Civvy Street and NVQs

Hopefully you are following from the unfortunate 69 thread. However a, presumably officer, proposed that a SSgt held as much personal responsibility for a subby and wrote the following justification:

"but what about the SSgt?  First tour troop commander ... all alone in the Balkans... get a grip he was supposed to be looking after her  ... the one that told her the law...  this guy is a disgrace to the Sgts mess and rank aside was the troop commander.... he needs to be shown the door as well ... a totally unprofessional attitude and one that should not be tolerated".

Please enlighten me, this was a SSgt who should have been doing the Lts job apparently. Where does the cross fertilisation of jobs stop? At what rank does an officer start being an officer. At what rank does an OR stop being responsible for an Officer?

If you were 20 and went to work after Uni instead of Sandhurst would people say "   but what about the Checkout operator? First tour Grocery manager... all alone in the superstore... get a grip he was supposed to be looking after her  ... the one that told her the law...  this guy is a disgrace to ASDA and rank aside was the Grocery Manager.... he needs to be shown the door as well ... a totally unprofessional attitude and one that should not be tolerated.

Well?

 

RSM...

See my post on the previous thread.

We have a vocation, not a job.

 

and your point being???

Dont forget it is in your words a vocation for all whatever rank.

 

Mmmm. Up to a point, Lord Copper. I first donned DPM in 1975 when I joined the TA and didn't abandon it until 2000, so I can truthfully claim to be old and bold. The Army has suffered successive iterations of change, some good, some bad, but the bulk of them devoted to changing the very nature of military service from the vocational (*** wages, great perks) to the professional (=OK wages, nil perks). So far the perks have been trimmed, the wages are still **** by any reaonably civilian standard.

The Army classically represents the social values of some 20 years before and what we are seeing now is the long-term effects of the early 80s greed explosion, to my mind. I suspect every generation has said that the new lot are lazy, dishonest and untrustworthy - however, there is a social cohesion which is beginning to erode away in the Forces.

I noticed this in our Mess from the early 90s on as various drivers, including petty stuff like contract catering and civilian bar staff, as well as serious stuff like the need to get on the housing ladder pre-discharge and the quite justifiable insistence by the better halves that they, too, were entitled to pursue a career, began to kill Sgts' Mess life and the environment presented began to become unwelcoming and uncomfortable for the younger Mess members and their Significant Others.

Sergeants' Messes, unlike Officers' Messes, have a pretty consistent culture and "look-and-feel" across the Army - a standard user interface, if you will - and this degeneration in the quality of life was thus noticeable wherever one looked. It made it obvious to the SNCO and WO that things were changing and not for the better, in much the same way that the mid-ranking Captain and junior Major is now increasingly getting pissed off with his conditions of service and pay by comparison with his compadres on the outside.

A blame culture with little allowance for honest error, senior officers and civil servants playing politics at the expense of their commands, a climate of constant change, not all of which has obvious benefits and a huge commitment to operational tasks, the relevance of which to "fighting the Queen's enemies" is not immediately apparent, have all led to this erosion continuing. The British Army are not mercenaries - hell, on those wages, no self-respecting merc would even consider it  - but they're not employees, either. Unfortunately, once loyalty downward, from MoD and senior officers, disappears, it is not long before upward loyalty does likewise.

 

hear hear agree with that totally.

 

Hmmm..."He should have been looking after her". Don't recall that being mentioned on my Commissioning Scroll. Our generally superb SNCOs are selected and trained to execute and support the decisions we make. We are similarly selected to provide the lead the team requires. Before a YO develops the experience and nouse to make a sensible contribution to the conduct of an operation, their main purpose is to provide the moral lead and 'look after the lads' whenever possible, whilst learning their craft. In extremis, it means setting a good example and dying bravely in the absence of anything other than disgrace. 'Puttiing out' for the troop sergeant when recently married ain't part of the game. If you don't like it, join the RAF.

 

Actually, some truth in that. Leaving aside the comforting fictions ("I'll tell you when it's time for you to meet the soldiers, Sir" etc etc), I spent some considerable time during a long and not that glorious career making nice with subalterns of all sorts of different shapes and sizes. They were mainly bloody good, only a couple of clowns - the one thing they did need was advice, not always when they thought they needed it. It was only advice, however, they were in command and made the final decision.

SSgt X actually screwed the pooch big time. He let his boss down and he trampled all over the integrity and standards of his Mess. I know this is in some contrast to some other thoughts I've had, but I've had the chance to think about it a bit and the key thing here was that he slept with his Tp Comd - I think I'd have been a lot  more comfortable with his sleeping with a subaltern not in his direct line of command!

 

What happens when that Subaltern becomes his Sqn 2ic, Adjt, OCSqn?...CO?

And would it be ok for a Subaltern to sleep with a soldier knowing that the converse is also possible?

On the slightly wider issue, The arrival of a new Tp OC in no way changes a Tp Seniors pivitol role, and that is the operational effectiveness of the outfit. Can this be achieved without giving guidance and advice to the FNG?

As for the FNG......why not give them more relative training towards the needs of their Tp instead of arse Tp Commanders courses, that try to replicate a mini Artisan's trade course?

 

Strong point, actually. As an olde pharte it's sometimes hard to remember that female OCs and COs are a feature of the landscape.

And likewise for gay people, I guess... this is getting more and more complicated.

Of course not, as I said above. I was never in any doubt as to who was in command and, certainly in the early stages, made sure that it was clear who was in charge.

Bang on. Precisely where the weakness lies. If we had the luxury of a 4-year or 3-year professional officer training a la West Point or VMI or St Cyr or somewhere, or if we took officers from the ranks exclusively, we would be able to give them some quality training before hitting troops for the first time.

The nonsense perpetrated on the Tp Comds course or the other special-to-arm courses do little to prepare the average YO for what he's going to confront.

 

G.I.A.O .. I love the idea of being in Charge...and of being in Command.

On the concept of West Point.....ARRSE! And the other one sounds French.

As for Commissions from the ranks. Love it. Any Army modelled exclusively on the Waffen SS sounds good to me!!!!!"

 

For all that, the only exposure most YOs get of the ever cheerful tom is when they actually get to their units. A 3 month period of mandatory service in the ranks would do everyone a power of good. It would also serve as an additional filtration layer for the lunatics who manage to get through RCB and Sandbags, which we have sadly lacked since the loss of O types, Brigade squad, and Rowallan Company (yes folks, the latest excellent course to bite the dust as a savings measure).

 

Yep totally agree with that Grownups... Still remember the sound of hysterical laughter when the german officers and ORs I met as part of a language course found out that our YOs have nil experience of the day to day lives of those they have been sent to 'lead'.  For them it is part of their training. They said that they found it incomprehensible that our YOs rely totally on the experience of the senior ranks and are considered less than useless when they arrive at a unit.......  Worst case scenario?   A brand new YO who can't ask for, or take,advice.....  My comment is a little 'broad brush' but why should we think we are lucky when we get a decent YO, which does sometimes happen......

 

I personally feel also that there now appears to be too much career compression and rapid progression if that makes sense. Most Grads are Captains all to quickly and have not had enough exposure at the learning ranks where you are allowed to make mistakes. Lets face it, your average tom expects a Captain to know what they are doing and have lots of experience. Our subbys used to go to the infantry for a year not long after Sandhurst and I think it did them the power of good. Nowadays, apparently they do not have enough time to fit it in. A retrogade step if I may be so bold. Also believe that we should treat cadets in UOTC differently and perhaps not call them cadets at all but Ptes which is what they are really, and when they visit units dont molly coddle them in the Officers Mess. Assign them to a Cpl and the block. I suppose it may put some off, but believe the ones who stay would at least have had an insight into the lives that their subordinates lead.

 

T_Tara.

I like the sound of it, but I think it would sare all but the most fool hardy potential officer away. (And then where would we Corps be?)

The UOTC is an exercise in bringing potential industry leaders together with the Armed Forces in order that they have a more informed view of ex service personnel and the T.A. (Would that Cpl fullfill that ???????)

 

Forgive me Enforcer... but what you just said sounds like utter sh*te!  And your comment about the Cpl, if I read it correctly, is insulting to all WOs, SNCOs and ORs that these UOTC life virgins are going to desperately need when they are thrust upon us.... If they really want to join and are not just in it to have their degrees paid for out of the public purse then they won't be put off by getting their hands dirty and learning some people skills...  And what is bl**dy industry doing talking to people totally unrepresentative of the actual army?  Surely you made this up.... please say yes!  

edited to add a bit