Opposition critical of GD donation to CAF mental health

[Scoobie Newbie]

How can you promote someone if they cannot or will not go to where the job actually is at that rank level?

If it wasn't for BS accommodating like taking a guy off PCAT for a day so he can be promoted to go back on PCAT, for walking 800m of a 13 km March and being trucked to rest to posted and promoted, you may have a point.

 

[OldSolduer]

If it wasn't for BS accommodating like taking a guy off PCAT for a day so he can be promoted to go back on PCAT, for walking 800m of a 13 km March and being trucked to rest to posted and promoted, you may have a point.

Is this still going on?

 

[Kat Stevens]

Promoted on posting always seemed a bit of a stupid system to me.  Why not post in a guy at the rank required for the job?  Far fewer chance for fuck ups as an experienced (insert rank here) as opposed to a brand new (insert rank here) posted to a strange location and unit.  The losing unit also gets to promote one of it's own, and keep him in the unit for a while, where both benefit from familiar surroundings.  And now, for my next trick, watch as I fix the PER system.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

It makes a certain sense to post people as they get promoted. In some units, the jump from MCpl to Sgt(and in to a new mess) can be difficult. You are actually doing the newly promoted member a favour by sending him to a new unit, at his new rank.

 

[Scoobie Newbie]

Is this still going on?

I was there for the second example.

 

[TCBF]

- My recommendation once was too send the new CO the new soldiers Pers File, the CO's MO gets his Med File and the MP Sgt of the Regt gets to see the 'MP File. The three of them confirm to see if the soldier will be a good fit. This would work in theory, but eventually some bureaucrat will tell his respective chain to approve all postings and we would be back to square one.

-

 

[Ostrozac]

- My recommendation once was too send the new CO the new soldiers Pers File, the CO's MO gets his Med File and the MP Sgt of the Regt gets to see the 'MP File. The three of them confirm to see if the soldier will be a good fit. This would work in theory, but eventually some bureaucrat will tell his respective chain to approve all postings and we would be back to square one.

-

Recommendation 1 already exists for promotion. A CO has to sign off on all promotions. Whether in the case of a posting/promotion that should be gaining unit or losing unit is a philosophical question, and is open to debate, but I think that particular tool for denial of promotion should only be used in exceptional circumstances -- after all, should a CO normally be second-guessing a merit board? If a member is completely and egregiously unsuitable for promotion, didn't the CO have a chance to say so at the bottom of the PER? I accept that if a member has had a complete meltdown of his performance in recent months, then the CO needs that power, since a Promotion Board only sees the past three years.

I have huge issues with proposed recommendation 2 and 3. If a member is physically screwed up, the MO should have him on MEL's, TCAT or PCAT. If he's a criminal, call the NIS, lay charges and let him have his day in court-martial.

Or are you recommending that CO's be able to veto all postings in to a unit? Most of the time, I'm seeing CO's that are way too desperate for manpower to be choosy. Their calls to the Career Managers and Branch Chiefs are more like "get me some more guys" and "all my warrants have retired" and "I just lost more guys to CANSOF". They are not usually in a position to be saying that they need three jump qualified hockey players, two bilingual AOC grads and an MWO with nine medals so he looks really cool on parade.

Although there are a few units that are screening postings in -- OUTCAN, CANSOF, JTFN, 440 Squadron, (and I think that 1 Cdn Div is back to doing screening, it wasn't when I was there) -- it is very much the exception, not the rule.

 

[TCBF]

- I agree with your observations on our lack of soldiers. It would be interesting to see where our strength sits right now, as compared to our authorised strength.
- One of my frustrations - before I retired - was that the ruggedness of our pers had deteriorated badly over the last few decades. I recall an era where a Regt would deploy to the field with a dozen left in garrison. Now, it would be closer to one hundred - most of whom would have been released with great despatch had their issues presented in earlier times. In that sense, we might have two-thirds of the force that we had in 1990, but probably less than half the effectives.
- Bad enough in the ranks, but broken or mal-adjusted NCOs and officers must be let go. Hard to do, as every year, as I have written before, we seem to be less and less the Canadian Armed Forces and more and more the uniformed branch of the Department of National Defence.

 

[OldSolduer]

- Bad enough in the ranks, but broken or mal-adjusted NCOs and officers must be let go. Hard to do, as every year, as I have written before, we seem to be less and less the Canadian Armed Forces and more and more the uniformed branch of the Department of National Defence.

Some of my "fondest" memories consisted of officers and NCOs who were either incompetent, bullies or a combination of both. I recall more than one at each rank level that acted like lords over the troops.

They are a cancer and must be cut out.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Let's try get back on track guys. We've veered way off topic.

 

[Gunner98]

- What I DID recommend was similar to what we did for CFE: DAG the member AND his/her family. If the special needs of the family cannot be met in Wainwright/Cold Lake/Pembroke/Goose Bay, then he/she does not go. Career results? Attach the promotion to the posting - not vice versa. You don't DAG Green because of family issues then you don't get the posting and the promotion att to that load station.

I agree with the DAG part for all postings it would certainly cut down on the Contingency Cost and Compassionate Moves as well as Imposed Restrictions 

The issue has always been and will continue to be - why should my career progression be dependent on the status of my dependants.

 

[TCBF]

I agree with the DAG part for all postings it would certainly cut down on the Contingency Cost and Compassionate Moves as well as Imposed Restrictions 

The issue has always been and will continue to be - why should my career progression be dependent on the status of my dependants.

- That has never been the issue before, because previous generations of servicemen understood that they could not expect a forward-deployed military (CFE) to care for every social and medical family situation. It would be uneconomical.

- Mods, should we cut this to a separate thread? to DAG or Not to DAG?

 

[dapaterson]

I agree with the DAG part for all postings it would certainly cut down on the Contingency Cost and Compassionate Moves as well as Imposed Restrictions 

There is already supposed to be a DAG for certain positions due to the lack of support mechanisms available in those locations.

The issue has always been and will continue to be - why should my career progression be dependent on the status of my dependants.

If you are not available for some positions, then your career may suffer.  That's regardless of the reasons.