Military Aviation A forum for the professionals who fly military hardware. Also for the backroom boys and girls who support the flying and maintain the equipment, and without whom nothing would ever leave the ground. All armies, navies and air forces of the world equally welcome here.

PUS under Fire

Old 25th Jun 2013, 10:55
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Their Target for Tonight
Posts: 544
PUS under Fire

Following the announcement on the Andrew Marr show on Sunday that more civil servant posts are under threat in the MOD, Jon Thompson's blog has had quite a vitriolic response - well over 100 comments in 2 days, none of which are favourable!

I do think we have allowed the CS to become unfairly demonised in the public's eyes. I currently work with a bunch of talented CS who both go 'above and beyond' and have a good military respect for friendly banter.

Yes, there are some wasters, but that applies to some of those in uniform too!

http://pppaintranet.chris.r.mil.uk/b.../24-june-2013/
Red Line Entry is offline  
Old 25th Jun 2013, 16:33
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Outbound
Posts: 578
They'd get a little more sympathy and respect from me if the first dozen or so posts on that blog weren't about removing CEA and flying pay from aircrew not in active flying roles. A complete lack of understanding of what both are meant to cover!

Some of the attitudes on display are terrible. "Your choice to join the service and your choice to combine that with having children, why should the taxpayer fund private education?" A bit like the ever-popular "if you don't like it, leave" stuff.

By all means fight your cuts and idiocy from above, but if your first response is to snipe at allowances that other people get, you'll find your bucket of sympathy empties rather quickly.

Last edited by 5 Forward 6 Back; 25th Jun 2013 at 16:34.
5 Forward 6 Back is offline  
Old 25th Jun 2013, 16:56
  #3 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 176
Here, here, 5F6B. I got bored with the comments after the first handful. And it is this group of people who will be the first to defend their own benefits - the redeployment pool for example.
30mRad is offline  
Old 25th Jun 2013, 16:57
  #4 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: In my head
Posts: 88
That's nowt. Read the comments to his previous two blogs!
Helol is offline  
Old 25th Jun 2013, 17:22
  #5 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: London
Age: 39
Posts: 731
In the context that one group of people (civilians) just got told they were being financially shafted on pay and allowances (pay freeze for years, no incremental progression, allowances reduced) then i can understand the anger when they find out that thousands will be made redundant and seemingly no personnel cuts or allowance cuts or pay freezes will be made to the military who got a (albeit small) payrise this year and continue to get spine point progression, something not seen in mod cs for several years.
It is hardly 'we're all in this together' now is it?

Last edited by Jimlad1; 25th Jun 2013 at 17:25.
Jimlad1 is offline  
Old 25th Jun 2013, 19:47
  #6 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Middle England
Posts: 548
If you don't like it JimLad you could always leave....
Jumping_Jack is offline  
Old 25th Jun 2013, 19:55
  #7 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: oxford
Posts: 469
Jimlad

'Its hardly we are all in this together'

"We have vehicles in theatre now that have better protection than Snatch, but of course they are not all arriving at once.
"Our task is to make sure that they have vehicles of that size and manoeuvrability with as much protection as can practically be put on."
His comments came the same day that it emerged that British civil servants are only allowed to use armoured Toyota Land Cruisers in war zones.
Agreed.
lj101 is offline  
Old 25th Jun 2013, 21:26
  #8 (permalink)  
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Lincolnshire
Age: 76
Posts: 16,569
The whole angst between CS-Mil is probably the lack of information about the other's ToS.

CS work a limited number of conditioned hours in a week and although eligible for overtime usually have to take time off in lieu.

CS get bonuses - no they don't. 10% of their pay pot is withheld and doled out to the lucky ones.

CS have some benefits that Mil don't have and visa versa.

That Mil can be required to work many more hours with no time off in lieu. Get regular pay rises (maybe) and have other benefits that CS don't have.

The sticking point is when you have a CS administering Mil and the other way around, especially when it comes to annual reporting.
Pontius Navigator is offline  
Old 26th Jun 2013, 06:11
  #9 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: oxford
Posts: 469
PN

You forgot this;

Public and Commercial Services Union

The Protocols are an agreement between the Cabinet Office and the Council of Civil Service Unions (since replaced by the NTUC), which was endorsed by Permanent Secretaries, the Cabinet Secretary and the Cabinet Office Minister. This major agreement resulted from negotiations following PCS industrial action and campaigning to protect public services and our members.

The aim of the agreement is to avoid compulsory redundancies for those who want to continue their civil service (or NDPB) careers. It aims to provide a consistent approach across the civil service and NDPBs in dealing with surplus staff situations. It applies to all employees whether or not they are trade union members.
Our lads and lasses that were made compulsory redundant would be thrilled to find out the 'pain' was avoided by some public sector workers..... and some CS that were made redundant, got their pay offs, waited the required amount of time, re applied to join the CS, are back in their jobs. Nice.
lj101 is offline  
Old 26th Jun 2013, 10:44
  #10 (permalink)  
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Lincolnshire
Age: 76
Posts: 16,569
Lj, true, but I also know aircrew, retired at an option point, spent the pot of gold, rejoined as children approached secondary school age, got BSA.

Or one even, through some leger de main, if I got it right from a fellow ppruner, got the time out credited to his ultimate pension pot.

Yes, the unions are a powerful force for 'good'. My much smaller one was on the coat tails but still able to stand up for its members. There is an awful lot to be said for a representative outside the management chain.
Pontius Navigator is offline  
Old 26th Jun 2013, 11:31
  #11 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: London
Age: 39
Posts: 731
Its worth noting that the reason the MOD has not yet had to resort to compulsory civilian cuts is because they were able to get sufficient volunteers in Tranche 1 to cover all the cuts required for the next 4 years.They needed to make roughly 17,000 redundant as part of a 32,000 overall downsizing and still got more applicants than places in the first tranche.
Jimlad1 is offline  
Old 26th Jun 2013, 12:16
  #12 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: 2 m South of Radstock VRP
Posts: 2,042
There were many reasons why so many wanted "out" at the first invitation.

Amongst those was to get their Pension "pay" and lump sum safely on stream before some bright young things started sodding about with the rules.

Additionally, many were increasingly poxed off with chasing ever more and ever deeper savings targets to the detriment of the prime objective; capability.

On top of that, there was the gradual creep of work being provided that was beneath the Grade of the worker. This included CS C2s being given work previously done by Ds and that now rare appointment, E1/E2. Even now we have engineers doing admin jobs because their previous technical jobs have been magically contractorised.

It also gripped some C1/C2s when their job title suddenly dropped an SO notch. I remember well a very able C1 who applied and was selected for a job that was, in the event, titled SO2 and her boss was a quite junior Commander RN. The big danger here, though, is falling into the trap of military and civilian being at loggerheads with each other. Divide and conquer is alive and well, living in Whitehall.

Last edited by GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU; 26th Jun 2013 at 12:17. Reason: Mong Typing
GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU is offline  
Old 26th Jun 2013, 12:25
  #13 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: South Wales
Age: 58
Posts: 729
5 Forward 6 Back

removing CEA and flying pay from aircrew not in active flying roles. A complete lack of understanding of what both are meant to cover!
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!

And just my two pence on the Civil Service:

I have a wife who works for the MOD on a [email protected] wage, who even after 17+ years will end up with a [email protected] pension. She and just about all of her work mates have been pushed and pulled from pillar to post; threat of redundancy, threat of TUPE, threat of this change, threat of that change, etc, etc, etc.

Yet she still spends approximately 30% of her salary and nearly 4 hours of her day travelling by unbelievably cramped and unreliable, dirty, minging trains to get to work each day. Why? because she loves her job and is proud of what she does to (hopefully) help those members of the Armed Forces to operate safely and efficiently all over the world.
It is just a shame that she has her hands tied and is blindfolded by muppets! (That is my opinion, not hers )
SRENNAPS is offline  
Old 26th Jun 2013, 12:38
  #14 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Peterborough
Posts: 76
So Geoffrey (sorry George) Osbourn talks about not affecting the military but reducing the size of the MOD CS. So, with a reducing size of the military across the board and now a even smaller CS component, who is going to take on the workload of the CS component???

For example, if you look at the DE&S area, jobs are done by CS and military, CS reduce and military go back to front line, job doesn't get done, affecting frontline troops.

On station, jobs undertaken by CS now done by military; OCs start saying my guy (or girl) is employed to 'x', so whyare they doing 'y'.

Yes, there is a group within the CS who, dare I say it, are a waste of space, there to collect their pay packet; but many people are there for the right reasons, that is to be a key member of the MOD and support the troops of any the Armed Forces.
romeo bravo is offline  
Old 26th Jun 2013, 12:47
  #15 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: oxford
Posts: 469
Jimlad

Interesting; so why in their job vacancy website do they do this if it's not required?

Stage 2 - Exclusive 10 day period for surplus staff in all departments at their current grade
I can log on to your recruitment website as a CS (as all military people can do with a login, if they request one).

Stage 1 - Internal, level moves

Stage 2 - Exclusive 10 day period for surplus staff in all departments at their current grade

Stage 3 - Vacancies advertised to all staff, regardless of grade or department within a region

Stage 4 - External recruitment
Romeo Bravo

If you get a chance look up Parkinson's law. The realities of human behaviour within a bureaucracy 'work expands so as to fill the time available for its completion'

In other words, I think it will be just fine.
lj101 is offline  
Old 26th Jun 2013, 13:05
  #16 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: London
Age: 39
Posts: 731
The Stage 2 only applies to the small number of staff who are in essentially holdover jobs - e.g. their post was lifed or has been scrapped but they are staying in. Anyone coming back from an Operational Tour will usually find themselves in this spot too. This gives them a small window to apply for posts, but after a finite time they too face being booted out.
No different to the military where sometimes people find themselves out of a posting for a short time.
Its nothing to do with the redundancy process, which has seen tens of thousands of MOD CS laid off in the last 3 years.
Jimlad1 is offline  
Old 26th Jun 2013, 14:07
  #17 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Midlands
Posts: 252
dealing with surplus staff situations
Jimlad, the point is that the military do not have a 10 day window to apply for another job in the military when they find they are in "surplus staff situations" (made redundant)
Justanopinion is offline  
Old 26th Jun 2013, 14:21
  #18 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: London
Age: 39
Posts: 731
Okay – let me explain again because clearly it’s a very difficult concept to understand.

The ‘surplus staff’ situation is not the same as staff being made redundant. It is the same as military personnel being put on holdover between postings due to their current post being scrapped or changed. This happens because the civilian side doesn’t have career managers to post staff to and they need to find their own jobs.

How many times do I have to explain that this is nothing to do with making staff redundant?

There have been no compulsory redundancies due to so many staff volunteering to be made redundant.
Jimlad1 is offline  
Old 26th Jun 2013, 14:25
  #19 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: UK
Posts: 109
@romeo bravo
So Geoffrey (sorry George) Osbourn talks about not affecting the military but reducing the size of the MOD CS. So, with a reducing size of the military across the board and now a even smaller CS component, who is going to take on the workload of the CS component???

For example, if you look at the DE&S area, jobs are done by CS and military, CS reduce and military go back to front line, job doesn't get done, affecting frontline troops.
Ah but you're overlooking that saviour of DE&S known as GOCO.

@Justanopinion - As mentioned above:
The whole angst between CS-Mil is probably the lack of information about the other's ToS.
SamYeager is offline  
Old 26th Jun 2013, 14:43
  #20 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: oxford
Posts: 469
Jim

Thanks for your reply.



65. The Permanent Under Secretary's argument, that civilians are flexibly employable whereas the military are not, runs contrary to our experience of the breadth of the military training we have witnessed on operations. 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 PUS's argument also implies a lack of strategic vision as to the direction to be taken by the civilian component of the MoD.

66. On the other hand the Minister's assertion, that many civil servants but insufficient members of the Armed Forces have applied for redundancy, ignores the question of why that should be so. The MoD should consider whether the terms of redundancy offered to either the military or civilian staff are fair or appropriate in the light of the stark and shocking difference between the application of compulsion in redundancy to the two branches of service in the MoD. 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. We are not persuaded by either of the two reasons we have been given.
Got it.
lj101 is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.