"Master Corporals" - Merged Thread

[Fishbone Jones]

This is a completely true statement, at the same time it kind of hints that Sgt. and above are the only ranks in the CF you truly earn.

I said nothing about Sgts and above being the only ranks you earn. I simply said it was the mess you earned your way into. Every rank, qualification and incentive is earned, at every step, and the succesful soldier deserves congratulations at every step. Please don't build your case by twisting my words.

Those men and women with that "rank" are looked down upon by NCO's and yet by Corporal / Trooper types, eyed with a degree of suspicion because they still represent authority.

It is a sad individual who would eye a MCpl as such......from either perspective.

 

[George Wallace]

Just to add to all this confussion, way back when, there once was a rank of Lance Corporal.  The Lance Corporal used to be God.  He would command a Tank.  He would be a Section 2 i/c.  Ptes would stand at attention, with their heals together to address him.  That was before Unification and the creation of the new rank structure.  When a Lance Corporal did finally get promoted to the rank of Cpl, he really had it made.  Sgts and WOs were even more feared in those days.  They truly had power. 

Unfortunately, none of that is true today. 

When I was a kid, there were Cpl's Clubs on Bases, as well as Jnr Ranks Clubs.  Now there is only a Jnr Ranks, and even they are becoming less and less.  There used to be three JRs on the Base in Petawawa, now there are two, and perhaps soon only one.

I have seen MCpl 'Rest Areas' in Germany, but they were not really separate from the Base JRs Mess, but a Unit administered facility.  I have seen MCpl's Clubs in Kingston and Valcartier, and know they existed elsewhere.  I have seen Student Messes for OCdts, not only at RMC, but at Gagetown, where the OCdts would be segregated in a separate facility away from Staff and other Serving Officers.  The same thing was found in Cornwallis, Borden, Meaford, St Jean, etc. where Students would frequent one Mess and other Staff Jnr NCOs would frequent another.

Iterator has many of his facts wrong and doesn't understand the ones that he has correct.  Sgt's and WOs have always been in separate Messes.  Unification and changing times have not changed that.  The only thing that changing times have done is bring in young people, who don't have any interest in learning the history, traditions and reasons for having the various Messes.  These are the people you find who are too self-centered to worry about 'Team-work', centering only on 'self' and 'career'.  These self-centered, careerists have done more to destroy the Military than to build it.  They are typically what one would call a "Buddy-F*cker" and they don't care who they step on to advance.

With changing times, so have come changes in the way we operate.  Responsibilities of the various Ranks and Appointments and Delegated Positions have had to change with the times, technology, doctrine, restructuring, and now the new 'Transformation'.  Where once a LCpl had a lot of power, now a MCpl has most of it.  Where once a LCpl was thought of as the first real 'supervisory rank' and then CPL, now we have them both combined into what the MCpl is today.  Cpls never became members of the Sgts and WOs Mess in the past, and MCpls aren't members of the Sgts and WOs Messes today.

In these changing times, the 'Reason' and 'Function' of the Messes has been forgotten.

 

[ZipperHead]

Edit: I composed this before I read George's and recceguy's posts, and they have excellent points, and mine are at odds somewhat, so bear in mind I didn't read their posts when I composed what is below.

Very good points 'reccecrewman'. You were right on the money with your points.

Rather than get wrapped around the axles with wordology (appointment vs rank), a lot of this comes down to people's attitudes towards the position that the MCpl's fill in any unit, regardless of trade. Saying that a person doesn't earn the rank/appointment of MCpl is a major slap in the face of those that are trying to achieve that, or have achieved it. I have heard the tired old saw that the Sgt's and WO's mess is the only mess that you are promoted, or earn your way, into (the other's being automatic upon enrollment), so it must be special. A lot of this mentality, IMO, is based on elitism and class structure. Here's an example I just thought of, so I'll add it here: What about a Sgt/WO/MWO/CWO who CFR's or goes through UTPNCM? They have "earned" their way into 2 separate messes - the Sgt's and WO's mess, and then the Officers mess. So much for the exclusivity of the Sgt's/WO's mess....

I will relate a story from my own life: I was teaching on a course in Wainwright, as a 6A MCpl, so I was the section commander, with a PPCLI MCpl as my 2 IC. I knew that I was getting promoted at the Regimental Moreuil Wood parade, so I went back to Edmonton the day prior to the parade to get my uniforms turned in for tailoring, pick up new slip-ons, etc. Anyway, I was walking down the hall in the unit lines, and walked by a WO, and being the good little MCpl I nodded and said "good day, Warrant". He walked past me without even acknowledging my presence. Fast forward to the unit party the evening after I get promoted. Guess who was my new best friend (well not really, but much more friendly than the day before, when I was a lowly MCpl)? Yes, that is one person, not the whole Sr NCO corps, but I think it is a telling example.

I don't know if it is feasible, or even neccesary, to create a separate facility, in an official capacity anyway, to differentiate between the Tpr's/Cpl's, the MCpl's, and the Sr NCO's (Sgt's and WO's, officially). I suppose that they could make MCpl's automatically Sr NCO's (and then call the mess the Sr NCO's mess, rather than the MCpl's, Sgts, and WO's mess), which would require a mentality and culture shift in the CF. I know that people here have said that Sgt's are (generally) more mature than MCpl's (usually), but who hasn't seen 23 year old Sgt's (I have) or 50 year old MCpl's (or Cpl's for that matter)? If a person "knows their place" (i.e their social status) and are taught/shown how to act, they will act accordingly. And if they don't, that's what the stuttering typewriter that prints out the duty roster is for.

As for terminology, can anyone point me in the right direction (ie CFAO, QR & O) as to why MCpl is "only" an appointment, and not a rank? My guess is because of Unification, but I'm curious as to why? It could be because other militaries don't have a similar "rank", and in the interest of keeping things "simple" this approach was chosen, but like many simple solutions, it seems to have created more confusion than is neccesary. I DON'T advocate changing the system (i.e making MCpl -> Cpl, Cpl -> LCpl, one hook pte -> pte), because then it only shuffling deck chairs on the Titanic: it doesn't address the position that MCpl's get put into (a member of the unwashed masses one moment, The Man the next). Yes, this is the way that many of us lived it, so it must be right, right?!? Well, maybe, maybe not. If anything, if more respect were shown to the rank/appointment, by all parties (including MCpl's), there wouldn't need to be a lot of hand wringing going on, but to marginalize it via terminology and a healthy amount of contempt doesn't help, either.

Anyway, interesting discussion, although the thread title is a little provocative, though I don't think that was the intent.

Al

 

[reccecrewman]

Recceguy - You are a man of immense knowledge and experience.  I wasn't trying to twist your words, I merely read it as it was written.  You did say that the Senior NCO's mess was the only one it's members earned entrance to.  I was pointing out that the MCpl. appointment is most certainly earned as well.  To many a degree, I wholeheartedly agree with you in the sense that MCpl's belong in the JR's mess.  I just got the feeling from your post that you overlooked the hard work and difficulty it takes to get that appointment.  Nothing hostile here, not trying to point a finger - but by your post, that was the feeling conveyed. (By myself)

And you're also right in your assessment that it is a sad individual who looks at MCpl's in the sense I spoke of earlier, but it does carry a degree of truth to it.

Regards

 

[teltech]

Allan,
I have a portion of an email once sent to me which may have some of the answer, and no, it doesn't point to any official document about MCpl appointments. But here goes...

Evolution of the Master Corporal Appointment
One can see that a corporal - once a position of great authority in the Canadian Army - had after Unification become merely a pay grade increase. The appointment of Master Corporal was introduced in the post-Unification era, but in practical terms was equivalent only to the Lance Corporal of old, when one compares their actual level of responsibility.

The following notes on Unification and its impact on the rank system were sent to me by David Willard:
The pre-unification system of rank (Private, Corporal, Sergeant, Staff Sergeant, Warrant Officer II Class and Warrant Officer I Class) and appointment (Lance Corporal and Lance Sergeant) were a development that evolved through the British system for centuries. It was tried, tested and true for the Army's system of organization and addressed the whole concept of command and control efficiently. It attached a degree of prestige and status to the various levels of supervision/leadership. For example not everyone was automatically promoted to a higher rank simply for being a good soldier or doing one's job well. The individual had to be outstanding amongst his peers, and prove that he was, through tough training and leadership courses which had to be passed to certain standard to qualify. Of course battlefield promotions were another matter where the outstanding qualities observed alone qualified the individual for obvious reasons. This older proven system was advantageous for another but less important reason. Internationally, our ranks and their levels of responsibility were understood by most other nations. A foreign soldier - perhaps a belligerent in a UN setting - knew when he was dealing with a Canadian Corporal that this NCO was a leader of men, schooled in the art of war and no one to fool around with. I can remember tours in Egypt and Cyprus where senior officers would negotiate with Canadian Jnr NCOs almost on an on-par basis, there was (that much) respect. The post-unification system has destroyed the status and respect that several ranks had at one time.

Paul Hellyer's basic concept - integration - was a good one. It had meant an integration of logistics and support services - why have three different logistical organizations cutting contacts, keeping files, and awarding three different contracts for the same materiel? The government, however, further likened the need for National Defence in Canada to a US Marine Corps model. This showed no understanding of what made the three arms (navy, army and air force) tick in Canada. Tradition to the military is the food on which they are nourished and provide for a sense of organization, family and probably most important, ideals to be used as benchmarks for excellence and ability to prevail on the battlefield.

One might compare the situation to a case where a politician or non-elected human rights commissioner descended on the world renowned Ottawa Heart Institute reorganizing the administration and operation of the unit. One need only imagine them telling the heart doctors how they were going to perform surgical operations, to the point of advising them on which instruments they could have, to realize how ridiculous it would be.

At the time of Unification, servicemen were given a raise in pay to keep them enrolled. Signing bonuses of $200.00 were given for each year to a maximum of five that they re-enlisted for. $1000.00 in 1967 was a life changing amount, possibly worth about ten times as much in 1999 dollars. Rank was given away next; anyone who had ever had a Junior NCO course was automatically promoted to Corporal. Everyone who had 4 years of service automatically went on a new Junior Leaders Course to get him promoted to Corporal. Corporal was now a giveaway, it meant nothing as far as status was concerned, it was a shoe-in for everyone.

The problem was that at that time, Corporals were then section commanders. The actual commander now was leading a whole section of his rank peers. There was actual fighting in the ranks and discipline was poor. So another level was instituted - Senior Corporal. But that was not enough, they then introduced the "B" Corporal (indicating he had qualified Part B of the Junior NCO Course). They changed the chevrons to have a little crown sewed on over the hooks.         
We took turns being B Corporals as there were now so many of us. There was no continuity and of course this was unworkable. Finally instead of putting it back to what everyone knew was workable, they developed a new appointment...Master Corporal. But who would become the Masters? It was decreed that those wearing the B Corporal crown at the time would become the appointee. New leadership qualities had to established....this took years and years to even get to the point where the right people were in charge. In the process, the rank of Corporal was destroyed in the Canadian Army. Almost the exact same thing happened to the rank of Captain.

The system has been very rapidly changed for the worse. A better concept would have been "lateral trade progression" - it is possible to give a man status, prestige and more money without promoting him in rank. Unfortunately, the Canadian Army never went this route.

I apologize for the lack of attributes.

 

[ZipperHead]

Teltech, many thanks. It (the reasoning for MCpl) was somewhat as I expected (Unification), but to hear it from someone's own perspective (the author) makes it more 'alive' than were it just a QR&O ref, which sometimes one needs to be a JAG to decipher.

Thanks again,

Al

 

[GO!!!]

I (like many others here) think the creation of a different mess on a RegF base would be a waste.

While I agree that the MCpl rank is not a "giveaway" they are definitely a "limbo" rank. Where else can you be expected to lead company PT in the morning, and stand at attention outside your room for an inspection of your quarters after lunch? MCpls are in the very uncomfortable position of being more than a Cpl, but less than a Sgt, with duties that can vary wildly day to day and unit to unit.

I don't see how MCpls don't "earn" their ranks either, quite frankly. The PLQ system now takes about four months, with two of that in a school, and in the winter for us. This trg includes all of the duties of a section commander, and is not a cakewalk, or simply a matter of "showing up" as has been alluded to.

Finally, there is no requirement for a MCpls mess because by and large, JR Messes are pretty empty these days. The combination of mixed units, the propensity of soldiers to live off - base, a zero tolerance policy for DUI, lack of any available females and zealous supervision by civilian bar staff and the MPs have made the JRC a decidedly "un-fun" place to hang out for any more than the free pizza that appears on fridays. Even the new guy parties had to be moved to civilian establishments that appreciated the business.

 

[pbi]

...Finally, there is no requirement for a MCpls mess because by and large, JR Messes are pretty empty these days. The combination of mixed units, the propensity of soldiers to live off - base, a zero tolerance policy for DUI, lack of any available females and zealous supervision by civilian bar staff and the MPs have made the JRC a decidedly "un-fun" place to hang out for any more than the free pizza that appears on fridays. Even the new guy parties had to be moved to civilian establishments that appreciated the business.

A telling comment that is applicable to all of our messes these days, not just the Ranks. I would not be surprised to see, before I finally turn in my gear, that Messes will pass into some sort of service delivered to us by CFPAS, rather than "member-owned and run" as we all knew them years ago. Maybe the social needs they were intended to fill no longer exist. (OK, OK-I know this is off the topic...)

Cheers

 

[Michael Dorosh]

Just to add to all this confussion, way back when, there once was a rank of Lance Corporal.

That too was an appointment.

 

[Michael Dorosh]

Allan,
I have a portion of an email once sent to me which may have some of the answer, and no, it doesn't point to any official document about MCpl appointments. But here goes...

Evolution of the Master Corporal Appointment
One can see that a corporal - once a position of great authority in the Canadian Army - had after Unification become merely a pay grade increase. The appointment of Master Corporal was introduced in the post-Unification era, but in practical terms was equivalent only to the Lance Corporal of old, when one compares their actual level of responsibility.

I apologize for the lack of attributes.

That's from my website at www.canadiansoldiers.com, if you ever need to find it again.

 

[vonGarvin]

Consider how officers manage this though – A 2Lt does not go to the Sgt & WO mess or the JRs.

In which case, if given a slight nudge there seems to be a desire to separate the MCpls from the Cpl/Ptes, why not just rename the the Sgt & WO mess the NCO mess?

Because WOs, MWOs and CWOs are not NCOs: they are all warrant officers
;-)

 

[teltech]

That's from my website at www.canadiansoldiers.com, if you ever need to find it again.

Thanks Michael, I had a feeling I saw this before and like a lot of things, emails tend to get recirculated. (recycled? )

 

[warrickdll]

The only place there was a real change was in the infantry and some other combat arms.  As noted a lot of organizations had Sgts as section commanders pre-uni.

That does put a crimp in my assumptions. I found it easy to see pre-unification infantry section / tank cc lead by someone labeled a Cpl and then see post–unification by someone labeled a Sgt (though keeping in mind their training levels have also changed), but had no idea that there wasn’t a parallel experience in other branches.

The reason inviting JrNCOs in the Sgts mess (and thats what its called here, no WO and Sgts mess) would not work is that experience has shown people where the line is drawn. 
It does come down to discipline.  MCpls/Cpls can be employed as the first level of leadership.  This is where you prove yourself.  Once that has been done, you have earned your way in, and are invited into the Sgts mess.  Look at it like this.  Sgts mess contains the leaders leader's.  There is some shades of grey where you have section commanders, but the ranks in the Sgts are those who have the potential to be the second level or higher of leadership.  They are ones who can confirm discipline and help set the tone for discipline in the unit.  A certain amount of distance is required for that therefore we have the separate messes.

The closest yet to an actual reason other than "tradition", and "MCpls aren’t called Sgts". And I find myself thanking you again for understanding that I wasn’t advocating a MCpl mess.

 

[warrickdll]

My opinion on the structure of messes is that there really is no logical or functional basis for it: it is IMHO something we inherited from the social stucture of the British Army. It reflects the division of the Army into three groups: the upper class officers, the solid middle class NCOs ("who had to work to get there"-a very middle class view), and the raucous lower class represented by the Ranks. It has worked more or less for us over the last century or so, but its social underpinnings have vanished in the CF, and it if it's imagined to separate those who must lead each other, it doesn't really do that anyway, or else different ranks would have separate messes, not just different rank groups.

I've met many people who have felt that way, though could you really see them getting rid of the Officers’ mess? Even without the messes wouldn’t there still be lines drawn?

 

[warrickdll]

Iterator has many of his facts wrong and doesn't understand the ones that he has correct. 

That, at least, appears to be the consensus on this so far. I only hope the rest of that paragraph wasn’t directed at me as well.

Speaking of which though:

The only thing that changing times have done is bring in young people, who don't have any interest in learning the history, traditions and reasons for having the various Messes.

You provided information regarding those called LCpls but how would you summarize the history, traditions and reasons for having the various Messes.

 

[warrickdll]

... although the thread title is a little provocative, though I don't think that was the intent.

Well… I did figure a little sugar couldn’t hurt  . I agree with you that "Appointment vs Rank" is a subject of its own.

 

[TCBF]

Ultimately, familiarity breeds contempt - up as well as down.

tom

 

[warrickdll]

Going in the opposite direction would be somewhat similar to some US units I have worked with, who did not view US (Army) Sgts as Sr NCOs and they were relegated to corner of the mess while the Canadian Sgts were granted full status.  Of course US Sgts usually aren't in that rank too long.  It was not viewed as a good thing though, as it made the Sgts feel like a second class citizen.

Not to quote you too many times, but it wasn't until I reread this that I clued in to your example of the segregation in the opposite direction.
Perhaps it is just an awkward level of leadership no matter what shelf you put it on.

 

[DG-41]

I have seen Student Messes for OCdts, not only at RMC, but at Gagetown, where the OCdts would be segregated in a separate facility away from Staff and other Serving Officers.

Well, there's a good reason for that, similar to the reason why the JRs and Senior NCOs are given separate messes.

The idea here is not that the riffraff are kept away, but rather that you give junior guys a separate space away from the watchful eyes and all-hearing ears of their bosses and instructors.

An OCdt is a strange beast. He's an Officer, but he's uncommisioned and unqualified. His status amongst other officers is closer to the diference between a recruit and a BMQ-qualified no-hook Pte (and up). At a training base, an OCdt is 99 time out of 100 a student on a course, not a part of an operational formation. As such, it makes sense to give them their own space.

As far as MCpls in the JRs go, the situation is similar to the subbies (2Lts, Lts, and junior Captains) in the Officer's mess. The subbies - when there are enough of them - gather at their own table and hang out there, approaching senior members only by invitation.

In reality, things tend to be a little more informal than that, mostly because there are so fewer officers in a unit than any other ranks (A recce squadron should - by my count -  have 18 senior NCOs + whoever is in the echelons vice 8 officers) But the concept is valid.

DG

 

[warrickdll]

As the thread slows a bit…

Just for some additional clarity on Senior NCO messes:
- Infantry used only as an example
- Position if at established rank
- Not discussing changing what anyone’s rank is / or is called (that would need its own topic)

Example Nation	U.K.	Canada	U.S.
Senior NCO members	Those at, or above, Platoon SNCO  Platoon SNCO (U.K. Sgt)	Those at, or above, Platoon SNCO Platoon SNCO (Cda WO) Platoon Sub-Unit leader (Cda Sgt)	Those at, or above, Platoon SNCO Platoon SNCO (US Sgt 1cl) Platoon Sub-Unit leader (US Staff Sgt) Platoon Sub-Sub-Unit leader (US Sgt)

For at least the last 30 years (some have said more years than that) we’ve had the same Mess structure.
Would there be any advantage in a change to the other systems?
Or, if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it?