Quote:
|
Originally Posted by diver
Enough time to be an MT or a qualified CSO? No.
But it is enough time to learn enough basics so that a kid can spend about 9 solid months in the fleet to do jobs like for example: lookout or lifebouy sentry underway, QMA when alongside, and ships husbandry. Thereby decreasing the load for trained and experienced sailors to do mundane tasks and increasing R&R and job satisfaction among the troops. It will also allow exposure for the gap yearies to all the departments, so that if they decide to sign up past the initial year then they will know which jobs they will like and therefore are less likely to get out after thier fixed period of service is over.
It has many benefits.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by TarJak
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by bookworm_020
It was sold as a try before you buy type deal, with the hope that they would sign on for a regular hitch.
|
I'd be interested in knowing the numbers that do re-up. My guess is not many who do try before buying will be buying so I'm sceptical as to how successful the programme is likely to be. |
But that is the big negative IMHO.
The Navy (and ADF as a whole) is a great choice, but they may not think so if all they do for a year is $h!tkicker jobs. |
I agree it can be a great career, but as you said if all they get to do is the low end jobs (because that's all they've got time to learn), then they won't want to stay and ultimately I think the programme will fail.
Fundamentally a major part of the problem is current social attitudes that appear to be prevalent in relation to our involvement in overseas deployments. There will always be people attracted to the ADF anyway, whilst these attitudes persist in general society it will continue to be difficult for them to attract the people who would see the benefits of starting their career in the forces but have chosen not to because they oppose some of the current political decions that have resulted in some of our recent overseas deployments.