All Sigs Staffies to stay "in-trade"!!

Discussion in 'Royal Signals' started by thegeezer, Oct 11, 2006.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. I just got some good news from the admin office...........there's a first! :D

    According to Glasgow, due to the way that job roles in the Corps have changed over recent years, all staffies in the Corps are still "in-trade" and as such should remain in the higher pay range on promotion from Sgt to SSgt so all staffies will move onto high band (assuming they were already on high band as Sgts) from April 2007.

    I don't know about the other Corps - it looks like the Sigs have got something right at last!!

    I think they will officially announce it at the Corps Conference this month.
  2. As this is currently Corps rumour, a hypothetical question if i may.

    If all SSgt in the Corps are to be in trade on the higher pay range, where is the financial incentive for people to undertake Supervisory training, and the extra responsibility that intails?

    There are, i suppose, ways how the situation would be workable, however i can invisige problems in the "Command" structure between SSgt Yeoman/Foreman/Supvr IS/Supvr Radio and SSgt in trade. I dont know where the Corps is trying to go with this. It would appear, at first glance, that they are either trying to add value to the SSgt in trade/RD Roster or devalue the Supervisory rosters.

    But, as i said, its just a rumour which i doubt we will hear any more about.
  3. SSgt in trade should be done on a case by case basis. If you are filling an LSN which means you need to be technical then you keep your high band pay, if you are filling an RD LSN then you drop to low pay. Only fair way of doing it. It would not be fair for a Tech Tp SSgt getting paid more than a Liney Tp SSgt if they are both doing RD duties. If the tech is in the TM troop doing tech stuff, then its a different matter, and the LSN should stipulate this.
  4. Why does it have to be about money money money. How about wanting to be the best you can, and anyway, the promotion prospects for supervisory trade is far better than "In trade" (I am talking primarily about techs here)
  5. That is too complicated and filled with problems. It is bad management to pay a SSgt for 2/3 years on high band and then expect them to suffer a drop in pay when he/she takes up a new RD post at MCM s request.

    If it is to happen better that all SSgts make the move regardless and as the guru pointed out, those that have the skills to go Supvr will go down that route anyway especially as it has the promotional potential of Lt Col. It may come as news but many soldiers are in for the full career :wink:
  6. I'll tell you why Guru. What is the main reason for me being in the Army? To earn a f*cking living of course. Would I do it for nothing? Would I do it if I was a millionaire? Would I b*llocks. There are, of course, many other important considerations to be taken into account but in most cases, pay is the single most important factor when discussing employment.
  7. Codhead you missed gurus point, he is saying you would not base your decision on taking a supervisory route purely on pay. Certainly its a factor but there is more to it than that.

    I reckon Supvr take up would be just the same regardless of pay band. remember there are only so many non Supvr SSgt slots to go round.
  8. Apologies. Perhaps I missed the whole point. Reminds of my Tp OC whilst on my class 1. He couldn't understand why techs were motivated by the £10k bonus, thought we were there for the fun of it and that we should consider ourselves lucky to be paid at all. Sad sad man.
  9. Codhead, you looked at my point in a short sighted way in that as a FofS and YofS (and certainly Sup IS) you will almost certainly be promoted to WOII (97 pc for FofS and 98 for YofS IIRC) and you will be picking up your Staffy at the same, if not earlier than your "In Trade" peers. You will not lose out, you will just be not earning more than them, so where do you lose out, apart from taking the p*ss in the bar?
  10. Although there are still significant differences between FofS and the other supervisory trades, I reckon being paid a tiny bit more is reasonable reward for a year's basic trg, a year on T1, a year doing TMAs and 2 years on the FofS course. Then there is the fact that they have to go through a selection board and get grilled by senior officers etc etc.

    RDs don't have to do any of that. Once they get their Class 1 out of the way, a sizeable proportion sack all pretence at comms and move into a purely military training role. RD is far easier to get into than the supervisory trades. The single difficult hurdle is SSgt to WO2, as it's a promotion bottleneck, but all they have to do is get lots of courses on their CV - there's no selection board, no interviews, no planning exercises and all the associated pressure. The first selection board they usually attend is LECB.

    I firmly believe that non-supervisory SSgts should remain on the lower pay band. It's also an incentive for troop staffies to get selected for RD WO2 and get that pay jump. It's only fair that supervisory staffies get it a rank earlier because they have to go through all the hoops much earlier in their career.

    Yes, but so does RD. There are a few Lt Col QM posts out there. Far more than there are Tfc IS slots at field rank, for example. I think there are only a tiny handful of TOT and Tfc Lt Cols, so I'm not sure if your argument is entirely solid.
  11. Who said anything about missing out? It was just the "why is everything about money money money" bit that grabbed my attention. Money is the reason we're here in the first place (in most cases anyway).
  12. How many to LE?
  13. I am IS Engr low band staffie working in an all arms office, the Colour and the Cpl Major are high band. They just take the piss! We all basically do the same job and I'm the one with IS background and subject matter expertise. For the supervisory positions, there climb through the rank structure is quicker and more assured than on the RD side.

    Whats the average age of SSgt FofS/YofS, I bet its alot lower than new IS staffies working in trade. I was 35, I'm not RD orientated in shape or form and I dont want to job steal off anyone who is!

    I'm waiting for the All Arms IS stream, maybe just maybe I could get my Warrant before I get out!! plus without stepping on anyone toes within the Corps.. But at the end of day it goes dark and if you dont look after yourself nobody does, we are all just LSN and Regt Numbers.
  14. Good points, mind you I'm sure Infantry CSgts are on low pay band though - sorry if I've misinterpreted the 'Colour' in your post.

    Higher pay banding is a reasonable outcome of (successfully) jumping through "the hoops" to get onto the supervisory rosters. Selection onto the Supvr IS roster has been pretty tough the last few years and lots of people were on their one and only shot at the board. It could be argued that many people didn't get through who might otherwise have stood a better chance if the whole system was more mature. Or vice versa, but there we go.
  15. I beg to differ. While the cash is a factor, how many of you out there in Cyber World joined up for the cash??