Minimum standard yes, but that’s different from recruitment based on filling in diverse quota.
Not really it's simply moving the priorities, it's not like in a civilian job where you might have 10 candidates for one role, there's often more roles available than candidates through the door.
Prioritising the recruitment of more specific group of candidates isn't anything new, the mistake here is essentially stopping recruitment for the majority demographic because that's simply going to create further personnel shortages.
The caveat is there are certain roles that have much smaller recruitment number requirement.
I appreciate many don't have any clue about the military's recruitment process, but your mistake would be appling what you know of civilian processes here.
They're fundamentally different beasts.
As for being “best” you just have to keep filtering out until you get the one that can perform the task perfectly.
Quite. But you often don't know who the 'best' is until they get to the end of a very long training pipeline. And 'best' is a civilian term, I'd be wary of any fellow serviceman or woman who viewed themselves as the best of anything.
Chew - you asked early if you misread, no you misunderstood. You then used as an example a system which recruits from a religious/ethnic group despite them being any good or not, as it's the right thing to do socially - the exact opposite of positive discrimination to encourage better representation. So you fundamentally do not understand this.
Nobody thinks it's having good results to have so many old Etonians in governent roles, but this is what the system produces. Everybody would like people with more real world experience - this will require some encouragement and positive discrimination. This is a good example I think
As for being “best” you just have to keep filtering out until you get the one that can perform the task perfectly.
No, for the majority of roles, even I'd suggest a lot of surgery, you don't need perfection. You need competent, adequate, particularly if that person adds other skills / capabilities on top.
And as TINAS says, a lot of that comes from training and opportunity. The best engineer in the world might be a 60 year old white male, but it's not because he's old, white and male. It's from the experience, training and opportunities he's been given, probably over other equally deserving candidates. Even if that was in engineering school recruitment processes in the early 80's, which is what we need to challenge so it doesn't perpetuate for another 40 years.
Everybody would like people with more real world experience
In this case, that experience is very limited. We're talking about on average fairly narrow recruiting age brackets {there are outliers), so that experience is limited compared to civilian organisations, comparing the two is a little apples/oranges.
Not really it’s simply moving the priorities, it’s not like in a civilian job where you might have 10 candidates for one role, there’s often more roles available than candidates through the door.
Yes, but they are not rocket scientists or pilots flying multi-million pounds jets to protect your life aren't they? If you are talking about general bureaucratic role in civilian jobs like city council it is not an issue because that's the norm.
Prioritising the recruitment of more specific group of candidates isn’t anything new, the mistake here is essentially stopping recruitment for the majority demographic because that’s simply going to create further personnel shortages.
Let us make this assumption, RAF has 10 top gun pilots applying for one jet fighter role but on paper they are short of one candidate with "diverse" background. Out of the lot applying 9 are highly qualified while one is slightly less qualified. But because they need to comply with the quota of meeting diversity, the less qualified get the job. Then one day during aerial combat the whole squadron got short down because the less qualified pilot lack one skill crucial for the role. Isn't that a bit foolish?
the exact opposite of positive discrimination to encourage better representation.
Certain jobs you can have as much diversity or positive discrimination as you like but there are also certain jobs that you need to select the best out of the best, base on merit regardless.
Let us make this assumption, RAF has 10 top gun pilots applying for one jet fighter role but one paper they are short of one candidate with “diverse” background. Out of the lot applying 9 are highly qualified while one is slightly less qualified. But because they need to comply with the quota of meeting diversity, the less qualified get the job. Then one day during aerial combat the whole squadron got short down because the less qualified pilot lack one skill crucial for the role. Isn’t that a bit foolish?
Your assumption is frankly bollocks, let me explain why,
Every single person that applies to be a pilot has to meet a minimum requirement to even be considered for selection & aptitude. This will be based on a few factors: age, educational attainment, physical health, physical fitness and a rather invasive security profile. Nothing about flying yet.
Then we get to the aptitude and selection process, this involves further in depth physical screening, and a battery of tests designed to test reasoning, judgement and many other factors. They then will move onto a very basic flying training program that is not so much about flying skill, but the ability to absorb information then carry out task, very much monkey see, monkey do. This is designed to ascertain if they have the ability to manage a certain cognitive load.
If they get through that, they then have to go to school to learn how to be an officer in the RAF, once they pass that they then attend their flying training.
Throughout this training there are many hurdles and points to which someone can wash out, the reality is at almost any point you can fail to meet the grade and be chopped.
When they finally get wings, then pass their operational conversion they are all at a safe, base standard (which is incredibly ****ing high) have been assessed to the same standards, and even after this point have mandatory flying currencies and checks they have to complete to remain current and cleared to fly.
So your scenario holds zero weight because you're trying to make up a scenario that fits your angle, which is quite frankly a pile of shit.
There is no 'less qualified' in the forces because we conduct the training, assess all to a required standard. The few that are recruited in already qualified are the like of Padres and Medical professionals. The latter of whom have also been through their own rigorous testing and competency process.
Then one day during aerial combat the whole squadron got short down because the less qualified pilot lack one skill crucial for the role. Isn’t that a bit foolish?
It's the wrong example really, there's a handful of fighter pilots in the world and they are all massively the top 0.1%. But to play the example out
the less qualified pilot lack one skill crucial for the role.
- no-one is suggested recruiting unqualified candidates, and in any case
- that's a failure of training, not of recruitment
that’s a failure of training, not of recruitment
Which has happened and been identified as a systemic issue due to operational pressures and/or poor leadership and maintenance of standards.
In aviation there are many layers of supervision, so it is quite some failure by a unit for these things to happen.
It’s the wrong example really, there’s a handful of fighter pilots in the world and they are all massively the top 0.1%. But to play the example out
I know a lot of RAF/FAA Typhoon/Tornado/Lightning II/Harrier pilots and i would say you're a little out with the 0.1%, yes a lot can fly, or navigate, or do well in the weapons seat, but lets not inflate their ego any more, especially ex Harrier pilots 😂
I know a lot of RAF/FAA Typhoon/Tornado/Lightning II/Harrier pilots and i would say you’re a little out with the 0.1%, yes a lot can fly, or navigate, or do well in the weapons seat, but lets not inflate their ego any more, especially ex Harrier pilots 😂
Definitely that last part. Although the F35 pilots are assuming that mantle these days.
There is no ‘less qualified’.
Let's have another example, say they all passed with flying colour (all have reached the standard required) like in an exam. They all got a 1st class degree with all getting above 70% but one gets 90% but s/he is not diverse enough on paper on paper. One candidate however meet the "diverse" classification but his/her mark is only in the 70% range and get the job. Is that fair to the person who achieve 90% because the person has slightly better intellectual capacity?
Oh ya ... the principle behind your view is questionable, but time will tell if the society is heading for the better with positive discrimination.
Let’s have another example, say they all passed with flying colour (all have reached the standard required) like in an exam. They all got a 1st class degree with all getting above 70% but one gets 90% but s/he is not diverse enough on paper on paper. One candidate however meet the “diverse” classification but his/her mark is only in the 70% range and get the job. Is that fair to the person who achieve 90% because the person has slightly better intellectual capacity?
Oh ya … the principle behind your view is questionable, but time will tell if the society is heading for the better with positive discrimination.
Nope. Because the degree is simply a minimum bar that demonstrates intellectual capacity, commitment, etc, the system doesn't split hairs in who got what. Things aptitude and selection process will make that decision.
Defence is given clear areas that it can 'discriminate' as you would call it, we'd call it excluding recruitment criteria, which is why applying your bias or knowledge of civilian recruitment processes here isn't accurate.
I'm not saying I agree, I understand why they would prioritise to try and recruit certain characteristics, I'm just saying pausing wider recruitment is a mistake because it applies pressure to an already undermanned organistion.
But the one thing nobody seems t want to discuss is why many who the services would like to recruit don't see it as a viable career, and is there anything that can be done about that or is there simply a degree of acceptance that needs to happen in regards to never hitting those figures?
Nope. Because the degree is simply a minimum bar that demonstrates intellectual capacity, commitment, etc, the system doesn’t split hairs in who got what. Things aptitude and selection process will make that decision. Defence is allowed to discriminate in certain areas, which is why applying you bias or knowledge of civilian recruitment processes here isn’t accurate.
You are missing the point.
I am saying that the principle (positive discrimination) is wrong.
Your logic is that once they have achieved the standard they are all capable because the job is "automated" (follow rules), so choose the one that matches the paper quota. Yes, your logic is they can perform the job as well.
My logic is to choose the best by filtering through all of them to get the best regardless of who they are. Everyone gets equal chance regardless. If the best person meets the quote is from diverse background fine, otherwise let it be.
Simply put whoever can get the job done best gets the job.
You are missing the point.
I am saying that the principle (positive discrimination) is wrong.
Your logic is that once they have achieved the standard they are all capable because the job is “automated” (follow rules), so choose the one that matches the paper quota. Yes, your logic is they can perform the job as well.
My logic is to choose the best by filtering through all of them to get the best regardless of who they are. Everyone gets equal chance regardless. If the best person meets the quote fine, otherwise let it be.
That's exactly what the recruitment, selection AND training process does. And again, 'best' is subjective, the correct word is suitable. I know why you're using it because it suits your agenda, but I'm afraid you have no idea what you're talking about. You have no clue about the process and are applying a very binary way of thinking to this.
And once again, defence has exceptions that allow it to discriminate. I know that might shock you, but it's not hard to understand why.
That’s exactly what the recruitment, selection AND training process does. And again, ‘best’ is subjective, the correct word is suitable. I know why you’re using it because it suits your agenda, but I’m afraid you have no idea what you’re talking about. You have no clue about the process and are applying a very binary way of thinking to this.
I have no agenda other than saying that positive discrimination is silly based on my experience.
Discrimination is already bad but then trying to "balance" it out by having "positive" discrimination is really silly in my views.
And once again, defence has exceptions that allow it to discriminate. I know that might shock you, but it’s not hard to understand why.
Nothing shocks me so far in my life.
As for defense being allowed to discriminate they have their reasons, but speaking in a general sense of "positive" discrimination that I find silly.
I would imagine that part of the process involves weeding out the numpties who don't get the point after having it explained to them half a dozen times.
This sums it up for me Eileen A. Bjorkman - a retired U.S. Air Force colonel and executive director of the Air Force Test Center.
Pilots who graduate at the top of their class normally get to fly the hottest fighters in the inventory. But when Air Force Capt. Connie J. Engel graduated at the top of her class, in 1977, she settled for being an instructor pilot in a training aircraft.
Also, the Captain of the nuclear carrier USS Abraham Lincoln.
We all agree that people from minority backgrounds and women are just as capable of being fighter pilots so with that in mind, how would the RAF attract talent from outside of the public-school educated, male dominated traditional routes?
This sums it up for me Eileen A. Bjorkman – a retired U.S. Air Force colonel and executive director of the Air Force Test Center.
Not sure what it sums up? That doesn't happen here. Nobody, not even men become instructors out of flying training, that path is long and requires many more hours and qualifications to even be selected.
We all agree that people from minority backgrounds and women are just as capable of being fighter pilots so with that in mind, how would the RAF attract talent from outside of the public-school educated, male dominated traditional routes?
That's the million dollar question, but it's not just about aircrew, they're the minority in the RAF, recruiting into the variety of other roles that require in some cases minimal entry standards is proving difficult. The reality is they're struggling to recruit enough of anyone.
The inflow can't match the outflow at the moment.
We all agree that people from minority backgrounds and women are just as capable of being fighter pilots so with that in mind, how would the RAF attract talent from outside of the public-school educated, male dominated traditional routes?
The RAF don't tend to be made up of Biggles style characters anymore, i know of quite a good mix, remember there's lots of trades in the RAF, not just fast jet pilots, and they offer a variety of scholarships, sponsorships, apprenticeships, etc to allow people from all walks of life, as long as they have the prerequisite aptitude and skill.
I would imagine that part of the process involves weeding out the numpties who don’t get the point after having it explained to them half a dozen times.
Let's hope they will never experienced positive discrimination. (In the current economy climate I am not so sure)
Nahhh ... forget that. Let them experience positive discrimination and see how they feel afterward (and I don't mean happening only once).
This sums it up for me Eileen A. Bjorkman – a retired U.S. Air Force colonel and executive director of the Air Force Test Center.
Sums what up? This is from the 70s and the USAF. The RAF was male only for aircrew until the early 90s. Once opened up for females there was nothing preventing them from going into combat roles (there was a slightly delay of a year or so for fast jet).
We all agree that people from minority backgrounds and women are just as capable of being fighter pilots so with that in mind, how would the RAF attract talent from outside of the public-school educated, male dominated traditional routes?
Females can and do make excellent fast jet pilots, but generally get lower overall pilot aptitude scores during selection. That is one of the areas that needs to be considered during recruitment or the RAF would struggle even more to select females if it simply took those with the highest aptitude. What is your source for the assertion regarding public school education? As Agree says, that is not the case. Your comments may highlight one of the big problems, people thinking the RAF is only for public school males when the reality is totally different.
That doesn’t happen here. Nobody, not even men become instructors out of flying training
It does happen here. They are called ‘Creamies’. It went out of fashion for a few years due to frontline pilot shortages but is back in use now.
The reality is they’re struggling to recruit enough of anyone.
The inflow can’t match the outflow at the moment.
I agree with much of what you have said in this thread but this is not the case at the moment. Many trades are closed for applications and those that are open have high numbers of applications. Many branches are full, in part because Covid slowed outflow and saw a massive increase in people rejoining the Service. The big problem is in the training system and getting fresh recruits to the frontline. That position won’t last long as the job market opens back up and rejoiners contracts come to an end. Your comments will be spot on very soon!
Then one day during aerial combat the whole squadron got short down because the less qualified pilot lack one skill crucial for the role. Isn’t that a bit foolish?
That made me chuckle. What skill do you think would be missing during recruitment that wouldn’t have been taught during several years of training? Or resulted in the candidate not making the standard required to make the frontline?
@ginkster fair rebuttal. I'm surprised at the 'creamies' We certainly don't do that on the green side with rotary, but you lot do like to do things differently. 😉
Once did some discrimination awareness training, the one where you all stand in a line and you get the " this answer this question step forward" after many questions i was stood at the back with a 25 year old Nigerian fella - the instructor thought i was taking the racist piss as a bald 50 year white bloke.
I had to take him to one side and explain my "journey"
I think there are times when positive discrimination is required as a means to change things. Discrimination comes in many forms age, gender, education, class, accents etc. Many people suffer from it but its range is horrible.
I was once referred to as a Geordie working class c**t to my face in a meeting... (in London) because i corrected an Oxford Educated CTO who was giving his employer (my client) some very bad advice.
but you lot do like to do things
differentlybetter.
FTFY! 😉😂
FTFY! 😉😂
Touché
Sums what up? This is from the 70s and the USAF. The RAF was male only for aircrew until the early 90s. Once opened up for females there was nothing preventing them from going into combat roles (there was a slightly delay of a year or so for fast jet).
Stuff like this gets reported in the press.
and this.
What is your source for the assertion regarding public school education? As Agree says, that is not the case. Your comments may highlight one of the big problems, people thinking the RAF is only for public school males when the reality is totally different.
In fairness, the latest update (leak) casts a darker shadow. Not looking good for RAF recruitment right now.
But ultimately, so what if they broke the law? P&O did and nothing happened, in this case there would be some resignations (still retaining a full pension) and some other scandal would make it go away quickly.
Would be great if people were held to account, but that's unlikely because that's not how we've engineered our society.
Would be great if people where held to account, but that’s unlikely.
Yup.
Like minded workforce tend to be more cohesive, not diverse, can get the job done quickly and everyone is happy.
The cohesive bit comes in training (I grew up on the RAF Regiment training base in Credenhill, and heard plenty about the problems of getting white males to work as required from my dad who worked there… in one case his own brother in law was one of the squeaky wheels that needed putting straight). A cohesive force isn’t born of everyone being white and male. We’re all different you know.
'Nahhh … forget that. Let them experience positive discrimination and see how they feel afterward (and I don’t mean happening only once).'
I don't know how to read this in any way and not think less of you Chew
The cohesive bit comes in training
This. That's where the 'like mindedness' comes from. A shared set of values and way of doing business.
Seems the RAF may have overstepped the mark if there is any truth to the latest leaks.
In a few years time, when a significant proportion of my Squadron are unfit to work through pregnancy or observing Ramadan, which agency do you call to get temporary staff when something kicks off and you need a response?
It is a noble aspiration to fully reflect society, however you then do not get an armed force that you would expect and pay taxes towards.
p.s. Creamies in other branches as well.
p.s. Creamies in other branches as well.
RN as well? Christ alive.
which agency do you call to get temporary staff when something kicks off and you need a response?
Hence an earlier statement that bums on seats is always an issue. My old unit are carrying significant gaps although they are filling some with holdees from MFTS.
The RAF does seen to be going through a bit of a rough patch of late.
when a significant proportion of my Squadron are unfit to work through pregnancy or observing Ramadan
Ooo… we’re onto religion as well now are we? Can we do Jews and their religious traditions next? Xmas break leave timetabling for those stationed abroad?
As for female recruits… well, every woman I know who has been in the RAF has at least one offspring in the forces now. So they’ve been literally growing the future work force.
RN as well?
Nope, RAF.
Everywhere I go, all units are doing the same, if not more, with fewer uniformed personnel. The higher echelons not only have scrambled egg on the peak of their SD hats, but all over their faces.....
all units are doing the same, if not more, with fewer uniformed personnel
Do more with fewer people… been that way for a while now, no? And getting worse…
Ooo… we’re onto religion as well now are we?
The comment about Ramadan was based on my experience of personnel being declared unfit to work due to the dietary and limited rest they are able to achieve during that period. Also spending 6 months attached to an Arab nation in conflict, that resulted in a substantial degradation in their operational effectiveness.
If you are serving, you will no doubt know that Operation Deny Christmas kicks in almost every year!
J
Do more with fewer people… been that way for a while now, no? And getting worse…
There is an aspiration to change that. The RU/UKR conflict has been a bit of a wake up call.
And the comments about pregnancy/religious absence have merit. It's right and proper that people's needs are accommodated and are given the time they require (by law or moral obligation), but the MOD has a responsibility to ensure that thw gaps can be covered to ensure operational capability isn't affected
The failing isn't an individual one or 'pandering' to people, it's simply failing to take into account the impact of those occurrences and having the capability to absorb the workload efficiently.
Something they're ****ing terrible at. It contributes to why people leave. But it does get spun down to an individual level rather than a criticism of the system failing its people and pushing undermanned units to breaking point.
The comment about Ramadan was based on my experience of personnel being declared unfit to work due to the dietary and limited rest they are able to achieve during that period
That might be true but in most cases can be accommodated in a training setting. In an operational setting then a soldier can break their fast and make the days up at another time.
That might be true but in most cases can be accommodated in a training setting. In an operational setting then a soldier can break their fast and make the days up at another time.
Not everyone trains on every RAF unit, some safety critical roles such as Air Traffic Control or engineering would not and therefore it does have in impact on output and may affect training for others.
As for fast breaking, not in my experience of the UK or the Middle East, but then you state 'soldier', I stopped working with the Army 10 years ago and your experience may be more up to date than mine.
Army here. Same on ops, but even in the training/BAU environment it can be a challenge. Especially within certain rank cohorts as the numbers start to thin so work simply has to be asborbwd by those already managing teams and tasks that need all their capacity.
Unlike civilian orgs, we can't just employ someone on a FTC to fill roles.
The solution could be within the reserve forces but that's a whole other discussion.
But again, for clarity the issue is not one for individuals to be blamed, but a system that has removed all the flexibility out of itself.
It's 'The Right Stuff' argument isn' t it? A presumption that what is required is based on what went before.
The RAF, much like the Army operates within the class system and is rather antiquated. Public school officers abound, their training starting on the cricket grounds of all 'the best' schools.
In WW2 the divide between the officer class pilots and the seargent pilots was huge and extremely problematic. The more experienced officer class pilots didnt pass on what they had learned to the new intake, particularly alligning guns to converge at 50 metres rather than the 300 metres dictated in training manual. Many were more interested in keeping cricket scores.
In the event of hostilities, the Polish pilots out performed their British counterparts by a rate of 3 to 1. I guess you only find out who has 'the right stuff' when the bullets start flying for real.
Questioning the drive for diversity presupposes that the forces are a meritocracy when in fact they are the sector that most represents the antiquated and pernicious class system that operates in this country, (present government excepted.)
So how do you explain working class lads & lasses joining at 18 at pte (or service equivalents) and dropping out in the 40s as commissioned officers?
The Army still has NCO pilots who command aircraft over officers.
Any more out of date examples you want to pull up to demonstrate what you think you know that you could write on a postage stamp with space ledt for war and peace?
They're not perfect orgs, but none are. They're inhabited by the same sorts of people in every other org up and down the country.
These days rank is about more about accountability and responsibility that historical purchased commissions, but again no different to hierarchies in many other orgs.
Many things have changed that flip the WW2 way of doing business on its head. Not perfect, but not as outdated as you think.
In a few years time, when a significant proportion of my Squadron are unfit to work through pregnancy or observing Ramadan, which agency do you call to get temporary staff when something kicks off and you need a response?
That is exactly the outdated, white male orientated view the seniors are trying to eradicate. The same old argument that was used when flying was opened up to females. The lack of depth to cover gaps is the issue, not the gender or religion (or any other aspect) of the person causing the gap. The same issue exists when the white male is ill, deployed, leave etc.
Everywhere I go, all units are doing the same, if not more, with fewer uniformed personnel.
That is nothing new and has been happening since the end of WW2 as the Service has continuously decreased in numbers. Options for Change and Frontline First where classic examples from 30 odd years ago. The last SDSR didn’t help, introducing more shiny kit (or keeping stuff that was due out of service) without an equal uplift in personnel to operate it. None of that has anything to do with trying to increase diversity though.
The RAF, much like the Army operates within the class system and is rather antiquated. Public school officers abound, their training starting on the cricket grounds of all ‘the best’ schools.
Er, nope. Not since about the 1940-50s.
