VR(T) Commission Change


#587

What they had to start with was practically nothing. I imagine that the “honorary” recognition merely put them on the same footing in terms of acknowledgement as the ATC, ACF and CCF officers enjoyed. As we don’t expect the latter to change in practical terms it will be an assurance to our fishy brethren that it will be business as usual. In fact, with them holding an official cadet-forces commission there will be no real need for the honorary recognition as they will hold a real commission in a separate (cadet) arm of the armed forces.


#588

Which is exactly what I am driving at - where is the parity?


#589

The VRT angle has nothing to do with parity it’s a teddy chuck by MOD types who have had their failings to deal with problems exposed.


#590

Apologies if this has already been discussed, I did just spend 30 mins reading the thread from my previous post, honest.

Will officers at HQAC (incl. CAC), Regions and WExOs be moving over any time soon?


#591

Yes but only the VRT ones (some legacy RAFR ones knocking about).


#592

The parity is an emergent advantage from the change. The driver is that we have some members of the VR(T) who are self-important and don’t know when to admit defeat. The new commission will limit the damage they can do, though we still need robust HR processes to manage all staff better.


#593

Maybe if the organisation treated people who give their time and money freely with respect then the sort of problems that seem to have resulted in this change wouldn’t have happened.

Our local Scout association has seen a number of experienced leaders leave recently as the new DC came in upset a number of people. I was chatting to one of our neighbours, who has been in the scouting organisation for 40 odd years as a leader, and brought several troops back from the brink, is binning it and you couldn’t hope to find someone more dedicated and passionate about the Scouting organisation.

You can sense some parallels given the backlash over this change. Unwarranted and unnecessary on the flimsy basis given, but quite obviously part of a larger plan for CF overall and this is only the first step to get the ‘ducks in a row’. Some will say I’m reading too much into it, but I’ve seen some pretty shoddy practice at work where things seem to happen that are completely disconnected and then the plan comes together and it all makes sense. I think this started when the Army took over CF shooting and what is happening now is just another part. Of course no one will say anything as it would cause too much unrest and people may well leave across all CF on the basis of it.


#594

Will the MoD and other Goverment Agencies/Departments recognise this new Commission in same light as the VR Commissions and grant staff additional paid leave (to attend camps) as per currently?

If they don’t then there is no impetus for Private Companies to follow suit.

(Perhaps a question for the Seniors reading this thread opposed to fellow posters)


#595

Hopefully not - it always seemed to me to be bordering on fraudulent to take up additional leave intended for proper reserve forces just to benefit our particular hobby. If the company granting the leave was fully aware of the specifics of cadet forces then they are able to make an informed decision but I know that was not always the case.


#596

Probably the best question is whether they currently grant such leave to ATC SNCOs/WOs. If they do, then they will almost certainly continue - if they don’t, then as Incubus says then they probably never meant to anyway.


#597

The MOD grants a weeks ‘special paid’ leave as an additional entitlement to all personnel who are involved in the cadets whether CI/SNCO/Officer.


#598

Whether its a VR(T) RAFVR(T) or RAF VR(T) thats we signed on to, a point you avoided.

I doubt I would not have joined 30 odd years ago if it were not for the close attachment. Being ex military I felt reassured that I would be working to the same rule book. I even have my own copy of QR’s (Unamended) but if I had joined the other paramilitary organsisations (the scouts) I would not know the rules or even if there were any. I suspect I would have been another of those ex servicemen who give youth a wide berth.


#599

Just had a further thought. I know many employers who give RAFVR(T) extra leve days rather than claim off annual holiday. How will that work in the future. I doubt if it was an offical entitlement but I know some that need it. Time with the family AND time with cadets instead of either/or


#600

You sound like a regular I’d certainly avoid.


#601

I stole them from Colchester


#602

From an institution on Beerchurch Hall Road perchance?


#603

I may have already expressed my view elsewhere, but I think there are several interconnected reasons for the switch to a Cadet Forces Commission.

  1. The MOD has finally accepted (had to accept) that uniformed, remunerated CFAVs, are - legally - employees. My sources tell me this has come about through ACF Service Complaints related to our (CF Offrs) not being entitled to the “new” reservist offer; inc. pension and holiday pay. As these SCs have escalated, and legal advice has been taken, it has become clear that the MOD position on commissioned CFAVs has become somewhat precarious. Interesting, I changed jobs recently, and my HMRC tax coding notice form (P2) clearly stated that I had other taxable income from the “RAF Reserve”. Clearly, HMRC - correctly- sees commissioned CFAVs as reservists; and I suspect this would be the basis of any legal case to establish the full legal status of commissioned CFAVs (and whether they are therefore entitled to the current reservist offer), finally putting to bed the “are we volunteers or are we employees” argument. I also wonder whether the speed and undue haste with which the CF Commission appears to have been lashed together has anything to do with that.

  2. As referenced above - the “new” reservist offer is effectively part-time employment; inc. pension, sick, and holiday pay. Although I don’t have it to hand, this is alluded to in one of the official communications we’ve received; something along the lines of “the terms and conditions of deployable reservists has changed recently, and it is no longer appropriate for CFAVs to have similar TCOS”. That isn’t it word for word, but it’s the message. I’ll try and find the actual quote. I read this as a tacit admission of #1 above.

  3. Service Complaints are a problem - CFAVs, due to their civilian employ/HR experience, and the fact that many are quite simply more “Bolshie” (as it won’t damage their career) - are more likely to complain if something doesn’t go their way, less likely to be fobbed off, and more likely to use the system. I also understand that - as stated in #1 - the SC system has been used to try and establish that uniformed, remunerated CFAVs are legally employees (“Volunteer Allowance” and “Volunteer Agreements” anyone?); and that commissioned CFAVs are entitled to the current reservist offer, by virtue of legally being reservists (the issue of call out liability aside).

The combination of all these factors has - in my view - in the last couple of years, resulted in the moves to try and reinforce the volunteer nature of CFAV service (and play down/deny any suggestion that we might, legally, be employees - especially commissioned CFAVs who are reservists); and not culminates in the CF Commission, lifting us entirely out of the Reserve Forces, and any entitlements so conferred legally through membership. I strongly suspect that the next move will be a bounty based VA, that is linked to how many eligible days you put in, rather than rank/status (moving away from the suggestion of rank-based progression/remuneration; which suggests employment. Either that, or standby for VA to go completely “because we can’t afford it”; but in actuality because it is remuneration for services performed - i.e. a form of employment.

Cheers
BTI(actual!)


#604

Interesting thoughts there,
It will be very interesting to see what happens with VA overtime, it’s already been announced it will be looked at in the coming year.

If VA went completely it would be the final straw I recon for a lot of people, so it could be more interesting times ahead…


#605

I see this as an incremental approach; decouple the CFs from the RFs by virtue of the nature of the commissioning of Offrs, then move on to the trickier question of addressing the employment issue.

The fact that commissioned CFAVs are reservists and therefore employees is IMHO a slam dunk now, as evidenced by the need to de-couple. Although SCs are a problem they are also a straw man for the real issue of employment status. Once commissioned CFAVs are no longer reservists, the wider issues can be addressed. It recently occurred to me that all mention of Employment Tribunals has been removed from ACP20, whereas ACP20B used to give guidance on these as part of the redress of grievance process (anyone still got a copy for reference)?

The only way in which I can see the remuneration issue being resolved, so that there is no legal status of employment, is what is now being called VA (predictive programming!) becoming a “very generous” allowance for any out of pocket expenses incurred during uniformed CFAV duties; e.g. uniformed staff would claim VA rather than F1771 travel, MIE, etc. I think HTD is safe, since it is reasonable reimbursement of expenses for volunteering and is not - legally - remuneration. All conjecture, of course.

All of this revolves around the central issue of whether uniformed and remunerated CFAVs are employees or volunteers. Can you imagine the financial implications for the MOD if someone mounted a successful legal challenge?

I can also confirm - as reported earlier in the thread - that Captain Sea Cadets has briefed the SCC that they will retain honorary RNR status when the CF Commission comes into effect. Although I think this outcome unlikely, if it works for the SCC, I don’t see why honorary RAFVR status couldn’t work for us.

Cheers
BTI


#606

CFAV are not reservists, wish everyone would stop kidding themselves on that.