Thanks Thanks:  31
Likes Likes:  40
Dislikes Dislikes:  3
Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234
Results 76 to 98 of 98
  1. #76
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    20,532
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by na grohmití View Post
    My understanding is, and I am open to correction, is that the ssc lapses before completion of time as OUT. If you make the grade, you sign a new commitment to x years. If not, byeee.
    My point is if they are successful they don’t have to sign a new contract
    Last edited by DeV; 29th January 2018 at 05:12.

  2. #77
    Commander in Chief hptmurphy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    13,391
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by ancientmariner View Post
    In all Naval services that use Short Service Commissions, the candidates come in qualified as a Watchkeeper or as a Certified Marine Engineer. The idea was buy expertise and fortify it with sufficient Naval training so that he/she could become a useful Naval Officer.
    Equally officers of these types could be attracted from shipping companies as part of Naval Reserve by giving them 6 months intensive training on shore and at sea. They would then return to their companies and be available by signed agreement to return to duty on call-up protocol.
    Many more serving NCO's and Ratings should be put into a commissioning stream and be given the necessary skills to succeed to all levels.
    The degree education introduction for YO's had to delay useful use of officers, as obtaining the degree had to be successfully concluded. There is no point at this time unpicking an accepted/required Modus Operandi.
    I understand the theory and the expectations but from reading here it would seem that someone has introduced a short service commission with considering the obvious.
    Time for another break I think......

  3. #78
    Commander in Chief hptmurphy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    13,391
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by DeV View Post
    My point is if they are successful they don’t have to sign a new contract
    It should be contractual regardless of qualifying or not.
    Time for another break I think......

  4. #79
    Major General
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    3,751
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by DeV View Post
    My point is if they are successful they don’t have to sign a new contract
    I do not believe that to be the case.
    German 1: Private Schnutz, I have bad news for you.
    German 2: Private? I am a general!
    German 1: That is the bad news.

  5. #80
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    20,532
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by hptmurphy View Post
    It should be contractual regardless of qualifying or not.
    ????

    My point is the DF is paying people (and expending already scarce resources) to do:
    A cadetship
    A level 7 degree
    A level 8 degree
    A NWC

    All over 5 years, at the stage where they can actually do the job, they don’t have to stay.

    If you do a 4 year degree with the army under the USAC scheme, my understanding is that you have to do a minimum of 8 years commissioned service (1 year service for every year in college).

  6. #81
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    20,532
    Post Thanks / Like
    http://www.military.ie/fileadmin/use..._Comp_2017.pdf

    They may have to be is 100% clear

    But a NS officer can only be offered an extension from a SSC (to a normal one) if they pass their exams, meet criteria, are recommended etc
    Last edited by DeV; 29th January 2018 at 17:17.

  7. #82
    Commander in Chief hptmurphy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    13,391
    Post Thanks / Like
    My point is the DF is paying people (and expending already scarce resources) to do:
    A cadetship
    A level 7 degree
    A level 8 degree
    A NWC

    All over 5 years, at the stage where they can actually do the job, they don’t have to stay.
    But with each module there should be a contract extension and there shouldn't be a voluntary opt out anything short of two years after qualification. There is no reason why a NWC couldn't be achieved concurrently with another qualification and given its a primary qualification it should be given priority..

    There is absolutely no point in having naval officers who after 4years of service can't stand a watch!
    Time for another break I think......

  8. Thanks DeV thanked for this post
  9. #83
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    20,532
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by hptmurphy View Post
    But with each module there should be a contract extension and there shouldn't be a voluntary opt out anything short of two years after qualification. There is no reason why a NWC couldn't be achieved concurrently with another qualification and given its a primary qualification it should be given priority..

    There is absolutely no point in having naval officers who after 4years of service can't stand a watch!

    Don’t shoot the messenger

    The point is there isn’t any

    I contend that that could well be part of the cause of the low numbers of S/Lt and Ensigns. People are getting all the training and then leaving as they are actually facilitated in doing so.

    I could be completely wrong in this but that would appear to be what the documentation is saying

  10. #84
    Major General
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    3,751
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by DeV View Post
    Don’t shoot the messenger

    The point is there isn’t any

    I contend that that could well be part of the cause of the low numbers of S/Lt and Ensigns. People are getting all the training and then leaving as they are actually facilitated in doing so.

    I could be completely wrong in this but that would appear to be what the documentation is saying
    That is not my information.
    Quite a number of Sub Lts who were qualified have left the NS in recent years, mostly because multinationals like ALDI etc will offer them double their wage plus company car to bring the work ethic they picked up in the DF to the private sector.
    My informaton is the new pay rate was enough to cover what they had to pay to resign their commission.
    German 1: Private Schnutz, I have bad news for you.
    German 2: Private? I am a general!
    German 1: That is the bad news.

  11. Likes DeV liked this post
  12. #85
    2/Lt
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    1,078
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by na grohmití View Post
    That is not my information.
    Quite a number of Sub Lts who were qualified have left the NS in recent years, mostly because multinationals like ALDI etc will offer them double their wage plus company car to bring the work ethic they picked up in the DF to the private sector.
    My informaton is the new pay rate was enough to cover what they had to pay to resign their commission.
    Early leavers are always a problem. It seems despite professional interviews and assessments there is still quite a culture shock for those not traditionally aware of the additional responsibilities of Naval personnel such as running accounts, and owning losses created. Running messes , functions, and the associated accounts. Being responsible for training, discipline, and advancement of divisional personnel . They come looking for a job and find it is not just running a ship. Perhaps discharge or resignation of early leavers should be set by quota and subject to application in advance.

  13. Thanks DeV, DaithiDub thanked for this post
    Likes DeV liked this post
  14. #86
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    20,532
    Post Thanks / Like
    Over 30 NS personnel have applied for discharge in the last month (you’d assume other ranks)

    https://www.irishexaminer.com/irelan...us-466473.html
    Last edited by DeV; 30th January 2018 at 17:18.

  15. #87
    CQMS Dogwatch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    772
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by ancientmariner View Post
    Early leavers are always a problem. It seems despite professional interviews and assessments there is still quite a culture shock for those not traditionally aware of the additional responsibilities of Naval personnel such as running accounts, and owning losses created. Running messes , functions, and the associated accounts. Being responsible for training, discipline, and advancement of divisional personnel . They come looking for a job and find it is not just running a ship. Perhaps discharge or resignation of early leavers should be set by quota and subject to application in advance.
    Its nothing to do with willingness or ability to run accounts and additional taskings. They have all left to earn more money and some were driven out by very poor leadership. They would have all signed forms of undertaking (contracts) the same as army officers attending USAC or other 3rd level institutions. Also, the new entrants all have very poor pension rights, so there is no incentive to stay to 12years or 20 years. Post 2004 entrants are entitled to a 30yr pension, the details of which still have not been confirmed by DPER. Only one NS officer has gone to Aldi, the majority have gone to offshore oil and gas industry, cruise liners, superyachts, other nautical colleges in Europe and other maritime administrations.

  16. Thanks DeV, hptmurphy thanked for this post
    Likes DeV, GoneToTheCanner liked this post
  17. #88
    2/Lt
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    1,078
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Dogwatch View Post
    Its nothing to do with willingness or ability to run accounts and additional taskings. They have all left to earn more money and some were driven out by very poor leadership. They would have all signed forms of undertaking (contracts) the same as army officers attending USAC or other 3rd level institutions. Also, the new entrants all have very poor pension rights, so there is no incentive to stay to 12years or 20 years. Post 2004 entrants are entitled to a 30yr pension, the details of which still have not been confirmed by DPER. Only one NS officer has gone to Aldi, the majority have gone to offshore oil and gas industry, cruise liners, superyachts, other nautical colleges in Europe and other maritime administrations.
    I am angry that a short term national financial glitch would be steered by the civilian mandarins to permanently destroy future pension rights of members of the PDF. They cut our current pensions, have penny packeted restoration , looked after themselves and the masters, and now a 30 year Pension?
    A new entrant aged 20 would now have to hold on to age 50 for a full pension and would be unlikely to gain new employment at the more advanced age. The question is why was such measures accepted as permanent in a financial climate that is stuffed with money?

  18. Thanks DaithiDub thanked for this post
    Likes DaithiDub liked this post
  19. #89
    Commander in Chief hptmurphy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    13,391
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by ancientmariner View Post
    Early leavers are always a problem. It seems despite professional interviews and assessments there is still quite a culture shock for those not traditionally aware of the additional responsibilities of Naval personnel such as running accounts, and owning losses created. Running messes , functions, and the associated accounts. Being responsible for training, discipline, and advancement of divisional personnel . They come looking for a job and find it is not just running a ship. Perhaps discharge or resignation of early leavers should be set by quota and subject to application in advance.
    Thats management in the real world. My job spec certainly didn't mention half of what I actually do, but its what makes the job!

    Yes the financial rewards have dwindled in the past few years but again its across the public service and very few have the qualifications to be able to start all over again, the whole pension thing needs changing as the whole public sector pension thing needs to be addressed , the concept of service as opposed to contribution is no longer viable given people are living longer and the government can no longer pay pensions based on the levels of contributions people make. The fixed payment pension needs to be got rid of and people need to contribute more to their own pension if they want the money on retirement.

    Poor management is very evident in all aspects of the DF, An Garda Siochana and Public service in general with people holding posts they fell into in better times when no one else was available to take them.

    People have been promoted beyond their abilities and will now hold key posts up to the day they retire.One could spend a day on Linkedin looking at all the retired naval officers who hold good jobs in civvy street.. why.. ?.. Because they were good and could move on.

    If we are going to training people to such a standard where they are highly sought out side of the NS, then we need to train more and pay they better to increase retention, simple as..
    Time for another break I think......

  20. Thanks Turkey thanked for this post
    Likes DeV liked this post
  21. #90
    CQMS Dogwatch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    772
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by ancientmariner View Post
    I am angry that a short term national financial glitch would be steered by the civilian mandarins to permanently destroy future pension rights of members of the PDF. They cut our current pensions, have penny packeted restoration , looked after themselves and the masters, and now a 30 year Pension?
    A new entrant aged 20 would now have to hold on to age 50 for a full pension and would be unlikely to gain new employment at the more advanced age. The question is why was such measures accepted as permanent in a financial climate that is stuffed with money?
    And it is doubtful that they would be entitled to draw down on his pension until the retirement age of the rank, all NCOs 60, Lt 54, Lt Cdr 56, Cdr 58, so there is a gap where personnel may not have a pension and (due to their age profile) may not be readily employable.

  22. #91
    Sergeant
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Posts
    82
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by hptmurphy View Post
    the whole pension thing needs changing as the whole public sector pension thing needs to be addressed , the concept of service as opposed to contribution is no longer viable given people are living longer and the government can no longer pay pensions based on the levels of contributions people make. The fixed payment pension needs to be got rid of and people need to contribute more to their own pension if they want the money on retirement.
    Not so fast. In an age where there's massive tax avoidance by corporations and wealthy individuals, and wages decoupled from increasing in line with productivity (from Thatcherism and Reaganism) from the 80s onwards, going after ordinary joe soaps' pensions is just theft. And those among the retired mandarin and politician class who are most vocal on it should really give up their own pensions first, or at least forego them while they enjoy all those lucrative private sector rewards (as used to be the case until the 60s, I think. Good old Lemass, eh?).
    Last edited by DaithiDub; 9th February 2018 at 23:40.

  23. #92
    Lord Chief Bottlewasher trellheim's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Cathal Brugha
    Posts
    9,379
    Post Thanks / Like
    It should be remembered that private sector pensions were heavily punished these last few years with a levy that FF/FG brought in post crash, and only recently removed; this has killed several years earnings for many.
    "Are they trying to shoot down the other drone? "

    "No, they're trying to fly the tank"

  24. Thanks DeV, na grohmití thanked for this post
    Likes DeV liked this post
  25. #93
    Sergeant
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Posts
    82
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by trellheim View Post
    It should be remembered that private sector pensions were heavily punished these last few years with a levy that FF/FG brought in post crash, and only recently removed; this has killed several years earnings for many.
    'Private sector pensions' have themselves become little more than a way for execs to avoid taxes, and a pot for companies to raid. Short-sighted beggar-my-neighbour attitudes do nothing to help out PAYE workers, like most of us here. And we know from experience that all pension pots, public or private, are liable to be seized for the bankers or whoever happens along.

    Accepting the crocodile tears over 'affordability' is a chump's game in any case - there's nothing to stop them taking the money anyway. The emphasis should be on consequences for breaking pension commitments.
    Last edited by DaithiDub; 10th February 2018 at 18:12.

  26. Dislikes DeV, Shaqra disliked this post
  27. #94
    Commander in Chief hptmurphy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    13,391
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by DaithiDub View Post
    'Private sector pensions' have themselves become little more than a way for execs to avoid taxes, and a pot for companies to raid. Short-sighted beggar-my-neighbour attitudes do nothing to help out PAYE workers, like most of us here. And we know from experience that all pension pots, public or private, are liable to be seized for the bankers or whoever happens along.

    Accepting the crocodile tears over 'affordability' is a chump's game in any case - there's nothing to stop them taking the money anyway. The emphasis should be on consequences for breaking pension commitments.
    There is this misconception that there is a 'public service pot'... there isn't.

    The budgets allocated to the various departments pay wages , salaries and pensions! My pension contribution is actually paying some retired persons weekly income at the moment as will some else pay mine when I retire.

    There is nothing to guarantee that I will get back what I contributed or even that there will be a service pension on my retirement, but I have no option but to pay into it...and pay a further tax on that contribution , just because I have a pension.

    I will retire with 25 years or so public service, but my weekly pension receipt will be less than that which I contributed, and thats not even taking my pension levy into account.

    For early entrants spending a full reckonable service, in the case of the public service this would be 40 years, the pension is adequate reflection of the amount paid in, but any thing less than full service, the payout decreases rapidly even though I pay the same on a weekly basis.

    The origins of public service pensions was sound enough as persons weren't entitled to the state old age pension, after 1982 this changed with new entrants to the public service being required to pay a full stamp and changed their pension contributions.

    I would be far better off if I were to invest that amount I pay into my public service pension and levy into a private pension , on retirement, but I can't.

    I'll retire at 66, no choice and if I live another 15 years, I'll be Joe Average, but the state will have ripped me off to the tune of 8 years payments!

    So IMHO, public service pensions need to be changed.
    Time for another break I think......

  28. Thanks na grohmití thanked for this post
  29. #95
    Sergeant
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Posts
    82
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by hptmurphy View Post
    There is this misconception that there is a 'public service pot'... there isn't.
    Untrue. There was an NPRF, designed to cover future pension provision, which was plundered at the first need of the government of the day (in this case, to bail out private banks). The US experience shows how signing up to concern-trolling about the 'viability' of pensions decades in the future is a scam, and the target will always be moved. The real aim is to do away with it entirely.

    The budgets allocated to the various departments pay wages , salaries and pensions! My pension contribution is actually paying some retired persons weekly income at the moment as will some else pay mine when I retire.
    Yes. I'm familiar with how it's set up.

    There is nothing to guarantee that I will get back what I contributed or even that there will be a service pension on my retirement, but I have no option but to pay into it...and pay a further tax on that contribution , just because I have a pension.

    I will retire with 25 years or so public service, but my weekly pension receipt will be less than that which I contributed, and thats not even taking my pension levy into account.

    For early entrants spending a full reckonable service, in the case of the public service this would be 40 years, the pension is adequate reflection of the amount paid in, but any thing less than full service, the payout decreases rapidly even though I pay the same on a weekly basis.

    The origins of public service pensions was sound enough as persons weren't entitled to the state old age pension, after 1982 this changed with new entrants to the public service being required to pay a full stamp and changed their pension contributions.
    Not the whole picture here. Pre-1982 entrants are able to build up stamp to get the State pension on top of their public sector pensions. Someone I know, entitled to the thirty-year pension, has just done this - and perfectly legal.

    I would be far better off if I were to invest that amount I pay into my public service pension and levy into a private pension , on retirement, but I can't.
    If you really believe that paying into the private pension industry is a better option, then we've nothing to say to each other here.

    I'll retire at 66, no choice and if I live another 15 years, I'll be Joe Average, but the state will have ripped me off to the tune of 8 years payments!

    So IMHO, public service pensions need to be changed.
    If you're saying that discrepancies within the public sector pensions (not least with the new State pension ages) need to be fixed to the benefit of the PAYE punter, then I've no problem with that. But people who buy into the disaster model being promoted of pension provision in general are being fooled (and it needs to be emphasised that the private sector/free market types have several direct financial interests in promoting this). There is always money in the State's kitty, if there's a political will. NAMA has proven that.

  30. #96
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    20,532
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by DaithiDub View Post
    There is always money in the State's kitty, if there's a political will. NAMA has proven that.
    Only if your willing to pay more tax, cut public services massively and borrow heavily

  31. Likes hptmurphy liked this post
  32. #97
    Lord Chief Bottlewasher trellheim's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Cathal Brugha
    Posts
    9,379
    Post Thanks / Like
    Much as this is an interesting sideline, its not on-topic. Start another thread if you wish to discuss pensions, public and private.
    "Are they trying to shoot down the other drone? "

    "No, they're trying to fly the tank"

  33. Thanks na grohmití, DaithiDub thanked for this post
  34. #98
    Sergeant
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Posts
    82
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by DeV View Post
    Only if your willing to pay more tax, cut public services massively and borrow heavily
    As we indeed are for the 'cheapest bank bailout in history'. If the money can be found to pay off the mega-rich, it can be found for ordinary pensioners. In any case, off-topic as Trellheim says.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •