So CIs too? 
2 Likes
But is that because people aren’t going into uniform as the system has changed to allow them to do most things as CI’s? I’m sure that in the last the ratio of uniform to CI wasn’t what it currently is?
Yes. I would include CIs in the limited payment of £250.00 to incentivise mandatory training completion.
This is the problem.
1 Like
so for those of us who are too young (
) to remember, what are CIs now allowed to do that they wouldn’t have been able to in the past?
1 Like
For the sake of discussion (read: controversy), why shouldn’t staff cadets get paid to attend courses or instruct on them? They can do AT quals, shooting coach quals, deliver a range of training, and have all the same responsibilities in terms of supervising children.
1 Like
This question really should read…
Why do we have over18 cadets still.
1 Like
Run parade nights (You had to have a Uniformed Staff member present).
Run activities (Ditto)
Hold certain qualifications (I’m 90% sure that once upon a tune CI’s couldn’t be RCO’s etc but happy to be corrected.)
As has been discussed to death the role of a CI was intended to be an SME who came in delivered something specialist like airframes and then went away again. It was never intended that they would be down every nigh, be running camps or holding Exec roles on units.
They can now do this because out of necessity the rules have changed as we didn’t have enough uniformed staff, this was a shortsighted mistake imo and has actually led to an even greater reduction in the size of the uniformed cadre.
Which is why we shouldn’t have them, they should be members of staf.
1 Like
This.
And ref o18s, defo this.
@daws1159 I was an RCO 6 months after becoming a CI as a 22 year old, when as an RCO you did training, WHTs (we’d now call them) and run ranges. On the same course we had CWOs as well.
Like in all paid employment over the years “natural wastage” has seen people take on more and more, that they didn’t originally get employed to do, as many people weren’t replaced. There was the “whatever management” decrees contract catch all. Been there done that and doing it now in my new job, the same. C’est la vie.
In the CFAV situation, uniformed staff left and still leave, either through, other things become more important, retirement or just had enough, invariably preceded by a spell NEP. I recall from my earliest CO conferences, we were asked annually how to get more people into uniform, more so commissioned, do sqn exec roles as the numbers leaving were not being replaced … this was in the mid 90s. Unlike the real world we can’t employ people into specific CFAV roles, we have to wait and see who turns up and what THEY want to do.
The only place where things have gone wrong is HQAC as they can’t or don’t want to admit the uniform offer isn’t attractive enough and as said there is little people can do if they’re not in uniform, so why bother. I’m not convinced that remuneration is an answer as you can’t get that until well down the line. Getting rid of over 18 cadets and draw them into adult staff may work, but again the proposition/offer has to appeal to youngsters. Ignoring the fact they will have heard us and some inkling of what being adult staff entails.
In whichever you look at this it’s not a new thing. While I would point the finger at HQAC, CAC or those above are not in the job long enough to come up with a plan and see it through. We only need to look at the ASTRA stuff, the timeframes are too long and will change numerous times and not be what was intended. Those instigating it will long gone in their dotage.
With fear of going around that rock again this is readily justified if ranks stands for something/is meaningful…and as discussed within ACC the SNCO promotion matrix is a joke and is a more accurate measure of time served than skills, knowledge or competence while promotion with a commission can depend on if you’re name is in favour at Wing to determine if a Fg Off OC gets Flt Lt.
The split between director and participant although not perfect and perhaps too digital (one or the other) better recognises the effort put in for the task which the VA applies too.
As an example a keen FS sets up regular shooting opportunities sorting out range bookings, weapon collection and transportation and handling all the paperwork surrounding the above as well as Cadet bids and allocation.
One of the team attending is a Fg Off who attends as the nominated First Aider.
One gets £12 more VA than the other for turning up with a FA qualification
Somehow that doesn’t seem right that VA isn’t reflecting either effort put in.
Another example a Sgt and FS are the instructors on a Staff FA course and again completing all the pre-couse admin yet…60% of the students can claim a higher VA than the instructor…again this seems backwards.
Until ranks reflect responsibility and certain tasks are limited by rank the system of VA by rank will appear “unfair” and not representative
1 Like
I was thinking about this earlier and the fairness of it.
If you are a squadron commander for example your times is valuable. You don’t have the time to stay current as an instructor or the luxury of frequent weekend courses.
Yes you are a participant on that course but your role dictates where you are meant to focus the majority of that time. Your rank should be linked to your role, your role dictates your VA due to the value of your time.
Yes the FS spending the admin time is doing more critical work for the activity than the Fg Off first Aider. But if the Fg Off is running a Sqn why should they get less VA because they are doing more complex work elsewhere!
In the same way if I attend a works first aid course where we have people from different departments & different roles getting the qualification, everyone one of us attending is getting a different pay for attending. Some more than the instructors, some getting less.
If work sent you on a course or you worked on a rest day would you accept getting paid less than you would normally. I think one reason the number of personal able to claim VA on an activity is being looked at when being approved by WExOs - just to make sure it’s not a uniform pay day jolly.
Unfortunately I feel you have to look at the whole system when calculating VA pay rather than each activity.
1 Like
I don’t know where this idea of a “uniform jolly” comes from. For it to be a jolly, it’s me driving myself, taking no ‘constructive’ part in the activity and drive home, several hours later. If only I had days where I could just do that, privately or in the Air Cadets. I’ve never done anything cadet related which I would regard as a jolly. This suggests that people with families, and other things to do on their day(s) off, are just going along for a few quid. Believe me the money on offer is not that much of an attraction, that I would go along unless I had to. If there are any CFAV who are not single and or no other commitments, prepared to give up days, good luck to them, if it means I get to stay at home.
The majority of people attend things so that cadets get to do whatever it is. I go along to something with a car load of young faces and when I get there I could just sit in the car all day, but as there are one or two qualified people, those like me do the general looking after stuff, without whom it is unlikely the activity would happen. Suggesting the input of people like this is somehow lesser is missing the point of the organisation completely. When I’ve jacked up a ‘camping’ weekend, I need several other people who aren’t qualified etc and if they claim pay and perhaps get more than me, so be it, I don’t get sulky, as without them the cadets wouldn’t be doing it. Why should people get less, just because they haven’t done much? It’s not how the world works. Life ain’t fair and all this is going to do is build resentment. The first time someone gets less will be acid test.
From the CIs that I know (spanning a range of ages, qualification domains, and experiences), it’s not that that they feel they can do most stuff as a CI that prevents them going into uniform, it’s that that they don’t want to be coerced into doing stuff that they feel they would be if they were in uniform (e.g. asked to move units, become an OC1, attend events that they have no interest in).
It’s not that they want to be paid for what they do, it’s that they’re happy not to be paid to prevent having to do the (perceived) negative aspects of being in uniform.
1 as @daws1159 has pointed out, some units are commanded by a CI but this is such a rare occurrence that I think we can assume CIs wouldn’t think they can do it under normal circumstances without going into uniform
1 Like
Omg.
This thread has resulted in the need for footnotes…
Save us all!
1 Like
I’ve not felt any additional pressure since being in uniform. Saying no politely works just fine. If it gets pushed any further I just say No again. Always been fine.
If it was persistent I’d just stop replying to the emails/calls/texts… it’s my hobby too.
3 Likes
I’m glad that that is the experience of some 
- it’s definitely not how many uniformed staff feel in my area tho 
1 Like
I hear the same complaint locally, the key is not to worry about it too much! Say no and forget about it.
4 Likes
I agree with your approach, but this is clearly an area that has to be addressed if we want more CIs to move into uniform