• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

CFRG and the broken recruiting system-Split

On the Cadet side we are 70/30 when Reg/Res get assigned to us. Of the 30% good, 10% wanted to be there and will what it takes. Of the 70% it's pot luck as to what you get out of them. My.02$
 
George Wallace said:
I would go with the 50/50 chance of getting excellent people in; RSS, the Schools, Recruiting, etc. 


(In some cases, the uneducated/less than knowledgeable/inexperienced will think that their instructor/RSS/etc. may be excellent and knowledgeable when in fact they only have the gift of gab and can sling the bovine excrement in a convincing manner.  It is only later in life, after gaining experience, that you may learn that they were not as excellent as you thought.  >:D )

:goodpost:
 
milnews.ca said:
Coming all the way back to the Public Affairs angle of the OP, it's not just DND that's less than prompt or forthcoming with information for reporters.

Methinks we may be seeing more such stories following Christie Blatchford's "crack in the dam".


Thanks for dragging this back on to the real topic.

I am no great fan of the media, despite having a couple of friends in it, but I accept that they fill an absolutely vital role in a democratic society: informing and influencing public opinion.

There is, often, an unhealthy, even faintly incestuous relationship between the parliamentary press gallery (and its provincial and local equivalents) and ministers, MPs, officials and mayors and so on. They need each other, each for her or his own reasons, and they feed off one another. But, in the end, governments and political parties need to inform and influence the public and the media is how we, the public, receive our information and it is the primary source of influence on our opinions.

Relations between departments and the media were always rocky, in my opinion. I don't have any idea about how the minister felt but officials, including those in uniform, often (usually, in my opinion) mistrusted the media, thinking it was, broadly, ill-informed, narrow minded, superficial and biased against the military. My sense was that the media, generally, thought we were 'Colonel Blimpish' dinosaurs who were in bed with industry and so on.
 
As much as we have to acknowledge media bias, without their digging, all we would have for info are govt press releases which are often little more than reelection campaign speeches
 
E.R. Campbell said:
. . . But, in the end, governments and political parties need to inform and influence the public and the media is how we, the public, receive our information and it is the primary source of influence on our opinions.

. . .  those in uniform, often (usually, in my opinion) mistrusted the media, thinking it was, broadly, ill-informed, narrow minded, superficial and biased against the military. My sense was that the media, generally, thought we were 'Colonel Blimpish' dinosaurs who were in bed with industry and so on.

All too true.

During my service I attended several seminars to teach us how to deal with the media.

The key lessons coming out of those were:

1.  Media generally have never been soldiers. Their preconceptions about the military generally come from whatever milieu they grew up in and can vary widely--mostly its apathy and lack of knowledge;

2.  Media generally will not report on an issue unless there is something newsworthy about it which usually means that there is some controversy;

3.  Media deadlines are short and the average reporter will not have the time or inclination to become educated in the subject matter. Instead they will try to get sound-bites from each side of the controversy and present those.

Our training response was to do the following:

1.  Recognize that media seeks both sides and that they have short deadlines and therefore you must respond in a timely manner so that your version makes the initial broadcast;

2.  "No comment" is a not good enough. You must state your case;

3.  Formulate what is the thrust of the message that you want out there. Make it short - for video no more than eight seconds (that's all you'll get on screen). Repeat your message over-and-over regardless of the question the media asks so that your message is all that they have to report. (If you wander off topic you increase the risk of your message not being reported.)

Needless to say that it helps if there is rapport between yourself and the reporter however only very rarely will there ever be an opportunity to develop that -- this is where the public affairs folks come in.

I remember one operation where I thought we really had things right. That was the Winnipeg Floods where I worked in the Div legal cell. The HQ there was organized with our legal cell and the public affairs cell in the same office room right across the hall from the Div Commander and the Chief of Staff's office. Whenever there was an issue we could hold an impromptu meeting within a few seconds and a half a dozen steps so that the commander/COS was able to rapidly formulate the combined operational/legal/public affairs response.

(I always thought it was cute that PA's shoulder title "veritas" and ours of "justitia" came out as "truth and justice". Two thirds of the way to the old Superman motto - all we needed was an "and the American way".)

:cheers:
 
ERC:
There is, often, an unhealthy, even faintly incestuous relationship between the parliamentary press gallery (and its provincial and local equivalents) and ministers, MPs, officials and mayors and so on.

Surely you jest. The parliamentary press gallery hates the Conservative brand, and detest PM Harper. I would even say the parliamentary press gallery creates fluff, attempting to bring down the Conservatives. The useless CBC leads, with English/French TV, English/French Radio, English/French electronic print, Newsworld, Katty O'Malley and her type, etc. How many is that, daily manufacturing, distorting the truth?

Compared to the good olde USA, the WH press gallery, the major media producers are firmly in Obama's pocket, including being invited to state diners. Even with the recent Benghazi WH email revelations, it did not get one second on ABC, NBC, CBS, and MSNBC. The WH correspondents for the major media have finally twigged they have been continuously lied to, asked some questions, but their reports did not get air time.
 
Rifleman62 said:
ERC:
Surely you jest. The parliamentary press gallery hates the Conservative brand, and detest PM Harper. I would even say the parliamentary press gallery creates fluff, attempting to bring down the Conservatives. The useless CBC leads, with English/French TV, English/French Radio, English/French electronic print, Newsworld, Katty O'Malley and her type, etc. How many is that, daily manufacturing, distorting the truth?

Compared to the good olde USA, the WH press gallery, the major media producers are firmly in Obama's pocket, including being invited to state diners. Even with the recent Benghazi WH email revelations, it did not get one second on ABC, NBC, CBS, and MSNBC. The WH correspondents for the major media have finally twigged they have been continuously lied to, asked some questions, but their reports did not get air time.

I guess you forgot that Pamela Wallin and Mike Duffy were both "journalists" and both appointed to the Senate as Conservatives.
 
Rifleman62 said:
ERC:
Surely you jest. The parliamentary press gallery hates the Conservative brand, and detest PM Harper. I would even say the parliamentary press gallery creates fluff, attempting to bring down the Conservatives. The useless CBC leads, with English/French TV, English/French Radio, English/French electronic print, Newsworld, Katty O'Malley and her type, etc. How many is that, daily manufacturing, distorting the truth?

Compared to the good olde USA, the WH press gallery, the major media producers are firmly in Obama's pocket, including being invited to state diners. Even with the recent Benghazi WH email revelations, it did not get one second on ABC, NBC, CBS, and MSNBC. The WH correspondents for the major media have finally twigged they have been continuously lied to, asked some questions, but their reports did not get air time.


Nope, I am not kidding; I'm not even being a bit hyperbolic. It's true that some journalists, especially some TV 'stars' actively dislike Prime Minister Harper both because they disapprove, vehemently, of his polices and politics but also because he makes it harder for them to get "air time," but other CPC folks - ministers - show up in the lobby and provide the cherished (and professionally essential (for TV reporters)) 10 second sound bites. I have, personally, seen and spoken with ministers and journalists who were, congenially, sharing a drink together at a local pub, not too far from the hill. They are, of necessity, colleagues: they need one another. If you don't like "incestuous" then call the relationship symbiotic.

 
Rifleman62 said:
Surely you jest. The parliamentary press gallery hates the Conservative brand, and detest PM Harper. I would even say the parliamentary press gallery creates fluff, attempting to bring down the Conservatives. The useless CBC leads, with English/French TV, English/French Radio, English/French electronic print, Newsworld, Katty O'Malley and her type, etc. How many is that, daily manufacturing, distorting the truth?
As someone who spent ~7 years fielding media calls (between 2 and 8 calls per week, with peaks gusting well above that) during Liberal and Conservative governments, I can tell you I didn't field any "hey, way to go, guys!" calls from Ottawa-based or other media. 

Having worked the other side of the microphone as well, if one were to paint reporters with a broad brush, they tend to be generally ranging from "skeptical about government" to "anti-government" in outlook (or, put another way, rooting for the underdog). 
 
The slow process experienced by many applicants has been covered by the subject of this thread, so I won't try to beat a dead horse here, but I think the RCs often forget that the recruiting process is two-way; if an applicant has a negative experience with the recruiting process, the CAF will have failed their part by driving highly qualified, competent, and driven individuals away before they even get in.

In our particular case, my wife has tried to get information on the progress on her application since her medical 15 weeks ago, both over the phone and more recently through email, but no progress has been made on her file since her medical.  Phone calls are no longer answered or returned, and emails are replied with responses to the effect of "It all looks good, she's ready for her interview, call the Recruiting Centre".  But they won't answer the phone or reply to voicemails...

With all that being said, and seeing that I will not receive any information on why my wife cannot get in touch with the local RC on this forum, I will ask this question instead: who monitors the Recruiting feedback email address (recruitingoutreach@forces.gc.ca), and what actions do they take with the feedback given on applicants' experience?
 
I was in the same boat. Was told I would be contacted within the next few weeks for my CFAT in my case, and I never heard from the recruiting center again (I applied in September of 2013, my file was lost, spent months phoning around to get information about where my file is and finally got a hold of someone in December of 2013). In January 2014, I was finally told that my CFAT would be scheduled but I never heard back despite an email and phone message every month, and a failed call attempt or two every day.

Eventually I went hunting around for some tactics on how to talk to a live person and last week I finally got a hold of someone. In my case (Toronto recruiting center) I was told that they are currently working on something that is keeping them away from efficiently processing files and that they will finally be able to get back to my application within a month or two. I do wish I would get just a small two line long email heads up about stuff like that, but all we can do is be patient and hope to get contacted.

While on one hand I agree, they are probably losing potentially great recruits as they become tired of waiting or lose confidence in the administration and organization of their potential future employer, on the other hand, those who do not wait perhaps do not have the will to be members of the CAF.
 
Under a liberal government near the end the ability of the press to call a regional office became less and less. Under the current government managing the message has gone to extraordinary lengths to the point where it becomes a weight dragging everyone down. Both sides are to blame, MSM for trying to blow everything into a scandal and the government thinking everything will blow up on them.
 
Maybe now that CMP is a LGen maybe he can get CFRG to answer media inquiries......just sayin....
 
Hopefully we can get this sorted soon. http://www.cbc.ca/beta/news/canada/edmonton/despite-unemployment-rate-military-can-t-seem-to-hire-in-alberta-1.3661886


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Aside from the issues with the recruiting system I'm willing to bet people are more aware of the issues with veterans. Many are probably aware of the Equitas lawsuit and are hearing the government argue that they have no Sacred Obligation or Social Contract with those that serve.

If I was a civi thinking about joining and hearing all the issues with veterans I might second guess that decision.
 
Several issues daunt the CF nowadays, Lack of Funds - which leads to other issues, Lack of Proactive Recruiting (old days you could just walk in and ask to enlist - not the fill out this online application). Some of these could be fixed ( increasing DND budget to 2% from 1% of GPD ( it was last 2% back in 1988) so the nearly 30 years of losing 1% likely robbed the Forces of Hundreds of Billions of Dollars that could have been spent of Equipment, Personnel and Training rough budget in 1988 would be likely 1 Billion Dollars roughly compared to roughly 18 Billion in 2014 (at 1% vs roughly 36 Billion at 2%) if wwe were able to bring it up .25-.50 % more that would help our tired and worn services
 
When I joined in 1989 there was no internet or cell phones. Walked into the recruiting office at the Brandon MB Armoury in January and got off the bus in Chilliwack at the end of August of the same year. During the 8 months I had surgery for a hernia, did the Naval Officer's Selection Board in Halifax and did a couple of interviews in Winnipeg. I also did not have the cleanest of records with the RCMP as a young adult (mostly booze and driving issues). I have no idea why it is so difficult today.



 
One of the biggest problems is the SIP. Reserve regiments are only allowed to hire X number of people per trade in a given fiscal. While this makes obvious sense for the regs, it's strangling reserve units. I was my regiments' recruiter for about a year and a half, and it was brutal. Empower reserve units to hire up to their establishment. Plan a year out, and fire staff who cannot prioritize and develop those plans. Put the onus on the divisions to ensure the courses are run, to be delegated where possible to the CBGs. If a unit or city can run a unit or city level BMQ or other course, let it. It may be that the regs will need to leave the reserves a bit more alone for a couple years to achieve this, but the reserves are struggling, and our viability long term depends on fixing this.

Only an institution like the CAF could manage to be so ineffective at getting enough 17 or 18 years olds to play with guns and go camping...
 
An interesting Article from Christine Blatchford on one man's attempts to join. I cannot speak for the Recruiting Center but if I got an email in all caps with that message, I probably wouldn't be to impressed either.

http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/christie-blatchford-mans-kafkaesque-fight-to-enlist-in-the-canadian-forces

Thoughts?
 
Back
Top