Revised Retention System

[BJW]

Given that people are the most expensive commodity in the RAF, and those that do not or cannot perform the whole range of duties required of them are (arguably) the greatest drain, are we being overly generous with retention?

By limiting initial engagements to a cost effective return of service (6 years for aircrew, 3 years for technicians, 2 years for ancillary trades) could we not, over time, build a more dynamic force that is more capable of meeting future needs? Allied to this reduction in initial engagements should we not be looking at a different way of retaining the best and shedding those who are not performing?

Presently for non commissioned personnel re-engagement is dependant upon promotion and this works - up to a point. The down side of this system is that someone is able to stay in the same rank for anything up to 20 years or more, they can do this almost irrespective of performance and/or employability/deployablility. Should we not be linking re-engagement more to the SJAR OPG than promotion? For example after the initial engagement every one should be looked at every 2 years and those with an OPG of less than "B" are given one more SJAR to improve or they are discharged. This should apply all the way up the non commissioned rank structure to ensure that nobody can sit back and think they have a job for life irrespective of performance.

From my simplistic way of thinking this revision would increase opportunities for promotion for all ranks, remove those who are not performing and reduce the pension liability across the board. With a little tinkering all of these measures could be equally applied to the commissioned ranks.


And the down side would be???

 

[MrMasher]

By limiting initial engagements to a cost effective return of service (6 years for aircrew, 3 years for technicians, 2 years for ancillary trades) could we not, over time, build a more dynamic force that is more capable of meeting future needs?

Put simply, NO.

 

[BJW]

Put simply, NO.

Why not MM? What am I missing?

 

[Soon To Leave]

Getting rid of anyone not getting a B would just induce assessment creep as the risk of being sued or redressed would not be worth the hassle.

There is the risk of the SJAR being used as a bullying tool and how do you create a level playing field when the accuracy and quality of the report are in many ways more of a reflection of the writer than the subject. Just look around your workplace. I'm sure you can see several examples of those that have been promoted beyond there ability and those that are punching well above their weight.

What do you do in the case of a rogue accessor that gives a bad score just because they have a personal dislike or prejudice against a subject?

In the spirit of fairness 360 degree reporting would have to be introduced.

It's alright having a system that requires promotion for re-engagement but what do you do when promotion dries up? There are some 20 yr SACs that do a great job and are quite happy working on aircraft every day and don't want to paperwork pushers. Why get rid of such vital experience just because they aren't interested in promotion.

I do agree there just be a minimum standard to be achieved by anyone at any rank (commisioned or non-commisioned) and where that standard is not achieved, demotion and/or termination of employment must be the only options. Performance needs to be measurable objectively for this to work. Subjective SJAR reports would not stand up in court in defence of a case of unfair dismissal.

The current system of allowing non-commissioned aircrew to sign on to age 55 after their very first promotion is worthy of review as beyond that point there is very little incentive to perform well.

 

[Joe_90]

While people are in training they are giving nothing to the RAF but they are still getting paid, around about the 3 year mark is where a lot of them would walk anyway if it was the end of their contract in my opinion, therefore we would end up having to pay someone else for 18 months to go through training while providing nothing for the RAF. If people are the most expensive commodity the RAF has then people in training are probably the most expensive group of that commodity, this would undoubtedly cost more in the short term and the long term.

 

[Soon To Leave]

While people are in training they are giving nothing to the RAF but they are still getting paid, around about the 3 year mark is where a lot of them would walk anyway if it was the end of their contract in my opinion, therefore we would end up having to pay someone else for 18 months to go through training while providing nothing for the RAF. If people are the most expensive commodity the RAF has then people in training are probably the most expensive group of that commodity, this would undoubtedly cost more in the short term and the long term.

I think BJW was referring to those that are trained but still give nothing to the RAF. I'm sure we've all met at least one!

 

[MrMasher]

An aircraft techie would only just be a full techie at the 3 year point after training, AMM'ing and further training.

Training them to techie status and then kick them out? Not cost effective in my eyes.

 

[metimmee]

I think BJW was referring to those that are trained but still give nothing to the RAF. I'm sure we've all met at least one!

Good point...we've all met at least one. Is it really worth the stress that this would create within the workplace by using the annual reporting mechanism to chop folk? Far better in my opinion to focus in on the individuals that arent performing and chopping them using the current admin route. Perhaps the real problem is that admin action is not being applied enough. That could be dealt with using the current system and not exposing the whole workforce to the stress that the OP seem to advocate.

 

[Joe_90]

[
By limiting initial engagements to a cost effective return of service (6 years for aircrew, 3 years for technicians, 2 years for ancillary trades) could we not, over time, build a more dynamic force that is more capable of meeting future needs?

He certainly mentions limiting initial engagements. The reason we are set at 9 already for those of us in the ranks is probably because that's a particularly cost effective time scale.

 

[gordon bennett]

BJW -

Any particular reason you have decided to copy a post from PPRuNe and paste it here as a new thread?

 

[RAF Bird]

BJW -

Any particular reason you have decided to copy a post from PPRuNe and paste it here as a new thread?

Does it matter where it came from? People read stuff on the internet and bring it here for us to discuss... exactly what BJW has done.

So what do you think of it?

 

[Tin basher]

]By limiting initial engagements to a cost effective return of service (6 years for aircrew, 3 years for technicians, 2 years for ancillary trades) could we not, over time, build a more dynamic force that is more capable of meeting future needs? And the down side would be?

Amusing that after undergoing a training scheme that totals more than a year in length techies would only be retained for half the time aircrew would. The reason for this would be what exactly??

An aircraft techie would only just be a full techie at the 3 year point after training, AMM'ing and further training. Training them to techie status and then kick them out? Not cost effective in my eyes.

Agreed on the current RAF Techie scheme the three year point would coincide nicely with the end of further training (fitters course in old money). The idea of investing all that training time in an individual only for that person to move to different employment for the benefit of another organisation is ludicrous. Most companies would love some other mug company to pay for and then undertake the training of their staff. No cost to me and my company staff training where do I sign.

 

[Rigga]

Bearing this suggestion in mind - Even I would look forward to the next round of PFI agreements!

Bring 'em on!

 

[Barch]

Given that people are the most expensive commodity in the RAF, and those that do not or cannot perform the whole range of duties required of them are (arguably) the greatest drain, are we being overly generous with retention?

By limiting initial engagements to a cost effective return of service (6 years for aircrew, 3 years for technicians, 2 years for ancillary trades) could we not, over time, build a more dynamic force that is more capable of meeting future needs? Allied to this reduction in initial engagements should we not be looking at a different way of retaining the best and shedding those who are not performing?

Presently for non commissioned personnel re-engagement is dependant upon promotion and this works - up to a point. The down side of this system is that someone is able to stay in the same rank for anything up to 20 years or more, they can do this almost irrespective of performance and/or employability/deployablility. Should we not be linking re-engagement more to the SJAR OPG than promotion? For example after the initial engagement every one should be looked at every 2 years and those with an OPG of less than "B" are given one more SJAR to improve or they are discharged. This should apply all the way up the non commissioned rank structure to ensure that nobody can sit back and think they have a job for life irrespective of performance.

From my simplistic way of thinking this revision would increase opportunities for promotion for all ranks, remove those who are not performing and reduce the pension liability across the board. With a little tinkering all of these measures could be equally applied to the commissioned ranks.


And the down side would be???

And what about the Commissioned Fraternity?

 

[muttywhitedog]

Holy sh!t.

Seeing as the OP took this from PPrune, do you think that would have ever entered their pretty little heads?

RAF Officers - surely the ONLY career that can guarrantee you up to 37 years' service for ONE merit promotion.

 

[BillyBunter]

For Technical Trades , im sure many other trades are the same , you cannot simply train somebody and expect them to do there job when they leave training. In order to be competent on most large type jets now with courses, experience and all the goodies you are at least 5 years on type before you can really be the god of all knowledge. If most folk were to come and go after 3 years then it just would not work IMHO.

Its all very well training people , but there real worth comes with hands on and learning.

 

[rest have risen above me]

For Technical Trades , im sure many other trades are the same , you cannot simply train somebody and expect them to do there job when they leave training. In order to be competent on most large type jets now with courses, experience and all the goodies you are at least 5 years on type before you can really be the god of all knowledge. If most folk were to come and go after 3 years then it just would not work IMHO.

Its all very well training people , but there real worth comes with hands on and learning.

3 years would work if a technician wasn't expected to know 23 systems to a competent depth. If I had 7 desks of technicians (Think 80's with 3 fairy trades) to spread the knowledge over, then expertise could be gained to a decent level over a shorter time. I've now got 4 desks to cover the same amount of work. I am personally now expected to cover 5 trade disciplines instead of the two I joined up with (Obviously this isn't a major problem for a tech god like me) which hacks me off. Tech gods like myself can change platfom quickly but only because of experience. I think all techies need a foundation aircraft where they can learn and aquire "God" status, once they've got a G annotation then it's easy to transfer (mine was Tonka).

 

[BillyBunter]

3 years would work if a technician wasn't expected to know 23 systems to a competent depth. If I had 7 desks of technicians (Think 80's with 3 fairy trades) to spread the knowledge over, then expertise could be gained to a decent level over a shorter time. I've now got 4 desks to cover the same amount of work. I am personally now expected to cover 5 trade disciplines instead of the two I joined up with (Obviously this isn't a major problem for a tech god like me) which hacks me off. Tech gods like myself can change platfom quickly but only because of experience. I think all techies need a foundation aircraft where they can learn and aquire "God" status, once they've got a G annotation then it's easy to transfer (mine was Tonka).

I just been recalled from MRA4 to MR2 to assist . I was told to forget all MR2 years ago now I have to remember , no likely promotion this year , 3 years left I have gave all for the finest but im not getting any reward from this , Never negative and always there , why should I care any more , im fed up giving for nothing . 20 years and a Cpl and it just shows im a ******

 

[BJW]

BJW -

Any particular reason you have decided to copy a post from PPRuNe and paste it here as a new thread?

muttywhitedogHoly sh!t.

Seeing as the OP took this from PPrune, do you think that would have ever entered their pretty little heads?

I didn't copy it from PPrune, I posted it there as well. Most of the comments thus far are absolutely valid and show the care that needs to be taken before changes are made. One of my concerns for the SDSR is that we will have huge changes imposed without the necessary thought or discussion as to the implications. The reason I made the opening post was to stimulate discussion, I could equally have put it in the crewroom forum.

 

[SirSaltyHelmet]

BJW -

Any particular reason you have decided to copy a post from PPRuNe and paste it here as a new thread?

Feel a ****?