WO2 in trade (IS Engr)

#1
Are there any rumours, ideas about there being WO2's in trade on the IS Engr roster? Won't the SSgt's who didn't come off the Supvr IS board 'clog' up the rest of the roster? Just an idea...
 
#2
Not heard that one but it would not be practical, you dont get WO2 Techs or Operators in trade.

It would make the whole supervisor role kinda pointless.
 
#3
Goodfella said:
Are there any rumours, ideas about there being WO2's in trade on the IS Engr roster? Won't the SSgt's who didn't come off the Supvr IS board 'clog' up the rest of the roster? Just an idea...
You don't get promoted because of how good you are at your job - you get promoted based on your potential. Our higher ranks have management, planning and other responsibilities, not just being the technical wizard at a certain technology.

So WO2 in trade should not be considered unless the circumstances are exceptional i.e. dodgy, incriminating picture of SOinC(A) or Colonel MCM Div
:wink:
 
#5
IS Ski Geek said:
Toatlly agree Cardinal. Goodfella stop phishing for something that is never going to happy to your AGC ass.
Remember, IS Ski Geek, he's in fairly exalted company - there are an awful lot (translate that how you wish) of ex-clerks in the IS roster now, mainly senior ranks as well. By my reckoning, Goodfella was onboard before the vast majority of them. Whether he (or anyone) may end up a WO in-trade is a different matter (extremely unlikely)!

Goodfella - keep trying the supervisory route for now. Pick a good role model, pick yer spot, ready...aim...and go for it. Try and be positive, or you'll end only end up overlooked and bitter. I'm not going to be a see-you-next-tuesday and tell you to go RD. (I'm feeling very chilled today)
 
#6
Dear All,

A recent report from TDT on People Lines of Development (PLOD) raised the the suggestion of WO2 in trade.

"4. Warrant Officers in Trade. As a part of the review process I intend to identify Supervisor posts that could be better done by tradesmen, perhaps as Warrant Officers. It is very evident that scope exists for this in the Support Trade and Electronic Warfare CEGs. It could also become increasingly appropriate in the IS Engineer roster. These adjustments should be modest in the first instance because a large swing would disturb the RD roster."

Say no more

C@R
 
#7
CapabilityatReadiness said:
These adjustments should be modest in the first instance because a large swing would disturb the RD roster."
We don't want to upset the RD roster. That would be terrible. No, honestly.

What I do find interesting is all these reports that come out, but very few people at the coal-face get to hear of their contents. I wonder where the information vaccum is being created. It'll be interesting to see if and how the Corps decides to implement the proposed Variable Length Engagement (VEng) that MCM Div have been talking about for a while. I suspect that it could have been one of the factors in discussing WOs in trade.
 
#8
Ah CS the reason these "ideas" or "decisions" come about without general knowledge is becuase the usual scenario is certain people pulling the old career strings within their own chain of command to buck the system.

Short term , they get looked after long term it all goes to a ball of chalk!

How about making these new WO2 slots still in low band as you are not supervisory and not really RD?... hmm not so plucky now are we sunshine!!!


:roll:
 
#9
Disco said:
... hmm not so plucky now are we sunshine!!!
Wow...since you've become a moderator you've started to really warm to the old "good cop bad cop" routine. Or are just Ulster fried and the giveaf*** gland has packed in?
 
#10
CardinalSin said:
Disco said:
... hmm not so plucky now are we sunshine!!!
Wow...since you've become a moderator you've started to really warm to the old "good cop bad cop" routine. Or are just Ulster fried and the giveaf*** gland has packed in?
I was speaking out loud rather than specifically talking to you CS, in that you could grant a WO2 in trade but not reward it with high band. Would they be so keen then to "engineer" its creation? :wink:
 
#11
Disco said:
I was speaking out loud rather than specifically talking to you CS
Yeah I know mate - I was just taking the urine, as I was selected and trained for supervisory roster some time ago. High band pay and a better chance of a decent job when I leave. Sorted.
 
#12
i think the only way you could get a trade WO2 is when his skills are so specialist they have to pay him WO2 salary to stop him going into civ st, the rank woud just be a way of paying wages to equal skill level.
 
#13
Whats the problem? Our corps is one of the most mature options in HM's forces, we are in this century.

A soldier doing well can go the supervisory route and then get commisioned. Whereas someone similar in the RAF has to do his officer recruits course (how backward/1940s are they?).

A guy/girl doing well in his trade but not management material should have a carer path, even if its going up rank just so he gets paid the amount he deserves. Maybe we should have a non leadership rank, a T above the rank slide like the spams?
 
#16
bullshit said:
i think the only way you could get a trade WO2 is when his skills are so specialist they have to pay him WO2 salary to stop him going into civ st, the rank woud just be a way of paying wages to equal skill level.
The thing is, since Pay2K, the extra rank effectively means sod all in pure pay terms. I'm only in my current rank 12 months but the next rank is not really that much of a jump at all in cash terms. So I don't see that promoting someone in any way makes up the extra dosh.

is_engr_supremo said:
Will any of the SSgt that were on a Class one course, go any further???
Why what have you heard? The thing is, you go for Supvr IS selection at Sgt, as a senior IS Engr with some experience under your belt, a reasonable knowledge of tactical and operational systems. How the hell can someone come in fresh from e.g. being MT Troop Staffy and compete with those guys a for a supvr place? It's just wrong.
 
#18
Disco said:
Penny drop?

I thank you!!
Eh? Whattez-vouz do you mean? (like the Francais?)
 
#19
Dont fall asleep dear boy,

So the ones unable to make the supervisory jump should not be allowed to "engineer" their way to WO2 as it undermines the very need for a supervisory position!

We have now gone full circle in this thread!
 
#20
Good to see this old chestnut re-appear. WO in trade has been doing the rounds ever since the concept was abandoned some years ago. If I remember correctly the bearded Reliant driver and Radio group instructor who taught me on my Class 3 was an ex SSgt Tech, who jumped ship when he missed out on his WO2 when they stopped promotion in trade. Since then the subject has re-emerged in differing guises every 5 years or so.

How many Warrant Officers do we need in the Corps? Say for example 7 Sig Regt, allowing for RSM, Regt YofS, Regt Fofs, Supervisor IS, Supervisor Radio perhaps, RCWO, MTWO a smattering of WO Sqn YofS FofS and SSM's, add a generous handful of WO Tech, Operator, and WO (IS)... And a Tiffy or two thrown in.
It would create a hell of a top table at Mess functions, or even worse make us look like the RAF!

The current system doesn't suit everybody, but it works. I realise that a proportion of posts are gapped, ie SSgt tech as Acting FofS for example, but the solution must be to retain the right people in the right posts, rather than promote in the short term.

Just an observation.
 

Similar threads

New Posts

Latest Threads

Top