NEM And the rumour of a proposed new redundancy rule

[VinRouge]

not been able to enjoy the delights of an NEM brief as i have been enjoying yhe delights abroad, and much of the guidance online (dii) seems to be focussing more on senior officers spinning dits about how this all is not supposedly a means of cutting personnel budgets.

I have been hearing nasty rumours that one of the proposals is effectively bringing us into line with civilian practice regarding compulsory redundancy. as someone who was considering PA until i heard this, can anyone positively confirm or deny that the introduction of a 12 month notice before statutory redundancy is being considered, outside of SDSR and the like?

i have seen a few comments on here along the lines of 'its done in the private sector so suck it up'.

if this is the case, I take it the employment relations act of 1999 is going to be modified to allow full access to private sector equivalent employment tribunals and legal rights to persue unfair dismissal then, to make sure someone up top doesnt make a bunch of us redundant just prior to a significant pensions point to save a few quid on pensions?

http://www.forcespensionsociety.org/COBSEO-unique-nature.pdf

i suggest anyone involved in making these changes have a good read of the above. i have heard the bell at manning has started to ring again. coincidence? possibly, but with all that is currently going on, the bale that broke the camels back springs to mind.

[Jumping_Jack]

The rumour is true. Looking at manning adding adhoc redundancy to the 'manning levers golfbag'. So if you are superfluous to requirements Manning can make you redundant with a 12 month lead time on statutory terms.

[VinRouge]

changes to employment law to match? wil i be able to sue the mod for unfair/constructive dismissal?

[Just This Once...]

Vin, the rumours are true but there has been quite a visceral reaction from the RAF consultation so far. This tool is 'needed' for the army but there is a slow recognition that just the mention of it will lead to a retention hit in the RAF.

There is no point in dangling a carrot of additional service, PAS, promotion et al if there is a chance of being booted-out just before you qualify for whatever you have signed up to.

That said, we still have to overcome the inertia of some VSOs who think we will sign up for additional service based on trust or loyalty. Sadly we all know of people who were made redundant just shy of their PAS qualifying point and now receive a pension based on their original single-list flt lt/sqn ldr pay. The mere fact that we are now short of people in the very areas we made redundant also shows we have a poor track-record of getting such decisions right. Inertia in the system is good if we are to survive the next Clive Loader moment.

It is also true that there are some that compare this to civilian life and this comparison is also wide of the mark. I am struggling to think of a civilian company that would promote you and then boot you out x-years later and then give you a package based on what your terms were pre-promotion or pay-rise x-years ago. In all cases they would have access to the courts - is this something we want?

Lets hope common sense prevails as I doubt the RAF can afford the 'transaction' rates of pay that it is currently driving towards.

[VinRouge]

the general consensus on the line is that unless fri post tax hit in the region of 130k, its just not worth staying in.

take your pension, thats about 8k post tax for most top level flt lts on 75. factor in civilian comparable wages, the fact the market is finally showing signs of recovery, then factor the norse of constantly fighting the allowances section who keep on making up new rules, and the general inability to plan ones life, an all in all, even 130k over 5 years post tax isnt that attractive. most wives now work meaning you can take the risk of going to single salary, especially with the gratuity in tow, even if you dont get a flying job i dont know a single person who has left and not scooped a job earning 80% or more of their former salary, not including pension in short order.

chance of a 100k+ net fri for 5 years? not much.

esprit de corps? not much about at the moment and morale is going to take a major dip imho post herrick once we are forgotten about once again.

[Just This Once...]

esprit de corps? not much about at the moment and morale is going to take a major dip imho post herrick once we are forgotten about once again.

I hear you but such is the exodus around me there are very few left to listen.

The post-HERRICK universe is looking pretty bleak. For many fleets their core hours have been sliced back so far that they are now completely dependant on HERRICK hours to keep them viable. The 'brave financial decisions' of the past were wrapped in the protective HERRICK hours bundle. It is only when this last last plastic straw is removed from the VSO's game of flying-KerPlunk will we truly see the damage that has been done. I expect crews, squadrons and fleets to be lost just to keep a miserly flying rate just about possible.

[Guest_22]

I attended an NEM brief where redundancy was discussed.

Apparently there has always been the lever to make people redundant at any time and looking back there is an Armed Forces Redundancy Scheme (AFRS), it just changes over time (much like the pension) to adjust to current requirements (mass redundancies!) and has a different year of implementation at the end. It was briefed that this is a lever that is rarely, if ever, used within the RAF but not to the future use of redundancy.

As to PAS and the NEM, the new T's & C's of Service don't show PAS or a requirement for it with graduated lengths of offers to extend at certain points in your career, remaining on the general list. I was too slow at the brief to consider asking about it. If your exit date is after NEM implementation, even with an offer to transfer to PAS, PAS may not be available to transfer to so would be a busted flush. PAS would remain for those who transfer just prior to NEM implementation. As a caveat, that is my interpretation of the future manning T's & C's from the "cigarette" career/rank structure within the presentation but it is yet to be confirmed or denied.

[Just This Once...]

G_22, I did ask questions regarding PAS but received precious little back apart from nervous smiles and an admission that not much work had been done. However, 'L-J' attended a later brief at a different station and I understand PAS was mentioned and the revised slides included sqn ldr aircrew to age 60.

Not all hope is lost, just most of it.

[downsizer]

These redundancy levers worry me. My understanding is they want to use them in the future to get rid of unexpected localised pools of manpower, so if your fleet takes a chop, so do you....

[N_1]

So from that I assume PA Flt Lts leave at 55...

and need to find a job until age 67 when their full AFPS 15 pension kicks in?

[5 Forward 6 Back]

Those thinking that FRIs might do the trick; remember that if you're a mid-30s Flt Lt like me wondering about promotion/PAS, any FRI that is less than £80k net doesn't even fill the whole left by the transfer to AFPS15....

So to actually profit to the tune of £120k, you'd need an FRI of £200k net. Chances of that...?

[Always a Sapper]

Vin, the rumours are true but there has been quite a visceral reaction from the RAF consultation so far. This tool is 'needed' for the army but there is a slow recognition that just the mention of it will lead to a retention hit in the RAF.

JTO, it's not often I perk up on here but I take extreme umbrage at your inference that this 'tool' is needed for the Army but not for the RAF... :mad:

It's not needed for any of the services, but while we are on the subject I would have thought it would fit in with the RAF very well...

I mean, initial thoughts go along the lines of it fitting in very well when say a fleet of Aircraft are chopped and we end up with a lot of Aircrew hitching a lift home having just dropped the frame off at the breakers... Or then theres the ground based engineers now without something to maintain... etc etc

Just saying thats all...

[TomJoad]

It's not needed for any of the services, but while we are on the subject I would have thought it would fit in with the RAF very well...

I mean, initial thoughts go along the lines of it fitting in very well when say a fleet of Aircraft are chopped and we end up with a lot of Aircrew hitching a lift home having just dropped the frame off at the breakers... Or then theres the ground based engineers now without something to maintain... etc etc

Just saying thats all...

Hate to say it but he's got a point. I feel for you guys having to adjust to this but it seams like the way things are going to be. I just gave some advice to a pupil who's off for his RAF interview shortly. While I've been happy to encourage him about what the service can offer as a career I encouraged him from the moment he joins to have his exit plan worked out. Get in, work hard, do good, have fun but always, always remember to prepare for the exit, preferably in a manner of your choosing. Work on getting the necessary skills, experience and qualifications, develop options/thoughts for second carer. I think that philosophy is becoming more important under this so called NEM.

[Uncle Ginsters]

Without getting into the inter-Service baiting....

The trouble seems to be that Manning need saving from themselves. We're about to see the full effect of the apparently well-considered triple-tranche redundancies and, guess what, they may not be quite as planned!

If the 12 month tool is there, the troops need assurance about exactly what scenarios it will be used in and what their legal rights are in order to prevent it becoming a severely negative factor.

Job security is still THE major attraction for many, please let that be remembered post-consultation.:ok:

[NutLoose]

It's not needed for any of the services, but while we are on the subject I would have thought it would fit in with the RAF very well...

I mean, initial thoughts go along the lines of it fitting in very well when say a fleet of Aircraft are chopped and we end up with a lot of Aircrew hitching a lift home having just dropped the frame off at the breakers... Or then theres the ground based engineers now without something to maintain... etc etc

Just saying thats all...

Trouble with that is you have good and bad on all fleets as in all walks of life, so you could end up chopping some of the cream, whilst being left with the milk elsewhere. Wasn't the Harrier supposed to attract the upper echelon of pilots as in the Marines? What happened to them when the jumping bean was canned?
Or does quality and achievers no longer come into the equation.

[Just This Once...]

JTO, it's not often I perk up on here but I take extreme umbrage at your inference that this 'tool' is needed for the Army but not for the RAF...

Always a Sapper, the quote is not mine it was the quote used at the brief. I am well aware of the uncomfortable use of manning control in the Army and the grief it has caused.

[Onceapilot]

Tom Joad, You have shown your opinion of a hardworking service ethos before. Why do you feel qualified to drag everything down to a zero-hours contract level?

OAP

[junket]

The introduction of an additional manpower control measure is being considered. In essence the service will have the right to terminate your service with 12 months notice (as they have done for the current round of redundancies). The premise is that any termination will be compensated and as a result of a defined service need and set of rules, and would usually be as a result off a capability reduction and after they have tried to retrain those individuals affected. The principle is not that different to the redundancy measure we have now and far better to the current QRs that allow instant and uncompensated termination. They also briefed about a career review point but did stress that this wasn't favoured by the RAF.

The explanation for its introduction is that current manning levers are inadequate (ET waiting times, continuance, PCs etc) and trying to introduce a redundancy programme takes too long. The above MCM provides greater flexibility for the service. I gather that it has received some considerable feedback, but links to employment relations act etc don't apply to us. Would we then be able to give a months notice, by right, as some seem to bring up - tbh I doubt it as the RAF just cant reconfigure so quickly due to the long lead in times in terms of training.

The aspect I struggle with is the compensation bit. I think the new redundancy scheme will only provide for a 3 month pay compensation - this doesn't seem to be fair and I certainly have fed back that this element should be reviewed in tandem with the introduction of the MCM. As the current scheme is a 9 month pay off this does seem far fairer and probably reasonable too in the current economic climate.

JTO & Guest 22 - the aspect of PAS is that it is a defined pay spine and not an engagement structure, hence why it wasn't included in the revised engagement structures slides. As aircrew you should expect to be employed in accordance with the Flying Branch slides. So Flt Lt after OCU to EDP, promotion to Sqn Ldr to 60. From what I have discussed with the NEM team at AIR is that PAS will be retained as it works and is a useful retention tool. The Pay team have also inferred that they don't expect PAS to alter.

[Always a Sapper]

JTO, it's not often I perk up on here but I take extreme umbrage at your inference that this 'tool' is needed for the Army but not for the RAF...

Always a Sapper, the quote is not mine it was the quote used at the brief. I am well aware of the uncomfortable use of manning control in the Army and the grief it has caused.

JTO, my apologies for the dig please don't take it personally, I was not aware that you were quoting the brief. That said, my point re the percieved targetting of the Army vs other services still stands but is aimed at the original author of the brief.

Quo Fas et Gloria Ducunt

[VinRouge]

As the current scheme is a 9 month pay off this does seem far fairer and probably reasonable too in the current economic climate.

not if you get whacked with it within a year of a pension point its not. Apparently, its not about saving money, its about efficiency remember :ugh:

[Just This Once...]

JTO & Guest 22 - the aspect of PAS is that it is a defined pay spine and not an engagement structure, hence why it wasn't included in the revised engagement structures slides. As aircrew you should expect to be employed in accordance with the Flying Branch slides. So Flt Lt after OCU to EDP, promotion to Wg Cdr to 60.

I think you are wide of the mark as your paragraph effectively deletes PAS by saying flt lts serve to EDP only wg cdrs make it to 60 - it makes no sense.

PAS is an engagement structure that is squarely aimed at achieving an enhanced pension by trading SP Flying for an enhanced rate of basic pay. In addition, you have to be beyond your IPP/EDP to start on the scheme.

Anyway, others on the forum have commented that PAS did make it to the revised engagement slides on the later briefs.

[junket]

Jto - sorry mate but you are wrong. PAS is not an engagement structure at all, but a distinct pay spine. Many assume it is an engagement structure and it does tend to be used as such by desk officers, but it is not.

And it didn't make it onto the presentation at all. If you are on PAS now with a gauranteed service to 55 then you remain on that. If promoted to Sqn Ldr, aftre 1 apr 15, then to age 60 (correction to my previous post as meant Sqn Ldr, not Wg Cdr for flying branch). So overall this probably works better for flying branches

[Just This Once...]

Hi Junket,

You seem more certain of everything than the rest of us, especially as we are told that this is a consultation exercise and you are telling some of us the reverse of what we were told in the Q&A.

I'm not sure what your angle is here but if you are really saying that PAS flt lts of the future only serve to EDP you are, in effect, telling us that PAS has ceased to exist for anyone without reserved rights.

So which is it - will PAS exist in the future or not?

[OldnDaft]

Retraining was mentioned in an earlier post as an option Manning might consider instead of giving someone the boot - how many pers were saved from the last rounds of redundancy and retrained? Not many.....