Do you trust the MoD to back you up?

Discussion in 'Army Reserve' started by stickybomb, Dec 13, 2005.

?
  1. Yes, and I have seen it done and it worked.

    2.5%
  2. I have not seen it done yet but I'm prepared to trust them.

    7.5%
  3. Yes, I've seen it done but it didn't work.

    2.5%
  4. No, I've never see it done and I don't think the MoD gives a tinker's cus

    73.8%
  5. No, but I would feel much more 'valued' if I saw it being done, even if it didn&am

    13.8%

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. For nearly five years now reservists have been labouring under the impression that if they discretely indicated that they were prepared to be mobilised, all they would receive was a knowing wink from the MoD and a set of 'compulsory' mobilisation papers.

    However, as of 1 Jan 06, the MoD have not only decided to inform everybody's employer that they have a member of the reserve forces in their workforce (regardless of the consequences for those who have happily managed their secret membership for years) but they have now declared that, if approached by a suspicious employer, they will quite happily tell them the real reason that their employee was mobilised.

    One can only suppose that this 'open and honest' attitude is intended to reduce the MoD's exposure to censure, withdrawal of cooperation or, heaven forbid, legal action by employers but where does that leave the reservist?

    The issue could quite easily be brushed off with a laconic "well, it was their bluff and it got called so whatever happens to their job or marriage etc. is their own stupid fault." Brutal, with perhaps more than a grain of truth, but can the MoD hope to sustain the required level of mobilisation without these risk-takers?

    To my mind, the evidence to date suggests that winning the confidence of the TA soldier is a battle that seems to command a very low priority for the MoD. How many cases of the MoD using RFA96 to challenge a mobilisation-related sacking have you heard of? Have there ever been any? (Flt Lt Nokes' post-Balkan spat with a merchant bank was a self-inflicted wound BTW).

    This poll is really a question of perception but I have allowed for responses based on hard evidence and without.


    ...and no, I don't work for any part of the spin-gathering machine that's been mounting those questionnaire raids on the UK Field Army, it's just a question that's been puzzling me for a while.

    Cheers,
    Sticky

    Edited to get rid of those annoying ascii bits
     
  2. Not for a second, if it would cost them anything... RFA96 is all about compulsorily mobilising us with the maximum degree of guarantee for them at the minimum degree of inconvenience, to them.

    A lot of people I know actually used mobilisation for 24 Bde's and 3 Div's ops to finesse themselves out of their jobs, banking on their employers lack of experience of RFA96 and its lack of legal precedents. I know I did! Nigh ten years on, employers have a far better understanding of where they could stand and how close to the wind they can sail.
     
  3. Stickybomb - from whence did you pick up this pearl? Any link to said piece?
     
  4. Which bit? Compulsory Employer Notification has been on the cards for a while and I believe that the intention not to hide the reason for mobilisation if challenged is policy in at least one Bde area.

    What I am really trying to do is to draw out an idea of the perception of RFA96 and the willingness to stand by the reservist. I have a sneaky suspicion that it is a key factor in a reservist's decision to mobilise...or not.

    I notice that someone has already indicated that they have seen it used. Whoever it was, it would help if you could elaborate within the limitations of PERSEC.
     
  5. Which Brigade area?
     
  6. I am not going to indicate which brigade because it would not serve any purpose and is beside the point. What is interesting is that it seems to be a cause for concern that this policy is operated anywhere.

    I want to make one thing very clear here: I am not trying to stir the poo. The MoD are very concerned about the perception of what it is to serve as TA soldier. If they didn't, we wouldn't be getting all these questionnaires. This was one question that was missing from both of the recent polls (MORI and CAS) so I hope the results of this little poll will help them to get it right for us...cos I know they're watching!
     
  7. Is that the polls which were sent out to addressees using military title et cetera? Nice of MORI to send a letter by following post to apologise for the PERSEC violation though...
     
  8. Being moblised for a pointless war is one thing . Knowing that if you get the sack the mod will shaft you .Or if you get wounded or kia you and your family will be shafted.Really dosent put me in the right mood to volunteer
     
  9. Yep, Cuddles, that's the one, although the CAS was at least sent out under discrete cover.

    Woody, haven't you already done a stint in the sandpit? Do you feel differently about volunteering now?
     
  10. I can't comment on this personally - after all, I'm a Regular - but I can comment upon it as an observer. In a previous incarnation I belonged to a unit principally comprising tri-servist specialist reservists. I recently went to one of their number's wedding which was threatening to become a reunion party. Of the several members of the unit there, all whom had been TA as it happens, none were still serving. All had ended their service after several deployments. All cited, in part, the lack of support they received from the MOD, the threat (and often loss) of job or own business. Admittedly, a goodly number of them also cited the failure of the Regular cadre of the unit to understand/appreciate/support them, but that,as they say, is another story.
     
  11. Wow! I was told by my unit that I could "volunteer" (let them know that I was game) and they'r tell my employer that my mobilistation was compulsery... What you've said sounds like the opposite!
    Really glad I put my name down now.....

    T C

    (I wish i'd read your post befor I took the poll...would have put a different answer down!)
     
  12. Ref first part of this quote... In my unit this was always the case, in fact, during a recent chin wag with the DComd Bde it was discussed that the TA may well be ditching this approach, as the Employer has now to give their consent to a mobilisation.

    I'm not 100% on this but I'm reasonably confident Sticky's first comment is not accurate.

    As for the second... well, why should people see a tour as a career break? Aren't you being disloyal to your employer if you play the system to get a tour whilst ensuring you have a job to come back to? That's the whole reason why employers kick up a stink in the first place. For the record I'm all in favour of intelligent mobilisation.

    If we want our employers to play fair with us surely we should play fair with them.

    Anyway, if the MoD does take that approach I suspect that the number of volunteers will drop sharply, leaving them scratching their pointy Civil Servant heads as to why it's all gone breasts up, before the penny drops and they realise Mum's the word.

    SB
     
  13. I can't believe the MoD are so stupid as to think they can do anything else but be completely honest with employers. If a reservist lies to their employer (they made me go, honest) and the employer finds out then they will most likely be sacked just like anyone else who tells the boss porky pies. I cannot see how the RFA 1996 could apply in this case so the reservist can mount no effective defence.

    The only thing I can think of would be compulsion but I cannot see the MoD standing up in court and stating that they required Pte Bloggs to lie to his employer so Pte Bloggs could be mobilised.

    Equally, on the wider issue of backup, the MoD give no assistance to reservists seeking to apply the protections in RFA 1996. Nothing, nada, zip, zilch, rien ... you get the picture. So if you can't afford to fund a court case yourself it might as well not exist.

    And I mention the RFA 1996 as it is the only piece of legislation that applies. If you are denied a job for being in the TA - no protection. If you get told you're not being promoted as you're in the TA (heard that from yet another mate last weekend I was on) - no protection.

    Backup from the MoD ? It doesn't exist. It's not a deficiency, it's policy.
     
  14. The MOD has no right to interfere in the relationship between employer and employee !!!!!!!

    This so called "compulsory" notification is a farce. I contacted Sabre and they were appalled that there was any element of compulsion.

    If you don't believe me, contact your local Sabre rep and ask them ; what law/ regulation this is covered by, what is the related statute and common law and if any European rights/ laws might apply to this situation. Push back on these people!

    They will not be able to give you an answer because it is all smoke and mirrors and the whole initiative depends on the gulibility of the individual TA soldier. In addition, like most crazy ideas from the MOD, it has not been thought through.

    You can opt out - I did.

    As for "volunteering" for a compulsory mobilisation, you're a fool if you do and get caught by the organisation that pays your mortgage.

    The MOD will not back you up - why would they?
     
  15. Ah, the hazards of hasty posting! I had in fact got the date wrong for CEN -- it has been in force since 1 Apr 04 according to my sources. It seems that the procedure is for the TA to insist that the employer is notified on enlistment or re-engagement which amounts to much the same thing but SB is right, my first comment is therefore not accurate in it's detail but the sentiment still stands. SB's comment about playing fair is smack on the nail -- mobilisation is a long-term issue which will not go away and we must get the culture of open volunteering established.

    If an employer sacks a mobilised employee for concealing the truth about his mobilisation, that's probably fair enough -- after all, it is wilful deception. If all the sackings were cases like this then one could hardly blame the MoD for staying well away but that detail is often missing from any press coverage and leaves the rest of the reservist community looking at two facts: 1. mobilised reservist sacked 2. MoD takes no action. Net result, no confidence in RFA96 'protection'. The poll clearly indicates at the moment that this is the case.

    I think the key issue here might be what is said to potential mobilisees (?) at unit level and below. No-one can deny that there have been soldiers who haven't been completely honest with their employers and this places the MoD in an invidious position if the deception is exposed. So where have they got the idea that lying will be okay? Every time this happens, the whole trust triangle of MoD-Soldier-Employer takes a denting but perhaps more importantly, apparent lack of action might be dissuading valuable potential volunteers from taking a step forward.

    Hootch, there is a world of difference between turning a blind eye (which I think might have happened) and requiring the volunteer to lie. I am certainly not accusing anyone of the latter.

    There are now two voters who indicated they had seen the Act used with a positive outcome and one with a negative outcome -- it would be really useful if you guys could post some details.