High pay-band...really?

[Flt Lt Badminton-Squash]

Well, it got your attention?
Anyway, I have just heard a rumour out about the MT world and their unbelievable jump to the high pay band and that it was on the back of TSW (truth or not?). From what I have been told, and I stand to be corrected, that their TS took the board and ‘showed’ them what TSW did, instead of ‘telling’ them about it. Now if this is true it truly would be a kick in the teeth would it not?

Does anyone know what’s what here, or better still does anyone have any info on the Supply position regarding this, would be better to have these facts?

If MT have around 47% of TSW (again, all rumour, sorry if this has been covered before!) and they have gained the higher band then surely Supply should use the same tact and do similar?

Anyway, just a thought…

 

[Hammer]

Not heard of MT going on to the higher pay band, they need to restructure pay again as Pay 2000 hasnt worked. Not sure how the Police can justify being on the higher pay band yet FOA's are on lower.

 

[stacker4ever]

Some of the MT trade are indeed going onto the high payband (Cpls). I do know that TSWs role was put forward during the presentation for this decision however how much that swayed those that made the decision i couldnt say.

Supply cannot use TSW for its pay review as it does not represent enough of the trade as i believe that an activity has to represent at least 5% of the trade doing these duties, and since MT have taken more slots on the wing i dont think we will ever be able to use TSW as a case for higher pay band.

 

[Flt Lt Badminton-Squash]

I don’t believe they will agree to just CPL’s for supply, judging by other threads and the people I have spoken with… its hard enough to get people to take their third as it is. If they made CPL only up to the higher band then they would never have anyone to accept promotion… ok maybe a few but not many I would suggest!

Maybe they should make it SGT & CPL, just like everyone seems to think they will, or maybe they will just place W.O on the higher pay band just to keep the TS happy….DT_Xtremez_06: Oh they have already done that, oh well, that’s that then!!!

Anyway, just a thought…

 

[stacker4ever]

Well its just happened to MT so you never know. And anyway i dont think any rank on supply will get it so what does it matter anyway.

 

[The Stig A.D.I.]

Some of the specialist vehicles of TSW (which are driven & operated by MTDs) were on display at Wittering, where the review took place, as were a myriad of other specialist kit (the vast majority of which can only be operated by A class MTDs, such as the all new OshKosh range, for instance); however, the decision to elevate MTD Cpls and WOs to the higher band was arrived at when the board compared the trade at present to how it was at the last review.

The board stated that the trade was 'unrecognisable' since the last review and that, while the reason for WOs being moved up to the higher band should not need be questioned, Cpls were being moved up predominantly because of their Trade Training and Instructional role.

Personally, I think Stackers should also be bumped-up, as should all other trades and at every level too. Of course, many people will disagree with my opinion (I know some of my Techie mates definitely do!) But quips like "Well I can drive a big truck too!" and "The fact that Chefs, Rocks, Police and now MTDs are now on the higher band completely de-values my trade!", are, lets face it, a bit sad! Afterall, how can WO tradesman X be on a different level to WO tradesman Y??? At least the Navy (and the Americans) have got at least one thing right - equal pay across the board, obviously notwithstanding the incremental levels within ranks - that IS a good idea!

Right then, I suppose I'd better go and put my e-crash helmet on...

DT_Xtremez_42:

 

[skevans]

In support of Victorian Dad I recently shared a few beers with an MTD Cpl who was present at the review. He works on the crash and smash teams and is therefore a little removed from the trade. He said that even he was suprised by the full ange of vehicles operated solely by A class MTD's!

 

[The Helpful Stacker]

In support of Victorian Dad I recently shared a few beers with an MTD Cpl who was present at the review. He works on the crash and smash teams and is therefore a little removed from the trade. He said that even he was suprised by the full ange of vehicles operated solely by A class MTD's!

Of course it wouldn't be beyond the ability of suppliers to operate many of these vehicles either but that wouldn't protect many jobs nor justify a trade would it?

The farce that was suppliers being allowed (some would say being made) to drive TACBs but not the old fixed body TTFs immediately springs to mind. Many suppliers are actually qualified to operate a wider range of vehicles than their slammer colleagues yet the RAF continues to restrict based on some jobs for the boys agenda.

The DVLA sees no difference between two people who have C+E so why do the RAF persist in wasting money by sending stackers away to get their C+E then restrict them to 4 tonners and drag?

 

[Redundancy please]

There is one reason why Supply will never become high band and that is because we are too big a trade and therefore it would cost too much to bump us up. Guess we should have tried harder at school and joined as an Engineer.

 

[The Stig A.D.I.]

Of course it wouldn't be beyond the ability of suppliers to operate many of these vehicles either but that wouldn't protect many jobs nor justify a trade would it?

The farce that was suppliers being allowed (some would say being made) to drive TACBs but not the old fixed body TTFs immediately springs to mind. Many suppliers are actually qualified to operate a wider range of vehicles than their slammer colleagues yet the RAF continues to restrict based on some jobs for the boys agenda.

The DVLA sees no difference between two people who have C+E so why do the RAF persist in wasting money by sending stackers away to get their C+E then restrict them to 4 tonners and drag?

Hmmmm... I'm not sure about this THS, possibly some of the more experienced suppliers, i.e. those who have cut their teeth on the wing, etc. do indeed hold more permits than their MTD counterparts, but given the TRT for MTD SACs and JNCOs and the demand to be specialist qualified across the range to be able to meet this commitment, would suggest that your theory may only possibly be correct and certainly only where the most junior cadre of MTDs are concerned.

 

[Norman the Storeman]

Hmmmm... I'm not sure about this THS, possibly some of the more experienced suppliers, i.e. those who have cut their teeth on the wing, etc. do indeed hold more permits than their MTD counterparts, but given the TRT for MTD SACs and JNCOs and the demand to be specialist qualified across the range to be able to meet this commitment, would suggest that your theory may only possibly be correct and certainly only where the most junior cadre of MTDs are concerned.

Get in! Let's start the Forklift qualified fight again! Why has MT got no FLT qualified personnel? ::

 

[roverboy]

DT_Xtremez_30: DT_Xtremez_15:

Well its just happened to MT so you never know. And anyway i dont think any rank on supply will get it so what does it matter anyway.

You mean Cpl MT drivers get paid more now for sitting in the passenger seat and supervising the driver?DT_Xtremez_15: DT_Xtremez_30:

 

[snowball1]

Forget the driving q's what about the dangerous goods, explosives, fuels q's etc , feck up on them and you can shut a camp down!

 

[Cooheed]

Forget the driving q's what about the dangerous goods, explosives, fuels q's etc , feck up on them and you can shut a camp down!

Lot's of people outside MT hold an ADR certificate and could easily apply the rules IAW all classes that they hold. Not a valid arguement IMHO.

 

[skevans]

Once again we seem to have gone down the route of trying to justify one trades pay based on another trades pay. The answer to the problem doesn't lie in comparing supply to MTD, which is only inflammatory and devisive, but in recognising what the trade of supplier brings to the RAF of today.

Flt Lt BS has questioned whether the route that the MTD trade sponsor took in demonstrating the trades value, should be likewise adopted by the supply trade. He also requested confirmation on whether or not his information regarding MTD's was correct. Both myself and Victorian Dad have confirmed this.

To me it seems perfectly logical to demonstrate your trades viability and purpose in todays RAF, it doesn't seem logical however to base any bid for increased pay on a p1ssing contest regarding driving licences.

The DVLA sees no difference between two people who have C+E so why do the RAF persist in wasting money by sending stackers away to get their C+E then restrict them to 4 tonners and drag?

Perfectly good question, why waste the cash. Stop sending suppliers on a C+E course in the first place.

 

[snowball1]

Lot's of people outside MT hold an ADR certificate and could easily apply the rules IAW all classes that they hold. Not a valid arguement IMHO.

Didnt mention ADR!! DG as in the prepping of items.

 

[The Stig A.D.I.]

Didnt mention ADR!! DG as in the prepping of items.

Lets not lose sight of the squirrel, Snowball; nobody's disputing the fact that Suppliers are the experts when it comes to preparing DG, etc.

Skevans' post was bang-on:

"Flt Lt BS has questioned whether the route that the MTD trade sponsor took in demonstrating the trades value, should be likewise adopted by the supply trade. He also requested confirmation on whether or not his information regarding MTD's was correct. Both myself and Victorian Dad have confirmed this.

To me it seems perfectly logical to demonstrate your trades viability and purpose in todays RAF, it doesn't seem logical however to base any bid for increased pay on a p1ssing contest regarding driving licences."

Let's stick to the script eh...

DT_Xtremez_28:

 

[Norman the Storeman]

Let's stick to the script eh...DT_Xtremez_28:

Blimey! Chill out lads! Life's too short to be so serious. DT_Xtremez_41:

 

[Justacabbie]

MT have been awarded the high pay band in 2 ranks Cpl and WO wef april 08. The pay review was trade wide covering all aspects of the MT trade including specialist work like 2MT TSW Crash and Smash. We only just missed out on a pay increase the last time the trade was reviewed back in the days when chefs were awarded PB1. We were badly prepared and to be honest it was a shambles or we would (quite rightly ) already be on the high pay band. The main reason it was awarded was the comparison of how much it would cost to employ a civvy who is so widely qualified in nearly every vehicle type. Most companies would employ specialist drivers to cover their business, but the RAF is multi purpose and this is not possible. As to do we deserve it? Yes we do! I am not qualified to answer as to weather a supplier would be entiltled, but you have to ask yourself. How much would a supplier in civvy street be paid? I believe the current pay for a storeperson or similar in civvy street is peanuts, so maybe there is your answer. I could stand corrected of course....

(stand back and wait the wrath of all suppliers no offence intended)

 

[stacker4ever]

C&S I think your commets are ill thought out as, how do you know how much a supplier is on in civvy street? If you are talking about a general picker then yes that may be the case but i dont think a basic driver of a car or bus is really on that much either so please dont just go down to the lowest level of the trade as it works both ways. I myself have no problems with the pay award however i think the problem stems with those of us that have alot of driving Qs (I have my C&E) and also have to do courses to operate vehicles that we are not allowed to drive, so all the driver has to do is get in put the vehicle in place and then we do the rest. The restrictions of A-Class only for artic is old and tired and is yet another example of how everyone is trying to protect themselves when all that will happen in the end is the Army will turn round and say i can do all that work with one bloke.