But this should surely reduce our admin burden?
This isnāt a change, itās the way itās always been and the change in Commission makes no difference.
For it to reduce your admin burden you would be looking at Region to write all of the Risk Assessments for your unit and do all of the monthly inspections.
Now if a CFAV canāt complete a risk assessment for day to day Squadron Activities for legal reasons (not an employee so not liable) then they canāt do it for anything, so now Region are writing the Risk Assessments for all of your AT etc, but if CFAVās canāt be trusted to write the Risk Assessment how can they be trusted to sign it off, so now your Wing or Region permanent staff are signing off everything, no more Wing AT Officers authorising things. But donāt worry, with the number of permanent staff we would have to take on to do all of the above their wonāt be any budget left to actually do anything anyway!
If this was to happen you would see the amount of things reduce almost immediately. itās only because we are around o do it that itās there at all, put it into the hands of the employers and their paid minions things that currently are crucial wouldnāt be.
Thinking about this more and reading all of the comments, I am going to change tack slightly!
I am not saying that CFAVs cannot write or approve risk assessments. That is a task that anyone can do in any organisation.
But why canāt RFCA do the monthly HSE checks? Why do they need to be monthly? Iām sure the Act says regular checks need to be made and it is only HQAC or RFCA who have defined it as monthly. Before I get lots of comments about everyone should be worried about safety all the time, I agree that this is the case. Everyone has the responsibility to perform dynamic RAs in everything they do, especially when looking after cadets. I am not trying to abrogate that responsibility.
My point is that this is another consequence of the change to the Commission status and has not been thought through in any way by HQAC (If it has been, where is the adjustment to ACP 5?).
My worry is that it is not clear who holds vicarious liability. Is it Auntie Dawnie, Secretary of State or the volunteer who is the responsible person? Other parts of the Voluntary sector use individual or organisational insurance policies. Do we have one now? Who pays the premium, HQAC or the individual? As the protection of being in the Military has been removed, where is the protection for being a volunteer?
The issue I have is, as these questions are unanswered as far as I am aware ( I hope that I can be corrected), the place that answers will be demanded is in court. This would mean some poor volunteer CO will get put through the ringer and suffer consequences they were unaware of, such as being personally sued!
It has taken HQAC nearly two years to write the book on how we should dress up when on duty, I have still not been told by the Queen (with a scroll) that my Commission has changed and there are still many questions about expenses, VA and the volunteer dictat that are being ignored.
They have kept the VRT Commission for the flyboys so they can have the cover of the Military when, on the rare occasion, they fly cadets. Why didnāt they think about other liabilities and responsibilities of the non two-winged master race before they forced through the change?
Isnāt it obvious? Cost.
If we say that there are ~160 units in a region, and it takes 2h to open up, check, close up and move on to the next one then thatās 40 working days per month, or enough work to employ two people per region full-time.
Reduce it to quarterly checks and it means one member of staff having to cover this. Donāt RFCA have Staff??
That would show the support for the volunteer staff!!
At a recent work based conference regarding fire safety, it was explained to us that we would only be liable for something we had the authority and ability to change.
For example, I can go and do a building check and I can point out the fire extinguishers are out of date. As I cannot buy new ones, service the old ones or install a sprinkler system myself then I would not be liable should there be a fire and they fail to work - as long as Iād done everything in my power possible to rectify the problem (in this case highlight it to the building owner/manager).
If RFCA did the checks and there was something requiring doing they could raise the chit there and then and cut out all the small works admin rubbish we have to do. But maybe this is too simple. By doing these once every 2 to 3 months we would cut the works inspection faff as well, as it could built into one of the visits and save me a dayās holidayā¦ I know that the squadrons where they are in joint accommodation itās all taken care of by RFCA and the COs seem to have little or nothing to do in this respect.
I can do a check at the squadron in around 15-20 minutes, so why it would take 2 hours is beyond me. Iāve done these at work in a far more complex environment and it takes about 30 minutes. Looking around a big shed which is all the majority of ATC squadrons are in should take minutes. As @pEp suggests we are not allowed to do many of the things that need doing, even when you do push it up the chain, sod all happens and nothing will, all the time no one gets hurt. Which is like every single thing Iāve seen in my working life relating to H&S. Signs/posters and emails only appear after the fact. The fact RAs are written is meaningless and are just to ensure sphincters are protected, just in case. Has anyone actually reviewed an RA properly when nothing has happened to make you think something should change?
Because (a) itās your squadron and thus everything is far more familiar and (b) itās your squadron and as such youāre already there. For example, itās a 7.5 hour round trip from SW Region HQ to Falmouth squadron.
It is still only a big shed.
As for distances this is why you use RFCA they have people doing this on a county basis. If itās got to be ATC, why use Regions? WExOs can do with some days away from the golf course
25 squadrons in each Wing over 2 or 3 months not overly onerous, surely?
But then this is the ATC and the blinkers are on and dump as much on CFAV as possible.
OK, in that case itās still going to be around 8 man-days per month for each wing - hardly a minor extra addition to the workload.
But you would do it as you do other things, not just that.
Blimey we all have things to do during our working days, but itās not just do one thing. Unless the suggestion is that RFCA / Air Cadet people canāt work like that. It would do them the world of good to see what the real world looks like, not just drive in and out of an office everyday.
I donāt think that youāre getting my point.
If wings have 8 man-days worth of extra capacity thatās not being used (and a few grand of travel budget) then your suggestion would be a great way to make use of it.
But assuming that wing HQs are already busy then where is all of this extra time going to come from, without employing someone else to do it?
Also WHQ volunteers wouldnāt be good enough, it would have to be paid staff in this scenario.
Well they might want to step into the real world.
How many of us havenāt had to do more and more things as things change, people leave the workplace and not replaced. When I started work I had things to do and then increasingly as people left and not replaced their job role gets shared out or new things come into play and you have to find the time to do it.
So doing something like this, my heart bleeds. Unfortunately unlike WHQ I donāt have people I palm things off on.
Does WHQ have volunteers, apart from some retirees who live nearby with nothing else to do? I thought they were all paid to do a job?
If you want people to do more work then (a) they werenāt working hard enough to begin with (b) thereās some new efficiency saving to be made Ā© things wonāt be done to the same standard as they were before or (d) people will be over-worked and then leave.
Ever worked?
What you describe is exactly what my and I every single person I know working life has been like.
Already working hard, get something new to fit in and as you suggest some sort of initiative or other. Yes you may get some leave, but the majority stay and crack on as they donāt see any benefit in moving on the basis that the grass isnāt greener for very long. Iāve had mates move jobs for the sort of reasons you suggest, but rueing the move as itās a frying pan and fire scenario.
The one thing that those running the ATC have got that my employers and many employers up and down the land donāt have is a group of unpaid people to dump stuff on and then bitch at them if itās not done or done exactly how they would like it done. My usual response to people like that is, OK donāt like the way Iām doing it all yours, which soon gets a change of heart. Try that in the ATC, which is not a job so no real obligations to comply as stipulated in an employment contract, and there would be loads of snottyness and threats from people who should really be doing it. Which because their threats would affect the youngsters people just do things. Which really isnāt a good position for the organisation to be in.
If this were practical and went ahead it would only cause more burden for the admin.
take the example of traffic marshalling for a local event. as an OC I am no longer able to write or sign off the RA so i tell my RC about it.
they, burdened already either rush it through based on my information provided and get it wrong so i need to write to them again and say āno youāve got the wrong ideaā or they do a thorough job and want MORE information from me.
in the end i get so frustrated i write my version of a RA indicated the risks and control measures I know about, given i have done the same event for the last 5+ years and know whats what. I send that to the RC and then it is returned as a carbon copy save for some RC headers and footers with their signature on it.
looking at other organisations (for instance the RBL) there isnāt even a RA course to go on, yet our ceremonial book suggests a RA template to be used for events - I am still a volunteer but i am happy to write a pageās worth of RA to show weāve thought about the process.
better that than be accused of not taking safety seriously
Yes.
Itās why in reality option Ā© will inevitably be what actually happens. So which thing would you like wing HQs to do worse to make this happen?
If they have any professional pride everything will be done the same.
If we didnāt do things to the same standard it would mean no company and no job. When you get paid to do a job, saying to people (your customers) Iāve got more to do so I canāt do cuts no ice, Iām afraid.
However WHQs etc know they have us over barrel and moan if we donāt things and ignore our complaints.