the tax payers money has to go somewhere…
They have to spend the budget or lose it thereafter.
[quote=“glass half empty 2” post=8222]
Frankly I don’t care if the RAF’s legal dept is tied up with ACO business, because it has to highlight, even to the least intelligent, that there must be something not quite right somewhere and not always with the one making the complaint. The fact this hasn’t been or isn’t addressed is something the RAF’s legal bods should be taking up with HQAC / 22Gp, to find out what is going on.[/quote]
Alternatively they’ll view your organisation as not worth the hassle and cut you all adrift.
I doubt the RAF would cut their nose off to spite their face.
The ACO has had serious management issues for years and it’s getting worse. Firstly, the change in CAC’s every couple of years doesn’t allow people to ‘bed in’ and get to the heart of the organization. Some have regarded the post as the proverbial ‘sunset post’ and whilst making all the right, senior-officer noises, frankly couldn’t give a MONKEYS about the Corps because they are using the time to look around for a highly-paid job in the real world. From what I can gather, political in-fighting is rife at HQAC level and most departments are disorganized and operate disjointedly. Maybe the new CAC can sort this out given that the post is no longer a regular posting and has a longer tenure.
When there is a ‘them and us’ culture and the volunteer is regarded very much as an embuggerance, is it little wonder that people who can’t get their own HOUSE IN ORDER, don’t have much time for those that can?
HQAC personnel have one day job. I’ve no doubt that some DO try their best and others…well, you know… Volunteers have both their day job and a so-called ‘hobby’ that is at best a part-time job and at worst, a full-time one due to the demands the paper-shufflers impose upon us. If most volunteers can organize themselves effectively and recognise that HQAC personnel can’t, it doesn’t take the brains of an Einstein to figure out that they’ll kick back when they are treated so shabbily.
To echo other posts in this thread, the issue lies in the way that HQAC manage their volunteers, as opposed to the alleged high proportion of ‘numpties’ who abuse their privilege for the slightest reason. Removing the commission wouldn’t solve much, if anything and removing the right to make complaints through the SCC also wouldn’t achieve much. What needs to happen is for HQAC to reflect internally and employ some good 'ol root cause analysis and look at just how it currently manages it’s volunteer staff.
If HQAC could sort itself out, maybe the number of service complaints would fall and then the RAF might not regard the organization as such a high-risk.
I think a few people are off track on this issue. If the management chain was an issue, why are the service complaints hearings not overturning the original instruction/order? In the high majority of cases it’s upheld in favour of the ACO.
Are these statistics in the public domain?
Maybe it’s due to poorly presented cases or those cases where the complainant has failed to provide sufficient evidence. I really don’t know. There could be 101 reasons why this is.
That said, I think there is a concensus that the volunteer isn’t always wrong and that HQAC should do some real heavy soul-searching when it comes to how they manage things.
While this may have some bearing, I could see a closing of ranks between the legal bods and issuing authority, having a greater bearing.
Oh this organisation closes ranks against anyone who rocks the boat - rightly or wrongly - that much is for certain. It wouldn’t be easy for any volunteer to beat the system, even with an independent service complaints process. I am aware of some “successes” or partial “successes” and I know of some settlements, which I wouldn’t be publicised due to some gagging clause, so it may not be as simple to say that complaints have been found in favour of the ACO, as it may not be the complete story.
Wing is, but it seems some OC’s are not sharing the info 
which of course I have sorted
Eh? :S
Reluctant though I am to support HQAC I don’t think we can blame them for all the ills of the organisation - especially when it comes to complaints to the Service Complaints Commissioner.
Firstly, discontent is not confined to the ACO as the link below seems to indicate
Secondly, I would guess that many of the complaints are generated as a result of volunteer to volunteer clashes, or internal wing/regional disputes with full time personnel.
The fact that HQAC end up having to staff the issues into the system does not (necessarily) make them to blame.
However, they may be indicators of changes that need to be made in the attitudes and engagement style of many of the full time staff of the organisation - and that does rest with HQAC.
As for the overturned complaints, I would be very interested to see how many were unsuccessful not because of the strength of the case but because the volunteer had not exhausted internal complaints processes first!!
If i recall correctly, you have to demonstrate you have followed the standard process first otherwise your case will be rejected. IANAL of course.
Speaking for myself, I have often considered working abroad, but one of the major things keeping me in this country is my involvement with Cadets and, through that, the Air Force. If that were watered down, if my Commission which I earned according to the rules at the time, and I feel have earned many times over with the hours I have put in, were stripped from me… well I’d revisit that idea.
How many people would feel the same? Some would throw toys & walk away straight off (perhaps we’re better off without them), but many would lose a little more morale & motivation. The total incremental cost to the organisation would, I think, be huge.
We are treated more and more as if we were full time regulars in terms of what is expected of us, but we are not trained, paid or given the privileges of such. That has been the case for some time, and this would be a major step in the wrong direction.
As for Service Complaints, I understand the issue that there are a large number being raised, and that is often all that certain senior Staff Officers see of the ACO. This is bad, certainly, but the question that should be asked is surely WHY is this happening? Are VRT Officers all just moaning so-and-sos who should have the right taken away? Do VRT Officers have a lower level of understanding of Service Law and customs, leading to a tendency to raise an inappropriate complaint? (NB: if we are indeed not well enough trained, the problem surely lies with the training organisation not the individuals?) Do VRT Officers get treated less well than regulars in corresponding positions? Do they have lower morale and trust in their CoC? Any or all of these could explain the problem, and all require a slightly different solution, none of which is a blanket removal of the right to make a complaint!
Again, speaking for myself, I have recently considered making a Service Complaint over being wrongly denied my pay at the rank to which I am entitled, and being ignored by the CoC when I raised the issue. In the end, following the process properly has resolved the issue (almost), so I am much happier, and no need to go outside the ACO. However, the problem lies with poor admin at HQAC in the first place, poor comms and a disregard for the volunteer. I was ignored for months before anyone took notice, then I had to repeatedly point to the rules, and I was still told that I was wrong despite the clear wording in the book. I was certainly treated as ‘just an ignorant volunteer’ - this is not good for morale, and it is this attitude that should be changed, not my right to pursue redress for the £1000 that I was wrongly denied.
I would turn this around completely, and require all HQAC staff at any level, from part-time E2 to Comdt., to have experience of working with cadets as a volunteer. Volunteers should be managed by people who understand their issues, and treated as people who are giving up huge amounts of their time and doing a great job (on the whole), not as a nuisance!
Just my 2p.
The benefits of a full commission outweigh any advantages that might be gained. My employer for example only recognises membership of the Reserve Forces - not Cadet Organisation - as the requirement to allow additional leave to support annual camps etc. If I were ATC, that leave would be taken away.
We don’t need to take away the Commission, its one of the motivations of the job. I for one won’t be “doing more for less” as that useless statement goes…
I think bravozulu highlights the problems. You can’t raise a service complaint against a Civil servant and to think you can points to a lack of understanding of service law and the way it works.
I am led to believe that the majority of service complaints are because some uniformed staff can’t accept being told off for doing something they have been caught red handed doing-even though the correct procedures were followed. Minor disciplinary procedures occur in every organisation it’s just that we have a very confused series of contradictory procedures which do not help anyone.
The second group is those who have not been picked for an appointment or role and feel they should have been, No real answer to that, if you’re not spartacus you ain’t!
The service discipline system- the real one with Courts Marshall etc will not be used against RAFVR, if the offence was so serious to require it the Civil Police would be involved. If abroad on camp all including CI’s and SNCO come under the specific provisions on the Armed forces act as Civilians subject to service law and if the needed to be dealt with they would likely go before Service Civilian courts.
It is interesting reading the links put on here that service discipline is only applied to those categories of reserves subject to call out. This removes RAFVR from the service discipline system and negates the need to change the commission to something else. ACF are subject to call out BTW!
I think there should be a simple, clear and fair disciplinary system to deal with any problems that may arise from time to time linked to training in how this process works, I wonder how some Unit commanders would deal with a subordinate Officer raising a service complaint against them? It could happen after all.
I’m going to ask a stupid question… How does the ACO disciplinary / complaints process actually work? Who runs it? The volunteer? When do they hand it off? Who do they hand it off to, and how do they hand it off?
The one problem I’ve perceived with the ATC investigatory / complaints system is the lack of true independence, clarity and transparency in it. I believe the volunteer is the wrong person to run this. To some extent I can understand why, but I always feel that the volunteer CoC will want to protect reputations (individual and wing) and can be too close to many of the personalities involved, or have their own baggage / gripes given how long they’re likely to have been involved in that wing, and associated politics.
I always felt that this independence is what the WExO can provide, as someone outside of the volunteer loop, and generally someone who has come from outside the organisation, who is there to do a job, outside of the volunteer rank structure / mentality and who is aware of the personalities involved but isn’t generally involved with them. However my 1 experience of being involved as an independent interviewer in an investigation had the WExO advocating following the book (which was very clear, and there to protect all parties), but the volunteer CoC seemingly ignoring it and carrying on as normal.
So how involved is the WExO? Are WExO’s as independent (and independently minded!) as I seem to think?!
[quote=“James Blonde” post=8438]
So how involved is the WExO? Are WExO’s as independent (and independently minded!) as I seem to think?![/quote]
They are the controllers of the investigation. They advise on regulations and manage the case files. They are sometimes independent and sometimes not.
They also don’t have the time to run the investigations. If they did their working patterns would be shot as most often than not it requires visits to witnesses, Sqn HQs, APs and this is often done in the evening when the volunteer isn’t working. As much as it grinds me, they are entitled to a work/life balance and having them as sole investigator wouldn’t work.
I’m sure I’d heard of investigations being outsourced to neighbouring Wings Wing Staff to try to provide a degree of independence, but I can’t remember where I’ve come across that?
It certainly does happen. We’ve had a couple of Sqn Ldrs in my Wg who’ve been tasked with investigating issues in another Wg.
[quote=“Operation Nimrod” post=8257]I think a few people are off track on this issue. If the management chain was an issue, why are the service complaints hearings not overturning the original instruction/order? In the high majority of cases it’s upheld in favour of the ACO.[/quote]IIRC the SCS only look into the following of process, they have no control over the outcome of the rights and wrongs of what is investigated. A bit like the Information Commissioner.
[quote=“Operation Nimrod” post=8164]I heard that the VR(T) will be staying and SNCOs will be joining us, but the RFA will be updated to remove some privileges that some idiots have been abusing (service appeals)[/quote] As mentioned above, the SCS is only available to rule on the non-observance of process and policy. Are there any indications of what is and what is not abuse of the SCS?