The new Reserves proposition (courtesy the Review Team)

#1
Straight from the powerpoint last night:

'Reasonable fulfilment by Defence of an offer of challenge, reward, and support that leads an individual to volunteer for Reserve Service, sustains them during their service and leads to the full commitment of the Reservist in meeting the mobilisation demands made of them'

For once, I wrote it down.

I welcome the informed view of the members of this great rumour service as to the wording of this as (from the mouth of the very clever but somewhat narrow civil servant present) it is to be the basis of the Reviews remaining work.

I hesitate to point out that this confirms the worst fears of many in that it is entirely predicated on mobilisation to the apparent disregard of every other driving factor of Reserve service - mates, ethos, doing something different, Queen and Country, values, money, career, leadership, responsibility, improving people just for the sake of it, etc etc....

Sounds like a stick to me, not a carrot in sight.

anyway - wdyt chaps?
 
#4
K.I.S.S

(By the way I'm not coming on to you)
 
#5
I think you're paranoid. The word reward is in there. One Army blah blah, you've got to expect them to want their monies worth out of every one of the TA these days.

You said it:

(from the mouth of the very clever but somewhat narrow civil servant present)
 
#7
To be fair, and yes, I was there too, the Review presentation was fairly lengthy and covered a lot of ground.

It would have been difficult to argue with anything they said, and they seemed to be intent upon doing the right thing. My concern is that the right thing for the Army, may not be (isn't) the right thing for the Reserves - well, not the Reserve that we all assume they wanted.

That is, of course, semantics - the real nub of the issue is whether it will be an organisation anyone would want to join. Having spent most of today reading through the new training proposals (Initial Trg, Foundation Trg, and Mission Specific Trg (or was that Mobilisation specific?)), I can see a picture emerging.

I have said this before, and I will no doubt say it again, but all of the indicators point towards a Reserve that is solely in existence to back feed the Regular Army. If you don't want to be mobilised every five years, don't join.

'Liability' is one thing, 'expectation' is another.

We're back to the enablers and militia debate but this time, the enablers aren't getting much of a look in and the CofC for the TA will eventually collapse and maybe Kennedy (or whoever) on the Staff Course (see other thread) was right - a man before his time (are you sure it wasn't Thompson?).

However, the Review did focus on some other areas and it would be wrong not to mention them:

Employer Support (their going to need it!)
Estate (upgraded but no money)
Capability generation - I'm sure I've heard that before
Training - see training review
Service conditions simplified - i.e. easier mobilisation.
Funding reallocation - Signals converted to infantry.

Personally, I think they underestimate the employer issues (and the familial ones), and without any extra cash, then much of what they aspire to is unattainable.

Wingley
 
#8
Did they address the fundamental problem that most soldiers who want to return to their current job can't volunteer for a tour ? Until they understand that bosses see sticking ones's hand up as skiving, yet see involuntary mobilisation as being needed by HMG, nothing can change. Let's face it, the youngsters I see know they won't have a job when they get back but can work round it. Then they leave to work on a career.

If they genuinely intend to try to change employers minds to get them to agree to letting soldiers go every five years then fair play to them. They are of course - absent a big pot of money - more doomed than the dinosaur who first looked up into the night sky and said "what's that bright thing coming towards me ?"

If however it translates as more pressure to volunteer for mobilisation because they lack the moral courage to revert to involuntary compulsory mobilisation as in 2002/3 then I would refer them to the reply given in the case of Arkell vs Pressdram.
 
#9
One_of_the_strange said:
Did they address the fundamental problem that most soldiers who want to return to their current job can't volunteer for a tour ? Until they understand that bosses see sticking ones's hand up as skiving, yet see involuntary mobilisation as being needed by HMG, nothing can change. Let's face it, the youngsters I see know they won't have a job when they get back but can work round it. Then they leave to work on a career.

If they genuinely intend to try to change employers minds to get them to agree to letting soldiers go every five years then fair play to them. They are of course - absent a big pot of money - more doomed than the dinosaur who first looked up into the night sky and said "what's that bright thing coming towards me ?"

If however it translates as more pressure to volunteer for mobilisation because they lack the moral courage to revert to involuntary compulsory mobilisation as in 2002/3 then I would refer them to the reply given in the case of Arkell vs Pressdram.
Bloody Good response...
 
#10
One_of_the_strange said:
Did they address the fundamental problem that most soldiers who want to return to their current job can't volunteer for a tour ?
No - of course not - that would undermine the whole argument behind RFA 96 - i.e. good for the Army, not quite so good for the reservist.

One_of_the_strange said:
If however it translates as more pressure to volunteer for mobilisation because they lack the moral courage to revert to involuntary compulsory mobilisation as in 2002/3 then I would refer them to the reply given in the case of Arkell vs Pressdram.
I'd agree with you if I knew what you were going on about - I'll take your word for it.

The reality is - and it was specifically raised at the session I attended - is that only in extremis would the Govt resort to compulsory mobilisation. In the event that they do - as we all know - employers would dig out the legislation, find ways around it and then either sack all of their reservists or just not employ any. Forget compulsory notification (another brilliant idea by the centre), you just won't be able to get a job unless you work for BT or a SaBRE signed up company. That is, until the latter lose someone important and then the certificates will be coming back in the post on a daily basis.

We all know that this is a combination of Pandora's box and Emperors clothes - and the team know it too.
 
#11
Wingletang said:
One_of_the_strange said:
Did they address the fundamental problem that most soldiers who want to return to their current job can't volunteer for a tour ?
No - of course not - that would undermine the whole argument behind RFA 96 - i.e. good for the Army, not quite so good for the reservist.

One_of_the_strange said:
If however it translates as more pressure to volunteer for mobilisation because they lack the moral courage to revert to involuntary compulsory mobilisation as in 2002/3 then I would refer them to the reply given in the case of Arkell vs Pressdram.
I'd agree with you if I knew what you were going on about - I'll take your word for it.

The reality is - and it was specifically raised at the session I attended - is that only in extremis would the Govt resort to compulsory mobilisation. In the event that they do - as we all know - employers would dig out the legislation, find ways around it and then either sack all of their reservists or just not employ any. Forget compulsory notification (another brilliant idea by the centre), you just won't be able to get a job unless you work for BT or a SaBRE signed up company. That is, until the latter lose someone important and then the certificates will be coming back in the post on a daily basis.

We all know that this is a combination of Pandora's box and Emperors clothes - and the team know it too.
Non-supportive employers already have already excluded reservists from their workforces and continue to do so while pushing existing ones out. I don't think I know of a single one of my peers who hasn't has issues post mobilisation. Hell, my fully signed up SaBRE friendly company was so supportive I jumped before I was pushed.

Supportive employers are fine with involuntary compulsory mobilisation because they know you're needed; they are not happy with you telling them you want a year off because the Army is run by spineless moral cowards too afraid to call you up. So if the Army want to make supportive employers have second thoughts, this policy is the one to take.

One last thought - how many employers thought that signing up for SaBRE meant having their staff away one year in five when they don't need to be ? Precious few I'll warrant. I'll bet money their perception is based on the assumption that their liability is involuntary compulsory mobilisation for national crises (eg Telic) and the very occasional gap year by mutual agreement. Again, just the policy to cause existing supporters to re-evaluate.
 
#12
I have just got back from the 42 Bde presentation and have a few thoughts:

There is no doubt some clever thinking and a lot of spade work has been done. The CS guy was very impressive and has clearly mastered the brief.

The lack of response, 25 emails to their address, was mentioned, but as was rightly pointed out: no actual question was asked.

I have come away feeling curiously unsatisfied. The review seems unable to decide what it is and as such seems like neither fish nor fowl: Has there been a lot of clever thinking? Yes. Do they have a lot of good ideas? Mostly. Is it a blue sky thinking exercise? Mmmm, no. Is there one solution for all the reserves? I am not convinced.

But in the final analysis: Will it survive contact with the budgeteers?

Not a chance. Defence is broke and we all know it.

msr
 
#14
Kitmarlowe said:
One_of_the_strange said:
Did they address the fundamental problem that most soldiers who want to return to their current job can't volunteer for a tour ? Until they understand that bosses see sticking ones's hand up as skiving, yet see involuntary mobilisation as being needed by HMG, nothing can change. Let's face it, the youngsters I see know they won't have a job when they get back but can work round it. Then they leave to work on a career.

If they genuinely intend to try to change employers minds to get them to agree to letting soldiers go every five years then fair play to them. They are of course - absent a big pot of money - more doomed than the dinosaur who first looked up into the night sky and said "what's that bright thing coming towards me ?"

If however it translates as more pressure to volunteer for mobilisation because they lack the moral courage to revert to involuntary compulsory mobilisation as in 2002/3 then I would refer them to the reply given in the case of Arkell vs Pressdram.
Bloody Good response...
Seconded.

Like the Arkell vs Pressdram quote too OOTS. :lol:
 
#15
mark1234 said:
What are some of these ideas then, care to tell us plebs?
Demolish all TACs in a town - say 5 and replace with one brand new sparkly one

Re-role Signals to infantry

Improve employers protection

Regional Bdes to have OPCOM of all units within bounds

Remove barriers to flexible service between reg and TA (JPA is the answer here)

RTCs to be funded properly - regular COs

Confirmation of what Defence needs from Reserves: Augmentation, Niche Skills, Specialist Skills.

Scrap LSDI and CCRF

etc
 
#17
One_of_the_strange said:
Non-supportive employers already have already excluded reservists from their workforces and continue to do so while pushing existing ones out. I don't think I know of a single one of my peers who hasn't has issues post mobilisation. Hell, my fully signed up SaBRE friendly company was so supportive I jumped before I was pushed.
Lets face it. If the MoD do it to their staff post tour then why should 'normal' employers bother to be any better?

I haven't been to a brief but reading what you've said it all seems quite sensible.

Weren't they supposed to have published the final report by now? Has there been an extention to it (if so when) or are they doing a phase 2 type study?
 
#18
Wingletang said:
mark1234 said:
What are some of these ideas then, care to tell us plebs?
Demolish all TACs in a town - say 5 and replace with one brand new sparkly one. It will have to be big and have lots of parking!

Re-role Signals to infantry, what about the females? Some Sigs are 50-60% female.
Improve employers protection

Regional Bdes to have OPCOM of all units within bounds. Been there before

Remove barriers to flexible service between reg and TA (JPA is the answer here)

RTCs to be funded properly - regular COs

Confirmation of what Defence needs from Reserves: Augmentation, Niche Skills, Specialist Skills. Hmm, but what about what reserves need?

Scrap LSDI and CCRF. Just as Russia warms up

etc
Sorry for teh one line answers, it seems to me that will any of the MODs ideas realy make the TA what they need if they can't get members of the public to sigh up. Peoople are not stupid, or should I say the people we need are not stupid, they see it as Army on the cheap. One chap came in the other night, after 20 mins with the recruiting Sgt and discussing terms and conditions, he admitted he wouldn't come back. Although it offered what he was looking for, he seemed to think the rewards were not worth the risks and that the MOD was mad in thinking that people would fall for it. (Thankfully some do)
 
#19
WhiteHorse said:
Wingletang said:
Re-role Signals to infantry, what about the females? Some Sigs are 50-60% female. Our Sigs unit was RGJ before and I guess most other Sigs were Inf in the 50's, so f uck 'em, literally.

Scrap LSDI and CCRF. CCRF blatant wast of time anyway

etc
Sorry for teh one line answers, it seems to me that will any of the MODs ideas realy make the TA what they need if they can't get members of the public to sigh up. People are not stupid, or should I say the people we need are not stupid, they see it as Army on the cheap. One chap came in the other night, after 20 mins with the recruiting Sgt and discussing terms and conditions, he admitted he wouldn't come back. Although it offered what he was looking for, he seemed to think the rewards were not worth the risks and that the MOD was mad in thinking that people would fall for it. (Thankfully some do)
Oh well, move with the times. The TA has always changed and evolved, seems like mostly the old and bold whinging on here.
 
#20
Wingletang said:
Demolish all TACs in a town - say 5 and replace with one brand new sparkly one
It is amazing how every public sector organisation thinks that centralising real estate will both give windfall receipts and greater economies of scale. They've all done it - fire/police/NHS etc. They all fail to see that the windfalls are generally fairly small, are a one-off and get clawed back by the Treasury, and that the reasons the properties were in central locations in the first place were generally valid (ie visibility/accessibility etc). The reason land is cheap out on the bypass or some edge of town estate, is because no-one wants to go there.

So the organisation makes a few quid one year and then suffers from the perpetuating disconnect between itself and the public it needs to deal with.

Whilst I have little time for RFCA generally, hopefully they will be a deterrent to such shortsightedness (albeit probably for the wrong reasons).
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top