All ACO personnel are to note that from 1 Apr 15 all daily remuneration rates for CFAVs will be renamed Volunteer Allowance (VA) in accordance with the direction received at the recent 3*YCSG meeting. This change will enable consistent terminology being applied across all the Cadet Forces. In particular, the term ‘Paid Training Days (PTDs)’, currently in use by the CCF, ACF and ATC, will cease and VA will become the standard term for daily CFAV remuneration. Current rates of remuneration across the CF will be unaffected by the change and will continue to be subject to an annual review process by RF&C. The relevant publications will be updated to reflect the change in due time.
So its moved from pay, through remuneration, to now being an allowance!!
I think this is to do with moving people away from the idea that we are employees, or at least designed to make us think that.
Volunteers, in the strictest sense, shouldn’t be able to claim a standing amount for doing work. That is effectively employment and can in some cases be viewed as income and therefore should be subject to tax etc.
By calling it an “allowance” it’s supposed to make us think that we’re “oh so very lucky to get anything at all thank you very much”.
Will it be subject to NI and income tax? Personnally I don’t think they’ve thought this far in front.
If it is, then it is in essence pay and the whole are we/aren’t we employee debate will carry on. I’ve never heard my salary referred to as remuneration or an allowance. We get allowances at work, mainly mileage and IIRC these are only subject to tax above a certain amount. We used to get a meals allowance when on business which was fixed depending on whether it was breakfast, lunch or dinner and not taxed.
Anyone else think that this is a first step in moving away from full rank pay ie similar to our Regular and PTVR colleagues towards a “token payment” more akin to the SCC?
I just see it as a change in terminology to make it clearer that we are not employees but volunteers.
However, I hope a move away from full rank pay is on the cards too. Our allowance should be based on a flat rate but with an uplift depending on specific responsibilities (ie, being camp commandant, for instance)
I don’t think it should. Partly through self interest, but partly because for things like needing a uniformed CFAV at fieldcraft activities who does nothing but sit in a building who then wouldn’t get the higher pay because the “more qualified” CI could run the event.
Do I read into that, that you feel a Sgt(ATC) should receive the same amount as a Flt Lt who commands the Sqn and takes the responsibility?
Or are you suggesting a flat rate and various ‘uplifts’ depending on who is running a particular activity? If so, that is flawed because quite often, the senior rank present (the officer?) is the one with accountability and responsibility if anything goes wrong. They may not be ‘running’ the activity but they ARE responsible for it.
I don’t wish to sound arrogant but to have a ‘flat rate’ for everyone instead of a clear pay structure in accordance with an individuals rank, (sod the PC ‘allowance’ terminology!) is just socialistic nonsense.
Do I read into that, that you feel a Sgt(ATC) should receive the same amount as a Flt Lt who commands the Sqn and takes the responsibility?[/quote]
Almost but not quite.
All CFAV who receive the VA should receive it at the same base rate. For the most part, staff are pretty much interchangeable.
Those taking on a specific additional level of responsibility at a senior level (a camp commandant, a senior planning officer at a shooting week, Head of Admin at RIAT or that sort of position) would be eligible for a bonus because of that specific responsibility. I would not want to include special rates for people who hold specific but simple qualifications (minibus drivers, SAAIs etc) as that would make the system way to complex; besides, these skills are ignored under the present system and that doesn’t seem to bother anyone. There may be an argument for doing so if they were absolutely critical, but at a relatively low rate.
Besides, the fact a Flt Lt runs a squadron is not directly relevant to the argument as they don’t receive pay for doing that.
If we suppose that they did, why should a Fg Off, (or below) running a successful unit with a large staff team be on a lower rate that a Flt Lt (perhaps time-served) who is making a hash of his unit and has driven most of the staff and cadets away?
Extending that to activities where pay CAN be claimed, much the same applies. Taking camps as an example, while wings may be happy enough sending Flt Lt O. Thief to help on a camp, hopefully they’d select Flt X. Pert as the camp comm who would get the higher rate.
Similarly, you may actually want to pay Sgt Gunnut extra for acting as RCO, while WO Tubbs, who just turns up to shout at cadets and drink in the mess, gets a lower rate.
You know full well that rank is a poor indicator of capability. I do acknowledge though that there are links to responsibility and perhaps there should be a higher (flat) rate for officers because of that blame factor.
The officer in overall charge would get a blame bonus. So might an SNCO EC on a fieldcraft weekend. However, the 3 Flt Lts who showed up for a giggle and to make up the numbers would get no more pay than the Plt Off or Sgt who wants to get stuck in and contribute.
At all levels, both commissioned and non-commissioned.
Then that is down to whoever is running the activity as well as those who sign it off. There should be no passengers on [I]any[/I] activity. There certainly isn’t on mine, anyway because if you turn up, then expect to work.
Then of course, how would your theory play out? Flt Lt’s for example are on around £100 per day and a Sgt(ATC) on £50-odd. At what rate would you suggest setting the ‘flat rate’? Do you suggest reducing the Flt Lt rate and raising the Sgt(ATC) rate so that they meet in the middle? I wonder how many commissioned staff would go for that?
To me, the whole idea of a flat rate plus myriad of different bonus levels is far too complex to administer accurately and would probably give rise to an insane number of pay queries when staff payments (inevitably) get mixed up. Plus I doubt that HQAC pay systems would be set up to cater for it.
[quote=“incubus” post=24265]Besides, the fact a Flt Lt runs a squadron is not directly relevant to the argument as they don’t receive pay for doing that.
If we suppose that they did, why should a Fg Off, (or below) running a successful unit with a large staff team be on a lower rate that a Flt Lt (perhaps time-served) who is making a hash of his unit and has driven most of the staff and cadets away?[/quote]
Maybe there is an argument for those running sqns to get some sort of permanent monthly payment given that being a sqn cdr is like being a parent. I smile when some idiot calls themself a part-time mum/dad … no you are a full-time mum/dad you do a job that is part-time. Ergo just because I lock up after a parade night doesn’t mean I stop being the sqn cdr at that point. The phone calls, queries, expectation to deal with things and so on I get, even at work and on holiday back that up. I don’t get any calls from work once I’ve clocked off.
I have to agree wholeheartedly that the sentiment of a flat rate payment is socialist BS. If anything it removes the need for a rank structure, more ostensibly socialist classless BS. As for extra payments we’ve never had them and can’t ever recall anyone belly-aching about it.