• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Are Corporals shown the respect they deserve by subordinates & superiors?

Comparing pre-unification Cpls to present day Cpls is not really very accurate as the job description and level of responsibility was completely different.  I will use the Infantry as an example, prior to unification a Cpl was a Section commander in today's army that job is done by a Sgt (on paper, I know it done often by MCpls) with the 2IC or Bren gun team leader being a Lance Cpl and today it is filled by a MCpl (by the book again).  What I am trying to say is when talking about respect shown to the rank leave any talk of Cpl prior to unification out of it as the rank was a different entity.     
 
What I always found ironic about "just a Cpl" is it was always a valid form of indictment, but never acceptable as a defense.  "STFU you're just a Cpl" is fine, but "what do you want from me, I'm just a Cpl" is not.
 
dangerboy said:
Comparing pre-unification Cpls to present day Cpls is not really very accurate as the job description and level of responsibility was completely different.  I will use the Infantry as an example, prior to unification a Cpl was a Section commander in today's army that job is done by a Sgt (on paper, I know it done often by MCpls) with the 2IC or Bren gun team leader being a Lance Cpl and today it is filled by a MCpl (by the book again).  What I am trying to say is when talking about respect shown to the rank leave any talk of Cpl prior to unification out of it as the rank was a different entity.   

Oh! yes we realize that, its like comparing Apples to Lemons, but  what idiots decided we wanted Lemons. So then , if you only have Lemons, make Lemonade.
 
DangerBoy,Its not just comparing an old system with a new system,its comparing
a system that works with one that obviously does not  work.Surely the military is
flexable enough to make the changes required to reestablish the Cpl. rank to one
that is relevant to the new military system.The old system worked and the changes
made by Mr.Hellyer were unnecessary and counterproductive and the results can be
read in this thread.However the changes made at that time are not chipped in
stone and could be changed after all the Canadian Forces had Cpl`s since before
the 1st War and Hellyer Cpl`s only since 1967.
                                                  Regards
 
time expired said:
DangerBoy,Its not just comparing an old system with a new system,its comparing
a system that works with one that obviously does not  work.Surely the military is
flexable enough to make the changes required to reestablish the Cpl. rank to one
that is relevant to the new military system.The old system worked and the changes
made by Mr.Hellyer were unnecessary and counterproductive and the results can be
read in this thread.However the changes made at that time are not chipped in
stone and could be changed after all the Canadian Forces had Cpl`s since before
the 1st War and Hellyer Cpl`s only since 1967.
                                                  Regards

- In Hellyer's memoirs ("Damn The Torpedoes..."), he writes that this idea was the CDS', not his, and he always regretted agreeing to it and implementing it.  If so, then a pity he didn't ignore that piece of advice and perhaps one or two of his own ideas as well.

- In any case, a solution now would have to consider the benchmarks between the Public Service and the CF regarding pay and benefits.  Perhaps the second easiest solution would involve maintaining the time-based pay raises while giving the rank only when qualified.  That would cause a few issues of it's own, and would have even greater repercussions if instituted in the officer ranks as well (Lt to Capt).

- As there is little appetite for change, nothing will be done.

 
TCBF said:
- As there is little appetite for change, nothing will be done.

Again words of Wisdon and Truth from the Mountain,  sad, but! so Canadian.

Cheers.
 
Everyone needs to remember that back in the mid 1960s - 45+ years ago - one of the most pressing problems facing Mr. Hellyer was money. Defence costs, especially for new, high tech equipment and the concomitant O&M were rising exponentially while the available money had contracted. We had a recession in the late '50s and tight budgets, especially tight defence budgets were the norm under both Diefenbaker and Pearson.

One of the major areas of concern was military pay. We, the military, were poorly paid by almost any standards and there was no will to change that. But it was having a deleterious effect of morale and, therefore, on recruiting and retention. The "Hellyer corporal" and the "Capt-Lt" abominations were good faith pretty much the only way to get pay raises for the journeyman rank levels.

I'm going to repeat what I said, here in Army.ca, a few years ago: we shouldn't focus on the current ranks, rather we should recommend, individually, to our politicians, a sensible system of rank and pay which would be based, first, on a separation of rank and trade, although rank might be a prerequisite for some long, expensive trade courses - i.e. one could not become an artificer or foreman level technical tradesman, for example, without being a trained, proven leader, first. The system should also be base, second, on a rational separation of supervisory levels.

My guess is that we might end up with a system something like this (based on Army combat arms tasks for other ranks):

Apprentices:* Recruits, soldiers awaiting training, soldiers under training and soldiers in their first year or so of service in a unit, undergoing OJT - e.g. no hook private

Trained soldiers: Members with Group 1 and Group 2 trade skills and some, limited, time in rank - e.g.one hook private

Junior Leaders: two tiers - possibly required to undertake Trade Group 3 training in some branches

Small team leaders: Members who have had (or are recommended to take the next available) junior leadership training - e.g. corporal

Large team leaders: Rifle section and tank commanders, Recce Pl detachment commanders, etc - e.g. master corporal

Senior leaders: three tiers - requires Trade Group 3 training and additional leadership training

Tank Troop/Rifle Platoon Sergeants, Commanders of specialized sections in e.g. Engineer Troops, Infantry Support Platoons requires a senior leader course - e.g. sergeant

Artillery/Engineer Troop Sergeants, Infantry Support Platoon Sergeants - sergeant 1st class

S/B/CQMS, specialist staff NCOs - may require Trade Group 4 training in some branches - e.g. master sergeant

Supervisors - two tiers

S/B/CSM, specialist staff NCOs - requires Trade Group 4 training e.g. sergeant major/quartermaster sergeant

RSM, specialist staff WO - e.g. warrant officer

Officers are easier - the only thing really required is more time in the ranks of 2Lt and Lt. All officers undergoing training should be 2Lts (even for classifications with very, very long training streams - which will require more and higher pay grades for 2Lts). Officers should not be promoted to Lt until after they are fully classification trained and have spent, say, nine months in a unit as a 2Lt. Promotion from Lt to Capt should not be possible until one has spent four years in the rank of Lt, except in very rare circumstances.


--------------------
* Not to be confused with e.g. the Soldier Apprentice programmes of the '50s and '60s - the so-called green monsters


Edit: added "e.g" to ensure you understand this is only an example, not a firm proposal
 
E.R. Campbell said:
Officers are easier - the only thing really required is more time in the ranks of 2Lt and Lt. All officers undergoing training should be 2Lts (even for classifications with very, very long training streams - which will require more and higher pay grades for 2Lts). Officers should not be promoted to Lt until after they are fully classification trained and have spent, say, nine months in a unit as a 2Lt. Promotion from Lt to Capt should not be possible until one has spent four years in the rank of Lt, except in very rare circumstances.

I think the current system is not too far off from this anyways, at least for the MARS officer classification.  The main difference would be more time spent as a Lt/SLt before reaching Capt/Lt(N).
 
Overall it looks good to me.  The Cpl rank becomes something again, MCpls are real not Acting Lacking. My biggest complaints with the current system.  I have always hated the "just a cpl" line on both ends. Mind you it's not just the Cpl rank that has eroded in the support trades - been enough times now where I have shyt on someone for using that line as a MCpl (what do I know, what do I care, I am just a MCpl, a glorified Cpl!!).  Bloody arses - I volunteered to do their release paperwork. Once spent half an hour explaining to one MCpl Clerk why they should not be a MCpl in the trade (not ensuring the troops were paid, too concerned with CYA to do the job of a clerk, I was getting local cheques for members from that unit).

Time to bring the military back to being a military - rank has privileges and responsibility, don't take one without stepping up to the other.
 
Jungle said:
How could that scenario possibly go wrong ?!?

;)  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uAMigUFucHg&feature=related

;D  http://www.johncandy.com/VideoDetail.aspx?VideoID=41&VideoSection=7
 
What!!??!!

No warning about possible eye and/or brain damage from viewing?

No warning not to view until at least 2 hours after eating??

:o
 
Kat Stevens said:
  This is a direct quote I got from a young Lt who came to my troop in June of one year, and was in the field with us 2 months later; "What the frig do you know about mechanized engineer ops, you're just a lifer Cpl."  THAT sums up the attitude of higher toward Cpls. No backing from the top= no respect from below...QED
dingdingdingdingding!!
Bingo!

Exactly what I was hinting at.

That Lt  ::)

The trick to getting the best out of someone is using him for his worth.  Treat them like they're nothing, and that is what you will get in return.
 
I find that people are accorded the respect that is due to them. This can sometimes take a little while as people in an organization take the measure of each other, but at the end of the day we get what we deserve.

I am taking "respect" in this case as being deeper than simple mandated military courtesies but rather the complex human interplay within an organization. Respect is earned over time regardless of rank level. Within the Troops and Squadrons that I have served I believe that Cpls have indeed been accorded a great amount of respect. As a Troop Leader I had the good fortune of having a long-service Cpl as my gunner. I certainly respected his years of tank experience that he had garnered in Germany. He was happy being an expert tank gunner, and I was happy with that. As a Battle Captain I had two long service Cpls in my tank. Both executed tasks that were often those expected of MCpls or Sgts, and I certainly respected their experience with both the tank and the communication systems that were the heart of my job. As a Sqn Comd, I have a number of veteran Cpls with multiple specialty courses in whom I place a tremendous amount of trust, respect and responsibility. Even if I meet a Cpl for the first time and know nothing about him, I will assume that he is capable of executing tasks within his branch without too much direction or supervision. I think that every soldier in my Sqn can teach me something, even the Trooper fresh off of DP1.

If a Engineer Lt Tp Comd and a Cpl are having a conversation like the one in the post above (a Lt automatically discounting a Cpls view) then something is wrong in that Tp. We need to overhaul that Tp, starting with the Tp Comd/Tp WO relationship. We don't need to overhaul the CF. We have more pressing dragons to slay than the rank/pay structure.

Cheers

 
CorporalMajor said:
dingdingdingdingding!!
Bingo!

Exactly what I was hinting at.

That Lt  ::)

The trick to getting the best out of someone is using him for his worth.  Treat them like they're nothing, and that is what you will get in return.

Lets not let one bad story paint everyone in the same light.  This is definitely not the attitude of me and my other junior officer colleagues.  I've certainly worked with some great LS/Cpl's and these individuals make a world of difference in getting the job done.
 
It may be just one story, but it's an example of several to quite a few incidents either witnessed or experienced by me.  It happens, or at least used to, on a pretty regular basis.
 
Kat Stevens said:
It may be just one story, but it's an example of several to quite a few incidents either witnessed or experienced by me.  It happens, or at least used to, on a pretty regular basis.
Exactly, I'm not saying it happens to everyone, and my unit is pretty good at using its people like theyre suposed to.  I have however seen it happen here and there, and it's really too bad.
 
In  my unit, the first thing I say to a newly promoted corporal is to tell him/her that they are now in a position of leadership. New privates look for leadership and a good corporal can do that.
 
I must be an anomaly.

I've been privileged to have worked for a VERY supportive chain of command, similar to the one Tango2Bravo described on the last page.

I have NEVER heard anyone say "STFU, you're just a CPL".  On the contrary, I've often heard "Speak the fuck up! You're a CPL!"  If I've ever had something to say, I felt like my CoC listened.  I have, on occasion, stuck my neck out for what I thought was right and on those occasions I've been SUPPORTED by my CoC.  I shudder to think what would happen if my former RSM (Stu H., 1RCR) caught me standing by while a group of PTEs were dong something un-Regimental.  The man would have stomped my guts out.
 
so maybe i have missed it
but what about Cpl's like myself that have zero interest in leading?
all they want is someone to tell them where to make sure their toys are pointed in the proper direction of the enemy?
all this talk about new cpls and what not. they're new, they do need some breaking in period like anything else you got you know?
i'm sorry after six years in the regs and i still feel that i am not ready to be a leader.
probably never will when i go back to the reserves.
 
Back
Top