Mmmmm. I wonder.
It would not surprise me if it turned out that nobody had really considered that question.
i would suggest the author has at least consider it
although what actual figure is placed on “high” is anyone’s guess. it could well be the authors personal opinion on what is high, although you’ll note they are themselves was a Cadet and later a CFAV with CCF and ATC since 2014 so that opinion isn’t uneducated eyes looking from the outside at what we [CFAVs] complete for a hobby, but what one of our own considers “high”
What I should have said is that it would not surprise me if it turned out that nobody at HQ had really considered that question.
The problem is HQAC, Wings, Regions couldn’t give a monkey’s if people do a lot of hours to even consider a cap. If ATC management was any good they would be stopping people, rather than ‘encouraging’ it. I’m forever saying don’t do it if I think people are doing too much at the sqn, even if it means cadets don’t get to do something, as people can’t seem to be able to self-manage. Which is probably contrary to their proper jobs, where they will invariably do their hours and go home.
I think there is a culture in the ATC to say “look at me” as people try and big themselves up to their peers. I’ve heard comments from people as to how much time they put in, my response is more fool you, no one’s going to care and only say something when you stop as it becomes the norm. Most of these are those who aren’t married and or have a family (that they speak of) so must have the time to do ATC, which is fine but don’t expect people who don’t have the time to do the same.
1 Like
i don’t think anyone would consider applying (even less so enforcing) a cap on hours.
but i think the survey is correct to desire more understanding why some put in the hours they do.
it maybe due to a extreme passion and interest and they love every hour they commit to the organistion
perhaps down to likely things done their way, and prefer to do it themselves rather than share the load or delegate
it coudl even be that are a bad CFAV and it takes a “high” number of hours to complete the expected work because they are not “tech savvy” with the EWOW we now have
or it could just be if they don’t do 70 hours a month no one else will, and things will stop happening, cadets will miss out and the organisation, be it local or wing level will cease
1 Like
From my perspective, most of the time I put in on Sqn stuff is spent on things which I want to get done.
If I don’t do them then all I’m doing is delaying something which I plan to do at some point anyway so what’s the difference? I might as well just get on with it when the mood takes me.
In other cases, where it’s not something I’m so keen on, I’ll get on with it because if it doesn’t get done it’s me who is going to have to pick up the slack down the line - only then it’ll be more urgent.
My early arrival at the Sqn is also in my own interest because it’s easier for me to get there at that time of day than to leave it until later when the traffic is a PITA. I’d only be spending the time preparing whatever lesson, &c I need for that evening, so I may as well do that at the Sqn as at home (I’m also not drinking my own expensive coffee whilst doing all that at the Sqn).
For me it’s not about “look at me and how much I do”. But the fact that HQ don’t appear to realise just how much work there can be involved for us all is a concern.
This is probably why people do long hours and it’s a dangerous path to follow, because at some point people would have to stop for any number of reasons, so in many ways better to temper it so as to raise expectations. But you have to look after yourself as no one else will. For those who are married there is always the voice of reason at home.
I’d be interested to see what they suggest for those of us they say are too old for a uniformed role.
Just so everyone knows, not all CI’s are in their 20s and 30s.
1 Like
It probably wont happen
The report say review the need of them and then also suggests to review the need of uniformed bods filling posts I.e. could they be done by CIs.
Aye, the report also says “review the eligibility for the CFM”, as though the RAFAC has any provision to do that… I’m taking the recommendations with more than a pinch of salt since they appear to made by someone with very limited knowledge.
It’s mostly just flowery “business analysis”, which (knowing a few business analysts as I do) is not always grounded in reality.
Though, it doesn’t exactly say that they should review the need for uniformed staff; it says that they should carry out consultation to understand the need for uniform to carry out key roles/tasks.
i.e. “Why do we feel that we need to be in uniform to do [x, y, z]?”
Frankly I think that the fact that we are supposed to be a uniformed organisation is need enough to expect that a very large percentage of our volunteers should be in uniform, no matter what role they fill.
But getting a clearer picture of the CFAV perception is probably a good idea.
1 Like
Your bang on there.
I’d expect to see the strategic review actions taking priority over this due to they have a potential financial output
RAFAC has a degree of say in the CFM criteria in that CAC asking the powers that be for changes to the warrant (which do happen from time to time) would have more sway than a letter from CI Bloggs
Yes, I’ll certainly grant that.
But of course given that it would require consultation with the other Cadet Forces and would ultimately require a nod from Aunty Liz it’s certainly beyond the scope of the “consider reviewing” recommendation of this survey.
1 Like
Of course it would always help if Wing HQ didnt see themselves as the supreme arbiters and judgemental lords of the divine, for whether someone should become a probationary Sgt.
It’s not meant to be SAS Officer selection.
There was talk a couple of years ago to bring it into line with the Volunteer Reserves Service Medal (VRSM) ie: 10yrs service for the medal and 5yrs for each clasp as opposed to the 12\6 it is now. Nothing ever came of it as far as I know.
However, what the survey did suggest was that the CFM and clasps are automatically triggered by time served (unless there are concerns about the individual) so that CFAV’s don’t have to ‘beg’ for the medal\clasps by applying themselves. This might help negate all of the crap created by those at HQAC who don’t understand the criteria for the award and who have to have it spelled out to them in simple sentences accompanied by colourful illustrations.
2 Likes
Yeah. But what about everything else where only a colouring book is accepted as instructions by them.
2 Likes
I’m not as confident… The fact that we have to keep explaining these things to them makes me think that an “automatic” system would mean that they will still make the same mathematical cockups, but we just won’t get told about them, and nor will we get the medal, until the date they pulled out of their backside comes around.
But it absolutely should be “automatic” - at least from the recipients POV. They can still faff about with the form if the want, but it should all be carried out by a line manager.
As a CI of over 38 years making the Ci role more like the ACF PI is not a new Idea. I did a CI course in 1982 when this was one of the main syndicate topics along with the introduction of female cadets and we were told both of these would be coming in in the next few years.
Regarding the CI role the result of all the syndicates were that the majority of the Cis that had not stated from the beginning they wanted to go in uniform or were considering it would leave in significant numbers. Putting the organisation in a much worse situation.
There were also legal reasons between changing a civilian role to a uniform role when not for reasons of war has a number of issues, so it could not be enforced. The best they could do was to phase it in or make it an alternative.
From the discussions those on the course who were ex services and there were more then, mostly had had enough of uniform at least for the moment. Those of us that had been cadets or had been ATC uniform staff but had left previously for numerous reasons felt about the same. Some thought there local command would try to get them to do some of the jobs that take you away from why they were joining and felt being uniformed would make it easier to force you into these jobs, where the consensus felt that a CI is more difficult to force into such things or felt they would not be able to maintain the commitment usually for domestic reasons and combinations of all above.
The overwhelming feeling was trying to force Cis into uniform was a bad idea.
While having a senior member of wing staff with UpToDate knowledge of the process preferably your sqns wing staff officer or a dedicated recruitment officer to seeking out at events or while visiting the sqn, talk to individual Cis especially those that have been at a squadron for more than 2 years to actively promote a uniform staff role, just might. Personally, I have never seen this done at any level. The ones who do
To do this they would have to make the process of becoming a RAFAC officer as simple and painless as possible and if there are any deficiencies have a staff development process to minimise them. But this would need HQAC and the majority of uniformed staff having to accept cadet officers and NCO’s are not regular uniformed staff and shatter some illusions and egos so I don’t think this would ever happen.
2 Likes
The problem HQAC is this is a view from the ground and regardless of the person who did the analysis and wrote the recommendations, they ignore it at their peril. I know they couldn’t care less about the opinions of the hoi polloi, but this is out there I pinged it to all staff, so they are fully aware of its content. TBH if they didn’t want to here what people think, they didn’t need to do it, now they have and to ignore it, would be folly and a waste of taxpayers money.
If you complain about something you’ve purchased something or had in your view a poor service, why do you get replacements, vouchers, freebies, discounts etc because for every 1 complainant, there are 9 who don’t and potentially stop using/buying it. I wonder how many have left the ATC over the years because of the poor treatment they get and or a sense of we don’t care from the CoC? As has been said before if the ATC/RAFAC was out there competing in a business sense, they’d have gone under years ago, because ir’s clear the customer doesn’t matter, and as their pay or survival isn’t affected, so why bother. But I think you can apply this to a lot of CS/govt depts. as it’s not like you can switch.
I really feel HQAC would sooner see people leave, than go through the process of taking some form of action to prevent it. Does it matter to them if a number of shop floor CFAV leave, no, because it’s too far from their experience and they just expect others to pick up the slack, If they don’t they can moan at and threaten people.
Having just gone through the process of wing courses and OASC, taking about 14 months and using up four weekends (wing pre uniform course, a training weekend, a wing board and then the weekend for OASC)… all of which had massive gaps in-between and saw other candidates just give up entirely…
And now needing to take a weeks holiday to do OiC, the only date of which I could get on was 11 months later, I can confirm that the process is neither simple or painless…
It is over drawn and really puts your patience and good will to the test.
Although OASC was an interesting experience, and I’m sure OiC will be interesting too - the entire process is massively overdrawn, and is hugely off putting for many.
7 Likes