Leave Requirements....

[Tashy_Man]

Following on from another thread I was thinking (I know unusual for me)

If personnel are not allowed to keep their full allowance on a regular basis (due to posting etc.) would this be grounds to :-


1) say there are not enough personnel in the force to allow duties and leave


OR


2) reduce the amount of annual leave that each serviceman* receives (well they obviously don't need it)


Discuss.........

Crack on.....................DT_Xtremez_09:

* For "serviceman" read man/woman/transgender or whatever is allowed to serve these days

 

[Shugster]

Already been done here ....

Only joking DT_Xtremez_26:. It's not often I agree with you O great facial haired one, but it is a fact that if people can't take their leave because of work commitments then there aren't enough bods.

We sometimes worked more hours where I used to work and if it was consistently the case, (Six months or more), the bosses would employ more people otherwise the unions would be all over them.

 

[muttywhitedog]

I dont believe it is a case of not being able to take the leave.

I do believe it is not always being able to take the leave when it suits the individual.

Having worked un an under-strength section that was in bed with BAe, the management simply could not let enough people go on leave when they wanted to because there always had to be a certain number of each rank/trade at work or else BAe would impose financial penalties.

 

[Tashy_Man]

I dont believe it is a case of not being able to take the leave.

I do believe it is not always being able to take the leave when it suits the individual.

Having worked un an under-strength section that was in bed with BAe, the management simply could not let enough people go on leave when they wanted to because there always had to be a certain number of each rank/trade at work or else BAe would impose financial penalties.

So they had too few personnel to run it efficiently and allow people to use their leave allowance.

A FAILING in management terms.

Crack on...............DT_Xtremez_09:

 

[muttywhitedog]

In that section, yes, but on the Harrier Sqn I served, there was a different approach by the Sqn Cdr. He set aside 5 weeks per year when there would be no flying (1 week at Easter, the last 2 weeks in August and 2 weeks over Xmas/NY). Although personnel were encouraged to take this leave they were not forced to. However it was made quite clear that:

a. If they had excess leave (>15 days) left and hadnt taken these periods, it would not be carried forward.

b. They would be loaned out to other sections or put on guard if there was no work on the Sqn over this "no fly period".

Clearly he knew that the aircraft didnt fix themselves, but he also made it quite clear that expecting a fortnight of gash days whilst putting in for 2 weeks leave for the busy period before or after this no fly fortnight wasnt going to happen either.

The take-up was about 70%, which worked very well. Those 30% were enough to ensure all ac were serviceable for post-leave flying. They were generally the childless members who preferred summer holidays in June or September.

 

[Realist78]

In that section, yes, but on the Harrier Sqn I served, there was a different approach by the Sqn Cdr. He set aside 5 weeks per year when there would be no flying (1 week at Easter, the last 2 weeks in August and 2 weeks over Xmas/NY). Although personnel were encouraged to take this leave they were not forced to. However it was made quite clear that:

a. If they had excess leave (>15 days) left and hadnt taken these periods, it would not be carried forward.

b. They would be loaned out to other sections or put on guard if there was no work on the Sqn over this "no fly period".

Clearly he knew that the aircraft didnt fix themselves, but he also made it quite clear that expecting a fortnight of gash days whilst putting in for 2 weeks leave for the busy period before or after this no fly fortnight wasnt going to happen either.

The take-up was about 70%, which worked very well. Those 30% were enough to ensure all ac were serviceable for post-leave flying. They were generally the childless members who preferred summer holidays in June or September.

Obviously one of the very few Sqn Cdr's who can appreciate this vision. Most hide their heads in sand and approach the idea of 'no fly' days as a message from the anti-christ!

 

[Craig855s]

In that section, yes, but on the Harrier Sqn I served, there was a different approach by the Sqn Cdr. He set aside 5 weeks per year when there would be no flying (1 week at Easter, the last 2 weeks in August and 2 weeks over Xmas/NY). Although personnel were encouraged to take this leave they were not forced to. However it was made quite clear that:

a. If they had excess leave (>15 days) left and hadnt taken these periods, it would not be carried forward.

b. They would be loaned out to other sections or put on guard if there was no work on the Sqn over this "no fly period".

Clearly he knew that the aircraft didnt fix themselves, but he also made it quite clear that expecting a fortnight of gash days whilst putting in for 2 weeks leave for the busy period before or after this no fly fortnight wasnt going to happen either.

The take-up was about 70%, which worked very well. Those 30% were enough to ensure all ac were serviceable for post-leave flying. They were generally the childless members who preferred summer holidays in June or September.

This is a very good idea, which is rare from an officer.

As for the OP, the leave situation highlights the fact that we are undermanned at the minute, and its only getting worse!! (however, with the scrapping of several fleets recently [nimord MRA4 & R1,Harrier, TN F3] then we probably wont actually see numbers drop in each section that remains)