The same was claimed when Adult Sergeants were introduced, it didn’t materialise, but lots of existing Ci’s who didn’t want to be WO’s applied.
1 Like
I’m not sure I follow who would leave when Adult Sgt was introduced? (I wasn’t in the Corps at that point)
1 - because the Scout uniform is only associated to the youth group. (CFAV uniform is easily mistaken, and CFAVs are often confused as regulars)
2 - because the RAFAC’s uniform regulations have strict expectations on appearance (less so now with beards being allowed) whereas Scout leaders can look as they wish without any concern
3 - because with RAFAC uniform roles there is a training requirement to spend a week away at a distance RAF Station to learn a bit about how to live in the RAF while “learning” how to be a Youth worker in the capacity as a CFAV, despite in some cases being a CFAV for 10+ years.
Do Scout leaders have a “Staff training course” that is longer than a weekend and requires leaving the county boundary?
based on
it would seem either self study-elearning, 1-2-1/small group work non of which looks to be required at a specialist centre (ATF) miles from home
4- for some the “blue suit” means more than just being identified as being part of the group but acceptance/falling in line with the perception that the “military uniform” = military approach - ie following orders and meeting minimum expectations.
taking the step from “civilian” to “uniformed” is the move from casual to “contracted” staff
4B - (its a follow on from 4 rather than a new point) - the military isn’t for everyone, so why should a military youth group? Some are simply not interested in the military, be that the discipline/ethos, the hardware we use/the way we use it, or some other factor.
there are then other elements between the two organisations
A - Scouts only meet once a week anyway, often earlier in the evenings which has less impact on personal life. (ie home before the wife is in bed)
B - Scouts work much more self-sufficiently without the need to run certain events/USP activities as a County, everything is done much more locally, with a local team. Scout leaders are more inclusive as everyone can have a part to play in everything that they Scouts do. for the RAFAC you need something to be useful in anything “exciting” - be that SC and then more for shooting, or authorisation courses to teach First Aid or Radio. Leadership/NCO courses are run by Uniformed Staff.
AT although conducted in civis is RAFAC’d in its approach, NGBs are a minimum to be useful (whereas Scouts accepted prior relevant experience)
the really exciting things (flying/gliding) hands over the cadets to specialists - something which isn’t done in the Scouts.
C - There are many more Scout units than there are Squadrons, whereas there is one ATC unit in a 6 miles radius, there could be 6 or more Scout Troops within the same town and surrounding satellite villages. chances are an adult is within a walk or comfortable cycle of their local Troop while a drive across town/ to their local ATC Unit
these might not be reasons why Mr Joe Bloggs walks towards the Scout Hut rather than the ATC Unit but these are differences.
Consider also the set up, if you were that lay man on the street with 3 hours a week you’d commit to - who seem like a more approachable, friender bunch?
These Scout leaders who meet in a church hall and have kids running around, or the blue suited military figures, where manners are formal (sirs/ma’ams, salutes etc) and the atmosphere much more “stiff”
although your commitment is extreme, it is limited to a dedicated few (OCs and a handful of others) rather than the norm for everyone and not what “fresh meat” would be expected to do - however accept the point that for the “fresh meat” it can appear daunting that Flt Lt Smith has a professional career and commits 10 hours a week outside of the parade evenings whereas Mr F Meat is happy turning up once a week for an hour to “help out a bit”
it is written down, but how often is it enforced??
if someone isn’t committing 12 hours a month it is often understood why - shift pattern or family commitment. 12 hours a month is only once a week and one other activity.
Even if it is just once a week (and I have been attending like this in the past) the next month they could a full day weekend event in some form, and be the critical SME to make it happen.
in my experience those who are not meeting 12 hours a month and not seen as “useful” in whatever they are doing, tend to be the ones you less once a month or less and are not engaged with the organisation.
2 Likes
No CI’s = No RAFAC
does it need to be made clearer?
12 Likes
i suspect the point @daws1159 is making is:
there was once two options for uniform - officer or Warrant Officer.
both badge of rank are “senior” in their title - and so with the introduction of Sgt some CIs could be pushed towards this “junior” Uniformed position by some eager CO/WSO and in doing so push the CI up the wrong way…
From you comments i am going to take it your a long term CI, and your resistance to uniform the Sgt position doesn’t interest you. imagine if you were around when it was introduced and you were pushed towards Sgt - would you have stuck around or left??
for some in that situation it would have been the latter
as I understand it, at that point, there was never the indication that the role CI would be phased out as a result - so although some uniformed staff may have (incorrectly) tried it as a way to increase the uniformed cadre, the more strong-willed CIs would have just resisted, knowing there was nothing would really change if they didn’t go into uniform
1 Like
indeed - but what about the less-strong willed???
for those whose sole argument for not saying yes to uniform was I don’t want to be an officer and i have no interested in Drill/being a WO…???
1 Like
maybe it just shows the whole CI cadre is strong-willed by my definition 
1 Like
It’s an interesting recruitment philosophy - I’m looking to put together a team, and I want weak willed people who can’t read…
3 Likes
I really can’t get my head around the argument for getting rid of CIs. If they turn around and say CIs have to leave or go into uniform, I can see absolutely no proper benefit.
I can however see some organisational breaking results from such a move, so I can’t understand why this debate exists?
This whole attitude of sticking it to the organisation just doesn’t exist because as far as I’m aware, CIs are in the chain of command as much as any uniformed member of staff. They will have an OC be that squadron or even wing/region if they are in a wing/region post (which is allowed). They also have almost identical disciplinary procedures if they screw up.
Some CIs are putting in more time than uniformed staff, and that’s great! Why should they have to go into uniform for that? Is there any legal difference? Is there a difference between having a Sqn Ldr as the wing DofE officer or a CI?
Also, a lot of CIs put in a lot less time, but, there are a lot more of them. A lot of those putting in less time would leave if required to go into uniform. No way someone who helps out once or twice a month is going to go and do a week at an RAF station.
I don’t really know where I’m going with this, but I just fail to understand why you’d want to get rid of CIs other than maybe not understanding their usefulness.
4 Likes
more that those who stayed were either stubborn, didn’t care what others thought (knowing they had a place) or were “strong-willed” to answer back and say no directly
But if there wasn’t a mass exodus of CIs when the Adult Sgt role was introduced, by inference, that means all CIs were
stubborn, didn’t care what others thought (knowing they had a place) or were “strong-willed” to answer back and say no directly
or that they either
1 - left
2- gave in and became Sgts
but your statement is only true for that single period. 12months after introduction and the novelty had worn off and those pushing realised it made no difference they stopped trying - so individuals of all calibre returned to the CI cadre
Sorry - I meant if there wasn’t a big number that left. Was there actually any data to show how many CIs left or went into Sgt? Even so, the latter number wouldn’t be very meaningful, because we don’t know how many only went Sgt because it wasn’t WO
I’d say that we should be less worried about offending that potential volunteer who wants to give one evening every two or three weeks; and we really don’t need to consider the volunteer who we consider for CI because he’s only going to turn up to run a course every 6 months.
We NEED uniformed staff and we really need staff who can turn up fairly regularly.
I could support CI being ‘an option’ for new volunteers in very limited cases but certainly not the default option as it is now.
We should be clear with new people that they are volunteering to serve in a uniformed organisation; we have standards which all staff have to meet and this requires training weekends/week at RAF Cranwell; and that if that’s not acceptable to them then we say “Thanks very much but perhaps this organisation isn’t what you’re looking for”.
Then when they join we live up to our obligation to get them through the process in a timely manner, and to provide training to help them reach that standard.
Chin off the 12 hours per month minimum - it brings absolutely no benefit.
Start everyone as an Probationary Sergeant. Get them through their basic training and suitable period of probation after which appoint them as Acting Sergeant until they’ve completed SSIC. Cadets can go direct to Acting Sergeant.
Once they’ve served a year as a substantive Sgt they can choose to apply for a commission.
We often compare ourselves to the Scouts and look to what their volunteers are required to do, but that’s not the most accurate comparison we can make.
The above is a proven system which is working for our sister cadet force.
1 Like
We need more people to effectively run squadrons and be effective WSOs. Currently that means someone in uniform so yes we do need more uniformed staff.
I would say one of the most common reasons for not wanting to go into uniform is because the CI doesn’t want to do either of those things. So forcing them into uniform won’t actually solve the issue behind ‘we need more uniformed staff’. It’ll just annoy a lot of volunteers.
2 Likes
apart from being an ECO or some shooting stuff, why do we need uniformed staff? As others have said, many CIs put in more hours than many uniformed CFAVs, so what would the advantage of those CIs being in uniform bring?
2 Likes
Because we are a UNIFORMED organisation. Totally aside from whatever skills people bring we need more uniformed presence. We are short of uniformed staff and massively overloaded with CIs. It sets the wrong visual.
When cadet Bloggs and his parents turn up at a Sqn with one officer, one SNCO and 7 people in civies it does not look like a uniformed organisation. Cadet Bloggs and all his peers are expected to turn out in a smart uniform and follow military style discipline… but they look to the staff team and see that it is overwhelmingly civilian, with no uniform, no drill, no military structure.
The advantage would be a greater uniformed presence which alone would reinforce the structure and theme of the organisation.
4 Likes
going through Bader, you will see CIs who have the OC account for some Sqns…
Correct, but I do partially agree that a squadron OC should be someone in uniform apart from the cases where there is no one else. Other then that and some shooting stuff, there is no real need for it as I can see. Some senior wing positions should be uniform always imo. Sector officer for example.
We’re also a youth organisation with failing numbers of staff, across the board. So telling someone who wants to offer up a couple of hours a month “Thanks very much but perhaps this organisation isn’t what you’re looking for” is a sure fire way to end up with less staff.
3 Likes