# Res Force Pay



## Leeworthy (22 Oct 2008)

I have heard rumor lately from a lot of people saying that Class B reserve mbrs are going to be paid the same as reg force soon.. Has anyone heard anymore on this? Or is it just that, rumor?


----------



## OldSolduer (22 Oct 2008)

That would be interesting.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (22 Oct 2008)

Leeworthy said:
			
		

> I have heard rumor lately from a lot of people saying



Didn't you answer your last question yourself?

Make it easy on yourself...next person that says it, ask them for the reference, CANFORGEN, etc that states that.


----------



## Leeworthy (22 Oct 2008)

Yes, it would ber very interesting.. I have searched the DIN myself and have come up empty. But, that's not to say it isnt true.. We all know how well the DIN actually works.


----------



## dapaterson (22 Oct 2008)

Rumour.

Not fact.

No basis in fact.

People engaging in "If I say it often enough it will come true!"

But not fact.

Were any change in pay be implemented, it would be on the DIN under Chief of Miltiary Personnel - Director General Compensation and Benefits - Director Pay Policy Development.

A quick look will show that there's no such announcement.


However, if you want the same pay as the Regular Force, there's always the Component Transfer option - but then you'll be subject to the same liability to serve.


----------



## George Wallace (22 Oct 2008)

Leeworthy said:
			
		

> Yes, it would ber very interesting.. I have searched the DIN myself and have come up empty. But, that's not to say it isnt true.. We all know how well the DIN actually works.




You don't trust the DIN, but you'll accept the word of someone on a website that is not a DND sponsored site.


----------



## Leeworthy (22 Oct 2008)

haha, who says im accepting the words brought forth here as final... 

You know the saying, I don't know the answer but I will find out for you.. Thats basically what I am doing. Several calls placed to DPPD have gone un-returned, so, hoping that there are other RMS Clk's using this site as a means of information and questions is what brought me here!


----------



## dapaterson (22 Oct 2008)

DPPD won't take your calls.  You have this funny thing alled a Chain of Command.  It goes up from your unit, though your superior formations, up to a national HQ, which in turn is authorised to liaise with national agencies such as DPPD.

If everyone in Ottawa had to answer every phone call from every unit, they would enver accomplish anything, and would spend all their time answering the same questions over and over and over again.

Your chain of command can consolidate questions and send them up, or share information they have previously received.  It's really quite a remarkable system.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (22 Oct 2008)

Leeworthy said:
			
		

> Yes, it would ber very interesting.. I have searched the DIN myself and have come up empty. But, that's not to say it isnt true.. We all know how well the DIN actually works.



The DIN works fine for me and many others (the search engine sucks IMO but...use some operators and its ok).

Maybe it is a PEBCAK error.   ;D

The last pay/allowances/benefits increase announcement came by way (officially, that is) of a CANFORGEN by the CDS.  Maybe you should watch for one of those...but I wouldn't wait.  As long as the TOS for the Res and Reg have the delta they do, I don't suspect you will see the TB decided to go with Class A and Class C pay and eliminate Class B.


----------



## Leeworthy (22 Oct 2008)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> DPPD won't take your calls.  You have this funny thing alled a Chain of Command.  It goes up from your unit, though your superior formations, up to a national HQ, which in turn is authorised to liaise with national agencies such as DPPD.
> 
> If everyone in Ottawa had to answer every phone call from every unit, they would enver accomplish anything, and would spend all their time answering the same questions over and over and over again.
> 
> Your chain of command can consolidate questions and send them up, or share information they have previously received.  It's really quite a remarkable system.



the funny thing about my unit, I AM the person who makes the calls to NDHQ on behalf of my mbrs.  Being the SOR Supr that is what my job entails. 


Posted on: Today at 15:05:18Posted by: Eye In The Sky  
Insert Quote
Quote from: Leeworthy on Today at 14:27:28
Yes, it would ber very interesting.. I have searched the DIN myself and have come up empty. But, that's not to say it isnt true.. We all know how well the DIN actually works.


The DIN works fine for me and many others (the search engine sucks IMO but...use some operators and its ok).

Maybe it is a PEBCAK error.    

LOL yes, DIN works fine, it is the Search Engine that bites the royal.... Google works much better.


----------



## geo (22 Oct 2008)

Let's be honest here.....
Reservists who voluntter for service overseas are placed on class C service and are paid all the pay, allowances & benefits of a Reg, for the duration of their authorized period of duty.
Reservists who are on class A or B in their area who are not preparing for overseas service ARE NOT employable/deployable at the beck and call of the service.... and that is part of the reason for the 15% difference in pay...
Reservists are paid 85% of Reg pay scales.  On class A service, they are paid their 85% per day PLUS (+) 9% in lieu of vacation for same said day = 94% of Reg pay....
While I wish your rumour would be true..... I have serious doubts that it is possible - let alone probable.


----------



## Towards_the_gap (22 Oct 2008)

Leeworthy said:
			
		

> You know the saying, I don't know the answer but I will find out for you.. Thats basically what I am doing. Several calls placed to DPPD have gone un-returned, so, hoping that there are other RMS Clk's using this site as a means of information and questions is what brought me here!




I would be slightly worried if the clerks at my unit were seeking pay advice on a non-dnd, non-official website. Use the chain of command, in your case the clerks at your Bde HQ. Or as stated, the DIN/DWAN,  if there's nothing there then chances are....


nothing is there!


----------



## Eye In The Sky (22 Oct 2008)

Leeworthy said:
			
		

> the funny thing about my unit, I AM the person who makes the calles to NDHQ on behalf of my mbrs.  Being the SOR Supr that is what my job entails.



I don't know what CBG HQ  your unit is subordinate to, but the CBG HQ I worked in had a Superintendent (spelling?) Clerk that was the Snr RMS Clerk for the Bde, who was a Reg Force MWO/CPO2.


----------



## Leeworthy (22 Oct 2008)

I honestly don't even know what a GBC HQ is.. Im assuming you mean WHQ. 

Like I stated before, Im not using this "non affliated" site for hard information, but more for a network to try and inquire. In hopes that maybe someone else would have heard some of this information if it had been true and maybe have a link to something that I was not able to source! It can happen.

Thanks for the info.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (22 Oct 2008)

Leeworthy said:
			
		

> I honestly don't even know what a GBC HQ is.. Im assuming you mean WHQ.



CBG = Canadian Brigade Group.  When you said "SOR Supr" I immediately thought Armour or Engineers....never thought Air Reserve.


----------



## Leeworthy (22 Oct 2008)

Ahh okay I see. 

And SOR stands for Squadron Orderly Room. I am reg force. But we have reservists who work in my unit.. They are the ones inquiring..


----------



## kratz (22 Oct 2008)

geo said:
			
		

> **snip*...*Reservists are paid 85% of Reg pay scales.  On class A service, they are paid their 85% per day PLUS (+) 9% in lieu of vacation for same said day = 94% of Reg pay....
> While I wish your rumour would be true..... I have serious doubts that it is possible - let alone probable.



I would ask that we please be careful. When working class B or class C, do you add your annual leave into your daily pay? So adding the 9% PILL (Pay in Lieu of Leave) into regular class A pay is not a valid way of suggesting 94% of RegF pay. Civilian employers must pay vacation pay to part-time staff, and PILL is the class A equivalent.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (22 Oct 2008)

Leeworthy said:
			
		

> Ahh okay I see.
> 
> And *SOR stands for Squadron Orderly Room*. I am reg force. But we have reservists who work in my unit.. They are the ones inquiring..



Yes, that is why I thought Armour or Engineers, who also have Squadrons/SORs.


----------



## dapaterson (22 Oct 2008)

Leeworthy said:
			
		

> Ahh okay I see.
> 
> And SOR stands for Squadron Orderly Room. I am reg force. But we have reservists who work in my unit.. They are the ones inquiring..



And your squadron belongs to a wing, that belongs to 1 CAD, that is under CAS - who are the ones (A1) who should call DPPD on your behalf.

Copying from a Canadian Forces Organizational Order from an Air Force squadron,



> CHANNELS OF COMMUNICATION SHALL FOLLOW THE CHAIN OF COMMAND AND CONTROL, EXCEPT THE COMMANDING OFFICER IS AUTHORIZED TO COMMUNICATE DIRECTLY WITH SUPPORTING UNITS ON MATTERS OF SUPPORT AND WITH NDHQ STAFF ON THE SUBJECT OF INDIVIDUAL PERSONNEL CAREER MANAGEMENT



Seems pretty straight forward, no?


----------



## tank recce (22 Oct 2008)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Yes, that is why I thought Armour or Engineers, who also have Squadrons/SORs.



Ahh, but our Squadrons - being sub-units of the Regiment - don't have Orderly Rooms. We have RORs, not SORs.


----------



## Leeworthy (22 Oct 2008)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> And your squadron belongs to a wing, that belongs to 1 CAD, that is under CAS - who are the ones (A1) who should call DPPD on your behalf.
> 
> Copying from a Canadian Forces Organizational Order from an Air Force squadron,
> 
> Seems pretty straight forward, no?



WOW. you can tell you work for NDHQ....... Not even going to explain as to why.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (22 Oct 2008)

CHANNELS OF COMMUNICATION SHALL FOLLOW THE CHAIN OF COMMAND AND CONTROL, EXCEPT THE COMMANDING OFFICER IS AUTHORIZED TO COMMUNICATE DIRECTLY WITH SUPPORTING UNITS ON MATTERS OF SUPPORT AND WITH NDHQ STAFF ON THE SUBJECT OF INDIVIDUAL PERSONNEL CAREER MANAGEMENT.

Ok..now what does it say about pay/benefits enquiries?   ;D


----------



## Leeworthy (22 Oct 2008)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> CHANNELS OF COMMUNICATION SHALL FOLLOW THE CHAIN OF COMMAND AND CONTROL, EXCEPT THE COMMANDING OFFICER IS AUTHORIZED TO COMMUNICATE DIRECTLY WITH SUPPORTING UNITS ON MATTERS OF SUPPORT AND WITH NDHQ STAFF ON THE SUBJECT OF INDIVIDUAL PERSONNEL CAREER MANAGEMENT.
> 
> Ok..now what does it say about pay/benefits enquiries?   ;D



Glad you said it! My thought exactly!


----------



## Eye In The Sky (22 Oct 2008)

tank recce said:
			
		

> Ahh, but our Squadrons - being sub-units of the Regiment - don't have Orderly Rooms. We have RORs, not SORs.



Maybe for your Regiment, but mine former PRes Armd unit had a SOR and ROR.  When I worked at TSS at the Armour School, they had a SOR with a Sqn Clerk in it.  I can't say one way or the other if the Reg Force Regiments had/have SORs.


----------



## Stoker (22 Oct 2008)

geo said:
			
		

> Let's be honest here.....
> Reservists who voluntter for service overseas are placed on class C service and are paid all the pay, allowances & benefits of a Reg, for the duration of their authorized period of duty.
> Reservists who are on class A or B in their area who are not preparing for overseas service ARE NOT employable/deployable at the beck and call of the service.... and that is part of the reason for the 15% difference in pay...
> Reservists are paid 85% of Reg pay scales.  On class A service, they are paid their 85% per day PLUS (+) 9% in lieu of vacation for same said day = 94% of Reg pay....
> While I wish your rumour would be true..... I have serious doubts that it is possible - let alone probable.



There are lots of reservists in Canada who are on Class C who don't deply overseas, the naval reserve is full of them.


----------



## dapaterson (22 Oct 2008)

FarmerD said:
			
		

> WOW. you can tell you work for NDHQ....... Not even going to explain as to why.



Because I've had to deal with units that see themselves as "special" who don't need to obey orders issued by the CDS (a CFOO)?  Who ask questions that have already been answered numerous times to others, and indeed to their own chain of command?  Who seem to think that there's a vast conspiracy to hide information from their unit, so they should call people of their own volition?


Chain of command engagement makes a huge difference - if the A1 of CAS sends a letter asking about something it might even spur action to assess the situation.  Random calls from multiple units are largely ignored.

I have been on both ends of the information pipe.  Sometimes it takes a little additional effort to engage the chain of command on queries - but the results are generally much better.


----------



## dapaterson (22 Oct 2008)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> CHANNELS OF COMMUNICATION SHALL FOLLOW THE CHAIN OF COMMAND AND CONTROL, EXCEPT THE COMMANDING OFFICER IS AUTHORIZED TO COMMUNICATE DIRECTLY WITH SUPPORTING UNITS ON MATTERS OF SUPPORT AND WITH NDHQ STAFF ON THE SUBJECT OF INDIVIDUAL PERSONNEL CAREER MANAGEMENT.
> 
> Ok..now what does it say about pay/benefits enquiries?   ;D



Nothing at all.  They fall under "Channels of Communication" - if it ain't indiv pers career mgt or supporting units, use your chain of command.


----------



## geo (22 Oct 2008)

Stoker said:
			
		

> There are lots of reservists in Canada who are on Class C who don't deply overseas, the naval reserve is full of them.


possibly in the Naval reserve - but not in the Army reserve.  Only reservists being paid Class C are those on deployment and those training to go on deployment.


----------



## geo (22 Oct 2008)

kratz said:
			
		

> I would ask that we please be careful. When working class B or class C, do you add your annual leave into your daily pay? So adding the 9% PILL (Pay in Lieu of Leave) into regular class A pay is not a valid way of suggesting 94% of RegF pay. Civilian employers must pay vacation pay to part-time staff, and PILL is the class A equivalent.



I know, I know.... Pay in lieu of leave shouldn't be taken into consideration BUT, this is something that has only been paid to reservists over the last umpteen years - before, class A types woulda gotten NADA - nothing.... yes, civy employers have all had to pay vacation pay at one time or another - always have, always will...


----------



## dapaterson (22 Oct 2008)

geo said:
			
		

> possibly in the Naval reserve - but not in the Army reserve.  Only reservists being paid Class C are those on deployment and those training to go on deployment.



Not quite.  There are Army reservists working as gate guards for MARPAC and MARLANT who are getting class C.


----------



## dapaterson (23 Oct 2008)

kratz said:
			
		

> I would ask that we please be careful. When working class B or class C, do you add your annual leave into your daily pay? So adding the 9% PILL (Pay in Lieu of Leave) into regular class A pay is not a valid way of suggesting 94% of RegF pay. Civilian employers must pay vacation pay to part-time staff, and PILL is the class A equivalent.



Remember that it's really the class A soldier (or sailor or airman) who gets the short end of the stick.  Look at an Air Reservist who works a three day week, every week.  That's 60% of the workweek.  But where the class B individual, who normally works five days, gets paid for seven, the class A member only gets three of seven days paid.  Or, in other words, they get 42% of the pay that a class B member gets for doing 60% of the work.  Of course, changing this would mean we'd have to go to "Class B for 5 days or more" insterad of the current "14 days or more" rule.

If we want to look at parity for Res F members, step one should be to address the class A pay shortfall.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (23 Oct 2008)

Hmmm.  Not all Class B folks just work Mon-Fri though.  We used to have Bde Trg weekends, where we worked Mon to the following Friday straight (as in 12 days in a row).

Also, those Class A mbrs being paid 3 days a week, IMO, is quite fair as they aren't subject to things like being Duty NCO, weekend trng, or subject to respond to "get in here now" calls.

Class B personnel are, as they are paid 24/7, so therefore they are subject to the CSD 24/7.

Class A personnel also don't sign a contract that states they are subject to TD 'as required' (within Canada). So, Mr/Mrs Class A doesn't have to go on that tasking as Widget Tech Instructor at CFB Anywhere for X months (which I know is NOT the case for the Class B folks in my old Bde).


----------



## Monsoon (23 Oct 2008)

The class B/C pay equity issue is being examined by a "tiger team" appointed under the Chief of Reserves and Cadets organization, so you won't find anything about it through DPPD. I don't recall the name of the Colonel appointed to head it up, but it exists and will presumably make a recommendation of some kind through CRC to VCDS who would then staff any changes down to DPPD. Can't tell you much more than that (because I don't know), but I presume that they aren't going to miss any points as to the merits/demerits of the proposal that will inevitably be brought up here.

Short answer: don't hold your breath. Longer answer: sometimes rumours exist for a reason.


----------



## Leeworthy (23 Oct 2008)

Hamiltongs,

Thanks for the info. I knew I had heard something. Guess this confirms that things are happening, but its a prelim stage.

Thanks again.


----------



## 1feral1 (23 Oct 2008)

Not to hijack, but here in Australia the pay is the same, and an AGR soldier gets the same money tax free, mind you tax free means one would get for sake of argument, the daily rate after tax that a ARA soldier would get. It is however tax free, on top of one's regular job, or if he is not working and on social assistance, it does not count against him for his assistance. Plenty of perks in the Reserve Force here.

Example, an AGR SGT gets over $170 a day, and if field, on tier 2, an additional $47 a day for FOA. includied in his pay is an $11 service allowance, and petrol money which goes up the further one drives in. You cant collect petrol money if you are on FOA. Either way, it would add up fast. Tax free.

In short if a AGR SGT was to work 7 days a week (say on course or consecutive trg days), on the same payscale as myself, he would make more money, but he can work up to 200 days a year only (class A type days). No 9% holiday pay either. Normally referred to as Leave Loading in Australia. After about 10 yrs of service in theARA (not AGR) , one gets Long Service Leave, which is 90 work days, and an additional 9 work days per year thereafter.

You guys pay tax as reservists of CL A days. There is NO reserve pension, nor is there in the ARA, shy of a small amount left on the old DFRDB scheme. Everyone else including myself is MSBS (super). Google these accronyms for explanations if you like.

Reservists on CL C here have the same pay and privillages of an ARA soldier, and are taxed. CL B's don't exist, you are either FT or PT, no variations in this 15% less even though you work FT. One does the same job FT in the same Unit, and is worth 15% less? Hummmmm, is that fair?

Perhaps Canada could learn from the system here?? 
Cheers,

OWDU

EDIT: ARA Australian Regular Army
AGT: Active General Reserve


----------



## kratz (23 Oct 2008)

Just a note: Effective March 2007, class A and class B reserves pay into the pension if they have 2 or more years of service. There is a 45+ discussion  on it and buying back time in.


*Edit to add: * True. I should not have said all. I missed the annuitants who are able elect to pay into it.


----------



## George Wallace (23 Oct 2008)

kratz said:
			
		

> Just a note: Effective March 2007, all class A and class B reserves pay into the pension if they have 2 or more years of service. There is a 45+ discussion  on it and buying back time in.



Excuse me!  All?  I don't think so.  I have not noticed any deductions in my pay that goes into a Pension plan.  I have not elected to do so.  But to make you happy, I will double check.  Nope!  None there.  I hope you are not confusing the Canada Pension Deduction as a Reserve Pension.  It isn't.


----------



## geo (24 Oct 2008)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Not quite.  There are Army reservists working as gate guards for MARPAC and MARLANT who are getting class C.


Army guys working for squids ??? Gawd, I too would ask for a 15% premium to work with "those" guys   (jk)


----------



## geo (24 Oct 2008)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Class A personnel also don't sign a contract that states they are subject to TD 'as required' (within Canada). So, Mr/Mrs Class A doesn't have to go on that tasking as Widget Tech Instructor at CFB Anywhere for X months (which I know is NOT the case for the Class B folks in my old Bde).



Ummm.... what contract ???
There are route letters - but that is an admin/financial document - not a committment or contract...
Have taken up that subject with the AJAG many a times..... not a legaly binding contract.


----------



## OldSolduer (24 Oct 2008)

kratz said:
			
		

> Just a note: Effective March 2007, class A and class B reserves pay into the pension if they have 2 or more years of service. There is a 45+ discussion  on it and buying back time in.
> 
> 
> *Edit to add: * True. I should not have said all. I missed the annuitants who are able elect to pay into it.


Not all Class A are paying. I'm collecting the pension due from CFSA.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (24 Oct 2008)

Geo,

All the Class B (A) folks in LFAA sign an actual contract, which states length of employment, rank, position, etc.  It also has the para in it about understanding that you can be tasked on TD, within Canada, as required.  It also states you are required to give 30 days notice to terminate the Cl B, and that the employing unit must also give you 30 day notice if they end your Cl B before the end date (I've seen that happen to a few people for poor performance).  IIRC, the contract is 4 x 8 1/2 pages printed.

The last one I signed was a 3 year contract, but we still had route letters done up and entered into IRPS and all the usual stuff that goes along with Cl B.

The reference for this is LFAAD, Part 5, Section 5.2.6, Para 20.

I am not sure how other areas do it but, the rules and reg's for Class B/B (A) in LFAA are fairly well laid out.


----------



## geo (24 Oct 2008)

EITS
The members signs a terms of service document.... but have you noticed that the employer doesn't.
The document asks for a witness.... which usually ends up being some "lowly" RMS clerk that delivers the good / bad news.

I agree that your LFAAD refers to a "contract"..... but in the end - it isn't much of one - it can be terminated on 30 days notice, with little or no difficulty.  A real contract would have the effect that, you've been hired for 3 years.


----------



## kratz (24 Oct 2008)

The reference is a Statement of Understanding (SOU) and is for local reproduction from A-PM-245 Chapter 19 Annex D. 

It should be in normal use nationally for employment over 180 days. But in the rush to get the member to the gaining unit, it has been known to be missed.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (24 Oct 2008)

To a certain extent, I agree.  The CF retains the ability to terminate your contract in 30 days, but is that also not possible to someone RegF, where they could be released for various reasons before the end of their current TOS?  The process and timelines are different, but the rest is the same; sub standard performers, admin/discplinary burdens are dealt with etc.

Not to keep flogging this, but I believe our CL B/A contracts were witnessed by the OR Supr and then signed by the G1 or HQ CO/COS.  The only mbrs who signed multiyear contracts were those in CL B(A) slots, full time PRes positions in the ARE table.  

I am getting the idea that only LFAA considers these to be contracts with their Cl B/A mbrs. (GD Maritimers!)  :blotto:


----------



## geo (24 Oct 2008)

kratz said:
			
		

> The reference is a Statement of Understanding (SOU) and is for local reproduction from A-PM-245 Chapter 19 Annex D.
> 
> It should be in normal use nationally for employment over 180 days. But in the rush to get the member to the gaining unit, it has been known to be missed.



Signed or not.... it is a statement signed by the member & a witness.... no committment by the "employer" AKA a "big guy"


----------



## CountDC (24 Oct 2008)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Geo,
> 
> All the Class B (A) folks in LFAA sign an actual contract, which states length of employment, rank, position, etc.  It also has the para in it about understanding that you can be tasked on TD, within Canada, as required.  It also states you are required to give 30 days notice to terminate the Cl B, and that the employing unit must also give you 30 day notice if they end your Cl B before the end date (I've seen that happen to a few people for poor performance).  IIRC, the contract is 4 x 8 1/2 pages printed.
> 
> ...



Not to be too picky but your ref does not say you sign a contract - it is saying you must sign NDHQ Instruction ADM (PER) 2/93 1 April 1993 Appx 3 to Anx B which is a statement of understanding in order to have a multi-year contract applied to a Cl B/A posn. They may even still be using the one I typed out on the computer when I was at LFAAHQ.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (24 Oct 2008)

Well we can dance around the terms all day.   ;D

Bottom line is I signed "something" and had a Class B/A position for 3 years unless I messed up OR the CF changed the ARE.  Improperly or not, they were referred to as contracts and everyone knew their job was (as safe as a Class B can be) for another 3 years (for B/a's).  The straight CL B types had to wait at the end of each FY to see if their Posn was going to be funded again, whereas the B/a's were ARE Posn's that had to be staffed.  

So not a contract per say as when I signed my VIE, but it was as good as it gets as a CBC.


----------



## geo (25 Oct 2008)

EITS.... we can certainly agree to your last.....
Yes - you / I / we signed a statement of understanding & served 3 years in a position.
But = is it a contract ???  is it legaly binding ?

If you sign a contract to buy a car, take delivery of it & start to pay it off.... can you stop & return same said car to the dealer on 30 days notice ??? (nope-he'd take you to court to collect on the balance of contract)
If you sign a contract for 3 years of employment.... can they stop it on 30 days notice ??? yep! you betcha !  cause it isn't a contract.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (25 Oct 2008)

I guess I'll have to say I agree from the legal standpoint.  As I could be released from the Reg Force for 'certain reasons' if I really messed up, I guess my VIE isn't a contract either then?

Its odd though, that the ULAs or someone doesn't point that out to them and have them change the LFAAD to state "multiyear employment" or something...because they (LFAA HQ) refer to it as a 'contract'.


----------



## Neill McKay (26 Oct 2008)

geo said:
			
		

> If you sign a contract to buy a car, take delivery of it & start to pay it off.... can you stop & return same said car to the dealer on 30 days notice ??? (nope-he'd take you to court to collect on the balance of contract)
> If you sign a contract for 3 years of employment.... can they stop it on 30 days notice ??? yep! you betcha !  cause it isn't a contract.



A contract for employment, though, is likely to contain some kind of provision for getting out, by either side, e.g. a requirement for the employee to give X weeks' notice when quitting, and for the employer to give X weeks' notice when dismissing the employee.  It's still a contract, just one with terms for ending itself.


----------



## geo (26 Oct 2008)

Yes Neill.... but this statement of understanding that's signed by everyone doesn't have to be signed by anyone in the chain of command..... all it says is.... witness.

If the Cdn gov't decided that the CF was costing them too much in these difficult times & that they must return XX% of it's current operating budget - the CF "could" turn around, terminate a bunch of positions currently occupied by reservists AND give same said reservists 30 days notice.  In civy street,  the employer would have to pay a lot more severance


----------



## Monsoon (26 Oct 2008)

geo said:
			
		

> Yes Neill.... but this statement of understanding that's signed by everyone doesn't have to be signed by anyone in the chain of command..... all it says is.... witness.


The SOU isn't the "contract". In the case of class B, the contract can be deemed to be an oral one. Under contract law all that is required to conclude a contract is payment of "consideration" (your salary, i.e.) - it doesn't necessarily have to be signed by everyone involved. In a class B contract, you agree to be bound by all of the regulations that exist regarding class B employment - most of which you will not have read. Understanding this, some sharp fellow at the Judge Advocate's office drew up the SOU that you sign giving you the gist of what the contract is all about so that you can't claim to have been blindsided by a decision.

Maybe it isn't a very good contract (from the employee's perspective), but it's a contract nonetheless.


----------



## 54/102 CEF (26 Oct 2008)

geo said:
			
		

> Let's be honest here.....



Yes - lets.

How about 15% for foregoing a civvy career for the Govt ? Now extend that to the 85% ers - same story - work for the Queen or work for the Green is the same risk in Canada ----> your civvy potential may be diminished by service in the CF so we overpay so you stay.

As for overseas pay ------> its sky rocketted since 2002/2003 being really crappy for the reg force -----> not a factor in the argument

As for we have to deploy anytime ---------> MAYBE for certain very high readieness units like Aircrew or certain others. If true - then why can't we switch a BG with less than the current level of trg? Skill fade for full time troops is a fact.

I keep coming back to the UK and US system ----- pay them full time whereever they are - based on the trg they've done and the time they have in ----- and their hearts and minds will follow. The more you do - courses and time in -- the more you get. We use this principle for overseas duty benefits.


----------



## geo (26 Oct 2008)

hamiltongs said:
			
		

> The SOU isn't the "contract". In the case of class B, the contract can be deemed to be an oral one. Under contract law all that is required to conclude a contract is payment of "consideration" (your salary, i.e.) - it doesn't necessarily have to be signed by everyone involved. In a class B contract, you agree to be bound by all of the regulations that exist regarding class B employment - most of which you will not have read. Understanding this, some sharp fellow at the Judge Advocate's office drew up the SOU that you sign giving you the gist of what the contract is all about so that you can't claim to have been blindsided by a decision.
> 
> Maybe it isn't a very good contract (from the employee's perspective), but it's a contract nonetheless.


Will have to keep this argument in mind - next time similar discussion comes up ...


----------



## CountDC (27 Oct 2008)

54/102 CEF said:
			
		

> Yes - lets.
> 
> How about 15% for foregoing a civvy career for the Govt ? Now extend that to the 85% ers - same story - work for the Queen or work for the Green is the same risk in Canada ----> your civvy potential may be diminished by service in the CF so we overpay so you stay.
> 
> ...



This is an argument that has gone on forever and I am sure will continue for a long time to come.  Some other points in the mix that I have seen/heard over the years - Reg F get posted where and when the military chooses to send you - Res F choose, Res give 30 days notice - Reg have to give 6 months (reality is they can request as early as 30 days but military can say no and has on occassions),  Reg can be sent to areas such as A'tan while Res have to volunteer.  A point that came up once when talking to an  officer from NDHQ dealing with pay issues was that the feeling at that time was paying Cl B and Reg F same level would deter members from going into the Reg F - they wanted to maintain that little extra incentive. The other point often raised is that Res F is not meant to be career but a part time volunteer employment on top of their civvy job (we all know some have made it a career but that is not the military intent).

I like the idea of reserve service being Cl A, Cl B used for short period employments such as courses, MATA/PATA backfilled, summer camps.  Cl B/A and Cl C done away with for long term positions and use Reg F FPS. Of course don't see this happening, especially with how well CT's are going these days and I am sure someone would insist that FPS be treated as any other CT.


----------

