V Eng and the Corps

To save me a crate for being in the Crafty can someone shed some light on this before i write them a letter.
Are we looking at allowing troops to serve beyond 22yrs like the AGC are now doing?
Ive heard cos we support Teeth Arms it wont happen. With this new pension looming might be an idea to have all the facts before i sign away.
My idea incidentally is we have 39yr old troops fitter than some of our Crafties at my place, we all still deploy! Why cant we all serve on, there are a few on continuance who reap the extra pension years.
Cheers in advance
You are correct, we as a Corps have dismissed the idea of V Eng. As far as I am aware, the only people taking it seriously are the AGC and the Corps of Musicians.
Catchyerselfon - I have seen it in several documents when I worked in HQ DEME(A). I am sure it was also in a DEME(A) News Bulletin about a year ago (can't remember exactly which one). However, having said all that, you know how things change!!! The previous DEME(A) was absolutely aginst it for the Corps. New one may have different views, but I doubt it!!
SeahorseSpanner said:

You are correct, we as a Corps have dismissed the idea of V Eng. As far as I am aware, the only people taking it seriously are the AGC and the Corps of Musicians.

Myself, I once saw a presentation overseas where the concept of limited extensions, much like continuance I suppose, was given an airing. Not quite VEng I know. However, as it was explained by MS Gen himself, if the Corps gets so short of tradesmen, particularly in the OPP trades then the prospect of a lance jack or a corproal being given a three year extension (beyond his or her original ceiling) would not be beyond the reams of possibility. It was further explained that the individual given the three year engagement would still be reported on and that the individual would still go to promotion boards with the possibility of picking up.

If true, and I'm sure it must have only been a discussion point, how will those Cfn, LCpls, Cpls, that are driven and determined to do their best, feel when it might appear that they have lost out on a possible promotion to someone who has, in the first place, been passed over for promotion and has been given it in order to fill a trade defecit? Promotion because of needs of the Corps (Operational pinch point survivor case), or, don't worry young thrusting Lance jack your time will eventually come?

Stand by, Stand by, Roger, Out!
V eng and REME eh?

Now I happen to know what happened to the old DEME(A) , the old TEFAL Head, Miserable "Where's Wally" dood who frequently appeared in the Crafty mag (Christ Carlsberg must be his sponsor!). he is now Chief Exec of VOSA, and guess what the first thing he has proposed? A reduction in manning and more money spent on technology.

Hopefully his era of TQ, Rebalancing and "Train for War" ethos are well and truly over. The new DEME(A) should now be looking at how he is going to manage WFM. I mean, Ashchurch and the other CHE depots are not accepting vehicles unless they are in First Class condition, now if those happened to be coming from 1st Line units, then where do we find the manpower or time to get the kit ready?

WFM burdens are going to lay heavy on many EME's minds especially when the parent unit is training for CP5 pre High Readiness or deploying to Iraq. Surely it would follow that the REME could alleviate this problem by establishing "WFM Battalions" based loosely around the Brigade areas, these could be manned by soldiers who wish to enlist longer than 22 years, and even LE Officers longer than 35 years. Now, not all REME would want to remain in Service beyond 40 so the debate that they would soon reach capacity would not be a valid argument, and providing enough of these Battalions were created the 3 year posting rules could still be applied. What we would essentially be looking at would be MOD contracted ex-Colour Service soldiers who could be on limited or no deployability status, purely dedicated to managing the state of Equipment going into or out of WFM.

This would leave the "active" REME Field Force units to concentrate on the stuff they have and are keeping, not on the stuff about to be mothballed.

We could see units popping up all over, especially down here in Tidworth, where most of the Armour is to be positioned.

Maybe we could be looking towards a US Style of equipment management (re: Oshkosh comments in another Forum) with Warranties, Maintenance Contracts etc. on all new technologies, but the bottom line is, can we really still afford to be pushing out our Best (nearly always fitter) mostly motivated and definitely Subject Matter Experts out into Civvy Street if they would stay in if REME let them?

Looking at the lack of commitment, motivation and moral courage of the young lads joining we are soon going to be left with a PlayStation generation of WO's and SNCOs who only give a fick about getting home on a weekend and having dinner with their mums.

Now when that happens, I will come out of retirement, and propose mandatory discharge at the 5 year point, so that civvy street can have these whinging b@stards back to learn how to earn their income, and then get them in after a year of realising how easy they had it in REME and appreciate the fact, and maybe then we can get some good quality reinstated in them.

I cannot see what difference it makes why an AGC arse scratcher can serve till he is 55 on a V-Engagement and deploy to Kosovo/Iraq/Afghanistan or wherever as a seat polisher Pay Clerk or Movements Clerk and a REME punter cannot deploy as a seat polisher Equipment Inspector / T/RQMS / CSM to the same places.

Latest Threads