50K bonus for Civvies in Afghanistan!!

#1
Couldnt find this on the forums anywhere:
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepag...ghanistan-50k-bonuses-for-civil-servants.html

CIVIL servants sent to work in Afghanistan are being paid bonuses TWENTY times more than front-line troops.
The pen-pushers are kept safe in plush air-conditioned offices well away from the fighting.

But they pocket up to £8,250 a month extra while troops risking their lives get a mere £397 allowance.
 
#3
I dare say that most of them do not have weapons or A Vehicles to assist them
 
#4
CC have a choice, they can refuse to go. The only way to convince them to take the risks of being there is to pay them, this will be the going rate. I know its not fair but then very little in life is.
 
#5
If that's what it takes to get Civil Servants out there, then I'm afraid that's the way it'll have to be. Unless you train mil to pick up the roles- perhaps AGC as deployable civsec?

It does make one question the sums behind the x-factor, though.
 
#6
I can predict that there will be a lot of whinging on this thread. If so, could I please set some facts out to try and even the score.

The story is true, Civil Servants on Ops do get money, but the story is deliberately misleading. The comparison between the £50K and £2K refers to the salary of a Civil Servant of Full Colonel (B2) level or above, and is compared to a Privates salary. The number of staff out there earning this type of money is tiny – maybe a handful at best.

The way the pay is calculated is by providing an operational deployment allowance – which is similar in nature to the various allowances paid to military personnel, to reflect the difficult and arduous conditions of work in theatre, compared to the normal office environment. This is a maximum of £1750 per month, and is usually substantially less than that (its reviewed monthly and I’ve just double checked the figures).

The other factor is the ‘overtime’ payments, which is £3k - £6k per month, depending on grade. This is the big difference between the military and the civil service – in the military you are paid 24/7, but in the CS (and in most jobs) you are contracted to work a set amount of hours per week (usually 37). In theatre, it is usual to work at least a 90-100 hour week as a CS, and the so called ‘overtime payment’ is a lump sum to reflect the fact you are working 2-3 times more than what you are contracted to do. If you worked those amounts in the UK, you would be receiving a nearly identical amount – in fact, with the capped payments, you’d probably be paid a lot more. In other words, the CS are being paid for their work in the same way as anyone else would be.

The package that CS receive is effectively allowances that military receive and overtime, plus a small X factor to try and act as a recruitment ‘incentive’.

The other misconception is that the MOD CS only sit in nice offices and face no danger. I can attest from personal experience that the vast majority of MOD CS do go beyond the wire in order to do the jobs that they are there to do. They go with the military in convoys, use the same vehicles and airframes and are exposed to the same risks that convoys and ground patrols have.
Of course you won’t usually see a CS in the up close and pointy bit front line – but frankly, if you were in an infantry section would you really want one to look after? That said, Ross Kemps guys had MOD CS Press minders with them at all times, so it does happen.

Fundamentally the MOD CS and the Military are very different beasts when it comes to pay and conditions. People often get upset here about CS pay in theatres, thinking that we ‘dip in’. Sure we seem to get more money, but you have to remember that the average CS is paid 30-50% less than their military peers – I earn £18,000 less per year than my military counterpart of same seniority, for doing a nearly identical job. The military also enjoy a significant range of expenses and support allowances that CS have no access to – for instance mil personnel in London enjoy a free multi-zone Oyster card to get to work – something I pay £1100 per year for. I’m not moaning, as its apples and oranges to compare. The fact is though that both groups have different terms and conditions and salaries and benefits, and comparing the two is pointless.

Looking forward to standard thread drift of "equivalent ranks", officers mess status, £1000 chairs, and other fun abuse directed towards people who have done nothing more than volunteer to spend 6 months working on the front line to help their forces colleagues.
 
#7
Can I refer the Rt Hon Gentleman Jim (MB North) to the British Army Review No 146 (Spring 2009) p.35 "A Comprehensive failure: British Civil-Military Strategy in Helmand Province"?

The biggest gripe I expect you will see on this thread is the utter uselessness of the DfID and FCO in Afghanistan.

msr
 
#9
Punk_trooper said:
Couldnt find this on the forums anywhere:
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepag...ghanistan-50k-bonuses-for-civil-servants.html

CIVIL servants sent to work in Afghanistan are being paid bonuses TWENTY times more than front-line troops.
The pen-pushers are kept safe in plush air-conditioned offices well away from the fighting.

But they pocket up to £8,250 a month extra while troops risking their lives get a mere £397 allowance.
Where would you rather be crowbag ? Up the front doing your job on £70 a day or f*cking around on google and doing 10 hours a day behind a desk, away from all the noise and pretty lights ?

It's outrage for outrage sakes, why not cite the charity director's that spend a few days in country but bank 6 figure sums a year on the whole ? Or generator mechanics who bank 3k a month and in some cases get a tour bonus of up to 6k ? Its a non story. Everyones there doing a different job for different prices.

You are (or are hopefully going to become) one of the expendable, embrace it :D
 
#10
msr said:
Can I refer the Rt Hon Gentleman Jim (MB North) to the British Army Review No 146 (Spring 2009) p.35 "A Comprehensive failure: British Civil-Military Strategy in Helmand Province"?

The biggest gripe I expect you will see on this thread is the utter uselessness of the DfID and FCO in Afghanistan.

msr
MSR if you'd been to staff college you'd be aware that DFiD and FCO are not MOD civil sevants...what's your point?
 
#11
Agree 100% with Jim. Sympathise with MSR re: FCO & DFID, but that is confusing the efficacy of two Govt departments with the situation of individual civil servants.

Also worth pointing out that there are quite big differences between the terms under which MOD CS usually deploy compared to FCO, DFID, etc. For example, the latter avoid trooping flights whenever they can and receive much higher rates of R&R - used to be up to two weeks in every eight, though I may be out of date - while the MOD CS are on very similar terms to military personnel. But equally, the FCO types are usually expected to commit for much longer tours.

For what it is worth, I did not claim overtime on either of my tours since I felt that the generous ops allowance was reward enough. My family think I was mad... :roll: But that was my personal decision, and I would not wish to impose that on anyone else.
 
#13
Reni: id rather be fighting out there with our boys then behind a desk to me the ££ has nothing to do with it and the blurb under the link wasnt written by me just a copy and paste from the article, only posted it to see what the arrsers thought of it. Cant wait to get started :D
 
#14
The fact is they are Civi's not soldiers. They're not expected to be within 3000 miles of hostilities generally so when they are someone needs to cough up.

However as has been pointed out. If the armed forces hadn't been ripped to shreds Services personnel could be trained up to cover these positions and the money saved would be noticable.
 
#15
FCO are on 6 on 2 off, which is great for continuity when both in the office are there for 1 week, 1 of either for 2 weeks and none for 1- 2 weeks depending on travel issues.

Is it still DfID or the catchy UKAID?

Back to you guys and back on thread.
 
#16
Punk_trooper said:
Reni: id rather be fighting out there with our boys then behind a desk to me the ££ has nothing to do with it and the blurb under the link wasnt written by me just a copy and paste from the article, only posted it to see what the arrsers thought of it. Cant wait to get started :D
If you get out to Afghan have a chat with the civvy engineers that go out to the FOB's on maint tasks, cracking blokes who bank a serious amount of squid but they seriously earn it, at Basra Palace there were 2 jocks who were absolutely threaders with the mortars and rockets, at night they got f*cking spannered on hooch and slept through most of whatever was going on :D
 
#18
Danny_Dravot said:
msr said:
Can I refer the Rt Hon Gentleman Jim (MB North) to the British Army Review No 146 (Spring 2009) p.35 "A Comprehensive failure: British Civil-Military Strategy in Helmand Province"?

The biggest gripe I expect you will see on this thread is the utter uselessness of the DfID and FCO in Afghanistan.

msr
MSR if you'd been to staff college you'd be aware that DFiD and FCO are not MOD civil sevants...what's your point?
And if you read the original article, it does not limit its scope to MOD CS.

The point is they are being paid a lot of money and are not producing joined up results.

msr
 
#19
Closet_Jibber said:
However as has been pointed out. If the armed forces hadn't been ripped to shreds Services personnel could be trained up to cover these positions and the money saved would be noticable.
B*llocks! Civil servants have always deployed with the modern British Army to do jobs that CS are more suitable for than military personnel, even during the Second World War when expenditure on the Armed Forces was hardly an issue. Why "train up" a soldier to advise an Afghan or Iraqi ministry, for example, on how to function as a Department of State? Why "train up" a soldier to be a scientific adviser conducting OA? And even if you did "train up" a suitable officer for such a role, you then have the cost of employing them at a much higher military rate of pay and allowances for the whole of their Service career, rather than getting them as a cheap civvy whom you only pay an X factor to when they deploy for six months.

As Jim30 said earlier, all this is comparing apples and pears. Military personnel thoroughly deserve to be paid better than civilian equivalents throughout their careers, in recognition of their preparedness to deploy at no notice, no questions asked. Don't begrudge the small number of MOD CS who are prepared to volunteer for operational tours getting a bit extra for one or two short periods in their careers.

And pleasedon't fall for the spiteful rubbish written by a Sun journo; what's the betting that the Defence Press Office have just refused some ridiculous demand for exclusive access from a certain prima donna... ? :x
 
#20
Beacuse we have so many senior officers getting paid too much as it is to do fcuk all! Might aswell get our moneys worth out of them rather than having them pretending to have a job in some HQ somewhere. A relative of mine was one of the fore mentioned officers who admits he and MANY like him were sent on tour with no real role. He spent most of his time offering his services as a watch keep and and an extra pair of shoulders to carry kit on patrols as he was disgusted by the idea he might get a medal for playing volleyball with the rest of his bored colleagues.

As for armed forces pay. When will people wake up and realise that if the armed forces were paid the money they deserve for the job that they do we would probably have an army 11 strong. The wages have always been low and thats how it will always be. We are(were for me) paid low wages because the government and nearly all governments that have passed have little time for their troops. The lower the wages the more we can have in theory. Governments know this and continually make the most of it. Labour aren't the first government to under pay and under fund their armed forces. They've just managed to do it in true communist style.

The fact of the matter is soldiers are paid to go to war if needs must. Civi's are not. They could quite rightly say kiss my arrse when asked to go overseas and rightly so as if we start getting into the realms of forcing people to go we may aswell re introduce conscription. So whilst its still voluntary they need to make the deal attractive.

We have the spare staff - They could easily be used but they are not as jobs for the boys is not just a government thing, its an armed forces thing too.
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads