Remuneration through SMS

Adult Staff Execs
1

I have just noticed, I guess after the last round of updates, an interesting footnote on SMS, when you view the list of staff on your Squadron, it reads;

Any records highlighted red have conflicts with UniVerse, the pay and personnel system. The conflicts will be on the Personal Details page and will also be highlight red.

Does this signal a slow transition to electronic remuneration? Anyone heard or seen any news about this?

2

[quote=“green monkey” post=20473]Does this signal a slow transition to electronic remuneration? Anyone heard or seen any news about this?[/quote]I know that it is the intention to carry out at least PTDs through attendance on SMS activities. F1771s are a bit more complicated.

3

I was just about to start this topic when the fancy new forum highlighted this thread.

so it would seem i have seen from a credible source* who is in constant and continual contact with HQAC that the remuneration will move to SMS by 2016…and indicated the event he ICs will move from Sharepoint to SMS to accommodate this

given this would appear to be more than rumour with the above posts…anyone know anything else?

*although the same source did also say that the ATC SNCOs would be VRT by Christmas '14 - i am guessing that was the original plan, but was then blocked

4

I was told there was something missing from one of my staff and after going through everything it was postcode for NOK. Hardly setting the world on fire omission and not going to affect that person.

5

Interesting prospect. But it won’t work for every thing sadly. My secondary duty doesn’t have an SMS presence, so I couldn’t currently claim pay under that.

6

excuse my ignornace @Baldrick but i was under the impression (based our our Wing’s attitude) everything should be on SMS that isn’t in the compound on the regular two evenings…?

7

My secondary duty is not run on squadron, or through squadron. It’s a HQAC thing which doesn’t work through SMS because I cannot be on two units at once for its purposes.

8

However the activity will still be logged on SMS by the Activity Commander, all they need to do is invite your unit, and then add you to the staffing.

Surely HQAC follow their own rules.

1 Like
9

It’s not that simple for this activity because the unit creating it doesn’t exist on SMS. I won’t name it. A lot of you can probably can guess what it is. But it doesn’t exist on SMS. I doubt it’s the only one of its nature.

I don’t understand why the unit can’t exist on SMS. But it seems that it is currently an impossibility.

10

suddenly they will when someone realizes they can’t get paid and shouts loud enough…

you could just put it in as a “local”

11

There’s a surprise - HQAC run courses not following the same procedure us mere mortals have to.

12

I have someone from CTT assisting me on a shoot in the next few weeks, he’s aligned to HQAC strength so I invite the unit ‘HQAC’ and add him to the SMS Application.

All Regions/Wings/Squadrons/DF’s & HQAC exist on SMS, so therefore all units exist, and all CFAVs should be on SMS. Or if it’s a cross section of CFAVs from across the corps, each parent unit needs to be invited in the same way as you would for a multi-squadron activity.

13

All courses and events will be put on SMS soon including HQAC sponsored ones such as QAIC, JL, National camps/training etc to allow the pay thing to work.

14

Soon? Don’t make oi larf…

We were told a year ago that remuneration via SMS ‘was imminent’.

15

Yeah I laughed at that too, but the changes to activity approval/recording is under testing looking at the project site.

16

Meanwhile the Army have Proj GROSVENOR to do the same with WESTMINSTER.

Why are we doing everything twice?

17

Because the Amry want to control everything (as per usual) and won’t be receptive to any input from the RAF side.

18

That and army pay is different from RAF pay and that causes too many finance headaches (source funding, bacs control, HMRC remuneration RTI)

19

[quote=“tmmorris, post:16, topic:1370, full:true”]Meanwhile the Army have Proj GROSVENOR to do the same with WESTMINSTER.
Why are we doing everything twice?[/quote]

Firstly I imagine budgets and no desire to work on a joint project on either side. IIRC the ATC decided to go its own way with ‘Bader’ and not go in with the ACF’s system.

Secondly the ATC effectively poo pooed the Dire report another thing that ruled out jointery. Except as prune says the Army wants to assume control everything.