PUS under Fire
SRENNAPS,
It's always been very simple to me, and sorry to derail! There are CS on that blog saying pilots who "aren't even flying and are sat behind a desk!" shouldn't get flying pay. It's not "danger money" for actively flying, it's retention pay for skills and experience, which are still required in certain ground jobs.
CEA makes sense for those like me who've done a tour in middle England, one in the south, one in the north of Scotland, and one overseas. I'm very definitely mobile and it's not fair to put my kids into a state school ready for GCSEs only to be told "hey 5F6B, next tour, back overseas/back to the north of Scotland!" Not designed to provide service kids with a private education, rather designed to make sure their education has continuity when it's required.
I would expect NEM with its geographic stability/longer tours to do away with it for a LOT of people.
But rather than getting into the nitty gritty of specific allowances, it's the attitude that stinks. Military aircrew should have to accept a 20% pay cut if posted to a non-flying job that requires aircrew because CS haven't understood why they're paid FP and are angry at their TOS? Or military officers shouldn't have kids because it's a choice? The military wouldn't work very well if everyone left when they started a family!
I can't believe people display that sort of attitude and then expect sympathy with their admittedly very poor situation. It's alright to ruin the education of hundreds of service children just because they want a pay rise?
I am not being cynical or am I trying to stir up something that I know has been discussed on this forum many times.
However, I must admit that I have never really understood what both are meant to cover, as you put it!
However, I must admit that I have never really understood what both are meant to cover, as you put it!
CEA makes sense for those like me who've done a tour in middle England, one in the south, one in the north of Scotland, and one overseas. I'm very definitely mobile and it's not fair to put my kids into a state school ready for GCSEs only to be told "hey 5F6B, next tour, back overseas/back to the north of Scotland!" Not designed to provide service kids with a private education, rather designed to make sure their education has continuity when it's required.
I would expect NEM with its geographic stability/longer tours to do away with it for a LOT of people.
But rather than getting into the nitty gritty of specific allowances, it's the attitude that stinks. Military aircrew should have to accept a 20% pay cut if posted to a non-flying job that requires aircrew because CS haven't understood why they're paid FP and are angry at their TOS? Or military officers shouldn't have kids because it's a choice? The military wouldn't work very well if everyone left when they started a family!
I can't believe people display that sort of attitude and then expect sympathy with their admittedly very poor situation. It's alright to ruin the education of hundreds of service children just because they want a pay rise?
“The Permanent Under Secretary's argument, that civilians are flexibly employable whereas the military are not,”
Possibly the most misquoted out of context statement that I have seen by the HCDC. What the PUS was trying to say was actually something very different. Namely that in the civil service there is no branch structure with career path – unlike the military who once in branch will generally follow a tightly defined career plot and where desks man the requirement (e.g. find X number of Flt Lts qualifed to do widget making to later on provide Y number of Sqn Ldrs to oversee widget making). What the PUS was trying to explain was that once branched, it is difficult to then do a swap into another branch later in the career – the military career path is quite locked in – so were you a Wg Cdr RAF REGT, then if your post was deleted, it is hard to suddenly cross transfer and become Wg Cdr Typhoon Pilot without a lot of retraining.
What this means is that the military excels at a career stream of producing excellent specialists, but it is very much stovepiped and opportunities to cross branch are limited – partly due to the length of time required to retrain, but also because you need to maintain a career plot for juniors.
By contrast the MOD CS staff do not have any form of career management and the roles they undertake rarely need much job specific training. While there are certain areas where one needs experience (e.g. nuclear), a lot of the posts draw on more generic skills that can be acquired across a range of areas. This means that when civilians are more flexible in the sense that they can swap commands / locations / departments to fulfil a job in a different area in a way that service personnel cannot do as easily.
The problem was that this very sensible point – namely that two different organisations which use very different methods to train and employ staff which both work for the organisations, but has implications on staff employment, was mistaken to be seen that somehow PUS thought CS were better than the military.
“The MoD, in its response to this Report, should set out what opportunities and encouragement it gives to those in the Armed Forces who face compulsory redundancy to retrain, especially into pinch point trades”
The retraining argument only makes sense if you can get staff with sufficient return of service to be able to do the training and still provide value to the corps / trade group / branch. For instance, if SSGT Blogs was a experienced signaller, but had 5 years left to do, does it make sense to send him on a (hypothethical) 2 year long training cycle to do something in a totally new Corps / Cap badge where he has no prior experience or knowledge in return for 3 years service? Why not promote from within the manpower plot, in order to keep the career structure flowing?
Transferring makes sense where there is sufficient time left to provide value, but when people are close to leaving anyway, why not just recruit new personnel and get an entire career out of them, rather than investing scarce resources on someone who will be leaving soon afterwards anyway?
“that many civil servants but insufficient members of the Armed Forces have applied for redundancy, ignores the question of why that should be so”
Because speaking to people I know who applied, the sense was that the MOD CS has been a morale vacuum for years, with people feeling unvalued, fed up of pay freezes, lack of promotion opportunities and career prospects and seeing their T&COS being further eroded. Additionally many of those who went were older, and saw that they could get their pension and a pay off for leaving, rather than spend several more depressing years getting more frustrated. I don’t blame them for leaving in the slightest.
By contrast the regular military offers a good well paying job with a clear career structure, reasonable prospects and a very attractive package of benefits compared to most civvy jobs. Friends of mine who looked at jumping quickly realised that they would struggle to replicate the package they were on in civvy street.
Its about two very different organisations having very different sets of staff challenges.
“For military redundancies to be compulsory in 40 per cent of cases, yet for civilian redundancies to be compulsory in none, is so grotesque that it requires an exceptionally persuasive reason. “
Not really – if you annoy one workforce enough that it gets all the applicants it needs to leave over 5 years in the first year then you should ask more why it is that so many wanted to leave. Clearly HM Forces got it right and few wanted to go. Frankly I’d be more worried if the Military had met its target for redundancies by volunteers alone as it would imply a very serious morale problem in the system.
Possibly the most misquoted out of context statement that I have seen by the HCDC. What the PUS was trying to say was actually something very different. Namely that in the civil service there is no branch structure with career path – unlike the military who once in branch will generally follow a tightly defined career plot and where desks man the requirement (e.g. find X number of Flt Lts qualifed to do widget making to later on provide Y number of Sqn Ldrs to oversee widget making). What the PUS was trying to explain was that once branched, it is difficult to then do a swap into another branch later in the career – the military career path is quite locked in – so were you a Wg Cdr RAF REGT, then if your post was deleted, it is hard to suddenly cross transfer and become Wg Cdr Typhoon Pilot without a lot of retraining.
What this means is that the military excels at a career stream of producing excellent specialists, but it is very much stovepiped and opportunities to cross branch are limited – partly due to the length of time required to retrain, but also because you need to maintain a career plot for juniors.
By contrast the MOD CS staff do not have any form of career management and the roles they undertake rarely need much job specific training. While there are certain areas where one needs experience (e.g. nuclear), a lot of the posts draw on more generic skills that can be acquired across a range of areas. This means that when civilians are more flexible in the sense that they can swap commands / locations / departments to fulfil a job in a different area in a way that service personnel cannot do as easily.
The problem was that this very sensible point – namely that two different organisations which use very different methods to train and employ staff which both work for the organisations, but has implications on staff employment, was mistaken to be seen that somehow PUS thought CS were better than the military.
“The MoD, in its response to this Report, should set out what opportunities and encouragement it gives to those in the Armed Forces who face compulsory redundancy to retrain, especially into pinch point trades”
The retraining argument only makes sense if you can get staff with sufficient return of service to be able to do the training and still provide value to the corps / trade group / branch. For instance, if SSGT Blogs was a experienced signaller, but had 5 years left to do, does it make sense to send him on a (hypothethical) 2 year long training cycle to do something in a totally new Corps / Cap badge where he has no prior experience or knowledge in return for 3 years service? Why not promote from within the manpower plot, in order to keep the career structure flowing?
Transferring makes sense where there is sufficient time left to provide value, but when people are close to leaving anyway, why not just recruit new personnel and get an entire career out of them, rather than investing scarce resources on someone who will be leaving soon afterwards anyway?
“that many civil servants but insufficient members of the Armed Forces have applied for redundancy, ignores the question of why that should be so”
Because speaking to people I know who applied, the sense was that the MOD CS has been a morale vacuum for years, with people feeling unvalued, fed up of pay freezes, lack of promotion opportunities and career prospects and seeing their T&COS being further eroded. Additionally many of those who went were older, and saw that they could get their pension and a pay off for leaving, rather than spend several more depressing years getting more frustrated. I don’t blame them for leaving in the slightest.
By contrast the regular military offers a good well paying job with a clear career structure, reasonable prospects and a very attractive package of benefits compared to most civvy jobs. Friends of mine who looked at jumping quickly realised that they would struggle to replicate the package they were on in civvy street.
Its about two very different organisations having very different sets of staff challenges.
“For military redundancies to be compulsory in 40 per cent of cases, yet for civilian redundancies to be compulsory in none, is so grotesque that it requires an exceptionally persuasive reason. “
Not really – if you annoy one workforce enough that it gets all the applicants it needs to leave over 5 years in the first year then you should ask more why it is that so many wanted to leave. Clearly HM Forces got it right and few wanted to go. Frankly I’d be more worried if the Military had met its target for redundancies by volunteers alone as it would imply a very serious morale problem in the system.
Jimlad,
You explained yourself very well (as is often the case) however,
Not quite right. For the various tranches of redundancies back in the 90's and 00's, I think almost all of the Armed Forces personnel were volunteers. In this latest batch, redundancies were decided on virtually a reverse promotion board. Many volunteers were not selected and many were made compulsory redundant despite being the same age, rank, trade, experience etc.. as those who volunteered. That's the big difference between us and the CS this time round.
You explained yourself very well (as is often the case) however,
Clearly HM Forces got it right and few wanted to go. Frankly I’d be more worried if the Military had met its target for redundancies by volunteers alone as it would imply a very serious morale problem in the system.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: South Wales
Age: 63
Posts: 729
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
5 Forward 6 Back
Many thanks for your reply. I also do not wish to derail this thread but I thought a reply to you would be at least the polite thing to do.
I personally have never had a problem with Flying Pay; flying or not flying! (With respect to most Ground Crew, I am probably in the minority on this
). In my opinion all aircrew have worked extremely hard to earn their wings and they are an extremely specialised skill set who, just because they serve a tour behind a desk, should not be penalised with the loss of a hard earned extra.
As for the CS on that blog, they are just very angry people who will say anything because they are potentially seeing their whole way of life changing, not just one allowance.
With respect to CEA, sorry but I am just a little bit more cynical on this one. CEA is a personal choice; it is right for some, but not right for others. I did 13 tours in 29 years and we elected not to board our daughters. As it was my eldest did board at JHQ for 12 months (to finish her O levels) when I was posted from Bruggen to Odiham and then back to Bruggen within 11 months. (Ah yes, the RAF did not mess me around too much there
). In the end both of my daughters turned out great and they are in very successful professional careers. As I said, CEA can be right for some, but no for others.
I do not have any issues with parents that have use CEA to board when they have their children’s best interests in mind.
However, sadly in my opinion, the CEA system was used and abused by many, not for the good of their children, but for the good of themselves. As a generalisation they were the pompas arrogant types that would suck up to anything above but look down in contempt at anything below them. And as for loyalty to their Sqn and RAF as a whole, just don’t get me started.
In recent discussions with another person on this subject the following words were put to me:
Yes, in my experience I can relate to the above and have seen so many instances of that type of abuse across all ranks. I would also go as far to say that I have met couples who did not want the hassle or pressure of bringing up their kids, especially when one is away on 4 month OOA tours on regular occasions. Their attitude was to take advantageof the system to make their lives easier! A cynical view I know, but true in my opinion.
On a final note, my daughters are now aged 30 and 26. We have spoken many times on the family decisions made not to board them during those years of moving around every three years. I have asked them if they ever regretted it. The answer is always a resounding NO. They enjoyed the adventure of moving around to new places and meeting new people. Dam! They even tell me that “Bruggen Scaly Brats” have their own Facebook page where they meet up and chat about their school days.
I personally think my daughters are better people because of the moving around with the RAF. But everybody is different and there is no right or wrong way of doing it. Unless through selfishness you abuse the system of course
And now back on thread:
Jimlad1
My thoughts exactly. Nail hit firmly on the head 
Many thanks for your reply. I also do not wish to derail this thread but I thought a reply to you would be at least the polite thing to do.
I personally have never had a problem with Flying Pay; flying or not flying! (With respect to most Ground Crew, I am probably in the minority on this
). In my opinion all aircrew have worked extremely hard to earn their wings and they are an extremely specialised skill set who, just because they serve a tour behind a desk, should not be penalised with the loss of a hard earned extra. As for the CS on that blog, they are just very angry people who will say anything because they are potentially seeing their whole way of life changing, not just one allowance.
With respect to CEA, sorry but I am just a little bit more cynical on this one. CEA is a personal choice; it is right for some, but not right for others. I did 13 tours in 29 years and we elected not to board our daughters. As it was my eldest did board at JHQ for 12 months (to finish her O levels) when I was posted from Bruggen to Odiham and then back to Bruggen within 11 months. (Ah yes, the RAF did not mess me around too much there
). In the end both of my daughters turned out great and they are in very successful professional careers. As I said, CEA can be right for some, but no for others. I do not have any issues with parents that have use CEA to board when they have their children’s best interests in mind.
However, sadly in my opinion, the CEA system was used and abused by many, not for the good of their children, but for the good of themselves. As a generalisation they were the pompas arrogant types that would suck up to anything above but look down in contempt at anything below them. And as for loyalty to their Sqn and RAF as a whole, just don’t get me started.
In recent discussions with another person on this subject the following words were put to me:
Corporals sending children so they can say their children went to boarding school (from the age of 5!). Officers so that they can enjoy the social life. There are parents living not 5 miles from the school.
On a final note, my daughters are now aged 30 and 26. We have spoken many times on the family decisions made not to board them during those years of moving around every three years. I have asked them if they ever regretted it. The answer is always a resounding NO. They enjoyed the adventure of moving around to new places and meeting new people. Dam! They even tell me that “Bruggen Scaly Brats” have their own Facebook page where they meet up and chat about their school days.
I personally think my daughters are better people because of the moving around with the RAF. But everybody is different and there is no right or wrong way of doing it. Unless through selfishness you abuse the system of course
And now back on thread:
Jimlad1
“For military redundancies to be compulsory in 40 per cent of cases, yet for civilian redundancies to be compulsory in none, is so grotesque that it requires an exceptionally persuasive reason. “
Not really – if you annoy one workforce enough that it gets all the applicants it needs to leave over 5 years in the first year then you should ask more why it is that so many wanted to leave. Clearly HM Forces got it right and few wanted to go. Frankly I’d be more worried if the Military had met its target for redundancies by volunteers alone as it would imply a very serious morale problem in the system.
Not really – if you annoy one workforce enough that it gets all the applicants it needs to leave over 5 years in the first year then you should ask more why it is that so many wanted to leave. Clearly HM Forces got it right and few wanted to go. Frankly I’d be more worried if the Military had met its target for redundancies by volunteers alone as it would imply a very serious morale problem in the system.
Last edited by SRENNAPS; 27th Jun 2013 at 14:56.
