Green Paper on Future Reserves 2020

#1
#3
Interesting, I notice the idea to award civilian firms who employ TA soldiers and permit their conduct of their military duties with a kitemark. Perhaps only companies who are awarded this accolade should be permitted to compete for government contracts. Thoughts?
 
#4
While this all looks promising I shall wait until it all actually happens. Also, the reality may be somewhat different.
 
#5
While this all looks promising I shall wait until it all actually happens. Also, the reality may be somewhat different.
Indeed. However, what is coming out today is a consultation.

While the Government has already signalled where it is going with this, in my opinion it would be perfectly reasonable in responding to the consultation to point out doubts and difficulties - and if possible to suggest how they could be overcome.

I look forward to seeing the actual document later today.
 
#6
Bottom of the DT article " expected to serve at least one six month tour of duty every five months". Holy sh!t Batman. Time travel as MATTs?
 
#9
What about the cold war warriors who are in the TA and parade on rememberance with their two jubilee medals and vrsm with no intention of ever doing a tour??
 

Travelgall

LE
Kit Reviewer
#10
"Ministers are also considering giving kitemarks to reward "patriotic" companies that employ reservists". Yay! My employee will be off more than a Female Catholic Nymphomaniac but I get a badge. Cutting Employers National Insurance contributions to zero, funding their training, supporting their pension etc. Companies are affected by the bottom line - am I there to do the job they pay me for- not soft skills, not Patriotism. If I'm pissing off a year in 5 I'm unemployable at worst or severely crippled in my promotion prospects.
 
#12
Wow, a kitemark for the company for letting employees off!

Within several months of this being implemented, a member of TA actually applying and actually getting a job in a company will be next to zero. During an a job interview whilst you cannot be asked about your sexual orientation,age etc you can be asked if you are a member of the TA, therefore potential employers can discriminate against part time soldiers, realising that they may need time off. Looking at the employers side of the argument, what employer in their right mind will be hiring a member of the TA?

"Laws could also be introduced to ensure companies do not discriminate against someone who says that he or she is a member of the TA."

So the politicians will ensure that someone who is hardly ever at work will be given promotion over someone who works every day they are supposed to? I can see that going down well with the remainder of the employees and employers who are covering for them when they are away on training/deployment.

"The public sector will be asked to do its part by giving two weeks’ paid “reserve leave” for any part-time soldier."

Is this on top of their annual entitlement? I can see the rest of the employees really looking forward to coverering for them for the extra fortnihgt plus any pre-deployment training as well as any deployment.
 
#13
All this about mobilising TA soliders for 6 months every 5 years - has anyone thought of the practicalities of doing this? Not from the employers point of view, but from the view of a soldier on the ground?

Put it like this:

A TA soldier cannot be charged with going AWOL. AWOL = Absent Without Official Leave, as all leave in the army has to be authorised, whereas for a TA solider all our presence has to authorised. When we get mobilised we officially become regular army soldiers, so they can get around this problem. But what then? A Soldier refuses to go as they would rather be at work than go to Cyprus or back fill in Catterick for six months. What are the army really going to do with that soldier?

The options are limited to

1. Fine - fining a TA soldier their bounty for a year for not doing a six month tour - yep sounds okay to me!
2. Discharge - carry on with your job as normal. Ok, that's what the solider wanted, carry on as normal.
3. Courts martial - seriously what is the point? Not effective, expensive, time consuming and what would the punishment be if found guility?
3. Detention at MCTC Colchester

Sending a solider to MCTC Colchester is expensive as the originating unit has to pay the cost of sending them there. This is pointless as that money could be better used elsewhere for training. Besides, if units are faced with five or ten soldiers refusing to mobilise, they could never afford to send them all to MCTC. MCTC probably wouldn't want them there anyway as they'd be a nuisance and waste of time and money.

So what actually is the deterrent for refusing to mobilise?

What I am saying is, the policy of a tour every five years is unenforceable, not due to employers support (although that is an issue) but because the army doesn't have the disciplinary system to cope with all the soliders refusing to go.
 
#18
"The public sector will be asked to do its part by giving two weeks’ paid “reserve leave” for any part-time soldier."
Ahem, this has been Departmental policy in the Home Office for as long as I can remember i.e. since I joined the Dept in 2005. I am entitled to 10 days of Special Paid Leave per year for TA duty; when I was a School Governor, I got another 6 days Special Paid Leave on top. Combined with Annual Leave and Compenstory Leave and I had a grand total of 52 days paid leave available me during that partiuclar year. Despite my best efforts, I couldn't take it all and ended up carrying over 11 days, which I still haven't taken. To my mind, the issue is not so much extra leave as the ability of the employee to take their leave entitlement in the first place. In a time of lean manning in all sectors, taking leave is something which is becoming steadily harder. The SofS's proposals in no way address this particular probelem.
 
#19
Interesting, I notice the idea to award civilian firms who employ TA soldiers and permit their conduct of their military duties with a kitemark. Perhaps only companies who are awarded this accolade should be permitted to compete for government contracts. Thoughts?
Yup, see the rise of the token TA worker.
Large company wants multi million dollar contract - sets up office/subsidiary at a loss in high unemployment area, employment condition is joining TA.
Have enough Neds on the book to cover the whole company nationwide.
Do it in Scotland or Wales for additional grants.
Win/maintain loads of contracts.

Hopefully deploy enough bods on ops to maintain targets.

When funding/requirements on businesses get cut (either on change of government or an outbreak of commonsense), close unit - make all redundant.

Leave local plod struggling to deal with large numbers of unemployed trained killers with lots of time on their hands who have visited lots of interesting countries with active drug trades (see 'Yes, Prime Minister' - National Service)
 
#20
I do like the idea of doubling the size of the TA; I presume this means that for every person accepted there are at least four other serious prospects turned away. Allowing for wastage that might mean some increase in size.

If the object is to save money on defence spending, I wouldn't expect too much more in your budget any time soon.

Five extra days training, from 35 to 40? Be still my beating heart, 40 days plus was normal in my sqn as we had CVRT to play with, I can't imagine equipment is less requiring of maintainance nowadays.

As a civilian career killer the TA is the way to go, unless you work for near minimum wage.

I suspect this is a softening up process for a euro army, we are looking to share capital ships with France, the diplomatic side is pretty much in place, and diplomacy without clout is an empty vessel. Maybe within 15 years we will have a euro army, and 'Heritage Regiments' keeping alive the old traditions, sort of like the HAC pikes and muskets.
 

Similar threads

New Posts

Latest Threads

Top