Some Weird Swerve About Deployments [from the Coronavirus thread]

[stellarpanther]

You have a serious leadership problem in your trade then, or they're lying to you. You are describing the attitude of a civilian public servant, and I'll be perfectly blunt with you, it very much does (IMHO) make you less of a soldier, sailor or airperson for that way of thinking. Unfortunately we have too many people in the CAF with your way of thinking, but at least you're professional enough not to malinger to get out of deploying where others are missing that set of ethics.

Perfect example in attitude difference between a soldier/sailor/airperson and a civilian public servant.

I'm sure you have some knowledge of "the journey" so why in your opinion are they doing it?  It's coming from the top with a lot of support.

 

[PPCLI Guy]

I'm sure you have some knowledge of "the journey" so why in your opinion are they doing it?  It's coming from the top with a lot of support.

You seem to think the Journey is about the four "Ms": me, money, medals, and more.  That it is about ensuring that every member of the CAF and their families are happy, self-actualised, free of worry and care, and receive untold benefits for the very jobs that they volunteered for.

It is in fact about re-imagining the terms of service to ensure that we have the right people at the right time to defend the nation.

Not sure how this point gets missed all the time.... :dunno:

 

[stellarpanther]

You seem to think the Journey is about the four "Ms": me, money, medals, and more.  That it is about ensuring that every member of the CAF and their families are happy, self-actualised, free of worry and care, and receive untold benefits for the very jobs that they volunteered for.

It is in fact about re-imagining the terms of service to ensure that we have the right people at the right time to defend the nation.

Not sure how this point gets missed all the time.... :dunno:

First thing I'll say is don't try to tell me what I think and your assumption is wrong.  What I said was clear and it's what is being planned.  It's just as I said.  They are planning on having full time mbr's who want to deploy (will most likely make more money), mbr's who are full time but don't want to deploy and then part time.  The plan is also to make it easier to switch between the 3.  Obviously not constantly every time something comes up you like or don't like. 
People can word it how they want but the bottom line is they are planning on having full time mbr's who do not want to deploy.  I heard it directly from CMP shortly before COVID started.  The CDS also speaks about it from time to time at his townhalls.

 

[PPCLI Guy]

As you wish.  You certainly seem to be in the know, and close to the source of these decisions, and the nature of the discussions that led to them.

Like you, I have drawn my conclusions from my interactions with some of the same players.

We seem to have heard different things.

I suppose that is the way of things.  Or if you like, "so it goes".

 

[dapaterson]

We already have full time personnel who do not deploy.

They're called public servants.

 

[stellarpanther]

As you wish.  You certainly seem to be in the know, and close to the source of these decisions, and the nature of the discussions that led to them.

Like you, I have drawn my conclusions from my interactions with some of the same players.

We seem to have heard different things.

I suppose that is the way of things.  Or if you like, "so it goes".

One of my favorite postings was at the Ministers Office.  You learn and hear a lot.

 

[PuckChaser]

I'm sure you have some knowledge of "the journey" so why in your opinion are they doing it?  It's coming from the top with a lot of support.

It can come from the top with a lot of support all it wants, but that doesn't mean its right. My personal view is that "The Journey" will compound the problem we have keeping our force fit to fight and deploy. We're an incredibly small force for the size of land mass, ADIZ and EEZ to defend. The more folks we actively encourage to join the CAF with no intention of ever moving or deploying, the less able we are to respond to emergency situations the people of Canada need us to respond to. The devil is in the details, but the only way I see it working is if those who put themselves on long term "non deployable non moveable" are only given short term contracts (like Class B) that are renewed based on the needs of the service and given on a merit basis (you're not hired again if you have a junk PER). "The Journey" should absolutely not be a way to sit in cushy Public Service-esque positions in desirable posting locations for 25 years making the same money as folks slogging it out at Sea, in the field, or on a flight line doing the actual job. The smaller the pool of individuals willing to deploy, the more rapidly they'll burn out and put themselves into the "non-deployable, non moveable" group and we'll eventually end up with no one but brand new troops willing to deploy.

Don't get me wrong, we have a lot of valuable jobs that support the fighting force, but refusing to rotate in to that fighting force to share the hardship is the kind of junk attitude we need to stamp out. Unfortunately a lot of "folks at the top" are incredibly risk adverse individuals who have turned into politicians instead of remaining the solid leaders with strategic vision that got them there.

 

[stellarpanther]

We already have full time personnel who do not deploy.

They're called public servants.

You know exactly what I'm talking about.  It's clear the people posting here don't agree with it but they are talking about CAF mbr's not deploying. 

 

[stellarpanther]

It is in fact about re-imagining the terms of service to ensure that we have the right people at the right time to defend the nation.

You're right that is a big part of what they want to do but they also know not everyone wants to deploy.  Instead of everyone acting like it's my fault for journey, let's talk about the actual plan and not pretend it's not in the works.

 

[Remius]

You know exactly what I'm talking about.  It's clear the people posting here don't agree with it but they are talking about CAF mbr's not deploying.

So that comes with a pay cut correct? Or do those that are deployable get a pay hike?

class B reservists are currently around 96% of reg force pay.  They should be too.

 

[Remius]

You're right that is a big part of what they want to do but they also know not everyone wants to deploy.  Instead of everyone acting like it's my fault for journey, let's talk about the actual plan and not pretend it's not in the works.

Are you sure you are not confusing deployments with postings?

https://www.cfc.forces.gc.ca/259/290/405/305/chetwynd.pdf

Page 14 lists the most common issues that would keep people from leaving.  Deployments does not seem to be an issue.

I also thought that Journey was about those that get posted and those who identify as not wanting to be posted not about deployability. 

Geographic stability being the bigger factor.

 

[dapaterson]

You know exactly what I'm talking about.  It's clear the people posting here don't agree with it but they are talking about CAF mbr's not deploying.

The CAF is directed by government to hold certain force levels - currently scheduled to grow to a total of 71,500 Reg F and 30,000 Primary Res F.  Those numbers are all-inclusive; that's everyone from enrolment to release.  Meaning that the BTL/SUTL, ATL, SPHL, LWOP, NES and a number of others all come out of those numbers.  Using round numbers, those "in training / injured / releasing" represent about 20% of the Reg F total at any one time, and closer to 30% of the P Res (time to OFP being the biggest difference between the two).

So the maximum Trained Effective Strength come out to around 57K (Reg F) and 21K (Res F).  There is little to no room within those structural limits to permit a pool of restricted employment personnel.

ACK to there being Reg F members who want work that is public-servant adjacent, but with better pay and more leave.  But it's not a sustainable model; as PuckChaser notes, you end up overburdening your remaining deployable personnel.


Finally, I will note that despite several years of discussion, the hard work of analysis of the current HR system and the required authorities to amend to meet some model of what The Journey (Don't Stop Believin') proposes is in its infancy.  Policy change is (relatively) easy and yet we still have thirty five year old CFAOs (supposed to have all be replaced decades ago); changing regulations (QR&O) is an order of magnitude more complex, and some of the second order effects of some aspects of The Journey will require amendment to multiple pieces of legislation (another order of magnitude more complex than QR&O rewrites) - and then further regulatory change.  A twenty to thirty year horizon to implement would not be unreasonable.

 

[stellarpanther]

It can come from the top with a lot of support all it wants, but that doesn't mean its right. My personal view is that "The Journey" will compound the problem we have keeping our force fit to fight and deploy. We're an incredibly small force for the size of land mass, ADIZ and EEZ to defend. The more folks we actively encourage to join the CAF with no intention of ever moving or deploying, the less able we are to respond to emergency situations the people of Canada need us to respond to. The devil is in the details, but the only way I see it working is if those who put themselves on long term "non deployable non moveable" are only given short term contracts (like Class B) that are renewed based on the needs of the service and given on a merit basis (you're not hired again if you have a junk PER). "The Journey" should absolutely not be a way to sit in cushy Public Service-esque positions in desirable posting locations for 25 years making the same money as folks slogging it out at Sea, in the field, or on a flight line doing the actual job. The smaller the pool of individuals willing to deploy, the more rapidly they'll burn out and put themselves into the "non-deployable, non moveable" group and we'll eventually end up with no one but brand new troops willing to deploy.

Don't get me wrong, we have a lot of valuable jobs that support the fighting force, but refusing to rotate in to that fighting force to share the hardship is the kind of junk attitude we need to stamp out. Unfortunately a lot of "folks at the top" are incredibly risk adverse individuals who have turned into politicians instead of remaining the solid leaders with strategic vision that got them there.

Your post made me look at this from a different perspective but the question that I keep coming back to is what do we do about retention that does seem to be a huge problem for the last 3-5 years at least.  The mentality of a lot of people joining now is often incompatible with the type of military we had even 10 year ago.  I've seen Pte's yell back at a Sgt because they felt they were disrespected in the way they were spoken to and then walk away saying "I don't care who he is or what his rank is, he's not going to talk to me like that".  Sure you can charge the person or give them extras but as soon as you do, they bring you up on harassment charges that will eventually get tossed but it's still not something you want to deal with or the person will all of a sudden be on sick leave for stress for a few months.  I think we have to some how learn to adapt (not the best word) to the new generation.  I have no idea how the organization can do that the way things are now. 
I have a friend at CFRG who's fairly high up, on numerous occasions the comment was made that recruiting brings in good people, they do well on their courses, so what are some of these units doing to these people?  I have no idea how to answer that.

 

[CBH99]

Are you sure you are not confusing deployments with postings?

https://www.cfc.forces.gc.ca/259/290/405/305/chetwynd.pdf

Page 14 lists the most common issues that would keep people from leaving.  Deployments does not seem to be an issue.

I also thought that Journey was about those that get posted and those who identify as not wanting to be posted not about deployability. 

Geographic stability being the bigger factor.

I would tend to agree.  Deploying would be an absolute treat (speaking from an ex-Army perspective) as it gets you out of garrison, garrison life, and the boring 9 to 5 a lot of the troops used to complain about.

Without deployments, you end up being tasked with a lot of 'same old, same old' nonsense to keep people busy.  Cleaning weapons that haven't been used since the last time they were cleaned, continual training on things that have already been refreshed regularly, etc etc.

That was one of the reason so many people got out after Afghanistan winded down... with no focus & direction of an upcoming, highly engaged deployment, a culture of 'garrison BS' slowly crept up again.  A culture which had, thankfully, disappeared when the military had a specific focus, i.e., generating combat forces for a theater they were guaranteed to be in combat in.



I don't believe it's necessarily that people don't want to deploy.  I'd assume (perhaps wrongfully) that deployments really are exciting and a chance to apply your job in the real world.  Even a peace support operation in Haiti has you doing things & solving problems you wouldn't normally experience, and that in itself can be rewarding and engaging enough to feel as if your making a difference.

I'd suggest, as other members have mentioned, the problem would be more that of postings, rather than deployments.  We have a gigantic country geographically, with a pretty tiny population. 

Some military bases give you the luxury of living in a nice, modern city where you can live a life outside of the military culture/circle (such as Edmonton, Victoria, Winnipeg, etc.)  Some bases, such as Gagetown, Shilo, Valcartier, and Petawawa, it's a military culture and military social circles where you are on duty or not, or live in base or not. 



I know I've been out for a while, but I remember TONS of hands shooting up to volunteer for deployments whenever our RWO came in for briefings.  By the time I got out, every single member of my unit had deployed at least once - unless they were a newer/younger member who wasn't qualified yet, or a senior member who already had multiple tours and were in senior positions.

I distinctly remember one evening, our RWO came in to give us a briefing, and asked "Okay folks, who here wants to go to Afghanistan?  I need 5 names."  And I kid you not, about 18 people raised their hands.  Those who didn't were shaking their heads & laughing at themselves, because they wanted to go but couldn't.  :2c:

 

[brihard]

Your post made me look at this from a different perspective but the question that I keep coming back to is what do we do about retention that does seem to be a huge problem for the last 3-5 years at least.  The mentality of a lot of people joining now is often incompatible with the type of military we had even 10 year ago.  I've seen Pte's yell back at a Sgt because they felt they were disrespected in the way they were spoken to and then walk away saying "I don't care who he is or what his rank is, he's not going to talk to me like that".  Sure you can charge the person or give them extras but as soon as you do, they bring you up on harassment charges that will eventually get tossed but it's still not something you want to deal with or the person will all of a sudden be on sick leave for stress for a few months.  I think we have to some how learn to adapt (not the best word) to the new generation.  I have no idea how the organization can do that the way things are now. 
I have a friend at CFRG who's fairly high up, on numerous occasions the comment was made that recruiting brings in good people, they do well on their courses, so what are some of these units doing to these people?  I have no idea how to answer that.

A big fix would be building an institutional culture of treating adults like adults and using proper mechanisms to hold people accountable. Yelling at trained professionals is very seldom necessary or useful. Yell at me when it’s not necessary (eg immediately correct something that’s unsafe), sure, I’ll do the job to shut you up, but it will only harm your own credibility and my respect for you. The vast majority of self respecting professionals can be developed and corrected more effectively and maturely than that. Tell me bluntly to my face that I figged up and why and give me an opportunity to show that I understand the significance and to fix it, and I’ll respect and work hard for you. I was an infantry NCO; there’a sure as hell a time to yell. There’s a time and place in basic training and some leadership and other courses for stress inoculation that some good barking might be a part of, and of course on exercise or ops when you need to be clearly heard in order to precipitate some immediate violent acts by your people. But in a normal workplace in normal circumstances, you’d better bring more to the table than a loud voice if you’re gonna lead worth a damn.

The challenges the new generation brings may not be comfortable or fun for some of the old guard, buy they’re a reality. Corollary to that- show us decent leadership from someone who can make a goal or mission understood, show us leaders who treat their people as well as circumstances allow, and leaven it with decent pay, benefits, and job security and you’ll see some loyal, hard working troops.

 

[stellarpanther]

So I'm wondering then if it's the newer generation who simply just want a good paying job and some older folks who are finishing up their last few years and just want to coast through their final years?  As Halifax Tar said earlier, they struggle getting people to sail in the Navy  For some reason I'm getting the negative comments because I'm saying many people in the CAF have the attitude that they don't want to do to the field or deploy or sail but it is a well known current problem we have.
So what's the solution to this problem?

 

[CBH99]

A bit fix would be building an institutional culture of treating adults like adults and using proper mechanisms to hold people accountable. Yelling at trained professionals is very seldom necessary or useful. Yell at me when it’s not necessary (eg immediately correct something that’s unsafe), sure, I’ll do the job to shut you up, but it will only harm your own credibility and respect for you. The vast majority of self respecting professionals can be developed and corrected more effectively and maturely than that. Tell me bluntly to my face that I figged up and why and give me an opportunity to show that I understand the significance and to fix it, and I’ll respect and work hard for you. I was an infantry NCO; there’a sure as hell a time to yell. There’s a time and place in basic training and some leadership and other courses for stress inoculation that some good barking might be a part of, and of course on exercise or ops when you need to be clearly heard in order to precipitate some immediate violent acts by your people. But in a normal workplace in normal circumstances, you’d better bring more to the table than a loud voice if you’re gonna lead worth a damn.

The challenges the new generation brings may not be comfortable or fun for some of the old guard, buy they’re a reality. Corollary to that- show us decent leadership from someone who can make a goal or mission understood, show us leaders who treat their people as well as circumstances allow, and maven it with decent pay, benefits, and job security and you’ll see some loyal, hard working troops.

Absolutely.

I feel like this has probably already been covered in other threads, but since we're here -- agreed with everything said above.


Treat professional adults as such.  Allow people to do their jobs.  Empower them with meaningful tasks, and give them ownership of those tasks.  By doing that, you make them a meaningful part of the team. 

Speak and behave professionally.  Rarely do I ever find yelling a 'professional solution' to a problem. 



Between reinforcing a professional, adult culture of meaningful tasks, accountability, empowering troops and junior leaders with important functions at the unit -- interesting training -- streamlined and organized courses so that members can become qualified quickly -- and interesting deployments to keep people motivated and 'moving towards something' in their career -- combined with decent postings that allow for a good living outside of military life, I think the Army could really improve things.


I don't have any experience with the RCAF or RCN, so I'm not sure if either of those apply.  (Although, Victoria or Halifax both sure beat the heck out of Shilo and Gagetown, I'm sure!!) 

 

[medicineman]

A lot of single people want to deploy but a lot of people with kids a non-military spouse don't.  There are some married people who certainly want to deploy, I won't disagree with that but I don't think it's the majority.  Why someone who is married would go out a seek a deployment is something I will never understand.  If the marriage is bad then maybe it's not meant to be.  Don't run away and hide from the problems.

Weird, my experience was usually the opposite - all of a sudden the never ending TCat problems seemed to magically resolve...the blind could see, the lame could walk and the broken picked up their beds and ran away to be DAG'ed GREEN.

MM

 

[OldSolduer]

So I'm wondering then if it's the newer generation who simply just want a good paying job and some older folks who are finishing up their last few years and just want to coast through their final years?  As Halifax Tar said earlier, they struggle getting people to sail in the Navy  For some reason I'm getting the negative comments because I'm saying many people in the CAF have the attitude that they don't want to do to the field or deploy or sail but it is a well known current problem we have.
So what's the solution to this problem?

I was well into my 50s and still volunteering to deploy to Afghanistan. I'm sure several other "older folks" were too.

There is no problem.

 

[Halifax Tar]

Lets be careful here, you've described 2 polar opposite people and lumped them into the same group. Someone trying to get off a TCat to get a deployment but not to go to Wainwright are taking advantaged of the medical system for personal gain. Someone going to the CDU to get pushed up on a surgical wait list/clear a lingering issue are motivated folks looking to get themselves fit to fight as fast as possible. We should not lump people who are legitimately hurt stuck in a glacial medical system in the same group as those using that glacial medical system to hide until the next cool course or deployment comes up.

You hit the nail on the head right there.

When I joined the CAF I was very honest with the recruiter about my opinions etc.  One thing I mentioned and I've mentioned it to my other CoC's is that if told I am being sent on tour, I would not try to get out of it by faking an injury or whatever but I am not someone who is going to volunteer to go either.  Every one of my CWO's, MWO's and WO's have said they have no problem with that sort of thinking.  A couple of them said they've heard several others say the same thing.  I don't think that makes me or others who think like that any less of a Soldier, Airman or Sailor for that way of thinking.

edit: cleared up grammar.

I am not sure what people are taking issue with in this post.  I have no issue with not volunteering.  As long as you dont avoid when volun-told.  Perhaps we need to stop looking for volunteers so much and start ordering more.  Then use volunteers to fill the gaps left over by the weak.