oasis6x said:
It was a centre in the north east, i worked there from march to august 03. There was me and a bootneck on the front desk and two FTRS senior rates upstairs. I had no training in anything, and had not done anything relating to speaking to civvies.
Me and the bootneck used to speak to about two people a week as noone would come in. We spent it smoking tabs and drinking wets, and using the gym in the back of the centre.
It was unprofessional from the beginning to be honest, i should have never been there. I had no experience but was the younger joiners first point of contact when they walked in.
I was told by the senior rates at the start of the week which branches i couldnt encourage people to join, by providiing them with alternatives and encouraging them, and also by exagerrating joining up times for that given branch.
When i was there, this happened to CTs and Divers. It also happened with Drivers with the Army guys on the front desk.
It's interesting you had not done anything relating to speaking to civvies-one assumes you were born on a submarine.
As you had a Royal Marines Corporal working with you, it would be safe to assume he was employed in the Assistant Careers Adviser role & was responsible for training you, having completed the RN Recruiters Course in Bovington.
The reason the AFCO's employ people fresh out of training is that they are best placed to relate one to one with someone similarly aged rather than someone many years older, albeit with a wealth of experience in the recruiting field. A younger individual is more likely to give an accurate, unbiased opinion of what phase one training is really like, rather than a time-served Warant Officer & is more likely to speak in the local colloquial accent.
Possibly the personalities at your AFCO viewed it different, however it's always important to advise people of the possible waiting times for each branch from the outset. That isn't to say they should be misled, but a 16 year-old would generally consider a two year wait prohibitively long. The idea is certainly not to mislead, but to inform & offer alternatives.
When anyone applies for ANY job, the advert usually says "the ideal candidate will have......." qualifications & experience. What the careers office usually tries to do is suggest that if you want a specific trade, be prepared to wait, however there are related jobs you may wish to consider. What they mustn't do is misinform or suggest they can transfer trades after joining.
It's all a case of perception, but you have put forward a very strong argument for careers offices not to take on loan ratings. Maybe that's the way ahead. It's a great shame you knowingly misinformed people whilst you were employed there. Is that legal?
