I think the organisation is actually the opposite of that. The higher echelons manage in a less militarised way, especially the new RCs, and this is increasing. It is the old and bold and those holding on to a position of power lower down the rank structure that still manage in an overly military manner and believe they are running a world war 2 boot camp at times.
1 Like
It was the Commandant who created a whole extra level of Structure by introducing Sectors and taking our WSOâs who were a advisory role and making them WSCâs and thereby created a whole extra level of bureaucracy!
Sectors existed way before Dawn came in in at least two wings I know of. Canât blame her for that.
That was Wings doing their own thing, she was the one who formalised it without thinking of the wider structure of the organisation or god forbid consider a consultation on such a fundamental change. (Committees & Padres anyone)
1 Like
Like a limited trial perhaps
Sectors arenât mandatory.
Dedicated sector staff arenât a requirement - people can take on âleadâ roles whilst retaining their current responsibilities.
I cannot see a way to drag this particular topic back to the matter of federations though.
But other people might.
I will have a try âŚ
Surely the need for a Federation of the type suggested arises because
a) in the military regime staff (and others) were feeling increasingly impotent as the organisation clearly drifts towards disillusionment in the ranks at anything beyond direct cadet activities
b) in the new civilian version of the organisation, there is a military-based infrastructure, largely manned in significant positions by retired military officers, which time and again has proven itself unable to operate in a more co-operative manner.
There is little confidence for many, fuelled by a poor track record of most things civilian, that the management will themselves be able to conduct there behaviour in a voluntary based environment with no recourse to control.
That then in itself is one basis for the introduction of a Staff Federation as a means of ensuring respect and open scrutiny of real values.
A couple of issues with a staff federation?
-
Convincing RAFAC senior officers that itâs a good idea? It would need support within those echelons that itâs of value to the organisation?
-
Funding. If it becomes a reality, the representatives will/could be spending considerable time dealing with members issues. Some issues may require legal support, which costs? If weâre looking at a free to join federation, without me paying any subscription, anything beyond just simple advice is potentially going to cost? If thatâs the case, whatâs the advantage to joining such a federation as a volunteer?
Even subscription managed federations e.g. the police federation are toothless lions.
As a volunteer, the biggest threat I can wave at the organisation is my willingness to walk away without any real comeback?
Itâs a valid point re: costs\subscriptions etc and without some sort of financial outlay\input, I canât see any type of support mechanism succeeding in the long-term.
However, I feel that there is a real need for such an association\federation if only to use legal SMEâs to make the ACO toe itâs own disciplinary line and make sure that volunteers are dealt with in a fair way and not treated like the everyday materiel that gets sent round the u-bend.
HQAC - as we know - have got form for taking shortcuts in due process and denying volunteers a fair crack of the whip.
1 Like
But what if the person does not want to walk away. Walking away does not solve the problem. The throbbers will still be there to hack off the next person. I would like the processes and policies to be upheld and the volunteers protected and not force leave. That is a very small minded and frankly pathetic way to treat the volunteer.
What they fail to realise is that if the volunteers all walk away the RAFAC will cease to exist. Sometimes those at the top need to held to account. They have a legal duty of care to the volunteer and protect us from bullying and intimidation and not cause it.
If the RAFAC is getting smaller then the number of paid staff will also have to be reduced. There was a plan to reduce the number of wings per region from six to five. But that could also have been extended to the regions. Keen the number of wings in a region the same; 6 and you could have reduced the number of regions also 6 X 5 is the same as 5 X 6 except you will save the salary of 4 paid staff perhaps ÂŁ200,000 a year.
2 Likes
Perhaps it should have been towed outside the environment?
Dropping the front anchor âBattleshipâ style thoughâŚ
Itâs been picked up on about how weâre managed and how there are many sticking to the old methods of âmilitary styleâ management - in some cases not so oldâŚ
Iâve said for a long time that this doesnât work. In the military, when you say âjumpâ people jump. They moan about jumping, but they jump. With volunteers though, say âjumpâ and the response is often âwhy?â. Managing volunteers is a delicate balancing act based around a degree of mutuality.
Other volunteer-based organisations offer (and even demand the completion of) accredited volunteer management courses to those in positions of responsibility. How many at each level have had the opportunity and/or completed such a course?
Having said that, having been interviewed by people in this organisation who have allegedly completed an interviewer techniques course I might not hold much hope for success anyway.
There is clearly a portion of the cantankerous and skeptical who arenât happy with the management methods used. Only a vocal cross-section is found here. There is a well-known morale problem. Retention is an issue. Any conversation with a colleague usually contains complaints about some level of the hierarchyâŚ
Even those with the strongest of convictions and greatest dedication will eventually find their line and leave.
Some kind of valid, valued, and mutually respected mechanism of communication between the tiers is needed, as well as an advice and support service.
Legal awareness as opposed to legal qualifications is probably sufficient, as most of its dealings would be internal and based around the shaping, sharing, and supporting of RAFAC policy and procedure.
How about a network of Regional Staff Welfare Committees, made up of (willing) SMEs across a variety of disciplines - no WExOs or WingCos, answerable directly to the RC with the agreed ability to bypass the RC or veto their judgement to push it higher.
Discip cases can be referred to them for advice and judgements appealed to them for review.
Grievances can be put to them for consideration and they can either rebut or table to the RC.
So not a federation, but still a support network offering similar services. Perhaps more agreeable and less confrontational to the powers-that-be?
Not sure I pulled off the anchor manoeuvreâŚ
1 Like
I think that the concept is that itâs like a union - the senior officers have to deal with it whether they like it or not. It would only work if a large proportion of staff were actually involved though.
Into another environment?
1 Like
And thereâs a number of ways they could deal with it.
One way of them dealing with it could be to give it a damn good ignoring?
If itâs not recognised as a formal body or written into our grievance/ complaints procedure then weâre on a hiding to nothing?
Given that we could, for example, threaten strike action then ignoring it wouldnât be a great idea.
Not only that, as people have pointed out above one of its purposes could be to employ legal beagles to raise questions.
2 Likes
Sounds like youâre suggesting our federation would be something like a trades union?
Are there unions out there that would support membership from volunteers (not employees) and then support them through strike action?
Would we see pickets at the gates of ATC squadrons?
What youâre suggesting could be very divisive and create a lot of ill feeling?
No change there then.
1 Like
Think that was discussed earlier in the thread, and apparently there are.
Personally, I think that an existing union might well be a better bet - much less likely to be a hobby-horse for some bitter ex-volunteer(s) with a chip on their shoulder
2 Likes
Who could you possibly be referring to? And in all honesty, thereâs plenty of embittered current volunteers!
2 Likes
I fully agree with Giminion.
I would want an organisation to support the staff not confront the leadership.
But I feel that the recent management decisions have been made because there is no coordination between the CFAVs to say this is a bit harsh, can we do it in a different way? We are a load of individuals who can be told if you donât like it, just leave, which is bullying and neither management nor leadership!
We have been told that in are Wing just over half of the staff have signed up. I donât think that this is mainly based on intransigence and is also about staff who are on the books but donât attend! ATC staffing levels could be about to be a lot more realistic!!
1 Like
And the CFC and Volunteer Agreement hasnât?