War zone bonuses - UK civil servants cash in

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by BreakerMorant, Nov 16, 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. Dear All

    Now I can understand that some financial inducement may be necessary but its the size of the bl***y things that takes your breath away.


    £928,588 in allowances last year, on top of their salaries, for 29 FCO staff - what were they f*****g ambassadors!

    Unbelievable, and even more so given that it took a FOI request to get the Govt to give the information out.

    Rant over.


  2. Low(ish) ranked civil servants do not receive good pay. It is all swngs and roundabouts.

    While I was still serving I worked alongside GCHQ people on several occaisions. Their basic pay was pretty low compared to mine and they where far better qualified. The bonuses seem high to us but they could earn much more in a commercial job.

    How many civvies do you know that would go unarmed into a place such as Iraq or Afghanistan?

    I am not knocking service people here BTW. They do deserve better treatment than this government provides, I just think that your aim is off. There is no real need to atack the civil servants that go to dangerous places. Government is the source of all our problems IMO.
  3. But then, who guides the approval of such bonuses through Westminster?

    That's right - civil servants.

    Echos of "Yes Minister".... Sir Humphrey is alive and kicking.
  4. There is such a thing as taking the urine. And this is it.
  5. What? Their dedication and commitment to getting a minimum of £25k a year allowance on top of their wages?

    Sign me up for that then...
  6. Absolute bollox. How many times have we heard the response to why the troops get paid so poorly and get such low compensation is because they volunteered and they signed up for it.

    "'Civil servants and the military do very different jobs and their pay and allowances cannot be readily compared" Damn, straight, when was the last time an FCO desk jockey lost a limb in Iraq or afghanistan? I absolutely absolutely wouldnt wish it to happen obviously but if i find out that the scheme is that they would get more than a soldier if it did happen I may very well go ballistic. Standby...
  7. It would be interesting to see what the Armed Forces Pay Review Body makes of this clear difference between these government departments and why it is that service personnel come off so badly in comparison whilst carrying out such dangerous duties in comparison. Is it because civil servants have a negotiating body? What is clearly needed is an X factor for normal duties and an X+ factor whilst on active operations. What a turn up for the books a socialist government exploiting its workers in such a blatant way! No better than the greedy bosses eh!
  8. And this is what the FCO said!
    Thank you for your request dated 8 October 2007, in which you asked for details of the allowances paid to FCO civilian staff for undertaking postings in Iraq and Afghanistan from 2004-2007.

    FCO staff serving in Iraq and Afghanistan do a difficult job in extremely challenging circumstances. We pay them overseas allowances to compensate for the additional costs of living and working overseas and for the exceptionally difficult conditions in which they have to live and work.

    The Cost of Living Addition (COLA) compensates for the additional costs of maintaining a UK standard of living and varies according to grade and family circumstances. The rates of Hardship Allowance are the same for all staff at qualifying posts, depending on whether they are accompanied by a spouse/partner or not during their posting. Hardship is intended to help staff maintain quality of life at difficult posts: examples include additional insurance and security devices, preventative health measures and over the counter medicines and costs associated with additional breaks away from the environment of the difficult post. Hardship rates are revised in January each year.
  9. Not the neurotic machiavellian and socially inadequate ex-FCO pumper we've just binned from a more commercial job. No doubt she'll find her way back onto this gravy train....
  10. A spokesman for the MoD said -

    "Civil servants and the military do very different jobs and their pay and allowances cannot be readily compared. Civil servants are volunteers and only deployed where they have skills the military do not have, or to conduct roles that are not appropriate for the military to undertake.

    "We need to reward staff adequately to compensate for the challenges and the different environments in which they have to work - this is common practice for taking up any post overseas, away from family and friends.

    'Civil servants and the military do very different jobs and their pay and allowances cannot be readily compared.'
    MoD spokesman"Operational posts are different only in that the circumstances and environments are harsher than most other areas, and the working hours very much longer.

    "Civil servants are an integral part of any deployed formation - they are not 'add-ons' but integrate fully into the force and often hold high levels of responsibility - far above that which would equate to similar roles in the UK.

    "We need to reward these volunteers adequately for volunteering to perform such important tasks - they do not usually join the civil service to put themselves into such potentially dangerous environments."

    Its very clear that they do different jobs but without the loss of life which service personnel have to endure. So why the big difference? It was only because of this site that the government was shamed into giving service personnel the £2300 allowance last year anyway. Do civil servants pay tax when abroad? If not they are even better off! It really pays to have someone negotiating pay for you other than a review body?
  11. FFS last time I looked an Inf Batt only cost £17M a year to run, no wonder the govt cut the Army.
  12. Does Des Brown and any other government minister get these allowances when they visit the troops?
  13. That's the same load of bollox used by politicians as an excuse for sticking their snouts in the trough. :x

    Although there are honerable exceptions, the majority of public sector employees could'nt hack it in the real world.
  14. Civil servants are over paid in the uk. Although there basic salery is only marginally above average there package in real terms is far more than there private counterpart. THe largest on most wasteful part of there package is the civil service princple pensions scheme that pays half final salery at 60. This on its own could mean a "doubling of salery" in some instaces. If some one earned 10 grand for the first 10 years 15 for the next 10 years 20 for the next and 40 for the last five they would have earned they then retire at 60 on 20 grand they would have earned 650000
    they then live to 93 and they have been given 660000 in retirement. Funded by the tax payer of the day in a poncy scheme that cost the tax payer each year more than the army. The scheme although closed to new entrants as of june will cripple cripple generations of british. The state pension could be more than doubled if this was ended.

    As well as the pension there work less hours than most private companies have more flexable hours all things that would have an "pay value" in
    a private buiness for less hours and more flexability you a lesser salery could be offered. They also have more job security which again would have a pay value. Of course there is many times of civil servants some "specalists" may be able to get a better package in the private sector these are a tiny minority. There is others because of there location are not as well payed as a typical civil servant such as some london based although london pay is higher its is not as high in proportion with private sector london pay. Because there is no much slack in terms of overpayment still rarely underpayed. Even the HAY Group report (which was only commisoned because the labour government poltically cant deal with unison who are are abusing the democratic process holding the counrty to ranson. In private buiness people cant use there vote out there boss or vote for higher pay.) The hay group report stated that lower civil servants were payed more than there private counter part and it used a lot of london private figure which warped the report in favour of civil servants as most are not london based so it did not compare like with like.
    Civil servnats are broadly speaking pay a national rate private buiness pay the area market rate by comparing civil servnats most of which are not based in london with london market rates it was distorted.
    The Hay report did claim that senior civil servants were underpayed in terms of the budget they were in charge of and the reposibility. This did not compare like with like either. Civil servnats spend money any one with a half a brain can spend money. In private buiness people tend to have been capable and make money to be paid a lot. There is real responsibility in the private sector that is accounterbility for actions. If some one arsed up they get sacked. In the public sector there is little accounterbility people that arse are not sacked sometimes there are side lined or moved to another department. There is cerimonial sacking where people are sacked but continue employment in the civil service in another job tital or department. With out accounterbility there is no responsibility.

    Although when compared to the army you might consider the civil servants to be highly qualified they are generally worthless qualifications arts degrees or BScs that are not the basis of there employment. There is some specalists and proffesionals in the civil service who have in demand skills that are not over payed but most are not. In real life degrees in them self are worthless in empoyment terms. What is important is in demand skills so some degrees law or maths are worth something if you are going to work in law or maths as its skill. In the same way as Sandhurst payes 9 grand more for people with degrees the civil servce pays more for qualifcations that have no ecomic value in for the role. If you can do a job with out a degree having one will not gain you a higher wage in doing the same job in the private sector. The public pay people more because they have a qualifcation even it has no bearing on doing a job so the market does not recognise irelvant qualifcations.

    Some heresay that there is no quality data on lol
    To register for one of these (not the shit ones where you join the labour to get one) over payed jobs unlike any private buiness there is also an immoral test they ask and do background checks to test you are suitably coruptible. You have to be suitably immoral random sex, drunk and take drugs is prefared having stolen cheated and have no moral basis and be thick which generally often goes with immoral like an animal does not have moral dilemas. This is because many are basically traitors who make up the greater good for greater gain for greater people.

    So in princple I have to disagree with civil servants getting payed more than army in iraq. If there is a job that can only be performed by a civil servnant and then a minumin amout should be paid to get one to do the job and no more. I would have though there would be a much higher standard civies that could do most.

    In princple I would not
  15. The Army, Marines, RAF and RN are public sector employees.