Armed Forces Pay Inequality

#1
Email that I sent to my MP and his response:

Dear Mr ,

During the televised leaders debates Mr Clegg brought up the fact that a soldier who has just passed out from training receives annual pay of about 6K less than his/her counterpart in the police and fire service. I see in the recently published document ‘Policy by policy the coalition governments plans’ there is no mention of this matter even though Mr Clegg spoke strongly about this disparity, I cannot recall his exact words they were to the effect that it is a national disgrace.

Could you please tell me if there is any government plans to deal with this issue? I also see it as an absolute disgrace when our Armed Forces are engaged in war fighting in Afghanistan and I have little doubt that the rest of the country would agree with me.

Respectfully yours,


Response:

Thanks for your email. The coalition agreement is at http://www.direct.gov.uk/prod_consu.../@dg/@en/documents/digitalasset/dg_187876.pdf



I enclose the coalition agreement on defence below. This includes the commitment to “double the operational allowance for Armed Forces personnel serving in Afghanistan, and include Armed Forces pay in our plans for a fair pay review.â€



Obviously the Liberal Democrat idea of not fully replacing Trident would have left greater room for manoeuvre in the defence budget. But as you are probably aware and as is explained below, the Lib Dems have the ability in the agreement to continue to argue for more cost effective alternatives to Trident. I think there is a big danger that the defence budget will become too dominated by Trident when we need to mostly fight conventional wars and support our armed forces in their pay and conditions.



Nevertheless I am committed to continue to campaign for better pay, especially for privates and able seamen. When researching this I found that there are jobs stacking shelves in supermarkets that pay more than privates and able seamen get paid and I can’t believe that is right. And if coalition does not act on this, Nick Clegg and David Cameron can be assured that I will there pushing for a better deal for our armed forces.



The Liberal Democrats and I believe the coalition Government is committed to restoring the “military covenant†and paying our armed forces who put their lives on the line better and I will continue to campaign for the Government to do that. I will also campaign for better conditions and accomodation for our armed forces.



I hope this helps.



Best wishes

Finknottle: I would have hoped that during the horse trading between the Lib Dems and Tories the Lib Dem negotiators would have given no ground regarding this issue, sadly this was not the case.
 
#10
extract from the AFPRB 39th Report said:
National Minimum Wage
2.41 Although the Armed Forces are exempt from the National Minimum Wage (NMW)
legislation, MOD is committed to acting within its spirit. Junior Ranks across all Services
worked on average 44.4 hours per week during 2008-09, equating to an hourly base
pay rate of £7.21. This compared with the October 2008 NMW rates of £5.73 per
hour for those aged at least 22 and £4.77 per hour for those aged 18-21.
(The October 2008 NMW rates are used to be consistent with the timing of the Working Patterns Survey. The hourly
NMW rates from 1 October 2009 were £5.80 for those aged 22 and over and £4.83 for those aged 18-21.)


2.42 Using October 2008 NMW rates, Junior Ranks working at least 56 hours per week (aged
22 and over) and 67 hours (aged 18-21) potentially could have earned below the
NMW (Excluding any LSA or Operational Allowance payments). Following increases to NMW rates from
October 2009, the weekly hours required to fall below the NMW reduced to 55 and 66
hours per week for the respective age groups.
In other words, even taking into account the extra hours worked, youngsters still get paid more than the minimum wage. This counters one argument.

extract from the AFPRB 39th Report said:
Pay comparability
2.44 Our terms of reference require us to ‘have regard for the need for the pay of the Armed
Forces to be broadly comparable with pay levels in civilian life’. This is an important part
of our remit and a significant strand of evidence to ensure that the Armed Forces are
appropriately positioned against the civilian market and able to recruit and retain the
personnel they require. Given the nature of the remit group, it is not always possible to
make direct comparisons between military and civilian jobs. We use our judgement
when analysing the evidence, rather than simply adopting a mechanistic process.

2.45 Broad comparability is assessed across three areas: (i) comparisons with the pay available
to uniformed civilian services; (ii) comparisons for those at entry points to, and in the
early stages of, their careers; and (iii) comparisons of pay levels and movements between
the military and civilians based on job evaluation and job weight. This year we were able
to include the latest available (2009) Annual Survey of Hours and Earnings (ASHE) as part
of our pay comparability analysis. We set our conclusions on broad comparability against
other evidence, including movements in earnings and pay settlements across the
economy, and that relating to recruitment, retention and morale.
Pay, across the board, is comparable with similar jobs in Civvy Street. Don't forget, the X-factor is then applied, so that we are actually paid 113% of what a civvy in a comparable job would get.

extract from the AFPRB 39th Report said:
Uniformed civilian services
2.46 An important part of our comparability analysis relates to the packages available to
uniformed civilian services. Personnel often tell us that they see these services as direct or
‘natural’ comparators and also as potential alternative or subsequent careers.

2.47 Our analysis covered the Fire, Police, Prison, MOD Police and Ambulance Services.
Although there are perceived similarities, these services offer a range of different career
structures with different entry points and different terms and conditions making direct
comparisons difficult. For instance, over 60 per cent of new recruits to the Armed Forces
in 2008-09 were aged 16-20 and over 70 per cent of those in the OR1 and OR2 ranks
were aged below 25. Furthermore over half of UK Regular Forces were aged under 30.
This compares with, for example, the Police and Prison Services where fewer than 6 per
cent of Police Constables and Prison Officers, the traditional entry grade/rank in those
services, were aged below 25 and fewer than 15 per cent of all uniformed Prison Service
staff were aged under 30. Each of the groups included in the analysis has a final salary
defined benefit pension scheme, significantly only the Armed Forces’ schemes are noncontributory.
Despite the small fall observed in the latest Survey of Working Patterns,
Armed Forces’ personnel on average still work longer hours than these other groups.

2.48 On our visits, personnel correctly point out that they have a lower starting salary than
Police Officers, Prison Officers and Firefighters. The relatively early age of entry for those
joining the Armed Forces suggests that other uniformed occupations may provide
second careers for those who have already spent some time in the Armed Forces rather
than being in direct competition for those looking to join the Armed Forces. The broad
conclusion of recent years still remains that the packages on offer for other uniformed
services are generous compared with the Armed Forces, particularly on starting salaries.
However, the ostensible differences are smaller once the employees’ pension
contributions are taken into account.

Early career stages
2.49 Another important strand of our comparability evidence examines age-based pay
comparisons between young people in the Armed Forces and their full time civilian
counterparts using data from ASHE. Military age profiles (by rank) were used to establish
appropriate civilian comparator age ranges. Military salaries (adjusted for X-Factor) were
then compared with the civilian earnings distributions (adjusted for pension value). April
2009 data showed:
• Military new entrant starting pay levels were slightly ahead of median gross
earnings for civilians aged 16-18 years;
• At Pay Range 1 (Privates to Lance Corporals and equivalents) Level 1 military
salaries were around the lower quartile of civilian salaries (aged 16-29), with the
Lower Band maxima above the median and the top of the Higher Band at the
upper quartile of civilian salaries;
• Military personnel at the bottom of Lower Band Pay Ranges 2 (Corporals and
equivalent) and 3 (Sergeants and equivalent) were paid just below median civilian
earnings when compared with 25-34 year olds and 30-39 year olds respectively.
Those on the top of the pay ranges were positioned above median civilian
earnings;
• Higher Band staff within Ranges 2 and 3 received above median civilian earnings
at all points on the pay ranges.

2.50 Time series analysis of the ASHE data from 2001-2009 allows movement in the position
of military salaries to be tracked relative to full-time civilian earnings. The data showed:
• After a slight fall relative to civilian pay in 2008, military salaries improved in 2009
back to around their 2007 positions;
• Overall there has been relatively little movement in the positioning of military pay
relative to civilian pay over time.
Here endeth the third reading. Thanks be to the Board.
 
#11
There is no comparable job in civvy street to being on the front line in Afghanistan and certainly not a police officer or fireperson and they are paid more than the minimum wage well fekin woopee.
 
#12
StixJimboRM said:
finknottle said:
Joe_Crow said:
This matter was addressed by the AFPRB in their latest report.
I see nothing there to rectify this shocking disparity.
I think Trigger was referring to the statements made by Nick Clegg in the run up to the G.E., Ref. the disparity of starting pay for Police and HM Forces and the Lib Dems redressing the gap. This is not covered in the AFPRB report (as it was published before the G.E. was announced)
I refer you to sections 2.46, 2.47, and 2.48 of the 39th report of the Armed Forces' Pay Review Body, published in March 2010.

You will note:
1. It was published before the General Election was annouunced.
2. It specifically addresses the perceived disparity of starting pay for Police and HM Forces.

You were therefore, in your own words, wrong (in some respects).

I look forward to your next Curate's egg post.
 
#13
Joe_Crow said:
StixJimboRM said:
finknottle said:
Joe_Crow said:
This matter was addressed by the AFPRB in their latest report.
I see nothing there to rectify this shocking disparity.
I think Trigger was referring to the statements made by Nick Clegg in the run up to the G.E., Ref. the disparity of starting pay for Police and HM Forces and the Lib Dems redressing the gap. This is not covered in the AFPRB report (as it was published before the G.E. was announced)
I refer you to sections 2.46, 2.47, and 2.48 of the 39th report of the Armed Forces' Pay Review Body, published in March 2010.

You will note:
1. It was published before the General Election was annouunced.
2. It specifically addresses the perceived disparity of starting pay for Police and HM Forces.

You were therefore, in your own words, wrong (in some respects).

I look forward to your next Curate's egg post.
I have no idea what you are on about, what happened in respect of this issue prior to the new government coalition being formed is of no relevance.
 
#14
finknottle said:
There is no comparable job in civvy street to being on the front line in Afghanistan and certainly not a police officer or fireperson and they are paid more than the minimum wage well fekin woopee.
AFPRB said:
TARGETED PAY MEASURES
Key points:
• A number of our targeted measures are intended to enhance support for
those on operations in Afghanistan. These include several new FRIs
targeted to retain personnel essential to delivering key operational
capability.
• We recommend:
– that all rates of Specialist Pay be uprated in line with the overall award;
– new FRIs for: HT IEDD Operators; REME Class 1 Avionic Technicians;
and Apache Helicopter SNCO Aircrew;
– the extension of ULA to cover Service personnel in FOBs and PBs in
Afghanistan;
– the extension of LSA to include personnel operating under field
conditions; and the reduction of the LSA minimum entitlement
threshold from ten to seven days and;
– an increase of 2 per cent, in line with the overall pay award, to
Reserves’ Bounty and Call Out Gratuity.
AFPRB said:
Compensatory Allowances
Unpleasant Living Allowance (Forward Operating Bases)
3.47 On our visits, both in the UK and to operational theatres, there was a universal call for
greater recognition of those facing the worst conditions while on active, front-line duty
in Afghanistan. MOD recognised this and submitted a proposal to extend ULA to
personnel living and operating from qualifying FOBs and PBs in Afghanistan. Living
conditions in FOBs and PBs are very poor and accommodation is rudimentary. Standards
are invariably far below the minimum levels for accommodation and do not provide
fixed showers, established toilets or acceptable washing facilities. Despite best efforts,
conditions often inhibit delivery of the full range of support provided by the Deployed
Welfare Package. The FOB infrastructure development plan will start to deliver
improvements, but standards will still not be comparable with those in the Main
Operating Bases.
3.48 MOD proposed that ULA would be paid from day one to all personnel accommodated
and operating in all qualifying FOBs and PBs. ULA would stop from day one of any
absence from the FOB or PB of over 72 hours (not while on patrol, but it would stop for
rest and recuperation periods). The extension of ULA would cover all personnel in FOBs
and PBs and would remain in place for the duration of operations in Afghanistan.
However, if a FOB were brought up to an appropriate standard, the improved living
accommodation would be assessed with a view to stopping ULA entitlement.
3.49 All deployed personnel are subject to arduous operational rigours which are recognised
to some degree by Operational Allowance. The key distinction is that ULA aims to
identify and recognise those whose day-to-day living environment is significantly substandard.
3.50 In light of the evidence received from MOD and gathered from discussion groups both
at home and on operations, we consider the proposed extension of ULA to be a
necessary response to the need to make special provision for conditions experienced by
those in FOBs and PBs.
Recommendation 13: We recommend the extension of Unpleasant Living
Allowance to cover Service personnel living and operating from Forward
Operating Bases and Patrol Bases in Afghanistan from 1 April 2010.
The allowance should be paid at the same rate as for qualifying maritime
units, uprated in line with the overall pay award and should be reviewed
in accordance with our review cycle.
 
#15
finknottle said:
I have no idea what you are on about, what happened in respect of this issue prior to the new government coalition being formed is of no relevance.
I pointed out earlier that the AFPRB had addressed the issue of disparity between the starting pay of recruits to the Police and HM Forces. In what way do you think that the already clearly stated opinions of the AFPRB in relation to this matter are going to be changed by the empty words of a politician seeking election? In what way do you think the opinions of the AFPRB are irrelevant? Have you read the sections of the AFPRB report that I highlighted and posted, and if so, which parts of these do you either not understand, or disagree with?
 
G

guestm

Guest
#17
1. We are not pressed men.

2. We know what may be expected of us when we walk into that careers office.

3. We are aware of the pay rates when we sign our life away.


End of.
 
#18
Montigny-La-Palisse said:
1. We are not pressed men.

2. We know what may be expected of us when we walk into that careers office.

3. We are aware of the pay rates when we sign our life away.


End of.
It might be the end of as far as you are concerned and it amazes me that you see it as acceptable that a copper or fireperson upon leaving training should be paid around 6K more per annum than the equivalent Royal Marine, AB, Private or JAC, do you serving members undervalue yourselves that much?

As the MP stated you can get more stacking shelves at a supermarket

Heaven forbid that the Tory lovvies here would criticise the new coalition.
 
#20
Joe_Crow, no need to keep cutting and pasting as believe it or not I can read, and the pay review board can recommend what they like but it is not written in stone.
 

Similar threads


New Posts

Top