. The problem is that you have to make going to PO2 and up worth it. And right now less and less are seeing that it is.

 

[MilEME09]

Under the current CAF compensation construct, ranks have pay bands. The number of IPCs determines how that band is divided.

My minor tweak to NCM compensation would be the elimination of a pay scale for MCpl; replace it with a $300/month MCpl allowance, then use the MCpl upper limit pay band for Cpl, adding two IPCs to the broadened Cpl pay band.

Of course, there would be a cost associated with this - but I think (back of the envelope math) that that cost could be absorbed by not giving an inflationary pay increase to the CAF for one year.

So would all officers, and all NCMs Sgt/PO2 and above, be willing to forego one year of inflationary increases to give all Cpls (including MCpls) more money?

the cpl pay band should be a larger pot any way imo, career corporals aren't just a thing, they should be encouraged, not everyone wants to be leadership but our system forces people to advance in rank if they want to earn more. I would like to something for corporal more akin to captain where we have a large band and 10 or more IPCs. That or we create an appointment for the career corporal, lets just call it Cpl (C) for now where there is no more advancement in the ranks but more pay increases for the next 5-8 years. we then get senior members of trades who are experts in their field without leadership potential.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

the cpl pay band should be a larger pot any way imo, career corporals aren't just a thing, they should be encouraged, not everyone wants to be leadership but our system forces people to advance in rank if they want to earn more. I would like to something for corporal more akin to captain where we have a large band and 10 or more IPCs. That or we create an appointment for the career corporal, lets just call it Cpl (C) for now where there is no more advancement in the ranks but more pay increases for the next 5-8 years. we then get senior members of trades who are experts in their field without leadership potential.

I think we would have to be careful with that idea. Do we want lots of career Infantry Cpls? Career HRA Cpls? Maybe. Career stokers, AVS, AVN, Veh Techs might be a stronger argument.

 

[Halifax Tar]

I think we would have to be careful with that idea. Do we want lots of career Infantry Cpls? Career HRA Cpls? Maybe. Career stokers, AVS, AVN, Veh Techs might be a stronger argument.

Can you expand on this ?

 

[dimsum]

I think we would have to be careful with that idea. Do we want lots of career Infantry Cpls? Career HRA Cpls? Maybe. Career stokers, AVS, AVN, Veh Techs might be a stronger argument.

Then there’s the other side of that argument - if so many trades want career Cpls (and Capts), will there be enough people wanting to get promoted?

Will those the people that should get promoted? There’s the old adage that the person who wants the job shouldn’t necessarily be the person who gets it.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

Can you expand on this ?

Sure.

Using Infantry only as an example- how many 45-50 year old career Cpls with bum knees and bad backs who can’t deploy do you want in each Battalion? That gig is a young person’s game- you probably want lots of 20 somethings and lots of throughput at the Pte-Cp, level. Carrying older, less fit junior folks might be a detriment to the trade.

The more technically minded trades might be different. We might want more experienced Cpls to turn wrenches. However, the march of time takes its toll on all of us. We have think this through, carefully.

 

[Fabius]

We need a culture change around our ranks, no argument from me.

What are the cons about the current rank culture? Pros?

 

[daftandbarmy]

What are the cons about the current rank culture? Pros?

For one, IMHO, a Sergeant is too senior for a section commander. At that rank, age range and experience level they'd be better employed as a Pl 2IC.

A Sergeants' Mess full of section commanders makes the mess alot of money though, as the Guards Division in the UK figured out a long time ago

 

[dimsum]

What are the cons about the current rank culture? Pros?

This is a huge tangent away from the topic so Mods, feel free to split from the current topic.

There is no one current rank culture. There are many rank cultures, from the very hierarchical (RCN having separate messes) to…not (stereotypical aircrew “first name basis” and hanging out in the same all-ranks mess).

There are pros and cons to each.

 

[daftandbarmy]

This is a huge tangent away from the topic so Mods, feel free to split from the current topic.

There is no one current rank culture. There are many rank cultures, from the very hierarchical (RCN having separate messes) to…not (stereotypical aircrew “first name basis” and hanging out in the same all-ranks mess).

There are pros and cons to each.

And the Army be like....

 

[FJAG]

But, unlike civilian companies, we can’t just pay people more because we do not control pay and benefits.

I expect you know this deep down, but civilian companies can't just pay people more simply because they control pay and benefits. There are numerous factors that affect employee pay but the governing one is overall income and expenditures. Unlike the various civil services who can offload costs through taxation, companies need to make an income to cover their various expenditures. Managing those is a delicate balancing act.

 

[dimsum]

I expect you know this deep down, but civilian companies can't just pay people more simply because they control pay and benefits. There are numerous factors that affect employee pay but the governing one is overall income and expenditures. Unlike the various civil services who can offload costs through taxation, companies need to make an income to cover their various expenditures. Managing those is a delicate balancing act.

Agreed, but said company doesn’t have to ask others whether they’re allowed to pay people more, or do anything else with the income they get.