Armed Forces Federation (Merged)
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 734
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The traditions and ethos of the British Armed Forces include lining up and walking slowly towards machine guns, building accommodation out of toilet rolls because none has been provided and generally being silenced by politicians when they can't afford to fund us properly.
With the BAFF making it quite clear they'll not interfere with machine gun tactics etc, that leaves them representing us on the latter 2 points. Of course there's no tradition of British Forces being represented, but you could also argue that creating such a body, to raise legitimate concerns, might prevent people leaving in such numbers, even at a time of economic downturn! Moreover, if we've never had it so good, as some ministers claim, the government have nothing to fear from the BAFF.
With the BAFF making it quite clear they'll not interfere with machine gun tactics etc, that leaves them representing us on the latter 2 points. Of course there's no tradition of British Forces being represented, but you could also argue that creating such a body, to raise legitimate concerns, might prevent people leaving in such numbers, even at a time of economic downturn! Moreover, if we've never had it so good, as some ministers claim, the government have nothing to fear from the BAFF.
It already exsists:
British Armed Forces Federation. Representing the Professionals.
British Armed Forces Federation. Representing the Professionals.
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: UK
Age: 70
Posts: 65
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes, but as far as I am aware it is independant and not officially endorsed by the MoD, and also requires an annual subscription.
But, I may be wrong..................
But, I may be wrong..................
BAFF is independent of HM Government, the Ministry of Defence, and the Service Chain of Command.
Last edited by Tricorn; 31st Jul 2008 at 09:45. Reason: include quote from BAFF website
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: @exRAF_Al
Posts: 3,297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The only problem with granting recognition to something, either by Charter or in Statute is that once you start making it tangible, you start making it a target, and once it has become part of the system, even though it will publically and perhaps rightly represent itself as something completely the opposite, then its effectiveness is reduced. The g'ment is able to deal with tPF, because thats what g'ment is good at doing - dealing with organised public bodies.
Look at the Police Federation. The g'ment has been handling the rozzers now for 40 years or more through this and because the issues have become tangible, because they have been synthesised, are we any better off? Jacqui Smith completely ignored the Independent Police Arbitration Tribunal reccomendations and as a result, the Police Federation is faced with either calling ever louder for industrial action (as it is now doing in Scotland), or losing authority and influence with the public, its members and with the g'ment. The Police Federation started off by calling for better capes, louder whistles and half decent health benefits for walking about in smog, but then.. before it knew where it was, it was campaigning for changes to the death penalty, shorter working weeks and in the Winter of Discontent, knowingly undermined an elected g'ment by walking out of the Police Council.
So, do we want a Federation that is able (perhaps not now, but perhaps in 10. 20 years) to call HM Forces out on strike, or to restrict working practice? We have to establish that principle here and now, because sure as eggs is eggs, thats what will be happening in the year 2028.. the issues and principles of today will get diluted and people in jobs on salaries dependant on members will be inclined to listen to the noisier members especially if their mortgages are dependant on it. Who now, in the Police Force, would be able to relate to the spirit of the original Police Federation? Not many, would be my guess. So, where do we want to be in 20 years time? Politicised, activated?
What are the options? Certainly not to roll over and die. But in the first instance, is BAFF the answer to a problem that doesn't exist? Yes, we have still have too many skuzzy quarters, shabby medical care in places and there are excessive demands on men, women and eqpt that makes me relieved I'm not around to see it - the qualities of today's servicemen are probably higher than they were in my day, although if faced with the same challenges, I'm sure we would have met them too. But many of the problems are being faced and addressed, perhaps not quickly enough, but lets face it - there is only so much money to go around for everyone. It would be suicidal in the long term for Servicemen to be seen to be getting a disproportionately bigger slice of the pie than say, kids in Inner Cities, elderly patients within a crappy NHS or even 1300 sacked Northern Rock workers. Thats the bottom line, obtaining and maintaining public support is vital and that will be the powerbase for ANY improvement in terms and conditions, not frankly, a Federation. The Fire Service might have got itself a few extra quid, but when it realized that it no longer had public support, back in Fresco, it was forced into submitting itself to many long term concessions and firefighters lost a massive amount of public support and respect. If HM Forces stops learning from mistakes like that, then we run the risk of going down the same route.
Its groundswell that creates change - not committee meetings and minutes, and the mandate for any continuing improvement for the Forces has got to be almost nebulous – personalising it will be to offer it the Establishment lingering and silky kiss of death. So what to do? We do lots of right, already. We do that, not by things like ‘London Salutes’ (or whatever it was called) because all the effort goes into that and as soon as its done, the organisers are too knackered to do anything else and the g’ment can say ‘Hey, we’ve done our bit!’ and it slips off the radar. In a similar way, so too will Forces Day, or whatever its called, soon become a burden and eventually, a counterproductive embarrassment. We need to continue to raise the estimations of the Forces in the public eye, and we do that by getting 40 and 50 year old ABCs onside, and we do that by making sure there are more of their children serving. If society has no respect for itself, then how will it respect those in jobs, working out of sight? We need to see respect and change for The Forces as only a segment of a larger picture and we
This has to be looked at, top down. There is a place for Help for Heroes and there is a place for Clarkson pressing the flesh, but that only cures the symptom, and not the disease, and we lose sight of that fact at our peril. In Germany, an Engineer is a Doctor, here – he’s a spanner monkey and so too, are Service personnel regarded in a particular light – we can’t change that. Ultimately, Joe Public will ALWAYS say ‘Well sorry guys, but no one forced you to join up’ and ultimately, g’ment knows that too. So, its quite happy to fob matters off to the likes of the Royal British Legion because the RBL has a Charter, a committee and as we are now seeing, it is being forced to compromise itself bt hammering at the g'ment with its Covenant campaign. But we need to give the British Legion less responsibility, not more, so that it can concentrate fully on what it was set up to do.. its core function and not always engaging with the g’ment at 4000 metres because thats what the g’ment wants it to do. G’ment is happy when it deals with committees – it can send along a PUS of similar footing and everyone goes home feeling happy, or hopefully, happier.. but the problem isn’t solved, addressing it is only delayed until the next oak lined board meeting.
Last week, I had a letter from a Labour Baroness who offered me soothing platitudes, but essentially said: 'sorry, not me Chief, airfames - go and speak to the British Legion’. At the ultimate level, she was simply able to alleviate herself and her government of State Responsibility - responsibility which should be exercised in the name of the people for the people, and until then, we’ll continue to see the likes of SSAFA having to campaign like mad for Grays Lane and we’ll continue to see the likes of HfH raising money for a swimming pool at Headley. G’ment knows that the people involved with these things are doing it because, yes they care deeply, but also because they get a sense of fulfillment out of it. I help out with various things and I do it because yes, I care but also because it makes me feel worthy and good about myself truth be told – I’m no angel. The g’ment knows that, half of its battle is already won.. can you imagine what would happen if overnight, there was absolutely no need anywhere for charity, for campaigning? It’s a society thing as much as anything and as a result g’ment can only be ‘defeated’ when it does what it wants to do, and it does what it wants to do only when it knows it has to do it. It didn’t give a damn about the outcry of going to war in Iraq, about the waste of money with 2012, about Lisbon so why should it give a daMn about BAFF?
The ONLY way you’ll get any bureaucracy like g’ment which doesn’t give a damn about anything (especially one like Labour which chucks statutes onto the books left right and centre) is to make it part of a process that it fears.. an administrative process at that. Think. What has been the only thing within the UK that has caused Tony Blair to worry? The electorate? Snort. The Parliamentary Labour Party? Guffaw. Parliament? Do me a favour! Public Enquiries? Yeah, right. No - it was the Board of Governors of the BBC (don’t all laugh at once) and why?
Because for decades the BBC Board built up an almost godlike reputation for striving for perfection and doing what was RIGHT and not giving a damn about who they bollocked or who they told. They sneaked into our psyche by the back door and that was why Blair chopped them and made them ‘Trustees’, answerable to the g’ment in return for a handout of public money. In its heyday, when The Board spoke, g’ment listened and although its still going through that post coital stage of pretending to give a damn about The Trustees, things will never be the same again. After Hutton, Gavyn Davies resigned.. he actually went out AND DID THE DECENT THING and that sort of stuff scares the crap out of g’ment which would rather lose its collective fingernails than be seen to be the first to resign. Thatcher dropped Marmaduke Hussey in, to be her poodle and he promptly decided that actually, he didn’t like what he was supposed to be doing, and when she got Special Branch to raid the Beeb when it had a go at her, he decided bollocks to this.. he would take Special Branch to court and then her if need be. He was nobody’s fool, he wasn’t particularly clever, but he wasn't handled at mere paperclip counter level and his position carried a gravitas that Scottish Prime Ministers and smarmy Foreign Secretaries can only dream about.
So, where does that leave us? Please, not another pressure group. Instead, the MoD needs something like a Board of Governors.. not in the Chain of Command, not directing it, not supplicant to it, not reliant on it (or anyone) and certainly with little or no defence/ g’ment experience - effective establishment management is probably best practised by those with wisdom but not much technical knowledge. But they have to be a few people who represent ‘us’, people who did not seek the job and who did not want it, people who know they have unmitigated public backing and who understand that you can say so much more with a reproachful look and a raised eyebrow, and not a million words, an ad campaign, a press release or a great website.
Look at the Police Federation. The g'ment has been handling the rozzers now for 40 years or more through this and because the issues have become tangible, because they have been synthesised, are we any better off? Jacqui Smith completely ignored the Independent Police Arbitration Tribunal reccomendations and as a result, the Police Federation is faced with either calling ever louder for industrial action (as it is now doing in Scotland), or losing authority and influence with the public, its members and with the g'ment. The Police Federation started off by calling for better capes, louder whistles and half decent health benefits for walking about in smog, but then.. before it knew where it was, it was campaigning for changes to the death penalty, shorter working weeks and in the Winter of Discontent, knowingly undermined an elected g'ment by walking out of the Police Council.
So, do we want a Federation that is able (perhaps not now, but perhaps in 10. 20 years) to call HM Forces out on strike, or to restrict working practice? We have to establish that principle here and now, because sure as eggs is eggs, thats what will be happening in the year 2028.. the issues and principles of today will get diluted and people in jobs on salaries dependant on members will be inclined to listen to the noisier members especially if their mortgages are dependant on it. Who now, in the Police Force, would be able to relate to the spirit of the original Police Federation? Not many, would be my guess. So, where do we want to be in 20 years time? Politicised, activated?
What are the options? Certainly not to roll over and die. But in the first instance, is BAFF the answer to a problem that doesn't exist? Yes, we have still have too many skuzzy quarters, shabby medical care in places and there are excessive demands on men, women and eqpt that makes me relieved I'm not around to see it - the qualities of today's servicemen are probably higher than they were in my day, although if faced with the same challenges, I'm sure we would have met them too. But many of the problems are being faced and addressed, perhaps not quickly enough, but lets face it - there is only so much money to go around for everyone. It would be suicidal in the long term for Servicemen to be seen to be getting a disproportionately bigger slice of the pie than say, kids in Inner Cities, elderly patients within a crappy NHS or even 1300 sacked Northern Rock workers. Thats the bottom line, obtaining and maintaining public support is vital and that will be the powerbase for ANY improvement in terms and conditions, not frankly, a Federation. The Fire Service might have got itself a few extra quid, but when it realized that it no longer had public support, back in Fresco, it was forced into submitting itself to many long term concessions and firefighters lost a massive amount of public support and respect. If HM Forces stops learning from mistakes like that, then we run the risk of going down the same route.
Its groundswell that creates change - not committee meetings and minutes, and the mandate for any continuing improvement for the Forces has got to be almost nebulous – personalising it will be to offer it the Establishment lingering and silky kiss of death. So what to do? We do lots of right, already. We do that, not by things like ‘London Salutes’ (or whatever it was called) because all the effort goes into that and as soon as its done, the organisers are too knackered to do anything else and the g’ment can say ‘Hey, we’ve done our bit!’ and it slips off the radar. In a similar way, so too will Forces Day, or whatever its called, soon become a burden and eventually, a counterproductive embarrassment. We need to continue to raise the estimations of the Forces in the public eye, and we do that by getting 40 and 50 year old ABCs onside, and we do that by making sure there are more of their children serving. If society has no respect for itself, then how will it respect those in jobs, working out of sight? We need to see respect and change for The Forces as only a segment of a larger picture and we
This has to be looked at, top down. There is a place for Help for Heroes and there is a place for Clarkson pressing the flesh, but that only cures the symptom, and not the disease, and we lose sight of that fact at our peril. In Germany, an Engineer is a Doctor, here – he’s a spanner monkey and so too, are Service personnel regarded in a particular light – we can’t change that. Ultimately, Joe Public will ALWAYS say ‘Well sorry guys, but no one forced you to join up’ and ultimately, g’ment knows that too. So, its quite happy to fob matters off to the likes of the Royal British Legion because the RBL has a Charter, a committee and as we are now seeing, it is being forced to compromise itself bt hammering at the g'ment with its Covenant campaign. But we need to give the British Legion less responsibility, not more, so that it can concentrate fully on what it was set up to do.. its core function and not always engaging with the g’ment at 4000 metres because thats what the g’ment wants it to do. G’ment is happy when it deals with committees – it can send along a PUS of similar footing and everyone goes home feeling happy, or hopefully, happier.. but the problem isn’t solved, addressing it is only delayed until the next oak lined board meeting.
Last week, I had a letter from a Labour Baroness who offered me soothing platitudes, but essentially said: 'sorry, not me Chief, airfames - go and speak to the British Legion’. At the ultimate level, she was simply able to alleviate herself and her government of State Responsibility - responsibility which should be exercised in the name of the people for the people, and until then, we’ll continue to see the likes of SSAFA having to campaign like mad for Grays Lane and we’ll continue to see the likes of HfH raising money for a swimming pool at Headley. G’ment knows that the people involved with these things are doing it because, yes they care deeply, but also because they get a sense of fulfillment out of it. I help out with various things and I do it because yes, I care but also because it makes me feel worthy and good about myself truth be told – I’m no angel. The g’ment knows that, half of its battle is already won.. can you imagine what would happen if overnight, there was absolutely no need anywhere for charity, for campaigning? It’s a society thing as much as anything and as a result g’ment can only be ‘defeated’ when it does what it wants to do, and it does what it wants to do only when it knows it has to do it. It didn’t give a damn about the outcry of going to war in Iraq, about the waste of money with 2012, about Lisbon so why should it give a daMn about BAFF?
The ONLY way you’ll get any bureaucracy like g’ment which doesn’t give a damn about anything (especially one like Labour which chucks statutes onto the books left right and centre) is to make it part of a process that it fears.. an administrative process at that. Think. What has been the only thing within the UK that has caused Tony Blair to worry? The electorate? Snort. The Parliamentary Labour Party? Guffaw. Parliament? Do me a favour! Public Enquiries? Yeah, right. No - it was the Board of Governors of the BBC (don’t all laugh at once) and why?
Because for decades the BBC Board built up an almost godlike reputation for striving for perfection and doing what was RIGHT and not giving a damn about who they bollocked or who they told. They sneaked into our psyche by the back door and that was why Blair chopped them and made them ‘Trustees’, answerable to the g’ment in return for a handout of public money. In its heyday, when The Board spoke, g’ment listened and although its still going through that post coital stage of pretending to give a damn about The Trustees, things will never be the same again. After Hutton, Gavyn Davies resigned.. he actually went out AND DID THE DECENT THING and that sort of stuff scares the crap out of g’ment which would rather lose its collective fingernails than be seen to be the first to resign. Thatcher dropped Marmaduke Hussey in, to be her poodle and he promptly decided that actually, he didn’t like what he was supposed to be doing, and when she got Special Branch to raid the Beeb when it had a go at her, he decided bollocks to this.. he would take Special Branch to court and then her if need be. He was nobody’s fool, he wasn’t particularly clever, but he wasn't handled at mere paperclip counter level and his position carried a gravitas that Scottish Prime Ministers and smarmy Foreign Secretaries can only dream about.
So, where does that leave us? Please, not another pressure group. Instead, the MoD needs something like a Board of Governors.. not in the Chain of Command, not directing it, not supplicant to it, not reliant on it (or anyone) and certainly with little or no defence/ g’ment experience - effective establishment management is probably best practised by those with wisdom but not much technical knowledge. But they have to be a few people who represent ‘us’, people who did not seek the job and who did not want it, people who know they have unmitigated public backing and who understand that you can say so much more with a reproachful look and a raised eyebrow, and not a million words, an ad campaign, a press release or a great website.
Al R: "So, do we want a Federation that is able (perhaps not now, but perhaps in 10. 20 years) to call HM Forces out on strike, or to restrict working practice? We have to establish that principle here and now, because sure as eggs is eggs, thats what will be happening in the year 2028"
Why? That's in 20 years time. Presumably if any armed forces personnel were going to go out on strike it would be our cheroot-smoking, mustachio'd European cousins? And many of them have had representative associations for a lot longer than 20 years. Such as the Danes, fighting alongside British troops in Helmand.
Actually, the only verified example of industrial action in the armed forces of any advanced country involved some gendarmes (on non-deployed police duties but technically members of the French armed forces) on, I think, some Caribbean island.
The US Armed Forces have strong representative bodies like the Association of the United States Army - founded 1950.
This from British Armed Forces Federation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia :
English language examples of military staff association
Dates of establishment are shown in brackets.
Australia
Ireland
United States
Why? That's in 20 years time. Presumably if any armed forces personnel were going to go out on strike it would be our cheroot-smoking, mustachio'd European cousins? And many of them have had representative associations for a lot longer than 20 years. Such as the Danes, fighting alongside British troops in Helmand.
Actually, the only verified example of industrial action in the armed forces of any advanced country involved some gendarmes (on non-deployed police duties but technically members of the French armed forces) on, I think, some Caribbean island.
The US Armed Forces have strong representative bodies like the Association of the United States Army - founded 1950.
This from British Armed Forces Federation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia :
English language examples of military staff association
Dates of establishment are shown in brackets.
Australia
Ireland- Permanent Defence Force Other Ranks Representative Association (1991)
- Representative Association of Commissioned Officers (1991)
- Reserve Defence Force Representative Association (1991)
United States
Last edited by baffman; 31st Jul 2008 at 13:57.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: @exRAF_Al
Posts: 3,297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Funnily enough, having just written that, I've just found this.
BBC NEWS | Education | Teacher union backs cadet forces
A sign that the tide is turning? Hopefully, Establishment change from within will become a reality.
BBC NEWS | Education | Teacher union backs cadet forces
A sign that the tide is turning? Hopefully, Establishment change from within will become a reality.
Last edited by Al R; 31st Jul 2008 at 12:13.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 734
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Al R
So, do we want a Federation that is able (perhaps not now, but perhaps in 10. 20 years) to call HM Forces out on strike, or to restrict working practice?
Originally Posted by Al R
So, where does that leave us? Please, not another pressure group. Instead, the MoD needs something like a Board of Governors.. not in the Chain of Command, not directing it, not supplicant to it, not reliant on it (or anyone) and certainly with little or no defence/ g’ment experience - effective establishment management is probably best practised by those with wisdom but not much technical knowledge.
Maybe it's just been like this all along and the string has never snapped, with successive governments simply seeing how far they can stretch it. Because the other central question on the subject of overstretch is what that actually means - in this world of performance indicators, what is the event or events that will actually mean the cuts have gone too far, or is it simply a wasting disease? But again, when is '48hrs to live'?
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: @exRAF_Al
Posts: 3,297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Baffman,
On a contingency basis if nothing else, would you be prepared to say its a possibility thats not worth even considering? And we're not The Danes, we're us - one size doesn't fit all (as the EU is discovering).
Dallas,
I don't think its a reflection of professionalism.. the Fire Service went on strike with a stated aim of protecting their professionalism. Of Hussey, it was said: '.. cleverer that he looks, but not as clever as he thinks' and this g'ment is like that, but surely even it must realise the laccy band is twanging. It knows it.. but like everything else, it'll be someone else's problem to sort out.
On a contingency basis if nothing else, would you be prepared to say its a possibility thats not worth even considering? And we're not The Danes, we're us - one size doesn't fit all (as the EU is discovering).
Dallas,
I don't think its a reflection of professionalism.. the Fire Service went on strike with a stated aim of protecting their professionalism. Of Hussey, it was said: '.. cleverer that he looks, but not as clever as he thinks' and this g'ment is like that, but surely even it must realise the laccy band is twanging. It knows it.. but like everything else, it'll be someone else's problem to sort out.
Al R:
"On a contingency basis if nothing else, would you be prepared to say its a possibility thats not worth even considering?"
No. The BAFF Constitution is unique as the Memorandum and Articles of a British company, in expressly forbidding involvement in industrial action, disobedience, insubordination etc notwithstanding that such activities would be against service law anyway.
That's important. Industrial action within the armed forces IS against the law, and quite rightly so. Whatever you think of current UK politics, no major UK political party would wish to change that law.
The question remains: why on earth would BRITISH armed forces personnel want to involve themselves in industrial action, when the continentals have not?
Al R:
"And we're not The Danes, we're us - one size doesn't fit all (as the EU is discovering)."
Well, obviously. Please dont lecture, when we do know what the Danish armed forces look like on operations, and we also know what their representative military associations look like. I hope that this from the BAFF website will be helpful:
"The BAFF Constitution was drawn up in consultation with 50 personnel from all three services. A "specifically British solution for the British armed forces", BAFF did not take any single organisation for a template, but its Steering Group researched or visited a wide range of organisations representing operational public service staff.
"These included representative military associations in Australia, the USA, and Ireland; the various Police Federations in the UK; and the GCHQ section of the PCS Union. BAFF itself is not a trade union."
"On a contingency basis if nothing else, would you be prepared to say its a possibility thats not worth even considering?"
No. The BAFF Constitution is unique as the Memorandum and Articles of a British company, in expressly forbidding involvement in industrial action, disobedience, insubordination etc notwithstanding that such activities would be against service law anyway.
That's important. Industrial action within the armed forces IS against the law, and quite rightly so. Whatever you think of current UK politics, no major UK political party would wish to change that law.
The question remains: why on earth would BRITISH armed forces personnel want to involve themselves in industrial action, when the continentals have not?
Al R:
"And we're not The Danes, we're us - one size doesn't fit all (as the EU is discovering)."
Well, obviously. Please dont lecture, when we do know what the Danish armed forces look like on operations, and we also know what their representative military associations look like. I hope that this from the BAFF website will be helpful:
"The BAFF Constitution was drawn up in consultation with 50 personnel from all three services. A "specifically British solution for the British armed forces", BAFF did not take any single organisation for a template, but its Steering Group researched or visited a wide range of organisations representing operational public service staff.
"These included representative military associations in Australia, the USA, and Ireland; the various Police Federations in the UK; and the GCHQ section of the PCS Union. BAFF itself is not a trade union."
AlR, have just read your post #124- way to go Old Chap! Your incisive dissection of the body politic is indeed impressive. My worry re BAFF though is not the 20 years down the line metamorphosis that you envisage, rather a far more subtle and dare I say British outcome. My experience with union power was as an airline pilot. 21 years membership of BALPA culminated in being shafted by them, along with the other exDanAir pilots taken over by BA. That was when we discovered that all BALPA members were equal, but some were a good deal more equal than others. Briefly, as the details are now history, BA at BALPA's insistence changed our terms and conditions to advantage mainline BA pilots getting commands in our separate AOC airline, BA(EOG) Ltd, at the expense of our more senior co-pilots. They did this because our management was supine and powerless to stop it. If you consider the military equivalents, ie subordinate commanders versus civilian management, and BAFF versus BALPA, you might start to see my laborious point. If BAFF truly gets the influence it is looking for it will be at the cost of any remaining authority of junior commanders. They are the only commanders in the RAF that truly command, and always have been. Everyone above that level is really part of the RAF bureaucracy, discharging policy from above. Military discipline, and hence effectiveness, rests with those junior commanders. Usurp their powers, as is already rife, and you let the genii out of the bottle. If their decisions and summary actions are being constantly monitored and reported on by the "Baffmen" they will end up as hamstrung as the soviet commanders who had to concentrate on placating the commissars often at the expense of effective military action. My doom laden prognosis for 20 years ahead? Our Armed Forces will indeed become a mirror image of our continental cousins without even the threat of strike action!
Last edited by Chugalug2; 6th Aug 2008 at 10:37. Reason: Words dear boy, words!
Good old 'Dan Dare'! Sadly missed, at least by me in a purely self-loading-cargo capacity, since their demise in 1992.
Chugalug2, you have my sympathies over the injustice which you feel you as a civilian suffered at the hands of "union power" and "supine" management sixteen years ago. But the connection from your anecdote to "usurping the powers of junior commanders" seems tenuous. And the inference seems to be that not only would you not allow serving men and women to join a legal representative organisation, but you would not allow civilian aircrew to join BALPA if you had your way: otherwise the anecdote is pointless.
Where I think most or all BAFF members would agree with you is over the importance of junior commanders and the need to support them. As long as BAFF remains a membership-based all ranks organisation (as opposed to a universal organisation representing everyone, or everyone in a rank range) the majority of members are always going to be in the rank range Cpl to Flight Lieutenant, or equivalent.
"Commissars", "continental cousins", etc. Commendable attempt on a full set of stereotypes, although you forgot "battles stopping for tea breaks".
With respect, your comments seem to be based more on how you imagine a representative organisation would operate within the military, rather than on anything BAFF has done, is doing or is proposing.
In your endorsement of AL R's post, you have yet to explain how organisations like the Association of the United States Army, the (US) Non Commissioned Officers Association, the (US) Reserve Officers Association founded by General Pershing in 1922, the (Australian) Defence Welfare Association or the (Australian) Defence Reserves Association are in your opinion tending to usurp the powers and effectiveness of junior commanders.
Sure, these are quite disparate organisations but after all that was my earlier point: there is NO "one size fits all".
Chugalug2, you have my sympathies over the injustice which you feel you as a civilian suffered at the hands of "union power" and "supine" management sixteen years ago. But the connection from your anecdote to "usurping the powers of junior commanders" seems tenuous. And the inference seems to be that not only would you not allow serving men and women to join a legal representative organisation, but you would not allow civilian aircrew to join BALPA if you had your way: otherwise the anecdote is pointless.
Where I think most or all BAFF members would agree with you is over the importance of junior commanders and the need to support them. As long as BAFF remains a membership-based all ranks organisation (as opposed to a universal organisation representing everyone, or everyone in a rank range) the majority of members are always going to be in the rank range Cpl to Flight Lieutenant, or equivalent.
"Commissars", "continental cousins", etc. Commendable attempt on a full set of stereotypes, although you forgot "battles stopping for tea breaks".
With respect, your comments seem to be based more on how you imagine a representative organisation would operate within the military, rather than on anything BAFF has done, is doing or is proposing.In your endorsement of AL R's post, you have yet to explain how organisations like the Association of the United States Army, the (US) Non Commissioned Officers Association, the (US) Reserve Officers Association founded by General Pershing in 1922, the (Australian) Defence Welfare Association or the (Australian) Defence Reserves Association are in your opinion tending to usurp the powers and effectiveness of junior commanders.
Sure, these are quite disparate organisations but after all that was my earlier point: there is NO "one size fits all".
Baffman, I wouldn’t contemplate for one moment not "allowing" anyone to belong to any organisation they pleased, as if I could anyway! My concern is for the well being of the UK Armed Forces, and the RAF in particular. Your concern, presumably, is for the well being of the members of the Armed Forces, and those of BAFF in particular. I don't think those two concerns are necessarily synonymous. In my time in the mob I saw time and time again commanders going out on a limb for their subordinates' welfare. I understand from this forum that is a very rare event these days. Hence you would say the need for BAFF. Hence I would say return the powers of subordinate commanders. On another thread the scandalous neglect of UK Military Airworthiness has been revealed layer by layer. No-one would suggest a reaction to that by saying we'll never regain the old standards. We have to, and just as importantly we have to regain the prestige and powers of junior commanders. At best BAFF is a sticking plaster answer to that deficiency, at worst a blanket that will smother that ambition. The chain of command is bust and needs fixing, not bypassing.
Originally Posted by Chugalug2
..My concern is for the well being of the UK Armed Forces, and the RAF in particular. Your concern, presumably, is for the well being of the members of the Armed Forces, and those of BAFF in particular. I don't think those two concerns are necessarily synonymous...
Your concern "for the well being of the UK Armed Forces, and the RAF in particular" is admirable, but I hope you are not implying that the same concerns are not shared by BAFF members.
It is, of course, quite correct to say that constitutionally BAFF is focussed on the professional and welfare interests of its members.
The formal constitution (pdf document) of the British Armed Forces Federation in late 2006 was preceded by the so-called Ten Point Plan, which has no legal force but remains a guide to the founding principles of BAFF, and was quoted in the recent House of Commons Defence Committee report on Recruitment and Retention in the armed forces:
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 UK, and in so doing help to maximise operational efficiency and improve the retention of trained personnel. [my bold]
I have been following the airworthiness debate from the start, and appreciate your contributions.
Last edited by baffman; 10th Aug 2008 at 19:59. Reason: to provide a more precise link to House of Commons quote
Your remarks about the chain of command being "bust" are striking.
I have been following the airworthiness debate from the start, and appreciate your contributions.
I have been following the airworthiness debate from the start, and appreciate your contributions.
This was in this week's Sunday Torygraph (29/09/08):
Full story at British soldiers want a federation to represent them, poll finds - Telegraph
I understand that the poll is still running, with a very similar breakdown of votes at present.
The poll is quite rightly about an ARMY Federation. I don't believe for a moment that a similar poll tomorrow of the RAF or RN/RM would produce similar results. (You would need another option for "Who?" or "Eh?"!) But it was still being claimed a year ago that a majority of contributors to an ArmyNet discussion were against the idea of a representative federation, and the poll gives a very different snapshot.
British soldiers want a federation to represent them, poll finds
Almost three quarters of British soldiers support the creation of an independent armed forces federation to represent their interests, according to a poll conducted by the Army.
By Sean Rayment, Defence Correspondent
Support for an armed forces federation has been growing for a number of years amid claims that the rank and file have been failed by the "chain of command", although this is the first time that the Army has polled its own members on the issue.
The clear support for an independent body will be a severe blow for Britain's top brass who have long argued that an armed forces federation is unnecessary and could damage military discipline and morale.
The survey was conducted on the Army's own website called "Armynet" which is restricted to use by troops and their families.
Readers were asked: "Should there be an Army Federation to represent the interests of ordinary soldiers?" Of the 3,500 respondents, 51 per cent answered "yes"; 22 per cent thought it was a good idea; 23 per cent were against the proposal and two per cent answered "don't know". ...
Almost three quarters of British soldiers support the creation of an independent armed forces federation to represent their interests, according to a poll conducted by the Army.
By Sean Rayment, Defence Correspondent
Support for an armed forces federation has been growing for a number of years amid claims that the rank and file have been failed by the "chain of command", although this is the first time that the Army has polled its own members on the issue.
The clear support for an independent body will be a severe blow for Britain's top brass who have long argued that an armed forces federation is unnecessary and could damage military discipline and morale.
The survey was conducted on the Army's own website called "Armynet" which is restricted to use by troops and their families.
Readers were asked: "Should there be an Army Federation to represent the interests of ordinary soldiers?" Of the 3,500 respondents, 51 per cent answered "yes"; 22 per cent thought it was a good idea; 23 per cent were against the proposal and two per cent answered "don't know". ...
I understand that the poll is still running, with a very similar breakdown of votes at present.
The poll is quite rightly about an ARMY Federation. I don't believe for a moment that a similar poll tomorrow of the RAF or RN/RM would produce similar results. (You would need another option for "Who?" or "Eh?"!) But it was still being claimed a year ago that a majority of contributors to an ArmyNet discussion were against the idea of a representative federation, and the poll gives a very different snapshot.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: @exRAF_Al
Posts: 3,297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Back in August, Al R lied thus; Baffman,
I've just read your responses to me, thanks. I'll drop a reply later if thats ok.
I've just read your responses to me, thanks. I'll drop a reply later if thats ok.
Baffman said; Al R:
"And we're not The Danes, we're us - one size doesn't fit all (as the EU is discovering)."
Well, obviously. Please dont lecture, when we do know what the Danish armed forces look like on operations, and we also know what their representative military associations look like. I hope that this from the BAFF website will be helpful:
"The BAFF Constitution was drawn up in consultation with 50 personnel from all three services. A "specifically British solution for the British armed forces", BAFF did not take any single organisation for a template, but its Steering Group researched or visited a wide range of organisations representing operational public service staff.
"These included representative military associations in Australia, the USA, and Ireland; the various Police Federations in the UK; and the GCHQ section of the PCS Union. BAFF itself is not a trade union."
"And we're not The Danes, we're us - one size doesn't fit all (as the EU is discovering)."
Well, obviously. Please dont lecture, when we do know what the Danish armed forces look like on operations, and we also know what their representative military associations look like. I hope that this from the BAFF website will be helpful:
"The BAFF Constitution was drawn up in consultation with 50 personnel from all three services. A "specifically British solution for the British armed forces", BAFF did not take any single organisation for a template, but its Steering Group researched or visited a wide range of organisations representing operational public service staff.
"These included representative military associations in Australia, the USA, and Ireland; the various Police Federations in the UK; and the GCHQ section of the PCS Union. BAFF itself is not a trade union."
I accept that Britain's top brass who 'have long argued that an armed forces federation is unnecessary and could damage military discipline and morale' have no one but to blame but themselves by being thick and by not anticipating change. Don't get me wrong - I'm all for proper discipline, proper care and proper treatment of the troops and things need to be improved, but I don't think that somehting like this in general is the best way to proceed, and with respect, BAFF in particular isn't the way I'd embark on things.
WRT the poll, if the great British public was asked 'Do you want your savings on deposit to be backed with an unlimited 100% g'ment guarantee, I imagine that Mrs Moffet from 14 The High Street would nod her head. It doesn't mean she has given thought to the bigger picture though, or with the best will in the world has the long term interests at heart. I would also point out that 51% of the poll thought the idea would result in the troops being represented and I wonder how many of the respondants were families? Not that their views don't count of course, but aren't there military families federations anyway, and isn't this sort of poll only likely to attract those wives etc, who are polarised?
As an aside, are you able to make public any signed off BAFF accounts?
Originally Posted by Al R
...WRT the poll, if the great British public was asked 'Do you want your savings on deposit to be backed with an unlimited 100% g'ment guarantee, I imagine that Mrs Moffet from 14 The High Street would nod her head. It doesn't mean she has given thought to the bigger picture though, or with the best will in the world has the long term interests at heart. I would also point out that 51% of the poll thought the idea would result in the troops being represented and I wonder how many of the respondants were families? Not that their views don't count of course, but aren't there military families federations anyway, and isn't this sort of poll only likely to attract those wives etc, who are polarised? ...
Al, that's quite a construct - all founded on the premise that significant numbers voting in the ArmyNet poll were families.
By the way it's not 51% in favour, it's reportedly still 73% in favour: "51% say 'long overdue', 22% say 'it could be useful') with more than 5100 votes cast." (Source: British Army Rumour Service > > Forums > > The Serious Bit > > Current Affairs, News and Analysis > > British soldiers want a federation to represent them)
Your 'it was the families who voted' hypothesis seems to have been picked up by ArmyNet users:
That's right, and in fact 'the opposition' has now asked on another site how many of those voting for a federation are in fact just family members.
Really can't think that there had been any concerted campaign since the poll was very much under the radar before the newspaper report.
A handful of votes at best.
That was several days ago and no other users have challenged it. The "families" theory is a red herring.
I am travelling at the moment but will see later if there is anything to add. If there is, I won't keep you hanging on quite so long for a reply!
Link to a recent interview on BFBS Forces Radio in which BAFF announced their campaign for official recognition of a professional staff association for the armed forces:
BFBS Radio 2
(downloadable mp3 podcast)
BFBS Radio 2
(downloadable mp3 podcast)
