Army Adjudication Officers - Mental?

#1
I'm a TA officer and have just had my callout for sunny places revoked.

Seems they are upholding/revoking all callups for absolutely everyone who has appealed (Employer or Individual).

I'm a Platoon Commander, they will be sending a SNCO in my place - now they have 1 Pl Cmd for the Tour and 2 SNCO's filling in for my Coy.

I just find it a bit mad that the crazy Civies at the Army Adjudication Centre seem to uphold any appeal from any employer - I have a 19 year old, newly employed, shop assistant who is a private soldier in my platoon, who has also had his callout revoked because "his employer cannot replace him". What a load of bollocks!!!

So, now, even with a really strong appeal from my HQ, I'm told not to go and my Jocks go off into harms way with hardly any officers (no jokes regarding them being safer without us please!! :wink: ) around to assist, look after welfare and LEAD their men.

So how did they come to the conclusion that I'm not needed overseas? Why is there a soldier who owns a dog, who has nobody to look after it also released from service .... Crazy.

The answer is that Army Adjudication Officers are Mental.
 
#3
ROTFPML
 
#4
MoD is trying not to annoy employers unnecessarily, and therefore being more sympathetic to employers who claim hardship. It's not like TELIC 1, where the Army needed everyone they called up.

If too many employers start to treat membership of the TA as a barrier to employment, there'll be a lot more TA soldiers signing off. TA service does not pay the bills.

Where you should be directing your annoyance is your employer - they should have given you some clues that they'd appeal, and given you the opportunity to argue your case.

Are you prepared to resign from your civilian job and go? Because that's your other option. And then find another job when you get back.
 
#5
jockistani said:
I'm a TA officer and have just had my callout for sunny places revoked.

Seems they are upholding/revoking all callups for absolutely everyone who has appealed (Employer or Individual).

I'm a Platoon Commander, they will be sending a SNCO in my place - now they have 1 Pl Cmd for the Tour and 2 SNCO's filling in for my Coy.

I just find it a bit mad that the crazy Civies at the Army Adjudication Centre seem to uphold any appeal from any employer - I have a 19 year old, newly employed, shop assistant who is a private soldier in my platoon, who has also had his callout revoked because "his employer cannot replace him". What a load of balls!!!

So, now, even with a really strong appeal from my HQ, I'm told not to go and my Jocks go off into harms way with hardly any officers (no jokes regarding them being safer without us please!! :wink: ) around to assist, look after welfare and LEAD their men.

So how did they come to the conclusion that I'm not needed overseas? Why is there a soldier who owns a dog, who has nobody to look after it also released from service .... Crazy.

The answer is that Army Adjudication Officers are Mental.

My understanding is, that the general line on 'smart mobilisation' is to do just that, allow both individual and employers' appeals.

The reason why, is that this, in effect, allows the compulsory mobilisation of only volunteers with minimal welfare / personal / employment issues.

It also helps keep employers sweet, which given that the continuous use of TA soldiers on ops is now a reality is important.

The reason why it is important to subject volunteers to compulsory mobilisation is that this enables them and their employers to receive the financial benefits and employment protection that is available to those who are mobilised.

This of course applies only when the number of volunteers is greater than the number of LSNs to be filled. In some CEGs (eg medics, VMs etc) I think you'll find that the adjudication officers are less generous.

You didn't say (I think) why your mobilisation has been revoked - employer objections?
 
#6
jockistani said:
I have a 19 year old, newly employed, shop assistant who is a private soldier in my platoon, who has also had his callout revoked because "his employer cannot replace him".

Maybe worth closing the loop with your UESO on this one. Most the big retail firms have a supportive (national) policy towards mobilisation, if your soldier's employer is one of these, it maybe that his line manager is unaware of the policy, or (assuming your soldier wants to go) may think he is doing the soldier a favour. The UESO organisation can often sort some of these problems.
 
#7
jockistani said:
I have a 19 year old, newly employed, shop assistant who is a private soldier in my platoon, who has also had his callout revoked because "his employer cannot replace him".
Or because his employer "doesn't agree with the war in Iraq/Afghanistan"?

This is the step prior to "Leave the TA or leave my employment".

And where does that leave us?

msr
 
#8
msr said:
jockistani said:
I have a 19 year old, newly employed, shop assistant who is a private soldier in my platoon, who has also had his callout revoked because "his employer cannot replace him".
Or because his employer "doesn't agree with the war in Iraq/Afghanistan"?

This is the step prior to "Leave the TA or leave my employment".

And where does that leave us?

msr

Fair point, but:

1. The adjudication process has decided to uphold the the protest for the reasons given in previous posts. (ie the employer does not have a veto).

2. The major retail companies are, in general, supportive of the reserves amd mobilisation.

3. Shop assistant jobs aren't exactly difficult to get (unless this guy is a real specialist in something) and not well paid, so the soldier may be better off resigning, mobilising and getting another job on return (if he/she is keen to go).

4. If he/she works for a small company that is not supportive of reserve service (for whatever reason), then he/she is probably going to have to make a choice sometime about changing jobs or leaving the TA. No matter how much legislation is passed, there must be a reasonable employee/employer/TA relationship for the new reserve service concept to work.
 
#9
Firstly, you don't state what your employment is. Secondly your response regarding the private soldier/shop assistant is quite patronising-how do you know this patricular employer doesn't value his staff (in the same way that you should value your jocks...) and really doesn't want to incur the penalties (both time and financial. Would the employer actually get replacement staff or just carry the shortfall-in which case a shop assistant in a small business is quite a burden!)
Whilst most people, and many employers, are supportive of the TA, a good proportion do not support Iraq, as pointed out above. At the end of the day, depending on who you listen to, the TA is facing a recruitment shortfall. Forcibly conscript them and things can only get worse, and HM govt does not have the political will for this; nor should they.
However, the present system is a compromise-on TELIC 1/2 my unit was augmented by TA. The problem arose not from the quality of troops provided (overall very good) but from the number of senior ranks who volunteered/mobilised as against juniors
 
#10
Northern Monkey said:
The problem arose not from the quality of troops provided (overall very good) but from the number of senior ranks who volunteered/mobilised as against juniors
What problems did you experience NM?
 
#11
As stated above. I can't remember the numbers, but the proportion of seniors to juniors was too high, including officers. Troops on the ground was what was required, and this isn't what happened as a result of the voluntary mobilisation.
 
#12
Thanks. Can't blame peopel for tying to get involved in ops, but I did hear that there were some problems, as regular units were trying to get to WE.

My belief is that since the warfighting phase of Telic was completed, individual reinforcements are now provided on an LSN basis along the lines you describe.

This of course is raising questions within the TA about what the role of officers and seniors is, when the IRs that the regular army largely ask for are JNCOs and ptes.
 
#13
The expression you're looking for is "intelligent mobilization". The principle is that all stakeholders in an individual should be fully informed and aware of the process and planning behind the mobilization of a TA soldier or officer. This includes units, individuals, families and employers.

If Jockistani was so keen to deploy, he should have been engaging early with his employer (as should his unit) to ensure that there would be no barriers or objections.

Often employers are unaware of their rights and entitlements under RFA96 and simply appeal as a knee-jerk reaction. Early engagement by units and individuals can ensure that HR departments

(a) understand the benefits of TA service and deployment to their organization,

(b) understand the process of mobilization, their entitlements and rights as employers and

(c) have a policy in place to respond efficiently and effectively to formal notification of a mobilization.

If units find their "sure-fire volunteers" suddenly being black-balled by their employers, then 9 times out of 10 then have only themselves to blame.

IF
 
#14
Loyalties mean I must try to satisfy both TA and my employer. My emploer would have appealed no matter what. My situation is fairly unique(I'm an Air Traffic Controller), and due to the cost of my training(I'm bonded for the cost hence I didn't consider leaving) my company were more than reluctant to let me go - the Operations Director appealed in person.

Fred Cat, my company has found a big problem finding Platoon Commanders really, not so much with the lower ranks.

I take on all your points and quite agree that intelligent mobilization is Strategically the best way to go. Operationally however, it does get frustrating for units and soldiers alike.

To All, I was possibly - read probably - firing off some frustration in my initial post. But where do we draw the line between service commitment and civilian employment.

And for those up for a good old arguement - Dash and darn those Army Adjudication Officers!! etc. etc.
Northern Monkey, I don't want to get too involved in specifics, but suffice to say that this soldier would most likely not be missed. I do agree that each case must be inspected and can only really be commented on specifically and not in the general.
 
#15
Ideas Factory has this quite right. The actual direction on mobilisation is that a mobilisee should have the agreement of his employer before he goes; some units are betting on the fact that employers won't appeal to fill the unreasonable numbers they have been asked to supply (Herrick was under 30% recruited last time I looked). The problem is that the Army has decided to continue to tell employers that their employees were compulsarily mobilised when they were in fact volunteers- the semanticists having decided that you could be voluntarily called- out but compulsarily mobilised. For my money, this is at best a little bit Alan Clark and at worst likely to lead to litigation.
The real problem is probably the shift to supply led mobilisation with little apparent change in the requirement from the theatres for troops. There is a nice line going in trawls that ask for TA initially and then go for Regular when they can't get a volunteer- surely if it wasn't important enough to need a guaranteed fill to start with, it can be gapped?

An addition- the real losers in this are the likes of the original poster who trys to keep the Army happy only to find that they won't support him when its needed.
 
#16
Jockistani,

Interesting now that you tell us what your job is.

In my last but one unit I had 2 troops (1 NCO and one officer) working for me who were civilian air traffic controllers working for NATS (National Air Traffic Services) . One of them was in a senior position at LATCC and able to discuss policy issues with NATS HR department.

It was made quite clear that NATS was short of trained air traffic controllers and that they would appeal against any call up and quote national flight safety as a justifying factor. Given the cost and length of training, air traffic controllers can not be replaced quickly. Depending on what job they might be working in it could take several months for a qualified controller to check out in a new role ie moving from one airport to another.

This left me having to talk quite seriously to the two individuals and question whether there was any point in us training them up in their reserve job when their employer had made it clear they were always going to appeal against a call up. Because of the unique nature of the job and the critical national role those individuals perfomed, the employer was always going to win.

It seems to me that you are in the same position. If you know you intend to remain as a civilian air traffic controller, and can never deploy on ops then maybe you have to consider if being in the TA is a sensible thing to do.

As has been said already it is important that whatever ones circumstances if one wishes to make a success of the TA you need to have a job that is basically compatible.
 
#17
jockistani said:
Loyalties mean I must try to satisfy both TA and my employer.
No: loyalties mean you must satisfy your family, your employer then the TA.

Get it right.

msr
 
#18
armyair221 said:
This left me having to talk quite seriously to the two individuals and question whether there was any point in us training them up in their reserve job when their employer had made it clear they were always going to appeal against a call up.
The TA has always been a broad church and let's face it, the regular army has no shortage of junior officers and SNCOs.

We need everyone we can get, including those who will find it difficult to go on Ops - our circumstances change - I was lucky in April last year (single, left my job etc) and went on tour. Now am self-employed and on more per day than the CO and almost shacked up.

Mobilisation isn't an option for everyone, but doesn't make them any less welcome. The logical extension of your argument reduces the TA to the unemployed as students in full time education get an automatic waiver.

msr
 
#19
armyair221 said:
It seems to me that you are in the same position. If you know you intend to remain as a civilian air traffic controller, and can never deploy on ops then maybe you have to consider if being in the TA is a sensible thing to do.
But just because he can't deploy on ops at the moment, doesn't mean he's giving nothing to his unit. Perhaps the better argument going forward is that certain jobs are declared as incompatible with TA service/voluntary service (such as Special Constables) and we can't recruit from them?

The TA can still provide a rewarding experience even if you're currently non-deployable, TA units require enablers, those who make sure the rewarding training happens, that the Army have trained personnel available for ops, and it's not as though the non-deployable element are taking up LSN's clamouring to be filled by the deployable!

If in five years he decides that Air Trafic Control is not for him and moves out, or onwards to a manager role, then deployment becomes more possible.

Personal circumstances and the Regular Army demands on the TA are too subject to change.

A new Government might see the Army being less committed overseas, and thus having less need of the TA for backfilling.
 
#20
This is an emotive issue and tough for those in this situation

There will be many people who are in the TA who either have deployed but for one reason or anothr are not able to deploy for some time in the future.

There will be others who would like to deploy but for some reasonably temporary reason are not able to deploy at the moment. The key here being that the reason is likely to be temporary

I accept the argument that we do need people to run training and that there are plenty of people who dont deploy anyway. It is also perfectly true to say that personal circumstances change.

It is also perfectly true that most units are pretty short of troops especialy junior officers.

The difficult question is should we recruit and train someone whose personal circumstances are such that realistically they are never likely to be able to deploy.
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top