Canadian Forces' senior brass have been growing at a much faster rate...

[jeffb]

This is going to sound crazy but civilians companies do this all the time. What about a promotion board that looks at your performance in your current job and your potential to advance based on your experience? Maybe even an interview? For lower ranks, this could be done by a somewhat local board comprised of members from outside your unit along with a PSO type to ensure continuity. As it stands today, you have people who are promoted simply because they added a bubble to their PER score year after year until they made it to a board with bilingualism. Perhaps not the best way to deliver competent leaders in my view.

 

[Cloud Cover]

If they really want to get the job done like a company, start promoting for organizational results and sacking at a ruthless rate.

 

[daftandbarmy]

If they really want to get the job done like a company, start promoting for organizational results and sacking at a ruthless rate.

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2012/11/general-failure/309148/

Yup  :nod:

 

[McG]

If you want to refute that the NCM career and pay channels aren't in major need of an overhaul, be my guest. 

Not my goal, but ... occasionally people of influence skim these boards, and even good ideas and right answers can lose support if decision makers are presented with bad arguments that arrive by accident to the correct solution.  Even a broken clock is correct occasionally.  Unlike clocks, people can be challenged on how they got to where they are and (in the process) maybe they clean-up faults found in the arguments … show they are right by design and not accident.

How does one distinguish Res V Reg V CIC in NCDs ? 

How does one distinguish one IPC from any other IPC in NCDs?  You stated as though it were known fact that this guy is IPC 10, but when you don't even know what component the guy is then I am skeptical you know his IPC.  And if you are ready to present something as known fact when it is not known fact, then you have to be prepared that people may question the veracity of everything you have typed.  It is not persuasive where your argument is that amelioration of officer career streams should be put on hold until NCM steams are addressed first (as though the two should be treated as independent silos and not addressed simultaneously) because you "know CPO2/MWOs who are massively underpaid in comparison to their level of responsibility" and you substantiate your position on two anecdotes & one generalization which may all three be solidly grounded in fiction or hyperbole.

All this is to say, I dont care if that LT(N) is IPC 1 or 10, lets play happy medium and say hes IPC 5 …

How about we not invent “facts” that may not match reality?

…hes still making more than that CPO2 with all that staff and operational responsibility, and that simply isn't right. 

Is he?  Accounting for the potential pay variances linked to not knowing component nor IPC (can I assume that you know he is not part time?), do we know this Lt(N) is making more or is this conclusion an assumption?

I/C canoes is a job for a LS/Cpl.

At face value, absolutely correct.  So, does this anecdote of the IC Canoes support the idea that “NCM career and pay channels are in major need of an overhaul” and that some CPO2/MWO are “massively underpaid in comparison to their level of responsibility” or does this anecdote reflect an aberration of an individual employed well below the level at which he should be?  And on the other hand, do you know all the duties of this Lt(N)?  Is IC Canoes a primary duty or secondary duty?  You have already demonstrated that you will play loose with the facts, so what other details have you omitted or distorted to make your case?

I know a CPO2 that has roughly 75 people working for him (civi and Mil) and runs what is one of the busiest warehouses/depots in Canada, he has no Div O BTW. 

Is he doing his job, or is he doing the job of a vacant Lt(N)/Capt position?  If he has stepped up and is filling a higher level function: would that support your idea that all CPO2/MWO should receive more compensation, or does it maybe suggest that the CAF could make more liberal use of AWSE promotions?

Not all Officers are underemployed and not all NCMs are over employed, you can find examples in all avenues. 

So it would seem reasonable that both officer and NCM positions should be examined to confirm personnel are being employed at the appropriate rank for the work being done?

But in my still counting 18 years of, various bases, ships, regiments and units, I have noticed more and more work load and responsibility being pushed down upon the NCM corps without what I think is fair compensation, generally from MS/MCpl and above and especially at the MWO/CPO2 level and above. 

I am not sure that I have seen this.  I have seen disproportionate workloads dumped on people of all ranks when other organizational positions are not filled, when the CAF elements try to do more than they were established to do, and when a few fit individuals get stuck carrying slack for unfit individuals.  I have also seen various levels of HQ claw-back authorities from subordinate levels, thereby diminishing the scope that leaders (particularly COs) have to take action. 

I have also seen plenty of Capt/Lt(N) doing jobs that should rightfully be done by Lt/SLt (and our system of time based promotions at that level sees a lot of Capt/Lt(N) who really were not ready to have been promoted past Lt/SLt).  Some clean-up and institutional discipline on this front could make sure only the right people are getting that second full bar (or third star) and that you never find them filling jobs intended to keep them away from places where they can be dangerous.

Meanwhile we are cutting and slashing CPO1/CWO positions, while growing GOFO positions, because those CPO1/CWO aren't "command level". 

What is your counter proposal?  There are a few converted CPO1/CWO positions that have been converted to CPO2/MWO or Capt/Lt(N) that I would have preferred be left as is, but there are a whole lot more that should have been converted previously.  There is also requirement to do clean-up at the GOFO level, but going in the wrong direction at that level should not be argument for not going in the right direction at the CPO1/CWO level, right?

 

[QV]

I guess there are more than just one IPC 10 I/C of canoes around! 

 

[Journeyman]

... occasionally people of influence skim these boards, and even good ideas and right answers can lose support if decision makers are presented with bad arguments that arrive by accident to the correct solution.

I'm sorry Halifax Tar -- I am a fan of your posts, since you tend to post what you actually know about*... but I have to back MCG on this one.


* Ya, for whatever that's worth. 
Yes folks, for Loggie (writ large) or Bin Rat (specific) issues: ArmyVern, Halifax Tar, dapaterson, and MJP.  :nod:

Yes, if you wear the crossed paper-clips and didn't make the list, maybe you need to up your game. 

 

[NavyShooter]

I'll jump in for a sec. 

I know the CPO2 in question - his role is as I/C of a warehouse.  I work as a CPO2 in the same warehouse, but under a different umbrella.  He has 70+ pers (mil/civ) under his wings, and works damn hard.  That said, he does have a civilian counterpart that he works with - not my umbrella, not my people, but the two work together as equals with the Mil/civ issues. 

I do not know the referenced LT(N).  I won't go down that path at all.

NS

 

[blacktriangle]

I'll jump in for a sec. 

I know the CPO2 in question - his role is as I/C of a warehouse.  I work as a CPO2 in the same warehouse, but under a different umbrella.  He has 70+ pers (mil/civ) under his wings, and works damn hard.  That said, he does have a civilian counterpart that he works with - not my umbrella, not my people, but the two work together as equals with the Mil/civ issues. 

I do not know the referenced LT(N).  I won't go down that path at all.

NS

If I/C canoes is a real thing (and if what I saw in Ottawa was any indication, it wouldn't be a huge stretch) then you should totally beg for a CFR! What a gig!

 

[Kat Stevens]

This is funny shit. I was a Cpl in B Ops Chilliwack in 86-87. I owned  6 X Sealander bridging boats and all the wet bridging equipment at Cultus Lk.

 

[blacktriangle]

This is funny crap. I was a Cpl in B Ops Chilliwack in 86-87. I owned  6 X Sealander bridging boats and all the wet bridging equipment at Cultus Lk.

Sounds like the Queen owes you some backpay!

 

[Kat Stevens]

Sounds like the Queen owes you some backpay!

Costa Rica, here I come!

 

[AKa]

As someone who has been in Ottawa too long, I don't have a sense of the issues on bases, but here I believe one of our biggest problems contributing to our rising GOFO numbers is our extreme risk aversion.  Nobody below the rank of Col is trusted to make any sort of decision so nothing can be settled without one.  And no decision can be made without reams and reams of briefing notes and analysis (all of which must be perfect in grammar, format, and assembled in a very precise manner). I usually feel like I had more authority as an Lt in the 90s than I do today.  As well, I see Capts sitting on their hands at work because their sections are undertasked but the CoC won't admit that they have more people than they need.  I'm not sure if it is mostly protecting the empire or the fact that there's never any possibility of getting more staff in a reasonable timeframe if your workload explodes.

I find the current situation is hard on morale.  And I am very glad I'm not just starting out in this environment.

 

[OldSolduer]

I’ve said for a number of years we over supervise. It starts at the soldier level where younger soldiers are not allowed to make mistakes and need to seek permission to wipe their.....noses. “Maximum supervision”  means micromanaging and it’s not needed.

 

[gwp]

General and Flag Officer contribution to Canada/US defence alliance

Canada has General Officers serving in Central Command and Indo-Pacific Command CENTCOM and PACOM. The CDS has a General embedded with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, a General embedded with US Cyber Command, and there are three Canadian Generals serving as Deputy Commanding General for Operations – in 1 Corps, and 18 Airborne Corps and, as of this summer, with US Army Alaska. We have two Generals and a Commodore serving within NORAD HQ, one being the Deputy Commander, and also have two Generals serving as Deputy Commanders of the Alaska and Continental NORAD Regions. The US also has senior officers serving in Winnipeg, Ottawa, Halifax and Victoria to name only a few."

Full article
https://www.wilsoncenter.org/article/canadas-outgoing-defence-attache-us-and-canada-still-have-each-others-back?platform=hootsuite

 

[tomahawk6]

Here is a list of officers running key units.USARAK 's web site seems down,so we cant see the rest of the staff.Last I saw was a Canadian Colonel with USARAK. Then of course USForces in Korea is getting a Canadian 3 star I believe. There is a lot to be gained for Canadian officers working at these high commands.

BG Marc Gagne is at Ft bragg.

http://www.jber.jb.mil/Info/Biographies/

LTG Eyre is now on site in Korea.
http://www.usfk.mil/Leadership/

 

[Old EO Tech]

General and Flag Officer contribution to Canada/US defence alliance

Canada has General Officers serving in Central Command and Indo-Pacific Command CENTCOM and PACOM. The CDS has a General embedded with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, a General embedded with US Cyber Command, and there are three Canadian Generals serving as Deputy Commanding General for Operations – in 1 Corps, and 18 Airborne Corps and, as of this summer, with US Army Alaska. We have two Generals and a Commodore serving within NORAD HQ, one being the Deputy Commander, and also have two Generals serving as Deputy Commanders of the Alaska and Continental NORAD Regions. The US also has senior officers serving in Winnipeg, Ottawa, Halifax and Victoria to name only a few."

Full article
https://www.wilsoncenter.org/article/canadas-outgoing-defence-attache-us-and-canada-still-have-each-others-back?platform=hootsuite

I have no issues with the need for General/Flag officers to get this kind of experience that the Small CAF can't give them.  The problem I have is while the number of senior officer outcan postings on growing. There is a very small list of outcan opportunities for SA CWO's, and it is equally important for our CWO/NCM Corps to gain this valuable experience as well.  But instead we just slashed our base of CWO in the CAF...

 

[winnipegoo7]

Edited again. I remember now.

From the first page:
“new and enabler capabilities (Space, cyber, CANSOF, AEWs, ...).”

Does AEW mean air expeditionary wing?

Thanks

 

[MJP]

I have no issues with the need for General/Flag officers to get this kind of experience that the Small CAF can't give them.  The problem I have is while the number of senior officer outcan postings on growing. There is a very small list of outcan opportunities for SA CWO's, and it is equally important for our CWO/NCM Corps to gain this valuable experience as well.  But instead we just slashed our base of CWO in the CAF...

The loss of those CWO posns were posns that were almost purely technical or career in nature and could for the most part be done by MWO/CPO2 minus a few exceptions here and there.  They weren't designed nor were they being used to further develop pers into command Chief posns or really benefit the institution in any great way by virtue of them being chiefs.  We could and probably should do the same sort of rationalization on the officer side of the house.

 

[Old EO Tech]

The loss of those CWO posns were posns that were almost purely technical or career in nature and could for the most part be done by MWO/CPO2 minus a few exceptions here and there.  They weren't designed nor were they being used to further develop pers into command Chief posns or really benefit the institution in any great way by virtue of them being chiefs.  We could and probably should do the same sort of rationalization on the officer side of the house.

Well we will have to agree to disagree, though I do concede that some of the Log CWO, could not be justified.  But non command team CWO, actually lead the institution more than RSM's do, RSM's are busy with the day to day business of a tactical unit, Div or higher level CWO in non CT jobs truly lead the institution as they don't "own" the troops/leaders they are mentoring, and have the job of enforcing policy on behalf of a Comd, very much enabling the success of their Divs and the CA.  Who do you think is enforcing the CAERP?  It's not MWO that can use the influence that a CWO has to lead these initiatives, and in 10 years the CA will find out the results of cutting all the CWO from Div HQ.  You only have to look at the RCAF, who kept every single CWO in 1 CAD, because they know what removing that experience from that HQ would do to it.  And the SEM project has hard coded entry level SEM CWO, it's only the CA that has removed them all, and only considers post-RSM SEM positions as valid, like the AJAG CWO.

But this is a tangent.  The CWO in outcan jobs are SA CWO for certain, and properly so, but IMHO CWO should have a non CT role once in their careers, without that they don't have the knowledge of what these CWO have been doing for the CA for years.  And this is one reason why the CSS community failed in our job to properly institutionalize these jobs since unification.  But more SA CWO jobs would give the CAF a more experienced CWO Corps and increase the number of all available CT and non-CT positions, as it is doing for officers.


 

 

[tomahawk6]

Do what the USMC does by putting officers and senior NCO's into reserve units as advisors.Or place senior NCO's and officers into what we call ROTC units at civilian colleges.