The suggestion seems to be that HQAC can remove CWC members, of whom they have no jurisdiction over, is a bit rich.
Where are we a squadrons without a CWC, trustees etc and what sort of message would it send out to people doing a stirling job? We struggle to get people as staff or committee members (disregarding the every parents a member line) who are active. We have people who are trustees not because they want to, but because the rules were changed a couple of years ago. As soon at the AGM the Chairman speaks about this you see an immediate sitting on of hands and looking at the ceiling, as people run scared.
Every year at our RBL AGM getting people to take on branch exec or just branch committee roles is a nightmare, as people see what they could be signing up for and decline the offer. Hence a lot of RBL branches go, as people donāt want what they reagrdthat aggro, so canāt fill the posts. You can see this happening if my understanding of what the CWC Chairman has said is correct, on ATC squadrons.
Itās bad enough being a sqn cdr at the best of times, but with the potential you could lose your Civ Comm, because of rules put in place and not just the silliness that Iāve seen over the years between committee members, is a worry. As I say would affect getting new committee members. Would anyone do it? Committees worked well for years, and while there is always going to be occasions when things happen and people think they can get away with things, this can be controlled by regular meetings (min once every two months) and the treasurer presenting bank statements and accounts.
So to suggest that Iām looking at this naively is a nonsense. Anything that has the potential to destabilise squadrons has to be taken seriously.
I canāt see any reason that HQAC would remove a Civ Com against the wishes of the OC - the rule really exists so that the sqn can get rid of the Civ Com (with oversight).
Oh and donāt forget the STICK ā. A list of individuals, who have failed to comply with the
request by end May 18, should be sent to HQ RAFAC (Pers) by end Jun 18 for further action.ā"""
My union has a free legal advice line.I ll be submitting this problem to them. Im not after binning this agreement just get it reworded so that its professional and not an insult to every member of staff.If of course I get nowhere(and thats a distinct possibility with the people who run this organisation),I ll be refusing to sign this document in its current form.I ll then no doubt be placed on some sort of naughty list and when I get notification of that no doubt with attached threats I shall resign and let them find another puppet to run the sqn. It ll be a big wrench after 25 years but im not going to sign anything that betrays my beliefs in fair play and justice.
Well thatās a grown up response for people who arenāt employed isnāt it.
Whatās been happening on those units affected.
The unfortunate thing is the reprehensible groups who have drawn this up, know that people will sign because to not do so would adversely affect cadets. If they can afford to lose people who donāt, I would be surprised.
In the workplace this would have gone through unions or at least a work council and be agreed prior to anyone being required to sign it. In our case people with no experience of the volunteer experience in the Corps or ACF, telling us how we are going to volunteer.
Iām not going to sign it out of a mix of spite and curiosityā¦
My time in the ATC is very much in its twilight, Iām thoroughly disenchanted with it at pretty much every level above sector, and some - to me - unwelcome changes in my local (and only local) Sqn look like completing the pack.
Itās everything - flying, gliding, shooting, camps, the VR(T) debacle, and the general issue that I feel like I have to jump more and higher hurdles to achieve less and less every year (at the instigation of an HQ who prove their rampant incompetence, dishonesty and venality in everything they touch) which unsurprisingly I find somewhat gauling.
Iāve found something else to do, so Iām going to break a relationship that has lasted, one one form or another, since 1988.
What will actually happen will be interesting to see, but Iām afraid I donāt really careā¦
I feel that this is the crux of the matter. The MoD is broke, there is no money for anything. CFAVs signing away rights they may but probably donāt have seems like a really good idea the bean counters.
What will happen people will have their conscience played on and they will sign. Not because they think the terms are wonderful, but because they will have invested a lot of time and effort.
I just wish that we would have someone at the top in the Senior Command levels (not the monkeyās in the ATC and ACF) who is brutally honest about the future of the cadet forces over the next 10 years and what the plans for a joint community cadet force are, because if to mitigate costs, this isnāt part if of the discussion, then they are idiots and not be getting paid what they are. If it means people leave because they donāt like the sound of it, then so be it.
Far too regularly there are stories about the MOD failing to make cuts etc and how this is affecting our defence capabilities nationally and internationally.
The written statement says that the flying experience we can expect is at best limited and wonāt be anything like we had before. So in the face of that and needing more people at the coalface to deliver a less flying based experience, a T&C is dreamed up, which is all about give on the CFAVs part and take on the part of HQAC.
The only concerns I have about Pers Form 1-19 is the layout and formatting (another shoddy, rushed job), not with the wording. Iāll have no problems signing it, but Iām not rushing to do so in the hope that someone at Wing decides to manage the process professionally (and maybe HQ revises the form),
This is the new communication protocol for change it would seem, and while I like the IBN, it still requires alerts on the IBN folder in Key Documents or on SharePoint Announcements to be aware of the release.
The FTEs in RAFAC will argue that email shouldnāt be used to disseminate policy, particularly to all users, however there has been no communication about the change/improvement of communication and requires users to log on and wait for the announcements to scroll - and then decide if worth reading based on the title.
Some CFAVs are not as technically engaged as others and have limited abilities to use SharePoint, unless they need too, in which case they arenāt looking for the annoucments.
But thatās because they are idiots.
We get āall address emailsā at work about changes etc etc and you look at it and decide to delete or keep. These come as attached documents. Which seems to be pretty consistent across all work places.
I would love to know what parts of any policy / documentation affecting staff and or cadets, needs to have a restricted mailing. The current ATC policy is out of kilter with what happens in the real world and exactly mimics the old weekly posting where as OC youād open and look and pass to the Adj and or concerned individuals, which in a day and age when we have an electronic communication system, is a nonsense. Except now itās the OC of Adj that looks at the document and then downloads and prints or attaches (what I do) and send to staff.
Even more interesting in that I cannot access cadet systems from work, so I have to spend my own time looking at things or what I do which is wait until I get to the squadron. However the biggest problem is you have spend ages looking for it or have alerts, all of which I disabled as I was getting alerts for more things that werenāt changes than were, which just clogged up the inbox with crap.
They should be done with it and just attach documents when they are properly checked and ready to all address emails. That way more people will see them and ask questions.
The major. Totally agree with your sentiments, and those of Teflon in this case, but the IBNs or Announcements are not always the first port of call for EVERY member of this organisation every time they log onto the system; thatās even if they log into Bader.
There should be an instruction, by email, down through CoC at least highlighting the existence of the IBN and covering the consequences. Not just an expectation that reads everything uploaded on Sharepoint.
Somebody a while ago assumed that simply placing something on sharepoint constituted it being in force. that was always a daft idea. I do think they are getting better.
I like the IBN concept as a means of officially enforcing change pending a proper regulation update. It is certainly way better than an anonymous, unsigned word document dumped in the sharepoint announcements.
I do not want all this stuff sent out as attachments though. Make a proper document, upload it to sharepoint then email out an announcement with a link to the document. For good measure, give it a sensible subject and include a brief description or summary. Better still, try to do it on a schedule unless it is urgent then have a regular policy update email with lots of links.