Three Day Week
As I have said on another forum, the effort now is to recruit the youngsters of today, not yesterday. It does seem alien to those like me who have retired rom the Service and probably a fair percentage of those still in. But, as a CS working as a Phase 2 sim instructor, I have seen so much talent leave after a very short space of time for the reasons laid out in previous posts. If the Military does not evolve and adapt then it will eventually disappear. This solution is not perfect but it is a good step in the right direction.
I do fear, however, that we will soon also see the end of the Messing system and a further blurring of the lines between ranks. We can survive without the former but the latter is not good in a Military Force.
I do fear, however, that we will soon also see the end of the Messing system and a further blurring of the lines between ranks. We can survive without the former but the latter is not good in a Military Force.
Jimlad1 then perhaps you should consider changing your location and profile and I won't presume, as it says you are in London @ the MOD.
You do indeed seem to have a problem with the Army. You are totally missing out the deployable bit, in your brilliant thesis. I am not disagreeing with you at all but if the 1 Blankshires are off to whatever operation tomorrow and there is no bugger left but the 2nd Blankshires to replace them in 6/8 months, what do they do - stay there? Or as is, quite common at the moment, in the SNCO/WO/SO2 posts that you are quite rightly identify as a problem area and conveniently move them into the 2nd Blankshires 6 months down the line.
I am not condoning it but actually I don't see how the wonderful new order could cope. I guess thats why there is a trial!
You do indeed seem to have a problem with the Army. You are totally missing out the deployable bit, in your brilliant thesis. I am not disagreeing with you at all but if the 1 Blankshires are off to whatever operation tomorrow and there is no bugger left but the 2nd Blankshires to replace them in 6/8 months, what do they do - stay there? Or as is, quite common at the moment, in the SNCO/WO/SO2 posts that you are quite rightly identify as a problem area and conveniently move them into the 2nd Blankshires 6 months down the line.
I am not condoning it but actually I don't see how the wonderful new order could cope. I guess thats why there is a trial!
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Things have obviously changed in the (god! Is it that long!!) 18 years since I left.
At least in my part of the RAF we didn't have any slack. Every post noted as non-digital had privatised. We ran a nominal 4 people to fill a 24 hour post - 48 hours on in an 8 day cycle - but had to cover it when someone was sick, on a course, in the Falklands etc, and leave of course.
Not sure I'd have been impressed if one of the 4 had switched to a 3 day week and 90 days holiday a year.
At least in my part of the RAF we didn't have any slack. Every post noted as non-digital had privatised. We ran a nominal 4 people to fill a 24 hour post - 48 hours on in an 8 day cycle - but had to cover it when someone was sick, on a course, in the Falklands etc, and leave of course.
Not sure I'd have been impressed if one of the 4 had switched to a 3 day week and 90 days holiday a year.
Mostafa - my location is my business thanks very much!
I don't have a 'problem' with the Army - I served alongside it in various theatres in my military days and have enormous respect for it, but I do have concerns about how the Army is adapting in areas to the 21st century.
I think you vastly over estimate the scale of the challenge - at best you'll see a small number of people take up the flexible working - and I suspect those who do will either be gone for a short period (e.g. a few months) or miss the odd day per week. In coping with it, it would be like any other short term detachment for operational duty, or someone going on leave. Its just a period of absence which you wont be paid for - which I suspect will stop a lot of people from doing it.
Don't forget that its not going to be automatically granted, and that it can be turned off at any point. What I suspect will happen is that you'll see it applied for by people in certain phases of their life, and not whole platoons signing off en masse to work a 3 day week. The problem is the breathlessly sensational way this is reported, as if half the SAS will tomorrow stop working for 2 days per week.
I suspect too that an element of 'punchy fun stuff' will keep people motivated to stay in, and that those in deployable units will not want to take too much time off for fear of missing out on operations. I suspect many of those who take it up will be in Office roles. Its a simple matter though of stating that flexibility doesnt apply to units held at certain levels of readiness - after all, when was the last time we deployed Bns en masse at 24hrs notice?
I don't have a 'problem' with the Army - I served alongside it in various theatres in my military days and have enormous respect for it, but I do have concerns about how the Army is adapting in areas to the 21st century.
I think you vastly over estimate the scale of the challenge - at best you'll see a small number of people take up the flexible working - and I suspect those who do will either be gone for a short period (e.g. a few months) or miss the odd day per week. In coping with it, it would be like any other short term detachment for operational duty, or someone going on leave. Its just a period of absence which you wont be paid for - which I suspect will stop a lot of people from doing it.
Don't forget that its not going to be automatically granted, and that it can be turned off at any point. What I suspect will happen is that you'll see it applied for by people in certain phases of their life, and not whole platoons signing off en masse to work a 3 day week. The problem is the breathlessly sensational way this is reported, as if half the SAS will tomorrow stop working for 2 days per week.
I suspect too that an element of 'punchy fun stuff' will keep people motivated to stay in, and that those in deployable units will not want to take too much time off for fear of missing out on operations. I suspect many of those who take it up will be in Office roles. Its a simple matter though of stating that flexibility doesnt apply to units held at certain levels of readiness - after all, when was the last time we deployed Bns en masse at 24hrs notice?
jayc530 I agree with you!
Alfred the not so great. I disagree.. They appear to be trying to be EU PC. The armed forces are not like civilians. The manning levels were cut back far too far in the first place; leaving them with the crisis levels we see today. No wonder experienced staff, having been undermanned for so long will not put up with it anymore.
Maybe you could take your own advice !
Alfred the not so great. I disagree.. They appear to be trying to be EU PC. The armed forces are not like civilians. The manning levels were cut back far too far in the first place; leaving them with the crisis levels we see today. No wonder experienced staff, having been undermanned for so long will not put up with it anymore.
Maybe you could take your own advice !
Silly me Jimlad1, I thought that when you decided to put your location on display on a public forum it became the property of whomever cared to look!
I am certainly not overestimating anything, I did actually agree with your post, as I said; right up until you dug a bigger hole for it.
You see, I think the biggest problem with your reasoning is that the Army don't do short term detachments for operation duties. The reason - there isn't enough of them, sadly the pitfall of this well intentioned plan which incidentally, I can only see exacerbating an already fairly taught elastic band.
Your last sentence was absolutely right A the G.
I am certainly not overestimating anything, I did actually agree with your post, as I said; right up until you dug a bigger hole for it.
You see, I think the biggest problem with your reasoning is that the Army don't do short term detachments for operation duties. The reason - there isn't enough of them, sadly the pitfall of this well intentioned plan which incidentally, I can only see exacerbating an already fairly taught elastic band.
Your last sentence was absolutely right A the G.
"You see, I think the biggest problem with your reasoning is that the Army don't do short term detachments for operation duties"
You are conflating two things - I mean 'detachment to go and do jobs elsewhere, be it course, augmentation for an exercise, detachment to go and work in another organisation for 6 weeks, or all manner of other operational duties that Soldiers can and do engage in' (all of those examples have happened to soldiers who have worked with, or for, me).
You are conflating two things - I mean 'detachment to go and do jobs elsewhere, be it course, augmentation for an exercise, detachment to go and work in another organisation for 6 weeks, or all manner of other operational duties that Soldiers can and do engage in' (all of those examples have happened to soldiers who have worked with, or for, me).
The only conflating being done is by you.
you said
"In coping with it, it would be like any other short term detachment for operational duty, or someone going on leave"
You meant
"I mean 'detachment to go and do jobs elsewhere, be it course, augmentation for an exercise, detachment to go and work in another organisation for 6 weeks, or all manner of other operational duties that Soldiers can and do engage in"
Operations are operations, exercises are exercises, soldiers only engage on operational duties on operations and whatever way you dress it up there are not enough to go round no matter who gets half the week off.
you said
"In coping with it, it would be like any other short term detachment for operational duty, or someone going on leave"
You meant
"I mean 'detachment to go and do jobs elsewhere, be it course, augmentation for an exercise, detachment to go and work in another organisation for 6 weeks, or all manner of other operational duties that Soldiers can and do engage in"
Operations are operations, exercises are exercises, soldiers only engage on operational duties on operations and whatever way you dress it up there are not enough to go round no matter who gets half the week off.
I am really not remotely interested in engaging in a 'he said, she said' argument with you as it seems destined to end up in a pointless semantics debate. My points stand, by all means go and enjoy discussing the different interpretations of them or where posters live, but I am afraid that I have no desire to continue this debate with you.
Risible idea indeed. What about combat readiness?
As per, for example, Falklands.
"Get the lads in sharpish!"
"Sir, 25% are on the 90 day option and most of them have gone walkabout >...... Himalayas, crossing Atlantic in open boat, Sh*****g themselves silly in a yurt ........"
"Oh! drat!"
As per, for example, Falklands.
"Get the lads in sharpish!"
"Sir, 25% are on the 90 day option and most of them have gone walkabout >...... Himalayas, crossing Atlantic in open boat, Sh*****g themselves silly in a yurt ........"
"Oh! drat!"
Guest
Posts: n/a
(#27 refers),
Gentlemen,
I seem to have rattled a cage here ! First let me thank all those who have leapt to my defence so swiftly; it does my old heart good to realise that I have so many friends in this our old cyber crewroom.
But now to the nitty-gritty:
Hangarshuffle, it would be helpful to know your age: I have always thought that it should be mandatory - (not optional) - to declare age correctly here, as it enables the rest of us to place you in the general timeframe, and this is important.
In answer to you: I'm 95 as stated here. I retired from the R.A.F. 45 years ago. "Work outside" (odd question ?) - well, I flew five years in war, then two as a civlian pen-pusher, flew five more years in Cold War (does that qualify as "outside" ?), medically grounded, spent last 17 years in Air Traffic Control (mostly warm, snug and dry). What is the relevance ?
Let us not all pile on top of Hangarshuffle too readily, for there is a fundamental problem which needs to be addressed: we have not had a major war for almost three generations and are in danger of forgetting the nature of the beast. The first disturbing signs were to be seen in the Falklands in 1982, where the curious notion of an "area-limited" war, a "half-war" (ie, only in the "Exclusion Zone") was first mooted. Immediately the anomalies appeared:
The Captain of "Conqueror" has the "Belgrano" in range, torpedos ready to go.....what does he do ? .... he signals Northwood to ask permission to fire ....... (What would one of Nelson's Captains have done ? - and Nelson would've Court-Martialled him if he didn't).
"Oh, those poor Argentinian sailors left to drown in the 'Belgrano'...... was/wasn't it in the Exclusion Zone ?" .... was it in the Zone coming out ? .....or outside going in ? ....... Why was it at sea at all ? - to give the crew a health-giving cruise ? - or to do us harm ?
Pardon me: Argentine has invaded British sovereign territory. A State of War de facto exists. You are entitled to defend yourself. You hit your enemy as hard as you can with everything you've got. We bared our teeth only once: Black Bush did minimal damage to Port Stanley airfield, but the subtext was clear: if we can get so far, we can get to Buenos Aires - (and who knows what might be in the bomb bay ?) Galtieri had that to think about !
Shift to Afghanistan, last year I Posted an excerpt from the "Daily Tel". (The Thread concerned the well- merited appointment of the first WRAF Officer to command a FJ Squadron). A threat had been detected. A Tornado was scrambled to remove it. I believe they have a cannon in the nose . But they didn't fire it, but just buzzed the 'baddies' - they ran off. ..... DCO (???)
Minimum Force, you see. You do not win wars in that way, I'm sorry to have to tell anyone who thinks you do.
But, Hangarshuffle, you've hit the nail on the head with:
Pay them properly, house them and feed them properly, give them a decent future - and they'll stay ! If not, they won't.
My thanks to our Moderators for allowing me to get my piece in before lowering the boom on this !
Danny42C. (still moaning on about his day - and will continue to do so !)
Gentlemen,
I seem to have rattled a cage here ! First let me thank all those who have leapt to my defence so swiftly; it does my old heart good to realise that I have so many friends in this our old cyber crewroom.
But now to the nitty-gritty:
Hangarshuffle, it would be helpful to know your age: I have always thought that it should be mandatory - (not optional) - to declare age correctly here, as it enables the rest of us to place you in the general timeframe, and this is important.
In answer to you: I'm 95 as stated here. I retired from the R.A.F. 45 years ago. "Work outside" (odd question ?) - well, I flew five years in war, then two as a civlian pen-pusher, flew five more years in Cold War (does that qualify as "outside" ?), medically grounded, spent last 17 years in Air Traffic Control (mostly warm, snug and dry). What is the relevance ?
Let us not all pile on top of Hangarshuffle too readily, for there is a fundamental problem which needs to be addressed: we have not had a major war for almost three generations and are in danger of forgetting the nature of the beast. The first disturbing signs were to be seen in the Falklands in 1982, where the curious notion of an "area-limited" war, a "half-war" (ie, only in the "Exclusion Zone") was first mooted. Immediately the anomalies appeared:
The Captain of "Conqueror" has the "Belgrano" in range, torpedos ready to go.....what does he do ? .... he signals Northwood to ask permission to fire ....... (What would one of Nelson's Captains have done ? - and Nelson would've Court-Martialled him if he didn't).
"Oh, those poor Argentinian sailors left to drown in the 'Belgrano'...... was/wasn't it in the Exclusion Zone ?" .... was it in the Zone coming out ? .....or outside going in ? ....... Why was it at sea at all ? - to give the crew a health-giving cruise ? - or to do us harm ?
Pardon me: Argentine has invaded British sovereign territory. A State of War de facto exists. You are entitled to defend yourself. You hit your enemy as hard as you can with everything you've got. We bared our teeth only once: Black Bush did minimal damage to Port Stanley airfield, but the subtext was clear: if we can get so far, we can get to Buenos Aires - (and who knows what might be in the bomb bay ?) Galtieri had that to think about !
Shift to Afghanistan, last year I Posted an excerpt from the "Daily Tel". (The Thread concerned the well- merited appointment of the first WRAF Officer to command a FJ Squadron). A threat had been detected. A Tornado was scrambled to remove it. I believe they have a cannon in the nose . But they didn't fire it, but just buzzed the 'baddies' - they ran off. ..... DCO (???)
Minimum Force, you see. You do not win wars in that way, I'm sorry to have to tell anyone who thinks you do.
But, Hangarshuffle, you've hit the nail on the head with:
...it's the pay and conditions mate...
My thanks to our Moderators for allowing me to get my piece in before lowering the boom on this !
Danny42C. (still moaning on about his day - and will continue to do so !)
Danny - your penultimate two lines are IMHO the telling ones and are allegedly inscribed in the "Military Covenant", which seems to be honoured more in the breach than the observance
Danny, reference your point about use of minimal force in Afghanistan, there are many reasons why lethal force would not be used even in cases of what appear to be clear cut self defence. Track the squirters and protect CNI are two reasons I have used off the top of my head.
Have a read back Jimlad1 and see who started it! Having read it again in fact. it was never 'he said - she said" but 'you said - you meant' The 'semantics debate' of the plan, are precisely why in my opinion it won't work. Some bored staff officer has come up with yet another gem, another crock of ticking all the modern, sound bites and boxes for the some bean counter in the MOD.
Our distinguished gentleman above at 95 years old summed it up far better than anybody so far - Pay them properly, house them and feed them properly, give them a decent future - and they'll stay ! If not, they won't.
Nobody ever told them it was going to be easy when they joined.
Well said Danny42C.
Our distinguished gentleman above at 95 years old summed it up far better than anybody so far - Pay them properly, house them and feed them properly, give them a decent future - and they'll stay ! If not, they won't.
Nobody ever told them it was going to be easy when they joined.
Well said Danny42C.
Last edited by MOSTAFA; 13th Feb 2017 at 15:39. Reason: wanted to
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Often in Jersey, but mainly in the past.
Age: 79
Posts: 7,810
Received 136 Likes
on
64 Posts
If I may tiptoe into the topic as someone who spent most of his 30 years acquiring a shiny seat to his trousers ...
A bit of workspace flexibility is, IMO, a good idea in certain areas. Now, we could debate endlessly where/when/who/how but the fact exists [or existed] that there are many people in many posts who could, I'm sure, work a 4-day week without any significant impact on 'The System" ... provided they go full-throttle the rest of the time. Three days might be pushing it: that would surely have the Establishment people getting out their magnifying glasses! However ...
It doesn't take a huge leap of imagination to be able to extrapolate that sort of flexibility across large parts of the Mil community.
A bit of workspace flexibility is, IMO, a good idea in certain areas. Now, we could debate endlessly where/when/who/how but the fact exists [or existed] that there are many people in many posts who could, I'm sure, work a 4-day week without any significant impact on 'The System" ... provided they go full-throttle the rest of the time. Three days might be pushing it: that would surely have the Establishment people getting out their magnifying glasses! However ...
- I have a friend in the USA, a quite senior Govt employee [wg cdr/gp capt equivalent] who works from home on her laptop much of the time in Arizona, and occasionally flies over to DC for 'face time'.
- At NATS, I worked a 4.5 day week, leaving Kingsway Friday lunchtime to head home to Locking. Because ... I didn't take an hour or so for lunch, and always got in early. My Head of Section was a former lt cdr RN pilot - and a good leader of his Team.
- At MoD, in the AFD as Head of Section, I was not one of the late-night workers [who were usually on the Lodging List, and thus had nothing to go home for]. Again I was in early by most standards, and I left [to shocked looks] every afternoon at 1630. Again, I didn't take lunch breaks, I just got on with clearing the contents of my In-tray.
It doesn't take a huge leap of imagination to be able to extrapolate that sort of flexibility across large parts of the Mil community.
These suggestion are fine if manpower is sufficient, but they will always be trumped by operational requirements.
Someone may ask for 3 months off to look after the family, but if there is no one to backfill them, the request will be denied.
I have the opportunity to work from home, and when I have an appointment from the Gasman or whatever, who tell you they can visit 'sometime between 8 & 5' it's a godsend.
But I can take my laptop with me. Anyone in a technical role won't have that luxury.
So if an individual looks at others and find that they have flexibility and they don't, I'm not sure that it will entice them to extend their service.
Its an idea worthy of discussion, but it has to be applied to all, not just some. I imagine that it will cause more problems than it will solve.
Someone may ask for 3 months off to look after the family, but if there is no one to backfill them, the request will be denied.
I have the opportunity to work from home, and when I have an appointment from the Gasman or whatever, who tell you they can visit 'sometime between 8 & 5' it's a godsend.
But I can take my laptop with me. Anyone in a technical role won't have that luxury.
So if an individual looks at others and find that they have flexibility and they don't, I'm not sure that it will entice them to extend their service.
Its an idea worthy of discussion, but it has to be applied to all, not just some. I imagine that it will cause more problems than it will solve.
It could certainly be a major cause of resentment if not handled well.
It doesn't matter whether someone is getting a better deal than you, what matters is whether or not you think they're getting a better deal.
It doesn't matter whether someone is getting a better deal than you, what matters is whether or not you think they're getting a better deal.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
Wyler, indeed the requirement is retain those that you recruit. Would a ?proper reserve commitment work? Naval officers on half-pay was mentioned. Rather than stating 'and four years on the Reserve' actually pay a retainer, tax free, like the Reserve Forces bounties, but with no training commitment. Enshrine in law that an employer must release you if required.
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Often in Jersey, but mainly in the past.
Age: 79
Posts: 7,810
Received 136 Likes
on
64 Posts
Managing such a system is clearly the issue. I would hate to be the OC 'Whatever' trying to control it, whether on an operational unit or in an office environment.