Specialists in A Niche Occupation?

Discussion in 'AGC, RAPTC and SASC' started by MrShanklysboots, Jan 23, 2008.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. Troops. Carrying on from the other thread I thought I would open another one to allow the argument to continue here rather than clag the other thread.

    Is there room for specialisation in what is already a fairly Niche occupation (RMP) ?

    The arguement is about Sigs Specialists (Interest Declared!!). So why not bring in RLC to do our servicing, R Sigs (or RLC Rad Ops) to do our comms etc?

    Discuss.
     
  2. When we decided to adopt the Regimental structure in the mid 90s I believe that DRLC offered the facility of an RLC Rad Tp within each of our RHQs. The PM(A) at the time declined because it would mean losing 30 LSNs from within each Regt to the RLC.

    Berlin
     
  3. I beleive theres plenty of room and from what ive heard it may even promote more interest in possible members and serving members of the corps. Looking at the RE they dont look as if they are going to waver thier specialised members (sigs, driver etc) so without trying to make the rlc/sigs redundent in thier role i believe everyone should be able to dable in thier areas of interest.

    Can you currently specialise in sigs? tis i want to find out what is transferable from the current training im stuck doing.
     
  4. You can, if that is your bag but there is no separate CEQ (career stream) for signallers/IS geeks within RMP. Nor will there ever be. 99% of people join the RMP to be Military Policeman and are not interested in specialising - unless it is SIB or CP!

    Berlin

    Edit: On reflection I stand by the above statement ... but not saying that I agree with the system as it is though!
     
  5. I think people have to get over the fact that we have a Regimental structure in the RMP, the Coy's do not run themselves anymore and as such there is a need for Regimental posts. Unfortunately for some these posts require people to be trained to fill them (Sigs/RQ's/MT and the like). All other Regts and Bn's do the same thing so why shouldnt we. What is the problem with having subject matter experts? It benefits us in the end. If people want to specialise then why shouldnt they, we all know that those who fill these posts face tougher competition when it comes to sitting boards as they are being compared to their peers who are still in Pl's and are getting CR's relevant to policing.


    Back to the thread, i think there is room for specialisation, it gives people a few more choices than just sitting in Pl's for the rest of their career and like i said earlier, we need subject matter experts so we dont look like knobbers to the rest of the Army.
     
  6. Berlin, I just replied in the other thread along similar lines to this but I don't see how allowing people to speciliase too much in this way is a prticularly good thing for the Corps as a whole.
    In the other thread I argue that how is it fair that someone 'acting up' purely because they happen to have a certain qual, gets preferential treatment or CR's just because of that role, when they are often far more capable people out there ready for promotion? (I'm not a passed over quite yet before you ask).

    We don't have our own RMP trained chefs, VM's, etc, why should Sigs be any different? My thought is that if someone really is that interested in specialising to a degree where they are going to need 4 1/2 years worth of training, maybe they should think about transferring out.

    The problem is further exacerbated when that 'specialist', with all his 4 1/2 years training, ups sticks and buggers off to CivDiv and we start the whole process again. I know that everyone is in the same boat here, but really, do we want the same?

    Big M, little p, not a good thing! :evil:
     
  7. WTD,

    Why do you believe that a person with BOWMAN quals gets preferential treatment on their CR? They don't.

    Berlin
     
  8. I'm not necessarily saying that they do, but others have mentioned in the other forum that there happen to be a large number of SSgt's 'acting up' to WO2 in the RSWO role, who are expected to be promoted over and above run of the mill GPD because they have been acting up in the role! It goes without saying that when someone gets acting role they normally stand a higher chance of being promoted because they are seen to be already performing in that role, whether or not they could actually perform at that rank anywhere outside of that role!
    I have heard of one senior who was promoted to SSgt, only to be granted acting rank of WO2 within about a month. That person is obviously going to be written up now as an acting WO2, how fair is that when he hasn't even done a SSgt job yet?
     
  9. But WTD you miss the point. He is acting in the role because he has trained to fill that role. Just like a sergeant could act up as Pl 2IC if he has the quals and credentials.

    Is it not the same? I understand that people can feel aggrieved that others are gaining experience (and CR's) in a rank that is not theirs, but the appointment would not exist at all if there were not a requirement to fill it from RMP cap badged personnel.

    Unfortunately the Q Flags appointment cannot be filled by anybody, there has to be a base level of knowledge to do it. Which brings us back to the central question. Should it be filled by RMP badged personnel at all? But then can you not say the same of the CQMS / RQMS appointments? Not our central role either - nor is CP come to that!

    How far do you let this go before it becomes a self licking lollipop and we reduce to a central level of about 800 with 700 attached personnel!
     
  10. Self licking lollipop, I like that one.

    I see the point being made, but I for one have never understood why we have policemen working the stores? Surely policemen should be doing their primary role of policing?

    I know that we have to have specialists within RMP in certain areas and am not against that when it is central to our role, i.e. specialists in Computer Crime, or Fraud, basically any POLICING role, but I don't see the point in training a copper to be a scaley! Like I said before we don't have RMP Cpls training to fix our motors, or to build our own bridges, do we?

    As for CP not being a policing role I disagree, are not the Diplomatic Protection Group coppers? The protection of high ranking officials is a Core Policing role for the civvies, why not us?
     
  11. For me its about the time taken to train and the opportunity cost of having to lose good JNCO / SNCO / WO for weeks on end to train to run a system of communication.

    I'd rather give over the positions to Sigs and the stores to RLC. Of course the problem with it is that we wouldn't retain the LSNs. Having said that maybe we should just bite the bullet, sack off the positions and keep a our own policing specialties (SIB, CP, Computer Crime, SOCO et al). Isn't that enough specialties for one Corps? They all seem pretty relevant to me. Imagine all those weeks spent training in signals, MT and stores spent training in Military Policing (M & P - I like em both) skills...

    Don't get me wrong - got no problem with operator training, after all, thats a big M skill! We got rid of Redcap clerks didn't we?

    Edited to make note of the fact that my comments are no reflection on the skills of the current crop of BOWMAN guys.. you know I love you all!
     
  12. For me, I can't quite get my head around why someone who joined to be a 'policeman', would want to fiddle with radio's, cars or even contemplate the 'Q' strain for that matter.

    It seems to boil down to all of us, (Or nowheredays I should say the Corps), being a jack of all trades and masters of none. The same old time honoured question/problem.

    I don't know of many trades within the Armed Forces, (Although I will probably be corrected), where in order for you to be a 'rounded' individual, you are routinely taken out of your main stream trade, be it CP, Bowman or as an RQMS, in order for you to reasonably qualify to be an RSM. (I know it does not happen all of the time), but how can an individual charged with this job, as a Crime Manager, be reasonably be expected to execute his duties when he has been counting blankets and bullets, or accounting for radios for years. I remember one such individual, who was an ex Clerk, who iMO was the worst RSM that ever held the post. Ja**son you know who you are.

    The proliferation of legislation is too important to leave to chance. Quite often the people charged with this job, are that far out of the legal loop, they are not in a position of strength, which cannot be good. (I would add that it's the system's fault, not the fault of the individual).

    Having completed full service, I think that there would be some merit in SME's from the RLC and Signals being attached to a Company, as Force Enablers, just like the REME are/used to be.

    The argument regarding losing LSN's, is mute as in my experience, they, the 'employed' personnel were rarely available for duties or deployment.
     
  13. If youa re a current member of the corps to what extent can you specialise at this current moment in time? I dont mean whole heartedly as in become an RMP storeman (ha!) etc...

    What courses are not open to current servicemen/women?
     
  14. Assuming this is not a Wah, there are a number of special to Arm Courses.

    To name but a few;

    Close Protection Course, Special Investigation Branch and a myriad of Investigation Courses.

    Depending on which career stream you take, you may then be elligible for a number of Home Office Courses, such as HOLMES 2, (Home Office Major Enquiry System 2), LION Intoxylizer Supervisors Course, Drugs and Surveillance Courses, Police Driving and Driving Instructor Courses (Less available today than they used to be), Computer Crime Analysis Courses, Scenes of Crime Officer (SOCO), courses, Crime Prevention Officers (Or Reduction Officers), course. I am sure that there are more, but it's early and my brain has yet to kick in.

    In essence lots of different courses available. The trick is securing one.
     
  15. Anyone who fancies moving into IS, go to the Royal Signals and become an IS Engineer, or look at the MCM Div webpage and look at the information on joining the "E2" ICS career stream. I'm a scaley IS person and it's pretty damn good.

    Anyway, following the argument, I also agree with "outsourcing" non-core (non-Corps) business to the "expert" corps. So in my signals unit we have technical supply specialists to do G4, meanwhile the supply regt up the road has a signals trade to do their G6. My simple solution, each unit swaps the appropriate pool of manpower and gets the experts in. We already use AGC for HR Admin, REME for vehicle repairs, RLC for cooking and so on, why not the stores and comms? That way, each corps retains the same number of personnel in the long run. Because that's what it's really about - no corps wants to drop in size becuase they become less influential and get a smaller bite at the cherry.

    My Corps also requires that people move totally away from your trade to become SSM or RSM, although in general, they tend to opt for an RD life as early as Cpl level. We have some supervisor technical trades e.g. Yeoman of Signals, but some trades simply are not allowed to progress beyond SSgt in their CEQ, they can only go RD. A bit of a sh*tter if you join up actually wanting to be for example a driver, with a wish to go onto driving instructor, qualified testing officer, master driver etc. Instead they say "nah" - you best go and do SAA, drill, CBRN, mapric mate cos your own option is RD!