It has been suggested before but alas, it doesn't interest me. Now CASWO.....a real chance to shake it up and I wouldn't be a political puppet!!! .DT_Xtremez_30:
Now who could have suggested that?
CASWO it is then. Bring it on!
It has been suggested before but alas, it doesn't interest me. Now CASWO.....a real chance to shake it up and I wouldn't be a political puppet!!! .DT_Xtremez_30:
It has been suggested before but alas, it doesn't interest me. Now CASWO.....a real chance to shake it up and I wouldn't be a political puppet!!! .DT_Xtremez_30:
How very egalitarian; but rather wide of the mark. Branch Sponsors are not some form of Branch/Trade TU representative. Their function, through the Head of Branch is integral to meeting the RAF’s key requirement of sufficient, capable and motivated personnel in delivering operational capability. Their main function is to ensure the branch and trades' structural sustainability to ensure that it meets the requirements of the Service and Defence.
Ours works through the Head of Branch to CAS to ensure that the Pers Branch, PTI Trade, and Pers(Sp) Trade meet their operational tasks within the constraints (in particular manpower numbers) placed on them by the Service.
Full details of Head of Branch and Branch and Trade Sponsors' responsibilities are published on the intranet in GAI1058.
It has been suggested before but alas, it doesn't interest me. Now CASWO.....a real chance to shake it up and I wouldn't be a political puppet!!! .DT_Xtremez_30:
and I wouldn't be a political puppet!!! .DT_Xtremez_30:
And there's the reason why you won't get it! Our Lords and Masters cannot do radical change - which, in my opinion, is exactly what is required.
And the implied task therein is keeping the branch and trade informed and taking on board valid concerns and comments. Effort needs to go both ways in today's modern Airforce. So far there appears to be too much hiding behind process and not enough good leadership!
The last major change (the loss of over 300 posts) was communicated down to stations in a letter directly from the last Head of Branch.
No problem with that. My point was that the Branch/Trade Sponsor isn't there to make sure that the Pers/PTI/Pers(Sp) cadres are heard; but, that the Pers/PTI/Pers(Sp) cadres are meet the Service's requirments (perhaps some former cadres tried to do the former at the expense of the latter, which is why they no longer exist). But yes, it would be nice to know what is going on every now and again; however, I understand that things are - perhaps excessively - fluid at the moment and - perhaps - the branch/trade sponsors can't say anything new with a degree of certainty at the moment - the goalposts aren't just on wheels they are rockets. The last major change (the loss of over 300 posts) was communicated down to stations in a letter directly from the last Head of Branch.
For what it is worth you would get my vote. Why didn't you apply in the last bidding process?
I'm still in shock that the CASWO has to interview potential SWO's - whomever made that decision should be shot!
Too kind. I was OOA and didn't realise it was up for grabs. Off Topic I'm still in shock that the CASWO has to interview potential SWO's - whomever made that decision should be shot!Off Topic