# Troops Forced To Pay Back Meal Claims Advances



## Marauder (8 Mar 2004)

http://www.canada.com/OwenSound/story.html?id=5dbc4bf3-0d81-4bd1-ac29-28b29f0ff8fc 


> Soldiers forced to repay Forces‘ food allowance
> Ombudsman calls troops victims of ‘broken promises‘
> Mike Blanchfield
> CanWest News Service
> ...


Screwed again. The worst part of the Forces has to be putting up with the constant petty, small-minded bullsh!t like this. Starve me, freeze me, bore me, beat me, but DON‘T F#CK WITH MY PAY OR PER DIEM!


----------



## xFusilier (8 Mar 2004)

> "We have already started to receive indications that no students will be made available (for the next two courses) if this issue is not resolved," said an e-mail by a senior official.


What ever happened to you, Bloggins, pack your kit you‘re going on course.

The senior official in this story is correct, the military is not a smorgasbord of benefits.  The military way of doing business is not to attempt to buy volunteers it is to order people to go if no one is willing to volunteer, not tell some one that you are going to break the law (yes, TD rates are regulations, and therefore legal documents) for them.

TD rates are well known and published, and the fact that they chose to ignore the obvious, places a fair amount of responsibility for this on them.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (8 Mar 2004)

Don‘t feel so bad...it happens in the navy as well...a message came out to one of the CPFs where Ottawa decided that while it was deployed in the Gulf the crew were entitled to about an extra month hardship pay which equaled out to around 1700 what happens next is Ottawa decides that they made a mistake and everyone has to pay it back 2 years later.


----------



## Duotone81 (8 Mar 2004)

xFusilier,

Eh????



> The 102-day course ran from February to June. The Forces offered $50 a day to participants to cover the cost of their three meals.


They were told they would be getting $50/day for meals. Should it have been an incentive? I agree with you that it shouldn‘t have. But to be told to have to pay $2200 after-the-fact is wrong. You don‘t want to dish out $50/day for food, fine. Just don‘t give me the ok then tell me later I‘m paying it back because you suddenly feel it was too much.


----------



## xFusilier (8 Mar 2004)

This isn‘t an issue on wanting to pay or not wanting to pay, there is a TB directive that sets the meal rates.  The CDS himself cannot vary those rates.

You are either entitled to an allowance or not entitled to it.  It is your responsibility as a member be it CF, Public Service or RCMP, to ensure that when you take an advance that it is what you are entitled to.  These guys took advances for monies they had no entitlement to.

Personally I think that these individuals chain of command should be fired for this type of crap, but the members themselfs are not blameless.


----------



## NMPeters (8 Mar 2004)

The per diem rate for meals today is $54.15 which means in the summer of 2002, the TD rate would have been around $50.


----------



## dano (8 Mar 2004)

Money is money thats all the world revolves around.


----------



## chrisp1j (8 Mar 2004)

Thats the kind of crap that makes me hesitate before joining the CF. 

ie. Should I accept if my application is approved? Well...there was that one time where the ten Corporals got screwed...so no.

Good way to lose a great prospect eh? 

Somebody better fix this crap.


----------



## Michael OLeary (8 Mar 2004)

Yes Sherwood, the instructions which should have been issued authorizing them to attend the training should have specified their entitlements. With us it‘s usually one of two things: you‘re either given rations and quarters at a CF base, or you‘re reimbursed commercial rates for lodging and given the per diem for meals.

Tonight‘s news stated that the Minister has instructed the CF to ‘sort it out.‘ The Ombudsman estimated that we‘ve spent ten times the disputed amount haggling over the troops‘ grievances.


----------



## Gryphon (8 Mar 2004)

just goes to show you that mismanagment screws everyone over!


----------



## K. Ash (8 Mar 2004)

If they weren‘t suppose to get it in the first place that‘s one thing. But to give it to them and then let so much time past and ask them to pay it back is just wrong.


----------



## MJP (8 Mar 2004)

> TD rates are well known and published, and the fact that they chose to ignore the obvious, places a fair amount of responsibility for this on them.


If I‘m not mistaken the total amount reimbursable of all three meals is around fifty dollars a day.  

$8-10 for breakfast
$9-12 for lunch
$25-27 for supper


Now the whole story isn‘t in the report.  They never mentioned if they were living off the local economy. Nor did it say if their lodgings included food.  So we are drawing conclusions from an incomplete story IMHO. 

If they were living off the local economy, they would be(as far as I know and have seen) entitled to a per diem of all three meals a day.

If they weren‘t living on the local economy and meals were provided, their leadership dropped the ball and should rightfully be held accountable.


----------



## Gryphon (8 Mar 2004)

*chanting*

They say that in the army, the pay is mighty fine.
They give you 100 dollars, and take back 99!


----------



## Arctic Acorn (8 Mar 2004)

A per diem rate is a per diem rate. I have NEVER heard of had someone say to me, ‘well, you were initially entitled to $50, as per CFAO, DAOD etc etc, but we decided that you‘re now entitled to $17.50. You may notice a small change in your pay statment..." In short, it‘s a clawback on an established entitlement, and it‘s cr@p. 

A.A.

"The Army: There‘s no life...LIKE IT!"

or

"I love the f@rking Army, and the Army loves f@rking me..."


----------



## Fishbone Jones (8 Mar 2004)

Plain and simple. If meals were not provided they were entiltled to the per diem, plus the $17.50 TD and their extra expense, like phone calls.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (9 Mar 2004)

The meal rate is published and as pointed out, 50 dollars sounds about right.  I‘m RMS and can attest to that...

As for "benefits smorgasborg", xFusilier obviously has no clue what he‘s talking about.  If you‘re entitled, you‘re entitled.  You‘re either in the field, for which you draw your FOA, or you‘re not in the field.  You‘re either getting fed, or you‘re not.

Considering that these are tradesmen in short supply, guess what?  Yeah, you do buy their love.  They do the same with doctors, pilots and other skilled personnel, too.  Why should the Armed Forces be any different in how it acquires skilled workers?


----------



## Slim (9 Mar 2004)

I heard the news story. It said that there was no place for the soldiers to eat on base so they would have been forced to live off of the local economy. Not sure about quarters though.

Slim


----------



## portcullisguy (9 Mar 2004)

Under Treasury Board rules -- which apply to the entire public service, RCMP and DND -- a person is entitled to receive certain pay & benefits when assigned to work temporarily away from their normal duty location.

xFusilier is correct.  If a DND member is entitled to receive pay under TB rules, the CDS, nor God himself, can do anything to alter the entitlement.  Only the head of the Treasury Board, subject to ministerial approval, can vary rates of travel pay.

If one is entitled to receive travel/meal pay under TB rules, particularly for an expected long period of posting away from the normal work location, they are also entitled to receive an advance, based on an estimate of what they expect to receive.

Some of the benefits may include:

- Meals paid at TB rates, which can add up to $50+ per day
- Telephone expense ($3/day in 2001)
- Incidentals ($10/day in 2001) for periods of less than 60 days service
- Travel pay, per kilometre, the member is required to travel to the work location and back, and on travel weekends (every third weekend)

Now, I can see not being entitled to receive meal allowance if the government is feeding you.  But there was no indication from the story that this was the case.

It seems very shortsighted and mean-spirited to clawback pay that members are probably rightly entitled to, especially months or years afterwards.  This happens, however, in all government departments.

It‘s a shame, really, because department heads and famous for screwing the taxpayers over with travel/meal expenses.  Just this week in the news, the Commissioner of the Correctional Service of Canada was "outed" as having spent extravagant sums of our money on luxury hotel stays to exotic locations for "prison conferences", and even nickle & diming us for bags of chips and bottles of pop for entertaining guests.

However, every travel claim I‘ve put in at my public service job, I can guarantee you is carefully scrutinized.  Then again, I‘m pretty low on the totem pole.

Bottom line, don‘t mess with people‘s entitlements.  Either pay them all fairly and equally, or expect to receive serious flak.


----------



## portcullisguy (9 Mar 2004)

Just a link for you folks who want to look up Treasury Board travel pay charts, etc...

The benefits are quite generous, and I can see why the DND would want to reconsider paying them if they didn‘t think they had to...

 http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/pubs_pol/hrpubs/TBM_113/td-dv-c_e.asp


----------



## xFusilier (9 Mar 2004)

There is not enough information in the story to go on but, If they were living in accomodations (say a suite hotel) with a kitchen, their entitlements for meals is reduced substantially, as do entiltlements for TD change the longer you remain in travel status.

And Michael, you are right if you‘re entitled, you‘re entitled, obviously these guys weren‘t entitled.


----------



## Grunt_031 (9 Mar 2004)

If the mbrs had failed or been RTU in the first weeks of the course they would have had to pay back the advance. If they spent the money before they left on course, it is a gamble they chose and they lost. The advance is to pay for expenses and is not to supplement their income (common thinking within the CF). If at the end of the course there is extra money, all the better for them but it is not theirs until the last day of the course (in the old days you had to provide receipts and proof of all expenses). If they had used the goverment travel amex card (available to all reg CF pers) there is no requirement for advances. All mbrs should be famil with their pay and allowances. Of course, there was a breakdown in the chain of command somewhere and there should be ever effort made to assit the mbrs with repayment but they are still reponsible for the crowns money.


----------



## Armymedic (9 Mar 2004)

Xfusilier  





> What ever happened to you, Bloggins, pack your kit you‘re going on course.
> 
> The senior official in this story is correct, the military is not a smorgasbord of benefits. The military way of doing business is not to attempt to buy volunteers it is to order people to go if no one is willing to volunteer, not tell some one that you are going to break the law (yes, TD rates are regulations, and therefore legal documents) for them.
> 
> TD rates are well known and published, and the fact that they chose to ignore the obvious, places a fair amount of responsibility for this on them.


YOU ARE RIGHT OUT OF ‘ER!
Not to mention a heartless blade.

Why would anyone in the regular military volunteer to undertake a course for the military, to benifit the military in its operations, knowing that they will have to take money away from thier families so that they can eat while undergoing training without the proper reinbursement? Were meals provided by the company? Was there accm and messing immediately avail. I am pretty sure there is not. And another thing..Its not like they were just a  block from home, you can pretty much guarentee 9 of those 10 students travelled from outside BC.
As a medic I have been tasked, undergone and taught civilian based courses where the per deim actually allows me to go away for the week to 2 months I am gone without worrying about how much money I am taking out of my family budget. It is not a "benefit" it is an entitlement because thats what it costs to be living away from your own home for long periods of time. The fact your hotel room has a kitchenette has no effect on your entitlement.
The amounts are well stated by others above. The  per diem that was removed was for meals....what, am I to take my families grocery money away so I do the army‘s bidding?

Not Bloody likely.  And try to tell me I do. 
This is not the same as "take that trench"


----------



## Garry (9 Mar 2004)

I was in Vancouver, on a parallel course at the same facility, stayed in the same hotel, and discussed the problem from the outset with the guys who are "in the news". Subsequent to the course, I discussed this with one of the affected folk. (We serve together)

The whole affair was muddled by the release of new treasury board guidelines that came out just prior to, or during (can‘t remember) the course. Basically, it allowed a higher food allowance for the first 30 days of trg, and then dropped substantially for any days after 30 days. It was aimed at those who stayed in facilities with kitchenettes. 

These folk were told (in writing, on course message) where they were staying, and how many $$ per day they were entitled to for food and incidentals. A little over halfway through the course, they were warned that the food entitlement "may change", so be careful. This was a verbal warning.

The system screwed up on this one. Lots more inuendo and rumours, but I‘m not passing those around. Suffice it to say, the troops weren‘t the only ones outraged, but no resolution to the problem was found.

On the good side, the Ombudsmen did his job. The system is NOT perfect, but will sort this out. Hopefully, we (The Forces) will learn from this, ans it won‘t happen again.

Small comfort for those afected though.

Cheers-Garry


----------



## xFusilier (9 Mar 2004)

Im sorry, call me a heartless blade if you will (I got broad shoulders) but;

TD allowances exist to ensure that an employee of the Government of Canada does not go out of pocket on expenses. No wheare have I stated in this forum that members of the CF should go out of pocket for travel expenses. TD is also not a program which is designed to allow people to profit as a result of travel on Crown business, nor is TD designed to be used as an addition incentive when seeking volunteers.

Call me heartless I look at this situation as being no different that being overpaid, knowing you‘ve been overpaid, spending the money and then complaining when you‘ve been asked to pay it back.


----------

