What about WOs?
Debate over administration

What about WOs?

THE announcement of several remuneration bonuses will no doubt be well received by many for which the bonuses apply.
While I do not begrudge this announcement, it will now be a reality that a sergeant earning the bonus will receive more pay than the warrant officer in charge of them.

For example, in the operator supply trades a sergeant with two years in rank on Pay Group 4 earns $50,065 while a warrant officer with two years in rank earns $57,914. A sergeant with the bonus will now earn $2141 more a year than their supervisors for four years if they sign up for that additional time.

It should be noted that we are still short of qualified members in the Op Sup trade at WO2 level, this being critical for ECN 296. With this incentive there won’t be any sergeants wanting promotion with a pay cut as part of the package and the employment category vacancy situation won’t get any better in the short term. I am sure this situation will now apply across several trades.
WO2 David O’Reilly
Chief Operating Officer’s Div
RAAF Williams

Col Ash Gunder, Director Mil Pers Admin – Army, responds:
YOUR issue with the pay discrepancy between a sergeant who elects to receive a rank expansion retention bonus and a WO2 ineligible for the same bonus is a fact and it may be a troubling issue for some over the duration of the rank expansion bonus program.

There is no deliberate intention to under-value the work, responsibilities or key status of our WO2s. Importantly, there is a clear Army and ADF priority to continue with an aggressive program of remuneration reform and pay case review in 2007. A goal of this program will be to restore an appropriate and enduring structure to OR and warrant officer remuneration as soon as possible.

In addition, ranks outside of corporal and sergeant will be eligible for the critical employment category bonus in the approved ECNs of 269 (Operator Petroleum), 273 (Operator Electronic Warfare), 270 (Operator Plant), and 377 (Supervisor Civ).

This is a dynamic list and ECN will be added to or removed from the approved list as personnel numbers fluctuate in the critical categories.

Let’s all be clear about the intent of these and future bonuses – they are aimed at providing incentives to serve through a period of rapid Army growth over the next nine years.

The development and sustainment of Army capability depends on the availability of a range of warfighting functions. Critical employment bonuses focus on those warfighting functions that are currently assessed as reducing Army’s capability.

We must necessarily take a broader view as we work to grow Army to meet government direction and acknowledge that a raft of initiatives and incentives are being progressed.

These are all aimed at advantaging elements of the workforce in different ways and at different times to support the growth of Army through improved retention.

The mechanisms to do that will vary but will be aiming to advantage and retain as much of the Army workforce as possible as we move forward.

A lower separation rate will lessen the pressure on all of us as there will be more people to share the load, particularly in those ranks of corporal and sergeant.

There will be more information on these issues in this and coming editions of Army.

Debate over administration

I WAS interested to read in Army (November 30, 2006) that a new Directorate of Military Personnel Administration – Army has been created to ensure that “personnel policy and initiatives are simple to access, easy to explain and interpret, efficient in application and accessible to all members”.

I must have been mistaken all these years when I thought that this was the role of CSI. I seem to recall bland statements about how CSI will establish and maintain the required levels of customer service and satisfaction while saving Defence lots of money.
It seems that DGPers-A has acknowledged the sterling job being done by CSI in the personnel administration field by spending more money to do what CSI should be doing and what chief clerks used to do.
Maj C.J. Bailey
IGFC MiTT G4 Adviser
Camp Victory, Baghdad

Col Ash Gunder, Director Mil Pers Admin – Army , responds:
GOOD to see that people are reading the articles on personnel administration in Army.

As the Director of Mil Pers Admin – Army one of my key tasks is to promote more debate on how we can improve our administration, not only in response to service delivery from CSIG (now DSG) but also within our own Army tribe, and importantly for those on deployment.

I’m certainly not doing a job someone else is paid to do. As I talk to soldiers I am getting the strong message that Army has much to do in streamlining its administrative policies, procedures, and training.

My job is to champion these improvements and ensure they are put into practice to help Army members, administrators and commanders.

To do this I appreciate any constructive ideas that are likely to result in less administrative complexity and uncertainty. Readers can submit ideas to milpersadmin.army@defence.gov.au.