So?
If the person is only going to give a minimal amount of time it’s only a minimal loss.
If they’re not prepared to offer up those couple of hours per month wearing a uniform, then so be it.
We’re not in the position of beggars yet, we can be choosers.
10 people saying they can give 4 hours a month vs 1 person saying they can give 40 hours a month. Do you turn away the 10 people because it’s a “minimal loss”?
You edited your reply above to add that we are “massively overloaded with CIs”. So if they are only giving a small amount of time, but there are loads more of them, it equals out. Yes it’d be great to have loads of staff that are all in uniform giving 80 hours a month. But that isn’t realistic.
No. I tell those ten people to put on a uniform and that I’m grateful for their 4 hours.
They don’t all need to give 80 hours a month. They just need to be in uniform.
20 people giving 2 hours in uniform is better than 20 people giving two hours in civies.
How many staff pick us over says the ACF because we have CI’s and they don’t?
Very few in my experience, most CI’s start as CI’s because they are made to and then because we let them do pretty much everything we let a uniformed member of staff do they stay as CI’s, that’s not the way it’s supposed to work.
Either we need to get rid of CI as an option for new joiners or we start limiting what we let our CI’s do, like it used to be. I would suggest that the former is a better solution to the problem than the latter.
I’d say that a big part of the reason we have so many CIs is because, as Daws says, we force them into that route, and then we do very little to encourage or assist them to go into uniform.
When presented with an option to change tack, go through a perceived host of extra training and requirements and at the end of it be little better off than they are currently; versus the option to just carry on as they are, it’s little wonder that people choose to carry on without faffing about with change.
For a start we need to fix the false perception that being in uniform means being utterly beholden to the Corps with no right to say “no”. Then we need to remove (or sensibly reduce) the minimum time commitment. Finally we need to make the process easy, effective and worthwhile.
How many brand new volunteers do we actually think would walk away if they weren’t given the option of being a civie?
Surely many people come to us expecting uniform - since that’s what we are. If new joiners know no different…
yes, me too - I was just being awkward by pointing out the edge cases 
But if they are only going to want to give that little time, they aren’t going to want to spend all the extra training time required to be in uniform. Be that ATF type stuff, learning drill and how to take care of their uniform to look presentable.
And you can’t get rid of all of that otherwise you have loads of people in uniform who can’t wear it correctly, cant do drill and don’t properly represent our parent service.
So remove the minimum hours requirement for uniformed staff? As I said above, I think this will just lead to really bad uniformed staff.
yes, this 
x
if they were going to give 4 hours a month teaching, but they need to spend 2 hours a month on “uniform” activities, then suddenly you’ve only got them for 2 hours a month…
Then they’ve come to the wrong organisation…
It would be as simple as that.
It’s not outlandish… If someone volunteers with the RNLI, or to be a Coastguard, or Special Constable… Or any other of a whole host of organisations, and doesn’t want to do the training, wear the uniform, or put in the time, they don’t join.
We don’t OWE new volunteers the option to be a CI; it’s just something which has become a habit.
Why? Do you think that ANY current staff give a second thought to the 12 hour minimum?
I’d be massively surprised to find that it’s more than 1 in 1000.
People turn up when they can because they want to. If they can’t make a particular event or parade night a line in some book which says “12 hours per month” isn’t going to change it.
I can’t imagine any of the staff I know thinking “Oh… I’ve got so many more important things to do this week but I’d better go to the Squadron tonight because I need to meet my 12 hours!”
No, they want to help. Doesn’t mean we should expect them to take a week off work and go to Cranwell.
RNLI has roles that suit people who can only give a little time.
Coast guard and Specials I’d consider completely different from being a youth leader. You’re comparing entirely different things to make a point.
None of the uniformed staff, no. Most uniformed staff put in above and beyond that. I certainly know a few in my wing who don’t turn up to their squadrons. Do 12 hours of AT or similar a month to get their paid days and that’s about it. Besides the point though.
I have multiple CIs on my squadron without whom the squadron would not run nearly as effectively as it does (at least used to pre covid).
One of them can drive the bus and teaches navigation. That is about all he does as he’s pretty busy. He is however the only one who can drive the bus, and the only one who is really good at teaching nav/map reading. (senior cadets can obviously teach it but he used to do it for a living so…) We’re all grateful for every hour he puts in.
Another CI who all she does is STEM. She works in engineering so has a great background in it and delivers it really well.
Another CI who delivers air rec and does modeling.
Another CI who delivers the majority of the junior/senior/master syllabus topics that relate to aircraft.
Another CI who’s got AT quals coming out his ears and uses them effectively.
You get the idea.
These CIs only do a couple of nights each a month. If they had to do all that is required with being in uniform too, I don’t think they’d bother. They are all very busy and that’s fair enough.
I think someone in uniform you expect to be there every night, and they tell you if they aren’t going to be there. A CI you don’t expect to be there every night, but if asked to they would be there.
In a perfect world it’d be great if they could all put the time in and go into uniform. But I just don’t see the need. People coming to out organisation are coming here to help kids. Just because they can’t put in all the time currently required to be in uniform, does not mean they have come to the wrong organisation.
That doesn’t mean that we have to take them.
If they want to help but they don’t want to wear uniform to do so then we can quite legitimately say “Sorry, but this is a uniformed organisation and our instructors are expected to wear a uniform”.
We are not yet so desperate for staff that we can’t afford to stand our ground… and frankly, if we do, I don’t think we’ll be putting off anywhere near as many staff as you seem to suggest.
No… I’m comparing entirely THE SAME things to make a point - they’re all uniformed roles which require training. If people don’t like the elements of the role or they can’t commit/achieve/&c then they don’t get special dispensation… They just simply don’t take on that role.
Sure. But if a potential volunteer says “no, I don’t want to be a local press officer or a deputy launch authority - I want to be crew. But I haven’t got time to do the training and I don’t want to wear a uniform” the RNLI don’t wet themselves to cater to that person.
We currently offer CI as an option but that doesn’t mean we have to in the future… (though as you’ll see above I’m not against keeping that option for special cases).
Our problem has arisen because we don’t just have it as an option - we’ve made it the default go-to for all. That was an error and now here we are where uniformed staff are the token minority in our supposedly uniformed organisation.
Right. So if we don’t concern ourselves with the regulation then how would removing it make any difference at all?
All those CIs you mention… Yep. I can relate.
But they would all be bringing something even more fundamental and key to the Corps if they did all that they currently do… but in uniform. And if some of them wouldn’t bother then okay, it’s a loss. But it’s not an insurmountable loss.
The crux of your point seems be based around the idea that we simply can’t turn people away, or dare to ask them to put on a uniform lest they decide they don’t want to join after all.
That’s just not the case.
Further, you seem to be judging the potential of putting new volunteers into uniform against the possible effect of forcing current CIs into uniform. To coin your own phrase ‘you’re comparing different things to make a point’.
A CI who’s been so for many years and is suddenly told to put on rig is likely going to have a very different reaction to someone coming up fresh to find out what we do and being told they’ll be a Sgt.
Maybe we need to reconsider the week long training courses. We seem to be happy to break it down in to modular training in the current climate so why not build on that and reconsider the training requirements at each level. If we had a Cpl (or even LAC) adult rank we could have lower expectations. We could even have a situation if we really wanted where we say they are LAC/Cpl for internal purposes but CI for going on camps for the purpose of messing and not worrying about drill/uniform on base.
In my CI on-boarding interview the Flt Lt was filling in for our usual sector commander… his exact words;
“If you ever come over all funny, and think you want to go into uniform, call me and I’ll talk you out of it”
I was a CI for three years before going for commission. I was doing the training officer job and was very happy, but it took me three years to work out that the Flt Lt was wrong.
I was asked several times about uniform as a CI, and I politely declined as I could do all I wanted.
Had at that interview I been told that uniform was the done thing, I’d have done it sooner.
Had I been told you can’t training officer, you can’t do this, you can’t do that… I would have gone into uniform sooner.
The process has taken too long start to finish, but it is now (pretty much) finished… I would have preferred it all happen quicker.
We had a CI Join as I was applying for uniform; they thought it looked like a good idea so also commissioned at the same time. The Corps now has 2 new officers. Had I have not done it I have a feeling they wouldn’t have either…
I don’t think we do a good job of selling the uniform role.
My enjoyment of my cadet activities has gone up since going into uniform.
We scare people off by saying within 1 year of commission you’ll be given a command post… cadets will take over your life, destroy your marriage then sling you out when your no more use…
Maybe we first need a wholesale change in the attitude of uniform in the first place, but I think that will be hard.
We absolutely don’t.
One need only look at the regularity with which people say things like “No. Because as a CI I can tell the organisation that I’m not doing x, y, z” to see how misunderstood it is.
Most of the new staff we get, certainly in my own experience, are either ex-cadets (from some point in their lives) or parents.
Both of whom arrive with an expectation of uniform, either because they’ve worn it themselves previously or because they’ve seen Little Jane putting her’s on every Tuesday and Thursday night for two years.
When brand new parents come to the open night I so often hear “This looks like great fun! I wish I could join!”
When I tell them that they can it’s often met with “but I’m not ex-military; I’ve got no experience”.
These people clearly have the perception that it’s a military uniformed role… And that if only they had that experience they’d jump at it.
Why aren’t we capitalising on that?
Instead we effectively say to them “Yes you can join… No experience necessary, but for at least a year you’re going to be in civies [not one of us] and then [if you’re good enough] maybe you can go into uniform”.
The issue with modular training is that it remains dependant on MS Teams which I don’t think is a very good format for that sort of course. (And the travel expenses of getting everyone to Sleaford Tech for weekend courses would be prohibitive, before you consider the time to the volunteer).
I would keep the ATF Courses as they are (with massive redesign to actually be relevant) but I would have the “Corporal” Course as a Regional one.
I think we could certainly do modular courses locally in person… But it would require the other big shift in attitude that I’m constantly fighting for - We need to develop ‘professional’ (in terms of output) staff training teams and actually develop our staff.
12 hours a month is only 4 x 3 hours.
Or basically 4 parade nights… so once a week.
It’s always going to be a divisive issue. I completely agree we need CIs massively. I’ve been in a position where I wouldn’t have had a squadron otherwise. What about Reg Civ Comm? If there wasn’t an appetite for it, why on earth did that become a thing? Sea cadets seem to have a good balance, they have CIs and unit assistants (tend to be more admin/DIY) but most staff tend to go into uniform.
Perhaps if the whole joining wasn’t so arduous and lengthy we’d have more volunteers full stop.
And even less than that of you average it over a year and do a week camp and a couple of one day events. Then you get closer to once every other week