B
billy bollox
Guest
Don't think they're looking at getting rid of Chf Tech just yet....they have a 90 requirement from the last Sgt - CT board
-
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.
Discrimination towards the technical trades
- Thread starter Bikerbill
- Start date
Chiefs and Flt Sgts are both classed as OR7, so it could be argued they've already got there - the only difference being that Chiefs stop at level 7 in the pay scale. Since both ranks occupy the same grade, I feel they should be given the same options for length of service.
DT_Xtremez_41:
T
The Masked Geek
Guest
I think all cheifs should be fired, freeing up promotion to Sgts who won't complain about the lack of age 55. DT_Xtremez_14:
DT_Xtremez_14:I think all cheifs should be fired, freeing up promotion to Sgts who won't complain about the lack of age 55.
...right up until they get promoted to Chief.
DT_Xtremez_42:Chiefs and Flt Sgts are both classed as OR7, so it could be argued they've already got there - the only difference being that Chiefs stop at level 7 in the pay scale. Since both ranks occupy the same grade, I feel they should be given the same options for length of service.
Exactly my point, Odie. C/Ts have the same pension and limited pay scale but not the service life. Why is that???
There must be an admin guru who has an intelligent answer to this.
There is also a significant monetary difference between leaving as a Chf Tech with a FS pension after 30 years service and leaving as a Chf Tech or FS after 37 years service.
How about if it was turned around and the rules were such that if you're in a non-technical trade you have to leave after 30 years if you have not reached the rank of Warrant Officer?
- 4,707
- 717
- 113
and meanwhile, the requirement for TG17 Sgt - FS was one. So, for every 1 Adminer who will now get a FS pension on retirement, 90 technicians will get a FS pension when they retire, even if they dont make the rank.
B
Bathtime
Guest
I think quite a few people would strongly disagree there!!
As a techie, once you've done imlc and tmt, you get offered LOS 30.
The same as non technical trades.
Techies then have to do time in rank to get assesments for the next rank up. So do non techies.
The next rank for techies is CT.
The next rank for non techies is Flt Sgt.
Techies get no further training and no further service offered at this point.
Non techies get AMLC and sign on to age 55.
Techies start again and do time in rank to get assessments and promotion to Flt Sgt.
Non techies are off chasing the last rung of the ladder, WO.
This demonstrates just one extra hurdle. Don't forget, techies had an extra rank before that.
Quite obviously and understandably us techies think this is unfair in the current airforce.
I personally would like to know if TG1 even have a trade sponsor.
I like what T55 said. Spin it the other way around and I bet it would be changed quite quickly!!
The same as non technical trades.
Techies then have to do time in rank to get assesments for the next rank up. So do non techies.
The next rank for techies is CT.
The next rank for non techies is Flt Sgt.
Techies get no further training and no further service offered at this point.
Non techies get AMLC and sign on to age 55.
Techies start again and do time in rank to get assessments and promotion to Flt Sgt.
Non techies are off chasing the last rung of the ladder, WO.
This demonstrates just one extra hurdle. Don't forget, techies had an extra rank before that.
Quite obviously and understandably us techies think this is unfair in the current airforce.
I personally would like to know if TG1 even have a trade sponsor.
I like what T55 said. Spin it the other way around and I bet it would be changed quite quickly!!
But those 90 don't sign to age 55.
T
The Masked Geek
Guest
Look at it another way:
Get rid of the CT rank and there aren't enough FS posts to keep promotion flowing, most Sgts would get stuck at Sgt and retire on a Sgt pension. Cpls would be lucky to be promoted by 22 and most would leave on a Cpl pension.
Keep the CT rank and most Sgts will still not make FS but at least they get to retire on an FS pension and have a higher wage for their last 5 years or so. Cpls have a shot at Sgt and everybody is happy.
Just look at my trade, they removed chief and there was no Sgt promotion for 3 years. None, not a sausage, meaning there was no Cpl promotion either.
If it wasn't for the big TG3 recruitment drive in 1987 leading to a lot of guys hitting their 22 recently, there would still be little promotion.
Get rid of the CT rank and there aren't enough FS posts to keep promotion flowing, most Sgts would get stuck at Sgt and retire on a Sgt pension. Cpls would be lucky to be promoted by 22 and most would leave on a Cpl pension.
Keep the CT rank and most Sgts will still not make FS but at least they get to retire on an FS pension and have a higher wage for their last 5 years or so. Cpls have a shot at Sgt and everybody is happy.
Just look at my trade, they removed chief and there was no Sgt promotion for 3 years. None, not a sausage, meaning there was no Cpl promotion either.
If it wasn't for the big TG3 recruitment drive in 1987 leading to a lot of guys hitting their 22 recently, there would still be little promotion.
True Blue Jack
Warrant Officer
- 4,438
- 0
- 0
Once upon a time it was perfectly normal for Chf Techs to be offered re-engagement to age 55 following promotion to that hallowed rank. I'm not sure when it stopped - it was before I joined but it was only within the last few years that the last 55 year old Chf Tech was discharged, so it was relatively recently. (As an aside, the last TG17 Jnr Tech left the Service in 1991 or thereabouts).
To explore bikerbill's complaint fully we need to look at the reason the rank of Chf Tech was introduced in the first place (sometime in the 50s I think). Essentially, it gave technical tradesmen the opportunity to choose between a technical career or a managerial career. Those who wanted to spanner for a living got time promotion to Chf Tech but that's where their career came to a halt. The managerial types skipped Chf Tech but competed for promotion to FS and/or WO. Clearly, a lot has changed since those days.
Before bikerbill's complaint can be considered fully we first need to decide if there is a requirement for a Chf Tech rank in today's RAF. The fact that, in our increasingly joint service and multinational arena, there is no equivalent for Chf Tech in any Service in any NATO member's armed forces considered alongside the rank structure imposed on TG4 when it came into being suggests that the best way to remove this perceived discrimination against technical trades would be simply to get rid of the offending rank.
Or we can keep the rank and just accept that promotion is faster in some trades than others and that rank has its privileges. After all, nurses get time promotion to sgt in 3 years with all the benefits of pension and further service that brings, and PTIs pass out of Cosford as cpls with an expectation of being promoted to sgt within 5 or 6 years if they have anything about them. Yet, we never seem to hear whinges about these trades' career paths.
To explore bikerbill's complaint fully we need to look at the reason the rank of Chf Tech was introduced in the first place (sometime in the 50s I think). Essentially, it gave technical tradesmen the opportunity to choose between a technical career or a managerial career. Those who wanted to spanner for a living got time promotion to Chf Tech but that's where their career came to a halt. The managerial types skipped Chf Tech but competed for promotion to FS and/or WO. Clearly, a lot has changed since those days.
Before bikerbill's complaint can be considered fully we first need to decide if there is a requirement for a Chf Tech rank in today's RAF. The fact that, in our increasingly joint service and multinational arena, there is no equivalent for Chf Tech in any Service in any NATO member's armed forces considered alongside the rank structure imposed on TG4 when it came into being suggests that the best way to remove this perceived discrimination against technical trades would be simply to get rid of the offending rank.
Or we can keep the rank and just accept that promotion is faster in some trades than others and that rank has its privileges. After all, nurses get time promotion to sgt in 3 years with all the benefits of pension and further service that brings, and PTIs pass out of Cosford as cpls with an expectation of being promoted to sgt within 5 or 6 years if they have anything about them. Yet, we never seem to hear whinges about these trades' career paths.
In the past 10 years the RAF has, when necessary, offered extraordinary TOS to meet the Service requirement. For example,when it was recognised that there was a dearth of experience in certain trades. SAC & JTs were offered service to 22 years. Viz a viz thus, when required, the precedent has been set.
In the case of Chf Tech, a rank recognised for trade-related managerial experience, there has been (with the exception of MT Tech Chfs post 96 redundancies) no requirement to extend TOS becuase there has been no lack of managerial experience. In the case of MT Techs the redundancy quotas were horribly miscalculated and the vast majority of (decent) FS MT Techs were made redundant. When this impacted on X levels there were 2 courses of acton PMA could take:
1. Promote to fill gaps - proven, at that time, to be ineffectual due to the
inadequate standard of promotion candidate.
2. Extend the TOS of Chfs. This would cover the gap left by FS, and in
turn allow Chfs to gain experience to credit for promotion.
Quite simply, in my humble opinion (based on legacy information) there is no Service requirement to offer Chfs to age 55. You may think it is unfair but quite clearly the Service doesn't.
In the case of Chf Tech, a rank recognised for trade-related managerial experience, there has been (with the exception of MT Tech Chfs post 96 redundancies) no requirement to extend TOS becuase there has been no lack of managerial experience. In the case of MT Techs the redundancy quotas were horribly miscalculated and the vast majority of (decent) FS MT Techs were made redundant. When this impacted on X levels there were 2 courses of acton PMA could take:
1. Promote to fill gaps - proven, at that time, to be ineffectual due to the
inadequate standard of promotion candidate.
2. Extend the TOS of Chfs. This would cover the gap left by FS, and in
turn allow Chfs to gain experience to credit for promotion.
Quite simply, in my humble opinion (based on legacy information) there is no Service requirement to offer Chfs to age 55. You may think it is unfair but quite clearly the Service doesn't.
The basis behind this whole thread appears to be that all discrimination is wrong. I would disagree with this hypothesis. Discrimination is evident throughout life (both military and civilian) to good effect and for good reason. Some examples include:
So discrimination does occur - it's a fact of life. It reacts to 'market forces'. No it isn't always fair; but life generally isn't. Hence plumbers (of the non-armourer variety) can be paid more than doctors. What is not permitted is unlawful discrimination (as was the case for pregnant servicewomen). if it wasn't for discrimination we'd all be paid the same and live in the same type of house. Or is it the case, from a group of people who think that they should be paid more than everyone else (ie discriminate against those not in TG1) that discrimination is OK unless that discrimination is not in your favour?
Turning to the offer of service to age 55 for chf techs. If this was to happen then chf tchs would remain in the system for longer than they do now on ‘the promote or leave at LOS 30’ principle. In some cases this would enable an individual 7 years further service. However, just like Newton's 3rd law, there will be significant knock on effects:
So the proposal to remove a, perceived, disadvantage to some will actually disadvantage significantly more people.
Individuals joining the RAF as officers with degrees are granted increased seniority - this not only gives them a higher starting salary but also enables them to enter the zone for promotion (and further service) earlier than their non-graduate colleagues. This 'discrimination' is because the RAF believes that it needs to attract people of graduate calibre; therefore, needs to have a competitive package to compete in the graduate recruitment market.
Individuals joining some trades are able to skip ranks (ie WSOp, ATC and PTI).
Individuals in some trades have time promotion; therefore, don't have to compete like their peers.
Individuals who join as an officer are entitled to a higher scaling of accommodation than individuals who join as airmen (though given the state of many messes it is often inferior to junior ranks' super blocks).
Similarly, an individual who reaches the rank of sgt is entitled to a greater scaling of SLA than their subordinates.
Some trades/branches have higher educational entry qualifications than others; therefore, they discriminate against the less academically able.
People with 'extreme' political views are not allowed to be members of HM Forces.
MPs cannot be members of HM Forces.
Some people are paid more than others.
Officers, generally, don't have to do gate guard.
SACs don't have to pay mess bills.
The list goes on...
Individuals joining some trades are able to skip ranks (ie WSOp, ATC and PTI).
Individuals in some trades have time promotion; therefore, don't have to compete like their peers.
Individuals who join as an officer are entitled to a higher scaling of accommodation than individuals who join as airmen (though given the state of many messes it is often inferior to junior ranks' super blocks).
Similarly, an individual who reaches the rank of sgt is entitled to a greater scaling of SLA than their subordinates.
Some trades/branches have higher educational entry qualifications than others; therefore, they discriminate against the less academically able.
People with 'extreme' political views are not allowed to be members of HM Forces.
MPs cannot be members of HM Forces.
Some people are paid more than others.
Officers, generally, don't have to do gate guard.
SACs don't have to pay mess bills.
The list goes on...
So discrimination does occur - it's a fact of life. It reacts to 'market forces'. No it isn't always fair; but life generally isn't. Hence plumbers (of the non-armourer variety) can be paid more than doctors. What is not permitted is unlawful discrimination (as was the case for pregnant servicewomen). if it wasn't for discrimination we'd all be paid the same and live in the same type of house. Or is it the case, from a group of people who think that they should be paid more than everyone else (ie discriminate against those not in TG1) that discrimination is OK unless that discrimination is not in your favour?
Turning to the offer of service to age 55 for chf techs. If this was to happen then chf tchs would remain in the system for longer than they do now on ‘the promote or leave at LOS 30’ principle. In some cases this would enable an individual 7 years further service. However, just like Newton's 3rd law, there will be significant knock on effects:
With individuals serving in rank for longer then fewer sgts will be promoted to chf tech annually.
With fewer sgts promoted to chf tech, then fewer cpls will be promoted to sgt; therefore, fewer individuals will be afforded the opportunity for service to LOS 30
With fewer cpls promoted to sgt, then fewer SAC(T)s will be promoted to cpl; therefore, fewer individuals will be afforded the opportunity for service to LOS 22
With fewer sgts promoted to chf tech, then fewer cpls will be promoted to sgt; therefore, fewer individuals will be afforded the opportunity for service to LOS 30
With fewer cpls promoted to sgt, then fewer SAC(T)s will be promoted to cpl; therefore, fewer individuals will be afforded the opportunity for service to LOS 22
So the proposal to remove a, perceived, disadvantage to some will actually disadvantage significantly more people.
Last edited:
- 7,099
- 633
- 113
No discrimination
No discrimination
In fact it probably works the other way, if the rank of Chf Tech was removed then some posts would become FS and some would become Sgt this would mean that a fair few individuals would miss out on FS Pensions and a few years extra pay.
So the rest of the RAF miss out on the extra pay and opportunity to get a FS Pension. At the end of the day those good enough (according to the system) to get to FS/WO get promoted to FS/WO and those that don't do not. Yes there are some very good Chiefs that don't quite make it but that is the same of all trades and ranks.
The nearest equivalent rank would be CPO or Staffy, and going on what TBJ said in the Army they still have the two promotion streams, in certain corps, there are those that are good at their job who may get promoted in the more technical roles within their trade and there are those who are good at being soldiers who get promoted within the more Man Management/Administrative (not administration) jobs. The RAF is far too small efficient to bring these changes in these days.
No discrimination
In fact it probably works the other way, if the rank of Chf Tech was removed then some posts would become FS and some would become Sgt this would mean that a fair few individuals would miss out on FS Pensions and a few years extra pay.
So the rest of the RAF miss out on the extra pay and opportunity to get a FS Pension. At the end of the day those good enough (according to the system) to get to FS/WO get promoted to FS/WO and those that don't do not. Yes there are some very good Chiefs that don't quite make it but that is the same of all trades and ranks.
The nearest equivalent rank would be CPO or Staffy, and going on what TBJ said in the Army they still have the two promotion streams, in certain corps, there are those that are good at their job who may get promoted in the more technical roles within their trade and there are those who are good at being soldiers who get promoted within the more Man Management/Administrative (not administration) jobs. The RAF is far too small efficient to bring these changes in these days.
Just as a point of interest the rank of Chf Tech in aircraft trades was recommended to be binned at the same time as Junior Technician. However, at the time we still had an Air Marshall as "Chief Engineer" and he said and I'll use my interpretation of his words "Sh1t can Chf Techs on Sqn's - no fekkin way them guys are my eyes and ears in all matters to do with airworthiness and if they see a problem they are not shy in announcing it loud and clear and getting it sorted and until someone invents a new rank to do that then Chf Tech is staying on my flying Sqn's"
The other side is that many Chf's are outstanding Chf's but sadly lack the skills, attributes and in many case the modicum of diplomacy necessary to become Flt Sgts and WO's
The other side is that many Chf's are outstanding Chf's but sadly lack the skills, attributes and in many case the modicum of diplomacy necessary to become Flt Sgts and WO's
That assumes that every Chief, or at least the majority of Chiefs, would take the option of serving until 55. That's like saying that every Sgt does LOS 30 and blocks promotion for the Cpls which in turn blocks that of SAC(T)s - which we all know isn't true as there are those Sgts that are content to do their 22 and leave with their pension, there are also those who take LOS 30 but leave in the time between their 22 and 30 year points. Even if the majority of Chiefs took the option to serve until 55, after a few years the rate of turn over would return to normal - they're all going to still leave at some point, it'd just slow down during the transition period. Remember that not everyone joined as a teenager, so for a number their 55 year and LOS 30 points could well intersect or even their 55 year point come first.
Last edited:
That is exactly the case. The longer you retain people in the Service the slower the promotion flow.
At the other extreme of the argument is the British Army's current soldier engagement that ceases, for the vast majority, at LOS 22. Hence why (in the main) soldiers get promoted far quicker than airmen even though (in some cases) the ratio between ranks is far worse.
As and aside, the easy answer to achieve promotion parity with the Army is to start restricting airmen max engagements to 22 years. Words Cake and Eat spring to mind.
At the other extreme of the argument is the British Army's current soldier engagement that ceases, for the vast majority, at LOS 22. Hence why (in the main) soldiers get promoted far quicker than airmen even though (in some cases) the ratio between ranks is far worse.
As and aside, the easy answer to achieve promotion parity with the Army is to start restricting airmen max engagements to 22 years. Words Cake and Eat spring to mind.
True Blue Jack
Warrant Officer
- 4,438
- 0
- 0
Empirically, the evidence suggests that those given the option of serving a full career to age 55 will normally do so. If offered an extension of service up to that point, I believe the vast majority of chf techs would accept - look at the number of sgts who took LOS 30, even if it meant just one year's extra service.
Promotion would inevitably slow down and - as mentioned earlier - the people who would lose out would be today's SAC(T)s who can't get their tapes because of the knock-on effect of doddery old chfs marking time until retirement.
Perhaps one option would be to give everyone the opportunity to serve to age 55 from attestation. It would take away the pressure of needing to get promoted in order to secure further service and may go some way to prevent people being promoted beyond their ability.