1. Broad comparability. We aim to recommend
pay levels broadly comparable to those outside the Services for
jobs at similar levels. Comparisons with civilian jobs are not
made on a job for job basis but by comparing a sample of representative
jobs at each rank, or rank and band, within a range of broadly
similar posts outside. Job for job comparisons would not be appropriate
for most Service posts as there are no precise civilian equivalents.
The process of applying broad comparability involves judgement
and is neither simple nor mechanistic.
2. Job evaluation. Job evaluation techniques
are used as the basis for the broad comparisons outlined above.
These enable the size of a post to be determined by measuring
its work content against a number of key factors. The factors
knowledge, skills and experience;
complexity and mental challenge;
judgement and decision making;
use of resources (including personnel,
equipment and budgets);
The importance of each factor is assessed and
the total score from all the factors gives a measure of the size
of the job, its job weight. As both civilian and Service jobs
are scored under the same job evaluation scheme, it is possible
to make comparisons between the remuneration of Service jobs and
civilian jobs of a similar job weight.
3. Evidence. Each year MoD provides the
results of the job evaluation it has carried out using a proprietary
job evaluation system developed by external consultants. The system
enables posts from Private to Brigadier to be evaluated using
the same system. The results provided by MoD enable us to compare
the remuneration of Service personnel with that held on our comprehensive
civilian pay database covering over 100,000 individuals. This
is the third year we have used this system for our comparability
4. Earlier this year we arranged for consultants
to review the methodology and data sources which provide us with
pay comparability evidence. The review concentrated on the following
the current process of making pay
comparisons between jobs in the Armed Forces and civilian comparators
on the basis of job weight;
the coverage and appropriateness
of the civilian database which combines data from three different
the techniques used to provide comparability
evidence on pay levels and pay movements from the remuneration
the extent to which the pay comparability
system is fit for providing pay data; and
the identification of any areas that
required changes when assessing broad comparability when we are
comparing pay of the Armed Forces with that of civilians.
5. The consultants confirmed that the civilian
database we currently use enables us to make valid comparisons
between the pay of the Armed Forces and that of civilians.
6. Other Ranks. The pay data cover a much
broader range of companies and organisations than our previous
database for these ranks and include many thousands of jobs against
a few hundred previously. We are also, with the new database,
able to use job weight as the basis of our comparability evidence
for Privates and Lance Corporals.
7. Officers. Collecting pay comparability
evidence for Officers is more complex, especially for senior Officers,
as there is a wide range of pay for any given job weight at this
level in the civilian sector. To maximise the validity of the
pay comparisons we have weighted the data to reflect more closely
the distribution of jobs in the economy as a whole by location
and industrial sector and analysed pay levels by company turnover.
8. Basis for comparison. The starting point
is a comparison of the levels of Military Salary and civilian
earnings in the previous April. Our analysis of civilian earnings
covers basic pay plus variable payments, including overtime, bonuses
and productivity payments, the relative value of civilian and
Service pensions and, where appropriate, the relative value of
civilian benefits such as company cars. We also take account of
the average Service working week, excluding unsocial and other
excess hours accounted for in the X-factor, compared with the
average civilian working week, including paid overtime hours.
Our recommendations on salary levels are made several months in
advance of the effective date, and we take account of forecasts
of expected future movements in national statistics of earnings,
settlements and inflation to inform our judgement.