UK Armed Forces Pay Review Body 2015

[Just This Once...]

The Armed Forces Pay Review Body are doing their rounds ahead of the 2015 pay award. This is the brief the Chair, Mr John Steel, received from Danny Alexander:


29 July 2014

Dear John

PUBLIC SECTOR PAY 2015-16

I would like to thank you for your work on the 2014-15 pay round. I am strongly convinced of the role of the pay review bodies in determining national pay awards in the public sector and appreciate the important part the pay review bodies have played over the last four years. For a number of review bodies this has included providing expert advice and oversight of wider reforms to pay policy and systems of allowances, in addition to the annual award. I am confident the changes brought about by the pay review body recommendations in these areas are making a significant contribution to the improvement and delivery of public services.

2. You will have seen that for the 2014-15 pay round there were some review body recommendations which, after careful consideration, the Government decided were unaffordable at this time. I hope you will appreciate this was a difficult decision and that the Government continues to greatly value the contribution of the pay review bodies in delivering robust, evidence-based pay outcomes for public sector workers.

3. The Autumn Statement of 2013 highlighted the important role in consolidation that public sector pay restraint has played. The fiscal forecast shows the public finances returning to a more sustainable position. However, the fiscal challenge remains and the Government believes that the case for continued pay restraint across the public sector remains strong. Detailed evidence will be provided during pay review process, but at the highest level, reasons for this include:

a. Recruitment and retention: While recognising some variation between remit groups, the evidence so far is that, given the current labour market position, there are unlikely to be significant recruitment and retention issues for the majority of public sector workforces over the next year.

b. Affordability: Pay restraint remains a crucial part of the consolidation plans that are continuing to help put the UK back on to the path of fiscal sustainability – and continued restraint in relation to public sector pay will help to protect jobs in the public sector and support the quality of public services.

4. In the 2013 Budget the Government announced its policy that public sector pay awards would be an average of up to 1 per cent in 2015-16.

5. The pay review bodies will want to consider the evidence carefully in producing their reports. In particular, what award is justified within the bounds of pay restraint and whether there is a case for a higher award to particular groups of staff, relative to the rest of the workforce, due to particular recruitment and retention difficulties.

6. Pay awards should be applied to the basic salary based on the normal interpretation of basic salary in each workforce. This definition does not include overtime or any regular payments such as London weighting, recruitment or retention premia or other allowances.

7. Following the Government’s announcement in the 2013 Spending Review, substantial reforms to progression pay have been taken forward or are already underway across the public sector. As in the 2014-15 pay round, the Government also asks the pay review bodies to again consider the impact of their remit group’s progression structure and its distribution among staff in recommending annual pay awards.

8. I look forward to your recommendations, and reiterate my thanks for the invaluable contribution made by the Armed Forces’ Pay Review Body during the course of this Parliament.

It seems the Treasury has a less optimistic opinion of the labour market than the recent figures would have us believe. They are also much more optimistic about our retention figures than our official statistics seem to express.

Still, I'm sure our 'independent' body will provide the correct advice to their lords and masters….

[sharpend]

And have you seen what MPs are being awarded?

[Just This Once...]

Mr Boo said a review of evidence had shown that economic forecasts were improving while MPs' salaries had "fallen behind" others working in comparable public sector roles.

Ah but the evidence shows that the economic forecasts are improving, so that is ok, isn't it?

Did their pay body not get the memo from the Treasury stating that it was not true?

9%

:ugh:

[SirToppamHat]

You will have seen that for the 2014-15 pay round there were some review body recommendations which, after careful consideration, the Government decided were unaffordable at this time.

within the bounds of pay restraint

I don't know why they bother.

STH

[Onceapilot]

The "unpaid" pay review body generally "do" it for...ticks towards their OBE, MBE, other Senior Honours, Political "Help" etc, etc....
Let's face it, a total Con...!

OAP

[adminblunty]

Employee turnover in HM Treasury is circa 25% and they've a 1% pay award, I'm sure turnover in the Armed forces is much lower. MPs salaries are set by IPSA independent of HM Treasury guidance.

Pay and expenses for MPs - UK Parliament (http://www.parliament.uk/about/mps-and-lords/members/pay-mps/)

[Thelma Viaduct]

MPs get rewarded for putting the country £1.3 trillion in the red? That makes perfect sense.

[Rotate]

So in ref to item 3a...has nobody told Dan that some of the major airlines have started recruiting?

The AFPRB better move fast to keep up with the mountain of applications that just landed on BA's mat as of the closing date of yesterday for the managed path! :ok:

Interesting times ahead for all. But at least, according to Danny, we don't have a recruitment and retention issue. It would appear they don't value experience. Just how much does an aircraft accident cost these days anyway? :ugh:

It's also a good job that we don't have any upcoming areas of concern where some of that experience may prove handy!

[Selatar]

Sadly these annual reports are not independent and never have been. Whilst in the good times that's less important and visible the last 4 years highlight how they are fully meshed with policy from No 11.

The RAF as a whole don't have a retention issue IMHO. Outside of redundancy periods 10% leave every year. Currently that's just over 3 000 folks. Recruitment I'm not so sure about given it has been so low over recent years and is still way off what is needed to steady numbers: currently 1800 joining annually. You can all do the math. Nice new advert so I'm sure it will be fine...

[Heathrow Harry]

Do you remember what happened when the review bodies WERE more or less independent - 30% for the miners for example

You can't separate what people get from what is available to pay them.............

[Sandy Parts]

HH - fine - just don't call it a gold nugget if it is really a turd dipped in glitter! (i.e. 'independent')

[Melchett01]

So let me see if I understand.

When times are good and the economy is booming, keeping a lid on inflationary pressures is cited as the reason for a sub-inflation rise.

When times are bad, affordability is cited as the excuse, sorry, reason for the same limited rise.

Is there ever a good time to pay the military what they are actually worth?

[SamYeager]

Is there ever a good time to pay the military what they are actually worth?

To ask the question is to answer it as I'm sure you already knew. :)

[5 Forward 6 Back]

6. Pay awards should be applied to the basic salary based on the normal interpretation of basic salary in each workforce. This definition does not include overtime or any regular payments such as London weighting, recruitment or retention premia or other allowances.

Does this mean I should expect a 0.8%-1% basic pay rise, and they'll claw back last year's X factor increase by not increasing flying pay....? :mad:

[Hangarshuffle]

I make an uneducated but cynical guess it will be around just less than a 1 % increase.
Price Waterhouse Coopers website say the UK economy is showing positive growth trends, and we could be the 5th largest economy in the world, overtaking France.
But of course this is all relative.
Inflation was 1.5% in August....
I met some of the AFPRB once, decent enough people, high achievers etc.
Thing is HM Forces are just taken for granted, they have no political clout to punch with, most are quite young and green, don't vote, cant strike and can be bossed around at will.
When you wise up a bit (30 something plus in my feeble admittance) its too late
Its not hard to figure how it will go.
I wish more serving people (my old mates, what's left in) would simply tell their bosses to go forth and multiply, and then leave, to be honest.


Believe me there are jobs and roles and better pay and treatment outside for every single last one of you reading this if you are minded to leave.

[5 Forward 6 Back]

HS, if you can PM me details of a job that pays what I earn now (or more!), compensates for the loss of pension a little, and lets me live somewhere closer to home then you'll be on my Christmas card list for life :sad:

[Willard Whyte]

Depends, what do you earn now?

[salad-dodger]

HS, if you can PM me details of a job that pays what I earn now (or more!), compensates for the loss of pension a little, and lets me live somewhere closer to home then you'll be on my Christmas card list for life
You forgot to factor in the massive improvement in quality of life which most people seem to benefit from when they leave. I certainly did, along with the pay rises, living where I want, etc etc. Pension may not be as good, but you might never get to take it. Live life. YOLO as my son tells me.

S-D

[2Planks]

How to weigh this one up?
Public sector unionised groups going on strike over similar poor rises vs Monarch staff taking a 30% pay cut and a redundancy programme.


Not sure of the answer!

[VinRouge]

Admin blunty, I hear pvr rate is around 16% at the moment and not slowing down....

[5 Forward 6 Back]

WW, top level Flt Lt with top rate FP... and salad-dodger, if it got me home more often than now I'd forgo the pension quite happily!!

[Uncle Ginsters]

I appreciate that this thread concerns AFPRB but when will they learn that it's not about pay, moreso the "non-remunerative issues" that have impinged on Service life over the last decade or so. These are different depending on your branch, location or rank but, broadly speaking, a smaller 'expeditionary' force, with greater civilian contractual support simply means more time away from home for those in blue.

Many fleets see no end to the dets and it's effectively a become a singlies life. All along, allowances are cut to the core and, when at home, there's still little flex to partake in AT, sport or any form of regenerative training.

With TELIC III on the cards in the coming days, these are the issues that will make or break.

Back to the OP's letter though...at what point does a 20% real terms pay cut not become an issue?:ugh:

[Willard Whyte]

5F6B, a train driver's basic wage is ~£50k. Depends very much on the company though, varies from £45K-£55K. That's for a 35hr 4 day week (an industry 'standard'). With overtime? Working a 5 day week throughout the year would add ~£15K on top. Couple of people where I work were on £75K before tax last FY. Training takes about a year on a reduced wage of ~£25K + overtime, say around £30K. 7 weeks leave a year, 5 day weekend every 3 weeks. Final salary pension too...

Last few years' pay rises where I work (most recent, 2014, first) were 2.7%, 3.2%, 5.5%(!), 3.7%. O.K., I'm not going to 'make a million' and pay off the mortgage in the next five years, but it pays for an enjoyable life, nice holidays and lots of treats for the family.

But best of all, I enjoy going to work - and I enjoy going home again when the only thing to 'worry' about is what time* I need to set the alarm for.

*Frickin' early sometimes, it has to be said, but getting home before 09:00 on those days is a bonus.

[Hangarshuffle]

Please, don't be. Trust me when I say it, but civvy street is easy after the RN, and will be after the RAF and Army to.
People are nicer, gentler and speak to you more informally and in a fairer, easier manner. The money is far, far better in like for like roles. Me- even me, increased his pay by (hang on as I do the arithmetic) something like 63.3% per annum (but I work literally half the hours I once did, and for like-minded decent people). And when I added on my pension....smiley thing logo here please.
I would say again, if you have any doubts about what you are now doing, and find the pay and future outlook unreasonable, well take courage, take the initiative and leave the uniform behind you.


* In a way (because you cant look back in anger, there lies madness and bitterness) I wish I had not extended my service as I did, when offered - this was a mistake on my part, I now feel. I'm a far happier, better all round person now as a civvy, probably because of the reasons I stated above.

[kintyred]

I think that it is important to feel valued in whatever job you're doing and pay is an element of that reward. I joined the Services with my eyes wide open about the financial remuneration...and could even make an educated guess about what I could have earned had I pursued a career in civvy street. The truth is that you are very well paid in the first few years of service and slowly fall behind your peers after that. Nevertheless you don't have to work to hard for your money (don't confuse spending time at work with actual mental or physical effort). I used my time in the Services to secure my financial future using the resources available to me (cheap accommodation, early finishes on bad weather days, relatively high pay in my early twenties). By my early forties I didn't ever need to work again.
You guys are clever people, what I did wasn't rocket science and there are many more opportunities than there were twenty odd years ago - don't worry about the extra few quid a week you will or won't get from HMG from 1 April next year, go and make it for yourselves! I loved the experiences I had in the military, many of which I couldn't have got elsewhere (!). Everybody wants to be paid more, servicemen love to have a whinge. Moan by all means but don't get bitter, enjoy your time in the mob and remember that your financial future is in your hands!

[ralphmalph]

Hangarshuffle....

I honestly couldn't put it better myself.

Ralph

[Melchett01]

From the BBC website discussing the Chancellor's announcement today that a proposed benefit's freeze would save £3bn:

The £3bn saving is part of £12bn in welfare reductions previously floated by the chancellor. He also said there would be £13bn of Whitehall savings, which will include public sector pay restraint.

Given that these £3bn in savings are due to come in in 2016 if the Tories win the next election, can we infer that we should expect an extended period of pay restraint - 1% max p/a, and then possibly targeted - for the foreseeable future?

If so, what will the cumulative effect on pay be since austerity started? On second thoughts, don't tell me, I'll probably only cry.

[Bannock]

Public Sector pay restraint wil be for a further 2 years. Might as well stand down the AFPRB and save some more money.

[5 Forward 6 Back]

Melch, it's in the report (as in the AFPRB one)! They had a table either this year or last showing overall how much worse off you could be compared to 2009/10 depending on rank. I'll see if I can find it...

Found it, it was in the 2013 report. It compared rates of pay in 2010-11 with those for 2012-13, and assessed the effect of the (then) 2-year pay freeze after factoring things by RPI or CPI. Worked out thus:

RPI:
Private Lvl 4 +4.6%
Sgt Lvl 2 +0.5%
WO2 Lvl 9 -8.9%
Lt Col Lvl 5 -7.9%

CPI:
Private Lvl 4 +5.8%
Sgt Lvl 2 +1.7%
WO2 Lvl 9 -7.8%
Lt Col Lvl 5 -6.8%

So with a lot of users of this board being aircrew who's take home pay would fall between level 9 WO and level 5 Lt Col, you can assume you're worse off to the tune of around 4% per year abated by any rises. So 2 years with no rises then 2 years of 1% mean we're what, maybe 10% worse off overall?

[kintyred]

Given that the government was spending 20% more than it was raising in tax....and therefore borrowing 20% of its expenditure.....like your pay for example, something had to give. It still borrows about £5bn a month to fund its spending or £150 per tax payer. I think you can assume that there's more 'pain' to come. Be thankful you don't live in Greece, where your pay would have fallen by a third in relative terms over the last 5 years.

[Willard Whyte]

RPI
Private Lvl 4 +4.6%
Sgt Lvl 2 +0.5%
WO2 Lvl 9 -8.9%
Lt Col Lvl 5 -7.9%

CPI:
Private Lvl 4 +5.8%
Sgt Lvl 2 +1.7%
WO2 Lvl 9 -7.8%
Lt Col Lvl 5 -6.8%

It's in '14 too (P77 of the document, P86 of the PDF). Although, in '14 a loss of RPI/CPI for the LtCol is quoted as -4.4%/-2.7% BUT the LtCol in question rises from L3 to L6, so it's factored for increments too.

I'll dig out my pay statements from '10 to '12 and do the calcs for PA lvl 23/4/5, unless anyone beats me to it.

[5 Forward 6 Back]

I missed it in '14, thanks.

It says it's the effect of 2 years of pay freeze and one of pay restraint. Compares 2013-14 to 2010-11. Involves promotion to make it sensible.

RPI:
Private L2 (2010) L5 (2014): +9.5%
Cpl L3 (2010) Sgt L3 (2014): +2.5%
WO2 L9 (2010) WO2 L9 (2014): -9.2%
Lt Col L3 (2010) Lt Col L6 (2014): -4.4%

CPI:
Private L2 (2010) L5 (2014): +11.4%
Cpl L3 (2010) Sgt L3 (2014): +4.3%
WO2 L9 (2010) WO2 L9 (2014): -7.6%
Lt Col L3 (2010) Lt Col L6 (2014): -2.7%

I guess if you're marking time as Flt Lt you're probably not far off the WO2 stuck at his top level. The private increase looks ok until you realise it's 11.4% split over 4 years, so still sub-3% a year.

[Party Animal]

Don't forget many aircrew officers will also be caught out by the loss of 'Family Allowance'. A recent member of my team - Flt Lt PAS at top end of the pay scale, with 3 kids under 16 lost iro £2k per year. :mad:

[PFMG]

I'm actually in that 40% taxpayer, 3 child position and the actual loss is more like 3 grand of gross earnings as the "family allowance" was paid net of tax.

And while I'm wound up, the statement about the government borrowing more than it receives in tax is not helped when they made great swaths of taxpayers redundant. Public servants are part of that rare breed that actually pay the right amount of tax. People with businesses and I include (especially) self employed consultants, offset much or their earnings against costs (ie those normal things that most of us take on the chin after tax).

And guess where lots of work went after we laid off some of our best talent - yes the same people set up as consultants or private companies doing the job for more money and paying back less in tax. - Rant off

[Heathrow Harry]

"(especially) self employed consultants"

have no guaranteed work, no guaranteed pension, no paid health plan, no paid holidays.............. they pay for it all themselves

some you win, some you lose

[Biggus]

"Public servants" don't create any wealth for the country.

They are paid for by the government, by the tax taken from wealth generators. The amount of tax they pay is actually irrelevant, since the government pays them for them with one hand, and gets back some money in taxes with the another - but they represent a drain, albeit in most cases a necessary one, on the public purse.

[MSOCS]

Biggus,

You wouldn't happen to know the cost of everything but the value of nothing now, would you?!

Thought so.

[Sandy Parts]

hey Party - don't feel too sorry for your mate - if he is Flt Lt PAS and near the top (level 35? - think there is a bar for Flt Lt under the latest system? ) - he is on near enough £80k. Not too shabby. I speak as someone who was also pulling in the PAS moolah until redundancy - not much chance of replicating that wage in civvy street in my locale. However, happy enough on what I get (plus pension) and being able to stay where I want to live. Swings and roondaboots (as the locals say :p)

[Party Animal]

Sandy - I agree that 80k isn't too shabby but the relative point is:

2011 - 0% pay rise versus inflation rise of 4% (RPI/CPI)
2012 - 0% pay rise versus inflation rise of 4% (RPI/CPI)
2013 - 1% pay rise versus inflation rise of 4% (RPI/CPI)
2014 - 1% pay rise versus inflation rise of 4% (RPI/CPI)

in addition to a loss of £1-3k per annum from Child Benefit allowance.

Therefore, I suspect the majority of public sector employees feel significantly worse off than compared to 5 years ago, regardless of the fact that gross pay has gone up a little bit over that same period.

That's not me being political by the way - just stating the facts.

[kintyred]

Well said Biggus!

Some public sector employees seem to think that their income should only ever go up. My income will fall by 20% this year compared with last. That's life....and just means that my contribution to the public purse will be that much smaller. I value the public sector employees' contribution and want to see them adequately rewarded, perhaps it's time to end their defined benefits pension schemes; it would put them on a par with the private sector, there might even be some spare cash to offer increased salaries.

MSOCS, you could then decide how much value you put on your pension!

[Whenurhappy]

Don't forget many aircrew officers will also be caught out by the loss of 'Family Allowance'. A recent member of my team - Flt Lt PAS at top end of the pay scale, with 3 kids under 16 lost iro £2k per year.

Me too; I earn over £60k so child benefit is taxed at 100%, but because of our frequent moves 'following the flag' and now to our present location, my wife cannot maintain a career (or even legally work here). However if I had left, and we both earned £49,999 (very possible for both of us), we'd still get Child benefit for both our our children, even with a gross income IRO £100K. Illogical.

When you factor in the massive reduction in LOA (my location dropped by £10K pa in April, although today the rate went up by about £1K pa), increase in overseas living costs, (negative) - impact on careers etc, no wonder the manning staff are struggling to find people to serve abroad. Best job I've had - no doubt about it - but it angers me that I effectively have to subsidise HMG's business abroad through swinging cuts in allowances, in spite of 'representative shopping baskets' locally increasing at c 10% pa.

[Fonsini]

When I worked for HMG I never had any illusions about being either well paid or well respected - I learned my trade from them, got qualified, and got out. I leveraged my British 30k salary into 120k in the private sector, albeit the American private sector.

I highly recommend it.

[Biggus]

MSOCS,

A truism doesn't stop being a truism just because you don't like it.

The argument was made by PFMG that a government that was spending more than it was earning shouldn't reduce the number of public servants, as they pay their full tax contribution. This argument is simply incorrect, as self evidently the government pays public servants more in salary than it gets back from them in taxes - thus public servants are a net drain on the government purse.

If you bothered to read all 4 lines of my post, you will see that I also used the phrase in most cases a necessary one when referring to the costs of employing public servants - and I include the armed forces in this category.

If you don't like the message rather than counter it with a logical argument you attack the messenger - very enlightened - and very reminiscent of the tactics employed by a certain political party - but then I suppose this is pprune after all so I shouldn't expect any better!

[Al R]

Don't forget many aircrew officers will also be caught out by the loss of 'Family Allowance'. A recent member of my team - Flt Lt PAS at top end of the pay scale, with 3 kids under 16 lost iro £2k per year.

That loss, to a lesser or greater extent, can be mitigated if it was appropriate for him to contribute to a personal pension. Gross annual contributions (after his/her 40% tax relief uplift) are deducted from his/her salary which is then used as the reduced benchmark to establish eligibility for child benefit. Eg; salary of £60,000 results in complete loss of child benefit but gross annual pension contributions by that person of £5000 reduce net adjusted salary (for purposes of child benefit eligibility) to £55,000.

[MSOCS]

Biggus,

You are clearly a glass half-empty sort of chap from the tone and angle of your comment. That may or may not be true but I judge you based on what you wrote.

I value the contribution made by the British Serviceman/woman, based on their overwhelmingly good value for money. When the Fire Service strikes we bale them out, when the security of a country is at stake we can be called upon to help or sort the issue out using "more than political persuasion". Either way, I felt the language and angle of your statement to be entirely lacking in empathy to the real value of those who serve (quote: a real drain on the public purse), as right as you very well may be from a fiscal HMG perspective.

Do I agree with you? Yes! You are right! My "attack" (oh do calm down dear!) was nothing more than banter chap. Then again, you may or may not have served so might have missed that.

[Al R]

Danny Alexander's speech yesterday made for depressing reading. The Liberal Democrats want to target the pensions of "high earners" (not my phrase, but always good for a left leaning legislator to trot out) in order to fund further spending on the NHS. The ginger rodent announced that he'd cut the lifetime allowance to £1m (from - currently - £1.25m).

This'll affect middle managers on Final Salary schemes far more than those on Defined Contribution ones.

So, you're a sqn ldr leaving at your option point with a second career in front of you.. you'd best watch out - stand by to declare protection or make sure you press for remuneration benefits with your second employer other than reliance on an occupational pension scheme. The thing is, we can't even hold out much hope that the rest won't do the same. Especially if Clegg is happy to hot bag with Labour.

[Melchett01]

Danny Alexander is frankly the most dangerous person I can think of in British politics. Well as long as you are hard working or aspirational that is.

In all the years he has been buggering things up for hard working people, I've never once heard him define EXACTLY what constitutes being rich. He's just another PR man playing the politics of spite and envy.

Fortunately, he's unlikely to be in a position to do much damage after the election either because the Lib Dem plague will have been eradicated and/or following Devo Max and the inevitable consequence of a English Votes for English Laws he will be neutered as MP for Inverness.

[Heathrow Harry]

Average UK wage is £ 26,500

so .................... choose your own definition....... 4x average? 5x average

or (most likely) a bit above whatever each reader is currently earning

[Melchett01]

HH,

4-5x average or a bit above above whatever each reader is earning. Only if they happen to be reading the Financial Times rather than this site!

[Lima Juliet]

It must be nearly time for the AFPRB to release its reccomendations - so will today's headline feature in it, Prime Minister?

BBC News - David Cameron urges businesses to give Britain pay rise (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-31328228)

Or are we still looking at another "1% and be grateful for that"?

LJ

[Rotate too late]

Orrrrrr, let's wait for a bad news day to let them down easy again.....:ugh:

[kintyred]

1%? Inflation-busting rise!

[Ken Scott]

I think it's safe to assume that the PM wants private business to pay the increases but he wasn't talking about the public sector who have (mostly) received increases over the past year, albeit modest ones. Government cuts & further austerity will be the order of the day for many years to come, even if the other lot get in after the next election, at least in the defence sector.

So I'd put money on the AFPRB coming up with '1%' again!

[Bannock]

From the FT,


David Cameron will urge bosses on Tuesday to “give Britain a pay rise”. The prime minister will argue that “conditions have not been this good for a long time”

Grow a pair and tell Fanny Alexander to stop pulling their strings and let the AFPRB do their "impartial duty" or get rid of these widely percieved puppets altogether.:mad:

[Willard Whyte]

Of course, not everyone gets incremental pay rises of ~1.4%...

[Fox3WheresMyBanana]

I was told, before joining the Services, that no profession should be entered for the money or the respect. It should be a worthwhile occupation that utilises enjoyable talents and has the respect of the people one is providing the service for (not necessarily the employers). When those factors no longer apply in comparison with other occupations, leave.
I think, historically, leaving is the only language the Government understands when it comes to pay negotiations. And it's pretty slow on the uptake.

Any arguments about pay and conditions are fruitless because employees will always have their sense of duty exploited by employers who have none. The same applies to teachers, nurses, firemen, etc.

[Sandy Parts]

I wonder if they will try to apply the 'nurses' model i.e if you are getting an incremental rise, no additional rise for you? The other option is like last year to slightly increase only the lowest pay-scales which can then be used to hide the lack of increase for the majority....cynical, moi? :sad:

[Haraka]

Oh. Don't worry. I expect the outcome will probably be a result of "innovative" thinking, based upon the "expertise" of those who would not stand a snowball's chance in Hell of surviving themselves on their own merits.

[Melchett01]

Government cuts & further austerity will be the order of the day for many years to come

Unless you happen to be an MP then you can have a 10% increase.

[VinRouge]

Thing is, MP salary isn't on much more than an enhanced rate FLt Lt salary. Admittedly that doesn't include a London allowance but bearing in mind the lack of job security, I wouldn't say that MPs were particularly overpaid.

[Melchett01]

I think you're probably in a minority across the country that thinks that, but that may be as much down to the individuals filling the posts rather than the posts themselves. Running the country should be a suitably well paid job - if there were some sort of formal qualifications or criteria required to do the job, rather than simply having gone to Oxford or being in the right Union. Run as a proper profession, then their salaries might be appropriate. But it isn't run as a proper profession, many don't strike me as professional people and therefore I'm struggling to see why they deserve a 10% rise. As for job security, if they're any good they won't have to worry will they!

However, I guess that takes us into a chicken / egg argument of do you get what you pay for. But as leaders of the country, I would expect them to appreciate the difference between right and correct and set an example accordingly. And cutting salaries across government whilst taking a double digit rise themselves is not leading by example.

[SirToppamHat]

Vin Rouge
MP salary isn't on much more than an enhanced rate FLt Lt salary.
Agreed when we are comparing 67k and 64k, but add 10% to the MPs' salaries and it's a significant difference. Compare it with a non-aircrew flt lt and the difference is very significant indeed. Oh and at what point does the MP qualify for a pension and how much? Aren't MPs pretty well remunerated to offset the supposed lack of job sy?

Oh and what Melchett said too!

[Fox3WheresMyBanana]

The argument which is effectively applied to Services pay - keep cutting until we can't make the numbers - should be applied to MPs.
Drop MPs' salary by, say, 20% and see what happens at the next election. Couldn't do much worse than now.

[alfred_the_great]

I look forward to the whinging when NEM does away with annual incremental rises in our pay.

[4everAD]

ATG,

Apparently it won't be doing away with our increments the following is what I have been briefed/gleaned from things I've seen/heard.

On promotion you will have no increment rise for 2 years (AFPRB increase still apllies) as supposedly you are not experienced enough in rank to justify increase.
After 2 year period there will be a maximum of 4 increments.

[Selatar]

When the increment change is introduced it will be interesting to see the overall effect in pay over 8 or so years from promotion into a rank when compared to the previous system. I wonder if it will be the same...

[Willard Whyte]

I recall a change to the incremental system a few (~20?) years ago, whereby the number of increments between lowest and highest Flt Lt increased, thereby taking longer to reach said highest rate. Not sure whether the changes applied to Sqn Ldr and above.

Can't remember if that pre- or post- dated the old trick of deferring (part of) the April pay rise until sometime later in the year.

[Kitbag]

Can't remember if that pre- or post- dated the old trick of deferring (part of) the April pay rise until sometime later in the year.For heavens sake don't remind them of that one, else that is exactly what will happen (0.1% in Apr and the balance in Feb) and we'll all blame you :eek:

[Melchett01]

When the increment change is introduced it will be interesting to see the overall effect in pay over 8 or so years from promotion into a rank when compared to the previous system. I wonder if it will be the same...

I heard broadly the same thing about increments being stopped on promotion for 2 years and then dropping to a total of 4. However, I also heard that the plan isn't to change the overall amount you get at top level in each rank, just change how you get there. So in effect, rather than a smooth increase from on appt to top level, you end up with a series of steps up to the same final amount. As I understand it, to get to the same top level you effectively get a larger rise, equivalent to 2 increments now, in one go for each of the new smaller number of increments under NEM.

[Willard Whyte]

Sounds like the new increments will be biennial, at best. Dependent on OJAR/SJAR perhaps...

Wonder how that will work for PA pay spine too...

And of course, will there be different gradients for 'mongs vs. chiselers'?

[teeteringhead]

And of course, MPs don't have to do quite as long as we do for a pension.

After a 5 year term they would get about an £8k pension, which would be proportionally higher after longer "service".

Oh, and there's a "Resettlement Grant" (between 50% and 100% of salary) :eek: and a £42k :eek::eek: "Winding Up Allowance" :confused:

Some more details here. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salaries_of_Members_of_the_United_Kingdom_Parliament) [Only Wiki I know, but .....]

[Melchett01]

Dependent on OJAR/SJAR perhaps.

Isn't part if the civil service pay now classified as a non- pensionable performance related bonus? Can you imagine they went the same way and said 10% of your salary is performance based and non-pensionable if you didn't get say B+ or higher?!!!

[Wander00]

"incremental pay" is an interesting topic - I recall when I was a trade union elected official (waits for barrage of rotten fruit and old boots to die down) in the 70s it was argued cogently when it was proposed to abolish increments in the local government pay scheme, that the top rate was "the rate for the job" and the incremental scale a means by which the employer delayed paying you all of it.

[Lima Juliet]

Brace, brace...

Either late this week or next week. Purdah starts on 30 Mar 15 and if it's bad news they will want it out in the open beforehand.

LJ

[Hangarshuffle]

Its true, outside in civvy street no-one actually gives a **** what service people are paid. Don't like that? Then leave. Nobody forces you in.
All this babbling on about MP's pay as well, nothing to do with it.
Good NHS workers are at the top of the pay tree, because its a political hot potato and MPs don't want to upset the mug punter electorate about bad news at the hospital or doctors.
Teachers are on strong money because they have a damn good trade union and the muscle to flex, always have had.


Servicemen moaning about money does absolutely nothing to intimidate their paymasters.
* Even when I was in, I was incredulous that people would moan on and on about the trades union movement. A lot of ignorance within the Armed Forces about Britain's political history.

[Rotate too late]

Couldn't agree more. If you don't like it leave....and that is meant in the most respectful way. You will never change it and as has been said, absolutely nobody of consequence cares. We've had a fair few guys hanging on expecting an FRI, and what really blew me away was the COC not moving to give any direction or input. Indeed, with hindsight I believe it may have been a tactic to string people along. If it does eventually arrive I can imagine it will be low simply as there is no money, nothing more, nothing less.
Not forgetting that the market isn't exactly brilliant at the mo.

[Melchett01]

This is PPrune. Home to all sorts of conspiracy theories, rumours, questions, queries and tales of daring do. It's also a place where people can come to let of steam and express incredulity at the way things are going. If you don't like that, then I suggest you leave.

[Lima Juliet]

egdg

I had them down as more like Mr Hodges; I always wondered what the 'W' on his helmet stood for...now I know! :p

http://vignette2.wikia.nocookie.net/dadsarmy/images/5/53/ARP_Hodges.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20100905145419

[Door Slider]

I'm sure the two years of 1% was extended to a third year, I can't see that changing no matter how the economic recovery was progressing and larger pay increases in other sectors.

[Tankertrashnav]

MP salary isn't on much more than an enhanced rate FLt Lt salary.
Agreed when we are comparing 67k and 64k,

Blimey, Flt Lts on £64K? I've just realised that's just over ten times what I was getting when I left as a Flt Lt in 1977! (I kept my last salary slip as a souvenir).

Still, my house was worth about twice my salary then, so I suppose servicemen and women nowadays are no better off, if anything worse off now. Especially when I guess a good £20k of that £64K is taxed at the higher rate.

Just goes to show the effects of inflation, I suppose.

[Rotate too late]

:ouch:......:ok:

[Al R]

A year and a bit ago, IPSA announced that the MP salary was going to be 74k. It announced that its figure was not based on anything other than a finger in the wind, and was on the low side. It later published thst if the economy had picked up by the time we had had the election this year, it would 'review' it. :ugh:

[Courtney Mil]

Perhaps the decode of that brief is, "we know another real-terms pay cut will piss off a lot of people, but we reckon we'll just about get away with it again."

And, sadly, I suspect they're right. They haven't mentioned what the next round of cuts will do, sorry, what the SDSR will conclude is right to match the UK's defence requirements. One might be tempted to think that losing a few more might save some redundancy payments, reduce the pay bill and by keeping pay down, help to control the future pensions bill.

But that's all just supposition, of course. May I just take this opportunity to congratulate the MPs on their excellent, evidence based, inflation related, affordable, reasonable and necessary (on the grounds of recruitment and retention) pay rise.

[Lima Juliet]

May I just take this opportunity to congratulate the MPs on their excellent, evidence based, inflation related, affordable, reasonable and necessary (on the grounds of recruitment and retention) pay rise.

^^^:D:D:D^^^

The lowest form of wit! :ok:

[Willard Whyte]

Blimey, Flt Lts on £64K?

Still, my house was worth about twice my salary then,...

PA spine level 30 (top OF2 Aircrew rate): £74,070. Although I appreciate Flt Lts on this rate are probably around 50.
Flt Lt on max inc. + enhanced (pilot) FP: £62863. Aged late 30s

AFPRB 2014 (https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/288713/AFPRB_Report_43rd_2014.pdf)

Still, if the green party get in then 500,000 'social rent' homes will be built for £2.7Bn, according to (Ms, in all probability) Natalie Bennett. Works out at £5400 per house. What isn't specified is whether they'll be made of ethically sourced gingerbread.

[Thelma Viaduct]

If MPs are not happy with £67k per year, I'm sure it would be easy enough to find other people that are capable of getting the country in to £1.6 trillion (& rising) of debt.

They need a 10% paycut, not rise.

[BEagle]

30 years ago, the house I bought cost about 2.4x the salary I was receiving as a Flt Lt pilot with 10 years in the rank on max flying pay.

Looking at today's figures, it would seem that the same rank is now paid about 4.1 x the 1984 level, whereas the value of the same house has increased by a factor of 7.2.....

[Biggus]

First of all I underwent some of the years of an annual 1% pay increase, so I do appreciate what it meant. Secondly, I fully anticipate being flamed/attacked/criticised for what I'm about to say....

However, in the interests of accuracy, while a 1% pay rise is measly, and doesn't compensate for previous years low awards, it does currently represent an "above inflation" (albeit CPI) pay increase.

CPI is currently at 0.3%, and the Bank of England is anticipating that inflation may actually go negative for a while:

BBC News - Economy tracker: Inflation (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10612209)

[Tankertrashnav]

Just to put it into context, an Italian MP is on something like 16,000 euros a month!(includes 4,000 euros a month "overnight" expenses).

Those bunga bunga parties have to be paid for somehow!

[Willard Whyte]

It's actually getting tough to predict any sort of pay rise given the equipment commitments and a potentially shrinking budget.

[Melchett01]

Biggus,

Technically correct, and it is on the basis of that technicality that they will argue they can morally get away with it. However, one might suggest RPI is a more accurate representation of many households spending habits, in which case that was still over 1%.

But once again, it's fairly straightforward to see through the smoke and mirrors in their argument. Previous VAT and fuel rises have dropped out of the calculations - bit like a bad report on the promotions boards dropping out of consideration. It doesn't change the fact that VAT hasn't come back down again. As for oil prices, well, they are all over the place at the moment and whilst low prices are a brief welcome respite, how long will they stay low?

And will they use the low oil prices to justify a cut in allowances such as HTD and GYH? Wouldn't put it past them if I'm honest. And we all know that charges will go up by more than 1%.

The AFPRB reports are, I'm afraid, now only worth reading just to see how paper thin their excuses and reasoning are. Next time they are in town I would be inclined to ask them if on a personal level they actually believe what they are writing.

[Bigbux]

However, in the interests of accuracy, while a 1% pay rise is measly, and doesn't compensate for previous years low awards, it does currently represent an "above inflation" (albeit CPI) pay increase.


It's also better than periods of no work, reduced rates and your operating model being continually attacked by revenue-hungry politicians and cash-strapped clients. I've been on a pay cut for the last 5 years.

But that's my choice.

[The Old Fat One]

TBH I've never really much understood the mentality of anybody that stays in a job that makes them feel undervalued.

Life's not a rehearsal...if you ain't getting enough wonga for your needs then foxtrot oscar. If you are currently in some sort of lock in, for service or personal reasons, then start gaming the system...make it work for you. Put your time to good use, building up your "value".

Life's too short to sit around whinging....onwards and upwards, always.

[Melchett01]

Looks like Clegg is trying to force through a 2% rise for teachers.

Apparently it's affordable and justified after years of austerity. "'It's important that where we can be as generous as we can be… for people who are working in the public sector, we should do so.'"

[London Eye]

So, just seen the IB (04-15) and it is 1% - anyone surprised?

[Just This Once...]

Nobody will be surprised that the headline is 1%; it's the usual tactics of subtract money at a higher rate in charges or unique measures against individual cadres that hurts.

I've not read the report or IBN yet but I understand that aeromedical pay is going to be stopped. If true, those escorting the latest Ebola case back to the UK will have a disappointment inbound when they land.

[Lima Juliet]

Yup, 1% bad news as expected to be burried before Purdah kicks in at the end of the month...

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/armed-forces-pay-review-body-44th-report-2015

Enjoy your pay rise MPs...:mad:

Also, not impressed by the way they keep 'sexing up' the yearly pay level increments. There are many that have come to the end of their pay level increments, and, seeing as you want to retain more people past option points then that is likely to increase. So in reality, with RPI/CPI this is another pay cut. All in it together? Yeah, right...

[5 Forward 6 Back]

Accommodation charges up 2.8%, food charges up 1.5%, pay up 1%. I presume any other elements will be frozen. Not sure why any of us bother, tbh... when was the last above-inflation pay rise? 2010?

[Willard Whyte]

2% in 2010, CPI had varied considerably over the previous 12 months, from a low of 1.1% in Sep 09 to 3.7% in April 10.

[Al R]

CPI/RPI and the increase in PAYD etc are not the only things to worry about.

Al Rush | When is a military pay rise not a military pay rise? (http://www.alrush.biz/when-is-a-military-pay-rise-not-a-military-pay-rise/)

[Lima Juliet]

Al

Well said...:D:D:D

All the military wants is fairness, a good wage to reflect the effort and sacrifice that they put in (and that’s not when they’re on ops, when the hours and the pain really go through the roof), not the warm fuzzy knowledge that the state is funding a few more cottage industry endeavours and slapping a lick of paint in the unit crèche.

Oh, and a body to represent its interests that isn’t supplicant, toothless, spineless and impotent.