The Big R

[CodeMonkey]

WTF are you doing here if your are TG1?

Last time I looked I opened this thread on my own TG page!

I was interested in the subject as one of the tranche 1 compulsories. I posted my bit because i don't believe it will be transparent because it wasn't last time.

 

[raflad67]

I was interested in the subject as one of the tranche 1 compulsories. I posted my bit because i don't believe it will be transparent because it wasn't last time.

But my OP was aimed at my own TG about FS and WO Redundancies!

Mods - any chance of cleaning this up so us Clerks can sharpen our pencils on the subject in hand?

 

[Downsizer]

Mods - any chance of cleaning this up so us Clerks can sharpen our pencils on the subject in hand?

Lets just draw a line under it for now and you can carry on about your FS's and WO's.... Remember though not everybody will check exactely what forum a thread is in, so people will always drop in and out. It's the way of the internet I guess...And lets try not to rise to trolling posts either.

 

[Noidea]

You answered it right and wrong, yes it is the combined branch but no it will not be mainly phys edd & Trainers

Hmm interesting. Not what the 3 Branch sponsors have said. There will be a specialisation quota within the JO and Sqn Ldr numbers, if there wasn't then it could throw the branch out of kilter quite significantly.

 

[Shiney Scot]

Hmm interesting. Not what the 3 Branch sponsors have said. There will be a specialisation quota within the JO and Sqn Ldr numbers, if there wasn't then it could throw the branch out of kilter quite significantly.

And this is why all RSBs should be totally transparent. The amalgamation of the branches takes away any form of specialisation. We now have, in old money, Personnel Branch officers acting as P Ed Os and vice versa. All of these 3 specialisations have been amalgamated into one at the lower level and therefore there should be no weighting attached to any particular specialisation because we could and should be telling these individuals to go to any appointment.

 

[Noidea]

And this is why all RSBs should be totally transparent. The amalgamation of the branches takes away any form of specialisation. We now have, in old money, Personnel Branch officers acting as P Ed Os and vice versa. All of these 3 specialisations have been amalgamated into one at the lower level and therefore there should be no weighting attached to any particular specialisation because we could and should be telling these individuals to go to any appointment.

Appreciate what you are saying, however the new branch is too new to survive for example 50 scribblies going at Sqn Ldr level. The impact would be too severe due to the loss of experience. Just imagine every OC PMS being a PEdO. Some would be very good but I would judge that many would be very poor, placing an almost intolerable burden on ChfClks and the resulting HR advice to Stn Cdrs very poor as well. A slightly extreme example I know, but it does demonstrate the need for some careful management.

And of course transparency as you rightly say!

 

[muttywhitedog]

Appreciate what you are saying, however the new branch is too new to survive for example 50 scribblies going at Sqn Ldr level. The impact would be too severe due to the loss of experience. Just imagine every OC PMS being a PEdO. Some would be very good but I would judge that many would be very poor, placing an almost intolerable burden on ChfClks and the resulting HR advice to Stn Cdrs very poor as well. A slightly extreme example I know, but it does demonstrate the need for some careful management.

And of course transparency as you rightly say!

Not really. At that level they are employed as a senior manager, and as long as they can "manage", their trade knowledge is of feck all relevence. I could count on the fingers of one finger as to how many OC PMS's I've known who have had a complete understanding on HR matters - that is why they have a Chf Clk and a P1 to offer SME advice.

 

[Noidea]

Mutty, sorry mate but you are talking complete bollox. I know some will be useless, the same in every branch and trade, but it isn't just about management at that level. Prior experience is vital, and placing a complete novice in that role is just frankly daft. Quite a number of pms's have been p1, OC accts and psf as well as either A1/J1 ops or casework so their HR knowledge will be fairly good, and at a managerial level will surpass many Chf Clks (a commensurate level that Chf Clks should be at, but many aren't).

Unsure what level you are at, but if a Chf Clk, who would you rather have. A Sqn Ldr gym queen who has managed a couple of gyms, and has either one of the 3 trade quals or a Sqn Ldr scribbly who has done p1, psf and casework!

 

[Evil Stan]

If you want a clear demonstration of where it doesn't work, look no further than Desk Officers employed at Manning. Unlike ground trades Career Managers who are all TG17, Desk Officers are taken from branch, and although some are good staff officers, they simply don't have the P staff experience to function either competently or effectively. One day you're 2IC of a Regt Field Sqn/SATCO/SEngO, the next you're looking after your peers' careers.

 

[Shiney Scot]

So where are these WO and FS posts being disestablished? I can obviously guess at the units that are closing but that still doesn't meet the numbers requirement, especially in light of the numbers released to the PSL. In these days of transparency (lol) it would be nice if anyone within the upper echelons of the trade could inform us of where we are likely to serve in the future.

What's the point of having areas of choice on JPA if there are going to be no posts in those areas? I might even apply for redundancy if I knew I had no chance of getting to my preferred area of choice for my last tour due to the post being disestablished. I would only do this if I could make a truly informed decision. Without details of where all the posts are going to be in the immediate future for my rank I cannot do it.

Anyone help with facts - not best guess work (and yes I have asked the question of the relevant members of the TG17 fraternity)?

 

[Noidea]

To be honest shiney scot, the whole aspect of branch and trade configuration should be explained, as well as our future role and direction. With the paper that identified the 316 posts to go, I made a natural assumption that it would broadly mirror the redundancy fields. So I was surprised to see no cpl or sgt posts in the mix. I appreciate the sponsors and manners believe that it will all from natural wastage, but that does seem to be quite a large assumption to make.

With the FS and WO posts that will go, I have heard that it is a fishing trip to see how many apply and they will take that number, with no compulsory's, in order to open up some promotion flow. Like you I struggle to see how the trade will be configured with the loss of so many and a significant portion of experience.

Whist many will twitter on about the officer posts, 120 is still a very significant number, and if not managed very carefully will lead to a branch that is not balanced, and therefore open to risk and credibility failure. To be honest our future stock rests with the individual's that go into the posts that advise our aircrew masters; to have inexperienced personnel in these posts will be branch suicide. When that happens the trade will suffer massively as well.

As I have mentioned previously, careful management is required with transparency at the helm of that. Good communication is vital, if not then our people will not respond in the manner they want!

 

[Humble Scribe]

With the FS and WO posts that will go, I have heard that it is a fishing trip to see how many apply and they will take that number, with no compulsory's, in order to open up some promotion flow. Like you I struggle to see how the trade will be configured with the loss of so many and a significant portion of experience.

I've heard that one too but are we the only Branch/Trade to try this policy? Promotion to FS & WO has been relatively high recently (compared to previous year or two) so do we really need to go on this 'fishing trip' to open up promotion? I suspect that the lack of transparency on that particular issue may have something to do with those who were selected for compulsory last time who might have something to say about it!

For those in the mix though some kind of reassurance would be good but I don't expect that will be forthcoming until 13 Jun at the earliest.

 

[raflad67]

Branch Sponsor tells us that as there are many Sgt's due to leave over the next couple of years there was no need for redundancy in that rank. What is a little strange is that over the next few years there are quite a few WO who will leave but yet we have even more redundancies....make of that what you will.

Do they actually have a clue what they are doing DT_Xtremez_42:

For the sake of the trade I bl00dy well hope so!

I wonder now that they have opened it up for most to apply, how many will actually do so and will there be compulsary ones this time?

 

[Shiney Scot]

Branch Sponsor tells us that as there are many Sgt's due to leave over the next couple of years there was no need for redundancy in that rank.

So how many is that then? Does that mean that there are more than being disestablished (who knows or is willing to tell how many that is?) so there will be promotion for the Cpls or will there be less than disestablished and therefore no promotion? Branch Sponsor's are supposed to be working for us! It's about time they started providing us with information. How can individuals try and manage their own careers without this basic of information?

It's about time that we started having a monthly newsletter (e-mail will do) to all members of the trade informing us of the main things that are going on. We previously had comments in the Chf Clks bulletin - why did they stop?

 

[Noidea]

So how many is that then? Does that mean that there are more than being disestablished (who knows or is willing to tell how many that is?) so there will be promotion for the Cpls or will there be less than disestablished and therefore no promotion? Branch Sponsor's are supposed to be working for us! It's about time they started providing us with information. How can individuals try and manage their own careers without this basic of information?

It's about time that we started having a monthly newsletter (e-mail will do) to all members of the trade informing us of the main things that are going on. We previously had comments in the Chf Clks bulletin - why did they stop?

An ineffective Branch and trade sponsor! Isn't the Branch sponsor FTRS and works from home!

Agree on passing out the info as well.

 

[KingGuin]

Some interesting points. Its heartening to see that we remain passionate about what we do; pity our Branch and Trade Sponsors (whom I'm sure share our passion) are not more overtly active in promoting (pun intended) their contributions.

As an aside, the redundancy "fishing trip" rumour hit my parish last week too!

 

[Noidea]

Some interesting points. Its heartening to see that we remain passionate about what we do; pity our Branch and Trade Sponsors (whom I'm sure share our passion) are not more overtly active in promoting (pun intended) their contributions.

As an aside, the redundancy "fishing trip" rumour hit my parish last week too!

Was wondering if anyone has mentioned the strength in feeling in this topic to the sponsors? Perhaps one for you KG as a future trade sponsor!

I emailed both the other day, and I know my chain of command have also mentioned similar stuff informally.

 

[Climebear]

Branch Sponsor's are supposed to be working for us!

How very egalitarian; but rather wide of the mark. Branch Sponsors are not some form of Branch/Trade TU representative. Their function, through the Head of Branch is integral to meeting the RAF’s key requirement of sufficient, capable and motivated personnel in delivering operational capability. Their main function is to ensure the branch and trades' structural sustainability to ensure that it meets the requirements of the Service and Defence.

Ours works through the Head of Branch to CAS to ensure that the Pers Branch, PTI Trade, and Pers(Sp) Trade meet their operational tasks within the constraints (in particular manpower numbers) placed on them by the Service.

Full details of Head of Branch and Branch and Trade Sponsors' responsibilities are published on the intranet in GAI1058.

 

[Shiney Scot]

Their main function is to ensure the branch and trades' structural sustainability to ensure that it meets the requirements of the Service and Defence.

My initial point was somewhat simplistic. However, the point remains that we need more information from our Branch/Trade Sponsor. If their main function is to ensure the structural sustainability of Branch and Trade to meet Defence requirements then surely they can tell us how they are going to achieve it. A breakdown of the future TG17 and Branch establishment as at 1 January 2014, post all redundancies, would be a good starting point.

 

[KingGuin]

Was wondering if anyone has mentioned the strength in feeling in this topic to the sponsors? Perhaps one for you KG as a future trade sponsor!

It has been suggested before but alas, it doesn't interest me. Now CASWO.....a real chance to shake it up and I wouldn't be a political puppet!!! .DT_Xtremez_30: