Return to the 1980s - watch this space/gate

Bad CO

Admin
I've been holding off putting this into the open domain but am feeling on a bit of a roll. My last prediction was that the Army Reserve would change its definition of trained soldier to include soldiers who couldn't actually do anything useful but salute. Surprise, surprise it has just come true.

Anyway, my insiders also tell me that the MoD is planning another cunning ruse to reduce the number of 'civilians' that it employs. Bizarrely it would appear that MPGS are counted against the civilian head count rather than as members of the Armed Forces. Thus if you cut their numbers then you can reduce the number of MoD civilians.

Of course this does have the minor negative point that soldiers, sailors, marines and airmen (ok probably not them!) will have to stag on the gate again but I'm sure that doesn't matter that much. What possible unintended consequences could that have for retention?
 

The_Snail

ADC
RIP
I've been holding off putting this into the open domain but am feeling on a bit of a roll. My last prediction was that the Army Reserve would change its definition of trained soldier to include soldiers who couldn't actually do anything useful but salute. Surprise, surprise it has just come true.

Anyway, my insiders also tell me that the MoD is planning another cunning ruse to reduce the number of 'civilians' that it employs. Bizarrely it would appear that MPGS are counted against the civilian head count rather than as members of the Armed Forces. Thus if you cut their numbers then you can reduce the number of MoD civilians.

Of course this does have the minor negative point that soldiers, sailors, marines and airmen (ok probably not them!) will have to stag on the gate again but I'm sure that doesn't matter that much. What possible unintended consequences could that have for retention?
Most people who want to comment on this won't be able to because you've posted it in CA and @ViroBono will get very very upset about it.
 

mess pres

Old-Salt
How about they transferred them across to the reserves (not sure under what cabbage exactly) on FTRS (or similar) contracts? Less mod civil servants more reserves - possibly I am missing some massive point , like it is not that simple!

But if you want people to sign off this would be one way to do it.
 
I'm sure the principal reason for counting service people as trained when they aren't really is to make Capita's performance look slightly less calamitous than it really is.
 
You can't win, can you? If you have lots of troops who do day jobs (i.e. MPGS, chefs, VMs etc) to service the Army on a day-to-day basis, then it costs too much. if you reduce their numbers and have civvies and/or contractors, then you have too many MoD civvies and not enough squaddies.

Doomed to failure. Close the books and tell the public "it's classified". Let Parliament have oversight, and sod the rest.
 
Anyone working in AFCOs is going to have their work cut out if this comes to pass. How can they sex the job up if it's back to doing barrier technician roles and the mind numbing patrolling around camp at death o'clock nonsense? At least in the 80s they could entice potential recruits through the door with promises of adventurous training in foreign countries, or dangle the carrot of exotic postings overseas in the lands of Duty Free around the world with a degree of honesty to compensate.

I'm sure it's all changed now but the thought of 80s style stagging on for weeks at a time and living in the guardroom and sleeping on rubber covered green mattresses between patrols is not a happy thought...<shudder>
 
I thought civilians were cheaper and that's why they were employed in the first place?
Yes they are, but civil servants are against the Tory ideology and they are trying to cut them at every opportunity.

An arbitrary target of 30% mod civilian headcount cuts has been set. Now the top brass are trying to implement this.

Ministry of Defence to cut civilian workforce by almost 30% | Civil Service World

My predication - military personal taken out of 'front line' roles and more expensive consultants brought in on 'permenant' basis.

Sent from my HTC One_M8 using Tapatalk
 
Anyway, my insiders also tell me that the MoD is planning another cunning ruse to reduce the number of 'civilians' that it employs.
It's part of Cameron's measures & election proposals - no more cuts to service personnel, followed by 'you've elected us so we will stick to that pledge, but by the way mod, cut your civilian servants by 30%

All the different combinations of Civil Servants, Regulars and Reserves have a balancing act between the terms they can be employed to and the cost, so the political goals switch between cutting the cost and cutting the numbers, eg previously it was to cut the numbers of soldiers but get them to do soldiering by having civilians and guard services etc - the same 'work' can be done for less £ and less flexibility without being able to just tell the soldiers to do it and suck it up, then replace that policy with protecting the heroes but with costs still to be cut and therefore cut the evil civilians.
Unless the work is changed and no longer needs to be done then the gap remains with a task which Privates Jones & Smith then have to do

Couple the civil service cuts with the estate cuts (to sell off land and build housing) and you can in theory co-locate units in site A and close site B. The civilian support staff can be halved down to one sites worth (or not realy halved but c it down) and the military can still do their soldiering, or cut down most of the civilians and have the co-located units share the cover
 

Cynical

LE
Book Reviewer
As I recall the 1980s was not actually a bad time to be soldiering. But then the Army was around twice the size it is now and we had serious amounts of time on exercise (to point where marrieds had issues, and compensating pay). Also, time on exerciese was time not spent drinking pay, so when in camp one was effectively on +50% pay. And no VAT....
 
Get rid of MPGS and give the guarding contract to G4S.

Reduces civilian numbers, reduces costs and reduces unemployment.

What could possibly go wrong?
 
I thought civilians were cheaper and that's why they were employed in the first place?
but if you bin any number of them, and replace them with people you already employ, that's a saving. Furthermore if you cut as many full time jobs as possible, then fail to recruit more than a dozen or so reservists, then you are saving even more.
QM's will love it, less kit to be issued (more for storing) fewer rooms occupied so less heating and lighting required.

What can possibly go wrong?
 
I thought civilians were cheaper and that's why they were employed in the first place?
Yes, but not as cheap as getting rid of the civvis and getting the army to stag on instead. Then all you have to do is a quick study that shows that squaddies get OODLES of time off still AND x-factor pay and everyone is happy, aren't they?
Anyone working in AFCOs is going to have their work cut out if this comes to pass. How can they sex the job up if it's back to doing barrier technician roles and the mind numbing patrolling around camp at death o'clock nonsense? At least in the 80s they could entice potential recruits through the door with promises of adventurous training in foreign countries, or dangle the carrot of exotic postings overseas in the lands of Duty Free around the world with a degree of honesty to compensate.

I'm sure it's all changed now but the thought of 80s style stagging on for weeks at a time and living in the guardroom and sleeping on rubber covered green mattresses between patrols is not a happy thought...<shudder>
Now then. Just because there aren't any gucci postings any more, or fancy adventure training....

What the hell makes you think they'll stop advertising it?
 

jarrod248

LE
Gallery Guru
but if you bin any number of them, and replace them with people you already employ, that's a saving. Furthermore if you cut as many full time jobs as possible, then fail to recruit more than a dozen or so reservists, then you are saving even more.
QM's will love it, less kit to be issued (more for storing) fewer rooms occupied so less heating and lighting required.

What can possibly go wrong?
It seems to be similar in all the public sector. I'm sure Ms. May will sort everything out as she's a great track record of abusing the staff. I think she pretty much said the Police and prison officers are shit. Now she can spread the love everywhere.
 
Funny old thing but I always believed force protection (whether in or out of barracks) to be a core military function. I can't see any fundamental problem, therefore, with stagging on.
 
Yes they are, but civil servants are against the Tory ideology and they are trying to cut them at every opportunity.

An arbitrary target of 30% mod civilian headcount cuts has been set. Now the top brass are trying to implement this.

Ministry of Defence to cut civilian workforce by almost 30% | Civil Service World

My predication - military personal taken out of 'front line' roles and more expensive consultants brought in on 'permenant' basis.

Sent from my HTC One_M8 using Tapatalk
And yet DE&S are continually recruiting at C2 and C1 grades. Their latest trawl is at Stage 4 i.e. external and they are looking to fill 15 x C2 posts at Abbey Wood...
 
Funny old thing but I always believed force protection (whether in or out of barracks) to be a core military function. I can't see any fundamental problem, therefore, with stagging on.
Depending on how it's done... not too bad if you're on a BFO garrison camp where a guard force of 24 represents a tiny % of the guys.
Bit different when you're somewhere smaller with a couple of hundred toms with a sqn on exercise... all of a sudden, you've got a hundred toms to provide a guard force of 24 and sgts start deciding that you can't have the day off after a night duty.

All of a sudden, you're forever on exercise, on stag or wandering around hooped because you were on duty last night and in work today.

And then people are signing off left right and centre.
 
Depending on how it's done... not too bad if you're on a BFO garrison camp where a guard force of 24 represents a tiny % of the guys.
Bit different when you're somewhere smaller with a couple of hundred toms with a sqn on exercise... all of a sudden, you've got a hundred toms to provide a guard force of 24 and sgts start deciding that you can't have the day off after a night duty.

All of a sudden, you're forever on exercise, on stag or wandering around hooped because you were on duty last night and in work today.

And then people are signing off left right and centre.
That's pretty much my abiding memory. Very small unit postings which had overstretch commitments and heads of sheds who seemed to think that because you'd just done a couple of weeks of nights and a couple of weeks of days your body wasn't deserving of anything other than being pushed straight back against the grindstone.

Still, at least lads today get Wednesday afternoons off for sports....
 

Latest Threads

Top