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.

 

[unruly1986]

You will have to explain that to me.

Let’s say that we decide, right now, that every single SAC can stay until age 60. Over the next x amount of years they will work up a ‘techie’ pay stream/increment/whatever you want to call it.

Typical age of SAC must be 18-25 so a 7 yr ‘window’.

There are only so many SACs you can have at any one time, so the recruitment pipeline would be halted/slimmed down.

In 2055 you’d start to see our 25 yr old SACs leaving, through to 2062 when our current 18 yr olds reach retirement age. A 7 yr window where we lose all our experience, and due to the fact we haven’t trained anyone in years, we have no chance of bolstering the SAC ranks.

Of course this is the worst case scenario. In the real world you’d likely have people leaving at a range of points, but then again, wasn’t your idea to try and keep people in long term? Also we don’t know what the requirement for manpower will be in 2050+.

 

[Downsizer]

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?

I get your point. But tomorrow I could be posted to one. And that I think is the flaw. Sure some people have avoided aircraft for years, but as I said I had no choice and was posted to a job i didn't want. I would feel penalised if my oppo on a sqn is getting more when I had no choice. Additionally if you make some jobs financially less appealing they will be even harder to fill. I know of several FS posts that they are struggling to fill currently (all would be off aircraft, but in trade) so your suggestion would make it even harder.

No simple solution to this.....unless say you only join to work on a Sqn and can do nothing else. Bad idea IMHO.

 

[Talk Wrench]

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?

Using this logic, an SAC mech on the flight line should earn far more than an SAC Shiney or Supplier (as examples).

In line with your post though MWD how can the RAF correctly place the value of aircraft technicians in different specialisations? How can you compare a Chf Tech in a CAMO role, to a Chf Tech running a trade desk on a Squadron? Two extremely different roles
but with the same underpinning knowledge and requirements for the rank.

 

[Barch]

Let’s say that we decide, right now, that every single SAC can stay until age 60. Over the next x amount of years they will work up a ‘techie’ pay stream/increment/whatever you want to call it.

Typical age of SAC must be 18-25 so a 7 yr ‘window’.

There are only so many SACs you can have at any one time, so the recruitment pipeline would be halted/slimmed down.

In 2055 you’d start to see our 25 yr old SACs leaving, through to 2062 when our current 18 yr olds reach retirement age. A 7 yr window where we lose all our experience, and due to the fact we haven’t trained anyone in years, we have no chance of bolstering the SAC ranks.

Of course this is the worst case scenario. In the real world you’d likely have people leaving at a range of points, but then again, wasn’t your idea to try and keep people in long term? Also we don’t know what the requirement for manpower will be in 2050+.

You keep the people that you want to keep, assessments will weed out those that are unsuitable, change of personnal circumstnce such as marriage and kids will have others leaving then there are those that are unfit and the occasional defence review.
Have a look around a civilian workplace like BA Maintenance at Heathrow or Cardiff and you will see that the age range is from year 1 apprentice to 60 LAE.

 

[Billy Whizz]

Promotion quotas higher this year than the last 3 or 4. Signing people on cos there are huge gaps at CT & FS. Facts are there are huge retention issue. Won't bite at the coward comment, I might bite into a few campaign medals

 

[vim_fuego]

No bonus/retention scheme will be perfect. If you can capture the targeted people you just have to suck up the fact that 5% (guessed for the sake of this thread) of those we all know are avoiding aircraft will get some of it. Take flying pay...years ago you only got it if you were in a flying role and flying 'x' hours a year. A few too many smoking holes in the ground were created by people 'nipping back' into a cockpit to get those few hours they needed to re-qualify despite being woefully skill-faded from shining their trousers up behind a desk. For safety's sake it was changed so that all aircrew got it no matter what they did (pretty much). Its just the way it had to be.

Despite those figures looking a little on the low side why not just rejoice you're getting something? Doesn't stop those with the power giving those that blatantly don't deserve the sh1tty end of the stick as much as possible does it?

 

[muttywhitedog]

Using this logic, an SAC mech on the flight line should earn far more than an SAC Shiney or Supplier (as examples).

Nice fishing trip, but competence-based pay could be just as easily applied to any rank and trade on the HR system. The facility is there (Flying pay being a prime example). It just needs sign-off.

Downsizer - I get your point, but I cannot see the value in giving an extra lump sum or pay rise to someone who, if posted back to the front line, would have to go through a very long and expensive Q course, before spending a long and expensive period being 100% supervised. There's only a certain amount of money available, and it should (IMHO) be thrown at those who deserve it the most.

 

[unruly1986]

You keep the people that you want to keep, assessments will weed out those that are unsuitable, change of personnal circumstnce such as marriage and kids will have others leaving then there are those that are unfit and the occasional defence review.
Have a look around a civilian workplace like BA Maintenance at Heathrow or Cardiff and you will see that the age range is from year 1 apprentice to 60 LAE.

Hang on, I thought we were keeping everybody - isn’t that the goal?

 

[Talk Wrench]

Nice fishing trip, but competence-based pay could be just as easily applied to any rank and trade on the HR system. The facility is there (Flying pay being a prime example). It just needs sign-off.

Not a fishing trip at all MWD and you know that.

However, your statement which refers to "on the HR system" does raise an eyebrow.

The HR system is something of an enigma. How can people in the HR system indeed understand the skills and value of a Technician (nowadays a loose term) when they have no experience of being a technician? It all boils down to how, or who can justify the value of someone.

HR isn't my area of responsibility so I'm not really qualified to make such a statement, but maybe you could explain how HR decides the value of someone without knowing them?

 

[muttywhitedog]

Not a fishing trip at all MWD and you know that.

However, your statement which refers to "on the HR system" does raise an eyebrow.

The HR system is something of an enigma. How can people in the HR system indeed understand the skills and value of a Technician (nowadays a loose term) when they have no experience of being a technician? It all boils down to how, or who can justify the value of someone.

HR isn't my area of responsibility so I'm not really qualified to make such a statement, but maybe you could explain how HR decides the value of someone without knowing them?

Sure. Both my current job and the MOD use oracle based payroll. Within it is an area for granting additional payments. In my current job, those who are first aiders, fire marshals etc get an annual payment. It’s simple to administer. So, as long as someone comes up with a financial figure, then it’s a doddle to add, just like flying pay is. The challenge is to come up with a figure. That’s what trade sponsors should be doing.

 

[busby1971]

It’s not normally HR who place a value on what a role is worth, most companies have or use a formula that adds up all the variables, puts them in a box, and then taps the box with a wand says a majic word and out comes a decision about how much a job is worth compared to all the others in the Company. If the organisations rate is below the current market rate you might get a market premium if there are recruitment or retention issues, and if the organisation wants to.

Some organisations choose to pay below the market rate for their entire workforce, may be they have other benefits to compensate, may be they can’t afford to pay more, there can be many reasons for it. What you need to understand is that an Organisation normally only has one pot of cash budgetted for salary, if they give one group more of this then another has to go without.

HR do normally have a input on this, but from my experience it is to make sure the process is followed fairly, managers can be very biased, and that the right data goes into the box.

Personnally, I’m against time promotion as it doesn’t work in a smaller organisation that the RAF is today, there‘s much better ways to retain and reward people that can cause fewer embedded issues than this ever did.

 

[Barch]

Hang on, I thought we were keeping everybody - isn’t that the goal?

I've just reread the whole thread and nobody has mentioned keeping everybody.

 

[Dazzy26]

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?

So playing a bit of devils advocate, what about the software specialist (and I'm not one) who writes the software code/programme for say a self defence suite that in a hostile environment stops that aircraft getting shot down. Is it right that they get paid less?

 

[muttywhitedog]

So playing a bit of devils advocate, what about the software specialist (and I'm not one) who writes the software code/programme for say a self defence suite that in a hostile environment stops that aircraft getting shot down. Is it right that they get paid less?

As I said - its up to the trade sponsor. Its a difficult choice to choose who is worthy and who isn't. But if everyone gets some, then it is spread very thinly and, as others have alluded, possibly at the expense of the SAC Mechs who drop a pay band.

 

[Forestfan]

The trouble is, as has been discussed, is if you penalise the software writer/instructor/QA etc person, then you struggle to fill those roles. So somebody gets pinged and eventually leaves through job dissatisfaction, or because they're living in shit accommodation on PAYD away from the family home doing a job they didn't ask for - everybody loses.

The draft pay award as I see it targets those with the immediate high levels of responsibility and accountability.

Contraversial:-
The only way to recognise those guys doing the Op thing regularly compared to others is better financial recompense for when they're deployed. An increased allowance could be paid for by removing a chunk of X-factor from all those who are Medically Non-deployable. A number of people have opted for Reduced Separation, restricting their days away from Unit to 35 or less, for which they get reduced X-factor. That might help, and also motivate a few more people to push for an increased med cat rather than taking the easy route. Maybe someone needs to do the maths.

We are not getting any more people, so the burden on those at the sharp end won't change. FTRS is not the answer either - I think there's more benefit to giving people bespoke engagement extensions, and you can potentially keep the right people, as Barch alluded to.

 

[unruly1986]

An increased allowance could be paid for by removing a chunk of X-factor from all those who are Medically Non-deployable.

Disagree completely (and I’m Fully deployable).

What happens when an illness is caused by the service?

What should happen is that people are rewarded sufficiently when they deploy. Look at the Aussies - $100/day extra. An additional $100/day on top of that if they go to Afghan (I shit you not).

 

[Forestfan]

As am I.

Then we're stuck with what we've got - at least there may be a techie bonus. Nothing is going to change without giving something up in return. I wonder where the estimated £8.3M cost of the bonus is coming from if it's signed off....

 

[vaginator]

Any updates?

 

[Barch]

Any updates?

I would think that they are using the current crisis as an excuse not to even look at things like this never mind making a decision on them.

 

[vim_fuego]

In these tough times we should all be sharing the load of excess spending to keep the whole country afloat...

*::looks in civvy pay packet and delights at size of bonus::*