12 Year Contracts - Good thing or not?

[OldSnowy]

There is a DIN floating around ( http://www.army.mod.uk/linkedfiles/servingsoldier/career/mcmdivs/ta/soldiers/new_ta_procedures.pdf )that states that TA 'Contracts' will now initially be for 12 years. I cannot help but think that this is a bad, bad thing. It may be good for those working in Glasgow, for Unit PSAOs, and for JPA, but as for its effects on Recruiting and Retention? What 18-y.o wants to commit to 12 years? The rest of the DIN is little better. for example, to say that "Evidence suggests that the current system whereby a TA soldier has to engage every 3 or 4 years... hinders retention" strike me as complete nonsense. What is this evidence?

I won't go on. What do fellow TA ARRSERs think?

 

[EX_STAB]

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.

 

[Goku]

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?

 

[Boxy]

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.

 

[OldSnowy]

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?

In theory anyway, yes you are. The Reserve Forces Act allows the Army to stop you leaving when certain conditions are in place - such as now.

As it is, the TA aren't stopping people leaving - yet. The RAuxAF are, and are also mobilising people who want to leave. A 12 year Contract could well mean exactly that.

 

[maninblack]

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.

 

[intli]

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?

In theory anyway, yes you are. The Reserve Forces Act allows the Army to stop you leaving when certain conditions are in place - such as now.

As it is, the TA aren't stopping people leaving - yet. The RAuxAF are, and are also mobilising people who want to leave. A 12 year Contract could well mean exactly that.

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.

 

[Dilfor]

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.

 

[Goku]

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?

In theory anyway, yes you are. The Reserve Forces Act allows the Army to stop you leaving when certain conditions are in place - such as now.

As it is, the TA aren't stopping people leaving - yet. The RAuxAF are, and are also mobilising people who want to leave. A 12 year Contract could well mean exactly that.

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.

 

[TopBadger]

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.

 

[wellyhead]

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.

 

[One_of_the_strange]

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.

 

[barbarasson]

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.

 

[polar]

I won't go on. What do fellow TA ARRSERs think?

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

 

[Friendly_Fire]

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.

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.

 

[Friendly_Fire]

Oh, and even more interestingly, when my computer detail printout came from Bde (or Glasgow, wherever these things are kept) - it had me down for three years anyway!

Buggered if I know what's going on. I'm not worried, because I'll stay in for as long as I can. If I can't any longer, I'll get out. If I can't get out, there'll either be some good reason (like WW III), in which case I won't mind, or there'll be a God-awful noise made by me that will further detriment TA recruiting.

FF.

 

[Dr_Evil]

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.

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 agree.

Perhaps a choice between a three- or twelve-year engagement should have been made available.

To someone totally new to the military, whose main impression of the organisation is formed by the media, the assurance that he can leave at any time despite the 12-year engagement will not sound very solid at all. The Army is not exactly famous for its skills in human resources management (although its reputation is worse than deserved).

Many people join the TA because they want to give the military a go without signing their lives away.

Anyone know the real reason for the change? Administrative convenience (reducing the burden on the form-checkers)? Military convenience (at a stroke of a ministerial pen, the ability to resign at will is discarded and voila - an extra Army at bargain price)?

 

[Friendly_Fire]

The "military convenience" scheme would be a breach of contract though, wouldn't it? The DIN says we can still leave at any time unless subject to a call up. So, unless they were calling us up, they'd have to let us leave or sign us on again under new conditions, wouldn't they? Like any other change of terms of service / contract...

FF.

 

[Purple_Emperor]

Think of the extra mtds! I'm sure a good/sneaky PSAO can keep a 'ghost platoon/troop' on the books of non attenders until their run out date. With a runout date now 12 years away rather than three, imagine the fiddling of books which can happen.

'why yes,colonel, I know it says we have fully manned battalion on the books, but in fact it's only Privates snodgrass and Jones that we have seen for the last six years!'

 

[EX_STAB]

Think of the extra mtds! I'm sure a good/sneaky PSAO can keep a 'ghost platoon/troop' on the books of non attenders until their run out date. With a runout date now 12 years away rather than three, imagine the fiddling of books which can happen.

'why yes,colonel, I know it says we have fully manned battalion on the books, but in fact it's only Privates snodgrass and Jones that we have seen for the last six years!'

I think you've sussed it.