Who decides our level of pay?

[detonate]

So, who is responsible for so many people leaving the mob for more money? What criteria do these people use for paying us the wage we currently receive?
Personally, as a TG1 technician, I'm a touch envious of the wages that people I used to work alongside of as equals, now receive in civvy street.
When I went into the AFCO nearly 7years ago, I asked "so how much will I get paid?".
As I recall, the reply was "You'll get paid roughly what you would in civvy street for the same job, plus an 'X' factor to make up for the rigours and inconveniences of service life". Okay then, since when did a humble civilian clerk get paid the same as fully trained Aircraft Technician? When did a civvy restaurant cook get paid the same as a civvy copper?

Have we been duped? I think so.

[airborne_artist]

The AFPRB (http://www.ome.uk.com/review.cfm?body=3) reviews pay and associated issues every year.

[The Helpful Stacker]

When did a civvy restaurant cook get paid the same as a civvy copper?

I believe some chefs get paid a damn sight more than civvy coppers.

Of course how much is job security worth to you? Lots of ex-sooties down at RR Derby aren't looking too happy at the moment and such job losses aren't restricted to those who fix or build the donks.

[CirrusF]

I think service personnel are quite well paid, when the allowances, pension and job-security are taken into account.

Civvy wages might appear higher on paper, but mostly you have to pay for your own pension, you receive no contributions for kids education, and worse you have next to no job security. The cost of losing a job is very high, particularly if you have to sell up and relocate, and that is not counting the cost of stress on family life. Never under-estimate the worth of a secure job.

[NUFC1892]

Slightly off topic (because I really don't wish to get into the TG 1 vs The Rest argument that fills the forums of e-goat) but I hope a relevant question none the less.

The MOD is given £XXXXX each year on a pre planned basis by the government, from this all wages are paid so there must be an estimate within the award of what the wages are going to be. Once the AFPRB has done the calculations it recommends to the gov't what we should be paid, which the gov't then approves (or otherwise) and the MOD pays from the previously determined pot.

So, why bother going back to the gov't for approval? They have already allocated £XXXX to the the MOD to spend as necessary to meet the Defence Mission and they ain't going to up it just to finance our pay rise - or have I got this completely wrong? Does the allocation increase following the AFPRB report?

This of course applies to all gov't depts not just the MOD. I must be misunderstanding something so if somebody would like to take the time to explain I really would appreciate it.

[detonate]

My intention wasn't to get into a TG1 versus the rest argument. I was just wandering what qualifications these faceless people have to decide who gets paid what level? It seems to me that all airmen should get paid the same level and then get specific trade pay on top. I mean why should the movers get crew pay when they don't even fly that much or have an airborne role? No, I don't want a mover bashing session either.
Why do all Officers get the same basic pay?
With all this AFPRB malarkey divvying up this pot we get the absurd anomalies of striking firemen being covered by service personnel on a fraction of the firemen's pay rates, with no overtime payments!!!!!! Then there are the bus drivers being paid £25,000 a year while all of the drivers in Iraq or Afghanistan get half that. Civvy police recruits, who admittedly volunteer for a dangerous job get paid twice the rate of servicemen and women who are being sent abroad repeatedly, many facing daily attacks by snipers and suicide bombers. No wonder personnel are leaving the forces in ther droves.

[Mr C Hinecap]

Have a read up about the AFPRB and understand who they are and what they do. I've been fortunate to chat with a few of them on a visit of theirs before. They were very intelligent people from out in the world who all wanted to do the job. They were, to a man and woman, dilligent and really cared about the work they did on the behalf of all of us - I was happy such people were making such visits and carefully recording their findings.

[airborne_artist]

AFPRB covers reserve forces as well as regular, not too surprisingly. They came to visit the Artists many years ago. I'd agree with Mr CH - they were very thorough.

[Pontius Navigator]

I think service personnel are quite well paid, when the allowances, pension and job-security are taken into account.

Civvy wages might appear higher on paper, but mostly you have to pay for your own pension, you receive no contributions for kids education, and worse you have next to no job security. The cost of losing a job is very high, particularly if you have to sell up and relocate, and that is not counting the cost of stress on family life. Never under-estimate the worth of a secure job.

CirrusF, you are correct to a point except that many employer offer BUPA. Some offer boarding school allowance even better than the MOD. Some redundancy packages are good too.

No, the real point at the outset was visible pay comparability. Before the military salary the guy in the pub would ask the serviceman what he got paid. The answer was £16 per week. The repost was that "I get £25."

What the serviceman did not add was the free food and accommodation, clothing allowance, medical care, generous leave allowance (4-weeks), education, sport etc etc - all worth considerably more that the extra £9 per week.

What the civvie failed to mention was the money paid out for food, accommodation, heating, lighting etc.

It was decided that a military salary was necessary to aid recruitment and retention. Hence pay went up and food and accommodation was charged for. One big gotcha was that the extra money now paid so that it could be deducted for food and accommodation was pensionable!

The AFPRB should be looking soley at salary and not 'perks'. Once, when asked why leave was stuck at 4/6 weeks they replied that leave was a military decision and nothing to do with the AFPRB who looked only at Pay.

[Princeway]

'What the serviceman did not add was the free food and accommodation'?

Correct, he probably didn't, the reason being that it isn't true.

[CirrusF]

One big gotcha was that the extra money now paid so that it could be deducted for food and accommodation was pensionable


And there lies one of the bigger faults in the current services compensation package. The inflexibility of the pension scheme is an impediment to labour mobility in the military. It is an obstacle to personnel taking sabbaticals from the military then rejoining after a few years. It is also an obstacle to late-entry into the military. It is also the cause of those maligned low-paid jobs targeted at recently retired servicemen.

[spheroid]

I was just wandering what qualifications these faceless people have to decide who gets paid what level?

The AFPRB is an independent body of distinguished men and women from public life and industry. They visit Service headquarters and units each year to assess reaction to their reports at firsthand and seek out 'grass roots' opinion on the issue of the day. They use the job evaluation scores, MOD evidence and information gathered during visits, to recommend to the Prime Minister the rates for basic and additional Service pay, some allowances and charges for food and accommodation. The AFPRB report is produced annually and the latest one may be viewed on the MOD Website.

They are hardly faceless. If you have never met the AFPRB thats because you couldn't be bothered to go and see them.

[teeteringhead]

And the "non-contributory" pension is taken into account also by the AFPRB, so one effectively does contribute as the calculated figure is reduced accordingly .....


.... having read that, it's less than clear. Try again teeters. AFPRB decide upon £x, then reduce it to £x-y 'cos we don't pay for the pension. Ergo, we effectively contribute £y. :D

[charliegolf]

Nostrinian wrote:

25 years ago under Maggie it was considerably sh@tter

My memory is of a huge (25%?) pay rise about 28 ish years ago, not the other way around. When i left in '87, I took a 40% pay cut to take up teaching. Are you saying pay has got better since? Posters seem to be saying otherwise.

CG

[Gnd]

See for yourelf, have a go at this: Armed Forces Benefits & Pension Calculator (http://www.mod-abc.co.uk/WizTrsDisclaimer.aspx)

[airborne_artist]

There was an election in May 1979, following a loss of confidence vote in Parliament in March, lost by the govt. The AFPRB had already advised an average pay rise of about 30% (inflation had been running at or above 10-15% for some years). The ruling Labour Govt said it would (as usual) implement it over two years. The Tory party, led by Mrs Thatcher, said we'd get it in one hit. The Tories won, and the pay rise went through as promised.

Thus it was that my pay went from £2,600 (Midshipman on entry) to £4,500 (2nd yr Mid plus flying trg pay) in six weeks.:ok:

[8-15fromOdium]

The treasury call the shots overall, they set public pay awards, they tell the AFPRB what there is to deal out, have the AFPRB ever stood up to the treasury?

I put this to the AFPRB when they visited the unit I was at a few years ago, they got very angry (in a polite and academic way) and we were left in no doubt as to their independence. I agree with CH and AA I was left with the impression that they were a very honest, thorough, knowledgable and deligent group of ladies and gentlemen. On the subject of their knowledge I seem to remember one of them predicting the current economic climate as well...

On balance I'm quite happy with what we get paid, its the lack of personnel thats the problem.

[NUFC1892]

I have to add to my earlier question (that still doesn't seem to have been answered) that I have been to a number of AFPRB sessions over the years, the most recent one was a couple of months ago. I share the positive views of previous posters that they are an extremely well informed bunch who do a good job representing us :Dand, whilst they consider the governments spending targets, put our needs 1st; if that means recommending an above target award then so be it.

[Pontius Navigator]

And the "non-contributory" pension is taken into account also by the AFPRB, so one effectively does contribute as the calculated figure is reduced accordingly .....


.... having read that, it's less than clear. Try again teeters. AFPRB decide upon £x, then reduce it to £x-y 'cos we don't pay for the pension. Ergo, we effectively contribute £y. :D

Quite right. It really fogs the issue to say that it is non-contributory. About 15 years ago the notional contribution was 9%, ie pay was reduced by 9%. The AFPRB decided that this was too high and over two pay rounds it was reduced to 7%.

As an issue, my contractor has an education policy. One man was out through college to get formal IT qualification; he then left for a better job, no amortisation.