NEM Roadshows
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Scotland
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ralphmalph - thanks!! I was just trying to help out by providing some information that should be helpful. If you are not interested then don't read.
Melchett - the Diaspora POC is Michael Rees based at AIR - if you have DII you can control k his name and start to get some info and he will make surer stuff is sent to you.
Melchett - the Diaspora POC is Michael Rees based at AIR - if you have DII you can control k his name and start to get some info and he will make surer stuff is sent to you.
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dear all,
As a member of the HQ AIR NEM Team, I have been asked to provide some information, principally for our Diaspora colleagues, on where to go to gain some greater insight into the NEM and also access to the main online survey.
What I am unable to do however, is to enter into any extended dialogue regards NEM, or provide my own opinions on what is being presented at the RAF Roadshows. Suffice what I can do is update you on where we are at present (from an RAF perspective):
Consultation – Focus Group and Interview consultation has largely been completed for the RAF elements where we have concentrated our activity at 4 distinct clutches around the UK (RAF Cosford, RAF Lossiemouth, RAF Cranwell and RAF Brize Norton). We will be gaining initial feedback from our consultation partner (KPMG) in late August and this will help to create a more targeted survey so we can gather focused information on the key themes coming from the feedback you have given us. RAF personnel have also been a part of consultation activity within the JFC domain in Cyprus, Falkland Islands and during September in Belgium, for NATO personnel.
Roadshows – By Friday 9 August we will have finished the RAF Roadshows, having visited 21 RAF bases and delivered a total of 117 briefs to just over 4000 personnel in 6 weeks. Whilst not a core element in the consultation process, the briefing teams recorded all of the questions asked and are using this data to help further define the key areas of concern from our personnel. General themes have centred on pay, house purchase opportunities and SFA/SLA charging, stability vs mobility and career management principles.
Online Survey – For those that have completed the survey you will have noted that it is easy to complete and free text. Naturally we encourage as many of our personnel to complete this survey and provide your opinions on what you have been briefed. Importantly we would also ask that when providing problems, you perceive, with what the NEM might look like, that you also suggest improvements. The information that we obtain from the survey is important and will help to shape the future of the NEM.
Briefing Notes – Defence Internal Brief 2013/37 provides a very useful overview on the NEM Consultation and a thorough run through of the main topics for examination within the NEM. The RAF IBN 22/13 provides the overview for RAF specific engagement in terms of Roadshows and Consultation. Both documents are hosted within the AIRSPACE portal, under the Information section. We are in the process of developing a specific NEM sub page which will go live in the very near future.
For those within the Diaspora we are conscious that information may not have got out to you yet. Therefore, we would appreciate if you could access the following links if possible:
NEM Online Survey hosted on the Defence Intranet and further information on NEM:
https://www.gov.uk/new-employment-model
The RAF Families Federation host some information on NEM here:
RAF. New Employment Model (NEM) - RAF Families Federation
We would also like to direct your attention to the recent article in the RAF News from AMP on NEM, dated Friday 2 August 13, and also an article from COS Pers dated Friday 1 February 2013.
We have also produced a Video Recording of a presentation at RAF Marham on 26 June. This DVD will be sent out to all contacts we have in the Diaspora by 23 August 13 and also hosted on AIRSPACE.
Should you have any specific questions or feedback you wish to raise then please do so by emailing the following mailbox – [email protected] - we would ask though that you constrain your questions to those of a more general nature on NEM design and proposals rather than personal queries on how NEM may affect your particular service. Finally, please do take part in this process, your views are absolutely vital to ensure that we get this right. Thank you.
As a member of the HQ AIR NEM Team, I have been asked to provide some information, principally for our Diaspora colleagues, on where to go to gain some greater insight into the NEM and also access to the main online survey.
What I am unable to do however, is to enter into any extended dialogue regards NEM, or provide my own opinions on what is being presented at the RAF Roadshows. Suffice what I can do is update you on where we are at present (from an RAF perspective):
Consultation – Focus Group and Interview consultation has largely been completed for the RAF elements where we have concentrated our activity at 4 distinct clutches around the UK (RAF Cosford, RAF Lossiemouth, RAF Cranwell and RAF Brize Norton). We will be gaining initial feedback from our consultation partner (KPMG) in late August and this will help to create a more targeted survey so we can gather focused information on the key themes coming from the feedback you have given us. RAF personnel have also been a part of consultation activity within the JFC domain in Cyprus, Falkland Islands and during September in Belgium, for NATO personnel.
Roadshows – By Friday 9 August we will have finished the RAF Roadshows, having visited 21 RAF bases and delivered a total of 117 briefs to just over 4000 personnel in 6 weeks. Whilst not a core element in the consultation process, the briefing teams recorded all of the questions asked and are using this data to help further define the key areas of concern from our personnel. General themes have centred on pay, house purchase opportunities and SFA/SLA charging, stability vs mobility and career management principles.
Online Survey – For those that have completed the survey you will have noted that it is easy to complete and free text. Naturally we encourage as many of our personnel to complete this survey and provide your opinions on what you have been briefed. Importantly we would also ask that when providing problems, you perceive, with what the NEM might look like, that you also suggest improvements. The information that we obtain from the survey is important and will help to shape the future of the NEM.
Briefing Notes – Defence Internal Brief 2013/37 provides a very useful overview on the NEM Consultation and a thorough run through of the main topics for examination within the NEM. The RAF IBN 22/13 provides the overview for RAF specific engagement in terms of Roadshows and Consultation. Both documents are hosted within the AIRSPACE portal, under the Information section. We are in the process of developing a specific NEM sub page which will go live in the very near future.
For those within the Diaspora we are conscious that information may not have got out to you yet. Therefore, we would appreciate if you could access the following links if possible:
NEM Online Survey hosted on the Defence Intranet and further information on NEM:
https://www.gov.uk/new-employment-model
The RAF Families Federation host some information on NEM here:
RAF. New Employment Model (NEM) - RAF Families Federation
We would also like to direct your attention to the recent article in the RAF News from AMP on NEM, dated Friday 2 August 13, and also an article from COS Pers dated Friday 1 February 2013.
We have also produced a Video Recording of a presentation at RAF Marham on 26 June. This DVD will be sent out to all contacts we have in the Diaspora by 23 August 13 and also hosted on AIRSPACE.
Should you have any specific questions or feedback you wish to raise then please do so by emailing the following mailbox – [email protected] - we would ask though that you constrain your questions to those of a more general nature on NEM design and proposals rather than personal queries on how NEM may affect your particular service. Finally, please do take part in this process, your views are absolutely vital to ensure that we get this right. Thank you.
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: UK
Posts: 714
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Junket quote " what is wrong with 12 months notice, it is consistent with recent rounds of redundancy and outstrips what many companies provide in civvy street".
You miss the whole point of military service for many service personel. There is a natural tie-in with long term security of employment and the acceptance of the real risks of military work and limited salary. !
OAP
You miss the whole point of military service for many service personel. There is a natural tie-in with long term security of employment and the acceptance of the real risks of military work and limited salary. !
OAP
If you have recently joined and you signed up because you thought "job security" and "length of service" were a given then you did not do your homework. If you have not already noticed it and aligned your head around it then here it is - terms and conditions of employment, including pay, pension, security of employment within the military are moving away from the pre 1990 model and are being aligned to civilian practice.
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: High in the Afghan Mountains
Posts: 39
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks DHQ - really helpful of you. One audience that you seem to be missing is those of us deployed on Ops. I've just dropped an e-mail to the address that you gave which will hopefully create a link between the NEM team and those of us fighting the foreign foe.
I saw the NEM brief this week. It looks and smells like a cost saving measure to me with FS/WO and some Sqn Ldrs unable to serve all the way to the bitter end by default - therefore a much reduced pension that will be part preserved to age 65/66/66/67 (delete as applicable). This will be a big kick in the slats for them, although for Flying Branch Sqn Ldrs and above they will be offered the option to serve until age 60 (which is good news for the aircrew mates amongst us but very bad news for the 'guins). It also looked like the Senior Officers had looked after themselves and screwed everyone else.
The 'LSAP on steroids' seemed arse about face to me. The very people that needed a leg up to buy a house (SACs, Cpls and Sgts) were being given the chance to borrow the least money at an interest free rate - what idiot thought of that!
I smelled a further cost saving rat with regards to allowances. One little gem seemed to be the amalgamation of overseas GYH with UK GYH - I'm pretty sure that UK GYH won't be raised to the overseas rate!
As usual, just like the FAFPS 15 anouncements, there was little detail on how this would affect reserves (in particular Full-Time Reserves). How on earth are we supposed to believe in this "Whole Force Concept" when the Reserves are always an afterthought in such massive consultations as NEM and FAFPS?
I came away feeling let down once again as I have over the past 24 years from others like PAY2000, Options For Change, AFPS05 OTT, SDSRs, etc... Maybe it is my complete niaivity that lets me down!!!
LJ
The 'LSAP on steroids' seemed arse about face to me. The very people that needed a leg up to buy a house (SACs, Cpls and Sgts) were being given the chance to borrow the least money at an interest free rate - what idiot thought of that!
I smelled a further cost saving rat with regards to allowances. One little gem seemed to be the amalgamation of overseas GYH with UK GYH - I'm pretty sure that UK GYH won't be raised to the overseas rate!
As usual, just like the FAFPS 15 anouncements, there was little detail on how this would affect reserves (in particular Full-Time Reserves). How on earth are we supposed to believe in this "Whole Force Concept" when the Reserves are always an afterthought in such massive consultations as NEM and FAFPS?
I came away feeling let down once again as I have over the past 24 years from others like PAY2000, Options For Change, AFPS05 OTT, SDSRs, etc... Maybe it is my complete niaivity that lets me down!!!
LJ
...although for Flying Branch Sqn Ldrs and above they will be offered the option to serve until age 60
JTO
Yes, I was surprised as well going on what had been said already on this forum. However, the good Gp Capt showed a slide with Flying Branch Sqn Ldrs serving to the "MEOS" (can't remember what it stood for) to the age of 60. If its the same brief that you saw then other Sqn Ldrs had a shaded bar towards the MEOS showing they may be extended, but the Flying Branch Sqn Ldrs had a solid bar all the way through. No mention of Flt Lts though.
LJ
Yes, I was surprised as well going on what had been said already on this forum. However, the good Gp Capt showed a slide with Flying Branch Sqn Ldrs serving to the "MEOS" (can't remember what it stood for) to the age of 60. If its the same brief that you saw then other Sqn Ldrs had a shaded bar towards the MEOS showing they may be extended, but the Flying Branch Sqn Ldrs had a solid bar all the way through. No mention of Flt Lts though.
LJ
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Scotland
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Leon J - interesting how 2 different people get 2 different views from the same presentation. This is my view on your points
It didn't sound like a savings exercise to me, rather a proper look at our offer and an attempt to try and shift it into a modern era. Numerous times it was said that any money saved would be placed back into the pot for the 'offer' - if they said that so many times I seriously doubt that they were lying.
In terms of the engagement structures it was briefed that they were just proposals at this stage. Probably like many I really am not a fan of having differing structures at the top end for officers and SNCOs, that is divisive and it would be good if it was altered. ie we all serve to 60 or something similar. Likewise I am no fan of keeping of aircrew sqn ldrs to 60 either. I appreciate that we need to retain aircrew, but the age 60 offer infers 59 year old pilots flying on the front line! Cant see that happening.
The enhanced LSAP offer makes perfect sense to me. When you actually look properly at what is being offered and get past the perceived inequality, it is all about what an individual can pay back and how that affects the mortgage offer. Basically if we gave SACs Ł25k for a deposit then it would affect, quite markedly, the mortgage available to them. Also we could be encouraging bad lending and potentially getting our people into the sub prime mortgage market. Not great and I am sure you would agree is irresponsible of the Service. However, the new LSAP is better than the 8.5k - the key is ensuring they get the fine detail right and that you can use the LSAP multiple times if require. Also you should get a fair remuneration if you are forced to sell a property you purchased with an LSAP, if the Service Need comes first, and you are posted to another location without a realistic prospect of being able to use your property.
I don't agree with your allowances bit - you have mixed up the Get You Home element that was briefed. They clearly said about combining LOA and Get You Home Overseas warrants at some point - for those who have been abroad that bit makes complete sense. There was no reference to UK Get You Home at all. Overall the allowances bit, from what I gather from the Odiham brief by CDP, was that the remuneration focus is on pay as that is pensionable (Allowances etc aren't), the allowances aspect is twiddling with the lack of clarity and amalgamating some that are never used. This is no bad thing.
As for Reserves, if you have been watching recently they are still working through the FR20 elements. It does say in the brief that the Reserves TACOS will move across to the NEM later in the year. This makes sense, so it is no surprise that the NEM brief is a bit short on the Reserves detail.
As I have said above, just my view on how I interpreted the brief.
It didn't sound like a savings exercise to me, rather a proper look at our offer and an attempt to try and shift it into a modern era. Numerous times it was said that any money saved would be placed back into the pot for the 'offer' - if they said that so many times I seriously doubt that they were lying.
In terms of the engagement structures it was briefed that they were just proposals at this stage. Probably like many I really am not a fan of having differing structures at the top end for officers and SNCOs, that is divisive and it would be good if it was altered. ie we all serve to 60 or something similar. Likewise I am no fan of keeping of aircrew sqn ldrs to 60 either. I appreciate that we need to retain aircrew, but the age 60 offer infers 59 year old pilots flying on the front line! Cant see that happening.
The enhanced LSAP offer makes perfect sense to me. When you actually look properly at what is being offered and get past the perceived inequality, it is all about what an individual can pay back and how that affects the mortgage offer. Basically if we gave SACs Ł25k for a deposit then it would affect, quite markedly, the mortgage available to them. Also we could be encouraging bad lending and potentially getting our people into the sub prime mortgage market. Not great and I am sure you would agree is irresponsible of the Service. However, the new LSAP is better than the 8.5k - the key is ensuring they get the fine detail right and that you can use the LSAP multiple times if require. Also you should get a fair remuneration if you are forced to sell a property you purchased with an LSAP, if the Service Need comes first, and you are posted to another location without a realistic prospect of being able to use your property.
I don't agree with your allowances bit - you have mixed up the Get You Home element that was briefed. They clearly said about combining LOA and Get You Home Overseas warrants at some point - for those who have been abroad that bit makes complete sense. There was no reference to UK Get You Home at all. Overall the allowances bit, from what I gather from the Odiham brief by CDP, was that the remuneration focus is on pay as that is pensionable (Allowances etc aren't), the allowances aspect is twiddling with the lack of clarity and amalgamating some that are never used. This is no bad thing.
As for Reserves, if you have been watching recently they are still working through the FR20 elements. It does say in the brief that the Reserves TACOS will move across to the NEM later in the year. This makes sense, so it is no surprise that the NEM brief is a bit short on the Reserves detail.
As I have said above, just my view on how I interpreted the brief.
Junkett
Fair dos, matey. With so little fine detail the presentation is open to wide interpretation. Maybe I'm just a bit more sceptical than you and after seeing so many of these over the years (I forgot to add New Management Strategy in my list above)
The FR2020 consultation was a joke when it came to FTRS. It basically rounded on the views of part-time reserves (ie. TA, RAuxAF and RNR). I suspect that the TA hijacked it with their higher number of returns to make it so TA-centric - I hope that this doesn't happen to NEM when the Army comment in higher numbers. Now when AFPS15 was put into the pensions calculator they neglected to add FTRS - all they needed to do was add another drop down menu and reference to one more look up table (which is hardly difficult).
Overall, I hope you're right old chum and that my scepticism is poorly placed.
LJ
Fair dos, matey. With so little fine detail the presentation is open to wide interpretation. Maybe I'm just a bit more sceptical than you and after seeing so many of these over the years (I forgot to add New Management Strategy in my list above)
The FR2020 consultation was a joke when it came to FTRS. It basically rounded on the views of part-time reserves (ie. TA, RAuxAF and RNR). I suspect that the TA hijacked it with their higher number of returns to make it so TA-centric - I hope that this doesn't happen to NEM when the Army comment in higher numbers. Now when AFPS15 was put into the pensions calculator they neglected to add FTRS - all they needed to do was add another drop down menu and reference to one more look up table (which is hardly difficult).
Overall, I hope you're right old chum and that my scepticism is poorly placed.
LJ
Last edited by Lima Juliet; 10th Aug 2013 at 16:55.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: @exRAF_Al
Posts: 3,297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I wonder what you make of this?
Why Our Best Officers Are Leaving - Tim Kane - The Atlantic
Why Our Best Officers Are Leaving - Tim Kane - The Atlantic
The Army should start by breaking down its rigid promotion ladder. The most strongly recommended policy, which 90 percent agreed with, is to allow greater specialization. Under the current system, company and platoon commanders are often “promoted” to staff jobs—that is, transferred from commanding troops in battle to working behind a desk on a general’s staff—even if they’d prefer to specialize in a lower-ranking position they enjoy. Rather than take an advancement they don’t want, many quit the Army altogether. Expanding early-promotion opportunities for top performers and eliminating year-group promotions also have strong support (87 and 78 percent, respectively). All of this might be hard to do while maintaining centralized management of rank and job assignments, but three-quarters of the panel favored ditching that system entirely in favor of an internal job market.
Here is how a market alternative would work. Each commander would have sole hiring authority over the people in his unit. Officers would be free to apply for any job opening. If a major applied for an opening above his pay grade, the commander at that unit could hire him (and bear the consequences). Coordination could be done through existing online tools such as monster.com or careerbuilder.com (presumably those companies would be interested in offering rebranded versions for the military). If an officer chose to stay in a job longer than “normal” (“I just want to fly fighter jets, sir”), that would be solely between him and his commander.
Here is how a market alternative would work. Each commander would have sole hiring authority over the people in his unit. Officers would be free to apply for any job opening. If a major applied for an opening above his pay grade, the commander at that unit could hire him (and bear the consequences). Coordination could be done through existing online tools such as monster.com or careerbuilder.com (presumably those companies would be interested in offering rebranded versions for the military). If an officer chose to stay in a job longer than “normal” (“I just want to fly fighter jets, sir”), that would be solely between him and his commander.
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: The guest house
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PA Spine
With the NEM potentially offering extension to individual terms of Service to l.o.s. 20, 30, 35 and 40 (for all ranks/branches) rather than the offer of a full career in one hit, what happens to PA Spine with NEM? The brief was remarkably thin on this area and I only thought about it after the brief.
Any clue anyone?
Any clue anyone?
TomJoad, Thankyou for your response to my post. I believe you are incorrect in stating "Since early 1990 the military strength of the UK has been reducing". In fact, it has been reducing since 1945.
On another point, it would be good to see the NEM achieve improvements in terms and conditions of service, not the destruction of the UK armed forces, as we knew them!
OAP
On another point, it would be good to see the NEM achieve improvements in terms and conditions of service, not the destruction of the UK armed forces, as we knew them!
OAP
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: UK
Posts: 714
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TomJoad, Thankyou for your response to my post. I believe you are incorrect in stating "Since early 1990 the military strength of the UK has been reducing". In fact, it has been reducing since 1945.
On another point, it would be good to see the NEM achieve improvements in terms and conditions of service, not the destruction of the UK armed forces, as we knew them!
OAP
On another point, it would be good to see the NEM achieve improvements in terms and conditions of service, not the destruction of the UK armed forces, as we knew them!
OAP
In all seriousness the reason I referenced 1990 was that was the start of my service career. Throughout which it was defined by review after review that reduced our strength and eat away at our terms and conditions. That it has been happening since 1945 only supports my point further.
Last edited by TomJoad; 13th Aug 2013 at 18:53.
