Recruitment Vs Retention

Discussion in 'Army Reserve' started by Cavalier, Jul 26, 2006.

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. Not sure which heading this goes under so I'll stick it in the main forum and see where it ends up.

    Is it me, or are Units letting in mong-children to boost numbers? I understand that we need the bodies, but shouldn't potential killing-machines be properly vetted to ensure that they're gonne kill the right people??

    Is it impossible to run selection weekends where people's physical abilities and aptitudes tested before attesting them and welcoming them in to the Unit with open arms (and gritted teeth!)

    I love my Unit, I love the people in it but some of the quality of soldiering (or lack thereof) is questionable. I know of recruits getting DS in trouble, and laughing it off in the bar the following week, people being "unfit" but the only prescription they need is for a box of effort pills. I'm bar far the best of the best (or let's face it, I'd have been snapped up by the Army when I first applied) but when I joined, there was a higher ratio of good standard soldiers to mongs, now it's the other way around.

    My argument is, is it worth compromising the retention of good quality, soldiers with potential, for the sake of one or two more mongs?

    On the other hand, not ALL of the new people through the door are Jack, we've got some good people, some already showing more potential than me when I joined and even they're seeing the same issues. It's them I feel sorry for, because they're the ones who have to go through their initial and basic training with said mongs!!

    Either way, attitudes and aptitudes need to change, or people will simply relocate.
  2. Many TA soldiers are relocating to other units now - those who have been in the infantry for years because it was 'their local unit' are now realising that the TA is a big firm with opportunities nationwide.

    Some go to specialist units and be railwaymen, movement controllers etc, whilst some have a stab at(pardon the pun) things like the RMP or Int Corps which couldn't be further away from the TA Infantry. In my TA infantry unit, some of the lads we're getting in are of questionable intelligence and integrity - one in particular has an ASBO and is prevented from entering certain town centres in the north east of England - unbelievable but true!! The British Army used to be thought of as a place where it's personnel knew the difference between right and wrong, or at least they would after a period of service. The problem with the TA is that it has generally expected it's recruits to be of decent moral fibre on enlistment, with a view to developing that over a period of time, if needed. Some people joining are simply not at that basic standard and the TA doesn't have the resources, time or other means to change this.

    The only answer to this problem would be to toughen up the basic entry criteria and stop the shite from entering TA service in the first place!

    I think we are selling our souls to the devil by dropping standards and the results will be catastrophic in say, five years time, if we don't up our standards and fast!!
  3. Agreed. If the climate of war doesn't change or reduce, these are the people that could (and possibly would) be called upon to serve alongside those who do it full time, thus giving the TA a very bad name.

    It is a shame, I'd hoped things would have got better after a wicked start to the year, then things went South pretty sharp with the new intake (due to resources, people not rocking up or other commitments - not blaming the people from the intake, as I said before, there are some really good people. But it only takes a few bad eggs to turn the omlette bad!!)
  4. If you're place is full on mongs Cavalier, and you say that ur the best of the best, then people should soon relise that you're switched on, and you get noticed easier. Its the same at my place, only a few of us know what were doing, and when were tasked to sort stuff out for Exercises, its the same people over, and over again doing the same job. I think were all skating on thin ice, with reguard to the mongs being let in. I sleep with one eye open when im away with the mong children.
  5. This is true.

    When you live in mong city having half a brain makes you king. Which is no bad thing, except for when you are asked to "look after" one of them on exercise, and inadvertently beat them to death because you have lost your temper at how useless they are.
  7. I'm nowhere near the best of the best, but compared to some, I'm Jonny bloomin Rambo lol!!

    I'm dreading the day they let EVERYONE out on Ex together!! (cable ties and black nasty at the ready :D )
  8. UKST

    think you missed the point Cavilier did say that he is bar far ffrom being the best of the best, hastent ot add he his a good lad & i personally know him from our trade camp, we was possible the most sensible ones from the operators course, & people tended to come to me for help via this soldier. he his a good lad & i would put him in the top 20% of the course, & we both spotted the mongs on the course. Personally id recomend him to be the Det/ Section commander of the Mong Children.

  9. SECT/DET cmmdr of the Mong Children? I don't think I have the patience and would probably wind up gaffer taping someone to the ceiling of an NCRS, tying another to a mast and beating someone else with my Engineers phone!!! :D

    Still awaiting news on the banana front :roll:
  10. On a serious note it should not be far away mate & hows the ginger ninger getting on his he still in, has been promoted
  11. Well Cavalier is far the best of the best we all know I'm the Daddy in our unit ;-)
    But seriously standards have dropped and it's made easier for them to stay. I did the same training camp as Watto and Cav and was shocked how people were pushed through the course just so they could pass. Back in my day in the Engineers, if you failed a couple of modules on our Comms course we were binned no questions asked. The Royal Signals course standards were changed (by the Regular DS) just so they could pass some people. I can honestly say the Royal Engineers produced better signallers than the Royal Signals, which, personally I think, is a little wrong. And don’t get me started on the quality of the techs!
    If this goes on and these Muppets are mobilised we are going to start slipping down in regulars eyes again. Let alone in our own unit pride.
    The (one) army need to get a grip of these and realise it’s not all about numbers. Otherwise we will just be the weekend warriors drinking club again.
  12. Yep the TA is getting its fair share of mongs,That goes for signals as well , I think the click test must of got easier in the last few years or the units are recruiting with more ice cream and balloons.
    Problem is that once they are in thats it , you cannot get rid... And it does not help retention of the good recruits as they have to be put down to the mong level to start of with .
    Burst the balloons and shove the ice cream in a place where the sun does not shine is what i say.......
  13. msr

    msr LE

    Don't forget that standards of recruits have been dropping ever since the very first soldiers joined... so have children been getting naughtier/less respectful, the country going to rack and ruin etc etc

    Nostalgia ain't what it used to be.

    I have to say, I was extremely impressed by the standards of the recruits I saw on the PFT last night. You know who you are - well done!

  14. Monkey Tech - do you not know that half the techs from that course are out on ops!

    I do have to say that from the courses I've been through, they seem to be attendance based, and that soldier's competency may be gauged but is seldom tested in a pass/fail capacity. On my R Sigs Class 3 trade course people failed modules vital to their role, and were still passed. There were Techs who hadn't heard of, nor comprehend, Pythagoras Theorem. On my TA PTI course, one chap was injured (hence didn't take part in any phys), failed all his 'Instructional Practice' elements and still got the crossed swords at the end.

    Having said that, I'm normally quietly pleased with the calibre of a good proportion of people that go through the door for TA courses - they all want to be there, some of them do considerable preparation, and many can draw on a wealth of experience beyond that of a Reg. For instance, on my PTI course, there were a couple of blokes almost twice my age, shorter than me, who still beat my run time. On my class 3 trade there were people who knew Comms inside out, because either their unit invested time and effort in them, or they were genuinely interested and engaged in their role.

    At the moment, I think the TA recruitment philosophy goes - we need all the bods we can to bring us up to full complement, as long as they're not complete brain donors.

    I continue to be pleasantly surprised as well as disappointed with things I see in the TA - I don't think moulding and retaining the right people is the lost cause people are making it out to be.
  15. Steady on chaps. Bit of a sense of proportion.

    When I did my R Sigs class3 tech course there were 6 of us, and we all worked bloody hard, no-one failed the tests and we all passed (this included producing the top student for the combined courses we were on). There were people on our class3 who passed other trades even though they had a proclivity for licking the windows in the class rooms. But the point is these were class 3. There were some people doing there class 2 at the same time on the same course who were binned and failed for being bloody useless. At least one of them had been made corporal before the course because his squadron believed he would pass the course. So god knows what his squadron were up to.

    Surely the approach should remain, get them in, try and meld them into something better. If that doesn't work, try and beat them into something better. If that doesn't work THEN get rid of them. But at least give them sometime to develop.