By the time your receive this letter, we are hoping that you will have taken time to reflect on your attack on MoD civil servants’ bonuses and realised it was a serious error on your part and a total misjudgment; and be aware of the strength of feeling, anger and frustration that your attack on staff working in defence has caused.

On the back of the furore about MP’s expenses, I am surprised you have got the gall to criticise civil servants about their bonus awards.  In the past few months there has been a constant drip feed of untruths fed into the public domain by the press, media, ministers and MPs about the pay and conditions, pension entitlements, and now bonus awards of civil servants.  We wonder why this is; of course it is to do with the run up to the general election and an attempt to turn the attention away from the MP’s expenses scandal.  Manipulation of statistics for you own political ends can, and indeed does hide the important facts.  The peddling of untruths has given the wrong impression to the general public and more importantly the electorate about MoD civil servants.  They think we are overpaid, receive large bonus awards and gold plated pensions.  This is so far from the truth and you are well aware of this.  So let’s once and for all set the record straight with the real facts that are relevant to us, beginning with the bonus award.

Bonus awards
Before tax, the standard bonus which myself and my wife received was £390 and is a non-pensionable and non-consolidated one off payment, which is what the majority of civil servants received.  Civilian bonuses have become an increasing feature of pay systems throughout the civil service and not just the MoD and is a proportion of the overall pay bill.  As these bonuses are not consolidated or pensionable it is a way of giving us a cheaper pay rise.  But you are already aware of this and choose to manipulate the facts for your own political ends.  Rather than receive a paltry bonus we would prefer a decent pay rise and to be valued by politicians for the work we do in support of the armed forces.

Pay
As part of the imposed pay deal, we have had a reduction in our salary of over £3,500 each as a result of a reduction in the E1 grade salary maxima, which equates to a 15% reduction in salary.  This reduction in salary has only happened to the lowest paid MoD civil servants and not to the higher grades.  We both receive £20,074 and that is after working in the civil service for a combined total of over 50 years, myself for 27 years and my wife for 23 years.  Starting salaries are as low as £14,500 and recently over 1,000 MoD civilians had to receive emergency payments because their pay had fallen below the national minimum wage.

The role of the MoD civilian is to support the armed forces and we do in fact cost less than service personnel.  This frees service personnel up to do other tasks.

Pension entitlements
Of course we are going to have the luxury of a golden plated pension upon our retirement.  In the real world away from the headlines of bumper pay offs for mandarins, most civil servants will on average receive a pension of £6,000 and if you take away the high earners, the average falls to just £4,200.  At the moment 61,000 civil service pensioners only receive a gross pension of between £1,000 and £2,000 per year.  These figures as you can see are far from astronomical sums and will not doubt keep us in poverty in our retirement as we will probably just scrape past the threshold for claiming pension credits.

On the horizon in the MoD, we face a reduction of over 25,000 civilian staff and it appears to us that we are being punished with these job cuts, reduced pay and pensions for the indiscretions of the private sector and in particular the banking industry who have brought our economy to the brink of collapse.

As a married couple with no children we do not qualify for any benefit of any kind or tax credits and we have yet to reach the so-called average salary figure even after working in the civil service for a combined total of 50 years.  So I hope you can now understand our frustration and anger at this constant misrepresentation of civilian defence staff (and the civil service as a whole) that appear constantly in the public domain.

We refuse to be used as pawns in your political machinations in the run up to the general election.  All we ask of you and politicians alike is rather than trying to create a false divide between the armed forces and civilian staff, is to recognise that MoD civilians and our armed forces are part of the same team.

We, more than most, know of the sacrifices that our armed forces make on our behalf and fully support them because they deserve to be supplied with the best equipment and to be recompensed fully for the work they do at home and abroad.

I hope you can take these points on board and take every opportunity you can to tell the public the real truth about MoD civilians instead of political point scoring.

A recent edition of DefenceFocus featured an interview with Jon Thompson, MoD Director General of Finance, who oversees the MoD’s £35 billion budget. Within the interview he exposes some of the myths portrayed in the media:

DF:  How much media coverage about the MoD’s coffers is true?
JT: Some of it is not accurate. It’s difficult to pin down a percentage.  There was a most interesting front-page in a national daily newspaper recently when I was with my father-in-law.  He said: “Look at that, it’s terrible!”  I told him that is was completely made-up.  I attempted to tell him the real situation and he said: “I didn’t know that.”  “No,”  I replied, “That’s because it’s not reported in the media.”  Some of it is on the verge of being made up, some of it is poorly informed and some is true.

DF:  Will the recession put more civilian jobs at risk in 2010?
JT: Not next year, no.  In 2010/11, we know what our funding is, which was settled in the spending review in 2007.  The debating years are from 2011/12 and beyond when a new government will decide about funding for all departments, not just MoD.  There are very different views between the political parties about the funding of public services and tackling public sector deficit.  Therefore it is very hard to say because it very much depends on who wins the election and what approach they take.

DF:  The press claim that Forces’ kit is out-of-date by the time it enters service.  Is this fair?
JT: No. We strive to provide the best equipment that we can, with the budget we have got.  Yes, it’s right that sometimes it takes a long time to develop these things.  We are constantly pushing at the boundaries of science and some things are very cutting edge.  Very often, we are the first people to do something or we’re just behind other leading countries.  My observation is that different countries prioritise in different ways.  Some countries might have slightly better kit than us in one area but worse kit in another.  There is always debate but how do you judge?  It’s a difficult issue.

DF:  Do you really believe the MoD offers value for money?
JT: To me it’s a pretty good insurance policy for £35bn.  I’d much rather we had it than didn’t.  There are clearly political differences about the Armed Forces and deterrent.  But I think it is good value.

Within the interview Jon points out that that the MoD have reduced civil servants by 45,000 in the last 12 years and that there may still be more reductions.

No doubt most of you will have read the recent reports in the Daily Telegraph and the Daily Mail stating that MoD civil servants have earned in excess of £47 million in bonuses in the last six months. The Telegraph starts the article with this sensational comment:

Civil servants at the Ministry of Defence have been paid £47 million in performance bonuses so far this year despite claims that troops in Afghanistan lack essential equipment.

Unfortunately the articles don’t tell the whole truth which is that MoD bonuses are imposed on the staff by a cabinet office ruling, which says that a bonus element must be included in any pay deal. What this really means is the minute pay increase for MoD civilians is mostly payed as a bonus which means it is not pensionable.

It is the usual spin & lies by the media to inflame public opinion so that it agrees with the policies to cut public services. What the papers also fail to say is that MoD staff are currently receiving an ‘imposed’ three year pay deal, which in effect has meant a pay cut for many members of the lowest grades.

The following is the PCS response to he Daily Telegraph:

12 November 2009

Dear sir,

If civilian staff in the MoD were receiving huge bonuses, the anger expressed by families of soldiers on the frontline would be understandable, but it’s not true.

Recently over 1,000 MoD civilian staff had to receive an emergency payment because their pay had fallen below the national minimum wage and the department have this year cut the pay and pension of the lowest paid staff.

Most of our 16,000 members earn less than £20,000 per year. After years of pay restraint, the current system means that these low paid civil servants receive paltry, non-pensionable, one-off ‘bonuses’ of between £300 and £400 instead of fair annual pay rises.

No one is more angry than our members about the mismanagement of defence by politicians, private consultants and senior management.

Our members work directly on the frontline alongside the military providing training, security, procurement, storage, distribution and critical support.

MoD civil servants are working around the clock to support the military and will continue to do so despite the impact of the 25,000 arbitrary job cuts imposed by the government over the last six years.

Instead of disgraceful and misleading attacks on low paid staff the focus should instead be on the real waste.

For example the billions of pounds wasted in the MoD equipment programme every year, on the myriad failed privatisation projects and on the employment of thousands on non-deployable military personnel. This is the real scandal in MoD.

Yours sincerely,

Mark Serwotka
PCS general secretary

A recent study into Civil Service pay by Income Data Services (IDS) further exposes the myth that civil servants are paid more than their counterparts in the private sector.  The study reveals that there are gaps of more than £5000 between the Civil Service and the private sector.

The report compares the median salaries of four key grades in the Civil Service against their counterparts in other areas in the private sector.  The PCS website reports on some key findings from the report:

• Administrative officers across the civil service delivering a range of services such as getting people back into work, tax credits and passports are paid £4,608 (21%) less than their colleagues doing comparable jobs in the private sector. Compared to the rest of the public sector the gap is £4,045 (19%) and for the financial sector the figure is £3,330 (16%).
• Executive officers who typically work in a supervisory role or a job which requires a vocational qualification are paid £4,783 (18%) less than the private sector and £3,945 (15%) less than the financial sector. Compared to rest of the public sector the gap is £4,503 (17%).
• Higher executive officers who manage teams of people are paid £5,338 (16%) less than their counterparts in the financial sector and £4,305 (13%) less than those working in the private sector. Compared to rest of the public sector the gap is £1,873 (6%).
• Administrative assistants who typically undertake clerical duties such as processing benefit claims, tax credits and self assessment forms earn £979 (6.5%) less than the private sector and £572 (3.6%) less than the rest of the public sector.

The IDS findings on the eve of this year’s TUC conference come as employer led organisations attempt to portray civil and public servants as ‘having it easy’ compared to the private sector.

The myth is far from the reality with the average pension for civil servants amounting to £6,500 and dropping to £4,200 once high earners are excluded.

Nearly 100,000 civil and public service jobs have gone over the last 5 years and more than half of the civil service earn less than the UK national wage.

Commenting, Mark Serwotka, PCS general secretary, said: “These findings expose the myth that civil servants enjoy better rates of pay than the private sector.

“The notion that dedicated civil servants who do everything from helping people back to work, to tax credits and passports have it easy is false. Civil service pay has increased at a slower rate than the private sector.

“Over 100,000 civil servants earn less than £15,000 with 40% of jobcentre workers getting no pay rise at all last year. PCS members like other low paid workers continue to bear the brunt of the recession in terms of pay.

“Divisive myths about pay, pensions and job security should not be used as a pretext to freeze pay, cut pensions and lay waste to civil and public services.

“Job cuts, low pay and an average pension of £4,200 are the realities for the people who keep this country running. The government needs to see through the divisive myths about civil and public servants and to recognise the important role they play in delivering vital services.”

Media myths about the civil and public services:

• Myth 1: Civil and public servants are well paid
• Myth 2: Civil servant pensions are gold plated
• Myth 3: Civil and public servants are secure in their jobs
• Myth 4: Privatisation
• Myths: Part 5

]]> http://www.cheriesplace.me.uk/blog/index.php/2009/09/17/media-myths-about-civil-public-services-part-6/feed/ 16 http://www.cheriesplace.me.uk/blog/index.php/2009/08/04/media-myths-the-civil-service-again/ http://www.cheriesplace.me.uk/blog/index.php/2009/08/04/media-myths-the-civil-service-again/#comments Tue, 04 Aug 2009 19:47:27 +0000 CherryPie http://www.cheriesplace.me.uk/blog/?p=823 Last Friday the Government announced plans to radically reduce the compensation paid to civil servants who are made redundant.  The proposals are published by the Cabinet Office and are described as “reform” of the civil service compensation scheme.  The proposals actually represent a cut in contractual rights to a decent redundancy compensation at a time when jobs are at risk.

PCS alongside other trade unions have been in negotiations with the Cabinet Office since last Autumn but nothing has so far been agreed between the two parties.  Despite this members were notified of the proposals in such a way that they thought the new plans had the full agreement of PCS.

PCS General Secretary Mark Serwotka stated:

These proposals are a disgraceful attempt by the government to replace a fair, negotiated right to decent compensation with a bargain basement pay-off at a time of massive insecurity over jobs.

Following the announcement The Daily Mail published a grossly misleading article making out that the vast majority of civil servants receive a golden handshake when they leave,  which is far from the truth.

Mark Serwotka said:

Away from the headlines about bumper pay-outs for mandarins, the vast majority of civil servants live in the real world where pay is low and pensions are far from gold-plated. The real divide is not between public and private, but between low-paid workers and the very wealthy.

Additionally Mark responded to the Daily Mail with the following comment:

Your report about proposed changes to the civil service compensation scheme – Blitz on the £1bn golden goodbyes for civil servants - is based on a grain of truth, a great deal of speculation and a dose of prejudice.

The fact is that civil service management have put forward proposals that slash workers existing legal and contractual rights to fair compensation if made redundant.

It is interesting that these existing terms were introduced by the Treasury in 1987 and endorsed by the then Government led by Margaret Thatcher. If it was fair then why is it not fair now for civil servants who for years have suffered low pay and low increases on the basis that they have secure jobs?

It is also the case that almost 100,000 civil service jobs have been cut in the past four years. The vast majority of those jobs have been among low paid civil servants providing essential services in every community.

The stereotype of mandarins with gold-plated pensions is far from the truth. Almost 20% of civil servants earn less than £15,000 a year and the average civil service pension is £6,500. When you exclude high earners, the average is £4,200. Hardly gold plated.

Media myths about the civil and public services:

• Myth 1: Civil and public servants are well paid

• Myth 2: Civil servant pensions are gold plated

• Myth 3: Civil and public servants are secure in their jobs

• Myth 4: Privatisation

]]> http://www.cheriesplace.me.uk/blog/index.php/2009/08/04/media-myths-the-civil-service-again/feed/ 21