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

The Need for Progression in Rank...

WOW....ROJ, you are taking us back a few............... :eek:

You do make a valid point IMHO...something for me to consider.
 
We could expand upon ROJ's observation by considering the approach taken by the German Reichsheer in the years 1920-1933 in order to get around the effect of the Versailles restrictions on the size of the Army's officer cadre. The Germans knew that the hardest thing to do when rapidly expanding an Army for war is the production of quality leaders who have been properly selected and trained. Since Versailles imposed a strict limit on the number of commissioned officers (but nt on NCOs) they applied the methodology of training every soldier to be a leader. In fact, the retention of a soldier in the Reichsheer past his first engagement was based to a great extent on the leadership potential that he displayed.

Although we face somewhat different conditions in our Army today (perhaps too many officers rather than not enough...) I think that for an Army such as ours, which has an expeditionary and "surge" history, the idea of deveoping and enforcing a high level of leadership potential in the force IMHO has some merit.

On the other hand, ather thread, I think it is long past time that we decoupled rank from technical skill for soldiers in support MOCs. A revival of old Cdn Army Group Badge system would let us reward those support soldiers who are excellent technicians (and soldiers...) but do not want to advance in rank. In the early 90's I sat on a board back at the old FMC HQ at St Hubert, at which we considered bringing back this concept in the Army. It was called "TASK"-Trade Advancement for Skill and Knowledge and would have essentially reinstated the Group system. Beyond bringing in the Army cuff badges, it was never really implemented: I was told that due to the purple nature of some trades, with the MA for those trades being non-Army, the Army could not impose this system unilaterally. Another reason why, IMHO, the Army should own its support soldiers lock stock and barrel. Cheers.
 
He fought hard â “ helped to kill the AVRO Arrow before it killed the Canadian defence budget

YEAH! And look where that got us! That sure turned out just dandy!... Anyway, that's for another thread which has already been discussed several times on this board in detail.
:crybaby:
I believe rank is there for the taking. If you want it bad enough, if you work hard enough and fight for it and if the military finds the skills it needs in you and wants to promote you, so be it. I say charge onward soldier! There's always going to be those who are angry you got promoted because your younger or don't have as many courses under your belt, but there is a reason you were promoted obviously...

In almost every civvy job I've faced, promotion was 40% what you knew/could do and 60% who you knew or drank beer with! I'm hoping the military isn't as corrupted that way otherwise it defeats the purpose of appointment/promotion in the armed forces. It will eventually degrade our abilities/training. Like corrossion of metal.

For the guys who don't want a promotion/appointment, so be it. If they're happy and they do a good job then good on them! Maybe they excel so much at thier current posting their unit doesn't want to loose them in that capacity also... Many factors I imagine but my hats off to them anyway!  :salute:

Joe
 
I also beleive we should bring the skill and rank system back. I have met some tradesman who were great at their trades but far from being the best leaders.
Also it makes training people in some trades ridicolous. You do alot of technical training  and then you have to attend leadership training on top of all that.
Some people in the CF, want to advance just for the purpose of making more $$$.
The old system would be perfect for guys seeking technical advancement (pay them based on the more skill and courses they have).
For guys in EME, LOG, and some engineer trades come to mind.
The rank advancement should be for those seeking to lead and train troops....
 
ArmyRick said:
I also beleive we should bring the skill and rank system back. I have met some tradesman who were great at their trades but far from being the best leaders.
Also it makes training people in some trades ridicolous. You do alot of technical training  and then you have to attend leadership training on top of all that.
Some people in the CF, want to advance just for the purpose of making more $$$.
The old system would be perfect for guys seeking technical advancement (pay them based on the more skill and courses they have).
For guys in EME, LOG, and some engineer trades come to mind.
The rank advancement should be for those seeking to lead and train troops....

The problem that arises out of this Rick, and I know some in here are going to say it's PC crap, is that unless you can guarantee courses to everyone equaly based on merit then the first time Cpl A gets a course which will boost his pay and Cpl B doesn't even though their performance is comperable, Cpl B will have grounds for a harassment suit. After all he is being denied the opportunity to make more money not because he can't do it but because he can't be placed on a course.

 
Recce

Thats just the point tho....

The harrasement suit would be BS, because it is the leadershiop who decides what stream to put a troop trhough...

Leader or trades qual.

Courses within each stream ould be merited the same way......

 
Anybody remember TASK (Trade Advancement for Skill and Knowledge) that was being looked at a while back? Man, that would have done a lot of trades pretty good. As it is now, a good solid worker is rated pretty high come PER time. That gets him promoted in due course, but the down side is that they were doing so well because they liked what they were doing. And nobody could touch them when it came to knowing their stuff. What a catch-22...
At Cpl, with TASK, a guy (or gal) could progress laterally instead of upwards, yet still achieve higher pay and a modicum of status within the trade.
No, for the most part, I'd put my money on most old Cpls and MCpls. They may have pooched-up somewhere that prevented them from getting promoted, but they're still here and dedicated. What's more, darn few have the experience they have. IMHO..
 
Back
Top