No compulsory redundancies at MOD!

#1
Just read this in the Telegraph. i'm not going to blame the civvies at the MOD. If you can get away with it then fair play.

No civil servant cuts at cash-strapped MoD - Telegraph

I am however pretty annoyed at this god awful excuse for a woman, Ursulla Brennan, never had a real job in her life.

Ministry of Defence | About Defence | People | Senior Officials | Permanent Under Secretary

Her comments certainly raised my eyebrows as I took my morning constitutional.



Mrs Brennan admitted that Armed Forces personnel and civil servants are being treated differently as jobs are cut.

“That is an absolute distinction between the two schemes and is part of an approach that the civil service takes civil service-wide, that we don’t go to compulsory redundancy until we’ve done the voluntary exits first.”

She suggested that, unlike service personnel, civil servants are harder to sack because they have “flexible skills”.

She told the committee: “It is also partly because if you look at the Armed Forces, you have people who have specific ranks and trades.

“A very large number of the civil service have flexible skills that enable them to work in a variety of places.

''Therefore, if you are targeting redundancy, it is much harder to target a redundancy programme for a generic group of staff.”
 
#3
So is she saying that all the feckin Squaddies and other service pers I have ever served with cannot adapt and be flexible when tasked to do a job outside their own CEG!!! She is ****ing barkin! As we all know we can put our hand to anything, Binmem,Firemen, rescue, MACP, MACC. Etc etc.
 
#4
I wish we could strike I really do, not for anything perticular I know there's no money in the pot and all that, I'd just like other suit wearing types to flap and suffer.
 
#5
Pretty much, she clearly holds us in high regard. i think she would have been better off just saying "**** off, we've got a better deal" Looks like post SDSR there will be more civvies than soldiers.
 
B

Biscuits_AB

Guest
#6
So is she saying that all the feckin Squaddies and other service pers I have ever served with cannot adapt and be flexible when tasked to do a job outside their own CEG!!!
Yeah well if that's what she's saying, if you take area cleaning and pan bash duties out of the equation, she's pretty much got a point.
 
#7
Hardly, we can be a victim of our own humour and humbleness, this being the case. From my own personal experience as an example any bod in a rifle section on current ops has a huge amount of responsability and requires flexibility at all levels with what at times are very complicated pieces of kit and drills.

I'm not one for starting an outrage trumpet but seems to me the picture in her head of the average 'squaddie' is one of conscription type genericness with no responsibilities beyond getting up in the morning.


Either way shes a ****.
 
B

Biscuits_AB

Guest
#8
Hardly, we can be a victim of our own humour and humbleness, this being the case. From my own personal experience as an example any bod in a rifle section on current ops has a huge amount of responsability and requires flexibility at all levels with what at times are very complicated pieces of kit and drills.

I'm not one for starting an outrage trumpet but seems to me the picture in her head of the average 'squaddie' is one of conscription type genericness with no responsibilities beyond getting up in the morning.


Either way shes a ****.
Seems to me that this is yet another thread started by a non squaddie purely to get a rise out of you.
 
#9
Perhaps, and I loath to take any grain of fact from anything reported in the papers but it wouldn't be a stretch to imagine that this is their view of us.

Like I said I'd just love to see the carpet pulled from under them, never going to happen but heyho.
 
#10
Actually that would be false. I am serving and most of the people in my Sqn can do a variety of jobs outside of their CEG. We all have instructors, H&S inspectors, Drivers etc. Whereas your average MOD civvy still thinks its the 70's and has the mentality of 1 man 1 job. DST comes to mind.
 
#12
Ms Brennan is in a bit of a cleft stick.
The govt is bound by an agreement with unions to offer civil servants voluntary early release before considering compulsory redundancies.
The armed forces have no such protection and the cut to the chase can be quicker.
It falls to Ms Brennan to present this to the populace as:
a. Logical
and
b. A good thing
It may well be that Ms Brennan’s apparent lack of knowledge of transferable skills in the military and belief that “a good manager can manage anything”* have been acquired for the purpose.

*May be true – but the ones that are that good aren’t working for Civil Service wages.
 
#15
No need to worry - they are all taking VERS anyway. If anything, morale in the MoD (certainly amongst the civil servants) is even lower than my beloved Home Office. I should have taken VERS when I had the chance.
 
#16
So MOD CS are obliged to follow voluntary redundancy first (which as Andy71 points out, is actually a cheaper sverance package) , before making compulsorary redundancies...but at the end of the day, approx 25,000 will still go - either voluntarily, or against their will.

Still, if we look more carefully, I'm sure we can find some more outrage in here.
 
#17
Can I try to quell some outrage by posting here, what I posted on PPRUNE and expanding it slightly?

The reason that no MOD CS are being made compulsorily redundant is that they had over 15000 applicants for the 5000 people they needed to lose. They managed to hit their targets for the next 3 years with the first tranche. Compulsory is entirely possible if they dont get sufficient volunteers in future, and nothing has been ruled out.

What I think the good PUS is trying to say about flexibility of employment, and as always with the media, has had spun out of context, is that when looking at manpower, there is an expectation that CS can be posted into a wider range of career posts because the training required is less technical, and their career plot is managed in a very different way.

In HM Forces, you may spend 20 years as a widget operator, often within a small branch, doing courses that take 2-3 years to complete to get the basics right, and then being a deep specialist within a very narrow career field where everyone knows everyone - and in which the plot is fully mapped out from the newest entrant to the most senior bod. You may do posts outside this area, but generally you'll come back in to it, and thats where you experience lies. You are managed as a branch - particularly in the RN & RAF, and that branch is manned for operations.

In the CS, its much more generalist in approach, there is no branch structure, and no pyramid in the same way. Its easier to park a generalist project manager in one TLB, and move him into another TLB. A CS has very generalist skills, and is broadly appointable because they lack deep specialisations at most levels. Similarly, well over half the CS are essentially admin grades, and do jobs that require little specialist knowledge - you can move a CS from a post being scrapped at one base, into a post vacant at another base relatively easily. Its more challenging to move a SNCO deep widget operator from one trade, and then place him into a SNCO deep antiwidget operators job in another trade.

Its much more difficult to do that with a deeply specialised widget operator, where there may only be one location for them, or their entire trade group is being scrapped.In this instance, SNCOs in particular would suffer as although they'd have broader military skills, if the kit or equipment they have spent years using and maintaining is being taken out of service, and no replacement capability exists, then its quite a challenge to retrain experienced staff into a whole new system, and working out where to stick them that doesnt mess up existing career structures and promotion prospects for the existing branch members and doesnt mess with the manpower structure.

So yes, from a purely objective view - its slightly easier to relocate some generalist career civil servants because they don't have the same promotion system, or career structure. Similarly, there seems to be a view that its often easier to consider Forces personnel for redundancy at the same time because its hard to see how they can be continued in service without causing major training, manpower and other challenges.

Its not an attack on the competency of HM Forces, and I hope people see this report for what it is - the deliberate misinterpretation of words, and not a statement suggesting that HM Forces are in any way less competent or professional than the CS.

Its all part of the DT's wider 'if you are an MOD CS you must be EVIL' campaign
 
#18
Is there something that in employment law that allows a VERS post to be kept and refilled after the event,as aposed to a compulsary reduno after which it can then not be a post again,and yes there seems to be a lot of folks putting in for vers,which given the jobs market is surprising to me.
 
#19
My understanding is that people apply to leave under VERS, their post is then mapped in value and those with irreplacable skills, or those where leaving would massively reduce people in one area of the Dept don't get it. If people leave the post then it can occasionally be replaced, although a lot depends on how vital it is seen to be. Gaps are appearing everywhere at the moment as the exodus gathers speed.
 
#20
Is there something that in employment law that allows a VERS post to be kept and refilled after the event,as aposed to a compulsary reduno after which it can then not be a post again,and yes there seems to be a lot of folks putting in for vers,which given the jobs market is surprising to me.
VERS is NOT the same as Voluntary Redundancy. It is perhaps just semantics but VERS is a voluntary release scheme. I expect that there will have to be CS redundancies in order to shed the full numbers that are required - there will have to be a Voluntary Redundancy Scheme before there would be a Compulsory Scheme. The recent changes to the Compensation scheme rules now mean that Voluntary redundancy is a better package than Compulsory.

New Civil Service Compensation Scheme (CSCS) | | < details of the schemes for anyone who is interested enough to read the facts
 

Similar threads

New Posts

Latest Threads

Top