Reconstitution

[Navy_Pete]

It comes from s 51 of the Wrecked, Abandoned or Hazardous Vessels Act (I think).

That makes perfect sense I guess, but probably for the best, as we aren't actually equipped to properly do salvage and open ocean tows.

Still, good backstory to a piece of legislation! Being the last HMC ship to claim salvage rights would be a fun dit at a retirement.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

Some confusing messaging being sent by CMP at the command conference in Ottawa last week.

First Sentence : focus on retention and building the force.

Second Sentence : medical retentions will cease.

Medical retentions, in my experience anyway, don’t really help us. Most cases that I have been involved in are a net drain on resources.

 

[Navy_Pete]

Medical retentions, in my experience anyway, don’t really help us. Most cases that I have been involved in are a net drain on resources.

I've seen a number of really good retentions on the technical side, and meant billets that would have been empty otherwise (due to the person being in a front line job instead).

Wasn't NATO knee, but for some people MELs seems to be the only thing keeping them from jetty jumping (which can take a toll and lead to MELs).

For an organization that is short people, losing experience, and wants to rebuild, not retaining experienced people doesn't make sense, if they can still make a meaningful contribution. There is a hiring process where they can transfer to the public service, but its time consuming and actually increases the SWE. Case by case obviously, so your mileage will vary, but when we develop specialists with 20 years of experience and run a lot of obsolete kit, it's nuts.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

I've seen a number of really good retentions on the technical side, and meant billets that would have been empty otherwise (due to the person being in a front line job instead).

Wasn't NATO knee, but for some people MELs seems to be the only thing keeping them from jetty jumping (which can take a toll and lead to MELs).

For an organization that is short people, losing experience, and wants to rebuild, not retaining experienced people doesn't make sense, if they can still make a meaningful contribution. There is a hiring process where they can transfer to the public service, but its time consuming and actually increases the SWE. Case by case obviously, so your mileage will vary, but when we develop specialists with 20 years of experience and run a lot of obsolete kit, it's nuts.

Fair enough. I agree with you on the accelerated public service transfer option- I think that would be very good tool in our toolbox.

 

[Edward Campbell]

I have a fairly large collection of corporate coffee mugs and, espe4cially in my second (private sector) job I relied heavily on corporate pens and pencils.

I also have a small handful of (probably worth more than a hundred or two dollars) bits of engraved crystal and so on from a few companies with whom I worked on some (technical) issues. I reported them, of curse, and our conflict of interest watchdog asked me, once, "Did that gift make any difference, even in the slightest, to the Canadian position on that issue?" I said "No! Not one bit." and she - it was a female mid-ranked civil servant - said, "It (the bit of engraved crystal) is really nice, it will look lovely in your bookcase." I think I can say that the few expensive corporate gifts made no difference, ever, to the positions I advanced, for Canada, in various international fora but in a few cases some corporate executive4s felt that my actions made a measurable difference for them. The coffee cups and pens and so on were just part of the environment - harmless, I'm pretty certain, in 99.9% of all cases. I suspect there are still two or three in the back of the kitchen cabinet.

 

[Navy_Pete]

@SeaKingTacco, some kind of link between the two as well would be good. Right now they are totally independent, so hiring someone being medically released is under the normal veteran priority hiring program, and for the medical relase it's the same as any normal job offer where you can request things get expedited.

VAC gives help for transitioning to a new job/career, but focuses on totally outside DND/GoC. Lot of folks with knowledge/skillsets that would be useful for all kinds of jobs, and lots of people trying to find people with experience in the GoC processes.

 

[captloadie]

Medical retentions, in my experience anyway, don’t really help us. Most cases that I have been involved in are a net drain on resources.

There are many instances where retaining someone medically benefitted the units I have been in.

However, the CAF is coming up against some precarious legal pitfalls wrt to Charter rights and disability legislation. It is becoming harder and harder to justify discriminating against individuals based on medical conditions or disabilities on one side, and then have policies that let you retain other individuals despite those same discriminating policies. People are starting to look at the CAF and say you can't have your cake and eat it too.

Maybe it's time to create another uniformed force within the CAF who are subject to the same administrative and disciplinary rules as Reg F, but who don't need to meet all the medical requirements because they do not have a duty to deploy. There could even be a modified fitness evaluation where applicable.

 

[daftandbarmy]

There are many instances where retaining someone medically benefitted the units I have been in.

However, the CAF is coming up against some precarious legal pitfalls wrt to Charter rights and disability legislation. It is becoming harder and harder to justify discriminating against individuals based on medical conditions or disabilities on one side, and then have policies that let you retain other individuals despite those same discriminating policies. People are starting to look at the CAF and say you can't have your cake and eat it too.

Maybe it's time to create another uniformed force within the CAF who are subject to the same administrative and disciplinary rules as Reg F, but who don't need to meet all the medical requirements because they do not have a duty to deploy. There could even be a modified fitness evaluation where applicable.

Great idea. We could call it 'Class B'

 

[Furniture]

There are many instances where retaining someone medically benefitted the units I have been in.

However, the CAF is coming up against some precarious legal pitfalls wrt to Charter rights and disability legislation. It is becoming harder and harder to justify discriminating against individuals based on medical conditions or disabilities on one side, and then have policies that let you retain other individuals despite those same discriminating policies. People are starting to look at the CAF and say you can't have your cake and eat it too.

Maybe it's time to create another uniformed force within the CAF who are subject to the same administrative and disciplinary rules as Reg F, but who don't need to meet all the medical requirements because they do not have a duty to deploy. There could even be a modified fitness evaluation where applicable.

Retaining people in the "downtime" shore/admin billets also leads to losing/breaking fit people.

I agree 100% that our retention policy has been unevenly applied, and will lead to problems.

The last thing the CAF needs is a another tier of service. If you're full-time there should be one standard. My solution would be if you can't meet that standard then you move to a civilian contract. You get a 3 year contract to fill the position, then the CAF looks for a uniformed member to take the spot, if they can't you get another three years, until you leave or the CAF fills the position.

 

[daftandbarmy]

Retaining people in the "downtime" shore/admin billets also leads to losing/breaking fit people.

I agree 100% that our retention policy has been unevenly applied, and will lead to problems.

The last thing the CAF needs is a another tier of service. If you're full-time there should be one standard. My solution would be if you can't meet that standard then you move to a civilian contract. You get a 3 year contract to fill the position, then the CAF looks for a uniformed member to take the spot, if they can't you get another three years, until you leave or the CAF fills the position.

Which is not a merit based, performance focused solution but much like the 'long term gubmit job' unionized mentality type solution that got us all into this mess in the first place.

How about something like this instead? In my past experience, this policy's worked out pretty well for everyone except the enemy

 

[Furniture]

Which is not a merit based, performance focused solution but much like the 'long term gubmit job' unionized mentality type solution that got us all into this mess in the first place.

How about something like this instead? In my past experience, this policy's worked out pretty well for everyone except the enemy

Thats great until the CAF and GoC don't like being on the front page of the National Post and G&M for abandoning injured members... I'm not talking about accommodating the useless, I'm talking about a viable alternative to medical retention of members on PCAT.

I do love that movie, and book.

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

Which is not a merit based, performance focused solution but much like the 'long term gubmit job' unionized mentality type solution that got us all into this mess in the first place.

How about something like this instead? In my past experience, this policy's worked out pretty well for everyone except the enemy

This change your suggesting is the only real way this organization is going to remain functional.

People who can no longer cut the mustard should be shown the door, as gracefully as possible.

 

[daftandbarmy]

This change your suggesting is the only real way this organization is going to remain functional.

People who can no longer cut the mustard should be shown the door, as gracefully as possible.

Or even better....

 

[Navy_Pete]

There are many instances where retaining someone medically benefitted the units I have been in.

However, the CAF is coming up against some precarious legal pitfalls wrt to Charter rights and disability legislation. It is becoming harder and harder to justify discriminating against individuals based on medical conditions or disabilities on one side, and then have policies that let you retain other individuals despite those same discriminating policies. People are starting to look at the CAF and say you can't have your cake and eat it too.

Maybe it's time to create another uniformed force within the CAF who are subject to the same administrative and disciplinary rules as Reg F, but who don't need to meet all the medical requirements because they do not have a duty to deploy. There could even be a modified fitness evaluation where applicable.

Uh, no we aren't. People being retained on medical restrictions is a very specific, individual assessment on trained people, who are usually well past OFP but can still provide a useful function in very specific roles despite the medical limitation. Universality of service for anyone joining and most of the CAF is still fine, and lots of people will get injured but not necessarily still be able to contribute within their MELs.

We have a lot of positions going empty anyway and are only filled because someone is on MELs. Otherwise they'd be filling currently empty billets on an operational unit. 'Downtime' billets are no longer downtime billet, and knew a few people that had more sea time while in shore billets filling critical shortages. They asked for postings back to ships so they could at least have a dependable schedule for when they'd be gone.

 

[Furniture]

Uh, no we aren't. People being retained on medical restrictions is a very specific, individual assessment on trained people, who are usually well past OFP but can still provide a useful function in very specific roles despite the medical limitation. Universality of service for anyone joining and most of the CAF is still fine, and lots of people will get injured but not necessarily still be able to contribute within their MELs.

We have a lot of positions going empty anyway and are only filled because someone is on MELs. Otherwise they'd be filling currently empty billets on an operational unit. 'Downtime' billets are no longer downtime billet, and knew a few people that had more sea time while in shore billets filling critical shortages. They asked for postings back to ships so they could at least have a dependable schedule for when they'd be gone.

The fact it's not a universally applied accommodation is exactly what could lead to it being challenged. E.g.

S1 Bloggins gets medically retained because they happen to be posted to a shore unit that is willing to take them, but S1 Smith gets shown the door because their unit needs people who can work shifts/deploy.

S1 Smith decides its crap they they lose their $70K a year job, but S1 Bloggins gets to stay employed for three more years and build their pension/transfer value, so Smith challeges their release. CAF policy says you need to meet universality of service to stay, but clearly that's not being applied universally.

 

[ArmyRick]

If only we had a ministry that is SUPPOSED to look at medically disabled veterans.....Oh wait

Cough..VAC...Cough

 

[Navy_Pete]

The fact it's not a universally applied accommodation is exactly what could lead to it being challenged. E.g.

S1 Bloggins gets medically retained because they happen to be posted to a shore unit that is willing to take them, but S1 Smith gets shown the door because their unit needs people who can work shifts/deploy.

S1 Smith decides its crap they they lose their $70K a year job, but S1 Bloggins gets to stay employed for three more years and build their pension/transfer value, so Smith challeges their release. CAF policy says you need to meet universality of service to stay, but clearly that's not being applied universally.

The decision is made at a national level, not a unit level, and generally is more on the Sgt + rank, from the few I've seen.

I believe it's pretty rare, but there are plenty of empty billets with things that need doing that someone with 15+ years experience can fill without having to kick down doors, and need someone for there to be longer than a year. Much easier to snipe them into an LCMM or policy job as well if they have some experience doing it as a military posting giving them equivalent experience, where they may not meet the requirement otherwise.

It isn't an appropriate solution for most going on medical release, but can be a great option for some. Just because it's not available for everyone, no reason why we shouldn't do it for some people, especially after investing millions of dollars and a decade or two in developing a fairly unique set of skills and experience for that individual.

 

[Furniture]

The decision is made at a national level, not a unit level, and generally is more on the Sgt + rank, from the few I've seen.

I believe it's pretty rare, but there are plenty of empty billets with things that need doing that someone with 15+ years experience can fill without having to kick down doors, and need someone for there to be longer than a year. Much easier to snipe them into an LCMM or policy job as well if they have some experience doing it as a military posting giving them equivalent experience, where they may not meet the requirement otherwise.

It isn't an appropriate solution for most going on medical release, but can be a great option for some. Just because it's not available for everyone, no reason why we shouldn't do it for some people, especially after investing millions of dollars and a decade or two in developing a fairly unique set of skills and experience for that individual.

The final decision is made at the national level, but if the unit doesn't support it, it will not be approved.

I've seen, and heard of cases where it has happened with Cpl/S1. It may have been intended for a few rare examples, but it has been extended past that.

 

[Halifax Tar]

The decision is made at a national level, not a unit level, and generally is more on the Sgt + rank, from the few I've seen.

I believe it's pretty rare, but there are plenty of empty billets with things that need doing that someone with 15+ years experience can fill without having to kick down doors, and need someone for there to be longer than a year. Much easier to snipe them into an LCMM or policy job as well if they have some experience doing it as a military posting giving them equivalent experience, where they may not meet the requirement otherwise.

It isn't an appropriate solution for most going on medical release, but can be a great option for some. Just because it's not available for everyone, no reason why we shouldn't do it for some people, especially after investing millions of dollars and a decade or two in developing a fairly unique set of skills and experience for that individual.

I've never seen anyone denied. And it really cuases havoc with our sea to shore ratio at the PO2+ level.

What I have seen is retentions offered but the retention comes with a posting out of area.

The final decision is made at the national level, but if the unit doesn't support it, it will not be approved.

I've seen, and heard of cases where it has happened with Cpl/S1. It may have been intended for a few rare examples, but it has been extended past that.

Yup the members unit has to be willing to take them on for the term of the retention.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

COs can terminate the retention as well. Member must occupy and REMAR/not be in MMO position IIRC.

“The needs of the service” aren’t always going to match the needs of each member.

I’d like to see anyone retained who can be AND can be employed properly in the identified position. It’s not like all trades are Green and everyone is happy about it. ATR positions come to mind; not sure how many of them are Pri A or B postings but…