Techie bonus

A chief at work reckons he's been told by a mate on Op Toral that a techie pay bonus is coming in April....seemingly Toral were briefed this and he fed it back to the UK. Source is usually sound....

£1600pa for FSs in TG1, 5, 13.

 

[Dan_Brown]

People would have more fulfilling careers if we moved towards a 22 year system, similar to the Army. Leave or commission at the 22year point.

A 39 yo WO with the potential to serve until age 60, impossible to sack, £50k plus a year - why would you leave? Meanwhile the guys below are stuck in rank; no amount of STEM or RAFA will help.

We are struggling to keep people as it is, just look at the all the FTRS posts, extensions of service, upping of age limits etc, so forcing people to leave after 22yrs is a non-starter.

Further, why?! We aren't infantry, the RAF don't make us, break us and boot us out, we have some very clever and experienced personnel, so why force people out just as they are becoming interesting?

The military has become more of a job than a career, so they need to make it attractive to make people stay, not impose archaic rules.

 

[4everAD]

We are struggling to keep people as it is, just look at the all the FTRS posts, extensions of service, upping of age limits etc, so forcing people to leave after 22yrs is a non-starter.

Further, why?! We aren't infantry, the RAF don't make us, break us and boot us out, we have some very clever and experienced personnel, so why force people out just as they are becoming interesting?

The military has become more of a job than a career, so they need to make it attractive to make people stay, not impose archaic rules.

Absolutely, getting rid of well trained people just because they don't get promoted is madness. I'm a strong believer in letting SACs serve as long as they want to, it works for the police. Not everyone is interested in promoting, if you changed the pay scales to give incremental rises for as long as someone stays in their rank you might retain people.

 

[Talk Wrench]

Here's a radical idea, discussed last week with a serving WO.

Upon finishing basic training, new techs to be go on to phase two trade training as SAC's.

Get rid of SAC Tech rank.

Upon completion of training, the SAC becomes a Tech Corporal with the appropriate pay.

After 5 satisfactory years of out of training service, those who achieve gain promotion to Tech Sergeant along with the pay grade relevant to the rank.

Those who don't achieve or don't want promotion, exit on their terms of engagement commensurate with the Tech Corporal rank.

Chef Tech stays.

Benefits. Good substantive promotions at the 7 to 10 year points with good pay.

Downside, probably completely unworkable

However, to increase the retention of personnel, could a rethink of the tech trades rank structures be part of the solution?

I honestly don't know the answer to that.

 

[mad_collie]

People would have more fulfilling careers if we moved towards a 22 year system, similar to the Army. Leave or commission at the 22year point.

A 39 yo WO with the potential to serve until age 60, impossible to sack, £50k plus a year - why would you leave? Meanwhile the guys below are stuck in rank; no amount of STEM or RAFA will help.

Because you can't tolerate the bullsh1t any more. Plenty of jobs out there that pay better then the military, with none of the cr4ppy overheads.

 

[Barch]

On completion of Phase 2 training SAC Tech.
then
After 2 year + Assessments promote to Jnr Corporal.
then
After 2 year + Assessments promote to Snr Corporal.
then
After 1 years + Assessment promote to Jnr Sergeant.
then
After 2 years + Assessments promote to Snr Sergeant.
then
After 2 years + Assessments promote to Jnr Chief.
then
After 2 years + Assessments promote to Snr Chief.
then
After 2 years + Assessments promote to Jnr FS
etc. etc.

Simple system, no great pay rises between the incremental ranks but decent from Cpl to Sgt, Sgt to Chief and Chief to FS

 

[muttywhitedog]

Because you can't tolerate the bullsh1t any more. Plenty of jobs out there that pay better then the military, with none of the cr4ppy overheads.

I'm still amazed as to why anyone would stay beyond their IPP if there's so much more money to be earned outside the RAF with such better T&C. Would those who have stayed care to amplify as to why they have done so?

 

[Tin basher]

I think that perhaps the grass is not universally greener on the other side and that not every salary is larger, nor every job more fulfilling and that all the perks are fantastic etc etc. Rather the ones who left and just got jobs don't mention it too often and those that landed in a nice place take the opportunity to remind everybody just how rosy civvy street can be. I know an ex-techie SNCO who drives a delivery van for a firm of motor factors, an ex techie CPL who drives for UPS, a building site bulldozer/digger hydraulic repair guy who's an ex Techie Cpl, a life of van, mud, oil, cold, wet, etc etc. By the same token I also know of an old SAC of mine who is now commercial airline pilot and doing very nicely thank you. Civvy street is not as universally awesome as some would have you believe.

 

[busby1971]

If someone gave me £200, after tax, for nothing I’d be happy for a long weekend, wouldn’t retain me any longer, however, I would be marginally happier whilst I was in.

 

[unruly1986]

Because you can't tolerate the bullsh1t any more. Plenty of jobs out there that pay better then the military, with none of the cr4ppy overheads.

The amount of WOs staying in, coupled with the report that states that once people reach WO, they tend to stay until pension age, contradicts that.

 

[unruly1986]

Absolutely, getting rid of well trained people just because they don't get promoted is madness. I'm a strong believer in letting SACs serve as long as they want to, it works for the police. Not everyone is interested in promoting, if you changed the pay scales to give incremental rises for as long as someone stays in their rank you might retain people.

You appear to contradict yourself.

Letting SACs stay as long as they want? Obviously none are staying, one reason is lack of career and pay progression i.e. no promotion.

Incremental pay rises for time in rank? I thought SACs would happily stay in, works for the police?

Under your scheme you’d have a 50 yr old SAC earning more than the 30 yr old Sgt. Why bother promoting if you don’t need to?

 

[Barch]

You appear to contradict yourself.

Letting SACs stay as long as they want? Obviously none are staying, one reason is lack of career and pay progression i.e. no promotion.

Incremental pay rises for time in rank? I thought SACs would happily stay in, works for the police?

Under your scheme you’d have a 50 yr old SAC earning more than the 30 yr old Sgt. Why bother promoting if you don’t need to?

What is wrong with a 50 year old SAC?

Pay should be based on ability and experience not just rank.

A CT that has spent his whole 22 year career in Eng Records and moves to a squadron isn't a better liney than a 5 year SAC but the rank and pay say he is and that is wrong.

 

[4everAD]

You appear to contradict yourself.

Letting SACs stay as long as they want? Obviously none are staying, one reason is lack of career and pay progression i.e. no promotion.

Incremental pay rises for time in rank? I thought SACs would happily stay in, works for the police?

Under your scheme you’d have a 50 yr old SAC earning more than the 30 yr old Sgt. Why bother promoting if you don’t need to?

Not contradicting myself at all, the sacs would stay in because of incremental progression without the need for promotion. And yes youd have very experienced sacs earning more than cpls or maybe new sgts. The same as the police where experienced PCs earn the same/more as new sgts.

 

[muttywhitedog]

What is wrong with a 50 year old SAC?

Pay should be based on ability and experience not just rank.

A CT that has spent his whole 22 year career in Eng Records and moves to a squadron isn't a better liney than a 5 year SAC but the rank and pay say he is and that is wrong.

I've been saying this for years. By all means have techie pay, but pay it when the techies are applying the skills they have on a daily basis. There is no justification in paying a techie the same money for instructing at Halton than on a Typhoon Sqn deployed on ops. If you are not directly involved in the maintenance of the aircraft, then your skill level is not as high, and you should be paid less.

 

[Downsizer]

I've been saying this for years. By all means have techie pay, but pay it when the techies are applying the skills they have on a daily basis. There is no justification in paying a techie the same money for instructing at Halton than on a Typhoon Sqn deployed on ops. If you are not directly involved in the maintenance of the aircraft, then your skill level is not as high, and you should be paid less.

In principle correct, but I had no choice in my current post and I don't touch an aircraft. Why should someone be unfairly financially punished?

 

[unruly1986]

Not contradicting myself at all, the sacs would stay in because of incremental progression without the need for promotion. And yes youd have very experienced sacs earning more than cpls or maybe new sgts. The same as the police where experienced PCs earn the same/more as new sgts.

Hope I’m not coming across as an arse; there is an element of devils advocate here Nd I hope you value the debate as much as I do.

How can a Sgt look to a SAC for guidance when they are the person with the auths?

There is no more money for pay. How can we start giving SACs infinite (or vastly increased) pay scales to work through without the responsibility?

 

[unruly1986]

What is wrong with a 50 year old SAC?

Pay should be based on ability and experience not just rank.

A CT that has spent his whole 22 year career in Eng Records and moves to a squadron isn't a better liney than a 5 year SAC but the rank and pay say he is and that is wrong.

What is wrong with that is that we would potentially have a glut of people leaving with too much experience in too short a timeframe.

 

[Barch]

In principle correct, but I had no choice in my current post and I don't touch an aircraft. Why should someone be unfairly financially punished?

You wouldn't be unfairly punished, you just wouldn't get as much as someone in a techie job that has just been promoted to the same rank.

 

[Barch]

What is wrong with that is that we would potentially have a glut of people leaving with too much experience in too short a timeframe.

You will have to explain that to me.

 

[4everAD]

Hope I’m not coming across as an arse; there is an element of devils advocate here Nd I hope you value the debate as much as I do.

How can a Sgt look to a SAC for guidance when they are the person with the auths?

There is no more money for pay. How can we start giving SACs infinite (or vastly increased) pay scales to work through without the responsibility?

More than happy to debate this without taking offence and I'm not stupid enough to think my suggestions would ever be taken on!
With regards to extra pay:
You'd save money by having to train less people as your turn around would be less. Also the return on the trg investment would be to our long term benefit and not their next employers.
With a bigger more experienced junior base you could probably get away with less management positions. I'm sure that you don't really need as many officers/sncos as we have.

 

[muttywhitedog]

In principle correct, but I had no choice in my current post and I don't touch an aircraft. Why should someone be unfairly financially punished?

By virtue of your current job, your skill level will be less than your oppo on a typhoon sqn. There are techies out there who won’t have touched any aircraft since the harrier. Is it right that they should be paid the same as someone fixing a typhoon?