Dirty tricks in the army on 18 June of all days

[Derek Smith]

On one of the most famous anniversaries of the army we get:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/933...

If what the paper says is true then I am aghast. 3 days for one bloke.

[ralphrj]

Redundancy criteria have to be published in advance and 'how close someone was to getting a pension' wasn't one of them (as per the Brigadier's comment).

If anyone thinks that was the reason they were selected then they can challenge it.

[Asterix]

If true, I'm appalled.

Lots of lads I was in with are just leaving having completed their 22 so hopefully are safe but for the others, I think it is disgraceful.

That said, 'Rupert, a major in the infantry' did raise a smile.

[iphonedyou]

That's terrible.

Regardless of whether it was intentional or otherwise, it's a terrible thing to do.

[turbobloke]

If 3000 jobs are going, won't there be a range of days-before-payout involved, i.e. weeks months and years, not just the selective highlights in the report?

As mentioned, if the selected 3000 are all a few days before the deadline then something not right has happened, but so far all we can see is cherry picking of the 'worst' cases in what is probably a wide distribution of situations.

It will be easy to clear up, anonymously, so let's hope somnebody with shiny buttons also has a shiny perspective on clarifying the matter.

[iphonedyou]

turbobloke said:

If 3000 jobs are going, won't there be a range of days-before-payout involved, i.e. weeks months and years, not just the selective highlights in the report?

As mentioned, if the selected 3000 are all a few days before the deadline then something not right has happened, but so far all we can see is cherry picking of the 'worst' cases in what is probably a wide distribution of situations.

It will be easy to clear up, anonymously, so let's hope somnebody with shiny buttons also has a shiny perspective on clarifying the matter.

I don't think anyone would think otherwise, in fairness. However, literally a few days beforehand is a disgrace. I realise my definition of a disgraceful length of time here is entirely arbitrary.

[hornetrider]

iphonedyou said:

turbobloke said:

If 3000 jobs are going, won't there be a range of days-before-payout involved, i.e. weeks months and years, not just the selective highlights in the report?

As mentioned, if the selected 3000 are all a few days before the deadline then something not right has happened, but so far all we can see is cherry picking of the 'worst' cases in what is probably a wide distribution of situations.

It will be easy to clear up, anonymously, so let's hope somnebody with shiny buttons also has a shiny perspective on clarifying the matter.

I don't think anyone would think otherwise, in fairness. However, literally a few days beforehand is a disgrace. I realise my definition of a disgraceful length of time here is entirely arbitrary.

Agree with both of you. Hopefully something will be done.

[turbobloke]

iphonedyou said:

turbobloke said:

If 3000 jobs are going, won't there be a range of days-before-payout involved, i.e. weeks months and years, not just the selective highlights in the report?

As mentioned, if the selected 3000 are all a few days before the deadline then something not right has happened, but so far all we can see is cherry picking of the 'worst' cases in what is probably a wide distribution of situations.

It will be easy to clear up, anonymously, so let's hope somnebody with shiny buttons also has a shiny perspective on clarifying the matter.

I don't think anyone would think otherwise, in fairness. However, literally a few days beforehand is a disgrace. I realise my definition of a disgraceful length of time here is entirely arbitrary.

Yet as already pointed out iirc, valid criteria for redundancy won't include days before lump sum payout. If this criterion was used to select posts for redundancy, and others selected in preference got wind of it, they would have grounds for a successful challenge since basically the army would have carried out the redundancy selection process inappropriately.

Folks are, rightly, fast out of the blocks when redundancy is mishandled in real terms rather than emotive terms.

[Riley Blue]

This happens in all walks of life, all the time. If it was anyone other than serving military it wouldn't raise an eyebrow. I'm not saying it's right, it isn't, but it's not unusual.

[iphonedyou]

Riley Blue said:

This happens in all walks of life, all the time. If it was anyone other than serving military it wouldn't raise an eyebrow. I'm not saying it's right, it isn't, but it's not unusual.

I believe serving military to be a special case. Though I'd raise an eyebrow if it happened in other areas (and was reported).

In other news, your screenname is very pornstar-esque.

[turbobloke]

Not that I agree with this but what cut-off date would people choose? Be specific, x days.

Next, what would you say to those at x-1, one day off?

All you would do is shift the problem around, not fix it.

[davepoth]

In the private sector redundancy is sometimes replaced with early retirement for older workers - they get the full package before they normally would. That could have been done here for those who were very close to getting out.

[Mr GrimNasty]

It's just the luck of the draw I'm afraid. Whatever criteria or policies are being used/enforced, be it for redundancy, benefits, tax thresholds, whatever, there are always going to be a few people who are exceptionally and inadvertently 'unfairly' treated. That's life.

[turbobloke]

davepoth said:

In the private sector redundancy is sometimes replaced with early retirement for older workers - they get the full package before they normally would. That could have been done here for those who were very close to getting out.

How close, specifically?

When you decide (x days from payout date) what happens to those on x-1 days who miss out by one day, or two days, or three, or...

It doesn't solve the problem, just moves it along the line.

[Gazzas86]

I'm not sure how much truth there is in that article tbh, I'm in the RN, and the guys who got made redundant, some of my close pals who i worked with, if your within 4 years of completing your 22 years, you automatically qualified for your immidiate pension as if you served the full 22 years.

A good Friend of mine has gone outside into civvy street in March, He had completed 20 years of his 22 years, he will recieve his full pension, and he got a lump sum payout of 90k. If you we're forced compulsory you would get the same, only you have an extra 6 months notice to leave the mob.

[Pesty]

Mr GrimNasty said:

It's just the luck of the draw I'm afraid. Whatever criteria or policies are being used/enforced, be it for redundancy, benefits, tax thresholds, whatever, there are always going to be a few people who are exceptionally and inadvertently 'unfairly' treated. That's life.

If you think that this is purely random and those that are a few days away from a big pay out affected are picked at random I think you are being very naive.

They will have been picked to save money. Some suit will have said if you get rid of these people we will save x amount.

Just my opinion. been made redundant plenty of times its how they think. Save money first screw everybody.

[Mojocvh]

Gazzas86 said:

I'm not sure how much truth there is in that article tbh, I'm in the RN, and the guys who got made redundant, some of my close pals who i worked with, if your within 4 years of completing your 22 years, you automatically qualified for your immidiate pension as if you served the full 22 years.

A good Friend of mine has gone outside into civvy street in March, He had completed 20 years of his 22 years, he will recieve his full pension, and he got a lump sum payout of 90k. If you we're forced compulsory you would get the same, only you have an extra 6 months notice to leave the mob.

Live to 75 and work out how much they have been screwed. Your second paragraph is extremely disingenuous, there is a two layer caste system in forces pensions, commissioned, who are very well looked after and everyone else.

[Mr GrimNasty]

Pesty said:

Mr GrimNasty said:

It's just the luck of the draw I'm afraid. Whatever criteria or policies are being used/enforced, be it for redundancy, benefits, tax thresholds, whatever, there are always going to be a few people who are exceptionally and inadvertently 'unfairly' treated. That's life.

If you think that this is purely random and those that are a few days away from a big pay out affected are picked at random I think you are being very naive.

They will have been picked to save money. Some suit will have said if you get rid of these people we will save x amount.

Just my opinion. been made redundant plenty of times its how they think. Save money first screw everybody.

Of course it is random. I am not naive. The savings from doing this to a few individuals would be inconsequential in the scheme of things. You are just being paranoid, unduly suspicious, conspiracy theorising etc.

Of course those with vested/political interests will try to use these examples to agitate and stir up unrest. They always do.

It's half the reason why the government can't effectively govern the country any more.

[rogerthefish]

I always remember seeing this in a car boot sale and thinking how sad after all those 32 years.

Edited by rogerthefish on Monday 18th June 18:45

[scenario8]

Why's that sad?