Recruitment V Retention: discuss

[RAF_SARGE]

Haven't been active on here for eons due to a number of reasons so apologies if this has been "done".

Having recently been posted to a Careers job I have so far been amazed at the funds and effort being poored into recruitment as opposed to the "lack of" for retention! As a humble 3 striper perhaps I'm missing the "bigger picture" but would dearly like to glean your take on this matter.

[Biggus]

RETENTION, RETENTION, RETENTION!!!

Every person who leaves the RAF (or RN/Army), who has been unhappy with their experience while in, produces a "double whammy" effect. Not only do they need replacing, so you need to recruit, but they are out there in the real world encouraging people (such as they own children) NOT to join - SO MAKING RECRUITMENT MORE DIFFICULT! This they will do naturally, without making any great effort to do so. These people, and especially their wives/partners, are what I believe the recruiting world calls "gatekeepers", with respect to their offspring.

We haven't even mentioned the increased training costs, which UK plc funds, of making little effort to retain and just recruiting instead to replace (most extreme case, about £5M I believe to train a pilot these days - recruit a 20 year old or retain a 35 year old for another 20 years, comparative costs!).

Then there are experience issues!!

However, it is no doubt easier, and cheaper, to recruit naive/idealistic young men and women than fix the reasons why large numbers of people are leaving in the first place!!!

[The Gorilla]

I liked the buffhoon (Ah yes those were the days!) approach. Sir we are short of at least one Sqn of Tornado pilots throughout the fleet. Buffhoons answer? Scrap one tornado Sqn, what problem?

For those of you, who ache for a reduction in current commitments, know that any such reduction will be matched with an equal reduction in capability. This historical certainty will occur even if we have had a change of Government.

As for being a gatekeeper I would have thought given the farce that is the MOD today, surely any responsible parent would want to keep their children a million miles away. I have two family members going into the military shortly, quite a number of the elders have been in HMF and have told them based on a balanced portfolio of evidence another career might be prudent. Impressionable teenagers however, don't listen to elders and believe all the stuff they are fed by CIO's.

I have often thought of writing a book, based on my experiences. The book would make a convincing argument in the last three chapters of why any one of sound mind and body would go near the Farces today. A story of two particular Sqn commanders in Thumrait would make an excellent example of how the enemy isn't your worst nightmare!

Back to recruiting, the real plan as revealed some years ago is to conscript if the hard core numbers fall below critical levels. Of course it won't be called that, It will have some lovely pink and fluffy name and HMG will lie to us all too convince us that it's necessary. You know a bit like Gulf War two, unfortunately a large number of our population might just buy it!
:ugh:

[Captain Kirk]

Sarge – good point!

OFO - Flying Training gets very much more expensive as the aircraft get larger, faster and more complex, and award of Pilot Wings comes far earlier in the Training system than it used to. Weapons training is especially expensive. The National Audit Office figures for pilot training costs put it at £6.1M to get a Tornado pilot to a Sqn – note that this is not even Combat Ready. By the time a pilot completes his first tour and starts to get some useful quals, you are looking, conservatively, at a £10M investment.

[Pontius Navigator]

I liked the buffhoon (Ah yes those were the days!) :


Yes, makes the present part-timer look even worse.

[The Gorilla]

OFO, while yer gettin your coat 911 did happen I was there, Bush and my paths crossed that day! :}

[NUFC1892]

I know that this is a 2 year old thread but I didn't see the need to start a new one:

Given that people are the most expensive commodity in the RAF, and those that do not or cannot perform the whole range of duties required of them are (arguably) the greatest drain, are we being overly generous with retention?

By limiting initial engagements to a cost effective return of service (6 years for aircrew, 3 years for technicians, 2 years for ancillary trades) could we not, over time, build a more dynamic force that is more capable of meeting future needs? Allied to this reduction in initial engagements should we not be looking at a different way of retaining the best and shedding those who are not performing?

Presently for non commissioned personnel re-engagement is dependant upon promotion and this works - up to a point. The down side of this system is that someone is able to stay in the same rank for anything up to 20 years or more, they can do this almost irrespective of performance and/or employability/deployablility. Should we not be linking re-engagement more to the SJAR OPG than promotion? For example after the initial engagement every one should be looked at every 2 years and those with an OPG of less than "B" are given one more SJAR to improve or they are discharged. This should apply all the way up the non commissioned rank structure to ensure that nobody can sit back and think they have a job for life irrespective of performance.

From my simplistic way of thinking this revision would increase opportunities for promotion for all ranks, remove those who are not performing and reduce the pension liability across the board. With a little tinkering all of these measures could be equally applied to the commissioned ranks.

And the downside would be??

[charliegolf]

It was suggested:

cost effective return of service (6 years for aircrew,

That translates to 1 tour for a zoomie, what with the 6 months for having their brain zero-timed and 18 months (min?) on holding spots during the training regime. Or is it seamless now?

Will it be much quicker to productive service for NCA these days?

CG

[cheesedoff]

I completed 23 years (having been offered the age of 55 extension), 11 of which were as NCA. Leaving was one the best things I have done. I do not regret leaving for a moment I am happy to say. Great friends, great memories, sadly, just a bloody awful system.

[kharmael]

award of Pilot Wings comes far earlier in the Training system than it used to.

Er, what?

When did Brevets used to get handed out if not at the end of AFT?

Even if they were handed out before, a newly qualified pilot can still lose his/ her wings by getting chopped on the OCU or line training.

I would also like to add that a newly qualified pilot does not receive flying pay until they are combat ready! Unlike those of yore who got it after EFT or something equally more pleasant!

[BEagle]

On the pre-SAFT :yuk: JP scheme, all pilots did a common core BFTS course of about 125 hours (if ex-UAS) or 140 hours (no previous flying training).

They were then streamed FJ/ME/RW and awarded their Wings.

AFTS was either Gnat/Hunter (Valley), Varsity (Oakington) or Whirlwind (Ternhill). After the Gnat/Hunter course, came the Hunter TWU course, then a FJ OCU - whereas ME and RW pilots went from AFTS to OCU.

If I recall correctly, Flying Pay was paid after graduating from AFTS - before then it was Flying Instructional Pay.

'Wings' were not confirmed until the pilot had been on his squadron for 6 months.

And it was a truly excellent way of training people...:ok:

[The Old Fat One]

Biggest public sector cuts in the offing for decades and it's time to bring back a recruitment/retention thread......really :confused:

Trust me...no part of the public sector - including the armed forces - is going to have a genuine recruitment or retention problem of any sort for at least the next five years.

[dallas]

I had several reasons for leaving, and amongst them was the presumption that as staff I could just be treated like crap, while millions was ploughed into the cinderella world of recruitment. But, if/when my boy wants to join, unless it's as something rubbish, I'll happily watch him pass out and at Halton - maybe Cranwell - and provided he spends a few years travelling, having a beer and enjoying himself I'd be more than happy - he'll learn discipline and a myriad of other skills. I'll only get worried if he decides to stay in for the long haul and starts talking career, as this is the snakepit I've come to hate, where many have cashed in their integrity and morals.

Otherwise Biggus has hit the nail on the head:
... it is no doubt easier, and cheaper, to recruit naive/idealistic young men and women than fix the reasons why large numbers of people are leaving in the first place!!

[NutLoose]

You need new young blood, no good pumping retention over recruitment otherwise your just gonna end up with a bunch of old farts....

[Bladdered]

If so much is being spent on recruitment, why isn't the RAF recruiting? My 18 year old has just spent 3 years at college getting engineering qualifications (BTEC) and has been told that they do now have vacancies for aircraft techicians but will call him in 2 months time (if they can be asked) - he is off to the army instead. A friend whose son has a 1st in engineering from Bristol, has been a space cadet and a University Air Sqn stude, has a PPL etc and did well at OASC is on some kind of reserve list - they might call him. Manpower planning for the future....................hrumph, p*ssing off highly motivated, well qualified youngsters is poor, even in times of low turnover, there is always an input and an output, which will accelerate as the economy starts to pick up! But then what do I know having left on PVR 4 years ago;)

[dallas]

To be fair bladdered, the Service can't win - it's either accused of shutting the doors to potential new talent, or clogging up the crewrooms with relatively expensive holding officers for months on end. Both are counterproductive!

[sumps]

I left because after all the re-educating I put my self-through (‘cos I didn’t like the idea first time round at school!) put me at a higher level academically than my RAF trade catered for. It also gave me exposure to the opportunities in the outside world.

I found by the end of my RAF career the whole of the trade structure was far too linear with very little flexibility to move into positions that would allow me to use my skills and education I had gained over 20+ years (despite applying for them over the last 8 years).

Add on the discontent of the family due to either shift work or the frequency of Op’s, it all added up to leaving the RAF.

One other thing because, on leaving, I had a gratuity and there was a down turn in the market it enabled me to buy a house and provide a bit of stability/security (without magnolia walls!) for my family.

[trap one]

There is a fine line that has been crossed, I think some time just after the Cold War peace dividend. Your have to have a constant through put of Young thrusters to Old experience. Once the Drive of the MOD became the "well rounded" Officer/SNCO (and I don't mean on the waist line) then the experienced well trusted older person failed to stay in. Maybe as in my case I got fed up with the PC/HSE outlook and the reduction in time spent on operational tours (Flying/Controlling rather than deployed) as we had to do the Staff/development tours rather than stay doing the jobs we liked/enjoyed. When I first Qualified as an Intercept Controller (92) the first tour was 5 years with the CR tick about 18 months 2 year point. Followed by a possible upgrade to Fighter Allocator or Deputy Controller Training Officer about the 3/3.5 year point for the good guys. The 2nd tour being Instructing or exchange/E3/1ACC. When I left in 2005 the first tour was about 2 years and then into instructing. The experience that was being passed on through no fault of their own was vastly diminished and not all WC's by then were CR when they went to their 2nd tour.

So therefore people don't feel welcome to stay and in fact the outside world with the stability becomes much more attractive and once you have that pension in your armoury then why stay?

Personally when talking to kids who really want to go in, I try and steer them to a trade that will be relevant outside and make sure that the eyes are opened before the do go in.

Gorilla
Concure

[Wyler]

I think we will come full circle on this. There are going to be very few promotion opportunities (compared to a few years ago) post SDR. There is now a recognition that specialists who wish to stay put are not 'low achievers' but increasingly essential to output. Those deemed to be fit for higher office will be 'picked out' early and moved on. Everyone else (the overwhelming majority) will be able to specialise and stay put (more or less) without the usual stigma.

It will also decrease the need for pointless Sec Duties!

As I see it there will be very few Posts above Sqn Ldr within 5 or so years and the majority will be invited to vacate at their first exit point from the contract.

[NutLoose]

I did know an Armourer Corporal that was fully qualified as a Music teacher, and a very good musician, naturally he applied to join as a Musician and not having any places the careers disinformation service told him, " join as an armourer and remuster to musician" this he did then found out the porky pies he had been told....... hence one disgruntled Armourer.... as one cannot go down in trade groups, just up.

One does hope things have at least moved on from that.

[The Gorilla]

trap one

Welcome back nice to see you... Hope our drivers are being nice to you?

You are concurring with a post I made two years ago about the greatest enemy in Thumrait?? :):)

TG

[reds & greens]

2 yrs to do, pension (?) awaits, but I would currently nail my childrens feet to the floor rather than let them go out of the house if they mentioned the AFCO !

[Pontius Navigator]

Bladders, I'll try some numbers.

Suppose for an air force of 50,000 they need 100 recruits in to training for a given speciality. Now suppose it is anticipated that there will be a downsize to 25,000 it follows that they would only need 50 recruits.

If the recruit tap was left open there would be an input of 50 extra per year which would mean additional redundancies of 50 per year. This would alter the experience balance but equally cost more.

The staff needed to train 100 recruits would still be required and there would be additional redundancy payments required.

This stop-start process has been running as long as I can remember and when they can the recruiters have tried to slow the flow of recruits in anticipation of cuts. Sometimes the stop to much, other times not enough.

[MoTiv@tor]

Unfortunately, reality and retention conflict. Yes wouldn't it be lovely to retain all our trained staff, after all it is cheaper to keep the qualified Harrier/Apache pilot then to train new ones - or is it?

From an accounts point of view, a newly trained pilot is cheaper than an experienced pilot (PA spine, enhanced rate fly pay)!

Reality is the Forces rely on through put of personnel - as long as their is someone out there after the job (new recruit) then the system works. When vacancies appear then retention and only then, may retention be cheaper?

[PPRuNeUser0211]

Motivator : The fact that a PA spine chap might get paid twice as much as a new chap is pittance compared to the £ it costs to put the new chap through flying training. If you can retain each older chap for one extra tour it reduces the throughput needed and thus training costs substantially.

[Biggus]

Motivator,

While your arguement is superficially correct, it is flawed for a couple of reasons.

First of all, as pba says, there are the training costs. Take this example:

All figures are very broadbrush, and ignore inflation. Let us look at providing a single FJ pilot from 2010-2040:

Scenario A:

Pilot X joins the RAF in 2010. He incurrs £10M in training costs, and serves until 2040, eventually on the PA spine, with associated pay costs.

Scenarion B:

Pilot X joins the RAF in 2010. He incurrs £10M in training costs, and serves until 2025, with associated pay costs. He then leaves. Pilot Y joins the RAF, replacing pilot X in 2025. He incurrs £10M in training costs, and serves until 2040, with associated pay costs, at which point he leaves.

The costs in Scenario A and B from 2010 to 2025 are identical. From 2025 to 2040 the pay costs of pilot Y are lower than pilot X. Lets say pilot Y costs on average £33,333 a year less than pilot X. A very generous figure, but it makes the sums easy. So, from 2025-2040 pilot Y costs £33,333 x 15 = £0.5M less than pilot X would have.

So, overall costs are:

Scenario A = £10M + 30 years pay
Scenario B = £10M + £10M + 30 years pay - £0.5M

You work out which is more cost effective!!


Then there is the second arguement. From "an accounts point of view" are newer pilots actually cheaper than experienced ones?

I haven't checked the pay tables, but let us look at a hypothetical example, using simple round figures which I don't claim to be accurate. Pilot A is in his 40s, and gets paid £50,000 a year. He has qualified for a pension on immediate retirement. Pilot B is in his late 20s, and gets paid £37,000 a year but hasn't qualified for a pension. Obviously pilot B is cheaper! Or is he?

What if pilot A has a pension worth £15,000. He is paid £50,000 a year to fly, but he would be paid £15,000 to do nothing if he left. So, you could argue that to get him to fly in the RAF is actually only costing an extra £35,000, as he would get paid the other £15,000 even if he left. So, your 20 something pilot costs £37,000 to go flying, your 40 something pilot costs £35,000 to go flying. I believe, but no doubt will be corrected, that military pensions are paid for by the MOD.

Which "from an accounts point of view" is actually cheaper to employ? Interesting concept.

[Pontius Navigator]

Biggus, while retention certainly seems cheaper it raises other issues.

If you start with the following profile ages:

A - 20-30
B - 30-40
C - 40-50

And you arrange the balance for a pyramidal rank structure say 3A - 2B - C to give the total force level.

Now you increase retention but try and maintain the same 3-2-1 structure you get:

A - 20-35
B - 35-45
C - 45-55

At some point you need to slice off the B/C and input more A to avoid the situation of A - 2B - 2C and so on. We have had these periodic redundancy purges as long as I can remember.

A continual feed at the bottom is necessary to maintain that all important rank/career balance and of course catch the odd pearl that will make senior rank. PA spines, branch officers and chief techs are the necessary fat to retain experience against the need to charge the training machine.

The whole is more artistic and alchemy than science.

[Biggus]

PN

Despite my comments in post 2 of this thread, which was written over 2 years ago, I was not trying to advocate in post 26 that retention was the holy grail or only option.

I was simply trying to point out the financil benefits of retention over recruitment. I fully appreciate the need to recruit, to bring in new blood, etc.


Out of interest, with regard to my latter comments in post 26, I looked at my own situation today. I used the MOD pension calculator to work out how much my pension would be if I retired next month (on AFPS75 terms). I took this figure away from my current pay, to see how much I am effectively being paid for being in the RAF rather than retired at home. I then looked at the AFRB report for 2010 to see who was on this "effective" pay figure.

The result - a level 4 (out of 10) Flt Lt on the initial rate of flying pay. So the RAF is effectively getting my services for the cost of an early 1st tourist on a flying Sqn. Anyone more experienced or senior is more expensive to run than I am......

At least that is one way of looking at it.