SDSR - Redundancy Package?
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
Armourers will take a hit especially torpedo experts or CRV7. In fact the knight of the long nives will be a bit like the loss of the marine branch.
Will the RAF even retain a maritime cadre in Group or Air?
The 2500 postulated by mutty may well be a gross underestimate. A number of light blue posts at RN units will be redundant. Probably a lot of maritime posts in the NATO HQs as well. With no light blue maritime air they would have no raision d'etre or credibility.
Will the RAF even retain a maritime cadre in Group or Air?
The 2500 postulated by mutty may well be a gross underestimate. A number of light blue posts at RN units will be redundant. Probably a lot of maritime posts in the NATO HQs as well. With no light blue maritime air they would have no raision d'etre or credibility.
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Road to Nowhere
Posts: 1,023
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
egdg:
It's a few years ago that I sat on some redundancy boards (RAF Regt and Chefs and PIs if memory serves).
At the point where the Board sat, the decision had already been made about nos for the particular TG we were sifting, and we were presented only with those who qualified for redundancy. So we were probably looking for, say, 30 from a volunteer stack of 200.
YES, the SJARs (Sorry 6442s) were out on the desk for us. In Three Piles (ALL VOLUNTEERS):
Next, we checked Pile 2 to whether there had been any cock-ups by the deskies regarding the special qualifications and whether we thought there were any special cases from their applications. If so, we moved them into Pile 1 (having scoreded the individual) or into Pile 3 if there was a good case to release.
Finally, we checked Pile 3. This was small and we were looking for cases where genuine hardship might result from not releasing. Almost all of these went to the top of the redundancy pile, but ISTR there were one or 2 that we weren't certain about. Also, I've got a vague recollection that there were people with minor medical conditions which would not get them a discharge, but would neverthess have a negative impact on their ability to progress. Eg Bloggs cannot deploy outside base areas, he is great at his home base, but has no chance of getting a good report because his Unit is one which relies on its deployability.
I have to say I found the whole process to be very fair - though we occasionally had to remind ourselves that these were all volunteers. Also, there were some cock-ups. Eg we had to do the Regt Pile 1 twice because it was only as we got to Pile 2 that they explained the special quals that they were looking for (FS1, Mortar instructor and grenade instructor I think), at which point we each recalled seeing examples of these in Pile 1. It had taken more than a whole day to sort this the first time, though it was quicker the second time.
Letters of support were very important for those with special cases.
Of course this was many years ago in the 90s and there may have been changes to the modern procedures (and Toppam's memory isn't all it was), but I hope it was useful. I would like to sign-off by explaining why I've taken the time to write all this - it's because we're moving house soon and I have to sort out the garage. The weather is IMC and I'm putting it off (Mrs T thinks I am working). Now that I am finished, it's still raining, but I am rapidly running out of excuses. Washing up next!
STH
What do they normally look at? Is it purely on time to go, or do they actually get the ACRs out and put people in an order (ike a promotion board)?
At the point where the Board sat, the decision had already been made about nos for the particular TG we were sifting, and we were presented only with those who qualified for redundancy. So we were probably looking for, say, 30 from a volunteer stack of 200.
YES, the SJARs (Sorry 6442s) were out on the desk for us. In Three Piles (ALL VOLUNTEERS):
1. People who wanted redundancy, but who had no particular skills we needed and could be released immediately without impact on the Service.
2. People with special skills for which the Service had a significant shortage. For example, RAF Regt FS1 Rapier instructors; the RAF had moved to FS2 Rapier, and the trg for their instructors had been so successful (mis-managed?) that there were hardly any FS1 instructors left, but there was still a small number of units on FS1 waiting to upgrade.
3. People with special cases, normaly laid out in their letters of application. For example, ISTR one chap had a child with a severe physical disability. He was an excellant tradesman and would almost certainly have been looking at promotion if he were not successful with his application; retention in the Service also had significant costs associated with MQ conversion each time he moved, and ISTR he had letters of support from his bosses and even the Staish.
We started with the first pile and did a prom board based on the preceeding 4-years of reports. We also checked letters of application for special cases. We ended up with a list of people, then reversed it to put the best at the bottom and the worst at the top.2. People with special skills for which the Service had a significant shortage. For example, RAF Regt FS1 Rapier instructors; the RAF had moved to FS2 Rapier, and the trg for their instructors had been so successful (mis-managed?) that there were hardly any FS1 instructors left, but there was still a small number of units on FS1 waiting to upgrade.
3. People with special cases, normaly laid out in their letters of application. For example, ISTR one chap had a child with a severe physical disability. He was an excellant tradesman and would almost certainly have been looking at promotion if he were not successful with his application; retention in the Service also had significant costs associated with MQ conversion each time he moved, and ISTR he had letters of support from his bosses and even the Staish.
Next, we checked Pile 2 to whether there had been any cock-ups by the deskies regarding the special qualifications and whether we thought there were any special cases from their applications. If so, we moved them into Pile 1 (having scoreded the individual) or into Pile 3 if there was a good case to release.
Finally, we checked Pile 3. This was small and we were looking for cases where genuine hardship might result from not releasing. Almost all of these went to the top of the redundancy pile, but ISTR there were one or 2 that we weren't certain about. Also, I've got a vague recollection that there were people with minor medical conditions which would not get them a discharge, but would neverthess have a negative impact on their ability to progress. Eg Bloggs cannot deploy outside base areas, he is great at his home base, but has no chance of getting a good report because his Unit is one which relies on its deployability.
I have to say I found the whole process to be very fair - though we occasionally had to remind ourselves that these were all volunteers. Also, there were some cock-ups. Eg we had to do the Regt Pile 1 twice because it was only as we got to Pile 2 that they explained the special quals that they were looking for (FS1, Mortar instructor and grenade instructor I think), at which point we each recalled seeing examples of these in Pile 1. It had taken more than a whole day to sort this the first time, though it was quicker the second time.
Letters of support were very important for those with special cases.
Of course this was many years ago in the 90s and there may have been changes to the modern procedures (and Toppam's memory isn't all it was), but I hope it was useful. I would like to sign-off by explaining why I've taken the time to write all this - it's because we're moving house soon and I have to sort out the garage. The weather is IMC and I'm putting it off (Mrs T thinks I am working). Now that I am finished, it's still raining, but I am rapidly running out of excuses. Washing up next!
STH
STH
To try to drag out your 'working' a bit longer
You say all yours were volunteers. Do you know if there was any attempt to look at any 'compulsory' cases as well (i.e. those put forward by the deskies as a waste of rations) or was it a case of volunteers demand exceeding requirement therefore there was no need (or even that it was against the law) to put forward any compulsories into 'the mix'?
Oh, and buy a dish washer for your new house!
To try to drag out your 'working' a bit longer
You say all yours were volunteers. Do you know if there was any attempt to look at any 'compulsory' cases as well (i.e. those put forward by the deskies as a waste of rations) or was it a case of volunteers demand exceeding requirement therefore there was no need (or even that it was against the law) to put forward any compulsories into 'the mix'?
Oh, and buy a dish washer for your new house!
Thank you STH for that interesting vignette. However, this time round and in the case of Kinloss, I suspect that the numbers may be reversed i.e, 200 will have to go and only 30 will volunteer?
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Road to Nowhere
Posts: 1,023
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks for your concern, but in the end I had to go to the garage. Have now sneaked back in after re-fitting cupboard into kitchen (had to remove so we could get the fridge in - fridge now in hall awaiting removals in 3 weeks -ish); next occupant will need to do same, probably. Actually upstairs looking for the number for Britannia removals, which is somewhere in my Inbox. Anyone used the new system yet? It's computerised (apart from all the bits that aren't) and "Computer says no".
Have a dishwasher, but can't bear to fill it with 4 pans and a couple of K & Fs unlike Memsahib.
Back to the thread. Difficult to say what will happen this time. There was no suggestion at all about compulsory redundancy last time I got involved, but I think there may have been some since. I think it will be some time before we know exactly what's going on. Lossie is a case in point.
For what it's worth, I think the change in packages is a ****ty trick, but it seems to be the way the RAF is going; we're being driven towards civvy T&Cs with no consultation and I am pretty sure the powers that be have long since lost control in this area. The AFPRB recently visited a Unit I have since left. I have to say I was astonished by their attitude, which was basically that there is no money to look after us (you), so tough poo.
STH
Have a dishwasher, but can't bear to fill it with 4 pans and a couple of K & Fs unlike Memsahib.
Back to the thread. Difficult to say what will happen this time. There was no suggestion at all about compulsory redundancy last time I got involved, but I think there may have been some since. I think it will be some time before we know exactly what's going on. Lossie is a case in point.
For what it's worth, I think the change in packages is a ****ty trick, but it seems to be the way the RAF is going; we're being driven towards civvy T&Cs with no consultation and I am pretty sure the powers that be have long since lost control in this area. The AFPRB recently visited a Unit I have since left. I have to say I was astonished by their attitude, which was basically that there is no money to look after us (you), so tough poo.
STH
Last edited by SirToppamHat; 26th Oct 2010 at 14:36.
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: UK/Philippines/Italy
Age: 73
Posts: 557
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There was no suggestion at all about compulsory redundancy last time I got involved, but I think there may have been some since.
There is another way things happen. Back in the mid 90s cull, I got the job (thanks a lot boss you barsteward) of briefing around 100 SACs of what was happening. One thing was a freeze on promotion to Cpl.
Many of these guys were coming up to their 12 yr point, had a couple of '8's and a Spec Rec.
Were they bitter? No. Of course not! They understood the need to bow to the Peace Dividend that the Guvmint had promised taxpayers. (Please insert irony chip here).
On a more personal note, I found the terms then very attractive and applied to go. Wasn't accepted. Many letters, a redress and in the end PVRd. Never regretted it as I thought that we were doing things wrong and not seeing the bigger picture.
The fact is that those who volunteer to go under the various reduncy schemes in the past are those who seek advantage from it. As a generalization, they are confident that they will make it in Civvy St.
Perhaps a case for a closer look at those who don't volunteer?
Perhaps a case for a closer look at those who don't volunteer
) go. Trouble is if you make up your redundancy numbers entirely through compulsory notices to the afore mentioned 'waste of rations' then the chances are a good proportion of the good guys who volunteered to go, but were refused, will end up going down the PVR route anyway thus leading to, effectively, a double hit on manpower strength.It will be a fine balancing act by Manning and one for which they will get the blame whichever way it goes!
Wrathmonk,
You are totally correct. Whenever we have a round of voluntary redundancies we go from being overmanned to being undermanned almost immediately.
Why? Well, some of our most competent and confident people decide to take this opportunity to leave and start a new career. They discuss it with the wife and family, all agree, and go ahead and apply for redundancy. They start to make plans on where to move to, details of a second career, maybe start applying for new jobs, make start-up plans for a new business, etc. Then comes the bad news, they haven't been selected for redundancy. However, by now their mind set, and those of their family, is totally focused on making a go of their new life - therefore they elect to leave anyway (PVR). Hence the RAF inevitably loses more people than the number of redundancy posts it had announced and planned for!
You are totally correct. Whenever we have a round of voluntary redundancies we go from being overmanned to being undermanned almost immediately.
Why? Well, some of our most competent and confident people decide to take this opportunity to leave and start a new career. They discuss it with the wife and family, all agree, and go ahead and apply for redundancy. They start to make plans on where to move to, details of a second career, maybe start applying for new jobs, make start-up plans for a new business, etc. Then comes the bad news, they haven't been selected for redundancy. However, by now their mind set, and those of their family, is totally focused on making a go of their new life - therefore they elect to leave anyway (PVR). Hence the RAF inevitably loses more people than the number of redundancy posts it had announced and planned for!
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Here and there, occasionally at home.
Age: 56
Posts: 146
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And I know exactly how they feel! Having had chance to think about it for nearly a whole week now, I am starting to realise that the RAF I have busted a gut for over the last 24 years has just smacked me in the teeth, knocked me down (again) and is now trying to do unmentionable things to my private parts!
You know what? I think I have had just about enough. It may not be the fault of the RAF but threatening not to vote for Dave next time round doesn't quite describe the depth of anger, outrage, despair, disappointment, disgust, loss and downright sadness that I feel, not just for myself but for the whole of Kinloss (as well as others around the UK).
You know what? I think I have had just about enough. It may not be the fault of the RAF but threatening not to vote for Dave next time round doesn't quite describe the depth of anger, outrage, despair, disappointment, disgust, loss and downright sadness that I feel, not just for myself but for the whole of Kinloss (as well as others around the UK).
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
Aye once you realise the RAF has switched you off and then you decide to switch the RAF off there is no trust and no going back.
Only CEA, a poor package and impending pension would keep many in.
IIRC those within spitting distance of their option points and retirement date will not be offered redundancy. Suppose you have 2 years to go then they will find some stores or desk somewhere for you to rusticate.
Only CEA, a poor package and impending pension would keep many in.
IIRC those within spitting distance of their option points and retirement date will not be offered redundancy. Suppose you have 2 years to go then they will find some stores or desk somewhere for you to rusticate.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: The Whyte House
Age: 95
Posts: 1,966
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why? Well, some of our most competent and confident people decide to take this opportunity to leave and start a new career. They discuss it with the wife and family, all agree, and go ahead and apply for redundancy. They start to make plans on where to move to, details of a second career, maybe start applying for new jobs, make start-up plans for a new business, etc. Then comes the bad news, they haven't been selected for redundancy. However, by now their mind set, and those of their family, is totally focused on making a go of their new life - therefore they elect to leave anyway (PVR). Hence the RAF inevitably loses more people than the number of redundancy posts it had announced and planned for!
PN,
As I have said before, on this and other threads, nobody is going to be out very soon.
It will take Manning at least 6 months (in my option, and based on previous schemes) to staff the numbers required for redundancy, publish a scheme for RAF wide consumption, and allow time for people to apply. Volunteers will get 6 months notice (so that is at least 12 months from now), any compulsary redundancies will get 12 months notice (so that is at least 18 months from now).
Anyone with 3 years or less to do also certainly won't come into the equation, as they will be considered part of natural wasteage.
The issue with the guys at Kinloss is what the RAF does with them in the next 3-4 months, given that they could be out 15 months later..... Keeping them in place, at Kinloss, on gardening leave probably isn't an option - so where do they go? No doubt this is the "rustication" you are referring to...
As I have said before, on this and other threads, nobody is going to be out very soon.
It will take Manning at least 6 months (in my option, and based on previous schemes) to staff the numbers required for redundancy, publish a scheme for RAF wide consumption, and allow time for people to apply. Volunteers will get 6 months notice (so that is at least 12 months from now), any compulsary redundancies will get 12 months notice (so that is at least 18 months from now).
Anyone with 3 years or less to do also certainly won't come into the equation, as they will be considered part of natural wasteage.
The issue with the guys at Kinloss is what the RAF does with them in the next 3-4 months, given that they could be out 15 months later..... Keeping them in place, at Kinloss, on gardening leave probably isn't an option - so where do they go? No doubt this is the "rustication" you are referring to...
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Great Britain
Posts: 163
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I guess I am not alone in waiting for the T's to be crossed and I's dotted to see if redundancy is for me then. I consider myself to be a borderline case although I am timex in 2014 anyway and may find it not an option. I would be delighted to go with the right renumeration package and feel for everybody left behind even if that does end up including myself. Fingers well and truly crossed, and top level (for me) PA in the bank in 12 months.
what the RAF does with them in the next 3-4 months
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: The real world
Posts: 446
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am not convinced people in their last couple of years won't get redundancy, yes in years gone by when the package was much larger it would have been counterproductive/expensive to make them redundant.
However since they changed the packages, it is now in many cases very much cheaper to get rid of these people in their last few years than it is to pay them their full wages! Keeping them in, doing some meaningless job that they have little interest or motivation for, whilst perhaps also paying out for seperation or relocation costs is counterproductive/expensive.
The MOD/RAF would also get to balance the manning numbers without losing as many people who wanted to stay in and still had years to offer.
However since they changed the packages, it is now in many cases very much cheaper to get rid of these people in their last few years than it is to pay them their full wages! Keeping them in, doing some meaningless job that they have little interest or motivation for, whilst perhaps also paying out for seperation or relocation costs is counterproductive/expensive.
The MOD/RAF would also get to balance the manning numbers without losing as many people who wanted to stay in and still had years to offer.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BIGGUS
"Volunteers will get 6 months notice (so that is at least 12 months from now), any compulsary redundancies will get 12 months notice (so that is at least 18 months from now)."
Where do these figures come from? Is there an official document that states how much notice must be given?
"Volunteers will get 6 months notice (so that is at least 12 months from now), any compulsary redundancies will get 12 months notice (so that is at least 18 months from now)."
Where do these figures come from? Is there an official document that states how much notice must be given?
lonsdale2,
You have a PM....
I am not aware that anything formal has been published yet. I believe that timescales of 6/12 months for volunteer/compulsary were used the last time around and, given that terminal leave and resettlement can take up 3 months, shorter timescales are not likely to be practical....
You have a PM....
I am not aware that anything formal has been published yet. I believe that timescales of 6/12 months for volunteer/compulsary were used the last time around and, given that terminal leave and resettlement can take up 3 months, shorter timescales are not likely to be practical....
Does JSP 764 Pt 5 not apply then? I had assumed (possibly wrongly) that it's various sections apply to both AFPS 75 and AFPS 05 members from Apr 2010 onwards. 
