Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

So the army's hoping to recruit 1450 new soldiers... Waste of money?

Options
135

Comments

  • Options
    #62
    esforum
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,420 ✭✭✭esforum


    JustTheOne wrote: »
    And as the study showed last week the top users of a and e were unemployed people with alcohol and drug issues.

    Before anyone says anything it was a study none which came out last week.

    That's your problem right there and people abusing the system with medical cards.


    http://www.irishtimes.com/news/health/patients-with-flu-symptoms-choosing-a-e-over-gp-1.2610405

    The above says it all. People going to a and e with the flu for **** sake!

    Can guarantee you people who don't have a medical card and get the flu don't attend and e wasting everyone's time.

    ah well hang on a second now, I agree that a&e shouldnt clogged up with trivial stuff but what about man flu?


  • Options
    #63
    esforum
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,420 ✭✭✭esforum


    It wasn't me! wrote: »
    You were called to account for that statement the last time this came up and you went very quiet afterwards too. You couldn't enumerate where savings were to be made and why a gendarmerie style force would be cheaper. And you're calling on other people to argue their positions? That's rich.

    Not directed at me I know but I think a military police unison would be good. Not cheaper, just better.
    jmayo wrote: »
    nurses and guards (otherwise known as the weeknight clientele of Coppers).

    take the hint and if you are having trouble swallowing that bitter pill, a nurse can help :P


  • Options
    #64
    Idbatterim
    Registered Users Posts: 17,849 ✭✭✭✭Idbatterim


    dont they have some number that they dont like going under? to be honest, we cant even defend our own airspace, but we have thousands on the ground?

    Spend it on gardai, nurses or a whole host of areas where it would be better spent, infrastructure, pay off the national debt!


  • Options
    #65
    donegal.
    Registered Users Posts: 4,635 ✭✭✭donegal.


    Ireland and Costa Rica have the same population.

    I think their armed forces should also be the same size.


  • Options
    #66
    stoplooklisten
    Registered Users Posts: 2,492 ✭✭✭stoplooklisten


    Someone's got to ship the refugees across the med


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #67
    Iwasfrozen
    Registered Users Posts: 16,250 ✭✭✭✭Iwasfrozen


    It wasn't me! wrote: »
    You were called to account for that statement the last time this came up and you went very quiet afterwards too. You couldn't enumerate where savings were to be made and why a gendarmerie style force would be cheaper. And you're calling on other people to argue their positions? That's rich.

    Went quiet? I responded 20 times in the thread before I got tired of people asking me questions I'd already covered.

    We don't need an army, anything needless and expensive should be the first thing cut.


  • Options
    #68
    It wasn't me!
    Registered Users Posts: 13,034 ✭✭✭✭It wasn't me!


    Iwasfrozen wrote: »
    Went quiet? I responded 20 times in the thread before I got tired of people asking me questions I'd already covered.

    We don't need an army, anything needless and expensive should be the first thing cut.

    You never once assessed the relative costs of each and suggested why a gendarmerie would be cheaper. Every single response, even when directly confronted about it, ignored that one salient detail. If you could do so here of course, that'd be great. If people keep asking you questions, maybe you haven't actually answered them. And just saying it's cheaper doesn't answer it. You have to present, accurately, what each actually costs. Otherwise, funnily enough, people will keep confronting you with that fact. Now, you may very well be right, which is why I'm not calling your suggestion baseless, but I'm waiting to see whether it actually has any merit when you elucidate on it.


  • Options
    #69
    degsie
    Registered Users Posts: 8,746 ✭✭✭degsie


    Arn't these guys handy for filling sandbags during flooding?


  • Options
    #70
    Iwasfrozen
    Registered Users Posts: 16,250 ✭✭✭✭Iwasfrozen


    It wasn't me! wrote: »
    You never once assessed the relative costs of each and suggested why a gendarmerie would be cheaper. Every single response, even when directly confronted about it, ignored that one salient detail. If you could do so here of course, that'd be great. If people keep asking you questions, maybe you haven't actually answered them. And just saying it's cheaper doesn't answer it. You have to present, accurately, what each actually costs. Otherwise, funnily enough, people will keep confronting you with that fact. Now, you may very well be right, which is why I'm not calling your suggestion baseless, but I'm waiting to see whether it actually has any merit when you elucidate on it.

    The costings you're asking for would require government produced grey literature. Which I would love to happen of course but there are too many people in too many cozy positions getting paid taxpayer's money.

    Common sense should (hopefully) be enough to tell you though a smaller force with less equipment and lower wages than the current army would cost less.


  • Options
    #71
    Juan8
    Closed Accounts Posts: 372 ✭✭Juan8


    Job's for the boys, you only get in if you've family already in it :D same as loads of jobs I suppose


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #72
    jmayo
    Registered Users Posts: 13,169 ✭✭✭✭jmayo


    Juan8 wrote: »
    Job's for the boys, you only get in if you've family already in it :D same as loads of jobs I suppose

    Actually that's not true.
    If you are relatively successful in GAA you can also get in.

    Ever check how many GAA managers were officers in the Army.

    I am not allowed discuss …



  • Options
    #73
    stoplooklisten
    Registered Users Posts: 2,492 ✭✭✭stoplooklisten


    thread needs more music



  • Options
    #74
    Barry Badrinath
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,460 ✭✭✭Barry Badrinath


    jmayo wrote: »
    Actually that's not true.
    If you are relatively successful in GAA you can also get in.

    Ever check how many GAA managers were officers in the Army.

    How many?


  • Options
    #75
    It wasn't me!
    Registered Users Posts: 13,034 ✭✭✭✭It wasn't me!


    Iwasfrozen wrote: »
    The costings you're asking for would require government produced grey literature. Which I would love to happen of course but there are too many people in too many cozy positions getting paid taxpayer's money.

    Common sense should (hopefully) be enough to tell you though a smaller force with less equipment and lower wages than the current army would cost less.

    Well, you create a smaller force and pay redundancy to the army, then rehire them into this gendarmerie, which is definitely going to be better paid than my current job (And remember, of course you're going to rehire the soldiers you just laid off, because cost of training is going to be an enormous issue for you). They're then going to be doing less work, with better pay and conditions, because it's a specialist role attached to AGS, so it's definitely going to attract substantially more money, and AGS have far more access to effective representation and industrial process. They'll still need the vast majority of the kit they already have, and in some cases will require far more of certain items, so expensive trial and evaluation processes ahead. You'd then have a situation where you sacked a lot of soldiers, rehired some of them, still have the rest on the scratcher after having paid their redundancy, are now paying the ones you rehired more than you were before, to do less work, with better rights and conditions of work, and you've only decreased capabilities, because obviously you're not going to pretend to have the same range of potential taskings to include overseas service with the UN or EU, and dealing with the concomitant loss of international face. I've seen better ideas on Penguin wrappers.
    Juan8 wrote: »
    Job's for the boys, you only get in if you've family already in it :D same as loads of jobs I suppose

    I've no family in. Someone must have mixed up my application. Bitter much?


  • Options
    #76
    Juan8
    Closed Accounts Posts: 372 ✭✭Juan8


    It wasn't me! wrote: »
    I've no family in. Someone must have mixed up my application. Bitter much?

    No, Thankfully I've a better job :rolleyes:


  • Options
    #77
    It wasn't me!
    Registered Users Posts: 13,034 ✭✭✭✭It wasn't me!


    Juan8 wrote: »
    No, Thankfully I've a better job :rolleyes:

    I dunno. I don't want to leave mine for yours.


  • Options
    #78
    stoplooklisten
    Registered Users Posts: 2,492 ✭✭✭stoplooklisten


    I dunno but i've been told, Navy wings are made of gold


  • Options
    #79
    Iwasfrozen
    Registered Users Posts: 16,250 ✭✭✭✭Iwasfrozen


    It wasn't me! wrote: »
    Well, you create a smaller force and pay redundancy to the army, then rehire them into this gendarmerie, which is definitely going to be better paid than my current job (And remember, of course you're going to rehire the soldiers you just laid off, because cost of training is going to be an enormous issue for you). They're then going to be doing less work, with better pay and conditions, because it's a specialist role attached to AGS, so it's definitely going to attract substantially more money, and AGS have far more access to effective representation and industrial process. They'll still need the vast majority of the kit they already have, and in some cases will require far more of certain items, so expensive trial and evaluation processes ahead. You'd then have a situation where you sacked a lot of soldiers, rehired some of them, still have the rest on the scratcher after having paid their redundancy, are now paying the ones you rehired more than you were before, to do less work, with better rights and conditions of work, and you've only decreased capabilities, because obviously you're not going to pretend to have the same range of potential taskings to include overseas service with the UN or EU, and dealing with the concomitant loss of international face. I've seen better ideas on Penguin wrappers.

    Explain please? Why would we need to pay them more? We only need to pay the minimum needed to fill the ranks. Pay and conditions wouldn't be negotiable, if a person thinks they can earn more in another role with their skills they are free to go do so.

    The equipment needed will be lesser quantity and lesser range, no need for artillery for example.

    The redundancies will be a one off hit to the chin but will be made up for in yearly savings and partially offset by the sale of redundant equipment.


  • Options
    #80
    It wasn't me!
    Registered Users Posts: 13,034 ✭✭✭✭It wasn't me!


    Iwasfrozen wrote: »
    Explain please? Why would we need to pay them more? We only need to pay the minimum needed to fill the ranks.

    a) It's not a job anyone can do. Your pool of candidates is quite small.
    b) It's a specialist role encompassing the skillsets of regular AGS as well as advanced skills over and above that. Obviously this entails extra remuneration.
    c) You do not want to play lowest bidder when the role involves carrying firearms on a daily basis among the general public and engaging with them. This would be immensely stupid.
    Pay and conditions wouldn't be negotiable, if a person thinks they can earn more in another role with their skills they are free to go do so.

    You're trying to inculcate a sense of service to state and society here. This is part of the job. Of course pay and conditions are negotiable. To say otherwise is facile and ridiculous. This isn't the 19th century.
    The equipment needed will be lesser quantity and lesser range, no need for artillery for example.

    Artillery would be redundant, but you're going to need to update things like body armour, new procurement of pistols as sidearms are going to be a bigger issue given the new operating environment. In fact, a whole set of new equipment, as a soldier's kit certainly wouldn't be compatible with the new role. The costs of which will certainly not be offset by selling existing kit (and who's going to buy it? You'll find yourself stuck with it more than likely due to international arms trade restrictions)
    The redundancies will be a one off hit to the chin but will be made up for in yearly savings and partially offset by the sale of redundant equipment.

    Honestly, I think you haven't a breeze about how hard it is to source and train people suitable to work in an armed capacity among society at large without causing friction. It takes a certain rare enough type of person and their skills are valuable.


  • Options
    #81
    gizmo555
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,948 ✭✭✭gizmo555


    Iwasfrozen wrote: »
    Arguably? I'd like to see you argue it.

    Instead of flushing this money down the toilet we could give junior doctors a much needed pay rise? Or would that have no effect either?

    You tell me. How would increasing pay for junior doctors benefit patients? And if they must have an increase, why can't the money be found from the massive waste and inefficiency in the HSE?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #82
    Iwasfrozen
    Registered Users Posts: 16,250 ✭✭✭✭Iwasfrozen


    It wasn't me! wrote: »
    a) It's not a job anyone can do. Your pool of candidates is quite small.
    b) It's a specialist role encompassing the skillsets of regular AGS as well as advanced skills over and above that. Obviously this entails extra remuneration.
    c) You do not want to play lowest bidder when the role involves carrying firearms on a daily basis among the general public and engaging with them. This would be immensely stupid.
    a) I never said it was a job anyone could do.
    b) Higher training does not necessitate higher remuneration, market forces dictate remuneration. If members aren't happy with their pay they would be more than welcome to try their luck elsewhere.
    c) Paying the same people a higher wage doesn't make them safer. Besides, you have nothing to back up your point that lower paid members would be more dangerous.

    The army, like all jobs people dream of being as children has a highly inelastic labor supply, combine that with a monopolistic employer and wages could be slashed without dramatically reducing demand. The Irish government aren't doing this because they're weak.
    You're trying to inculcate a sense of service to state and society here. This is part of the job. Of course pay and conditions are negotiable. To say otherwise is facile and ridiculous. This isn't the 19th century.
    No I'm not, I'm trying to save money. I care about the bottom line and in my proposal, which is what we're discussing, wages and conditions would be non negotiable. If members think they're getting a raw deal they are more than welcome to walk.
    Artillery would be redundant, but you're going to need to update things like body armour, new procurement of pistols as sidearms are going to be a bigger issue given the new operating environment. In fact, a whole set of new equipment, as a soldier's kit certainly wouldn't be compatible with the new role. The costs of which will certainly not be offset by selling existing kit (and who's going to buy it? You'll find yourself stuck with it more than likely due to international arms trade restrictions)
    If we're stuck with the equipment we can always sell it for scrap, it's pretty much a sunk cost anyway but short term pain for long term savings is always a price worth paying.

    As for the kit items would be updated when they reach their natural replacement age, in the meantime the new wing would just have to make do. Vitally imprtant equipment would of course be purchased but only if a very good case could be made.
    Honestly, I think you haven't a breeze about how hard it is to source and train people suitable to work in an armed capacity among society at large without causing friction. It takes a certain rare enough type of person and their skills are valuable.
    Yeah it must be a real pain not to be a dick to civilians. You need a special sort of person for that. A person who needs to be highly paid because... well just because... :rolleyes:

    Have you been in the army? You don't strike me as a neutral observer.


  • Options
    #83
    Iwasfrozen
    Registered Users Posts: 16,250 ✭✭✭✭Iwasfrozen


    gizmo555 wrote: »
    You tell me. How would increasing pay for junior doctors benefit patients? And if they must have an increase, why can't the money be found from the massive waste and inefficiency in the HSE?
    Who said it would benefit patients? I didn't.

    As for why money can't be taken from waste in the HSE? It could, but I suggested taking it from the waste in the Defence Forces.


  • Options
    #84
    The Rape of Lucretia
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,440 ✭✭✭The Rape of Lucretia


    joeysoap wrote: »
    Wow!!! No hospitals at all from Waterford to Monaghan on the east outside of Dublin (not a lot different from the present set-up admittedly).

    The Wild Atlantic way is well (relatively) catered for in your scenario.

    As for the Midlands, you don't need luxuries like hospitals.

    Correct.


    It is.


    They dont. They will have a better health service without them, which is what they really need.


  • Options
    #85
    It wasn't me!
    Registered Users Posts: 13,034 ✭✭✭✭It wasn't me!


    Iwasfrozen wrote: »
    a) I never said it was a job anyone could do.
    b) Higher training does not necessitate higher remuneration, market forces dictate remuneration. If members aren't happy with their pay they would be more than welcome to try their luck elsewhere.
    c) Paying the same people a higher wage doesn't make them safer. Besides, you have nothing to back up your point that lower paid members would be more dangerous.

    Higher training absolutely does necessitate higher remuneration within the same organisation. You reckon managers should be paid the same as the people they direct? Or employees operating in a skilled capacity as specialists should be paid the same as unskilled labour? It doesn't happen in the private sector because it doesn't lead to an effective workforce, so trying to do it in the public sector is absurd. Paying the same people a higher wage won't make them safer, but you certainly won't get the right people to do it for less than I'm making now. I'm a soldier and I made 22,700 last year, including my allowances for 24 hour duties and a large reimbursement of money I was owed backdated. You think less than that is a fair wage for a highly skilled job?
    The army, like all jobs people dream of being as children has a highly inelastic labor supply, combine that with a monopolistic employer and wages could be slashed without dramatically reducing demand. The Irish government aren't doing this because they're weak.

    Exploitation of people's desire to make a social contribution is hardly an admirable argument. It's a hard job, but it has specific rewards, one of which is the opportunity to make that social contribution. Demand has reduced as the economy has improved, and the new entrants are working side by side with people on about 50% more money than them. That's not equitable. Not to say the previous wages were exorbitant. Far from it, but how many people will do plenty of 24 hour shifts and exercises, spend half a year away from friends and loved ones at a time, to say nothing of exercises where you might have almost no sleep in a given week, driven on and on, all for 22 grand a year. The organisation has changed. Turnover is going to be high because people literally cannot afford to stay in it. And the government is not about to render 9000+ unemployed, because it has a social duty in itself. That's 9000 families that have lost a source of income, with all the social factors concomitant with that.

    No I'm not, I'm trying to save money. I care about the bottom line and in my proposal, which is what we're discussing, wages and conditions would be non negotiable. If members think they're getting a raw deal they are more than welcome to walk.

    Everyone will walk. Very few of those currently serving would sign on again for what we make nowadays. There's no pension worth talking about for new entrants either. So you certainly won't get the people you require to do the job for less than they're currently getting paid. And all of this is of course missing one essential point: The bottom line isn't money. The bottom line is people and society. That's what all government money needs to support, and if you're looking to save money, you need to look away from an organisation that has delivered in spades on all increased efficiency demands in the recent past and towards some of the other departments which have a remarkable talent for swallowing money without making any return to society, or even being held to account in any material fashion.
    If we're stuck with the equipment we can always sell it for scrap, it's pretty much a sunk cost anyway but short term pain for long term savings is always a price worth paying.

    As for the kit items would be updated when they reach their natural replacement age, in the meantime the new wing would just have to make do. Vitally imprtant equipment would of course be purchased but only if a very good case could be made.

    Funnily enough, making do is a pretty terrible strategy. So far your plan leads to the wrong people having the wrong gear to do a job you don't know much about, and they're all armed, underpaid and under-resourced, but hey, tighten the belts and swing up the arms, eh?
    Yeah it must be a real pain not to be a dick to civilians. You need a special sort of person for that. A person who needs to be highly paid because... well just because... :rolleyes:

    It's a bigger and bigger pain the more ignorant they are. Trust me...
    Have you been in the army? You don't strike me as a neutral observer.

    Yes. I've made it clear from the beginning that I'm a serving soldier. And I don't believe you're exactly neutral either, but I at least have a certain amount of informed perspective.


  • Options
    #86
    Iwasfrozen
    Registered Users Posts: 16,250 ✭✭✭✭Iwasfrozen


    It wasn't me! wrote: »
    Higher training absolutely does necessitate higher remuneration within the same organisation. You reckon managers should be paid the same as the people they direct? Or employees operating in a skilled capacity as specialists should be paid the same as unskilled labour? It doesn't happen in the private sector because it doesn't lead to an effective workforce, so trying to do it in the public sector is absurd. Paying the same people a higher wage won't make them safer, but you certainly won't get the right people to do it for less than I'm making now. I'm a soldier and I made 22,700 last year, including my allowances for 24 hour duties and a large reimbursement of money I was owed backdated. You think less than that is a fair wage for a highly skilled job?
    As I've said remuneration is not dictated by skill but by market demand. In this industry we're facing a highly inelastic labor market, as all childhood dream jobs tend to be, and a monopolistic employer.
    What does this mean? It means the employer can slash wages without substantially affecting demand.
    Now I reject your insinuation that paying soldiers less will expose the public to risk so there's no reason why the government shouldn't slash wages to the bare minimum needed to fill ranks.
    Exploitation of people's desire to make a social contribution is hardly an admirable argument. It's a hard job, but it has specific rewards, one of which is the opportunity to make that social contribution. Demand has reduced as the economy has improved, and the new entrants are working side by side with people on about 50% more money than them. That's not equitable. Not to say the previous wages were exorbitant. Far from it, but how many people will do plenty of 24 hour shifts and exercises, spend half a year away from friends and loved ones at a time, to say nothing of exercises where you might have almost no sleep in a given week, driven on and on, all for 22 grand a year. The organisation has changed. Turnover is going to be high because people literally cannot afford to stay in it. And the government is not about to render 9000+ unemployed, because it has a social duty in itself. That's 9000 families that have lost a source of income, with all the social factors concomitant with that.
    Accepting a lower pay is a far greater social contribution to Ireland than peacekeeping missions in the Lebanon. If soldiers don't like their pay they always have the option to walk.
    Everyone will walk. Very few of those currently serving would sign on again for what we make nowadays. There's no pension worth talking about for new entrants either. So you certainly won't get the people you require to do the job for less than they're currently getting paid. And all of this is of course missing one essential point: The bottom line isn't money. The bottom line is people and society. That's what all government money needs to support, and if you're looking to save money, you need to look away from an organisation that has delivered in spades on all increased efficiency demands in the recent past and towards some of the other departments which have a remarkable talent for swallowing money without making any return to society, or even being held to account in any material fashion.
    I disagree, the bottom line is money, more efficient allocation of money leads to a better society and part of that more efficient allocation is the reformation of the Army. I agree there are other wasteful departments but they should be discussed in their own thread.
    Funnily enough, making do is a pretty terrible strategy. So far your plan leads to the wrong people having the wrong gear to do a job you don't know much about, and they're all armed, underpaid and under-resourced, but hey, tighten the belts and swing up the arms, eh?
    That's already what we have with the Army, what's the difference? the difference is a slimlined, more efficient minimalist force designed to carry out the domestic function of the Army at a fraction of the cost. Saving the taxpayer money shouldn't be controversial.


  • Options
    #87
    KingBrian2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,363 ✭✭✭KingBrian2


    Ruben Fancy Golf wrote: »
    Oh, and get a few LUAS drivers to operate the tanks :)

    I know it was joke but that would be a novel idea.


  • Options
    #88
    CrabRevolution
    Registered Users Posts: 2,827 ✭✭✭CrabRevolution


    jmayo wrote: »
    Actually that's not true.
    If you are relatively successful in GAA you can also get in.

    Ever check how many GAA managers were officers in the Army.

    Jim Gavin and Dermot Earley are the only 2 at county level I can think of, and Earley was in the 90s.

    Even then, in the span of 25 years I'd say there has been several hundred (maybe even thousand) inter county GAA managers, so 2 being in the army means nothing.


  • Options
    #89
    joeysoap
    Registered Users Posts: 6,238 ✭✭✭joeysoap


    jmayo wrote: »
    You don't appear to understand Irish geographic nor realise where we currently have hospitals. :rolleyes:

    There are no hospitals in her list bar Sligo and Galway on the Wild Atlantic Way, which by the way would be an area which has some of the worse roads in the country.
    There is no hospital between Galway and Cork.

    And Cork City is not on the Wild Atlantic Way as it ends in Kinsale.

    And at the moment there are hospitals (some major) in Waterford, Kilkenny, Naas, Tullamore, Portlaoise, Mullingar, Cavan, Navan.

    I give up .. :rolleyes:


  • Options
    #90
    TheQuietFella
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,857 ✭✭✭TheQuietFella


    Not being pedantic but we don't have an army but a defence force!


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #91
    The Rape of Lucretia
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,440 ✭✭✭The Rape of Lucretia


    Hey, we used to have a War Office too. Early incidences of rebranding to the more friendly sounding 'defence'.


Advertisement