IS Op Staffies Going To Low Band

Discussion in 'Royal Signals' started by NAAFIpiethrower, Apr 12, 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. :D :D :p The word on the street is that IS Op Staffies are being moved from the high band rate of pay to the low band! :p :lol: :p ! And about time too, what gives this trade the right to say they need high band because they're still in trade when their in a staffies job?

    Moving these leeches to the low band also validates the dedication and commitment shown by YofS and FofS when they finish their courses by awarding them a higher rate of pay than normal staffies (no insult intended).

    Any one feel free to respond and/or attack
  2. Didn't know they were high band, thats well out of order in the first place! "Get back in line!"
  3. The fact that IS Op SSgts are in the higher band is an ongoing disgrace. Now, maybe I will draw some flak here but I was a Tech SSgt for 10 yrs including continuance, and all the jobs I served in were technical, but remained in the lower pay band. Why should IS Op SSgts be in the Higher Pay Band ??
  4. A bit simplistic there me ol' pie-thrower!

    There are a lot of Staffies out there who are still in trade and a lot of times filling a FofS, YofS or IS Sup post because the "proper" people are not available. What do you do about them? Yes, we are happy for you to do the job and indeed we feel you are qualified in all but name to do it but we shan't give you any recognition or recompense for doing it. Hmmmm sweat shop labour now springs to mind.

    Also bear in mind that thes IS Op Staffies are probably pretty well qualified and you will get some of them voting with their feet thereby exscarbarating the problem of undermanning in "key" roles.

    But what do I care, I'm a civvie! Still think Pay2000 should have had 3 bands not 2.
  5. Correct. The problem lies in Pay 2000. There should have been 3 levels. It is not hard to see that there are some jobs that are more deserving of pay than lower band, but not enough for higher. I mean, Slop Jockeys on higher FFS????
  6. So true guru.

    Think I was in the same position as you. Tech Staffy on low band but was de-facto FofS for a Ghurka Sqn for 9 months (couldn't make the Johnnies realise I was "Staff" and not "FoS") and got sweet words but nothing else for it.

    It may be trade envy that makes people say in trade IS Op staffies should not be on High Band but what does putting them on low band achieve? I personally do not think that is a right and fair recompense for their skills etc.
  7. Surely IS Op SSgts are in exactly the same boat as SSgt Tech's ? They are fitting in the great scheme of things exactly the same. They have Sup's in the chain exactly the same. The trades IMHO will merge in the near future too. Many SSgt (and Sgt) Techs have quals in the IS field (personally I was Cisco and VOIP trained) What I am saying is that if IS Op SSgts are on higher, then tech SSgts should too. As an aside, when I was in 1 Sigbde, I was chatting to the Comd at a function and he was unaware and amazed that I was in the lower pay band. Of course, I made my point subtly and without any poking of chest or blurting of food / alcohol on him ;-)
  8. Does the Army not have "substitution pay"? The RN has a system whereby if you are filling in a post that "should" be filled by some-one of a higher rank, or who has a certain qual, then we'll pay you as if you had that rank or qual. I.e., one of my Artificers is filling a CPO Billet (SSgt equiv) despite being a PO (Sgt equiv); he is being paid as a CPO - winner all round!
  9. IS Ski Geek

    IS Ski Geek War Hero Moderator

    I was under the impression the IS SSgt trade went to lower pay band in April 2005. That is why we now have a few discrepancies with the supvr pay. When finished the course I went from High level 4 Sgt to high level 1 SSgt. However on last years course some people were promoted to SSgt part way through the course they went to lower SSgt level 5. On completion of the couse they then moved to high level 5. Imagine my position having a years seniority and losing about £8 a day to a different course not to mention that on picking up WO2 I will still be paid less than a SSgt (Supvr IS) who has been in the trade 1 year less. No doubt the same will hapen this year and i will continue to be paid around £3000 a year less than the rest of my fellow tradesmen and women.

    (yes I know if i dont like it get out etc etc, usual stock army answer for everything they get wrong)
  10. We do but the rules to allow you to qualify are nasty. The unit I was at was considered itself to be somewhat "different" and our manning plot compared to the way the Regiment manned the posts meant that although the Regiment had it's full quota of FofS they still had a gapped post. Go figure - (it was a few years back so my recollections are slightly misty). Factor into that the rules and disparity between Ghurkas and UK Nationals and I lost even though the Regiment supported my case for POHR.
  11. Some excellent stuff here, please don't let it devolve to a petty trade vs trade arguement.

    Chris is right, if an SSgt is nominated as "stand in" FofS, YofS or any other supervisory post he should be given the financial benefits that go with it; if he doesn't get offered the whole package then he should walk back to the garage (general terminology). You're right, the RAF and RN have far friendlier systems for increasing the status of a serviceman working beyond his pay band.

    In the past I did have concerns with the IS Supvr fellas as they were (and there's no denying it) "failed elsewhere" personnel. However, they have now developed a credibility in the Corps and the long may it prosper.

    I disagree with the 3 pay levels of pay 2000 arguement. We are all so different in skills, ability, supervisory, likleyhood of getting shot, ability to fry an egg, etc. The truth is pay 2000 was a failed opportunity.

    I'll talk more later, I've got a great tune coming in.
  12. I'm glad to see that this post has started a good discussion with regards the validity of the 'paid for experience' side of the fiasco that is Pay 2K.

    There was talk mooted about a couple of years ago of the supervisor groups, YofS, FofS, Supvr IS and Supvr Radio all getting some form of additional pay; similar to aircrew pay, presumably this would be spread across all Corps and include or REME Tiffy brethren. Does anyone know if this was just a vicious rumour or is there some sort of study going into the 'unfairness' (for want of a better word) of Pay 2K.

    It's probably a bit of a simplistic thought but if this additional pay was given then those personnel posted into supervisory roles without actually holding the appointment could get the financial rewards for doing the job, but still remain on whatever pay band they're on.

    More thoughts please.
  13. The boy Ski makes a valid point here; again please don't degenerate into an inter-trade slanging match, the problem here lies in the fact that the Corp actually ignores SOinCs PDs when it comes to promoting/appointing the supervisor trades.

    It states that if a YofS/FofS (sorry Supvr IS/Radio, i couldn't be arrsed looking at your part of the PD but I assume it'll be the same) is busted below the rank of SSgt, then the appointment is removed. when/if they regain the rank of SSgt they must apply to MCM Div to have the appointment reinstated. From this we can conclude that in order to be a Supervisor, the individual must be a minimum of SSgt in rank. When the relevant course ends the correct sequence of events should be

    1. Promote to SSgt low band (for those at the higher level of high band Sgt this can be around the level 4/5 area to ensure that the minimum 2% pay increase is achieved.

    2. Appoint as a suoervisor, moving from Low Band SSgt to High Band SSgt

    3. Stand back and count the wedge.

    Unforetunately all that happens is as the boy Ski says they get put on High Band Level 1 and told to soldier on. this then leads to the problems Ski has stated, newly appointed SSgt getting several bands higher pay than the potentially more experienced (but strangely unpromotable!!) peer.

    On a lighter note, I'm on low band SSgt pay, so i will be laughing my arrse off when the IS Ops get their pay cut (sorry lads but you've had it comng for a while)

    Duck the Pie!!
  14. Remember that they won't take a cut, if the trade changes banding, they'll mark time till the lower band catches up
  15. Couldn't agree more, I couldn't believe my pay increase (30p per day, I'd had a IDD as a Sgt). Then moving from low to high and seeing again next to nothing, when 10 years ago I was getting around £10 extra a day for every promotion.

    Whats more annoying is the amount of effort and dedication I had to put in to gain my last promotion (far far more than any other rank) and then get virtually nothing back in return.