Retention for Pers Admin

[True Blue Jack]

As it happens, the Army and Navy are going more our way with more and more SSgts and above (Army) and LHs and above (RN) being offered further service beyond 22 years because they have come to recognise how much experience they are losing by kicking out perfectly healthy 40 year olds.

Off Topic I am waiting for someone to challenge the "Age 55" cut off on discrimination grounds.

People, generally, no longer see the Forces as a job for life and the fewer "perks" there are to offset this sustained high operational tempo the harder it is to retain our best people.

 

[Twisted]

Off Topic
Unfortunately, at the present time, serving members of the armed forces, including reservists, are not covered by the Employment Equality (Age) Regulations 2006. Something to do with the purpose of 'safeguarding national security'.

Statutory regulations might change in the future, but right now the Armed Forces can be as 'ageist' as they like - don't you just love 'loop-holes'

::

 

[Cake or Death]

If I'm not mistaken, That's the very point Hu J is trying to make, given that he's a techie.DT_Xtremez_15:

er yeah sorry that made sense to me last night, damn beer. drinking and posting, my bad.

Was supposed to be in agreement.

question is will we ever get a retention bonus?

 

[woollymouse]

Lets be honest about this subject.
Its not about financial reward is it?
The way I see it is RAF wide, not just shineys.
We are all struggling to get promoted on good assessments.
Why?
Because there is too much dead wood clogging the system up thats why.
Why did the techie redundancies get rid of loads of Cpls? (justification to promote sac (t)'s!!??)
They should have booted out some warrants, flights and chiefs to free the rank ladder up and I expect the other trades were in need of similar bootings!
Why do we insist on having people serving until 55 years of age??
I believe the Army sign for 22 years and if they want more service they can go for their commission? How about some of that action for us. Change the cut off age from 55 to 47. Get the dead wood gone!!!!!

Lose the dead wood that I can agree with but not all those on to 55 are dead wood. Changing the terms of service will not sort out the problem. It's those who are content to sit at Cpl/Sgt/CT/FS level until they get a decent pension who need to be whittled out. That said the Army lose a hell of a lot of good people after 22 years service how would you like to be flung on the scrap heap in your late 30's just because you have provided 22 years service to queen and country from age 18. That is one of the reasons why both the Army and the Navy are looking at the RAF system they have lost valuable personnel and experience.

 

[MrMasher]

Lose the dead wood that I can agree with but not all those on to 55 are dead wood. Changing the terms of service will not sort out the problem. It's those who are content to sit at Cpl/Sgt/CT/FS level until they get a decent pension who need to be whittled out. That said the Army lose a hell of a lot of good people after 22 years service how would you like to be flung on the scrap heap in your late 30's just because you have provided 22 years service to queen and country from age 18. That is one of the reasons why both the Army and the Navy are looking at the RAF system they have lost valuable personnel and experience.

Surely someone needs to sort out the LUE's and the rank requirement in some posts? Why do some posts require a SNCO where the job can be done by a JNCO for example. Too many SNCO's in the airforce as well as orrificers (a previous thread done at length!)
Perhaps we should keep the experience in the RAF then and sign people on until 65?
In this day and age the RAF can afford to be picky and choosy about who it promotes and who it flings onto the scrapheap. Less people in, less posts to fill and therefore the person for the job has to be the right one.
So when I get to my 22 year point if I havent got my 3rd do I get flung out on the the current system? Even though I will have provided 22 years service to queen and country from age 18?

The Navy and Army get promoted far quicker than some of the RAF trades so the system may not suit them surely?

 

[SgtScribbly]

couple of points from me on this thread:

To age 55 is just another contract length, same as 22 Yrs and LOS30 and is not necessarily the end of the line as you can always apply for continuance cant you? So its not really discrimating against old people.

FRIs for TG17 - most unlikely, ever,

Higher Pay Band for Cpls - never in a month of sundays

further Civilianisation is the way forward, of that I am sure

 

[Woodja]

Off Topic
Unfortunately, at the present time, serving members of the armed forces, including reservists, are not covered by the Employment Equality (Age) Regulations 2006. Something to do with the purpose of 'safeguarding national security'.

Statutory regulations might change in the future, but right now the Armed Forces can be as 'ageist' as they like - don't you just love 'loop-holes'

::

So why did they change the "to Age 47" enagagement to LOS30?

Not that I am disputing your post - but they have gone halfway to changing the enagagement terms, why not go the whole way?

 

[Rack Shelf Bin]

couple of points from me on this thread:

To age 55 is just another contract length, same as 22 Yrs and LOS30 and is not necessarily the end of the line as you can always apply for continuance cant you? So its not really discrimating against old people.

FRIs for TG17 - most unlikely, ever,

Higher Pay Band for Cpls - never in a month of sundays

further Civilianisation is the way forward, of that I am sure

With even less understanding of the service and the idiosyncrasies that there are, but it will always be the poor clerks fault.

 

[ForgottenName]

Retention is not something our lords and masters are looking too closely at because we have far more Sgts than we need if we are to conform to the 'ideal pyramid' that crops up every now and again. quote]

TBJ. Rather a sweeping statement that. I believe that if our Lords and Masters do not look at retention then we won't have an ideal pyramid, because we won't have any people.

HS

or even a strong case from Sec Sponsor to put Cpl's on higher pay band

I don't think that any JSET looks at individual ranks, but the trade as a whole. As in any JSET exercise, the proof will be in the evidence provided rather than the strength of the case submitted by a Trade Sponsor.

Shiney Pencil

Should we not be promoting people to get involved with CIPD stuff???

Whilst I believe that we should be promoting personnel to achieve qualifications, at all standards, I believe that we cannot train people to achieve outside qualifications. As many civilian employers have found, you outlay the costs of training people to meet a qualfication then they leave.

TBJ

I can see a real problem looming in the next 5 years or so if we fail to retain high-calibre administrators, but I don't see how

In my opinion you are exactly right. That is why I would not want the job of the Trade Sponsor as he has got to find a way somehow. I, for once, actually have faith in this TS in that he might produce the goods. We have seen some good work coming out - but from my time at STC, I know that he has a hard job ahead of him.

KG

In my Air Force I would be glad to be rid of dead wood

Unfortunately, we both know that there isn't any dead wood out there - at least according to most Fs6000 there aren't. But whose problem is that and how has it come about.

As a KOS scribbly (although I like to believe that I still have a finger on the pulse) with a passionate interest in our trade, I watch the Shiney forum with avid interest. I only wish we could get more Shiney's to read and or join the e-goat forums.

 

[tommo9999]

There are, and will remain huge issues within TG17. Most have been covered in this thread, but I would really like to see some truly radical proposals; what about removing the promotion link from Further Service? We have all known outstanding SAC's who have never/would never make JNCO that have left because they had to, why not let them do 22 years? What about allowing Cpl's to draft certain trades? It happened in the dim and distant past, it could be a possibility again, particularly now that the Trade Cells have an AST already in place.

I would just like to see some really forward looking, visionary ideas for TG17 or we are finished. Yes, we could last another 10-15 years, but with TRT's in freefall and retention a massive issue, who will stay? The deadwood already mentioned by several posters in this thread. Just give us something, anything to hang our hat on.

 

[Humble Scribe]

There are, and will remain huge issues within TG17. Most have been covered in this thread, but I would really like to see some truly radical proposals; what about removing the promotion link from Further Service? We have all known outstanding SAC's who have never/would never make JNCO that have left because they had to, why not let them do 22 years? What about allowing Cpl's to draft certain trades? It happened in the dim and distant past, it could be a possibility again, particularly now that the Trade Cells have an AST already in place.

I would just like to see some really forward looking, visionary ideas for TG17 or we are finished. Yes, we could last another 10-15 years, but with TRT's in freefall and retention a massive issue, who will stay? The deadwood already mentioned by several posters in this thread. Just give us something, anything to hang our hat on.

Tommo, I agree with you regarding most of your examples above but the problem would be that things like FS being linked to promotion would have to be adopted for all trade not just TG17 as we're not the only ones with retention problems. FRI's seem to be the vogue for retention at the moment whether it's right or wrong! Personally I like the CIPD option but as FN says we're not going to train personnel to go to civvy street so we need to give our youngsters the potential of a full career with realistic promotion prospects & a rewarding job.

I got my ears burnt last week by a mutual friend about the suggestion that Cpl's draft! The idea filtered down from AMP but ACOS Manning gave me short shrift about it!! Have to keep trying!

 

[tommo9999]

HS, There is precedent for JNCO's drafting, just ask the really old sweats who were around in the mid-80's. I used the examples to generate debate, I am aware that any proposals could affect other trades, but why not? Lets get everyone discussing these issues, and we might just see some light at the end of the tunnel.

DT_Xtremez_30:

 

[True Blue Jack]

There are, and will remain huge issues within TG17. Most have been covered in this thread, but I would really like to see some truly radical proposals; what about removing the promotion link from Further Service? We have all known outstanding SAC's who have never/would never make JNCO that have left because they had to, why not let them do 22 years? What about allowing Cpl's to draft certain trades? It happened in the dim and distant past, it could be a possibility again, particularly now that the Trade Cells have an AST already in place.

I would just like to see some really forward looking, visionary ideas for TG17 or we are finished. Yes, we could last another 10-15 years, but with TRT's in freefall and retention a massive issue, who will stay? The deadwood already mentioned by several posters in this thread. Just give us something, anything to hang our hat on.

I am a fan of removing the link between rank and length of engagement. I'm sure we all know good people who have fallen off the end of the conveyor belt for no other reason than they have run out of time in a highly competitive era. But we also know eejits who would happily doss around for 22 years letting everybody else carry them, so I think further service beyond that currently allowed by rank should be carefully targetted. It worked a few years ago when a number of Jnr Techs were offered further service to 22, and the Navy are reaping dividends on their "2OE" scheme (5 or 10 years further service for LH & PO approaching the end of their time).

 

[Humble Scribe]

HS, There is precedent for JNCO's drafting, just ask the really old sweats who were around in the mid-80's. I used the examples to generate debate, I am aware that any proposals could affect other trades, but why not? Lets get everyone discussing these issues, and we might just see some light at the end of the tunnel.

DT_Xtremez_30:

You calling me an old sweat Tommo? Fair Point!! Must admit, I worked in the Trade Sqn's in the 80's (along with our mutual friend who was giving me a hard time for the suggestion) as an SAC and I can't remember Cpl's drafting! I know there were some other trades drafting but not, as I recall, Cpl's. Like you say though, lets try and be a bit radical and more away from the norm; I wasn't getting anywhere with the 'mafia' though!!

 

[tommo9999]

You calling me an old sweat Tommo? I wasn't getting anywhere with the 'mafia' though!!

Yes to answer the first question. On your second point, there's no such thing!!

Back on topic, there were Cpl's drafting in 6D I'm reliably informed, but it might have been before you arrived at Innsworth.

 

[KingGuin]

Yes to answer the first question. On your second point, there's no such thing!!

Back on topic, there were Cpl's drafting in 6D I'm reliably informed, but it might have been before you arrived at Innsworth.

I remember speaking to a Cpl in 6D who drafted Gunners: this would be around 1988 when I were a lad.

 

[Mug?]

Jpa

Jpa

JPA will have the drafting answers.
You put your preferences in and it sweeps the system for you, job done no human intervention needed, no who you know or wheeling and dealing or sending flowers every month?

The retention question always seems to be answered with the increased recruitment answer, they happy if they can get more in than are flowing out.

Will the new pension arrangements not affect the flow or people, with most leaving at 18 and not holding on to the 22 yrs?

 

[tommo9999]

JPA will have the drafting answers.
You put your preferences in and it sweeps the system for you, job done no human intervention needed, no who you know or wheeling and dealing or sending flowers every month?

How would JPA pick the right person? Time in location? Disestablished Post? End of Fixed Tour? Interested to hear your thoughts.

 

[ForgottenName]

JPA will have the drafting answers.
, job done no human intervention needed, ?

Mmmm, an interesting prospect.

Bit like expenses really, then there could be SJAR and ......

 

[Shiney Pencil]

If you listened to the news yesterday the Armed Forces are now 6000 personnel under strength, but there is not a problem according to the Ivory Towers!

Some good points being raised here and I think that this is the kind of radical thinking that we need. Just got to get those up top to listen to the troops on the ground.

On the note of retention why not get rid of a few Air Officers, they seem to promote them every 2-3 years, then their wages could be used as retention payments. Would be nice!