Link to New TA soldier engagements DIN

#2
"15 Physops Gp"?

Psyops Gp surely?

msr
 
#3
Soldiers with previous TA service, will, on rejoining the TA, sign on so their total aggregated service
falls into the same 12 and 24 year scheme. This will inevitably result in an engagement period that will
not consist solely of years. Progress will then be on a Length of Service basis, not age.
That could be interesting. My previous service ran from 1987 to 1992.

Formal arrangements for soldiers to take a "career break" of up to two years seems a very good idea. I might have stayed on if this had been offered to me back in the day.
 
#5
Oh, but isn't there a thread to be written about a TA Phys Ops group - a crack unit dedicated to eliminating the Medsonball-Bellies....

Although, I have to say I have not seen any evidence of this:
Evidence suggests that the current system whereby a TA soldier has to engage every 3 or 4 years, on the Notice paper at Ref A, in accordance with Ref B, hinders retention, as do the current retirement ages which often have to be extended due to current manning.
It smacks more of desperation to me.

The TA lost almost one Officer every working day last year.

msr
 
#6
Was I alone in noticing the use of the term "part-time"? Does this have any bearing on the question of employment status vis a vis pensions etc?

(No I'm not fishing for a pension but terms and conditions have been the subject of much discussion)
 
#7
Yes, you don't get one.

msr
 
#8
EX_STAB said:
Was I alone in noticing the use of the term "part-time"? Does this have any bearing on the question of employment status vis a vis pensions etc?

(No I'm not fishing for a pension but terms and conditions have been the subject of much discussion)
You clearly have not being paying attention. It's all quite simple.

Members of the TA are not "part-time" workers in respect of the part-time Workers (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2000 because they specifically exclude the Reserve Forces.

In order to avoid the confusion thereby caused by being "part-time" but not "part-time" a working group was set up to review the use of "part-time" in relation to the TA. The working group set up a study group which established that although when not mobilised (as defined by the Reserve Forces Act 1996), the employment of TA officers and soldiers was in all respects "part-time", the use of the term "part-time" in respect of the TA gave rise to expectations within the target group (i.e. the TA) that they might have certain entitlements, primarily but not solely that of a pension, to which they actually had no entitlement following secondary legislation (namely the aforementioned regulations) to the contrary.

A focus group and telephone surveys of a random representative sample of the target group (i.e. the TA albeit slightly smaller than the aforementioned TA ) found that the use of "casual workers" in respect of the TA was perceived to have negative connotations in that the majority of respondents felt that such a term failed to fully empathise with their perceived employment status, as there was a strong implication that their services could be terminated without notice and that they could not be availed of basic employee rights. The focus group results were included in the interim report of the study group to the working group.

Concomitant with the preparation of the final report of the study group to the working group, an advertising agency was contracted to find a suitable replacement word or phrase to replace "part-time" but without the perjorative aspects of "casual". The identity of, and, precise processes carried out by, the agency are classified "CONFIDENTIAL-COMMERCIAL" and hence do not form part of this summary.

The final report concluded that the phrase "spare time" was most appropriate when referring to activities which , by their nature, were "part-time" but not "part-time" in the context of the aforementioned regulations.

Clearly a change of this magnitude takes time to fully percolate through the organisation, and we deeply regret any instances of incorrect usage of the term "part-time" in relation to the TA and as an interim measure we have recruited casual staff to replace the word "part" with "spare" throughout the MOD, although owing to unforeseen problems in DLO, this task is currently in abeyance.


In summary, NO.
 
#10
Good work, who cares ...

Or should I say ... Sir Humphrey Appleby!

Sir Humphrey/who cares ... said:
Well, it's clear that the committee has agreed that your new policy is a really excellent plan but in view of some of the doubts being expressed, may I propose that I recall that after careful consideration, the considered view of the committee was that while they considered that the proposal met with broad approval in principle, that some of the principles were sufficiently fundamental in principle and some of the considerations so complex and finely balanced in practice, that, in principle, it was proposed that the sensible and prudent practice would be to submit the proposal for more detailed consideration, laying stress on the essential continuity of the new proposal with existing principles, and the principle of the principle arguments which the proposal proposes and propounds for their approval, in principle.
Busted!
 
#11
Actually I think the real Sir Humphrey is alive and well, albeit playing in the Second Division:
GOC2Div said:
I'm not sure what you mean. It is clear that the CofC is engaged in integrating TA Officer Training with that of a Regular officer to ensure harmony of skills albeit less experience. If we are to properly utilise the TA in the medium term to deliver real capability, whilst ensuring that the best interests of our soldiers, TA and regular alike, are protected, then we have no choice. The three week RMAS course, the TAPO training, etc are all part of that process. In a modern world, with modern threats and modern soldiers, it is incumbent on us to ensure that we have engaged in a thorough and appropriate process to train young Officers correctly. Within RF, there has been a consistent and ground breaking focus on this for over three years, which has now delivered a course that is tailor made for the TA. It will deliver well trained and effective TA officers who can readily be compared with their regular peers, whilst able to command TA soldiers and gain their respect (for the right reasons). It is acknowledged that there is a shortgage of suitable Officers and therefore we have the current focus to deliver a medium term uplift to regenerate the TA command structure.
At least I was only taking the p!ss
 
#12
who_cares.... said:
Actually I think the real Sir Humphrey is alive and well, albeit playing in the Second Division:
GOC2Div said:
It is clear that the CofC is engaged in integrating TA Officer Training with that of a Regular officer to ensure harmony of skills albeit less experience.
Except that I suspect it is, in fact, GOC 2 Div...

I got trawled as a DS for his company when RHF were in Belize; spent a week chasing around the rural Caribbean and having a whale of a time. (Me, a chubby gunner, a rather hefty Yeomanry type, and a PARA Captain). He was one of those open minded, forward thinking, types 15 years ago so it wouldn't surprise me.

(CrabAir had seat allocation problems, so we spent three weeks out there; I spent the other two out on Ambergris Caye learning to dive, and sending smiley picture postcards back to the rest of the Platoon who were just coming off a January TESEX in Garelochead)
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top