Discrimination towards the technical trades

[Bikerbill]

Has any one out there ever heard of a Chief Tech challenging the rules about signing on to age 55. Because as I see it we, as techies, are being disadvantaged purely by the fact that our career path is longer than non-technical trades by 2 extra ranks. However the rules for signing on for a full career do not recognise that difference.

I would be interested in hearing your views. I spoke to the CASWO this week and he seems to think it has never been challenged.

Do you know different?

 

[muttywhitedog]

Just over 12 years ago, there was a "paper" produced which suggested the removal of Jnr Tech & Chf Tech ranks.

There was serious resistance from many of the technical trades who couldnt envisage being able to manage without Chf Techs.

 

[TrickyTree]

Just over 12 years ago, there was a "paper" produced which suggested the removal of Jnr Tech & Chf Tech ranks.

There was serious resistance from many of the technical trades who couldnt envisage being able to manage without Chf Techs.

That's rather a simplisitc summary! And the rank of Jnr Tech has come back, in all but name.

Personally I favour a return to the 1950's structure for List 1 trades, inverted chevrons and all!

 

[MrMasher]

There was serious resistance from many of the technical trades who couldnt envisage being able to manage without Chf Techs.

We could manage quite well without Chf Techs in the real world.

 

[grey haired chiefy]

They can't manage without me thats why i got continuance !!! Hence the grey hair.
Tried for redundancy 3 times and did'nt get that so must be totally indispensible.

 

[KingGuin]

Never seen it challenged in my time. However I would suspect if it had been challenged and the challenge upheld the rules would have been changed. That said, I'm sure the argument will be that you were aware of your terms of service when you enlisted in a technical trade.

 

[worthers]

This subject was bought up with the last CASWO when he visited us (He was a rigger by trade) he basically said that there would never be anytime that he could see where chief's would be allowed to sign to 55 as the Airforce wanted progression through the ranks and if CT were allowed to stay where they were for another 7 years promotion would stop. That was his oppinion and it didn't go down very well in our forum.

 

[techie_tubby]

I thought they where trying to phase it out completely. Hence why they never included it in the TG4 promotion scale.

 

[Bikerbill]

That said, I'm sure the argument will be that you were aware of your terms of service when you enlisted in a technical trade.

Would that be in the same way that women , who joined up before1990, knew that if they got knocked-up they would get kicked-out?

I totally understand that this is not the Royal Fair Force, but discrimination is just not right, whatever form it comes in.

 

[muttywhitedog]

We could manage quite well without Chf Techs in the real world.

Of course we could - some trades that scrapped the rank are living proof!

Those who feel hard done by need to look towards their WO's & FS's who are about to retire at 55 - they were the Sgts & Chfs 10-12 years ago who were amongst those who vehemently resisted such a change.

 

[DNR/DNN.......Discuss]

There is no case for discrimination as far as I can see. You were all made aware of the rank progression when you attested. I don't see too many CT's complaining that they get a FS pension, without having to do a promotion course.

 

[Oberon305]

There is no case for discrimination as far as I can see. You were all made aware of the rank progression when you attested. I don't see too many CT's complaining that they get a FS pension, without having to do a promotion course.

You're right.....I DID sign on knowing the rank structure. But at the time, Techy trades had higher paybands which justified the extra 'hurdles' to FS.

Now that is no longer the case, yes, I think we ARE being discriminated against.

You are right that we get the pension without doing AMLC, but lets be honest, its a tea and biscuits course anyway!!! Personally I'd rather go straight to FS and deal with the 'hardship' of AMLC. DT_Xtremez_25:

 

[tommo9999]

Further Service is linked to promotion - Get your crown and you'll get Age 55. Or are we saying we should offer Age 55 to those techies who aren't good enough to get their crown within the required period, because some clearly are good enough and have done the necessary.

 

[Oberon305]

Further Service is linked to promotion - Get your crown and you'll get Age 55. Or are we saying we should offer Age 55 to those techies who aren't good enough to get their crown within the required period, because some clearly are good enough and have done the necessary.

Absolutely fair point and I don't disagree. I just agree that it's a bit crap that we have an extra rank to go through before getting the option.

I know I won't make it! DT_Xtremez_14:

 

[TrickyTree]

Absolutely fair point and I don't disagree. I just agree that it's a bit crap that we have an extra rank to go through before getting the option.

I know I won't make it! DT_Xtremez_14:

And for those that enlisted as mechanics, an extra two ranks!

 

[Bikerbill]

I think the best solution would be to allow signing on to Age 55 on promotion FROM Sgt. That would then align us with other trades and services.

Flippin' eck! That is a sensible idea. So obviously it will never catch on.

 

[Bikerbill]

Further Service is linked to promotion - Get your crown and you'll get Age 55. Or are we saying we should offer Age 55 to those techies who aren't good enough to get their crown within the required period, because some clearly are good enough and have done the necessary.

Hmmm! Interesting train of thought Tommo. So where is my further service for being promoted from Sgt. I think what you are saying is that every C/T who does not get promoted is simply not good enough to be promoted. That obviously explains why there are quite a few who find themselves on continuance. They are obviously good enough to keep but not promote. I think I'll let you explain that to them.

 

[Oberon305]

And for those that enlisted as mechanics, an extra two ranks!

:0Yes, quite. Sorry.

 

[Hot Shoes]

Hmmm! Interesting train of thought Tommo. So where is my further service for being promoted from Sgt. I think what you are saying is that every C/T who does not get promoted is simply not good enough to be promoted. That obviously explains why there are quite a few who find themselves on continuance. They are obviously good enough to keep but not promote. I think I'll let you explain that to them.

They are obviously good enough to keep in their rank and trade, but obviously not good enough to promote.

I think thats what you should of said

 

[dkh51250]

The ranks of J/T and Ch Tech were removed from the admin trades (ex Apprenti) with no detrimental effect.