AFPRB:- 2013 Pay rise anyone??
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Here is the article in an eaiser format...
David Cameron sacks adviser in row over Armed Forces pay - Telegraph
...thank you Prof Smith for trying!
Military Covenant, my arse!
They are giving GPs a 1.3% pay rise 
Harrumph!
David Cameron sacks adviser in row over Armed Forces pay - Telegraph
...thank you Prof Smith for trying!
Military Covenant, my arse!
They are giving GPs a 1.3% pay rise Harrumph!
You would almost be forgiven for thinking that Cameron didn't enjoy being PM and was actively trying to make sure he didn't get re-elected. In fact the more I see of Cameron and his chums, the more I wish they would tear up their commitment to full 5 year terms and give us an election now. The rest aren't any better, but frankly we need an election now as a matter of self-preservation of this country's military capability.
To go against the advice of an independent pay body is one thing, to sack the Chairman for having the temerity to do his job is in an entirely different league.
What little credibility Cameron had on defence has now gone for ever. Whenever we see him talking about defence, stating how pro-forces he is, we will know he is lying - we will be able to see his lips moving.
To go against the advice of an independent pay body is one thing, to sack the Chairman for having the temerity to do his job is in an entirely different league.
What little credibility Cameron had on defence has now gone for ever. Whenever we see him talking about defence, stating how pro-forces he is, we will know he is lying - we will be able to see his lips moving.
Willard - undoubtedly true but those who are within 1-3 years of the IPP are pretty much "trapped" because of the financial penalty of leaving before the 16 year point.
Of course the day that you hit your 16/38 point this changes
Hopefully someone in DASA has "done the sums" and the recruitment rate will cover the outflow.
Of course the day that you hit your 16/38 point this changes
Hopefully someone in DASA has "done the sums" and the recruitment rate will cover the outflow.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: The Whyte House
Age: 95
Posts: 1,966
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The trapped folk undoubtedly have my utmost sympathy, it's a sh*t position to be in.
I think a 100/1 runner at Cheltenham would be a safer bet.
Hopefully someone in DASA has "done the sums" and the recruitment rate will cover the outflow.
Last edited by Willard Whyte; 14th Mar 2013 at 23:23.
Here's a telling graph of how much "in debt" we are in comparison to yesteryear...
OK, it's not great, but we've been here before. As I understand it, it is the Private Debt that is causing most concern - that is the money that our banking sector has borrowed. Yes, the same banking sector that is paying out mahoosive bonuses each year.
By the way, if you read an article by Moneyweek called "The end of Britain" it is complete hoop in my opinion (advertised on Prune, no less). All of their scaremongering graphs have not been adjusted for inflation. They have omitted to add that they failed to predict financial crises like Lehman Bros, Northern Rock and alike - they are being very misleading in my humble opinion. It's actually looks like a thinly disguised sales ploy/scam by Moneyweek to get more subscriptions to their magazine - don't believe the hype! Sales of magazines/newspapers are reducing rapidly due to the volume of free online content.
Anyway, take a look at the above graph and ask yourself "why have we had 2 years of pay freeze and now 1%"? My answer is "incompetence, corrupt contracts and waste" - I see it everywhere...
LJ
OK, it's not great, but we've been here before. As I understand it, it is the Private Debt that is causing most concern - that is the money that our banking sector has borrowed. Yes, the same banking sector that is paying out mahoosive bonuses each year.
By the way, if you read an article by Moneyweek called "The end of Britain" it is complete hoop in my opinion (advertised on Prune, no less). All of their scaremongering graphs have not been adjusted for inflation. They have omitted to add that they failed to predict financial crises like Lehman Bros, Northern Rock and alike - they are being very misleading in my humble opinion. It's actually looks like a thinly disguised sales ploy/scam by Moneyweek to get more subscriptions to their magazine - don't believe the hype! Sales of magazines/newspapers are reducing rapidly due to the volume of free online content.
Anyway, take a look at the above graph and ask yourself "why have we had 2 years of pay freeze and now 1%"? My answer is "incompetence, corrupt contracts and waste" - I see it everywhere...
LJ
Last edited by Lima Juliet; 14th Mar 2013 at 23:34.
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 70
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The cost of the recommended but rejected X Factor increase is £22M pa. The amount of risk provision or uncommitted funding in the EP is in the order of £2.9Bn over each of the next ten years. But we can't afford it, apparently. That sends a great message about our 'greatest asset' doesn't it?
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: 23, Railway Cuttings, East Cheam
Age: 68
Posts: 3,115
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I know plenty in the public sector who have had plenty of pay rises.
I can't complain, I'm ex mob and on a pension. I still knock around with serving aircrew at my flying club though and believe me, the RAF doesn't pay too badly cf with civ street except maybe with the exception of the big jet pilots.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 1,797
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Reading through the party line this morning, it appears as if the 'system' is relying upon IPP to soften the blow. Which of course means that if you are presently capped you have dipped it. It also is sugggestive of AFPRB 2014 being a repeat of this year at approx 1% 
. It is unusual for comments being made mandating parity with 'civil' public sector workers, as AFPRB is normally stand-alone in view of the increased operating risk to life associated with military operations and the months of maritial separation that our civil peers do not endure. ie Civil domestic charges are rising and therefore military ones (SFA Rent) will do also shadowing the civil medical and educational fraternity.
In my own case, I leave next year anyway and was hoping that either the 13 or 14 pay award would restore the balance of the not insignificant pay freeze. At least I can consider the pension peoples recommendation to leave early with some realistic planning fiqures.
. It is unusual for comments being made mandating parity with 'civil' public sector workers, as AFPRB is normally stand-alone in view of the increased operating risk to life associated with military operations and the months of maritial separation that our civil peers do not endure. ie Civil domestic charges are rising and therefore military ones (SFA Rent) will do also shadowing the civil medical and educational fraternity.In my own case, I leave next year anyway and was hoping that either the 13 or 14 pay award would restore the balance of the not insignificant pay freeze. At least I can consider the pension peoples recommendation to leave early with some realistic planning fiqures.
T_m
As far as I remember, some 3 odd years ago, the future pay rise package for the military (entire public sector?) for the next four years was announced. It was always intended to be two years of 0%, followed by two years of a 1% cap. This was all part of budget deficit reduction measures.
I was therefore under the impression that 1% next year as well as this is already a forgone conclusion!!
As far as I remember, some 3 odd years ago, the future pay rise package for the military (entire public sector?) for the next four years was announced. It was always intended to be two years of 0%, followed by two years of a 1% cap. This was all part of budget deficit reduction measures.
I was therefore under the impression that 1% next year as well as this is already a forgone conclusion!!
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Europeshire
Age: 60
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
good years bad years
Thing - something that emphasised the difference between private and public sector, was that the public sector "smoothed out" the peaks/troughs of corporate fortune and payed a safe, steady inflation-adjusted salary.
In commerce, there were good years and bad years. The astute would bank the bonuses from the good years and thus cover the lean.
One could argue (as indeed I am) that both systems, as was, roughly panned out.
What characterises the situation today is that public sector workers are no longer being afforded the protection in the poor years and, no surprises, do not benefit from large pay rises and/or bonuses during the times of plenty. This is what is giving rise to the feeling that public sector workers are being let down.
The injustice in the pay award is that the VSO, the people who advised and influenced the decision-makers (and must bear some culpability for the budgetary block holes) are now being awarded the same as the "little people" who had no part to play in the crisis.
I know of junior people, in the MoD, who warned against front-loading of programmes, of PPP, of leverage of budget - they were cordially invited by the VSO to STFU or leave. Yet these are the same people who now must "play their part in the recovery process" (sound bite attributed to Dave C).
This is why the bitterness, the disallusionment and the interesting observation that people are leaving, despite the "harsh climate" outside. For info, the Army are not struggling to find volunteers for the 3rd tranche of redundancy.
If these are not another 2 examples of how the VSO have failed, I am unlikely to be able to cite any others.
I am expected, as part of my duties, to promote MoD and Govt line. I find myself increasingly hard-pressed and ill-inclined to so do.
Nim.
editted for fffat fffingers effect
In commerce, there were good years and bad years. The astute would bank the bonuses from the good years and thus cover the lean.
One could argue (as indeed I am) that both systems, as was, roughly panned out.
What characterises the situation today is that public sector workers are no longer being afforded the protection in the poor years and, no surprises, do not benefit from large pay rises and/or bonuses during the times of plenty. This is what is giving rise to the feeling that public sector workers are being let down.
The injustice in the pay award is that the VSO, the people who advised and influenced the decision-makers (and must bear some culpability for the budgetary block holes) are now being awarded the same as the "little people" who had no part to play in the crisis.
I know of junior people, in the MoD, who warned against front-loading of programmes, of PPP, of leverage of budget - they were cordially invited by the VSO to STFU or leave. Yet these are the same people who now must "play their part in the recovery process" (sound bite attributed to Dave C).
This is why the bitterness, the disallusionment and the interesting observation that people are leaving, despite the "harsh climate" outside. For info, the Army are not struggling to find volunteers for the 3rd tranche of redundancy.
If these are not another 2 examples of how the VSO have failed, I am unlikely to be able to cite any others.
I am expected, as part of my duties, to promote MoD and Govt line. I find myself increasingly hard-pressed and ill-inclined to so do.
Nim.
editted for fffat fffingers effect
Last edited by Nimbus20; 15th Mar 2013 at 09:50.
An interesting turn of events - 'Independent' Pay Review Board questions its own independence in its own report; MoD fights to not pay its people more; X-Factor review produces an answer that the MoD and No 10 cannot stomach; boss of Pay Review Board does not get his contract renewed.
Quite a battle over a few million but I guess the government wanted to make sure that there was no remaining hint of 'independence' in the board and deemed that that this was an important enough message for the long term to tolerate the short-term negative press.
For the military aircrew that frequent the board the probable changes for Flying Pay--->Specialist Pay--->Recruitment and Retention Incentive--->Recruitment and Retention Pay--->back to Specialist Pay (for a bit whilst they sort out JPA) is interesting and potentially alarming.
Previous years had questioned why SP is awarded to those who could expect to receive it for the career (eg aircrew) and suggest a more targeted spine. This year there is open talk of:
and just to twist-the-knife into all those new DDHs out there with that 'inescapable legal responsibility' for flying risks:
We will see how this develops but just muddying the waters in this way will have an effect; the report already notes that reserve banding and removal of SP on 'voluntary outflow' may already be driving people out at option points.
20 years ago I got a mortgage based on my basic plus flying pay - would it be wise for the next generation to do so?
Quite a battle over a few million but I guess the government wanted to make sure that there was no remaining hint of 'independence' in the board and deemed that that this was an important enough message for the long term to tolerate the short-term negative press.
For the military aircrew that frequent the board the probable changes for Flying Pay--->Specialist Pay--->Recruitment and Retention Incentive--->Recruitment and Retention Pay--->back to Specialist Pay (for a bit whilst they sort out JPA) is interesting and potentially alarming.
Previous years had questioned why SP is awarded to those who could expect to receive it for the career (eg aircrew) and suggest a more targeted spine. This year there is open talk of:
proposed annual adjustments in levels of SP
flexible approach should allow levels of SP to move down as well as up in response to manning levels
recognises that when a training commitment is associated with a return-of-service commitment there is more scope to reconsider the appropriateness of paying SP
a standard 12 months notice would be given prior to any reduction in SP coming in to effect...transitional arrangements if their SP was to be decreased or stopped altogether
We broadly endorse the new approach proposed by MOD and the associated safeguarding of pay if SP rates are reduced
MOD also reviewed the payment of SP to those at OF5 and above. About 250 personnel at OF5 and above were in receipt of some form of SP, over 200 of whom received SP (Flying). MOD acknowledged that there was some inconsistency in the approach to SP for more senior personnel and undertook to investigate this further.
20 years ago I got a mortgage based on my basic plus flying pay - would it be wise for the next generation to do so?
Very interesting to see the head of the AFPRB being culled by DC. However, it is a great pity that the board failed to include the observation that "if you pay peanuts, you get monkeys" in their final draft.
OAP
PS. No disrespect to monkeys
OAP
PS. No disrespect to monkeys