3% Payrise for the Armed forces
Canary Boy,
Look it up yourself!
Look it up yourself!
pr00ne,
You already did! As did the others - so why do you all get different numbers and base your arguments on them as if they are gospel?
'Ere - don't tell anybody but I think I've twigged how the politicians do it now
bored now...
You already did! As did the others - so why do you all get different numbers and base your arguments on them as if they are gospel?
'Ere - don't tell anybody but I think I've twigged how the politicians do it now
bored now...
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: UK, sometimes!
Age: 74
Posts: 436
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From the Governments own National Statistics Office...
and, as I posted before, the RPI ...
So, seeing as this is the figure that measures what our money really gets you can see that the 3% pay increase is STILL below the Jan figure of 3.2%! REAL prices have increased at more than 3% for over 6 months and before that were at 3%, so it doesn't take a rocket scientist to work out that with a 3% pay rise our cash still won't go as far as it did.
MadMark!!!
The RPI inflation rate fell to 3.2 per cent in January, from 3.5 per cent in December
is an average measure of change in the prices of goods and services bought for the purpose of consumption by the vast majority of households in the UK.
MadMark!!!
You've convinced me! 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: wilts
Posts: 139
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Happytruckin
Even though nurses can go on strike their professional pride prevents them, even though it would be interesting to see what sort of pay rise they would be offered if they did. Whilst on the subjet of strikes an aged source mentioned to me once that the navy attempted some sort of strike action. Can anyone confirm that or is it just the ramblings of a senile old fool?
prOOne
Government or bank of England either way RPI 3.5%, CPI 1.6%.
RPI used to calculate charges.
CPI used to calculate pay rise.
Work it out!
Even though nurses can go on strike their professional pride prevents them, even though it would be interesting to see what sort of pay rise they would be offered if they did. Whilst on the subjet of strikes an aged source mentioned to me once that the navy attempted some sort of strike action. Can anyone confirm that or is it just the ramblings of a senile old fool?
prOOne
Government or bank of England either way RPI 3.5%, CPI 1.6%.
RPI used to calculate charges.
CPI used to calculate pay rise.
Work it out!
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 383
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I suppose you could count HMS BOUNTY's mutiny as a sort of strike... the union rising up against objectionable working conditions?
For posterity, any strike action conducted by members of the military would be considered a mutiny, punishable by x number of years' confinement (and still 40 lashes in the RN, apparently). That said, under EU Human Rights nonsense (sorry, laws) we are entitled to union representation and federation.
But where can you find 65,000 firemen to fight the next war?
For posterity, any strike action conducted by members of the military would be considered a mutiny, punishable by x number of years' confinement (and still 40 lashes in the RN, apparently). That said, under EU Human Rights nonsense (sorry, laws) we are entitled to union representation and federation.
But where can you find 65,000 firemen to fight the next war?
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: EU Region 9 - apparently
Posts: 263
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Next months PVR rate stats will be interesting, those who were waiting for redundancy and were not in the bracket hung on to check the pay rise. Large numbers being submitted, specially among the non FW faction.
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Up North
Posts: 801
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is it now time for an Armed Forces Federation with a prohibition on industrial action but with pay-bargaining powers?
My answer: yes.
It would not be illegal under Queen's Regulations for personnel to set up an organisation purporting to represent the views of the Armed Forces with regard to pay and conditions. This is enshrined in European law (HRA and a specific Council of Europre recommendation) and there are a number of precedents - the Police Federation provides a similar model and the move to set up lesbian/gay representative organisations in the Armed Forces provides a model for an organisation with campaigning powers.
The Ministry of Defence is at best supine and at worse mendacious. The Armed Forces Pay Review Body does not represent the opinion of those in uniform.
The downside to setting up an organisation - career suicide. It might be a worthy idea for those on a career climbdown as the result of impending redundancy or being passed over for promotion. If anyone is interested, set up an organisation with a title (say the Armed Forces Federation) and a constitution and office-bearers - ideally with a retired air marshal or other service equivalent and a lord or two - and start contacting the media on the organisation's behalf. Note the emphasis on contacting the media on the organisation's behalf - this avoids that nasty QR about unauthorised contact with the media as the MoD are not being represented!
And when the MoD attempt to quash the organisation - sue their backsides off and stick the money in the kitty for future campaigns!
The media power of an organisation consisting of actual servicemen and women cannot be overestimated, because of the esteem the public feels towards the Armed Forces and because of the widespread distrust in the MoD.
I wrote to BuffHoon some time ago (via my MP) about such a move and received the standard platitude-stuffed reply.
My answer: yes.
It would not be illegal under Queen's Regulations for personnel to set up an organisation purporting to represent the views of the Armed Forces with regard to pay and conditions. This is enshrined in European law (HRA and a specific Council of Europre recommendation) and there are a number of precedents - the Police Federation provides a similar model and the move to set up lesbian/gay representative organisations in the Armed Forces provides a model for an organisation with campaigning powers.
The Ministry of Defence is at best supine and at worse mendacious. The Armed Forces Pay Review Body does not represent the opinion of those in uniform.
The downside to setting up an organisation - career suicide. It might be a worthy idea for those on a career climbdown as the result of impending redundancy or being passed over for promotion. If anyone is interested, set up an organisation with a title (say the Armed Forces Federation) and a constitution and office-bearers - ideally with a retired air marshal or other service equivalent and a lord or two - and start contacting the media on the organisation's behalf. Note the emphasis on contacting the media on the organisation's behalf - this avoids that nasty QR about unauthorised contact with the media as the MoD are not being represented!
And when the MoD attempt to quash the organisation - sue their backsides off and stick the money in the kitty for future campaigns!
The media power of an organisation consisting of actual servicemen and women cannot be overestimated, because of the esteem the public feels towards the Armed Forces and because of the widespread distrust in the MoD.
I wrote to BuffHoon some time ago (via my MP) about such a move and received the standard platitude-stuffed reply.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JESS
'The Armed Forces Pay Review Body does not represent the opinion of those in uniform.'
Are you saying they give a stiff ignoring to the canvassing of opinions during their pre review visits around the bazaars. Maybe we are guilty of not taking the opportunity to address our real concerns.
'The Armed Forces Pay Review Body does not represent the opinion of those in uniform.'
Are you saying they give a stiff ignoring to the canvassing of opinions during their pre review visits around the bazaars. Maybe we are guilty of not taking the opportunity to address our real concerns.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: North Oxfordshire, UK.
Posts: 166
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JessTheDog
It seems to me you didn't fully consider the commitment required of you before signing on the dotted line. You are a member of the Royal Air Force, and you swore an oath to protect the Queen and her Government regardless of pay and conditions - you don't work for a commercial company therefore you shouldn't expect commercial rates of pay.
There are pros and cons to both civilian and Forces employment, as a civvy you might expect higher rates of pay, but you can also expect less annual leave, an almost worthless pension plan, and zero job security. There is very little Union representation in many of the High-Tech and Service industries, so an awful lot of civvies are out on there own if they have a disagreement with an employer.
I joined the Forces for many reasons, but making loadsa money and insisting on a Union protected 9-5 office job weren't two of them.
It seems to me you didn't fully consider the commitment required of you before signing on the dotted line. You are a member of the Royal Air Force, and you swore an oath to protect the Queen and her Government regardless of pay and conditions - you don't work for a commercial company therefore you shouldn't expect commercial rates of pay.
There are pros and cons to both civilian and Forces employment, as a civvy you might expect higher rates of pay, but you can also expect less annual leave, an almost worthless pension plan, and zero job security. There is very little Union representation in many of the High-Tech and Service industries, so an awful lot of civvies are out on there own if they have a disagreement with an employer.
I joined the Forces for many reasons, but making loadsa money and insisting on a Union protected 9-5 office job weren't two of them.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Scotland
Posts: 664
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tablet Eraser
Strange, I seem to recall you 'coming out' on another thread. Had it not been for said 'nonsense', you would have been subjected to severely intrusive investigation and discharged from the Service.
BTW, European Human Rights law derives from the European Convention on Human Rights and the Court set up to enforce the convention after the excesses of WW2. Churchill was a leading light in setting up the convention. It has cock-all to do with the EU. There are many contracting parties to the convention who are not members of the EU.
That said, under EU Human Rights nonsense (sorry, laws)
BTW, European Human Rights law derives from the European Convention on Human Rights and the Court set up to enforce the convention after the excesses of WW2. Churchill was a leading light in setting up the convention. It has cock-all to do with the EU. There are many contracting parties to the convention who are not members of the EU.
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Up North
Posts: 801
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JessTheDog
It seems to me you didn't fully consider the commitment required of you before signing on the dotted line. You are a member of the Royal Air Force, and you swore an oath to protect the Queen and her Government regardless of pay and conditions - you don't work for a commercial company therefore you shouldn't expect commercial rates of pay.
It seems to me you didn't fully consider the commitment required of you before signing on the dotted line. You are a member of the Royal Air Force, and you swore an oath to protect the Queen and her Government regardless of pay and conditions - you don't work for a commercial company therefore you shouldn't expect commercial rates of pay.
Nevertheless, I had the naiive expectation that our selfless service and the relinquishment of certain rights enjoyed in civilian life would be recognised by HMG with the maintenance of appropriate terms and conditions of service. This was the case until recently and it is manifestly clear that the unwritten (but clearly understood) "psychological contract" (mentioned in many publications) between HMG and the Armed Forces regarding terms and conditions of service (and duty of care, but that is another topic) is now treated with utter contempt by the MoD. The pay rise is a minor bone of contention; what angers me more are the disgraceful changes to the pension scheme, the above-inflation increases in quartering charges and the contribution in lieu of council tax and the slashing of tens of millions from the SLAM budget (as seen in print by yours truly).
Moreover, other organisations with a duty to the Crown enjoy representation outwith the command chain, such as the police and the security services. Finally, it is indeed a requirement of public duty to put service before self, and it is disappointing that others in public life (MPs and government ministers) do not lead by example. Leadership and selflessness in today's society is in inverse proportion to rank.
This is why the Armed Forces need representation in the form of a federation.
Short Blunt Shock
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not to mention the withdrawl of FRI 1 for everybody and FRI 2 for ME pilots
Wrong fella....the FRI is alive and well and shortly to be deposited in my back pocket TY very much.
16B
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 125
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The pay rise is a minor bone of contention; what angers me more are the disgraceful changes to the pension scheme, the above-inflation increases in quartering charges and the contribution in lieu of council tax and the slashing of tens of millions from the SLAM budget (as seen in print by yours truly).
Quarters - I pay approx £250 for a brand new 4 bed mansion. Try gettin that in civvy St
Council tax - why should you get a subsidy at all. Millions don't
SLAM budget - well do something about it then.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 383
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AT, fair point, well made. I don't deny that the right for gay people to serve was won through the European Courts; nor do I deny that HRA was implemented with the best of intentions. However, I do feel that some elements of the HRA have a tendency to over-egg the pudding when it comes to the military. That's why France opted her Armed Forces out of its own HRA. Employment law is one thing - and under that, you cannot discriminate against people based upon their sexual orientation. But the Armed Forces require certain reservations in order to be an effective fighting force. It's a difficult concept, maybe one for another thread - but please PM me if you'd like to continue the debate.
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Up North
Posts: 801
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pension scheme - Thank your lucky stars you have one which is free and safe from robbers
A Federation could have lobbied against changes to the scheme, which were heavily criticised by the House of Commons Defence Committee.
Quarters - I pay approx £250 for a brand new 4 bed mansion. Try gettin that in civvy St
Council tax - why should you get a subsidy at all. Millions don't
A Federation could ensure that such matters were raised in public and why pay the full whack when OOA in any case?
SLAM budget - well do something about it then.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Several miles SSW of Watford Gap
Posts: 596
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JessTheDog
Please explain your interpretation of the HRA that allows us the right to a representative body. The quote from the act is below (my bold emphasis)
ARTICLE 11
FREEDOM OF ASSEMBLY AND ASSOCIATION
1. Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and to freedom of association with others, including the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests.
2. No restrictions shall be placed on the exercise of these rights other than such as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. This Article shall not prevent the imposition of lawful restrictions on the exercise of these rights by members of the armed forces, of the police or of the administration of the State.
This is a direct lift from both the ECHR that was the basis for the HRA. As you can see, Parliament has the authority to prevent such federation should it wish too. The fact that it allows a federation for the police and unions for most civil servants but does not allow such a body for the armed forces is a matter of policy not law.
The full act (if you really cannot get to sleep) is at [URL=http://www.legislation.hmso.gov.uk/acts/acts1998/19980042.htm]
As an aside, you may wish to scan article 4 which states that military service is not covered by the prohibition of forced or compulsory labour!
It would not be illegal under Queen's Regulations for personnel to set up an organisation purporting to represent the views of the Armed Forces with regard to pay and conditions. This is enshrined in European law (HRA and a specific Council of Europre recommendation) and there are a number of precedents - the Police Federation provides a similar model and the move to set up lesbian/gay representative organisations in the Armed Forces provides a model for an organisation with campaigning powers.
ARTICLE 11
FREEDOM OF ASSEMBLY AND ASSOCIATION
1. Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and to freedom of association with others, including the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests.
2. No restrictions shall be placed on the exercise of these rights other than such as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. This Article shall not prevent the imposition of lawful restrictions on the exercise of these rights by members of the armed forces, of the police or of the administration of the State.
This is a direct lift from both the ECHR that was the basis for the HRA. As you can see, Parliament has the authority to prevent such federation should it wish too. The fact that it allows a federation for the police and unions for most civil servants but does not allow such a body for the armed forces is a matter of policy not law.
The full act (if you really cannot get to sleep) is at [URL=http://www.legislation.hmso.gov.uk/acts/acts1998/19980042.htm]
As an aside, you may wish to scan article 4 which states that military service is not covered by the prohibition of forced or compulsory labour!