Welcome to E-Goat :: The Totally Unofficial Royal Air Force Rumour Network
Join our free community to unlock a range of benefits like:
  • Post and participate in discussions.
  • Send and receive private messages with other members.
  • Respond to polls and surveys.
  • Upload and share content.
  • Gain access to exclusive features and tools.
Join 7.5K others today

Retention for Pers Admin

  • Thread starter Thread starter Shiney Pencil
  • Start date Start date
  • Following weeks of work, the E-GOAT team are delighted to present to you a new look to the forums with plenty of new features. Take a look around and see what you think!
Trending This Week
View More Trending
KingGuin said:
BB did this come from A1 Spec Sup? In my real job I would have seen this but alas in my temp purple home....................
Click to expand...


KG, I do hope you will avoid the bling jewellery out there. Don't want to get any of those tacky "necklaces", won't do at all...!

Still waiting on my SCV payment, btw, Ming Campbell has a certain ring to it as your (and my) local MP.

Moving to Broughty Ferry next week - DE will be glad.

Regards,
 
True Blue Jack said:
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]

Perhaps if our lords & masters had allowed the "unlucky" 90 or so Sgts who applied but didnt get the Big R to leave, albeit on 18 months' notice of Redundancy, in Apr 08, they would achieve their pyramid.
Click to expand...
 
[Perhaps if our lords & masters had allowed the "unlucky" 90 or so Sgts who applied but didnt get the Big R to leave, albeit on 18 months' notice of Redundancy, in Apr 08, they would achieve their pyramid.[/QUOTE]

As one of the 'unlucky 90' I believe that to be a damn fine idea. However, one of the reasons we didin't get selected is that we are fit (alledgedly!) and are able to deploy unlike some of the 'lame' (not all admittedly) that actually got it. Imagine what the DWR turnaround would be like with another 90 out of the pot - about 18 months and below Harmony at best I would guess.
 
As one of the 'unlucky 90' I believe that to be a damn fine idea. However said:
all[/U] admittedly) that actually got it. Imagine what the DWR turnaround would be like with another 90 out of the pot - about 18 months and below Harmony at best I would guess.
Click to expand...

So you think that after we've got rid of the 133 posts our trade will maintain a harmony turnaround with regard DWR's, don't think so.

I remember a while back being told, around the time of options, that our trade was now at the level required to support ops, provide harmony and support back to those at base. Having now been cut by a healthy 30% you can kiss your a55 good bye to harmony, hello to Afganistan quick turnaround, and if your a 1S or 5S a quick kiss between dets.

Promotion has been at a relative standstill since Mid 2003 for Cpls and will continue for some time to come as we form a pyramid, I'm sorry I'm not aware of the effects on the other ranks as I am not one of them but it's probably similar, good luck to those that are left behind they'll need it, I've made my bed and set my own future up I'm a better person than I was when I joined up, partly due to the opportunities given to me, so I am not bitter, honest, but I feel sorry for those that expected what they were told when they joined up, not aware of the politics and penny pinching related manning in the RAF.
 
busby1971 said:
Promotion has been at a relative standstill since Mid 2003 for Cpls
Click to expand...

Relative to what? Although I don't have the figures currently to hand, I can remember making offers to very healthy numbers in 02, 03, 04 and 05. It only really got tight in my last 12-18 months in the job. I would say that, on average, the Cpl - Sgt PSL over the 02-05 period used approx 50-70 each year (I can certainly remember getting to the late 60's on at least 2 occasions). It's a myth that there has been no promotion for "ages" as some say.
 
tommo9999 said:
Relative to what? Although I don't have the figures currently to hand, I can remember making offers to very healthy numbers in 02, 03, 04 and 05. It only really got tight in my last 12-18 months in the job. I would say that, on average, the Cpl - Sgt PSL over the 02-05 period used approx 50-70 each year (I can certainly remember getting to the late 60's on at least 2 occasions). It's a myth that there has been no promotion for "ages" as some say.
Click to expand...

I know you're an expert here, what with your last job and all that, but from my own personal experience over this period I've been in the thirties twice and yoyo'd up into the sixties twice so if you're right somebody made a big boo boo and I've got good reasons for a redress, however, I think you may have forgotten the exact figures and might be working on averages which would have included the huge promotion board, that I just missed out on, in 2002 that was extended because of telic and got into triple figures, I was bang in there in 2003 which was a short board because of the 2002 one and got to the mid 60's, still a good figure considering the shortness of period covered.

You regularly hear people going on about how promotion is near normal, and when they justify this they compare it by using averages that include 02 or relate it to the period before the mid 90s redundancy period when promotion just wasn't there.

Jobs get cut promotions get rarer, that's to be expected that's the way life is, just don't Cowpoo everyone with stats that don't relate to what really happens on the shop floor
 
I'll try and get the figures, but I don't remember going anywhere near 3 figures. Give me a couple of days, I'll get back to you.
 
Bitte ein Bit! said:
[Perhaps if our lords & masters had allowed the "unlucky" 90 or so Sgts who applied but didnt get the Big R to leave, albeit on 18 months' notice of Redundancy, in Apr 08, they would achieve their pyramid.
Click to expand...

[/QUOTE]As one of the 'unlucky 90' I believe that to be a damn fine idea. However, one of the reasons we didin't get selected is that we are fit (alledgedly!) and are able to deploy unlike some of the 'lame' (not all admittedly) that actually got it. Imagine what the DWR turnaround would be like with another 90 out of the pot - about 18 months and below Harmony at best I would guess.[/QUOTE]


.........


In another job I was heavily involved in staffing the redundancy policy. The reason why we didn't make more people redundant, not just in TG17 was that the treasury only gave the RAF funding to make 2750 personnel redundant. If more money had been available we would have been at 41K personnel some time ago.

The Treasury told the RAF after the mid nineties redundancy round to reduce its overly generous redundancy terms. We didn't, it fell through the cracks! Hence why we only got funding for 2750 redundancies and the subsequent change in the redundancy regs.

I was one of the unlucky ones as well, fit and at the wrong end of the reverse promotion board!
 
Ditto, however how long is it going to take to shed all these posts through "natural wastage", particularly those of us who have >10yrs left on our contract. The terms of the redundancy would have given me 18 months pay - it would still be cost-effective if someone was to write to those who didnt get it and offer them it again. 18months salary versus 8, 9, 10 yrs is a no-brainer really, and they could have their beautiful pyramid.

Hell, if they did that, I'll even throw a crayon in so that ACOS A1 can colour it in and frame it!
 
muttywhitedog said:
Ditto, however how long is it going to take to shed all these posts through "natural wastage", particularly those of us who have >10yrs left on our contract. The terms of the redundancy would have given me 18 months pay - it would still be cost-effective if someone was to write to those who didnt get it and offer them it again. 18months salary versus 8, 9, 10 yrs is a no-brainer really, and they could have their beautiful pyramid.

Hell, if they did that, I'll even throw a crayon in so that ACOS A1 can colour it in and frame it!
Click to expand...

I understand fully what your saying. However, it simply costs too much to make people redundant at the moment (upto 19 months pay and in all probability a pension and a lump sum). Instead you reduce promotion flows, which pushes up the natural wastage outflow. You may not like like it, but its cheap and effective, admittedly it has a sizeable obvious downside. You've got to bear in mind that inflation in the equipment programme outstrips any defence budget increases, hence defence funding has always been tighter than a nats chuff. Redundancy payments aren't top of the list of things to spend funds on, and rightly so. New AT/SH airframes, SLAM, SFA upgrades, better pay, medical/dental provision etc are well above it.

I suppose you could stop re-engagement/extensions of service in the rank with the surplus to help the situation, however you'll only upset another group of people.
 
vinnyvx said:
This site will provide some of the TG17 promotion figures that were being discussed.

http://www.pma.innsworth.raf.r.mil.uk/live/Manning/22c-Promotions/GroundTrades.htm
Click to expand...

These partial figures seem to back up what I was saying about the 'relatively' few promotion prospects recently. The SAC figure for 2004 was probably high because they would have been replacing a lot of the Cpls promoted on the 2003 board I guess.

In Thommo's defence when I spoke to him, in his last job, he was honest (as a drafter can be) and told it like it was, no promises just a little bit of hope.
 
vinnyvx said:
I understand fully what your saying. However, it simply costs too much to make people redundant at the moment (upto 19 months pay and in all probability a pension and a lump sum). Instead you reduce promotion flows, which pushes up the natural wastage outflow. You may not like like it, but its cheap and effective, admittedly it has a sizeable obvious downside. You've got to bear in mind that inflation in the equipment programme outstrips any defence budget increases, hence defence funding has always been tighter than a nats chuff. Redundancy payments aren't top of the list of things to spend funds on, and rightly so. New AT/SH airframes, SLAM, SFA upgrades, better pay, medical/dental provision etc are well above it.

I suppose you could stop re-engagement/extensions of service in the rank with the surplus to help the situation, however you'll only upset another group of people.
Click to expand...

vinnyvx - I think you hit the nail on the head with the bit about 'forcing' natural wastage. I don't know many of the lads who joined up with me (late 80's) that can really see any long term future. To a man they are just counting down until either the 18 month point or their 21 year point before they bang in their paperwork. Working on that group of people as 'natural wastage' then our lords and masters will get their perfect pyramid sooner than they think but at the expense of losing alot of very experienced guys who have got fed up waiting for a non-forthcoming promotion and a two year DWR TRT.
 
Bitte ein Bit! said:
vinnyvx - I think you hit the nail on the head with the bit about 'forcing' natural wastage. I don't know many of the lads who joined up with me (late 80's) that can really see any long term future. To a man they are just counting down until either the 18 month point or their 21 year point before they bang in their paperwork. Working on that group of people as 'natural wastage' then our lords and masters will get their perfect pyramid sooner than they think but at the expense of losing alot of very experienced guys who have got fed up waiting for a non-forthcoming promotion and a two year DWR TRT.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't say it's forcing natural wastage as its perjorative. Natural wastage is a by product produced at different levels by certain manning levers. The RAF would be mad to promote a lot people into a rank with a surplus because that causes problems, however you need to keep promotion flowing, albeit at a lower level than the historical norm to keep a glimmer of hope alive and retain the very best of that years board. I know the TS is trying to make the best of a bad situation. The muppets who decided on the original 20% JPA saving are the people who need a kicking. They had an ideal opportunity to reshape the pyramid, they didn't because they were inept. I know most of them introduced JPA and left on redundancy.

I PVR'd at 12 months prior to my 22 point, even though I was an A grade candidate. The grass is definitely greener outside for me at the moment. 4.5 months to do!

Check these sites out for HR jobs:

www.reed.co.uk
www.totaljobs.com
www.monster.com
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top