Are TA Members Employable in Blair's Britain?

maninblack

LE
Book Reviewer
#1
It is a simple question. If the TA continues to be abused both in terms of deployments and verbally by "ministry spokemen" will members become unemployable in the civilian world?

Why would an employer take on someone who is going to be picking sand out of their sandwiches one year in three?

What do the jury think?
 
E

error_unknown

Guest
#3
I think the only employers who "might" accept this in the long term are the Government itself. i.e. civil servants.

As for the rest, maybe one deployment, then byeee... ( I know that there may be a whole raft of antidiscrimination legislation to stop this, but Human Resources are cunning)
 

Cutaway

LE
Kit Reviewer
#4
Blokes I've worked with have spoken of a number of employers who have in the past forbidden their employees from joining the TA, the Prison Service and the Met are just two that spring to mind.
I don't know if this is still the case, but I can see it becoming a standard part of the small print in future employment contracts.
 
#5
from my unit i know one guy lost his job after telic 1 .Another guy a teacher had a lot of grief from his employer .another guy got alot of hassle
but mainly as works as bodyguard with lot of ex paras etc they were jelouses :lol: .Myself did one tour ok but wife would go ballistic if i had to do another one maybein agood few years but not 12months after getting back from one .
 
#6
Cutaway said:
Blokes I've worked with have spoken of a number of employers who have in the past forbidden their employees from joining the TA, the Prison Service and the Met are just two that spring to mind.
I don't know if this is still the case, but I can see it becoming a standard part of the small print in future employment contracts.
The Met has set a maximum number of people who can be in the reserve forces at anyone time. If you want to appy you have to go on awaiting list. The waiting time is about 2 years at the momment.

Trotsky
 
#7
Benjaminw1 said:
I think the only employers who "might" accept this in the long term are the Government itself. i.e. civil servants.
An acquaintance who is ex-TA himself has admitted that he wouldn't hire a deployable TA person; he's a partner in a smallish firm. Mind you, he says the same of recently-married women of childbearing age......

Your current employer may not sack you. But you can bet that promotion, or the ability to get another job, will be affected by having TA on your CV. SaBRE can say all it likes about the benefits of reservists, but effectively making them 3/4 part-timers in their chosen career outweighs all of that.

I'm still livid about that moron of a "senior officer" quoted in that Telegraph article..........
 
#8
A recent paper (NOTAL) suggested that 37% of deployed TA troops post Telic/deployment left the TA. Add the 30% general annual grind and there will be no TA in a few years. Brig Richard Holmes (TA & TV presenter for them that don't know) stated that if the TA fell to below 50K pax it would crash.

All those ex regs who secured bloody good jobs with the TA as PSAO's and NRPS after decrying the TA all their 22 had better look to their laurels.

The best TA recruiter is a satisfied soldier, the best TA demotivator is a wife/family screaming that the rent/mortgage has not been paid due to being unemployed! Regs are self deluding halfwits who have no comprehension of what the TA is or is about and do not really want to know in the 2 1/2 years they do with us if they cannot get short toured..

Most thing wrong with the TA?, the regs who live in the head shed.

Before any gets the wrong end of the reg bashing stick, I did reg service and have been in the TA for over 27 years. Bit of experience in constantly seeing the regs re-invent the wheel to solve what they see as the TA problem. Bottom line, its about mutual respect and money (budget and pay) One Army concept for ever!!! (Except now!)

OK, who's up to try and defend then?
 
#9
I worked with Territorial Army soldiers for the first time on Operation Telic and was extremely impressed. What they lacked in training they more than made up for in enthusiasm. They also brought additional skills from their civilian careers that no soldier could ever provide. In the complex world of Iraqi nation building those skills proved invaluable.

Speaking to many Territorial soldiers it was clear employers would not be the only ones unhappy about constant call ups. Aside from the personal or relationship problems, while away from their jobs it is colleagues who pick up the promotion; their careers meanwhile stagnates. Not only will an employer fail to employ a Reservist, but I suspect they will not promote them into key roles given they could disapear for almost a year at only three to four weeks notice. Being in the business to make money, you can hardly blame them; they are not charities after all.

The solution? A larger, better funded Army perhaps...? But that would just be silly...
 
#10
Blitzkrieg Bop, thanks for your positive comments. It's good to see some of us STABs exceeded expectations.

A couple of points on other posts. The Met have a quota because reserve call ups override police work. therefore in the case of a national emergency (remember, thats when the government is supposed to be calling us up :roll: ), it would make the role of policing London in the blitz that much more difficult if half the bobbies got called up to go and fight Johnny Foreigner.

My soapbox topic for today, as you'll see in another thread, is the way the TA is viewed by employers. At the moment the TA is negative for employers. If their employee isnt called up then it is entirely inconsequential for his boss that he is the TA. If he does get called up then the employer has loads of hassle. If you turn that around and say to the employer that it is in his interest to employ reservists (I'm no expert but tax breaks, reduced national insurance contributions etc might be a possibility) then just as regs say to us 'youve been taking the bounty for years. Nows the time to pay it back with a tour' employers would be less likely to grumble if after years of improving their bottom line by employing us we had to pop off for a few months to sandier climes.
 
#11
Blitzkrieg Bop said:
Not only will an employer fail to employ a Reservist, but I suspect they will not promote them into key roles given they could disapear for almost a year at only three to four weeks notice. Being in the business to make money, you can hardly blame them; they are not charities after all.
Anyone notice the TA Officer Direct Entry ads in the papers?

"Join the TA and we'll drag you out of your already flat Civvy management structure at the most inopportune times."
 
#12
My current employer detests the fact i am in the TA and has asked me to re-think my comitments a few times, his biggest gripe is being called up to back up the army doing peacetime roles and general back up for the Regular shortfall of bodies. He had no problem with a wartime call up and is not anti TA by any means.

IMO the TA will all but disappear in 5 years as more and more employers will not tolerate compulsory mobilisation every 3 or so years.
 
#13
Shorter Tours

Get more people through the system,spread the load on the Regs , us and Employers.
 
#14
The solution is simple. To get employers and spouses to support compulsory mobilisation in peacetime it must only be used for major crises that enjoy widespread public support.

Please note my qualifiers in the above sentence. Individuals will always volunteer in peacetime (my unit had 5 to 10% mobilised prior to Sept 11th), callouts for a real threat to the UK will enjoy popular support.

The current rolling callouts are perceived as the Government (who are getting less popular by the day) doing things on the cheap at the expense of Reservist's families and employers. That does not affect the reservist's liability - it does affect whether or not they will stay around to be mobilised. The average Regular doesn't understand this - and having never had a civilian career (mostly) who can blame them ?

Some of the problem I'm sure is Regulars deciding that if they have to suffer then so should the TA. Short term it fills the gap but long term you lose your war reserve. Then again some is the reluctance of our management to admit that the cupboard is finally empty.

There is perhaps a light at the end of the tunnel in that if the financial assistance proposals are implemented the cost of compulsorily mobilising a reservist in peacetime will increase substantially. I'm not so much thinking of the pay aspect as the bills industry will submit for putting a temp in for six months.
 
#15
Its almost decision time for TA personnel. One has always had to keep in mind ones employment, so if it is now under threat, should one still be in the TA?

It applied to me and my decision was to stay. I unfortunately lost a well paid job as a result.
 
#16
What about a pro-rata preserved pension, either payed into the individual's AFPS fund and collected at age 65 as a top up (because it wouldn't be a fortune) or transferred into an individual's employers pension scheme? The NI idea mentioned below is excellent.

I fear a vicious cycle will begin to manifest itself. If less people are left, they shoulder more work because of people leaving, and are more likely to leave themselves. I saw this in my old lot (long before SDR and getting deployed for every war; I left and took the Queen's shilling full-time) when you would aim for a Bn trg weekend and would get a Coy if you were lucky and the same old faces were doing all the work, slowly getting fewer in number.

Radical steps are required, although on the plus side the increased chance of deploying on ops is a massive recruitment incentive...but not to the extent of what appears to be expected nowadays. However, things will muddle along, as always, until a future crunch point. The stock answer from the hierarchy for almost any problem is "appoint a 1* or a 2*" and, although a 2* for the reserve forces should be welcomed, it is not the remedy that is needed. I am sorry to say I won't be joining the reserves after I walk out the gate as Bliar and TCH simply want boots filled on the cheap. They've screwed up every other public service, claiming improvements where none exist, and now it is the turn of the armed forces.
 
#17
This is a question I am facing now myself.

Have been invovled with the T.A since '88, from my OTC days onwards, and had always been working with my local TA unit until I skipped over to the US of A to live among the colonials for a while.

Recently back in UK and have started to make inquiries with my old unit to get back on strength as I missed my time with the green machine. But the US news is very US o'centric and so I am rapidly playing catch up with the 'shit-storm' that UK miltary & politics has become in my years away.

My TA commitment was never an issue with my employers before so I didnt really seriously consider it... but now I am having to ask some questions. I believe it would be wise to run the idea passed my direct manager at work - informally to start - before I officially go pulling on my boots again and dust off the smock.

I myself want toget back involved - but if it will cause large problems with my civillian job then I will have to re-evaluate.
 
#18
P_J - under the new regulations you now have to inform your employer when you enlist or re-enlist, and they have to sign a document acknowledging that you've told them. I suspect it is the same for officers although don't quote me on that!

Still, that RSO slot is still vacant....!
 
#19
Yes indeed L_J - I know that about RSO slot - was along at the head-shed last week discussing it all....hadnt been there in a long long time.

I dont have a problem with it - I can adapt. Will just see what an informal chat with civvy boss brings to light. I still think it will turn out to be 'game on' but just want to look into it - I hadnt known that it had grown this contentious in my years away.

Time will tell.
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads