Cutting the CF/DND HQ bloat - Excess CF Sr Leadership, Public Servants and Contractors
- Thread starter ArmyRick
- Start date
dapaterson said:
Agreed - unlimited liability and uniform...ity has and should have a price. Cost moves are not limited to people in uniform, nor is training.
Continuity of health care (beyond band-aids) is more and more provided within the provincial construct but paid for using federal (DND/CF) funding.
- Reaction score
- 22,129
- Points
- 1,090
Simian Turner said:
Cost moves in DND are several orders of magnitude greater than the public service.
And public service training is significantly less expensive - Crew commander Leo II is pricier than Powerpoint level II.
Consider this: I started in government as a Management Trainee, a program designed to fasttrack you to senior positions. Over three years, received a grand total of two weeks of training, plus a day Project Management course.
that is it. Now no officer gets qualified with less than a year training (generally speaking), for basic qualifications. Quite a difference.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 160
Same work hours (actual not notional)??TimBit said:
dapaterson said:
Somehow we have gone from comparing LCols to analysts to a Leo Crew Commander course and a Manager Trainee in a thread about Generals. A bit of an increasing tangent. At the LCol to General level I think the public servants' training and move credits are similar. Enough said.
- Reaction score
- 9
- Points
- 530
I don't recall exactly when she got promoted to BGen, I believe it would have been APS 99, but the BGen Provost Marshal was an anomaly that has happened once since I joined and you'll probably never see it again. She was due to be promoted but as the changes within the Branch she orchestrated were still ongoing, they over strengthed the position until the end of her appointment as CFPM. The structure is the CFPM is a Col, the DPMs/C*S PM/CO NIS etc are LCol. IF more MP LCols are due to promoted and the CFPM position is filled, they go outside the Branch to be promoted. Same happens when the CFPM finishes their tenure, if they have more years to serve and do not wish to retire, they go to positions outside the Branch, as happened with BGen Samson (to the Int Branch no less...) and Col Copper.George Wallace said:
- Reaction score
- 22,129
- Points
- 1,090
Lex Parsimoniae said:Same work hours (actual not notional)??
Nope. Public servants don't take 1 hour at noon for PT and count it as working hours.
Back off tangent: the number of executive-level positions overall in DND, be it military Capt(N)/Cols and GOFOs or civilians is what needs to be put under the microscope, not just one side or the other.
A
aesop081
Guest
dapaterson said:
How many of those public servants are required to maintain a certain fitness level or lose their job ?
- Reaction score
- 22,129
- Points
- 1,090
Unfortunately, in NDHQ one can see some military folks not maintaining their fitness without repercussion.
But this should not deteriorate into a mil/civ bashing discussion (and apologies if I've started to lead it down that path).
Ultimately, the quesiton is what amount high level help, mil or civ, is needed to lead and manage the CF and DND. I think the general consensus is that we have too many generals (no pun intended). The question is where to make any reducitons - and as can be seen here, everyone has a different opinion, and everyone has their vital ground that they will protect.
But this should not deteriorate into a mil/civ bashing discussion (and apologies if I've started to lead it down that path).
Ultimately, the quesiton is what amount high level help, mil or civ, is needed to lead and manage the CF and DND. I think the general consensus is that we have too many generals (no pun intended). The question is where to make any reducitons - and as can be seen here, everyone has a different opinion, and everyone has their vital ground that they will protect.
Retired AF Guy
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 666
- Points
- 1,160
dapaterson said:
I worked in DG Int back in the '80's and we had lots of civil analysts working with us and my impression was that they were making more than their military equivalent. Also, we had several civilian analysts who were ex-military some of whom would be collecting their military pension (Major/LCol), plus, getting their civilian pay check, plus, when they retire from their civilian job they get another pension! As for uniforms I'm willing to bet that the civilian analysts got a clothing allowance or were able to claim their suits as a tax deduction. The civilian analysts went on courses, sometimes the same courses military types took, plus, relevant public service courses they had to take for promotion. I'm also willing to bet that the public service types also get help when they have to move from one city to another.
Again, some of this was just my impressions, possibly wrong, but I'm willing to bet that once you start adding up all the little perks there isn't that much of difference (cost wise) between a LCol and his/her civilian equivalent.
Nowadays, since SCONDVA in the 90`s, military personel make 8% more for the same task. There certainly isn`t any clothes allowance for civvies, nor tax deductions. The one big thing you get as a civvy is, I`ll give it to you, overtime. On the downside, there`s no such thing as sliders.
You are right, PS do get moving allowance...the point was more that because they don`t typically move, civilians are less expensive to employ in a given job than a posted in military personel.
Now back on topic, before the mods slam us, I do believe, personaly, that a lot of it has to do with rank inflation for authority/prestige reasons, i.e. no one will listen to him if he`s a major so we`d better make this position LCol, therefore the director has to be a Col and the DG a Bgen. And so on. The other thing that is astonishing when one dwells at 101 is the number of people who essentially do the same job but with a different focus, i.e. south america ops versus south america policy versus south america plans. Different jobs, but still pretty similar. Obviously that does create inflationary pressures as well...other than that, I don't know that reducing the number of GOFOs really would save money or make us more efficient. I remain to be convinced.
- Reaction score
- 4,321
- Points
- 1,160
I was told, many, many years ago and by someone who was "in the room," back in the 1960s, that the decision to (incorrectly) equate the first (director) executive level of the public service to Captain (N)/Colonel was taken as part of a huge and complex process of equating military salaries to public service benchmarks. One of the problem was to try to keep a steady progression for military ranks with the proviso that, just as one example, CPO1/WO1 (as they still were back then) be roughly equal (with trade pay) to LCdr/Maj (even, in a very few cases) to Cdr/LCol and that Lt(N)/Capt be the journeyman/working rank for most officers. Almost everything failed, except that we did get a series of major, important, earned and otherwise politically impossible pay raises and the revised system was sensible until the public service executive compensation system was changed (mid 1970s? (I can't remember any more.)) and pay for Capts (N)/Cols got buggered up beyond all recognition. But one of the unintended and deleterious consequences was rank inflation. The military's proposal, circa 1963, was for a somewhat honourary four star CDS but, for the rest, a system in which the executive level's 'base of the pyramid' started at Cdr/LCol and topped out at three three stars for a force of nearly 150,000 regulars. The decisions that were taken were based on a reasonable "take home pay" scheme - something we, then serving members, desperately needed - not on appropriate rank (and pay) for function. Following the military's (1963) plan would have resulted in a smaller, leaner but actually more expensive officer corps.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
birdgunnnersrule said:
While I am very much against a willy-nilly cutting of HQs (think of a human body trying to think or act without a an adequate brain or nervous system...), I do think some economies could be made. I am very much a fan of the "command-driven" approach that Gen Hillier introduced, I think we went a bit overboard for a Force as small as ours is. I would:
a) Merge CEFCOM and CANADACOM into "CANOPCOM", with one Comd but a DComd Expeditionary and a DComd Continental (specifically NOT COS but "DComd");
b) Merge Support Command into: 1) the J4 branches of the OPCOM; and 2) a "Corps Troops"-type organization that answers to OPCOM, possibly under a "DComd Sp";
c) Leave CANSOFCOM alone to continue to mature and improve its capabilities: I think we will need them in the future much more than we might guess now;
d) Leave the ECS (CMS, CLS, CAS) to get on with force generation and retention which is their raison d'etre; and
e) Leave Pers Command undisturbed to continue struggling with what will prove to be, I think, very serious "J1" issues in the post-Afgh period.
Cheers
McG
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 2,356
- Points
- 1,160
This is exactly the sort of review we should be doing across all the L1s, but it needs to be done down to at least all the L2s (and anywhere that there is a major shake-up of the L2 structure, the review needs to dip lower into the L3s). I agree there should be no willy-nilly cutting - there should be a deliberate structural review and rationalization (which may include cutting, shuffling, re-locating or preserving various HQs, formations, commands, bases, etc).pbi said:
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
Infanteer said:
I'm not familiar with all of these, but I guess you're referring to things like ADM (IE), CDI, etc?
I am much more skeptical of them, but I have to confess that I really haven't had enough to do with any of them to form much of an opinion, except possibly CDI on the training side. In their specific case, I agree that we need a "Joint" Int handling, analysis and management agency at the L1, but I"m not at all sure they should have fingers in training and Force Generation (which is where I've dealt with them).
Cheers
OldSolduer
Army.ca Relic
- Reaction score
- 12,494
- Points
- 1,140
"e) Leave Pers Command undisturbed to continue struggling with what will prove to be, I think, very serious "J1" issues in the post-Afgh period."
And these issues in the post Afghan period will be serious.
And these issues in the post Afghan period will be serious.
S
safetysOff
Guest
Could having such an inflated general’s rank be a result of a strategy to keep the up and coming officer corp motivated? If you’re in an officer trade that maxes out at major or colonel you’d probably start f*@%ing the dog pretty hard once you get to that top rank.
If having a higher chance to reach general is what it takes to a) keep the officer corp motivated throughout their career to perform at 100% and b) ensure an officer stays with the military their entire career than why not have 100+ generals?
What’s that ole saying, something along the lines of ‘Giving out ranks and medals is easy but finding a good man that can get a job done isn’t.’
If having a higher chance to reach general is what it takes to a) keep the officer corp motivated throughout their career to perform at 100% and b) ensure an officer stays with the military their entire career than why not have 100+ generals?
What’s that ole saying, something along the lines of ‘Giving out ranks and medals is easy but finding a good man that can get a job done isn’t.’