12 Year Contracts - Good thing or not?

I don't see that it makes any difference. Who joins the TA thinking "I'll be through with this in three years - then I an really start living!"

Why didn't you make some proper options on the Poll? It's worthless as it is.

 

Unless we’re about to mobilise we can hand our kit in and leave at any time.
All this means is that we no longer have to sign on the dotted line every 3yrs.

Or am I missing something here?

 

Goku, I don't think you are, 12 days/months/years, does it really matter retention wise, if they don't like it they wont turn up.

 

I think there is some irony in a system that wants to stop the TA leaving by tieing them into 12 year contracts whilst using "manning control" to get rid of regulars at the 12 year point who want to stay.

 

I believe you are on the right track, and certainly the great thinkers/planners in Glasgow/MOD are on the same lines. The 95 Forces Act states that you are allowed to mobilise someone for 6 months in a 12 month period, or for a 12 month period in 3 years, or 2 periods of 6 months over that period. You then have to wait for the next circuit of 3 years for your next bite.

MOD figured there would be no problem with numerous bods rushing to mobilise etc but now the novelty is wearing off with 2nd or in some cases, 3rd tours of Telic the well is running a bit dry. The 12 year commitment will look good on the planning board for reinforcements (even if the reality is different) and they can say ' we have XX soldiers available for deployment over the next 12 years allowing for the restrictions of the 3 year cycle under the 95 Act'

Bearing in mind the size of the TA to its opposite numbers in the RAF/RN, I don't think the political will is there yet to enforce retention/compulsory mobilisation. However I do believe its coming and I also believe the extended age bit is part of increasing the bodies available.

 

The 3 year contract is useful for getting rid of those who you want no longer without going through rather tedious procedures. It is, however, administratively rather dull.

 

I see your point OS however the Army may be able to stop us leaving on paper but they can’t make us play.

If you don’t want to turn up on a drill night or weekend then you don’t have to.
If you get mobilised and you’re dead set on not going, all you need do is act like a biff during fitness/WHT pre-deployment training and you become unfit to deploy.

 

This DIN doesn't change the fact that you can still hand in your kit and get out. Only difference i can see is avoiding a bit of extra paperwork.

 

I read this as good for the older and bolder, where instead of fighting to keep someone in overage you sign them for 12 yrs and be done with it.

But it still says you can hand your kit in anytime, if there is a change to this then that information will have to be relayed.

 

It looks like yet another example of the CoC failing to understand what makes the TA work.

We do not lose soldiers at re-engagement time because the effort involved in signing the piece of paper handed to them by the PSAO is excessive. We lose them because they do not wish to stay. And we've discussed the reasons why they don't stay many, many times before. Anyone who thinks this will affect retention at all is ignorant or a fool.

As for recruiting, well there we will see a change. For the worse. Twelve years looks a lot more intimidating than three. After all the regs can leave after 4 years in an open engagement, why commit the TA to three times as long ? Three years is a useful period for those wavering about giving it a try, they know they can get out soon enough if they don't like it. Maybe we should address why they don't want to sign on again instead.

And again as mentioned above as long as the TA are casual labour no soldier can be compelled to turn up for anything except Chilwell. If the CoC decides to stop people leaving then the soldier who has been refused can stuff all their kit into the locker at the TAC and never be seen again. The only sanction the CoC has is, er, discharge. Which is what the soldier wants.

Of course they'll have to turn up at Chilwell ... but they can appeal, their employer can, maybe a spliff the night before means a fail on the CDT, or maybe they just mong the WHT, fail the CFT and so on. Would you want someone who'd tried to leave years ago, hadn't trained since then and really didn't want to be there next to you in a trench ? Me neither.

 

This isn't the issue in my opinion. It will seem to potential new recruits who have a very low knowledge of the TA will be put of by the perceived length of commitment.

 

I agree with your post.

BUT why are so many knobhead ideas being discused on ARRSE, surely these can be sorted offline? It looks to me the regular army don't have a clue (about the TA) and are constantly embarrassing themselves by issuing these daft/barking ideas only to be slagged off on this site.

Saying that, their also seems to be a number of TA officers mouthing off with excellent ideas (on ARRSE) but are not being listened to because they are part time/casual labour. Well done to them

 

Being new in green, I would say I agree with this.

When I went to my attestation, I understood I was signing up for three years. Indeed, my wife and I talked about this and agreed to give it a three year "trial".

I was surprised, therefore, when the green form was passed to me that it said I was signing on for SIX years! I asked, and they said it was usual (for reasons I still don't understand) to ask TA PQO O/Cdts to sign on for 6 years...

I did, because I have every intention of staying the distance. Nevertheless, if another potential recruit was less sure, he might have balked.

FF.