Firms must "do their bit" for the TA

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by Sentinel, Mar 10, 2013.

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. Firms must "do their bit" for the Territorial Army and allow more time off for TA activities, according to a report in the Daily Telegraph:

    Firms must 'do their bit' for the Territorial Army - Telegraph

    ....or alternatively firms could simply not recruit people who are in the TA. This makes TA soliders unemployable. Do firms employ reservists and give them extra time off or do they go for someone who is more committed to their firm? I know what most firms will do - and the coalition will wonder why they can't meet their targets.
    • Like Like x 1
  2. Yes, thats them told!

    Crickets etc...
  3. Firms already do their part... how about the government do its part and actually fund the f#cking resources required. I love the way financial incentives is left to last. He probably mumbled it under his breathe just for good measure!
  4. Seeing as how its going to be SME's employing between 10 to 50 people who are going to drag this economy up, I very much doubt a company of 30 or so key workers is going to take too kindly to having a couple of their staff disappear to fulfil a commitment that a full time professional military should be meeting

    Posted from the ARRSE Mobile app (iOS or Android)
    • Like Like x 1
  5. MUST do? How about firms must do what's best for the firm, that's what pays mortgages and keeps the country afloat. Not funding a hobby that the gov has bolloxed up.
    • Like Like x 5
  6. I think he's voicing what many people have said for years - there is no tangible reason why any employer should employ a reservist less transferable skills. In a recession, the bottom-line is what employers (and their accountants) worry about. Transferable skills doesn't cut it, yet the MOD/Government have said for years that employers lap them up.

    General Ran is doing a brave thing and suggesting, or should that be implying, that Government 'man up' in getting employers on-side by offering some cold hard cash, changing employment law (remember there is nothing to stop them discriminating against Reservists prior to employment at the moment) and generally 'incentivising' SMEs to let blokes off for training weekends, let alone deployments.

    Subtle undertone - 'If you want us to hit 30,000, then give us the bones to put the meat onto'.

    Well done Sir for saying it.
    • Like Like x 2
  7. 'Do your bit'; it strikes me the government is onto a loser here. If there is no legal requirement to do it why should a company take on an employee who might/will disappear for months at a time and possibly come back damaged mentally or physically?

    These days there is no such thing as moral duty, its either required by law or it isn't. The government wants an army on the cheap and is hoping that the private sector will fund it. Appealing to people to do the right thing is a joke coming from a bunch like HMG when you consider some of the 'right things' they have failed to do. The current NHS fiasco, the BBC farce, even the old MP's expenses scandal all point to a group of people who wouldn't know how to 'do their bit' if it punched them repeatedly and gave them full instructions.
    • Like Like x 3
  8. That would be sending production and technical services over sees in order to reduce overhead to make bigger profits for their share holders.

    How about HMG give proper compensation and tax breaks to small firms who do employ TA soliders. That could work.
    • Like Like x 1
  9. msr

    msr LE

    Given that in the current economic climate training budgets in most companies have evaporated, the TA could be in quite a useful place.
  10. chrisg46

    chrisg46 LE Book Reviewer

    I remember saying something along those lines to a visiting general some years ago, who asked us our opinions on getting employers on side.
    Guess he didn't listen...

    Posted from the ARRSE Mobile app (iOS or Android)
  11. I am trying desperately to think what TA skills I could utilise. As a Director of a charity I could do with some unpaid volunteers to lay on community events, help out those less well off. Unfortunately we mostly need volunteers at week ends.

    As the general manager of an SME, I cant think of anything the TA can provide me with except a lot of pain if I loose an employee for anything more than 2 weeks, certainly no additional leave for annual camp.

    Oh and as a former member of the TA, I really enjoyed it, but it didn't do anything for my day job except fund good holidays from my bounty. Luckily I worked for HMG so they had to support my TA activities.

    The current system does not support volunteers or their employers.
  12. If I see where you're going with this, that's not a bad idea.

    A basic framework could be that the Army provides vocational training that is of use to the TA soldier's employer. None of this flimsy stuff about self-confidence and leadership being a bonus to the employer, but actual paper qualifications.

    The TA soldier signs up to 15 days Annual Camp and 6 weekends of military training (the current commitment) plus two further weekends of compulsary vocational training (CVT). To keep the budget down, CVT doesn't attract normal military pay, just a token allowance of, say, £10 per day to cover incidentals like travel and food - that and failure to attend impacts on Bounty.

    The Army provides relevant training through in-house (i.e. Tri-service or otherwise government-funded) instructors and external examiners (where necessary). Courses could include the likes of First Aid at Work, Forklift operator, Abrasive Wheel, etc. - subjects that would benefit the employer and save him the cost of the course. The courses would be aimed at four days overall duration (split into weekends) but could be longer if the employer is prepared to contribute to the additional costs. A soldier returning from mobilisation could earn longer courses taken as an addendum to end of tour leave.

    The employer selects (from those provided) the courses that his employee is to be entered on to ensure that the training is relevant to the workplace.

    The soldier gains qualifications - that will be transferable, encouraging his employer to retain him, probably by means of a pay rise - that his employer may not otherwise be willing to provide, the employer increases the value of his staff and the Army gets added value in addition to recruitment and retention.

    I'm not saying that this would be easy to organise or that it's a one-size-fits-all but it's a suggestion that might get firms a bit further on side.
  13. jrwlynch

    jrwlynch LE Book Reviewer

    Only if it's providing something companies want for a lower price than they could get otherwise. The Army is given to holding forth how much TA training "would cost", but this doesn't allow for whether the employers care and whether they believe the figures. (Driver training being an excellent example of where the Army's costs may be grossly misaligned with civilian expectations)
  14. Are you smoking pure Optimism now ?
    • Like Like x 3