The Post-pandemic Canadian Armed Forces

[OldSolduer]

I learned more about what not to do from my staff , and more about good leadership from my course mates. Not to say all my staff were terrible but some were.

Wise you are young Jedi.

I've always maintained I've learned much from bad leaders - what not to do.

 

[Furniture]

It's not just a PLQ issue, it's also a BMQ-L issue for some trades.

I have no doubt that when you were in Wainwright, you had MP showing up for BMQ-L who had already been through their QL3. At some points there simply hasn't been an ability to get a BMQ-L for pers before they were scheduled for their QL3. It's easy to say that shouldn't happen but when the Army cancels or reschedules a BMQ-L that has MP scheduled to go on it, the choice can become getting a waiver to let them do their QL3 out of sequence, or holding a full QL3 course of people in the training system for a year after BMQ because of that. When the trade is yellow/red, the choice becomes pretty simple as to what is going to happen.

We've also been in the situation, at times, where we've had people who needed to get onto BMQ-L in order to be promoted A/L MCpl/MS on graduation because of this issue and we've also had people not start getting spec pay because they couldn't be substantive Cpls after their QL5 due to lacking BMQ-L.

Note that I'm not pointing a finger here, crap happens and sometimes courses get cancelled or rescheduled outside of anyone's control, but there are significant consequences when that happens and it can take a long time to fix the damage that falls out of that.

For some trades it's a BMQ-L, NETP, BAEQ, PLQ, INELP/whatever the air force and army call the week of BS, ILP issue.

I have never been qualified(without qualifier) for a rank since Cpl. I did my QL6A before my PLQ, I was QL6B before my RQ Sgt, and now I'm A/L WO because my trade was at least 12 months behind before COVID-19 managed to destroy all training schedules. I am extremely unlikely to get an ILP before circumstance and TOS see me release... 

In my two years running the weather office in Trenton I never had the ability to send more than one person on training at a time, apparently the RCAF felt that flying was more important than my troops getting career courses. Now according to the army types(because the course before promotion types are always army) my people should be Pte's, not because they can't do the job well, but because Wainwright/Shilo/Pet/Gagetown can't run enough BMQ-L courses to accommodate the support pers and army pers required to take the course.

 

[Halifax Tar]

Are you in a Reg or Res unit?  What you suggest is a great idea, IMO but Reg force HRA/FSA units don't seem to do anything with the exception of maybe getting the person to do a small presentation such as a brief on something if they're lucky.

I have never heard of an HRA/FSA unit before but I digress.  I witnessed this during work up training for my AFG deployments.  Remember now I am a Naval Storesman.  We were heavily augmented with reserve Log and FP folks in the NSE.  All good people.  BUT the Log and RCEME reservists were undertrained woefully in their primary function which is their trade.  The knew their IAs and stoppages on a C7 like clockwork; they were way way better than than most of us at infantry stuff; but they couldn’t fill out, locate of identify a CF100 let alone be considered as OFP for their respective trades.  They had their courses, sure, but no practical ability.  Some even showed up wearing regimental accoutrements when they should have been in Log or RCEME cap badges ect.

If you take 5 hours a week away from your clerical duties, what effect does that have on the people you support ?  What claims aren’t getting processed ?  Did you fix Johnny’s pay problem ?  Or is he going another pay period with messed up pay ?  Again we have no business pretending that Storesmen and Clerks need to be able to advance to contact.  They should be versed and able to apply soldiering skills to convoys, defensives, and camp security.  Closing with the enemy is the job of the combat arms.  Our job is to enable and sustain their victory.

I blame their trades for allowing that to happen. It is almost unheard of in the Infantry and most combat arms trades for a person to be promoted without the qualification. The problem now is that this has been so prevalent within some trades/branches that it is hard to reverse. As said in some trades to get merited onto a PLQ you almost have to be a MCpl about to hit the deadline.

So what’s your solution ?  I am a member of the largest trade in the forces (Now that FSA and HRA exist).  We promote upwards of 100 - 200 MS/MCpls a year.  We need 10 courses of 20 students a year (on the high end) just for Sup Techs to keep up with that.  Mind if your regiment gives up a few spots there chap ?

For some trades it's a BMQ-L, NETP, BAEQ, PLQ, INELP/whatever the air force and army call the week of BS, ILP issue.

I have never been qualified(without qualifier) for a rank since Cpl. I did my QL6A before my PLQ, I was QL6B before my RQ Sgt, and now I'm A/L WO because my trade was at least 12 months behind before COVID-19 managed to destroy all training schedules. I am extremely unlikely to get an ILP before circumstance and TOS see me release... 

In my two years running the weather office in Trenton I never had the ability to send more than one person on training at a time, apparently the RCAF felt that flying was more important than my troops getting career courses. Now according to the army types(because the course before promotion types are always army) my people should be Pte's, not because they can't do the job well, but because Wainwright/Shilo/Pet/Gagetown can't run enough BMQ-L courses to accommodate the support pers and army pers required to take the course.

Exactly.  Again Set a common standard, and let branches fill in the content with relatable material.  If the Patrolling part of leading a patrol on your PLQ isn’t important then it can be changed to something more relevant, relatable and useable to students. 

 

[BeyondTheNow]

...In my two years running the weather office in Trenton I never had the ability to send more than one person on training at a time...

But isn’t that also, at least in part, due to the fact that the trade is grossly under-staffed, even to the point that there are recorded instances of pers being denied leave at that location and others, because there isn’t the bodies to cover the absences? Sending mbrs on courses can be hampered by extreme shortages also, unfortunately.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

My unit has, for the past several years, been running a "mandatory" pre-PLQ package. Sure, go ahead and do your Mod 1 DL, but before you actually leave for the in-person portion they run you through several weekends and evenings worth of how to teach, leading PT, recce patrols, etc., etc. For the most part, it seems to have been successful but we get the odd person who gets put on a PLQ without it (usually due to time constraints) or doesn't do that well on it but still gets put on the course because we need MCpls.

What's old is new again;  back in '93, before I went on CLC (PLQ), there was a Pre-CLC course that had to be successfully completed before being course-loaded on CLC.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

For some trades it's a BMQ-L, NETP, BAEQ, PLQ, INELP/whatever the air force and army call the week of BS, ILP issue.

I have never been qualified(without qualifier) for a rank since Cpl. I did my QL6A before my PLQ, I was QL6B before my RQ Sgt, and now I'm A/L WO because my trade was at least 12 months behind before COVID-19 managed to destroy all training schedules. I am extremely unlikely to get an ILP before circumstance and TOS see me release...  

In my two years running the weather office in Trenton I never had the ability to send more than one person on training at a time, apparently the RCAF felt that flying was more important than my troops getting career courses. Now according to the army types(because the course before promotion types are always army) my people should be Pte's, not because they can't do the job well, but because Wainwright/Shilo/Pet/Gagetown can't run enough BMQ-L courses to accommodate the support pers and army pers required to take the course.

Ref the yellow part, this is a disadvantage to you as the mbr.  You're 'best five' are based on Substantive rank, IIRC.

There are 'farther on' issues created with these training issues, not just one in the near/mid term future.

Thinking about it...I can't recall the last time I knew someone in my trade who was promoted WO and wasn't A/L.  Or MCpl, for that matter.  The A/L MCpl presents a problem at flying Sqn's; recent years' experience is most COs will not sign off on things like Lead appointments for anyone who does not have PLQ (even though it isn't explicitly required in the FOM, like it is for SAR Tech Tm Lead).

 

[stellarpanther]

I have never heard of an HRA/FSA unit before but I digress.

You're right, I should have said section.

 

[stellarpanther]

You're 'best five' are based on Substantive rank, IIRC.

I had never heard of this before so during a quick email to my WO on another work issue, I asked him about this also.  He asked if I could get a for a ref for this because he wasn't aware of it either.  We're going to enquire Monday with Pension Services as it's not really something HRA's deal with.  If that's the case, why would someone accept a promotion when they only have a couple years left if it's not going to help them with their pension?  It often takes a year or longer to get on a course. Yes, I understand everything isn't all about money but when it get's towards the end of a career, money is something most people start thinking about.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

I had never heard of this before so during a quick email to my WO on another work issue, I asked him about this also.  He asked if I could get a for a ref for this because he wasn't aware of it either.  We're going to enquire Monday with Pension Services as it's not really something HRA's deal with.  If that's the case, why would someone accept a promotion when they only have a couple years left if it's not going to help them with their pension?  It often takes a year or longer to get on a course. Yes, I understand everything isn't all about money but when it get's towards the end of a career, money is something most people start thinking about.

Agree, but and AFAIK, mbr's who are A/L are getting paid that rank, and would therefore be making pension contributions at that pay level as well I'd think? 

If a mbr did A/L WO-PO1 for 2 years, it still would be a pay increase for 2 years.

 

[dapaterson]

1. You best five is based on salary (not allowances), regardless if it is substantive or acting.  See the CFSA.

2. Substantive vs Acting only comes into play for Severance Pay; it is paid out at substantive rank on release.  See CBI 204.40.

 

[stellarpanther]

I can be slow sometimes so just to make sure we're all in agreement, while I know this won't happen, are we in all in agreement that if a A/L WO doesn't get his ILQ for his last 5 years and then retires, his pension will still be based on the rate of pay he was getting as an A/L WO, not the substantive Sgt pay level?
My understanding is it would be the A/L WO pay.

 

[MilEME09]

I can be slow sometimes so just to make sure we're all in agreement, while I know this won't happen, are we in all in agreement that if a A/L WO doesn't get his ILQ for his last 5 years and then retires, his pension will still be based on the rate of pay he was getting as an A/L WO, not the substantive Sgt pay level?
My understanding is it would be the A/L WO pay.

Yes and no, if they are still A/L due to factors in their control, yes drop en down. If outside their control then no.

Example of out of their control we have a A/L Sgt at my unit, and has been for almost 4 years now, he has put his name forward for course every time, made arrangements with his employer to get time off. Only to have his course canceled every single time. Should a member be punished if the system fails them? I don't think so

 

[dapaterson]

I can be slow sometimes so just to make sure we're all in agreement, while I know this won't happen, are we in all in agreement that if a A/L WO doesn't get his ILQ for his last 5 years and then retires, his pension will still be based on the rate of pay he was getting as an A/L WO, not the substantive Sgt pay level?
My understanding is it would be the A/L WO pay.

Correct.  Pension is based on best five years of pay, not rank.  Severance Pay is the only payment I know of that is based on substantive rank at the time of payment.

 

[MJP]

Yes and no, if they are still A/L due to factors in their control, yes drop en down. If outside their control then no.

Example of out of their control we have a A/L Sgt at my unit, and has been for almost 4 years now, he has put his name forward for course every time, made arrangements with his employer to get time off. Only to have his course canceled every single time. Should a member be punished if the system fails them? I don't think so

You are not actually answering the question asked

SP is talking about what is your pension payment in this case and you are talking about the rank you have at retirement.

In any case Dapaterson has answered the question...

 

[stellarpanther]

Yes and no, if they are still A/L due to factors in their control, yes drop en down. If outside their control then no.

Example of out of their control we have a A/L Sgt at my unit, and has been for almost 4 years now, he has put his name forward for course every time, made arrangements with his employer to get time off. Only to have his course canceled every single time. Should a member be punished if the system fails them? I don't think so

If within their control and they don't take the course within the required time frame absolutely they will get dropped down but I believe the time they were in rank prior to getting put back will still be calculated at that rank.  In the Res is there not a requirement to have the course completed within the specified time frame or get or revert back to the previous rank?

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

Aaaaand, Dapaterson is correct: Pension is completely rank blind, acting/temporary/substantive or any other.

Best five years of pay, regardless of when they happened.

 

[garb811]

Aaaaand, Dapaterson is correct: Pension is completely rank blind, acting/temporary/substantive or any other.

Best five years of pay, regardless of when they happened.

Yep, and this can cause some weirdness.

I knew one guy who OT'd as a Sgt. As it was voluntary, he had no vested right to pay so he dropped to Cpl 4.  Four years later, he hit 20 years and retired as a Cpl with his 40%. His pension calculation was based on his salary as a MCpl and Sgt in his previous trade because those were his "best 5 years" but his severance was based on his Cpl 4, which was his substantive rank at the time of release.

 

[PMedMoe]

I wouldn't call it weirdness.  IIRC, severance was always at substantive rank.  One of the reasons I didn't take the PIL as I was A/L WO at the time.  Got my ILP before retirement, so got severance at the WO rank.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

Thanks to those who cleared up my misunderstanding! 

Maybe that is why we have so many A/L folks...no impact on pay/pension!  ;D

 

[stellarpanther]

I just got off the phone with a friend who will probably be going on one of the first PLQ's once they start up again and he asked me the following question that I didn't know the answer to. 

He has severe sleep apnea which was reviewed by D Med Pol and he's ok to continue serving.  The issue is that he has a BiPap machine, which is similar to CPAP but a bit different.  Apparently they don't make small travel sizes or battery operated ones like they do with CPAP.  What happens with people like him when he goes to the field but needs an electrical supply to plug in his machine?