Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
May 21, 2019, 06:31:38 PM
Home Help Login Register
News:

CAP Talk  |  General Discussion  |  Membership  |  Topic: NCO
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Pages: 1 ... 18 19 [20] 21 Send this topic Print
Author Topic: NCO  (Read 112004 times)
THRAWN
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 1,915

« Reply #380 on: April 30, 2015, 04:16:28 PM »


^ Sorry to hurt your sensibility, however "Caste System" is a perfectly accurate way to distinguish the divide between the officer and enlisted corps in the military. One can still be court martialed for "fraternization".  Yes, times may have made the divide blurred, but it's still there.

Since your comments are based on ignorance, I accept your apology. I recommend you pick up a dictionary and read the definition of "caste system". And while you're at it, maybe read about the history of military grade and rank system.

Please answer this, if we don't have a division of duties, responsibilities and authority in CAP based on grade, why do we need them at all?

From our friends at Wiki Pedia: "Several characteristics distinguish a caste system. The first is the tendency toward endogamy, meaning that people marry within the same caste exclusively. Caste mobility is also extremely rare; one cannot transform from a laborer to a scholar except in very rare circumstances, for example. Higher castes traditionally hold all of the political power, and the castes may be divided further through language, culture, and economics. Within a caste system, each member generally knows his or her place, and your social status is usually apparent to others as well." 

In a military society, this fits.  You may wish to go over the UCMJ, again, where this is pretty much explained in detail.  We can agree to disagree, however ignorance is something I am always willing to consider... :angel:

To answer your question; we don't need a military grade structure to show a division of duties and/or responsibilities in CAP. It is an affectation desired by our association with the Air Force, and by our history as part of the War Dept. during WW2.  Having  NCO's in CAP is a choice.  Our 40 years without a formal NCO Corps has shown the lack of need for NCO's.  We can reorganize things however we choose, but IMHO, we could be spending our resources in areas that really need improving.

I think the solution is to eliminate all military-style grades in CAP and either not have grades at all or have grade insignias that reflect PD Level progression only (similar to the lines/stripes used for Flight Officer grades; one line per level). Another alternative is to have temporary grades associated with duty positions while holding that office. The bottom line is we shouldn't wear military-style officer grades if they're not going to be associated with similar roles, duties, responsibilities and authority that are normally associated with those grades.

This has been repeated so many times, and I am really curious as to the rationale behind the organization's reluctance to adopt it. It makes sense. When we have lieutenant colonels serving at the squadron level in positions far below their perceived level of expertise and lieutenants serving in positions far above their perceived level of expertise, you have to wonder why there is such institutional inertia that is driving the status quo.
Report to moderator   Logged
Strup
"Belligerent....at times...."
AFRCC SMC 10-97
NSS ISC 05-00
USAF SOS 2000
USAF ACSC 2011
US NWC 2016
lordmonar
Too Much Free Time Award

Posts: 10,694

« Reply #381 on: April 30, 2015, 04:29:16 PM »

People like rank?
Report to moderator   Logged
PATRICK M. HARRIS, SMSgt, CAP
THRAWN
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 1,915

« Reply #382 on: April 30, 2015, 04:31:08 PM »

People like rank?

So give them rank, or a title, based on position, and that's it. The rest is fluff.
Report to moderator   Logged
Strup
"Belligerent....at times...."
AFRCC SMC 10-97
NSS ISC 05-00
USAF SOS 2000
USAF ACSC 2011
US NWC 2016
lordmonar
Too Much Free Time Award

Posts: 10,694

« Reply #383 on: April 30, 2015, 04:39:01 PM »

People like rank?

So give them rank, or a title, based on position, and that's it. The rest is fluff.
People like fluff.
Report to moderator   Logged
PATRICK M. HARRIS, SMSgt, CAP
THRAWN
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 1,915

« Reply #384 on: April 30, 2015, 04:58:05 PM »

People like rank?

So give them rank, or a title, based on position, and that's it. The rest is fluff.
People like fluff.

Based on the pages of discussion above, and previous discussions on the same topic, obviously not...
Report to moderator   Logged
Strup
"Belligerent....at times...."
AFRCC SMC 10-97
NSS ISC 05-00
USAF SOS 2000
USAF ACSC 2011
US NWC 2016
Holding Pattern
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 1,373
Unit: Worry

« Reply #385 on: April 30, 2015, 05:03:12 PM »

People like rank?

So give them rank, or a title, based on position, and that's it. The rest is fluff.
People like fluff.

Based on the pages of discussion above, and previous discussions on the same topic, obviously not...

Basing corporate policy on the ideas of a few people on an unofficial forum is not the best of ideas.

Might seem silly, but titles and rank move mountains in non-profits. Kill that in CAP and we become yet another generic SAR group.

I don't show up every week to a CAP meeting because I have a title, but it sure helps.

And when it comes right down to it, I've never met anyone in CAP that has had a problem figuring out who is in command of a situation. If we are so bent on needing new titles for peopel in command, make "Commander" an official title and give it a pin. Oh wait...
Report to moderator   Logged
lordmonar
Too Much Free Time Award

Posts: 10,694

« Reply #386 on: April 30, 2015, 05:08:43 PM »

People like rank?

So give them rank, or a title, based on position, and that's it. The rest is fluff.
People like fluff.

Based on the pages of discussion above, and previous discussions on the same topic, obviously not...
Well....CAPTALK is not always representitive of the CAP in general.   That is always something we have to remember on these discusssions.   The efforts to make a change to the rank program is always going to butt up agains other memers wants, desires and concepts.   One of the reason why we take what we can get as opposed to what someone thinks is "right".

Take for instance the six months wait.   We on the NCO committee thought that it was a good idea for everyone to wait at least six months before they get any rank.   Leadership disagreed.....so we settled for just making the NCO system match up what the officers are doing.   We can work making it "right" later if we can get the buy in from leadership and members.

Strenghing up the PD system across the board is something that we need to do IMHO whether we do an NCO program or not.   It is outside the NCO committee's direct charter but is something that getting a good NCO program in place can help down the road.

When this was reported at the NCO commitee there was a lot of talk about this.....but we are talking the baby steps approch with the long term goal being making CAP better.
Report to moderator   Logged
PATRICK M. HARRIS, SMSgt, CAP
Storm Chaser
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 2,680

« Reply #387 on: April 30, 2015, 05:49:43 PM »


People like rank?

So give them rank, or a title, based on position, and that's it. The rest is fluff.
People like fluff.

Based on the pages of discussion above, and previous discussions on the same topic, obviously not...

Basing corporate policy on the ideas of a few people on an unofficial forum is not the best of ideas.

Might seem silly, but titles and rank move mountains in non-profits. Kill that in CAP and we become yet another generic SAR group.

I don't show up every week to a CAP meeting because I have a title, but it sure helps.

And when it comes right down to it, I've never met anyone in CAP that has had a problem figuring out who is in command of a situation. If we are so bent on needing new titles for peopel in command, make "Commander" an official title and give it a pin. Oh wait...

I understand where you're coming from and know that many folks feel the same way. But grade should not be used merely as an incentive or way to recognize members. Military-style grades should represent authority and responsibilities.

Many on this board have an issue with having both NCOs and officers because it's equivalent to having a "caste system" in a volunteer organization. Well, how come no one has an issue with having company, field and general grade officers? That could be considered a division of class as well. What about the fact that a Maj is superior to a Capt and a Capt to a 1st Lt? How come no one has an issue with that? I know why. Because at the end of the day, that Capt is Joe and the Lt is Bob and they all work together to make things happen regardless of grade. Wait? That's right! I forgot Billy, the MSgt, and Rick, the SSgt. They all work together as well. Hmmm...
Report to moderator   Logged
Holding Pattern
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 1,373
Unit: Worry

« Reply #388 on: April 30, 2015, 06:02:10 PM »

To be honest, if people try to make it into a caste system, it will become one. I don't see that happening.

In fact, if that happened in our squadron it would be the first sign that it is time for me to leave.

Same if we blew up the entire rank system.

There are plenty of ES groups without a military background that exist if I wanted to join one of those.

Think of it like Star Trek: No one gave O'Brian guff for only being an NCO, and we all know that he is the reason the Enterprise and DS9 ran for as long as they did without blowing up.
Report to moderator   Logged
lordmonar
Too Much Free Time Award

Posts: 10,694

« Reply #389 on: April 30, 2015, 06:16:10 PM »

You are correct....that internally we are getting the job done.....because Pat, Robert, Tom, Dick and Harry (and Sue, Cindy and Janet) are getting the job done.

My issue with CAP rank is mostly with the outside impressions and perceptions.

An AD USAF member sees an 2d Lt and expects certain things from that person.  He sees a SSgt and expects certain things.
A County Sherrif see the ranks has some preconceived notion of what that rank means based on their understanding of "how the military works".

So....by making our purely interanl requirments for rank more like our AD brothers and sisters.....can make our credibiility with them better.
In no way are ever going to be accepted as "just like them" because they don't even think that other AD Officers are "just like them" (a flying officer vs a comm officer, vs an SF officer, vs a medical officer, etc. et al.)   
But we all agree that the system is a little broken.   And tinkering with it....may......may...make it better.

That is my goal with the NCO program.   Let's see what incrmental changes we can make.....see what results come from that and move on from there.

As I have said before.....there is a whole specutrum of things that we can do......everything from ditching the military model all together to mimicing/requiring full on military commission requirments for our officers.

Somewhere there is a happy medium.  Where we give ranks based on ability and responsiblity.....and we also keep in mind that we are all volunteer professionals with full time jobs/lives outside of CAP.

As for the Characterisation of the AD enlsited/officer system as a Caste System....in a lot of way it is.....in a lot of ways it is not.   
By Caste System we give the impression that there are hard road blocks that you cannot every pass based on things totally out of your control....that simply does not exist.  If you mean that the O's get differnt pay and better perks, different jobs and have a different set of standard then the E's....then yes in a way we are a caste system.   But so does just about every corporation.   The Board room types vs upper managment, vs middle managment vs line suprvisor vs the worker bees vs the janitors and mail room pukes.     

We are a volunteer operation.....we need to make sure the mission gets done......and we want to make sure the right person gets into the right job....and we should make sure that what they wear on their slevel or collar does not interfere with that.

Having said that....if we are going to use a military ranks system.....it only make sense that we try to match our parent system....or we should just do what the Commertive Air Force does and make everyone a Col and be done with it.

[/rant]
Report to moderator   Logged
PATRICK M. HARRIS, SMSgt, CAP
THRAWN
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 1,915

« Reply #390 on: April 30, 2015, 06:48:02 PM »

People like rank?

So give them rank, or a title, based on position, and that's it. The rest is fluff.
People like fluff.

Based on the pages of discussion above, and previous discussions on the same topic, obviously not...

Basing corporate policy on the ideas of a few people on an unofficial forum is not the best of ideas.

Might seem silly, but titles and rank move mountains in non-profits. Kill that in CAP and we become yet another generic SAR group.

I don't show up every week to a CAP meeting because I have a title, but it sure helps.

And when it comes right down to it, I've never met anyone in CAP that has had a problem figuring out who is in command of a situation. If we are so bent on needing new titles for peopel in command, make "Commander" an official title and give it a pin. Oh wait...

It doesn't come solely from the ideas of a few people in an unofficial forum. It comes from 20+ years of hearing this issue discussed. It's not gotten any better with the introduction of the newest iteration of the NCO program. Take a look at the history of this discussion on this site alone. It goes back to at least 2007. That's 8 years of more than a few people making their displeasure known with the way the program is administered. You're right. Make commander and official title, give it, and only it, a pin. Everybody else is a member. Just a member....
Report to moderator   Logged
Strup
"Belligerent....at times...."
AFRCC SMC 10-97
NSS ISC 05-00
USAF SOS 2000
USAF ACSC 2011
US NWC 2016
THRAWN
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 1,915

« Reply #391 on: April 30, 2015, 06:51:39 PM »

My issue with CAP rank is mostly with the outside impressions and perceptions.

An AD USAF member sees an 2d Lt and expects certain things from that person.  He sees a SSgt and expects certain things.
A County Sherrif see the ranks has some preconceived notion of what that rank means based on their understanding of "how the military works".



And those perceptions drive missions to or away from us depending on the quality of the experience. If Sheriff Joe has a preconceived notion of what rank means, and he finds himself interacting with Lieutenant Colonel Tenthumbs on a mission, the next time CAP is called for anything EM related will be counted in years. I've seen it happen. Juristictions have refused to call CAP for even the most basic EM/DR/SAR missions because of some experience that some local official had with "some pretend colonel in the pretend Air Force..."
Report to moderator   Logged
Strup
"Belligerent....at times...."
AFRCC SMC 10-97
NSS ISC 05-00
USAF SOS 2000
USAF ACSC 2011
US NWC 2016
LSThiker
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 1,858
Unit: Earth

« Reply #392 on: April 30, 2015, 07:45:46 PM »

Think of it like Star Trek: No one gave O'Brian guff for only being an NCO, and we all know that he is the reason the Enterprise and DS9 ran for as long as they did without blowing up.

Ummm no.  Chief O'Brien was not the reason the Enterprise did not blow up.  That was Geordi LaForge.  When O'Brien was on the Enterprise in ST:TNG, he was a mere transporter chief.  When he was aboard the USS Rutledge, he was the junior & primary tactical officer.  He transferred to the Enterprise as a transport chief (although he was seen in the first episode Far Point as security).  It was not until the onset of DS9 when he was appointed the Chief of Operations and essentially became the chief engineer of the station. 

Also, his rank was never really established until the ending of ST:TNG.  Throughout ST:TNG, he was referred and wore various items.  At times he had a single Ensign pip, others he wore two pips as a full Lieutenant but was called crewmen, lieutenant, and chief.  It was not until the last few years the show finally settled on the title Chief, but he again kept wearing the 2 pips as a lieutenant.  It was not until DS9 they finally made it standard he wore a single black pip.  However, for one episode he wore a black chevron insignia and the Jem'Hadar called him a senior chief petty officer.

In no way are ever going to be accepted as "just like them" because they don't even think that other AD Officers are "just like them" (a flying officer vs a comm officer, vs an SF officer, vs a medical officer, etc. et al.)   

Sorry you got this wrong.  There is only medical and non-medical :)  One of my old TAC NCOs would ask:  Are you infantry or infantry support? 
   
Report to moderator   Logged
Holding Pattern
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 1,373
Unit: Worry

« Reply #393 on: April 30, 2015, 07:57:22 PM »

Think of it like Star Trek: No one gave O'Brian guff for only being an NCO, and we all know that he is the reason the Enterprise and DS9 ran for as long as they did without blowing up.

Ummm no.  Chief O'Brien was not the reason the Enterprise did not blow up.  That was Geordi LaForge.  When O'Brien was on the Enterprise in ST:TNG, he was a mere transporter chief.  When he was aboard the USS Rutledge, he was the junior & primary tactical officer.  He transferred to the Enterprise as a transport chief (although he was seen in the first episode Far Point as security).  It was not until the onset of DS9 when he was appointed the Chief of Operations and essentially became the chief engineer of the station. 

Also, his rank was never really established until the ending of ST:TNG.  Throughout ST:TNG, he was referred and wore various items.  At times he had a single Ensign pip, others he wore two pips as a full Lieutenant but was called crewmen, lieutenant, and chief.  It was not until the last few years the show finally settled on the title Chief, but he again kept wearing the 2 pips as a lieutenant.  It was not until DS9 they finally made it standard he wore a single black pip.  However, for one episode he wore a black chevron insignia and the Jem'Hadar called him a senior chief petty officer.


So it sounds like Starfleet launched a new NCO program, and O'Brian switched tracks?  8)
Report to moderator   Logged
RiverAux
Too Much Free Time Award

Posts: 10,978

« Reply #394 on: April 30, 2015, 07:59:52 PM »

An AD USAF member sees an 2d Lt and expects certain things from that person.  He sees a SSgt and expects certain things.
A County Sherrif see the ranks has some preconceived notion of what that rank means based on their understanding of "how the military works".

The problem lies with them, not with us.  There are no situations that I can think of where a random AF member is going to count on a CAP Lt. Col. or 2nd Lt. to be able to do something equivalent to what a generic AF person of similar rank would be doing.  In all cases, that random person is going to be referred to whoever in the AF is actually supposed to be the liaison with CAP for that specific situation -- and that person is going to know who to ask to get something done that CAP is capable and authorized to do. 

Same goes with the county sheriff -- the worst that happens is that the sheriff asks the Lt. Col. to do something and that Lt. Col. refers him to the right CAP person to make that request.

I don't care if you restricted CAP officers to only being prior military officers, you would have the same exact "issues" with outside groups that don't know who we are or how we work.   
Report to moderator   Logged
FW
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 2,188

« Reply #395 on: April 30, 2015, 09:17:43 PM »

To be honest, if people try to make it into a caste system, it will become one. I don't see that happening.

In fact, if that happened in our squadron it would be the first sign that it is time for me to leave.

Same if we blew up the entire rank system.

There are plenty of ES groups without a military background that exist if I wanted to join one of those.

Think of it like Star Trek: No one gave O'Brian guff for only being an NCO, and we all know that he is the reason the Enterprise and DS9 ran for as long as they did without blowing up.

If the CAP NCO program expands as envisioned, I am sure our leadership will try to prevent our grade structure into a Caste system, however perception is a very strong motivator.  One of the major reasons the program was killed off in the 70's was due, in part, to the perception of "separateness".   Maybe we can prevent it from happening.  Maybe we have evolved enough to emulate life as in Star Trek; where it is common for some one like an O'Brien to marry a Kieko (or was she a civilian?)  :D
Report to moderator   Logged
LSThiker
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 1,858
Unit: Earth

« Reply #396 on: April 30, 2015, 09:30:48 PM »

where it is common for some one like an O'Brien to marry a Kieko (or was she a civilian?)  :D

She was a civilian :)
Report to moderator   Logged
Holding Pattern
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 1,373
Unit: Worry

« Reply #397 on: April 30, 2015, 09:42:24 PM »

To be honest, if people try to make it into a caste system, it will become one. I don't see that happening.

In fact, if that happened in our squadron it would be the first sign that it is time for me to leave.

Same if we blew up the entire rank system.

There are plenty of ES groups without a military background that exist if I wanted to join one of those.

Think of it like Star Trek: No one gave O'Brian guff for only being an NCO, and we all know that he is the reason the Enterprise and DS9 ran for as long as they did without blowing up.

If the CAP NCO program expands as envisioned, I am sure our leadership will try to prevent our grade structure into a Caste system, however perception is a very strong motivator.  One of the major reasons the program was killed off in the 70's was due, in part, to the perception of "separateness".   Maybe we can prevent it from happening.  Maybe we have evolved enough to emulate life as in Star Trek; where it is common for some one like an O'Brien to marry a Kieko (or was she a civilian?)  :D

By any chance, do you have any documentation about that issue in the 70's program?
Report to moderator   Logged
Storm Chaser
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 2,680

NCO
« Reply #398 on: April 30, 2015, 09:48:56 PM »

An AD USAF member sees an 2d Lt and expects certain things from that person.  He sees a SSgt and expects certain things.
A County Sherrif see the ranks has some preconceived notion of what that rank means based on their understanding of "how the military works".

The problem lies with them, not with us. 

I respectfully disagree. I think the problem lies with us. We want to wear AF-style uniforms, AF-style grade insignias, and use the same titles, but don't want others to have the same expectations from us as they would have from an Air Force Capt, Maj or Lt Col. We can't expect to look and be treated like a Lt Col, but without the responsibilities or expectations that come with that grade. If our grades don't mean the same (or similar) thing, then they shouldn't look or be called the same.
Report to moderator   Logged
jeders
Global Moderator

Posts: 2,173

« Reply #399 on: April 30, 2015, 10:32:56 PM »

        -   Gen Vazquez and Mr. Salvador request success stories

Are they willing to listen to failure stories as well? If all they want to hear are success stories, then that's all that will be reported.
Report to moderator   Logged
If you are confident in you abilities and experience, whether someone else is impressed is irrelevant. - Eclipse
Pages: 1 ... 18 19 [20] 21 Send this topic Print 
CAP Talk  |  General Discussion  |  Membership  |  Topic: NCO
 


Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP SMF 2.0.14 | SMF © 2017, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.079 seconds with 27 queries.
click here to email me