Army Communication & Information Systems Specialists (Sig Op, Lineman and LCIS Amalgamation)

[buzgo]

The reason that the ACISS occupation is under strength is due to the shortfalls in CST/IST. The recruiting allowance can be used to attract:


Non-Commissioned Members Recruitment Allowance

Acceptable Qualification


Post-Secondary Diploma or Certificate

a diploma or certificate that is awarded by a Canadian post-secondary educational institution in a program of study that corresponds to a significant part of the initial occupation training of the under-strength military occupation


Civilian Trade Qualified

a technical or vocational qualification for which the practical work experience to obtain the qualification is equivalent to the advanced occupation training of the under-strength military occupation


Military Occupation Qualified

the equivalent of the advanced military occupation training currently required for the assigned occupation


So arguably we are looking for category 2 and 3 pers. We don't have a mechanism to take these people, give them basic training / SQ and put them directly into a sub-occupation.

So, good idea, I'm not going to hold my breath.

 

[PiperDown]

and why do we have shortfalls in CST and IST ?

I will speculate.

RETENTION !

I know more than a handful of CST who  re-muster to ATIS every year ( this was rare before 2011). of course ATIS takes them with open arms.  These people are not fed up with the CAF or with the branch.  They are fed up with ACISS.
Less ACISS core are entering the CST/IST sub occ. ( why have slower career progression, less opportunity, fewer deployments etc for the same pay )
technicians are leaving for greener pastures. ie industry

I think perhaps a reason CST/IST is undermanned is because we are not investing in their future.  So, instead, we will dangle a carrot in front of civilians who don't yet know better.  Seems like a band-aid to me.

 

[Brasidas]

and why do we have shortfalls in CST and IST ?

I will speculate.

RETENTION !

I know more than a handful of CST who  re-muster to ATIS every year ( this was rare before 2011). of course ATIS takes them with open arms.  These people are not fed up with the CAF or with the branch.  They are fed up with ACISS.
Less ACISS core are entering the CST/IST sub occ. ( why have slower career progression, less opportunity, fewer deployments etc for the same pay )
technicians are leaving for greener pastures. ie industry

I think perhaps a reason CST/IST is undermanned is because we are not investing in their future.  So, instead, we will dangle a carrot in front of civilians who don't yet know better.  Seems like a band-aid to me.

Indeed.

Splitting them back off, maybe calling the new trade "LCIS", and giving them spec pay would seem to be a pretty effective option for recruiting and retention.

 

[PuckChaser]

People will stay in a trade because they feel valued and the work is rewarding. If someone picks a trade with pay as primary motivation, some of those people might be the cause of the culture issues we have in the Branch.

 

[rmc_wannabe]

People will stay in a trade because they feel valued and the work is rewarding. If someone picks a trade with pay as primary motivation, some of those people might be the cause of the culture issues we have in the Branch.

The issue we have in the branch is that we have people being asked to perform at industry standard without industry level training or industry level compensation. With no one in the branch seeing this as an issue.

There is no selling "Service is it's own reward" to the kind of technical professionals  the CAF wants to attractIf I was just getting in, I certainly would not want to deal with the hassles military life creates and do it for 30 grand less than industry. A 10,000 dollar signing bonus isn't that attractive when head hunters will offer 6 figures to start for IT/Technical professionals.

What needs to happen is that the C&E Branch along with D RCCS need to work to change the way the CAF looks at it's Communications Technologists.

The CST/IST folks are not disposible. We are very expensive: Expensive to train, expensive to attract, and in essence expensive to retain. Industry is always ready to pay higher, so lets not give them any advantages when our trained folks are looking at the door.

 

[RedMan]

and why do we have shortfalls in CST and IST ?

I will speculate.

RETENTION !

I know more than a handful of CST who  re-muster to ATIS every year ( this was rare before 2011). of course ATIS takes them with open arms.  These people are not fed up with the CAF or with the branch.  They are fed up with ACISS.
Less ACISS core are entering the CST/IST sub occ. ( why have slower career progression, less opportunity, fewer deployments etc for the same pay )
technicians are leaving for greener pastures. ie industry

I think perhaps a reason CST/IST is undermanned is because we are not investing in their future.  So, instead, we will dangle a carrot in front of civilians who don't yet know better.  Seems like a band-aid to me.

It's been a while since I jumped from LCIS / CST to ATIS, and I'm sad to see that things have not gotten better. When I first meet people outside of Sigs, and  they ask what my old trade was, I tell them LCIS...and right away they instantly say, "Man, they really screwed you guys over!"

From the very first day I stepped into CFSCE, (only to discover I was not going to be LCIS, but instead become ACISS).... to today, all of the LCIS / CST's I've known and worked with have not been happy with ACISS.

I was a civilian electronics tech for many years before joining the military. Taking a trade that was electronics/repair and IT/IS systems (perfect combo for me), and changing it to Sig-Op first / technician "when we feel like letting you" (with less pay, no IS/IT) is NOT what I signed on for.

Since then, after being told to more or less shut-up because I didn't know what I'm talking about, I played the ACISS game by their rules and did my job.  Everytime I worked under Sigs leadership it was misery... working under CST leadership was better, as long as it was a legacy LCIS who could speak my language. The best experiences were when I worked under maintenance leadership who allowed me to do my actual job, and they were very happy to have me there.

People will stay in a trade because they feel valued and the work is rewarding. If someone picks a trade with pay as primary motivation, some of those people might be the cause of the culture issues we have in the Branch.

I put my heart into ACISS, and in 5 years, never felt valued (except by non-sigs and my LCIS SGTs, who were great!). It's also hard to enjoy a job, and plan your career, when the very people in charge of your trade can't even define/understand what that job and career is supposed to be. There is not one bit of incentive for someone to become a CST. I'd like for anyone to name ONE! I spent 5 years being a guinea pig for ACISS, and had more than enough of the culture issues thrown in my face. When my OT was about to possibly happen, I made it clear (to the CST higher ranks that wanted me to stay) that if I was somehow magically given Spec Pay to stay CST.... that I would still OT. 

Also, picking a job with pay as a primary motivation is not a problem....its called an educated and informed decision... something that the formation of ACISS certainly was not. People are just too damn stubborn and proud to admit it. Perhaps we should have anyone (in ALL trades) who is progressing above CPL have their pay frozen until they are MWO. The fact that they chose a military career with the understanding that there would be pay increments as a result of their training and progression must mean that money is all that matters to them, right?  :


In one year of being an ATIS OJT, I am happier then I have ever been in the 5 years I was LCIS / ACISS. Why? Perhaps, its because my current leadership actually ASKED about my previous technical skills and training and got to know me, and what I could offer them. As a result, I have done more technical work, and more IT/IS related work than I did as a CST. I'm actually being trained by a senior tech with many years of experience in the trade, and he knows EXACTLY what to train me for, and what my job path will be like.

I'm treated like an asset with unique skills, and as a result I have been able to do work for this unit that no one else here can offer (and other units have taken notice)...  A far cry from being stuck in a CST shop (after ACISS DP1), with 60 other non tech-trained CSTs, and not being allowed to operate a screw driver. (Despite myself having done 1000's of repairs civvie side)


I hope things eventually work out for you guys.... I really do. 

 

[buzgo]

People will stay in a trade because they feel valued and the work is rewarding. If someone picks a trade with pay as primary motivation, some of those people might be the cause of the culture issues we have in the Branch.

I think this is a big part of the problem. Spec pay promises have created endless problems for us - it was NEVER a good idea and its not a good idea now, using money as a motivator leads to short term gain but long term issues. If we think people should make more money for doing a specific job, then the BASE pay should be raised, not augmented with a specialist pay.

The RCCS needs to have a serious look at what we actually need people to do. Sure, we think we need to have people qualified up to industry standards, but do we really need this? Can we actually achieve this? Do you know how long it takes to make these people? I'm tracking 2 - 3 year college programs for Electronics and IT technologists, 4 years in university for EE / CS degrees. We could put them through SEP or recruit them from the colleges: did you ever work with any of the LCIS techs produced through the St. Lawrence College pipeline? Like everyone else, pretty hit or miss. They all showed up as Cpls with zero experience.

Oh - ATIS. So trust me when I tell you this. ATIS is looking for a way to get rid of POET. They are watching CSS/CST and ISS/IST training very closely and there is starting to be significant overlap in the courseware.

Overall - we need to bust our asses to fix the issues within ACISS, and all options should be on the table including breaking from the MES model. The RCCS has a serious leadership problem from top to bottom - we failed to understand what we were doing 6 years ago, we failed to implement it properly. Those of us in the system at the time failed to get on board, people fought to keep their tribes alive. The people in charge failed to explain how things actually worked (they still don't know how to make it work BTW). We still are failing to communicate how this construct should work and how it could work going ahead. I still encounter former LCIS techs who think that they are going to do board level repairs on the new radios and operators who want to do nothing more than twiddle knobs. Those days are gone, software is eating hardware and IP is the future.

 

[RedMan]

I think this is a big part of the problem. Spec pay promises have created endless problems for us - it was NEVER a good idea and its not a good idea now, using money as a motivator leads to short term gain but long term issues. If we think people should make more money for doing a specific job, then the BASE pay should be raised, not augmented with a specialist pay.

Spec Pay was not a problem (for LCIS) until ACISS happened and those promises (of all ACISS possibly getting it) came from the mouths of MES during those many briefings. This poisoned an already toxic environment among the branch. It wasn't complex before. "This trade requires this training, and makes this much....that trade doesn't have that training and will only make that much."  Other trades seem to be able to understand this....

Oh - ATIS. So trust me when I tell you this. ATIS is looking for a way to get rid of POET. They are watching CSS/CST and ISS/IST training very closely and there is starting to be significant overlap in the courseware.

The IST warriors out there seem to think they are the only ones who (should) work with IS/IT in the entire CF and are shocked to hear that anyone else is trained to do similar work.  Yes there is overlap in CST/IST training, but that has nothing to do with ATIS, and is the fault of ACISS.  I don't see loads of IST working at the big Air-Force wings, nor should you. They have their own ATIS techs or SSC guys constantly fighting for that work. Sometimes you will see ATIS/CST/IST working together doing the same job... but that's the exception, not the norm.

Data Comms for ATIS QL5 is taught in Trenton not CFSCE, though, yes they may be making changes to the courses to modernise. However, they stopped "writing off" QL3 / QL5 for techs who OT'd from other tech trades as too many people were failing their QL5s. Watering down ATIS like they did with CST, would seem like the opposite of what they want to do. When ATIS techs deploy, they don't have an on-call IST or SSC chap to do their job for them.

All I'm saying is....leave the techs alone (who want) to be good techs, and let the operators (who like their job) be good operators.

You think an ATC wants me doing their job? Do you think they want anything to do with my job? Yes we work together, but we get along great and respect each others specific roles, and support each other.

Yes, hardware and software does change and evolve (though I still operate / repair / calibrate radios from the 70's)... doesn't mean a tech only does radio and headset repairs.

 

[PuckChaser]

They also said that they would push for CISTMs to get Spec 2, and a unicorn. Anyone who bought the spec pay line, got duped. Only people who have any right to complain about current pay, is legacy LCIS that went CST. That pay freeze was an absolute travesty, and betrayed the trust of the troops.

 

[buzgo]

I haven't talked to very many ISTs who think they should be doing all IT/IS work in the CAF. Not even all of the work in the Army. The IST will become the Army TCP/IP expert but all of ACISS has a significant role to play. Even the end users (combat arms) have a role to play in managing the systems in their platforms.

ACISS primary function is to provide Signal support to the Army so we need to focus on that. If Army communications equipment is advancing to the point that there is no longer the possibility of component repair then why on earth would we train that? I ack that there are legacy systems out there but from an Army perspective they are not really found in the Brigades. There are still Army pers manning MACS and the HF gateway in NS but the training to work in those jobs is and should continue to be granted by an OSS course. Optionally, these jobs should go to ATIS.

ATIS has now decided to follow ACISS into the implementation of Cisco Network Academy courseware. This means that CST, IST and ATIS will be receiving many of the same courses. Why should we then run three iterations of those courses? We need to be more efficient.

What I meant by my comment was that the RCAF is watching the CST efforts very closely. The CSS DP 1.1 QSTP was recently rewritten and they are going to be making some big changes shortly, which appear to be for the better. So if they can figure out a way to create good techs with no POET, I suspect ATIS will take note.

Anyway, there are a lot of moving pieces out there, a lot of people appear to be getting on board and I think we are going to start making real headway towards solving our issues, one way or the other.

 

[Kirasy]

Here is a very basic run down of what each one does. Again, this is very basic and is missing a lot.

ACISS Core - radio operators, set up antennas, and radios plus drive CP/RRB vehicles, can do some IT stuff - this is what Sig Ops are now called
ACISS IST - help desk stuff, and do ACISS Core stuff as required. - stuff Sig Ops and some LCIS Techs did
ACISS CST - broken kit comes to them, they will either fix it, or have it sent off for repairs, make coax cables, inspections, etc - this is what LCIS Techs are now called
ACISS LST - run phone lines, climb polls, do inspections and set up various services in garrison - this is what Linemen are now called

I'm sure if you look in the other ACISS threads you can get a more detailed break down.

Your posting will also determine what you will do in each role, as it really can vary depending on the unit you are in.

Hi, I am going to BMQ in a few weeks and was hoping to specialize into IST. I was just wondering if the trade had much in term of transferable skills in the civilians world? Also is there any component of the trade that involves working with server, it's a point of interest for me.

 

[PuckChaser]

Yes and yes. A lot of the equipment is civilian standard, so you get those courses of required. There is also lots of deployed servers to maintain, but you might not get to pick what section you go to.

 

[RADOPSIGOPACCISOP]

I haven't talked to very many ISTs who think they should be doing all IT/IS work in the CAF. Not even all of the work in the Army. The IST will become the Army TCP/IP expert but all of ACISS has a significant role to play. Even the end users (combat arms) have a role to play in managing the systems in their platforms.

ACISS primary function is to provide Signal support to the Army so we need to focus on that. If Army communications equipment is advancing to the point that there is no longer the possibility of component repair then why on earth would we train that? I ack that there are legacy systems out there but from an Army perspective they are not really found in the Brigades. There are still Army pers manning MACS and the HF gateway in NS but the training to work in those jobs is and should continue to be granted by an OSS course. Optionally, these jobs should go to ATIS.

ATIS has now decided to follow ACISS into the implementation of Cisco Network Academy courseware. This means that CST, IST and ATIS will be receiving many of the same courses. Why should we then run three iterations of those courses? We need to be more efficient.

What I meant by my comment was that the RCAF is watching the CST efforts very closely. The CSS DP 1.1 QSTP was recently rewritten and they are going to be making some big changes shortly, which appear to be for the better. So if they can figure out a way to create good techs with no POET, I suspect ATIS will take note.

Anyway, there are a lot of moving pieces out there, a lot of people appear to be getting on board and I think we are going to start making real headway towards solving our issues, one way or the other.

Honestly I don't see much point for CSTs to being doing TCP/IP as well for that matter. I get that the original idea was IST would do red side and CST would do black side but that's inane, it's the exact same skillset, it only makes sense for one to do both. TCIs should most likely be done by ISTs as well. There's very little issue with separation now, we've used STP and fibre anywhere there's a lot of red/black crossover.

The Core should be stepping up and doing most of the Satcomm (which now seems to be physically setup by core people and then configured by the CSTs) and things like FOB kits, TacComms etc. The actual CST trade probably should be much smaller than it is now, and focus on repairing green kit and inside of the vehicles.

The trade needs to get much leaner in how they employ people. The Afghanistan style mission of having a big group of people where you can have multiple crews of people with specific specialties is gone. Theatre commanders now are putting pressure on support trades to lower their numbers. We can't have a crew of core come in and setup a dish, a crew of CSTs to configure it and the black network, a crew of line to do the lines and a crew of ISTs to install the servers and do the red side. Many missions now we get 3-5 positions total. Which means the line techs, the ISTs, the Core all need to be able to help setup all the stuff up and as everyone needs to have a bigger breadth of knowledge. I know that kind of seems contradictory but I'm partially arguing that we need to collapse CST/IST into a single trade, I'm not exactly sure how that'd work but there's too much skillset crossover right now. Possibly the trade should be rejigged with the trade review going on and collapse it back into 3 suboccs. One covering a lot of what Core and CST do (Tac/Sat Comm Tech), one covering what IST/CST do (Computer Tech), and another covering what Line/Core/IST/CST do (Network and Line Tech)

 

[technophile]

Maybe we should have one trade that operates the equipment. Call them, operators of signals equipment. Another trade that does structured wiring, or line. Call it, wire /line people.  And maybe a third trade that fixes stuff and does networks. Like communication and information systems for the land element. ( maybe throw the name tech in there somewhere too )

 

[upandatom]

People will stay in a trade because they feel valued and the work is rewarding. If someone picks a trade with pay as primary motivation, some of those people might be the cause of the culture issues we have in the Branch.

The culture is caused by people feeling they deserved it, and did not do the extra training to receive it.

The Spec Pay is an incentive to keep people in the trade, instead of doing their 4 year minimum after POET and taking a civilian Job.

From my mindset;

I was LCIS, Quickly promoted to MCPL, Minimum time in Rank, Successful. Multiple deployments in a short time, with their own issues for each one, and receiving commendations for both.
I was posted to Rot in a shithole unit, ran by civies that did not complete the submission of a CF-98 because its not within their Job Title.
I released, A trade that I was very successful in, progressed quickly, sent me to a unit, that did not give two shits about me, and my experience and abilities. How I could of made it better. Instead I was pushed to a corner for showing the proper way to complete VIs, documentation and fighting for the two Cpls in the unit to get onto courses, neither had been on a course, since their 3s/5s which was 5 years prior, they were on their 5s, when I Was on my 3s, and was promoted past them. In that time, the multiple civilians had gone on military paid courses, including a 6 month college computer science course. Told time and time again there was no money to send my Boys on course. Welcome to 202.

ACISS is broken. Call me disgruntled, call me a ship Jumper. The way Signals members from all areas are being treated is ridiculous. I do give credit to those sticking it out. Kudos to you. Hopefully you reaching those higher ranks will fix the mess that is now 6 years old.

The CDS and the RCCS need to understand this one simple fact;
If it does not get resolved, and troops happy, the mass exodus will continue. People will leave. They will continue too, to the point where the quality of technicians, operators and lineman will become a laughable state compared to 2000-2010. Your good technicians will come to realise, less stress Civi side, along with a lot better treatment and recognition of skill sets with appropriate compensation. Then the signals world will become a world of hurt, and continue to fall behind our NATO Allies. I am aware of near 30 people, from various ACISS suboccs that have VRd/released/retired early because they are simply fed up and worn out with excuses. 

 

[Kirasy]

Thanks for the response. By section do you mean sub specialty within ACISS? Is IST a difficult section to get into compared to the others?

 

[buzgo]

IST is understrength and we are actively looking for good candidates.

You will have to qualify as ACISS common first, then be posted to a unit, spend some time working as a detachment member and then identify that you are interested in IST. At this point you should be moved into a first level help desk job, providing user support and you would be nominated for training in Kingston.

 

[RADOPSIGOPACCISOP]

Maybe we should have one trade that operates the equipment. Call them, operators of signals equipment. Another trade that does structured wiring, or line. Call it, wire /line people.  And maybe a third trade that fixes stuff and does networks. Like communication and information systems for the land element. ( maybe throw the name tech in there somewhere too )

This is an amazing concept, I'm shocked we haven't tried this before.

 

[RADOPSIGOPACCISOP]

The culture is caused by people feeling they deserved it, and did not do the extra training to receive it.

The Spec Pay is an incentive to keep people in the trade, instead of doing their 4 year minimum after POET and taking a civilian Job.

From my mindset;

I was LCIS, Quickly promoted to MCPL, Minimum time in Rank, Successful. Multiple deployments in a short time, with their own issues for each one, and receiving commendations for both.
I was posted to Rot in a ******* unit, ran by civies that did not complete the submission of a CF-98 because its not within their Job Title.
I released, A trade that I was very successful in, progressed quickly, sent me to a unit, that did not give two shits about me, and my experience and abilities. How I could of made it better. Instead I was pushed to a corner for showing the proper way to complete VIs, documentation and fighting for the two Cpls in the unit to get onto courses, neither had been on a course, since their 3s/5s which was 5 years prior, they were on their 5s, when I Was on my 3s, and was promoted past them. In that time, the multiple civilians had gone on military paid courses, including a 6 month college computer science course. Told time and time again there was no money to send my Boys on course. Welcome to 202.

ACISS is broken. Call me disgruntled, call me a ship Jumper. The way Signals members from all areas are being treated is ridiculous. I do give credit to those sticking it out. Kudos to you. Hopefully you reaching those higher ranks will fix the mess that is now 6 years old.

The CDS and the RCCS need to understand this one simple fact;
If it does not get resolved, and troops happy, the mass exodus will continue. People will leave. They will continue too, to the point where the quality of technicians, operators and lineman will become a laughable state compared to 2000-2010. Your good technicians will come to realise, less stress Civi side, along with a lot better treatment and recognition of skill sets with appropriate compensation. Then the signals world will become a world of hurt, and continue to fall behind our NATO Allies. I am aware of near 30 people, from various ACISS suboccs that have VRd/released/retired early because they are simply fed up and worn out with excuses.

I've lost 4 of some of my smartest techs to outside military hires. They were honestly just tired of the foolishness and received much higher paying jobs straight out of releasing (companies that will wait the full 6 months that the CM is permitted to (and is adamant on) holding them to).

The senior trades people don't realize these aren't Rad Ops from 20 years ago who have no options, these are CISCO and MSCE qualified personnel with significant experience in the industry and working with industry standard enterprise systems. Treating them like fools will not work out for this trade.

 

[upandatom]

I've lost 4 of some of my smartest techs to outside military hires. They were honestly just tired of the foolishness and received much higher paying jobs straight out of releasing (companies that will wait the full 6 months that the CM is permitted to (and is adamant on) holding them to).

The senior trades people don't realize these aren't Rad Ops from 20 years ago who have no options, these are CISCO and MSCE qualified personnel with significant experience in the industry and working with industry standard enterprise systems. Treating them like fools will not work out for this trade.

$60k a year or $90/100? With the same amount of holidays, comparable if not better pension plans with more option and more control over the financial amount you put in, and where it gets invested,
RESPECT for your abilities,

The EXACT people they need to get this ACISS Idea up and running, the experience, knowledge and ability to implement the changes they desire, they are the ones taking their leave and walking away. You have to find ways to make people happy, there are options, technological dependant society, these skill sets are actively looked for via head hunting companies. I am more then happy in my current job being able to work from home 4 days a week(as long as I have an internet connection) and I still get telephone and emails from companies trying to hire me or coax me to moving on with them.