Number of IPC levels for Corporals vs Captians

[Inch]

For non-specialist MOCs - yes, I agree wholeheartedly with your take on it.  However - and this is speaking from my own personal experience in two similar trades in two different branches of the service - the Corporal in a specialist trade is more likely to equate (in functionality, at least) to the Captain.

Here's where we disagree.

Even a Specialist Cpl doesn't have nearly the same responsibility a Captain would. As a Captain, I can sign for an aircraft. As the Aircraft Captain, I have command of all personnel on board and I'm responsible for safety of flight. There isn't a Cpl in the entire CF that can say they have the same responsibility. Even 500 Series techs, sure they may be able to do any job required of them, but it always takes a level C to do an independent check and sign off the maintenance action, the level C's are almost always Sgts and in my experience, never Cpls.

Cpl to a Capt, even in functionality, aren't even close.

 

[284_226]

Here's where we disagree.

Even a Specialist Cpl doesn't have nearly the same responsibility a Captain would. As a Captain, I can sign for an aircraft. As the Aircraft Captain, I have command of all personnel on board and I'm responsible for safety of flight. There isn't a Cpl in the entire CF that can say they have the same responsibility. Even 500 Series techs, sure they may be able to do any job required of them, but it always takes a level C to do an independent check and sign off the maintenance action, the level C's are almost always Sgts and in my experience, never Cpls.

Cpl to a Capt, even in functionality, aren't even close.

Sorry, perhaps "functionality" was the wrong word.  I wasn't attempting to make an argument that Cpls and Capts should be in the same pay range, because there's clearly additional responsibility upon the Capt.  However, I think the previous posts in the discussion were addressing the Cpl/Capt as being the same in that they're the "working rank" of their respective scales.  My point was that even a 10-year specialist trade Cpl can still be learning the trade much the same as a 10-year Capt can be.  If referring to standard trades, then the previous argument that Sgt/Capt would probably be accurate.

 

[armyvern]

284_226,

Now you're getting into the realm of "spec pay" for those employed in the aplic spec positions and received over and above the base salary. That's a whole 'nother beast applicable only to a few and also regulated by Treasury Board. There are a great many threads in this forum already running on spec pay.

This thread is all about Base Salary and IPCs for those trades/ranks; let's keep it that way.

 

[hat]

Inch,

Lets not sell our Cpls short.  A case in point:

Cpl (non "specialist"), signs for LAV III as acting section 2IC (not as expensive as AC, but still lots of $$).  Cpl is employed as crew commander for said vehicle.  He is responsible for its safe operation, crew tactics etc...  More than that, Cpl is also employed as acting LAV Sgt and is primary navigator for the remainder of the platoon.  This example is from operations. 

This is from a Capt who is happy to have ten incentives and is glad Cpls get there raises over a shorter span of time.

 

[sandyson]

From experience, a lance corporal was an appointment by the CO with "advice" from the RSM.  The "rank" offered an opportunity to try some one in a leadership role and furnish  the support of military law.  I cannot recall if pay was affected, but this was a paternalistic army wherein you had to ask permission to marry--so I doubt it.
Perhaps the question could be restated.  IF Treasury should decide to throw some excess cash to military salaries, should the cpl pay incentive levels be increased with increased funding but at say 2, 3, 4 year gaps?  Are the non-cpls prepared to pay for it?

 

[284_226]

284_226,

Now you're getting into the realm of "spec pay" for those employed in the aplic spec positions and received over and above the base salary. That's a whole 'nother beast applicable only to a few and also regulated by Treasury Board. There are a great many threads in this forum already running on spec pay.

"Specialist pay" isn't over and above base salary.  Specialist pay is assigned to specific trades, and last time I looked, it applied to 34 out of the 80 trades in the CF.  It's not "applicable only to a few" by any stretch of the imagination.

This thread is all about Base Salary and IPCs for those trades/ranks; let's keep it that way.

Umm...you're missing something here.  Someone brought up a comparison between Cpls and Capts and made a broad observation.  I pointed out that the observation (with its references to IPCs) only held true if one only considered the non-specialist trades, making the issue of "specialist MOSIDs" a pertinent one to the discussion.  Nobody mentioned "base salary" in the entire thread.

 

[2 Cdo]

Inch,

Lets not sell our Cpls short.  A case in point:

Cpl (non "specialist"), signs for LAV III as acting section 2IC (not as expensive as AC, but still lots of $$).  Cpl is employed as crew commander for said vehicle.  He is responsible for its safe operation, crew tactics etc...  More than that, Cpl is also employed as acting LAV Sgt and is primary navigator for the remainder of the platoon.  This example is from operations. 

This is from a Capt who is happy to have ten incentives and is glad Cpls get there raises over a shorter span of time.

Well said!

 

[Jarnhamar]

Also, both are leadership ranks, which Corporal is not.

Do you mean in theory or in practice?
I've seen corporals command vehicles including lavs,  lead search teams and 2IC for convoys of 14+ vehicles including being in charge, technically, of soldiers AND officers both Canadian and allied.
2IC-ing for over a dozen vehicles and well over a platoons worth of pers strikes me as a 'leadership' rank.

 

[Sub_Guy]

Cpl might not be a leadership rank but in the Navy its called Leading Seaman, I don't consider most of the LT(N)'s I encounter to be very effective leaders anyway.

There should be no more incentives for Cpl's as 5 is enough, how many flunky LT(N)'s are kicking around?  If anything we should claw theirs back! 

If  more incentives were added for Cpl's there would have to be pay raises for every rank, I highly doubt there would be any incentive for rank progression if as a Cpl after 10 incentives I could be making close to what a MWO makes.  I may be in the minority but I feel I get paid VERY well for what I do!

 

[Michael OLeary]

As one more thread devolves into a "let's slag officers" dogpile, we're done.

Normal caveats apply. Submit your intended reply and reasons why the thread should be open for you to a Moderator.

Army.ca Staff