Recruitment V Retention: discuss
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: North Yorkshire, UK
Age: 53
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Recruitment V Retention: discuss
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.
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.
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!!!
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!!!
Last edited by Biggus; 31st May 2008 at 07:22.
Inter Arma Enim Silentius Lex Legis
Join Date: May 2000
Location: England
Posts: 733
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!
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!
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Lincs
Posts: 203
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Up where we belong
Posts: 92
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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??
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??
It was suggested:
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
cost effective return of service (6 years for aircrew,
Will it be much quicker to productive service for NCA these days?
CG
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Sunny Wilts!
Posts: 59
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 169
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Captain Kirk
award of Pilot Wings comes far earlier in the Training system than it used to.
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!
On the pre-SAFT 
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...
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...
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 1,515
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Biggest public sector cuts in the offing for decades and it's time to bring back a recruitment/retention thread......really 
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.
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.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 734
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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:
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!!
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,868
Received 2,820 Likes
on
1,202 Posts
You need new young blood, no good pumping retention over recruitment otherwise your just gonna end up with a bunch of old farts....
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Wilts
Posts: 183
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 734
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Bristol
Posts: 190
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
R Vs R
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
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
Trap One
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.
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.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,868
Received 2,820 Likes
on
1,202 Posts
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.
One does hope things have at least moved on from that.