• ARRSE have partnered with Armadillo Merino to bring you an ARRSE exclusive, generous discount offer on their full price range.
    To keep you warm with the best of Merino gear, visit www.armadillomerino.co.uk and use the code: NEWARRSE40 at the checkout to get 40% off!
    This superb deal has been generously offered to us by Armadillo Merino and is valid until midnight on the the 28th of February.

Army at full manning

#1
Got briefed today that people who sign off will not be allowed to sign back on because recruiting is so good at the moment.

I wonder if Voluntary Redundancies will be offered soon too :D
 
#2
JustAnotherTech said:
Got briefed today that people who sign off will not be allowed to sign back on because recruiting is so good at the moment.

I wonder if Voluntary Redundancies will be offered soon too :D
Look up manning levers....no redundancies
 
#4
The Army will be fully manned by late 2010. Directions issued to clear out all dead wood in Regiments using AGAI 67.

So it will be goodby to malingerers, CDT+s, wasters, fatties and persistent defaulters.

Those injured on Ops will be retained.
 
#5
nark said:
So it will be goodby to malingerers, CDT+s, wasters, fatties and persistent defaulters.[/quote]

So what will happen to all the fat wasters in the AGC. If they get rid of them, the corps will be undermanned by about 60%. :pc:
 
#6
AGAI 67. Hope these directions are legally tight, binding and within the ECHR frame work. I don't think the MOD don't want another Manning Control abuse like a few years back. Get rid of the bluffers and admin cases yes but not at the expense of the good or injured. I really hope they don't abuse the regulations to stealth cut the numbers like before. negating AFB 130 A etc. we are watching :wink:
 

chimera

LE
Moderator
#8
depot_donkey said:
Fully manned by late 2010, where are all the High Threat ATOs going to appear from in the next 12-18 months?
I think if the DM(A) ninjas were asked, the answer would be that the Army will be at full strength by mid 2010 (i.e. number of people = funded liability) rather than fully manned (right number of people in ranks/CEG etc). people use the terms indiscriminately, but there is a big difference in meaning.




I'll get back to collecting train numbers now.....
 
#9
chimera said:
depot_donkey said:
Fully manned by late 2010, where are all the High Threat ATOs going to appear from in the next 12-18 months?
I think if the DM(A) ninjas were asked, the answer would be that the Army will be at full strength by mid 2010 (i.e. number of people = funded liability) rather than fully manned (right number of people in ranks/CEG etc). people use the terms indiscriminately, but there is a big difference in meaning.




I'll get back to collecting train numbers now.....
Flirting with thread deviation, given the tasks that the Army is being asked to carry out is it significant that the policy target of "full strength" or "fully manned" is achieved if the targets aree inapropriately low?
 
#10
CutLunchCommando said:
Flirting with thread deviation, given the tasks that the Army is being asked to carry out is it significant that the policy target of "full strength" or "fully manned" is achieved if the targets aree inapropriately low?
Well spotted! What I didnt say was that funded liability does not equal the number of people that we actually need. It is the number of people someone deep in the bowels (and I think that term can be applied here) of the Treasury and other assorted finance geeks are prepared to pay for.

CGS is on record as saying the Army should be around 107,000. Current liability is 102160.
 
#11
tommyhutch said:
Funny that I got a letter from my old unit offering me £6k to rejoin. We might be getting plenty new fresh meat but many trades still have huge voids in middle management and LCpl level.
See my comment above about strength v liability. That is why you are may be being asked to rejoin i.e filling gaps in rank/seniority profile for a particular CEG
 
#12
chimera said:
depot_donkey said:
Fully manned by late 2010, where are all the High Threat ATOs going to appear from in the next 12-18 months?
I think if the DM(A) ninjas were asked, the answer would be that the Army will be at full strength by mid 2010 (i.e. number of people = funded liability) rather than fully manned (right number of people in ranks/CEG etc). people use the terms indiscriminately, but there is a big difference in meaning.




I'll get back to collecting train numbers now.....
You and me both...

Do you know, I reckon that's a Hall Class locomotive at full chat....

Lits
 
#13
What I am waiting for is the cry that we are in financial trouble because the savings predicated on there being a permanent shortfall of about 10% in the manning levels, have vanished!!!

"As we are now close to full strength, we need more money to pay the salary bills!" :D :D :D

Litotes
 
#14
The 'Glide to full manning' is a joke!!!!! No one is getting out and still the crows arrive at the Regts and Battalions in droves. You do the maths. The MOD money men are in a panic. They cannot and will not pay over the manning liability but, we are going over the manning liability wether we like it or not.

The 'Manning Levers' have to be used. Get rid of the of the 5% who take up the 70% of the G1 time! Get rid of those who are malingering on the sick for years. Fail a BPFA more than 3 or 4 times without a time improvement and you are gone. This is all good news but hides the fact that we are still not filling the critical ranks and trades.

I think that full manning will be a good thing in about 36 months time when the current bunch of crows have matured and gained experience.
 
#15
Snowy1 said:
So what will happen to all the fat wasters in the AGC. If they get rid of them, the corps will be undermanned by about 60%. :pc:
Woah tiger, we aren't all fat you know. Wasters possibly, but not ALL fat.

Can't wait for the next time you ask a "pertinent" question about JPA/Pay/Claims etc. I'll just sit there and "Osmosis" the answer to you, because you are obviously superior to me, and much more intelligent. Hardly difficult mind you.
 
#16
nark said:
The Army will be fully manned by late 2010. Directions issued to clear out all dead wood in Regiments using AGAI 67.

So it will be goodby to malingerers, CDT+s, wasters, fatties and persistent defaulters.

Those injured on Ops will be retained.
Err, could you let me know where I can find this direction please? AGAI 67 is an administrative tool to deal with issues, not a smoke screen for a cull - it should be of no consequence to the CoC whether the Army is fully manned when considering discharge under MAA. If its used as a tool to mag to grid admin cases (whatever they are), then its credibility is destroyed, will be challenged and we'll lose an effective alternative to summary dealing.
 
#17
Have to agree with Tommy. If the Army think this full manning is as a result of an excellent recruiting drive, they're idiots. It doesn't take the brains of a rocket scientist to work out that recruiting and retention hasn't been this good since the last recession. Let us at least hope they don't make the same mistake twice, throwing out redundancies just for the next generation of soldier to have to suffer the burdern once Civvy Street starts to become the safer / better option again and everyone who they think are lifers leave to get a real job.
 
#18
tommyhutch said:
trbhoy said:
I think that full manning will be a good thing in about 36 months time when the current bunch of crows have matured and gained experience.
I thought that but how many of the latest crows only joined to sit out the recession and plan to terminate when its blown over?

There's a risk we could cast away potentially long serving soldiers (albeit biffs and mongs) today, only to haemorrhage back to 2006 manning levels as soon as the economy picks up.

Still it would give me great pleasure to see some of our wasters booted out.



that is exactly what i thinking now. my step dad who was a 24 years in the parachute reg says the same thing. people who deep down do not want to be there i cannot see doing the job to the best of there ability... in which on civvy street there is someone like me who wants to make a life and a long term carrer out of the army. in 1-2 years time once this reccesion is over all i can see is people leaving in the massesand they will be back to square one. i do hope by that time i am in and serving. i do have respect for everyone who serves but not as much for people who just join for a job to cover there arse throught the reccesion
 
#19
In the Spring my wife and I applied to emigrate to Australia (which was her career decision) so to that end I was required to sign off to complete the application process, as I was told we would be given about 6 months to get there if the visa was successful. The visa was successful however the ruleshave recently changed and I now have 5 years to go there. 'Great I'll sign back on' I thought as I'm not ready to get out yet and I can do another 4 to 5 years before following the mrs on her wild dream.
Obviously I was then told the official party line that nobody is allowed to sign back on, but my company wants me to stay so its up to them to argue with manning and records.
Does anyone know if I have a chance? Do you know somebody in the same situation? Please help.

(P.S. I'm a Cpl with 4 yrs service and have an exemplary record)
 
#20
grayco623 said:
In the Spring my wife and I applied to emigrate to Australia (which was her career decision) so to that end I was required to sign off to complete the application process, as I was told we would be given about 6 months to get there if the visa was successful. The visa was successful however the ruleshave recently changed and I now have 5 years to go there. 'Great I'll sign back on' I thought as I'm not ready to get out yet and I can do another 4 to 5 years before following the mrs on her wild dream.
Obviously I was then told the official party line that nobody is allowed to sign back on, but my company wants me to stay so its up to them to argue with manning and records.
Does anyone know if I have a chance? Do you know somebody in the same situation? Please help.

(P.S. I'm a Cpl with 4 yrs service and have an exemplary record)
Signing off is not like changing socks-you are resigning so if your circumstances then change the organisation is under no obligation to allows you to withdraw your resignation. You might get lucky but don't get upset if they answer "Tough, byeeee"
 

Latest Threads