The Future of the Army Reserve - Discuss

[ZULU]

I was putting in a long post dealing with each issue.
But this is the crux.

Gloss it what ever way you like but this is the bottom line.

Reduced cadre = reduced posts = reduced promotional opertunities.



I got a lot from my unit.
I give bact to my unit.
If I or anyone els can gain more than thats a bonus for us all

Thats a handy excuse for a statement. You've stated a case but give no supporting evidence.

The DF are under strength of the 10,000 the gov promised they would not go below. Even more if you take the 10,500 figure of establishement (or is it 11500?) there are many posts vacant for promotion and appointment at present. You have to support your statement luchi with evidence.

[DeV]

Also, in my proposed solution, I'm not trying to cut PDF numbers at all.

You are cutting establishment figures, I'd say many cadre wouldn't want to go back to operational units. But if there is a small RDF (ie reorganised), I agree with you. But I think if there is there needs to be a cadre cell in the PDF unit (if going down the intergrated only route) in order to improve training. In the short term that is.

Thats a handy excuse for a statement. You've stated a case but give no supporting evidence.

The DF are under strength of the 10,000 the gov promised they would not go below. Even more if you take the 10,500 figure of establishement (or is it 11500?) there are many posts vacant for promotion and appointment at present. You have to support your statement luchi with evidence.

Establishment is 11,500. Authorised strength was 10,500 (plus 250 in training). Authorised strength is now 10,000 (I presume).

[luchi]

Thats a handy excuse for a statement. You've stated a case but give no supporting evidence.

You said reduce cadre.

It doesn't matter if the DF is understrength now or not.

If you reduce the est strength so that the current figure is the one to be used as the "at strength" figure then you are reducing the potential for promotion.

You have stated it and given the supporting evidence and costings. All I can say is that your arguement reduces numbers. Reducing numbers is something that every rep organisation will resist regardless of any costing you might use to support such costing.

Taking it a step further if I may.

From a Joe public point of view, the DF will have 3 times as many pers sitting around doing nothing now that there is no UN missions.
So untill a new mission is on the cards every the army can be put on a 3 day week. How much would that save?
Or even make 50% redundant?

[ZULU]

Reduce/restructure. It does matter a great deal that the DF is under strength. Many psoitions are vacant in the PDF at NCO/Officer level due to retirements and other natural wastage. This provides positions for redeplyed/restructured cadre.

The natural wastage rates that I've posted would allow for a cadet class and recruitment of enlisted ranks to maintain the personnel stream

You have stated it and given the supporting evidence and costings. All I can say is that your arguement reduces numbers. Reducing numbers is something that every rep organisation will resist regardless of any costing you might use to support such costing.

Wrong. PDFORRA has stated in their policy to agree and work with DF/DoD in the redeployment and restructuring of the PDF Cadre supporting the reserve.

Its down to RACO to state this also.

[DeV]

Reduce/restructure. It does matter a great deal that the DF is under strength. Many psoitions are vacant in the PDF at NCO/Officer level due to retirements and other natural wastage. This provides positions for redeplyed/restructured cadre.

As I said ... provided they want to.... many won't (I can guarantee that)!

[ZULU]

Wrong. PDFORRA has stated in their policy to agree and work with DF/DoD in the redeployment and restructuring of the PDF Cadre supporting the reserve.

Its down to RACO to state this also.

As I said ... provided they want to.... many won't (I can guarantee that)!

Eh - Their Representative Association has said different.

[smegers]

Eh - Their Representative Association has said different.

Just because a union recommends something to its members doesn't mean the members have to accept it. I know PDFORA aren't a union but the statement still stands true.

[luchi]

Eh - Their Representative Association has said different.

Great. Soit will be so.

Just like when RDFRA said we could all just show our driving licence and get our 154 up graded. Oh yes DTpt also sait it. It never happened.

And didn't PDFORRA also say they would not allow any barrack closures??
That was shortly before Longford was closed.

And..........

Wake up will you.

[ZULU]

And didn't PDFORRA also say they would not allow any barrack closures??
That was shortly before Longford was closed.
.

This is a statement form PDFORRA, and I quote:

In particular, within the defence sector, the parties:

Deployment/Mobility of personnel

Recognising that GOCs have the power to post personnel to appointments within the Brigade, including for reasons, inter alia, SWAs, surpluses arising from barrack closures, the restructuring of the PDF Cadre supporting the reserve, and for operational requirements, etc. will cooperate in this context with the flexible deployment/redeployment of personnel.
In so far as is possible, redeployment will be based on the principles of volunteerism/expressions of interest so as to avoid the necessity for compulsory redeployment.

In the event that Government decides to close further installations, will co-operate in relation to those matters, which fall within the scope of representation, particularly redeployment and retraining of personnel.

[ZULU]

Wake up will you.

I think PDFORRA has woken up to the realities of the situation the DF face in the context of the financial pressure.

Your being presented with facts, figures and quoted statements from both Goverment, DoD and DF organisations yet you still say its not true.

I think you need to wake up.

[luchi]

How often does the government make a statement of intent that never is followed up.

Political parties make loads of promises that are never kept. So please don't now try and shove this at me.

I am not saying that, at the time of making the statement, they don't believe in it. I am saying it is a dynamic situation.

You are ignoring ther line about operational requirements.

In the event that Government decides to close further installations, will co-operate in relation to those matters, which fall within the scope of representation, particularly redeployment and retraining of personnel.

And this in no way gives a cart blanc promise of co-operation.
THere is a range of matters out side the scope of PDFORRA.

What is their primary role?

Is it to enhance the government coffers by reducing the cost basis of the service?
or
To ensure the best for its members?

I see nowhere in the quote that they will co-operate with the reduction in the established strength.

[ZULU]

You are ignoring ther line about operational requirements.

Eh. No I'm not. I quoted it. What operational requirements do 420 Cadre have for 3,500 reservists (or 6304 if you want the effective/noneffective figure) when the FTT is down to 7 days and recruitment is only at 107 for the entire reserve this year?


PDFORRAs statements are a reflection of the views and expressions of its members. Its a democratic organisation where they vot and majority rules.

I see nowhere in the quote that they will co-operate with the reduction in the established strength.

What the hell are you on about?

I'm not cutting established strength of the DF at all. The government is committed to a strength figure of 10,000. The Establishment figure is 11,500.

I'm proposing a redeployment/restructuring of Cadre.

Jesus H Christ - your frustrating to discuss with. That or your just doing it to shite stir.

[Goldie fish]

Deep breaths Zulu. Deep breaths.

[luchi]

ok lets try this again

You have clearly stated that you wish to move those that are SWA to posts that are empty.

Once those SWA "posts" are vacated they will no longer exist.

Hence there will be no need to fill them.

Hence you have reduced the number of available posts by that number.

So since one or two of those posts might be Lt Col posts you are reduving the potential for promotion to that rank and consequentially reducing the potentian for promotion of the lower ranks.

The same applies to redeploying NCOs. Remove the need for an RDF unit to have a PDF CQ then you reduce the overall number of CQs needed. Consequentially you reduce the number of Sgts, Cpls and Ptes required.

Now after all these numbers are reduced you reach a number less than what you started. That in any langage is a reduction.

The fact that the DF is understrength is not relevant. Your "restructuring" would serve to establish this understrength as the actual strength and so reduce recruiting potential.

The DF can argue there are 70 officer vacancies. If you redeploy 50 that are SWA then there is no justification or urgency to recruit more officers. Efectively reducing the officer corps by at least 1 recruit intake.

But you don't accept this. Like Mary Harney, you say we can spend less to get more even when the numbers show otherwise.

Sh1t stirring is pointless. You just throw out facts and make them fit your oun goal. You refuse to look past that and look from the other side. The gov is committed to 10,000, established is 11,500. You are perfectly able to argue how to reduce the numbers but refuse to fight to keep them. That is what I think the rep organisations will or should try to do. Even if the DF is understrength now as long as the Gov doesn't get to change the est strength the army can bulid in the future. Ifr they do succeed in the reduction then those ranks are lost for ever.

[The Prisoner]

Now, now boys and girls. Temper, temper.

In today's climate redeployment/restructuring = cuts. Period. Be careful what you wish for.

Last week while the politicans were voting confidence/no confidence or whatever they were at, Brian Lenihan stood up in the Dail, with 2 or 3 TDs present and stated that by 2014, on the current figures, that 20% of all tax revenue will be for servicing the national debt ie just paying the interest, never mind the original sum borrowed. And that this interest payment would have priority over all other items, ie health, education, salaries, etc, etc. So the gov will pay the interst bill first and then see what's left over. Just wait and see the cuts that this will bring.

Cutbacks will be too small a word to describe what's coming down the line.

So you can argue back and forth all day long about FFT, cadre, op strenght, establisment strenght, bla, bla, bla because based on the above there are major cuts coming. By that I mean the entire PDF could be cut in half or more. A two bde army may look like wishful thinking. More like a one bde army in a hanful of locations.