Conflict of Interest

[HeadLamp]

Give it up, your sounding real stupid,... what, everyone who didn't finish their life serving is now some kind of low-life?

I don't think he sounds stupid at all, and I tend to agree with the majority of his posts in this thread so far. As I often see on online forums it appears that you have had a nerve touched, which usually leads to missing what other people are trying to get across. I don't think you came even close to comprehending what he is posting.

I also don't know how you came up with the "what, everyone who didn't finish their life serving is now some kind of low-life?", especially after he wrote this:

[quote author=George Wallace]I have no problems with a guy doing his time and finding a better job elsewhere.  I do have a problem with a guy with a couple of years in, taking the Trades Trg, expecially the specialty courses, and leaving as soon as (s)he finishes the Crse[/quote]

It appears to be "the thing" to say in this thread, so I will not be surprised if someone comes in and calls me or my post stupid.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

I wouldn't call you stupid, but just wait until you have some TI, and then one day you come to the realization that you are done, and so you release, and then you find out someone thinks you not worthy of "the oath".

Please....

I also don't know how you came up with the "what, everyone who didn't finish their life serving is now some kind of low-life?",
post stupid.

Maybe this?

Guess the Oath really is nothing but a piece of paper, without meaning. 

 

[SupersonicMax]

I think measures to keep people in would be a good idea if the CF actualy needs it and operationnal commanders deem it necessary.  However, in the mean time, there is no such measures and you can't blame someone for taking an opportunity that was offered to him. 

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

Exactly, if it didn't mean enough for your employer to "lock you in" to something before they send you on a course then why should it mean that much to the employee?

I have absolutely no problem with some kind of trade off, but to crap on those who leave for greener pastures while still following all the rules is just moronic......

 

[HeadLamp]

It really comes down to your values. Neither way you view it can ultimately be deemed "right or wrong", so it's really just a waste of space to be arguing about it.

 

[armyvern]

  I don't think I have to worry about that. My wife is currently in Gagetown on her 3's and hasn't even been posted yet. We're sure she's going to get Petawawa because I'm posted there and 2 CER is there (she's training to be a combat engineer). So we're looking at a few years before either of us gets posted. Which brings me to my next question. I'm currently on my second 3 year contract (continuing engagement). Will I be able to sign another 3 year contract if I remuster or will they make me sign the dreaded 19 year contract?

Hmmm ... so she's NOT posted to Pet. My how the story has evolved.

Why can't she be posted to 4 ESR in Gagetown ... or even 1 CER in Edmonton? Being your common law spouse, she'd be visible on your MPRR and you on hers ... I'm sure both career shops would consult with each other in order to avoid an unnecessary IR posting occurance, but they can do that by posting you to Ed and her to Ed as well (or Gagetown for example). If "a new base" is what's common place to occur within the MP trade for new remusters in, and your goal is to be posted together with your wife - I'm quite sure caeers will be able to put two and two together to satisfy both the CFs "needs" and your "wishes" ... not necessarily in Petawawa.

So again, if leaving Pet still isn't an option ... perhaps it's not just the MP trade that isn't right for you.

 

[PMedMoe]

I'm sure both career shops would consult with each other in order to avoid an unnecessary IR posting occurance

Sorry. 
I think my hubby and I were married for years before our CMs actually spoke to each other.

 

[armyvern]

Sorry. 
I think my hubby and I were married for years before our CMs actually spoke to each other.

Yeah, but you're a special case.  >

Career Manager briefing occured here in the Base Theatre Thursday morning past ...

Here's the stats for Supply:

653 Married Service Couples and, of those:
168 Sup Tech to Sup Tech marriages.

Now, try accomodating that. In order to accomodate all that above ... the other 60% of Supply Techs would have to do all the shitty postings/assignments their whole careers.

My outlook? Fuck that. These people married other service members (or fellow-Supply techs) knowing full well what Military service requirements and priorities are. Those priorities should not be accomodating the above. If they can be accomodated without it rolling out to screw the same 60% who always get screwed ... fine. And, that means that my current base shouldn't be manned below strength so that Pet/Ed can be overstrength so that wifes can stay with their husbands - it's killing us here. We are stretched to the max.

Sup Tech to Sup Tech MSCs should be very well aware of the fact that they will one day enjoy an IR posting - whether they like it or not - and if they don't like that idea and aren't good with that, then they should get the fuck out. They knew what their job was and what service prioirities were when they chose to marry.

I just had one of mine toss in his release on Friday ... because he's spent 2 years IR and still can't get posted near his wife ... this is his 3rd IR. That's too bad because he's an awesome "soldier first" and "soldiers first" Supply tech and it's the troops who will lose the ebnefits of his experience, fairness and common sense at the end of the day. Yet we have people who manage to milk/use/abuse/play the system and get away with it over and over and over again.

I speak of course of a case of being "compassionate" posted (2nd "C" posting to this very jammy spot for this member in question) - finding out you're merit listed for promotion - then coming off "compassionate status" - then finding out that promotion is "with posting to XXXX" - then all of a sudden showing up with a chit the next day reading "recommendation for TCat/below trade specs"..... all to avoid a posting to XXXX. What a very very jammy career that mbr has managed to enjoy. Can you say, never saw forest, never saw an ocean (even from the jetty)? And everyone who knows him just sits back and wonders how he mananges to continusously pull this all off.

"Avoidance of posting" should be a damn immediately releasable offence.

 

[PMedMoe]

I agree with a lot of your points, Vern.  I am special!  ;D

Hubby and I are Sig Op and PMed, pretty compatible trades, although mostly in field units or a brigade.  And no, I do NOT want to go to Edmonton.

I know a ton of Med Techs married to Med Techs.  Same situation with the whole Sup Tech MSCs.  You know what really kills me?  When a Med Tech goes on their PA course, a lot of the time they will post the Med Tech spouse to Borden as well.  This means two cost moves in two years!  I understand couples wanting to be together but the PA course?  The second year, the person on course is not even in Borden.  They're all over the country doing their different placements in hospitals.  Seems like a waste of money and time for what's basically a year.

 

[George Wallace]

Vern

If I remember correctly, there may be grounds for Release if a member continues to be using these tactics.  I am surprised that the Career Mgr has not dictated "Posted or Release" to the member after a reasonable period of time had expired.  The member obviously was given a "break" in which they should have reasonably rectified their situation.  It could come down to the old "Services No Longer Required".