DEFENCE CAREER PARTNERING

Discussion in 'Staff College and Staff Officers' started by pombsen-armchair-warrior, May 22, 2007.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. I originally posted this in 'Outside The Wire'. In retrospect it probably belongs here -original now deleted.

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The 'Centre' is currently working up partnering arrangements with selected civilian companies in an initiative called Defence Career Partnering.

    Two of these arrangements affect the Army. One is a low population/high tech, the second a high population/low tech initiative. The first, with BT as the partner, is aimed at the R Sigs. The second, with Sodexho Defence Services, is being worked up in Colchester, and is aimed at the general Army population. In broad terms, the rationale behind this concept is three-fold.

    Objective 1: To retain 'mil expertise' in a 'defence environment' by placing soldiers leaving the army with selected defence contractors.

    Objective 2: To encourage soldiers joining this contractor to elect to serve within the TA, thereby increasing mil capability.

    Objective 3: Through the maintenance of skills whilst undertaking TA service, to leave the door open for soldiers to re-inlist if they so desire.

    To make this a success I believe it will be necessary to get not only buy-in for Objective 1, but to link this initial objective with buy-in for Obj 2, 3 or 2 followed at some point by 3.

    Trials will be run in the near future to test the concept. Anybody heard of this initiative, and if so, what are your views?

    PAW
     
  2. An interesting concept, PAW! I haven't heard anything about it but will keep my eyes open!

    Litotes
     
  3. Something the REME have been doing for ages - via an outfit called the REME Association Job Agency........ Nothing as formal at the Defence Career Partnership, but along the same lines.
     
  4. Obviously an initiative that has a flawed communication plan or is, due to the lack of interest, inherently flawed in concept.

    I think, however, that the high tech trial involving the R Sigs will bring huge benefit to BT with very little accruing to the MoD. As for Colchester, the selection of jobs on offer ranges from mess hand, driver, cleaner and cook (note not chef) with pay scales ranging from about £5.50ph - £7.50p.h, and I'm sure the take up from servicemen leaving the service will reflect this reality.

    PAW
     
  5. I disagree - although BT will get a stream of potential future employees (something it doesn't really struggle for anyway), the thing to remember is this partnership goes in both directions.

    Suitably qualified BT personnel could therefore end up running a defence project, contributing to work the R Sigs can't do (which currently gets contracterised or not done at all), etc.
     
  6. This is an interesting concept. However it seems flawed and is potentially bias towards the civilian partner (As most of these arrangements are)

    If we have a large number of personnel moving towards the civilian sector but with high readiness links to the TA, It gives limited stability to the new employer. Particularly if the potential TA members fill a narrow field in the organisation (As would ex regular signals personnel) any large scale operation would severely damage the operational capability of the new employer as they would run with very little slack in the system.

    The new employer is getting a win-win situation in regard to getting highly trained men with no initial/training outlay, and I have no doubt a get a “clause” of only making a small number of their ex army personnel available for service at any one time (see above). Also looking at statistics the average soldier moving to a civilian job stays in post a short time before moving on to greener pastures. Would this initiative be any different?

    The answer is for the government to invest in the Army and its Personnel. Improve salary’s, housing and conditions. Perhaps then we wouldn’t have to have these half baked ideas to try and stem the outflow of disgruntled soldiers.
     
  7. RST,

    Thanks for your comment.

    Would agree with you as far as meeting Obj 1 is concerned, particularly if it drags CONDO into the equation. As far as Obj 2 and 3 are concerned I believe they are doomed. All the usual problems associated with deployed TA Service (less employer buy-in possibly) will remain, particularly a much reduced salary - use of CONDO may mitigate this). As for signing back on.....................

    PAW
     
  8. WFG,

    Thanks for your input. Your last para hits the nail directly on the head, although I believe there is still room for DCP to operate in parallel with a push to invest significantly more in our existing pax.

    PAW
     
  9. An interesting concept, although I can not help but be cynical about anything involving dear old Sodexho. Can you tell me which capbadges in particular you are hoping to target with such paltry wages?
     
  10. M

    'Nemo dat quod non habet'. That said:

    I'm not targetting anybody, merely seeking opinion.

    I assume that as Colchester is the trial area all capbadges are being targetted

    PAW
     
  11. I think this agreement may be another attempt to also stop companies from poaching soldiers (a la Orange Van outside Blandford Camp). Especially when they help to buy the soldiers out of their time bars. DCP would seem noble in intentions, but as usual with the govt, there is a hidden agenda.
     
  12. Thank you PAW. Although I hope I can help my chaps get a slightly better job than mess hand or cleaner on minimum wage.
     
  13. So the idea seems to be that people who are pissed of by constant op deployments shopuld leave their well paid Army job, work for crap wages with a defence contractor like sodexho and be liable to deploy on ops as a TA warrior?
    I don't think so!