R Signals Recruiting

Recruiting for the Corps is truly on it's arrse, more so than for other capbadges. Does anyone have any suggestions to bring the best and the brightest back through our doors? The only idea I have is pay and lots of it, probably in the form of a bonus as NEM is unlikely to change.
 

anony_mouse

Old-Salt
Recruiting for the Corps is truly on it's arrse, more so than for other capbadges. Does anyone have any suggestions to bring the best and the brightest back through our doors? The only idea I have is pay and lots of it, probably in the form of a bonus as NEM is unlikely to change.


Why would you recommend that anyone joins the Corps? The NEM means we're no longer competing with the brightest for blokes, and the Corps hierarchy seems more interested in name badges, Corps rank slides, and wearing belts on the outside of jackets.
 
The Corps will never change unfortunately, regardless of what you do with it. Bonuses don't work in the long term as has been proven. You'll get the skills needed but as soon as the bonuses get canned you'll be in the same situation.
What can the Corps offer prospective members? DS watching Yes Men? You may get a decent senior but as soon as they retire or move on, and is replaced with a shit weasel, the soldiers act with their feet.
Incentives? Tours? AT? Tours, we can't do anything about until the next country of aggro kicks off, but what about the other stuff? Again, no one is interested in organising that stuff because it encroaches on their golf course face time.
Give them AT, give them overseas exercises, get them out and about working with other capbadges on exercise attachments, get the Reserves involved more where possible.
You start giving them something to look forward to and they'll stay, if you can get them to stay they'll encourage others to come in.
 
Also, why don't we allow Soldiers or Seniors commission until WO1, with extreme exception WO2?
Supervisors I can understand but everyone else? We're losing talent to other capbadges again
 
Bring back typing pools, morse code, clansman, path profile analysis and other man/woman power intensive roles. That way a bigger pool of manpower will be recruited and by chance one or two with intelligence will be included. If you're lucky.

Alternatively get the troops to talk all technical and offer to fix the big cheese's mobile phone and people will get promoted beyond the level of their competence. The word will get round and recruitment will pick up.
 
How about supporting short term careers? Guarantee CCNA after 3 years etc. If people go, they go, but if they stay, more courses until the pension trap is sprung.
 
I can't believe it's still got the reputation for being riddled with petty BS........sounds like the SOiC needs to get a grip, if there is still such a thing.
 
We could professionalise roles, let personnel who have a flare for a particular capability (Cyber/SIGINT) remain in that role; a well rounded individual (jack of all trades etc) who can complete a PFA in 9 minutes is not necessarily the biggest asset to our technical Corps. Just a thought, maybe technical people are?

Also maybe clearly define tasks according to commanders intent, and enable the Supervisors and (lesser) SNCOs to realise this accordingly in conjunction with DE and LE Offrs, thereby using experience as a guide to procurement. This may actually give JNCOs and Siggies something to aim towards, as attractive as the red drinking suit is, the privilege of being able to wear it no longer holds the esteem it once did.

Or we could continue the cycle of using ill-qualified, under educated DE Offrs as equipment/capability 'experts' on assignment for a maximum of 2.5 years where they can spend approx 6 minutes on delivering major programmes with no thought to actual requirements; the LEs and SNCOs are, after all, just petulant children and should be treated as such. JNCOs and Siggies love that shit.
 
We could professionalise roles, let personnel who have a flare for a particular capability (Cyber/SIGINT) remain in that role; a well rounded individual (jack of all trades etc) who can complete a PFA in 9 minutes is not necessarily the biggest asset to our technical Corps. Just a thought, maybe technical people are?

Also maybe clearly define tasks according to commanders intent, and enable the Supervisors and (lesser) SNCOs to realise this accordingly in conjunction with DE and LE Offrs, thereby using experience as a guide to procurement. This may actually give JNCOs and Siggies something to aim towards, as attractive as the red drinking suit is, the privilege of being able to wear it no longer holds the esteem it once did.

Or we could continue the cycle of using ill-qualified, under educated DE Offrs as equipment/capability 'experts' on assignment for a maximum of 2.5 years where they can spend approx 6 minutes on delivering major programmes with no thought to actual requirements; the LEs and SNCOs are, after all, just petulant children and should be treated as such. JNCOs and Siggies love that shit.
I don't disagree with any of your gripes (other than appearing to associate Cyber with SIGINT) however, none of this appears in the brochures, and the embittered are generally at least 5 yrs in.
 

anony_mouse

Old-Salt
I don't disagree with any of your gripes (other than appearing to associate Cyber with SIGINT) however, none of this appears in the brochures, and the embittered are generally at least 5 yrs in.


But with everyone in the Corps pretty much thinking it's utter shite, why on earth would any of us recommend it to an 18 year old walking into a careers office? I honestly couldn't.
 
D

Deleted 15653

Guest
Back in the mid 90s a 'task force' came out from UK to discover why the Signals Regiment I was with in Germany had the worst sign-off rate in the Corps and the third worst in the Army. I got some inside gen from one of the clerks saw their report. Dreadful career management of soldiers both their own and attached - even though this was before the days of harmony guidelines you had people doing 6 month tours with two months between while suitable volunteers were ignored, I knew of two chaps who did 3 tours in two years against their wishes and it cost them both their marriage, aloof and arrogant officers (with a very few notable exceptions) who invented their own fitness standards in compete disregard of official policy, specialist tradesmen endlessly being fukked about by passed over RD bullsh1t merchants - led by a complete cnut of an RSM who terrorised his own SNCOs, vehicles and equipment that didn't work and a CO who had absolutely no idea what was happening in his unit. The CO was 'posted early' and I think things improved as I left myself shortly after (no connection there).

I suspect nothing has changed very much, though my later exposure suggests the quality of officers is higher than it used to be.
 
Back in the mid 90s a 'task force' came out from UK to discover why the Signals Regiment I was with in Germany had the worst sign-off rate in the Corps and the third worst in the Army. I got some inside gen from one of the clerks saw their report. Dreadful career management of soldiers both their own and attached - even though this was before the days of harmony guidelines you had people doing 6 month tours with two months between while suitable volunteers were ignored, I knew of two chaps who did 3 tours in two years against their wishes and it cost them both their marriage, aloof and arrogant officers (with a very few notable exceptions) who invented their own fitness standards in compete disregard of official policy, specialist tradesmen endlessly being fukked about by passed over RD bullsh1t merchants - led by a complete cnut of an RSM who terrorised his own SNCOs, vehicles and equipment that didn't work and a CO who had absolutely no idea what was happening in his unit. The CO was 'posted early' and I think things improved as I left myself shortly after (no connection there).

I suspect nothing has changed very much, though my later exposure suggests the quality of officers is higher than it used to be.
How does generic pump leadership and management in the '90s improve recruiting today?
 
D

Deleted 15653

Guest
^ my point was that many people nowadays might recognise how little has changed and draw the conclusion that previous efforts to improve the model have failed. As I always say, there are two types of people, those who can extrapolate from incomplete data...
 
How does generic pump leadership and management in the '90s improve recruiting today?
Because, (apologies for starting a sentence with because), the dross that these clowns promoted on the Mates Net are now in charge themselves. One shit weasel promotes 3 or 4 of his DS watching lizards above talented soldiers, it's them who are in command now and not the talented ones
 
^ my point was that many people nowadays might recognise how little has changed and draw the conclusion that previous efforts to improve the model have failed. As I always say, there are two types of people, those who can extrapolate from incomplete data...
Every Corps has been through similar issues, and has similar problems, and will continue to do so. They don't affect recruiting.
 
D

Deleted 15653

Guest
^
Every Corps has been through similar issues, and has similar problems, and will continue to do so. They don't affect recruiting.

No? They sure as hell affect what people write on here and lots of potential recruits read Arrse.
 

Latest Threads

Top