PVR & RoS

[letsgoandfly]

I'm currently a Sgt WSOp(EW) with 5 years remaining out of my 12. I completed my first OCU in early 2007 and am now faced with the prospect of having to move down South etc but I'd rather stay in the area I'm in at present as my family is settled, I own my house and I like it up here!

I had to sign a 6-year RoS to be allowed to go on my OCU but have been offered a civilian job in the area where I live - obviously, my RoS expires in early 2013 but does anyone know if they can hold me to it? I know Sgts aren't in Tranche 1 and are nearly at manning balance for 2015 but I can't afford to move down South and am totally p!ssed off with RAF now and just want out. Can they hold me to the RoS or is it possible to get round it?

Cheers, Letsgo

[PTC REMF]

In theory I think that they can hold you to a RoS if required, but you're probably better off asking these questions to your Posting Officer. With the very strange situation that exists at the moment they may just waive the RoS and let you PVR.

[cazatou]

letsgoandfly

"I had to sign a 6 year RoS to be allowed to go on my OCU."

No you did not

You signed that agreement at that time because it suited you to do so (and ensured a greater salary including Flying Pay). Aircrew are all volunteers and it has never been the case that Personnel have been ordered to be Aircrew.

[minigundiplomat]

Caz,

he is correct in having to sign a ROS to attend an OCF. It may be this ensured greater pay etc, and at no point does he/she allude to any force being applied, so his statement was actually factually correct.

Returning to the OP,

I believe that all bets are off wrt ROS, particularly if in a shrinking trade such as WSOp EW. As an earlier poster advised - talk to the desk officer.

I can't see anyone stitching you over a ROS just to make you redundant in Tranche 2 or 3. Let's not kid ourselves - we know there is going to be some.

[Rigga]

I agree with Caz that there was likely no "had to" about signing this Bonding agreement.
Legally, the signee was probably (properly?) informed of the intent and implications of signing, and signed it, taking the then perceived benefit of attending the course and thereby enhancing his/her future career.

This situation is no different from any civil case of Bonding Agreement that I've seen.

Unless the signee can indicate an error in the offer and signing process the outcome is almost inevitable.

In most civil cases brought to court the signee has had to pay his/her way out of the "agreement" (a pro-rata payment) - or their future employer has voluntarily paid it, and the signee ends up in the same situation but with another employer.

[letsgoandfly]

Gents, thank you for taking the time to reply to my question, which I imagien has been asked plenty of times before!

Cazatou, Rigga, you are correct, there was no force etc applied to me to sign the RoS however, if I knew what would happen 4 years later I might not have signed it in the first place! Incidentally, there was no advice given, jsut a quick 'here's something you all need to sign' so we all did.

I have had a brief chat with the desk officer as he has all of ISK wanting to speak to him and it would be that they are keen to have RoS honoured - seems silly if they might make me redundant and give me £20k and my commitment bonus when I would be perfectly happy to leave with nothing now!

Thanks anyway, just been a frustrating day at work hearing the manning brief. Thanks again!

[Old-Duffer]

You could declare yourself to be a conscientious objector and see how it goes.

On the other hand, you could always informally ask the question of the 'system', explain your position and ask if you can apply for release - they can only say; 'No'. At present there is a considerable amount of sympathy and pragmatism about the situation people like you are in and I believe an 'upfront' approach will do you no harm.

Old Duffer

[Rigga]

"Incidentally, there was no advice given, jsut a quick 'here's something you all need to sign' so we all did."


If you can prove this was the way it happened it is deemed an "improper process", a bit like mis-selling Bank Insurances/Mortgages, and it may save you some time and/or money.

Best of Luck whatever you decide.

[high spirits]

A decent employment lawyer would get you where you want to be, provided you pay for the service.... I feel sorry for your plight especially having based your life up north on good faith. Hope you get what you want, and don't let the b&stards grind you down. This could be an almighty blessing in disguise - you never know!

Oh, by the way Caz, the world has changed and so has the Service since you reaped the benefits from it - have a bit of sympathy and stop being such an @rse!

[valveclosed]

Many many moons back I was presented with a similar bit of paper to sign before I started a conversion course.
I never actually signed it! still went on the course funny old thing.

But 5 years left out of 12 is actually still quite a lot! when you signed up in the mob you were told there were no promises in where you would be posted, so that could include Down South as well as up there!
Ask the question, if you had not signed the RoS paperwork would they have sent you on the OCU back then? If not what would you have done? civvie street???
In our trades we are pretty lucky in we know there are a limited number of available postings, and am sure you knew the options when you joined
There are a lot of trades that get moved all over the country.

However, you can always ask the question of the desk officer and see what they say

[Just This Once...]

Not sure why everyone is getting wrapped in this RoS signature debate as you are just a chap trying to leave - nothing new in that.

The RoS does not stop you applying for a PVR, it just may stop you from exiting in the timescale you seek. Please discuss your options with your desk officer before hitting the button. If you are already committed to leaving come-what-may then hit the button anyway and the Service will have to react!

Think carefully, discuss with your family, your mates and your CoC. I was chatting to your stn cdr the other day and he is committed to helping everyone he can, even if your chosen path is outside the RAF. Good luck and I am sorry it has all come to this.

[Really annoyed]

Oh, by the way Caz, the world has changed and so has the Service since you reaped the benefits from it - have a bit of sympathy and stop being such an @rse!

OMG!!!! Yes OMG Minidumb, get over it.

Anyway you can't reply to cazpapoo like that. He was a royal flight pilot don't you know. He lives in france don't you know.:rolleyes:

OP You really need to speak to your posting officer. He is the one who will have the definitive answer, not an internet spotters forum. They can't sack you for inquiring. Oh email them rather than ring them, as you will have something in writing rather than trying to prove what they said over the phone.

[D-IFF_ident]

You probably signed the RoS with an understanding that you would be employed in a specific role, or job. If your employer has now moved you out of that role or job then your RoS should no longer apply.

That is - the RAF can't possibly require an amortisation of training cost for an ASW role that they no longer have!

Good luck

[Corporal Clott]

If you have no joy with the DO then ask your SO1 to reason with his Boss - surname is Monk. If still no joy and you have the ear of your Stn Cdr then ask to call 2 up - surname Connor. Search on DII, all their posts start with Air-Mann. Thermonuclear option is a Service Complaint to the AOC (after all the OCF that you attended and signed a ROS for cannot now offer you a cockpit).

You'll be surprised at what you can get if you're prepared to elevate it - make yourself a pain in their arse and they'll soon be only too pleased to let you go.

Finally, you could always fail the fitness test. You could be out in 9 months and get a bit of friendly PT remedial in at the same time! :ok:

I agree it would be mad not to let you go and force out someone else who wants to stay. You could always dress up like a woman as in Clinger in MASH; but then again, they might send you to helicopters! :p

[Seldomfitforpurpose]

Some of you guys really do need to start paying Caz the respect he deserves after all how many of you guys ever worked 11 out of 12 months every year for 14 years and never ever got time to use your leave allowance :yuk:

[minigundiplomat]

Quote:
Oh, by the way Caz, the world has changed and so has the Service since you reaped the benefits from it - have a bit of sympathy and stop being such an @rse!
OMG!!!! Yes OMG Minidumb, get over it.



The reply to which you refer was not one of mine. Try reading occasionally, as opposed to ranting.

Twunt.

[Ali Barber]

Notwithstanding the god advice to speak to your desk officer, with the current shrinking air force, it's likely your type doesn't exist anymore, so how can they enforce a ROS on a type that isn't in service?

[spekesoftly]

the god advice Yep, take it to the very top! ;)

[Wensleydale]

Just fail your fitness test........

[Wyler]

You are in a trade that is being hammered.

The RAF has to get rid of thousands.

You are offering to go quietly.

You have a job offer.

One less drama for your DO and the system.

Enjoy your new job and life. :ok:

[Twunt]

Failing your fitness test to get out is not the easy option. Do you really want to have to explain to your current Boss that this is your master plan, "Yes Boss I am failing it deliberately to get out". Doesn't really sound that good a plan to me.

[BEagle]

Darlingest Bossy-poos,

I have the honour to request that, owing to the decision to scrap the Nimrod MRA4, the RAF offers me one of the following options:

1. The specific job for which I was 'encouraged' to amend my employment, requiring me to agree to a 6-year Return of Service obligation.

2. If this job, through no fault of mine, is no longer available, then my RoS agreement is clearly null and void. In which case I ask for your support in releasing me from a Service which no longer enjoys my interest.

I have the misfortune to be,
Sir,
Your obedient but highly pissed-off servant,

letsgoandfly

XX

[letsgoandfly]

BEags, love it! Thanks for giving me a laugh, just brightened up my day. :ok:

I'm not going down the route of failing things / being naughty to get out, that helps neither myself or my colleagues, all of whom are in a similar position. Will have another chat with the DO when I get written confirmation of job offer and see what he says - although he has already said that they are looking to hold people to the 6-year RoS as they might have jobs for us in the future......

Cheers guys, take it easy!

[Wyler]

Get your DO to talk to the other DOs who are, allegedly, hoping that every time the phone rings it is someone volunteering to go.

[Wensleydale]

LG&F

The fail your fitness test was not meant to be serious... although my favourite way out of the forces was taken by film actor David Niven. He was a career officer in the Highland light Infantry in the 1930s (I use the word career loosely). He was under house arrest following some misdemeanour during a machine gun course: he escaped from the mess by getting his escorting officer drunk; ran away to Hollywood to become an actor and sent the immortal telegram back to the UK, "Dear Colonel, Request permission to resign commission. Love Niven." he was successful. Mind you, he returned to UK when WW2 broke out and re-gained a commission in the Rifle Corps. He commanded the SAS "Phantom" net for a while and ended the war as a Lt Col.

If you get the chance, read "The Moon's a Balloon" - its a good read.

[Spartacan]

>>Just watch out-the grass is not always greener<<

Correct. The grass on the other side is astroturf.

[whowhenwhy]

Chaps sorry beg to differ but from my experience a RoS doesn't hold water. Anyone who's questioned one properly with their desky has ever been held to it and I'm sure that an employment lawyer would have a field day.

[PFMG]

Not to mention if a Sgt with 5 or so years to do is kept in against his will while a FS or Master with between 5 - 10 years to do is shown the door then again an employment lawyer would surely have a case.
After all it's not the fault of the FS/MAcr that the RAF/MoD/Government made a cock of the manning structure and ultimately they can all do the job that the desky is holding the Sgt for (on the off chance we have a maritime future).

[talktothehand]

Sorry WWW but RoS are legally defensible (and have been defended on many occasions). As for your comment (and others) regarding employment lawyers etc, again I am afraid that Service Personnel are not subject to the full raft of employment law and our TACoS are governed by administrative law. Consequently, all you would do by going to an employment law specialist is waste your money on an area few employment lawyers know anything about. The Deskie holds the keys and it is him whom you should speak to.

[Biggus]

It would appear (and I chose that word deliberately) to me that the RAF are being very inflexible in their approach to the current redundancy round.

I seem to remember reading in some offical document lately that if the criteria for redundancy was a minimum of 3 years in rank then it was no use applying if you had 2 years 364 days in rank, it actually specified it in those exact terms, implying there was no leeway for discretion. The situation of the OP on this thread is another case in point. His 6 years ROS is up in early 2013, so presumably we are talking 24 months or less, and his DO is keeping him on because he "might" have a job for him! First of all I consider it highly unlikely that a post, for which the OP will also have received the necessary training, will be filled in that sort of timescale, especially since the OP will no doubt not be posted until the ISK Sqns formally close in late May. Secondly, is not the DO just setting himself up for a fall, by putting a diseffected OP into a job he doesn't want, with the prospect of him simply PVRing in early 2013, requiring the DO to find someone else to fill this "might have" post.

Surely a fairly high degree of discretion is required by the selection process for redundancy, on the basis that a volunteer is worth 10 pressed men. Or would this create such a deluge of extra work for the DOs, as there is a massive demand out there for people seeking redundancy. If there is, that in itself tells a story....

[The Old Fat One]

It's individual people that are flexible or inflexible...even within an organisation as structured as the RAF. There are two factors to the outcome.

One, the attitude and qualities of the person being approached.
Two, the attitude and qualities of the person with the request.

If I was a desk officer (which I might have been...or similar) and a good egg came to me with an honest cause and a polite request I would (and on many occasion may have) gone into bat on their behalf. Nine times out of ten with the right result for all concerned.

On the other hand if I was ever approached with the "do this or else...." option, being a bl**dy minded SOB who never really gave a toss about his career, my answer would have been...."bring it on" (and on more than one occasion.........it was!)

[Red Line Entry]

TOFO speaks wisely. There are too many in the Service (and on this forum) who are quick to act the barrack room lawyer. If you want to take on the system formally (and there are times when it is necessary), then be aware that an adversarial approach will lead to a very formal and adversarial response. That may not be the wisest poicy - the words 'See you in Court' are often the most expensive and grief-laiden words an individual will ever say (along with, potentially, 'I do'!)

[ShortFatOne]

What do Pruners consider would constitute constructive dismissal?

Would being told that "there is no longer a current job for you, there isn't likely to be another job for you for at least another 3-4 years but no, we are not going to make you redundant" be considered as grounds for constructive dismissal, assuming that the affected individual decides that sitting around for 3-4 years is somewhat nugatory to a fulfilling career?

Interested to know your thoughts.

[Melchett01]

What do Pruners consider would constitute constructive dismissal?


Now I'm certainly no lawyer, so what I say next is my opinion rather than legal opinion or advice. However, I think that hconstructive dismissal occurs if an individual resigns because they believe their position has been made untenable, and that the individual can prove that the employer acted illegally, breaching contract, in making the employee's position untenable.

Wiki seems to suggest that a unilateral contract change such as a dramatic change to duties or if the OP is told he is being posted to the other end of the country to do job Y, having signed up to do job X, that might be a breach in terms of flexibility as it is implied that the flexibility required of the employee relates to his original role.

All so far so good. However, surely the fact that we serve at HM pleasure, don't have a contract as such, and sign up knowing before hand that we are likely to get stitched up with an inconvenient posting at some point would probably make it difficult to argue constructive dismissal on contract grounds. I would have thought the only way you might get that one to stick is on procedural grounds or a technicality. Just my unqualified guess and speculation, could be totally wrong, so don't take it as gospel!

[PTC REMF]

If he joined 5 years ago, he joined as a WSOp first then a specialisation second. The old trades of Air Eng, AEOp and ALM were almagamated in order to give Manning the flexibilty to cover shortfalls in specialisation with the minimal amount of cross over training, hence the reason for the common core phase at 55(R) Sqn.
When he joined up it was with the understanding that he is joining a trade that had several specialisations, the one to which he was most suited/ service needs would be the one that he would be initially selected for, and can at any time be transferred to any other of the specialisations when required. This would mean that he would be joining a trade that spanned the country from Chivenor to Kinloss.

[minigundiplomat]

If he joined 5 years ago, he joined as a WSOp first then a specialisation second. The old trades of Air Eng, AEOp and ALM were almagamated in order to give Manning the flexibilty to cover shortfalls in specialisation with the minimal amount of cross over training, hence the reason for the common core phase at 55(R) Sqn.
When he joined up it was with the understanding that he is joining a trade that had several specialisations, the one to which he was most suited/ service needs would be the one that he would be initially selected for, and can at any time be transferred to any other of the specialisations when required. This would mean that he would be joining a trade that spanned the country from Chivenor to Kinloss.


I can't say I really disagree with that. However, 5 years ago we were not about to shed 250-300 WSOp's, and the reasons for the change were to get more WSOp's into the old AEOp slots to maintain manning for a fleet which, no longer exists.

You are not wrong, but your argument has been overtaken by events.

[The Old Fat One]

Would being told that "there is no longer a current job for you, there isn't likely to be another job for you for at least another 3-4 years but no, we are not going to make you redundant" be considered as grounds for constructive dismissal, assuming that the affected individual decides that sitting around for 3-4 years is somewhat nugatory to a fulfilling career?



At first glance, and with a passing knowledge of employment law, there might some grounds however......

What I would say (and I s**t you not) would be along the lines of....

"Roger Copied.

Then you won't mind if my well paid job becomes my well paid hobby while I spend the next three to four years learning, developing and progressing my next career at your expense.

Out"

As I used to say when I was in (who knows, you may have heard me).

"You cannot be fired if you want to be fired, and if you are fired, you can only be fired once."

[Biggus]

T.O.F.O

Reference your comments in post 32, I appreciate the fact that individual DOs may, or may not, be flexible, given the factors you outlined. However, I fail to see how this alters my point. Surely DOs can only be flexible within the bounds of their remit? If the instructions given to the DOs on how to carry out a certain task specifically places limits on the flexibility they can apply then are not the DOs, no matter how willing they might be, severly constrained in how they can carry out their task?



Of course, maybe I am being a bit dim? I have been accused before of being over simplistic, which is probably why I never rose to high rank or became a DO....


Edited for spelling!

[The Old Fat One]

It doesn't alter your point...it amplifies it.

You are correct...remits can be restrictive. But the old saying, where there is will there is a way holds good....especially if you have a bit of clout.

The main point I was making was that taking an aggressive approach can often be doomed to failure from the outset, because then you can end up fighting the system and a bl**dy minded DO, Sqn Cdr, Flt Cdr or whatever.

[Biggus]

T.O.F.O

Thanks for the amplification......

[letsgoandfly]

Thanks again for your replies! :ok:

Just waiting for a written job offer before I go into negotiation with my DO - I would have thgought they'd much rather keep someone who wants to stay as, to be honest, I want to leave. I am still beavering away with whatever comes along at work and have 5 secondary duties so it's not like I'm shirking or dodging work!

PTC - for what it's worth I joined as one of the last AEOps and I haven't changed my ToS at any point in my career.

Thanks again gents, have a good weekend!

[Cmn2644]

Good luck getting out ... there are a few guys in a similar boat in the SH world ... happy to go and give a job to someone from ISK but life is never that simple, well not in the RAF at any rate !

Not entirely sure what your DO would be getting out of you in 2 years ? Spend 18 months going through Shawbs and then an OCF to serve 6 months prior to a PVR .... that would be a ridiculous decision ...

Ridiculous decision ? Yep, that fits the current climate, enjoy the training system buddy !! :ok:

[MFC_Fly]

Not entirely sure what your DO would be getting out of you in 2 years ? Spend 18 months going through Shawbs and then an OCF to serve 6 months prior to a PVR .... that would be a ridiculous decision ...

Of course it would be ridiculous... that is why letsgoandfly would probably be asked to sign another ROS 'contract' before commencing rotary training :ok:

MFC

[Lottery Winner]

am now faced with the prospect of having to move down South etc but I'd rather stay in the area I'm in at present as my family is settled, I own my house and I like it up here!


I appreciate this this post was last commented on a few days ago and therefore, has probably run it's course but ... am I missing something here? Does LGAF belong to a different RAF than others? He wants to stay in the area (and thinks he should) purely because he likes it????

"You sonny, yes you, get up over the top and charge the enemy!!"

"Er, I'd rather not sir, you see I like where I am!"

FFS:ugh:

[The Old Fat One]

am I missing something here?


Not something...everything.

He is saying the career he signed up for has been trashed and now he would like to get out. Moreover, he is querying why would the system keep people in who want out, and chuck out people who want to stay in.

Simples

[Lottery Winner]

All understood. However, LGAF committed to the RAF. The career he joined up for has not been trashed - just the ac type and role he has been initially trained for. His career has yet to come and will take shape in whatever guise the RAF require. Like all members of the military, his life is (to a great extent) not his own. He is a pawn to be trained, retained (or let go) and used as the Crown sees fit. Part of this is the expectation that one serves wherever the Crown requires us to serv ... for whatever reason. LGAF, nor any member of the miltary, should expect to serve at one location TFN and remain there just because he, or they, like it. Sure, it often happens that some serve for long periods of time in one place and as long as this matches the Service need there is nothing wrong with it - the Service, the individual and the individual's family can all benefit. But the point is, this is not a right, its a bonus.

Simples.

[Biggus]

LW,

First of all I agree with you. When I joined the RAF many years ago I fully expected to be moved around during my career - indeed that was one of the attractions. I also realised that to a large extent my life was no longer my own.....


However, I offer the following comment - which is a GENEAL one, and may well not apply specifically to LGAF!!!!

Many (but not all) of the youth of today who join the RAF either do not seem to appreciate your point, recognise it, or accept it (perhaps the recruitment world doesn't highly this point adequately, in an effort to keep recruitment numbers up maybe?). Certainly on the airman side there is anecdotal evidence of considerable numbers trying to get posted after trade training to the base nearest to their original home town. Perhaps in some ways this is understandable, that is where their friends/relatives all still live. However, the sense of adventure, desire to see the world, etc, seems to be less alive today than in the past.

I have no solid numbers to back up the comment above, just numerous comments I have both heard personally and read on other forums from some of the "old hands". I'm not trying to pass on some "grumpy old man" comment, or "dis" the youth of today, just offering up an observation that I consider to be genuine.


It is also interesting to note that formal RAF policy seems to be going towards providing "regional stability" for RAF personnel, perhaps in recognition of trends, such as wives working, the desire for stability of childrens education, etc. No doubt it is also seen as a long term cost saving measure - less requirement for CEA, disturbance allowance, military married accommodation (as people are more likely to buy in a n area they think they will be in for the medium/long term), etc.....

[The Old Fat One]

Like all members of the military, his life is (to a great extent) not his own. He is a pawn to be trained, retained (or let go) and used as the Crown sees fit


Sorry, I could not disagree with this statement more.

And I speak as someone who with loyalty, professionalism and integrity, served for 27 years.

Aside from the fact that Nuremberg invalidated the statement above, servicemen and woman are required to serve within the expectations of theirs terms of service.

There are dozens of options for early release (including negotiating a PVR) and any of them can be invoked without any suggestion that any individual lacks loyalty, integrity or professionalism.

On a moral note, given the events of the past few years, any servicemen who places misguided blind principle above a the hard-headed reality of looking after oneself and ones' loved ones, is tilting towards being a gullible fool.

[minigundiplomat]

Lottery Winner,

There are many at Odiham who would love a move, but there is no where to go to. By your logic, the RAF should be obliged to provide somewhere for them to move to.

No?

So we keep someone from leaving because he doesn't want to move, whats next, stopping people from leaving because they can't move?

[Lottery Winner]

Biggus,

You have made a vlid point. Perhaps expectations are changing and certainly, I do believe the RAF is looking at providing more stability where possible and I also think this is generally a good thing but my point is that such stability is not an absolute right. The Service can, will and must be able to move its people when necessary. I hope LGAF gets his wish, or a nice posting of his choice, but he shouldn't expect it to happen because (and this is reponse to TOFO's post) ...

servicemen and woman are required to serve within the expectations of theirs terms of service.


I know that LGAF's ToS, QRs, or any other reference says 'Thou shalt join the RAF specifically to operate Nimrods and shall spend the rest of your days at RAF Kinloss'.

Terms of Service are as written down, not necessarily what people think they should be. ToS do not specify which station thou shalt serve at.

Gents, clearly opinion will remain divided over this issue. I do not disagree with much of the sentiment expressed. Perhaps some of it can be put down to the 'youth of today' and much more down to many a crass decision taken in the carpeted corridors of Whitehall. I do not know what the current manning numbers are or what they are likely to be. Perhaps LGAF could easily be released without pain to the Service, either now or in the future. I don't know. What I do know is that he does not appear to have the right to do so. I am not saying he should not or not be able to to if the Service need allows. I am saying he does not have the right. No matter what the opinions are of my fellow learned (much more learned than me no doubt) PRuNers are, LGAF does not have the right to leave the RAF if he is indeed subject to his TRoS.

Now, I'm off to see a man about a dog.

[Lottery Winner]

There are many at Odiham who would love a move, but there is no where to go to. By your logic, the RAF should be obliged to provide somewhere for them to move to.


No MGD, that is not my logic at all. Please read my response to TOFO and Biggus.

I suspect their are many people at all sorts of locations who wish to move but are unable to because of the fall out of SDSR or whatever reason. It would be great I am sure of they could move. It would be good if all dreams could come true. What I am saying though, and the real line my logic supports, is that LGAF, or service men/women at Odiham or Benson, or Waddington, or BDS Washington or Lossie or anywhere do not have the right to move just because they want to, nor do they have the right to leave the RAF just because they do not want to move. That's all. Its about the right to. Dotted line and all that.

[Diablo Rouge]

Whilst attending a 'career enhancing' course, a presentation by Manning assured the said course members that RAF policy was for a two tier stream career.

One was occupied by the ambitious ones who would go anywhere at anytime and complete any job in return for a career spine that included a promotion ladder for them to climb.

The second career or rather 'job spine' included geographical advantage and long term stability in return for accepting that promotion was not included unless it suited the Service.

This presentation was in 2008 and I have not seen any evidence of such policy being instigated since. In fact as one who would gladly embrace the geographical stability stream, and even accept less pay for the convenience, I have been moved reluctantly three times since!

IMHO I am convinced that SDSR has deleted any hope of such policy ever being implimented. We have dozens of staff without portfolio who would gladly take any job offered. The reduction in posting options due to closure of stations further removes the possibility of success. For sure we will eventually condense to a few 'super bases' which will render any aspiration to be geographically friendly a none starter. In short; the briefing I received was dead in the water however well intended.

[minigundiplomat]

nor do they have the right to leave the RAF just because they do not want to move.


Biggest load of tosh ever!

So what you are effectively saying is, anyone joining the RAF has no rights whatsoever? Let's make this retention problem a recruitment problem eh?

Have a look at the date mate, the 60/70's are over. People's aspirations have changed, and the RAF is the main cause of this. You cannot walk around recruitment offices handing out glossy brochures promising this that and the other, then not deliver it.

If people aren't happy, you can always keep them against their will as you suggest. But all that happens is that they become bitter and infect those that were generally happy.

Or, you let them walk.........

[Lottery Winner]

MGD,

Mate, you are not listening.

Clearly you think people have the right, you obviously believe they should have the right and maybe they should have the right. That is not the point. The point is, as I have said, is that they do not have the right. This is not a load of tosh as you say. This is fact. You show me THE policy which says this particular individual has the right.

MGD - are letting your emotions run away with you. I will even go so far as to say that you are right! Perhaps Service men and women should have the right. Alas, tis not the case currently!

LGAF and any other Service person can not simply leave because they want to. Even PVR without a TRoS is not guaranteed. I am afraid the Service holds all (well most) of the cards. You can rant all you wish about what you think should be the case and I am sure you may have much support ... even from me ... but it is simply not the legal position currently. Understand? We all have a view about what should be but sometimes, and in spite of this, we must accept how it actually is. By all means fight to change it but until it is changed, it is the way it is.

[minigundiplomat]

Lottery Winner,

I believe your point mate. However, I can stand in front of you and tell you the sun will never set, but we all know it will.

Our differences sum up the RAF right now. There is a yawning gap appearing between what should happen, and what is happening.

I have listened, and you are right; but then again Hitler built the autobahns and they aren't too bad.

Without picking an argument, the RAF has to have a deep look at how they are going to deal with people in the future. The world is changing, and they need to change to.

I won't hold my breath.