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

[JBP]

The only thing I've heard on the IST end is the estimated promotion forecast... Which was a lot higher than I thought it would be... Must be due to all the positions that were originally not identified... Or the releases, but I'm being hopeful it was just positions!

IST is going to be a very 'tight' trade I think like the original LCIS trade... Almost everyone in the top 20 knows who each other are or have met and trained or toured together at some point!

 

[Sig_Des]

IST is going to be a very 'tight' trade I think like the original LCIS trade... Almost everyone in the top 20 knows who each other are or have met and trained or toured together at some point!

You mean all you guys don't already play World of Warcraft together?

 

[JBP]

You mean all you guys don't already play World of Warcraft together?

You don't even have to know how to use a computer to play WOW, it's for total n00bs!

For real men (ISTs) it's Day Z or Battlefield 4 on a PC, NOT console! Treachery among the IST ranks will be unaccepted. PC gaming only!

:bullet:

 

[Eye In The Sky]

ATIS Tech-Pretty damn close to the same trade as LCIS, Completes POET, does more with Radar, Gets Spec Pay

I realize this is a few months old but I just caught it now.

I'm pretty sure the ATIS Tech JTARs include more than "RADAR".  That's like saying "infantry march with rucksacks".

 

[upandatom]

I realize this is a few months old but I just caught it now.

I'm pretty sure the ATIS Tech JTARs include more than "RADAR".  That's like saying "infantry march with rucksacks".

Na Eye, I understand that. Yes the radar, and certain Air Field Specific equipment has its own training. I wasnt at all trying to just say they are Blueberry LCIS Techs at all. Each one had their own special portions of the courses. But, it all boils down the base knowledge, ability and the very basic fault finding skills gained in the old POET that made the difference. Spec pay is based on the knowledge, Job requirements and day to day "job" or skillset required to do the job in the civilian side of the house (even though me writing that is probably insanely repetitive in this thread). Im still doing the same thing. ATIS techs are still doing the same thing. IST/SIG op are kind of doing the same dependant on where they were sent.

Certain Units you even have ATIS and ACISS-CST and IST working right beside eachother doing the exact same job.

What does that say the to the members of the ACISS trades?

 

[RedMan]

The damage is already done. I know many newer trained LCIS techs that want out or want to OT... simple as that. So much for solving your manning issues for signal operators.

 

[PuckChaser]

I RX'd an email the other day with a few interesting points:

1. CISTM is so futuristic we won't need it for 10-15 years, so they're now going to stovepipe all the sub-occs to MWO.
2. There was a decision/information about specpay that DSigs didn't like last summer, so he put a team on it and made it his "top priority". We should see some "positive results" soon.

The way I see it, stovepiping the sub-occs means we're one small step away from going back to 3 separate trades.

 

[technophile]

We received the same email. And the DSigs himself was just here for a briefing.

What he didn't like was the following:
Only one of the sub occupations was approved for spec pay ( he didn't say which, but I am sure we can all guess ) And the big kicker was that Spec pay was not approved for CISTM.  Meaning if you were a spec pay Sgt, when you get promoted to WO ( and become CISTM ) you would lose spec pay.
Seems to me this is the rationale in increasing the "stove pipe " up another rank.

Now, he did mention that they are working on getting all three sub ocs spec pay along with CISTM.  But, we all know how that story is playing out so far.

 

[upandatom]

The damage is already done. I know many newer trained LCIS techs that want out or want to OT... simple as that. So much for solving your manning issues for signal operators.

*Cough*
Line forms up over to the left
*cough*

I am not so sure if its the newer trained, I think the newer trained are being thrust ahead way to fast for their own good. Id say its legacy techs with 6-9 years in right now, that are between senior Cpl to that new Sgt that are saying, yeah no.

I agree damage is done, Morale Killer. As harsh as it sounds,  the quality of technicians since the amalg has dropped significantly. I find that point is being brought up more often then naught. They arent getting the exposure anymore.

Direct example, I have one, a Cpl with me, when he joined in 2010, was LCIS in basic when this all started. He had never seen the inside of a NAU, CI, or 5121.... he had only ran the tests until last week when he was working OJT with me and I took him step by step.

 

[PuckChaser]

Now, he did mention that they are working on getting all three sub ocs spec pay along with CISTM.  But, we all know how that story is playing out so far.

And we thought you had a SigOp retention issue BEFORE this whole thing....

If DSigs is only pushing for the sub-occs to get spec pay, he has no idea how to encourage recruitment and retain soldiers and we now have 4 trades with issues instead of 3.

 

[211RadOp]

I'm going to preface my next comment by saying I am core.

It should be either the whole trade gets spec pay, or none of us do.  It's like saying an RMS Clerk who has a Fin background gets spec pay but the one who was an Adm Clk doesn't (and yes I know that neither do, but it is an example).  Why should 1 sub-occupation be treated any different than another?  Will it happen, probably not.  And if it does, I will probably be retired by then and they will not back date it anyway.

 

[upandatom]

I'm going to preface my next comment by saying I am core.

It should be either the whole trade gets spec pay, or none of us do.  It's like saying an RMS Clerk who has a Fin background gets spec pay but the one who was an Adm Clk doesn't (and yes I know that neither do, but it is an example).  Why should 1 sub-occupation be treated any different than another?  Will it happen, probably not.  And if it does, I will probably be retired by then and they will not back date it anyway.

Why?
Job Knowledge, Skills, Training, Aptitude and ability. Im not saying All ACISS Core are unintelligent thudfu@ks, some are, not all. They chose to stick to that path, or their CoC directed them into it. Thats From what I understand, ACISS core is not a sub occ, its the parent occupation.

The word TECHNICIAN, on the end of the sub occs makes a difference. Civilian side, someone doing the same job as a CST, makes around $70k a year, makes sense. The person that uses that equipment that that civilian fixes, makes less. Its the extra mile that the training went/was supposed to go for the sub occs that allowed for spec pay. To go that extra step, and learn not only how to operate, but fix and fault find the quipment is deserving of that spec pay.

Before ACISS the line was very clear, now not so much. Yet CSTs, are still expected to do the same job. LSTs do the same job but never had spec pay. You can see why so many highly trained techs, are GTFO.

The All or None thinking, that thinking is why some of the best are leaving the trade for greener pastures.

 

[technophile]

The All or None thinking, that thinking is why some of the best are leaving the trade for greener pastures.

not "greener" pastures.  " Bluer" pastures. 

 

[PuckChaser]

Why?
Job Knowledge, Skills, Training, Aptitude and ability. Im not saying All ACISS Core are unintelligent thudfu@ks, some are, not all. They chose to stick to that path, or their CoC directed them into it. Thats From what I understand, ACISS core is not a sub occ, its the parent occupation.

The word TECHNICIAN, on the end of the sub occs makes a difference. Civilian side, someone doing the same job as a CST, makes around $70k a year, makes sense. The person that uses that equipment that that civilian fixes, makes less. Its the extra mile that the training went/was supposed to go for the sub occs that allowed for spec pay. To go that extra step, and learn not only how to operate, but fix and fault find the quipment is deserving of that spec pay.

Before ACISS the line was very clear, now not so much. Yet CSTs, are still expected to do the same job. LSTs do the same job but never had spec pay. You can see why so many highly trained techs, are GTFO.

The All or None thinking, that thinking is why some of the best are leaving the trade for greener pastures.

And yet the word SPECIALIST at the end of all our trades regardless of sub-occ shouldn't mean spec pay?

Someone can get out and make more money as a tech? Sounds great, release. Firefighters don't make spec pay and they probably would end up with double their take home pay in a civilian firefighter position.

Why can't ACISS make spec? You've stated no reasons why they shouldn't, other than CSTs are so cool. ACISS Core training is complex enough to justify it, just the same as you can justify IST/LST/CST. We could spend 12 training months qualifying an ACISS(Core) pers, but our courses got hacked and slashed and turned into a "Common DPX.0" to fit the MES thinking that it's simple push-button talkie box work.

Guess what? I fault find, troubleshoot equipment all the time. You're not special in that regard. Should I stop doing that and just throw it at a CST? Not if I want to keep my unit running.

 

[Brasidas]

I'm going to preface my next comment by saying I am core.

It should be either the whole trade gets spec pay, or none of us do.  It's like saying an RMS Clerk who has a Fin background gets spec pay but the one who was an Adm Clk doesn't (and yes I know that neither do, but it is an example).  Why should 1 sub-occupation be treated any different than another?  Will it happen, probably not.  And if it does, I will probably be retired by then and they will not back date it anyway.

It should not be a single trade; the sub-occs should be trades unto themselves, and this is a case where they are being (appropriately) treated as such.

I've run line and I've done IT-related taskings; so what? I don't see newer sig ops coming off course being renaissance men who can do everything and anything, and the sub-occs do not seemlessly blend. A lineman who's a qualified sig op det commander is exactly that. An electronics tech who's had sig op trades training shoved into his schedule isn't just a sig op.

You shove everybody through a common 3's and all you're doing is discouraging the guys who were motivated for the other trades to look elsewhere, rather than solve the problems of the sig op trade.

Yes, the new "trade" is a done deal, but continuing to expect it to deliver the ridiculous promises its salesmen made is foolish. A final answer on what many of us expected, either LCIS being the only ones to keep spec pay or no one getting it, will actually make things better rather than unconvincing promises of "we could all get spec pay".

 

[ixium]

IF the the spec pay was linked to the position that the person held then whatever.

But there are IST/CST guys doing the exact same job as a core. And there are core guys that are forced into IST jobs in regiments and even do IST courses.

 

[PuckChaser]

IF the the spec pay was linked to the position that the person held then whatever.

But there are IST/CST guys doing the exact same job as a core. And there are core guys that are forced into IST jobs in regiments and even do IST courses.

I'm pretty sure you can't do that. I remember from the MES briefings its all or nothing.

 

[Bucky]

I'm pretty sure you can't do that. I remember from the MES briefings its all or nothing.

Au contraire, mon frere:

They're expecting most of us nowadays to know a bit of everything. Hence the return to the common "core" trade for the DP2.0 and 3.0. Do you really think that an infantry officer asking the nearest sig he can find why his radio/computer doesn't work, gives a rats ass what sub occupation that member belongs to? This has caused many of us in the core trade to be labelled as knowledgeable in IS or even (god forbid) line things, simply because we have a rudimentary understanding of how those sub-occupations work. I get how they sold the "super-sig" ACISS plan, and understand how great that might look on paper, but given the way that training (both OJT and courses) is experienced, the sad truth is that most ACISS('s?) will enter the sub occupation of their choice (or someone elses) regardless of what they're best at.

Hence the problem. They're trying to make a "jack of all trades" trade, to a point. I wish them all the best with it, and am personally endeavouring to be "that guy", but I doubt it will work for enough soldiers to make it worth the work it's caused the branch.

</rant>

 

[PuckChaser]

I meant they can't apply spec pay to a position number, it has to be a whole MOSID/sub MOSID or no one.

 

[upandatom]

And yet the word SPECIALIST at the end of all our trades regardless of sub-occ shouldn't mean spec pay?

Someone can get out and make more money as a tech? Sounds great, release. Firefighters don't make spec pay and they probably would end up with double their take home pay in a civilian firefighter position.

Why can't ACISS make spec? You've stated no reasons why they shouldn't, other than CSTs are so cool. ACISS Core training is complex enough to justify it, just the same as you can justify IST/LST/CST. We could spend 12 training months qualifying an ACISS(Core) pers, but our courses got hacked and slashed and turned into a "Common DPX.0" to fit the MES thinking that it's simple push-button talkie box work.

Guess what? I fault find, troubleshoot equipment all the time. You're not special in that regard. Should I stop doing that and just throw it at a CST? Not if I want to keep my unit running.

Releasing, and OTing is exactly what people are doing. The trade is losing some of its best people because of that fact.

As for fault find and/or trouble shoot. How far are you fault finding? Are you really going down to card level? even component in some units? if so and you have that understanding of electronic theory, then yes you deserve spec pay.

Im sorry but I just dont see Core getting spec. unless they become alot more independent, which is opposite of what this whole thing was about. Its one thing to use the equipment, its another to repair it (by repair I do not mean turn in that NAU/CI/RAU whatever piece of kit and say, hey this is not working, its screwing things up for us. As in repair, open that kit up, know what the cards do, be able to repair/replace them).

Higher up I can see them getting it, but at that point they become Chief Comm Ops, they become alot more technical.

I do believe that IST deserves Spec, Especially if they take over more of the deployed infrastructure, (Shared services is killing that hope of maintaining those skills without constant exercises and deployments)

LST, not so much, sorry, but when they turned down or found that it wasnt feasible to train them to program the phone switch, routers, switches (this came from a linemans mouth at the school) kind of threw that option out of there. Civi side, someone pulling comm cable, is maybe making 35-40k a year.