I get your sentiment Steve, but T&Cs are changing - the minimum will be changing the complaints procedure, and whilst we have precedent with CIs and NCOs we don’t have anything in writing confirming that (that I can remember).
The issue is that we simply don’t know. You cannot expect someone to sign up to something if you haven’t clarified exactly what they’re signing up to. Yes we could say “everything will mirror the NCO/CI procedure we have now” but then you get to things like changing the way promotions are handled (from time served to meeting criteria) which, although I agree with and is a good thing, I haven’t seen yet - but will be an integral part of the new commission. That can’t be right can it?
Although it feels like a job at points, and I do probably about as much as an OC as I would do in a part time job, I’m under no illusion that I’m a volunteer.
That said, good practice dictates that you afford your volunteers the same respect and treatment as you would any paid staff, and if this process was done as badly as this to paid staff I’m sure people would be complaining more.
Why?
To be honest those that see the rank as important are not looking at it from a cadet perspective
As we are all civilians in uniform the rank is there to demonstrate a hierarchy to the cadets.
Therefore Sqn OCs should be Flt Lts, WSO Sqn Ldr , Wings commanded by Wg Cdr.
If you are not in that post you should revert to an appropriate rank
We are not regulars so have not been promoted to ranks - we are wearing the rank appropriate to the post we are holding
There are rules in place for those that desperately want to hold onto the post nominals after they leave - I have never used any of the ones I am entitled to but hey ho - each to their own
I imagine the walts will be scanning the new ACPs to see what post nominal they will be able to keep later - should be interesting for those that ‘done the time’ to claim FLt Lt RAF VR(T) Retd on leaving but are pushing for Sqn Ldr and above - what will theirs be on retirement??
I don’t think it’s waltish to want to retain some link to a commission you once held, regardless of status. If I could I would go to retired but I don’t meet the requirements. I wouldn’t use it for anything than my own personal piece of history and memory of a commission I once held.
I agree with this - although to a point as it is only really applied for a OC = Flt Lt position
But this is only seen as Fg Offs are typically promoted soon after OC appointment – and only up the chain (few step down and lose their rank)
There are units in our Wing 2 or 3+ WOs with at least one who have been appointed under the new scheme (Sgt>FS>WO)
There is no “post” for them as a WO - there was at least one prior WO on the unit so in theory no “SWO” position (which it is arguable we don’t have formally so difficult to enforce)
I agree with ranks appropriate to the position, but to be able to have this it should be applied across the spectrum, ie SNCO also.
Else it would be possible to have a Squadron with
1 x Flt lt
2x Fg Offs
3 x WOs
X x CIs
A cap on the level an officer can reach but not for SNCO
I don’t see any benefit to demoting people, fair enough if they have spent 6 months as a Flt Lt and then give it up, but those who have spent considerable time as OC’s or WSO’s should be allowed to keep the rank that they have earned.
As it stands at the moment you see lots of OC’s with many years in post who step down, but stay on as a Squadron Officer to assist the unit and generally they have trained and prepared their own replacement. To say to them “thanks for all the hard work, you’re being demoted” is not exactly valuing them and the work they have done, how many of them will instead step down and become CI’s or go onto Committees instead? Considering how short we are of uniformed staff you would think we would be doing everything we could to retain staff!
(I’m not advocating that we have “time served” Flt Lt promotions anymore, but if you have held a rank for a considerable period of time you shouldn’t be punished for taking a step back but still staying on to help.)
I know what you are getting at
My niggle is > it rubs me when people say “signing up to” as if there will be a new piece of paper to scribble at the bottom of. I can understand the point if that piece of paper is forthcoming yet all is has is the headed note paper and sign here at the bottom with the elements missing.
But as far as I have heard – we aren’t expected to resign anything.
(I appreciate your use of signing up may not be literal but instead mean signing up to = agreement. And if so I share the concern of agreeing to rebrand while not knowing what, if anything, will change. I admit I haven’t seen anything to say things will or won’t change > perhaps a question for RC(N) via the ask the team forum?)
With regard to potential changes to promotions:
We have heard about the changes to Officer promotion/rank progression for some time (it could even been as soon after the SNCO one came in) and I am sure it has been discussed within this forum. If this had come in as a VRT element would there be the same stink kicked up?
I don’t recall the SNCOs screaming blue murder when the automatic 4 year promotion moved to the criteria matrix.
Nor do I remember there being a cry of the expectations being unfair or too difficult to achieve – as we know there are some exceptions that are afforded a promotion without ticking all the boxes, but generally the right people are recognised for their efforts.
As this is a “fresh start” I cannot see why elements which are sensible additions shouldn’t be included at the same time – however do agree it would be nice to have clarity in what format this is expected to be in. if only to say “the same as the SNCO conditions with a promotion matrix to be considered”
The NCO promotion was never “automatic after 4 years” the matrix just standardised it as before then Wings were making up their own criteria. I don’t have a problem with a similar matrix coming in for Officers, but if it does then I would be even more against demotions than I already am.
Not automatic, the Sqn OC needed to approve it.
So, mostly the same as automatic.
In my view, ALL promotions should be based on a matrix (of relevant points) and and a promotion board. A lot about the SNCO matrix is still pretty much automatic, with the expectation of promotion as opposed to trying to justify and earn it.
If we don’t care about the standards required for promotion, why do we bother with rank?
Agreed, not sure I would worry about a formal board for FS or Fg Off, just have that as a Matrix and an interview with the WSO (with Sector WO having input on FS).
For Flt Lt and WO I don’t see any issues with a matrix and a full board, although we would then have to accept that not all OC’s would be Flt Lt straight away and I would want to see a formal WO Course at ATF which was mooted when NCO progression came in but never happened.
Ragging non-off road vehicles on training areas, using those little rulers to check badge positions, pie eating contest? The options are endless! (Promise we will go back on topic soon PeP)
Much of this is not about ‘What’ is happening - it’s more about the ‘Why’ and the ‘How’ it is happening.
We are being asked to tacitly consent to a new framework of employment (to use your analogy). Within this framework will facilitate the means to change ‘terms of reference’ to whatever suits the organisation without recourse. This includes ranks (not that I see much point in them anymore), how things are managed when things go wrong and (whilst it has been denied) Pay & VA later on.
Others have already said about engaging volunteers to bring them on and move forward. HQAC (or whatever it is called now) seems to have casually dismissed this basic fundamental change management principle - which given certain backgrounds and experience by the Senior Leadership is surprising at best.
All of this, the mess up in implementation and the poor reasons given for the change just don’t stack up to a promising proposition for Joe and Jenny Volunteer.
This is a generic answer so please lets not have individuals taking this the wrong way
SNCO rank is an identifier of experience for those whose role is primarily ‘front of house’ with the cadets (not talking internal posts eg Adj, Trg etc). Although I am not in favour of multiple WOs on a unit if you have an experienced team - lucky you
Likewise for Officers - for cadets when they see us ‘front of house’ it is easier if they see a defined hierarchy - Flt Lt OC plus other officers. If ex CO stands down but remains no big deal if he reverts to Fg Off - after a couple of years no cadets that remember him as Flt Lt will remain so it becomes a peer thing only with other staff. New OC would be mad if did not utilize their experience (although I’m sure that will happen with some).
We are only Substantive as Fg Offs - let people keep for post noms if they have met criteria if they wish
I don’t think this is a problem for the exMil contingent as they see it for what it is and don’t get hung up on it. I will never get past my substantive retd rank so no issue for me
I don’t see any difference between WO not in a WO role and a Flt Lt not in a Flt Lt role, in both cases the rank is a sign of their experience. I wouldn’t even be opposed to only paying Flt Lt/WO pay to those in designated roles as an OC/Squadron WO or Wing Post.
If we are no longer in the RAFVR(T) why would we still only have a substantive rank of Fg Off? That is a left over from when VR officers had a war role and in the event of the Soviets coming it being possible for them to be mobilised. This is no longer the case, our rank and commissions are only within our own organksagion so their is no need for all of this acting paid/unpaid is there?
And that is a bit of a big bearer of mine, our RC has brought in
rules that change us from the rest of the corps policies rightly or wrongly!
we should all be the same policy across the board.
A neighbouring Sqn OC had to wait several years for there Flt Lt promotion
running the Sqn as a Plt Off then did SCC but had to wait until our regions policy was done (which took nearly 5 years for the wait and the paperwork to be done!).
where as a person on the course had done their OIC then returned a week later completed SCC and walked out as a Flt Lt only 3 weeks after arriving as an officer cadet all because their region had a different policy.
regardless of wether thats right or wrong a policy MUST be set and kept across the whole organisation or there is no point to the various matrix’s
(Promise we will go back on topic soon PeP)
