Redundancy

Discussion in 'Int Corps' started by ilikechips, Jan 22, 2013.

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. I was sat reading a DIN earlier, and I must admit that I'm surprised to see that we as a Corps have been touched albeit ever so slightly.
     
  2. I think most of the Army shares your surprise. Common sense suggests that we should have done away with you lot altogether and sub-contracted out your capability (such as it is) to either Group 4 or the RAF.
     
  3. Now, you see, using our mad magic ninja int-fu skills we all knew you were going to write that before you did, so no bites forthcoming. Jolly good effort though and thanks so much for wanting to join in.
     
  4. Still the chance of a nibble from some Group4 people who may not be happy with the implicit comparison.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  5. You've clearly never worked with the RAF. A group of people so useless they make us look like SF!
     
    • Like Like x 1
  6. Really? I'm actually amazed that we haven't been touched a whole lot more - like Jimmy Saville on some eager-eyed young fan. The mind boggles; I would have ripped their arm off for it but it looks like I'll be going down the NTT route instead. C'est la vie.
     
  7. As a Corps we've known it was coming, HQ havent kept it a secret. We didnt know the extent though and we've done well to prove we are at the right number (i.e still undermanned but OK for 2020).
     
  8. We may be undermanned in total, but does that reflect that there are surpluses in some ranks? I remember going to a MS roadshow a couple of years ago where we were told that we had 200% of our establishment of LCpls and that any wishing to leave should be encouraged to do so. Despite that, we've only just started to slow recruitment. I accept that there are traditional troughs at Cpl/Sgt level, but it also seems to me that there a hell of a lot of Warrant Officers out there despite a whole bunch of jobs being downgraded to SSgt level of late. It would be interesting to see what the Corps' rank pyramid looks like these days.

    If I was a gambling man, I wonder what odds I would have got on the Corps getting away so lightly?
     
  9. and, by dint of their length of service, many will leave the Army through end of contract between now and 2015 - and therefore no point wasting the extra £30k per man in giving them redundancy?

    perhaps promotion to WO2 will be constricted to reduce the flow / numbers. was a v. small WO1 board, so perhaps doesn't bode well for Staffies chasing WO2.
     
  10. I could be wrong, but what kind of numbers are we talking about when you look at those on a LCpl/Cpl board who are above the quality line, but they only promote so many due to spaces pids etc? I swear that it would be easier to promote an extra say 15/20 and make up the short fall I heard we had at Cpl (and hence forth onwards at Sgt) etc.
     
  11. Eau contraire, there are some uncanny similarities between SF and the Intelligence Corps: both have a surfeit of over promoted faux Warrant Officers. Many frequently doing jobs that could be done by an experienced JNCO.

    Who pays wins as they say


    {except in times where financial efficiencies are required.
    Normal terms and conditions apply.
    See website for full details }
     
  12. CR - I agree, up to a point, but there are still those who hit WO2 very early who'll be sitting on their hands for some time before the gold watch gets handed to them. Reduced flow is already happening and it seems to me that the Corps has finally embraced truly competitive promotion; however, it seems to be at the SSgt-WO2 and WO2-WO1 levels. Makes a dramatic change to the historic rates; the Int Corps Sldrs page on DII has a ppt which shows that every single SSgt who went to the board between 2005-2009 promoted. The good old days are over.

    I could be wrong, but what kind of numbers are we talking about when you look at those on a LCpl/Cpl board who are above the quality line, but they only promote so many due to spaces pids etc? I swear that it would be easier to promote an extra say 15/20 and make up the short fall I heard we had at Cpl (and hence forth onwards at Sgt) etc.

    I disagree. Again, historically LCpl-Cpl boards have seen near 100% success rates in the past; all part of the problem whereby everyone expects to hit the 6-year Sgt point as standard, almost irrespective of their actual depth and breadth of experience. We can't promote more people into PIDs that don't exist; the shadow board is there to sweep up any extra requirement for additional posts that need filling after the main board has been filled. For my money we should be addressing the reason why senior Cpls and Sgts keep leaving; some of the toxic policies like directed postings need to be given a long hard look if they are contributing to outflow.
     
  13. Challenge. Bang us a link on DII, because I suspect there is some kind of misunderstanding / misinterpretation here.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  14. I'd go with that as well.
     
  15. Not going to put the link oin here - I've sent it via DII to CR. It is open to interpretation, but states that between 2005-2009 there was a 100% 'promotion chance' for Int Corps SSgts. Vague enough to mean nothing, bold enough to mean something.

    Still, it is from APC, so it must be a pack of lies. You decide. PM me if you want the link.