Navy Net - Royal Navy Community

Register a free account today to join our community
Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site, connect with other members through your own private inbox and will receive smaller adverts!

50% of British servicemen want to quit

The news throughout the day (especially R4) has made reference to the RM being less dissatisfied, etc with their jobs. I take great heart from Royal's responses compared to those of our Navy, RAF and Army. Just take a look at Tables 16 - 20. What else would one expect from those trained in the commando ethos! (Slightly naff, but it still works :) )

Hit the link HERE

then click on the pdf link 'Armed Forces CAS 2007 pdf'. Once it has opened go to 'View' .. 'Rotate View ... Clockwise ... It will make make sense when you see the tables 16 - 20.

Go, Royal!

Ninja, It would be perhaps useful for you, especially as the news this evening is all about low morale.
 
Cheers Harry'

Just had a brief peruse & was actually quite surprised. Problem is that many (most?) would accuse the Careers Service of only telling the good bits & of course we can all twist statistics to suit.

When you consider that the majority join the RN & RM with the intent of serving about 4-6 years, it's hardly a shock when people wish to leave at the 6 year point which is the current average.

Some of the relevant Q&A's for RN & RM which were interesting, again only my viewpoint, were as follows:

How satisfied are you with your rate of basic pay? Majority satisfied

How satisfied are you with ability to do all the admin tasks you need on JPA? Majority dissatisfied

Do you agree that this extra 13% in your salary is enough compensation for Service lifestyle working conditions and expectations? Majority dissatisfied

How satisfied are you with (Service) life in general? Majority satisfied

Overall how has your life in the (Service) been compared to what you expected when you joined? Majority about the same

How would you rate the level of morale of yourself? Matelots average, Booties high.

How would you rate the level of morale of the (Service) as a whole? Majority Low.

To what extent do you agree with I feel proud to be in the (Service)? Matelots agree, Booties strongly agree

To what extent do you agree with I regularly feel like leaving the (Service) for good? Majority of Matelots, Booties evens

To what extent do you agree with I would recommend joining the (Service) to others e.g. friends and family? Most would

How satisfied are you with the standard of equipment and resources you have to do your job? Majority dissatisfied

How satisfied are you with the opportunity to take leave when you want to? Majority dissatisfied

How satisfied are you with the amount of leave you were able to take in the last 12 months? Majority satisfied

Equally someone will probably draw out all the negative aspects of the survey and it would be crass to suggest everything is OK, but it's certainly food for thought.
 
This is rather deja vu: does anyone remember the late 70s, the winter of discontent and all that, with Jack voting with his feet and leaving in large numbers - people like Nuclear Chiefs of the Watch leaving (2 off the boat I was on), people the RN could ill afford to lose. Guess who was in power at the time ? Old Labour - seems like the New variety haven't learned anything from the CFs their predecessors caused. Odd, because IIRC, Jim Callaghan served on the lower deck in WW II. They just don't get defence, do they ??
 
Earlier in this thread I alluded to the reality that such surveys can be manipulated to at least skew the apparent opinion of those being surveyed. I am expected to complete a similar survey every year at my work and I now find I have to read the question and possible answers carefully to get down to the real question being asked and the answer expected so that I can then choose my answer to make the real point I want to make.

I would suggest that one thing that is good about this survey is that Des Broone can't keep saying every one is very happy with the way things are being run
 
Remember back in t'early '90's when they decided to stick Jenny to sea and take some of Jacks billets........well when she had done her 2 1/2 yrs at sea....(Invisible for me), Jenny went ashore.."Thinking" she would get a coupla years poncing about til her next sea draft. BUT, there wernt any billets shore side for her as Jack had em all, and now all the sea billets were mt as all the Jennies were shore side, so, .....your ahead of me arent you.....yep, they put Jenny back to sea again after 6 months shore time, and Jack had a coupla years shore side. Remember, they couldnt just stick Jack back on board, as the accom had been converted to a "girls " only messing...... SO my Jenny stuck her notice in and so did all her pals!. My 2 other lads also had their notice in. One to be a copper the other a car mechanic!
I asked this question on retention to the 2nd SL team when they visited Deadloss and got a "what do you know reply" and a shitty look from the XO!
 
Retention has always been a thorny issue inasmuch that it makes financial sense to try to keep your most expensive commodity - a trained matelot at OPS status.

The problem is, and always has been, that the majority only joined with the intention of completing 5 years or so, hence the introduction of the retention bounty.

Even the retention bonus was dubious in it's implimentation, if not dishonest, as those joining beforehand weren't eligible, those who were eligible had a reduced daily rate which, surprise, surprise, equated to the bounty payout after 4 years on the lower income. Another first class inducement using smoke, mirrors & at least cost neutral - in fact it made money because those who left early failed to 'earn' their bounty- or should that be "repaid" their wage?

There is also the element of the grass being greener elsewhere. Many find it is indeed, but numerically over a quarter of all entrants in my local AFCO last year were infact being processed as re-entrants. As the recession begins to bite more people are looking for job security - let us hope that the politicians and manderins that hold the purse-strings do not exploit the services further.
 
Ninja_Stoker said:
Retention has always been a thorny issue inasmuch that it makes financial sense to try to keep your most expensive commodity - a trained matelot at OPS status.

The problem is, and always has been, that the majority only joined with the intention of completing 5 years or so, hence the introduction of the retention bounty.

Even the retention bonus was dubious in it's implimentation, if not dishonest, as those joining beforehand weren't eligible, those who were eligible had a reduced daily rate which, surprise, surprise, equated to the bounty payout after 4 years on the lower income. Another first class inducement using smoke, mirrors & at least cost neutral - in fact it made money because those who left early failed to 'earn' their bounty- or should that be "repaid" their wage?

There is also the element of the grass being greener elsewhere. Many find it is indeed, but numerically over a quarter of all entrants in my local AFCO last year were infact being processed as re-entrants. As the recession begins to bite more people are looking for job security - let us hope that the politicians and manderins that hold the purse-strings do not exploit the services further.[/quote]

Dont hold yer breath
 
I know that I`m old but, sorry Ninja,

The problem is, and always has been, that the majority only joined with the intention of completing 5 years or so, hence the introduction of the retention bounty.

Considering that I joined for 12 years, and signed on for a further 10,

And always has been,

Is not strictly true.
 
higthepig said:
I know that I`m old but, sorry Ninja,

The problem is, and always has been, that the majority only joined with the intention of completing 5 years or so, hence the introduction of the retention bounty.

Considering that I joined for 12 years, and signed on for a further 10,

And always has been,

Is not strictly true.

Hig,

I was talking about the majority. I signed initially for 9, then 14, then 22 then 32. Initially I intended doing about 5, as indeed many intend, but I could have left well before 9 if I wanted.

The fact you initially signed for 12 surely did not mean you had to serve the full 12 years before you could leave? Or maybe it did on that contract? (Happy to stand corrected)
 
Stand corrected Ninja the only way out was discharge by purchase, which, also applied to 9 year men, The Majority of people that i served with did their time, very few went out before it.
 
sorry Ninja, I signed on for 12 and the only way out was:
Over the wall and Out... Very painful. SNLR

Discharge by Purchase. No one could come up with that sort of money
Brownhattering ....Painful too Oooohhhhhhhhhhh
 
higthepig said:
Stand corrected Ninja the only way out was discharge by purchase, which, also applied to 9 year men, The Majority of people that i served with did their time, very few went out before it.

I'm standing in the naughty corrected corner.
oops7yt.gif


Must confess I was completely unaware that you had to buy yourself out on the slightly older contracts, on my initial one you just had to wait 18months, then submit 18 months notice, it later changed to 12 months notice.

Getting horribly buggered was never an option Pinch. :thumright:
 
I signed on for 9, then maggie came in and I twigged that you got extra leave or summit if you signed on for more, so I upped it to 12 then I think 22.............BUT I knew a coupla pen pushers in the admin so wangled a few carryovers...........my missus could never work out why I had so much vacation time!!
 

Latest Threads

New Posts

Top