While I can understand the frustration expressed in this thread, it might sometimes be useful to reflect on the MOD wide situation in respect of its sponsored cadet forces.
While HQAC and the CAC may be the top of our pyramid they only represent 1(or 1 1/3) of the 4 cadet delivery organisations. While they have been parties to the debates and decision making concerning the changes to the Cadet Force Commissions they do not own the legal or supply systems within which the RAFAC has to operate.
Implementation dates have undoubtedly been issued based on best intentions but, as often, events and other priorities both within and outside the cadet world will have impacted and caused delays. The changes are coming and will in due course bed in. If I was to make one suggestion it would be that in an organisation delivered by volunteers it is better to have all the pieces of the jigsaw puzzle in place and then announce an achievable implementation date.
That some individuals criticise both the organisation for its perceived weaknesses and its âsycophanticâ supporters for what are seen as unnecessarily supportive comments is no surprise as individual volunteers often first engage their emotions ( the same passion that makes the RAFAC experience such a good one)⌠At the end of the day the organisation is here to deliver those positive opportunities for cadets -perhaps we could all agree on that?
Celticmentor, I do no disagree with any thing you say but I the fact is that the very people who are here to deliver the cadet experence have been treated like a mushroom.
During the whole process nobody has explained how this change will improve the cadet experence.
The problem is that âwe have a bright idea lets implement it nowâ with no plan as to how itâs going to happen or âwe are 90% ready so letâs do it nowâ is an attitude and process which has permeated this organisation for too long. You only need to look at the LASER Review & PTS to see that this is not an isolated incident caused by outside factors.
When the whole reason for the change is either a lie (as many believe it is more to do with our staus as employees than the complaints procedure) or if the reasoni is true, is based on a unwillingness to deal with incompetence when it comes to dealing with staff complaints (afterall if the system worked people wouldnât be appealing to the crown).
Added to that we have the whole rebranding Exercise which the Commandant has been attempting by increments since she took over, which has been bolted on to the Commission change for no real reason other than itâs her pet project and without anyone caring what we the people who have been here for 20 years think.
Once you get passed all of that and accept that itâs what you are stuck with anyway, when they still canât even implement it right, thatâs when you get to te point we are all at now.
Itâs all well and good trotting out the âwe are all in it for the cadets lineâ but we are also in it for our own enjoyment, if we didnât enjoy it we wouldnât put up with it all and making us feel about as valued as something you need to scrape of your shoe as this process has done is not valuing our staff.
i donât think the last sentence is in dispute, however in any organisation satisfaction among the work force is paramount. Maybe being âex-RAFâ they donât understand that.
Dissatisfaction leads to disputes (one of the reasons for this change is people god forbid being in dispute with things) and in the extreme withdrawl of labour ie strike, or people think had enough of this turd sandwich and move on. As someone born in the first half of the 60s I am well versed in the grief that strikes bring and the longer term effects.
Not that we as CFAV can really strike but we can leave, which does affect the cadets. There have in the last 18 months seen more and more people leaving, either by going NEP or just going and not as many coming through to replace them. Most people leave the Corps as they are dissatisfied with the way they are treated which generally translates into requirements to do more and more, put into roles / positions purely on a you are doing this and no argument and, the general poor level of engagement in processes and communication. The Corps has always operated on a basis of the goodwill of the volunteer staff, I fear this is dissipating which doesnât bode well for the future. However this is not restricted to the ATC, chatting to people I know in the ACF, people are drifting away as well.
There is much that has been written in the last hour or so with which I agree. The critical issue with any organisation delivered by volunteers is to understand their emotional attachment and commitment to the organisation they serve. There is no doubt in my mind that a number of full time employees of the RAFAC either do not recognise that fact or choose to ignore it. If the leadership of any similar organisation adopt a âifthey donât like it they can leaveâ attitude then many, usually reluctantly, will do just that.
I am sure that the CAC believes that she is building the strongest organisation she can for the future. We could open up a whole new debate on that one but I would ask that we should all take into account the many constraints , outside the control of the RAFAC, that are having a negative effect that aspiration. My list ( far from complete) would include: a real terms declining defence budget, reduction in the size of the civil service, reduction of the RAF footprint, reduction in uniformed personnel and the rise in contractorisation. All these challenges increase the pressures on the remaining full time staff and therefore it should come as no surprise when the administration of the organisation falls far below what we should expect.
Constraints are one thing. Incompetence and lack of effective communication, is entirely another.
Many of those rtgings have been a problem for years. Contractorisation raised itâs head where I work over 20 years ago, when they got rid of the cleaning staff and then canteen, I remember seeing it the RAF while at camp and not being fussed, apart for the associated jobsworth attitude. Reducing manning, tighter budgets (a global phenomenon) and the other things in all walks of life not just the civil service / public sector, has meant we all have associated problems. The fact the ACO in particular seems to be a safe haven for ex military who do not understand how we operate etc has to be an ongoing worry.
The cadet forces need to change and that this was IIRC outlined in DYER, but for any number of reasons the ACO didnât want to play along. The changes that are happening are IMO leading to a âgradual equalisationâ of the cadet forces, such that they can operate under one banner. I donât however overlook the vanity of people in Cranwell past and present seeking to make these changes happen and claim it for themselves.
Incompetence and a lack of effective communication are not just the preserve of HQAC. In terms of the constraints,few are new but the accumulated effect is growing. For example if I recall correctly pre the reduction in the CS in 2010 onwards the then ACO already had a smaller number of full time staff if compared with the ACF. The reduction ( plus the fact that the skills loss could be concentrated on particular areas rather than spread sensibly) did not help. I am not in a position to comment on the âsafe havenâ observation but there does seem to be a lack of practical hands-on cadet delivery experience across senior management.
This is at very crux of the matter in many ways and explains why there has been a need to initiate a project to find out how they value the volunteers.
Iâve just been chatting with a mate in another wing. It seems that theyâve been told that now all VGS officers will retain their VR(T) status, rather than the few that was originally envisagedâŚ
Not that I would want to belittle a administrative role, the skills are pretty universal, with a little bit of specific knowledge about systems. If the implication is by loss of skills is that people were confined to one role and able only to do one thing, as such leaving meant no one could take up the slack, that is poor management. Anyway the supervisor or even manager should be able to step up.
RC(N) said something different today on Ask the team.
Where does that leave the NCOs as they are and always have been civilians in uniform (no disrespect meant). Also according to RC(N) the VR(T) will live on in the AEF.
I might have missed something along the way but what is the intent with CGIâs and SNCO(ATC) on VGS? Will they all be granted VR(T) status as officers if they are in a âflying supervisionâ role?
Just checked with my mate.
He has apparently been told that some roles on a VGS require the post holder to be subject to the Armed Forces Act, and since every officer on a VGS can be expected to undertake those roles at some point, then every officer will have to remain VR(T).
I seem to have missed that too! God only knows what will happenâŚ
Itâs getting quite messy, really. Instead of just the one commission needed to work within the RAFAC, we are now looking at CFC, VR(T), and now, apparently, a brand new VR commision as well. It is starting to feel like squadron staff are getting the short end of the wedge here.
Iâm sure it will be totally worth it in the long run, though⌠
I heard 2FTS has been weighing into the party for âhis boys and girlsâ
So why do VGS need to be subject to the AFA?
What do they do that we donât that needs this additional requirement.
TBH Iâm glad that we are going to be rid of the AFA side of things, I canât see what benefit it brought individuals, except through the grievance / complaint side, it only seemed to provide a list of rules we could be stung with if the mood took them.
Iâm intrigued as to what authority an RAF Officer has over us now. Can we be told you must and an expectation that you do it, or do we now have to be asked and we decide if we want to or not?
I only suspect, and Iâm sure a VGS type will be slog shortly to answer with confidence, but the VGS fleet come under the Military Airworthyness rules and as such the people who sign off on certain parts or operations have to be subject to the AFA.
I guess that depends on the Tos they offer us (assuming they tell us before granting us the new commission)
The same question could be asked about SNCOs who it has been stated are civilians in uniform, sorry youth workers. If we are yelled at walking over or near a parade Sqn
The idea of this change was to make us equal Iâm still thinking itâs us and them
New VR type? First Iâve heard, any more you can share?