Ftrs (hc) and (lc) screwed over

Discussion in 'Army Pay, Claims & JPA' started by big_bad_bill, Aug 4, 2012.

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. The FTRS (HC) and (LC) have been hit by a double wammy. From 1 Aug they have to pay non-entitled rates (4 times as much as entitled) for accommodation AND lose the right to GYH(T).

    Neither has been well publicised, with the non-entitled rates being a 'clarification' of the rules in JSP 464 mentioned in a DSPSI and the GYH just appearing in the latest re-write of JSP 752.

    I have queried and JSP 464 is correct, despite the FTRS DIN and TA regs saying different.

    With this and the 2 year contract, how are we going to recruitment them?
  2. I thought the accommodation charges were always billed as non-entitled because the rules state you are not entitled to accommodation whilst serving on FTRS Home Committment (HC) or Limited Committment (LC), the Home and Limited being a bit of a clue I thought!.

    The only time I was aware of FTRS being entitled to accommodation at normal rates was only on FC.
  3. No, it was always no entitlement to accommodation but they can have a room if there is space and it definitely said at entitled rates.

    What's going to happen is we're going recruit because of geography and not suitability.
  4. If you genuinely think someone would be put off applying for an FTRS (HC) or (LC) post then maybe they're not really that suitable after-all!
  5. HC have never been entitled to accom, however it was almost always offered or arranged as part of a gentleman's agreement with the PMC. Likewise they aren't entitled to med or dental, but again, a blind-eye was always turned (or the med staff genuinely didn't know). I know this from a previous appointment when a HC clown refused to duty a Duty Field Officer appointment as it wasn't part of his Job Spec as had been agreed when he signed up for HC.

    Also, HC aren't supposed to wear uniform unless agreed by there LM/CO - they have no automatic entitlement to it.

    I met some HC who were genuinely sound and played the game using it to top up their pension, were very casual about their employment (including wearing civvies and were happy to be addressed by their first name by all & sundry); i met others (normally ex-TA Officers) who were absolute belters and demanded that subbies & Capts be moved out of their double rooms / suites in order to accommodate them mon-thu!
  6. Have been on HC for some time and no dramas. Was offered Med & Dental cover by local Med Centre but decided to play it straight as I didn't fancy the system presenting me with a bill at a later date. Was not aware however about the not wearing uniform thing, been wearing mine and nobody has mentioned it.
  7. Similar to the above I have been HC for a few years now and have fought the rules a few times. There has not been an entitlement to accommodation or GYH / HTD since 2000, when I did my first one. When I stayed in the mess it would have been at non-entitled rated but there is a section in TA Regs (or was a few years ago) stating that, if you have a mortgage on a property which is not rented out then you do not pay for accommodation - the equivalent of married unaccompanied I suppose.

    This double whammy thing sound very strange, unless you are talking about the NRPS to FTRS transition which has been coming for years?

    As for recruiting for posts; the contract is VERY clearly stated prior to starting and for most TA soldiers it is a pretty good deal when comparing salary to job requirements. Most of the complaints I hear are from ex-Regs, because they no longer get the same as before...

    Your comment on geography is one that has been ongoing for some years, no real change.

    The only ones that should really get some entitlement are the ones that spend most of the time out of office, such as Implementation Teams, who should have been FC from the outset. One such team is having huge problems at the moment because they are paying entitled rated at units nad have been threatened with a bill later on.

    Frankly, in this climate FTRS (HC) is a good deal for the individual as they usually get a better salary than the civi equivalent, the Army get a good deal because they pay much, much less for the individual and free up regs to cycle them through ops (or the Olympics!).

    Uniform? My joining instructions stated uniform and I have always worn it, again is this an NRPS thing? Or the old codger FTRS thing (RSG or something)?

    If it is that bad you can always do the same option as the regs, don't sign up, or sign off, there will always be plenty of volunteers to take your place, or had you not noticed the odd one or two redundancies the army are making?
  8. Unfortunate, disappointing, and perhaps unlikely, but that is surely the fault of the person righting the JS rather than the individual himself. The reason why these jobs are limited in scope is because the TACOS for these posts are significantly different from Regular servicemen.

    Bollocks. It's an automatic requirement, with the exception of a few posts.

    In the majority of FTRS jobs the pension is used to top up the salary.
  9. The whole point of HC FTRS posts is that they are restricted to a single geographic location, and hence it is reasonable to assume that potential candidates would, in the main, have their own home/accn and not require mil accn.

    This geographic constraint, together with the loss of the 'X' factor, entitlement ot SLA/SFA, and med/dent treatment may, of course, affect the quality of those applying for FTRS posts. The reality, however, is that many entering HC contracts are pretty much sorted finanicially and see these posts as a way of continuing to contribute towards/remaining part of the military, but without the '****-around' factor.

    Get used to it - the New Employment Model, as it seeks to drive down manpower costs, will see the introduction of huge swathes of Full-Time Regular Service HC and LC posts, with a relatively small cadre continuing to serve on FC terms.
  10. I have two good mates who were FTRS(FC) and after being offered the chance to transfer were swiftly binned after their op tour (much to the disappointment of their Coy Commander). I can't say I was surprised, but I didn't think it fit with the new TA-centric approach we're going to be taking.

    It seems like FTRS types are still getting the sh*tty end of the stick

    T C
  11. I may be getting confused on the uniform thing with RSG punters - if so, my apologies - it was a few years ago when i was dealing with TACOS for these guys
  12. Does anyone know if you are entitled to HTD when on a FTRS (HC) contract? If so is it the up to 50 miles daily commute you can claim for (looking at where to buy a house to work location). Been reading up on all the DINs for FTRS but if any of you lads who are on FTRS (HC) contracts can give me pointers on pension abatement or other problems you have had it would be appreciated by PM as considering options.
  13. No, you're not.
  14. Thanks for the answers guys.
  15. Iron,

    Hope you have not gone for one of the Assessors jobs at ADSC's, Because you will be truly screwed! All NCO's are being RTU'd and the overnight duty of care will fall to the WO's and SNCO's to do. They are also looking at Shifts and weekend work!