X Factor

Discussion in 'Army Pay, Claims & JPA' started by Proximo, Jun 21, 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. Let's just say - hypothetically - that the MoD would remove the X Factor* component from personnel who were 'long term sick**' and add the near cash savings to LSA for people who can deploy. By 'long term sick' I mean the fat useless cnuts who always seem to be missing at morning PT, never have a biff chit and always play the 'phew, my leg hurts' card but never seem to have a problem throwing themselves around like mad fucks on the piss. They'll be given a chance to sharpen up, then...

    And then let's say (hypothetically) that X Factor will be removed from those female service personnel who wish to return to work explicitly in a non-deploying capacity, possibly as part of a job-share system. This will free up manpower for combat ops from sedentary rear based jobs, in theory.

    What do you think about this? Fair or a completely unfair and entirely discriminatory act of an unfeeling Government? Are you a servicewoman who would benefit from this (hypothetical) proposal? Or married to one and think it's a good idea? Or are you a fat fcuk, out for yourself and sod combat capability?


    *X Factor currently accounts for 14% of your pay.
    **Clearly personnel injured as a consequence of military activity would retain it.
  2. Sounds about right. Given that the x factor is meant to account for many of the aspects of service life that the personnel you highlight don't endure then it might be a useful tool. If the MOD were able to flex x factor, relatively simply from those that have chosen to be non-deployable towards those who are being niiled with back to back tours then it might be a useful incentive. Doubt it is going to happen though - but a fair question to ask.
  3. Very good arguement and i wholly agree. The sad thing though is that the usual 'retention' card would be used everytime. I just wish the government would publish numbers of 'deployed' personnel, and 'deployable' personnel. I'm pretty sure the numbers of non-deployable personnel would be shocking.
  4. a percentage of deployed personnel against deployable personnel wouldnt look good to the Gobment
    what would it work out ? id guess around 33% of the deployable personnel are probalbly deployed constantly, if you get what i mean.

    im suprised this gobment havent counted MOD civil servants when giving the figures for the strength of the field army.
  5. I whole heartedly agree with stopping the X factor for all the cnuts with mythical head injuries and plastic spines.

    Those that can't deploy due to a sudden onset of idleness should be moved to the same pay scale as NRPS 05. :twisted:

    What do you think of that you lazy feckers.

    Now, before I get a flurry of replies about PTSD and genuine injuries. I will be clear. If your injury is clear to see or you have been or are in the process of being diagnosed with PTSD or some such like, then no issues full pay for you. However if you are a malingering toss pot, then you can go and suck a pebble. :twisted:
  6. Let's say - hypothetically - that not all downgraded people are fat. I know for a fact I'm not - as you know. I have no qualms about being a servicewoman either - being downgraded didn't stop me going to Telic, and nor does it stop me sitting behind my desk sending people over there.

    As for the "personnel injured as a consequence of military activity would retain it" - what if I had a degenerative condition before I joined the Army and it wasn't picked up? I went through a world of shite before they finally found the problem. I had to explain to my parents that the Army said I had MS. Nice.

    I have worked my fucking boney arrse off the last few weeks getting blokes over to Telic so stop kicking off.

    What's up with you? Why are you bringing this subject up again? This has been done to death.

    By the way, the last time I did a BFT (as it was in them days) was 1994.
  7. The_Snail wrote "that not all downgraded people are fat", not all fat people are downgraded either :x and some of them are reasonably good at the job they're paid for & would love to deploy in a capacity that would release a more able soldier to where he could do most good. Then again, there are some fat useless cnuts :D
  8. 1. Who is kicking off?
    2. Why does anything have to be 'up with me'?
    3. This is the first time this has been brought up by me: please link if I am in error.
    4. Where else has this been 'done to death'?
  9. I have seen this argument time and again on arrse, and Im sure if you search for it it will be there. The big problem with this is

    1. Those injured on Ops, Trg, PT or whatever. Who decides who gets it and who doesnt?
    2. Those people who cannot deploy for whatever reason end up working on rear party - a vital job that often involves being fucked about and cracking on just as hard as anyone (without the obvious risks). Are you saying that they dont deserve the pay?
    3. People like leonidas. What do you class as an injury thats "clear to see". What if someone has a long term injury that has continual problems. Just because you dont know there history or you dont see them in the gym, who are you to judge?
    4. What if you are in a post that isnt deploying, then move to another job that again isnt deploying. I do know some people who havent deployed yet toa sandy place. They are more than willing and able, just not yet had the opportunity. Going to stop their pay as well?

    Without doubt there are shirkers but I would suggest they are few and far between. In the main, this polocy would be impossible to police and would cause more problems than would solve in my opinion
  10. Thanks D_S: a well measured, sensible, coherent response that manages to separate emotion from substance.

  11. DS,

    I don't want this to degenerate into something it is not but I do agree that those on rear party do carry out a vital job but I don't agree that they work as hard as those on ops. Most blokes on ops work about 18 hours a day 6/7 days a week - can you really say that those on rear party crack those hours? Anyway it seems that Promximo's post was meant to highlight that there are quite a few of the 100k ish in the Army who are not being beasted on back to back tours and not many of them are long term injured having been injured on ops. That's the point, not to get those on this site who have not deployed to come up with excuses for why they are just as deserving as everyone else. As I said I am not after a fight but let's not overdo the work of those on rear party - vital job and someone has to do it but it is not totally full of dedicated grafters who bang in 18 hours a day.
  12. Yes I was going to query D_S' point as well: clearly those people on Rear Party would get it: X Factor is payable regardless.

    Again: this is aimed at making the perpetually 'sick' pay for being skiving fcuks. The sort who are NEVER fit and NEVER have a reason. Not genuinely injured people, not folks on Rear Parties, not women in general, etc etc etc.

    The secondary issue is that women returning from Mat Leave could actually choose to remain in non-deployable posts as long as they forfeited X Factor.

    I (and others) actually hoped for a reasonable and sensible discussion and I am surprised that I got so little engagement. Guess no-one cares.

    Well, you will.
  13. Problem is how do you decide who gets it and who doesn´t?

    The only way to do it, fairly and efficiently, would be for the names and numbers of ALL those who are "non-deployable" to be passed to JPAC or the HR techs (formerly Clks) to remove that part of the X factor that is due to them for being deployable.

    This would include those who were injured on ops and those who are taking a "time out" for maternal or paternal reasons. I can´t see how it could be removed any other way. Minus a 3 limbs from a bomb in Basra or mysterious back complaints that don´t preclude disco dancing on Friday and Saterday nights, single parents/both parents serving and those who are genuinely unable to deploy.

    It leaves a taste in the mouth I know, but that is the only way to do it. Perhaps those who carry on serving with injuries that are received in combat/training could receive a "Y factor" to take their injuries and any extra needs in to account, if they stay in. If it is by choice that someone is removing themselves from deployment, then that is a different matter*

    * never knew you could be classed as non-deployable just for having a kid mind.
  14. Some exellant points brought up here.

    I have never deployed to either sandy place despite being fit and more than willing to do so.

    I was in 3 non-deployable posts for 5 years from 98 -03.

    I then got posted to a mainline deployable unit and despite going on OPTAG twice in 3 years, didn't deploy on TELIC or HERRICK because of my trade/rank.

    Rear party was emotional, worked my arrse off covering 3 jobs both times, but would not say I worked as hard or the same hours as my deployed counterparts.

    I WOULD like it see some sort of X-Factor bonus, but believe it would be too hard to monitor or set up.
  15. Can I read from that comment that such a policy is going to be introduced? I think its very dangerous ground.

    Another example (that has effected me) - Someone due to deploy but something happens in a family incident that means for whatever reason said person cannot now deploy as he/she is needed at home. Their X factor going to get stopped aswell, for something that is out of their control?

    I just cannot see how such a policy can be fairly policed.

    By the way, my comment on rear party was poorly written. I did not intend to imply that rear party was working the same hours as those deployed. My intention was to illustrate how important rear party is and something that shouldnt be overlooked.