I think this mostly for historic reasons and making it easier for volunteers in terms of admin and dealing with HMRC.
Until a few years ago I think it was 10k per year at 45p per mile then dropped to 25p now the 10k is per employment so I can do 8k for work and 8k for RAFAC all at the higher rate.
Presumably you can deduct the difference (20p per mile) as non-taxable? I don’t do enough miles to be worth the maths.
My employer pays 45p/mile plus 3p for the first (business) passenger and 2p for each additional one. Obviously you need business insurance.
Here we go again getting distracted by mileage claims, when the bigger issue is what we can and cannot claim “pay” for and even if what we are allowed to claim it for legitimate activities as per “300” on the whim of someone who it is unlikely will be involved in the activity. With the spectre of a two tier system in the pipeline, just because someone puts their name to a bit if paper or deemed to be of greater worth than others doing the same thing. Now if this won’t be open to abuse and “seeing mates right”, then nothing will.
if we could claim for every single mile we do without getting permission, then it could be “a thing”, but we can’t claim for every mile, ref HTD where someone in the bowels of the MOD decided that us travelling to and from our hobby was the same as someone travelling to and from their place of work and then only those miles in excess of 6. Given my HTD is just over 6 miles, I enjoy the irony it probably costs more to process than what I get.
To be fair, I’m just glad we get any sort of mileage paid and any sort of money paid.
It’s my hobby too and none of my other hobbies pay me.
The raising of mileage was to provide an example of the clash between commercial transactional world (45p) and the public/charity sector ideological/conscious world (25p)
Regarding the approved activities I admit I got lost in your post as it didn’t seem to flow so forgive if I have misunderstood- if you feel that an activity should receive renumeration but it doesn’t then don’t do the activity.
There is a finite budget so you can’t have everything that volunteers do be claimable (that would a zero hour contact and employment).
So you set a framework, firstly minimum amount of 8hrs. Then only certain types of activity that delivery the enhanced value or the complex activities of the organisation where volunteers are critical enablers or need essential qualifications (e.g. flying, shooting, Adventure Training).
So the current system isn’t that far off on base principals. Regarding whether the system is open to abuse well every system is. However financial ones are the easiest tracked & ones most likly to result in police consequences. While the paid staff will have their list of favourite volunteers & biggest pains they are too detached from the volunteers on the ground to get sucked into that level of chumminess- they certainly wouldn’t risk their paid job over their “pet” volunteers mileage claim.
As a thought experiment , Every now and then, an unofficial cadet Corp pops up (such as the Naval Training Corps).
So a question to ask would be is if you were starting the organisation from scratch, would you have remuneration for your volunteers and how would you structure it?
If those clock winders at HQAC want us to do the work of perms.
Pay us.
If they start covering the admin, checks, turn outs to Sqn, maintenance in realistic timescales etc etc etc
Couldnt care less about the money then.
But as it is, it’s a full time job.
For example. All previous years, I’ve worked a day at the Sqn to get all the notice boards and H&s up to standard ready for the coming year.
Balls to it this year.
All other Sqns get if they dont, is god forbid no star for their 5 year report and a bad write up from sector commander.
Woopity woop.
Nope. Ain’t worth the effort.
Even when doing all the work, year after year, do we get so much as a pat on the back. Nope.
Shoddy leadership at wing, region and corps.
Also.
If the rumours of VA being split by director and participant are true.
I like many many others, simply wont attend events unless we are a Director.
If the number of events for cadets halves. So be it. As far as I can work out, that’s frankly what our risk adverse ethos is going for anyway.
Anything off Sqn is a risk.
Rollocks to all that admin.
Here’s a question. Do you agree with VA being available if you attend as a participant on a course, such as LLA Training?
(I’m trying to split up the definition of “participant” of being someone learning something on a course where attendance is not there to provide support and/or relevant ratios, and that of being a member of staff on an event supporting cdts, but who is not the Director)
I 100% support this.
We expect Staff to take time away from work and family, we expect they to develop skills to support the delivery of the Cadet experience.
If they are doing this then they should be remunerated for their time.
Wholly valid argument. If we go to a system where Directors get a higher rate of VA, do you think the participants on a course should get less than instructors who are not the Director?
Of course.
Anything and anytime where I am doing a cadet days work.
I’m saying, that personally I wont be attending anymore events or quals i dont get top whack rate.
As far as I’m concerned anything outside parsde nights is work. Therefore renumerable.
If the Corps wants my time, my effort, it has to pay.
Only if their rank dictates thus.
Sorry but if you’re going to steer towards CIs getting paid it ain’t gonna happen.
CIs want VA. Go into uniform.
Very little prevents CIs from going into uniform.
I think you’ve misunderstood me. I’m totally against CIs getting VA.
I don’t agree with the idea of Participants and Directors.
It’s necessary on SMS to differentiate between who is and isn’t counted in the rations but it’s a badly chosen term. (As Director means something very specific).
It should be Instructor or Participant and everyone should get paid inline with their rank.
As @Paracetamol says if CI’s want to get paid go into uniform.
Because that was part of the Twitter Queens view when they came up with the Director/Participant idea.
Ah OK, I missed that then.
This.
This is what it should be.
No, given I do more things during the year that aren’t claimable. I think however there are people who shy away from things that aren’t claimable, to the things that are.
The mileage is a bit of a diversion. I’ve worked in private and public and got the same 45p. It’s only in my hobby you don’t.
We have been lulled into doing more and more as @Paracetamol mentions, that get no recognition, for want of a word, yet there is an expectation that these things are done. Until 3 years ago I and one or two others would do a day at the hut over this period, not anymore. I used to do a lot of peripheral things at the hut when I could have been doing something else, but as this has been turned into something resembling a job. When you take mandatory training as an example. In my jobs this is built into the working week, if it’s online then you can “lock yourself” a way and do it, either way you get paid, because you have to do it. I think that as more and more of this permeates its way into the Air Cadet volunteer world, I feel we should be financially recompensed. This is where the idea of a tax free everyone gets the same bounty would come to the fore, where part of it would be to sugar coat the pill. I would guarantee 100% compliance across all staff if there was something at the end of it and people like me not getting earache because X or Y hasn’t done something.
I accept that budgets are finite and money is allocated accordingly. But a little bit to as I say sweeten the pill would go a long way.
£250.00 a year to ALL CFAVs in the Corps.
Who.
Have completed in service the full year from 1st Jan to 31st Dec.
Have all their Mandstory training completed and current throughout this 12 month period.
This fixed rate amount would be to recognise the time each CFAV gives in maintaining minimal currency regardless of rank or experience.
Can be the same amount as it’s the same ‘work’ for all.
WRT CIs getting VA.
If they have to do the same training as anyone in uniform has to do, why shouldn’t they? We should have got beyond the “if they want to get paid go into uniform”, as CIs are not the animals they were. As the number of uniformed staff has, as I have seen, reduce, CIs have picked up the slack.
I would exempt CIs from all mandatory training, except safeguarding given the line we are in. At the same time I would never advocate not having CIs.
How many CIs do and run AT, shooting, FA etc and their uniformed counterparts doing the same thing get paid. The solution is quite simple, but the effect would be dramatic.
@Paracetamol I was thinking double that as a starter and then sliding scale to a max dependent on what you do and scrapping VA and HTD, (along with the 300 list) with everyone getting it. Perhaps not ideal but I could see people being more amenable to doing things, if everything we did counted towards it and not a few select areas.
