Ive recenty been looking into the “scheme” and have carried out a poll within the wing to find out uptake. At best we have 9% of eligible people in the scheme. I had read that the average is 40% for the corps. Is there a reason why you would/would not take part?
KFD
Complacency; ‘won’t happen to me’ scenario, until something goes wrong…
I’ve seen people going along thinking they are covered by the ATC insurance, but when it goes Pete Tong, they are the first to moan.
Been in it for years, doesn’t cost much and gives you cover, just in case.
Nearly all our staff take part in the maximum scheme. For a tenner a year it’s a no-brainer!
i know of an incident at RIAT where one of the staff (sparky) fell off a ladder (fractured arm) and has made a claim. he is self-employed so the insurance scheme was able to subsidise his lost earnings while he recovered
for £10/year its a bargain given what could happen…i am not a staff member who stays in the classroom so welcome the cover for when i am out and about
As de facto employees of the organisation, CFAV surely should automatically be registered into the scheme at a basic level and allowed to upgrade if they wish. Cadets get automatic cover, so why not CFAV?
As to why there is little uptake, I’d say that was most likely down to the admin involved in getting into the scheme and that some units can’t be bothered to coordinate it.
It’s tough admin - ‘enter name here’
Well done, you’re now insured.
[quote=“papa november” post=14367]It’s tough admin - 'enter name here’
Well done, you’re now insured.[/quote]
Well, Enter name, select scheme, pay scheme to nominated collector, put cash to civcom or personal account, write aggregate cheque, send off to HQAC, get small, pointless stamped “receipt” in return.
Not complicated but it is one of the many additional hassles which befall units.
I’ve always thought that the acknowledgement we get back from HQAC is insufficient proof of entitlement - surely they can create a summary statement per squadron and send it out, listing the confirmed entitlement per person.
Or have an online payment portal where people can purchase themselves over the internet or on behalf of another person. Online receipt. Job jobbed. Admin saved.
As pay will be shifting so as to link to Bader SMS, perhaps insurance will somehow go the same way. I’m still for it being automatic.
A pay portal for the ACO is still something I believe we will need ot adopt and it may end up being the best way to sort out the optional insurance elements.
So if a member of the scheme was unable to claim, is there anyone at HQAC who should contact the families?
Besides there is no one there, who is responsible?
Sorry can you explain this a little more clearly?
If you were unable to claim, is there anyone at HQAC who is responsible to contact famiily and ensure compensatation is cliamed?
I’d be surprised if HQAC joined the dots or had the manpower to be proactive. I’d have thought that the questions would need to be raised by those at grass-roots level (who may not be aware of membership of the scheme)
Don’t forget though, cadets get entered automatically into scheme “a” or whatever it is, when it’s scheme “d” that most people will sign up for. I can’t see that cost being met by anyone other than the staff themselves, but it would be nice to think that we could all have it automatically.
Reduce PTDs by 1 day and automatically enrol all staff into scheme A or equivalent (thought he money would be enough to put them all into scheme D.)
Err no thanks. I’m happy doing the admin, paying £10 and keeping my £70-odd pound.
Think of the Greater Good - you need to cover the cost for all of those CIs who are apparently essential to the ATC*
*[sub]I’m not saying they aren’t important or useful, but I can’t think of a single squadron up here who couldn’t carry on if there were suddenly no CIs.[/sub]
I am. They can foot £10 a year to cover themselves. It’s hardly breaking the bank is it. It’s a personal choice and no mandatory. You make your choices in life and pay the price.
So mostly apathy, no connection and limited understanding of the scheme. Sounds like a recipe for disaster.
I’d correct the spelling of “apathy” but I couldn’t be bothered! 