# Navy to consider gender-neutral ranks



## FSTO

Don't know if this is top of mind for females in the RCN?

https://tnc.news/2020/03/06/navy-considering-gender-neutral-alternative-to-junior-seaman-ranks/

Although I'd be okay with Ordinary Rate, Able Rate, Killick and Master Killick.

Or Ordinary (insert trade here), ABN (for Able Bosn)

One wag wants to use Sailor - Ordinary Sailor, Able Sailor, Leading Sailor, Master Sailor. I don't know but to me it sounds kind of dumb.


----------



## Jarnhamar

"Able" is offensive towards the disabled. It's gotta go. 

Not comfortable with "master" or "chief" in ranks either.

Are you listening RCN?


----------



## dapaterson

I think we just need to use the Reddit progression.

Eager Sailor

Disillusioned Sailor 

Bitter Sailor

Petty Officer


----------



## Infanteer

Agreed in that sailor sounds kind of odd.  It'd be like putting "soldier" in an army rank.

I like the term Rate.  It's got a historical appeal.


----------



## Journeyman

We have to start with the basics;  the term "huMAN being" is _so_  offensive!    :waiting:


----------



## FSTO

My daughter, who is pretty woke BTW :waiting: said when she was in the Naval Reserve, the other women never really gave the term Seaman a second thought. Though there were always snickers about the word "seaman" in the 12 year old boy sense of the word.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Or we go back to pre-1978 structure, with designator for each gender:

Ordinary Seaman, Able Seamen, Leading Seaman and Master Seaman for males; and,

Ordinary Wren, Able Wren, Leading Wren and Master Wren for females.

Oh, wait! Then we would need a whole slew of them for anyone not identifying as part of the binary gender spectrum.  ;D


Well, back to the drawing board. Hey! What about using a non-gendered body part?

We could say: Ordinary Hand, Able Hand, Leading Hand and Master Hand.  :rofl:


Does this mean that we also have to rebrand our ways of working ??? Sailorship instead of seamanship.


----------



## FSTO

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Or we go back to pre-1978 structure, with designator for each gender:
> 
> Ordinary Seaman, Able Seamen, Leading Seaman and Master Seaman for males; and,
> 
> Ordinary Wren, Able Wren, Leading Wren and Master Wren for females.
> 
> Oh, wait! Then we would need a whole slew of them for anyone not identifying as part of the binary gender spectrum.  ;D
> 
> 
> Well, back to the drawing board. Hey! What about using a non-gendered body part?
> 
> We could say: Ordinary Hand, Able Hand, Leading Hand and Master Hand.  :rofl:
> 
> 
> Does this mean that we also have to rebrand our ways of working ??? Sailorship instead of seamanship.



Funny thing is this initiative is being pushed by men.


----------



## daftandbarmy

FSTO said:
			
		

> Funny thing is this initiative is being pushed by *careerist* men.



There FTFY


----------



## dimsum

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Well, back to the drawing board. Hey! What about using a non-gendered body part?
> 
> We could say: Ordinary Hand, Able Hand, Leading Hand and Master Hand.  :rofl:



Look at you discriminating against non-handedness   :tsktsk:


----------



## Eaglelord17

Why don't we go back to some historical ranks for our Navy... post unification

Pte, Pte (T), Cpl, MCpl, Sgt, WO, MWO, and CWO...


----------



## daftandbarmy

Eaglelord17 said:
			
		

> Why don't we go back to some historical ranks for our Navy... post unification
> 
> Pte, Pte (T), Cpl, MCpl, Sgt, WO, MWO, and CWO...



Everyone claims to be an 'Operator' these days, so why not?

In other news, it seems that John Paul Jones' Navy has already had a crack at this:


Navy drops job titles in push for gender neutrality

Military | Abandoning the time-honored tradition avoids need for dozens of new descriptions

by Michael Cochrane 
 Posted 10/06/16, 11:54 am

In a decision the Navy Times called “a tectonic shift in the Navy’s personnel system,” the service last week abandoned the time-honored tradition of referring to enlisted sailors by their rating, or job title, as well as their rank.

Ratings such as Gunner’s Mate, Boatswain’s Mate, and Quartermaster have a lineage going back hundreds of years to the Continental Navy and the British Royal Navy. Even more recently established rates, such as Information Systems Technician Second Class (IT2) or Electronics Technician Third Class (ET3), give many sailors reason to be proud of their naval heritage.

“When you’re a Boatswain’s Mate, it comes with a lot of pride because of what you do,” Schoanna Smith, a sailor stationed aboard the USS Mustin in Yokosuka, Japan, told Stars and Stripes. “Why can’t we be noticed as Boatswain’s Mates? Not everyone does the same job. … I feel it’s like saying all the rates are the same, which they aren’t.”

The move to eliminate the rating system follows Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus’ decision in January to eliminate use of the word “man” in any Navy or Marine Corps job titles. The Marines have removed “man” from 19 occupational titles but were, as yet, unable to find suitable gender-neutral terms for “rifleman” or “mortarman.”

Rather than undertake the tedious task of creating gender-neutral terms for dozens of ratings, including “Yeoman” or “Hospital Corpsman,” the Navy went further than the Marines and scrapped the entire rating system, opting instead for a rank and job classification system similar to those used by the Army and Air Force.

From now on, sailors in the lowest pay grades of E-1 to E-3 will simply be called “seamen,” a term for which Mabus acknowledged he could find no good gender-neutral substitute. Pay grades E-4 to E-6 “will be called ‘Petty Officer Third/Second/First Class’ as appropriate, and senior enlisted pay grades of E-7 through E-9 will be called ‘Chief, Senior Chief, or Master Chief’ depending on their pay grade,” according to a Sept. 29 message to all Navy personnel.

The history of the Navy’s complex enlisted classification system goes back to the Royal Navy of the 18th century, when it was rare for a sailor to change ships, according to the U.S. Naval Institute, “and knowing what job a sailor performed aboard was the most important identifier.”

The power of such an historic tradition showed this week as many sailors voiced frustration with the change.

“Respectfully this is the stupidest decision ever,” wrote one commenter on the Navy Times Facebook page.

The day of the announcement, someone started a petition at whitehouse.gov asking President Barack Obama to overturn the policy.

“One by one, current leadership continues to erode the very things that set the Navy apart from the other services,” the petition states. As of Wednesday, the petition had garnered nearly 61,000 signatures of the 100,000 needed by Oct. 29 to win a response from the White House.


https://world.wng.org/2016/10/navy_drops_job_titles_in_push_for_gender_neutrality


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

That's right: Let's use something that was in use for ... never, actually. While the "army" ranks were implemented across the CAF at unification, the maritime side of the house never stopped using it's old naval ranks, even if it took about 18 months to formally recognize this fact with the adoption of the "side" rank designation in the NDA annexes.

It took a much longer while, however for this to be actually recognized on pay slips. For quite a while, seamen's pay cheque would be labelled with the "army" equivalent rank, even though they still used their naval ranks as authorized.


----------



## LittleBlackDevil

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> From now on, sailors in the lowest pay grades of E-1 to E-3 will simply be called “seamen,” a term for which Mabus acknowledged he could find no good gender-neutral substitute.



Obviously "seaperson" or "seapeople" is the appropriate gender-neutral substitute.







Glad to see the RCN is right on top of dealing with the most pressing issues facing the navy.


----------



## Underway

When it fits I always use _inclusive_ words.  I never use "manning" when "staffing" or "crewing" would work, say good morning "everyone/people" instead of "ladies and gentlemen".  It costs me nothing, is easy, and I get only appreciation back.  It's like using manners.

This also includes terms like "infanteer" instead of "infantryman" etc...  

My vote is we use franglais (no not a joke, it just oddly makes sense to me) the ranks.  Ordinary Matelot, Able Matelot etc...


----------



## FSTO

Killick has the same French and English meaning.


----------



## Blackadder1916

Underway said:
			
		

> My vote is we use franglais (no not a joke, it just oddly makes sense to me) the ranks.  Ordinary Matelot, Able Matelot etc...



Doesn't solve the gender issue.  En francais, "matelot" est un mot "masculin".


----------



## Cloud Cover

LittleBlackDevil said:
			
		

> Obviously "seaperson" or "seapeople" is the appropriate gender-neutral substitute.



How about just SEAL. 

Or, make everyone an admiral and problem solved.


----------



## McG

Mariner?


----------



## Navy_Pete

MCG said:
			
		

> Mariner?



That or seafarer are common in the civilian side for a catchall; but their crews are small enough that they have names for individual positions (oiler, deckhand, purser, etc).

I think in reality they are mostly using air force radio procedure though; 'Hey Bob, run down the the engine room and check the diesel'


----------



## LittleBlackDevil

MCG said:
			
		

> Mariner?





			
				Navy_Pete said:
			
		

> That or seafarer are common in the civilian side for a catchall...



My discontent with all the virtue signalling and creating problems to fix them (when there are real pressing problems) aside, I actually really like both of those options. I'd have no problem with the navy switching over so long as they didn't spend millions on "consulting" coming to the conclusion to use them.

Ordinary Mariner, Able Mariner, Leading Mariner, Master Mariner
Ordinary Seafarer, Seafarer Leading Seafarer, Master Seafarer

All sound good, although I'm more partial to Mariner. Seafarer feels a bit more pacific and suited to civilian side than warriors of the high seas.

No need to touch the Petty Officer ranks.


----------



## daftandbarmy

LittleBlackDevil said:
			
		

> My discontent with all the virtue signalling and creating problems to fix them (when there are real pressing problems) aside, I actually really like both of those options. I'd have no problem with the navy switching over so long as they didn't spend millions on "consulting" coming to the conclusion to use them.
> 
> Ordinary Mariner, Able Mariner, Leading Mariner, Master Mariner
> Ordinary Seafarer, Seafarer Leading Seafarer, Master Seafarer
> 
> All sound good, although I'm more partial to Mariner. Seafarer feels a bit more pacific and suited to civilian side than warriors of the high seas.
> 
> No need to touch the Petty Officer ranks.



Or, in the case of some of the older personnel on this board: 'Ancient Mariner' 

#samueltaylorcoleridgewasright

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Rime_of_the_Ancient_Mariner

 :surrender:


----------



## FSTO

LittleBlackDevil said:
			
		

> My discontent with all the virtue signalling and creating problems to fix them (when there are real pressing problems) aside, I actually really like both of those options. I'd have no problem with the navy switching over so long as they didn't spend millions on "consulting" coming to the conclusion to use them.
> 
> Ordinary Mariner, Able Mariner, Leading Mariner, Master Mariner
> Ordinary Seafarer, Seafarer Leading Seafarer, Master Seafarer
> 
> All sound good, although I'm more partial to Mariner. Seafarer feels a bit more pacific and suited to civilian side than warriors of the high seas.
> 
> No need to touch the Petty Officer ranks.



I'm not too impressed with either of those options. Mariner and Seafarer sounds far too civilianized.

Rates and Killicks are more to my liking. Although I'm sure the Command will find some unique way to piss off everyone!


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Able Deck-Ape, Leading Deck Ape? It certainly was how the senior officers of the CCG saw us back in the 90's.


----------



## Halifax Tar

This isnt finding much traction in the MS and below mess in my neck of the woods.  

In fact it has generated some rather poignant emails directly to the Fleet MS, from killicks, about the perception of mixed up priorities in the top end of the business.


----------



## FSTO

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> This isnt finding much traction in the MS and below mess in my neck of the woods.
> 
> In fact it has generated some rather poignant emails directly to the Fleet MS, from killicks, about the perception of mixed up priorities in the top end of the business.


That is heartening to hear.


----------



## OldSolduer

FSTO said:
			
		

> That is heartening to hear.



 I quite agree.

Unfortunately all the e-mails in the world may not make any difference as some senior leaders have hitched their wagon to a emasculated Liberal party agenda.


----------



## Remius

Just use the army ranks.  

The end.

Epilogue: Put "Boat" in front of the army ranks to appease the "we are not army crowd".

Boat Private, Boat Cpl, Master Boat Cpl, Boat Colonel etc etc.  

The added bonus is that when talking to a Boat Colonel is you won't confuse him with an army Captain. 

Gender parity achieved.

PM me for my contact details on where to mail my commendation.


----------



## NavalMoose

> PM me for my contact details on where to mail my commendation.



I don't think the Post Office will deliver there....


----------



## Remius

NavalMoose said:
			
		

> I don't think the Post Office will deliver there....



No worries.  I can pick it up once I'm done planning the parade. 

The Boat Generals will love it.


----------



## dimsum

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> This isnt finding much traction in the MS and below mess in my neck of the woods.
> 
> In fact it has generated some rather poignant emails directly to the Fleet MS, from killicks, about the perception of mixed up priorities in the top end of the business.



What's a Fleet MS?  Like the most senior MS of the fleet?


----------



## Halifax Tar

Dimsum said:
			
		

> What's a Fleet MS?  Like the most senior MS of the fleet?



They are the represention of the MS and below of the fleet to higher command and are expected to accompany the Fleet Chief, and Base Chief in expressing the pulse of the MS and below to higher command authority.  

Its really an expanded role of the PMC of the fleet club to more than just the PMC but now an actual representation of the JRs throughout the fleet, formation and base. 

Once I can get the halifax dwan page to open I am sure I can get a better job description for you.


----------



## Lumber

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> Once I can get the halifax dwan page to open I am sure I can get a better job description for you.



RCN IT infrastructure: "Yesterday's technology, Tomorrow!"


----------



## Kat Stevens

Boaty
Able Boaty
Leading Boaty
Master Boaty (a lot of fun can be had with that one)
etc


----------



## OldSolduer

Target Up said:
			
		

> Boaty
> Able Boaty
> Leading Boaty
> Master Boaty (a lot of fun can be had with that one)
> etc



Hey now Op Honour violation!!!


----------



## Kat Stevens

Not at all, any of the 86 genders can Master Boat.


----------



## Halifax Tar

Lumber said:
			
		

> RCN IT infrastructure: "Yesterday's technology, Tomorrow!"



Tell me about it!  Although this wifi we have now is pretty snazzy.


----------



## FSTO

I was talking to a C2 today who is in the committee looking at this. Sounds like Command is fast tracking this idiocy now. When I said to him that this was a "Solution in search of a problem" he sadly shook his head yes. 

But I'm of the wrong gender, age ,and race to be allowed any opinion on this matter.


----------



## Cloud Cover

FSTO: next thing they will Cancel you.


----------



## Lumber

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> Tell me about it!  Although this wifi we have now is pretty snazzy.



You bubbleheads have it way too jammy.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> They are the represention of the MS and below of the fleet to higher command and are expected to accompany the Fleet Chief, and Base Chief in expressing the pulse of the MS and below to higher command authority.
> 
> Its really an expanded role of the PMC of the fleet club to more than just the PMC but now an actual representation of the JRs throughout the fleet, formation and base.
> 
> Once I can get the halifax dwan page to open I am sure I can get a better job description for you.



That's a great idea  :cheers:


----------



## Halifax Tar

Lumber said:
			
		

> You bubbleheads have it way too jammy.



lol Op Reassurance is a pretty jammy deployment


----------



## OldSolduer

Target Up said:
			
		

> Not at all, any of the 86 genders can Master Boat.



OMG Op Honour heads are exploding everywhere!!!  :stirpot:


----------



## daftandbarmy

Hamish Seggie said:
			
		

> OMG Op Honour heads are exploding everywhere!!!  :stirpot:



Sheesh... you and your colonial 'Operations'.... and math


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Speaking of math https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=146754413227138&external_log_id=27b0f5268d845c70eb004a29d454f4b4&q=american%20vs%20asian%20math


----------



## Jarnhamar

Hamish Seggie said:
			
		

> OMG Op Honour heads are exploding everywhere!!!  :stirpot:



Funny story.
I've been on a couple courses now where the staff were strictly told to stop us from using "op honour" in conversation and call it "operation honour". Staff said they were told not to let it slide  :


----------



## Kat Stevens

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Funny story.
> I've been on a couple courses now where the staff were strictly told to stop us from using "op honour" in conversation and call it "operation honour". Staff said they were told not to let it slide  :



Coz if you Op Honour, eventually you 'ave to 'Op Offer.


I'll see myself out...


----------



## daftandbarmy

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Funny story.
> I've been on a couple courses now where the staff were strictly told to stop us from using "op honour" in conversation and call it "operation honour". Staff said they were told not to let it slide  :



Another good reason to 'Go Ganja' early


----------



## Loachman

Colin P said:
			
		

> Speaking of math https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=146754413227138&external_log_id=27b0f5268d845c70eb004a29d454f4b4&q=american%20vs%20asian%20math



It is sad that I find it believable that crap like this is being taught.

If it is, it must be a deliberate attempt to ruin future generations. I cannot accept that anybody would simply think that this "method" is a good idea.

As for Naval ranks, the public is more likely to understand "seaman" than "rate". None of the proposals are worthy of consideration, in my view.

Following along with the theme of the more recent suggestions herein, I posit that, instead of an awkward one-size-fits-no-gender concept, we adopt parallel gender designations, ie "Seaman" and "Seawoman".

"Master" is a masculine term. The female equivalent of "Master Seaman" would, then, be "Mistress Seawoman".


----------



## Furniture

Remius said:
			
		

> Just use the army ranks.
> 
> The end.
> 
> Epilogue: Put "Boat" in front of the army ranks to appease the "we are not army crowd".
> 
> Boat Private, Boat Cpl, Master Boat Cpl, Boat Colonel etc etc.
> 
> The added bonus is that when talking to a Boat Colonel is you won't confuse him with an army Captain.
> 
> Gender parity achieved.
> 
> PM me for my contact details on where to mail my commendation.



Quick question, is it Boat Master Warrant Officer, or Master Boat Warrant Officer? 

As a weatherman I would think the second option works best, as it ensures Boat is before the rank and not the modifier.  ie; a Master WO is like Heavy(+) RA.


----------



## Sprinting Thistle

I predict it wont be long before an CAF committee will be struck to remove all words that no longer conform to today's requirements.  For example, the word "Master" would be removed and replaced as some may find it brings up memories of slavery or the like.  I cite the 2017 effort of the Toronto District School Board to remove the word "Chief" from all TDSB schools and offices.  Words such as Chief Superintendent,  Chief of Communications, Chief Financial Officer, etc. were removed and replaced with executive.


----------



## mariomike

Sprinting Thistle said:
			
		

> I cite the 2017 effort of the Toronto District School Board to remove the word "Chief" from all TDSB schools and offices.  Words such as Chief Superintendent,  Chief of Communications, Chief Financial Officer, etc. were removed and replaced with executive.



Not in Toronto Emergency Services. 

Still a Police Chief, Fire Chief and Paramedic Chief. As well as their Deputy and District Chiefs.


----------



## Haggis

Loachman said:
			
		

> The female equivalent of "Master Seaman" would, then, be "Mistress Seawoman".



The first image that popped into my head when I read this was of Mera, Queen of Atlantis.


----------



## OldSolduer

Haggis said:
			
		

> The first image that popped into my head when I read this was of Mera, Queen of Atlantis.



Conjures up images of Mistress of the Dark.....in a Navy uniform.


----------



## Ludoc

Furniture said:
			
		

> Quick question, is it Boat Master Warrant Officer, or Master Boat Warrant Officer?
> 
> As a weatherman I would think the second option works best, as it ensures Boat is before the rank and not the modifier.  ie; a Master WO is like Heavy(+) RA.


Judging from the number of times it says Navy/Ensigns/anchors on the NCDs I think the preferred option would be "Boat Master Boat Warrant Officer." Just to make sure people get it.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Ludoc said:
			
		

> Judging from the number of times it says Navy/Ensigns/anchors on the NCDs I think the preferred option would be "Boat Master Boat Warrant Officer." Just to make sure people get it.



How about BoatyMcBoatMasterWarrant?

It would appeal to millennials and could be implemented as a cultural alignment initiative to encourage retention


----------



## Furniture

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> How about BoatyMcBoatMasterWarrant?
> 
> It would appeal to millennials and could be implemented as a cultural alignment initiative to encourage retention



That's the kind of paradigm shift, outside the box, synergistic thinking we need in the CAF!


----------



## dapaterson

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> How about BoatyMcBoatMasterWarrant?
> 
> It would appeal to millennials and could be implemented as a cultural alignment initiative to encourage retention



Not clear enough that it's related to the Navy and Boats.

How about:  BoatyMcBoatMasterBoatWarrantBoater


----------



## daftandbarmy

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Not clear enough that it's related to the Navy and Boats.
> 
> How about:  BoatyMcBoatMasterBoatWarrantBoater



I can see the rank badge now.... it will have  a scratch and sniff feature... probably coconut oil


----------



## Jarnhamar

Furniture said:
			
		

> That's the kind of paradigm shift, outside the box, synergistic thinking we need in the CAF!



Worked wonders at Feltcher and Sons.


----------



## BeyondTheNow

Ask practically any female in one’s vicinity. This is/was a non-issue to 95% of them. Another 3% didn’t feel it was an issue until someone pointed it out. The last 2% is who this is geared towards. 

Being sensitive wrt certain aspects of society, and crucial specifics of individuality (I won’t get into them) is vital. But there’s a line between respecting those aspects and pandering. 

In any event, if/when changes take affect, it will still be 5-10 years until the rank changes are reflected properly in docs across the board. Heck, RCAF Pte=>Avr took effect 5ish yrs ago and it still isn’t reflected across the board from Ottawa downwards.


----------



## daftandbarmy

BeyondTheNow said:
			
		

> Ask practically any female in one’s vicinity. This is/was a non-issue to 95% of them. Another 3% didn’t feel it was an issue until someone pointed it out. The last 2% is who this is geared towards.



See? The poor things have been brain washed into this demeaning situation, without even knowing it, by our toxic, patronizing, white male driven, anti-feminist agenda.  :sarcasm:


----------



## dapaterson

For those curious, the Government policy on the process to approve changes to a QR&O ending with a (G) is at the link below.  Note that the DND/CAF process precedes that, and requires specialized legal support that is in very short supply.  TL;DR it's nowhere near as simple as it first appears.

https://www.canada.ca/en/treasury-board-secretariat/services/treasury-board-submissions/governor-in-council-submissions.html


----------



## McG

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Not clear enough that it's related to the Navy and Boats.
> 
> How about:  BoatyMcBoatMasterBoatWarrantBoater


I don't know …
I thought the Navy preferred to attach "Sea" to everything.  I don't see "Sea" in there anywhere.  So options are clearly:

Sea-Boaty McBoatperson
Sea Mariner
Sea Sailor
Sea Rate
Sea Sea
Sea Private
Private at Sea


----------



## Journeyman

MCG said:
			
		

> I thought the Navy preferred to attach "Sea" to everything.


Only because the Rush-Bagot treaty ruined naval warfare on the Great Lakes and Lake Champlain.   rly:


----------



## jaysfan17

FFS, why do we have to live in a society so aggressively PC!

I never liked the "Seaman" part of the rank because of the obvious annoying jokes that would come to follow, but I would much prefer if it was changed for that reason and not political purposes.


----------



## daftandbarmy

jaysfan17 said:
			
		

> FFS, why do we have to live in a society so aggressively PC!
> 
> I never liked the "Seaman" part of the rank because of the obvious annoying jokes that would come to follow, but I would much prefer if it was changed for that reason and not political purposes.



“When one watches some tired hack on the platform mechanically repeating the familiar phrases - bestial atrocities, iron heel, blood-stained tyranny, free peoples of the world, stand shoulder to shoulder - one often has a curious feeling that one is not watching a live human being but some kind of dummy, the appropriate noises are coming out of his larynx, but his brain is not involved.” 

― George Orwell,  Politics and the English Language


----------



## OceanBonfire

> *RCN is going to the polls to consult on changes to Rank designations*
> 
> ...
> 
> Sailors from across the Canadian Armed Forces will receive an e-mailed invitation to participate in the poll, and Social Media posts will invite retired members, stakeholders and interested Canadians to also participate. The engagement period will run from July 17th, through to the end of the month, July 31st.
> 
> Options for consideration include:
> 
> - Replacing “Seaman” with “Sailor” meaning ranks would be Ordinary Sailor, Able Sailor, Leading Sailor and Master Sailor and would maintain their current abbreviated titles (OS, AB, LS and MS); and
> - Sailor classes such as Sailor 3rd Class (S3), Sailor 2nd Class (S2), Sailor 1st Class (S1) and Master Sailor (MS).
> 
> There will also be an open feedback field which will allow respondents to suggest alternative options for consideration.
> 
> The results of this poll will be considered in making the final decision to effect changes to these rank designations this fall, corresponding with the 110th Anniversary of the RCN and the 20th Anniversary of UNSCR 1325: Women, Peace and Security. This is an opportunity for the RCN to reinforce its commitment to being an inclusive and diverse organization.
> 
> 
> http://www.navy-marine.forces.gc.ca/en/news-operations/news-view.page?doc=rcn-is-going-to-the-polls-to-consult-on-changes-to-rank-designations/kbtm8jnh


----------



## stellarpanther

Wow... and I sometimes think I take political correctness too far.  I know how my vote will go if I get the survey.  Something about saying "sailor, get over here" doesn't sound right.


----------



## PuckChaser

Whoever made the poll clearly didn't do any research. S1, S2, S3 are abbreviations for staff officers. Also sounds pretty uncreative.


----------



## daftandbarmy

We really need to start thinking outside of the 'Navy' box on this one and call in the whole 'Defence Team' to help out. 

Here's where the Army can help. What about some Gender Neutral ranks like:

- Private
- Corporal
- Master Corporal
- Sergeant
- Etc


----------



## Navy_Pete

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Whoever made the poll clearly didn't do any research. S1, S2, S3 are abbreviations for staff officers. Also sounds pretty uncreative.



Only because no one actually cares what the poll says. I think if it resoundingly comes back as "don't change it" they will change it anyway to bravely lead change.

Glad this is the focus when our frigates are hitting 30 years old with no replacement getting ready to hit the water and our subs are well past their half life with no replacement project even started. Fortunately we can start limiting our sea days as we won't have enough sailors to field that many concurrent crews I guess, so things are fine.

 :trainwreck:

I honestly couldn't care less if they swap it to 'sailor' instead of 'seaman', although it does sound really awkward and grammatically wrong. But between things like this and the stupid bling on the uniform I've lost faith that they are focusing on things that matter.

[edited to add]

What about parking? That's what people really want to know about.


----------



## kev994

It doesn’t sound like ‘don’t change it’ is one of the options.


----------



## blacktriangle

I'm kind of surprised they aren't reevaluating the use of terms such as "Master" and "Chief". 

Edit: My bad, seems it was already touched earlier. Still surprised though!


----------



## SeaKingTacco

not that I have a dog in the fight, but I kind of like going to "Matelot".  The French word for sailor can be gendered appropriately.  You can use 1st, 2nd and 3rd class to equate to MS, LS, and OS.  It abbreviates well in both languages and in speech ie "M1 Bloggins, bring me that set of binoculars, please".


----------



## Navy_Pete

reverse_engineer said:
			
		

> I'm kind of surprised they aren't reevaluating the use of terms such as "Master" and "Chief".
> 
> Edit: My bad, seems it was already touched earlier. Still surprised though!



Chief/Chef are just the English/French equivalents for the title of 'leader' for the communities, and predates colonization of the Americas.  There are something like 50 different different nations in the Assembly of First Nations, with a number of unique languages and cultures with their own term for their leaders, and they use Chief/Chef as well when they are writing it in English/French. It's a widely used term all over the place and doesn't have a negative meaning (for example, CEO).

There is a long history with 'Master' tradesman, which meant that you have mastered the skill sets of the trade and were licensed by the guild to have apprentices, and goes from Apprentice to Journeyman to Master titles (before the trade name; ie master blacksmith). It's still used in trades today, and you can become licensed as a master welder, master electrician etc when you demonstrate an expertise in your field and have enough experience. Generally at that point you are inspecting/overseeing other people's work and certifying it meets the standard.

From that context, Master Seaman/Corporal makes sense, as you have demonstrated a certain amount of expertise in your trade and have enough experience to train/supervise people. Not a direct comparison to a master tradesman level (as they'll have much more experience), but that's the context of it. That's still widely understood and commonly used in trades, and is a totally distinct meaning from master/slave.

It's also widely used generally in nautical terms, and the highest level of qualification you can get on the civilian side is 'master mariner', which means they can captain pretty much anything.

Personally, have no objection to the concept of updating the rank names, but if we are going to change it to 1st/2nd/3rd, it's close to the civilian equivalent names but nowhere near the qualification level (ie 4th class marine engineer is the roundsman, and 1st class mar eng is the Chief Engineer) so will just confuse the heck out of anyone outside of DND.  It also means every single publication, policy, document, or regulation that references ranks will not line up, so there is a lot of staff time required to update them. Maybe not a big deal if it's done piecemeal along with other changes, but still collectively means hundreds of hours of staff work for something that no one was clamouring for, and will probably take a decade or two before people stop using the old term occasionally out of habit.

I'd rather they devote our time and energy to real, meaningful changes rather then window dressing, and given that this has already generated a few pages of discussion, and hundreds of facebook comments, it will be a real time suck for no real gain.


----------



## Kirkhill

Don't know if there has been any thought on this one - but - 

Seeing that sailors don't sail any more but that every sea-going billet appears to be a technical one - already designated as "Technicians" - how about simply calling the positions Ordinary Tech,  Able Tech Leading Tech and Master Tech.  Or, if you prefer, Entered Apprentice, Journeyman 1 and 2 and Master Tech.


----------



## Underway

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Don't know if there has been any thought on this one - but -
> 
> Seeing that sailors don't sail any more but that every sea-going billet appears to be a technical one - already designated as "Technicians" - how about simply calling the positions Ordinary Tech,  Able Tech Leading Tech and Master Tech.  Or, if you prefer, Entered Apprentice, Journeyman 1 and 2 and Master Tech.



Techs are trades (Sonar Tech, Marine Tech, etc...).  Operators are not techs. But I see where you are going with it.

I've privately railed against the term seaman for years.  Police Officer, Fire fighter, actor...   

I'm not sure if sailor is as smooth to pronounce as seaman, but we'll get over it.


----------



## Navy_Pete

Did a quick google search; a number of the 5000 series DAODs would need changed and I'm sure there are a lot of personnel admin related regulations, pubs, orders and other official documents that would need updated to give an idea of the scope of the change required. There are a number of QR&Os as well. Fortunately the NDA schedule only uses army ranks, so at least there is that.

Not a reason to not do it, but it's not a trivial thing to update, even if they just change a single word. Not a big deal if there is a transition period spanning a normal review cycle (5 years?) but just the review/approval level required for the higher level regs alone is significant, with even the lower level documents having a pretty stringent and well defined change approval process that take a lot of time.

Hopefully there is a streamlined process that they wrote down when they switched over to 'Aviator', but not


----------



## Jarnhamar

Underway said:
			
		

> I've privately railed against the term seaman for years.  Police Officer, Fire fighter, actor...



Legitimate question here. Does Human and Mankind bother you as well?


----------



## CountDC

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> not that I have a dog in the fight, but I kind of like going to "Matelot".  The French word for sailor can be gendered appropriately.  You can use 1st, 2nd and 3rd class to equate to MS, LS, and OS.  It abbreviates well in both languages and in speech ie "M1 Bloggins, bring me that set of binoculars, please".



Don't know about that one, I can see the issue of   "Mat, bring me the binoculars!"   Now we have people complaining about getting treated like and called a door mat.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Legitimate question here. Does Human and Mankind bother you as well?



I'm shocked at your blatant attempt to erode the the progress of gender neutral language.

Signed,

Mx. Daftanbarmy  

d


"Mankind" is an inherently sexist term. It reinforces the general viewpoint that the normal, default type of human is male, and females and non-binary people are abnormal or exceptional. When we talk about people, we need to be mindful about ensuring we're really talking about everyone. Saying "humankind" or just "people" instead of "mankind" is one way to do this.

https://www.bustle.com/p/7-gender-neutral-terms-we-should-all-be-using-9565996


----------



## Underway

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Legitimate question here. Does Human and Mankind bother you as well?



Serious answer:
First, thanks for being polite.  I do appreciate that about this forum.  All adults here who can be friends and disagree.  

Mankind does.  Its an archaic term and inaccurate. Women are not a kind of man. Peoplekind is stupid, just use the world people. Human not so much, because human is a whole word, not a combo of different words with seperate meanings.

Seaman is a label for a man.  Sea-man.  Sailor is also a whole word and label for a job.  It's why I say infantry or infanteer not infantryman.  Labels should be inclusive.

Do I correct other peoples grammar and make myself an insufferable virtue signaler?  Nope.  Speak how you like.  I've a hard enough time controling my own brain-mouth connection. I don't need the job of looking after yours.  But if you ask I'll tell you what I think (which the survey is doing).

If language is inclusive people feel included.  It also why I never start a presentation with "Good morning ladies and gentlemen" I start with "Good morning everybody"  because it includes everyone. As a leader I'm responsible to include everyone.  It's why I use staffing or crewing, not manning. Perfectly acceptable alternatives.

I never used to think like this but what does this cost me?  Nothing.  What does it get me?  From those who notice, appreciation and surprising loyalty. But most won't notice.


----------



## Kirkhill

Underway said:
			
		

> Serious answer:
> First, thanks for being polite.  I do appreciate that about this forum.  All adults here who can be friends and disagree.
> 
> Mankind does.  Its an archaic term and inaccurate. Women are not a kind of man. Peoplekind is stupid, just use the world people. Human not so much, because human is a whole word, not a combo of different words with seperate meanings.
> 
> Seaman is a label for a man.  Sea-man.  Sailor is also a whole word and label for a job.  It's why I say infantry or infanteer not infantryman.  Labels should be inclusive.
> 
> Do I correct other peoples grammar and make myself an insufferable virtue signaler?  Nope.  Speak how you like.  I've a hard enough time controling my own brain-mouth connection. I don't need the job of looking after yours.  But if you ask I'll tell you what I think (which the survey is doing).
> 
> If language is inclusive people feel included.  It also why I never start a presentation with "Good morning ladies and gentlemen" I start with "Good morning everybody"  because it includes everyone. As a leader I'm responsible to include everyone.  It's why I use staffing or crewing, not manning. Perfectly acceptable alternatives.
> 
> I never used to think like this but what does this cost me?  Nothing.  What does it get me?  From those who notice, appreciation and surprising loyalty. But most won't notice.



I get it.  Kind of like good manners and being civil, eh?   

As you say: it doesn't cost me much.


----------



## brihard

Seaman has obvious gendered issues. How about substitute “seaman” with “swimmer”? You can keep all the same acronyms, it’s aquatically themed, there’s no gender loading, and it avoids all possible real or perceived issues arising out of ‘seaman’. The navy would not longer have ‘seaman’ all over its paperwork; ships’ chains of command could very easily adapt to their ‘swimmers’ being set loose on port visits... Everyone wins.


----------



## Jarnhamar

Underway said:
			
		

> Serious answer:
> First, thanks for being polite.  I do appreciate that about this forum.  All adults here who can be friends and disagree.



You're welcome my friend.



> Mankind does.  Its an archaic term and inaccurate. Women are not a kind of man. Peoplekind is stupid, just use the world people. Human not so much, because human is a whole word, not a combo of different words with seperate meanings.



I see human and mankind as essentially the same term. Not really something I'm going to get up in arms over. It's a species.

Much like you, I do try and be more inclusive to females when using terms like infantryman or policeman. I don't care if someone doesn't and I find it obnoxious when someone always corrects other peoples language.
"It's actually fire-person, not fireman". I just think fuuuuuuck off. 



I think sailor sounds better than seamen (since seamen isn't inclusive to sailing on oceans   ) but it's ridiculous to argue getting called a seamen is a barrier that stops women (or anyone) from joining the navy. If it is, then they're the type of CAF member that spends 20 years on sick chits and is a constant pain in the ass, in my opinion.

Also I shouldn't be vilified for having my own opinion and views, such as if I want to say infantrymen or firemen. We have a problem where we want our opinions to be valued and heard but don't extend that to others.


----------



## Jarnhamar

Brihard said:
			
		

> Seaman has obvious gendered issues. How about substitute “seaman” with “swimmer”? You can keep all the same acronyms, it’s aquatically themed, there’s no gender loading, and it avoids all possible real or perceived issues arising out of ‘seaman’. The navy would not longer have ‘seaman’ all over its paperwork; ships’ chains of command could very easily adapt to their ‘swimmers’ being set loose on port visits... Everyone wins.



Swimmer is an ablest term and not respectful of people who can't swim


----------



## QV

Underway said:
			
		

> Serious answer:
> First, thanks for being polite.  I do appreciate that about this forum.  All adults here who can be friends and disagree.
> 
> Mankind does.  Its an archaic term and inaccurate. Women are not a kind of man. Peoplekind is stupid, just use the world people. Human not so much, because human is a whole word, not a combo of different words with seperate meanings.
> 
> Seaman is a label for a man.  Sea-man.  Sailor is also a whole word and label for a job.  It's why I say infantry or infanteer not infantryman.  Labels should be inclusive.
> 
> Do I correct other peoples grammar and make myself an insufferable virtue signaler?  Nope.  Speak how you like.  I've a hard enough time controling my own brain-mouth connection. I don't need the job of looking after yours.  But if you ask I'll tell you what I think (which the survey is doing).
> 
> If language is inclusive people feel included.  It also why I never start a presentation with "Good morning ladies and gentlemen" I start with "Good morning everybody"  because it includes everyone. As a leader I'm responsible to include everyone.  It's why I use staffing or crewing, not manning. Perfectly acceptable alternatives.
> 
> I never used to think like this but what does this cost me?  Nothing.  What does it get me?  From those who notice, appreciation and surprising loyalty. But most won't notice.



Man or woman.  To me Seaman could be a sea man or a sea woman, I'd take no personal offence.  But I understand why some people would like to see a change.  I also use the term "staffing" as opposed to "manning", it's more appropriate.


----------



## OldSolduer

Able Non Gender Specific Sea Person


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

Puddle Private
Cove Corporal 
Jetty Jackie
Seaweed Sergeant
Whale Warrant
Master Whale Warrant
Chief Whale Warrant

Gender neutral and reflective of the unified nature of our Armed Forces  ;D


----------



## dapaterson

And of the relative sizes of more senior members of the senior service.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

dapaterson said:
			
		

> And of the relative sizes of more senior members of the senior service.



That was unstated but I may have had that in mind  ;D


----------



## Ostrozac

This would have been quite a hassle a few years ago, but since 2015 the Naval ranks are no longer listed by name in the National Defence Act -- so changing them doesn't require an Act of Parliament anymore. They are now in QR&O, amendable by Order in Council. Still, two points to note: first, changing rank titles isn't actually within the Navy's authority, they can recommend Water Corporal or Leading Rating or Scion of Poseidon or Matelots for everyone (French and English both), but it has to go to Cabinet for final approval; second, is this kind of trivia really what the RCN wants to spend Cabinet time on?


----------



## dapaterson

RCN contends with the rest of DND/CAF for cabinet time and attention; before that, it also requires departmental attention and resources to advance, not the least of which is lawyers trained in regulatory drafting, a very rare skillset.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

The reddit thread for this is goddamn comedic gold!


----------



## dimsum

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> The reddit thread for this is goddamn comedic gold!



The reddit thread for most CAF things are comedic gold, especially the ones that bash this site.


----------



## FSTO

IAW fair dealings and all the rest.

https://torontosun.com/news/national/royal-canadian-navy-to-replace-seaman-in-rank-titles-with-gender-neutral-term/wcm/fa67ca1f-23de-425e-8dc5-2b7ab8fb4aa7

OTTAWA — The Canadian military’s sailors and the public will have a chance to weigh in as the Royal Canadian Navy moves to drop the term “seaman” when referring to its most junior sailors and replace it with something more gender-neutral.

Navies around the world have described their junior sailors as “seamen” for decades if not centuries, with the Royal Canadian Navy using “ordinary seaman,” “able seaman,” “leading seaman” and “master seaman.”

But those terms are being replaced in Canada as the navy — which is short hundreds of sailors — charts new waters to become more diverse and inclusive, according to Cdr. Deborah-Lynn Gates, who is responsible for the navy’s personnel policy.

“We appreciate tradition,” Gates told The Canadian Press. “And we’re not downplaying tradition absolutely at all. But it’s truly a matter for us to show that we are progressive and that we are listening and we are really, truly representative of Canadian society.”

*The move is also aimed at making sure the navy’s most junior members feel safe and proud of their ranks and jobs, Gates said, acknowledging the double entendre associated with the term “seaman.”*
(Are we that immature that our sailors don't feel safe when some damn fool giggles at the word "Seaman" vice "semen")


“What this will do is ensure a safe environment so there is no double entendre,” she said. “Definitely at the tactical level, we want to make sure our most junior members understand and feel safe when they are being called their rank, being called their name or being addressed.”
(And how safe are these poor souls going to feel when the supersonic missile is homing in on their ship? Has it not been beaten ito them that this career choice is full of dangers to life and limb and some of that danger is intentional?) 

Members of the navy as well as the public at large will be able to vote online on two alternatives starting Friday, with both variants substituting “sailor” in place of “seaman” in different ways.

One simply replaces “seaman” with “sailor” in the existing ranks. The other would do away with adjectives such as “able” and “leading” in favour of labels such as “sailor first class” and “sailor second class.”
*
There will also be an option to suggest alternative terms.*
(So what is it Cdr? Have the choices already been made and you and your focus group doesn't give a fiddlers what anyone else has to say? Or are you just doing this in a poor attempt to look like you're listening?"

The poll will be posted online and run until the end of July. The results will feed into senior commanders’ decision on which term to use. The suggested change will ultimately need to be approved by cabinet.

The plan to drop “seaman” has already prompted backlash on social media, with some criticizing what they see as an overabundance of political correctness and others decrying a loss of tradition. Others, however, say the move is long overdue.

Gates suggested the use of “seaman” has been a potential barrier to recruitment for the navy, which has been pushing to* address a shortage of 850 sailors. The navy has said it can manage the shortfall at the moment, but is worried about the longer-term implications.*
(REALLY? This is going to be the panacea solution to our recruiting and retention problems? Well gongs galore, patches upon patches and wifi at sea hasn't solved any of the problems. In what universe do you think this idea will work? I will not be surprised that "Heart of Oak" will be the next target)

“When they hear you’ll start off as an ordinary seaman, it’s maybe just a little thing, but it did not resonate,” Gates said. “So we know it’s not resonating with recruits and for us it’s a matter of making sure we’re being representative and that we are modern and forward-looking.”
(How about we look at establishing a recruiting process that is agile and will respond to potential recruits before they reach CRA? How about an assessment system that penalizes toxic and corrosive leadership instead of rewarding it? These are things that would resonate with our young sailors and Jr Officers much much more than trying to virtue signal with this crap.)


----------



## GR66

I have no skin in this game, but "sailor" just doesn't sound right to me.  The days of sail for warships has passed and if they're worried about the double entendre of "seaman/semen" then I cringe at how they'll react to people coming up to them and seductively saying "hey sailor...".  :

Personally if the ranks need to change I'd prefer to go with "Mariner" over sailor.  It's an accurate description, sounds professional, has no negative interpretations (that I'm aware of) and checks the bilingual box "Mariner"/"Marin".


----------



## Eaglelord17

Why not go for some old school terms that are still used informally and are actually gender neutral then? OD (ordinary deckhand) for OS, AD (able deckhand) for AS, Killick for LS, Master Killick for MS.


----------



## Navy_Pete

Mariner is an already a commercial profession with licensing requirements for ship captains. A master mariner can captain anything, but that all falls under the IMO agreements and is regulated by Transport Canada federally.

I believe we are overthinking this; if they want to change it, no worries, but sailor is pretty straightforward and probably the best bet. It doesn't cause confusion with any commercial qualifications and still sounds like a rank that is easily identified as being naval.

Suspect there is probably a laundry list of things ahead of this for for people that don't feel included, but if the BGHs are going full steam no point wasting calories fighting city hall. Seems like lipstick on a pig, but making real changes to things like parental leave, child care options or whatever else would be a real, meaningful change for inclusivity is probably outside their wheelhouse funding wise.


----------



## Jarnhamar

Eaglelord17 said:
			
		

> Why not go for some old school terms that are still used informally and are actually gender neutral then? OD (ordinary deckhand) for OS, AD (able deckhand) for AS, Killick for LS, Master Killick for MS.



You want a rank with Kill or Lick in it? Are you mad? According to the article FSTO posted we'd give the navy a mental break down.


----------



## Furniture

If the RCN decides to go with "sailor" it is at least more appropriate, and  reflective of the job than the idiotic RCAF rank of "aviator". 

No Jr NCM flies an aircraft, but almost every trade that wears a RCN uniform can be a sailor.


----------



## Halifax Tar

I like the idea of adding branch to the Ordinary or Leading ect ect... 

Ordinary Boatswain -> Master Boatswain 

Ordinary Marine Engineer -> Master Marine Engineer 

Ordinary Combat Systems Engineer -> Master Combat Systems Engineer

Ordinary Logistician -> Master Logistician 

The only one I am stuck on would be the Ops/Combat dept... 

All ranks/branches after Master would adopt the existing PO2 -> CPO1 Ranks and names.


----------



## dangerboy

So the survey is out https://forms.office.com/Pages/ResponsePage.aspx?id=lERbMocV1UC7MYtmC38QONQ3gyK7FJBCpjMTXL2PPkZUOUdQTEJJTVRTMkRaN0lZTU9GWE0zRFZYTS4u

Two questions on it: 1. Instead of 'Seaman', what would you prefer? with the options being: (a) Replace “Seaman” with Sailor (Ordinary, Able, Leading and Master Sailor). (B) Sailor Classes (Sailor 3rd Class, 2nd Class, 1st Class, and Master Sailor) (c) Other. and Question 2: What category below best represents you? (a) OS-MS (b) PO2-CPO1 (c) Junior Officer (d) Senior Officer (e) Other

/It has an intro remark that states 





> In keeping with the CAF movement toward a more inclusive environment in our workplaces, be those at sea or at home, the RCN proposes a new rank designation for our junior ranks that will be more gender-neutral than the current Ordinary Seaman, Able Seaman, Leading Seaman and Master Seaman. These rank designations are rich in history but are not reflective of the modern, progressive Service that the RCN is today.
> 
> While this opinion poll is focused on the English versions of the RCN Junior Ranks, all ranks and titles will be reviewed for inclusivity in both official languages. The RCN assesses that the current French junior rank designation “matelot” to be inclusive. We ask for your input to this important decision and thank you for being a part of our renewed commitment to be an inclusive, diverse and gender-neutral organization, all responses are anonymous. Keep your eyes peeled for updates in August.


----------



## PuckChaser

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> I like the idea of adding branch to the Ordinary or Leading ect ect...
> 
> Ordinary Boatswain -> Master Boatswain
> 
> Ordinary Marine Engineer -> Master Marine Engineer
> 
> Ordinary Combat Systems Engineer -> Master Combat Systems Engineer
> 
> Ordinary Logistician -> Master Logistician
> 
> The only one I am stuck on would be the Ops/Combat dept...
> 
> All ranks/branches after Master would adopt the existing PO2 -> CPO1 Ranks and names.



That's needlessly complex. Would you really call someone who's a MS a Master Logistician or Master Marine Engineer? Words mean things, and putting Master in front of a Trade/Specialty implies that individual is now at the peak of their trade knowledge. I'd never want a MCpl in my trade called a Master Signaller.


----------



## dapaterson

Salty Private
Salty Corporal
Extra Salty Corporal

...of course, that means no more freshwater Great Lakes cruises...


----------



## Furniture

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Salty Private
> Salty Corporal
> Extra Salty Corporal
> 
> ...of course, that means no more freshwater Great Lakes cruises...



Meh... only the least coasters do those anyway.


----------



## torg003

I think that "sailor" sounds a bit too generic, anyone who takes part in sailing a ship can be called one (whether it be on a warship, commercial ship, or even private boat).  Why wouldn't they have gone for the term used in most English language navies; Rate (or Rating).  So you would then have - Ordinary Rating (OR), Able Rating (AR) and Master Rating (MR).  Seems like a simple solution, but I guess the people in charge didn't want to be like everyone else. :


----------



## stellarpanther

sorry, just noticed the survey was already posted by someone else.


----------



## torg003

You are correct, my bad.

I don't want to derail the thread, but was thinking that if they're going to change the lower non-commissioned ranks, maybe they should make the senior NCO ranks relate better to those of the other services (army, air force).  What I mean by that is that we use the navy rank titles from before unification, with 2 grades of petty officers and 2 grades of CPOs.  As POs were equivalent to SGTs (and S/SGTs) and CPOs were equivalent to WOs, that was fine.  After unification, there is only one SGT rank and 3 WOs, so in theory there should be only one PO and 3 CPOs.
I know that nothing will happen with senior NCO ranks, but considering most NATO and almost all commonwealth navies went to CPO at the NATO OR7 rank, it seems strange that Canada hasn't followed suit (considering it would better conform to the existing post unification rank structure).
Anyway, something to think about.
Now back to talking about Sailor 1st, 2nd, and 3rd Class (or MS, AS, OS).


----------



## Walt

OK. Retired olive green army guy here. What if the CF/RCN chose these for the gender neutral rank titles:

- Shipmate = Ordinary Seaman (i.e. Bloggins (S))
- Able Shipmate = Able Seaman (i.e. Bloggins (AS))
- Leading Shipmate = Leading Seaman (i.e. Bloggins (LS))
- Master Shipmate = Master Seaman (i.e. Bloggins (MS))

Regarding the upper non commissioned officer ranks, the term "petty" is most likely not to be acceptable, perhaps even derogatory. I therefore propose the following:

- Senior Shipmate (2)= PO (2) (i.e. Bloggins (SS2))
- Senior Shipmate (1) = PO (1) (i.e. Bloggins (SS1))
- Senior Chief Shipmate (2) = CPO (2) (i.e. Bloggins (SCS2))
- Senior Chief Shipmate (1) = CPO (1) (i.e Bloggins (SCS1 or GOD!))

Food (or fodder) for thought! Cheers & take care,

(One final sentiment. I forgot "READY AYE READY")

Walt


----------



## medicineman

Walt said:
			
		

> OK. Retired olive green army guy here. What if the CF/RCN chose these for the gender neutral rank titles:
> 
> - Shipmate = Ordinary Seaman (i.e. Bloggins (S))
> - Able Shipmate = Able Seaman (i.e. Bloggins (AS))
> - Leading Shipmate = Leading Seaman (i.e. Bloggins (LS))
> - Master Shipmate = Master Seaman (i.e. Bloggins (MS))
> 
> Regarding the upper non commissioned officer ranks, the term "petty" is most likely not to be acceptable, perhaps even derogatory. I therefore propose the following:
> 
> - SeniorSenile Shipmate (2)= PO (2) (i.e. Bloggins (SS2))
> - Senior Senile Shipmate (1) = PO (1) (i.e. Bloggins (SS1))
> - Senior Chief Very Senile Shipmate (2) = CPO (2) (i.e. Bloggins (SCS2))
> - Senior Chief Very Senile Shipmate (1) = CPO (1) (i.e Bloggins (SCS1 or GOD!))
> 
> Food (or fodder) for thought! Cheers & take care,



Fixed that for you.

MM


----------



## SupersonicMax

Walt said:
			
		

> OK. Retired olive green army guy here. What if the CF/RCN chose these for the gender neutral rank titles:
> 
> - Shipmate = Ordinary Seaman (i.e. Bloggins (S))
> - Able Shipmate = Able Seaman (i.e. Bloggins (AS))
> - Leading Shipmate = Leading Seaman (i.e. Bloggins (LS))
> - Master Shipmate = Master Seaman (i.e. Bloggins (MS))
> 
> Regarding the upper non commissioned officer ranks, the term "petty" is most likely not to be acceptable, perhaps even derogatory. I therefore propose the following:
> 
> - Senior Shipmate (2)= PO (2) (i.e. Bloggins (SS2))
> - Senior Shipmate (1) = PO (1) (i.e. Bloggins (SS1))
> - Senior Chief Shipmate (2) = CPO (2) (i.e. Bloggins (SCS2))
> - Senior Chief Shipmate (1) = CPO (1) (i.e Bloggins (SCS1 or GOD!))
> 
> Food (or fodder) for thought! Cheers & take care,
> 
> (One final sentiment. I forgot "READY AYE READY")
> 
> Walt



Is it Boatmate for subs??


----------



## medicineman

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> Is it Boatmate for subs??



More likely Bunkmate, since there's some hot bunking IIRC...

MM


----------



## Walt

Quote from: Walt on Today at 01:18:16
OK. Retired olive green army guy here. What if the CF/RCN chose these for the gender neutral rank titles:

- Shipmate = Ordinary Seaman (i.e. Bloggins (S))
- Able Shipmate = Able Seaman (i.e. Bloggins (AS))
- Leading Shipmate = Leading Seaman (i.e. Bloggins (LS))
- Master Shipmate = Master Seaman (i.e. Bloggins (MS))

Regarding the upper non commissioned officer ranks, the term "petty" is most likely not to be acceptable, perhaps even derogatory. I therefore propose the following:

- SeniorSenile Shipmate (2)= PO (2) (i.e. Bloggins (SS2))
- Senior Senile Shipmate (1) = PO (1) (i.e. Bloggins (SS1))
- Senior Chief Very Senile Shipmate (2) = CPO (2) (i.e. Bloggins (SCS2))
- Senior Chief Very Senile Shipmate (1) = CPO (1) (i.e Bloggins (SCS1 or GOD!))

Food (or fodder) for thought! Cheers & take care,

Fixed that for you.

MM

To MM:

 :rofl:

Not fair MM. I read your response in the midst of a generous mouth full of my beer. There will be some "cleaning up" required before my Wife wakes up in the morning. Fortunately, my keyboard survived the horror.

To SSMax:

Oh Jeeeeze Sir. Please don't start another fiasco. Let's just say/pretend that if it weighs/displaces more than 15 tons, it's painted grey/black, intentionally built/engineered to operate in fresh/salt water, is crewed by personnel of various classifications who wear a Christmas trees worth of badges & insignia on their official clothing/uniform.............it is technically a ship.


----------



## medicineman

Walt said:
			
		

> Quote from: Walt on Today at 01:18:16
> OK. Retired olive green army guy here. What if the CF/RCN chose these for the gender neutral rank titles:
> 
> - Shipmate = Ordinary Seaman (i.e. Bloggins (S))
> - Able Shipmate = Able Seaman (i.e. Bloggins (AS))
> - Leading Shipmate = Leading Seaman (i.e. Bloggins (LS))
> - Master Shipmate = Master Seaman (i.e. Bloggins (MS))
> 
> Regarding the upper non commissioned officer ranks, the term "petty" is most likely not to be acceptable, perhaps even derogatory. I therefore propose the following:
> 
> - SeniorSenile Shipmate (2)= PO (2) (i.e. Bloggins (SS2))
> - Senior Senile Shipmate (1) = PO (1) (i.e. Bloggins (SS1))
> - Senior Chief Very Senile Shipmate (2) = CPO (2) (i.e. Bloggins (SCS2))
> - Senior Chief Very Senile Shipmate (1) = CPO (1) (i.e Bloggins (SCS1 or GOD!))
> 
> Food (or fodder) for thought! Cheers & take care,
> 
> Fixed that for you.
> 
> MM
> 
> To MM:
> 
> :rofl:
> 
> Not fair MM. I read your response in the midst of a generous mouth full of my beer. There will be some "cleaning up" required before my Wife wakes up in the morning. Fortunately, my keyboard survived the horror.



Truth be told, I had a belly full of beer when I wrote it :cheers:

MM


----------



## PuckChaser

Can't have mate in the name. That's sexualized language that could be a micro agression to some.


----------



## ModlrMike

All joking aside, I don't see what the big deal is. We already use the word Matelot in the french rank titles, which translates to Sailor in english. Let's just make the change and get on with things.


----------



## OldSolduer

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> I like the idea of adding branch to the Ordinary or Leading ect ect...
> 
> Ordinary Boatswain -> Master Boatswain
> 
> Ordinary Marine Engineer -> Master Marine Engineer
> 
> Ordinary Combat Systems Engineer -> Master Combat Systems Engineer
> 
> Ordinary Logistician -> Master Logistician
> 
> The only one I am stuck on would be the Ops/Combat dept...
> 
> All ranks/branches after Master would adopt the existing PO2 -> CPO1 Ranks and names.



But you’re offending people by calling them “ordinary” !


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> All joking aside, I don't see what the big deal is. We already use the word Matelot in the french rank titles, which translates to Sailor in english. Let's just make the change and get on with things.



Unfortunately,it does not change the problem.

Dixit the Colins Robert French English - English French dictionary:

"*matelot*: (a) (_gén_: _marin_) sailor, seaman ~ *de premiere/deuxieme/troisieme classe* leading/able/ordinary seaman."

So we are back to square one.

BTW, if we adopt the first/second/third class designation to follow the French pattern, should the Subbies then become ensigns first and second class?


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Hamish Seggie said:
			
		

> But you’re offending people by calling them “ordinary” !



Hamish, I can tell you that there are many PO's and above that consider it offensive for some ratings to be branded "able".  ;D


----------



## MarkOttawa

Conclusion of a post at _Thin Pinstriped Line_ on RN's planning to redo ranks:



> "Its an Able Seamans World' - Why the RN is right to change its language.
> ...
> Why not make small linguistic changes that help show its about attracting 100% of the workforce to feel welcomed and valued, and why not change in such a way that means everyone feels they have a fair chance of a good career – not be forced to make decisions that their male counterparts don’t have to make about what their priorities are?
> 
> There will be those who think this is all about wokeness – its not – its about listening to our people and reflecting their views. We wouldn’t tolerate job titles that were racially abusive, we wouldn’t tolerate a career system that penalised people because of the colour of their skin, so why do we tolerate it for gender?
> 
> The modern world is changing rapidly, gender has quickly moved from being a fairly binary thing to something more complex and evolving and where naval personnel can and do identify in a variety of ways. It is important that the Royal Navy recognises that to the next generation of recruits, this is something that matters in the same way as internet access, being treated with respect and being listened to, and if they feel that they won’t get that, then they will probably look elsewhere.
> 
> If you want to help make a difference then little changes do help – think about using non gender words like headcount or personnel rather than manpower. Don’t be afraid to appropriately challenge inappropriate ‘banter’ if you hear it, and do try to actively support groups like the Naval Women’s Network, who are doing great work to help ensure that women are genuinely treated as equals in the modern Royal Navy.
> 
> If you think the next generation are snowflakes hellbent on ruining the military, then please reflect on the images emerging from the fire on the USS Bonhomme Richard this week. The firefighters willingly going into this hellish inferno were young, talented and often female – every bit the fighting sailor that their predecessors were.
> https://thinpinstripedline.blogspot.com/2020/07/its-able-seamans-world-why-rn-is-right.html



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## medicineman

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Hamish, I can tell you that there are many PO's and above that consider it offensive for some ratings to be branded "able".  ;D



And we all know PO's/CPO's that fit broadly into the definition of "Petty" as well...yeah I know it's an Anglicized "Petit", but the ones that take after the English word.  In fact, used to have to butt heads with many of them in Esquimalt on a daily, if not hourly, basis.

MM


----------



## Walt

I would appreciate the opinion of female forum members regarding this issue. Perhaps *Army Vern* & *Beyond the Now* are willing to respond. With respect,

Walt


----------



## BeyondTheNow

Walt said:
			
		

> I would appreciate the opinion of female forum members regarding this issue. Perhaps *Army Vern* & *Beyond the Now* are willing to respond. With respect,
> 
> Walt



I’d thought about adding a comment earlier, but ended up reading other things. I’m not Navy and I’ve never been posted in a Navy environment. (I have several friends/acquintances who are, but that’s about it as far as exposure goes.) I think there are certain thoughts/feelings strictly surrounding Navy tradition, culture and thinking that I really don’t understand, so I rarely feel I can contribute.

That being said, I’m personally not offended or in any way put-off by the title of Seaman. None of my Navy friends, males and females, have ever had an issue either that I’m aware of. But there are obviously those who don’t feel the same—I just don’t personally know any. So if it’s a change that the Navy feels needs to be made it’ll just be a matter of getting used to it. For new recruits coming in after the change has been implemented, it won’t be a big deal. But for any already in, it’s going to take some adjustment. Heck, the simple Pte to Avr still isn’t being properly recorded and used in all instances after More than 5yrs and we already know how ‘clerk’ has been working out...


----------



## Walt

BTN,

Thank you for the courtesy of your response.

Walt


----------



## orca73

Walt said:
			
		

> I would appreciate the opinion of female forum members regarding this issue. Perhaps *Army Vern* & *Beyond the Now* are willing to respond. With respect,
> 
> Walt



Being a female in the Navy for 29+ years, I think things are going way to far on the crazy. The Navy has fought for a while to return to the traditional ranks (executive curls) and was planning to return to the old junior ranks badges. Next rank that will have to be changed is the Army rank of Private because someone will take offense as it could be construed as a sexual term. Society is going way to far into the "I'm offend, everything must change because I has said so"/s.  It is becoming so bad that our species is becoming offended at everything, everyone for simply breathing. Even if there was one person alive - they would be offended because they are alone.  
   ullhair:


----------



## Walt

Thank you Orca73 for taking the time to post. All the best,

Walt


----------



## dimsum

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> Conclusion of a post at _Thin Pinstriped Line_ on RN's planning to redo ranks:
> 
> Mark
> Ottawa



Well said.  Traditions change.


----------



## Halifax Tar

Dimsum said:
			
		

> Well said.  Traditions change.



Perhaps its not that traditions change, because, well that would mean losing the tradition part of the word tradition no ?  But perhaps they die out.  Or are not relevant any further.


----------



## torg003

Strange, for some reason I thought the RN had already gotten rid of the "seaman" rank title and only used Able Rate and Leading Rate.  I guess that was wrong (according to the article).


----------



## Lumber

My recommendations, in order from. OS to MS:
Sailor
Salt
Killick
Master (or Senior) Killick


----------



## Navy_Pete

torg003 said:
			
		

> Strange, for some reason I thought the RN had already gotten rid of the "seaman" rank title and only used Able Rate and Leading Rate.  I guess that was wrong (according to the article).



They got used conversationally when I was over there for training about 10 years ago, but wasn't official. I don't know if Killick was ever official, but that was still used regularly (but usually when talking about the rank, not when talking to a specific person).


----------



## Halifax Tar

Navy_Pete said:
			
		

> They got used conversationally when I was over there for training about 10 years ago, but wasn't official. I don't know if Killick was ever official, but that was still used regularly (but usually when talking about the rank, not when talking to a specific person).



I have heard the term permeating in the RCN recently as well.  For instance on FRE right now, the JRs mess is often refered too as the Jr rates mess.  I dont know how this happened or where its come from, but it seems to have taken some hold.


----------



## Stoker

Interestingly enough of the over 2000 survey's done so far, only 14% want the status quo.


----------



## BeyondTheNow

Chief Engineer said:
			
		

> Interestingly enough of the over 2000 survey's done so far, only 14% want the status quo.



That might be a matter of interpretation of the question and how to answer though. 

“1.Instead of 'Seaman', what would you prefer?“

The wording is intimating that leaving things ‘as is’ simply isn’t an option. “Instead of Seaman...” being the focal point.


----------



## Stoker

BeyondTheNow said:
			
		

> That might be a matter of interpretation of the question and how to answer though.
> 
> “1.Instead of 'Seaman', what would you prefer?“
> 
> The wording is intimating that leaving things ‘as is’ simply isn’t an option. “Instead of Seaman...” being the focal point.



Actually it is, it gives you the option to leave comments. The RCN Chief has also said on social media that all options is on the table. The majority of I people I know have no problem with the change or wants something other that what is listed.


----------



## BeyondTheNow

Chief Engineer said:
			
		

> Actually it is, it gives you the option to leave comments. The RCN Chief has also said on social media that all options is on the table. The majority of I people I know have no problem with the change or wants something other that what is listed.



As Dangerboy posted (reply 103) yes, there’s an “other” field under question #1, and an “other” field under rank identifier, but I see nowhere indicating open feedback/comment is welcomed on the link. 

In any case, it’s a plausible argument that it’s possible some who completed the simple 2 questions weren’t altogether aware that feedback related to anything else _other than_ the options listed was a possibility. I’m not saying the numbers would’ve been drastically different, but I am reasonably suggesting that pers stuck to what was there.


----------



## Furniture

BeyondTheNow said:
			
		

> That might be a matter of interpretation of the question and how to answer though.
> 
> %u201C1.Instead of 'Seaman', what would you prefer?%u201C
> 
> The wording is intimating that leaving things %u2018as is%u2019 simply isn%u2019t an option. %u201CInstead of Seaman...%u201D being the focal point.



I agree. To me it almost seemed geared very much like the referendum to decide the name of the municipality that became Thunder Bay. 

A quick reference for those not in the know. https://www.torontomike.com/2015/06/the_naming_of_thunder_bay.html#:~:text=One%20story%20was%20about%20the%20naming%20of%20Thunder,seemed%20as%20if%20%22Lakehead%22%20would%20carry%20the%20day.

Divide the opposition to your chosen name by offering alternatives that are either unpalatable or so similar as to split the vote. How many "other" options are worded closely enough one another to qualify as a single voting option vice those worded sufficiently different to count as individual options?

To be clear, I voted "sailor" as I expect change is coming one way or another, so it's best to choose the "lesser of two weevils" as Lucky Jack would say.


----------



## Old Sweat

No guts to try boat person.


----------



## Jarnhamar

Chief Engineer said:
			
		

> Actually it is, it gives you the option to leave comments. The RCN Chief has also said on social media that all options is on the table.



"All options on the table". Sure, they may be on the table but does anyone believe the "winner" hasn't already been picked?


----------



## Stoker

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> "All options on the table". Sure, they may be on the table but does anyone believe the "winner" hasn't already been picked?



I know the guy so I don't think he would lie, that being said how would you really know.


----------



## Jarnhamar

Chief Engineer said:
			
		

> I know the guy so I don't think he would lie, that being said how would you really know.



Not to imply he was lying himself, just that I can't see the navy not having already made up their mind for the most part.


----------



## Stoker

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Not to imply he was lying himself, just that I can't see the navy not having already made up their mind for the most part.



I agree


----------



## NavalMoose

How about using the trade a sailor is in....Leading Marine Engineer, Master Bosun, Able Nav Comm etc?


----------



## NavalMoose

> Strange, for some reason I thought the RN had already gotten rid of the "seaman" rank title and only used Able Rate and Leading Rate.  I guess that was wrong (according to the article).



The RN only ever used "seaman" for members of that branch ie Bosuns.  All other ratings went by their branch/trade for example I was an LMEM(L) all those years ago


----------



## stoker dave

Note the word 'engineer' is limited in use to those who have an engineering license to practice engineering.  In Ontario, see here:

https://www.peo.on.ca/knowledge-centre/frequently-asked-questions/licence-holders-faq

_If a person uses the title “professional engineer”, or “engineer”, or any other occupational title that might lead to the belief that the person is qualified to practice professional engineering, or uses a seal that leads to the belief that the person is an engineer, PEO will prosecute the matter through provincial court. Fines for people found guilty can range from $10,000 for a first offence, to $50,000 for repeat offences._

So use caution in identifying individuals as 'engineers' when they are not authorized to be identified as such.


----------



## kev994

Better rename the Flight Engineers.


----------



## Eaglelord17

kev994 said:
			
		

> Better rename the Flight Engineers.



Or Marine Engineers, Combat Engineers, etc.


----------



## Sub_Guy

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> I have heard the term permeating in the RCN recently as well.  For instance on FRE right now, the JRs mess is often refered too as the Jr rates mess.  I dont know how this happened or where its come from, but it seems to have taken some hold.



That’s what we called the MS and below mess on the Victoria.  Junior rates mess, I just figured it was something that came from the RN.


----------



## Remius

The issue isn’t job titles, the issue is professional designations. 

Like post nominals.  PEng and such.  

Our signature blocks for one contain rank, name, post nominals and unit and job position in said unit for the most part.


----------



## chrisf

stoker dave said:
			
		

> Note the word 'engineer' is limited in use to those who have an engineering license to practice engineering.  In Ontario, see here:
> 
> https://www.peo.on.ca/knowledge-centre/frequently-asked-questions/licence-holders-faq
> 
> _If a person uses the title “professional engineer”, or “engineer”, or any other occupational title that might lead to the belief that the person is qualified to practice professional engineering, or uses a seal that leads to the belief that the person is an engineer, PEO will prosecute the matter through provincial court. Fines for people found guilty can range from $10,000 for a first offence, to $50,000 for repeat offences._
> 
> So use caution in identifying individuals as 'engineers' when they are not authorized to be identified as such.



You should let Transport Canada know, so they can stop issuing tickets to Marine Engineers and Aircraft engineers.


----------



## NavalMoose

Leading Marine Technician, Master Weapons Technician, Able Sonar Operator etc


----------



## stellarpanther

NavalMoose said:
			
		

> Leading Marine Technician, Master Weapons Technician, Able Sonar Operator etc



How will people know what trade they are if the only thing they have on their should is rank?


----------



## dimsum

stellarpanther said:
			
		

> How will people know what trade they are if the only thing they have on their should is rank?



Follow our allies and have a trade identifier on the uniform?


----------



## NavalMoose

> How will people know what trade they are if the only thing they have on their should is rank?



Trade badge to go amongst all the naval "bling"


----------



## Halifax Tar

NavalMoose said:
			
		

> Leading Marine Technician, Master Weapons Technician, Able Sonar Operator etc



I said similar on page 4 



			
				Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> I like the idea of adding branch to the Ordinary or Leading ect ect...
> 
> Ordinary Boatswain -> Master Boatswain
> 
> Ordinary Marine Engineer -> Master Marine Engineer
> 
> Ordinary Combat Systems Engineer -> Master Combat Systems Engineer
> 
> Ordinary Logistician -> Master Logistician
> 
> The only one I am stuck on would be the Ops/Combat dept...
> 
> All ranks/branches after Master would adopt the existing PO2 -> CPO1 Ranks and names.



And have long thought our trade badges should be on our work dress uniforms.


----------



## BeyondTheNow

IMO, rank+trade badge system just gives those certain types of individuals another chance to get their kicks by jacking up someone either in a different element or newer member who doesn’t have all the trade badges identified/memorized.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

Is there an option for 'I don't give a f@$%, as long as you pay me?"


----------



## Navy_Pete

BeyondTheNow said:
			
		

> IMO, rank+trade badge system just gives those certain types of individuals another chance to get their kicks by jacking up someone either in a different element or newer member who doesn’t have all the trade badges identified/memorized.



There would be a lot of them too; there are a number of different 'dib' trades (NESOP, sonar op, etc), plus nav comms, WEng techs, bosuns, cooks, sup techs, clerks, Martechs (and probably a few more I'm forgetting about). Most trades are still called by a nickname or a legacy trade name anyway, so think it would get confusing to try and have a distinct rank name for each trade, without actually adding anything.

I kind of like the 'Seafarer' suggestion the RN is looking at; it rolls off the tongue a bit easier, and doesn't sound grammatically off like 'sailor' does.

I prefer things like parts on the shelves, available repair resources, and OPSCHEDS that allow you to fix things and spread maintenance time around the fleet in a logical way, but they aren't mutually exclusive concepts. However it does still seem like fiddling while Rome is burning when some of those things could be directly addressed by the leadership (particularly the available maintenance time and feast/famine loading created by not staggering ship SWP and sailing schedules). The frigates are 30 years old, but are being driven like rentals, as if a new combat system means that the hull doesn't have 25-30 years of wear with some original equipment actually bought in the mid 80s.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

Navy_Pete said:
			
		

> There would be a lot of them too; there are a number of different 'dib' trades (NESOP, sonar op, etc), plus nav comms, WEng techs, bosuns, cooks, sup techs, clerks, Martechs (and probably a few more I'm forgetting about). Most trades are still called by a nickname or a legacy trade name anyway, so think it would get confusing to try and have a distinct rank name for each trade, without actually adding anything.
> 
> I kind of like the 'Seafarer' suggestion the RN is looking at; it rolls off the tongue a bit easier, and doesn't sound grammatically off like 'sailor' does.
> 
> I prefer things like parts on the shelves, available repair resources, and OPSCHEDS that allow you to fix things and spread maintenance time around the fleet in a logical way, but they aren't mutually exclusive concepts. However it does still seem like fiddling while Rome is burning when some of those things could be directly addressed by the leadership (particularly the available maintenance time and feast/famine loading created by not staggering ship SWP and sailing schedules). The frigates are 30 years old, but are being driven like rentals, as if a new combat system means that the hull doesn't have 25-30 years of wear with some original equipment actually bought in the mid 80s.



Yes, I should have added that to my post above, "and give me the tools to do the job you pay me for."


----------



## Halifax Tar

BeyondTheNow said:
			
		

> IMO, rank+trade badge system just gives those certain types of individuals another chance to get their kicks by jacking up someone either in a different element or newer member who doesn’t have all the trade badges identified/memorized.



I dont think this is really a worry.  Not really something that goes on in the RCN WRT trades.  Now SSI's, yup for some people that equals penis length + girth. 



			
				Navy_Pete said:
			
		

> There would be a lot of them too; there are a number of different 'dib' trades (NESOP, sonar op, etc), plus nav comms, WEng techs, bosuns, cooks, sup techs, clerks, Martechs (and probably a few more I'm forgetting about). Most trades are still called by a nickname or a legacy trade name anyway, so think it would get confusing to try and have a distinct rank name for each trade, without actually adding anything.



Thats why I would suggest branches.  As in my post.  Ordinary, Able, Leading, Master Seafarer just doesnt sound right, to me



			
				Navy_Pete said:
			
		

> I kind of like the 'Seafarer' suggestion the RN is looking at; it rolls off the tongue a bit easier, and doesn't sound grammatically off like 'sailor' does.
> 
> I prefer things like parts on the shelves, available repair resources, and OPSCHEDS that allow you to fix things and spread maintenance time around the fleet in a logical way, but they aren't mutually exclusive concepts. However it does still seem like fiddling while Rome is burning when some of those things could be directly addressed by the leadership (particularly the available maintenance time and feast/famine loading created by not staggering ship SWP and sailing schedules). The frigates are 30 years old, but are being driven like rentals, as if a new combat system means that the hull doesn't have 25-30 years of wear with some original equipment actually bought in the mid 80s.



I think we would all like what you mention, unfortunatly this is what is on our plate right now.


----------



## BeyondTheNow

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> I dont think this is really a worry.  Not really something that goes on in the RCN WRT trades.  Now SSI's, yup for some people that equals penis length + girth.



That’s good. I have images of some poor soul saying, “Yes, Master-uhhh...” <blank look>

(I may or may not be referring to the possibility of that being myself in a similar circumstance... )


----------



## Underway

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> I dont think this is really a worry.  Not really something that goes on in the RCN WRT trades.  Now SSI's, yup for some people that equals penis length + girth.
> 
> Unless you are a steward.  The abuse those folks suffer from their own messes...


----------



## Halifax Tar

Underway said:
			
		

> Halifax Tar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I dont think this is really a worry.  Not really something that goes on in the RCN WRT trades.  Now SSI's, yup for some people that equals penis length + girth.
> 
> Unless you are a steward.  The abuse those folks suffer from their own messes...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have been in the lower decks for 20 years.  Sailed quite a few ships, and have shared a deptartment with them my whole career.  I have never seen a Steward abused in the JRs or C&POs, now if you want talk about what they put up with in the wardroom, thats a whole other ball of wax.
Click to expand...


----------



## dimsum

From the Deputy CRCN:



> Deputy Commander of the Royal Canadian Navy here. I have been made aware of the discourse occurring on on-line forums since we adopted our rank-change initiative, and I apologize for not chiming in earlier but frankly I needed a minute to come to terms with some of the comments that have been posted. First off, I would like to say that in my 33 years of service, I have had the privilege to work alongside the most incredible cohort of talented and professional sailors, who represent the diverse backgrounds that our great country is made of. I am proud to serve alongside the many different women, men, trans and non-binary members who bravely don the RCN uniform in order to serve our country and defend the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
> 
> This is why I strongly support our Rank Change Initiative, as I believe it is long overdue that ALL Royal Canadian Navy processes and policies, including our Ranks, reflect, honour and recognize the service and sacrifice made by ALL of our SAILORS. I would like to thank those of you who have provided constructive feedback and respectful dialogue on this issue, as these kinds of consultations are critical to designing an RCN that is fit for the sailors of the future.
> 
> To those of you who have made hateful, misogynistic and racist comments, I am shocked that you think that your comments would be acceptable, and that you are not able to recognize that those you are disparaging are the very people dedicating their lives to afford you the freedom to comment. These comments serve as a reminder of our need to call out cowardly attacks such as these, and remind us also that we should take every opportunity to show support for minority and marginalized groups.
> 
> To those of you currently serving with these beliefs, I would like to emphatically state you have no place in our Navy. If you cannot live by or support the values of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, then you cannot defend them. Should any serving Royal Canadian Navy Sailors have concerns or questions about this initiative and why this is considered a priority for our organization (and would like to engage in constructive discussion on the topic), please contact me directly.
> 
> Yours Aye,
> Rear-Admiral Chris Sutherland



https://www.facebook.com/RoyalCanadianNavy/photos/a.396471970714544/1204994976528902/


----------



## Jarnhamar

> Should any serving Royal Canadian Navy Sailors have concerns or questions about this initiative and why this is considered a priority for our organization (and would like to engage in constructive discussion on the topic), please contact me directly.



Halifax Tar you should email him and ask him something   ;D


----------



## Lumber

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> I have been in the lower decks for 20 years.  Sailed quite a few ships, and have shared a deptartment with them my whole career.  I have never seen a Steward abused in the JRs or C&POs, now if you want talk about what they put up with in the wardroom, thats a whole other ball of wax.



I love and I hate stewards.


----------



## stellarpanther

Since things are probably still early on in this plan to change the name of some navy ranks, I'm curious how long something like this will take to implement.  If they simply change the name to Leading Sailor for example, nothing on their current uniform needs to change.  No new badges etc.  Is this something that should happen quickly?


----------



## dapaterson

Short answer: it's harder than it looks.

Longer answer: QR&Os amendments take a considerable length of time, requiring more lawyers than you'd think and supporting documentation.  After legal review and certification, it's about a six month process.  Getting to the top of the list in priority for the specialized legal support can take considerably longer.


----------



## NAVCEN

Lumber said:
			
		

> I love and I hate stewards.



Some in the Wardroom love some stewards more than others. :tsktsk:


Re: DRCN statement.
Some of the comments regarding the change have been pretty vile. But others questioned the need for the change and the way it was being presented. RCN leadership is going to have some work cut out for them to calm the waters. There are now some indications that they are looking at Chief Petty Officer due to the word Chief (I also envision Petty becoming a target as well) being a possible issue with first nations.


----------



## stellarpanther

I'm not being sarcastic, what about the word "Master", that could be looked down on as well based on history.


----------



## OldSolduer

Lumber said:
			
		

> I love and I hate stewards.



Does that trade still exist?


----------



## NAVCEN

Hamish Seggie said:
			
		

> Does that trade still exist?



It's a Navy Hard Sea Trade.

Their other duties include casualty clearers, advanced First Aid, and NPF managers.
(although I haven't been to sea in a while so those jobs may have changed somewhat)


----------



## Throwaway987

While we’re at it, do we also need to change the name of General Vance’s appointment? Need to lead by example amirite?


----------



## Ostrozac

Throwaway987 said:
			
		

> While we’re at it, do we also need to change the name of General Vance’s appointment? Need to lead by example amirite?



Chief of the Defence Staff is kind of a strange title, isn't it? He isn't actually a Chief of Staff -- he's a commander. The title implies more like a chairman of a committee than what it actually is in practice -- Commander of the Canadian Forces. 

The title of the CDS is written into the National Defence Act, however, so it wouldn't be an easy designation to change. Also, tradition and commonality with our allies who use the same or similar terminology.


----------



## Halifax Tar

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Halifax Tar you should email him and ask him something   ;D



Don’t really have anything to ask.  And he is right.  The vitriol posted by some people WRT this was disgusting.  I would be surprised if some investigating wasn’t being done to weed out the serving members who posted the stuff.  But this is the world we live in now, everyone has a voice.  Our organization needs to come to terms with that.  Having said that, I have posted what I think are good alternatives, but I will never be a Jr rate again so really for me its inconsequential.



> Re: DRCN statement.
> Some of the comments regarding the change have been pretty vile. But others questioned the need for the change and the way it was being presented. RCN leadership is going to have some work cut out for them to calm the waters. There are now some indications that they are looking at Chief Petty Officer due to the word Chief (I also envision Petty becoming a target as well) being a possible issue with first nations.



Really ?  This makes me a little sad.  Chief is a long time Naval rank nomenclature.  I would hate to see it be discarded.  Especially as the word Chief is not a term used only by NA First Nations as it has been used to describe leadership in many cultures including Caucasian since Jesus was a cowboy.  This is an over reach IMHO.  



			
				Hamish Seggie said:
			
		

> Does that trade still exist?



It does, although their existance has been on very shakey ground as of late, as the RCN looks at its trades and structures.


----------



## Jarnhamar

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> Don’t really have anything to ask.  And he is right.  The vitriol posted by some people WRT this was disgusting.  I would be surprised if some investigating wasn’t being done to weed out the serving members who posted the stuff.  But this is the world we live in now, everyone has a voice.  Our organization needs to come to terms with that.  Having said that, I have posted what I think are good alternatives, but I will never be a Jr rate again so really for me its inconsequential.



I'd ask him which his preferred rank name is and why. Just seems like an opportunity missed to take him up on an offer to chat :nod:

I agree it's the world we're living in. I'm of the opinion the navy rank change decision makers already picked the name they want. That's fine. 
Would it have been better to just make the name change, explain why and carry on? 
Does making it a big discussion and putting it all over the news to the tune of 'we're progressive!' give all those hateful people a platform to revel in their hate? 

No disrespect to people in positions of authority but those emails and speeches about not tolerating bad behavior and the military being no place for you etc. etc. really come across as canned statements. IMO the Canadian Forces party flight with Tiger Williams is an example of how serious we as an institution take those canned speeches. 
VCDS and senior CWO apparently letting troops deal with the problem, one of the flight crew hasn't flown since thanks to all of it. 

We can hunt down members who make asshole comments on Facebook sure, but I can't help but feel like there's more to it.  Like chasing after rhibs when there's submarines in the water maybe? Getting a bit off topic sorry.


----------



## Adam

Its too late for real discussion, and not worth the repercussions. Time to just let it play out.  

Whoever is on the GBA+ panel selecting new ranks, keep it simple.  I've been in for 21 yrs and deployed twice with Quebec, and I just learned what an Edif was yesterday.


----------



## Edward Campbell

Ostrozac said:
			
		

> Chief of the Defence Staff is kind of a strange title, isn't it? He isn't actually a Chief of Staff -- he's a commander. The title implies more like a chairman of a committee than what it actually is in practice -- Commander of the Canadian Forces.
> 
> The title of the CDS is written into the National Defence Act, however, so it wouldn't be an easy designation to change. Also, tradition and commonality with our allies who use the same or similar terminology.




The Commander-in-Chief of the Canadian Armed Forces is the Governor-General ~ see the _Letters Patent_ (King George VI, 1947).

In the 1930s, '40s, '50s, and '60s the Chiefs of the Naval, General and Air Staffs were just that: chiefs of staff. Command of formations, stations, ships and units was vested in the designated commanders of fleets and commands.

During WWII we had a four star Army commander in Europe (Crearer) and a three star CGS (Chief of the General Staff) (Stuart and Murchie) in Ottawa. Canada had a two star Allied *Commander-in-Chief* (Murray) in Halifax who did not answer to ANY Canadian for anything (except his pay, I suppose) but who was, eventually, hung out to dry (by some of the most reprehensible people (civil and military) every to serve in Canada) for something that wasn't even remotely his responsibility.

The waters got a bit muddied in the late 1960s when Minister Hellyer upset too many applecarts with too little thought. There had already been a four star Chairman of the Chiefs of Staff Committee (Foulkes) but he was, still, clearly, a staff officer with no command responsibuility. Commander e.g. Pacific Fleet, Commander e.g. Western Command and Commander e.g. Air Defence Command still commanded fleets, bases, stations, units and so on. But when we went to functional commands ~ MARCOM, Mobile Command, etc ~ there seemed to be some (totally unnecessary in my not at all humble opinion) confusion. Suddenly someone wondered who the next 'superior' commander was. Absent a big war it was, still, the GG, acting, always, through her/his Chief of (the Defence) Staff.

Some Europeans 'solved' the (always more apparent than real) CDS vs Commander thing by renaming the Chief of the Defence Staff to, simply, Chief of Defence ~ Denmark, for example.  Australia, as I recall ~ can someone help, please? ~ fiddled with CDS/Commander ADF or something.

The CDS is properly named. He does performed some 'superior' _*command*_ duties on behalf of the C-in-C and he acts _de facto_ as the commander of the CF ... but always and only on behalf of the Commander in Chief.


----------



## dimsum

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Australia, as I recall ~ can someone help, please? ~ fiddled with CDS/Commander ADF or something.



The ADF has a Chief of Defence Force (CDF) and three service Chiefs, equivalent to CRCAF, CCA, and CRCN:

Chief of Air Force (CAF)
Chief of Army (CA)
Chief of Navy (CN)

Their senior non-commissioned members in each service are:

Warrant Officer of the Air Force (WOFF-AF)
RSM of the Army (RSM-A)
Warrant Officer of the Navy (WO-N)


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Furniture said:
			
		

> If the RCN decides to go with "sailor" it is at least more appropriate, and  reflective of the job than the idiotic RCAF rank of "aviator".
> 
> No Jr NCM flies an aircraft, but almost every trade that wears a RCN uniform can be a sailor.



There are Avr AES Ops, they crew RCAF aircraft though... .  No such thing as Avr's in the other NCM aircrew trades though (Flt Engr and SAR Tech).  Guess there are a few lucky enough that their rank actually is accurate to their job.


----------



## midget-boyd91

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> There are Avr AES Ops, they crew RCAF aircraft though... .  No such thing as Avr's in the other NCM aircrew trades though (Flt Engr and SAR Tech).  Guess there are a few lucky enough that their rank actually is accurate to their job.



Pffttt.  AES Ops are naval aircrew wearing Air Force drag anyways.. 
*ducks for cover *


----------



## dimsum

uncle-midget-Oddball said:
			
		

> Pffttt.  AES Ops are naval aircrew wearing Air Force drag anyways..
> *ducks for cover *



Nuh-uh, since they have them in the new FWSAR aircraft now  :nod:


----------



## Eye In The Sky

uncle-midget-Oddball said:
			
		

> Pffttt.  AES Ops are naval aircrew wearing Air Force drag anyways..
> *ducks for cover *



 :rofl:


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Dimsum said:
			
		

> Nuh-uh, since they have them in the new FWSAR aircraft now  :nod:



And some folks suffering on OUTCAN RPA taskings.... :'(  poor folks.


----------



## McG

stoker dave said:
			
		

> Note the word 'engineer' is limited in use to those who have an engineering license to practice engineering.  In Ontario, see here:
> 
> https://www.peo.on.ca/knowledge-centre/frequently-asked-questions/licence-holders-faq
> 
> _If a person uses the title “professional engineer”, or “engineer”, or any other occupational title that might lead to the belief that the person is qualified to practice professional engineering, or uses a seal that leads to the belief that the person is an engineer, PEO will prosecute the matter through provincial court. Fines for people found guilty can range from $10,000 for a first offence, to $50,000 for repeat offences._
> 
> So use caution in identifying individuals as 'engineers' when they are not authorized to be identified as such.


There are exceptions that the PEO recognizes including train operators, stationary engineers, and the federal government. In fact, all provincial associations recognize an exemption for the federal government.  As long as the Army can get away with “combat engineer”, other technical trades will be fine.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Admiral lashes out at 'hateful' comments as Navy looks to drop 'seaman'

OTTAWA — The Royal Canadian Navy's deputy commander has responded to a series of online posts criticizing the military's plan to drop the term "seaman" by warning that there is no place in the force for sailors who subscribe to "hateful, misogynistic and racist" beliefs.

Rear-Admiral Chris Sutherland issued the admonition in a Facebook post over the weekend as sailors and members of the public are being asked to vote on a new title for the Navy's most junior members by replacing "seaman" with a more gender-neutral term.

"To those of you currently serving with these beliefs, I would like to emphatically state you have no place in our Navy," Sutherland said. "If you cannot live by or support the values of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, then you cannot defend them."

Navies around the world have described their junior sailors as "seamen" for decades if not centuries, with the Royal Canadian Navy using "ordinary seaman," "able seaman," "leading seaman" and "master seaman."

But those terms are being replaced in Canada as the Navy — which is short hundreds of sailors — charts new waters to become more diverse and inclusive. Navy officers have said the move is also designed to ensure junior members feel safe and proud of their ranks and jobs.

Members of the Navy as well as the public at large have until Friday to vote online on two alternatives, with both variants substituting "sailor" in place of "seaman" in different ways.

One simply replaces "seaman" with "sailor" in the existing ranks. The other would do away with adjectives such as "able" and "leading" in favour of labels such as "sailor first class" and "sailor second class." There is also be an option to suggest alternative terms.

But while the move has been applauded by some as long overdue, there has also been varying degrees of criticism online as some have blasted what they see as an overabundance of political correctness and others decrying a loss of tradition.

Some of those posts appear to have crossed a line for navy commanders.

Sutherland apologized for not speaking up sooner, saying he "needed a minute to come to terms with some of the comments that have been posted," before targeting not only active-duty sailors but anyone who has made "hateful, misogynistic and racists comments."

"I am shocked that you think that your comments would be acceptable, and that you are not able to recognize that those you are disparaging are the very people dedicating their lives to afford you the freedom to comment," he said without expanding on the offending posts.

"These comments serve as a reminder of our need to call out cowardly attacks such as these, and remind us also that we should take every opportunity to show support for minority and marginalized groups."

He went on to invite any sailor who wanted to know why the initiative is a priority for the Navy — "and would like to engage in constructive discussion on the topic" — to contact him directly.

The move to drop "seaman" comes amid a broader push by the military to become more reflective of Canadian society, which includes trying to recruit more women, visible minorities and members of the LGBTQ community while cracking down on hateful conduct.

At the same time, navy officials have suggested the use of "seaman" has been a potential barrier for recruitment at a time when the Navy is short about 850 sailors. Officers have said they can manage the shortfall at the moment, but are worried about the longer-term implications.

https://www.timescolonist.com/admiral-lashes-out-at-hateful-comments-as-navy-looks-to-drop-seaman-1.24176569


----------



## Lumber

I'd really like to know what these comments were.


----------



## dimsum

Lumber said:
			
		

> I'd really like to know what these comments were.



I'm guessing it's similar to some of the FB comments on the CBC article posted today.  I just shook my head reading most of them.

https://www.facebook.com/cbcnews/posts/10158907960119604


----------



## Lumber

Dimsum said:
			
		

> I'm guessing it's similar to some of the FB comments on the CBC article posted today.  I just shook my head reading most of them.
> 
> https://www.facebook.com/cbcnews/posts/10158907960119604



Ever notice the people who are the worst also have maybe 1 grainy picture of themselves on their facebook page?


----------



## Halifax Tar

Lumber said:
			
		

> Ever notice the people who are the worst also have maybe 1 grainy picture of themselves on their facebook page?



I have found, on the various RCN attached FB groups I belong too, usually the most vocal and hatefilled have the littlest of time, if any, actually in the Navy.  Most did minimal time in the 50 or 60s and the other portion are former Sea Cadets and CICs with no actual time on deck plates.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> I have found, on the various RCN attached FB groups I belong too, usually the most vocal and hatefilled have the littlest of time, if any, actually in the Navy.  Most did minimal time in the 50 or 60s and the other portion are former Sea Cadets and CICs with no actual time on deck plates.



Good thing the Army never suffers from that kind of stuff... oh... wait  :


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Dimsum said:
			
		

> I'm guessing it's similar to some of the FB comments on the CBC article posted today.  I just shook my head reading most of them.
> 
> https://www.facebook.com/cbcnews/posts/10158907960119604



While I'm not a regular reader, I've seen some particularly bad comments posted on the CAF side of Reddit in the past...


----------



## Cloud Cover

I think it was about 70-75 years ago they dropped the term "Boy Seaman" and they should have ditched the rest of the Seaman ranks at that time as well. I'm in favour of this change. I can remember army logistics and supply techs, clerks, cooks, firefighters (tankers and FFH, DDH) and others from Mobile Command and Air Command posting aboard ship and they would privately go ballistic if some Chief tauntingly referred to them as Able Seaman, Leading Seaman or Ordinary Seaman. We need all of these people to _feel respected_ and _be respected_, not just according to rank but according to basic human dignity. If a rank title is identified as a problem area then the CRCN has a duty to the RCN fix it or he/she will run out of young people, thats very plain in todays stressed work force. 

I personally don't think young men and women should really be held to the traditions of a past service that is extinct. That's for the history books, and it's a great history but not for the Ops room or the mess decks anymore. The RCN is about to take a leap into becoming an integrated pan domain war fighting force, it does no one any bit of good to hang on to the past and that includes silly things like rank curls on uniforms and out dated rank titles and even certain rank structures if necessary.  
LoL- I think I just ranted, not sure.


----------



## Cloud Cover

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> Don’t really have anything to ask.  And he is right.  The vitriol posted by some people WRT this was disgusting.  I would be surprised if some investigating wasn’t being done to weed out the serving members who posted the stuff.  But this is the world we live in now, everyone has a voice.  Our organization needs to come to terms with that.  Having said that, I have posted what I think are good alternatives, but I will never be a Jr rate again so really for me its inconsequential.
> 
> Really ?  This makes me a little sad.  Chief is a long time Naval rank nomenclature.  I would hate to see it be discarded.  Especially as the word Chief is not a term used only by NA First Nations as it has been used to describe leadership in many cultures including Caucasian since Jesus was a cowboy.  This is an over reach IMHO.
> 
> It does, although their existance has been on very shakey ground as of late, as the RCN looks at its trades and structures.



... there were lads and lassies who were Clan Chieftans in the British Isles long before the New World was discovered.  FWIW.


----------



## Old Sweat

Not to mention Chief Executive Officer, Fire Chief, and Chief of Police.


----------



## Jarnhamar

"Sorry I took so long to respond" seems common.


----------



## OldSolduer

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> Good thing the Army never suffers from that kind of stuff... oh... wait  :



Ain't it the truth.

I have no dog in this fight and I haven't read the threads about it other than this one.

FWIW once the Boss has made up his mind and gives the order it's time to STFU and get on with it.

An old saying "we're here to defend democracy, not practice it" sums up the issues very nicely.


----------



## Ostrozac

CloudCover said:
			
		

> ... there were lads and lassies who were Clan Chieftans in the British Isles long before the New World was discovered.  FWIW.



They probably weren't known as chieftains, but rather as ceann-cinnidh -- as Gaelic was never Romanized as a language. The word "chief" -- as used by the CDS, various Navies, and controversially Kansas City Football Club, came into English from the French, where it originated in the Latin as "caput". Very unlikely that the ancient Romans were actually talking about the NFL at the time, or referencing the populations of the New World. Context is important, and while the word itself isn't inherently offensive -- it is sometimes used in an offensive way -- the Navy isn't using the word in the same way as a football team that plays in Arrowhead Stadium and has a mascot named Warpaint.


----------



## Cloud Cover

Ostrozac said:
			
		

> They probably weren't known as chieftains, but rather as ceann-cinnidh -- as Gaelic was never Romanized as a language. The word "chief" -- as used by the CDS, various Navies, and controversially Kansas City Football Club, came into English from the French, where it originated in the Latin as "caput". Very unlikely that the ancient Romans were actually talking about the NFL at the time, or referencing the populations of the New World. Context is important, and while the word itself isn't inherently offensive -- it is sometimes used in an offensive way -- the Navy isn't using the word in the same way as a football team that plays in Arrowhead Stadium and has a mascot named Warpaint.



Thanks for that!!!  But .. but ... they even named a tank Chieftan!!


----------



## Jarnhamar

Interesting story behind how the Chiefs got their name. It was in honour of a mayor (nicknamed The Chief).



> Bartle seemed determined to participate in as many charitable organizations as possible. He accepted thirty appointments to philanthropic boards and commissions and in time became an executive in virtually all of them. During World War II, he served as director of American War Dads, a soldier-welfare group.





> On Christmas, he would regularly spend the day visiting orphanages, the Boy's Home, the city jail, and other places that might be overlooked on such a holiday.



And of course this little tidbit of integrity.



> According to his daughter, when his friend, President Harry Truman, asked him to become the regional director of the Economic Stabilization Agency, Bartle had to *resign from 57 boards of directors to avoid possible conflicts of interest.*


----------



## Kat Stevens

Ostrozac said:
			
		

> They probably weren't known as chieftains, but rather as ceann-cinnidh -- as Gaelic was never Romanized as a language. The word "chief" -- as used by the CDS, various Navies, and controversially Kansas City Football Club, came into English from the French, where it originated in the Latin as "caput". Very unlikely that the ancient Romans were actually talking about the NFL at the time, or referencing the populations of the New World. Context is important, and while the word itself isn't inherently offensive -- it is sometimes used in an offensive way -- the Navy isn't using the word in the same way as a football team that plays in Arrowhead Stadium and has a mascot named Warpaint.



Then we better stop calling saltines "crackers" as that word deeply offends me.


----------



## Kilted

Is anyone actually looking to remove the word Chief from rank and position titles?


----------



## shawn5o

From CBC

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/navy-commander-responds-to-online-criticism-1.5663814#:~:text=One%20simply%20replaces%20%22seaman%22%20with,option%20to%20suggest%20alternative%20terms.

"Navies around the world have described their junior sailors as 'seamen' for decades"

Okay. I was called dinosaur, old man, and a few other colourfull words. Some deserved. But I do not care for this "wokeness" among our political and military leaders.

Thoughts?


----------



## NavyShooter

The leadership has spoken.  

Rather clearly.

If you are part of the followership, and cannot support it, then the options have been very clearly presented, right up to and including contacting the DCRCN directly.


----------



## shawn5o

NavyShooter said:
			
		

> The leadership has spoken.
> 
> Rather clearly.
> 
> If you are part of the followership, and cannot support it, then the options have been very clearly presented, right up to and including contacting the DCRCN directly.



Yes, I recall SHARP "training" back in late 90s or early 2000s. And the higher ups clearly spoke (I cannot remember the exact words) but it was if you don't like it, then leave.

Oh yes, I did comment directly to the RCN.

However, my point is "if it ain't broken, don't fix it" (something like that)

So Navyshooter, am I to infer you support the change?


----------



## SupersonicMax

shawn5o said:
			
		

> Yes, I recall SHARP "training" back in late 90s or early 2000s. And the higher ups clearly spoke (I cannot remember the exact words) but it was if you don't like it, then leave.
> 
> Oh yes, I did comment directly to the RCN.
> 
> However, my point is "if it ain't broken, don't fix it" (something like that)
> 
> So Navyshooter, am I to infer you support the change?



What if it is broken?  Perhaps you see this as a non-issue but it may not be true for your colleagues.


----------



## Haggis

shawn5o said:
			
		

> Yes, I recall SHARP "training" back in late 90s or early 2000s.



The partial failure of SHARP training led us to the birth of Operation HONOUR.  _(The other partial failure that led to Operation HONOUR was that leadership training had morphed into management training.  "Know your troops *and promote their welfare"*became cumbersome unless it affected the bottom line.  The NCO Corps was emasculated and unable/unwilling to apply the needed discipline to sort out the cave dwellers.  The "old boy" attitudes of the management cadre allowed any gains made by SHARP to fall aside.)
_
Another partial failure of SHARP led us to the demise of the Cdn AB Regt and a myriad of other lessons we failed to adequately learn and apply about promoting the welfare of our troops.

Times change.  Attitudes change.  Treatment that I was subjected to when I joined 42 years ago would land people in jail now.  It was accepted back then, but not any longer.  I also remember the days when a female member's rank was written "Sgt(W)" and that practice persisted well into the 1980's.  

This is not being "woke" (I hate that term) it is evolving.  We must be reflective of the society that we defend and recruit from, even if it seems foreign or ineffective to us now.  Is our system broken?  Is this the right fix if it is?  Only our performance in the next shooting war will determine that.


----------



## shawn5o

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> What if it is broken?  Perhaps you see this as a non-issue but it may not be true for your colleagues.



So what do Canadians want in our military? What is the future for the CF?

Changing the name of that rank will cause enlistment to rise? I highly doubt it.

Will changing the name increase the navy's ships?

Shouldn't the Rear Admiral be advocating better funding? More ships? More sailors?

"This is why I strongly support our Rank Change Initiative, as I believe it is long overdue that ALL Royal Canadian Navy processes and policies, including our Ranks, reflect, honour and recognize the service and sacrifice made by ALL of our SAILORS."
(Rear-Admiral Chris Sutherland)

and

"To those of you who have made hateful, misogynistic and racist comments"
(Rear-Admiral Chris Sutherland)

So now I  understand that keeping the rank of seamen is a "hateful, misogynistic and racist comment".

Sorry but that is stupid.

I would hope that the CF has more urgent priorities but then again, I'm just an old dinosaur


----------



## shawn5o

Look guys and gals

I do understand the what and why of your comments and you are all correct. I just don't think this is a good way to change attitudes.

Thank you for time


----------



## CBH99

I would actually be genuinely curious to know how female members feel about the change.

Was this initiative driven because of complaints that the ranks including the word 'seamen' was sexist?  Was this an issue some female members pointed out needed change?

Or do the female members even care?  And this initiative was proactive, rather than reactive?



No judgement here either way.  Just curious.


----------



## QV

NavyShooter said:
			
		

> ... right up to and including contacting the DCRCN directly.



I'm not sure how to describe how I feel about that part of the statement coming from someone so senior as this.  As if any junior ranked member is going to directly contact the DCRCN to challenge this.  He should have just issued the order or made his statement and left it at that.  Inviting some junior member to contact him directly knowing he would crush them or their career if they did is... something other than professional.


----------



## dimsum

QV said:
			
		

> I'm not sure how to describe how I feel about that part of the statement coming from someone so senior as this.  As if any junior ranked member is going to directly contact the DCRCN to challenge this.  He should have just issued the order or made his statement and left it at that.  Inviting some junior member to contact him directly knowing he would crush them or their career if they did is... something other than professional.



Well, apparently this actually happened on Reddit.



> Backstory: several days ago I commented on a thread here regarding the "seaman" name change and how Admiral Sutherland told members to contact him directly if they have an issue with the change. My comment was more or less "the change is good, but dont bother contacting him because ive personally gotten a 5B for contacting people much lower in rank than him".
> 
> Which leads me to admitting when I am wrong.
> 
> Rear Admiral Sutherland is on this sub. Not only that, but he PM'd me directly after seeing my comment and stating that hes had 4 junior NCMs contact him since the article and several officers and an open invitation to him if I had any constructive criticism. I have zero constructive criticism because I supported the change, but I have to give 100% credit where credit is due. A senior leader like that with his ear to ground is exactly who we need at the top and it is reassuring to see we have such open leadership at the top.



https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadianForces/comments/hz6eix/when_im_wrong_im_happy_to_admit_it/


----------



## dapaterson

QV said:
			
		

> I'm not sure how to describe how I feel about that part of the statement coming from someone so senior as this.  As if any junior ranked member is going to directly contact the DCRCN to challenge this.  He should have just issued the order or made his statement and left it at that.  Inviting some junior member to contact him directly knowing he would crush them or their career if they did is... something other than professional.



Do you know the man?  Have you ever spoken with him?  Do you know his character?  Why do you assume those behaviours and actions?


----------



## Jarnhamar

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Do you know the man?  Have you ever spoken with him?  Do you know his character?  Why do you assume those behaviours and actions?



I assumed he wasn't genuine about it (I've heard that door is always open, see me directly line a few times).

Based of Reddit it looks like I was wrong and in hindsight I should be less cynical.


----------



## QV

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Do you know the man?  Have you ever spoken with him?  Do you know his character?  Why do you assume those behaviours and actions?



No.  No.  No.  Like Jarnhamar, I've seen that scenario play out before.  But in this case it appears it's genuine if the reddit account is true.  Yes, I suppose I'm cynical.


----------



## PPCLI Guy

I do know the man.  I know his character.  He meant what he said, and there is absolutely zero risk of backlash coming from him.

You might be amazed to find that many senior leaders are quite sincere.  

I am willing to guess that the backlash that you are referring too as having seen play out before probably did not come from a GOFO.


----------



## stellarpanther

CBH99 said:
			
		

> I would actually be genuinely curious to know how female members feel about the change.
> 
> Was this initiative driven because of complaints that the ranks including the word 'seamen' was sexist?  Was this an issue some female members pointed out needed change?
> 
> Or do the female members even care?  And this initiative was proactive, rather than reactive?
> 
> 
> 
> No judgement here either way.  Just curious.



There was a brief conversation on this topic last week on one of the HRA Facebook pages and most people seemed to welcome the changes.  The conversation didn't last long and quickly moved back to HRA topics.


----------



## Michael OLeary

shawn5o said:
			
		

> Shouldn't the Rear Admiral be advocating better funding? More ships? More sailors?



Which of these do you think he stopped being concerned about to address ranks? Do you think any senior appointment, officer or NCM, is only capable of working on one thing?


Re: Dinosaurs. After dinosaurs turned out to be evolutionary dead ends, the rest of the ecosystem continued to evolve and thrive without them.


----------



## NavyShooter

I actually looked up the DCRCN on Outlook today.  I looked at his name, and considered a question or two that I have had stewing in my mind for about 5 years, not directly associated to the rank/title change, but associated to the overall question of gender, so not completely un-related.

I'm giving my thoughts another night to settle, and may in fact click "TO" and send a note tomorrow.

I have met the DCRCN.  He is a fair, thoughtful person who took input, gave clear feedback and direction, and did not seem to be the sort to tear a strip off someone with a genuine question - and a genuine solution.

We'll see.

As for the question up-thread about my support (or not) of this initiative - that really doesn't matter.


----------



## Cloud Cover

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> Which of these do you think he stopped being concerned about to address ranks? Do you think any senior appointment, officer or NCM, is only capable of working on



This whole issue is about having more sailors and keeping the ones that they have. You change the things you can, and no number if new ships will fix this problem.


----------



## dapaterson

I have met and worked with DCRCN.  He is a profoundly decent person, who welcomes people at all ranks and talks with them as peers in the profession of arms.  He is caring.  He is strong.

Spinal Tap may have taken it to eleven, but every day, he takes it to twelve.


----------



## stellarpanther

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> I do know the man.  I know his character.  He meant what he said, and there is absolutely zero risk of backlash coming from him.
> 
> You might be amazed to find that many senior leaders are quite sincere.
> 
> I am willing to guess that the backlash that you are referring too as having seen play out before probably did not come from a GOFO.



I haven't met the current CRCN or DCRCN but approx 3years ago during a unit Christmas luncheon, I had the pleasure along with a few other junior mbr's of the unit to  share a meal with Rear Admiral Couturier and the CPO1 of the Navy. When they were asking each of us questions during the 1 1/2 hour lunch, it was clear that his questions and answers were sincere and not just the typical one or two questions you get when on parade during a review of the guard.  There were a couple questions in which he pulled out a notebook and later followed up and the mbr was contacted directly a few days later..  
I don't want to drift away from the topic at hand but based on my interaction with one DCRCN, if the current one is saying to contact him directly.  I think he most likely doesn't have a problem with anyone doing it.


----------



## ModlrMike

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> Re: Dinosaurs. After dinosaurs turned out to be evolutionary dead ends, the rest of the ecosystem continued to evolve and thrive without them.


Re: Dinosaurs. I've heard far worse from youngsters on this issue, than from those in my age group.


----------



## TCM621

I could care less about the name frankly. The names have changed before and will change again. I think the stated for the change are stupid and that the change won't have any real effect but that is a different story. I do have an issue with the "contact me directly" line though. For one, the Admiral knows it is a threat to anyone who disagrees with it. He doesn't even have to do anything himself because the CoC will do it for him. Second, and more importantly IMO, is the idea that the commander of the Navy would be willing to talk to the rank and file over something so inconsequential as a name change is ridiculous. No one I know is quitting over name changes at most they are 'one more thing" to stuff into their hockey sock of complaints. Let's talk about the inability of people to afford housing because of a decade long "study" on Pld. Let's talk about the inability of people to take career course either because they have no one to replace them or they aren't running courses. Let's talk about the lack of interesting postings, deployments or training opportunities abroad. Let's talk about burnout as we are asked to more with less everyday. Let's talk about career managers that don't seem to manage careers anymore and only care about filling holes not developing future leaders or experts. Let's talk about the slow cancellation of the ILP program which makes it very difficult to do any PD including the official NCMPD program.

Name changes are literally the least important thing anyone in the CAF has to hitch about. I want a GO to talk about a reason I should bother re-signing my contract that doesn't  involve a strict calculation of my best five. They have spent all this time ignoring real problems and think some name changes and some new uniforms make people tear up their releases and have lines forming at recruiting centres.


----------



## stoker dave

I would like to add my two cents. 

More than 25 years ago I was serving on one of Her Majesty's Canadian Ships.  Females (ladies?  women?) were just in the early days of going to sea.  Overall, I thought the integration was going.... ok. 

There was a very junior female stoker in the engineering department.  She was referred to as a 'stokette' but that is another story.  She was bright, ambitious, worked hard and fit in.  I was on constant alert for any sexism or unprofessional comments made to her.  In my presence, I heard none.  

But I was always uncomfortable calling her 'ordinary seaman'.   It just seemed wrong and it seemed (to me) like we were telling her she was in a man's world and she had to fit in.   That seemed to be the wrong message.  

So I am 100% in favour of a change and actually wonder why this wasn't done 25 years ago.  This change is important.  Yes, there are other issues facing the Navy as well but this can and should be accomplished.


----------



## shawn5o

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> Which of these do you think he stopped being concerned about to address ranks? Do you think any senior appointment, officer or NCM, is only capable of working on one thing?
> 
> 
> Re: Dinosaurs. After dinosaurs turned out to be evolutionary dead ends, the rest of the ecosystem continued to evolve and thrive without them.



i'm not sure how to take those comments. So down the rabbit hole we go?

From what I've gleaned here, the Vice Admiral is good, decent, and righteous man.
And I understand that the Royal Canadian Navy has a recruitment problem, needing  around 800 sailors, and the fact that the navy is short of ships.
Canada has a large amount of coastline to patrol and the navy's important role to stand with our allies and friends in today's troubling world. I think that the leaders of the RCN would be focused on things like demanding for better funding, treating Veterans (the better to show Canadians they will be taken care of after service), and increased recruitment through better advertising. Blah, blah, blah

The Vice Admiral stated; _To those of you who have made hateful, misogynistic and racist comments, I am shocked that you think that your comments would be acceptable, and that you are not able to recognize that those you are disparaging are the very people dedicating their lives to afford you the freedom to comment. These comments serve as a reminder of our need to call out cowardly attacks such as these, and remind us also that we should take every opportunity to show support for minority and marginalized groups._

Who can argue with that? I'm not.

The Vice also stated; _To those of you currently serving with these beliefs, I would like to emphatically state you have no place in our Navy. If you cannot live by or support the values of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, then you cannot defend them. Should any serving Royal Canadian Navy Sailors have concerns or questions about this initiative and why this is considered a priority for our organization (and would like to engage in constructive discussion on the topic), please contact me directly._

To me, that is an odd statement. Is the Vice talking racists, misogynistic, and hateful people? He made himself clear in the previous para. But does the Vice Admiral include anyone critical of the name change? And the Vice Admiral brought up the Charter. Fine, but the Charter is for everyone, including bad actors.

And he wants to weed out the bad actors. Fine with me as long as it's focused on the bad actors. Hopefully, he doesn't include critics of the name change because, you know ... recruiting more people

Clear as mud?


----------



## ModlrMike

One can offer criticism that is not racist, hateful, or misogynistic.


----------



## shawn5o

I received an email from here and boots12 thinks I'm trolling the site.

No I am not. I am a (again) dinosaur especially with social media. So if I screw up and i probably will again, I know that others will pt me in my place. I am not trying to raise trouble.

boots12, I thought that this would be an interesting debate.

Cheers all


----------



## Good2Golf

shawn5o said:
			
		

> Clear as mud?



Other than explaining why you implied RAdm Sutherland was “something other than professional” (ie. unprofessional) that caused many to question your _ad hominem_ on the Deputy Commander. 



			
				QV said:
			
		

> Inviting some junior member to contact him directly knowing he would crush them or their career if they did is... something other than professional.



Is offering all-ranks a direct contact invitation still unprofessional?


----------



## shawn5o

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Other than explaining why you implied RAdm Sutherland was %u201Csomething other than professional%u201D (ie. unprofessional) that caused many to question your _ad hominem_ on the Deputy Commander.
> 
> Is offering all-ranks a direct contact invitation still unprofessional?



I didn't mean to imply such a thing. in fact, I didn't think it would come across as controversial.

BTW, Cood2Golf, you must have missed an earlier reply where I stated _"From what I've gleaned here, the Vice Admiral is good, decent, and righteous man."_

And this quote from your reply _"Inviting some junior member to contact him directly knowing he would crush them or their career if they did is... something other than professional."_

I didn't write that or if it directed at me, I missed the connection


----------



## QV

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Other than explaining why you implied RAdm Sutherland was “something other than professional” (ie. unprofessional) that caused many to question your _ad hominem_ on the Deputy Commander.
> 
> Is offering all-ranks a direct contact invitation still unprofessional?



Though others have pointed out it is most likely a sincere statement, I still maintain in my opinion, it was not an appropriate statement or course of action in the context it came out.  It came across as a dare, to me.  This isn't ad hominem.  Clearly the RAdm earned his very senior position in the CAF, in part, by his character. 

Are we done with that now?


----------



## TCM621

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> One can offer criticism that is not racist, hateful, or misogynistic.



The problem is that what is considered racist, hateful or misogynistic is interpreted in widely varying ways. Saying "just suck it up Princess" is either a way of saying don't sweat the small stuff or a hateful example of the rampant misogyny in the RCN. The people the Leadership is bowing to (by making the change for the reasons stated) thinks its the latter.

I think they should change the name. Sailor is a much better term than seaman, it doesn't sound like semen, it's gender neutral and you don't even need to change the abbreviations. I just seriously doubt it will affect retention or recruiting in any meaningful way. If anything it will lead to more releases as people get fed up with all the energy spent fixing problems that are so tiny compared to the major problems in the CAF.

You want to show women you value them, treat them well. Not because they are female but because you treat all your subordinates well. If they women in the CAF looked around at their awesome workplace where they do meanful work and regularly progress through their trade, no one would care if they called them seaman.


----------



## Navy_Pete

QV said:
			
		

> Though others have pointed out it is most likely a sincere statement, I still maintain in my opinion, it was not an appropriate statement or course of action in the context it came out.  It came across as a dare, to me.  This isn't ad hominem.  Clearly the RAdm earned his very senior position in the CAF, in part, by his character.
> 
> Are we done with that now?



To be honest, I had the same initial reaction as you did. It was only tempered by some brief exposure to the current group of naval flag officers. Have never encountered RAdm Sutherland personally, but have seen the CRCN and the DCRN's peer group in other positions before they were promoted, and none of them are of that old school mentality, so took it as a genuine invitation for a rational conversation in that context.

Could be wrong, but I think the current group of senior leaders in the navy are actively working to stomp out the old school idea of using and abusing your subordinates to get ahead. Some of the old 'march the guilty bastards in' era mindset is still floating around, but that seems to be pretty career limiting. For this particular initiative, don't disagree with a name change, just think it's a lot more work then you would think, and know there are lots of things not getting done because lack of personnel, but don't think it's driven by anything other then good intentions by people that genuinely care about their subordinates well being.

Not that my opinion counts for anything, but can't remember the last time I met someone beyond a three ringer that I wouldn't mind having a pint with. Maybe I've been lucky, but honestly don't think the old school mentality would be tolerated, and with how competitive that promotion is, they can afford to filter out someone just for being a bit of a jerk.


----------



## SupersonicMax

Tcm621 said:
			
		

> The problem is that what is considered racist, hateful or misogynistic is interpreted in widely varying ways. Saying "just suck it up Princess" is either a way of saying don't sweat the small stuff or a hateful example of the rampant misogyny in the RCN. The people the Leadership is bowing to (by making the change for the reasons stated) thinks its the latter.



No.  We evolve as a society.  What was acceptable 10 years ago may not be acceptable today.  Time to change the jokes and sayings to reflect what society expects.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

In this day and age, terms like "seaman" are going to get a  rly: reaction from some people and for more than one reason.

The RCAF doesn't call everyone 'airmen' anymore; times have changed.  I don't care if my Sqn Boss says "air women and men" "air people"...who cares?  

Able Seaman, Able Sailor.  Do the folks in the Jnr Ranks mess actually care one way or the other?  If one is more suitable now, because 'times have changed' (and they have), make the change, and pretty soon all the hub-bub will die down.  

Just like it did when the CAF allowed 'squareback' haircuts.

Beards.

Cannabis.

Etc....


----------



## CBH99

I agree EITS, I doubt the general rank & file care all that much.  

Make the changes, and it'll blow over soon enough.  

National military organizations tend to be among the most professional groups of people out there.  And, as representatives of their societies, they evolve as needed.


I know I asked this before, and it's mostly rhetorical.  I truly wonder how many female members actually care all that much?


----------



## shawn5o

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> In this day and age, terms like "seaman" are going to get a  rly: reaction from some people and for more than one reason.
> 
> The RCAF doesn't call everyone 'airmen' anymore; times have changed.  I don't care if my Sqn Boss says "air women and men" "air people"...who cares?
> 
> Able Seaman, Able Sailor.  Do the folks in the Jnr Ranks mess actually care one way or the other?  If one is more suitable now, because 'times have changed' (and they have), make the change, and pretty soon all the hub-bub will die down.
> 
> Just like it did when the CAF allowed 'squareback' haircuts.
> 
> Beards.
> 
> Cannabis.
> 
> Etc....



Thanks EITS

I had forgotten about the old rank Airman.

Now I have to rethink my opposition to the name change


----------



## Colin Parkinson

CBH99 said:
			
		

> I agree EITS, I doubt the general rank & file care all that much.
> 
> 
> 
> I know I asked this before, and it's mostly rhetorical.  I truly wonder how many female members actually care all that much?



In my experience the women that are hard workers, professional and work well with others, don't pay much attention to the window dressing stuff like this. They do get really pissed at being patronised, excluded and treated as lesser by their managers, leaders, senior staff who are two faced about saying all the PC stuff, but block the advance of women.


----------



## Kat Stevens

I guess it’s just me, being a product of a less enlightened age of military life, but when I saw “may contact me directly”, I automatically added “go on, I double dog dare ya” at the end. Glad to hear that’s not the case.


----------



## Lumber

Tcm621 said:
			
		

> Let's talk about career managers that don't seem to manage careers anymore and only care about filling holes not developing future leaders or experts.



Maybe not in the army or air force (definitely not the air force), but they do in the navy. Let me explain:

Once you get promoted to Lt(N), you train into one of 6 specializations (ok 8 technically but lets ignore clearance diver and subs for a moment). We call these specializations our director level qualification, or "D-levels". Two of these are warfare related (AWWO, UWWO), 1 is sort of but not really warfare related (IWO), and 3 are not warfare related at all (NavO, DeckO, CISO). So, by the end of our "d-level tour", some of us have warfare experience and time working in an operations room, while others have very little, or none.

Fast forward to our next qualification, where regardless of what D-level we did, we all train to become "Operations Room Officer". It trains us to lead the operations room in defending the ship against all areas of warfare. It's kind of like our version of AOC. However, while all NWOs will do this course, not all NWOs who finish this course will actually work as an "ORO" in an actual ops room. You could get posted to a Kingston-class as an XO, or to one the new AOPS which have no real fighting capability at all.

So, how do they decide who get's which posting? This is wear navy career management gets a win. They know that by the time we get to be XOs (LCdr) and COs (Cdrs), we need a wide breadth of experience. So, those of us who already have warfare and ops room exepreience (AWWOs, UWWOs and IWOs) are more likely to get posted to a Kingston or AOPV, while those who have not yet had a chance to actually work in an ops room are more likely to get posted to the frigates. 

That's not how it works 100% of the time. I mean, I wouldn't want to be sailing on a ship with 3 OROs who were all former DeckOs! (sorry, not sorry) But at least the navy is trying to manage our experience make sure it's future leaders get a breadth of experience.


----------



## BeyondTheNow

Lumber said:
			
		

> Maybe not in the army or air force (definitely not the air force), but they do in the navy. Let me explain:
> 
> Once you get promoted to Lt(N), you train into one of 6 specializations (ok 8 technically but lets ignore clearance diver and subs for a moment). We call these specializations our director level qualification, or "D-levels". Two of these are warfare related (AWWO, UWWO), 1 is sort of but not really warfare related (IWO), and 3 are not warfare related at all (NavO, DeckO, CISO). So, by the end of our "d-level tour", some of us have warfare experience and time working in an operations room, while others have very little, or none.
> 
> Fast forward to our next qualification, where regardless of what D-level we did, we all train to become "Operations Room Officer". It trains us to lead the operations room in defending the ship against all areas of warfare. It's kind of like our version of AOC. However, while all NWOs will do this course, not all NWOs who finish this course will actually work as an "ORO" in an actual ops room. You could get posted to a Kingston-class as an XO, or to one the new AOPS which have no real fighting capability at all.
> 
> So, how do they decide who get's which posting? This is wear navy career management gets a win. They know that by the time we get to be XOs (LCdr) and COs (Cdrs), we need a wide breadth of experience. So, those of us who already have warfare and ops room exepreience (AWWOs, UWWOs and IWOs) are more likely to get posted to a Kingston or AOPV, while those who have not yet had a chance to actually work in an ops room are more likely to get posted to the frigates.
> 
> That's not how it works 100% of the time. I mean, I wouldn't want to be sailing on a ship with 3 OROs who were all former DeckOs! (sorry, not sorry) But at least the navy is trying to manage our experience make sure it's future leaders get a breadth of experience.



Would you say they’re as highly regarded where NCM’s careers & the Navy are concerned? (I have no clue, so am curious about the other end of things...apart from Officers. Leadership is important there also...)


----------



## Lumber

BeyondTheNow said:
			
		

> Would you say they’re as highly regarded where NCM’s careers & the Navy are concerned? (I have no clue, so am curious about the other end of things...apart from Officers. Leadership is important there also...)





			
				BeyondTheNow said:
			
		

> Would you say they’re as highly regarded where NCM’s careers & the Navy are concerned? (I have no clue, so am curious about the other end of things...apart from Officers. Leadership is important there also...)



Alas, I don't think so, but NCM career management and officer career management are two completely different beasts.

With NWOs, the CM really is at arms length and looks at the big picture and posts people based on ship and navy needs and individual aptitudes, (and wants if possible). Only deploying COs seem to have any actual ability to influence who they get.

With NCMs on the other hand, it seems like the CM just rubber stamps the decisions of the coastal MOC advisers. I could be wrong, but I get the sense that the best NCMs continue to get all the best postings instead of spreading it around. That's just the impression I've gotten fromt he NCM trades I've been closest to, so it might not be true across the board, or it might not be true at all <coughpepperoniclubcough>... 

Then again, we drive our best NCMs into the ground and they release, so theres not that many of them to go around. Officers essentially do 2 years at sea followed by 2-5 years ashore, and NWOs do a MAX of 5 tours on sea going units, and that only if you make it to CO of a ship. NCMs can spend a decade on ship before their first short posting (not counting career courses as "shore postings"). 

I just the other day met up with a PO2 who worked for me when he was a MS. We both have roughly 13-14 years in the navy. He's had 7 deployments and 1300 days at sea, while I have.... vastly less than that.


----------



## Furniture

Lumber said:
			
		

> Alas, I don't think so, but NCM career management and officer career management are two completely different beasts.
> 
> With NWOs, the CM really is at arms length and looks at the big picture and posts people based on ship and navy needs and individual aptitudes, (and wants if possible). Only deploying COs seem to have any actual ability to influence who they get.
> 
> With NCMs on the other hand, it seems like the CM just rubber stamps the decisions of the coastal MOC advisers. I could be wrong, but I get the sense that the best NCMs continue to get all the best postings instead of spreading it around. That's just the impression I've gotten fromt he NCM trades I've been closest to, so it might not be true across the board, or it might not be true at all <coughpepperoniclubcough>...
> 
> Then again, we drive our best NCMs into the ground and they release, so theres not that many of them to go around. Officers essentially do 2 years at sea followed by 2-5 years ashore, and NWOs do a MAX of 5 tours on sea going units, and that only if you make it to CO of a ship. NCMs can spend a decade on ship before their first short posting (not counting career courses as "shore postings").
> 
> I just the other day met up with a PO2 who worked for me when he was a MS. We both have roughly 13-14 years in the navy. He's had 7 deployments and 1300 days at sea, while I have.... vastly less than that.



I can assure you that you are 100% wrong in your assumption about NCM career management in the RCN. 

The RCN requires ~200  NCM sailors for each ship at sea, compared to ~40-50 officers(at most). So for NCMs to have the same sea to shore ratio officers enjoy you would require thousands more sailors posted to shore billets. It is not possible in the current state of the CAF given the limitations on pers numbers, recruiting, and of course retention.  

CMs need to balance the needs of the CAF against the needs of the member, which depending on trade can often mean that the needs of the member take a back seat most of the time. We have a very large number of people who game the system to avoid doing taskings they don't want, while complaining about not getting opportunities. If you can't sail for WUPS, why should you get the deployment? 

I'd suggest you speak with a few RCN NCM occupation CMs before broadcasting a judgement. It might be a bit enlightening...


----------



## Lumber

Furniture said:
			
		

> I can assure you that you are 100% wrong in your assumption about NCM career management in the RCN.
> 
> The RCN requires ~200  NCM sailors for each ship at sea, compared to ~40-50 officers(at most). So for NCMs to have the same sea to shore ratio officers enjoy you would require thousands more sailors posted to shore billets. It is not possible in the current state of the CAF given the limitations on pers numbers, recruiting, and of course retention.
> 
> CMs need to balance the needs of the CAF against the needs of the member, which depending on trade can often mean that the needs of the member take a back seat most of the time. We have a very large number of people who game the system to avoid doing tasking they don't want, while complaining about not getting opportunities. If you can't sail for WUPS, why should you get the deployment?
> 
> I'd suggest you speak with a few RCN NCM occupation CMs before making judgement. They are from my experience all hard working people doing the best they can to manage both the CAF's and the individual members needs.



Everything you just said I agree with, so I'm genuinely asking which part of my statement you disagree with?

That CMs just rubber stamp MOC advisor posting plots?
That we drive our NCMs into the ground?
Or my mild allusion that if you piss-off or are otherwise are not liked by the MOC advisors and their friends your career will be... difficult. (I am going to say right now that I have no idea if this is actually true but I have had several senior NCMs profess that the pepperoni club is 100% a true, although getting better)


----------



## OldSolduer

Furniture said:
			
		

> CMs need to balance the needs of the CAF against the needs of the member, which depending on trade can often mean that the needs of the member take a back seat most of the time. We have a very large number of people who game the system to avoid doing taskings they don't want, while complaining about not getting opportunities. If you can't sail for WUPS, why should you get the deployment?



And too many seem to think that its the other way round - the CAF takes the back seat. Not so in most cases.


----------



## stellarpanther

Furniture said:
			
		

> I'd suggest you speak with a few RCN NCM occupation CMs before broadcasting a judgement. It might be a bit enlightening...



The CM's do have a lot on their plate, there is no denying that but I really think they could do a lot more to balance the needs of the CAF and the needs of the mbr.  Some CM's do that but a lot don't.  I'm convinced that the last 2 CM's at the HRA MCpl level including the current one are only looking at their plot and could careless how it will effect the mbr or their families.  People have and will continue to release and the CM's and Sr. leadership will continue to wonder why.  They are good at slogans like family first etc but when a mbr wants to put their family first they forget they said it.  As far as I'm concerned, if they aren't serious about it, don't say it because it only frustrates people.


----------



## stellarpanther

Hamish Seggie said:
			
		

> And too many seem to think that its the other way round - the CAF takes the back seat. Not so in most cases.



The CAF shouldn't take the back seat but they could spend a little extra time trying to find something that works for both the mbr and CAF's needs.  If both sides can be happy should that be the goal?


----------



## Furniture

Lumber said:
			
		

> Everything you just said I agree with, so I'm genuinely asking which part of my statement you disagree with?
> 
> That CMs just rubber stamp MOC advisor posting plots?
> That we drive our NCMs into the ground?
> Or my mild allusion that if you piss-off or are otherwise are not liked by the MOC advisors and their friends your career will be... difficult. (I am going to say right now that I have no idea if this is actually true but I have had several senior NCMs profess that the pepperoni club is 100% a true, although getting better)



1) Your post alleges that CMs aren't doing their jobs, and letting others do the job of CM. Based on my conversations with CMs, this is false. MOC advisors and the CM may come to the same conclusion, that does not mean the CM is just "rubber stamping" the MOC advisor plot.  
2) The CAF as a general rule drives the fit, motivated, and competent into the ground. I don't disagree, and even offered a suggestion as to why it happens. 
3) It might be that pissing off the senior members of your trade is a bad idea, though that extends well beyond the NCM world since it's a part of human nature. Perhaps the senior NCMs you're speaking with are just disgruntled, maybe they took the posting the CAF needed them to rather than the one they wanted? It's easier to blame the "system" when you fail to move at your expected rate of advancement than it is to be introspective, and see if maybe your attitude is hurting your advancement. 

I'm not saying there is no potential that some CMs are not 100% fair for 100% of the troops, but your first post implied that the RCN NCM CMs were somehow lesser than their officer counterparts.


----------



## Furniture

stellarpanther said:
			
		

> The CM's do have a lot on their plate, there is no denying that but I really think they could do a lot more to balance the needs of the CAF and the needs of the mbr.  Some CM's do that but a lot don't.  I'm convinced that the last 2 CM's at the HRA MCpl level including the current one are only looking at their plot and could careless how it will effect the mbr or their families.  People have and will continue to release and the CM's and Sr. leadership will continue to wonder why.  They are good at slogans like family first etc but when a mbr wants to put their family first they forget they said it.  As far as I'm concerned, if they aren't serious about it, don't say it because it only frustrates people.



What happens when nobody wants the "bad" posting? Does a unit go without a HRA or FSA? How does that impact the troops at the unit that none of the clerks want to go to? As every CM briefing for at least the last 19 years has said, the needs of the CAF come first, members needs come second. 

At the end of the day the CAF needs certain people in certain places just to make things work. If nobody volunteers to go, the CM is left to sort through the available people and make a choice. Should only single people get posted where they don't want to go? They don't have families so the CM should ignore the members needs if someone with a spouse and kids doesn't want to move? 

It's easy to get caught up in the "why me?", but have you considered other members, and their concerns?


----------



## stellarpanther

Furniture said:
			
		

> What happens when nobody wants the "bad" posting? Does a unit go without a HRA or FSA? How does that impact the troops at the unit that none of the clerks want to go to? As every CM briefing for at least the last 19 years has said, the needs of the CAF come first, members needs come second.
> 
> At the end of the day the CAF needs certain people in certain places just to make things work. If nobody volunteers to go, the CM is left to sort through the available people and make a choice. Should only single people get posted where they don't want to go? They don't have families so the CM should ignore the members needs if someone with a spouse and kids doesn't want to move?
> 
> It's easy to get caught up in the "why me?", but have you considered other members, and their concerns?



The CM's might say CAF first but Sr. leadership is constantly saying "family first"  everyone has heard it.  Here's an example of where the CM might be able to look out for the mbr and the CAF.  I had one of the Cpl's in my unit a few weeks ago ask me if I still had any contacts in the CM shop which unfortunately I don't anymore.  She has a friend currently in the Transition Centre for a mental health issue but will be going back to trade soon after making a successful recovery.  The CM wants to send this person to Petawawa.  The mbr is convinced it will destroy his family because of family needs.  So this guy busts his ass getting himself better when others would probably get the easy medical release and for everything he's gone through they want to send him to Petawawa, a place that might just cause him to relapse.  It's like a runner with a broken leg having his coach say as soon as you get that cast off, you have a marathon to run.  It isn't right but that's just my opinion. In my mind, people like that who fight an illness and want to save their career should get their choice of available postings.  That's what I mean when I say they could do more.  There are a lot of shortages in Pet, but there are shortages all across the country.


----------



## Furniture

stellarpanther said:
			
		

> The CM's might say CAF first but Sr. leadership is constantly saying "family first"  everyone has heard it.  Here's an example of where the CM might be able to look out for the mbr and the CAF.  I had one of the Cpl's in my unit a few weeks ago ask me if I still had any contacts in the CM shop which unfortunately I don't anymore.  She has a friend currently in the Transition Centre for a mental health issue but will be going back to trade soon after making a successful recovery.  The CM wants to send this person to Petawawa.  The mbr is convinced it will destroy his family because of family needs.  So this guy busts his *** getting himself better when others would probably get the easy medical release and for everything he's gone through they want to send him to Petawawa, a place that might just cause him to relapse.  It's like a runner with a broken leg having his coach say as soon as you get that cast off, you have a marathon to run.  It isn't right but that's just my opinion. In my mind, people like that who fight an illness and want to save their career should get their choice of available postings.  That's what I mean when I say they could do more.  There are a lot of shortages in Pet, but there are shortages all across the country.



Nobody but the member, the medical staff, and the CM know the facts of the situation. Maybe your Cpl's friend isn't telling the whole truth, maybe the units in Pet need clerks more than the units where the member is posted. 

Who would you send to take the job in Pet? Would you "punish" someone with a more stable family situation? What if the "stable" family now develops issues due the unexpected posting? What about a single member? Who is the priority, and why? 

In the end the CAF's needs come first, anyone telling you something else is not being completely honest. If members always came first we wouldn't release people for medical, conduct, or administrative reasons.


----------



## Kat Stevens

stellarpanther said:
			
		

> The CM's might say CAF first but Sr. leadership is constantly saying "family first"  everyone has heard it.  Here's an example of where the CM might be able to look out for the mbr and the CAF.  I had one of the Cpl's in my unit a few weeks ago ask me if I still had any contacts in the CM shop which unfortunately I don't anymore.  She has a friend currently in the Transition Centre for a mental health issue but will be going back to trade soon after making a successful recovery.  The CM wants to send this person to Petawawa.  The mbr is convinced it will destroy his family because of family needs.  So this guy busts his ass getting himself better when others would probably get the easy medical release and for everything he's gone through they want to send him to Petawawa, a place that might just cause him to relapse.  It's like a runner with a broken leg having his coach say as soon as you get that cast off, you have a marathon to run.  It isn't right but that's just my opinion. In my mind, people like that who fight an illness and want to save their career should get their choice of available postings.  That's what I mean when I say they could do more.  There are a lot of shortages in Pet, but there are shortages all across the country.



DIVERGENCE ALERT!
What is it that you actually think Petawawa is, some kind of vortex that sucks out the soul and will to live? You seem to have a particular lip on for that place. It's not my cup of decaf half fat triple stevia chai latte either, but I have lots of friends (real ones) who love it there.
DIVERGENCE ALERT ENDS


----------



## Haggis

Target Up said:
			
		

> DIVERGENCE ALERT!
> What is it that you actually think Petawawa is, some kind of vortex that sucks out the soul and will to live?



Nah.... that's Meaford.  I loved my time in Petawawa.

DIVERGENCE ALERT ENDS


----------



## stellarpanther

I only go by what I hear, but a lot of people have a certain impression of Petawawa whether it's right or wrong.


----------



## BeyondTheNow

Back on topic folks.

Milnet.ca Staff


----------



## jaysfan17

I've had a quick read through the postings in this thread and there's been some interesting points that I've observed from both sides of the fence here. I'm more inclined to side with the non-name changing camp. However, after doing some self reflection of my own I understand why there is a need for a rank change, whether I agree or not is irrelevant, imo. From what I've observed in the military is that rank/position (RSM, Coxswain, etc) means everything. When I was taking part in my pre deployment training (and during deployment), I was one of four OS's in a group of maybe 50. At times there were moments where I wasn't treated with respect when I did have more experience than some of the AB's and a few of the LS's and I was brushed off as just "ordinary". So I do understand the reasoning behind wanting to change the rank names from that perspective. 

The whole "seaman" double entendre argument kind of bothers me. I think we as a society put too much power in words and have become so offended by the most juvenile quips which makes me wonder what are we even doing. Give or take 100 years ago young men and women were being born into a generation that would take part in the most destructive war to ever occur and we sit here and argue about offensive language. C'mon. 

WRT the RAdm comments about "To those of you who have made hateful, misogynistic and racist comments", I don't really know what to say here. I've only seen the announcements being made on Facebook and I have not seen any of these types comments. I've seen both sides share respectful opinions on the matter. I think it's wrong for the RAdm to group all of the opposing view as being hateful (at least that's how I'm perceiving it). I agree with what  ModlrMike said "One can offer criticism that is not racist, hateful, or misogynistic." I understand FB is not the only social media platform, Reddit being the other (if there's any others please let me know). However, if I understand Reddit correctly, your real name and bio is not shown on what you post, therefore, in my eyes, the higher ups shouldn't be taking those comments seriously. Could just be trolls. 

At the end of the day my opinion of this rank change is conflicting. I understand the 'why', but it just doesn't seem necessary considering the other pressing needs of the RCN.


----------



## Donald H

Ordinary seaman or seawoman, Able seaman or seawoman, Leading seaman or seawoman, and petty is o.k. so far.

If they really must?


----------



## FSTO

Lumber said:
			
		

> Maybe not in the army or air force (definitely not the air force), but they do in the navy. Let me explain:
> 
> Once you get promoted to Lt(N), you train into one of 6 specializations (ok 8 technically but lets ignore clearance diver and subs for a moment). We call these specializations our director level qualification, or "D-levels". Two of these are warfare related (AWWO, UWWO), 1 is sort of but not really warfare related (IWO), and 3 are not warfare related at all (NavO, DeckO, CISO). So, by the end of our "d-level tour", some of us have warfare experience and time working in an operations room, while others have very little, or none.
> 
> Fast forward to our next qualification, where regardless of what D-level we did, we all train to become "Operations Room Officer". It trains us to lead the operations room in defending the ship against all areas of warfare. It's kind of like our version of AOC. However, while all NWOs will do this course, not all NWOs who finish this course will actually work as an "ORO" in an actual ops room. You could get posted to a Kingston-class as an XO, or to one the new AOPS which have no real fighting capability at all.
> 
> So, how do they decide who get's which posting? This is wear navy career management gets a win. They know that by the time we get to be XOs (LCdr) and COs (Cdrs), we need a wide breadth of experience. So, those of us who already have warfare and ops room exepreience (AWWOs, UWWOs and IWOs) are more likely to get posted to a Kingston or AOPV, while those who have not yet had a chance to actually work in an ops room are more likely to get posted to the frigates.
> 
> That's not how it works 100% of the time. I mean, I wouldn't want to be sailing on a ship with 3 OROs who were all former DeckOs! (sorry, not sorry) But at least the navy is trying to manage our experience make sure it's future leaders get a breadth of experience.



What was the reason for making Deck and Comms Director level? A misguided need to get more and more officers through the ORO sausage maker?

When those two positions were 2nd Sea Tour Lt(N)s the Wardroom had 2 more experienced officers to assist the NAVO in BWK assessment and development, the XO in overall officer development, and the Deck Dept had an officer with actual experience as their Dept Head. 
Another plus is that these officers gained valuable experience in all aspects of ship handling, ships routine and Dept head duties and responsibilities.


----------



## Kilted

jaysfan17 said:
			
		

> I've had a quick read through the postings in this thread and there's been some interesting points that I've observed from both sides of the fence here. I'm more inclined to side with the non-name changing camp. However, after doing some self reflection of my own I understand why there is a need for a rank change, whether I agree or not is irrelevant, imo. From what I've observed in the military is that rank/position (RSM, Coxswain, etc) means everything. When I was taking part in my pre deployment training (and during deployment), I was one of four OS's in a group of maybe 50. At times there were moments where I wasn't treated with respect when I did have more experience than some of the AB's and a few of the LS's and I was brushed off as just "ordinary". So I do understand the reasoning behind wanting to change the rank names from that perspective.



You're going to get that regardless of what the rank structure.  Even in the Army is not uncommon for Pte and Cpl's to treat PteR and PteB like that.  Its just part of the nature of having a rank structure. Unfortunately you get some people who think that their rank makes them better than people who are a lower rank then them, (some new MCpl's can be pretty bad at this, although you can find it at every rank level).


----------



## dangerboy

Well the Navy has made its choice on the new rank:



> The RCN’s junior ranks will soon be known as Sailor Third Class (formerly Ordinary Seaman), Sailor Second Class (formerly Able Seaman), Sailor First Class (formerly Leading Seaman), and Master Sailor (formerly Master Seaman).



https://www.canada.ca/en/department-national-defence/news/2020/08/royal-canadian-navy-adopts-more-inclusive-rank-designation.html


----------



## Halifax Tar

More in depth on the methodology and findings that led to the chosen rank change.

http://www.navy-marine.forces.gc.ca/en/news-operations/news-view.page?doc=rcn-rank-change-initiative-poll-results-rank-designation-change-decision/kdxnh8ed


----------



## dimsum

Saw this on social media.  They totally dropped the ball on potential ranks   :rofl:


----------



## dapaterson

Of course, the legal authority of the Commander of the RCN to order a change in the designations of ranks is nil.

Per the National Defence Act,


> Ranks of officers and non-commissioned members
> 
> 21 (1) For the purposes of this Act, the ranks of the officers and non-commissioned members of the Canadian Forces shall be as set out in the schedule.
> 
> Designation
> 
> (2) A person holding a rank set out in the schedule shall use, or be referred to by, a designation of rank prescribed in regulations made by the Governor in Council but only in the circumstances prescribed in those regulations.



The Regulations referred to are QR&O volume 1, Chapter 3, article 3.01, issued under the authority of the Governor in Council.

So, to change ranks, step 1 is to get the Queen's Regulations and Orders changed...


----------



## Eye In The Sky

It's 2020;  rules and regs don't matter!


----------



## Jarnhamar

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> More in depth on the methodology and findings that led to the chosen rank change.
> 
> http://www.navy-marine.forces.gc.ca/en/news-operations/news-view.page?doc=rcn-rank-change-initiative-poll-results-rank-designation-change-decision/kdxnh8ed



Shipmates is the Navy's version of _"Team"_.


----------



## QV

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Of course, the legal authority of the Commander of the RCN to order a change in the designations of ranks is nil.
> 
> Per the National Defence Act,
> The Regulations referred to are QR&O volume 1, Chapter 3, article 3.01, issued under the authority of the Governor in Council.
> 
> So, to change ranks, step 1 is to get the Queen's Regulations and Orders changed...



This makes me chortle, just a little.  

Can they get that changed in time for the CANFORGEN coming out in September?


----------



## FSTO

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Of course, the legal authority of the Commander of the RCN to order a change in the designations of ranks is nil.
> 
> Per the National Defence Act,
> The Regulations referred to are QR&O volume 1, Chapter 3, article 3.01, issued under the authority of the Governor in Council.
> 
> So, to change ranks, step 1 is to get the Queen's Regulations and Orders changed...



Hmmm.....I wonder if a lower deck lawyer will put in a grievance. Or a retired member, just to stir the pot, put up a legal challenge? 

I'll just call them all Killicks from now on.


----------



## dimsum

FSTO said:
			
		

> I'll just call them all Killicks from now on.



You mean we stopped?!


----------



## dapaterson

QV said:
			
		

> This makes me chortle, just a little.
> 
> Can they get that changed in time for the CANFORGEN coming out in September?



The RCN's announcement suggests that changing the regulations is part of a background process (quote below, emphasis added)



> These new rank designations will be effective upon the issuance of a CANFORGEN on Friday 4 September. At that point, as we begin referring to shipmates using the new rank designations, we will have taken another in our incremental steps to build a more inclusive workplace that appropriately represents our values as a Navy, Force and Nation. *Meanwhile, there will of course be a formal process running in the background to codify the change in our orders, regulations, publications and forms.* This process is expected to take several years. Amplifying information will roll-out as this process unfolds.



The problem is that the legal foundation of the ranks is the table to the QR&O.  There is no legal authority to refer to CAF members by ranks/designations other than those within the NDA or within the regulations.  A CANFORGEN doesn't trump the law and its associated regulations.


These are regulations under an act requiring GiC approval.  The normal flow, starting at the end, is:

* GG approval of the revised regulations
* TB Ministers, meeting as GiC, recommend revised regulations to GG for approval
* TB Ministers, meeting as TB, approve any financial elements of the proposed regulatory change (likely not applicable in this case)
* DND submits package for approval including rationale for changes and proposed regulations
* DND staff assemble submission package and get CRCN, CDS, CFO (for financial impacts), DM and MND endorsement.
* Department of Justice Lawyers approve changes to regulations, and provide what's called the blue stamp - certifying that the proposed regulations meet the form, fit and function, and have no outstanding legal issues
* Client and their legal advisers review draft regulations, together with staff and lawyers from TB Regulatory Affairs Sector.  This ensures cross-functional questions / issues are understood and addressed.  In the case of ranks; this would be minor; other regulations would undergo more detailed scrutiny to ensure alignment where possible and understanding of any deviations required for unique aspects of the CAF.
* Specialized lawyers draft proposed changes to the regulations (in this case, the changes to the English-language table to QR&O 3.01, column 2, serials 16 and 17).  In this instance it would be trivial; for many other regulations, this is a lengthy and complex process, where lawyers draft the regulations in parallel in English and in French.  Or, in other words, they are not translated from one language into another.
* Client and their legal advisers create drafting instructions for regulatory drafters describing the desired outcomes, the rationale for their choice of instrument, history, relevant legislation and regulations.  Work is also done to prepare Regulatory Impact Analysis Statements and other supporting documentation.


Had the NDA decreed under NDA 21(2) that the Minister could make such changes, the process would be abbreviated - no requirement to go to to the TB ministers and GG.  But Parliament reserved this authority to the GiC, not to the MND or to any CAF member.

(Process geeks can read more about regulatory development at: https://www.canada.ca/en/treasury-board-secretariat/services/federal-regulatory-management/guidelines-tools.html.  Note that the majority of CAF regulations are exempt from pre-publication.)


----------



## Navy_Pete

Dimsum said:
			
		

> You mean we stopped?!



I think most people stuck with the last name anyway, as Ordinary/ Able Seaman Bloggins was a bit of a mouthful. So if you weren't on parade or in trouble, the rank was never used. Probably a bad news decision for anyone with the last name Moon though; can see that deterring them from joining. 

Now that they've actually made the decision, hope we can get back to operationally critical things, like the shortage of people and lack of parts.


----------



## daftandbarmy

dapaterson said:
			
		

> The RCN's announcement suggests that changing the regulations is part of a background process (quote below, emphasis added)
> 
> The problem is that the legal foundation of the ranks is the table to the QR&O.  There is no legal authority to refer to CAF members by ranks/designations other than those within the NDA or within the regulations.  A CANFORGEN doesn't trump the law and its associated regulations.
> 
> 
> These are regulations under an act requiring GiC approval.  The normal flow, starting at the end, is:
> 
> * GG approval of the revised regulations
> * TB Ministers, meeting as GiC, recommend revised regulations to GG for approval
> * TB Ministers, meeting as TB, approve any financial elements of the proposed regulatory change (likely not applicable in this case)
> * DND submits package for approval including rationale for changes and proposed regulations
> * DND staff assemble submission package and get CRCN, CDS, CFO (for financial impacts), DM and MND endorsement.
> * Department of Justice Lawyers approve changes to regulations, and provide what's called the blue stamp - certifying that the proposed regulations meet the form, fit and function, and have no outstanding legal issues
> * Client and their legal advisers review draft regulations, together with staff and lawyers from TB Regulatory Affairs Sector.  This ensures cross-functional questions / issues are understood and addressed.  In the case of ranks; this would be minor; other regulations would undergo more detailed scrutiny to ensure alignment where possible and understanding of any deviations required for unique aspects of the CAF.
> * Specialized lawyers draft proposed changes to the regulations (in this case, the changes to the English-language table to QR&O 3.01, column 2, serials 16 and 17).  In this instance it would be trivial; for many other regulations, this is a lengthy and complex process, where lawyers draft the regulations in parallel in English and in French.  Or, in other words, they are not translated from one language into another.
> * Client and their legal advisers create drafting instructions for regulatory drafters describing the desired outcomes, the rationale for their choice of instrument, history, relevant legislation and regulations.  Work is also done to prepare Regulatory Impact Analysis Statements and other supporting documentation.
> 
> 
> Had the NDA decreed under NDA 21(2) that the Minister could make such changes, the process would be abbreviated - no requirement to go to to the TB ministers and GG.  But Parliament reserved this authority to the GiC, not to the MND or to any CAF member.
> 
> (Process geeks can read more about regulatory development at: https://www.canada.ca/en/treasury-board-secretariat/services/federal-regulatory-management/guidelines-tools.html.  Note that the majority of CAF regulations are exempt from pre-publication.)



So, what you're saying is, it should take about 10 years ... without COVID distractions?  8)


----------



## QV

dapaterson said:
			
		

> The RCN's announcement suggests that changing the regulations is part of a background process (quote below, emphasis added)
> 
> The problem is that the legal foundation of the ranks is the table to the QR&O.  There is no legal authority to refer to CAF members by ranks/designations other than those within the NDA or within the regulations.  A CANFORGEN doesn't trump the law and its associated regulations.
> 
> 
> These are regulations under an act requiring GiC approval.  The normal flow, starting at the end, is:
> 
> * GG approval of the revised regulations
> * TB Ministers, meeting as GiC, recommend revised regulations to GG for approval
> * TB Ministers, meeting as TB, approve any financial elements of the proposed regulatory change (likely not applicable in this case)
> * DND submits package for approval including rationale for changes and proposed regulations
> * DND staff assemble submission package and get CRCN, CDS, CFO (for financial impacts), DM and MND endorsement.
> * Department of Justice Lawyers approve changes to regulations, and provide what's called the blue stamp - certifying that the proposed regulations meet the form, fit and function, and have no outstanding legal issues
> * Client and their legal advisers review draft regulations, together with staff and lawyers from TB Regulatory Affairs Sector.  This ensures cross-functional questions / issues are understood and addressed.  In the case of ranks; this would be minor; other regulations would undergo more detailed scrutiny to ensure alignment where possible and understanding of any deviations required for unique aspects of the CAF.
> * Specialized lawyers draft proposed changes to the regulations (in this case, the changes to the English-language table to QR&O 3.01, column 2, serials 16 and 17).  In this instance it would be trivial; for many other regulations, this is a lengthy and complex process, where lawyers draft the regulations in parallel in English and in French.  Or, in other words, they are not translated from one language into another.
> * Client and their legal advisers create drafting instructions for regulatory drafters describing the desired outcomes, the rationale for their choice of instrument, history, relevant legislation and regulations.  Work is also done to prepare Regulatory Impact Analysis Statements and other supporting documentation.
> 
> 
> Had the NDA decreed under NDA 21(2) that the Minister could make such changes, the process would be abbreviated - no requirement to go to to the TB ministers and GG.  But Parliament reserved this authority to the GiC, not to the MND or to any CAF member.
> 
> (Process geeks can read more about regulatory development at: https://www.canada.ca/en/treasury-board-secretariat/services/federal-regulatory-management/guidelines-tools.html.  Note that the majority of CAF regulations are exempt from pre-publication.)



Yikes.  So what's the take away if the CANFORGEN in September states "effective immediately..." but the legal process has not yet completed to authorize the change?  What are the optics of that?


----------



## NavyShooter

Reality is that folks in the CofC will expect the new ranks to be used.


Fact is that there is no way to enforce it, or punish any who fail to follow the path until the aforementioned steps are actioned and completed.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Don`t forget gazetting and public comments as part of the RIAS


----------



## QV

For those who are sticklers for rules, would this be a problem? Does the noble end justify the means? I have no horse in this race, and I like the new ranks. But rules are rules, I'm curious what some of you think about that.  Are rules sometimes meant to be bent and broken?


----------



## Good2Golf

Or they streamline it like they did for the Firearms OIC.


----------



## Stonegeneral

There has to be something missing here, from QR&Os, it states

"3.01 – RANKS AND DESIGNATION OF RANKS

(1) The ranks of officers and non-commissioned members are set out in the schedule to the National Defence Act which is reproduced in column 1 of the table to this article."

However in the NDA, the Schedule only lists the ranks as set out in Column 1 of the table listed in the QR&O. If you track back older versions of the NDA, they removed the old columns that included things like the old RCAF ranks.


----------



## daftandbarmy

QV said:
			
		

> For those who are sticklers for rules, would this be a problem? Does the noble end justify the means? I have no horse in this race, and I like the new ranks. But rules are rules, I'm curious what some of you think about that.  Are rules sometimes meant to be bent and broken?



Yes, in cases of obvious extreme urgency.

Getting a good score on 'Leading Change' through playing to the ruling party's penchant for virtue signalling?

That's up for debate


----------



## stoker dave

QV said:
			
		

> Are rules sometimes meant to be bent and broken?



Pardon we while I introduce some drift. 

In another discussion, there was debate about nuclear powered submarines.  I pointed out that DND does not have the internal discipline to safely operate nuclear reactors.   That is, the rules that determine the operation of a nuclear reactor cannot, shall not and must not be violated.  No one can order the change to those rules, no matter their rank or position.  No one can violate those rules.   Processes for changing the rules exist but the rules, as published and approved, have to be followed.  

So while we are talking about names of ranks - not nuclear power plants - this speaks to me of a culture that acknowledges that changes are difficult, time consuming and bureaucratic.  So short cuts are sought to achieve the desired changes.  This may be ok for some minor administrative things but it is not ok for critical safety-related items.  

So my take-away is again a further reinforcement that DND has to stay away from nuclear power plants if this is the culture. 

Sorry for the drift.


----------



## GR66

stoker dave said:
			
		

> Pardon we while I introduce some drift.
> 
> In another discussion, there was debate about nuclear powered submarines.  I pointed out that DND does not have the internal discipline to safely operate nuclear reactors.   That is, the rules that determine the operation of a nuclear reactor cannot, shall not and must not be violated.  No one can order the change to those rules, no matter their rank or position.  No one can violate those rules.   Processes for changing the rules exist but the rules, as published and approved, have to be followed.
> 
> So while we are talking about names of ranks - not nuclear power plants - this speaks to me of a culture that acknowledges that changes are difficult, time consuming and bureaucratic.  So short cuts are sought to achieve the desired changes.  This may be ok for some minor administrative things but it is not ok for critical safety-related items.
> 
> So my take-away is again a further reinforcement that DND has to stay away from nuclear power plants if this is the culture.
> 
> Sorry for the drift.



Or maybe it indicates that the organization (and government) as a whole has become so bureaucratic that even non-critical issues are so bogged down by rules and regulations that even seemingly simple changes cannot be made without massive administrative overhead.  

Like you say, some things absolutely should be set in stone and followed to the letter of the regulations.  But when absolutely everything is treated the same way does that not possibly create the "lax" attitude you're concerned about?


----------



## dapaterson

Stonegeneral said:
			
		

> There has to be something missing here, from QR&Os, it states
> 
> "3.01 – RANKS AND DESIGNATION OF RANKS
> 
> (1) The ranks of officers and non-commissioned members are set out in the schedule to the National Defence Act which is reproduced in column 1 of the table to this article."
> 
> However in the NDA, the Schedule only lists the ranks as set out in Column 1 of the table listed in the QR&O. If you track back older versions of the NDA, they removed the old columns that included things like the old RCAF ranks.



If you read the QR&O complete, there are columns added for ranks and names of ranks for the Navy, Army and Air Force within the table to the article; the old schedule from the NDA moved to the QR&O, essentially.  This is easier to amend than getting Parliament to sit and change the NDA (which would have been required under the old version of the NDA).



			
				Colin P said:
			
		

> Don`t forget gazetting and public comments as part of the RIAS



As a general rule, QR&Os are exempt from gazetting and public comment, as they do not affect the public at large.



			
				GR66 said:
			
		

> Or maybe it indicates that the organization (and government) as a whole has become so bureaucratic that even non-critical issues are so bogged down by rules and regulations that even seemingly simple changes cannot be made without massive administrative overhead.
> 
> Like you say, some things absolutely should be set in stone and followed to the letter of the regulations.  But when absolutely everything is treated the same way does that not possibly create the "lax" attitude you're concerned about?



The Government decided when amending the NDA that the appropriate place to vest authority to change ranks in the Governor in Council.  If that is ignored, then the decision to ignore it is a decision to flout the law.

Other options could have been introduced into the NDA - make the MND the authority.  Order any change of rank names to be selected based on a poll in /r/CanadianForces.  But the Government decided to pass a law instead that says that the GiC is the approving authority.


----------



## Blackadder1916

dapaterson said:
			
		

> The problem is that the legal foundation of the ranks is the table to the QR&O.  There is no legal authority to refer to CAF members by ranks/designations other than those within the NDA or within the regulations.  A CANFORGEN doesn't trump the law and its associated regulations.



Similarly tell it to that part of the Canadian Forces that is referred to as the RCAF.  They announced that they were changing the title of their privates to aviator in September 2014; their guidance on implementation said:

https://army.ca/forums/threads/16520/post-1331450.html#msg1331450


> ON 21 SEPTEMBER, THE MINISTER OF NATIONAL DEFENCE INTRODUCED A NEW RANK TITLE CALLED AVIATOR. THIS TERM REPLACES PRIVATE AND SHALL BE USED AS OF 1 APRIL 2015 IN THE DAILY DUTY LANGUAGE OF ALL RCAF PERSONNEL ADDRESSING THIS RANK



However, the amendment to QR&O 3.01 was not effective, as per the notation, until (G) [P.C. 2015-0566 effective 1 June 2015], though the order in council was actually dated 2015-05-07.





			
				Stonegeneral said:
			
		

> There has to be something missing here, from QR&Os, it states
> 
> "3.01 – RANKS AND DESIGNATION OF RANKS
> 
> (1) The ranks of officers and non-commissioned members are set out in the schedule to the National Defence Act which is reproduced in column 1 of the table to this article."
> 
> However in the NDA, the Schedule only lists the ranks as set out in Column 1 of the table listed in the QR&O. If you track back older versions of the NDA, they removed the old columns that included things like the old RCAF ranks.



No, there was nothing missing there.  That QR&O was only amended to include those additional columns with service specific rank titles in 2015.  The Schedule and Sect 21 of the NDA were amended in 2014 by the Economic Action Plan 2014 Act, No. 1 which provided the following explanation.



> Division 7 of Part 6 amends the National Defence Act to recognize the historic names of the Royal Canadian Navy, the Canadian Army and the Royal Canadian Air Force while preserving the integration and the unification achieved under the Canadian Forces Reorganization Act and to provide that the designations of rank and the circumstances of their use are prescribed in regulations made by the Governor in Council.



That legislation also amended the NDA section on organization that included the titles of commands as RCN, CA and RCAF.


----------



## Jarnhamar

[quote author=NavyShooter]

Fact is that there is no way to enforce it, or punish any who fail to follow the path until the aforementioned steps are actioned and completed.
[/quote]

I disagree a bit here my friend. I think there is no legal way to punish any who fail to do it. There's all kinds of tricks CoCs use to force compliance from members.  We're especially good at subtle read between the lines intimidation and threats IMO. 

Vice-Admiral Art McDonald's explanation of the decision, and seeing the Navy's hype and posturing surrounding this, makes me think anyone seen not fully embracing this will be considered prejudiced and full of HATE and should be released from the military. Good luck for anyone caught trying to argue these ranks aren't somehow legitimate because of that whole lack of authority and rules stuff.


----------



## FJAG

dapaterson said:
			
		

> If you read the QR&O complete, there are columns added for ranks and names of ranks for the Navy, Army and Air Force within the table to the article; the old schedule from the NDA moved to the QR&O, essentially.  This is easier to amend than getting Parliament to sit and change the NDA (which would have been required under the old version of the NDA).
> 
> As a general rule, QR&Os are exempt from gazetting and public comment, as they do not affect the public at large.
> 
> The Government decided when amending the NDA that the appropriate place to vest authority to change ranks in the Governor in Council.  If that is ignored, then the decision to ignore it is a decision to flout the law.
> 
> Other options could have been introduced into the NDA - make the MND the authority.  Order any change of rank names to be selected based on a poll in /r/CanadianForces.  But the Government decided to pass a law instead that says that the GiC is the approving authority.



Just to add to your explanation note that the NDA provides as follows:



> Ranks of officers and non-commissioned members
> 
> 21 (1) For the purposes of this Act, the ranks of the officers and non-commissioned members of the Canadian Forces shall be as set out in the schedule.
> 
> Designation
> 
> (2) A person holding a rank set out in the schedule shall use, or be referred to by, a designation of rank prescribed in regulations made by the Governor in Council but only in the circumstances prescribed in those regulations.
> 
> R.S., 1985, c. N-5, s. 21R.S., 1985, c. 31 (1st Supp.), s. 602014, c. 20, s. 169



S. 21(1) and the schedule provides for the rank structure (note the absence of Master Corporal as a rank).

S. 21(2) provides for a system by which the various ranks can be given a designation of rank by way of a regulation made by the GiC without any need to amend the schedule to the NDA.

QR&O 3.01 is the current regulation made by P.C. 2015-0566 dated 1 June 2015 . 



> PC Number: 2015-0566
> 
> Date: 2015-05-07
> 
> His Excellency the Governor General in Council, on the recommendation of the Minister of National Defence, pursuant to subsection 12(1) of the National Defence Act, makes the annexed Regulations Amending the Queen’s Regulations and Orders for the Canadian Forces.
> 
> Sur recommandation du ministre de la Défense nationale et en vertu du paragraphe 12(1) de la Loi sur la défense nationale, Son Excellence le Gouverneur général en conseil prend le Règlement modifiant les Ordonnances et règlements royaux applicables aux Forces canadiennes, ci-après.



A new OiC promulgated regulation will be required to amend the existing Navy rank designations with the new ones.

 :cheers:


----------



## kratz

[quote author=FJAG]
A new OiC promulgated regulation will be required to amend the existing Navy rank designations with the new ones.
[/quote]

Either way...somebody prorogued parliament. No OiC is possible before the announced CANFORGEN.


----------



## Blackadder1916

kratz said:
			
		

> Either way...somebody prorogued parliament. No OiC is possible before the announced CANFORGEN.



Orders in council are not contingent on Parliamentary approval.  There is still a government, still a cabinet and still a Governor General who can sign.  The current NDA already provides the authority for the Governor in Council to make the change.


----------



## Pelorus

stoker dave said:
			
		

> Pardon we while I introduce some drift.
> 
> In another discussion, there was debate about nuclear powered submarines.  I pointed out that DND does not have the internal discipline to safely operate nuclear reactors.   That is, the rules that determine the operation of a nuclear reactor cannot, shall not and must not be violated.  No one can order the change to those rules, no matter their rank or position.  No one can violate those rules.   Processes for changing the rules exist but the rules, as published and approved, have to be followed.
> 
> So while we are talking about names of ranks - not nuclear power plants - this speaks to me of a culture that acknowledges that changes are difficult, time consuming and bureaucratic.  So short cuts are sought to achieve the desired changes.  This may be ok for some minor administrative things but it is not ok for critical safety-related items.
> 
> So my take-away is again a further reinforcement that DND has to stay away from nuclear power plants if this is the culture.
> 
> Sorry for the drift.



While I certainly understand where you're coming from, I don't think that this is a completely fair comparison. At the very least it in my opinion it does not completely reflect the nature of policy and procedural compliance in large organizations/bureaucracies.

There is a significant difference between adherence to administrative policies, and adherence to policies which directly affect operational safety. The question of whether an organization which routinely violates non-operational/safety policy as a matter of necessity (or perhaps more accurately perceived necessity) fosters an organizational culture which thus makes it susceptible to accepting violations of safety-critical policies is an interesting one, and a component of the study of organizational behaviour, but I don't think that we can say that it is a simple direct relationship.

To your example, the USN operates more nuclear propulsion than anyone else in the world, and they have an impressive safety record on this front. Conversely, the USN when viewed as a whole is also an organization which in the last few years has been repeatedly stricken by preventable, tragic accidents (e.g. USS _Fitzgerald_, USS _McCain_, etc.) as well as other significant controversies which are at least partially related to deviation from policy and law (e.g. "Fat Leonard" Scandal, Bahrain Prostitution Scandal, USS _Theodore Roosevelt_/COVID issue, etc.).

It's been some time since I've read the accident reports for _Fitzgerald_ and _McCain_ as well as the associated investigative reporting, but whereas the senior leadership of the USN and DoD focused their investigation of those accidents on errors made by the most proximate operators to the events (e.g. the Officer of the Deck, Combat Information Center personnel, Commanding Officer, etc.), ProPublica and other investigative reporting media organizations made a compelling case for significant systemic issues within the broader 7th Fleet and USN senior leadership. If I recall correctly, those issues included direct operational considerations such as ignoring individual and collective training qualifications and certifications stemming from crewing shortages in order to get a ship out the door on an "essential" mission.

The point I'm trying to make is that the USN is an organization which seems to simultaneously have institutional rot in certain areas, while being able to maintain a strong safety record with their nuke fleet (both surface and subsurface). I can't say for sure why this is, as I have next to no exposure to the USN nuke world, but my suspicion is that the nuke community has instilled an effective safety culture when it comes to maintenance and operation which can robustly defend itself against the seduction to deviate from policy in the interests of efficiency or "mission success". To develop the same organizational sub-culture within DND would take concerted effort to make sure that we are approaching it correctly, but I don't think it's fair to dismiss it as unachievable.


Back to the original discussion, I don't necessarily see an issue with the manner in which Comd RCN instilled this rank change.

Do I think that he was likely advised by his staff of the formal procedure for effecting a change of this nature (as described by dapaterson)? Yes.

Do I think that he assessed that such a relatively minor (with respect to cost and political capital) change required full OiC concurrence (with the associated multi-year timeline prior to announcing it)? No.

Do I think that he likely briefed this plan and received concurrence from the CDS and MND? Yes.

Do I think that this change will be rubber-stamped by the government without much fanfare much like the RCAF Aviator rank change? Also yes.

Again, all of the above are just my :2c: as an interested, outside observer to the process.


P.S. If anyone is interested in organizational behaviour in a military context, and how a number of seemingly minor operational deviations can result in a fatal accident, I strongly recommend the book Friendly Fire: The Accidental Shootdown of U.S. Black Hawks over Northern Iraq by Scott A. Snook. It was recommended to me by a former CO of mine, and has dramatically impacted how I view risk, blame, and accountability in a professional context as a Naval Officer.


----------



## Ostrozac

Until the QR&Os are amended by order-in-council, the use of the new ranks is very slightly illegal. It's a small crime, to be sure, but it's still a crime. But who am I to judge? After all, I've been known to violate a regulation or two in my day. I may refer to the new ranks as the "pirate ranks".

On a more serious note, the RCN is putting itself in an awkward position if, when the rank change proposal eventually gets to cabinet, it is rejected. Either because it doesn't go far enough (is Petty an inherently derogatory term?) or more likely if there is an election and the new Cabinet has a strong social conservative/traditionalist streak. That this decision was in the hands of cabinet should mean that the political risk, and political gain should the new ranks be popular, should be with cabinet. The RCN attempting to gain, very publicly, credit and praise for a decision that isn't actually within their authority just seems odd to me. Shouldn't have this been a recommendation in confidence? It seems to meet the textbook definition of a department's advice to cabinet.


----------



## ModlrMike

So, serious question. 

Say you intend to issue RM or charges to a sailor. If done before Sep 4, then you can argue that the member was identified with the designations in force at the time. However, if you do this after Sep 4, do you use the new or old titles? An argument could be made that because the rank change is not codified in law at the time the documents were served or created, the measures have no effect.

I know at least two sailors in my unit who I can guarantee would argue this technicality, and they might be successful under the concept of mis-identification.


----------



## SupersonicMax

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> I know at least two sailors in my unit who I can guarantee would argue this technicality, and they might be successful under the concept of mis-identification.



Talk about accountability....


----------



## MJP

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> So, serious question.
> 
> Say you intend to issue RM or charges to a sailor. If done before Sep 4, then you can argue that the member was identified with the designations in force at the time. However, if you do this after Sep 4, do you use the new or old titles? An argument could be made that because the rank change is not codified in law at the time the documents were served or created, the measures have no effect.
> 
> I know at least two sailors in my unit who I can guarantee would argue this technicality, and they might be successful under the concept of mis-identification.



I don't think that is a strong argument, they are not being misidentified as we would still use their proper name and service number. A minor admin error in my opinion does not invalidate the issue that led to the RM in the first place.


----------



## ModlrMike

Won't stop them from attempting to bury us in admin.

I'm going to send this very question to JAG next week. I'll post what I can of the response.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

I will miss the term seaman, but what i don't like is the 1st,2nd and 3rd class bit.


----------



## dapaterson

So, in English in the Navy, junior and senior NCMs will have class, but officers will not...


----------



## FSTO

Colin P said:
			
		

> I will miss the term seaman, but what i don't like is the 1st,2nd and 3rd class bit.



The rank names will likely evolve. I yet to hear anyone call the senior NCM in a HMCShip "Chief Petty Officer 1st Class Coxswain Bloggins" It's always been Cox'n or Swain.

A newby Sailor Third Class Bloggins will never be called that, until all us dinosaurs die, that person will always be an "OD", but if we're whipped enough, we'll likely call them "S3 Bloggins".

My biggest beef with the whole process was the sham survey, and the constant self patting going on. 
I expect the doors of the recruiting centres to be crammed with women, POC, and WOKE folks whose sole reason for not joining the RCN was the word "Seaman".  :sarcasm:


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

I think you are mixing apples and oranges, FSTO.

Coxswain is a position, not a rank. And onboard ship, we usually refer to someone with  a "position" by that position's designation, regardless of rank.

However, you are correct that the "class" will not be used, just like we do for Petty Officers and Chief Petty Officers - unlike the Army who is very specific with their warrant officers designation.

In common usage, we call both classes of Petty Officers just PO, and Chief Petty officers just Chief, without referring to class, except in formal circumstances, such as promotion or special announcements (getting a medal or decoration, etc.).

It will be the same with the sailors: we will call them Sailor So-and-So, regardless of their class. That is the way it already is in French, BTW, where the 1st, 2nd and 3rd class already is the way the ranks are designated. We call all the "matelots" just matelot So-and-So unless in formal reference.


----------



## Kilted

I could see this further degrading the rank of Cpl/LS now that there will basically be no difference between the ranks when spoken. Does the Navy have the concept of "Leading Seaman for LIfe" , I could see a few of them being upset about being referred by the same rank as someone who just swore in.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Kilted said:
			
		

> I could see this further degrading the rank of Cpl/LS now that there will basically be no difference between the ranks when spoken. Does the Navy have the concept of "Leading Seaman for LIfe" , I could see a few of them being upset about being referred by the same rank as someone who just swore in.



I'm sure that there will be an appropriate range of giant patches to show the food chain. Or just tattoo a number between 1 and 3 on your neck


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> I'm sure that there will be an appropriate range of giant patches to show the food chain.



It already exists: It's called the rank badge/slip-ons. Works wonderfully at showing the food chain.

I very much doubt that - given we can see each other's rank - merely addressing all levels as simply "sailor" will upset anyone. I think that such attachment to forms of verbal address is an army thing.

The Petty Officers First Class don't care that the Second Class ones are addressed the same way as they are. Same for the Chiefs. And I don't know any Sub-Lieutenant that care when we address Acting Sub-Lieutenants merely as "Sub-Lieutenant". (Or in French, that we call both Ensigns First and Second Class just "Ensign".


----------



## daftandbarmy

Yes Master.... minefields abound. Regardless, this article seems quite 'odd'....


New RCN Ranks Include Politically Incorrect “Master”

August 27, 2020 – The Royal Canadian Navy (RCN) is continuing to work to create a more “inclusive” environment within the workplaces, whether that is at sea or at home. Following survey with over 18,000 respondents, the RCN has chosen a new English rank designation for its junior ranks that will result in more gender-neutral terms than the current titles, which are not reflective of the modern, “progressive” service of RCN today.

The RCN’s junior ranks will soon be known as Sailor Third Class (formerly Ordinary Seaman), Sailor Second Class (formerly Able Seaman), Sailor First Class (formerly Leading Seaman), and Master Sailor (formerly Master Seaman).
On June 12, 2020, the Washington Post has this to say about the term “master.”

Like countless U.S. businesses, tech companies lately have been showing their support for racial justice, filling their websites and social media feeds with uplifting Black Lives Matter messages.

Unlike other U.S. businesses, the tech industry has a “master” and “slave” problem.

That’s what many tech companies call software components — “master” and “slave” is written into the computer code — wherein one process controls another. Not “controller” and “follower,” say, or “manager” and “worker.” Should an African American software developer be required to write code wherein a master process commands slaves?

Concern about the tech industry’s use of master/slave terminology has been simmering for years. In 2003, Los Angeles County asked vendors to stop using it. Some companies made changes; others did not. So why shouldn’t the focus stay on the companies that refuse?

These changes help retain the history of these roles and aligns the English rank designation with the existing ranks in French. These new rank designations will be effective upon the issuance of a CANFORGEN in early September. At that point, the junior ranks will begin referring to shipmates using the new rank designations.

The official announcement said, “By ensuring that the RCN continues to be an accepting and inclusive organization, we can demonstrate to Canadians that we uphold the values they hold as the RCN continues to protect them, both at home and abroad.” It appears bilingualism trumps racism in the woke halls of Ottawa.


https://mapleleafnavy.com/new-rcn-ranks-including-politically-incorrect-master/


----------



## MJP

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> Yes Master.... minefields abound. Regardless, this article seems quite 'odd'....
> 
> 
> New RCN Ranks Include Politically Incorrect “Master”
> 
> August 27, 2020 – The Royal Canadian Navy (RCN) is continuing to work to create a more “inclusive” environment within the workplaces, whether that is at sea or at home. Following survey with over 18,000 respondents, the RCN has chosen a new English rank designation for its junior ranks that will result in more gender-neutral terms than the current titles, which are not reflective of the modern, “progressive” service of RCN today.
> 
> The RCN’s junior ranks will soon be known as Sailor Third Class (formerly Ordinary Seaman), Sailor Second Class (formerly Able Seaman), Sailor First Class (formerly Leading Seaman), and Master Sailor (formerly Master Seaman).
> On June 12, 2020, the Washington Post has this to say about the term “master.”
> 
> Like countless U.S. businesses, tech companies lately have been showing their support for racial justice, filling their websites and social media feeds with uplifting Black Lives Matter messages.
> 
> Unlike other U.S. businesses, the tech industry has a “master” and “slave” problem.
> 
> That’s what many tech companies call software components — “master” and “slave” is written into the computer code — wherein one process controls another. Not “controller” and “follower,” say, or “manager” and “worker.” Should an African American software developer be required to write code wherein a master process commands slaves?
> 
> Concern about the tech industry’s use of master/slave terminology has been simmering for years. In 2003, Los Angeles County asked vendors to stop using it. Some companies made changes; others did not. So why shouldn’t the focus stay on the companies that refuse?
> 
> These changes help retain the history of these roles and aligns the English rank designation with the existing ranks in French. These new rank designations will be effective upon the issuance of a CANFORGEN in early September. At that point, the junior ranks will begin referring to shipmates using the new rank designations.
> 
> The official announcement said, “By ensuring that the RCN continues to be an accepting and inclusive organization, we can demonstrate to Canadians that we uphold the values they hold as the RCN continues to protect them, both at home and abroad.” It appears bilingualism trumps racism in the woke halls of Ottawa.
> 
> 
> https://mapleleafnavy.com/new-rcn-ranks-including-politically-incorrect-master/



What?! Are telling me a hastily thought out proposal with no real substantive analysis to allow an org to appear "woke", made a choice that upon review has its own problems?  Shocked I am....


----------



## Blackadder1916

MJP said:
			
		

> What?! Are telling me a hastily thought out proposal with no real substantive analysis to allow an org to appear "woke", made a choice that upon review has its own problems?  Shocked I am....



I thought the idiocy of complaints about use of the word "master" was previously hashed out earlier in this thread.  But looking at this latest linked article, I see nothing in it that refers to any "actual" controversy that has been identified by the navy.  As an opinion piece (?) from "Maple Leaf Navy", it does appear to lack editorial rigour.  As I am apt to do when confronted with a "news outlet" that I am unfamiliar with, I try to get a sense of the credentials of the author(s).  Maple Leaf Navy has this and only this to say about themselves:



> OUR STORY
> Maple Leaf Navy Magazine is a free source of Canadian naval news that is not normally accessible in other publications. Canadian media, in general, ignores military matters in Canada. Dedicated defense publications are beholden to their advertisers and hence selective in what they report on. Base newspapers are limited in what they can mention. We accept no subsidies and hence, can be objective in our coverage.



As I wasn't able to find anything more about them that would lend credence to the quality of their opinion (and editorial style), I did a search to see if they had been quoted previously on these forums.  It returned four instances, including the one posted above - the links provided for the other three are no longer active on their site.  So, is this an opinion that the powers that be should take seriously?  I wouldn't.


----------



## Jarnhamar

Blackadder1916 said:
			
		

> I thought the idiocy of complaints about use of the word "master" was previously hashed out earlier in this thread.



LOL ya. People get to sleep in the bed they make.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Blackadder1916 said:
			
		

> I thought the idiocy of complaints about use of the word "master" was previously hashed out earlier in this thread.  But looking at this latest linked article, I see nothing in it that refers to any "actual" controversy that has been identified by the navy.  As an opinion piece (?) from "Maple Leaf Navy", it does appear to lack editorial rigour.  As I am apt to do when confronted with a "news outlet" that I am unfamiliar with, I try to get a sense of the credentials of the author(s).  Maple Leaf Navy has this and only this to say about themselves:
> 
> As I wasn't able to find anything more about them that would lend credence to the quality of their opinion (and editorial style), I did a search to see if they had been quoted previously on these forums.  It returned four instances, including the one posted above - the links provided for the other three are no longer active on their site.  So, is this an opinion that the powers that be should take seriously?  I wouldn't.



They seem to have 'borrowed' some of the Navy's branding for their site. I'm guessing that they'd be a good target for a legal torpedo of some kind...


----------



## MJP

Blackadder1916 said:
			
		

> I thought the idiocy of complaints about use of the word "master" was previously hashed out earlier in this thread.  But looking at this latest linked article, I see nothing in it that refers to any "actual" controversy that has been identified by the navy.  As an opinion piece (?) from "Maple Leaf Navy", it does appear to lack editorial rigour.  As I am apt to do when confronted with a "news outlet" that I am unfamiliar with, I try to get a sense of the credentials of the author(s).  Maple Leaf Navy has this and only this to say about themselves:
> 
> As I wasn't able to find anything more about them that would lend credence to the quality of their opinion (and editorial style), I did a search to see if they had been quoted previously on these forums.  It returned four instances, including the one posted above - the links provided for the other three are no longer active on their site.  So, is this an opinion that the powers that be should take seriously?  I wouldn't.



All good points, FWIW I didn't dive deep into the source, nor am I fussed about the changes. I am rather always amused that in the rush to make change in the CAF we often miss the target


----------



## Gorgo

I've hesitated on making comment on this issue.  Personally, I definitely support the idea of being all-inclusive when it comes to position titles and ranks, so the move by the Commander RCN to adjust things around is definitely welcome.

:sarcasm:

One thing I believe that might eventually come out of this change - with a nod to the pre-Unification rate/rating system used by the RCN at the time - is that while the actual _*rank title*_ would be as about to be enacted, people will come to be addressed by a combination of both rank level and individual trade title; both the British and American system runs this way as well.

For example:

English:  _Naval Combat Information Operator_
French:  _Opérateur/Opératrice d'Équipement d'Informations de Combat (Marine)_

Master NCI Op/Maître-OÉICM
NCI Op 1st Class/OÉICM de 1re Classe
NCI Op 2nd Class/OÉICM de 2e Classe
NCI Op 3rd Class/OÉICM de 3e Classe

After all, it would allow both the masculine and feminine French-language forms to come into play, plus eliminate the sense some might develop of being seen as a numbered cypher.

Just my  :2c:

:sarcasm:


----------



## ModlrMike

A few observations:

1. We're not going back to the pre-unification model in any way, shape or form.

2. Most of the belly aching appears to be coming from people unaffected by the changes. Times change, culture evolves, live with it.

3. The whole master "controversy" is stupid. In the context of occupational expertise, it's a perfectly reasonable adjective. To get wound up about it is nothing more than an effort to be perpetually offended.

/soapbox /rant


----------



## Hay

Donald H said:
			
		

> Ordinary seaman or seawoman, Able seaman or seawoman, Leading seaman or seawoman, and petty is o.k. so far.
> 
> If they really must?


Why Petty is OK? It means "little importance, less importance or minor". Why we agree  that a petty officer is less important than an officer?
Come on, it is 2020. It has to be changed.

The worse thing is Master. I don't need say more about it...


----------



## ModlrMike

Petty Officer derives from the French "petit officer" - most accurately translated as "junior officer". The term Master has a long association with the navy:



> The master, or sailing master, was a historical rank for a naval officer trained in and responsible for the navigation of a sailing vessel. The rank *can be equated to a professional seaman* and specialist in navigation, rather than as a military commander.



In the appropriate context, completely reasonable.


----------



## Jarnhamar

[quote author=ModlrMike] 

3. The whole master "controversy" is stupid. In the context of occupational expertise, it's a perfectly reasonable adjective. To get wound up about it is nothing more than an effort to be perpetually offended.
[/quote]

I think seaman was fine. I like sailor more.

I'm guessing most of us here think it's stupid to get bent out of shape over "master" or "petty" officer. The problem with the big song and dance the Navy made about this name change is that it attracts people who DO take that stuff seriously. People who don't have a vested interest in the Navy or tradition or the military. Just people who want to be outraged about something and demand change for the sake of it.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> I think seaman was fine. I like sailor more.
> 
> I'm guessing most of us here think it's stupid to get bent out of shape over "master" or "petty" officer. The problem with the big song and dance the Navy made about this name change is that it attracts people who DO take that stuff seriously. People who don't have a vested interest in the Navy or tradition or the military. Just people who want to be outraged about something and demand change for the sake of it.



Tangent on....

Speaking of a 'good change' have you noticed how many coffee shops are acting like Tim Horton's these days, because of COVID? I'm smugly enjoying the 'baristas' at Starbucks adding the cow and cane for me  

Tangent off....


----------



## dimsum

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> Tangent on....
> 
> Speaking of a 'good change' have you noticed how many coffee shops are acting like Tim Horton's these days, because of COVID? I'm smugly enjoying the 'baristas' at Starbucks adding the cow and cane for me
> 
> Tangent off....



No, because I drink my coffee black.  As is correct.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Dimsum said:
			
		

> No, because I drink my coffee black.  As is correct.



What kind of monster are you?????   ;D


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Wrong! It's: Tea, Earl grey, Hot.

/TANGENT OFF


----------



## Lumber

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> 3. The whole master "controversy" is stupid. In the context of occupational expertise, it's a perfectly reasonable adjective. To get wound up about it is nothing more than an effort to be perpetually offended.
> /soapbox /rant



Is it though? I mean... have you met an _Master _Seaman?


----------



## FJAG

Either Fowler or Brewster must read our threads:



> Navy's gender-neutral change to ranks not legally binding, says ex-military lawyer
> Rory Fowler says he backs the change but accuses DND of taking a shortcut
> Murray Brewster · CBC News · Posted: Sep 09, 2020
> 
> The Royal Canadian Navy's move to change the titles of its junior ranks has no legal force, says a former military lawyer.
> 
> In the interests of making the service more inclusive, the RCN is replacing all references to "seaman" in the English-language ranks (ordinary, able, leading and master) with gender-neutral terms.
> 
> As of last week, the ranks are: sailor third class, sailor second class, sailor first class and master sailor.
> 
> But according to retired lieutenant-colonel Rory Fowler — a former military lawyer now in private practice who deals with many disciplinary and grievance cases — the Department of National Defence hasn't gone through the proper channels to change the regulations governing conduct in the ranks.
> 
> He said the government has failed to issue what's known as a Governor in Council order — an oversight the defence department now confirms.
> 
> The absence of formal authority is significant, given the criticism the measure is getting online — from some serving members of the military, among others.
> ...



See rest of article here.

:cheers:

Edited to fix worst ever link


----------



## daftandbarmy

FJAG said:
			
		

> Either Fowler or Brewster must read our threads:
> 
> See rest of article
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> :cheers:



I don't think smart people need to rely on likes of us to help poke holes in some 'issues' all by themselves


----------



## QV

Well that’s awkward.  Too bad this wasn’t done properly.


----------



## Eaglelord17

Huh its almost like the CAF has a history of calling people ranks that didn't exist anymore. The arty "insisting" on calling their Ptes, Cpls, and MCpls the 'ranks' of Gnr, Bdr, and MBdr before the most recent rank change sticks out pretty plainly in my mind.


----------



## Jarnhamar

Eaglelord17 said:
			
		

> Huh its almost like the CAF has a history of calling people ranks that didn't exist anymore. The arty "insisting" on calling their Ptes, Cpls, and MCpls the 'ranks' of Gnr, Bdr, and MBdr before the most recent rank change sticks out pretty plainly in my mind.



Blinded by the virtue signals light perhaps?


----------



## FJAG

Eaglelord17 said:
			
		

> Huh its almost like the CAF has a history of calling people ranks that didn't exist anymore. The arty "insisting" on calling their Ptes, Cpls, and MCpls the 'ranks' of Gnr, Bdr, and MBdr before the most recent rank change sticks out pretty plainly in my mind.



I held the rank of "gunner" pre-unification and would have been deeply offended (especially being a teenager at the time) if anyone had called me a "private". Luckily no one ever told us in 1968 that we were all "privates". Within the regiments we never did change the ranks and everyone remained a "gunner" or "bombardier". The same couldn't be said for the poor staff sergeants who all had to become warrant officers.

 :cheers:


----------



## Lumber

Anyone know what we're suppose to say when making pipes? Is it "Sailor 2nd Clas Bloggins, 257, Sailor 2nd Class Bloggins. ", or just "Sailor Bloggins, 257, Sailor Bloggins". I know when yelling at them the chiefs are supposed to just say "Sailor Bloggins!", but what about with pipes?


----------



## dimsum

Lumber said:
			
		

> Anyone know what we're suppose to say when making pipes? Is it "Sailor 2nd Clas Bloggins, 257, Sailor 2nd Class Bloggins. ", or just "Sailor Bloggins, 257, Sailor Bloggins". I know when yelling at them the chiefs are supposed to just say "Sailor Bloggins!", but what about with pipes?



If we're going by number of syllables, "Ordinary Seaman Bloggins" has more than "Sailor 2nd Class Bloggins".  So what's the problem?


----------



## AmmoTech90

Eaglelord17 said:
			
		

> Huh its almost like the CAF has a history of calling people ranks that didn't exist anymore. The arty "insisting" on calling their Ptes, Cpls, and MCpls the 'ranks' of Gnr, Bdr, and MBdr before the most recent rank change sticks out pretty plainly in my mind.



You mean the following ranks that are listed in QR&O Vol I, Chap 3: Trooper, Gunner, Sapper, Signaller, Private, Guardsman, Fusilier, Rifleman, Voltigeur, Craftsman, Musician, Piper, Drummer, Ranger, Bombardier, Colour Sergeant

They exist.  Just because you think they don't doesn't mean you aren't wrong.


----------



## MJP

AmmoTech90 said:
			
		

> You mean the following ranks that are listed in QR&O Vol I, Chap 3: Trooper, Gunner, Sapper, Signaller, Private, Guardsman, Fusilier, Rifleman, Voltigeur, Craftsman, Musician, Piper, Drummer, Ranger, Bombardier, Colour Sergeant
> 
> They exist.  Just because you think they don't doesn't mean you aren't wrong.



I don't think they (or some of themin common usage anyway) "existed" before 2015 officially. Highlighting that my snarky post regarding the RCN trying to appear woke rather than do the work associated was off the mark. Rather the CAF as a general rule has a problem doing things properly.


----------



## dimsum

FJAG said:
			
		

> I held the rank of "gunner" pre-unification and would have been deeply offended (especially being a teenager at the time) if anyone had called me a "private". Luckily no one ever told us in 1968 that we were all "privates". Within the regiments we never did change the ranks and everyone remained a "gunner" or "bombardier". The same couldn't be said for the poor staff sergeants who all had to become warrant officers.
> 
> :cheers:



I've never worked with many (any?) Arty folks before, so how does the rank progression work?  Bombardier, Corporal, Master Bombardier?


----------



## Kat Stevens

Dimsum said:
			
		

> I've never worked with many (any?) Arty folks before, so how does the rank progression work?  Bombardier, Corporal, Master Bombardier?


Gunner, Bombardier, Master Bombardier, Supervisor, Manager, District Manager, Superintendent.


----------



## FJAG

Target Up said:
			
		

> Gunner, Bombardier, Master Bombardier, Supervisor, Manager, District Manager, Superintendent., Sergeant, Warrant Officer etc
> 
> You confused the guns with NDHQ. A common mistake considering their omnipotence.



FTFY

 ;D


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

All I know is that, while the NDA Annex that recognized naval ranks was in force for the whole time I was in the CAF, it remains that in the 70's and early 80's (I think it finally stopped in 1982), my god damn pay check kept saying Private Trudel, Corporal Trudel, OCDT Trudel and LT Trudel (we skipped 2LT in the reserves in those days, but remained OCDT one more year than the militia). 

My first check with my correct rank was when I got promoted to Acting Lieutenant (N), and my check actually said LT  ;D.

If you keep paying a person using a certain designation, the person starts to believe that is what he/she is.


----------



## Pieman

I'm waiting for the gender ambigous ranks - Sir Sargentette, Mistress Gunnerman, Person Popper, Trans Corporal ...etc.


----------



## OldSolduer

Pieman said:
			
		

> I'm waiting for the gender ambigous ranks - Sir Sargentette, Mistress Gunnerman, Person Popper, Trans Corporal ...etc.



You got a chuckle from me on that one.


----------



## FSTO

Lumber said:
			
		

> Anyone know what we're suppose to say when making pipes? Is it "Sailor 2nd Clas Bloggins, 257, Sailor 2nd Class Bloggins. ", or just "Sailor Bloggins, 257, Sailor Bloggins". I know when yelling at them the chiefs are supposed to just say "Sailor Bloggins!", but what about with pipes?



I predict that it will be "S2 Bosn Bloggins, 257" 

In this time of social media driven leading change process, this has been a poop parade right from the start.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

Lumber said:
			
		

> Anyone know what we're suppose to say when making pipes? Is it "Sailor 2nd Clas Bloggins, 257, Sailor 2nd Class Bloggins. ", or just "Sailor Bloggins, 257, Sailor Bloggins". I know when yelling at them the chiefs are supposed to just say "Sailor Bloggins!", but what about with pipes?



Stop asking these questions or we will kick you out LMAO!

I don't have a problem with the rank change.  I do have a problem with the threatening tone and veiled threats levied against people with dissenting views by the CoC.  

Also the fact they didn't follow any rules or due process is another issue.


----------



## MJP

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> I don't have a problem with the rank change.  I do have a problem with the threatening tone and veiled threats levied against people with dissenting views by the CoC.



It's almost like they don't understand how inclusive or authentic leadership works. Instead in true military fashion we have decreed something so it will be.

* For the record I don't care about the rank change. I like HB am just amazed at how tone deaf our leadership is when it comes to trying to make the CAF a diverse and inclusive workplace (again a very good thing). Hint... it isn't by force, threats or bluster  but that and decrees that we will become more diverse are all we see.


----------



## quadrapiper

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> I do have a problem with the threatening tone and veiled threats levied against people with dissenting views by the CoC.


Given the addled, volatile, invective-laden frothing I saw on the few, very tame RCN FB groups I lurk on, I can infer (without e.g. trawling the depths of Reddit) what else was being flung about, and absolutely understand the hammer being dropped.


----------



## MJP

quadrapiper said:
			
		

> Given the addled, volatile, invective-laden frothing I saw on the few, very tame RCN FB groups I lurk on, I can infer (without e.g. trawling the depths of Reddit) what else was being flung about, and absolutely understand the hammer being dropped.



Which is a very good point, I don't have social media but in the past when I did was amazed at the level of vitriolic outbursts by serving and veterans alike on any decision or issue.


----------



## Blake Castelein

FSTO said:
			
		

> I predict that it will be "S2 Bosn Bloggins, 257"
> 
> In this time of social media driven leading change process, this has been a poop parade right from the start.


Currently on ship we are using "Sailor Bloggins, 257, Sailor Bloggins". Same with being piped to spaces it's just "Sailor Bloggins, Coxn's Office" . There's no 1st, 2nd class, etc, being used on pipes.

Sent from my SM-G975W using Tapatalk


----------



## Pelorus

quadrapiper said:
			
		

> Given the addled, volatile, invective-laden frothing I saw on the few, very tame RCN FB groups I lurk on, I can infer (without e.g. trawling the depths of Reddit) what else was being flung about, and absolutely understand the hammer being dropped.



Agreed.

As a point of clarification though, as a semi-regular Reddit reader for the last 8-10 years, I can fairly confidently state that mentions of the CAF are essentially non-existent within Reddit outside of the dedicated CAF subreddit, and this includes the Canadian-specific subreddits which often tend to mirror/discuss the Canadian news cycle (i.e. ignore the CAF unless there's a controversy).

Notwithstanding a bit of historical conflict between the CAF subreddit and this site, I would say that I am generally impressed with the subreddit's laissez-faire approach to moderation, while also being very on the ball with quickly deleting inappropriate posts with regards to OPSEC considerations or hate speech. So while I understand where you're coming from describing Reddit as a large website in which posters often contribute inflammatory views, I don't think it can be blamed in this specific instance.

Without having any insider information on the matter, seeing as the public survey for the rank change initiative included a comments box, I am quite confident that the RCN leadership's heavy handed public response to this matter came about as a response to some truly hateful and sexist bullshit being submitted to both the comments box as well as some more private CAF veteran groups (of which there are many).


----------



## Eaglelord17

AmmoTech90 said:
			
		

> You mean the following ranks that are listed in QR&O Vol I, Chap 3: Trooper, Gunner, Sapper, Signaller, Private, Guardsman, Fusilier, Rifleman, Voltigeur, Craftsman, Musician, Piper, Drummer, Ranger, Bombardier, Colour Sergeant
> 
> They exist.  Just because you think they don't doesn't mean you aren't wrong.



They exist NOW. Post unification to 2015 (when they also brought in the Pips and Crowns) those ranks didn't exist. Yet there was many times where I was screamed at by some angry artyman about the fact I called him a MCpl not a MBdr (usually with some line about what MCpl do you know that can blow up people from 16+ KM away  ;D). The fact that the CAF tolerated such a blatant disregard for its own ranks and allowed soldiers to harass others for not using their, at the time, non-existent rank is actually somewhat angering. There is a difference between having a informal title for a rank, such as the Navy calling members ODs or Killicks, and actively enforcing upon others a rank that doesn't exist when they are using your correct title.


----------



## Blackadder1916

Eaglelord17 said:
			
		

> They exist NOW. Post unification to 2015 (when they also brought in the Pips and Crowns) those ranks didn't exist. . . .



And they existed post unification.

National Defence Act - Version of document from 2003-01-01 to 2003-07-01:  The versions of the NDA prior to that are not available on-line.



> Ranks of officers and non-commissioned members
> 
> 21 (1) For the purposes of this Act, the ranks of the officers and non-commissioned members of the Canadian Forces shall be as set out in Column I of the schedule.
> 
> Marginal note:Use of other designations
> 
> (2) The Governor in Council may make regulations prescribing the circumstances in which a person holding a rank set out in Column I of the schedule shall use, or be referred to by, a designation of rank set out in *Column II, III or IV of the schedule* opposite the rank held by that person.
> 
> R.S., 1985, c. N-5, s. 21R.S., 1985, c. 31 (1st Supp.), s. 60


The Schedule


> Bombardier
> 
> Trooper
> Gunner
> Sapper
> Signalman
> Private
> Guardsman
> Fusilier
> Rifleman
> Craftsman


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

There is only one problem with your last post, Blackadder: The only regulation ever enacted by the Governor General in Council under Section 21 (2) of the NDA, prior to 2015, prescribed only the use of column II designations for Maritime Command.

The Army titles you described are from column III and it was never enacted prior to 2015. Therefore, it was wrong for anyone to demand their use before that time.


----------



## MJP

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> The Army titles you described are from column III and it was never enacted prior to 2015. Therefore, it was wrong for anyone to demand their use before that time.



Whew I thought I was going crazy. I don't mind being wrong, but could have sworn that they all became ranks in 2015 despite their usage before then by a few branches


----------



## Jarnhamar

I'm guessing sailor first class and the others will be shortened to sailor. Won't that be like mixing private corporal and master corporal all into one caragory, like shortening them all to soldier? It kind of seems like it's going the opposite direction of corporal and master corporal standing out as NCOs.

Why wouldn't they stick with able sailor, leading sailor and master sailor?


----------



## FSTO

Correct me if I'm wrong OGBD, but isn't the new English ranks just direct translations of the French ones? If so, is there really a need to get an order in council completed? What was done when the French translation of the officer ranks were introduced?

I've become agnostic to the rank change, (don't be surprised if "Chief" is next on the hit list) but what really annoys me is the constant self-congratulations and what opines of what a game changer this will be. I predict that we won't be getting one extra sailor in the recruiting office because of this.


----------



## Kilted

MJP said:
			
		

> Whew I thought I was going crazy. I don't mind being wrong, but could have sworn that they all became ranks in 2015 despite their usage before then by a few branches




None of those ranks were new, they just weren't in the NDA. They were still used the same way that there are today.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

FSTO said:
			
		

> Correct me if I'm wrong OGBD, but isn't the new English ranks just direct translations of the French ones? If so, is there really a need to get an order in council completed? What was done when the French translation of the officer ranks were introduced?



Actually, in my experience with the GoC, things are always done in English, and then bad translators try and make them fit in French somehow. The use of matelot first, second, third class in French always appeared to be just that: a lack of research and imagination on the part of the translators. It would have been more correct to call the AB and LS "Quartier-Maitres" but they didn't go that way. 

Nevertheless, when the "new" (actually: more-properly-translated) French officer ranks were introduced, the Schedule in the French version of the NDA had to be amended. IIRC, it was done in the middle of one of those omnibus Bills that effect various corrections to laws considered administrative in nature - so it just whizzed through the process. 

Seems to me same is required here. So long as the Schedule to the NDA says OS, AB, LS and MS and Column II is in effect as per the Order in Council, then those are the only legal ranks that can be used in anything official. In every day usage, however, we are free to address each other as we, the military, see fit - so long as we use the proper rank in all official situations. 

That's part of how we got the change in French officers ranks: We wilfully stopped using "Lieutenant-Commandeur" and "Commandeur" and started using Capitaine de Corvette and Capitaine de Fregate in everyday use at the only true French language unit (NCSM MONTCALM) and pushed memo after memo to Ottawa. I think the ultimate argument that won was when we pointed out that "commandeur" in French has the single meaning of "leader of a religious Faith". That was a bit incompatible with what we did.  :nod:


----------



## McG

AmmoTech90 said:
			
		

> You mean the following ranks that are listed in QR&O Vol I, Chap 3: Trooper, Gunner, Sapper, Signaller, Private, Guardsman, Fusilier, Rifleman, Voltigeur, Craftsman, Musician, Piper, Drummer, Ranger, Bombardier, Colour Sergeant


As an aside, what are the chances that (when this does get pushed to proper approval paths) the government allows changes to Seaman without also demanding changes to Guardsman, Rifleman, and Craftsman?


----------



## dapaterson

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Actually, in my experience with the GoC, things are always done in English, and then bad translators try and make them fit in French somehow.



In fact, for Federal regulations, the drafting is done simultaneously by qualified English and French lawyers.  Subordinate policy documents may be translated, but the regulations themselves are drafted in both languages.


----------



## Navy_Pete

dapaterson said:
			
		

> In fact, for Federal regulations, the drafting is done simultaneously by qualified English and French lawyers.  Subordinate policy documents may be translated, but the regulations themselves are drafted in both languages.



My wife worked in that section for a while; can confirm this. Sometimes they draft clauses in French because it's more precise then base the English version on that to make sure they are the same, but it's a really skilled group of very smart people that write the bills and they do it both simultaneously to make sure they are consistent. The fact that the bills can sometimes be stupid anyway is down to the client departments and what they want in there, and not explaining things properly to the drafters, who have very little/no knowledge on the specific topic. Sometimes mistakes get made, but after having to read through other countries legislation for some things, think our folks do a really good job on all the modern stuff.


----------



## MJP

Kilted said:
			
		

> None of those ranks were new, they just weren't in the NDA. They were still used the same way that there are today.



Sorry, I wasn't clear.  Tracking they are not new, my understanding was they were not in force until 2015 but Blackadder's post gave me a moment of doubt.


----------



## Blackadder1916

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> There is only one problem with your last post, Blackadder: The only regulation ever enacted by the Governor General in Council under Section 21 (2) of the NDA, prior to 2015, prescribed only the use of column II designations for Maritime Command.
> 
> The Army titles you described are from column III and it was never enacted prior to 2015. Therefore, it was wrong for anyone to demand their use before that time.



I am appropriately chastised.  I should have dove deeper.

Not to make excuses of aluminum mess tin induced confusion, but I seemed to recall in the mists of time actually seeing it written (when the dissemination of orders and regulations required the harvesting and processing of trees into paper) authorizing the use of those alternative army titles for privates and corporals.  It may have been in CFAOs (there was a CFAO 3-2 Ranks and Designation of Ranks, cancelled by change 23/87) or in A-AD-200-000/AG-000, Honours, Flags and The Heritage Structure of the Canadian Forces (the current on-line version of the same numbered pub was heavily amended over time but the last change was in 2008).   In the Annex A to Chap 11, Military Forms of Address, they include all those alternative titles, though there is little direction about the when, where and whom of so using.  Unfortunately, I've been unable to so far find copies of previous versions of those pubs to see if they included such direction.

And in an August 2011 version of Standing Orders for The Royal Regiment of Canadian Artillery, they include the following:
https://www.vancouvergunners.ca/uploads/2/5/3/2/25322670/rca_standing_orders_vol_1_aug_2011.pdf


> 2. The terms "Master Bombardier", "Bombardier" and "Gunner" are used by convention and
> tradition within The Royal Regiment of Canadian Artillery. "Master Bombardier" is the
> appropriate designation for a Master Corporal who is a member of The Royal Regiment of
> Canadian Artillery. The term "Master Corporal" shall be used when referring to any Master
> Corporal who is not a member of The Royal Regiment of Canadian Artillery even though he may
> be serving with an artillery unit. The same rule applies to the use of the terms "Bombardier" /
> "Corporal" and "Gunner" / "Private". They are not, however, official rank designations.




Edited to add:

I've located a previous PDF version of the CFP 200 (pages effective to ch 4, 2004) and the Annex A table to Chap 11 does not include the alternative rank titles.  Now I'm having the moments of doubt.


----------



## FJAG

If you think we've got it rough:



> German military mulls bringing in feminine form for army ranks
> Under current system a female captain, for example, is called Frau Hauptmann – Mrs Captain
> 
> Germany is considering introducing feminine forms for military ranks, according to reports, 20 years after women gained the right to join the Bundeswehr.
> 
> The army has resisted using the feminine form even after women gained the right to join in 2000. A female captain in the Bundeswehr is addressed as Frau Hauptmann, the equivalent of “Mrs Captain”.
> 
> But the defence minister, Annegret Kramp-Karrenbauer, is now mulling the phasing in of feminine forms for military ranks, such as Majorin and Leutnantin, according to Die Welt.
> 
> Such a move would follow the usage in the German language, where occupations usually go with the grammatically masculine form of the noun, but if the job is carried out by a woman, the job title is feminised by adding the suffix “in”, so a male bus driver is der Busfahrer and a female bus driver is die Busfahrerin.
> 
> Some ranks, including Oberst – colonel – however, would stay in the generic masculine form, said the report, citing a white paper that it said the minister would decide on next Tuesday. The German defence ministry would not confirm the report.
> 
> The Bundeswehr opened its ranks to women only after Tanja Kreil brought a case before the European court of justice in 2000. A trained electrician, Kreil argued her application to the Bundeswehr was rejected not because of her qualifications but because of her gender.
> 
> Women now make up about 12% of army personnel. Eva Högl, the German parliamentary commissioner for the armed forces, told Süddeutsche Zeitung on Friday that “a 30% share of women in the Bundeswehr would be good for the troops”, but that female recruits were “currently not everywhere respected equally”.
> 
> Some female soldiers criticised the proposed change on social media. Wiebke Hönicke, a lieutenant who used the masculine form to describe her rank, said in a post on Instagram: “Gender equality for me means that military rank doesn’t differentiate between genders, but that it is about the same rights and duties.”



See article here.

This article only scratches the surface of the problem.

The example above relates to the addition of a "polite" address of an individual. For example a Captain ("Hauptmann" literally "head man") would be addressed as Herr Hauptmann (or Mister Captain) but you'll note it also includes the term "mann". So the change would probably have to delete "mann". Regardless, either option sounds as silly in German as it does in English.

There is one further problem which is that in German, every noun is either masculine, feminine or neuter which is most noticeable when the article "the" is used. In German that's "die" (f); "der" (m) or "das" . Such as in "die schule" (the schoool); "der Hauptmann" (the captain); or "das boot" (the boat). All ranks are masculine: "der Gefreiter" (the private); der Unteroffizier" (the sergeant); "der Oberfeldwebel" (the staff sergeant); "der Oberstleutnant" (the lieutenant colonel) etc. All of them. So if you are saying "Ist der lieutnant hier?" (Is the lieutenant here?) you'd be using the masculine article because of the masculine noun even if the lieutenant is a female. Presumably if a new word like "leutnantin" is created it would be assigned a female gender so become "die leutnantin". Again, that sounds as inelegant in German as it looks to an English speaker.

As I said above; so you think you've got it rough?

 ;D


----------



## dimsum

FJAG said:
			
		

> If you think we've got it rough:
> 
> See article here.
> 
> This article only scratches the surface of the problem.
> 
> The example above relates to the addition of a "polite" address of an individual. For example a Captain ("Hauptmann" literally "head man") would be addressed as Herr Hauptmann (or Mister Captain) but you'll note it also includes the term "mann". So the change would probably have to delete "mann". Regardless, either option sounds as silly in German as it does in English.
> 
> There is one further problem which is that in German, every noun is either masculine, feminine or neuter which is most noticeable when the article "the" is used. In German that's "die" (f); "der" (m) or "das" . Such as in "die schule" (the schoool); "der Hauptmann" (the captain); or "das boot" (the boat). All ranks are masculine: "der Gefreiter" (the private); der Unteroffizier" (the sergeant); "der Oberfeldwebel" (the staff sergeant); "der Oberstleutnant" (the lieutenant colonel) etc. All of them. So if you are saying "Ist der lieutnant hier?" (Is the lieutenant here?) you'd be using the masculine article because of the masculine noun even if the lieutenant is a female. Presumably if a new word like "leutnantin" is created it would be assigned a female gender so become "die leutnantin". Again, that sounds as inelegant in German as it looks to an English speaker.
> 
> As I said above; so you think you've got it rough?
> 
> ;D



To extend this further, if the French military decide to do this as well, will it become "Ma Capitaine" and "Ma Colonel"?


----------



## dapaterson

Dimsum said:
			
		

> To extend this further, if the French military decide to do this as well, will it become "Ma Capitaine" and "Ma Colonel"?



First things first.  "Le drapeau blanc est dans le tiroir."


----------



## MilEME09

Related, RCEME now wants to change Craftsman to be gender neutral. Cause this is what will encourage more people to join. This is only my guess, but I am betting other ranks will not be untouched either. Next up Rifleman and Guardsman to be replaced with Rifle Person.


----------



## FJAG

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> Related, RCEME now wants to change Craftsman to be gender neutral. Cause this is what will encourage more people to join. This is only my guess, but I am betting other ranks will not be untouched either. Next up Rifleman and Guardsman to be replaced with Rifle Person.



One might think that "Rifle Bloggins" and "Guard Bloggins" might do. On the other hand "Craftie Bloggins", not so much.

 ;D


----------



## daftandbarmy

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> Related, RCEME now wants to change Craftsman to be gender neutral. Cause this is what will encourage more people to join. This is only my guess, but I am betting other ranks will not be untouched either. Next up Rifleman and Guardsman to be replaced with Rifle Person.



Well, traditions notwithstanding, the term 'Private' is in general use already.....


----------



## dimsum

FJAG said:
			
		

> One might think that "Rifle Bloggins" and "Guard Bloggins" might do. On the other hand "Craftie Bloggins", not so much.
> 
> ;D



Craftie Bloggins is probably in use in the RAEME (Aussies).  

And calling someone "Rifle" would really change the "this is my rifle, this is my gun" song from FMJ a bit...


----------



## OldSolduer

FJAG said:
			
		

> One might think that "Rifle Bloggins" and "Guard Bloggins" might do. On the other hand "Craftie Bloggins", not so much.
> 
> ;D



So a sandwich maker could be Spreadie Bloggins???


----------



## FJAG

Hamish Seggie said:
			
		

> So a sandwich maker could be Spreadie Bloggins???



No! No! That would be "Sangie Bloggins."

 ;D


----------



## PuckChaser

Hamish Seggie said:
			
		

> So a sandwich maker could be Spreadie Bloggins???


I thought they were called Stewards in the RCN?


----------



## Kat Stevens

When I used to own a sandwich maker I just called her by her first name.


----------



## Lumber

https://ottawacitizen.com/opinion/todays-letters-name-change-wont-help-the-navy

What a garbage opinion piece/write in column. Did they do any kind of quality control before publish this bit of rubbish?

I don't know if any of you know Chief (ret'd) George Ferrall, but let me summarize the ways he's missed the boat:

1. He skips over the "Leading" twice when listing out ranks;
2. He got the new ranks COMPLETELY wrong;
3. He seems to relish the bygone days of sailors living under the poverty line;
4. He doesn't know the origin and meaning of the term "petty" in Petty Officer; and
5. He seems to think we should be living and working in such a way that honours the memory and personal opinions of Nelson.

What a hack. Thankfully, I don't anyone really saw this column.


----------



## TCM621

Lumber said:
			
		

> https://ottawacitizen.com/opinion/todays-letters-name-change-wont-help-the-navy
> 
> What a garbage opinion piece/write in column. Did they do any kind of quality control before publish this bit of rubbish?
> 
> I don't know if any of you know Chief (ret'd) George Ferrall, but let me summarize the ways he's missed the boat:
> 
> 1. He skips over the "Leading" twice when listing out ranks;
> 2. He got the new ranks COMPLETELY wrong;
> 3. He seems to relish the bygone days of sailors living under the poverty line;
> 4. He doesn't know the origin and meaning of the term "petty" in Petty Officer; and
> 5. He seems to think we should be living and working in such a way that honours the memory and personal opinions of Nelson.
> 
> What a hack. Thankfully, I don't anyone really saw this column.



I'm pretty sure you missed the boat when you read his column. You also attempted to read his mind rather than look at the article. While he did get the ranks wrong, it doesn't invalidate his points. The key change is seaman to sailor rather than 1st class, etc.

His point about the poverty was that even though joining the Navy meant a wage below the poverty line recruiting was never an issue. In fact, everything people claim is hurting retention and recruiting was there is spades back then. Imagine sailing over 200 days a year, for a crappy wage that isn't enough to pay your bills and you could be posted anywhere. When. You complained they said there's the door because they k ew they had guys lining up to join.

He very well could know the history of the term Petty Officer but his point is the petty is a word with a negative connotation and it never stopped anyone from wanting to be one.

Of all the services, the Navy is the most concerned with tradition. The greatest thing that happened to them in 50 years was getting their executive curl back. So of course, a retired CPO1 wants to honour tradition. After all the conditioning they give on your Chiefs course, he would be physically unable to accept new ranks without complaint. At least he isn't making the case for wind powered cruisers.


----------



## torg003

Has this decision been reversed?
I remember looking on the CF website around the end of Sept. and they had changed the rank chart of naval ranks to the new designation of "sailor".  But looking at it just recently, the rank titles have been changed back to the seaman designations (MS, LS, AS, OS).
So, what's going on?


----------



## dapaterson

Per the NDA (below), the legal authority to change designations of rank is the Governor-in-Council.  The designations of rank are found in QR&O 3.01.  Until QR&O 3.01 is amended, the announcement of CRCN has no legal effect.



> *Ranks of officers and non-commissioned members
> 
> 21* (1) For the purposes of this Act, the ranks of the officers and non-commissioned members of the Canadian Forces shall be as set out in the schedule.
> 
> Designation
> 
> (2) A person holding a rank set out in the schedule shall use, or be referred to by, a designation of rank prescribed in regulations made by the Governor in Council but only in the circumstances prescribed in those regulations.
> 
> 
> R.S., 1985, c. N-5, s. 21; R.S., 1985, c. 31 (1st Supp.), s. 60; 2014, c. 20, s. 169


----------



## ModlrMike

I can hear the lower deck lawyers now "that RDP is invalid because the used the wrong rank title".


----------



## Kat Stevens

It has always fascinated me that when the C of C uses line, chapter, and verse to nail a lower lifeform to the wall, it's just good admin. When said lower life form uses the same passage from the good book to avoid said nailing, (s)he is some form of barracks/lower deck lawyer. Good research of QR&O and CANFORGENs saved my ass from two different summary convictions, and I heard the lawyer thing muttered by the RSM both times. I felt dirty. Free, but dirty. Then I had a beer and felt better.


----------



## ModlrMike

Glad that things worked out for you, but so that you know, not my definition of lower deck lawyer. A valid defence is valid, regardless of who is presenting it. What I mean are those who think they know everything, but in reality know very little. Considering that I have two of those in my unit, I will be asking AJAG for guidance before I issue any RM or RDP on either of them.


----------



## Kat Stevens

Gotcha.


----------

