The Strain On Defence Force Families.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by frantic

What a disrespectful post.
Here's a LINK, or two, something you obviously couldn't be bothered with, with your past and current claims.
I'll repeat in simple terms as your obviously allergic to google :twisted:
Disobey a direct order from a superior officer maximum jail time 2 years

---

My thoughts on your initial post :toilet: (This post my qualify as disrespectful, but I'm truly grateful to you for giving me the opportunity to use this choice emoticon)

Call it nitpicking or whatever you may like but there is due process which your post appears to be void of any reference to.

Quote:

---

WH&S Act

31 Reckless conduct?Category 1

(1) A person commits a Category 1 offence if:
(a) the person has a health and safety duty; and
(b) the person, without reasonable excuse, engages in conduct that exposes an individual to whom that duty is owed to a risk of death or serious injury or illness; and
(c) the person is reckless as to the risk to an individual of death or serious injury or illness.
Penalty:
(a) In the case of an offence committed by an individual (other than as a person conducting a business or undertaking or as an officer of a person conducting a business or undertaking)?$300 000 or 5 years imprisonment or both.

---

The ADF looks soft. Only two years and no fine.

How do people live in this society with this hanging over their heads.

Did we have to keep what we post in context? Comparing apples with apples. I thought it would help for having a meaningful exchange but it appears not to be a prerequisite.

Also, on/off topic.

Regards
Andrew

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AndyG

It seems universal now, from the head of BHP, down to the Gardener, that consideration as to whether the starting point is adequate or fair is not the issue, rather it is how much more one can squeeze from the ''system''.
.

---

Isn't that the very reason the current position needs to be clearly understood.


If the system, and I am assuming you mean pay and conditions in this context, have been squeezed then we would see that and it might be unreasonable. But if previous wages and conditions have been maintained then there might be room for a bit of a belt tightening.


There just seems to be a real reluctance to lay it out on the table and before others bleat that I should use google......


1. others are trying to prosecute the case so it is up to them to put the evidence to support of their claim.
2. everything seems to be written in military code like it is a national secret. Surely it isn't too hard for a laymans answer. leave = x weeks per year, ASL + x weeks per year, LSL = x weeks after x years, super = x %, pension = whatever, tax paid = x %
3. the posting of the rates was a great help but half the story so if anyone could help out with the rest it would be greatly appreciated.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nugge t

Isn't that the very reason the current position needs to be clearly understood.


If the system, and I am assuming you mean pay and conditions in this context, have been squeezed then we would see that and it might be unreasonable. But if previous wages and conditions have been maintained then there might be room for a bit of a belt tightening.


There just seems to be a real reluctance to lay it out on the table and before others bleat that I should use google......


1. others are trying to prosecute the case so it is up to them to put the evidence to support of their claim.
2. everything seems to be written in military code like it is a national secret. Surely it isn't too hard for a laymans answer. leave = x weeks per year, ASL + x weeks per year, LSL = x weeks after x years, super = x %, pension = whatever, tax paid = x %
3. the posting of the rates was a great help but half the story so if anyone could help out with the rest it would be greatly appreciated.

---

well you have a point. most people me included do not understand the details.

but what i do understand is it means LESS. and i guess this would be OK if inflation was in negative numbers which it is not so really they should be getting MORE.

it really is that simple.

i know all to well how us AT guys got screwed over. operational. then a minister decided we were not. *****

I understand that no one wants to get less. That point has been made numerous times and it is human nature.


But the reality is that many are getting less, many are also getting or likely to get nothing.


Many have received rises over the years in excess of inflation. I don't remember them complaining about it being too high.


Just a bit of perspective here. The difference for someone on a base of 70k between 1.5% and 3.5% is under 1500 pre tax or $28 a week.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andrew D

My thoughts on your initial post :toilet: (This post my qualify as disrespectful, but I'm truly grateful to you for giving me the opportunity to use this choice emoticon)

Call it nitpicking or whatever you may like but there is due process which your post appears to be void of any reference to.



The ADF looks soft. Only two years and no fine.

How do people live in this society with this hanging over their heads.

Did we have to keep what we post in context? Comparing apples with apples. I thought it would help for having a meaningful exchange but it appears not to be a prerequisite.

Also, on/off topic.

Regards
Andrew

---

Rofl Umm according to your whs act quote everytime a adf person is ordered of base in Afghanistan, or the RAN are ordered to stop pirates their commander is in breach.
How disconnected with reality are you quoting whs in relation to adf?
Officer gives order, control that point, they disobey = far more than 2 years jail, look at my second link previous. Post. Command Officer orders x cargo moved to y on 45deg day, disobey 2 years jail. Here if the work is pointless you can stop point out the issues and find a solution.

Nugget the topic of the thread is The Strain On Defence Force Families - and is more about the impact on the families when the serving member is away rather than pay and entitlements.

However for some reason you want to know the minutia of pay and conditions which you can really research yourself if you wanted. Yes an individual will know their pay and some entitlements but not all of them - that is one of the reasons there are pay, accounts and personel offices - even in the public service people need to go and see the HR peopple to find out what their entitlements are.

However the current issue is that the CPI is about 2.3% and the offered pay increase is 1.5% per year with some cuts in other areas - this amounts to a real paycut to the buying ability of military members.

More importantly unless someone can convince the CDF to lodge an appeal there is nothing that the military can do about it as the workplace negotiation legislation that applies to just about every other vocation does not apply.

The CDF has agreed the government cannot afford it but in my view that should not be his role - he should be arguing that whether a new level of pay is warranted.

A step in the right direction would be to change the legislation to allow the peak Defence personal welfare organisation the right to also appeal a DFRT decision on behalf of their members as there is no one looking after the troops at the moment.

Garry

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nugge t

I understand that no one wants to get less. That point has been made numerous times and it is human nature.


But the reality is that many are getting less, many are also getting or likely to get nothing.


Many have received rises over the years in excess of inflation. I don't remember them complaining about it being too high.


Just a bit of perspective here. The difference for someone on a base of 70k between 1.5% and 3.5% is under 1500 pre tax or $28 a week.

---

can you live and support a young family on $70K ?????

28 a week will just about cover the rise in there power bill, what covers the rises in every thing else?

Well I have just had a look at the payrates and what should be pointed out is that the 1.5% is on top of the roughly 5.5% rise received each year in the first 10 years of service.




If I am wrong please let me know but it looks like a private at base rate gets 44,422 in year one, and that rises to 46,853 in year 2 and all the way to 79,981 after 10 years of service..that is an 80% increase for what I assume is the same duties. If a promotion is received it looks like higher rates apply. It also looks like yearly adjustments are on top of that.


It also looks like officers get duded as their increase appear to be capped t about 40k but mostly they are in the 100k plus area. Having said that a navy capt who goes from 1 year to 2 years of service this year will still get a 2.8% rise and I assume, the 1.5% which is a 4.3% pay rise for turning up. That is $142,613 to 145,5677 plus the 1.5%. Is that such a bad deal?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 85 county

can you live and support a young family on $70K ?????

28 a week will just about cover the rise in there power bill, what covers the rises in every thing else?

---

many live on much less and do not get automatic adjustment for length of service.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nugge t

many live on much less and do not get automatic adjustment for length of service.

---

Many organisations do get automatic adjustments - the Public service certainly does and when I worked as a labourer at the Newcastle Steel Works over 40 years ago we did. Note that the adjustments in the Military are in recognition of increased skills learned on the job - an is unsually 0 years, over 1 year and over 2 years - after that there are no more increases until a promotion is achieved or you get higher skilled - usually a category change to get onto a higher pay level.

The average Full Time wage in Aust in 2013/14 was $78,800 and they averaged a 2.3% pay rise in that year - ABS figures. The average soldier, airman or sailor gets a lot less.