# Retro Pay & Allow 1Apr 2014 - 1Apr 2017



## Transporter (13 Jan 2014)

Has anyone seen/heard anything on the annual 1 Apr pay increase for this year (2014)? Any thoughts on what it might be? I'm guessing 1.5%.

**Staff Edit: Update thread topic to reflect retro pay raise. **


----------



## Eye In The Sky (13 Jan 2014)

I was on the CANFORGEN site today;  nothing on any increase this April.  Or thru the CofC or rumour mill or anything.

There isn't an automatic annual pay increase every year.  The last one we got was pre-announced sometime before it came into effect.

 ???


----------



## dapaterson (13 Jan 2014)

Given most public service collective agreements, against which CF pay is benchmarked, expire in 2014, I suspect the 1 Apr 2014 pay increase announcement will be delayed pending resolution of those agreements.  (I have been wrong in the past, so take it with a grain of salt).

That said, given the government wants to keep a tight control on increases (and, indeed, is directing all departments to pay any increases out of their existing baseline, and not providing increases to fund that inflation), I doubt anything will be above 2%.  (Note that Stats Can says the November (annualized) inflation rate was 0.9%.  Pension contributions have gone up 0.6% this year for part I of the CFSA; so a 1.5% increase would be breaking even.  However, if you're below maximum IPC for your rank you'll see some real growth in income).


----------



## Sunnyns (13 Jan 2014)

We should be getting a raise, I just got the letter from CFHA saying our rent was going up.   ;D   the two seem to go hand in hand.



I've not heard anything though.


----------



## my72jeep (13 Jan 2014)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> I was on the CANFORGEN site today;  nothing on any increase this April.  Or thru the CofC or rumour mill or anything.
> 
> There isn't an automatic annual pay increase every year.  The last one we got was pre-announced sometime before it came into effect.
> 
> ???


This...... Remember the dark years no pay increase for 5+ years.


----------



## George Wallace (13 Jan 2014)

my72jeep said:
			
		

> This...... Remember the dark years no pay increase for 5+ years.



Yes....And if your timing sucks, those would be included towards your best years being counted towards your Pension....... :'(  Now that really would suck.


----------



## Stoker (13 Jan 2014)

Hopefully any increase won't be an excuse to take some benefit away.


----------



## Transporter (13 Jan 2014)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Given most public service collective agreements, against which CF pay is benchmarked, expire in 2014, I suspect the 1 Apr 2014 pay increase announcement will be delayed pending resolution of those agreements.  (I have been wrong in the past, so take it with a grain of salt).
> 
> That said, given the government wants to keep a tight control on increases (and, indeed, is directing all departments to pay any increases out of their existing baseline, and not providing increases to fund that inflation), I doubt anything will be above 2%.  (Note that Stats Can says the November (annualized) inflation rate was 0.9%.  Pension contributions have gone up 0.6% this year for part I of the CFSA; so a 1.5% increase would be breaking even.  However, if you're below maximum IPC for your rank you'll see some real growth in income).


 You've used some of the same logic that I used but did not so eloquently enunciate in my post for coming up with the 1.5% increase estimate... and I agree that it will likely be far beyond 1 Apr 14 if/when we see anything for this year.


----------



## PuckChaser (13 Jan 2014)

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> Hopefully any increase won't be an excuse to take some benefit away.



We'll have something bargained away by PSAC, I'm sure.  :


----------



## George Wallace (13 Jan 2014)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> We'll have something bargained away by PSAC, I'm sure.  :



When they bargained away Severance Pay, they didn't leave much to bargain away next time.   >


----------



## Transporter (13 Jan 2014)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> When they bargained away Severance Pay, they didn't leave much to bargain away next time.   >


 They better not F*** with the pension... that would be really really bad...


----------



## George Wallace (13 Jan 2014)

Transporter said:
			
		

> They better not F*** with the pension... that would be really really bad...



Don't go there.


----------



## Transporter (13 Jan 2014)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> We'll have something bargained away by PSAC, I'm sure.  :


 Have I mentioned lately how much a love having my compensation and benefits be an afterthought to the public service collective bargaining process? Makes me feel soooo special.


----------



## Stoker (13 Jan 2014)

Transporter said:
			
		

> They better not F*** with the pension... that would be really really bad...



I'd imagine we would be grandfathered in if that happened?


----------



## PuckChaser (13 Jan 2014)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> When they bargained away Severance Pay, they didn't leave much to bargain away next time.   >



Its PSAC, I'm sure they'll find something that I'll get to hear about at a stupid picket line.


----------



## Occam (13 Jan 2014)

I think there are a lot of misconceptions about the notion of "PSAC bargaining away severance".  As I understand it, Treasury Board went into negotiations with PSAC expressing very clearly that it was going to be either layoffs, or lose severance.  Apparently sufficient evidence was presented to the union that this was a credible threat.  Consequent negotiations with other unions during collective bargaining had the elimination of severance as a "pre-condition" to all other issues being discussed, and that failure to agree on severance would result in an impasse before negotiations even started.

As far as the pension goes, don't blame anything on the unions if it happens.  The government has made it clear what's on the agenda, and if a change to a defined-contribution pension happens, it won't be because the Public Service agreed to it.

As has been said elsewhere on the forum, CF members should be happy (for the most part) that their pay and benefits are tied to that of the Public Service.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (13 Jan 2014)

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> I'd imagine we would be grandfathered in if that happened?



Unless you signed a new TOS after the changes...


----------



## Occam (13 Jan 2014)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Unless you signed a new TOS after the changes...



Not likely.  It would probably only apply to new hires.

When they rolled out the last changes to the CF pension (specifically the 20 ----> 25 year requirement for an unreduced pension), that didn't change your benefits, it only made you have to serve longer to draw on them.  Changing from defined benefit to defined contribution would result in a significant change in benefits.

edit:  oops...reversed "contribution" and "benefit" in the last sentence.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (13 Jan 2014)

Well....let's hope we don't have to find out!   ;D

God knows, the way things have changed in the past several years. I'd not be surprised by anything at this point.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (13 Jan 2014)

Transporter said:
			
		

> Have I mentioned lately how much a love having my compensation and benefits be an afterthought to the public service collective bargaining process? Makes me feel soooo special.



Yea,...must really suck to be able to get wage increases without having to risk a friggin' cent of your own money while on a picket line.  Give your head a shake......


----------



## PuckChaser (13 Jan 2014)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Yea,...must really suck to be able to get wage increases without having to risk a friggin' cent of your own money while on a picket line.  Give your head a shake......



We're not allowed to picket, as I'm sure you know. You can bet there'd be quite a few CF members willing to risk their money on a picket line to get better compensation and benefits, after all, we're expected to have to risk our lives right?


----------



## Transporter (13 Jan 2014)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Yea,...must really suck to be able to get wage increases without having to risk a friggin' cent of your own money while on a picket line.  Give your head a shake......


 I don't have anything against the public service or public service unions. I do, however, take exception to the notion that I should be thankful for the fact that whatever I get as compensation or benefits for my military service is linked to the success or failure of the public service collective bargaining process. You give your head a shake.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (13 Jan 2014)

In my line of work we used to have 'binding arbritation" and then Bob Rae was "kind" enough to give us the right to strike.......careful what you wish for Gentlemen.

Be thankful someone else does your dirty work.....


----------



## Transporter (13 Jan 2014)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> In my line of work we used to have 'binding arbritation" and then Bob Rae was "kind" enough to give us the right to strike.......careful what you wish for Gentlemen.
> 
> Be thankful someone else does your dirty work.....


 I can flip that argument on you. You be thankful that I do the dirty work that allows you to do your dirty work without fear of being shipped off to the Gulag. Which is more important? I get the point you're trying to make however, and I know that for good or bad, that's how it works. But I don't have to like it or be guilted into feeling thankful for it.


----------



## Infanteer (13 Jan 2014)

Transporter said:
			
		

> I can flip that argument on you. You be thankful that I do the dirty work that allows you to do your dirty work without fear of being shipped off to the Gulag. Which is more important? I get the point you're trying to make however, and I know that for good or bad, that's how it works. But I don't have to like it or be guilted into feeling thankful for it.



Ooooooohhh, look at that.  The "respect me because I stand on the wall" argument....


----------



## Transporter (13 Jan 2014)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Ooooooohhh, look at that.  The "respect me because I stand on the wall" argument....


 If that's your take-away from what I said, or the point I was trying to make, then you ain't gettin' it. Read back a few posts and see if it makes any more sense to you... on second thought, don't bother.


----------



## Pusser (14 Jan 2014)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> We're not allowed to picket, as I'm sure you know. You can bet there'd be quite a few CF members willing to risk their money on a picket line to get better compensation and benefits, after all, we're expected to have to risk our lives right?



Are you serious?  How much better of a pay raise do you think you would get that wouldn't get eaten up by the loss of income for the period for which you didn't get paid?

I always tell people that if money is your biggest motivation, then military service is not the way to go, but for the most part, we're paid pretty well (especiially if you consider the amount of training and education you DON'T need to join and which we provide).  If you plan your life and don't expect to move into a mansion with an SUV and boat straight out of BMQ, then you can live pretty comfortably.  Furthermore, we have a host of other benefits that those in the private sector can only dream about. We're also paid without interruption and don't have to worry about layoffs.

Some folks don't seem to know how good they have it.


----------



## Loachman (14 Jan 2014)

There is no need to goad or insult each other.

Different jobs, different conditions, different rules.

We all made the choices that we did.


----------



## Ostrozac (14 Jan 2014)

Whether or not the CF deserves a pay raise is outside of my lanes, but based on the historical record, there has been a pay raise implemented effective every 1 Apr since 1997. So based on the trend -- there is probably one coming in 2014.

Sun goes up, sun goes down, after a while you start to trust it.


----------



## marinemech (14 Jan 2014)

With them trimming the fat, it all depends on the budgets. Only can wait and see.


----------



## PuckChaser (14 Jan 2014)

Pusser said:
			
		

> Are you serious?  How much better of a pay raise do you think you would get that wouldn't get eaten up by the loss of income for the period for which you didn't get paid?



I never said I'd be one of those people, it was simply a response to the fact that we should be thankful someone is willing to walk a picket line for us, which I think is BS.


----------



## blackberet17 (7 Apr 2014)

Because one of my corporals-now-newly-minted-Master-Corporal just asked, thought I'd post it where most relevant.

I haven't otherwise seen the new scales, they're not on the Web site yet either.

"Approved wage increases for Non-commissioned members, General Service Officers, Pilots in the rank of Lieutenant-Colonel and below, and medical and dental officers are 1.75% for 2011-2012, 1.50% for 2012-2013, and 2.00% for 2013-2014. Included in the pay increases are adjustments of 0.25% for fiscal year (FY) 2011-2012 and 0.50% for FY 2013-2014 in consideration of the changes to the severance benefit."

http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/caf-community-benefits/pay-increase-backgrounder.page


----------



## SupersonicMax (7 Apr 2014)

So, how has this anything to do with FY14-15??


----------



## Nfld Sapper (7 Apr 2014)

Somehow I don't expect a pay raise this year.....


----------



## blackberet17 (9 Apr 2014)

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> So, how has this anything to do with FY14-15??



Dunno, that's all I could find. I'd hoped it was a starting point, but...

Any number crunchers out there?


----------



## dapaterson (9 Apr 2014)

National Defence Act, s. 12



> Treasury Board’s power to make regulations
> 
> (3) The Treasury Board may make regulations
> 
> ...


----------



## Occam (9 Apr 2014)

blackberet17 said:
			
		

> Dunno, that's all I could find. I'd hoped it was a starting point, but...
> 
> Any number crunchers out there?



There are no numbers to crunch yet.  There won't be any numbers to crunch until most if not all Public Service unions negotiate new collective agreements this year, which will establish new benchmarks for the CF pay to be based upon.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (9 Apr 2014)

blackberet17 said:
			
		

> Dunno, that's all I could find. I'd hoped it was a starting point, but...
> 
> Any number crunchers out there?



Current pay tables reflect all the adjustments you mentioned.


----------



## CountDC (14 Apr 2014)

I'm not holding my breathe for one:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/financial-transparency-motion-approved-at-tory-convention-in-wake-of-senate-scandal/article15232241/

"One of the motions – to claw back public-sector pay and benefits to private-sector standards – was backed by Treasury Board President Tony Clement, the federal government's point man on reaching contracts with its civil service.

"This is exactly our position going into the next round of bargaining. For too long, there has been this major gap in wages and benefits between the public and the private sector, where the public sector is considerably more than the private sector norms.  This is not sustainable, it’s not right, it’s not conservative and it’s not in the public interest," Mr. Clement said to cheers from the convention Saturday, urging delegates to back the motion, which they did."

i trranslate as a possible - no pay increase and welcome back to the dark ages.  I can see it going down as "we will leave the pension as is if you forego an increase."  Winners all around, they union boss can brag how they saved the pension and the goverment can brag how they held they unionized pay at par.


----------



## Crispy Bacon (14 Apr 2014)

CountDC said:
			
		

> I'm not holding my breathe for one:
> 
> http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/financial-transparency-motion-approved-at-tory-convention-in-wake-of-senate-scandal/article15232241/
> 
> ...



To be fair, the policy of the Conservative Party of Canada =/= the policy of the Conservative government.  There are plenty of items in the Conservatives' declaration on policy that will never become _government_ policy for a variety of reasons.


----------



## Navy_Pete (14 Apr 2014)

Does anyone know who my union rep is I can talk to about all my unpaid overtime, or that I make less then my subordinates/peers?

It'd be nice if they just set a standard annual inflation rate of some sort for our pay and left it at that, rather then tying it to the various PS negotiations, as some of those go for years.

Based on the fact that the MPs voted themselves large wage increases, don't think expecting a cost of living pay adjustment is unreasonable.  Particularly given the current govt penchant for short notice/retroactive changes to a number of different military benefits over the last few years.  I'd be more sympathetic about their desire to cut costs if I didn't see the legions of MPs and their numerous minions burning through hundreds of millions a year without any real accountability.


----------



## dapaterson (14 Apr 2014)

Navy_Pete said:
			
		

> Does anyone know who my union rep is I can talk to about all my unpaid overtime, or that I make less then my subordinates/peers?



The "military factor" that is added to the PS comparability includes overtime, so it is paid.

And if subordinates make more than you it likely means that they are in tech trades - and have skills that have been assessed as being valuable.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (14 Apr 2014)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> And if subordinates make more than you it likely means that they are in tech trades - and have skills that have been assessed as being valuable.



Spec 1 IPC 4 Cpl makes more than Sgt Standard IPC 4  8).

Think about those MH AES Op Cpls that are on Det.  Spec pay, aircrew allowance, sea duty pay AND PLD.   $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$


----------



## blacktriangle (14 Apr 2014)

How are the gals out that way?   ;D

See you soon!


----------



## Eye In The Sky (14 Apr 2014)

Spectrum said:
			
		

> How are the gals out that way?   ;D
> 
> See you soon!



HRM or Valley?   8)


----------



## dimsum (14 Apr 2014)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> HRM or Valley?   8)



Remember this landmark:  Spring Garden Road    :nod:

At the risk of enraging the east coast fleet, Victoria is still better.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (14 Apr 2014)

Dimsum said:
			
		

> Spring Garden Road    :nod:



 8)  and the waterfront during the summer.  Lower Deck.  Stuff like that too!


----------



## DAA (14 Apr 2014)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Spec 1 IPC 4 Cpl makes more than Sgt Standard IPC 4  8).
> 
> Think about those MH AES Op Cpls that are on Det.  Spec pay, aircrew allowance, sea duty pay AND PLD.   $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$



Wow, I had to look just to be sure but you're right and sure enough you were.

Makes me wonder why the CF has problems recruiting into the trades that receive "spec" pay.


----------



## PuckChaser (14 Apr 2014)

DAA said:
			
		

> Makes me wonder why the CF has problems recruiting into the trades that receive "spec" pay.



Probably because most of their civvie jobs make even more.


----------



## Navy_Pete (14 Apr 2014)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> The "military factor" that is added to the PS comparability includes overtime, so it is paid.
> 
> And if subordinates make more than you it likely means that they are in tech trades - and have skills that have been assessed as being valuable.



ff topic:

Not really, ENG 4s make more then LCdrs (until they start topping out the IPCs), who are Eng 5 equivalents.  I'm only a two ringer (ENG 4 equivalent), so will need to get promoted then spend years at that rank before starting to make the same as someone doing my job now as a civilian.  Still, wasn't uncommon on the ship to have a bunch of folks reporting to you to gross more then you due to the combination of time in rank, spec pay, and also the higher end of the sea pay scale, so not really a big deal.  

No real skin off my nose; I thought they were smart to negotiate their retention bonus into their pay.  Same on the ship; anyone getting near the top end of the sea pay rates has put in a lot more time away from home then I'll ever have to not being a hard sea trade, so they deserve it.

The only thing that actually annoys me working in ADM(Mat) is that while we don't get overtime, shouldn't have to jump through a bunch of hoops to get the short leave at xmas.  My section was rubber stamped, but others were given a blanket denial.  Little thing, but pretty big disatisfier, and another one of the small things that have people looking at second careers already.  Does make the ENG 5 jobs look attractive though!

Anyway, not really relevant to the thread, but I'm sure there are probably lots of folks in uniform making more then their civilian counterparts, so it probably all balances out in the end.

Do miss Halifax this time of year though!  Although have to admit that much to my surprise Ottawa (Gatineau in particular) has it's own charm this time of year.  Not quite Spring Garden Road, but have been distracted enough to trip while jogging around the river by OttawaU.


----------



## Tibbson (14 Apr 2014)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Probably because most of their civvie jobs make even more.



Agreed.  Even with spec I'd be making about $15-$20 k more a year, not including overtime, if I did the same job civvie side.  

Then again, I'd lose so many of the other perks (travel, mega paid annual and sick leave, slider time, when needed, gym access...) that I'm quite content to serve where I do.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (14 Apr 2014)

If you really want to get your knickers in a wad, go take a look at what Medical/Dental Officer (Specialist) rakes in a month.  Makes spec pay look like a penny on the road.   :-\


----------



## Tibbson (14 Apr 2014)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> If you really want to get your knickers in a wad, go take a look at what Medical/Dental Officer (Specialist) rakes in a month.  Makes spec pay look like a penny on the road.   :-\



Actually, it would only bother me if I had to do 8 years of university plus a residency to get my Spec 1 compared to what they get.  I dont begrudge them at all for what they get.


----------



## DAA (14 Apr 2014)

Navy_Pete said:
			
		

> ff topic:
> 
> The only thing that actually annoys me working in ADM(Mat) is that while we don't get overtime, shouldn't have to jump through a bunch of hoops to get the short leave at xmas.  My section was rubber stamped, but others were given a blanket denial.  Little thing, but pretty big disatisfier, and another one of the small things that have people looking at second careers already.



Nobody get's overtime, WTF is that?

But my pick up on your post, is the short leave thing.  It's pretty much a given, like old time companies giving your family a turkey for Christmas.  If you are saying that you received short leave (SL), the others in your command didn't, then something could be wrong with that picture.

Mind you, granting of SL, is technically at the discretion of the CO.


----------



## dimsum (14 Apr 2014)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> 8)  and the waterfront during the summer.  Lower Deck.  Stuff like that too!



I'm sure the LD is great.  I just never remember it    :cheers:

Link to topic:  You will probably spend a lot of your 1 Apr 14 pay increase in said places.


----------



## dapaterson (14 Apr 2014)

So apparently getting five weeks of annual leave after five years of service, (plus two special every Christmas), isn't enough?

Your EN-ENGs start at three weeks; after eight years of service get four, and after eighteen years of service go up to five weeks.  http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/pubs_pol/hrpubs/coll_agre/nr/nr01-eng.asp#toc234986625


As for overtime:


> It is important to note that the T[otal] C[ompensation] analyses, as applied to the CAF, also provide latitude to determine the dollar value of the unique aspects of CAF service. The most obvious example is the Military Factor, which values the major characteristics of military service. Although the unique aspects of military service such as Code of Service Discipline, separation from family and posting turbulence are not easily quantified, the Military Factor was originally valued at 4% of salary for all non-commissioned members and general service officers. As of April 1, 1999, the Military Factor stands at 7.5% for non-commissioned members and for general service officers. These recent increases were in recognition of a higher operational tempo and resulting increases in the incidence of separation, and a new component (Personal Limitations and Liabilities), which further recognizes the implications inherent in the military system of unlimited liability. Another less obvious example is the fact that CAF members are not eligible for overtime. To adjust for this in the TC analyses, values of 6% of salary for non-commissioned members and 4% of salary for general service officers are used.



http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/caf-community-pay/index.page?


----------



## ballz (14 Apr 2014)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> And if subordinates make more than you it likely means that they are in tech trades - and have skills that have been assessed as being valuable.



I suspect this is reflective of most subalterns in non-specialist trades...
Infantry Cpl 3 - 4920/month
Infantry Lt Basic (aka that Cpl's Pl Comd) - Up to 4892/month

Almost all of my subordinates are paid more than me without considering LDA (as was mentioned, it's understandable that they would get more for LDA than I do) :-\


----------



## dimsum (14 Apr 2014)

ballz said:
			
		

> I suspect this is reflective of most subalterns in non-specialist trades...
> Infantry Cpl 3 - 4920/month
> Infantry Lt Basic (aka that Cpl's Pl Comd) - Up to 4892/month
> 
> Almost all of my subordinates are paid more than me without considering LDA (as was mentioned, it's understandable that they would get more for LDA than I do) :-\



Same when I was on the MCDVs.  The only person in my dept paid less than me was an AB that was there for the summer.  The jump in pay for Officers is from LT-CAPT.


----------



## dapaterson (14 Apr 2014)

So, we're saying a Cpl with about 8 years in is paid more than a Lt with 3 years in?

But once the Lt becomes a Capt, he's on track to make more than every NCM in the unit, including the RSM (Capt 10 is paid more than CWO (non special appointment) 4).


----------



## opcougar (7 May 2014)

You took the words right out of my gob.....and just to add to your brilliant answer, if it was that easy becoming one of those, everybody will be doing it. I mean some people can't even be bothered going to university (I don't mean those where money is an issue)



			
				Schindler's Lift said:
			
		

> Actually, it would only bother me if I had to do 8 years of university plus a residency to get my Spec 1 compared to what they get.  I dont begrudge them at all for what they get.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (7 May 2014)

opcougar said:
			
		

> I mean some people can't even be bothered going to university (I don't mean those where money is an issue)



Just what the f$&% is THAT supposed to mean??


----------



## Eye In The Sky (7 May 2014)

opcougar said:
			
		

> You took the words right out of my gob.....and just to add to your brilliant answer, if it was that easy becoming one of those, everybody will be doing it. I mean some people can't even be bothered going to university (I don't mean those where money is an issue)



Sounds like you need a cup of "get the hell over yourself".  I have had subordinates with degrees that couldn't lace boots up correctly.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (7 May 2014)

opcougar said:
			
		

> You took the words right out of my gob.....and just to add to your brilliant answer, if it was that easy becoming one of those, everybody will be doing it. I mean some people can't even be bothered going to university (I don't mean those where money is an issue)



It's a long drop off that ivory tower of yours.


----------



## blackberet17 (7 May 2014)

Foot extraction commencing shortly?


----------



## DAA (7 May 2014)

Me thinks, this is going to get interesting.     op:


----------



## opcougar (7 May 2014)

You asked and I'll try to explain myself.....here goes

The point was made about Medical / Dental officer salaries.....now move away from Military for a second and think in Civvie terms. Now if being a dentist and doctor was easy everyone will be doing it and we won't have the doctor shortages we have in the country would we?

My comments were not Military centric, I was simply talking about the professions in general. My latter point about people not even deciding to go to university, is in reference to the usual comments that am sure you've heard...."people with degrees can't get a job, why should I bother" etc

I have staff with degrees, but they've told me that they enjoy what they do, and that is all that matters in life.

So for those that jumped in here with both feet, hopefully this clarifies things for you?

Serenity folks...the rule still applies i.e. when you read something, take a break and come back before you pull the rage trigger




			
				Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Just what the f$&% is THAT supposed to mean??


----------



## DAA (7 May 2014)

opcougar said:
			
		

> You took the words right out of my gob.....and just to add to your brilliant answer, if it was that easy becoming one of those, everybody will be doing it. I mean some people can't even be bothered going to university (I don't mean those where money is an issue)





			
				opcougar said:
			
		

> The point was made about Medical / Dental officer salaries.....
> 
> My comments were not Military centric, I was simply talking about the professions in general. My latter point about people not even deciding to go to university, is in reference to the usual comments that am sure you've heard...."people with degrees can't get a job, why should I bother" etc
> 
> I have staff with degrees, but they've told me that they enjoy what they do, and that is all that matters in life.



Point noted on the Med/Dent side but then you went on to use the proverbial "wide paint brush" comment which is rather confusing/intriguing to most.  It gives the impression that what you are telling us, is that those who possess higher education (ie; post secondary) are "better" than those who don't.  Hell, if someone said to me "I mean some people can't even be bothered going to university (I don't mean those where money is an issue)" I think anyone who didn't, would be offended by such a remark.

I have had Jr Ranks working for me who had "Masters Degrees".  Didn't make them a "Super NCO" nor did it sell them short.  Higher education is always a good thing but to use it as social measuring stick, been there, seen it and it's an amazing thing to behold.

You seem to put alot of stock in post secondary education........

PS - like a good PhD friend of mine told me one day, higher education may get you through the door but it's what you do afterwards that really counts


----------



## McG (7 May 2014)

opcougar said:
			
		

> .... some people can't even be bothered going to university (I don't mean those where money is an issue)


Some people would rather go to college, equivalent vocational school or an apprenticeship and apply a trade for a living.  I don't see that as any sign of sloth.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (7 May 2014)

opcougar said:
			
		

> Serenity folks...the rule still applies i.e. when you read something, take a break and come back before you pull the rage trigger



...and I'll say before you talk, or hit send, think about what you are about to say.  Something a Grade 9 drop-out shouldn't have to explain to you.


----------



## blackberet17 (7 May 2014)

I've got two degrees, and it does not mean in any way shape or form I am any smarter or less smart than any of my NCOs.

Somehow, for the Army, it means I'm officer material. Yay me. But that's a different story for another day. I guess at least I didn't have a rich family member who could buy my commission for me, like was still done about a hundred years ago.

All it really means is I chose one path in life, while a degree-less NCO chose another. His/her life experiences are different than mine, and mine from his/hers. But those experiences frame our collective approach to the jobs we do, the tasks we are assigned, and as long as Commander's intent still being met, who gives a flying sexual encounter?


----------



## Tibbson (7 May 2014)

DAA said:
			
		

> PS - like a good PhD friend of mine told me one day, higher education may get you through the door but it's what you do afterwards that really counts



My sister, also a PhD, said if there was one thing she learned (as an older student)  was that for some people a degree just meant they were educated idiots.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (7 May 2014)

opcougar said:
			
		

> Serenity folks...the rule still applies i.e. when you read something,* take a break and come back before you pull the rage trigger
> *



No rage, just a simple, point of fact, observation. Also I suggest you look at what time you posted and what time I responded. How much longer of a break would you suggest?

You also know I'm here all the time.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (7 May 2014)

opcougar said:
			
		

> Now if being a dentist and doctor was easy everyone will be doing it and we won't have the doctor shortages we have in the country would we?



There certainly are no shortages of dentists, and the only reason some areas have a shortage of Doctors is because after sucking at the taxpayer's teat for 8 years they all think they deserve to practice in whatever large city they chose........


----------



## dapaterson (7 May 2014)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> There certainly are no shortages of dentists, and the only reason some areas have a shortage of Doctors is because after sucking at the taxpayer's teat for 8 years they all think they deserve to practice in whatever large city they chose........



That's not entirely correct.  The medical profession also artificially limits entry to medical school, helping to ensure scarcity, which in turn increases their leverage when seeking money.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (7 May 2014)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> That's not entirely correct.  The medical profession also artificially limits entry to medical school, helping to ensure scarcity, which in turn increases their leverage when seeking money.



True,...thanks for that point.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (7 May 2014)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> That's not entirely correct.  The medical profession also artificially limits entry to medical school, helping to ensure scarcity, which in turn increases their leverage when seeking money.



As well, there was a large influx of Doctors from the US, recently, that had decided they'd rather practice here.

As soon as that trend was noticed, the Feds changed the rules and made the hoops they had to jump through impossible, except for the most stout hearted and financially well off to pay the immigration lawyers to facilitate their entry.

Prior, it was "I have a skill that's needed here, there is no one to fill it, I have a company to hire me for that skill."  That was it in a nutshell.

When a bunch of them started to apply, a trend was noticed, 'someone' drew Ottawa's attention to it and the game changed.

However, we'll still take in doctors from Lower Slobovia (google it, it's a place  ) that have their most recent diploma from Good King Nogoodnik's School of Barbering, Dentistry and Internal Medicine.


----------



## dapaterson (7 May 2014)

It's the provinces, not the feds, that set the rules for doctors.  They're a self-regulating profession, meaning that there's rarely legal accountability for their actions - witness the doctor who performed cosmetic surgery in her office, had a patient die because of her incompetence, yet never faced manslaughter charges.

(Or for another example of the failure of self-regulation look to the Ontario Bar - interesting series of articles in the Star recently about how lawyers can steal from clients for years before the Bar takes any action - and the lawyers have decided that the law means they can't report those crooks to the police; so the only ones that lose out, in the end, are John and Jane Q Public)


----------



## Fishbone Jones (7 May 2014)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> It's the provinces, not the feds, that set the rules for doctors.  They're a self-regulating profession, meaning that there's rarely legal accountability for their actions - witness the doctor who performed cosmetic surgery in her office, had a patient die because of her incompetence, yet never faced manslaughter charges.
> 
> (Or for another example of the failure of self-regulation look to the Ontario Bar - interesting series of articles in the Star recently about how lawyers can steal from clients for years before the Bar takes any action - and the lawyers have decided that the law means they can't report those crooks to the police; so the only ones that lose out, in the end, are John and Jane Q Public)



My mistake. I knew there was Gov't interference, whoever it was. Even though the Feds control immigration, whether it be doctors or green house workers from Mexico.

I know first hand about the lawyer stuff. One of mine was suspended twice, and kept practicing, including my case, then finally disbarred. Bribery, trust fund issues, you name it. All the while working for a large local, 'supposedly' reputable law firm. They knew his sanctions, but let him keep practicing under their banner because he brought in money for the firm. In the end they let him take the fall and they skated with a warning from the Law Society. :


----------



## dapaterson (7 May 2014)

Yes, the lawyer who handled my house sale and purchase just sent out a friendly letter telling folks he had retired, and that his files had been transferred to another law firm in town.

A few days after the date on his letter he was disbarred.


----------



## xbowhntr (22 Dec 2014)

Anyone have anything concrete on this either way?


----------



## dapaterson (22 Dec 2014)

Given that military pay raises are benchmarked against the public service, and the public service are still in negotiations, I would not expect to see a 14/15 increase any time soon. It would not surprise me to see a mid to late 15/16 increase with retro for 14/15 and for 15/16 year-to-date (assuming we still have programmers who can handle the ancient CCPS and RPSR code to input the increase).


EDIT TO ADD: And even if the government has already decided on the military pay increases, they wouldn't want to tip their hands in negotiating with the public service - "Look, you gave the military X%, so the public service deserves X% - or X+Y% if we change the sick leave provisions".


----------



## Navy_Pete (22 Dec 2014)

There are a whole lot of different unions in the PS, and it seems like one of them is always in negotiations.  A few of the larger ones got a contract in the last year, but guessing this is getting deferred until after the election to save a few more artificial dollars for the polls.


----------



## Occam (23 Dec 2014)

I believe you're going to find that very nearly all of the federal PS unions have expired collective agreements, and the ones which aren't expired will do so very, very shortly.


----------



## blackberet17 (23 Dec 2014)

CAF pay increases are tied to the contract negotiations with PSAC, representing the Program and Administrative Services (PA) categories - the largest chunk of the Federal Public Service. Contract expired 20JUN14.

From my local rep, PSAC is trying to wait out the current Government, in hopes of a new federal party in power, with better CBA terms.


----------



## Occam (23 Dec 2014)

blackberet17 said:
			
		

> CAF pay increases are tied to the contract negotiations with PSAC, representing the Program and Administrative Services (PA) categories - the largest chunk of the Federal Public Service. Contract expired 20JUN14.
> 
> From my local rep, PSAC is trying to wait out the current Government, in hopes of a new federal party in power, with better CBA terms.



I think you'll find that CF pay is based on a much wider range of PS occupations than what you've stated, and is further divided by the Officer/Other Ranks scales.  See http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/caf-community-pay/faq-pay.page and http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/caf-community-pay/index.page.

That said, I can speak for my own union and say that yes, there isn't a lot of activity going on.  Both sides seem dug in for the long haul.


----------



## Old EO Tech (23 Dec 2014)

blackberet17 said:
			
		

> CAF pay increases are tied to the contract negotiations with PSAC, representing the Program and Administrative Services (PA) categories - the largest chunk of the Federal Public Service. Contract expired 20JUN14.
> 
> From my local rep, PSAC is trying to wait out the current Government, in hopes of a new federal party in power, with better CBA terms.



Technically they are not tied to the unionized play raises, there are no TB policies preventing the GoC from giving the CAF a cost of living pay raise before the unions.  They chose not to do so, so as not to set a precedent ahead of negotiations....


----------



## Occam (23 Dec 2014)

I can think of at least one instance where an "interim economic adjustment" was given to the CF while the PS and TB did their dance.  However, with TB only offering 0.5% per year for each year of a four year contract (at the last offer), it's hardly worth going through the headaches of implementing anything.


----------



## Action Man (29 Nov 2015)

Hey folks, has there been any rumors about of our next Pay Increase ??  My records show the last increase with our pay was back in April 2013 when we received a 2% pay increase IAW a CANFORGEN announced in March 2012.  I can't tell you how many bills/services have increased their rates everything from electricity, gas, cable, phones, property taxes, buses etc etc.  We're all effected by this, yet I don't hear or see much discussion on this important topic. My pay has eroded more and more and we are on the losing end.  I would hope to at least see an economic increase to cover the increases we have been stuck with.  Inflation has grown since 2013 too.  I know the Public Service is negotiating a contract, but it would be nice to hear an update from the CAF leadership on this subject.  Thanks for your consideration.


----------



## dapaterson (29 Nov 2015)

CAF pay is benchmarked against the public service; with no increase for the PS to date, it's unlikely that a CAF pay increase would be provided.  (If only to avoid telegraphing plans to the PS bargaining units.  As well, if there are material changes to PS benefits such a sick leave, that may result in a one-time pay increase for the PS that the CAF would not receive).

That said, if you want a sense of where things may be going, look at  http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/federal-public-service-executives-get-small-raise-while-bonuses-now-tied-entirely-to-individual-performance.  Executives in the public service received a 0.5% increase for 14/15 and the same for 15/16.

Were I a betting man, I'd put money on those responsible within DND and the CAF as having done most of the work , and are waiting for a final Government decision.  That said, any such documentation would be considered as a Cabinet Confidence, and thus can't be shared.


----------



## mariomike (29 Nov 2015)

Action Man said:
			
		

> Hey folks, has there been any rumors about of our next Pay Increase ??  My records show the last increase with our pay was back in April 2013 when we received a 2% pay increase IAW a CANFORGEN announced in March 2012.  I can't tell you how many bills/services have increased their rates everything from electricity, gas, cable, phones, property taxes, buses etc etc.  We're all effected by this, yet I don't hear or see much discussion on this important topic. My pay has eroded more and more and we are on the losing end.  I would hope to at least see an economic increase to cover the increases we have been stuck with.  Inflation has grown since 2013 too.  I know the Public Service is negotiating a contract, but it would be nice to hear an update from the CAF leadership on this subject.  Thanks for your consideration.



Some discussion here,

I am a CAF member & I want better pay and benefits (a merged thread)
http://army.ca/forums/threads/115780.375


----------



## Ice97 (3 Mar 2016)

Good Day,

Figured I'd make a post since I didn't see one.  Does anyone know anything about the supposed pay raise/back pay we are rumoured to be getting?  As most people know our usual annual 1.5% pay raise was put on hold back in March 2013.  Apparently it went under review and is being reversed.  So for Cpl's we are looking at between $200-$300 extra each month and possibly between $2500-$3000 in back pay.  No idea when it's supposed to happen though.  Does anyone have any insight/clarification for this?


----------



## BinRat55 (3 Mar 2016)

Nothing is too god for our troops, and nothing is what they shall get!!

Sorry, I just had to...


----------



## CombatMacguyver (3 Mar 2016)

Ice97 said:
			
		

> ... So for Cpl's we are looking at between $200-$300 ...



More like <$80/mnth.  
$300/mnth would be like 10k in back-pay.  
We wish....


----------



## BinRat55 (3 Mar 2016)

CombatMacgyver said:
			
		

> More like <$80/mnth.
> $300/mnth would be like 10k in back-pay.
> We wish....



I think Ice97 means this:

3% of a Cpl's pay would be roughly 150 - 200. If you were to erroneously double (2013 / 2014) the 1.5 you get your 3%. Prior to deductions you would potentially be looking at about 5K (based on 32 months of back pay at 3%)

But I said "erroneously"... IF there were a backdate in play (I am not by any means inferring there is a raise coming or not - I have no idea...) the retro it as such (this is for Ice97):

2013 - YOUR rate of pay in 2013 X 1.5%
2014 - YOUR rate of pay in 2014 X 1.5%

Etc... make sense? Keeping in mind - you always have to take deductions into the equation. I do quick mental math. I make roughly 75,000 a year. 1% of that is 750. so the .5 makes it about 1000 bucks. Take off a third for the deductions it's now about 650.00 for 2013. Add 100 bucks for 2014 and another 100 for 2015. I will MTL recieve about 2K in retro.


----------



## sidemount (3 Mar 2016)

Well i havent heard the rumors however the psac is at the barginning table next week. Historically what they get for an increase we get something similar.

http://psacunion.ca/tb-bargaining-march-7-10

I wouldnt mind a backpay from 13 but not getting my hopes up yet


----------



## dapaterson (3 Mar 2016)

The last pay increase took effect 01 Apr 2013.  Therefore, any increase would be from 01 Apr 14.   There was no "reversal" of the 2013 increase.  

If we assume that the CAF gets the same increases as the Public Service executives, (0.5% per year), then retro pay would be 0.5% for 14-15, and 1.0% for 15-16 (two years at 0.5% each year).  For a Cpl, no spec pay, at max incentive, that would be about $900 in back pay (before taxes and deductions), and an increase of about $50 per month (again, before taxes and deductions).


----------



## BinRat55 (3 Mar 2016)

It's amazing how a half percent make that much of a difference!

So, Dapaterson - forgive my memory (or lack of) but DID we get a raise in 2013?


----------



## dapaterson (3 Mar 2016)

BinRat55 said:
			
		

> It's amazing how a half percent make that much of a difference!
> 
> So, Dapaterson - forgive my memory (or lack of) but DID we get a raise in 2013?



Yes.  A raise on 01 Apr 2013.  So a pay increase would be for 01 Apr 2014; and another for 2015, and we'd be caught up... until 01 April 2016...


----------



## Ice97 (3 Mar 2016)

CombatMacgyver said:
			
		

> More like <$80/mnth.
> $300/mnth would be like 10k in back-pay.
> We wish....



Yeah...I'm not a clerk...but quick math was something like this:

You would be looking at 3 payraises (provided they actually do this).  1.5% in 2014, 2015 and 2016

I'm Cpl 4, Spec 1.  Pay is $5649

5649*1.5% = $84 = new rate of $5733
5733*1.5% = $86 = new rate of $5819
5819*1.5% = $87 = new rate of $5906

So 3 payraises equals $257 extra/mth...and close to $3100 in back pay.  But after taxes i'll probably owe money  

Anyways...Haven't seen anything official...was just curious if anyone had heard anything.  I'll believe it when the money is in my account  ;D


----------



## NavyShooter (4 Mar 2016)

At this point, with the deficit spending we're starting to see, I'll be delighted if we keep getting our annual incentive increases and don't get the pay freeze that we saw in the 90's, where the only pay-raise you got was for a rank-change.  (Note, this was where the 'advance promotion' for LS/Cpls started, it was the only way to us up to a reasonable living wage.  My pay was frozen at $1625/mo as a OS IPC1 for almost 3 years.  My next pay-raise was to LS Spec 1 IPC0 at just about 3600 a month.  

If I was a betting man, I'd bet that there will be no pay-raise this year, and next year there will be a pay-freeze for all Federal Gov't employees.  If there isn't, then I'll be happy and enjoy my annual IPC increase.  I'm not holding my breath, nor writing any cheques based on a possible pay raise.

NS


----------



## jollyjacktar (4 Mar 2016)

I'm already at max IPC.  I'd say you're probably correct, NS, as I have that kind of luck.  A sure sign of a coming big freeze will be if the MPs give themselves a big fat raise, just before they slam the door in everyone's face like Chretien did.


----------



## George Wallace (4 Mar 2016)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> I'm already at max IPC.  I'd say you're probably correct, NS, as I have that kind of luck.  A sure sign of a coming big freeze will be if the MPs give themselves a big fat raise, just before they slam the door in everyone's face like Chretien did.



Or rumours, becoming reality, of raising the Minimum Wage to $15/hr.    >


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (4 Mar 2016)

Yep! No "insider trading" there at all.  [


----------



## technophile (4 Mar 2016)

NavyShooter said:
			
		

> don't get the pay freeze that we saw in the 90's, where the only pay-raise you got was for a rank-change.



A pay-raise for a promotion ?  Whats that ? As a long suffering former LCIS tech, we have been " frozen" since Oct 2011.  Some lucky Sgts in our trade are still being paid as a Cpl incentive 4 ( w/spec pay ) Promoted twice, no pay raise. 

but, I Digress.


----------



## George Wallace (4 Mar 2016)

technophile said:
			
		

> A pay-raise for a promotion ?  Whats that ? As a long suffering former LCIS tech, we have been " frozen" since Oct 2011.  Some lucky Sgts in our trade are still being paid as a Cpl incentive 4 ( w/spec pay ) Promoted twice, no pay raise.
> 
> but, I Digress.



 ???

Either someone is lying to you, someone does not know how to read their Pay docs, OR some RMS clerks have not properly entered Promotions into the system.  There is NO WAY that a Sgt is still being paid as a Cpl, unless they are not actually a Sgt.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (4 Mar 2016)

ACISS types got screwed hard...sadly it is happening to some.  Spoke to one of them just this week actually.


----------



## dapaterson (4 Mar 2016)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> ???
> 
> Either someone is lying to you, someone does not know how to read their Pay docs, OR some RMS clerks have not properly entered Promotions into the system.  There is NO WAY that a Sgt is still being paid as a Cpl, unless they are not actually a Sgt.



Sorry, George, but it's entirely possible.

LCIS techs were in receipt of Spec pay.  The MESIP that restructured the sigs trades removed spec pay.  Since those formerly in that trade receive pay protection, they retain their old rate of pay until promoted to a rank where the pay is greater than their vested rights.


EDIT: Cpl IPC 4 Spec 1 is $5649/month; Sgt No Spec Basic IPC is $5416.  Such a Cpl would only get a pay increase on being promoted to Warrant Officer. (http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/caf-community-pay/reg-force-ncm-class-c-rates.page)


----------



## George Wallace (4 Mar 2016)

Thanks DP

That was the only case I could think of, but was unsure where the SPEC Pay Cut off was for that Trade as the generic Pay Scale you linked carried on right up to the CWO ranks.


----------



## Good2Golf (4 Mar 2016)

Fortunately, people are our #1 resource, so the institution puts forth maximum effort to ensure their well-being.  Luckily, there is enough spare effort after we look after our own that we can pursue things like tweaking systems to 'harmonize' with the other Departments.


:not-again:


----------



## technophile (4 Mar 2016)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> The MESIP that restructured the sigs trades removed spec pay.



The entire MOS was *"temporarily "* assigned the standard pay group in *Oct 2011*, until a pay review could be completed.   We are still waiting for that pay review to happen.  ( insert music from " Benny Hill" )


----------



## blackberet17 (4 Mar 2016)

technophile said:
			
		

> The entire MOS was *"temporarily "* assigned the standard pay group in *Oct 2011*, until a pay review could be completed.   We are still waiting for that pay review to happen.  ( insert music from " Benny Hill" )



Thanks for that, now it's stuck in my head...

Luckily, I don't believe in suffering alone: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JcNhDstL4-k


----------



## AirDet (22 Apr 2016)

Good morning Gents,

There was a rumour on the CF Spouses Site last night WRT a CF Pay Raise (2016). Quite often they have been misinformed but sometimes they get it right. Has anyone heard any radio chatter on this?


----------



## George Wallace (22 Apr 2016)

AirDet said:
			
		

> Good morning Gents,
> 
> There was a rumour on the CF Spouses Site .......



*DANGER Will Robinson!*


----------



## RADOPSIGOPACCISOP (22 Apr 2016)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> *DANGER Will Robinson!*



PSAC is still negotiating their contract, as they are the largest of the public service unions our rates won't change until after theirs is finalized. They're asking for 3% a year for the 3 years of the contract (which would include 2 years retroactive since 2014). There's many other issues they're negotiating on (sick leave being the main one) which is why it's been a slow process.

Best case scenario they make some sort of concession on sick leave and get a bigger pay raise!


----------



## armyvern (22 Apr 2016)

AirDet said:
			
		

> Has anyone heard any radio chatter on this?



Heard something at the CDS & CFCWO Town Hall last week ...

No actual figures given, just that the paperwork was readied for submission pending the outcome of current collective bargaining process'.


----------



## dapaterson (22 Apr 2016)

That sort of TB submission is relatively easy - copy the last one, change the dates, and once the percentages are identified, run the numbers and update the tables.


----------



## armyvern (22 Apr 2016)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> That sort of TB submission is relatively easy - copy the last one, change the dates, and once the percentages are identified, run the numbers and update the tables.



Oui.


----------



## TCM621 (30 Apr 2016)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> I am not sure about this policy anymore actually.  I think it was initiated by CF H Svcs Gp back about mid-2000s.  I first recall it when I was at a HQ and it came out (as far as I can remember...).  The intent was to keep people with the Flu or common cold, etc out of the CDUs during the initial 48 hours (most able to infect others during that time) for something they would just as likely be given a few days at home to recover.
> 
> At the unit I was at, Snr NCOs and up were able to authorize 2 x days 'sick at home' without a medical sick chit, on the 3rd day the mbr was required to report to the MIR.  It was published in our ROs as such so the policy was clear.
> 
> ...


My biggest pet peeve in the military is "made up" regulations. All the regulations are available on the din so there is literally no reason not to fact check. My two personal favorites are weekend leave passes and Toques and gloves. 

The leave manual states that a weekend leave pass is not required for travel anywhere in Canada yet I have see people threaten to charge folks if they travel out of area without a leave pass. 

Nowhere in the dress manual does it state gloves must be worn with a toque. Gloves are required for parkas and gabardines only. Toques can be worn when ever needed. Some places go even farther and say no to Toques unless you are wearing an ice jacket or parka. And while a wing/base can make its own policy only one base I have ever been at has done anything but copy and paste the dress regs.


----------



## PuckChaser (30 Apr 2016)

Those are terrible examples. The order to must wear gloves with toque is a local amplification of the dress regs, and a lawful order. Don't like it? Make it to brigade RSM and change the rule. Same thing. Ordering you to fill out a leave pass may not be required by the leave policy, but it's your CO's unit, and if s/he want to track people leaving the area on a weekend with a leave pass, that's a lawful order as well. It grinds your gears that you have to take 5 minutes to sign/submit a leave pass? You must be torqued 24/7 with all the other paperwork we have to do in the CAF...


----------



## Eye In The Sky (30 Apr 2016)

The leave pass issue;  there are already regulations, laid out.  No leave pass required.  If I am a WO, I can't just decide that hey, fuck it I am going to make my MCpls and below fill em out and charge them if they don't.  If the CMP says "you don't need a weekend leave pass", can a lowly CO order contrary?

From the Manual:

Application

Unless otherwise indicated, this manual applies to all members of the Canadian Forces (CF).

Approval Authority

The Canadian Forces Leave Policy Manual is issued under the authority of the Chief Military Personnel (CMP).

Reference

Source reference - DAOD 5060-0, Leave

From the DAOD

3. Authorities

Authority Table

3.1 The following table identifies the authorities associated with this DAOD:


3. Authorities

Authority Table

3.1 The following table identifies the authorities associated with this DAOD:


The …                       has the authority to …

CMP                         develop and approve leave policy. 


I don't see there where it says a unit can develop and approve their 'own' leave policy, sorry.

And...that's the last I'll add to this  X page long derail.   >


----------



## PuckChaser (30 Apr 2016)

Is that someone's hill to die on? Don't do it, get charged, elect courts martial and roll the dice. :shrug: I'll spend the 5 minutes fire and forgetting one.


----------



## TCM621 (1 May 2016)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Those are terrible examples. The order to must wear gloves with toque is a local amplification of the dress regs, and a lawful order. Don't like it? Make it to brigade RSM and change the rule. Same thing. Ordering you to fill out a leave pass may not be required by the leave policy, but it's your CO's unit, and if s/he want to track people leaving the area on a weekend with a leave pass, that's a lawful order as well. It grinds your gears that you have to take 5 minutes to sign/submit a leave pass? You must be torqued 24/7 with all the other paperwork we have to do in the CAF...


That's not the point. The point is two fold. First don't say it is the rules when it isn't. Because if you try to charge me with AWOL when I am on weekend leave,  I'll win. Know the rules you are supposed to enforce. Second,  if you want to implement a local amplification,  by all means do so. But put in the effort to put it in writing. When your local dress instructions are cut and pasted out of the dress regs you should a) read and understand them and/or b) actually change them to reflect what you want. If the chief says put gloves on with that toque I put gloves on. When I leave the next day, I dress IAW with the dress regs. If a particularly anal chief decides to make an example out of me,  I will show up at the trail with copies of the regs,  both national and local,  and I'll win. Some of us actually read regulations and orders.


Sorry for the thread drift. If anyone wants to continue this discussion they can pm me or we can start a new thread.


----------



## PuckChaser (1 May 2016)

> CONTROL DIRECTION
> 8. Control is exercised by local commanders
> who may standardize the dress of subordinates on
> any occasion, including the wear of accoutrements
> ...





> e. Tuque. An environmental tuque may be
> worn as an alternative winter headdress
> with service dress (No. 3 orders), with
> topcoats and parkas during winter dress
> periods.





> FIELD COMBAT CLOTHING
> 7. There are no separate dress orders since
> combat clothing is designed to be adjusted for
> individual comfort and tasks. However, commanders
> ...



These are all excerpts from CFP265.

You'd also get off an AWOL charge for the leave pass thing as you were not absent without leave, as the leave policy says you don't need it. A smarter RSM would likely recommend Disobedience of a lawful command, if he didn't just give you extras knowing you were deliberately challenging the rules. Its all how the charge is written.


----------



## jollyjacktar (1 May 2016)

Enough about the bloody dress regs already, take it to PM as offered and suggested.  Use the chat and fight there if you like...


----------



## PiperDown (12 May 2016)

question.

Is a leave pass required to get a pay raise and/or back pay ? Also, can a CAF member get a pay raise when a civilian who works for them is on sick leave ?

not sure of any other way to get this topic back on track


----------



## brunet071 (12 May 2016)

Haaa the 90s. Went from PVT to MCPL then left for officer inf phase training the week after. [ [



			
				NavyShooter said:
			
		

> At this point, with the deficit spending we're starting to see, I'll be delighted if we keep getting our annual incentive increases and don't get the pay freeze that we saw in the 90's, where the only pay-raise you got was for a rank-change.  (Note, this was where the 'advance promotion' for LS/Cpls started, it was the only way to us up to a reasonable living wage.  My pay was frozen at $1625/mo as a OS IPC1 for almost 3 years.  My next pay-raise was to LS Spec 1 IPC0 at just about 3600 a month.
> 
> If I was a betting man, I'd bet that there will be no pay-raise this year, and next year there will be a pay-freeze for all Federal Gov't employees.  If there isn't, then I'll be happy and enjoy my annual IPC increase.  I'm not holding my breath, nor writing any cheques based on a possible pay raise.
> 
> NS


----------



## NavyHopeful (11 Jul 2016)

RADOPSIGOPACISSOP said:
			
		

> PSAC is still negotiating their contract, as they are the largest of the public service unions our rates won't change until after theirs is finalized. They're asking for 3% a year for the 3 years of the contract (which would include 2 years retroactive since 2014). There's many other issues they're negotiating on (sick leave being the main one) which is why it's been a slow process.
> 
> Best case scenario they make some sort of concession on sick leave and get a bigger pay raise!



Has there been any action on this recently?  I know that these things take time, and bureaucracy works at a super-fast pace ( : ), but if anyone has heard anything lately, would you mind sharing with the class?

Thanks.

Rev


----------



## Occam (11 Jul 2016)

No progress on negotiations.


----------



## runormal (11 Jul 2016)

I wouldn't expect who actually knows anything to say anything. It is being pretty tight lipped where I work.

Likewise I wouldnt expect anything to happen until after Canada Post settles their strike. Especially because the biggest issue is the pension..


----------



## PuckChaser (11 Jul 2016)

In other good news, your SISIP LTD premium just went up 20%a month. Only works out to a couple dollar increase, but the nickel and diming continues.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (11 Jul 2016)

Gotta pay for refugees and campaign promises somehow!   ;D


----------



## blackberet17 (11 Jul 2016)

Anyone have SA on why Canada Post would be a benchmark (see runnormal's comment) for such negotiations?

My understanding was CAF pay was tied to or relative to, to some extent, the contracts negotiated with the Federal Public Service, while Canada Post is a Crown corporation.


----------



## TCM621 (11 Jul 2016)

blackberet17 said:
			
		

> Anyone have SA on why Canada Post would be a benchmark (see runnormal's comment) for such negotiations?
> 
> My understanding was CAF pay was tied to or relative to, to some extent, the contracts negotiated with the Federal Public Service, while Canada Post is a Crown corporation.


I don't have any inside info but my guess is that they are waiting to see what Canada post gets.


----------



## Remius (11 Jul 2016)

Tcm621 said:
			
		

> I don't have any inside info but my guess is that they are waiting to see what Canada post gets.



I doubt it.  Negotiations are between the Corporation and the employees.  ASFAIK Canada Post is not subject to the PSA nor does it fall under treasury board mandate.  Canada Post has a different compensation and benefits package (including a revised sick leave policy that was put in place a few years ago).

CRA employees were close to a deal (watch them instead) but they turned it down and are back at it.

PSAC spent a week in negotiations at the end of June with little result and should be back at it sometime in Sept.


----------



## George Wallace (11 Jul 2016)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Gotta pay for refugees and campaign promises somehow!   ;D



Poking a hornets nest; eh?


----------



## Eye In The Sky (11 Jul 2016)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Poking a hornets nest; eh?



Well, it is a tonque in cheek at the reality;  the Liberals promised all kinds of things and have to pay for them somehow.  The CAF is a non-unionized workforce.  We don't get to strike, etc.  

I still remember, and I'm sure you do, the 'pay freeze' days that weren't, in reality, all that long ago...


----------



## George Wallace (11 Jul 2016)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Well, it is a tonque in cheek at the reality;  the Liberals promised all kinds of things and have to pay for them somehow.  The CAF is a non-unionized workforce.  We don't get to strike, etc.
> 
> I still remember, and I'm sure you do, the 'pay freeze' days that weren't, in reality, all that long ago...



Indeed I do; and there was NO BACK PAY for those "Years of Darkness".  Once the Government did "restart" our pay, it was a good thing that we were tied into the PS for the percentage of raise that we would get.  It was not back pay, but renegotiated pay as per the PS unions agreements.  Also remember, what one PS union gets, does not mean anything until all PS unions have agreement.  This is why it often takes some time before you will see figures released.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (11 Jul 2016)

Honestly, I'm not holding my breath for this FY.  If we do get a pay raise...bonus!


----------



## PuckChaser (11 Jul 2016)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Honestly, I'm not holding my breath for this FY.  If we do get a pay raise...bonus!



The raise will cover the cost of living increases for the last few years, and likely not quite cover off all the increases in CFSA/LTD or the pending CPP cash grab. We'll come out behind, we always do. Especially when PSAC bargains away some of our benefits.


----------



## jollyjacktar (11 Jul 2016)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> The raise will cover the cost of living increases for the last few years, and likely not quite cover off all the increases in CFSA/LTD or the pending CPP cash grab. We'll come out behind, we always do. Especially when PSAC bargains away some of our benefits.



Just like our severance...


----------



## Occam (11 Jul 2016)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Especially when PSAC bargains away some of our benefits.



Which benefits would those be?


----------



## dapaterson (11 Jul 2016)

Most notable was severance, worth (about) 2%, that was traded in for two 0.5% increases.

The sick leave negotiations could be most interesting; depending how that evolves, it's possible the public service could get a larger increase than the military, since military sick leave is significantly different from the public service equivalent.


----------



## Occam (11 Jul 2016)

We've been through this before though.  When the government comes to the table and says "We're not leaving without your severance", what do you do?  You get as much for it as possible.  It's better than them legislating it away, and freezing everyone's severance as of a certain date like they did, and getting nothing else for it.  

How would a strike over severance have been received by John Q. Public, who probably doesn't get severance?  

It's a complete non-issue.  The only ones still complaining about it are those who don't understand it.  Loath as I am to defend an action of the Harper (tm) gov't, it was indefensible on the unions' part.


----------



## jollyjacktar (11 Jul 2016)

As a former member, you'll understand how "we" feel.  Those of us still in.  We don't get a say in the matter, we get what they let us have.  For that reason alone, I don't like it.  We're at the mercy of those who are at play in the fields for their own pay package.


----------



## George Wallace (11 Jul 2016)

Occam said:
			
		

> We've been through this before though.  When the government comes to the table and says "We're not leaving without your severance", what do you do?  You get as much for it as possible.  It's better than them legislating it away, and freezing everyone's severance as of a certain date like they did, and getting nothing else for it.
> 
> How would a strike over severance have been received by John Q. Public, who probably doesn't get severance?
> 
> It's a complete non-issue.  The only ones still complaining about it are those who don't understand it.  Loath as I am to defend an action of the Harper (tm) gov't, it was indefensible on the unions' part.



I listen to Talk Radio, and every Saturday there is a Lawyer on who specializes in "Severance" and what an employee is entitled to, and how often the employee is not fully knowledgeable of how much Severance they are entitled to, often leading to the case where their former employer has short changed them.  That got me to wondering if what the Federal Government did to the military, RCMP, and PS was in fact legal.  

http://www.esdc.gc.ca/assets/portfolio/docs/en/reports/labour_standards/termination/termination.pdf

Not being a "Legal Eagle/Beagle", I am way outside of my expertise here.


----------



## Occam (11 Jul 2016)

Me either, but I would be willing to bet good money than of those civvies who do get severance, an extremely small percentage get it for voluntarily leaving their job; AKA end of a FPOS or a voluntary release on an IPS.


----------



## marinemech (11 Jul 2016)

we will likely get the new negotiated pay just in time for the next round of negotiation, as the p[ace things are going now


----------



## PuckChaser (11 Jul 2016)

marinemech said:
			
		

> we will likely get the new negotiated pay just in time for the next round of negotiation, as the p[ace things are going now



Wait for the strike, first. Once PSAC realizes they can't milk the Liberals after pledging their support in the election, the lines at the gates from "the defense team" holding everyone up getting to work will be bigger than a BSAF exercise.


----------



## Occam (11 Jul 2016)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> As a former member, you'll understand how "we" feel.  Those of us still in.  We don't get a say in the matter, we get what they let us have.  For that reason alone, I don't like it.  We're at the mercy of those who are at play in the fields for their own pay package.



I do understand, and it wasn't that long ago I felt the same pangs.  Until a massive overhaul of the compensation & benefits package happens, and everything is delinked from the PS system, it is what it is.  The CF reaps the same gains and suffers the same losses.



			
				PuckChaser said:
			
		

> the lines at the gates from "the defense team" holding everyone up getting to work will be bigger than a BSAF exercise.



I promise nobody will dock your pay for being late.


----------



## Remius (11 Jul 2016)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> I listen to Talk Radio, and every Saturday there is a Lawyer on who specializes in "Severance" and what an employee is entitled to, and how often the employee is not fully knowledgeable of how much Severance they are entitled to, often leading to the case where their former employer has short changed them.  That got me to wondering if what the Federal Government did to the military, RCMP, and PS was in fact legal.
> 
> http://www.esdc.gc.ca/assets/portfolio/docs/en/reports/labour_standards/termination/termination.pdf
> 
> Not being a "Legal Eagle/Beagle", I am way outside of my expertise here.



I believe that Mr. SAmfiuru specialises in Ontario labour law.  The PS falls under a a different and federal law.


----------



## George Wallace (11 Jul 2016)

Remius said:
			
		

> I believe that Mr. SAmfiuru specialises in Ontario labour law.  The PS falls under a a different and federal law.



Still makes you wonder though.  Is there more to this than we know?


----------



## Remius (11 Jul 2016)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Still makes you wonder though.  Is there more to this than we know?



If we were entitled to more severance you can bet that the unions would have squeezed everything we we were entitled to.


----------



## S McPhee (22 Aug 2016)

Has anyone heard any updates re: the cost of living adjustment?  I've heard rumors that the numbers have been settled and we'll see it in September, but there hasn't been any official CANFORGENs out yet....


----------



## dapaterson (22 Aug 2016)

No.  Numbers are not settled.  Once something is ready to be announced, it will be.

You may want to read back on this thread; lots of discussion as to why it will be a while before anything comes out.


----------



## S McPhee (22 Aug 2016)

I have been following this thread for a while and am well aware of the reasons for the wait.  I've heard that PSAC also has their numbers settled, which is why I inquired if anyone was in the know.


----------



## George Wallace (22 Aug 2016)

WOW!  Three posts in twenty minutes and all are about "YOUR money".   [


----------



## dapaterson (22 Aug 2016)

Latest on PSAC bargaining is at: http://psacunion.ca/bargaining

The settlement with the CRA earlier this month goes back to 2012, and includes the Severance Pay provisions.  So it's not a bellwether for the next round of CAF increases.


----------



## S McPhee (22 Aug 2016)

@dapaterson - roger that.  I hadn't seen those details or realize it wouldn't have an effect on CAF increase.  Thanks for the heads up.  

@George Wallace - haha, yes, I was waiting for someone to call me out on that.  I value the input and open discussion on here, so I just seen it as another venue for information.  Pay isn't the only concern on my mind, I swear!


----------



## George Wallace (22 Aug 2016)

fear

The one thing you can rest assured of; once the pay settlements are announced, they will be posted here just a fraction slower than the "wives network" can spread the word.   [


----------



## S McPhee (22 Aug 2016)

Haha, fair enough!


----------



## marinemech (24 Aug 2016)

Good news folks, PSAC has closed the CRA file 1.5-2% increase and it expires on October 31


----------



## Occam (24 Aug 2016)

marinemech said:
			
		

> Good news folks, PSAC has closed the CRA file 1.5-2% increase and it expires on October 31



Read reply #156.


----------



## armyman7877 (24 Aug 2016)

So is that a yes or No? It get's a bit confusing to read because I'm french.


----------



## CountDC (24 Aug 2016)

its a no.  We need TB not CRA to settle.


----------



## jollyjacktar (24 Aug 2016)

armyman7877 said:
			
		

> So is that a yes or No? It get's a bit confusing to read because I'm french.



Don't feel bad, I'm English and it's difficult to follow.  I don't speak pay clerk or admin clerk for that matter.   :nod:


----------



## Good2Golf (24 Aug 2016)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> Don't feel bad, I'm English and it's difficult to follow.  I don't speak pay clerk or admin clerk for that matter.   :nod:



It's not them.  Like CountDC, said, we just need Scott Brison, John McCallum, Bill Morneau, Jane Philpott, Jean-Yves Duclos and Catherine McKenna say "yes" to whatever it is that DND asks for...easy peasy! :not-again:

Regards
G2G


----------



## Lightguns (24 Aug 2016)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> It's not them.  Like CountDC, said, we just need Scott Brison, John McCallum, Bill Morneau, Jane Philpott, Jean-Yves Duclos and Catherine McKenna say "yes" to whatever it is that DND asks for...easy peasy! :not-again:
> 
> Regards
> G2G



Shows how little you know [ We just need Gerry Butts permission for Scott Brison, John McCallum, Bill Morneau, Jane Philpott, Jean-Yves Duclos and Catherine McKenna say "yes" to whatever it is that DND asks for [:'(


----------



## Good2Golf (24 Aug 2016)

Lightguns said:
			
		

> Shows how little you know [ We just need Gerry Butts permission for Scott Brison, John McCallum, Bill Morneau, Jane Philpott, Jean-Yves Duclos and Catherine McKenna say "yes" to whatever it is that DND asks for [:'(



...then you've got to add Katie Telford...  :nod:


----------



## blackberet17 (24 Aug 2016)

armyman7877 said:
			
		

> So is that a yes or No? It get's a bit confusing to read because I'm french.



L'Agence du Revenue a conclut une attente avec le Trésorier, sur leur entente collective, avec les augmentations économiques suivantes :

1er novembre 2012 – 1,5%
1er novembre 2013 – 1.5%
1er novembre 2014 – 0.75%
1er novembre 2015 – 0.75%

À noter que ces chiffres remontent à une convention collective qui est venue à échéance en 2012 - cela fait quatre ans que l'Agence négocie (ou ne négocie pas, ça dépend du point de vue). Cette convention collective vient à expiration le 31 octobre 2016, donc ce sera un retour à la table des négociations pour l'Agence dans l'année qui vient.

Rough English summary of the above. The collective bargaining agreement (CBA) agreed upon by the Union of Taxation Employees (UTE) and TBS contains the basic economic increases noted above (1.5, 1.5, 0.75, 0.75), which covers the four years (2012-16) during which UTE has been in negotiations with TBS. The CBA expires 31 OCT 16, so it's back to the drawing table for UTE in the near future.

The big group which may have the greatest effect on CAF pay rates is the PA/SV/TC, the three largest bargaining groups represented by PSAC, which have been without a CBA since 2014. Those three gps total more than 100,000 employees, while UTE has roughly 25,000 employees.

A neat note, UTE has reserved the right to renegotiate the economic increases for 2014 and 2015. I gather they're keeping an eye on what economic increases the other bargaining groups may get.

The "file" is not closed. The agreement is tentative, pending ratification by the UTE membership.

(I had the above info provided by my union rep, through links to the info accessible on the PSAC Web site.)


----------



## jollyjacktar (24 Aug 2016)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> It's not them.  Like CountDC, said, we just need Scott Brison, John McCallum, Bill Morneau, Jane Philpott, Jean-Yves Duclos and Catherine McKenna say "yes" to whatever it is that DND asks for...easy peasy! :not-again:
> 
> Regards
> G2G



No, I get it that it's not their decision. I mean I don't speak the language they're explaining shit in...


----------



## tdccanadian (5 Sep 2016)

Hi, I've read through most of this post and Im still a little confused. So the CAF usually gets a raise every year? Ive been in since June of last year, so would I get any back pay if there is a raise? Thanks to anyone who could help.


----------



## jollyjacktar (5 Sep 2016)

When they adjust our pay with a raise here and there, they are usually retroactive to such and such a date as these things take time to appear.  If you are due any back pay as a result of these raises, it will be added to your regular pay when it's processed.  Don't worry, you won't lose out of anything.


----------



## SupersonicMax (5 Sep 2016)

With these numbers, we don't even break even (4.57% vs 6.08%) when compared to inflation....  I hope there's more on the benefit side of things...


----------



## PuckChaser (5 Sep 2016)

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> With these numbers, we don't even break even (4.57% vs 6.08%) when compared to inflation....  I hope there's more on the benefit side of things...



Unfortunately, hope is never a valid COA.


----------



## dapaterson (5 Sep 2016)

Throughout the tenure of the past government, wage settlements were generally less than inflation, and contributions for pension plans increased significantly.  

So, for example, in 2006, members contributed 4.6% on earnings to YMPE while today it's at 9.05%; earnings above YMPE have gone from 8.1% to 11.04%.


----------



## tdccanadian (5 Sep 2016)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> When they adjust our pay with a raise here and there, they are usually retroactive to such and such a date as these things take time to appear.  If you are due any back pay as a result of these raises, it will be added to your regular pay when it's processed.  Don't worry, you won't lose out of anything.



Thanks for your help


----------



## jollyjacktar (6 Sep 2016)

Anytime.


----------



## CountDC (7 Sep 2016)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Throughout the tenure of the past government, wage settlements were generally less than inflation, and contributions for pension plans increased significantly.
> 
> So, for example, in 2006, members contributed 4.6% on earnings to YMPE while today it's at 9.05%; earnings above YMPE have gone from 8.1% to 11.04%.



but in all fairness this was a COA started by the government prior to that (MARTIN!)  Scared some of ya's didn't it.  One year - we can take this money out of the pension fund as there is lots there to keep it going, next year - we have to increase contributions as there isn't enough in the fund.


----------



## Pusser (7 Sep 2016)

CountDC said:
			
		

> but in all fairness this was a COA started by the government prior to that (MARTIN!)  Scared some of ya's didn't it.  One year - we can take this money out of the pension fund as there is lots there to keep it going, next year - we have to increase contributions as there isn't enough in the fund.



The increase in contributions has nothing to do with any perceived shortage in the pension fund.  The CFSA is a defined benefit plan, meaning that if there are any shortages, the government (taxpayer) makes up the shortfalls.  The government can't change that without legislation and is highly unlikely to change it as the ramifications would be horrific (i.e. the PSSA and RCMPSA have the same provisions and government would not survive a full scale revolt by the Public Service).  The planned increase in individual contributions is a result of a plan that began under the Chretien government to move the contribution rates closer to 50:50 between the government and the members.  It's been phased in over the years, which is nicer than having it done all at once.

The removal of surpluses from the three pension plans is an entirely different matter and unrelated - although the admittedly, the optics look a little off.


----------



## dapaterson (7 Sep 2016)

Except 50-50 does not apply to the Retirement Compensation Account...


----------



## McG (22 Oct 2016)

From iAsk:


> This question comes from Chief Warrant Officer Barry Legault at 1 Canadian Air Division. He asks: Is it possible to untie the cost of living increase for military members from the collective bargaining agreement for civilians?
> 
> Thanks for your question, Chief Warrant Officer Legault. Your response comes from Lieutenant-General Christine Whitecross, Chief Military Personnel:
> 
> ...


----------



## tdccanadian (24 Oct 2016)

Any news lately?


----------



## brihard (24 Oct 2016)

MCG said:
			
		

> From iAsk:
> 
> This question comes from Chief Warrant Officer Barry Legault at 1 Canadian Air Division. He asks: Is it possible to untie the cost of living increase for military members from the collective bargaining agreement for civilians?
> 
> ...



I think that's something we want to be careful of making noise against. Our public service is well compensated and has very good benefits. In the time our compensation has been linked to theirs, we have been one of the best compensated militaries in the world. By having a link to public ervice compensation, we benefit from their collective bargaining process- something we have no access to. Absent a construct that links our compensation with the public service, we could very easily be hung out to dry and ignored. Our system of pay and benefits obviously isn't perfect, but it's pretty good. I don't think it's broke. Do we want to open that pandora's box?


----------



## blacktriangle (24 Oct 2016)

Brihard said:
			
		

> I think that's something we want to be careful of making noise against. Our public service is well compensated and has very good benefits. In the time our compensation has been linked to theirs, we have been one of the best compensated militaries in the world. By having a link to public ervice compensation, we benefit from their collective bargaining process- something we have no access to. Absent a construct that links our compensation with the public service, we could very easily be hung out to dry and ignored. Our system of pay and benefits obviously isn't perfect, but it's pretty good. I don't think it's broke. Do we want to open that pandora's box?



Exactly. This. 

(Thank you for writing this so I didn't have to - and wording it much nicer than I probably could have)


----------



## ModlrMike (24 Oct 2016)

We just spent $30bn and counting of money we don't have. What makes anyone think there's a pay raise coming?  >


----------



## MilEME09 (24 Oct 2016)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> We just spent $30bn and counting of money we don't have. What makes anyone think there's a pay raise coming?  >



because politicians will give them selves a pat on the back raise, so the public sector union in their next contract talks will demand one too, and aren't we tied to their raises?


----------



## NavyShooter (24 Oct 2016)

I'm not holding my breath...heck, they haven't even found my back-pay for my missing SDA/Refit audit yet.

I'm steeling myself for a pay freeze in fact.  Welcome back to Liberal Governments...


----------



## CountDC (24 Oct 2016)

10 years...........but I only have 5 at most this time.  [


----------



## Eye In The Sky (31 Oct 2016)

NavyShooter said:
			
		

> I'm steeling myself for a pay freeze in fact.  Welcome back to Liberal Governments...



I am sure lots of people serving will respond with a lack of GAFF towards their job, in return.


----------



## Aurora (1 Nov 2016)

I see in the following site http://psacunion.ca/new-collective-agreement-cra-signed, that PSAC has signed an agreement with CRA, and also http://psacunion.ca/we-have-agreement-cra-0, shows what they bargained for.

Does this mean the CAF will finally move forward on a pay raise and back pay?


----------



## dapaterson (1 Nov 2016)

Aurora said:
			
		

> I see in the following site http://psacunion.ca/new-collective-agreement-cra-signed, that PSAC has signed an agreement with CRA, and also http://psacunion.ca/we-have-agreement-cra-0, shows what they bargained for.
> 
> Does this mean the CAF will finally move forward on a pay raise and back pay?



No. CRA was long overdue - this is the settlement that removed severance pay for voluntary termination, as was done for most PSAC unions several years ago.


----------



## Aurora (1 Nov 2016)

The second website mentions wage increases, and that they had to be made prior to the Severance buy-outs.

Or am I reading it wrong?


----------



## CountDC (2 Nov 2016)

doesn't matter.  As mentioned prior CRA has nothing to do with us.


----------



## Occam (2 Nov 2016)

CRA was even longer without a contract than everyone else in the PS.  The most recent contract takes them back to 2012 for wage increases and covers increases up to Nov 1 2015 - whereas most of the PS have contracts that expired in August 2014.  Because of this, they negotiated a "re-opener" clause that will allow them to re-open the negotiations for raises for 2014 and 2015, presumably based on what the rest of the PS gets when we all settle.

CRA is but a drop in the bucket of the overall PS.  Their raises will eventually factor in when there are a sufficient number of unions who have settled to establish a benchmark raise that would be used to calculate the CF raise.


----------



## CountDC (3 Nov 2016)

it appears that CRA is such a small drop in the bucket that it doesn't actually have an impact on us as even though they didn't have a contract in place we received pay adjustments based on what the rest of the PS had.

Little bit of interesting reading on our pay calculations here  http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/caf-community-pay/pay-overview.page

Noted that it doesn't explain the difference between reg f and reserve and I find it interesting that the difference between my PS counterpart is 13.5% while my P Res counterpart is 15%. Hopefully I am missing something there.


----------



## kratz (3 Nov 2016)

When the PRes rates increased to 85% of Reg F (from 75%) back in 1998, I was informed the 15% difference was because the PRes did not pay into the pension or the SDB. In 2007, when PRes started paying into the pension, some people started asking if we would see that 13% pay increase? Nothing has come from it yet. So essentially, PRes members have seen a 13% reduction in pay for the past 9 years.


----------



## dapaterson (3 Nov 2016)

CountDC said:
			
		

> it appears that CRA is such a small drop in the bucket that it doesn't actually have an impact on us as even though they didn't have a contract in place we received pay adjustments based on what the rest of the PS had.
> 
> Little bit of interesting reading on our pay calculations here  http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/caf-community-pay/pay-overview.page
> 
> Noted that it doesn't explain the difference between reg f and reserve and I find it interesting that the difference between my PS counterpart is 13.5% while my P Res counterpart is 15%. Hopefully I am missing something there.



Define "PS counterpart"; there's a wide array of PS classifications out there...


----------



## CountDC (3 Nov 2016)

looking at the link you don't need to have a specific counterpart for the percentage - it gives the percentages applicable to all in regards to the military factor - 7.5% and 6% for a total of 13.5%.


----------



## dapaterson (3 Nov 2016)

kratz said:
			
		

> When the PRes rates increased to 85% of Reg F (from 75%) back in 1998, I was informed the 15% difference was because the PRes did not pay into the pension or the SDB. In 2007, when PRes started paying into the pension, some people started asking if we would see that 13% pay increase? Nothing has come from it yet. So essentially, PRes members have seen a 13% reduction in pay for the past 9 years.



Do not confuse anecdote with fact.  There are many myths circulating about P Res compensation and benefits. P Res pay scales were largely benchmarked at the journeyman level for a subset of Reg F occupations, with adjustments made for posting turbulence and other factors.

I've never quite understood the philosophy "I want all the benefits of full-time military service, but none of the disadvantages" that seems to permeate so many full-time Reservists.


----------



## Remius (3 Nov 2016)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Do not confuse anecdote with fact.  There are many myths circulating about P Res compensation and benefits. P Res pay scales were largely benchmarked at the journeyman level for a subset of Reg F occupations, with adjustments made for posting turbulence and other factors.
> 
> I've never quite understood the philosophy "I want all the benefits of full-time military service, but none of the disadvantages" that seems to permeate so many full-time Reservists.



Except that none of that is written anywhere, those benchmarks you are mentioning are just as anecdotal.  Unless you have a reference for that (please say you do because I've always wanted that reference).

I've also never understood the philosophy that equal work does not equate to equal pay that permeates so many regular force members.


----------



## dapaterson (3 Nov 2016)

Remius said:
			
		

> Except that none of that is written anywhere, those benchmarks you are mentioning are just as anecdotal.  Unless you have a reference for that (please say you do because I've always wanted that reference).
> 
> I've also never understood the philosophy that equal work does not equate to equal pay that permeates so many regular force members.



Military personnel are not paid for their work (exclusively).  They are paid for what they may be called upon to do as well.  And since what the law dictates we can call on Reg and Res to do are two different sets, it is reasonable for there to be differing compensation.

As for the setting of compensation rates: the majority of the information I once could access has been lost to the vagaries of the DWAN...  and I know you will be shocked to learn that the current websites provide little specific information on the Reserve Force.


----------



## Remius (3 Nov 2016)

Again, anecdotal.  As Class B pers can be called on to do any variety of tasks that they might have to do.  Full time cadre being sent away to teach at Battle School for example for 4 months at a time.  If you compare pay to the PS the percentage difference is three times smaller than for reservists working full time.

Interesting note, that Class A on a day for day basis gets about the same amount as his regular force counterpart due to PILL (almost 15% but not quite) but the Class B type does not.   Different kettle I know but interesting none the less.


----------



## PPCLI Guy (3 Nov 2016)

Remius said:
			
		

> Except that none of that is written anywhere, those benchmarks you are mentioning are just as anecdotal.  Unless you have a reference for that (please say you do because I've always wanted that reference).
> 
> I've also never understood the philosophy that equal work does not equate to equal pay that permeates so many regular force members.



Here is a non-anecdote.  I have moved 15 times in 23 years with this wife, three of them OUTCAN, and am currently on my fifth tour.  I may have not earned that "extra 15%", but my wife and son sure have.


----------



## Lumber (3 Nov 2016)

Remius said:
			
		

> Again, anecdotal.  As Class B pers can be called on to do any variety of tasks that they might have to do.  Full time cadre being sent away to teach at Battle School for example for 4 months at a time.  If you compare pay to the PS the percentage difference is three times smaller than for reservists working full time.



A member on Class C employment aboard a deployed frigate has a really shitty command team who makes the deployment just miserable. So, he up and cancels his contract and flies home at the next port.

Can any RegF member do that?


----------



## Staff Weenie (3 Nov 2016)

Over a decade ago, I wrote a letter to DQOL (I believe it was Col Mann at the time), asking for an explanation of the 15% pay difference. I was involved in a project, part of which looked at compensation for Reservists in other mid to large sized NATO partners. Canada had, and still has, the most significant gap between Reg and Res for compensation. For example, the Territorials in the UK make 95% (the 5% is called the 'X Factor' and was very well determined), and when they go 'full time' there is no pay gap. I wanted to know why our pay gap existed, and what it was based upon, as all I had heard was anecdotal.

DQOL's answer was that prior to the Reserves Get Well project in the late 1980's, the gap was almost 40% on average (across various ranks and MOS). The Get Well project compared a number of MOS, primarily Cbt Arms, primarily Pte-MCpl. They looked at the CTP and the CTS for courses such as QL3 and QL4, and found that on average the Res F mbr was trained to 85% of the Reg F mbr. This was the key criteria in determining the pay gap.

I did reply back that this seemed to be outdated, as many courses have become common Reg/Res. As well, speaking for my very limited world, we don't train GDMO, GDNO, Soc W, Physio, Pharmacy, even Padre. They get trained and licensed through civilian institutions.  In many cases, the Res F mbr sees a far broader range of patients, and illnesses, and can be more clinically competent than their Reg F counterpart.

All that to say, it has nothing to do with postings, or deployments, or any of the other rumours that always fly around. There is also, as far as I can tell, absolutely no appetite to ever revisit this.


----------



## PMedMoe (3 Nov 2016)

Staff Weenie said:
			
		

> In many cases, the Res F mbr sees a far broader range of patients, and illnesses, and can be more clinically competent than their Reg F counterpart.



And that is probably primarily due to their _civilian_ job.


----------



## Remius (3 Nov 2016)

So far none of the explanations listed in the last few posts is supported by any policy and or guideline or directives.  Just opinions and feelings.

The AG looked into it and found that there is nothing to support that disparity in pay.

http://www.oag-bvg.gc.ca/internet/English/parl_oag_201602_05_e_41249.html

Section 5.59 


And DND agreed with that finding.  It also agreed to review the TOS for reservists.  When that will happen who knows.

The easiest explanation is money and not much else.


----------



## Good2Golf (3 Nov 2016)

Remius said:
			
		

> So far none of the explanations listed in the last few posts is supported by any policy and or guideline or directives.  Just opinions and feelings.
> 
> The AG looked into it and found that there is nothing to support that disparity in pay.
> 
> ...



Dead link.

Reservists who perform a truly equivalent RegF posn are placed on Class C.  Guess what the Class C pay rate is?  Hint:  Starts with "H" and rhymes with "undred percent."

You conveniently glossed over PPCLI Guy's post...Class B cannot be forcibly posted somewhere they don't want to go, amongst other differences.

:2c:

Regards
G2G


----------



## Remius (3 Nov 2016)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Dead link.
> 
> Reservists who perform a truly equivalent RegF posn are placed on Class C.  Guess what the Class C pay rate is?  Hint:  Starts with "H" and rhymes with "undred percent."
> 
> ...



I didn't gloss over it.  The argument much like your class C argument is irrelevant as it still does not explain the pay disparity.  It's an opinion.  If your baseline is what you consider to truly be a regular force position then there are plenty of regular force people who should be paid reserve pay.  Or are all those class b backfills not truly regular force positions?

I'm not saying that regs and reserves need to be equal in terms of pay.  CLass A is different kettle of fish.  long term class B is what is the weird thing as to why there is a 15% when the factor is 6%.  What I am saying from the beginning is that nothing anywhere actually outlines the reason.  I'm happy to be corrected.  Just show me.  

Again, pay is determined by the PS pay with a factor added.  That factor is much less than the 15%.  I believe it is set at 6%.  

http://www.oag-bvg.gc.ca/internet/English/parl_oag_201602_05_e_41249.html

AG link again.  Hoepefully works.  But here is the copied part of the report.

5.59 Army Reserve soldiers (and any other Reservists) may accept contracts for full-time service with their units, with Army headquarters, or elsewhere in National Defence. These contracts are for periods of 180 days to three years, and can be renewed for much longer periods. While Army Reserve soldiers working under such contracts for up to three years could be regarded as not employed on a continuing full-time basis, in our view, Army Reserve soldiers engaged on such contracts for more than three years are employed on a continuing full-time basis. This is inconsistent with the National Defence Act, which states that Primary Reserve members are enrolled for other than continuing full-time military service when not on active service undertaking emergency duties for the defence of Canada or deployed on international missions. National Defence has, in effect, created a class of soldiers that does not exist in the Act. Furthermore, these soldiers receive 85 percent of the salary and lesser benefits than Regular Army soldiers would receive for the same work.

And DND's response.

5.62Recommendation. National Defence should review the terms of service of Army Reserve soldiers, and the contracts of full-time Army Reserve soldiers, to ensure that it is in compliance with the National Defence Act.

National Defence’s response. Agreed. The Canadian Armed Forces will review the framework for the Reserve Force terms of service and the administration of Reserve Force service to ensure it complies with the National Defence Act and the regulations enacted under it.

For me there should be two classes. Full time and part time.  TOS should be clear for each.


----------



## PPCLI Guy (3 Nov 2016)

Remius said:
			
		

> I didn't gloss over it.  The argument much like your class C argument is irrelevant as it still does not explain the pay disparity.  It's an opinion.  If your baseline is what you consider to truly be a regular force position then there are plenty of regular force people who should be paid reserve pay.  Or are all those class b backfills not truly regular force positions?
> 
> 
> 
> For me there should be two classes. Full time and part time.  TOS should be clear for each.



Three classes.  Part time, full time and geographically static (at 85%), and full time and mobile (at 100%).  Perhaps over 40% of Reg F would fit into the 85% class.....


----------



## Remius (3 Nov 2016)

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> Three classes.  Part time, full time and geographically static (at 85%), and full time and mobile (at 100%).  Perhaps over 40% of Reg F would fit into the 85% class.....



That would make more sense.  Create a baseline pay and breakdown the Mil factor along those lines.


----------



## Halifax Tar (3 Nov 2016)

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> Three classes.  Part time, full time and geographically static (at 85%), and full time and mobile (at 100%).  Perhaps over 40% of Reg F would fit into the 85% class.....



How do you define a reg force member being geographically static in your hypothesis ?


----------



## Lumber (3 Nov 2016)

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> How do you define a reg force member being geographically static in your hypothesis ?



Number of posts on milnet.ca...

 ;D


----------



## Halifax Tar (3 Nov 2016)

Lumber said:
			
		

> Number of posts on milnet.ca...
> 
> ;D



Lol that's 1 way...


----------



## Good2Golf (3 Nov 2016)

Remius said:
			
		

> I didn't gloss over it.  The argument much like your class C argument is irrelevant as it still does not explain the pay disparity.  It's an opinion.  If your baseline is what you consider to truly be a regular force position then there are plenty of regular force people who should be paid reserve pay.  Or are all those class b backfills not truly regular force positions?
> 
> I'm not saying that regs and reserves need to be equal in terms of pay.  CLass A is different kettle of fish.  long term class B is what is the weird thing as to why there is a 15% when the factor is 6%.  What I am saying from the beginning is that nothing anywhere actually outlines the reason.  I'm happy to be corrected.  Just show me.
> 
> ...



Why, when the PS has three classes?  Indeterminate, Term and Casual.  Casual hires are paid at the minimum rate of the classification, per TB policy.  Why don't they get paid at higher rates like Term and Indeterminate public servants?

You seem to brush off Class A.  Why shouldn't a Class A Reservist be paid at a daily rate equivalent of 100% RegF pay?

Would you have an issue with the CAF changing the employment location of a Class B Reservist for the remainder of their term, and requiring that Reservist to move to the new work location?

Regards
G2G


----------



## PPCLI Guy (3 Nov 2016)

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> How do you define a reg force member being geographically static in your hypothesis ?



Say no to one posting, or indicate that you need to stay static. and voila - 85% pay.  Volunteer to be moved, go to your new posting, and voila, 100% pay.


----------



## Remius (3 Nov 2016)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Why, when the PS has three classes?  Indeterminate, Term and Casual.  Casual hires are paid at the minimum rate of the classification, per TB policy.  Why don't they get paid at higher rates like Term and Indeterminate public servants?
> 
> You seem to brush off Class A.  Why shouldn't a Class A Reservist be paid at a daily rate equivalent of 100% RegF pay?
> 
> ...



Term is essentially your class b.  Paid the same.

You also forgot indeterminate that can work part time.  No difference in pay.

Casuals are not employees of the federal public service and are not subject to nor hired under the public service employee act.

Reference http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/psm-fpfm/staffing-dotation/psw-efp/ocas-eng.asp

Reservists are hired under and are subject to the NDA.  

You see, it is clearly outlined and directed by policy and guidelines.  

Reserve pay is not.  Or at least the 15% justification isn't.  


  If you are suggesting that class B and class a get paid at the same rate as the lowest incentive level of that rank then they would still be ahead.

It's not a question of brushing off class A.  They have different TOS that the reg force.  As I said, it shouldn't necessarily be equal but it should be closer to what the military factor is.  That's what compensates the regular member for postings.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (3 Nov 2016)

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> Say no to one posting, or indicate that you need to stay static. and voila - 85% pay.  Volunteer to be moved, go to your new posting, and voila, 100% pay.



This would violate so many human rights laws it isn't even funny.  A more realistic option would be the CAF, particularly the officer corps, having a more flexible contract scheme.  My 13 years are up in 18 months and I've indicated already I won't be resigning my TOS because the only option is 25.  Does my pay drop if I refuse to be posted in the APS, for a seven month posting?  In what world does that make sense?  The way the military manages its people is already fubared enough and that idea is quite frankly ridiculous.


----------



## Ludoc (3 Nov 2016)

Remius said:
			
		

> I didn't gloss over it.  The argument much like your class C argument is irrelevant as it still does not explain the pay disparity.  It's an opinion.  If your baseline is what you consider to truly be a regular force position then there are plenty of regular force people who should be paid reserve pay.  Or are all those class b backfills not truly regular force positions?
> 
> I'm not saying that regs and reserves need to be equal in terms of pay.  CLass A is different kettle of fish.  long term class B is what is the weird thing as to why there is a 15% when the factor is 6%.  What I am saying from the beginning is that nothing anywhere actually outlines the reason.  I'm happy to be corrected.  Just show me.
> 
> ...


I don't know what you are trying to prove with your link. Except for one throw away sentence at the end of the AG's link there is no mention of Reserve pay. DND didn't even acknowledge it.

The entirety of the rest of your quotes were about Reservists getting too much class B time. The AG said there should not be long term class B contracts as that creates a type of soldier not authorized to exist (the full time reservist). DND agreed. The solution is no more long term class B contracts, not paying Reservists more.

I`m not sure I necessarily agree with that position but that is the logical leap one takes from reading the quotes you posted.


----------



## Halifax Tar (3 Nov 2016)

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> Say no to one posting, or indicate that you need to stay static. and voila - 85% pay.  Volunteer to be moved, go to your new posting, and voila, 100% pay.



People can say no to postings ?  Don't get me wrong I've known lots of people with short assignment histories on their mprr but they never said no, they were protected, or they had "issues" that kept then "static". 

What about a hard sea trade who works within the home port division matrix ?  

What is static ?  A bos'n can spend 30 years in Halifax but I would highly disagree that they were static. 

I agree with where you going,  I just think it needs to be tuned a little.


----------



## Good2Golf (3 Nov 2016)

Remius said:
			
		

> Term is essentially your class b.  Paid the same.
> 
> You also forgot indeterminate that can work part time.  No difference in pay.



Didn't forget, just another way of looking at things.  So if you want to play the "should be the same as PS but with mil factor," are you saying Class B terms should only be 90 days max, like in the PS?


----------



## PPCLI Guy (4 Nov 2016)

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> This would violate so many human rights laws it isn't even funny.  A more realistic option would be the CAF, particularly the officer corps, having a more flexible contract scheme.  My 13 years are up in 18 months and I've indicated already I won't be resigning my TOS because the only option is 25.  Does my pay drop if I refuse to be posted in the APS, for a seven month posting?  In what world does that make sense?  The way the military manages its people is already fubared enough and that idea is quite frankly ridiculous.



You know me, and you know that I am trying to make a point.  We have entirely too many officers who simply do not move, for one reason or another.......like say, in Kingston.  Why should they get full pay, when they are essentially long term Class Bs?  Why do some people have to do all of the moves, while others have stability in their lives?

As to human rights, are you suggesting that our mobility policy violates human rights?  That my rights have been routinely violated in my career?

On the TOS topic, I agree with you.  We have 1950s HR practices in the 21st century.  I actually believe that we need full permeability between Reg F service (whereby you are subject to moves), Full time geo-static, and part time.  I also believe that we need a model that accepts that the youth of today expect to have 7-9 jobs in their lives - and then do all that we can to ensure that 3-5 of them are in the military.


----------



## Remius (4 Nov 2016)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Didn't forget, just another way of looking at things.  So if you want to play the "should be the same as PS but with mil factor," are you saying Class B terms should only be 90 days max, like in the PS?



 Actually you didn't even look at it.  

You need to educate yourself on how the PS works with regards to employment. 

Ive already explained that casuals are not employees of the public service nor are they hired under the PSEA.

90 days is the max for casuals. 

  Terms can be up to three years just like class B. 

So yes it should be the same.  But guess what? After three years term employees have to be appointed to the PS as indeterminate employees.  That should also be the same.  Want to work for a three year contract and continue again? Then you CT.


----------



## Monsoon (4 Nov 2016)

Remius said:
			
		

> So yes it should be the same.  But guess what? After three years term employees have to be appointed to the PS as indeterminate employees.  That should also be the same.  Want to work for a three year contract and continue again? Then you CT.


What always gives me a chuckle is the number of Reg F folks who don't realize that that's exactly what most long-term class "B" folks would be most happy with. What keeps people on long-term class "B":

- CTs delayed by inadequacies with our 1950s-era HR management processes; and
- A desire not to be demoted and have to spend a year or more retraining to continue to do substantially the same work they were doing while on class "B".

And that's it. The mythical long-term class "B" guys/gals who are motivated to live on 180 day contracts at a 15% pay disadvantage and substantially reduced benefits because they don't want to get posted once every three or four years - I've never met 'em.


----------



## McG (4 Nov 2016)

It a PS goes over three years as term, they become indeterminant.  So you want all Cl B reservists to get 100% pay and a posting message when they get to three years and a day?


----------



## McG (4 Nov 2016)

For those who want to see the policy, recognize that pay CAF pay rates come through TB.  They are policy.


----------



## Lumber (4 Nov 2016)

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> My 13 years are up in 18 months and I've indicated already I won't be resigning my TOS because the only option is 25.



<sigh> Is it really coming that soon? Better start taking a much more serious look at my life plans, and start bugging my CM...



			
				Remius said:
			
		

> Except that none of that is written anywhere, those benchmarks you are mentioning are just as anecdotal.  Unless you have a reference for that (please say you do because I've always wanted that reference).
> 
> I've also never understood the philosophy that equal work does not equate to equal pay that permeates so many regular force members.



I think you have your answer Remius, in that, there is no answer. The difference in pay between RegF and ResF does is not in congruence with the military factor. Why it wasn't made to be so when RegF an ResF pay were brought closer together years ago? Well that is nothing more than a history lesson at this point. Why they don't do that now? Probably for all the reasons that are being made quite evident on here. People have said (myself included) that the reason for the pay difference is because of the 100% deployability at a moment's notice of RegF personnel. Perhaps that's not the reasons it was made 15% in the first place, but I would argue it's certainly the reason that no one has an appetite to change it.


----------



## Remius (4 Nov 2016)

MCG said:
			
		

> It a PS goes over three years as term, they become indeterminant.  So you want all Cl B reservists to get 100% pay and a posting message when they get to three years and a day?



Nope.  See policy here.

1.Subject to section 7.2, where a person who has been employed in the same department/agency as a term employee for a cumulative working period (see definition in Appendix A) of three (3) years without a break in service longer than sixty (60) consecutive calendar days, the department/agency must appoint the employee indeterminately at the level of his/her substantive position. 

Class B reservists should be paid an amount equal to the regular force minus the mil factor.  And that factor isn't 15%.  Nobody is addressing that at all here. If they want to to work beyond 3 years without a break of at least sixty days then they should be CTed. 

We've created a class of employee that should not exist.  

The fact is this.  If the Reserves were brought up to 6% of Regular force pay there would be howls from the regular force and a likely exodus from the reg force of people willing to take a pay cut of 6 % for a class B. Also DND is likely not too keen on what a mounts to a 9% pay increase for the reserves. And they won't change the mil factor because it would mean a 9% hike to reg force pay which would be even more expensive.. 

It's about money.  The CAF gets cheap labour by breaking the rules or creating its own.  There won't be a short term solution to this at all, I realise that.


----------



## Remius (4 Nov 2016)

Lumber said:
			
		

> I think you have your answer Remius, in that, there is no answer. The difference in pay between RegF and ResF does is not in congruence with the military factor. Why it wasn't made to be so when RegF an ResF pay were brought closer together years ago? Well that is nothing more than a history lesson at this point. Why they don't do that now? Probably for all the reasons that are being made quite evident on here. People have said (myself included) that the reason for the pay difference is because of the 100% deployability at a moment's notice of RegF personnel. Perhaps that's not the reasons it was made 15% in the first place, but I would argue it's certainly the reason that no one has an appetite to change it.



Like I said.  It has to do with money.  It's that simple.  No one wants to spend it and no one wants to piss off the masses.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (4 Nov 2016)

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> You know me, and you know that I am trying to make a point.  We have entirely too many officers who simply do not move, for one reason or another.......like say, in Kingston.  Why should they get full pay, when they are essentially long term Class Bs?  Why do some people have to do all of the moves, while others have stability in their lives?
> 
> As to human rights, are you suggesting that our mobility policy violates human rights?  That my rights have been routinely violated in my career?



The mobility policy doesn't violate human rights but your pay policy most certainly would.  Hypothetical situation:  you have a soldier who has a child that's born that has a serious disability requiring significant medical attention, they're to be posted this upcoming APS from Kingston to Shilo, Manitoba which would cause a serious upheaval to their childs medical care.  They request to stay in the same geographical location.  You're the career manager and you tell them "posting or 15% pay cut".  Is this ethical treatment of an employee?  Does this decision pass the Globe & Mail test?  You're also now affecting the financial well-being of the employee who is going to come under additional financial pressure from medical bills, etc.

I think you'd be opening the organization up to not only terrible publicity but also a potential lawsuit.  There is a better way which ties in to your next point.



> On the TOS topic, I agree with you.  We have 1950s HR practices in the 21st century.  I actually believe that we need full permeability between Reg F service (whereby you are subject to moves), Full time geo-static, and part time.  I also believe that we need a model that accepts that the youth of today expect to have 7-9 jobs in their lives - and then do all that we can to ensure that 3-5 of them are in the military.



A better way to do this would be to download contract management to the respective units, I'll elaborate.  If someone is posted to, let's say Kingston, they sign a contract based on the amount of time the military anticipates being posted to Kingston which could be loosely tied to their respective MOS development period with the option of extending if required or desired.  The benefit is the military deals with shorter term contracts and this gives additional flexibility to career managers to negotiate with units and members.  It also provides the option to not renew a contract if a member doesn't want to be posted and they've expended maximum time in one location, or they're not performing. 

Members would also be able to compete for positions that open up, the openings tracker on EMAA would actually be useful.  This would also help members sort their own personal lives out.  Myself, I was recently offered a job via handshake at a unit in Petawawa that requires a minimum three year commitment.  If I could simply sign a new three year contract and take the job with the option to reevaluate in three years, I would take the job but the fact I'm required to sign 25 means it's a deal breaker for me.


----------



## McG (4 Nov 2016)

Remius said:
			
		

> Class B reservists should be paid an amount equal to the regular force minus the mil factor.


If they want the same pay, they should join the Reg F.  Every excuse/argument why such individuals do not want to join the Reg F is clearly justification of the pay delta.  If full time reservists wanted 100% of the pay as a priority, they would join the Reg F (there are vacancies).  But there is something, a feature of PRes life wanted or a feature of Reg F life undesired, which the career Class B sees as undesirable.  Whatever the PRes positives or Reg F negatives, the 15% additional pay compensates.



			
				Remius said:
			
		

> If they want to work beyond 3 years without a break of at least sixty days then they should be CTed.


Sure.  So why allow permanent Class B positions to even exist on the establishment?  If we know that the job should exist indeterminately, then it should be Reg F, right?  
  


			
				Remius said:
			
		

> We've created a class of employee that should not exist.


Yes.  So why are you wasting time arguing that more pay is owed to this class of employee that should not exist?



			
				Remius said:
			
		

> The CAF gets cheap labour by breaking the rules or creating its own.


No.  See above about pay rates going through TB.  The CAF is not breaking any rules nor creating its own.


----------



## McG (4 Nov 2016)

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> The mobility policy doesn't violate human rights but your pay policy most certainly would.  Hypothetical situation:  you have a soldier who has a child that's born that has a serious disability requiring significant medical attention, they're to be posted this upcoming APS from Kingston to Shilo, Manitoba which would cause a serious upheaval to their childs medical care.  They request to stay in the same geographical location.  You're the career manager and you tell them "posting or 15% pay cut".  Is this ethical treatment of an employee?  Does this decision pass the Globe & Mail test?  You're also now affecting the financial well-being of the employee who is going to come under additional financial pressure from medical bills, etc.
> 
> I think you'd be opening the organization up to not only terrible publicity but also a potential lawsuit.


We have compassionate status and compassionate postings to address legitimate cases of this sort.


----------



## Pusser (4 Nov 2016)

kratz said:
			
		

> When the PRes rates increased to 85% of Reg F (from 75%) back in 1998, I was informed the 15% difference was because the PRes did not pay into the pension or the SDB. In 2007, when PRes started paying into the pension, some people started asking if we would see that 13% pay increase? Nothing has come from it yet. So essentially, PRes members have seen a 13% reduction in pay for the past 9 years.



I don't actually know the official reasoning for the 15% difference in pay, but I'm pretty sure it never had anything to do with Reservists not paying into the CFSA.  My argument against equal pay has always been the differences in terms of service.  Reservists can quit at any time on short notice and cannot be ordered to deploy (except by Order in Council, which has not happened since WWII).

To argue that Reservists have received a 13% drop in pay in the last nine years is unfair.  This "drop" is because Reservists are now contributing to the CFSA (which Reservists had been lobbying for for years).  The benefit they receive from this is worth far more than the deductions that are currently being made on their pay.


----------



## Remius (4 Nov 2016)

MCG said:
			
		

> If they want the same pay, they should join the Reg F.  Every excuse/argument why such individuals do not want to join the Reg F is clearly justification of the pay delta.  If full time reservists wanted 100% of the pay as a priority, they would join the Reg F (there are vacancies).  But there is something, a feature of PRes life wanted or a feature of Reg F life undesired, which the career Class B sees as undesirable.  Whatever the PRes positives or Reg F negatives, the 15% additional pay compensates.
> Sure.  So why allow permanent Class B positions to even exist on the establishment?  If we know that the job should exist indeterminately, then it should be Reg F, right?
> Yes.  So why are you wasting time arguing that more pay is owed to this class of employee that should not exist?
> No.  See above about pay rates going through TB.  The CAF is not breaking any rules nor creating its own.


Sadly your reasoning is not supported by any directive or policy.  The Mil Factor is what compensates for moving, tasks and what not.  The mil factor is at 6% for NCMs 4% for officers.  It is not set at 15%.  I never said 100%.  Equal pay minus the mil factor.  But again, as I mentioned that would cause an uproar if that was brought in.  The regular force would see it as a pay raise they weren't getting rather than bringing into line (like most of our NATO allies do btw).  15 5 is just an arbitrary number that no one can justify other than opinion and stories with nothing to back it up. 

I agree with you on the permanent class B not existing.  It should be regular force.  Full time should be full time. the thing is that Class b is the drug of choice for staffing.  easy, cheap and requires less work to fill than actually staffing it properly.  It's gone on for so long that we are now dependant on it so much so that the organisation would collapse without it.  The TOS need to change. 

My argument is that more pay is owed for the same work.

Did you read the AG report I quoted?  It clearly says that we have a class of reservist that isn't supported by the regulations in the NDA.


----------



## Remius (4 Nov 2016)

Pusser said:
			
		

> I don't actually know the official reasoning for the 15% difference in pay, but I'm pretty sure it never had anything to do with Reservists not paying into the CFSA.  My argument against equal pay has always been the differences in terms of service.  Reservists can quit at any time on short notice and cannot be ordered to deploy (except by Order in Council, which has not happened since WWII).



Your argument might be valid if it was supported by a regulation or directive but it isn't.  The Mil factor is what compensates for all of those things.  If the Mil factor needs to increase fine.  But it hasn't and it is not 15%.  

I agree though about you saying that reserve took a 13% pay cut by paying into a pension is unwarranted.  It is a significant benefit.


----------



## TCM621 (4 Nov 2016)

Monsoon said:
			
		

> What always gives me a chuckle is the number of Reg F folks who don't realize that that's exactly what most long-term class "B" folks would be most happy with. What keeps people on long-term class "B":
> 
> - CTs delayed by inadequacies with our 1950s-era HR management processes; and
> - A desire not to be demoted and have to spend a year or more retraining to continue to do substantially the same work they were doing while on class "B".
> ...


I have met a ton of them.  I know of one individual who is kind of my go to example. He is a very good soldier, multiple tours, and a great guy. However,  he has been a full time reservist for almost twenty years. He won't join the regular force because he doesn't want to go to Shilo (infantry officer) and when he wants to go on tour he puts his hand up and when he doesn't, he just doesn't volunteer.  He has an advantage over every reg force person in his position because he lives where he wants and goes on deployment when he wants,  not when the CoC wants. For a reg force person the CoC has the final say in what you do and where you go. In the reserve force,  the member does.  While the CoC can keep you from going anywhere (not as easy as it sounds ) they can't force you to go anywhere.  

Finally,  the use of class B as a cheap full time work staff is wrong. However the solution is less and short class B with more reg force not more long term class B. 

Sent from my SM-G900W8 using Tapatalk


----------



## dapaterson (4 Nov 2016)

The only people who whine more about their mistreatment and underpayment than full-time reservists who've never been in the Regular Force are full-time Reservists retired from the Regular Force and are simultaneously drawing an annuity.

Which is why full-time Reserve issues tend to get much more heat and light than part-time Reserve issues - they have the spare time to whinge about it.


----------



## Remius (4 Nov 2016)

Tcm621 said:
			
		

> Finally,  the use of class B as a cheap full time work staff is wrong. However the solution is less and short class B with more reg force not more long term class B.



this. ^


----------



## PPCLI Guy (4 Nov 2016)

Monsoon said:
			
		

> And that's it. The mythical long-term class "B" guys/gals who are motivated to live on 180 day contracts at a 15% pay disadvantage and substantially reduced benefits because they don't want to get posted once every three or four years - I've never met 'em.



I met one.  He was a long-time Class B who applied for a CT at the rank of LCol.  Recognizing his quality, he was offered a position as a LCol in the Reg F, and in the Combat Arms at that.  The position that he was offered required him to move.  He refused the CT, stating that he wasn't willing to be posted.....


----------



## Remius (4 Nov 2016)

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> I met one.  He was a long-time Class B who applied for a CT at the rank of LCol.  Recognizing his quality, he was offered a position as a LCol in the Reg F, and in the Combat Arms at that.  The position that he was offered required him to move.  He refused the CT, stating that he wasn't willing to be posted.....



I've met plenty.  They probably would have CTed earlier in their career but once they were on their 3rd or 4th contract and well established with family and spouses with better paying jobs they weren't going to move.


----------



## ModlrMike (4 Nov 2016)

Pusser said:
			
		

> I don't actually know the official reasoning for the 15% difference in pay, but I'm pretty sure it never had anything to do with Reservists not paying into the CFSA.  My argument against equal pay has always been the differences in terms of service.  Reservists can quit at any time on short notice and cannot be ordered to deploy (except by Order in Council, which has not happened since WWII).



I always thought that it was related to the RegF mbr's unlimited liability as well.


----------



## Good2Golf (4 Nov 2016)

Remius said:
			
		

> Your argument might be valid if it was supported by a regulation or directive but it isn't.  The Mil factor is what compensates for all of those things.  If the Mil factor needs to increase fine.  But it hasn't and it is not 15%.
> 
> I agree though about you saying that reserve took a 13% pay cut by paying into a pension is unwarranted.  It is a significant benefit.



You continue to misinterpret the mil factor.  It is to compensate between like structures of PS and CAF, i.e. indeterminate and RegF, thus the 7.5% mil factor for NCMs and GSOs (your 6%/4% NCM/Offr 'mil factor' info is 17 years outdated, unless you meant the 6%/4% factor to compensate for lack of overtime eqvt w/PS, in which case you should have added the 7.5% to the 6%/4% and resulted in the current 13.5% and 11.5% pay premiums that CAF NCMs and Offrs receive compared to eqvt PS classifications - refer to current policy here: http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/caf-community-pay/pay-overview.page ) when one looks at a PS classification and pay level, with an equivalent CAF MOSID/Rank/IPC.  What the CAF does internally to it's own personnel structure, including pay rates, has been approved by Treasury Board, the Government of Canada's authority on expenditure of public monies.

Several forum members have pointed out that the "extant policy" which you seek is in fact the Treasury Board policy as detailed in this case in its approval of CBI 204.  You say that such references are not a "directive or policy" 





			
				Remius said:
			
		

> Sadly your reasoning is not supported by any directive or policy.  The Mil Factor is what compensates for moving, tasks and what not.  The mil factor is at 6% for NCMs 4% for officers.  It is not set at 15%.  I never said 100%.  Equal pay minus the mil factor.



If you don't accept the GoC's official policy as policy, then there's not much more anyone can contribute to the discussion that will satisfy your wishes.

As others have pointed out several times, the perspective you place on the AG's report, regarding full-time reservist employment, appears to wish to justify complete equivalency of pay for equivalent work done, when other perspectives that many, including me, believe make the case that DND is continuing the employment of a component structure (specifically the Class B aspect) that appears incongruent with the NDA, and thus should not be continued.  I had always understood that full-time Class B employment was only for the administration of the PRes itself, and not as a replacement for unfilled, or insufficient RegF manning.  Has Class B become a "drug of sorts" that has been misused?  Most certainly, although PRECS did much to reduce the dependancy on a full-time reserve force in support of the regular force.  

We still haven't seen your direct response to many queries as to expectations on term Class B personnel should they ever be paid at the same rate as RegF pers?  Amongst other questions, can they be posted to other geographical locations without choice in the matter?

Many of us are fully supportive of equivalent pay for equivalent employment and liability.  Only in particular cases can a RegF member give 30-days notice to cease their employment.  All PRes Class B members have such a right, understanding that such a right also comes with the risk that the Crown itself could equally terminate a Class B Term on 30 days notice.

So full equivalent pay for equivalent employment and liability?  Absolutely!  Does current Class B employment represent an equivalent liability (move, assignment, deployment, etc...) to that of the RegF?  One waits to be provided an example where this is the case.

Regards
G2G


----------



## kratz (4 Nov 2016)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> <snip>
> We still haven't seen your direct response to many queries as to expectations on term Class B personnel should they ever be paid at the same rate as RegF pers?  Amongst other questions, can they be posted to other geographical locations without choice in the matter?
> 
> Many of us are fully supportive of equivalent pay for equivalent employment and liability.  Only in particular cases can a RegF member give 30-days notice to cease their employment.  All PRes Class B members have such a right, understanding that such a right also comes with the risk that the Crown itself could equally terminate a Class B Term on 30 days notice.
> ...



Treasury Board policy is clear, CAF paid  moves for reservists come from command budgets. While the RCN will often pay for a move to fill class B positions, when reading REO, it is more common to see the onus on the individual to move on their own to fill the job.

There are many nuances at play between PRes and Reg F, that may or may not be within the control of DND.


----------



## CountDC (4 Nov 2016)

I suggest part time reservist (class a), short term class b for courses/summer tasks and Reg F.  The current long term class b and class c goes away and make use of FPS Reg F TOS instead.

Commands do not pay for reserve moves if the class b is 100% in support of reserve units - ie 1 Fd Regt in Halifax hires a clerk from Vancouver the move is covered by DCBA.

Regular Force posting refusal is a myth.  I can not actually refuse a posting, only voice my objection to the posting.  Ultimately though the CM can post me regardless of what I say.  My option then is to submit my application for release which the CM can hold me to 6 months if he wants even though I am a member of the 30/30 plan.  The 30 day release is not a mandatory give me but a normal practice. At one unit a member getting posted in tried the old I will release instead and that is exactly what the LCdr told the CM to do - post her and let her submit the release.  He would still expect her to be there for the 6 months and would not support a withdrawal of the release.


----------



## Good2Golf (4 Nov 2016)

CountDC, in general agreement, although I would caveat that with my thoughts that there is a place for Class C in today's construct, and I'm specifically thinking deployment of PRes pers on operations, to ensure compensation and coverage for what then would be equivalent duty to peer RegF pers.  On this specific issue, the reversion of a PRes member from Class C back to A (or short-term B, as you note) is an issue that I don't think is done as well (read: responsibly on the part of DND/CAF towards the PRes member) as it should be.  It seems that there are numerous cases where transfer of post-deployed PRes members from C back to A or B was needlessly (other than to save a proportionately minor amount of money) rushed, which is not the right way of doing things, particularly when there is uncertainty surrounding the post-depl effects on the PRes member.

Regards
G2G


----------



## dapaterson (4 Nov 2016)

Class C is not the panacea it is made out to be.  Not all benefits accrue to class C reservists; for example, the education and training packages that were leveraged for some of the injured from Afghanistan were not available in the same way to members of the Reserve Force.

Were I king for a day, we would instead stand up the Special Force for such missions; transfer all those deploying to the Special Force for the duration of their mission and any period of recovery after, and pass a single QR&O saying, "For the purposes of all regulations, orders, directives, policies or other instruments of instruction, members of the Special Force are deemed to be members of the Regular Force".

No more parsing of Regular vs Reserve, just a single standard for those who place themselves on the line.


----------



## Good2Golf (4 Nov 2016)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Class C is not the panacea it is made out to be.  Not all benefits accrue to class C reservists; for example, the education and training packages that were leveraged for some of the injured from Afghanistan were not available in the same way to members of the Reserve Force.
> 
> Were I king for a day, we would instead stand up the Special Force for such missions; transfer all those deploying to the Special Force for the duration of their mission and any period of recovery after, and pass a single QR&O saying, "For the purposes of all regulations, orders, directives, policies or other instruments of instruction, members of the Special Force are deemed to be members of the Regular Force".
> 
> No more parsing of Regular vs Reserve, just a single standard for those who place themselves on the line.



Indeed, and much more of a solution than a "patch" to make the two-component construct try to work.


----------



## George Wallace (4 Nov 2016)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Class C is not the panacea it is made out to be.  Not all benefits accrue to class C reservists; for example, the education and training packages that were leveraged for some of the injured from Afghanistan were not available in the same way to members of the Reserve Force.
> 
> Were I king for a day, we would instead stand up the Special Force for such missions; transfer all those deploying to the Special Force for the duration of their mission and any period of recovery after, and pass a single QR&O saying, "For the purposes of all regulations, orders, directives, policies or other instruments of instruction, members of the Special Force are deemed to be members of the Regular Force".
> 
> No more parsing of Regular vs Reserve, just a single standard for those who place themselves on the line.


 :goodpost:


----------



## Eye In The Sky (4 Nov 2016)

Remius said:
			
		

> So far none of the explanations listed in the last few posts is supported by any policy and or guideline or directives.  Just opinions and feelings.
> 
> The AG looked into it and found that there is nothing to support that disparity in pay.
> 
> ...



Having done both Reg and PRes Class A, B and B (A)...I'll add something to consider.

- as a Cl A, what happened if there was something else I was interested in more than a weekend ex;  nothing, I told my CofC I wouldn't be on the ex.  Reg force...don't show up, pay the piper.

- as Cl B, I accepted the dates, location ,tasking before proceeding on the B contract.  Reg Force, I don't have to 'accept' a task, course, etc.  But I still go.

- as Cl B(A), I was able to be sent on TD 'anywhere in Canada'.  Reg Force...I'm going where I'm told unless I'm broken and can't do my job, deploy, whatever.  Sure, people skirt deployments, but most of us go and earn our pay.

PRes moves;  are voluntary (i.e. not forced on the mbr).  Reg Force...refuse your posting message, your COS date can become your release date.

Trg - using the Armour Corps as an example, how big is the skillset of a PRES Crmn compared to a Reg force one?  Can the PRES mbr, on average, show up on a Monday at a Reg Frce Sqn and be equally employable as the Reg crmn?

I was a CL B Sgt working in a CBG HQ at one time.  If I didn't want to say, deploy to the sandbox, I simply didn't.  The Reg force Arty Sgt didn't have the same option, unless he wanted to play the DAG RED game.

There's more to it than the simple rank/MOSID aspect.  I work harder, and often away from my postal code, than I ever did as a Cl B type.  Being sent on TD in Canada is not the same as being tasked on Ops (CJOC ones) with sometimes less than 48 hours NTM.  

Unless Pres TOSs are written to match Reg Force ones, there's no substantiation for Pres to receive the same compensation as a Reg Frce mbr, except when they are Cl C.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (4 Nov 2016)

Monsoon said:
			
		

> The mythical long-term class "B" guys/gals who are motivated to live on 180 day contracts at a 15% pay disadvantage and substantially reduced benefits because they don't want to get posted once every three or four years - I've never met 'em.



They exist, heck I worked with many B or B (A) folks who wanted exactly that.  Some of them are still doing it and have found ways to move around in the same geo location once they contract they were on was ending, or because they were in a hard MCpl position as a Sgt and a Sgt one opened up.


----------



## McG (7 Nov 2016)

Remius said:
			
		

> Sadly your reasoning is not supported by any directive or policy.


The pay rates come blessed out of TB.  That make them policy.
What is absent to your satisfaction is the academic argument that led to the current policy.
Others have filled in bits of this with reference to different levels of training, different QoL featurs, and different career progression thresholds.
Market factors also validate this level of pay.  Despite Reg F vacancies, people are continuing to choose work as career Class B at 85%.  Clearly, there is something that they do not feel the extra 15% is worth.


----------



## CountDC (7 Nov 2016)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> CountDC, in general agreement, although I would caveat that with my thoughts that there is a place for Class C in today's construct, and I'm specifically thinking deployment of PRes pers on operations, to ensure compensation and coverage for what then would be equivalent duty to peer RegF pers.  On this specific issue, the reversion of a PRes member from Class C back to A (or short-term B, as you note) is an issue that I don't think is done as well (read: responsibly on the part of DND/CAF towards the PRes member) as it should be.  It seems that there are numerous cases where transfer of post-deployed PRes members from C back to A or B was needlessly (other than to save a proportionately minor amount of money) rushed, which is not the right way of doing things, particularly when there is uncertainty surrounding the post-depl effects on the PRes member.
> 
> Regards
> G2G



The Class C would actually be covered by a FPS (Fixed Period of Service) with the Reg F and ensure the mbr gets all the pay and benefits of the career Reg F counterpart including a more proper return after deployment such as a month or two of Cl C to keep them in the system and observed.  Hopefully this would enable picking up more of the post-depl effects as they would be observed a lot more than if returned to Class A service where they can avoid work if they want.


----------



## Good2Golf (7 Nov 2016)

CountDC said:
			
		

> The Class C would actually be covered by a FPS (Fixed Period of Service) with the Reg F and ensure the mbr gets all the pay and benefits of the career Reg F counterpart including a more proper return after deployment such as a month or two of Cl C to keep them in the system and observed.  Hopefully this would enable picking up more of the post-depl effects as they would be observed a lot more than if returned to Class A service where they can avoid work if they want.



Agree DC.  I think that's what dapaterson was referring to, and I fully support such an approach because it has a better chance of being misused by the system to 'unsupport' a post-deployed member.

Regards
G2G


----------



## FyroniK (5 Dec 2016)

Theres alot of BLAH, BLAH, and BLAH over the last few pages of this thread that have nothing to do with the thread topic. Back to it please. Less BLAH.

It's been so long since a pay raise most of us have forgotten they even exists just like the thread topic I guess.


----------



## NavyShooter (6 Dec 2016)

There are a lot of factors that tie into pay raises, and the difference between RegF and Res Pay is something that I've not been deeply aware of, as a 24+ year member of the RegF.  

To clarify, I know there is a difference, and having deployed to the UK with a mixed team of Reg and Res personnel this summer for 3+ weeks, I got to see the special challenges that impact the Reserve world when it comes to pay being messed up and not having a full-time person they can go to in order to rectify issues.  

Would it be nice to see a pay raise?  Sure would.  

Would it be nice to see a retro-active pay-raise with back pay?  Sure would.

Would it be nice to see the 10+ months of Sea Duty Allowance that I'm missing?  Sure would.

I just got my mid-month pay statement, and none of that is listed, so I'm waiting at least until January before I see anything.

If nothing else, the military has taught me one special skill...that's how to be patient and wait in lines.  

NS


----------



## dapaterson (6 Dec 2016)

That's two skills...


----------



## George Wallace (6 Dec 2016)

NavyShooter said:
			
		

> There are a lot of factors that tie into pay raises, and the difference between RegF and Res Pay is something that I've not been deeply aware of, as a 24+ year member of the RegF.



 :warstory:

Looking through old papers and I found this pay statement; my pay statement for one training night in 1979 as a Reserve LT (Let the complaints begin.):


----------



## Loachman (6 Dec 2016)

FyroniK said:
			
		

> Theres alot of BLAH, BLAH, and BLAH over the last few pages of this thread that have nothing to do with the thread topic. Back to it please. Less BLAH.



When there is something factual to add, somebody will add it. In the meantime, what do you want people say? You've not added anything of greater value than those about whom you are complaining.


----------



## FyroniK (7 Dec 2016)

Loachman said:
			
		

> When there is something factual to add, somebody will add it. In the meantime, what do you want people say? You've not added anything of greater value than those about whom you are complaining.



Neither have they by taking the topic OFF-Topic. Make a new topic for reserve pay issues and complaints, What does that have to do with "2014 - 2016 Raise and Back pay". Nothing. People are subscribed to this thread they don't want to see spam from off topic issues in their emails.

Latest Update on the ACTUAL topic as opposed to the BLAH, BLAH and BLAH is here as of December 5th, 2016.

http://psacunion.ca/update-treasury-board-bargaining-dates-mediator

"Update on Treasury Board bargaining: Dates with mediator

The Common Issues committee and PA bargaining team will resume negotiations with Treasury Board, with the assistance of a mediator, the week of December 12.

PSAC and the Employer returned to extended negotiations from November 1-9, after the Liberal government promised to bring a new mandate to the table.

At the end of that bargaining session, PSAC proposed continuing discussions with the assistance of a mediator. The government has since agreed to this.

More information will be provided once it becomes available.

Topics: Bargaining
Employers: Treasury Board
December 5, 2016"


----------



## PuckChaser (7 Dec 2016)

Maybe you should have led with that info, instead of coming off as a two year old demanding a treat.


----------



## Loachman (7 Dec 2016)

FyroniK said:
			
		

> Make a new topic for reserve pay issues and complaints,



Is that an order, Herr Kommandant?



			
				FyroniK said:
			
		

> What does that have to do with "2014 - 2016 Raise and Back pay". Nothing. People are subscribed to this thread they don't want to see spam from off topic issues in their emails.



Feel free to apply to become DS here, so that you can cull out all of the posts that you do not like. Those of us that are DS do not have the time - we have lives outside of this Site, too.

Every thread on this Site wanders off topic from time to time. Few whine about it, even on their favourite threads.

You're getting pretty good service here for the cost. Think about that for a bit.

But thanks for the info.


----------



## slayer/raptor (11 Dec 2016)

http://ottawacitizen.com/news/politics/pipsc-union-and-federal-government-close-in-on-deal

If this goes through for us as well, 1.25% seems rather low compared to the increases we had last time: 1.75% for 2011-2012, 1.50% for 2012-2013, and 2.00% for 2013-2014.

Better than nothing I suppose. I wonder if the allowances (LDA, Sea etc) will go up as well.


----------



## Occam (11 Dec 2016)

Speaking as a public servant, I can live with 1.25% per year, so long as they take the sick leave changes off the table.  Hollow victory for the CF, I know - sick leave aspects of the collective agreements have no impact on CF pay and benefits.  I think getting any more than 1.25% was near impossible in this fiscal climate.  Too bad it couldn't have been closer to the figure that Members of Parliament get as raises.


----------



## jollyjacktar (11 Dec 2016)

Occam said:
			
		

> Too bad it couldn't have been closer to the figure that Members of Parliament get as raises.



Do as I say, not, as I do...


----------



## George Wallace (11 Dec 2016)

Occam said:
			
		

> .......  Too bad it couldn't have been closer to the figure that Members of Parliament get as raises.



[Inside voice]
Too bad is right.  Too bad that ALL such raises were fixed to their raise in pay.  Perhaps that would cause our politicians to be more realistic and responsible in their spending.....
[/Inside voice]


----------



## Pusser (12 Dec 2016)

slayer/raptor said:
			
		

> Better than nothing I suppose. I wonder if the allowances (LDA, Sea etc) will go up as well.



Yes, they will.  It's also worth noting that if the PS is getting a 1.25%/yr increase, the increase to CAF pay will likely be slightly higher.


----------



## dapaterson (12 Dec 2016)

Pusser said:
			
		

> Yes, they will.  It's also worth noting that if the PS is getting a 1.25%/yr increase, the increase to CAF pay will likely be slightly higher.



And you are basing that on?  There have been no material changes to working conditions that would warrant a higher rate of increase; those elements are already factored in to the military compensation model.

Besides, should there be any pay increase to the public service that includes amounts for changes to sick leave, for example, the military raise would be lower than the PS, as military sick leave would not be changed.


----------



## RedcapCrusader (12 Dec 2016)

It should be noted that this negotiation is not for a real salary increase, it's a cost of living adjustment.

A pay raise is supposed to be higher than annual inflation in order to get you ahead and be able to afford the current cost of living, with a little extra on the side.

This 1.25% per year over 4 years is less than the average annual inflation of 1.36% over the last 3 years. 

Still, any increase is better than none, but cost of living adjustments don't cut it when we lose so much of our salaries to pay for R&Q, pensions etc., On top of high income tax rates.

(...and at times, exorbitant mandatory mess dues.)

As much as we're not completely hard done by, one of the biggest retention issues of the last decade is noncompetitive salaries and if we're all not given a proper salary boost soon, it's going to get worse.

Cost of living only goes up.


----------



## Pusser (12 Dec 2016)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> And you are basing that on?  There have been no material changes to working conditions that would warrant a higher rate of increase; those elements are already factored in to the military compensation model.
> 
> Besides, should there be any pay increase to the public service that includes amounts for changes to sick leave, for example, the military raise would be lower than the PS, as military sick leave would not be changed.



You're right, there have been no substantial changes to working conditions.  However, as a general rule, once the pay comparability formula is applied, CAF increases *tend* to be higher than PS increases.  Obviously, this is not an absolute, but it has historically been true, at least most of the time.  The Sick Leave issue may become a factor in the future, but I'm speculating that it won't this time around simply because it has apparently been taken off the table for the moment (it's to be dealt with separately at a future point in time).


----------



## Lumber (12 Dec 2016)

LunchMeat said:
			
		

> It should be noted that this negotiation is not for a real salary increase, it's a cost of living adjustment.
> 
> A pay raise is supposed to be higher than annual inflation in order to get you ahead and be able to afford the current cost of living, with a little extra on the side.
> 
> ...



My salary might not be as competitive, but compared to most private sector jobs that I know of, the difference in salary is more than made up for by:

1. Job Security;
2. 6 Weeks of vacation every year (and then some);
3. Full benefits;
4. Mostly full benefits for my family;
5. Variety of jobs, tasks and assignments;
6. PENSION;
7. LDA, SDA, HDA, OSP, AIRCRA, DIVGA....basically all of chapters 10 and 205 of the CBIs.

I'd say the military has done a pretty decent job competing to keep me in the Forces and away from the private sector. 

I could literally stop caring, stop trying, let me level of effort drop to the bareminimum, and I'd still be getting $85,000 a year and all listed above bonuses. The military spoon feeds me everything I need to do and everything I need to know. There is no requirement to ensure profits or "a positive customer relations experience". 

Now, I try really hard and I want to do well, but in what other private sector job could I slack off and still expect 10+ more years at close to 6 figure?


----------



## MJP (12 Dec 2016)

Lumber said:
			
		

> My salary might not be as competitive, but compared to most private sector jobs that I know of, the difference in salary is more than made up for by:
> 
> 1. Job Security;
> 2. 6 Weeks of vacation every year (and then some);
> ...



Well said.  I keep saying we need to get over ourselves, we are not hard done by for the most part.


----------



## Pusser (12 Dec 2016)

LunchMeat said:
			
		

> It should be noted that this negotiation is not for a real salary increase, it's a cost of living adjustment.
> 
> A pay raise is supposed to be higher than annual inflation in order to get you ahead and be able to afford the current cost of living, with a little extra on the side.
> 
> ...



By your definition, we never have and never will receive a real salary increase.  Although there is a market force element involved to some extent, our general pay increases are almost entirely about cost of living increases.  General pay increases have nothing to do with "getting ahead."  Why should the employer (the government) pay more for someone to do the same job tomorrow, that they're doing today?  "Getting ahead," comes through promotion (which includes incentive increases).


----------



## RedcapCrusader (12 Dec 2016)

Pusser said:
			
		

> By your definition, we never have and never will receive a real salary increase.  Although there is a market force element involved to some extent, our general pay increases are almost entirely about cost of living increases.  General pay increases have nothing to do with "getting ahead."  Why should the employer (the government) pay more for someone to do the same job tomorrow, that they're doing today?  "Getting ahead," comes through promotion (which includes incentive increases).



I guess it's trade dependent. I'm very good at my job but promotions are a struggle. This year they say they lost too many people and can't promote very many to the next rank... So if you're already topped out, no raise in 3 years, and can't get promoted through no fault of your own it really feels like you're falling behind.

I'm just trying to play the other side of the coin, personally I'm much of the same mindset as Lumber.

However, I've seen many good people leave because the private sector offered them better (maybe not so in terms of some benefits, but clearly enough to pull them away).


----------



## Pusser (12 Dec 2016)

LunchMeat said:
			
		

> I guess it's trade dependent. I'm very good at my job but promotions are a struggle. This year they say they lost too many people and can't promote very many to the next rank... So if you're already topped out, no raise in 3 years, and can't get promoted through no fault of your own it really feels like you're falling behind.
> 
> I'm just trying to play the other side of the coin, personally I'm much of the same mindset as Lumber.
> 
> However, I've seen many good people leave because the private sector offered them better (maybe not so in terms of some benefits, but clearly enough to pull them away).



In the Public Service, pay rates are based on occupation, so if the demand for a particular occupation goes way up, this will often factor into PS increases for that occupation (happened a few years ago for computer people, who saw huge increases).  In short, PS pay increases can be driven by market forces.  This is factored into pay increases for the CAF as well, but since our pay comparability formula uses benchmarks from across the whole spectrum of the PS, a significant increase for a single PS occupation is watered down by all the other benchmarks in play, so we don't see it as much.  However, since our pay is based on rank and, for the most part, not by occupation (there being a few notable exceptions), we all see a little bit of a significant increase to a PS occupation, but no one sees all of it.


----------



## jollyjacktar (12 Dec 2016)

LunchMeat said:
			
		

> I guess it's trade dependent. I'm very good at my job but promotions are a struggle. This year they say they lost too many people and can't promote very many to the next rank... So if you're already topped out, no raise in 3 years, and can't get promoted through no fault of your own it really feels like you're falling behind.
> 
> I'm just trying to play the other side of the coin, personally I'm much of the same mindset as Lumber.
> 
> However, I've seen many good people leave because the private sector offered them better (maybe not so in terms of some benefits, but clearly enough to pull them away).



Welcome to the Chretien years.  One guy with me in Halifax was # 1 in the trade three years running.  No promotion.  

We were told by the NPM in 96-97 that where we were in rank was where we were going to retire.  No promotions were forecasted and if we didn't like it we could hit the door.  I remustered in 99.  Things only really changed I am told after 9/11 when the trade expanded and Spec pay was brought in.


----------



## armyvern (12 Dec 2016)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> Welcome to the Chretien years.  One guy with me in Halifax was # 1 in the trade three years running.  No promotion.



This happened to a few of us.  But, as noted during SCONDVA, they certainly had us working jobs that were 2 X levels higher than the rank they left us stagnant at.  

Ergo, SCONDVA recommendation that personnel who were posted into jobs described and intended as higher rank levels must either be promoted to the appropriate rank level or WSE'd.


----------



## jollyjacktar (12 Dec 2016)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> This happened to a few of us.  But, as noted during SCONDVA, they certainly had us working jobs that were 2 X levels higher than the rank they left us stagnant at.
> 
> Ergo, SCONDVA recommendation that personnel who were posted into jobs described and intended as higher rank levels must either be promoted to the appropriate rank level or WSE'd.



Well, I did run into Ken on my last tour at KAF.  He was a MWO and running a NCIU team.  It was nice to see he made it far beyond the Cpl merry go nowhere we were both riding back in the day.


----------



## armyvern (12 Dec 2016)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> Well, I did run into Ken on my last tour at KAF.  He was a MWO and running a NCIU team.  It was nice to see he made it far beyond the Cpl merry go nowhere we were both riding back in the day.



Agreed ... that was the CFL era - Corporals For Life and Captains For Life.

I'm still not certain this era is comparable as promotions are not stagnating due to tightening of the purse string -- Ie:  saving money by not promoting, but employing in higher-ranked positions anyways.  We were actually over-strength at the lower rank levels back in those days, but under strength at the higher ranks; it was, indeed, all about saving money.

Currently rather, the release rates are quite high coupled with a broken recruiting system and lots of red trades, too many people have been getting promoted too quickly.  We have Warrant Officers with a couple years in rank who have no idea what a 'caution' is for crying out loud.  We have people being promoted on a developing and a ready PER.  At some point, the CAF needs to kick back and let people gain the necessary experience and knowledge they require before promoting them into the next rank level where they fail due to the lack of experience.  As well for the red trades, even though we have vacancies at higher rank levels, we can not afford to keep promoting unready personnel up into those positions as that just creates even more vacancies at the Pte/Cpl level where the real work actually gets done.  The current recruiting schmogle is not helping.


----------



## PuckChaser (12 Dec 2016)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Rather, the release rates are quite high coupled with a broken recruiting system and lots of red trades, too many people have been getting promoted too quickly.  We have Warrant Officers with a couple years in rank who have no idea what a 'caution' is for crying out loud.  We have people being promoted on a developing and a ready PER.  At some point, the CAF needs to kick back and let people gain the necessary experience and knowledge they require before promoting them into the next rank level where they fail due to the lack of experience.



We're probably way off topic of a pay raise now, but this caught my eye. We have a tendency to promote until incompetent, or promote solely based on technical skills. The best technical Cpl could have terrible leadership skills, but we have to link a high performance to high potential. Coupled with the fact that we promote people into a rank, and then a year or 2 later they're finally qualified in that rank gives us a giant recipe for disaster.

If the training system is so backlogged (ILP looking at you), we should be holding people back until they get those courses to enable success.


----------



## jollyjacktar (12 Dec 2016)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Agreed ... that was the CFL era - Corporals For Life and Captains For Life.
> 
> I'm still not certain this era is comparable as promotions are not stagnating due to tightening of the purse string -- Ie:  saving money by not promoting, but employing in higher-ranked positions anyways.  We were actually over-strength at the lower rank levels back in those days, but under strength at the higher ranks; it was, indeed, all about saving money.
> 
> Currently rather, the release rates are quite high coupled with a broken recruiting system and lots of red trades, too many people have been getting promoted too quickly.  We have Warrant Officers with a couple years in rank who have no idea what a 'caution' is for crying out loud.  We have people being promoted on a developing and a ready PER.  At some point, the CAF needs to kick back and let people gain the necessary experience and knowledge they require before promoting them into the next rank level where they fail due to the lack of experience.  As well for the red trades, even though we have vacancies at higher rank levels, we can not afford to keep promoting unready personnel up into those positions as that just creates even more vacancies at the Pte/Cpl level where the real work actually gets done.  The current recruiting schmogle is not helping.



Well said, Vern.  I fear it won't get any better for the foreseeable future for that matter.  I can't speak for the other kids, but the Navy is in for some very rough seas to come.  Most of it, self inflicted.


----------



## Halifax Tar (13 Dec 2016)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Currently rather, the release rates are quite high coupled with a broken recruiting system and lots of red trades, too many people have been getting promoted too quickly.  We have Warrant Officers with a couple years in rank who have no idea what a 'caution' is for crying out loud.  We have people being promoted on a developing and a ready PER.  At some point, the CAF needs to kick back and let people gain the necessary experience and knowledge they require before promoting them into the next rank level where they fail due to the lack of experience.  As well for the red trades, even though we have vacancies at higher rank levels, we can not afford to keep promoting unready personnel up into those positions as that just creates even more vacancies at the Pte/Cpl level where the real work actually gets done.  The current recruiting schmogle is not helping.



Well said Vern.  Nothing displays an outstanding potential for leadership like knowing how input the same DRMIS TCodes over and over and over and over over and over and over and over over and over and over and over over and over and over and over over and over and over and over over and over and over and over over and over and over and over... ect.


----------



## Lumber (13 Dec 2016)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> Well said, Vern.  I fear it won't get any better for the foreseeable future for that matter.  I can't speak for the other kids, but the Navy is in for some very rough seas to come.  Most of it, self inflicted.



What? Are you implying that my <1 year tours as Director, ORO and XO, with 2-3 yeas in between on shore postings, won't prepare me to be Commanding Officer of a warship? I mean, I can pass a Rules of the Road exam, what more do I need?


----------



## FSTO (13 Dec 2016)

Lumber said:
			
		

> What? Are you implying that my <1 year tours as Director, ORO and XO, with 2-3 yeas in between on shore postings, won't prepare me to be Commanding Officer of a warship? I mean, I can pass a Rules of the Road exam, what more do I need?



Did you count your simulator time? I'm sure all those gamer alongsides makes one a competent ship handler!!! :rofl:


----------



## SeaKingTacco (13 Dec 2016)

Lumber said:
			
		

> What? Are you implying that my <1 year tours as Director, ORO and XO, with 2-3 yeas in between on shore postings, won't prepare me to be Commanding Officer of a warship? I mean, I can pass a Rules of the Road exam, what more do I need?



Further drift, but we have now reached the point where I have more sea time than the average warship CO...

And I am not a high time MH guy...


----------



## FSTO (13 Dec 2016)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> Further drift, but we have now reached the point where I have more sea time than the average warship CO...
> 
> And I am not a high time MH guy...



It is getting a bit sad. When I joined, the CO's I sailed for could handle a ship like a sports car, now.....well I'll hold my water on that comment.


----------



## Sig_Des (13 Dec 2016)

FSTO said:
			
		

> It is getting a bit sad. When I joined, the CO's I sailed for could handle a ship like a sports car, now.....well I'll hold my water on that comment.



 > Seems to me they still can:


----------



## jollyjacktar (13 Dec 2016)

:rofl:


----------



## jollyjacktar (13 Dec 2016)

Lumber said:
			
		

> What? Are you implying that my <1 year tours as Director, ORO and XO, with 2-3 yeas in between on shore postings, won't prepare me to be Commanding Officer of a warship? I mean, I can pass a Rules of the Road exam, what more do I need?



Again, I cannot speak for the Weird Room and all it's denizens, but, the trade amalgamations the new CRCN has in play and in mind is not going to go down well for retention.  There are many punching out and planning to punch out from the MSE great smash of 2016.  I can just imagine the next great thing the Bosn/Nav Comm/Stwd Frankenstein's monster that is presently on the threat radar will be just as successful.  I am starting to wonder if it the RCN motto is going to be changed from "Ready, Aye, Ready" to "We're not happy until you're unhappy"...


----------



## Lumber (15 Dec 2016)

http://vcds.mil.ca/apps/canforgens/default-eng.asp?id=221-16&type=canforgen (DWAN Only, sorry)

FFS....

CANFORGEN 221/16 - SEA DUTY ALLOWANCE (SDA) VERIFICATION (REFIT) UPDATE



> "ACTIVE SERVICE MEMBERS HAVE NOW BEEN REVIEWED AND PAY CORRECTION IS COMPLETED."



Oh yea? You don't say. I know half a dozen people from MON who haven't received a dime yet. (probably more, I just haven't asked them all)

Anyone else not receive anything yet?


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (15 Dec 2016)

Lumber: Didin't you know they were doing the SDA verification using Phoenix?  :nod:


----------



## Lumber (15 Dec 2016)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Lumber: Didin't you know they were doing the SDA verification using Phoenix?  :nod:



 :facepalm:


----------



## jollyjacktar (15 Dec 2016)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Lumber: Didin't you know they were doing the SDA verification using Phoenix?  :nod:



Pensioners first though...


----------



## S McPhee (16 Dec 2016)

> "ACTIVE SERVICE MEMBERS HAVE NOW BEEN REVIEWED AND PAY CORRECTION IS COMPLETED."



Myself and a few others I know still haven't received our SDA backpay yet either.  I wonder if we should expect to see it on the end Dec pay if it has indeed been "completed"?


----------



## ballz (16 Dec 2016)

If I'm a civie by the time this back pay gets paid out, do I still get it (it seems to only make sense that I would?) and if I do, how would I go about claiming it?


----------



## Halifax Tar (16 Dec 2016)

ballz said:
			
		

> If I'm a civie by the time this back pay gets paid out, do I still get it (it seems to only make sense that I would?) and if I do, how would I go about claiming it?



You collected SDA ?


----------



## ballz (16 Dec 2016)

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> You collected SDA ?



No, sorry, I was talking about the 2014 - 2016 cost of living adjustments on our base pay.


----------



## dapaterson (16 Dec 2016)

ballz said:
			
		

> No, sorry, I was talking about the 2014 - 2016 cost of living adjustments on our base pay.



On release ensure your contact information is up to date.  I believe it would be done as a direct deposit; if the account is closed, then a cheque would be issued and sent to your last known address.


----------



## McG (18 Dec 2016)

http://ottawacitizen.com/news/national/psac-keeps-sick-leave-wins-pay-hike-in-tentative-deal-with-federal-government

Looks like PSAC has negotiated an agreement that gives a raise and does not touch sick leave.


----------



## PuckChaser (18 Dec 2016)

How does the signing bonus factor into military pay increase? My gut says it doesn't, but stranger things have happened. 

Light at the end of the tunnel at least.


----------



## the 48th regulator (18 Dec 2016)

MCG said:
			
		

> http://ottawacitizen.com/news/national/psac-keeps-sick-leave-wins-pay-hike-in-tentative-deal-with-federal-government
> 
> Looks like PSAC has negotiated an agreement that gives a raise and does not touch sick leave.



Fantastic news as my Position falls under this category!!


----------



## Occam (18 Dec 2016)

It's important to note that only one bargaining group out of five in PSAC reached a tentative agreement.  68,000 out of 170,000 members.

Still a long way to go, but at least there's forward movement.


----------



## the 48th regulator (18 Dec 2016)

Occam said:
			
		

> It's important to note that only one bargaining group out of five in PSAC reached a tentative agreement.  68,000 out of 170,000 members.
> 
> Still a long way to go, but at least there's forward movement.



Cup is half full


----------



## dapaterson (18 Dec 2016)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> How does the signing bonus factor into military pay increase? My gut says it doesn't, but stranger things have happened.
> 
> Light at the end of the tunnel at least.



Likely it does not; it depends on the wording.  It could be a "Here's $650, so the crown has no more liability for Phoenix problems" payment, in which case it would not affect military pay.

Interestingly, PSAC's website is claiming 5.5% over 4 years, where PIPSC got 5% over 4.  But I think PIPSC got more in the alst contract, so it may be a wash.

PSAC's website: http://psacunion.ca/tentative-agreement-reached-pa-table-includes


----------



## dapaterson (21 Dec 2016)

A little more information on the PSAC settlement: it's 1.25% per year for four years, plus a 0.5% "market adjustment" for 2016. (http://psacunion.ca/tentative-agreement-reached-pa-table-includes)

It appears that the web page is periodically updated; the link does not change, but the information presented does...


----------



## PuckChaser (21 Dec 2016)

Are these agreements typically retroactive? Is if 1.25% from 2017 onwards (plus 0.5% for 2016)?


----------



## trooper142 (21 Dec 2016)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Are these agreements typically retroactive? Is if 1.25% from 2017 onwards (plus 0.5% for 2016)?



If we look here :

http://psacunion.ca/sites/psac/files/attachments/pdfs/20161217_barg_pa_ca_summary_table_bi.pdf

It states in the agreement:

Annex B – Rates of Pay
Basic economic increase:
Effective June 21, 2014: 1.25%
Effective June 21, 2015: 1.25%
Effective June 21, 2016: 0.5% wage adjustment for all groups and levels
Effective June 21, 2016: 1.25%
Effective June 21, 2017: 1.25%
650$ Signing bonus

With the agreement expiring in 2018, and it being a four year agreement, it would appear that it will be back dated to 2014.  

We will wait to see the deal the military gets, but it appears as though this will be the end result for the Public Service

That being said, the agreement hasn't been ratified yet, and I wouldn't hold my breath before end January at the earliest.


----------



## dapaterson (21 Dec 2016)

Once ratified by membership, and following discussions between DND and Treasury Board staff, a formal submission would go to TB for approval of revised CAF pay scales. While that worked its way through the approvals process, the staff supporting CCPS and RPSR would begin tests & trials for implementing a retroactive pay increase, and figure out when they could introduce such changes and process the millions of retroactive transactions that would be required.  Once approved by TB, a formal announcement will be made together with an estimated time for payout.

I would not expect to see any retro pay before fall 2017; January 2017 will not happen.


----------



## trooper142 (21 Dec 2016)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> I would not expect to see any retro pay before fall 2017; January 2017 will not happen.



I mean, I was more speaking to a ratification vote for the public service by end January, before anything you mentioned can even begin.


----------



## Nfld Sapper (21 Dec 2016)

I predict 2018 before we see if anything.... ;D


----------



## Occam (22 Dec 2016)

Still less than a third of the public service has tentative collective agreements; got a long way to go yet, folks.


----------



## Action Man (22 Dec 2016)

The Public Service Alliance of Canada (PSAC) announced 21 Dec 2016 that a tentative agreement between PSAC and Treasury Board has been reached for the Program and Administrative Services (PA table), covering over 68,000 federal public service workers. The agreement is an increase of five and a half percent over the four years.  More details are available online, but please keep in mind this is not for Cdn Forces personnel - only information that the government is moving forward with the Public Servants and eventually this will mean an announcement of an increase for Cdn Forces personnel will be announced in due time.  No timeline for this news, only that there is movement with the Government.  Actual increases are still to be determined for Cdn Forces personnel.  Some positive news after waiting so long since our last increase back in April of 2013.


----------



## dapaterson (23 Dec 2016)

PSAC has dropped their request for an order of mandamus against the Treasury Board over Phoenix (http://cas-cdc-www02.cas-satj.gc.ca/IndexingQueries/infp_RE_info_e.php?court_no=T-1021-16&select_court=T).  I suspect the "$650 signing bonus" is, in fact, shut up and go away money.


----------



## BinRat55 (23 Dec 2016)

Honest question here - once everything works it's way through the sausage mill and the CANFORGEN is released, the CF pay is adjusted for the retro-pay. For those who WERE in uniform in 2014, 2015 and partially 2016 (then retired) would those of us who retired still be eligible to receive the back pay for those years they were in?

Just curious...

Bin


----------



## dapaterson (23 Dec 2016)

Yes. Pay systems will process retro pay for released members.


----------



## BinRat55 (23 Dec 2016)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Yes. Pay systems will process retro pay for released members.



Nice. Thank you Big D!


----------



## busyinbrussels (16 Feb 2017)

Has anyone heard any information on this file?

I know money has been set aside, but at what point are they going to pay it out.


----------



## dapaterson (16 Feb 2017)

Once any increase is approved by Treasury Board, it will be announced, together with the time line for retro to be paid out.  Until TB approves, it is wait out.


----------



## c_canuk (3 Mar 2017)

Based on how fast admin travels through the gov these days, like SSC, PSWGC and IMProc, I won't be expecting it until around Christmas... 2018. At the earliest.

Best to just forget about it until the message comes out and be pleasantly surprised.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (3 Mar 2017)

CFCWO was around my part of the world this week...said the pay raise is coming, not much longer.


----------



## George Wallace (3 Mar 2017)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> CFCWO was around my part of the world this week...said the pay raise is coming, not much longer.



Does he have an "in" with PSAC, PIPS, and all the other PS unions?


----------



## Eye In The Sky (3 Mar 2017)

He's the CFCWO, I'd say he has pretty good info and wouldn't be stating thing at units and townhalls he wasn't confident was accurate.


----------



## mildoc (3 Mar 2017)

We were told Sept 2017 in CUB today. No further info.


----------



## McG (8 Apr 2017)

The RCMP back pay was announced this week.  I assume that (at least until they form a union) their pay increases wait for the overcoming of the same barriers as are holding up decisions on CAF pay.

So ... any day now?


----------



## jollyjacktar (8 Apr 2017)

MCG said:
			
		

> The RCMP back pay was announced this week.  I assume that (at least until they form a union) their pay increases wait for the overcoming of the same barriers as are holding up decisions on CAF pay.
> 
> So ... any day now?



They may have had their back pay announced, but it seems as if they're far from happy about their pay.  Full story with interesting photos at story link below.  Shared under the fair dealings provisions of the copyright act.



> RCMP yellow stripe protest over pay discrepancies spreads among officers
> Criminologist calls push-back by rank and file unusual, but expects more
> By Chad Pawson, CBC News Posted: Apr 08, 2017 5:00 AM PT Last Updated: Apr 08, 2017 5:00 AM PT
> 
> ...


----------



## dapaterson (8 Apr 2017)

RCMP got 4.8% over two years; I suspect the CAF will see increases more in line with the public service, which are getting 5% to 5.5% over 4 years.


----------



## Occam (8 Apr 2017)

Our union did its part to bump up the average...we've been offered 1.25% for each of the four years of the agreement, with a 2% "wage restructure" applied to the top step of all levels in the third year (1 Sep 2016).  I'm not sure how that last part will be quantified into the average they need to calculate for the CF raise purposes.


----------



## Lumber (8 Apr 2017)

Occam said:
			
		

> Our union did its part to bump up the average...we've been offered 1.25% for each of the four years of the agreement, with a 2% "wage restructure" applied to the top step of all levels in the third year (1 Sep 2016).  I'm not sure how that last part will be quantified into the average they need to calculate for the CF raise purposes.



Any idea how long from this point until these go into effect? Typically?


----------



## dapaterson (8 Apr 2017)

Generally implementation timelines are part of the negotiations;  for PSAC's PA group, for example, it will be 150 days after ratification.


----------



## Occam (8 Apr 2017)

Lumber said:
			
		

> Any idea how long from this point until these go into effect? Typically?



Our ratification vote isn't until next month, and even then they've told us with Phoenix, not to expect to see the increases and back pay processed until the end of the year.  We're only a small union; I'm not sure how things are going on a broader scale across the Public Service, or if there is enough of a baseline for them to start working on what the CF raise will be.


----------



## George Wallace (8 Apr 2017)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Generally implementation timelines are part of the negotiations;  for PSAC's PA group, for example, it will be 150 days after ratification.



However..... [



			
				Occam said:
			
		

> Our ratification vote isn't until next month, and even then they've told us with Phoenix, not to expect to see the increases and back pay processed until the end of the year.  We're only a small union; I'm not sure how things are going on a broader scale across the Public Service, or if there is enough of a baseline for them to start working on what the CF raise will be.



With the mention of the "P" word, that may mean that ALL PS employees won't see any money in their banks after the new increases are inputted.   >

CF are lucky that they do not fall into the Phoenix Pay fiasco yet.   [


----------



## kratz (8 Apr 2017)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> However..... [
> 
> With the mention of the "P" word, that may mean that ALL PS employees won't see any money in their banks after the new increases are inputted.   >
> 
> CF are lucky that they do not fall into the Phoenix Pay fiasco yet.   [



IRRPS / RPSR afflicted the PRes with  similar issues. So the entire CAF did not escape Phoenix style pay issues.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (9 Apr 2017)

kratz said:
			
		

> IRRPS / RPSR afflicted the PRes with  similar issues. So the entire CAF did not escape Phoenix style pay issues.



When IRRPS came out, most people fondly dubbed it the WHOOPS pay system.


----------



## FyroniK (29 Apr 2017)

From what I've been able to see, its down to those day ruining border agents as the last union to make a deal. Or is there another one I'm missing?

13 April 2017 was the the big ratification for most of the unions. Here http://psacunion.ca/psac-members-ratify-new-agreements-treasury-board


21 April 2017 was the last update for FB(Day Ruiners) Here http://psacunion.ca/fb-bargaining-update-what-comes-next-pic


----------



## FyroniK (29 Apr 2017)

Lumber said:
			
		

> Any idea how long from this point until these go into effect? Typically?



Perfect link for you, enjoy.

http://psacunion.ca/ratified-treasury-board-agreements-what-happens


----------



## Sub_Guy (29 Apr 2017)

Would it be hard to attach pay raises to cost of living increases?  Every year our pay would get adjusted accordingly, without having to wait for unions to sort themselves out.

We waste so much time and money on shit like this.


----------



## Occam (29 Apr 2017)

More often than not, the increases that the CF gets as a result of being tied to the average of the PS increases results in a raise better than the rate of inflation.  And the increases are always made retroactively.

Why would you settle for something less?  It's money in the bank.


----------



## George Wallace (29 Apr 2017)

Dolphin_Hunter said:
			
		

> Would it be hard to attach pay raises to cost of living increases?  Every year our pay would get adjusted accordingly, without having to wait for unions to sort themselves out.
> 
> We waste so much time and money on shit like this.



.......or just add Incentive Levels to Infinity (ILTI).   [


----------



## PuckChaser (29 Apr 2017)

Dolphin_Hunter said:
			
		

> Would it be hard to attach pay raises to cost of living increases?  Every year our pay would get adjusted accordingly, without having to wait for unions to sort themselves out.
> 
> We waste so much time and money on crap like this.



Or allow us to have our own collective bargaining agent, so we don't have to wait for PSAC to think they can milk a better deal out of a new government. Don't give me the "PSAC is getting a better deal for the CAF as well", because they have 0 thoughts about securing anything for the CAF when they're working on negotiations.

I'd be happy with increases tied to the national cost of living increase (no less than 1% per year), since pressing issues like PLD reform, or tax-free benefits on deployments are furthest from anyone's minds.


----------



## mariomike (29 Apr 2017)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Or allow us to have our own collective bargaining agent,



      :worms:


----------



## Occam (30 Apr 2017)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Or allow us to have our own collective bargaining agent, so we don't have to wait for PSAC to think they can milk a better deal out of a new government. Don't give me the "PSAC is getting a better deal for the CAF as well", because they have 0 thoughts about securing anything for the CAF when they're working on negotiations.
> 
> I'd be happy with increases tied to the national cost of living increase (no less than 1% per year), since pressing issues like PLD reform, or tax-free benefits on deployments are furthest from anyone's minds.



You really have a hate-on for the Public Service, based upon your post history.  If the 17 unions (not just PSAC) didn't reject the Conservative government's offers, and waited it out to see what the Liberals could do, you'd be enjoying a pay increase based on 0.5% per year for four years right now.  As it stands, the CF will be getting a raise that's most likely based on slightly better than 1.25% or 1.5% per year over 4 years.  The system worked as it's supposed to.  Your pay raise will be retroactive.  I strongly suspect that nobody in the CF was in danger of losing their home by not getting their pay raise every year, on time.

Your proposal of increases tied to the CPI is interesting, but the limitation of "no less than 1%" is puzzling.  If you want the benefit of keeping up with the rate of inflation when inflation is high, then when inflation slows to a rate less than 1.0%, it should apply as well.  Why would the CF (or anyone else, for that matter) enjoy COLA protection when inflation is high, but still have a guaranteed increase rate during times of low inflation?  You can't have your cake and eat it too.


----------



## BinRat55 (3 May 2017)

Occam said:
			
		

> You really have a hate-on for the Public Service, based upon your post history.  If the 17 unions (not just PSAC) didn't reject the Conservative government's offers, and waited it out to see what the Liberals could do, you'd be enjoying a pay increase based on 0.5% per year for four years right now.  As it stands, the CF will be getting a raise that's most likely based on slightly better than 1.25% or 1.5% per year over 4 years.  The system worked as it's supposed to.  Your pay raise will be retroactive.  I strongly suspect that nobody in the CF was in danger of losing their home by not getting their pay raise every year, on time.
> 
> Your proposal of increases tied to the CPI is interesting, but the limitation of "no less than 1%" is puzzling.  If you want the benefit of keeping up with the rate of inflation when inflation is high, then when inflation slows to a rate less than 1.0%, it should apply as well.  Why would the CF (or anyone else, for that matter) enjoy COLA protection when inflation is high, but still have a guaranteed increase rate during times of low inflation?  You can't have your cake and eat it too.



BAM!!


----------



## DovoNewb (15 May 2017)

I heard through the grapevine (I reiterate that this is an "I heard") that it was all sorted out now and that things will be happening WRT this later on in the year. Some are saying by Christmas time, and some are saying as early as the end of the summer. 

#didntlosemyhousebecauseofthedelay 
#divorced    Lol


----------



## dapaterson (15 May 2017)

DovoNewb said:
			
		

> I heard through the grapevine (I reiterate that this is an "I heard") that it was all sorted out now and that things will be happening WRT this later on in the year. Some are saying by Christmas time, and some are saying as early as the end of the summer.
> 
> #didntlosemyhousebecauseofthedelay
> #divorced    Lol



When it is all sorted out, I am fairly confident that it will be announced, and then the next round of griping that "I didn't get the money within 24 hours", "Basket weaving Techs deserve a higher increase" and "My friends says [insert absurd rumour here]" can being in earnest.


----------



## IceBlue (15 May 2017)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> , "Basket weaving Techs deserve a higher increase"



I am finally happy to see that someone recognizes the importance of basket weaving, it is a dying trade you know.

 >


----------



## dapaterson (15 May 2017)

Big Spoon said:
			
		

> I am finally happy to see that someone recognizes the importance of basket weaving, it is a dying trade you know.
> 
> >



Don't be ridiculous.  The trade is stronger than it has ever been.  Those minor reductions post FRP, post SR and post DRAP, reducing it to a single MCpl (and the trade is now red) are irrelevant to the future of this key enabler.

The Colonel Commandant of the branch remains fully engaged.


----------



## Half Full (16 May 2017)

Occam said:
			
		

> Our union did its part to bump up the average...we've been offered 1.25% for each of the four years of the agreement, with a 2% "wage restructure" applied to the top step of all levels in the third year (1 Sep 2016).  I'm not sure how that last part will be quantified into the average they need to calculate for the CF raise purposes.



I would expect an announcement on CAF pay raises to be made within the next 2 weeks.  Just awaiting TB approval.


----------



## PuckChaser (16 May 2017)

Half Full said:
			
		

> I would expect an announcement on CAF pay raises to be made within the next 2 weeks.  Just awaiting TB approval.


Thats a bold statement, yet completely unfounded without a source.


----------



## Half Full (16 May 2017)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Thats a bold statement, yet completely unfounded without a source.


Time will tell...


----------



## dapaterson (16 May 2017)

Or maybe the MND will announce it as part of the Defence Policy Review on 07 June...


----------



## jollyjacktar (2 Jun 2017)

Here it is everybody



> 01  06  021245Z JUN  17  RR      UUUU
> 
> NDHQ CMP OTTAWA
> CANFORGEN
> ...


----------



## TCM621 (2 Jun 2017)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> Here it is everybody


Thanks. Now hopefully some smart financial type can translate that for us. Looks pretty good though.


----------



## McG (2 Jun 2017)

Translated in a DWAN wide email:


> To all members of the CAF,
> 
> We received the good news on 01 June 2017 that Treasury Board has approved pay and allowances increases as follows:
> 
> ...


----------



## PMedMoe (2 Jun 2017)

Would the retroactive part apply to those who have recently released?


----------



## brihard (2 Jun 2017)

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> Would the retroactive part apply to those who have recently released?



Yes it will, you'll get retro as it would apply to the day you released, and salary-dependent benefits/pension will see the bump.


----------



## mariomike (2 Jun 2017)

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> Would the retroactive part apply to those who have recently released?



•Former members who left the CAF after March 31, 2014, will also receive a retroactive payment and adjustments to their retirement benefits.
https://www.canada.ca/en/department-national-defence/news/2017/06/canadian_armed_forcespayandallowanceincrease.html


----------



## PMedMoe (2 Jun 2017)

Brihard said:
			
		

> Yes it will, you'll get retro as it would apply to the day you released, and salary-dependent benefits/pension will see the bump.





			
				mariomike said:
			
		

> •Former members who left the CAF after March 31, 2014, will also receive a retroactive payment and adjustments to their retirement benefits.
> https://www.canada.ca/en/department-national-defence/news/2017/06/canadian_armed_forcespayandallowanceincrease.html



Thanks!


----------



## mariomike (2 Jun 2017)

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> Thanks!



You are welcome. I hope you are enjoying your retirement.


----------



## CountDC (2 Jun 2017)

By my estimate a Sgt (4) will get a lump sum of approx. $6.6k gross at end Jun and an overall increase of approx. $350 gross per month.  Guess that is better than nothing. [

edit of lump sum.  I forgot to include the accum amounts.


----------



## jollyjacktar (2 Jun 2017)

My math must be off.  I calculated half that amount.


----------



## Sub_Guy (2 Jun 2017)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> My math must be off.  I calculated half that amount.



Myself as well.  I'm chimping out here with the math, I calculated around 4100..  

The way I see it, it's better than a ball stompin.


----------



## murrdawg (2 Jun 2017)

If anyone would like an excel spreadsheet to help calculate what their backpay will be, please send me a pm and I will forward the spreadsheet. I will need your email address in your pm.


----------



## jollyjacktar (2 Jun 2017)

Dolphin_Hunter said:
			
		

> Myself as well.  I'm chimping out here with the math, I calculated around 4100..
> 
> The way I see it, it's better than a ball stompin.



Revenue Canada has that in hand (my balls, that is) and are getting this to pay towards the taxes from the sea pay back pay.  Sigh...


----------



## blacktriangle (2 Jun 2017)

murrdawg said:
			
		

> If anyone would like an excel spreadsheet to help calculate what their backpay will be, please send me a pm and I will forward the spreadsheet. I will need your email address in your pm.



Any chance you could upload it in this thread?


----------



## murrdawg (2 Jun 2017)

I've tried, but I can't attach an excel file here.


----------



## dapaterson (2 Jun 2017)

Could be the file is too big; it should accept xls and xlsx files.  Have you tried ZIPing it?


----------



## Stoker (2 Jun 2017)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Could be the file is too big; it should accept xls and xlsx files.  Have you tried ZIPing it?



Sea pay is going up as well, excellent.


----------



## murrdawg (2 Jun 2017)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Could be the file is too big; it should accept xls and xlsx files.  Have you tried ZIPing it?



Ah! Missed it the first time


----------



## SJBeaton (2 Jun 2017)

murrdawg said:
			
		

> Ah! Missed it the first time



I'm not confident this Excel chart is correct. Could someone confirm? Thanks!


----------



## Sig_Des (2 Jun 2017)

SJBeaton said:
			
		

> I'm not confident this Excel chart is correct. When they say compounded, wouldn't that infer that the first year is multiplied by 1.25%, the next year is the new total from the first year x 1.25%, etc.? Could someone confirm? Thanks!



That's what I'm going off of.

Year 14/15= 1.25%
Year 15/16= 2.5%
Year 16/17= 3.75%+ 1.2%

Keeping mind that the 1.2% as of 2016 is not applied to allowances


----------



## SJBeaton (2 Jun 2017)

Beadwindow 7 said:
			
		

> That's what I'm going off of.
> 
> Year 14/15= 1.25%
> Year 15/16= 2.5%
> ...



Roger that; thanks.


----------



## murrdawg (2 Jun 2017)

I even had a clerk in a pay office check it out, and it's accurate.


----------



## NavyShooter (2 Jun 2017)

I don't have the newer version of Office at home.  (Old/Old school?)

Anyhow, I took the xlsx, saved the format, and punched it out in xls format. 

If anyone wants it, drop me a note.

Of note, Spec 1, PO1/CPO2, my guestimate is approximately a total of $8600, with me seeing $4700 after a 45% tax hit.  (45% is about what I saw come off my SDA backpay last month.)

NS


----------



## SupersonicMax (2 Jun 2017)

Quite a substantial pay raise and back pay...  7.5k after tax backpay and 8k a year extra.

Edited for typo!


----------



## blacktriangle (2 Jun 2017)

8k a month extra? 

Damn I really should have taken CEOTP pilot back in the day!


----------



## SupersonicMax (2 Jun 2017)

Spectrum said:
			
		

> 8k a month extra?
> 
> Damn I really should have taken CEOTP pilot back in the day!



Good pick up  meant per year!  Edited


----------



## garb811 (3 Jun 2017)

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> Quite a substantial pay raise and back pay...  7.5k after tax backpay and 8k a year extra.
> 
> Edited for typo!


While I appreciate any raise, call me less than overwhelmed.  

The increase in the cost of living between our last pay raise and this one averaged 1.53% a year (Bank of Canada Inflation Calculator - 2013 to 2017) for a net result of a 6.28% increase in the cost of living against a base increase of just 5% and just about breaking even once the Military Factor is added in.  We still fell behind and considering this has just "caught us up" as of 1 Apr 17, we're going to keep falling behind as there is nothing in place for 1 Apr 18...and we can pretty much assume that like the last "x" number of times this has happened, it's going to be another 2-3 years before we get that one...

There shouldn't be a huge chunk of back pay, we should have had that money in our pockets well before now.  Like it or not, there is a cost to that, if for nothing less than the deferred tax implications of suddenly having a significant, unforeseen, spike in your income.  As alluded to, for people who are getting several tranches of back pay for various reasons, this is having a pretty significant impact on the money they are actually able to benefit from.  For folks paying spousal or child support, this could also result in them suddenly owing a significant amount for those issues, depending on the terms of their agreements/settlements.

I'm personally pretty tired of the "retroactivity" on everything that has crept into our pay and allowances over the past 10-15 years, including getting nailed with retroactive cancellations or decreases in allowances resulting in monies owing back to the Crown through no fault of the members.


----------



## Old EO Tech (3 Jun 2017)

murrdawg said:
			
		

> Ah! Missed it the first time



Thanks, any smart person here do a similar calculator for environmental allowances? Sea pay, LDA etc

Jon


----------



## Occam (3 Jun 2017)

garb811 said:
			
		

> The increase in the cost of living between our last pay raise and this one averaged 1.53% a year (Bank of Canada Inflation Calculator - 2013 to 2017) for a net result of a 6.28% increase in the cost of living against a base increase of just 5% and just about breaking even once the Military Factor is added in.  We still fell behind and considering this has just "caught us up" as of 1 Apr 17, we're going to keep falling behind as there is nothing in place for 1 Apr 18...and we can pretty much assume that like the last "x" number of times this has happened, it's going to be another 2-3 years before we get that one...



Most, if not all unions settled 4 year contracts that don't expire until well into 2018.  As far as I know, all of the collective agreements will still be in force as of 1 April 2018, so a benchmark Public Service salary should be an easy calculation, making the CF wage increase an easy calculation.  The unions will start the collective bargaining process in early 2018 again.  You have to remember that the long period without anything happening resulted from a government that said "it's our way or the highway"...and that's not negotiating in good faith.


----------



## Ostrozac (3 Jun 2017)

So, just for interest's sake, this pay raise changes the threshold for making $100,000 a year base salary from Major-Basic to Capt-Incentive 8.

Of course, that's just a psychological threshold, and military personnel aren't being published in the Sunshine List, but I thought it was an interesting number.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (3 Jun 2017)

Half Full said:
			
		

> Time will tell...



Seems you either (1) knew exactly what was going on and when or (2) made the best WAG this calendar year!   :nod:


----------



## Eye In The Sky (3 Jun 2017)

So the next question...what about times during 2014-present that we were tax free?   ???  Will our backpay for those times be tax free or will it be considered *monies earned in 2017* like we report it on our tax returns?


----------



## Harris (3 Jun 2017)

Further on to the last question, how is the amount handled for those currently on tax free status?  I'm guessing money earned before going tax free is still taxed.


----------



## BinRat55 (3 Jun 2017)

CountDC said:
			
		

> By my estimate a Sgt (4) will get a lump sum of approx. $6.6k gross at end Jun and an overall increase of approx. $350 gross per month.  Guess that is better than nothing. [
> 
> edit of lump sum.  I forgot to include the accum amounts.



Everyone seems to be agreeing on this math, however I seem to be a bit lost... I get a gross lump sum payment of 1900.00. Albeit I am not including all of 2016 as I retired in May 2016, but one year would not add 4 thousand dollars to my total!!! Either I am doing it wrong or you are doing it wrong.

WO 4 (about 6200.00 monthly pre-tax)

2014 -- 6200.00 X 1.25% = 77.50
77.50 x 12 = 930.00
930.00 x 30% (taxes) = 280.00
930.00 - 280.00 = 650.00

2015 -- 6277.50 X 1.25% = 78.50
78.50 X 12 = 942.00
942.00 X 30% (taxes) = 283.00
942.00 - 283.00 = 659.00

2016 -- 6356.00 X 1.25 = 79.50
79.50 X 12 = 954.00
954.00 X 30% (taxes) = 286.20
954.00 - 286.20 = 667.80

650 + 659 + 667.80 = 1976.80 Total backpay (give or take based on tax percentage) 

Where am I going wrong?


----------



## BinRat55 (3 Jun 2017)

Old EO Tech said:
			
		

> Thanks, any smart person here do a similar calculator for environmental allowances? Sea pay, LDA etc
> 
> Jon



As long as my math is correct (this is the caveat of course) I calculate that you would multiply 15 by how many months you have been receiving LDA. Example is two years. You have been in receipt of LDA for 24 months:

24 X 15.00 = 360.00

LDA increased by roughly 15 bucks a month over all incentive markers.


----------



## GeorgeD (3 Jun 2017)

BinRat55 said:
			
		

> Everyone seems to be agreeing on this math, however I seem to be a bit lost... I get a gross lump sum payment of 1900.00. Albeit I am not including all of 2016 as I retired in May 2016, but one year would not add 4 thousand dollars to my total!!! Either I am doing it wrong or you are doing it wrong.
> 
> WO 4 (about 6200.00 monthly pre-tax)
> 
> ...






You get 1.25% first year at $77.5/month then you get another 1.25% for the second year(2015) which is $78.5/month and then another 1.25 for 2016 which is $79.5/month.

What you seem to be doing is adding the 1.25% a year without considering the previous raise.

-2014
77.5x12=930

-2015
78.5x12=942
then you add that to the 2014 raise so you get 1872 for 2015.

-2016
79.5x12=954
Then add 930(2014)+942(2015)+954(2016)=2826 for 2016

To get the total you add the raise for 2014+2015+2016

930+1872+2826=5628 for total backpay


----------



## EME101 (3 Jun 2017)

Besides barely keeping up with inflation, this raise also didn't keep up with the PSAC bargaining unit that we usually benchmark against.  The Services bargaining unit contains most of the comparative civilian trades.  They received the 1.25% a year, but also got additional raises.  For example VHEs got an additional 9% market adjustment, making it that much harder to keep military Veh Techs.
These are the additional raises that they got:
Market Adjustments
Adjustments effective August 5, 2016, prior to the General Economic Increase (GEI):
FR: 15%
GL-COI: 0.5%
GL-EIM: 6%
GL-MAM: 2.5%
GL-MDO: 0.5%
GL-PIP: 2%
GL-VHE: 9%
GL-WOW: 2%
GS-group: 0.75%
HP group: 15%
Wage Adjustments
Increases effective August 5, 2016, prior to GEI:
GL-AIM: 2.5%
GL-AMW: 2.5%
GL-ELE: 0.5%
GL-GHW: 2.5%
GL-INM: 2.5%
GL-MAN: 2.5%
GL-MOC: 2.5%
GL-MST: 2.5%
GL-PCF: 0.5%
GL-PRW: 2.5%
GL-SMW: 0.5%
HS group: 0.75%
LI group: 1.5%
PR(S) group: 0.5%
SC group: 5%


----------



## BinRat55 (3 Jun 2017)

GD said:
			
		

> You get 1.25% first year at $77.5/month then you get another 1.25% for the second year(2015) which is $78.5/month and then another 1.25 for 2016 which is $79.5/month.
> 
> What you seem to be doing is adding the 1.25% a year without considering the previous raise.
> 
> ...



Nope. You're wrong. You are adding your 2014 total back pay 3 times, 2015 twice. You don't get triple 2014 in 2016...

Look at it again - at 6200 a month (in 2014), should be 6277. So, 77.50 multiplied by 12 months equals 930.00. Now you ADD the 77.50 to your 6200 to begin 2015. In 2015 you are now at 6277.50 a month. Math says it SHOULD be at 6356.00. Now you add the difference again - 78.50 multiplied by 12 months (2015) and you get 942.00. Repeat: to begin 2016, add 6356 to 79.50 and you get 6435.50. This is your base pay for 2016 (not for 2014) Multiply 79.50 X 12 and your 2016 back pay is 954.00

930 (based on 1.25% of 6200.00 a month) New monthly - 6277.00
942 (based on 1.25% of 6277.00 a month) New monthly - 6356.00
954 (based on 1.25% of 6356.00 a month) New monthly - 6435.00

2826 would be your retro BEFORE taxes.  Take about 900 off that for taxes, you end with -- 1926.00


----------



## Sub_Guy (3 Jun 2017)

Your math is off.

This chart has a few examples.

https://www.canada.ca/en/department-national-defence/news/2017/06/canadian_armed_forcespayincrease.html


----------



## GeorgeD (3 Jun 2017)

BinRat55 said:
			
		

> 930 (based on 1.25% of 6200.00 a month) New monthly - 6277.00
> 942 (based on 1.25% of 6277.00 a month) New monthly - 6356.00
> 954 (based on 1.25% of 6356.00 a month) New monthly - 6435.00


You were being paid 6200/month for 2014,2015 and 2016 right? Subtract 2013 pay from 2014 pay, 2013 pay from 2015 pay etc...
Your math is correct if in 2015 you were paid 6277/month and they just have to top off that extra 1.25%.



$6200x1.0125=6277.5
6277.5-6200=77.5
77.5x12=930

You are owed $948 for 2014

in 2015:
6277.5x1.0125=6355.5
now in 2015 you were paid ~$6200/month so with this raise they would go and subtract 6200 from 6355.5

6355.5-6200=155.5
155.5x12=1866
You are owed $1866 for 2015

Now in 2016 you wrote you worked for 2 months before you retired. I am going to assume you worked till 31 may.
6355.5x1.0125=6434.94

6434.94-6200=234.94
234.94x2=~470

948+1866+470=3284
before taxes you get $3284.


Since from 2014-2016 you were paid at the same level. So in 2014 the pay raise is 1.25% at ~$77. In 2015 it was 1.25% on top of the previous 1.25% which means now you get ~77+~77 etc...


----------



## NavyShooter (4 Jun 2017)

Having just gotten my SDA Audit backpay, which was taxed at approximately 45%, I will suggest that you apply that rough number to your lump-sum payments as well.

Expect to see them take almost half.

My SDA Backpay was $5900, my 'clear' amount was $3200

That's what I expect to see here too, but my numbers are ~8600 before taxes, and about $4700 clear.

That'll pay off the visa and make a nice kick in the savings.

Also, my monthly pay will be almost $450 more....which probably means about $275 clear.  Ish.

(CPO2 Spec 1, IPC1)

NS


----------



## BinRat55 (4 Jun 2017)

GD said:
			
		

> You were being paid 6200/month for 2014,2015 and 2016 right? Subtract 2013 pay from 2014 pay, 2013 pay from 2015 pay etc...
> Your math is correct if in 2015 you were paid 6277/month and they just have to top off that extra 1.25%.
> 
> 
> ...



You are not making one bit of sense to me. This is what I see you doing:

2014 = A
2015 = A + B
2016 = A + B + C

Total A + (A+B) + (A+B+C) = Back pay

Let's say that no matter what, our annual increase is roughly 950.00 for each of the three years.

2014 = 950.00
2015 = 950.00 + 950.00
2016 = 950.00 + 950.00 + 950.00

Total = 950.00 + 1900.00 + 2850.00 = 5700.00

This means that you will have been paid a retro payment for 2014 three times.

I still don't understand.


----------



## Sub_Guy (4 Jun 2017)

1.25 back dated to 2014.  So that's three years of 1.25 and so on.


----------



## BinRat55 (4 Jun 2017)

Dolphin_Hunter said:
			
		

> 1.25 back dated to 2014.  So that's three years of 1.25 and so on.



Ahhh now THAT clears it right up for me.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (4 Jun 2017)

There's a spreadsheet earlier in the thread that seems to work well.  Don't forget the 2016 1.2% X Factor as well.  I did the rough calculations on Friday manually and the spreadsheet came out with approx. the same numbers.


----------



## scoobydooby (4 Jun 2017)

I did the rough calculations as well used the spreadsheet.  They were basically the same.  Probably off only because i forgot the 1.2 factor that the spreadsheet has built in.  Passed it off to a friend in the Comptroller section and the Admin O and they both confirmed the spreadsheet is accurate.


----------



## Jarnhamar (4 Jun 2017)

Is there a contact number or email someone could recommend that I could give to members who have left the forces to get info on this?


----------



## mariomike (4 Jun 2017)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Is there a contact number or email someone could recommend that I could give to members who have left the forces to get info on this?



•Former members would be best served by contacting the Release Personnel Pay Office to inquire about their own specific case. 
     o   Release Personnel Pay Office: 1-800-773-7705
     o   Email for Regular files DND.RPPOREG-LRDTSA.MDN@forces.gc.ca 
     o   Email for Reserve files RPPOReserve@forces.gc.ca   

See also,

Your Pay and Allowance Increase
About the Increase
Estimates - Full-time Annual Salaries 
Estimates - Part-time Daily Rates
Estimates - Monthly Allowance Rates
Estimates - Daily Allowance Rates
http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/caf-community-benefits/know-your-benefits-articles/pay-raise.page


----------



## Navy_Pete (4 Jun 2017)

You can figure this out the same way as compound interest, but roughly for the years of increase you multiply it by;

First year - monthly pay x 1.25 = difference in monthly pay for year
Second year - monthly pay x 2.52 
Third year - monthly pay x 3.8
Fourth year - monthly pay x 5.09
Fifth year - monthly pay x 6.41
... 
anic: Warning!  Math ahead!

new rate = current rate *(1+annual increase)^number of years gives you overall percent
example in year two = current rate * (1 + 0.0125) ^2
                              =current rate *1.0252 = new total monthly rate

pretty decent explanation here; https://www.mathsisfun.com/money/compound-interest.html



Compound interest is crazy that way; an annual 1.25% increase gives you a 13% growth over 10 years.  Or do 1.5% a month (18% year) for credit card interest and you can see how fast your debt grows.


----------



## mildoc (4 Jun 2017)

Anyone know how time spent on MATA/PATA affects this back pay? No back pay for those periods of time?


----------



## dapaterson (4 Jun 2017)

mildoc said:
			
		

> Anyone know how time spent on MATA/PATA affects this back pay? No back pay for those periods of time?



I believe (but am not certain) that,since MATA/PATA is based on prior 12 months of earnings, the top-up would be recalculated since its basis has changed.


----------



## CountDC (5 Jun 2017)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> My math must be off.  I calculated half that amount.



I think your math is right as it corresponds to my original estimate but then I second-guessed it and screwed it up. sigh.


----------



## BinRat55 (5 Jun 2017)

Navy_Pete said:
			
		

> You can figure this out the same way as compound interest, but roughly for the years of increase you multiply it by;
> 
> First year - monthly pay x 1.25 = difference in monthly pay for year
> Second year - monthly pay x 2.52
> ...



What on earth ... where are you getting these percentages? I'm by far the greatest at math (3 x 6 = blue) but I read your mathplay link and I see it differently - as in exactly what the link says... a 1.25% raise at year one is still a 1.25% raise at year 4... you just add the 1.25 from year 1 to the base of year 2, and then again for year 3 and so on...


----------



## PuckChaser (5 Jun 2017)

EME101 said:
			
		

> Besides barely keeping up with inflation, this raise also didn't keep up with the PSAC bargaining unit that we usually benchmark against.  The Services bargaining unit contains most of the comparative civilian trades.  They received the 1.25% a year, but also got additional raises.  For example VHEs got an additional 9% market adjustment, making it that much harder to keep military Veh Techs.



You're barking up the wrong tree. CAF pay is an average of all those "direct comparisons", so just because one got 9% doesn't mean everyone will get it. If you believe there's a large enough gap between military and PS VHEs, then someone in the RCEME should be doing up the paperwork to justify a pay review and ask for Spec 1. Having everyone go to that 9% adjustment would disproportionately give a bigger raise to military pers compared to their civilian counterparts, and that would never happen.


----------



## SupersonicMax (5 Jun 2017)

BinRat55 said:
			
		

> What on earth ... where are you getting these percentages? I'm by far the greatest at math (3 x 6 = blue) but I read your mathplay link and I see it differently - as in exactly what the link says... a 1.25% raise at year one is still a 1.25% raise at year 4... you just add the 1.25 from year 1 to the base of year 2, and then again for year 3 and so on...



1x1.0125x1.0125x1.0125x1.0125x1.0125x1.0125x1.0125x1.0125x1.0125x1.0125

If you start with 1$, 
After a year, you have 1.0125$ (1$ + 0.0125x1$)
After 2 years, you have 1.02516$ (1.0125 + 0.0125x1.0125)
After 3 years, you have 1.03797$ (1.02516 + 0.0125x1.02516)
And so on...

After 10 years, you'd get 1.1323$ or a growth of 13.23% (rather than 12.5% if you were to purely add up 1.25% 10 times over)


----------



## BinRat55 (6 Jun 2017)

Ok I know this is difficult for me I promise this will be my last post on the topic as I just don't seem to be getting it... I want to figure out where I am going wrong on this math (it's not about how much I will see anymore it's about trying to understand this!!)

Here is what I am doing is as plain speak as I can...

If, in 2014 I was making 6200 a month, a 1.25% raise would add approx. 77.50 on to what I should have been making. So - 77.50 X 12 months in 2014 = 930.00. I am owed 930.00 for 2014.
In 2015, my pay would have been 6277.50 a month. A 1.25% raise would add approx. 78.50 on to what I should have been making. 78.50 X 12 months in 2015 = 942.00. I am owed 942.00 for 2015.
In 2016, my pay would have been 6356.00 a month. A 1.25% raise would add approx. 79.50 on to what I should have been making. 79.50 X 12 months in 2016 = 954.00. I am owed 954.00 for 2016.

930 + 942 + 954 = 2826.00 (gross)

Another way I see it:

2014    Should be making -- 6277.00 a month X 12 = 75324.00
            Was making        --  6200.00 a month X 12 = 74400.00
                                                                          ----------------
                                                                                924.00

2015    Should be making -- 6356.00 a month X 12 = 76272.00
            Was making        --  6277.00 a month X 12 = 75324.00
                                                                          ----------------
                                                                                948.00

2016    Should be making -- 6435.00 a month X 12 = 77220.00
            Was making        --  6356.00 a month X 12 = 76272.00
                                                                          ----------------
                                                                                948.00

Now, for those of you who are going to tell me that my "was making" should stay at 6200.00 a month through all years - that logic is flawed as the payout for the year previous is already factored in, ergo once the first years payout has been rectified (924.00) the second year you are considered to have been sitting at the right base amount and so on...

What am I not seeing?


----------



## PuckChaser (6 Jun 2017)

You missed the 1.2% military factor increase in FY16/17 which would give you another 6356*1.012=6614.43 which is $78.43 a month back pay = $941.18 for the year. You also have May/June pays (another 1.25%) which were $6200 instead of $6697.11, which is 2 months of backpay totalling $994.22.

Keep in mind I'm a SigOp not a MathOp so I stand to be corrected, but I see the rest of your numbers correct. Your backpay total for this example would be $4761.40


----------



## captloadie (6 Jun 2017)

Binrat,
The flaw in your logic is you are not accumulating your retro back pay. So, you calculation for 2014 is correct. For 2015, you are only calculating the additional increase to the new base pay. But you weren't paid the new base pay in 2015. You were paid the old rate of 6200. The increases are cumulative, and you aren't calculating them that way because of the way you are doing the math.

Look at it this way for the first 1.25% raise, they owe it to you for all 4 years. For the next 1.25%, they owe it to you for 3 years. For the next 1.25%, they owe it to you for 2 years. For the next 1.25%, plus the 1.2% mill factor, they owe it to you for 1 year. Then they owe you the new rate for an additional 3 months. The final percentage is a little off because of the effects of compound interest, but the spreadsheet posted earlier accounts for that.


----------



## Lumber (6 Jun 2017)

Does anyone have the previous pay scales? They seem to have replaced the "2013" pay scales on the website with the 2017 pay scales, but the link still says that they are the 2013 ones.

I'm trying to figure out what IPC I'm at, but since my pay office is an hour away, I'm trying to just compare what my current pay statement says against the old pay scale. I believe I'm IPC 5, but want to make sure.


----------



## dapaterson (6 Jun 2017)

Legacy rates are available at: http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/caf-community-pay/pay-rates.page


----------



## Lumber (6 Jun 2017)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Legacy rates are available at: http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/caf-community-pay/pay-rates.page



Tried those. They have the  "After March 2012" rates, but not the "After March 2013" rates.

Anyway, I just realized I could multiply my current pay on my pay statement by 1.0634 and it gives me the new pay, then I compare to current pay scale, and voila, IPC 5.

Cheers


----------



## Messerschmitt (6 Jun 2017)

Do these increases apply to PLD as well?

What are the yearly increases for that? Says allowances 5%, but there is no breakdown.


----------



## DonaldMcL (6 Jun 2017)

Messerschmitt said:
			
		

> Do these increases apply to PLD as well?
> 
> What are the yearly increases for that? Says allowances 5%, but there is no breakdown.



PLD hasn't been discussed yet. Allowances other than the ones mentioned are just a straight 5% across the board.


----------



## Messerschmitt (6 Jun 2017)

BobSlob said:
			
		

> PLD hasn't been discussed yet. Allowances other than the ones mentioned are just a straight 5% across the board.



5% across the board starting April 2014 (so backpay expected) or 30 June 2017?


----------



## trooper142 (6 Jun 2017)

Lumber said:
			
		

> Does anyone have the previous pay scales? They seem to have replaced the "2013" pay scales on the website with the 2017 pay scales, but the link still says that they are the 2013 ones.
> 
> I'm trying to figure out what IPC I'm at, but since my pay office is an hour away, I'm trying to just compare what my current pay statement says against the old pay scale. I believe I'm IPC 5, but want to make sure.



Where are you seeing 2017 Rates? I clicked on the 2013 pay rates and they are still looking like the 2013 rates!


----------



## PuckChaser (6 Jun 2017)

BobSlob said:
			
		

> PLD hasn't been discussed yet. Allowances other than the ones mentioned are just a straight 5% across the board.



PLD wasn't touched, its only for allowances in CBI 205. There's a table here at the bottom covering all the allowance increases: http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/caf-community-benefits/know-your-benefits-articles/pay-raise.page


Messerschmitt: I believe its 5.1% compounded, which is the 1.25% increase applied without the military factor that the base pay scale got. Backpay is "supposed" to be 30 Jun 17 pay, but I wouldn't hold your breath.

We'll get to start another thread soon when the public service unions start bargaining again for the CBA that'll start FY18-22. This is just a result of them dragging their feet with the previous government and trying to get a better deal with the Liberals.


----------



## Messerschmitt (6 Jun 2017)

trooper142 said:
			
		

> Where are you seeing 2017 Rates? I clicked on the 2013 pay rates and they are still looking like the 2013 rates!



It shows 2017. Your browser cache is still probably old. Press Ctrl+F5.

Hopefully they will release the PDF for 2013 rates like they do with 2012. Currently they just updated the web page directly with the new numbers.


----------



## trooper142 (6 Jun 2017)

Messerschmitt said:
			
		

> It shows 2017. Your browser cache is still probably old. Press Ctrl+F5.
> 
> Hopefully they will release the PDF for 2013 rates like they do with 2012. Currently they just updated the web page directly with the new numbers.



Tried Ctrl F5 and no luck!

Anyway someone can post a picture of the new rates!?


----------



## Messerschmitt (6 Jun 2017)

Here it is


----------



## kev994 (6 Jun 2017)

When I check the GSO scale is 2013 but Pilot and a couple others are 2017


----------



## dapaterson (6 Jun 2017)

Read carefully.  Col and above are 2013 payrates, as their pay is benchmarked against different groups.  LCol and below are 2017.

It's all in the notes, if you look carefully.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (6 Jun 2017)

trooper142 said:
			
		

> Tried Ctrl F5 and no luck!
> 
> Anyway someone can post a picture of the new rates!?



NCM rates for 2017 don't appear to be completed yet.  Stand by to stand by!


----------



## SJBeaton (6 Jun 2017)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> NCM rates for 2017 don't appear to be completed yet.  Stand by to stand by!



It looks as though Table to CBI 204.30 has all updated rates for NCMs: http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/about-policies-standards-benefits/ch-204-pay-policy-officers-ncms.page


----------



## Eye In The Sky (6 Jun 2017)

Copy that.  I was only looking here  ;D

http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/caf-community-pay/pay-rates.page


----------



## Navy_Pete (10 Jun 2017)

BinRat55 said:
			
		

> What on earth ... where are you getting these percentages? I'm by far the greatest at math (3 x 6 = blue) but I read your mathplay link and I see it differently - as in exactly what the link says... a 1.25% raise at year one is still a 1.25% raise at year 4... you just add the 1.25 from year 1 to the base of year 2, and then again for year 3 and so on...



Not really, they compound each year.  It's not very dramatic because the rate is pretty low.  But it will result in a noticeable difference against your monthly rates if you don't compound the raise each year, and why the total raise is slightly higher than just straight adding 1.25 each year.

So initially, you are at your standard rate of 1

each year you multiple by 1.0125 to give you your raise (1+ 1.25%= 1+0.0125). This gives you your overall new pay rate.  (if you just want to see how much your new pay rate increase is going to be, you can just multiply by 0.0125 a year, which is 1.25% as a whole number)

so your first raise is
1.00 * 1.0125 = 1.0125 (*base pay)
second year you multiply the raise (1.0125) times the rate from the previous year, not the original
1.0125 * 1.0125= 1.0252
1.0252 * 1.0125 =1.038
...
etc
you do the same each year, and after 4 annual 1.25% increases, are at a 6.41% raise instead of 6%.

If you go to the link, they explain the compound interest formula.  Basically every time it compounds, you are starting with a slightly larger bit than you had last time.

future value = present value  x (1+interest rate) ^ number of periods

you can plug in the numbers, but the interest rate is 1.25% = 0.0125, and there are 5 periods (counting from 2013 to 2017).

It's only a small difference, but only because of how small the annual increase is.  If you have larger increases, or more regular increases, that's how you get into trouble with compound interest rates, and why your balance will quickly build up on a credit card if you don't at least pay the minimum each month.

A more extreme case is when something doubles each time (for example cells that split).  You start with 1, then 2, then 4, 8, 16, 32, etc.

That's the same as a 100% compounding interest rate (ie 1), or working it into the formula;

fv = present value x (1 + 1)^number of periods

So if you start with 1, and go through 4 cell divisions (ie 4 periods) the math is

FV= 1 x 2^4 = 16

It's nice to have compounding interest work for us for a change with a raise, instead of against debt.


----------



## Navy_Pete (10 Jun 2017)

Another comparison is if you invest $1000 and it grows 5% a year;

initial = $1000
first year = $1000 + (1000*.05) = $1050
second year = $1050 + (1050*.05) = $1050 + 52.5 = $1102.50
third year = 1102.50 + (1102.50*.05) = 1102.5+ 55.125 = $1157.67

etc

If you just add 5% each year, in the third year you would be at $1150 instead of 1157.67.  Again, small difference but it's a short time.  Over twenty years it will be a bigger difference, and adds up to a lot if you invest more money over time.

Not sure if that's clearer, but that's how compound interest works, and where the 6.41% raise increase comes from, instead of 6%

(as an aside, with an annual inflation of around 1.53%, the total there is almost an 8% overall inflation in the same time)


----------



## RADOPSIGOPACCISOP (16 Jun 2017)

You can't just run test cases and expect to get a consistent one number % that will be accurate.

You're going to need to create an excel sheet and track the pay increases by year (or if you've been promoted during that time, do it by month) and then get the cumulative increases.

When it worked it out it was nearly $7500 gross. 

Once taxes are gone it's about $5k, which is a nice bonus.


----------



## RADOPSIGOPACCISOP (16 Jun 2017)

This is what I did in excel to get it (accounts for a July 2016 promotion):

	6033		1.0125		
	5638		1.015		


Apr14-Apr15	12	=D4*D7		                 =E7*F3	        =G7-E7
Apr15-Apr16	12	=D4*D8		                 =G7*F3	        =G8-E8
Apr16-Jul16	3	=D4*D9	=D3*F3*F3*F3	 =F9*D9	        =G9-E9
Jul16-Mar17	9	=D3*D10		                 =F9*F3*D10	=G10-E10
					=D3*12*0.012
					=SUM(H7:H11)
					=H12*0.33
					=H12-H13


----------



## Nfld Sapper (16 Jun 2017)

RADOPSIGOPACISSOP said:
			
		

> This is what I did in excel to get it (accounts for a July 2016 promotion):
> 
> 6033		1.0125
> 5638		1.015
> ...



Don't see any dollar values only the cell/formula info.


----------



## RADOPSIGOPACCISOP (16 Jun 2017)

NFLD Sapper said:
			
		

> Don't see any dollar values only the cell/formula info.



I set it to show formula as I thought that may be more useful for people if they wanted to create their own spreadsheets. The actual dollar value is only really applicable to me or someone that got the same promotions at the same time.


----------



## Schifty (19 Jun 2017)

A simple question, this retro pay will be with or without the taxes, I mean will they take it this summer or in april on our T4


----------



## brihard (19 Jun 2017)

Schifty said:
			
		

> A simple question, this retro pay will be with or without the taxes, I mean will they take it this summer or in april on our T4



Taxes will be deducted from your pay check. They will probably be somewhat over-deducted, that's what I've seen in the past.


----------



## c_canuk (19 Jun 2017)

Is there anyone working in/with the pay system that can comment on if we'll receive the lump sum retro on the 30th, or if it will be later etc?

Someone today was saying they heard end of July, I thought we'd been told end of June, however I know these things can get delayed.


----------



## dapaterson (20 Jun 2017)

Last available info is holding to the 30 June date.


----------



## CountDC (20 Jun 2017)

Depends - Reg F is standing on 30 Jun but according to the RPPO plus box message we get the reserves will start to receive lump sum payments starting end Jun 2017.  This leaves the door open for later payments.


----------



## EME101 (22 Jun 2017)

▼ E01217 - 02 Jun - Production Calendar

Date: 02 Jun 17

Subject: Production Calendar

Treasury Board has approved the General Pay Increase (GPI) for members of the CAF retroactive to 1 Apr 2014.  DMPAP will have the retro pay calculated and applied to all CAF members pay in time to appear on the members’ end June pay.  During the implementation of the GPI, it will be necessary to take CCPS and RPSR offline during business hours. 

CCPS will be offline at 2100 on Thurs, 8 June 2017 to 0700 Tues, 13 Jun 2017. During this time, pay clerks will not have access to CCPS until the system resumes normal processing on 13 June 2017.


However, despite the above message CCPS was active during that time, and is down now.


----------



## merk102 (22 Jun 2017)

Anyone have an idea of the taxation rate of the backpay portion ? I noticed that the spreadsheet showed a 38% tax rate which means we would get approx. 62% of that.


----------



## Messerschmitt (22 Jun 2017)

Brihard said:
			
		

> Taxes will be deducted from your pay check. They will probably be somewhat over-deducted, that's what I've seen in the past.



Of course, always is. Never the other way around. Also, most are in higher tax brackets than they were in 2014,2015,2016, so more taxes withheld than if we would've got the increase regularly. And no "interest" for the delay, since money now is less than up to 3 years ago.

Oh well, at least we got an increase. Hopefully they will be yearly from now, and it's going to be a while until it gets stuck again


----------



## JesseWZ (22 Jun 2017)

I just checked my upcoming pay statement in EMAA and the backpay is there along with the new pay rate... ;D


----------



## Cobrajr (22 Jun 2017)

There seems to be some shenanigans going on with ACISS:CST's back pay and rate increase.
Will this ride ever end?

I have not had access to DWAN in a while so I have not seen the message, just comments about it. is there anyone in the know that can shed some more light on this for me?

EDIT: Nevermind, got my answer.


----------



## SupersonicMax (22 Jun 2017)

Messerschmitt said:
			
		

> Of course, always is. Never the other way around. Also, most are in higher tax brackets than they were in 2014,2015,2016, so more taxes withheld than if we would've got the increase regularly. And no "interest" for the delay, since money now is less than up to 3 years ago.
> 
> Oh well, at least we got an increase. Hopefully they will be yearly from now, and it's going to be a while until it gets stuck again



You'll get the difference on taxes during next tax season...


----------



## Crimmsy (23 Jun 2017)

Will the retroactive pay rates factor into pension calculations, as far as best five years are concerned?


----------



## BeyondTheNow (23 Jun 2017)

c_canuk said:
			
		

> Is there anyone working in/with the pay system that can comment on if we'll receive the lump sum retro on the 30th, or if it will be later etc?
> 
> Someone today was saying they heard end of July, I thought we'd been told end of June, however I know these things can get delayed.



EMAA pay statements are up for end of June. Mine reflected end of June payment.


----------



## dapaterson (23 Jun 2017)

Crimmsy said:
			
		

> Will the retroactive pay rates factor into pension calculations, as far as best five years are concerned?


Yes.


----------



## Messerschmitt (24 Jun 2017)

murrdawg said:
			
		

> Ah! Missed it the first time



I demand damages! Your excel was off by 13 cents!!! You triggered me rawr rawr rawr (or maybe the govnt is cheating us of pennies to build up their coffers /tinfoil hat)

I'm not even going to bother to manually check the accuracy thanks to your excel sheet. Cheers for saving me up to an hour with it. Pretty much spot on.


----------



## Haggis (24 Jun 2017)

I just received my RPSR Pay Statement through EMAA.  The amount showing was shockingly lower than expected for a retro statement covering 3+ years.  Unfortunately the statement has a disclaimer which reads "_Not all Pay Statement information can be displayed through EMAA due to the high number of transactions contained in the statement. Please contact your Pay Office for a copy of your entire Pay Statement."_ so I have no idea if this is it for my retro, if this is my regular Class A pay or if supplementary deposits will be forthcoming.


----------



## PuckChaser (24 Jun 2017)

Did some quick math, my retro pay is $8085, with 42% taken off for tax, CFSA, CPP and EI leaving me with $4735. The plus side, is I now only have July's pay before CPP and EI are maxed out for the year.

If it looks like you lost close to half, that's where it went.


----------



## Halifax Tar (25 Jun 2017)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Did some quick math, my retro pay is $8085, with 42% taken off for tax, CFSA, CPP and EI leaving me with $4735. The plus side, is I now only have July's pay before CPP and EI are maxed out for the year.
> 
> If it looks like you lost close to half, that's where it went.



Well that explains why my back pay was 7400$ but only 3600 of it is actually going to make it into my new rifle account err I mean bank account.


----------



## Stoker (25 Jun 2017)

I got quite a bit less and I think I was taxed at the highest bracket. As I understand it anything over a 10 grand pay run, you get taxed at the highest rate by the RPSR. I would imagine I will get more back in taxes this year.


----------



## jollyjacktar (25 Jun 2017)

I would rather be taxed more than not enough, after getting curb stomped at tax time from the sea pay back pay from last year.  This retro pay is going entirely to pay that tax bill.  I won't see a penny of it.  Even though they took an arm and most of a leg with the sea pay, the over $5K still wanting suggests they want both legs too.  I'm really hoping I don't get kicked in the balls again come next April..


----------



## Old EO Tech (25 Jun 2017)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Did some quick math, my retro pay is $8085, with 42% taken off for tax, CFSA, CPP and EI leaving me with $4735. The plus side, is I now only have July's pay before CPP and EI are maxed out for the year.
> 
> If it looks like you lost close to half, that's where it went.



I noticed the same thing, they maxed out on tax, pension, EI and CPP.  And yes EI and CPP will max out early, and Revenue Canada is going to be giving me back more cash next March :-/  Not necessarily a bad thing.

Jon


----------



## Haggis (25 Jun 2017)

What concerns me is that the *gross* amount on my EMAA pay statement is roughly 40% of what I was expecting.


----------



## Old EO Tech (25 Jun 2017)

Haggis said:
			
		

> What concerns me is that the *gross* amount on my EMAA pay statement is roughly 40% of what I was expecting.



I would definitely go to your clerks and have them look at that.  But the pay guide did go month by month for both pay and LDA etc.  So if you don't see months/years that you think you deserve, that would be the starting point.

Jon


----------



## dapaterson (25 Jun 2017)

Haggis said:
			
		

> What concerns me is that the *gross* amount on my EMAA pay statement is roughly 40% of what I was expecting.



My calculation was very close to reality.  As a Reservist, I used the following data:

31 Dec 14 gross pay minus 31 Mar 14 gross pay x 1.25%
31 Mar 15 gross pay x 1.25%
31 Dec 15 gross pay minus 31 Mar 15 gross pay x 2.5%
31 Mar 16 gross pay x 2.5%
31 Dec 16 gross pay minus 31 Mar 16 gross pay x 4.95%
31 Mar 17 gross pay x 4.95%
15 Jun 17 gross pay minus 31 Mar 17 gross pay x 6.2%

Does not account for compounding, but it's a good ballpark estimate.


----------



## Harbo0909 (25 Jun 2017)

I "retired" last summer and am looking at about 2.5 years of back pay.  I have since taken my transfer value and invested in my new employer's pension plan and invested leftovers in my LIRA.  I was curious if they would be deducting a pension portion from the back pay amount?  I would assume this would get really complicated should they go that route?  Pension adjustment, transfer value amount already paid out, affecting average best 5 etc....


----------



## dapaterson (25 Jun 2017)

Yes, pension amounts will be recalculated, and pension contributions will be deducted.


----------



## Nfld Sapper (2 Jul 2017)

Haggis said:
			
		

> I just received my RPSR Pay Statement through EMAA.  The amount showing was shockingly lower than expected for a retro statement covering 3+ years.  Unfortunately the statement has a disclaimer which reads "_Not all Pay Statement information can be displayed through EMAA due to the high number of transactions contained in the statement. Please contact your Pay Office for a copy of your entire Pay Statement."_ so I have no idea if this is it for my retro, if this is my regular Class A pay or if supplementary deposits will be forthcoming.





			
				Haggis said:
			
		

> What concerns me is that the *gross* amount on my EMAA pay statement is roughly 40% of what I was expecting.



It appears that some members in my regiment didn't get the June Class A pay but did get the retro... so that might be the reason why.


----------



## Jarnhamar (2 Jul 2017)

Would a reg force member (over a decade of service) who passed away in the last year or so be entitled to to any retro pay? Obviously not him but his wife?


----------



## dapaterson (2 Jul 2017)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Would a reg force member (over a decade of service) who passed away in the last year or so be entitled to to any retro pay? Obviously not him but his wife?


Yes, the estate should receive it.  I'd suggest contacting the RPPO for detauls; there may be issues to address before it can be released.


And re:End June class A: my understanding is that the pay cut off date was advanced due to the retro, so a number of folks did not have pay approved before the cut off.  Ask your OR.


----------



## Nfld Sapper (2 Jul 2017)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> And re:End June class A: my understanding is that the pay cut off date was advanced due to the retro, so a number of folks did not have pay approved before the cut off.  Ask your OR.



That's what I figured but since I'm on Class B it had no impact for me.


----------



## Ariconius (2 Jul 2017)

Ok, so I haven't really been following this whole pay increase topic since I have been out of the reg force and working in civilian land since the beginning of 2017. I had everything sorted out with my pension and claims, so when I saw a big lump of money from the gov't in my bank account at the end of June I was wondering, "Is that actually my money?" Based on the math of retro pay it seems like the numbers work out, I just wanted to make sure.


----------



## BinRat55 (3 Jul 2017)

Ariconius said:
			
		

> Ok, so I haven't really been following this whole pay increase topic since I have been out of the reg force and working in civilian land since the beginning of 2017. I had everything sorted out with my pension and claims, so when I saw a big lump of money from the gov't in my bank account at the end of June I was wondering, "Is that actually my money?" Based on the math of retro pay it seems like the numbers work out, I just wanted to make sure.



This whole pay increase topic? Where have you been? Ok, so after reading this thread, and probably dozens of media blogs and social media... are you sure now?


----------



## BinRat55 (3 Jul 2017)

Actually, Ariconius, after looking at your profile, I'M not so sure... you list your rank as a recruit. Not sure that a "big" lump sum as you put it would be headed your way...


----------



## Gunner98 (3 Jul 2017)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Yes, the estate should receive it.  I'd suggest contacting the RPPO for detauls; there may be issues to address before it can be released.



Reference: http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/about-policies-standards-queens-regulations-orders-vol-04/appx-04-04.page
The Canadian Forces, as employer, shall initiate payment to a member, a former member or, in case of death, the estate of a former member who is eligible for retroactive remuneration.


----------



## PuckChaser (3 Jul 2017)

BinRat55 said:
			
		

> Actually, Ariconius, after looking at your profile, I'M not so sure... you list your rank as a recruit. Not sure that a "big" lump sum as you put it would be headed your way...


Previous posts indicate they started basic July 2013. Entirely possible served and released and was entitled to backpay.


----------



## PuckChaser (6 Jul 2017)

Saw this on Morale Toilet, thought of this thread:


----------



## PMedMoe (8 Jul 2017)

Okay, I'm wondering if any other recently retired members have received extra money.  I had a normal pension deposit on 28 June and then another deposit a day or two later but nowhere near what I was expecting as back pay.  Guess I need to call the pension office to see what's going on there.  

 :dunno:


----------



## dapaterson (8 Jul 2017)

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> Okay, I'm wondering if any other recently retired members have received extra money.  I had a normal pension deposit on 28 June and then another deposit a day or two later but nowhere near what I was expecting as back pay.  Guess I need to call the pension office to see what's going on there.
> 
> :dunno:



Pension office can't help with back pay; that's the job of the Released Personnel Pay Office (RPPO); 1-800-773-7705.


----------



## PMedMoe (8 Jul 2017)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Pension office can't help with back pay; that's the job of the Released Personnel Pay Office (RPPO); 1-800-773-7705.



Thanks. That's the # I needed.


----------



## PMedMoe (17 Jul 2017)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Pension office can't help with back pay; that's the job of the Released Personnel Pay Office (RPPO); 1-800-773-7705.



Have now called twice and had to leave a message both times.  FYI, as per the recording, they won't do calculations for you.  They also say if you haven't received your money by end Aug, to call.  I just wished they had sent a statement for the deposit I received.


----------



## dapaterson (17 Jul 2017)

The GoC needs to get away from its "only access pay and pension info on GoC networks" obsession and permit Internet access.


----------



## PMedMoe (17 Jul 2017)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> The GoC needs to get away from its "only access pay and pension info on GoC networks" obsession and permit Internet access.



Yep.   :nod:


----------



## PMedMoe (21 Jul 2017)

So, finally got through to a real, live person at the RPPO.  It seems the one responsible for my letter group is working on the severance payouts.  It appears the measly sum I received at end June is my retro pay increase.   Somehow, I expected more.  Extra severance pay is still to come, but I'm sure that'll be peanuts....


----------



## dapaterson (21 Jul 2017)

They should be able to send you a pay statement for your retro so you can review it.


----------



## PMedMoe (21 Jul 2017)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> They should be able to send you a pay statement for your retro so you can review it.



You'd think, right?  Apparently the pay system crashed....   :


----------



## dapaterson (21 Jul 2017)

It was actually a network outage at their offices.  But note how thin on the ground the RPPO is. Until the CAF takes pers admin seriously and invests people into the function, problems will persist.


----------



## Scrumdoctor (31 Aug 2017)

I have a question regarding posting allowance.  I was promoted before my cos date just last month.  when I registered with Brookfield I was corporal, now Brookfield is telling me that I will only receive posting allowance as a corporal because of the retro pay.  What should I do?  I went to the orderly room and had my new print screen and verification of posting allowance and dependants form stamped and approved.  Brookfield will not honor it.

"As we discussed during our meeting yesterday, due to the retroactive pay increase BGRS does not have the authority to update a transfer/posting allowance once we are past your COS date, without authorization from DND. DND will introduce a program to update the Posting Allowances on all relocation files that are affected by the retro-pay and notify the general CAF population with information and instructions."


----------



## Lumber (31 Aug 2017)

Scrumdoctor said:
			
		

> I have a question regarding posting allowance.  I was promoted before my cos date just last month.  when I registered with Brookfield I was corporal, now Brookfield is telling me that I will only receive posting allowance as a corporal because of the retro pay.  What should I do?  I went to the orderly room and had my new print screen and verification of posting allowance and dependants form stamped and approved.  Brookfield will not honor it.
> 
> "As we discussed during our meeting yesterday, due to the retroactive pay increase BGRS does not have the authority to update a transfer/posting allowance once we are past your COS date, without authorization from DND. DND will introduce a program to update the Posting Allowances on all relocation files that are affected by the retro-pay and notify the general CAF population with information and instructions."



Seems pretty clear to me... Wait for the instructions...


----------



## jollyjacktar (31 Aug 2017)

I never thought about that.  Should make for a nice surprise bottle of Scotch down the road.   ;D


----------



## Scrumdoctor (31 Aug 2017)

I understand that there could be direction coming out in regards to retro pay etc.  I am curious if anyone else has encountered this problem?  Is this just a ploy by Brookfield to save money.

This is the second time this posting that Brookfield fed me the "We need authority from DND" crap.  My F&E were to be moved from my house, at a remote detachment.  According to my previous Brookfield advisor, my career manager did not have the authority to authorize the movement of my F&E from the place I was posted to.  I had to staff the issue up my COC 3 times then she was fired.

So, Im just wondering if anyone else has encountered this yet.


----------



## dapaterson (31 Aug 2017)

Brookfield gets paid a set fee to deliver services for each relocation file that gets opened.  The payments you get do not come out of their pockets; those are 100% paid by the Crown.


----------



## Pusser (5 Sep 2017)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Brookfield gets paid a set fee to deliver services for each relocation file that gets opened.  The payments you get do not come out of their pockets; those are 100% paid by the Crown.



To add to this.  Brookfield has absolutely no incentive to "save money" as it does not affect their revenue one iota.  They get paid the same regardless of how much money Crown spends on moves.  However, Brookfield is accountable for mistakes and does have to re-pay the Crown for any overpayments they make if they are found at fault.  They have been burned more than once.  In the current climate, they follow the contract to the letter and they neither have nor do they exercise any discretion.


----------



## CountDC (13 Sep 2017)

I had two moves that the claims were corrected within a year after going through an audit and received additional payment for items the initial agent rejected.  I don't have an issue with them adhering strictly to the rules as anything you do not agree with you can ask to have reviewed.  I haven't even had to ask for the review though.  Will wait on this one to see what comes out of it as I had another move within this period.


----------



## Pusser (13 Sep 2017)

CountDC said:
			
		

> I had two moves that the claims were corrected within a year after going through an audit and received additional payment for items the initial agent rejected.  I don't have an issue with them adhering strictly to the rules as anything you do not agree with you can ask to have reviewed.  I haven't even had to ask for the review though.  Will wait on this one to see what comes out of it as I had another move within this period.



Note that these reviews are not 100%.  Only about 10% of files each year are reviewed in this manner and it's a random sampling, so there is no guarantee that your file will be reviewed.  If they notice trends (e.g. one base seems to be routinely denying an eligible payment), then they will dig deeper.


----------



## ABSigs (23 Oct 2017)

https://army.ca/forums/threads/99046.0


----------



## PMedMoe (15 Dec 2017)

Anyone know if the pensions/severance pay are done yet?  Just got a Canada Pay deposit in my bank account.  Pension deposit not due until 27-28 Dec.... :dunno:


----------



## Nfld Sapper (15 Dec 2017)

Retro from the July pay increase?


----------



## PMedMoe (16 Dec 2017)

NFLD Sapper said:
			
		

> Retro from the July pay increase?



Already received that.  Unless they made a mistake....


----------



## navig8ur (16 Dec 2017)

Retired in March and I also received a similar deposit in Nov with no corresponding pay statement.  Unsure what it is and assume retro severance.  My pension comes into the bank titled Deposit Canada. and this was titled Pay Canada which I believe is the RPPO.


----------



## Swingline1984 (18 Dec 2017)

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> Anyone know if the pensions/severance pay are done yet?  Just got a Canada Pay deposit in my bank account.  Pension deposit not due until 27-28 Dec.... :dunno:



Did anyone figure out what this payment is yet? I retired summer 2016, got my retro in July 17 and also received unexpected money this month.


----------



## PuckChaser (18 Dec 2017)

There was a retro for your posting allowance, of it was only a few hundred that could be it.


----------



## Swingline1984 (18 Dec 2017)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> There was a retro for your posting allowance, of it was only a few hundred that could be it.



Don't have that one yet, but I'm tracking and they only owe me around $160, this was around $1100. I'd try the pension office again, but the guy in my letter group never picks up the phone or returns messages...plus it's the holidays.  :subbies:


----------



## PMedMoe (19 Dec 2017)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> There was a retro for your posting allowance, of it was only a few hundred that could be it.



I think people received an email from Brookfield for that.


----------



## CountDC (22 Dec 2017)

yep and we had to upload our banking info to the site.


----------

