PDA

View Full Version : manning levels, the future.



Sparky42
21st June 2016, 19:55
you say this every time, and you always put it at the top o the 'whats needed?' list - but its not true.

in Irish EPV/MRV would (in the context of the current op) go to the Med in April and stay there until October, it would port in Italy and Malta and its crew would rotate.

6 month, 12 month, 18 month deployments are relatively routine in Navies - hell, even Submarines can do 11 month deployments (the crew must look like uncooked chips after that...).

an Irish EPV/MRV that was part of a relatively modern, 9 ship fleet would spend the overwhelming majority of its life on overseas duty - 6 months in the Med/Indian Ocean, exercises with the Army/AC both at home and with EUBG, defence diplomacy, support for UN/EU ops, humanitarian relief in the Carribean...

the idea that the EPV/MRV is a fisheries protection ship that will get dobbed to do other things once a decade utterly, utterly wrong.

To be fair I'm not sure about 12/18 month deployments, I mean aren't there news reports about issues with the RN hulls having moved to 9 month deployments (among other issues), and even the USN has paid a price for extended tours in terms of support and maintenance issues.

That being said I totally agree about what the EPV/MRV should be used for if we go down that route rather than stay in EEZ operations.

hptmurphy
21st June 2016, 21:35
an Irish EPV/MRV that was part of a relatively modern, 9 ship fleet would spend the overwhelming majority of its life on overseas duty - 6 months in the Med/Indian Ocean, exercises with the Army/AC both at home and with EUBG, defence diplomacy, support for UN/EU ops, humanitarian relief in the Carribean..


Should... being the word , not would!

You are assuming that we will have a 9 ship Navy , if we ever get around to MRV / EPV. While the numbers look good on paper over the next five years,a third of that fleet, will be all but 35 years old and needing replacement, another two units will be approaching 21/23 years service.

personally I think it will be hulls in the water to supplement what we already have in a standard OPV fit rather than elusive one off builds and Blue / Green Ops machines.

And for all that bombed up stuff that gets bandied about, thats Frigates, not OPVs, frigates need speed in excess of thirty knots to be effective,some combination of Gas Turbines and requiring at least double the shaft horse power of an OPV to get it over the 30kt mark, all that will take either buying a FREMM off the shelf or a build we have no idea of.

So 90m to 110 OPVs will be the future for some considerable time.

DeV
21st June 2016, 22:40
Why does the NS primarilly need bigger ships? Because Irish home waters are now bigger in area and more challenging in terms of conditions

Why does the NS primarilly need more vessels (apart from replacing existing hulls)? Because Irish home water are under policed (and they are now much bigger).

The NS is unable to retain people with 21 days patrols (I've seen somewhere that those are now broken up to give a bit more time at home), when they are between patrols they are on X hrs NTM at practically all times, when the ship is in dock the crew are involved in maintenance.

So P70 goes to the Med with a crew for say 60 days and then the crew rotate. What will the crew be doing when they get back? Going back to sea, doing duties at the base, being at X hrs NTM.

The NS can't retain enough people to crew 8 ships (and provide for rotation).

Larger navies can deploy a ship for 6-12 months, rotate crews, put a ship into refit for 12 months etc and give guaranteed leave.

The DF by the way are trying to modularise longer courses so people aren't away from home for say 9 months of the C&S Cse. They are also offering something like a job share for overseas (eg on a 6 month tour, you could do 3 months and then someone replaces you for the remaining 3 months).

ancientmariner
22nd June 2016, 10:54
The NS can't retain enough people to crew 8 ships (and provide for rotation).

Larger navies can deploy a ship for 6-12 months, rotate crews, put a ship into refit for 12 months etc and give guaranteed leave.

The DF by the way are trying to modularise longer courses so people aren't away from home for say 9 months of the C&S Cse. They are also offering something like a job share for overseas (eg on a 6 month tour, you could do 3 months and then someone replaces you for the remaining 3 months).

Retention of personnel is down to personnel management and realistic deployment ,with rotation in theatre, every 4-6 months. My class had a six month CSCE and a 3month SSCse, some Senior officers did not value that Command and Staff Course at full value, certificates were eventually issued, reluctantly, much later by brown envelope post. That was 1976. Glad to say it produced a few Generals eventually.
Assuming the Flagship is replaced by a larger vessel then that vessel should be planned around certain capabilities such as undertaking Flagship/Command duties, ability to resupply Army/Naval stores by collecting military/naval stores from overseas, ability to transport a Coy strength in relative comfort, ability to act as a humanitarian/ hospital ship in pop-up crises, and ability to Defend and Protect itself and adjacent attachments.
It should also have a working flight deck to handle stores ,and personnel, with suitable cargo lifts for the former. What that ship will look like will only emerge from Builders proposals taking into account all tasks envisaged. We are peeing in the wind trying to second guess each other until we see such proposals.

DeV
22nd June 2016, 12:52
Longer deployments and even less time off between patrols isn't going to improve the situation

Turkey
22nd June 2016, 14:47
They will have to just raise the establishment figures, pay people extra to be away, and involve the reserve, if it still exists after all their messing with it.

The Usual Suspect
22nd June 2016, 17:24
MINISTER'S DAIL ANSWERS Tuesday 21st June 2016

Yesterday I signed off on the commission for a fourth vessel. The UK contractors will start building that fourth ship in the next few weeks.

Thanks to Kieran Marum

Expect something on DoD (http://www.defence.ie/website.nsf/$$ViewTemplate%20for%20Press%20Releases?openform), DF (http://www.military.ie/en/home/), and Naval Service (http://www.military.ie/en/naval-service/) websites shortly.

Irish Times (http://www.irishtimes.com/), RTE (http://www.rte.ie/news/index.html), and The Examiner (http://www.irishexaminer.com/) thereafter.

Agree LE Seamus Heaney has to be the early favourite...

DeV
22nd June 2016, 18:25
They will have to just raise the establishment figures, pay people extra to be away, and involve the reserve, if it still exists after all their messing with it.

Raising the establishment just means more jobs unfilled (more double and triple jobbing)
Outside DF control
FLR is currently being used to keep ships at sea

Galloglass
22nd June 2016, 18:38
Raising the establishment just means more jobs unfilled (more double and triple jobbing)
Outside DF control
FLR is currently being used to keep ships at sea

I think Turkey means hire MORE sailors Dev.

The Usual Suspect
22nd June 2016, 18:41
Had no idea DeV that things were as stressed as this. Obvious radical and comprehensive reform is needed as a matter of urgency.

This might be totally naďve, but would there be any prospect of the temporary secondment of 'fusiliers' PDF/RDF from other branches to do some of the heavy lifting and ease the most acute effects. Army/AC Captains to receive the honorofic 'Major' while on base/aboard etc.

DeV
22nd June 2016, 20:28
I think Turkey means hire MORE sailors Dev.

That is the strength.

They are leaving faster than they can be replaced


Had no idea DeV that things were as stressed as this. Obvious radical and comprehensive reform is needed as a matter of urgency.

This might be totally naďve, but would there be any prospect of the temporary secondment of 'fusiliers' PDF/RDF from other branches to do some of the heavy lifting and ease the most acute effects. Army/AC Captains to receive the honorofic 'Major' while on base/aboard etc.

AFAIK the FLR haven't been called up permanently, but they have been called up all the same

AFAIK it is tech's (watchkeepers, ERAs etc) that the main issues are with the people that take a lot of time and experience to train

restless
22nd June 2016, 20:49
maybe if ns lowered the eyesight requirement from an almost 20/20 requirement it would increase numbers. i know of 3 young lads, one of whom has had a life long dream to join up, only to be rejected due to not quiet meeting criteria, and it galls him to see all ranks on ns facebook wearing glasses.

Turkey
22nd June 2016, 21:31
I mean people Dev, the size of the NS has to get bigger, by at least 200 bodies...

DeV
22nd June 2016, 22:45
I mean people Dev, the size of the NS has to get bigger, by at least 200 bodies...

Yes strength (ie actual people) as opposed to establishment (how many they should have)

ancientmariner
23rd June 2016, 13:05
This might be totally naďve, but would there be any prospect of the temporary secondment of 'fusiliers' PDF/RDF from other branches to do some of the heavy lifting and ease the most acute effects. Army/AC Captains to receive the honorofic 'Major' while on base/aboard etc.

Navy needs qualified Navigators, marine engineers, and electronic/electrical engineers. Glasses don't disbar seagoing but colour blindness limits employment to the Q side only. Most army officers have never been at sea. The concept is kind but naive.

Tempest
23rd June 2016, 16:20
To put all it's aircraft in the air the AC needs less then 50 bodies.

To put 8 ships at sea requires 8 times that number.

Yet there is not that much difference in their establishments. How it can require 850 people to run 23 relatively small aircraft (with civvies added on as well) is surely a problem. Dropping the AC establishment and increase the NS establishment pro rata would surely be sensible?

DeV
23rd June 2016, 17:12
To put all it's aircraft in the air the AC needs less then 50 bodies.

To put 8 ships at sea requires 8 times that number.

Yet there is not that much difference in their establishments. How it can require 850 people to run 23 relatively small aircraft (with civvies added on as well) is surely a problem. Dropping the AC establishment and increase the NS establishment pro rata would surely be sensible?

Just over actually, but it may take 3 times that number to maintain them (possibly increase to allow for 24/7 cover), there are limitations on pilots and they can't fly an aircraft 24/7 so you need to increase that. Add in admin of units, stores, air base, ATC, ground handling, catering, fire, GoH, leave etc and the numbers quickly add up.

Is there not enough balance of ops -V- non-ops ? Probably
Should ops be the priority? Definitely
Room to manoeuvre? Probably

But possibly not 200 jobs.

The real Jack
23rd June 2016, 17:44
If they expand the navy I guarantee they'll keep the Df Manning ceiling and just bin an infantry coy or 2.

hptmurphy
23rd June 2016, 21:45
This might be totally naďve, but would there be any prospect of the temporary secondment of 'fusiliers' PDF/RDF from other branches to do some of the heavy lifting and ease the most acute effects. Army/AC Captains to receive the honorofic 'Major' while on base/aboard etc.

Yeah..and we'll get vets to work in hospitals to clear back logs!

danno
23rd June 2016, 23:17
Navy needs qualified Navigators, marine engineers, and electronic/electrical engineers. Glasses don't disbar seagoing but colour blindness limits employment to the Q side only. Most army officers have never been at sea. The concept is kind but naive.

Let the secondees do base duties etc and let the sailors do the sailing.

Laners
24th June 2016, 07:19
I believe all the catering in UK military bases is done by civie companies .

ancientmariner
24th June 2016, 10:32
Let the secondees do base duties etc and let the sailors do the sailing.

The nature of a seagoing career is a cycle of shipboard assignments followed by a period ashore, The seagoing replacements section is a vital part of keeping ships manned, and provides training staffs, unscheduled reliefs at sea, courses, overseas DF appointments. It is untenable to have someone at sea forever. Numbers can be met by, having for a period of two years, with a review, a recruiting open door policy to get 4/6 fully trained classes of sea personnel in that period. You keep numbers up by continually topping up NFA's from a panel to achieve a final output of 200 sea persons.
The male/female ratio policy needs to be applied sensibly to ensure ability of ships to function socially, domestically, with fair sea/shore ratios for all.

DeV
24th June 2016, 12:02
If we had waited a few days would we have saved a few million?

Medsailor
24th June 2016, 12:45
If we had waited a few days would we have saved a few million?

None of us will save a penny (or cent), we'll all pay through the nose for this folly.

sofa
24th June 2016, 19:10
I believe all the catering in UK military bases is done by civie companies .

True and a lot of the staff running them chefs etc are ex BA

DeV
24th June 2016, 19:58
So when the A/Cook has done his 2 years at sea who replaces him? Another A/Cook who has been doing admin/duties for 2 years?

hptmurphy
25th June 2016, 01:02
I believe all the catering in UK military bases is done by civie companies .

Sodexho

hptmurphy
25th June 2016, 01:09
So when the A/Cook has done his 2 years at sea who replaces him? Another A/Cook who has been doing admin/duties for 2 years?

And who do you think has been preparing meals in the base all along?

DeV
25th June 2016, 01:59
And who do you think has been preparing meals in the base all along?

That's my point.

If you privatise the cooks in the dining hall, there is no where for the cooks to go when on shore rotation.

spider
25th June 2016, 13:43
I was chatting to a Chief Chips on exercise recently (WO2 Chef).

He told me that the British Army only recruited 24 Chefs last year...

The future is apparently, contractors in MOB's...with Army Chefs and Army Reserve Chefs from this lot further forward...

http://www.army.mod.uk/logistic/regiments/26026.aspx

hptmurphy
25th June 2016, 22:32
Sodexho might do deliveries!

DeV
25th June 2016, 23:07
Sodexho might do deliveries!

That's what type naval UAVs are for :)

DeV
20th July 2016, 22:59
The NS hit the 10,000 rescue mark today

RoyalGreenJacket
21st July 2016, 20:50
That's my point.

If you privatise the cooks in the dining hall, there is no where for the cooks to go when on shore rotation.

in most of our bases Military Chefs still work in the kitchens - with Sodexo, or whichever provider has the catering contract.

ancientmariner
22nd July 2016, 13:32
There used to be, in the BA, an Army Catering Corps, now in this age of doing things better, we have The Royal Logistics Corps, under which bullets, beans,and POL are all part of the supply and delivery system. They have of course killed off old allegiances and dovetailed private catering into shore based units. None of which would work in operational scenarios. Enforced modernisation, by the mandarins , on military/naval systems, is a cost cutting exercise, and usually mean you get less with less.

hptmurphy
22nd July 2016, 15:11
Enforced modernisation, by the mandarins , on military/naval systems, is a cost cutting exercise, and usually mean you get less with less.

Not necessarily , the army here use service companies in a lot of kitchens and it frees up people from menial tasks to perform other duties.

Outsourcing would free up a lot of people for other duties, in the case of the NS , sea going. Get rid of security duties and employ a force that solely do this as a sole tasking again releasing people .

The DF need to take a joint step into the 21st century in relation to these type of roles, we have too few people to be tied up doing jobs which could be carried out more efficiently by contractors.

expat01
22nd July 2016, 16:46
I'm not sure I like the idea of anyone but the military securing military bases.

na grohmitĂ­
22nd July 2016, 16:53
What's best international practice?

DeV
1st August 2016, 22:20
NS are currently recruiting DE Ops Branch (watchkeeping) and Engr (Marine & Electrical) officers.

http://www.military.ie/fileadmin/user_upload/documents/careers/DE_NS_2016/T_Cs_DE_NSOfficers_16.pdf

ancientmariner
2nd August 2016, 14:49
NS are currently recruiting DE Ops Branch (watchkeeping) and Engr (Marine & Electrical) officers.

http://www.military.ie/fileadmin/user_upload/documents/careers/DE_NS_2016/T_Cs_DE_NSOfficers_16.pdf

This is an onerous undertaken which must be run by a top cadre of Officers and NCO's. All DE officers should undergo a new entry training course covering drills, All Arms drills, Guards, Inspections, documentation, accounts, including estimates, DFR's , divisional duties and Messes.
The DE officer should also have Branch Training in Naval Navigation procedures, Gunnery etc. Other Branch officers should receive Type training on Engineering and Electrical systems as appropriate. Such courses could run for at least 12-14 weeks with refresher elements to follow where necessary. At all costs an overwhelmed, hung out to dry ,officer must be avoided.

Graylion
2nd August 2016, 15:28
question from newbie. How is the NS and the rest of the service doing for recruiting?

hptmurphy
2nd August 2016, 16:28
This is an onerous undertaken which must be run by a top cadre of Officers and NCO's. All DE officers should undergo a new entry training course covering drills, All Arms drills, Guards, Inspections, documentation, accounts, including estimates, DFR's , divisional duties and Messes.
The DE officer should also have Branch Training in Naval Navigation procedures, Gunnery etc. Other Branch officers should receive Type training on Engineering and Electrical systems as appropriate. Such courses could run for at least 12-14 weeks with refresher elements to follow where necessary. At all costs an overwhelmed, hung out to dry ,officer must be avoided.

Civvy to Sub Lt in 14 weeks quite do able given all the cadet bullshit will be removed and the people already hold a qualification that is applicable to the job.

I do find the qualification criteria puzzling. You actually qualify for the selection process if you are a refugee????

If it's a short service commission is extension of service again based on a maximum engagement contract and if so what rank will candidates have been expected to attain by end of contract?

It mentions a short service commission pay rate.

Is this payable annually as an allowance or as a gratuity on termination of contract.

For what it's worth this is the most foward thinking move the NS has made in relation to recruitment in 30 years.

It was offered piecemeal in the past but this now could make it a regular recruitment tool for executive branch officers.


I DO

DeV
2nd August 2016, 18:11
question from newbie. How is the NS and the rest of the service doing for recruiting?
Around 400 short of establishment


I do find the qualification criteria puzzling. You actually qualify for the selection process if you are a refugee????
Have been for around 10 years or so


If it's a short service commission is extension of service again based on a maximum engagement contract and if so what rank will candidates have been expected to attain by end of contract?

3 years as a Sub/Lt is the offer (they get a bonus at the end of each year unless after 18 months service they have entered a normal commission).

Promotion reads like ask RACO to make a submission


For what it's worth this is the most foward thinking move the NS has made in relation to recruitment in 30 years.[/QUOTE]
Not the first time in the last 20 years

hptmurphy
2nd August 2016, 18:33
Ir ws offered on a ad hoc basis on a couple of occasions. It could be offered on a two year basis now as part of scheduled recruitment. ..which hadn't been done in 30 years!

na grohmitĂ­
2nd August 2016, 20:16
Necessity. The NS just can't keep young officers in the current economic climate. Out of one class of ten cadets, who should all now be approaching LT(NS) rank, only one remains. Many of the rest were poached by german retailers based in Ireland, with the offer of €60k per annum plus company Audi A4.
Until the DF can compete with that, it will continue losing those in their late 20s and early 30s to the civilian world.

hptmurphy
2nd August 2016, 23:20
So why bother with all the high end investment in cadets and just get them in on short service commissions.

Makes sense realistically. No long term financial commitment

danno
2nd August 2016, 23:54
Its the same throughout the Public Service where certain workers have skills needed by private concerns. There was an article in late 2015 where the State Solicitors office in Dublin couldnt recruit solicitors at 30k pa whilst the big firms were offering newbies 55-60k pa.

DeV
3rd August 2016, 02:23
Necessity. The NS just can't keep young officers in the current economic climate. Out of one class of ten cadets, who should all now be approaching LT(NS) rank, only one remains. Many of the rest were poached by german retailers based in Ireland, with the offer of €60k per annum plus company Audi A4.
Until the DF can compete with that, it will continue losing those in their late 20s and early 30s to the civilian world.
Except they will be burnt out within 3 years. They are worked for that salary. Some of those recruited by the likes of Lidl haven't lasted a year with them.



So why bother with all the high end investment in cadets and just get them in on short service commissions.

Makes sense realistically. No long term financial commitment

Currently cadets are commissioned on a 3 year SSC which is the duration of their training. Is that part of the issue.

Toolbox
3rd August 2016, 08:51
Necessity. The NS just can't keep young officers in the current economic climate. Out of one class of ten cadets, who should all now be approaching LT(NS) rank, only one remains. Many of the rest were poached by german retailers based in Ireland, with the offer of €60k per annum plus company Audi A4.
Until the DF can compete with that, it will continue losing those in their late 20s and early 30s to the civilian world.


Eh not exactly 100% correct only one NS officer workig for a supermarket (Two NCO's are working on manager ref prog). Anecdotally the 10 or so army offices that left o do the same are now dropping out of the while thing as the hours are fairly insane?

one of the bigger issues is pay is fairly poor for junior offices, the pension is now terrible (careers average payment) and their are no real perks.

The object of the DE officers is to get bums on seats as fast as possible, they will never be considered "real" officers in any case and like the last lot most will be driven from service within a decade!

It will be fascinating to see what the up take is this time as the last lot where on better wages etc.

hptmurphy
3rd August 2016, 12:33
Problem there straight away 'real officers '

Given some very noteworthy officers in the past were DE's one even decorated were these not real officers despite their 30 year contribution to the service. . Up to Liam Moloney all the Flag officers were DE'S as we're a large portion of the top MEOs

I do understand the sentiments attached to EDS but the fact is without them the NS is having problems.

The high turn over thing has always been an issue and even without the financial issues attached the inability to provide scheduled relief is a bigger issue to my mind.

Hence welcome the DEs with open arms.

On the point of the leavers going to greener pastures. Anyone who leaves to join the retail multiples on the conditions mention can expect to be working 60 - 70 hour weeks under huge pressure. At that level they expect high burn out and probably expect very resilient people coming from the DF. However the types of pressure around making money and driving ships are incomparable and the guys at the retail end are merciless. As an officer you have team to help seal with issues..in retail the guy behind you is lining himself up for your job when you slip.

As for the jobs

ancientmariner
4th August 2016, 11:06
[QUOTE=hptmurphy;443434]Problem there straight away 'real officers '

"(Given some very noteworthy officers in the past were DE's one even decorated were these not real officers despite their 30 year contribution to the service. . Up to Liam Moloney all the Flag officers were DE'S as we're a large portion of the top MEOs

I do understand the sentiments attached to EDS but the fact is without them the NS is having problems").

I agree with your views. The challenge for the Naval Service is to make them as REAL officers as is possible. It is important to try and maintain an Naval Ethic within the service and imbue a fighting spirit and a willingness to go in harms way where and when necessary. How it will all go is largely down to leadership and mindset of those tasked with selecting and training new entrants. The advantage for this recruitment is that the ships and environment on offer is technically advanced and will not dilute their career experience.

ancientmariner
8th October 2017, 11:43
[QUOTE=hptmurphy;443434]Problem there straight away 'real officers '

"(Given some very noteworthy officers in the past were DE's one even decorated were these not real officers despite their 30 year contribution to the service. . Up to Liam Moloney all the Flag officers were DE'S as we're a large portion of the top MEOs

I do understand the sentiments attached to EDS but the fact is without them the NS is having problems").

I agree with your views. The challenge for the Naval Service is to make them as REAL officers as is possible. It is important to try and maintain an Naval Ethic within the service and imbue a fighting spirit and a willingness to go in harms way where and when necessary. How it will all go is largely down to leadership and mindset of those tasked with selecting and training new entrants. The advantage for this recruitment is that the ships and environment on offer is technically advanced and will not dilute their career experience..

Due to the Emergency nature of recruitment in the PDF, based on minimising overall cost, we are continually losing ground against experience and using our best people as training cadres. Recent promotional Naval pictures showed DE officers under training so obviously Cadet intakes are not keeping pace. The PDF are about to recruit 1600 personnel over two years to bring the overall figure to 9600 all ranks. This represents 40 classes of 40 recruits all requiring section NCO's and officers for training and assessment for final approval. Given normal unit losses for all reasons , coupled with recruit losses in training, the recruitment target should be nearer 2000, to try and reach the 9600 level.
An open door policy, on recruitment, for up to four years would help to offset the attrition suffered on service strengths. It is an indictment of our controllers that strengths are publicly admitted to be almost 17% below permitted levels with deeper shortages in certain ranks and trades.

DeV
8th October 2017, 17:49
[QUOTE=ancientmariner;443457].

Due to the Emergency nature of recruitment in the PDF, based on minimising overall cost, we are continually losing ground against experience and using our best people as training cadres. Recent promotional Naval pictures showed DE officers under training so obviously Cadet intakes are not keeping pace. The PDF are about to recruit 1600 personnel over two years to bring the overall figure to 9600 all ranks. This represents 40 classes of 40 recruits all requiring section NCO's and officers for training and assessment for final approval. Given normal unit losses for all reasons , coupled with recruit losses in training, the recruitment target should be nearer 2000, to try and reach the 9600 level.
An open door policy, on recruitment, for up to four years would help to offset the attrition suffered on service strengths. It is an indictment of our controllers that strengths are publicly admitted to be almost 17% below permitted levels with deeper shortages in certain ranks and trades.

This 800 figure annually is being bigged up a lot, all the way through most of the 00s, they were taking on that many so it's a non story.

You'll also notice DE NCOs.

The issue is pay, terms and conditions. If you may the lot of the people more sustainable (e.g. less duties, shorter working week etc), even if you can't provide the pay it will help with the morale.

ancientmariner
15th November 2017, 19:07
[QUOTE=ancientmariner;454923]

This 800 figure annually is being bigged up a lot, all the way through most of the 00s, they were taking on that many so it's a non story.

You'll also notice DE NCOs.

The issue is pay, terms and conditions. If you may the lot of the people more sustainable (e.g. less duties, shorter working week etc), even if you can't provide the pay it will help with the morale.

Nothing much changes except the GS numbers are to be increased to 15,000 and all Branches of the PDF are to be stalled at 9,500, which is a figure which maximises duty intervals and diminishes deployability.

ancientmariner
8th December 2017, 10:42
[QUOTE=DeV;454924]

Nothing much changes except the GS numbers are to be increased to 15,000 and all Branches of the PDF are to be stalled at 9,500, which is a figure which maximises duty intervals and diminishes deployability.

Well! Well! Ireland has now joined a European Defence Service by 72 votes to 42 votes in the Dail. Better known as PESCO it is in the process of being formed , and following a Council decision will be adopted by majority vote before the end of 2017.
Permanent Structured Cooperation ( PESCO ) will be a framework for closer coop and a structured process to gradually deepen defence coop within the EU. " It will be a driver for integration in the Defence field".
It involves agreed Budgets, and Plans, and involves oversight and regular assessment. It's to reinforce EU's autonomy to act alone in Defence matters with willing partners, and with regional integration such as the European Air Transport Command and Belgian-Dutch Navy Cooperation in regional Defence. There must be a hope we can upgrade to fit in with our Allies.

trellheim
8th December 2017, 11:10
if you are following our other threads there is a good discussion about PESCO

sofa
8th December 2017, 20:32
Very Good article by Ian O' Doherty in Thursdays Indo on the Defence Forces, Can not up load it myself. But would be greatful if someone could.

ancientmariner
21st April 2018, 10:56
Very Good article by Ian O' Doherty in Thursdays Indo on the Defence Forces, Can not up load it myself. But would be greatful if someone could.

Given the continuing move towards European Defence Co-operation, we are miserably short of dedicated secure Naval Berthage. Historically we had the Naval Base, Basin berths, and an Oil Wharf used by default as a standby short term berth. We also had a Naval Buoy in Dunlaoghaire which we traded for what we called the Naval Berth on the inner southern arm of Dunlaoghaire Pier. We also had some anchorage rights in Bere island and Lough Swilly.
By and large we have been edged out to alongside at Base only and as visitors on paid sufferance elsewhere. With up to 9 ships, and a steady stream of Naval visitors we need to provide for more dedicated, secure naval Berths nationally.

na grohmitĂ­
21st April 2018, 11:32
Is dunlaoighre still available, with the new plans for the harbour?
With the Port of Cork moving downstream, there is an opportunity for the NS to secure berthage at the South Jetties and Tivoli for all but the Largest of vessels. The future use of these jetties will be residential, and the quay space will be barely used, but are already well equipped for services and secure access.

DeV
21st April 2018, 11:54
Is dunlaoighre still available, with the new plans for the harbour?
With the Port of Cork moving downstream, there is an opportunity for the NS to secure berthage at the South Jetties and Tivoli for all but the Largest of vessels. The future use of these jetties will be residential, and the quay space will be barely used, but are already well equipped for services and secure access.

Under the 2011 Master Plan, Dun Laoghaire would still be available

ancientmariner
21st April 2018, 14:34
Under the 2011 Master Plan, Dun Laoghaire would still be available

To allow for access of ferries we were asked to remove the permanent Naval Buoy, in return we were allocated a berth eventually described by us as a Naval pier. However , over time certain precedent requirements of the Harbour interests saw our maneuvering room restricted and also certain payments were required. We also had incidents involving attempts of unmooring the ship. The pier is a public access and unsecure.
The same parameters apply to Cork City Berths other than the gated area at the ex-Harbour Buildings now being sold. There seems to be no provision for State Visits of VIP warships. These matters need to be included in National plans along with ship repair/building.

ancientmariner
24th May 2018, 10:35
To allow for access of ferries we were asked to remove the permanent Naval Buoy, in return we were allocated a berth eventually described by us as a Naval pier. However , over time certain precedent requirements of the Harbour interests saw our maneuvering room restricted and also certain payments were required. We also had incidents involving attempts of unmooring the ship. The pier is a public access and unsecure.
The same parameters apply to Cork City Berths other than the gated area at the ex-Harbour Buildings now being sold. There seems to be no provision for State Visits of VIP warships. These matters need to be included in National plans along with ship repair/building.

As far as Naval Future can be foreseen, it is clear that, to be effective, assets have to be capable, deployable, and expediently positioned in the area of operations, with all supports adjacent in nearby Ports or on Fleet Logs ships. Squeezing more toothpaste into the tube at Haulbowline shows that collateral consequences need to be evaluated to prevent overload of the system. As for recruiting, MOD plan on paper only with little provision for maintaining quality and encouraging a retentive envoironment for personnel and families. I'm judging that due to the multi-layering of Ministries that proposals to do things are not followed through to a functioning outcome.

ancientmariner
17th October 2018, 17:41
As far as Naval Future can be foreseen, it is clear that, to be effective, assets have to be capable, deployable, and expediently positioned in the area of operations, with all supports adjacent in nearby Ports or on Fleet Logs ships. Squeezing more toothpaste into the tube at Haulbowline shows that collateral consequences need to be evaluated to prevent overload of the system. As for recruiting, MOD plan on paper only with little provision for maintaining quality and encouraging a retentive envoironment for personnel and families. I'm judging that due to the multi-layering of Ministries that proposals to do things are not followed through to a functioning outcome.

In today's Irish Examiner there is comment about recruitment and retention failures in the Naval service and consequential difficulty in manning ships. The problem lies with civil leadership and to a lesser extent Staffs. Overall we lack a Defence Culture and give very little coverage to good news stories, or opportunities within the Defence Forces. Huge effort has gone in to providing Naval Hardware, but manning is too much based on waiting to see what will turn up. Critical technicians will have to be subject to a quota release scheme based on date of application. The same rules will have to be applied to key qualified Officers. Where a person is over-retained in Service he should receive a gratuity of say at least E 5000 per annum and prorata for a portion of a year. For example if three watchkeeping Officers wish to leave and the quota for that year is two then the later applicant will be retained until the next quota, when he/she will be number 1. The retention gratuity could be fixed at the same amount , i.e. E5000 for all ranks.

TangoSierra
17th October 2018, 19:08
Until a realistic crew manning level of 2 crews per ship (circa 900) and THEN factor in shore support, the NS will continue to experience severe HR issues

Fantasia
17th October 2018, 19:27
What happens in a few years when the only consistency, the NCOs with 15+ years done, that train the ratings and train the officers all get to 21 years and pull the plug?

The only thing keeping the NS afloat is the NCOs that are not yet pensionable

koppiteal
17th October 2018, 20:36
Any truth in rumour NSR are being invited to transfer across to NS

DeV
17th October 2018, 20:58
Any truth in rumour NSR are being invited to transfer across to NS
Lol’ed when I read that

DeV
17th October 2018, 21:08
What would help is also not making it easy for junior NS officers to leave immediately on completion of their training.

trellheim
17th October 2018, 21:11
[Any truth in rumour NSR are being invited to transfer across to NSrumour doing the rounds all right. ABs LS/PO or Officers ?

na grohmitĂ­
17th October 2018, 21:32
There are members of the NS who are in civvy street, maritime watchkeeping officers and marine engineers. Their skills would be most welcome at this time (should they be appropriately compensated).

popeye
17th October 2018, 22:19
This is not a ballhop, no details on it yet but people have been asked for expressions of interest. Hard to see many people taking up the offer if it happens given the poor pay in the PDF and NSR people know how bad things are in the NS.

trellheim
17th October 2018, 22:37
Why is there a need to transfer to the PDF ? Reservists served fulltime for many years in the 70s and 80s both as Officers and ORs , the precedent is there.

DeV
17th October 2018, 23:25
Why is there a need to transfer to the PDF ? Reservists served fulltime for many years in the 70s and 80s both as Officers and ORs , the precedent is there.

I assume that they were called up for permanent service?


Because there is no legislation that allows transfer from RDF to PDF

Bravo20
18th October 2018, 08:36
They were initially called up for permanent service but some then transferred into the PDF. By whatever mechanism I don't know but it happened. One of the last Sgt Major of CTD East was one as far as I know.

hptmurphy
18th October 2018, 15:16
The stupidity of the management that has allowed the shortage to exist in the first place even beyond the scope of poor pay etc is unforgivable. To surrender, under PWC, what was in effect the compliment of a ship, and then build new ships without factoring in a requirement to increase the establishment of the service is not about anything other than bad planning.

Transferring persons to whole time service from volunteer part time service is fraught with issues around, pensions and reckonable service for pay purposes , assuming that persons would take up the issue. You would have effect people moving to ranks that now cannot be filled by new entrants to the service thus blocking promotions which could actually fuel an even greater exodus.

There is no cheap solution, Tie up what can't be operate on pre 2009 levels of manning and conditions with reliefs etc, restore the pay scales to pre 2010 levels and then incentivise recruitment with bounties paid to people who actively encourage friends and family to join.

Short service commissions for suitably qualified watch keepers both engineering and executive branch, with bonus's paid on re enlistment across the boards. Reduce the initial five year contract for enlistment back to three and remove pension levy for those on first enagement.

The management need to take positive action, even if it means putting heads above parapets , to stop the decline.

Bravo20
18th October 2018, 16:39
It all depends on how they do this. If they move the reservist from being a member of the RDF to the PDF then yes, it is holding up an appointment etc. If this is a temporary thing i.e. they are brought up on full time service without the 28 day restriction then they are getting people in addition to establishment.

I do not see what the reservist gets out of this other than increased sea time but then again if I was in my early 20s just starting out in the work place with no responsibilities this might just have been the thing I would have tried just to see what it was like.

Laners
18th October 2018, 16:41
Why bother having a reserve in the first place if you can't make use of them , why do they exist then , and how do other countries make use of their reserves .

hptmurphy
18th October 2018, 17:31
Why bother having a reserve in the first place if you can't make use of them , why do they exist then , and how do other countries make use of their reserves .

They have employment protect around their reservists, where a reservist can deploy for a given amount of time and know they have a job to come back to, they are also paid retainers for various levels of commitment during the training year...where as the DF and the government her don't really give a shit, but that might change in the Naval Service now.

Text messages have been sent out to serving members to gauge the level of interest.


I do not see what the reservist gets out of this other than increased sea time but then again if I was in my early 20s just starting out in the work place with no responsibilities this might just have been the thing I would have tried just to see what it was like.

If the employment protection legislation was in place a lot of guys would probably give it a go just to get away from their norm! If someone said to me right now , would I take a six month contract...I'd jump at it but couldn't afford the pay cut.

The DF have really shot themselves in the foot by not securing the employment protection legislation, only took 15 years to materialize.

trellheim
18th October 2018, 18:13
If employment protection was STILL in place for reservists - it used to exist but was scrapped.

Also there is no income equalization - the bills still need to be paid for the family home which is doable on the civvy street but laughable on the PDF payscale . I suspect this is not specialists they want here but ABs ? Not that they are not somewhat specialized anyway.

DeV
18th October 2018, 18:50
Why bother having a reserve in the first place if you can't make use of them , why do they exist then , and how do other countries make use of their reserves .

Other countries do stuff like pay the same, employment protection, paid for all training, paid mileage, paid gym membership, grat/bounty, better comms, etc etc

They don’t restrict their reserves.... they encourage them

DeV
18th October 2018, 18:50
I suspect this is not specialists they want here but ABs ? Not that they are not somewhat specialized anyway.

I’d say both but RDF can fill very few specialist positions

trellheim
18th October 2018, 19:10
Why bother having a reserve in the first place if you can't make use of them , why do they exist then , and how do other countries make use of their reserves .

Good question ? Who owns the answer ? The Government. That we have a reserve is laid out in the Defence Act 1954 as amended etc etc

Reserves have been quietly used on the Green side whenever the need was there , as reservists, as there is no provision to transfer over and hold the rank under R5, R6 or old A10 ( subject to correction on that ) , and during the 80s our FCA men on long fulltime had the same problem. Application for Mandays and payments of Grats would solve your income equalization on production of payslips

Amending A18 Para 21 would also help reduce the need for transfers

AC182
18th October 2018, 23:02
Its ironic. The NSR were held up as an example of how the reserve could function and integrate with the pdf pre 2012. Since the VFM and SFC the df and government have proactively disassembled everything that made it work and left the nsr on its knees. Now they need nsr to serve on ships to get them to sea and are surprised when there is no one left to go. So now they try to up the anti. They still fail to realise the fundimental problem. That running a volunteer reserve is entirely different to a permanent force. Motivation is not even remotely the same. If the nsr were running as it did in 2005, there would be bodies fighting to get out on ships like before.

na grohmitĂ­
18th October 2018, 23:55
Its ironic. The NSR were held up as an example of how the reserve could function and integrate with the pdf pre 2012. Since the VFM and SFC the df and government have proactively disassembled everything that made it work and left the nsr on its knees. Now they need nsr to serve on ships to get them to sea and are surprised when there is no one left to go. So now they try to up the anti. They still fail to realise the fundimental problem. That running a volunteer reserve is entirely different to a permanent force. Motivation is not even remotely the same. If the nsr were running as it did in 2005, there would be bodies fighting to get out on ships like before.

There was a time when the NSR were actively rejecting transfer applicants from people with civvy nautical qualifications because it would upset the status quo.

FLIPPER
19th October 2018, 10:22
There was a time when the NSR were actively rejecting transfer applicants from people with civvy nautical qualifications because it would upset the status quo.

Where did that happen ?

Auldsod
19th October 2018, 11:12
There was a time when the NSR were actively rejecting transfer applicants from people with civvy nautical qualifications because it would upset the status quo.

Hopefully things will turn around. A recruit class due to pass out in December so some new blood coming in. There may also be changes to some recruiting parameters next year which may allow for increased numbers. We need to be optimistic or nothing will change or improve.

trellheim
19th October 2018, 11:39
Right : ( after 33 years ) Are we REALLY going to try everything but what the reserve people have been asking for , seriously ?

I KNOW THE PDFS IN A JOCKER

LET US HELP ITS NOT EXPENSIVE

Auldsod
19th October 2018, 11:42
Right : ( after 33 years ) Are we REALLY going to try everything but what the reserve people have been asking for , seriously ?

I KNOW THE PDFS IN A JOCKER

LET US HELP ITS NOT EXPENSIVE

Any quick solutions that you would think would help?

I've been talking to recruits, it primarily seems to revolve around A: Pay and B: Better organisation and not getting screwed with ever shifting dates for training.

It's the recruits we need to appeal to and not the long service die hards (no offence intended).

trellheim
19th October 2018, 12:50
easiest and quickest is basic payscales. Minister ( the Taoiseach) should have hauled Pascal in and said : 33% payrise for all ranks - get it done. no linking to other services. Instead it was kicked to touch.

As its FG what would you expect from a pig but a grunt where the DF is concerned.

na grohmitĂ­
19th October 2018, 14:14
Being honest, I don't think other ranks pay is too bad. It is an entry level wage and you wouldn't get much more in the civi world for joining a company with no qualifications (you'd get less). We often hear about those on family income supplement and the likes at private rank but if you can't afford a family in your twenties, don't have one! I work hard in my civi job to get promoted so I can afford the nicer things and to have a family etc! A private 3* is on 31.5k with MSA after only three years. That's not bad pay for someone in their twenties! If you want to make a career out of the DF, get promoted to NCO rank or get out.

The main issue I have is with NCO pay. This is where a pay-rise is definitely needed. Maybe not as excessive as 33% but something substantial anyway.

Officers will always be lured away by the private sector but the DF is a vocation and even a large increase wouldn't be able to match what the civi sector can potentially offer.

It could at least be comparable with the payment of the entry level civil servant who works in an office mon-fri 37 hours a week. It should definitely be more than the guy working the fryer at McDonalds.

hptmurphy
19th October 2018, 14:23
Being honest, I don't think other ranks pay is too bad. It is an entry level wage and you wouldn't get much more in the civi world for joining a company with no qualifications (you'd get less). We often hear about those on family income supplement and the likes at private rank but if you can't afford a family in your twenties, don't have one!

While we might be in agreement on this , its not how its been seen by those on the inside and those selling the shortfalls. Society is now about instant gratification and keeping up with the jonses with the majority of people wanting what others have without realising that material wealth is acquired over years as opposed to on signing on to a job.

A/Sea Bloggs sees PO Smith driving a new car and reckons he should have the same , but over looks that PO Jones has 21 years service and three ranks ahead of him. This to me is the majority of the issue.

A/Sea Bloggs then reckons that he is worth more and decides to leave , goes to the Daily Rag and tells them how much he is aggrieved that he can't have what PO Jones has and leaves out the rank and service bit!

PO Jones see what ex PO Smith has on the outside without the hardship.. overlooks the fact that he joined the NS when no one else would look at him.. out the gate with his 21 years of experience.... and gets the job he wants and then cribs that some fcuker has cut his pension entitlement.

Jaysus....

Auldsod
19th October 2018, 14:25
It could at least be comparable with the payment of the entry level civil servant who works in an office mon-fri 37 hours a week. It should definitely be more than the guy working the fryer at McDonalds.

A clerical officer with three years service earns 26k. Also the entry level grade. A three star private earns a few grand more after the same service. There seems to be a lot of misinformation doing the rounds about what actual pay is. It's all there available to view on the published pay scales.

Auldsod
19th October 2018, 14:31
While we might be in agreement on this , its not how its been seen by those on the inside and those selling the shortfalls. Society is now about instant gratification and keeping up with the jonses with the majority of people wanting what others have without realising that material wealth is acquired over years as opposed to on signing on to a job.

A/Sea Bloggs sees PO Smith driving a new car and reckons he should have the same , but over looks that PO Jones has 21 years service and three ranks ahead of him. This to me is the majority of the issue.

A/Sea Bloggs then reckons that he is worth more and decides to leave , goes to the Daily Rag and tells them how much he is aggrieved that he can't have what PO Jones has and leaves out the rank and service bit!

PO Jones see what ex PO Smith has on the outside without the hardship.. overlooks the fact that he joined the NS when no one else would look at him.. out the gate with his 21 years of experience.... and gets the job he wants and then cribs that some fcuker has cut his pension entitlement.

Jaysus....

I can't agree more. I've seen A/Seamen driving around the base in near new cars and actually getting paid quite well considering tech pay and sea pay but still giving out about how badly paid they are. I'm quite comfortable in my civi job now but it took a good number of years climbing the greasy pole to get here. Most of my formative years were spent (in a good job that required a degree) with earnings that barely covered my rent, a few pints and keeping a ten year old car on the road. No instant gratification but it was all the more sweet when things eventually turned around regarding pay etc.

I'd often wonder does the grass turn out to be greener for those who leave early with no qualifications before they reach NCO rank?

Note: I have mentioned sea pay and I do appreciate that this requires significant personal sacrifice from the sailor involved. It's hard earned.

trellheim
19th October 2018, 14:35
Examiner article

https://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/navy-reserve-called-to-fill-posts-amid-crisis-876803.html?fbclid=IwAR0a71RctT3GkosYmB3KDA_2bQBCU WBF1yapzl76odNjXxNYiaUVMHMaPLo




The Naval Service has contacted members of its reserve in an attempt to lure them into full-time service to fill posts left vacant due to a major crisis in retention and recruitment.


File photo.
Reserves have been used in recent months to ensure adequate manpower levels when ships go to sea, but this latest move is seen as another indication that the Government still is not addressing the root cause of the manpower crisis: Poor pay and conditions.

The Defence Forces press office said it currently has 234 reservists who were “recently contacted to ascertain their interest in joining as a permanent member in the future”.

PDForra, which represents enlisted personnel, expressed its surprise at the move.

“This is just another window-dressing exercise,” said PDForra president Mark Keane. “The financial rewards will not match what these people already have in the private sector, so I’d be surprised if they get many expressions of interest.

The Department of Defence needs to bite the bullet and address the real issues of why people are leaving in droves and why they can’t get enough new recruits in.

PDForra general secretary Gerard Guinan said he was also taken aback by the move, as those in the reserve who wanted to join the permanent staff were well aware of how they could do this through the Defence Forces general recruitment schemes.

“They’re just clutching at straws,” he said. “They’d [the department] be better placed to focus on the retention of personnel by offering decent terms of employment.”

Defence Forces members are the worst-paid public servants. Last August, the minister of state with responsibility for defence, Paul Kehoe, ordered senior commanders to try to tempt former officers back into service to counter the continuing brain drain in their ranks.

In particular, he wanted to plug gaps which have appeared in specialist areas in the Army, Naval Service, and Air Corps by offering former officers three-year contracts to rejoin.

It has yet to be seen if the move was successful, and some people doubt that former pilots would ever be tempted to sign up again as they’re paid far better in the private sector.

For example, an Air Corps commandant with 15 years’ experience would expect to earn just over €85,000 a year. However, a pilot with similar experience working for a commercial airline such as Ryanair could expect an annual pay packet of between €150,000 and €200,000 a year.

ancientmariner
19th October 2018, 14:49
It could at least be comparable with the payment of the entry level civil servant who works in an office mon-fri 37 hours a week. It should definitely be more than the guy working the fryer at McDonalds.

The lowly Clerical Officer starts at approx 23,000 Euro P. A., however with long service at that rank, it can spiral to 39,000 Euro P.A. I think in the overall that Seaman ranks would trail by about 2000 Euro P.A. The crucial aspect of any job are the level of conditions and services available. The service man needs to know that the State will see to the Welfare of himself and his family. He needs to be sure that his sea/shore ratio is not a lottery or the fit of his face.When married the State should provide his accommodation either in barracks or by direct provision in local townships. It would be no harm if they followed the systems provided by the next door neighbour for their servicemen. A housed Serviceman is more likely to stay.

Auldsod
19th October 2018, 15:27
The lowly Clerical Officer starts at approx 23,000 Euro P. A., however with long service at that rank, it can spiral to 39,000 Euro P.A. I think in the overall that Seaman ranks would trail by about 2000 Euro P.A. The crucial aspect of any job are the level of conditions and services available. The service man needs to know that the State will see to the Welfare of himself and his family. He needs to be sure that his sea/shore ratio is not a lottery or the fit of his face.When married the State should provide his accommodation either in barracks or by direct provision in local townships. It would be no harm if they followed the systems provided by the next door neighbour for their servicemen. A housed Serviceman is more likely to stay.

See link to 2018 scales.

http://www.military.ie/fileadmin/user_upload/images/careers/rates_of_pay/01_January_2018_Enlisted_Personnel_Pay_Scales.pdf

A seaman on point 7 of the scale will 'spiral' to 36k plus. That's not too far off a clerical officer and is still the lowest functioning grade of the DF. This doesn't include any other allowances or pay. The average Irish salary is actually about 36k so the DF is hitting this bar at the lowest rank (I'm discounting recruits, O/S's and cadets).

This is not badly paid and is pay for someone who in most cases will have the leaving cert as their highest formal qualification. If the A/B upskills, they will most likely receive more pay and rank.

McDonalds staff will earn 20k per year so comparing this to an A/B's pay is at worst making up information and at best, materially skewing the facts.

I'd also be of the mind that a clerical officer on nearly 40k is overpaid.

I do however agree that there are issues regarding housing and assisting with paying rent or a mortgage may help here. There are also major issues with relation to time being spent at sea by many ranks. Too many being asked to do much due to the deluge of manpower and too many sea dodgers not going out at all.

hptmurphy
19th October 2018, 15:41
I'd often wonder does the grass turn out to be greener for those who leave early with no qualifications before they reach NCO rank?

My own case , 30 years on, within three years of leaving I was earning 50 quid a week more than I was as an A/Sea.... but I didn't have the job security that went with the DF.


Note: I have mentioned sea pay and I do appreciate that this requires significant personal sacrifice from the sailor involved. It's hard earned

should have read the small print on the end of the contract....'will be expected to go to sea'... the clue being in Navy!!! Its part of the job, yes it could be run more fairly.. but you join the navy to go to sea......fails me to see people bitching about the basic requirement of the job especially at junior level.

Mate of mine did his recruit training and never saw the base again, spent his entire service on two different ships... some like it.. some don't

Poiuyt
19th October 2018, 17:40
not getting screwed with ever shifting dates for training.

God, I remember the days when training dates were fixed in December/January for the following year. And woe betide anyone who tried to change them. Every weekend up to camp that was of any importance was mapped out, dates were set for ARPs, fitness tests etc.

But the reorg of 2013 happened and the idea of planning anything even 2 months in advance was absolutely alien to the PDF (not taking a dig at the PDF, just a different mentality). We would talk about the need for set dates to PDF who couldn't give any guarantees beyond the next week. Often you would only find out what PDF instructor you were getting when they actually showed up, mainly because they could be pulled for any job that came up and the RDF was way down the priority list.

It is just a different mentality and one of the major failings of the re-org that the mentalities could not mesh - RDF need to know dates well in advance in order to book time off work etc., PDF need to be flexible in order to deal with any situations that arise. RDF get angry about training dates being constantly moved and PDF get angry about the numbers showing up to that training.

The mentalities cannot work with each other. It is not a bad mark on either side, just the way it is.

DeV
19th October 2018, 18:41
Ok, remember when the pay was cut for new entrants ?

You could have a few weeks less service and be earning less approx €10 less a week doing exactly the same job

How can anyone compare being a sailor and being a clerical officer

It is about pay but also conditions:

Having to sleep on ships that are alongside

Leave being cancelled

24 hour duties

Putting to sea in the roughest seas in the world
Your 2 years ashore not being 2 years ashore

Auldsod
19th October 2018, 19:03
Ok, remember when the pay was cut for new entrants ?

You could have a few weeks less service and be earning less approx €10 less a week doing exactly the same job

How can anyone compare being a sailor and being a clerical officer

It is about pay but also conditions:

Having to sleep on ships that are alongside

Leave being cancelled

24 hour duties

Putting to sea in the roughest seas in the world
Your 2 years ashore not being 2 years ashore

Joining the DF is a vocation however. Going by the tale of woe above, should our sailors not be paid 60k a pop? The conditions definitely need to change but I think the pay beyond a marginal increase is right where it should be for an AB.

DeV
19th October 2018, 20:04
Joining the DF is a vocation however. Going by the tale of woe above, should our sailors not be paid 60k a pop? The conditions definitely need to change but I think the pay beyond a marginal increase is right where it should be for an AB.

It is and that is due to some none monetary perks. Be it a hard challenging job, service to the State, fighting drug importation, sports Wednesdays, generous leave....... however it needs to at least at the races with comparable jobs in both public and private sector

DeV
19th October 2018, 20:29
Part of the deal has to be personnel (individually and collectively) are fairly and well treated by junior and senior management and by Government.

Be it in administration, in promotion, selection for overseas, postings, payment in a timely manner, duty rosters, cancelling non essential ops as they cannot be met, ensuring there are adequate personnel, that Accomodiation is to a basic standard, that personnel are sufficiently trained and equipped to ensure that they are not put in harms way unnecessarily.



That those who choose the vocation, the “life less ordinary”, that in some cases make the ultimate sacrifice, are not taken advantage of by the State that they have sworn an oath to be faithful to.


It is a vocation and perks are there but they aren’t guaranteed.

Not many jobs in this land where you book time off work, you book a holiday, you have to ask work can you leave the country, have to give work your address while away and that it can be cancelled at any time (including while you are away)

na grohmitĂ­
19th October 2018, 21:35
It is and that is due to some none monetary perks. Be it a hard challenging job, service to the State, fighting drug importation, sports Wednesdays, generous leave....... however it needs to at least at the races with comparable jobs in both public and private sector

The customs maritime unit are also on clerical officer pay and do the job of fighting drugs importation. They also get paid an annual allowance for this duty.
https://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=2ahUKEwi7v-K3nZPeAhUrIsAKHaXaAckQFjAAegQICRAC&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.per.gov.ie%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2FRevenue-Business-Cases.pdf&usg=AOvVaw1WIwiLDwK7G44vAk2mRrCV

hptmurphy
19th October 2018, 22:52
Having to sleep on ships that are alongside

Absolute bollocks...its always been done. the conditions on ships are/were better than the base. The bitch being that the DF moved away from SLI and guys got used to living out. Just because they can't afford to live out, the whinge about the accomadation thats is provided. Its a reality for a lot of people on lower wages that accomadation is not priced as they wish. If you live out in Haulbowline and are not resident in Cobh.. you need a car...more money.....if they add up all they want to be paid for maybe they should reconsider their career path.



24 hour duties

because of the three watch system on ships.. thats the way it is and again always has been


How can anyone compare being a sailor and being a clerical officer


People make choices, public service pay rates were tainted by benchmarking hence the need for allowances..PDA is an allowance a junior public servant serving in the DF gets for days spent at sea!

DeV
19th October 2018, 23:09
The customs maritime unit are also on clerical officer pay and do the job of fighting drugs importation. They also get paid an annual allowance for this duty.
https://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=2ahUKEwi7v-K3nZPeAhUrIsAKHaXaAckQFjAAegQICRAC&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.per.gov.ie%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2FRevenue-Business-Cases.pdf&usg=AOvVaw1WIwiLDwK7G44vAk2mRrCV

Doesn’t say what the rate is, it is also an annual allowance

I note that “one operation required the staff to remain at sea for a continuous period of nineteen days”


I don’t begrudge them it but it’s apples and oranges.



Compare to PDA
https://www.per.gov.ie/wp-content/uploads/Patrol-Duty-Allowance.pdf


PDA could be much higher than the Revenue Allowance but the job and T&C’s are extremely different



How do both compare to the private sector

TangoSierra
20th October 2018, 09:11
Anecdotal evidence regarding the current rostering practices within the DF are varied and seem to be based on personality/efficiency of those making out the roster. Notice periods of between 24hrs and 1week are common.

While Section 17 of the organisation of working time act only requires the employer to give 24hrs notice of work rostering, it does not make it a "good practice".

Routine duties should be rostered with at least one calendar months notice which is something ICTU are pushing for by way of a change in the OoWT Act.

It causes severe stress placing employees under this uncertainty and inability to plan their lives more than a week in advance.

EUFighter
20th October 2018, 09:40
Anecdotal evidence regarding the current rostering practices within the DF are varied and seem to be based on personality/efficiency of those making out the roster. Notice periods of between 24hrs and 1week are common.

While Section 17 of the organisation of working time act only requires the employer to give 24hrs notice of work rostering, it does not make it a "good practice".

Routine duties should be rostered with at least one calendar months notice which is something ICTU are pushing for by way of a change in the OoWT Act.

It causes severe stress placing employees under this uncertainty and inability to plan their lives more than a week in advance.

The OoWT Act does not apply to the Defence Forces:
"3.—(1) Subject to subsection (4), this Act shall not apply to a member of the Garda Síochána or the Defence Forces."

The big mistake was when the 2008 crisis came the government treated the DF the same as the Civil Service. That was stupid as what is required from a member of the DF is different from other CS members. This has now led to people trying to compare working conditions which has to be the biggest joke ever.Yes, where possible rosters should be done well in advance, training courses planned on a yearly basis etc.

DeV
20th October 2018, 14:41
The customs maritime unit are also on clerical officer pay and do the job of fighting drugs importation. They also get paid an annual allowance for this duty.
https://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=2ahUKEwi7v-K3nZPeAhUrIsAKHaXaAckQFjAAegQICRAC&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.per.gov.ie%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2FRevenue-Business-Cases.pdf&usg=AOvVaw1WIwiLDwK7G44vAk2mRrCV


I can’t reply to your PM it won’t recognise your username for some reason

Thanks for that

It’s very much apples and oranges but case in point

na grohmitĂ­
20th October 2018, 14:49
oddly I can't login via smartphone for the same reason.

TangoSierra
20th October 2018, 19:15
The OoWT Act does not apply to the Defence Forces:
"3.—(1) Subject to subsection (4), this Act shall not apply to a member of the Garda Síochána or the Defence Forces."

The big mistake was when the 2008 crisis came the government treated the DF the same as the Civil Service. That was stupid as what is required from a member of the DF is different from other CS members. This has now led to people trying to compare working conditions which has to be the biggest joke ever.Yes, where possible rosters should be done well in advance, training courses planned on a yearly basis etc.

Not for long.
http://pdforra.ie/news/?p=1523
The DoD have been ordered to include Defence Force members under the act.

https://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/claims-to-mushroom-as-soldier-wins-working-time-case-471993.html

ancientmariner
21st October 2018, 10:44
Not for long.
http://pdforra.ie/news/?p=1523
The DoD have been ordered to include Defence Force members under the act.

https://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/claims-to-mushroom-as-soldier-wins-working-time-case-471993.html

This scenario really needs clear discussion. The system always allowed " carry over " of up to half the previous years leave. It had often been suggested that unused leave, including " carry over " leave should be accumulated to be granted or paid at the end of service. The big Naval problem is that unlike most parts of the PDF, our units , when at sea, are fully operational, and need trained crew to meet all tasks. Mr. Guinan says rules wouldn't apply in emergencies, so such rules need to be defined for operational ships at sea.

DeV
21st October 2018, 11:45
AFAIK the WTD doesn’t allow carryover except in case of illness

TangoSierra
21st October 2018, 12:54
ATCP/ATCA operations are somewhat unknown duration activities.

Routine offshore patrolling/fishery protection, guard duties etc are clearly defined duration activities and should come under the WTD.

Doing duties 15days out of 30 (EOD) and other similar situations should be managed out of practice by force of the OoWT Act.

na grohmitĂ­
21st October 2018, 13:33
With regards to ATCP/ATCA, a useful guide would be, if the CP/CA that you are providing assistance to, is heading home at 2 am, to be relieved by a new shift, then you should too?
Routine patrolling is carried out by civilian agencies on a 24 hour basis in many states. The civilian maritime world has a long history of 24 hour operating without putting its crews at risk. Offshore standby vessels as an example?
At the end of the day the only reason the DF operate working hours that are against the working time directive is down to one simple cop-out. Staffing. Why have enough staff to cover a 24 hour period in two or three shifts when you can do it with just enough staff for one.
I'm sure everyone who serves or served in the DF can name a colleague who was either killed or seriously injured while making the commute after such a work pattern. The only question is why their job was not held responsible. If they were in any other profession it would be.

Auldsod
21st October 2018, 13:38
AFAIK the WTD doesn’t allow carryover except in case of illness

WT can't be carried over but the employer must give you the opportunity to use your 20 days in the same year. The individual has no right to decide that they want to carry over leave.

An employer can also arbitrarily limit the leave for the year to 20 days even if your contact has something higher. Unlikely to be done unless in extreme circumstances due to the impact to employer/employee relations.

Employees actually have far less rights with regard leave than they think. Your employer could essentially tell you that they want you to take your 20 days in two set ten day blocks blocks where they pick the dates and there is nothing legally you can do about it. Of course no company would act like this (that I know of!)

ancientmariner
21st October 2018, 15:53
Employees actually have far less rights with regard leave than they think. Your employer could essentially tell you that they want you to take your 20 days in two set ten day blocks blocks where they pick the dates and there is nothing legally you can do about it. Of course no company would act like this (that I know of!)[/QUOTE]

We are all talking in circles. There is no way that personnel in Armed Services can be accurately compared to "employees". The ultimate nature of Armed Service is that when called to use of Arms the task is rarely time limited and those involved can die or be injured to a life changing extent. The duty of those maintaining Armed Services is to make sure that the numbers required to meet obligations are there to cover the tasks and allow for down time including leave and other exigencies.
Civilian ships with 24 hr operations are crewed to a standard of 4hr on and 8hr off or 6hr on and 6hrs off depending on the country of operation. The UK norm is 4 hours on and four ours off.
PDFORRA's attempt to civilianise military operations except in "emergencies" is at best confusing, and slightly capricious.

TangoSierra
21st October 2018, 22:05
I disagree with you. Times of emergency (I.e terror attack, active armed combat, prisoner cordon and search, search and rescue, etc - yes they are times where WTD are impractical for Gardai/DF - hence the MSA paid to DF.

Everything else - adhere to the Act.

If every other European Military can do it (which includes most of NATO) then Ireland can too.

To say other wise is a cheap cop out, a danger personnel and a distinct lack of leadership and owning responsibility for the welfare of the States Service Members

DeV
21st October 2018, 22:15
So square the circle, how do you conduct a 72 hr ex (of any description) while complying with the WTD?


Paying extra (ie MSA) doesn’t mean you are complying with the WTD

TangoSierra
21st October 2018, 22:49
Time off/leave - average it out either in the month or quarter annually.

Again we're not special or unique. DoD just need to pick up a phone, call the military attaches of France, Germany, Spain, Netherlands, Belgium, Finland, Estonia etc and ask them how hey do it.

na grohmitĂ­
21st October 2018, 23:05
So square the circle, how do you conduct a 72 hr ex (of any description) while complying with the WTD?


Paying extra (ie MSA) doesn’t mean you are complying with the WTD

Last corps concentration I was on, the 72 hr ex worked fine, and all the drivers managed to get in their mandatory rest breaks. While the ex may last 72 hours, surely not every element is required to be active over the entire duration of that 72 hours. Its common sense, if you aren't involved directly, you take your rest break.

The reality is, those who consider this in a military environment being unrealistic, will be considered in future in the same light as those who insisted that wearing proper hearing protection in a military environment was an unnecessary impracticality. Truth being, the only obstacle was unwillingness to change. The technology was in use and was being enforces in civvy street for many years, and faced similar resistance.

With regards to hearing protection it was only when members with permanent damage to their hearing started suing the DoD/DF/Minister that the powers that be sat up and took action.
Worth keeping in mind though that the WTD is still a fluid directive, and subject to further change, as consultations with various industry sectors are concluded. Also worth keeping in mind that the current situation came about not because of the long hours members of the DF are working, but the decision of the DFA not to allow leave to be carried over where the worker was unable to take said leave due to to the DF being overstretched and its member constantly being forced to plug gaps.

In short we wouldn' be here had he DoD not decided to downsize the DF and curtail recruitment.

A/TEL
21st October 2018, 23:41
ATCP/ATCA operations are somewhat unknown duration activities.

Routine offshore patrolling/fishery protection, guard duties etc are clearly defined duration activities and should come under the WTD.

Doing duties 15days out of 30 (EOD) and other similar situations should be managed out of practice by force of the OoWT Act.


Patrolling is defined in its length of duration yes, but the roles carried out cannot be defined per patrol.

Can go from FP ops to SAR Ops or MIO (Maritime Interdiction Ops) in a heartbeat.

Depending on the situation, these operations can last up to 12hrs+.

In this senario it proves impossible to apply the WTD.

This forms the backbone of the claim for increase in PDA.

TangoSierra
22nd October 2018, 00:12
Length of duration is enough. You aim off for a realistic mixed ratio of "normal routine" and calculated emergency tasks and pay accordingly.

I wholeheartedly support an increase in PDA

ancientmariner
22nd October 2018, 10:10
I disagree with you. Times of emergency (I.e terror attack, active armed combat, prisoner cordon and search, search and rescue, etc - yes they are times where WTD are impractical for Gardai/DF - hence the MSA paid to DF.

Everything else - adhere to the Act.

If every other European Military can do it (which includes most of NATO) then Ireland can too.

To say other wise is a cheap cop out, a danger personnel and a distinct lack of leadership and owning responsibility for the welfare of the States Service Members

It's rather strange that the most successful Forces in the world, albeit in conflicts past, including Falklands, just follow Regulations, Army Orders, and Admiralty Instructions all overseen by General Staffs and those with devolved Command. The rest is window dressing and a dilution of possible positive outcomes and to empower those NOT in Uniform. The latter will be no where to be seen when the s--t hits the fan. MSA is well earned, but the winning ingredient comes from the person in Uniform fully resourced and " Ready to Go ".

hptmurphy
22nd October 2018, 12:28
Patrolling is defined in its length of duration yes, but the roles carried out cannot be defined per patrol.

Can go from FP ops to SAR Ops or MIO (Maritime Interdiction Ops) in a heartbeat.

Depending on the situation, these operations can last up to 12hrs+.

In this senario it proves impossible to apply the WTD.

This forms the backbone of the claim for increase in PDA.

PDA should be tax free, as no matter what is offered being subject to taxes not every person is rewarded equally.

Auldsod
22nd October 2018, 14:16
PDA should be tax free, as no matter what is offered being subject to taxes not every person is rewarded equally.

Making PDA allowance tax free would be a huge incentive for those going to sea, especially officers and POs and up who currently automatically pay it at higher rate tax already with USC on top of that. It would be an extra 25 euro per day into the pocket for some...

ancientmariner
22nd October 2018, 14:40
PDA should be tax free, as no matter what is offered being subject to taxes not every person is rewarded equally.

I could go with that idea, and with many others. If we can solve Manning , we can ensure the future. However there is a major obstacle contained within the mindset of the Department that sees the Defence ethic and it's nature as being overburdened with costly anachronistic benefits such as Hospitals, Maternity wards, Accommodation, Married Quarters , to mention a few. If we were in conflict can we produce the necessary medical chains of recovery of injured, treatment on route, in theater stabilising surgery, homeside hospitals and aftercare. Could we produce, and staff , a Camp Bastion?

The Services have a similar mindset when dealing with difficult equipment, often left to rot on the vine or excised, dumped to the pound, or boarded. When this is done the skills operating such equipment are also conveyed to history. The Navy over the years have lost the complete Naval competence acquired between the corvettes and P31.

hptmurphy
23rd October 2018, 10:00
Making PDA allowance tax free would be a huge incentive for those going to sea, especially officers and POs and up who currently automatically pay it at higher rate tax already with USC on top of that. It would be an extra 25 euro per day into the pocket for some...

My point exactly!

You could always justify tf in working so many days offshore per anum not paying tax as do tax exiles. It is feasible, just takes a will to do it.

hptmurphy
23rd October 2018, 10:04
Making PDA allowance tax free would be a huge incentive for those going to sea, especially officers and POs and up who currently automatically pay it at higher rate tax already with USC on top of that. It would be an extra 25 euro per day into the pocket for some...


Could be equated to working offshore at so many days per anum, where you don't pay tax. A will from the DoD..quick chat with the Revenue Commissioners, job sorted....

Auldsod
23rd October 2018, 10:17
Could be equated to working offshore at so many days per anum, where you don't pay tax. A will from the DoD..quick chat with the Revenue Commissioners, job sorted....

Also, it wouldn't have a detrimental impact on the DF budget (even though it would marginally impact the State's tax take). Win win.

na grohmitĂ­
23rd October 2018, 10:34
Could be equated to working offshore at so many days per anum, where you don't pay tax. A will from the DoD..quick chat with the Revenue Commissioners, job sorted....

Just playing devils advocate here.
What about those whose duties ashore mean they are not entitled to PDA? Should they be out of pocket because they hold a shore appointment?

Auldsod
23rd October 2018, 10:50
Just playing devils advocate here.
What about those whose duties ashore mean they are not entitled to PDA? Should they be out of pocket because they hold a shore appointment?

Those at shore don't receive PDA anyway so it's irrelevant IMO. Any tax change would be to incentivise staying in AND going to sea.
Shore appointments are less impacting on the sailor for obvious reasons.

DeV
23rd October 2018, 13:12
https://www.revenue.ie/en/tax-professionals/tdm/income-tax-capital-gains-tax-corporation-tax/part-15/15-01-30.pdf

Extend this to cover the NS?

na grohmitĂ­
23rd October 2018, 13:13
But, what if there is no appointments aboard ship for your particular trade at that rank? Then are you being penalised for your career path, meaning at some point in future nobody wants to go to job x because it would mean a cut in pay? Then you'll have to create a comparable allowance for people to take up said shore appointment.

Auldsod
23rd October 2018, 14:00
https://www.revenue.ie/en/tax-professionals/tdm/income-tax-capital-gains-tax-corporation-tax/part-15/15-01-30.pdf

Extend this to cover the NS?

It would need to be something completely different. The allowance for seafarers stipulates.

'the individual must be absent from the state for at least 161 days in a year
of assessment in the performance of duties wholly performed aboard a
sea-going ship on an international voyage. Any incidental duties not
performed on board the ship are ignored,
o the ship must be an EU registered passenger ferry or freight carrying
vessel'

It must be on an international voyage and not simply a patrol. Also needs to be a merchant vessel.

Auldsod
23rd October 2018, 14:03
But, what if there is no appointments aboard ship for your particular trade at that rank? Then are you being penalised for your career path, meaning at some point in future nobody wants to go to job x because it would mean a cut in pay? Then you'll have to create a comparable allowance for people to take up said shore appointment.

Respectfully I disagree with you here. If someone takes a shore appointment they don't get an allowance but they get the benefit of not having to go to sea and the pressures that involves. Any career is about choices.

The argument above could be extended to those in the Army/Air Corps. 'Why shouldn't I get a PDA equivalent? It's not my fault the army doesn't patrol the seas'.

Bravo20
23rd October 2018, 14:04
You could base it on the overseas peace support allowance which is tax free due to a specific exemption in the finance acts.

Bayern Fan
23rd October 2018, 14:09
Flat rate expenses for different categories of sea farers. (see pages 4 & 5 of the pdf)

https://www.revenue.ie/en/employing-people/employee-expenses/flat-rate-expense-allowances/index.aspx

DeV
23rd October 2018, 14:18
But, what if there is no appointments aboard ship for your particular trade at that rank? Then are you being penalised for your career path, meaning at some point in future nobody wants to go to job x because it would mean a cut in pay? Then you'll have to create a comparable allowance for people to take up said shore appointment.

Then your duties & conditions are very different, those at sea should get more pay. With promotion (and sometimes appointment) comes additional pay.


It would need to be something completely different. The allowance for seafarers stipulates.

'the individual must be absent from the state for at least 161 days in a year
of assessment in the performance of duties wholly performed aboard a
sea-going ship on an international voyage. Any incidental duties not
performed on board the ship are ignored,
o the ship must be an EU registered passenger ferry or freight carrying
vessel'

It must be on an international voyage and not simply a patrol. Also needs to be a merchant vessel.

Obviously... I meant based on it


Respectfully I disagree with you here. If someone takes a shore appointment they don't get an allowance but they get the benefit of not having to go to sea and the pressures that involves. Any career is about choices.

The argument above could be extended to those in the Army/Air Corps. 'Why shouldn't I get a PDA equivalent? It's not my fault the army doesn't patrol the seas'.


You could base it on the overseas peace support allowance which is tax free due to a specific exemption in the finance acts.

Maybe make MSA tax free?


Flat rate expenses for different categories of sea farers. (see pages 4 & 5 of the pdf)

https://www.revenue.ie/en/employing-people/employee-expenses/flat-rate-expense-allowances/index.aspx

Would get very little a week

hptmurphy
23rd October 2018, 17:31
It would need to be something completely different. The allowance for seafarers stipulates.

'the individual must be absent from the state for at least 161 days in a year
of assessment in the performance of duties wholly performed aboard a
sea-going ship on an international voyage. Any incidental duties not
performed on board the ship are ignored,
o the ship must be an EU registered passenger ferry or freight carrying
vessel'

It must be on an international voyage and not simply a patrol. Also needs to be a merchant vessel.

Its the concept, once you have a similar example somewhere else all you need to do is modify it accordingly,


But, what if there is no appointments aboard ship for your particular trade at that rank? Then are you being penalised for your career path, meaning at some point in future nobody wants to go to job x because it would mean a cut in pay? Then you'll have to create a comparable allowance for people to take up said shore appointment.

That has always been the case since the inception of PDA.. does who go to sea get it.. those who don't... don't . PDA is only paid for time outside Cork harbour to the return to the base so its not paid for time posted to the ship , only those days spent at sea....which includes days alongside other ports during the patrol time ( I may stand to be corrected on this as it may have changed , but this is as it was back in my time.)

Security Duty Allowance is not paid while standing duties along side while a ship is 'at sea'.


Then you'll have to create a comparable allowance for people to take up said shore appointment.

You'll find that most of the trades affected are receiving tech pay of some description regardless of whether they are carrying out the same job ashore or afloat.

The positive side is guys would be more enthusiastic about doing their fair share at sea if the financial rewards were there. Not sure if the extra leave for being posted to a ship is still applicable, again back in my day your annual leave doubled once posted to a ship.... problem was getting to take it and your carry over was limited to 10 days which reverted back to single time.

Someone recently told me that rations and quarters had been reintroduced for seagoing people.... get rid of it. Makes no sense when someone has been posted to a unit.

DeV
23rd October 2018, 18:16
Its the concept, once you have a similar example somewhere else all you need to do is modify it accordingly,



That has always been the case since the inception of PDA.. does who go to sea get it.. those who don't... don't . PDA is only paid for time outside Cork harbour to the return to the base so its not paid for time posted to the ship , only those days spent at sea....which includes days alongside other ports during the patrol time ( I may stand to be corrected on this as it may have changed , but this is as it was back in my time.)

Security Duty Allowance is not paid while standing duties along side while a ship is 'at sea'.



You'll find that most of the trades affected are receiving tech pay of some description regardless of whether they are carrying out the same job ashore or afloat.

The positive side is guys would be more enthusiastic about doing their fair share at sea if the financial rewards were there. Not sure if the extra leave for being posted to a ship is still applicable, again back in my day your annual leave doubled once posted to a ship.... problem was getting to take it and your carry over was limited to 10 days which reverted back to single time.

Someone recently told me that rations and quarters had been reintroduced for seagoing people.... get rid of it. Makes no sense when someone has been posted to a unit.

Also at least some of those leaving will be leaving to go to similar jobs in the private sector that are better paid and they then qualify for this Revenue allowance.

Not just enthusiastic to be seagoing but to stay motivated and to stay in the NS

Leave is even harder to take now

hptmurphy
23rd October 2018, 22:13
Also at least some of those leaving will be leaving to go to similar jobs in the private sector that are better paid and they then qualify for this Revenue allowance.

Not just enthusiastic to be seagoing but to stay motivated and to stay in the NS

Leave is even harder to take now

Enforcement of working time direct will mean that you have to be granted leave after so many hours worked... thats the law!

DeV
23rd October 2018, 22:33
Enforcement of working time direct will mean that you have to be granted leave after so many hours worked... thats the law!
At the employers choosing and no carry over unless due to illness

ancientmariner
24th October 2018, 09:45
At the employers choosing and no carry over unless due to illness

There are some selective stances being taken on work time directives. The more interesting one is the EU view on the social aspect applicable to military forces. They see social justice and military defence as a joint enterprise and that one will fall without the support of the other. From that view point they say both must be satisfactorily funded to perform their respective roles. It is all available in EU and Euromil documentation.

Auldsod
24th October 2018, 10:01
Enforcement of working time direct will mean that you have to be granted leave after so many hours worked... thats the law!

The law states you only have to be granted up to 20 days. If a sailor has worked up 30 days and has only taken 20, by the letter of the law - the other ten can be removed.

hptmurphy
24th October 2018, 18:11
The law states you only have to be granted up to 20 days. If a sailor has worked up 30 days and has only taken 20, by the letter of the law - the other ten can be removed.

Leave can be capped but you must be allowed to take the minimum amount of leave awarded under your contract.The ' hours worked 'entitlement to leave may exceed that which you are awarded , but the contractual obligation is the one that takes precedence and that leave needs to be protected.

Truck Driver
24th October 2018, 19:27
https://www.revenue.ie/en/tax-professionals/tdm/income-tax-capital-gains-tax-corporation-tax/part-15/15-01-30.pdf

Extend this to cover the NS?

Good find

Truck Driver
24th October 2018, 19:33
The law states you only have to be granted up to 20 days. If a sailor has worked up 30 days and has only taken 20, by the letter of the law - the other ten can be removed.

But that's 20 days as in 20 x 7.8 = 168 hours, is it not, i.e. based on the standard Mon - Fri model?
I do shift work myself.
I get my 20 x 7.8 = 168hrs statutory hours, which as is suggested, I HAVE to be allowed to take, by law
I get other add ons, based on the fact I do shift, unsociable hours, and service days (add ons per years of service)

But as was mentioned above, anything above the 168 hours is at the remit of my employer

ancientmariner
25th October 2018, 10:24
Good find

Wouldn't work here in Naval service as we don't start or terminate our voyages in a foreign port. The UK off-shore industry get theirs by having a sign on and sign off at an non-UK port in Norway or Denmark for Tax purposes. The other problem is at this time it is restricted to commercial vessels. However there should be AN Allowance, particularly those married with families have an element of double housekeeping for the person away, and home maintenance because of his/her absence. The leave is difficult. It used to be solved by giving ships leave periods of 42 days twice a year, with half on leave for half of each period. Doesn't suit or fit in with school holidays or seasonal conditions. It also involves big tie-ups for at least half the fleet. In three ship Navy days it was doable , nine ships will be a nightmare.

Bravo20
25th October 2018, 12:14
I think you are missing the point of the argument Ancientmariner. They are saying make the PDA tax free "like" the allowance for seafarers. It would have to be put into the finance act, but there is already a similar exemption for overseas allowance paid to the PDF when on an overseas mission. They used to be able to claim the exemption as missions were 6 plus months but when they started to introduce shorter tours (3 months) then the allowance would have technically been taxable, an amendment was made to the finance acts to make this allowance tax free. A similar situation could be made for PDA.

However, any advantage the DF gets with regard to pay will be quickly followed by a reciprocal request from the rest of the civil service.

DeV
25th October 2018, 13:03
I can’t remember exactly but the target is that the NS fleet has to be at sea/capable of being put to sea with x hours ..... a very high percentage of time

But they don’t have the establishment for that never mind the strength

ancientmariner
26th October 2018, 10:14
I can’t remember exactly but the target is that the NS fleet has to be at sea/capable of being put to sea with x hours ..... a very high percentage of time

But they don’t have the establishment for that never mind the strength

The powers that decide were told what the establishment should be for each ship type. The idea was that if you added a ship type then you added the agreed crew strengths to the Establishment plus necessary Sea Going replacements in the knock on effect. In the Draft for the New Naval Structure for Naval base. Ships, Dockyard and HQ the Strength was AFAIK in excess of 1200 for, at the time, a 6 ship Fleet. It is now 9 ships without stipulated manpower.
I accept Bravo 20 remarks about PDA aka SGA and agree it should be a Tax Credit or Free of tax.

Notice was tiered with a ship varying from maximum agreed notice in the Basin, to standard operational notice at the OW. Once out on SO the ship remained at Immediate notice throughout her patrol duration. Notice could also be meaningless as a laid-up ship could be brought to 72 hours notice and rushed out with re-calls and replacements using chaos theory.

Auldsod
26th October 2018, 10:38
I'm sure it's a political minefield but was there ever consideration made from transferring manpower from the army to the navy within the DoD? Basically, remove an infantry battalion and recruit those numbers into the Navy?

The split for the NZDF is Army 4,584, Navy 2,132 and Air Force 2,403. If you reduce down the size of the air force to reflect the size of the Air Corps, it isn't too far off our PDF establishment...

Note: I'm not suggesting a 2000 + person NS but a 200+ extra bodies wouldn't go astray if they could be motivated to join and stay in.

DeV
26th October 2018, 13:21
The powers that decide were told what the establishment should be for each ship type. The idea was that if you added a ship type then you added the agreed crew strengths to the Establishment plus necessary Sea Going replacements in the knock on effect. In the Draft for the New Naval Structure for Naval base. Ships, Dockyard and HQ the Strength was AFAIK in excess of 1200 for, at the time, a 6 ship Fleet. It is now 9 ships without stipulated manpower.
I accept Bravo 20 remarks about PDA aka SGA and agree it should be a Tax Credit or Free of tax.

Notice was tiered with a ship varying from maximum agreed notice in the Basin, to standard operational notice at the OW. Once out on SO the ship remained at Immediate notice throughout her patrol duration. Notice could also be meaningless as a laid-up ship could be brought to 72 hours notice and rushed out with re-calls and replacements using chaos theory.
A long time and water under the bridge since there was a 6 ship navy

I think it was something like 90% to be available in less than xx hours (opsec but a lot less than 72)


I'm sure it's a political minefield but was there ever consideration made from transferring manpower from the army to the navy within the DoD? Basically, remove an infantry battalion and recruit those numbers into the Navy?

The split for the NZDF is Army 4,584, Navy 2,132 and Air Force 2,403. If you reduce down the size of the air force to reflect the size of the Air Corps, it isn't too far off our PDF establishment...

Note: I'm not suggesting a 2000 + person NS but a 200+ extra bodies wouldn't go astray if they could be motivated to join and stay in.

Only ever heard of people transferring from NS to army

Auldsod
26th October 2018, 13:27
Only ever heard of people transferring from NS to army

I mean a fundamental reorganisation of the establishment of the Army and Navy.

morpheus
26th October 2018, 13:40
what would actually happen - is that 200 bods would be let go from army with the "intention" of not recruiting 200 replacements for the army, but instead increasing naval establishment x 200 - nobody wants to join the navy these days so this would never happen and we would end up with effective strength at 9300

ancientmariner
26th October 2018, 14:21
what would actually happen - is that 200 bods would be let go from army with the "intention" of not recruiting 200 replacements for the army, but instead increasing naval establishment x 200 - nobody wants to join the navy these days so this would never happen and we would end up with effective strength at 9300

I still think we should try an open door recruiting policy for the Naval Service by using Reserve Cadre offices in Dublin, Waterford, Cork, and Limerick as drop in recruiting offices . They would issue warrants and joining instructions for any survivors of grilling and chat from regular staffs. You could also have a nominated Office in the Naval Base, Galway and Athlone for naval Recruiting. It worked before and could be time limited for all venues.
Nobody wants to join could be a sub set of nobody knows what is on offer or the opportunities that arise quite frequently like 5 young techs getting their degrees in Electronic Engineering in the last week.

Auldsod
26th October 2018, 14:59
I still think we should try an open door recruiting policy for the Naval Service by using Reserve Cadre offices in Dublin, Waterford, Cork, and Limerick as drop in recruiting offices . They would issue warrants and joining instructions for any survivors of grilling and chat from regular staffs. You could also have a nominated Office in the Naval Base, Galway and Athlone for naval Recruiting. It worked before and could be time limited for all venues.
Nobody wants to join could be a sub set of nobody knows what is on offer or the opportunities that arise quite frequently like 5 young techs getting their degrees in Electronic Engineering in the last week.

Things have got more complicated in the recruitment space since however. They would need to pass fitness test, medical checks as well as get security clearance etc. I think the Navy would end up in worse situation if it took in recruits after just an interview with cadre staff.

It was also good to see the young techs get their degrees but let us not forget that you could get the same qualification straight from school without the pressures of military life. Getting paid to do post graduate qualifications is a bigger draw but that's something only in officer and SNCO world.

na grohmitĂ­
26th October 2018, 15:30
There is a certain logic in what ancientmariner says. Walk-in interviews are still a popular method for recruiting in industry, and using the cadre offices may be less intimidating, (and more secure) than insisting on initial interview beyond the barrack gate. Medical and Security checks can be done quickly when necessary.

Perhaps the concept of the "queens shilling" may also inspire recruitment? Agree payment fo applicants of travel expenses to a set maximum on completion (successfully or unsuccessfully) of the recruitment process. Is a potential recruit from Galway going to make the journey to Cork for a fitness test that he or she may or may not pass when his or her dole for the week barely covers the train fare? Are we restricting the best potential candidates due to their economic circumstances?

Auldsod
26th October 2018, 16:10
There is a certain logic in what ancientmariner says. Walk-in interviews are still a popular method for recruiting in industry, and using the cadre offices may be less intimidating, (and more secure) than insisting on initial interview beyond the barrack gate. Medical and Security checks can be done quickly when necessary.

Perhaps the concept of the "queens shilling" may also inspire recruitment? Agree payment fo applicants of travel expenses to a set maximum on completion (successfully or unsuccessfully) of the recruitment process. Is a potential recruit from Galway going to make the journey to Cork for a fitness test that he or she may or may not pass when his or her dole for the week barely covers the train fare? Are we restricting the best potential candidates due to their economic circumstances?

I know the UK military will provide such compensation for travelling with warrants etc. I'm not sure if the administrative or cultural will is in our own DF to move to such a process. Haulbowline is quite a trek when you've nocar especially when 90% of applicants will have no knowledge of the launch from Cobh (and probably shouldn't be on it anyway).

ancientmariner
26th October 2018, 17:15
I know the UK military will provide such compensation for travelling with warrants etc. I'm not sure if the administrative or cultural will is in our own DF to move to such a process. Haulbowline is quite a trek when you've nocar especially when 90% of applicants will have no knowledge of the launch from Cobh (and probably shouldn't be on it anyway).

AFAIK warrants for recruit applicants were issuable at all outposts. The applicants had a basic medical and were sent on their way to Naval Base. We usually took 7/9 wks to Finally approve subject to getting Garda Clearance. They weren't finally dressed until finally approved. The educational standard would have to be Inter Certificate or better. Reservists with Service friendly employers should be called up for 6 month stints every 3 or 4 years for sea and professional training in all branches.

DeV
26th October 2018, 18:40
It was also good to see the young techs get their degrees but let us not forget that you could get the same qualification straight from school without the pressures of military life. .and without the pay and/or hands on experience where you will be working.


using the cadre offices may be less intimidating, (and more secure) than insisting on initial interview beyond the barrack gate. Medical and Security checks can be done quickly when necessary.

Perhaps the concept of the "queens shilling" may also inspire recruitment? Agree payment fo applicants of travel expenses to a set maximum on completion (successfully or unsuccessfully) of the recruitment process. Is a potential recruit from Galway going to make the journey to Cork for a fitness test that he or she may or may not pass when his or her dole for the week barely covers the train fare? Are we restricting the best potential candidates due to their economic circumstances?
Except in 3 of the 4 NSR locations, they are within barracks

Absolutely agree on travel expenses (but I’d say on paid on actually turning up) and/or (it may happen already) send your NS interview board (of what 4 people) to Limerick, Galway and Dublin to conduct interviews. The downside of course being a lot of people will not have seen Haulbowline before. Maybe an overnight like the cadets?



AFAIK warrants for recruit applicants were issuable at all outposts. The applicants had a basic medical and were sent on their way to Naval Base. We usually took 7/9 wks to Finally approve subject to getting Garda Clearance. They weren't finally dressed until finally approved. The educational standard would have to be Inter Certificate or better. Reservists with Service friendly employers should be called up for 6 month stints every 3 or 4 years for sea and professional training in all branches.

Fitness, Medicals and security clearance are the major things

Also not forgetting your going to have to pay your GP for the initial ok to do the fitness test

na grohmitĂ­
26th October 2018, 19:36
and without the pay and/or hands on experience where you will be working.


Except in 3 of the 4 NSR locations, they are within barracks

Absolutely agree on travel expenses (but I’d say on paid on actually turning up) and/or (it may happen already) send your NS interview board (of what 4 people) to Limerick, Galway and Dublin to conduct interviews. The downside of course being a lot of people will not have seen Haulbowline before. Maybe an overnight like the cadets?




Fitness, Medicals and security clearance are the major things

Also not forgetting your going to have to pay your GP for the initial ok to do the fitness test

Which locations do you refer? I know while Limerick is within the Barrack footprint, it is external to the Barracks itself.

DeV
26th October 2018, 20:25
Which locations do you refer? I know while Limerick is within the Barrack footprint, it is external to the Barracks itself.

Every days a school day

DUNSR - Dublin - within secure CBB
WUNSR - Waterford - RDF location outside manned barracks
CUNSR - Cork - within secure Naval Base
LUNSR - Limerick - see above

Rhodes
26th October 2018, 20:40
Any truth in rumour NSR are being invited to transfer across to NS

It was some clown in the RDF or NSR that started that on his own, wasn't authorised by or come from the Naval Service.

hptmurphy
27th October 2018, 02:02
However, any advantage the DF gets with regard to pay will be quickly followed by a reciprocal request from the rest of the civil service.

Yup if you go on a three weeker 120 miles off the west coast, be my guest,

The criteria needs to be very specific as it was fior the issuing of bond... oh ! there we go precedent already set for tax exemption....

na grohmitĂ­
27th October 2018, 02:06
Yup if you go on a three weeker 120 miles off the west coast, be my guest,

The criteria needs to be very specific as it was fior the issuing of bond... oh ! there we go precedent already set for tax exemption....

Even that has had its issues.

ancientmariner
27th October 2018, 11:14
I mean a fundamental reorganisation of the establishment of the Army and Navy.

The ships requirement is as Stephen Hawking would say calculable by proving formula. The Navy needs Base, Dockyard, and College garrisons plus 912 seagoing personnel of appropriate ranks and qualifications. Recruits and trainees of all types should be held in a separate cadre plus to the establishment.

Ships (2.25 Crews) Base + 200, Trainees 125 = 911 +200 + 125=1236. The base may need more personnel to cover Ordnance, Dockyard and Civil OPW.

ancientmariner
27th October 2018, 11:36
The ships requirement is as Stephen Hawking would say calculable by proving formula. The Navy needs Base, Dockyard, and College garrisons plus 912 seagoing personnel of appropriate ranks and qualifications. Recruits and trainees of all types should be held in a separate cadre plus to the establishment.

Ships (2.25 Crews) Base + 200, Trainees 125 = 911 +200 + 125=1236. The base may need more personnel to cover Ordnance, Dockyard and Civil OPW.

AND F. O. and his NHQ staffs. Grand total say 1250ish.

Bravo20
27th October 2018, 18:44
It was some clown in the RDF or NSR that started that on his own, wasn't authorised by or come from the Naval Service.
I think one of the papers had a quote from the DOD confirming this.

Rhodes
27th October 2018, 21:10
I think one of the papers had a quote from the DOD confirming this.

They only confirmed that NSR members were indeed contacted regarding joining the Naval Service, they didn't say who by.

popeye
27th October 2018, 21:19
The request came to the 4 NSR Commanding Officers from the Army.

DeV
28th October 2018, 01:07
The request came to the 4 NSR Commanding Officers from the Army.so outside their CoC

Rhodes
28th October 2018, 10:59
The request came to the 4 NSR Commanding Officers from the Army.

From an individual in the RDF.

Bravo20
28th October 2018, 11:23
The article had a quote from the DF Press Office confirming that the reservists had been contacted. If it was a solo run by an RDF officer they would have said that or denied that the reservists had been officially contacted. Of course this could be all fake news.

TangoSierra
30th October 2018, 10:40
They only confirmed that NSR members were indeed contacted regarding joining the Naval Service, they didn't say who by.

https://www.kildarestreet.com/wrans/?id=2018-10-24a.109&s=Defence+force#g110.q


Photo of Seán SherlockSeán Sherlock (Cork East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

96. To ask the Taoiseach and Minister for Defence if letters of invitation are being issued to Naval Service reservists to transfer to the Naval Service; and his views whether this is an appropriate method of recruitment for the Defence Forces. [44069/18]

Photo of Paul KehoePaul Kehoe (Wexford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Naval Service Reserve (NSR) is an important component of the Defence Forces and there are 125 effective personnel in the NSR (as at end August).

I am informed by the military authorities that an informal query was issued by a staff officer in the Reserve Defence Force (RDF) Directorate to ascertain if any Naval Service Reservists were interested in joining the Permanent Defence Force in the future. The military authorities has confirmed that no letters of invitation to transfer to the Naval Service from the Reserve have been issued.

The RDF has typically been a source of recruitment to the PDF and over the years people who have joined the Army Reserve or Naval Service Reserve have subsequently pursued a full time military career.

Bravo20
30th October 2018, 11:35
I can guarantee that no RDF staff officer did this without prior instruction. Good to see that plausible deniability is live and well.

TangoSierra
30th October 2018, 11:43
Or that something other than group think is trying to come up with solutions to crisis problems, yet does not go unpunished!

trellheim
30th October 2018, 13:46
It was some clown in the RDF or NSR that started that on his own, wasn't authorised by or come from the Naval Service

No AR/NSR Officer would have done this ; as B20 said its nice to see people playing the blame game.

ancientmariner
30th October 2018, 14:23
No AR/NSR Officer would have done this ; as B20 said its nice to see people playing the blame game.

I suppose all of this is a kite flying, but paltry exercise. Recruiting must be initiated in a positive fashion and try to eliminate stopgap actions. However NSR callups should be part of all NSR enlistments with a view to skilling reservists for relevant shipboard tasks. In recruiting from all sources , going forward, we must take into account that shipboard systems are requiring higher levels of comprehension to get optimum use of systems available. Through the NMCI we might need a SME module to hone skills in using modern Electronic, weapon, Navigation, Surveillance, and othe shipboard IT systems.
In Defensive systems ships need input from automatic sensors to detect, track, and engage. The whole needs skilled experienced crew which in turn needs retention of crews, otherwise we will get the P31 syndrome of bin the tough bits.

hptmurphy
30th October 2018, 22:35
Only ever heard of people transferring from NS to army

Does happen but usually in non seagoing appointments. Former editor of an Cosantoir transferred from Army to NS, I was on duty with him as his first experience as a Naval Service guard commander....

hptmurphy
30th October 2018, 22:37
I can guarantee that no RDF staff officer did this without prior instruction. Good to see that plausible deniability is live and well.


No AR/NSR Officer would have done this ;


Sounds a bit like Oliver North....so which version is correct....no one did it...or no one did it without prior instruction?

DeV
31st October 2018, 06:08
Sounds a bit like Oliver North....so which version is correct....no one did it...or no one did it without prior instruction?

Or someone did it with prior instruction and wires were crossed

Bravo20
31st October 2018, 09:02
Or the questions really was "Are any Naval Service Reservists were interested in joining the Permanent Defence Force in the future.........through the normal recruiting process?" and after it went through the ballhop machine it became "We want to transfer reservists to the PDF, do you want to do it?"

Rhodes
1st November 2018, 14:25
No AR/NSR Officer would have done this ; as B20 said its nice to see people playing the blame game.

Well, they did and it has now been officially confirmed publicly, whether you like the fact or not.

Bravo20
1st November 2018, 16:06
Nothing in the public statement did it say that the RDF Officer did it off his/he own bat. By the way neither did it say that the RDF officer asked for anything more than information on who many NSR people were interested in joining the PDF in the near future.

From those of us with experience with dealing with DFHQ/DOD/Govt Ministers, this is the most likely scenario.
Said RDF officer was tasked with conducting a discrete inquiry into who many NSR would be likely to apply for the PDF in the coming year.
This discrete inquiry was interpreted by some as NSR are going to be called up directly into the NS.
This was then publically condemned by national press, representative associations, opposition TDs.
A roll back of the original plan (which was probably nothing more than if they identified that 30 NSR were interested in the joining the PDF they could be targeted and fast tracked through the selection process but still go through the standard recruit training).
Standard denial issued.

Said RDF officer takes one for the team.

DeV
1st November 2018, 17:00
And the AdminO for the RDF Reorg did say that members of the RDF will be encouraged to join the PDF

trellheim
2nd November 2018, 12:43
Well, they did and it has now been officially confirmed publicly, whether you like the fact or not. Sorry I see the PQ answer now. I refuse to believe anyone did this off their own bat. If I'm wrong Ill own up.


And for avoidance of doubt I dont know anything about this.