Future of TG17

[Humble Scribe]

So how do we sort out the trade? Here are some ideas for discussion.

Firstly, recruit and retain; that'll be a tough one when 6 or 7 SAC's on my stn have PVR'd in the last 12 months. Manage their careers in the first 3 - 5 years properly giving them full exposure to front line admin in many of the trade vagaries. Then give them a realistic chance of being promoted.

Manage the trade pyramid by making many SNCO posts in to JNCO posts. Examples of this are Career Management as previously discussed, PA slots, creating more JNCO PSF (less SNCO's) slots and perhaps allowing the more experienced JNCO to be employed in Embassies (if there are any left) and many of the over-ranked NATO jobs.

Life the time at WO rank to say, 6- 8 years, and offer commissioned WO scheme or retirement at that stage. This will stop the Crusty WO's stopping the promotion flow for too long and give experience at JO level.

Just a few ideas to generate discussion as I'm enjoying this thread; over to you guys!

 

[True Blue Jack]

I'm enjoying this thread, too, so I'm going to play Devil's advocate DT_Xtremez_30:

Retention is the key word, and applies across the trade spectrum. Sticking to us shineys, though: To immerse LACs fully into the trade means that they would have to be posted to a MOB from training. HS's idea means that a new LAC will not become fully effective until they have been in productive service for 3 - 5 years, bu which time they will already be looking at promotion. Another consequence is that all the crappy jobs in the trade (HQ AIR, PJHQ, tiny little registries in the middle of nowhere) will fall to 2nd tourist SACs. That is hardly a good retention tool.

Getting promoted to sgt in the next few years is going to be as tough as getting promoted to FS has been historically. Downgrading more posts is not going to help matters. On a Sqn, the adjt has to be taken seriously by both the techie Trade Managers and the winged master race. A newly promoted cpl is not going to get that. Similarly in NATO Units a cpl (OR-4) will find himself outranked by far less qualified and able compatriots from other nations; already NATO postings are frustrating for any career-minded individual. Downgrade some of our posts by 2 more NATO grades will only exacerbate matters.

Ending a WOs career after 6 - 8 years in the rank will do no-one any favours. Younger FSs offered promotion will just turn it down - time is on their side after all. The only effect will be to push the dead men's shoes down one rank level.

There you go, I think I've opposed all HS's topics diametrically (irrespective of my own actual views). The floor is open - discuss.
DT_Xtremez_19:

 

[tommo9999]

I agree with Tommo that is the system that needs to be reviewed, albeit this is on blind faith as he had the most recent experience of the system and he knows the Secret books that govern drafting!

Can't be that secret, 'cos you know about it. DT_Xtremez_30:

On a serious note, TBJ's point about posting LACs to MOBs is well made; when I was drafting Medics et al, it was policy that all LACs had to be posted to a MOB for their first tour. How many SACs do we all know that have PVR'd because they have been sent to RAF Little Snoring for their first tour? Or a registry at Wycombe? Etc etc. Equally HS's point about changing some posts from Sgt to Cpl has some merit. The changes to TG17 are necessary, it is quite simply a case of how radical we want to be.

 

[Boarderlyne]

Can't be that secret, 'cos you know about it. DT_Xtremez_30:

On a serious note, TBJ's point about posting LACs to MOBs is well made; when I was drafting Medics et al, it was policy that all LACs had to be posted to a MOB for their first tour. How many SACs do we all know that have PVR'd because they have been sent to RAF Little Snoring for their first tour? Or a registry at Wycombe? Etc etc. Equally HS's point about changing some posts from Sgt to Cpl has some merit. The changes to TG17 are necessary, it is quite simply a case of how radical we want to be.

I know of them but not of their content! DT_Xtremez_28: D'ats why they're SECRET! DT_Xtremez_15:

RAF Little Snoring, I think is great for 2nd tourists as it allows them to consolidate their skills and make themselves promotable, but for 1st tourist LAC, then that is a bad idea as the kids will think that getting by is the be all and end all.

Radical change for TG17. All JNCOs and above receive mandatory training in Welfare Management. 2 week course that covers Pref Treatment, Gender Transfer, SFA, Marriage Counselling, Disciplinary Offences, WFTC and CSA as a rough example. Takes the load off the Chf Shark and makes the JNCO rank that little bit more punchy.

 

[ForgottenName]

Can't be that secret, 'cos you know about it. DT_Xtremez_30:

On a serious note, TBJ's point about posting LACs to MOBs is well made; when I was drafting Medics et al, it was policy that all LACs had to be posted to a MOB for their first tour. How many SACs do we all know that have PVR'd because they have been sent to RAF Little Snoring for their first tour? Or a registry at Wycombe? Etc etc. Equally HS's point about changing some posts from Sgt to Cpl has some merit. The changes to TG17 are necessary, it is quite simply a case of how radical we want to be.

Tommo, watch out for the next amendment to AP 3376, particularly the TG17 Chapter.

 

[tommo9999]

Radical change for TG17. All JNCOs and above receive mandatory training in Welfare Management. 2 week course that covers Pref Treatment, Gender Transfer, SFA, Marriage Counselling, Disciplinary Offences, WFTC and CSA as a rough example.

Was lucky enough to do a couple of tours in PHF so covered Welfare, Bereavement & Loss, Gender stuff etc etc. Also as a lad was the subject of a wee bit of the old disciplinary action, so had a bit of an insight. It should be mandatory (Or strongly encouraged) for TG17 NCO's to go to Amport House for Listening Skills & Bereavement & Loss as a minimum. Great place and excellent courses.

 

[ForgottenName]

However, you have got to be wary of taking the trade in a direction that would lead it ripe for civilianisation or the post could be FTRS'd. It would be very easy to FTRS a number of WO posts at the moment - that way the trade could be capped at FS. I don't think that we want to go that way.

 

[tommo9999]

However, you have got to be wary of taking the trade in a direction that would lead it ripe for civilianisation or the post could be FTRS'd. It would be very easy to FTRS a number of WO posts at the moment - that way the trade could be capped at FS. I don't think that we want to go that way.

Do you think we have a long term future then?

 

[ForgottenName]

Do you think we have a long term future then?

I certainly do, there are some people at Air Comd who would not be doing what they are doing if there was not a long term future for the trade.

 

[tommo9999]

New Thread Title

New Thread Title

Please feel free to use this thread to discuss the future of TG17. The posts above this one were moved from the Career Management Thread.

Tommo

 

[True Blue Jack]

However, you have got to be wary of taking the trade in a direction that would lead it ripe for civilianisation or the post could be FTRS'd. It would be very easy to FTRS a number of WO posts at the moment - that way the trade could be capped at FS. I don't think that we want to go that way.

The way to do that is to concentrate on our operational role. Jobs in-theatre that have traditionally fallen to TG17 have included (but are not restricted to): Theatre Reception (Arrivals Clerk), allocation of accommodation/bedding, cashier services, manpower/establishments, public & non-public accounts, infrastructure management, classified document handling & welfare matters. All of these jobs are/can be carried out by civvies at normal units, so the trick is to persuade the powers that be that we need servicemen doing those jobs in the UK so that they can take their experience out to theatre with them.

Welfare is the one area we are most likely to gain votes at the highest level because it is one area the RAF as a whole is still not very good at.

We also need to forget about the "ideal pyramid". Many jobs that were once done by SACs/Cpls were civilianised following Options for Change and the Bett Review. Those jobs are never coming back and trimming down the remainder of the pyramid just for the sake of tidiness is a mistake.

 

[Boarderlyne]

...Welfare is the one area we are most likely to gain votes at the highest level because it is one area the RAF as a whole is still not very good at.

We also need to forget about the "ideal pyramid". Many jobs that were once done by SACs/Cpls were civilianised following Options for Change and the Bett Review. Those jobs are never coming back and trimming down the remainder of the pyramid just for the sake of tidiness is a mistake.

I agree that this fascination for the ideal pyramid is a bad idea. Let's look at the jobs that need doing and establish for what is needed, not for what we want the trade to look like.

Welfare is probably the best way forward for us to look at as a trade, but we will need to be careful that we don't end up as an adjunct to the Padre's corner.

 

[ForgottenName]

Unfortunately, we cannot forget about the ideal pyramid. One of the recommendations from the MCSG is that all trades - not just TG17 - structure themselves on a 1:1.7 ration. To do this, we - as in TG17 - have really got to look at empowering SACs by driving work down to the lowest level. I am not saying that we should give every SAC a GPC card, but when you see an SAC acting as a DAO for a detachment for aircraft in the UK we are going the right way.

I believe that we have also got to be very careful of just looking at the work we do in the operational theatres. When trades become totally operationally focussed, then it can be seen that employment in the UK is only seen as a respite between OOA tours.

Welfare is another issue. When an individual submits a PT case for example, it is always (nearly in my experience anyway) WO PSF or the Chf Clk who drafts the Station input. When doing so, he has to balance the needs of the Service and task against the needs of the individual to identify which is greater. However, if the WO PSF or Chf Clk was much more involved with the individual then his/her thought processes would lean much more that way.

 

[ForgottenName]

So how do we sort out the trade? Here are some ideas for discussion.

Firstly, recruit and retain; that'll be a tough one when 6 or 7 SAC's on my stn have PVR'd in the last 12 months. Manage their careers in the first 3 - 5 years properly giving them full exposure to front line admin in many of the trade vagaries. Then give them a realistic chance of being promoted. I believe that the Trade Sponsor already touched on this issue at the recent APC. For your proposal to occur, it needs to be in AP 3376 and I understand that he is already working on this issue by making it procedure that LACs are only posted to PSF's on Main Operating Bases followed by a second tour on a front line squadron. However, in my opinion, he would have to ensure that those posts that are not either in PSF or on front line sqns are not filled by personnel who are not looking for a full career.

Manage the trade pyramid by making many SNCO posts in to JNCO posts. Examples of this are Career Management as previously discussed, PA slots, creating more JNCO PSF (less SNCO's) slots and perhaps allowing the more experienced JNCO to be employed in Embassies (if there are any left) and many of the over-ranked NATO jobs. I like your idea regarding making CM's JNCO slots and think it has merit., particularly if the JNCOs only drafted SACs. However, it would have to managed very carefully.

Life the time at WO rank to say, 6- 8 years, and offer commissioned WO scheme or retirement at that stage. This will stop the Crusty WO's stopping the promotion flow for too long and give experience at JO level. Lifing the time in the WO rank would be very difficult. I think that you would be severely penalising an individual who has worked hard to get through the rank structure to reach the rank of WO, only to be told that he/she can only stay at that rank for 8 yrs max. This would be particularly so at the moment whereby junior officers in the Admin Sec branch move on average at about the 18 months point. Remember, not all WOs, and I would say this is particularly so of those who move up the ranks quicker than their contemporaries, become crusty WOs.

Just a few ideas to generate discussion as I'm enjoying this thread; over to you guys!

I have attached some thoughts to HS's ideas and welcome any constructive discussion.

 

[ForgottenName]

I agree that this fascination for the ideal pyramid is a bad idea. Let's look at the jobs that need doing and establish for what is needed, not for what we want the trade to look like.

Welfare is probably the best way forward for us to look at as a trade, but we will need to be careful that we don't end up as an adjunct to the Padre's corner.

Boarderlyne. I would have agreed with your comment that we need to look at the jobs that need doing and establish for what is needed. However, unfortunately, the MOD, guided by the politicians, hold the purse strings and, therefore, the Defence Budget will always restrict us in the number of personnel we can have. I believe that if we looked at the jobs that needed doing we would get to a figure that is well over and above the 1377 figure that I heard the Trade Sponsor say that we would be capped at on 1 Apr 08. Therefore, we need to look at how we can deploy our resources to the best advantage and, in doing so, we must look at what the priorities are. On the welfare front, I believe that we have got to be very careful that we do not put ourselves into a postion whereby what we are employed on can be very easily civilianised; we certainly would if we became an adjunct to the Padre's corner.

 

[True Blue Jack]

Unfortunately, we cannot forget about the ideal pyramid. One of the recommendations from the MCSG is that all trades - not just TG17 - structure themselves on a 1:1.7 ration.

I've got a great idea for readjusting our trade structure to fit the ideal 1:1.7 rank ratio. Let's militarise all admin jobs in registries, works services, accounts and JPAC. The sudden influx of SACs & Cpls will straighten it all out nicely.

Alternatively (and perhaps a little more realistically) we could count the civil servants in those jobs as TG17 pers for the sake of fitting the pyramid. If we did that in my office, for example, the pyramid fits almost perfectly: one sgt, 2 cpls, 1 SAC & 2 civvies (read 3 x SAC for aesthetic purposes).

I don't think for one minute that either scenario will be looked at seriously, but I hope it proves the futility of deciding that we need 600 SACs, 400 Cpls, 200 Sgts, etc and trying to fit the job we do into those figures. You can empower SACs all you want, but what that really means is that the RAF will be getting far more than its pound of flesh for less than £20K p.a. and without having to sign people onto pensionable engagements.

 

[KingGuin]

Some great ideas and I am thrilled to see that others as as passionate about the trade as I am. However I am a simple man - staff me to my establishment and I would be over the moon, staff me to the FMDL and I would be as happy as a pig in poo.

 

[ForgottenName]

I've got a great idea for readjusting our trade structure to fit the ideal 1:1.7 rank ratio. Let's militarise all admin jobs in registries, works services, accounts and JPAC. The sudden influx of SACs & Cpls will straighten it all out nicely.

Alternatively (and perhaps a little more realistically) we could count the civil servants in those jobs as TG17 pers for the sake of fitting the pyramid. If we did that in my office, for example, the pyramid fits almost perfectly: one sgt, 2 cpls, 1 SAC & 2 civvies (read 3 x SAC for aesthetic purposes).

Surely, that would mean taking more jobs on. With the current structure, we are experiencing difficulty in fulfilling all our current commitments with the resources that we have.

 

[KingGuin]

Surely, that would mean taking more jobs on. With the current structure, we are experiencing difficulty in fulfilling all our current commitments with the resources that we have.

Hear Hear.

 

[ForgottenName]

Some great ideas and I am thrilled to see that others as as passionate about the trade as I am. However I am a simple man - staff me to my establishment and I would be over the moon, staff me to the FMDL and I would be as happy as a pig in poo.

Good point KingGuin. I have it on good authority that that is what the Trade Sponsor is trying to do.