ARmy Rumour SErvice

**tiny_lewis** · 30-05-2012, 12:49

Originally Posted by dinosaur_poo

That's either bollocks or you've missed my point. The bottom line is if you are paying somebody to provide a service, and they fail to provide that service, you are not obliged to pay them. No amount of 'employment law' changes that fact.

Its neither bollocks nor missing your point. However, you plainly do not understand the nature of employment. An employee is not being paid to provide a service, nor is a SNCO in the TA. They are permanent employees on a contract of employment, which stipulates their specific duties - generally with a clause such as 'any other duties as may be required...", and the remuneration they will receive in respect. In turn, this contract is governed by specific legislation.

They are not being paid to provide a service. That is an entirely different matter altogether, and no amount of objection on your part will change it. You may have meant something slightly different, but what you wrote happens to reflect reality. A non-permanent employee, ie a contractor, may be taken on to provide a service. but that is different to the subject under discussion.

Secondly. In this case, you fail to grasp that the EMPLOYER, in this case the TA, has put the SNCO into a position whereby (s)he is "over-qualified" to do the job (or not qualified). In either case, it is not the fault of the individual. They are not 'refusing' to do the work.

If you own a window cleaning company, and one of your window cleaners repeatedly chucks his ladder on the roof of the van, drives off, arrives at the house, and then sits around not cleaning their windows... you can get rid of them, in order to open up a space for somebody who does clean windows. Yes you're obliged to warn them first, and offer them support so that issues are overcome... but if they still fail to clean windows, there is no law that says you can't bin them.

Yawn. Strawman argument and irrelevant. Who says that there is legislation that says otherwise? There are procedures that ought to be followed if one wishes to avoid losing a tribunal. So what. Not the same as arbitrarily demotion based on a vague criteria.

There is a giant misbelief that employment law is there to protect employees and fuck employers. Whilst it can seem that way, there is still a lot of employer sympathy in employment law and it recognises throughout that if somebody is failing to perform the service that they are employed to perform, then you are not obliged to perform the service of paying them.

You couldn't be more wrong if your tried. There is no "misbelief" at all. Employment law is there to protect both parties. Employees are not providers of 'services'. And if you arbitrarily decided not to pay someone - oh please, just go and try it.

Precisely. I've every cent of support for the continued employment of members of the TA who provide a useful service to the TA, regardless of age, physical fitness, body shape, etc. The only problem I have is when they wear the rank, and take the pay, of a position that is far above the role that they actually fulfil.

And that is the fault of the individual, or the organisation? Big clue... option B.

**tiny_lewis** · 30-05-2012, 13:07

Originally Posted by Buzz

No it didn't.

The fact that you are such a prolific bullshitter on the kiddy winkle forums meant that the vast amount of experience you profess to has simply come back and bitten you on the backside in the grown up world, people volunteered this information with out me asking for it.

That kevlar lid just highlights what a skinny little chicken neck and pipe cleaner arms you have, it's sad really, loading you down with enough ammo for a live fire battalion sized advance to contact excercise would have been funny - but sadly you never got that far as the TA infantry fucked you off for being a weakling and a mong.

Piccies? Please share

**polar** · 30-05-2012, 18:00

Originally Posted by The_Duke

Have you been on the drain cleaner again? Try saying that again in some semblance of coherent English.

Take all the "pacific" bits and incorporate them into a standing order, so op orders just state what is different.

The other bit was about avoiding elements of COC of command, so we didn't fcuk troops around and got on with the job. We sorted the paperwork out while troops were deploying.

**squigeypie** · 30-05-2012, 18:46

So whats the score then, I cant be arrsed to read all through this, but the Op whats to sack the SSGT who runs the stores/range driving etc.. to promote someone else to SSGT to run the stores/range drive etc...someone who probly doesnt want to run the stores/range drive etc... there should be more PIDs in a unit to run the store/range etc... then another can be troop leading etc...

**Mr_Snakey** · 30-05-2012, 18:54

Originally Posted by squigeypie

So whats the score then, I cant be arrsed to read all through this, but the Op whats to sack the SSGT who runs the stores/range driving etc.. to promote someone else to SSGT to run the stores/range drive etc...someone who probly doesnt want to run the stores/range drive etc... there should be more PIDs in a unit to run the store/range etc... then another can be troop leading etc...

Fuck the op's question and reading the thread, just pile in with a load of opinionated stuff.

That's what I do.

**tiny_lewis** · 30-05-2012, 19:06

Nah, the OP is bitter and twisted that he spent a few weeks (in total) as a wanna-be STAB, and was never promoted. He also thinks that "Telic/Herrick" experience is a pre-requisite for promotion - regardless of the experience per-se and relevance to the position in question.

And after whining on about ad-hominen attacks, resorted to them himself.

**Boumer** · 30-05-2012, 19:08

Originally Posted by delivering_capability

If there are no SNCOs available (or willing) to fulfil this role then it is pushed lower down or higher up the rank structure.

I must say, as a junior attempting to deliver training, initially I was massively inefficient until a wily old senior showed me the ropes and a few 'old tricks'. Exactly how this sort of thing should work.

You can't do a course in experience, as I think a wise person on this site posted somewhere!

Originally Posted by HectortheInspector

Now-The issue here isn't whether the enabler is a tour dodger or not. Despite the fact that there's a considerable body of (Regular)opinion that a TELIC or HERRICK on the chest makes you a better soldier, I would very much dispute it. It makes you are more EXPERIENCED soldier, certainly- in that theatre. In my opinion it often also appears to produce a certain 'inertia' in some quarters.

Now I have to be slightly careful saying this (in particular as I have not done a tour yet due to work/family reasons), but I know of at least two in my neck of the woods who have multiple tours but are still utter feckwits (both in general character and demeanour, and apprently in military and trade skills).

Now doubtless when their irresistible journey to the Sgts Mess continues, does that mean that they can lord it over others?

Doubtless they will (due to personality), but it doesn't inherently mean an ehanced ability in the individual.

Certainly in one case it is due to being unemployed (and potentially unemployable) in civillian life, in the other the Almighty (however worshipped) alone knows.

A rather tricky question this, to be approached on a basis of the sensible ideas of both thet two above persons I would imagine. So long as it brings a benefit to the organisation and to the individual, is this not the way?

Self Profit, Mutual Benefit (as Jigoro Kano of Judo explained the concept of teaching Judo in schools IIRR).

**Bullshot!** · 30-05-2012, 21:53

The implication of the phrase 'SNCO enabler' is that you have a SNCO who holds useful qualifications but does not have the wider professional / leadership / management capability to fulfill the job description of the PID he/she is filling.

That means you have 2 problems; a SNCO who cannot perform in the rank he/she fills and a shortage of qualified people. Short answer, deal with both problems - performance manage the SNCO - improve, leave or reduce in rank to a level at which he / she can perform and start career planning JNCOs so that you have a pipeline of course qualified NCOs and it is not a constraint. None of this can be done quickly, but, my personal view is that I don't want SNCOs who can't cut it as leaders and commanders delivering training to troops.

With regards to "enablers", yes, there is a role for the time served Pte / LCpl / Cpl who isn't blocking the establishment and is a reliable, helpful bloke with a good attitude, being kept on, adding value as the armscoteman, storeman driver, but that's nothing new, its the CSM's team / the CQMS's team.

**CaptainPlume** · 30-05-2012, 22:41

TBH, Bullshot, the "enabler" thing is a gobby crow/passed over LCpl thing expressing envy that someone who gives value other than "going on tour in Afghan" holds a rank & does a job beyond the comprehension of said gobby crow...

**HectortheInspector** · 30-05-2012, 22:41

Originally Posted by Bullshot!

The implication of the phrase 'SNCO enabler' is that you have a SNCO who holds useful qualifications but does not have the wider professional / leadership / management capability to fulfill the job description of the PID he/she is filling.

That means you have 2 problems; a SNCO who cannot perform in the rank he/she fills and a shortage of qualified people. Short answer, deal with both problems - performance manage the SNCO - improve, leave or reduce in rank to a level at which he / she can perform and start career planning JNCOs so that you have a pipeline of course qualified NCOs and it is not a constraint. None of this can be done quickly, but, my personal view is that I don't want SNCOs who can't cut it as leaders and commanders delivering training to troops.

With regards to "enablers", yes, there is a role for the time served Pte / LCpl / Cpl who isn't blocking the establishment and is a reliable, helpful bloke with a good attitude, being kept on, adding value as the armscoteman, storeman driver, but that's nothing new, its the CSM's team / the CQMS's team.

Realistically speaking, if I tot up all my TA time, I'd probably come in at about the same actual calendar time served as a Regular lance jack. By definition, I cannot "perform in the rank he/she fills " IN REGULAR ARMY TERMS. I don't get to do all that day-to-day man management. That's why the TA has NRPS and PSIs- I could not realistically do all the jobs that go with being a SNCO in two hours of a weekday.

We have four main sorts of long service NCOs'- The leader who can't teach, the teacher who can't lead, the rare treasure who can do both, and the (Sadly too common) Feckwit who can't do either. What the Regulars want the TA to provide is lots of the best sort. What the TA gets, and can offer, is the sort of sad numbskull willing to give up his spare time well over and above the requirement to get those training qualifications that the unit says it wants.

So, to address your points-We ARE underqualified to do the jobs we hold the rank for. We make up for lack of routine practice with whatever other skills we can bring to the job.
Secondly-Performance manage the SNCO and bring on the juniors- If only. In the real world, the TA Officer class don't have the time or inclination to mess with the Mess. -And trying to get JNCO's course qualified to tick all the right boxes in just the right order? That's like nailing jelly to ceilings. Either they suddenly can't make it, the course gets cancelled, the ground rules get changed, and so on.