What to do: NCO or Officer, need some insight

[RiverAux]

I have always been skeptical of this idea and nothing in yet another thread about it has changed my mind. 

However, I have come to the conclusion that unless there is a subsequent change that makes all new members start as enlisted and work their way up, the NCO program will never expand much beyond where it is today. 

Why?

1.  We already know that essentially all former or current "real" NCOs that are in CAP have no interest in wearing stripes just to wear stripes.  If this was actually a thing, we would have thousands of NCOs, not dozens.

2.  Although I'm sure they're trying hard, it still doesn't seem likely that whatever duties are carved out for NCOs will be significantly NCOish to really attract anyone.  Sort of like the health-related jobs in CAP -- doctors and nurses aren't rushing to join in order to be kept from doing most of what they are trained to do.  Since CAP, at least in the short term, is not going to have enlisted airmen for NCOs to lead and since the NCOs wouldn't be in the chain of command of our other "enlisted" (i.e., cadets) UNLESS they take a position that could just as easily be filled by a CAP officer, then all they will be doing is taking on some generic "advisor" role with no real responsibility.

Therefore, I trust that most of those that would be eligible to be NCOs are smart enough to figure out that there isn't anything much to this "program" and will chose to go the traditional senior member route. 

So, let them plant the seeds of a program, but it will just wither on the vine.

[Spaceman3750]

In the RM, you don't start as an E-1 and "work you way up" to officer. Yes, there are enlisted to commission tracks, but generally speaking you either come in as an officer, or come in enlisted, and you stay there. So the whole "unless people come in as airmen and work their way up" doesn't track.

[RiverAux]

True, but seeing as how our cadets do that now it is a realistic option for a total senior member program restructure (not one I am particularly in favor of since I don't think its necessary, but one I could get behind as a comprehensive "solution" to the "problem"). 

[Spaceman3750]

True, but seeing as how our cadets do that now it is a realistic option for a total senior member program restructure (not one I am particularly in favor of since I don't think its necessary, but one I could get behind as a comprehensive "solution" to the "problem").

The reason the CP is like that is because it is a leadership training program, which is not what the so-called "senior program" is for.

[RiverAux]

We're not training leaders in the senior member PD program? 

[Mitchell 1969]

2.  Although I'm sure they're trying hard, it still doesn't seem likely that whatever duties are carved out for NCOs will be significantly NCOish to really attract anyone. 

I think it's headed 180 degrees opposite of that. Ultimately, I wouldn't be surprised to see it where, instead of looking to see which jobs could be carved out for NCOs, it will actually come down to carving which ones "need" to be held by officers - and that number is small. When all you have are officers, other than the small number who choose to retain stripes that nobody else can get, then everybody is an officer. Change it so everybody can get stripes and...everybody will get stripes, except for the small number who are needed to fill roles that need to be filled by officers. (Yes. A guess. Idle speculation. As with many things on these pages).

Therefore, I trust that most of those that would be eligible to be NCOs are smart enough to figure out that there isn't anything much to this "program" and will chose to go the traditional senior member route. 

Not if it isn't their choice as to which route to go, but which route the organization sends them.

We keep hearing "nothing we do has to be done by NCOs." For some reason, there is reluctance to admit "most of what we do doesn't need to be done by officers." Given a fresh look at this, and given (assumed, yet to come) delineation between qualification, selection and performance standards between NCOs and officers, I really think we are headed toward fewer cap members as officers, more as NCOs, and everybody getting used to that, then moving on. Many current CAP officers might not even meet enhanced officer standards, or be in "career fields" where officers are needed. My hope would be that, if it goes that way, this is resolved by attrition rather than demotion. Given the length of our "service careers" in CAP, we would be looking at 10-15-20 years to "normalize" our officer/NCO ratios.

But, admittedly, all speculation on my part.

[arajca]

We're not training leaders in the senior member PD program?

We are not. We're training managers.

[THRAWN]

2.  Although I'm sure they're trying hard, it still doesn't seem likely that whatever duties are carved out for NCOs will be significantly NCOish to really attract anyone. 

I think it's headed 180 degrees opposite of that. Ultimately, I wouldn't be surprised to see it where, instead of looking to see which jobs could be carved out for NCOs, it will actually come down to carving which ones "need" to be held by officers - and that number is small. When all you have are officers, other than the small number who choose to retain stripes that nobody else can get, then everybody is an officer. Change it so everybody can get stripes and...everybody will get stripes, except for the small number who are needed to fill roles that need to be filled by officers. (Yes. A guess. Idle speculation. As with many things on these pages).

Therefore, I trust that most of those that would be eligible to be NCOs are smart enough to figure out that there isn't anything much to this "program" and will chose to go the traditional senior member route. 

Not if it isn't their choice as to which route to go, but which route the organization sends them.

We keep hearing "nothing we do has to be done by NCOs." For some reason, there is reluctance to admit "most of what we do doesn't need to be done by officers." Given a fresh look at this, and given (assumed, yet to come) delineation between qualification, selection and performance standards between NCOs and officers, I really think we are headed toward fewer cap members as officers, more as NCOs, and everybody getting used to that, then moving on. Many current CAP officers might not even meet enhanced officer standards, or be in "career fields" where officers are needed. My hope would be that, if it goes that way, this is resolved by attrition rather than demotion. Given the length of our "service careers" in CAP, we would be looking at 10-15-20 years to "normalize" our officer/NCO ratios.

But, admittedly, all speculation on my part.

Much like the entirety of the program.

What you have described is exactly what other organizations have done. Make the people who need a title an officer and make the rest....not officers...

[Flying Pig]

Since this entire discussion is purely about uniform appearances, "I like stripes better than bars, so I want to be an NCO thingy"  I actually think the uniform looks better without stripes or officer rank.   Just like LE or Fire.  Your rank is based on position.  You dont wear Major oak leaves in the Sheriffs Office and answer to a Lt. 

[RiverAux]

I actually think the uniform looks better without stripes or officer rank.   Just like LE or Fire. 

Most cops and firefighters wear rank (with the exception of small volunteer fire departments that may barely have uniforms at all much less money for rank insignia). 

[Mitchell 1969]

Since this entire discussion is purely about uniform appearances, "I like stripes better than bars, so I want to be an NCO thingy"  I actually think the uniform looks better without stripes or officer rank.   Just like LE or Fire.  Your rank is based on position.  You dont wear Major oak leaves in the Sheriffs Office and answer to a Lt.

Maybe not so much in a SO, but lots of higher ranked LE people report to lower ranked people all the time. Under ICS, the position is key, not the agency, not the individual rank.

But, true enough, on a day to day basis, LE captains don't work for sergeants and chiefs don't work for Deputy Chiefs.

[Flying Pig]

I actually think the uniform looks better without stripes or officer rank.   Just like LE or Fire. 

Most cops and firefighters wear rank (with the exception of small volunteer fire departments that may barely have uniforms at all much less money for rank insignia).

Uhhhhh..... yeah.  If you HAVE rank, yes, you wear it.  But your rank corresponds with your position/authority.  CAP rank does not work that way.   ICS system isn't what we are talking about.   And rarely will you have a lower rank person in a position of command in the ICS piston for very long.  Im sure people will chime in with "not where I work"

[Eclipse]

There are way more "generals" in LEAs then CAP will ever see Lt Cols, and in context PD and FD "rank" is just as administrative in nature
as CAP's, yet rarely do you see people giving them grief about 4 stars on the collar and no experience, etc.

And the big city PDs have plenty of "merit" promotions where the officer "knew a guy" or fit the "check box of the quarter" and
bypassed the normally "required" testing.

There are a lot of sheriffs wearing uniforms who are elected and have zero LE experience or training.

[Mitchell 1969]

There are way more "generals" in LEAs then CAP will ever see Lt Cols, and in context PD and FD "rank" is just as administrative in nature
as CAP's, yet rarely do you see people giving them grief about 4 stars on the collar and no experience, etc.

And the big city PDs have plenty of "merit" promotions where the officer "knew a guy" or fit the "check box of the quarter" and
bypassed the normally "required" testing.

There are a lot of sheriffs wearing uniforms who are elected and have zero LE experience or training.

Name ONE LE agency in the US that has "generals." (Stars don't equate to "general."  Ask any admiral.)

[Eclipse]

Name ONE LE agency in the US that has "generals." (Stars don't equate to "general."  Ask any admiral.)

They all do, and that was exactly what I meant. I've seen LEAs using every standard military metal
grade from butter bar through 4-star sometimes with different terminology, but you can find everything
under the sun including colonels, corporals and everything in between.

You can say "stars don't equate to general" all you want, but we all know they do, especially when the
whole department's grade structure from an insignia perspective mirrors the military exactly.

So is that the only heartburn CAP gets about grade?  The nomenclature?
If we started calling our FGOs Commissioner, Director, Chief, or Superintendent would that end the discussion
and allow us all to wear the same uniform?

[PHall]

Bob, you do know you're arguing with a retired police chief, right?

[Майор Хаткевич]

Does that change anything?

[Eclipse]

Bob, you do know you're arguing with a retired police chief, right?

I didn't realize this was an "argument".

[Mitchell 1969]

Name ONE LE agency in the US that has "generals." (Stars don't equate to "general."  Ask any admiral.)

They all do, and that was exactly what I meant. I've seen LEAs using every standard military metal
grade from butter bar through 4-star sometimes with different terminology, but you can find everything
under the sun including colonels, corporals and everything in between.

You can say "stars don't equate to general" all you want, but we all know they do, especially when the
whole department's grade structure from an insignia perspective mirrors the military exactly.

So is that the only heartburn CAP gets about grade?  The nomenclature?
If we started calling our FGOs Commissioner, Director, Chief, or Superintendent would that end the discussion
and allow us all to wear the same uniform?

It doesn't mirror the military exactly. They are used for convenience of reference points and have been since the 19th century.

Veterans and many civilians know that a bar outranks stripes and a leaf outranks a bar. Etc. etc. Same with some of the titles. Lieutenant is higher than sergeant etc. But that's about it.

Most cops enter their police careers at the bottom and stay there. That's not only OK, it's appreciated. Stripes and bars therefore don't signify occupational advancement. They distinguish levels of authority.

Sergeants in police departments are not E-5 junior NCOs. Police lieutenants are not freshly commissioned junior officers. And, police chief's aren't generals.

It varies by state, sometimes by county, sometimes by city boundary. Where I worked, 4 stars simply indicated "this is the chief of his/her department." It was that way due to long-standing custom. Every cop knew what it meant. Fellow Chief's knew. Showing up at something wearing an embroidered triangle or a gold duck wouldn't have made any sense. It could well be that the department only had 20 cops, with the next ranking guy being a lieutenant (which was the commonly used rank for a second-level supervisor). Even so, the chief had the four stars, because that's what Chief's wore. And, Chief Twentycops would stand right next to Chief Thousandcops, both as chiefs, the persons appointed as the police executives by their political jurisdictions, neither outranking the other.

Some big departments have ranks to use all combinations of stars, 1,2,3 or 4. LAPD has two grades of sergeant, 3 of lieutenant, three of captain, plus 4 ranks wearing 1 to 4 stars. Some departments use leafs (NYPD) and some use eagles (many, not all, State Police). In Tennessee, Chief's wear 5 stars.  Their business, but almost always based on tradition.

Whatever insignia are used, there is no "NATO equivalent rank chart" comparing police ranks to military. Police they aren't equivalent.

And, I'm still waiting to read about the claimed US police department that has generals. I've never seen one. Never heard of one.

[RiverAux]

I actually think the uniform looks better without stripes or officer rank.   Just like LE or Fire. 

Most cops and firefighters wear rank (with the exception of small volunteer fire departments that may barely have uniforms at all much less money for rank insignia).

Uhhhhh..... yeah.  If you HAVE rank, yes, you wear it.  But your rank corresponds with your position/authority.  CAP rank does not work that way.   ICS system isn't what we are talking about.   And rarely will you have a lower rank person in a position of command in the ICS piston for very long.  Im sure people will chime in with "not where I work"

Your statement was specifically about uniform appearance only and that was the way I responded.  If you wanted to talk about CAP rank structure and its meaning, you should have said so.