Wakey Wakey manning
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: The Whyte House
Age: 95
Posts: 1,966
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What nobody has mentioned yet, is the problem is worse than the manning numbers suggest. As theses numbers do not take into account experience, qualifications, operational readiness, effectiveness, etc. The numbers are just bums on seats and not "guys who know what they are doing" versus "kid straight out of school".
The 'Elephant' in the woodpile is of course that a newly qualified person ≠ someone who's been in the job a decade+. Oh, they might be more of a gym queen and use the requisite number of sirs per sentence, but I'd rather have a cynical, fat, wheezy, '20-a-day' expert on my team than an unimaginative drone with shiny shoes, who's absent every Wednesday afternoon, and who spouts management b-s at every juncture.
Retention isn't helped when they come up with nuggets like introducing los 35 for FS's instead of age 55. If promoted I get 2 years less time in rank ie leave at age 53 not 55.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: The real world
Posts: 446
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Nip, I left less than two years ago and walked into an offshore job, my salary is triple what it used to be for working half a year! The incentive to keep these talented people is what? Paying them the same as a cook or a stacker? If your techie cocks up people could die, Fact, if your dentist or stacker cocks up whats the big problem?
Pay
Jayand,
Please read my post. I have nothing against Techies getting paid a good wage. If that meant they got more money because they contributed more than everyone else then fine.
It is also a fact that if wages are better in civi street then a lot of people will leave regardless.
But, in today's environment it has been judged that a percentage of other trades contribute in a valuable way justifying in a higher pay band. If that means they are paid the same as Techies then what is the problem. No Techie has lost money or any conditions they have.
Will techies only feel more valued when they can look down on someone else knowing they earn more?
Please read my post. I have nothing against Techies getting paid a good wage. If that meant they got more money because they contributed more than everyone else then fine.
It is also a fact that if wages are better in civi street then a lot of people will leave regardless.
But, in today's environment it has been judged that a percentage of other trades contribute in a valuable way justifying in a higher pay band. If that means they are paid the same as Techies then what is the problem. No Techie has lost money or any conditions they have.
Will techies only feel more valued when they can look down on someone else knowing they earn more?
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,756
Received 2,740 Likes
on
1,166 Posts
Nip, put it this way, you had to be more academically qualified to become a Technician than you did to become a Cook, hence one of the differences in rates etc.
But more than that the wage structure was originally designed to equate over to that of Civi street. A Cook, Blanket Stacker, or Technician was paid on par with his civilian counterpart, this was to aid retention of such people in the services, you say the Technicians wage didn't decrease, but everyone else's increased, maybe it didn't at the time, but in the scheme of things now it now lags behind Civilian equivalents, hence the poor retention rate, where Cooks and Blanket Stackers are now on an artificially high wage in comparrison to their civilian conterparts, hence I bet there is not such a deficit in manning. Oddly the other one that may be lagging might be RAFP, though they probably are not direct equivalents "trade" wise.
Maybe they should have retained the JT rank instead of "demoting" it to SAC, that way a buffer in wages could have been retained as a JT is a higher rank than a SAC Cook.
.
But more than that the wage structure was originally designed to equate over to that of Civi street. A Cook, Blanket Stacker, or Technician was paid on par with his civilian counterpart, this was to aid retention of such people in the services, you say the Technicians wage didn't decrease, but everyone else's increased, maybe it didn't at the time, but in the scheme of things now it now lags behind Civilian equivalents, hence the poor retention rate, where Cooks and Blanket Stackers are now on an artificially high wage in comparrison to their civilian conterparts, hence I bet there is not such a deficit in manning. Oddly the other one that may be lagging might be RAFP, though they probably are not direct equivalents "trade" wise.
Maybe they should have retained the JT rank instead of "demoting" it to SAC, that way a buffer in wages could have been retained as a JT is a higher rank than a SAC Cook.
.
Last edited by NutLoose; 15th Aug 2014 at 11:25.
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Balmullo,Scotland
Posts: 932
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
GR4Techie, your assumption is far closer than you can imagine, I work for a well known north sea helicopter operator and we have taken on as many ex RAF types as we can get I also know a lot of ex techies that are offshore and as you say are alot better of am an ex techie myself.
I've posted on here a fair bit in the past; I'm reasonably senior and reasonably long in the tooth, so I should be tolerant. However, one effect of shrinking manpower in support areas and 'self-service' administration is that I spend increasingly longer times trying to do simple admin. For example I'm posted overseas 6 months ahead of planned date yet trying to get the 'system' to respond to the requirements of the new assignment (sorry, I used the expression 'posting' earlier. Verboten) is practically impossible. There's been some heroic effort by some TG 17 staff but decisions relating to rules on baggage, termination of SSSA, allowances, housing are typically vested with the Casework cell in Glasgow. The turnaround time on what had been in the past a local/station decision runs into months - time I simply do not have if I am to comply with the Assignment Order.
I'm prepared to be flexible (and have been for the better part of 30 years) - have my home-life upheaved again (poor Mrs Crash) - but the 'system' - predicated on the needs of an 18 year old Soldier posted (final warning, Crash. It's assignment) to Germany - is not flexible. I've seen a one-Star recently expected to meet near-unobtainable RTM dates go red with frustration as the various unconnected support wheels fail to mesh. This will definitely be my last move - I love the job, love serving the RAF and HMG, but why - oh why - is it made so hard to go about one's domestic business iso the Mission?
PS this isn't a dig at Adminers; on the contrary, I feel for those remaining having to work in such a Byzantine system.
I'm prepared to be flexible (and have been for the better part of 30 years) - have my home-life upheaved again (poor Mrs Crash) - but the 'system' - predicated on the needs of an 18 year old Soldier posted (final warning, Crash. It's assignment) to Germany - is not flexible. I've seen a one-Star recently expected to meet near-unobtainable RTM dates go red with frustration as the various unconnected support wheels fail to mesh. This will definitely be my last move - I love the job, love serving the RAF and HMG, but why - oh why - is it made so hard to go about one's domestic business iso the Mission?
PS this isn't a dig at Adminers; on the contrary, I feel for those remaining having to work in such a Byzantine system.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Temporarily missing from the Joe Louis Arena
Posts: 2,131
Received 27 Likes
on
16 Posts
....where Cooks and Blanket Stackers are now on an artificially high wage in comparrison to their civilian conterparts
I only ask because, although I don't do the job anymore, when I left the regular RAF I walked into a logistics management job in civvy street that paid £38k pa plus KPI linked bonuses of up to 14%, a job that I could do standing on my head (which is why I was awarded my full bonus every year until I left). That is a level of pay that (if only considering basic pay) a 'stacker' wouldn't see until they hit mid-range F/Sgt pay or, (if taking into account the bonus) until the dizzy heights of WO.
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: raf
Posts: 610
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by The Nip
Please read my post. I have nothing against Techies getting paid a good wage. If that meant they got more money because they contributed more than everyone else then fine.
It is also a fact that if wages are better in civi street then a lot of people will leave regardless.
But, in today's environment it has been judged that a percentage of other trades contribute in a valuable way justifying in a higher pay band. If that means they are paid the same as Techies then what is the problem. No Techie has lost money or any conditions they have.
Will techies only feel more valued when they can look down on someone else knowing they earn more?
It is also a fact that if wages are better in civi street then a lot of people will leave regardless.
But, in today's environment it has been judged that a percentage of other trades contribute in a valuable way justifying in a higher pay band. If that means they are paid the same as Techies then what is the problem. No Techie has lost money or any conditions they have.
Will techies only feel more valued when they can look down on someone else knowing they earn more?
When you say "no techie has lost money or any conditions"... Yes I have! Every year the cost of living goes up more than the RAF salary. Every day that someone stays in the RAF are they potentially losing money when they could be earning more elsewhere today?
I don't look down at anyone, I'm sure I'd struggle to do some other trades, they would use kit that I've no idea how to operate and I reckon even a SAC MT Driver could get paid more as a hazardous chemical HGV driver in civvy street.
The RAF are wondering why so many skilled, qualified and experienced people are leaving. The simple solution is pay. If you paid them a similar amount to the offshore jobs then the mass exodus would stop. It's that simple. Changing the cupboard in the single living accommodation or having one sports day doesn't solve it.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,756
Received 2,740 Likes
on
1,166 Posts
Stack you obviously did well and moved into a position higher than the average counterpart.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Temporarily missing from the Joe Louis Arena
Posts: 2,131
Received 27 Likes
on
16 Posts
Stack you obviously did well and moved into a position higher than the average counterpart.
Whether folks like it or not the 'valued' trades in civvy street are not what they once were and decent quality logistics specialists are highly sought after in the ever increasingly "time is money" world we live in. Whilst techies may scoff at the thought, compared to many in the civvy world, service/ex-service 'stackers' are highly-regarded and often paid significantly higher than those the RAF provided.
Out of the ex-TSW (wrongly considered by many in the trade as 'de-skilled' stackers) colleagues I still keep in contact with very few aren't earning very good money post-discharge. Infact, given I re-trained as a nurse, I'm now probably on some of the lowest wages out of us all.
This is itself quite ironic, given we're discussing RAF trades earning more than they could in civvy street, because arguably nursing is one of them. As a RAuxAF nurse I earn more than any other Auggie trade with comparable rank/time served. I guess the MoD recognises the importance of actual life savers over spanner turning theoretical ones.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,756
Received 2,740 Likes
on
1,166 Posts
I left nurses out of the equation as those and medics deserve far more on both sides of the fence.
THS, I hate to pull the "my hat is blacker than yours" stunt on you, however, on leaving the blue suit behind I was earning £52k a year some ten years ago. I was not an outstanding stacker, what I did have was a full and thorough understanding of my trade and the value of that to a prospective employer. Initially I had wanted to be a rigger, thank heavens for aptitude tests and good old fashioned SNCOs who ensured I knew what I should be doing.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Temporarily missing from the Joe Louis Arena
Posts: 2,131
Received 27 Likes
on
16 Posts
THS, I hate to pull the "my hat is blacker than yours" stunt on you, however......
I'm pretty sure you weren't 'stacking blankets' for £52k a year.
I've been following the discussions on pay scales for different trades on this and another forum. The thrust being that aircraft techie's are more important/skilled than other trades so should be paid more. Prior to the introduction of the 1964 trade structure there were two streams within the ranks, the command stream and the technical stream. Each stream had its own pay rates so a Cpl/Sgt/F.Sgt (who wore there stripes the right way up) in the command stream received less pay than a Cpl Tech/Senior Tech/Chief Tech in the technical stream (who wore there stripes upside down) additionally, married men were paid more than single men. The 1970 pay deal was supposed to bring other ranks in line with the going rate in civie street. Three pay bands (1/2/3) were introduced for Cpl and below and each trade & rank was evaluated and placed in one of these bands. At the time this caused huge resentment from those in the lower bands and whilst they received some sympathy from their officers and SNCOs they were generally told to stop winging and get on with it. A couple of years later (72/73 I think) SNCOs and WO's were included in the pay banding and a whole new level of winging was achieved. Officers were never pay banded and many saw this as the main reason why nothing was ever done to get the anomalies (a Sgt in the low band received less than a Cpl in the highest band) and perceived injustices of the banding system sorted out. The aspiration that pay would stay in line with civilian equivalents seemed to work until 76/77 ish when the services were awarded a series of what became known as "Irishman rises" (pay rise 50p a week, rent up 75p). Pensions were at a set rate for each rank irrespective of pay band.. This was explained away as the "band of brothers concept" (apparently ok for pensions but not for pay). Now I never subscribed to this system and the argument put about by the aircraft techies that the consequence of them making an error could be the loss of a aircraft so they should be paid more cut little ice with me. I would counter that the actions of a rogue cook could end in the loss of a station (remember tacevals and hot-locks) if he put his mind to it. I also couldn't understand why, if a cook was worth less than a techie why wasn't an engineering officer worth more than a catering officer. Just my thoughts and no I wasn't a cook. 
Last edited by Mickj3; 16th Aug 2014 at 14:19.
why wasn't an engineering officer worth more than a catering officer. Just my thoughts and no I wasn't a cook
Being neither engineer, loggy or scribbly, I do think that engineers should earn more than loggies and loggies more than scribblies. Why? Because the eng needs more qualifications and in general has more responsibility than his/her compatritiots. You're more likely to kill someone if you get engineering wrong, slightly less likely if you give out the wrong stuff (unless its fuel!) and only a nasty paper-cut if you shuffle the wrong paper!
LJ
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: England's green and pleasant land
Posts: 697
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Manning would do well to go on the road and establish what is causing angst amongst all trades and ranks. Using questionnaires like 'Your Say' doesn't reveal everything - on that questionnaire I often felt I was being forced to make simple choices on set areas that didn't cover all my personal concerns, but perhaps that was just me!
I'm not pointing any fingers at the guys and girls who work at Manning. I think they do the best they can and know a number of them well enough to confirm that assertion. Crisis does loom though and knowing what drives our people to leave needs to be addressed. Increasing Salary is a gift of the Treasury which would require AFPRB evidence to support. Very difficult area to argue convincingly enough across the Public Sector.
I'm not pointing any fingers at the guys and girls who work at Manning. I think they do the best they can and know a number of them well enough to confirm that assertion. Crisis does loom though and knowing what drives our people to leave needs to be addressed. Increasing Salary is a gift of the Treasury which would require AFPRB evidence to support. Very difficult area to argue convincingly enough across the Public Sector.
MSOCS, the whole point of such management surveys is to confine your choice of answers and to avoid having to report the difficult stuff up the chain of command. The companies that compile them are very specific in their questions to their clients so that they they compile the survey accordingly.
An online survey yields nice, neat, numerical results that can then be "analysed" to produce "statistics". Airships and politicians then get pie graphs and useful figures to spout in parliament.
Perhaps even more relevant are a) online surveys are relatively cheap and b) they don't get bogged down in individual issues - even if they are issues common to many of the respondents.
An online survey yields nice, neat, numerical results that can then be "analysed" to produce "statistics". Airships and politicians then get pie graphs and useful figures to spout in parliament.
Perhaps even more relevant are a) online surveys are relatively cheap and b) they don't get bogged down in individual issues - even if they are issues common to many of the respondents.