Still-a-statty
LAC
- 16
- 0
- 0
With an ever increasing numbers of posts going FTRS including SAC's is this the future employment model for the Trade?
-
Welcome to the E-Goat :: The Totally Unofficial RAF Rumour Network.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
FTRS the future of TG17
- Thread starter Still-a-statty
- Start date
- 3,456
- 269
- 83
FTRS: Future Tradegroup for Regression to the lower pay Spine?
A tenacious link at best I admit but hey ho.
DT_Xtremez_14:
A tenacious link at best I admit but hey ho.
DT_Xtremez_14:True Blue Jack
Warrant Officer
- 4,438
- 0
- 0
FTRS: Future Tradegroup for Regression to the lower pay Spine?
A tenacious link at best I admit but hey ho.
I have assumed for a while that at the next Job Evaluation TG17 would revert to the lower pay spine in any event, the conditions which led to the upbanding (manning shortages, high deployment turnaround, transition to JPA) no longer being the crippling issues they were a few years ago.
However, at the Pers branch conference the other week the Head of Branch spoke about the 'whole force concept' saying that the ratio of regular:reservist:civilian is going to change - a lot - and we should embrace it. I suspect this future will not be confined to TG17.
- 6,948
- 572
- 113
Out of it now
Out of it now
There's nothing wrong with appraising how the RAF provides support to it's personnel with a mix of regular forces, mobilised reserves, civil servants and out sourced providers.
My own personal view is that the trade and branch went down the wrong route with the ivory tower core as whenever I was deployed, I managed the best part of 2 years on ops in my 22 yrs, I rarely carried out the work of a PSF waller. I also think the mindset required of people on ops is different to that found in those that work in such an environment.
As far as FTRS go, and I am treating them differently from PTRS, I think their use needs to be given more care than it is at the moment. Every post that goes FTRS HS/LC is one less individual to go on ops, one less post not available for a regular to get posted into and on at least one occasion one post going to an exiting individual feathering their retirement nest. Unless they need to wear the uniform for a genuine reason then an FTRS post should be a (much cheaper) civil servant.
FTRS at the time I left, were seen as a cheap way of getting a service person without it appearing on your force strength, which whilst it may be effective isn't really ethical.
I'm not anti FTRS, and I know (knew) of at least a couple of good ones, but the option should be used wisely not automatically.
Out of it now
There's nothing wrong with appraising how the RAF provides support to it's personnel with a mix of regular forces, mobilised reserves, civil servants and out sourced providers.
My own personal view is that the trade and branch went down the wrong route with the ivory tower core as whenever I was deployed, I managed the best part of 2 years on ops in my 22 yrs, I rarely carried out the work of a PSF waller. I also think the mindset required of people on ops is different to that found in those that work in such an environment.
As far as FTRS go, and I am treating them differently from PTRS, I think their use needs to be given more care than it is at the moment. Every post that goes FTRS HS/LC is one less individual to go on ops, one less post not available for a regular to get posted into and on at least one occasion one post going to an exiting individual feathering their retirement nest. Unless they need to wear the uniform for a genuine reason then an FTRS post should be a (much cheaper) civil servant.
FTRS at the time I left, were seen as a cheap way of getting a service person without it appearing on your force strength, which whilst it may be effective isn't really ethical.
I'm not anti FTRS, and I know (knew) of at least a couple of good ones, but the option should be used wisely not automatically.
- 70
- 0
- 0
Noooo dont do it lets not go into another Admin bashing thread
So do you see it fully civillianised? Triservice?
Ultimately yes, without question. There may be some sort of interim measure where knowledge is transferred (Perhaps RLC type where various trades merge) but yes, TG17 has a limited shelf life. Tri-Service too.
KBR, Serco - whoever they award the contract to.
- 4,596
- 642
- 113
There's a definite shift towards downsizing the TG17 footprint. I have heard that there is a proposal to regionalise PSFs rather than each base having one large one. The other day we were asked to justify why we should have Wg Admin Offices rather than just one central PSF where all clerks are housed (after half have been disestablished of course!)
Others may bash us, but when we are not there, they notice. Due to manning shortages, my section was without a TG17 for a whole two weeks in Aug, leaving one 60+ year old E2 who could just about sort the mail in a full day (and it was generally sorted wrong) supporting 150 personnel.
You'd have thought the world had ended such was the gnashing of teeth and wailing that came from those who had previously taken us for granted. However, get used to it folks as that is what sub-admin offices will be left with.
Others may bash us, but when we are not there, they notice. Due to manning shortages, my section was without a TG17 for a whole two weeks in Aug, leaving one 60+ year old E2 who could just about sort the mail in a full day (and it was generally sorted wrong) supporting 150 personnel.
You'd have thought the world had ended such was the gnashing of teeth and wailing that came from those who had previously taken us for granted. However, get used to it folks as that is what sub-admin offices will be left with.
The same people who'll be doing the catering, supply, aircraft engineering...
Once steady state ops have set in perhaps, but there will still need to be a core of deplorable personnel for the initial war fighting stages surely....
True - but, with the size of the deploying force, that number would be remarkably small.
According to the SDSR that isn't big at all. (the FE@R requirements are depressingly small)
Every Trade is being looked at in this way at the moment. Our leaders have decided how big a regular force they want and are now looking at the capabilities they require. Seems a bit arse before face to me but I expect to see a lot more civvies and FTRS between 2015 and 2020. We no longer use the TA and auggies to bolster home defence, they are the new deployable assets when a surge is required.