V-Eng - has anyone in REME been offered it yet

#1
Hi,

I've met people from various cap badges who've already been accepted on to V-Eng but as yet am not aware of any REME punters even getting offered it. Is that because the Corp is going to stiff us as usual or is it on the cards?
 
#3
There is a DIN just been released on DII which has more information about the concept. A recent REME MCM Div Roadshow said that an announcement was due very soon, possibly by the end of the month!

For those who are not sure whether to take it or not, sign up as it appears to be a no brainer, you extend your chance of promotion (2 years) as you can still get promoted (unlike when serving on continuance) and you can still leave at the 22 year point by giving notice at the 21 year point and still get the pension.
 
#4
If everyone is suddenly extended for an extra 2 years will this automatically stop promotions based on wastage at the 22 year point for 2 years.

eg if you are a WO2 waiting for promotion in to a slot held by WO1 pension builder and he suddenly extends by 2 years then surely you will have to wait an extra 2 years for that promotion (Not too bad as a WO2). However, how much of this stoppage will this filter down to the shopfloor? Is the whole thing likely to be retention negative where it matters?

I appreciate not all promotions are based on 22 year wastage but would be interested to know if anyone has stats on how promotion will be affected down the line.

Apologies if this is a dumb question that I havent thought through or indeed if it has been asked before and I've missed it.

Edited once due to fat fingers
 
#5
I did my RWOC cse earlier this year and the Corps Regtl Col told us that REME was worried about the affects of V Eng on retention for junior ranks as they will have to spend longer at each rank. I got the feeling that they'd rather sacrifice the old guys to keep the younger ones in. I'm guessing that REME will be very selective about offering V Eng and are trying everything behind the scene to **** us old guys off however I dont know if they can do that legally!.
 
#6
headgear said:
I got the feeling that they'd rather sacrifice the old guys to keep the younger ones in.
WHAT'S NEW??

1. Paycut 2000
2. Pension AFP 05
3. Cutting the level of Commutation for those left on AFP 75
4. Upgrading JNCO and Junior Officer's accommodation. SNCO's Messes left in a shi*e state.
5. Huge pay hikes for JNCO's (Not that they don't deserve it, just that we all do!)
 
#8
The Fat Badges have just been offerred theirs. Typical REME Tosspots who have delayed and discussed to death and we are still none the wiser.

Get a grip DEME(A) !!!!!! :(
 
#10
TRAZTAZ said:
From the lips of DEME A himself, veng only for the deployable...........
And i thought they really wanted people, even if its to serve as rear party!!




Does anyone know when we will be able to choose? As any one will be able to get down graded or up graded at anytime.
 
#11
Nope, its ok to be undermanned, injured people have nothing to offer, 20 years experience counts for nothing , its very obviously not worth using that experience to run the more mundane pp+c type jobs , central inspection cells etc, much much better to put a fit person in them and then winge like f##ck that we just dont have the manning we need...............beats me but surely its just not the way to do it??
 
#12
Whichever system is selected by DEME(A) it will need to balance the issues of retention against Corps manning and deployability at all levels. Selection of those to be extended will need to be deliberate rather than generic.

I would rather it was put in place in a measured way and managed professionally. If that takes time so be it.

As for the deployability issue, It is a fact that the retention of permanently non-deployable personnel in green LSNs decreases tour intervals for the rest and lowers morale for those who perceive that those who cannot deploy draw the same pay for a lot less effort.

This is not to say that those experienced tradesmen and soldiers injured or wounded by whatever cause should be discarded, but the system should not call on the rest of the Corps to carry them.
 
#13
HMMMMMMMMM, to carry them?? My god i would hate to be carried, maybe some of thoes that you say are being carried are the ones who put themselfs forward to do other things to make life a little easier for you, ...................ever thought about it like that?
For instance , coming back from leave early to square away all thoes little things that need to be done to enable exercise etc to happen?Working late to ease the burden on thoes that are deploying, taking on all the mundanr crap shef type things??.........no wouldent want to be a burden! Small minded git!!
 
#14
Judging by your defensive posture this is clearly an emotive issue for you, so let me assure you no offence was intended.

The point is that the management of personnel unable to deploy needs to be improved to obviate the need for deployable personnel being drafted in to cover operational deployments on their behalf.

The link to this thread is whether V-Eng can be used to improve the operational deployability of the Corps whilst it is undermanned.

If you have a different opinion that is fine but play the ball not the man eh?
 
#16
Absolutely you do. The Government has to learn that it cannot simply medically discharge wounded soldiers, give them an inadequate pension and hope they go away. Nor can they leave them in place and hope the Army will be able to cope with a growing number of soldiers who, through no fault of their own, will never be able to deploy on Ops.

Perhaps one part of the solution lies in ringfencing guaranteed, suitable employment, for those long term wounded who want it, within the UK defence industry. Link this to housing, welfare and long term palliative care where neccessary and you have a win win situation. Soldiers recuperate better amongst their own and best use is made of skills and experience available. Perhaps a subject for a different thread though.

Be lucky
 
#17
pot_aussie said:
headgear said:
I got the feeling that they'd rather sacrifice the old guys to keep the younger ones in.
WHAT'S NEW??

1. Paycut 2000
2. Pension AFP 05
3. Cutting the level of Commutation for those left on AFP 75
4. Upgrading JNCO and Junior Officer's accommodation. SNCO's Messes left in a shi*e state.
5. Huge pay hikes for JNCO's (Not that they don't deserve it, just that we all do!)
When did/is this about to happen?
 
#18
EX_REME said:
pot_aussie said:
headgear said:
I got the feeling that they'd rather sacrifice the old guys to keep the younger ones in.
WHAT'S NEW??

1. Paycut 2000
2. Pension AFP 05
3. Cutting the level of Commutation for those left on AFP 75
4. Upgrading JNCO and Junior Officer's accommodation. SNCO's Messes left in a shi*e state.
5. Huge pay hikes for JNCO's (Not that they don't deserve it, just that we all do!)
When did/is this about to happen?
Ive heard this aswell.
Ive read about it in another thread but havent seen the DIN yet, i believe its in the Small print but will only affect those who are just joining when pensions due. I hope so as i think my missus has got most of mine targetted for in the next few years when its due. :roll:
Another look after your troops idea gone pear shaped. :x
 
#19
But I thought that all those joining now automatically go onto the new pension?
 
#20
Hit the pension calculator guys , you will see it in small print there, a law was passed in 2004 in the uk , not by the mod , so its civil law , that says as of april 6th 2006 you may only comute 25% of your owed cash , up till that point its still 50% , so for thoes of us with little left to do its a no boner, couple of hundred quid , however for thoes that signed to 75 , who were relativly new to the army its a massive problem in that they will serve many more years after 2006.....................anathor way to pay for foreign illigal wars?? I do think so , as if you think of the savings it gives the MOD its massive. Anyone breifed that the law had changed as they made the option to change? No nore me but i am allright jack!
 

Similar threads