Military Wants More From Its Soldiers-Article

[bossi]

(hmmm ... reminds me of an old Shell commercial:   "We go further with less" ...)

MILITARY WANTS MORE OUT OF THEIR SOLDIERS
By Stephanie Rubec, Sun Ottawa Bureau

OTTAWA -- The Canadian Forces wants more bang for their buck from the people they hire and train. Doug Lock, Defence Department spokesman, said the military has concluded it's not getting a full return on its investment when training soldiers and has launched a full-blown review of its enrolment contracts to make up the shortfall.

Lock said the Forces wants longer commitments than three years from many of those without a university degree who sign up with the army, navy or air force.

"If we find the right people who have the right attitude and right commitment, then the theory is that they'll stay longer," he said, admitting that the longer contracts could "drive candidates away."

The brass heading 100-plus military occupations have been ordered by month's end to hammer out how long each soldier must serve to cover the cost of their training.

Lock said the new, lengthier enrolment contracts to be drawn up by January will see those soldiers enrolling in trades that require extensive training committing to longer terms of service than those in occupations that demand much less schooling.

The new, lengthier contracts are also meant to stop soldiers from ditching the military before even completing their training or immediately after.

"There is some problem with specific occupations with early attrition," Lock said, pointing to the infantry as a prime example.

The military shells out $80,000 to shape a recruit into a battle-ready infantry soldier over eight months of training - that's at the bottom of the cost scale. It takes about seven years to train someone to fix a fighter jet.

As for officers, Lock said their nine-year initial contracts are likely to be reduced in some trades that require little training, and extended for trades like fighter pilot.

And to keep soldiers serving longer, the Canadian Forces is implementing a plan next year that requires they work five more years - or 25 years - before they are eligible for their pension.

 

[Spr.Earl]

"The brass heading 100-plus military occupations have been ordered by month's end to hammer out how long each soldier must serve to cover the cost of their training."

You may as well add at least 3 month's for every year served as we all know training is ongoing never mind the official course's people are sent on.I can see us going the way of the Brit.'s are or use to be by, if you whant to quit you will have to buy your way out from your remaining service.

 

[Scoobie Newbie]

Buy your way out?   Are you serious.  
They want more out of their troops then maybe these morons in the brass dept. should plan exciting training, range time etc.   They want to get more out of their troops have them email.   Better yet put a senior CPL in charge.

 

[Scoobie Newbie]

Hey BRASS here is a reason why there is a high rate of attrition in the Infantry.  Its called politics and bullshit.  I really hope someone in NDHQ surfs this board.  I am so bitter and would love to go off on one of those that are pulling the strings.

 

[Jarnhamar]

I remember a general telling us there was no problem with morale in the army and the infantry did NOT have a problem with retaining soldiers.  This was the exact oppisite feeling/attitude i got from dozens of SNCOs and troops who were counting down the months until they quit. Main reason? Politics and BS.  Somewhere along the chain of command the information is getting flipped upside down.

 

[Scoobie Newbie]

Is this clown still running things and did you have a chance to correct him.  I know a SGT Major who is doing a report on why morale is low and the funny thing is, his COY has the lowest morale because of how he runs it.  They don't understand that its the Mcpl's/Cpl's that are in the know.  We joke in the 2ND that when a general visits us he must have drawn the shortest straw because we don't hold back.  It got so bad one year that he left well before his time was up and a curt "No more questions" was bellowed.

 

[bubba]

cfL you tell like it is ,dont ever stop... >

 

[Scoobie Newbie]

Well I won't stop.  That said I can generally only speak on what I know and how it effects me.  I did howver email the Minister of Defence.  Nothing like the disgruntled Cpl that doesn't want anything else from the army.  We tend to tell it like it is.

 

[Jarnhamar]

Theres only so much they can do to a corporal for being honest.

 

[Spr.Earl]

Well I won't stop.   That said I can generally only speak on what I know and how it effects me.   I did howver email the Minister of Defence when it was confirmed that we were going to Shilo and what a bad idea it was.   Nothing like the disgruntled Cpl that doesn't want anything else from the army.   We tend to tell it like it is.

CFL,I served under Peter Cook aka the Penguin 2nd Batt PPCLI , CWO Cook was and still is the best I have ever met and he treated us all a Soldiers untill you realy F'u up.
I ended   up on a hatless parade in country with one of our own.

Even though I do take the mikie about the Picklies it'sd all in jest as you do about us thumper head's

We are all Brother's in Arm"s  

 

[Scoobie Newbie]

They tend do give those that speak out the 24 hour phone orderlies.  Not as a punishment but because the duty needed to be filled.  Ya right.

 

[CdnGalaGal]

I remember a general telling us there was no problem with morale in the army and the infantry did NOT have a problem with retaining soldiers.   This was the exact oppisite feeling/attitude i got from dozens of SNCOs and troops who were counting down the months until they quit. Main reason? Politics and BS.   Somewhere along the chain of command the information is getting flipped upside down.

The Cpls and the MCpls see the BS and catch a whiff of the politics (or are dragged into them)... The ptes don't really have a clue until they start getting screwed by everything from higher up... The Sgts still speak their mind with brutal honesty and likewise get screwed by politics. The WOs and above though... Well they're torn between knowing what the truth is and having to be PC and tactful. By the time the truth gets up through the ranks, it's mottled, misinterpreted, taken out of context and all out WRONG! Unfortunately, seems that it has to be that way or else the officers aren't willing to listen. It's just SOOO much easier to believe that things are all hunky dory rather than problematic. Problems mean that there's work to be done... You get quite a few good officers willing to do the army some good, of course, but it can be really hard for them to get at the problems when the NCOs are so used to dealing with the officers who want to live in their dream world...

 

[dutchie]

One thing that hasn't been touched on yet is the pension thing. It looks like you will have to serve 5 extra years to get the same pension. Yeah, great idea guys. Add 5 years, that otta crank up morale nicely. Did anyone mention those 5 yrs are the last 5 yrs? You know, the 'I can retire any time I want.'/I don't give a f*ck years? They're gonna get real value out of those I tell ya.

 

[CdnGalaGal]

One thing that hasn't been touched on yet is the pension thing. It looks like you will have to serve 5 extra years to get the same pension.

This is true. A few of my buddies were lucky and got to sign their contracts under the old 20 yr rule (this was quite recently), but the poor schmoes behind them weren't so lucky. I didn't know about this "buy back" rule though. Is that true? In which case, maybe it'd be more costly for me to go regs than not... (oops, my bad, guys... I just realized that I am mixing threads. My comment still stands though)

Attempting to retain one's army is an honourable cause. The trouble is finding just the right mix of benefits vs cost to make it work (and I mean for the soldiers AND for the taxpayers).

 

[ModlrMike]

One thing that hasn't been touched on yet is the pension thing. It looks like you will have to serve 5 extra years to get the same pension. Yeah, great idea guys. Add 5 years, that otta crank up morale nicely. Did anyone mention those 5 yrs are the last 5 yrs? You know, the 'I can retire any time I want.'/I don't give a f*ck years? They're gonna get real value out of those I tell ya.

No.......... If you read the messages, it is still 2 percent per year. Therefore 25 years = 50% as opposed to 20 years = 40%

 

[Spr.Earl]

The Military Pension is the same as the Fed. Civ.,and all Provincial Civ. Plans.
Super Annuation ,meaning 2% for every year on the Job.

If you leave the Military and get a job with a Provincial Gov. you can transfer your contributions to that Job.
Don't let them talk you into cashing out your pension ever!!
Leave it in there!!
Because you lose big time!!!!
It's guranteed,you can't ever lose that money.

 

[FastEddy]

If the idiots want more Bang for their Buck, they should start on Parliament Hill.

If there's any kind of problem with the CAF's, its because of idiots like him.

 

[winchable]

My university is being governed by the siimple percentage.
You serve 20 years at anything you certainly deserve something, even if it is only a gold watch and a letter saying "Good Job" A La "speed"

 

[hiv]

Just my two cents on the new pension scheme they've worked out.

A lot of people I've talked to who are reaching the twilight of their career (15-17 years in) seem to be quickly approaching the fed-up-I-want-to-leave plateau but have decided to hang around a few more years to qualify for that pension. My personal thoughts are that if the qualifying time is changed to 25 years you're going to lose a lot of those people who were on the verge of quitting but decided to stay a little bit longer to qualify for the pension. The simple truth is that people who want to stay in, will do so. I think that holding that carrot a little further away is only going to make the problem worse, not better.

 

[Bartok5]

Tribal Jedi,

Impending changes to the CF Terms of Service and the Superannuation Act (eg. the "Pension Plan") have no bearing on the group of personnel that you refer to.   I am one of them, with 17.5 years of Reg F service, and a stated intention of releasing at the end of my 20 year Intermediate Engagement.   All personnel serving on an IE when the new Terms of Service take effect are deemed to be "grandfathered".   They can still release at 20 years and receive the basic 40% pension, or they can opt to sign onto to the new Terms of Service and serve to 25 years in order to receive 50%.   It really makes no difference, because assuming that the member on IE has been offered and accepted IPS (under the existing terms of service), he or she could continue to serve as long as they choose regardless.   Under the current Terms of Service, you receive 2% pension per year of additional service past 20 years, to a maximum pension of 70% (based on 35 years of service).   The only rider is that under the current terms of service you are "penalized" and will not receive the full 2% per year unless you serve at least 5 years of the IPS.   Which (surprise!) takes you to 25 years just like the new Terms of Service.

There is zero advantage for anyone currently serving on IE with a signed IPS offer to give up their grandfathered status.   All you would do is tie yourself to 25 years of service for pension eligibility, rather than having the flexibility of releasing with a pension at any point between 20 and 25 years.   Anyone on IE without an IPS offer must think carefully about what they want to do.   If they are firm in their desire to release at 20 years, then they should stick with the "grandfathered" IE and take the 40% pension.   If they are uncertain about release at 20 years and lack an IPS offer to take them beyond that, then they should consider jumping on board the new Terms of Service.   Understanding that they will then have to serve a minimum of an further 5 years (25 total) in order to be eligible for a pension (rather than a lump-sum return of pension contributions).  

The bottom line is that the change in Terms of Service and pension eligibility will have zero bearing on the vast majority of personnel who are currently serving on an IE.   It won't "push them" to release by moving the pension "carrot" further away, because in their case the "carrot" doesn't move.   They simply have more options to consider, depending on whether or not they wish to continue serving.   The only currently serving members who will benefit from the new Terms of Service are those on an IE without an IPS offer, who wish to serve past 20 years.   They will now be eligible to serve to 25 years without the need for a new contract.