Military Personnel Not as Fexible as MOD Civil Servants
Jimlad has it spot on so can we park the outrage bus in its garage for this one? The CS are taking a massive hit which will affect our operational output but while they are the politicians' convenient bogey-men I can't see any repreive.
As for PUS, notwithstanding the ad hominem attacks from the adonis that is sidewayspeak, she's doing a damn sight better job than Bill Jeffrey ever did.
As for PUS, notwithstanding the ad hominem attacks from the adonis that is sidewayspeak, she's doing a damn sight better job than Bill Jeffrey ever did.
Airborne Artist
CS unions are cack all use and their permanent staffs, many funded by MoD, should be sent back to work.
As I've said elsewhere, CS retention in the current climate should be based on the proven (or otherwise) ability to meet the formal Grade Descriptions.
As that would deplete the (MoD) CS of about 80% or more, I'd temper that by saying less incompetent staffs should be given, say, 2 years to attain and demonstrate basic competencies which they are presently not required to attain. If they fail, chop them to the grade they are competent at. For donkeys years the promotion system was such that you were initially paid less upon promotion anyway, so that is not a great jump.
And before the Services say anything, the above Grade Descriptions require CSs to carry out what are now Service jobs, like Requirements Management, MILSM and some others that were traditionally jobs one did before being promoted into MoD(PE). That is, most Service RqMs and MILSMs are at least 3 ranks above that necessary for the job. So, the same principle applies to most uniforms you see in the likes of AbbeyWood.
Or, of course, Bernard Gray could put his money where his mouth is and privatise the lot! His report for the last Government repeated many good points. But as he hasn't done anything, one wonders if he truly understands the issues or was just plagiarising previous work! But, to be fair, the usual Star Chamber suspects have been gloating about seeing him off, so perhaps he lacks top level support from politicians who understand even less.
If you asked a CS to do the same they'd have had the union involved in seconds.
As I've said elsewhere, CS retention in the current climate should be based on the proven (or otherwise) ability to meet the formal Grade Descriptions.
As that would deplete the (MoD) CS of about 80% or more, I'd temper that by saying less incompetent staffs should be given, say, 2 years to attain and demonstrate basic competencies which they are presently not required to attain. If they fail, chop them to the grade they are competent at. For donkeys years the promotion system was such that you were initially paid less upon promotion anyway, so that is not a great jump.
And before the Services say anything, the above Grade Descriptions require CSs to carry out what are now Service jobs, like Requirements Management, MILSM and some others that were traditionally jobs one did before being promoted into MoD(PE). That is, most Service RqMs and MILSMs are at least 3 ranks above that necessary for the job. So, the same principle applies to most uniforms you see in the likes of AbbeyWood.
Or, of course, Bernard Gray could put his money where his mouth is and privatise the lot! His report for the last Government repeated many good points. But as he hasn't done anything, one wonders if he truly understands the issues or was just plagiarising previous work! But, to be fair, the usual Star Chamber suspects have been gloating about seeing him off, so perhaps he lacks top level support from politicians who understand even less.
Military Personnel Not as Fexible as MOD Civil Servants
From The Telegraph:
Mrs Brennan admitted that Armed Forces personnel and civil servants are being treated differently as jobs are cut.
“That is an absolute distinction between the two schemes and is part of an approach that the civil service takes civil service-wide, that we don’t go to compulsory redundancy until we’ve done the voluntary exits first.”
She suggested that, unlike service personnel, civil servants are harder to sack because they have “flexible skills”.
She told the committee: “It is also partly because if you look at the Armed Forces, you have people who have specific ranks and trades.
“A very large number of the civil service have flexible skills that enable them to work in a variety of places.
Fulll Article No civil servant cuts at cash-strapped MoD - Telegraph
I will keep my comments short: appalled
Mrs Brennan admitted that Armed Forces personnel and civil servants are being treated differently as jobs are cut.
“That is an absolute distinction between the two schemes and is part of an approach that the civil service takes civil service-wide, that we don’t go to compulsory redundancy until we’ve done the voluntary exits first.”
She suggested that, unlike service personnel, civil servants are harder to sack because they have “flexible skills”.
She told the committee: “It is also partly because if you look at the Armed Forces, you have people who have specific ranks and trades.
“A very large number of the civil service have flexible skills that enable them to work in a variety of places.
Fulll Article No civil servant cuts at cash-strapped MoD - Telegraph
I will keep my comments short: appalled
As a Civil Servant, I'd like to confirm this is balls.
Many years ago a CS was required to demonstrate to a promotion board that he/she was capable of carrying out any job at the next grade. There was a complementary rule in MoD(PE) that a Project Manager must be able to carry out every task/role on his project. For example, throughout most of my career these rules have been applied to me.
Today, one need only satisfy the board that, in time, one may become reasonably competent in the single post one is applying for.
As for "Assessment Centres", in practice they only assess your ability to do low level tasks that used to be pre-requisites before being promoted into MoD(PE).
That is a HUGE difference. Flexibility degraded from the day the new rule was introduced (in the 1990s).
So, the statement by Brennan is partly true of dinosaurs whose career was based on the old rules (which weren't always applied). They are in a small minority now. Brennan may be talking from personal experience but needs to get up to speed on extant "dumb down" policies.
Interestingly, and quite clearly illegally (in employment law), the old rules are still applied to those who were brought up under them. This double standard, whereby new staff don't have to attain the competencies of older staffs, is at the root of many of MoD's problems. Very often you have situations whereby senior staffs are sidelined because they lack experience and competence. Put another way, many project teams are "upside down", with key decisions taken by the most junior staffs.
Many years ago a CS was required to demonstrate to a promotion board that he/she was capable of carrying out any job at the next grade. There was a complementary rule in MoD(PE) that a Project Manager must be able to carry out every task/role on his project. For example, throughout most of my career these rules have been applied to me.
Today, one need only satisfy the board that, in time, one may become reasonably competent in the single post one is applying for.
As for "Assessment Centres", in practice they only assess your ability to do low level tasks that used to be pre-requisites before being promoted into MoD(PE).
That is a HUGE difference. Flexibility degraded from the day the new rule was introduced (in the 1990s).
So, the statement by Brennan is partly true of dinosaurs whose career was based on the old rules (which weren't always applied). They are in a small minority now. Brennan may be talking from personal experience but needs to get up to speed on extant "dumb down" policies.
Interestingly, and quite clearly illegally (in employment law), the old rules are still applied to those who were brought up under them. This double standard, whereby new staff don't have to attain the competencies of older staffs, is at the root of many of MoD's problems. Very often you have situations whereby senior staffs are sidelined because they lack experience and competence. Put another way, many project teams are "upside down", with key decisions taken by the most junior staffs.
Good lord, what an appalling badly researched article.
The reason that no MOD CS are being made compulsorily redundant is that they had over 15000 applicants for the 5000 people they needed to lose. They managed to hit their targets for the next 3 years with the first tranche.
What I think the good PUS is trying to say, and as always with the media, has spun out of context, is that when looking at manpower, there is an expectation that CS can be posted into a wider range of career posts because the training required is less technical, and the career plot is managed in a very different way.
In HM Forces, you may spend 20 years as a widget operator, doing courses that take 2-3 years to complete to get the basics right, and then being a deep specialist within a very narrow career field where everyone knows everyone. You may do posts outside this area, but generally you'll come back in to it, and thats where you experience lies. In the CS, its much more generalist in approach, and its easier to park a generalist project manager in one TLB, and move him into another TLB. A CS has very generalist skills, and is broadly appointable because they lack deep specialisations at most levels.
Its much more difficult to do that with a deeply specialised widget operator, where there may only be one location for them, or their entire trade group is being scrapped.In this instance, SNCOs in particular would suffer as although they'd have broader military skills, if the kit or equipment they have spent years using and maintaining is being taken out of service, and no replacement capability exists, then its quite a challenge to retrain experienced staff into a whole new system, and working out where to stick them that doesnt mess up existing career structures and promotion prospects, and doesnt mess with the manpower structure.
So yes, from a purely objective view - its slightly easier to relocate some generalist career civil servants because they don't have the same promotion system, or career structure. Similarly, there seems to be a view that its often easier to consider Forces personnel for redundancy at the same time because its hard to see how they can be continued in service without causing major training, manpower and other challenges.
Its not an attack on the competency of HM Forces, and I hope people see this report for what it is - the deliberate misinterpretation of words, and not a statement suggesting that HM Forces are in any way less competent or professional than the CS.
Its all part of the DT's wider 'if you are an MOD CS you must be EVIL' campaign.
The reason that no MOD CS are being made compulsorily redundant is that they had over 15000 applicants for the 5000 people they needed to lose. They managed to hit their targets for the next 3 years with the first tranche.
What I think the good PUS is trying to say, and as always with the media, has spun out of context, is that when looking at manpower, there is an expectation that CS can be posted into a wider range of career posts because the training required is less technical, and the career plot is managed in a very different way.
In HM Forces, you may spend 20 years as a widget operator, doing courses that take 2-3 years to complete to get the basics right, and then being a deep specialist within a very narrow career field where everyone knows everyone. You may do posts outside this area, but generally you'll come back in to it, and thats where you experience lies. In the CS, its much more generalist in approach, and its easier to park a generalist project manager in one TLB, and move him into another TLB. A CS has very generalist skills, and is broadly appointable because they lack deep specialisations at most levels.
Its much more difficult to do that with a deeply specialised widget operator, where there may only be one location for them, or their entire trade group is being scrapped.In this instance, SNCOs in particular would suffer as although they'd have broader military skills, if the kit or equipment they have spent years using and maintaining is being taken out of service, and no replacement capability exists, then its quite a challenge to retrain experienced staff into a whole new system, and working out where to stick them that doesnt mess up existing career structures and promotion prospects, and doesnt mess with the manpower structure.
So yes, from a purely objective view - its slightly easier to relocate some generalist career civil servants because they don't have the same promotion system, or career structure. Similarly, there seems to be a view that its often easier to consider Forces personnel for redundancy at the same time because its hard to see how they can be continued in service without causing major training, manpower and other challenges.
Its not an attack on the competency of HM Forces, and I hope people see this report for what it is - the deliberate misinterpretation of words, and not a statement suggesting that HM Forces are in any way less competent or professional than the CS.
Its all part of the DT's wider 'if you are an MOD CS you must be EVIL' campaign.
Red On, Green On
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Between the woods and the water
Age: 24
Posts: 6,487
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
I've seen some very flexible guys and gals in uniform.
Many of them have spent years bent over assuming the position. If you asked a CS to do the same they'd have had the union involved in seconds.
Many of them have spent years bent over assuming the position. If you asked a CS to do the same they'd have had the union involved in seconds.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Over the rainbow
Posts: 310
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Many of them have spent years bent over assuming the position. If you asked a CS to do the same they'd have had the union involved in seconds.
Not true. Some CS can kiss ass just as well as anyone in the forces.
Phil.
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Cloud9
Posts: 365
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dear WW
I shall be arriving back in the Green & Pleasant Land on 23 Dec, by ferry, from Le Continent. I am sallying forth to celebrate the Yuletide season with family.
I shall be wearing a top hat & driving the old Shooting Brake - I trust that I will be granted a cordial welcome & granted Free Pratique; indeed my UK passport requires that I be allowed to "pass freely, without let or hindrance".
D'you still drive on the left there?
HB
I shall be wearing a top hat & driving the old Shooting Brake - I trust that I will be granted a cordial welcome & granted Free Pratique; indeed my UK passport requires that I be allowed to "pass freely, without let or hindrance".
D'you still drive on the left there?
HB
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: somewhere special
Age: 46
Posts: 149
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CS Recruitment System
I agree with Jimlad, however one of the main reasons I believe this statement about flexibility is also true is because of the CS recruitment system. CS are recruited into jobs based on 'competencies'. You might think this would imply job or skill competency but it does not. The competences are BS like team working, effective listening etc. You are not allowed to ask questions about experience specific to the role that is being applied for, such as "Do you actually have any experience that would lead me to think you can do this job?"
In terms of employability, a CS who has ticked the boxes could get employed anywhere based on fluffy competence, rather than demonstrable experience and skills; hence the impression of greater flexibility.
However, this brings me back to Tuc's point that people don't necessarily have the right skills for the job and grade.
Outside of government I cannot fathom any employer who would actually recruit like this and expect their workforce to be effective and deliver high productivity.
Overall I've met some very good CS and some who epitomize the stereotype. Same with the mil folks.
H
In terms of employability, a CS who has ticked the boxes could get employed anywhere based on fluffy competence, rather than demonstrable experience and skills; hence the impression of greater flexibility.
However, this brings me back to Tuc's point that people don't necessarily have the right skills for the job and grade.
Outside of government I cannot fathom any employer who would actually recruit like this and expect their workforce to be effective and deliver high productivity.
Overall I've met some very good CS and some who epitomize the stereotype. Same with the mil folks.
H
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: UK
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A few years ago the then Staish at Lyneham was interviewed on TV about the Station's role in mounting an overseas operation, in which everyone had bust a gut to prep aircraft to deploy. He said something along the lines of 'My guys were great but when they're replaced by civilians I don't believe we could mount the same kind of operation again.'
Cue lots of demands for his resignation/ sacking by MPs etc for having the temerity to imply that civilian staff weren't more than a match for servicemen.
Apart from on these pages there's been scarce a mention of Brennan's comments.
Cue lots of demands for his resignation/ sacking by MPs etc for having the temerity to imply that civilian staff weren't more than a match for servicemen.
Apart from on these pages there's been scarce a mention of Brennan's comments.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Perhaps the civil servants could help in times of need:
man the fire engines when the fire persons are on strike.
kill the cows and bury them when the next foot and mouth strikes.
provide security staff for the Oh-Lym-Pics.
Man the Mountain Rescue teams when the civilian MR asks for help.
Smash their way into an embassy when the police can't cope.
lend a hand in when flooding returns.
etc
etc
Makes my blood boil and only serves to widen the gap between service personnel and the civil service.
man the fire engines when the fire persons are on strike.
kill the cows and bury them when the next foot and mouth strikes.
provide security staff for the Oh-Lym-Pics.
Man the Mountain Rescue teams when the civilian MR asks for help.
Smash their way into an embassy when the police can't cope.
lend a hand in when flooding returns.
etc
etc
Makes my blood boil and only serves to widen the gap between service personnel and the civil service.