Should we bring back Premature Voluntary Release (PVR)?

Discussion in 'Army Pay, Claims & JPA' started by Litotes, Apr 6, 2006.

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 regularly see young soldiers who have become disillusioned with the constraints the Army places upon them in their new career. My colleagues and I agree that we should not hang onto these soldiers unless there are pressing reasons for us to do so. After all, Macdonald’s needs its burger flippers, and there are soldiers who should not be soldiers – for a wide variety of reasons – as we all know. But I still do not like the idea of releasing a soldier who claims to be unhappy with the Army, is nearing the end of a lengthy training programme and now has a sheaf of certificates to his or her name. What didn’t they understand about the words “commitment” and "four years"?

    :arrow: So, should we bring back the PVR system in order to concentrate their minds? It would, at the very least, claw back some money from them!

    :arrow: If yes, at what level? I think it should be 3 month’s net salary which, for most, would be £2,500. I suspect that is a little high and I would be willing to reduce it to £1000, on the grounds that we do want some of them to leave! :lol:

    I would be grateful for your opinions!

    Litotes
     
  2. I think it's a sound idea but in this day and age would be hard to get going. Taking someones money for the fact they aren't happy with a job just isn't the done thing. The way around this might be a joining "bonus" of say £2500 which can only be kept if they do the required X years. This is pretty much along the lines of other bonuses, aviation etc. It's a lot of money to a young lad (well, to anyone really) and might just be the incentive to keep going.

    I strongly agree that there are many that do not deserve the effort put in to retaining them, and I don't necessarily mean those in training. The lads who consistently fail to reach the minimum standards, constantly going awol etc should just be shown the door - with a size 10 boot.
     
  3. it cost £350 to pvr in 96
     
  4. Forgive me for being somewhat behind the times, but what is the present system?
     
  5. When a soldier enlists, he agrees (as part of his contract) to serve for 4 years. If he decides after 2 years that he's had enough, then claiming back a big wodge is fair enough. In civvy-speak he is in breach of contract and is thus liable to pay up. There are many civvy companies who, after sending their staff on expensive courses, make them agree to work for a set period of time, or re-pay the amount of the course. It really is no different than that is it?
     
  6. Are there many firms that make you sign on for four years?
     
  7. I didn't know PVR had gone. Cost me 450 pounds in 1989 proving money can buy happiness.
     
  8. In a word, No. Even in the case of fixed term contracts - which the Army effectively are using - no civilian firm will tie you to it if you are not happy. There is always a notice period.

    In the case of paying back course fees. In civilian employment they are paid back on a pro rata basis i.e if you agreed to stay on for 12 months after completing the course and then resigned with 1 month left you would only repay 1/12th of the course fees.

    IMHO the Army has to accept that people lose their willingness to serve for a number of reasons. In my case it was that I didn't agree with the direction that politics was taking in the country and was no longer prepared to be their whipping boy. In cases such as that it is unreasonable to expect a soldier to soldier on and they should be allowed to go at no cost. If they are forced to remain in service then they will never give 100% effort.

    As for PVR, it cost me £450 way back in 1985!
     
  9. I hated having it! it always made a mess of my trousers in public places!!

    oh I see what you mean now yeah bring it back as long as you have national service to back up the numbers of leaving soldiers!
     
  10. If the powers that be had enough backbone to back their instructors when they reccomend that someone be discharged during basic Trg rather than playing the Nos game the i don't think it would as big a problem as we have now. The dross who are made to Sldr on have a damaging effect on both the operational effectiveness of their Bn but also thier bad attitude rubs off on the other members of the Bn. More time is spent on these scrotes than on the decent guys which again p*ss** off the good ones who see these bad boys getting all coursed up while they get nothing. Get rid of them and invest the time in those worth investing in. We may have less Sldrs on the books, but at least those who are left are there because they feel valued.
     
  11. We hear this arguement time and time again; yet these soldiers who people say are not up to standard are still able to perform on operational tour.
     
  12. Lobster...... i think that if you took a closer look at things those who are " not up to standard" are not in fact on operations but back on rear parties awaiting various court cases or they did a runner before the Bn went on ops.
     
  13. Are there many firms that pay out anything from £12000-£500000 plus in the first four years to train you???

    If they did, I suspect that they would also like a cotract of some kind to ensure you weren't wasting their time.
     
  14. The consulting firm I work for gives new people a £10k bonus when you start - if you leave any time in the first two years you have to pay back a portion of this amount, which reduces the longer you're in. probably not to the same scale as depot training, but it's the same principle really.
     
  15. I PVR'd in '95 at the price of £700 I had done 7 years of my 9. My reasons were that I wanted to be a soldier and a tradesman and my staying in the army was stopping me from being either.

    I had been in the same REME workshop for 5 years and had been on only 2 courses, of which one was trade related. There was no trade work for me. I was a gunfitter, but noone was breaking tanks, and when they did there was 5 gunfitters to fight over who got the job, usually the L/Cpl and Cpl getting the gig.

    I filled the vacant armourer slot very nicely until I was told I was no longer allowed. I was overlooked for op-tours and detachments. I volunteered for all kinds of things, only to be told that I could not be spared. When the lads went to Bosnia without me I decided that enough was enough, always hoping that a posting order or some other safety net was waiting to catch me, but none did.

    I paid my money and went on my way, soon finding out that my military and trade qualifications were all but worthless.

    I wished I could have stayed in the army, but the army that was on offer to me was not the army I wanted to part of any more.

    Glad I went in and glad I came out when I did. I haven't looked back since.

    For me the PVR was a lifeline which stopped me stagnating and becoming one of those very bitter and twisted Cfn with 100 years service under their belts.

    There should be a system in place whereby soldiers can apply to leave if the army is no longer for them. I would hope however, that the army would put more effort into employing their soldiers in a more productive manner rather than letting them rot in a forgotten posting.

    If the army does not do this then they will inevitably end up dragging along many, many soldiers who simply don't want to be there any more. Surely it has to be more cost effective to hang on to soldiers by posting them to suitable units than it is to constantly have to train up new recruits to replace those who leave.

    Keep hold of soldiers who have no interest in being there and you are just asking for trouble.