Thread: The Strain On Defence Force Families.

Originally Posted by garrycol

Well if they don't they then have to spend lots of money and resources recruiting and training new people to replace those who leave because the services do not or will not meet their needs.

As discussed in other threads - the Australian submarine force was/is an example - drive people too hard, upset their sea shore ratio, don't understand their family needs and pay the consequence of not having enough qualified people to do the job.

The answer is easy - if it was there would not be an issue.

Agree in part but every organisation has staff turn. I can certainly see that are specialist areas which would require special rates of pay etc but realistically you are never going to satisfy everyone.


I know the airforce used to have trouble retaining pilots due to the big money on offer in the private sector. I am not sure that is still the case as I believe pilots generally are not earning what they used to.


Many non Govt sectors are seeing lower wages. I would suspect hat many in the auto manufacturing industry would be grateful for a 1.5% payrise and a ongoing job.


It just seems to me that everyone always want more and at some point there has to be a balancing.

ADF is not "any employer" and the requirements of the job are unique.
I'm not familiar with "any employer" besides the ADF who offers such a "lifestyle".
What little things they have should not be taken away or eroded further in the name of a budget "crisis" in which we are the best performing economy in the OECD.
Further it's not about "wanting more" , its about giving less with no choice.
The state of Australia: the economy - www.thebull.com.au
International comparisons of national debt – Parliament of Australia


To restate it in a private sector company owners terms. You buy the latest do-hickey plant , that requires 5 bodies trained for 12 months full time to operate correctly and make product far superior and in greater numbers than any competitor. In the last 2 years production has been excellent with big bonuses for you the owner manager, and them doing extra overtime to increase production and profits from that section. But this year orders in your other products slow as market in those sectors has temporarily reduced. You decide to increase production on your Do-hickey machine as the market is growing in that sector, do you tell the 5 blokes they are going to do 2 extra overtime shifts a week for free with no payrise for 2 years then try to run with 4 or 3 after they find alternate work and quit. Or do you train up 3-5 more and start a second shift/ rotating roster rewarding the loyalty of the original 5 who will help train the new guys?

Originally Posted by nugge t

Agree in part but every organisation has staff turn. I can certainly see that are specialist areas which would require special rates of pay etc but realistically you are never going to satisfy everyone.


I know the airforce used to have trouble retaining pilots due to the big money on offer in the private sector. I am not sure that is still the case as I believe pilots generally are not earning what they used to.


Many non Govt sectors are seeing lower wages. I would suspect hat many in the auto manufacturing industry would be grateful for a 1.5% payrise and a ongoing job.


It just seems to me that everyone always want more and at some point there has to be a balancing.

Mate, let it go, you don't understand, & probably never will. please don't start arguing the point, just for the sake an argument. Bob

Originally Posted by bob10

Mate, let it go, you don't understand, & probably never will. please don't start arguing the point, just for the sake an argument. Bob

I understand that it maybe hard to look at it from both sides when you are as committed as you are, and I genuinely believe you are.


But there are 2 sides non the less and to suggest that I am simply looking for an argument is offensive.


garrycol made some good points which I can appreciate.

Originally Posted by nugge t

I understand that it maybe hard to look at it from both sides when you are as committed as you are, and I genuinely believe you are.


But there are 2 sides non the less and to suggest that I am simply looking for an argument is offensive.


garrycol made some good points which I can appreciate.

No offence meant, nugget. Bob

Originally Posted by frantic

One person's response in a non political thread is to post a political speech, when both sides have been guilty at one stage, just the latest is current news.

At least a couple. It was served up and then returned with some additional context.

Regards
Andrew

I don't have sympathy for someone who accepts a job then ages later whinges and moans about the terms of employment. You knew you would be sent away from home for long periods. This is like people who build new homes next to a steel works or airport and then complain about the noise.

When I owned trucks I made sure that all applicants for driving jobs were informed that if on the East Coast shuttle they would be home only every second weekend, on Darwin or Perth home every third weekend. The younger ones almost inevitably would have woman trouble: "you are never home. I'm here on my own looking after this house and your kids. whinge, nag, whinge." I got to the point where to achieve reliable staff, I employed drivers over 45. A lot of whom didn't want to go home.

I also worked in heavy truck and machinery sales firms where the country reps servicing the far flung outposts of Oz would be away 2-3 weeks at a time, back in the office long enough to do expenses and paperwork, attend a meeting or two and then back in the saddle.

A friend in a human resources firm in Perth tells me this applies to FIFO workers. When they come home they get their ear chewed about the woman being left on her own to manage a family and home. Often given an ultimatum, "me or the job" What's it to be." Quite forgetting the job is what gives them an income 2-3 or more times than he would achieve in a factory or on a construction site.

Don't like it? Find another job.

Originally Posted by Brian Hjelm

Don't like it? Find another job.

And they do - so substantially increasing costs to businesses and Defence in recruiting and training new staff.

Organisations have advised time on/time off rosters and most employees accept that - the Navy has the Sea/Shore roster but managers become greedy - and personnel are told that due to operational requirements or manning shortfalls the shore time is to be cut (this is what gets the missus upset) and off you go. Then that person says "stuff you" and leaves putting larger demands on those that stay.

It is poor management by managers and poor implementation of the rules by managers that is the issue - not the basic policies.

In my experience most personnel and their families are happy to give it their all when on their operational cycle but when this also eats into the time when they are non operational that servicemen walk and Defence has to then pay hundreds of thousands to train a replacement.