ARmy Rumour SErvice

Originally Posted by tiny_lewis

One very big reason; employment law. Pretty much an open and shut case for unfair dismissal. Even if the MOD have an exemption under employment law, it would take about one week before a question was raised in Parliament by the Opposition. Oh, and did someone mention age? Discrimination on the grounds of age...?

It would be nightmare trying to phrase the necessary wording in the relevant Act that allowed the TA to "bust" an SNCO for no good reason other than that which you suggest (which is woolly enough as it is), and not give an open door to ANY officer demoting any NCO/SNCO/WO for whatever reason they wanted.

There is a further objection, re-read your last paragraph (not quoted). Essentially, what it does is jeopardise the career path of anyone above Cpl. It also opens a can of worms called redundancy, in which the position is surplus. If the job can be done by someone else, then the position is redundant.

If there is a good case for 'pushing down' skills/responsibilities to a junior position, then that should be identified as a Corps(?)-wide review of unit manning, and the appropriate restructuring action taken.

I wonder how some units have been doing it for years then. Maybe because the individuals in question really do want to stay part of the unit when they could move off elsewhere and are decent blokes who would rather volunteer to take a drop in rank than block another's place for promotion. Not eveyone out there feels the need to keep rank on their arm to justify themselves.

Originally Posted by dinosaur_poo

Get your facts right dickhead. This is a TA conversation and I did 4 decent years in the TA so I don't see where the problem is.

You did four years.

You've left.

Fuck off, Civvie.

Originally Posted by tiny_lewis

One very big reason; employment law. Pretty much an open and shut case for unfair dismissal. .

Two errors:
1. TA are not employees; we are classed as "casual labour".
2. Armed Forces are ( AIUI) are specifically excluded from age discrimination laws. I investigated this when I was chinned off H15.

Originally Posted by dinosaur_poo

I don't think it does though. If you are employing somebody in a role, and they are not fulfilling that role, employment law does NOT protect them from being dismissed from that role, or being 'busted down' to a role that suits the service they are providing.

Oh dear, I don't think you understand employment law. Lets say I am your manager, and in front of another employee I say (even as a joke) "You're useless", you have a bona-fide case for unfair/constructive dismissal. If I arbitrarily reduced your role - and pay - down to a more junior level, you have a case for constructive dismissal. Ignoring the two year employment requirement, as we can take it as read that an SNCO will have more than 24months under his belt, trying to do what you suggest would be a can of worms.

Employers have to have processes in place before they can dismiss someone for not having the right skills for the role. And what you suggest puts the Army in the awkward position of having created the role, the rank to fill it, then filling it with an individual who didn't posses the skills... in which case the onus would be on the Army to train the individual with the skills.

The obvious answer is redundancy, which neatly avoids the pitfalls, but given the nature of the Forces needs to be reviewed first, to ensure that the responsibilities of the position can be adequately transferred to other positions.

Originally Posted by Recce19

Ooh! Four years TA equates to how many in the regs?.....Got your FMT600 sorted yet?

What a ridiculous thing to say.

4 years in the TA gives somebody more experience in the way that the TA works than 4 years in the regulars... because in 4 years in the regulars you have not been in the TA.

I absolutely respect the military experience that comes with time in the regular army, but whilst in the regulars you do not get TA experience.

Originally Posted by jimmys_best_mate

If the best excuse that can be found for anyone to be kept on is that someone has to take the range stew and screech to the range they're hardly the most vital cog to the military machine. Anyone with a driving licence can drive four norgies and some cheap bread and marge to the ranges.

And whilst they are doing the admin what aren't they doing? The fun stuff? The important stuff? The stuff they feel they joined for? Not a sexy cog, not a big cog, but a vital cog neverthe less.

Originally Posted by chocolate_frog

And whilst they are doing the admin what aren't they doing? The fun stuff? The important stuff? The stuff they feel they joined for? Not a sexy cog, not a big cog, but a vital cog neverthe less.

How much work does it take to put four norgies and a tray of bread into the back of a Rover?

In fact, why not just put the norgies and bread in the back of one of the minibuses and not have to worry about anyone having to drive a separate vehicle with it?

Originally Posted by dinosaur_poo

Fuck off you waster. I've yet to see you add something useful to this debate. PS I would rather chat up a rabies ridden roadkill fox corpse.



You can fuck off too. You are the epitome of what this thread is all about.



It's irrelevant, I'm not claiming to have seen the entire modernisation of the TA.

I am, however, saying that during my time in the TA, I was 'led' by both types of SNCO: those who had got on the rank ladder during the beer-club days, been retained (and even promoted) because the OC feared they'd have a hissy fit and leave if demoted / not further promoted, solely because they held some useful qualifications / licenses; and those who had joined later on, served on several op tours, climbed the rank ladder through experience and skill, and who the unit actually struggled to retain.

The last point is something I think is worth mentioning further - I actually know of several people who have earned their 3rd stripe through genuine merit, operational experience and good leadership; and have left because the TA does not offer them enough value for their time, leaving them to work alongside cold war warriors who don't have a clue, and are radically sub-standard when compared to the people said individuals have served with on tour. The disappointment and frustration when they go from a slick and efficient operational environment with regular SNCOs, then back to a slow and inefficient training environment with outdated wasters wearing big ranks is not worth the bother, and they bin it.

The irony is that it seems that the 'enablers' don't offer the TA very good value, whilst it's the TA that doesn't offer good value to the genuine guys. And unfortunately I fear that unless the TA has a proper clear out of it's dead wood, these 'enablers' will be able to clog up the top end of the system for some time yet, simply as there is nobody coming up from underneath to replace them.



I don't think it does though. If you are employing somebody in a role, and they are not fulfilling that role, employment law does NOT protect them from being dismissed from that role, or being 'busted down' to a role that suits the service they are providing.

Again you're right. One of the most valuable members at my last place was a Cpl that had been demoted from SSgt to free up the PID. He was the driver and could be relied upon to turn up every time on time but was not a SSgt.