Pay Banding

[MontyPlumbs]

If you look at the general tone of the thread (apart from the bitching). The general consensus is:

a) The admin trade should receive more money, especially the NCOs (I agree a low pay band Corporal should not be paid less than a high pay band SAC/JT)

b) Many admin guys agree that techies are not being paid "market rates" either.

We shouldn't bitch and moan about the shinies getting the higher pay band, to be fair there aren't many trades left on the lower range anyway.

What we (techies) should be doing is voting with our feet to show the buffoons in charge that we won't just sit and take it in the ar$e for poor pay and even worse conditions.

 

[True Blue Jack]

Will someone from TG17 please post a decent justification for getting the higher payband because its a mystery to me. I am not fishing here I just want to read something about your trade that I wasnt aware of which makes the whole thing make sense.

Failing that, does the official justification ever get published?

I have never seen a job evaluation review widely publicised, which is a shame because if we could all see in black & white what a year in the life of a Cpl Chef was really like we may be less inclined to complain about how much they get paid.

From a TG17 perspective, since our last job evaluation we have seen the frequency of our OOA deployments increase by a factor of 4; our trade footprint has been reduced in size by 30% yet many of the responsibilities that JPA was supposed to take away from us remain, while others are gradually being returned to us; even with a 30% decrease in the established size of our trade we are now massively undermanned and classed as a pinch-point trade.

These are some of the reasons I think have tipped the balance in our favour.

OK...I'll bite........Why should the techie have to tell the lazy ar$ed adminer that he is back ? The system should do that and any decent sqn adminer would know and action it automatically.

Come on Tashy. We're good, but our balls aren't made of crystal. On a nice tight-knit Sqn that should be as easy as you say but even that isn't guaranteed if the techie in question finishes a course and goes straight onto nights. However, my current AOR includes personnel from sections that are spread right across the station, nearly all on shift. I might not see any given individual for months at a time.

 

[spanners]

I have never seen a job evaluation review widely publicised, which is a shame because if we could all see in black & white what a year in the life of a Cpl Chef was really like we may be less inclined to complain about how much they get paid.

From a TG17 perspective, since our last job evaluation we have seen the frequency of our OOA deployments increase by a factor of 4; our trade footprint has been reduced in size by 30% yet many of the responsibilities that JPA was supposed to take away from us remain, while others are gradually being returned to us; even with a 30% decrease in the established size of our trade we are now massively undermanned and classed as a pinch-point trade.

These are some of the reasons I think have tipped the balance in our favour.

TBJ, I agree, seeing job evaluations would certainly be helpful, and maybe stop a bit of bickering between trades.

You state that TG17’s OOA deployments have increased by a factor of 4; I think every trade has seen a dramatic increase OOA deployments (by the way, is 4 accurate, or a guess?). All trades have been reduced in size, unless someone can name one that has increased, I remember at Lossie, as a Cpl on a Minor Servicing team having 10 JR’s on my shift, when I left there a few years ago, I was lucky if I had 5 guys on shift, yet the same and more jobs were required to be carried out.
Plus now, we all have the additional burden of self-administration, which, until a few years ago, was carried out by trained and skilled personnel.
A lot of trades are down on their uppers at the moment, but a move to the higher pay band is only part of the solution, what happens in a few years, when the same problems exist, yet there is no higher pay band to move up to?
If this is your reasoning for a move to the higher pay band, then I think just about any trade should immediately be moved to the higher pay band.

 

[tommo9999]

TBJ, I agree, seeing job evaluations would certainly be helpful, and maybe stop a bit of bickering between trades.

You state that TG17’s OOA deployments have increased by a factor of 4; I think every trade has seen a dramatic increase OOA deployments (by the way, is 4 accurate, or a guess?).

That bit is accurate across the trade but some ranks have suffered more than others.

 

[True Blue Jack]

I did my first OOA after 8 years' Service and had to volunteer to go out of turn even then. Now we are deploying every 2 years, which is where I got the factor of 4 from (it's actually quite conservative an estimate).

I know full well that the manning/OOA situation within TG17 is also mirrored within other trades. Metimmee asked for a TG17 opinion on why we should move to the higher pay scale and I offered my suggestions on some of the reasons I believe will have featured in the review. It is certainly not an exhaustive list and I have no way of knowing how much weight is applied to each criterion.

I share your concerns that once a trade is on the higher pay scale few options to improve retention are left. This is the situation TG1&2 are in at the moment and an awful lot will have to change before they can go back to complaining that their Virgin Atlantic baggage allowance is too small, which is when you can tell a techie is truly happy!

 

[MontyPlumbs]

....

I share your concerns that once a trade is on the higher pay scale few options to improve retention are left. This is the situation TG1&2 are in at the moment and an awful lot will have to change before they can go back to complaining that their Virgin Atlantic baggage allowance is too small, which is when you can tell a techie is truly happy!

Agreed, and as we regularly see, chucking money at a problem in a vain hope that it will go away will not work...15K retention bonuses for example.

I don't think that moving to the higher pay band will encourage any more people to sign up for the trade IMHO.

 

[spanners]

I share your concerns that once a trade is on the higher pay scale few options to improve retention are left. This is the situation TG1&2 are in at the moment and an awful lot will have to change before they can go back to complaining that their Virgin Atlantic baggage allowance is too small, which is when you can tell a techie is truly happy!

And this is the problem we face today and it’s going to take more than money to sort the problems we are all facing on a daily basis!

BTW, you are correct, Virgin Atlantic’s baggage allowance is so inadequate, well it was for 5 weeks in Hawaii!

 

[Mickwreay]

And its an aircraft technicians job to get aircraft in the air.

So, if a Sqn only flies 50% of its planned sorties due to ac being u/s, does that mean teccies should be on half pay?

Thought not.

If you were to compare, in % terms, aircraft serviceability across the RAF with pay being correct, I'd lay a fair wager that the clerks would win hands down.

Also remember that a lot of the teccy's pay & allowances is wrong because lazy-ar$ed gits like you dont bother telling your admin when you are back, and then bleat when 6 months' worth of LSA is recovered.

Maybe your right about the telling Admin staff when we've returned from OOA. But even when I have told them & asked the questions things still get f'd up. To then have some pup telling me "you'll get it next month" is just not good enough.

To be honest at Laarbruch I used to use the inept SHQ staff’s failings to my advantage, I would ask for my claim, only to be told they had lost it, kick off as this was the second time this had happened & they would normally say sorry mate we will sort it now! In truth I had never put the claim in but because they were so used to a culture of f'ups they paid me there & then! Says it all really!

There is no point in us slagging each other off here, but again I would say

“Show me an airport where the security guards & cooks get aid the same as the aircraft technicians”

 

[Shiny_Happy]

“Show me an airport where the security guards & cooks get aid the same as the aircraft technicians”

I believe that the medical teams treat people depending on need rather than status, so how much aid you receive depends on how much you need the aid.

 

[BJW]

Remind me, how many TG17 WO posts are there OOA? Last time I looked the answer was ZERO so based on part of your criteria your FS (doing the hard jobs in Bahrain) should be paid more than your WO! Indeed, if there is no deployable requirement for admin WOs should the trade structure not stop at FS and all of the current WO jobs be civilianised or regraded.

 

[FOMz]

I did my first OOA after 8 years' Service and had to volunteer to go out of turn even then. Now we are deploying every 2 years, which is where I got the factor of 4 from (it's actually quite conservative an estimate).

I know full well that the manning/OOA situation within TG17 is also mirrored within other trades. Metimmee asked for a TG17 opinion on why we should move to the higher pay scale and I offered my suggestions on some of the reasons I believe will have featured in the review. It is certainly not an exhaustive list and I have no way of knowing how much weight is applied to each criterion.

I share your concerns that once a trade is on the higher pay scale few options to improve retention are left. This is the situation TG1&2 are in at the moment and an awful lot will have to change before they can go back to complaining that their Virgin Atlantic baggage allowance is too small, which is when you can tell a techie is truly happy!

So using your example, as TG9 Sgts are DWR ever 16-18 months and TG9 Cpls are DWR ever 18-24months, then we should be on the higher pay band....will it happen? will it fook.

Hate to say it TBJ, your clutching at straws to find justification here.

The fact is - you're getting it off the apron strings of the RN and Army shineys, who have a lot more clout with the PRB than you do.

 

[tommo9999]

I'm not really bothered how they arrived at the decision - but they did!! Bring on the extra dosh, I'll find many ways to spend it. Yahoo!!

 

[Talk Wrench]

An interjection

An interjection

Off Topic


Sorry guys and gals.

Everyone is bitching about getting paid more for going away from home base for 4 months.

during the last 2 years, I have spent 19 months away from home.

I'm a civvy.

I don't get any pay bands. Only pay.



TW

 

[FOMz]

You can get the next few rounds in then Tommo.

 

[True Blue Jack]

So using your example, as TG9 Sgts are DWR ever 16-18 months and TG9 Cpls are DWR ever 18-24months, then we should be on the higher pay band....will it happen? will it fook.

Hate to say it TBJ, your clutching at straws to find justification here.

The fact is - you're getting it off the apron strings of the RN and Army shineys, who have a lot more clout with the PRB than you do.

I highlighted the major changes to TG17 since our last job evaluation because, in my opinion, they are what have tipped the balance in our favour. There are many more considerations than OOA turnaround times - exactly what is a closely guarded secret (or we would all know what we had to say to be guaranteed the high pay band!).

We may be hanging onto the RN's apron strings but the AGC(SPS) are far less versatile than we are. I honestly expected to see the RN Wtrs down-banded instead of us going up.

The fact is - our case was written well enough that the people who make these decisions agreed we should be up-banded. I'm going to enjoy it while we have it but I don't expect to retain the high pay band after the next review, particularly if the recruiting drive pays dividends and OOA commitments reduce.

 

[FOMz]

I think a few people will be in for a shock.....................

 

[muttywhitedog]

Mate, I know you are defending your trade, and usually you make good points, but I think your post above is a bit out of order.

As a sqn adj, surely you know how hard sqn guys work (as hard as most sqn adjs do!). Most of the time, unserviceability rates are caused by supply issues (not the people, the funding and the system)/aircrew or idiotic management decisions, not the grafters on the shop floor.

I was only replying to the fishing trip that I quoted, merely highlighting that not all errors in pay are down to the clerk, more often than not down to the arrivals system, which is still catching people out.

I know damn well how hard my teccies work, and they know damn well how hard their clerks work to make sure they get paid correctly and also they know how to claim for things correctly. Nobody on my sqn will get left to sort it themselves when they want showing how to claim for something on JPA, no matter how busy we are - it is my underlying principle on the sqn that we are there to help, not interfere or hinder.

I would therefore find it both surprising and disappointing if any one of my TG 1&2 personnel were to be anything other than pleased that their TG17 colleagues have been given a pay rise.

For those of you who have had a bad experience with clerks, I can only apologise. Nobody should have to wait months for their pay shortfall to be sorted - there's a thing called Early Payment in Cash (EPIC), which can be issued there and then, and recovered later.

 

[Humble Scribe]

I think we're getting carried away here with something that is still a rumour. If it does happen then great, but I still don't expect to see Tommo getting a round in let alone a couple!! DT_Xtremez_28:

I can't justify an increase in pay band for TG 17 to the same of somebody from TG 1 or 2. At the end of the day it's about consequence of error and whilst our errors may feck people off it won't cost them their lives. We are here to look after our personnel though and as the greatest assets are our personnel then surely we should be recompensed accordingly? To me that doesn't mean the same pay as techies but certainly we can justify the same pay banding as Chefs, RAFP & especially WO Stackers. DT_Xtremez_15:

The answer in my mind is specialist pay where people are paid for their specialisations when they are employed in that particular area ie Fg Pay, Tech Pay etc. This way we can ensure that personnel employed in particular areas are properly paid for what they are doing on a day to day basis.

In the meantime I await confirmation of the pay banding before choosing my next tax free motor!!

 

[FOMz]

Can you justify a Sgt Scribbly getting the same a Sgt Air Traffic Controller? Responsibility parity? I think not.

 

[Humble Scribe]

Can you justify a Sgt Scribbly getting the same a Sgt Air Traffic Controller? Responsibility parity? I think not.

Personally I could justify a SAC Scribbly getting the same as a Sgt ATC, but I'm looking through the BMW brochure right now DT_Xtremez_28: