Wrong end of the stick

[RAENORTH]

As a not infrequent commentator on the state of the Ministry of Defence, it might be thought that I would welcome the considerable media scrutiny to which this lacklustre department is being exposed. However, the current focus on the bonus issue does nothing but fill one with despair, as the media chases after the wrong issue, firmly grabbing the wrong end of the stick.

View full article here

[Meridian01]

Some background reading on the MoD Civil Service issues

http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2009/11/t ... nus-story/
http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2009/10/s ... -servants/

plus a list of PFI's that conspire to push headcount down

http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2009/10/t ... -pfi-list/


The issue with MoD civilian numbers is they have taken a long term approach of civilianising posts, so a civilian blanket stacker not a military one whch will save a fortune. Unfortunately they then outsource that post to an outsource provider by a PFI so whilst headcount gos through the floor the costs go the other way!

[GallimaufryandChips]

In the parts of the Civil Service in which I worked, performance pay and bonuses were awarded disproportionately to the higher pay grades, indeed they were virtually automatic for engineers in order to lessen the differential with private sector companies that worked designing, building and maintaining motorways for example.
Regarding civil servants maintaining tanks, driving artics etc, I understand that many non-uniformed posts in the MoD are conditional on becoming a temporary soldier in the event of war. Why this government maintains the myth of Afghanistan being a low level colonial police operation is beyond me.
The surplus of top brass was identified by Professor Parkinson in his various writings fifty-odd years ago. There needs to be a cull but experience shows that the best qualified would be lost along with the worst leaving a mediocre core that maintains the safe, unimaginative ethos of the organisation.

[RAENORTH]

Some background reading on the MoD Civil Service issues

http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2009/11/t ... nus-story/
http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2009/10/s ... -servants/

plus a list of PFI's that conspire to push headcount down

http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2009/10/t ... -pfi-list/


The issue with MoD civilian numbers is they have taken a long term approach of civilianising posts, so a civilian blanket stacker not a military one whch will save a fortune. Unfortunately they then outsource that post to an outsource provider by a PFI so whilst headcount gos through the floor the costs go the other way!

Thanks ... I've amended the post to add a link to your first piece.

G&C - yes ... the big earners get the big bonuses, and the little people get screwed, as always. This whole issue - as represented by the media - is a crock. For sure, we all like to bash the civil service, but this is baby and bathwater. There are a lot of hard-working, dedicated people in the MoD who get very little reward for what they do.

[Subrosa]

'There needs to be a cull but experience shows that the best qualified would be lost along with the worst leaving a mediocre core that maintains the safe, unimaginative ethos of the organisation.'

That comment says it all really. Governments over recent years have tried to halt the early departures of high flying officers who could only progress under the 'dead mens' shoes' system and now they've acquired a top brass consisting of those of many abilities.

The problem the narrow-minded have is that everyone deserves promotion because of length of service. With some that's a 'given' still today.

Many lifetimes ago I experienced the top-loaded Navy with its surplus of Admirals who lunched tri-monthly in their offices at Whitehall (the lunch was shipped over from NAAFI HQ in Kensington). Delightfully courteous and entertaining company they are were, but my confusion arose when I enquired which bases they commanded. Because I was young I didn't quite understand how quickly the conversation turned to other matters. It took me a few years to realise these most of these old (well my age now), beautifully mannered gentlemen really were figureheads.

Someone said to me I'd rather me an officer than a hero. I can understand why. A hero seldom has the ability to talk.

[RAENORTH]

'There needs to be a cull but experience shows that the best qualified would be lost along with the worst leaving a mediocre core that maintains the safe, unimaginative ethos of the organisation.'

That comment says it all really. Governments over recent years have tried to halt the early departures of high flying officers who could only progress under the 'dead mens' shoes' system and now they've acquired a top brass consisting of those of many abilities.

The problem the narrow-minded have is that everyone deserves promotion because of length of service. With some that's a 'given' still today.

Many lifetimes ago I experienced the top-loaded Navy with its surplus of Admirals who lunched tri-monthly in their offices at Whitehall (the lunch was shipped over from NAAFI HQ in Kensington). Delightfully courteous and entertaining company they are were, but my confusion arose when I enquired which bases they commanded. Because I was young I didn't quite understand how quickly the conversation turned to other matters. It took me a few years to realise these most of these old (well my age now), beautifully mannered gentlemen really were figureheads.

Someone said to me I'd rather me an officer than a hero. I can understand why. A hero seldom has the ability to talk.

The problem - or part of it - I am told, is our participation in so many international groups (NATO, EU, etc) where our "brass" must be of equal rank to their brass. Thus, if you have a two-star committee, we must have a two star to send there. However, whatever happened to "acting up". In earlier days, an officer would be promoted to an acting rank to fulfil a particular position (paid or unpaid) and then revert to his original gazetted rank when the job was over. This even applied to field commands, where a Brigadier, given temporary charge of a Division, would be bumped up to Maj-Gen, and then revert once out of the field.

[Demetrius]

According to Eisenhower's report on the Allied Expeditionary Force of July 1945 at the time of the German surrender in North West Europe he had 13 British divisions under his command, each with a muster roll of about 17,000. And now we have 43 major-generals? Blimey.

[AJM]

When people hear the word military, they think of 'our boys' and so dont want to hear any criticism. Westminster- centric journalists and most civilians, for that matter, are pretty ignorant when it comes to the military and so the buck gets passed up the chain to the government. The top brass probably think they are untouchable, leading to a blurring of the seperation of politics and military (Dannat, leaks to the media) and dangerous over- confidence/ lack of introspection. I'm no expert on the military and rely on the media to inform me so I'd really like to know: when was the last time a higher up, administrative or operational, actually got fired or at least demoted (not including for criminal convictions e.g. Gordon Foxley: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gordon_Foxley#Recuperation)? Once you get hold of the wine cellar, silver cutlery, chauffers; baubles from the queen, etc, does your performance become irrelevant? Or are these jobs so easy you could train a monkey to do them and therefore performance/ ability just isn't an issue?

The talk about the US wanting us to retreat from the front line to a support role because they're worried about UK public opinion and coalition politics- despite our heroic and capable troops- is surely an admission of strategic/ tactical failures, even if we have too few troops and picked the geographical short straw in Helmand. If Afghanistan was treated like a proper war rather than an inconvenience, maybe politicians would demand more from the MOD/ military leadership. If we were fighting for Britains survival, heads would roll. Maybe it's just a symptum of a confused, unpopular and distant mission.

[Uncivil Servant]

This has not gone down well with large numbers of MOD civil servants. My bonus after tax came to a magnificent £395 this year, or £32.50 per month, and I am planning on purchasing a couple of investment properties in central London with it.

The rot set in in 2002 when the Treasury (run by one G Brown) decided that they could keep down pay by offering a below inflation level pay rise, topped up by performance related pay (not a bonus in the sense that they receive in the City) for 50% of the work force (this was later increased since half the work force felt angry at getting below inflation pay rises at a time when most commercial business were offering much higher increments). This system was imposed - we were all trooped into a large meeting and told that if we did not accept the deal there would be no pay rise at all in 2002 and 2003. The Treasury were determined that we have this because it actually reduced the pay budget and the bonuses were non-consolidated (they did not increase pensions).

There was strong opposition by the work force, and it was argued that it would undermine team work (what happens when only half the team get a bonus?) and would lead to nepotism (which it has - receiving a bonus is often linked to whether your face fits with the boss). The boards that decide bonuses judge on the basis of annual reports, but do not actually know the individuals concerned. On two occasions I did not get a bonus, despite working hard: once because I had an Army major as my line manager and he said he did not agree with them and was unwilling to write up his team (he was on almost three times our salaries), and once because I was temporarily attached to a department and the manager would not give me one at the expense of one of his permanent staff. In effect the bonuses are a zero sum game.

Last year I was offered a job by a defence company, doing exactly the same work, with a 50% increase in basic pay and a guaranteed 6-10% bonus (compared with the 1.6% I received from MOD). I declined it because my work is essential to the present defence effort and it will be very difficult to replace me, but it was a difficult decision. I now discover that I am a fat cat sponging off the public and depriving the Army of helicopters, with a gold plated pension (worth all of £7000 p.a). I should have gone to work for the private sector where I could have used my skills to help rip off the defence budget more that they do already.

The reason that there are so many civil servants is that over the last 15 years many functions previously undertaken by the armed forces have been transferred by successive governments to cheaper civilians. My uniformed counterpart earns almost twice my salary and that is before expensive extras like boarding school allowances and travel to work being paid for. And before readers point out that I am just a pen pusher and don't risk my life, I have actually been fired at during service in Iraq.

Morale in the Civil Service is pretty rocky. Ministers forced through a bonus culture that we did not want (and it applies to most departments, not just defence) and have constantly 'reformed' and cut the payroll (48,000 jobs gone in 10 years). We are now being told to expect cuts of 25% after the election (almost 22,000 jobs). The work will then be done by much more expensive and inflexible private contractors. We have had our pay held down for the last decade, are losing any semblance of job security and are faced with our redundancy terms being severely cut. No doubt our huge pensions are next.

Some readers may applaud this, but what you are actually seeing is the destruction of what was once a fine system and the loss of huge amounts of experience and expertise, during the middle of a war that we are losing. It is time that the media started looking much more closely at what has gone wrong with defence: a very top heavy hierarchy, far too many senior officers, frequent political and Treasury interference, rotten decision making and long term planning, a loss of skills in procurement, and constant criticisms of junior staff who are doing their best despite a system that seems determined to get rid of them all.

[therewaslight]

You are not fighting a war.

[RAENORTH]

You are not fighting a war.

Neither are the majority of soldiers.

[Uncivil Servant]

Therewaslight

While I may not be fighting a war (although I have done an operational tour in a high risk theatre - have you?), a number of civil servants are doing exactly that, despite the fact that they wee not recruited for such a task. Many others are working very long hours on urgent operational requirements, intelligence analysis, operational logistics, operational budgets, casualty notification, scientific countermeasures, etc, directly related to Afghanistan. Moreover, they rotate through different jobs - those who are not involved in operations at present may have been in the past or could be in the future.

Contrary to what appears to be popular belief, most MOD civil servants actually want the armed forces to be operationally successful, efficient, well equipped, of high calibre and to achieve their goals with the absolute minimum of expense and casualties. Most of them want to be proud of working in defence (and are, according to internal opinion surveys). Relatively few fit the classic bureaucrat mode.

Work includes a vast range of tasks from keeping the strategic nuclear deterrent operational, through policing of ammunition dumps, writing doctrine, training officers, providing medical services, engineering maintenance of equipment, policy making, etc. The idea that those who are not at war just sit around and do nothing is pure ignorance of the realities of running large and complex defence forces.

Civil servants and Service personnel both have to maintain the great bulk of the armed forces who are not at war (thank you, Dr North) and prepare for the future. We are working on procurement of equipment through to the 2030s. Afghanistan will go away in due course, but this work won't.

Let me give you a comparison. While we allegedly have far too many people working inefficiently in defence procurement according to Liam Fox MP, with some 18,000 for 160,000 active forces (1:8.8) a more 'efficient' country like Australia, which buys rather than develops most of its equipment, actually has significantly more at 7,500 for 54,000 active personnel (1: 7.2). If you think that you can improve the way MOD works perhaps you might like to consider a career as a civil servant and show us all how it should be done rather than just grandstanding.

[welshguru]

Many people both in the public and private sector have lost their jobs this year. If your job is so distasteful, leave and get another. The point is you have a job, and many thousands don't.

[RAENORTH]

Many people both in the public and private sector have lost their jobs this year. If your job is so distasteful, leave and get another. The point is you have a job, and many thousands don't.

That is an ungracious remark. If someone is doing a job they believe in, do it well and believe it is a necessary job, why should they leave? Does that then disqualify you from observing that the system is a mess and that the job could be done better?

[GP]

Many people both in the public and private sector have lost their jobs this year. If your job is so distasteful, leave and get another. The point is you have a job, and many thousands don't.

I seem to speak to many people who have jobs. They are constantly ringing me to persuade me to change supplier for this service or that. All churn, no benefit to anybody and recent experiences have been costly in terms of time and inconvenience in order to stand still. Mistakes and borken promises and lies - all for nothing but much effort expended all around. That's the private sector for you. And some of the country's biggest companies involved.

No doubt those call centre job also churn rapidly, often on a route through other countries. As our CS correspondent points out the Service is to dump another 25% of its employees in the near future. Job security is no different to the rest of UK PLC then - non-existent.

You can bet that the cutbacks in government emplolyment will adversely affect activities that are important to the population rather than the government. Maybe that is why HMRC still have not paid me a tax rebate they said I was entitled to back in March. I would call then if I could get through the queuing system. I would write if I know which of three office address that communicate with me was the correct one to write to. They seem to have no difficulty in harrassing when they want to take money though. Strange.

You really need a broader outlook on this welshguru. As Dr. North has already observed your comments about what is a very well written piece full of insight (across the two posts I have read) is ungracious - my personal opinion is that it is positively churlish and leans towards promoting an attitude that will ultimately, if broadly adopted as seems to be the case, become very harmful to our way of life. Perhaps that would suit you, I am less convinced that it would be a good thing.