# Number of IPC levels for Corporals vs Captians



## Jarnhamar (4 Mar 2007)

Captians have 10 different IPC levels. At a guess, and correct me if I'm wrong, many officers must spend a lot of time as a Captian (which is why there are 10 levels of pay).

Corporals are in the same boat. Many 'corporals for life' spend their entire career as a corporal but there are only 4 IPC levels of pay.

Should Corporals be given the same (or near) number of IPC levels that a Captian does? Considering many soldiers (can) spend a long time in that rank?

If not, why do Captians recieve so many IPC levels?  Is there any other rank that has close to 10 IPC levels?  I am guessing most have 3 or 4 per rank?


----------



## vonGarvin (4 Mar 2007)

As I understand it, the Treasury Board sets the rates of pay in terms of minimum and maximum pay for a given rank.  For example, Captain would start at "x" and end at "y".  The forces then divides up the rank into "incentives".  So, to give a corporal rank 10 incentives would not mean that corporals would get paid more.  All it would do is give 10 "levels" of pay that start and stop where they currently do right now.  So, in my opinion, the question is a non-starter.


----------



## 043 (4 Mar 2007)

Non-starter.........roger that! 

How's your course?


----------



## krustyrl (4 Mar 2007)

Would you rather "max" out on incentives in four years or ten.?  I'll take 4 pls.!


----------



## Jarnhamar (4 Mar 2007)

Thats avery good point, never looked it that way 

I wonder why captians ten have 10 levels, looks that would probably save money (in a manner of speaking) in the long run.


----------



## vonGarvin (4 Mar 2007)

2023 said:
			
		

> How's your course?


My course is about to enter the final phase: an exercise aptly named "Final Drive".  It lasts two weeks and it starts Tuesday.  We get march break off, then we finish up with a seven day stretch upon our return.  

It has been a good course, and I have learned OODLES, honestly.  It's been a bit of a drive, but in the end, it was worth it (except for all the work, the very late nights, being away from home, the feelings of frustration at times......)


----------



## navymich (4 Mar 2007)

Flawed Design said:
			
		

> I wonder why captians ten have 10 levels, looks that would probably save money (in a manner of speaking) in the long run.



I don't understand this comment of yours.  Save money by only having 4 vice 10 levels?  And if so, how?


----------



## 043 (4 Mar 2007)

Say Hi to Gord for me........I looked after his dog all weekend!


----------



## vonGarvin (4 Mar 2007)

airmich said:
			
		

> I don't understand this comment of yours.  Save money by only having 4 vice 10 levels?  And if so, how?


Hey mich.
I think he means that with 10 levels (vice four) for captains, given that some actually get promoted prior to ten years, then those that get promoted at say year five would then "not have to be paid" at a higher rate, ergo, at a lower rate than if there were four or five incentives.

Maybe.....I think that's what he meant.


			
				2023 said:
			
		

> Say Hi to Gord for me........I looked after his dog all weekend!


Will do!


----------



## Journeyman (4 Mar 2007)

But if you _really_ want to max out those 4 years of Cpl IPC.....you can get busted back to Pte at year 3; that way you get to look forward to working your way through again.....er, or so I've heard   :-[




Note: "The bastard had it coming to him" is not a good defence!  :'(


----------



## vonGarvin (4 Mar 2007)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> Note: "The bastard had it coming to him" is not a good defence!  :'(



Is this from personal experience?


----------



## aesop081 (4 Mar 2007)

I know i tried it........

Got me a $550 fine


----------



## casing (4 Mar 2007)

Flawed Design said:
			
		

> I wonder why captians ten have 10 levels...





"...there are often more incentive levels for officer ranks than there are for non-commissioned member ranks, on the basis that it takes longer for officers to gather all the experience, skill and knowledge required for their rank. Hence, they must wait longer than non-commissioned members to receive the job rate (maximum) for their rank"

Taken from: Directorate of Pay and Policy Development (Scroll down to "Pay Groups" sub "General Service Officers")

_Edited to clarify what is being answered here._


----------



## mudrecceman (4 Mar 2007)

I think though, that the poster meant "there should be an increase of 6 more IPCs for Cpl" that would all include more money...effectively raising the max. pay for the rank of Cpl/LS, which would then peeve off the MCpl/MS (5b'ers) who would THEN want a pay raise..next come the peeved Sgt's who would want a pay raise...and...


----------



## vonGarvin (4 Mar 2007)

Mud Recce Man said:
			
		

> I think though, that the poster meant "there should be an increase of 6 more IPCs for Cpl" that would all include more money...effectively raising the max. pay for the rank of Cpl/LS, which would then peeve off the MCpl/MS (5b'ers) who would THEN want a pay raise..next come the peeved Sgt's who would want a pay raise...and...



Well, of course the next ones up would receive a pay raise, but here's a novel idea:
First, eliminate the appointment of Cpl (B), aka "MCpl".
Second, make the "one hook" private (aka: Able Seaman in naval terms) a lance corporal, aka: a new rank similar to the current "cpl" rank.
Third, make the corporal rank THE junior NCO rank (as it is with most of our peer armies).
So, a person joins the army, as an example.  She is a private upon completion of trades training.  After a few years, she receives her first chevron upon her promotion to Lance Corporal.  Though she has no formal leadership training, she is neither a private nor a corporal: she is a LANCE corporal (whatever that means).  
A few years later, or sooner, depending on her performance, she attends and succeeds in passing her PLQ (Inf).  Some time after graduation, she is promoted to the rank of Cpl, where four incentives await her.  The base pay would be the same as it is now for corporal, but the high end matches that currently eligible for MCpl (4).

Or am I out to lunch?


----------



## navymich (4 Mar 2007)

Hauptmann Scharlachrot said:
			
		

> Or am I out to lunch?



Actually, it makes a lot of sense.  However, because it does make sense, it will never happen.  And don't look now, but the senseless police are at your door right now to bring you in for questioning.  Guess Captain is going to need more levels too, you're going to be there abit longer now.  ;D


----------



## vonGarvin (4 Mar 2007)

airmich said:
			
		

> Actually, it makes a lot of sense.  However, because it does make sense, it will never happen.  And don't look now, but the senseless police are at your door right now to bring you in for questioning.  Guess Captain is going to need more levels too, you're going to be there abit longer now.  ;D


NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!


I can hear "them" now: "Obviously AOC hasn't deadened your will to live: we must work on you a bit longer!"


----------



## CdnArtyWife (4 Mar 2007)

Hauptmann Scharlachrot said:
			
		

> Well, of course the next ones up would receive a pay raise, but here's a novel idea:
> First, eliminate the appointment of Cpl (B), aka "MCpl".
> Second, make the "one hook" private (aka: Able Seaman in naval terms) a lance corporal, aka: a new rank similar to the current "cpl" rank.
> Third, make the corporal rank THE junior NCO rank (as it is with most of our peer armies).
> ...



Ah, yeah, go easy on the logic there...you should know by now Army + Logic = does not compute. ;D


----------



## gaspasser (4 Mar 2007)

Didn't they try a new pay scheme a little while ago?  Something about being paid for the courses you took and experience levels?  Therby a new Cpl/LS would be lvl 1, as they advanced in thier particular trade and affiliate courses, not career courses, they got more pay.  I.E. and MSEOP with Airfield Specialist (no, there is not spec pay for that!) and Grader/Dozer course would get, say, $100 extra per month.
I don't know about other trades, but with MSEOP, there's a ton of courses out there for Cpls only (we don't have LS's, that's Navy!) and you'd be hard pressed to get them all in your career or before you actually got promoted.
As a side note, I just viewed my career manglers site, there's over 1100 Cpls in my trade.  WOW!!!
Regards


----------



## vonGarvin (4 Mar 2007)

Well, as VBC can surely attest, I shall indeed see the tenth level of my current rank  ;D


----------



## gaspasser (4 Mar 2007)

...and I have surely surpassed my 10th level of enlightenment... ^-^


----------



## dapaterson (4 Mar 2007)

BYT Driver said:
			
		

> Didn't they try a new pay scheme a little while ago?  Something about being paid for the courses you took and experience levels?  Therby a new Cpl/LS would be lvl 1, as they advanced in thier particular trade and affiliate courses, not career courses, they got more pay.  I.E. and MSEOP with Airfield Specialist (no, there is not spec pay for that!) and Grader/Dozer course would get, say, $100 extra per month.
> I don't know about other trades, but with MSEOP, there's a ton of courses out there for Cpls only (we don't have LS's, that's Navy!) and you'd be hard pressed to get them all in your career or before you actually got promoted.
> As a side note, I just viewed my career manglers site, there's over 1100 Cpls in my trade.  WOW!!!
> Regards



That was the ill-fated "Trade Advancement through Skill and Knowledge" or TASK; everyone loved the idea until it was pointed out that there would be no new money, so there would be winners and losers - some would get much more money, and other would lose some.  The idea that a skilled tradesman Cpl might make more than their supervisor also rubbed some peopel the wrong way, so like many ideas in the CF, it died without ever seeing the light of day.


----------



## gaspasser (4 Mar 2007)

Dead, but would have been great!
Who cared about getting more than your super, except your super!
I think they also squashed it because the higher ups figured that 4 years was amble time to get promoted. Don't know what trade they were but it doesn't work that well in my trade.
Cheers,


----------



## KevinB (5 Mar 2007)

Pte

LCPL - one chevorn   with 4 years as a Pte and JNCO
CPL - two chevrons   min 2 years as a LCPL and 3A


which of course would make the rank system back like all the other commonwealth ones
Pte - LCpl - Cpl - Sgt - WO2 - WO1


----------



## navymich (5 Mar 2007)

What would you do with the current MS/MCpls?  I guess it would depend on quals and TI as to whether they went up to Sgt or down to Cpl?  Or do some sort of "grandfather clause" for a specific time limit for them to attempt to achieve quals required to be promoted.


----------



## gaspasser (5 Mar 2007)

IIRC, MS/MCPL is/was a position, not rank. To point out the senior in the trade.  They mostly became instructors. Nowadays it's a difficult level to achieve and they are supervisors.  (some say it's a crappy job, because you catch "it" from both ends)
They could expand the MS/MCPL numbers by identifying LS /CPLs who are qualified in a leadership role to go up but are waiting for the "sky" to open.  In other words, expand the number of M/'s.  Leave the workers to work..  and promote up those who want careers.
 My 0.02 
Cheers


----------



## navymich (5 Mar 2007)

BYT, my post was if we went to the system that was suggested earlier: with Pte, L/Cpl and Cpl. What would we do with all of the MS/MCpl?  And what would a L/Cpl in the Navy be called?  A Lance Leading Seaman, or just stick with Able Seaman?


----------



## gaspasser (5 Mar 2007)

Ok, I get it.
Well, they could introduce a new rank and call it Senior LS/ CPL (which is what MCPL is)
Or do away with the rank completely and go back to pre-intergration ranks.


----------



## armyvern (5 Mar 2007)

Our min and max pay levels per rank are set by Treasury Board Canada based on benchmark standards for comparable work and experience in the private sector with an additional 'military factor' figured in.

What you are therefore asking for when stating you want 10 IPCs for the Cpl rank is:

Your difference between the benchmarked minimum pay level and the maximum pay level to be handed out over 10 years.

IE,

You want to take your difference in salary adjustment in 10% increments over 10 years vice reaching the max level in 4 years like you are now doing.

That doesn't make too much sense to me at all. I know a heck of a lot of Captains who'd like to reach their maximum benchmarked level in 4 years instead of 10. The grass is not always greener over there!!

You want 10 incentives? You can have them. Differnece between the min and max level for current Cpls divided by 10 now equals a much smaller pay increase, once per year for 10 years. Glad I'm not a Cpl anymore!!


----------



## vonGarvin (5 Mar 2007)

airmich said:
			
		

> BYT, my post was if we went to the system that was suggested earlier: with Pte, L/Cpl and Cpl. What would we do with all of the MS/MCpl?  And what would a L/Cpl in the Navy be called?  A Lance Leading Seaman, or just stick with Able Seaman?


L/Cpl (Navy) would be an Able Seaman, just as it is.  The navy would only have to "eliminate" Master Seaman....and I don't mean by throwing them all overboard  >


----------



## vonGarvin (5 Mar 2007)

Infidel-6 said:
			
		

> Pte
> LCPL - one chevorn   with 4 years as a Pte and JNCO
> CPL - two chevrons   min 2 years as a LCPL and 3A


That is exactly what I was thinking....it IS true: you can read my mind


----------



## Franko (5 Mar 2007)

Funny how unification keeps rearing it's ugly head 'eh?

Happened decades ago and the ripples are still being felt to this day.

Regards


----------



## navymich (5 Mar 2007)

Recce By Death said:
			
		

> ... and the ripples are still being felt to this day.



Naaa, the ripples are just from all of the leftover MS.... ;D



			
				Hauptmann Scharlachrot said:
			
		

> The navy would only have to "eliminate" Master Seaman....and I don't mean by throwing them all overboard  >


----------



## Inch (5 Mar 2007)

The Librarian said:
			
		

> Our min and max pay levels per rank are set by Treasury Board Canada based on benchmark standards for comparable work and experience in the private sector with an additional 'military factor' figured in.
> 
> What you are therefore asking for when stating you want 10 IPCs for the Cpl rank is:
> 
> ...



Bang on Vern.

For those that are interested in a couple facts, there are actually 5 IPCs for Cpls, IPC Basic and 1-4, 11 for Captains. The difference between a Cpl on IPC 0 and a CWO IPC 0 is $2371 per month. That's 5 ranks higher. The difference between Captain IPC 0 and Maj IPC 0 is $1934, or $2798 for Pilots. If Captains only had 4 incentives, we would see incentives of around $500 per month every year, or $700 for pilots, there isn't that big of a difference between Cpl 0 and Cpl 4.

Would I like to have less incentives? Hell yeah!


----------



## mudrecceman (5 Mar 2007)

Agin though, I think the original point was "we should have 6 more incentives for Cpl/Ls that all come with more $$.

As...lots of people have pointed out...the TB sets the Max pay for each rank...so I think the original poster shut'er down when that fact came out.    8)

Perhaps what he REALLY meant to say was "the entire CF should get a pay raise again".   ;D


----------



## aesop081 (5 Mar 2007)

we just got one and , IMHO, we make pretty darned good money.......


----------



## mudrecceman (5 Mar 2007)

shhhhh...maybe they forgot we got one  

(I think we make pretty good money too, all other benefits considered as well.  Leave, Med/Dental, pension plan...the list goes on.)

And I get free green underwear...where else can you get THAT?


----------



## Echo9 (5 Mar 2007)

While others have commented on the topic from a practical perspective, I'll take this on from the theoretical one.  

1.  Corporals are, like it or not, doers, and for the most part, what you get with a 10 year corporal, on the average, isn't much different from what you get with a 4th year corporal.  Look at this not from the perspective of the 10 year guy, but from the 4 year one: eagerness and energy can often win out over the additional trade knowledge.  

2.  Captains could also be considered the doers of the officer world, but there's a world of difference between what you get from an old captain and a young one.  The additional incentives reflect that in years 5-10, you're often continuing to gain job knowledge.  Again, from the perspective of the 4 year guy: the young, eager, and energetic captain is often just good enough to really mess things up....

The more apt NCO comparison to the Captain, I would argue, is the Sergeant- flexible, used for a wide variety of tasks, able to operate at different levels of the organization, etc.  Also, both are leadership ranks, which Corporal is not.


----------



## 284_226 (5 Mar 2007)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> we just got one and , IMHO, we make pretty darned good money.......



To be entirely accurate, we just got the one we should have gotten in April 2006.  We're due for another in a little over three weeks.


----------



## 284_226 (6 Mar 2007)

Echo9 said:
			
		

> While others have commented on the topic from a practical perspective, I'll take this on from the theoretical one.
> 
> 1.  Corporals are, like it or not, doers, and for the most part, what you get with a 10 year corporal, on the average, isn't much different from what you get with a 4th year corporal.  Look at this not from the perspective of the 10 year guy, but from the 4 year one: eagerness and energy can often win out over the additional trade knowledge.



I would be inclined to believe that assessment if you're talking strictly about non-specialist MOSIDs. However, specialist MOSIDs (gawd, I miss "MOC") are still learning well beyond the 4th year Cpl point.  Speaking strictly about my own trade, it's unlikely that a 4th year Cpl will have spent any significant amount of time employed in _all_ of the areas of expertise in which we're supposed to be proficient.  I know the Combat and Marine Systems Engineering techs on the ships are like that, and I would venture a guess that the 500-series Air maintainer trades are much the same.  There's also an aspect of experience that p*ss 'n vinegar just can't replace.   



> 2.  Captains could also be considered the doers of the officer world, but there's a world of difference between what you get from an old captain and a young one.  The additional incentives reflect that in years 5-10, you're often continuing to gain job knowledge.  Again, from the perspective of the 4 year guy: the young, eager, and energetic captain is often just good enough to really mess things up....



Agreed.



> The more apt NCO comparison to the Captain, I would argue, is the Sergeant- flexible, used for a wide variety of tasks, able to operate at different levels of the organization, etc.  Also, both are leadership ranks, which Corporal is not.



For non-specialist MOCs - yes, I agree wholeheartedly with your take on it.  However - and this is speaking from my own personal experience in two similar trades in two different branches of the service - the Corporal in a specialist trade is more likely to equate (in functionality, at least) to the Captain.


----------



## Inch (6 Mar 2007)

284_226 said:
			
		

> For non-specialist MOCs - yes, I agree wholeheartedly with your take on it.  However - and this is speaking from my own personal experience in two similar trades in two different branches of the service - the Corporal in a specialist trade is more likely to equate (in functionality, at least) to the Captain.



Here's where we disagree.

Even a Specialist Cpl doesn't have nearly the same responsibility a Captain would. As a Captain, I can sign for an aircraft. As the Aircraft Captain, I have command of all personnel on board and I'm responsible for safety of flight. There isn't a Cpl in the entire CF that can say they have the same responsibility. Even 500 Series techs, sure they may be able to do any job required of them, but it always takes a level C to do an independent check and sign off the maintenance action, the level C's are almost always Sgts and in my experience, never Cpls.

Cpl to a Capt, even in functionality, aren't even close.


----------



## 284_226 (6 Mar 2007)

Inch said:
			
		

> Here's where we disagree.
> 
> Even a Specialist Cpl doesn't have nearly the same responsibility a Captain would. As a Captain, I can sign for an aircraft. As the Aircraft Captain, I have command of all personnel on board and I'm responsible for safety of flight. There isn't a Cpl in the entire CF that can say they have the same responsibility. Even 500 Series techs, sure they may be able to do any job required of them, but it always takes a level C to do an independent check and sign off the maintenance action, the level C's are almost always Sgts and in my experience, never Cpls.
> 
> Cpl to a Capt, even in functionality, aren't even close.



Sorry, perhaps "functionality" was the wrong word.  I wasn't attempting to make an argument that Cpls and Capts should be in the same pay range, because there's clearly additional responsibility upon the Capt.  However, I think the previous posts in the discussion were addressing the Cpl/Capt as being the same in that they're the "working rank" of their respective scales.  My point was that even a 10-year specialist trade Cpl can still be learning the trade much the same as a 10-year Capt can be.  If referring to standard trades, then the previous argument that Sgt/Capt would probably be accurate.


----------



## armyvern (6 Mar 2007)

284_226,

Now you're getting into the realm of "spec pay" for those employed in the aplic spec positions and received over and above the base salary. That's a whole 'nother beast applicable only to a few and also regulated by Treasury Board. There are a great many threads in this forum already running on spec pay.

This thread is all about Base Salary and IPCs for those trades/ranks; let's keep it that way.


----------



## hat (6 Mar 2007)

Inch,

Lets not sell our Cpls short.  A case in point:

Cpl (non "specialist"), signs for LAV III as acting section 2IC (not as expensive as AC, but still lots of $$).  Cpl is employed as crew commander for said vehicle.  He is responsible for its safe operation, crew tactics etc...  More than that, Cpl is also employed as acting LAV Sgt and is primary navigator for the remainder of the platoon.  This example is from operations.  

This is from a Capt who is happy to have ten incentives and is glad Cpls get there raises over a shorter span of time.


----------



## sandyson (6 Mar 2007)

From experience, a lance corporal was an appointment by the CO with "advice" from the RSM.  The "rank" offered an opportunity to try some one in a leadership role and furnish  the support of military law.  I cannot recall if pay was affected, but this was a paternalistic army wherein you had to ask permission to marry--so I doubt it.
Perhaps the question could be restated.  IF Treasury should decide to throw some excess cash to military salaries, should the cpl pay incentive levels be increased with increased funding but at say 2, 3, 4 year gaps?  Are the non-cpls prepared to pay for it?


----------



## 284_226 (6 Mar 2007)

The Librarian said:
			
		

> 284_226,
> 
> Now you're getting into the realm of "spec pay" for those employed in the aplic spec positions and received over and above the base salary. That's a whole 'nother beast applicable only to a few and also regulated by Treasury Board. There are a great many threads in this forum already running on spec pay.



"Specialist pay" isn't over and above base salary.  Specialist pay is assigned to specific trades, and last time I looked, it applied to 34 out of the 80 trades in the CF.  It's not "applicable only to a few" by any stretch of the imagination.



> This thread is all about Base Salary and IPCs for those trades/ranks; let's keep it that way.



Umm...you're missing something here.  Someone brought up a comparison between Cpls and Capts and made a broad observation.  I pointed out that the observation (with its references to IPCs) only held true if one only considered the non-specialist trades, making the issue of "specialist MOSIDs" a pertinent one to the discussion.  Nobody mentioned "base salary" in the entire thread.


----------



## 2 Cdo (6 Mar 2007)

hat said:
			
		

> Inch,
> 
> Lets not sell our Cpls short.  A case in point:
> 
> ...



Well said!


----------



## Jarnhamar (6 Mar 2007)

> Also, both are leadership ranks, which Corporal is not.



Do you mean in theory or in practice?
I've seen corporals command vehicles including lavs,  lead search teams and 2IC for convoys of 14+ vehicles including being in charge, technically, of soldiers AND officers both Canadian and allied.
2IC-ing for over a dozen vehicles and well over a platoons worth of pers strikes me as a 'leadership' rank.


----------



## Sub_Guy (6 Mar 2007)

Cpl might not be a leadership rank but in the Navy its called Leading Seaman, I don't consider most of the LT(N)'s I encounter to be very effective leaders anyway.

There should be no more incentives for Cpl's as 5 is enough, how many flunky LT(N)'s are kicking around?  If anything we should claw theirs back!  

If  more incentives were added for Cpl's there would have to be pay raises for every rank, I highly doubt there would be any incentive for rank progression if as a Cpl after 10 incentives I could be making close to what a MWO makes.   I may be in the minority but I feel I get paid VERY well for what I do!


----------



## Michael OLeary (6 Mar 2007)

As one more thread devolves into a "let's slag officers" dogpile, we're done.

Normal caveats apply. Submit your intended reply and reasons why the thread should be open for you to a Moderator.

Army.ca Staff


----------

