Academic vs. other trg for officers (split fm US Army Senior Leadership)

[mariomike]

There is merit, in my opinion, to having an entirely different rank structure and progression model, for the technical trades as opposed to the combat trades - regardless of the impact it may have on how ADMs and CPSEU calculate their pensions.

They have something like that in emergency services. Members in operations are in the Supplemental Pension Plan. Members in operational support are in the Primary Pension Plan.

The Supplemental Plan enhances the pension that a member already earns in the Primary Plan.

 

[PuckChaser]

Maintaining ships and planes, or servicing vehicles and gear is a world apart from leading an assault.  There is merit, in my opinion, to having an entirely different rank structure and progression model, for the technical trades as opposed to the combat trades - regardless of the impact it may have on how ADMs and CPSEU calculate their pensions.

If we remove mandatory progression to Captain after X years regardless of trade qualification, then we don't need separate rank structures. We already have enough Us vs. Them, without someone "only" being a technical Captain, or "only" a combat arms Lieutenant. I had a Captain, who had been a Captain for a few years, on a BSOC course that had not yet completed his DP1, and failed it for the 3rd (if memory serves) time. If you're not at OFP, you should not be a Captain. We have the same issue with NCMs: I completely disagree with Pte(T) being awarded with Time In. It should be Time In + successful completion of DP1. You should be promoted off the grad parade. Make the rank mean something.

 

[ballz]

Perhaps it has to (partly) do with the very rigid rank hierarchy the Army tends to use.  For me, a junior Officer (2Lt, Lt or Capt) regardless of the rank is differenciated by experience in trade rather than rank/time in rank. It is the way we see things, at least in the Fighter Force and it seems to work for us!

You have a valid point. The problem is not so much "within" the smaller organizations. In our coy, we all recognize "X Pl Comd has been doing this for 2x years and he is the senior Pl Comd, Y Pl Comd may be a Captain but he just got here." At a micro level that is easy to reconcile. However, when a new OC or CO comes in they have usually just jumped to the conclusion that the Captain is senior in experience. The army has a whole recognizes a Captain as something different from an Lieutenant. Examples of this are when succession of command comes into play, or when you are sending a couple of LOs, or positions come around such as an instructor position on Phase III that requires a "Captain," things get real screwy. Our Recce Pl Comd was an Lt and was sent to teach on BMOQ(L) while a Captain on RW (for just being a terrible officer basically) was sent to instruct on DP1.1. The Recce Pl Comd was none-too-pleased to hear he wasn't teaching on DP1.1 because he was "just an Lt."

And the army isn't wrong for treating a Captain as a higher rank than a Lieutenant. Why do we have a rank structure if its not going to have any meaning/usefulness behind it? I think the solution is not to ignore the rank structure but to fix how we promote people to Captains, so that when someone sees a Captain and an Lt standing together they know the Captain is *actually* more experienced, if nothing else. I think the easy solution is that when you get to Battalion, you are promoted to Lt. After 2 years as an Lt, you are promoted to Captain**. From then on its competitive of course. This may not work outside of the Infantry but it sure would fix our schmozzle.

**The exception that I would make for the 2 years in Bn is for UTPNCMs / CFRs. If you were a Sgt or below, a year in Bn as an Lt before Capt. If you were a WO, straight to Capt. I think this very simple system solves most issues, for us anyway.

I've seen it in the army, too. I once served in a rifle company in one of our regular battalions that was commanded by a Captain. Now, he was a senior Captain, and was promoted Major six months after assuming command of his company,  but for a period he commanded other Captains and no one had any problems taking orders from him; including his Coy 2IC (Capt, pre-AOC) and his fresh off Phase IV Platoon Commanders (two of whom were Captains due to extended time in the training system).

Stuff like that is going on all the time. As I said, at a micro-level, its easy to manage as long as people's egos don't get in the way. If their egos get in the way, well, they won't be long getting sorted out as they probably aren't a quality employee anyway.

 

[Edward Campbell]

And all those anecdotes explain why:

    1. A simple, common CF wide rank/trade system has been, basically, a less than optimal solution for almost 50 years now. We, now you, made it work, we developed local "work arounds," but there are good reasons why so many
        navies, armies and air forces have different rank/trade structures;

    2. For the Army's officer corps, promotion to each rank level, starting at officer cadet, must rest on some basis of qualification and proven (competitive) ability ~ courses, examinations, PERs, etc;

    3. We, at least in the Army, might want to look at something like the old (pre 1985) US Army specialist structure;
       

    4. The business of "over ranking" ~ which solved a HUGE and critical pay in the mid 1960s and which now gives you "interchangeable" corporal-privates and captain-lieutenants ~ needs to be addressed; and

    5. The business of tying rank to trade, also an artefact of the 1960s, needs to be re-examined, at least for the Army.

 

[Navy_Pete]

In theory, the AMOR process is supposed to do just that.

There is no reason to rush to push people to Capt/Lt(N).  Pay for junior officers is very competitive with what the private sector pays - and training provided at no cost while being paid is almost unheard of in the private sector.

To use your tech trades analogy: why not have the Jr officer arrive as a SLt, then spend 3 or so years trade qualified getting experience, before challenging exams to be promoted to Lt(N)?

Admittedly, not all occupations follow identical progression models,  but some reasonable facsimile can be found.  It makes little sense to start paying some one in excess of $70K per year with little to no experience; that's what we are doing when we have turned Capt/Lt(N) into a "gimmie".

So in the Naval Tech Officer trades, you spend 3 years as a SLt to get you BOQ, which includes a whack of schooling, some hands on training, then a full year to do OJT on a ship, finishing off with a full technical oral board chaired by a Cdr with a LCdr and two Lts.  They can go from two-six hours.  At that point you are fully trade qualified and if you have your time in rank, get promoted to Lt(N).

Most people then spend a few years working ashore as a two ringer, come back to a ship for another year and do another OJPR to get their Head of Department (HOD) qualification, while working directly for a HOD qualified Lt(N).  (As an aside, they used to have LCdrs as HODs, but not any longer on the CPFs or any of the new ships).  At the end of that OJPR is another oral board, chaired by a Cdr NTO, another Cdr/LCdr MARs officer, and two more Lt(N)s or LCdrs.

Long story short, if you waited until after the HOD board for the second ring, you'd have experienced engineers with somewhere around 6-8 years of time in competing for the Lt(N) promotion.  Given that a big part of our training leans heavily towards doing all the things engineers normally are weak in, SLt salary is not that competitive, so would easy pickings for head hunters.  As well, you can spend your two years before going back to the A/HOD training year in Ottawa doing the same work as ENG 4s in the public service.  You can look up the pay tables, but very easy to see that SLt pay isn't close to competitive with what the government pays everyone not in uniform for generally having less actual responsibilities in similar jobs.

I'm sure there are a lot of other technical trades and other support trades in the same boat, so unless they make a separate table, pretty hard to make a GSO fit the huge variety of trades in the CAF.     

 

[dapaterson]

Looking at Mechanical engineers in Canada, salary ranges from $46-97K, with an average of $62K (http://www.payscale.com/research/CA/Job=Mechanical_Engineer/Salary).  Therefore, someone with 6-8 years in the military becoming a Lt(N) would be above average in their pay for their field, since Lt(N) Basic is $6202 per month, or $74K per year.  (This ignores the extremely competitive benefits pacakge, including a full, indexed pension available after 25 years of service, medical and dental for the individual and their dependents... which add to the value of the compensation).

It appears that the CAF believes all members are posted to CFB Lake Woebegon, where everyone is above average.

    5. The business of tying rank to trade, also an artefact of the 1960s, needs to be re-examined, at least for the Army.

The challenge was encountered in the 1990s, when the TASK (Trade Advancement through Skills and Knowledge) initiative went forward; it proposed delinking rank and pay to some extent, to reward liong service and knowledge, particularly in complex technical trades.  TASK failed for two reasons.  First, ego: Higher ranks want higher pay than subordinates.  Second, and more importantly, zero sum: any changes to compensation for the CAF would have to come out of the existing compensation envelope, so implementing TASK's recommendations would ahve meant winners and losers.  No one wants to be a loser.

 

[Navy_Pete]

Looking at Mechanical engineers in Canada, salary ranges from $46-97K, with an average of $62K (http://www.payscale.com/research/CA/Job=Mechanical_Engineer/Salary).  Therefore, someone with 6-8 years in the military becoming a Lt(N) would be above average in their pay for their field, since Lt(N) Basic is $6202 per month, or $74K per year.  (This ignores the extremely competitive benefits pacakge, including a full, indexed pension available after 25 years of service, medical and dental for the individual and their dependents... which add to the value of the compensation).

It appears that the CAF believes all members are posted to CFB Lake Woebegon, where everyone is above average.

I agree; I think we're very fairly paid as two ringers (and in general for where we hit our promotions compared to level of responsibility etc).

If we were doing the same work as SLts, not so much.  Was bringing it up as an example of why changing promotion to Capt (or Lt(N)) across the board wouldn't work for a lot of trades.

 

[dapaterson]

I agree; I think we're very fairly paid as two ringers (and in general for where we hit our promotions compared to level of responsibility etc).

If we were doing the same work as SLts, not so much.  Was bringing it up as an example of why changing promotion to Capt (or Lt(N)) across the board wouldn't work for a lot of trades.

SLt pay starts at $59K for ROTP grads, or $51K for a DEO.  As an entry-level position with minimal experience, very decent wages.  (And that ignores environmental allowances, PLD and such). 

 

[mariomike]

Looking at Mechanical engineers in Canada, salary ranges from $46-97K, with an average of $62K (http://www.payscale.com/research/CA/Job=Mechanical_Engineer/Salary).  .

Out of curiosity, I looked up what The Toronto Transit Commission ( TTC ) pays their Mechanical Engineers. Back in 2013, some were making as much as $124,309.69. Not including Taxable Benefits.
TTC has good job security, benefits and pension.

 

[dapaterson]

Out of curiosity, I looked up what The Toronto Transit Commission ( TTC ) pays their Mechanical Engineers. Back in 2013, some were making as much as $124,309.69. Not including Taxable Benefits.
TTC has good job security, benefits and pension.

Yes.  And a CAF mechanical engineer at the rank of Capt(N)/LCol makes up to $150K.

But talking about the top of the heap (the TTC Chief Mechanical Engineer, https://ttc.talentnest.com/en/posting/10178) is irrelevant when we're talking about very junior engineers, just starting out.

 

[mariomike]

But talking about the top of the heap (the TTC Chief Mechanical Engineer, https://ttc.talentnest.com/en/posting/10178) is irrelevant when we're talking about very junior engineers, just starting out.

My source was the Sunshine List. There were many  TTC Engineers listed. What the TTC pays their Engineers can be seen here,
http://www.fin.gov.on.ca/en/publications/salarydisclosure/pssd/pdf/municipalities_2014.pdf

This entry level TTC job call is now closed, but it shows their starting salary for Mechanical Engineers hired off the street,

VEHICLE ENGINEER - MECHANICAL
Completion of a University Degree in Mechanical Engineering or equivalent
Annual Salary Range: $76,895.00 to $96,150.60
https://ttc.talentnest.com/en/posting/15037#.Vov5ertIiUk

It looks like the Chief of Vehicle Engineering made $162,880.96. Not including Taxable Benefits.

Edit to add
City of Toronto
Engineer ( off the street )
Salary/Rate $84,666.40 - $99,481.20 / Year
Hours of Work (bi-weekly) 70.00
"Must be registered as a Professional Engineer (P.Eng.) with the Professional Engineers Ontario (PEO)."
https://www.brainhunter.com/frontoffice/seekerViewJobDetailAction.do?sitecode=pl389&jobId=2194521&page=search&external=

 

[Navy_Pete]

SLt pay starts at $59K for ROTP grads, or $51K for a DEO.  As an entry-level position with minimal experience, very decent wages.  (And that ignores environmental allowances, PLD and such).

Again, I agree.  Once you get more experience and earn some of the qualifications, the Capt/Lt(N) pay scale follows the private sector trend, so makes sense to keep the promotion automatic (as opposed to making it merit based as per previous posts due to issues on combat arms side).  Would argue that getting the associated required qualifications does make it merit based in any case.

I was just trying to demonstrate why the current rank/promotion system makes sense for other trades other then Inf. Off, not argue we should get paid more; our current pay and benefits package is generally pretty competitive, and get to do all kinds of other fun things you'd ever do civie side.

In any case, this may be completely off tangent from the academic training split, but I guess my point was that while the current 'automatic' promotion to Capt can cause confusion for the army types, that may be particular to that one (very large) trade in certain cases, and in probably a lot of other (smaller) trades, makes perfect sense for a lot of reasons, including level of responsibility, training requirements, and pay scale (relative to comparable private sector employement). :cheers:

 

[PuckChaser]

Again, I agree.  Once you get more experience and earn some of the qualifications, the Capt/Lt(N) pay scale follows the private sector trend, so makes sense to keep the promotion automatic (as opposed to making it merit based as per previous posts due to issues on combat arms side).  Would argue that getting the associated required qualifications does make it merit based in any case.

I was just trying to demonstrate why the current rank/promotion system makes sense for other trades other then Inf. Off, not argue we should get paid more; our current pay and benefits package is generally pretty competitive, and get to do all kinds of other fun things you'd ever do civie side.

In any case, this may be completely off tangent from the academic training split, but I guess my point was that while the current 'automatic' promotion to Capt can cause confusion for the army types, that may be particular to that one (very large) trade in certain cases, and in probably a lot of other (smaller) trades, makes perfect sense for a lot of reasons, including level of responsibility, training requirements, and pay scale (relative to comparable private sector employement). :cheers:

What you're talking about isn't automatic promotion. Your SLts have a lot of hoops to jump through, recommendations, high marks on assessments to EARN a promotion to Lt(N). They've achieved an operational function point that requires them to wear that rank, so they get it. They've also spent 3 years as a SLt, which is a lot of learning after formal trade school. A similar system can be ported to the Army, where perhaps Lts have to do OJT packages, and spent certain time in rank, and be recommendation for promotion, instead of just time-in, regardless of trade qualifications or job experience.

 

[McG]

I think the navy model already fits what is being proposed, in this thread, for the army.

 

[Blackadder1916]

This entry level TTC job call is now closed, but it shows their starting salary for Mechanical Engineers hired off the street,

VEHICLE ENGINEER - MECHANICAL
Completion of a University Degree in Mechanical Engineering or equivalent
Annual Salary Range: $76,895.00 to $96,150.60
https://ttc.talentnest.com/en/posting/15037#.Vov5ertIiUk

It looks like the Chief of Vehicle Engineering made $162,880.96. Not including Taxable Benefits.

Edit to add
City of Toronto
Engineer ( off the street )
Salary/Rate $84,666.40 - $99,481.20 / Year
Hours of Work (bi-weekly) 70.00
"Must be registered as a Professional Engineer (P.Eng.) with the Professional Engineers Ontario (PEO)."
https://www.brainhunter.com/frontoffice/seekerViewJobDetailAction.do?sitecode=pl389&jobId=2194521&page=search&external=

Both of the positions that you quoted as examples of "off the street" starting salaries require registration as a P.Eng.  They would hardly be considered as entry level since one of the requirements of the PEO is "at least 48 months of verifiable, acceptable engineering experience".

 

[mariomike]

Both of the positions that you quoted as examples of "off the street" starting salaries require registration as a P.Eng.

With The City of Toronto, the term "off the street", as I understood it, meant someone hired through the open-to-the-public external hiring process. Regardless of outside experience.

There is another process for permanent city employees via the closed-to-the-public internal hiring process.

Also open to the public,

SENIOR ENGINEER
$98,298.20 - $115,515.40 / Year
Monday to Friday, 35 Hours per Week
Closing Date 05-Feb-2016
https://www.brainhunter.com/frontoffice/seekerViewJobDetailAction.do?sitecode=pl389&jobId=2196345&page=search&external=

They would hardly be considered as entry level since one of the requirements of the PEO is "at least 48 months of verifiable, acceptable engineering experience".

Looks like at least some of the experience can be "pregraduation",

"Your pregraduation experience should provide you an opportunity to be licensed in less than the four years usually required after graduation by exposing you to the five quality-based criteria used to assess experience: application of theory, practical experience, management of engineering, communication skills, and social implications of engineering."
http://peo.on.ca/index.php/ci_id/22884/la_id/1.htm

 

[daftandbarmy]

In the UK they put all Officers through RMA Sandhurst.

Some go in after graduating from university (at their own cost I might add) and others, like I was, are non-graduates.

Graduates who pass are pretty quickly promoted to full Lt after commissioning. Non-graduates serve as 2Lts for 2 years at a lower rate of pay doing the same job before being promoted to Lt. Meanwhile, the graduates are all promoted to Captain by that time.

Was I bitter? Hell yeah....

 

[Old Sweat]

In the UK they put all Officers through RMA Sandhurst.

Some go in after graduating from university (at their own cost I might add) and others, like I was, are non-graduates.

Graduates who pass are pretty quickly promoted to full Lt after commissioning. Non-graduates serve as 2Lts for 2 years at a lower rate of pay doing the same job before being promoted to Lt. Meanwhile, the graduates are all promoted to Captain by that time.

Was I bitter? Hell yeah....

Pretty well how the pre-integration Canadian Army operated, except we all didn't go to RMC or through ROTP. ROTP graduates were commissioned as lieutenants while we peasants did two years and a bit as second lieutenants essentially doing the same job but at two thirds of the pay. The ROTP graduates also made captain after three years (if they had passed their promotion exams) while we did five as lieutenants or a total of seven as a subaltern before promotion. The logic was that regardless of entry program everybody did about seven years before promotion to captain.

 

[daftandbarmy]

Pretty well the pre-integration Canadian Army operated, except we all didn't go to RMC or through ROTP. ROTP graduates were commissioned as lieutenants while we peasants did two years and a bit as second lieutenants essentially doing the same job but at two thirds of the pay. The ROTP graduates also made captain after three years (if they had passed their promotion exams) while we did five as lieutenants or a total of seven as a subaltern before promotion. The logic was that regardless of entry program everybody did about seven years before promotion to captain.

I think the UK uses the same (odd) logic. They didn't give me the difference in pay over that period though. Harrumph....