mcm div brief

#1
during a recent mcm div roadshow i sat through. i noticed there was nothing for combat trades and whats happening to them. every question that got brought up ref mergin ov trades they brushed it off with some lame excusse did anyone else notice this and can anyone one shed some light on whats happening :x
 
#3
daveh855 said:
during a recent mcm div roadshow i sat through. i noticed there was nothing for combat trades and whats happening to them. every question that got brought up ref mergin ov trades they brushed it off with some lame excusse did anyone else notice this and can anyone one shed some light on whats happening :x
which combat trades are you talking about?

and what was their lame excuse?
 
#4
PoisonDwarf said:
daveh855 said:
during a recent mcm div roadshow i sat through. i noticed there was nothing for combat trades and whats happening to them. every question that got brought up ref mergin ov trades they brushed it off with some lame excusse did anyone else notice this and can anyone one shed some light on whats happening :x
which combat trades are you talking about?

and what was their lame excuse?
Basically, at my brief they talked about the CS trade, Tech and IT conversion, YofS, FofS, IS Sup and how competitive the RD roster is.

Pushing towards everybody TRYING supervisoury roles before going RD.

That was basically it, untill prompted with questions about support trades.
 
#5
Welcome to the Royal Signals!!

At least the roadshows have improved... They used to consist of 150 powerpoint slides of Techs and Operators, FofS/YofS then Lineys Mechs and Ed`s used to share 1 slide.. I kid you not!.

The only career advice for these trades was the usual... look ahead career profile RD roster etc (which in fairness is true). Their hands are tied by TDT, there is only one place to go so learn how to press the right buttons in the right order at the right time ;P

However when you look at the orbat of our beloved Corps you will see it is all about Techs and Operators as they make up 95%. The rest while important is not mainstream Signals capability, accept it or cry yourself to sleep, your choice.

Just a shame that TDT are making an ARRSE of the trade reorg as usual. IS into SET etc what a mistake. Leave the SET/FoS combine the IS with Inst Tech to make a 2 phase tradesman (networks and protocol) and pool the Liney with ED.

As for Clerk of Works LOL dont get me started on that abortion.
 
#6
Supposed trade restructuring is ED's with Mechs' and Lineys with Stackers, but its not going to happen before the Tech/IS amalgamation.
 
#7
Disco said:
Just a shame that TDT are making an ARRSE of the trade reorg as usual. IS into SET etc what a mistake. Leave the SET/FoS combine the IS with Inst Tech to make a 2 phase tradesman (networks and protocol) and pool the Liney with ED.
Doesn't it depend upon what the SET is supposed to be? The arguments all revolve around the supposed loss of traditional technician skillsets and I think that the aim is to re-role the tech as a Network Engineer, probably concentrating on wide area networking and system optimisation. If the SET is considered a network engineer rather than the person to fix any kit anywhere then perhaps it fits between the Inst Tech and the IS Engr? Ultimately, it's too late now anyway, as the change is going to happen.

I feel however, that roles and responsibilities follow a cyclical pattern and we will probably find ourselves in 10 years or less breaking down the trades into more specialised types. C'est la vie.
 
#8
Back to the original topic .. I am sure it was mcm that briefed last year about the new trades and supervisors eg

Inst Tech & E.D. have a COW/(S)(C)IDA Supervisor

Lineys & Storeman go SQMS eg

This year they did not even mention these supervisors and just said they knew nothing!

The only info divulged was that the new IS and SET merged trade would be CS Engr - very original - and they knew nothing about Sup IS and FofS Merger!
 
#9
You have to remember this is not decided or driven by MCM. They can only brief what they themselves have been briefed on and I doubt they want to go into the realms of "ifs and maybes".

An IDA WO2 is a bit of a red herring. In reality anyone can do the course and then preach IDA. The skill is not so much technical (although this helps massively) the skill is being able to interpret the JSP and the relevent BSEN/ISO standards (often resulting in blood on the carpet due to using a personal interpretation). As for enforcement well thats another rib tickler!

Yes we could make a "projects" supervisory with SSgt planners pooled at 10SR (as is the case now) and then have a number of SSgt and WO2 IDA slots around the Divs and Bdes.... Oh but then we already do, they either are Techs or civvies (and guess what they dont get high band pay!). So why re-invent a wheel especially for a trade that does not have any legs in the long term apart from expeditionary Ops.


Hell I just went off topic.... Sorry Smoking!!
 
#10
Disco said:
You have to remember this is not decided or driven by MCM. They can only brief what they themselves have been briefed on and I doubt they want to go into the realms of "ifs and maybes".
True - this is all done by TDT but the MCM guys preached it one year then denied all knowledge next year!!

As for IDA rep - all to familiar with the job M8. Just quoting what they said before. They are probably thinking that the people that install the cables would be best suited to manage the installation teams (although currently done by mainly FofS and Techs - not forgetting the odd Mech SSgt still in trade or the Mech God) ** That rules you out NOW **
 
#13
heidtheba said:
PoisonDwarf said:
daveh855 said:
during a recent mcm div roadshow i sat through. i noticed there was nothing for combat trades and whats happening to them. every question that got brought up ref mergin ov trades they brushed it off with some lame excusse did anyone else notice this and can anyone one shed some light on whats happening :x
which combat trades are you talking about?

and what was their lame excuse?
Basically, at my brief they talked about the CS trade, Tech and IT conversion, YofS, FofS, IS Sup and how competitive the RD roster is.

Pushing towards everybody TRYING supervisoury roles before going RD.

That was basically it, untill prompted with questions about support trades.[/quote]

I think I mentioned that.
 
#15
What I got told at mine was it was going to happen but the CS trade and Tech/IS trades took priority.

So no change there then..........
 
#16
isongard said:
they always put a downer on the guys that didn't want to go YofS or FofS and have left it late to do the RD courses
We all know selection into RD WO is extremely competitive, but if one is focussed on actual soldiering and being the best at all things tactical and green, then I wonder why more don't seriously consider a transfer to infantry. Corps loyalty is of course very significant but for those who have fallen out of love with their trade and feel marginalised in the support trades, perhaps it's an option. Army, Be The Best (or something like that).
 
#17
PoisonDwarf said:
isongard said:
they always put a downer on the guys that didn't want to go YofS or FofS and have left it late to do the RD courses
We all know selection into RD WO is extremely competitive, but if one is focussed on actual soldiering and being the best at all things tactical and green, then I wonder why more don't seriously consider a transfer to infantry. Corps loyalty is of course very significant but for those who have fallen out of love with their trade and feel marginalised in the support trades, perhaps it's an option. Army, Be The Best (or something like that).
Now now PD thats not fair. It must be so nice having a supervisory route and the back up of going RD if you dont quite make it.

Feel marginalised?? We have been here before, you really do hate the RD roster dont you?

You make me chuckle sometimes... :wink:
 
#18
Disco said:
Now now PD thats not fair. It must be so nice having a supervisory route and the back up of going RD if you dont quite make it.

Feel marginalised?? We have been here before, you really do hate the RD roster dont you? You make me chuckle sometimes... :wink:
Come on Disco, that's not true in any way whatsoever - I don't hate the RDs at all! I simply feel that the support trades should be given more opportunity to develop in-trade if that's what they joined to do. For example, MTWO could be tied to Dvr Lmn and RQ Tech to Tech Sup Spec, purely on the basis that we (the taxpayer) have invested however many squillions of pounds training them to be professionals in that role. I feel their pain! (time for a hug) :D
 
#19
I agree with you PD, why have a SSgt SQMS who comes from the Tech Sup Spec tradeline and then at WO2 make him a MTWO? Sames goes for other trades.

Whilst these posts open up the RD roster for those that either failed or did not want to go the Supervisor route Each trade should have as much of a chance to reach WO2 or WO1 in trade as possible.
 
#20
One good thing about the current RD model is that it is extremely flexible. This helps guys who find their niche a bit later than MCM Div would like.
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
PapaGolf Royal Signals 11
GeneralMalaise RLC 9
A AGC, RAPTC and SASC 13

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top