Redundancy Points

[bawbagjambo]

Anyone know how they work out who will be made redundant?

 

[mild mannered janitor]

its in the DIN have a read !

 

[Soon To Leave]

its in the DIN have a read !

Yes, its in 2012DIN01-022

See the section SELECTION CRITERIA on page 9

Basically it's a 2 stage process

Stage 1 is based on collated objective information from details held on record and basically, the lower the score, the greater the likelyhood of being made redundant.
Please note that for some trades some elements of stage 1 have weighting applied. (eg Deployability has more 'value' for some trades than others).


Stage 2 is more subjective.

A board will sit and consider all those eligible for redundancy (including those applying that have insufficient seniority) and score each individual based on future value based on evidence contained within an individual's annual reports profile. This is not 'reverse promotion' as it is not based on potential for promotion. Note that previous to this point the board has no sight of scoring for Stage 1. The 3 members of the board independently assess each individual and a score (the lower the score, the less future value).

Only when Stage 2 has completed will the board have view of scores from Stage 1.

At this point, the scores from both stages are added together. Where there are personnel on the same score, the board will reassess to ensure each individual has a unique score. (eg five people all on 10 points could be scored as 10.5, 10.4, 10.3, 10.2 and 10.1). The lower the final score, the higher up the Redundancy list.

IMHO if you want to increase the possibility of staying in, ensure your competencies are correctly recorded and in date (including fitness test and CCS) and don't apply. The reverse applies to those that want to go.

Good luck to those that want/don't want redundancy.

 

[Drill Bit]

Yes, its in 2012DIN01-022See the section SELECTION CRITERIA on page 9Basically it's a 2 stage processStage 1 is based on collated objective information from details held on record and basically, the lower the score, the greater the likelyhood of being made redundant.Please note that for some trades some elements of stage 1 have weighting applied. (eg Deployability has more 'value' for some trades than others).Stage 2 is more subjective.A board will sit and consider all those eligible for redundancy (including those applying that have insufficient seniority) and score each individual based on future value based on evidence contained within an individual's annual reports profile. This is not 'reverse promotion' as it is not based on potential for promotion. Note that previous to this point the board has no sight of scoring for Stage 1. The 3 members of the board independently assess each individual and a score (the lower the score, the less future value).Only when Stage 2 has completed will the board have view of scores from Stage 1.At this point, the scores from both stages are added together. Where there are personnel on the same score, the board will reassess to ensure each individual has a unique score. (eg five people all on 10 points could be scored as 10.5, 10.4, 10.3, 10.2 and 10.1). The lower the final score, the higher up the Redundancy list. IMHO if you want to increase the possibility of staying in, ensure your competencies are correctly recorded and in date (including fitness test and CCS) and don't apply. The reverse applies to those that want to go.Good luck to those that want/don't want redundancy.

Wow, you certainly have more patience then I do. There's no way I'd respond to someone who can't be bothered to read a document, which is widely available, that would answer their questions.

 

[Soon To Leave]

Wow, you certainly have more patience then I do. There's no way I'd respond to someone who can't be bothered to read a document, which is widely available, that would answer their questions.

Patience! - how many points do I get for that?

 

[POB]

Wow, you certainly have more patience then I do. There's no way I'd respond to someone who can't be bothered to read a document, which is widely available, that would answer their questions.

True, but maybe (s)he doesn't have access at the moment...

This site is for chat, gossip, scandal and HELPING one another. And of course for taking the p!ss when needed...

 

[Noidea]

True, but maybe (s)he doesn't have access at the moment...

This site is for chat, gossip, scandal and HELPING one another. And of course for taking the p!ss when needed...

But it isn't a site as an excuse for general laziness. The info has been widely known for several weeks and it is on Airspace. If you can get on egoat you can get on Airspace!

 

[bawbagjambo]

Wow, you certainly have more patience then I do. There's no way I'd respond to someone who can't be bothered to read a document, which is widely available, that would answer their questions.

Only asked a question ffs, i'll glad to leave if its full of losers like u.

 

[I`m Ron Burgundy?]

Only asked a question ffs, i'll glad to leave if its full of losers like u.

You must have noticed that already if you've been on here long....

 

[Downsizer]

Yes, certain posters on here do delight in being unhelpfull. Fcuk knows why, it puts new and old members off, and then they'll moan the site isn't what it used to be....

 

[gmac33]

Redundancy!!!!!

Redundancy!!!!!

Sadly guys, all of the comments about fully deployable and rank held, time served all seem to be a smoke screen. I do feel bitter about this; I did not volunteer, I am indate for all requirements and fall 5 months before my pension. This unfortunately means that I am now out of a job and have lost all of my pension rights. Ok, whinge over.

On a more sensible note, is anyone aware of any ongoing legal cases against the MOD regarding loss of immediate pensionable income? The payout recieved in no way compensates for the loss of pension between now and my 60th birthday. At that point I will recieve less than a quarter of the pension I should be getting if they let me work another 5 months. I know that I am not the only person in this position and would appreciate getting in touch with others who are.

Thank you for listening/reading.

 

[Realist78]

Sadly guys, all of the comments about fully deployable and rank held, time served all seem to be a smoke screen. I do feel bitter about this; I did not volunteer, I am indate for all requirements and fall 5 months before my pension. This unfortunately means that I am now out of a job and have lost all of my pension rights. Ok, whinge over.

On a more sensible note, is anyone aware of any ongoing legal cases against the MOD regarding loss of immediate pensionable income? The payout recieved in no way compensates for the loss of pension between now and my 60th birthday. At that point I will recieve less than a quarter of the pension I should be getting if they let me work another 5 months. I know that I am not the only person in this position and would appreciate getting in touch with others who are.

Thank you for listening/reading.

I, for one, sympathise with you. I think it's simply wrong to dump someone who is on a pensionable engagement without proper and fair recompense.

 

[Yorkie666]

Gmac33, I am in the same boat as you, 2.5 months short of pension. What has surprised me is the astounding amount of ignorance and incorrect information pushed out by both the politicians (expected) the chain of command (more unexpected) on the redundancy programme. There has also been a resounding silence from all senior personnel on this matter. The only people who are trying to push this issue are "pension justice for troops" and the small number of individuals who I have found in similar circumstances. To avoid any responses along the lines of "someone will always be close to the line even if you move it", I would say there shouldn't be such a line in remuneration for time served when being made redundant. The package should have been gradually drawn down so that at no point was there a difference in payout of 2.5 times as much in pension and redundancy for the sake of 1 days service, (this figure is correct for all ranks). Over and above the question asked by Gmac33 I would be interested in knowing if the RAF tried to avoid anyone near to IPP as generally the exclusions work quite well for RAF except for those with non standard career paths. While it doesn't specifically state they avoided people near to the IPP in the DIN the general chat around HQ AIR seems to be that the RAF tried to avoid this. Given that there only seems to be 2 people in this boat from the RAF there could be some validity in this statement. A genuine mistake (I know calling it a mistake doesn't help Gmac33).

 

[Max]

Gmac33, I am in the same boat as you, 2.5 months short of pension. What has surprised me is the astounding amount of ignorance and incorrect information pushed out by both the politicians (expected) the chain of command (more unexpected) on the redundancy programme. There has also been a resounding silence from all senior personnel on this matter. The only people who are trying to push this issue are "pension justice for troops" and the small number of individuals who I have found in similar circumstances. To avoid any responses along the lines of "someone will always be close to the line even if you move it", I would say there shouldn't be such a line in remuneration for time served when being made redundant. The package should have been gradually drawn down so that at no point was there a difference in payout of 2.5 times as much in pension and redundancy for the sake of 1 days service, (this figure is correct for all ranks). Over and above the question asked by Gmac33 I would be interested in knowing if the RAF tried to avoid anyone near to IPP as generally the exclusions work quite well for RAF except for those with non standard career paths. While it doesn't specifically state they avoided people near to the IPP in the DIN the general chat around HQ AIR seems to be that the RAF tried to avoid this. Given that there only seems to be 2 people in this boat from the RAF there could be some validity in this statement. A genuine mistake (I know calling it a mistake doesn't help Gmac33).

I'd like to see the stats and whether anyone who qualified for a pension was made compulsory or if they were all conveniently short by however much... I know what my money would be on does anyone know of anyone qualifying who was given compulsory??

 

[topstop]

Your boss is a spendthrift

.http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...f-costs-rise-as-frontline-troops-are-cut.html