New Employment Model

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by LordPercy, Sep 27, 2010.

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. Maybe we should sell off Downing Street too. That's prime property.

    FORMER_FYRDMAN LE Book Reviewer

    It's something applied by editors to rid themselves of journalists who are bone enough to rock up on ARRSE and ask questions like that with their first post. Hope that helps.
  3. First post or not, it is a perfectly reasonable question, you p*llock. Why the he'll would you think that I am a journalist?

    FORMER_FYRDMAN LE Book Reviewer

    From the question in your first post and the punctuation in your second. Hope that helps.
  5. There is another thread on this - use the excellent search function.

    The senior officers should give up their manor houses and servants when:-

    - Parliament ends the practice of subsidised bars in the Palace of Westminster.
    - The Prime Minister gives up his grace and favour homes - 10 Downing St and Cheqeurs ( including the military staff).
    - The DPM gives up Doneywood.
    - The Chancellor gives up 11 Downing St
    - The Foreign Secretary etc gives up their luxury apartments in Admiralty House.
    - Dolphin Sq is rented at commercial rates.

    And finally, when the good members of the Palace of Westminster guaruntee that all these senior officers will stay in one place for more than 2 years ( including never going to places like Afghanistan) and if they do - that the same priviledges and entitlements that MPs enjoy are granted to soldiers.
  6. Notwithstanding the other threads on CEA etc etc, the OP raises an interesting point which I didnt see anyone else picking up from the Telegraph article:

  7. I would suspect it means that anyone who joins after date X will have different (ie cheaper) T&Cs of service. Similiar to the way anybody who joined after 2005 was put on the new (& cheaper) AFPS 05 pension scheme
  8. Hackle, thank you very much for the link; nice to get an answer rather than abuse from the obvious SD Nazi (although hands up to the punctuation error; I can spell but can't type, which upsets the predictive text on my iPad). The link you supplied confirms that the New Employment Model is not an invention of The Telegraph but there is no detail as to what it will contain. The Conservatives, whilst in opposition and shortly after the election stated support to the military covenant. It will be interesting to see how the New Employment Model matches the rhetoric.
  9. It will be interesting to see the first legal challenge to what could be a severe erosion of terms and conditions of employment. Eg, if I am to be moved every 2 (now 3) years to wherever the needs of the Army require me to move, of course I'll forgo the supposed "perk" of living in a quarter, so long as I am compensated for uprooting my family with cold hard cash in the bank. If you're just going to make me pay more for following the flag, then I'm afraid you're breaching my employment conditions.

    Any legal eagles out there with a view on this?
  10. Stonker

    Stonker On ROPs

    Penny to a pound it will be cheaper.

    If it has implications for Continuity of Education Allowance, it is likely that it will aim to reduce still further the frequency with which the career soldier is required to relocate, thuse (in theory) reducing the numbers who will need to put their kids into boarding school in order to keep their education from being interrupted every couple of years.

    With UK forces being withdrawn from Germany, on the face of it that would look - to an outsider - like a fairly straightforward proposition.

    In practice, it will be a tough one to kill off, as long as Officers careers have them moving between posts in Garrisons, Procurement Exec, Staff College, MoD etc. I anticipate the bulk of any savings in CEA spend in the Army to achieved at the expense of the OR population.

    The balance of CEA claimants is 60/40 Offrs/ORs across defence - but has always been skewed towards Officers in the Army, simply because ORs retire younger than in t'other 2 services, and work within a career structure that leads from Pte to WO1 mainly at Regimental Duty (albeit a number of capbadges commonly post individuals between Units from relatively junior rank, in order to broaden their experience and to ensure key posts are appropriately filled, esp. in units deployed on Ops).
    As an aside, I would be intrigued to see what might happen to the character of the officer corps if CEA were to disappear: I sometimes wonder if it isn't the 'tail that wags the dog' - with the career/posting structure (unconsciously?) designed to justify it. If that were the case, I theorise that removal of CEA might trigger a more efficient and stable structure, but at the same time would almost certainly impact on the retention of family men in the Capt - LtCol age bracket.