Loss of Bounty

Can anyone please tell me when it was officially announced in writing that if you didn't pass the RNFT you would lose 20% of your bounty this year. It was one of those rumours spread around but I have not seen any official announcement and only to my knowledge in the later part of 2006.

Surely this could be considered a fine for being unfit and only against the RNR as the RN are given extra PT and counselling if they are unfit certainly no stoppage of pay or leave as a punishment.

I know we sign a contract every 5 years but it seems that the RNR is free to change the conditions of this at will without giving any notice. I also know that this is necessary to remain flexible to meet the needs of the RN but things like this seem only to get up peoples backs and make them leave.

And before you ask I've passed mine so this doesn't effect me

 

It was never officially announced. Instead it seems to have slipped in through the back door. If you search the back of this forum then Master Chief assured us that there was no intent to give a 20% cut to bounty this year. To bring this in with 2 weeks notice is a total disgrace. I am all for the RNRFT, I am all for people being fit for duty - but I am all for CMR to actually talk to its people and let us know whats going on rather than try to assume we can read their minds.

I know a lot of committed dedicated people who have said that this is the straw that is breaking their back. I fully expect people to leave as a result of this and I fully expect CMR to carry on in their insultated ivory tower.

 

Agree there could have been a better communication/lead time to this.

But at the same time the bounty has always been conditional on meeting your annual training requirement.

As of fairly recently, and following lessons learned from mobilisations over the past few years where fitness has been indentified as an issue, the RNFT is (coming in on a phased/age basis) part of this training commitment for the RNR.

It therefore could be justified in refusing 100% of bounty if you fail, really, although that would not be good people management IMHO!

And incidentally - the 20% cut is if you do not ATTEMPT the RNFT by the end of the training year. It is not, at present, necessary actually to pass it. And it incidentally only applies those under 30. Damn...I'm 35...

Still personally going to do it to the same timescales as a matter of principle though.

 

The RNRFT is embarrassingly easy and I was under the impression I would get no bounty if I was not in date. Just goes to show what variable communications is doing the rounds though!

 

I see the RNR does not intend to apply for Investors in People Accreditation, for it would fail under the new standard because of piss poor communication!

 

And you believe that JPA can handle bounty minus 20%???????

 

will jpa handle bounty?

 

The RNR is already IIP accredited I believe (or at least it was)! I had a perfect example of how much regard IIP was held by the RTCs. On joining a unit, IIP required all new joiners to have a meeting with the CO within a relatively short period (4 weeks I think). As a new joiner following my joining routine, I duly made an appointment and turned up on time (i.e. five minutes early) for the meeting; at the time of the meeting I was ushered in to the COs cabin, invited to sit down, and proceeded to have a nice informal chat with the CO. After five minutes of chit-chat, the CO casually inquired as to the purpose of the meeting (it had been down in the diary) and when I told her she looked surprised - her comment summed up my experience of IIP - "I didn't know that was meant to happen"!

On the subject of bounty and RNFT - I have no problem with bounty eleigibility being linked to the Fitness Test; the introduction of the test has however, been less than clear with a confusing profusion of dates dependent upon age and rate menaing that this year some people require the FT while other (generally the elderly) don't. Linking bounty into such a confused environment is a recipe of mistakes - what more did we expect?

 

First i knew was on an email a couple of weeks ago which i was asked to send around to everyone.

The requirement is to "attempt" the fitness test, in which case two feet over the starting line counts. Which leaves me to wonder what is the point.

I passed with flying colours despite having only 8 hours notice of the test.

We have also heard a rumour (yes another one!!!) that bounty may be reduced if you fail to undertake at least one recruitment activity per year.

I agree that the FT is important but if you're going to do it, give people notice and dont phrase it as loosely as "attempt" the fitness test.

I also agree that everyone should play an active role in recruiting but again it does seem that these new requirements are being introduced in a rather sneeky manner.

 

COs can put local conditions on bounty and often do, for example Nov Ceremonies in many units.

 

Indeed they can; nonetheless, ten days warning seems a bit tight. I checked in my unit once I'd got the eMail, and true to memory, there was a notice on the wall saying that anyone of my rate and age had until the end of May to take the fitness test. Not a thing about taking it this bounty year.

It's the kind of contradictory clusterfuck I've come to expect over the last six months. Ten ******* days notice for a bounty requirement. Genius, absolute genius.

 

On what you, as employees, should expect...

As an employee of an Investor in People organisation, what benefits can I expect?

A priority of all organisations working with the Investors in People Standard is to ensure that their employees are kept in touch with what is going on. Importantly, as an employee of an organisation working with the Standard, you should understand your organisation's aims and objectives and the role you will play in helping it get there. It is also vital that you understand how your work contributes to the success of the organisation as a whole. It is easier for you if you know exactly what is expected of you, so you and your manager will go through what you need to achieve and how you go about it. In working with the Investors in People Standard, your organisation will have to demonstrate that it meets all of the 10 indicators of the Standard. These are outlined in the Investors in People Standard [PDF]. The way in which an organisation achieves each indicator can vary so there is no precise way of explaining exactly what practices you should be able to identify as an employee. You should realise, however, that if you are working with the Standard then you are working with an organisation that wants to do things properly. You could get ahead more quickly at work because you are managing your career better and getting the support you need to develop. It should be a good place to work, with a positive and supportive atmosphere. If you want to find out more about the benefits you can receive, please visit the following link - The Benefits of Investors in People.

source: http://www.investorsinpeople.co.uk/Standard/Pages/FAQ.aspx#17

 

AAC, nobody who has ever undergone an IIP process would suggest that the organisation is actually IIP compliant.

The assessors are, not to put too fine a point on it, f'ing useless.

I've had the misfortune to undergo IIP accreditation five times in recent years, not once has the unit been compliant but it has passed regardless. Assessors come up with all kinds of fictions and explanations to justify their decisions.

Frankly it's bollocks.

 

Hear, hear - any organisation that needs a certificate and/or accreditation to demonstrate how well it apparently treats its employees is wasting its time - the expression "actions speak louder than words" springs to mind, treat your people well rather than wasting effort on flaunting meaningless stickyfoots!

 

It all goes back to the RNR thinking it has a recruitment problem (and the IIP logo on advertising will help address this) rather than a retention problem that actually doing something about communication would address.

 

So yet again confusion reigns supreme.

Can someone in Authority, preferably the highest put their name to a signal clearly stating what is the ruling this year, and also the future.

not too much to ask really considering we are expected to keep fit in our own time.

 

Its not the Navy that is b*llocks but the management who agreed the RN should be an IIP accreditted organisation. What a waste of time and money.

 

Government mandated IIP for all public sector organisations in the mid 90s.

I'm not convinced that the RN implementation was done the best way, expecting ships to do it individually led to a huge administration burden and a lot of duplication of effort. Plus most assessors I had any dealings with were not interested in the systems they were supposed to be assessing, just peripheral indications that there had been preparation.

If anything going through the process of IIP accreditation broke a system which was already reasonably effective.

 

It's the same as an organisation saying they are actively doing something (as opposed to just doing). Cue rants about local councils...

 

Try eight hours notice mate!