Paid training days

Adult Staff The Staff Mess
41

The incentive of being an OC is that you get to be OC and have increased responsibility and influence. The progression is the promotion itself.[/quote]

Woop! Sign me up :stuck_out_tongue:

Obviously I can start farming out the staff disputes, the cadet disputes, the dealing with contractors who don’t work evenings and weekends, the building problems, the training issues, the clothing issues, the weapons stuff, the accounts stuff, the pressures from WHQ about moving staff or getting them into uniform, the pressures to share resources.

Then we’re all equal yeh? :stuck_out_tongue:

(For what it’s worth, I know you know all that Incy. Just don’t think the promotion and being OC are justifications in their own right).

I’ll admit it, the only reason I went into uniform as to staying a CI was that I could claim pay for things I was doing anyway. That is just about the only bonus there is to being uniformed, IMO.[/quote]
I make PeP absolutely right, much karma. There is much more to being the CO of a sqn than the rank and associated level of pay.

Let’s be honest you don’t get paid to deal with all the day to day crap.

42

Why not get paid the same rate you get paid in your “day job” ?
(Or get the same rank as your “day job” pay matches in the RAF :evil: )

43

[quote=“abz” post=16081]Why not get paid the same rate you get paid in your “day job” ?
(Or get the same rank as your “day job” pay matches in the RAF :evil: )[/quote]

I’ll pass. My Pilot Officer daily rate is better.

44

I think the crux of the matter is that we are a quasi-military organisation. If you want the ability to command people, order them to do things and want them to obey, you need to give them an incentive to put up with all the crap. Currently, that’s pay. You could argue the higher up the CoC you go, the more crap you deal with, hence the payscales.

If you want everyone to be equal, what should happen is what I have to do at work for my volunteers. They sign up to me and I know full fell I won’t have them forever (because of their ages), and I treat them very carefully and don’t ask them to do something they aren’t comfortable with unless I have no other choice.

They can claim mileage at 45ppm for ANY journeys they have to take to volunteer with us. They can submit receipts for ANYTHING they’ve had to buy in order to volunteer with us (food, parking, buses, trains etc). We don’t apply a limit to that, and we make sure they’re never out of pocket.

I keep a very close eye on them and actively push them to do training. I make sure they all have a chance to let their hair down once in a while and try and mix up their jobs each time they come to me so they don’t stagnate or get bored.

If you remove pay at the current levels, there will be even fewer people going into uniform and especially fewer becoming officers, like it or not.

I do, however, agree that CIs should get more than they currently do. Not in terms of “pay” but the ability to reclaim more mileage/costs incurred.

45

[quote=“pEp” post=16083]
If you want the ability to command people, order them to do things and want them to obey, you need to give them an incentive to put up with all the crap. Currently, that’s pay. You could argue the higher up the CoC you go, the more crap you deal with, hence the payscales.[/quote]

I have to disagree.
Why not because they want to??
Ask yourself why do CIs do what they do…they clearly don’t do it for the pay.
If pay was linked to responsibility why can a Sqn FS get the same pay as our Wing Sports Officer (who is a FS)…that simply isnt “fair” and is against the “incentive” you describe.
As a Wg Sports Officer that FS does all the things on Sqn that would be expected and then a further Wing role on top…do they receive higher pay? (and being sports, are unable to claim pay for such events they organise/attend!!)
Arguably why does a WO, Fg Off+ get more pay than the same Sports FS? They could be simply “Sqn Staff” with no outside involvement of the Wing yet received a higher “incentive” (pay) to do so

It has been discussed and mentioned many a time, if people are in it for the money they are in it for the wrong reasons, so surely that applies to rank as well given there is a distinct link between pay and rank.

[quote=“pEp” post=16083]
I do, however, agree that CIs should get more than they currently do. Not in terms of “pay” but the ability to reclaim more mileage/costs incurred.[/quote]

Surely that is already in place in terms of mileage and “other costs” is a local matter under the CO/CivCom’s decision to reimburse “expenses” – typically for our Sqn anything that is privately purchased for the Squadron is reimbursed irrespective of rank.

46

But is that the case for the majority of staff on your sqn? The largest chunk of time people claim for are camps of one sort or another, with weekends/part weekends throughout the year.

It is at times difficult to get people helping at fetes etc so to have the option of claiming pay would help with staffing. I turn up as a matter of course as I like to see the cadets getting involved doing these things and the plaudits they get from joe public are extremely gratifying. Not something you get from a day of training.

47

Just to clarify.

As the person in charge of discipline on a sports event they are allowed to claim for a days pay if approriate. But only 1 person per event.

48

[quote=“steve679” post=16084]If pay was linked to responsibility why can a Sqn FS get the same pay as our Wing Sports Officer (who is a FS)…that simply isnt “fair” and is against the “incentive” you describe.

(Trimmed)

Arguably why does a WO, Fg Off+ get more pay than the same Sports FS? They could be simply “Sqn Staff” with no outside involvement of the Wing yet received a higher “incentive” (pay) to do so

It has been discussed and mentioned many a time, if people are in it for the money they are in it for the wrong reasons, so surely that applies to rank as well given there is a distinct link between pay and rank.

Surely that is already in place in terms of mileage and “other costs” is a local matter under the CO/CivCom’s decision to reimburse “expenses” – typically for our Sqn anything that is privately purchased for the Squadron is reimbursed irrespective of rank.[/quote]

Life ain’t fair. We are in a hierarchical organisation that places (some) ‘importance’ on rank, and rank to a degree = paid (of course there are Flt Lts unpaid).

Pay I suspect for most isn’t an incentive. I think incentive is actually the wrong word, what pay is is actually compensation in my view, for the elements of my service (hobby) which aren’t enjoyable - i.e. reams of paperwork, early starts to drive minibusses of cadets about etc etc.

As for claiming costs locally, there are limits (ACP 300 is a good place to start) and in any event, the expenses I get from this organisation hardly cover my real expenses.

Is the system we have perfect? No, as you quite rightly say, some will “act above” their rank and fulfill additional roles for which they are not paid. BUT the system we have at the moment is reasonable most of the time, and is easy at least the administer.

Having flat rate pay is a poor answer. Having set rates for ICs/Course Leaders/DS I dont think is appropriate.

As PltOffP said, irrespective of whoever is IC of an activity, its the officer present who will feel the heat if things go pear shaped. As an officer I have a duty of care for all of those under my “command” and within my purview, which could include CIs or NCOs or junior officers on AT courses, weapons courses etc.

The system we have isnt perfect, but neither is any of the alternatives. The system we have is probably the lesser of a few evils.

And if CIs want pay… why not go into uniform?

49

I get really hacked off by the whole “I do this for the kids, and if you don’t then you’re in it for the wrong reason” martyrish attitude.

I do this because I enjoy it. If the cadets benefit from what I enjoy. Brilliant.

Would I do it if I didn’t get paid? Probably not. Not because I wouldn’t want to. But because I couldn’t.

I have had to make accts81 advance claims for every camp I have ever done. Because if I didn’t have advance pay I couldn’t afford to go.

50

[quote=“kfd” post=16086]Just to clarify.

As the person in charge of discipline on a sports event they are allowed to claim for a days pay if approriate. But only 1 person per event.[/quote]
That’s normally the Wing or Region PEdO, everyone does it for the lurve.

[quote=“Baldrick” post=16088]I get really hacked off by the whole “I do this for the kids, and if you don’t then you’re in it for the wrong reason” martyrish attitude.

I do this because I enjoy it. If the cadets benefit from what I enjoy. Brilliant.

Would I do it if I didn’t get paid? Probably not. Not because I wouldn’t want to. But because I couldn’t.

I have had to make accts81 advance claims for every camp I have ever done. Because if I didn’t have advance pay I couldn’t afford to go.[/quote]
You are not alone. I have been on camps with staff and as adj been chasing WHQ to see if they have got their advance pay done and now in the modern era people checking their accounts online. We had to sub a Sgt for his mess bill, as he was out of work and waiting for his ATC pay and his giro to clear. It all happened Friday lunchtime, despite having put the 81 in 3 weeks before the camp.

As I said earlier, while people don’t do it solely for the money, for many in this current economic climate and some staff I know with 2 or 3 p/t jobs, getting paid for cadet things is a huge bonus. I have also seen an upsurge in claims to the CWC for fuel reimbursement by CIs, something until about 5/6 years ago while not unheard of was much less common.

I’m not so much bothered by the “doing it for the kids” as the urinating up the wall about who’s used the most PTD, I wonder if these people have a real life. At best 28 PTD if you do a camp,it’s another effectively 3 months of weekends, throughout the year. My wife would be on my case if I said BTW I’m out all these weekends or part weekends, plus I have a life outside the ATC, bizarre concept I know. It’s bad enough during the week with 2-4 nights out between us, to have too many weekends knackered.

51

GHE2 - You have a life outside the ACO? How verily dare you! :wink:

A year ago I was actually told by a Sqn OC within my Wing that I should cut down on my non-ACO activities so that I could partake in a BEL course (which incidentally never happened). Cut down on my other activities? Did I heck.

52

[quote=“papa november” post=16095]GHE2 - You have a life outside the ACO? How verily dare you! :wink:

A year ago I was actually told by a Sqn OC within my Wing that I should cut down on my non-ACO activities so that I could partake in a BEL course (which incidentally never happened). Cut down on my other activities? Did I heck.[/quote]

BEL takes so bloody long that I would have to cut down on pretty much everything to get it done.

53

I’d be surprised if we keep BEL anymore with the introduction of the Lowland Leader award by Mountain Leader Training UK.

54

But is that the case for the majority of staff on your sqn? [/quote]

Probably not, myself and another are the only two who come close, we are out at least two days a month on events where we can claim pay due to our involvement in weekend training we provide.

[quote=“glass half empty 2” post=16085]
It is at times difficult to get people helping at fetes etc so to have the option of claiming pay would help with staffing. I turn up as a matter of course as I like to see the cadets getting involved doing these things and the plaudits they get from joe public are extremely gratifying. Not something you get from a day of training.[/quote]

I completely agree with your reasons for attending such events, and in contrast to your difficulty in getting people to attend, it is often only the uniformed members who we can rely on for such events, despite not being able to claim for “pay”
Trying to work out why that might be and conclude it is simply because it is often the uniformed staff who organise our involvement at such events, liaise with event organisers, perhaps PiPE paperwork and other associated factors…

55

[quote=“kfd” post=16086]Just to clarify.

As the person in charge of discipline on a sports event they are allowed to claim for a days pay if appropriate. But only 1 person per event.[/quote]

Excellent for that 1 person, but at a rugby or netball trials what about the rest of the staff?
Out Wg Sports Officer over sees everything, but has in his team other staff who are “Coaches” for Wings team, rugby and netball being examples. Those staff, who perform their Sqn roles do this additional support to Wing but are not formally recognised as WSO or assistance WSOs…

With regard to “Discipline” at the large wing events, athletics and swimming, the Sports Officer delegates the various roles one of those being discipline so does that mean on the two larger Wing Sports events the Sports Officer isnt permitted to claim?
That isn’t fair.

I am not saying I agree/disagree with the system, it is what it is but questioning the thoughts of others who indicate pay matches rank which matches responsibility which in the example above is the not case…and that is just one example
There are AT qualified Staff who will attend a Llandbedr or Windermere camp, or simply a weekend camp or even a day walk who will get the same pay as non-qualified staff attending, or even the situation where with qualified CIs and un-qualified uniformed staff….the one eligible for pay bringing nothing but the an added headcount to the party…while the other making the event possible!
The same could be said for shooting, with a CI who is an RCO against uniformed safety supervisor or coach
What about CIs in executive positions? Our Wing Webmaster, H&S Officer and Aviation and Graphics (Air Rec and Art/photography etc) are all CIs
All of these roles are done in addition to expectations of “Squadron life” and the roles and responsibility that entails in each case requiring further commitment and added responsibility but their pay doesn’t reflect this

56

Those aren’t executive positions they’re reps.

57

[quote=“steve679” post=16106][quote=“kfd” post=16086]Just to clarify.

As the person in charge of discipline on a sports event they are allowed to claim for a days pay if appropriate. But only 1 person per event.[/quote]

Excellent for that 1 person, but at a rugby or netball trials what about the rest of the staff?
Out Wg Sports Officer over sees everything, but has in his team other staff who are “Coaches” for Wings team, rugby and netball being examples. Those staff, who perform their Sqn roles do this additional support to Wing but are not formally recognised as WSO or assistance WSOs…

With regard to “Discipline” at the large wing events, athletics and swimming, the Sports Officer delegates the various roles one of those being discipline so does that mean on the two larger Wing Sports events the Sports Officer isnt permitted to claim?
That isn’t fair.

I am not saying I agree/disagree with the system, it is what it is but questioning the thoughts of others who indicate pay matches rank which matches responsibility which in the example above is the not case…and that is just one example
There are AT qualified Staff who will attend a Llandbedr or Windermere camp, or simply a weekend camp or even a day walk who will get the same pay as non-qualified staff attending, or even the situation where with qualified CIs and un-qualified uniformed staff….the one eligible for pay bringing nothing but the an added headcount to the party…while the other making the event possible!
The same could be said for shooting, with a CI who is an RCO against uniformed safety supervisor or coach
What about CIs in executive positions? Our Wing Webmaster, H&S Officer and Aviation and Graphics (Air Rec and Art/photography etc) are all CIs
All of these roles are done in addition to expectations of “Squadron life” and the roles and responsibility that entails in each case requiring further commitment and added responsibility but their pay doesn’t reflect this[/quote]

Generally, they have a choice. It’s not mandatory to take up a wing role, people tend to do it for the kudos it brings. The opposite happens on a sqn - you must have an OC, and it will usually fall to the only person who can do it (certainly the case on our squadron).

You could argue they don’t HAVE to do that either, but in reality they do (especially if they’re an officer). No one HAS to be the wing sports officer (and as you’ll have seen recently no one seems to want to be it!), it’s a nicety because they like sports. They don’t generally have to deal with all the standard crap (and as it’s a co-opted post they aren’t running a squadron as well).

58

I can honestly say I wouldnt do a wing position for the cudos, as knowing the filtering and B/S moving that goes on at wing level, there is no benefit.

The further up the chain the more issues are seen and P issues are stressful to deal with (and they do exist).

Wing Sports Officer is a coordination and cajoling position highly reliatent on assistance from units and people who know there own sport. We have a great team but I cant say its easy for any of them.

If the Sports Officer isnt at the activity I would ensure someone is appointed IC and as a deputy should be able to claim if they are able to.

59

Those aren’t executive positions they’re reps.[/quote]

irrespective what you call it my point still stands…there are people with levels of responsibility who arent not in “paid posts”

60

Those aren’t executive positions they’re reps.[/quote]

irrespective what you call it my point still stands…there are people with levels of responsibility who arent not in “paid posts”[/quote]

My point also stands - if pay is so important to these people why don’t they go into uniform? We are afterall a uniformed organisation.

Or is this a hypothetical situation, where the individuals aren’t personally concerned at all, but others are on their behalf?