Higher payband = more professionalism?

[raflad67]

Where all the ill feeling arises is from the basic principle of 'worth'. Where as certain trades used to be in the higher pay band and certain trades were not, it made individuals from the higher pay band think, quite understandably, that their job held more importance/responsibility than that of an equivalent rank and seniority from the lower pay band.

No body has actually put their hand up and said where they got it wrong in the first place. If all the individual trades that moved from lower to higher, were in fact being 'underpaid' for years then they have taken the news very well.

However all the trades on the higher pay band have lost that differentiation from their employer as to what is considered more valuable to them?

so to the point of this thread, as a techie, if I had received a £6K pay rise I would not have felt I could have been any more responsible or professional than I already was. Likewise I would expect all trades moving from low to high pay, to feel the same.

The only gripe I ever held was with my employer, who after 23 years of blowing sunshine out of my asre, suddenly breaks the news that they don't actually rate my trade that highly after all, and yes I did vote with my feet.

Refreshingly truthful response in my view. I agree with the more 'responsibility' bit a little more than the 'importance' bit as I believe all trades are important. I am TG17 and do I believe I am worth the £41K a year I get ? NO. Have I increased my professionalism etc - NO. Why? because I have always been professional and given the very best service I can. We (TG 17) have some utter numpties of course, but is this not the case in most other trades? Others will say they deserve their money and they probably do - its a personal view and as they say, opinions are like ar$e holes, everyone has one...!

It does seem to me that some Techies think they have somehow lost money because we (and others) have gone onto HPB!. They have'nt but perhaps what they have lost is the confidence in the pay system and the recognition, that I still believe they should have.

Anyone for a new pay system.....?

cup of corrrfeee

 

[Realist78]

Where all the ill feeling arises is from the basic principle of 'worth'. Where as certain trades used to be in the higher pay band and certain trades were not, it made individuals from the higher pay band think, quite understandably, that their job held more importance/responsibility than that of an equivalent rank and seniority from the lower pay band.

No body has actually put their hand up and said where they got it wrong in the first place. If all the individual trades that moved from lower to higher, were in fact being 'underpaid' for years then they have taken the news very well.

However all the trades on the higher pay band have lost that differentiation from their employer as to what is considered more valuable to them?

so to the point of this thread, as a techie, if I had received a £6K pay rise I would not have felt I could have been any more responsible or professional than I already was. Likewise I would expect all trades moving from low to high pay, to feel the same.

The only gripe I ever held was with my employer, who after 23 years of blowing sunshine out of my asre, suddenly breaks the news that they don't actually rate my trade that highly after all, and yes I did vote with my feet.

Just about sums it up for lots of people. This has to be the thread however that has been hanged, beheaded, quartered and totally done to death and more!FFS:0

 

[3OCLOCKFINISH]

As far as I am aware and correct me if I am wrong but nobody has had to drop down a Pay Band in order to pay for another trade to go up one. Therefore nobody has lost out!! So what exactly is the problem?

Personally my problem is the way I've been treated by PSF over the past year or so which if you were aware of would fully understand my current attitude towards them. Alas that is for another thread!

My 'professional' problem is of being paid for what one is worth. Through the training I've received and the problems I'm expected to rectify I truly believe that I should be paid more than other people. Of course there is an limit to how much differential in pay there can be within the military but what little difference there is I expect to be at the top.

 

[monobrow]

Why? because I have always been professional and given the very best service I can. We (TG 17) have some utter numpties of course, but is this not the case in most other trades?

Yes, but there is a fundamental problem in how shineys are percieved. No-one will remember the case when they walked into PSF and had their issue dealt with on the spot but will have clear in their mind the time when a complex issue has gone from pillar to post with no means of resolve.

As for the opener "Higher payband = more professionalism?" the answer would be no. Higher payband means they get more money for doing the same job to the same terms of reference = no change.

 

[duffman]

Oddly enough, the following is taken from the recent People Campaign Plan (PCP) that is doing the rounds:



The study team stood up in Aug 09, with a report due this March.

There are some interesting points in the plan (and some not so interesting) just for God's sake don't read the covering note!

Is the plan available for all to read.

 

[R_Squared]

So taking your point and so as not to affect everyone, should we all move back to the lower pay band? Ensuring a a less expensive RAF and fair pay rise for everyone.

I don't have an answer for that, hopefully facetious comment. Just pointing out that we actually could be out of pocket due to the recent pay re-evaluation.

 

[Woodja]

Is the plan available for all to read.

The copy I have was passed down through the chain of command to the P Staffs - if you PM me your .mod.uk email address I will ping you a copy.

 

[Digzster]

What we lose as being always on the higher payband is the 'differential'. We have suffered twice; firstly when pay 2000 came in and 3 paybands became 2, and currently, when 2 paybands are very close to being just one.

In real terms I have received miniscule payrises over the last few years whilst those previously in lower paybands have seen relatively big pay rises.

So the answer is yes - those previously on the higher paybands have lost and those on the highest, even more.

On the plus side, we might see an increase in pension under the 'band of brothers' principle.

In my case, 18 months of training at AC's wages was offset by the knowledge that IF I passed the intense course, I would be on the high pay band and earn accordingly throughout my career. Now with trades creeping to the higher band after reduced training time and faster promotion in other trades there is a feeling of "am I not worth all that effort"? Of course I always have the option to walk.

 

[Cantbeshinyarsed]

In my case, 18 months of training at AC's wages was offset by the knowledge that IF I passed the intense course, I would be on the high pay band and earn accordingly throughout my career. Now with trades creeping to the higher band after reduced training time and faster promotion in other trades there is a feeling of "am I not worth all that effort"? Of course I always have the option to walk.

Not sure about all the trades in the Higher Pay Band but certainly within TG17 SAC's do not go onto the higher Pay Band. Only after proving thier worth and spending on average 6 1/2 years as an SAC they ay be promoted to Cpl and move up a pay band.

As an average, and I know this because I was asked to provide the figures to the trade sponsor, the time from SAC to WO in TG1 is the same as in TG17.

 

[Woodja]

The copy I have was passed down through the chain of command to the P Staffs - if you PM me your .mod.uk email address I will ping you a copy.

Actually - I just found a link to the PCP website on the A1 Spec Spt Intranet - select the post-it for Branch & Trade Sponsors, there should be a link there to the People Campaign Plan site.

 

[Ghandi's Flip-Flop]

6 1/2 years as an SAC they ay be promoted to Cpl and move up a pay band.

As an average, and I know this because I was asked to provide the figures to the trade sponsor, the time from SAC to WO in TG1 is the same as in TG17.

This kind of thing has been mentioned before I being a mech tech and as a result going through over 2 years of training and the extra rank of JT could not even be eligable for promotion to CPL until almost the 8 year point. A similar time frame currently exists for AMM's currently going through the system. While you state the average of 6.5 years, a switrched on cookie could end up there in 3. That option does not exist for Aircraft techies regardless of the aptitude they demonstrate.

You state the average time for SAC to WO. I bet the time from SAC to SGT is considerably more favourable for TG17

 

[Cantbeshinyarsed]

This kind of thing has been mentioned before I being a mech tech and as a result going through over 2 years of training and the extra rank of JT could not even be eligable for promotion to CPL until almost the 8 year point. A similar time frame currently exists for AMM's currently going through the system. While you state the average of 6.5 years, a switrched on cookie could end up there in 3. That option does not exist for Aircraft techies regardless of the aptitude they demonstrate.

You state the average time for SAC to WO. I bet the time from SAC to SGT is considerably more favourable for TG17

Unfortunately that is the way your lords and masters have set up your trade progression. And yes, you may have to spend a little longer as an SAC but you do so on the higher Pay Band.

Wrt to promotion, no' on the promotion boards I worked on the time from SAC to Sgt was almost the same give or take a few months. Remember these were averages and there is an exception to the rule in all trades.

 

[Bucc Boy]

Unfortunately that is the way your lords and masters have set up your trade progression. And yes, you may have to spend a little longer as an SAC but you do so on the higher Pay Band.

Wrt to promotion, no' on the promotion boards I worked on the time from SAC to Sgt was almost the same give or take a few months. Remember these were averages and there is an exception to the rule in all trades.

OK you have really got my interest here now Cantbeshinyarsed. From your previous posts we have collated the following information: -
From SAC to WO is about the same for TG1 and TG17
From SAC to Sgt is about the same for TG1 and TG17
So from Sgt to WO must also be about the same.

I hope your research can enlighten us where it is that TG17 have their major hold up in career progression (Sgt or FS) because with an extra rank to conquer TG1 has never exactly been fast track!

 

[DNR/DNN.......Discuss]

OK you have really got my interest here now Cantbeshinyarsed. From your previous posts we have collated the following information: -
From SAC to WO is about the same for TG1 and TG17
From SAC to Sgt is about the same for TG1 and TG17
So from Sgt to WO must also be about the same.

I hope your research can enlighten us where it is that TG17 have their major hold up in career progression (Sgt or FS) because with an extra rank to conquer TG1 has never exactly been fast track!

Ah! The old CT thing. Yeah it must be a bugger, having that extra rank to do, yet I presume they are content that they have a FS pension and have NO management course to do at ACS. So thats a freebie, so loads of TG1 bang out at chief...nice pension,thank you very much. I guess I would. Scribbly's have loads of crusty FS and WO, so its dead mans shoes syndrome. Thats the slowdown you infer to.

This thread should be merged with every other TG17 bashing thread. Frankly its boring. So yes I won't bother reading them anymore. And no, I'm not a scribbly.

 

[Cantbeshinyarsed]

OK you have really got my interest here now Cantbeshinyarsed. From your previous posts we have collated the following information: -
From SAC to WO is about the same for TG1 and TG17
From SAC to Sgt is about the same for TG1 and TG17
So from Sgt to WO must also be about the same.

I hope your research can enlighten us where it is that TG17 have their major hold up in career progression (Sgt or FS) because with an extra rank to conquer TG1 has never exactly been fast track!

The major hold up is Sgt to FS where average time were 9 1/2 years however, that average is rising as there will be minimal (if any FS to WO) promtion in the next 12 months and probably beyond.

I doubt anything anyone in TG17 will say is going to stop people knocking the fact that we are on the higher pay band. It's happened, its staying (at least for the next 5 years), lets just get on with it.

 

[Bucc Boy]

Ah! The old CT thing. Yeah it must be a bugger, having that extra rank to do, yet I presume they are content that they have a FS pension and have NO management course to do at ACS. So thats a freebie, so loads of TG1 bang out at chief...nice pension,thank you very much. I guess I would. Scribbly's have loads of crusty FS and WO, so its dead mans shoes syndrome. Thats the slowdown you infer to.

This thread should be merged with every other TG17 bashing thread. Frankly its boring. So yes I won't bother reading them anymore. And no, I'm not a scribbly.

Because although they get a FS pension they could only serve until age 47 (LOS 30 now), and had no career to stay in for...........thank you very much!!

By the way, this isn't a TG17 bashing session; it's merely a clarification of some points raised by cantbeshinyarsed. I would be interested in the comparative promotion times of all trades SAC to WO but that wasn't offered for discussion.

Although he has not yet given the findings from his research, you have indicated that the bottle neck for TG17 comes at the FS level. Hopefully cantbeshinyarsed will be able to put some 'average' lengths of time to it. (I see you have, cheers)

 

[Ghandi's Flip-Flop]

you may have to spend a little longer as an SAC but you do so on the higher Pay Band.

Not so AMM's are on the lower pay band until successful completion of their technicians course. So they are not on the higher payband until they've been in the RAF for around 4 years.

 

[Cantbeshinyarsed]

Not so AMM's are on the lower pay band until successful completion of their technicians course. So they are not on the higher payband until they've been in the RAF for around 4 years.

I stand corrected. Still doesn't hide the fact that they spend a longer time (on average) over their career on the Higher Pay Band than TG17.

It's a subject that could go around and around but talking about it won't change it and we are never going to agree, so enough said from me.

 

[Bignick]

Hopefully cantbeshinyarsed will be able to put some 'average' lengths of time to it.


I think I can help with that fact, well a little.

According to the TG17 FS who works in the same section as me, the situation is as follows:

Non-technical trades (not just TG17) average age range on promotion to FS is 38-41

Technical trade’s average age in promotion to Chf Tech is 38-39.

Not my figures guys. Also, according to the same FS, this is well known statistic, though not widely publicised, for obvious reasons.

My big gripe about this is that, as BB says, my career choice has been robbed from me because I will be chucked out at 48 and at that age it's too late to build a new career (and pension). I am a 42yr old Chf Tech with 2 years seniority at present and 6 years to get to FS. With the present talk of SDR and cuts in the RAF I personally consider this too much of a risk and will be PVRing in the next few weeks. If I was offered 55 then this decision would probably change (without, I may add, any change of ambition. I have always liked the idea of being a WO - and have already passed the same amount of ranks as a non-technical tradesman would take to get there).

Too get slightly more on topic, with TG17 in mind, it was my understanding that they were meant to start complying with the unit Quality System supported by AP100C-10. However, when they screwed up my MT request to get me back to my Unit from BZN after OOA (4hr wait was the result) I tried to QOR them and this was rejected as they are STILL exempt. So the answer is that they have not yet upped their game and do not need to apply to the rest of the process based standards as most of the rest of the trades (tech AND non-tech)

Hope that answers some questions

 

[Sammy]

they screwed up my MT request to get me back to my Unit from BZN after OOA (4hr wait was the result) I tried to QOR them and this was rejected as they are STILL exempt.

I bet it wasnt TG17 that screwed it up. It might of been MT. Did you check? Why was it TG17?

We are always blamed for everything.