Armed Forces Federation (Merged)

[JessTheDog]

A federation has to be uniform - all ranks, from the newest recruit to the crustiest admiral/general/air marshal. It should also be supported by those who support the Armed Forces - families, veterans.

There appear to be three broad strands of opinion:

1. No need for a Federation, everything is working fine. This opinion is held genuinely by a handful of ministers and civil servants, and cosmetically by the top brass. These can be categorised as "ostriches" for obvious reasons.

2. There are problems in representing the interests of the Armed Forces but this should be the sole role of the CoC and a Federation may undermine the CoC. This view is not unattractive - if anyone had mentioned a Federation to me when I joined I would have been scornful myself - but there is so much that simply cannot be undone - the civilianisation/privatisation of so many support services, for example. This is perhaps a "traditionalist" view.

3. There are problems in representing the interests of the Armed Forces and a Federation (with certain restrictions - no strike action and no comment on the conduct of operations) is the only way of addressing the situation. This view has been a minority view in the past, with most taking the "traditionalist" view. Until recently. I believe there is a majority now interested in a Federation, due to various defence scandals - the lack of CBA, manning control, changes to the pension scheme, increase in quartering charges, overstretch. There is a perception (I believe an accurate one) that decision-making is driven by political expediency and cost cutting, in the knowledge that complaints will be suppressed and spin can be used to deal with public perceptions. This is possibly a "modernist" view.

I don't believe there are many substantial differences between the views of the "traditionalists" and the "modernists" - both camps recognise there are problems. Throughout military history, there have been those who have wanted to keep things the way they are (or were) and those who have wanted to change things. Both camps have been wrong on many occasions (the relaxation of the rules on homosexuals led to no outbreaks of buggery in the trenches to my knowledge, air power alone is not a replacement for boots on the ground) and I believe that the evolution of the Armed Forces is best served by a balance between both camps - one foot in the past, one foot in the future. I recently finished reading Dusty Warriors by Brig Richard Holmes, and I was struck by how the private soldiers and junior NCOs - products of a modern generation - rose to the challenge by drawing inspiration from the longstanding traditions of the British Army in a way that would have made their WW2 counterparts enormously proud. I don't think that a Federation would undermine this ethos, and modernisation can be accommodated and complemented by tradition - and vice versa.

[tgarden]

Wrathmonk & Pontius Nav
Although the BBC summary online might sound as though I was advocating the BAFF as other ranks, that is not my position. I was actually comparing reading PPruNE or ARRSE to being poked in the chest in the bar on a Friday night. It is worth listening to the whole programme.
If a Federation is to work it must be drawn from all levels and all Services. The problems occur at any rank.

[allan907]

Lord Garden - as a retired member of the RAF (and our paths crossed inconsequentially a couple of times) may I be possibly the first to say thank you for appearing on this forum. Your views are appreciated and I think it is incredibly valuable for serving members (and some retired ones) to be able to have access to you and perhaps, in some small way, to have our views heard.

[Pontius Navigator]

Sir, can I add my thanks to Allan907.

The point trying to make was the potential issue of one-size fits all and the fact that many organisations have several different representatives for instance doctors, surgeons, nurses etc.

Yes representation is needed but it must be the right representation, acceptable to all.

[GlosMikeP]

Lord Garden - Perhaps the greatest benefit of all is that you can say in public what the serving 3 and 4 stars can't. There's lots of useful ammo here and much that should be said.

For heaven's sake don't stop!

[Chugalug2]

Originally Posted by allan907

Chugalug I did not say that the CoC should be a popularity contest.
...- and if any new system decides that they have to account for those decisions (by dealing with a BAFF) then it will winkle out the bullsh*tters who are merely trying to cover their backside while sucking up to their superiors. Conversely it will aid the 'good' guys in that, hopefully, the masses will be able to see the reasoning behind the crap decisions.

No A907, you didn't say that, but I implied that your 'new' system could result in a tendency to try to be popular. If any decision made was liable to 'review' by BAFF, officers who had made ones declared to be unpopular or 'deleterious' would find themselves abandoned by the CoC to 'account' for them on their own. So the answer would be to make no decisions, or constantly defer them, ie a paralysis of command. Of course the power of BAFF would rise accordingly as it felt obliged to fill the vacuum resulting from this paralysis. A CoC that doesn't command and 'workers representatives' who increasingly take over more and more of the day to day running of the operation. In next to no time the British Armed Forces could stand proudly by the other commanding heights of the Nationalised Industries that were named British (Rail, Transport, Steel, Gas, Telecom etc). Well include me out, and I suspect any one else that discovered that their career in them could be subject to formal assessment by ones subordinates and superiors alike. I've said it before, if it's broke, fix it. Anything that has been done can be undone, or changed. The powers taken away from local commanders should be reinstated. The British Armed Forces are disciplined services, or are supposed to be. If you don't like discipline, get out, if you can't command, get out, and for God's sake CAS fix it!

[JessTheDog]

A CoC that doesn't command and 'workers representatives' who increasingly take over more and more of the day to day running of the operation. In next to no time the British Armed Forces could stand proudly by the other commanding heights of the Nationalised Industries that were named British (Rail, Transport, Steel, Gas, Telecom etc).

How negative! The same people who are interested in a representative Federation are those who are relied upon to do their duty in unpleasant places at great risk to life and limb. If they cannot be trusted to represent their own interests with regard to terms and conditions of service, then how can they be trusted to carry out their duties? That smacks of an anachronistic view of the Armed Forces dating back to the height of the Cold War! Our people deserve better.

I don't think the CoC necessarily has a negative view. A Federation could raise legitimate welfare issues outwith the CoC without impinging on operational effectiveness, to the material and morale benefit of all. When officers of the calibre of Air Marshal Lord Garden support the concept, the idea that the CoC will have an automatic opposition to a Federation is simply not tenable. The main opposition will be from politicians and senior civil servants/special advisors who will object mainly because a Federation may provide a contrary view to the Panglossian corporate communications machinery of Whitehall. Events in Afghanistan have demonstrated that what is spun by the MoD can be somewhat different from reality and, when there is a monopoly on media contact, there is little that can be said to the contrary (although the new CGS appears to be made of sterner stuff than his predecessors when it comes to telling uncomfortable truths!)

These are the 10 Points that form the core values of BAFF:

1. A professional staff association is to be formed for members of Her Majesty’s Forces under the provisional title of the BRITISH ARMED FORCES FEDERATION (BAFF).

2. Comparable bodies have for years served the armed forces of allied countries such as the United States and Australia, with official co-operation and no negative impact on operational effectiveness or military discipline. The proposed federation is, however, designed to be a specifically British solution for the British armed forces. It will reflect and respect the ethos and robust traditions of the three fighting services. It will meet all requirements of British military and other law, including international conventions adopted by the United Kingdom.

3. The federation’s mission shall be to represent, foster and promote the professional, welfare, and other legitimate interests of all members of the federation in their capacity as serving or retired personnel of the fighting services of the United Kingdom, and in so doing help to maximise operational efficiency and improve the retention of trained personnel.

4. The federation will be a democratic representative institution answerable to its members. Membership of the federation will be open to all personnel irrespective of rank, branch of service or gender. The main membership categories will be Ordinary Membership (Regular), Ordinary Membership (Reserve Forces) and Veteran Membership. In responding to the requirements of its members, the federation will act in the interests of all serving personnel and veterans but will not countenance any pressure on individuals to join.

5. Within resources, the activities of the federation may include:

(a) professional and career development by the provision of education and information;

(b) liaison, monitoring and response to proposals or developments within the Services, in Parliament, in the provision of public services or in the commercial sector which have a specific impact on forces personnel;

(c) appropriate advocacy and consultation to protect and improve the conditions of service life including pay, accommodation, medical and welfare services, resettlement and all other areas of personnel support;

(d) appropriate support to personnel facing court martial or other legal proceedings in connection with their service (the federation will not normally comment on any specific case within the systems of military justice and administrative discipline); and

(e) the negotiation for members of a range of insurance, financial and other benefits, discounts or affinity deals.

6. The federation will not be beholden to any political party, pressure group, or defence industry interest. While supporting the cross-party consensus on the need for robust, adequately-funded but cost-effective forces serving the Nation as determined by the Government of the day, the federation will not be a defence pressure group. The federation will not take a view on matters of defence strategy or operational decisions, although it may raise legitimate subsidiary matters affecting personnel. Parliamentary liaison will be strictly on a cross-party basis.

7. The federation will not be a trade union and, above all, it will not conduct or condone any form of industrial action or insubordination within the armed forces. The federation affirms the vital role of the Armed Forces chain of command in representing the interests of its personnel. The federation will seek to agree with the Ministry of Defence appropriate mechanisms for the exchange of information with the chain of command as well as centrally. A code of conduct will be adopted, and potential disagreements will normally be raised centrally to avoid placing serving personnel in difficulty with their chain of command, or vice versa. The federation will act to protect serving members in their federation-related activities within the agreed code of conduct.

8. The federation will not seek to supplant the role of any existing charity or other agency involved in service welfare. Where appropriate the federation may help to direct members to appropriate sources of advice or assistance.

9. Work is already under way on matters such as the structure and legal format of the federation, and staffing. A business plan is being prepared.

10. This draft statement of intent outlines the basic principles established so far. Work continues on detailed aspects of the proposals with a view to wider consultation throughout the armed forces community, and with the Ministry of Defence. This update was added in May 06:

A. The detailed organisation and functions of the federation will naturally depend to some extent on whether it is established under legislation, or as an entirely independent body.

B. The BAFF Steering Group welcomes recent parliamentary support for the federation concept. If legislation is put forward in the future, the Steering Group will be pleased to work with all stakeholders on the development of detailed provisions.

C. As matters stand the Steering Group is not unilaterally seeking the abolition of the Armed Forces Pay Review Body, or the direct involvement of the federation in Administrative Action or Redress of Grievance procedures. The initial service and communications structure of the federation will not be dependent on a comprehensive network of local representatives.

http://www.baff.org.uk/10%20Point%20Plan.html

[Chugalug2]

[quote=JessTheDog;2865419]How negative! The same people who are interested in a representative Federation are those who are relied upon to do their duty in unpleasant places at great risk to life and limb. If they cannot be trusted to represent their own interests with regard to terms and conditions of service, then how can they be trusted to carry out their duties? That smacks of an anachronistic view of the Armed Forces dating back to the height of the Cold War! Our people deserve better./quote]

'How negative!', well,yes,contrary view usually are! I should have perhaps included a further name in my 'British' list, British Airways, which I had personal experience of (after privatisation, but old habits die hard!). I found a weak and vacillating pilot management had surrendered the allocation of seniority for command to the BALPA Base Councils. The result was that copilots due for command were overtaken by others favoured by the BALPA reps. Now these reps were all volunteers, giving freely of their time and efforts on behalf of their members. They weren't the problem, but the supine management that let them take over their function. Given the scenario, painted by yourself and Allan907, of the RAF today, it's deja vu all over again! Please don't imply that I would denigrate 'our people'. I care passionately for the RAF, and therefore for the men and woman who serve in it. However, unlike myself, they do not, for the most part, have experience of being represented where the CoC is wanting. BAFF is not a panacea for the ills of the RAF.
You damn my views as being anachronistic and dating back to the cold war. You are probably right! But at least it was in the main a COLD war, and we had a CoC that worked. The opposite would seem to apply in both cases now. You guys will have to attend to the first, the RAF command must see to the second. My point, still to be addressed, is that the shortcomings, detailed so ably by yourself and Allan907, of the Chain of Command have to be rectified as a sine qua non. BAFF is not, and cannot be, an alternative to that.

[dallas]

Chug

The problem is the lack of interest in people's welfare is inherrent in the CoC now - it's not a minority - most are only in it for themselves - many will even say so! Additionally, when the likes of John Reid speak for me and claim there is no sign that our various wars are unpopular among the troops, my blood boils - how dare the government forfeit my freedom of speech and then speak for me!

But above all it's not operational matters that will be threatened by the BAFF - I suspect I will be in a majority who will not be part of an organisation that truly endangers UK defence by interference - it is the non-operational aspects of service life that are being erroded as politicians et al take advantage of our obedient and disorganised silence. JPA and AFQ charge rises just to name a couple off the top of my head.

We need a one-way CoC when we're being shot at, but I didn't sign away my rights to everything when I joined up - in particular reasonable treatment by my employer when we're not being shot at. It's always presumed we're looking after people but increasingly - and routinely - we're not!

I for one will volunteer as much time as I can to the BAFF in an attempt to steer it in this direction, not so it becomes a forum for people to bleat about trivia.

[nigegilb]

Chug, I absolutely admire your defence of the status quo, no doubt borne by your own experience in the service. However, I think you would be shocked by how much things have changed. A friend of mine is close to leaving. He did Sierra Leone, Afg, Iraq and Afg again. All in a few years. He handed back his RAF ID a few days ago and collects his pension soon. His relief is palpable. He fought with JPA to the end. Numerous attempts to get what he was entitled to on his resettlement. It is still not approved, his claim must go to a higher level. He is so glad to be going. He overheard a conversation the other day between 2 pilots. One actually said "I only have 9 years to go." A Chief of Staff visited his station and said, guys if you are not happy with trivia or you are getting bogged down, tell me about it. We are on operations you know, I don't want you getting distracted. Or words to that effect.. As soon as his back was turned the very same man slated 2 stations in the South of England for being the only ones complaining about JPA. One can't help but think that if said Chief had consulted with an organization like BAFF, JPA would not have been brought in in such a hamfisted way when so many people were serving abroad.

Exceptional times call for exceptional measures. If the Chiefs are seeing their own men as part of the problem, well I do believe that BAFF's time has come.

[Chugalug2]

Originally Posted by nigegilb

Chug, I absolutely admire your defence of the status quo

Nige, after what you and others have revealed on this thread, the last thing I wish for is the status quo! I am profoundly shocked and saddened at what I have read, and agree absolutely that things must change dramatically. It seems to me that the RAF (I don't and can't speak for the other services, but would be interested to hear if their situation is as dire) needs root and branch reform. Indeed I would go so far as to suggest a total rebuild! Another Lord Trenchard must be found who believes in Air Power and the existence of an Independent Air Force. I say this because, in the main, the other two services have never fully accepted that, and in these times of stringent cuts would happily devour it to satisfy their own needs. People, especially brave noble people, look after their own. BA BALPA reps shafted us because we were outsiders. The only people who can and must defend the existence of the RAF, full time, are its Staff Officers. They are instead letting it whither by neglect. Someone has to step forward and change that, wouldn't you agree CAS?
I quite understand the anger and bitterness that you allude to, I would feel the same, I am sure. But the solution to these ills must lie in the hands of the very people who have been found wanting in the higher command, they must be sacked and replaced if necessary, and quickly. By all means form your association, but it will always be ancillary to the urgent need to reform the Chain of Command, all of whose functions have an operational effect, be it Money, Mail or Meals!
Nige, please urge your newly retired friend to add to this debate. I am, as all can see, an ancient BOF, and what is needed is up to date testimony. That is not to betray the service, that has already been done by those in command, but to lift the lid on this putrid mess prior to cleaning it out!

[JessTheDog]

Even if there is opposition to BAFF, I think that only a minority believe that the status quo is acceptable. My view is that the situation is too far-gone thanks to the overriding cost-cutting imperative and the civilian management practices that have permeated the Armed Forces, which view cost-cutting and short-term targets as more important than any "military covenant". If this situation was reversed, then a Federation may not be necessary. However, in the current climate, it is desperately needed. The terms and conditions of service of Armed Forces personnel are as vulnerable as turkeys in December and no-one is doing anything about it except for the promoters of a Federation.

[Green Bottle 2]

Chug,

whilst I agree these issues probably could and definately should be sorted out by the chain of command, how do those of us at the coal face achieve that? Who is going to put the right people in place? Certainly not the politicians as this would be a rod for their own backs. The only option open to those of us at the coal face is to take some action that we have some influence over - a body that will publically represnet our views. I belive that is a federation.

GB2

[Chugalug2]

GB2, I respect and understand your views entirely, and for that matter everyone else who calls for a Federation. I think we are, understandably perhaps, concerned with different problems here.
You guys are being messed around by a seemingly dysfunctional Chain of Command and need some order back in your lives, You see your best bet to achieve that in BAFF. I would have my reservations as to what BAFF might achieve and, from my experience in the outside world, feel that representation can be a two edged sword. But hey, it's your call, and I can only wish all of you, and with all sincerity, the best of luck.
My concern as a BOF is that same dysfunctional CoC, and the adverse effects it has had, is having, and will continue to have on the RAF. If it is not urgently reformed, I see nothing but trouble ahead. I know that everyone will strive to maintain standards in the best traditions of the service. But the nagging effect on morale as the most basic administrative functions like housing, pay, etc are seen by local commanders as the equivalent of "Not my job,mate" will be profound. This cat's cradle, woven over the years no doubt by myriad consultants, has got to be unpicked, and power returned to local commanders.
The only real commanders that ever existed in the RAF were really at unit/squadron/station level. Above this they are really functionaries in a pyramid with CAS at the top. Lots of policy to implement, but little else to do except claw their way up an ever narrowing career path. So the CoC that counts is at the base of the pyramid, and that is what has to be revitalised. Can you guys at the base effect this? No, it has to be from the top down, ie a CHANGE OF POLICY, all the way down from CAS. Why should he be bothered, seeing as you guys will carry on doing your best? Because it is not about you per se, it is about the future of the RAF. It's broke, so fix it CAS! Rant ends!

[JessTheDog]

Armed Forces Federation launched today

Join! "They" cannot prevent it, some are even sympathetic.

Have a public voice regarding your conditions of service.

Independent
Armed forces get a voice on their pay and conditions
By Terri Judd
Published: 11 December 2006

The first professional staff association in the history of the modern British military will be launched today, amid mounting levels of dissatisfaction with pay and conditions in the era of the "war on terror".

The birth of the British Armed Forces Federation (Baff) comes at a time when many in the Army, Royal Navy and Royal Air Force believe they are being overstretched in Iraq and Afghanistan by political masters who have failed to back them with sufficient support and funding.

In a sign that the Army hierarchy is moving to address rank-and file grievances, it was revealed yesterday that troops injured in Iraq and Afghanistan are to awarded millions in compensation after a Government ruling that they are victims of crime.

While servicemen and women continue to engage in combat in both Iraq and Afghanistan, the official cessation of hostilities - in May 2003 in Iraq - gives them the legal right to criminal compensation.

In series of test cases likely to pave the way for many more, 40 servicemen have been awarded up to £500,000 each. Compensation is expected to range from £1,000 for injuries such as small facial scars to half a million for loss of limb. The new scheme will apply to troops remaining in the military who have been injured in terrorist attacks such as roadside bombs but is expected to exclude those wounded in offensive operations against insurgents.

Last week, retired General Sir Mike Jackson, the former head of the Army, accused the Government of failing to give the forces "whole-hearted support" or adequate funding. He said failure to deliver improvements to living accommodation, pay and equipment threatened the "ethos of soldiering" which made them willing to put their lives at risk for their country.

The care of injured soldiers will be a key issue issue on which Baff will campaign. The idea of a virtual "union" was came up in a blog on the unofficial Army Rumour Service website in January. Under the name "Glad it's all over", a former senior NCO, Henrik Kiertz-ner, wrote: "There seems to be a gap in the market for a body which could lobby on behalf of the serviceman/woman, and address some of the more dimwitted ideas our lords and masters come up with."

Douglas Young, the chairman of Baff, said it was not a trade union and would not condone industrial action. "People in the armed forces work only by co-operation with others and that is the spirit with which we will go forward," he said.

Membership will cost about £30 a year.

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/thi...cle2064764.ece

http://www.baff.org.uk/Join.html

[The Helpful Stacker]

I fired my membership application off earlier today.

It'll be interesting to see what the initial take-up is like. A bit more publicity on units would be good.

[Always_broken_in_wilts]

Pray tell why I am going to give £30 of my hard earned dosh to fund some completely toothless group formed out of an act of misguided PC madness who will not "change the price of fish" by one iota

I was born at night but not last feckin night

all spelling mistakes are "df" alcohol induced

[tablet_eraser]

ABIW,

I quite agree. There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that NuLabour is going to pay any notice to BAFF. A Government that has systematically betrayed its armed forces, scrapped over a hundred aircraft and a third of the Royal Navy, is not going to care one jot about SAC Grubscrew's appalling housing conditions, CPO Fishhead's appalling pay problems with JPA, or Pvt Grunt's fourth operational tour in 3 years, no matter who tells them.

I'll keep my £30 for a few pints and a whinge with my mates in a pub. It won't achieve any more than BAFF, but I'll have a far better time doing it.

[Two's in]

But come the Revolution Brothers, and anyone without a membership card will be put up against the wall...

[ZH875]

Yet another bunch of ******* led by a Scotsman.

How many more ways can there be of the Scots dominating the UK.