Letters
to the Editor
 |
|
Operators
supply at work during Op Anode last year at Henderson Airfield,
outside Honiara
|
Crisis
in opsup trade
I'VE just
read, with some amusement, the latest on the Operator Supply (Opsup)
trade, on the RAAOC Trade News and Information web page.
The collective
genius of the corps have concerns relating to the sustainability of
the Opsup trade, and can't understand why the trade is not attracting
new soldiers?
At the
same time we are told that the case for a pay increase to bring Army
into line with RAAF and RAN could not be supported due to the lack of
Competency Log Books. (You know, those little folders we were all given
back in the early '90s to testify to our competency, that would in turn
assist in future pay cases, ho ho ho!)
But "don't
despair", the author goes on to say, some time after 2006, we'll
get another crack at pay group four. Well, they've been telling us that
since 1977 when I first came into the trade mate, so I'm not holding
my breath.
The rot
well and truly set in back in 1994 when we were cast from our various
corps into RAAOC, to become a large and unwieldy group of old belligerents
who felt that we'd been abandoned by our parent corps for no justifiable
reason, to fend for ourselves in the cold harsh reality that coming
to a new corps late in our service careers brings, while at the same
time watching some arms corps steadfastly hold on to their own stores
personnel explaining that they were "specialists" who couldn't
easily be replaced by the likes of the great unwashed herd that was
the (then) new RAAOC.
In 1999,
as part of the "more teeth and less tail" thrust at the time,
the Defence "brain trust" decided that the most economical
way of unloading all the old, fat and broken queies, while still providing
a stores service to the then Support Command and Training Command units,
was to contract the responsibility out under the Garrison Support Services
(GSS) contract. What impact this decision has proved, in effect, is
that there are now little or no "respite" postings available
for soldiers (or sailors or airmen) who are not immediately deployable
due to family problems or recovering from injuries, etc. Essentially,
soldiers' posting/promotion prospects were cut by two thirds.
And RAAOC
wonder why they can't attract new Opsups? Let me see, first of all a
soldier straight out of recruit training, who probably has aspirations
to go to an arms corps (as they all should, of course) must first be
inducted into RAAOC, then offered a trade stream which precludes pretty
much all in the way of postings apart from Land Command (see GRes in
the majority of cases) positions until at least sergeant rank, must
learn to operate the aforementioned dodgy accounting system, work within
a plethora of financial, OH&S and maintenance regulations, obtain
all necessary vehicle license codes so as to be able to operate the
same vehicles as his pay group four transport corps brothers, all for
the personal benefit of receiving a pay group lower than his peers in
RAAF or Navy, while dragging his wife and kids from one Land Command
posting to another?
But "don't
despair", (or should it be "don't send any money") as
the author says, there's more. Because there is a rank inbalance caused
by soldiers with half a brain avoiding the trade like the plague, RAAOC
have decided to further remove any promotion prospects for the poor
buggers by "right-sizing" the trade, i.e., if you can't find
a WO1 to post into a position, downgrade it to a WO2, and so forth.
I can't help but think of the "we the few, must now do more with
less" cliche that we used to laugh about a few years ago.
Unless
RAAOC and Defence in general gets serious about this situation, pays
queies what they're really worth, and gives them back to their corps,
so once again they have a corps identity and can feel proud to be doing
what they do best and removes the stores provision service from the
Garrison Support Services contract so that prospective Opsups are given
the opportunity for more and interesting postings/promotion, the sustainability
of the trade will only deteriorate to the point of no return.
RAAOC can
hold conferences, write papers and send out surveys until they are blue
in the face, but until they start looking after their soldiers, it's
only going to get worse.
WO2 Terry Prendergast
CQMS
3 Recovery Company, Dandenong Vic
Lt-Col Jane Spalding, Deputy Head of Corps RAAOC, responds:
The operator supply trade has been the subject of much criticism since
its inception in 1997. While I understand the author's frustration with
a number of issues, I will address the issues raised that are specific
to the trade but I will not discuss issues such as CSP, SDSS and restructuring
of Q-Stores as these are ADF and Army-wide issues.
First,
the pay group level which impacts on our ability to attract recruits
(and retain good soldiers).The operator supply trade (ECN 294+) was
presented to the Employment Category Review Committee (ECRC) on August
7 last year.
The ECRC
determined that they would not support the submission to seek pay equity
with RAN and RAAF equivalent trade. A disappointing result in the industrial
process. I accept that the RAAOC web site does present an overly positive
spin but we are not about to give up.
Separately
to the pay submission, the trade has had an extensive review conducted
over the past 12 months. The changes are likely to take effect from
July 1, 2005 and include specialisation at corporal rather than sergeant,
insertion of Subject 4 (corporal and warrant officer) courses and a
number of other changes.
Once this
structure is in place and has been validated, the intent is to once
again submit to Defence Force Remuneration Tribunal (DFRT) for ratification
and or pay group adjustment.
"Right
sizing" is the rank restructure of a number of unsustainable trades.
It will
be implemented over the three-year cycle of SED reviews and will not
adversely affect individuals. At present the operator supply trade has
a few more corporal than private, and sergeant than corporal positions,
resulting in difficulties in "growing" senior suppliers. Trade
sustainability demands a pyramid structure, which requires more private
than corporal and more corporal than sergeant. This is particularly
apparent on the "Q" side of the trade where the number of
privates to corporals causes the sustainability problems.
I would
like to comment that RAAOC personnel continue to perform at a high level
in demanding circumstances. I have considerable pride in the competencies
that RAAOC soldiers possess and am aware of the challenges our trades
face.
The qualifications
that RAAOC soldiers hold in addition to their primary responsibilities
are currently not recognised through their pay group. I do believe however
that AHQ, the Trade Management Section at ALTC and the Head of Corps
organisation are working hard to address these inequities.
I would
also urge all RAAOC soldiers to continue contributing to inform those
agencies and to keep abreast of developments through the RAAOC website.
Bewilderment
I WOULD
like express my complete bewilderment at the decision last year regarding
the RAInf combat storemen and combat clerk pay case.
I in no
way disagree with the good result that these two trades received as
I can appreciate that they are hardworking and under-appreciated trades.
I am, however,
completely amazed that to get to DFRT, these trades had to progress
past the Employment Category Review Committee (ECRC), which heard their
case in August 2003. The RAInf and RAE case was heard by ECRC immediately
after the RAAOC Opsup and clerk admin cases were presented.
The bewildering
thing is that Opsup and clerk admin did not get approval to proceed
to the DFRT. The resulting situation is that now Combat Storemen and
Combat Clerk progress to pay group four at sergeant level while Opsup
and clerk Admin still wallow away on pay group three.
Where is
the equity here? Where is the fair go?
The combat
clerk does the RAAOC clerk admin course to gain their qualification.
The Combat Storemen completes less than one-third of the RAAOC Opsup
IET course to gain their qualification. The two RAAOC trades combined
make up about 9 per cent of the total Army ARA liability.
These trades
have been struggling since Army switched to recruiting to trade, have
both been on the Army's critical trade list for most of 2002 and 2003,
and both are now together with the lowest paid trades in the Army. Given
their high level of technical competence, length of training and skills
that they possess, I am amazed at the decision the bureaucrats made
at the ECRC last year regarding these two RAAOC trades.
The RAAOC
case was based on equity with RAAF and RAN equivalent trades (both currently
attract up to pay group four). ECRC knocked back the RAAOC case based
on issues regarding training time and competency log books.
Surely
then, the combat storemen and combat clerk trades suffered the same
issues if compared to the RAAF and RAN trades.
Apparently
not. The conspiracy theorists amongst you may be wondering if there
was some external political (military type) interference with one or
both cases - I don't know.
I wonder
how the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission would view the
situation or how the Minister would react to receiving 2000-plus letters
of complaint from disgruntled Opsups and clerk admins. The pay for Opsup
and clerk admin is a grave injustice that needs to be addressed now.
Major Greg Kohlmeyer
RAAOC
ALTC, Bandiana NSW
Maj
Karen Wason, Military Salaries and Allowances, DPE, responds:
This response is aimed at providing understanding of the DFRT process
and the reasons for delaying the review of the RAAOC categories of Clerk
Administrative (Clerk Admin) and Operator Supply.
The delays
in reviewing these categories is in no way a reflection upon the high
quality of work completed by the men and women of the categories, who
provide a significant contribution to the capability of the Defence
Force.
The Employment
Category Review Committee (ECRC) is a necessary step in the review of
pay cases. It provides the opportunity for the assessment of a category
by a Tri-service committee to determine if there is sufficient justification
to progress the matter for consideration by the Defence Force Remuneration
Tribunal (DFRT).
The Committee
is responsible to HDPE through the Directorate of Military Salaries
and Allowances-Policy with representatives from each Service and the
Personnel Policy and Employment Conditions Branch (PPEC).
The ECRC
is responsible for examining all ADF employment categories for work
value change, structural change or inequity issues both from an individual
Service perspective and an ADF wide perspective.
Following
consideration by the Committee, categories are either accepted for further
development by an industrial (military) case officer from PPEC in conjunction
with the respective Service Office, returned to the trade sponsor/Service
representative for further justification, or rejected as having insufficient
justification for further consideration at that time. Only matters cleared
by the Service Offices will be considered by the ECRC.
The ECRC
process takes into consideration work value change since the category
was last reviewed, structural changes required within the category,
equity in relation to all other categories with similar work value,
and relative balance across the Other Ranks employment framework. Categories
are placed within the OR framework based on the principle of 'highest
function regularly performed' by the category.
In relation
to the RAAOC categories, they were last reviewed by the DFRT in 1996,
at which time new structures were introduced and access to higher pay
levels confirmed.
The most
recent review of the RAAOC Opsup and clerk admin categories was based
on the principle that the categories had undergone significant change
and that an inequity existed between these trades and the respective
RAAF and Navy clerk and storeman categories.
In order
to determine the merits of the case the ECRC considered the evidence
presented in the 1996 RAAOC case, the evidence presented in the latest
submission and the information provided during the presentation to the
Committee.
The evidence
presented in the 1996 RAAOC case provides a baseline to determine the
work value changes since that point in time. The ECRC determined that,
based on the evidence in the 1996 case and the evidence submitted in
the ECRC on this latest occasion, that there was insufficient justification
to proceed further at that time.
Furthermore,
aspects of the justification used in the 1996 submission, ie, the introduction
of Competency Log Books (CLB), that were used in evidence as underpinning
the structural changes, had still not been implemented some seven years
after the original decision.
The infantry
combat clerks and storeman categories were considered on their own merit
independent of the RAAOC submission.
The infantry
combat clerks and storeman categories had not been reviewed since 1978,
they were not considered as part of the 1996 RAAOC case nor as part
of the 1996/97 Infantry Restructure.
Work value
and structural efficiency considerations for the categories included
not only their clerk and storeman duties but also the underpinning rifleman
roles, training and skills.
Equity
with categories of the same or similar work value takes into account
the skill, responsibility and working environment of the same or similar
trades. Length of training is a consideration, as are the employment
streams of the respective categories.
There are
therefore, differences between similar categories. These differences
are taken into consideration when examining the merit of the case and
when presenting the case to the DFRT.
The letter
to the editor stated that "The RAAOC case was based on equity with
RAAF and RAN equivalent trades (both currently attract up to pay group
four)". This is incorrect. The RAAF trades are not remunerated
above pay group three.
In summary,
RAAOC categories of Opsup and clerk administration are important contributors
to Army capability.
These categories
do deserve to be reviewed by the DFRT when their training and employment
structure is in place to enable work value changes, training and qualifications
to be evaluated in a mature state. The outcome of the infantry clerk
and storeman case has now placed the RAAOC categories in a better position
for a review by the DFRT, once Army have addressed the issues raised
by the ECRC, with significant completion and accreditation of competencies.
Editor's
Note: Owing to the detail and the serious nature of the debate about
the operator supply trade, I have waived the normal rule of letters
as brief as possible in order to fit these letters, which have been
waiting for enough space to be published. If you would like to have
your say on the operator supply debate, please keep your letter as
brief as possible for future editions.
An
indefensible rule
THE response
to Flt-Lt Drew's letter in Army's February 26 edition [by DCOORD-AF
Gp-Capt Grant McDonald] was the most ludicrous and banal excuse for
doing nothing and resisting change that I have ever seen.
This soldier's
decoration is recognition of his contribution to the campaign in East
Timor by the people of Australia and he has every right to wear it proudly
on any uniform. The recognition is for service to this country, not
to a particular branch of the Service.
Sometimes
the rules are just wrong and they need to be changed and it does no-one
any credit to defend the indefensible.
Dennis O'Keefe
DEFPAC, Melbourne Vic
Won
in blood and mud
I'M RESPONDING
to Gp-Capt McDonald's stated reasons for disallowing Flt-Lt Drew the
right to wear his Infantry Combat Badge (ICB) as an ex-Army member serving
in the RAAF (Army Edition 1091, February 26).
Let me
first say that I don't know Flt-Lt Drew at all, so it's not so much
to do with him but with anyone transferring between the Services. The
reasons stated by Gp-Capt McDonald simply don't pass the common sense
test. The fallacious argument, that an "equivalent" must exist,
just begs the question of "why should it exist?"
The reply
ignores the fundamental reason for wearing this stuff: recognition.
Unfortunately, one of the comments "... such activity is not related
to the core business of the RAAF ..." is astounding for its naivety.
The whole response is inconsistent and sharply juxtaposed with the message
that the Chief of Air Force sends out in his Canberra Updates.
Gp-Capt
McDonald makes no clear distinction, for the casual reader, between
brevets, proficiency badges, accoutrements and embellishments, and awards.
Indeed anyone not insulted by the wording will be at least confused
by it.
There are
accoutrements and embellishments that are common to all three Services:
Mourning bands, belt hooks, brassards and canes as examples. There are
also proficiency badges common to all Services: Skill at Arms and parachute
badges spring to mind. The ICB is an award. It's won in blood and mud
just like valour awards.
Personally,
I see no problem with a submariner or principal warfare officer wearing
their proficiency badge on a khaki shirt should they transfer to Army.
They earn them, they should wear them, no matter the circumstances,
because they provide the recognition of a hard-won achievement.
Lt-Col Stuart Calvin
DSPPR, Campbell Park, ACT
No
answers, no excuse
I FIND
it interesting that the blokes in charge at Honours and Awards won't
reply to questions on relevant entitlement issues. If I were copping
as much flak as they are, I sure as hell would want to put my case forward.
A simple
article on the procedure and timelines of gazetting (if we still do
that) awards and the problems current operations have had on the system
may stop some of the bitching.
If a bloke
goes on operations and is entitled to an award, or a fella's done his
15 years service, there is no excuse to ignore his pleas for a simple
explanation as to why he hasn't received his award.
There is
one thing that's guaranteed though, if we owe Army, it's taken the following
pay.
Sgt Dave MacPhail
Army FAC Section, RAAF Williamtown
Ask
the Chief
Would you
like to ask CA Lt-Gen Peter Leahy a question? It could be about acquisitions
or uniform, operational tempo or a general welfare issue.
As part
of hearing soldiers' views, CA has agreed to start Ask the Chief
in Army newspaper.
He wants
to know your questions so he can answer them in a future edition as
part of his look back at what the Army has achieved and been part of
in 2003.
As with
Letters to the Editor, it is the right of all soldiers to ask CA a question
through Ask the Chief in Army without using the chain of command.
Submit
your questions in e-mail form to armynews@defencenews.gov.au
with "ask the chief" in the subject line.
|
