Annual Pay rise

#1
Over the past two years firemen have received pay rises of over 16% where HM Forces have received an average of 3%. I appreciate that firemen provide an essential service - but what about us lot with the increasing number of deployments and harmony just another word in the dictionary.

Will we be seeing another paltry pay rise of around 3%?
 
#2
MOD Civvies have'nt had their pay rise for this year yet, the Treasury are trying to delay and push 2% the unions want 3%. by the time this gets through they wont get paid until 2007!
 
#4
An interesting piece from this week's Daily Hate. Makes you think...

Copyright 2006 Associated Newspapers Ltd.
All Rights Reserved
Daily Mail (London)

September 14, 2006 Thursday

HEADLINE: These men risk their lives and are paid less than cleaners!

BYLINE: STEPHEN GLOVER

Stephen Glover THE British Empire may be dead and gone, but this country has military commitments in almost every corner of the globe. We have troops in Afghanistan, Iraq, Cyprus, Germany, Gibraltar, Diego Garcia, Bosnia, Kosovo and the Falkland Islands.

No other country, apart from the United States, has servicemen in so many far-flung places.

For all the talk about decline, Britain still behaves as a world power. In Iraq and Afghanistan, thousands of our servicemen are engaged in a life-and-death struggle.

Yesterday, Tony Blair paid tribute to the bravery of our troops, as he has done many times before. Yet no Prime Minister in recent British history has so extended British military commitments while at the same time depriving our Armed Forces of the necessary resources.

The man who once raved about 'reordering' the world has involved this country in wars in Kosovo, Sierra Leone, Iraq and Afghanistan. And yet, while spending on health and education has roughly doubled in real terms since 1997, supported by consistent economic growth, expenditure on defence has remained virtually constant. In fact, since 2001 - the year when Mr Blair declared that Britain was America's ally in the 'war on terror' - defence spending has increased only in line with inflation, though there have been extra payouts for the war in Iraq.

All our armed services - and particularly the Army, which has been taking the brunt of the new commitments - are under appalling pressure. According to the Commons Defence Committee, our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan are being sent on patrol in vulnerable Land Rovers that lack proper armour.

In Afghanistan, our troops have to make do with a chronic shortage of helicopters. A mere eight Apaches are operating at full stretch, answering calls from British patrols and small outlying garrisons, and they can only be kept going if Apache units in Britain are stripped of their weapons and spare parts.

PERHAPS the bitterest pill to swallow is the shockingly low pay of our Armed Forces. There is not the money to pay them a remotely decent wage.

The average salary of a newly qualified soldier is Pounds 14,300, compared with about Pounds 20,000 for a police officer. A so-called community police officer with little training and limited duties does far better than a private in Her Majesty's Forces risking his life.

The British commander of Nato forces in Afghanistan, Lt- Gen David Richards, says that soldiers are enduring 'days and days of intense fighting, being woken up by yet another attack when they have not slept for 24 hours. This sort of thing has not happened consistently since the Korean War or the Second World War'. British soldiers, supported by Canadians and Dutch, are in the forefront of what the General calls 'persistent, low-level dirty fighting'. I fear this war, from which John Reid when Defence Secretary famously said our troops might leave 'without a shot being fired', may be unwinnable.

A soldier on Pounds 14,300 is being paid at the rate of Pounds 2.45 an hour for being on duty for a minimum of 16 hours in a combat zone. The current statutory minimum wage is Pounds 5.05 an hour, soon to rise to Pounds 5.35. In practice, many soldiers are on duty for more than 16 hours at one go, so they are being paid less than Pounds 2 an hour for risking, and sometimes losing, their lives in President Bush's and Mr Blair's 'war on terror'.

While based in combat positions, British soldiers get free food and accommodation of a sort (hurrah!), though they have to pay council tax on their usually meagre barrack rooms in Britain.

American soldiers in Afghanistan, by comparison, are better armed and better fed, and often live in air-conditioned tents. Furthermore, they pay no income tax while serving in a combat zone. The wives and families of our servicemen complain that as a result of some Ministry of Defence satellite cock-up, they are unable to communicate via email.

No one expects combat duty to be a doddle, but the low pay and poor conditions, not to mention sometimes defective or inadequate equipment, are an outrage.

While enormous extra funding has been thrown at the health and education and welfare budgets, this government has purposely denied our Armed Forces the resources they need to fulfil their ever growing commitments.

How can this be? Mr Blair, one can be reasonably certain, genuinely admires our servicemen.

He must appreciate that they face many more challenges than they did in 1997 as a result of the conflicts in which he has, rightly or wrongly, involved them. You might think that his priority would be to ensure that they received proper equipment and decent pay, but it has not been.

The reason is that Gordon Brown controls the cash. The Chancellor believes in increased spending on health and education and welfare. He does not believe in spending more on our Armed Forces if it can possibly be avoided.

Mr Brown cannot stop Mr Blair from invading other countries and taking on new commitments, but he can, and does, stop him from having the extra resources which these entanglements demand.

In this sense, at least, Mr Brown remains an old-fashioned socialist, and the Labour Party, which has rarely, if ever, been the forces' friend, equally so. Mr Brown's recent public embrace of a new independent nuclear deterrent to succeed Trident when it becomes obsolete should not persuade us that he has seen the error of his ways. For nine years he has deliberately put a brake on defence spending while releasing it elsewhere.

What particularly sticks in the craw is New Labour's pretence, despite all the evidence to the contrary, that our Armed Forces are not overstretched.

This is the line of Des Browne, Mr Brown's bag carrier and the Secretary of State for Defence. There are thousands of soldiers of all ranks in Afghanistan and Iraq who can tell him he is talking nonsense.

Of course, our Nato allies should be offering us more help in Afghanistan, and there is a peculiar irony in the fact that the Germans, once the most warlike of nations, should be refusing to join the British, Canadians and Dutch in Helmand province, where the heaviest fighting is taking place. The French, Italians and Spanish are not exactly falling over themselves to join in either.

BUT the deficiencies of Nato, which may signal the obsolescence of that organisation, should not divert our attention from the betrayal of our armed forces.

Almost no one, it seems to me, speaks up in their favour. Once, they were central to our national life; now they have shrunk and have few defenders.

The Tory Party, which was once stuffed with former servicemen, is slow to rally, and the media generally have other fish to fry.

Sir Richard Dannatt, the new head of the British Army, has called for a national debate about the role of the Armed Forces. Let us have one. I personally question the wisdom of involving British troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, though one can see that they are there for a purpose.

But there is no justification, only shame, in sending them off less than adequately armed and cared for, and paying them considerably less than a cleaner for risking their lives.
 

the_boy_syrup

LE
Book Reviewer
#5
Inst_Techs_Rule said:
Over the past two years firemen have received pay rises of over 16% where HM Forces have received an average of 3%. I appreciate that firemen provide an essential service - but what about us lot with the increasing number of deployments and harmony just another word in the dictionary.

Will we be seeing another paltry pay rise of around 3%?
You probably will mate the trouble with being in the forces is:
You will get on with it regardless
You haven't got the 9/11 we run in to burning buildings bandwagon to jump on
You won't go on strike then laugh at the '' fukcwits who haven't got half the kit and training we have'' whilst they are running in to a burning building

The firemen will tell you that by accepting 16% they got no where near what they want
Don't forget they went on strike for 40% and the right bto spend the night sleeping!
The goverment ought to take them on and ban strikes by all emergancy services and NHS
If you choose to serve in a uniformed service you should all be governed by the same rules
By the way if there was a 40% pay rise going then I would give it to the lads who have done the tours
But what about the lads who go out their way to dodge everything and anything?
I used to serve with one lad who when the call to go anywhere uncomfortable came through 5 minutes later the padre was in the bosses office with him and his big book of excuses
 
#7
Nobody joins the army to get rich, all we want is the feeling that we are valued and that when we are on yet another 6 month tour in some shithole our families who are lleft behind arent left living in a shithole....

For years we have deployed on Ops surrounded by other troops who have been on significantly more money than us(during deployment) and with better perks.

It would be nice to get told good things rather than the usual excuses, Im sorry we cant do/fix this in your house as we have no money you will just have to live with it and Im sorry if the damp is effecting your kids asthma.... Dont worry though we have regraded your house and you now have to pay £1.50 a week less for it!! Like that makes up for living in a condemned hole.

I would be happy with my wage if I knew that my seperation allowances and quarter were half way decent.

Has anyone noticed with the new LSA the number of days it takes to get to a half decent level? The highest bands are for people with over 3,000 days on the cards. To qualify for that much you would have had to have been outside harmony every year for a 22 year service!!

BArking
 
#8
Firemen try for 40% and quite rightly get 16% (better than a poke in the eye :roll: ).
Same year politicians ask for 80% decide on 80% (their self regulating) and get 80% 8O .AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x
 
#9
The thing with the Firemen is that due to the new H&S bull that means you can only work so many hours (and before anyone starts I know the Army is 24/7) The Firemen and Women across the country had second jobs - so with the new time directive they can't do it legally and claim the wages etc etc. So they have been appeased by the higher than the sky pay rise.

Personally I think it is a total fooking disgrace. Yes they do a job that risks life and limb. But the British Soldier/Sailor/Airman does MORE (well the Sailors is a bit far fetched, and the RAF are all in Cyprus bumming each other - these are the words from an ex RAF Sgt who works beside me here in CIV DIV).
 
#10
"the RAF are all in Cyprus bumming each other"
Mate, having done several tours in both Iraq and Afghanistan I will quite happily "bum" you with one of the rockets or mortars that missed me - w@nker!
 
#11
Inst_Techs_Rule said:
Over the past two years firemen have received pay rises of over 16% where HM Forces have received an average of 3%. I appreciate that firemen provide an essential service - but what about us lot with the increasing number of deployments and harmony just another word in the dictionary.

Will we be seeing another paltry pay rise of around 3%?
Providing an essential service ONLY when not striking for a higher payrise! At which point we do their job (and our own) while they hijack the moral low ground.
 
#12
agoodgrouping said:
I don't think the pay is that bad...I didn't join the Army to become rich.
But when you've finished your service you can write a book like Ashley Cole and whine about not getting paid £60k a week the poor love! In my book I'll whine about not being able to get my favourite boot laces from the QMs anymore under the chapter heading 'Things Never Get Better'! :wink:
 
#13
Afterburner said:
"the RAF are all in Cyprus bumming each other"
Mate, having done several tours in both Iraq and Afghanistan I will quite happily "bum" you with one of the rockets or mortars that missed me - w@nker!
We're not talking about the ones your bum buddies were wheeling out onto the planes or any Crab sex toys!!
 
#14
doomandgloom said:
agoodgrouping said:
I don't think the pay is that bad...I didn't join the Army to become rich.
But when you've finished your service you can write a book like Ashley Cole and whine about not getting paid £60k a week the poor love! In my book I'll whine about not being able to get my favourite boot laces from the QMs anymore under the chapter heading 'Things Never Get Better'! :wink:
Der, I may have missed something here, cynicism passes me by. Things do get better and have got better from what it was 33 years ago when I joined as a Tom - the Op Welfare package would have been dreamed about.

It all comes down to how much Johnnie Civvie (through the Treasury) want to spend on us, snatch landrovers come to mind.

The pay isn't bad so be fair, we are certainly now having to earn it though (no more navel watching on the Inner German border)
 
#15
agoodgrouping said:
doomandgloom said:
agoodgrouping said:
I don't think the pay is that bad...I didn't join the Army to become rich.
But when you've finished your service you can write a book like Ashley Cole and whine about not getting paid £60k a week the poor love! In my book I'll whine about not being able to get my favourite boot laces from the QMs anymore under the chapter heading 'Things Never Get Better'! :wink:
Der, I may have missed something here, cynicism passes me by. Things do get better and have got better from what it was 33 years ago when I joined as a Tom - the Op Welfare package would have been dreamed about.

It all comes down to how much Johnnie Civvie (through the Treasury) want to spend on us, snatch landrovers come to mind.

The pay isn't bad so be fair, we are certainly now having to earn it though (no more navel watching on the Inner German border)
OK , so the govenment of the time (cold war era to be fair re your IGB ref ) could afford a far larger just in case Army than this government with its military can do attitude .

Really anyone who puts themselves in harms way deserves to earn as much if not more than a PCSO (Take home in their pocket ) .

Yes there are perks free Med , Dent(for serving , all lost for spouses accompanying abroad now) and (reduced cost ) housing but all of these seem to be slowly diminishing .

Every person who signs up from slop jockey to SF trooper deserves recognition of their decision to give up a lot of their human rights (The Army Act ) and be recompensed accordingly .

Any reccomendation by the AFPRB should take the high tempo of Op`s into consideration and reward our military with a pay package that acknowledges the governments claim that they are the best in the world .
 
#16
trooper142 said:
agoodgrouping said:
doomandgloom said:
agoodgrouping said:
I

Every person who signs up from slop jockey to SF trooper deserves recognition of their decision to give up a lot of their human rights (The Army Act ) and be recompensed accordingly .

Any reccomendation by the AFPRB should take the high tempo of Op`s into consideration and reward our military with a pay package that acknowledges the governments claim that they are the best in the world .
142,

Two points, we are on the same side remember.

We have not given up 'our human rights' , these are part of our employment contract which we subscribed to, the Govt is obliged to ensure our contract meets these human rights.

Second, the AFPRB are a very high powered group drawn from heads of UK industry and commerce. Their recommendations have ALWAYS (in my 30 year memory) been upheld and met by the Govt of the day. It is up to all of us to ensure the AFPRB know the reality of life on Ops...we are rather better at Ops than admin in support of Ops in my experience.

An election will probably be called within 2 years and, irrespective of the AFPRB report, you can guarantee a bumper rise that year- we got a 20% rise when Thatcher came in.

G2
 
#18
agoodgrouping, the AFPFB are all hoping to be on one of Tony's little award lists for playing the game in the manner he or Gordon specified, why else would they VOLENTEER to get involved in that sort of activity.
Your not in anyway involved with it yourself are you?
 
#19
(quote)Azrael2006

Nobody joins the army to get rich, all we want is the feeling that we are valued and that when we are on yet another 6 month tour in some shithole our families who are lleft behind arent left living in a shithole.

We are constantly told by the politicians that we have the best army in the world.Yes we do have the best and all volunteers at that.Like everyone in civvy street they volunteer to join companies or organisations because of pay and conditions.Now those who join up in the armed services are giving service to their country just like civil servants do. Now those civies and civil servants can just walk out of their jobs if they do not like what they get by way of pay and conditions.But the soldier, sailor and airmen can't do that, they are committed to service of the crown and can be retained in times of war or civil unrest. We are the best so we demand the best pay and conditions.We demand the best of equipment to do the job no matter what the cost is.
We demand that you take care of our veterans and those who have been maimed or injured in the line of duty.We have a National Health Service that can't take care of civilians never mind look after the troops coming back from Iraq and Afghanistan seriously injured.Those who have to terminate their service because of their wounds must be taken even better cared of because of their own circumstances of getting a job which most probably will be of a lower standard of occupation than when they served.The new benefits system which took place has been designed to cut the amount of cash that ex-service folk get as a result of service related injuries.That is the contempt that this NEW LABOUR GOVERNMENT have for their servicemen and women and especially those veterans who are constantly struggling to live on the meagre pensions they get.Remember politicians there are a lot of the ex-service community out their and I sincerely hope that they voice their opinions on their own behalf and those still sereving.What price LOYALTY? :salut: :salut: :salut: :salut:
 
#20
agoodgrouping said:
Second, the AFPRB are a very high powered group drawn from heads of UK industry and commerce. Their recommendations have ALWAYS (in my 30 year memory) been upheld and met by the Govt of the day. It is up to all of us to ensure the AFPRB know the reality of life on Ops...we are rather better at Ops than admin in support of Ops in my experience.

Firstly, there is reality and reality. Sometimes the AFPRB does not seem to be allowed to see the 'exigiencies of the service' red in tooth and claw. Last year they were in Iraq and were supposed to visit CAN in Al Amarah but then didn't due to the danger. So, their recommendations were based on seeing the terrible privations of soldiers waiting a whole ten minutes for their Pizza Hut delivery to arrive in SLB.

Secondly, it is about time that they started to think about weighting things by service. The army generally endures much harsher conditions, more danger and poorer infrastructure deployed and in barrcks than the other services, so they should be paid more than the other services. Now, if that doesn't put the cat amongst the pigeons, nothing will!
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top