Sadly, I think this is how we’d end up with a CoC even more determined to be a “blue organisation” and we’d lose even more green activities.
1 Like
I don’t know how much of an impact it would make financially, but I’d cap paid rank at Flt Lt.
Those taking on the extra responsibility still get that “extra” compared to a sqn attendee but the cost is reduced.
3 Likes
Just as long as that term isn’t reserved for blue camps.
That can do one.
1 Like
Which is completely wrong, they should all be implementing policies in the same way and not allowing some to empire build.
This reared it’s head a while ago didn’t it with the VA discussion.
- If Directing Staff - paid at rank held
- If Participant - paid at Sgt
Cuts the bill slightly and acknowledges that in RAFAC the rank is associated with a role, rather than the other way round as with the RAF.
Therefore if not actively performing a role that requires a rank, then why would you get paid more than someone else who happens to be there, doing the exact same support role, but happens to have a different bit of fabric on their shoulder?
2 Likes
That makes some sense.
I’m looking at doing my Lowland Leaders qualification and would be happy to be unpaid to go through it (nevermind being paid at Sgt rates). But in return, and as they’d get the only real benefits from me being qualified, I’d expect RAFAC to pay for the course and mileage.
Right now, HQ say that I must pay for the course but that I can claim VA for the days away.
So rather than it costing RAFAC £50 to put me through, it would cost them nearly £400 (training + assessment weekends) + motor mileage.
3 Likes
I’d actually argue that we pay more for staff attending training courses to allow them to deliver activities.
There is an argument to me made that as volunteers, we shouldn’t get paid to deliver our activities to cadets. That’s why we’re volunteers. However remunerating staff for their time spent getting skilled up makes sense. Attending LLA, doing your AFA etc should all attract remuneration.
I would also include remunerating staff that are delivering courses to other staff.
This is also more how it’s worded in JSP 814.
4 Likes
As an OC I always had my committee part fund staff training courses.
So LLA as an example, you pay your registration fee but the Squadrons pays the course and assessment costs on the understanding that you deliver 4 LLA activities.
2 Likes
Gosh… What a lot to catch up on, for a thread of 4 days…
We appear to have been privileged for a while compared to the SCC (I’m very conscious that most of my comments these days are comparing us to the SCC - but that in itself probably says a lot about the RAFAC).
For some time, the SCC have had set rates of VA.
A higher rate for those responsible for an event - you carry the can, you get paid more.
A lower rate for those assisting in the delivery - you do some training but the buck stops above you, you get less.
A zero rate for those who are there as students.
In theory, most of that sounds sensible (although I don’t agree with student staff getting nothing when we mandate that they take time off to attend certain courses).
But otherwise… For example, why should a Wg Cdr get paid £120-odd per day for turning up to get in the way at a weekend course which has been planned, paperworked, and orchestrated by a Flt Lt / WO / FS / &c, and delivered by Fg Off / Plt Off / FS / Sgt, whilst they all get paid a lower rate?
So, on average, we’re getting paid more than our colleagues for the same work.
The issue comes for those above basic rank, when one looks at the SCC rates of VA and realises that, even as an activity Director, one would be getting less than we do currently as a WO / Fg Off or above.
For many that would be a ‘cut in pay’. For some it wouldn’t mean much - VA is a bonus for them - but for others it could have a real financial implication.
The sensible way to reduce VA spend, would seem to be to do similarly - create rates based upon the level of responsibility.
But the approach that we appear to be taking is problematic.
We would need to “find” 13m if everyone claimed their 28 days!?
Well, if the MOD - ie ‘Central Government’ - says that we’re entitled to 28 days VA then instead of sneakily cutting the number of days we can claim, surely the line should be: “Oi! Central Government… You are indirectly removing our ability to pay our CFAV the rate that you have published that they are entitled to!”
Finding a few million more for VA seems like a lucky break when I suspect that the reason we’re so well off in our actual budget is because thousands of CFAV don’t bother to claim - citing the fact that “they’re doing something they enjoy”. We are beholden to the fact that people can afford to, and are willing to do this stuff for free.
We’ve already been living on the good grace of our volunteers for decades!!..
I used to - through sheer necessity - rely on my VA to help pay my bills. As a self employed person, I had the freedom to give a lot to the RAFAC, but it came at a financial cost to myself.
I am by no means a lone example.
Long story short - I’ve been on leave from the RAFAC for 10 months. It’s been absolutely bloody brilliant. Best summer I’ve had in many years, without the stress of RAFAC management (levels of stress I hadn’t realised that I was carrying until I dropped them). I’ve missed the friends and the social aspect of camps & courses; but I haven’t missed the general activity at all. Not once.
I’m starting back now; uncertain of the future, but not yet ready to give it up after 29 years… But this sort of thing does make me question how much time I’ll be devoting in future. It certainly won’t be the 90+ hours a month that I used to!
9 Likes
Definitely a big no.
How are CFAVs to judge what is of best benefit to cadets? Who decides what is better for employability against an academically skilled cadet versus one who is not - but the less skilled one could get a huge boost in self-confidence by attending XXXX camp or event?
5 Likes
Academics are just one facet of an individual, you may have a cadet unsuited to academics but who is a natural leader or able to do practical things others can’t.
2 Likes
Oh very true, there are so many examples / areas that could be quoted.
1 Like
Surely the starting point should be ACTO11 
This is key. I felt the same when I went NEP; to the extent I’d recommend anyone take a break just to benchmark how much stress the organisation is causing them!
5 Likes
Well neither space nor cyber appear in ACTO 11, and they sit outside the ‘old’ BTEC syllabus so aren’t part of that…
What happened to fun and enjoyment, I suspect for many cadets it’s not sat in a classroom, that belong during the school day, but there again it is ‘safe’!
2 Likes
Who does the controlling?
Region as per the policy…but wether thats right or wrong is another thread in itself
On the subject of VA, do F1771 claims get paid with VA or do they come separately?
Paid separately