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

[c_canuk]

Seen the note about Spec Pay in the letter.

Sooo how can they say that they are trying to remove the restriction of Spec Pay for those members that were receiving it. They don't have the power to grant raises, or adjust pay. Thats why so many people are frustrated as is. Removing a restriction is adjusting the pay, changing pay, but now they know a way to not have it restricted? If so then why wasn't this looked at earlier, really could have prevented members jumping ship for greener pastures, many angry and disgruntled members.

This letter will kill Army Signals. Good to see a Rumour killer letter none the least, but it still did not answer peoples biggest problems. Given a "We are working on it, but its not our fault"

Another 8 month delay for those involved. Sorry Guys

This is just my speculation here, but I think the bit about removing restriction is the begining of a shift in direction; to abandon new spec pay efforts and just put it back the way it was. If that happens I wonder if ISTs without poet would be granted the opportunity to get it, in order to gain spec pay. I also would wonder if non-grandfathered LCTs would get it.

I feel that because none of this has made it to the CDS in the years they've been working on it, due to an inability to satisfy DPPD on describing what we do, the matter may warrant discussion external to our branch.

There is much content in the letter, I feel, that is very damaging to the moral and confidence of the trade.

I suspect this is as close as we're going to get, to the bad news we've been waiting for to rip the bandaid off.

I'd be happy if we could just get the sub occs defined logically, the positions audited and the right sub occs posted into them.

The "letter" was not meant for distribution, but as a catalyst for discussion between ACISS personnel and their individual chains of command.  Obviously our problems are compounded by those who cannot follow simple direction.  I myself hate this initiative with every fiber of my being, but I am attempting to lead change none the less.  It can only get better.

Can you explain this please? the letter was addressed to "Members of the Royal Canadian Corps of Signals".

I fail to see what the member's CoC can do about anything in this letter other than say, "we know, we've passed this up, we have no control over this, it's out of our AOR".

What sort of discussions do you feel will be had in regards to the content of the letter, with member's CoCs that will result in positive change?

 

[Swingline1984]

Can you explain this please? the letter was addressed to "Members of the Royal Canadian Corps of Signals".

I fail to see what the member's CoC can do about anything in this letter other than say, "we know, we've passed this up, we have no control over this, it's out of our AOR".

What sort of discussions do you feel will be had in regards to the content of the letter, with member's CoCs that will result in positive change?

The letter came with explicit instructions from DSigs on how the information was to be released, including not forwarding it for dissemination.

 

[upandatom]

This is just my speculation here, but I think the bit about removing restriction is the begining of a shift in direction; to abandon new spec pay efforts and just put it back the way it was. If that happens I wonder if ISTs without poet would be granted the opportunity to get it, in order to gain spec pay. I also would wonder if non-grandfathered LCTs would get it.

I feel that because none of this has made it to the CDS in the years they've been working on it, due to an inability to satisfy DPPD on describing what we do, the matter may warrant discussion external to our branch.

There is much content in the letter, I feel, that is very damaging to the moral and confidence of the trade.

I suspect this is as close as we're going to get, to the bad news we've been waiting for to rip the bandaid off.

I'd be happy if we could just get the sub occs defined logically, the positions audited and the right sub occs posted into them.

Can you explain this please? the letter was addressed to "Members of the Royal Canadian Corps of Signals".

I fail to see what the member's CoC can do about anything in this letter other than say, "we know, we've passed this up, we have no control over this, it's out of our AOR".

What sort of discussions do you feel will be had in regards to the content of the letter, with member's CoCs that will result in positive change?

Adding to that- What can be discussed that hasn't already been discussed that can change the direction of this? Realistically. 4 years later, of all the town halls, of all the PD sessions, of everything that has been brought up in emails, smoke pit and discussions at the messes, they haven't said we screwed up, how can the sigs world work together and fix it. Not to mention, calling the signals world "narrow minded" and unable to see long with the adding an IST like occupation would of been short sighted. What bigger or longer term picture is there besides providing stable, reliable, secure tactical, and strategical communications to support the CAF and the GOC in its endeavors at home and abroad. 

"Spec Pay for CST was likely" but they pulled it back because the job descriptions for the others didn't fit the bill or didn't have enough information. There is no reason at all why CST could of been put forward and another application for other trades done later. All or none as has been brought up already.

 

[Swingline1984]

Without putting words in the mouth of "the man".  I'm sure he is sensitive to the morale issues and wanted the information presented in a forum in which members could voice their concerns and frustrations while enveloped in a warm hug of positive re-enforcement.  Going to your contact list and spamming an entire Regt, Sqn, etc is a impersonal way to present info of this gravity.  It is 'situation unchanged' for the most part and there is a lot of emotion out there and people should have their catharsis.  When presented with the same importance and in the same fashion as a CANFORGEN on Presiding Officer Training it tends to lose it's edge.

 

[winterstorm35]

Is spec pay off the table for lineman? Most are on vacation this week so not able to read any email.

 

[Swingline1984]

Is spec pay off the table for lineman? Most are on vacation this week so not able to read any email.

The answer is that there is no answer.

 

[upandatom]

Without putting words in the mouth of "the man".  I'm sure he is sensitive to the morale issues and wanted the information presented in a forum in which members could voice their concerns and frustrations while enveloped in a warm hug of positive re-enforcement.  Going to your contact list and spamming an entire Regt, Sqn, etc is a impersonal way to present info of this gravity.  It is 'situation unchanged' for the most part and there is a lot of emotion out there and people should have their catharsis.  When presented with the same importance and in the same fashion as a CANFORGEN on Presiding Officer Training it tends to lose it's edge.

Sensitive to Morale issues or not, if you bring this forward in a town hall, from a CO, or they read it in an email or get informed by Troop WO in an O group in the shop. People are going to be upset, and angry over this. The Dinos can say you signed the dotted line as much as they want. The changes should not of been implemented until every aspect was ironed out.

Many people signed the dotted line with the "If you can pass this course, and reach this level you will receive this pay."

Where is the accountability for that? Nowhere. Anyone receiving spec pay should not have had their pay frozen. They reached the level the CAF required them to to earn that monthly extra money.
Call it how it is, the job and day to day aspect has not changed for those that received spec pay. 

 

[c_canuk]

Without putting words in the mouth of "the man".  I'm sure he is sensitive to the morale issues and wanted the information presented in a forum in which members could voice their concerns and frustrations while enveloped in a warm hug of positive re-enforcement.  Going to your contact list and spamming an entire Regt, Sqn, etc is a impersonal way to present info of this gravity.  It is 'situation unchanged' for the most part and there is a lot of emotion out there and people should have their catharsis.  When presented with the same importance and in the same fashion as a CANFORGEN on Presiding Officer Training it tends to lose it's edge.

I understand the sentiment that this bit of news needed to be handled better, but what effect would voicing our concerns have?

Every town hall on MES I ever attended was a non-stop "here are issues you may have missed based on what you've told us" from members, and all we've gotten back is "we know what we're doing, we won't blue falcon you guys! Stop resisting change!"

Here we are 8 years later with our job functions not even explained properly to DPPD.

From my viewpoint it seems like the issues that were brought forward by the rank and file that were dismissed by those that were apparently in the know, are currently the problems that are ripping us to shreds. Our input seems to be not wanted, and our priorities don’t seem to be their priorities. I can’t quite figure out what their priorities are.

From what I've heard from outside the branch, the only discernable difference between pre and post MES, is that we’ve become less flexible and timely with support and our apparent skill levels have dropped. Now that’s opinion not data and I’ve seen a lot of switched on people enter the trade, however in some cases I can see evidence of what they are talking about.

 

[upandatom]

I understand the sentiment that this bit of news needed to be handled better, but what effect would voicing our concerns have?

Every town hall on MES I ever attended was a non-stop "here are issues you may have missed based on what you've told us" from members, and all we've gotten back is "we know what we're doing, we won't blue falcon you guys! Stop resisting change!"

Here we are 8 years later with our job functions not even explained properly to DPPD.

From my viewpoint it seems like the issues that were brought forward by the rank and file that were dismissed by those that were apparently in the know, are currently the problems that are ripping us to shreds. Our input seems to be not wanted, and our priorities don’t seem to be their priorities. I can’t quite figure out what their priorities are.

From what I've heard from outside the branch, the only discernable difference between pre and post MES, is that we’ve become less flexible and timely with support and our apparent skill levels have dropped. Now that’s opinion not data and I’ve seen a lot of switched on people enter the trade, however in some cases I can see evidence of what they are talking about.

1. For those that voiced them it hasn't at all
2. MY town halls always started with "We dont know about spec and this isnt a bitch session about MES not working, In fact it is working and we are training people to a higher standard then before"
3. Cant even explain the Job to the people doing it let alone DPPD
4. GAF and the need to fill that bullet for "implementing change" And the priorities of Army Sigs seemed to have been lost, affecting the people in it.
5. Heard and witness the same thing. Some units arent sure of what to do with the pers they receive, technicians take longer to get qualified and are less skilled then legacy. May have a larger knowledge base about comms in general, but its really become the Jack of all trades, master of none.

 

[c_canuk]

3. Cant even explain the Job to the people doing it let alone DPPD

This is something that might be worth looking at.

Should they be describing the job to those doing it, or should those doing the job be describing it to them?

 

[upandatom]

This is something that might be worth looking at.

Should they be describing the job to those doing it, or should those doing the job be describing it to them?

You would think, and they should by all means. In my time they didnt once ask, they told us what it was "supposed" to be, and after that it became the same as it was before the change.

Sig Op Det commanders-sorry ACISS Core Det Commanders and CISTM Troop WO still expected the same capability of those members. WITHOUT THE training.

 

[Avail]

Sig Op Det commanders-sorry ACISS Core Det Commanders and CISTM Troop WO still expected the same capability of those members. WITHOUT THE training.

A slight tangent here -

If the Troop WO/CISTM is a "Manager", what is the Troop O? Maybe it's just semantics, but I had always linked that title to the officer.

 

[upandatom]

A slight tangent here -

If the Troop WO/CISTM is a "Manager", what is the Troop O? Maybe it's just semantics, but I had always linked that title to the officer.

From what I have seen- The Troop Commander (Troop O) is the one that gets babysat and the Troop WO tells the Troop Commander how things work.

 

[PuckChaser]

Saw the letter today, was forwarded in an email. Kinda gave me the warm and fuzzy about what my unit thinks about its ACISS members. Surprised me that I didn't get it 2 weeks from now, actually, so there's that.

 

[Swingline1984]

Saw the letter today, was forwarded in an email. Kinda gave me the warm and fuzzy about what my unit thinks about its ACISS members. Surprised me that I didn't get it 2 weeks from now, actually, so there's that.

*sigh*...glad you got a "warm and fuzzy" because I just lost mine (along with my patience).  If we (the leadership) can't even show we're vested, even a little bit, how can we expect the troops to buy in, or care.  :facepalm:

If the Troop WO/CISTM is a "Manager", what is the Troop O? Maybe it's just semantics, but I had always linked that title to the officer.

...the situation that PC explains above is a good example of a "Manager", however it is a horrible example of a Leader.

 

[PuckChaser]

*sigh*...glad you got a "warm and fuzzy" because I just lost mine (along with my patience).

I don't think my intent made it through, I was attempting internet sarcasm. Totally agree with your post, however.

 

[Swingline1984]

I don't think my intent made it through, I was attempting internet sarcasm. Totally agree with your post, however.

oh I got it...just ignored the sarcasm in a lazy attempt at making my point. 

 

[c_canuk]

Discussed the letter that was emailed to me, with my subordinates today now that I was provided approval from my CoC to disseminate it.

As much as I tried to protray it in positive light and get them thinking in a "where do we go from here to make progress" frame of mind, they don't care anymore and see my trying to collect feedback as a joke.

There were no questions asked.

“The day the soldiers stop bringing you their problems is the day you stopped leading them. They have either lost confidence that you can help them or concluded that you do not care. Either case is a failure of leadership.”

― Colin Powell

 

[ixium]

That last quote sums up a lot about how most Cpl/Ptes feel about leadership now adays.

I doubt that letter will even make it around to where I am at now, the CoC already knows how most of us feel.

 

[c_canuk]

To be fair, Ptes and Cpls generally feel that way regardless. This because they don't have perspective of what is and is not normal inefficiencies due to being a small cog, in a wheel, among hundereds of wheels, in a massive machine.

But when the WOs and above are starting to feel like mushrooms...