Sexual Misconduct Allegations in The CAF

[rmc_wannabe]

We could do the same with an annual SYEP-type program.

Hire thousands of kids for the summer and put them through basic training, and along the way identify good candidates for ongoing service in the CAF at whatever rank levels they seem suited for.

Some might choose to say goodbye to the military after the summer, others might choose to join the Regs or Reserves as Officers or NCMs...

Better yet, allow for people with maturity and experience to progress past the Pte(R) to Pte(B) stream and actively look for personnel that have worked as supervisors, managers, or tradespeople in their field and promote them accordingly.

If a person is coming in at 27 having worked as an HR Supervisor for 9 years, why keep them at the bottom of the ladder? Their skills and qualities haven't changed, only the systems they are working on. We need to start looking at lateral recruitment as a way to fill out the middle, vice hoping we can recruit new entries as a way to dig ourselves out of a staffing shortage.

 

[FJAG]

We could do the same with an annual SYEP-type program.

Hire thousands of kids for the summer and put them through basic training, and along the way identify good candidates for ongoing service in the CAF at whatever rank levels they seem suited for.

Some might choose to say goodbye to the military after the summer, others might choose to join the Regs or Reserves as Officers or NCMs...

We did exactly that in the early 70s. Folks then went through a recruit course under the SSEP (I was on one of those in the 60s in 7th Toronto). We'd mentored the good ones to stay in the units that recruited them and encouraged them to come back for the next year's NCO oriented program. It was called SSEP 5B at the time and at six weeks was better than the equivalent Militia Junior NCO course which ran to two weeks. 3 RCHA ran Prairie Area's SSEP 5B the summer of 71 in Wainwright.

I'm a great believer of exploiting every minute of a student's summer holiday for cash and a reserve commitment.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

I was on a liaison visit to the Italian Army when it still had the draft. Their regiment had roughly 75 to 100 professional officers and senior NCOs and took in a draft of a thousand or so (9 batteries to the regiment) and put them through a screening. The top 50 or so were selected for officer training and were made 2nd Lts and the next 75 or so selected as Snr NCOs, sent on a course and made sergeants. The rest filled out all the other jobs.

In a recent interview of someone involved in training the ANA in 2005, he mentioned that he discussed with an Afghan general the problem that Afghans had delegating anything, especially to NCOs. In their system as well there is an intake of individuals followed by a selection process assigning individuals to officer, NCO and various trades streams. He was advised of two things. Firstly that delegating anything is considered a weakness in Afghan culture and secondly that the concept of NCO in their culture was equated as an "officer failure".

Our officer/OR structure may have its heritage in a very rigid class structure but seems to have matured into something practical. The three things I would like to see are: elimination of the university requirement for officers; a separate career stream for WOs (separating it from the Sgt/Sgt Major NCO stream so as to facilitate technical specialization); and attendance for ORs and officers on a common DP1 course (followed perhaps by six months in a unit in the ranks) before officers learn the leadership aspects of their jobs.

NCMs stop being NCOs at the WO/PO1 ranks. Why people, Officers in particular, struggle with or ignore that is beyond me.

Re: the career stream part, something similar to this was proposed for Aircrew trade WOs; Airs Ops Supervisor. I believe the rank was going to be MWO and can’t recall if it was to be via selection or COT, but there wasn’t much positive thought about it at the NCO ranks from what I can remember.

In the end, it didn’t progress and the SEMS/TEMS project came along a few years later. I haven’t seen anything results from TEMS and am not convinced SEMS is truly what the CAF needs. But we’re into it now anyways…

The Army has a Tech WO program and course, but I am not sure if there’s meaningful benefit to it.

I’m not aware of the RCN having anything similar at all.

While I don't usually want to wind @dapaterson up on the topic of lawyers, he might want to comment on the pleasure he's had working with CAF legal officers and the DoJ civilian lawyers. I doubt that you could get one out on an operation but maybe a WO type of specialty would do if the pay scales could be made to work.

With SAR Techs making the equivalent of GSO LCol and Cols, the concept that pay must be tied to rank should be a historical fact in the CAF…maybe that will the door that opens up discussions about the entire Warrant/Petty Officer Corps and a restructure more aligned with the US Army Warrant Officer model?

 

[dapaterson]

Unlikely, since most CAF WO / PO folks are not doing US military WO type work.

CAF members are remarkably agile at overstating the value of the work they perform.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

Unlikely, since most CAF WO / PO folks are not doing US military WO type work.

CAF members are remarkably agile at overstating the value of the work they perform.

That intent would be to completely restructure and employ Warrant Officers across the CAF. Specialists who will never move on to Command.

Why can’t PSOs have Warrant Officers, or Legal etc?

 

[McG]

What actual problem would US style WO ranks solve in Canada? What can we not do now that would be solved by legislating another layer of complexity to the rank structures?

 

[Navy_Pete]

I'd advocate for NWOs to start off as Boatswains or NCIOP/NAC OP/NESOP, MSE/CSE Officers start off a techs or stokers and Supply Officers start off as a supply clerk. Go to killick and pick the cream (and who want to become officers)

We already have that officer development stream though with both the CFR and the UTPNCM programs, but the throughput is in single digits per year.

The phase 6 for MSE actually mirrors the old stoker progression to an extent; been about a decade now but I was a qualified roundsman and had some console time, while the board was effectively the same as the cert 3. Similarly, the AHOD is the very similar question bank to the cert 4. The difference was the expectations for the answers, where the officers were expected to have a better understanding of the the theoretics of how things work, while the stokers were more on the practical side of things. With the reduced sea time expectations have dropped a fair bit, but means that you can get a pretty good idea of the practical day to day requirements of the trade (if you put in the effort to get stuck into the dirty jobs).

Nothing wrong with our system really, as we get a pretty good mix of experiences.

 

[Ostrozac]

That intent would be to completely restructure and employ Warrant Officers across the CAF. Specialists who will never move on to Command.

We already have plenty of paths for people to stay at their current rank, whether through actively opting out of career progression or passively refusing to do the things required to succeed at promotion boards.

A direct copy of the US Warrant Officer or 1970’s-style Specialist rank system would give you a few highly experienced technicians that you could pay like Captains or MWOs while allowing them to opt out of management and leadership tasks. It would probably dilute the Senior NCO cadre, which is a major risk. It wouldn’t solve the problem that you might not be paying junior ranks enough for them to survive, or at least to survive in uniform long enough to think about career progression. I’d bump up pay at the Pte/Cpl level before planning for a technician with 30 years of service that can’t be used as a team lead.

In many cases, if we really need a deep specialist technician that doesn’t manage or lead, we should probably make that position a civil servant.

 

[FJAG]

NCMs stop being NCOs at the WO/PO1 ranks. Why people, Officers in particular, struggle with or ignore that is beyond me.

Point taken but in defence of what I said, neither the Italian Army nor the Afghan Army have warrant officers. The ANA, like the US Army uses NCOs all the way up the OR leadership ladder; For the US, WOs are a separate kettle of fish. The Italians classify their sergentes and maresciollos as sub-officers which are all considered senior NCOs (with the exception of the OR-9 rank of Luogotenente where everything seems to go to hell in a handbasket.)

What actual problem would US style WO ranks solve in Canada? What can we not do now that would be solved by legislating another layer of complexity to the rank structures?

We had a lengthy and exhaustive debate about this a year or two ago in another thread whose name escapes me. @SupersonicMax might recall. I won't reopen it here as I expect others might threaten my life if I do.

 

[daftandbarmy]

What actual problem would US style WO ranks solve in Canada? What can we not do now that would be solved by legislating another layer of complexity to the rank structures?

You mean, like Pipe Majors?

 

[Navy_Pete]

In many cases, if we really need a deep specialist technician that doesn’t manage or lead, we should probably make that position a civil servant.

Generally deep technical specialists (like GT-8s or ENG 7s or 8s) are much better paid as civil servants than military techs are.

 

[Good2Golf]

NCMs stop being NCOs at the WO/PO1 ranks. Why people, Officers in particular, struggle with or ignore that is beyond me.

Maybe they should be NCNWOs? (Non-commissioned, non-warranted officers)

And PTEs/S1s/AVRs would just be NOs (non-officers).

 

[dimsum]

Maybe they should be NCNWOs? (Non-commissioned, non-warranted officers)

And PTEs/S1s/AVRs would just be NOs (non-officers).

 

[Eye In The Sky]

Maybe they should be NCNWOs? (Non-commissioned, non-warranted officers)

And PTEs/S1s/AVRs would just be NOs (non-officers).

I didn’t create the rank structure, or the QR and O definitions of NCO. I do take the time to respect the Commissioned ranks and which is Junior, Senior, etc. it’s nice when that respect is reciprocated…

 

[FSTO]

We already have that officer development stream though with both the CFR and the UTPNCM programs, but the throughput is in single digits per year.

The phase 6 for MSE actually mirrors the old stoker progression to an extent; been about a decade now but I was a qualified roundsman and had some console time, while the board was effectively the same as the cert 3. Similarly, the AHOD is the very similar question bank to the cert 4. The difference was the expectations for the answers, where the officers were expected to have a better understanding of the the theoretics of how things work, while the stokers were more on the practical side of things. With the reduced sea time expectations have dropped a fair bit, but means that you can get a pretty good idea of the practical day to day requirements of the trade (if you put in the effort to get stuck into the dirty jobs).

Nothing wrong with our system really, as we get a pretty good mix of experiences.

The old MARS II when we had training squadron was an excellent intro to being an OOW. Being a OS Bosn and Nav Sig for a couple of months was great insight to the life in the lower decks.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

What actual problem would US style WO ranks solve in Canada? What can we not do now that would be solved by legislating another layer of complexity to the rank structures?

Maybe we could save some money on university degrees (over-sold on benefits to the CAF for the cost). Second language training.

There’s 2 quick examples of how the CAF could save money for a mbr who joined and selected Warrant Officer Pilot, vice Pilot Officer. They would join knowing they will never proceed to Sqn Comd or higher, but will always work in or very close to a cockpit or GCS.

Years spent on Masters and other MilCol coursing, at the average rank of Major…also avoided.

On top of that, the CAF gets a very experienced and skilled pilot for many years.

What other trades/classifications could we separate this way? There must be some…and people willing to select the Warrant side; we call them CFLs…

Maybe that’s out in left field…

 

[TangoTwoBravo]

Thread split?

 

[McG]

Maybe we could save some money on university degrees (over-sold on benefits to the CAF for the cost). Second language training.

There’s 2 quick examples of how the CAF could save money for a mbr who joined and selected Warrant Officer Pilot, vice Pilot Officer. They would join knowing they will never proceed to Sqn Comd or higher, but will always work in or very close to a cockpit or GCS.

Years spent on Masters and other MilCol coursing, at the average rank of Major…also avoided.

On top of that, the CAF gets a very experienced and skilled pilot for many years.

All of this can be achieved within existing rank structures and without requirement for legislative change. We have CEOTP and the time limit to achieve a degree is governed by regulation, so much easier to change than the law which authorizes the rank structure.

 

[Good2Golf]

I didn’t create the rank structure, or the QR and O definitions of NCO. I do take the time to respect the Commissioned ranks and which is Junior, Senior, etc. it’s nice when that respect is reciprocated…

EITS, I should have been clear with my post, which in no way was intended as a dig at you. Rather, without making it clear enough, that there is a larger issue that the CAF can sometimes add a bit of complexity when not needed. I apologize to you if you felt it was a response to you specifically, I’ll take greater care in the future where there is justifiably an element of seriousness and professionalism to one’s comment.

Now, that said, I always found it amusing when more senior NCMs, let’s say, higher ranks than NCOs, would do the wind-up “I’m not an officer! I work for a living!” on some unsuspecting subbie. Ironically, they WERE officers, just warranted, not commissioned, so there’s that.

Interestingly, seeing a recent Canadian news piece about a court martial of a “Navy officer” for sexual assault, assault and uttering threats, I see that it was a PO1. Yes, an officer, but I can’t help but wonder if the article just said ‘officer’ to keep some heat on the current state of concern to more senior officers of the CAF, or just an honest editorial foreshortening of Petty Officer to save space. Additionally, does an RCN Petty Officer have a Warrant, like RCAF and CA WOs/MWOs/CWOs?

 

[Eye In The Sky]

All of this can be achieved within existing rank structures and without requirement for legislative change. We have CEOTP and the time limit to achieve a degree is governed by regulation, so much easier to change than the law which authorizes the rank structure.

I’m talking about eliminating degrees altogether. They are justified for all Officers and the burden on the taxpayers isn’t one that should continue to be shouldered IMO.