Letters

Woe-is-me attitude
‘Soldiers five’ not enough
We have the same aims

Woe-is-me attitude

I AM writing in reference to the letter “What about WOs” (Army, March 8).

The article was entitled “What about the WOs?” – it should have been more like the “Wha Wha WOs”.

The first point I’d like to make is that, as always, the WOs are only looking out for themselves on the issue of retention bonuses.
There was no mention of any other ranks, especially diggers, who could miss out on these bonuses. WOs are supposed to be the “soldiers’ soldier” and the welfare of their subordinates should be their priority, not the lining of their own pockets.

Sergeants and corporals deserve what they get as WOs have already received their bonuses.

In reaching the rank of WO, wouldn’t the bonuses they received in their career outweigh the 10-40K awarded to members who qualify for the retention bonuses?

The bonuses and benefits that WOs would be likely to receive in their career are:

  • all associated pensions lump sum payouts for being in DFRDB;
  • the 15-year sergeant bonus;
  • the opportunity of overseas postings and exchanges;
  • positions on overseas deployments, sometimes at the expense of a subordinate; and
  • greater posting opportunities for non-corps positions.

This “what about me” attitude is the sort of thing WOs are always telling me to lose with a “quit your whingeing and get on with your job”.

How about they take some of their own advice?

Maybe if all diggers, corporals and sergeants were looked after by their WOs in the first place there wouldn’t be this retention bonus issue.
Spr Greg Andrews
21 Const Sqn
Brisbane

‘Soldiers five’ not enough

I WAS flabbergasted to read the Safety First article by Maj Tyquin (Army, March 22) and his conclusion that I can get a “soldiers five” from my supervisor, or other qualified person, to operate a chainsaw.

I guess I, and so many other members of Defence, have wasted at least four days doing a recognised course (to a national standard) in chainsaw operation – and that only covered maintenance and crosscut, not felling!

If a “soldiers five” is all that is needed, then all of the courses conducted by Defence can be drastically reduced, saving us millions of dollars from the Defence budget.

Imagine that – we can get weapon qualifications in one or two “soldiers five”, drive a tank in perhaps three or four “soldiers five”.

May I suggest, sir, that you retract that article, visit SME (or other RTO) and see what damage a chainsaw can do, and perhaps use the “soldiers five” for items such as left-handed screwdrivers and cork screws.
WO1 James Fardell
DTLWO, AFP
Canberra
We have the same aims
I HAVE served this nation for almost 30 years both full-time and as a reservist.

The rivalry between the two has been an issue as long as I can remember.

Let us step back a little and look at our military history, in particular closer to home during World War II.

At Kokoda it was the militia that held off the enemy forces until the AIF arrived, and both fought side by side to defend what was then part of Australian territory.

When the militia was deployed to Papua New Guinea, they were poorly trained and poorly kitted out to perform the task they were expected to do. Today at least reservists are supplied with similar equipment as their full-time colleagues.

Until I transferred to the Reserve I did not have a full understanding of “dual career”. It was not highlighted until I entered the civilian workforce where I began my civilian career, plus the continuance of my military career.

Reservists are no different to the ARA; they like to be given the opportunity to receive the remuneration as entitled, to progress within their Army career by doing courses and being given the opportunity to be deployed overseas.

Next time you are on exercise or are deployed, ask yourself whether the medical officer who is attending to your needs is a reservist or a full-time soldier.
Capt David Czerkies
Health Services Army Reserve - NSW
Sydney