They won't have a hard time, no trade ever does they'll just go down the list until somebody takes it... not saying it's right or great for experience etc... but it's what happens. Offer it to some young SAC who is keen and he'll take it; because with the career averaged pensions quicker you are up the ranks the better for you. We have a guy getting promoted to WO off one single SJAR so it's not difficult to imagine it happening at any rank if slots really need to be filled.
-
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.
New Pay Scales
- Thread starter ady eflog
- Start date
- 7
- 0
- 0
Amen too that Sk8dave. I'm in that boat myself, If I wasn't already in my last 18 mths I'd seriously get on the PVR train.
Normally marking time
Normally marking time
The 3 years of protected would normally not be an issue with normal annual increases in the scales it would catch up.
But if you are stuck with 1% or heaven forbid! less again then it becomes an issue.
There is always a slim chance of the April award being 2% to grab some headlines
Only skim read the doc but didn't notice mention of AIP or a minimum increase on promotion.
You never know Pay 2020 may be along soon and simplify things with just a high and low band
DT_Xtremez_15:
Normally marking time
The 3 years of protected would normally not be an issue with normal annual increases in the scales it would catch up.
But if you are stuck with 1% or heaven forbid! less again then it becomes an issue.
There is always a slim chance of the April award being 2% to grab some headlines
Only skim read the doc but didn't notice mention of AIP or a minimum increase on promotion.
You never know Pay 2020 may be along soon and simplify things with just a high and low band
DT_Xtremez_15:- 1,459
- 185
- 63
JE'd???
Serious question: What does this mean?
Serious question: What does this mean?
- 1,459
- 185
- 63
Cheers month! Makes sense now.
Really not surprised one little bit with the entire sorry debacle.
we knew months ago that anyone promoted would be classes as 'developing' so no pay rise for 2 years.
we kind of knew AC techies would be in the higher supplement.
we kind of knew some of the other trades who were in the 'high' band would be losers.
so I'm left with very little to be shocked at. I'm sorry but that's the reality of all this.
a few years ago, the AFPRB clearly stated that they felt the jump from cpl to sgt was of such significant increase in responsibilities that the min 2% pay rise was insufficient.
they recommended a min of 5%. Which was accepted by the MOD.
Im watching carefully to see how the AFPRB deals with this new 'developing' tag which the MOD attaches to the newly promoted.
i didn't see any change in responsibilities, so I'm guessing nothing's changed.....so I'd expect the AFPRB to stick by their original observation and recommendation.
lastly, what exactly does 'developing' in rank actually mean ??
cause in my trade, you hit the ground running at 100mph, or your shortcomings are quickly brought to your attention.
also, does that mean that it's impossible to get a positive recommendation for promotion during these initial 2 years of 'developing' in rank ?? Cause surely that's a big contradiction if it does.
we knew months ago that anyone promoted would be classes as 'developing' so no pay rise for 2 years.
we kind of knew AC techies would be in the higher supplement.
we kind of knew some of the other trades who were in the 'high' band would be losers.
so I'm left with very little to be shocked at. I'm sorry but that's the reality of all this.
a few years ago, the AFPRB clearly stated that they felt the jump from cpl to sgt was of such significant increase in responsibilities that the min 2% pay rise was insufficient.
they recommended a min of 5%. Which was accepted by the MOD.
Im watching carefully to see how the AFPRB deals with this new 'developing' tag which the MOD attaches to the newly promoted.
i didn't see any change in responsibilities, so I'm guessing nothing's changed.....so I'd expect the AFPRB to stick by their original observation and recommendation.
lastly, what exactly does 'developing' in rank actually mean ??
cause in my trade, you hit the ground running at 100mph, or your shortcomings are quickly brought to your attention.
also, does that mean that it's impossible to get a positive recommendation for promotion during these initial 2 years of 'developing' in rank ?? Cause surely that's a big contradiction if it does.
FOGHORN LEGHORN
Sergeant
- 905
- 0
- 0
One problem with your post. Consistently and correctly I hear that cpl is the most important rank in the RAF. So why is the jump to Sgt considered by the AFPRB as more recognisable? Just a question...
This message was sent using my thumb.
This message was sent using my thumb.
FOGHORN LEGHORN
Sergeant
- 905
- 0
- 0
Genuinely a commonly referred to and acknowledged statement. One I have heard throughout my career. Shocked that you are shocked.
This message was sent using my thumb.
This message was sent using my thumb.
FOGHORN LEGHORN
Sergeant
- 905
- 0
- 0
New Pay Scales
The jump from being one of the lads to being responsible for the lads. Having to be the conduit between management and junior ranks. Widely acknowledged everywhere I've worked as being pivotal to an effective working environment.
This message was sent using my thumb.
The jump from being one of the lads to being responsible for the lads. Having to be the conduit between management and junior ranks. Widely acknowledged everywhere I've worked as being pivotal to an effective working environment.
This message was sent using my thumb.
- 1,459
- 185
- 63
Not any more. When they got rid of the JT rank in my trade all they did was promote a lot of people to Cpls. Resultantly we became JT with stripes with the odd exceptions of post. Hasn't helped with the immaturity and/or inexperience of some of those promoted either.
reluctant liney
LAC
- 70
- 0
- 0
If you look at the figures in the document, you will find that you have a 5% pay rise on promotion to Cpl & Sgt. This only applies if you are using the NEM figures. If you are getting more on a pay2000 rate, then in their eyes you are already being paid more than your peers.
Not saying it's fair, but it appears that the 5% has been applied to these jumps in rank.
FOGHORN LEGHORN
Sergeant
- 905
- 0
- 0
New Pay Scales
Which makes the rank more important in my view. The fact that people don't carry it out correctly is another topic. The point made by most I speak to is that on the wrong shoulders it is detrimental, on the right shoulders it is integral to a cohesive working environment.
This message was sent using my thumb.
Which makes the rank more important in my view. The fact that people don't carry it out correctly is another topic. The point made by most I speak to is that on the wrong shoulders it is detrimental, on the right shoulders it is integral to a cohesive working environment.
This message was sent using my thumb.
FOGHORN LEGHORN
Sergeant
- 905
- 0
- 0
No I think it's just the way we are looking at it. In my JMLC I was told cpl was the most important rank in the armed forces. I frowned. As a Sgt I was told the same. On IOT I heard it several times. Since commissioning snecs tell me all the time the same thing. More and more I agree with them.
This message was sent using my thumb.
This message was sent using my thumb.
Ghandi's Flip-Flop
Sergeant
- 819
- 0
- 16
I'd definitely say the jump from Cpl to Sgt is larger and more difficult. Basically when I got my tapes all I was doing was officially doing what I'd unofficially been doing as an experienced JT.
Going to Sgt brings in a great deal more than supervising a task. I'd also agree I've seen far more people struggle with the transition to Sgt than to Cpl. due to some people's inability to multi-task, delegate or prioritise. Things which are exposed far less as a Cpl in my experience.
To summarise an underperforming Cpl is one team not pulling its weight, a clueless Sgt can mean pain for the whole shift, again just my opinion and experience.
Going to Sgt brings in a great deal more than supervising a task. I'd also agree I've seen far more people struggle with the transition to Sgt than to Cpl. due to some people's inability to multi-task, delegate or prioritise. Things which are exposed far less as a Cpl in my experience.
To summarise an underperforming Cpl is one team not pulling its weight, a clueless Sgt can mean pain for the whole shift, again just my opinion and experience.
I am shocked.....that anyone thinks a cpl is a more responsible rank than a sgt.
most Cpls can choose to step up or just stay as one of the lads.
this is far harder as a sgt.
sjar time certainly puts the brakes on being one of the lads.
unless your such an irresponsible snco that you'd over assess everyone under your command just to remain popular.(I've seen it happen).
anyway.......as far as I'm aware......there is no longer a minimum pay rise of 5% from cpl to sgt.
previous AFPRB reports were applicable to PAY 2000 pay matters, and I don't see any of those recommendations being valid under the new pay scheme. I stand to be corrected.
most Cpls can choose to step up or just stay as one of the lads.
this is far harder as a sgt.
sjar time certainly puts the brakes on being one of the lads.
unless your such an irresponsible snco that you'd over assess everyone under your command just to remain popular.(I've seen it happen).
anyway.......as far as I'm aware......there is no longer a minimum pay rise of 5% from cpl to sgt.
previous AFPRB reports were applicable to PAY 2000 pay matters, and I don't see any of those recommendations being valid under the new pay scheme. I stand to be corrected.
Apologies, I get what your saying now.
ive not really studied the numbers in great detail. Assumed it wasn't a 5% rise as that would not be in the spirit of screwing people over.
ill have a better look. Thanks
FOGHORN LEGHORN
Sergeant
- 905
- 0
- 0
Ok I can only assume something has been lost in translation. I never said a cpl is more responsible. I said the rank of cpl is more important. I can quote people from Sgt to AVM who have said as much. Not that this should make it right, it's just an opinion. Interesting to see these replies though as this is the first time I've heard anything to the contrary. Never a reflection on the individual. More a reflection on the role. I certainly felt the change more as a cpl. Maybe more so than when my spine was removed.
This message was sent using my thumb.
This message was sent using my thumb.