Why is hair relevant to this thread?
some people are suggesting that loss of VR(T) will allow them to become scruffy oiks.
If a cadet refused to comply with rules/regs for no reason, I donât think I would welcome them at my unit.
It is sort of relevant to be discussing how to enforce rules and regulations that will no longer specifically apply to us I suppose.
But if they had a reason?
How about âIâm growing it out for a band Iâm inâ or âall my mates have this styleâ, or even âmy mum wonât let meâ?
If the cadet was growing his hair to fit in with another group, then I would discuss options with them. I have a choice to either allow them to stay or not?
Personally those reasons would not be acceptable to me. If you want to stay, comply with the rules.
But is it @pEp??
The same situation has been in place for SNCOs and always will be the case for Cadets â the loss of the VRT is a rebranding exercise. I really do doubt there will any change in the (dress regulation) expectation upon us.
Although I sympathise with those who feel emotional by the loss of VRT, the CFC status as civilians in Uniform is not new â the SNCOs and Cadets have been running under the same status for the last 76 yearsâŚ.
3 Likes
I donât disagree that the practical day to day output shouldnât change.
The issue will occur when every policy document we have references being VRT and I sincerely doubt this will change at the crossover - making a strange position of having to comply with regulations that donât specifically include us from a technical point of view.
In practice, if you ignore the rules of the organisation of course theyâre going to take some action. The problem I have at the moment is how will that action occur? No one has seen any documentation of the new terms and conditions which weâre going to be subject to. Itâs a little strange - would you accept your employer, your mortgage, your anything changing your terms and conditions but only telling you after the change?
Question:
When were Warrant Officers introduces to the ATC??
I have seen plenty of pictures from the 40âs and there is no WOs in the picturesâŚ
The reason I ask if Iâm correct when the ATC was founded it was to be led by the VRT. If thatâs correct then WOs would of been VRT from the beginning
And yes a lot of this is down to emotional loss. You see the same when squadrons or regiments get disbanded, clubs shut or stations closed. People that have a connection or a link feel emotional loss and thatâs understandable.
However with that comes the issue of how itâs done, reason and end result.
I think most people are in agreement that the how of this change has been pretty poor. I feel sorry for RC (N) who is having to implement what people must know is a generally unpopular move and have to deal with the day to day feedback from sites like this.
I donât think anyone is questioning the reason. It makes no sense for us to be subject to the AFA or to be reservists under technicality. We arenât in the same boat and so we donât need that branch of the law over us.
Lastly the end result, and this is a culmination of the other two. If handled properly and the reason was just, most of the anger would dissipate. Not all, people still arenât going to like it but they might be accepting.
If you handle it badly, put peopleâs backs up and then donât really explain the reason that well why would you expect any other outcome than the people it effects pushing back?
5 Likes
Thanks, not sure how I missed that. Shame they donât push it back to the 1st of April 2018 then it could coincide with RAF 100.
Thereâs still time. I may well be wrong but I assume this warrant will be signed and made official at a Privy Council meeting. It wasnât in the October one and it isnât on the draft agenda for November though that is still subject to change.
1 Like
How do you know?
Emailed round at work so we know whether Orders in Council weâve drafted will be dealt with.
Over the years Iâve been around Iâve picked up various contacts around the country. Strangely i know at least one in every region and over the last week Iâve reached out via various routes to catch up and do a howgoesit? They have various years of experience and are placed across the spectrum of posts and positions yet everyone of them report of being fed up, tired, hacked off, ready to bin it (two already binned it in the last month) and echo the feeling across their geographical peers.
Are we on a worrying cliff edge? Are the toadying sycophants hiding a true feeling?
4 Likes
This is a pivotal moment in the history of the ATC and it is completely in the hands of the current ACMB. Get it wrong and their world has the potential to come crumbling down and they will be the ones who go down in history as undoing all the work of a certain JA Chamier in the 1930s, not something they would want on their epitaph or Wiki.
There needs to be the recognition that we (officers) are no longer part of the military and like our adult NCO brethren, civilians in uniform, nothing more nothing less. It has come to a point in time where we need one set of rules for everyone and not add in nonsensical caveats for those in uniform and these need to be in place before the current deadline of 02 DEC, which I can see moving back again. I donât think those in uniform will rebel and let their hair grow head or facial, with respect to the latter where is the problem though. Not my thing, but we have no military responsibility to remain clean shaven.
Iâve been part of a works council and the company would bring up changes of all sorts, some would be discussed and agreed and some required union involvement. What is happening in the cadet forces now would be in the latter camp. I know we are not unionised but if a company was to bring something like this to the table and say this is what we are doing, without any consultation would be corporate suicide. I donât want to see it, but if this caused the ATC to shrink massively and lose itâs status, I would be laughing out loud at the people going to the job centre to get a job in B&Q or collecting trolleys, that were once earning ÂŁ80K plus as FTRS in the ACO. If the ATC stopped tomorrow, we the volunteers would still get paid at the end of the month and get nights and weekends back, although I would start doing something else, as per the requests for my involvement in things are manifold.
I wonder how those of the ACMB in love with FB and twitter, would handle slipping into obscurity?
2 Likes
that i cannot disagree withâŚ
âŚbut who has said T&Cs ARE changing?
Why would the T&Cs need to change? â the expected reaction is âbecause weâre not RAF/VRT anymore. To which I answer. Neither are SNCOs and they have a list of T&Cs that work fine and unless anyone can indicate otherwise match exactly those that are/were relevant for VRT. â why would RAFAC/CFC Officers not have the same T&Cs of the SNCO? If the only change to the SNCOs is the rank slide, why change their T&Cs?
Indeed as we are all now under the RAFAC title, why would the T&Cs change at all save for adopting the name?
If we treat this as a rebranding exercise. Which in the most optimistic case it is (ignoring the change of VRT âstatusâ for the time being) then all that changes is the cloth on our shoulders. Given that nothing has been said otherwise I cannot see why that should be the only change on the shopfloor.
(excuse this example â best I can think of)
One day you work for British Steel, the next day you work for Tata â Same title, same job, same responsibility, same hours same expectation just a different company name on your overalls.
Ok so now you donât produce a truly âBritish productâ and maybe the pension or benefits have changed, perhaps updated to the world of today rather than stuck in the ways of the British Steel heyday which is out of touch with the current market.
In an optimists mind that is the RAFAC/CFC:
Same rank, same authority, same responsibility, same expectations just RAFAC on our shoulders in place of VRT.
Ok so we lose the âdirectâ connection to the RAF (but how real was it anyway?). Maybe the legality of the role has changed; perhaps the position/status in the structure has been updated to the true meaning of the term âAir Cadetsâ rather than harking back to the âgood ole daysâ of the RAFs heyday when the majority of VRTs were ex-service personnel.
The pessimist will indicate as a new âjobâ no longer an RAF Reserve, but an Air Cadet Staff member comes a change in âemploymentâ â âI donât work for the RAF anymore, I work for HQACâ if that is you, I label you a walt and claim my ÂŁ5.
I could understand the point of view if we had to apply for our own âjobsâ â but we do not.
I could understand the point of view if we had to accept something that has not been seen before â but we donât â we have seen it/do see it with the SNCO (ATC)s
I could understand the point of view if we had to take on new/different responsibilities or expectations of the role â but we arenât.
Changing the conditions of a mortgage, or utility supply without consultation would be wrong â I agree
But this is a change in name, no one has mentioned changing T&CsâŚ.
This is like a move from Innogy to nPower, or Orange to EE â the bill is the same, the name at the top of the letter has changed thatâs all.
4 Likes
This isnât a job.
I volunteer within the ATC.
I âworkâ for the cadets on my squadron and in my wing.
and i donât disagree with you
note the use of " " around job
note the claim of both pessimist and walt
those who see it as a job do so falsely but it is these who are kicking up a fuss regarding the loss of âstatusâ
Except there are rumours circulating that things will be changing with this new commission, the biggest one Iâve heard of is about is reducing people in rank if they change roles. So for example now if you spend a significant period of time as an OC and then step down you retain your Flt Lt rank. Iâm hearing from people higher up that this will be changed under the new commission, so you could spend 20 years as an OC but if you take a step back you go back down to Fg Off, which if true is more great valuing of our volunteers!