Age; why are Officers and ORs not treated the same?

Two specific examples;

1. Retirement for ORs ( by which I include SNCOs and WOs ) is usually 55. Officers is 60.
2. Deployment; an OR cannot deploy after age 50. Officers; 55.

What is the justification / rationale?
 
Two specific examples;

1. Retirement for ORs ( by which I include SNCOs and WOs ) is usually 55. Officers is 60.
2. Deployment; an OR cannot deploy after age 50. Officers; 55.

What is the justification / rationale?
I'm not sure you are in full possession of the facts.

Show again.
 
Have the rules changed last couple of years?
 
Ages for recruitment are different too. Whether that is a good thing or not is open to debate and I can understand the resistance to subbies in their forties but ultimately it should come down to whether people can do the job. We've no shortage of people who can't, at every level.
 

mso

LE
Why should they be?
 
M

Mr_Logic

Guest
Two specific examples;

1. Retirement for ORs ( by which I include SNCOs and WOs ) is usually 55. Officers is 60.
2. Deployment; an OR cannot deploy after age 50. Officers; 55.

What is the justification / rationale?
Because officers make the rules?
 
Can't pretend the thought hadn't crossed my teeny mind...
 
The expectation is that Officers direct and manage, ORs do the heavy lifting (literally)

Anyone who has just watched tonights episode of the RM Commando School thing on ITV will have noted how much harder the 32 yr old recruit found it to recover from injury than did the 18 yr olds in the same Troop.

That alone is the basis of the distinction.
 
If we follow that logic, the fitness standards for Officers and ORs would differ.

They don't. PFA / CFT / OFT / RMTs etc - all the same.
 
Because the UK is a self-perpetuating autocracy
 

the_boy_syrup

LE
Book Reviewer
While your at it can you check why I had to fetch my own dinner.
But got roped into serve some bloke his because he had more A levels than me.

In the age of defence cuts it does make you wonder why steward is stil a trade in the RAF.
I would have thought if you had the where fore all to make a Typhoon go up didley up you could work a toaster and pour a cup of tea.
 
If we follow that logic, the fitness standards for Officers and ORs would differ.

They don't. PFA / CFT / OFT / RMTs etc - all the same.
Fitness tests are set by the G3 Staff chain.

Recruitment and manning policies are a G1 thing.

Why would you expect the right hand to even contemplate the intent of the left hand? This is the Army, after all.
 
For God sake chaps, there always must be a distinction between officers and OR otherwise we will end up like the Americans.... No one wants that now.
 
If they look like the one in your Avatar, I most certainly do!
 
For God sake chaps, there always must be a distinction between officers and OR otherwise we will end up like the Americans.... No one wants that now.
You weren't there.......you wouldn't know.

OP: In summary do better at school to improve your opportunities if you decide to exploit them later on in life.

However, I know some damn good & qualified SNCO's that would make superb Officers but choose not to.

Until Forces policies are reviewed and amended as required that's how it is.


Posted from the ARRSE Mobile app (iOS or Android)
 
You weren't there.......you wouldn't know.

OP: In summary do better at school to improve your opportunities if you decide to exploit them later on in life.

However, I know some damn good & qualified SNCO's that would make superb Officers but choose not to.

Until Forces policies are reviewed and amended as required that's how it is.


Posted from the ARRSE Mobile app (iOS or Android)
"That's the way it is"?

Do you answer questions in Soldier by any chance?
 
I was going to answer, then realised you are talking about a social club and not the army, so I won't bother ^~
 
Two specific examples;

1. Retirement for ORs ( by which I include SNCOs and WOs ) is usually 55. Officers is 60.
2. Deployment; an OR cannot deploy after age 50. Officers; 55.

What is the justification / rationale?
1. I don't know. I'd guess that on the OR side of the line, it's because of career progression or rather, impeding of career progression for those younger. By 50, the OR will have reached the pinnacle of his career so by 55 he'll have had 5 years doing it and it will be time to step aside to let somebody else spend time at the dizziest height. I pick 50 as the pinnacle because that's also the latest age at which he can be considered for an LE commission.

Age is less of an issue for officers. Those who are going to reach dizzy heights will have leap-frogged the ones who aren't by the age of 40. Those passed over will either be happy to stagnate as Captains or Majors, pushed aside into whatever "menial" positions are available, changing capbadge as necessary or they'll take umbrage and leave, freeing up slots for other stagnant-to-be officers.

2. That's easier. It's because a 50 year old officer didn't die of an undiagnosed condition while cycling on Op Tosca.
 

New Posts

Latest Threads

Top