New TCOS for the TA?

Discussion in 'Army Reserve' started by BusyDoingNothing, Nov 14, 2006.

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. There was a rumour doing the rounds a while back that the Army was going to change the TA's TCOS to bring them further in line with the regulars. Specifically requiring a notice period and extending military law to soldiers off duty as well as officers, but with beneift like eligability for some allowances etc..

    I don't know if it's true or not (having not seen the new soldiers TCOS, but have seen the officers ones: apprantly we can expect a full career to 2* level!!!). So, is it true? And what do people think?

    I personnaly think that requiring a notice period sends the right message (even if it's just a month): afterall a few weeks after finishing phase 2 the big brown envelope could show up and if when you took the Queens Shilling you accpeted a notice period it shouldn't be as much of a culture shock. Anything that further the One Army Concept is good by me.
  2. Do you have a link to the officer TCOS?
  3. msr

    msr LE

    And every time they try to 'bring things into line with the regulars' the TA seems to become less and less appealing...

  4. F*ck me you're a moaning old sh1te recently. I hope you don't have this attitude in front of the lads.
  5. I thought that was the point of this site, have a moan, but not in front of the Toms?
  6. I agree. If you want to join a military organisation with the same set-up as the regulars, why not just join the regulars? The reason we are in the TA is because it offers something different than a regular career.

  7. No, I can't help it, I'l bite. The usual acronym for Terms and Conditions of Service is TACOS. I thought I was opening a thread about Transport Control Officers, as that is what TCO has stood for as long as I recall, at least in the RLC(V).

    As to TACOS, if you want TACOS like a Regular, be a Regular! I always thought that being in the TA meant being slightly different, if you see what I mean.
  8. Further to my last, I'm with msr on this one. The TA used to be a different part of the Army with different expectations and different employability. Whatever you think, something is going wrong. Or am I completely misinformed that TA officer manning is so dire (in quantity, not quality).

    There is something about the current way the TA does things that fails to attract and retain officers in the numbers it used to.
  9. The point is that they now formally need to change TACOS becuase they have made a pile of changes to what they actually expect us to do and how we work - Officers ROD taken to 60 for example.

    While they are at it they should re-visit the mobilisation regs and FTRS rules to simplify them. All that nonsense about mob under different sections of the Act, three different TACOS on FTRS etc etc. All nonsense and simply creating work in APC.
  10. I can't see how they can introduce changes like notice periods and then claim that we're still "casual labour". And if we then become "part-time workers" we become eligible for pensions, pro-rata holiday pay, guaranteed/compulsory weekends and so on. Are there any employment law experts out there to comment definitively ?

    Put it another way, change anything significant and the bill for the non-deployed TA rises dramatically. How likely do we think that being acceptable is ?
  11. OldSnowy

    OldSnowy LE Moderator Book Reviewer

    Oh no, not the 'Pensions' chestnut again. That one is still being fought out legally, so we will see some sort of result next year.

    But OOTS is absolutley right on one thing - and let's make one thing clear. If Pensions for the TA are force on the Army, it means the end of the TA - full stop. We will become totally uneconimic, as opposed to bearable at the moment.

    Let's make that plain again: Pension for TA = no TA. Simple. There ,ay be a small 'Reserve', but no Nationwide TA with a wide footprint. There is no need for it now, apart from some specious arguements for every County having a Military presence (Why?) and many TACs are hopelessly uneconomic.

    New TACOS? These will have to come in, as our conditions of Service have changed, and thus our Terms must as well. JPA, for example, is coming, and won't be able to cope with some of the oddities of the TA way.

    The Conditions of Service have certainly changed over the last few years - the Terms should change to reflect this.
  12. The Government's current defence against pensions is firmly based on employment status - ie "casual worker" = no pension, conversely "part-time worker" = pension, holidays etc etc. These definitions have a very particular meaning in law and are completely outside the control of the MoD. In other words, the MoD may change TACOS and claim we're still "casual labour", but all it takes is one court case to prove otherwise. Hence the detail is vitally important. However, the track record of the MoD in this area is very poor - pregnant servicewomen anyone ?

    What this does do is reflect the lack of clear thinking at high levels about what the TA is these days. You can train a wartime reserve of "casual labour" which yields a few peacetime volunteers quite cheaply; you can generate a steady stream of peacetime augmentees using "part-time workers" for costs approaching those of the regulars.

    I should of course insert the word sustainably into the two options above - you can abuse your "casual labour" setup in the short term but then the pool will get smaller - guess where we are now ?
  13. Would it be possible for me to bypass the traditional - and I mean that in a homely, tumbler of whisky in front of the log fire/Morris dancers on the village green sort of way - TA Whingefest, and actually find out what changes are actually in the pipeline?
  14. The_Duke

    The_Duke LE Moderator

    What, and prevent the same old C/S grinding their favourite axes? Never!
  15. Quite right.

    Its not as if the TA are being used in Iraq or AFG, now, is it?