Redundancy

#2
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.
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
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.
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.
 
#6
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.
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
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.
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
You've clearly never worked with the RAF. A group of people so useless they make us look like SF!
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.
 
#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.
 
#17
We have discussed. Looks like 100% figure refers to:

(Number of SSgts promoted to WO2 during period / Number of Sgts promoted to SSgt during period) x 100/1

So related to inflow / outflow @ SSgt rank, not pertaining to every individual SSgt.
 
#18
Be interesting to see whether APC would clarify that (probably not); again, it doesn't ring true for me as the Army-wide figure is 42% for SSgt-WO2, if that would be the case we'd be overbearing at SSgt level in a whole bunch of Arms/Services.
 
#19
Likewise - forgot to mention - the ppt also mentions that the average time in rank to move from SSgt-WO2 was, for us, just 3 years. With that being quoted, and a 5 year sample being taken, it may hint at why some bad APC maths is giving us a 100% figure appearing.
 
#20
I don't see why the maths has to be "wrong". We know that we have almost as many WO2s as SSgts, and that the rank pyramid is, technically speaking, all fucked up.

So for the period in question (2005-09 I think it was?) there's no reason I can see why the 100% shouldn't be correct. Those "extra" WO2s had to come from somewhere.

Perhaps we continued the promotion tap when the bath was already full. I suspect part of the current "overborne at WO2" answer may be connected with the introduction of VEng Full circa 2008/09. All of a sudden, lots of WO2s who would have been departing at their 22yr point were staying an extra 2yrs. That must have skewed the figures a considerable amount, and given us an inflated number of WO2s. (yes, this would also affect other ranks, but I would venture that a significantly smaller percentage are SSgt or below at their 22yr point).

So people who might have been expecting to leave as WO2 from say 2010 to 2015, will now be leaving 2012 to 2017. That would mean an unexpectedly high number of WO2s, which perhaps could not have been anticipated years ago... there would have to be a period of adjusting long-term planning to the new 24yr career, and we can't just not promote any SSgts for a few years, because that will have a knock-on effect in future years.

Also bear in mind the push from below - that massive influx of LCpls over recent years, all being rapidly grown into Cpls and Sgts. Those above them (Sgts & SSgts) had to keep moving up the promotion chain, to make space for the expansion of the Corps from the bottom up. That could help account for the promotion of large numbers of SSgts to WO2 during the period in question.

Or something.

My head hurts. Glad somebody else has to work out all this long-term planning stuff instead of me... :)
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
Yorkie Infantry 1
napier Officers 17
Forces_Sweetheart Finance, Property, Law 12

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top