Battle
of the bulge
 |
|
The
disparity in conditions of service for maternity leave between
ADF and APS members is frustrating for some Air Force members.
|
I
AM once again disgusted with the unequal conditions of service
between ADF and APS.
In this case – APS paid maternity leave – if an employee
has been employed by the Commonwealth for a continuous period
of at least 12 months, the first 14 weeks of the available total
of 52 weeks maternity leave is with pay (in accordance with Maternity
Leave (Commonwealth Employees) Act 1973, provisions of the Workplace
Relations Act 1996 and the Defence Employees Certified Agreement
2004-2006.
ADF paid maternity leave – if a member has completed 12 months’
qualifying service, she is entitled to salary for up to 12 weeks
of her maternity leave, (in accordance with ADF Pay and Conditions
5.4.14)
This is only another frustration of serving in a Defence Force
dominated by APS, with our conditions of service managed by APS.
I ask, who is fighting this battle? (Except ARFFA – an unfunded
and therefore virtually unsustainable force.)
Or have we already lost?
Flight
Lieutenant Natalie Colbert
Electronic and Weapons Systems Division
DMO Canberra
When
things aren’t uniform
I
HAVE just been up to the clothing store to view the replacement
Warrant Officer Mess Dress Rank Boards. How very disappointing.
After the boards we have at present the replacements are dull
and colourless.
Why are we moving to this style of adornment when we have a perfectly
good rank board in place?
It just seems to be change for change sake and doesn’t appear
to achieve anything except dull down a very smart uniform.
My second thought is to do with the new method of rolling sleeves
on DPCUs.
I recently noticed the American style of sleeve rolling in Darwin
on exercise and when I quizzed a fellow warrant officer he informed
me that this is now the new method and is, in fact, in the Manual
of Dress.
I asked the Warrant Officer Discipline at Edinburgh and he believes
the requirement is so that sleeves can be rolled down quickly
when required.
Correct me if I am wrong but on operations where the likelihood
of being attacked is prevalent aren’t the sleeves supposed
to be down anyway?
I believe this is another unique Australianism that has been removed
for no apparent value.
After all, our Australian military have been rolling our sleeves
the old way since we started so why the change to the American
way?
Don’t get me wrong; I don’t mind change if it can be
seen to be for the better but these two changes don’t appear
to provide any benefit at all.
Warrant
Officer Wayne Newman
92 Wing Logistic Operations,
RAAF Base Edinburgh
What’s
in a date, mate
NOT
only do I stumble over the increasingly prevalent American date
format in the media elsewhere, but I now notice that Air Force
News has adopted a foreign date format as well.
The month/day/year format is clumsy and confusing, and, considering
that both Service writing standards and Microsoft’s own products
recognise day/month/year as Australia’s official date format,
what are you, and the Australian media in general, offering as
an excuse – the publishing software’s spelling checker?
Flight Lieutenant Fernando Gonzalez
ARDU Joint Electronic Warfare Operational Support Unit
RAAF Base Edinburgh
Editor’s
response: Flight Lieutenant Gonzalez
is unfortunately mistaken if he believes Air Force News has recently
adopted a new date format.
Air Force News follows the general media style convention for
month/day/year. This is also followed by Army newspaper and Navy
News.
The three Defence newspapers’ style conventions are not bound
by Service writing standards, which are dedicated to governing
letters, minutes, policy documents and submissions to government
– not newspapers.
Our publishing software, InDesign CS, does not have a date format
within its spell checker.
A7
or A9? What’s correct
I
REFER to the article in Air Force News Vol 47, No. 7, May 5, 2005
page 10 by Private John Wellfare regarding the restoration of
a Macchi jet by No. 25 (City of Perth) Squadron.
Private Wellfare quotes the Macchi as aircraft A9-027.
I served with No. 24 (City of Adelaide) Squadron from 1969 to
1990 as an engine fitter on P3 Orions which were designated A9.
To my knowledge the Macchi is designated A7.
Vincent
Piscioneri
Tennyson, South Australia
Editor’s
response: A7 is the correct designator for the Macchi, not
A9. The error was in information provided by the unit.
Ranks
are an entitlement
IT
WAS bad enough when PMKeyS forced me to forget O223321. Now with
the Defence Travel Card application I must lose my rank as well.
We are the ADF, we are part of the Department of Defence. Ranks
are a part of our life.
We should not be forced to give up the entitlement to use those
ranks.
Group
Captain Bill Mayne
Guided Weapons Systems Support Office
DMO Canberra
When
things aren't uniform | What's in a date
mate | A7 or A9? What's correct |
Ranks are an entitlement
