Letters to the Editor

Going into combat over pay levels
Members, not employees
Water Penalty
Knock off early finish

WRITE TO US

Going into combat over pay levels

GOING back some time now the question was asked across the ADF whether clerks and storemen of the infantry corps (commonly known as combat clerks and storemen) should keep their current pay level or have it reduced to the same as the ordnance corps.

This came about because the primary employment of combat clerks and storemen was not regarded as infantryman.

The first question is: why do corporals and below drop a pay level when sergeants and above stay on the same unless they are on pay level five? The second question is: why do corporals and below have to continue to complete their subject 2 for a corporal or sergeant course, when they are not considered to be infantryman?

This issue is causing many concerns across the ADF and is leaving members no choice but to discharge as they are not willing to lose the pay level they are on and be expected to accept more work responsibilities than the average clerk or storeman.

We understand this is the military and, yes, we do as we are told and the benefits the ADF gives are a small help, however there is no incentive for a senior soldier who has served for 15 years or more to stay in the military.

A fine example would be the normal infantry battalions and the Special Forces Group. Why would a serving member want to work twice as hard in the SF group and get no recognition?

Fair enough, support staff do not have to do all of these specialist courses to gain the qualifications, as the so-called beret qualified members do, but without support staff to provide the service required, these members would not become specialist.

These members receive an adequate allowance and extra leave, so this does make up for some of their time away from home and family. But the support staff get nothing, not even a pat on the back or a thank you for the extra hours we contribute in having everything organised so these courses can run smoothly.

If combat storemen and clerks are being looked at as not good enough to be infantrymen within the corps, why then should we be required to be relied on for our expertise and service? And, most importantly, why are we not exempt from doing any infantry subject 2 courses, especially subject 2 for sergeant and warrant officer. Take the cost of living into consideration, for example the price of things today. If you put yourself in the same position as we have been put in, you would have the same argument.

When some of us are only on a single income with families, and most of us have mortgages to pay, things become very tight, and at the end of the day we are still expected to dry our eyes and get on with the job.

Sgt M J Smart and
Cpl M J Rosier
4RAR (Cdo) Holsworthy

Lt-Col Bruce Jennings, SO1 IR/REM, replies:

I am in a position to provide some background to several of the issues concerning pay group placement, however those issues which are career or structural are best answered by SCMA or CATC.

The infantry clerk and storeman trade review was heard by the Defence Force Remuneration Tribunal (DFRT) on December 15, 2003. The review was required in order to address pay anomalies within the infantry clerk and storeman trades.

It was the practice prior to the DFRT hearing for infantry clerks and storeman to be remunerated as per the infantry rifleman employment category. This resulted in infantry clerks and storemen accessing pay group 4 at the rifleman grade 3 level and pay group 5 at the senior Sgt/WO2 level.

The primary means of remuneration for the other ranks is work value. That is to say you are remunerated for what you do for the majority of time in your primary means of employment. Work value, and hence pay group placement, is assessed against set criteria contained in the Definitional Framework.

The Dec 03 review assessed the work value of infantry clerks and storemen categories as being different to the rifleman employment category and new pay groups were allocated which recognised the work value of clerk and storeman trades. The requirement to complete the relevant trade courses gives the employment of infantry clerks and storeman relevance in that they employ those skills within an infantry environment. CATC would be in a better position to provide more detail concerning structural issues.

Infantry clerks and storemen now access pay group 4 at the senior Cpl level. Transition from previous practice to the new trade structure is dependent upon personal circumstances. This is an issue that you need to raise with SCMA.

You should also note that pay group 4 does not apply to other like Army trades within RAAOC or RAE. Pay group movement for these employment groups will be dependent upon an industrial case run before the DFRT in the near future.

In addition to your pay group you also receive Service Allowance (SA). SA is currently $9361 and compensates you for the liability of serving in the ADF. Working harder and long hours is part of SA and was part of the 16.6 per cent increase in 2003. SA is superannuable.

The remuneration system for the ADF is a fair and equitable one that recognises the work value of respective trades across all three services. The pay group placement of infantry clerks and storemen has been independently reviewed and agreed to by the DFRT. The career adviser and trade manager are in a better position to address those issues outside of remuneration.

TOP

Members, not employees

THE latest Army reserve recruiting TV ad describing part-time employment is wrong. Employees who fight wars for money are mercenaries.

All Defence force service personnel are members of the ADF. For Defence Force Recruiting to get this wrong is unforgivable. It undermines the most fundamental aspect of military service; we are not employees but members of the ADF.

Employees are engaged under a contract of service and can be represented by a union. Employees can choose to refuse to go into harm's way under occupational health and safety legislation. Employees cannot be directed to take up a workplace position to meet the needs of their employer. None of these apply to ADF members.

It's not a matter of semantics; it's a matter of law. Officers and other ranks can be called workers (people who exchange labour for financial reward) but not employees. The only other workers who share a similar relationship with their government are appointed members of the judiciary and the parliament. Our military and civilian leaders forget this point of difference at their peril, because without this relationship they lose their right to command. Command comes with the personal responsibility to fight beside and for the right of those who serve.

The unique nature of our relationship is embedded in our service commissions, warrants and engagements that should be advertised both to those joining and those of us who continue to serve.

Maj Errol Phillips
Secretary,
Armed Force Federation of Australia

Response from Air-Cdre Lee Roberts, Director General Workforce Planning, Recruitment and Retention:

I understand your points and personally agree with much that you say. Nevertheless, Defence Force Recruiting has to deal with contemporary Australian attitudes and those of young Australians in particular. The views you express have no meaning in a 45- second advertisement. It is our job to select people who would be receptive to those notions of duty and then to ensure that we develop the traditional military culture during their training and further service. Before that can happen, we have to get them to the door by presenting concepts that they understand.

TOP

Water penalty

CAN someone please explain to me (in short simple terms and not the long politically correct replies that we are used to in letters to the editor), why members in RA accommodation in Victoria have to pay water rates when others in service accommodation pay a fortnightly rate at a lot less than it costs in RA?

Does DHA have special water reservoirs for those in married quarters? I am currently posted to HMAS Cerberus and was told on arrival that there was no service accommodation available and that I would have to take a private lease through the RA system. Why am I being disadvantaged because DHA couldn't find me service accommodation in my posting area?

Sgt I. Polanski
ADFSC
HMAS Cerberus

Adrian Wellspring, Director Housing and Removals Policy, replies:

The contribution for water payable by members in service residences reflects the water consumption in service residences nationally.

DHA pays all water charges for service residences and recovers the amount from Defence that represents actual water usage by members. Defence then recovers that amount from members in service residences by means of the averaged water contribution.

This system is simple, efficient and cost effective. It avoids the administrative overheads that would be involved in charging each family in a service residence for their individual water usage.

The system cannot be applied to members in receipt of Rent Allowance because of the multiple sources of supply for RA properties and the nature of tenancy arrangements in the private rental market.

The method of paying for water is agreed between the landlord/agent when the lease is negotiated. Typically, the landlord is responsible for water supply charges, and the tenant is responsible for all or part of the water usage charges.

In most areas, water usage is now billed on a sliding scale of charges, with the amount payable increasing when water usage exceeds a set level. In a user-pays regime for water in the private rental market the member is legally liable for the cost of their actual water usage.

TOP

Knock off early finish

I AM totally dumbfounded that our part-time counterparts can turn up to work at the same time as myself and other full-time soldiers and knock off two hours' earlier, all because their day or pay schedule is worked out in hours.

I know the reserves have three different pay blocks, which determine what soldiers will get paid IAW the work/hours completed for the day.

The beef I have is if they are able to conduct a full day's work or a week of work then why are they not bound by ARA work hours?

When part-time warrant officers/captains dismiss themselves after six hours, and leave their ARA counterparts to finish off the last two hours of the day then surely we are leaving the ranks open to dissent?

This is not a display of true values or Army ethos and, in particular, it's a poor show of ethics. Six hours may constitute a day, but I am sure this is the shortest workday for a lot of part-time soldiers. If they cannot commit to a whole day then work the half day - three hours.

If ARA soldiers are there for the day then reserve soldiers should earn their day's pay for the same time - after all it is tax-free for them.

WO2 Kelvin Haley
CSM
Passchendaele Barracks

Lt-Col Justin Ellwood, Director of Reserves-Army, replies:

It is a popular misconception that the standard working day for reservists is only six hours. Reservists are paid one day's pay when they work between 6 and 24 hours. The amount of time that a reservist is required to work within this time band (6-24 hours) should be set by the individual's supervisor or officer commanding. The example that you have provided appears to be a command related issue rather than a conditions of service issue.

TOP

WRITE TO US

Soldiers wishing to air their views through letters to the editor have access to the newspaper without using the chain of command.

Letters will be edited for spelling and grammatical errors and newspaper style, and may be edited for space.

Preference is given to typed letters of fewer than 300 words. Letters will be rejected where they are too long, abusive, cover a subject that has been exhausted or can be answered by the author's unit.

They will be published only when they include the author's name, unit (where applicable), location and contact number.

Send letters to: The Editor, Army newspaper, R8-LG-037, Russell Offices, Canberra, ACT 2600; fax (02) 6265 6690 or email: armynews@defencenews.gov. au (note this is not an internal email address and therefore requires Sec: Unclassified in the subject line when sending from a DRN terminal)

The opinions expressed in letters to the editor do not represent the views of the editor or the Army.