Defence Forces Strength

[batterysgt]

And it just continues but they are doing their best!

[na grohmiti]

Latest numbers.

https://www.oireachtas.ie/en/debates/question/2023-10-03/115/speech/360/

As at 31 August 2023, the strength of the Permanent Defence Forces was 7,671 personnel comprised of 6,221 Army personnel, 695 Air Corps personnel and 775 Naval Service personnel.

[EUFighter]

Latest numbers.

https://www.oireachtas.ie/en/debates/question/2023-10-03/115/speech/360/

Just to put it is table form:

	Establishment	Strength	Delta	% Delta
Army	7520	6221	-1299	-17%
Air Corps	866	695	-171	-20%
Naval Service	1094	775	-319	-29%
Total	9480	7691	-1789	-19%

[na grohmiti]

Sadly, what the figures do not reflect is the amount of "key" vacancies of skilled personnel, that no amount of recruit drives will fill, unless you allow people re-enlist without losing the benefits they left with. There are quite a few former Air Corps and naval technicians and engineering officers who would re-enlist tomorrow, but they would do so under a poorer pension plan, and pension abatement would not make it economically worthwhile.
It can take up to 10 years to let existing staff gain the experience required to fill the key vacancies, there needs to be some form of short term enlistment to get us through this period.
Appointing civilian contractors to replace air corps technicians is not a viable long term solution, nor is it a cost effective one.

[GoneToTheCanner]

Sadly, what the figures do not reflect is the amount of "key" vacancies of skilled personnel, that no amount of recruit drives will fill, unless you allow people re-enlist without losing the benefits they left with. There are quite a few former Air Corps and naval technicians and engineering officers who would re-enlist tomorrow, but they would do so under a poorer pension plan, and pension abatement would not make it economically worthwhile.
It can take up to 10 years to let existing staff gain the experience required to fill the key vacancies, there needs to be some form of short term enlistment to get us through this period.
Appointing civilian contractors to replace air corps technicians is not a viable long term solution, nor is it a cost effective one.

Yet, the AC has had DoD aircraft inspectors for decades; insiders yet still technically outsiders and the Army has had civvy vehicle mechs for years. There is a chronic shortage of all types of techs across aviation, marine, pharma, medical, motor, IT and the rest, quite simply because people don't want to graft in dirty jobs anymore and the pay offered is often sub-par, compared to inexperienced degree holders. You are correct in the statement that many exers would go back in tomorrow if it wasn't for pension retrenchment or the current pension set up. The DF and DoD bureaucracy has a lot to answer for.

[DeV]

Yet, the AC has had DoD aircraft inspectors for decades; insiders yet still technically outsiders and the Army has had civvy vehicle mechs for years. There is a chronic shortage of all types of techs across aviation, marine, pharma, medical, motor, IT and the rest, quite simply because people don't want to graft in dirty jobs anymore and the pay offered is often sub-par, compared to inexperienced degree holders. You are correct in the statement that many exers would go back in tomorrow if it wasn't for pension retrenchment or the current pension set up. The DF and DoD bureaucracy has a lot to answer for.

Plus the idea of staying in a job for 5 years doesn’t appeal to many young people

[DeV]

Sadly, what the figures do not reflect is the amount of "key" vacancies of skilled personnel, that no amount of recruit drives will fill, unless you allow people re-enlist without losing the benefits they left with. There are quite a few former Air Corps and naval technicians and engineering officers who would re-enlist tomorrow, but they would do so under a poorer pension plan, and pension abatement would not make it economically worthwhile.
It can take up to 10 years to let existing staff gain the experience required to fill the key vacancies, there needs to be some form of short term enlistment to get us through this period.
Appointing civilian contractors to replace air corps technicians is not a viable long term solution, nor is it a cost effective one.

They also don’t reflect where for example there used to be 2 jobs filled now 1 is vacant. But the person filling the appointment could be on a course, on duty, resting off, on a detail, overseas, on leave etc

so 1 person is doing what is supposed to be 2 people’s job but when they aren’t there some of their taskings are going done but a third person who is already doing 2/3 other jobs

that ignores the fact of course that 15 years ago, that 2 person job had a staff of 4/5

[GoneToTheCanner]

The DF used to have a bit of fat, manpower wise, but now, it's on lean times and the manpower is scarcely enough to cope with all the demands.

[trellheim]

he DF used to have a bit of fat, manpower wise,

Added to which a much greater focus on modern interoperability standards which require a large and ongoing investment in people and time, which really sucks up the oxygen.

[EUFighter]

Plus the idea of staying in a job for 5 years doesn’t appeal to many young people

Couldn't agree more, having done many interviews over the past couple of years the most common thing I hear is "you know, I am only going to stay here for a maximum of 3 years". Not many young people I have seen want a long term job, they want to experience life (they think best in a start-up) so something with an image problem like the DFs are a put-off.

[Jaque'ammer]

Couldn't agree more, having done many interviews over the past couple of years the most common thing I hear is "you know, I am only going to stay here for a maximum of 3 years". Not many young people I have seen want a long term job, they want to experience life (they think best in a start-up) so something with an image problem like the DFs are a put-off.

My department has 3 or so people working here 5 years. I'm considered an old salt for being 1.5 years in. We hire mostly college grads or people breaking into IT. In an industry where someone can do six months at a company and start thinking about moving on, the public sector hiring practises are laughable. I was talking to a technician who was on a panel for the HSE for 9 months. Someone of his abilities in the private sector could have been hired for two companies and received three pay rises in that time. I am a big admirer of the public service but no one has ever explained to me why the PS needs so long to hire people.

[na grohmiti]

My department has 3 or so people working here 5 years. I'm considered an old salt for being 1.5 years in. We hire mostly college grads or people breaking into IT. In an industry where someone can do six months at a company and start thinking about moving on, the public sector hiring practises are laughable. I was talking to a technician who was on a panel for the HSE for 9 months. Someone of his abilities in the private sector could have been hired for two companies and received three pay rises in that time. I am a big admirer of the public service but no one has ever explained to me why the PS needs so long to hire people.

I was recently promoted within my Public sector job. The process from advertisement to interview took 12 months. The competition for the same role before that.took 2 years due to covid and I was unsuccessful because I didn't use a key phrase during the interview.
thankfully Covid has changed some of the sillier promotion practices, such as having to travel to Dublin for all stages of the process at the states expense.
hard to see anyone in the private sector willing to put their life on hold for a year or 2 while they wait for the result of a promotion Competition

[GoneToTheCanner]

My department has 3 or so people working here 5 years. I'm considered an old salt for being 1.5 years in. We hire mostly college grads or people breaking into IT. In an industry where someone can do six months at a company and start thinking about moving on, the public sector hiring practises are laughable. I was talking to a technician who was on a panel for the HSE for 9 months. Someone of his abilities in the private sector could have been hired for two companies and received three pay rises in that time. I am a big admirer of the public service but no one has ever explained to me why the PS needs so long to hire people.

Part of that hoop-jumping to get a promotion in the CS, or to even get a job in the first place, is the requirement to tolerate complaints if Applicant A doesnt get the job and Applicant B does. The DF was rife with it. Anyone could block a job/slot/post being filled if they felt that they were passed over for no good reason. In some cases, it was merely the threat of a grievance being filed that got people promoted or given a coveted slot. In other cases, it was slots being held open for mates to "apply". The DF's establishment system means that there will be infighting for positions that don't come to the surface until someone complains. The Dead Man's Shoes mentality doesnt exist in IT because of the rapid turnover.

[na grohmiti]

Part of that hoop-jumping to get a promotion in the CS, or to even get a job in the first place, is the requirement to tolerate complaints if Applicant A doesnt get the job and Applicant B does. The DF was rife with it. Anyone could block a job/slot/post being filled if they felt that they were passed over for no good reason. In some cases, it was merely the threat of a grievance being filed that got people promoted or given a coveted slot. In other cases, it was slots being held open for mates to "apply". The DF's establishment system means that there will be infighting for positions that don't come to the surface until someone complains. The Dead Man's Shoes mentality doesnt exist in IT because of the rapid turnover.

I heard of a case like this. Someone who went for promotion, was not informed of the result within 30 days of being interviewed as per t&cs, sought redress, got promoted.
Another case where 38 of 40 on a panel were promoted, before the expiry of the panel. Problem was that it was number 37 and 38 who were not promoted, and they had not been offered the vacancy taken by 37 and 38 because it was assumed as it was not their location they would not take it. When they appealed they were told nothing could be done as there was no vacancy at the location they had specified. Weeks later a very specific post at that grade was created, advertised & filled by a relative of the senior senior management. So much for "no vacancy".
The DF, and the PS, has a terrible habit of promoting people away from where they are doing no good, making them someone else's problem. The Private sector would have fired the same individual before they took a single step on the ladder.

Yet here we are. Some of the most unsuited people to the job now hold senior positions in both the DF and PS.

[CTU]

The DF, and the PS, has a terrible habit of promoting people away from where they are doing no good, making them someone else's problem. The Private sector would have fired the same individual before they took a single step on the ladder.

Yet here we are. Some of the most unsuited people to the job now hold senior positions in both the DF and PS.

Not necessarily, the same nepotism can be found in the private sector and unless the person is up for probation / contract review or has committed gross negligence, it can get very messy. I have also seen "legacy" staff who couldn't find their way out of a toilet cubical and would have no problem getting into an argument in an empty room moved side-wards and upwards........