Dirty tricks in the army on 18 June of all days
Discussion
scenario8 said:
Why's that sad?
Because after 32 years service the least you'd expect is a personalised letter of thanks rather than a crappy template letter with your name filled in with a biro.At least they could have made an attempt at sincerity rather than that!
Very crappy indeed.
valiant said:
scenario8 said:
Why's that sad?
Because after 32 years service the least you'd expect is a personalised letter of thanks rather than a crappy template letter with your name filled in with a biro.At least they could have made an attempt at sincerity rather than that!
Very crappy indeed.
A firm I used to work at used give a crappy glass ashtray and a few M&S vouchers for 50 years service.
eccles said:
I don't see why it's crap, it's more than most get when they leave after doing their time.
A firm I used to work at used give a crappy glass ashtray and a few M&S vouchers for 50 years service.
Army pay, at least for the grunts, is pretty poor. Part of the big sell is the pension. Potential recruits are told that they will be, to an extent, set up for life at the end of their 22 years. I remember reading a calculation made when the minimum wage was being introduced to the effect that soldiery were paid much less than the minimum wage even if one took off charges for bed and board.A firm I used to work at used give a crappy glass ashtray and a few M&S vouchers for 50 years service.
So the pension is promoted as part of the pay. A few years ago it was said to potential recruits that all you have to do to ensure you get the pension was to keep your nose clean and do as you are told. It is a tempting proposition for those dead end jobs. It was a promise.
A pension is not the gift at the end of a soldier's career. It is promoted as being part of the attraction of the job. All you have to do now though is not only keep a clean nose, follow orders, not get killed had also not get sacked three days before your entitlement to your pension. That's why it's not crap.
I originally thought the contributor that posted the image of the damaged letter of thanks-for-service believed it to be sad because it was for sale at a boot sale - not for the content of the letter.
The letter itself is impersonal and is clearly a standard letter with names and numbers filled in (unlikely to have been in biro). I still don't see how that itself is sad or insulting. The specific letter isn't the entire "thank you" package. It is likely the CO sent a much more personal letter, for example. Pension provision, large, small or however perceived notwithstanding.
The letter itself is impersonal and is clearly a standard letter with names and numbers filled in (unlikely to have been in biro). I still don't see how that itself is sad or insulting. The specific letter isn't the entire "thank you" package. It is likely the CO sent a much more personal letter, for example. Pension provision, large, small or however perceived notwithstanding.
scenario8 said:
I originally thought the contributor that posted the image of the damaged letter of thanks-for-service believed it to be sad because it was for sale at a boot sale - not for the content of the letter.
The letter itself is impersonal and is clearly a standard letter with names and numbers filled in (unlikely to have been in biro). I still don't see how that itself is sad or insulting. The specific letter isn't the entire "thank you" package. It is likely the CO sent a much more personal letter, for example. Pension provision, large, small or however perceived notwithstanding.
Slight cross purposes with what you were refering to! Apologies.The letter itself is impersonal and is clearly a standard letter with names and numbers filled in (unlikely to have been in biro). I still don't see how that itself is sad or insulting. The specific letter isn't the entire "thank you" package. It is likely the CO sent a much more personal letter, for example. Pension provision, large, small or however perceived notwithstanding.
However I stand by my point about the framed letter of valuable service to the cause.
The old soldier in question probably did receive a good sendoff with a decent pension and, for all I know, a go with the General's daughter but the fact that they couldn't be bothered to go to the effort of personalizing a simple letter of gratitiude that would have taken all of 5 minutes to do after 32 years loyal service is disgraceful IMO.
This is not some faceless corporation where it may be expected but the armed forces where you'd think they would do things differently.
Sure, I just see it that this specific generic letter would be one of many many issued on a daily basis. If the heads of the repsective services were to hand write a letter to each retiring serviceman I'm sure those five minutes would all end up costing quite a bit of time. If the hand written leters were written by a more junior rank wouldn't there then be a case of "more Admirals than warships" in having to employ a ranking officer whose time was spent largely writing thank you letters?
As I indicated above, I'd like to imagne the CO wrote a personal letter (if the servicment, presumably of at least NCO rank, had completed 32 years service). It's likely there was a sending off, official and unofficial, and indeed there may well have been gifts (again official and unofficial). Or maybe my insult-ometer needs recalibration.
Again, notwithstanding any financial entitlement on retirement.
I might add 32 years service in my industry is unlikely to be marked by a letter at all. Or indeed any company pension. But this paragraph isn't intended to muddy the waters of the OP.
As I indicated above, I'd like to imagne the CO wrote a personal letter (if the servicment, presumably of at least NCO rank, had completed 32 years service). It's likely there was a sending off, official and unofficial, and indeed there may well have been gifts (again official and unofficial). Or maybe my insult-ometer needs recalibration.
Again, notwithstanding any financial entitlement on retirement.
I might add 32 years service in my industry is unlikely to be marked by a letter at all. Or indeed any company pension. But this paragraph isn't intended to muddy the waters of the OP.
Derek Smith said:
eccles said:
I don't see why it's crap, it's more than most get when they leave after doing their time.
A firm I used to work at used give a crappy glass ashtray and a few M&S vouchers for 50 years service.
Army pay, at least for the grunts, is pretty poor. Part of the big sell is the pension. Potential recruits are told that they will be, to an extent, set up for life at the end of their 22 years. I remember reading a calculation made when the minimum wage was being introduced to the effect that soldiery were paid much less than the minimum wage even if one took off charges for bed and board.A firm I used to work at used give a crappy glass ashtray and a few M&S vouchers for 50 years service.
So the pension is promoted as part of the pay. A few years ago it was said to potential recruits that all you have to do to ensure you get the pension was to keep your nose clean and do as you are told. It is a tempting proposition for those dead end jobs. It was a promise.
A pension is not the gift at the end of a soldier's career. It is promoted as being part of the attraction of the job. All you have to do now though is not only keep a clean nose, follow orders, not get killed had also not get sacked three days before your entitlement to your pension. That's why it's not crap.
These days forces pay is a whole magnitude better than many equivalent civilian jobs once you get a skill.
eccles said:
Army pay for someone who wants to be a Grunt isn't too bad. It's probably more than they'd be earning in any job they could get in civvy street for their level of intelligence (sorry if this sounds snobby).
That comment doesn't shower you in glory, if I'm honest. While there are some people who are as thick as an elephant's leg in the infantry, there are also some who are very bright plus a lot in the middle. BruceV8 said:
eccles said:
Army pay for someone who wants to be a Grunt isn't too bad. It's probably more than they'd be earning in any job they could get in civvy street for their level of intelligence (sorry if this sounds snobby).
That comment doesn't shower you in glory, if I'm honest. While there are some people who are as thick as an elephant's leg in the infantry, there are also some who are very bright plus a lot in the middle. eccles said:
Army pay for someone who wants to be a Grunt isn't too bad. It's probably more than they'd be earning in any job they could get in civvy street for their level of intelligence (sorry if this sounds snobby).
These days forces pay is a whole magnitude better than many equivalent civilian jobs once you get a skill.
Leaving your comment on intelligence to one side - I've worked with ex-Army and I have to say that your experience differs from mine - I would point out that on an hourly basis the pay is dreadful, below minimum wage. It doesn't take an awful lot of working out.These days forces pay is a whole magnitude better than many equivalent civilian jobs once you get a skill.
Derek Smith said:
eccles said:
Army pay for someone who wants to be a Grunt isn't too bad. It's probably more than they'd be earning in any job they could get in civvy street for their level of intelligence (sorry if this sounds snobby).
These days forces pay is a whole magnitude better than many equivalent civilian jobs once you get a skill.
Leaving your comment on intelligence to one side - I've worked with ex-Army and I have to say that your experience differs from mine - I would point out that on an hourly basis the pay is dreadful, below minimum wage. It doesn't take an awful lot of working out.These days forces pay is a whole magnitude better than many equivalent civilian jobs once you get a skill.
eccles said:
It may not shower me in glory but in my experience it's true. Squaddies aren't generally picked for their brains when they get selected for the infantry, and yes there are exceptions to every rule.
Well my experience is that, generally, there is little overall difference in intelligence and education (not the same thing) across all three services when trade is taken into account. Ie a supplier in the RAF will be no brighter than one in the army or RN. Same for each service's version of an infantryman. Same indeed for technicians. Then within each trade group there will be a guassian curve of intelligence, education and aptitude.Even if your 'intelligence' point was valid - which I dispute - there is more to it than that. An infantryman will have a much more austere, physically arduous and dangerous experience of service life than, say, an RAF helicopter technician. That needs to be taken into account. Similarly, an infantry NCO will have a lot more man management and tactical decision making to do than most technical jobs in any of the services.
BruceV8 said:
eccles said:
It may not shower me in glory but in my experience it's true. Squaddies aren't generally picked for their brains when they get selected for the infantry, and yes there are exceptions to every rule.
Well my experience is that, generally, there is little overall difference in intelligence and education (not the same thing) across all three services when trade is taken into account. Ie a supplier in the RAF will be no brighter than one in the army or RN. Same for each service's version of an infantryman. Same indeed for technicians. Then within each trade group there will be a guassian curve of intelligence, education and aptitude.Even if your 'intelligence' point was valid - which I dispute - there is more to it than that. An infantryman will have a much more austere, physically arduous and dangerous experience of service life than, say, an RAF helicopter technician. That needs to be taken into account. Similarly, an infantry NCO will have a lot more man management and tactical decision making to do than most technical jobs in any of the services.
As for there being no difference between the services for similar trades...... well my experience tells me otherwise!
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff