Extra 7000 MoD civvies to go before 2015.

[Diablo Rouge]

Cut & paste fm Yahoo News:
A further 7,000 civilian jobs are to be cut from the Ministry of Defence, it has been reported.
The Guardian said that staff would be sent a letter, signed by the department's permanent secretary Ursula Brennan, explaining the move.
It follows the Strategic Defence and Security Review from last October, which outlined measures to slash thousands of personnel, scrap the Harrier fleet and Nimrod spy planes as well as retiring the HMS Ark Royal aircraft carrier.
Civilian personnel will be cut by 25,000 by 2015 under the MoD plans.
The newspaper carries extracts from the letter, which said: "In the SDSR we planned for ... a 25% reduction in the cost of civilian personnel by 2015, bringing the size of the MoD civil service down to a total of some 60,000 civilian posts.

"As part of the package announced last week we need to make further reductions in ... civilian manpower. For civilians, we will be extending the earlier planned reductions, coming down to a total of 53,000 civilians by 2020."
Media fill-in unrelated to story thus far as it concerns the Army not the civvies:
Defence Secretary Liam Fox said in a Commons statement on July 18 that he ultimately saw there being a total force of around 120,000 with a ratio of around 70% full-time regulars to 30% part-time Territorial Army members.
The current Army is more than 100,000 in size with around 14,000 reservists.
An MoD spokesperson said: "The Government has tackled the £38bn black hole in the MoD's finances, delivering substantial savings through difficult but necessary decisions.
"The aim of these cost savings is to ensure that the maximum funding is available for the front line.
"We hope to achieve these efficiencies through natural wastage wherever possible with compulsory redundancy programmes serving only as a last resort."

I suppose the admin jobs at MoD can be done by whats left of the Navigator cadre once Tornado gets the chop. For it appears to be widespread axe wielding without restructure in support and surely some of the jobs (positions) being lost are actually important ones.

[Jabba_TG12]

I blame the fact that a lot of them were civilianised in the first place back in the 1990's.... Granted though, there are going to be numbers amongst them that were always civ rather than posts held by mil personnel, but I dont recall a great level of squawking, particularly from the unions, when military posts were made redundant following the end of the cold war, the closure of military hospitals, etc etc etc.

Note, I'm not denigrating the work done by civilians in MOD, I know from my own experiences that a lot of people work damn hard and have the mil's best interests at heart.

It just strikes me that we've quite possibly come full circle since the 1990's. Its just that this time, its Treasury led and if any of the roles are to stay at all, chances are they'll continue to be outsourced to the usual suspects.

Kinda get the feeling that we'd have been better off leaving things the way they were in the 1990's instead of pursuing this failed experiment... It just seems nothing is being learned, just lurching from one crisis to another... :ugh:

[Not_a_boffin]

I expect Jimlad1 will be along shortly to add some perspective to this.

However, in the meantime, one point being missed throughout all this headcount reduction malarkey is that a significant number of the civvy posts are not about delivering the capability. They are, in management-speak, about delivering compliance with the huge amount of intrusive box-ticking legislation that has mushroomed over the last fifteen years.

Equality & Diversity?
Environmental compliance and energy-saving?
Investing in People (ho f8cking-ho)?
Data protection?

Anybody think these functions are going to get canned to "bear down further on non-front line costs"?

Didn't think so.....Much easier to blame equipment overspend and profligacy.

[Jimlad1]

Someone rang for me?

I think the extra cuts are inevitable as we downsize through closure of Germany (we have nearly 10,000 locally employed civil servants overseas still) and move smaller estates into larger sites.

The problem isn't so much the loss of 'non jobs', which while perhaps not as prevalent as Not a boffin suggests, are still there. The problem is the growing loss of the final 'cold war era' types, many of whom have decades of experience and are approaching retirement age. They will take a lot of experience and memory with them (most notably where the bodies, files and expenses claims are buried) and we won't be replacing them.

Expect to see mass gapping across the piste as the loss of 33% of the CS manpower kicks in, resulting in more work for the forces, more gash duties and making life that little bit less fun. People always forget that much of the work thats done won't go away, just because you downsize the CS...

[Geehovah]

It'll be interesting. Anyone who thinks the Forces can take up the slack is sadly misguided. The Forces were pared down to the bone years ago.

MOD always was a supertanker. I struggled to get any requirement through the system even though I knew we needed it and it was funded. And that was pre-politically correct Nu Labour. That meant longer time into service, higher cost and in-built obsolescence.

If I was King for the day, I'd sit everyone at their desk and see how long it was until their output was requested. If the call didn't come inside 3 months - redundancy! It might even persuade the heirarchy to move projects through on time.

[dervish]

Admittedly second hand, but I hear at least two Ministers were poking around some months ago after being asked how many staff in MoD met the grade description minima. For each grade, the answer was very few.

Pretty close to what Jimlad1 said. Front line will suffer because for years there has been no attempt to replace the experience.

[JEMster]

When I joined MOD CS in 1988 there were 4 defence ministers, now there are 6. Perhaps ministers should be looking closer to home when searching out inefficiencies and overmanning...

[Not_a_boffin]

Oh yes. The Gray report pointed firmly at the Bristol end of the M4. In fact, there are serious issues at the other end (and it's specialist advisors).

[chopabeefer]

As a 20 yr plus military guy, I wish to input. I have worked with myriad Civil Servants over the years... some were brilliant, many (more than 50% IRRC) were imbecilies - proper morons - as thick as mince, and getting paid for work they were not capable of doing. I have worked for many Sqn Bosses - all Wg Cdr rank. Some were excellent, and others were morons - clearly been promoted to get them out of a cockpit.

Point? The Civil service have more than their fair share of incompetant imbeciles - think anyone in the forces can agree to that - but there are exceptions - a few of the civvies are excellent and deserve praise - but they are in the minority.

In a time of cuts, we must go for the best and most efficient option - best for the forces, most efficient for the gov't and the taxpayer. That means all posts 100% mil. Civvy's don't fight, carry weapons, hold NBC quals, or have fitness certifcates.

The gov't need to grow up and live in the 'now'. You want a strong MoD (Think about what those letters mean!!!). You need fit, healthy, and motivated military personel, carrying weapons and willing to use them. There is no other option.

Getting rid of civil servants is long overdue, we do not need them, and we never needed them. They were pseudo Mil admin staff (who could not carry weapons) at best. Sorry. But goodbye. The needs of the many, outweigh the needs of thee few.

Contentious? Certainly, but right. The MOD is about defending, fighting, killing (yes, sorry - we do that), and cleaning up the damage. I have been in all situations and have never seen a civvy who did not arrive in any post with a load of rules to hinder the whole process. They were, for the most part, clueles

Sorry, but goodbye. You won't be missed. Want your job back? Pick up a weapon, go throught mil training, and fight. What's that?....bad back is it...oh dear..:hmm:

[Jimlad1]

"In a time of cuts, we must go for the best and most efficient option - best for the forces, most efficient for the gov't and the taxpayer. That means all posts 100% mil. Civvy's don't fight, carry weapons, hold NBC quals, or have fitness certifcates."

Why is getting rid of the CS the most cost effective option to the taxpayer? CS wage bill is approx £3Bn per year, the armed forces wage bill is approx £8 Bn per year. 60% of the CS earn under £26K per year - in the armed forces any at the rank of Cpl or above earns that. CS also do not attract any form of allowances or myriad of other benefits like cheap housing, subsidised gyms etc.

More to the point much of the work of the CS is either very admin like in nature, so it does seem a little pointless to employ legions of forces personnel to do a job that could be done by a civvy for a third of the price (my old Cpl in London was living in a Canary Wharf flat, with a free travel card and return trips home every week - doing the same job that an E2 civil servant could have done for £14K per year with no perks and same hours).

As for the work - given that many CS are rocket scientists etc, where do you propose to get the brains trust from to deliver overnight the deep expertise needed to keep places like DIS or DSTL running? Or do you think it makes sense to recruit thousands of extra military teachers and security guards and canteen assistants, dockyard workers, crane operators etc.

The total bill to the UK for replacing the MOD CS with Mil would add several billion per year in order to put Mil into jobs which are being done well by trained civilians for half - third of the price. In what way is this value for money?

Personally I think the whole 'whinging civvies are idle, jobsworth useless' argument is about as relevant and interesting as 'mil are overpaid, useless, arrogant, primadonnas'. Both Mil and Civ play a vital role in defence - some of us do very pointy exciting stuff, others do very dull and thankless tasks - however, it all works together as one team, and trying to make out that civvies are unterrmensch for daring not to wear uniform or a flying suit is divisive, and in my opinion not something that does the Military any credit.

[sidewayspeak]

Personally I think the whole 'whinging civvies are idle, jobsworth useless' argument is about as relevant and interesting as 'mil are overpaid, useless, arrogant, primadonnas'. Both Mil and Civ play a vital role in defence - some of us do very pointy exciting stuff, others do very dull and thankless tasks - however, it all works together as one team, and trying to make out that civvies are unterrmensch for daring not to wear uniform or a flying suit is divisive, and in my opinion not something that does the Military any credit.

JimL, simple fact is that birds of a feather stick together. If I'm on B Flt, I'd rather A flight were chopped...I'm on XX Sqn, I'd rather YY Sqn were chopped...I'm uniform, I'd rather rather civvies were chopped.

All the bean counting in the world doesn't help much when you need bayonets on the ground/jets above/subs below. We want to keep the people who do fightin' and bashin', and chop the people who don't.

[Jimlad1]

"All the bean counting in the world doesn't help much when you need bayonets on the ground/jets above/subs below. We want to keep the people who do fightin' and bashin', and chop the people who don't"

Totally agree with you = the problem is what happens when you pull the people that aren't uber pointy sharp end and things start going wrong? The public have an image, which the media does nothing to dispell, that somehow the front line and the MOD are totally divorced from each other. In reality, if you ditch the MOD CS, and wider forces support elements, then very quickly you'd start seeing the inexorable collapse of the ability of the front line to do stuff.

[November4]

We are facing the same arguement between police officers / support staff. Get rid of the "useless" support staff and the officers can do their job. Very true but a PC on £32k doing the same job as a support staff on £15K. Yes more officers would needed (consquently a bigger wage bill) but not more officers on the street doing the job that the public want.

The same would be true with the military. So you get more military admin clerks, chefs, drivers but that still does not give you more front line soliders to do the fighting does it.

[Topsy Turvey]

"The gov't need to grow up and live in the 'now'. You want a strong MoD (Think about what those letters mean!!!). You need fit, healthy, and motivated military personel, carrying weapons and willing to use them. There is no other option.

Getting rid of civil servants is long overdue, we do not need them, and we never needed them. They were pseudo Mil admin staff (who could not carry weapons) at best. Sorry. But goodbye. The needs of the many, outweigh the needs of thee few."

Chopbeefer you are wrong!

I am ex military and now a CS. Fact, there is waste in the MoD CS! but I seriously doubt it equates to 33,000 posts. These cuts will impact on operations & support to the front line.

If the MoD CS has no value and you dont need them I hope you dont expect to:

-be fed and watered
-receive any pay / allowances
-have your accommodation concerns investigated
-be supplied with uniform / equipment
-have individuals working on designs for the latest high technology equipment
-be able to have complaints investigated outside the chain of command on Ministers behalf
-be able to return home from deployment in an emergency .
-have your family /dependants supported whilst you are deployed / or if taken ill or if you should die in service.
- receive a pension / medals

Just some of the valuable rolls MoD CS perform

The majority of civilians earn their salary and offer better value for money that their military equivalent performing similar roles. (I should know having seen both sides) The Govt actually needs to look at civilianising more support roles - replacing military personnel in non front line tasks and freeing them up for front line / Op duties. As such their is a strong case for increasing, or at least not cutting the MoD CS - redeploying those CS in non jobs to essential tasks.

[incubus]

You don't need to get rid of every member of the CS who works with MoD. Many are doing valuable jobs which need to be done even when the military have picked up arms and gone off to perform their primary role.

You DO need to not be shy about getting rid of those who are "imbecilies - proper morons - as thick as mince, and getting paid for work they were not capable of doing."

You DO need to ensure that the Terms of Reference for CS are compatible with the environment in which they will be working and the military personnel they will be working with and for.

There is plenty of scope for reducing the size of the civil service without working those remaining until they drop.

[Pontius Navigator]

Jimlad referred to the cooks and bottle washers in Germany. They can only be removed from the CS if the unit that they serve is disbanded. If that unit is relocated to Jockland then they will need to recruit more cooks and bottlewashers.

Other CS are needed irrespective of the cuts to the teeth. The man that pays the MOD electric bill for instance will be needed until after the last man has left.

Now I would like to propose removal of the Defence Training Estates - a self-licking lollipop if ever there was one. C Northcote Parkinson observed that the Krupps works main offices in the Rhur was working flat out when Krupps production was zero as a result of allied bombing. He determined that an organisation of a given size would be administratively self-sustaining.

One moan a few years ago was that the we found out what was going on by reading the Daily Express. Now we have shedloads of high cost glossy magazines, mission statements, etc etc. When DTE began we had to write a pamphlet about each facility when we had managed perfectly well for 60 years with order books. The pamphlets were duly written and published but no one accepted ownership and they soon became out of date.

[ex_matelot]

The RN needs to bin Flagship as a matter of urgency. populated by failed trainees and ex WO's who created a niche and slipped into it after their 22 came up. A couple of bases in Pompey with ex WO's on 23k just for manning block offices and checking for TV licences etc....Whilst wearing pastel coloured shirts and "slacks". Must be a Burtons grant in there also.

edit>

And while I'm at it: The HMS Collingwood ten percenters. The disabled section who were taken on to tick boxes and maintain quota requirements. Some of the most incompetent, obnoxious chip-on-their-shoulder types I've ever had the displeasure of meeting. And no..I'm not having a pop at the disabled - just the one legged imbeciles that class their disablity and subsequent bulletproofness as a license to talk to people like ****, despite their incompetences.

[chopabeefer]

Topsy Turvey.

Thank you very much for your post. You have proved my point for me. All of the functions that you mention are vital.

All are essential.

All can be done by mil personnel with minimal training. They will do everything the CS do. In addition they can fight, deploy, provide Mil Aid to Civ Community etc. CS are 1/2 a mil man. At best. When terrosrists break through the gate and are charging up the stairs, which of your office managers will be cowering under desks, and which will be reaching for the L85 and slamming home a magazine.

It is called the ministry of defence. Not the ministry of Administration.

The mil can do the CS's job. The CS cannot do the Mil's job.

You may find this unpalatable. But it does not make it any less true.

[Just This Once...]

Just who keeps an L85 and a loaded magazine by the desk?

Fantasist.

[ex_matelot]

Agreed. There is nothing worse that a "right to a living" mentality coupled with an artificial perception of "rank".
In my (RN) experience, most CS classified themselves according to their equivalent, or perceived equivalent ranks. Not according to output or ability.

I'd bin the lot of them and stream a tier 3 basic trainee section into their roles. There's an ex WO on 23k doing block office jobs at Collingwood that I did as a JSO2.

Can't blame them for seeing the niche and taking advantage but - they've had a good innings.

[Jimlad1]

I think we can safely dismiss Choppa as a total fantasist, although I did spend a few minutes trying to work out the last time a terrorist assault force got past gate guards and stormed MOD buildings.

As for the issue of rank - its a really old, and very dull argument built on misunderstanding. The CS has had a rank system since its inception in the late 19th century. The Military insisted on working out what equivalent ranks were because they couldnt understand what an Executive Officer, or a Grade 7 or any other CS rank title were. As such people worked out the rough equivalencies in terms of experience and signing off powers and came up with the current table - but its important to note that the CS didnt adopt the idea of rank off the military, it has always had it.

The military complain about CS that act as if they have rank and I have found some that regard anyone in the CS as being untermensch at all levels - I find this discourteous in the extreme. When working with military or CS peers, I make an effort to respect them, and their position in the hierachy, and treat those senior to me with the respect that is due to people who have worked exceptionally hard to put themselves into positions of trust and authority. I'm sorry that some small minority of Mil seem to be uncomfortable with the idea that other organisations outside of the Military have hierachies too, and that its possible to work out roughly how senior people in those hierachies would be if they were in the mil.

I've had Military line managers and I've had civilian line managers in my time and I've treated both with equal respect. Similarly I've managed Civ and Mil staff and done the same. Yes you get a tiny (and I mean tiny) number of CS who walt it up in a Mil environment and try to be more Mil than Mil. By all means slap them down verbally, and remind them that they are CS and not Mil, but at the end of the day, are people so insecure in their own roles, that they cannot accept that they are working in part of a wider structure which has 4 distinct rank structures and career structures (RN/RAF/Army/CS) and that its entirely possible for people from all 4, including civilian, to exercise positions of authority within that? I find that quite worrying to be honest.

If the idea that working with Civvies who have a career progression and internal rank structure as part of a hierachical organisation causes you to get stressed, then thats a bit worrying in my book.

[ex_matelot]

Yes you get a tiny (and I mean tiny) number of CS who walt it up in a Mil environment and try to be more Mil than Mil. By all means slap them down verbally, and remind them that they are CS and not Mil, but at the end of the day, are people so insecure in their own roles, that they cannot accept that they are working in part of a wider structure which has 4 distinct rank structures and career structures (RN/RAF/Army/CS) and that its entirely possible for people from all 4, including civilian, to exercise positions of authority within that? I find that quite worrying to be honest.

And what about the ten-percenters? The 10% disabled the MOD had to recruit due to quotas...?
Was / is it only certain naval bases who have to put up with this?

How many roles in RAF / Army bases are filled by people with zero capability but automatically qualified by disability?

Naval bases are rife with it. No senior would ever put their head `above the parapet though. Way too risky.

[Jimlad1]

"And what about the ten-percenters? The 10% disabled the MOD had to recruit due to quotas...?"

What on earth are you talking about? There is no such quota, its just an urban myth.
If you go to this link - http://www.mod.uk/NR/rdonlyres/F171894B-6601-494D-B67A-F77CA75BB385/0/demography_in_the_mod_rpt.pdf and read Page 74 onwards, you'll immediately find that only 5% of the MOD in total defined themselves as possesing some form of disability, versus nearly 11% of the UK workforce as a whole. There is also no magic policy for automatic appointment of people with disabilities, despite what the dockyard buzz suggests.

There are disabled people in service, if they can do the job then thats good for them. I think a hell of a lot of serving amputees would prove that they can do the job as well as anyone else.

[nice castle]

Topsy, a bit of tongue in cheek banter...

"If the MoD CS has no value and you dont need them I hope you dont expect to:

-be fed and watered - CRL
-receive any pay / allowances - JPA
-have your accommodation concerns investigated - DHE/MHS
-be supplied with uniform / equipment - would be nice!
-have individuals working on designs for the latest high technology equipment - like the experts who manage that in Abbey Wood?
-be able to have complaints investigated outside the chain of command on Ministers behalf - kept that one hidden, didn't know about that..
-be able to return home from deployment in an emergency - another super-slick experience...
-have your family /dependants supported whilst you are deployed / or if taken ill or if you should die in service - not sure any CS helped my missus out while I was away...
- receive a pension / medals - after much re-photocopying of logbooks after the first copies were lost!

Just some of the valuable rolls MoD CS perform"

No really, what would we do without you? Cheers for carrying out all those 'rolls'.:ok:

It's not personal, I am not saying all those things are your fault. However, your examples were poorly chosen mate!

[Jimlad1]

You do realise all the examples you tried to counter there are citing organisations staffed by CS?

the whole point of the CS is not that it is one monolithic organisation, but that it has people across the piste working in a wide range of areas.
Some of them do very well, others aren't as good - but the problem that I find with the Military is that there is an incredible ability to shrug shoulders and make out that everything that goes wrong with Defence, without exception at times, seems to be the fault of the Civvies and not their own service comrades.

By all means blame the CS when they directly screw up, but I am sick and tired of people trying to push blame where it is often not deserved. Having watched military officers take appalling decisions over the years, and then heard public criticisms of CS for taking said decisions, the abrogation of leadership at all levels in the military when it comes to manning up and accepting responsibility is appalling. I'm often seen as an apologist for the CS - I'm not, and I am a huge critic of much of its internal processes, but equally I am very fed up with the bashing that it gets day in day out by people who are blaming the CS for things that are often nothing to do with them at all.

[ex_matelot]

What on earth are you talking about?

Ever been based at Collingwood? Even if my observations do not correllate with published stats...

I have empirical.

Watching a one-armed bandit trying to bollock one of my lads for not signing the duties chit on time after he'd just come back off compassionate really made my mind up. He "left" shortly after. Yes, a few of these types have really pissed me off. Just because they may have bits missing does not make them decent people. None were / are vets either.

[Jimlad1]

"Ever been based at Collingwood? Even if my observations do not correllate with published stats..."

Oh gods yes - and I still strongly doubt that 10% of the C'WOOD civvy workforce is disabled.

"Watching a one-armed bandit trying to bollock one of my lads for not signing the duties chit on time after he'd just come back off compassionate"

Did he know he'd come off compassionate? Was he in the lads reporting chain? Why is coming off compassionate on this occasion a failure to sign the duties chit - Sticking my DO hat on here, I'm all for giving the lads leniency if circumstances call for it - but can you explain more - did he miss it while on leave, and if so, why did you or one of his oppos not sort it for him with a quiet word? If it happened when he was back, and he was fit for duties, why shouldnt he be bollocked for not doing something he should have done?

Sorry, but without more info there, your cause and effect seems a bit odd.

[Really annoyed]

Jimlad this is a military forum, not a civvy service forum, that's why it says MILITARY AIRCREW and not CIVIL SERVICE. If you are concerned for your job, how about you mosey on down to your boring civil service mates and discuss it there. We really don't give a stuff about you lot. No really we don’t.

[Jimlad1]

You're right - good job I hold the Queens Commission then really isnt' it! Besides, its also for all of us who are the backroom boys, and speaking as someone who has spent a long time doing some very operationally relevant J2/3/5 stuff for various RAF units in dark blue uniform and out of it in a range of operational theatres, I'd like to think that I qualify as a backroom bod - albeit a light deprived, white sock wearing geek ;-)

[Really annoyed]

good job I hold the Queens Commission then really isnt' it!

An Air Cadet commission doesn't really count.:rolleyes:

[alfred_the_great]

ex - I've done about 30 months at MWS and have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. I can think of a couple of disabled people working there, at least one of whom was broken by the RN. To claim that 10% of non-mil working there are disabled is bollocks.

Whilst I've no real love of Flagship, they are keeping the RN alive. Paid f*ck all, we expect them to use their 22yr's knowledge to teach us the basics and then let us take friday afternoon off and finish at 1430 on a Thursday.

Really - I'm pretty sure you wouldn't leave the ground with the support of the Civil Service, so why don't you accept they have an equal part of being in this forum?

As for the rank equivalence - the only time I've seen it used in anger was as a limit of delegation and responsibility i.e. write-off powers, signing of contracts, signing of reports.

[Jimlad1]

"An Air Cadet commission doesn't really count"

Really aims for the bite, he shoots and he misses the mark (point?) so much that it lands in the stands, in the ACMs G&T, cue hats on interview the following day :E

[Really annoyed]

I'm pretty sure you wouldn't leave the ground with the support of the Civil Service

You are quite correct I wouldn't leave the ground with their support.

I think you meant to say " I'm pretty sure you wouldn't leave the ground withOUT the support of the Civil Service".

Whoops. I love it when somebody inadvertently tells the truth.

Jimlad. I got the wrong cadet force. I meant the Sea Cadets.

[Seldomfitforpurpose]

.

Really - I'm pretty sure you wouldn't leave the ground with the support of the Civil Service, so why don't you accept they have an equal part of being in this forum?
.

Technically he is correct, if you read the forum description there is absolutely no mention of civvy bedwetters being part of the target membership, but that does not seem to stop them posting :confused:

[Jimlad1]

Sad that some people here feel the need to start throwing insults about the cadet forces around in order to try and make a cheap point. I've never been a member of the cadet forces but have huge respect for those adults who give up their spare time to help kids out. Not sure why people think that calling someone a cadet volunteer helps the debate but I hope it makes you feel better.

[BBK]

Seldom

You haven't read the forum description ie "back room boys and girls". Civvy bedwetters......pathetic!

Chopa

Your point about mil guys doing the job that the CS do is simply untrue. How many mil guys are qualified to conduct research in explosives, nuclear weapon modelling, aerodynamics, advanced electronics etc. Sure these guys and gals aren't combat personnel but the guys on the front line cannot do their specialist jobs either.

Jimlad1

I agree entirely. In my experience it was nearly always the mil guys who had an issue with CS equivalent rank. Some chaps had such chip on their shoulder about working with civvies. I must stress the vast majority were consummate professionals who understood that a lot of MOD personnel worked hard to make their kit safer and more effective.

Lastly, those making fun of the cadet instructors will almost certainly be the same morons that complain that the general public don't understand the military!

[Seldomfitforpurpose]

BBK,

I have read it and to me it's fairly clear in it's meaning however its a real moot point as I could not give a rats arse who posts here, and rightly so as it's not my site and we have Mods to supervise that but if you interpret

Military Aircrew A forum for the professionals who fly the non-civilian hardware, and the backroom boys and girls without whom nothing would leave the ground. Army, Navy and Airforcesof the World, all equally welcome here.

to included the CS as they qualify under the "backroom boys rule then you might as well add bin men, postmen and women, BT engineers, DHL drivers etc etc etc as without them nothing would leave the ground :ok:

[Whenurhappy]

Annoyed - this is a grown-up discussions between grown-ups. Now go to your room!

I think that this cull of civil servants is missing the point. Over the last 20 years, progressive out-sourcing of support services through PFIs, MACs etc has seen thousands of civil servants TUPE'd to other employerd, who continue to run punitively expensive contracts set against contracted minimum manning levels. As many of use predicted at the time, these contracts would work whilst the ex-rankers and ex civil servants remained in the same or similar posts, but progressive retirement and changes of TACOS has meant that the minimum manning requirement has been replaced, de facto, by the minimum wage requirement (just visit any contracted out mess or supply sqn to see what I mean). These are the civilians who unfairly ive many of the Civil Servants a bad name.

However, some years ago I had an inspection function in several of the HM Dockyards. Talk about lead-swinging, especially north o' the border. There were a significant percentage of civil servants who clearly would be unable to cut it outside the protective cocoon of the civil service. Babcocks sorted that out when they took over Rosyth Royal Dockyard in 1997, although some key services have remained a civil service function, to meet compliance requirements. Correct me if I am wrong, but Flagship is a PFI - and therefore the staff are not civil servants?

Anyway, the civil service does not simply do admin, as implied by a numbe rof posters. They provide the high level policy and advisory functions in the MOD, scientific expertise within DSTl - and other departments, some air traffic services, fire-fighting, MOD Policing, MDGS, statisitical services (DASA - a bunch of good eggs)...I could go on.

[Jabba_TG12]

Why is getting rid of the CS the most cost effective option to the taxpayer? CS wage bill is approx £3Bn per year, the armed forces wage bill is approx £8 Bn per year. 60% of the CS earn under £26K per year - in the armed forces any at the rank of Cpl or above earns that. CS also do not attract any form of allowances or myriad of other benefits like cheap housing, subsidised gyms etc.

So effectively, it would appear that its been worked out that either "it", whatever "it" may be, need either not be done at all, be done by someone else in addition to whatever he/she is doing, or that someone else in a far away land can do it cheaper. Its effectively looking like a race to the bottom. The main difference that has been highlighted although it then opens up a completely different can of worms is that every single one of those mil adminers, suppliers, caterers, drivers, etc were "soldiers first, tradesmen second". Now, I readily accept that such a posture was threat dependent and very much a cold war footing that has now gone, or is percieved to be no more. Both sides could - I'm not necessarily saying they do, but they could - see increasing civilianisation/militarisation as the thin end of the wedge. I try to look at it dispassionately - because the mil didnt have their own internal IT support/project teams that could bring on major IT projects, or support major systems that were deployable, for the best part of seven years, it gave me civilian work as a contractor. I did however, find it sad and not a tad ironic that the organisation that taught me so much about quality procedures, the value of good documentation, the value of IT operational discipline which I have subsequently found absolutely nowhere else, not even amongst global multinational bluechip firms and most definately not among the outsourcing community - seemed to have shrugged off all of that experience quite willingly and never looked back.

More to the point much of the work of the CS is either very admin like in nature, so it does seem a little pointless to employ legions of forces personnel to do a job that could be done by a civvy for a third of the price (my old Cpl in London was living in a Canary Wharf flat, with a free travel card and return trips home every week - doing the same job that an E2 civil servant could have done for £14K per year with no perks and same hours).

Said E2 was very unlikely though to be sent to the Falklands or to Iraq or Afghan or anywhere else though. It depends on what you want. If all anyones bothered about is the cheapest arse to fill a seat rather than the quality of said arse or any other factor, it can hardly be surprising that those looking to hire said arses may find a much cheaper source of them abroad or through an outsourcer. No-one has an exclusive right to guaranteed employment any more. Those days went with the bubonic plague.

As for the work - given that many CS are rocket scientists etc, where do you propose to get the brains trust from to deliver overnight the deep expertise needed to keep places like DIS or DSTL running? Or do you think it makes sense to recruit thousands of extra military teachers and security guards and canteen assistants, dockyard workers, crane operators etc.

But thats a kind of "after the event" though, isnt it? We could equally ask, and I dare say others already have, what about when the carriers come in, where are you going to get the experience to teach the new lot carrier landings, deck procedures, etc when all these skills have been lost? Or do you think that well, sod them, they were only expendable military anyway? Thats their problem... Or do you address it in the logical way of either a) dont completely lose the capability in the first place or b) get someone in to take the systems on, train the trainers and develop the appropriate training pipeline to supply the requirement. Not really sure what you're getting at here, JL.

The total bill to the UK for replacing the MOD CS with Mil would add several billion per year in order to put Mil into jobs which are being done well by trained civilians for half - third of the price. In what way is this value for money?

Depends on what you want to use the mil for. Depends what the strategic need is. That must be prime above all else, even treasury led demands for austerity. It can be argued that if all you're bothered about is doing it cheaply and you cant be arsed who does it, you end up with a situation where you outsource your AAR capability to a firm who wont fly into war zones, even ones without an active air threat, which is the precise place you need such a force multiplier in the first place.

And you're right, we do and should work alongside each other side by side, both have so much to offer to the overall picture. But there is no point either side getting precious about "because I do it cheaper/better, I'm more valuable than you". You're right, that kind of thing gets us nowhere.

But in the race to the bottom, everyone f*****d...

[Pontius Navigator]

Some CS are really sharp and some may be sharp but not allowed free rein.

Some years ago a CS in Harrogate rang me up at ISK and mentioned that a particular stores item (one that went bang) had had nil consumption in the past year or more. She had a standing order did I wish her to place the order or suspend it?

She had bypassed her CoC, Strike Command and 18 Gp and rung me up, a lowly flt lt in wg weapons. I investgated, found out why there was nil consumption and duly cancelled the purchase.

Now had her initiative been stifled then shedloads of money would have been wasted.

[ex_matelot]

x - I've done about 30 months at MWS and have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. I can think of a couple of disabled people working there, at least one of whom was broken by the RN. To claim that 10% of non-mil working there are disabled is bollocks.


My 10% claim is not based on any available stats, but simply what we referred to them as. During my times at MWS it was quite noticeable that there appeared to be proportionally more disabled civilians working there than in other bases / industries. Once again I state - this is not based on hard stats but my own observations.
My other observation was some of the most difficult to deal with civilians were the disabled ones. Senior officers climbed over each other to be seen to defend them if any complaints were raised. I know of one notable incident where Collingwood was left without half it's duty watch one weekend due to a cock-up that was swiftly brushed under the table.

Regardless of my disabled in Collingwood claim, the fact remains that scores of civvies are on disproportionately large salaries for the actual roles and responsibilities they have. Many of the jobs were previously covered in existing shore-based job specs and duty watch commitments.

[alfred_the_great]

ex-M, so you made it all up, relied on "experience" and one or two incidents. I'm willing to bet at least 50p that every civvy in MWS is paid less than the Service Person they work opposite to....

[BBK]

Apologies to the mods as I'm going off thread here.

Seldom

You make no sense at all. If CS staff are not considered back room boys and girls then who are you talking about? Mil guys who are doing a support function in the same air conditioned office in town? Your point about postmen, dhl drivers etc being allowed to post is laughable if not plain stupid. These people, not that I want to denigrate anyone's job, were not involved in getting things like NVGs into service. My old department at the RAE was although it wasn't my field as such. Also, this thread IS about MOD civvies so you think it inappropriate for these "bedwetters", as you call them, to post on this topic and that is undemocratic if nothing else. You do understand this concept don't you? It's what the MOD is meant to be defending.

One of my jobs in the MOD was conducting flight trials on front line squadrons. The vast majority of the guys I met were happy to help and were consummate professionals in doing so. A few would take an added interest and they were great for us as they would provide us feedback. We always treated our hosts with respect and I enjoyed much (alcoholic ) hospitality in that time. However, there would sometimes be an idiot who would say our work wasn't important, couldn't be justified. My team would write these guys off as knobs and often it became obvious that the he was also the sqn ****!

I remain very pro MOD and in particular pro RAF as my father and uncle both served in the mob. I wouldn't be surprised if you were in nappies when the old man was a Boy Entrant at Locking in 1949.

In summary these MOD civvies are on the same side as their uniformed
counterparts and so a little consideration for their plight would be in order. I guarantee they won't take any pleasure in cutbacks to front line staff.

[glad rag]

Well, Very Bitter and Twisted aren't we, ex_m.

alfred says it like it is/was [from my memories] the cobbled old brown dustcoated civvie was once quite like yourself, ex_m, he just got a bit "unlucky" in the job.

[JFZ90]

However, there would sometimes be an idiot who would say our work wasn't important, couldn't be justified. My team would write these guys off as knobs and often it became obvious that the he was also the sqn ****!

Very nicely put.

I suggest that anyone who thinks its OK to write "We really don't give a stuff about you lot. No really we don’t." neatly falls into this category.

They are an embarrassing (to the RAF) minority, thankfully.

[ex_matelot]

Alfred,

A bit harsh I think. No, I'm not "making it up". I don't think the MOD actually have published figures on the cost effectiveness of civvies taking on roles in shore bases though.
My point has been the disproportionate amount paid in relation to duties & responsibilities held.

Even if one was on 13k for doing what was normally covered by a buffers party and junior member of the duty watch it's too much.

[Jimlad1]

While I sympathise with the idea that civvies are more expensive than forces - its actually the other way round.

If you play around with DASA statistics, you'll find out that about 70% of the entire MOD civil services (i.e. pretty much everyone up to, and including junior bands of Grade C2 - which is mid level management) earns £26K per year or under.

By contrast, pretty much everyone in the armed forces over the rank of Cpl earns £26K per year or more (which is roughly 80%). This figure does not include the not insignificant allowances package available across the rank spectrum.

So putting a junior CS on the duty watch immediately generates significant savings and frees up a trained sailor to go and do something more useful and valuable than sit in the gatehouse. Thats why the MPGS exists, in order to get useful manpower off the gate and either getting down time or doing more useful work.

I would also point out that the Levene review noted that the Forces are often misemployed in jobs which don't require the levels of skills, training and cost that they require, and actually recommended an enlargement to the size of the MOD CS to put much cheaper CS into jobs to free up forces manpower to do more useful work.

I am afraid that I do not consider the 'duty watch' at COLLINGWOOD to be a particularly challenging task (and I've done my fair share of OOD duties in rig at major shore bases). If the MOD can save money, keep sailors off gash duties and free up bodies to ease pressure elsewhere, like in HERRICK, then thats a good thing in my book.

[ex_matelot]

I see your point Jimlad but in many instances (from what I have seen) it did not work that way Wrt freeing up bods for other, more worthwhile duties/tasks.
In the case of Collingwood it simply led to a more bloated duty watch in many cases (standby duties). It may very well free up more people at command level, allowing seniors to devote more time to more important tasks but lower down it eases little.

If the intention was to free up bods for other tasks then how come it doesn't include weekends?

[Seldomfitforpurpose]

Apologies to the mods as I'm going off thread here.

Seldom

You make no sense at all. If CS staff are not considered back room boys and girls then who are you talking about?I think the clue is in the forum heading, the bit where it says Navy, Army and Airforces of the world , the bit where it also makes no mention of civilians Mil guys who are doing a support function in the same air conditioned office in town? Yes as they are military so posting on a military forum seems to be a right and proper thing to doYour point about postmen, dhl drivers etc being allowed to post is laughable if not plain stupid. No it's notThese people, not that I want to denigrate anyone's job, were not involved in getting things like NVGs into service. No but they are involved in delivering said items, and for further deliveries of replacement items and associated spares etc etc which using your logic entitles them in exactly the same way as you to post in hereMy old department at the RAE was although it wasn't my field as such. Also, this thread IS about MOD civvies so you think it inappropriate for these "bedwetters", as you call them, to post on this topic and that is undemocratic if nothing else.It's a military thread and it was suggested by another that civilians do not meet the entrance criteria, I happen to agree but as it's not my site I fully accept the site owners moderation of the military forum You do understand this concept don't you? Clearly I doIt's what the MOD is meant to be defending. :rolleyes:


As you directed the question only polite that I reply :ok:

[BBK]

Seldom

Thank you for making MY point about there always being one chap on the sqn who was......:E

BBK

[Seldomfitforpurpose]

Seldom

Thank you for making MY point about there always being one chap on the sqn who was......:E

BBK

Knobber or not he/she would, as he/she was military be welcome in here, as well of course as sleeping in a dry bed each nite :p:p:p

[SOSL]

Seldom are retired mil pers (sometimes known as civilians) allowed to post on this forum?

[Seldomfitforpurpose]

SOSL,

You can read the forum entrance criteria for yourself and make your own judgement, although in the interest of forum continuation the rules have been pretty lax over the years such the pretty much Uncle Tom Cobbly and all can have a word in here :ok:

[ex_matelot]

I think there's an old axiom thats applicable her:

You join as a civvy then you become an "ex". You do not return to civvy.
There are plenty of "ex" who are throbbers though. I should know...

;)

[Really annoyed]

There are plenty of "ex" who are throbbers though. I should know...

Why? Are you one of them?

[ex_matelot]

I think I made that clear, but yes.

:)

Im a throbber due to the fact that I base my opinions and judgments on the RN as I knew it. Not as it is now. Im only 6 years out though and I'm not emplyed in a civvy role telling current matelots how to "be a matelot".

I merely offer a free forum-based consultancy on the matter should my opinion be required, or not.

;)

[Seldomfitforpurpose]

I think there's an old axiom thats applicable her:

You join as a civvy then you become an "ex". You do not return to civvy.
There are plenty of "ex" who are throbbers though. I should know...

;)

What a very bizarre notion :confused:

Before I joined in 74 I was a Mr and as such was a civilian. When I leave next year I will return to being a Mr and will once again be a civilian, this is not a difficult concept :ok:

[Tiger_mate]

After 38 years of military indoctrination, it will not be too long after standing at the main gate wondering whether to turn right or left that you realise you are 'ex-military' and will be for the rest of your life.

You can choose to continue your military involvement with Honoury Mess Membership, or ATC Instructor or you can never, ever look over your shoulder. It matters not, your mindset and attitude to life will always give away your background and you may as well have BritMil tattooed on your forehead.

To think any different is naive.

[Q-RTF-X]

I remain very pro MOD and in particular pro RAF as my father and uncle both served in the mob. I wouldn't be surprised if you were in nappies when the old man was a Boy Entrant at Locking in 1949.

A statement that is ripe for a little modification to one of the old sweats favorites "Better Watch Out Lad, I was in Uniform before you were in Liquid Form"

:)

[ex_matelot]

I was on the main gate when you was on cow & gate,

Baghdad - dad's bag, Long John Silver had an egg on his shoulder and Pontius Pilate was an aircrewman!

[Seldomfitforpurpose]

After 38 years of military indoctrination, it will not be too long after standing at the main gate wondering whether to turn right or left that you realise you are 'ex-military' and will be for the rest of your life.In as much as it was my last job then when I leave I will of course be ex military but using your rather strange logic surely I should have spent the last 35 years always considering myself as an ex schoolboy :p

You can choose to continue your military involvement with Honoury Mess Membership, or ATC Instructor or you can never, ever look over your shoulder. It matters not, your mindset and attitude to life will always give away your background and you may as well have BritMil tattooed on your forehead. Strange that apart from the occasional appearance in public in uniform, that not once in 37 years has anyone looked at me and knowingly tapped their nose as they recognise I am military, not once, as in never :ok:

To think any different is naive.

Nothing naive about me, ever the eternal realist here :ok:

[Yozzer]

I should have spent the last 35 years always considering myself as an ex schoolboy


The only difference between men and boys is the price of their toys!

My brain tells me I am still a schoolboy; sadly the creaking bones do not. Oh and it takes a bit more than a black and white page 3 picture to be an upstanding 'young' man these days.

[ex_matelot]

Seldom,

Can we asume that when you become reborn as a civvy again you will no longer be posting on the mil forums due to it no longer being applicable to you?

I see you as being very naive.

i'll ask you when you leave the mob.

[Seldomfitforpurpose]

Seldom,

Can we asume that when you become reborn as a civvy again you will no longer be posting on the mil forums due to it no longer being applicable to you?Yes, unless they change the forum entrance rules I will be a civilian and as such will no longer be eligible to post in here

I see you as being very naive. Strangely I see myself as simply being respectful of the site owners wishes

i'll ask you when you leave the mob.

About this time next year then :ok: