Author Topic: Acting lacking MCpl in charge of a section with qualified MCpl's  (Read 23136 times)

0 Members and 3 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Tcm621

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • 6,225
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 615
what currently separates the two other than some coursing, specifically PLQ?

The answer is the same for every rank, the fact that they were selected for promotion via a merit board. There are two issues at play here. The first is the increasing willingness to give pre-requisite courses after promotion to the rank said course was required to get. I have noticed a trend of late where each rank is taking the lower ranks course to get promoted. The seniority thing is pretty irrelevant but it does get pretty ugly around PER time when unqualified people are ranked higher than qualified people.

The second issue is that of MCpl as a rank. It is the most glaringly obvious thing wrong with the NCM Corp that is such an easy fix but no one gives a crap enough to change it. It is a rank in everything but name.  Can anyone see a benefit to the current system? I could see it is it was a position the CO gave to the most senior/exceptional Com in a section but that isn't how it works.

Offline Eaglelord17

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 15,000
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 276
The answer is the same for every rank, the fact that they were selected for promotion via a merit board. There are two issues at play here. The first is the increasing willingness to give pre-requisite courses after promotion to the rank said course was required to get. I have noticed a trend of late where each rank is taking the lower ranks course to get promoted. The seniority thing is pretty irrelevant but it does get pretty ugly around PER time when unqualified people are ranked higher than qualified people.

The second issue is that of MCpl as a rank. It is the most glaringly obvious thing wrong with the NCM Corp that is such an easy fix but no one gives a crap enough to change it. It is a rank in everything but name.  Can anyone see a benefit to the current system? I could see it is it was a position the CO gave to the most senior/exceptional Com in a section but that isn't how it works.

Two small perks is if they need to demote someone they go to a one hook Pte if they were a MCpl and if they are a Sgt they can be demoted to Cpl.

As I understand it there is two main reasons the appointment exists in the first place. #1 was back in the day it was the only way to raise the amount of money people were making for being at the working rank (working rank before this point was a one Hook Pte.). So by promoting them to Cpl they got a pay raise, and by pushing a Cpls responsibilities on to the new MCpl appointment they still retained effective JR leadership. #2 is before this appointment existed it was the senior Cpl which was in charge. This could be a problem if they weren't very motivated/good and by creating the MCpl appointment they could select who they felt would be best in charge to lead.

Currently both those reasons aren't really valid anymore. The first as the pay is pretty decent, the second because it isn't used that way anyways. Personally I would like to see the MCpl position seize to exist and put things back right where Cpl is the leadership rank and Pte T is the working rank (pay for MCpl would be given to the Cpls and current Cpl pay given to Pte T).

Offline Eye In The Sky

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 195,525
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 7,991
    • VP INTERNATIONAL
Currently both those reasons aren't really valid anymore. The first as the pay is pretty decent,  Personally I would like to see the MCpl position seize to exist and put things back right where Cpl is the leadership rank and Pte T is the working rank (pay for MCpl would be given to the Cpls and current Cpl pay given to Pte T).

And who then is in charge when the Snr NCOs, WOs or Officers aren't around??  You've created a bigger problem by 'solving' the one you see.  MCpl's have power of command over all Cpls.  What do we go back to, the "Snr Cpl"?  Why bother?

[quotethe second because it isn't used that way anyways.[/quote]

Maybe not in all places, but that is a LEADERSHIP issue.  Snr NCOs and WOs should be expecting their MCpls/MSs to be exactly that;  Jnr NCOs.  If people are getting their Leaf that shouldn't, that is a different issue - how did they merit if they are weak?  If they were chosen because there was no better option...Snr NCOs and WOs should be there to get them on their feet, and give them the necessary mentoring and feedback to get their crap together.

The fixes to the problem aren't to remove the MCpl appointment - it is to expect, demand MCpl to perform their duties in line with their appointment, and for those who can't, to remove the appointment and let them be CFLs if they want.
« Last Edit: May 18, 2018, 11:23:11 by Eye In The Sky »
Pilot, RADAR...turn right, heading...3-6-5...

Offline LunchMeat

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 16,600
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 686
Or, we roll MCpl back in with Cpl and reinstate Lance Corporal instead of PTE(T)
"The most important six inches on the battlefield is between your ears.” ~General James "Mad Dog" Mattis, USMC

Offline Eye In The Sky

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 195,525
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 7,991
    • VP INTERNATIONAL
So, you're suggesting we change Pte/Cpl/MCpl to Pte/LCpl/Cpl.  Can you explain the tangible difference in structure, command, seniority other than the name change and requirement to take uniforms to the base tailor?  What is the perceived benefit of doing this, assuming the Cpl 5B pay would be for Cpl and 5A for LCpl so no changes to the pay stuff. 

Keep in mind, this would be a change to the NDA, as the rank of Lance Corporal doesn't exist.

I am firm believer in 2 things WRT the MCpl/MS appoint (1) we give WAYYY too many people their Leaf in an A/L capacity (you should earn it before you wear it).  I have no less than 5 MCpls under me and all 5 of them....A/L.  (2)  the biggest problem with the MCpl/MS deal is that they are not employed to the extent they are supposed to be Forces wide.  I've seen or heard too many times where Snr NCOs and above say "but he is just a MCpl".  The Forces has the appointment for a reason.  I consider part of (2) stems from (1), where no ones knows anymore if someone is a qualified Jack or an A/L one - culturally across the Forces, this may make people less reliant on the rank.  When I was a Jack in my first MOC (early 90s), I don't remember there being a single A/L one in existence.  That might have given the CofC more confidence in *us*.
« Last Edit: May 18, 2018, 20:45:59 by Eye In The Sky »
Pilot, RADAR...turn right, heading...3-6-5...

Offline PuckChaser

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 895,660
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 7,609
    • Peacekeeper's Homepage
Or, we roll MCpl back in with Cpl and reinstate Lance Corporal instead of PTE(T)

What "leading change" problem are we solving again by doing this? Sounds like a giant PITA to change the NDA for very little tangible gain to the CAF.

Offline Spectrum

    adult day care.

  • I'm from the government; I'm here to help you
  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 50,395
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,279
When I was a Jack in my first MOC (early 90s), I don't remember there being a single A/L one in existence.  That might have given the CofC more confidence in *us*.

For my first few years in the CAF, I never met anyone who was A/L either. In fact, there were quite a few Cpls who had done mods 1-6. A lot of them were more effective leaders than what passes for a MCpl (and in some cases, Sgt) in my current trade.

I'd much rather have Cpls get their PLQ and then give them enough rope to hang themselves, see how they do etc

Offline Eaglelord17

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 15,000
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 276
So, you're suggesting we change Pte/Cpl/MCpl to Pte/LCpl/Cpl.  Can you explain the tangible difference in structure, command, seniority other than the name change and requirement to take uniforms to the base tailor?  What is the perceived benefit of doing this, assuming the Cpl 5B pay would be for Cpl and 5A for LCpl so no changes to the pay stuff. 

No the change would be from Pte/Pte T/Cpl/MCpl to Pte/Pte T (or Lance Cpl or whatever you want to call the working rank)/Cpl.

Your removing what is essentially a redundant rank currently in the form of two Pte ranks which has no difference between pay and responsibility between them (other than one having a hook and the other not). It also gets rid of this ambiguous appointment status and the current technicality that a Cpl is under the NDA is the Jr leadership rank.

Also just as a side note, how is it even possible we have a acting lacking for a appointment? Your technically not doing anyone elses duties as according to the NDA a Cpl has the same responsibilities as a MCpl. It shows that we really don't treat it as a appointment as if we did you would be appointed or not, no ambiguous status.

Offline Eye In The Sky

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 195,525
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 7,991
    • VP INTERNATIONAL
No the change would be from Pte/Pte T/Cpl/MCpl to Pte/Pte T (or Lance Cpl or whatever you want to call the working rank)/Cpl.

Your removing what is essentially a redundant rank currently in the form of two Pte ranks which has no difference between pay and responsibility between them (other than one having a hook and the other not). It also gets rid of this ambiguous appointment status and the current technicality that a Cpl is under the NDA is the Jr leadership rank.

How is the appointment ambiguous?  Although it is an appointment, it is still a promotion;  so it Pte to Pte (T).  I certainly expect more from a trained Aviator than I do an untrained one; it is a step towards the first NCO rank - Cpl.  Would we argue to get rid of the OCdt and 2Lt ranks, and everyone is a Lt right off the mark?  MCpl is also a stepping stone to Sgt, IAW the CFAO on Reg Force NCM Career Progression.  CFAO 49-4 IIRC? in the tables in Annex A (going from memory and away from my postal code and DWAN right now).

The QR & O doesn't seem to be ambiguous:  Master corporals have authority and powers of command over all other corporals. 

Quote
Also just as a side note, how is it even possible we have a acting lacking for a appointment? Your technically not doing anyone elses duties as according to the NDA a Cpl has the same responsibilities as a MCpl. It shows that we really don't treat it as a appointment as if we did you would be appointed or not, no ambiguous status.

The NDA doesn't get into the weeds stating a Cpl has the same responsibilities as a MCpl.  Where do you read that?

The pre-req's for MCpl are laid out in the CFAO mentioned above.  How do we have acting ranks (not just limited to MCpl)?  Because the QR & 0 permits it.

3.05 - ACTING RANK

(1) An officer or non-commissioned member may be granted an acting rank higher than the member's substantive rank:
a.for an indefinite period; or
b.for the period during which the member is filling a position on an establishment for which a rank higher than the member's substantive or temporary rank is authorized.

(2) An officer or non-commissioned member granted an acting rank is liable to be posted or transferred in the member's substantive rank at any time.

(M)

We send people on tours, deployments etc *WSE* (While So Employed), including Col's as TF Commanders WSE to BGen.  If we can do it for position with that much command authority and responsibility, why not for Cpl's to MCpls?

I think the CAF has other things to focus and spend brain power, work hours and funding on that are a much higher priority to what amounts to cosmetic changes that have no positive or measureable benefit. 
Pilot, RADAR...turn right, heading...3-6-5...

Offline CountDC

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 26,320
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,468
I do have to agree that Acting ranks is used too much at least in the admin world. 

I also wonder about the meriting of acting with substantive.  Seems to me that the acting ranks should be merited only if there isn't enough substantives to meet the requirements.  Meriting someone that doesn't have the pre-reqs for the rank they are already wearing creates the situation of pushing them ahead onto a course, hoping they pass and promoting them acting again. Of course they deserve it because they are superior based on the PERs they earned because no supervisor ever over writes their PERs.   

"When the power of love, overcomes the love of power....the world will know peace" - Jimi Hendrix [1942-1970]

Online Blackadder1916

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 141,035
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,639
But is the problem the promotion system or the training system?  Are the numbers of Acting(LQ) due to people receiving their promotions in a timely manner after being properly evaluated and judged (centrally by board) in comparison to their peers, but due to limited space they haven't been able to be course loaded prior to promotion.  Granted I'm not familiar with the current situation but in the old days while trade courses and promotions were controlled from the career shops, JLC (the lack of which was usually the reason for A/MCpl) was controlled and loaded at the command/formation/regional level.  Though a priority list for JLC loading was developed based on promotion projections it was not always a guarantee that availability of course slot and availability of student coincided.

Or is the problem a result of changes in regulation about length of time that one can remain Acting Lacking if the inability to gain that leadership qualification is due to circumstances other than unavailability of course, i.e. medical category or other personal reason for not attending PLQ?
Whisky for the gentlemen that like it. And for the gentlemen that don't like it - Whisky.

Offline Eye In The Sky

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 195,525
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 7,991
    • VP INTERNATIONAL
But is the problem the promotion system or the training system?  Are the numbers of Acting(LQ) due to people receiving their promotions in a timely manner after being properly evaluated and judged (centrally by board) in comparison to their peers, but due to limited space they haven't been able to be course loaded prior to promotion.

This is what I've seen in my trade the last few years;  in fact, I don't know of a single Cpl who went on PLQ before being promoted.  The norm seems to be get promoted, then get loaded on PLQ DL in the near future (several months to half a year), then go away for the residential portion.

The pre-req's for PLQ course loading for my MOSID seems to be "must be promoted to A/L MCpl.

Quote
Or is the problem a result of changes in regulation about length of time that one can remain Acting Lacking if the inability to gain that leadership qualification is due to circumstances other than unavailability of course, i.e. medical category or other personal reason for not attending PLQ?

Not sure about this part, but I will say there seems to be relatively consistent trend over the past decade to change the PLQ coursing, and in those transition times there were people who had some Mods of the course done but not all of them, and when the "new" PLQ course kicked in, they had to start all over again.  Back in the mid-90's, they were trialing "new" courses to replace ISCC and CLC (Army Jnr NCO for ISCC and JNCO OAS [Other Arms and Services] for everyone not Infantry).  I was staff on one of the pilot OAS courses, and the most significant change I could see from my CLC in the early 90s was the name change.  PLQ has changed and re-changed and changed to the point we've come full circle again and now have a CAF PLQ again.

Back in 2002, I was in Gagetown on my SLC.  There were 2 courses of PLQ on the go, and both of them were full of A/L MCpls.  Talking to some of the PLQ staff at the Mess, one of them told me the backlog in getting A/L Jacks thru was big enough that if every TE in the CAF running PLQs ran their full schedule of courses for a year, they might catch up to the amount of A/L MCpl in the CAF at that time IF no other people were promoted A/L.  16 years later and...I've got 5 A/L MCpls, that are all waiting.  I see a lot of name changing and 'revamping' going on, but none of it has reduced the actual problem IMO.  In the end, it had dropped the baseline expectation of the MCpl/MS down lower than ever and 'lessened' the rank.  I've heard people say "well, I've been a MCpl for over a year now, what possibly could I learn on PLQ".   ::)
« Last Edit: May 18, 2018, 21:04:09 by Eye In The Sky »
Pilot, RADAR...turn right, heading...3-6-5...

Offline Eaglelord17

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 15,000
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 276
How is the appointment ambiguous?  Although it is an appointment, it is still a promotion;  so it Pte to Pte (T).  I certainly expect more from a trained Aviator than I do an untrained one; it is a step towards the first NCO rank - Cpl.  Would we argue to get rid of the OCdt and 2Lt ranks, and everyone is a Lt right off the mark?  MCpl is also a stepping stone to Sgt, IAW the CFAO on Reg Force NCM Career Progression.  CFAO 49-4 IIRC? in the tables in Annex A (going from memory and away from my postal code and DWAN right now).

The QR & O doesn't seem to be ambiguous:  Master corporals have authority and powers of command over all other corporals. 

The NDA doesn't get into the weeds stating a Cpl has the same responsibilities as a MCpl.  Where do you read that?

The pre-req's for MCpl are laid out in the CFAO mentioned above.  How do we have acting ranks (not just limited to MCpl)?  Because the QR & 0 permits it.

3.05 - ACTING RANK

(1) An officer or non-commissioned member may be granted an acting rank higher than the member's substantive rank:
a.for an indefinite period; or
b.for the period during which the member is filling a position on an establishment for which a rank higher than the member's substantive or temporary rank is authorized.

(2) An officer or non-commissioned member granted an acting rank is liable to be posted or transferred in the member's substantive rank at any time.

(M)

We send people on tours, deployments etc *WSE* (While So Employed), including Col's as TF Commanders WSE to BGen.  If we can do it for position with that much command authority and responsibility, why not for Cpl's to MCpls?

I think the CAF has other things to focus and spend brain power, work hours and funding on that are a much higher priority to what amounts to cosmetic changes that have no positive or measureable benefit.

You keep referring to it as a rank which it is not. It is not a promotion, promotions have to do with rank, not appointments. A MCpls rank remains that of a Cpl. You cannot possess acting rank for something that isn't a rank to begin with, otherwise it wouldn't be a appointment.

"3.08 - MASTER CORPORAL APPOINTMENT
(1) The Chief of the Defence Staff or such officer as he may designate may appoint a corporal as a master corporal.

(2) The rank of a master corporal remains that of corporal.

(3) Master corporals have seniority among themselves in their order of seniority as corporals.

(4) Master corporals have authority and powers of command over all other corporals."

Yes MCpls have authority over Cpls, but at the end of the day a Cpl can still do the same job as a MCpl, as at the end of the day a MCpl is a Cpl according to the QR&Os.

What is being suggested is changing written wording of the rank structure to be reflective of how it is actually used. Everyone treats MCpl as its own rank, either make it a rank or get rid of it. Personally I favour getting rid of it as it simply isn't necessary. No hooks being your attending training/initial trades courses, 1 hook being your trade qualified/working rank, and two hook being leadership rank as per many other nations in the Commonwealth and how we did it before unification. Have the pay line up with current no hook pay at the modified no hook, current Cpl pay for the modified 1 hook, and modified Cpl getting current Cpl (B) pay.

Offline Tcm621

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • 6,225
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 615
I do have to agree that Acting ranks is used too much at least in the admin world. 

I also wonder about the meriting of acting with substantive.  Seems to me that the acting ranks should be merited only if there isn't enough substantives to meet the requirements.  Meriting someone that doesn't have the pre-reqs for the rank they are already wearing creates the situation of pushing them ahead onto a course, hoping they pass and promoting them acting again. Of course they deserve it because they are superior based on the PERs they earned because no supervisor ever over writes their PERs.   

That is a huge pet peeve of mine. If I have two people, one of whom is fully qualified for promotion and another is not, there needs to be some serious justification to promote the unqualified person. A/L should be used to fill spots that can't be filled with substantive people. The problem all comes back to the Per system. Being qualified to be promoted to MCpl is worth the same as having a mediocre French profile. Stop writing unqualified people as immediates.

Offline Eye In The Sky

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 195,525
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 7,991
    • VP INTERNATIONAL
You keep referring to it as a rank which it is not. It is not a promotion, promotions have to do with rank, not appointments. A MCpls rank remains that of a Cpl. You cannot possess acting rank for something that isn't a rank to begin with, otherwise it wouldn't be a appointment.

"3.08 - MASTER CORPORAL APPOINTMENT
(1) The Chief of the Defence Staff or such officer as he may designate may appoint a corporal as a master corporal.

(2) The rank of a master corporal remains that of corporal.

(3) Master corporals have seniority among themselves in their order of seniority as corporals.

(4) Master corporals have authority and powers of command over all other corporals."

Yes MCpls have authority over Cpls, but at the end of the day a Cpl can still do the same job as a MCpl, as at the end of the day a MCpl is a Cpl according to the QR&Os.

What is being suggested is changing written wording of the rank structure to be reflective of how it is actually used. Everyone treats MCpl as its own rank, either make it a rank or get rid of it. Personally I favour getting rid of it as it simply isn't necessary. No hooks being your attending training/initial trades courses, 1 hook being your trade qualified/working rank, and two hook being leadership rank as per many other nations in the Commonwealth and how we did it before unification. Have the pay line up with current no hook pay at the modified no hook, current Cpl pay for the modified 1 hook, and modified Cpl getting current Cpl (B) pay.

Although it is an appointment, it is still treated as a promotion, as is Pte (B) to Pte (T).  I can't remember the ref for this, and am away from my postal code but when I get back I'll see if I can dig it up on my Favorites at work.

IMO, MCpl/MS is actually treated more of a rank than an appointment.  It's included in the PER 'rank' drop-down list, it is included in all 3 DEU rank and badges.  More specifically, indicate here on the CAF Ranks and Appointments website:

The formal rank structure within the CAF is essential for:

•passing orders in operations
•ensuring clarity of command
•maintaining order and discipline

Taking the above into context, and considering the "Master Corporals have powers of authority over all other Cpls", the MCpl appointment/rank (collectively, as the black and white policy combined with the actual use of the appointment day to day across the CAF) fits in well.  If the rank is not being employed to its max potential in a unit or sub-unit, that is a leadership and/or training issue to me, not a 'name and pay level' one.

I still opine your changes are cosmetic (much the same as going to Lance Cpl/Cpl/Sgt would) be and the required efforts wouldn't be worth it.  I'll agree it is problematic in some minor areas to have a MCpl 'appointment', but we've lived with it in the CAF for decades now, to no detriment to our ability to do the tasks Canada demands of the Forces given the identified purpose of the rank structure above.   :2c:   
« Last Edit: May 19, 2018, 07:28:10 by Eye In The Sky »
Pilot, RADAR...turn right, heading...3-6-5...