Redundancies

[vim_fuego]

The way I understad the explantation for Tranche 2 is they want to make sure they work out the numbers properly. What this means is they've rushed the first part of the SDSR and made decisions they regret but don't have the political courage to reverse them. Who'd have thought it, spineless and worthless politicians? They really are the most loathsome group of people, regardless of the coulour of their ties, from Edinburgh City Council with their effing trams all the way up to our Government and their decisions designed only to keep them in power.

Don't know for sure but I reckon at any meeting where decisions are discussed or made between politicians there is more emphasis laid on 'Will this make us look bad?' than 'How will this effect the people?'

 

[justintime129]

.........and especially in the last 2 points, is there a cop out clause which states "well, over the populus, thse guys were less well professionally regarded than the others, so they have to go".

also where does it state that because someone is deployed ooa he won't be considered for redundancy even though he's cack at his job which a criteria they seem to be using

 

[ivrytwr3]

also where does it state that because someone is deployed ooa he won't be considered for redundancy even though he's cack at his job which a criteria they seem to be using

In the DIN (applies to those who are in receipt of Op Allowance, not just any OOA).

 

[CC]

also where does it state that because someone is deployed ooa he won't be considered for redundancy even though he's cack at his job which a criteria they seem to be using

And this is where I believe they have left themselves open for legal action.

Being OOA right now is more a matter of luck; the person could have an awful P1 record, cack at his job, but just cos he's OOA right now, he's safe.

How is that fair?

By the way, in case anyone is thinking I'm bitter; I couldn't be further from it. I'm not eligible for redundancy and have just ET'd anyway DT_Xtremez_26:

 

[Climebear]

Don't know for sure but I reckon at any meeting where decisions are discussed or made between politicians there is more emphasis laid on 'Will this make us look bad?' than 'How will this effect the people?'

You can just picture the scene - very 'Yes Prime Minister'.

 

[True Blue Jack]

And this is where I believe they have left themselves open for legal action.

Being OOA right now is more a matter of luck; the person could have an awful P1 record, cack at his job, but just cos he's OOA right now, he's safe.

How is that fair?

I do think that exempting deployed personnel from redundancy was a foolish decision which has severely limited the process, no matter how much sense it might make politically.

But to make a legal case, the complainant would have to prove that they have been made redundant in lieu of a more suitable candidate who happens to be deployed. If that has happened then I agree legal action could and should be pursued but I suspect the RFP have been sensitive to that possibility from the outset and have ensured they are covered.

 

[Harry B'Stard]

.... But I would like to know how you would go about reducing the size of the RAF by 5000 personnel and posts by 2015 in a fair and equitable manner?

Could it be done like most companies do it?

They announce that they need to get rid of x number of people and ask for volunteers.

But this time do it without ANY restriction on time served. I know plenty of people that would have jumped if it wasn't for the fact they joined a matter of WEEKS outside the criteria.

All those that they want to get rid of (because they are cr4p at their job) simply find themselves not getting promoted/signed on or even dismissed on medical grounds from the forces.

I also understand the need to keep recruiting people (you can't shut the training schools down and expect them to start up again without problems, they need at least a trickle flow through to keep currency) but we have the ridiculous example of a couple of years ago where the RAF panicked and recruited anyone who walked past a CIO and we now have to shed loads of people from the top end... whilst keeping a collection of people who weren't exactly suitable in the first place!DT_Xtremez_09:

HTB

 

[justintime129]

I do think that exempting deployed personnel from redundancy was a foolish decision which has severely limited the process, no matter how much sense it might make politically.

But to make a legal case, the complainant would have to prove that they have been made redundant in lieu of a more suitable candidate who happens to be deployed. If that has happened then I agree legal action could and should be pursued but I suspect the RFP have been sensitive to that possibility from the outset and have ensured they are covered.

Surely the law averages dictate that airman A is very cacky at his job but is away on deployment so won't be considered but airman B who is less cacky at his job will be considered.

As a tax payer I won't be happy if the forces have to pay out millions in compensation as they had to with the wraf fiasco.

 

[muttywhitedog]

I do think that exempting deployed personnel from redundancy was a foolish decision which has severely limited the process, no matter how much sense it might make politically.

They may escape it this time, but they cannot be OOA for Trance 2 too - largely because they dont know when it is. Any CM worth his salt should veto a volunteer for an Op Allowance area if they have just returned from an OOA that they suddenly volunteered for!

Similarly, for Formed Unit deployments - the Sqn management can make sure the throbbers are not OOA on D Day.

 

[MrMasher]

IIRC, as the redundancy elements of the Employment Rights Act do not apply to the Armed Forces, an employment tribunal would not have the jurisdiction to hear a claim against the process. That said, an aggrieved individual could seek a Judicial Revue that would consider wether the actions are reasonable.

Is that some sort of show?DT_Xtremez_30:

 

[True Blue Jack]

Similarly, for Formed Unit deployments - the Sqn management can make sure the throbbers are not OOA on D Day.

I would suggest that any attempt by Sqn management to manipulate roulements with the intent to influence redundancy board outcomes really would open the door for legal action.

 

[muttywhitedog]

Isnt what has happened with the "good guys"?

I'll lay money that the TG1 "Good Guys" are currently out at Kandahar with the GR4 Det.

 

[duffman]

Isnt what has happened with the "good guys"?

I'll lay money that the TG1 "Good Guys" are currently out at Kandahar with the GR4 Det.

Who are the 'good guys'?

 

[duffman]

Will the factors ever by given out , ie Q's, time of service and the weightings to each of these. Or will this be like TG1 manning levels...

 

[Mr Grok]

What if someone was OOA and actually wanted to apply for redundancy - presumably they have been prevented from applying - so how is that "fair"?

 

[True Blue Jack]

Will the factors ever by given out , ie Q's, time of service and the weightings to each of these. Or will this be like TG1 manning levels...

What if someone was OOA and actually wanted to apply for redundancy - presumably they have been prevented from applying - so how is that "fair"?

I guess you guys never actually read the DIN?

 

[clungemobile]

Will the factors ever by given out , ie Q's, time of service and the weightings to each of these. Or will this be like TG1 manning levels...

I thought they had been briefed by AMP briefing team?

 

[muttywhitedog]

What if someone was OOA and actually wanted to apply for redundancy - presumably they have been prevented from applying - so how is that "fair"?

Is this a wah?

 

[duffman]

I guess you guys never actually read the DIN?

I did yes, but it didn't stick in my mind that it was on there.

Now I do remember that some factors were listed, but I don't remember the weightings being on there?

 

[Mr Grok]

The DIN was a long time ago - I read it briefly, but it didn't relate directly to me and believe it or not a lot of paperwork passes before my eyes on a regular basis.

I seem to remember that if you were OOA, or about to go OOA you couldn't be made redundant. I don't remember whether or not there was a distinction that meant you could volunteer under these circumstances.

I only made my comment in relation to many of the previous posts about the "fairness", validity and legal status of the redundancy process.

It occurred to me that if you couldn't apply because of OOA dates then this was an obvious example of "unfairness". If you could apply even though you were about to go OOA then my comment is obviously invalid........










I was "made" to do some IT course recently, some sort of information management Passport. One of the comments on there was about the dangers of information overload. With the numbers of DIN, IBNs, SROs, Station newsletters, Force newsletters, JPA notices, DII outage e-mails, etc, etc floating about you can spend half your day reading paperwork - most of which you have forgotten by the following week, doesn't effect you, or in any way improve your life/productivity, etc.......