Sorry I'm only part time

[PICKS135]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/3265791.stm

[propulike]

Bl@@dy he!! :eek:

Wherever do we go next??? Does this whiner not realise that she's promoting the argument against recruiting women at all to the highest possible levels?

How on earth to deal with that one - getting the job done vs the Law. An original Hobson's Choice!

[Mr C Hinecap]

What next - deployed creches?

If she wants part time military, transfer her to the Reserves!

I'm not against the concept of getting paople back to work after anything (birth of child, serious accident etc) but the implications as a manager of these people is terrifying. I hope those in the higher pay bands are thinking hard right now.

[Ali Barber]

Send the dappy tart to sea and tell her she can swim home each day at 1400 but has to swim back in time to be at work for 0900. What is the place coming to. Part-time military? I hope they're docking her pay based on our salary is for 24 hrs a day 365 days a year. Pay her 4 hours worth Monday to Friday (if she works that much) - should put her on about 4 grand a year. All she's worth if someone else has got to do her job for her anyway!

[round&round]

I guess another implication is that the MOD could not discriminate on the basis of gender. So, if the mother can go part-time then surely the father has the same right? Therefore, if you're in a really crap job just keep producing the sproggs and you'll only have to do half a tour. Fantastic!!

[albert the first]

Or it may yet the Mod to provide decent child care facilities.

[propulike]

Mike,

Although I want to see the results of your reasoning (more people, and them in post for longer) I can't see that recruiting an employee who gets to work part time does either of those 2 things!

All that results is that the $#!tty front line deployments are filled by the same people each time while others get a cushty part time number back in blighty.

How on earth does that enhance personnel levels? The job that needs to be done is a permanent one. If a task can be done part time, then dis-establish the post and get a temp in. Use the savings to prevent more cuts.

This is ludicrous legality undermining the respect of the courts.

[LunchMonitor]

Propulike

then dis-establish the post and get a temp in. Use the savings...

Getting temps in does not save money, they cost just as much as the person you are replacing (IF NOT MORE) then require training and retraining, as they come and go.
You obviously went to the same maths class as the personell managers within the NHS who allow the same nurses to work part time during the week then do agency work at weekends covering the same post at twice the pay!

[BEagle]

Well, personally I say good luck to her!

"I want the Royal Navy to accept that it is not above the law and introduce policies that prove it is prepared to show more care towards the welfare needs of its employees in respect of work-life balance."

Absolutely right. The real issue is that the undersize, overstetched and generally abused UK Armed Forces are just too small now to be able to exercise any flexibility in such cases.

Much as I deplore the blatant tactical brat-breeding which I've come across in the past, this lady does have a point. I hope that the suits in the Monastery of Definance are forecd to buck their ideas up and stop treating people with all the managerial skills of a Victorian mill owner!

[European Crash]

You may be pleased to read that the RAF is happy to descriminate against Commonwealth officers serving in the RAF (see other thread on Immigration and the RAF) warning of dire consequences (eg limited career opportunities, no deployments) if Citizenship is not taken out yesterday! Something to do with 'Coalition concerns'.

[Muppet Leader]

So what happens in the event of MINEVAL, TACEVAL, or God forbid, the real thing?
If in married quarters - Hooter goes at 04@*= sake.
If in private squat – phone call at same time as above.

Boss on the end of the phone,
“Quick! Get in here, the Sh*t has hit the fan in Umbonggo Land, and we’ve got to move out in two hours!”

Damsels’ reply -
“No, sorry. I don’t do Thursdays before lunch!”

If you take the Queens shilling, irrespective of colour of uniform, rank, or sex, you are part of one of the best fighting forces in the world, and as such you can be called on to operate, fight and die if necessary, if so ordered by the Sovereign, in any corner of the world.

At this rate, the do gooders will have us stop the issue of sacking undergarments to all recruits as well.

Mind you, if like that kind of thing, you could always become a monk.
:ok:

[motionlotion]

BEagle: away and catch yourself on ……

"Absolutely right. The real issue is that the undersize, overstetched and generally abused UK Armed Forces are just too small now to be able to exercise any flexibility in such cases".

So you don't think that by taking this action she is adding to the "undersize, overstretched AF? What of the knock-on effect, 'cos this will surely open the floodgates.

Propulike is right, she has not done her cause any good at all - it has the same analogy as buying a house next to an airfield then complaining about the noise. She was happy enough to take the shilling and conform to the X factor entitlement when it suited her, now that life / family / work all becomes too much, she pulls the old SD card. Not on, for whatever reason - this will evoke many a parental / military voice from within.

Will the MoD take note? I doubt it, the issue will be money at the end of the day. How much and how often will they have to fork out. Which of course will effect someone else, somewhere else down the line - less coffers in the ever-depleting pot - same old same old.

I really don't think she has any idea what she has done. A blow for the cause, I don't think so.

[soddim]

If this ruling stands I guess military employment is further down the road to be equivalent to civilian. Soon we will see union membership, strikes, jobsworth attitudes, refusal to do overtime and all the negative working practises of civilian life.

So when are we going to privatise the rest of the armed forces?

[I_stood_in_the_door]

a simple plan would be devised where as the potential recruit signs a contract stating that he/she (transgender is now allowed, sadly!) will not become pregnant during their tenure in the military and hey presto, we the willing will no longer be asked to be streched to the limit (no pun intended!), doing jobs with little recognition to allow these people to skive off.

mmmmmm, not an entirely new idea, isit? no doubt the pc brigade/do gooders will bawl and shout but surely if one knew their rights before putting pen to paper, then they wouldn't be discriminated against.

damn shirkers anyway - childbirth should be followed by a cup of tea, a few brufen and back to work after lunch!

lead, follow or get outofthe f**cking way!!

isitd

:ok:

[whisperer]

part time forces..Umm..well
what to do with the masses, as i am sure the floodgates will now open?

stick them all in them nasy office jobs that no one really wants and where they will never be missed while off careing for their offspring...

and deduct their pay to the value of the X factor, as they are not earning it.

you never know it could get some quality guys and girls out of dead end jobs and back in the front line where they belong.

[Alf Aworna]

What a lot of old tosh and I'm not talking about what the PO with 20 years service did after finding juggling 2 kids and a job although it was a tad misguided. If any of you lot are personnel managers, flt commanders, bosses etc then I suggest you take a long cold look at what you have written and think about what you are implying in your posts. I wonder if you would have reacted any differently if it had been a guy who was in this situation and taken this action....... Maybe we should ban all women from having children for their period of service - have you been smoking crack!! This woman worked for 17 years before it became a problem. Sod it we might as well just ban all relationships/families entirely as they get in the way of the services needs. Lets face facts, the Forces are crap at looking after the needs of their personnel including families, which is a tad unfortunate seeing as people are the main asset we have to work with. Luckily some of you hide behind your somewhat outdated and frankly sexist attitude that the service knows best and who cares its always been this way. I'm damn glad I don't work for you and I live happily knowing that you treat everyone in the same way ensuring that people who do sport, get their cars fixed, run errands, pick kids up from school, go to school play etc etc do it all in their free time and never during company time and that no flexibility will be tolerated as we're so busy. In a short stretched airforce the attitude of like it or lump it simply drives people away. The vast majority of women don't have kids because they want to get out of the service or work shorter hours although that may be a revelation to some posters. For you X factor junkies maybe the horse crap that some of the girls have to put up with whilst juggling motherhood and a career kind of justifies it. This case could probably been avoided by some intelligent (wo)man management at the immediate supervisor level, not gone all the way to a tribunal. Sorry but I think it shows the poor leadership/management and outdated attitudes that are prevalent in an organisation which pays lip service to looking after its personnel. Hide behind the 'woman know your limits' attitude if you want or have the balls to do something about it. Good leadership costs nothing!!!!
Rant off.

[Lord Trenchards Brat]

May I suggest she takes a sabatical, unpaid of course, while she brings her children up. Most of us have children and we manage and organise our lives accordingly. She obviously struggles with the "managing resources" aspect of her life, I wonder if this is reflected in her annual report. We must not forget we are a fighting force and not some faceless PLC. When she joined in 1983 she joined under rules that stated if you had children then it was good bye; because of the issues that have been brought by this court case. Things may of changed on that front but you can take this "Touchy Feely" stuff too far.
:mad: :mad: :mad:

[Mr C Hinecap]

Alf - now remember the mantra 'In with hate - out with love'.

I posted as someone who has managed people to the very best of my ability for the last 8 yrs. There are many things the Military could do better to help its people. However, we still need flexibility and that comes from having a workforce that can pretty much do what it does wherever it has to. That is the nature of military - to project political power for the people it serves.
I have seen sections split where someone WAS getting preferred treatment. It is a nightmare to work in and a nightmare to manage. How would the wives of the poor b@stards being deployed more than their turn feel knowing someone else was getting far more time at home and not taking a turn? It then becomes devisive and gets horrible.
If the management gave us ways of making people more flexible (not just removing our spines as zobs!) then that would be a help. This is not. I feel for the woman involved and think it is a valid point for discussion, but I'm not bright enough to come up with the answer! :confused:

[whisperer]

Alf - chill out

This is not a sexist issue, with all the rules on equality the impact of this (questionably dodgy) court decision will apply equally to the guys out there.

Please try to remember that this case concerns a member of the UK Military which are called on 24/7/365. Sure, many other UK employers are happy to allow part time work or even jobshare but would you really want this in the Military. would you be prepared to foot the extra tax bill it would generate having maybe two persons employed for each post?

It may well be that this kind of event is very rare, but dont forget that if someone is unable to partake in a certain duty that requirement will not go away, so suddenly some poor manager is short of two members of his staff. we are all acutely aware of the current manning shortfalls in the military (overstretch?) so how would you suggest we overcome this problem.

You mention us X factor junkies, well is it not a fact that outside the military if you dont do the work you dont get the pay? where is the difference?

as a parting thought, how would we have managed during the last firemans strike, if say 5% of the manpower thrown at it said 'sorry boss, no can do, kids to look after'. It may have been that even more property was distroyed.

[Jobza Guddun]

Look, part of being in the military has always been that you have to be prepared to go anywhere at any time to do anything. We are NOT in a regular line of work despite some organisations and politicians efforts. We have a job to do with the minimum of people, old and crap equipment, and petty bureaucracy doing its best to hinder us.

It seems to me that there is an increasing number of people around who want the security of a 22 year engagement (or equivalent), wage paid if you're there or not, free medical / dental treatment, and pension etc, who also want to be able to work whatever hours they please, get out of which detachments they don't fancy going on, and basically rip off those of us who get on as best we can. In the last year alone I have personally been shafted with extra duties, had to cancel leave at short notice, and had to go on detachment at short notice because A Bloggs and his wife (who are a serving couple) couldn't find someone to mind the children while one was on nights, and because B Bloggs and HIS wife (both serving) couldn't get a sitter either. Am I being discriminated against because my wife is a housewife?

Quite frankly I am getting sick of people like this CPO taking the pi55 out of those of us who have to cover for them. I'm also getting sick of people like some here who say well done to these people for taking the MOD to tribunals and winning, because this is doing us all no favours at all. Managing situations like this is a nightmare. Yes, we do quite often get treated like crap, but at the end of the day we are all just numbers on a computer. Service life has never been conducive to a 'normal' existence.

Now I like my stability as much as the next person, but I recognise that the RAF has things to do, and if I'm the person they want, I go. I don't whinge my way out of things, but I do bloody resent having to pick up the pieces left by some chiseller.

Bottom line - if you want to choose your own hours, go work for Burger King.

That concludes the ranting.:mad: :mad: :mad:

[soddim]

Well said, Jobza Guddun. Having been to war in order to replace someone who found a family excuse not to go I think those who take the Queen's shilling should make themselves available to do the hours whenever they are required, wherever they are required and for as long as they are required.

Alternative work attitudes have no place in the armed services.

[propulike]

Lunch-Monitor

Temp, 5 days a week, £14 an hour, 4hrs a day, 46 weeks a year costs £12880. No extras such as home to duty, living in quarters, childcare or regular court penalties ;).

Alf,

Good leadership means you look after your people. To give someone preferential treatment when it is not considered necessary BY THE GUYS WHO WORK FOR YOU is bad for morale. That isn't sexist, cowardly or old-fashioned.



The job that needs to be done is not satisfied by working part-time - deployments are expected of everyone in todays forces. Lose one person, replace them with two part-timers neither of whom can actually do the job you want? Please! When someone in Uniform won't/can't do their 'bit' the rest of their section suffer the consequences of that persons choice through increased workload / deployment rates. Yes look after the guys. No don't penalise them. This Court's decision is fundamentally flawed.

[Alf Aworna]

Still can't quite believe some of the postings here. The everyone should like it or lump it and do the job regardless of circumstances attitude is shortsighted in the extreme. Yes we should not stand for malingerers who use their personal position to shirk stuff- I have no problem with that at all, but the vast majority are not doing that. Unfortunately not everyone is in the position where they can walk out of the door at 10 secs notice and start helping to bomb the next country back to the stone age/fight fires for malingering gits- thats a simple fact of life. However you cannot just say people can't have kids (!) or can't be married to other service members. Domestic arrangements especially when both partners are in the service are exceptionally hard to organise when children are involved. Now if its a short term problem then I don't have a problem with special arrangements. If you have a problem with that then I suggest you are a pretty selfish individual after all who's to know when someone may need to cover for you. If it is a long term thing then the people do not need to be in that particular job as it is not good for them or the unit. Sorry Jobza but if people can't get childcare (with a caveat of despite their best efforts) then its pretty simple. Perhaps we could put the children in care so that you don't do the night shift or get deployed? I think not. If someone is worrying about their kids and how they're going to look after them then I don't want them anywhere near an aeroplane cos their mind isn't on the job. Its a horrible decision and it sucks for you but its the lesser of 2 evils.
The main reason that all this is a problem is because of the poor manning and poor childcare facilities that the forces provide and at the moment its only getting worse. Manning should be at a level where people can be on a different shift etc due to extenuating circumstances without excessively penalising everyone else. We all know that isn't the case. The MOD needs to spend some money on childcare facilities so that people can trust that their kids are being looked after and can get on with their jobs whatever the shift pattern. Childcare should be able to handle long term deployments and operations. If you think thats money wasted because you're single or don't have any kids then carry on whinging and enjoy your endless deployments whilst the untenable situatiuon that exists goes on- that childcare would indirectly benefit you. In the longer term, sabbaticals or transfers to the reserves should be offered to people who want to spend time bringing up their kids and then return to the service. PMA/Air Force Board are the only people who can solve that and the sooner they realise what a massive issue this is and start investing some time and money the better. The payback is huge not only in terms of morale but also in retention.
Finally propulike, leadership is not a commitee process or a popularity contest. The leader makes the decisions not the tea bar and if its contentious then it should be presented so that people understand why it was made. Thats called communication, a new concept in some quarters. If you have a problem with it then talk to your boss, it should work both ways.

[Maple 01]

Sorry Alf, your comments

Unfortunately not everyone is in the position where they can walk out of the door at 10 secs notice and start helping to bomb the next country back to the stone age/fight fires for malingering gits- thats a simple fact of life

Don’t cut it, you're wanting a two tier Armed force, 'war goers' and 'the stay at homes'. Presumably you wouldn't be happy if the 'stay at homes' had their promotion prospects curtailed or pay cut because that would be 'unfair' - what's really unfair is expecting others to 'pick-up the slack' because of life choices they made.

The everyone should like it or lump it and do the job regardless of circumstances attitude is short-sighted in the extreme.

The Armed forces is not a 'normal job', at the end of the day if you're told you're off to the back of beyond then you go or leave.

leadership is not a committee process or a popularity contest.

No, but remember a thing they might have mentioned at IOT, morale? What's it going to do for a section when the burden of the more unpleasant tasks falls on a small subsection of the flight/squadron because they are:
1. Male
2. Single
And wouldn't that be some form of discrimination too?
And how quickly would the PVR rate go up amongst the ‘lucky few?’


Perhaps we could put the children in care so that you don't do the night shift or get deployed?

Only emotional rhetoric can save us now!

The main reason that all this is a problem is because of the poor manning and poor childcare facilities that the forces provide and at the moment its only getting worse.

While I can go along with the first, I don't remember child care facilities being mentioned in the recruiting literature

If you think that’s money wasted because you're single or don't have any kids carry on whinging and enjoy your endless deployments whilst the untenable situation that exists goes on

Now that we've got a 'mission statement' can someone show me where, in amongst providing Air power (AP3000 refers) and being 'a force for world good' © T Blair the RAF is duty bound to provide childcare? And the fact that you're overlooking is the singlies ARE ALREADY getting jiffed because of the attitudes you seem so keen to defend - people weaselling out of their responsibilities.


sabbaticals or transfers to the reserves should be offered to people who want to spend time bringing up their kids and then return to the service.

I've got no problem with that as long as PMA actually post in replacments - but how likely is that? There are enough 'gapped posts' doing the rounds as it is.

The leader makes the decisions not the tea bar

So let me make sure I've got this right, like it or lump it and do the job regardless of circumstances attitude is short-sighted unless it suits your purpose!

regards

-Nick

Married with a kid and not a 'war goer'

[propulike]

Blimey Maple 01 - you got in there before I could defend myself and said most of what I wanted!

Alf,

People are not expected to remain single and childless. However the Forces have now had applied (retrospectively) that it's fighters (ie everyone in uniform) can return to work after starting a family and that the fighters can work part-time.

leadership is not a commitee process or a popularity contest. The leader makes the decisions not the tea bar and if its contentious then it should be presented so that people understand why it was made. Thats called communication, a new concept in some quarters. If you have a problem with it then talk to your boss, it should work both ways.

To keep morale up, the people working for you must believe you're working with their interests in mind also. Telling experienced guys that they have to go away more often in order that someone else's children can have their parents at home more isn't just contentious.

It's wrong.

[Alf Aworna]

:hmm: Er no maple 01 read my post - I'm not advocating a 2 tier 'goers and stayers', I actually want what you describe- a single deployable force. No, I too can't stand the people that abuse their position to get taken off deployments and night shifts (through family, medical or other reasons) and I don't want them in the RAF. I don't have a problem with reducing the pay of people who can't be deployed for prolonged periods. My point is that for the non malingerers that want to serve, your all or nothing attitude simply drives them away too. Correct - The RAF is not a normal job and we spend more time away than ever so we need to look after people ,it should not matter whether you are single, married, married with kids, martian whatever. If you look after your people and show that you are doing so then they tend to stay around (morale??). Childcare is an important issue; I'm not saying the RAF pay for it but it should be easily accessable, reliable and affordable around bases. If you ignore the family and the effect it has on morale then do so at your peril. If you look after them you retain more people, morale is higher, there are more people around for the deployments, more experience, less gapped posts...... Also remember that the singlies of the present are normally the married guys of the future (presuming they don't all turn into weaselling gits after that 'life choice'). The lesson they are being taught at the moment isn't exactly positive and isn't a great motivator to stay in the RAF. Oh yes and if you want to start talking 'mission statements' then you might want to checkout CAS's viewpoint on the RAF community website, actually quite refreshing.

Regards

Alf

married with a kid wargoer x2 :E

[European Crash]

Alf,

A little over 10 years ago I was at Hereford undergoing the advance joined-up writing course, where inter alia I was briefed that we should advise pregnant airwomen to have an abortion, in order to stay in the Service. I thought it was in bad taste at the time; now I believe that it was scandalous, and in hind-sight almost beyond belief that we should recommend to our personnel such a Draconian measure.

I agree with you that many of the posts here represent a era that I thought the Services had left behind - it reminds me of the arguments that were floated to counter women aircrew - Oh, there's no room for separate toilets, etc etc. All of it complete Tosh, of course.

Perhaps to remind the other correspondents on this thread, the RAF is not above (most) employment law, unless it relates to security aspects (eg Nationality requirments). This is not an 'imposition' by the RAF - this was signed up to by Parliament. One should also recall the impact the Working Time Directive has had on shift patterns, for example.

I agree that this case may set a precedent - but that is a management issue. Consider: personnel can take time off to study, say, advance basket weaving - what, therefore, is wrong with allowing personnel to devote time to their families when the chips are down. We require of our troops unswerving loyalty; loyalty is a 2-way street. Circumstances must have been dire for this PO to take the case to a Tribunal.

EC.

[Mr C Hinecap]

Are there any other single heterosexual males out there who feel discriminated against? Even more than before? Not just 'a married man's air force' - will be everyone's but the single straight guy!

If I were allowed to stand up for my rights, I would!

[European Crash]

C-H

Are you saying you are unable to be a biological father - and therefore unable to claim for assitance from the Service with equanimity?

Perhaps we'll debate this over Lunch?

[Maple 01]

Perhaps we should seek the return of the 'Local service' Airwoman updated for the 21st Century with Airman and Officer equivalents. Can't be posted, can't be detached, can't rise above a certain rank, gets paid less, carried as overborne?


-Nick


Looks for flak jacket and Teflon tortoise

[Scud-U-Like]

Alf

Your forcible and enlightened observations on this matter, put to shame the ill-considered, banal and one-dimensional, crewroom big talk of some contributors.

[Training Risky]

And what forcible and enlightened observations might those be eh? The ones that suggest that those of us without kids should be carrying and covering for others who do have kids - all in the name of inclusiveness?:mad: :mad: :yuk:

[Alf Aworna]

TR I take it you'll be immediately leaving the service if you do have kids one day as I'm sure you wouldn't want to lumber the rest of us with such a burden. Maybe everyone with kids should leave, yes thats it what a fine plan!! :zzz:

[Mr C Hinecap]

Now, now Alf - don't bite like that!

I think T-R is making the point that this is, and has always been, a married man's Air Force. It is and there can be little arguement over that one.

The way things are panning out, it is everyone's Air Force EXCEPT the single guy. Not complaining about my lot (I can leave etc etc blah), but I do (sometimes) see single guys being shafted over and above others.
We have to support all our people and that does mean giving preferrential treatment at times. That is not the issue, and as a single guy I joined for travel, excitement etc (I believed the recruiters). It is hard to manage a section where 90% of the females on it are getting special treatment. When equal treatment is not given it can be devisive and cause resemtment.
Remember - what you see very much depends upon where you are standing.

Off to lie low now.

[Alf Aworna]

CHp Exactly. So we need facilities or access to facilities such as childcare to get a normal days work out of these people. If they need to leave the service environment for a period and come back in after they are better placed then that helps out too. You retain 1 and possibly 2 people for longer, the singlies work less, morale is higher etc etc. The RAF can't just do nothing and tell those with kids to get on with it, it doesn't work that way, especially for the mothers. If you do that they will end up prioritising their lives for you and you end up in the situation you describe. Thats been the point of my posts all along. I was a singly once you know.

[propulike]

How do you get a 'normal days work' out of someone who's part-time when the job isn't?

[Vage Rot]

I notice that the article doesn't mention a Mr Fish'ed? Perhaps he earns too much to reduce his hours and the easiest option was to change her's - less work, same pin money!

When you join the Service you have to accept that life isn't the same as normal civvy life. I had to look after my kids for a few months after my separation - 'Time off please boss?' No, I got a bloody nanny in and took the financial hit. (she was a bit of alright too!!! ;-)

And while I'm on, happy hour, dining-in, Summer ball etc should be compulsary and we should sack all the party-pooping non-drinkers!

BTW,

If anyone is thinking of getting married consider a live in Nanny:

It's chaeper than being married
You can exchange it for a different one every year, without financial penalty!
They don't nag you when you get home P1ssed
They have other young nanny friends!
It pisses off the ex!!!!

Regards

Vage!

[PICKS135]

Why should HMG supply childcare ? In the big bad world of civvy life the employer doesnt supply childcare facilities and if you bog off early from work to go to look after kids, Doctors appointment, etc. Then some employers wont even pay you.
My employer has even started asking us to make dental / doctors appointments outside of working hours.
Shafting the singlies has always been around.
How many singlies are on Q or duty fitter over the Christmas hols ? At one stage I can remember those living off camp didnt have to do duty fitter, reason given was it would take too long to get in :suspect: