Shock by the comment don’t like CIs. We were all one once I hope, secondly most CIs I have worked with work as hard as everyone one else for no reward of VA. There are some things CIs can’t do, in most cases it’s not because they don’t know how.or don’t want to it’s because silly rules don’t allow them to, as for the education aspect I know loads of CIs and SNCOs who have degrees but don’t move into officer route because they don’t want to.
2 Likes
How would that up us get and retain staff, further more what impact would that have on the Twitter queen’s budget, give the amount of hours our CIs give to cadets at no cost
1 Like
I’d like to nominate this thread for an award please…
…I’m just not sure whether it should be “Biggest waste of server space” or “Greatest amount of absolute twaddle”.
This is a really old topic, back in about 1982 I did a CI course at RAF Newton and this was the syndicate topic. The proposal was that all Cis would become uniformed staff a non-ex-service member of staff becoming CI but having to do an NCO course within 6 months then becoming a Sergeant and that the commission process would relate to job rather than some interview process so the Sqn OC or a member of wing staff except the Wing Warrant officer would have to do the Initial officer course/ senior officer course before taking up the appointment.
The proposal “that all Cis would become uniformed staff” was dropped because around 85% of Cis when asked rejected it with a high number stating they would leave and it was felt that if they did the organisation would be irreparably damaged and the increase in cost. Cis are cheap (no pay, no uniform, less training costs etc.) to do at times a similar job? This was about the time Cis got a pass similar to the uniformed staff I was told I had to pick mine up from wing one week and return it the week after due to cost?
The proposal “that the commission process would relate to job” was rejected by the VRTs as they wanted the “exclusive” part of the process I think it made them feel superior to the rest. After all, as a Cadet youth organisation what benefit is OASC in the appointment of an ATC Officer?
For myself I am still a CI and as such have been a Sqn Adjutant, Training Officer and most other jobs at sqn level at different times and different squadrons as the only jobs a CI can’t do at that level is OC, Sqn Warrant Officer or hold the inventory.
As for all Cis wanting to go in uniform I can assure you that is pure fantasy.
The issue is one of retaining staff, it isn’t about whether people are uniform or CI’s its about how we treat our volunteers and the time and process of getting people through the door. The role of CI is not what it was originally intended to be and there is no reason why it couldn’t be reforned.
I would go with something similar to the ACF model but Air Force it up.
So bloke walks in off the street get their DBS and joining paperwork done including WSC interview and once their 6 months is up becomes an LAC. There is then a structured period over 18 months where they do certain bits of mandatory training and get a grip on being a member of staff. (This could be delivered by Regions overseen by ATF similar to how the SATT’s work with SASC).
At what is effectively the 2 year mark they either go to OASC and dependant on their choices and their results are then streamed Officer or NCO or they choose not to go to OASC and instead become SAC’s with ten potential to become Corporals after 4 years.
What difference does this make to our existing CI’s? None they carry on indefinitely.
Within 5 years their won’t be a Cadet (our biggest recruitment pool) or a parent (our 2nd biggest recruitment pool) who remembers it being any different. Random walk ins won’t know any different either and would hardly be shocked that a uniform organisation would expect them to wear uniform.
For those going “ ah but no one would join” I don’t see the ACF demanding a CI role as the solution to their Staff shortage. As far as pay goes that’s under review anyway so that can be reformed as part of this, with pay being linked to role on the activity in question.
3 Likes
No regular/reserve selection boards for RN/Army Contingent staff - application/interview and pre-OIC training by TEST staff instead. Army have introduced adult SNCO but takeup has so far been poor: it was seen as useful for some (CEP?) and schools not interested are free to ignore.
The issue with OASC/AOSB etc. for CCF staff is that if CCF uniformed service forms part of your job, and you ‘fail’, then you are a ‘failure’ at your job… whereas those who are volunteering with the ATC can still turn up to work the next day with no repercussions. Hence while it has been discussed, it has never happened.
I agree CCFs should have more CIs - CCF(RAF) CIs were introduced by the previous Wg Cdr CCF.
1 Like
Personally, I would like to keep CIs.
I generally agree with the system you suggest, but I’d also have CI running in parallel, with joining as a CI expected to be an end in itself (eg if you join as a CI, you’d generally be expected to remain as a CI indefinitely). I think it’d help CIs, as now they wouldn’t be seen as just being at ‘step one’ or ‘entry level’, but as a separate stream as was the original intention. If nothing else, it should remove the ‘when are you going in to uniform’ badgering.
does that ever stop? perhaps in wording but not in the desire to keep “progressing”
as a SNCO there are questions “when are you due promotion/what do you still need to do”
as a Officer “when are you going to be OC”?
[/thread creep]
Perhaps, but this way there would be a clear option for people that don’t want to be badgered.
As an OC I have the same control over my CIs as I do any SNCOs/Officers (If I had any) because we’re all volunteers, some of us just where something slightly different from others.
1 Like
Lack of control usually = poor leadership/management
If people really didn’t want to wear a uniform they could go the registered Civ Com route which is effectivly what CI’s were supposed to be.
Make life easy and combine the two?
i was always thought they were intended to be a “civilian contractor” - get the local mechanic in to teach about engines, or a representative from a model club, radio group, flying or other to teach elements where specialist knowledge, skill or experience is required - certainly over and above the “typical” staff member’s “common knowledge”
1 Like
Which is the way I see registered Civ Com members (certainly the ones I have dealt with) they come in do something “special” and then go. Far closer than the current system of CI’s who are doing everything that NCO’s or Officers do.
I’m a fan of CIs. When we’ve had cadets age out and stay on as staff, it’s valuable to give them some separation from being a cadet and let them go get some life experience before jumping straight back into uniform.
But then, we’ve had the luxury of having a few members of staff, so I appreciate that’s not going to apply to everyone.
1 Like
I only see the CWC as a group looking after welfare, either on an individual basis or for the unit, which is not necessarily simply financial support (fund raising and distribution of that) and management.
CI’s are the “special ones” – they have a skill, knowledge, experience or qualification. They come to unit to delivery it and then go. But over time they haven’t gone and have stayed for the benefit of the organisation
There is a chicken and the egg issue here, some will say that CI’s have taken on more responsibilities due to a shortage of uniformed staff, others will say that there is a shortage of uniformed staff because we have allowed CI’s for more responsibility than was originally intended.
1 Like
In my case, I have took on the training officer role as a CI in preparation for a uniformed role later this year (hopefully). Although, the person already doing the job was a CI who had no intention of going into uniform, but we only had the CO as a uniformed member of staff until recently.
Quite frankly, this CI couldn’t wait to hand me the reigns. So, I don’t think CIs don’t want to be in uniform for the reason of already doing exec roles etc.
1 Like
I’d say 80/20.