Perhaps promotion above lieutenant - platoon/troop commander - should require a combination of fully acceptable or better annual reports (PERs) and, big AND examinations to demonstrate theoretical and practical knowledge of a few things like military law, current affairs, organization and administration in peace and war and current tactical doctrine.
Indeed ... and some (Math, for sure) that make mid six figures ($(US)500K+) on graduation IF they leave the academy and work in other areas. Even some top unis pay top dollar ($(US)250K) for Math profs ... and then there are consulting contracts to top that up. (Not all uni profs do consulting on the side, but many do and it doesn't appear to seriously impair their social lives.)
Math prof and social life are a non intersecting Venn diagram.
Shhhh next you’ll suggest that having some one go from St Jean, then to a training base, then to their first posting is a needless waste of money.
My math prof at university helped develop the CANTASS algorithm. He was brilliant, but a complete dud when you talked to him.
Not doctoral, but just to add to the discussion, I saw this in another, totally unrelated forum, regarding a VIA station agent/ticket sales position. According to another site, this position earns between $69K and $75K/year.
Vague idea: for trades where this is workable, moving Basic (which could incidentally be shortened/adjusted/made trade and service-specific) and initial trades training to either First Unit or First Base would also mean creating a training cell, the staffing of which would provide a not-in-unit lines rotation for a healthy collection of other people who wouldn't need to move as often. Fleet School plus localized BMQ, effectively.
Actually we did for Afghanistan and admitted quite freely that we wouldn't have been able to fulfil the missions there without them.
The only people who want a high-paid professional military are the high-paid professional military. This was a concept foisted on Canada by a post WW2 officer corps that convinced government that only "forces in being" could stop the Soviet hordes and effectively went on to ensure that the reserve side of the force became ever less capable of going to war. We need a well, but not high, paid core of professionals around which a stand-by force can be employed. That, and only that, will allow the transfer of the funding of a mostly unnecessary administrative system to combat effective capabilities.
Actually we did for Afghanistan and admitted quite freely that we wouldn't have been able to fulfil the missions there without them.
The only people who want a high-paid professional military are the high-paid professional military. This was a concept foisted on Canada by a post WW2 officer corps that convinced government that only "forces in being" could stop the Soviet hordes and effectively went on to ensure that the reserve side of the force became ever less capable of going to war. We need a well, but not high, paid core of professionals around which a stand-by force can be employed. That, and only that, will allow the transfer of the funding of a mostly unnecessary administrative system to combat effective capabilities.
We need to focus less on keeping full-time corporals around for twenty years and more on recruiting and keeping 18 year olds for five years and then making it easy for them to transition to civilian lives and maybe another five years of part-time service while giving them the experience of a lifetime during those years.
I can see the reasons for this and I agree partially. But I disagree for the technical trades and even many non tech trades. By the time you hit five years you finally learned your job and become proficient and competent in the job itself but many no where a expert ( hence why many Trades programs have a 4 year process) It comes down to the person who has been there for 15 years who seen that one thing break and can fix it quickly and properly.
Actually we did for Afghanistan and admitted quite freely that we wouldn't have been able to fulfil the missions there without them.
The only people who want a high-paid professional military are the high-paid professional military. This was a concept foisted on Canada by a post WW2 officer corps that convinced government that only "forces in being" could stop the Soviet hordes and effectively went on to ensure that the reserve side of the force became ever less capable of going to war. We need a well, but not high, paid core of professionals around which a stand-by force can be employed. That, and only that, will allow the transfer of the funding of a mostly unnecessary administrative system to combat effective capabilities.
We need to focus less on keeping full-time corporals around for twenty years and more on recruiting and keeping 18 year olds for five years and then making it easy for them to transition to civilian lives and maybe another five years of part-time service while giving them the experience of a lifetime during those years.
good for them, they can give up their well paid jobs and go work elsewhere. Here I was under the impression "remote workers" meant working in isolated camps like Loggers, Oilfield, Mining not working from home.
We need to focus less on keeping full-time corporals around for twenty years and more on recruiting and keeping 18 year olds for five years and then making it easy for them to transition to civilian lives and maybe another five years of part-time service while giving them the experience of a lifetime during those years.
Me too.
I don't undervalue the experienced worker. They are essential firstly as shop floor leaders and as institutional memory. The problem comes in when you have a glut of highly paid wrench turners who are no more productive than a third year worker.
The field army is a hard life, and while I don’t think emulating our model down here is ideal, there needs to be a happy medium of retention as well as new blood.
