Good point well made 
but then if they aren’t in either cadre, could policy be enforced?!
err, I got the month wrong 
1 Like
any particular wing for those squadrons as I got a few in mind
yes, but probably not fair to name and shame publicly. I’m sure practices have been improved…
2 Likes
fair enough, i have come across a few sqns, tried to pair up, only to be fobbed off. Got a mate in d/w wing who has a similiar issue. their squadron finds it hard to mix within their own sector
if you are in one of the sqns I’m thinking of, my opinion of you has just plummeted 
Absolutely not! Most of the time I prefer doing wing stuff rather than sqn stuff so I can see more people 
The most fun is had when you do work with the local units, not against them!
Now about that topic…
4 Likes
Could this be because they receive better on boarding/mentoring at your sqn than they do elsewhere, and because your a long term OC they’ve not been pushed to replace you?
This is always “temporary” but never is and you’ve invested up to 7 years of into that person who presumably fits in well to your sqn.
1 Like
I’d have left when I aged out if this was the policy - it’s already an absolute marathon to get to my Sqn, never mind the second closest one. No doubt not far enough to convince the powers that be, though…
What else do you call people who give up their time for free to supervise children at a youth club?
Really didn’t want to debate this as it’s off topic and not actually my POV. All I was saying was in response to the " volunteers can’t be forced to do anything" is that if they are going from cadet to staff you could. It wouldn’t be forcing them to move, it’d be telling them they can’t join if they want to go to a specific squadron. So they would then age out and that be that.
And specifically in this case I was saying volunteer = putting in paperwork for 20+ service. Let’s not do the CFAV/Staff Cadet/Volunteer debate again 
It’s not something I endorse or suggest or agree with. I was just saying they could.
And it always seems to be one way, they we’re always trying to take my Staff but never asked me to take one on.
For a while we had a pseudo policy in my Wing where Cadets becoming Staff had a period at another Squadron. By and large it worked fine. Some achieved this through a different Squadron while at Uni, some locally if they didn’t go to Uni etc.
Good thing was there was a level of pragmatism applied, so if travel was an issue (ie can’t drive, parents not able to help out, distance too great) then another way was found, or allowances made.
As has been pointed out, there is no one solution to fit all, we have to be pragmatic in the approach, understanding this will be different for different people, but as long as they whys and wherefores are recorded, this shouldn’t be a problem.
Comment on the launch post on Facebook
takes longer that six weeks. Then you can’t do any weekends nor annual camp till you’ve done AVIP
The time element of DBS etc the m not overly concerned with, we know online is quicker we know we do paper, my last one took about 4 weeks.
The confined to barracks policy of probation is the biggest issue. It needs to be acceptable to recruit staff who support weekends but not parade nights.
11 Likes
Definitely. The parade nights can run with core staff. Getting extra staff, ideally with qualifications eventually, who can run activities at weekends would be a huge help.
Also, this is wrong - the truth is worse.
It’s until you’ve done AVIP and been around for 6 months. Really GMG.
I also don’t follow why we have to wait for DBS to come back before starting probation - we’re already to supervise probationary staff at all times.
2 Likes
Oh for sure the whole process needs to be volunteer friendly… From start to finish… The launch of Join will help that but there’s other elements that could be made volunteer friendly… BPSS being done on Sqn parade evenings, electronic DBS etc.
I still don’t get the fact that a Sqn may recruit a hill walking expert… But they can’t do that activity for the first circa 12 months without asking for permission
2 Likes
Well I’ve pushed out the “Join us” graphics as a “Job” for Cadet Instructors and shared it on a few local community groups on Facebook and already had 1 person respond. Winning.
7 Likes
So now another elephant has entered the room ie moving to A N Other sqn for “development”.
Is this mentioned in the new campaign blurb? No. The job I’m now in had the line “could be asked to help at another school in the trust” as well as whatever your manager “deems fit”, apparently all support staff were asked to sit in on the keyworker/SEN and ‘normal’ Teams classes during lockdowns and for teachers told to shield. The impression I get is it was better than sitting at home and as support staff there was little they could do from home. So I applied knowing full well I could be asked to go another school, but where is this notion of being asked to go to another sqn in the CFAV recruitment ad?
We all know that it exists (which some try and suggest is ‘policy’) and the pressure to move, even for a short time, is there and those not agreeing to it are not viewed well. I’ve had this several times over the years unlike @daws1159 I have been asked to host and now I do neither. The ones I hosted seemed to forget they were supposed to be at another sqn. I emailed their OC and WSO with my appraisal of them and another to the WSO don’t bother asking me again. Interestingly one young lady who was supposed to come to us, commissioned and was a bit of nomad before she left the Corps. The staff “told” to go elsewhere did so a strict at my behest 9 months and when they have come back they had no ‘development’ and from their view just been a GDB. I think this notion of a developmental move is just to get people to move and sod all to do with development and they try and dress it up as a policy to scare people into it. There should be enough going on and scope to ‘develop’ people on the sqn. I’m in the process of changing the adj, they’ve been doing it for 2½ years and need to “get away from a desk”. The new one will “sit with them” for a month before taking it on. I tend to rotate TO, Adj, AT, H&S and DofE.
I think the campaign needs to be more honest from the outset and not keep things back. As a job advert (yes it’s not a job, in theory) I’m not convinced it passes muster. Make it explicit that the DBS can take 3+ months and then the rest of the process, before which you are not allowed to get involved. The single biggest change to our external recruitment is start at the sqn once you’ve got the DBS, which when we finally catch up with the normal world, will be (or should be) at most 2 weeks. So come to the sqn 2 weeks later they are able to get involved, this has to be nothing but positive, which sort of mirrors how it used to be. At the moment 3 months or so for a DBS and then however long the rest takes, is it any wonder we struggle to get people in from the outside.
Or super keen new staff who want to get stuck in straight away.
This policy is one of the most stupid.
4 Likes
I could understand if it was no being the sole CFAV in those 6 months but otherwise it’s nonsense
To add.
Once someone has a DBS…
What real risk are they? As long as they are not left with unfettered access to personal details or left to supervise an activity they hold.no.qual for… it’s a nonsense policy which only does harm…
COME ON HQAC. WE ALL KNOW YOURE STUPID…
WE JUST DIDNT THINK THAT STUPID.
1 Like