Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Establishment versus reality.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #76
    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; 29 January 2018, 06:12.

    Comment


    • #77
      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.
      Covid 19 is not over ....it's still very real..Hand Hygiene, Social Distancing and Masks.. keep safe

      Comment


      • #78
        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.
        Covid 19 is not over ....it's still very real..Hand Hygiene, Social Distancing and Masks.. keep safe

        Comment


        • #79
          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.
          For now, everything hangs on implementation of the CoDF report.

          Comment


          • #80
            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).

            Comment


            • #81


              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; 29 January 2018, 18:17.

              Comment


              • #82
                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!
                Covid 19 is not over ....it's still very real..Hand Hygiene, Social Distancing and Masks.. keep safe

                Comment


                • #83
                  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

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    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.
                    For now, everything hangs on implementation of the CoDF report.

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      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.

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        Over 30 NS personnel have applied for discharge in the last month (you’d assume other ranks)

                        More than 30 members of the naval service have asked to apply for discharge from the force in the past month, which has been described as “unprecedented” and “worrying” by their representative organisation.
                        Last edited by DeV; 30 January 2018, 18:18.

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          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.

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            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?

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              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..
                              Covid 19 is not over ....it's still very real..Hand Hygiene, Social Distancing and Masks.. keep safe

                              Comment


                              • #90
                                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.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X