What’s in a Soldier? How to Rebrand the Canadian Armed Forces

[dimsum]

Combat doesn't happen as often as video games and such make it seem. We really should push all of our other less glamorous OPs as well. You want people to join more, especially crippled support trades, highlight those areas, the medics, mechanics, cooks, instead of 10 second interviews with people and some quick shots. How about 10 minutes in the trades.

The fact we arent in the trades schools and pushing to steal that talent is a lost opportunity. We could get a lot of cooks, aircraft techs, etc by partnering with trade schools. Sit down and look at their curriculum, then set out if a person graduates where they would sit in CAF training, pre draft the PLAR for each program. Then push the career choice once they graduate.

Maybe even a hybrid reg/reserve model? Recognize they are in school, get them BMQ and BMQL on weekends and once they finish school its automatically transfered to the regular force.

Those are good points.  Those 10-minute (maybe shorter, maybe longer) spots could showcase not only the "interesting" stuff but the day-to-day stuff.  It should also show the thorns as well - people are going to call BS if everything is interesting in a CAF member's workday. 

As for the trade schools, it might be a matter of whether those schools let the CAF recruiters in.  I'm sure some do, but some may not.  It'd be something for CFRG to sort out.

 

[mariomike]

I see working in the Military as a job not a career or a calling. Its a contract job and that is all that it is to me.

To some, it's a Calling. To others, a profession, a career, or simply "the job".

Whatever a person calls it, loyalty to the organization is what counts. Just my opinion.

My contribution to the CAF was very small. But, I got a lot out of it. More than just a paycheck. For that, I have always been grateful and speak well of it.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

Much of the CAF senior leadership is stuck on "It'S a CaLlInG, nOt A JoB" mode and can't adjust to the reality that for most people joining, it is just a job. The fact that we still have and tolerate toxic leadership, in general have poor human resources skills and continue to build structures and HHQs unfettered just makes leaving an easier choice when coupled with the other difficulties outlined in the article.

And for those who do see it as a calling...the points you've noted about toxic leadership, etc can change a 'calling' to 'a job' as the years go by...

 

[MJP]

Whatever a person calls it, loyalty to the organization is what counts. Just my opinion.

My contribution to the CAF was very small. But, I got a lot out of it. More than just a paycheck. For that, I have always been grateful and speak well of it.

Loyalty goes both ways and at the end of the day the CAF will forget you ten minutes after you leave. That isn't a criticism of the CAF writ large it is just the reality of an institution the size of ours. One of the problems we have is we still associated people wanting to change jobs/trades/get out of the military as disloyal rather than acknowledging that people change as they mature and want to do different things.

And for those who do see it as a calling...the points you've noted about toxic leadership, etc can change a 'calling' to 'a job' as the years go by...

Yup  :nod:  Love my job and my folks, hate the culture and "do more with less" attitude that is out there (except the people saying this always have the resources to add more people to their org or push down tasks to a lower level). I will say the pandemic has been great in getting rid of all the white noise activities that just absolutely consumed real work, hopefully it stays that way come post-pandemic time.

 

[daftandbarmy]

Loyalty goes both ways and at the end of the day the CAF will forget you ten minutes after you leave.

Is it wrong that I'm hoping, desperately, that this will happen to me?

 

[dapaterson]

I think they forgot about you a decade or so before you left...

 

[mariomike]

Loyalty goes both ways and at the end of the day the CAF will forget you ten minutes after you leave.

Just because you are loyal to something ( or someone ) doesn't mean it's going to be loyal to you. Again, just my opinion.

 

[HiTechComms]

To some, it's a Calling. To others, a profession, a career, or simply "the job".

Whatever a person calls it, loyalty to the organization is what counts. Just my opinion.

My contribution to the CAF was very small. But, I got a lot out of it. More than just a paycheck. For that, I have always been grateful and speak well of it.

Just to rephrase a little better. My name is on the contract and part of my personal ethos is agency and fidelity to my own actions. I am very ethically and morally bound to do what the contract obliges me to do and I will not break the contract. Never have and never will break a contract, and rarely ever do I engage in contractual relationships with out understanding them fully. My word is my honor.

 

[MJP]

Just to rephrase a little better. My name is on the contract and part of my personal ethos is agency and fidelity to my own actions. I am very ethically and morally bound to do what the contract obliges me to do and I will not break the contract. Never have and never will break a contract, and rarely ever do I engage in contractual relationships with out understanding them fully. My word is my honor.

Good thing a TOS is not a contract  But I understand what you mean.

 

[FJAG]

Is it wrong that I'm hoping, desperately, that this will happen to me?

That's entirely up to you, I think.

I always found retired/released members were of one of two kinds: those that stayed connected, moved to a house right next to the base, joined the mess and went to every happy hour, joined the regimental senate or some such equivalent and basically stayed in touch; and those that simply left and were never heard from again.

In either case you cease being a contributing member and are forgotten as to having any value. Somewhat regretfully I look back at when I was a younger and more callous youth and find that my opinion of those that kept hanging around was never very high. That doesn't speak very well for me but equally unfortunate was that my opinion was very much shared with my serving peers at the time. We're basically a fickle bunch.

:cheers:

 

[HiTechComms]

Good thing a TOS is not a contract  But I understand what you mean.

TOS is not a contract but TOS is part of the CAF employment contract. You don't agree to TOS but to an Employment contract.
I spend way to much time looking at contracts. Little pedantic here.

 

[MJP]

TOS is not a contract but TOS is part of the CAF employment contract. You don't agree to TOS but to an Employment contract.
I spend way to much time looking at contracts. Little pedantic here.

That wasn't my point rather that loyalty shouldn't hinge on what one's TOS says as that can be an overly restrictive view on what one can/should do in life for themselves.

 

[HiTechComms]

Fair enough. I didn't interpret your reply in that way, but now I understand what you meant now.

 

[Blackadder1916]

I always found retired/released members were of one of two kinds: those that stayed connected, moved to a house right next to the base, joined the mess and went to every happy hour, joined the regimental senate or some such equivalent and basically stayed in touch; and those that simply left and were never heard from again.

And then there's those who hang around Army.ca

 

[dimsum]

That's entirely up to you, I think.

I always found retired/released members were of one of two kinds: those that stayed connected, moved to a house right next to the base, joined the mess and went to every happy hour, joined the regimental senate or some such equivalent and basically stayed in touch; and those that simply left and were never heard from again.

In either case you cease being a contributing member and are forgotten as to having any value. Somewhat regretfully I look back at when I was a younger and more callous youth and find that my opinion of those that kept hanging around was never very high. That doesn't speak very well for me but equally unfortunate was that my opinion was very much shared with my serving peers at the time. We're basically a fickle bunch.

:cheers:

I'll play devil's advocate on that.  A few of the bases where I served, the Associates (who have no voting rights, or so I'm told) blocked some things that the serving members were trying to propose.  I understand that they came from a different culture, where Mess membership was mandatory and segregated by ranks, but unfortunately they can also be a hindrance to changes that can reinvigorate the messes.

I think places like 14 Wing Greenwood did a great job with the "separate" mess rooms served by one bar, but an all-ranks mess as well.  Guess where most people went to.

 

[Eaglelord17]

Millennial's are a lost cause I think CAF should go after gen z kids born post 2000+ as they seem to be far more pragmatic and conservative then millennial's.

This isn't just a generational thing. I have relatives that spent their 30 years in uniform and got out recently, and if they had to start at the bottom in the CAF as it is, they would not have stayed themselves. Either way the CAF should be targeting Gen Z for the simple reason the youngest Millenials are about 24-26 now, and the area they should always be striving for is that 18-25 range.

*Edited because I miswrote oldest instead of youngest

 

[lenaitch]

This isn't just a generational thing. I have relatives that spent their 30 years in uniform and got out recently, and if they had to start at the bottom in the CAF as it is, they would not have stayed themselves. Either way the CAF should be targeting Gen Z for the simple reason the oldest Millenials are about 24-26 now, and the area they should always be striving for is that 18-25 range.

I don't think that's unusual in most professions.  After 31 years, no way I would have wanted to go back to shift work and rolling around in the mud, blood and beer.  As well, in the beginning you are pretty much isolated and oblivious to matters and issues that you become more exposed to as your grow seniority (and possibly rank); you're content to just go in and do your job.  I know a few who went back after retirement but it mostly part-time, often not front line, and their numbers are comparatively few.

 

[Underway]

This isn't just a generational thing. I have relatives that spent their 30 years in uniform and got out recently, and if they had to start at the bottom in the CAF as it is, they would not have stayed themselves. Either way the CAF should be targeting Gen Z for the simple reason the oldest Millenials are about 24-26 now, and the area they should always be striving for is that 18-25 range.

The oldest millennials are 39 or 40 now.  The last millennial was born in 1996 and is 24 now. But your age numbers are not incorrect.  You want to get people when they are young, because after that age they are less likely to make the changes needed to join the CAF.

 

[Quirky]

Somewhat regretfully I look back at when I was a younger and more callous youth and find that my opinion of those that kept hanging around was never very high.

You mean those 30-35+ year in MWOs and Chiefs that are completely out of touch with reality, but stay in because the military is all they know? These are the people that need to be shuffled out before any significant change can happen. All the good leaders that could've been in those positions left years ago, so we are stuck with "whats left" to manage and lead. This isn't always the case, but some of the people in senior NCO positions, just wow. Doesn't matter what you know, it's where you've been and how many ticks in the boxes you've had.

 

[mariomike]

, and the area they should always be striving for is that 18-25 range.

You want to get people when they are young, because after that age they are less likely to make the changes needed to join the CAF.

I read this years ago. It is about the RCMP. But, could also apply to the emergency services and CAF, back in the day.

Prior to the early 1980s, the emergency services recruited new members aged from 19 to about 25. The practice was relatively customary of those days, and based on three precise beliefs from the RCMP. First, policing could not be the second career of an individual. Second, young men were more moldable than older individuals to the police subculture. Third, criminal activity was linked to adulthood; by hiring young adults, the RCMP secured more chances that those individuals would have a crime free background.

I don't think that's unusual in most professions.  After 31 years, no way I would have wanted to go back to shift work and rolling around in the mud, blood and beer.  As well, in the beginning you are pretty much isolated and oblivious to matters and issues that you become more exposed to as your grow seniority (and possibly rank); you're content to just go in and do your job.  I know a few who went back after retirement but it mostly part-time, often not front line, and their numbers are comparatively few.

In my opinion, in a seniority-based system, people who stay with the same organization for long periods of time are rewarded for their loyalty.

Personally, I would put loyalty ahead of cleverness. And never, EVER, admit the dept. has done anything wrong.