Air Chief Marshal Sir Stuart William Peach, GBE, KCB, ADC, DL said ......
 

On the BBC Alan Marr TV show; Sir Stuart Peach was asked if soldiers were paid enough - after a conversation focused on under-Manning below a 'critical' number of 80k.

On several occasions Marr repeated the specific question, quoting servicemen being limited to 1% pay rise whilst other government employees enjoy 2-3%. In response Sir Stuart stated that members of the U.K. Military do not hold salary as their primary focus for work. They instead serve to enjoy serving in uniform. This he 'heard' from the shop floor. He also devolved responsibility solely to the AFPRB.

You do not need to be a cynic to have seen many a (former) senior officer make an honest statement reflecting reality after he has conceded his uniform, and so such betrayal of our servicemen is in keeping with precedents all too frequently set.

..... and so Sir Stuart, as the cost of living gently spirals, and given the plateau to which service pay has adhered for many years now, do not be surprised at discontent within the UK military, or recruitment being problematic, because the worker bees do not get paid enough. The advisors to the Ivory Towers need to have a word with themselves. We understand that our Government is bankrupt, and that there is no further funding, but that does not excuse what you did today in public - an honest opinion costs nothing.

He faces the same conundrum as every serving brasshat, and the same criticism that has been levelled at many others for many years now. They are locked into a system where they can try to exert influence internally but cannot depart from the official line externally until after they leave office. If they did they would have to resign. Maybe you think they should, but that is another question. I don't comment on the rights or wrongs of the system, but that's how it is.

On one point of detail, the government is far from bankrupt. It has choices on how and where it spends its funds.

Isn't one of the first priorities of any government the protection of it's citizens?

Absolutely. I didn't comment on whether in making its current choices the government is getting the balance right.

Disappointing fudge. He will no doubt be quoting figures from a survey that shows 0.1% more service personnel that replied, listed "job satisfaction" above pay. Of course, you only have yourselves to blame for that. As for Peachy, he has been eating a lot of loyalty pills. :)

OAP

Admin Guru

Personally, depending on the context of Sir Stuart’s comments, I think the remuneration package is actually fairly reasonable when you consider it to civvy street. I grant that the 1% and 0% rises since 2011 have meant that our pay has gone down by ~10% in real terms if you have run out of pay increments in your current rank. If you were lucky enough to be promoted or start your current rank then your income will have pretty much stagnated in real terms for the past 6 years. But, people are not leaving because of the pay - it’s the terms and conditions of service, the perilous state of quarters/messes and our working environments, the constant churn of the past 20 years’ Op tempo, the malaise that has generally set in amongst us all that fiscal decisions are running the military and the lack of charismatic but intelligent leadership at 3-star and above in all 3 Services (where it would seem the “old boys’ club” only promote the 2-stars in their own likeness). Worst of all, it is the loss of trust that drives so many away and the fact that from SAC to roughly 2-star just about all allowances, management decisions, travel and discipline decisions are mired in the most ridiculous scrutiny and process that many are getting fed up with it. Further, as we drive away that ability to make a decision as an NCO or Officer we bog ourselves down in ever more bureaucracy - more and more MAA regulation, pointless JPA-tracked courses stating the bleeding obvious using so-called “online learning” and “practice bleeding” down to the lowest common denominator because a very small number can’t behave or need looking after. NCOs and Officers are no longer allowed to be leaders and we indoctrinate them at Dartmouth/Sandhurst/Cranwell and thence on at Shrivenham in our weak processes and make them think alike. Only really on Ops can the NCO or Officer use their head, that is why many look forward to ops, but if they come around as often as they have been in recent years then the work-life balance with family life starts to become a significant stressor.

That is why we lose our people, it is not the pay, it’s the ‘death by a thousand cuts’ that does it. Funnily enough (not that funny really) the US military are having serious retention problems as well - we share many of the same issues.

Sunday rant, over...

Excellent post, LJ, if I may say so. I left 44 years ago, so only get to know what present service life is like from such as PPRuNe. So what do I know? Well very little admittedly, but your post ticks so many boxes in what impressions I have gained that I believe you have got to the nub of it.

In particular you point to the MAA. There I do have some knowledge, and it gells exactly with what you say. It is a self perpetuating bureaucracy, bent on ticking boxes to serve a system. Unfortunately that system is not about Air Safety, but about VSO Safety. The MAA was founded upon the Haddon-Cave Report, which in turn stated a Golden Period of UK Military Airworthiness existed in the late80s/early90s. That was a lie, protecting as it did those VSOs who had deliberately set out to subvert Military Airworthiness in order to make short term savings. It goes on ensuring a cover up which prevents the essential reform of UK Military Airworthiness happening. So the Military Aviation Authority is in itself a Flight Safety hazard.

Add to that the reduction of the powers of a subordinate commander that you describe, so that all power resides at 2* and above, and one can see how the Star Chamber rules all. The problem is that the Star Chamber does not seek to defend the nation but rather itself. Unless and until Station and Unit Commanders regain the powers that are needed in order to command the real Royal Air Force, ie that behind the Station Gates, then the spiral of decay will continue and avoidable accidents will go on cutting away at its operational capability and skilled personnel.

No idea what it's like now, of course, but wasn't our pay 'abated' to reflect our quite generous non-contributory pension scheme?

Anyway, LJ makes some good points. I lost heart in my later years to a lack of anything resembling 'leadership'. As an OF-4 [I think that's what I was] I was generally treated as an office-boy. No respect at all, just word-processor fodder ... and my 1* would completely ignore my "Good morning, Sir" when I passed him in the corridor.

Where DID leadership go?

Agree with everything, a most excellent Sunday rant!

So, I made the right decision going from OF-2 to 2/O? ;)

MPN, correct. Then there is the X Factor: I don't know what that is now or which way it goes but it serves as another fudge factor. Also food and accommodation charges and how these impact on short trips, detachments etc.

Certainly the expectation was that an away day should not see you out of pocket but that admin trying to ensure that was a real embuggerance. Before I departed I had to get prior approval for T&S for a trip ordered by the very man that ordered the trip.

I used to use a standard claim to bugger him about though I often didn't spend my allowance which completely buggered up his forward planning and then submitted claims late :)

"Isn't one of the first priorities of any government the protection of it's citizens?"

In theory - in practise it's the protection of it's voters.................... and then the companies/professions who give them the most $$$$

I was told yesterday by someone still serving that both RAF Odiham and RAF Benson Officers messes were closed due to infestations - one of rats and the other of cockroaches. If true this is perhaps symptomatic of the parlous state of the military infrastructure caused by years of under-investment as contractors get away with doing less than the minimum to maintain the integrity of the buildings and real estate.

Just another one of those thousand cuts!

I was, recently, present at a speech by CDS and, in general, it was something of a pep talk aimed more at young officers. Nothing controversial or any 'secrets'. Pretty much what I would expect from a gentleman in his rank and appointment.

How many of you here, were you in his position, would damage your career by taking a position of opposition to your political masters?

He’s right that the kids of today join for the experiences and having their 20s and early 30s full of paidfor fun, rather than a decent salary. Unfortunately this means those in some operational and uniquely technical skills have just mastered their trade when they have the option to leave.

On numerous Staff visits [sorry, I became a Quill Warrior, 3rd Dan] i used to watch my colleagues scrabbling around to make tuppence on their allowances by eating at MaccyD or the local Chippy. I used to enjoy a bottle of wine on HMG whilst having my 3-course hotel meal at their expense. It was an interesting insight into how people looked at Pay and Allowances.

Dear OP,

If you haven't realised by now that anyone above the rank of 3* is a politician first, Serviceman second, you should wake up. When the House of Lords / Knighthood / debenture at BAe Systems as a non-Exec Director calls, you don't start throwing spears at the Government.

You want to influence the pay of our soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines, go and write to your MP.

X Factor these days is 14.5% and as we all know is a compensatory addition to take home pay to take into account the buggeration factor of Service life. Hence why some of the FTRS contracts which are limited in their duties don't get it. But the so what there is that the core pay for the job i.e. achieving actual operational effect is only ~85% of pay. Looked at that way, I think we offer pretty good value for the professional skills we posses across all branches and trades.

Incidentally, many look at pay in another way if they hit a pension point. Given that from that point on they could leave drawing a pension and start a second career, they are in fact effectively working for a rate of pay equivalent to salary - pension. When people work that one out for the first time you certainly see the cogs turning!

If you've been in 18 months and if you're having a good time and if you're making £20,000 whilst your mates are on street corners, 1% pa delta is neither here nor there and probably isn't a big factor. So, to an extent, he could be correct.

You're probably right, and it's most likely the more senior and experienced personnel who feel as though pay is an indicator of how they are progressing in life who will feel it the most. Especially if trying to balance mortgages and other expected commitments associated with getting older.

But if, as I think they are trying to do, the demographic make up if the Forces are adjusted so the composition is mostly junior staff on short term contracts vice full careers, then going forward pay will become less of an issue if getting out from a desk and doing something interesting is more important. In fact, if you follow that logic chain to the end, we hit a point where pay features very little in the arguments, with the result there is little imperative to do much about it if many personnel are perceived to be happy. Then we end up with permanently lowered pay relative to what it might otherwise had been in a full career organisation.