Acting lacking MCpl in charge of a section with qualified MCpl's

[Awesomedude]

(3) Master corporals have seniority among themselves in their order of seniority as corporals.

Where I am/was having issues is basically I know:

MCpl > Corporal

But, im not really sure if 

MCpl substantive > MCpl Acting lacking.

Im starting to think its MCpl with more corporal time > MCpl with less corporal time (regardless of substantives)

 

 

[Pusser]

You may be over-complicating this.  If the CoC has designated the A/MCpl as the supervisor in the Sgt's absence, that pretty much seals the deal.  This is a command prerogative.  I suppose the other MCpls could complain, but I don't think it would do much good.

 

[Awesomedude]

However,

if the Wo said, random Cpl is the supervisor and the Sgt reports to him. Im sure there would be a legitimate complaint. So, where does a AL/MCpl and a substantive MCpl fall into this if at all

EDIT: im thinking it don't btw, MCpl wise, I always thought it did but more I read into it, im not finding anything. 

 

[MARS]

However,

if the Wo said, random Cpl is the supervisor and the Sgt reports to him. Im sure there would be a legitimate complaint. So, where does a AL/MCpl and a substantive MCpl fall into this if at all

That would be true, I think, because there is an actual difference in rank in your Cpl/Sgt example.  But the Acting MCpl and the substantive MCpl are both the same rank: Cpl.  I haven't been a LS in over 20 yrs, but what currently separates the two other than some coursing, specifically PLQ?  To answer your question, I don't think the A/MCpl situation falls into it at all.

It isn't pretty, but if the A/MCpl is a better junior leader and administrator than his peers who have said courses completed, then yes, I would have made the same decision as the CoC in this case. 

 

[Eye In The Sky]

3.08 – MASTER CORPORAL APPOINTMENT

(1) The Chief of the Defence Staff or such officer as he may designate may appoint a corporal as a master corporal.

(2) The rank of a master corporal remains that of corporal.

(3) Master corporals have seniority among themselves in their order of seniority as corporals.

(4) Master corporals have authority and powers of command over all other corporals.

I believe MM hit the nail on the head above.

I recall my first time being a Crse WO (as a Sgt).  I was 3 years in rank, and the Sgt who held the position of Trg Sgt on the course had 10 or more years in rank more than me.  Despite that, I had the authority and responsibilities of the Crse WO position.

Another consideration when people are the same rank is having authority over others by way of position or appointment.  There can be 4 or 5 Captains on a long range patrol crew;  not all of them will have 'command' authority that comes with being either the Crew Commander or the Aircraft Captain (who have different authority on different aspects of the crew and mission).

Maybe assigning this position was done for PD reasons and not to slight anyone?  In my job, we often give people the position of Acting Crew Lead, to expose them to the job requirements and 'develop the leadership potential in our subordinates'.  Lots of possible reasons, that might be one of them.    :2c: 

 

[PuckChaser]

So, where does a AL/MCpl and a substantive MCpl fall into this if at all

EDIT: im thinking it don't btw, MCpl wise, I always thought it did but more I read into it, im not finding anything.

They're both MCpls. If the course mattered in attaining the promotion/appointment, you'd be required to complete PLQ before being appointed.

I really think it comes down to this: If you're going to be a good leader, you need to be a good follower. If someone junior to you (but same appointment) is placed in charge over you, you should be supporting that person as much as you would your Sgt. You should also ask the Sgt politely why its happening, as its either due to professional development of the junior member, or the job performance of that "substantive" MCpl being subpar.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

:goodpost:

They're both MCpls. If the course mattered in attaining the promotion/appointment, you'd be required to complete PLQ before being appointed.

I really think it comes down to this: If you're going to be a good leader, you need to be a good follower. If someone junior to you (but same appointment) is placed in charge over you, you should be supporting that person as much as you would your Sgt. You should also ask the Sgt politely why its happening, as its either due to professional development of the junior member, or the job performance of that "substantive" MCpl being subpar.

:goodpost:  Yup, we don't operate like a union.  Well, not EXACTLY like one, at least...

 

[CountDC]

I think people have to spend more time getting the job done than worrying about who has seniority.  I have had occasions where I supervised more senior ranks and been supervised by more junior ranks simply because of position and/or work knowledge.  One time I did have to explain to the Cpl that he was the sect comd I was assigned to for a weekend ex so he was to issue me directions the same as everyone else (keeping in mind respectably as he was a couple ranks lower).  Seniority has never been a factor when I assign leaders of a work party, I always pick on more important factors such as real skill observed in past performance, job knowledge or occasionally the desire to observe performance. 

A Substantive MCpl should understand that it is not always seniority as this is part of completing small party tasking on the JLC (or at least use to be), deciding who would be your 2IC based on skill not rank or seniority.  Cpl Bloggins over MCpl Bloggins because the Cpl is a MSE Op and the task is veh recovery.

 

[Awesomedude]

FYI, this was an entirely theoretical discussion.

I remember someone pulled this card on deployment (this guy cant be my supervisor because he dosn't have PLQ) and its where I originally heard the topic, and it came up in the shop. I always thought it to be true but now digging into it I can't find any proof, therefore I was probably mistaken.  Now get your touque and gloves on with your winter coat fuckers its the RULES! (its not really)

 

[CountDC]

Now get your touque and gloves on with your winter coat ****ers its the RULES! (its not really)

Should have been with me years ago when I had a discussion with a chief that felt I should be wearing gloves with my all weather overcoat.  I was wearing the coat because it was raining but it was his opinion that if it was cold enough to wear the coat it was cold enough to wear gloves as per the dress regulations.  Wasn't cold either, it was actually hot that day.

 

[TCM621]

what currently separates the two other than some coursing, specifically PLQ?

The answer is the same for every rank, the fact that they were selected for promotion via a merit board. There are two issues at play here. The first is the increasing willingness to give pre-requisite courses after promotion to the rank said course was required to get. I have noticed a trend of late where each rank is taking the lower ranks course to get promoted. The seniority thing is pretty irrelevant but it does get pretty ugly around PER time when unqualified people are ranked higher than qualified people.

The second issue is that of MCpl as a rank. It is the most glaringly obvious thing wrong with the NCM Corp that is such an easy fix but no one gives a shit enough to change it. It is a rank in everything but name.  Can anyone see a benefit to the current system? I could see it is it was a position the CO gave to the most senior/exceptional Com in a section but that isn't how it works.

 

[Eaglelord17]

The answer is the same for every rank, the fact that they were selected for promotion via a merit board. There are two issues at play here. The first is the increasing willingness to give pre-requisite courses after promotion to the rank said course was required to get. I have noticed a trend of late where each rank is taking the lower ranks course to get promoted. The seniority thing is pretty irrelevant but it does get pretty ugly around PER time when unqualified people are ranked higher than qualified people.

The second issue is that of MCpl as a rank. It is the most glaringly obvious thing wrong with the NCM Corp that is such an easy fix but no one gives a shit enough to change it. It is a rank in everything but name.  Can anyone see a benefit to the current system? I could see it is it was a position the CO gave to the most senior/exceptional Com in a section but that isn't how it works.

Two small perks is if they need to demote someone they go to a one hook Pte if they were a MCpl and if they are a Sgt they can be demoted to Cpl.

As I understand it there is two main reasons the appointment exists in the first place. #1 was back in the day it was the only way to raise the amount of money people were making for being at the working rank (working rank before this point was a one Hook Pte.). So by promoting them to Cpl they got a pay raise, and by pushing a Cpls responsibilities on to the new MCpl appointment they still retained effective JR leadership. #2 is before this appointment existed it was the senior Cpl which was in charge. This could be a problem if they weren't very motivated/good and by creating the MCpl appointment they could select who they felt would be best in charge to lead.

Currently both those reasons aren't really valid anymore. The first as the pay is pretty decent, the second because it isn't used that way anyways. Personally I would like to see the MCpl position seize to exist and put things back right where Cpl is the leadership rank and Pte T is the working rank (pay for MCpl would be given to the Cpls and current Cpl pay given to Pte T).

 

[Eye In The Sky]

Currently both those reasons aren't really valid anymore. The first as the pay is pretty decent,  Personally I would like to see the MCpl position seize to exist and put things back right where Cpl is the leadership rank and Pte T is the working rank (pay for MCpl would be given to the Cpls and current Cpl pay given to Pte T).

And who then is in charge when the Snr NCOs, WOs or Officers aren't around??  You've created a bigger problem by 'solving' the one you see.  MCpl's have power of command over all Cpls.  What do we go back to, the "Snr Cpl"?  Why bother?

[quotethe second because it isn't used that way anyways.[/quote]

Maybe not in all places, but that is a LEADERSHIP issue.  Snr NCOs and WOs should be expecting their MCpls/MSs to be exactly that;  Jnr NCOs.  If people are getting their Leaf that shouldn't, that is a different issue - how did they merit if they are weak?  If they were chosen because there was no better option...Snr NCOs and WOs should be there to get them on their feet, and give them the necessary mentoring and feedback to get their shit together.

The fixes to the problem aren't to remove the MCpl appointment - it is to expect, demand MCpl to perform their duties in line with their appointment, and for those who can't, to remove the appointment and let them be CFLs if they want.

 

[RedcapCrusader]

Or, we roll MCpl back in with Cpl and reinstate Lance Corporal instead of PTE(T)

 

[Eye In The Sky]

So, you're suggesting we change Pte/Cpl/MCpl to Pte/LCpl/Cpl.  Can you explain the tangible difference in structure, command, seniority other than the name change and requirement to take uniforms to the base tailor?  What is the perceived benefit of doing this, assuming the Cpl 5B pay would be for Cpl and 5A for LCpl so no changes to the pay stuff. 

Keep in mind, this would be a change to the NDA, as the rank of Lance Corporal doesn't exist.

I am firm believer in 2 things WRT the MCpl/MS appoint (1) we give WAYYY too many people their Leaf in an A/L capacity (you should earn it before you wear it).  I have no less than 5 MCpls under me and all 5 of them....A/L.  (2)  the biggest problem with the MCpl/MS deal is that they are not employed to the extent they are supposed to be Forces wide.  I've seen or heard too many times where Snr NCOs and above say "but he is just a MCpl".  The Forces has the appointment for a reason.  I consider part of (2) stems from (1), where no ones knows anymore if someone is a qualified Jack or an A/L one - culturally across the Forces, this may make people less reliant on the rank.  When I was a Jack in my first MOC (early 90s), I don't remember there being a single A/L one in existence.  That might have given the CofC more confidence in *us*.

 

[PuckChaser]

Or, we roll MCpl back in with Cpl and reinstate Lance Corporal instead of PTE(T)

What "leading change" problem are we solving again by doing this? Sounds like a giant PITA to change the NDA for very little tangible gain to the CAF.

 

[blacktriangle]

When I was a Jack in my first MOC (early 90s), I don't remember there being a single A/L one in existence.  That might have given the CofC more confidence in *us*.

For my first few years in the CAF, I never met anyone who was A/L either. In fact, there were quite a few Cpls who had done mods 1-6. A lot of them were more effective leaders than what passes for a MCpl (and in some cases, Sgt) in my current trade.

I'd much rather have Cpls get their PLQ and then give them enough rope to hang themselves, see how they do etc

 

[Eaglelord17]

So, you're suggesting we change Pte/Cpl/MCpl to Pte/LCpl/Cpl.  Can you explain the tangible difference in structure, command, seniority other than the name change and requirement to take uniforms to the base tailor?  What is the perceived benefit of doing this, assuming the Cpl 5B pay would be for Cpl and 5A for LCpl so no changes to the pay stuff. 

No the change would be from Pte/Pte T/Cpl/MCpl to Pte/Pte T (or Lance Cpl or whatever you want to call the working rank)/Cpl.

Your removing what is essentially a redundant rank currently in the form of two Pte ranks which has no difference between pay and responsibility between them (other than one having a hook and the other not). It also gets rid of this ambiguous appointment status and the current technicality that a Cpl is under the NDA is the Jr leadership rank.

Also just as a side note, how is it even possible we have a acting lacking for a appointment? Your technically not doing anyone elses duties as according to the NDA a Cpl has the same responsibilities as a MCpl. It shows that we really don't treat it as a appointment as if we did you would be appointed or not, no ambiguous status.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

No the change would be from Pte/Pte T/Cpl/MCpl to Pte/Pte T (or Lance Cpl or whatever you want to call the working rank)/Cpl.

Your removing what is essentially a redundant rank currently in the form of two Pte ranks which has no difference between pay and responsibility between them (other than one having a hook and the other not). It also gets rid of this ambiguous appointment status and the current technicality that a Cpl is under the NDA is the Jr leadership rank.

How is the appointment ambiguous?  Although it is an appointment, it is still a promotion;  so it Pte to Pte (T).  I certainly expect more from a trained Aviator than I do an untrained one; it is a step towards the first NCO rank - Cpl.  Would we argue to get rid of the OCdt and 2Lt ranks, and everyone is a Lt right off the mark?  MCpl is also a stepping stone to Sgt, IAW the CFAO on Reg Force NCM Career Progression.  CFAO 49-4 IIRC? in the tables in Annex A (going from memory and away from my postal code and DWAN right now).

The QR & O doesn't seem to be ambiguous:  Master corporals have authority and powers of command over all other corporals. 

Also just as a side note, how is it even possible we have a acting lacking for a appointment? Your technically not doing anyone elses duties as according to the NDA a Cpl has the same responsibilities as a MCpl. It shows that we really don't treat it as a appointment as if we did you would be appointed or not, no ambiguous status.

The NDA doesn't get into the weeds stating a Cpl has the same responsibilities as a MCpl.  Where do you read that?

The pre-req's for MCpl are laid out in the CFAO mentioned above.  How do we have acting ranks (not just limited to MCpl)?  Because the QR & 0 permits it.

3.05 - ACTING RANK

(1) An officer or non-commissioned member may be granted an acting rank higher than the member's substantive rank:
a.for an indefinite period; or
b.for the period during which the member is filling a position on an establishment for which a rank higher than the member's substantive or temporary rank is authorized.

(2) An officer or non-commissioned member granted an acting rank is liable to be posted or transferred in the member's substantive rank at any time.

(M)

We send people on tours, deployments etc *WSE* (While So Employed), including Col's as TF Commanders WSE to BGen.  If we can do it for position with that much command authority and responsibility, why not for Cpl's to MCpls?

I think the CAF has other things to focus and spend brain power, work hours and funding on that are a much higher priority to what amounts to cosmetic changes that have no positive or measureable benefit. 

 

[CountDC]

I do have to agree that Acting ranks is used too much at least in the admin world. 

I also wonder about the meriting of acting with substantive.  Seems to me that the acting ranks should be merited only if there isn't enough substantives to meet the requirements.  Meriting someone that doesn't have the pre-reqs for the rank they are already wearing creates the situation of pushing them ahead onto a course, hoping they pass and promoting them acting again. Of course they deserve it because they are superior based on the PERs they earned because no supervisor ever over writes their PERs.