Except last time I checked we were a blue organisation not a green one, allowing them to wear their cabbage patch outfit is unproductive.
If the CI option didn’t exist as it doesn’t in the other youth organisations we would still survive, but there would need to be a pragmatic approach where those who are already CI’s like yourself would need to be left alone as you are and only new people being affected by any changes. Overtime CI’s would be effectively phased out in the same way as the old T&L Warrant Officers when we had 2 types slowly dwindled away.
If any change is to come regarding CIs and their role in the organisation, then it absolutely has to be consulted directly with the CIs. Look at why they aren’t in uniform. At the end of the day, there isn’t really a wrong answer, but as someone has previously said, I think fear and misunderstanding may play a role, albeit maybe just a small one in why CIs wish to remain as CIs.
@angus just an edit to say I don’t disagree with your statement, just using your answer as an example of why we should directly consult with CIs.
My thinking behind that is that any uniform worn woud have to be private purchase, rather than scaled for issue. I’m guessing there wouldn’t be much extra funding!?
There is no reason not to allow blues, but since the market for surplus blues is a bit hit and miss, I would have thought MTP would be a better option.
Just throwing it out there, we have a CI who is almost 80 years old, and very active. So would it be ageist to keep them as a CI but push youngsters into uniform?
Could the politically correct police let me know… my radar can be slightly off on such issues!
@wdimagineer2b So someone comes in one night and says I would like to help, you explain the things they can do. They become a CIs you ask about going into uniform they say no thanks and you enter into a debate as to why they’re not interested in wearing a uniform, in doing so they feel pressurised into something they are not at all comfortable with and walk out never to be seen again. I can sense a certain degree of satisfaction in some, that they had got rid of a timewaster. This is why sometimes you just have to accept someone’s decision and move along. I would be more concerned if someone came along and was all about the uniform or people feel it’s the only way they can get any respect. I’ve come across people like this and they are a nightmare.
You can apply this in an ATC context to people who just don’t want to do things like; move sqn, go onto Wing, do a particular ‘subject’ if it doesn’t interest them or they don’t want to and they have made it clear, then no point in pursuing it.
The survey for my money amply explains why people shy away from a uniform. It was good to see the text comments analysed like this, as it gets into the nuts and bolts rather than the superficial. Will HQAC do anything? I would be more surprised if they did, as based on their action / reaction to previous surveys, I doubt they actually give a monkey’s as long as there are enough adult uniforms dribbling through the ex-cadet route to keep things going.
People talking about CIs and uniform. In the 80s when I became a CI we were allowed to wear “DPM” when doing “field” activities, so like many I bought some. We had a Wing field event and the CIs were handed hi-vis to wear over their DPM, as there was a new ruling, we were civilians and not allowed to wear uniform. That was the last time I did any “field” activities and I’ve never worn “DPM” since for a cadet activity. So I think if CIs are going to get a “uniform” it has to be properly thought through and not seen as a “persuader” or means to an end.
When it comes to what a CI can or cannot do is all down to “club rules”, or the inability for someone in uniform to converse with or regard someone in “civvies” as an equal. Apparently this is why ‘CS’ WExOs are given Sqn Ldr status. The only things we do where it is preferable for a uniform is Sqn Cdr and DI, no other sqn role really needs a uniform. I’ve got a SNCO as adj because I need them to know that they can do more than drill/discip.
When you consider what other people think of CIs I’ve in all my years never had anyone ask “why aren’t they (CIs) in a uniform?” This it would seem is purely a subject for internal dilemma and angst.
How is it rubbing them up the wrong way? You are talking to an adult not a child. Do you lie or do it in a way that leads them on, this is disingenuous, misleading and deceitful.
Whichever way you ask or pose it, you are asking the same thing. I’d sooner cut to the chase get an answer yes or no, and not butter them up. I’ve had WSOs try and persuade me to consider going onto Wing. I like letting them ramble and then say no thanks. I’ve said why not just ask the question. I think they didn’t as they thought they might catch me out.
So how do you dress up the question?
You could ask:
(bit of a next step chat and preamble)
what do you want to do
I want to [insert something that needs a uniform]
well you need to be in uniform to do that
why
because they’re the rules (we have no other real come back to this)
OK no thanks I’ll stay as I am. End of discussion … until the next time and the next etc
If it goes the other way then you’ve eliminated the problem of a bloke or woman on the sqn in civvies, who you can’t really ‘control’, in the way someone who is in uniform can be.
I can’t see any benefit to not having CIs. When I came out of cadet life I was getting engaged and the aggro of going for a uniform didn’t appeal. I’ve had it with cadets who are just getting into their working life and become CIs. Four of these have gone into uniform but at their behest and point in time that suits them, not because I’ve pestered them about.
Being a CI is a nice halfway house for people to do things, see if they like the ATC and if they then want to go into uniform. I know speaking to a few people in the ACF they get a lot of uniform geeks / walts come to them, one was a chap who had gone to a local sqn and the OC sussed his “uniform fetish” as all he did was ask about going into uniform. He ended up at the ACF, but the det cdr rumbled him and got rid.
I think that this is one of those crazy stupid rules that we have, and no one can adequately explain why it is so. I also think the term “Civillian Instructor” is quite misleading (we are all civillians, after all), and that we should move away from that title.
It’s quite simple to have the conversation with them without it entering into a debate, or with them then leaving.
“Hi, I’d like to come along and help out”
‘Great, these are your options…’
“I’m not sure on going into uniform. That CI one sounds ok”
‘Absolutely fine. Just out of curiosity, do you mind if I ask why?’
" Insert whatever reason "
‘Not a problem, there’s a space in the organisation for you no matter what’
See. That easy. No pressurising them into leaving.
Take that approach, and like @angus says, we’ll lose a lot of CIs in a very short space of time. Some don’t want to wear uniform, some can’t make the commitment. Sure, you might gain some staff in the short term, but how many would be put off joining in the future?
I’m not advocating “Made up Ranks” - since the term “Civilian Instructor” is a RAFAC specific post, there is no equivalent role in the RAF to draw inspiration from. Civillian Instructor is more of a job title than a rank, but one which increasingly, IMO, doesn’t reflect accurately what CIs actually do. Let’s look at the role, and choose a title which reflects more accurately what a CI is, and one which helps align all instructor levels. And for goodness sake, lets try and align their T&Cs with ours. Allow them to claim VA. Allow them to dress appropriately to the task - Non of this bull about walking from the mess to the range in civvies, and then changing into MTP once they get there.
I can never tell Teflon whether you are being deliberately obtuse, or whether you just routinely and catastrophically miss the point.
We have a large imbalance of CIs vs uniformed staff, where many squadrons have a collection of CIs and only a couple of uniforms. That is not an ideal situation for a uniformed organisation (whose staff ought to be primarily in uniform), and we should not just accept that as ‘the way things are’.
The Corps absolutely must engage with its staff to find out why so few go into uniform and whether there are things we can do to increase the uptake. Such as dispelling myths, correcting commanders who expect too much from volunteers, altering terms of service, &c.
It is only through engagement that we can gain the required understanding, and without understanding nothing will ever improve. How many times do you yourself complain that a new policy has been pushed out by HQ without understanding the volunteer?
It’s time to wake up fella and realise that you can’t have it both ways. You can’t complain that the volunteer isn’t considered and then pooh-pooh every attempt to fix that.
But in the interest of discussion I will, briefly, address your first point…
If someone said “no thanks, I don’t want to go into uniform” I most definitely would ask them why. Because it’s important that I understand what it is they hope to bring to the Corps and what they hope to gain personally from their volunteering, so that I can better support them.
Asking ‘why’ doesn’t have to be a hard ‘debate’ which makes them feel pressured. Do you feel pressured whenever someone asks you a question?
As is usual with you, you have taken a simple point and instead twisted it into something sinister.
If someone can’t cope with a simple conversation without feeling so under pressure that they leave then, frankly, I doubt they’d have coped with the requirements of training young people anyway.
Not a chance, especially for any liaison with RAF units. For most “civilian” or military liaison, either by messaging, visits, whatever, a CI seems to be placed in quite a good “position” for perceived (& I stress it is only perceived) “rank” or accountability, call it what you will.
There are also times when being a CI can help things move better “outside” of the recognised uniformed chain of command.
The current system works for CIs, ask the questions by all means, but unless there are significant advantages to ALL concerned, leave things alone.
I do like the idea of having a GI role where they can wear uniform but don’t have to. I’ve known 20 year old rush straight from cadet to adult uniform because they don’t want to lose 2 years of CFM eligibility.
Having the uniformed CI option could help with that (if implemented correctly) and also go someway to resolving the regular gripe about CIs not being eligible for CFM or jubilee medals.
Appointment to Registered Civilian Committee is not a “normal” route. It is expected that the majority of Civilian Committee Members across the Wing will support and assist their Squadron within the traditional role of the Civilian Committee as detailed in ACP11.
On occasion, it may be appropriate for a Civilian Committee Member to apply to become “Registered” to enable them to take on additional responsibilities and contribute to the wider cadet experience, for example drive the SOV or assess DoE expeditions when these skills cannot already be provided by current Squadron Staff.
Those wishing to do so must contact the Wing Executive Officer in the first instance, to ensure that their skill and/or qualification makes registering an appropriate next step
The missing part is that it’s expected to be a short term solution only rather than long term.
I’m not sure I can see the point of having a separate and additional position where one can choose to wear uniform or not.
What does it gain?
Someone starts as a CI and might then choose to transfer to this other post, where they might choose to wear uniform…
Surely if they are considering that move it can only be because they are considering wearing uniform (otherwise - if they don’t intend to wear uniform they’d have no reason to consider changing from CI). If they are making the change to be able to wear a uniform then we could just… Make them uniformed staff.
The alternative could be that we change our CI regulations to allow an optional form of uniform in the same way that the SCC do…
I thought the suggestion was that this new GI route would be for all new staff, rather than allowing new appointments to CI. It can be a permanent position, or a stepping stone to SNCO/Officer without the added pressure to get you through quickly so you’re in uniform
