Download - Royal Australian Navy

62 NAVY ENGINEERING BULLETIN SEPTEMBER 2003
BY CPOMT GLEN POPE,
HMAS STUART
You would all be aware that
current retention rates within the
Technical Categories are poor,
particularly for our ET brethren.
You would also be painfully aware
of the impact all those empty
billets (resulting from said
retention rate) have on the
personnel that are left to
shoulder the workload. And most
of you would be aware that one
of the main reasons our
personnel leave the RAN is a lack
of job satisfaction. What is not
readily recognised is the exodus
of corporate knowledge that
accompanies the personnel that
choose to leave.
How do we solve this problem?
The issue of job satisfaction is
extremely complex; how exactly
do you quantify job satisfaction?
What I consider to be a satisfying
day at work others may consider
boring. A common complaint from
most personnel relates to the
need for them to perform noncore
functions, such as café
party, or watch on deck. Since the
inception of the Navy there has
been café party and watch on
deck and I for one can not
foresee a time in the near future
when there will not be a
requirement for them. The
difference between now and the
days of old is that our ships carry
less personnel and subsequently
there is a smaller pool of
personnel to provide the
resources required, therefore you
will get “lashed” more often for
non-core functions.
So what is my point? My point is
that it is going to be difficult to
Retention Bonus or
Reward Scheme?
The following article is the result of absolutely zero research and was
prompted by a random thought I had (which I naively voiced) at the
recent TSAG meeting held in Sydney. My aim is to stimulate discussion
on the subject of retention and how to achieve it, a topic I feel certain
sections of the wider Naval community is ignoring.
overcome the job satisfaction
dilemma, and retention bonuses
as we have seen in the past are
not necessarily the answer.
Retention bonuses have the
unfortunate effect of annoying the
hell out of all those who don’t get
one, usually resulting in a drop in
their performance or worst case,
a dummy spitting discharge.
Retention bonus or Reward
Scheme? is the question I pose.
What if we reward personnel who
put up with the watch on deck
and the café party, who persist
with the long hours and the
dismal sea/shore roster;
personnel who persevere and
progress themselves and who are
prepared to stay for more than
their initial engagement? I
imagine right about now most of
you are thinking, “what is the
difference” (….and they let this
joker loose on a ship?) between
what I am suggesting and a
Retention Bonus?
The difference is simple. A
Retention Bonus works like this; if
we need personnel from Category
A to stay in the Navy for x number
of years, we get them to sign on
the dotted line and at the end of
the allocated period they are
given a wad of cash that is then
taxed as income. A Reward
Scheme is as the name suggests;
My point is that it is going to
be difficult to overcome the
job satisfaction dilemma, and
retention bonuses as we have
seen in the past are not
necessarily the answer.
a reward, not a fistful of dollars
you have to share with the
Australian Taxation Office.
How will it work? I would suggest
that the rewards should be
something tangible and useful
ranging from computers,
contributions to a private
superannuation scheme, or
ultimately a car. I know all these
things are available via salary
sacrifice; the difference is the
Navy would pay the relevant
payments and the associated
fringe benefits tax. As this is a
system that is currently in place
there would be minimal start-up
costs, if any.
Who would get the Reward, and
when? Personnel re-engaging
after their initial period would
qualify for a “reward” that was at
the lower end of the financial
scale, and as they progress
through to Senior Sailor level and
10 years service the value of the
reward would increase and so on.
Eventually, a Warrant Officer with
over 20 years service would
qualify for a Porsche Boxster AND
a new walking frame . . . no, just
kidding, but you get the picture.
As you can see, every one of us
will qualify for some reward or
other after our initial engagement.
Personnel would have the option
of rejecting the scheme and
receive nothing until such time as
it suited them. There would be no
“cashing” out option and
personnel would only receive the
reward commensurate with their
rank and “time in”. I have
deliberately tied rank and time in
service together, as some
personnel experience more rapid
movement in their promotion
rosters than others.
So is it feasible? I believe so. The
beancounters will tell us that it is
a pay rise by default and it will
undoubtedly cost a fair sum of
money. But how much money do
we waste recruiting people and
training them just to watch them
walk out the door six years later?
I believe that it will have a
positive effect on retention – even
if we only succeed in keeping 20
personnel from leaving, that is
money saved by not having to
recruit and train another 20
personnel (or in the case of 20
Petty Officers, another 100
personnel). Not to mention the
loss of corporate knowledge,
which is something no-one can
put a price on.