Welcome to E-Goat :: The Totally Unofficial Royal Air Force Rumour Network
Join our free community to unlock a range of benefits like:
  • Post and participate in discussions.
  • Send and receive private messages with other members.
  • Respond to polls and surveys.
  • Upload and share content.
  • Gain access to exclusive features and tools.
Join 7.5K others today

Pay Rise 2009

  • Following weeks of work, the E-GOAT team are delighted to present to you a new look to the forums with plenty of new features. Take a look around and see what you think!
Trending This Week
View More Trending
TMG, didn't mention Tg3/4 because under Broons special request, they will get a new epic pay scale for being generally pooed on by every other mother...

No comms, No Bombs!:PDT_Xtremez_30:
 
SirSaltyHelmet said:
Oh and sorry for having an opinion, will stick to watching!
Click to expand...


Come on mate, you were moaning about us moaning. A little ironic don't you think..... :PDT_Xtremez_28:


I'll also answer this again as my reply to a direct question was ripped for being a power post: :PDT_Xtremez_15:

chiefy said:
Don't tell me you actually believed they were "independent"
Click to expand...

No..........
 
Last edited:
chiefy said:
Ha, ha, ha, ha!

Don't tell me you actually believed they were "independent"

"In reaching its recommendations, the Review Body is to have regard to the following considerations:

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"
Click to expand...

Chiefy, being a natural cynic I put your point to the AFPRB back in 2004 and boy were they offended. I highlighted exactly the passage you quote and they were adament that they are not 'got at' by the Government (i.e given a figure that they then come to agree on). On the whole I was impressed by the team and my own view is that they are independent inside what are sensible limits, limits that if bankers lived by we wouldn't be in the economic mess we are now.

I think it is a sign of the independence of the AFPRB that it is taking so long it for the review to be published. I wouldn't be surprised to see it's publication accompanied by a political storm along the lines of AFPRB recommendation not being accepted by the Government (can't afford it) which will make them look (even more) daft whilst the 'Fred the Shred'/'Bail out the poor bankers' arguments are still ongoing.
 
AFPRB Fair

AFPRB Fair

tag_lincoln said:
The AFPRB submit their report to the Government, the government aren't obliged to accept it and can reject all or part of it. Yes the AFPRB have to be realistic and submit what they think will get accepted but normally the government do accept the AFPRB recommendations in toto (no not the band).
Click to expand...

They know what is acceptable to the Govt and always justify any little extra pay rises over and above inflation. They seem to know that if they ask for too much we'll get now't.

They were pretty ****ed over the split rises in the past and mentioned it, they are still aware of problems of retention, recruitment appears to have been solved by the recession (for now) so I look forward to their findings as long as GB has left them alone.

If you look at the figures of the recent past you will see that we have had above CPI rises (don't mention RPI to me), however our rises are behind the average rise in Civil Service rises, so I feel that we shouldn't be too penalised in the bad times (especially as I've just put a deposit on a car)
 
The Govt of the day seem to get all of the flak over the mil pay rise but I would suggest that they gain nothing from disagreeing with the AFPRB.

Our pay rise for 2009 will come from the MOD Budget/allocation that was made over 2 years ago, if we get say 3% when the long-term forcasters 2 years ago thought it would be 2.5% then that is .5% less that we can spend on new kit/buildings/people etc etc.

All the Govt do is rubber stamp, it's the MOD beancounters who finally decide whether it is affordable or not. Or maybe I have got it wrong and the Govt increase the allocation to MOD to cover the AFPRB recommendation - but I think not!
 
8:15fromOdium said:
Chiefy, being a natural cynic I put your point to the AFPRB back in 2004 and boy were they offended. I highlighted exactly the passage you quote and they were adament that they are not 'got at' by the Government (i.e given a figure that they then come to agree on). On the whole I was impressed by the team and my own view is that they are independent inside what are sensible limits, limits that if bankers lived by we wouldn't be in the economic mess we are now.

I think it is a sign of the independence of the AFPRB that it is taking so long it for the review to be published. I wouldn't be surprised to see it's publication accompanied by a political storm along the lines of AFPRB recommendation not being accepted by the Government (can't afford it) which will make them look (even more) daft whilst the 'Fred the Shred'/'Bail out the poor bankers' arguments are still ongoing.
Click to expand...

In 2004 I put the point directly to Professor Greenaway the Chair of the AFPRB, after some waffle - and interjection by the the Sqn Ldr who was with him he admitted in front of a room full of SNCO's that they were given guidelines by the treasury and MoD on what was affordable and what was in and out of scope for review. I then asked him how truly independent he felt that process was; the Sqn Ldr moved onto another less confrontational question from someone else ignoring my question completely!

Now, I appreciate that there isn't an endless pot of money and pay rises have to be affordable, however a truly independent pay review would; to my mind at least, take a completely objective view and draw conclusions from that - what is affordable should then fall out of those conclusions - not the other way around. I told him this after the event and he just shrugged, now whether he shrugged because he felt I was right or whether it was because he thought I was wrong we will probably never know but it's worth remembering that these guys aren't doing this a a full time job; they are employed by MoD at between £300 and £350 a day on the basis that they will be required for between 28-30 days a year. They are not embedded in this review process and rely heavily on others doing the legwork and administration. They are also probably doing similar consultancy work for other departments and most of them have full time jobs...... go figure.
 
Last edited:
So we pay for our tanks as well

So we pay for our tanks as well

BJW said:
Our pay rise for 2009 will come from the MOD Budget/allocation that was made over 2 years ago, if we get say 3% when the long-term forcasters 2 years ago thought it would be 2.5% then that is .5% less that we can spend on new kit/buildings/people etc etc.
QUOTE]

What a crass reply, so you are saying that we should have a lower pay rise because the government cannot fund it's international commitments and we should take up the slack.

Budgets do have to be balanced but what you are saying is that we should take a low pay rise so we can have a couple of big ships to defend the nation.

There isn't a lot of cash floating around MOD at the moment but the MOD Civil Servants are looking at 6% this Aug.
Click to expand...
 
The funding for Telic and Herrick does not come out of the MoD budget but from contingency funds at the treasury so that cannot be used as an excuse, although the fund must be getting a bit low by now as the last year cost us £4.5bn i think the figure was. The figure is up due to captial costs of leaving Telic and writing off kit.

Needless to say I am sure they will find a way of dragging that in.
 
busby1971 said:
BJW said:
Our pay rise for 2009 will come from the MOD Budget/allocation that was made over 2 years ago, if we get say 3% when the long-term forcasters 2 years ago thought it would be 2.5% then that is .5% less that we can spend on new kit/buildings/people etc etc.
QUOTE]

What a crass reply, so you are saying that we should have a lower pay rise because the government cannot fund it's international commitments and we should take up the slack.

Budgets do have to be balanced but what you are saying is that we should take a low pay rise so we can have a couple of big ships to defend the nation.

There isn't a lot of cash floating around MOD at the moment but the MOD Civil Servants are looking at 6% this Aug.
Click to expand...

That is definitely not what I am saying, the rise we get should be what the AFPRB recommend, no less.

All I was suggesting was that irrespective of the Govt accepting the recommendation they will not give MOD any more money to pay for it - that applies equally to the Police, Teachers, Nurses etc. All Govt depts already have their allocations for 09/10, how they cut the cloth to meet the demands is down to them once we have had the rise that is recommended.

Is that any clearer?
Click to expand...
 
my mate on facebook, said that his mate on myspace said his brother found out from his teacher's sister, that we were getting 2.6% this year.

thought i'd let you all know!
 
Your exagerated smoke and mirrors seem to hint at that figure being a little more accurate that may be suspected.


Or is my drink addled brain going off on one again.....
 
bombdasand said:
that we were getting 2.6% this year.
Click to expand...

That figure does seem to be getting banded around a lot at the moment, so there may be some creedence in it........... but best wait and see I reckon, not that I'm holding out for anything spectacular, because that would be like living in cloud cookoo land
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top