# Are Corporals shown the respect they deserve by subordinates & superiors?



## Jarnhamar (10 Jan 2010)

> Perhaps a thread split is in order ... perhaps on the topic of :
> 
> Are Corporals shown the respect they deserve by subordinates & superiors?


http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/91486.15


I would say no. The rank encompasses  to much variety.

Just thinking of some Corporals off hand.
1)  an amazing soldier IMO. Might have PLQ 1-5 but I don't think so. Did some raining in blackwater, is on tour doing CCP. I would be very surprised if he doesn't go over to the SF community when he gets home, I'm sure they'll invite him.
2) Corporal for life. He was promoted because he had time in and a QL4 comms course. He's basically a zombie and you're better off putting a young private fresh from DP1 in charge of a task (and this corporal)
3) Corporal with PLQ 1-5 but doesn't have a leadership bone in his body. He took the course for the pay check and will bend over backwards to avoid any sort of responsibility. The only time he speaks up is when there is shit jobs to do he'll try and pull rank to make privates and "non PLQ mods 1 to 5" do the work.  Again new privates often make better leaders than this corporal.
4)Corporal who has about 10 or 11 years in. One of the best if not thee best (junior) instructors at my unit. I go to him if I have questions about teaching.   If you ask me he teaches at a sgt's level and I'd probably rate him one of the top there to. Still a cpl because he only has PLQ mod 6 land.

Seems in the reserves and reg force (which is where I drew my examples from, too) that Corporal is a glorified private with extra pay who is either too low rank to take responsibility OR they get jerked around because someone hits them with "You're supposed to be an aspiring junior leader you need to take more responsibility".

I think it's too late now to change anything but if you ask me you should give a private the pay increases o fa corporal.  Give them Private IPC 0 through 6, Pte(6) being what a Cpl(4) makes now.   You become a Cpl when you are fully PLQ qualified with the pay of a MCpl+.  Get ride of the rank of MCpl and the next rank after Cpl is Sgt.




[Edit to add an "n" to 'show' in the title.]


----------



## CallOfDuty (10 Jan 2010)

Flawed Design said:
			
		

> I think it's too late now to change anything but if you ask me you should give a private the pay increases o fa corporal.  Give them Private IPC 0 through 6, Pte(6) being what a Cpl(4) makes now.   You become a Cpl when you are fully PLQ qualified with the pay of a MCpl+.  Get ride of the rank of MCpl and the next rank after Cpl is Sgt.



    I like this idea.  My unit is so short of people, that we often have corporals filling in the Sgts jobs.  Seems like a natural progression to me.  We have incompetent corporals and we have leader corporals, and we all know who will be getting the promotions when they come, so what does it matter if they have a maple leaf above the chevrons?


----------



## Dissident (10 Jan 2010)

What about the Specialist rank? It could be a quick fix. If you put all the Cpl with no to little leadership abilities in the specialist rank, where you get more money but get none of the leadership responsibility? Then you keep all the leaders as Cpl's on their way to becoming MCpl. If someone shows new potential they can get Cpl's from being a spec or get a chance at doing PLQ.

Hell, you could even go further and get a Spec 2, 3, 4 and all the way up. 

But I swerved out of my lane at the beginning of this post.


----------



## Occam (10 Jan 2010)

Dissident said:
			
		

> What about the Specialist rank? It could be a quick fix. If you put all the Cpl with no to little leadership abilities in the specialist rank, where you get more money but get none of the leadership responsibility? Then you keep all the leaders as Cpl's on their way to becoming MCpl. If someone shows new potential they can get Cpl's from being a spec or get a chance at doing PLQ.
> 
> Hell, you could even go further and get a Spec 2, 3, 4 and all the way up.



Hey, that's a great idea!

We can call it TASK.....Trade Advancement for Skill and Knowledge   ;D

_"The aim of PMO TASK was to come up with a compensation scheme for lateral progression for technical specialist that would permit rank to be returned to its original use as a designator of supervisory responsibility.  This would also allow for the mid-career recruitment of trained specialist, thereby easing the strain of internal technical schools.  A Development Study Report was submitted in 1989  and work continued on the concept into the early 1990s but the project was never approved.  Rumors as to the reason for its demise implied that the study recommendations could not be implemented because they were going against the warrior ethos.  The proposed compensation structure would see members of the same rank getting better paid the further away from the battlefield their employment entailed."_1

1Making the Grade: Rank in Post-Modern Military Hierarchies


----------



## rmc_wannabe (10 Jan 2010)

Sadly, Corporals don't fall under the same umbrella all the time, and the system in place kills the possibility of recognising leadership potential. 

Just as some food for thought, lets see what some people think of this scenario of 3 Corporals in the same outfit:

Example A: Cpl Bloggins takes responsibility for the det/section when MCpl is away. He manages the duties and daily tasks of the group and ensures everyone is well taken care of, even if it comes before his personal welfare. He receives glowing PERs and has received a CO's commendation. Cpl Bloggins has 2 and a half years in rank and has no PLQ mods.

Example B: Cpl Dumptruck is in a posting slump and has dodged taskings for the past 6 months. Cpl Dumptruck has also been spoken to numerous times for picking on numerous Privates and is on RW for being late. His latest PER is less than favourable. He recently completed his PLQ Mod 6 and has 7 years in rank.  

Example C: Cpl Greyman shows up to work everyday on time. He doesn't take much of an interest in the day to day operation of his section, but knows enough to fill in when needed. He has a working rapport with his subordinates, but usually resorts to asking politely for tasks to be done instead of properly delegating tasks. His PERs are decent, and he has merited at the middle of the promotable pack. Cpl Greyman has 3 years in rank, and has completed his mods 1-5 and Mod 6.

With the current meriting system, who gets promoted? Who should be promoted? How does the current system screw those deserving, and promote the undeserving on technicality?


----------



## ballz (10 Jan 2010)

rmc_wannabe said:
			
		

> Sadly, Corporals don't fall under the same umbrella all the time, and the system in place kills the possibility of recognising leadership potential.
> 
> Just as some food for thought, lets see what some people think of this scenario of 3 Corporals in the same outfit:
> 
> ...



I don't know anything about anything so this is just a question/assumption/guess of an answer.

Wouldn't they just say "Cpl Bloggins, we're going to send you away until you come back with PLQ Mods 1-5" and then Cpl Bloggins disappears from the unit and comes back X weeks later as a MCpl and yada yada

Seems like the right COA to me?


----------



## dapaterson (10 Jan 2010)

TASK was a good idea, but torpedoed by the Cbt Arms who refuse to admit that other trades have more marketable skills which therefore implies greater compensation.


----------



## Nfld Sapper (10 Jan 2010)

ballz said:
			
		

> I don't know anything about anything so this is just a question/assumption/guess of an answer.
> 
> Wouldn't they just say "Cpl Bloggins, we're going to send you away until you come back with PLQ Mods 1-5" and then Cpl Bloggins disappears from the unit and comes back X weeks later as a MCpl and yada yada
> 
> Seems like the right COA to me?



Nitpicky here but you need MOD1-5 +  MOD 6 inorder to be appointed to MCpl.......


----------



## George Wallace (10 Jan 2010)

NFLD Sapper said:
			
		

> Nitpicky here but you need MOD1-5 +  MOD 6 inorder to be appointed to MCpl.......



If only that were true.  How many Trades promote Cpls to MCpl Acting/Lacking?


----------



## Nfld Sapper (10 Jan 2010)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> If only that were true.  How many Trades promote Cpls to MCpl Acting/Lacking?



True but most have what 2 yrs to get the required course(s) done?


----------



## ballz (10 Jan 2010)

Hehe, well as I said



			
				ballz said:
			
		

> I don't know anything about anything



;D


----------



## Eye In The Sky (10 Jan 2010)

Being that there are so many varibiables to this question, I choose to go with a couple of things that tell me what a Cpl is/should be across the CF.

1.  The CF rank structure.  In the CF, a Cpl is a Jnr NCO.  
2.  The definition of superior officer, as found in QR & O, Vol I, Chap 1, Art 1.02 - Definitions:

“superior officer” means any officer or non-commissioned member who, in relation to any other officer or non-commissioned member, is by the National Defence Act, or by regulations or custom of the service, authorized to give a lawful command to that other officer or non-commissioned member; (supérieur)*

Also, Cpls can be subordinate to other Cpls, and be their *superior officers* as per #2 above.  That is covered, I believe, in QR & O, Vol II, Chap 103, Art 103.16, Notes A, B & C.  If you are interested in what it says, go take a look at Art 103.16.

So that covers who a Cpl/LS has authority over from a bare-bones perspective in the CF.  Seems like a decent place to start. 

Instead of talking about doing away with the MCpl rank, etc, which we know won't happen this FY, how about discussion on the day to day real-life stuff.

1.  Every rank in the CF has its own junior and senior members.  A brand new Sgt isn't treated the same way as a Sgt with X years in rank by his/her peer group.  Each rank has its own differences.  Same for MCpls, Capts, etc.  Why would it be any different for Cpls?  

2.  Cpl is a leadership rank.  Even if you aren't "in command" of your section/subunit, whatever, you are STILL expected to look out for your subordinates.  If you don't think so, you shouldn't be a Cpl IMO.  It is an implied AND expected duty with the rank, isn't it?  So, what I am suggesting is that SOME of the problems with Cpl's not getting the respect they deserve or whatever MIGHT be because it has become cultural for Cpls to NOT think of themselves as leaders.  Just because you aren't the Jnr C/S Cmdr and Sect 2 i/c doesn't mean you don't have a responsibility to supervise Jnr Cpls and Pte's in the performance of their duties.  So over the years, maybe we've caused our own situation, to a certain extent.  I'd love to hear arguments and feedback on that.

3.  Lead when you are supposed to lead, follow when you are supposed to follow.  Simple.  If you aren't the leader, be the performing follower.  If your Jack is a POS, I am sure the Sgts, WOs, etc will know that.  If you are focused on your POS MCpl, who is doing YOUR job?

4.  Cpl's are, IMO, the first line of the lowest level possible  problem solving mechanism in the CF.  For all things.  Example:  by the bed DEU inspection.  In the room waiting inspection is 1 Pte and 1 Cpl.  Pte's name tag is not on correctly.  The Cpl isn't the crse snr, or staff.  Does he say "its not my problem to sort out"?  If you answered *yes*, this where you should find a mirror and jack up who you see in it.

Cpls are, IMO, only going to get the leadership they show they can handle.  So, in relation to the thread and its title, I for one say that, like all ranks in the CF, you will get the respect your performance rates.  That is something only you are responsible for.

*The Cpl/LS rank in the CF is not unionized.*   If you think you should be the Cpl that gets put in charge because you have 10 years TI as a Cpl, but the keener Cpl with 6 years in gets the task, maybe you should think about how your performance is.  Its safe to bet you aren't thought of as the best pers for the job by your immediate CoC.

I think many Cpl's mix up the idea of leadership at the Jnr ranks level with that of command.  

 :2c:


----------



## Eye In The Sky (10 Jan 2010)

rmc_wannabe said:
			
		

> Sadly, Corporals don't fall under the same umbrella all the time, and the system in place kills the possibility of recognising leadership potential.



I would suggest that the problem is the lower levels of leadership/the CoC.  As leaders, we are expected to "develop the leadership potential in our followers".

That isn't a 'system' problem unless it is systemic across the entire CF, IMO.  And I don't think it is, or has been.  Perhaps certain trades etc but where I came from that wasn't the case, it was the opposite.


----------



## armyvern (10 Jan 2010)

I can only add that in my trade, when I get a posting message in for a new to the section member it reads:

"Posn XXXXXX-66, Rank: Pte/Cpl"

IE: the posn can be filled by either a Pte or a Cpl - absolutley no differentiation.

BUT, I, as the supervisor, always ensure that I task all of my Cpls to "look after" small tasks within the section. Cpl so & so, you are tasked to oversee 'this' within the section etc etc. All pers within the section are advised as to who is responsable to look oversee what --- and I advise all others (either fellow Cpls or Ptes) that they are to address through the Cpl in charge of "X" as a first step should there be any issues. When I am advised of a problem in "area X" either by my higher-ups, a customer or other --- it is "Cpl X IC CTAT" that I first consult with.

I also rely on "Cpl X" to be my SME in whatever area ... Ie when my CoC (or a customer) poses a question to me about "area X" it is the Cpl that I refer them to or it is the Cpl from whom I seek the answers. They are the ones "doing" the job each day ... I am simply the person administering them. And, that Cpl always gets the "credit" for providing the answer. Always.

I don't shit all over Cpl X, but rather will point out ways he can do things differently, more effeciently etc. All of my Cpls get assesed on their "supervisory" skills. All of them have opportunity to excel (or not) and all of them have the benefit of gaining leadership experience however small that task may be. It's the way that I go about ensuring they have opportunity to develop those skillsets which are necessary to succeed as they move up the food chain.

I believe that that is my job as a supervisor. I believe that is respectful. Likewise whenever any one of my subordinates comes to me with a problem (no matter the rank), I listen, advise, or action as appropriate. I'm a firm believer that respect begets respect. It's always a two way street.


----------



## BinRat55 (11 Jan 2010)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> I believe that that is my job as a supervisor. I believe that is respectful. Likewise whenever any one of my subordinates comes to me with a problem (no matter the rank), I listen, advise, or action as appropriate. I'm a firm believer that *respect begets respect*. It's always a two way street.



Vern, I know how you hate the "+1" comment, but I just gotta (with an addition of course!!)

| agree wholeheartedly. I have taken the worst from when you and I were Ptes / Cpls and remembered how I was treated and how I felt (you had some very hard times) and vowed never to treat my subordinates OR peers that way. We may not be a democracy, but dammit - we can definately have dignity. Fairness, equality and going that extra step for those who work for you will always work in both favors.


----------



## time expired (11 Jan 2010)

Has there been a change in the rank of Cpl.?.In 1967 I was" promoted"to the
rank of Hellyer corporal from old army L/Cpl. and we were left in no doubt that
our new rank was not a rank of authority or leadership and we were nothing 
but glorified privates,even the M/Cpl. rank when it was established spent a
couple of years in a form of authority limbo until it was clarified as a replacement for         the old Cpl. rank.As one can imagine confusion reigned and discipline suffered.

The idea of a separate rank structure for speciality trades was instituted in the
US ARMY in the late 50s and it was found that having a Snr.NCO that could be
put in command of a box of wrenches but little else was of little use and did 
nothing for the image of the rank,and was quietly phased out.
                                             Regards


----------



## CountDC (12 Jan 2010)

NFLD Sapper said:
			
		

> True but most have what 2 yrs to get the required course(s) done?



 :rofl:

Just in the last few months I have seen plenty of messages dropping members back to no leaf due to the fact they could not pass the PLQ....after as much as 5 years as a master.  The 2 year rule is only applicable if the required course is available to the member and they fail to complete it. With the high number of actings there is a long list waiting for the course. I suspect some trades may not be loading the actings until they are getting ready to promote them to sgt.

Myself, never been a fan of the acting master - to me you should be fully qualified before being put into the leadership role.


----------



## gcclarke (12 Jan 2010)

CountDC said:
			
		

> Myself, never been a fan of the acting master - to me you should be fully qualified before being put into the leadership role.



The way I see it, it's the other way around. Someone isn't getting promoted Acting MS / MCpl in order to put them into a leadership role. They're made acting lacking to acknowledge the fact that they have already been put into a leadership role. The PLQ course isn't what makes them a leader. It may make them a better leader, but it requires an existing base of leadership ability to build upon. 

And, of course, it also serves a secondary function of filtering out those whose leadership skills have not yet developed to the point where they should be made a full MS / MCpl. One would hope that this would be a relatively small portion of people who are Acting Lacking.


----------



## CountDC (12 Jan 2010)

gcclarke said:
			
		

> The way I see it, it's the other way around. Someone isn't getting promoted Acting MS / MCpl in order to put them into a leadership role. They're made acting lacking to acknowledge the fact that they have already been put into a leadership role. The PLQ course isn't what makes them a leader. It may make them a better leader, but it requires an existing base of leadership ability to build upon.
> 
> And, of course, it also serves a secondary function of filtering out those whose leadership skills have not yet developed to the point where they should be made a full MS / MCpl. One would hope that this would be a relatively small portion of people who are Acting Lacking.



 A/L Masters I know of were promoted based only on their PERs which we all know how well that works.  I don't think the PLQ makes the person a leader or even really a better leader - it is a screening tool to see if the member has the leadership in them plus teaches them the standard military way of doing things. Great for screening out some of those with the inflated PERS too. Unfortunately I am in a position where I see AR's every month with the result of members losing their leaf.  I gave up my leaf which was hard after so many years, I cannot imagine what it must be like to have it taken away after 5 years because you are unable to pass the PLQ. I do not believe the military is really doing itself or the members a real favour when they continue to do this.   If the member is merit listing high enough then get them on the PLQ and appoint them masters. 

Maybe I am just a bit jaded after seeing so many dropped. I mean think about it, these people have been MASTERS for several years, built their family finances based on it, developed their career around it, maybe got great PERs and were expecting to get promoted.  Then the PLQ hits and for whatever reason they are simply not able to pass it.  Now the family income is dropped from MCpl(2) to Cpl(2), they will never get that promotion, they have been embarassed in front of family, friends and peers.  Bet that feels real good.  Talk about a motivator for taking the pension and running.


----------



## George Wallace (12 Jan 2010)

CountDC said:
			
		

> ....... I do not believe the military is really doing itself or the members a real favour when they continue to do this.   If the member is merit listing high enough then get them on the PLQ and appoint them masters.



Exactly.  It never stopped boggling my mind how some Trades and Career Managers allowed this.  I think that the RMS Trade is probably the worse offender and suffering the worse due to this practice.  Some of these Trades are appointing people to positions as 5B MCpls, and not even requiring their pers to be qualified 5A.......Making up shortages in supervisory ranks in this manner does not do the people put into those positions any justice, and literally is gearing them up for failure.


----------



## armyvern (12 Jan 2010)

gcclarke said:
			
		

> The way I see it, it's the other way around. Someone isn't getting promoted Acting MS / MCpl in order to put them into a leadership role. *They're made acting lacking to acknowledge the fact that they have already been put into a leadership role. * The PLQ course isn't what makes them a leader. It may make them a better leader, but it requires an existing base of leadership ability to build upon.



Uhhhmmmmm no. I'll guess that you're not in a trade where a mere "Ready" is earning someone an appt to MCpl these days ... 'nuff said.


----------



## ModlrMike (12 Jan 2010)

gcclarke said:
			
		

> The way I see it, it's the other way around. Someone isn't getting promoted Acting MS / MCpl in order to put them into a leadership role. They're made acting lacking to acknowledge the fact that they have already been put into a leadership role. The PLQ course isn't what makes them a leader. It may make them a better leader, but it requires an existing base of leadership ability to build upon.
> 
> And, of course, it also serves a secondary function of filtering out those whose leadership skills have not yet developed to the point where they should be made a full MS / MCpl. One would hope that this would be a relatively small portion of people who are Acting Lacking.



I would rephrase your observation to say that someone _*shouldn't*_ be promoted A/MCpl ...etc.


----------



## George Wallace (12 Jan 2010)

Another little idiosyncrasy that I find that does not make any sense is the one where the Trades that are the worse offenders, are also the Trades that collect Spec Pay.   Why are we advance promoting persons in these Trades, if we are also compensating them for some “Technical Skills”?   Talk about redundancy.


----------



## CorporalMajor (13 Jan 2010)

Cpls are by definition, NCOs.  NCOs are by definition, able to issue orders, and they have that power for a reason.

We know that the rank is today a "two-hook Pte", IMO it's because that's often how they are treated...where I come from most of them are given a very small degree of actual responsibility.  

The other problem is that most of them don't act with that leader's initiative when they should, and I even admit to making that mistake on occasion.  There are times where I should have been more assertive.  In the P Res, it can also be a matter of lack of individual experience, but I digress. 

Perhaps they should be taught how to actually lead, once at that rank?  Why not use that rank for what it was made.  Teach them a thing or two about leading/managing others, or how to take charge appropriately (thier superiors owe it to them).   

Give these men and women some real responsibility once promoted - and if they're worth that rank, they will learn.  It's not rocket science; leading people through your own experience is actually very easy, but that mentatility should be emphasised more strongly.  And, if you emphasise the leader role early on, they will be better prepared for PLQ and the MCpl appointment - and it will take a lot of workload off the overburdened MCpl/Sgt ranks.......my $0.02


----------



## armyvern (13 Jan 2010)

CorporalMajor said:
			
		

> Cpls are by definition, NCOs.  NCOs are by definition, able to issue orders, and they have that power for a reason.
> 
> We know that the rank is today a "two-hook Pte", IMO it's because that's often how they are treated...where I come from most of them are given a very small degree of actual responsibility.



They are also, by definition, Jr NCOs ... with limited powers of issuing orders.

That being said, I see you've got 2.5 years TI. I'm a dinosaur so I'll offer up my .02 cents worth. 

Back in the early 90s (just before that decade of darkness began), I was a Pte(B) & a Pte(T) --- I put my damn heels together when I spoke to a Cpl ... and I addressed that Cpl by his/her rank - always. Then, just as I picked up my 2nd hook and actually became a Cpl ... the full weight of that decade of darkness came to bear down upon us.

No more pay raises. No more bullets on ex. And NO more Ptes being enlisted to actually be subordinate to us Corporals. My trade went years with exactly ZERO Ptes in our trade. Guess who then did all those small tasks that the Ptes used to do ... all the while still doing those tasks that the Cpls did. the Cpls. We were the very lowest of the food chain.

A few years later, when we slowly, extremely slowly, began to see Ptes trickle back into our trade - guess what the thought was? "Last week a Cpl did this job, this week a Pte is doing it." Ergo it's a Pte/Cpl position can be done by either/or ... and the Ptes certainly weren't about to put their heels together to a "co-worker" peer of theirs.

Just another legacy of that decade of darkness.


----------



## Tow Tripod (13 Jan 2010)

Are Corporals shown the respect they deserve?I would think that they would want to earn some respect first.In my platoon in Afghanistan many times the Privates outperformed the Corporal.Some Corporals are worth their wieght in gold for the section and platoon.Some others I wouldn't give the sweat off my brow of my head during a night patrol in Zhari District.Just my opinion on a touchy subject!!!


----------



## CorporalMajor (14 Jan 2010)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> They are also, by definition, Jr NCOs ... with limited powers of issuing orders.


I know..  What I'm saying is that they can still be given MCpl-like tasks to prepare them for that appointment.  I've been behind the wheel when my I/C or Sect Comd was absent.  All it is, is "stepping up" and taking the initiative when necessary and I feel that it needs to be practiced more often than it has.  

 We have lots of Ptes around, We also have a lot of Cpls, so that takes the value of the rank down, but it's only a matter of 1) selecting someone who shows the will to lead and putting that person in charge 2) everyone else at the same rank cooperating.   It happens sometimes, and it works, but again, why not practice this more often.   My unit has been having a serious deficit of SNR NCOs for the last year.  Everyone at that rank that could be filling those roles are going to Afg, even CTing....and there's not much of them left.  Which means that us juniors will have no choice but to step up.  



> Are Corporals shown the respect they deserve?I would think that they would want to earn some respect first.In my platoon in Afghanistan many times the Privates outperformed the Corporal.Some Corporals are worth their wieght in gold for the section and platoon.Some others I wouldn't give the sweat off my brow of my head during a night patrol in Zhari District.Just my opinion on a touchy subject!!!



Rank and respect don't always follow hand in hand for me.  Don't limit it to my rank - I know some MCpls, and junior officers who couldn't lead their way out of a wet paper bag.  As well as many Snr NCOs who simply aren't trustworthy.  And some of them are in charge of us.   

You are absolutely right that respect should be earned.  But when it comes to the game of "Rock Paper Rank" I'm left with no choice but to trust and follow some person who I don't have a lot of confidence in...... I just grin and bear it.


----------



## armyvern (14 Jan 2010)

Kid yourself not - I practise it all the time.

Unfortunately, that doesn't stop Cpl X from addressing Pte Y as "Timmy" all day long nor does it cause "Timmy" to stop calling Cpl X by the name of "Patricia".

I find that leadership works best when there's some rank involved ... and by that I mean the "using" of one's rank. It's hard to assist one in developing their "leadership" skills when then insist that "Timmy" is their "best friend".

I actually miss the old days when the MCpls had their own messes ... they earned their way into them and they had the ability to seperate from their subordinates - making the ability to actually "issue, maintain, and decide upon orders" a whole lot easier ... and a whole lot easier to have to deal within disciplinary issues when those same pers your were administering weren't drinking in the same mess as you were. We have craploads of MCpls that still manage to pull this off quite well, others not so much.

But, until the Pte/Cpl posn is clearly differentiated and seperated (ie they aren't officially "peers" in a posn that can be filled by either/or) any more ... I fear the lack of leadership courses and the "giving" of the Cpl rank after a min TIR vice merit ... means that some Cpls with no, and who will never have, leadership skills will continue to get tasked with "small" tasks. Some will excel at those and advance, others will not.

But to assume that because someone got their Cpls after 4 years time in, they should automaticly be availed of "supervisory" or "administering" of Ptes (some of whom may very well be a whole lot more competant - because they do do the same jobs) at an in-depth level just doesn't sit well with me.

Heck, in my trade a MCpl is considered to be (and actually is) a "working rank". They just happen to be the ones who get to work and do 90% of the admin in addition to all that work too ... earning a whole whopping (estimate here of not much) 75 bucks a month? _THAT_ is the shittiest rank to be out there if you want my opinion.


----------



## Nfld Sapper (14 Jan 2010)

Vern my pay raise from Cpl 3 to MCpl 3 was excatly $4.84


----------



## armyvern (14 Jan 2010)

NFLD Sapper said:
			
		

> Vern my pay raise from Cpl 3 to MCpl 3 was excatly $4.84



Apparently, I underestimated my "not much" then!!  :-X


----------



## Nfld Sapper (14 Jan 2010)

And when I go from MCpl 4 to Sgt 0 I get a $6.04 raise 



			
				ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Apparently, I underestimated my "not much" then!!  :-X



But Vern remember I make 20% (give or take)  less than you do.......


----------



## armyvern (14 Jan 2010)

NFLD Sapper said:
			
		

> And when I go from MCpl 4 to Sgt 0 I get a $6.04 raise
> 
> *But Vern remember I make 20% (give or take)  less than you do.......*



Well 20% of $6.04 ... ain't much. (But you're making a whole shitload lots less than me!!)

I'll buy the beer next time!  ;D


----------



## Nfld Sapper (14 Jan 2010)

Ah but remember I work off a daily pay rate not a monthly one.....

 ;D


----------



## armyvern (14 Jan 2010)

NFLD Sapper said:
			
		

> Ah but remember I work off a daily pay rate not a monthly one.....
> 
> ;D



Ahhh, but remember that I am getting paid a monthly rate of pay at a rank a bit higher!!  >


----------



## CountDC (14 Jan 2010)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> _THAT_ is the shittiest rank to be out there if you want my opinion.



thanks    :crybaby:


----------



## Jarnhamar (14 Jan 2010)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> I find that leadership works best when there's some rank involved ... and by that I mean the "using" of one's rank. It's hard to assist one in developing their "leadership" skills when then insist that "Timmy" is their "best friend".



I find when you work with someone day in and day out you develop a closer bond when you're not using rank. I always found the reserves TOO hung up on rank and last name

If I have my section and we're doing our thing I have them call me by my first name. I call them by their rank and last name until they they tell me to do other wise.  Heck tonight we're going out boozing, they owe me some mad dog shots for missing some "voluntary" PT.

If we're in the presence of warrant officers or higher they use my rank and I use theirs.  They know when to act the part.

 If it's just section commanders I'll use the WOs name or LTs if we were friends before they commishioned etc..  If troops are around it's all rank and last name.  Some people are uncomfortable with that but it works for me so I do it.


I agree with the point that corporals often don't seek responsibility either and are quite happy to act as well paid privates.  I know there are junior and senior members of all ranks with various degrees of responsibility and authority but I find the biggest gap is in the rank of corporal.


----------



## CallOfDuty (14 Jan 2010)

wow, I could never imagine addressing one of my co-workers as " Corporal"!   However, there are the corporals that are more like Mcpls or Sgts in their responsibilities, and I do give them the respect they deserve.


----------



## armyvern (14 Jan 2010)

CallOfDuty said:
			
		

> wow, I could never imagine addressing one of my co-workers as " Corporal"!   However, there are the corporals that are more like Mcpls or Sgts in their responsibilities, and I do give them the respect they deserve.



And that highlights what I'm talking about.

Until we "fix" the system whereby posns are no longer Pte/Cpl ... and differentiate between work area of 2 seperate ranks again ... they'll continue to be "co-workers" first and foremost. I can put Cpl X in charge of all I want within that section, but the day that Cpl X tries to "actually" administer or counsel "co-worker Pte X" (ie his best friend and co-worker vice his 'actual' subordinate) - the fur would be flying ... somtimes it's worse than two chicks in bikinis in a mud-wrassle gone horribly wrong.


----------



## CallOfDuty (14 Jan 2010)

lol Vern!  I see it all the time.  Sometimes when a corporal starts to give out orders/demands etc, and that person walks away...it starts...." did you see bloggins acting like he's the boss??.....who does he think he is??....pfft...."
   Ain't saying it's right....but we are the worker bees, us Pte's and Corporals.


----------



## Fusaki (14 Jan 2010)

> Until we "fix" the system whereby posns are no longer Pte/Cpl ... and differentiate between work area of 2 seperate ranks again ... they'll continue to be "co-workers" first and foremost. I can put Cpl X in charge of all I want within that section, but the day that Cpl X tries to "actually" administer or counsel "co-worker Pte X" (ie his best friend and co-worker vice his 'actual' subordinate) - the fur would be flying ... somtimes it's worse than two chicks in bikinis in a mud-wrassle gone horribly wrong.



So maybe the solution is to stop automatically promoting PTEs to CPL based solely on their TI.

CPL/PTE is considered a single rank because of the amount of CPLs who act like - and might as well be - PTEs.  You're not going to have a distinction between ranks until you eliminate this overlap.


----------



## Old Sweat (14 Jan 2010)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> And that highlights what I'm talking about.
> 
> Until we "fix" the system whereby posns are no longer Pte/Cpl ... and differentiate between work area of 2 seperate ranks again ... they'll continue to be "co-workers" first and foremost. I can put Cpl X in charge of all I want within that section, but the day that Cpl X tries to "actually" administer or counsel "co-worker Pte X" (ie his best friend and co-worker vice his 'actual' subordinate) - the fur would be flying ... somtimes it's worse than two chicks in bikinis in a mud-wrassle gone horribly wrong.



Vern et al

I fear that if we separate positions, then we face the possibility of a cap being placed on the number of corporals that can be paid. This lowers the stagnation in rank another level and brings up the possibility of a merit list for privates. But I am an oldfaret, what do I know?

As for the mud-wrassling, it's no good without the pictures. (Unless one is an active participant, or so I have been told!)


----------



## George Wallace (14 Jan 2010)

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> As for the mud-wrassling, it's no good without the pictures. (Unless one is an active participant, or so I have been told!)



You don't go by the Code Name "Blue" do you?


----------



## Jungle (14 Jan 2010)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> somtimes it's worse than two chicks in bikinis in a mud-wrassle gone horribly wrong.



How could that scenario possibly go wrong ?!?


----------



## Rigger052 (14 Jan 2010)

I have personally found that respect from the subordinate side of the house is very much a two way street. The leadership principles I learned on my JLC/JNCO have been very good at helping me stay effective when put into the leadership role. By treating my peers and subordinates with respect and adhering to these principals I've had no problems with anyone who has worked with/for me on any projects. Going hand in hand with this, meeting project deadlines with little to no issues makes my superiors happy and giving clients what they've requested WRT phones or computers tends to make them happy. 

   We've all seen the various examples of pers that do deserve more respect, or less as the case may be, and the issue of pay ... well I'll never turn down MORE money ;D. I've seen some good people fail a PLQ, and some very poor one's pass, it sucks either way but that's life in the military. My point is that this topic doesn't seem to be one where you can generalize *ALL* CF Cpl's in terms of respect, as some do deserve it and some don't. Just my  :2c: for what it's worth.


----------



## time expired (16 Jan 2010)

You younguns just don't get it,Cpls.have no subordinates,he is what we in the old
Army used to call a Trained Soldier and unless he is given temporary authority by a
superior like in"Cpl Bloggs,your in charge"he has no authority.
This was established in a directive from NDHQ that was published in standing orders
sometime in 1968.possibly something has changed but I have heard nothing  that
would suggest that.So unless the CF has made adjustments to the rank structure
most of this discussion is irrelevant.
                                             Regards


----------



## Eye In The Sky (16 Jan 2010)

I have 20 years in.  I am no youngin.  Perhaps you need to re-read the QR & O definition of superior officer.

Cpl's have subordinates.  Cpl's can give lawful commands.  Cpls are higher than the rank of Private in the CF rank structure.

If Pte Bloggins gets an order from a Cpl, its an order from a superior officer IAW the NDA.  Full stop.

I have no idea what you are on, but you probably shouldn't operate heavy machinery today.


----------



## George Wallace (16 Jan 2010)

time expired said:
			
		

> You younguns just don't get it,Cpls.have no subordinates,he is what we in the old
> Army used to call a Trained Soldier and unless he is given temporary authority by a
> superior like in"Cpl Bloggs,your in charge"he has no authority.
> This was established in a directive from NDHQ that was published in standing orders
> ...



I have to agree with EITS.  That is right out of it.  Cpls have been in charge of many different functions, duties, tasks, etc. since 1968.  I suppose you have never heard of the concept of "Delegated Authority" which in some instances will give a person more authority than any rank would have.   When a Cpl acting as a "Safety" person on a Range, aircraft, rappel site, or where ever, gives a command, even Generals would have to obey.


----------



## CallOfDuty (16 Jan 2010)

..you are absolutely right EITS..technically.   But really, do you see it happening day to day?  I see corporals more-so as senior Ptes who act as mentors, not necessarily bosses.  Well, the good ones anyway.
    PS---EITS---Hows course going???


----------



## Eye In The Sky (16 Jan 2010)

CallOfDuty said:
			
		

> But really, do you see it happening day to day?  I see corporals more-so as senior Ptes who act as mentors, not necessarily bosses.  Well, the good ones anyway.



Actually, yes I do and I have for many years.  I've seen crews where the CC was a Cpl, and so was the Dvr.  There was never any question on who was in command in those cases.  I've worked at TSS where there was all Cpls in the Tp, but only one was the floor Cpl and everyone did what he said.  That was just professional.  Not everyone gets to be the boss, but someone has to be. 

I can think of many times where people of equal rank are subordindate or superior to peers (in rank).  Cpls, Capts, Sgts.  I was Crse WO for a 3s course, but had a Sgt with WAY more TI than I did as my Trg Sgt.  Just the way it works.  Anyone who can't work for someone unless they are a rank higher (i.e. be a dickhead to someone appointed NCO I/C of a group of peers) is lacking something on the professional/military deportment side.  IMO.



> PS---EITS---Hows course going???



Goin' good.


----------



## Kat Stevens (16 Jan 2010)

I was one of those lifer Cpls everyone automatically assumes is completely useless because he never got promoted.  Read any of my PERs and you'll see differently.  In 19 years at that rank, I occupied damn near every seat in an engineer squadron that an NCM can sit in, including SSM for a few crazy days in the Y2K flinch.  I have operated and crew commanded AEVs and AVLBS.  I have been in charge of prepping an entire armoured engineer troop for rail transport.  I have instructed driver wheel, driver track, comms, and MAT at various levels.  I have been a summer incremental instructor at CFSME 3 times.  I have been a DA holder for millions of dollars worth of equipment. The worst part of being a Cpl is that you're qualified enough to fill in for anyone, teach anything, and complete most tasks reliably, but you're still "just a Cpl".  This is a direct quote I got from a young Lt who came to my troop in June of one year, and was in the field with us 2 months later; "What the fuck do you know about mechanized engineer ops, you're just a lifer Cpl."  THAT sums up the attitude of higher toward Cpls.  No backing from the top= no respect from below...QED


----------



## Eye In The Sky (16 Jan 2010)

Kat,

Maybe the young Lt thought that but...obviously alot (sounds like MOST) of the folks in your CoC thought differently...based on all the seats you filled over the years.  

I'd bet that young green Lt musta had that said to him by some Sgts, WOs, the Sgt-Major, Capts and other people when he tried one of his "why don't we do it like this" speeches  :blotto:

The whole "your just a *insert rank here* can be said of any rank.  I found most of the people who had an attitude like that were the ones who didn't like seeing natual leadership abilities in their subordinates...mostly because they didn't have them and felt inferior for it.


----------



## Nfld Sapper (16 Jan 2010)

Damn Kat, I would go to war with you any day...... and wouldn't mind having you in my back pocket......


----------



## FastEddy (16 Jan 2010)

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> I was one of those lifer Cpls everyone automatically assumes is completely useless because he never got promoted.  Read any of my PERs and you'll see differently.  In 19 years at that rank, I occupied damn near every seat in an engineer squadron that an NCM can sit in, including SSM for a few crazy days in the Y2K flinch.  I have operated and crew commanded AEVs and AVLBS.  I have been in charge of prepping an entire armoured engineer troop for rail transport.  I have instructed driver wheel, driver track, comms, and MAT at various levels.  I have been a summer incremental instructor at CFSME 3 times.  I have been a DA holder for millions of dollars worth of equipment. The worst part of being a Cpl is that you're qualified enough to fill in for anyone, teach anything, and complete most tasks reliably, but you're still "just a Cpl".  This is a direct quote I got from a young Lt who came to my troop in June of one year, and was in the field with us 2 months later; "What the frig do you know about mechanized engineer ops, you're just a lifer Cpl."  THAT sums up the attitude of higher toward Cpls.  No backing from the top= no respect from below...QED



Well that's a pretty impressive Military PERs and combined with long Service, it leaves me scratching  what hair I have left why you  weren't promoted to CSM or at least S/Sgt. , sounds like you should have.

Cheers.


----------



## Kat Stevens (16 Jan 2010)

Was never going to happen, I made too many enemies with long memories when I was a young guy with an admitted poor attitude toward the political game.  Other guys played it better than me, no regrets, I had a good career, and it's all mind over matter.  Those who matter don't mind, and those who mind don't matter.


----------



## George Wallace (16 Jan 2010)

FastEddy said:
			
		

> Well that's a pretty impressive Military PERs and combined with long Service, it leaves me scratching  what hair I have left why you  weren't promoted to CSM or at least S/Sgt. , sounds like you should have.
> 
> Cheers.




As you well know, not all Trades are equal.  Cbt Arms are not like so many other Trades where one can be promoted before they are qualified.  Various biases also come into play in the Cbt Arms Trades, where often an older more mature soldier would be passed over for promotion for various reasons: age, the Unit wants a mature member to mentor their peers, promotions are frozen, etc.  Unlike some Purple Trades where members are 'rewarded' with Spec Pay and promotions as Acting/Lacking, the Cbt Arms kept their principles........to some extent.  Politics is always there, in any Merit Board.


----------



## time expired (16 Jan 2010)

No need to get personal ,I was merely trying to point out the reason there seems
to so much obvious confusion about the Cpl. rank.Prior to unification one spent about
3 to5 years as a Pte.went on a Jnr.NCO course then waited for a vacancy and was
then promoted to Cpl.Ones life changed ,first one joined the Cpl`s Mess,if you were
single you moved into a single room, as a Cpl. you were expected to keep a little
distance to your old buddies.In this system there was no question about your
authority and nobody refered to you as just a Cpl.
Mr. Hellyer, for reasons best know to himself, created the so called  Hellyer Cpl.,the
old Cpl`s were herded into the Mens mess and all their privileges were stripped
away as well as their authority,many understandably quit. 
This created great confusion,the new Hellyer Cpl`s went about trying to order the
few remaining Pte`s around,some of the old Cpl`s tried to reestablish their lost
authority over people wearing the same rank badges. Discipline suffered as one 
can imagine,S/Nco`s and officers tended to ignore the Cpl. rank as they never 
knew whether or not they were dealing with someone with leadership qualities
or not and I feel some of this attitude remain today,judging by what I am reading
in this thread,.
The CF, in an attempt to solve this problem ,published the directive I refer ed to in
my last post.It stated that the Cpl. had no authority inherent in the rank and that
the appointment of M/Cpl. was the first rank with command authority.
                                                 Regards


----------



## mariomike (16 Jan 2010)

You were soldiering when I was still a toddler, Sergeant!


----------



## CallOfDuty (16 Jan 2010)

..good post time expired.  Makes it pretty cut and dry I'd say.  I work with quite a few old corporals who refer back to the day...( early to mid 70's).....to when Corporals were GOD.  No joke.  They were scared to death of the Corporals.
   However; those days are gone and for the most part the guys....even the old ones, like it this way.  From my experience I should add.

COD


----------



## OldSolduer (16 Jan 2010)

Cpl was the best rank I ever held. A good cpl is worth 3 mediocre MCpls and several poor Lts.

"only a cpl", that phrase should be forbidden.


----------



## FastEddy (17 Jan 2010)

time expired said:
			
		

> No need to get personal ,I was merely trying to point out the reason there seems
> to so much obvious confusion about the Cpl. rank.Prior to unification one spent about
> 3 to5 years as a Pte.went on a Jnr.NCO course then waited for a vacancy and was
> then promoted to Cpl.Ones life changed ,first one joined the Cpl`s Mess,if you were
> ...



That's exactly how it was, Rank had Authority and Privileges. You stood to attention when addressing a L/Cpl and God Forbide you omitted addressing him by his Rank.
Corporals were mostly Sargent's in waiting (Sargent's, as we all knew ran the Army). Corporals were the last line of Command to get things done and done right.

There were L/Cpl's without pay and with pay and the appointment was useally canceled when personnel were Posted from Unit to Unit. (but this was useally just a Adm. thing but the with pay depended on the Org. of the new Unit.

From L/Cpl to Cpl it could be Acting with or without pay , again depending on the Unit and Part II Orders.

Then the Jr NCO's course , Candidates were sent to another Corps School (preferably the School of Infantry) but useally a Base Unit or School with a current starting course.

On successfully completing this course (8 to 15 wks) you then could be posted in Rank (confirmed), which now meant that you were paid in rank and that rank and pay could only be reduced from disciplinary actions. Unless you elected even in Corps or Trade Transfers or Postings you maintained your Rank and Pay.  8)

Life was good and you were on your way. The Corporals Mess was just a comfortable and decorative as the Sargent's Mess, but we only served Beer and Wine. In quarters we occupied the Cubicles at the end of the "H" Huts and a Single Bed. Of course on clean ups and inspections we only Supervised  :

In the Mess Hall, there were separate 8ft tables with chairs, white table clothes and cutlery place settings along with Mugs and Glasses, all you had to bring was your meal plate.

As opposed to the  Privates, Bare 8ft. Tables & Bench's bringing your Knife,Fork,Spoon Combo and Cup, which you washed on Exit.

Cheers.


----------



## dangerboy (17 Jan 2010)

Comparing pre-unification Cpls to present day Cpls is not really very accurate as the job description and level of responsibility was completely different.  I will use the Infantry as an example, prior to unification a Cpl was a Section commander in today's army that job is done by a Sgt (on paper, I know it done often by MCpls) with the 2IC or Bren gun team leader being a Lance Cpl and today it is filled by a MCpl (by the book again).  What I am trying to say is when talking about respect shown to the rank leave any talk of Cpl prior to unification out of it as the rank was a different entity.


----------



## Kat Stevens (17 Jan 2010)

What I always found ironic about "just a Cpl" is it was always a valid form of indictment, but never acceptable as a defense.  "STFU you're just a Cpl" is fine, but "what do you want from me, I'm just a Cpl" is not.


----------



## FastEddy (17 Jan 2010)

dangerboy said:
			
		

> Comparing pre-unification Cpls to present day Cpls is not really very accurate as the job description and level of responsibility was completely different.  I will use the Infantry as an example, prior to unification a Cpl was a Section commander in today's army that job is done by a Sgt (on paper, I know it done often by MCpls) with the 2IC or Bren gun team leader being a Lance Cpl and today it is filled by a MCpl (by the book again).  What I am trying to say is when talking about respect shown to the rank leave any talk of Cpl prior to unification out of it as the rank was a different entity.



Oh! yes we realize that, its like comparing Apples to Lemons, but  what idiots decided we wanted Lemons. So then , if you only have Lemons, make Lemonade.


----------



## time expired (17 Jan 2010)

DangerBoy,Its not just comparing an old system with a new system,its comparing
a system that works with one that obviously does not  work.Surely the military is
flexable enough to make the changes required to reestablish the Cpl. rank to one 
that is relevant to the new military system.The old system worked and the changes
made by Mr.Hellyer were unnecessary and counterproductive and the results can be
read in this thread.However the changes made at that time are not chipped in
stone and could be changed after all the Canadian Forces had Cpl`s since before
the 1st War and Hellyer Cpl`s only since 1967.
                                                   Regards


----------



## TCBF (17 Jan 2010)

time expired said:
			
		

> DangerBoy,Its not just comparing an old system with a new system,its comparing
> a system that works with one that obviously does not  work.Surely the military is
> flexable enough to make the changes required to reestablish the Cpl. rank to one
> that is relevant to the new military system.The old system worked and the changes
> ...



- In Hellyer's memoirs ("Damn The Torpedoes..."), he writes that this idea was the CDS', not his, and he always regretted agreeing to it and implementing it.  If so, then a pity he didn't ignore that piece of advice and perhaps one or two of his own ideas as well.

- In any case, a solution now would have to consider the benchmarks between the Public Service and the CF regarding pay and benefits.  Perhaps the second easiest solution would involve maintaining the time-based pay raises while giving the rank only when qualified.  That would cause a few issues of it's own, and would have even greater repercussions if instituted in the officer ranks as well (Lt to Capt).

- As there is little appetite for change, nothing will be done.


----------



## FastEddy (18 Jan 2010)

TCBF said:
			
		

> - As there is little appetite for change, nothing will be done.



Again words of Wisdon and Truth from the Mountain,  sad, but! so Canadian.

Cheers.


----------



## Edward Campbell (18 Jan 2010)

Everyone needs to remember that back in the mid 1960s - 45+ years ago - one of the most pressing problems facing Mr. Hellyer was money. Defence costs, especially for new, high tech equipment and the concomitant O&M were rising exponentially while the available money had contracted. We had a recession in the late '50s and tight budgets, especially tight defence budgets were the norm under both Diefenbaker and Pearson.

One of the major areas of concern was military pay. We, the military, were poorly paid by almost any standards and there was no _*will*_ to change that. But it was having a deleterious effect of morale and, therefore, on recruiting and retention. The _"Hellyer corporal"_ and the "Capt-Lt" abominations were good faith pretty much the only way to get pay raises for the _journeyman_ rank levels.

I'm going to repeat what I said, here in Army.ca, a few years ago: we shouldn't focus on the current ranks, rather we should recommend, individually, to our politicians, a sensible system of rank and pay which would be based, first, on a *separation* of rank and trade, although rank might be a prerequisite for some long, expensive trade courses - i.e. one could not become an _artificer_ or _foreman_ level technical tradesman, for example, without being a trained, proven leader, first. The system should also be base, second, on a rational *separation* of supervisory levels.

My guess is that we _might_ end up with a system something like this (based on Army combat arms tasks for other ranks):

Apprentices:* Recruits, soldiers awaiting training, soldiers under training and soldiers in their first year or so of service in a unit, undergoing OJT - *e.g. no hook private*

Trained soldiers: Members with Group 1 and Group 2 trade skills and some, limited, time in rank - *e.g.one hook private*

Junior Leaders: two tiers - possibly required to undertake Trade Group 3 training in some branches

Small team leaders: Members who have had (or are recommended to take the next available) junior leadership training - *e.g. corporal*

Large team leaders: Rifle section and tank commanders, Recce Pl detachment commanders, etc - *e.g. master corporal*

Senior leaders: three tiers - requires Trade Group 3 training and additional leadership training

Tank Troop/Rifle Platoon Sergeants, Commanders of specialized sections in e.g. Engineer Troops, Infantry Support Platoons requires a senior leader course - *e.g. sergeant*

Artillery/Engineer Troop Sergeants, Infantry Support Platoon Sergeants - *sergeant 1st class*

S/B/CQMS, specialist staff NCOs - may require Trade Group 4 training in some branches - *e.g. master sergeant*

Supervisors - two tiers 

S/B/CSM, specialist staff NCOs - requires Trade Group 4 training *e.g. sergeant major/quartermaster sergeant*

RSM, specialist staff WO - *e.g. warrant officer*

Officers are easier - the only thing really required is more time in the ranks of 2Lt and Lt. All officers undergoing training should be 2Lts (even for classifications with very, very long training streams - which will require more and higher pay grades for 2Lts). Officers should not be promoted to Lt until after they are fully classification trained and have spent, say, nine months in a unit as a 2Lt. Promotion from Lt to Capt should not be possible until one has spent four years in the rank of Lt, except in very rare circumstances.


--------------------
* Not to be confused with e.g. the _Soldier Apprentice_ programmes of the '50s and '60s - the so-called _green monsters_


Edit: added "e.g" to ensure you understand this is only an example, not a firm proposal


----------



## Jarnhamar (18 Jan 2010)

Question answered


----------



## Snakedoc (18 Jan 2010)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Officers are easier - the only thing really required is more time in the ranks of 2Lt and Lt. All officers undergoing training should be 2Lts (even for classifications with very, very long training streams - which will require more and higher pay grades for 2Lts). Officers should not be promoted to Lt until after they are fully classification trained and have spent, say, nine months in a unit as a 2Lt. Promotion from Lt to Capt should not be possible until one has spent four years in the rank of Lt, except in very rare circumstances.



I think the current system is not too far off from this anyways, at least for the MARS officer classification.  The main difference would be more time spent as a Lt/SLt before reaching Capt/Lt(N).


----------



## CountDC (19 Jan 2010)

Overall it looks good to me.  The Cpl rank becomes something again, MCpls are real not Acting Lacking. My biggest complaints with the current system.  I have always hated the "just a cpl" line on both ends. Mind you it's not just the Cpl rank that has eroded in the support trades - been enough times now where I have shyt on someone for using that line as a MCpl (what do I know, what do I care, I am just a MCpl, a glorified Cpl!!).  Bloody arses - I volunteered to do their release paperwork. Once spent half an hour explaining to one MCpl Clerk why they should not be a MCpl in the trade (not ensuring the troops were paid, too concerned with CYA to do the job of a clerk, I was getting local cheques for members from that unit).

Time to bring the military back to being a military - rank has privileges and responsibility, don't take one without stepping up to the other.


----------



## armyvern (20 Jan 2010)

Jungle said:
			
		

> How could that scenario possibly go wrong ?!?



  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uAMigUFucHg&feature=related

 ;D  http://www.johncandy.com/VideoDetail.aspx?VideoID=41&VideoSection=7


----------



## CountDC (21 Jan 2010)

What!!??!!

No warning about possible eye and/or brain damage from viewing?

No warning not to view until at least 2 hours after eating??


----------



## CorporalMajor (25 Jan 2010)

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> This is a direct quote I got from a young Lt who came to my troop in June of one year, and was in the field with us 2 months later; "What the frig do you know about mechanized engineer ops, you're just a lifer Cpl."  THAT sums up the attitude of higher toward Cpls. * No backing from the top= no respect from below...QED
> *


dingdingdingdingding!!
Bingo!

Exactly what I was hinting at.

That Lt  :

The trick to getting the best out of someone is using him for his worth.  Treat them like they're nothing, and that is what you will get in return.


----------



## TangoTwoBravo (25 Jan 2010)

I find that people are accorded the respect that is due to them. This can sometimes take a little while as people in an organization take the measure of each other, but at the end of the day we get what we deserve.

I am taking "respect" in this case as being deeper than simple mandated military courtesies but rather the complex human interplay within an organization. Respect is earned over time regardless of rank level. Within the Troops and Squadrons that I have served I believe that Cpls have indeed been accorded a great amount of respect. As a Troop Leader I had the good fortune of having a long-service Cpl as my gunner. I certainly respected his years of tank experience that he had garnered in Germany. He was happy being an expert tank gunner, and I was happy with that. As a Battle Captain I had two long service Cpls in my tank. Both executed tasks that were often those expected of MCpls or Sgts, and I certainly respected their experience with both the tank and the communication systems that were the heart of my job. As a Sqn Comd, I have a number of veteran Cpls with multiple specialty courses in whom I place a tremendous amount of trust, respect and responsibility. Even if I meet a Cpl for the first time and know nothing about him, I will assume that he is capable of executing tasks within his branch without too much direction or supervision. I think that every soldier in my Sqn can teach me something, even the Trooper fresh off of DP1.

If a Engineer Lt Tp Comd and a Cpl are having a conversation like the one in the post above (a Lt automatically discounting a Cpls view) then something is wrong in that Tp. We need to overhaul that Tp, starting with the Tp Comd/Tp WO relationship. We don't need to overhaul the CF. We have more pressing dragons to slay than the rank/pay structure. 

Cheers


----------



## Snakedoc (25 Jan 2010)

CorporalMajor said:
			
		

> dingdingdingdingding!!
> Bingo!
> 
> Exactly what I was hinting at.
> ...



Lets not let one bad story paint everyone in the same light.  This is definitely not the attitude of me and my other junior officer colleagues.  I've certainly worked with some great LS/Cpl's and these individuals make a world of difference in getting the job done.


----------



## Kat Stevens (25 Jan 2010)

It may be just one story, but it's an example of several to quite a few incidents either witnessed or experienced by me.  It happens, or at least used to, on a pretty regular basis.


----------



## CorporalMajor (25 Jan 2010)

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> It may be just one story, but it's an example of several to quite a few incidents either witnessed or experienced by me.  It happens, or at least used to, on a pretty regular basis.


Exactly, I'm not saying it happens to everyone, and my unit is pretty good at using its people like theyre suposed to.   I have however seen it happen here and there, and it's really too bad.


----------



## OldSolduer (25 Jan 2010)

In  my unit, the first thing I say to a newly promoted corporal is to tell him/her that they are now in a position of leadership. New privates look for leadership and a good corporal can do that.


----------



## Fusaki (25 Jan 2010)

I must be an anomaly.

I've been privileged to have worked for a VERY supportive chain of command, similar to the one Tango2Bravo described on the last page.

I have NEVER heard anyone say "STFU, you're just a CPL".  On the contrary, I've often heard "Speak the fuck up! You're a CPL!"  If I've ever had something to say, I felt like my CoC listened.  I have, on occasion, stuck my neck out for what I thought was right and on those occasions I've been SUPPORTED by my CoC.  I shudder to think what would happen if my former RSM (Stu H., 1RCR) caught me standing by while a group of PTEs were dong something un-Regimental.  The man would have stomped my guts out.


----------



## Yeoman (25 Jan 2010)

so maybe i have missed it
but what about Cpl's like myself that have zero interest in leading?
all they want is someone to tell them where to make sure their toys are pointed in the proper direction of the enemy?
all this talk about new cpls and what not. they're new, they do need some breaking in period like anything else you got you know?
i'm sorry after six years in the regs and i still feel that i am not ready to be a leader.
probably never will when i go back to the reserves.


----------



## Fusaki (25 Jan 2010)

Seriously Greg, I have trouble deciphering your posts. :-\

Are you saying that guys who don't want to be leaders (i.e. career CPLs) should not be given authority over anyone but themselves?


----------



## TangoTwoBravo (25 Jan 2010)

Yeoman said:
			
		

> so maybe i have missed it
> but what about Cpl's like myself that have zero interest in leading?
> all they want is someone to tell them where to make sure their toys are pointed in the proper direction of the enemy?
> all this talk about new cpls and what not. they're new, they do need some breaking in period like anything else you got you know?
> ...



Yeoman,

I alluded to this but failed to speak to your point.

I, for one, think that the Army is very well served by soldiers who are happy to remain Cpls. Somebody has to lead, but not everybody. I like to see soldiers who want more responsibility, but I am equally happy to see soldiers who simply enjoy being very good at their job and do not desire a leadership role. As a young OCdt at PV helping with track maintenance on the Course Officer's M113 some twenty years ago I met some Cpls who were extremely skilled crewmen and were happy to remain so. I had a ton of respect for these guys (professional, independent, family men who just wanted to work and do their duty without a lot of supervision). Some guys seem to enjoy mentoring new soldiers but not being the boss. My maternal grandfather served with the RN before and during the war and turned down all promotion because he wanted to remain "one of the boys." Everybody is different. 

Pushing somebody into a leadership position when they don't really want it can be a recipe for several unhappy people (the individual, his subordinates and his supervisor). Having said that, sometimes all that is needed is a nudge. In any case, the selection of individuals for CLC/JNCO/PLQ is arguably one of the most important decisions that the chain of command makes.

Some may disagree with me, but I think that a soldier can be highly motivated and not want a leadership position at the same time. Some organizations depend on highly motivated long-service Cpls who are OK with slowing their promotions down in order to learn/execute advanced skills. I served in a Recce Sqn with three Troopers and a host of Cpls, and that Sqn was a damn fine outfit!

All that to say, I believe that our Army certainly has an important place for the soldier who is happy to remain a Cpl.


----------



## aesop081 (25 Jan 2010)

The environment in which a Cpl works, IMHO, impacts how he is employed WRT leadership. Where i work, Corporals arrive and are unqualified to do anything. When they are somewhat qualified ( have completed their type course) they are still not in a position to supervise anyone as they have not completed their OJTP. By the time that is done, they will have been promoted to MCpl.

This will soon change as Ptes begin to enter our trade and units. That being said, remusters who show up will be Cpls and will still be in the same positions as those who went before them. The only thing i expect from my Cpls is that they know better than to do something stupid. When i need someone to take charge, i look to my MCpls.

Do my Cpls get the respect they deserve ?

No. They get the respect that they earn.


----------



## Yeoman (25 Jan 2010)

sorry wonderbread, you should know by now anything i say is always jumbled and makes little sense on these boards. you've only know me as a young new trooper in 1 you know?
But I mean we had covered all the positions of a Corporal, except for the Corporal that just wants to be a Corporal for life you know? Thought it would be important to have that brought into the thread as well.
Tango2 Bravo said exactly what I was trying to get at (I would use bigger and more fancier words, but I can't spell them)
I've always thought it is rather important to have Corporals like that in the company. Someone that's been around, knows how the game gets played. 
Someone that the younger troops can go up to to ask for advice.
I know I've done that in the past, and probably always will until I'm unknowingly in that position myself.
So yes I'm one of those people that's opposed to that 25 and out program when it comes to retirement time lines.


----------



## daftandbarmy (26 Jan 2010)

If a Sgt is a section commander and a MCpl is a section 2IC, maybe we need to formally create a position called 'Section 3IC' or something and make that a Cpl's post. 

In D&B's world, a section should have 3 x 4 man teams (God is on the side of the big sections), so the Cpl could lead one of those three and be 'on deck' as the next for promotion to MCpl. I've seen LCpls and senior Ptes/Marines do very well in this format.

Other cbt arms and service support units could no doubt do something similar.


----------



## Dissident (26 Jan 2010)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> Other cbt arms and service support units could no doubt do something similar.



Our platoon does something somewhat similar. A section has 3 or 4 crews of 3 pers. The third CC is the 3i/c. Although the role has not been refined in the field domestically, the 3i/c is part of the info and decision chain to ensure continuity. The Cpl 3i/c is basically the next in line.


----------

