AFPRB Quick and Dirty Analysis

Discussion in 'Army Pay, Claims & JPA' started by Pay_Mistri, Mar 2, 2007.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. Summary of the recommendations and a few notes on methodology

    AFPRB Recommendations:

    On Pay:

    (Has the government agreed to this with or without staging?)

    Retention Incentives:

    The difference reflects 5 and 8 year bonuses which will not change (so the infantry get 10,000 in bonuses for 8 years service)

    Specialist pay and allowances:

    Reflects the pay award.


    The same rates apply to SLA. It appears that AFPRB have been paying attention.

    Now, some important stuff from the notes and on methodology.

    Pay Comparisons:

    Whilst broad comparison between civilian and military seems to indicate similar renumeration (whole package) levels for comparably weighted jobs, packages available to other uniformed civilian services continue to appear to be comparatively advantageous, especially compared to the most Junior Ranks.. Importantly, comparison with civilian packages do not take account of contributions to civilian earnings from overtime and unsocial hours premia which can be important additions to earnings at this level.

    This is particularly enlightening since it calls in to question the weighting of the X-Factor (up for a comprehensive review next year).


    [we] deduct [the military pension] from civilian comparator pay (excluding employer national insurance contributions and employer pension contributions) as part of our pay comparability calculations...the relative advantage of the military pension over civilian comparators was 7 per cent

    However, after a comprehensive review of current pension schemes:

    • The value should be 4 per cent; and
    • The value will be deducted from the civilian pay comparisons from 1 April 2007, which will be part of the evidence for our 2008 Report.

    In other words, that 3.3% pay rise should have been a 6.3% pay rise. Maybe next year :frustrated:


    One I was not aware of, which may explain some of the eyebrow-raising statistics quoted by the MOD on SFA (or maybe everyone else knew this, and I'm the village idiot):

    There are significant differences in “Standard 1 for condition” and Grade 1 forcharges. At April 2006, 57 per cent of SFA was “Standard 1 for condition” whereas only 27.4 per cent was at Grade 1;

    Nevertheless, AFPRB still:

    believe that it remains necessary to gradually reduce the significant gap between SFA charges and civilian costs – less the discount

    That may be a fair aspiration, but it will mean a continued erosion of the overall renumeration package and it will not encourage accompanied service; this is diametrically opposed to stated Army (though not Navy or RAF) policy - which is the reason that Married Unnacompanied (MU) status is only available to soldiers on the Over 18 years service package (previously Over 37 package), whilst Sailors and Airmen are treated as MU for accommodation and food charges regardless (the distinction is explicitly made in JSPs).

    And on politicians:

    MOD drew attention to the conclusions in our 2006 Report that the packages of uniformed civilian services appeared advantageous compared with the military both in competition for recruitment and as second careers. In oral evidence, the Secretary of State reiterated the “perceived fairness” of Armed Forces’ pay awards compared with other public sector groups.

    In other words, it doesn't matter that you are underpaid, because if we were to bring your pay in line with Firemen and Policemen, that would upset the public service unions. :pissedoff: