Author Topic: Employment Equity in the CAF ( merged )  (Read 49935 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline mariomike

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 510,845
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,481
    • The job.
Nothing new about Employment Equity,

From 2005,

Employment equity is only for those who qualify
https://navy.ca/forums/index.php/topic,37277.0.html
2 pages.

Sometimes referred to on here by its American term, "Affirmative Action",

2004,

Affirmative Action recruiting policies?
https://navy.ca/forums/index.php/topic,22619.100.html
5 pages.

For reference to the discussion,

Canadian Forces Employment Equity Regulations
https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/SOR-2002-421/page-3.html
Date modified:  2019-04-10

 
« Last Edit: April 20, 2019, 10:09:56 by mariomike »

Offline Navy_Pete

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • 30,595
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 859
I'm not really sure what all the outrage is about; worked a lot of different short term contract jobs before joining and pretty sure I wouldn't have gotten a few of them if I wasn't a white male (because the guy doing the hiring was racist). 

Presuming this means the trade has hit it's recruiting target, but they will let EE candidates apply for beyond that. Might mean they exceed the training system capacity a bit, so some people wait a while longer in a few trades if they have hard caps on course loads but otherwise who cares?

As an added bonus, makes for some really great potlucks; had an awesome curried chill and some jerk chicken recently.

They've tried all kinds of things to try and diversify, maybe this will work.  Worse case not enough recruits are coming in to keep up with releases, and that's been status quo since before I got in (about 15 years ago).

Offline Eye In The Sky

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 223,355
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 8,834
    • VP INTERNATIONAL
I'm not really sure what all the outrage is about

A Canadian government organization denying someone possible employment, and lying about the reason why...how much *outrage* would there be if the story said "coloured applicants" in the sentences it says "male" or even better, "white male"? 

You're saying it is perfectly fine with you if they discriminate, but only against white males?



Everything happens for a reason.

Sometimes the reason is you're stupid and make bad decisions.

Offline BeyondTheNow

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 67,575
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,149
It’s honestly not that surprising. Maybe it’s a bit surprising that someone has actually confirmed what we’ve all known all a long, but otherwise, yeah, it’s not surprising.  :dunno:

Quote
... “There are no occupations that we restrict based on gender.”...Tattersall acknowledged, however, that “diversity is a consideration” – a significant one, especially near the end of the recruiting year when she said “We will look at diversity applicants first” – and that what the sheets indicate about Indigenous applicants is correct...

This sort of thing isn’t rare in many areas of public service.

What bothers me more, however, are the CFAT and PCL issues mentioned.
~ "Don't do the dumb." ~

Offline Journeyman

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 551,580
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 13,110
There's way too much to be offended about, or on behalf of... you know, like a Reservist wanting a photo in uniform, or hair styles, or badges.....FREAKIN' BADGES!!
             :panic:


So the short answer is, the Employment Equity Act has been enshrined in federal Canadian law since 1986 (amended 1995).  For over three decades,  it has required federal employers to engage in proactive employment practices to increase the representation of women, people with disabilities, Aboriginal peoples, and visible minorities.

Forgive me if I don't get worked up today by DND doing something that has been legally mandated for 33 years.  However, should anyone wish to light torches and storm some castle, or start a harshly-worded petition, you can get some useful bits from "Canada, Justice Laws Website, 'Employment Equity Act (S.C. 1995, c. 44)',"  https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/e-5.401/ -- it specifically mentions Canadian Forces, CSIS, and RCMP.

Offline Infanteer

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Myth
  • *
  • 172,775
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 15,258
  • Honey Badger FTW!
I'm with Journeyman.  If I understand the numbers right, the CAF can afford to be selective, and only takes a certain percentage of actual applicants each year - we have more people applying than we actually have seats for, based on the size of the training pipeline.

The article says they will lock specific applications down on a week-by-week basis.  I'd imagine this is done as an occupation reaches its annual quota, which is determined by a document called the Strategic Intake Plan.  If you've got 80% of your seats filled and know you have more than enough applicants to fill the other 20%, I don't see an issue with being a little more selective as you come to the end of the Fiscal Year to achieve some Government of Canada policies - policies that will arguably help the CAF in the long run by giving us a competitive advantage in terms of a diverse personnel pool.
"Overall it appears that much of the apparent complexity of modern war stems in practice from the self-imposed complexity of modern HQs" LCol J.P. Storr

Offline mariomike

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 510,845
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,481
    • The job.
This sort of thing isn’t rare in many areas of public service.

True.

"I also explained that women and visible minorities, once qualified, are placed in their own group and that each class hired would require 50% from that group and 50% from the white male group."
Toronto Fire Watch - Spring 2009
Secretary Treasurer's Report
http://www.torontofirefighters.org/OSS/images/firewatch/spring2009.pdf

Not for me to say what's fair or unfair. I joined the PRes and public service prior to the Employment Equity Act of 1986.

« Last Edit: April 20, 2019, 11:13:39 by mariomike »

Offline Navy_Pete

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • 30,595
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 859
A Canadian government organization denying someone possible employment, and lying about the reason why...how much *outrage* would there be if the story said "coloured applicants" in the sentences it says "male" or even better, "white male"? 

You're saying it is perfectly fine with you if they discriminate, but only against white males?

No one is being denied employment, there are lots of trades to apply to. What they are doing is trying to reserve some of the SIP slots for EE candidates so they can meet the actual legislation goals that have been in effect for over 30+ years.

The only thing that generally concerns me is when you get a recruit come in that doesn't speak either official language well enough to go through training. Had a few of them as an instructor, and while there was no issue with aptitude, intelligence or effort, was pretty frustrating to need a translator to go over some of the more complicated lessons when we hit the technical side of things.  Our policies assume that you are proficient with either french or english, so doesn't allow any ESL training unless you are a native french speaker.  Took a course failure, training review board and a lot of paperwork, but wasted about a year to get them on a six month language course, after which they were good to go.

As long as they stick with the same baseline for the intake requirements though, works out in the wash, so not going to lose any sleep over this.  Also, CFRG success to date has been an overall increase of about 0.5%, so we aren't talking about a massive number of candidates being affected.

Offline ballz

    ...

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 120,316
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,318
No one is being denied employment, there are lots of trades to apply to.

And women in the US weren't being denied employment in the US military, there were lots of "other" trades besides infantry.  :facepalm:

So the short answer is, the Employment Equity Act has been enshrined in federal Canadian law since 1986 (amended 1995).  For over three decades,  it has required federal employers to engage in proactive employment practices to increase the representation of women, people with disabilities, Aboriginal peoples, and visible minorities.

Forgive me if I don't get worked up today by DND doing something that has been legally mandated for 33 years.

I'm not a lawyer obviously but I'm not sure the Employment Equity Act gave the government legal authority to literally deny applications based solely on race/gender.

Proactive employment practices means a lot of things, including "recruitment in Aboriginal communities, job advertisements in a Chinese-language newspaper, or an apprentice program directed toward people with disabilities." Another huge part of it is reasonable accommodations, such as making buildings wheelchair accessible.

All of those things is in an entirely different league than literally refusing to look at a white male's application because he's a white male.

I'm with Journeyman.  If I understand the numbers right, the CAF can afford to be selective, and only takes a certain percentage of actual applicants each year - we have more people applying than we actually have seats for, based on the size of the training pipeline.

I'm not really sure how that statement in anyway justifies that we should be selective based on race / gender.

policies that will arguably help the CAF in the long run by giving us a competitive advantage in terms of a diverse personnel pool.

That's a great theory but one hell of an assumption to base social re-engineering off of. I'll be the arsehole here with the glaringly obvious example, if we manage to make the infantry corps 50% women, without having increased its size because we're limited on that, it's going to be a weaker corps than it is currently is.

Cue all the social justice warriors coming to tell me how biology isn't a real thing. Can't wait for it. Please take that particular tangent to another thread, thanks in advance.
« Last Edit: April 20, 2019, 13:30:13 by ballz »
Have you ever danced with the devil in the pale moonlight?

Offline PPCLI Guy

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 175,100
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 5,467
  • It's all good
Cue all the social justice warriors coming to tell me how biology isn't a real thing. Can't wait for it. Please take that particular tangent to another thread, thanks in advance.

That is a neat trick.  You have preemptively dismissed anyone who does not agree with you.  Nice.
"The higher the rank, the more necessary it is that boldness should be accompanied by a reflective mind....for with increase in rank it becomes always a matter less of self-sacrifice and more a matter of the preservation of others, and the good of the whole."

Karl von Clausewitz

Offline Eye In The Sky

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 223,355
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 8,834
    • VP INTERNATIONAL
So the short answer is, the Employment Equity Act has been enshrined in federal Canadian law since 1986 (amended 1995).  For over three decades,  it has required federal employers to engage in proactive employment practices to increase the representation of women, people with disabilities, Aboriginal peoples, and visible minorities.

Forgive me if I don't get worked up today by DND doing something that has been legally mandated for 33 years.  However, should anyone wish to light torches and storm some castle, or start a harshly-worded petition, you can get some useful bits from "Canada, Justice Laws Website, 'Employment Equity Act (S.C. 1995, c. 44)',"  https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/e-5.401/ -- it specifically mentions Canadian Forces, CSIS, and RCMP.

Bare with me some here;  I'm far from being even an amateur on law and legalities.

The EE Act purpose includes "treating persons in the same way but also requires special measures and the accommodation of differences".

This seems to jive with that purpose [quotes from the NP article].

Scenario 1

Quote
Other occupations, though, were still identified as those where “priority is given to EE applicants. Non-EE may apply.”

This seems to cross the line:

Scenario 2

Quote
For instance, a sheet from July 26 last year clearly shows that spots in 17 jobs (ranging from armoured and artillery officers, ammunition technicians and medical techs to postal clerks) were designated EE and were then “accepting applications from females only”.

Does the Canadian Human Rights Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. H-6 also not have to be taken into consideration?

2. The purpose of this Act is to extend the laws in Canada to give effect, within the purview of matters coming within the legislative authority of Parliament, to the principle that all individuals should have an opportunity equal with other individuals to make for themselves the lives that they are able and wish to have and to have their needs accommodated, consistent with their duties and obligations as members of society, without being hindered in or prevented from doing so by discriminatory practices based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, marital status, family status, genetic characteristics, disability or conviction for an offence for which a pardon has been granted or in respect of which a record suspension has been ordered.

Prohibited grounds of discrimination

3 (1) For all purposes of this Act, the prohibited grounds of discrimination are race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, marital status, family status, genetic characteristics, disability and conviction for an offence for which a pardon has been granted or in respect of which a record suspension has been ordered

Discriminatory policy or practice

10 It is a discriminatory practice for an employer, employee organization or employer organization
(a) to establish or pursue a policy or practice, or
(b) to enter into an agreement affecting recruitment, referral, hiring, promotion, training, apprenticeship, transfer or any other matter relating to employment or prospective employment,

that deprives or tends to deprive an individual or class of individuals of any employment opportunities on a prohibited ground of discrimination.

***Applicant A is a white male, and wants to apply for Trade B.***

If Scenario 1 from above was the action applied, that seems to balance the requirements of both the EE and CHR Acts.

If Scenario 2 from above was the action applied, does that not take the EE Act purpose/requirements too far and infringe on the CHR Act?

Quote
Sabourin agreed that in practice, it means that if a white male was applying for a job that was temporarily open only to EE candidates, he would be informed the occupation was full and other job possibilities discussed.

Why not tell the applicant the trade is "closed to male applicants"?  Are we not bound to be truthful?

Statement of Defence Ethics

Ethical Principles and Expected Behaviours

1. Respect the Dignity of All Persons

At all times and in all places, DND employees and CAF members shall respect human dignity and the value of every person by:
•Treating every person with respect and fairness.
•Working together in a spirit of openness, honesty and transparency that encourages engagement, collaboration and respectful communication.

Specific Values and Expected Behaviours

1. Integrity

DND employees and CAF members shall serve the public interest by:
•Acting at all times with integrity, and in a manner that will bear the closest public scrutiny; an obligation that may not be fully satisfied by simply acting within the law.
•Adhering to the highest ethical standards, communicating and acting with honesty, and avoiding deception.
« Last Edit: April 20, 2019, 14:20:34 by Eye In The Sky »
Everything happens for a reason.

Sometimes the reason is you're stupid and make bad decisions.

Offline Brad Sallows

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 69,560
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,844
>I'm not really sure what all the outrage is about

Private prejudice is not equivalent to institutional government prejudice.

With respect to means used to achieve quotas, there's a gulf of difference between "attraction" and "denial".
That which does not kill me has made a grave tactical error.

"It is a damned heavy blow; but whining don't help."

Despair is a sin.

Online PuckChaser

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 922,350
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 8,181
    • Peacekeeper's Homepage
So the short answer is, the Employment Equity Act has been enshrined in federal Canadian law since 1986 (amended 1995).  For over three decades,  it has required federal employers to engage in proactive employment practices to increase the representation of women, people with disabilities, Aboriginal peoples, and visible minorities.

There's clearly a difference between "this trade isn't open to you because you're white" and "EE candidates go to the top of the pile".

Non-EE candidates in this case were told the trade was closed, which implied its closed to everyone. If CFRG wasn't trying to hide something, why wouldn't they process all candidates and let the EE Act do its job?

Another interesting tidbit:

Quote
The CFAT – which has been frequently tested for bias and found to have none — as well as a personality traits test results in a score which is then used on a Priority Control Line by recruiters.

The PCL used to be what determined how applicants were prioritized, but now, as the sheets say, “PCL does not apply to EE applicants.”

Though on the sheets the terms are used in a confused fashion, in the military, Tattersall said, EE includes visible minorities, Indigenous people and women.

What used to happen is that those who scored high on the CFAT and had certain traits (which indicate that they tend to perform well in the military) would be processed.

But since late 2017 and early 2018, when the CF formally responded to a parliamentary report on recruitment, the military has increasingly focused on diversifying its work force.

Its one thing to hire qualified EE candidates ahead of qualified non-EE candidates, its absolutely another to hire potentially unsuitable candidates just because they check an EE box. Why even bother having EE candidates write a CFAT and do the personality traits test? Just provide a job offer on the spot and ship them off to basic the next day. Don't even need to do a medical, that would just show some sort of bias towards non-EE candidates.  :facepalm:

Offline ballz

    ...

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 120,316
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,318
That is a neat trick.  You have preemptively dismissed anyone who does not agree with you.  Nice.

Nope, you can find plenty of (locked) threads where I was willing to have the debate despite being slandered as a sexist. Still willing to have that debate, I just genuinely don't want *this* thread going down that path, I'd rather we just unlock one of the other ones so we can do the same song and dance for a week before locking it again.

This thread has its own important topic.
Have you ever danced with the devil in the pale moonlight?

Offline Infanteer

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Myth
  • *
  • 172,775
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 15,258
  • Honey Badger FTW!
That's a great theory but one hell of an assumption to base social re-engineering off of. I'll be the arsehole here with the glaringly obvious example, if we manage to make the infantry corps 50% women, without having increased its size because we're limited on that, it's going to be a weaker corps than it is currently is.

That example is unrealistic hyperbole.  Having taken part in seeing how the SIP is designed and managed, this simply wouldn't be the case.  The article quotes the official goals as females from 15 to 25% across the CAF, and other groups (Aboriginals and other visible minorities) up a percentage point or two.

I'm not privy to the exact nature of how this is being managed by CFRG, but I would imagine we are looking at occupations that have a couple dozen available vacancies for the fiscal year, and chose to specially manage their intake for a few weeks to try and get some targeted recruits into some of those vacancies.  We're not talking about reshaping the CAF to conform to some social experiment.

I do share an unease with Puckchaser about changing entry standards.  I can understand if person A and person B are both qualified, and EE is used as a selection measure for some of the intake, but I have trouble with taking someone who is unqualified over someone who is.  I guess I'd want to understand the impacts of this decision making and who is accepting this risk on behalf of the institution.  In some cases, it is likely worth it, and hence why it is being done.

"Overall it appears that much of the apparent complexity of modern war stems in practice from the self-imposed complexity of modern HQs" LCol J.P. Storr

Offline Throwaway987

  • New Member
  • **
  • 1,735
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 28
EE seems reasonable when there’s two applicants of equal potential. What happens if the EE applicant is not equal? 

If we assume that EE and non-EE applicants have similar normal distributions of potential, won’t the smaller EE pool have a smaller pool of people at any potential cutoff level?

How much potential is the CAF willing to sacrifice to meet an EE target?

What are the cognitive and/or physical requirements of CAF members? Do we just need bodies to fill the ranks? Are we happy with just the minimum?

There may be long term risks to the organization if we don’t maximize the potential of our applicants. The CAF can’t hire externally so the applicants of today will one day be the senior officers and NCOs of the future. Every high potential member who doesn’t join or chooses to VR mid-career only makes the CAF gene pool shallower.



Edit: Doesn’t EE assume that the lack of existing diversity/role-models is the major barrier to future EE applicants?

What if a larger reason was the real or perceived low job quality of the CAF? i.e. Women and minorities aren’t joining the CAF because this profession doesn’t meet their expectations with respect to compensation, quality of life, cultural beliefs regarding the military, lack of patriotism, etc.

Given all the other threads about the CAF’s retention issues, is it possible that EE groups just have better employment prospects and simply choose other careers?
« Last Edit: April 20, 2019, 18:01:47 by Throwaway987 »

Offline ballz

    ...

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 120,316
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,318
EE seems reasonable when there’s two applicants of equal potential. What happens if the EE applicant is not equal? 

If we assume that EE and non-EE applicants have similar normal distributions of potential, won’t the smaller EE pool have a smaller pool of people at any potential cutoff level?

How much potential is the CAF willing to sacrifice to meet an EE target?

What are the cognitive and/or physical requirements of CAF members? Do we just need bodies to fill the ranks? Are we happy with just the minimum?

There be long term risks to the organization if we don’t maximize the potential of our applicants. The CAF can’t hire externally so the applicants of today will one day be the senior officers and NCOs of the future. Every high potential member who doesn’t join or chooses to VR mid-career only makes the CAF gene pool shallower.

Exactly. This idea that "they both meet the minimum requirements, therefore we can pick the one that fits our EE targets" is a flawed idea, particularly given just how low our entry requirements are. The truth is in a lot of tough trades, we are relying on the training system to weed out the ones that can't cut the mustard, because the minimum requirements don't. But, when you flood the pool with those who have just barely met the minimum requirements, instead of those who were selected because they were the best amongst a pool of "qualified" applicants, the training system inevitably ends up letting people through that it would not have normally.

All you've gotta do is look at what happened to the PLQ when they started throwing PRes Musicians on the same PLQs as combat arms. What squeaked through was a lower quality, and those who wanted to keep the standard high were ridiculed for failing too many candidates.

I do share an unease with Puckchaser about changing entry standards.  I can understand if person A and person B are both qualified, and EE is used as a selection measure for some of the intake, but I have trouble with taking someone who is unqualified over someone who is.

We don't know who is "qualified" at the recruiting point, they've still got a long road to go. If anything, the recruiting system has proved incapable in it's current form of predicting who will be a capable candidate due to the use of "minimum requirements" (which don't even include fitness) which is demonstrated by the 40-75% failure rates on some trades training.

Looking at two people who meet the minimum entry requirements as both equal candidates is literally dumbfounding.
« Last Edit: April 20, 2019, 16:01:20 by ballz »
Have you ever danced with the devil in the pale moonlight?

Offline ballz

    ...

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 120,316
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,318
That example is unrealistic hyperbole.

It demonstrates the point. Somewhere, between 0% females and 100% females (or any other given demographic) in any given trade, there is undoubtedly an optimized mixed, and there are ends of the spectrum that would adversely affect it.

Randomly picking "25%" as a "target" and then trying to re-engineer it through literally denying demographics the opportunity to enter the trade seems like throwing crap at a wall and hoping it sticks.

It also completely destroys the whole premise of "equality of opportunity" in exchange for "equality of outcome" which doesn't take much scrutiny to see the flaws.
Have you ever danced with the devil in the pale moonlight?

Offline Throwaway987

  • New Member
  • **
  • 1,735
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 28
I totally agree with your concerns about “equality of outcome” for EE groups. I’d argue that lower standards for EE groups would cause more long term harm than any short term benefits in diversity optics. 

The decision to have separate entry standards for EE groups could in fact cause the very stereotypes that we are trying eliminate. e.g. CFAT waiver or differences in the average CFAT scores of EE vs non-EE groups

What if our lower standards for EE applicants leads to a subgroup of lower performing CAF members?

Even the general awareness of different standards could lead to the negative perception or stereotyping of EE members.

This would be the most unfortunate disservice to any currently serving EE member. EE members used to be rare and may have had to deal with discrimination. Now they may have to deal with this added stereotype as well. Yikes.
« Last Edit: April 20, 2019, 16:26:49 by Throwaway987 »

Offline Infanteer

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Myth
  • *
  • 172,775
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 15,258
  • Honey Badger FTW!
How much potential is the CAF willing to sacrifice to meet an EE target?

I think this is losing sight of the forest for the trees, and the article can be guilty of triggering a bit of a chicken little effect.  I'm willing to bet that this isn't a very high percentage of the overall annual intake.

But, when you flood the pool with those who have just barely met the minimum requirements, instead of those who were selected because they were the best amongst a pool of "qualified" applicants, the training system inevitably ends up letting people through that it would not have normally.

Any proof that the percentage of CAF enrollments are people who "just barely meet the minimum requirements?"

"Overall it appears that much of the apparent complexity of modern war stems in practice from the self-imposed complexity of modern HQs" LCol J.P. Storr

Online PuckChaser

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 922,350
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 8,181
    • Peacekeeper's Homepage
Any proof that the percentage of CAF enrollments are people who "just barely meet the minimum requirements?"

Been to CFLRS lately? Anecdotally we're recruiting people with mild autism and mental health conditions making them completely unfit for service...

Offline Infanteer

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Myth
  • *
  • 172,775
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 15,258
  • Honey Badger FTW!
Been to CFLRS lately? Anecdotally we're recruiting people with mild autism and mental health conditions making them completely unfit for service...

Are those exceptions, or the norm?  Are you taking isolated examples and extrapolating a general trend?  What percentage of recruits have developmental issues or mental heath conditions?  What's the failure rate at CFLRS?  Is it higher than historical norms?  Lower?  Why?

Before anyone tells me that the standard of recruit has dropped, I want to see proof.  I say this because "today's recruit is much poorer than when I went through" is probably one of the most common and inaccurate statement commonly made as a general fact by people who don't really have any proof to back the statement up.

While I haven't been to CFLRS lately, I've commanded soldiers who've come out of the pipeline, and the kids are all right.  This pipeline was, from my point of view, sound.

"Overall it appears that much of the apparent complexity of modern war stems in practice from the self-imposed complexity of modern HQs" LCol J.P. Storr

Online PuckChaser

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 922,350
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 8,181
    • Peacekeeper's Homepage
To be super honest, I don't think the proof you're asking for exists. Not because its true/false, but because that would require the CAF to do a deep-dive into its recruiting/training problems, more than just appointing some GBA+ advisers.

Instead of lowering the bar (that proof exists, EE members skip the PCL created by CFAT and traits test), the CAF needs to find out why they are not an attractive option for EE candidates. Is it socially acceptable for a first generation Canadian not from Europe to be a military member? Do women feel like we've made strides to fix the "overblown" (IMHO) sexual harassment problem trumpeted by the media? Why is ALOY, or Black Bear not as popular as it could be?

Offline ballz

    ...

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 120,316
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,318
Any proof that the percentage of CAF enrollments are people who "just barely meet the minimum requirements?"

No but, as I stated the problem is the minimum requirements mean nothing which is part of the problem. Perhaps I'm taking attention away from my own point and should have worded it more like this:

Exactly. This idea that "they both meet the minimum requirements, therefore we can pick the one that fits our EE targets" is a flawed idea, particularly given just how low our entry requirements are. The truth is in a lot of tough trades, we are relying on the training system to weed out the ones that can't cut the mustard, because the minimum requirements don't. But, when you flood the pool with people simply because they met the minimum requirements, instead of those who were selected because they were the best among a pool of "qualified" applicants, the training system inevitably ends up letting people through that it would not have normally.

As an example, the minimum requirements to be selected as an Infantry Officer under ROTP are what exactly? A high school diploma and a pulse? We aren't exactly good at screening people to ensure we're picking those who will be successful. Proof is in the failure rates.

Before anyone tells me that the standard of recruit has dropped, I want to see proof.  I say this because "today's recruit is much poorer than when I went through" is probably one of the most common and inaccurate statement commonly made as a general fact by people who don't really have any proof to back the statement up.

I am not arguing the standard of recruit has dropped. I'm arguing it will if you're going switch from selecting based on merit to based on "minimum requirements + diversity factor." Pretty hard to see how it could be possible that it wouldn't drop.

This idea that human resources are just nuts and bolts in a machine and as long as they are the right specs that's good enough is insane. Find a private company, where success matters, who hires the first person who shows up with a resume that meets the minimum requirements in the job ad. Minimum job requirements are a tool to filter out applications, they're not the basis of selection.

Have you ever danced with the devil in the pale moonlight?

Offline Infanteer

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Myth
  • *
  • 172,775
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 15,258
  • Honey Badger FTW!
No but, as I stated the problem is the minimum requirements mean nothing which is part of the problem....

As an example, the minimum requirements to be selected as an Infantry Officer under ROTP are what exactly? A high school diploma and a pulse?  We aren't exactly good at screening people to ensure we're picking those who will be successful. Proof is in the failure rates.

What should minimum requirements mean?  What do we need in recruits (not officer candidates) prior to entry?  The military is designed to be entry-level employment.  I don't know what you're expecting them to be able to do.  Remember, minimum entry requirements are only used to pick people to then enter a one to two year training pipeline.

Quote
I am not arguing the standard of recruit has dropped. I'm arguing it will if you're going switch from selecting based on merit to based on "minimum requirements + diversity factor."

But that's not what happening - you're again resorting to hyberbole.  Read the article.  Its a policy that is being selectively applied to a relatively few number of occupations on a week-by-week basis.  Nowhere does it suggest that a large majority of recruited members are still selected by the standard meriting process (which you don't seem to have much faith in anyways).

Quote
Find a private company, where success matters, who hires the first person who shows up with a resume that meets the minimum requirements in the job ad. Minimum job requirements are a tool to filter out applications, they're not the basis of selection.

McDonalds?  Hiring for entry level employment needn't be too onerous, as an effective training system can provide the desired employee.
"Overall it appears that much of the apparent complexity of modern war stems in practice from the self-imposed complexity of modern HQs" LCol J.P. Storr