Wakey Wakey manning
 

Whilst the DT have grabbed the 'still not enough army reserves' headline from today's DASA manpower figures (all on the web) it makes for some interesting analysis of the light blue as well (long train journey today).

In summary the RAF reached its manpower target of reducing to 33000 from 40500 in Jun. Noting that's a reduction of circa 7500 not the often media reported 5000 figure. Therefore we should now be seeing intake roughly equaling outflow, but it's not. By example the RN are in the same boat (pardon the pun) but they appear to have mastered the 'numbers in should equal numbers out' complex maths.

It seems (yet again) the RAF are turning the recruitment tap on too late and too slowly.

With NEM, pensions, Contingency and a growing economy I don't see retention getting better to solve this and that's reflected in PVR figures being the highest for at least 5 years. So a sizeable recruitment drive is needed PDQ.

So open to the floor. Does manning know what they are doing and is there a plan?

Don't forget the lack of techie pay for technical trades and loyalty is a two way thing.

I don't know if you seen this before but the stats in this article make interesting reading http://www.bainessimmons.com/tlp/air...ummer-2013.pdf

Techie Pay!
 

When I joined up in 80, TG1&2 were paid more. I had no problem with this as it was a personal choice.

Since then times have changed, drastically. Various trades have been judged(rightly or wrongly) to be worthy of a pay increase. There is no such thing as techie pay, but those individuals in TG1&2 have not had their pay reduced.

Why, IMHO, is it that Techies will only be happy when they get paid more than anyone else irrespective of their salary? The highest scoring Trade in the JSJET system was the dental hygienist. There are other TGs who also deserve more but that is purely subjective.

http://cdn1.tnwcdn.com/files/2009/12...-of-****-1.jpg


:E

All aboard the "Techie Pay" argument bus...

It's not just recruitment but retention - to control the flow you need to control both ends of the pipe.

I see very little/nothing to counter the multitude of push factors that have amassed over recent years. Whatever happens, it needs to be significant.

You can recruit more to balance the numbers sheet, but keeping sufficient SQEP personnel is a wholly different issue.

Nutty
How true:D

That's a problem caused by the way it's managed. 2-year post holders firefighting and hoping a wheel doesn't come off during their watch, while the financiers look at people like buses they can buy and sell with demand. People, experience and loyalty are intangible on a balance sheet until shooting starts probably many miles away.

Whatever the arguments....pay shows the "OFFICIAL" view of your worth!:uhoh:

OAP

Over on The Student Room you see no shortage of people applying and wanting in... but all complaining of huge delays caused by Capita.

Now that Capita.....
 

.....seems to be bigger than the RAF; is there anything that Capita gets right?

There seem to be lots of reports in the press about their shortcomings in all sorts of areas other than the RAF.

The military seem to have outsourced all the things that "we" used to do when I was a lad and yet things don't seem to get better.

Olympics and G4S

Big IT companies who never seem to deliver yet keep being contracted in spite of their previous failures.

Where has any benefit to the services been gained? Sure as shot I can't see it.

The Ancient Mariner

Reserves and Regular targets for RAF recruitment will be met this year or thereabouts. Only a few pinch point trades causing issues like ICT, and most techy jobs have all been filled.

I wasn't aware Capita were leading the way.

Regardless, every month the light blue are shrinking by circa 125 people even though they have reached the mandated manning level early. Whilst 125 may not seem like a lot the organisation is a lot smaller now and these numbers matter. Unless staunched it will be increasingly problematic internally and not aid the RAFs cause come the next SDSR ie you obviously don't need the people.

A lot more intake appears to be required.

Selatar,

(1) Never did. (2) No.

Nutloose,

Splendid !

D.

I guess the NEM policy of offering extensions till age 60 for aircrew - PAS Flt Lt and above could be seen as a retention method.

Interesting where the truth lies though regarding manning. Are we actually in balance with everything wonderful or is the reality somewhat different?

Then again, it will all change under SDSR 15!

From the Retention Thread dated 7th August 2013
 

Don't think so. I think it is Manning that are missing something obvious, and I don't think the problem of retention will only be restricted to Pilots. I say that as someone who is seeing a lot of the youngsters (particularly GD/WSO and WSOps) I used to fly with PVR'ing at what I assume for 'the system' is an alarming rate; if I was very cynical of course, perhaps you could argue that this was always part of the Master Plan to get the RAF numbers down below whatever the latest 'target' is ASAP.

I believe what started as a trickle is now turning into a serious flood. No doubt there is lots of hand-wringing going on among various members of the Air Force Board who are seeing the situation slip beyond their control at an alarming rate. All I can say to that is "You reap what you sow you completely clueless dickheads".

Standing by for the RAF to disappear up it's own arsehole!

The 'Elephant' in the woodpile is of course that a newly qualified person ≠someone who's been in the job a decade+. Oh, they might be more of a gym queen and use the requisite number of sirs per sentence, but I'd rather have a cynical, fat, wheezy, '20-a-day' expert on my team than an unimaginative drone with shiny shoes, who's absent every Wednesday afternoon, and who spouts management b-s at every juncture.

Wouldn't give a s h one t but for the fact it's now my tax £ contributing to the god almighty, and ongoing, ****-up.

Little sympathy for those that stay in: plenty of opportunity in the real world.

Get the Hell out of Dodge people!

Geardown,

My interpretation is based on the figures ie fact rather than an insight into intent and I am therefore delighted manning are hitting their targets. I merely note that the RN have stopped at the level they were directed under SDSR whilst the light blue are continuing to reduce past that number. Given that manning are all over this I presume the RAF is to shrink beyond what is currently in the public domain.

I'm telling it as it is on the shop floor... many TG1 have PVR'd because they will get paid better and put up with less s*** elsewhere. I know many who walked straight into jobs in Aberdeen and don't know of any TG1 who PVR'd and was worse off.

If the RAF matched the pay that these guys can easily get working offshore, then you would drastically reduce the PVR rate.

What nobody has mentioned yet, is the problem is worse than the manning numbers suggest. As theses numbers do not take into account experience, qualifications, operational readiness, effectiveness, etc. The numbers are just bums on seats and not "guys who know what they are doing" versus "kid straight out of school".

I did kinda allude to it a couple of posts back 'r4. Maybe in a bit too much of a pi55ed up way though.

Got a feeling we're singing from the same hymn sheet though...

Retention isn't helped when they come up with nuggets like introducing los 35 for FS's instead of age 55. If promoted I get 2 years less time in rank ie leave at age 53 not 55.

The Nip, I left less than two years ago and walked into an offshore job, my salary is triple what it used to be for working half a year! The incentive to keep these talented people is what? Paying them the same as a cook or a stacker? If your techie cocks up people could die, Fact, if your dentist or stacker cocks up whats the big problem?

Pay
 

Jayand,

Please read my post. I have nothing against Techies getting paid a good wage. If that meant they got more money because they contributed more than everyone else then fine.
It is also a fact that if wages are better in civi street then a lot of people will leave regardless.

But, in today's environment it has been judged that a percentage of other trades contribute in a valuable way justifying in a higher pay band. If that means they are paid the same as Techies then what is the problem. No Techie has lost money or any conditions they have.

Will techies only feel more valued when they can look down on someone else knowing they earn more?

Nip, put it this way, you had to be more academically qualified to become a Technician than you did to become a Cook, hence one of the differences in rates etc.

But more than that the wage structure was originally designed to equate over to that of Civi street. A Cook, Blanket Stacker, or Technician was paid on par with his civilian counterpart, this was to aid retention of such people in the services, you say the Technicians wage didn't decrease, but everyone else's increased, maybe it didn't at the time, but in the scheme of things now it now lags behind Civilian equivalents, hence the poor retention rate, where Cooks and Blanket Stackers are now on an artificially high wage in comparrison to their civilian conterparts, hence I bet there is not such a deficit in manning. Oddly the other one that may be lagging might be RAFP, though they probably are not direct equivalents "trade" wise.
Maybe they should have retained the JT rank instead of "demoting" it to SAC, that way a buffer in wages could have been retained as a JT is a higher rank than a SAC Cook.


.

GR4Techie, your assumption is far closer than you can imagine, I work for a well known north sea helicopter operator and we have taken on as many ex RAF types as we can get I also know a lot of ex techies that are offshore and as you say are alot better of am an ex techie myself.

I've posted on here a fair bit in the past; I'm reasonably senior and reasonably long in the tooth, so I should be tolerant. However, one effect of shrinking manpower in support areas and 'self-service' administration is that I spend increasingly longer times trying to do simple admin. For example I'm posted overseas 6 months ahead of planned date yet trying to get the 'system' to respond to the requirements of the new assignment (sorry, I used the expression 'posting' earlier. Verboten) is practically impossible. There's been some heroic effort by some TG 17 staff but decisions relating to rules on baggage, termination of SSSA, allowances, housing are typically vested with the Casework cell in Glasgow. The turnaround time on what had been in the past a local/station decision runs into months - time I simply do not have if I am to comply with the Assignment Order.


I'm prepared to be flexible (and have been for the better part of 30 years) - have my home-life upheaved again (poor Mrs Crash) - but the 'system' - predicated on the needs of an 18 year old Soldier posted (final warning, Crash. It's assignment) to Germany - is not flexible. I've seen a one-Star recently expected to meet near-unobtainable RTM dates go red with frustration as the various unconnected support wheels fail to mesh. This will definitely be my last move - I love the job, love serving the RAF and HMG, but why - oh why - is it made so hard to go about one's domestic business iso the Mission?


PS this isn't a dig at Adminers; on the contrary, I feel for those remaining having to work in such a Byzantine system.

Are they? Pray tell me, what is the equivalent of a 'blanket stacker' in civvy street, bearing in mind it is a trade that encompasses everything from 'stacking blankets' through logistics system controlling, ADR dispatching and a host of other roles?

I only ask because, although I don't do the job anymore, when I left the regular RAF I walked into a logistics management job in civvy street that paid £38k pa plus KPI linked bonuses of up to 14%, a job that I could do standing on my head (which is why I was awarded my full bonus every year until I left). That is a level of pay that (if only considering basic pay) a 'stacker' wouldn't see until they hit mid-range F/Sgt pay or, (if taking into account the bonus) until the dizzy heights of WO.

TG1 don't only get paid more in helicopter maint, many offshore companies are crying out for our TG1 to do ROV operator technician, Instrument Technician and Gas Turbine Technician roles. Etc.

When you say "no techie has lost money or any conditions"... Yes I have! Every year the cost of living goes up more than the RAF salary. Every day that someone stays in the RAF are they potentially losing money when they could be earning more elsewhere today?

I don't look down at anyone, I'm sure I'd struggle to do some other trades, they would use kit that I've no idea how to operate and I reckon even a SAC MT Driver could get paid more as a hazardous chemical HGV driver in civvy street.

The RAF are wondering why so many skilled, qualified and experienced people are leaving. The simple solution is pay. If you paid them a similar amount to the offshore jobs then the mass exodus would stop. It's that simple. Changing the cupboard in the single living accommodation or having one sports day doesn't solve it.

Stack you obviously did well and moved into a position higher than the average counterpart.

Not at all and to be honest, its a little insulting.

Whether folks like it or not the 'valued' trades in civvy street are not what they once were and decent quality logistics specialists are highly sought after in the ever increasingly "time is money" world we live in. Whilst techies may scoff at the thought, compared to many in the civvy world, service/ex-service 'stackers' are highly-regarded and often paid significantly higher than those the RAF provided.

Out of the ex-TSW (wrongly considered by many in the trade as 'de-skilled' stackers) colleagues I still keep in contact with very few aren't earning very good money post-discharge. Infact, given I re-trained as a nurse, I'm now probably on some of the lowest wages out of us all.

This is itself quite ironic, given we're discussing RAF trades earning more than they could in civvy street, because arguably nursing is one of them. As a RAuxAF nurse I earn more than any other Auggie trade with comparable rank/time served. I guess the MoD recognises the importance of actual life savers over spanner turning theoretical ones. ;)

I left nurses out of the equation as those and medics deserve far more on both sides of the fence.

THS, I hate to pull the "my hat is blacker than yours" stunt on you, however, on leaving the blue suit behind I was earning £52k a year some ten years ago. I was not an outstanding stacker, what I did have was a full and thorough understanding of my trade and the value of that to a prospective employer. Initially I had wanted to be a rigger, thank heavens for aptitude tests and good old fashioned SNCOs who ensured I knew what I should be doing.

dkh51250 - No fear, this is exactly the point I'm trying to make. That 'stackers' aren't grossly overpaid in the RAF (as alluded to earlier in this thread) compared to what they can earn in civvy street.

I'm pretty sure you weren't 'stacking blankets' for £52k a year. ;)

Well said WW

I've been following the discussions on pay scales for different trades on this and another forum. The thrust being that aircraft techie's are more important/skilled than other trades so should be paid more. Prior to the introduction of the 1964 trade structure there were two streams within the ranks, the command stream and the technical stream. Each stream had its own pay rates so a Cpl/Sgt/F.Sgt (who wore there stripes the right way up) in the command stream received less pay than a Cpl Tech/Senior Tech/Chief Tech in the technical stream (who wore there stripes upside down) additionally, married men were paid more than single men. The 1970 pay deal was supposed to bring other ranks in line with the going rate in civie street. Three pay bands (1/2/3) were introduced for Cpl and below and each trade & rank was evaluated and placed in one of these bands. At the time this caused huge resentment from those in the lower bands and whilst they received some sympathy from their officers and SNCOs they were generally told to stop winging and get on with it. A couple of years later (72/73 I think) SNCOs and WO's were included in the pay banding and a whole new level of winging was achieved. Officers were never pay banded and many saw this as the main reason why nothing was ever done to get the anomalies (a Sgt in the low band received less than a Cpl in the highest band) and perceived injustices of the banding system sorted out. The aspiration that pay would stay in line with civilian equivalents seemed to work until 76/77 ish when the services were awarded a series of what became known as "Irishman rises" (pay rise 50p a week, rent up 75p). Pensions were at a set rate for each rank irrespective of pay band.. This was explained away as the "band of brothers concept" (apparently ok for pensions but not for pay). Now I never subscribed to this system and the argument put about by the aircraft techies that the consequence of them making an error could be the loss of a aircraft so they should be paid more cut little ice with me. I would counter that the actions of a rogue cook could end in the loss of a station (remember tacevals and hot-locks) if he put his mind to it. I also couldn't understand why, if a cook was worth less than a techie why wasn't an engineering officer worth more than a catering officer. Just my thoughts and no I wasn't a cook. :ugh::ugh:

Ah, but they are...You see an EngO has to have a degree or HND and so gets accelerated promotion on comissioning, so if they both progress through the officer ranks at the same pace then the EngO is always paid more.

Being neither engineer, loggy or scribbly, I do think that engineers should earn more than loggies and loggies more than scribblies. Why? Because the eng needs more qualifications and in general has more responsibility than his/her compatritiots. You're more likely to kill someone if you get engineering wrong, slightly less likely if you give out the wrong stuff (unless its fuel!) and only a nasty paper-cut if you shuffle the wrong paper!

:E

LJ

I agree. Yet they are happy to sign PAS Flt Lt to age 60. Manning will reap what they so!

Manning would do well to go on the road and establish what is causing angst amongst all trades and ranks. Using questionnaires like 'Your Say' doesn't reveal everything - on that questionnaire I often felt I was being forced to make simple choices on set areas that didn't cover all my personal concerns, but perhaps that was just me!

I'm not pointing any fingers at the guys and girls who work at Manning. I think they do the best they can and know a number of them well enough to confirm that assertion. Crisis does loom though and knowing what drives our people to leave needs to be addressed. Increasing Salary is a gift of the Treasury which would require AFPRB evidence to support. Very difficult area to argue convincingly enough across the Public Sector.

MSOCS, the whole point of such management surveys is to confine your choice of answers and to avoid having to report the difficult stuff up the chain of command. The companies that compile them are very specific in their questions to their clients so that they they compile the survey accordingly.

An online survey yields nice, neat, numerical results that can then be "analysed" to produce "statistics". Airships and politicians then get pie graphs and useful figures to spout in parliament.

Perhaps even more relevant are a) online surveys are relatively cheap and b) they don't get bogged down in individual issues - even if they are issues common to many of the respondents.