Armed Forces Chiefs Dodge Redundancies
Discussion
It would appear this section of the public sector is following the tradition of the NHS, councils and so on, of cutting the front line, thus causing the government to be blamed, while the chiefs (who make these decisions) are sitting pretty... http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/905...
Armed Forces chiefs been accused of dodging redundancies after just seven lost their posts in cuts compared with 6,000 servicemen who have been sacked in the last five months.
Some excerpts from the report: Figures obtained by The Daily Telegraph show that only one in 20 of the most senior officers in all three Services have lost their jobs. By comparison 20 per cent of more junior ranks will lose their jobs as 30,000 service personnel are axed.
The redundancies among generals, admirals and air marshals has been criticised as “inexcusable” and a failure to “show an example at the top”.
The Army currently has ten times as many major generals as it does divisions. Traditionally a major general would command a division of approximately 10,000 men but now there are 40 major generals for just four divisions.
Defence analysts say that the US Marine Corps, which at 220,000 personnel is larger than all three Services, has just 80 officers of one star rank (brigadier) compared to Britain 460 officers in the category.
A senior Army officer suggested that the “most of the work of 130 two stars and above could probably be done by far fewer one star or God forbid by civilians”.
Armed Forces chiefs been accused of dodging redundancies after just seven lost their posts in cuts compared with 6,000 servicemen who have been sacked in the last five months.
Some excerpts from the report: Figures obtained by The Daily Telegraph show that only one in 20 of the most senior officers in all three Services have lost their jobs. By comparison 20 per cent of more junior ranks will lose their jobs as 30,000 service personnel are axed.
The redundancies among generals, admirals and air marshals has been criticised as “inexcusable” and a failure to “show an example at the top”.
The Army currently has ten times as many major generals as it does divisions. Traditionally a major general would command a division of approximately 10,000 men but now there are 40 major generals for just four divisions.
Defence analysts say that the US Marine Corps, which at 220,000 personnel is larger than all three Services, has just 80 officers of one star rank (brigadier) compared to Britain 460 officers in the category.
A senior Army officer suggested that the “most of the work of 130 two stars and above could probably be done by far fewer one star or God forbid by civilians”.
Guybrush said:
It would appear this section of the public sector is following the tradition of the NHS, councils and so on, of cutting the front line, thus causing the government to be blamed, while the chiefs (who make these decisions) are sitting pretty... http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/905...
Armed Forces chiefs been accused of dodging redundancies after just seven lost their posts in cuts compared with 6,000 servicemen who have been sacked in the last five months.
Some excerpts from the report: Figures obtained by The Daily Telegraph show that only one in 20 of the most senior officers in all three Services have lost their jobs. By comparison 20 per cent of more junior ranks will lose their jobs as 30,000 service personnel are axed.
The redundancies among generals, admirals and air marshals has been criticised as “inexcusable” and a failure to “show an example at the top”.
The Army currently has ten times as many major generals as it does divisions. Traditionally a major general would command a division of approximately 10,000 men but now there are 40 major generals for just four divisions.
Defence analysts say that the US Marine Corps, which at 220,000 personnel is larger than all three Services, has just 80 officers of one star rank (brigadier) compared to Britain 460 officers in the category.
A senior Army officer suggested that the “most of the work of 130 two stars and above could probably be done by far fewer one star or God forbid by civilians”.
Whilst I agree that the UK forces are severly top heavy with senior officers that sit around drinking tea all day, there is a wider picture issue.Armed Forces chiefs been accused of dodging redundancies after just seven lost their posts in cuts compared with 6,000 servicemen who have been sacked in the last five months.
Some excerpts from the report: Figures obtained by The Daily Telegraph show that only one in 20 of the most senior officers in all three Services have lost their jobs. By comparison 20 per cent of more junior ranks will lose their jobs as 30,000 service personnel are axed.
The redundancies among generals, admirals and air marshals has been criticised as “inexcusable” and a failure to “show an example at the top”.
The Army currently has ten times as many major generals as it does divisions. Traditionally a major general would command a division of approximately 10,000 men but now there are 40 major generals for just four divisions.
Defence analysts say that the US Marine Corps, which at 220,000 personnel is larger than all three Services, has just 80 officers of one star rank (brigadier) compared to Britain 460 officers in the category.
A senior Army officer suggested that the “most of the work of 130 two stars and above could probably be done by far fewer one star or God forbid by civilians”.
If you remove all this 'dead wood', what you also achieve is killing stone dead the promotion prospects of all ranks below this level. Lets say every RAF Squadron has just 2 Squadron Leaders instead of lats say 12. All the Flight Leiutenants below these Squadron Leaders will now be competing for just 2 possible promotion slots, not 12. Then what happens is every other FLT Lt realises they are in a dead end job with no real promotion prospects, and decides to go fly civvy planes instead. All that investment is lost and you lose the best people because they are the ones that realise they are not going to be rewarded with promotion.
this happens at all rank levels, and you are left with an armed forces with no real experience as you have such a high churn rate of dissatisfied personel.
This occurs across all levels of rank.
Its a very wasteful model but it does not easily down scale.
That is already an issue which is dealt with as follows. What happens in the Army is that those who do not go on to staff college or higher ranks get generous retirement packages and pensions at an age when most civvies could not dream of retiring. They also get training and assistance in finding civilian employment. This is not easy, but then it is not easy for civilians either, and they do not have a distinguished army background on their CV.
That is what most people joining the Army should be aiming at, and what the Army should be training them towards. The idea that we are going to make everybody Major-Generals is ludicrous. We will end up in some kind of Gilbert & Sullivan alternative reality, like the Confederate Army, where everyone is a Colonel.
That is what most people joining the Army should be aiming at, and what the Army should be training them towards. The idea that we are going to make everybody Major-Generals is ludicrous. We will end up in some kind of Gilbert & Sullivan alternative reality, like the Confederate Army, where everyone is a Colonel.
Corsair7 said:
Its a very wasteful model but it does not easily down scale.
Of course it does. If there is 40,000 squadies and 40 Major Generals then after the cuts there should be 30,000 squadies and 30 Major Generals. You mention that it'll be hard to keep good people if there is a more limited promotion and that's certainly true. But it'll be just as hard if new recruits can't be confident they won't be chucked on the trashheap after a couple of tours.
cardigankid said:
That is already an issue which is dealt with as follows. What happens in the Army is that those who do not go on to staff college or higher ranks get generous retirement packages and pensions at an age when most civvies could not dream of retiring. They also get training and assistance in finding civilian employment. This is not easy, but then it is not easy for civilians either, and they do not have a distinguished army background on their CV.
That is what most people joining the Army should be aiming at, and what the Army should be training them towards. The idea that we are going to make everybody Major-Generals is ludicrous. We will end up in some kind of Gilbert & Sullivan alternative reality, like the Confederate Army, where everyone is a Colonel.
Yes thats how its dealt with at he current levels. If you remove a lot of senior posts the problem isnt that you then have people that 'dont quite make it' to the most senior levels, the problem becomes that you cant attract anyone in at the bottom and keep them in because they can see already that they have no hope of getting to te top.That is what most people joining the Army should be aiming at, and what the Army should be training them towards. The idea that we are going to make everybody Major-Generals is ludicrous. We will end up in some kind of Gilbert & Sullivan alternative reality, like the Confederate Army, where everyone is a Colonel.
The army in particular needs to both retain the best and to dispense with the dead wood in order to maintain intrest levels and morale throughout the rank structure. If you kull the top levels you also damage promotion prospects at every other level.
I agree we are top heavy in useless old farts that are paid well too much, but one of the reasons you need them is to provide future promotion ladders. Remove one man at the top and every rank suffers degraded promotion prospects and hence morale and retention issues.
What is doubly infuriating is that these people in most senor positions have regularly recieved higher percentage pay rises than lower ranks! WTF was happening there?
CoopR said:
Corsair7 said:
Its a very wasteful model but it does not easily down scale.
Of course it does. If there is 40,000 squadies and 40 Major Generals then after the cuts there should be 30,000 squadies and 30 Major Generals. You mention that it'll be hard to keep good people if there is a more limited promotion and that's certainly true. But it'll be just as hard if new recruits can't be confident they won't be chucked on the trashheap after a couple of tours.
No one person can have this level of expertise, so even if you reduce the number of your ground troops considerably you still need them to have the benefit of a large enough, broad enough and even pool of command.
So. even if you went down to 1000 sqauddies you would want noteably more than one person at the top capable of leading them safely and professionally.
A platoon can cope with one incompetant member of the team but a team of one would not be able to cope with one incompetant or unsuitable person.
You also need to maintain a suitable pool size to maintain specialist knowledge and experience within the top echelons, much of which tends to leave at Major level. All conflicts are different and just like you have lower sections of the military more specialised than others in key areas you need to retain the same ability at the top and that requires a certain number of positions to be maintained.
DonkeyApple said:
CoopR said:
Corsair7 said:
Its a very wasteful model but it does not easily down scale.
Of course it does. If there is 40,000 squadies and 40 Major Generals then after the cuts there should be 30,000 squadies and 30 Major Generals. You mention that it'll be hard to keep good people if there is a more limited promotion and that's certainly true. But it'll be just as hard if new recruits can't be confident they won't be chucked on the trashheap after a couple of tours.
No one person can have this level of expertise, so even if you reduce the number of your ground troops considerably you still need them to have the benefit of a large enough, broad enough and even pool of command.
So. even if you went down to 1000 sqauddies you would want noteably more than one person at the top capable of leading them safely and professionally.
A platoon can cope with one incompetant member of the team but a team of one would not be able to cope with one incompetant or unsuitable person.
You also need to maintain a suitable pool size to maintain specialist knowledge and experience within the top echelons, much of which tends to leave at Major level. All conflicts are different and just like you have lower sections of the military more specialised than others in key areas you need to retain the same ability at the top and that requires a certain number of positions to be maintained.
There are however many of the most senior ranks that are there simply because its a well paid club of old boys.
DonkeyApple said:
One slight issue that would favour a scew to the advantage of senior ranks is that we wouldn't want to send our children into conflict without enough senior personal with the right levels of experience to lead them.
Surely that argument is the same as saying no one should venture out on the roads with just one spare tyre for their car?If the senior preson(s) are no good, get rid. Same as in the private sector surely? But don't work on the "throw enough s
t at the wall and some will surely stick" principle.Digga said:
DonkeyApple said:
One slight issue that would favour a scew to the advantage of senior ranks is that we wouldn't want to send our children into conflict without enough senior personal with the right levels of experience to lead them.
Surely that argument is the same as saying no one should venture out on the roads with just one spare tyre for their car?If the senior preson(s) are no good, get rid. Same as in the private sector surely? But don't work on the "throw enough s
t at the wall and some will surely stick" principle.No, it's the fact that one person alone cannot be a specialist in every single field that our military may be expected to operate in so you require a suitable quorum of intelligence, education and ability to safely manage the lives and expected achievements of those below doing the work at the coal face.
I'm not saying that there shouldn't be cuts at the top level, nor advocating keeping people on who are passed it or not suitable just that history has shown us repeatedly through the unecassary deaths of troops on the ground that it is essential to have a suitable 'group' at the top. And thus, it may not be feasible or prudent to cut the top at the same ratio as the bottom.
Some of the waffle above is why we're in the stty mess we're in!
1) the article appears to be noting the ratios are adversely skewed to the senior ranks keeping their jobs.
a) these are people "in post". Protecting them helps no one's promotion prospects.
b) if the ratios are maintained as they are now with no skewing, promotion prospects are no worse. Prospects of keeping your job are, but that's different.
2) We should keep people in jobs when they're not really needed because
a) it gives people promotion prospects - promotion to a job that's not needed? How encouraging...
b) there's a need to offset some who are in senior posts being incompetent.
FFS. If we were talking about any other profession some of you would be up in arms (sic).
If the powers that be have decided the forces need shrinking (am not saying I agree) then the shrinking needs to be done logically. Not based on the nonsense above. Turkeys should also not be asked to vote for Christmas.
tty mess we're in!1) the article appears to be noting the ratios are adversely skewed to the senior ranks keeping their jobs.
a) these are people "in post". Protecting them helps no one's promotion prospects.
b) if the ratios are maintained as they are now with no skewing, promotion prospects are no worse. Prospects of keeping your job are, but that's different.
2) We should keep people in jobs when they're not really needed because
a) it gives people promotion prospects - promotion to a job that's not needed? How encouraging...
b) there's a need to offset some who are in senior posts being incompetent.
FFS. If we were talking about any other profession some of you would be up in arms (sic).
If the powers that be have decided the forces need shrinking (am not saying I agree) then the shrinking needs to be done logically. Not based on the nonsense above. Turkeys should also not be asked to vote for Christmas.
Murph7355 said:
Some of the waffle above is why we're in the stty mess we're in!
1) the article appears to be noting the ratios are adversely skewed to the senior ranks keeping their jobs.
a) these are people "in post". Protecting them helps no one's promotion prospects.
b) if the ratios are maintained as they are now with no skewing, promotion prospects are no worse. Prospects of keeping your job are, but that's different.
2) We should keep people in jobs when they're not really needed because
a) it gives people promotion prospects - promotion to a job that's not needed? How encouraging...
b) there's a need to offset some who are in senior posts being incompetent.
FFS. If we were talking about any other profession some of you would be up in arms (sic).
If the powers that be have decided the forces need shrinking (am not saying I agree) then the shrinking needs to be done logically. Not based on the nonsense above. Turkeys should also not be asked to vote for Christmas.
You are confusing getting rid of someone thats incompetent with gettig rid of a position (redundancy).tty mess we're in!1) the article appears to be noting the ratios are adversely skewed to the senior ranks keeping their jobs.
a) these are people "in post". Protecting them helps no one's promotion prospects.
b) if the ratios are maintained as they are now with no skewing, promotion prospects are no worse. Prospects of keeping your job are, but that's different.
2) We should keep people in jobs when they're not really needed because
a) it gives people promotion prospects - promotion to a job that's not needed? How encouraging...
b) there's a need to offset some who are in senior posts being incompetent.
FFS. If we were talking about any other profession some of you would be up in arms (sic).
If the powers that be have decided the forces need shrinking (am not saying I agree) then the shrinking needs to be done logically. Not based on the nonsense above. Turkeys should also not be asked to vote for Christmas.
If you get rid of a position it can never get filled by someone else, therefore you remove a promotion ladder from top to bottom.
If you get rid of some old fart thats no longer wanted because he's rubbish at his job then you still leave open a position that is at the top of a promotion ladder.
Protect the post, get rid of the person. Your point (a) above is 100% wrong. Even if you have an old duffer in a post, eventually they move on (or die) and a promotion occurs. Through out the rank structure. Get rid of the post, and the opposite happens.
Corsair7 said:
Murph7355 said:
Some of the waffle above is why we're in the stty mess we're in!
1) the article appears to be noting the ratios are adversely skewed to the senior ranks keeping their jobs.
a) these are people "in post". Protecting them helps no one's promotion prospects.
b) if the ratios are maintained as they are now with no skewing, promotion prospects are no worse. Prospects of keeping your job are, but that's different.
2) We should keep people in jobs when they're not really needed because
a) it gives people promotion prospects - promotion to a job that's not needed? How encouraging...
b) there's a need to offset some who are in senior posts being incompetent.
FFS. If we were talking about any other profession some of you would be up in arms (sic).
If the powers that be have decided the forces need shrinking (am not saying I agree) then the shrinking needs to be done logically. Not based on the nonsense above. Turkeys should also not be asked to vote for Christmas.
You are confusing getting rid of someone thats incompetent with gettig rid of a position (redundancy).tty mess we're in!1) the article appears to be noting the ratios are adversely skewed to the senior ranks keeping their jobs.
a) these are people "in post". Protecting them helps no one's promotion prospects.
b) if the ratios are maintained as they are now with no skewing, promotion prospects are no worse. Prospects of keeping your job are, but that's different.
2) We should keep people in jobs when they're not really needed because
a) it gives people promotion prospects - promotion to a job that's not needed? How encouraging...
b) there's a need to offset some who are in senior posts being incompetent.
FFS. If we were talking about any other profession some of you would be up in arms (sic).
If the powers that be have decided the forces need shrinking (am not saying I agree) then the shrinking needs to be done logically. Not based on the nonsense above. Turkeys should also not be asked to vote for Christmas.
If you get rid of a position it can never get filled by someone else, therefore you remove a promotion ladder from top to bottom.
If you get rid of some old fart thats no longer wanted because he's rubbish at his job then you still leave open a position that is at the top of a promotion ladder.
Protect the post, get rid of the person. Your point (a) above is 100% wrong. Even if you have an old duffer in a post, eventually they move on (or die) and a promotion occurs. Through out the rank structure. Get rid of the post, and the opposite happens.
You could pay them off but that defeats the aim of cost cutting and they might not want to go anyway.
The only option I can think of is to drop them behind Taliban lines disquised as a sexy goat on an important fact finding mission, crucial to the safety of Britian and that only a man of their extreme soldiering ability could possible pull off?
If Hollywood action movies have taught me anything it's that the most talented combat veterans have to be dragged out of retirement when there's a crisis, usually whilst they're chopping firewood in some idyllic rural location. Often they will only accept the mission if a family member is in peril.
They are never sitting at a desk smoking a pipe.
They are never sitting at a desk smoking a pipe.
And I believe you are missing the point of the article. The people in the top jobs aren't removing those positions (or the individuals in them).
Creating a top heavy organisation to provide "promotion" prospects is dumb. It's at least as dumb as creating a massive public sector that can't be afforded.
Creating a top heavy organisation to provide "promotion" prospects is dumb. It's at least as dumb as creating a massive public sector that can't be afforded.
DonkeyApple said:
Steering slightly off course, how would you get rid of someone and maintain their position? You can't make them redundant as their role still exists, you can't sack them without clear disaplinary proceedures being followed?
You could pay them off but that defeats the aim of cost cutting and they might not want to go anyway.
The only option I can think of is to drop them behind Taliban lines disquised as a sexy goat on an important fact finding mission, crucial to the safety of Britian and that only a man of their extreme soldiering ability could possible pull off?
Agreed near impossible in this day and age. How they do it in the lower ranks~? Set a target that cant be achieved, when failure happens, admin discharge. This is what they will use to get rid of junior ranks that can no longer achieve their targets, usually because their legs are missing. You could pay them off but that defeats the aim of cost cutting and they might not want to go anyway.
The only option I can think of is to drop them behind Taliban lines disquised as a sexy goat on an important fact finding mission, crucial to the safety of Britian and that only a man of their extreme soldiering ability could possible pull off?
Murph7355 said:
And I believe you are missing the point of the article. The people in the top jobs aren't removing those positions (or the individuals in them).
Creating a top heavy organisation to provide "promotion" prospects is dumb. It's at least as dumb as creating a massive public sector that can't be afforded.
A lot of point missing going on. You remove promotion then the people you dont want to leave will leave because of lack of future prospects, and the people you want to attract wont bother in the first place. Creating a top heavy organisation to provide "promotion" prospects is dumb. It's at least as dumb as creating a massive public sector that can't be afforded.
DonkeyApple said:
Steering slightly off course, how would you get rid of someone and maintain their position? You can't make them redundant as their role still exists, you can't sack them without clear disaplinary proceedures being followed?
You could pay them off but that defeats the aim of cost cutting and they might not want to go anyway.
The only option I can think of is to drop them behind Taliban lines disquised as a sexy goat on an important fact finding mission, crucial to the safety of Britian and that only a man of their extreme soldiering ability could possible pull off?
Tours and blood chits. At that level they hold the position for 18-36 months or however long and then at the end of that period they move onto to their next tour. If at that point there are no other tours available (perhaps because your current position ends now and every other position ends in 14 months time or the only position available is a Joint one and it's the Navy's turn), you're on the retired list and out of the business.You could pay them off but that defeats the aim of cost cutting and they might not want to go anyway.
The only option I can think of is to drop them behind Taliban lines disquised as a sexy goat on an important fact finding mission, crucial to the safety of Britian and that only a man of their extreme soldiering ability could possible pull off?
So normally senior officers don't get made redundant. Very rarely they might get a payout to end a tour early but often the MOD will just wait until the current tour is over and simply not appoint anyone else to it. It's also why comparisons between "senior officers made redundant" and "junior officers/other ranks made redundant" don't really work and yet are so beloved by the Telegraph.
Sometimes an officer who sees the way senior officer numbers is heading may be better off remaining unpromoted and serving a further 8-10 years to age 55 on current pay rather than getting promoted and kicked out after a single tour.
In any event, the redundancies so far have most been junior ranks purely because most of the cuts so far have seen entire capabilities disappear - no need for training pipelines for aircraft that no longer exist nor excess ratings to man a reduced fleet. Whereas at senior officer level, many will be allocated to procurement programmes, diplomatic positions, strategy and support services. Some positions (particularly those working with allies) require rank equivalency - when dealing with a US Major General it helps to be a Major General too!
But every Colonel/Captain/Group Leader and above position is under review with a view to Future Force 2020 requirements. Existing positions will become Joint/triservice, positions downgraded and junior officers will no longer be promoted (and hence made redundant as junior officers). So over the next couple of years the numbers will be pared down quite substantially. It just won't happen in the same visible way as the rounds of redundancies for junior officers and other ranks.
ninja-lewis said:
DonkeyApple said:
Steering slightly off course, how would you get rid of someone and maintain their position? You can't make them redundant as their role still exists, you can't sack them without clear disaplinary proceedures being followed?
You could pay them off but that defeats the aim of cost cutting and they might not want to go anyway.
The only option I can think of is to drop them behind Taliban lines disquised as a sexy goat on an important fact finding mission, crucial to the safety of Britian and that only a man of their extreme soldiering ability could possible pull off?
Tours and blood chits. At that level they hold the position for 18-36 months or however long and then at the end of that period they move onto to their next tour. If at that point there are no other tours available (perhaps because your current position ends now and every other position ends in 14 months time or the only position available is a Joint one and it's the Navy's turn), you're on the retired list and out of the business.You could pay them off but that defeats the aim of cost cutting and they might not want to go anyway.
The only option I can think of is to drop them behind Taliban lines disquised as a sexy goat on an important fact finding mission, crucial to the safety of Britian and that only a man of their extreme soldiering ability could possible pull off?
So normally senior officers don't get made redundant. Very rarely they might get a payout to end a tour early but often the MOD will just wait until the current tour is over and simply not appoint anyone else to it. It's also why comparisons between "senior officers made redundant" and "junior officers/other ranks made redundant" don't really work and yet are so beloved by the Telegraph.
Sometimes an officer who sees the way senior officer numbers is heading may be better off remaining unpromoted and serving a further 8-10 years to age 55 on current pay rather than getting promoted and kicked out after a single tour.
In any event, the redundancies so far have most been junior ranks purely because most of the cuts so far have seen entire capabilities disappear - no need for training pipelines for aircraft that no longer exist nor excess ratings to man a reduced fleet. Whereas at senior officer level, many will be allocated to procurement programmes, diplomatic positions, strategy and support services. Some positions (particularly those working with allies) require rank equivalency - when dealing with a US Major General it helps to be a Major General too!
But every Colonel/Captain/Group Leader and above position is under review with a view to Future Force 2020 requirements. Existing positions will become Joint/triservice, positions downgraded and junior officers will no longer be promoted (and hence made redundant as junior officers). So over the next couple of years the numbers will be pared down quite substantially. It just won't happen in the same visible way as the rounds of redundancies for junior officers and other ranks.
It's an interesting generation as they went in at the start of Bosnia, more in Ireland and then all through the stuff in Afghanistan and Iraq. Must be the largest and most battle trained group of soldiers for decades. All coming out at a time when jobs are a bit s
t.Bit unfair to compare the usmc with uk mil; we have a whole procurement system that has to be fed with senior officers, plus the likes of the maa, nato etc.
The usmc is a small part of a much bigger org, if they had to stand on their own two feet I like to think they would have far more senior officers. We are still propping up a system setup for a much bigger uk mil, hence the apparent imbalance in the ranks.
Good to see some quality tinfoil hat comments ref officers, always bad apples everywhere but the vast majority in my experience would give their lives for their boys, and often do, unfortunately.
The usmc is a small part of a much bigger org, if they had to stand on their own two feet I like to think they would have far more senior officers. We are still propping up a system setup for a much bigger uk mil, hence the apparent imbalance in the ranks.
Good to see some quality tinfoil hat comments ref officers, always bad apples everywhere but the vast majority in my experience would give their lives for their boys, and often do, unfortunately.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff