I would suggest looking at the vast majorty of Wing posts, very few get ‘paid’ for their actual role. How would those mentioned and others actually do anything that would attract pay? It would have to be a dull day in Dullsville for anyone to run a course of some description on Air Rec, H&S (heinous to suggest it’s dull I know) or webmastery. You’d need Pro Plus to go with the coffee.
There aren’t many roles on Wing that would actually attract pay in their own right, Sports, FA, FMS and maybe Shooting, outside of these not many. The only reason we have uniformed staff in many of these is accountability and because we are heirarchical. There are CIs around who are far more knowledgable, experienced etc, but because they are CIs they can’t have a Wing post as if it goes wrong, there’s no one who can have their soft bits put in the grinder.
[quote=“pEp” post=16110]
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).[/quote]
In an attempt to keep this on topic:
yes those Sports Officers, Webmasters, Bandmasters, Media and Radio Officers aren’t running a Squadron but their responsibility level is above and beyond others at the same rank be it SNCOs or Officers yet they do not get more financial recognition (pay) for those roles, at best more days permitted to claim…which requires further effort to do the days eligible to claim.
as such I disagree with the point that was made: responsibility and “pay” are mutually exclusive and proportional.
I very much doubt the increasing number of SNCOs that are running Squadrons are getting Flt Lt pay so what incentive is there for them other than the “had” to do
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?[/quote]
I am not stating these CIs are claiming pay is important, nor am I indicating an hypothetical…
I am simply reacting to pEp’s comment that
although I agree in principle, there is no pay scale for a Flt Lt OC and a Flt Lt “Sqn Officer” the variation in roles and responsibility is vastly different yet they are “recognised” through “pay” equally so where is the incentive to put up with that “crap” when they could carry on without all the downsides but maintain the same “pay”?
Yep, time-served Flt Lts get paid at their substantive rank of Fg Off.
RE: NCOs not getting Flt Lt pay for being OC sqn - I agree with you. It is wrong, and it shouldn’t happen. Unfortunately, more often than not now becoming an OC is something people feel forced to do, either for the good of the sqn or because they feel they have little choice.
In an ideal world this would never happen, but it’s one of the anomalies we currently have. The only way that person will get more money at the moment is to get a commission.
It’s not easy to do, but as an NCO they have slightly more leeway in refusing command. As an officer it’s been hammered in to me from day one that one day I will command a sqn so I don’t feel I could turn it down, if I’m approached.
[quote=“steve679” post=16135][quote=“pEp” post=16122]Yep, time-served Flt Lts get paid at their substantive rank of Fg Off.
[/quote]
ah right…i didnt realize that[/quote]
Plt Off - paid as Plt Off
Fg Off - paid as Fg Off
FLt Lt (unpaid) - Paid as Fg Off (someone with +12 years service)
Flt Lt (paid) - Paid as Flt Lt (someone in an established post, OC, WSO, RSO etc)
Sqn Ldr (unpaid) - Paid as Flt Lt
Sqn Ldr (paid) - Paid as Sqn Ldr (only a few posts per Wing and Region)
[quote=“pEp” post=16122]Yep, time-served Flt Lts get paid at their substantive rank of Fg Off.
RE: NCOs not getting Flt Lt pay for being OC sqn - I agree with you. It is wrong, and it shouldn’t happen. Unfortunately, more often than not now becoming an OC is something people feel forced to do, either for the good of the sqn or because they feel they have little choice.
In an ideal world this would never happen, but it’s one of the anomalies we currently have. The only way that person will get more money at the moment is to get a commission.
It’s not easy to do, but as an NCO they have slightly more leeway in refusing command. As an officer it’s been hammered in to me from day one that one day I will command a sqn so I don’t feel I could turn it down, if I’m approached.[/quote]Rumour has it that the MOD are looking at CFAV renumeration and, specifically to address the problem of people not stepping up to fill roles or appointments. The possibility is of a pay addition or spot rate was mooted for particular appointments and/or skill sets, (when utilised) rather than promotion being the only way to secure a higher daily rate.
The ACF are rumoured to be looking at a novel way of filling the perennial shortage of Officers too.
Basically, no appointment to SMI or Coy Sgt Maj (AWO equiv) unless you intend to do Westbury CFCB and commission in 3-5 years time. If you won’t or cant pass the board then you will revert to SSI and be a det instructor/DC again. But those DC posts will become less and less as the ex SMI/shiny new Lts take those posts instead. Will it work? Who knows.
[quote=“bucketofinstantsunshine” post=16534]The ACF are rumoured to be looking at a novel way of filling the perennial shortage of Officers too.
Basically, no appointment to SMI or Coy Sgt Maj (AWO equiv) unless you intend to do Westbury CFCB and commission in 3-5 years time. If you won’t or cant pass the board then you will revert to SSI and be a det instructor/DC again. But those DC posts will become less and less as the ex SMI/shiny new Lts take those posts instead. Will it work? Who knows.[/quote]
The suggestion seems to be that SNCO is to be regarded as a developmental path for commissions in the ACF.
[quote=“bucketofinstantsunshine” post=16533][quote=“Plt Off Prune” post=15889]All declared to HMRC of course.[/quote]I am PAYE on my main income. Not self employed.
Perhaps your remark should be ‘All declared to the DSS of course.’ (probably not)[/quote]
[quote=“Plt Off Prune” post=16536][quote=“bucketofinstantsunshine” post=16533][quote=“Plt Off Prune” post=15889]All declared to HMRC of course.[/quote]I am PAYE on my main income. Not self employed.
Perhaps your remark should be ‘All declared to the DSS of course.’ (probably not)[/quote]
What’s DSS?[/quote]
Not commenting on Sunshine’s grasp of current events, but they’re referring to the Department of Social Security - something which disbanded 13 years ago - now DWP. Their point being is that it (the significant number of PTD’s) would (probably) affect the person’s benefit entitlement.
Being a Gentleman, one has never frequented such institutions of course
[quote=“noah claypole” post=16538][quote=“Plt Off Prune” post=16536][quote=“bucketofinstantsunshine” post=16533][quote=“Plt Off Prune” post=15889]All declared to HMRC of course.[/quote]I am PAYE on my main income. Not self employed.
Perhaps your remark should be ‘All declared to the DSS of course.’ (probably not)[/quote]
What’s DSS?[/quote]
Not commenting on Sunshine’s grasp of current events, but they’re referring to the Department of Social Security - something which disbanded 13 years ago - now DWP. Their point being is that it (the significant number of PTD’s) would (probably) affect the person’s benefit entitlement.
Being a Gentleman, one has never frequented such institutions of course ;)[/quote]
Yeah, i got that eventually. Any payment of PTD WILL affect benefit payments. Not declaring such is fraud and a criminal offence. Members of the corps have been dismissed for being involved in benefit fraud where the fraud concerned the ACO PTD.
[quote=“Plt Off Prune” post=16540][quote=“noah claypole” post=16538][quote=“Plt Off Prune” post=16536][quote=“bucketofinstantsunshine” post=16533][quote=“Plt Off Prune” post=15889]All declared to HMRC of course.[/quote]I am PAYE on my main income. Not self employed.
Perhaps your remark should be ‘All declared to the DSS of course.’ (probably not)[/quote]
What’s DSS?[/quote]
Not commenting on Sunshine’s grasp of current events, but they’re referring to the Department of Social Security - something which disbanded 13 years ago - now DWP. Their point being is that it (the significant number of PTD’s) would (probably) affect the person’s benefit entitlement.
Being a Gentleman, one has never frequented such institutions of course ;)[/quote]
Yeah, i got that eventually. Any payment of PTD WILL affect benefit payments. Not declaring such is fraud and a criminal offence. Members of the corps have been dismissed for being involved in benefit fraud where the fraud concerned the ACO PTD.[/quote]
Would you declare it when you EARNED the money, or some 9 months in the future when you get PAID the money?
[quote=“juliet mike” post=16549][quote=“Plt Off Prune” post=16540][quote=“noah claypole” post=16538][quote=“Plt Off Prune” post=16536][quote=“bucketofinstantsunshine” post=16533][quote=“Plt Off Prune” post=15889]All declared to HMRC of course.[/quote]I am PAYE on my main income. Not self employed.
Perhaps your remark should be ‘All declared to the DSS of course.’ (probably not)[/quote]
What’s DSS?[/quote]
Not commenting on Sunshine’s grasp of current events, but they’re referring to the Department of Social Security - something which disbanded 13 years ago - now DWP. Their point being is that it (the significant number of PTD’s) would (probably) affect the person’s benefit entitlement.
Being a Gentleman, one has never frequented such institutions of course ;)[/quote]
Yeah, i got that eventually. Any payment of PTD WILL affect benefit payments. Not declaring such is fraud and a criminal offence. Members of the corps have been dismissed for being involved in benefit fraud where the fraud concerned the ACO PTD.[/quote]
Would you declare it when you EARNED the money, or some 9 months in the future when you get PAID the money?[/quote]
The day of payment is the relevant day, and the period for which it covers.
