Enabling Component & PULHHEEMS

#1
A fellow ARRSE member has just been medically discharged. He's employed in the TA in an enabler slot in new TA terminology.

According to the medical board he would be unfit for mobilisation but as an enabler he wouldn't be mobilised. His discharge causes more problems than it solves, my unit will probably have to put someone into his slot thats poorer at the job than him (probably me :D ). His injury doesn't stop him from doing the job, he's being doing it very well for months, he's well liked and his enthusiasum motivates others. His discharge will have a bad effect on others moral.

So why do enablers have to meet the same standards as those that would deploy?
 
#3
I believe the intention is that a part of the TA will be classed as enablers, e.g. SQMS/CQMS, they do their jobs keeping TA units running but would never get mobilised.
 
#5
polar69 said:
What is an "enabler" ?
IMHO:

1. The future of the TA/Reserves is that you join in the 18-25 age bracket, pass CIC etc, and become fit for mobilisation in 12 - 18 months.
2. 2/3 deployments in the first five years.
3. Having developed skillset now elegible to remain in the TA without deploying (but on lower bounty) training the next iteration (enabling the cycle to continue)
4a. More deployments or 6 month S type attachments (in which case max bounty)
or
4b. Local/unit training team (on reduced bounty) as an enabler
5. After five years at stage 4 move to regional TT for 2/3 years as trainer (enabling et cetera)

Natural selection and external pressures (career/family) will ensure that the manpower pyramid naturally fits. i.e. few will make it all the way to stage five.

Of course if Tony stops picking fights or sucking up to Dubya then this might now be the best model. OTOH it does provide lots of IRs and allow individuals who don't want to live in condemmed barracks to have a sort of 'military lite' experience in their formative years. It's a better model for providing a reserve, but needs more work around the regular support interface and a move from the TA battallion structure.
 
#7
polar said:
I believe the intention is that a part of the TA will be classed as enablers, e.g. SQMS/CQMS, they do their jobs keeping TA units running but would never get mobilised.
I think you answer your own question here ^ ^ ^ ^ ^

The aspiration is to have an enabling component and a deployable component but as far as I am aware to date this is still an aspiration and no chnages to LSN's have been made to carry out the policy.

Whilst it may have been short sighted to bin the individual in this case, until such changes are made then there are few reasons why he would be able to continue (Should add I have no personal knowledge of the case or the indiidual or unit concerned so all comments are based entirely on what you have stated).

There are many factors involved here. You hint at the post being a CQMS type post. If this is the case then is it right that one person should be given that post indeffinately and prevent others from progressing through the ranks if that is the only slot available at the time?

I often hear the argument that 'no-one else wants the job' what generally turns out to be true is that either a. the job is not explained to people and therefore they have preconceived ideas about what is involved which are generally far from the truth. or b. Person responsible for finding someone to fill the post thinks that the job is undesireable and therefore expects everyone else to have the same opinion so doesn't bother to find out if anyone else actually wants the job...

{edited by H_de_T to get rid of unintentional smilies!}
 
#8
GoodIdeaAtTheTime said:
polar69 said:
What is an "enabler" ?
IMHO:

1. The future of the TA/Reserves is that you join in the 18-25 age bracket, pass CIC etc, and become fit for mobilisation in 12 - 18 months.
2. 2/3 deployments in the first five years.
3. Having developed skillset now elegible to remain in the TA without deploying (but on lower bounty) training the next iteration (enabling the cycle to continue)
4a. More deployments or 6 month S type attachments (in which case max bounty)
or
4b. Local/unit training team (on reduced bounty) as an enabler
5. After five years at stage 4 move to regional TT for 2/3 years as trainer (enabling et cetera)
All a great idea except for the fact that the average age of a trained private is 28. The average age of recruits is 23. source. This number includes the OTC so I'd guess that the average age of people coming through te door of the average unit is higher.

For whatever reason, the TA doesnt currently appeal to the age group that you are suggesting, and so without that starting point I'm afraid the plan doesnt work.
 
#9
^thanks for the info, I wondered what was happening with the enabling component.

Its not a matter of holding people up, Telic, Bosnia and other factors has created a vacum in Cpl->SSgt ranks (we now have 3, one in each rank).
 
#10
polar said:
^thanks for the info, I wondered what was happening with the enabling component.

Its not a matter of holding people up, Telic, Bosnia and other factors has created a vacum in Cpl->SSgt ranks (we now have 3, one in each rank).
In which case shortsightedness and blind obedience of the rules step into play :x maybe the med reason was extremelly serious but I know from my own unit there are many with med problems which should have really led to discharge but instead they have been downgraded to Home Service (Not NI), doesn't stop them carrying out those enabler jobs (Which although they don't officially exist yet, have existed since time began) provided they do so on the understanding that should the situation arise where they are blocking the only chance of promotion for someone else who still has further to go that they should step aside.

Lets face it, there is always the odd spare LSN kicking around to move these people into. anyone from MOD / LAND know when the enabler concept will be implemented??
 
#11
There is already a pulheems grade for personel who are fit for home service, not for mobilisation. I presume he was kicked out because he failed to achieve even this grade. Not all soldiers have to be fighting fit to stay in, but they do have to be fit for their role, otherwise they are a liability.
 
#12
I believe the grade wasn't too good, just seems strange he can work as a mobile engineer with an IT firm but the Army won't let him sign 1033's in the stores. He's probably better off leaving anyway, he was injured while mobilised so he gets a ?disability? pension off the MoD.
 
#14
polar said:
A fellow ARRSE member has just been medically discharged. He's employed in the TA in an enabler slot in new TA terminology.

According to the medical board he would be unfit for mobilisation but as an enabler he wouldn't be mobilised. His discharge causes more problems than it solves, my unit will probably have to put someone into his slot thats poorer at the job than him (probably me :D ). His injury doesn't stop him from doing the job, he's being doing it very well for months, he's well liked and his enthusiasum motivates others. His discharge will have a bad effect on others moral.

So why do enablers have to meet the same standards as those that would deploy?
Because they wear green. Sorry, but I have litle sympathy. We need to improve the overall level of fitness/usefullness of the TA, not invent a pile of jobs that can be filled by the unfit. Medical exemptions would be the first bit of the wedge, followed by general fitness/ability, end result, 5 years time a TA filled with elderly fat knackers and no recruits - who would want to join ? - and as for the ammo that it would give the ARAB "Bin the TA" mob....

Says he, having got back to P3 LE and a letter from the doc saying I'm deployable - after 6 months on P7 Home Only. I'm going for P2 next.... just got to find an on-side doc....
 
#15
ooooh get you, lets hope you remain fit and well for the rest of your career or what ever you do...Ive seem positions in the regular army taken up by what i can only discribe as severely disabled people, so the army does have a policy somewhere on duty of care..
 
#16
The_GreyMan said:
ooooh get you, lets hope you remain fit and well for the rest of your career or what ever you do...Ive seem positions in the regular army taken up by what i can only discribe as severely disabled people, so the army does have a policy somewhere on duty of care..
Nothing to do with "duty of care". This is about the potential for the TA to take a HUGE wrong turn. If all the "enabling component" jobs can be done by the unfit why have soldiers there at all ? - That will be the line taken by the anti-TA ARABs.

The TA need to work to exactly the same med standards as the regulars. Full stop. Otherwise the TA will be over-run with even more clinically obese pie-eaters sitting in the stores trading on their record as a corporal 15 years earlier. The result of that is the 18 yo potential recruits will run back out the door having been put off by the "role models" they were presented with. Its bad enough already. I saw a Sgt fall out of the TA CFT after 60 metres - and still expect to get paid a bounty. Pathetic.

If the guy in the original post was medically unfit enough to be discharged, believe me he must have been pretty sick.
 
#17
Well you seem to have made your mind up on this one, we dont know the reason, but you keep harping on about people that cant run, that is surely a seperate issue,or do you know something we all dont...
 
#18
The_GreyMan said:
Well you seem to have made your mind up on this one, we dont know the reason, but you keep harping on about people that cant run, that is surely a seperate issue,or do you know something we all dont...

?? Its simple. the new MATTS intend to get us to the stage where our phiz standard is the same as the Regs. Med standards should already be the same. At the same time people are trying to build this difference between "enablers" and those who deploy. Its a nonsense. The TA needs to be able to deploy CQMS, Storemen, Drivers, all sorts. To do that they need to meet the phiz and med standards. Otherwise the TA becomes a training organisation that only deploys basic trained Pte soldiers as individual reinforcements - and that will dry up when the recruits catch on or are frightened off by the sight of the honey-monster running the training team.

There is a strand of ARAB opinion that would like to see the STAB TA gone. There is another that only sees us as able to provide basic soldiers. We fall right into that trap if we move towards the point where the "enablers" are non-deployable. OK for a small %age - the Regs have 10% (?) undeployable - but more than that and we are on a slippery slope.

I really hate running. Loathe it. Dead boring - but I'm working to get my med standard back to P2FE with meds, diet and phiz. I think that the fat knackers who cruise along making no attempt to pass CFT or reverse a downgrading are letting the side down. - If pushed I'd say they are taking the money under false pretences.

Now whats your excuse ?

rant off
 
#19
Trossachs said:
Nothing to do with "duty of care". This is about the potential for the TA to take a HUGE wrong turn. If all the "enabling component" jobs can be done by the unfit why have soldiers there at all ? - That will be the line taken by the anti-TA ARABs.
That doesn't make sense at all, firstly the anti-TA ARABs won't see these types, they'll be busy keeping the unit running, enabling it to mobilise lower ranked soldiers. Secondly you seem to have little grasp at what makes a unit function, the enablers are probably doing jobs that you may not want and as mentioned in a previous post, if he was a regular soldier more than likely I believe he would have been kept on.
The guy I posted about was injured in uniform, nothing is wrong with his fitness other than the injury.

Who would you replace these uneeded enablers with? cause without them units wouldn't get out the door (who gets you ammo, signs kit out, run stores, runs ranges etc etc)
 
#20
polar said:
Trossachs said:
Nothing to do with "duty of care". This is about the potential for the TA to take a HUGE wrong turn. If all the "enabling component" jobs can be done by the unfit why have soldiers there at all ? - That will be the line taken by the anti-TA ARABs.
That doesn't make sense at all, firstly the anti-TA ARABs won't see these types, they'll be busy keeping the unit running, enabling it to mobilise lower ranked soldiers. Secondly you seem to have little grasp at what makes a unit function, the enablers are probably doing jobs that you may not want and as mentioned in a previous post, if he was a regular soldier more than likely I believe he would have been kept on.
The guy I posted about was injured in uniform, nothing is wrong with his fitness other than the injury.

Who would you replace these uneeded enablers with? cause without them units wouldn't get out the door (who gets you ammo, signs kit out, run stores, runs ranges etc etc)
Wrong on any number of counts - Firstly the Anti-TA ARABS will not need to physically see the 18 stone jelly baby in the RRTT - An SO2 in Wilton will simply present the % deployable/med stats to assembled Brass next time they are looking for something to cut.
Secondly, as a former OC HQ both Reg and TA I do know exactly what I'm taking about when it comes to the jobs "enablers" do and who ends up doing them. HQ Reg has a higher % of med downgrades and older soldiers but most are DEPLOYABLE. Thats the key word.
I can't debate what happened to your mate but if his injury was such as to leave him worse than P7HO it must have been bad.
Lets look at the other point - Replacing the fat knackers. Many moons ago a TA Bn in the SE of England took a decision to stop using training camps at weekends, deploy straight into the field or camp out on the ranges. Much wailing and gnashing of teeth from the "perpetual Advance, Admin and Rear party" crew, who slowly faded out. Well, a year or two later recruiting had improved, the stores were still issued - by younger, thinner blokes and the Bn was recognised as being pretty damn slick. I was in the best recruited company in the SE at the time I believe - and Richard Holmes was CO.

Giving in to the "its too difficult to replace Snodgrass" mentality is a recipe for a slow decline. Time up ? Time to move on. The cadets will welcome him with open arms. Thanks, Lord Lts Cert and a piss-up in the Mess, see you at the reunion.
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top