BPS – you do raise some good points. I don’t expect the average Tom to understand what the CS does, or why it does it. If Pte Bloggs could tell me that sort of thing, then, frankly, I’d be very worried!

The problem is two-fold – firstly it’s a lack of education for the Armed Forces about what the MOD CS does. There is no point that I know until reasonably far up the staff college world that we actually sit down and explain to Officers what it is that the random MOD CS is there to do. Secondly, I think it is wrong that ICSC(L) will not allow any places to serving MOD CS – the best way for the army to understand why CS think the way they do, and more importantly for MOD CS to get the army way of thinking, is to work together at the junior staff level.

Despite what people think, the MOD is focused on delivering to the front line – its just that sometimes this message isn’t sold very well. For instance, UORs are a great example of that sort of work, but so is the unsung work done by all the admin guys in ammo depots, or storage areas ensuring that spares are loaded on and got out to theatre. Having worked in this world, I can assure you that things go wrong, not because a CS can’t be arrsed, but usually for major reasons far beyond the ability of a CS to influence. The problem is, that its easier to sit there and blame the CS for all the worlds failings, rather than look deeper into the problem (thinking here about the classic case of UOR vehicle spares, when delays in getting spares, attributed in the press to “pen pushers” were actually a result of pressures on the manufacturers in the USA).

I think deploying MOD CS on Ops has been absolutely brilliant – I’ve done a tour as a deployed CS and loved it. Its helped many CS understand the pressures that the forces are under, and more importantly for the future, because completing an Op Tour is now seen as a pre-requisite for promotion to senior levels, we are slowly ensuring that future MOD decision makers are likely to have got real, and often multiple periods, of operational experience. Of course being in Theatre isn’t the same as being on the pointy end facing Terry down a bayonet, but every CS I know who has deployed has been through their fair share of mortaring and other unpleasant experiences. This means that we’re not sitting here in an ivory tower of ignorance – we’ve been out there, we know (to a point) what life is like, and believe it or not, we’re on your side. It may seem hard to believe at times, but trust me when I say that the average CS (stand fast the genuine PITAs) wants to do all they can to support the front line, but we find it just as frustrating to deal with shortages and budget cuts as you do. Ultimately though, we are all bound by the decisions of our political masters.

Two very different things.

The bonus being discussed on here is for either a) doing your job (the basic bonus) b) doing your job brilliantly and doing over and above your job (enhanced bonus - of which only a small percentage are allowed to be given by the award managers, not sure of the exact amount)

The allowance for deployment is totally seperate.

Your MQ must be quite posh then, as my slum is only £100 a month and am quite happy to pay that for a roof over my head, i was offered a move to some much posher houses £400 a month, i told them to poke it!

Er, many of these bonuses are recommended by line managers who are military, performances are then scrutinised by a Colonel or such like somewhere who decides if they're worth it are they not? It's not exactly CS signing off bonuses for CS is it...at least for the lower levels (who make up the majority?). If a Line Manager hasn't got the moral courage to tell his staff they aren't working hard enough for a bonus that's his problem. Or perhaps these people are working hard enough? Some of them at least.

Far from posh, trust me, the Pongo and Crab's who are on the same patch are in a dazed state of shock . Apparently its far below the standard they're used to! Its just nice, in a relatively nice location. I think I pay about £340 but a civvy equivalent would be £700-950 in the same area.

So that wasnt anything to do with a very poorly drafted contract then, that denied the MoD the ability to source components on the open market.

The same contract that drafted by someone whose job it is to push pens

Not disagreeing with the general thrust of what you say Jim but c0ck ups do get originated in the CS as well as the mil side




This says everything and is indicative of the problems in the public sector, why should you get a bonus for doing your job?

Surely your salary is what you get for doing your job.

if you do it over and above then get a promotion or even a discretionary bonus but the whole bonus system seems to be an assumed award linked to dubious targets and performance management systems.

Who sets the targets and can they ever be applicable to a public sector organisation without distorting and perverted the output of that organisation?

I don't think it is. It is, however, full of soldiers/pseudo-soldiers/walts et al dribbling on about how hard done by and misunderstood they are - not one of them are you?

Meridian – fair point there- its probably not the best example, but one that I’m familiar with. I’m not claiming MOD isn’t exempt from bad performance – I can think of lots of dreadful examples, but that said, there is often another reason, which is externally driven (although the ensuing problems are our own fault).

As for bonus objective setting - as I understand it, the original idea was that you would set your objectives for the year, based on a discussion with Line Manager. Then at the end of the year, you write a self justifying piece of writing saying how you thought you had met AND exceeded said objectives. Management then wrote their own assessment based on what you wrote, and then an independent panel would look at your evidence, compare it to everyone elses in your area (unfortunately known as a cluster) and see who had exceeded their objectives the most (and thus improved performance). Those lucky people got the award.

The system became more challenging when it was realised that many areas of the MOD involve repetitive process based work for which there is little scope for people to exceed objectives. I’ve heard tales of offices of 40 people where half got bonuses and half didn’t – all for doing the same job. Currently the system is revised every year, and has yet to get to the point where it inspires people to exceed performance – many people just see it as yet another game that has to be played.

I have no problems with the concepts of bonuses – the GEMS scheme is a great example of this. I also like the US version where if you do an amazingly great job, then they have one off payments of up to $20k for someone – in this case though 99.9% of staff dip out, but boy do they have a good motivator to excel. Our bonus system is slightly more embracing, as initially 50% of staff would get one each year, which then went up to 65% (can you imagine how bad it would be to be one of the 35%). Nowadays pretty much everyone gets a basic award if you prove you’ve met your objectives.

In other words, the system has gone from being a genuine pay award where you were given real pay rises for performance linked pay, to a statistical box filling nightmare, which is 8 or 9 times more complicated than it ought to be, and which has not really improved performance, and has managed to do more to demotivate staff than anything else I can think of. I wonder who was responsible for forcing it on the MOD? …

Because it was, rightly or wrongly, a government-driven initiative to introduce some of the efficiencies and practices of the private sector into the public sector. This theme of public v private sector practice, and efficiency, is a recurring theme on ARRSE, with the usual outcome falling in favour of private sector practice. Perhaps we can't have our cake and eat it.

Because, as has already been pointed out, we get fuck all else


I agree, the bonus system sucks. Sadly we got stuck with it. There is the special bonus award system which, I think, can be anywhere between £50-£200 which managers can award staff for doing something over and above.

Promotion? Hahahaha with all the cuts in manpower?

Last edited by kes1 on Thu Nov 12, 2009 3:39 pm; edited 1 time in total

[quote="meridianThis says everything and is indicative of the problems in the public sector, why should you get a bonus for doing your job?

Surely your salary is what you get for doing your job.
[/quote]

Missunderstanding again here. This "bonus" is not really a bonus at all. In order to give out this "bonus", the basic rate of salary was reduced by the same amount.

lets say the Pay review board told the Gobment to pay a pte soldier 20 grand. In order to save money they give the Pte 15 grand and generously offer him "up to 5 grand performance related pay".

That is, in effect what happened a few years ago in the Civil Service pay "negociations".

No, I don't really dribble on about how hard done to I am. I'm one of the few who is entirely content with my employment.

You do not think the thread is full of CS moaning about their pay? Read it again but this time actually read the words, I think you will find that what I say is true!!!

Correct BPS, and examples of such unproductive output are mirrored across Defence. In my experience, there is no surfeit of civil servants - what there is, unfortunately is a whole raft of CS carrying out no/very limited value tasks, which hinders delivery of more valuable tasks.

Instead of trying to deliver such low value/value-minus activity such as diversity, PR, and unnecessarily complicated HR functions and reports, we perhaps need to go back to basics, and ask of every task we perform "is this process still necessary" and "what value does this add". If none, eliminate it, and concentrate on the essential. Instead we blunder on, reorganising the deckchairs, eliminating administrative headcount that then imposes additional workload on non-HR staff and hinders deliver of their own specific outputs, all the time sinking deeper and deeper into a mire of bureacracy and confused process.

Edited to add: At Tesco, for example we eliminate all non-value-added activity. Take diversity. Trg is not delivered to all and sundry - there are a set of values and standards produced in a simple format, and given to all staff - they are then expected to comply with them. Simple and effective - it is not necessary to undergo corporate and collective brain-washing in order to change and influence behaviour.

Apologies for going off-thread.

Last edited by pombsen-armchair-warrior on Thu Nov 12, 2009 3:53 pm; edited 3 times in total

Maybe you could reread the thread also and this time actually read the words. I think you'll find the point of whats being said is not complaining about the low pay but explaining the reason behind the bonus system and explaining why the news story is full of inaccuracies and is basically sensationalism.

I heard on the grapevine that some staff were told to get a specific number of training days in for management within that business unit to qualify for an enhanced bonus. Might be true.

During my time working alongside the MOD CS, Contracts Branch was always short-staffed and seemed to have the highest turnover of personnel; a reflection of the pressures of the job and the low level of reward associated with it, I assume. I'm not surprised there were so many delays and cock-ups.

I think it would be quite hard to describe any low grade CS as "overpaid". Some of the mid to high rank CS are definately over-promoted and possibly overpaid for what they actually do - but not overpaid compared to what they should be doing. Pay peanuts - get monkeys! Except in this case a lot of the monkeys are actually very hard working and deserve a lot more peanuts.

And no I am not CS, I am serving Military.

This whole 'controversy' arises from ignorance. First - the total bonuses paid are part of the planned annual wage bill. It is just the way the Civil Service works. If the bonuses were removed, they would simply be divided up equally and added to salaries. Secondly, as a serving soldier, I find it offensive that my civilian colleagues are called 'pen pushers'. Sure, there are some civvie MOD jobs that are a waste of time, but they are rare exceptions. All the civil servants I work with do a brilliant job supporting the military. And, if they weren't there, uniformed staff would have to do their jobs instead - which would be far more expensive to the taxpayer.

I'm sure there are people here who would love a return to the 'good old days'…

Anyone for a broom detail to sweep up all the leaves on the parade ground?

I think you are talking about the mandatory 6 plus 4 training days that DES enforced last year. It wasn’t for an enhanced bonus it was a stick, that basically said if you didn’t complete mandatory job training you wouldn’t be submitted for a basic bonus as you haven’t complied with your job requirements and managers were told if ALL your staff don’t complete their training you won’t be submitted for a performance bonus as you are not managing your staff correctly.