Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

RDFRA & "Working Relationships" with Military Authorities

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

  • RDFRA & "Working Relationships" with Military Authorities

    RDFRA Presidents Christmas Message

    From
    http://www.rdfra.ie/index.shtml
    2008 has been a busy and challenging year for RDFRA and the Reserve as a whole. Over the past year the General Secretary, National Executive, Brigade Committees and I, have worked hard to build and maintain working relationships with the Military Authorities at all levels in DOD and at Formation level.........None of us want to see the return of the "one week period of full time training" as was the case in the 1980's. In consultation with Military Authorities we have been assured that this will not be the case, as this would be such a backward step.
    I left out a lot of what was said as I want to focus on a particular point.

    Given the debacle over the Gratuity issue, how can any relationship with the Military Authorities or the Dept. of Defence be seen to have been "Built & Working"???? How can assurances from the Military Authorities be worth even discussing given their track record?
    Has RDFRA lost touch with its members and, dare I say, REALITY???

    The DoD & MA have shown that they have little or no respect for RDFRA and treat RDFRA almost like a school child being dictated to by the teacher. Why isn't RDFRA taking a much tougher line with the DoD & MA, refusing to be their lapdog. Why is RDFRA continuing ahead as if nothing is happening knowing that their inaction will encourage further condescending attitudes from the DoD & MA?

    The General Secretary says
    Finally I wish to thank all of those I have had the pleasure of meeting and working with in 2008 in the Department of Defence, Directorate of Reserve Forces.....
    The MA & DoD treat RDFRA representatives like a pack of fools..... why the Hell is RDFRA being so civil in return. I would be blasting them at every opportunity, letting TDs know the lies that WOD is peddling, insisting that the DoD & MA signed legal assurances before even going any further in discussions.

    RDFRA are being treated like a pack of fools. Unfortunately they seem to have started acting like such.
    Last edited by Docman; 8 January 2009, 04:39.

  • #2
    Simple as protocol.

    You don't stand up in a public place and slate the boss when he is your life line to recognition.

    Its not beyond the ministers remit to withdraw recognition for RDFRA and in doing so RDFRA lose their place at the table.

    It has become apperent that the DOD don't want a reserve and especially RDFRA what ever has been thrown as crumbs for the table and said to the contrary is mere lip service both to the RDF and RDFRA.

    IMHO the DOD , the minister and the Departmant of finance would wish the organisations would just go away, as a result RDFRA tend to eat humble pie, kiss some ass just to exist.

    Whats the alternative?

    If the RDFRA# were to vanish the minister could do as he wishes.

    If the RDF were to withdraw services the whole lot of them would be ecstatic... just keeping the PR thing going for now..thats all.

    I don't see any change in the future as I reckon both RDFRA and the RDF realise they are treading on thin ice.
    Covid 19 is not over ....it's still very real..Hand Hygiene, Social Distancing and Masks.. keep safe

    Comment


    • #3
      Well I am of the opinion that it is time to call the whole thing off. Either stand up and be counted or just disband. Die with dignity or live in the dirt.

      As for the RDF folding, maybe it is finally time for that too.

      The old President of RDFRA, Gerry Enright, had little problem in confronting the Minister and did achieve some results. I remember him stating clearly that it was time for the DoD to get serious about the Army Reserve or to let us all go home.
      Last edited by Docman; 16 December 2008, 00:53.

      Comment


      • #4
        I also agree with both of those sentiments. we can only piss against the wind for so long.

        Comment


        • #5
          I agree with disbanding the RDFRA but for the RDF to disband itself would be classed as mutiny in that a large group would have to be prepared to congregate to organise the disestablishment while still under military law..I wouldn't want to be leading that party.

          Unless Rdfra were to put it forward as a motion and have the DOD and the DF's approval to do so.
          Covid 19 is not over ....it's still very real..Hand Hygiene, Social Distancing and Masks.. keep safe

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by hptmurphy View Post
            I agree with disbanding the RDFRA but for the RDF to disband itself would be classed as mutiny in that a large group would have to be prepared to congregate to organise the disestablishment while still under military law..I wouldn't want to be leading that party.

            Unless Rdfra were to put it forward as a motion and have the DOD and the DF's approval to do so.
            Maybe it is time for RDFRA to pack it in.

            I foresee similar motions being sent to next years BDC for consideration. I also foresee it being defeated.
            Last edited by Docman; 1 January 2009, 15:58.

            Comment


            • #7
              How about a reserve element of PDFORRA, given thaey seem to have far more clout?
              Covid 19 is not over ....it's still very real..Hand Hygiene, Social Distancing and Masks.. keep safe

              Comment


              • #8
                It is my firm opinion that there has been a concerted effort to constructively dismiss the RDF. It is clear that WOD has no time for us, unless it involves us padding out his Limerick Paddys Day parade. I have heard too many stories in the last year of people getting crapped on from on high. Sadly those people are the same ones who held the units together. It all started, in my opinion, with the Reorg.

                In these tough financial times, all the beancounters see in the Defence forces is what quantifiable return they provide. The RDF can provide none, and has not been given the opportunity to, apart from being thrown the bone of future overseas service sometime in the future.

                As for the RDFRA, I have seen the same happening with my own union at work. The Government know we would not have the backing of the public should we decide to protest in some way, as there has been a determined effort to paint us all as "overpaid, overweight and underworked", So, when big decisions are being made, the union can only tell us, "we have to accept what the Government offer, or face attempting a renegotiation we won't get because of our small size".

                You can only talk to the wall for so long before you lose your voice.


                Catch-22 says they have a right to do anything we can't stop them from doing.

                Comment


                • #9
                  And to expand on this thread, here is a poll

                  http://forum.irishmilitaryonline.com...ad.php?t=14212

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by hptmurphy View Post
                    How about a reserve element of PDFORRA, given thaey seem to have far more clout?
                    PDFORRA & RACO want nothing to do with RDFRA as is.

                    Not sure if it has changed but the position of PDFORRA regarding reservists going overseas was that it shouldn't happen!

                    PDFORRA have more clout because they are more vocal & more members (AFAIK).

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      I have to agree with you all.

                      In our unit RDFRA is seen as being the annoying dog of the DF. If we keep barking then eventualy we will get a bone or two.
                      No one wants to be the rep and I bet our unit is not unique in that.

                      PDFORRA has said openly that they will not represent reservists in the past. This may change with further intergration and if, as it appears, the RDF becomes the Part-time PDF.

                      But for now. If the barking dog just goes away that would be the end of any hope of further improvements. The old "sure no one ever told us" line can be used once again.
                      It is time the dog should grow balls though.
                      Politicianc, DOD and MA constantly break promises.
                      Its time that those in the RDFRA that have take on the task of gaining these promises became more focused and followed through.

                      At the BDC there should be focused aims. Not just a wish list of ideas.
                      Without supplies no army is brave.

                      —Frederick the Great,

                      Instructions to his Generals, 1747

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        originally posted by luchi;
                        No one wants to be the rep and I bet our unit is not unique in that.
                        You are not unique there. No-one wants to be the rep in my sub-unit either (so Docman it obviously doesn't pay that well)

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by luchi View Post
                          At the BDC there should be focused aims. Not just a wish list of ideas.
                          There is - the motions!

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Having been thrown the scraps from the Dfs table for too long will the associationever have enought teeth to be a viable force than just avoice in the wilderness.

                            Obviously PDFORRA and RACo see the RDFRA as a non entity why should the DOD or the minister see it any differentas these bodies are advised by the DF.

                            I think the RDFRA needs to 're invent' itself but it is only the members can do this.

                            If the members are loosing faith in the organisation , where does it stand?

                            In the current climate where cutbacks all round are the norm, RDFRA and the RDF are the bottom of the food chain how long therefore can either organisation continue to exist when members are being taxed out of the job and those who attempt to secure their living standards outside of the RDF by working longer hours and potentially being made non effective.

                            I agree with GF on the ' constructive Dismissal case' in that all PAYE workers will taxed out of a job or failing that will be made non effective by default.

                            This was an agenda that was never adressed by the RDFRA and is taking place by stealth and nobody is in a position to alter the potential out come.
                            Covid 19 is not over ....it's still very real..Hand Hygiene, Social Distancing and Masks.. keep safe

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by DeV View Post
                              There is - the motions!
                              I have to dis agree.
                              The motions are a wish list in so far as they are disjointed.
                              Each little group looking for their own piece of the pie.

                              Ther is no coherent if we do x it will improve the lot for the greatest number of people.
                              Or if we do y it will then lead to z.

                              There are too many motions to make it meaningful.

                              A motion to have the MA set up the required testing boards to assess the level and usefulness of civvilian skills within a defined period of time.

                              Is meaningfull as the MA is then comitting to doing something.

                              Whereas the motion requiring the DF to recognise civvi driving licences is/was meaning less because 1. They do recognise civvi licences (they have no choice), 2. as an organisation they are obliged to ensure that people holding the licence can do the job and 3. as an organisation they are entitled to stipulate any reasonable conditions on the use of the vehicles.
                              End result the MA and RDFRA were able to announce the achievement of this aim. Still no extra HGV or minibus drivers but the aim of the motion was achieved. meaninglessly.

                              Motions must be more focused on getting the job done. Yes those tasked with getting the job done may have to take it in stages but the job is not done until the aim of the motion has been achieved.
                              Last edited by luchi; 16 December 2008, 13:58.
                              Without supplies no army is brave.

                              —Frederick the Great,

                              Instructions to his Generals, 1747

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X