Me thinks it’s the review and reduction of VA / introduction of this low flat rate for all staff and brining in command pay
i could believe that more if the deadline was 31st March/1st April for the new financial year…
delaying it past that dates means for that new year there will still be a mix in pay, at least initially.
I am not an accountant but i would have thought it makes sense to start a new Financial Year with a new policy in place…?
This gives them 8 months to mop up ready for a potential new remuneration policy to be in place for FY 19/20…
i guess any new VA decision isn’t going to be turned around quickly…
Surely there should be a covenant of what they will do for us, put in place at the same time as this forced “agreement”?
I can’t remember signing any such agreement when I was commissioned, but it was back in the last century when the Corps had lots of staff!! My memory must be failing me!!
I keep seeing VA reduction/ removal and hearing rumours
Can I ask on what basis is this assumption being made?
I would suggest it’s already in place.
I’ve seen things in work where something is changed and then a subsequent part comes in almost immediately.
Many years ago despite much pleading a number of people didn’t vote for a change of working conditions which meant they were on different pay scales for 3 months. I know I was one of them and it didn’t go down well, but we were given a democratic choice and we took it.
It’s one of the key aims that one of the RCs is taking lead on, was meant to be started last year but put back because of the CFC. Was confirmed by the Comdt when she spoke to newbie staff at ATF.
One of the drivers for it is to allow CIs to have some sort of VA
Trying to think what I think on this but my feelings are
Not allowed on a public forum…
I think CIs should get some sort of VA, but not as much as uniform, there should be differences in rank otherwise what’s the incentive… Not that VA is the be all and end all… but it certainly helps staff who have to take a week off work to support the RAFAC…
6 posts were merged into an existing topic: VR(T) Commission Change
VR(T) Commission Change
I disagree, I think that our placed leaders need to think more about what getting people into SNCO or Officer actually means, rather than just relying on a bit more money for specified activities as a driver for some people to take the extra crap, for the majority of their time.
Surely there must be a CFAV with knowledge in the area of employment law?
The problem with bringing any claim is two fold. If a tribunal says not employees it gives the powers that be a bigger stick. If we are employees then it raises questions of pay for parade nights, NI and pension contributions, maternity /paternity pay, sick pay, hours worked under the WTD, claims for historic backpay etc. Do you think we could afford all that? I’m not talking about the merits of any claim but the consequences could be huge.
I’ve moved posts relating to the commission change to the commission change thread, to stop confusion.
I can offer this as it springs to mind
(see the end of the opening paragraph and/or the “JURISDICTIONAL POINTS – Worker, employee or neither” paragraph under summary)
That clears up a lot and explains some of the wording in the “agreement”.
I don’t want to be an employee as that brings in as many obligations as it does rights.
In my lucky situation the VA is a nice thank you for days worked, it is not a reimbursement for lost wages as it is for some people. If it goes, I still think I will continue.
A point about CIs receiving a VA of sorts. If that does happen, what is the difference between a CI and Uniformed Staff? Apart from extra stress, a signed commitment and having to spend money on upkeeping a uniform (as I am sure that the UUA will disappear soon!), what will be the difference?
Worse thing is, following my thinking above, I’m talking myself out of uniform!
if they get rid of UUA and we can swap uniform as we want I see no issue.
IF CIs get VA then this organisation better start telling them that they are fully involved now so get ready to take on more of a workload.
I fully acknowledge there are many who already do this from running sqns/camps to taking cadets places but there are a larger number I know of that refuse to take part in any activity or help out in anyway that does not interest them and if you try an ask for help, they respond with “No I’m a CI and we don’t need to do that”
All this brings is obligations on us the volunteers and as far as I can make out, no rights.
In an agreement there has to be give and take, not all take. What is the importance and why now after 77 years to have more than a ‘gentleman’s agreement’, to sign this by 31 MAR. What that says is either sign on the line or leave. What happens if people take them up on the latter.
I’ve been a member of staff since I aged out and at no point was I expected to sign anything except the Official Secrets Act when I commissioned.
I think there needs to be a proper explanation as to why we are being asked to sign this now and what is beneficial to us in doing so. I cannot see any benefit to signing it. You get a feeling that something is coming and they want us to sign so as to ease the way for future changes.
When was the consultation with us about this? OK It might only be a volunteer agreement, but there should have been consultation and explanation of the rationale behind this. There seem to be people with a background of telling people when and how high to jump as part of their job with people contracted to operate that way, now in a volunteer organisation, still thinking they can work like that.
Just a pedantic point, MP’s sign the Act, you sign to say you’ll comply with it.
Ignoring the VA part though, I think I might be the only one here that thinks formalising the agreement might be a good thing? Every other club has membership forms and apart from application forms, we don’t really have anything else.
If you want to join the local RBL or social club, you’ll have to agree to their rules and if you don’t like it then you’ll be invited to leave (unless you’re on the committee in which case you can help to change them).
Unless I’m missing something (and I probably am) is there actually an issue with this?