Supervisor Courses Pay Rises

Discussion in 'Royal Signals' started by The_Flumps, Feb 7, 2008.

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. What ever you do don't bother coming on a supervisor course untill you are a staffy. For instance A level 7 Sgt coming off the course gets a 2.5 % pay rise, if you are a staffy coming on to the course you will prob be a low band level 7 by the end of the course (if its a proper supervisor course more than 12 months). Due to pay 2000 being stupid the staffy will get a massive 15 % pay rise is that fair I don't think so. Surely everyone for doing the same course should get the same percentage pay rise.
  2. I take it you are a Sgt who has just about to finish his/her supervisor course! - Seriously though, it doesn't sound very fair! I have heard a lot of supervisors complaining about this, but unfortunetly it is how PAY2000 is structured.
  3. Thats the way the cookie crumbles unfortunately, this will allways happen when there is a shortage of high calibre personnel wanting to push down the supervisory rosta at Sgt level.
    The Corps then looks at those personnel who are SSgt in trade to decide whether Supervisory selection was something overlooked and could now be a serious possibility, years after the original decision NOT to go down the supervisory path.
    There will always be whinging as a result of losing the original 3 band (5, 6 and 7) pay structure and adopting the unfair High/Low band system. Some people gain, some people lose out. If you feel that strongly take your chance on the fierce RD roster, push hard for SSgt in trade and then apply in the later stages to become a supervisory trade, which is no easy task I can assure you.
    Everyone attending these supervisory courses are surely aware of the lack of financial recompense post course for undertaking this path.
  4. I totally agree, and anyone with a sense of fair play would surely agree too! The whole situation is completey shameful. If you get two sets of people who go through the same selection board, put in the same work, pass the same training objectives etc etc then it's absolutely disgusting that one set of individuals could be earning 3 or 4 grand higher than the others. I know that this has happened to people on YofS, FofS and FofS (IS) courses and many people have been fighting tooth and nail to get someone high up to admit that it's quite simply wrong and constitutes unfair and inequitable treatment.

    The fact that people go from Hi-band Sgt to Lo-Band Staffy in trade before they get onto their supervisory course is fair enough, but when they pass their relevant course I personally feel that they should not map across at the same level. I believe it's far fairer for them to go onto the appropriate rate of pay one-up on the higher band. So for example if they were Lo-Band Level 4 SSgt on 32,768.88 they should go onto Hi-Band Level 1 SSgt on 34,047.84 (which takes a 2% rise into account as well). Instead they go onto Hi-Band Level 4 on 36,530.52, worth about 3 or 4 years of promotions although I'm not sure if they end up on mark time rates of pay.

    I fear that those who have been shafted by the system will probably need to take legal action to get satisfaction. We've all seen the very reasonable letters that people send to Soldier magazine only to be rebuffed with patronising DSPS(A) platitudes which basically hint "sh*t happens, sign off if you don't like it". What a way to treat the best of the best! Fortunately I've not been affected myself, but it's 100% clear that we are treating people differently based on arbitrary rules, then sitting back with a "nothing I can do guv, I agree, but it's more than my job's worth" bureaucratic mentality. As one "victim" of the policy recently wrote in a latter to APC "if we both agree that the rules are unfortunate, then change them".

    However, Mr Flumpster, your suggestion that "a proper supervisor course...[consists of]...more than 12 months" is a little bit naughty. Are you saying the past 40 or 50 years of Yeoman courses have not produced "proper" Royal Signals supervisors? You'll hurt the feelings of the Lt Col (Tfc) old sweats out there. Surely it's not another sneaky-snidey anti-IS rant? I'm a firm believer that true winners look forward and welcome opportunities while losers remain entrenched in the past, reflecting on problems. As someone who has the courage to post a truism that had to be said, surely you're in the first group?
  5. My bold - I think a look at yesterdays board results could argue against that - only 10 YofS, 12 FofS and 3 FofS IS promoted to WO2. I would suggest that the Supervisors boards are now becoming as fierce as the RD used to be. I think there were only 7 WO2 YofS promoted to WO1 in December as well so things are slowing down. Looks like MCM div will have to change their slides on the roadshow showing how good the promotion is for Supervisors compared to RD !
  6. Now that you highlight those figures, I am pretty surprised / worried.

    Across ALL Supervisory Appts: 32 promoted
    Across the RD roster: 31 promoted

    What signal does that send out to the youngsters?
    Are we a technical Corps who puts Non-trade skills as a higher priority?
  7. I think you will find that this will be pretty much a 'one off'.

    I cannot remember when this has ever happen before, and I don't think we will see it again for some time.
  8. IMHO I think is was down to a lack of qualified and recommended SSgt Supervisors rather than a competitive board.

    Blandford aren't providing the number of Supervisor courses required to keep the numbers up at the rank of SSgt.
  9. There are on average 19 YofS qualified per year. If they only promote 10 then obviously there is going to be a massive backlog at this rank. I remember seeing a signal from MCM Divvies showing all of those SSgt's who would be put to the board. There were quite a few more than 10 and obviously they were suitably qualified and recommended.

    There are now far more SSgt's (YofS) than there were 5 years ago going for the same amount of WO2 (YofS) posts. You can obviously see where my focus is. I'm not bitter or twisted, just realistic. Its a lot harder to get promoted which is not necessarily a bad thing - but I always seem to remember being told the reason that there would be no Supervisor pay was that our rates of promotion were quicker than the RD roster and that was compensation enough. I would say that now that is'nt the case.
  10. I don't know about the YofS manning, but I think my comment is valid for the FofS IS Branch. There are a lot of posts for SSgt FofS IS being covered by Sgt/SSgt IS Engrs at the moment (Two out of Four at my unit alone!).
  11. I think that you are wrong, there were 37 eligigble YofS (the proper ones) and only 10 promoted, the YofS rosta is currently fully manned so it has nothing at all to do with the amount coming through Blandford.

  13. All, it seems there is Doom and Gloom in the forum, with a comparison of RD and Supervisory results for this years board results.

    The promotion board sits and awards a promotion line, where those above the said promotabilty line are deemed worthy of selection and are eligible. The board will only promote those above the line for the vacancies they are presented with for that year. This is the same for all employment paths. This year, there is obviously a RD demand for the Corps, probably as a result of the natural termination on completion of colour service.

    Yes, it was a predominantly strong RD board, but the average has tipped in the favour of the RD for this year. Do not be blinkered, the combined years average warrant a supervisory path for the best possible promotion path. Our Corps has an enormous number of excellent devoloping trades persons, who should be pushed down this supervisory path. As stated in this string eariler, we are a TECHNICAL CORPS and we should continue to nurture and develop our soldiers to progress down this path.

    I wish all those selected this year my sincere congratulations, but rest assured the average figures speak for themselves, the supervisory roster is the way ahead.

    If you are a doughting Thomas whether the supervisory path is the way ahead, why not give the supervisory roster a try, overcome the Old school vicious rumours and prove everyone wrong. You will never know, unless you actually try!!
  14. Was that not what I said in 2 sentences?
  15. heidtheba
    Perhaps I am really thick?? With my last post being unclear as to my point. The RD roster had a very good year. The Supervisory roster has proved a greater track record through the rank structure

    There is no contradiction in my post. There is clearly a greater demand this year for the RD roster, rather than the supervisory roster. The balance may re-address in future years.