LOA Cut Again
Outside of the Military, there are two distinct "work" environments - firstly, your job/career and secondly, things you might decide to do voluntarily because they are fun or life-enriching.
The former is a contracted agreement whereby you are compensated for your labour and any changes to that contract are subject to negotiation between both parties.
The latter is an acceptance by you that for your fun, interest or enjoyment, you may have to cough-up a bit of your own cash but it's worth it.
I would hope that our military are firmly in the former group and any attempt to "squeeze" them by changing their circumstances arbitarilly, is seen to be unfair at best or indeed illegal.
The former is a contracted agreement whereby you are compensated for your labour and any changes to that contract are subject to negotiation between both parties.
The latter is an acceptance by you that for your fun, interest or enjoyment, you may have to cough-up a bit of your own cash but it's worth it.
I would hope that our military are firmly in the former group and any attempt to "squeeze" them by changing their circumstances arbitarilly, is seen to be unfair at best or indeed illegal.
Out of interest, where can you find out the rate of LOA you are on when you are overseas? In the UK you can find out using the JPA homepage, but MOD IASS JPA does not have the same screen.
Now that the embittered sniping has finished...
Short comment: when I was sent on exchange it was not for my amusement. I was charged with doing a professional job in the air and on the ground. I was expected to interact socially with my host nation and to represent my country in all respects. I was there on duty, not on a paid holiday. It cost a lot of money to do that and I wasn't expected to behave like a poor relation or to take out a loan in order to do my job.
The combination of FFR and LOA allowed me to do that. But that was a long time ago and I have to wonder if I could commit to that today, especially in light of the latest cut. I like to think I would have a go, but no one, no matter how committed, can do their duty at a loss. The days of Army officers requiring a private income to join the Royal Flying Corps have gone.
Short comment: when I was sent on exchange it was not for my amusement. I was charged with doing a professional job in the air and on the ground. I was expected to interact socially with my host nation and to represent my country in all respects. I was there on duty, not on a paid holiday. It cost a lot of money to do that and I wasn't expected to behave like a poor relation or to take out a loan in order to do my job.
The combination of FFR and LOA allowed me to do that. But that was a long time ago and I have to wonder if I could commit to that today, especially in light of the latest cut. I like to think I would have a go, but no one, no matter how committed, can do their duty at a loss. The days of Army officers requiring a private income to join the Royal Flying Corps have gone.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Detroit MI
Age: 66
Posts: 1,460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The MoD could avoid a lot of bitterness with one, very simple, little thing that costs practically zero in the big picture..
When someone is sent somewhere the allowances are paid at the rate they were upon arrival for the duration of the post. Then people don't find themselves shafted six months into a two year appointment.
But that would require some thought.
When someone is sent somewhere the allowances are paid at the rate they were upon arrival for the duration of the post. Then people don't find themselves shafted six months into a two year appointment.
But that would require some thought.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: In the Ether
Posts: 437
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm sure all of those currently overseas maintaining some semblance of MPA knowledge (Project Seedcorn) or pre-learning the RJ ropes or running our UAV sqn and many others would argue that it's far from voluntary sun-seeking.
I read Courtney's post with interest and totally agree with his comments. I too was posted to an exchange tour with one of our NATO allies and was quite dismayed to find what the RAF had negotiated with the host nation and the resulting impact on life style. Some examples. Allowances: I my case, virtually none when detached whilst my foreign colleagues enjoyed (big time!) substantial rates. Leave: the RAF arranged for the exchange officer to be on the host nation's leave system which was rank related. Not happy to have my leave allotment reduced. Housing: surprising as it may seem but allocated rental accommodation that was of a lower standard than the UK equivalent. To add insult to injury, I was regularly required to justify the rental costs. Social life: the unit to which I was attached had zero social activities outside work and none that involved spouses. Whilst not specifically RAF related, it does remove a huge chunk of the enjoyment of Service life and considerably adds to a feeling of isolation for the family.
Reading some of the posts in this thread seems to indicate that some are of the opinion that all things exchange/overseas must be a good deal and to adversely comment shows a lack of backbone and/or LMF. I was very lucky and enjoyed a good rate of LOA that was not eroded during my tenure, additionally, I had a very good RAF support chain that tried, sometimes with success, to limit the damage done by the more ludicrous examples of bureaucracy. However, there are always other aspects to life that go to complete the entire picture and some elements may not be all that good. For my replacement, the Desk Officer arranged for them to talk with me prior to accepting the post. After several warts and all conversations, three turned down the post.
DP
Reading some of the posts in this thread seems to indicate that some are of the opinion that all things exchange/overseas must be a good deal and to adversely comment shows a lack of backbone and/or LMF. I was very lucky and enjoyed a good rate of LOA that was not eroded during my tenure, additionally, I had a very good RAF support chain that tried, sometimes with success, to limit the damage done by the more ludicrous examples of bureaucracy. However, there are always other aspects to life that go to complete the entire picture and some elements may not be all that good. For my replacement, the Desk Officer arranged for them to talk with me prior to accepting the post. After several warts and all conversations, three turned down the post.
DP
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oxon
Age: 66
Posts: 1,942
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The MoD could avoid a lot of bitterness with one, very simple, little thing that costs practically zero in the big picture..
When someone is sent somewhere the allowances are paid at the rate they were upon arrival for the duration of the post. Then people don't find themselves shafted six months into a two year appointment.
But that would require some thought.
When someone is sent somewhere the allowances are paid at the rate they were upon arrival for the duration of the post. Then people don't find themselves shafted six months into a two year appointment.
But that would require some thought.
Those who have denigrated the OP’s post seem to have fallen into the trap of only fighting the current conflict and not looking to the bigger picture. Maintenance of diplomatic, professional links and liaison with allies is essential to future defence requirements and the nation must be prepared to pay for it. Deployment to sandy parts, though critical, is not the be all and end all of military operations in the 21st century. Those who think that only those who spend time in the desert in support of operations have opinions that are worthwhile are highly misguided; essential support is also given by those in REMF tours who get no official recognition. People in overseas tours maintain the forgotten defence requirements that the government think they can dispense with due to the main effort in Afghanistan. The denigrators also show their ignorance of coalition operations at staffing levels where British input seriously affects conduct of conflict or conflict avoidance– even if it is from 4000 miles away and it could be in NATO posts in Germany, Washington, Italy, Frankfurt, Brussels or any exchange posts wherever needed. It is irrelevant that life-enhancing experiences can be gained from ‘overseas’ tours – that should be a bonus. What should be relevant and concerns us all, is that British service personnel are being disadvantaged because of bean-counters inputs to enable the excessive welfare budget, overseas aid and Government waste to be continued. UK service personnel are overseas for a damn good reason – let’s support the idea that they are worth a damn good remuneration for their efforts and not resort to playground-level retorts that we have seen above. Thank you Scuttled for raising the issue.
Cynicalint,
All good points and I agree whole heartedly. My only point would be (and I think I understand your intent) is that people supporting ops or any other facet of the military are not (necessarily) REMFs. As an exchange officer on F-15s, I was the first officer at Tyndall AFB to volunteer for ops when the first Gulf War kicked off. Many of my students faught there. I was not a REMF. Again, I know what you meant, but I don't want to give the other sanctimonious gits here the opportunity to whine.
All good points and I agree whole heartedly. My only point would be (and I think I understand your intent) is that people supporting ops or any other facet of the military are not (necessarily) REMFs. As an exchange officer on F-15s, I was the first officer at Tyndall AFB to volunteer for ops when the first Gulf War kicked off. Many of my students faught there. I was not a REMF. Again, I know what you meant, but I don't want to give the other sanctimonious gits here the opportunity to whine.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Detroit MI
Age: 66
Posts: 1,460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SFFP:
My intent was that the allowances can't be reduced thus leaving people in the clag. I see no reason to prevent allowances that are based on the cost of living from rising in situations like you have mentioned but reducing or eliminating fixed allowance once they have been initially paid should not be allowed.
My intent was that the allowances can't be reduced thus leaving people in the clag. I see no reason to prevent allowances that are based on the cost of living from rising in situations like you have mentioned but reducing or eliminating fixed allowance once they have been initially paid should not be allowed.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oxon
Age: 66
Posts: 1,942
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So if the cost of living drops you would advocate paying an extra allowance that is neither justified or required, seems to me there is still some more thinking to be done.
AA, right!
Of course that brings its own problems where you have a number of exchange personnel in the same place on different rates of allowances, dending on how long they've been there. It's never easy.
Of course that brings its own problems where you have a number of exchange personnel in the same place on different rates of allowances, dending on how long they've been there. It's never easy.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I clearly remember (while sat in the halls of power just down from Courtney's desk at 1 Gp) having to fill out a seemingly endless questionnaire about lifestyle etc. (Just like the health and well being ones you get if you fly deafening jets - but ten times longer)
The premise was that to accurately calculate LOA there needed to be a constant update as to how people lived in the UK - which in turn told you how more or less expensive that was overseas.
I was actually impressed at how scientific the calculation must have been. I am equally unimpressed by the fairly arbitrary cuts. How can one calculate something to the nearest pence - then just lop it in half?
The premise was that to accurately calculate LOA there needed to be a constant update as to how people lived in the UK - which in turn told you how more or less expensive that was overseas.
I was actually impressed at how scientific the calculation must have been. I am equally unimpressed by the fairly arbitrary cuts. How can one calculate something to the nearest pence - then just lop it in half?
Last edited by orca; 4th Mar 2012 at 22:52. Reason: spelling
In the last two years of service overseas, my LOA dropped from GBP56/day to GBP14.50/day. Interesting to note that neither my fixed outgoings nor local cost of living reduced in that time. Of course this doesn't even begin to address lost earning from spouse.
A letter to my (Labour) MP elicited two responses - one expressing his sympathy (but stressing what a jolly good job I must be doing abroad, and how much fun it must be); the second was from the SoS's office, addressed to me by name and rank and talked of belt-tightening etc etc.
There is a lot of Catholic Guilt/Protestant Work ethic envy about overseas posts - even moreso now. If we knew how much our allowances would be cut, I think we would have tyrned down our last posting.
A letter to my (Labour) MP elicited two responses - one expressing his sympathy (but stressing what a jolly good job I must be doing abroad, and how much fun it must be); the second was from the SoS's office, addressed to me by name and rank and talked of belt-tightening etc etc.
There is a lot of Catholic Guilt/Protestant Work ethic envy about overseas posts - even moreso now. If we knew how much our allowances would be cut, I think we would have tyrned down our last posting.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
A thought, HMG was embarassed into creating the OSA as other nations rewarded their personnel for arduous operational service. Quite right too that this was recognised as there will be many ineligible for the current operational tours.
The money has to come from somewhere and LOA is an easy target as it is not usually arduous service but was 'clearly' being compensated at a greater rate than operational service. To the uninformed this would seem an easy comparison and thus an easy hit.
The money has to come from somewhere and LOA is an easy target as it is not usually arduous service but was 'clearly' being compensated at a greater rate than operational service. To the uninformed this would seem an easy comparison and thus an easy hit.
Originally Posted by ORCA
How can one calculate something to the nearest pence - then just lop it in half?
Whlst I'm horrified by the responses to letters written by WUH and Ups, I cannot honestly say I'm all that surprised. No one you wrote to can possibly justify what's happened/happening, so they just blow you out with the usual political rubbish.
"It is only right that you and your family should be expected to make some form of personal financial contribution in these fiscal times." Of course, we should all pay to go to work!!!!
