Silsoe,
I agree with the cut and thrust of your post. The problem is that at the time, people believed that they were receiving correct FP.
There are some who know that the spirit of the FP system was played in their instance....I'm not talking about that.
What if you took money that you believed to be correct, transferred to another arm and continued on flying pay based upon that assumption.....then ten years later the MOD asked you to cough up?
The real deal IMHO is this is a crude manning lever to dissuade people from leaving. It might not be what it looks like from outside....but thats what it appears looking out!
It is recognised that this is down to "interpretation" of a few individuals (Not consecutive post holders) and therefore is sticky ground.
The Covenant.
I understand the spirit of the covenant completely.
I want to be paid correctly....without the JPA transition/Glasgow circus. And when I received money in good faith.....on a scheme detailed on letter headed paper from HQ AAC....what more should I believe. Correspondence has been recorded...but appears to count for nothing.
This is not about overpayment in all cases......in some its about underpayment over years.
7 years. YES, Seven years to resolve a dispute over pay. I think if we were dealing about a blue chip company.....they would have been in court by now.
Meanwhile people deal with overstretch and underfunding on a massive scale....a war in Afghanistan that exhausts people, and spits them out. Service personnel have been doing their part of the bargain by executing the plan.
And you wonder why people feel aggrieved.
Please don't lecture me about the covenant.