Army to rely more on civilians to train recruits

[ZipperHead]

A point on the use of civilians to train recruits: there is a program called TCEP (Training Capacity Enhancement Program) that addresses the use of ex-military personnel to train recruits (to free up military personnel to train other soldiers in areas where it still requires someone in uniform to instruct, such as tactics or general recruit training). It is in use here in Gagetown to train soldiers on (for now) driving B vehicles (LSVW, MLVW) and some armour vehicles (Bison, but not cross country, AFAIK). The personnel are ALL ex-military, with the requisite qualifications (from when they were serving, or being trained once employed by (the current contract holder), Valcom.

I have to tread lightly here, but I would like to point out that in the LONG run this will be beneficial, but there is some short term pain for this long term gain: a number (how many is not clear at the moment) of people are "jumping ship" to work for Valcom, and guess where they are coming from? The Schools (for the most part) here in CTC. So "we" are losing instructors (in green) to this civilian company. This is effecting us, particularly at Sr NCO level, as we are already short on instructors, and because the Career Manager's crystal ball didn't predict these people leaving the military (most have 20+ years in), these weren't forecast, so we won't receive replacements for a considerable length of time (if ever).

Anyway, you have to take the term "civilian" with a grain of salt when it is mentioned that "civilians" will be used to train recruits (or soldiers in general): I'm certain that (where applicable, as the lion's share of these positions require skills that nobody who has never donned a uniform could ever have) the civvy with the earring, mullet and cheesy mustache that you call Mr. Bloggins, was likely Cpl/MCpl/Sgt/WO Bloggins not too long ago.

Al

 

[284_226]

Another idea from outta left field:  How about any combat arms types discharged for having kidney stones invited back in to train?  Can't deploy them, but can certainly use them at home here. 

You mean actually retain experienced people with a history of kidney stones?  Now why would they go and do that, when they can enrol completely untrained people with a history of kidney stones?  :

 

[daftandbarmy]

The Navy mans their MCDVs with reservists. I think they only have 2 reg force ratings on board. These ships are used to train MARS officers as well as fill an operational minesweeping role. I've been on 'ride alongs' with them a few times and they seem very competent. Why not staff the army training system with reservists? This may also be a good incentive to attract retired Reg F personnel back into uniform and make use of their skills.

 

[John Nayduk]

I think that there may be a point being missed here.  If you want a reservist to go overseas, train people full time or do anything full time, you need to protect their jobs.

 

[pbi]

I have no problem whatsoever that we might use civilians to teach new soldiers things, with one caveat (and one observation).

The caveat is that the training establishment "owning" the recruit/trainees must ensure that a solid framework of military ethos and culture is in place and reinforced as often as possible. It might otherwise be a bit confusing (particularly for new people) to be put into a completely civvy training environment. Having said that, Res soldiers spend most of their lives in a civvy environment, and do just fine. We also send people to civvy universities under UTPO/UTPNCM and this works quite well also. Still, I think we must consider that making soldiers is not just about teaching a collection of skills: it is about shaping the way people think and see themselves.

My observation is that we will probably find that the "civvies" employed as instructors in such a programme would be very heavily made up of former serving folks, who would probably fit into the environment well, and  would likely understand the needs and concerns of the CF.

We are between a rock and a hard place (largely of our own making IMHO) so we should  consider all practical and intelligent solutions.

Cheers

 

[pbi]

Why not staff the army training system with reservists? This may also be a good incentive to attract retired Reg F personnel back into uniform and make use of their skills.

This is a good idea that has been in place for a while. There already lots of Res soldiers throughout the Army training system, and there have been for years.(And I'm not referring to the annual summer training surge for the Res itself) Most of these people do a great job, despite the initial reluctance and squeamishness of some RegF people about allowing Res to do these jobs. (I recall the horror the first time a Res offr was allowed to be a Pl Comd on a PPCLI TQ3 serial at Wainwright BSL). In my experience the problem has not been that the Army doesn't offer the positions: it's finding a Res who meets the standards and is available. Many excellent Res WOs and NCOs have civvy jobs that would not allow them to do a stint on Class B, while some of those available for Class B are not necessarily those you want to see in front of a class.

Cheers

 

[daftandbarmy]

I think that there may be a point being missed here.  If you want a reservist to go overseas, train people full time or do anything full time, you need to protect their jobs.

This is an interesting issue. Recently, I was talking to the CEO of an american company who has many reservists on staff who are being let go because they've been away for several tours in Iraq. His argument is that he has no way of holding a job for someone who might be gone 3 years out of 6. It all comes down to the bottom line, unfortunately. I asked him what he does about people who take parental leave, and the response was that in the US, parental leave is seldom more than 6 months - unlike the much cushier leave policies in countries like Canada. Many US employers are now avoiding hiring reservists because of this policy, although few would come right out and admit it. It would therefore seem that the much vaunted US system of legally protecting the jobs of reservists can be less effective than one might think at first glance.

 

[GMan87]

This is an interesting issue. Recently, I was talking to the CEO of an american company who has many reservists on staff who are being let go because they've been away for several tours in Iraq. His argument is that he has no way of holding a job for someone who might be gone 3 years out of 6. It all comes down to the bottom line, unfortunately. I asked him what he does about people who take parental leave, and the response was that in the US, parental leave is seldom more than 6 months - unlike the much cushier leave policies in countries like Canada. Many US employers are now avoiding hiring reservists because of this policy, although few would come right out and admit it. It would therefore seem that the much vaunted US system of legally protecting the jobs of reservists can be less effective than one might think at first glance.

But as worst case scenerio, couldn't the reservist just not bring up that he/she is in the reserves? I don't see any legal reason you would have to write this on your resume. I doubt employers will go out of their way to specifically ask out of nowhere "are you in the reserves?"  Now of course the downfall of this is not getting to put this work experience on your resume, but if the employer doesn't give jobs to people who are in the reserves in the first place, then that job experience was useless anyways.  Once the employer finds out, it could also affect future promotions within the company or they may lose their job easier, but I still think its best that reservsits have their jobs protected.

 

[pbi]

Recently, I was talking to the CEO of an American company who has many reservists on staff who are being let go because they've been away for several tours in Iraq. His argument is that he has no way of holding a job for someone who might be gone 3 years out of 6.

I heard some of this from US types in Afgh. It is all that new: at Staff School (anybody remember that place...?) in 1987 I wrote my paper on job protection for Res. At that time my research showed that the major cause of attrition for US Res was conflicts with employers. The demand on US Res is far greater now: it only stands to reason that this problem is worse, too. However, some of our US posters here have argued strongly that this problem is being overblown and is not really an issue beyond isolated cases. Tomahawk6 where are you?

Cheers