Pay rise 2010/2011 (Poll added)

[Tubby]

fair enough, any links then

 

[SirSaltyHelmet]

Yup, it is called the search button

 

[rest have risen above me]

http://www.ome.uk.com/Document/Default.aspx?DocumentUid=E7B63F50-BCC2-4FA7-A553-326BB1B30945

What a really good read..yawn....lol. I wish they'd get some writers in that can say all that in half the words.

Let's get it going then...."Where's the new techie pay spine???"

What makes Apache fairies worth £12500 bonus??

Now that's out of the way...he he..

To be honest they've been relatively careful this year. It always amazes me that the pay review body is supposed to be independant yet it has produced just what the government needs to look good (with all the spin they'll make it look amazing just you watch). The past few years SFA rents/food and accom have been out stripping the pay rise. Yet this year when GB needs to be seen as pro forces it's back at what is a fair level.
Not complaining too loud though as it is better than I expected...DT_Xtremez_06:

 

[Saracens959]

Keep up

Keep up

Threads already started on this one

That thread had gone off on a tangent as they always do.

This thread was started as there was proof of an imminent announcement.

 

[Tas]

http://nds.coi.gov.uk/Content/detail.aspx?NewsAreaId=2&ReleaseID=412025&SubjectId=2

Found this which has a link to a very basic pay table (no levels shown)

 

[Joe_90]

Someone has already stated that the AFPRB are little more than yes men and the fact that they didn't recommend an increase to LSAP proves it. Yes the MOD doesn't have the money to do it and it would quite rightly be turned down but by not making the recommendation GB can say he is taking the AFPRB recommendations in full. That is from a quick skim through and I'm sure there are other items like that.

 

[CC]

Official - 2% pay increase

Official - 2% pay increase

2% pay increase, better than I expected.

Also, LSA qualifying period dropping from 10 to 7 days.

All in all, not too bad.

 

[The Stig]

agreed, think we did ok considering, plus Op allowance up to £14.50 ish.

 

[CC]

Sorry Busby, just logged on, didn't see any other threads. Sorry for wasting your time, please accept the humblest of apologies. I am clearly not worthy.

 

[Climebear]

Someone has already stated that the AFPRB are little more than yes men and the fact that they didn't recommend an increase to LSAP proves it. Yes the MOD doesn't have the money to do it and it would quite rightly be turned down but by not making the recommendation GB can say he is taking the AFPRB recommendations in full. That is from a quick skim through and I'm sure there are other items like that.

That is not proof. LSAP is not in the AFPRB remit - neither are many other allowances such as LOA, MMA, CEA, GYH .... You will notice that these allowances are conspicuous by there absence from tha annexes to the report. However, this year the AFPRB passed on the feelings from our personnel and their families to the MOD during their discussions - this is not a formal AFPRB recomendation.

In fact I would give the AFPRB credit for representing many of our views in an area they didn't have to.

Yes the AFPRB are instructed to consider several issues:

the need to recruit, retain and motivate suitably able and qualified people taking account of the particular circumstances of Service life;

Government policies for improving public services, including the requirement on the Ministry of Defence to meet the output targets for the delivery of departmental services;

the funds available to the Ministry of Defence as set out in the Government' s departmental expenditure limits;

and the Government' s inflation target.

But the key word is consider them not abide by them. I can recall several instances over the years when the AFPRB has made recomendations contrary to Government policies and targets.

Back to LSAP. The fact that we all want an increase doesn't mean that the MOD are going to fund it. They don't give out the money just because it's a nice thing to do. Like other employers these type of benefits are used to aid retention. As there is a recession on, people aren't leaving in droves so it could be (and I am sure was) argued that the money would be better spent elsewhere. This is evident in the retention specific elements of the AFPRB recomendations (mainly Specialist Pay) that are becoming more and more targeted to specific groups - in the case of the Army, down to the pilots of a particular type of helicopter.

This doesn't stop the lack of an increase in LSAP being annoying as I am currently trying to get onto the propery ladder after 25 years 'following the flag'.

 

[Harry B'Stard]

Techie Pay?

Techie Pay?

Had a quick skim read of the full document this afternoon. One thing that stood out was about Pay 2000.

It definitely said that Pay 2000 was not suitable and in some cases was divisive. In addition to this it stated that a review board had already started looking at how pay could be changed and it would report later this year.

Could this be the first chance of a Technical pay spine or a return to the days when pay was decided on specific trade rather than limiting it to two choices (higher or lower)?DT_Xtremez_30:

HTB

 

[Tubby]

They said in the 2007 report that they would look into the pay spines with regards to pay 2000 issue. They didn't report by the December that they promised then so I wouldn't hold my breath.

 

[Climebear]

Had a quick skim read of the full document this afternoon. One thing that stood out was about Pay 2000.

It definitely said that Pay 2000 was not suitable and in some cases was divisive. In addition to this it stated that a review board had already started looking at how pay could be changed and it would report later this year.

Could this be the first chance of a Technical pay spine or a return to the days when pay was decided on specific trade rather than limiting it to two choices (higher or lower)?DT_Xtremez_30:

HTB

IIRC during the development of Pay 2000 the RAF suggested that there should be just one pay spine. However, each non-commissioned rank should have approximately 20 increments. An individual would only qaulify for 9 increments and that job evaluation (JE) would indicate a trade's starting point on the scale (ie from 1 - 12). So a trade that scored lowest on the JE would have increments 1-9 whereas a trade that scored the highest would have the increments 12-20.

I still believe that this would have given more scope than the high/low option and eased some of the current disquiet.

This would not, however, automatically result in TG1 trades being paid higher that everyone else. The JE process includes many variables not just technical ability, length of training and qualification requirements but also working conditions, command and responsibility.

There are several instances where other trades will score higher than 'technical trades' (which include musicians) in some elements of JE. For instance, if you would like to see responsibilty accompany an infantry/RAF Regt/marine section commander (cpl) on a patrol out in Afghanistan, especially in a contact, where he has to make instant decisions (without reference to APs or his superior) that mean life or death to the 7 people under his command. (By the way - I'm not a Rock).

 

[busby1971]

It's not Pay 2000

It's not Pay 2000

The current JE system needs to be looked at before techies can look at getting a higher level of pay.

Pay 2000 is probably wrong but as a shiney JNCO I think it's great, there are probably other trades that think the same because they too have benefitted.

But if Techies are going to get paid more then the JE system will need to be overhauled first.

 

[Climebear]

The current JE system needs to be looked at before techies can look at getting a higher level of pay.

Pay 2000 is probably wrong but as a shiney JNCO I think it's great, there are probably other trades that think the same because they too have benefitted.

But if Techies are going to get paid more then the JE system will need to be overhauled first.

Don't follow your logic there. Even if the you completely overhauled the JE system so that it gave double points to any trade in TG1 it still wouldn't attract anymore money for those already in the higher band.

 

[busby1971]

Search this forum

Search this forum

Don't follow your logic there. Even if the you completely overhauled the JE system so that it gave double points to any trade in TG1 it still wouldn't attract anymore money for those already in the higher band.

According to another poster on here the JE system does not fully take into account the full worth of a techie in the RAF, therefore if a new pay system comes in and JE is applied then techies may not do quite as well as they think.

Personally I think techies should get paid a bit more, but only if they promise to stop moaning.

As I've said many times when this subject comes up a single pay spine from AC to WO would suffice, you gain credit on promotion, completion of courses (service and civilian ones that are relevant to your role) and annually. Techies could receive extra pay as the courses could be graded in some way so that more credits are applied for harder courses. This would be a much more flexible system and be better able to reward specific skills.

 

[Climebear]

Ok that's understood but it's still primarily a Pay 2000 issue as anything would need a new pay system.

Judging the 'worth' of a job is always subjective. Just look at the salaries of some jobs outside (especially in the very succesful banking sector).