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

CRCN Message on the Steward Occupation Town Hall (Steward trade elimination)

dapaterson

Army.ca Relic
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
7,065
Points
1,090
If a unit is dropping trained people to Pte B then their HHQ is failing.

I suspect the highest ranking individuals may take a 5c release and get CAF Severance Pay, rather than undergo a COT.
 

rmc_wannabe

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
1,870
Points
1,310
So could we potentially see CPO1's drop all the way to S1 or whatever they are calling LS right now? I know in the Army when you switch trades you normally drop to Cpl. I know one reserve unit that drops people to PteB, but that's another story.
CPO1s are their own MOSID now (00385) so I don't foresee them getting dropped from this.

Also, depending on the reason for COT, there is not necessarily a reduction in rank. The RCCS COTed whole trades into new ones without rank reduction because it was CA led decision, vice due to inability or medical grounds. That was a mess of it's own, but we didn't see swaths of SNCOs drop to Cpl because of it. Same with the Cyber Op folks when they stood up.

What I can see happening is a 5 year grace period for these folks to retain rank, retain rate of pay, get qualified in their new trade, and then close the books on Steward.

To do anything else would cause another ACISS like debacle, and I wouldn't wish that even on the RCN....
 

Halifax Tar

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
2,259
Points
1,260
(1) CPO1s are their own MOSID now (00385) so I don't foresee them getting dropped from this.

(2) Also, depending on the reason for COT, there is not necessarily a reduction in rank. The RCCS COTed whole trades into new ones without rank reduction because it was CA led decision, vice due to inability or medical grounds. That was a mess of it's own, but we didn't see swaths of SNCOs drop to Cpl because of it. Same with the Cyber Op folks when they stood up.

What I can see happening is a 5 year grace period for these folks to retain rank, retain rate of pay, get qualified in their new trade, and then close the books on Steward.

To do anything else would cause another ACISS like debacle, and I wouldn't wish that even on the RCN....

(1) Bingo, thank you. Former STWs now CPO1s are unaffected by this.

(2) The RCN can make acceptations and accept rank equivalency's in the trades it manages. That's the RCNs course to plot.

The trouble will arise when former STWs attempt COT to a CMP or otherwise managed trade. That will be another fight all together. And I don't foresee it going well for the STWs. Lastly throw in the aptitude requirements and its going to be rough for some.

This will probably terminally cripple the careers a large portion of those succession managed in the STW occupation.
 

Ostrozac

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
303
Points
930
Food prep duties can be handled by adding another couple of cooks, who can then also do all of the cook jobs. Cleaning can be handled by the officers. The Jr ranks, and C&POs have managed to learn to clean their spaces... NPF should likely be handled by FIN people, since FIN is now it's own occupation. The other tasks, can be handled by the extra Log folks likely to be added to the ship's company to fill the spaces left by the Stewards.
All of that would work fine if there are enough logisticians to fill those gaps — which appears not to be the case. There is a risk the RCN will drive away people who actually wanted to sail at the same time they can’t actually attract, train and retain their replacements.
 

Furniture

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
1,123
Points
1,110
All of that would work fine if there are enough logisticians to fill those gaps — which appears not to be the case. There is a risk the RCN will drive away people who actually wanted to sail at the same time they can’t actually attract, train and retain their replacements.
It is a risk, but there is also a risk in maintaining an occupation that really doesn't have an operational raison d'être. Pers who could be better used doing operational jobs are spending time training to fold napkins, carve flowers in butter, and plan parties.

Obviously Stewards do more than that, but nothing else they do can't be done as well/better by other occupations.

Want more food prep pers? Hire cooks who specialize in handling and cooking food.

Want the NPF managed well? Hire more FSAs who specialize in finance.

Want more First Aid expertise? Train more of your other pers in advanced First Aid.

Want the barracks and messes run? Hire civies...

There are great people in the Steward occupation, and I feel bad for the ones that will inevitably get screwed by this, but that doesn't mean getting rid of Stewards is a bad choice for the institution.
 

Halifax Tar

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
2,259
Points
1,260
It is a risk, but there is also a risk in maintaining an occupation that really doesn't have an operational raison d'être. Pers who could be better used doing operational jobs are spending time training to fold napkins, carve flowers in butter, and plan parties.

Obviously Stewards do more than that, but nothing else they do can't be done as well/better by other occupations.

Want more food prep pers? Hire cooks who specialize in handling and cooking food.

Want the NPF managed well? Hire more FSAs who specialize in finance.

Want more First Aid expertise? Train more of your other pers in advanced First Aid.

Want the barracks and messes run? Hire civies...

There are great people in the Steward occupation, and I feel bad for the ones that will inevitably get screwed by this, but that doesn't mean getting rid of Stewards is a bad choice for the institution.

Well put.

I have some good friends in the STW occupation. We are/were (?) in the same Dept; And this has been a tough pill for them to swallow. But like @Furniture states it is the right choice for the institution.
 

Navy_Pete

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
1,618
Points
1,040
It is a risk, but there is also a risk in maintaining an occupation that really doesn't have an operational raison d'être. Pers who could be better used doing operational jobs are spending time training to fold napkins, carve flowers in butter, and plan parties.

Obviously Stewards do more than that, but nothing else they do can't be done as well/better by other occupations.

Want more food prep pers? Hire cooks who specialize in handling and cooking food.

Want the NPF managed well? Hire more FSAs who specialize in finance.

Want more First Aid expertise? Train more of your other pers in advanced First Aid.

Want the barracks and messes run? Hire civies...

There are great people in the Steward occupation, and I feel bad for the ones that will inevitably get screwed by this, but that doesn't mean getting rid of Stewards is a bad choice for the institution.

So instead of having a generalist trade doing a bunch of different necessary taskings, hire a bunch of specialists and get them to do lower level tasks compared to what they are trained for? You don't need a fully trained cook to do juniour steward jobs, you don't need FSAs to manage NPF and the shore jobs are usually there to balance out the sea time, but right now the stewards are doing all of that.

Also, aren't all those trades already in distress? Fail to see how adding new positions will help if we can't fill positions we already have, with people we don't have, in a new element not everyone wants to work in.

So get rid of something that's working, add additional new stress on other trades, because all you think they do is fold napkins and do butter sculptures? Cunning plan, that, well thought out.

Courageous leadership would have been telling the trade this the week before at the CM meeting instead of saying it was all good, and then letting them find out in the paper. Smart leadership would have included having a plan in place for the transition and announcing details alongside side. We haven't done either.

This all reads more like a 'how not to' guide for implementing a major HR change, vice a bold change for long term institutional gain.

Fortunately the trade changes we've done so far are a bang up success, with retention rates and new hires better than ever, so I'm sure it will be fine.
 

Halifax Tar

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
2,259
Points
1,260
So instead of having a generalist trade doing a bunch of different necessary taskings, hire a bunch of specialists and get them to do lower level tasks compared to what they are trained for? You don't need a fully trained cook to do juniour steward jobs, you don't need FSAs to manage NPF and the shore jobs are usually there to balance out the sea time, but right now the stewards are doing all of that.

Also, aren't all those trades already in distress? Fail to see how adding new positions will help if we can't fill positions we already have, with people we don't have, in a new element not everyone wants to work in.

So get rid of something that's working, add additional new stress on other trades, because all you think they do is fold napkins and do butter sculptures? Cunning plan, that, well thought out.

Courageous leadership would have been telling the trade this the week before at the CM meeting instead of saying it was all good, and then letting them find out in the paper. Smart leadership would have included having a plan in place for the transition and announcing details alongside side. We haven't done either.

This all reads more like a 'how not to' guide for implementing a major HR change, vice a bold change for long term institutional gain.

Fortunately the trade changes we've done so far are a bang up success, with retention rates and new hires better than ever, so I'm sure it will be fine.

You and I have debated at length how the added work will affect the other trades. You see it as a big deal, and I don't. So I wont push that any further.

But you're patently incorrect in how this news was distributed. Reread the very first post in this thread and you will see CRCN and RCN CPO held a town hall with STWs and broke the news that way. They have also given 3 foxing years warning. What more could they have done ? The trade was going away, period.

And for the last time I will add this has been coming for at least a decade. And as the actual cliff approach the trade was scrambling to try and change the tack, think the fall of Saigon. From what I have learned recently, any STWs who were under the impression that their trade was going get new life were being mislead by their own trade on the RCN.
 

Furniture

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
1,123
Points
1,110
So instead of having a generalist trade doing a bunch of different necessary taskings, hire a bunch of specialists and get them to do lower level tasks compared to what they are trained for? You don't need a fully trained cook to do juniour steward jobs, you don't need FSAs to manage NPF and the shore jobs are usually there to balance out the sea time, but right now the stewards are doing all of that.

Also, aren't all those trades already in distress? Fail to see how adding new positions will help if we can't fill positions we already have, with people we don't have, in a new element not everyone wants to work in.

So get rid of something that's working, add additional new stress on other trades, because all you think they do is fold napkins and do butter sculptures? Cunning plan, that, well thought out.

Courageous leadership would have been telling the trade this the week before at the CM meeting instead of saying it was all good, and then letting them find out in the paper. Smart leadership would have included having a plan in place for the transition and announcing details alongside side. We haven't done either.

This all reads more like a 'how not to' guide for implementing a major HR change, vice a bold change for long term institutional gain.

Fortunately the trade changes we've done so far are a bang up success, with retention rates and new hires better than ever, so I'm sure it will be fine.
Actually, Jr. Steward food prep work is Cook work. Just because Stewards and Scullery Hands assist with it does not mean it isn't a cook function. If the justification for keeping Stewards around is food, then it's the wrong answer, because the CAF has a trade for that.

The Snr. Steward jobs with NPF are in the realm of finance, and unrelated to food prep... So why do we have an occupation that bounces from food prep/cleaning officers spaces, to finance? Does that seem like a wise use of limited billets in the CAF?

Could some of the RCNs retention issues be related to the way it treats it's people? Maybe sticking with 19th century ideas about how officers are served contributes to a toxic environment for Jr. pers?

@Halifax Tar already explained why you're wrong about the way it was communicated, so I won't belabor that point.

Lastly, you are correct in assessing that the RCN/CAF have been bad at making occupational changes, but you're ignoring that the changes happened because the old system was unsustainable. Keeping an occupation dedicated to serving officers is unsustainable, it needs to change. Other avenues were tried to keep the occupation relevant, but those have failed.

Occupations die, it's part of the CAF evolving to meet the needs of the times. I suspect in the next 10-20 years my occupation will die off, or be absorbed into another one.
 

ArmyRick

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
348
Points
880
Actually, Jr. Steward food prep work is Cook work. Just because Stewards and Scullery Hands assist with it does not mean it isn't a cook function. If the justification for keeping Stewards around is food, then it's the wrong answer, because the CAF has a trade for that.

The Snr. Steward jobs with NPF are in the realm of finance, and unrelated to food prep... So why do we have an occupation that bounces from food prep/cleaning officers spaces, to finance? Does that seem like a wise use of limited billets in the CAF?

Could some of the RCNs retention issues be related to the way it treats it's people? Maybe sticking with 19th century ideas about how officers are served contributes to a toxic environment for Jr. pers?

@Halifax Tar already explained why you're wrong about the way it was communicated, so I won't belabor that point.

Lastly, you are correct in assessing that the RCN/CAF have been bad at making occupational changes, but you're ignoring that the changes happened because the old system was unsustainable. Keeping an occupation dedicated to serving officers is unsustainable, it needs to change. Other avenues were tried to keep the occupation relevant, but those have failed.

Occupations die, it's part of the CAF evolving to meet the needs of the times. I suspect in the next 10-20 years my occupation will die off, or be absorbed into another one.
What is your MOSID/Trade?
 
Top