"RMT Steps Up Fight To Save Hundreds Of Jobs At The RFA – The RN Lifeline"

Discussion in 'RFA' started by soleil, Feb 12, 2011.

Welcome to the Navy Net aka Rum Ration

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial RN website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. It looks like they are attempting to prick some conciences. Such a short passage but full of:

    Royal Navy’s supplies lifeline - would threaten the reliability and security of this vital lifeline to our naval vessels around the world - outrage of the bankers £6 billion bonuses - out on the seas supplying the naval fleet - compromise national security - this essential lifeline to our naval crews - serving the Royal Navy in war zones - brave seafarers who have played a vital role in conflict after conflict.

    I'm not saying they don't have justification, but are they trying to jump on the bandwagon of the publics pride in our armed forces, it would seem so.
  2. Get real Bob Crowe, we are all in the financial crisis, apportioning blame is not going to sort it out.
    I am surprised that Lord Prescott that well known ex seamans union official has not jumped on the band wogon.
    Unfortunately as the size of our fleet diminishes,for whatever reasons, the RFA service will have to be proportionly reduced.
    I am saddened by the shrinkage of our fleet, but we are still the most professional!
  3. the union says this stuff every 6 months, the RFA has to constantly justify its role every 2 or 3 years against the rest of the merchant navy and the union will say the usual stuff to justify there month subs. the way the RFA is going there wont have to be any redundancies, theres enough leaving to cover the reductions and it is supposed to be over 5 years and I'm pretty sure 250 odd will leave by then. Also i know of at least 3 ex-RN lads who have done 22 years/pension etc who are just waiting for the redundancy notice and they'll put there notice in take the money so those that are in shouldn't feel too threatened. what they havent mentioned is that although three ships are going one is actually coming back into service, the Fort Austin, which if you look at the crew numbers, will probably equal a Bay boat and leaf boat crew put together. the Fart George (and the Vic) cost far too much to run (2/3's of the budget) and are a nightmare to maintain. They wont be missed.
  4. well i was wrong.. theyre going to get rid of 400 personnel, thats 15% in my book, which is a lot more than the ships complement of the ships thats are going. Oh well better get my pension statement out.
  5. Lets see what happens ehy, although they have turned off recruitment (for now) current wastage is about 10% a year as it is without this VERS scheme so they probably could manage it without going through the process. But to NCHQ it gives the impression that the RFA are trying above and beyond to make savings. Personally I think those that the RFA want to leave will just sit this out and wait for their retirement in x amount of years time. I mean why leave a cushy shore job with all t & s paid for to go out and look for a job that aint there!!!
  6. Actually it's only a little more than complement of the ships that are being paid off, but maybe don't mention this to the wrong people since we're supposed to save 10% VFM or whatever on top of the SDSR cuts.

    69 for a Bay
    56 for a Leaf
    95 for a Fort + STON? (are they included in RFA manpower numbers now?)

    = 220

    x 1.7 (the factor for people on leave, courses, etc.)

    = 374

    Slim down 26 of the white mafia ashore, et voila! 400 jobs lost overboard.
  7. Not sure about the STON, but they are under the RFA Commodore so maybe they do. Also they are bringing the Fort Austin back into service at the end of this year.
  8. Remember the *official* line is that the manpower to operate Fort Austin is still there in the system, so the people to crew the three ships being disposed of must go.

    There must have been a good bit of slack in the RFA (rating) manpower situation over the last five years or so, or leave harmonisation would never have been feasible. ;)
  9. There isn't much slack, the RFA has always had manpower level at around 87%. they purposely never have 100%, the most popular person in the RFA is Gap Billet. how they have managed is by listing the ships in order of deployment importance, where the ships in the Gulf/Caribbean are top so reliefs are sent there first, whilst those at the bottom, round the UK, will be gapped. I have sailed on a few ships where the Engineroom has been left short, on the Fort Vic we actually had two MEM's from the Invincible/Illustrious on board, only they couldn't cover watches/UMS as they dont have the STCW 95 certification.
  10. The RMT is the official union of the RFA. Used to be called the NUS. John Prescott daren't even comment as he said bugger all when the British Merchant fleet sank beneath the waves long ago and Prescott opted for the ermine of the Lords.
    I think you'll find that Bob Crow will do his utmost for the men of the RFA, as he does for the railways. I'd rather have him than Prescott's ilk, at least you know where you stand with him.:-|
    • Like Like x 1
  11. there are two official unions in the RFA, RMT and Numast, and there are 6 unions for the whole civil service which we come under. and out of those 6 unions 5 agreed with this governments ditching our old compensation terms and replacing them with the latest ones, which aren't as good financially, obviously. Out of the five that agreed the RMT and NUMAST are included. Bob Crow is a train man and the sailors are just an aside. Tube drivers on strike every five minutes, never hear anything about the RFA except for the odd article in the morning star or pompey news, which always seems to say the same old thing.
  12. Again, "officially" we are currently at 100%, but this is done by cooking the books and including those under training towards the figure.

    Slack varies between departments. ABs and stewards are overmanned, they are getting lots of extra leave. Adquals in short supply will affect how the situation is seen on certain ships. Also no allowance for long-term sick etc.
  13. Im not an AB or steward, just in their defence, during normal routine there always seems to be too many AB's Stewards, cooks and theyre always up the road whilst the MM's are down below, (its the nature of the job, you can only work on machinery when its not running) but once we're doing gunnery, flying, RAS's then all off a sudden we're short of AB's and Stewards, there has to be a balance, and we dont have too many AB's and Stewards, if anything we dont have enough. dont forget we gave up the right to do double Rases in the 90's with the advent of IDF. i know since the end of the cold war etc etc etc its not needed, but Ive have done many a deployment where we RAS a carrier and and have to do frigate/destroyer at the same time and thats when the current carriers only require 1000cz imagine the new ones, theyre going to want a lot more plus food etc. Im sorry the RFA is never going to keep up at this rate.

    Also they are using the long term sick (i.e. ENG3) as replacements for ships in the UK waters and transferring ENG1's to higher rated ships when strictly speaking those on ENG3's would have been retired medically years ago. its the ENG3's that are filling some of the gaps
  14. I'm not talking about overmanning on board, that's a scheme of complement matter and a separate issue. My point is that there are more ABs in the organisation than are required to man the existing (pre-SDSR) fleet to scheme of complement levels. They are regularly getting a month or two on continuous pay after their leave runs out. I expect Deck and Supply departments to be hardest hit by the personnel reductions (can't call it redundancies yet!).

Share This Page