Fitness for Operational Requirements of CAF Employment ( FORCE )

[McG]

By that yardstick then, only one result for the PER: pass/fail.

There is only pass or fail for the PER now.  That aside, your comment is still wrong.  It would be possible to have higher thresholds of performance which to not vary by age, weight or gender and for which achievement of these higher thresholds could be rewarded on a PER.  To be defensible, the higher performance would have to benefit success or survival in battle.

 

[caocao]

Not just soldiers.  It is a realistic expectation of any service member.
So what do you suggest those improvements might be?  Aside from suggesting lesser standards based on weight, you have only offered insults and not-so witty one liners in this thread.

extra points on the PER is not the way to go.  I think that the system as it is now (need a pass to have your file on the merit board) is adequate. 

So what kind of encentive could we use to motivate our folks to do better?  Bling maybe?  We use to have a badge of some sort on thework dress i think, so why not something like that for the DEU?  Drivers can wear those accident free badge so why not someone who is more fit then the average bear?

 

[OldSolduer]

History lesson :warstory:

Back in the day, about 1981/82 We had a CO who imposed his own PT test, CF standards be damned.

In the early days it was a 1.5 mile run in twelve minutes or less.

We had to run three miles in 21 minutes or less, or we faced administrative action. Then someone decided that the Coopers test was the way to go, CF or Army standards be damned. Then the EXPRES test came in and that was the way they decided to go.
Then they decided that to BFT was the way to go, BUT it was a 13 km in Marching Order followed by a 16 Km in Fighting order. Then they decided 13 km in Marching order was good.

I fervently hope that we've come to the 80% solution on this one.

 

[armyvern]

extra points on the PER is not the way to go.  I think that the system as it is now (need a pass to have your file on the merit board) is adequate. 

So what kind of encentive could we use to motivate our folks to do better?  Bling maybe?  We use to have a badge of some sort on thework dress i think, so why not something like that for the DEU?  Drivers can wear those accident free badge so why not someone who is more fit then the average bear?

The Warrior Badge. 

Last thing we need is more cheap Chinese plastic baubles because you just know that's where they'll come from. 

 

[armyvern]

History lesson :warstory:

Back in the day, about 1981/82 We had a CO who imposed his own PT test, CF standards be damned.

In the early days it was a 1.5 mile run in twelve minutes or less.

We had to run three miles in 21 minutes or less, or we faced administrative action. Then someone decided that the Coopers test was the way to go, CF or Army standards be damned. Then the EXPRES test came in and that was the way they decided to go.
Then they decided that to BFT was the way to go, BUT it was a 13 km in Marching Order followed by a 16 Km in Fighting order. Then they decided 13 km in Marching order was good.

I fervently hope that we've come to the 80% solution on this one.

You missed the real 2X10 grandpa.   

 

[OldSolduer]

The Warrior Badge. 

Last thing we need is more cheap Chinese plastic baubles because you just know that's where they'll come from. 

Maybe we could pattern a badge off the USN SEAL Trident for the wannabes?

;D

 

[MikeL]

So what kind of encentive could we use to motivate our folks to do better?  Bling maybe?  We use to have a badge of some sort on thework dress i think, so why not something like that for the DEU?

Is this sincere?


We don't need to hand out DEU badges to Bloggins because he passed a yearly PT test. If you want to give people an incentive, link PT test passes with allowances.. fail your PT test and now you've lost LDA until you can pass.

 

[armyvern]

Is this sincere?


We don't need to hand out DEU badges to Bloggins because he passed a yearly PT test. If you want to give people an incentive, link PT test passes with allowances.. fail your PT test and now you've lost LDA until you can pass.

The FORCE test is the minimum standard for all CF members (not just the combat arms, not the Cdn Army etc etc).  The overwhelming majority of CF personnel do not receive any environmental allowances; you can't take allowances away from just a portion because now you've only succeeded in creating --- a double standard.

Next suggestion?

 

[caocao]

Is this sincere?


We don't need to hand out DEU badges to Bloggins because he passed a yearly PT test. If you want to give people an incentive, link PT test passes with allowances.. fail your PT test and now you've lost LDA until you can pass.

now we are going somewhere, same could be said of second lang ability.

 

[armyvern]

... same could be said of second lang ability.

The system currently already rewards this area.  Min profiles required for some promotions/appts and bonus points are given at merit boards.

What needs to start happening on this front is that those with profiles and whom are getting promoted, but refusing posting outside of their home province *ahem Quebec*, a serious issue in my trade ... need to have those bonus points, promotions and profiles revoked/invalidated/cancelled soonest!!  That's another thread though.

[/rant]

Back to topic ...

 

[MikeL]

The FORCE test is the minimum standard for all CF members (not just the combat arms, not the Cdn Army etc etc).

I didn't mean to imply the FORCE test is not a CAF wide fitness test.

The overwhelming majority of CF personnel do not receive any environmental allowances; you can't take allowances away from just a portion because now you've only succeeded in creating --- a double standard.

Is tying allowances to fitness test passes the 100% solution? No. As you noted, only a portion of the CAF gets allowances(such as LDA, SOA, etc) Linking job pay with the fitness test IMO would motivate people more then a piece of plastic on the DEU though.

same could be said of second lang ability.

What do you mean by this?  AFAIK, not having a second language(English/French) already has career implications with regards to rank, PER points, etc.

 

[armyvern]

Is tying allowances to fitness test passes the 100% solution? No. Linking job performance/passing tests to pay IMO sure would motivate people more then a piece of plastic on the DEU jacket though.

It's a zero percent solution.  If they haven't met the minimum standard that the CAF has determined is the MINIMUM required standard for OPERATIONAL task performance, then how do you justify taking allowances away from only a select portion of them?

More put:

What do you do to the infantry guy in a non-LDA position who fails?  Or to the RCAF guy in a non-LDA posn? Or the RCN guy in a non-LDA non-Sea Pay posn?  Do you doc their base pays by the equivalent then as a consequence just because they happen to be posted into a non-allowance posn?  It'll never fly.  We already have ICs, RWs & C&Ps for that shit (all of which also negatively impact the PER and the merit list BTW).

If the Infantry, or whoever, wants to have a different test as a minimum for their trade whereby people are rewarded/punished monetarily on a sliding scale, then that trade/environment will have to do that themselves as a totally different LoO from the CF minimum operational standard FORCE test.


Edited to add the yellow bit, because apparently this small typo obviously changed (for some) the entire of the whole post talking about "fails".

 

[MikeL]

What do you do to the infantry guy in a non-LDA position who fails?  Or to the RCAF guy in a non-LDA posn? Or the RCN guy in a non-LDA non-Sea Pay posn?  Do you doc their base pays by the equivalent then as a consequence just because they happen to be posted into a non-allowance posn?  It'll never fly.

I was just saying money would motivate people more then a plastic badge on the DEU.. I wasn't seriously proposing it as the way the CAF should deal with this. I acknowledged that it wasn't a realistic solution, and as you made clear a overall bad idea.. I think I should start adding smileys to make sure people know I'm not serious 

We already have ICs, RWs & C&Ps for that crap (all of which also negatively impact the PER and the merit list BTW).

I know those have a negative impact on the PER... but are those 100% solutions to motivate people to pass? Clearly not, as there are some CAF members that still fail the yearly fitness test.

 

[armyvern]

I am NOT saying those who have met the minimum standard would be punished, nor was it implied.  Only those who fail to meet the minimum standard.

Typo on my part.  It should have read, "haven't met" ... which is very obviously my intended meaning by my next sentence asking what to do with those guys who "fail".  I will edit my original to fix the typo.  :

 

[armyvern]

I know those have a negative impact on the PER... but are those 100% solutions to motivate people to pass? Clearly not, as there are some CAF members still fail the yearly fitness test.

And once those members do so 3 times, their ass is out the door.  It's their career on the line if they remain unmotivated.  If that isn't motivating to them ... nothing ever will be.  Another good reason for Units to use the existing policy and procedures for addressing "fails" ... because some are NOT.

 

[caocao]

The system currently already rewards this area.  Min profiles required for some promotions/appts and bonus points are given at merit boards.

What needs to start happening on this front is that those with profiles and whom are getting promoted, but refusing posting outside of their home province *ahem Quebec*, a serious issue in my trade ... need to have those bonus points, promotions and profiles revoked/invalidated/cancelled soonest!!  That's another thread though.

[/rant]

Back to topic ...

fully agree with you on the french thing except that you also need to include those folks (anglos) who do their year long in Esquimalt and refuse a posting to la belle province!

 

[dapaterson]

And how about all those who don't get tested during the year.  Should we be writing their supervisors up on their PERs?  Pass/Fail of subordinates shouldn't be reflected on a superior's PER, but never did the test?  Sounds like a leadership issue.

 

[MikeL]

And once those members do so 3 times, their *** is out the door.  It's their career on the line if they remain unmotivated.  If that isn't motivating to them ... nothing ever will be.

I agree - provided that the 3 times or you're out rule is enforced for all.

Another good reason for Units to use the existing policy and procedures for addressing "fails" ... because some are NOT.

Is there any repercussions for the CoC(and career shop if they know) if they allow a member to remain in, if they have failed their fitness tests(or don't even do them)?

 

[caocao]

And how about all those who don't get tested during the year.  Should we be writing their supervisors up on their PERs?  Pass/Fail of subordinates shouldn't be reflected on a superior's PER, but never did the test?  Sounds like a leadership issue.

yes, too many supervisors with blinders on that want to be the good guys.

 

[armyvern]

And how about all those who don't get tested during the year.  Should we be writing their supervisors up on their PERs?  Pass/Fail of subordinates shouldn't be reflected on a superior's PER, but never did the test?  Sounds like a leadership issue.

With a caveat of course because there are times when exceptional circumstances occur and no PT test is done during an FY.

Had a troop deployed most of the FY (the first 8 months of it) who returned from his leave only to break an ankle and not be able to undertake a test that FY.  Exceptional circumstance.  That "exceptional circumstance" exemption should have to come from higher than the pers' Unit though because I can totally see certain places finding "exceptions" all over the place for the chosen few as already occurs.  :facepalm: