Volunteer Allowance Review

[Moist_Van_Lipwig]

The issue I have with that type of approach, is that you are placing a value on peoples input - which is fine in theory, but we all know people who have “organised” activities and let others do most of the work. Conversely, I’ve been on activities where staff members have tipped up to help out, and been invaluable, but have no official position on the paperwork.

It’s also really tough to add a value to the staff members who are just around, and may take on a lot of the pastoral stuff, without having a named role.

To make it fairer, perhaps we could have two tiers:

Tier one: A participation allowance for staff only courses.

Tier two: A supervision allowance for events that have cadets on. It could be the attendance allowance, plus an extra amount to take into account the extra responsibilities the staff on such events will take on (even if they do not occupy specific roles).

If you’re feeling generous, we could add a bonus percentage to those staff who hold a higher responsibility post - OCs, WSOs, etc.

[redowling]

@Cadet04

Why not just have… an expense system then?

Absolutely fine if that expense system can cope with the AT kit I buy to gain my qualifications and use to deliver activities.

I doubt it would.

[Canoe_crazy]

@steve679

VA until recently was known as “pay”

And this is part of the problem, RAFAC HQ insist uniformed CFAV are not ‘employees’ and therefore your not ‘paid’ but receive a ‘volunteer allowance’, which the standard definition is to cover reasonable out of pocket expenses. HMRC allow payment of mileage rates to volunteers at 45ppm and its then tax deductible for the organization.

Which is why I see this as the only real solution.

@Canoe_crazy

The real way to solve it is either have a true, simple, volunteer allowance in line its definition and make it simple or RAFAC need to treat us as employees, like reservists, and accept the same liabilities.

[Moist_Van_Lipwig]

@steve679

are we confusing VA and expenses now though?

I think HQAC are keen to blur the lines,

Admit it is pay, and be forced to pay pension contributions, sick pay, holidays, etc.

Call it VA, and suggest it goes towards out of pocket expenses, and those thorny issues get pushed out of mind…

[steve679]

@Moist_Van_Lipwig

and suggest it goes towards out of pocket expenses

oh ok, i get it now.

they (HQAC) are suggest that even though we (CFAVs) remain treating it like pay which is pocket money

[steve679]

@Moist_Van_Lipwig

Tier one: >words<
Tier two: >words<

sounds a bit like the system we’ve heard about it director and participant

but then falls down for those Staff Courses as the DS team will be on the same rate as their students…
they would be eligible for Tier2 to “take into account the extra responsibilities the staff on such events will take on” yet without any Cadets on the course would not be eligible.

hence having a director or participant in my opinion is a neater solution.
directors are those ones who made it happen. either prior to the event chasing the admin, or on the day in the form of a Safety Supervisor for a shooting day, or fellow instructing staff on a course.
participants are those who simply “attend” without an assigned role.

thinking of a Wing event, be it a Mass parade, training day, or sports day as examples, perhaps a 6-12 would be directors the rest of the staff would be participants - accepting that although a CFAV looking after the long jump is a “critical” role as an example it should be accepted as part of the attendance to “get involved”

@Moist_Van_Lipwig

If you’re feeling generous, we could add a bonus percentage to those staff who hold a higher responsibility post

you mean a bit like the director level being a higher rate than participant?

[Moist_Van_Lipwig]

Slightly different to the director/participant plan.

A worked example for my solution.

Tier one: CFAV on a D1 course are on duty from 08:00 until 16:00. Aside from making sure they are at the Hangar on time, and in uniform, they have no additional responsibilities or duties, and can clock off at 16:00. They claim the base rate.

Tier two: CFAV on a AFA course as students. This time they are on duty for the whole weekend. They do not deliver training, but they, as CFAV, are expected to take part in the supervision of cadets, and deal with any issues that might be thrown at them whilst on the course. They claim the base rate, plus an extra proportion, as although they are not DS as such, they are still CFAV on a camp with cadets.

Bonus percentage: 5 CFAV (1 Sqn Ldr, 4 Sgts with less than 1 year in the organisation) on a day trip to RAF Anywhere, organised by Sgt Bloke, who knows an SAC(T) in the Admin section. Whilst walking around camp, an incident happens. Who would you expect to take charge? Whilst the Sqn Ldr is not in charge on paper, they will use their experience to ensure the incident is dealt with.

[WelshML]

@Paracetamol

If CIs want VA. Go into uniform.

Did you want VA, Is that why you went into uniform?

[wdimagineer2b]

Be careful what you wish for…
We could end up with the system that the SCC use.

VA is two rates (considerably lower on average than ours):
Director - the person taking overall responsibility for an activity.
Enabler - A person who is necessary for the activity to run.
Participants do not receive VA.

The reduction in rate alone would cause issues for some of us. Those who don’t earn very much come to rely on VA to help put food on the table.
Whilst it’s not the reason for volunteering it’d certainly be a noticeable pity if were reduced.

The solution to the problem of “some people letting others do all the work” though is that the director has to authorise the claims. So if Flt Lt Bloggs comes along as an “enabler” but spends 99% of the weekend sitting around doing nothing then they won’t actually get paid.

[AlexCorbin]

@wdimagineer2b

So if Flt Lt Bloggs comes along as an “enabler” but spends 99% of the weekend sitting around doing nothing

Isnt that what officers do though

[daws1159]

We think, so you NCO’s don’t have to.

PEAKY BLINDERS - I THINK ARTHUR...SO YOU DON'T HAVE TO

[OnceUponATime]

This is something that would affect the amount of time I can give to the organisation if VA were to be lost, or reduced.

I do probably 40-50 full days a year, and will get my full 28 in every year. As a WSO I frequently visit squadrons, often twice a week at distance from home.

I’m not financially badly off, but knowing that every year I’ve got the value of 28 days in my pocket, means I really don’t ever consider whether I can afford to do something or not for the cadets. It’s purely whether it benefits the cadets, or supports other staff.

I do have a mortgage to pay, and I can easily do more overtime at work - but if there’s something that will benefit the cadets, then I guess in my head I just see it as being paid from somewhere else (even though my day job pays more, and in a normal year I’d be out of days by about October).

As a few others have said I spend more money on things than I would without cadets - phone contract with more data/minutes, bigger car to move people/equipment easier, burning through laptops quicker etc.

A lot of the stuff I do I would be a director, so in some ways this wouldn’t effect me too badly; but I’m of the view that the politics of who was a Director/Enabler etc would be terrible, and cliquey. Not all volunteers would bring politics into it by any stretch, but I think enough would for this to be an unmotivator rather than an improvement.

Finally, I have done far too many camps where I was at the bottom of the ‘pay scale’ working my ass off, whilst others sit at the top doing not too much (and not even IC, just attending). It sucks, but then I just remember I don’t do it for the pay, and the cadets make it worthwhile, and that at the end of the year I’ll still have a contribution from the Corps for my time to not make feel so guilty about not being with my family.

[Paracetamol]

Dont be like that.
Obviously not.

But there are some on here who have bemoaned the fact that being CI means they dont get VA.

If CIs can get VA I would happily bet within 5 years the number of uniformed staff drops at least 30%.

[Paracetamol]

@wdimagineer2b

The solution to the problem of “some people letting others do all the work” though is that the director has to authorise the claims. So if Flt Lt Bloggs comes along as an “enabler” but spends 99% of the weekend sitting around doing nothing then they won’t actually get paid.

And queue huge numbers of casework based solely on ‘my VA was denied due personality clashes etc’
Or ‘I was very busy yet didbt get VA, I’m being bullied etc’

[Canoe_crazy]

@OnceUponATime

This is something that would affect the amount of time I can give to the organisation if VA were to be lost, or reduced.

I do probably 40-50 full days a year,

But if it was a true volunteer allowance and didn’t attract tax and you were able to receive VA for all those days it wouldn’t make a difference to you.

Mileage is completely separate, and again you would better off if the org paid you the full allowance instead of a lower rate and getting a small portion back of the difference. Why should you only get 29ppm (33ppm higher rate tax payers) when someone doing something similar for another charity gets 45ppm?

I am thinking too many people are focusing on the headline daily rate and forgetting about the deductions. With a little negotiation the management should be able to get an amount that is easier to administrate and not a huge amount less than you truly get today.

Yes students and those who dont earn enough to pay tax would see a reduction in the early part of their CFAV career but even over 20 years ago when I was low paid I never considered uniform as the money just isn’t a motivating factor.

[mike_gormley]

I seem to be in the minority here who are quite happy with rank based VA. In my own way, I like to trust that those who hold a rank (and therefore responsibility) are carrying out duties appropriate for that rank.

There is a lot more ‘work’ that we do outside 8 hour VA qualifying events that does not qualify for VA, e.g. parade night attendance, building upkeep on a spare Saturday, planning paperwork and kit prep for events. I am normally doing more than my fair share on events anyway but like to treat my Flt Lt VA as sort of an average reimbursement across all of my volunteering time.

If you have occasions where Sgts are working at a higher level of responsibility than Sqn Ldrs on a training course, I bet there are more times where the Sqn Ldr is working much harder than the Sgt on average. And, if that isn’t the case then somebody should be looking at whether that volunteer is fit (or able to dedicate sufficient time) to hold the rank of Sqn Ldr (and therefore paid accordingly).

If you reward all ranks equally then there is no incentive to progress further than Sgt/Plt Off. If you really think we should all be paid the same (or on a two tier system), then get rid of all the ranks entirely but you better make sure you evenly distribute all of the responsibility/accountability too or I’m never going to put in more effort than anyone else.

That said, I do remember being a (more) junior officer that would often think I was working harder than the CO, or Camp Comdt. Little did I appreciate just how much goes on in the background until I myself sat in those hot seats!

[pEp]

Quite. Removing VA or giving everyone the same wouldnt stop me being a CFAV. I didn’t become one for the money, like 99.9% of us.

However, it is the only thing keeping me in uniform and and OC. Remove it and I suspect that I and others like me will just revert back to being a CI. We’ll still volunteer, we will just do so more on our terms.

[Moist_Van_Lipwig]

That is exactly how I feel. The perks of being a Flt Lt Squadron Commander are few and far between. ‘Earning’ a slightly higher VA rate goes some way to making me feel valued. Chop that, and I’ll be standing down.

@mike_gormley

I seem to be in the minority here who are quite happy with rank based VA.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m also happy with the current system, but I also have a feeling the whole pay/remuneration/expenses thing is a bit of a timebomb, and can see why HQAC may want to remove it or change it.

[Giggling_fish]

I think the current system needs a review and evaluation.

I like the idea of VA, it is nice little extra but I was not expecting it to be taxed when we don’t get pensions or holiday pay or whatever else. I’m not sure if this was just me being naive though.

It was a plus for me to go into uniform to get VA but certainly wasn’t the main motivator. As a CI it was certainly frustrating to do the same things as uniformed staff and them getting VA for it (although I did get free meals and accomodation).

As the organisation is apparently keen to get more people into uniform, then I would suggest scrapping the VA scheme and replacing it with expenses may not help them achieve that aim, as I feel many, as has been said, would revert to being a CI. Unless of course they mandate that CFAVs have to be in uniform !

[Canoe_crazy]

@mike_gormley

In my own way, I like to trust that those who hold a rank (and therefore responsibility) are carrying out duties appropriate for that rank.

Then have it called pay, be classed as an employee and RAFAC need to accept the associated liabilities for those in uniform. But then uniformed CFAV need to accept there will be more responsibilities on them too.

@mike_gormley

a lot more ‘work’ that we do outside 8 hour VA qualifying events

With a ‘pay’ system maybe they could pay 2 days per month for the parade nights? When I was a reserve my 4 evening per month accumulated one days pay

@mike_gormley

If you reward all ranks equally then there is no incentive to progress further than Sgt/Plt Off. If you really think we should all be paid the same (or on a two tier system), then get rid of all the ranks entirely but you better make sure you evenly distribute all of the responsibility/accountability too or I’m never going to put in more effort than anyone else.

How does this work in other charities? Does a scout leader get more than a someone who just helps out?

@pEp

it is the only thing keeping me in uniform

Just because a volunteer allowance is allowed doesn’t mean an organization has to give it to every, or even any, volunteer. HQAC could still stipulate only uniformed CFAV are eligible to receive a VA to encourage people into uniform

@Moist_Van_Lipwig

‘Earning’ a slightly higher VA rate goes some way to making me feel valued

Would receiving a lower allowance but for all your efforts not make you feel more valued? I see comments about the amount of ‘extra’ work people do, could those comments locally affect the numbers going into uniform. Those who do the bare minimum would get less those who do a lot would get around the same, potentially a little more.

@Giggling_fish

Unless of course they mandate that CFAVs have to be in uniform

They have done that in the 2FTS chain of command, no new Civilian Gliding Instructors only those who were here before the change allowed to retain that status.

So either make it simple give me volunteer allowance that requires no/minimum admin effort on my part or admit I am an employee and give me the options on what happens with my ‘pay’.