Nine in 10 RAF staff say service is overstretched

[JessTheDog]

Damn right, one of the reasons I handed in my kit. I never had a full complement of staff, budgets were being cut and the workload was increasing. Ahh, civviedom is so relaxing......

From the Independent:

Nine in 10 RAF staff say service is overstretched
By Francis Elliott, Deputy Political Editor
30 January 2005


Almost half of all RAF staff believe morale is low and nearly nine in 10 think they are being overstretched and it is causing serious problems.

Fresh evidence that Britain's air force is in crisis emerged in an analysis of internal opinion surveys published today.

The Independent on Sunday last week revealed the increasing incidence of the sexual harassment of female officers in the RAF.

Female personnel responding to an official survey recorded high levels of personal experience of harassment, with 56 per cent saying they had never been targeted.

Now an analysis of a second survey has found striking evidence of a wider malaise among the 52,650-strong service. Figures taken from the 2003 RAF Continuous General Attitude Survey suggest that 87 per cent of staff believe that there is overstretch and that it is causing serious problems in the RAF, with 68 per cent saying their own area of operation was being hit.

The latest available official survey on conditions in the air force also found that 49 per cent believe morale is low. An explanation for the disaffection is suggested by figures on working hours that indicate personnel are working an average of eight hours above the standard working week. Almost 190,000 hours were worked over a 48-hour week.

More than half of all staff surveyed blamed work commitments for failing to take entitled holiday leading to an estimated 450,000 days of annual leave left unclaimed, an analysis carried out by the Liberal Democrats found.

Paul Keetch, the party's defence spokesman, said the evidence of overstretch meant that it would be "irresponsible" for the Government to press ahead with planned cuts.

"Given the precision required throughout the service - by pilots, technicians and support staff - there is a very serious risk that safety could be jeopardised and performance undermined," he said.

[BEagle]

Trouble is the other 10% are perhaps the 'management' who would never admit to saying such a thing......

One wonders how much of that so-called 'sexual harrassment' is simply people losing their tempers and snapping at their female colleagues - all basically because of being made to do too much with too little and far too often?

[Mad_Mark]

Figures taken from the 2003 RAF Continuous General Attitude Survey suggest that 87 per cent of staff believe that there is overstretch and that it is causing serious problems in the RAF, with 68 per cent saying their own area of operation was being hit.

And that was before they announced the cuts (sorry, restructuring :hmm: ) :mad:

MadMark!!! :mad:

[Cambridge Crash]

Although I accept that the consequences of overstretch may be different in the Services, are PPruners presupposing that similar sentiments are expressed by staffers in any large organisation? Perhaps similar comparisons can be made with burnout rates in aid agencies, NGOs and IGOs.

No large company - or Government department or agency, for that matter – operating within the Globalised Capitalist system can afford to keep staff on a 'contingency' basis to cope with surge operations. Financial stringency, whether externally controlled such as the case in most Government departments, or determined by the profit line (or both!) in private companies will always result in dynamic loading of staff. It is the Capitalist means of production, ie exploitation of the workers.

Unless the Service are reorganised on a collective basis, and stop these overseas escapades that are contrary to rule-based International Law, overstretch will remain a constant reminder of the iniquitous system.

CC

[StopStart]

Yeah!

Up the Popular People's Front!

Viva la Revolution!

Erm....:rolleyes:

[Cambridge Crash]

You may knock my sentiments, but I challenge you to read the wealth (hint of self-parody) of literature on the pernicious effects of Globalization and the use of force. As an example of US thinking in re the use of naval might, the following is a quote from the US DOD "Globalization and Maritme Power" publication of 2002:

'Likely changes in the various facets of globalization should strengthen the economic impacts of naval forward presence and crisis response. In turn, the stability provided by naval forward presence should assure deepening of the globalization process.’

The volume concludes with Freedman's assertion that Globailization, coupled with the use of force, is a Capitalist adventure.

If you want to read a sorry history that has been largely airbrushed out of the British consciousness, I suggest you read Mike Davis "Late Vistorian Holocausts". It will challenge most right wing orthodoxy about the role of Imperial policies and Capitalist exploitation.

I concede that I have strayed from the thread, and my heart goes out to the families of those who serve, who 'just have to get on with it' when the primary wage earner is away on spurious foreign adventures, especially in light of the news of the loss of a C-130. Requim in Pace

cc

[Flatus Veteranus]

Cambridge Crash

I assume that your strictures on the US use of "naval might" in situations such as crisis response, includes the US Navy's enormous contribution to disater relief in the Indian Ocean? The USN and USMC helicopter contribution in such areas as Banda Aceh was really the only effective intervention by any nation. You really do talk a load of tosh - as one would expect from any "'tab"!

[Cambridge Crash]

I thought a tab was a cigarette. I don't smoke. Obviously something else in your parlance FV.

In the case of Banda Aceh, perhaps more emphasis could have been placed on reconcilling the conflict in Aceh province beforehand rather than the denial of self determination by the Jakarta regime, ably backed by the present - and previous - US administrations. This would not have stopped the catastrophe from happening, but it would have greatly assisted indigenous response, rather than the Jakarta view that this was a strategic windfall in their campaign to supress the locals.

I do not criticise the US response; rather, I have pointed out that in my first post that overstretch is a feature of a market economy by enhancing profit through the control of the means of production.

Presumably you have read some of the body of literature about Globalization, then? It challenged my orthodoxy after 20 years in uniform.


A issue more related to the thread, perhaps, is the matter of recruitment. I recently sidled through the graduate recruitment fare, full of multinationals and government departments handing out loads of goodies and free tickets for copious amounts of food and drink - as well as offering some pretty impressive jobs and internships - and staffed by young, exciting people. I then spied the RAF stand, situated near the gents toilets, and what a sad spectacle. A long-in-the-tooth Cpl with tattoos and a positively elderly Flt Lt, bulging out of his no 2s with the remnants of a hearty lunch sporting his shirt. There were a few free pens on offer. The jobs that people were being led down were derisory (eg a physics tripos being offered an enlisted med-tech job); I suspect most graduates at the fare would have viewed the whole effort as pathetic, although I accept that those who want to fly would, I hope, not be deterred by such a poor show.


CC

[L1A2 discharged]

The Armed Forces IS / ARE (grammar?) a contingency organisation.
Expensive in peacetime but vital to be ready to leap into whatever action TMT or George W decides upon, whenever and wherever ...

ML41k and reducing ....

"We have now done so much, with so little, for so long that we are now expected to do everything with NOTHING" :mad:

[Argus]

Cambridge Crash
I recently sidled through the graduate recruitment fare
Not an English major, are we?
I then spied the RAF stand, situated near the gents toilets, and what a sad spectacle. A long-in-the-tooth Cpl with tattoos and a positively elderly Flt Lt, bulging out of his no 2s with the remnants of a hearty lunch sporting his shirt.

I'm not quite sure what you intend by this statement. It's possible that the young, exciting people that you appear to salivate over are actually assisting in alleviating the alleged overstretching.

And, what, precisely do you mean by 'long in the tooth' and 'positively elderly'? Or are just relieved to have found some one older than yourself who, unlike yourself, and your alleged 20 years in uniform, is still trying to make a useful contribution in difficult times?

Or (and at the risk of repetition) are you suffering from an over-exposure to Sociology 100-1 in middle age?

[XL5]

Argus

Ref to your post. I believe that 'some one' is actually one word: someone. Stones being thrown in glasshouses and all that. Pet u lance - another good word! I'd best check this over very carefully before posting.

[Cambridge Crash]

Argus - you make a very good point about the staff at the recruitment fare (used in the sense of a journey - OCD refers) being indicative of overstretch. The list 1 Cpl was on his last tour; the Flt Lt had been brought back out of retirement. I am sure they are working very hard at recruiting quality graduates, but in a very competitive employment market the effort looked, well, down at heel. The RAF is a fine service which I have defended to the hilt in other threads, but it is a sad fact that it is subject to many of the same globalized pressures as other Capitalist enterprises.

After 20 years of service, the experience of academia is a refreshing and exciting change for me. No one can accuse me of having not done my duty; indeed I suspect that my service continues de facto as I am able to give my fellow post-grads a differing and extemporised perspective when discussing and analysing world events (ie I can bore them as well!) Future employment with an IGO will allow me to continue to make a contribution to IPS (international peace and stability) in a manner less constrained than being in uniform. No, by the way, I am not doing sociology and neither have my political beliefs changed significantly since being an undergrad over 20 years ago.

CC

[Dusty_B]

But you're still a Tab though http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/tongue.gif
http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/roll.gif

[BEagle]

Cantabularis - for those who aren't in the know. Hence a derogatory term for a student of the pale blue persuasion.

[Cambridge Crash]

Obviously a 'town', not a 'gown' espression. Thanks BEagle.

But getting back to the thread (which I have seemed to have hijacked). It is very likely that overstretch will continue to be a feature of Service life. The forces are designed for contingencies but are increasingly being used in Capitalist ventures of choice, not for conflicts of national survival, ie self defence (UN Charter Art 51). This begs the question of the effect that a Service person would have if that person refused to participate in expeditionary ops if s/he believed it to be unlawful (ie an undertaking to prohibit state acts of agression Art 2(4) et seq.) The Monoist legal system in Britain immediately adopts international treaties and conventions as domestic law (subject to Parliamentary ratification), thus to participate in an aggressive act, unless bound by the principle of collective self defence, in itself would be unlawful. Nor would the Nuremberg defence be acceptable to wit 'I was following orders'. Without reference to matters sub judice, an order from a superior requiring a Service person to carry out an unlawful act - eg torture, should not be followed, irrespective of the conditions under which such order was given.

I am not sure that there is much sympathy in the eyes of the public for service personnel with respect to time spent away, on the asssumption that 'they know what they were in for when they signed up'. I have heard on several occasions from otherwise well-informed people, 'well, what are the army doing when they are not at war?'. The RAF, of course, is never distinguished form th army. The assumption is 'you're soldiers, therefore you fight'.

As I heard a senior enlisted USN chap say once: Choose your rate, accept your fate'.

[Decent in Descent]

Cambridge Crash - aka Tarquin's Dad

I have read, with difficulty, your intellectual drivel.

I assume that you are, by the nature of your posts, an academic with a beard (If so, Howzzzat!).

More importantly, why do YOU presuppose that Military aviators wish to share in your lefty clap-trap.

What to you is "Capitalist... exploitation of workers..." Is perhaps, in our eyes, an opportunity of a lifetime.

The democratic Government decide how and when we are to be used. That same Government makes its decisions on feedback received from the Senior Officers of the Armed Forces. The point of this thread is that many Service personnel wish stronger representation to be made about real overstretch.

I hope you now "get-it" and we can continue to discuss the unquantifiable quandary we face.

D2

PS Get a copy of Viz and read "The Modern Parents"

[BEagle]

Actually, 'Tab' is an Oxonian gown expression. But nonetheless quite widely known outside the cloisters.

[henry crun]

CC: I give you the opportunity to digress from the thread even further.
You only mention the capitalist ventures of choice, but what about the non capitalist ventures of choice ?

There are many examples but just take two, the Soviet suppression of Hungarian revolution in 1956 and their invasion of Afghanistan in 1979.
Neither were conflicts of national survival or self defence.

While it is probably true that the Soviet armed forces of that era never suffered from overstretch, it could be argued that as a system for exploitation of the workers, communism was the winner by a large margin.

[Cambridge Crash]

Decent in Descent.

As I am no longer serving I have the unalienable right to grow a beard when I choose...can you? Haven't read Viz in years, but I can remember who Tarquin is. A little right-wing Sh%t, if I recall correctly.

Harry Crun.

I was referring to the actions of HM forces, and at last look in the FT the UK was a Capitalist state. You mention the unwarranted Soviet invasions of Hungary and Afghanistan as examples of interventions that were not a matter of self-defence. I agree. Was the recent invasion of Iraq a matter of self defence? Had the UNSC sanctions and containment missions (ie Nthn & Sthn Watch) failed? Had the UN inspection regime turned up WMD?

I hope that you don't think because I express liberal/progressive views that I am ipso facto a Communist? We have moved on from the black and white world of the Cold War, although the neo-Conservatives in the White House haven't. I also agree with your assertion that the Soviet Union was not a workers' Utopia - but the relevance of that to UK involvement in recent wars of choice? It doesn't follow.

Overstretch

The issue of greater representation has been mentioned - to what ends? To express worker disatisfaction? To ask for more leave (even though a considerable percentage of personnel haven't taken their entitlement. BTW, has the practice of top-draw leave passes stopped?) To question war aims?

Do the forces need more people, more flexible employment contracts (contracts would be a start!), better kit - or less involvment in Capitalist ventures?

Yesterday a group of brave service personnel died in pursuit of a questionable facet of a dubious Foreign Policy. I argue that this is where the pressure should be applied - greater debate on Foreign Policy, greater support for multilateral institutions and a healtyh cynicism for anything coming out of the White House requiring UK endorsement on the spurious grounds of international legitimacy.

And no, I am not sullying the names of those who have died in Iraq. They did more than was expected of them in pursuit of foreign policy folly.

Oh, by the way. I am close to completing my second post-graduate degree, and spent 20 years in two Services, and did my fair share of operational dets, and only had a beligerent weapon pointed at me twice. And for ayone who knows me, they would confirm that a Thesaurus is light reading for me... Yah Boo Sucks!

[Argus]

Cambridge Crash

Fare comment.

Your desire to make a contribution to international peace and stability is commendable. But don't knock Capitalism. It's the wealth generated by the private sector (and not the dead hand of academia and bureaucracy) that pays the taxes that fund both your education and the costs of your good works.

Good luck.

[Cambridge Crash]

OK I accept your point and appologise for missing it. I was still miffed about having my Service record questioned...

Nonetheless, the Capitalist system is based on exploitation, and with further deepening of our economies as a feature of Globality, this exploitation has untold consequences in producer nations. Just consider where your food is produced - often at the expense of economic - and nutritional - self-sufficiency of that State.

I could harp on, but this does not address the issue of overstretch in the Services. Adopting a pragmatic, rather than a progressive viewpoint, how can manning staffs adequately plan for Government adventure? Predications of one major war fighting, 2 minor non-war fighting commitments do not reflect the instability of the world in which Britain operates and purports to have an interest. Why, for an example, should we not get militarily involved in Darfur (putting questions of legality aside) when thousands are still dying with the direct involvment of teh Sudanese Government, compared with, say, remaining the lead nation in Bosnia-Herzegovina? Where is the oft-lauded ethical foreign policy?

CC

[Vage Rot]

Cambridge old son,


Just deleted the reply I had intended to post - it was almost as much drivel as your's!!!

[Cambridge Crash]

Vage,

Thanks for your helpful and informative post. But I digress...

How do you suggest that overstretch is reduced? More troops and appropriate scaling of equipment, or fewer overseas deployments and commitments? That's what the issue boils down to.

I cannot see this government appreciably increasing the Defence Vote, especially after redundancies were passed through parliament. Increased civilianising and reskilling displaced service personnel? Yeah, sure. Reduction of commitment to NRF? Government is pacta sunt servanda on this one. Reduction of military capability or core tasks ? (like driving Green Godesses?) No chance

Exit strategy for Iraq? It is, well, vague - and contingent upon indigenous capability. Where else should we withdraw from? Bosnia? Only 2 months ago the UK took lead nation in the EU mission there so I think not. Kosovo? Our presences is minimal now. Fixed commitments - Cyprus? Not until hell freezes over. Gibralter? Absolute minimum there now. Falklands/Malvinas? Again, minimal commitmnent there, but there is no drive for a diplomatic accomodation from either party. Northern Ireland? The draw-down is continuing in spite of, err, troubles.

No, this is quite a dilemma. I have, in previous posts, suggested alternatives. No doubt you regard progressive thought as naive; perhaps in your eyes the Enlightenment only happened to other people...

C 'Tab' C

[Vage Rot]

It is Gibraltar old son, not Gibralter.

Then again, it is the OXFORD English Dictionary and not the Cambridge English Dictionary!!!

The rights and wrongs of military action could be debated for eons. Lets do it after we all return home safe and not undermine the morale of those that are still in danger eh?!!

[Cambridge Crash]

VR

Bearing in mind that this thread is about reported overstretch (and therefore how this could be tackled) I fail to see your logic that by discussing the matter with undermine morale?

More deployable personnel or fewer commitments - that is the bottom line.


CC

[Patty O'Doors]

Lovely English language gents, but excuse me for pointing out that while you have a Grammar War, this thread is supposed to be about the fact that since 1980 (at least) the politicians or 'Them' as we like to call them, have been finding ways to take money away from the Armed forces, with little or no real efficiency measures or effective cost cutting, and by effective I mean spending money on the right things.

Look at all the money that was thrown at the Nimrod AWACS when it was never going to work while I had a hole in my posterior, and If I have not spelt that right I really don't give a :mad:

[Spotting Bad Guys]

If the FI detachments are at an absolute minimum, how come we have over 800 RAF personnel there? Makes little sense to me......

SBG