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

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

  • Thread starter Thread starter JBP
  • Start date Start date
For future reference, perhaps "Question About the VIE for ACISS" will be merged with "Army Communication & Information Systems Specialists (Sig Op, Lineman and LCIS Amalgamation)"
http://army.ca/forums/threads/77029.1400.html
57 pages.
 
For reference,

From: "Question About the VIE for ACISS"
http://milnet.ca/forums/threads/122682/post-1429098.html#msg1429098

lwalters said:
I had a quick question about the service term for ACISS what is the regular contract length they offer you?

211RadOp said:
VIE is 4 years.

 
So its been awhile with no news, I've heard rumours but nothing really concrete.  Wasn't the pay review to have started a month or so ago?  Anyone hear anything yet?

If anyone is interested emma is now showing the promotion forcast/manning numbers, not suprised to see IST so low.
 
Pay reviews take a while, interim solution was to unfreeze legacy LCIS pers pay until there is a decision.
 
For those on DWAN, here's some info on what's been going on with Spec Pay:

http://acims.mil.ca/org/DLCI/Documents/Forms/All%20Documents.aspx?RootFolder=%2Forg%2FDLCI%2FDocuments%2FACISS%20Spec%20Pay&FolderCTID=0x012000C214ADC6F17B4A448F769AF7DB8B37C4&View=%7b2B424F24-8B85-4D5F-9F1B-25AFB80845B1%7d

FYI Petawawa has a town hall with Dir RCCS Col Sullivan Thursday afternoon, hopefully there's some interesting info being passed on.
 
LCIS227 said:
For those on DWAN, here's some info on what's been going on with Spec Pay:

http://acims.mil.ca/org/DLCI/Documents/Forms/All%20Documents.aspx?RootFolder=%2Forg%2FDLCI%2FDocuments%2FACISS%20Spec%20Pay&FolderCTID=0x012000C214ADC6F17B4A448F769AF7DB8B37C4&View=%7b2B424F24-8B85-4D5F-9F1B-25AFB80845B1%7d

FYI Petawawa has a town hall with Dir RCCS Col Sullivan Thursday afternoon, hopefully there's some interesting info being passed on.

Nothing new in there, CISTM is being canned. Spec pay info coming soon (Trademark, 2011)
 
RADOPSIGOPACISSOP said:
Nothing new in there, CISTM is being canned. Spec pay info coming soon (Trademark, 2011)

You're right, I just thought it was interesting to see the legwork and how high this has been escalated.
 
LCIS227 said:
You're right, I just thought it was interesting to see the legwork and how high this has been escalated.

Seems like this has just been bounced around since 2011. Eventually they'll just reject the trade for spec and declare that most people that received spec pay have retired and not many people are losing out on anything.

They pouched the submission, mainly because they didn't properly define the roles in jobs (ie, who owns help desk IST/Core, who owns networking IST/CST, who owns sat comm CST/Core)
 
RADOPSIGOPACISSOP said:
Seems like this has just been bounced around since 2011. Eventually they'll just reject the trade for spec and declare that most people that received spec pay have retired and not many people are losing out on anything.

What D RCCS said was that DPPD has a leading change idea to clearly define all compensation and benefits available to CAF members, stack trades up, and if a trade crosses a line, they automatically get spec without a long review. He was very vague on details, but he said its a sound idea in theory. The issue is that DPPD is not processing pay reviews until the CDS makes a decision, which they've spent months developing briefs, etc. He's giving them about a month to pick a direction, before he escalates to CCA to get a temporary resolution for our trades which are stuck in limbo. He made a solid case for unfrozen pay, and retro back pay to CCA who liked the idea. Its getting it actioned that's the issue.

RADOPSIGOPACISSOP said:
They pouched the submission, mainly because they didn't properly define the roles in jobs (ie, who owns help desk IST/Core, who owns networking IST/CST, who owns sat comm CST/Core)

This is the problem identified by RCCS CWO and DLCI CWO. ACISS was never designed to function in "pigeonholed jobs" (my term). No one "owns" a task. We all have specialized skills to bring to bear on building parts of the network, and we all have to work together to get it done. The analogy was that a Core, IST, LST, CST should all be able to put their heads together when the network goes down, sort out what the problem is, and fix it. Gone are the days of single-dimensional tradespersons.

They are going to push for an education-centric, vice training-centric model, so they can create ACISS pers who can think a problem and solve it, vice memorizing solutions to common faults, because the first time you see a fault is likely to be something that was never covered in "training". With that in mind, DP1.0 is moving from 45 training days to 85 training days. Its going to include the CISCO IT Essentials course, as a first step towards possibly getting all IST 2.1 graduates a CCNA Switching and Routing certification. What that will do is give the Core guys the ability to do first-line support to SATCOM OTM, CNR(E) networks, etc in a more forward environment. They are also pushing for a "Continuous Learning Environment" where pers can log into DLN and do DL courses on lots of Sigs-related courses to keep us on top of changing technologies. They want this to further enable someone who may have some skill fade from their DPX.0 to be able to refresh skills based on possible future or current employment.

I think the biggest mistake they made was making the DP1.0 common course so short and quite frankly a joke. With a robust DP1.0 course, we'll create competent operators and be able to determine skillsets that might fit into suboccs more than a 1 week LST package or a "how to turn on a computer" week.
 
PuckChaser said:
What D RCCS said was that DPPD has a leading change idea to clearly define all compensation and benefits available to CAF members, stack trades up, and if a trade crosses a line, they automatically get spec without a long review. He was very vague on details, but he said its a sound idea in theory. The issue is that DPPD is not processing pay reviews until the CDS makes a decision,

This was the same crap briefed 2 ( ? Can't remember the exact dates the 4.5 years this has dragged on is making me fuzzy) years ago. We were told that DPPD was stopping all pay reviews so they could "modernize" the way they do pay reviews.  We were told to wait until sept of 2015 and the modernized system would be ready. Then , in Dec of 2015 we were told the new system is now ready and ACISS would be their first review.

Now, we are hearing this modern pay review system is still just a proposal that the CDS hasn't even signed off on yet ?  Oh brother.

I wish someone would grow a pair and give the no bullsh*t truth.  Someone high in the branch f*cked up, and no one really wants to rattle any chains to fix it.

I bet there were a couple of " the troops are our number one priority and we are working as hard as we can".  And my personal favourite.  We are ready to escalate this issue higher..... In another couple months.
 
I've worked for Col. Sullivan. If he says he's working on it, and just as frustrated as us, he is. You're raging against an agency that likely has never led troops. We're numbers on a spreadsheet, not real people with bills and families. Col Sullivan also can't walk into a MGen's office and tell him to f#$%ing sort his shit out. That's a quick way to turn them off to moving at all, its all the NDHQ politics bullshit.

If you're really hard up, file a redress of grievance. Maybe if a couple hundred hit NDHQ, someone will notice. Or call the ombudsman. The precedent is there to return legacy LCIS to their old pay group pending the review, it happened to another trade and that's the angle they're using to get it sorted.
 
PuckChaser said:
I've worked for Col. Sullivan. If he says he's working on it, and just as frustrated as us, he is. You're raging against an agency that likely has never led troops. We're numbers on a spreadsheet, not real people with bills and families. Col Sullivan also can't walk into a MGen's office and tell him to f#$%ing sort his crap out. That's a quick way to turn them off to moving at all, its all the NDHQ politics bullshit.

If you're really hard up, file a redress of grievance. Maybe if a couple hundred hit NDHQ, someone will notice. Or call the ombudsman. The precedent is there to return legacy LCIS to their old pay group pending the review, it happened to another trade and that's the angle they're using to get it sorted.

Maybe you've drank the Koolaid on this, and it sounds like you honestly believe all the "ACISS Ops are all one trade and everyone can do everyone else's job" but not many others are. The amalgamation was something of a failure. The CISTM was so poorly thought out that it's being completely scrapped now. The only decent thing to come of it all was the creation of the IST trade from the Tech savvy LCIS and Sig Ops, and this specialization was and is desperately needed. But the trades should have all been left separate. I don't pretend I can pick up a oscilloscope and do the squiggly amp stuff the CSTs do, nor do I pretend I'm going to properly install a cable plant or install an antenna tower like the Line Techs do. The fact I can do much of the core role is just incidental that I spent my first decade of my career doing radio things.

And as far as the pay issue, it's just a running joke now. No one really thinks that the submission was done properly and I honestly believe that the potential outcomes are going negatively impacted by the amateurish way it was mishandled.
 
PuckChaser said:
I've worked for Col. Sullivan. If he says he's working on it, and just as frustrated as us, he is.

I don't doubt he was a great leader when you worked for him. And I am sure he is hard at work at branch business .  But when the party line the DSigs is briefing is on repeat from exactly one year ago, It starts to lose credibility.

Any word on when the new berets are to be issued ? How about the new branch March ?  These are the pressing issues !

I wonder how many DSigs we have gone through since Nov 2011.  Maybe the next one will get it done eh ?

 
That's why we have specialists, to do that cable plant install. But if you are going to cling to your empire that only x trade can do x job, you're one of the dinosaurs that DLCI CWO said dug in and refused to change. I shouldn't need an IST to configure a Coy SatCom OTM or CNR (E) network, and you shouldn't need a Core guy if you ever need to send a sitrep on the radio. Whether your like it or not, networks aren't going to be solely IST's domain (no pun intended), but those ISTs are going to be our subject matter experts for the large enterprise connections that are required now and in the future.

There's no koolaid to drink, either you can decide to work with the changes and help find a structure that works, or cling to the empire building of the past that screws us going forward.
 
PuckChaser said:
That's why we have specialists, to do that cable plant install. But if you are going to cling to your empire that only x trade can do x job, you're one of the dinosaurs that DLCI CWO said dug in and refused to change. I shouldn't need an IST to configure a Coy SatCom OTM or CNR (E) network, and you shouldn't need a Core guy if you ever need to send a sitrep on the radio. Whether your like it or not, networks aren't going to be solely IST's domain (no pun intended), but those ISTs are going to be our subject matter experts for the large enterprise connections that are required now and in the future.

There's no koolaid to drink, either you can decide to work with the changes and help find a structure that works, or cling to the empire building of the past that screws us going forward.

I'm hardly a dinosaur or an empire builder, much to the opposite, I've been doing my best to carve out the future role for the IST sub-occ and foster this fledgling profession.

I absolutely agree with you on a lot of things. I think the roles for the core have essentially been gutted, or are perceived by some in the core occ to have been gutted. I've had a number of arguments with senior core tradespeople that their job encompasses a lot more than setting up satellite terminals, setting up mod, or doing reports and returns on a radio.

From my perspective all core should receive basic networking since everything is going to require it, from CNR E to MCR to all the TACCOMM side. As well I think the core should inherit the help desk roles. A lot of the radios and TCCS systems that we learned on are replaced with TACNET terminals, and the frontline configuration and support of that should be core roles.

I'm apprehensive on where they are going with the future training. In my perspective all the sub occs lost a lot of knowledge when they created the initial training packages. The LSTs coming out of CFSCE aren't up to the same standard as the older line techs, nor are the CSTs anywhere up to the same standard as the LCIS techs. Even on the core side, the knowledge of radio theory is nowhere approaching what I and likely you did when we went through QL3 or 5. That said, the senior leaders in those sub occs have good understanding of their trade and as long as they don't get pushed to minimizing the training time like they have in the past I think good improvements will be made.

My concern is that for the IST side, the most senior trades people that make the calls lack the fundamental knowledge of C2IS and IT fundamentals. They never were deep into IT and often don't have industry experience to fill those knowledge gaps. They get pulled in by buzz words and sales pitches. I only see a few at the higher levels that have a fundamental understanding of what it is we have today and where the technology is going. My hope is that we continue to push those with knowledge up into those decision making roles.
 
Tarlouth said:
Any word on when the new berets are to be issued ? How about the new branch March ?  These are the pressing issues !

I wonder how many DSigs we have gone through since Nov 2011.  Maybe the next one will get it done eh ?

agree 100%
:pop:
 
RADOPSIGOPACISSOP said:
I'm hardly a dinosaur or an empire builder, much to the opposite, I've been doing my best to carve out the future role for the IST sub-occ and foster this fledgling profession.

I absolutely agree with you on a lot of things. I think the roles for the core have essentially been gutted, or are perceived by some in the core occ to have been gutted. I've had a number of arguments with senior core tradespeople that their job encompasses a lot more than setting up satellite terminals, setting up mod, or doing reports and returns on a radio.

From my perspective all core should receive basic networking since everything is going to require it, from CNR E to MCR to all the TACCOMM side. As well I think the core should inherit the help desk roles. A lot of the radios and TCCS systems that we learned on are replaced with TACNET terminals, and the frontline configuration and support of that should be core roles.

I'm apprehensive on where they are going with the future training. In my perspective all the sub occs lost a lot of knowledge when they created the initial training packages. The LSTs coming out of CFSCE aren't up to the same standard as the older line techs, nor are the CSTs anywhere up to the same standard as the LCIS techs. Even on the core side, the knowledge of radio theory is nowhere approaching what I and likely you did when we went through QL3 or 5. That said, the senior leaders in those sub occs have good understanding of their trade and as long as they don't get pushed to minimizing the training time like they have in the past I think good improvements will be made.

My concern is that for the IST side, the most senior trades people that make the calls lack the fundamental knowledge of C2IS and IT fundamentals. They never were deep into IT and often don't have industry experience to fill those knowledge gaps. They get pulled in by buzz words and sales pitches. I only see a few at the higher levels that have a fundamental understanding of what it is we have today and where the technology is going. My hope is that we continue to push those with knowledge up into those decision making roles.

The first thing I said when I heard about ACISS is that we'll never really know if this works for 20 years. Its going to take that long to take our first DP1.0 pure ACISS to CWO, and see if they can function.

I hear you about the IST training, but I think we're going in the right direction. The intent I got from the townhall was that they want a lot more industry engagement/packages, which makes the training far more agile and up to date without having to go through the shitshow that is CTC Standards. The education vice training focus intrigued me, as I have used a similar approach on a daily basis. I have a 2 year College networking diploma, but I can apply those skills as a Core member because instead of memorizing quick fixes for common faults, I view our tacrad systems as a network, and the troubleshooting can follow by looking it at as an IST would, vice memorizing those IAs and Stoppages.

The only thing I can see with pushing more helpdesk roles down to Core, is that PYs will bleed that way as well, probably cutting into your minimums required to support the larger networks we tend to employ now. This could also be where ACISS could shine, where you have 4 Cpl/Pte Core, and 2 MCpl Core/IST with Sgt IST as a helpdesk section. Those MCpls are interchangeable as really they only need leadership skills, and perhaps one as a pure IST for technical expertise, and the Sgt as pure IST as the final advisor to the Tp Comd. You now have the trade working as intended, where sub occs and Core can be there together, solving issues.

We won't get rid of the older folks without IS/IT skills for another few years. That'll be when the giant FRP bubble hits, and we lose 50% of our CWO/MWOs in a short timespan. We're starting to get computer literate folks into the right spots, which will help situations.

For those trolling about berets and marches: The ask was pushed from the Army, and D RCCS stated that his recommendation was we wear it if all other branches (Sigs, Engineers, 2 others I can't remember), but if not if we're not all going to go to it, it should be killed. You're also implying they can't possibly have 2 tasks at once, which you know in Sigs is completely impossible for a Signaller to be focused on only a single task at a time.
 
I got a copy of the D/RCCS slide deck that he's been using for the Town Hall presentations.

What exactly is the argument he is making about the ACISS structure not being stovepipes or independant sub-occupations? The slide deck says that "upon implementation many viewed the new occupation this way. They see ACISS Core as Sig Op, CST as LCIS and LST as Lineman." Then goes on to say that we needed to figure out what IST and CISTM means.

Okay - We are all ACISS. Ack. However, the ACISS core is the new Signal Operator - call it whatever you want, but core is the CIS OPERATOR. CST is the new LCIS - ack that LCIS doesn't exist and the LCIS jobs have changed but it is a COMM SYSTEM TECH. LST is a LINEMAN. LINE SYSTEM TECH. IST - the new job - made of the Sig Ops and the Techs that were doing IT jobs combined together into a new sub-occ.

Saying that there is some other magical way to look at this, talking about sub-occs working as a team.... none of this means anything. We have created a new occupation, with sub occupations that function mostly as independant occupations.

Also, waving away the need for specialist and expert level Sr NCMs is dangerous - we need expert level Sr NCMs. Have a look at the UK Signals, they have both a FoS and a FoS(IS) which have University degrees on top of their extensive technical training and experience.
 
signalsguy said:
Also, waving away the need for specialist and expert level Sr NCMs is dangerous - we need expert level Sr NCMs. Have a look at the UK Signals, they have both a FoS and a FoS(IS) which have University degrees on top of their extensive technical training and experience.

Those people are going to get that training by moving through their suboccs. It was absolutely stupid to think you could have a MWO LST now as CISTM as a FoS somewhere. You need that stovepiping to a degree to produce the technical experts. CISTM was a fairy tale idea from the get-go, and poorly designed training killed it. Good.
 
PuckChaser said:
Those people are going to get that training by moving through their suboccs. It was absolutely stupid to think you could have a MWO LST now as CISTM as a FoS somewhere. You need that stovepiping to a degree to produce the technical experts. CISTM was a fairy tale idea from the get-go, and poorly designed training killed it. Good.

I only see it being something that is practical at the CWO level.

 
Back
Top