If we were doing it for the money we would habe joined the reserves. None of do it for the money but the money does pay for No3 uniform. adv trg kit, mobile phone calls postage and a 101 other thing i need to operate by sqn. Without the VA much of what i pay for will have to stop.
2 Likes
I think thatâs one of the things thatâs not realised by HGAC.
Most Staff spend our own money on stuff for our Squadrons which we donât claim back and we rationalise it that we are paying for it out of our VA. If we stopped getting VA then lots of Chairman would start getting receipts put in.
3 Likes
Letâs just think about that supertanker again? Can we adjust course back to discussion about the actual federation itself? Rather than the issues it could potentially go in to bat for? If you want to discuss those issues some more, feel free to create more topics. Or we may have to start splittingâŚ
I think the front fell off.
5 Likes
To go back to the original question, a federation would:
Allow people under investigation to access unbiased âcounselâ and representation. This removes any undue influences applied through the present system by the use of an âassisting officerâ.
Encourage openess and transparency in the ACO at ALL levels.
Represent the CFAVs as a group to the CoC
Bring up any grievances on behalf of an individual or group to the CoC starting at the squadron level.
Provide a source of information to CFAVs that is not within the CoC which is unbiased.
Access to all policies and procedures relevant to the functions and taks performed by CFAVs.
1 Like
a lot of people have put in discussion on this thread and their thoughts and concerns etc, yet the author of the original post has not got involved (that we know of) with any discussions and this concerns me slightly. IF I was to join this federation or whatever then I would expect some input from the federation not silence, especially when we discuss what it is they would do on your behalf.
From looking on social media it seems all it seems to do is troll the RAFAC pages or CAC (which she probably deserves) looking for fault.
regardless of people thoughts on the pros and cons of a federation, in its current state this federation seem just a bunch of complainers rather than a real group wanting to go about change for the betterâŚ
2 Likes
This, coupled with the fact that I canât afford to take unpaid days from the day job with out some kind of money coming back the other way. I donât have any free holiday to commit.
1 Like
I agree. This is an area that is important and a Federation shouldnât just be a vehicle for whinging.
My issue is how do you start one up, especially with a lack of help from the centre?
The centre ie HQAC like the management in companies wrt Unions are not going to help set up something that will threaten their ability to treat people like crap and force them to negotiate things.
There is the fact that a union or anything else would be completely outside the scope of the experience of people whose management style relies on them saying something and people just doing it, the notion of negotiation and arbitration etc doesnât really fit with the model. It would be interesting to see if they would recognise such a body.
However something that occurs to me is that given the impotence of HQAC, I could see negotiation being with 22 Gp, as HQAC only really follow orders, in line with their âupbringingâ.
In addition to the use of an unnecessary expletive Iâm afraid that your understanding of the day to day management style within the RAF is way out of date. Things are now done by engaging stakeholders through negotiation and even, from time to time, arbitration . " I am only following orders " is certainly no longer part of the modus operandi.
However, a small number of full time employees of the RAFAC may be from a previous era and have retained management styles that no longer have a place in the parent organisation. Most, I am sure, would be amenable to constructive dissent (something positively encouraged in the RAF) but within a mutually respectful setting, recognising the command structure.
As I have said before, the personal abuse of the senior RAFAC leadership by some who use this forum allows the baby to be thrown away with the bathwater. Self inflicted wounds are always the most regrettable.
1 Like
Fair enough, but there is little evidence of this modern style, otherwise why have we had this dung heap of a âcommissionâ and âcontractâ foist upon us, among the nonsense of supposedly giving us a choice of what will be called. At work T&C changes (the commission and contract are T&C changes) invariably form part of a pay discussion all of which is agreed by a binding vote. OK at work we are employees in every sense, but why should volunteers not be afforded the same rights, rather than be dictated to?
It is for all the world like we are being treated like naughty children being sent to our rooms.
If the modern style was adopted this would have been negotiated, but the contract isnât, it is a list of things telling us what will do and nothing the other way. If this is modern management in the RAF, it has a long, long, long way to go. If an ATC squadron commander acted like this, they would soon find themselves running squadrons on their own.
As for the comments etc about people at Cranwell, read newspapers, watch the news and if you do it I imagine social media etc and there are public figures across all areas that are commented on adversely, Cranwell are no different in our microcosm. Do you think if they were seen as effective people would comment like they do? At a Wing conference I overheard two senior officers from Cranwell talking about some of us, in less than complimentary tones. When I emerged from the room with the posters I was picking up, they seemed a bit flustered and definite change of conversation.
Agreed there is little evidence of the current RAF style of management and that is a pity. I attended a conference some 10 years ago when âCommand and Enableâ rather than âCommand and Controlâ was mentioned but that came to nothing which in my opinion was a great shame. This organisation has some great people in it , both full time staff and volunteers, it is therefore disappointing that the discussions/debates on this forum seem, on occasions, to reflect Animal Farm - volunteers good, full time staff bad. That is just not the case. There just has to be a better way to bring all parts of the organisation together. A Staff Federation may be part of the answer but I do not believe that the RAFAC is yet ready for a shareholder democracy.
As to your comment on the media in general I may be very old fashioned (and am often told I am) but I see comments made about individuals almost always having a negative effect, driving those under attack to circle the wagons and fire at anything that moves outside.
In terms of the CFC and Terms of Service, trying to balance tri - service requirements alongside 3 cadet forces with different histories, legal structures, history and aims was never going to be easy. The room for the RAFAC to manoeuvre to meet its particular requirements was always going to be strictly limited.
I think the last few posts have hit the nail on the head. The RAFAC is not the current RAF, the RAFAC is being run by retired RAF from a bygone age. The RAFAC is like going into the RAF Club in London. It bares no resemblance to an officers mess now, it is like going to a mess when I first became adult staff nearly 30 years ago.
The newer RCs are much more enlightened than the majority in Sleaford Tech who are from an older generation shall we say. In my experience CAC (refuse to use CRAFAC)and the Chief of staff are good people trying their best but they are hamstrung by the level of management below them. The are many who are total throbbers who couldnât manage their way out of a paper bag. Also may of the issues of the past few years are not HQAC fault eg CFC and pers form 1-19. The top were told to make it work and in the case of the CFC they were probably badly let down by the MoD in Whitehall. Gliding, the progressive training badges that is down to the middle management.
3 Likes
I agree with the last few posts that RAFAC management is an out of date style that is not relevant in a full time career, let alone in an organisation staffed in the majority with Volunteers.
I know I keep going on about it, but the Human Rights Act is the reason why HQAC might not have any choice in having to support a Federation/Union. This act places an obligation on public bodies to comply with all parts of the Act. The MoD, along with the NHS, Police etc, is a public body. As HQAC constantly tells us that we are no longer part of the Military, the exemption in Article 11 (Freedom of Association) that applies to the Police and Military regarding Trade Unions no longer applies!
The problem is how to officially inform HQAC of its obligations? Who do you approach? Who would support the case? Human Rights lawyers have a poor reputation within the Military, but they would have the explicit knowledge required. Anyone with Union connections?
One more thought . This thread has started to explore the perceived requirement for a volunteer staff federation to represent its views to the full time management of the organisation.
I note that through various social media platforms individuals still talk about the Chain of Command (CoC). I wonder, given the new volunteer agreement, what the legal status of such a construct now is?
The NATO definition of Command says it is the authority which a commander in the military Service lawfully exercises over subordinates by virtue of rank or assignment. It adds that Command includes the authority and responsibility for effectively using available resources, and for planning the employment of, organizing, directing, coordinating and controlling military forces for the accomplishment of assigned missions. It also includes responsibility for health welfare, morale and discipline of assigned personnel.
Given that the vast majority of volunteers within the RAFAC are no longer part of the military is the term CoC ( and all its implications for upward representation) still valid or are we moving logically to a more collegiate system of delivery. If yes, then perhaps a volunteer staff federation that operates within a system of âconstructive dissentâ may be an inevitable eventual outcome.
I disagree - the Scouts and Guides have chains of command, and no one thinks they are military.
Itâs just a different term for âlines of responsibility/authorityâ, itâs not something to get excited about, and nor is it the starting point for the unraveling of some vast conspiracy.
3 Likes
Firstly I have no intention of providing a start point for a vast conspiracy because, as I suspect, like you I donât think there is one. However, the Scouts and Guide have a way of operating that tries to be inclusive. All I was highlighting was that RAFAC officers (with the exception of the flying fraternity) are no longer subject to the Air Force Act. While the lines of responsibility/authority will remain the same the way the organisation delivers for cadets , through its adult volunteers, will evolve.
Iâd treat with heavy scepticism any theory that the removal of our military status would result in a less-military style of command from the upper levels of the organisation.
1 Like
Keep it relevant or Iâll delete more posts.
1 Like