Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by baffman, Sep 28, 2008.
The heart of the site is the forum area, including:
from today's Sunday Telegraph
Cannot have a Union. Doesn't work. And if you say its not a Union, well I disagree. It's the first step towards it, and it's completely incompatible with the nature of the role of the Armed Forces. You cannot dictate terms of when and where you soldier when you are the first line of defence for that nation.
And who exactly are you posting something like that for your first post? Journo? Armynet Admin? Brass? Union agitator?
I have to admit absolute befuddlement at the resistance and fear which greets the idea of your founding a BAFF.
I grew up as the son of a US officer; I served myself. There is an Air Force Association, the US Naval Institute, the AUSA (Association of the US Army), and a Marine Corps League. Never once in my entire time growing up or in service myself, had I ever heard any of these organizations referred to even tangentially as "unions". If going on strike was ever spoken of, it was in the mode of absurd humor--US military personnel don't go on strike, and we don't have a union. The fact that the Dutch military does have a union is greeted with some humor and disdain by US military personnel, "What, are they going to go on strike when there's a war?" And yet we have the same service organizations which you're attempting to organize, and everyone seems to fear you'll start "organizing" the squaddies.
I'm sorry, it's just not scanning for me.
I am alas afraid in agreement. What's the point if the organisation has no teeth. The only way it will develop a bite is if it can ballot its members to withold their labour. A slippery slope. It is and will only ever be a lobby group and not a very influential one at that. The police service have a 'Federation' and look how effective that was over the recent pay 'dispute'.
In my view, what BAFF fail to mention is that if it ever gets of the ground, is that they will expect its members to fund it. I.E. you. They may offer things like free legal advice, when you have had too much beer, but to my mind the whole idea is severely flawed. It's full of ex serving officers, who I am sure have good interests at heart, but I guarantee you that if it gets off the ground they won't be doing it for free. A good idea in principle, but like most good ideas, it needs further thought. That's my twopence anyway.
Trigger! This campaign is about a professional staff association like the Association of the United States Army - not a union. Indeed the Dutch have military associations which call themselves unions, and even they don't go on strike, so why should a British professional association more closely modelled on the AUSA go on strike?
How you call Y_L trigger is beyond me. Try reading their post again.
You want to spend a bit more money on your website before you come looking for recruits here mate. Not quite up there with the other 'Unions' sites is it? Looks rather amateurish.
Thanks. Yup, that should clinch the debate about representation!
The point of the link was the information there about the status of a professional staff association, whether it would be a union and what other models had been looked at, like the Association of the United States Army. In order to be helpful, we will quote it here:
Been done, mate. Not a union. With or without quotes.
If the enemy has a union too, you could get ACAS to sort out who wins the battle. Happy Days
Although the Police Federation doesn't have the sort of power that Trades Unions do, it does have it's functions established in law (see the report by Lord Edmund Davies).
One of the functions given to the Police Federation is the efficiency of the service. This has been deemed to mean that the Federation can challenge operational matters where such may impinge upon the conditions of service etc of the Federated Ranks.
An Army Federation wouldn't need the same to be effective.
One of the ways in which the Police Federation can gain leverage is that public opinion can be channelled through them and public support for such institutions is strong. An Army Federation would possibly have even more weight in this respect.
What a Federation would achieve is a platform. At present it's either ex-servicemen and women who can speak in public, it's forums such as this or it's the 'official' side's views.
A Federation, sanctioned by the powers, would redress this.
The biggest problem and one that's difficult to avoid, is that the chosen Federation officers will soon become out of touch, have to rely upon a network of local representatives, become a talking-shop and will be seen by some as a gravy-train.
I speak as an ex-soldier, ex-copper and ex-Police Federation rep.
If we were to have some sort of parallel to the Police Federation, I would rather it was run by that twat who was i/c the firemen's union than the self-serving self-aggrandising self-important nomarks who inhabit BAFF.
And you may wish to look around this site longer before gobbing off. Most, if not all, of the BAFF groundwork was proposed and discussed by members of Arrse (indeed Good CO set up a hidden board for the people who were formulating the initial constitution and proposed senior members of the federation).
Edit to add the monster '10 point plan' link
Now, more than ever, there is a need for this Federation. The Chain of Command is subject to the Government and therefore it is at the mercy of a dishonest, lying, traitorous, rotten regime. An independent federation is able to speak up and out for each and every serviceman and woman no matter what their rank, without fear or favour, and can actually in effect become the Chain of Command's greatest ally if it has eyes to see that. The government must be very afraid of BAFF becoming a force for good because the government likes the manner in which is has been historically able to effectively intimidate and silence people at a stroke within the CofC. BAFF can work for the good of ALL servicemen and women at all levels without having to pick their battles very carefully to avoid limiting their own career progression. The government's poison pen 'yes' men will no doubt be scribbling all over this thread with their negative input- just ignore it. The time for a Federation is now.
Chain of Command is where it lies. Once the problems go outside of that route, you may as well pack up and pi*s off home.
The problem lays with the useless and largely incompetant MP's, that at the end of the day, tell us what to do. We need more MP's with a military background.
So, out of 95,000 possible serving soldiers, just 3,500 were interested enough to vote, and from there, it can be deduced that we all want a Federation.
I don't; I want the CoC, the MoD and Ministers to represent our interests, instead of only thinking about their own.
So, that's another vote for a Federation, then.
Separate names with a comma.