• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Reconstitution

I don’t think Captains make too much money, but perhaps we shouldn’t start the count down to that automatic promotion until after OFP? So we aren’t paying some one doing an entry level apprentice job like Pl Comd the pay rate of a seasoned staff officer ?
Perhaps promotion above lieutenant - platoon/troop commander - should require a combination of fully acceptable or better annual reports (PERs) and, big AND examinations to demonstrate theoretical and practical knowledge of a few things like military law, current affairs, organization and administration in peace and war and current tactical doctrine.
 
Actually, there are some ridiculous PhD's out there.
Indeed ... and some (Math, for sure) that make mid six figures ($(US)500K+) on graduation IF they leave the academy and work in other areas. Even some top unis pay top dollar ($(US)250K) for Math profs ... and then there are consulting contracts to top that up. (Not all uni profs do consulting on the side, but many do and it doesn't appear to seriously impair their social lives.)
 
Indeed ... and some (Math, for sure) that make mid six figures ($(US)500K+) on graduation IF they leave the academy and work in other areas. Even some top unis pay top dollar ($(US)250K) for Math profs ... and then there are consulting contracts to top that up. (Not all uni profs do consulting on the side, but many do and it doesn't appear to seriously impair their social lives.)
Math prof and social life are a non intersecting Venn diagram.
 
And for anyone saying they can hire a PHD for 60 k I’d love to know what industry. Everyone I know with a masters is making well over 100k.
Not doctoral, but just to add to the discussion, I saw this in another, totally unrelated forum, regarding a VIA station agent/ticket sales position. According to another site, this position earns between $69K and $75K/year.

1665586294899.png


I have a few PhDs on my wife's side. Most have gone onto to either law or medicine to, you know, make a living.
 
Tangentially, from HBR:

People don’t quit a job, the saying goes — they quit a boss. But that’s not what Facebook found in a recent engagement survey.

Depends on the job. Do good customer service, and you'll hardly ever see your supervisor. Screw up out there, and oh man!

Not doctoral, but just to add to the discussion, I saw this in another, totally unrelated forum, regarding a VIA station agent/ticket sales position. According to another site, this position earns between $69K and $75K/year.

Just a guess. But, possibly the intent was to get on with VIA, at an entry level, so when a more desirable Job Call comes available, only Internal applicants are eligible to apply. We called them, "No fail promotions".
Not forced to compete with a multitude of "off the street" External applicants.

That really tilts the odds for an employee seeking an internal promotion.

All the while, building pension and seniority etc.

It was a pretty common tactic where I worked.




 
Shhhh next you’ll suggest that having some one go from St Jean, then to a training base, then to their first posting is a needless waste of money.
Vague idea: for trades where this is workable, moving Basic (which could incidentally be shortened/adjusted/made trade and service-specific) and initial trades training to either First Unit or First Base would also mean creating a training cell, the staffing of which would provide a not-in-unit lines rotation for a healthy collection of other people who wouldn't need to move as often. Fleet School plus localized BMQ, effectively.

Hopefully all of this is happening at a base that's not driving off members, their partners, etc. due to remoteness, mouldy quarters, appalling CoL, and so on.
 
We aren't calling up reserves or draftees to head to the front.
Actually we did for Afghanistan and admitted quite freely that we wouldn't have been able to fulfil the missions there without them.
If we want a professional military that can do the GoC's bigging on short notice, we need to pay what those people want/demand
The only people who want a high-paid professional military are the high-paid professional military. This was a concept foisted on Canada by a post WW2 officer corps that convinced government that only "forces in being" could stop the Soviet hordes and effectively went on to ensure that the reserve side of the force became ever less capable of going to war. We need a well, but not high, paid core of professionals around which a stand-by force can be employed. That, and only that, will allow the transfer of the funding of a mostly unnecessary administrative system to combat effective capabilities.

We need to focus less on keeping full-time corporals around for twenty years and more on recruiting and keeping 18 year olds for five years and then making it easy for them to transition to civilian lives and maybe another five years of part-time service while giving them the experience of a lifetime during those years.

🍻
 
Actually we did for Afghanistan and admitted quite freely that we wouldn't have been able to fulfil the missions there without them.

The only people who want a high-paid professional military are the high-paid professional military. This was a concept foisted on Canada by a post WW2 officer corps that convinced government that only "forces in being" could stop the Soviet hordes and effectively went on to ensure that the reserve side of the force became ever less capable of going to war. We need a well, but not high, paid core of professionals around which a stand-by force can be employed. That, and only that, will allow the transfer of the funding of a mostly unnecessary administrative system to combat effective capabilities.

We need to focus less on keeping full-time corporals around for twenty years and more on recruiting and keeping 18 year olds for five years and then making it easy for them to transition to civilian lives and maybe another five years of part-time service while giving them the experience of a lifetime during those years.

🍻

Gold, Jerry!
 
We need to focus less on keeping full-time corporals around for twenty years and more on recruiting and keeping 18 year olds for five years and then making it easy for them to transition to civilian lives and maybe another five years of part-time service while giving them the experience of a lifetime during those years.
I can see the reasons for this and I agree partially. But I disagree for the technical trades and even many non tech trades. By the time you hit five years you finally learned your job and become proficient and competent in the job itself but many no where a expert ( hence why many Trades programs have a 4 year process) It comes down to the person who has been there for 15 years who seen that one thing break and can fix it quickly and properly.
The mindset that everyone needs to be in a official leadership role or released after a few years is a arrow minded mindset often propagated by those in a highly educated and none understanding on how things work. Usually overly educated bored and trying to fix a problem that is non existent. I have witnessed it in the Construction Industry, Military, Oilfield and Government institutions first hand. Small highly trained and skilled work force is something to be reckoned with in any capacity. Then you can fill in the gaps with less trained or newer workforce.
My understanding the Canadian Forces was suppose to be set up to be able to provide that highly trained Cadre that could train up, mentor and lead the mass force of new recruits to success. Instead we have a over bloated top end of a protectionist group in HQs that would prefer to keep that office job. They force good Officers who want to stay on the point to take a seat in order to be successful. Pilots come to mind in this one, Hey you get to fly for a few years then ride a desk for the rest.
What we need is a focus on the force itself, that include Reserves that can plug and play into that overall success. Again lots of resistance to this overall by those in the higher positions.
 
Actually we did for Afghanistan and admitted quite freely that we wouldn't have been able to fulfil the missions there without them.

The only people who want a high-paid professional military are the high-paid professional military. This was a concept foisted on Canada by a post WW2 officer corps that convinced government that only "forces in being" could stop the Soviet hordes and effectively went on to ensure that the reserve side of the force became ever less capable of going to war. We need a well, but not high, paid core of professionals around which a stand-by force can be employed. That, and only that, will allow the transfer of the funding of a mostly unnecessary administrative system to combat effective capabilities.

We need to focus less on keeping full-time corporals around for twenty years and more on recruiting and keeping 18 year olds for five years and then making it easy for them to transition to civilian lives and maybe another five years of part-time service while giving them the experience of a lifetime during those years.

🍻

I know I'm repeating myself, but ...

Actually the concept came from Eisenhower in about 1949/50 when he was making the transition from being President of Columbia University to being the brand new NATO's first SACEUR. Eisenhower wrote a brief or gave a speech - likely both, largely in response to Kennans long telegram - in which he suggested that the Soviet plan would be to station millions and millions of poorly trained conscripted soldiers on the inner-German border and, Ike said, there would be considerable pressure for the US-West/NATO to do the same. That would, he said, be the wrong response. Millions and millions of young Americans, Brits, Canadians and Danes, Eisenhower said, needed to be in their homelands, growing food, building homes and cars and refrigerators. That, he said, was how we would win the peace. There correct response, he said, was to station hundreds off thousands of well disciplined, well trained, well equipped, combat ready regulars - as a tripwire - on there inner German border and warn the Society that if they crossed the allied response would be massive nuclear retaliation of a a nearly unimaginable sort.

Hume Wrong was Canada's Ambassador in Washington and he read the brief and/or heard the talk and passed the notion on to St Laurent, who was the relatively newly installed Prime Minister. St Laurent agreed wholly with Ike and he told Brooke Claxton to get on with the job of building Canada's "new model army." Claxton did so against the wishes of his Naval and General staffs (the RCAF seems to have been on side as nearly as I can tell) who thought that the summer of 1939 was a good state to which to return.

The destruction of the militia was a long, slow process which, I agree, was done by short-sighted regulars who barely deserved the adjective professional.
 

We need to focus less on keeping full-time corporals around for twenty years and more on recruiting and keeping 18 year olds for five years and then making it easy for them to transition to civilian lives and maybe another five years of part-time service while giving them the experience of a lifetime during those years.

🍻

As long as those 18 year olds do not interpret "transition" with "transfer".

Personally, I can't see joining an organization with the intention of quitting to join another. I'd rather stay on for the whole ride.



Recruiter: "Where do you see yourself in five years?"

A: "Anywhere but here."

It means even if you are sucessful in "transitioning" to a compareable job ( no quarantee there ), you will become "the new kid on block" at your new organization. Working with people five years younger than you, with five years more seniority.
 
I can see the reasons for this and I agree partially. But I disagree for the technical trades and even many non tech trades. By the time you hit five years you finally learned your job and become proficient and competent in the job itself but many no where a expert ( hence why many Trades programs have a 4 year process) It comes down to the person who has been there for 15 years who seen that one thing break and can fix it quickly and properly.
The mindset that everyone needs to be in a official leadership role or released after a few years is a arrow minded mindset often propagated by those in a highly educated and none understanding on how things work. Usually overly educated bored and trying to fix a problem that is non existent. I have witnessed it in the Construction Industry, Military, Oilfield and Government institutions first hand. Small highly trained and skilled work force is something to be reckoned with in any capacity. Then you can fill in the gaps with less trained or newer workforce.
My understanding the Canadian Forces was suppose to be set up to be able to provide that highly trained Cadre that could train up, mentor and lead the mass force of new recruits to success. Instead we have a over bloated top end of a protectionist group in HQs that would prefer to keep that office job. They force good Officers who want to stay on the point to take a seat in order to be successful. Pilots come to mind in this one, Hey you get to fly for a few years then ride a desk for the rest.
What we need is a focus on the force itself, that include Reserves that can plug and play into that overall success. Again lots of resistance to this overall by those in the higher positions.

I've been advocating for a while that it makes more sense to teach truck drivers how to soldier than it does to teach soldiers how to drive trucks.

I think that is even more true of mechanics, electricians, radar techs, cyber techs, logisticians and AI gurus.

Rather than building all those training and development structures within the CAF exploit the development of the civilian market. Find those youngsters that are inclined to public service, military service in particular and engage them. Help them develop their civilian lives and ensure that they are ready, willing and able to spend some time in national service throughout their careers. Employers have trouble with people dropping out for a couple of weeks occasionally, or even a couple of months. But perhaps taking a year long sabbatical from the civvy job to spend time doing the same job for the government would be easier.

We need to focus less on keeping full-time corporals around for twenty years and more on recruiting and keeping 18 year olds for five years and then making it easy for them to transition to civilian lives and maybe another five years of part-time service while giving them the experience of a lifetime during those years.

This.
 
good for them, they can give up their well paid jobs and go work elsewhere. Here I was under the impression "remote workers" meant working in isolated camps like Loggers, Oilfield, Mining not working from home.
Me too.
 
But I disagree for the technical trades and even many non tech trades. By the time you hit five years you finally learned your job and become proficient and competent in the job itself but many no where a expert ( hence why many Trades programs have a 4 year process) It comes down to the person who has been there for 15 years who seen that one thing break and can fix it quickly and properly.
I don't undervalue the experienced worker. They are essential firstly as shop floor leaders and as institutional memory. The problem comes in when you have a glut of highly paid wrench turners who are no more productive than a third year worker.

There always has to be a knowledge core in any field whether it's a technical trade or the infantryman. The key is selecting the best motivated individuals and making sure that they train, mentor and bring along the next generation. One also needs to understand the ratios of individuals needed in each category.

The military has a unique advantage over civilian companies in that it has a well established training regimen that brings workers to the unit already fully trained but inexperienced. For the most part unit training becomes giving individuals at all levels the experience to round out their training. One quickly reaches a point though where that becomes repetitive at which point the individual is either moved on to a more challenging leadership/mentoring role or just keeps on repeating what they already know. The retention problems the CAF are having now at the middle manager level is symptomatic of a jaded work force. The CAF has moved a vast number of middle managers into jobs that are neither interesting nor fulfilling and there are hundreds of reasons for why that is. Do we really need all the chief warrant officers and majors and lieutenant-colonels that populate Ottawa? Do we need 45 year old corporals and master corporals in the line units for them to be efficient? And how many of them no longer meet the physical standards or DAG red when needed.

The CAF's workforce is generally treated the same way as any civil service. It's a lifetime career if you want it (regardless if your productivity falls off) and you are generally paid more than the equivalent civilian in many of the fields (some fields not so much, but as an example, administrative staff generally does better in government than in private offices)

If the modern workforce is a mobile and transient one, then we better redesign the CAF workforce model to anticipate and work with that phenomenon. That includes preparing for a higher turnover rate at the lower rank levels, a much more stringent selection process for those we are prepared to retain on indefinitely, and, IMHO a proper reserve system that entices and encourages individuals who have moved on to the civilian workforce to stay on in a part-time role. That includes simple things like an education benefit that is available immediately after full-time service and not held in abeyance during part-time service; reserve force units with a proper role, worthwhile equipment and sound leadership; limited demands on civilian time, and interesting training.

🍻
 
As long as those 18 year olds do not interpret "transition" with "transfer".

Personally, I can't see joining an organization with the intention of quitting to join another. I'd rather stay on for the whole ride.



Recruiter: "Where do you see yourself in five years?"

A: "Anywhere but here."

It means even if you are sucessful in "transitioning" to a compareable job ( no quarantee there ), you will become "the new kid on block" at your new organization. Working with people five years younger than you, with five years more seniority.
The field army is a hard life, and while I don’t think emulating our model down here is ideal, there needs to be a happy medium of retention as well as new blood.

I know folks don’t like the concept - but making EVERYONE be an Infanteer (I’ll also accept Cbt Engineer and maybe Arty and Armor too) for their first 4 years has a lot of benefits.
Let folks remuster from that to other trades.
 
Back
Top