In light of this thread on Valuing our People - Volunteer Postings
It appears that there have been a number of cases where people have been pressured, conscious that a number of people are not members of the team or are mere observers not willing to comment due to local repercussions, so it makes sense that perhaps we discuss this here as well.
Interesting that the response does state that moves cannot be forced but leaves the convenient loophole that they can just deny transfer requests, so people can’t leave at their convenience (short of resigning)
I have seen this too may times. When they want to get rid of someone, but don’t actually have any good reason to kick them out.
Being an OC means I don’t get approached every 2-3 months to take on a vacant position, some blessings!
I would think there isn’t a wing in the organisation where people aren’t pressured to go elsewhere. I have experience of it across several wing commanders and sector commanders, staff being approached behind my back to take over elsewhere, people being denied the opportunity to parade somewhere they live less than a mile from because other squadrons don’t have staff.
It will be really interesting to see how this is approached now we’re bankrupt. We already didn’t get proper mileage for travelling anywhere, and now we’re under more pressure financially I think that more people will say no to travelling further regardless of the plight of the squadron they’re told to attend.
Ultimately, whatever the official line (you’re volunteers, you can’t be sent anywhere), we all know the reality is very different. People are pushed, pressured, cajoled or have life made difficult for them if they say no. Mostly, it should be a simple decision if the OC and the volunteer in question are in agreement - i want to parade there, they want me to parade there. If i don’t parade there, I’ll leave.
Sometimes, I think some of the people we put in positions of authority seem to take this as a personal affront and refuse all sense, denying it simply to show them who’s boss and to prove a point rather than the benefit of the organisation.
This is 100% how it appears. When you get into a situation where someone doesn’t want to be where they currently are, but are only given the option of go where Wing want or leave, it doesn’t help anyone.
It is a nonsense, and I’m not sure why that sort of outcome doesn’t instantly spark a review.
Are exit interviews a thing?
But in our Wing, there are staff who travel further to go to their squadron, whereas there are nearer squadrons who need help, but they are just not willing to make the move!!
But looking at this through the opposite lense, isn’t this an opportunity for the CoC to use a lack of staff willing to travel to close squadrons 
Pushing the emphasis on staff to travel or close a squadron!!
i do not know anyone who has stood up to reactions from the CoC who say “well we’ll have to close the Squadron if you leave” - but in my opionion i would be willing to call their bluff.
any unit which is dependant on an individual to stay open/viable cannot be in a good shape - and since when did Squadron viability come down to Sqn’s Staff responsibility?
Yes I accept the CO has a part to play, but as we all know a CO is a “caretaker” of the unit not the owner…the decision to close a Squadron is made by Wing not the Squadron CO.
Wings/Sector Officers should be recognising the fragile state of these units and putting maximum effort to recruit and retain staff at these units rather than let them fall down into such a state that one persons level of involvement/commitment is the go/no-go gauge for viability which then “justifies” the blackmail they place upon others
I do not believe any Squadron can be “full” - given we are all volunteers what is valid now could well change in 3 months time.
At our unit we have two CFAV who became parents within weeks of each other. they have obviously not been seen as often following the birth of their child - 3 month proir they were both regularly attending parade nights and supporting weekends. 3 months after birth and all that has changed.
this is just one example. i am sure they’ll be many more, people taking time off following a new job or promotion etc.
Also sometimes people parade at a location nearer to work, or public transport is better, or it has facilities that fit their skills or interests.
The volunteer bit is what matters, they choose to go there. Sure HTD could be capped I suppose if they are claiming more than they would attending their nearest unit?
I did Wing a favour and took Command of a unit 90 minutes away, my old unit became available and the Sector Commander refused to even allow me to apply instead parachuting someone in (who actually lived closer to the Squadron I was at).
Ultimately I ended up moving Wings/Regions as their was a Squadron 30 minutes away with Squadron Commander vacancy. (My old Wing even tried to interfere in this delaying my offer from the new Wing as they had a counter-offer of a Failing Squadron I had been saying needed closing for 5 years).
I’ve already lost count of how many times my sector commander has told me that if I don’t move to xyz squadron it will close. I now ignore this remark in its entirety.
Keeping squadrons going day-to-day is for local CFAV, but the longer term strategy for growth sits with the highest echelons and permanent staff. Any attempt to blame local CFAV for the closure of a squadron, except in an extremely small number of cases, it’s just attempting to utilise sloppy shoulders rather than taking responsibility.
But that’s what I’m getting at. Squadrons are kept open by CFAVs, but what happens if all avenues are closed, staff not prepared to move and there’s no alternative. Closure.
This language puts the blame at the feet of individual CFAVs, however. My point is that if the higher echelons were doing their jobs correctly with regards to strategic planning, CFAV wouldn’t have to move.
CFAVs busting a nut double-hatting to keep units open as a last resort need an MBE.
CFAVs that don’t want that kind of stress shouldn’t be viewed as less than or forced to leave.
So go on then, where does the organisation find staff to fill these vacancies
They (at HQAC), and we (at squadron level), can’t just pluck them out of fresh air. If we could, we’d never be in the situation we are now.
I’m lucky, I cycle to the squadron or walk. We have a good number of staff. A neighbouring squadron is always on the backfoot, always trying to recruit staff but gets no where. Cadets number in the low 20s.
Should staff be told to move from our squadron to shore up the other squadron, or does HQAC just close it as it has a history of low cadet and staff numbers!
There’s quite a significant difference between longer term strategic thinking, and shorter term firefighting.
Forcing CFAVs to move falls under the latter, and is a symptom of the absence of the former.
A squadron is an operational, or even tactical, level unit - especially if you look at RAFAC’s VMOST. They have the responsibility for delivering the strategy, but the higher echelons have the accountability for creating the strategy to cascade downwards and set direction.
Show me where this has happened with recruitment, other than higher echelons just saying “go do some recruitment”
It hasn’t. And then we end up where we are now, with CFAVs blaming other CFAVs when units fall, instead of taking account of the wider frame of view and identifying the root cause of the problems. The lack of direction, lack of support and lack of longer term planning from the very top of the organisation is what causes recruitment and retention problems, and CFAVs are deliberately made scapegoats for this incompetence by statements such as “refusing to move”
Perhaps I’m being over simplistic, but if you make the volunteering role seem attractive, you’d get more applicants, and less resignations.
That would need some decent PR, and an improved volunteer offer.
Over the long term, more applicants would mean more staff and therefore less pressure to move.
More permanent staff doing more of the work would be nice.
Being an OC is a second full time job and being the Adj isn’t far behind it. Even if you just took all the Health & Safety stuff and opening up for contractors it would be a start.
This is the crux of it. If you’re asking someone to give up 5 hours a week of their time, over two nights - plus travel, plus even the most basic lesson planning/preparation before hand - they’ve got to feel like they are achieving something or making a difference.
If all the time they have available is taken up with mandatory training, risk assessing, admin, and hoop jumping then that isn’t very attractive.
However, as an organisation we have to make sure we are following correct policies, and being as safe as possible, and giving the right sort of training and guidance to volunteers… And the ratio/proportions of what this looks like will be different depending on which seat you are sat in.
I hope someone more inspired than me can work a way out of it, as for a long time the volunteer offer has degraded and just becomes more and more unattractive and I don’t see how to fix it.
At least electronic DBS and onboarding not taking 6 months + is an improvement.