Army Rumour Service

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

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

TheLittleMan

Clanker
“Has anyone ever told you your a waffling ****. I don’t 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.”

Dry your eyes Dinger, past your bedtime perhaps? Again, having discussed this with colleagues who worked in DM(A) and LAND at the policy level during formulation of current redundancy policy, this could have been avoided. Why won’t they work? Because you say? Smarter management (or actually properly using in place manning levers over time – the Infantry being a classic case), transparency and briefing to all in field for redundancy of selection criteria allowing balanced decisions to be made on futures (volunteer or jump including IPP), removal of an Op waiver that allowed more people into Th who shouldn’t have been their simply to avoid redundancy (an acknowledged failure in the selection process). The excuse of “it’s just too difficult” or time consuming is bollocks; That is what both DM(A) and APC are paid to do. It would help if they talked in the first place. A Classic example is the Redundancy Cells inability to get end payment statements correct; all because they used old information from Glasgow which they DID NOT check was up to date? This same data mistake ended up in the incorrect selection of one individual who then had to go through a painful process of proving they had used the wrong data and that he actually entitled to his pension.

All too difficult?, it shouldn’t be when it comes to peoples careers.

As for scrapping redundancy, of course not. The point was made that nobody is fighting the selection, just the circumstances that surround loss of pension. Why is Defence taking the most expensive option? And as for whining or waffling. If you don’t wish to look out for yourself in the future, that’s your problem; or feel that objecting for the rights of others in the future is also a waste of time. If you agree, sign the petition, if you don’t, don’t. simples.
 

Boris_Johnson

ADC
Moderator
DirtyBAT
This should have just been a simple statement:

"Serving ORs and OFs are being made redundnant very close to their IP point in what appears to be a major cost-saving exercise. This seems to go against the Military Covenant and a little unfair given what each OR and OF has given in terms of faithful service and needs government review by collecting 100,000 signatures by e-petition (link)

If you care enough, please sign. If you don't - thanks for your time and good luck."


Otherwise it just descends into waffle and invites arguments that detract against the original point.

Bottom line is we're skint and some of us are gonna get it without lube.
 

rabid spaniel

War Hero
This should have just been a simple statement:

"Serving ORs and OFs are being made redundnant very close to their IP point in what appears to be a major cost-saving exercise. This seems to go against the Military Covenant and a little unfair given what each OR and OF has given in terms of faithful service and needs government review by collecting 100,000 signatures by e-petition (link)

If you care enough, please sign. If you don't - thanks for your time and good luck."


Otherwise it just descends into waffle and invites arguments that detract against the original point.

Bottom line is we're skint and some of us are gonna get it without lube.

Bit like this one posted on 17 July in RHQ/ Armed Forces redundancy Scheme Thread then:

It may have already been done, but I have looked and can't find it.

Lots of those serving have been made redundant within sight of the IPP, in what strikes me as a callous financial judgement.

I'm alright (jack), had the sense to bang out 4 years ago, but lots of my friends are within tens of days of IPP and will miss out in what would seem to be financial management over ruling man management.

The e-petition link: Pension Justice for Troops - e-petitions

As usual 100,000 signatures gets it debated in the house, although methinks it will take legal action to change anything - if it is possible at all.

If you don't want to sign, don't - not interested in getting into a pissing match with those who think it's OK to treat people like this.
 
There's an important piece missing from this discussion - and that is the redundancy payment. Whilst I know not getting your IP at 16 yrs is emotive - there has to be a bar somewhere - if you move it down to 15 yrs, then those getting made redundant at the 14.5 yr point will feel hard done by etc. However, using the example of a Major getting redundancy at 15 yrs, he/she would get a payout of 22.5 months salary. Not a bad sum of approx £103,000. However, a Major getting redudancy at 17 yrs would only get the equivalent of 9 months salary (a rather smaller sum of £41,250). (BTW - This does not seem to be getting much of an airing in the press.....) Admittedly, taking the pension at the IP into account (the lump sum and annual pension payment) does make a difference to the individual, but as I pointed out above - there has to be a line somewhere - overall, the redundancy package seems fair. Why do I say this - well, having been made redundant before, and knowing what people in the private sector are getting, 1 weeks pay for every year worked is pretty stark compared to the MOD package. Unfortunately, there's a lot of emotion being played here, and not a lot of cold hard fact. This is about making the Armed Forces smaller, there are tough choices to be made, the system is pretty fair across the board. However, I do agree, it's pretty poor end to what people though might be a job for life - but then, think of what the rest of the country's already gone through - we've been pretty well insulated against it (barring no pay rises etc).
 
Never let the truth stand in the way of a good argument.
 
This was on Five-live earlier. Been looking at this story for a few days. Have found this thread interesting, particularly the stoicism displayed by some. Losing out on 250,000 by a matter of days, weeks or months would have me screwing, especially if i'd planned the last few years of my life and my family's life around things staying as they seemed.

To be honest, I'm a journo (still training) trying to find a local angle on this, I'm hampshire/surrey way.

Can i just check....

Those still serving or recently made redundant aren't allowed to comment on this? I take it this is why their relatives are doing so?
When signing up for a length of service you have to acknowledge that the MOD can change the rules whenever they want?
 
There's an important piece missing from this discussion - and that is the redundancy payment. Whilst I know not getting your IP at 16 yrs is emotive - there has to be a bar somewhere - if you move it down to 15 yrs, then those getting made redundant at the 14.5 yr point will feel hard done by etc. However, using the example of a Major getting redundancy at 15 yrs, he/she would get a payout of 22.5 months salary. Not a bad sum of approx £103,000. However, a Major getting redudancy at 17 yrs would only get the equivalent of 9 months salary (a rather smaller sum of £41,250). (BTW - This does not seem to be getting much of an airing in the press.....) Admittedly, taking the pension at the IP into account (the lump sum and annual pension payment) does make a difference to the individual, but as I pointed out above - there has to be a line somewhere - overall, the redundancy package seems fair. Why do I say this - well, having been made redundant before, and knowing what people in the private sector are getting, 1 weeks pay for every year worked is pretty stark compared to the MOD package. Unfortunately, there's a lot of emotion being played here, and not a lot of cold hard fact. This is about making the Armed Forces smaller, there are tough choices to be made, the system is pretty fair across the board. However, I do agree, it's pretty poor end to what people though might be a job for life - but then, think of what the rest of the country's already gone through - we've been pretty well insulated against it (barring no pay rises etc).

you are correct to some extent - of course you haven't included termination grant & maximum commutation in your figures.
I can't give you exact figures but a maj redundant non-pensionable gets c £103k that's it until 65. Redundant with IPP equals approx £125k (combination of redundancy, terminal grant, resettlement grant & max commutation) with c£700 a month until 65 when it becomes index linked. Quite a difference.
 
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.

Officers salary include a higher pension contribution, hence a shorter qualifying period.
 

Latest Threads

Top