AFPRB 2007 OUT NOW!!!

B

Bottleosmoke

Guest
#5
So in real speak.........What we getting? I cant be arrsed trawling through all that.
 
#6
can someone cut and paste me a copy of the lower band junior and senior rank new pay scales etc...also has the resettelment grant afps 75 GONE UP?
 
#8
If fairness I was pretty cross when I heard it was a below inflation 3.3% however I gather than increased payments to those on ops means an increas closer to 9%.

All well and good but I still feel 3.3% is a kick in balls from the Blair and Brown double act.

Editied to add:

However in considering the payrise other public servants are getting we have done fairly well so I am keeping my head down.
 
#9
newlynpirate said:
can someone cut and paste me a copy of the lower band junior and senior rank new pay scales etc...also has the resettelment grant afps 75 GONE UP?
Table 1.2: Recommended annual scales for Other Ranks
WO1 Lower Higher
Level 7 40,651 43,077
Level 6 39,534 42,428
Level 5 38,455 41,685
Level 4 37,719 40,953
Level 3 36,987 40,213
Level 2 36,255 39,534
Level 1 35,565 38,772
WO2/SSGT
Level 9 36,512 39,851
Level 8 35,704 39,289
Level 7 35,248 38,738
Level 6 34,716 38,187
Level 5 33,214 37,361
Level 4 32,769 36,530
Level 3 32,018 35,704
Level 2 31,010 34,870
Level 1 30,611 34,048
Sgt
Level 7 31,429 34,025
Level 6 31,192 33,399
Level 5 30,150 32,773
Level 4 29,384 32,146
Level 3 29,090 31,746
Level 2 28,377 30,961
Level 1 27,653 30,180
Cpl
Level 7 27,494 30,573
Level 6 27,294 29,920
Level 5 27,079 29,313
Level 4 26,868 28,622
Level 3 26,664 27,970
Level 2 25,423 26,664
Level 1 24,328 25,423
L/Cpl + Pte
Level 9 22,325 26,664
Level 8 21,544 25,423
Level 7 20,601 24,328
Level 6 19,756 23,261
Level 5 18,963 22,182
Level 4 17,994 20,061
Level 3 16,545 18,658
Level 2 16,111 16,899
Level 1 15,677 15,677
 
#10
Where do you get this 9% from? I understand the operational allowance - approx £2200 for 6 months in Afghan/Iraq/Bosnia but it's not a pay rise for the forces... Its a tax free bonus for being in an operational environment.

Unless I'm missing something...
 
#12
Ok, I'm a Cpl band 7 High Range (have been for 2 years) currently on £81.03 per day.

Pay rise works out to be £83.76 which equates to 3.3%

Like I said, where's this 9%?

The media is quick to point out that we've got 9% but this is only the bottom 2 pay scales ie for the newly trained lads (n lasses) - They don't mention the rest of us (anyone above band 3 Pte gets 3.3%).

They also don't say is that although Nurses 'only' got 1.9% they've had about 12% over the last 3-4 yrs.

Therefore, a newly qualified Nurse gets around £19k, same goes for a new Fireman, yet ours get around £15k to be sent to Iraq/Afghan/Bosnia n get shot at or blown up by mines/suicide bombers...

It seems the government are ignoring the warnings so more people are gonna have to sign off before anything's done.

PS... I'm not infantry, but I agree with the FRIs for them.
 
#13
3.3 is above Govt Inflation, 3.3 is more than fair compared to nurses etc. I would love a big figure pay raise and so would my bank manager, as far as I can read it we are getting a real cash figure increase in our pockets, pennies only but still real money!
 
#14
DannyBoy said:
3.3 is above Govt Inflation, 3.3 is more than fair compared to nurses etc. I would love a big figure pay raise and so would my bank manager, as far as I can read it we are getting a real cash figure increase in our pockets, pennies only but still real money!
Have you actually reads in-between the lines on this? Fine, a pay rise of 3.3%........0.3% (or maybe a little more above inflation), however, take into consideration of the accommodation increase, the food increase and the "utilities" increase. Do your sums and work it out, some will be happy, the rest, just live with it. This budget as always will hugely benefit some and do absolutely nothing for the rest........retention........NO!
 
#15
jim1556 said:
Ok, I'm a Cpl band 7 High Range (have been for 2 years) currently on £81.03 per day.

Pay rise works out to be £83.76 which equates to 3.3%

Like I said, where's this 9%?

The media is quick to point out that we've got 9% but this is only the bottom 2 pay scales ie for the newly trained lads (n lasses) - They don't mention the rest of us (anyone above band 3 Pte gets 3.3%).

They also don't say is that although Nurses 'only' got 1.9% they've had about 12% over the last 3-4 yrs.

Therefore, a newly qualified Nurse gets around £19k, same goes for a new Fireman, yet ours get around £15k to be sent to Iraq/Afghan/Bosnia n get shot at or blown up by mines/suicide bombers...

It seems the government are ignoring the warnings so more people are gonna have to sign off before anything's done.

PS... I'm not infantry, but I agree with the FRIs for them.
At the risk of getting it wrong, because I don't have the figures to hand, it is only new entrants and Private soldiers who receive a 9% increase. LCpls and above get 3.3%.

If you read the Report, it recognises that the lowest ranks receive less than they could if they worked for the emergency services. But it would have cost too much to change matters, might have upset the unions and would have blown a huge hole in Gordon's plans for the future. The report also records that retention slumped last year and shows signs of getting worse, and whilst recruiting has improved, it will never catch up with the overall shortfall. Keep working the 45+ hrs/week that you are working and everything will be just fine! LOL.

Litotes
 
#16
Someone please correct me if I am wrong on my thoughts on this, but....

A 3.3% increase on my £32000 a year salary is far greater than a 2.7% increase on my £2400 a year accomodation. Surely even I can see (I'm no maths guru) that its still a good pay rise considering the state that the country is in financially. i.e. for example

Monthly pay- £2000 with a 3% increase is £60 a month better off.
Monthly Accomodation charge- £200 with a 2% increase is £4 increase.
(All figures mentioned are for ease of maths, but are as close as dammit.)

So if my maths are correct you would be £56 a month better off.

Percentages dont give a true reflection to the non-mathamatical minded person (Like me)as to how much actually goes into the bank, untill I was educated by a mate who has a cone shaped head.

So yes 9% for the Jocks is great, and 3.3% for the rest of us is good, but please think of the Nurses, did anyone watch that Panarama programme on the Sh!t they get in A&E? There also worth a lot more.
 
#17
tricky_ricky said:
Someone please correct me if I am wrong on my thoughts on this, but....

A 3.3% increase on my £32000 a year salary is far greater than a 2.7% increase on my £2400 a year accomodation. Surely even I can see (I'm no maths guru) that its still a good pay rise considering the state that the country is in financially. i.e. for example

Monthly pay- £2000 with a 3% increase is £60 a month better off.
Monthly Accomodation charge- £200 with a 2% increase is £4 increase.
(All figures mentioned are for ease of maths, but are as close as dammit.)

So if my maths are correct you would be £56 a month better off.

Percentages dont give a true reflection to the non-mathamatical minded person (Like me)as to how much actually goes into the bank, untill I was educated by a mate who has a cone shaped head.

So yes 9% for the Jocks is great, and 3.3% for the rest of us is good, but please think of the Nurses, did anyone watch that Panarama programme on the Sh!t they get in A&E? There also worth a lot more.
That sort of cr*p doesn't only happen in A&E!!
 
#18
Non-contributory pension…is this semantics?

Armed Forces Pay Review Body Report 2007

Pension Valuation


Para 2.6

……the relative value of the military pension over civilian comparators was 7% we have used this figure in our pay comparability assessment each year.

Communications

Para 2.26

We ask MOD to review urgently its communication material, particularly to emphasise that the Armed Forces schemes are non-contributory and that our valuation does not result in a deduction from military pay.

My understanding

I read this to mean (simple maths without mention of x factor which I believe is applied in an inverse way to that described below).

Civilian comparator job pays £100.00 per day

Military job pays £93.00 per day

Therefore they are effectively on the same wage as the value of the military pension makes the military wage better by 7%.

Therefore there is no need to give the Military an increase in wages in this instance as the wages match.

Conclusion

I don’t have a degree and am never likely to be invited to join the hallowed ranks of the AFRB but I can read and count. If I am incorrect in my understanding of this then the AFPRB should perhaps try to sort out its own communications before it asks the MOD to do likewise.

I understand that we do not contribute directly to our pension from our wages but understand that we would otherwise be paid more were it not that the pension factor of 7% is taken into account when our wage comparability is being considered?

Comments from people who know better gratefully appreciated.

GOTW
 
#19
Girl_of_the_woods said:
Non-contributory pension…is this semantics?

Armed Forces Pay Review Body Report 2007

GOTW


Welcome to ARRSE, GOTW. Five posts and you come up with that question.....? You'll go far! LOL.

Broadly speaking, you are correct. The Board has access to the Job Evaluation Team and consultants who advise on civilian pay. For example, the JET works out that an Inf Cpl is expected to perform x tasks and has y responsibilities. The consultants say that someone in industry with those tasks and responsibilities earns £A in the package. My understanding is that the Board takes that package and uses it as the standard against which an Inf Cpl is paid. Now, the military pension was quite valuable. So, the Board has calculated that it was effectively worth 7% of the package and therefore reduced the Inf Cpl's salary by 7%. Then the X Factor is added on (because a 25 yr old in industry doesn't come under fire very often and doesn't have to move every two years).

The Board noted in its latest report that the value of the military pension had shrunk in comparison with civvie street and proposes that they review it with a view to reducing the abatement to 4%. In theory, our salaries will increase by 3% to take account of that.

Will Gordon let the MOD pay up? Not a chance, IMHO. Primarily because very few soldiers know how pensions work or want to know how pensions work and even fewer understand that which they do not have. The only way this will happen is if retention continues its current downward spiral.

Litotes
 

Similar threads

Top