# Paid off vs Decommissioning split -HMCS Fraser looking for interested volunteers



## tabernac (9 Jun 2008)

IIRC, HMC Ships are paid off, not decommisioned.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (9 Jun 2008)

cheeky_monkey said:
			
		

> IIRC, HMC Ships are paid off, not decommissioned.



I have never been to a paid off ceremony but I have been to 2 decommissioning ceremonies of 2 of our ships.


----------



## drunknsubmrnr (9 Jun 2008)

I'm pretty sure OJ was paid off, not decomissioned. At least, she had a "paying off pennant", not a "decomissioning flag".


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (9 Jun 2008)

Both ships had paying off pennants as well, it was a decommissioning ceremony that I attended.


----------



## Donaill (9 Jun 2008)

My spelling mistake, sorry. 

 As far as being payed off or decommisioned, I have heard many tell me that the Fraser is decommisioned and therefore not legally allowed to fly the ensign. Semantics? As quoted from a navy.dnd.ca site "Main Propulsion Officer of HMCS PROVIDER, now decommissioned." I am not trying to start something here but if I am using the incorrect term for taking an HMCS ship out of service than I would like to know. However, as it appears on several navy sites than I am not so sure if I am correct or not.

  As I said, I am still looking for people that might be interested in going to help. I was hoping to find at least 10 people to go. The Fraser still flies the Canadian flag and is still in full view by the public. I think it is a shame that she is just sitting there and covered in so much rust. I know that there are those that would say that she has hd her time and it is best to just let her sit and she is no longer our (the navy's) concern.  She is the last DDH St. Laurent class ship and is still being used as a museum piece and may still end up being sunk as a reef, as it is owned by the artificial reef society.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (9 Jun 2008)

Talk aroound the Ops Room, apparently both terms are accepted. Go figure.


----------



## geo (9 Jun 2008)

Ummm... IIRC a ship can be decommissioned but be kept mothballed 
The Upholder class of submarines would be a prime example...... (in the US they have the National defence reserve fleet )

Once a ship has been paid off... she's going for Rasors blades & Toyotas


----------



## Neill McKay (9 Jun 2008)

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> Talk aroound the Ops Room, apparently both terms are accepted. Go figure.



I think it's in the same category as serving "in" or "on" a ship, with naval culture purists in one camp thundering "by God it's 'paid off!'" and moderate people less bothered by details on the other camp equally accepting of either one.  (Am in the former category but have given up on this one as being unwinnable!)


----------



## drunknsubmrnr (9 Jun 2008)

geo said:
			
		

> Once a ship has been paid off... she's going for Rasors blades & Toyotas



No, the origin of the term is from paying the crew at the end of a commission. After the crew were "paid off" the ship went into "ordinary" (ie mothballs) and her officers placed on half-pay unless they found another ship. On being brought back from ordinary, the ship was "recommissioned". So "paying off" and "decomissioning" are really the same thing.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (9 Jun 2008)

Neill McKay said:
			
		

> I think it's in the same category as serving "in" or "on" a ship, with naval culture purists in one camp thundering "by God it's 'paid off!'" and moderate people less bothered by details on the other camp equally accepting of either one.  (Am in the former category but have given up on this one as being unwinnable!)



Agreed.


----------



## geo (9 Jun 2008)

works for me Drunknsubmariner

then again, I try to avoid water as much as possible - fish fornicate in water after all


----------



## armyvern (10 Jun 2008)

drunknsubmrnr said:
			
		

> I'm pretty sure OJ was paid off, not decomissioned. At least, she had a "paying off pennant", not a "decomissioning flag".



Well according to forces.gc.ca (that'd be the official CF site I think) ... 

HMCS ships are "decommissioned" (see term used at para 3 of link)

Attachment included below details the "The CF Ship Decommissioning Process".

Attached here is the link to the CFAO regarding the "paying off" of CF assets. It seems to me that the Ship itself is "decommissioned" (read Unit "disbanded" in the CFAO). After it is decommissioned it is then "payed off" in that the asset then moves from the Old Man to the CDS for disposal purposes.

CFAO 27-9 _DISPOSAL OF NON-PUBLIC PROPERTY_

Ergo, the "paying off" of the ship is it's handover to the disposal process.

It's actual "retirement from service" -- is it's decommissioning.


----------



## Neill McKay (10 Jun 2008)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Well according to forces.gc.ca (that'd be the official CF site I think) ...
> 
> HMCS ships are "decommissioned" (see term used at para 3 of link)



Press releases and backgrounders, official as they may be, are not a convincing source for something like this.  Being intended for a general audience (including the public) they tend to use terminology more likely to be understood by the public.  "Decommission" has a broader civilian use than the specific naval one.  (e.g. we talk about decommissioning a factory to mean taking it out of service, even though it was never "commissioned" in the symbolic sense of a ship becoming one of Her Majesty's and thereafter having its quarterdeck saluted, etc.)



> Attachment included below details the "The CF Ship Decommissioning Process".
> 
> Attached here is the link to the CFAO regarding the "paying off" of CF assets. It seems to me that the Ship itself is "decommissioned" (read Unit "disbanded" in the CFAO). After it is decommissioned it is then "payed off" in that the asset then moves from the Old Man to the CDS for disposal purposes.
> 
> CFAO 27-9 _DISPOSAL OF NON-PUBLIC PROPERTY_



What you're saying seems to fit with what Geo said above, but I don't see that in the attachment.  What paragraph are you looking at?


----------



## Harris (10 Jun 2008)

Can we stay on topic and take the decommission vs paid off discussion to another thread?  The orginal poster is looking for volunteers to help him restore a ship.

Army.ca staff.


----------



## armyvern (10 Jun 2008)

Neill McKay said:
			
		

> Press releases and backgrounders, official as they may be, are not a convincing source for something like this.  Being intended for a general audience (including the public) they tend to use terminology more likely to be understood by the public.  "Decommission" has a broader civilian use than the specific naval one.  (e.g. we talk about decommissioning a factory to mean taking it out of service, even though it was never "commissioned" in the symbolic sense of a ship becoming one of Her Majesty's and thereafter having its quarterdeck saluted, etc.)
> 
> What you're saying seems to fit with what Geo said above, but I don't see that in the attachment.  What paragraph are you looking at?



Start at para 3 (as I gave) and read downwards from there. "Paying off" -- disposal process of Crown assets; I think it's pretty clear that it is the "disposal" process that is the "paying off".

The "disbandment" (or "decommissioning) is stated at para 3 wrt to HMC Ships.


----------



## drunknsubmrnr (10 Jun 2008)

Posted in the wrong topic. D'oh!


----------



## WrenchBender (10 Jun 2008)

Historical usage(RN era of Wooden Ships and Iron Men)- a ship was said to be 'Paid off' at the end of a deployment (could be up to 2 years or more ship), the crew where released (paid) and the ship would be refitted or placed into 'Ordinary' (the Reserve). When Decomssioned the ship was removed from the 'Admiralty List'.

Now in modern times we seem to have developed the habit of interchanging the terms.

WrenchBender


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (10 Jun 2008)

WrenchBender said:
			
		

> Historical usage(RN era of Wooden Ships and Iron Men)- a ship was said to be 'Paid off' at the end of a deployment (could be up to 2 years or more ship), the crew where released (paid) and the ship would be refitted or placed into 'Ordinary' (the Reserve). When Decomssioned the ship was removed from the 'Admiralty List'.
> 
> Now in modern times we seem to have developed the habit of interchanging the terms.
> 
> WrenchBender



Psssst see reply#8


----------



## WrenchBender (10 Jun 2008)

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> Psssst see reply#8


Damn lost it in translation, that will teach me to skim the threads.......

WrenchBender


----------



## Neill McKay (10 Jun 2008)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Start at para 3 (as I gave) and read downwards from there. "Paying off" -- disposal process of Crown assets; I think it's pretty clear that it is the "disposal" process that is the "paying off".
> 
> The "disbandment" (or "decommissioning) is stated at para 3 wrt to HMC Ships.



"Paying off" is there and is included in the definition of "disbandment", but I don't see the word "decommission" anywhere in that order.


----------



## armyvern (11 Jun 2008)

Neill McKay said:
			
		

> "Paying off" is there and is included in the definition of "disbandment", but I don't see the word "decommission" anywhere in that order.



No you don't see the word "decommissioning" there. That's precisely because that CFAO 27-9 (_*Disposal of Non-Public Property*_) is about the "Disposal" process NOT the "decomissioning" process. They are two seperate things. 

"Paying off" = "Disposal Process" = the act of divesting the item from the property of The Crown.

Things can be decommissioned (or in the case of Units - disbanded), but don't necessarily go on to be "payed off". This ship was "payed off" when it was divested from the Property of The Crown. The CAR, for example (being a Unit, not a physical item) was disbanded, but was not "payed off" as it was never divested from Crown property. 

If a ship were Decomissioned (ie removed/retired from active service), it _could_ then stay in our inventory for years. It is not until it is handed over to the CDS for disposal from Crown Property assets that it is "payed off".


----------



## Neill McKay (11 Jun 2008)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> "Paying off" = "Disposal Process" = the act of divesting the item from the property of The Crown.  Things can be decommissioned (or in the case of Units - disbanded), but don't necessarily go on to be "payed off". This ship was "payed off" when it was divested from the Property of The Crown.



CFAO 27-9 shows that "paying off" (of a ship) = "disbandment", not necessarily "disposal":

"DISBANDMENT

     includes paying off a ship;"



> If a ship were Decomissioned (ie removed/retired from active service), it _could_ then stay in our inventory for years. It is not until it is handed over to the CDS for disposal from Crown Property assets that it is "payed off".



I'm sorry, I'm just not getting that from the CFAO.  You're completely correct that a ship can be out of commission but still the property of the Crown: as far as I know there are still several steamers and OBERON-class submarines in just that state alongside the Dockyard Annex in Dartmouth.  But I would say that those ships were paid off.  (This is the situation from which we get the expression "paid off into reserve".)


----------



## armyvern (11 Jun 2008)

CFAO 27-9 *IS DISPOSAL* (LOOK at the CFAO Title) how can it "not necessarily be disposal" ??

IE = The ridding of the property from Crown Assets (that's disposal as explained in _CFAO 27-9 Disposal of Non-Public Property_

That's where "Paying off" falls into the process.

Not in the retiring process, not in the rendering 'obsolete' process, not in the Decomissioning Process -- but in the Disposal Process.


----------



## Neill McKay (11 Jun 2008)

My read of the CFAO is that "disbanding" is synonymous with "paying off".  Nowhere do I see paying off described as a later process to be completed after first disbanding the unit, nor do I see decommissioning defined as being the same as disbanding -- or even mentioned.

This is all tangential anyway: the CFAO discusses the disposal of non-public property so has nothing to do with the disposal, paying off, or decommissioning of the ship itself (i.e. the hull and machinery).  It does address what to do with a plaque given to the ship by its affiliated sea cadet corps, but says nothing about how to sell the ship to the company that will turn it into razor blades.


----------



## armyvern (11 Jun 2008)

Of course decommissionning is NOT mentionned in that CFAO ...

because that CFAO is about DISPOSAL not decommissioning.

You need to review the official CF definitions of terminology.

Disposal = Disposal from crown Assets.

And no, the CFAO doesn't tell you how to "dispose" of the actual item ... _that's (the details of write-off etc and steps to removing from charge)_ in the Supply manual for us Sup Techs to look after ... at R&D (Repair & DISPOSAL) section. We declare any assets being divested from Crown property (ie DISPOSED) to CADC who handles the turn over to the non-Crown entity -- be that for razor blades, scrap metal, surplus stores ... whatever. Just as we declare vehicles (ie Iltis') for DISPOSAL action ... (ie sold as vehicle, sold for scrap etc etc) but OUT of the Crown's posession.


----------



## Neill McKay (11 Jun 2008)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Of course decommissionning is NOT mentionned in that CFAO ...
> 
> because that CFAO is about DISPOSAL not decommissioning.
> 
> ...



All of which leaves me wondering why you raised CFAO 27-9 in the first place to support an argument that decommissioning a ship is somehow different from paying it off.  I've seen nothing in this thread to indicate that they are anything but synonymous, which takes us pretty well back to square one.


----------



## armyvern (11 Jun 2008)

Neill McKay said:
			
		

> All of which leaves me wondering why you raised CFAO 27-9 in the first place to support an argument that decommissioning a ship is somehow different from paying it off.  I've seen nothing in this thread to indicate that they are anything but synonymous, which takes us pretty well back to square one.



Think of it this way:

An Officer screws up and has his commission removed ...

We have "decommissioned" the Officer. We have removed him from service as a commissioned officer, but he is still a part of the service (ie an Asset of the Crown). Ergo he has been decommissioned, but he has not been "payed off".

An Officer screws up and has his commission removed AND is booted from the CF ...

We have "decommissioned" the Officer and _THEN_ (then being a SEPERATE ACT following the "decommission") we "Payed Off" the member in removing him from CF inventory (ie booted his butt)  ... as in he is NO LONGER a CROWN asset, but rather has been "disposed" of.

A Ship can be decommissioned (that is the act of retiring it from active service). It can then sit dockside for many years and still remain a crown asset. When we divest that Ship FROM our inventory (owned Crown assets) that is when it is "payed off".

It is entirely possible for a Ship being decommissioned to carry a "Paying Off" pennant. That means that the ship is being (Process 1) Decommissioned (Retired from Active Duty) and then (Process 2) "Payed Off" (Disposed from inventory) via being immediately handed over to CDS for Disposal from the Crown Property listing.

They are two seperate process'. It is possible that "Paying off" (disposal of the asset from Crown property) does not occur until years after it has been Decommissioned (removed from active duty).

Two seperate things.


----------



## Neill McKay (11 Jun 2008)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> A Ship can be decommissioned (that is the act of retiring it from active service). It can then sit dockside for many years and still remain a crown asset. When we divest that Ship FROM our inventory (owned Crown assets) that is when it is "payed off".



I understand that to be your position, but I haven't seen anything to convince me that you're correct that the paying-off of the ship occurs when the ship is finally sold.  I'm open to being convinced but I'm not there yet.


----------



## armyvern (11 Jun 2008)

Neill McKay said:
			
		

> I understand that to be your position, but I haven't seen anything to convince me that you're correct that the paying-off of the ship occurs when the ship is finally sold.  I'm open to being convinced but I'm not there yet.



No, I'm quite done with you actually. And, quite frankly, I don't give a shit where you are. My job doesn't entail "convincing" you. My job just entails doing my job.

Don't bother looking up those official CF terms by yourself now like I advised earlier ... I wouldn't want to have to spoon feed you.

Do that yourself.

BTW, you can also find the Supply Manual on-line -- I suggest that you give it a gander too, you need it.

                                                                                                                                         

                       Look down, there's the report button right there below this glowing yellow ---> *.  *


----------



## Harley Sailor (11 Jun 2008)

WOW, a bit touchy...Cool


----------



## geo (12 Jun 2008)

Don't mess with the Coppertops :tsktsk:


----------



## Neill McKay (12 Jun 2008)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> No, I'm quite done with you actually. And, quite frankly, I don't give a crap where you are. My job doesn't entail "convincing" you. My job just entails doing my job.
> 
> Don't bother looking up those official CF terms by yourself now like I advised earlier ... I wouldn't want to have to spoon feed you.
> 
> ...



Is it not possible for two people to discuss differing beliefs without it coming to this?


----------



## armyvern (12 Jun 2008)

Neill McKay said:
			
		

> Is it not possible for two people to discuss differing beliefs without it coming to this?



My job entails my sticking to "official policy and terms" as directed in QR&Os, CFAOs, Sup Manual, DAODs, TB Regulations etc etc ...

"Beliefs" don't matter, CF definitions do.


----------



## geo (13 Jun 2008)

One should take into consideration that the english language (and all others) changes with time.  Some words become obsolete while others will end up meaning something completely different from it's original intent.

As Vern & I have pointed out.... Decommissioned is the removal of a commissioned ship from the rolls while Paid off is the removal of the asset from crown property's list of things it has.

HMS Upholder was DECOMMISSIONED from the RN at the time it was mothballed.  When it changed hands - from UK to CA - it was Paid off.


----------



## drunknsubmrnr (13 Jun 2008)

Is this a new version of "Paid off"? Some sort of administrative accounting term?


----------



## geo (13 Jun 2008)

Heh... I'm Combat Arms.... 

Paid off to me is what I do to settle my Bar tab at the end of the night


----------



## CountDC (20 Jun 2008)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Well according to forces.gc.ca (that'd be the official CF site I think) ...
> 
> HMCS ships are "decommissioned" (see term used at para 3 of link)



This is merely an article most likely written by some PAFFO using what they assumed was the correct term who had watched too many US movies.



			
				ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Attachment included below details the "The CF Ship Decommissioning Process".



?? Where - don't see anything in regards to Decommissioning??



			
				ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Attached here is the link to the CFAO regarding the "paying off" of CF assets. It seems to me that the Ship itself is "decommissioned" (read Unit "disbanded" in the CFAO). After it is decommissioned it is then "payed off" in that the asset then moves from the Old Man to the CDS for disposal purposes.



Unit Disbanded refers to paying off of ship not decommissioned.



			
				ArmyVern said:
			
		

> CFAO 27-9 _DISPOSAL OF NON-PUBLIC PROPERTY_
> 
> Ergo, the "paying off" of the ship is it's handover to the disposal process.
> 
> It's actual "retirement from service" -- is it's decommissioning.



In speaking with LCdr here that has extensive experience with this he explained as thus:

The correct term for the Canadian Navy is paying off the same as the British use as we are closely based on them.  The US Navy however uses Commission and Decommission thus these terms are more often heard by people in the news, movies, shows so they have started to use them when referring to Canadian Ships.  In actual fact they are the same thing just that one is Canadian/British and the other US termonolgy.  

Also ships that are Payed Off are not always scrapped or sold - they may be mothballed and if needed/desired could be placed back into active service. See MARCORD 40-01  here:   http://navy.dwan.dnd.ca/english/marcords/v1/40-01.asp released by the OPI DMPOR 4 in Apr 08 and MARCORD G-23  http://navy.dwan.dnd.ca/english/marcords/v2/G-23.asp also released by the OPI DMPOR 4 in Jan 08. You will not find the term decommission there.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (30 Jan 2009)

The Royal Australian Navy also uses the term ' decommissioned'


> http://www.anmm.gov.au/site/page.cfm?u=163
> Venture into the secret world of submarine warfare on board HMAS Onslow, one of the Royal Australian Navy's Oberon class submarines now superseded by the Collins class. _*Decommissioned*_ in 1999, just weeks before coming to the museum, this boat is complete and is close to operational condition.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (30 Jan 2009)

And from the *ROYAL NAVY* website:

http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/server/show/nav.1278



> After 3 commissions Invincible was _*decommissioned*_ from her third in August 2005, as her period of operational tasking ended.



.......but not being a sailor, nor overly interested why some get so worked up over the simple use of a term, I shall retire, decommission as it were, from the conversation. However, I would much rather be paid off


----------



## Sub_Guy (31 Jan 2009)

recceguy said:
			
		

> .......but not being a sailor, nor overly interested why some get so worked up over the simple use of a term, I shall retire, decommission as it were, from the conversation. However, I would much rather be paid off



Its a Navy thing, I noticed some like to get worked up over certain terms.   I would say things to intentionally get certain people going.

"I am going downstairs"  would always ensure a lecture about proper naval terms.

Decommissioned vs Paid Off.... Who gives a damn?


----------



## geo (1 Feb 2009)

Tomato / Tamato


----------



## Neill McKay (1 Feb 2009)

geo said:
			
		

> Tomato / Tamato



Rifle/gun?


----------



## George Wallace (1 Feb 2009)

N. McKay said:
			
		

> Rifle/gun?




I won't point out the flaws with this post.


----------



## Michael OLeary (1 Feb 2009)

N. McKay said:
			
		

> Rifle/gun?



Ship/boat?


----------



## Good2Golf (1 Feb 2009)

Frankly, as a naval 'outie' (not inside the 'inner circle' of service at sea) but having banged around RCNC (Road's) parade square to Heart of Oak a few times and still calling things by strange names (heads=latrine, wall=bulkhead, deck=floor, pusser=good), I find myself surprised that people would argue for what I see as the less respectful term of "paid-off" (oh, the crew got their last pay....from the days when they were paid aboard their ship -- like swome kind of admin detail..."oh, by the way...") vs decommissioned (in my mind, a formal, fitting procedure to respectfully withdraw a warship from its Commission to serve).

I only see the term paid-off in jargon, while the RN still formally Decommissions its ships and boats - ex. HMS Repulse Decommissioned.


----------



## Nfld Sapper (1 Feb 2009)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Frankly, as a naval 'outie' (not inside the 'inner circle' of service at sea) but having banged around RCNC (Road's) parade square to Heart of Oak a few times and still calling things by strange names (heads=latrine, wall=bulkhead, deck=floor, pusser=good), I find myself surprised that people would argue for what I see as the less respectful term of "paid-off" (oh, the crew got their last pay....from the days when they were paid aboard their ship -- like swome kind of admin detail..."oh, by the way...") vs decommissioned (in my mind, a formal, fitting procedure to respectfully withdraw a warship from its Commission to serve).
> 
> I only see the term paid-off in jargon, while the RN still formally Decommissions its ships and boats - ex. HMS Repulse Decommissioned.



umm... picture is broken?


----------



## George Wallace (1 Feb 2009)

NFLD Sapper said:
			
		

> umm... picture is broken?




ummm!..........whole discusion is broken.   ;D


----------



## Good2Golf (1 Feb 2009)

NFLD Sapper said:
			
		

> umm... picture is broken?



Hmmm...I can still see it.  It should look like:


----------



## Neill McKay (1 Feb 2009)

Michael O`Leary said:
			
		

> Ship/boat?



Another excellent example.



			
				George Wallace said:
			
		

> ummm!..........whole discusion is broken.   ;D



Don't have to play if you don't want to!


----------



## ltmaverick25 (2 Feb 2009)

Dolphin_Hunter said:
			
		

> Its a Navy thing, I noticed some like to get worked up over certain terms.   I would say things to intentionally get certain people going.
> 
> "I am going downstairs"  would always ensure a lecture about proper naval terms.
> 
> Decommissioned vs Paid Off.... Who gives a damn?



Its not just a Navy thing, the CF as a whole is particular about its terms, though I think the Navy is much more anal about it.  However, I happen to like that fact.  Part of the military experience, to me anyway, is the culture, tradition, ect...  And although from a practical standpoint the terminology probably does not mean much and a "who gives a damn"? could be a perfectly legitimate question, from a sentimental standpoint it DOES mean something to the sailors, and I happen to like that.  Culture, language and society will undoubtedly change over time, but it is still nice to see other things stay the same, "just because"...


----------



## Neill McKay (2 Feb 2009)

ltmaverick25 said:
			
		

> Part of the military experience, to me anyway, is the culture, tradition, ect...  And although from a practical standpoint the terminology probably does not mean much and a "who gives a damn"? could be a perfectly legitimate question, from a sentimental standpoint it DOES mean something to the sailors, and I happen to like that.  Culture, language and society will undoubtedly change over time, but it is still nice to see other things stay the same, "just because"...



That's it exactly.  Whether we say "paid off" or "decommissioned", or "deck" or "floor", won't affect whether a missile hits or misses an opposing ship.  But it does contribute to the culture of the Service, without which we would eventually become nothing more than uniformed civil servants.  There's nothing wrong with uniformed civil servants (e.g. the Coast Guard or the post office), but I think we all want to be something more than that.  Every grain of sand that we take away from the pile makes the pile a little bit smaller, even if it's not obvious after each grain.


----------



## Good2Golf (2 Feb 2009)

N. McKay said:
			
		

> That's it exactly.  Whether we say "paid off" or "decommissioned", or "deck" or "floor", won't affect whether a missile hits or misses an opposing ship.  But it does contribute to the culture of the Service, without which we would eventually become nothing more than uniformed civil servants.  There's nothing wrong with uniformed civil servants (e.g. *the Coast Guard * or the post office), but I think we all want to be something more than that.  Every grain of sand that we take away from the pile makes the pile a little bit smaller, even if it's not obvious after each grain.



  I can't believe you just used the Coast Guard as an "example" of a uniformed civil servant!  

I know several mariners in the Coast Guard, all living and breathing the sea they work on, and you do them a grave diservice with that statement/attitude.  No mutual respect for other seafarers apparently... 

Shame!


----------



## Neill McKay (3 Feb 2009)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> I can't believe you just used the Coast Guard as an "example" of a uniformed civil servant!
> 
> I know several mariners in the Coast Guard, all living and breathing the sea they work on, and you do them a grave diservice with that statement/attitude.  No mutual respect for other seafarers apparently...
> 
> Shame!



How on earth is that disrespectful?  They _are_ civil servants, just like most other government employees.  Are you reading a negative connotation into the term "civil servant"?  I can assure you that none was intended.  In fact, in my day job I'm a provincial civil servant.

I have all the respect in the world for the Coast Guard; in fact, I came within a heartbeat of joining a couple of years ago.


----------



## Good2Golf (3 Feb 2009)

For as much as you speak about traditions of the mariner, you then equate a Coast Guard sailor to merely a "uniformed civil servant", like a postal worker.  Pointed a Coast Guardsman friend to this post and he noted his appreciation that he and his fellow sailors were spared "by a heartbeat" of having someone with your lack of appreciation the Guard as the Nation's maritime responders and protectors.  While you're at it, shouldn't you also include soldiers, sailors and airmen and airwomen as uniformed civil servants...pay's linked with PSAC equivalencies, we all take statutory holidays (when not on duty) like civil servants.  I thought that perhaps it was me being overly sensitive and insulted until my friend told me that it wasn't just me.  Whether you intended to or not, you did insult the Guard, or at least a few of its sailors.


----------



## Neill McKay (3 Feb 2009)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> For as much as you speak about traditions of the mariner, you then equate a Coast Guard sailor to merely a "uniformed civil servant", like a postal worker.



Most of the people who work for the government are called civil servants.  By convention, military members are not.  In Canada it may be that the RCMP are also not, but the Coast Guard definitely are.  That's not me using a term to express a particular slanted meaning, it's simply what they are.  You seem to see some kind of derogatory meaning in that, but there isn't any.



> Pointed a Coast Guardsman friend to this post and he noted his appreciation that he and his fellow sailors were spared "by a heartbeat" of having someone with your lack of appreciation the Guard as the Nation's maritime responders and protectors.



Your friend isn't in any position to pronounce on my opinion of the Coast Guard's role based on a few lines of text on a computer screen.



> While you're at it, shouldn't you also include soldiers, sailors and airmen and airwomen as uniformed civil servants...pay's linked with PSAC equivalencies, we all take statutory holidays (when not on duty) like civil servants.



To expand on the exclusion of military members from the civil service, I note that CF members are subject to a very different legislative framework from the civil service.  Coast Guard members are subject to the same framework as the rest of the civil service.  The Coast Guard itself has publicly emphasized that it is not a military or para-military service.

None of that takes away from the role of the Coast Guard in maintaining the safety of the waterways, nor the much riskier nature of their jobs.  The iciest sidewalks and the most aggressive dogs in the land do not compare to the dangers of the sea, and I certainly realize that the Postie sleeps in his own -- stationary! -- bed every night while the Coast Guardsman is at sea continuously for four to six weeks at a time, living with all that implies.

But they are not the navy, and do not have the same cultural and legal overhead that the armed forces do.  They are civilians, and government employees, and in most of the English-speaking world that's what a civil servant is.



> I thought that perhaps it was me being overly sensitive and insulted until my friend told me that it wasn't just me.  Whether you intended to or not, you did insult the Guard, or at least a few of its sailors.



The only people I could reasonably have insulted are ones who feel that there is something wrong with being a civil servant or who find the term in some way degrading, and those who have badly misunderstood my intention.  I can't do anything for the former, but I hope I've clarified my comments enough to satisfy the latter.


----------



## ltmaverick25 (4 Feb 2009)

I dont really see what all the fuss is about.  It is entirely possible to have a deep pride in your respective profession at arms without it having to be derogatory to all else.  I agree with N.McKay on a personal level.  I am looking for something more then a career in civil service (ive considered civil service jobs at length) and certainly want something more then a civilian job in the business world.  That is not a slant on any of the former, it is a personal choice and beleif of mine.  I beleif that by being a part of the Canadian Navy, I am a part of a long and proud tradition.  It is something completely different and unique from any other job in the country and I like it, even if that means some of my peers with argue with each other until dawn over terminology  ;D


----------



## Harley Sailor (4 Feb 2009)

I wish I could just let things go, but I can't



> shouldn't you also include soldiers, sailors and airmen and airwomen as uniformed civil servants...pay's linked with PSAC equivalencies



When they start paying us for over time at sea like they do for the Coast Guard, or even letting us bank the overtime and returning home early like the Coast Guard, then maybe our pay would be equivalent.  When we get called out on a search with the Coast Guard and they get overtime pay because it's after their working hours and all we get is a Bravo Zolo, it shows who is the civil servant.  And then there's the "let go on strike to get more benifits" that we in the Armed Services can't do.


----------



## CountDC (4 Feb 2009)

Harley Sailor said:
			
		

> I wish I could just let things go, but I can't
> 
> When they start paying us for over time at sea like they do for the Coast Guard, or even letting us bank the overtime and returning home early like the Coast Guard, then maybe our pay would be equivalent.  When we get called out on a search with the Coast Guard and they get overtime pay because it's after their working hours and all we get is a Bravo Zolo, it shows who is the civil servant.  And then there's the "let go on strike to get more benifits" that we in the Armed Services can't do.



Nor can I - We in the Armed Services do not need to go on strike and lose our regular pay cheque - the civil servants (PSAC) do it for us. Every thing they get is taken into account when our benefits and pay are calculated.  That is why some members of the military will bring timmies to the strikers, Shearwater used to have a bunch that changed into civvie dress and walked the line with them on their lunch hour, and I always encourage them to fight for as much as they can get  >.

As for overtime - that is already included in our pay rates, one of the reasons we get more than our civilian counterparts (although I do question the comparatives sometimes).

How about Sea Pay without sailing? (not that I am complaining - was quite happy to take it)

As a side - if you want to calculate out your hourly rate of pay for comparing to your counterparts:

monthly pay rate *12 = yearly pay

yearly pay / 365 = daily pay   (if you are reserve and want to see how accurate your daily pay compares take this # and multiply by .85)

daily pay / 7.5 = hourly pay.  (learned when working at CE - TB considers our pay based on a 5 day, 7.5 hour daily work week, at least in 2000/2001 they did.)


----------



## ltmaverick25 (4 Feb 2009)

I still dont understand why we are having a pissing contest between the Navy and the Coast Guard...  We arent comparing apples to apples here.  One force is a military force that trains for fighting wars, among other things.  The other is indeed a uniformed civil servant (no slight intended here) with a totally different mandate.  After talking to one of my Coast Guard friends I have surmised that the only thing we have in common is the country we serve and the fact that we sail, everything else is different.  Why is this even an issue anyway?  We were talking about commissioning/paid off and Navy culture..


----------



## Donaill (13 Feb 2009)

I haven't been paying attention to the thread so it may be old news to some that DND has taken control of HMCS Fraser. What will happen to her is still unknown. One of the reasons that it was given back was the state of the vessel and the costs involved in maintaining her.


----------



## geo (15 Feb 2009)

.. which is what has already been said in this thread.


----------



## navy Dave (20 Jun 2009)

I believe that when a shipis "paid off" she is still able to be in service, it is just that the government has paid for her. Decommission, however the ship is taken out of service, and off the navy's list. From there they are either sold or scrapped or  both.


----------



## Occam (20 Jun 2009)

Navy Dave said:
			
		

> I believe that when a shipis "paid off" she is still able to be in service, it is just that the government has paid for her. Decommission, however the ship is taken out of service, and off the navy's list. From there they are either sold or scrapped or  both.



Ummmmm, no.

On just about everything you've written.


----------

