RAO V and WO no longer needed in the TA - discuss

#1
A paper is doing the rounds at present that says the TA does not need RAO(V)s anymore, along with all the WO1s and WO2s. Gut feeling is the paper will become policy. It argues that there is no deployable role for Officers and Warrant Officers and the jobs we do is now being undertaken by the BTWOs.

The paper does not discuss what will happen to all those who are in post or any dates.

If any RAO(V) reading this has not had sight of this paper ping you RAO or S02. If no concrete arguments are put forward we are a dead breed.

Quite how the powers that be can think that is is acceptable for a Corps that exists in the TA not to have any officers!

CVHQ does not escape the chop either.

On the off chance that Comd DSPS(A) reads this, don’t expect a Christmas card this year.
 
#4
Mongoose is correct. It is a regular post that was created 2 1/2 years ago. The first batch all got dicked for JPA training and roll out tasks. We have yet to see our new one and see any pratical support. To date, all the new one has done is find out who is on the ground and the trade skills they have. The BTWO is a SPS WO appointment.
 
#5
rao_v said:
A paper is doing the rounds at present that says the TA does not need RAO(V)s anymore, along with all the WO1s and WO2s. Gut feeling is the paper will become policy. It argues that there is no deployable role for Officers and Warrant Officers and the jobs we do is now being undertaken by the BTWOs.

The paper does not discuss what will happen to all those who are in post or any dates.

If any RAO(V) reading this has not had sight of this paper ping you RAO or S02. If no concrete arguments are put forward we are a dead breed.

Quite how the powers that be can think that is is acceptable for a Corps that exists in the TA not to have any officers!

CVHQ does not escape the chop either.

On the off chance that Comd DSPS(A) is reads this, don’t expect a Christmas card this year.
17 yrs in and I was, until I read your post, unaware of the existence of RAO(V)s. Do you think that, just maybe, the paper's author has a little bit of a point?

Or is the role supposed to be a TA foil for the self obsessed, lazy time-serving, jobsworth ex-regular, ex-PSAO, Peter principlesque TA regimental RAOs? In which case, I'd say, we need lots more of them.
 
#6
Is this for the entire TA or just certain types of unit?

With regard to WOs, I could see it being a possibility for the infantry (position could be fulfilled by a Regular), but some other units where the WOs are a technical resource would, essentially, fold.
 
#7
Well there can't be that many, however thats not the point. There must be something to aspire to for AGC(V), WO's and RAO's are it. Remove that and what next? No SSMs, SVWOs in R SIGNALS, REME etc?
 
#8
Our RAO(V) is our former Sqn AO(V)... and a bloody fine woman she is too. Sorted out many a paperwork mishap thrust on her by those in command.

I don't know and therefore can't say how vital this role is at Regt level but i know it is vital at Sqn level. So, assuming the same applies at higher formation then this could be a severe blow to the TA. Smooth admin is essential to keep the troops happy.

TB
 
#9
To answer fas_et_gloria, your unit might not be established or cannot be bothered to recruit. RAO(V) can be a bit of a pain in the arse to some of the day staff, and ensures that the clerks are not abused and are looked after on Ex and in the sub units. Also, the toms may come and talk to me when they have been given the heave ho by the day staff.

This applies across all the TA. There will be only one SPS officer and no WOs if the paper becomes policy.
 
#10
rao_v said:
To answer fas_et_gloria, your unit might not be established or cannot be bothered to recruit. RAO(V) can be a bit of a pain in the arse to some of the day staff, and ensures that the clerks are not abused and are looked after on Ex and in the sub units. Also, the toms may come and talk to me when they have been given the heave ho by the day staff.

This applies across all the TA. There will be only one SPS officer and no WOs if the paper becomes policy.
Fair one. I suspect that it's an establishment thing. (I stand by my - editted in - comments about the usefulness of the role though.)
 
#11
I know two WO2s from 7 Rifles that are out on Herrick now, one doing a TA job and the other a job that the regs couldn't fill. Have you included Infantry in your debate or just AGC?
 
#12
RAO(V) - critical member of the backbone of a unit without whom many units of late when dealing with JPA would have gone under.

Sounds like spurious cost cutting by a pointy headed bean counter in an ivory tower. Try running a TA unit without one. We should be boosting administrative support to the TA, not reducing it.
 
#13
TheSpecialOne said:
I know two WO2s from 7 Rifles that are out on Herrick now, one doing a TA job and the other a job that the regs couldn't fill. Have you included Infantry in your debate or just AGC?
Hang on, no one's suggesting the wholesale removal of all WOs, it's the AGC (SPS) (V) WO and RAO slots which might be going.
 
#14
Wingletang said:
We should be boosting administrative support to the TA, not reducing it.
We should be reducing the administrative burden on TA units, thereby fixing the cause, not the symptoms.

msr
 
#15
fas_et_gloria said:
TheSpecialOne said:
I know two WO2s from 7 Rifles that are out on Herrick now, one doing a TA job and the other a job that the regs couldn't fill. Have you included Infantry in your debate or just AGC?
Hang on, no one's suggesting the wholesale removal of all WOs, it's the AGC (SPS) (V) WO and RAO slots which might be going.
Yep but the logic It argues that there is no deployable role for Officers and Warrant Officers Does seem valid reason for many officers and SNCO's

TA would be like 'Logans Run' you get to a certain age and your culled
 
#16
Short sighted beaurocracy imo. Whilst they are of course difficult to recruit, they do fulfill a vital role. Further, although they may not deploy as part of a formed unit, they can and do deploy as an IR. In doing so, they are ensuring a Regular is not sent yet again. I know, lets get rid of them and send Regulars on more tours - spiffing idea Jeeves, please implement. :cry:
 
#18
For my two penneth as a Reg SNCO, its absolute madness, having worked with some of the TA SPS chaps at chillwell, most of them were pretty good. Also I would love to see some auditing done and by an Inf TA officer unless he an accountant in civvy street or done an SPS auditors course. Also completely crazy for having, no top cover for SPS NCO'S, who understand the challenges they face with JPA and technical developement. An inf TA officer has no technical concept of what his clerk does, but an RAOWO and RAO does and can approach a C of C if needs be. Another fatal mistake by our corps, cant wait to leave, 7 to do ! This is a critically era in getting JPA right, the last thing should do is cut posts!!! :evil:

JPA has been a cost cutting exercise from the word go - its fecking arse.......

Never heard so much shiote in my life!!!
 
#19
well in my opinion we dont need ta clerks fullstop, well not as a sqn/rgt attachment anyway. we get all the admin we need from the psao and civvy clerk( she's a diamond). the guy we've got attached- I/C typewriter- is a waste of space, and the sps staffy at rhq is an even bigger knob, any muppet can hand out payslips once a month. this paper is spot on sack the lot, money could be spent elsewhere.
 
#20
Perhaps you're forgetting one of the functions of the TA? To provide manpower for Ops.

Surely the job of a TA Military Administrator (not Clerk ;) ) is to be ready and able to carry out the job of their regular counterparts should the need arise.
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
F RLC 0
dingerr The Intelligence Cell 15
Sir Mare RLC 10

Similar threads


Latest Threads

Top