• 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
7,073
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
1,871
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
2,260
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
1,125
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
2,260
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
2,260
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
1,125
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?
 

Navy_Pete

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
1,618
Points
1,040
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.
The RCN isn't getting rid of the steward job requirements; they are just getting rid of the people that are doing the job now and then saying that magically it will get figured out who does it. At the moment, they help feed the crew, are a big part of casualty clearing, and part of pretty much every major evolution. All that stuff will still need done, so who is going to do it THAT ACTUALLY HAS A HEALTHY TRADE NUMBER TO TAKE ON NEW POSITIONS?

Cooks are on the list for recruitment bonuses, along with Martech and a number of other RCN trades. Most others are critically short, and lots of log branch folks on shortage messages when ships sail.

This does nothing for any kind of cultural change, and 'for the good of the institution' doesn't actually mean anything. It's been talked about for years with no action because no one has a feasible plan to make it happen.

A lot of officers clean their own cabins etc anyway, but you don't need to axe a trade to change that kind of daily routine. Personally was nice to do something easy, with a concrete result, so was something I did as a when I needed a break from the daily grind. It really doesn't take anything to just tell officers to clean their own cabins and swap out their own laundry (which again, a lot do anyway, because frankly it's weird to leave it to someone else).

This seems mostly like a decision to be a forcing function to make a change, regardless of whether or not it's a good idea. In terms of evolving, most evolutions are actually unsuccessful mutations that just die off, so change isn't inherently good (or bad). Some things we still do the same as 50 years ago because it works, and warships just don't have the space, layout or capacity to do a single cafeteria or similar things that are on the non-combatants.

I see this as yet another RCN MOC shitshow in the making, except this one is entirely unforced. 5 years doesn't even give enough time with how limited resources are to do things like amend MOC info, update training plans, etc so good luck there. We're on a 7+year timeline to figure out the HT replacement specialization on the MARTECH side, and that's something that is a known issue that is actively resulting in maintenance not getting done, shortages of different skills and other holes in ship capabilities. If they pull some of the TDO/NPTG folks into yet another trade update it's only going to slow down the entire enterprise.
 

dapaterson

Army.ca Relic
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
7,073
Points
1,090
RCN repatriated Steward from Log a number of years ago, convinced they could best manage the trade...
 

Halifax Tar

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
2,260
Points
1,260
The RCN isn't getting rid of the steward job requirements; they are just getting rid of the people that are doing the job now and then saying that magically it will get figured out who does it. At the moment, they help feed the crew, are a big part of casualty clearing, and part of pretty much every major evolution. All that stuff will still need done, so who is going to do it THAT ACTUALLY HAS A HEALTHY TRADE NUMBER TO TAKE ON NEW POSITIONS?

Cooks are on the list for recruitment bonuses, along with Martech and a number of other RCN trades. Most others are critically short, and lots of log branch folks on shortage messages when ships sail.

This does nothing for any kind of cultural change, and 'for the good of the institution' doesn't actually mean anything. It's been talked about for years with no action because no one has a feasible plan to make it happen.

A lot of officers clean their own cabins etc anyway, but you don't need to axe a trade to change that kind of daily routine. Personally was nice to do something easy, with a concrete result, so was something I did as a when I needed a break from the daily grind. It really doesn't take anything to just tell officers to clean their own cabins and swap out their own laundry (which again, a lot do anyway, because frankly it's weird to leave it to someone else).

This seems mostly like a decision to be a forcing function to make a change, regardless of whether or not it's a good idea. In terms of evolving, most evolutions are actually unsuccessful mutations that just die off, so change isn't inherently good (or bad). Some things we still do the same as 50 years ago because it works, and warships just don't have the space, layout or capacity to do a single cafeteria or similar things that are on the non-combatants.

I see this as yet another RCN MOC shitshow in the making, except this one is entirely unforced. 5 years doesn't even give enough time with how limited resources are to do things like amend MOC info, update training plans, etc so good luck there. We're on a 7+year timeline to figure out the HT replacement specialization on the MARTECH side, and that's something that is a known issue that is actively resulting in maintenance not getting done, shortages of different skills and other holes in ship capabilities. If they pull some of the TDO/NPTG folks into yet another trade update it's only going to slow down the entire enterprise.

I suspect not all of those STW positions will be filled. COs STW, and Canteen/NPF Manager are my guess as the only two that will remain. COs STW will probably go to the cooks (S1/MS) and Canteen/NPF manager to Supply (PO2). The NPF books/accounting will likely be absorbed by the existing FSA establishment, not a huge added work load. The rest of the watch and station bill can be absorbed in the dept without much stress.

I expect the remainder of the billets to either be left empty/deleted, added as ATR, or perhaps given to Log (doubtful). You can use those bunks for staff and riders too. This guess is CPF specific as I am unaware of STW occupation establishments for AOPS or JSS.

RCN repatriated Steward from Log a number of years ago, convinced they could best manage the trade...

My understanding is that this had a lot to do with the rest of the CAF getting rid of the trade and some Snr STW leaders who really wanted to wear an anchor and not chain links as a cap badge.
 
Top