TA IS Eng mobilisation illegal?

CaptainPlume said:
merlin 745 wrote:

Complete tosh, I know loads that have been mobilised for their civilian skills and roughly the same number were mobilised in TA trade.
Interesting. When (within the grounds of OPSEC) were they mobilised? This issue was a fairly major one at one stage and I believe led to the establishment (or certainly growth) of the Joint CIMIC Group precisely because the RFA didn't allow mobilisation for civvy skills.

Granted many who were deployed ended up working in their civilian profession (for example the aircon expert who rebuilt systems in Iraq) but they were detached from the duties which they were mobilised for or did this work in whatever free time they had. It was my complete understanding (having looked into the issue closely) that my original post was correct.
As we don't have TA IS Eng, anyone mobilised as one (on the basis of their civilian skillset) was done so illegally. LIAG is ok, as they held that job and had been trained by the MOD for that role.

Or did the corps/mcm div get around the RFA 96 legislation?
Merlin, you appear to have a real problem with this TA IS Engr business in the TA. What's the deal?

Thought you TA guys would be glad to get 'mobilised' for a tour. Get a bit of op experience to complement your TA career. There are plenty of regular soldiers that get sent out to theatre in mis-employed roles, that's just the way it is.

Romulus said:
Merlin, you appear to have a real problem with this TA IS Engr business in the TA. What's the deal?
No I don't but the implication of being illegal means either the trade has to be introduced (which some of my colleagues would welcome) or TA don't get mobilised

I view the current system of exploiting civilian skills as wrong, it doesn't help my civilian employabilty - it actually makes it worse. However if the corps offered something back (e.g. training + quals), then employers may view the TA differently.

Maybe that last sentence has a element of jealousy about it, as TA I don't get training and quals anywhere near to the level regulars do (its well out of proportion).

I could sit back, say nothing and be the good stab, but part of my TA job is to manage training, so ignoring the faults in the system would be wrong.

I'll probably get slagged off for this post, but I work in the IT sector which means I'd get mobilised as an IS Eng. I don't think I could do the job as well I would like (or could do), mainly because I work a layer higher in the OSI model than a IS Eng.

Lastly can't be arrsed about improving my TA CV, my priority is to support my family and thats mainly done via my civilian job. Second priority is to help defend my country and thats the role of the TA unit I'm in.
I can assure you merlin that being a regular soldier in the IS Eng CEQ doesn't bring qualifications as you have stated. This is not a pissing contest - TA or Regular. I do, however, believed you are misinformed over what quals we do have......none that would be recognised in civvie street thats for sure. The CEQ syllabus is very basic and highlights many areas in the field of IT (Basic Routers, Data Comms, W2K Server/Networks, Exchange, Databases, Office Apps, Security). All this crap on this website about OSI layers and what level we work at is bullshit. We work at them all. Whether that be Applications (MS Office) at the top or plugging in cable right at the bottom. I know a lot of guys, me including, that have bothered our arses to gain civvie quals like MCSE, CCNA, Project Management etc etc but that is not handed to us as qualified tradesman.

Please dont patronise me with that STAB crap as I am sure you are not stupid and I am not one to question your parentage. I wasn't sniping at you reference advancing your TA career with tours, all I was stating was that sometimes you got to take the rough with the smooth. Chill out, sounds like your heading for a heart attack.
Sorry, didn't mean to sound if I was attacking IS Eng, the ones I've worked with have been excellent.

As to my remarks about training - I was talking in general, (your remarks sound similar to what I've seen, maybe I've interpretted Blandford training the wrong way).

Your last paragraph says a lot about your character (and your trade), you'll understand what I mean. :wink:

I seem to have opened a can of worms with my comments about the legality or otherwise of deploying the TA on the basis of their civilian skills. I perhaps did not explain myself properly on the other thread but throughout my service in a Unit very close to this issue policy was that it was not allowed.

The rationale for this was that if a member of the TA has been trained at huge expense to his/her employer in a particular skill it would be morally wrong (as well as a PR c*ck up) to mobilise this individual when the Army had not contributed to the cost of the training.

HOWEVER I also believe this also applied to skills which were not covered by an established Army trade. As I mentioned in the other thread someone close to the decision makers on this issue is checking current policy and I'll post as much as I can without breaching security classifications when it a response comes.
Spoke to a mate last night and he stated he thought he wasn't mobilised into any particular LSN.

When I got my paper work it didn't mention trade or unit, but someone (in my unit) did mention I was going as a IS Eng in 4 Armd Bde.
Cheers Merlin, understand perfectly. Enjoy your tour. And if you are going to 4, you are lucky, they are one of the best units in the corp. Good Luck.

Similar threads

Latest Threads