Our’s operates with 6 Sqn Ldrs in prime roles, all junior WSO roles are covered by CFAVs in a supernumerary positions, rank ranging from CI to Flt Lt.
There’s no way we could have that amount of prime roles, away from squadrons.
They do, and I think it is the model we need to move towards.
It would put a lot lot of noses out of joint, and we do have factor that a lot of our squadrons are larger than a lot of ACF dets (but I think they have more units than we do).
But move to a Sqn/Flt model with Flts run by an SNCO or Plt Off / Fg Off and put OC and trg off at a company type level?
Don’t get me wrong; I’m not saying I wouldn’t ever attend a unit again; I just can’t at the moment. In future once things are a bit more flexible then I would probably go back to a supernumerary role. I think that if at all possible then those with ‘non-Sqn’ primary roles should help out as supernumerary if possible - but this needs to be balanced with their ability to volunteer that much time.
I’ve done it in the past as both a WSO and RSO; supernumerary on my local unit - but at the moment (and probably for another couple of years) it’s not viable. If the establishment review doesn’t take things like that into account then they can jog on and foot the bill for paying commercial providers to run the courses instead (which will cost them more than a Sqn Ldr volunteer).
If they are going to look at establishment by personnel, when are they going to look at squadron feasibility, sustainability and viability!
How many squadrons are under the magical ‘30’ cadet figure! If we are struggling for staff and there are number of staff in an area, makes sense to re-evaluate options. Close the unviable squadrons and move staff where needed.
We could lose a couple of squadrons in our Wing, where we have two near to each other, then this helps shore up other squadrons.
Is is better to have 30 squadrons bouncing around the 35 cadet mark, struggling for staff, or 25 squadrons over 40 cadets with ample staff.
Nothing to say those staff will happily travel to a different squadron/work for a different boss if its further away (or even if it is closer).
Similarly you’d loose a number of those cadets, so you would have 25 squadrons with more cadets… you just have 25 squadrons… and less CFAV
5 Likes
And there lies the problem. Its very easy to say something without working out a plan, the ‘what ifs’ and ‘so whats’.
Reviewing establishments is what, reviewing staff positions or squadrons locations, reviewing cadet numbers or squadrons viability, PTS badge volume or cost per cadet at a squadron.
CFAVs will look at this in one way, whereas HQAC will look at it through a totally different lens.
Who’s to say doing my option and @Victor_Zulu’s option is the best way forward, but without a clearly defined plan, no one will know the outcome or benefits.
This keeps coming up here (and elsewhere): the answer is ‘close Squadrons’.
It isn’t. We’ve seen that happen in ours and neighbouring wings (*). The Squadron closes, one or two of the staff might move, most don’t. Some cadets move, most don’t. After a few years the gaining Squadron is back to its original size and the wing as a whole is smaller, with opportunities for cadets reduced.
We need to work on our volunteer recruitment and our volunteer offer, and should be increasing our footprint not cutting it.
- I realise there are some edge cases of units that are very close together or where a building is lost for reasons beyond our control. But I’ve seen 2 recently where there has been a merger and neither merged unit is even the sum of its previous parts.
6 Likes
Local ownership of staff recruitment has to be there somewhere - but that’s a whole different thread.
A review is a good thing, because without a review it won’t even be discussed let alone changed. I think the majority of us have said what’s happening now isn’t working, so something has to change.
There won’t be a perfect answer because even with staff recruitment they still need training, and feet under the table etc etc
I think Sqns should also review what they are doing at Sqn, and what their programs are looking like - I know a lot of Sqn here who are still running the same program they were 10 years ago but trying to squash the PTS into it. (Again a whole other thread!)
2 Likes
I know if i couldn’t attend my local Squadron (because it closed) then I would be leaving the organisation,
It’s been made explicitly clear to me, recently (ish) that if you don’t want to attend where region want you to attend then they are quite happy to see you leave. (Even as a CI) So I wouldn’t be surprised if they do decide to try and move people around with a pretty stern tone.
my Wing Bader POC has done more for the issues at my Sqn than the helpdesk has…
3 Likes
I’ve seen it happen, however I’ve also been told that it isn’t something we are meant to do anymore. So the door is open to challenge it.
If though we moved to a different formation (let’s call it a sector for now) and CFAV joined the sector, there would be more scope to move people between units and sector HQ.
It would need a root and branch reform of sectors though as at least in my Wing, sectors aren’t based on adjacent units. We probably need sectors of 4 units, not the 6,7 or 8 that some have now too.
Or 10 as it is with our neighbouring Wing….
I have never really been a fan of WSC’s, however with WeXo’s being re-deployed to Pillars (in our Region from 6 to 3) I think WSC’s are going to be busy…
Whilst I do agree that the review of established volunteer posts is needed, it’s not necessarily going to have the outcome they want need; nor is it going to address the recruitment and retention issues which underpin a large amount of the current volunteering crisis!!!
It’s like one of those rubbish sticky plasters which lacks adhesive and doesn’t really protect the wound for very long.
5 Likes
As an OC and a Wing SME, it beggars belief just how much additional, pointless (in my view) hoops I have to jump through just to try and keep both roles going in the right direction. The minimum commitment was reached some time ago, and now seriously contemplating my next move, however with the amount of gapped posts we have i feel a duty to plough on…
2 Likes
That is never the duty of the front-line volunteers, and such a mindset will lead to burnout.
The strategy failures that have led to that situation sit much higher up the chain with people who are paid to resolve them. It’s literally part of they job. So they should be taking the hit and providing top cover for you.
3 Likes
Are they, or are SOME WSO who will just forward the emails to the squadrons and say their job has been done. Frankly there are too many non sqn staff who think their job is to maintain compliance by email without doning a uniform and would now need a map to find their way to a squadron and get their hands dirty, and still cry because they cant count enough days to get their next medal. Disclaimer this does not apply to all executive staff.
The big issue here is that the number isn’t really that big as primary post holders.
A lot are secondary already or double hatting. For example I have a HQ primary post and a supernumary which should be a primary post.
The review is definitely required, there is a lot of wastage amongst our ranks, I am a firm believer that most of the Regional roles could go straight away.
4 Likes
I think it’s an either-or type thing. For example I don’t think we need 36 WATTOs, 6 RATTOs (and some SMEs) plus HQ SMEs. I think you could get rid of all the WATTOs, but increase the number of regional ATTOs, and make them specific. Or similarly get rid of all the RATTOs, but increase the number of HQ AT support staff.
I really think each region should have a RATTO plus 3 assistants for example, and then bin of WATTOs. This would work well with other roles too.
That’s just an example, but there’s certainly room to move things around I think.