chopabeefer,
One would like to think that, as a senior officer, the Wg Cdr in question would know how the redundancy process was run - after all, it wasn't exactly a secret, full details were published in a IBN.
At the end of the day, it was a points based system, where (no doubt to make it easier for the board) they ended up with a situation whereby the more points you scored the less likely you were to be made redundant.
Points were awarded for a variety of things (I can't remember them all, and I haven't got a copy of the IBN to hand), including volunteer or not, medical cat, disciplinary record, qualifications/skill sets and performance.
For most of these you got a score of between 0 and 5, with two notably exceptions I will expand on. The performance figure was arrived at by a board of 3 (hence the redundancy selection was referred to by some as a reverse promotion board!) who scored 1-9 each, giving a possible performance score for an individual of between 3 and 27. Hence you can see that the performance score dwarfs all the other scores.
If you were a volunteer you scored 0, a non volunteer scored 7.
So, a volunteer (0 points) who was doing a good job and got a performance score of 22 would have more points than a non volunteer (7 points) who wasn't doing as well and got a performance score of 14 (don't forget, more points equals retention, less equals redundancy!). Throw in a few differences in skill sets, med cat, etc, and volunteers/non volunteers with more similar performance scores than the example I quoted might find that it is the non volunteer who actually ends up with the lower points, and is made redundant.
It is the performance score that makes the biggest decision on who went and who stayed, and what did the board use to come up with their score, previous appraisal reports.!!
Your Wg Cdr said she had 45 guys doing the same job, but I bet they had a range of appraisal reports, some were inevitably doing the "same job" better than others - that is a simple fact of life. At the end of the day it was that Wg Cdrs actions, as an RO, in helping produce appraisal reports, that probably ultimatey decided who went and who stayed in her section!!!
Now one could argue that the volunteer/non volunteer point differential, 7 out of an average score of 30+ (i.e approx. 20%) wasn't high enough. Alternatively one could argue that the RAF should let all the volunteers go first, and only then board non volunteers. However, from the "company's" point of view, why shouldn't it retain fit well performing individuals in preference to unfit individuals who aren't performing as well? (Balance the needs of the team (RAF), task and individual?)
A tough call, especially if volunteers aren't made redundant and are kept in but become disgruntled. But how many times do people say it is a good chance to clear out the dead wood, sickies, etc? I'm not sure which side of the fence I fall (hence I used the phrase "one could") in terms of whether the policy used was the best/right one. Whatever system is adopted someone will inevitably consider it "unfair".
You could argue that the system adopted was imperfect or imbalanced - but the idea that you say this Wg Cdr has that the RAF DELIBERATELY PENALISED THOSE THAT APPLIED????? Especially when one considers that statistically (ignoring whether or not certain trades were under or over subscribed - which I don't know - for example, 10 redundancy slots for chefs and 15 apply, 10 get it but it looks statistically as though some applicants didn't get redundancy, similarly if there are 10 slots for MT drivers but none apply, they all become compulsaries. All such nuances confuse the overall picture.) that two thirds of those that applied for redundancy got it - her argument doesn't hold any water whatsoever! In fact it sounds highly emotive rather than rational.
Edited to add - In the RAF there were 620 applications, 440 were approved - approx. 71%, hardly indicative of a policy of penalisation??
Last edited by Biggus; 9th Sep 2011 at 10:19.