The new Reserves proposition (courtesy the Review Team)

Discussion in 'Army Reserve' started by MrTracey, Oct 14, 2008.

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. 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?
  2. Its gobbleygook and means fcuk all
  3. ahhh - but for that were true.
  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:

  6. To me it says that if the TA soldier is happy he is more likely to stick his hand up for a tour.
  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.

  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. Bloody Good response...
  10. 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.

    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. 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. msr

    msr LE

    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.

  13. What are some of these ideas then, care to tell us plebs?
  14. Seconded.

    Like the Arkell vs Pressdram quote too OOTS. :lol:
  15. 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