New TCOS for the TA?

#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.
 
#3
And every time they try to 'bring things into line with the regulars' the TA seems to become less and less appealing...

msr
 
#4
msr said:
And every time they try to 'bring things into line with the regulars' the TA seems to become less and less appealing...

msr
F*ck me you're a moaning old sh1te recently. I hope you don't have this attitude in front of the lads.
 
#5
StabTiffy2B said:
msr said:
And every time they try to 'bring things into line with the regulars' the TA seems to become less and less appealing...

msr
F*ck me you're a moaning old sh1te recently. I hope you don't have this attitude in front of the lads.
I thought that was the point of this site, have a moan, but not in front of the Toms?
 
#6
msr said:
And every time they try to 'bring things into line with the regulars' the TA seems to become less and less appealing...

msr
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.

FF.
 
M

Mr_Logic

Guest
#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.
 
M

Mr_Logic

Guest
#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
Mr_Logic said:
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.
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 ?
 

OldSnowy

LE
Moderator
Book Reviewer
#11
One_of_the_strange said:
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 ?
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
OldSnowy said:
One_of_the_strange said:
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 ?
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.
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?
 
#15
OldSnowy said:
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.
Quite right.

Its not as if the TA are being used in Iraq or AFG, now, is it?
 
#16
Dilfor said:
Do you have a link to the officer TCOS?
I believe what he's referring to is the new OCD presentation which is doing the rounds and is available on the Army website

Officer Career Development

It does not change the TCOS/TACOS/BURRITOS/whatever but does lay out the career path expected so we can all become the Duke of Westminister.


edited to remove all traces of 'whinging'
 
#17
Cheers matey!

Heard most of this before but had not seen it codified.

Isn't the TA brilliant!

PS did anyone else see the article in last week's Saturday Telegraph magazine? (no link I'm afraid). It was dead good.
 
#19
And how cool is that!

In the last 6 months I must have been offerered opportunities to fill between perhaps a dozen and 20 decent operational posts - two of which involved personal phone calls specifically suggesting me. And I get to choose whether to take them or not!

If anyone had told me 10 years ago that, as a TA officer, I would be getting phonecalls offering me high profile staff/command positions in thoroughly demanding operational theatres I would have laughed in their face. Admittedly, there is an issue over voluntary compulsory mobilisation for many (plus health care etc etc), but in principle, as far as I'm concerned, I joined to command soldiers on operations (whilst not having to do it all the time in barracks). And I am now being given the opportunity that I have waited so many years for.

FANTASTIC!

I realise, however, that I'm never going to dissuade all of the old (Cold?)war horses on this forum that we haven't gone to hell in a handbasket. All I would ask is that they recognise that their point of view is only one, and the Reserve Army (can't wait until we get the moniker change) includes some people pretty happy at the way things are generally going.

Accordingly, for the sake of appearances to third parties who may read these threads, I feel it right to present a balance.
 

Latest Threads