ADF recruitment crisis.

[McTaff]

The new chief of the army just assumed command, he said stuff about improve retention and increase recruitment, so I assume a pay rise is coming our way.

Regarding to the recruitment crisis, I believe DFR is least partially responsible for it, from what I have seen, only around 1 in 10 applicants gets through the selection process, far lower than when the army did its own recruiting.

Here is a list, in no particular order, of why we can't retain people:

1) DFR is the cause of a lot of problems in actually recruiting the correct numbers. People are being diverted to careers they don't want, and are being convinced that things work differently to the way they actually do.

2) The lack of 'rest' postings: (particularly in the RAN). Fewer shore postings because civilian contractors do those jobs now, and no-one wants to be at sea forever. No matter which way you cut it, people will want to have a family and if leaving the ADF is how they have to do it, they will.

3) A lack of correct renumeration and accessible benefits. (lack of understanding of benefits, benefits 'hidden', benefits changing at short notice, the better benefits are being stripped away and replaced with lesser benefits of similar type)

4) Constant mistakes in pay (with detrimental mistakes taking forever to be corrected, and favourable mistakes being corrected immediately without warning).

5) No pensions. Forget superannuation - pension is important to people. Pensions are honest, tangible and follow simple rules.

6) A general feeling of being "another number" when you are dealt with, particularly by civilian companies doing defence contracting.

7) Unattractive apprenticeship positions with sufficient Return Of Service (we should be offering apprentice positions for just about everything, instead we contract out most of it, only the defence specific maintainer stuff is actually touted)

8) A lack of care by the gov't as to what happens in defence (occasionally we get surveys but they never, ever, ask the right questions to really understand what is going on)

9) Sub-par service from civilian contractors, and certain issues being unresolved on bases (particularly to do with accomodation, accessibility of services, etc).

There is much, much more, but until I get to stand up in Parliament House and tell them what a complete mess they've made over the last few decades, I won't go any further into it. They can damn well pay me to tell them how to fix it. Give me a grant, a small office, allow me to hire a small team of security cleared accountants, investigators and a lawyer I'd be able to plop a big thick report on their desks and tell them how "The few million you saved, per year, over the last X years has actually ended up costing more in those years and now you have to spend this many extra millions to fix the damn problem you created - this is where to start, how to do it, and how to finish it"

Although as a betting man, they'd probably agree to half a dozen of the three thousand-odd recommendations that'd be in it, and junk the rest.

 

[bigwaz69]

reasons why ADf are having trouble recruiting

hey guys just reading what you all have to say and i have to say as a person who is interested in joining the army i have found the whole process confuseing!!! When i rang the 131901 number the couldnt answer basic info like if i am bankrupt can i join or get a waiver? Then at the YOU session i was told i quailfied to join as pretty much anything up to and including officer according to their testing.

I asked if i could join as a apprentice elec or plumber and was told the positions were closed but could not answer how long they were closed for!!! I then decided after a few weeks to call back and ask if i could join as a combat enginer i was told i could but needed my year nine results from school but i had already given them my year 10 and HSC results!!!

I then asked how long the apprenticeships i wanted were closed for again and elec is 2 years witing list and plumber 8months to 1 year!!!

I cant find my year nine results so i have to stuff around finding them this is the whole trouble with the ADF recruitment so much stuffing around with s**t. The whole process thus far has really put me off sorry for such a long first post but i had to explain where i was coming from.

Oh yeah anyone here a combat eng? Is it good or should i wait for apprenticeship to come up?
thanks guys
waz

 

[McTaff]

hey guys just reading what you all have to say and i have to say as a person who is interested in joining the army i have found the whole process confuseing!!! When i rang the 131901 number the couldnt answer basic info like if i am bankrupt can i join or get a waiver? Then at the YOU session i was told i quailfied to join as pretty much anything up to and including officer according to their testing.

I asked if i could join as a apprentice elec or plumber and was told the positions were closed but could not answer how long they were closed for!!! I then decided after a few weeks to call back and ask if i could join as a combat enginer i was told i could but needed my year nine results from school but i had already given them my year 10 and HSC results!!!

I then asked how long the apprenticeships i wanted were closed for again and elec is 2 years witing list and plumber 8months to 1 year!!!

I cant find my year nine results so i have to stuff around finding them this is the whole trouble with the ADF recruitment so much stuffing around with s**t. The whole process thus far has really put me off sorry for such a long first post but i had to explain where i was coming from.

This is unfortunately a not-too-uncommon story. I've heard some related horror stories regarding complete inability to be flexible/have common sense with entrance requirements (with reference to having yr 12 results, yet they only want yr 10, etc). Worse still, paperwork being lost, sent to the wrong place or simply processed incorrectly seems to be a common theme.

Unfortunately I wish there was a way to fix it, however you're pretty much restricted to 'hanging on for the ride'. Keep at them, call them when you're waiting on stuff, and make multiple copies of every conceivable form of ID and of any records they might see as useful (from vaccination cards through to school records and any courses you've completed) and have them certified as true copies. Have them ready and inform them of exactly what you have that they could get from you.

 

[LancasterBomber]

I joined this forum yesterday primarily so I could post in this thread and personally say thank you to everyone who has shared their personal knowledge re: 'ADF recruitment process'.

 

[The Infantryman]

It's cheaper to retain than to recruit. This is the same as the retail sector. It's cheaper to retain a customer than to advertise for new ones. With this latest pay debacle why is Rudd the Dudd allowing the skimping allowances? Before the last election I was warning people what would happen to the ADF if Labor got in. The Labor supporters howled me down & said I should look to the future & not the past.

Any intelligent person will tell you that by looking at the past we won't make the same mistakes in the future. We're now returning to the dark past of the Hawke & Keating years.

I've been a member of the ADF since a lot of the newbies were in nappies. I've seen a lot of changes, most for the better. I'm now seriously considering throwing the towel in because of the politics that's being played out. The govt needs to support us more & stop interferinfg. Tell us what they want done, the parameters, but not how to do it & don't penalise us for doing the job.

 

[Beagle]

It's cheaper to retain than to recruit. This is the same as the retail sector. It's cheaper to retain a customer than to advertise for new ones. With this latest pay debacle why is Rudd the Dudd allowing the skimping allowances? Before the last election I was warning people what would happen to the ADF if Labor got in. The Labor supporters howled me down & said I should look to the future & not the past.

Any intelligent person will tell you that by looking at the past we won't make the same mistakes in the future. We're now returning to the dark past of the Hawke & Keating years.

I've been a member of the ADF since a lot of the newbies were in nappies. I've seen a lot of changes, most for the better. I'm now seriously considering throwing the towel in because of the politics that's being played out. The govt needs to support us more & stop interferinfg. Tell us what they want done, the parameters, but not how to do it & don't penalise us for doing the job.

Its not nessicarily cheaper to retain than to recruit, especially more senior staff as they can cost ALOT more when you include pay and benifits with no garuntee they will even stay on. The retail sector can be very fluid in its turnover of staff and accounts for that, while the ADF has ROSO to ensure the initial training effort is recouped (even partialy), as such they cannot be compared so readily. (Clarification: I am not saying errode benifits; your main complaint sounds alot more like a managment grevance thay a nessicarily a pay one, which is unfortuantely all too comon in both private and goverment sectors)

Both retainment and recruitment need to be targeted specifically, dependant on the position and seniority of who you are recruiting/retaining. Its no point focusing so strongly on retaining staff only to find progression stagnation forces lower ranks to become disenchanted and leave. You can't go the other way either as the training/recruitment costs will kill you along with loosing your knowlegde base (I have been in an engineering company where the annual staff turnover was around 40%).

Things need to be targeted to specific services and skills. For example focusing on retainment of Navy MEO's won't work too well as they usually have only 3 sea postings as part of a normal progression. As such you need a constant flow of recruits to fill vacating positions no matter how many staff you retain. At the same rate you don't want to bleed out your workplace knowlegde by loosing all your senior staff, especially in areas where experience is not very perishable or hard to replace.

In my opinion there is a lack of HR planning between people entering and people leaving. Only once this is solved can you really determine what you need to happen at either end and adapt your strategy towards recruitment or retainment.

For recruitment though, the Navy in particular still has an image problem where people don't really know what life is like in the navy, particualy at sea. Shows like "Navy divers" can only help recruitment by exposing what life is really like in the Navy, and not preconceived ideas from WW2 movies. I think they will end up enticing more people than they turn away in the younger generations.

 

[willur]

O woe is my ARMY

Its not nessicarily cheaper to retain than to recruit, especially more senior staff as they can cost ALOT more when you include pay and benifits with no garuntee they will even stay on. The retail sector can be very fluid in its turnover of staff and accounts for that, while the ADF has ROSO to ensure the initial training effort is recouped (even partialy), as such they cannot be compared so readily. (Clarification: I am not saying errode benifits; your main complaint sounds alot more like a managment grevance thay a nessicarily a pay one, which is unfortuantely all too comon in both private and goverment sectors)

Both retainment and recruitment need to be targeted specifically, dependant on the position and seniority of who you are recruiting/retaining. Its no point focusing so strongly on retaining staff only to find progression stagnation forces lower ranks to become disenchanted and leave. You can't go the other way either as the training/recruitment costs will kill you along with loosing your knowlegde base (I have been in an engineering company where the annual staff turnover was around 40%).

Things need to be targeted to specific services and skills. For example focusing on retainment of Navy MEO's won't work too well as they usually have only 3 sea postings as part of a normal progression. As such you need a constant flow of recruits to fill vacating positions no matter how many staff you retain. At the same rate you don't want to bleed out your workplace knowlegde by loosing all your senior staff, especially in areas where experience is not very perishable or hard to replace.

In my opinion there is a lack of HR planning between people entering and people leaving. Only once this is solved can you really determine what you need to happen at either end and adapt your strategy towards recruitment or retainment.

For recruitment though, the Navy in particular still has an image problem where people don't really know what life is like in the navy, particualy at sea. Shows like "Navy divers" can only help recruitment by exposing what life is really like in the Navy, and not preconceived ideas from WW2 movies. I think they will end up enticing more people than they turn away in the younger generations.

I agree education of the masses creates greater oppurtunities in gaining the required number of recruits for all branches of the ADF, all though there is dissent within the military in in a percentage of personel and these are some of those who leave, incentives help or maybe a change of thinking within the ADF would help. Retension is by far cheaper than training new recruits ie: such as the cost to train a SF soldier is almost expensive as a pilot(unless he crashes alot), training a sailor is expensive due to the training education requirement is higher(alot more trade and equipment skilling). In conclusion educate, intice and retain by carrots.
my idea would be remove all tax including super from serving members, free education, 8 weeks leave, choice of posting after 2 yrs service, reskilling after 4yrs and access to super and pension after 8 years service.
mainly because we only have less than 1% of the population in the military this is really cheap to do come on kev give it a run.

 

[south]

I agree education of the masses creates greater oppurtunities in gaining the required number of recruits for all branches of the ADF, all though there is dissent within the military in in a percentage of personel and these are some of those who leave, incentives help or maybe a change of thinking within the ADF would help. Retension is by far cheaper than training new recruits ie: such as the cost to train a SF soldier is almost expensive as a pilot(unless he crashes alot), training a sailor is expensive due to the training education requirement is higher(alot more trade and equipment skilling). In conclusion educate, intice and retain by carrots.
my idea would be remove all tax including super from serving members, free education, 8 weeks leave, choice of posting after 2 yrs service, reskilling after 4yrs and access to super and pension after 8 years service.
mainly because we only have less than 1% of the population in the military this is really cheap to do come on kev give it a run.

Sorry mate as much as those idea's sound attractive, they are going to be super hard to implement...

8 Weeks leave. There are a lot of people with too much leave already, especcially with higher op tempo's so people are going OS and coming back with mucho leave and additional post deployment stuff. So bad that if you get over 20 days leave saved up you need to have a leave plan, and if you get over 40 days leave I believe in the AF you needed to write a letter to the CAF saying how you planned to use up the leave. The problem isnt necessarily the amount of leave, it is access to the leave.

Choice of posting, as much as that would be lovely, you would end up with the entire Airforce at Amberly or Williamtown (and similar I would imagine for the RAN/Army). Unfortunately there are always going to be people that get screwed. What would be better would be if you get dicked on one posting, the next posting you get guaranteed what you want, which could be possible with individual contracts That way, people do end up in the shitty jobs, but they are happier to work in that job because they feel that 1) they have been listened too, 2) there is light in the end of the tunnel. It also works for the personnel planners as they have two successive postings sorted so it could make a lot of things easier.

Reskilling after 4 years... hmmm maybe not so bad, but once again using the RAAF as an example, if you get every avtech/gunny/blackhander reskilling after 4 years, doing something like another 18 months at wagga, the RAAF is going to be hurting for actually trained people filling positions, plus it also costs to keep continually training those guys. Having said that, I know a lot of blokes who have changed their career path..

 

[StingrayOZ]

In regards to tough postings.

Theres a scheme used in education which is based off points. I know its used in the NSW DET (employees in the thousands) and simular systems in other states. Each location gets a annual point rating, which people working their receive. Eventually you save up enough points to go where you want or atleast enough to go somewhere nicer. On top of this is forced transfers (usually for those not pull their weight) and promotion positions. Its a workable system for the education system (but is currently under review). A system like this combined with the 4 year change over would seem to be a pretty fair system. There maybe those who stay in less desireable areas. Most teachers are happy with this system and teaching postings are as hard to fill as defence ones (remote rural schools, no power, tiny closed communities of <100 people etc).

As for reskilling maybe a simular point system could be setup, do the tough job for 4 years then be able to retrain into a desireable one.

They certainly need to change from the current system.

The navy will get a big boost when all this new equipment comes on line. The LHD's and the AWD's are the sort of units people will willingly sign up for. With accomodation and conditions that are a real step up while being front line "flagship"* units. Hopefully they also bring in new strategies and HR policies to maximise this effect.

* = Flagship as in premium symbols of power, strength and capability.

 

[Beagle]

I agree education of the masses creates greater oppurtunities in gaining the required number of recruits for all branches of the ADF, all though there is dissent within the military in in a percentage of personel and these are some of those who leave, incentives help or maybe a change of thinking within the ADF would help. Retension is by far cheaper than training new recruits ie: such as the cost to train a SF soldier is almost expensive as a pilot(unless he crashes alot), training a sailor is expensive due to the training education requirement is higher(alot more trade and equipment skilling). In conclusion educate, intice and retain by carrots.
my idea would be remove all tax including super from serving members, free education, 8 weeks leave, choice of posting after 2 yrs service, reskilling after 4yrs and access to super and pension after 8 years service.
mainly because we only have less than 1% of the population in the military this is really cheap to do come on kev give it a run.

Yes disent is a problem but it is current even in the mining industry. My friend recently got out of the Oil industry (in the gulf) specifically complained about how bad moral was. Everybody compared how bad their pay and benifits was to everyone else in the same industry(despite earning in the hundreds of thousands) so more pay and benifits doesn't mean better moral, its comes down to better job satifaction and a feeling of worth (AKA job satisfaction...which is strongest in the minds of generation Y). It happens in times of boom. Now the GFC has hit I think a few people may start ducking their heads as they realise how good they actually have it (AKA a secure and good paying job....or even... just a job depending on how bad it gets).

A blanket comment saying that retainment is cheaper than recruiting is just not true. The ADF is looking to grow which is why they are focusing so much on the recruitment front stronger than the retainment front. Once again retainment is not nessicarily cheaper (mainy times it will be however). Using your example of a pilot it is not cheaper to retain a pilot near the end of his flying life than a new recruit. Pilots have a ROSO of 9 years specifically for the reason to help both retainment and the exchange of knowledge and experience. Further more some positions such as Seaman officers seem to constantly be in training on completely new systems about the ship once they have mastered one. Hence, previous experience on systems is good from a multi role crew point of veiw but not cheaper on the training front. As I said before its comes down to the specific job, what the personel requirement is and min turnover rate to retain knowlegde and experience.

Hence, why I said before BOTH retainment and recruitment but specificaly targeted and tailored to certian positions. The ADF does currently do it but very poorly in a reactive manner. This is why I said their needs to be better progression structure and management so they can spot things like sub crew shortages further in advance. This will allow them to put mitigation stratigies in place before it becomes a such problem.

In regards to bad postings; I think Stingray's proposal is along the line the ADF should take. I know its also done with teachers in QLD where a posting in the most desirable postings will earn you one point a year. Posting up in the remote aboriginal cape communities can be worth seven points a year or more. I would take this further and possibily include a system of using your points to speed up your progression to the next rank (of course carefully controlled). Suddenly those undesirable positions don't look to bad and if someone has accumilated alot of points, they may think twice before leaving the ADF and losing all that potential.

 

[south]

A blanket comment saying that retainment is cheaper than recruiting is just not true. The ADF is looking to grow which is why they are focusing so much on the recruitment front stronger than the retainment front. Once again retainment is not nessicarily cheaper (mainy times it will be however). Using your example of a pilot it is not cheaper to retain a pilot near the end of his flying life than a new recruit. Pilots have a ROSO of 9 years specifically for the reason to help both retainment and the exchange of knowledge and experience. Further more some positions such as Seaman officers seem to constantly be in training on completely new systems about the ship once they have mastered one. Hence, previous experience on systems is good from a multi role crew point of veiw but not cheaper on the training front. As I said before its comes down to the specific job, what the personel requirement is and min turnover rate to retain knowlegde and experience.

Mate, dont know where you are getting your figures from, but there are significant benefits to retention than recruitment. It will almost always be much cheaper and better to retain people than to train. The example you used is about as far wrong, as you can possibly get. For starters the current RAAF ROSO is 11 1/2 years.

The problem with Pilots is they are long lead time (and not just pilots, any technical position these days). You cant say (as the RAAF has said in the last few years) hmmm we need twice as many pilots, make it so! Because they take ~3-4 years to train.

It is much easier, cheaper and better in the long run to turn off the tap on guys leaving, than to turn on the tap and create guys.

Example, hornet pilot. Conservative estimate ~$8Million and 4 years worth of training, to a D Cat standard i.e. straight out of 2OCU. In that time, you have had to employ 4-5 QFI's (1@BFTS, 1@2FTS, 1@79, 1or2@76, 1or2@2OCU), Now all of these QFI's have to come from somewhere which takes more people out of the pointy end, who are no longer contributing to the ADF capability.

However To retain a guy, who at the end of his ROSO will be an experienced BCat, probably with QFI/FCI etc qualifications, if you have to pay $30k extra a year to keep him in, well that is a 'ken good deal.

So for the 4 years that you have retained this guy, you have....
1. spent $0.12M extra as opposed to $8M or whatever it is.
2. Saved anywhere from 4-6QFI's who are now in the pointy end, who also dont need to be replaced in their squadrons, which means that you also need Less pilots full stop.
3. The guy is going to be significantly more experienced.

It works all across the board. Which is why Pilots, Submariners, ATC, Signallers and I'm sure there are other critical trades, are getting retention bonuses to sign on for longer. It isnt just because there are shortages, but the ADF has actually worked out that it is easier and better to stop the flow out, than to increase the flow in....

 

[Beagle]

Mate, dont know where you are getting your figures from, but there are significant benefits to retention than recruitment. It will almost always be much cheaper and better to retain people than to train. The example you used is about as far wrong, as you can possibly get. For starters the current RAAF ROSO is 11 1/2 years.

The problem with Pilots is they are long lead time (and not just pilots, any technical position these days). You cant say (as the RAAF has said in the last few years) hmmm we need twice as many pilots, make it so! Because they take ~3-4 years to train.

It is much easier, cheaper and better in the long run to turn off the tap on guys leaving, than to turn on the tap and create guys.

Example, hornet pilot. Conservative estimate ~$8Million and 4 years worth of training, to a D Cat standard i.e. straight out of 2OCU. In that time, you have had to employ 4-5 QFI's (1@BFTS, 1@2FTS, 1@79, 1or2@76, 1or2@2OCU), Now all of these QFI's have to come from somewhere which takes more people out of the pointy end, who are no longer contributing to the ADF capability.

However To retain a guy, who at the end of his ROSO will be an experienced BCat, probably with QFI/FCI etc qualifications, if you have to pay $30k extra a year to keep him in, well that is a 'ken good deal.

So for the 4 years that you have retained this guy, you have....
1. spent $0.12M extra as opposed to $8M or whatever it is.
2. Saved anywhere from 4-6QFI's who are now in the pointy end, who also dont need to be replaced in their squadrons, which means that you also need Less pilots full stop.
3. The guy is going to be significantly more experienced.

It works all across the board. Which is why Pilots, Submariners, ATC, Signallers and I'm sure there are other critical trades, are getting retention bonuses to sign on for longer. It isnt just because there are shortages, but the ADF has actually worked out that it is easier and better to stop the flow out, than to increase the flow in....

11.5 years is the IMPS not the ROSO. ROSO is the return of service obligation after training. So 9 years after pilot training if I am not mistaken. Also I never suggested that someone straight off their ROSO would be more expensive to retain than recruit. I specifically said someone near the end of their flying life (eg. only a few years left).

The point I am trying to make is you cannot swipe everyone with the same brush. How long and how much does it take to train up a clerk and what would there ROSO be. Now does it make sense to pay more to a senior clerk with no garuntee they won't leave in a year's time. For every position that balance falls differently where some its better to retain and others it better to recruit.

My point was this needs to be done for horses and courses, which needs a proper strategic overveiw to see where the problems are and make changes before they get worse. Not just the reactionary band-aids that are happening at the moment.

 

[south]

11.5 years is the IMPS not the ROSO. ROSO is the return of service obligation after training. So 9 years after pilot training if I am not mistaken. Also I never suggested that someone straight off their ROSO would be more expensive to retain than recruit. I specifically said someone near the end of their flying life (eg. only a few years left).

The point I am trying to make is you cannot swipe everyone with the same brush. How long and how much does it take to train up a clerk and what would there ROSO be. Now does it make sense to pay more to a senior clerk with no garuntee they won't leave in a year's time. For every position that balance falls differently where some its better to retain and others it better to recruit.

My point was this needs to be done for horses and courses, which needs a proper strategic overveiw to see where the problems are and make changes before they get worse. Not just the reactionary band-aids that are happening at the moment.

lets not get tied up into semantics but IMPS is completely seperate to ROSO. IF you have an IMPS, that is it, no ROSO. So a pilot is signed on to 11.5years from day dot, doesnt matter if their training takes 2 days or 3 years, they still can get out at the same day.

Sure, sounds good As you said, everyone is going to have to be treated differently, thats just the nature of the beast., although Im not fully sure of what you mean by the bit that I bolded.

 

[willur]

wow South talk about a hornet's nest...yes it was a blanket comment and yet you both have brought up intelligent banter to my quote, for I to cover the whole ADF I did make a blanket comment because otherwise I would have to get nitty-gritty on the subject.
And yes you can't swipe anyone with the same brush( a ship is a ship but so is a camel)
Where do you start I know where the finish is.....that's why it a blanket comment, I know of the problems in retention and recruitment from a personal perspective 15 yrs ago.
So my answer is still the same, I dont care what part of the ADF is being remarked on, I am just saying that cheaper even if it is a dollar cheaper is still cheaper because of the experience the member we are about to lose is an important part of the ADF. from what yuor comment I understand most of it...to me your saying that the pilot after 5yrs who may or may not have increased in rank is worth nothing because you can just train another in 30 days because thats how long it takes for most members to leave the service or corp? Well south is a exiting pilot for example worth nothing compared to a entering pilot.
I know pilots have a short service flying life(fast jets) but they can fly something within the ADF why not offer say a exiting jet pilot a job as a helipilot something other wouldn't that be cheaper as there is no loss. remember a loss is a negative

 

[south]

sorry willur, i think you have me at 180 out...

It is far more worthwhile to the ADF to retain an experienced member (of whatever specialiality) than to recruit. The reasons...

1. Cheaper as you dont have to train old mate again
2. Better on resources - i.e. less people have to be taken out of the pointy end to run the training system
3. Far more predictable flow of people.. by controlling people leaving through throwing them a carrot or two, you can get your recruitment numbers/training system fixed and working properly, rather than having to ramp up /down to suit the flow of people leaving - you become proactive rather than reactive. the big problem is controlling the exit rates,

No matter what happens, having a 10 year experienced guy or girl, is better for the organisation than a 10 week mate.

 

[gf0012-aust]

sorry willur, i think you have me at 180 out...

It is far more worthwhile to the ADF to retain an experienced member (of whatever specialiality) than to recruit. The reasons...

1. Cheaper as you dont have to train old mate again
2. Better on resources - i.e. less people have to be taken out of the pointy end to run the training system
3. Far more predictable flow of people.. by controlling people leaving through throwing them a carrot or two, you can get your recruitment numbers/training system fixed and working properly, rather than having to ramp up /down to suit the flow of people leaving - you become proactive rather than reactive. the big problem is controlling the exit rates,

No matter what happens, having a 10 year experienced guy or girl, is better for the organisation than a 10 week mate.

Wholeheartedly agree. 10 years ago I was a State Director for Defence Force Recruitment. We had the same cost issues. Retention is always preferable to greenfields recruitment.

 

[Beagle]

lets not get tied up into semantics but IMPS is completely seperate to ROSO. IF you have an IMPS, that is it, no ROSO. So a pilot is signed on to 11.5years from day dot, doesnt matter if their training takes 2 days or 3 years, they still can get out at the same day.

Sure, sounds good As you said, everyone is going to have to be treated differently, thats just the nature of the beast., although Im not fully sure of what you mean by the bit that I bolded.

South, you ask how I came up with the 9 years. I explained, its not semantics. I tend to use ROSO (which is a component of IMPS) not IMPS as it varies with entry point.

You did not read my post properly and talked about pilots in the middle of there carrer which I was not comparing. Hence, the comment you bolded.

I whole heartedly agree that in general its cheaper to retain than to recruit and firmly believe that a 10% turnover rate is too high. I was playing devils advocate to those saying its always the case. The reason I brought this up is posts and personel I know continually like to mention a broad brush method like one of south's suggested retion benifits (eg no tax). I was merely intending to say its not the way to go, and that senior staff can be more expensive to retain if you are retaining them for a skills base (eg its not going to be cheaper retaining a captian or comander to do midshipman's role). In some feilds like MEO, retention will not really work due to the nature of the carrer progression.

GF yes reteintion is preferable as long as you do not take it too far which is what I was trying to point out. My former employer had 4000 staff and had a graduate program intake of 30 a year. There was too much focus on reducing training/trainees and corperate knowledge was just not get passed on. It is evident something was a miss when in an office of 60, around 8 people are under the age of 50. Now once you loose all that corperate knowledge how much does it cost to get it back. Eg Australian Cricket team...need I say more

 

[gf0012-aust]

GF yes reteintion is preferable as long as you do not take it too far which is what I was trying to point out. My former employer had 4000 staff and had a graduate program intake of 30 a year. There was too much focus on reducing training/trainees and corperate knowledge was just not get passed on. It is evident something was a miss when in an office of 60, around 8 people are under the age of 50. Now once you loose all that corperate knowledge how much does it cost to get it back. Eg Australian Cricket team...need I say more

Yes, its about balance (and context) - in areas where there is significant churn and where the trade is a very specialised skillset, then you can't afford to keep on bringing in the young turks.

eg, pilots, trainers, submariners, acoustic warfare officers, chooks, loggies are worth their weight in gold... younguns need to learn their craft before they become owls.

 

[south]

aadsfasdf

 

[willur]

I agee with GF there is a need to strike a balance, loss of knowlegde is hard to retain and hopefully it is contained within the training structure and/or policies and procedures.
Training is something no company/organization does very well. Military has got some good training, although this is somewhat lost sometimes from zeal. And really bring back MERV crickets boring crap with a bunch of shielas now.