This is a stand-to for an incoming competition, one of our most expensive yet.
Later this week we're going to be offering the opportunity to Win £270 Rab Neutrino Pro military down jacket
Visit the thread at that link above and Watch it to be notified as soon as the competition goes live
The forces are under-funded as it is so realistically it would only be possible for the TA to receive a bounty or a pension, not both.
A TA pension wouldnt really amount to much as we work on a part-time basis and realistically how many reservists are actually going to stay in long enough to actually earn said pension
Were far better off sticking with our bounty.
0201. A person is eligible to be an active member of the scheme if:
(a) he is serving in a Full Time Reserve Service (including Additional Duties Commitments) appointment or is mobilised under Part 4, 5 or 6 of the Reserve Forces Act 1996, or a corresponding power in the Reserve Forces Act 1980,
(1) his service began on or after 6 April 2005, or
(2) he opted to transfer to RFPS from AFPS 75 on the common
transfer date of 6 April 2006, and
(c) he is not:
(1) an active member of AFPS 75, or
(2) a member of another occupational pension scheme (ie a scheme
in respect of which an employer is paying a contribution).
It is a bit of a read, and no I haven't, but it may answer your query.
If you give all the TA a pension then you are rewarding people by providing the potential for a miniscule pension for little more than turning up for a drill night and, due to the lack of MTDs, the odd weekend and a 15 day camp. We already reward this committment by the bounty system.
Are you proposing scrapping the bounty as it isn't enough, isn't wanted or needed or that it should be replaced by a system that rewards an individuals committment at age 60/65 by a small amount? Bearing in mind that would imply turning up for at least the minimum days for a full length TA career before you get anything other than your DRP?
I was under the impression that the bounty was a retention bonus. Scrap that bonus and replace it with a pension at 60/65 and you may find that not a lot of people stay around long enough to collect.
In my opinion the FTRS pension scheme provides the reward that TA soldiers should expect because it is targeted at those who are willing and able to support the regs on Ops or by supporting them on limited forms of FTRS.
"A GROUP of 30 Territorial Army recruits is bringing a discrimination test case against the Ministry of Defence to win pension rights for all 40,000 part-time soldiers. The reservists will argue before an employment tribunal in London today that the Army has denied them access to the Army Pension Fund. Despite serving up to 126 days a year, including service in the Gulf War, and believing that part of their pay was going into the Army Pension Fund, they have been told that they will have no army pension rights on retirement. Michael Morse, partner at Fox Hayes, the Leeds law firm leading the case for the soldiers, said: "Men and women in the TA believe that they are an integral part of the modern British Army and they make a huge commitment. Their job titles and roles are no different from regular service personnel and many became senior officers with regulars serving under them. Now it seems the MoD is telling them that they are only playing weekend warrior after all." He said that the MoD denied that the recruits were protected by part-time legislation, although the Army's website often called them part-time."
The group's claims, made under the Equal Pay Act, argue that denial of access to a pension has a disparate impact on women, who are represented in higher numbers in the TA than in the regular Army. The MoD, which is resisting the claim, has been said to refute any comparison between the work done by the TA and regulars."
It is now September 2007, and the Employment Tribunal reached a conclusion last month. They agreed with the MOD case, that most pension benefits provided to Volunteer Reservists would be insignificant and disproportionate compared to the administrative costs of providing them and also it was more appropriate to remunerate Volunteer Reserve Service by way of a bounty.
In other words, no pension.
Back to the original question - should the TA have the option of an Army pension - well, possibly.
Will the TA ever have the option of belonging to the same pension scheme as the Regulars? In the words of buffy, "Nope, never gonna happen, trust me."
You are all being conned if you think it has to be bounty or pension! If you take the regular army they get money at set points in their career as a bonus for re-enlistment! I think at 6 years they get 5-6K what does 6 years bounty add up to from your 1st? Its near enough the same so why dont we get treated the same? Give me a pension 5-6k after 6 years and so on then scrap my bounty! As Jim Royal would say" One army my a**e!"
I dont think we will get both it will stay as it is just now ,I was only pointing out a few facts for the argument. Most posts state our bounty is in lieu of pension when it clearly isn't and if the Government want a one army concept with full and part time staff it will have to change and adapt just as any other employer does ,you cant have seperate employment law although the military may think it is exempt from this it isn't.Until this came around we were classed as casual labour now the army advertise for Part Time Positions and that changes things.If you have this attitude why bother reading this forum and waste your time posting? Its your opinion we are after!
Ok so no pension unless the bounty goes, as we have already seen application of rules to the letter by admin staff that some TA lads returning from ops can lose or have to requalify for bounty, therefore the balanced argument should be that all regular service as in mobilised for ops should count towards a service pension! That way your contribution would be recognised. All ops would qualify including civil assistance or whatever fancy trendy name that MACP/MACC goes under now.