Air Land or Sea

[busby1971]

New contracts signed by individuals requires them to sign as understanding that they will be committed to serve with the Army and/or at Sea.

Does this mean that those who signed up or re-enlisted years ago, before it was included, do not have to work with an Army unit or be based on ships.

If not: why does it now exist

 

[True Blue Jack]

Tell us more. This is news to me.

 

[busby1971]

More info to follow

More info to follow

To quick for me,

Will source refs next week but away from the puter from Sun to Fri more info to follow.....

 

[Boarderlyne]

Also would like to know more. TG17 as a purple force could be interesting!

 

[ForgottenName]

Also would like to know more. TG17 as a purple force could be interesting!

Would that mean we would drag the Army up to our level or they would drag us down to their level. The RN, of course, would play the role of arbiter then pick up the pieces. Senior Service and all that, LOL.

 

[Humble Scribe]

Would that mean we would drag the Army up to our level or they would drag us down to their level. The RN, of course, would play the role of arbiter then pick up the pieces. Senior Service and all that, LOL.

A man of your experience & knowledge surely doesn't need to ask that question FN!! Since when have we not done what the Army want us to do?? Surely that was the intention of JPA anyway that shiney, writer or AG Corp could administer all 3 services; isn't that why we've started to pick up some Army OOA slots?

 

[ForgottenName]

A man of your experience & knowledge surely doesn't need to ask that question FN!! Since when have we not done what the Army want us to do?? Surely that was the intention of JPA anyway that shiney, writer or AG Corp could administer all 3 services; isn't that why we've started to pick up some Army OOA slots?

Er no, not the reason we picked up some Army OOA slots. But I suspect that we are going to enter into a new era, particularly in the joint arena where, I believe, that the RAF administrators will be much more proficient with the system that many of our Army colleagues. I am not trying to generalise here, but drawing on my experience of a number of joint tours.

 

[True Blue Jack]

Er no, not the reason we picked up some Army OOA slots. But I suspect that we are going to enter into a new era, particularly in the joint arena where, I believe, that the RAF administrators will be much more proficient with the system that many of our Army colleagues. I am not trying to generalise here, but drawing on my experience of a number of joint tours.

I agree. I have worked alongside Army and RN colleagues on a number of occasions. I find that RN Writers are very similar in outlook, attitude and level of professionalism to us but the AGC are light years behind. Apart from anything else, I have estimated from my experiences that at least half of all Army clerks are in that job because they were invalided out of another Regt/Corps. It shows in their attitude.

If JPA represented a drastic change for us that we are only now coming to terms with then the Army will be struggling for a long, long, time. In the meantime the more purple tours we do, the better able we will be to 'keep a steady hand on the tiller' so to speak.

 

[Humble Scribe]

Er no, not the reason we picked up some Army OOA slots. But I suspect that we are going to enter into a new era, particularly in the joint arena where, I believe, that the RAF administrators will be much more proficient with the system that many of our Army colleagues. I am not trying to generalise here, but drawing on my experience of a number of joint tours.

It may not be the whole reason, but it certainly makes it a damn sight easier for the Army to say we can't fill that slot anymore so any administrator will do. You are quite correct though, we are entering a new era where jointery will play a large part in our world and with JPA & the Tri-service discipline act etc there's no reason why it shouldn't. It's up to us now to drag the army up to our standard of administration kicking & screaming!

 

[ForgottenName]

Of course, we in the other Services always look on the Army as one organisation; it is not, the Army is made up of a number of war fighting organisation that, if they don't have a common enemy, tend to fight amongst themselves. And that is just the Regiments and the Corps, never mind the different Brigades each with their own Commander who decides how things are going to be done.

 

[ForgottenName]

Just had a look at the minimum requirements to enter the Army as a clerk. They are at: http://www.armyjobs.mod.uk/Jobs/JobDetail.htm?armyjobid=AGC050/059&category=7

Then I looked at ours: http://www.raf.mod.uk/careers/jobs/personneladmin.cfm

So, if the requirements are the same, is it because we have the opportunity to be picky that we get the better qualified person.

 

[Humble Scribe]

Just had a look at the minimum requirements to enter the Army as a clerk. They are at: http://www.armyjobs.mod.uk/Jobs/JobDetail.htm?armyjobid=AGC050/059&category=7

Then I looked at ours: http://www.raf.mod.uk/careers/jobs/personneladmin.cfm

So, if the requirements are the same, is it because we have the opportunity to be picky that we get the better qualified person.

Possibly because we train the administrator first & the solidier second (or have done until recently) whilst the army will always be soldier first. Also our IT system was far advanced from the army, and we have some magnificent trainers at SOFA!

 

[True Blue Jack]

I think this is one of the main differences:

On completion of basic training, you will receive a further nine weeks of trade training at the Staff and Personnel Support Training School in Worthy Down

More importantly, we trust our clerks with more responsibility early on. Army clerks very rarely touch pay until they get to Sgt. Welfare issues don't feature until WO2. Yet many moons ago as a very green LAC a Sgt twice my age sat down at my desk and told me that he had woken up that morning to find his wife had abandoned him and their 2 kids. The poor sod had complete faith that I would sort his life out for him. (After a few minutes worth of goldfish impressions, I did DT_Xtremez_27

 

[ForgottenName]

Or it could be that we trust our personnel a lot more than the Army. Their style of leadership can be more autocratic than ours; we mix the consultative and autocratic styles much more and to better effect.

 

[ForgottenName]

TBJ,I think we came up with the same thing at the same time.

 

[KingGuin]

Or it could be that we trust our personnel a lot more than the Army. Their style of leadership can be more autocratic than ours; we mix the consultative and autocratic styles much more and to better effect.

I don't mind where I work or whom I work with - indeed (as you know FN) I have recently finished a tour with the British Army. However in an increasingly purple environment I would very much like to be a WO2 and be able to implement AGAI 69, can you have a word with FLWO and make it so? Ta.

 

[Humble Scribe]

I don't mind where I work or whom I work with - indeed (as you know FN) I have recently finished a tour with the British Army. However in an increasingly purple environment I would very much like to be a WO2 and be able to implement AGAI 69, can you have a word with FLWO and make it so? Ta.

Apparently, this was a very hot topic on a recent AMLC course; FS's wanted to wear WO2 rank in all trades. I feel a GEM coming on!

 

[True Blue Jack]

Apparently, this was a very hot topic on a recent AMLC course; FS's wanted to wear WO2 rank in all trades. I feel a GEM coming on!

I know a lot of FSs who really had a field day when a WO2 20 years their junior tried to tell them what to do. I heard a recent (about 3 years ago) study into introducing WO2 rank for the RAF decided that it would devalue the rank of FS too much. Rebadging all our FSs as WO2s will merely shift the current inequality down one rank.

Far better in my view to keep the status quo. You can always shut the pongoes up by telling them we don't have second-class warrant officers in the RAF. DT_Xtremez_30:

Seriously though there are too many differences between terms and conditions of service across the spectrum for true jointery to be achieved at the moment. Take chief technicians, for example. Half of our trades don't have them. Those that do are not always technical trades (musicians, nurses, etc.). The closest thing in either of the other services is what used to be the Charge Chief in the Navy (rebadged WO2 a couple of years ago funnily enough). Yet the TG1/2 hierarchy could not function without them. Whatever the solution is, it won't be a quick fix.

 

[KingGuin]

I heard a recent (about 3 years ago) study into introducing WO2 rank for the RAF decided that it would devalue the rank of FS too much. Rebadging all our FSs as WO2s will merely shift the current inequality down one rank.QUOTE]

The study argued that it was a reasonable idea to ensure parity across the baord in a purple environment. However the RAF countered that it would not and could not loose it's single Serivce ethos. Additionally given the finanicial implications the Treasury refused funding.

If you recall at the same time it was suggested that SACs with 5 yrs seniortiy would be re-ranked as LCpls........yeah right!

 

[tommo9999]

There is more work being done on this subject by the ROAD team I believe. Not sure, but I think so.