Reserve rank vs. Reg. rank

[Nemo888]

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]

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]

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!!]

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]

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]

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

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.