AFPRB

[Jumping_Jack]

So, are we going to have a 'sweep' on the release date of the AFPRB17 report? I wager it will be released on the Brexit announcement date, unless there is a significant UK atrocity in the meantime. Either would swamp it out of the news.....

[jayc530]

Mon 20 Mar. 😉

[Just This Once...]

Hardly merits being buried on a suitable competing news day. The annual reduction in real-terms salary is a well worn path, as is the narrative from the supporting cast.

The AFPRB will point a finger at the MOD for non-renumeration issues that influence retention issues and probably moan at MOD for not producing all the reports and staff work that it asked for even though they promptly ignored when setting the 1% rise. The defence leadership already has its funding based on a presumed 1% rise (set last year) and is already reeling from defence inflation being way higher than anticipated, so will not be asking for anything else that may damage the books further.

Politicians will champion the 2% of GDP figure (however derived or however meaningless) and point at those in defence who are lucky enough to get an increment above and beyond the 1%. Meanwhile the Treasury will either grab the 'lower growth/lower inflation, so spend less on wages' argument or the other one, used in better times, 'higher growth/higher inflation so spend less on wages to reduce inflationary pressures'.

Rinse and repeat.

[Stuff]

JTO just saved us 117 pages of reading. That's the entire AFPRB neatly summed up in one post.

[4everAD]

We could talk instead about how we're going to spend our 1%, oh hang inflation has spent it before we get it!

[Melchett01]

Aren't garage charges are the traditional way of spending the 1% rise?

[Party Animal]

Could be interesting though with new flying pay structures versus reserved rights etc., plus beanstealers having to pay to live in during the week?

[theboywide]

So, minor quibble here, but I've chatted to the AFPRB a couple of times and they always say that they report 1% because that's what the government has set.

Shouldn't an independant body report what they feel we should be awarded, independent of government direction, and then allow the government to reduce that award based on available funds.

How independant is a body when, if the answer is not 1%, the chairman loses his job (as in the 1.5% X factor rise recommended a couple of years back)

[Biggus]

There's no I in AFPRB!

[Professor Plum]

this link.....

https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/armed-forces-pay-review-body

If you scroll down to the "what we do" section, it states that the afprb provides independent advice to the PM. I don't understand how it could possibly be independent, if the chairman can get sacked for providing "independent advice" which is anything other than the 1% the government wants to award.

[M1key]

Requesting Monday 20th March please at the very latest...

[jayc530]

Mon 20th at the earliest. 😉

[Bannock]

I think some people are in for a pleasant surprise. On the other hand some people are in for a shocker.
The letter link below offers the AFPRB leeway on targeted pay rises above the 1% in trades that are hurting (who isn"t). Previous treasury guidance has been quite clear, in fact an out right order to remain at 1%.

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/539366/CST_letter_to_AFPRB_chair.pdf

[Just This Once...]

It reaffirms the decoupling of average pay from inflation, recruitment and retention rates - until at least 2020. One wonders if the damage will be recoverable from that point, even if the cap is relaxed.

Anyway, I do like the humour in a note that refers to independent advice on pay, as long as the independent answer is 1%. Not applying a 1% rise in one area will provide very little additional headroom in pinch-point areas and I wonder if the corrosive effect it would make it worthwhile.

[Melchett01]

Come on guys, it's 1% and be grateful. The Treasury has to be able to pay for the MPs' 1.3% rise somehow. I mean, that 10% rise the other year really put a dent in their ability to pay the rest of the public sector a proper rise. There has to be restraint somewhere in the system.

[Harley Quinn]

Originally Posted by high spirits

To add some balance. For the majority, it's more than 1% due to yearly increments.......

Pay16 changed that, not to mention dropping the armourers a pay level.

[Ken Scott]

Thanks high spirits for reminding us! My last increment was about 1.2% of my pay so with the last annual rise an impressive 2.2% for the year. RPI for the year to Jan was 2.6% so still a pay cut. But less of a pay cut than it would have been.

Anyone remember when we last had a real terms pay rise or even an inflation matching one?

[Door Slider]

3.2% for Officers and SNCOs and 3.7% for juniors in 2003.

[Just This Once...]

Originally Posted by high spirits

To add some balance. For the majority, it's more than 1% due to yearly increments.......

I covered this excuse earlier but for balance quite a few of us are at a band ceiling, those on promotion find the value of that jump reduced, others are on the new mark-time post promotion whilst others are frozen due to the new (but not improved) pay structure swindle.

Of those who will get an incremental progression are unlikely to find that it covers the increase in charges let alone inflation or, god forbid, average earnings index. This will be the 14th year in a row that military real-terms pay has been cut. Fourteen years. I would suggest that the vast majority serving in the Armed Forces have served less than 14 years, so have only ever known pay austerity.

[Shackman]

1971 to 1972 - three pay rises totalling nearly 25%. First in April 71 (a 'normal' one), then an Interim one on Sep/Oct and another (of between 5 and 11%) the following April. Unfortunately as usual all the other charges went up as well.