Next Years Pay Award
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Racedo blows goats
Posts: 677
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
StopStart
I think that we are in agreement about the principle of equivalence. However, in my mind the lower pay argument is much the same as paying an insurance premium for when your roof caves in. If your limit of liability is set too low or you do not keep up your premiums then you may not have enough for the new roof. The peace dividends were taken against a percieved lower risk and that assessment has been proved wrong, so the Treasury should cough up an excess in both pay and resources.
regards
retard
I think that we are in agreement about the principle of equivalence. However, in my mind the lower pay argument is much the same as paying an insurance premium for when your roof caves in. If your limit of liability is set too low or you do not keep up your premiums then you may not have enough for the new roof. The peace dividends were taken against a percieved lower risk and that assessment has been proved wrong, so the Treasury should cough up an excess in both pay and resources.
regards
retard
Join Date: May 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 128
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I find it interesting that when GB talks of public sector workers he mentions nurses and police and firemen but never Armed Forces personnel.
I wonder why?
Could it be...
1. He's going to exempt them from below inflation pay increases.
2. He doesn't dare mention a real-terms pay cut for them for risk of a public revolt.
3. The Armed Forces are just something he has to tolerate and don't really feature in his thoughts.
Personally I suspect number 2 from the above list. And as ever, with his cowardly approach to bad news announcements, he'll be missing on the day of the announcement which will be made by some REMF junior cabinet minister.
I wonder why?
Could it be...
1. He's going to exempt them from below inflation pay increases.
2. He doesn't dare mention a real-terms pay cut for them for risk of a public revolt.
3. The Armed Forces are just something he has to tolerate and don't really feature in his thoughts.
Personally I suspect number 2 from the above list. And as ever, with his cowardly approach to bad news announcements, he'll be missing on the day of the announcement which will be made by some REMF junior cabinet minister.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Far far away
Age: 53
Posts: 715
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A bit off-topice, but here is a quote from Health Insurance and Protection magazine (I know, I know) http://www.hi-mag.com/healthinsuranc...id=20001637314 :
"Danger zones
Whether a member of the armed forces, a civilian posted to a war zone to carry out support services, or a charity worker in a part of Africa hit by civil war, the risk of death or serious injury is increased dramatically. This can make getting cover extremely problematic.
Indeed, during the Iraq War, the insurance industry came in for a lot of criticism because it turned down applications for life assurance from army personnel. Carr says there is a simple way round this.
“Unless you’re applying from a war zone you’ll be able to get cover in exactly the same way as anyone else,” he explains. “British Forces Post Office addresses are treated as UK addresses so this isn’t a problem.”
Further, even if someone is in the middle of the action they can still get cover, providing they are prepared to pay. Webber has arranged life cover for security guards in Iraq.
“The premium was £800 a month but, given that they receive an income of £5,000 a week, many do take it out,” he says."
So, as my good friend Stoppers suggests, it appears that a CIVVIE security guard can earn £5,000 a week - whereas a Private doing a similar job might expect to take home around £250 (he is, of course, paying tax on his £15677 per year. If he paid insurance sufficient to keep him and his family comfortable after any life-changing incident then he could arguably take home £200 per month - which he would need to buy his own kit. Is it any wonder why our Army personnel are filling the resettlement courses to become qualified as security guards?
"Danger zones
Whether a member of the armed forces, a civilian posted to a war zone to carry out support services, or a charity worker in a part of Africa hit by civil war, the risk of death or serious injury is increased dramatically. This can make getting cover extremely problematic.
Indeed, during the Iraq War, the insurance industry came in for a lot of criticism because it turned down applications for life assurance from army personnel. Carr says there is a simple way round this.
“Unless you’re applying from a war zone you’ll be able to get cover in exactly the same way as anyone else,” he explains. “British Forces Post Office addresses are treated as UK addresses so this isn’t a problem.”
Further, even if someone is in the middle of the action they can still get cover, providing they are prepared to pay. Webber has arranged life cover for security guards in Iraq.
“The premium was £800 a month but, given that they receive an income of £5,000 a week, many do take it out,” he says."
So, as my good friend Stoppers suggests, it appears that a CIVVIE security guard can earn £5,000 a week - whereas a Private doing a similar job might expect to take home around £250 (he is, of course, paying tax on his £15677 per year. If he paid insurance sufficient to keep him and his family comfortable after any life-changing incident then he could arguably take home £200 per month - which he would need to buy his own kit. Is it any wonder why our Army personnel are filling the resettlement courses to become qualified as security guards?
Join Date: May 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 128
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
dallas, I think you are agreeing with number 2 of my propositions.
Upon further consideration I think I should have opted for numbers 2 and 3 btw.
P.S. Which of the military leaders will stand up and be counted if a below inflation pay cut is announced.
Upon further consideration I think I should have opted for numbers 2 and 3 btw.
P.S. Which of the military leaders will stand up and be counted if a below inflation pay cut is announced.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: At piece.
Posts: 187
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is about the money in part, but the gradual erosion of those 'added extras' which made the forces a pleasant place to be 20 years ago has taken away the gloss from what should be an enjoyable career. We train for war and when we are actually in theatre, doing the job, you would be hard pressed to beat us. We will moan about the conditions but so would anyone. And we stay there and make the most of it.
But why, when we come home, should we have to work our backsides off? During peacetime we should be recharging, repairing and restocking. And not just equipment but people too. Only 41000 of us? Then why are we doing the work of 75000? I'm talking about medical cover for you and your family. Cheap housing, built and maintained to a good standard, fit to house you and your families. Recreation facilities with food and drink that you want to eat and drink, at prices that make it pleasant to be in the military.
You may end up paying a high price for your time in and it would seem fair exchange to feel valued and be able to live a life beyond your means for lending your mortality to society.
Oh, and pay-as-you-dine can f+(£ right off. Short sighted, short changed.
But why, when we come home, should we have to work our backsides off? During peacetime we should be recharging, repairing and restocking. And not just equipment but people too. Only 41000 of us? Then why are we doing the work of 75000? I'm talking about medical cover for you and your family. Cheap housing, built and maintained to a good standard, fit to house you and your families. Recreation facilities with food and drink that you want to eat and drink, at prices that make it pleasant to be in the military.
You may end up paying a high price for your time in and it would seem fair exchange to feel valued and be able to live a life beyond your means for lending your mortality to society.
Oh, and pay-as-you-dine can f+(£ right off. Short sighted, short changed.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Far far away
Age: 53
Posts: 715
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Smudger - I've just been watching the PM's slack jaw on the lunchtime news, accompanied by Capt Darling, so I now know what you're talking about.
The possibilty of public sector workers (including the military) getting 3-year pay reviews vice the current annual ones. I would hope that if this does occur then some sort of forecast of inflation over the coming years would be included in the calculations. I.e. if inflation is forecast to be 3% per year for the coming 3 years then pay must increase by at least 10%, to keep-up. If inflation was 3% and pay increase was also 3% then we would be getting real-term pay cuts for 2 years in a row.
I wouldn't put it past them to review pay every 3 years but review quartering, payd, etc charges annually.
The possibilty of public sector workers (including the military) getting 3-year pay reviews vice the current annual ones. I would hope that if this does occur then some sort of forecast of inflation over the coming years would be included in the calculations. I.e. if inflation is forecast to be 3% per year for the coming 3 years then pay must increase by at least 10%, to keep-up. If inflation was 3% and pay increase was also 3% then we would be getting real-term pay cuts for 2 years in a row.
I wouldn't put it past them to review pay every 3 years but review quartering, payd, etc charges annually.
Last edited by D-IFF_ident; 8th Jan 2008 at 11:44. Reason: spolling and maffs
Here's the BBC article
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7176170.stm
My favourite bit is:Public sector pay rises are recommended by an independent body and this year suggested 2.5% increases.
But the government decided to award that rise in two stages - so it equates to a 1.9% rise - saying it would tackle higher inflation and keep interest rates and mortgage rates low.
So thats a below inflation pay rise then? Looks like the first step towards the 'Irish payrises' of the 70's again
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7176170.stm
My favourite bit is:Public sector pay rises are recommended by an independent body and this year suggested 2.5% increases.
But the government decided to award that rise in two stages - so it equates to a 1.9% rise - saying it would tackle higher inflation and keep interest rates and mortgage rates low.
So thats a below inflation pay rise then? Looks like the first step towards the 'Irish payrises' of the 70's again
"To send out the best possible message, about long-term inflation and about stability and to be fair to public sector workers, one way forward is a move towards long-term public sector pay settlements.
"It means as people face mortgage bills and utility prices they know exactly what their income is likely to be.
"It means as people face mortgage bills and utility prices they know exactly what their income is likely to be.
They will be able to guarantee that for the next 3 years they are likely to have less money and face the possibility of things only getting worse. But at least they will be able to see that coming for the next 3 years ahead. So that must be alright then.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Somewhere between hope and despair
Age: 62
Posts: 53
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When Andrew Marr challenged GB specifically on the Armed Forces on Sunday morning BBC, the reply was that the AFPRB would present its findings later this year. At least this wasn't a blanket one-size-fits-all response on public sector pay.
Epimetheus - I don't see that your logic follows at all. Saying '.....the AFPRB would present its finding later this year....' just means that is when the Gov will make its decision. It doesn't mean the Gov will agree with the AFPRB, or rule out the Gov going for a three year deal when the AFPRB comes up with its findings. It is just the typical politicians way of avoiding answering the actual question asked!!!
What if the AFPRB says the X-factor should go up by 3%, plus a rise of .......blah, blah, etc. The government might well come up with a 3 year formula that includes 1% extra per year on the X-factor.
What if the AFPRB says the X-factor should go up by 3%, plus a rise of .......blah, blah, etc. The government might well come up with a 3 year formula that includes 1% extra per year on the X-factor.
Hellbound
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Blighty
Posts: 554
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is my understanding that HMG generally accepts the findings of the AFPRB report with little or no tinkering. It is likely that we will get what they recommend - cue indignation and outspoken support from all the senior retired officers (and a few serving) should GB choose to mess with it.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: East Anglia
Posts: 55
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is my understanding that HMG generally accepts the findings of the AFPRB report with little or no tinkering. It is likely that we will get what they recommend
I don't hold much hope!! Remember, a pessimist is just an experienced optimist!!
Once a brat...always a brat - Trenchards finest
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Germany
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WN, dream on.... I forsee in my crystal ball 0% pay increase (actual, not inflation adjusted) with the increase in 12-20% of X factor recommended being spread out over 3 years as the pay increase that is sold to the press as "the best thing since sliced bread for defence". Of course, we know differently. Oh, the only other thing is, it will be sold as above what the police, NHS and fire service will be getting given, so we will be b*ggered if we want to whine about it to the press. Queue even BIGGER rush for the doors! 
Me being Cynical? No, just 10 years serving under a Labour government and know exactly how they shove the knife in and give it a little twist to boot as well... BAFF or the other forces thingy that was set up should get onto this, Noo Labour MUST be shown for the shower of Shoite they are before the above is implemented, or else you can bet your bottom dollar we will be getting sub-inflationary pay rises for at least the next three years.... :-(
PS IMHO, I honestly believe we should be using RPI rather than CPI for pay settlements, the latter mainly consists of wide screen TVs and IPODs, plus a raft of other stuff that chav Brittania seems to thrive off, and very very little of the stuff we actually need to eat (or at least not weighted so highly by the ONS). You get very skeptical of these figures when you study these figures when you find out that things going down in price (consumer electronics mainly) are given a far higher weighting than stuff going up, such as oil, food, power and other household essentials. Do you know that the ONS actually INCREASED the weighting of gas in the CPI only as it started going down in value? Scandellous. Of course, we (the public sector) will all have to pay the price for Gordys ten years of wanton excess and spending to ensure that our deficit doesnt go any higher (it will) as a result of decreasing tax revenues and a potential recession. I would have much preferred IRs to have been increased significantly back in 2003 instead of saving the pain for now, but hey hum we have an independent Bank of England right?
Me being Cynical? No, just 10 years serving under a Labour government and know exactly how they shove the knife in and give it a little twist to boot as well... BAFF or the other forces thingy that was set up should get onto this, Noo Labour MUST be shown for the shower of Shoite they are before the above is implemented, or else you can bet your bottom dollar we will be getting sub-inflationary pay rises for at least the next three years.... :-(
PS IMHO, I honestly believe we should be using RPI rather than CPI for pay settlements, the latter mainly consists of wide screen TVs and IPODs, plus a raft of other stuff that chav Brittania seems to thrive off, and very very little of the stuff we actually need to eat (or at least not weighted so highly by the ONS). You get very skeptical of these figures when you study these figures when you find out that things going down in price (consumer electronics mainly) are given a far higher weighting than stuff going up, such as oil, food, power and other household essentials. Do you know that the ONS actually INCREASED the weighting of gas in the CPI only as it started going down in value? Scandellous. Of course, we (the public sector) will all have to pay the price for Gordys ten years of wanton excess and spending to ensure that our deficit doesnt go any higher (it will) as a result of decreasing tax revenues and a potential recession. I would have much preferred IRs to have been increased significantly back in 2003 instead of saving the pain for now, but hey hum we have an independent Bank of England right?
This thread is also running over on Arrse. Perusing the thread, came across this gem from ' Skynet' which expresses the situation very powerfully and eloquently, especially wit regard to MPs pay - and bear in mind that the MPs pay review board have this afternoon also just recommended an above inflation rise of 2.8% for MPs wiith bigger rises to come in the next few years.
Skynet's point has made a big impact on Arrse members, several of whom are looking at running with it amongst their own contacts. Wouldn't it be a shame if PPruners happened to use their external contacts to pass on a very good point.
There are about 600 odd MPs which is about the size of an average infantry Bn. I wonder how much pay they would ask for if every 18 months or so 9 were killed and about 50 wounded
First of all I am not saying that MPs deserve it, but 2.8% is not 'an above inflation rise' - at least not as far as I am concerned. Inflation is the RPI figure as I see it, and is currently about 4.3%!!
Interestingly enough the rest of the MPs pay review included an RPI, YES RPI, I SAY AGAIN RPI, increase for the next two years, along with an extra £650 each year, so about RPI + 1%!!!
So, in summary, for MPs the recommendation is.
Year 1 = 2.8%
Year 2 = RPI + £650
Year 3 = RPI + £650
NICE!! I expect they will vote in favour!
Interestingly enough the rest of the MPs pay review included an RPI, YES RPI, I SAY AGAIN RPI, increase for the next two years, along with an extra £650 each year, so about RPI + 1%!!!
So, in summary, for MPs the recommendation is.
Year 1 = 2.8%
Year 2 = RPI + £650
Year 3 = RPI + £650
NICE!! I expect they will vote in favour!
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Germany
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/liv...n_page_id=1770
Oh dear, it appears pole dancers are on a similar pay scheme to us...
Oh dear, it appears pole dancers are on a similar pay scheme to us...