Post Telic retention

Discussion in 'Army Reserve' started by oldgrunt, Mar 25, 2004.

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. Lots of unfocussed romour on other threads.........but does anyone have a real feel for what the Telic effect is on TA retention ? I've heard rumours of units at 120% of established strength slipping to 70% or less once the word gets round that being TA inf means being signed up for all the sh*tty jobs the regulars don't want to bore their highly priced help with :wink: - but a lot of this could just be barrack room moaining. Anyone care to post a serious/ thoughtful reply.

    And before anyone asks, my interest is professional as I have an interest in ensuring that the numbers don't slip.
  2. I think the picture won't be clear for a while and depends on a few things outside the Army's control. The views below are for what I've seen, I'm not infantry and other people's experiences may be very different.

    Firstly, I think most of the people who will just jack it in and walk away have already done so. The real test comes when soldiers come to re-enlist - has there been an increase in the number signing up for shorter as opposed to longer periods ? Has attendance slipped as people just wait for their service to run out ?

    And don't forget the tendency of all units to make the leaving process last as long as possible so the MTDs for the leaver can be shared around the rest - and it makes the stats look good.

    Another measure of retention is to look at turnover - recruiting is brisk but ihow many trained soldiers are available to deploy ? A unit may be up to strength on paper but of little use in reality.

    It will get worse if we keep mobilising tranche after tranche and we start to mobilise soldiers for a second time - not least because employers will soon refuse to take on anyone in the TA as they know they won't see them for one year out of three. And because a lot of the TA (me included) joined to defend the UK in a crisis - not to be a temping agency for an underfunded Regular Army in peacetime.
  3. In the Commons yesterday, they said 'senior military sources' expected lots of resignations as soon as that bounty hits the bank accounts.

    Expect we will see a few disappear over the next few months with the employee notification lark as well. We've had one go already for that reason.
  4. Maybe it wouldn't have been a problem if they'd been a lot clearer on how the TA changed at the last SDR.
    I used to be in an infantry battalion, we were told quite clearly we were going to be spare parts for the regulars, we were also told that we would have to sign onto the new contract if we wanted to transfer and they explained the contract in detail.

    How many knew about the new contract and did they sign without knowing? Probably 80% didn't from a guess, definitley around 95% in the corps I transferred to.

    Maybe the TA needs to split into two : TA for a UK defence (traditional TA role) and reserves for carrying out USA's foreign policies.
  5. I don't see the problem being the changes brought about by the 1996 RFA (presumably that's what you mean by a new contract), rather the problem is with their current application.

    No-one is disputing that the system can call people up as is currently happening - rather that it is an immensely dumb thing to do if you wish to retain soldiers. The issue is not that fact that soldiers are being called up in peacetime, it is the scale and frequency of the callouts that are the problem.

    Employers do not expect to regularly lose staff to the TA in peacetime - and are starting to avoid employing TA members as a result. You can be prosecuted for failing to give a reservist his/her old job back, you cannot be prosecuted for not giving them a job in the first place.
  6. I raised the issue of protecting Reservists from discrimination with a Brigadier at a Sabre reception for employers and was told that they had thought about it and decided not to as they didn't want to scare employers! My view is they didn't do it because the TA are too small and spread out to have an effect on the voting patterns, or am I just cynical. :twisted:
  7. In terms of retention, we are expecting our first gang back in May and of those I am expecting to have to recruit at least 30% just to cover the resignations. Not because they are afraid of getting pinged again but more from the 'I've now done their bit and got the medal so what else is there'?
  8. well i would have liked to join up but due to medical reasons i couldn't which is a shame as i would have stuck it out anyway of the 30% that left there is still 70% that stayed.
  9. Goews to show that the hierarchy cant be all that blind to what is going on, but that does not stop them from being dumb.

    Getting back from Telic it really all is a bit pants - retention could be improved on return by equipping the TA properly e.g. not knackered old land rovers, more then 10 rds of blank/soldier etc (but there is no cash), proper training not the dross some of the rodneys come out with (because the ldrs are not that well trained themselves) and better rights e.g. pension, educational like USA Nat Guard (again no cash).

    The only reason to stay seems to be loyalty (to the cap badge) and your mates
  10. Perhaps this is part of the strategy. Those that would be prepared to/are in a position to do it again stay, those that aren't go. Hey presto your instant "Army Reserve".
  11. msr

    msr LE

    Staffed entirely by students and the unemployed....

  12. well a lot of our blokes are thinking about transferring to diffrent units or leaving . Myself transferring cos i dont want to do another 6 months stagging on down the road . Either they want the ta to be like the national guard which would be exspensive . or they want it want it to be cheap casual labour which they will find hard to fill for telic7 &8 as everyone will have already done 1 tour in iraq and be in no hurry to repeat it
    Or have family problems I dont mind it out here easier than working for living but wife would kill me if i extended and i want a house to come back too :lol:
  13. Whats the reasoning about the transfers?

    Be employed in a more worthwhile/enjoyable/responsible job
    To avoid being mobilised

    Are any units not being mobilised? Seems to be widespread, maybe not in CCRF/Home Defence units.
  14. Maybe not entirely but getting there.

    The TA (or Army Reserve) is(will be) in competition with other employers. This needs to be recognised not just in terms of retention but also recruitment and training. If things arent going to be the way they were then fine but the new set up needs to be established in such a way that it does the job not just looks like it will. Hard decisions need to be made at high levels IMHO.
  15. People that are looking at transfers are people who got the jobs no-one else wanted.

    Example: Highly motivated and qualified LCpl is mobilised and is given a job issuing passes to LEC's. Is told he can't go out on patrol. Gets out of the gate 7 times out of 4.5 months (including coming into and going out of theatre). Watches TA Sigs going out on foot patrol all the time, looking like STAB's.

    I'm not suggesting for a minute that he should have been out on SF taskings, but we have all come across regular army lancejacks who live for uncomplicated tasks with little responsibility and their own little empire.

    He's seeing which unit wants his qual's most and off he'll go. That's wasted MTD and training budget.

    The headshed either needs to start kicking off about the employment of mobilised troops or managing expectations better.

    That should include promotional literature - CCRF stuff with piccies from the Heathrow op for example.