Many employers are helping their staff during the currenr challenges by giviing them a one off bonus payment.
We are not employees but the VA for some and expenses for others goes some way to recognise the contribution made.
However, the delay in payment of either or both may now stretch some individual budgets beyond breaking point and result in loosing some volunteers forever.
Might one solution be for HQAC to approach Command Accounts with the following proposal:
To make a lump sum advance payment based on 50% of the annual maximum (VA 28 days ?) to all CFAV with a similar approch applied to expenses for all who qualify. Then account for the duty days / expences by claiming through the standard mechanisms and recording against the advance. Once the 50% advance has been accounted for advance the next 25% and so on. If the 50% advance is not reached rhe individual has cash in hand and must make up the difference during the next FY.
Thus would be an opt in system but would potentially reduce some admin and at least be a gesture of support.
Iâd be happy if they increased the fuel payments and sorted out payments quickly for Phoenix vehicles where CFAV have stumped up fuel.
I do believe we should move to a bounty system of payment for CFAVs as well in general.
If people are genuinely in hard ship then they can apply for early or pre-payment of VA in order to help them do the duty period. This is often done for IACE where people lay out chunks of cash on flights etc.
Please all dont forget that RAFA can and do support CFAVs in hardship.
They are very approachable and supportive.
TY both for your comments. My thoughts for what they are worth
-
An advance ,while useful, must be against a specific task. My proposal would put the cash in peopleâs accounts against unspecified but ultimately authorised tasks.
-
I am.aware that welfare support is available and well meant but it was not designed to.react to the more general and likely long term impact of worldwide issues. Many will not wish to be labeled as " welfare cases".
The advance payment would mean that no one will be subsidising events for a prolonged period of time from their rainy day money, if anyone still has any.
The corps saved a fortune on VA during covid as no one went anywhere to claim anything. The fact that those who stayed with the corps trying to provide any form of online presence, using their own electricity etc have been complete ignore is just madness.
I think itâs time they considered a bounty for people who meet the hours/mandatory training requirements etc.
There seems to be an expectation that we spend our own money helping the corps out with things and I for one will be stopping that.
Also, fuel claims seem to be taking forever at the moment. Wasnât all singing and dancing JPA meant to put and end to that?!
Now thereâs an interesting point.
Whilst JPA should quicken payments, but the way people will receive payments for activities is only once the Activity IC has closed down the relevant SMS event.
So there will be situations where people are waiting for t&s costs and remuneration all because someone hasnât closed down the event.
Err. You could claim VA still. And the rules were relaxed around being able to split 8 hours over (IIRC) 2 days.
Iâd also challenge that, given the circumstances, you were probably using that electricity anywayâŚ
I have started to see a growing reluctance for people (me included) to do activities over the last 18 months, which as economic factors start to bite, can only increase.
Iâm not convinced HQAC et al, give a monkeyâs as long activities happen. And we are no better. As seen on here, if cadets say their sqn doesnât do things people on here are only too quick to jump on the sqn staff, with comments like speak to Wing etc etc without knowing the first thing, which only plays into the hands of HQAC watchers.
VA is âawardedâ to a too narrow set of circumstances, to too few people and gets doled out too long after the event. Fuel payments are also paid out too long after fact.
Iâm not into the CWC can pay for staff costs, as this hides the problem and the CWCs are not a bottomless pit, despite what HQAC thinks. It would be interesting to see what happened if there was an upsurge on CWC returns of reimbursing staff for fuel and out of pocket expenses, so that staff felt able to be involved.
Iâve known people try to get an advance on VA and itâs not as straightforward as it should be. But this only apples to uniformed CFAV and misses out the largest staff group.
Moving to a bounty system for all staff who tick the mandatory boxes has to be the way forward.
@Squirrel VA is not claimable by all CFAV and all CFAV were involved during the pandemic as they are now.
Having moved out of uniform some time ago , but still contributing to the organisation, I do understand the importance of ensuring that publuc money is only spent on authorised activities. Left to our own devices or, at an extreme, self authorising would be likely to lead to an increase in the attempt fraudulent claims.
No longer having access to Bader etc I am in no position to make comment on its pros and cons but , in principle, a bounty and advance payments for expenses paid either in a lump sum or in staged payments over the year to enable casflow management within the RAFAC budget could be a sensible way forward.
The.electronic tracking of authorised activities gives you the required auditable trail for accounting purposes and any surplus of advanced payments against activity at the end of the FY could either be carried forward as an organisational credit for activity not yet completed (easy option) or reclaimed from the individual( not so easy).
We can debate the pros and cons of the move to such a system and never agree so why not authorise a controlled trial selecting a small number of volunteers in all of the categories , monitor, evaluate, identify all the wrinkles and , if the pros outweigh the cons, make the change.
They do seem to be drip feeding though, slowly like you say.
The bigger issue for T&S claims is I have no idea what has/hasnât been paid as they donât seem to be issuing any notes for them in DG. Seeing as Iâve recently had to resubmit some VA claims after HQ Acctâs admitted theyâd lost them I donât the highest level of confidence in them.
Does anyone know a way to see how much VA someone has left? Seems we also lost that ability with the swap to JPA.
This comes back to what is VA actually intended for?
You can pay someone a bonus, or a wage as it then becomes employment. You must always avoid developing a mutuality of obligations.
VA for uniform staff is for off setting costs, buying the extra bits of uniform or attending the events. Uniform staff have volunteered for extra responsibility & commitments. They have, in general, less availability in time as they increase rank hence an increase of VA linked to rank.
This is what you are meant to use VA for. The fact that people donât, doesnât put an obligation on HQAC to run VA differently in the same way 3822 ROS books were never intended as ID.
I too have seen this & itâs common across all volunteer organisations & some paid posts, some of it is linked to economic some is covid & time constraints & others to just general societal exhaustion.
So what could be done? How do we make it easier for people to volunteer? How do we support those volunteers on tight budgets to continue to volunteer?
Mileage is often spoken about. Currently a full tank of 45l costs me ÂŁ90 & lasts 400 miles. Each mile costs me 22.5p So as straight refund on mileage this is fine if a little miserly.
Business insurance is a big pain & is off putting. Considering the size of MoD & that many companies sign the armed forces covenant, the MOD could approach the Association of British insurers and agree free business insurance for CFAV when on cadet forces business. It means if you donât use you car for day job work stuff you can get the insurance for cadets at no cost.
What about CIs? you could, for CIs only introduce a subsistence claim for certain duties to off set the food allowance - say up to ÂŁ7.20 for 8hr plus. (as I know that amount is used as an allowance elsewhere) . It wouldnât apply to days where service catering is provided & a host of other caveats but it would take the edge off some expenses.
At the end of the day we are part of a volunteer organisation. There may be reasonable expectation but if you are unable to do something then you are unable to do something & there should be no consequences. This doesnât mean HQAC should start treating us as employees because other companies are offering payment incentives.
I refer the Honourable Gentleman to the answer I gave in another thread
Need to look at the budgets and values before you try to reallocateâŚ
Yet another pay CI thread.
Gets really, really tedious.
If volunteers want to get VA. GO INTO UNIFORM.
If volunteers cant, due age or another basic reason. Thats just life.
I for example would love not to have to go to work each day, but have to until i retire.
So sick of the constant moaning from people about VA and its âunfairnessâ.
Want VA go into uniform.
You cant have it both ways. Less repsonsibility, yet given the money.
Time to bin off CIs altogether frankly.
Want to be in a uniformed youth organisation. Tough. Wear the uniform and accept the rules.
âŚi mean, even the CCF basically have this.
This isnât about levels of responsibility. CIs are very often in higher positions of responsibility than uniformed staff. So donât use that as a reason.
This is about treating volunteers equally. And making sure basic costs are covered. If that means binning off VA so we can actually get 45p/mile and our catering/accommodation costs covered, then so be it.
In the nicest way. These individuals should be compelled to go into uniform. I have no issue with SMEs etc. But if the general cfav population is not willing to go along with the uniform ideals then it begs the question, whats the whole point.
This is a pure populist fantasy. AND is NOT how the MOD budgetry mechanism works.
If we bin off va we wont get that money allocated to mileage.
ALSO mileage is set centrally by the MOD. There will never be a seperate rate for various depts.
I do not understand ANY CI other than those who are age resteicted, who do not go into uniform.
There are only benefits for the individual and the organisation.
Frankly to not, is just bluntly absurd and shirking.
Sorry going to challenge. A number of CIs donât go into uniform as they donât want the hassle of uniform maintenance, are not interested in peacocking & just want to get on without too much military stuff. A lot donât want to get involved due to
I did a lot as a CI as do the ones at my Sqn. They can tailor their volunteering commitments to their circumstances. Uniform staff have volunteered for a commitment & so are obliged to go forward.
What the CCF donât really have are SNCOs. On the same arguments you stated above then SNCO should be made to commission. Donât like not being in a position of responsibility? Tough volunteer for the extra work load or put up 
The reason why I commissioned was I saw how CIs were treated and wanted to help stop the toxic bullying of CIs by SNCOs.we need CIs to make things work, we need officers to lead & run things. SNCOs may work for the airforce but there seem to be a bit out of place in RAFAC except those who still want to pretend they are still cadets.
Yes agreed itâs digressing.
Bringing back to point -VA is for private purchase of uniform & equipment that uniform staff are expected to wear at events etc. You donât want to give blanket money across the org, just the volunteers who regularly turn up so you link it to specific duties & limit it a number of days so you donât run out of money.
CIs donât wear a uniform ergo they are not in need for a VA to maintain it.
Mileage is already reimbursed purely for fuel and not corporate wear & tear. You could argue that the MoD has been over generous as when fuel was ÂŁ1.50 a litre it was costing people around 16p a mile so bout 10p profit a mile.
Business insurance is a current bug bear & that might have something that be sorted for people but individual needs vary across the organisation.
Bounty like the TA would be tricky but what I would suggest is that your first 14 days VA is claimed at a fixed rate & then your second 14 days VA is claimed at the Rank rate.
Encourages people to get involved more, cheaper for the organisation & allows snr ranks to get involved more without them being told itâs too expensive for them to attend.
Mileage allowance according to HMRC is not just to cover fuel but also a contribution towards VED, maintenance and insurance. That the MoD donât reimburse to 45p a mile is an MoD decision, not HMRC.
That true but am the term of âallowanceâ is a little bit misleading.
Anything paid to someone can be regarded as an âincomeâ for the receiver.
Where a vehicle is primarily being used for business use, the wear & tear, tax etc will primarily be business linked.
Now this could be worked out for everyone on an individual basis but that would be tedious & time consuming so to make it easier for themselves HMRC say that they will only tax mileage reimbursement as income if it is over 45p per mile & up to a certain amount of miles.
Below that they donât want to get bogged down in the paperwork. Some companies donât do a mileage allowance but straight reimbursement of fuel receipts.
In our case, the MoD (like many organisations with its own fleet of vehicles)- will only reimburse purely the fuel costs. This is because, in theory, they have a load of pool vehicles that can be used to negate the other vehicle costs.
Despite what we feel, the MOD reimbursement rate is fair for the amount we use.
Now one thing that my work is started doing is insisting on a fuel receipt for when submitting mileage claim. Just has to be from that month for the fuel claimed. This is allowing them to claim the tax back from HMRC (specifically the VAT I think) which is helping to mitigate costs of reimbursing mileage. Not sure if the MoD could follow suit with similar claims.