Will the twisted sock brigade lose out in the redundancies?

[Witty_Banter]

I'm beginning to wonder, what with the recent hikes in RAFFT requirements and a looming redundancy package, will the twisted sock and glass back brigade find themselves as targets for removal? Can this even be done legally? SHOULD they be intentionally targeted for redundancy in order to heal a wounded RAF? Can of worms officially opened, all answers on an e-postcard below!

 

[Realist78]

I'm beginning to wonder, what with the recent hikes in RAFFT requirements and a looming redundancy package, will the twisted sock and glass back brigade find themselves as targets for removal? Can this even be done legally? SHOULD they be intentionally targeted for redundancy in order to heal a wounded RAF? Can of worms officially opened, all answers on an e-postcard below!

No, they shouldn't be targeted IMO as this could be seen as a reward for desert dodging, not fulfilling their full obligations etc. Glass backs should go at the end of their term of service.

 

[Soon To Leave]

Downgraded personnel cannot be made compulsorily redundant but can be medically discharged resulting in a tax free lump sum and/or pension.

 

[Soon To Leave]

No, they shouldn't be targeted IMO as this could be seen as a reward for desert dodging, not fulfilling their full obligations etc. Glass backs should go at the end of their term of service.

Not all that are downgraded are desert dodgers and/or glass backs but with reduced numbers of RAF I can't see how we afford to keep those that can't deploy and/or function at 100% in preference to those that can.

 

[Talk Wrench]

Not all that are downgraded are desert dodgers and/or glass backs but with reduced numbers of RAF I can't see how we afford to keep those that can't deploy and/or function at 100% in preference to those that can.

Yet another reason to overhaul the dinosaur that is the medical grading / downgrading system.

TW

 

[Humble Scribe]

As quoted by AMPBT the criteria to be used for considering personnel to be made redundant were (from memory), performance, employability (incl JMES), outstanding disciplinary issues, skill set, trade sustainability, and applicants roughly in that order. So to answer your question, yes the glass backs may well be targeted.

 

[Soon To Leave]

As quoted by AMPBT the criteria to be used for considering personnel to be made redundant were (from memory), performance, employability (incl JMES), outstanding disciplinary issues, skill set, trade sustainability, and applicants roughly in that order. So to answer your question, yes the glass backs may well be targeted.

That is my understanding also. I'm lead to believe those on a reduced JMES will have an increased probability of being accepted over the general populace if they volunteer for redundancy but could be under different terms.

 

[Realist78]

Not all that are downgraded are desert dodgers and/or glass backs but with reduced numbers of RAF I can't see how we afford to keep those that can't deploy and/or function at 100% in preference to those that can.

I didn't say they were! The OP referred to glass backs and twisted socks. These people, as you know, don't include genuine downgraded personnel.DT_Xtremez_25:

 

[muttywhitedog]

In an organisation which is expected to do more or the same with 20% less, then every person who cannot step up to the mark and do 120% of the previous task is a liability.

If the Redundancy Boards do not target the Permanent Downgrades then we are leaving ourselves open for a whole heap of pain as a 30,000 strong RAF is actually only 25,000 with the rest undeployable. I would be seriously P!ssed off to find myself doing 120% of a task because they'd kept someone in who was only capable of doing 80% of a task.

Unless of course I got paid 120% of my current salary!

 

[Talk Wrench]

In an organisation which is expected to do more or the same with 20% less, then every person who cannot step up to the mark and do 120% of the previous task is a liability.

And what about those who are kept downgraded, despite fighting their med cat.

Are they liabilities?

Anyone who has been downgraded by the MediNazis will know how difficult it is to drag themselves not back to fitness, but away from the sinking sand of the medical system.

TW

 

[vim_fuego]

Just a thought but what about the ones who are downgraded due to injuries via their duties in the RAF...Surely this will invite a torrent of expensive law suits all at once if they were targeted?

 

[muttywhitedog]

And what about those who are kept downgraded, despite fighting their med cat.

Are they liabilities?

Unfortunately in a shrinking organisation they are just that.

We've just lost three very good JNCOs due to their ongoing med cats permitting them to be signed on, so why should a redundancy board be any more lenient than "the system" is at present?

 

[Oldstacker]

Getting rid of medical downgrades is also politically difficult. If you get rid of someone who is medically downgraded for a relatively minor condition then it becomes logical that someone with more serious condition should also go But if that more serious condition is an injury sustained in action sandy side then the press will be all over the case..... You can see the headlines now - wounded hero let down blah blah blah.

I'm all for keeping the skills, knowledge and experience of wounded personnel where they can be used and the individual supported, after all we trained them and they have earned our (society's) support but is the best place for that really in uniform when other, fitter, personnel are being forced out?

 

[Soon To Leave]

I didn't say they were! The OP referred to glass backs and twisted socks. These people, as you know, don't include genuine downgraded personnel.DT_Xtremez_25:

Unfortunately, unless the injury or condition is obvious, all downgraded personnel seem to be tarred with the same brush. Understandingly so in the current frequency of OOA's resulting in the deployable having to do so much more.

 

[gmacca]

I'm downgraded due to an Illness, not injury, but I'm doing everything i can to get to a level of fitness where I can pass the Fitness test and show I still have something to offer. My last unit had a worthless oxygen thief who hasn't completed a fitness test in god knows how long, bordering on morbidly obese, and goes out of his way to avoid PT, including almost weekly visits to the Docs for 'new' injurys. Who should be kept in, him or me?

 

[Downsizer]

I'm downgraded due to an Illness, not injury, but I'm doing everything i can to get to a level of fitness where I can pass the Fitness test and show I still have something to offer. My last unit had a worthless oxygen thief who hasn't completed a fitness test in god knows how long, bordering on morbidly obese, and goes out of his way to avoid PT, including almost weekly visits to the Docs for 'new' injurys. Who should be kept in, him or me?

Who can deploy sandyside, you, him or niether?

 

[gmacca]

Who can deploy sandyside, you, him or niether?

At the moment, neither. But like I said before, I trying my hardest to get to the point where I would be able to deploy and offer the service something, the other guy just looks forward to his pie money each month!

 

[Downsizer]

At the moment, neither. But like I said before, I trying my hardest to get to the point where I would be able to deploy and offer the service something, the other guy just looks forward to his pie money each month!

Then sadly, if you're both not fully deployable then both of you should go IMHO....

Anyone who can't deploy in such a small deployable air force is a burden on others. Of course there is the caveat that people who stand a likely chance of upgrading be kept in...

 

[Talk Wrench]

Then sadly, if you're both not fully deployable then both of you should go IMHO....

Anyone who can't deploy in such a small deployable air force is a burden on others. Of course there is the caveat that people who stand a likely chance of upgrading be kept in...

Whilst your comment is harsh, I understand your viewpoint.

But once all the downgraded are gone from the new shrunken RAF, it's inevitable that people will take their places. Humans aren't machines and they do get sick and they do break.

In many cases, the problem lies with the medical system and not the downgraded person.

IMHO, it's the system that needs addressing as well as the p1ss takers .

 

[Realist78]

Although you don't have to pass your RAFFT to deploy, I wonder if some of the glass backs 'develop' an injury that prevents them from deploying but what they're really trying to avoid is the fatness test and compulsory PT etc, just a thought.