Allowances - Post Living Differential (PLD) [MERGED]

[Quirky]

Simplest answer is we cannot afford it. We are already too expensive of a organization, most our budget goes to personnel already and we can barely afford any kit as is.

We are ever closer to disbanding the military all together. Letting the private sector handle national defense might be an easier and cheaper overall prospect without having to deal with those pesky pensions and VA costs. I don't know how the Army and Navy would handle things, but you could privatize the RCAF capabilities and cut half the dead weight positions who are no longer employed directly in their trades due to, among other things, lack of competence. Hired as a pilot, you fly, hired as a tech, you fix. No more sideshows related to military service.

 

[Furniture]

Simplest answer is we cannot afford it. We are already too expensive of a organization, most our budget goes to personnel already and we can barely afford any kit as is. I would love for everyone to be able to get 1 million dollars a year in salary, however its not realistic.

The goal isn’t to make people get rich, its to protect the country. Sometimes sacrifices must be made for that goal to be achieved. We are already the best conpensated military in the world.

You are aware that the CAF can't recruit people right? We are down 35% from an already low recruiting number last year...

If a company can't get people to work for them, what do they do? Raise the pay and working conditions so that they are appealing. Why should the CAF go the opposite direction?

The only reason we spend half of our defence budget on personnel, is because we can't buy kit, and when we do buy it we don't maintain it. If the GoC and DND actually put money into buying and fixing kit/infrastructure the budget wouldn't be so lopsided toward personnel costs.

As for the notion of PMQs/shacks for all at every base, look at the appalling stories coming out of the US and UK regarding base housing. Given Canada's lack of interest in maintaining infrastructure, how long do you think it would be before the "retention" tool of CAF housing turns into the biggest motivator for release?

 

[Eaglelord17]

You are aware that the CAF can't recruit people right? We are down 35% from an already low recruiting number last year...

If a company can't get people to work for them, what do they do? Raise the pay and working conditions so that they are appealing. Why should the CAF go the opposite direction?

The only reason we spend half of our defence budget on personnel, is because we can't buy kit, and when we do buy it we don't maintain it. If the GoC and DND actually put money into buying and fixing kit/infrastructure the budget wouldn't be so lopsided toward personnel costs.

As for the notion of PMQs/shacks for all at every base, look at the appalling stories coming out of the US and UK regarding base housing. Given Canada's lack of interest in maintaining infrastructure, how long do you think it would be before the "retention" tool of CAF housing turns into the biggest motivator for release?

Depends on if you choose to properly maintain it or not. We have the potential solution, to refuse to take it because of what could happen long term is a poor decision. At the end of the day you cannot make everyone happy. This also isn’t reducing pay, if anything I suspect basically everyone in the CAF would have a better standard of living and less stress not having to worry about housing.

Working conditions we cannot change, we have a job to do. Pay is also limited due to obvious budgetary factors. The biggest issue most seem to have is they struggle with the cost of living, which is a fair complaint. It is also a standard complaint across society. The solution to that is to offer housing at a fixed amount. It would be a benefit and it would both protect the members and ensure the smooth transition from location to location.

 

[captloadie]

Maybe the issue is that we expect everyone to think of the CAF as a lifelong career. We keep screaming that it is retention that is the problem, but I ask why do we need to retain so many people for so long? If you read through this thread, it identifies what are perceived to be the issues: not enough pay, postings to places people don't want to go, poor career management, too much responsibility for the rank. What if we say fine, lets fix our training system to bring new hires up to speed quicker, so they can do their primary duty at an acceptable level, and replace those who are dissatisfied with what a military career actually involves. Maybe we push down some of the duties to a larger pool of lower ranked individuals, thus reducing the need to keep so many at the higher ranks because of their "experience". Lets stop planning on bringing in 10 ptes so we can have 10 MCpls in five years. Lets bring in 50 or 100 Ptes, so we can have 10 MCpls, in maybe 8 years who have all the qualities we are looking for at that rank.

There is nothing wrong necessarily with people leaving because they are dissatisfied (to a point). We all need different things at different points in our lives, and it shouldn't be expected that the military can accommodate everyone's changing needs. But we need to fix the system at the front end.

 

[Furniture]

Depends on if you choose to properly maintain it or not. We have the potential solution, to refuse to take it because of what could happen long term is a poor decision. At the end of the day you cannot make everyone happy. This also isn’t reducing pay, if anything I suspect basically everyone in the CAF would have a better standard of living and less stress not having to worry about housing.

Working conditions we cannot change, we have a job to do. Pay is also limited due to obvious budgetary factors. The biggest issue most seem to have is they struggle with the cost of living, which is a fair complaint. It is also a standard complaint across society. The solution to that is to offer housing at a fixed amount. It would be a benefit and it would both protect the members and ensure the smooth transition from location to location.

When I assess the feasibility of a plan, I look at what the historical trend is. The historical trend with the GoC and CAF is to not maintain infrastructure, see 24 Sussex Drive, and every base in the country for examples of this. Theoretically the trend could change, but I haven't seen any evidence to suggest there is an appetite within either organization to change.

I'm not suggesting that more housing is a bad idea, I think the CAF needs a lot more of it. I'm just pointing out that it will not be a panacea for the CAF's recruiting and retention issues.

Working conditions can change, and need to change. There are better ways to do a lot of the things the CAF does, but due to attitudes like the one you've expressed things don't change. There are times that CAF members need to make sacrifices for their country, but it shouldn't be the expected daily standard. Stupid lines like "you're paid 24/7" are excuses bad leaders use to not do their jobs effectively, and mismanage their people's time.

 

[CountDC]

My personal take on a couple things

I absolutely belief that the base housing removal was a big mistake and total farce. I also belief the government needs to build new ones in locations and actually maintain them. This could be covered by the rentals charged for the units the same as any landlord would do. As they are not for making profits then the rate can be set lower than the local market rates.

For several years now I keep hearing it pop up in discussions to change pay rates to a system based on members availability for posting. Basics it is always - Level 1 not willing to be posted out of area, level 2 posted anywhere in Canada, level 3 willing to be posted or deployed anywhere. Although I do like the basics of this it would need to include the mandatory must go clause. if someone opts to level 3 they do not get to refuse a posting/deployment that comes along. If they put in a release then approve it for when the posting/deployment is completed.

Replacing military admins with civilians. Back awhile ago this was raised in Ottawa by some Capt levels as a cost savings when CAF was looking at ways to cut the budget. Traction quickly died though when it was pointed out that military admins would release to take the positions along with their pensions to work a normal 40 hour work week. Then when the supporters of this COA needed an admin to work late, weekends good luck with it as the new civilian/ex military would have no issue with telling them to pound sand.

I agreed that actual HR management is something that needs to be part of all trades training and not just the leadership aspects taught on the military courses. I like the idea of university level course with a military aspect added in. Perhaps something put together by CDA to be taught at RMC or CFC for SNCMs and Officers.

For moves lets save the cost and hassle of HRG, brookfield or whatever they are called. Set a rate for moves based on the CFM, issue the money to the member and give them a RFD date. How they get there with what is totally up to them. Here you go Cpl Bloggins, $37k and report to Cold Lake 1 Aug. You pick. Rent a truck, hire movers, sell/garbage everything and buy new. Whatever way you want as long as you are there and report 1 Aug.

and my lately fav rant - stop complaining about the lack of members and coming up with schemes to try increasing enrolment. Do something to enhance retention along with satisfaction. Satisfied employees are the best means of recruitment, unsatisfied one are horrible for it. Also it's great that you have recruited 100 HRA/FSA/Bos'n/whatever. Now what are you doing with them as you did nothing for retention so you have no one to train or lead those recruits.

That felt good.

 

[TCM621]

You are aware that the CAF can't recruit people right? We are down 35% from an already low recruiting number last year...

I will nitpick here a little bit, not to point out your mistake but because it part of the reason we are in such a bad state. The CAF doesn't have a recruiting problem. I read an article that stated we had about 60,000 applications in FY 19/20 and 78, 150 in FY20/21 According to a CTV article, the CAF only acceptsp about 1 in 8. The CTV article isn't clear if that Includes people who drop out of the process. This means either we are terrible at closing the deal (we are) and that maybe CFRG needs to be reminded that coffee is for closers until they sort that out, or that our standards are so ridiculously high that only 12.5 of Canadians qualify. We don't have fitness standards, so that's not the problem. We do have so stupid education standards (math 12 is needed to be a cook but not an nubbins aircraft technician?) but unless the CFAT has changed dramatically since I joined, it wasn't rocket surgery and besides, it is only an aptitude test to see where you best fit. There is no reason why we shouldn't be able to land 30-40% of members who apply.

 

[PuckChaser]

You realize we're in 2023 right? You can't quote numbers from 2 years ago and claim we don't have a problem in recruiting. Things change pretty quickly when the economy changes as fast as it did post-COVID. We are not an employer of choice right now and there's not a magic singular answer that will solve that problem.

 

[Remius]

I will nitpick here a little bit, not to point out your mistake but because it part of the reason we are in such a bad state. The CAF doesn't have a recruiting problem. I read an article that stated we had about 60,000 applications in FY 19/20 and 78, 150 in FY20/21 According to a CTV article, the CAF only acceptsp about 1 in 8. The CTV article isn't clear if that Includes people who drop out of the process. This means either we are terrible at closing the deal (we are) and that maybe CFRG needs to be reminded that coffee is for closers until they sort that out, or that our standards are so ridiculously high that only 12.5 of Canadians qualify. We don't have fitness standards, so that's not the problem. We do have so stupid education standards (math 12 is needed to be a cook but not an nubbins aircraft technician?) but unless the CFAT has changed dramatically since I joined, it wasn't rocket surgery and besides, it is only an aptitude test to see where you best fit. There is no reason why we shouldn't be able to land 30-40% of members who apply.

A few things.

Some people do fail the aptitude test. Or don’t get the score they need for trade they want. Some chose something different, some took the advice to go get academic upgrading and others walked away.

Security and background checks. Credit being a big show stopper in many cases. Some went and got their credit and debts squared away, others walked away. Also if you took a semester off to find yourself in Tibet you might be waiting longer than you wanted to. This was a stumbling block for more than I few when I worked there,

Medical. Probably the bigger issue. Not everyone could meet the medical standards. Or they were told to get more info from their doctor. That takes time.

And then we have people that apply without the pre requisites. They apply and get counselled out.

And then you have people that disproportionately apply for some trades and ignore others or are the unicorns we can’t find. Clerk applications were huge numbers at my CFRC. Mostly due to spouses looking to be posted in the same location as their partners. So much so that we stopped processing clerks and supply techs and none of them were willing to go armoured or sig op.

Take pilot. Lots of interest. Many get screened out at various levels including air crew selection.

It’s much more complicated and nuanced as far as numbers applied vs successful applicants. Not sure about the 1 in 8 and what data is used but when I was there it was 1 in 3 (these were processed applicants and not necessarily applicants that never made it passed the application dropped off stage).

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

Sorry I missed your sarcasm completely then haha

I dunno, I kinda saw a valid possibility in there. Pay and time-in are highly correlated in the CAF, and the closer someone gets to 25 years the tighter those pension handcuffs get around their wrists. So this increased pay at the lower levels could get more people to that lock-in point (obviously that's an immeasurably different point for everyone) before the downside of this starts to hit them.

But I guess that goes to my unintended consequences point, there's a million scenarios that will unfold and how they look when aggregated is a guessing game, which is why they should just stick to sound HR policies as that's the best hope they've got. There's an easy argument for compensation to be adjusted geographically due to different labour markets / costs of living, there's also an easy argument that lower salaries are disproportionately effected and therefore the pay adjustment needs to be a somewhat sliding scale.

My company provides a cost-of-living subsidy to Managers that move to high-cost locations. The subsidy is negotiated as part of the compensation package. It only makes sense because how else are they supposed to get people to move?

I think the way the CAF did it is completely backwards though. They tied it to housing as the metric and I agree with you that the CAFs solution was misguided.

It would be interesting to get rid of PLD/CFHD, Spec Pay, etc., altogether and actually restructure the ranks and pay scales in accordance with market rates.

Try tying the various NCM salaries to what skilled tradesmen make in each market. In some cases it will be an easy comparison, in some others it would be require a bit more thought but not that much. An apprentice Carpenter makes ~$36/hr in Vancouver. So we'd be paying Privates/new Corporals around $75k a year in Vancouver, with 4 weeks paid vacation and a great pension. That's more than CPA Articling student with an accounting major makes (the latter obviously having higher earning potential in the long-run)... so a Pte(T) / new Corporal making more money than untrained 2LT... all seems to make sense to me.

Now said Cpl with $75k/year salary is posted to Edmonton, ends up taking a decrease in $4-5k decrease in gross pay but his new mortgage is much cheaper...

(Would also need to re-jig some rank characteristics i.e. as soon as you are fully trained and at OFP, you are not longer a 2Lt, you're an Lt with payscales that match that. No more of this silliness where a 2Lt is a Pl Comd for a 2 years in Battalion and hands his Platoon over to a Captain that just finished Phase training and makes $20k more a year than him.)

Hahaha, this was me for two years . I took it as the Army's way or congratulating me for finishing my training ahead of schedule

Could be a lot simpler to administer, gets rid of a lot of fights over spec pay and cost of living markers. At least it's a transparent system with actual industry markers used and it becomes very difficult to argue "well I could just jump to the private sector and make way more money." Add in some kind of posting bonus regardless of where the posting is (literally, here's a chunk of change, no strings attached, to compensate you for your mobility which is a trait the CAF desires) and I think you're in a better place.

A lot of people in the CAF wouldn't make more money in the private sector. A few people with the right background and skills might, but the vast majority wouldn't.

They could expect a $20-$30k paycut until they had proven themselves.

You realize we're in 2023 right? You can't quote numbers from 2 years ago and claim we don't have a problem in recruiting. Things change pretty quickly when the economy changes as fast as it did post-COVID. We are not an employer of choice right now and there's not a magic singular answer that will solve that problem.

The numbers these articles are quoting are grossly understated.

I think the institution is a lot further in the hole personnel-wise than they have let on.

 

[dimsum]

A lot of people in the CAF wouldn't make more money in the private sector. A few people with the right background and skills might, but the vast majority wouldn't.

They could expect a $20-$30k paycut until they had proven themselves.

Bingo.

 

[TCM621]

A few things.

Some people do fail the aptitude test. Or don’t get the score they need for trade they want. Some chose something different, some took the advice to go get academic upgrading and others walked away.

Security and background checks. Credit being a big show stopper in many cases. Some went and got their credit and debts squared away, others walked away. Also if you took a semester off to find yourself in Tibet you might be waiting longer than you wanted to. This was a stumbling block for more than I few when I worked there,

Medical. Probably the bigger issue. Not everyone could meet the medical standards. Or they were told to get more info from their doctor. That takes time.

And then we have people that apply without the pre requisites. They apply and get counselled out.

And then you have people that disproportionately apply for some trades and ignore others or are the unicorns we can’t find. Clerk applications were huge numbers at my CFRC. Mostly due to spouses looking to be posted in the same location as their partners. So much so that we stopped processing clerks and supply techs and none of them were willing to go armoured or sig op.

Take pilot. Lots of interest. Many get screened out at various levels including air crew selection.

It’s much more complicated and nuanced as far as numbers applied vs successful applicants. Not sure about the 1 in 8 and what data is used but when I was there it was 1 in 3 (these were processed applicants and not necessarily applicants that never made it passed the application dropped off stage).

I hear all the reasons but the reality is that is a problem of our own making (meaning the government as well as the CAF). When I joined in 1996, back when everything was sent via teletyped message, I enrolled less than 2 months after I walked into a recruiting center expressing interest. That included a fitness test, CFAT, Medical, enhanced reliability and an interview. It is beyond ridiculous that we can't match that in 2023 when I carry a computer stronger than anything the CAF had in the 90s in my pocket.

Yes some occupations will take longer but you don't need a year to process an average clerk, cook or infanteer. And the trades that do take longer need to take that into account when they plan for recruiting targets.

IIRC one of the articles mentioned it but one of the findings is that our recruiting targets are often set based on capacity not need. In 2010 ish I was working with recruiting for the militia. The reserves units were given a number of files the Recruiting center would process. Brigade decided to proportion those by each unit's percent of the brigade remarks. The biggest units got the most and so on. The Afghanistan bump was still going strong but people were being turned away.

So we have a large need and a large amount of interest but we can't seal the deal for a number of reasons. Some are easier to deal with than others. There is no reason a CFRC can't have access to a database similar to vulnerable person checks you do if you work with kids. Type the name in the Database and if no red flags pop up, on to the next step. When I joined, a MWO PA did my medical in the recruiting centre. If anything unusual popped up, they asked to you get a form from your doctor clearing otherwise it was straight forward. There is also no reason a person can't do the CFAT on a computer in the CFRC. It could easily be computer based and it could spit out a list of applicable trades immediately after completion. That kind of online testing has been common for over 20 years. If they implemented those a person could apply in person or online and recieve an appointment to do a medical, CFAT, preliminary security screening and have a sit down with a recruiter to discuss the CFAT results all in an afternoon. A simple kid coming out of high school and joining the infantry, should take weeks not months.

If we solve the issue for the simple files, we won't have as many people who lose interest. The best time to get a recruit is right after they walked in because they are motivated by something. Maybe they just need a job, maybe they are going through a rough patch and want to join the military to escape, maybe they watched a cool movie and decided to give it a try. Those motivations rarely last long but we get them in the door, in uniform and then the next group comes in and gives them a reason to stay, but that is another problem for another post.

 

[Furniture]

I hear all the reasons but the reality is that is a problem of our own making (meaning the government as well as the CAF). When I joined in 1996, back when everything was sent via teletyped message, I enrolled less than 2 months after I walked into a recruiting center expressing interest. That included a fitness test, CFAT, Medical, enhanced reliability and an interview. It is beyond ridiculous that we can't match that in 2023 when I carry a computer stronger than anything the CAF had in the 90s in my pocket.

You are aware the CAF was bigger, and better funded then right?

Yes some occupations will take longer but you don't need a year to process an average clerk, cook or infanteer. And the trades that do take longer need to take that into account when they plan for recruiting targets.

The CAF isn't hurting for recruits for all occupations, it's mostly hurting for recruits in the occupations with long initial training, higher education and CFAT requirements, and higher security clearances... Planning for recruiting is great when you aren't already deep in the red, but when your trade is red, and still losing more than it recruits, no amount of "planning targets" will fix it.

When I joined, a MWO PA did my medical in the recruiting centre. If anything unusual popped up, they asked to you get a form from your doctor clearing otherwise it was straight forward.

I can't get a routine medical done because the CAF is short medical pers, how do you propose the CAF "magics" PAs into existence from a limited pool?

Those motivations rarely last long but we get them in the door, in uniform and then the next group comes in and gives them a reason to stay, but that is another problem for another post

We tried that in the early 2000s, Borden was flooded with people we "got in the door, and into a uniform", some of them sat for months/years waiting for training. It resulted in a lot of disciplinary and morale problems...

 

[Eaglelord17]

You are aware the CAF was bigger, and better funded then right?


The CAF isn't hurting for recruits for all occupations, it's mostly hurting for recruits in the occupations with long initial training, higher education and CFAT requirements, and higher security clearances... Planning for recruiting is great when you aren't already deep in the red, but when your trade is red, and still losing more than it recruits, no amount of "planning targets" will fix it.


I can't get a routine medical done because the CAF is short medical pers, how do you propose the CAF "magics" PAs into existence from a limited pool?


We tried that in the early 2000s, Borden was flooded with people we "got in the door, and into a uniform", some of them sat for months/years waiting for training. It resulted in a lot of disciplinary and morale problems...

In 97 the budget was 7.95 billion as opposed to almost 30 billion today. The percentage was about 1.25 gdp opposed to 1.35 gdp today. They employed substantially more soldiers on that budget than we do now. The training was also a lot more intense and time consuming as well for most trades.

Having troops sitting and waiting for training is a leadership problem, which is even more of a issue today when we have people make their whole initial contract without trades training.

Technology was supposed to make us more efficient instead it went the opposite way. We used to make things work, now we make excuses as to why we can’t.

 

[Navy_Pete]

In 97 the budget was 7.95 billion as opposed to almost 30 billion today. The percentage was about 1.25 gdp opposed to 1.35 gdp today. They employed substantially more soldiers on that budget than we do now. The training was also a lot more intense and time consuming as well for most trades.

Having troops sitting and waiting for training is a leadership problem, which is even more of a issue today when we have people make their whole initial contract without trades training.

Technology was supposed to make us more efficient instead it went the opposite way. We used to make things work, now we make excuses as to why we can’t.

I would disagree with the highlighted part; infrastructure, instructors and general training capacity isn't a leadership problem, that's straight planning/management. Leadership should recognize it and give direction to fix it, but it's not something that lower level folks can do anything about if there isn't classrooms or teachers by applying 'leadership' (for formal training).

It's also unsexy, long term and not very exciting, and our training system has been second tier for ages. Filling positions when people retire, replacing facilities as they get older, updating QSPs etc to maintain an existing capability doesn't really capture hearts and minds but is critical. That's something we haven't done a good job on, and frequently just use instructors on the navy side as a manning pool for sailing shortages.

If your job is turning wrenches, there is really no computer based training substitue for turning wrenches. It works okay for the computer based side when you are talking about running a control system, but still doesn't fully replace doing the real thing where there are other aspects you can't simulate. We want to cut the number of people and make everyone an all singing and dancing generalist so that needs a lot more training.

 

[Furniture]

In 97 the budget was 7.95 billion as opposed to almost 30 billion today. The percentage was about 1.25 gdp opposed to 1.35 gdp today. They employed substantially more soldiers on that budget than we do now. The training was also a lot more intense and time consuming as well for most trades.

That was also the period when troops were going to food banks to feed their families... Hardly a golden age for CAF pay. Also bear in mind that the demographics and economy were in a different state then. People would tolerate the CAF's way of doing things because getting a job that paid well was hard, and there were more applicants than jobs most places.

Today there aren't enough applicants for the jobs. It's not just a CAF problem, it's a Western world problem.

Having troops sitting and waiting for training is a leadership problem, which is even more of a issue today when we have people make their whole initial contract without trades training.

It is a leadership problem, it's a problem caused by leaders saying "let's get them in, then sort out the details". The details about schooling matter quite a lot. @Navy_Pete already went into why the CAF is failing at that part.

Technology was supposed to make us more efficient instead it went the opposite way. We used to make things work, now we make excuses as to why we can’t.

I partially agree, technology was supposed to make things better, but instead it has become a hindrance to a lot of what we do. Mostly because the CAF refused to keep up with the times, and insists on doing things the old way, and the new way at the same time. We have clumsy software that members have to fight with, rather than intuitive software anyone can use easily. We duplicate effort with paper and electronic copies of things, and failed to upgrade computer/network infrastructure so our systems run at a reasonable speed.

Regarding the bolded part... That is a big part of the reason we are in the state we are in today. Leaders for decades "made things work", which just showed the government that they didn't need to invest anything in the CAF. We "made things work" by putting more and more onto the fewer people we had, and burned them out.

 

[Quirky]

Having troops sitting and waiting for training is a leadership problem, which is even more of a issue today when we have people make their whole initial contract without trades training.

Can't train new troops when all your experienced and competent instructors have already left or on their retirement slump. Why your experienced instructors are leaving is tied into this thread of allowances, pay, housing, posting, etc. All your top performers should be, in theory, your instructors and mentors, when they leave then you have the blind leading the blind which is exactly what's happening. Our standards for leadership and technical knowledge for promotion into the junior leadership ranks have dropped dramatically in the past 5 years. It's mind boggling the types of people who are moving up the ladder, the scariest part is they are the future senior leaders of the CAF.

 

[Furniture]

Can't train new troops when all your experienced and competent instructors have already left or on their retirement slump. Why your experienced instructors are leaving is tied into this thread of allowances, pay, housing, posting, etc. All your top performers should be, in theory, your instructors and mentors, when they leave then you have the blind leading the blind which is exactly what's happening. Our standards for leadership and technical knowledge for promotion into the junior leadership ranks have dropped dramatically in the past 5 years. It's mind boggling the types of people who are moving up the ladder, the scariest part is they are the future senior leaders of the CAF.

Related to this, some of my occupation's best and brightest get lost to commissioning, because the pay gap between a Snr NCM and a Capt is so large. Why be a Sgt or MWO when you can make far more as a Capt with less hassle?

 

[Eaglelord17]

I would disagree with the highlighted part; infrastructure, instructors and general training capacity isn't a leadership problem, that's straight planning/management. Leadership should recognize it and give direction to fix it, but it's not something that lower level folks can do anything about if there isn't classrooms or teachers by applying 'leadership' (for formal training).

It's also unsexy, long term and not very exciting, and our training system has been second tier for ages. Filling positions when people retire, replacing facilities as they get older, updating QSPs etc to maintain an existing capability doesn't really capture hearts and minds but is critical. That's something we haven't done a good job on, and frequently just use instructors on the navy side as a manning pool for sailing shortages.

If your job is turning wrenches, there is really no computer based training substitue for turning wrenches. It works okay for the computer based side when you are talking about running a control system, but still doesn't fully replace doing the real thing where there are other aspects you can't simulate. We want to cut the number of people and make everyone an all singing and dancing generalist so that needs a lot more training.

It is a leadership issue, might not be the direct responsibility of the lowest level, but somewhere along the CoC someone is responsible for it. Planning/management is 100% leaderships responsibility. If they don’t like how its being run/it is failing to run efficiently, they have the power to fix it, but also the burden of responsibility for it, both in failure and success.

It is a leadership problem, it's a problem caused by leaders saying "let's get them in, then sort out the details". The details about schooling matter quite a lot. @Navy_Pete already went into why the CAF is failing at that part.


I partially agree, technology was supposed to make things better, but instead it has become a hindrance to a lot of what we do. Mostly because the CAF refused to keep up with the times, and insists on doing things the old way, and the new way at the same time. We have clumsy software that members have to fight with, rather than intuitive software anyone can use easily. We duplicate effort with paper and electronic copies of things, and failed to upgrade computer/network infrastructure so our systems run at a reasonable speed.

Regarding the bolded part... That is a big part of the reason we are in the state we are in today. Leaders for decades "made things work", which just showed the government that they didn't need to invest anything in the CAF. We "made things work" by putting more and more onto the fewer people we had, and burned them out.

Society has made things work for millennia. It is only recently we have decided that we cannot do things without even trying. We can see this in action as most our modern systems are collapsing due to the lack of trained competent people and refusal to allow any changes that might possibly resolve those issues.

Making things work doesn’t mean doing things dumb ways either, it means finding solutions to problems. We are failing to do this and the results are obvious.

Finding those solutions means messing with the status quo and in some cases might not work. But its better to try and fail than just let it fail with no alternative.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

Related to this, some of my occupation's best and brightest get lost to commissioning, because the pay gap between a Snr NCM and a Capt is so large. Why be a Sgt or MWO when you can make far more as a Capt with less hassle?

You want to be careful about assuming that the grass is greener on the other side of the commissioning fence…