Remove Link Between Bounty and MATTS ?

#1
We were told by an Employment Tribunal in 1997 that the TA Bounty is viewed as the TA Pension by the MOD.

We train for at least 27 days a year, yet the MATTs only take up a maximum of 2.

The MATTs are not a test of efficiency. In my Unit I pick up a weapon once a year to do the MATTs, I watch a presentatation about LOAC, or V & S, and work my way through the First Aid booklet - and I do a gentle run or a CFT. So we are tested once a year on something that we are only trained on during the MATTs weekend. No way do I consider myself truely efficient at any of this - how can I be with the level of training I receive?

Our real efficiency depends upon our effectiveness in our particular trade. A more accurate representation of efficiency is probably the SJAR/OJAR.

I'm not saying we shouldn't do MATTs, far from it - but there's no way that they should continue to used to evaluate us for our Certificates of Efficiency, and therefore our Pension (sorry, Bounty).

2 people (not me!) in my Unit lost out on their TA Pensions (ie Bounties) last year, because they were not available for the one and only weekend that we were offered the opportunity to do our MATTs. One was seriously ill, and the other was on holiday (booked before the MATT w/e dates were changed). Both of them performed their own trade well during the year.
 
#2
So because your unit doesn't carry out the MATTS and test you properly then you want paying anyway?
 
#3
We were told by an Employment Tribunal in 1997 that the TA Bounty is viewed as the TA Pension by the MOD.

We train for at least 27 days a year, yet the MATTs only take up a maximum of 2.

The MATTs are not a test of efficiency. In my Unit I pick up a weapon once a year to do the MATTs, I watch a presentatation about LOAC, or V & S, and work my way through the First Aid booklet - and I do a gentle run or a CFT. So we are tested once a year on something that we are only trained on during the MATTs weekend. No way do I consider myself truely efficient at any of this - how can I be with the level of training I receive?

Our real efficiency depends upon our effectiveness in our particular trade. A more accurate representation of efficiency is probably the SJAR/OJAR.

I'm not saying we shouldn't do MATTs, far from it - but there's no way that they should continue to used to evaluate us for our Certificates of Efficiency, and therefore our Pension (sorry, Bounty).

2 people (not me!) in my Unit lost out on their TA Pensions (ie Bounties) last year, because they were not available for the one and only weekend that we were offered the opportunity to do our MATTs. One was seriously ill, and the other was on holiday (booked before the MATT w/e dates were changed). Both of them performed their own trade well during the year.
If you cant pass MATTS tests you cant be deployed, if you cant be deployed your not capable of doing your job as a soldier no matter how good your are at your trade. These tests are there to test all soldiers on basic fitness and weapon drills. Just get on with it unless you want to be viewed as a bounty hunter.

If you miss the only MATTS weekend tough shit really, wait till next year. I might of got the wrong end of the stick but my view is if you can't Pass your MATTS no bounty.
 
#4
So because your unit doesn't carry out the MATTS and test you properly then you want paying anyway?
In a nutshell, yes. The Regs / NRPS are in exactly the same boat, but no-one suggests that they should lose a year of their pension because of it.

Now there's a cost saving idea...!
 
#5
The MATTs are not a test of efficiency.
True.

In my Unit I pick up a weapon once a year to do the MATTs, I watch a presentatation about LOAC, or V & S, and work my way through the First Aid booklet - and I do a gentle run or a CFT.
So you're missing MATTS 4, 5 & 8, one of either 6 or 7 and half of 2? So you shouldn't qualify for bounty at all?

We do MATTs twice a year (one for bounty, the other to remain deployable), taking 4 days each time. If you can't deploy, how can you consider yourself "efficient"?
 
#7
MATTS are a good way of keeping ''up to speed'', and yes, no MATTS, no bounty. basic tests. its up yo YOU to keep concurant and FFR.
 
#8
Only doing 27 days a year and half arsing the MATTS and still getting your bounty. I would shut up and get on with it. I bet the evil gits will want you to pass some of the tests to get your money.
 
#9
I think you have the wrong idea about all this works mate. The Regs/NRPS are there all the time, it is incumbent on them and their professionalism to ensure they are up to date with what needs to be done. You have other non military things going on so aren't at this all day. I think your unit is at fault here and it should be taken up with them, they should, within reason, provide you the opportunity to complete the MATTS (they also can t be done in a weekend)! Before you rant about regs and old duffers etc i have served with the TA as a PSI and have been a Regtl Trg officer so i know the whys and wherefores of MATTS and the complexity of delivering them effectively. Take it up with your CoC, as they aren't doing their job properly matey but don't expect the rules to change because of this. (By the way i reckon if they told you MATTS was going to take up to 6 trg weekends to complete properly then you wouldnt be happy and would complain about that too)! Rules are rules.....................
 
#10
TA are casual labour and have no rights to anything. The current TACOS, in my view, suit the majority of the TA. They can turn up, or not, when they choose, and receive a tax free lump sum in return for a minimum committment. If someone can't fulfil that committment within a period of 12 months, tough , no bounty. What is unreasonable or unfair about that?

If TACOS are changed to bring TA under full remit of employment law, then they will be entitled to pension, annual leave, and realistic DROP etc etc. However the volunteer aspect and bounty will disappear. Attendance and mobilisation will then be a contractual liability. A TA soldier will become a part time regular.

The current TACOS have faults, but not convinced of the benefits of wholesale changes.
 
#11
TA are casual labour and have no rights to anything. The current TACOS, in my view, suit the majority of the TA. They can turn up, or not, when they choose, and receive a tax free lump sum in return for a minimum committment. If someone can't fulfil that committment within a period of 12 months, tough , no bounty. What is unreasonable or unfair about that?

If TACOS are changed to bring TA under full remit of employment law, then they will be entitled to pension, annual leave, and realistic DROP etc etc. However the volunteer aspect and bounty will disappear. Attendance and mobilisation will then be a contractual liability. A TA soldier will become a part time regular.

The current TACOS have faults, but not convinced of the benefits of wholesale changes.
Thats a little unfair, having worked with the TA as a PSI i know that there are lots of them (most in fact) who do far more than expected of them and a lot work for nothing when they have exceeded their training days. But there is a requirement for certain training to receive the bounty and until that changes then they need to complete that to qualify which is fair enough in my book. Dont make comparisons between them and the Regs its totally different and unfair to both sides. The problem here is that the unit in question isnt doing its job properly to ensure the opportunities to qualify are available. One MATTS weekend a year isnt enough and they want their arses kicking, simple really. The boys should consult the CoC and get it sorted.
 
#12
Attendance and mobilisation will then be a contractual liability. A TA soldier will become a part time regular.
So we can expect contractor rates then?? Don't think the Army will match Army contractor rates though....

I agree with Idrach's comments bounty tests and frequency. It would be far more motivating to do them in his unit with the expectation of using them.

The linking the bounty to pension makes a interesting separate argument though.
 
#13
A few issues here chaps.

1. Regs and TA engagements totally different - two armies divided by a common uniform. Let's not waste time trying to draw comparisons - see my umpteen previous threads.

2. Bounty is not a pension, it is merely often trotted out as a reason for not giving the TA a pension - some wit once suggested that had a TA member put their Bounty into a pension scheme for 20 years, then it would have been worth something. Unfortunately this naive and peurile statement has stuck and now get's taken as 'gospel'. Firstly, it assumes that the individual get's bounty every year, that the individual stays for 20 years, and that the scheme will be worth something - all rather silly.

3. MATTs. Hmm. Well, the regular Army does them so the TA should as well....see point 1. above. There is nothing wrong in the TA doing MATTs per se but it has to be taken in context - i.e. 27 MTDs p.a. and 'opportunity'. It is unrealistic to only put on one MATT trg day per year - in fact, in the dim and distant past, I seem to recall looking at this before and I think that it states in TA Regs that there should be more than one 'opportunity' per annum to complete mandatory tests. Secondly, redfibee has a point in as much as passing MATTs doesn't mean that you are 'efficient' and with the extent of PDT required these days, it is madness to suggest that MATTs prepares anyone for mobilisation - not so. On that basis therefore, the exam question is whether MATTs is really necessary for the TA - perhaps some form of compromise might be better? (Given the GCM) If MATTs is the extent of the TA 'Offer', then it is no wonder that recruiting is so bad (Yawn).

Discuss.
 
#14
We do MATTs twice a year (one for bounty, the other to remain deployable), taking 4 days each time. If you can't deploy, how can you consider yourself "efficient"?
I'm not sure passing MATTS makes you "efficient" either - and spending 8 MTDs on them is a huge proportion of your available training time. I'd only countanance that if they were built in as part of something else - 8 mile approach march to Ex = CFT, Cas handling on Ex = First Aid etc. Otherwise its a dull as ditchwater retention negative weekend x 4 !!

But - Matts passes + attendence on specified weekends ( say 6 of 10 options) would be my plan for Bounty. Good old fashioned " Red Star" weekends, so the bounty hunters don't get away with turning out for admin and Remembrance !
 
#15
Thats a little unfair, having worked with the TA as a PSI i know that there are lots of them (most in fact) who do far more than expected of them and a lot work for nothing when they have exceeded their training days.
When still serving the MS burden had started to increase exponentially and the requirements for my own personal development were also becoming pretty demanding. I asked the TM when I was supposed to fit in all this extra work.

"In your spare time," he said...
 
#16
2 people (not me!) in my Unit lost out on their TA Pensions (ie Bounties) last year, because they were not available for the one and only weekend that we were offered the opportunity to do our MATTs. One was seriously ill, and the other was on holiday (booked before the MATT w/e dates were changed). Both of them performed their own trade well during the year.
Then this is bone idleness on the part of your unit. If they had genuine reasons not to be able to attend with you, your TM should have phoned around other units for their dates and got the guys over to them.

msr
 
#17
If you can't deploy, how can you consider yourself "efficient"?
What about the blokes whose only job is to drive the TCVs? If they did not turn up, no transport so no training.

Do you think that they should not get a Bounty because they might not deploy? Do they contribute towards unit efficiency?

If your personal circumstances are such that you can be or have been deployed, then you deserve to be congratulated. But to suggest that deployability is the sole test of efficiency / utility is just puerile.
 
#18
What about the blokes whose only job is to drive the TCVs? If they did not turn up, no transport so no training.
He's arguing a point from a different type of unit.. all of their soldiers are deployable (all ranks/ages) and it's Sigs. Majority of their Q/admin staff is regular/NRPS or TA from another unit - I'm not sure if this group does MATTS, I know they teach MATTS - just support for ops staff I suppose .... not ops but still a vital contribution (like you said)
 
#19
RAuxAF I know, but I'm hearing the same moans.

Same sort of qualifications needed for Bounty as you lot; 1st aid, CBRN, weapons handling and ranges, standards and values presentations, phys and 27 days. Annual training plan is formally rolled out and then distributed to everyone. Emails, texts, Facebook to keep everyone in the loop. Third weekend in the month, every month.

Generally, our training weekends are packed with actual relevant and worthwhile training. Very little 'on the bus / off the bus' or ****-about time-wasting. Generally around twenty bods in.
Our 15 day exercise this year was excellent - plenty of variety, operationally focused and a couple of days AT. Turnout was about twenty Gunners.
I seem to remember nine of us in for the ROFA (Regiment Operational Fitness Assessment) which was timed for Remembrance weekend to try to get a decent parade together.

Sqn has 60-odd Gunners on paper. Yes, we've got lads away or on PDT/POTL - but still.

I know that there will be no 'alternatives' offered before the end of the training year for anyone who's missed mandatory testing. The very few who offered excuses in advance and seem keen to make quals up will be pointed towards other Sqns - the others won't.

The nub for operationally focussed units is that the Bounty doesn't seem to be a huge incentive to a lot of people at the moment. Don't get me wrong, it's very nice to have, but in reality a lot of blokes are in for a year or two, do a tour and then are never seen again.

Different when things slow down I suppose.
 
#20
I'm not sure passing MATTS makes you "efficient" either - and spending 8 MTDs on them is a huge proportion of your available training time. I'd only countanance that if they were built in as part of something else - 8 mile approach march to Ex = CFT, Cas handling on Ex = First Aid etc. Otherwise its a dull as ditchwater retention negative weekend x 4 !!
I'm fairly positive passing MATTS doesn't make you "efficient" at all - it is one of the requirements for being "Efficient" - you also need to do the job. And the required format for MATTS - put in place to protect the extremely high value backsides of somebody or other - doesn't seem to allow too much creativity. But, frankly, having passed MATTS in the last 6 months is a pre-requisite for mobilisation. And, currently, support of mobilised operations is the highest priority task.

What about the blokes whose only job is to drive the TCVs? If they did not turn up, no transport so no training.

Do you think that they should not get a Bounty because they might not deploy? Do they contribute towards unit efficiency?
Well, if you've got a big enough unit that you can afford people whose only role is merely to drive transport then you're in a very different situation to us. And, frankly, if all an "enabler" can contribute is to drive transport then they're not very enabling - I'm sure they might be able to manage a bit of instruction - range safety or whatever. "Unit efficiency" and "Certified Efficient" are very different things. Our unit MS Clerk contributes to unit efficiency - but she, as MOD CS, isn't going to be "Certified Efficient".

I think I suggested that because 'they' cannot (not will not) mobilise then not getting bounty may well be appropriate - this is nothing to do with your deployment refusnik status - I presume you do MATTS?
 

Similar threads

New Posts

Top