The unpensionables - fight for your future, tranche 3 & 4 are coming

[dingerr]

You can't publish lists with people's names on without their consent and anyone who does consent is a tad foolish.

 

[TheLittleMan]

No but you can publish lists of accurate numbers and clear criterea; this applies too, to star charts (which will not be forwarded to individuals for some undisclosed reason). Answers under freedom of information such as "it costs too much money to give the detail" are unhelpful and create suspicion. Be honest and transparent within bounds, don't be devisive

 

[shiny_arrse]

I wonder how many of the 4800 + people who have signed the petition are members of the Forces Pension Society?

 

[Yakari]

You can't publish lists with people's names on without their consent and anyone who does consent is a tad foolish.

Fair one, particularly given the sums of money involved.
I have in the back of my mind that they published lists during Options, but I was a youngster back then working in a Bde HQ and the lists may have only come down that far.

 

[Herrumph]

From JSP 764 Part 5:

PENSIONS AND TERMINAL BENEFITS AVAILABLE ON REDUNDANCY
0316. Immediate Pension. On being made redundant, or directed to retire early under the DER scheme, a person will be entitled to either an Immediate Pension (monthly pension and pension lump sum) on discharge or a Preserved Pension (monthly pension and pension lump sum) at age 60/65, depending on whether he has completed sufficient qualifying service to reach his Immediate Pension point. For Officers, this is 16 years’ qualifying service from age 21 or 18 years’ qualifying service from age 18, and for Other Ranks, 18 years’ qualifying service from age 18.

0318. Calculating Immediate Pension (IP) (Officers). If an Officer is entitled to receive an IP under the rules at para 0316, but does not have 16 years’ or more reckonable service, his pension is to be calculated using a pro-rata rate of the 16-year Rate for Retired Pay on Compulsory Retirement in issue on the day following his last day of reckonable service.

The officer and OR are in exactly the same boat. There is no 'unfair' penalising for officers. The playing field was levelled under AFCS 10 .

The playing field was only leveled by AFCS 10 if you opted into it at the time, which in most cases you would have been mad to do.

Most of those officers adversely affected by today's Redundancy terms will have been under the old arrangements and subject to the 16 years reckonable service, which was from age 21. So I think R_F is correct.

Let's not forget that every AFPRB Report I read over 20 years talked in glowing terms of the military pension benefits and long term security of employment before using said facts as a reason to lower the x-factor. We may not have had a contract but it was definitely assumed that pensions and job security were a benefit.

Dingerr - if it was you being affected, you would have been whinging like ****.

 

[really?_fascinating]

What the para means, having asked the experts, is that if an officer has more than 18 years service but less than 16 years reckonable (ie post 21 service) then THEY qualify pro rata past 21. So, joined at 18, now 36. Has 18 years service, 15 reckon able. Gets a 15/16ths IP. This applies to v v v few officers - Welbexians and some ex rankers. But the VAST majority will not yet have got to 16 years reckonable and will not have more than 18 ACTUAL. So they get no immediate pension. To claim playing field level is ludicrous. Worse, it is iniquitous as an officer will have completed 15/16ths of engagement and get nothing, soldier will have completed 18/22nds and get a full pension. This has played v poorly with the engine room of the Army.

 

[ashford_old_school]

This has played v poorly with the engine room of the Army.

The WOs and SNCOs?

 

[dingerr]

What the para means, having asked the experts, is that if an officer has more than 18 years service but less than 16 years reckonable (ie post 21 service) then THEY qualify pro rata past 21. So, joined at 18, now 36. Has 18 years service, 15 reckon able. Gets a 15/16ths IP. This applies to v v v few officers - Welbexians and some ex rankers. But the VAST majority will not yet have got to 16 years reckonable and will not have more than 18 ACTUAL. So they get no immediate pension. To claim playing field level is ludicrous. Worse, it is iniquitous as an officer will have completed 15/16ths of engagement and get nothing, soldier will have completed 18/22nds and get a full pension. This has played v poorly with the engine room of the Army.

Things weren't exactly equal in the first place, with an Officer having to complete 16 years for an IP and soldiers having to complete a further 6 years. Even under redundancy Officers still only have to serve 16 years as opposed to soldier's 18.

Soldiers have accepted this pension inequality for years, I've never heard or heard of any Officer raising the issue, so your hunt for sympathy is surely going to hit a narrow margin.

Your starting to get whingy about it, sounding less officer, more stacker1.

 

[Andy71]

Things weren't exactly equal in the first place, with an Officer having to complete 16 years for an IP and soldiers having to complete a further 6 years. Even under redundancy Officers still only have to serve 16 years as opposed to soldier's 18.

Soldiers have accepted this pension inequality for years, I've never heard or heard of any Officer raising the issue, so your hunt for sympathy is surely going to hit a narrow margin.

Your starting to get whingy about it, sounding less officer, more stacker1.

Wasn't the inequality done away with in AFPS 05?

 

[Yakari]

The playing field was only leveled by AFCS 10 if you opted into it at the time, which in most cases you would have been mad to do.

Most of those officers adversely affected by today's Redundancy terms will have been under the old arrangements and subject to the 16 years reckonable service, which was from age 21. So I think R_F is correct.

Let's not forget that every AFPRB Report I read over 20 years talked in glowing terms of the military pension benefits and long term security of employment before using said facts as a reason to lower the x-factor. We may not have had a contract but it was definitely assumed that pensions and job security were a benefit.

Dingerr - if it was you being affected, you would have been whinging like ****.

AFCS10 is the compensation scheme for those on AFPS 75.

 

[Yakari]

What the para means, having asked the experts, is that if an officer has more than 18 years service but less than 16 years reckonable (ie post 21 service) then THEY qualify pro rata past 21. So, joined at 18, now 36. Has 18 years service, 15 reckon able. Gets a 15/16ths IP. This applies to v v v few officers - Welbexians and some ex rankers. But the VAST majority will not yet have got to 16 years reckonable and will not have more than 18 ACTUAL. So they get no immediate pension. To claim playing field level is ludicrous. Worse, it is iniquitous as an officer will have completed 15/16ths of engagement and get nothing, soldier will have completed 18/22nds and get a full pension. This has played v poorly with the engine room of the Army.

And the OR who has served for 17 years gets nothing whereas an officer who has served only 16 gets his full pension entitlement as normal.

What exactly is unfair?

 

[dingerr]

Herrumph, I've effectively lost my pension. Now show me where I've moaned about that.

I've got a damn sight more to moan about than most, I don't though, it's not the way I'm built.

You didn't really think about that before posting, did you?

 

[TheLittleMan]

No Dinger,

You miss the point of this thread entirely. It is about fighting for the right thing to be done for Offrs AND ORs who miss their pension point through Redundancy (tranche 1 to 4); both cohorts are or will suffer in this instance; especially more so if nobody fights for our/their rights to what has been earned. Inequality was addressed (to some extent) in the last pension change and is being done so in the next change (albeit longer working terms and a harder to attain pension sum with less value). If you are losing out or have lost out then stop empathising with those that are doing it to you - "its not the way I'm built" will not help but simply give the green light for you to get railroaded. Find a vocie. The culture of The Charge of the Light Brigade went a long time ago...I doubt that you would wish to "go again" if your pension has been lost or cut. So considering no senior officer will represent the cohort that I find myself in and that the Army is reluctant to put us in tocuh with any affected ORs (of which there are supposedly 80), we are morally obliged to continue to fight on...And we will.

 

[DesktopCommando]

When is the next Tranche release date ? As I may fall into this bracket and am watching very closely

 

[dingerr]

Everyone has gobbed off about the right thing, with no indication of what the right thing is.

What do you propose is the right thing?

Just to put you in the picture, I was seriously injured in Afghanistan, so my outlook on life is a little different to many.

 

[TheLittleMan]

Details not yet clear. I would go onto the Tranche 3 & 4 thread in this forum. You may find it there (without stating the bleeding obvious). If this is the rule of thumb to go by, announcement of fields will be Jan and selection announcement will follow in six months (Jum'ish)...But that is a guess. If the CoC learn one lesson, then they should announce at the end of school term and have a conplan in place to get people where they need to be or at least wheels up in process to destination by the time schools start again. But that requires lessons to be learned such as don't also sack all your desk officers at the same time. I suspect the collective pain being felt at the moment will simply be absorbed, we'll be told "it's just difficult" and the CoC will declare redundancy a complete success with no casulaties.....Bad news doesn't seem to sell well?

 

[TheLittleMan]

The right thing is to allow those who have earned at least 95% of their pension (Offrs) or 82% of their pension (OR), to go on and achieve it by serving to IPP; or very least, give them pro-rata of what they have earned . This would deliver a tri service policy (its what the RAF and Navy did), allow those individuals to exit at IPP and let the Army get down to it's planned headroom in timelines, maintain some credibility in the military covenant and save cash by reinvesting the savings in wages and special capital payments (this saves more money than would be saved in culling their pensions through redundancy and I have had those figures agreed). As I have stated before, the fact that redundees are getting a payout is simply lazy policy and devisive policy making. Honesty in criterea and smart through life management would be a little more time consuming but more effective. It would also allow some maintenance of morale amongst whats left of the Army i.e. all now consider they are on a yearly rolling contract; if they saw that the CoC was actually using sensible manning control levers that weren't leaving people high and dry,there would be greater acceptance, perception and co-operation amongst the masses. So if you now read back through this thread you will note that I have simply repeated what I have said all along...I have been clear from the start.

 

[dingerr]

So effectively scrap the redundancy.

There is no military covenant.

Has anyone ever told you your a waffling ****. I dont know what you've read or what course you've just done, but those golden management tools you have suggested and not always achievable in the most modern of companies, let alone the British Army, nor are they going to work once we are getting to the redundancy phase.

You seem to be a person shouting look at me, look at me with very little to contribute.

Now, if you really wantto support these Officers and Soldiers go away and think f something that will help them now, you're not going to change the redundancy, but there may be scope to effect a slightly less bitter pill to swallow.

 

[Andy71]

The right thing is to allow those who have earned at least 95% of their pension (Offrs) or 82% of their pension (OR),

but does that not just move the date at which the shafting occurs? Any one within 1 year of IP is ok, anyone at 1 year plus 1 day is screwed.
Is that any better than the current system where, theoretically, everyone is judged on their merits and, if you've been coasting in the pension trap for the last few ojars then you is out

 

[shiny_arrse]

TLM,
It is a bastard for those affected but the simple fact is that all of us signed an agreement to serve and in return, be compensated by the MOD as they see fit.
The MOD are now making people redundant within the terms that those individuals signed for.

Life's shit sometimes, get over it.

Shiny