Armed Forces Federation (Merged)
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Up North
Posts: 801
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Armed Forces Federation (Merged)
After perusing the "why are people leaving in droves" thread, and chancing upon a debate on the ARRSE website, I thought it worth raising here.
Is it time for an Armed Forces Federation, with the necessary prohibitions on withdrawal of labour etc that would maintain military capability?
My view is that there is enough disquiet at cutbacks to generate some momentum towards a move. Membership of such a federation would not be contrary to QRs and the establishment of such a body was recommended by the Council of Europe, so even if the MoD opposed such a unilateral move, their scope for action would be limited. Naturally, at the outset, office-holders would be best limited to ex-serving and reservists, and those with careers in terminal decline!
Of course, the ideal solution would be for the MoD to set up such a body, but the prospect of an alternative viewpoint without rose-tinted specs would perhaps not appeal...
Any thoughts?
http://www.arrse.co.uk/cpgn2/Forums/.../start=75.html
Is it time for an Armed Forces Federation, with the necessary prohibitions on withdrawal of labour etc that would maintain military capability?
My view is that there is enough disquiet at cutbacks to generate some momentum towards a move. Membership of such a federation would not be contrary to QRs and the establishment of such a body was recommended by the Council of Europe, so even if the MoD opposed such a unilateral move, their scope for action would be limited. Naturally, at the outset, office-holders would be best limited to ex-serving and reservists, and those with careers in terminal decline!
Of course, the ideal solution would be for the MoD to set up such a body, but the prospect of an alternative viewpoint without rose-tinted specs would perhaps not appeal...
Any thoughts?
http://www.arrse.co.uk/cpgn2/Forums/.../start=75.html
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Nomadic
Posts: 1,343
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Federation?
The ADF has had one for a while. May not be everyone's cup of tea, but look here to see what it is all about nowerdays
http://www.arffa.org.au/
membership is voluntary and not against the law.
http://www.arffa.org.au/
membership is voluntary and not against the law.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: England
Posts: 165
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Federation?
Sensationalism apart I think the idea has a great deal of merit.
On the one side the boys and girls would have a recognised body to address their concerns to apart from - dare I say it - Pprune! This would allow the Service to have instant access to information on what's causing the troops to allegedly 'leave in their droves', without having to pay a consultant to tell them the bleeding obvious! More sensitive trends could be dealt with in-house without the need for the Sun et al to fish for headlines here.
Inclusion of a non-strike clause would keep everyone happy, but a federation would also be able to speak for the masses on pay, conditions etc. With a small membership fee it could even fund itself so it's a win-win!
This of course presumes anyone gives a stuff - to which the evidence is leaning (no pun intended) to 'not'.
On the one side the boys and girls would have a recognised body to address their concerns to apart from - dare I say it - Pprune! This would allow the Service to have instant access to information on what's causing the troops to allegedly 'leave in their droves', without having to pay a consultant to tell them the bleeding obvious! More sensitive trends could be dealt with in-house without the need for the Sun et al to fish for headlines here.
Inclusion of a non-strike clause would keep everyone happy, but a federation would also be able to speak for the masses on pay, conditions etc. With a small membership fee it could even fund itself so it's a win-win!
This of course presumes anyone gives a stuff - to which the evidence is leaning (no pun intended) to 'not'.
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: London
Posts: 39
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Federation?
This would be an ideal role for RAFA. They already have a structure in place and as welfare is bankrolled by the RAF Benev' Fund, it would give RAFA a better defined role.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Nomadic
Posts: 1,343
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Federation?
Unfortunately, whilst I am a fan of the activities of RAFA, the hierarchy may be a little out of touch (my opinion only). I have seen other 'interested' parties 'go in to bat' with all good intention (ie RSL of Aus) only to ruin the 'modern' wishes of the masses by adopting a policy and stating an opinion that was antiquated & not necessarily those of CURRENT serving members.
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: London
Posts: 39
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Federation?
Originally Posted by L J R
Unfortunately, whilst I am a fan of the activities of RAFA, the hierarchy may be a little out of touch (my opinion only).
This would have to be a totally new direction for RAFA and possibly its saving grace. With dwindling membership and duplication of effort (RAFBF), RAFA is already struggling for survival.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: North Yorkshire
Age: 82
Posts: 641
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Federation?
Servicemen and women nowadays need a voice with clout. The chain of command no longer looks after their welfare and aspirations adequately. A federation of some sort is an interesting possibility.
Just as important is their representation in parliament. I always felt disenfranchised while I was serving. If I was able to use a postal or proxy vote, the MP in question never had relevance to or interest in me. I believe the services are a large enough constituancy to merit having their own MPs. It would then not matter that we have no fixed abode and we would be properly represented by someone who would be held accountable at the ballot box and who might also understand something about service life and ethos.
Just as important is their representation in parliament. I always felt disenfranchised while I was serving. If I was able to use a postal or proxy vote, the MP in question never had relevance to or interest in me. I believe the services are a large enough constituancy to merit having their own MPs. It would then not matter that we have no fixed abode and we would be properly represented by someone who would be held accountable at the ballot box and who might also understand something about service life and ethos.
Re: Federation?
And perhaps 'federation reps' would be able to assist those victimised by the various kangaroo courts of dubious legitimacy which still exist in the military? For example, they can write all sorts of untruths which they use as 'evidence' and yet the victim isn't even allowed a copy. Even if proven untrue by direct proof, such 'evidence' will still be used against the victim; tehcnically it is surely libel if proven untrue and slander if also stated in front of any witness?
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Much-Binding-in-the-Marsh
Posts: 460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Federation?
Sadly I think the time may be fast approaching where a Federation becomes essential. I have always been against such a move but the tide is turning. It needs to be Tri Service so no to RAFA (which is really an old comrades association). It needs primarily to voice concern over terms and conditions of Service, and act on behalf of its members rather than become a political lobby group pushing to maintain the size of the Forces or preserve a particular role or capability. To be successful it must be clearly apolitical.
In the past we have always allowed the Personnel Staff to act as both poacher and gamekeeper - on the one hand looking out for our interests in the AFPRB debate and on allowances and then on the other 'policing' the application of policy to make sure nobody kicks the ar$e out of the system through abuse. Now, with Service Personnel Policy being firmly in the hands of the Civil Service, I believe we need an idependent voice.
Whether it should be extended to righting the perceived wrongs that BEags mentions is another issue. Once again there is a role here (and some professional sub groups such as ATC have used their Guild to good effect in fighting cases) but whether this is for the 'Federation' or some other body I'm not so sure. This route begins to question the professional judgement of the chain of command - and while the Boss ain't always right he is always The Boss! To move off that rather simplistic tenet spells the end for military discipline so I would prefer to see a Federation that, initially at least, sticks to arguing our case in the personnel forum.
Some form of Professional body is inevitable - the powers that be would do well to embrace the concept early on and shape it.
In the past we have always allowed the Personnel Staff to act as both poacher and gamekeeper - on the one hand looking out for our interests in the AFPRB debate and on allowances and then on the other 'policing' the application of policy to make sure nobody kicks the ar$e out of the system through abuse. Now, with Service Personnel Policy being firmly in the hands of the Civil Service, I believe we need an idependent voice.
Whether it should be extended to righting the perceived wrongs that BEags mentions is another issue. Once again there is a role here (and some professional sub groups such as ATC have used their Guild to good effect in fighting cases) but whether this is for the 'Federation' or some other body I'm not so sure. This route begins to question the professional judgement of the chain of command - and while the Boss ain't always right he is always The Boss! To move off that rather simplistic tenet spells the end for military discipline so I would prefer to see a Federation that, initially at least, sticks to arguing our case in the personnel forum.
Some form of Professional body is inevitable - the powers that be would do well to embrace the concept early on and shape it.
Red On, Green On
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Between the woods and the water
Age: 24
Posts: 6,487
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
Re: Federation?
As some will know, my old man served in the Dark Blue. He was keen on a union of sorts throughout his career, which is probably why he did not make Flag rank. I've got a letter somewhere that he wrote to their Warships in about 1960, making some very valid compalints about his Ts and Cs, particularly about pay. He and my mum had to live like church mice (and him a Lancastrian) on his Lt's pay - as he only had his pay to live on....
Cunning Artificer
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: The spiritual home of DeHavilland
Age: 76
Posts: 3,127
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Church mice airborne_artist? You should have seen how we lived on a Yeoman of Signals pay! Dad loved the Navy dearly, but left for the family's sake: in civilian life he became a staunch member of the TGWU and served for years as the local branch secretary. (He'd have become a full time official if he hadn't been too left wing for the Union Leadership's liking.)
All three arms of the military have needed representation for many years. As Shagster pointed out, the RAFA have a ready made organization but regardless of the increase in serving members, we (I include myself) are far too out of touch with present conditions to be of any real help. The only way you're going to get a federation is to organize yourselves. There is the rub.
All three arms of the military have needed representation for many years. As Shagster pointed out, the RAFA have a ready made organization but regardless of the increase in serving members, we (I include myself) are far too out of touch with present conditions to be of any real help. The only way you're going to get a federation is to organize yourselves. There is the rub.
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: England
Posts: 339
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Parliamentary Question, House of Lords, 23 Jan 06
Thought you guys might be interested to read this topical Parliamentary Question and Answer, from the HoL on Monday.
Armed Forces: Welfare
Lord Garden asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether there is any bar to serving members of the Armed Forces forming an association along the lines of the Police Federation. [HL3245]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Drayson): The Police Federation of England and Wales was established by the Police Act 1919, under which it has a statutory responsibility to represent its members in all matters affecting their welfare and efficiency. There is no similar basis under which members of the Armed Forces could form an association along these lines.
There are however a number of alternative processes in place to ensure members of the Armed Forces can express their views on matters which affect their service or their welfare. There are regular surveys to monitor welfare matters, and it is an integral part of the duty of our chain of command to look after the welfare and well-being of their people. Individuals have the right to complain about any matter relating to their service to the Defence Council. Further modernisation of the complaints process is being proposed, including the introduction of an independent element as part of the Armed Forces Bill.
Make up your own minds!
Regards
Ginseng
Armed Forces: Welfare
Lord Garden asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether there is any bar to serving members of the Armed Forces forming an association along the lines of the Police Federation. [HL3245]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Drayson): The Police Federation of England and Wales was established by the Police Act 1919, under which it has a statutory responsibility to represent its members in all matters affecting their welfare and efficiency. There is no similar basis under which members of the Armed Forces could form an association along these lines.
There are however a number of alternative processes in place to ensure members of the Armed Forces can express their views on matters which affect their service or their welfare. There are regular surveys to monitor welfare matters, and it is an integral part of the duty of our chain of command to look after the welfare and well-being of their people. Individuals have the right to complain about any matter relating to their service to the Defence Council. Further modernisation of the complaints process is being proposed, including the introduction of an independent element as part of the Armed Forces Bill.
Make up your own minds!
Regards
Ginseng
Red On, Green On
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Between the woods and the water
Age: 24
Posts: 6,487
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
Blacksheep
I'd be guessing that my Dad was earning not much more than a YoS. He was an RN Lt at the time, with about 4 years seniority. I know that by the time I was in the Andrew a Fleet Chief was on almost exactly the same as a Lt Cdr on promotion.
As an aside, at the beginning of my second year as a Midshipmite my pay went from £2,600 to £4,500 - not because the Admiralty valued my (non-existant) skills, but because Maggie gave us the entire 35% pay award in one go - and I started getting the training rate of flying pay.
I'd be guessing that my Dad was earning not much more than a YoS. He was an RN Lt at the time, with about 4 years seniority. I know that by the time I was in the Andrew a Fleet Chief was on almost exactly the same as a Lt Cdr on promotion.
As an aside, at the beginning of my second year as a Midshipmite my pay went from £2,600 to £4,500 - not because the Admiralty valued my (non-existant) skills, but because Maggie gave us the entire 35% pay award in one go - and I started getting the training rate of flying pay.
It seems that the UK isn't alone in suffering overstretch or facing recruiting and retention problems....
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4649066.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4649066.stm
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
The Retired Officers Association is a tested model that could be used.
It is triservice and has volunteers who are elected to various offices. ROs are all in employment by the crown, same as regulars, and many wear uniform and perform identical functions to their regular colleagues.
The difference is they are outside the military food chain and can operate on behalf of their members regardless of which TLB their member works for.
If the regulars had a similar association you might have a Naval 4-ring who could be approached by an army officer who had a problem. You then have a disinterested party who can tackle the appropriate command.
Where this model may breakdown is the sheer size of the regular manpower pool and the potential for enough cases to become a full time job. That being the case the Association might have to pay for full-time staff too.
There is no case however for 'union meetings' 'do we agree to fight or shold we tippytoe away type.' 'Or but the S'nt Major told me to get me 'air cut, its an infringement of me human rights.'
The role of the association would be limited to ensuring that the current rules, as writ, are fair and properly applied. Where a properly written rule is patently unfair then the association could challenge it.
It is triservice and has volunteers who are elected to various offices. ROs are all in employment by the crown, same as regulars, and many wear uniform and perform identical functions to their regular colleagues.
The difference is they are outside the military food chain and can operate on behalf of their members regardless of which TLB their member works for.
If the regulars had a similar association you might have a Naval 4-ring who could be approached by an army officer who had a problem. You then have a disinterested party who can tackle the appropriate command.
Where this model may breakdown is the sheer size of the regular manpower pool and the potential for enough cases to become a full time job. That being the case the Association might have to pay for full-time staff too.
There is no case however for 'union meetings' 'do we agree to fight or shold we tippytoe away type.' 'Or but the S'nt Major told me to get me 'air cut, its an infringement of me human rights.'
The role of the association would be limited to ensuring that the current rules, as writ, are fair and properly applied. Where a properly written rule is patently unfair then the association could challenge it.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: WSM
Posts: 222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is getting harder for the mass of the RAF to get general messages across to the heirarchy. Redress is too specific and relates to an individual. It's also a big step to take. PVR is a mixed message. The CGAT gets the answers to the questions that it sets itself and has no personal touch. The disbandment of the AFBLT and it's replacement by a CAS forum (1 to date, I believe, to a selected audience) only serves to widen the gap. From the many open straw polls I have been involved in the general view has always been opposed to a federation (reflecting my own view) but there is an inevitability about this and we owe it to ourselves and future Servicemen/women to make sure we get it right. A rabid dog or toothless tiger will serve no-ones interests.
Join Date: May 2003
Location: East Anglia
Posts: 68
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting debate this one..
We do need some kind of representation, I thought the CASWO was supposed to fufill this function for the OR side but to date I've never seen or heard of him doing anything. Don't even know who he is.
Ultimately, will the policy makers and bosses take a blind bit of notice of anything the 'Federation' says. Very unlikely when it has no way of putting pressure on said bosses and policy makers. I also feel that anyone within the service would find life very uncomfortable should they try to set one up unless it was under 'guidance' from the powers-that-be. We are all aware of the fear culture prevalent in the service nowadays (must toe the party line, must swallow the management speak, mustn't rock the boat) that anyone attempting to set this up would be committing career suicide.
Certainly PVR is not the weapon it used to be, especially not for OR's and SNCO's. I think that 'they' are actually trying to encourage it amongst the more experienced members of the service.
Nice idea, but I don't think anything will come of it.
Anyone know anything of the 'work to rule' that supposedly happened in the 70's at some RAF Bases. Some old sweats told me about it but I was never sure whether it was true or not?
We do need some kind of representation, I thought the CASWO was supposed to fufill this function for the OR side but to date I've never seen or heard of him doing anything. Don't even know who he is.
Ultimately, will the policy makers and bosses take a blind bit of notice of anything the 'Federation' says. Very unlikely when it has no way of putting pressure on said bosses and policy makers. I also feel that anyone within the service would find life very uncomfortable should they try to set one up unless it was under 'guidance' from the powers-that-be. We are all aware of the fear culture prevalent in the service nowadays (must toe the party line, must swallow the management speak, mustn't rock the boat) that anyone attempting to set this up would be committing career suicide.
Certainly PVR is not the weapon it used to be, especially not for OR's and SNCO's. I think that 'they' are actually trying to encourage it amongst the more experienced members of the service.
Nice idea, but I don't think anything will come of it.
Anyone know anything of the 'work to rule' that supposedly happened in the 70's at some RAF Bases. Some old sweats told me about it but I was never sure whether it was true or not?