If you’re talking about TRFs, I think we can order them in SWR.
1 Like
The subtlety here would be acknowledging the psychology but not tolerating the behaviour.
This process is bending over backwards to be everything people have said they wanted regarding transparency, with volunteers recruited from all elements of the RAFAC to ensure broad inclusivity and representation.
We shouldn’t allow a rule of thumb like “people don’t like what they don’t understand” to then prevent us doing anything.
We need to stop making excuses.
It’s like comms in general. We increase weekly briefs but you can see how many people view them.
There’s not enough info, then there’s too much info. Some people don’t actually like being told. Or helped…
2 Likes
Welcome to volunteer world 
2 Likes
I’ve done a lot of volunteer work / management with various organisations over the years and you always get some of it, but it’s about identifying what is good faith and constructive disagreement and what is corrosive. If it’s not uniform, it’s something else.
The latter always erodes the fabric of your organisation if you don’t draw a clear line in the sand.
3 Likes
I concur with this & I think a distinction needs to be made between those who don’t comply for whatever reason (primarily apathy) and those who are openly seditious & militant encouraging others to join them in non-compliance to validate their own position.
You can work with the former but the later need managing out.
1 Like
Just to add, although it’s a bit of a sidebar into volunteer management, it’s rarely the OC Wgs & OC Sqns trying to run things as personal fiefdoms that is the issue.
In general it’s the OC Wgs & OC Sqns trying to keep those militant WO & SNCOs inline to manage the standards & keep things running.
It’s all very well drawing a line in the sand to enforce but if you don’t back the OC Sqns when they try to enforce those standards then it just becomes a bit meaningless & the OC Sqn will just default to “pick your battles” mindset.
3 Likes
Haven’t you got that the wrong way around?
I’ve normally found that knowledgeable SNCOs and WOs can really struggle to gain traction correcting the incorrect because it’s they who aren’t supported / lose the rock paper rank game.
2 Likes
Nope definitely not. I recall back when we had the “air cadets” flash on DPMs one WO finger jabbing the then CAC about why it was inappropriate for them to wear it & why he was refusing to wear it etc.
So I think this is the big difference between regs reserves & the cadet forces.
In regs & Reserves a sergeant is normally 12 years experience before reaching that rank. Officers at Fg Off & Flt Lt are normally 2 - 6.
In cadet forces it’s the opposite with officers in general either having more or the same amount of experience as the NCOs.
1 Like
The rubbish thing was we have just moved all the badges to be central from being aligned with top as we had them originally. Glad we have finally gone back to where they were supposed to be from the start. 
Thank fully, I didn’t actually move any of mine
2 Likes
And the difference there is when the NCOs try to enforce a standard (as is their job, including in CFAV Land) they are expected to be listened to by the Officers.
For us, however, many of those “more experienced” Officers can often be the blocker to NCOs doing their job for any of the following reasons:
- Outdated opinions
- Don’t care about that which is why they’re an officer not an NCO
- Older and more experienced
- Stubborn
- I outrank you
- I’m a volunteer, you/they can’t make me
- Other
…but let’s not turn this into a debate over which is better or worse, predicated on your single anecdote of one WO, when we can look around at both cadres and spot bad eggs. For every NCO story there’ll be an Officer one.
Besides, many of those Sqn OCs allegedly being blocked by NCOs ARE NCOs.
Shall we all leave the sweeping statements and stereotypes behind and get back to constructive discussion?
2 Likes
I think sometimes the reasons more experienced officers ‘ignore’ rules is we see them for what they are - incorrect copy and paste a lot of the time; one person ‘empire’ building who has got to the point where they can bring in rules that suit themselves; idiotic; and the list goes on.
A prime example is not wearing green wooly pullys. Why should we have to wear an outdoor jacket inside if we are cold? We have a wooly pully in blues, why not greens? The RAF do wear them regularly with MTP.
4 Likes
Well:
all the ancilliary items from CS95 can still be worn
the Wolly Pully was part of CS95 (or ar least no one can prove otherwise)
therefore it can be worn
(That’s the argument in my head anyway)
2 Likes
I agree with the psychological explanation you’re highlighting here, but… This is why appropriate challenge exists.
It’s a failure of followership and leadership to not challenge but instead publicly chin it off or hide behind volunteer status.
Because if the argument is that you know better well, guess what? Your team can now legitimately do that to you and you haven’t got a leg to stand on. It’s all too subjective.
Sometimes you need to be creative to follow the spirit of a rule in a pinch, but that’s a positive attempt to make something work and not a permanent dismissal.
The only times I’ve ever gone more robust than “I need to flag this to you and say my piece because I think we might be making a mistake” is when I think we may be at risk of breaking the law of making some other serious error. Then I’m really firm and will fight hard, but not publicly — process.
3 Likes
Aaaaand applying these thoughts on challenge and debate of change and policy to Unit Identifiers…
If they aren’t necessary, as some have suggested, then why bother having them on a brassard? I wonder if our friend further up the thread foregoes unit identifiers in blues.
I see that there are 2 main friction points to this:
- Also having to move TRFs
- Cost
On the former, that’s unfortunate, but we are where we are, it’s a 1-time ordeal, and is a mild inconvenience. Yes, it would have been better if we didn’t naff up the placement, but we did. Sometimes a path is chosen that later needs to be reversed. This isn’t unique to us, Voluntary orgs, or indeed the public sector.
On the latter, the estimate of 50p a badge has been touted. It’s not an insurmountable cost and it’s not like it will be an extra 50p per cadet ad infinitum as I imagine many will get reused. It’s also public that this cost is recognised and work is underway to realign purchasing with the good old days. There is empathy being deployed in planning and decision making, though ambition isn’t aligning with reality yet for this scenario.
Actually, something else on point 1. How many brassard layout changes have there been in the last 10-15 years? How aggressive were the complaints from CFAV that their cadets needed to alter them? Is it just because it’s an inconvenience to us that a badge moving is an issue? Goose and Gander, if you please.
6 Likes
Maybe they should’ve held off on the change until this was resolved?
I think the constant changes have been complained about at length here. I’ve certainly bent my WWO’s ear about it in the past.
3 Likes
Its what ever the CWC decides to delegate to the OC.
3 Likes
Where’s the best place to get replacement blanking plates?
Asking in advance of an influx of cadets needing new ones due to wonder webbing the badges on….
I have previously bought from here: MTP Blanking plates | Surplus and Outdoors
2 Likes
Alternatively, you could teach your cadets how to clean adhesive off their existing blanking plates and reuse them.
Given we issue part worn mtp and if often comes without blanking plates, I’m also keen to find a supplier!
1 Like