Removal Of Duty Meal from 1 Jul 07

#1
Anyone notice the sting in the tail of this year's Pay Review Body Award? From 1 Jul 07, anyone who lives out will no longer get his first 30 days of food at public expense. You didn't read that next to the bumper-pay-award headline, did you?

So a married Serviceman with 2 kids, living out, will now pay £3.75 per day when he is detached on a residential course. That’s over £100 per month.

The Armed forces must be the only organisation in the country that charges its employees a fee to send them on a residential course.

I suppose it was predicated on the savings you are supposed to make to your family's food budget when you are not there. Yet we all know it costs roughly the same to feed a family of 3 as it does for a family of 4.

I know those who live in used to complain about those who live out getting 'free food' when they go away on courses. But I think that misses the point. If you live in, it costs you the same wherever you serve. If you live out, you now get charged a £100 food-fee to go on a residential course.

By the way - I live in.

But I also have married junior ranks that work for me who struggle to make ends meet as it is; they can't afford the extra cost to their monthly food-budget. Perhaps this is why they got that decent pay rise.................

I think this is mean-spirited penny-pinching of the worst order. Perhaps it is an indication of why we should have a federation to negotiate our pay awards rather than relying on the AFPRB.
 
#2
As someone put up a thread ref getting tax back to cover the cost of laundry (it was a serious thread but could have been April 1 inspired) perhaps Jam stealers... er, I mean those who live out can claim it back?

Or has gutless GB (GB being the future tw@t who'll be sending peeps on ops, not the former fantiastic country we all miss!) thought of a way of stopping that already?
 
#4
after our pay as you dine brief in the mess were they said that the costs were based on a four and a half day week, when we pointed out that not all mess members go home at weekends and if you did stay then you would be paying more than we were on the old system the response we got was "there are winners and there are losers"
 
#5
redstrides said:
Anyone notice the sting in the tail of this year's Pay Review Body Award? From 1 Jul 07, anyone who lives out will no longer get his first 30 days of food at public expense. You didn't read that next to the bumper-pay-award headline, did you?

So a married Serviceman with 2 kids, living out, will now pay £3.75 per day when he is detached on a residential course. That’s over £100 per month.

The Armed forces must be the only organisation in the country that charges its employees a fee to send them on a residential course.

I suppose it was predicated on the savings you are supposed to make to your family's food budget when you are not there. Yet we all know it costs roughly the same to feed a family of 3 as it does for a family of 4.

I know those who live in used to complain about those who live out getting 'free food' when they go away on courses. But I think that misses the point. If you live in, it costs you the same wherever you serve. If you live out, you now get charged a £100 food-fee to go on a residential course.

By the way - I live in.

But I also have married junior ranks that work for me who struggle to make ends meet as it is; they can't afford the extra cost to their monthly food-budget. Perhaps this is why they got that decent pay rise.................

I think this is mean-spirited penny-pinching of the worst order. Perhaps it is an indication of why we should have a federation to negotiate our pay awards rather than relying on the AFPRB.
The explanation for this was that it was difficult to switch this on/off. If this account is true then what next? Paying for food on operations? Paying for food whilst sorting out a fire-strike?

Paying for your subsistence when you are somewhere by choice is acceptable but changing the terms and conditions again like this is becoming tiresome; particularly blaming it on systems. Statements like 'we had to harmonise under JPA' or 'PAYD could not execute changes for less than 30 days' just do not cut it.
 
#6
well i am sorry singlies have to pay so whats the difference? As you STILL get paid extra LOA you STILL do the same job a singly, and some of you do less, owing to welfare issues or just being general O2 thiefs . ITS ABOUT TIME THE ARMY GOT RID THIS MARITAL DISCRIMINATION. rant over
 
#7
bitterandtwisted said:
well i am sorry singlies have to pay so whats the difference? As you STILL get paid extra LOA you STILL do the same job a singly, and some of you do less, owing to welfare issues or just being general O2 thiefs . ITS ABOUT TIME THE ARMY GOT RID THIS MARITAL DISCRIMINATION. rant over
Bitterandtwisted,

The difference is that livers-in pay the same daily messing rate on a course as they do in their own mess, so there is no additional cost involved. But anyone who lives out gets charged an additional fee to go on a residential course or detachment. He saves almost nothing from his family's food budget, yet gets charged a wack to eat on his course.

I don't think you undertstand that this applies to anyone who lives out - not just marrieds. If you plan to live like a hermit in military accommodation for the rest of your career, then I guess it wont matter to you. But if, like me, if you live in now but think you might possibly want to live in your own pad with your partner some time in the future, you might want to cease ranting and become be interested in the loss of an entitlement you might need one day.
 
#8
daylightshrubbery said:
Are you not able to claim this back under the DS Allowance then, as you are being accommodated but not fed when you go on a course?
I'm afraid not. If you are in military accommodation, you will be charged the Daily Messing Rate. If the unit is on Pay As You Dine, then a liver-out will pay for each meal. Daily Subsistance can only be claimed when you cannot get food from Service Sources for a period of 5 hour or more.

The only time you will not pay is if you are booked into field conditions. You might be surprised to hear that lots of transit camps are not field conditions. Going on a 2 week range Camp at Hythe & Lydd? That will cost the liver-out £52.50 in food charges.

Who thinks a junior rank supporting a family can afford that?
 
#9
Having seen this from different sides as a singly, pad accompanied and pad unaccompanied I feel well qualified to comment on this!

As a pad being sent on a course it is unfair to ask them to pay for their food when going to a non-PAYD establishment. Singlies shouldn't complain because it doesn't actually impact on them apart from a perceived jealousy issue!

However when everyone goes PAYD (a joy that I'm due to experience from 16 April :evil: ) then everyone should be paying for any meals taken. Unfortunately instead of £100 for a month the cost will be far more than that unless meals are skipped.
 
#10
My immediate reaction would be to file an Expense Claim on return from the course for Day Subsistence while on Duty for every day I was charged Food Charges. One claim per day for the current rate of Food Charges should cover it nicely.

Edit: Bugger, Redstrides sunk that plan.
 
#11
If I choose to eat in the Mess at my duty station as a pad then I expect to pay for it. If I am ordered away on duty then I do not and would expect to be able to claim. Any civilian would put it onto expenses regardless of the source. And what is the difference between being away on duty and claiming back for food bought from a PAYD location or claiming for food bought from a civilian source? None, but you can certainly claim for the second...
 
#12
pombsen-armchair-warrior said:
The reality:

Personnel Not Paying Food Charges on a Continuous Basis. Personnel who are not paying food charges on a continuous basis at their normal/permanent duty station/parent unit – that is to say personnel living-out, Seagoers temporarily landed or personnel living in field conditions – and who proceed on temporary/detached assignments, will not become liable for food charges unless the period of duty eventually exceeds 30 days, when the appropriate food charge will be levied with effect from the 31st day of the continuous Temporary/Detached Assignment. The rate will be determined by an individual’s PStat Cat (see also 09.1012).
You have quoted the old rule. The new rule gets rid of the 30-day rule. Whereas you used to pay for food from the 31st day, you will now pay from day 1.

Take a look at p53 of this year's Armed Forces Pay Review Body Report

I would be delighted if I was wrong, but unfortunately I'm not.
 
#13
redstrides said:
pombsen-armchair-warrior said:
The reality:

Personnel Not Paying Food Charges on a Continuous Basis. Personnel who are not paying food charges on a continuous basis at their normal/permanent duty station/parent unit – that is to say personnel living-out, Seagoers temporarily landed or personnel living in field conditions – and who proceed on temporary/detached assignments, will not become liable for food charges unless the period of duty eventually exceeds 30 days, when the appropriate food charge will be levied with effect from the 31st day of the continuous Temporary/Detached Assignment. The rate will be determined by an individual’s PStat Cat (see also 09.1012).
You have quoted the old rule. The new rule gets rid of the 30-day rule. Whereas you used to pay for food from the 31st day, you will now pay from day 1.

Take a look at p53 of this year's Armed Forces Pay Review Body Report

I would be delighted if I was wrong, but unfortunately I'm not.
Removed my original post to double-check the report. To quote from the report "We note that MoD proposes various revisions to entitlement including removal of free food when on detached duty..........."

How did you make the leap from this statement to your assertion that charges will become payable from Day 1 wef 1 Jul 06?
 
#16
pombsen-armchair-warrior said:
redstrides said:
pombsen-armchair-warrior said:
The reality:

Personnel Not Paying Food Charges on a Continuous Basis. Personnel who are not paying food charges on a continuous basis at their normal/permanent duty station/parent unit – that is to say personnel living-out, Seagoers temporarily landed or personnel living in field conditions – and who proceed on temporary/detached assignments, will not become liable for food charges unless the period of duty eventually exceeds 30 days, when the appropriate food charge will be levied with effect from the 31st day of the continuous Temporary/Detached Assignment. The rate will be determined by an individual’s PStat Cat (see also 09.1012).
You have quoted the old rule. The new rule gets rid of the 30-day rule. Whereas you used to pay for food from the 31st day, you will now pay from day 1.

Take a look at p53 of this year's Armed Forces Pay Review Body Report

I would be delighted if I was wrong, but unfortunately I'm not.
Removed my original post to double-check the report. To quote from the report "We note that MoD proposes various revisions to entitlement including removal of free food when on detached duty..........."

How did you make the leap from this statement to your assertion that charges will become payable from Day 1 wef 1 Jul 06?
pombsen-armchair-warrior,

Sorry-didn't see you had removed your post. Clarification was provided on Defence Instruction Notice 2007DIN02-075. The appropriate bit is:

'With effect from 1 July 2007 - The current entitlement to free meals at public expense for up to 30
days for Service personnel on Detached Duty/Temporary Assignments who do not normally incur a
Daily Food Charge (Unaccompanied Food Charge (UFC) and SFC) at their permanent duty station
will be removed. This will also apply from 1 July 2007 for those already on Detached Duty/Temporary
Assignments. Personnel will be required to pay for the meals they take in a PAYD unit. In a non-PAYD
unit the Daily Food Charge (SFC or UFC) will be levied direct from pay for those classed as ‘living in’
i.e. provided with Single Living Accommodation for the duration of Temporary Assignment; all other
personnel will pay the appropriate ECMC for any meals taken.'

I couldn't believe it myself either. I spoke to a Warrant Officer who has been in for ages. According to him, this used to be the case about 20 years ago. Junior blokes with families started dodging courses because they couldbn't aford the additional food charges - hence the 30 day rule came in.

Whatever anyone's views on 'bean-stealing', this rule will cause an increase in costs to those who live out, and as such is a stealth pay-cut for anyone with a family. Seems a funny way to promote retention.

And I haven't even mentioned the removal of the Married Unaccompanied Rate from 1 Jul 2008..................
 
#18
Hobgoblin said:
Still doesn't make it fair, but at least we still get LSSA to compensate ..... but just less of it now :-(
And only if the detachment or course lasts more than 10 days. Many courses run for 5 days. Many visits are for a 'working week', so even if you lose the weekend either end travelling you still don't cross the LSSA/LSA threshhold.

I'm all for pads getting equal treatment to singlies (weekend duties at short notice, LSSA, etc) but this does seem like a stealth charge for courses. Under JPA rates become actuals and we are being administrated in a similair fashion to civvies with expense accounts. Especially with PAYD, surely this means that we should be able to claim all costs incurred under the routine discharge of our duties!!!!!
 
#19
I agree.

Yet when you can get LSA, it is designed to compensate for being away from home when you can't get back to your duty station for a weekend. And the new Get-You-Home-Detached rate is designed to pay for a return journey every 2 weeks when you can get home.

Neither is supposed to pay for an increase to your family's food budget, and it will hit the married junior rank hard. Does he now buy petrol or food?
 
#20
Serious point coming up.

Virtually every civilian company and all government departments allow their employees/civil servants to claim actual meal expenses for every meal taken away from their 'normal place of duty'. Just because they pay for food at home does not mean that they pay for their food when forced away on business. HMRC recognise this and meals away from normal place of duty can be claimed against tax when running a small business. So IMHO there is no reason why we should not claim actuals for all meals taken away from our normal place of work when ordered to be somewhere else for work reasons. This stands for livers-in or livers-out. If our masters that be bothered to read case law they would would not penalise us whenever we have to go away on legitimate business. Bottom line is that neither single or married personnel should be charged any food charges when away from their normal place of duty.

Let the debate go on.
 

Latest Threads

New Posts