It occurred to me that I’ve seen the term ‘Permanent staff’ used a lot recently to describe the civil servant cohort, as opposed to ‘Volunteers’.
I might be over thinking this or just too grumpy at themoment, but I realised that I find that distinction offensive and demeaning. It implies that the volunteers are temporary, transient and, by implication, replaceable and disposable.
The reality is that the consistency and permanence in the organisation IS the volunteers. How many CACs, RCs and WExOs come and go, while for many volunteers, their involvement with RAFAC is a 20 year, 30 year or lifetime commitment?
Perhaps Permanent Staff should be retired as a term and use Civil Servants, Employed Staff or similar instead?
Unless I’m mistaken, I think when the organisation itself refers to “PS”, it’s generally used to mean “paid staff” as an umbrella for CS and FTRS as opposed to “permanent”?
If correct, I have a feeling that may be a more recent change in accepted usage either deliberately or inadvertently to alter the way our CS, FTRS, and CFAVs are distinguished from each others.
However, “permanent” in employment terms means “without a set limit to contract length”, so realistically it would apply to our CS, but perhaps not our FTRS who are typically on a limited “tour” with the potential to extend.
Volunteers, by their nature, are not locked by contractual obligations of service length or indefinite service, and are by that definition “temporary” - not that would be the correct or respectful way to refer to them or their “not permanent by way of a contract” status.
I don’t think staff has to mean employed. Staff would include volunteers in lots of contexts. In RAFAC, Wing Staff, Directing Staff etc. Many organisations would distinguish between staff and customers/clients, such as a charity shop, Citizens Advice etc
Using PS meaning Paid Staff would be a more meaningful and less divisive distinction, but I’ve certainly seen Permanent Staff used in full regularly. PS could be one of those acronyms that has evolved with use of course.
It’s the ‘Permanent’ descriptor that feels inaccurate and, by implication, disrespectful to volunteers, whatever the legalities and technicalities may be.
C/S employed staff have T&Cs as laid down in a contract of employment with rights and responsibilities and representation as required.
FTRS come in under KRs and terms of their contract.
volunteers come in with not a lot and leave with the same, plenty of responsibilities but little in the way of rights as they are NOT employees in the eyes of HMRC and KRs. Dawn sanctioned that moving from VRT to CFAV as CFAVs weee causing trouble in the ‘redress of grievance’ system. CFAV therefore CFAVs, unfortunately “disposable and the RAFAC has considerable influence to destroy somebodies life and security outside the RAFAC.
The military has a very odd relationship with the word ‘permanent’. For example, when I get mobilised the paperwork refers to it as a “recall into permanent service”. That “permanent service” can be for a couple of months and will never exceed a year.
Similar to the OP’s point, in the Reserves there are volunteer reservists who’ve been on the same unit for 20 to 30 years, whereas the ‘permanent staff’ come and go on 4-year FTRS contracts or sometimes shorter regular postings.
IRC the recall is something everyone in the armed forces signs up to when they attest in that full time service is X and reserve call up obligation is Y on discharge.
Sorry, I didn’t realise that would need explaining in this context. They took the ‘flight’ prefix literally and thought I’d moved from a ground role to Non-Commissioned Aircrew, rather than simply been promoted by one rank in the same profession.
HMRC would see that as income, just the same as secondary employment as a freelancer. Specifically under the law you are volunteer and receive a volunteer allowance.
