RDF Integration

Turbine

syklops wrote: »

Yeah its not going to happen because the PDF get an allowance for doing Cash in Transit. They would never allow that allowance to go to RDF members instead, because as they see it, if the RDF can do CIT there are other duties they could do for 'free', which could mean a reduction in funding to the Defence Forces, even a reduction in numbers. Turkeys wont vote for Christmas.

This business of getting allowances just for doing your job needs to be done away with.

OS119

Turbine wrote: »

This business of getting allowances just for doing your job needs to be done away with.

while thats entirely true, thats a society wide problem, and not one that just effects the PDF. sadly however it seems deep rooted - an example that shocked me was on here, there was a vociferous debate a few years ago about whether the IG should sent a battalion battle group to Northern/Westerrn Afghanistan, and a PDF lad said he wouldn't go - and why you ask? well, because its a NATO job, and not a UN job, he wouldn't get a UN allowance.

nice.

Owryan

Turbine wrote: »

This business of getting allowances just for doing your job needs to be done away with.

Its an allowance to feed yourself and for the unsocial hours involved.

From personal experience you could be in barracks at 4am and not return till 8 or 9 that evening. The allowance just about covered the costs of feeding yourself for the day and it was nothing compared to what the gardai were getting.

As for letting the army reserve do CIT , i ve seen reservists do a no show for barrack guard too many times to run the risk of letting them do a CIT. unlike the pdf there is no comeback on them if they decide to stay in bed

Doctor14

syklops wrote: »

I didnt see a lot of hostility in the RDF itself, but instead more passive aggressive stuff, like courses not being announced

Saw far too much of it myself. Didn't go for it myself but a mate of mine who did got no end of abuse. Got a major talking to to make him withdraw his application, and when he refused he got completely blanked by the higher ups. Got so bad that he ended up being the only one in the unit to go for it - others didn't want the hassle. RDFRA did nothing. PDF unit got involved and tried to get him to make a complaint. In the end he got into the PDF full time (the PDF unit went out of its way to help him get in) and the issue petered out.
Heard of it happening right across the Battalion to a good few people. Then the whole thing got cancelled and those who had stuck it out against all the abuse were thrown to the wolves. We lost a lot of good people over it. And I don't think any future Integration will work as people in my battalion will be very reluctant to get involved.

Maoltuile

Owryan wrote: »

I've seen reservists do a no show for barrack guard too many times to run the risk of letting them do a CIT. unlike the pdf there is no comeback on them if they decide to stay in bed

Here we're in complete agreement, PDF and RDF. The little bastards should be nailed to the wall for being AWOL.

marketty

Turbine wrote: »

This business of getting allowances just for doing your job needs to be done away with.

So does this business of getting people to do other peoples jobs for free.
After tax+levies these allowances are very small, a private would hardly notice the extra money in his payslip unless he got a few escorts/guards done in the month to add up to something.
I doubt the army wants the reserve doing Jobbridge when so many privates and corporals with little prospect of promotion and limited overseas opportunities are dependant on that measly couple of quid they get for dutie to supplement their wages..
Sadly despite the HUGE reforms and efficiencies by both PDF and RDF the government will just keep chipping away at them with cuts because they are an easy target. And the harsh reality is the PDF will hang the RDF out to dry when it gets bad because at the end of the day they soldier for a living and have to protect their incomes as much as they can, without having the weaponry of unions and strikes that the rest of the public sector has at its disposal

galwaycyclist

OS119 wrote: »

while my understanding is that all the above is true, there is compelling evidence that many in the RDF who wanted to take part in the Integration project faced real hostility from within the RDF itself.

It is entirely natural for the RDF to view the "integration" proposals with skepticism. This is not the first time the PDF have tried to "integrate" the 2nd line reserve. It happened previously with FCA units attached to units of the permanent garrison. According to those who went through it (who I served with) it was a farce. The reservists basically ended up getting used as barracks dogsbodies.

OS119 wrote: »

i've heard of people being completely blanked/abused at their units, to being 'required' by their CoC to turn up to both integrated activities and non-integrated activities (and therefore get grief at home/work and subsequently bin the integration project), to being refused mandated equipment/clothing by their parent RDF unit, or being issued the worst kit the unit could find - broken belt-kit, bergens, helmets etc...

Whoa back up here a bit. Lets put ourselves in the shoes of any decent RDF commander. This "integrated" concept is only of benefit to the parent RDF unit if the personel involved are coming back and passing on their knowledge (if the PDF way of doing things is deemed relevant ). If integration means the RDF having to carry extra mouths to feed on the books but no come back from the "integrated" resources then whats in it for the RDF? If someone has joined the RDF then in my view their primary duty is to the RDF. If that person wants to play with the PDF - but not contribute to their parent unit - then my instinctive reaction would be to tell them to get lost - go and join the PDF if thats what you're into.

galwaycyclist

syklops wrote: »

There are a number of theories, and a number or contributing reasons. One is that the PDF didn't want the RDF integrated. It's also a bit like the current debate about interns taking jobs paid workers could do.

There was also a question mark over the general level of fitness in the RDF, which was understandable. The obvious thing was to bring in regular fitness training for the RDF but the regulations said only a qualified PT instructor could give PT classes, and the RDF basically didnt have any PT instructors, and no PDF PT instructors were made available. If the PDF had wanted the RDF integrated that could have been solved easily enough, but no decision was made and the RDF was told to try and get its fitness level up "as best you can", but with no access to training, gym equipment, etc.

Are you really telling us that you believe among all the professional Engineers, Scientists, Teachers, Nurses, Drivers, Managers, Computer Technicians, Supervisors, Drivers, Mechanics etc etc etc in the FCA - that there were no professional fitness instructors? Was the problem the resource allocation within the PDF? Or a PDF refusal to recognise the resources organic to the FCA?

Also, at the risk of pointing out the obvious, if the troops are being exercised on a reasonably regular basis they won't be long getting themselves fit. Its called "incentive".

syklops wrote: »

In my opinion, they also did it at the wrong time. They tried to get more commitment from the RDF at a time when the country was at the greatest level of employment in 20 years. A lot of the driven, switched on members were in well paying jobs, so doing tactics on a Saturday is fine, but doing fitness tests on a Tuesday was out of the question.

So, the PDF didnt want it, there was no real political support, timing was poor, the new equipment wasn't issued properly(some units got twice the amount of PLCE, some got none), the list goes on and on.

You are partially correct however the real problem was the absence of any state incentive for employers to have members of the FCA/RDF on their books. Allied to this is a total absence of any legal protection for FCA/RDF members who wanted to take time for training/camps etc. This was already a problem for the FCA the failure to address this a part of the proposed re-org meant the integrated concept was fatally flawed anyway. It also meant that the FCA was already hamstrung in developing its strongest members as resources for the organisation. There was no point blaming the FCA for that or saying that the FCAs weaknesses would be remedied by a "re-org" that did not address this point.

syklops

galwaycyclist wrote: »

Are you really telling us that you believe among all the professional Engineers, Scientists, Teachers, Nurses, Drivers, Managers, Computer Technicians, Supervisors, Drivers, Mechanics etc etc etc in the FCA - that there were no professional fitness instructors? Was the problem the resource allocation within the PDF? Or a PDF refusal to recognise the resources organic to the FCA?

In my unit there was a professional fitness instructor, but his qualification wasn't recognised by the PDF. So while he could instruct us out side of the barracks(as in out side of RDF time) he couldn't do so during RDF time. That alone frustrated people.

Also, at the risk of pointing out the obvious, if the troops are being exercised on a reasonably regular basis they won't be long getting themselves fit. Its called "incentive".

Define 'troops being exercised'? Foot drill on the square for an hour a night is not going to get you 'fit' in the military sense.

galwaycyclist

syklops wrote: »

Define 'troops being exercised'? Foot drill on the square for an hour a night is not going to get you 'fit' in the military sense.

Uh no to my mind the phrase exercised involves terms like "Platoon in Attack", "Company in Defence", "Battalion in Advance" etc

syklops

galwaycyclist wrote: »

Uh no to my mind the phrase exercised involves terms like "Platoon in Attack", "Company in Defence", "Battalion in Advance" etc

Ok, now define regular basis.

Thinking back, I dont think we got as much as one manday per month. It _might_ have been once every 6 weeks or so. Maybe someone else could give their experiences/memories?

In the Autumn/Winter season so September to December, so ~16 weeks, we would have a day for the ARP, a day of Tactics, a day for gun work(I was in Artillery) and maybe some other day. So I suppose that could be one day a month, but to be honest i don't think it was that often.

KickstartHeart

So are RDF personel going to get job protection? Has it ever been proposed?

And what do the RDFRA do?

Turbine

marketty wrote: »

So does this business of getting people to do other peoples jobs for free.
After tax+levies these allowances are very small, a private would hardly notice the extra money in his payslip unless he got a few escorts/guards done in the month to add up to something.
I doubt the army wants the reserve doing Jobbridge when so many privates and corporals with little prospect of promotion and limited overseas opportunities are dependant on that measly couple of quid they get for dutie to supplement their wages..
Sadly despite the HUGE reforms and efficiencies by both PDF and RDF the government will just keep chipping away at them with cuts because they are an easy target. And the harsh reality is the PDF will hang the RDF out to dry when it gets bad because at the end of the day they soldier for a living and have to protect their incomes as much as they can, without having the weaponry of unions and strikes that the rest of the public sector has at its disposal

The RDF aren't doing the PDF's job, nevermind doing it for nothing. Even if there was a radical shake-up of the RDF and full integration with the PDF, its still a part-time role and there will still be a need for the PDF.

But surely where the RDF could be used is in situations where they could provide support to the PDF in order to reduce the need for overtime and extra allowances? You obviously won't agree with that going by your post above, but at a time when the government are trying to drive efficiencies in the Defence Forces it makes sense...

syklops

KickstartHeart wrote: »

So are RDF personel going to get job protection?

Doubtful. There is no political will for change.

KickstartHeart wrote: »

Has it ever been proposed?

Discussed, at length. I don't know if ever seriously.

KickstartHeart wrote: »

And what do the RDFRA do?

They're kind of like a union.

marketty

Turbine wrote: »

The RDF aren't doing the PDF's job, nevermind doing it for nothing. Even if there was a radical shake-up of the RDF and full integration with the PDF, its still a part-time role and there will still be a need for the PDF.

But surely where the RDF could be used is in situations where they could provide support to the PDF in order to reduce the need for overtime and extra allowances? You obviously won't agree with that going by your post above, but at a time when the government are trying to drive efficiencies in the Defence Forces it makes sense...

Well there's no overtime in the PDF, just allowances.
I'm not anti RDF by the way, did my time there and have a lot of respect for those who take their service in it seriously. I would much rather see the RDF put to good use than see it disbanded, I don't want my post to come across as an attack, I'm just being realistic about how many in the PDF feel.
What sort of situations are you suggesting they be used for?
If there are areas where we can justifiably say the PDF is undermanned and those gaps could be filled by RDF that's all well and good, but the PDF will just see that as a way of filling up vacancies that should be going to the full time guys.
One scenario I can see is if the PDF had a lot more (2-3 times as many) people overseas at any one time, RDF personnel could take on the vacant barrack duties etc.
Of course that requires that a lot of RDF personnel be available on a temporary full time basis, but as mentioned they have no legal protection or formal arrangements with employers in this regard. Unfortunately I can't see the government taking any interest in addressing this

Morpheus

marketty wrote: »

I doubt the army wants the reserve doing Jobbridge when so many privates and corporals with little prospect of promotion and limited overseas opportunities are dependant on that measly couple of quid they get for dutie to supplement their wages.

The govt enforced upper ceiling on total troop numbers that can be deployed overseas doesn't help either, that could be radically increased if the RDF was an integral component of the DF much like the TA is in england... but there i go again... apologies... i seem to be talking sense....

OS119

galwaycyclist wrote: »

...If that person wants to play with the PDF - but not contribute to their parent unit - then my instinctive reaction would be to tell them to get lost - go and join the PDF if thats what you're into.

now, i may be a bluff old traditionalist, but was fairly sure there was something about 'doing what the fcuk you are told' within the military, as well as this tiny little thing about the RDF existing to further the defence capability of the Republic of Ireland - rather to massage the ego of people who believe that the ease and convenience of their administrative lives is more important than the defence policy of the elected government of the day.

but thats just me...

galwaycyclist

OS119 wrote: »

now, i may be a bluff old traditionalist, but was fairly sure there was something about 'doing what the fcuk you are told' within the military, as well as this tiny little thing about the RDF existing to further the defence capability of the Republic of Ireland - rather to massage the ego of people who believe that the ease and convenience of their administrative lives is more important than the defence policy of the elected government of the day.

but thats just me...

It all depends on wether you think a more effective and cohesive RDF does more to further the national defence capability (my position) or wether you think the PDF cherry picking personel at the expense of RDF operational efficiency furthers that capability (your apparent position). If you want egos massaged, then in my view, the current PDF is pointless as a military force unless it is back up by a MUCH larger and internally coherent reserve/militia. It is my view that in terms of national defence "capacity" the PDF should exist to support the reserve not the other way around.


Questions?

OS119

galwaycyclist wrote: »

It all depends on wether you think a more effective and cohesive RDF does more to further the national defence capability (my position) or wether you think the PDF cherry picking personel at the expense of RDF operational efficiency furthers that capability (your apparent position). If you want egos massaged, then in my view, the current PDF is pointless as a military force unless it is back up by a MUCH larger and internally coherent reserve/militia. It is my view that in terms of national defence "capacity" the PDF should exist to support the reserve not the other way around.

its a topic for discussion and dissent in the mess, and perhaps even a letter to the Brigade Commander, it is not however a matter for debate or obviscation by Coy Cdrs or CQMS's upon reciept of a written order from the Chief of Staff.

galwaycyclist

OS119 wrote: »

its a topic for discussion and dissent in the mess, and perhaps even a letter to the Brigade Commander, it is not however a matter for debate or obviscation by Coy Cdrs or CQMS's upon reciept of a written order from the Chief of Staff.

I exist several levels below such exalted heights. And if you read my posts, in response to others publicly attacking their commanding officers, I have merely extrapolated what my opinion would be if I found myself in such authority. I stand over my analysis.

Turbine

marketty wrote: »

If there are areas where we can justifiably say the PDF is undermanned and those gaps could be filled by RDF that's all well and good, but the PDF will just see that as a way of filling up vacancies that should be going to the full time guys.

Well as long as the PDF think that, then the RDF will never be utilised in any meaningful way.

marketty wrote: »

Well there's no overtime in the PDF, just allowances.
I'm not anti RDF by the way, did my time there and have a lot of respect for those who take their service in it seriously. I would much rather see the RDF put to good use than see it disbanded, I don't want my post to come across as an attack, I'm just being realistic about how many in the PDF feel.
What sort of situations are you suggesting they be used for?
One scenario I can see is if the PDF had a lot more (2-3 times as many) people overseas at any one time, RDF personnel could take on the vacant barrack duties etc.
Of course that requires that a lot of RDF personnel be available on a temporary full time basis, but as mentioned they have no legal protection or formal arrangements with employers in this regard. Unfortunately I can't see the government taking any interest in addressing this

Apart from barrack duties and expanding overseas numbers, they could be used more for natural disaster relief. Its a bit ridiculous when there are floods, forest fires etc. that PDF are transported to a particular area from other parts of the country to help out the local PDF units when there are local RDF units ready to help, but end up completely ignored.

OS119

galwaycyclist wrote: »

I stand over my analysis.

i fear then you have a pretty poor understanding of the role of Officers and SNCO's within the Defence Forces. the very sad thing is that its probably an understanding of the role of Officers and SNCO's that you've been given by some very sub-standard individuals.

Bullying - for that is what it is - is not acceptable, it is certainly not acceptable as way for poor Officers and SNCO's to frustrate the written orders of those senior officers set above them.

it is also called Sedition and Mutiny - in the US it is resolved with three pieces of equipment: a wall, a blindfold and 62grams of 5.56mm.

marketty

Turbine wrote: »

Well as long as the PDF think that, then the RDF will never be utilised in any meaningful way.

I agree however if the PDF feel that they are as busy as they can manage and being reasonably rewarded for it in terms of promotion prospects, pay and conditions then I would imagine they'd be open to the idea. As things stand and this goes for many in the public sector they are being cut away at all the time and therefore are understandably defensive and trying to justify their existence.
I'm not being smart but imagine the reaction if part time volunteer teachers and nurses started turning up in schools and hospitals the full timers would do their nut.
I am stretching the comparison there I know, but look at how openly hostile the gardai were to the introduction of their reserve. Thankfully I think the army isn't quite that bad.

Turbine wrote: »

Apart from barrack duties and expanding overseas numbers, they could be used more for natural disaster relief. Its a bit ridiculous when there are floods, forest fires etc. that PDF are transported to a particular area from other parts of the country to help out the local PDF units when there are local RDF units ready to help, but end up completely ignored.

I agree 100% here, but this situation could prove to be a PR disaster for the reserve if the 'numbers called up' versus 'number who turned up' were made public, we both know SOME wasters who like playing soldier when weapons are involved wouldn't show up to fill sandbags. There has to be consequences for that sort of thing, but then again if people can't get out of work they can't mobilise so we're back to that again

marketty

OS119 wrote: »

it is also called Sedition and Mutiny - in the US it is resolved with three pieces of equipment: a wall, a blindfold and 62grams of 5.56mm.

Jesus over dramatic much?

OS119

marketty wrote: »

Jesus over dramatic much?

you have other descriptions of actions by officers and NCO's carried out to interfere with the lawful orders of their superiors?

please, enlighten me...

marketty

It was the execution by firing squad rather than the definition of mutiny I was taking issue with.
I doubt the US or anyone else would execute officers for making a balls of reservist integration

OS119

marketty wrote: »

...I doubt the US or anyone else would execute officers for making a balls of reservist integration

some made a balls of it, some very deliberately sought to undermine the written, lawful orders of their superior Officers.

mutiny and sedition don't just apply to 'serious' orders, they apply to all orders - members of the defence forces do not get to cherry-pick which orders are serious, and therefore have to be obeyed, and which orders are merely requests that can be ignored if they are inconvenient.

members of the RDF should be absolutely clear - orders relating to the training of members of the RDF are as compulsory as orders relating to PDF foot patrols in Chad, or orders requiring a battalion attack on an foreign aggressor on Irish territory. orders are orders, you carry them out to the letter, and to the spirit, or you leave. if you get caught, you get punished - harshly.

Morpheus

I agree 100% here, but this situation could prove to be a PR disaster for the reserve if the 'numbers called up' versus 'number who turned up' were made public, we both know SOME wasters who like playing soldier when weapons are involved wouldn't show up to fill sandbags. There has to be consequences for that sort of thing, but then again if people can't get out of work they can't mobilise so we're back to that again

I dont think it would be a bad thing, on the contrary i think it would show up the govt's cack handed approach to maintaining a viable reserve for what it is... they are dealing with a component of our national defensive capability with kid gloves and prefer to let it limp along and get wheeled out once a year on o connell street.... when in reality they should be augmenting and bolstering the PDF with the RDF, they should have employment protection and should be a nationwide effort to encourage employers to hire RDF personnel as well as ramping up the training, fitness requirements and capablities of what is a very cheap way of increasing numbers of troops on short notice. It shouldnt be seen as a possible replacement for some elements of the PDF but as a viable force multiplier for the PDF.... maybe maintain a 3 brigade structure with 2 full time brigades and 1 RDF brigade could have been a good idea....

members of the RDF should be absolutely clear - orders relating to the training of members of the RDF are as compulsory as orders relating to PDF foot patrols in Chad, or orders requiring a battalion attack on an foreign aggressor on Irish territory. orders are orders, you carry them out to the letter, and to the spirit, or you leave. if you get caught, you get punished - harshly.

and therein lies one of the organisations main problems.... when you sign up, you agree to train every thurs/tues/wed and possibly 1 weekend a month, whether its shyte training or good or footdrill or running around cemetary hill in the middle of summer breathing through your ar$ehole and trying use a SINCGARS with peltors or freezing your a$$ off in an OP at 4am on a november night etc... you AGREE TO FOLLOW ORDERS.... you agree to be available when possible and the exception is that you are away the odd time... instead of the current convention of turning up when trainings good craic and if something shyte is coming up, then you dont bother your ar$e...

People studying on a training night whilst going on the beer all weekend instead of sacraficing two hours of beers at weekend to attend training... I cannot stand over the excuses people are using at the minute, it makes my blood boil to see others in the same situation MAKING the effort to be there and keep the units training momentum.

marketty

Morphéus wrote: »

I dont think it would be a bad thing, on the contrary i think it would show up the govt's cack handed approach to maintaining a viable reserve for what it is... they are dealing with a component of our national defensive capability with kid gloves and prefer to let it limp along and get wheeled out once a year on o connell street.... when in reality they should be augmenting and bolstering the PDF with the RDF, they should have employment protection and should be a nationwide effort to encourage employers to hire RDF personnel as well as ramping up the training, fitness requirements and capablities of what is a very cheap way of increasing numbers of troops on short notice. It shouldnt be seen as a possible replacement for some elements of the PDF but as a viable force multiplier for the PDF.... maybe maintain a 3 brigade structure with 2 full time brigades and 1 RDF brigade could have been a good idea....

Couldn't agree more

Maoltuile

Morphéus wrote: »

maybe maintain a 3 brigade structure with 2 full time brigades and 1 RDF brigade could have been a good idea....

+1 idea.

And stick proper go-getting career officers in the Brigade HQ, rather than the "slow boat to retirement" types (both Reserve and Permanent) that the RDF is largely stuck with right now.

Whatever about other ranks, officers who can't/won't do the job in the new Brigade should start getting ****-canned on the spot (there was a famous clear-out of a US National Guard unit at the start of the first Gulf War).