Discrimination towards the technical trades

[muttywhitedog]

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.

What? Like our comissioned bretheren where one merit promotion in their first 18 years gets them a full career. There are countless Sqn Ldrs who hit their ceiling 15 years ago sitting around on their fat ar$es till they are 55.

 

[True Blue Jack]

What? Like our comissioned bretheren where one merit promotion in their first 18 years gets them a full career. There are countless Sqn Ldrs who hit their ceiling 15 years ago sitting around on their fat ar$es till they are 55.

Exactly. Why should it be different for airmen?

 

[Stevienics]

Exactly - it's chaos theory in reverse exemplified. This is my theory and it maybe utter bullox.

If any artificially constructed system naturally degrades to it's component parts in a seeminlgly random order, the human being naturally tries to resist this "wash action", in the belief that it's current system can only be better than what's coming to them from any change, when of course the reverse is usuallly true.

So, you get a huge bout of meritocratic constipation from people who really ought to have buggered off years ago but are senior enough to dig the heels in and stay where they are, thus compromising evolution and the overall health of the system. They don't add value other than in care and maintenance, and sometimes not even that.

If you need another example, one need look no further than London - it is flooded with the Parisian intelligensia working in their first job, because the constipation there was caused by ex-68' ers who "revolutionised" the social order, but even now in their 60's believe their own press - that they are better than everyone else. They simply won't go. It's really why France is such a load of cach even now.

 

[The Masked Geek]

Empirically,

You do realise that using big words to try and sound more intelligent, does exactly the opposite.

Especially when people recycle them (not that I'm suggesting you do), demonstrating either a limited vocabulary, the use of a very small thesaurus or a severe case of lethalogica. DT_Xtremez_14:

 

[Knackered Old Chief]

Please note member name, and react accordingly! What a lovely thread! I am impressed with the level of thought and debate that has gone into points made, very little crewroom yahboo - but my twopennorth; not all Chiefs nearing LOS30 are 'doddery' - I passed all my fitness tests, including BFT, while watching all the new thrusters trying not to throw up the McD and cigarette diet that so many seemed to exist on. I suspect many more of them would bite the dust early than the old Chiefs who had survived that far! I, like many another of era (1977 DE entry) were not too impressed by the practical efects of having extra promotion hoops to jump through before achieving an age 55 exit - though I admit that that option was open in my early years. As a previous post has pointed out, techies used to be in receipt of a higher pay scale to non-techy trades, so over a full career techies were not financially disadvantaged. Then a pay review 'aligned' pay scales (I can well remember a Sgt declining to work past 10pm 'cos he was off to the Mess to whip up an omelette, as he was now paid the same!). Once the pay differential went, the 'compensation' went, and the perception of unfair discrimination grew. Incidentally, as the discussion refers to a purely RAF anomaly, what have the practice of other services and nations to do with it? I grew heartily sick of being told that 'we had to fall into line with the Army', as if Apr 1 1918 had never happened.
Get to the point, you doddery old twerp! - yes, I think that since differential pay scales between techy and non-techy trades were removed, there is an unfair difference in promotion prospects between the two types of trade, weighted against techies. The promotion prospect argument has weight, but only because we have too many ranks for the size of the present RAF, because we have not laid responsibility on the correct shoulders. If you want to see what I mean, have a look at how long any officer can be in any one rank if he wants to make CAS. The exercise also illuminates why we have so many rafts of similar rank in make work jobs, both commissioned and non. There - my little stir of the pot. Enjoy.DT_Xtremez_42:

 

[Dazzy26]

As it is a rumour network, we were told of a vicious rumour that the lords and master are considering decoupling the signing on to Age 55 from promotion and doing it on an application/selection process, starting at Chf Tech level for technical trades and Sgts for other trades (after all WSOPs can have the option to sign on to 55 from Sgt level), not sure how it would work but an interesting concept!

 

[MrMasher]

Knackered Old Chief.
That is one of the best posts I've read in ages.

 

[busby1971]

My final point on the matter

My final point on the matter

Further to my previous on this matter what do you think would happen if the rank of Chf Tech went, initially any effect would have to be cost neutral, so straight away at least two thirds of the posts will become Sgt and at most a third will become FS.

So if there were no further effects a lot of guys are missing out on the extra pay and pension entitlement.

But you now have the guys who have signed up to 55 blocking promotion for an extra 8 or so years. Lets take an average jo who makes Sgt at the 15 to 18 year point and makes Chf at 20 to 24 year point, average this out at 6 years to make things easy and add the 8 to this and you straight away reduce the number of slots available for others by over half.

So even taking a conservative look at the figures the number of individuals who would make it to FS would be about a sixth of those who currently make it to Chf Tech. On the flip side with an increase in Sgt posts, and lets hope they don't use empowerment to push responsibility down the rank structure, there will faster promotion through Cpl to Sgt due to the higher turnover not because more individuals are getting their crown.

 

[CashMachine]

Can't quite believe i'm saying this, but here goes............ I agree with Busby.....

There I said it. If we got rid of the rank of Chief they would push the responsibilities down to the Sgt's and promotion would completely stop after an initial flurry. At least we've got the increased pension to compensate. Things work well the way they are.

Change is not good. In a Yorkshire accent!!!!!!!!

 

[MrMasher]

The empowerment in each rank has slipped by a rank anyway.

 

[The Masked Geek]

The empowerment in each rank has slipped by a rank anyway.

That depends on who is wearing the rank.....

 

[Gillo]

Simple's!!!! Bring in WO2 Rank. LOL

 

[MrMasher]

That depends on who is wearing the rank.....

What do you mean?

 

[metimmee]

REME manage just fine without CT.

 

[Oberon305]

REME manage just fine without CT.

I agree with Metimmee and also above post.

All CT's become FS, All FS become WO2's. In line with REME and RN Techy trades. Simples. DT_Xtremez_30: