'Sacked' from HM Armed Forces?

Discussion in 'Current Affairs' started by Ollie-O, Dec 16, 2009.

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. In the news yesterday; regarding 2500 job cuts of 'non-essential' personnel.

    My question is, to whoever can remember so far back or whoever is in the know, are cuts in the Armed Forces carried out via limited intake and natural outflow or have people been told that they simply had to leave and accept redundancy? What has been the case in the past?

    I ask as a prospective Chef and therefore a possible candidate for the title 'non-essential' although i would expect that almost any shore based draft would go before a sea-based one.
  2. There were a couple of rounds of redundancies back in the early/mid '90s and not just in 'non-essential' personel.
  3. Guessing who might or might not go is generally a waste of time and effort. Everyone has a case to stay and equally everyone has a case to leave. The bean counters will announce their decision when they are ready to do so. Until then, it's work as normal for everyone. If you wish to enlist, my suggestion to you is to carry on as you are and follow the process through. Tommorrow is another day.

    Oh BTW, I think 'sacked' may be too strong a word. The likelihood is that there will be some redundancies. These people willl receive some form of monetary remuneration for their trouble, which is NOT the case when one is 'sacked' from their job.
  4. Anyone for SNLR?
  5. There are far too many SO1 and SO2 types in the HQ formations (on twice the salary of their civvy counterparts, I'm led to believe) sitting behind a desk rather than out doing practical stuff, so there could be acres of savings to be had by stripping them out.

    I don't envy anyone making the decisions as to who stays and who goes.
  6. The same could be said of anyone in a uniform sat behind a desk shoreside (not just SO1 and SO2) however, many of these desk jobs need the experience levels gained by having previously NOT served behind a desk and particularly experience gained "in uniform" and it would be very dangerous to set this particular hare running (IMHO)
  7. This is something of a sweeping statement!! So presumaby these guys you are on about are SO1(Chair Development and Use) ably assisted by SO2(Collecting Paperclips) rather than Force Development or Collective Training :roll: You may well be correct but as BS says, this could as easily be applied to any shore billet.
    It is very unlikely that any redundancies will target individuals. I would expect them to be based on line numbers ie FOST will lose the WO(Strange New Branch) and CBP (does he even exist any more?) will lose the OC Block Cleaning and Drills, etc rather than WO Smith or Lt Cdr Jones. IIRC last time volunteers were requested and virtually every requirement was met several times over. Another source is natural wastage by not relieving the man leaving the soon-to-be defunct line on incumbent departing to the real world. The payout for Seniors last time was in the order of £40-50K. I don't recall the pension arrangements.
    As an aside, a knock on effect of any redundancies is of course the slow down on promotion within the branches targeted.
  8. Ninja_Stoker

    Ninja_Stoker War Hero Moderator

    Any reductions in manpower will be through natural wastage as we're too skint buying chinooks to be able to afford redundancy payments.

    My guess is recruiting targets will be reduced to reduce inflow & extended contracts curtailed to increase outflow.
  9. I don't disagree, broadside. Someone's going to have to make one hell of a tough call on job losses, and Whitehall - i.e. Main Building - is in for a kicking (if you believe all you hear from the politicians and related naysayers).
  10. Surely the inflow is cheap labour? It would make sense to keep these in the long term and get rid of the some of the more expensive experience. Certainly that is what happened in the legal cull of 2007.
  11. Concur!!!
  12. Ninja_Stoker

    Ninja_Stoker War Hero Moderator

    Yep, but it's expensive go get rid of experienced individuals who have not completed their first contract - it costs nothing not to give/extend a second contract.

    Hopefully, if manpower reductions are required in the Armed Forces (no-one has said they are yet) rather than support staff, common sense will prevail (for once?) & we will still recruit but in reduced figures - otherwise we will create another void, which happened in '93 when we stopped recruiting entirely. Problem is the decision-makers are transient & seldom look at precedent events - preferring to think it's their "new idea" instead, then bugger off before the fall-out descends.

    Think previous debacles: Operator Mechanic, Weapons Engineers uninvented, Pay 2000, Medical Branch decimation, Survey Recorders & Meteorologists, etc., etc. All the product of the "good ideas club".

Share This Page