# Reserve rank vs. Reg. rank



## reccecrewman (4 Feb 2006)

Goodday all,

Looking to start a discussion (not a flame out, thats not the intent) on the Reserve Force rank vs. the Reg Force.  I've noticed that guys in the Reserves that have 3 - 5 years of service can be seen with the rank of MCpl. and 5 - 8 years is not out of the question for Sergeant.
With those of us in the Regs who normally have to wait 4 years just to see Corporal, then wait another 2 or more to get a leadership course, if we see MCpl. in 7 or 8 years we're in good shape.  Why the disparity in our system?  There's no way a Reserve Master Corporal with 4 or 5 years in has the same knowledge as a Reg Force Jack who has 8 years experience doing the job everyday.  Highly unlikely, but just to play devils advocate, if the entire Army mobilised, would they get to hold their rank?  Would a guy with 8 years Reserve experience and a Sgt. go off to war as a Sgt. or be dropped down a rank?  Do Reserve Corporals have to be merited to get promoted to Jack or is it simply, he has a PLQ, promote him?

Just looking for some thoughts and knowledge on the questions I've asked.  Please check your fire if you feel the urge to lash out thinking this is a Reg Force vs. Res Force flame war.  Looking for calm, rational answers on some questions I would genuinely like answered.


----------



## Haggis (4 Feb 2006)

reccecrewman said:
			
		

> Looking to start a discussion (not a flame out, thats not the intent) on the Reserve Force rank vs. the Reg Force.



Historically most threads that compare Reg to Res end up that way eventually.  Good luck with this one. ;D



			
				reccecrewman said:
			
		

> ... but just to play devils advocate, if the entire Army mobilised, would they get to hold their rank?



I'm guessing that the assumption you make is that we are involved in a general war, in which Orders in Council have been made for full mobilzation.  Since it hasn't happened in "modern" (post WW2) times, there is no precedent for this, so all bets are off.

In this scenario, it's not like a Res WO joins the RCD for a tour.  His qualifications go through a detailed examination compared against the position he holds in the deploying unit.  Then his rank and IPC go another calculation to determine his "equivalency". 

That being said, dozens of Reservists have already gone on tours in their substantive ranks (but usually in a lower IPC), filling jobs in thier trades.



			
				reccecrewman said:
			
		

> Do Reserve Corporals have to be merited to get promoted to Jack...?



They most certainly do.


----------



## Sig_Des (4 Feb 2006)

up to MasterJack, I'm not a fan of the promotion system in the Res. Cpl is a gimme. For 2 years in, I will be eligible (read, they'll put it on me) June 8th. Only thing I'm getting from it is an extra 25$ a day (biggest pay jump). Other than that, don't really earn it.

MCpl, for the most part in the res seems to be Merit based, with PLQ definitely being a requirement. Acting/Lacking MasterJack isn't something I've seen in the reserves (I'm sure there are, I just haven't known any).

One of the things that stuck with me the most was a buddy, when congratulated on his promotion to Cpl said "I don't care, this is a gimme" and pointing to the bottom hook said "I actually earned this one"


----------



## Fishbone Jones (4 Feb 2006)

I go on my QL7 with Reg Force WOs. I take the same course as them, I pass the same course as them. Am I not as qualified as them?

Take it a couple of levels down. We have mixed CLC courses, including Mod 6. Who is compared to who? Are the Regs less qualified because there was Reserves on the course, or the Reserves are equal to the Reg standard because there was Regs on the course?

There is one standard. Meet it and pass it, then it's up to experience till the next test. Then you meet it and pass it again. There's lots of cases where people were taken at face value and did the job with no problem, til someone mentioned they were ONLY a Reservist, then the green monster answered roll call. Life is not fair, especially life in the CF, excel and take your place. If you don't, don't blame others, time and circumstance. Blame yourself.


----------



## TN2IC (4 Feb 2006)

reccecrewman said:
			
		

> Highly unlikely, but just to play devils advocate, if the entire Army mobilised, would they get to hold their rank?  Would a guy with 8 years Reserve experience and a Sgt. go off to war as a Sgt. or be dropped down a rank?  Do Reserve Corporals have to be merited to get promoted to Jack or is it simply, he has a PLQ, promote him?



Okay I am PRes.. and I would to give you some input on the deal. 

Now for hold rank if mobilized? CDS is going for one army deal here. So the courses are the same objectives but may be "slacker" depending on what school you attend to.

As for war? I do not know, but as a peacekeeping tour of some sort, you keep you rank for that position. I know a few guys that went to PPCLI as PRes and was 2IC of a section. I know some folks have a problem with it. But that is fine.. as long as the training is up to date. Anyone with the rank can command. But do lead is a differenet story. It is all on experience.. may be the one there that is PRes will do D & S.. which is not bad deal... getting paid to do something along those lines.

And for the merit deal, we have a merit board within the unit. A report is sent up to the board about the personal in question, and they review it from there. I know some units give out promotion if slots are not filled, but at my unit, if you are ready, time and good PER and have the courses... well you better be ringing the bell. I know within the Militia, the rate of personal getting in and out..and positions to be filled can be a painful process. Personal get out cause of ex. school, family or no more intrest. There is no dotted line stated you have to have 3 plus years in... most of them just show up every Thursday night or whatever.. to get there $45 a night to do odd jobs. 


That is my view on the questions.
Feel free to add any comments.


----------



## Gunner (4 Feb 2006)

We could go back to placing a "M" beside the Reservist rank (for instance Cpl (R) ) much like we used to do with women (Cpl (w)).  Or even better we could place a large embroidered "M" overtop of the rank on the epaulet.  The Nazi's did it with the Jews back in the 30s/40s and it seems to have worked out pretty well for them. 

Stupid topic...


----------



## Haggis (4 Feb 2006)

Gunner said:
			
		

> We could go back to placing a "M" beside the Reservist rank (for instance Cpl (R) ) much like we used to do with women (Cpl (w)).



This is still done in the CF Medical System.  Ever get a prescription from a CF pharmacy?  Check the rank on the bottle label.



			
				Gunner said:
			
		

> Or even better we could place a large embroidered "M" overtop of the rank on the epaulet.



For some the headdress is a good identifier. ;D



			
				Gunner said:
			
		

> Stupid topic...



Possibly so, if it degenerates as per SOP with these threads,  but a valid question nonetheless.


----------



## dapaterson (4 Feb 2006)

Sig_Des said:
			
		

> MCpl, for the most part in the res seems to be Merit based, with PLQ definitely being a requirement. Acting/Lacking MasterJack isn't something I've seen in the reserves (I'm sure there are, I just haven't known any).



CFAO 49-5, the reserve NCM promotion policy, won't let you give an accelerated promotion if a leadership qualification is missing.  For acting rank, you can be short time in rank or an occupational course, but not a leadership course, so you're stuck there as well.

The policy in the Reg F is different, so it is possible to be A/MCpl while lacking PLQ in the Reg force.

Of course, MCpl isn't a rank, but that's a whole other discussion...


----------



## Haggis (4 Feb 2006)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Of course, MCpl isn't a rank, but that's a whole other discussion...



I deliberately omitted that "fact" from my posts in this thread.


----------



## Jarnhamar (4 Feb 2006)

> leadership course, if we see MCpl. in 7 or 8 years we're in good shape.  Why the disparity in our system?  There's no way a Reserve Master Corporal with 4 or 5 years in has the same knowledge as a Reg Force Jack who has 8 years experience doing the job everyday.



Simple. Reserves have a higher turn over rate.
Reserves need to be promoted faster because reserves are always quitting, leaving for school, transfering to the regular force etc..
We need leaders faster.



> I know a few guys that went to PPCLI as PRes and was 2IC of a section


Me too. If you know how to do the job then you know how to do the job.


----------



## Gunner (4 Feb 2006)

> This is still done in the CF Medical System.  Ever get a prescription from a CF pharmacy?  Check the rank on the bottle label.



Can't say I have ever seen this happen for years.


----------



## Haggis (4 Feb 2006)

Gunner said:
			
		

> Can't say I have ever seen this happen for years.



In the interests of keeping this on topic, PM inbound.


----------



## GO!!! (5 Feb 2006)

Ghost778 said:
			
		

> Simple. Reserves have a higher turn over rate.
> Reserves need to be promoted faster because reserves are always quitting, leaving for school, transfering to the regular force etc..
> We need leaders faster.



Reg Force Bns are often short 10-15 MCpls accross their units, and do not see the need to promote unexperienced Cpls - DAPS or otherwise. Since these units are the ones deployed on missions, I fail to see the need for the reserves to promote faster based on some percieved "need". 

Need for what?


----------



## Jarnhamar (5 Feb 2006)

Go!!! Not so much for cpl to mcpl specifically. I'd say reserves need to get their soldiers started on the leadership path faster.  Privates to corporals. Corporals up to sergeant. Sergeant up to warrant.

Regular force can order someone on a posting or teaching position.  They have a pretty good idea if they need 6 instructors for a course they can grab them from somewhere. Not so with the reserves. You can't order a reservist to work.  School comes up, reserves can't get time off their regular jobs, guys who want to vacation in the summer etc.. After a reservist has spent 3 or 4 years as a reservist they are often finishing their school so they may move away. They might find a new unit OR they might quit the reserves all together.
Finding leaders for taskings and courses is trickier in the reserves so you need a wider pool of people to draw from.  Attricion plays a major factor.  Put 5 or 6 corporals through their leadership course and in a few years you might have a sergrant and 2 master corporals, the other 2 or 3 are gone.
Does this mean your exchanging quality for quantity? I'd say to a degree yes.  Is there still a need? I'd say yes..

Are reserve corporals and sergeants on par with regular force corporals and sergeants?  Not usually. 
I've seen a lot of people need to point that out though.


----------



## Edward Campbell (5 Feb 2006)

Just to add a bit of history: prior to 1966 it was possible for a regular force soldier to be promoted to corporal after only 18 months of service.  It wasn’t ‘normal’ but plenty of soldiers made lance corporal, completed junior NCO course and were promoted to corporal during the second 18 month stage of their career (age 19-22).  Most of the younger corporals were in HQ and Support companies – getting a bit of _seasoning_ before going to a rifle section and, later, Recce Platoon.

Memory suggests that it was fairly normal to find one or two ‘young’ (20 something) corporal section commanders in a rifle platoon and one or two ‘old’ (30 something) ones.  Forty year old corporals did exist but they were more common in service support and garrison units.

There were more _regimental_ jobs 40+ years ago and, consequently, more junior leader development posts: clerks and storemen (supply techs), for example, were regimental soldiers.  The company clerk was, usually, an infantry corporal and a trained clerk.  Bright young soldiers were often sent of clerk, signaller and mortar courses and I think all three groups had a ‘better’ (maybe 3:1 or even 2:1) corporal to private ratios than the norm (about 6:1 overall, I guess).

It can be argued that there was less to learn 40 or 50 or more years ago so faster promotion was possible, but I would counter that the soldiers doing the learning were less sophisticated and had a steeper learning curve so I suspect it is a wash.


----------



## ZipperHead (5 Feb 2006)

After reading Edwards post (a little historical perspective isn't always a bad thing), I was reminded of a discussion I had a while back regarding the Cpl rank level being a "gimme". I have always felt that the Cpl rank is the first level of leadership for a soldier, and shouldn't be automatic (much like Captain shouldn't be a gimme, but that's another discussion, I 'spose). 

There should be no shame in staying a Cpl for a whole career, but arguably if a soldier has no leadership potential, or desire for leadership, they should remain a private (or historically, I guess) or a Lance Corporal. The reason, to my understanding, that Cpl is automatic after 4 years was due to Unification and the "need" for tradesmen in the other branches to be able to still advance, but not neccesarily fill leadership positions. I'm not sure if that makes sense to everyone, but this brings us to the state that we are in today: in the Regs, it takes (on average) 4 years to make it to Cpl, and due to a number of reasons (which I don't agree with, but that matters not) about 2 years for Reserves. 

Let's suppose that the CF said "from this point on, a Reservist will have to spend 8 years in the Private rank before being eligible for promotion to Cpl". I think that would bum out the Reserves, wouldn't it?!? So, now Reserves, place yourself in a Reg F Privates position, knowing that you achieve the Cpl rank (on average) twice as fast as he/she does. Now you see it from their point of view, and can see why there is a level of resentment. 

I don't think that anybody would be happy with any solution that was imposed, as it wouldn't satify either camps opinion on what is "fair" or right. If the Reserve world was more on par with the Reg F in terms of attrition, I don't think the rank disparity would be an issue, and I suppose there are examples of back in the 80's (and I suspect it will happen in the near future with our rapid expansion plans) where Reg F soldiers advanced at rates far faster than the Reserve world due to the high turnover rates. I think a lesson for all of us to learn is that it isn't wise to fight your last battle (in other words, you can't always use what has happened in the recent past as a template for what is going to happen in the near future). I know that there are a lot of soldier's OT'ing because they look back a few years, see the slow progression and figure that the grass in greener on the other side. But if they stay abreast of how things are shaping up, they might see a huge change in the speed of rank/career progression, and realize they might be better served to stay in their current trade. And I guess for the Reserves, once things (attrition/turnover) slow down (if they ever do), the "2 years to Corporal" may go away, and come back on par with the Reg F "norm" of 4 years. 

Al


----------



## reccecrewman (5 Feb 2006)

Well, I'm happy to see that upon checking this thread this morning, it didn't turn into a flame war, some very good points and reasonings were made that sort of clarified my queries.  At least to the point I have a better understanding of why things work the way they do WRT rank.  I knew that Reservists had to take Reg Force courses in Gagetown like DP3A and above which if they pass, then yes, they're qualified to hold the rank that the courses is a pre-requisite for.  So again, I wasn't looking to pigeon-hole Reserve Sergeants and Warrants, the big question for me was the time differential.  It brings the question that if a Reserve Sergeant CT's to a Reg Force Unit of the same MOC, you never see (Well, I should say I've never seen or heard it) them hold that rank even though on paper, they are qualified to hold that rank.  Why is that?  I'm going to attempt to answer my own question and get feedback on it.  Is it to prevent guys from spending a few years in the Reserves, get as many courses as possible, then come to the Regs with a major jump over guys who came in via Reg Force Battle Schools?

Thanks for the answers thus far, and for keeping it civil.


----------



## Haggis (5 Feb 2006)

reccecrewman said:
			
		

> ....the big question for me was the time differential.



When calculating Reserve service Time Credit to Promotion (TCP), Class A (part time) service counts as 4 to 1.  4 days Class A equals one day Reg F.  Clas B or C service is counted one for one.



			
				reccecrewman said:
			
		

> It brings the question that if a Reserve Sergeant CT's to a Reg Force Unit of the same MOC, you never see (Well, I should say I've never seen or heard it) them hold that rank even though on paper, they are qualified to hold that rank.  Why is that?



 If the CT'ing Reservist has been lucky enough to attend some Reg F courses and has a lot of Class B and C time, then, an equivalency _may_ be granted.  CFRG HQ makes that call.

Not all trades have 100% equivalency between Reg F and Res F qualifications. The Cbt A are the farthest apart.  The Air Reserve and Naval Reserve are light years ahead of the Army in this respect.



			
				reccecrewman said:
			
		

> Thanks for the answers thus far, and for keeping it civil.



So far, so good!   ;D


----------



## c_canuk (5 Feb 2006)

As far as I know, all Class A periods... periods of time where one signs in on a day by day basis, is counted 4 to 1, and full time contracts are 1 for 1...

I've got almost 8 years in with the PRes comms, and according to the above scale I am the equivalent to a Cpl(2) which is about right, if I transfer to the Reg Forces, I drop back down to Cpl(2). So that seems fair to me, I will have an advantage over other Cpl(2)s however because I have been given the opportunity to attend a PLQ, which was mixed Reg and Res.

Is it fair for the Reg... no, but it's necessary, there is only one MCpl in my unit right now, me. we have around 90 people on paper, one MCpl and a few Cpls who have PLQ... they were not promoted because they are not ready for promotion yet. The Reg does have aMCpl at much less than 8 years from what I understand, it is possible to be in the Reg and wear the rank of MCpl at 6 years, which is not too far from the Res of 5, 2 years as Pte, 3 years as Cpl.

It does happen that some units promote members a little faster than 5 for MCpl... but it's not looked well upon by other Res either.

Should I be penalized, or should we hate the game not the player?


----------



## TN2IC (5 Feb 2006)

Haggis.. you stole my thunder. But other than that.....your right on the money.. 100% with you on that one.


----------



## Nemo888 (5 Feb 2006)

Aren't most reservists only in for about 4 years? They need leadership in their units. When they cross over to the regs then decide what carries over. They need fast promotions because of turnover. WE know its not equivalent. Neccesary evil.

Slightly off topic but I really wish all my courses were with the Regs. Did a course with 1RCR this summer.It was awesome! Best instructors I've ever had.


----------



## a23trucker (5 Feb 2006)

Just as a side bar....

We all tend to put our blinders on when looking at other pers....

All the time we are working with people or they are doing work the same as we are doing we see them as gaining equal experiences as we are getting. 
The problem is when people are doing different things, away from us, we forget that those other pers still "doing other things". They are not in a state of suspended animation until they work with us again. They are out there gain experience at other tasks and in a lot of cases are getting leadership experience.
Be it the student gaining knowledge that can be used by all, be it the shop floor worker who may be able to show us an easier way of getting a task done or a forman who leads groups that could be larger than a section or platoon on a day to day basis.  This is not the "same" experience however it may be close to being "equal" experience. 

I use the example of not Reg F & Res F but lets say two Reg F pers, equal rank & time in:
One is op tasked to OP Archer (Kandahar) and the other is tasked to Op Danaca (Golan). Both are gaining experience during their tours is it the "same" experience?    No.   Is it "equal" experience?    maybe....it all depends on the indiv, their job & their circumstances. 

What we have to do is to use the experience of our soldiers, as different as it may be, to our best advantage. No two pers are likely to have identical career paths in the CF so it is unlikely for them to have the same experience. Pers must be judged on an indiv basis.

(PS. It's funny how things come around.  In the early '80's....I remember sitting in the sgt's mess in Edmonton, as a newly promoted Res F Sgt at the age 25, thinking about the airborne sgts I was sitting with who were only 21-22 yrs old wondering why it took so long to get promoted in the Res F....)

Food for thought

Cheers
AM


----------



## Long in the tooth (5 Feb 2006)

For the record:  Class B/C service counts 1 for 1 only if it is over 90 days duration.  This is in the pension act, not DAODs or QR&Os.  I was made painfully aware of this recently when an audit was made and I lost almost a year of pensionable time from what I thought I had.


----------



## SHELLDRAKE!! (5 Feb 2006)

I think the big underlying issue can be traced to the fact that you can have a reserve corporal that has attended the minimum amount of parade nights to stay active, suddenly working side by side with a regular force corporal who has spent 10 years day in day out.

 I know alot of reservists that outshine regs and vice versa, however as long as there are the checks and balances in place to ensure the right standard of training (and experience) is met, I find it rare that the two elements have trouble working together.

 Provided the qualifications are met and the soldier is meritted, IMHO the rank is deserved.

 But in the end we respect the rank but dont have to respect the person.


----------



## chrisf (5 Feb 2006)

Haggis said:
			
		

> When calculating Reserve service Time Credit to Promotion (TCP), Class A (part time) service counts as 4 to 1.  4 days Class A equals one day Reg F.  Clas B or C service is counted one for one.



This one has always been a pet peeve of mine... in a class A day, I do as much or more work then any reg force member... always work to be done, never enough time to do it in.

If they're counting on a day by day basis, it should be one for one.


----------



## Haggis (5 Feb 2006)

Worn Out Grunt said:
			
		

> For the record:  Class B/C service counts 1 for 1 only if it is over 90 days duration.  This is in the pension act, not DAODs or QR&Os.



Then the Pension Act is not synchronised with other statutes.  In the Compensation and Benefit Instructions (which replaced QR&O for pay and allowances) for the calculation of IPC and TCP, all Class B and C Reserve service is counted 1 for 1. 

From CBI 204.015 (edited for relevance and brevity):

"(3) (Qualifying service) Subject to conditions prescribed in orders or instructions issued by the Chief of the Defence Staff, qualifying service for incentive pay includes:

.... *all * previous service...in the member's present rank, equivalent rank or any higher rank, including paid acting rank in the Regular Force....the Reserve Force on Class "B" or Class "C" Reserve Service...;

one-quarter of all previous service in the Reserve Force, other than Class "B" or Class "C" Reserve Service,..."

Full text is available here: http://www.forces.gc.ca/hr/dgcb/cbi/engraph/home_e.asp?sidesection=6&Section=204.015&sidecat=21&Chapter=204#204.015



			
				Just a Sig Op said:
			
		

> This one has always been a pet peeve of mine... in a class A day, I do as much or more work then any reg force member... always work to be done, never enough time to do it in.
> 
> If they're counting on a day by day basis, it should be one for one.



I disagree.  Many units only parade three hours per week.  On an hour-for-hour basis, it would take a bit under three Class A days to equal a standard full-time work day.

 - WO Jones, a Reg F Tp WO in the RCD, works Tuesday 0800-1600.  One day.

 - WO Smith, a Class A Tp WO in a Reserve unit, works Tuesday 1900-2200.  Not one day. Three hours.  Not even enough time to qualify for a meal break under most provincial employment standards laws.

(e.g. Ontario Employment Standards Act: "An employer shall give an employee an eating period of at least 30 minutes at intervals that will result in the employee working no more than five consecutive hours without an eating period.  2000, c. 41, s. 20 (1)."
http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/DBLaws/Statutes/English/00e41_e.htm#BK24)


----------



## chrisf (5 Feb 2006)

Haggis said:
			
		

> I disagree.  Many units only parade three hours per week.  On an hour-for-hour basis, it would take a bit under three Class A days to equal a standard full-time work day.
> 
> - WO Jones, a Reg F Tp WO in the RCD, works Tuesday 0800-1600.  One day.
> 
> - WO Smith, a Class A Tp WO in a Reserve unit, works Tuesday 1900-2200.  Not one day. Three hours.  Not even enough time to qualify for a meal break under most provincial employment standards laws.



Those class A days you refer to are half days, only paid for a half day, kept track of as a half day. 

Two half days should equal one whole day. Where's the problem with that? 

Consider that my average thursday night parade day lasts from 1900-2230 some times as late as 2330 (The queen's lease for the evening expires 2359). During that 3.5 or 4.5 hours, I'm busy non-stop. So why can't the army count that as half a day service?

If I come in on a Thursday morning, at 0800 I'm still there till 2230 that night. So why can't the army count that as a full day of service?

Whenever I go into the field, I'm on class A. A day I spend in the field is no less 24 hours spent in the field then my reg force equivilent. So why can't the army count that as a full day service?

On class A, there's no such thing as weekends off (There are on average 52 Saturdays and 52 Sundays in a year by the way, that's 104 days out of a 365 day year), you're either working or you aren't paid. There also aren't any leave days (Yes, there's PILL, but my point is that every day we're paid, we're working).

The only way reservists get brought in for class A is if there's work to be done. No work to be done, no paid days. So how can you justify counting it as 1/4 of time in?


----------



## dapaterson (5 Feb 2006)

Just a Sig Op said:
			
		

> This one has always been a pet peeve of mine... in a class A day, I do as much or more work then any reg force member... always work to be done, never enough time to do it in.
> 
> If they're counting on a day by day basis, it should be one for one.



Sigh... this is a common misunderstanding.  It's not "a class A day is only worth 1/4 of a Reg F day" but rather "days that are not class B or C over 90 days (or NES or ED&T) count 1:4".

So let's have a reservist who has enrolled exactly 6 years ago.  He has two six month periods of ED&T, plus a one-year class B call-out; the rest of his time was class A or short class Bs.

On to Haggis' comment - one point of clarification is needed.  CFRC does not determine which qualifications are granted on a transfer from the Reserve to the Reg Force.  The holder of the qualification makes those determinations - for the Army, it's the staff at CTC Gagetown that review the files and decide.

There have been some changes lately in the granting of equivalencies.  There is a new ADM(HR-Mil) instruction out on component transfers which makes it possible to be granted ranks above Cpl / Capt on an individual basis when joining the Reg force.  If you're considering transferring, read it.

His "equivalent time" would be:

One year class B plus ( (Five other years, less one year total ED&T makes 4 years) divided by 4) equals two years.

The actual number of class A days signed in isn't counted anywhere.  (Once the pension comes into play the actual number of days will be relevant)


----------



## chrisf (5 Feb 2006)

Thanks for the clarification (it's been explained to me both ways, was mistaken on which was right), still a rather silly system though , as in an average year, I spend probably 5+ months working combined Class A/B, versus others who might spend 1 month...


----------



## Long in the tooth (5 Feb 2006)

Part I section 6 of the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act (http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/C-17/122317.html#rid-122322) reads:

"(G) any continuous period of full-time service of three months or more in the Canadian Forces or in the naval, army or air forces of Her Majesty raised by Canada, other than the regular force, if he elects, within one year of becoming a contributor under this Act, to pay for that service,

(H) one-fourth of any period of service in the Canadian Forces or in the naval, army or air forces of Her Majesty raised by Canada, other than the regular force, during which he was liable to be called out for periodic training or duty by the Governor in Council otherwise than during an emergency, except any such service that may be counted by him under clause (C) or (G), if he elects, within one year of becoming a contributor under this Act, to pay for that service,"

It seems pretty clear... all our 60 day call outs aint worth spit.


----------



## chrisf (5 Feb 2006)

Allan Luomala said:
			
		

> After reading Edwards post (a little historical perspective isn't always a bad thing), I was reminded of a discussion I had a while back regarding the Cpl rank level being a "gimme". I have always felt that the Cpl rank is the first level of leadership for a soldier, and shouldn't be automatic (much like Captain shouldn't be a gimme, but that's another discussion, I 'spose).



It may well be a matter of definition... I have a problem with the corpral rank being a gimmie as well (Despite every intention of being a CFL myself), not because it's a leadership rank (Not to say it doesn't end up in being a minor leadership rank, but it seems to me that a corpral is only placed in a leadership posistion when there is a lack of available master-corprals) but because personally, I see corpral as a rank where an individual is competent enough to work with little or no supervision. If somone demonstrates themselves as *competent* and has the TI, then they earned the rank.



> There should be no shame in staying a Cpl for a whole career, but arguably if a soldier has no leadership potential, or desire for leadership, they should remain a private (or historically, I guess) or a Lance Corporal.



So there you have it, if we subistuted "lance corpral" for "corpral" and "corpral" for "master-corpral", would there be an issue? Same rank structure, different names. A rose by any other name... change my rank to lance-corpral and I'd still smell of diesel


----------



## ZipperHead (5 Feb 2006)

Just a Sig Op said:
			
		

> It may well be a matter of definition... I have a problem with the corpral rank being a gimmie as well (Despite every intention of being a CFL myself), *not because it's a leadership rank* (Not to say it doesn't end up in being a minor leadership rank, but it seems to me that a corpral is only placed in a leadership posistion when there is a lack of available master-corprals) but because personally, I see corpral as a rank where an individual is competent enough to work with little or no supervision. If somone demonstrates themselves as *competent* and has the TI, then they earned the rank.
> 
> So there you have it, if we subistuted "lance corpral" for "corpral" and "corpral" for "master-corpral", would there be an issue? Same rank structure, different names. A rose by any other name... change my rank to lance-corpral and I'd still smell of diesel



The problem is, of course, that it IS a rank. A corporal outranks a private. Plain and simple. If I tell a Corporal to take a group of soldiers (privates) and go shovel shit, he/she will, whether they want to or not. Or even if the Corporal takes a group of other Corporals. The Corporal that I assign is acting on my authority (and the authority of whomever told me to get the job done, and so on). I tell soldiers that (promotion to) Corporal is a rank, not a pay raise. If they don't like that, they can always just keep up the one banana (and the corresponding pay that goes with it). That in itself is part of the problem: people want the pay, but not neccesarily the responsibility that comes with it. I hear of far too many people who are quick to criticize those above them (especially when they perceive that those above them are doing less "work") without realizing that those above them are far more responsible (for their actions) than they themselves are. 

And regarding changing the names of the ranks (Cpl to L/Cpl and MCpl to Cpl), "it doesn't matter how thin you slice it, it's still baloney". Meaning of course, that the roles and responsibilities wouldn't change at all. As for MCpl "not being a rank, but an appointment": that one has always bothered me, as the only people who seem to bring it up are one's that feel like they have to put a MCpl in their place (be it a subordinate or an officer - Sr NCO's will rarely (if ever) mention this, mainly because they lived it). Whether it is an appointment or a rank (mere wordology dreamt up by an Ottawa bean-counter no doubt), the position that the MCpl is put in (the bridge between the soldiers and Sr NCO's and officers) is one of the most difficult within the CF (especially when people are so fond of pointing out the "appointment" aspect of it, as though it is like having an honourary degree) as it makes those beneath them suspect the MCpl's authority and legitimacy. 

Al


----------



## Haggis (5 Feb 2006)

Worn Out Grunt said:
			
		

> It seems pretty clear... all our 60 day call outs aint worth spit.



All I said was that the two statutes were not aligned in letter, spirit or intent.



			
				dapaterson said:
			
		

> Sigh... this is a common misunderstanding.  It's not "a class A day is only worth 1/4 of a Reg F day" but rather "days that are not class B or C over 90 days (or NES or ED&T) count 1:4".



What I said.  You is more eloquent than me.



			
				dapaterson said:
			
		

> On to Haggis' comment - one point of clarification is needed.  CFRC does not determine which qualifications are granted on a transfer from the Reserve to the Reg Force.  The holder of the qualification makes those determinations - for the Army, it's the staff at CTC Gagetown that review the files and decide.



You are correct.  I should not have used the term "equivalency".  I was referring to the "enrolment offer" which is based on equivalences granted coupled with the IPC/TCP calculations.


----------



## Forgotten_Hero (5 Feb 2006)

> If somone demonstrates themselves as *competent* and has the TI, then they earned the rank.



What if the person isnt competent? One of the biggest problems I find with how the Cpl is a "gimme" rank is that, in the reserves, its not impossible for a new Cpl to have much much less experience than a Pte.


----------



## Haggis (5 Feb 2006)

Allan Luomala said:
			
		

> The problem is, of course, that it IS a rank. A corporal outranks a private. Plain and simple.
> Al



All the previous discussion aside, that's the bottom line.

A Reserve WO can issue a lawful command to a Reg F Cpl.  Likewise a Reserve Sgt is not required to obey an "order" given by a Reg F Cpl.  There are exceptions, of course, wherein a junior member will "give an order" to a more senior member but usually the jr mbr is working under the authority of a "higher power" (fire inspectors come to mind).

That being said, for the most part, we all know our boundaries.  Except in unusual matters of safety or immediate operational urgency, the rank structure will function as it has since the time of the Centurion:  top down.


----------



## m410 (5 Feb 2006)

reccecrewman said:
			
		

> Highly unlikely, but just to play devils advocate, if the entire Army mobilised, would they get to hold their rank?  Would a guy with 8 years Reserve experience and a Sgt. go off to war as a Sgt. or be dropped down a rank?


If we mobilized (and if 11 September 2001 didn't do it, I don't know what would) then it is _promotions_, not demotions, all around.

As a reservist I find the pace of regular force NCM promotions in peacetime a bit perplexing.  When even the keeners take 8 years to get promoted to MCpl it leaves you wondering.  Soldiering is a young man's game and the geriatric senior NCO cadre may be long on experience but short on knee cartilage.

Likewise 4 years to corporal is a bit much.  As corporal in the CF is a "leadership of last resort" rank the real criteria for the rank should be "has this soldier had sufficient OJT and mastery to be employed in his trade with minimal supervision?"  In a perfect world trained privates should have a first review after 1 year in battalion and those who meet the above criteria should get their second hook.  Of course mastery (in the infantry) implies having the DP2A qualification, but eligibility will be somewhere between 2.5 and 3.5 years service for those who don't become seasoned veterans of PAT platoon.

Here's a grain of salt to take with this reservist's opinion on the regular force.


----------



## m410 (5 Feb 2006)

Further to my last,

The idea of "has this soldier had sufficient OJT and mastery to be employed in his trade with minimal supervision?" has not and certainly should be applied to the reserves.  While many (a majority, but not a large one) who are promoted to corporal in the reserves meet that criteria, some do not.

I would love to see a short series of standardized practical and written tests for both regular and reserve soldiers that help confirm their competency for promotion to corporal.  To include:
a) The battle fitness test;
b) "skilled" passes on weapons handling tests for all weapons that soldier is expected to use;
c) A current pass on the C7 PWT appropriate to the soldier's trade (PWT 3 for infantry);
d) In mechanized or armoured units, an advanced AFV road test with the Platoon/Troop Warrant;
e) In the infantry (at least), participation in at least one live fire section attack within the last year;
f) A positive assessment by the Platoon WO for an informal small party task (i.e. leads a work party).
g) _If above criteria are met_, platoon commander's recommendation.  If a soldier fails to receive a recommendation and fails again 6 months later, he should be transferred to another platoon (this is to avoid a platoon commander from unfairly holding up a particular soldier).

While this might seem pretty basic, there are criteria in that list that some reservists do not achieve (either through lack of ability or lack of opportunity) before they are promoted corporal.  That list of tests and evaluations would hold up some of the plugs that make corporal in the reserves simply because there is no way to stop them.

Can anyone think up other criteria and what sort of things would be tested on a written test?


----------



## ZipperHead (5 Feb 2006)

M410, I like your thinking!!! 

AFAIK, the British Army has a system whereby to make it to the next rank, you must pass a series of tests (or a test). Why we don't do this is beyond me. I can imagine some of the responses would be along the lines of: it would take too much time, it's too hard to administer, it's not fair, it doesn't need to be done as everyone is exactly the same...... etc, etc. 

I think that a test like you pointed out would certainly separate the wheat from the chaff. We used to have competitions like that, termed "Super Soldier", where there was a PT component (timed runs, obstacle course), weapons handling, pistol shooting, AFV recognition, basic military knowledge, swimsuit competition, er, strike that last one. Of course, the keener soldiers (such as yours truly) gave it 100% (I won $75 one year), while some of the less keen (cough***dog-fuckers***cough) walked the fitness test, didn't even try on any of the other portions, etc. The irony is that the keen soldiers were mocked, and the idle were considered "cool" for their lack of effort. Is it any wonder that the military sunk so far??

I think we all know that if they started having testing for promotion (fitness, trades skills, etc) that too many people would fail, or they would drop the standard so low that the tests would be an outright joke. And even IF they made them difficult (where people would actually have to make an effort!!!), the usual suspects would likely find a means of avoiding (read as: golden chit) the testing. Am I cynical? You bet! Am I right? You tell me.....

I personally feel that they should have testing, every year, and your pay is tied to the results: if you put in a 60% effort, you only receive 60% of your pay. 100% effort/results = 100% of the pay. Radical, but I'm sure it would get people off their asses (into the books and into the gym).

Al


----------



## Troopasaurus (6 Feb 2006)

Our unit has just implemented a test for all the ranks starting with getting your hook and finishing with a Sgt's test.
some of the things involved in the test is a BFT completion, weapons handling test, unit history, radio procedures, etc.
the first test is just coming up this week though and it should be interesting to see how it works out.


----------



## mo-litia (7 Feb 2006)

Gunner said:
			
		

> We could go back to placing a "M" beside the Reservist rank (for instance Cpl (R) ) much like we used to do with women (Cpl (w)).  Or even better we could place a large embroidered "M" overtop of the rank on the epaulet.  The Nazi's did it with the Jews back in the 30s/40s and it seems to have worked out pretty well for them.
> 
> Stupid topic...



LMAO; that's priceless.  

Anyone who would try and say that  Reservists are *generally* as proficient to a Regular is talking out of their ass.  Regs do it every day, most Reservists don't. 

I, for myself, am happy to maintain a skill set that could be brought up to par with some work-up training if and when the government has a need for it.


----------



## combatcamera (7 Feb 2006)

mo-litia said:
			
		

> LMAO; that's priceless.
> 
> Anyone who would try and say that  Reservists are *generally* as proficient to a Regular is talking out of their ***.  Regs do it every day, most Reservists don't.
> 
> I, for myself, am happy to maintain a skill set that could be brought up to par with some work-up training if and when the government has a need for it.



Just read your comment above from this thread I mis-posted to.  I would disagree.  I was in the Reserves before I joined the Regs as were many here on the forum.  I was a Reserve Sgt when I went Reg.  By that time I had several NATO Reforgers under my belt, a TOW course, Advanced Winter Warfare, Machine Gunner, CLC, RV's, and other Reg exercises.  In the Reserves I had actually taught the ISCC (Infantry Section Commander's Course).  When I got direct entry into the Regs (as a corporal) I had to re-do many of these courses, especially the ISCC leadership course.  Back then, the Reserve course equivalent didn't count for peanuts.  The end result is that I topped the 11-week ISCC in Wainwright. I got to lead the CLC and ISCC platoons on grad parade, so that's something to say for "militia" experience.  On the other hand, I've seen "dirtbags" deployed with the Reserves, so the pendulum swings both ways.

Frank

www.combatcamera.forces.gc.ca
www.frankhudec.ca


----------



## GO!!! (7 Feb 2006)

Frank,

For every shining star from the militia, there seems to be a platoon of 17 year olds who know everything, can do nothing, and fall apart on any sort of task longer than three days, even while adorned with $3000 of Kifaru and Blackhawk kit.

The better products from the Mo seem to join the regs, it is the lifer militia types that constitute the vast majority of the "problems" that are percieved with their organisation.

My .02.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (7 Feb 2006)

And that's all it takes, like the last few. Off the rails again. Stick to the question or stay out of the thread


----------



## the 48th regulator (7 Feb 2006)

Cahmon GO!!!

What a load of Malarkey,  and you damn well know that.  Let's not start this one again as I can give story upon story of the other way around situations.

Period,

good post Frank

dileas

tes


----------



## Fishbone Jones (7 Feb 2006)

Last warning, then it's locked till it can straighten out.


----------



## Jarnhamar (8 Feb 2006)

Go, someone could easily argue that a platoon of 17 year old regular force soldiers don't have much going for them either.  Their life experience consists of finishing highschool, doing battleschool and going as far away from base as a week-end leave pass lets them.
A platoon of privates and corporals from a reg platoon are going to have way better soldier skills. Reserves will have way better trade skills.  Instead of always pointing out the differences sometimes it's good to capitalize on them. To me mixing regular force with reserves is a great idea.
You've said theres reservests who fall apart after 3 days and thats true. Well theres also regular force guys who can't think for themselves outside of what their section commander tells them to think.

We know there are different standards for Regular force and reserve. One gets promoted faster than other, due to need in my opinion.

Since many of the tours going over seas require a specific percentage of reserves (was it 20%?). Reserves will have to work with regular force.  Everyone has negitive points,  how do you guys propose we bridge the gap?

What can we do to fix this discrepency? Reserves get promoted faster than regs yet regs have more job experience, TI and technical (military) experience.  We have to make these two groups work together, so how exactly do we do it?

Make the reserves drop rank when working with the regular force?
Keep them the same rank but employ them on a lower responsibility (ie a sgt was employed as a driver for cimic on roto 13 op palladium, which of course is a pte or cpl job)
Employ them according to their rank and let them sink or swim?

Everyone is comming up with points on how the regs and reserves are different but no one is providing solutions.


----------



## OLD F of S (8 Feb 2006)

AS a reg force nco I have employed res pers and also deployed them on tours, there is no difference from an operator sent to the deploying unit from another reg force unit. Both the res and reg troops require training for the job at hand. If I noticed any difference it was that res troops had twice the get up and go of the reg force who was parachuted into the unit.

                            Rgards OLD F of S


----------



## combatcamera (8 Feb 2006)

GO!!! said:
			
		

> Frank,
> 
> For every shining star from the militia, there seems to be a platoon of 17 year olds who know everything, can do nothing, and fall apart on any sort of task longer than three days, even while adorned with $3000 of Kifaru and Blackhawk kit.
> 
> ...



I guess from my own experience I'm biased, since I agree with GO!!! 

Seriously though, even within Militia units there are different standards among soldiers who are deployed with them.  I remember in Germany we had these two Reserve corporals from a unit down east which shall remain unmentioned.  One of them was a "keener" and the other fit the profile of the "dirtbag" I mentioned earlier.  My 2i/c at the time, took it upon himself to take "dirtbag"  behind the track (that's APC for you younger guys) and "sort" him out.  You coulld actually do this in those days before SHARP and all that PC stuff.  Didn't the kid go crying to the CSM.  We had to be really "nice" to him after that.  Unfortunately, we didn't let him wear all his "American-style" gear in the field.  Rules are rules you know.  He got one of the worst assessments I've ever written on anyone.  The "keener", from this same unit, I would be proud to serve with anyday.

Frank

www.combatcamera.forces.gc.ca
www.frankhudec.ca


----------



## Fishbone Jones (8 Feb 2006)

Thx Ghost for trying to bring the thread back to it's original subject, but I guess it's not to be. Another one flies off the rails.


----------

