Armed Forces Federation (Merged)
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 734
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
STH
There is always the potential for an organisation to be hijacked or politicised - you could argue that's exactly what Tony did to our forces today in Baghdad when they posed for yet another photo opportunity...however...
Perhaps the BAFF could lead the way in showing how representation should be done. Ironically our lack of Fed until now could allow us to get it right in these 'enlightened' times, learning from the FBU's and miner's mistakes.
As for it being a sorry day, I agree. But that day is here. People from all backgrounds are suffering from a lack of representation in issues ranging from wing foam to MQ tenancy agreements, capped actuals to Leaning. The Service hasn't got the resources to deal every issue, nor often the exposure to the right people to put at least some things right; I even occasionally get the feeling some of the critical pieces that make the headlines may even be welcomed some of the higher echelons, whose hands are often firmly bound.
But as a bottom line, is there much left to lose?
There is always the potential for an organisation to be hijacked or politicised - you could argue that's exactly what Tony did to our forces today in Baghdad when they posed for yet another photo opportunity...however...
Perhaps the BAFF could lead the way in showing how representation should be done. Ironically our lack of Fed until now could allow us to get it right in these 'enlightened' times, learning from the FBU's and miner's mistakes.
As for it being a sorry day, I agree. But that day is here. People from all backgrounds are suffering from a lack of representation in issues ranging from wing foam to MQ tenancy agreements, capped actuals to Leaning. The Service hasn't got the resources to deal every issue, nor often the exposure to the right people to put at least some things right; I even occasionally get the feeling some of the critical pieces that make the headlines may even be welcomed some of the higher echelons, whose hands are often firmly bound.
But as a bottom line, is there much left to lose?
BAFF
Originally Posted by Green Flash
Dallas
Many thanks, you've just seemed it up for me. A sad situation we find ourselves in, but almost inevitable. I hope wise counsel will prevent things ending in tears.
Many thanks, you've just seemed it up for me. A sad situation we find ourselves in, but almost inevitable. I hope wise counsel will prevent things ending in tears.
Lead on ...
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: SE490618
Age: 64
Posts: 182
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is a great idea but I have this awful feeling it will be run by a couple of retired Generals, the odd Air Vice Marshall and a doddery old Admiral and it will end up as a club for crusties... any chance of a few young people on the board
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 274
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is indeed a sad day when we are considering such measures, but I have seen the increasing politicisation of a service I am proud to be a part of. A long time ago when I joined, senior officers would happily stand up for their troops whereas now they worry about reaching the next rung and the ones that do stand out are singled out as mavericks. The Armed Forces boasts how its people are its strongest asset, and it's true they are, but it is fact that has been forgotten by many. It will be a fine balance however, since we also run the risk of becoming too 'cuddly' and our business is war - not politics.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 887
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
rafloo
You'll see from the first link above that the BAFF is intended to be a federation for lt cols and below, not the crusty air/general ranks you mention. That would be a maximum age of 40 or maybe 45. But that begs the question of what happens when these lt cols, etc get promoted. Do they then hang up their quills and let the next level take over, or does the power struggle begin? Or if they don't get promoted, will they bear an extra grudge because they have been passed over and so be the wrong men for the post? Also, will a junior NCO feel any more able to take his gripe to a senior officer than he does now, and will the procedures for doing so deter him further. Finally, how will confidential reports be affected when the reporting officer finds out that one of his underlings is a BAFF member? Just a few things to look at.
You'll see from the first link above that the BAFF is intended to be a federation for lt cols and below, not the crusty air/general ranks you mention. That would be a maximum age of 40 or maybe 45. But that begs the question of what happens when these lt cols, etc get promoted. Do they then hang up their quills and let the next level take over, or does the power struggle begin? Or if they don't get promoted, will they bear an extra grudge because they have been passed over and so be the wrong men for the post? Also, will a junior NCO feel any more able to take his gripe to a senior officer than he does now, and will the procedures for doing so deter him further. Finally, how will confidential reports be affected when the reporting officer finds out that one of his underlings is a BAFF member? Just a few things to look at.
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: In Hyperspace...
Posts: 395
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quickest way to career suicide if you ask me. Either that, or it will go the way of every other Union / Federation before it - ie it will end up representing it's OWN interests, and those of it's major players. Either way the organization will have no teeth of any consequence for the man on the 'shop floor'.
Unfortunately we are not here
- we are here to do the job, and that job has always been to be used as a political tool at the disposal of the incumbent administration.
Unfortunately we are not here
to represent, foster and promote the professional, welfare, and other legitimate interests of all members of the federation
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Far from the madding crowd
Posts: 250
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A nice read on the First Post about this, apologies if it's already been mentioned.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: England
Posts: 165
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Almost_done
Another interesting article. I tend to agree that a federation might be one of the few ways of recruiting, retaining and keeping the forces viable. We've always been presumed to be robots and to some degree that has to be the case, but an increasing number of issues seem to be swept under the carpet because we have no ability to represent our views and concerns.
Senior commanders cannot understand the daily pressures to achieve the task because it's not their job to manage at the coalface. A federation could shoulder the responsibility of the SO2 level who can, in real terms, change very little, nor give honest opinions without being labelled negative or trouble makers. The frustrated faces I see at work every day are increasing and across the ranks. And before anyone says 'its their job to flag-up problems', that would be why you bravely say that from behind a career-protecting pseudonym, right?
The 'success' of JPA should be a catalyst to asking questions about how we do business, before a similar 'success' is achieved with more life-threatening equipment, against a competent opponent.
We need to think the unthinkable...
Another interesting article. I tend to agree that a federation might be one of the few ways of recruiting, retaining and keeping the forces viable. We've always been presumed to be robots and to some degree that has to be the case, but an increasing number of issues seem to be swept under the carpet because we have no ability to represent our views and concerns.
Senior commanders cannot understand the daily pressures to achieve the task because it's not their job to manage at the coalface. A federation could shoulder the responsibility of the SO2 level who can, in real terms, change very little, nor give honest opinions without being labelled negative or trouble makers. The frustrated faces I see at work every day are increasing and across the ranks. And before anyone says 'its their job to flag-up problems', that would be why you bravely say that from behind a career-protecting pseudonym, right?
The 'success' of JPA should be a catalyst to asking questions about how we do business, before a similar 'success' is achieved with more life-threatening equipment, against a competent opponent.
We need to think the unthinkable...
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Not the front line
Posts: 87
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Green Flash
Does BAFF have a website yet?
The link will take you to a long list of US Military Associations....will give you an idea of what goes on this side of the salt water divide. As many times as not, retirees and former Military personnel are members of the associations.
http://www.fas.org/man/assoc.htm
http://www.fas.org/man/assoc.htm
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 119
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What has happened to BAFF? Their website hasn't changed for months, although they seem to be quoted every now and again in the media. Arrse and PPrune threads seem to have gone quiet as well.
Anyone out there with some info as to whether this is going to get off the ground or has it just fizzled out?
GB2
Anyone out there with some info as to whether this is going to get off the ground or has it just fizzled out?
GB2
Almost_done
Senior commanders cannot understand the daily pressures to achieve the task because it's not their job to manage at the coalface. A federation could shoulder the responsibility of the SO2 level who can, in real terms, change very little, nor give honest opinions without being labelled negative or trouble makers. The frustrated faces I see at work every day are increasing and across the ranks. And before anyone says 'its their job to flag-up problems', that would be why you bravely say that from behind a career-protecting pseudonym, right?
The 'success' of JPA should be a catalyst to asking questions about how we do business, before a similar 'success' is achieved with more life-threatening equipment, against a competent opponent.
We need to think the unthinkable...
Senior commanders cannot understand the daily pressures to achieve the task because it's not their job to manage at the coalface. A federation could shoulder the responsibility of the SO2 level who can, in real terms, change very little, nor give honest opinions without being labelled negative or trouble makers. The frustrated faces I see at work every day are increasing and across the ranks. And before anyone says 'its their job to flag-up problems', that would be why you bravely say that from behind a career-protecting pseudonym, right?
The 'success' of JPA should be a catalyst to asking questions about how we do business, before a similar 'success' is achieved with more life-threatening equipment, against a competent opponent.
We need to think the unthinkable...
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Up North
Posts: 801
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I believe that there is quite a bit of behind-the-scenes work going on, with announcements to be made fairly soon. This is likely to be quite a complex undertaking by volunteers who are keen to ensure that all bases are covered. After all, we all know the relative importance that Whitehall places on conditions of service compared to bean-counting and they would surely love to cut anything like BAFF off at the knees (at the taxpayers expense).
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 119
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chug,
my personal experience is that the commanders at the local level are indeed doing their job right. It is however a fact that we do not have a voice on a national political level. Yes CAS, CDS et al could rock the boat, however they work for the government who can at that level sack them on a whim. You can throw yourself on your sword but once. Having a body that can represent the service personnel in open forum and fight their corner without being politically manipulated would I think be an advantage to those serving.
Jess,
I suspect you are right. Better they get their plan watertight from the beginning. I was just a little concerned that they might have withered out.
GB2
my personal experience is that the commanders at the local level are indeed doing their job right. It is however a fact that we do not have a voice on a national political level. Yes CAS, CDS et al could rock the boat, however they work for the government who can at that level sack them on a whim. You can throw yourself on your sword but once. Having a body that can represent the service personnel in open forum and fight their corner without being politically manipulated would I think be an advantage to those serving.
Jess,
I suspect you are right. Better they get their plan watertight from the beginning. I was just a little concerned that they might have withered out.
GB2
quote=Green Bottle 2;2845290]Chug,
my personal experience is that the commanders at the local level are indeed doing their job right. It is however a fact that we do not have a voice on a national political level. Yes CAS, CDS et al could rock the boat, however they work for the government who can at that level sack them on a whim. You can throw yourself on your sword but once. Having a body that can represent the service personnel in open forum and fight their corner without being politically manipulated would I think be an advantage to those serving.GB2[/quote]
GB I’m afraid I profoundly disagree; the voice of the RAF at a national political level is the CAS, and his senior commanders. Yes, they can be sacked on a whim, and yes, they can throw themselves on their sword only once, and should the occasion demand, that is exactly what they should do. That is their compact with those that they lead, and their responsibility. Political interference in the chain of command, the scandal of kit shortages and shortcomings, the impositions of PC laden investigations replacing COs summary powers, all should have resulted in resignations in protest, but they didn’t! We are promised a long hard struggle ahead by the SoS for Defence, 10 years has been mentioned, which probably means double it and add some! At times like this you have to be ruthless, the deadwood needs cutting away to be replaced with those who know their responsibilities. We are at war, and bypassing the chain of command, thus pointing up its inadequacy, without reforming it will be bad for morale and bad for discipline. Don’t treat the symptoms treat the cause!
my personal experience is that the commanders at the local level are indeed doing their job right. It is however a fact that we do not have a voice on a national political level. Yes CAS, CDS et al could rock the boat, however they work for the government who can at that level sack them on a whim. You can throw yourself on your sword but once. Having a body that can represent the service personnel in open forum and fight their corner without being politically manipulated would I think be an advantage to those serving.GB2[/quote]
GB I’m afraid I profoundly disagree; the voice of the RAF at a national political level is the CAS, and his senior commanders. Yes, they can be sacked on a whim, and yes, they can throw themselves on their sword only once, and should the occasion demand, that is exactly what they should do. That is their compact with those that they lead, and their responsibility. Political interference in the chain of command, the scandal of kit shortages and shortcomings, the impositions of PC laden investigations replacing COs summary powers, all should have resulted in resignations in protest, but they didn’t! We are promised a long hard struggle ahead by the SoS for Defence, 10 years has been mentioned, which probably means double it and add some! At times like this you have to be ruthless, the deadwood needs cutting away to be replaced with those who know their responsibilities. We are at war, and bypassing the chain of command, thus pointing up its inadequacy, without reforming it will be bad for morale and bad for discipline. Don’t treat the symptoms treat the cause!
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: East Anglia
Posts: 1,873
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chugalug, I agree on the whole with what you say, except that there is no voice to make it known that the body is sick. Treating the cause is, of course, what should be done, however who is there to administer the cure? The government of the day won't because essentially they want compliance in helping them achieve their political aims (which may or may not be the cause of the current dissatisfaction). Those in service cannot because we all believe in military discipline and the chain of command. Those outside the services with the best will in the world don't understand so they just don't have a say in the matter. The shame is that the chain has let us down time after time, this is not one VSO, but many, and presumably they are influential in the promotion of people with similar views and aspirations.
I wonder which is worse for morale, the possibility that we get guys at the top whose loyalty is to the crown and the interests of the country (outside of politics), or knowing that sometime in the near future you are going to get shafted?
I wonder which is worse for morale, the possibility that we get guys at the top whose loyalty is to the crown and the interests of the country (outside of politics), or knowing that sometime in the near future you are going to get shafted?
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 119
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chug,
you have highlighted the fact that the chain of command in has been found wanting and therefore is not working for the sailor/soldier/airman on the ground.
It has only been by the publicity of cases (highlighted not through the chain of command) in the media about equipment shortages that has forced the system to react. Whilst some might disagree, I personally have seem a massive improvement in the quality and quanitity of kit I have been issued since 2003 Gulf War. This is one role that a federation could fulfil.
Also who gives advice to personnel who wish to seek redress / legal action outside of the QR system? At the moment I would be confused who could provide that. I could consult a lawyer, but which one is good at dealing with such specialist cases. I have no doubt if I needed to find out I could, but I wager there are many thousands out there who would struggle financially or otherwise.
I think there are advantages and disadvantages to both ways (i.e. with and without a federation), but on balance my money is on with.
GB2
you have highlighted the fact that the chain of command in has been found wanting and therefore is not working for the sailor/soldier/airman on the ground.
It has only been by the publicity of cases (highlighted not through the chain of command) in the media about equipment shortages that has forced the system to react. Whilst some might disagree, I personally have seem a massive improvement in the quality and quanitity of kit I have been issued since 2003 Gulf War. This is one role that a federation could fulfil.
Also who gives advice to personnel who wish to seek redress / legal action outside of the QR system? At the moment I would be confused who could provide that. I could consult a lawyer, but which one is good at dealing with such specialist cases. I have no doubt if I needed to find out I could, but I wager there are many thousands out there who would struggle financially or otherwise.
I think there are advantages and disadvantages to both ways (i.e. with and without a federation), but on balance my money is on with.
GB2
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: wilts
Posts: 1,667
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree with GB2. Balance with. Other mature democracies have something similar and it works. Not unlike BALPA in the airlines. Someone to represent outside chain of command, advice on law, working hand in hand with management. Highlighting areas for improvement and of concern. Even, maybe insisting on minimum levels of equipment.
Seems to me the most contentious area would be "military risk" on ops. Something like BAFF has been discussed in the past, but never as seriously as now. This can only be because of a general feeling that leadership at high levels is not there. One would imagine that if the chiefs got back to fighting tooth and nail for their men then talk of a need for BAFF would melt away.....
Seems to me the most contentious area would be "military risk" on ops. Something like BAFF has been discussed in the past, but never as seriously as now. This can only be because of a general feeling that leadership at high levels is not there. One would imagine that if the chiefs got back to fighting tooth and nail for their men then talk of a need for BAFF would melt away.....