I don’t think it matters really if it’s an officer, SNCO or CI running a squadron. Best person for the job. If I was offered a sqn I wouldn’t commission.
Personally I feel as a military based organisation we should have a high level of uniformed staff.
I do however feel that everyone should be assessed against a similar standard. If wing boards are enough for SNCOs, why are they not for officers particularly when a lot of the role is the same (appreciate there will be likely differences somewhere). Why waste time and money putting people through OASC when the boarding officers know very little about Cadets and then give unhelpful feedback. Either re vamp OASC focusing on cadet stuff or bin it imo.
3 Likes
@Valiant But we are not the RAF and never have been. We can’t “post” people, whereas in the Forces by nature of the employment contract accept being moved around like a pawn.
In the survey one of the reasons given for not going into uniform is the fear or ever present threat of being asked to move somewhere or do something else. The problem there is, being ‘asked’, isn’t really, being ‘asked’, if it was and the reply was ‘no’ and accepted as that, then it wouldn’t be a problem. But we all know that’s not how it works. On more than one occasion I’ve had to tell “Wing” to leave it alone as the risk of completely losing a member of staff entirely is too great, due the constant asking if they want to move or go into uniform. It might be selfish but it takes too long to get someone new and I’ve been there as the only uniformed bod with a couple of inexperienced CIs, which is bloody hard work, so when you get people come along and stay and you’re able to spread things out, you don’t want to lose them, unless it’s of their choosing. I don’t care if they’re in uniform or not.
You are right it would be better to find out why we can’t recruit more uniformed staff or just staff, but I’m not sure there would be will to change things to make it more attractive and we’d just keep on, keeping on. This isn’t a new phenomena, getting people in as staff has been a problem for decades and has never been addressed. The over-reliance is on “working on” cadets to make them think they are better than they are and uniform is the only thing that matters. At their age and immersed in the ATC bubble, they are easy to work on and blinker. The bigger challenge is adults who come in off the street and older CIs, the sort who aren’t as easily manipulated or suggestable. There is something that might be sitting there, in that as a nation we aren’t as militarised as we were, so people don’t have any real affinity with military uniform.
So while we have worked to this staff/structure model for as long as we’ve been in existence, TBH it’s not really been working, increasingly so, for years and at some point you have to accept a thing’s not really working and change, not doing so means you spend more time on it, not really getting anywhere and it becomes a millstone round your neck. But we are not in a position to change it and those that are in that position are too blinkered and institutionalised to consider the change to a more pragmatic system. Many people don’t see the real need to be in uniform to do what we do as staff and only do so for again reasons stated in the survey.
I will put an early thought on the latest strategic review announced… in some part it will say close / merge sqns on the premise that staff will move to new or be part of merged squadrons. I feel this about the only way they could see to resolve problems with staffing, as anything else is in the far too bloody difficult and I might have to do something pile.
I found the differing view on the need for uniform really interesting in the survey. Uniformed CFAVs felt it was needed but CIs didn’t although as per the survey more work is needed to understand this. Obviously the activities people do will have some impact but apart from things like being a DI is there much that is off limit to CIs? Obviously I’m imagining it will make things like camps easier.
I think the org needs to be really clear on the distinction between roles and expectations.
I’m a uniformed CFAV (Sqn Cdr) and I don’t see the need for a uniform to do what I do. Pulling on a blue suit doesn’t make me better or worse or unable to instruct, speak to people etc. Even doing drill it’s only words said in a certain way.
I liken it to work. When I started for men it was proper shoes, proper ‘suit’ trousers, long sleeve shirt (short sleeve if the office manager said so) and a tie (which could only be removed if the weather was very hot). Jackets were an optional for day to day but had to be worn for meetings. Now it’s “smart casual” and in the last few years trainers have been allowed. Has ‘dressing down’ like this affected people’s working or how they are perceived in meetings not a bit.
In fairness, my feedback wasn’t unhelpful, but there wasn’t much detail.
I found it funny that the final comment was “Shows leadership potential”… I’ve run my own Manufacturing business with 35 employees for a very long time - so I was delighted to hear I have “potential”!
1 Like
But move away to what? If we do away with the idea that Officers command then what’s the point of having officers?
We really shouldn’t end up in a situation where having an NCO or WO in command of a unit with officers under them is the norm.
Congratulations 
No I meant it wasn’t wildly detailed and it was confusing what the matrix/scores actually meant as there was no guide
1 Like
The idea of “need” for a uniform is somewhat irrelevant.
We are a uniformed organisation - we require uniformed staff. That’s all the justification of “need” required.
The moment one starts questioning whether there is a need for uniform for any particular role we start down the slope which questions why bother being uniformed at all?
There is no “need” to be uniformed for any role in the RAF… One could fix an engine just as easily as a civilian. One could teach drill in jeans and a shirt and still convey the same information.
“Need” in this context is unimportant.
What we do need though is a greater uniformed presence. A Sqn whose regularly seen staff are overwhelmingly in civvies is not, in my mind, conducive to the proper example to set a group of cadets who we insist should be in uniform whenever appropriate.
Sqns should ideally be a majority of uniformed staff, assisted by CIs as and when.
Now, that’s not to say that a Sqn couldn’t have 4 or 5 uniformed staff and a “pool” of 5 or 6 CIs, where 2 or 3 turn up each night; but if the average turnout is 2 uniformed staff and 6 CIs that’s a situation would should be looking to move away from - even though it is a very common situation these days.
4 Likes
Yes, this is very true.
This is the biggest snag. As volunteers the hierarchy loses a lot of meaning, however it should at least be kept to as much as possible.
It is a tricky situation.
Interesting point referencing workplace casual dress, but clearly if you hate the idea of wearing and maintaining a uniform there is no chance waist of efforts persuading that person.
There are many though I think would quite like to wear the uniform, but find the process drawn out, then worry what this means for them long term.
Even uniform staff are volunteers, you can always say no!
1 Like
It’s my understanding that the WSOs in my wing who do the Wing Board have attended and passed the PSOC course. They were very proud of it.
The process to uniform - at least here - does seem to me to be overly complicated and potentially restrictive, beyond sense. Certainly we don’t want to let just any old candidate don a uniform willy-nilly, but if we’ve got good candidates who are put off because we’re making them jump through all these silly “…your potential” courses hoops then we’ve got something wrong.
The theme which we touched on elsewhere recently that a number of CIs wouldn’t choose a uniformed role because the feel that as uniformed staff they “would be expected to do more”, “they can’t say no”, “they’d [be in some other way under the cosh]…” needs to be challenged. It’s mostly nonsense (with possibly the sole exception being for those CIs who only attend once or twice per month - to whom the 12 hours requirement would be notably more than they do currently).
If people are steering away from uniform because of that then we need to squash that misguided idea and enlighten them.
Uniformed or not, no CFAV can be forced to do more than they are willing. Nor can they be forced to change Squadron.
We SHOULD be encouraging people into uniform - and when I say “encouraging” I don’t mean “arm-twisting” and heavy tactics… I mean “encouraging”.
4 Likes
Good for them, it was not a “attend & get the tick” cse, far from it. It would be interesting to how their screening / guidance ended up with candidates’ experiences / success rate at OASC (compared to wgs who do not have WSOs so qualified).
I believe that all WSO’s who filter interview commissioning candidates have to have done the course.
1 Like
It would seem we only need uniformed staff, because we need uniformed staff, ie the “we’ve always done it like that” battle cry. I get that we are tied to and beholden to the RAF, so the uniform has its place. But there needs to be more to it, if people are coming home from work and putting something on that is much more “formal” than their attire for work. @anon9987823 This where my thought comes from, 'clothes maketh not the man or woman ". It’s not what you wear it’s the way the person thinks and conducts themselves, so it the uniform or the person inside it that is most important? If I’m doing something not in uniform I as a person, knowledge, thought processes don’t change. If you need the uniform to make you what you are, that is a problem.
Only when I first started as staff were there more uniformed staff than non-uniformed. The idea of x uniformed staff and a pool of CIs is fantasy, when we can’t even get enough people coming through to fully staff sqns and fill the spaces we have.
When it comes to recruiting staff from outside the ATC, is what is ‘promised’, what people prepared to give up their spare time, want or want to do just to be able to help out. In the past people would come along and be doing things from day 1, now the process is way beyond what the majority of jobs require. Like many places where a DBS is needed you are there from day 1 but no unsupervised contact, if this was the case in the ATC it would make people feel more part of it and more engaged and then, let them ‘grow’ into it, rather than do you want to be, from day 1. Also what do you want to do could wait a couple of years, unless they make the move…
Maybe looking at other places to see what volunteers do as a joining process.
The argument made by the RC when talk was of shutting a sqn was that he, and, by extension, the RAF / MoD required uniformed and cleared personnel to be the authority holders for a unit. No uniformed adults on a sqn = no sqn.
Additionally, we don’t ask our CIs to get SC’d, so there are limits to what they’re allowed to do and have access to.
Ultimately, even the Cubs and Brownies have their leaders in uniform. If we can’t, there are far bigger issues.
If you don’t want to be, don’t. But don’t pretend like that’s an issue with the organisation rather than a personal decision.
3 Likes
I completely disagree with your sentiment. You don’t join a uniformed youth organisation and then argue against wearing that uniform.
Uniformity is all part of the military ethos.
So, do you want everyone in polos and jeans for Remembrance Sunday?
1 Like
Correct, but young people join the RAFAC because of the link to the RAF and they expect it as such.
How many kids come through the doors wanting to be a pilot etc, so they come to us rather than the Scouts?
I think that’s a good idea and would entirely support it. I’ve even suggested it to my sector OC for our unit (small and in a remote-ish area) to join with another unit that is close by and in a similar predicament.
However, I can imagine some larger and more successful squadrons possibly being negative towards such a move.
It would depend how you define a leader. Cannot CIs be leaders?
When you have a directive that no uniformed staff = no sqn, then there is an organisational problem. This situation leads as per the survey people going into and remaining in uniform just to keep a unit open. This is because there is a problem in the organisation. If cadets are doing things and achieving without uniformed adults where is the problem. TBH Wing would be putting the squeeze on someone and dressing it up as an “opportunity”. I’ve seen this quite a few times and it invariably means the instability of revolving door OCs and on more than one occasion established staff leaving, as the one going in being a compete tool and not understanding the situation.
The problem is that if we have no uniformed adults in a uniformed organisation then we’re not a uniformed organisation.
Leave the cadets and go and volunteer at the local youth club.
4 Likes