-
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.
Professional Equality
- Thread starter KingGuin
- Start date
- 4,519
- 4
- 38
I've long thought that professional registration, for every trade (but especially engineering technicians haha) is an excellent way of furthering yourself, understanding the wider area of your employment sector and keeping abreast with developments within the "civvy" side of the fence. I applied to become EngTech with the UK engineering council as soon as I completed my modern apprenticeship, as well as gaining Technician membership of the IET.
Unfortunately, I had to do all of this off my own back!
I agree it may be "useless" to seek professional registration in so far as it does not make you better at your job; HOWEVER, it shows commitment from the service that they actually care about your career; it also shows that the individual is commited to further professional development.
Like I said at the top, I think every trade that is eligible should have some sort of professional registration available, if CIPD is available to HR personnel, the RAF should offer a route to obtaining it for suitably qualified individuals.
Unfortunately, I had to do all of this off my own back!
I agree it may be "useless" to seek professional registration in so far as it does not make you better at your job; HOWEVER, it shows commitment from the service that they actually care about your career; it also shows that the individual is commited to further professional development.
Like I said at the top, I think every trade that is eligible should have some sort of professional registration available, if CIPD is available to HR personnel, the RAF should offer a route to obtaining it for suitably qualified individuals.
KG,
Finished my PG Dip HRM at Bucks New Uni (near High Wycombe) last year. I'm not sure I would have been able to apply much of what I learnt if stayed in. The Branch sponsor asked me what job would keep mein the RAF, I wanted a FS post in SP Pol, obviously there aren't any, but plenty in TDFs at the time! Hence I left to work as a Senior HR Officer in ER, Chartered CIPD membership was instrumental in getting me that well paid job. CPP is of more use for an entry level job in HR,worth doing though on resettlement if you haven't any qulaifications. As for training, come on guys, the RAF gives you the ELC. I'm going to use it to do my MSc.
Should we respect our seniors in the RAF if they don't have a professional qualification? Yes their rank, in-house training, experience and the organisational culture demands its. Admitedly I've only meet 2 Admin officers with a CIPD qualification and one was on the same course as me!
If you want to get on in Civvy HR you'll need the qualification/membership to be taken seriously, especially at the moment. It stood me in good stead, I left as Sgt having turned down FS, I'm now earning significantly more than if I'd stayed in and got promoted to Sqn Ldr! Plus I have a much more varied workload and significantly more responsibility, influence and respect in my business than I did in the RAF. I enjoyed the RAF, however as the PG Dip progressed I felt held back in the RAF.
You mentioned HR at Waddington, I understand that Dusty the Chf Clk(?) has Grad CIPD and that's probably had some influence.
If you want to look at any of my assignments, just message me. If you want any organisational examples/policies or pointers just message me. Good luck on the course, it's tough at times, however the rewards are very good.
Finally we are about to recruit a number of HR staff, message me if you or anyone else is interested, especially if you have pay modelling experience. (Location: Milton Keynes)
3wheeledtechie
Sergeant
- 703
- 0
- 0
Shouldn't the trade be forming closer links with the leading professional bodies, and pushing for some of the RAF in house trade specific training to be recognised as a module on one of their qualifications. Especially as you are now administrating a system that has a direct correlation to a commercial equivalent (Oracle HRMS?).
You'd hope if the trade as a whole moved towards becoming professionally qualified, admin officers would be proactive about undertaking equivalent appropriate training to their status. After all its hard to command respect as a leader of professionals if you are academically under-qualified in the disciplines required
DT_Xtremez_14:
You'd hope if the trade as a whole moved towards becoming professionally qualified, admin officers would be proactive about undertaking equivalent appropriate training to their status. After all its hard to command respect as a leader of professionals if you are academically under-qualified in the disciplines required
DT_Xtremez_14:Vin, 3, thanks for your input. I had hoped to generate some debate amongst my peers and am somewhat bemused at the lack of comment. As a trade we are all too quick to decry the branch and trade sponsors and it has always seemed to me that the vast majority of our trade think they could do a better job. Maybe I am sad, but I care deeply about what I do and about the direction the trade should take. It would be so easy to sit on my shiny fat a*se and take the cash, after all lets be honest - it is easy money and with the impending pay rise, about to get easier.
I had a couple of beers with Dusty recently, good man, well ahead of his time in regard to HR and fortunate enough to have the backing of forward thinking XXs at Waddo. His departure (and like you he would have stayed if offered the right job) is a great loss to TG17 and could have been prevented. Will I stay when I complete my Grad CIPD? - I would like to think so but as you are aware, the qualification attracts a far higher salary in civy street than the RAF would ever pay me - a hard decision looms.
So here's Pt 1 of my cunning plan. Lets restructure the trade into 2 streams (heard this before?) HR and Personnel Support. HR would sponsor individuals through professional (CPP CIPD) training and PS would concentrate on the largely pastoral elements of the job. Other trades have 2 level tradesmen, the officer corps does, civy street does. Time for the trade to radically shake itself methinks.
I had a couple of beers with Dusty recently, good man, well ahead of his time in regard to HR and fortunate enough to have the backing of forward thinking XXs at Waddo. His departure (and like you he would have stayed if offered the right job) is a great loss to TG17 and could have been prevented. Will I stay when I complete my Grad CIPD? - I would like to think so but as you are aware, the qualification attracts a far higher salary in civy street than the RAF would ever pay me - a hard decision looms.
So here's Pt 1 of my cunning plan. Lets restructure the trade into 2 streams (heard this before?) HR and Personnel Support. HR would sponsor individuals through professional (CPP CIPD) training and PS would concentrate on the largely pastoral elements of the job. Other trades have 2 level tradesmen, the officer corps does, civy street does. Time for the trade to radically shake itself methinks.
Last edited:
I would happily be part of the PS part of the trade if it were to happen. I often think the welfare and support of our personnel is simply not what it should be and I would be keen to specialise in that area. I could see things like Personal Development, Welfare, Community Support and Careers Advice (Appollo etc) being undertaken by the PS part of the trade. That said, as a humble peasant I'll probably just go where they send me and do what I'm told to do!!DT_Xtremez_31:DT_Xtremez_31:
DT_Xtremez_31:DT_Xtremez_31:I would happily be part of the PS part of the trade if it were to happen. I often think the welfare and support of our personnel is simply not what it should be and I would be keen to specialise in that area. I could see things like Personal Development, Welfare, Community Support and Careers Advice (Appollo etc) being undertaken by the PS part of the trade. That said, as a humble peasant I'll probably just go where they send me and do what I'm told to do!!
Most of us end up being PS "experts"by virtue of rank and position, Of course years of Service and life experience helps. When I recall the training I have been given prior to being a Chf Clk - err nothing apart from interview training on prom courses - everything I did (Amport House counselling courses, short Uni courses etc was completely on my own initiative). I dont, for one minute suggest, that has made me a better shiny than anyone else, but it certainly made my job easier.
As clerks we do a great job, but we are there to provide a service (something many of us forget at times) and I believe we can provide a better service if we train our troops properly and invest in that training.
Getting back on the fence now!
I'm interested by your idea, i'm not an adminer, would the HR sponsor people of all ranks and trades or would it just be for admin? I presume you hope it would go some to adding to the 'support' side of the RAF, making people feel like they have some one interested in their careers rather than a number? When could a person apply for this courses to me linking them strictley to promotions wouldn't be the way foward let people go for it if they want. Or would people be selected on recommendations, for the courses, from their RO's? Sorry for all the questions, especially if they make no sense, because I got the wrong end of the stick.
Of course it would be great to have everyone embrace HR but TBH we have enough trouble getting them to log onto to JPA! Given CIPD is HR related I see no value in investing the qualification in any other trade for professional purposes. However you can apply to be trained in mediation or counselling as can anyone.
My initial thoughts centre around a similar scheme to the old Admin Clk to PA Clerk where personnel were selected for further training on merit. A prerequisite for FT would be a passing a Prom Exam (thus demonstrating wider knowledge). FT 1 would attract CPP (I've seen it done in 28 days on resettlement trg). Further work experience and passing Promex 2 would be a prerequisite for FT2. In theory by this stage individuals would be SNCOs and could then elect one of two career paths: either HR or PS. HR would attract CIPD type training and competition would select those suitable for MCIPD. Whereas PS would ensure individuals were fully schooled in other professional areas e.g Counselling, interview etc. Of course this would require something we have been promised for a long time - career management - but that is a different debate alltogether.
I believe a similar proposal was muted several years ago for our commissioned brethern but, speaking to that papers co-author this week, it remains lost in the anals of HQ. I believe we can provide a better service but to do so we need to be trained and trained properly. We need to offer an incentive to enlist and then remain in trade. At the moment I do not believe we do that and I, for one, think time has come for change.
You sound more and more like a Trade Sponsor every day. They are all good ideas, but there needs to be a willingness by our lords n masters to embrace the change - it is just not there at the moment. The best courses/trg I have done were self - arranged: Amport Hse, NLP etc etc. It will stay that way I'm afraid.
3wheeledtechie
Sergeant
- 703
- 0
- 0
Its my view that some of the best thinking and most original suggestions for improvements, and what the future could be like, is done on front line stations, as they are the first to see the need. Unfortunately the decisions are made by individuals who are often in ivory towers with insufficient contact with the bleeding edge of what is going on in the real RAF. Not to mention that the purse strings are often held there or even further back in the ministry. Some of these people rely on their 30+ years experience and fail to realise that the organisation is a different beast from what it was 5 years ago, let alone 10 or 15 when they were a OC a sqn.
Unfortunately that's why you'll probably decide to leave, because the pace of change will be too slow to compensate you for the opportunity cost (i.e. the job satisfaction in the RAF won't equal the Sqn Ldr wages you could be earning in civvy street).
Unfortunately that's why you'll probably decide to leave, because the pace of change will be too slow to compensate you for the opportunity cost (i.e. the job satisfaction in the RAF won't equal the Sqn Ldr wages you could be earning in civvy street).
Me Trade Sponsor? Someone who sits very near to the TS spent a lot of time winding me up that I was in the frame next time the post became vacant - shame I've only done a couple of months in my current post lol. I wouldn't mind doing it one day but my suggestion at this time would be to appoint a suitably qualified study team (ideally a mix of service and ex-service), to make sound and realistic suggestions to the professional development of our trade. These could then be taken forward by the TS. I know the TS and that same someone who sits near him read this forum so how about it chaps? - you know where I live!
KG,
I don't think the trade will split for a few reasons. By having different specialisations you move away from multi-skilling and as multi-skilling gives you greater efficiency and redundancy its better to have a group of generalists (Pers Spt or whatever its called these days) Remember in the old days when we had Data Ann’s, Typists, Court Shorthand writers, Admin Clks and P&A Clks all in TG17. With 41K pers in the RAF you need a multi-skilled workforce to deliver outputs, when we had 93K it was a different issue. I think people would get stale in a relatively narrow specialisation and I think it would damage your prospects when you get out. I made a point a few years after I joined to do a variety of jobs to get a good generalist background so I could turn my hand to anything in the future, it helped in the RAF and outside. I also think there would be a significant cost to the proposal as well, in the current climate it’s a non-starter.
Turning to CIPD, whilst there are linkages between JMLC/IMLC/AMLC, TMT, trade training and Grad CIPD. Grad CIPD covers so much more, such as business partnering, organisational culture, change management, high performance working, employment law, industrial relations, International HRM, statistics to name but a few. As such I don't think you'll ever get the CIPD to accredit TG17 training to give you Grad CIPD. CPP and some other certificates yes. I know a few Sqn Ldr Admin Sec officers who considered going down the route of professional assessment of competence, they all struggled. I was on my Grad CIPD course with a Sqn Ldr and Flt Lt was on the year ahead of us. However it's a good idea to gain professional recognition, I think the RAF needs to encourage TG17 to go for CIPD membership, but by funding it through ELC, encouraging and supporting staff and negotiating corporate discounts with CIPD training providers both nationally(CIPD) and regionally(universities). Having said that, there is nothing to stop Chf Clks sitting all their clerks down and encouraging them to do it. However CIPD qualified TG17 staff will put pressure on Career Managers and the trade sponsor to use their new skills and that may be the biggest challenge.
If Dusty (Waddington) does read this, good luck outside.
Regards
Vinnyvx2
PS. KG I’ll reply to your PM from work.
I don't think the trade will split for a few reasons. By having different specialisations you move away from multi-skilling and as multi-skilling gives you greater efficiency and redundancy its better to have a group of generalists (Pers Spt or whatever its called these days) Remember in the old days when we had Data Ann’s, Typists, Court Shorthand writers, Admin Clks and P&A Clks all in TG17. With 41K pers in the RAF you need a multi-skilled workforce to deliver outputs, when we had 93K it was a different issue. I think people would get stale in a relatively narrow specialisation and I think it would damage your prospects when you get out. I made a point a few years after I joined to do a variety of jobs to get a good generalist background so I could turn my hand to anything in the future, it helped in the RAF and outside. I also think there would be a significant cost to the proposal as well, in the current climate it’s a non-starter.
Turning to CIPD, whilst there are linkages between JMLC/IMLC/AMLC, TMT, trade training and Grad CIPD. Grad CIPD covers so much more, such as business partnering, organisational culture, change management, high performance working, employment law, industrial relations, International HRM, statistics to name but a few. As such I don't think you'll ever get the CIPD to accredit TG17 training to give you Grad CIPD. CPP and some other certificates yes. I know a few Sqn Ldr Admin Sec officers who considered going down the route of professional assessment of competence, they all struggled. I was on my Grad CIPD course with a Sqn Ldr and Flt Lt was on the year ahead of us. However it's a good idea to gain professional recognition, I think the RAF needs to encourage TG17 to go for CIPD membership, but by funding it through ELC, encouraging and supporting staff and negotiating corporate discounts with CIPD training providers both nationally(CIPD) and regionally(universities). Having said that, there is nothing to stop Chf Clks sitting all their clerks down and encouraging them to do it. However CIPD qualified TG17 staff will put pressure on Career Managers and the trade sponsor to use their new skills and that may be the biggest challenge.
If Dusty (Waddington) does read this, good luck outside.
Regards
Vinnyvx2
PS. KG I’ll reply to your PM from work.
Y
yorkie_64
Guest
An interesting thread. Being at a unit where the OC BSW has provided funding for 10 personnel to complete the CIPD CPP course, where the course tutor comes to us for half a day per week. I feel at a slight disadvantage to others outside our unit who are completing this, as the discussions we have seem to be very "military" related and we are not getting the experiences and opinions of those in the real world, in how they deal with issues . We have SACs, Cpls, Sgts and one Fg Off doing this course. If I had the option of doing it at a local college I would rather than with colleagues whom you work with on a regular basis. It’s not what I initially expected it to be, but personally I will be able to make use of it in the next few years.
3wheeledtechie
Sergeant
- 703
- 0
- 0
Thats some forward thinking. Was his process for selecting those who would benefit clear and transparent, or was it first come first served? What unit btw?
Vin
well balanced reply: concur in regard to balance of TG17/CIPD and cost issues but am quite enjoying the flight of fancy at the moment. My cunning plan (which I intend to submit to the TS as a paper) is slightly more involved than my inane ramblings on here would suggest.
That aside, I am intrigued to know why OC BSW approved funding for CPP - well done whoever. My money is on Marham and a final gesture by a previous OC BSW. Spill the beans Yorkie.
well balanced reply: concur in regard to balance of TG17/CIPD and cost issues but am quite enjoying the flight of fancy at the moment. My cunning plan (which I intend to submit to the TS as a paper) is slightly more involved than my inane ramblings on here would suggest.
That aside, I am intrigued to know why OC BSW approved funding for CPP - well done whoever. My money is on Marham and a final gesture by a previous OC BSW. Spill the beans Yorkie.
3wheeledtechie
Sergeant
- 703
- 0
- 0
Mine too. One who has departed the service to work with the police?
Y
yorkie_64
Guest
Bit further North than that just off the A1 ! This was done as "one" of his trials for continuous improvement of TG17. Alas, he has now left and we have a new female OC BSW, don't think it will be continued next time. No selection all volunteers, however we had to agree to complete the course or pay the money.
fed_up_scribbly
Corporal
- 216
- 0
- 0
The service paper I wrote as part of my TMT2 nearly 5 years ago was on this very subject. The proposition still makes a lot of sense to me and it caused quite a bit of debate during the course; the paper was submitted by Sec TS to the Trade Sponsor but I received nothng in the way of feedback.
Personally I would prefer to specialise in HR as this is the aspect of the trade I enjoy and is the career path I wish to follow once I leave the Service. I would have no problems signing a ROS in exchange for a CIPD or similar professional qualification and if the TS managed to negotiate some discounted rates and/or accreditation for previous experience with external training providers then so much the better.
If you are going to present a paper you may want to look into funding, your Sector Skills Council is Government Skills: http://www.government-skills.gov.uk/index.asp
They recognise HR in the form of Business, Administration and Law (I think, this isn't my sector) they have signed up to the skills pledge and are also the organisation who make grant payments for skills training. Bearing in mind the fact that Train to Gain funding has now been extended to NVQ 3 and second NVQ funding (your skills council's grant payment structure is here: http://www.skillsforlife-sw.org.uk/docs/TtG_Rates_Equivalent_0809.pdf ) they may well recognise some of the CIPD quals and pay employers grants for them or discretionary grants or be able to draw down T2G funding. You'll need to look through the website, maybe you would need to do one of their Awarding Body qualifications and get CIPD recognition (where there's a will there's a way.)
If in doubt contact the SSC and ask them what they can do for you, there must be some mechanism by which your branch can draw down funding (they probably already do for any NVQ training your branch do) SSC's exist to fund skills training and pay out grants to your sector, they want to give out money, it doesn't come from the MoD budget
DT_Xtremez_15:Edited: Having just looked through Government Skills' National Occupational Standards you could say they aren't very comprehensive........unless of course you want an NVQ in Parade Training! ENTO seem to have the HR market wrapped up and I suspect CIPD use their standards (CIPD is not a standard setting body): National Occupational Standards search for HR is here: http://www.ukstandards.org/Find_Occ...spx?NosFindID=5&search_string=human resources.
Regardless of this touching base with Government Skills as your SSC will inform you of funding options.
Last edited: