TA are classed as volunteers. Read the EU bumph on pension rights for volunteers. If you cant find it, that is because it is written on the back of a postage stamp. In short, and at this time, we get 9/10ths of naff all.
I am certain this came up a long time before the wonderful ARRSE website was born. I am certain that somewhere in the annals of the crap that the military write, it has the TA down as volunteers and, as such, volunteers (including voluntary drivers who get paid for their work only) cannot claim a pension by right. I am a 100% behind you all seeking what we should get, and what an excellent retention ticket it could prove.
Considering all the work we put in, not just on weekday evenings, and the odd weekends, I mean the other work we put in for which we get naff all, I think we should get some recognition of pension. Its not going to be much, if worked out by days served, but the USNG get a good pension which increases substantially on time served (5, 10 and 15 year points)
As msr is trying to say we are classed as casual labourers - we have a contract with our employer and are bound by their terms and conditions of service but do not work to laid down hours of work per week. We sign on to work when we turn up and cannot be classed as absent until we have signed on.
Our protection and rights go up as we pass the milestones of 117 and 220 days which give us paid leave but no laid down pension rights.
Fact is we are not entitled to any pension. It would, however, be a much more effective and meaningful reward for service over a period of years than the bounty.
The Bounty has nothing to do with pensions. It is there for achieving a minimum level of attendance and training.
The Treasury Solicitors have claimed that we are Casual Labour, it will however, be up to either a judge or tribunal to decide whether we are or aren't.
One would think, given the way the courts have settled in favour of retained firemen/dinner ladies et al someone in the MOD would make the brave but sensible decision to institute some sort of pension scheme forthwith. I doubt if paying the TA a pension would be much more expensive than the leagal bills incurred in fighting it in court.
And how many would stay in for the pension anyway?
Lots of Regular Army bods call it quits long before they reach the pension point, so I don't see the TA suddenly keeping people in, just because they might get a tenner a week when they're 65.
The way to boost retention is to make the bounty larger. Make it large enough that when you think about quitting, you also realise what a hole that could make to your finances. Â£1,500 can be worked around, depending on your personal circumstances. Â£5,000?
And perhaps insist that 5% of the bounty be paid into a Pension Scheme. Best of all worlds.
The issue of a TA pension becomes rather more stark as you get older and serve longer - its a fact of life that most of the current serving generation are going to be struggling when they retire, given the very likely absence of a state pension, and the low returns on private schemes (even before they've been raided by a future Labour Chancellor....).
I`ve always thought the word`bounty`slightly strange, in any other job if you achieve the stated targets you`d get a `bonus`. The first years bounty is not much of an incentive anyway, in a lot of civvy jobs thats two or three days pay. The first year is always going to be the hardest for a civvy to get through, learning the army way etc., so the incentive should be at least a grand to get people in, money is a great motivator especially these days.
Finian did not lose. So far the argument has been about which Court/Body should try the case. In normal circumstance it would be an Industrial Tribunal, but the Military are exempt from such things. The legal team want to make sure that the right people hear the case. The Treasury Solicitors just want to spread things out as long as possible.
Watch out for the R IRISH Home Service part timers. They have a case running also which has been going now for 5 years.
The MoD also 'deem them to be casual workers'
They also say no serveice person has a 'contract of employment' - can't wait to get that one raised in the Employment Tribunal!