Sorry I'm only part time
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: earth
Posts: 1,397
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Alternative work attitudes have no place in the armed services.
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.
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.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: UK, when I'm not taking people on their holidays
Posts: 51
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
TAC Int Bloke
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 975
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry Alf, your comments
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 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.
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?’
Only emotional rhetoric can save us now!
While I can go along with the first, I don't remember child care facilities being mentioned in the recruiting literature
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.
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.
So let me make sure I've got this right,
unless it suits your purpose!
regards
-Nick
Married with a kid and not a 'war goer'
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
The everyone should like it or lump it and do the job regardless of circumstances attitude is short-sighted in the extreme.
leadership is not a committee process or a popularity contest.
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?
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.
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
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.
The leader makes the decisions not the tea bar
like it or lump it and do the job regardless of circumstances attitude is short-sighted
regards
-Nick
Married with a kid and not a 'war goer'
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.
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,
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.
It's wrong.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: UK, when I'm not taking people on their holidays
Posts: 51
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Continent
Posts: 54
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Alf - I support your tenet
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.
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.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: in my combat underpants
Age: 53
Posts: 1,065
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Kind of on the Topic..........
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!
If I were allowed to stand up for my rights, I would!
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Continent
Posts: 54
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
C Hinecap
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?
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?
TAC Int Bloke
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 975
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
-Nick
Looks for flak jacket and Teflon tortoise
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?
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: UK, when I'm not taking people on their holidays
Posts: 51
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!! 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: in my combat underpants
Age: 53
Posts: 1,065
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: UK, when I'm not taking people on their holidays
Posts: 51
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Just down the road from ISK
Posts: 328
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mr Fish'ed?
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!
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!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Emptying the litter bin
Age: 65
Posts: 409
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
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
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
