ACP20 Pers Form 1-19


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?


But with social clubs you get something back by saying you’ll abide by the rules, as the club agrees to give you a nice place to meet.
I’ve been a member of the RBL for nigh on 30 years and no one has ever presented with a set of rules to adhere to. Execs have to agree to more stringent rules, but as a member as long as you stump up the annual fees, the RBL doesn’t really seem to care.

After years of not having a formal agreement, I still think we need a proper rationale as to why we need something now, and not some group of retired officers saying we’ve told you to, now do it. The way it’s written it’s all stick, which isn’t very professional.


There could be an argument for formalising the agreement, but there has to give AND take.
I have taken on an obligation to give up my time to run a unit within this organisation. I entered into this obligation aware of the responsibilities and under my own free will. The organisation benefits from this commitment. My benefit is seeing young people get opportunities that I got when I was a Cadet and watching them grow into responsible, ambitious Adults. That is the greatest benefit that can’t be quantified and is my reason why I continue.
But, and it is a big but, I am getting more and more annoyed at being treated like an idiot and a mug.
Over the last year I have been accused of being a Walt, a wannabe and deluded, all by people inside this organisation, for questioning the reasons behind the new commission. I have been accused of being a gong hunter in accepting the CFM as “it’s not a proper medal”
Now I have been presented an ultimatum to sign what I see as a flawed, rushed agreement brought in without any consultation or covenant from HQAC towards their staff. If I don’t sign this, I will be forced to stop giving up my own time running an organisation for the benefit of others. If I ask what the Air Cadets will do for me, I come across as extremely selfish, and appear to be a Walt, a Wannabe and deluded, something I do not want to be! How is this improving the appeal of Volunteering within the Air Cadet Movement?


What is needed is a groundswell of people refusing to sign this grubby document.As it stands its all stick and no carrot.
Make no mistake if everyone signs this without protest it will give the green light to the people in the Cranwell masif to push through anything they want.
The only way they will take notice is if there is a groundswell of people saying no.This organisation struggles to attract people in as it is can the CAC really afford to lose vast numbers of uniform staff (many of them highly experienced long serving sqn commanders) and experienced Wos and Sncos because of a badly worded and ill thought out piece of paper.As has been previosuly stated people put a lot in to this organisation and are heartily sick of being treat with disdain and contempt by HQAC.


HQ RAFAC can “push through” anything they want anytime they want whether or not this document is signed. Wouldn’t you rather be on the inside chipping away, than outside the organisation with no voice?