PERs : All issues questions...2003-2019

[284_226]

Based on the lack of support Twisted received in his argument from other members, its pretty much obvious that most member here agree with ArmyVern's statement. 

I don't think that's an accurate conclusion to be drawing.

Not supporting twisted ≠ agreement with ArmyVern
Not voicing an opinion ≠ agreement with ArmyVern

The CF looks after you, you look after your wife.  Her job is not the CF's problem.

I think that's an overly simplistic description.  The CF can and does take spousal employment into consideration when it can.  Ultimately, when the CF can't take it into consideration, it's the member's decision whether to continue being employed by the CF.

Do I think the CF should bend over backwards to guarantee spousal employment on posting?  No.

Do I think more could be done to accommodate member's wishes (and consideration of spousal employment) when it comes to posting location, short of impinging upon other members?  Sure.

 

[armyvern]

I don't think that's an accurate conclusion to be drawing.

Not supporting twisted ≠ agreement with ArmyVern
Not voicing an opinion ≠ agreement with ArmyVern

I agree.

I think that's an overly simplistic description.  The CF can and does take spousal employment into consideration when it can.  Ultimately, when the CF can't take it into consideration, it's the member's decision whether to continue being employed by the CF.

Do I think the CF should bend over backwards to guarantee spousal employment on posting?  No.

I agree.

Do I think more could be done to accommodate member's wishes (and consideration of spousal employment) when it comes to posting location, short of impinging upon other members?  Sure.

I somewhat agree. As I already pointed out too -- the CF already does this. If the members family IS going to be affected by a move, the CF has already has the additional option of Soldier A going IR and leaving the family stable. That IS accomodating a members family situation. I'm fine with that. In this case, if the member does proceed on IR he has made the choice to leave his family in their stability (ie the wife at the good paying job) and to not shaft someone else into the posting. If soldier A however, will NOT proceed to the posting (even IR) ... then he has failed "to perform his duty to the Crown" and this action by him will result in another CF member (who also possibly has a family) to get shafted by soldier A's failure to perform his duty ... and soldier A should be OUT -- no ifs, no ands, no buts.

And that is who we are talking about here -- the boys/gals who just flat out refuse to leave a location "don't post me or else (not even IR)...". It's about time they reaped the benefit they deserve. I'm not sad to see them go because I, for one, am sick and tired of being their beneficiary by being posted every second year and being posted IR because the CF has not done anything about the members we have serving today who hold that attitude. Their "do not post me or elses" have affected my family one too many times ... it's high time their own family was affected by their statement instead of mine.

*When I got posted to Pet, my sponser there was posted to my current location 3 months later. 3 years later I was posted here and my my sponser was still here. 2 years later I was posted back to Ontario and he remained here. 3 years later I was posted back here ... and here he still sat. 18 months later, I found myself posted to another province yet again on IR ... and here he still sat. 18 months later I got posted back here and here he still sat. Finally, this fall --- off he went after 14 years here. Good bye -- it's about time.    (Our ranks matched throughout  :).

 

[2 Cdo]

Just my two cents here twisted. When I was posted to Kingston in 02, we took a pay cut of close to $2,000 a month due to wifes loss of a job. It was hard but we managed. Now my wife makes far more than me, so rather than move back out west again I retired. It's all about choices. it might sound like a cliche but in the big picture your spouse really doesn't matter to the military. She/he is not their employee, you are. I think Vern hit it on the head, there seems to be a lot more of the "me me" attitude in the CF these days which overall reduces capabilities.

 

[George Wallace]

ArmyVern has made some good points about these people who are "refusing" Postings and I might add Tours.  They are a burden on the System, whether they know it or not.  When they refuse to be posted or go on a Tour, someone else must fill that spot.  As it turns out, it seems it is always the same people being selected to replace them.  This causes a lot of stress on these people, while the person who refused sits in a "comfortable" position at home.  The "Replacements" soon begin to "Burn Out" and show signs of PTSD or other symptoms.  In the majority of cases, I would recommend that anyone refusing a Posting or Tour be released.  They are "Dead Weights" who are causing a snowball effect on the morale of the CF.  

For every one of them that refuses a Posting or Tour, two others are usually affected in a negative manner.  Get rid of them.


I will qualify this a bit by saying that in some very rare cases, a person has some very legitimate reasons to refuse a Posting or Tour, but as I said they are very rare.  These people have some serious problems such as children with "Special needs" or "Health concerns" and should have the extra consideration shown them.  This by no means qualifies everyone who's spouse has a job of any sort or children in school.  Too many today come with a feeling of entitlement and only want to "milk the system".

 

[armyvern]

I will qualify this a bit by saying that in some very rare cases, a person has some very legitimate reasons to refuse a Posting or Tour, but as I said they are very rare.  These people have some serious problems such as children with "Special needs" or "Health concerns" and should have the extra consideration shown them.  This by no means qualifies everyone who's spouse has a job of any sort or children in school.  Too many today come with a feeling of entitlement and only want to "milk the system".

Absolutely agreed on the above, but in this case the member is accomodated via the "Compassionate route" by the CF, either remaining at the current location (ie if the child requires sick kids treatment that's not readily avail say -- in Gagetown etc) or by Compassionate posting to a location due to a situation with parents occuring there etc.  I am 100% fine with that as well.

So the CF already accomodates for "spousal employment" via the IR route, and for serious family concerns such as health via the "compassionate route" ...

They are doing what they can, it's the situations of flat out refusals to go IR or to state that "or else" that I have issues with.

 

[Gunner98]

I will add that the further into your career you get, providing you still have your original family complete (the one you were issued 20 years ago), it gets harder to move DF&E every few years.  What can be annoying even to seasoned soldiers (those with a CD and 1st clasp) is the relative diminishing options.  Ergo many people end up on IR often.  I know of a few in the HSS community that have been on IR for a total of more than 10 years (not always continuously).  This does not make for a great family setting, but surprisingly some of these relationships survive the challenges. 

One constant is that the Career Managers and Sr staff (DComd and COS) have very different ideas about your next location and position than what you may have discussed with your immediate chain of command or foolishly listed on your MPRR as "posting preferences".  Although experience and qualifications will limit your available options, it is still be satisfying to have some spirited discussion on your future, prior to just accepting your fate.  In some cases, a compromise is found if the threats of or else are avoided.

In the HSS community, they are currently attempting to rotate (post) people out of the comfortable clinical setting into the field units to alleviate the constant deployment of a smaller group of people.  Succession planning has been attempted on a number of occasions but IMHO, these boards tend not to come up with the desired plans (at least those results expected from the senior leadership.)  The results of these deliberations have not been endorsed and the succession planning terms of reference continue to evolve.

 

[twizted]

I totally agree for tour, if you don't want to deploy the CF it's not your place. 

 

[armyvern]

I totally agree for tour, if you don't want to deploy the CF it's not your place. 

But the CF comes with postings too -- that's also a given upon being sworn in, so if you flat out refuse to comply with that condition as well (being that the CF accomodates family sits via IR and health sits via Compassionate) -- why should the CF still be "your place?"

 

[twizted]

  I believe it's a question of priorities, if a person doesn't want to move at all he or she should join the Res and not the Reg forces.  I believe there is a way out there to let people in the same spot for a longer period of time and by doing so still meet the mobility requirement of the CF.

  From your experience ArmyVern what do you think should be a good solution.  Except it's not "your place". Because everytime you kick someone out you lose money, training, and as mentionned before the people staying are getting overworked.

Cheers !

P.S. I wont be back for a while this week I'm on the road.

 

[aesop081]

    I believe there is a way out there to let people in the same spot for a longer period of time and by doing so still meet the mobility requirement of the CF.

 

Oh i realy want to hear your plan.

 

[armyvern]

  I believe it's a question of priorities, if a person doesn't want to move at all he or she should join the Res and not the Reg forces.  I believe there is a way out there to let people in the same spot for a longer period of time and by doing so still meet the mobility requirement of the CF.

  From your experience ArmyVern what do you think should be a good solution.  Except it's not "your place". Because everytime you kick someone out you lose money, training, and as mentionned before the people staying are getting overworked.
Cheers !

P.S. I wont be back for a while this week I'm on the road.

I don't think "we" need a solution. It's already there for the RegF. You go on your posting (IR or compassionate deals with family and health issues if required). If you still won't go on your posting -- you get out or they make you get out.

As to your bold (my emphasis) portion ... no, you see when they make you get out of the RegF for NOT doing your duty to the Crown that you have sworn to do -- then there is now an empty position to recruit someone into. Perhaps even, someone who gives a shit about the BIG picture and will do that duty they have sworn to do. Will I then be busier for a bit while that person is trained? Yes, but my morale will be much higher because my family will no longer be getting shafted every second year by being posted because the CF has allowed (decided) that someone else's family stability and QOL takes precedence over mine.

And, in the long run ... what is cheaper? Posting me IR (or posting me with my family) every second year ... or FINALLY putting your foot down and posting the guy/gal who has had nice jammy family stability for 12 or 13 years somewhere for what is, often times, the first time in their career?

1) That posting expands and broadens their trade knowledge which is of huge benefit to the CF;

2) That posting garners work related experience that is beneficial to that member for both overall performance and advancement within the trade;

3) That posting is ultimately a part of the duty that member is sworn to do; and

4) Finally, that member being forced to go or to get out ... benefits the people like me who seem to be the ones doing our duty by allowing us some stability for once or twice in our careers and is good for my families morale which has suffered at the expense of "their" morale for long enough.

 

[Greymatters]

They we not acting as mods in their posts. If they were they would have "The Army.ca Staff" under their responses.

Fair enough.  However, there is a lot of experience behind the names and position identified, if not speaking as Mods then certainly as informed and experienced persons.

Regarding the lack of comments (Not supporting twisted ≠ agreement with ArmyVern, Not voicing an opinion ≠ agreement with ArmyVern) that may be true if a thrid position has been stated and brought into the argument, but lacking a third view = fence-sitting ...

 

[Timmy!]

The "Replacements" soon begin to "Burn Out" and show signs of PTSD or other symptoms.  In the majority of cases, I would recommend that anyone refusing a Posting or Tour be released.  They are "Dead Weights" who are causing a snowball effect on the morale of the CF.  

For every one of them that refuses a Posting or Tour, two others are usually affected in a negative manner.  Get rid of them.

+1 Excellent Statement

 

[X-mo-1979]

X-Mo_1979's View On Refusing Posting.

Anyone with more than 6 years in the army has had "The" posting.The one everyone talks about every APS.I have just finished my 3 years at "the"posting.Was I happy there?Nope.However I had a clear choice.Take the posting or try to fight it and be a selfish idoit who was going to bone someone else (who guess what...doesnt want that crappy posting either).So what did I do?Went there and looked for the lighter side of that posting.Every posting has a goodside.And honestly when I was getting posted back to my unit I realised that there were aspects of that posting I would certainly miss.

Some troops say certain postings are career deaths.Lies.I find most soldiers kill their own careers with their attitudes.Now I didnt become allied supreme commander,however I did get some career progression due to having a positive attitude and looking FORWARD in my career to make sure I made myself desired (trade qualifications/work ethic) to return to my previous post.

Dual Service Couple.Now armyvern I mean no mallice by saying this.However I know you suck it up and get posted away:

TOO BAD.
Me and my wifey were a service couples.We could not be posted together so we decided that one of us would release.She did.
Long IR postings,TOO BAD.One of you get out.
we once had a CO's hour and one Mcpl stood up and asked the CO what they were going to do for couples who were both deploying at the same time.Honestly I forget what he has said in response,but guess what...TOO BAD.
I dont care if Sally and Billy don't see their parents for 9 months,I really don't.You make over 100,000 dollars a year,your both adults,FIGURE IT OUT!You as service couples decided to make 100,000 plus a year and stay in.You as service couples decided your careers were important to you.If doing the job of a soldier (I.E Deploying) or going away does not work for you.Release.
I could make 100,000 plus, however me and my service spouse couldnt make it work for us.We did not want to have our kids with family for 9 months so one of us released.

"My wife is making 200,000 grand as a nurse in Edmonton.You CANT post me!"

wrong.

When the hell did the career manager have to be Dr.Phil as well?

As my career manager told us this year.

"So you are posted.If you refuse your posting,your COS quickly becomes your release date."

 

[armyvern]

I'm interested to see what the statistics would show on that IR ...

Because 85% of the people I know on IR ... are married service couples (don't know if that's just because most that I happen to know personnaly are MSCs or if that's the actuality of the figures) -- who seem to be doing just fine at proceeding IR and thus complying with their obligation to the Crown.

I also know a great many of them who want to deploy at the same time (some are currently deployed as such) because they find it easier to have them both gone at once for 6 or 7 months than to single parent year round --- deployment after deployment after deployment.

It's a two way street with MSCs just like everyone else. I also know MSCs who whine when they can't be posted together (despite both being IN the CF WHEN they married each other  :).

Either they go on the posting/tour or get OUT -- there's absolutely zero difference between them and a single guy, or a guy married to a civy. Go on the posting, go IR ... or get out. Same rules apply.

 

[BinRat55]

Vern, who know you'd be so smart this far along!!  I'm actually impressed by MOST of your topic replies (this thread being no exception) they are well argued, debated and (for the most part) clean and tidy (I say this because some of your posts re: Supply Etiquette et al are a weensie bit colorful)  But I digress.  Here is my point - yes, I do have one - you didn't get that way but working in the same place, living in the same circumstances and experiencing only the different variety of coffee at the surrounding Timmies.  We as soldiers (sometimes it actually IS soldier first) accept certain hazards, but along with those "hazards" come rewards.  My 2 cents?  As has been stated in many responses prior to this one, we do have choices.  At no time is it professional to put someone "over a barrel" by saying something like "I'll get out if you post me there..."  Go there.  Make the best of it.  Unless there is a legitimate non-lasting reason not to.  Compassionate will halt your career - your choice, but how important is this "reason"?  It can be fixed.  If not, you have another choice, right?  QOL (I think it's changed now but I'm unsure to what) will not halt your career, but again, it's temporary.  Is it important to you? Again, your choice.

My bottom line - I have never refused and will never refuse a posting - and I do have legitimate reasons for alternate avenues, but that is MY CHOICE.  I get a kick out of people who, when they find out I spent time in Petawawa, say to me "I'd never go to Pet - release me first"  If you're talking out your butt, good for you, but if I ever get back to Pet and have the privilege of working with you while you wait for your release or your grievance to go through, be sure to know that I will note your attitude.

Sorry for going off there, but I too believe that the CF bends over WAY too much for some people.  A posting is considered an order, is it not?  There was a time when everyone in the CF never questioned an order.

I'll spare everyone my rant on refused tours - for now!! 

 

[McG]

CANFORGEN 127/08 - Seems there are some new developments for those unhappy with PERs.

 

[aesop081]

I was wondering if PDR's were mandated to be given at certain periods? (eg. Quarterly, which is what I thought). What I've read here so far suggests that they are not...

The CFPAS system only requires that you get a Part 1 and then followed by a minimum of one Part 5 during the year. There can be more but this is left to the discretion of local commanders.

 

[AirForce]

Ah so since they've done that initial PDR there doesn't have to be another one for this PER cycle.

Thanks for clearing that up for me, I greatly appreciate it!

 

[aesop081]

Ah so since they've done that initial PDR there doesn't have to be another one for this PER cycle.

You should have been given a Part 1 ( the job description) when you started your job. At some point during the year ( idealy at mid-point) you should have signed a Part 5 telling you how you were doing. At the end of the year you will be presented with your PER. This completes the cycle at a minimum.