I have to pay to use gym
I WAS posted from Andover to Abbey Wood and in my first week went to the gym for an induction lesson.
I was refused access and told I would have to pay up first to become a member.
After a small laugh I realised they were serious and explained that I was in the middle of a rehab programme.
It made no difference. Abbey Wood MoD is a civilian site with a civilian gym – so, no membership fee, no access.
Royal Navy and Royal Air Force personnel are funded to use it, but Army people get nothing. We have to pay but can’t claim it back.
I have been told that this has long been the situation and that “someone is looking into it”. I have contacted my local rehab unit and they tell me that, fit or not, I should have access to the gym. Can someone please tell me why I should now pay to get fit? – WO2, name and address supplied.
Lt Col Ian Davidson, Land Forces Training, responds: Army personnel are expected to maintain fitness levels even when posted to non-military or isolated units, which may not have convenient gym facilities.
The level of fitness required in specific locations is set out in MATT 2, which states that personnel under 50 when attached or posted to a headquarters unit such as Abbey Wood are required to pass a PFT twice a year, subject to their medical category, which the WO does not make clear in his letter.
To achieve it, an individual needs only sports kit and a place to run and complete press-ups and sit-ups. Access to a full gym facility is not a requirement. While we accept it would be preferable for everyone to have access to a gym, there is currently no funding for it across the Army.
The lack of a coherent gym franchise across the UK, and the number and isolation of MoD establishments, means the MoD cannot seek the best terms on a Service-wide basis. In most areas it would have to pay the market rate of £400 to £600 a year. Abbey Wood is already subsidised and membership fees are £40 a year or £3.30 a month.
The other Services have different schemes. The RAF funds membership in full while the Navy contributes up to £50 a head a year from non-public funds, providing the individual is a member of the Royal Navy Sports Lottery.
The WO says he is in a rehab programme to get him back to full fitness and this may place a different perspective on his need for gym facilities. He should speak to his medical officer to determine his exact needs and then to the Divisional SO2 physical trainer to seek further advice as to how this extra requirement may best be achieved.
Sniff PAYD coffee
A SHORT letter headlined “Give PAYD a chance” (March) had the desired effect of getting me to reply. There have been many excellent letters recently on the subject of Pay As You Dine (PAYD) and as a sergeant major who eats in both cookhouses on our camp, I would like to set out what I think are the facts.
In general PAYD works for junior soldiers because those who provide the catering are doing so for the masses.
They can produce excellent menus – core, enhanced and salad bars – with the luxury of food wastage being reduced by larger numbers of soldiers using the service.
This, however, does not work in the WOs’ and Sgts’ Mess as fewer eat in and so do not get the variety, quantity or value offered to junior ranks.
At the weekend, a pre-cooked evening meal (enhanced menu) wrapped in cling film and requiring two minutes in a microwave is unacceptable to anyone, let alone the WOs’ and Sgts’ Mess.
If we are going to “give PAYD a chance” we need to have a radical rethink to iron out the gremlins.
The only way for PAYD to work fairly is to have a centralised cookhouse catering for all ranks.
Many will say that this would be to the detriment of the mess tradition, but having to pay extra for waiter service when the food on offer is not as freshly cooked or varied as that in the junior ranks’ cookhouse is unacceptable.
Junior ranks can turn up and get a meal without booking in, which in the tempo of the modern army is a must. When a cooked breakfast in the mess at the weekend takes 50 minutes to prepare because there is only one chef on duty while the same meal in the junior ranks cookhouse takes ten minutes, with bigger portions, you have to question where we are going.
I am forever hearing that PAYD is what we wanted and that in the past soldiers paid for meals they did not eat.
This may have been so, however personnel are now reluctant to get a “hungry soldier chit” because it flags them up to the chain of command as having financial problems.
I would like to see all soldiers being charged for the core breakfast, which could be stopped and started on JPA if they submit a leave pass or deploy. I believe the Army has a duty to ensure our soldiers have at least one meal daily rather than assuming they are eating correctly when in many instances they are not. It wasn’t that long ago that breakfast was a parade.
It’s about time we all woke up and sniffed the PAYD coffee. – WO2 A Bryne, 12 Regiment RA.
Charged for extra veg
THE main cookhouse at SEME Bordon charges soldiers if they take more than one helping of vegetables or potatoes. And only one slice of bread is allowed with the evening core meal, even though in the past it was two slices.
I was under the impression that the standard meal should not change under the new system but this ruling seems to go against that as we used to be able to increase our food portions with more vegetables and potatoes to supplement the main meal without an extra charge. – Cpl J Corbett, SEME, Bordon.
Brig Jamie Gordon, DPS(A), replies: Carbohydrates (potatoes etc) and vegetables are to be available on a help-yourself basis as part of the core meal.
This should not mean that soldiers be allowed automatically to load up two places, which I understand is not uncommon (waste springs to mind if soldiers decide that they are not that hungry after all), but they must be allowed to go back for free second helpings of potatoes and vegetables if they are still hungry.
The provision of two slices of bread is a requirement with breakfast and lunch, but not in the evenings, when, instead a two-ounce bread roll or sliced French bread is to be provided if soup is taken. Your single slice of bread is understood to be a locally negotiated arrangement and you should take this up through your chain of command or messing representative.
Rules on cohabiting are so out of touch
THE regulations state that under no circumstances may two serving soldiers cohabit in a married quarter. I believe, as do many people, that this rule is outdated and should be reviewed.
My partner, who has a young child from a previous relationship, is expecting our baby in the near future and so is entitled to a married quarter.
But we have been told that as we are not married we may not cohabit and I am only allowed to stay with her 28 nights in every 61.
As the father, surely it would provide more stability if I could live there permanently. Soldiers spend enough time away without antiquated rules that do not represent today’s society.
As for paternity leave, does this mean that I can only be there for half the time to help with feeding at night, the most exhausting time for a new mother?
If my partner has to stay in hospital for any reason our daughter would have to be placed into foster care because I’m not allowed to live in the quarter. Bizarrely, my partner could have a nanny living in, but not the father of the infant, which makes no sense.
We plan to marry but the priority is our baby. We understand that the Army has to set rules and regulations, but surely these are out of date. – Name and address supplied.
Brig Jamie Gordon, DPS(A), replies: Good letter. You expose an issue that is being wrestled with at the highest levels. In the meantime, the rules are clear, however unreasonable they might appear to you – no cohabitation, even if you are both soldiers. The same would apply if one of you were a civilian. The options open to you are: stay as you are with all the disadvantages you highlight; get married (have a blessing and celebration later); rent a flat/house on the open market.
REME CASH BONUS IS NO INCENTIVE FOR ME
I HAVE just found out about the £7,000 financial retention incentive for REME lance corporals who agree to serve for a further three years, but am annoyed to discover that you only qualify if you have between four and six years of reckonable service.
What about other vehicle mechanics (VM) in this rank? Having served just six years, I don’t qualify, while others doing the same job do.
Does my retention not count? I am being penalised for serving more than six years. If I were to sign off and re-enlist I would be eligible for a re-joining bonus. So where is my incentive to stay on? – Disgruntled lance corporal, name and address supplied.
Maj Julia Parke-Robinson, SO2 Soldier Policy, DMA, responds: The Financial Retention Incentive (FRI) for REME vehicle mechanics was announced by the Armed Forces Pay Review Body in February. The incentive is targeted at the cohort where the majority of VMs are leaving, between the four- and six-year reckonable service points.
Between April last year and this January,128 VMs within this cohort left. This outflow reduces the numbers available to train to Class 1 standard, increasing the pressure on those already qualified. With the current operational tempo, Class 1 tradesmen are routinely deploying outside Individual Harmony Guidelines (IHG), a situation that exacerbates retention issues.
The corps is very concerned about retention across the rank structure, particularly in the pinch point trades. The justification for the FRI was largely based on excessive levels of early voluntary outflow but funding constraints prevented its broader application.
Initiatives continue to be explored to improve retention in the REME, such as the removal of the Class 1 time bar and better synchronisation of postings with the Force Operations and Readiness Mechanism (FORM).
Innovative ideas are always welcomed by HQ Director Electrical and Mechanical Engineering (Army),
You are correct that VMs can claim a taxable rejoin bounty of £6,000, but there is no guarantee that an application to re-enlist will be supported and the bounty can be claimed no less than six months after leaving.
Individuals have to support themselves when they leave the Army, and it is unlikely they would earn enough in this time to make the rejoining bounty a cost-effective alternative to ongoing military service.
There will always be people who narrowly miss out when an incentive such as this is developed. Although it is recognised such an initiative will benefit certain individuals while frustrating others, it is felt that the overall benefit to REME will be positive.
The hugely valuable contribution made by vehicle mechanics is widely acknowledged across the Army, and the additional pressure placed on these tradesmen by under-manning is also recognised. It is intended that the FRI will benefit all VMs by helping to ease this problem, reducing the frequency of operational tours and better supporting in-barracks commitments. |
