Civie Contractors

[Garett]

LFDTS is pushing hard to have civie contractors fill roles now filled by soldiers.  They want them to instruct a number of topics including weapons.  Many seem to see this as the only way we will be able to recruit and train 5000 troops and maintain our operational commitments. 

Any comments?????

 

[TCBF]

No corporate memory.  Remember YTEP 1983?  The CF said they could easily take in 5000 extra recruits to help unemployment go down. There was a battle in cabinet as some ministers were against the expansion of the military "for ANY reason"  , but common sense won out.  Then.

CFRS Cornwallis,  ERFC St Jean and the Battle Schools  got maxed out, and units in the brigades each took a platoon sized course of their trade, then taught the follow on TQ3.  No problem.  We could do that today.

The real issue here, is that:

1. There was a battle in cabinet as some ministers were against the expansion of the military "for ANY reason"  - STILL, and

2.  NO money has been alloted for the 5000 new recruits.  If we want them, we might have to release our expensive regular force training NCOs and hire them back as poorly paid employees of politically connected commercial training cadres.  This will actually end up costing MORE money than our present system, BUT:  "There was a battle in cabinet as some ministers were against the expansion of the military "for ANY reason"  "

So, the prime directive will be maintained.

Remember - a cadre of functionaires exist solely for the purpose of ensuring that defence spending does not result in military spending.

 

[TangoTwoBravo]

Garrett,

I think that civilian contractors could work if they are used the right way and have the right background.  If the intent is to have retired NCOs teach weapons and gunnery classes then perhaps this could work.  The same could be said for driving and other technical tasks.  If it frees up NCOs to keep the units up to strength or teach leadership/tactics then it can be a good thing. 

As someone who worked at Meaford for three years and was involved in the tasking battle, I figure that one problem that the Army faces is a lack of personnel at the Sgt/WO level to run both the field force and the schools.  The Army does have money, however, and hiring contractors is an attractive solution.

One downside is the loss of professional development for the NCOs if they are not teaching these skills.

TCBF,

I am also thinking along the lines that you are in that we may need to farm out the recruits to the field force to train.  Give each unit a sub-unit of recruits and let the unit run the training.

Cheers,

Iain

 

[mover1]

There is no problem with having civies tech weapons, gunnery etc. After all it was civvies who designed and produced our gear. As well the airforce is doing it with the bombardier contract for the Nato Flying Training in Canada.

It could be a good thing. Freeing up people from schools to the regiments.

In fact I can bet that whomever gets the contract will try to hire the military peopel who hold the positions already as civvilian workers....Again I site the NFTTC in cold lake who hires a lot of ex CF Members.

As for the loss of professional development..I think that that would be minimal to say the least.

 

[TCBF]

"As for the loss of professional development..I think that that would be minimal to say the least."

It would help kill us.

An NCO is a leader, and must pass on his knowledge by teaching.. If you cannot teach, you cannot lead.

Teaching recruits/TQ3/CLC/SLC?BOTC etc was always used as a development tool for a lot of our streamers, and it worked very well.

In fact, we could learn from the Permanent Force of the late 1930s, the Strats, for example, did mounted trg in the morning, and dismounted in the afternoon, and senior soldiers - not nec NCOs - did a lot of the teaching.  We need to get back to teaching young soldiers how to lead, not 40 year old Cpls.

 

[TangoTwoBravo]

I don't imagine that NCOs would be relieved of their instructional duties across the board, just that contractors could be employed to teach certain subjects.  I think that recruit training and the field aspects of the rest of DP1 should always be taught by NCOs, but perhaps some of the technical skills (gunnery, comms, driving etc) could have instructional cadres filled out with a mixture of NCOs and contractors.

If the alternative is having 5000 soldiers in PAT platoon for a year or two then I think we hire some contractors to help out.

Iain 

 

[TCBF]

I think the 5000 in PAT Pl is another issue.  Some damn fool decided to hire them faster than we could train them, without first determining that the CSS orgs FRP'd most of their I staff in the late 90s.

Tell me those guys/girls are not coming off a year of PAT as damaged goods.  Rather than waiting for CSS instructors, we should have YTEP'd them into Cbt Arms, then to CSS as the Crse vacancies came up.

A lot of our soldier skills are perishable.  It is good to get a new CC in the Troop, who has just finished teaching gunnery at the school.  Keeps us up to speed.

The more we give away, the more capability we lose.  Too many people do not understand our culture.

 

[Garett]

One thing they're looking at is having a Pl Comd and WO, and 6 civie instructors.

Another is having a Pl Comd, WO and three Sgt/MCpl section comds.

The composition of the instructors for the course would vary based on what kind of course it is.  I asked higher if these civie instructors would go to the field and the answer was no or probably not.  That means that everything taught in the classroom that will be practiced or assessed in the field has to be taught by military instructors.  You can't have a civie teach a student something, then have a group of NCO's assess them on it.  The same group has to teach and assess.

In my opinion we could run PLQ courses with a Pl Comd, WO and three NCO's.  We would need to be augmented for exercises to be able to complete all the assessments in the allotted time.

This whole concept could work, but it will lower the effectiveness of our training system which has already slipped.  We have to decide what is more important, pushing recruits through the system or training them to a high standard and making them wait awhile.  I think it sucks to make them wait in a PAT platoon, but it might be worth it.

 

[Standards]

My biggest question is "Where will these instructors come from?" and the scenarios that come to mind do not give me a warm fuzzy feeling.

1.  Reserve NCOs sign up to teach as civilians.  This is OK to a point, but then who is left over to teach on the courses Reserve units run year around?  Both the Regular Force and the reserves are slated to increase in numbers, so they will need to be running at maximum capacity and cannot afford to lose NCOs (particularly when you look at previous history - when the Reg Force increased they did so by poaching direct entries from the Reserves - they will have enough problems as it is).

2.  "Old" retired guy signs up to supplement his pension.  Sorry, but the service rifle is a C7 not C1, the point being things have changed drastically in the past several years and if their is a significant gap much of the potential instructors knowledge is time expired.

3.  "New" retired gut signs up to supplement his pension (possibly getting out specifically to take this job and be able to double dip for a few years).  If the guy was a decent instructor we should be keeping him in uniform to teach all aspects of the course (including going to the field).  if he was a poor instructor, he wasn't useable while in uniform, why would we want him as a civilian?

In general I am not in favour of the idea, as least not with the information I have seen so far.  It mostly looks like another screw the military/government program put together by a couple of retired generals (i.e. uniformed politicians).

 

[TCBF]

Standards, you have some good points. 

The solution to this, is:

1. Comb out the office buildings for instructors or surplus pers to teach or fill out the units..  If they cannot adapt, release them 'exigencies of the service" if necessary, and use the P/Y to promote young NCOs to replace the ones posted to the training establishments. Then,

2.  Bring us up to 60,000. Where we should be now. Then,

3.  Bring us up to 76,000 (Trudeau's military.) Then,

4.  Bring us up to 88,000 (Mulroney's military). Then,

5.  Bring us up to 100,000 (Pearson's military). Then,

6. Bring us up to 125,000 (Dief's military).


I know, dream on.

 

[paracowboy]

I got a couple questions:
Are these guys gonna be makin' more money than me, and if so how do I sign up?

 

[Goober]

I don't think having civvies instruct soldiers is a good thing for the soldiers/students themselves, because its during these classes you learn what its like to be a CF soldier from an actual CF soldier with experience. During breaks between classes, or piss/smoke breaks the NCOs tell you stories from their own personal experience, they teach you so much more than what is in the PowerPoint, most from their own experience.

You wouldn't get that from a civvie instructor, and there would be less respect, as he/she would be regarded as just "some civvie", what does he know about soldiering?

 

[pronto]

Much as I would like to think so, I have long forgotten what would need to be imparted to troopies. I could teach the philosphy, but not the actual tools or tactics anymore. I mean for god sakes, I still have a copy of ACP125 CanSup 1A -(Sigs know what I am talking about)

Someone said it well - you use  C7 not a C1... I was forced to admit a long time ago - I am not going to do the cool stuff any more, and I had better get over it, and move up.

Civvie instructors is a stupid idea, and would only feather the nest of those who don't need it. Use the money to better prepare military instructors, or hire more recruits, etc. etc.

 

[George Wallace]

Pronto

A quick reply to you.  Yes you may be 'old school' and used different radios than those that are currently in use, but theory hasn't changed.  Radio waves are still Radio waves.  Technological advancements in equipment still can not change a Radio Wave and its' characteristics.  Radio Voice Procedure hasn't changed.  Construction of an Expedient Antenna hasn't changed.  There is a lot that hasn't changed, due to the fact that it is impossible to change, as in the case of a Radio Wave, so there is much that the 'old guys' can still pass on, as in many cases it is being forgotten.

In Gunnery, the weapons may change, but the Theory of Shooting remains the same.  Infilade and Defalade Fire will still remain Infilade and Defalade Fire.  A Cone of Fire will still be a Cone of Fire.  Ranges and Trajectories may change, but the theory will remain the same. 

Many things change, but many things remain the same.....just look at them a little closer.

 

[George Wallace]

I don't think having civvies instruct soldiers is a good thing for the soldiers/students themselves, because its during these classes you learn what its like to be a CF soldier from an actual CF soldier with experience. During breaks between classes, or piss/smoke breaks the NCOs tell you stories from their own personal experience, they teach you so much more than what is in the PowerPoint, most from their own experience.

You wouldn't get that from a civvie instructor, and there would be less respect, as he/she would be regarded as just "some civvie", what does he know about soldiering?

Unfortunately for you, you have taken the wrong impression of "Civie Contractor" and made a grievous mistake.  Most cases that you will find these people, being retire soldiers, will know more about being a soldier, than you likely ever will.  In the few cases that they may not, they will be SMEs in matters that you again will never reach the same expertise.

 

[pronto]

Well George, you make me feel a little less old

I do take your points - although C42 net initation procedure may not be great to teach (All stations 1, this is 1, Tune arials now, out)... heh heh


You make some really good points - the fundamentals are the same, and I know I could teach that! I had some wonderful instructors myself. Jack DeHart taught me tech, so I consider myself very blessed.

Many thanks