Where someone has been forced to work above and beyond for an extended period of time, being told to stop whinging and get on with the job may very well be the final straw for an individual who has pushed along through determination and loyalty alone.

Indeed, and thats across the ADF, not just RAN.  Apart from RAN Engineers, everyone else is struggling to get Engineers into their area - in fact it's at a hypercritical level and thats also whats effecting delivery of some projects.  We can't get engineers for love or (and of) money.

 

Similarly ATC's are a dying breed....

Spoke to an Air Trafficer who was getting out. 

 

Its not just about money, but that helped make his decision.  It sounded like he had a bigger problem with moving around, kids are in high school didnt want to make them move, and the age that he was approaching if he turned down the latest Air Services offer he would be starting to run out of options.  He also mentioned that Air Services initially approached the RAAF with an offer to make it all combined but the RAAF said no, hence Air Services now poaches whoever whenever they want.

 

Another ATC friend has mentioned limited pay and career progression in the RAAF, given there is generally only one SQNLDR ATCO at each base, there is limited scope for moving up in the world.

How much money would be needed to lift at least all engineers pay (and conditions/benefits) to a level comparable or even exceed their average commercial options?  With more money being pumped into the ADF how much would be needed to do this across the board in order to fill available jobs and lift the overall number in the ADF?

1) There's an international shortage of engineers.  when I was in the private sector at the beginning of the year I ended up getting danes and americans

 

2) a public service engineer will earn more or less double the money if they go into mining - or if they become a senior contractor

 

3) experience is regarde (in ideal terms) as anyone with 10 years min on a sustained project - now we take people with no experience - or we're even scrabbling for graduates

 

 if they don't get engineers soon, then you can start kissing goodbye to JSF, SHornet development, new subs, AWD's and weapons development.

 

everyone else is just as screwed as we are - we just pay less because no ones prepared to admit at an exec level (political) that you do actually need to throw money and not speeches at this.

The really sad part is the amount of time and effort that is invested in retaining people you would be better off without but dare not let go because you need someone, no matter how incompetent, in the role.

 

The end result is the competent people will burn out and the inexperienced or even incompetent are promoted to where they can do even more damage, with no one decent being available to mentor the next generation.

It's not just the DMO, the larger defence contractors like to pretend their only competition for technical talent is other large defence contractors and index their pay rates accordingly. 

 

We probably have a lot more dead wood and pandas than DMO though, "good" blokes who are heading for their 20 20 (20 years in uniform followed by 20 with us).  They select their teams and look after their mates (almost always another 20 year man) leaving us with the situation that we have some people who have been in the same role for over a decade and still don't know what their assigned duties should be let alone how to carry them out.

 

When one of the "good" blokes finds a new job or starts looking to retire the company bends over backwards to get them to stay, even if it means promoting them above their level of competence, or even creating a new role for them so they will stay.

 

Every opportunity provided to the "good" blokes is an opportunity denied to a more competent, often more qualified and capable younger professional or para professional who has the potential to provide the company with a decade or two more return of service than the soon to retire "good" blokes.

 

Value for money, who is more likely to stay, someone with a young family and mortgage, or and ex serviceman who owns their home, already has their service pension and a massive super lump sum due in 5 or so years when they hit 55?

 

The joke is the "good" blokes often don't actually know what they are doing and when they eventually do move on there is often a mess that defies description left just under the surface that becomes obvious to all only when the new guy starts fixing things.  No prizes for guessing who gets the blame.

 

The final insult for the younger guys is while they are being held back waiting for the "good" blokes to retire or otherwise move on they are actually doing longer hours in more difficult jobs than the production and trades staff that they are more qualified and experienced than, for less money.

 

Now why would engineers and technicians possibly be attracted to the resources sector for double or triple the money and rewards based on merit, in preference to staying in a dead end job that could and should be so much better than it is?

Got it in one....

Its also a result of poor communication between HR and the engineers that need the people. If you look at some of the job profile selection criteria you would not think that DMO is desperate for engineers. Most civilian engineers atleast would prefer to have someone that fits 60-80% of the the selection criteria and train up the remaining % over a couple of months than have no one at all and spend another 6 months searching with no garuntee of finding anyone (I was placed in a job with no experience at all becasue my company was so desperate). Putting in stuff like must have experience with specific defence software or systems is not a way of recruiting any people with a non defence background.

 

The HR screening company seems to take it as a 100% or nothing approach and I suspect its probably in their benifit to screen applications like this as it gets them more work when it's advertised the 2nd time around.