Letters

Criticisms warrant response
Ask yourself: does this benefit Army?
Beef over barbecues
Straight solution

Criticisms warrant response

I AM writing in reference to the letter “Woe-is-me attitude” (Army, April 5). The letter by Spr Greg Andrews, 21 Const Sqn, should have been entitled “Whingeneering”.

I have served for 26 years in the ADF and resent the comments about WOs only looking after themselves.

I and my peer group are continuously looking after our soldiers irrespective of rank, gender or corps.

What bonuses have WOs received, that you mentioned, bar salary commensurate with rank and trade?

Yes, I am on DFRDB, which was not my choice when I enlisted but was my choice when given the option of MSBS or DFRDB in 1991.

I do not get a huge pension from this scheme. In fact if I retire now, I will receive about $120,000 lump sum taxed.

Not being in MSBS I don’t qualify for the 15-year bonus.

I have never been on an overseas or exchange posting and I have never been given a position on operations overseas at the expense of a subordinate in my entire 26 years.

However, I see in the picture next to your argument, a sapper who is obviously serving his country on operations in Afghanistan, and good on him. The thought of whether he replaced a WO to get that trip has and would never have entered my mind.

I have never taken a posting except that which I have been ordered to take by my career manager at SCMA (that is, a posting order).

The letter “What about the WOs” (Army, March 8) was written with the passion of a senior soldier who cannot get a pay rise that even reflects current GDP. However, Spr Andrews’ response accuses WOs of not looking after the interests of the very people currently gaining from certain bonuses.

When I became an NCO I was told to remember the above, entitled The Creed of the NCO.

If you think you can do a better job Spr Andrews, then get yourself on a subject course and become an NCO. If not, then yes, quit your ‘whingineering’ and get on with your job.
WO1 Kevin O’Halloran
RSM, 16RWAR
Irwin Barracks

I AM angry and disappointed that a member has been able to cast aspersions on WOs.

I understand that members are entitled to submit their views without using the chain of command, however, on this occasion I feel Army has erred by allowing certain comments to go to print. What would happen if I, or others, criticised the CA in print?

I am aware some ADF members, not just in Army, have questioned and complained about who and why some are getting bonuses and others are not. I may not always agree with decisions made by higher ups, but I, along with many others, have a say or question why and then get on with it.

The five points Spr Andrews raised have nothing to do with retention bonuses, trades identified as critical or any complaints at why some are getting it and others not.

DFRDB was the only super fund available when I joined. MSBS was introduced in the early ’90s. I get no bonuses from DFRDB. Yes, I will get a pension and then a lump sum if I elect to commute when I complete 20 years’ service.

Yes, MSBS is different. ADF members did not make this decision. It was the government. Any negative changes that have been made to MSBS can be directed to the government, not WOs.

The 15-year bonus only affects members on MSBS. Not everyone will reach this milestone. Don’t blame the WOs.

Overseas postings and exchange selections are not done by the individual, they are done by the member’s chain of command/SCMA.

The member’s work performance and reporting, along with positions identified, are how the positions are offered and filled. Not every trade within the Army is available for Long Look at the same time.

On this point, I have seen a lot of JNCOs and SNCOs come and go on Long Look and Tasman Exchange, not just WOs. Exchange positions are normally filled by senior and experienced members of the ADF.

Comes with time and experience; it’s not the WO’s decision.

I cannot make comment on positions being filled by senior members instead of subordinates as I have not been in a position to witness this, although I have been told it happens.

On greater posting opportunities, if Spr Andrews is in a critical trade but he wants a greater posting opportunity, he should consider trade or corps transfer. If not, he needs to bring the matter up with his career advisor.

Retention bonuses are there to keep people in those positions identified as critical. You can’t have your cake and eat it too. WOs did not make this idea up.

As for WOs only looking after themselves, I am aggrieved that we have been accused of not looking after our soldiers.

We may not have always given them the answers they wanted; sometimes we all have to realise that there is a bigger picture.

Where possible, we should explain to our soldiers why decisions are made.

Finally, pardon the pun but “don’t tar all WOs with the same brush”.
WO2 Alan Tarr
NWCC
HQJOC, Sydney

Ask yourself: does this benefit Army?

WHENEVER Army shows up I immediately turn to the letters page. In years past this was a useful tool to ‘feel the pulse’ of the organisation to a degree.

Of late I have noticed that the letters page is filled with complaints about the latest administrative decision.

I make the point that these decisions are made (for example the new retention bonuses) in the best interests of the Army, not necessarily the individual.

In every case it will be possible to compile an arcane and complicated formula to ‘prove’ that an unidentified soldier, in an undetermined location, at a yet to be specified time, may be disadvantaged by the decision. So what?

Does this alleged disadvantage actually empty money from someone’s pocket? Does it destroy his career? Does it impact on the effectiveness of his service or stop the birds singing in the trees? In nearly all cases, no it does not.

The complaint is generally that one member may access a benefit of some sort that the complainant cannot.

Before using this formula as a reason to complain, perhaps we should all look at the big picture and ask, “Does this benefit the Army?”

It may be that not every individual benefits from the decision, but rarely are individuals actually penalised.

If the Army benefits, if the decision, the bonus, the benefit accomplishes its aim, what reason have we to complain?
WO2 Kent Davies
School of Artillery
Puckapunyal
Beef over barbecues
IT was refreshing to read “Flaming Danger” (Army, February 22) highlighting the carcinogenic by-products of the Aussie BBQ.

How many times have I been offered charred, fatty, and blackened (but cold) meat at Army BBQs and felt compelled to join in because there was nothing else to eat?

Cooking meat properly is one approach. However, the Army should move with the times and offer more support and encouragement for healthier forms of eating, including vegetarianism.
Tpr Gary Coombs
3/9LH (SAMR)
Smithfield, SA
Straight solution
ARMY Reserve members receive an attendance allowance to encourage them to attend by offsetting the cost of travel to their place of parade.

There are four payment bands, with the rates based on straight line distances from home to the place of parade. The rates are: 25km or less, $4.35; 26-60km, $10.30; 61-120km, $20.60; and more than 120km, $25.75.

While the allowance is welcome, I believe the way it is implemented could be improved to provide a fairer distribution of the entitlement. For example, someone who lives next door to the place of parade is paid the same as someone who could be required to travel a 50-60km round trip (if taken by road).
Also, someone who lives 25km from the place of parade receives less than half the allowance than someone 26km away – that is, one extra kilometre.

A simple solution exists; that is, divide the distance into more bands so that 15km increments would be a minimum. Some would receive more and some less, but it would be fairer.
Maj Daryn Radford
1 Topo Svy Sqn
Gallipoli Barracks