VR(T) Commission Change

So you agree that removing the link to the Armed Forces Act is a good thing?

As for people going “outside” of the organisation to complain, well who to and what influence will they have? ACAS? (Were not employees). The MOD? We aren’t MoD employees or staff. Some NGO? Like who?

I don’t think people should be subservient, but when for the average Sqn staff member there are five levels of redress, I personally think by the time it gets to HQAC you have to accept their outcome.

The nature of our employment status is open to question. Given that we get Volunteer Allowance, over and above out of pocket expenses actually incurred, and that this VA is taxable and taxed, we may currently have the status of employees. (Based on reading the TUC guide at https://www.tuc.org.uk/workplace-issues/volunteering).

If there is a contractual, employed, relationship, which my tax statement certainly suggests, then future developments may be interesting as, presumably, we would lose Volunteer Allowance for training days, camps, activities etc, in the brave new world, so as to take us out of the “employed by the RAF” category into the “volunteer with a charity” category, along with the NCO cadre. Would save another few quid.

Not that we are in it for the money… .

https://www.gov.uk/volunteering/volunteers-rights

And in HMG’s own words:

" 4. Pay and expenses

You aren’t paid for your time as a volunteer, but you may get money to cover expenses. This is usually limited to food, drink, travel or any equipment you need to buy.

You might be classed as an employee or worker rather than a volunteer if you get any other payment, reward or benefit in kind. This includes any promise of a contract or paid work in the future."

Which is not surprising given the current non-existence of such commissions!

I would assume when and if such commissions are introduced, the club will consider if it is appropriate to amend their current rules.

My personal take on this whole issue is that we, as individuals, lose nothing. None of us need to hold a commission in any way, shape or form in order to do the jobs we volunteered for.

The New Zealand and Australian Air Cadet organisations appoint officers, and give them ranks and uniforms, but not a Queen’s Commission. Whilst the Aussies have had their problems, that was not due to their officers not being in the RAAF Reserve! Neither seem to have staffing problems as a result. (Though that may be due to their hiring policies).

A Commission from the Queen is not our right. It is an honour and a privilege, whether VR(T) or Cadet Forces. Accept the honour for what it is. The privileges mainly remain the same, if AC(N) is to be believed.

The only factor in favour of remaining VR(T) is the history and the sacrifice and service given by our predecessors, which is increasingly being forgotten, but which should provide the benchmark by which people in the uniform today should assess their own behaviours and attitudes.

2 Likes

I’ve had a reply from the RAF Club to the effect that RC(N) had already alerted them (thanks sir) and I will ensure they get a copy of the Briefing Note and Lines to Take so they have at least something on paper.

I don’t think I’m breaching any confidence in quoting the email I received as it will reassure several on here:

That’s the thing. If no one had ever had commissions, then people wouldn’t be complaining that they didn’t have one.
But we do have commissions, so if they’re taken away people will see that as a slight.

No-one has suggested that the commission is being taken away - merely changed from a Reserve Forces commission to a Cadet Forces commission. Transitional arrangements will apply.

This whole thread is based on officers not being RAF Volunteer Reserve, but being Cadet Forces. Given the total absence of military obligations on the RAFVR(T) it is not unreasonable, and a simple change of name hardly seems worth the angst.

2 Likes

FWIW, Australian Air Cadet officers were commissioned into the reserve up to 1975. From 1976 their Armed Forces Act was amended taking the role out of the Air Force.

[quote=“Plt_Off_Prune, post:375, topic:2647, full:true”]So you agree that removing the link to the Armed Forces Act is a good thing?

As for people going “outside” of the organisation to complain, well who to and what influence will they have? ACAS? (Were not employees). The MOD? We aren’t MoD employees or staff. Some NGO? Like who?

I don’t think people should be subservient, but when for the average Sqn staff member there are five levels of redress, I personally think by the time it gets to HQAC you have to accept their outcome.[/quote]
If removing the Armed Forces Act link means we loosen the ‘hold’ over people by the senior management, then yes. I don’t need people telling me constantly in a volunteer context you have to act / do things because we say so, especially when they don’t pay me or I have a formal employment contract.

The redress route could be taken up through normal courts/legal processes. Many of these result in out of court settlements.
The fact there are 5 levels of redress is probably one of the reasons for what happens. I’ve seen incidents on squadrons take months to sort out which creates all sorts of havoc, because no one wants to make a decision so it gets pushed up the chain. Then if people aren’t happy with the decision they go elsewhere. Although what you normally see is the people involved leave the Corps, as such the ‘problem’ goes away. There should be things that are deemed as being able to be dealt with at each level and they go straight to the level proscribed. What you need are people who are experienced / knowlegable enough at each level. Most things start off at sqn level and this is why you need experienced people (for which I mean older) running squadrons.

Are you for real?

(Extrabcharacyers)

The chances of it happening highly unlikely, but it could if people felt sufficiently unhappy and if we’re not formally part of the military why not, you don’t have any obligation to accept their judgement, not that if you were it would make any difference. It is laughable to suggest just because it goes through several levels of well meaning amateurs it has to be accepted.

It’s there for everyone with plenty of cases in the workplace where people have gone through the processes and still ended up in court as they aren’t happy and this is with companies and unions running the cases, not some people wearing a particular amount of braid who are deemed capable by virtue of that to make proper judgements.

Yes, but it’s a question of what the perception of those affected will be.

Even if it’s seen as a lessening of the value of the commission, rather than a removal, people may well still see it as a slight.

That will mainly be the people who define themselves and their self-worth in terms of their commission as a VR officer. If being able to state that you are an RAF Reserve Officer is a major part of your identity, then yes, being put into the situation where you are unable to claim this may be seen as a slight.

For such people, holding the Queen’s Commission in the Cadet Forces won’t sufficiently boost the ego. To be frank, they are probably in the job for the wrong reasons.

The value of the commission won’t be less. Only the perception of the commission will change in the eyes of some.

1 Like

It did. Part of their post-Vietnam political turmoil. They took the opportunity for a root and branch strategic review of cadet forces and came up with a civilian-based structure.

Commandant Air Cadets is a Group Captain appointment, reporting to CDS, but is advertised externally as a civilian position, with appointment to the rank going to the successful applicant. Prior military service not required.

My employer, like many others, grants me 8 additional days paid “holiday” to attend camp as a member of the Reserve Forces. Looks like that will be out of the window!
I know I can always ask but in these days of cost cutting who knows! Realise that I am lucky in this in that I get paid twice for camp but it’s also the extra 8 days, leaving me more for other commitments which everyone has eg family.

At least you have additional days paid…

My employer doesn’t recognise any of it, even if I went from a STEM or training angle… so of the 28days I have, 22 usually get spent on cadet activities…

I know the feeling. My previous employer didn’t either but as of 1 Jan this year we were taken over by a company which has signed up for the Armed Forces Covenant so this was one of the few “bonuses” I got when I TUPE’d across.

Where I work people in recognised youth groups get upto a week extra paid leave. It might worth just using this angle.

If the new commission means many people losing extra leave entitlement it would scupper many weeks at annual camps, which in recent years we as a Wing have struggled to get sufficient staff for.

The problem is the many demands placed on people to do courses and training means they may use annual holiday entitlement to do these. I know a lot of people who are on shift using up 2-3 days (depending on their pattern) so they can go on weekend courses and use what extra their employer gives them under Reserve Forces leave, lose this and you can see people not doing things as they may (strange thought) want to use their annual holiday to spend time with their families.

No, he told them the truth, that he was an Officer in the Volunteer Reserve Training Branch I would guess