# I am a CAF member & I want better pay and benefits (a merged thread)



## Bruce Monkhouse

c_canuk said:
			
		

> Don't just scoff "That's preposterous! the current regs clearly state blah blah blah" I'm not arguing current regs, I'm asking where the line in the future will be drawn, and if you disagree with me that the justification for taxing free parking could be used to justify charging for free PT, explain why it couldn't happen.



Of course it could..............depends on the Govt. of the day, and it could be applied to any work place with a gym. [my civilian employer supplies a very nice gym for me]    Are you trying to say the military should be more special then others?


----------



## c_canuk

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Of course it could..............depends on the Govt. of the day, and it could be applied to any work place with a gym. [my civilian employer supplies a very nice gym for me]    Are you trying to say the military should be more special then others?



What I'm trying to say is that every time they chip away at what we have access to, that are not subject to fees and taxes, while neglecting to address differences in the market rate for skilled labour in the communities we work in; they are effectively cutting our pay. 

I feel that it is discourteous to serving members to not address market rates of pay while increasing the fees and taxes they pay because of market rates. If they did address discrepancies in market rates of pay vs market rates of benefits; the whole thing becomes a counterproductive rob Peter to pay Paul situation.

Since we do not have the luxury of collective bargaining and do not have access to market rates of pay, some safety nets, rights, and privileges that the average Canadian does; I feel that we should have special considerations in regards to what is considered a taxable benefit.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

c_canuk said:
			
		

> Since we do not have the luxury of collective bargaining and do not have access to market rates of pay, some safety nets, rights, and privileges that the average Canadian does; I feel that we should have special considerations in regards to what is considered a taxable benefit.



I says "Pardon"??   You folks have it made.............someone else does your bargaining, and possible striking, for you.
The real world is going to slap some people silly some day when they pull pole.......


----------



## Edward Campbell

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> I says "Pardon"??   You folks have it made.............someone else does your bargaining, and possible striking, for you.
> The real world is going to slap some people silly some day when they pull pole.......




 :goodpost:

Military remuneration is _benchmarked_ against salaries and benefits in the public service. Public service unions do the bargaining, and striking, and CF wages keep up ... it's been that way since the late 1960s.

*----------*

With specific regard to gym memberships. This information is many, many years old so take it for what it's worth ... many years ago my directorate was collocated with another government department and the NDHQ AU  told us that our closest gymnasium/fitness centre was ____ and issued memberships to military members. This was questioned by our civil department colleagues and it was explained that military members had a requirement (condition of service) to pass an annual PT test so the government had a concomitant obligation to provide access to fitness facilities. I don 't know if that argument is still valid, in was 25_ish_ years ago.


----------



## The_Falcon

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> :goodpost:
> 
> Military remuneration is _benchmarked_ against salaries and benefits in the public service. Public service unions do the bargaining, and striking, and CF wages keep up ... it's been that way since the late 1960s.
> 
> *----------*
> 
> With specific regard to gym memberships. This information is many, many years old so take it for what it's worth ... many years ago my directorate was collocated with another government department and the NDHQ AU  told us that our closest gymnasium/fitness centre was ____ and issued memberships to military members. This was questioned by our civil department colleagues and it was explained that military members had a requirement (condition of service) to pass an annual PT test so the government had a concomitant obligation to provide access to fitness facilities. I don 't know if that argument is still valid, in was 25_ish_ years ago.



As to the gym provision due to employment requirements, I can see it can be a valid argument and there are several examples in the civilian world where this also happens.  Nuclear Plant Security Teams, many firehalls, some police services, particularly for their SWAT/ERT folks.


----------



## RADOPSIGOPACCISOP

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> :goodpost:
> 
> Military remuneration is _benchmarked_ against salaries and benefits in the public service. Public service unions do the bargaining, and striking, and CF wages keep up ... it's been that way since the late 1960s.
> 
> *----------*
> 
> With specific regard to gym memberships. This information is many, many years old so take it for what it's worth ... many years ago my directorate was collocated with another government department and the NDHQ AU  told us that our closest gymnasium/fitness centre was ____ and issued memberships to military members. This was questioned by our civil department colleagues and it was explained that military members had a requirement (condition of service) to pass an annual PT test so the government had a concomitant obligation to provide access to fitness facilities. I don 't know if that argument is still valid, in was 25_ish_ years ago.



When I was in Ottawa we had a gym in Tunney's Pasture. Given there was no unit PT program and we were among what seemed to be the 25% of military in Ottawa that had to pass a PT test, we had access to a gym. Fair enough. DND employees though were also given access to the gym. They have no job requirement for it.

As far as military ought to claim gym membership if the same is said for parking, I can attest to the fact that probably half the military in Ottawa wouldn't even know where the gym was, let alone could make a taxable claim to actually using it.


----------



## c_canuk

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> I says "Pardon"??   You folks have it made.............someone else does your bargaining, and possible striking, for you.
> The real world is going to slap some people silly some day when they pull pole.......




Are civil servants subject to unlimited liability? Is their pay is based off our scales or are they paid market rates? Will they strike to have our PLD corrected or get us paid market rates? Will they strike to fix the disability pension fiasco? Got it made, indeed.

Since I have worked proffesionally for several years, in my current trade, in the real world prior to enlisting; I'm not worried about the real world when I get out. Some people who've become instituionalized are going to have a tough time in the real world though.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

c_canuk said:
			
		

> Are civil servants subject to unlimited liability? Is their pay is based off our scales or are they paid market rates? Will they strike to have our PLD corrected or get us paid market rates? Will they strike to fix the disability pension fiasco? Got it made, indeed.
> 
> Since I have worked proffesionally for several years, in my current trade, in the real world prior to enlisting; I'm not worried about the real world when I get out. Some people who've become instituionalized are going to have a tough time in the real world though.



I have no more tears to add to that.....


----------



## PuckChaser

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> You folks have it made.............someone else does your bargaining, and possible striking, for you.



Public Service unions do absolutely 0 bargaining or striking that helps CAF members. c_canuk hit the nail on the head.

With your attitude we should all be so thankful and throw fists full of dollars that we don't have at PSAC and the labour movement for helping us rich soldiers get so rich. Seriously get a clue, dude.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

Damn,....I wasted all my tears on the last post.....


----------



## George Wallace

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Public Service unions do absolutely 0 bargaining or striking that helps CAF members. c_canuk hit the nail on the head.
> 
> With your attitude we should all be so thankful and throw fists full of dollars that we don't have at PSAC and the labour movement for helping us rich soldiers get so rich. Seriously get a clue, dude.



I say.....WHAT?

I think you had better take a much closer look at what you are talking about.


----------



## Shamrock

c_canuk said:
			
		

> Are civil servants subject to unlimited liability? Is their pay is based off our scales or are they paid market rates? Will they strike to have our PLD corrected or get us paid market rates? Will they strike to fix the disability pension fiasco? Got it made, indeed.
> 
> Since I have worked proffesionally for several years, in my current trade, in the real world prior to enlisting; I'm not worried about the real world when I get out. Some people who've become instituionalized are going to have a tough time in the real world though.



May I recommend you take a moment to read about Military Factor.  I'm not sure which classification NCM and Officers are benchmarked against; however, because of _military factor_, we automatically make more than our civilian counterparts who aren't entitled to PLD and environmental allowances.  For example, a CF member receives higher compensation than a DND employee - compare $59,832 for a Cpl against $48,777 for a CR04.  It's quite frequent CR04 and Cpl Clerks work together in the same OR.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

But the CRs never have to deploy, dig holes, fire weapons, do sentry, or any other military duty.   Apples and bowling balls.


----------



## Tibbson

Shamrock said:
			
		

> May I recommend you take a moment to read about Military Factor.  I'm not sure which classification NCM and Officers are benchmarked against; however, because of _military factor_, we automatically make more than our civilian counterparts who aren't entitled to PLD and environmental allowances.  For example, a CF member receives higher compensation than a DND employee - compare $59,832 for a Cpl against $48,777 for a CR04.  It's quite frequent CR04 and Cpl Clerks work together in the same OR.



Your comparison doesnt hold water very long.  An MP WO or MWO posted as the NCO IC at his/her base makes @ $83,000 a year.  In many cases they dont get PLD or anyof the environmental allowances you speak of too depending upon posting.  His/Her civilian counterpart would be an RCMP Sgt or SSgt making $90,000 to $103,000 a year.  Similar, if not better, benefits too.  (While they did a longer tour in Afghanistan they also did get 3 LTAs during their 9-12 month roto.

Many other trades have the same gap with their civilian equivalents


----------



## dapaterson

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> But the CRs never have to deploy, dig holes, fire weapons, do sentry, or any other military duty.   Apples and bowling balls.



And the CRs have 3 weeks of leave for 8 years, and don't hit 5 weeks until 18 years of service.  The clerks have to work over Christmas, and don't get 2 special and 2 short as extras.  If deployed, the clerks get risk & hardship allowances.  The clerks can draw an unreduced pension immediately after 25 years of service.

Apples and bowling balls, indeed...


----------



## Shamrock

Schindler's Lift said:
			
		

> Your comparison doesnt hold water very long.  An MP WO or MWO posted as the NCO IC at his/her base makes @ $83,000 a year.  In many cases they dont get PLD or anyof the environmental allowances you speak of too depending upon posting.  His/Her civilian counterpart would be an RCMP Sgt or SSgt making $90,000 to $103,000 a year.  Similar, if not better, benefits too.  (While they did a longer tour in Afghanistan they also did get 3 LTAs during their 9-12 month roto.
> 
> Many other trades have the same gap with their civilian equivalents



At Captain 10, a pilot will earn $112,000 a year.  That same individual would earn $150,000 to $200,000 from Air Canada.  This, of course, isn't relevant as the CF's pay is baselined off federal employee classifications and not whatever convenient examples we can find.


----------



## RADOPSIGOPACCISOP

Shamrock said:
			
		

> May I recommend you take a moment to read about Military Factor.  I'm not sure which classification NCM and Officers are benchmarked against; however, because of _military factor_, we automatically make more than our civilian counterparts who aren't entitled to PLD and environmental allowances.  For example, a CF member receives higher compensation than a DND employee - compare $59,832 for a Cpl against $48,777 for a CR04.  It's quite frequent CR04 and Cpl Clerks work together in the same OR.



It depends on where you work. I have Ptes and Cpls as ACISS-IST doing the same job (and more if you include their radio, satellite and line tasks) as CS-01 and CS-02 personnel. A step 1 CS-01 gets paid $53k while a step 8 CS-02 gets paid $81k. Add on top of that, after hours upgrades and maintainance is overtime for the CS personnel but is free labor for the military. I have had these people working side by side doing weekend upgrades, one gets overtime the other doesn't.

The same goes for other specialities. Yes, admin and clerks are paid more than CR counterparts, but in the IT world, military are paid less for more work.


----------



## Shamrock

RADOPSIGOPACISSOP said:
			
		

> It depends on where you work. I have Ptes and Cpls as ACISS-IST doing the same job (and more if you include their radio, satellite and line tasks) as CS-01 and CS-02 personnel. A step 1 CS-01 gets paid $53k while a step 8 CS-02 gets paid $81k. Add on top of that, after hours upgrades and maintainance is overtime for the CS personnel but is free labor for the military. I have had these people working side by side doing weekend upgrades, one gets overtime the other doesn't.
> 
> The same goes for other specialities. Yes, admin and clerks are paid more than CR counterparts, but in the IT world, military are paid less for more work.



I realize this is becoming increasingly tangential, but I'm genuinely curious - is a CS01 equivalent to a Cpl in terms of responsibility?  Does a CS01 require any special education?  Who provides it?


----------



## Remius

CS occupational group requires a bachelors degree in computer science but is often waived given the lack of people with that degree.  Many have 3 year college programs or IT related courses that are considered equivalent or will be accepted if they have a combination of training , experience and education.  

Modified:  apologies, it is a min 2 year recognised program from recognised Canadian Institition.  Some people have been grandfathered who don't have that and some people can get waivers for experience and training that would be equivalent.


----------



## George Wallace

Crantor said:
			
		

> CS occupational group requires a bachelors degree in computer science but is often waived given the lack of people with that degree.  Many have 3 year college programs or IT related courses that are considered equivalent or will be accepted if they have a combination of training , experience and education.
> 
> Modified:  apologies, it is a min 2 year recognised program from recognised Canadian Institition.  Some people have been grandfathered who don't have that and some people can get waivers for experience and training that would be equivalent.



Besides the College programs, there was a requirement to be a Microsoft Certified Professional.


----------



## Occam

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Besides the College programs, there was a requirement to be a Microsoft Certified Professional.



I was chasing a CS position for near 10 years (and still watch them out of amusement and curiosity), and there's never been a requirement for MCP.  

A cut and paste from a current CS-02 competiton reads "Successful completion of two years of an acceptable post-secondary educational program in computer science, information technology, information management or another specialty relevant to the position to be staffed".


----------



## George Wallace

Occam said:
			
		

> I was chasing a CS position for near 10 years (and still watch them out of amusement and curiosity), and there's never been a requirement for MCP.
> 
> A cut and paste from a current CS-02 competiton reads "Successful completion of two years of an acceptable post-secondary educational program in computer science, information technology, information management or another specialty relevant to the position to be staffed".



The wife is a CS 02 and it was a requirement for her to get it done, after she was hired some fifteen years ago.


----------



## dapaterson

George Wallace said:
			
		

> The wife is a CS 02 and it was a requirement for her to get it done *for her position*, after she was hired some fifteen years ago.



Fixed that for you.

There are not uniform work descriptions for all CS 02, or all EG 06, or all AS 03, or ...


----------



## kratz

This topic is an example of why the CAF continues to lose benefits.

PMQ (now RHU) : Will now be at local rates. Response from serving members, why not they units are below standard. 
New members coming in are forced to deal with the new situation with little to no systemic support. 

Parking : Will now pay local rates. Response from serving members, why not tax us?

Messes: Must pay membership, but now that you must pay to park...who will continue to come 
to the mess that has not already been driven away by other CAF policies?
Response from on high: I don't care, this is how it will be.

We've already lost the motivation of a long service bonus. 
Response: Where is it? and we are grateful to get it years late.

....the old Monty Python joke ends...."but I'm not bitter"


----------



## RADOPSIGOPACCISOP

kratz said:
			
		

> This topic is an example of why the CAF continues to lose benefits.
> 
> PMQ (now RHU) : Will now be at local rates. Response from serving members, why not they units are below standard.
> New members coming in are forced to deal with the new situation with little to no systemic support.
> 
> Parking : Will now pay local rates. Response from serving members, why not tax us?
> 
> Messes: Must pay membership, but now that you must pay to park...who will continue to come
> to the mess that has not already been driven away by other CAF policies?
> Response from on high: I don't care, this is how it will be.
> 
> We've already lost the motivation of a long service bonus.
> Response: Where is it? and we are grateful to get it years late.
> 
> ....the old Monty Python joke ends...."but I'm not bitter"



Because the GoC doesn't need us anymore. The big adventure is over now, CAF photo ops are played out. We're now nothing more to the current government than a budgetary blackhole that can be cut as needed to balance budgets or provide surpluses. 

Besides, there apparently is no social contract to support CAF members or veterans. They can cut away because we're nothing more than public servants who have no union and are not allowed to take to the streets to fight to keep the GoC from taking money out of our pockets.

With parking fees, increases to PMQ rates, increased pension contributions and other potential benefits on the chopping block, this is no more than wage cuts that are too indirect to raise the ire of the media.


----------



## Tibbson

RADOPSIGOPACISSOP said:
			
		

> Because the GoC doesn't need us anymore. The big adventure is over now, CAF photo ops are played out. We're now nothing more to the current government than a budgetary blackhole that can be cut as needed to balance budgets or provide surpluses.
> 
> Besides, there apparently is no social contract to support CAF members or veterans. They can cut away because we're nothing more than public servants who have no union and are not allowed to take to the streets to fight to keep the GoC from taking money out of our pockets.
> 
> With parking fees, increases to PMQ rates, increased pension contributions and other potential benefits on the chopping block, this is no more than wage cuts that are too indirect to raise the ire of the media.



Which is why many view all these changes as "FRP Lite".  Numbers go down but this time the CF doesn't need to pay out severance and release insentives AND they make money at the same time.


----------



## Navy_Pete

Schindler's Lift said:
			
		

> Your comparison doesnt hold water very long.  An MP WO or MWO posted as the NCO IC at his/her base makes @ $83,000 a year.  In many cases they dont get PLD or anyof the environmental allowances you speak of too depending upon posting.  His/Her civilian counterpart would be an RCMP Sgt or SSgt making $90,000 to $103,000 a year.  Similar, if not better, benefits too.  (While they did a longer tour in Afghanistan they also did get 3 LTAs during their 9-12 month roto.
> 
> Many other trades have the same gap with their civilian equivalents



The ENG 4s that work *for* me start at $90k and top out at $105k after 6 years.   Capt/Lt(N) caps out at around $82k in 10 years.  I'll trade the week of leave for the 25% pay raise and less responsibility.  They also earn O/T, so with any travel or other extended working hours, they can easily get more time off.  Maybe a bit of an outlier, as they have a strong union and rolled some of their severance and others things into their salary last bargaining round, but still pretty significant.  This is in the NCR where PLD is zero.

The fact that the unit also doesn't normally give xmas short is kind of salt in the wound, as the work is getting a lot more restrictive and bureaucratic, so it's hard to be effective and feel like you are contributing in a meaningful way.  Add the huge pay and benefit disparity, and you end up with a lot of folks in uniform that keep a close eye on public servant openings and opportunities in the private sector when the platform ISSCs come in for the new ships.

PS pay scales are here by the way;
http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/pubs_pol/hrpubs/coll_agre/rates-taux-eng.asp


----------



## dapaterson

So, the Lt(N) can retire at 42 (*assuming he/she joined at 17) and get 50% of his pay for the rest of his life.

The ENG-04 can retire at age 50; if he joined at age 20, he'd get 60% of his pay for life - but a reduction of 1/4 would be applied - so for 30 years of service, the pension would be 45%.


----------



## McG

dapaterson said:
			
		

> The ENG-04 can retire at age 50; if he joined at age 20, he'd get 60% of his pay for life - but a reduction of 1/4 would be applied - so for 30 years of service, the pension would be 45%.


At 20, that Eng04 was probably still in university and paying for the necessary degree.


----------



## dapaterson

Unlike the Lt(N) whose education was both paid and pensionable.


----------



## Navy_Pete

Only for RMC or ROTP; I'm a DEO.  So that 4-5 years of school isn't 'pensionable time'.

I also think you are missing the point; they work for me (as in, I am acting as their supervisor), yet they are paid significantly more work, while not being any more qualified then I am.

Sure, I could retire earlier (51), but over 15 years, that pay gap would be enough on its own to pay off a mortgage.

Also, the civies don't need to move every few years.  Even if I sell the house for more then I bought it for and 'make money' on it, odds are my next mortgage is also higher, so I'm not really any further ahead.

That's simply the reality that folks are faced with now, and why people are getting more reluctant to move now, particularily with all the IRP cuts.  You normally break even, and if they get rid of the coverage for paying the realtor fees, we're foxed.

It is what it is, but lets not pretend that compared to the civil servants, in a lot of trades the military is much better bang for the govt dollar to get the same work done.  But we have no protection from arbitrary cuts to the various benefits and the other death by a thousand cuts changes, so it's an easy cost savings for a bunch of political pricks looking for some savings to fly the balanced budget flags at the next election.


----------



## MARS

Not sure what any of this has to do with the parking rates, but since we are comparing our jobs to our civlian equivilants, lets look at what I did lately:  two weeks ago I had a massive Cormorant helicopter hovering about 15 feet over my head while a couple of SAR techs sorta fastroped onto the deck of my ship and extracted a casualty.  That was followed up shortly after by a small boat swarm "attack" with thunderflashes going off all around me and blank automatic weapons fire being traded back and forth.  Just last week my .50cal gunners blew the $hit out of a small skiff, putting out about 800 rounds of lead in pretty short order.  Next week I'm gonna go blow stuff up.  Then I'm gonna go lob HE shells at an even bigger boat as fast as my guys and gals can reload the weapon, all the while doing manoeuvres with a couple of TICONDOROGA Class Guided Missile Cruisers, a bunch of frigates and an assortment of other kickass ships. At some point the boys and girls from SOFCOM are gonna come around asking if I can help them out with their training again.  I walk down the flats of my ship and people literally get out of my way, and they just about come to the position of attention as well, although I require them to do neither of these things.  When I get to the Bridge, the whole room DOES come to Attention and someon briefs me on what is going on without me even having to open my mouth.  I get paid vacations to some really jammy (and some not so jammy) ports that other people pay to visit.  While I am there I wear this pretty cool looking uniform that tends to gather a lot of pleasant attention from the local women and usually gets me free drinks.

Im not entirely sure what an ENG04 is, but I assume it to be a civlian engineer of some sort.  I envision this person as some poindexter-looking guy who works for NASA and who wears white socks with black pants, a tie with a short sleeve shirt and brings their lunch to work in a sad brown paper bag.  (I am quite sure this ISN'T the case for most Engineers, but from where I sit and given what I do, it makes little difference).  What, of the things I listed above - which is by no means the neatest stuff I have ever done - did this ENG04-person do in the same period??  When is the last time - or first time - someone moved out of HIS way?  When was the last time he fired a heavy machine gun with ACDC playing in his ear?

If this sounds like a pompous, narrow-minded POV and an unfair characterization of others, well, it is supposed to.  It is a ibt toungue-in-cheek, if also a bit a**hole-ish, certainly. What I, indeed all of us in uniform do, is f***ing COOL.  What a LOT of other folks do...isn't. It continually takes my civlian friends to remind me of this, but they do, and often.  When I go to parties with them, THEIR jobs ar never the topic of conversation. 

If I was to reduce my job to dollars and cents, then granted, I might not be doing it.  But dollars and cents and bennies isn't what gets me off - living out my childhood fantasy does.  I suppose if I couldn't do this, then dollars and cents and bennies would HAVE to be my goal to numb the pain of sitting in a cubicle cloock-watching the day away waiting for the weekend.

Just do whatever makes you happy.  If your job isn't cool, well that sucks.  You probably shoulda looked for one that was.  If the lack of vacation and moving and parking fees is really the 9th gate of hell, then for the love of everything unholy, GTFO..lol.  I know I would if I felt that way.

You will have to excuse me, the sun is setting and it is about time for a tracer-loaded night time .50cal heavy machine gun shoot.  So cool.


----------



## Edward Campbell

:bravo:  :goodpost:  :hellyeah:


----------



## Transporter

MARS said:
			
		

> Not sure what any of this has to do with the parking rates, but since we are comparing our jobs to our civlian equivilants, lets look at what I did lately:  two weeks ago I had a massive Cormorant helicopter hovering about 15 feet over my head while a couple of SAR techs sorta fastroped onto the deck of my ship and extracted a casualty.  That was followed up shortly after by a small boat swarm "attack" with thunderflashes going off all around me and blank automatic weapons fire being traded back and forth.  Just last week my .50cal gunners blew the $hit out of a small skiff, putting out about 800 rounds of lead in pretty short order.  Next week I'm gonna go blow stuff up.  Then I'm gonna go lob HE shells at an even bigger boat as fast as my guys and gals can reload the weapon, all the while doing manoeuvres with a couple of TICONDOROGA Class Guided Missile Cruisers, a bunch of frigates and an assortment of other kickass ships. At some point the boys and girls from SOFCOM are gonna come around asking if I can help them out with their training again.  I walk down the flats of my ship and people literally get out of my way, and they just about come to the position of attention as well, although I require them to do neither of these things.  When I get to the Bridge, the whole room DOES come to Attention and someon briefs me on what is going on without me even having to open my mouth.  I get paid vacations to some really jammy (and some not so jammy) ports that other people pay to visit.  While I am there I wear this pretty cool looking uniform that tends to gather a lot of pleasant attention from the local women and usually gets me free drinks.
> 
> Im not entirely sure what an ENG04 is, but I assume it to be a civlian engineer of some sort.  I envision this person as some poindexter-looking guy who works for NASA and who wears white socks with black pants, a tie with a short sleeve shirt and brings their lunch to work in a sad brown paper bag.  (I am quite sure this ISN'T the case for most Engineers, but from where I sit and given what I do, it makes little difference).  What, of the things I listed above - which is by no means the neatest stuff I have ever done - did this ENG04-person do in the same period??  When is the last time - or first time - someone moved out of HIS way?  When was the last time he fired a heavy machine gun with ACDC playing in his ear?
> 
> If this sounds like a pompous, narrow-minded POV and an unfair characterization of others, well, it is supposed to.  It is a ibt toungue-in-cheek, if also a bit a**hole-ish, certainly. What I, indeed all of us in uniform do, is f***ing COOL.  What a LOT of other folks do...isn't. It continually takes my civlian friends to remind me of this, but they do, and often.  When I go to parties with them, THEIR jobs ar never the topic of conversation.
> 
> If I was to reduce my job to dollars and cents, then granted, I might not be doing it.  But dollars and cents and bennies isn't what gets me off - living out my childhood fantasy does.  I suppose if I couldn't do this, then dollars and cents and bennies would HAVE to be my goal to numb the pain of sitting in a cubicle cloock-watching the day away waiting for the weekend.
> 
> Just do whatever makes you happy.  If your job isn't cool, well that sucks.  You probably shoulda looked for one that was.  If the lack of vacation and moving and parking fees is really the 9th gate of hell, then for the love of everything unholy, GTFO..lol.  I know I would if I felt that way.
> 
> You will have to excuse me, the sun is setting and it is about time for a tracer-loaded night time .50cal heavy machine gun shoot.  So cool.



This was a good read and point taken. Too bad that in the course of your career you'll only get to live your dream maybe 3-4 years tops (less than that if you count actual days at sea I'm sure)? The rest of the time you'll likely be that guy in the cubicle farm... not to rain on your parade... or .50cal shoot


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

MARS said:
			
		

> Just do whatever makes you happy.  If your job isn't cool, well that sucks.  You probably shoulda looked for one that was.  If the lack of vacation and moving and parking fees is really the 9th gate of hell, then for the love of everything unholy, GTFO..lol.  I know I would if I felt that way.



Well said................I get asked a lot why I got out when I was halfway to retirement, and I always say 'It started feeling too much like a job".     

So it was time to go get 'a job'.


----------



## George Wallace

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Well said................I get asked a lot why I got out when I was halfway to retirement, and I always say 'It started feeling too much like a job".
> 
> So it was time to go get 'a job'.



And at the time that you did, it was being turned into that.   They started taking the 'fun' out of the job and making it just that, a 'job'.


----------



## jollyjacktar

You're fortunate MARS in that you've got what you believe to be your dream job.  You've worked hard and made the correct decisions to bring you to this position you now enjoy and I'm not taking anything away from you or that.  And you're bang on.  If your job sucks that much it is time to look for an exit.

But, you don't really have a dog in this fight so to speak due to your present position as unless I'm mistaken you also have the benefit/privilege of a CO/XO parking sign and slot right next to the ship on the jetty.  Which is something that many here won't get to enjoy.  They'll be fighting the parking wars out there, and that, will be a understandable sore point to many of them.  

I too don't have a dog in this fight at the moment either due to my present posting with the exception that the only parking I'll be able to get come Sept is visitor if available.


----------



## Edward Campbell

Transporter said:
			
		

> This was a good read and point taken. Too bad that in the course of your career you'll only get to live your dream maybe 3-4 years tops (less than that if you count actual days at sea I'm sure)? The rest of the time you'll likely be that guy in the cubicle farm... not to rain on your parade... or .50cal shoot




Not really, I served for 36+ years ... a lot of it in the big _cubicle farm_ ... there were some frustrating days, weeks, probably months but I can honestly say that I was still having "fun" up until the last day. Now, in the last years the "fun" was, in fact, responsibility, without thanks, but I knew the consequences of my decisions; I couldn't see them, no one came and thanked me, no one said, "boy aren't we lucky that ___ Campbell and his folks in D____ are doing such a great job," but I always told my staff how and why what we did mattered, how we made a positive, measurable contribution to the combat effectiveness of ships at sea, units in the field and in the air. It was, I think, enough ... I guess one of my fondest memories is my own farewell party: a good crowd of friends and colleagues, lots of laughter. We, most of us, my friends, bosses, colleagues, staff, enjoyed our work - we didn't do it for the  money, that's for sure!


----------



## Transporter

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Not really, I served for 36+ years ... a lot of it in the big _cubicle farm_ ... there were some frustrating days, weeks, probably months but I can honestly say that I was still having "fun" up until the last day. Now, in the last years the "fun" was, in fact, responsibility, without thanks, but I knew the consequences of my decisions; I couldn't see them, no one came and thanked me, no one said, "boy aren't we lucky that ___ Campbell and his folks in D____ are doing such a great job," but I always told my staff how and why what we did mattered, how we made a positive, measurable contribution to the combat effectiveness of ships at sea, units in the field and in the air. It was, I think, enough ... I guess one of my fondest memories is my own farewell party: a good crowd of friends and colleagues, lots of laughter. We, most of us, my friends, bosses, colleagues, staff, enjoyed our work - we didn't do it for the  money, that's for sure!



I'm with you... have spent more than a few years in cubicle farms myself - currently on fifth cubicle farm tour and counting - and have enjoyed the vast majority of it. Just didn't seem like MARS was the cubicle farm type is all. As noted, I get his point.


----------



## dimsum

MARS said:
			
		

> If I was to reduce my job to dollars and cents, then granted, I might not be doing it.  But dollars and cents and bennies isn't what gets me off - living out my childhood fantasy does.  I suppose if I couldn't do this, then dollars and cents and bennies would HAVE to be my goal to numb the pain of sitting in a cubicle cloock-watching the day away waiting for the weekend.
> 
> Just do whatever makes you happy.  If your job isn't cool, well that sucks.  You probably shoulda looked for one that was.  If the lack of vacation and moving and parking fees is really the 9th gate of hell, then for the love of everything unholy, GTFO..lol.  I know I would if I felt that way.



Exactly.

Not to sound arrogant/naive, but listening to some of my non-military friends talk about their jobs makes me very, very glad of my career choice, even with the moving around and such.  Like MARS, I've also travelled the world in some awesome (and some not-so-awesome) spots, worked with amazing folks and had more than a few "once in a lifetime" experiences.  Yes, there is quite a bit of time away from home but I'm also friends with airline pilots and FIFO mining geologists who spend as much or more away from home, and I usually beat them in the "so what did you do today?" story competition.    

Another big difference I notice between the military and the private sector is, as ERC has alluded to, the camaraderie and networking opportunities.  Most of my non-military friends go to after-work drinks and such, but aside from that they seem to be happy to get away from work people ASAP after hours.  

With the amount of education opportunities in the CF (ASC, sponsored post-grad, etc.) there really shouldn't be an excuse to stay in a job rut.  If free education isn't your thing, there's always OT/CT.


----------



## Furniture

MARS said:
			
		

> Not sure what any of this has to do with the parking rates, but since we are comparing our jobs to our civilian equivalents, lets look at what I did lately:  two weeks ago I had a massive Cormorant helicopter hovering about 15 feet over my head while a couple of SAR techs sorta fastroped onto the deck of my ship and extracted a casualty.  That was followed up shortly after by a small boat swarm "attack" with thunderflashes going off all around me and blank automatic weapons fire being traded back and forth.  Just last week my .50cal gunners blew the $hit out of a small skiff, putting out about 800 rounds of lead in pretty short order.  Next week I'm gonna go blow stuff up.  Then I'm gonna go lob HE shells at an even bigger boat as fast as my guys and gals can reload the weapon, all the while doing manoeuvres with a couple of TICONDOROGA Class Guided Missile Cruisers, a bunch of frigates and an assortment of other kickass ships. At some point the boys and girls from SOFCOM are gonna come around asking if I can help them out with their training again.  I walk down the flats of my ship and people literally get out of my way, and they just about come to the position of attention as well, although I require them to do neither of these things.  When I get to the Bridge, the whole room DOES come to Attention and some on briefs me on what is going on without me even having to open my mouth.  I get paid vacations to some really jammy (and some not so jammy) ports that other people pay to visit.  While I am there I wear this pretty cool looking uniform that tends to gather a lot of pleasant attention from the local women and usually gets me free drinks.
> 
> I'm not entirely sure what an ENG04 is, but I assume it to be a civilian engineer of some sort.  I envision this person as some  guy who works for NASA and who wears white socks with black pants, a tie with a short sleeve shirt and brings their lunch to work in a sad brown paper bag.  (I am quite sure this ISN'T the case for most Engineers, but from where I sit and given what I do, it makes little difference).  What, of the things I listed above - which is by no means the neatest stuff I have ever done - did this ENG04-person do in the same period??  When is the last time - or first time - someone moved out of HIS way?  When was the last time he fired a heavy machine gun with ACDC playing in his ear?
> 
> If this sounds like a pompous, reminded POV and an unfair characterization of others, well, it is supposed to.  It is a bit tangential, if also a bit a**hellish, certainly. What I, indeed all of us in uniform do, is f***ing COOL.  What a LOT of other folks do...isn't. It continually takes my civilian friends to remind me of this, but they do, and often.  When I go to parties with them, THEIR jobs are never the topic of conversation.
> 
> If I was to reduce my job to dollars and cents, then granted, I might not be doing it.  But dollars and cents and bennies isn't what gets me off - living out my childhood fantasy does.  I suppose if I couldn't do this, then dollars and cents and bennies would HAVE to be my goal to numb the pain of sitting in a cubicle cloock-watching the day away waiting for the weekend.
> 
> Just do whatever makes you happy.  If your job isn't cool, well that sucks.  You probably shoulda looked for one that was.  If the lack of vacation and moving and parking fees is really the 9th gate of hell, then for the love of everything unholy, GTFO..lol.  I know I would if I felt that way.
> 
> You will have to excuse me, the sun is setting and it is about time for a tracer-loaded night time .50cal heavy machine gun shoot.  So cool.



I'll make one simple point...

If the people under you who "literally get out of my way, and they just about come to the position of attention as well,..." are complaining about pay and benefits, maybe it's in your best interests to listen to them rather than come here and talk about how much respect and authority you command.  While I get that we are paid more than our base civilian counterparts, most troops are smart enough to see that we are losing what were benefits at the same time we being asked to do more with less. This leads good qualified people, like Stokers to leave and make their way elsewhere. When enough people leave because they are disgusted  there will be nobody to man the lines to get the boats off the wall, or stand in the flats at attention to appease your ego.

EDIT: To clarify, I get that you were trying to make a bit of a joke of it all, but it comes across as arrogant and condescending.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

...and I didn't think he came across like that at all.


----------



## Stoker

Interesting thread. For the record, i'm of the belief that we shouldn't have to settle for any benefit cuts or have any new fee's such as parking imposed on us.  I make good money but at the end of the day anything takes money out of the pockets of my subordinates I will oppose. It seems like we're being held up to the same standard as the PS, and to be honest as General Hillier had said before we're not just another department. Where exactly will all this end and what is next? Pensions, pays cuts? Its death by a thousand cuts.


----------



## MARS

WeatherdoG said:
			
		

> EDIT: To clarify, I get that you were trying to make a bit of a joke of it all, but it comes across as arrogant and condescending.



WeatherDog,

I get your point as well.  I was afraid it might have come across that way, and debated posting that.  Since I wondered about it in the first place, I likely shouldn't have, since you are all reading my words and not hearing me speak.  Everyone has different experiences - my career started out as a Boatswain in a destroyer - and not everyone will have the same experiences as me.

Of course, it wasn't meant to.  Of course I listen to my subordinates' concerns on these very issues.  They certainly aren't going to complain to the Base Commander directly on Parking rates or whoever is in charge of PLD, or DCBA on the reductions in whatever thy have reduced this week, etc.  As the CO of a small ship, I also routinely hear these concerns directly from OS Bloggins while we are in the smoking pit together.  So I have a responsibility to answer them in such a way as to not blow smoke up his or her ass but to also keep their esprit de corps up.  And of course I have my own gripes, but I don't get to complain down the chain, only up the chain to more senior officers who are too busy to pay me much mind.  I guess my intent, as messed up as it came out in my post, was to look inward at those cool and interesting things that made each one of us sign on the dotted line.  I wasn't born into a CO position - it took me 4 years as an NCM and 15 years as a MARS officer to get here.  Hell, I don't even get to actually DO the cool stuff like shoot anymore.  But for each and everyone of us, SOMETHING attracted us to our individual occupations.  I constantly have to try and keep my Ship's Company engaged in the face of these cuts or else morale suffers, which means my operational effectiveness suffers, and both of those things are REAL problems for me.  I do the same thing when I occasionally look around and think "why am I still here?" (which I do).  And somtimes I have to look harder for the motivation to keep my esprit de corps up, but it is there, just not alway in the most obvious places, like pay and bennies.

Transporter - you are certainly correct.  I dread the prospect of life after Command.  I will nver get to go back to sea again and a cubicle will become my reality.  Doubt I will be able to hack it for very long - hopefully at least until I reach my pensionable time-in, at which point I will likely go back to working in a kitchen if my old bones can still handle it.  But I guess that is my solution - if I really, really hate what I am doing in whatever cubicle I am assigned, then I'm not going to be able to get out of bed every morning to go do it.  Perhaps, as ERC stated, that 'satisfaction' will take different, more indirect forms and perhaps that will make it fun(?)/worthwhile to stay.  I guess I will have to see.  

It's not just being an officer, or in my case a CO, where yes, people do treat you quite differently than other officers of my rank.  My Coxn wouldn't dream of being an officer - he quite enjoy being a Coxn, but not as much as he enjoyed being a Chief Engineer, and he LOVED having spent his career as a marine engineer, even as an Ordinary Seaman.  Whatever vooodoo goes on in the engine spaces - which I will never understand to any great extent and I am certain I wouldn't enjoy - he loves.  He finds it 'cooler' than anythinghting that an officer does. The same for my radar operators, radio operators, boatswains, etc.  Thy aren't without their complaints, but I think they all love some aspect of their job SO MUCH, that it outweighs the negatives.

I apologize to anyone else who reads my earlier post and thinks me some sort of dink.  And I apologize to all the huge-brained engineers who probably do much more important work than I will ever do, regardless of their sartorial style. I am heartened that everyone appears to have seen through my poorly worded ramble and managed to decipher my intent.

Jollyjacktar - I agree with you as well.  No dog in the fight and I likely have it 'better' than most - at this specific point in my career.  I will also lose my parking priviledge in Septmeber and will pay the 75 bucks or whatever - likely for a spot at the wrong end of the parking lot from my gate of choice.

The Parking fees and our pay and, and, and, are not irelevant things to bitch about.  As long as people are complaining then they think there is still someone listening.  I guess the tone the thread had taken annoyed me and I just wanted people to remember how cool the stuff we do is...and is that not enough to prevent the sky from falling? (and I'm not even the guy who gets to jump out of the helicopter, at night, onto the deck of a pitching ship)

Thanks,

MARS


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> Interesting thread. For the record, i'm of the belief that we shouldn't have to settle for any benefit cuts or have any new fee's such as parking imposed on us.  I make good money but at the end of the day anything takes money out of the pockets of my subordinates I will oppose. It seems like we're being held up to the same standard as the PS, and to be honest as General Hillier had said before we're not just another department. Where exactly will all this end and what is next? Pensions, pays cuts? Its death by a thousand cuts.



Hey,...finally a post with constructive information. That is the kind of saying that a good Union would take forth and use as an argument with an arbitrator against cuts and rollbacks. [sorry, with all the grief I get about being a long-standing Union guy on this site I had to get that shot in ;D]   

In my observations, shouts from the peanut gallery do zero to further the cause, but when a higher-up states a documented line like that, then to quote a TV show, "That's gold Jerry."
The problem is right now the only delivery system you have is the media, and little cutbacks here and there won't interest their piranha-like needs.


----------



## Journeyman

I think that MARS' post is excellent.   :nod:

But then, I've never had the mindset of a whiney, self-entitled civil servant.....who happens to wear a uniform.  I'm a soldier.  My job rocks.



By the way, even whiney, self-entitled civil servants have to pay for parking; get over yourself.  If that's your major crisis, WalMart employees get to park for free.


----------



## vonGarvin

Journeyman said:
			
		

> By the way, even whiney, self-entitled civil servants have to pay for parking; get over yourself.  If that's your major crisis, *WalMart employees get to park for free*.





Well said!


----------



## Journeyman

General Disorder said:
			
		

> Well said!


I suspect that I've just been added to a couple more ignore lists.    :'(


----------



## vonGarvin

Journeyman said:
			
		

> I suspect that I've just been added to a couple more ignore lists.    :'(



Meh....


At least you get paid enough to pay for parking!


----------



## Crispy Bacon

It'd be interesting to see a list compiled of all the benefits that have been cut/frozen/scaled back in this "death by a thousand cuts."  You'd think, if that list was compiled, there would be a lot more advocacy against said cuts and the cumulative effect it's had/is having on our members.


----------



## OldSolduer

Journeyman said:
			
		

> I think that MARS' post is excellent.   :nod:
> 
> But then, I've never had the mindset of a whiney, self-entitled civil servant.....who happens to wear a uniform.  I'm a soldier.  My job rocks.
> 
> 
> 
> By the way, even whiney, self-entitled civil servants have to pay for parking; get over yourself.  If that's your major crisis, WalMart employees get to park for free.



My jobs rock too. 

Being in Corrections ain't all that bad. And there are lots of self important whiny people there too.....and now to introduce you to the inmates..... >

And being the RSM of two units that are grouped rock too.


----------



## dapaterson

Crispy Bacon said:
			
		

> It'd be interesting to see a list compiled of all the benefits that have been cut/frozen/scaled back in this "death by a thousand cuts."  You'd think, if that list was compiled, there would be a lot more advocacy against said cuts and the cumulative effect it's had/is having on our members.



So far:

1.  In major urban areas where there is a market, charges for parking (so nothing for Valcartier, Wainwright, Petawawa, Cold Lake...)

2.  Increases in pension contributions in line with those made by the Public Service (which will mean that CFSA contributions will remain under 50%, since the CFSA benefits are of greater value)


----------



## c_canuk

3. Seperation Allowance for those on IR
4. Mortgage Breaking fees
5. Utility contract breaking fees
6. TB refusal to account for depressed markets, in regards to lost equity.
7. Clawbacks on PLD
8. TB Failure to update PLD on a yearly basis.


----------



## George Wallace

9.  Payments into Ontario Health Care Plan (for those posted to locations in Ontario) that you are not entitled to use.


----------



## Stoker

10. Loss of LTA for personnel on long term Class B/Class C
11. Loss of CTA for personnel on long term Class B/Class C


----------



## Rheostatic

12. Reserve Force Retirement Gratuity


----------



## ModlrMike

Rheostatic said:
			
		

> 12. Reserve Force Retirement Gratuity



Which was replaced by a pension. Which the members asked for.


----------



## cupper

At least you have job security. >


----------



## dapaterson

George Wallace said:
			
		

> 9.  Payments into Ontario Health Care Plan (for those posted to locations in Ontario) that you are not entitled to use.



But your dependants are.

(And that's not a change made by the employer - that's by an entirely different level of government)


----------



## Rheostatic

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> Which was replaced by a pension. Which the members asked for.


I don't think there was a link between the establishment of the Reserve Pension c. 2007 and the elimination of the RFRG in 2012.

Also I should rephrase:
12. Severance pay (Reg F) and Reserve Force Retirement Gratuity


----------



## dapaterson

Rheostatic said:
			
		

> I don't think there was a link between the establishment of the Reserve Pension c. 2007 and the elimination of the RFRG in 2012.
> 
> Also I should rephrase:
> 12. Severance pay (Reg F) and Reserve Force Retirement Gratuity



The '07 change of the RFRG to actual time served from calendar time enrolled was tied to the intro of CFSA part I.1.  The consolidation of the RFRG and CF Severance into a single benefit, and the elimination of accumulation (other than under limited circumstances) was part of the larger federal initiative to reduce the long-term liability of severance, and not connected to the CFSA.


----------



## Rheostatic

Right, I'm referring to the cessation of accumulation announced in 2012.


----------



## Transporter

Crispy Bacon said:
			
		

> It'd be interesting to see a list compiled of all the benefits that have been cut/frozen/scaled back in this "death by a thousand cuts."  You'd think, if that list was compiled, there would be a lot more advocacy against said cuts and the cumulative effect it's had/is having on our members.



Here are a few that come to mind for me:

1) Elimination of severance pay
2) Increased pension contributions
3) Elimination of mortgage cancellation fee reimbursement on posting (though some banks will now waive, but onus is on the member, and not guaranteed)
4) Other scaled-back IRP entitlements
5) Scaled-back IR entitlements
6) Pay for parking (location dependant)
7) Increased PSHCP premiums in retirement 
8. New veterans charter (lump sum vs pension)
9) Curtailment/elimination of Class B double-dip opportunities
10) 25 years service (versus 20) for immediate annuity
11) Elimination of annual leave accumulation (admittedly quite a few yrs ago now, but during my time in)
12) FY 13/14 pay increase of 1.5% (2013 inflation 1.24%; currently 2.4% for Jul 14)

A couple of others that I have heard talked about that I wouldn't be surprised if done away with or significantly curtailed:

1) Final IPR move within same geographic locn
2) OUTCAN posting benefits (FSP, PSA, PLA, etc) 

On the plus side, if you stick around for 28+ years you get another week of annual leave, which is nice I guess. Can't think of any other policy changes lately that have enhanced my overall compensation package though.

I like my job, and I'm not sniveling, but these are the facts. I'm sure there are likely others, both pro and con. Have at 'er.


----------



## jollyjacktar

When I enrolled in 89 there was a benefit for retraining after completion of 20 years service equal to $1000/yr of service, and the training could be for anything you wanted to do.  Now, it's $5400 and it must be trade related.  Gee, thanks, bean counting MFs.


----------



## dapaterson

Transporter said:
			
		

> Here are a few that come to mind for me:
> 
> 1) Elimination of severance pay
> 2) Increased pension contributions
> 3) Elimination of mortgage cancellation fee reimbursement on posting (though some banks will now waive, but onus is on the member, and not guaranteed)
> 4) Other scaled-back IRP entitlements
> 5) Scaled-back IR entitlements
> 6) Pay for parking (location dependant)
> 7) Increased PSHCP premiums in retirement
> 8. New veterans charter (lump sum vs pension)
> 9) Curtailment/elimination of Class B double-dip opportunities
> 10) 25 years service (versus 20) for immediate annuity
> 11) Elimination of annual leave accumulation (admittedly quite a few yrs ago now, but during my time in)
> 12) FY 13/14 pay increase of 1.5% (2013 inflation 1.24%; currently 2.4% for Jul 14)
> 
> A couple of others that I have heard talked about that I wouldn't be surprised if done away with or significantly curtailed:
> 
> 1) Final IPR move within same geographic locn
> 2) OUTCAN posting benefits (FSP, PSA, PLA, etc)
> 
> On the plus side, if you stick around for 28+ years you get another week of annual leave, which is nice I guess. Can't think of any other policy changes lately that have enhanced my overall compensation package though.
> 
> I like my job, and I'm not sniveling, but these are the facts. I'm sure there are likely others, both pro and con. Have at 'er.



1.  Severance has not been eliminated.  If you are severed, you will get the payment.  If you choose to retire, you will not.  That is the change.

3.  I fully support requiring CF members to have portable mortgages - but the transition was very poorly done; to my mind, there should have been grandfathering for current mortgages, with new ones as of date XXXX having to be portable.

9.  There is one force - the Canadian Armed Forces (it's actually in the NDA).  So explain to me how we can, with a straight face, pay someone a pension for being retired from the organization that pays them twice a month for their full-time job?


----------



## Shamrock

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> 10. Loss of LTA for personnel on long term Class B/Class C
> 11. Loss of CTA for personnel on long term Class B/Class C



Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm under the impression those moved at public expense retain these.


----------



## Transporter

dapaterson said:
			
		

> 1.  Severance has not been eliminated.  If you are severed, you will get the payment.  If you choose to retire, you will not.  That is the change.
> 
> 3.  I fully support requiring CF members to have portable mortgages - but the transition was very poorly done; to my mind, there should have been grandfathering for current mortgages, with new ones as of date XXXX having to be portable.
> 
> 9.  There is one force - the Canadian Armed Forces (it's actually in the NDA).  So explain to me how we can, with a straight face, pay someone a pension for being retired from the organization that pays them twice a month for their full-time job?



1. I fully understand the change. Bottom line - if you join today, serve 30 years for example, and then retire, you will not get any severance, whereas up until 2012 you would have. That to me sounds like the loss of a benefit that we once enjoyed. Am I missing something?

3. Let's say I get a portable 3 year mortgage and then, after only one or two years in location (having expected three), I get posted OUTCAN where I can't purchase a house. Who pays the fee then? Or, let's say I get a portable three year mortgage, and after a year I'm posted to a location where the housing market is in turmoil, on a downward slide, and I decide to rent because I don't want to get caught holding the bag for a mortgage on a house that after two years will be worth $80K less than I paid for it (I have very little confidence in TB approving HEA claims given their track record). Who pays then? Once again, bottom line is where once there was a benefit, there is no longer - simple statement of fact, whether you agree with the change or not.

9. (Putting on straight face) We seemingly had no problem paying someone a pension and employing them Class B for the past 20 years or so, so what's the problem now? Besides, can't I retire, collect my pension and go work for the RCMP, CSIS or any other Federal Dept? What's the difference then between doing that and coming back to work Class B? It's all Federal employment n'est pas? Regardless, once again I'm just stating fact... where once there existed an opportunity for some of us to get ahead financially and better our lot in life, that opportunity no longer exists, whether you agree with the change or not.


----------



## ModlrMike

dapaterson said:
			
		

> So explain to me how we can, with a straight face, pay someone a pension for being retired from the organization that pays them twice a month for their full-time job?



Oooooh, my favorite soap box. Must.... resist... temptation... to rant...


----------



## dapaterson

Transporter said:
			
		

> 9. (Putting on straight face) We seemingly had no problem paying someone a pension and employing them Class B for the past 20 years or so, so what's the problem now? Besides, can't I retire, collect my pension and go work for the RCMP, CSIS or any other Federal Dept? What's the difference then between doing that and coming back to work Class B? It's all Federal employment n'est pas? Regardless, once again I'm just stating fact... where once there existed an opportunity for some of us to get ahead financially and better our lot in life, that opportunity no longer exists, whether you agree with the change or not.



The double-dip policy was in place from around 2003 to 2012; prior to that, your options were 180 days then a break, or get re-enrolled in the pension plan - only pers in sp of cadets could do the 330/35 dance.

The difference between working for de Federal Department of Basket Weaving and being employed as a CAF member is very basic - you're either an active CAF member, or you're not.  You can't simultaneously be an active CAF member and a retired CAF member - yet the old annuitant employment policy made that rather remarkable assertion.

That a dodge and work around the spirit of the CFSA was viewed in some circles as an entitlement is unfortunate.


----------



## George Wallace

At the same time, a part time job, even as a Class B with no guarantees of rehiring, or a pension, do not equate to any honest breaking of the rules.


----------



## Transporter

dapaterson said:
			
		

> The double-dip policy was in place from around 2003 to 2012; prior to that, your options were 180 days then a break, or get re-enrolled in the pension plan - only pers in sp of cadets could do the 330/35 dance.
> 
> The difference between working for de Federal Department of Basket Weaving and being employed as a CAF member is very basic - you're either an active CAF member, or you're not.  You can't simultaneously be an active CAF member and a retired CAF member - yet the old annuitant employment policy made that rather remarkable assertion.
> 
> That a dodge and work around the spirit of the CFSA was viewed in some circles as an entitlement is unfortunate.



So has the CFSA been specifically amended to expressly forbid it, or has it simply been reinterpreted to meet the desire to do away with the practice? And, for the record, I never called it an entitlement, just an opportunity that no longer exists.


----------



## Stoker

Transporter said:
			
		

> So has the CFSA been specifically amended to expressly forbid it, or has it simply been reinterpreted to meet the desire to do away with the practice? And, for the record, I never called it an entitlement, just an opportunity that no longer exists.



We still have a member on Class C contract that was extended several times, who is an annunitant. I also believe a regular force member can take a full pension and go class A and still collect, whereas a reserve member cannot.


----------



## Stoker

Shamrock said:
			
		

> Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm under the impression those moved at public expense retain these.



Don't think so. I'm currrently on Class C and lost both several years ago due to a change of the rules. I believe you will only get it until the end of your original 2 yr SOU.


----------



## dapaterson

The CFSA has never changed.  (Or, to be precise, that portion of the CFSA hasn't undergone any material changes over the past 20 years.  Other parts have undergone change after change - the introduction of part I.1 and the changes to 25 year pensions, for example).

What changed was CAF policies: loosening up around 2003, and tightening up around 2012.  The policies are internal to DND/CAF; the regulations and legislation are external.  As always, ask two lawyers and you'll get three or more opinions on what can and can't be done; there is a great deal of grey within the legislation and regulation.  However, push too far and you may see regulation or legislation amended giving less flexibility.  So it's sometimes in the CAF's best interests not to push too far, to keep that flexibility for when it's truly needed...


----------



## dapaterson

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> Don't think so. I'm currrently on Class C and lost both several years ago due to a change of the rules. I believe you will only get it until the end of your original 2 yr SOU.



CBI 209.50 and 209.51 both still show members on Class B & C service who were relocated at crown expense as being eligible.  

Both read


> (3) (Entitlement) A member of the Regular Force – or of the Reserve Force who is both on Class B or C Reserve Service and authorized to move their household goods and effects at public expense for that Class B or C Reserve Service – is entitled ... if all of the following conditions are satisfied after 31 January 2011:



There may be some argument over the phrase "for that Class B or C Reserve Service" in the case of an individual relocated for an earlier period of service; to my mind, however, if you were relocated and still have a relocation entitlement at the end of your period of service you should be covered.

You may want to chase down a senior clerk and get clarification on this.


----------



## Navy_Pete

Journeyman said:
			
		

> I think that MARS' post is excellent.   :nod:
> 
> But then, I've never had the mindset of a whiney, self-entitled civil servant.....who happens to wear a uniform.  I'm a soldier.  My job rocks.
> 
> 
> 
> By the way, even whiney, self-entitled civil servants have to pay for parking; get over yourself.  If that's your major crisis, WalMart employees get to park for free.



I normally like my job too, I've gotten to do some pretty crazy stuff and have far more responsibility then I would if I had gone civie.  There are some pretty crappy days (normally due to fighting the procurement machine), but have also gotten to dangle on a rope between two ships, fight fires, fly in helicopters, fire missiles, and all kinds of other cool stuff.  I get to work with a lot of really good people to do something better that is doing something a bit more productive then making widgets.

I just don't think we should pretend that we always get paid better, that our benefits aren't gradually eroding, and that we aren't treated as increasingly expendable.  This isn't a job you do for money; but every time there yet another minor cut or other nickle and dime cutback, it becomes more of just another job.  Ignoring this simple fact is a pretty good indicator of why we have a hard time with retention of skilled trades.


----------



## George Wallace

Navy_Pete said:
			
		

> .......  This isn't a job you do for money;




The number crunchers who may sit back for shytes and giggles and take their pay and break it down to dollars/hr would likely agree with you there.



			
				Navy_Pete said:
			
		

> ..... but every time there yet another minor cut or other nickle and dime cutback, it becomes more of just another job.  Ignoring this simple fact is a pretty good indicator of why we have a hard time with retention of skilled trades.



So true, and it affects all Trades across the Forces.


----------



## Transporter

dapaterson said:
			
		

> The CFSA has never changed.  (Or, to be precise, that portion of the CFSA hasn't undergone any material changes over the past 20 years.  Other parts have undergone change after change - the introduction of part I.1 and the changes to 25 year pensions, for example).
> 
> What changed was CAF policies: loosening up around 2003, and tightening up around 2012.  The policies are internal to DND/CAF; the regulations and legislation are external.  As always, ask two lawyers and you'll get three or more opinions on what can and can't be done; there is a great deal of grey within the legislation and regulation.  However, push too far and you may see regulation or legislation amended giving less flexibility.  So it's sometimes in the CAF's best interests not to push too far, to keep that flexibility for when it's truly needed...



That's what I thought. So, in essence, there is nothing in legislation expressly prohibiting it. We just decided that it would look a whole lot better if we didn't do it for too long in case somebody noticed and we'd have to answer a difficult question. Got it.

BTW, to your knowledge (or anyone else's on here for that matter), were we taking any fire over the Class B double-dip or were we just being preemptive in curtailing it?


----------



## TwoTonShackle

dapaterson said:
			
		

> CBI 209.50 and 209.51 both still show members on Class B & C service who were relocated at crown expense as being eligible.
> 
> (3) (Entitlement) A member of the Regular Force – or of the Reserve Force who is both on Class B or C Reserve Service and authorized to move their household goods and effects at public expense for that Class B or C Reserve Service – is entitled ... if all of the following conditions are satisfied after 31 January 2011:



The salt rub in the wound is "authorized to move their household goods and effects at public expense for that Class B or C Reserve Service".  Reservists are only authorized the move during their first contract/SOU which is normally ~2yrs.  When the next contract comes in the Reservists (if they have moved during the previous contract to their place of employment) are already in the geographical area, not entitled to a move and therefore lose the LTA/CTA benefit.  At least this is how the rules have been interpreted for the past few years. 

I ran into this issue a few years ago when a crew member's aunt (who had raised her and was listed 1st on her NOK) had passed away.  When I contacted the Chief Clerk (reserve) about CTA options, I was told the member didn't qualify.  Her last sentence to me (not a word of a lie): "If we fly everyone home for funerals how would we afford pay raises."  

I got the above interpretation from another clerk who attempted in vain to have the LTA/CTA re-evaluted/re-interpreted/re-written/reconsidered.  Thankfully the Fleet Chief at the time was a wise and knowledgeable individual who was able to help out the member.


----------



## Crispy Bacon

Transporter said:
			
		

> BTW, to your knowledge (or anyone else's on here for that matter), were we taking any fire over the Class B double-dip or were we just being preemptive in curtailing it?



This is the boilerplate response from DGMC:



> *Q2: Why are these changes necessary? Why am I limited in my ability to receive a pension while working as a Reservist?*
> 
> The CAF is responsible for the administration of its pension plan and regularly reviews its policies and practices. The last comprehensive review of annuitant policy occurred in 2001. At that time, the CAF faced an increased operational tempo and high attrition. The policy in use today was introduced to take advantage of this valuable source of highly skilled manpower to support CAF operations. The latest change is being implemented as the staffing needs of the CAF have evolved. The reduced operational tempo following the conclusion of combat operations in Afghanistan and low Regular Force attrition are two principal factors that contributed to this change in practice.
> 
> The change will also serve to improve transparency with respect to (WRT) the CF’s commitment to manage its pension responsibilities in accordance with the CFSA and Income Tax Act. The CFSA is the legislation which establishes the Canadian Forces pension plans and is intended to provide members with financial support upon retirement. When full-time service continues for a significant period of time, a member can no longer be considered retired. Accordingly, Armed Forces Council agreed to transition to an already existing employment practice for annuitants employed in year-round Reserve Service, in accordance with (IAW) CF Mil Pers Instruction 20/04 Section 2.13.



and



> *Q10: What is influencing these changes?*
> 
> First, the CAF must adhere to requirements in the CFSA when managing its pension programme. The Act allows the CAF to employ annuitants on long term, full-time periods of service; but the Act also attaches consequences to continuous full-time service longer than one year.
> 
> Second, the Income Tax Act establishes certain requirements for pension plans. The CAF needs to adhere to those requirements in order to ensure continuing compliance with that Act.
> 
> Third, the staffing needs of the CAF have evolved with a reduced operational tempo following the conclusion of combat operations in Afghanistan and a low Regular Force attrition rate have contributed to the CAF’s decision to reorient its service structure.


----------



## George Wallace

TwoTonShackle said:
			
		

> I ran into this issue a few years ago when a crew member's aunt (who had raised her and was listed 1st on her NOK) had passed away.  When I contacted the Chief Clerk (reserve) about CTA options, I was told the member didn't qualify.  Her last sentence to me (not a word of a lie): "If we fly everyone home for funerals how would we afford pay raises."



The answer to the RMS Clerk should have been:  "Easily covered by the termination of one RMS Clerk from the gene pool with extreme prejudice."


----------



## Transporter

Crispy Bacon said:
			
		

> This is the boilerplate response from DGMC:
> 
> and



Thanks for the info. So as not to hijack this thread yet again, I will leave the issue at that.


----------



## c_canuk

So the double dip thing is ok, as long as you don't join the same dept, under the idea that Civilian Employees are considered DND employees not CAF?

Functionally it's the same thing because the pension is paid regardless and the position is filled regardless. Eliminating Double Dipping doesn't save any money. Potentally it opens more positions to others though I suppose. Better for the Economy perhaps.

Can you do 25 in the CAF and 25 in DND and collect 2 pensions?


----------



## Transporter

c_canuk said:
			
		

> Can you do 25 in the CAF and 25 in DND and collect 2 pensions?



To my knowledge, yes.


----------



## dapaterson

You can accumulate only 35 years total of pensionable service for the Federal government (excluding the part-time pension plan for the CAF).  So release with a 25 year CAF pension and you can then get a 10 year PS pension.

This gets wonky if you are in the full-time CAF plan, return to part-time service while still contributing, then join the public service plan.  So, if you join at 20, leave at 35 with 15 years in the CAF plan but continue as a part-time Reservist and join the public service plan you'll reach 35 years of pensionable service - 25 in the CAF and 10 in the public service - at age 45.

(EDIT: spelling)


----------



## Crispy Bacon

c_canuk said:
			
		

> So the double dip thing is ok, as long as you don't join the same dept, under the idea that Civilian Employees are considered DND employees not CAF?
> 
> Functionally it's the same thing because the pension is paid regardless and the position is filled regardless. Eliminating Double Dipping doesn't save any money. Potentally it opens more positions to others though I suppose. Better for the Economy perhaps.



Here's my understanding of the policy:

The Reserves were hurting for experienced and knowledgable leaders (Sgts, WOs, Capts, Majs), and the Reg F was seeing a lot of leaders of those ranks releasing.  As an incentive to keep the corporate knowledge of those Reg F pers in the system, the incentive was that they would be allowed to "retire" from the Reg F, collect their Reg F pension, but still work as a Res F member.  The result was WOs and Majs taking their $60,000-90,000 salaries *on top of * their $30,000-50,000 pensions.  Is a WO's work worth $90,000?  A Maj's work worth $140,000?  At the time, when they allowed double dipping, apparently the cost-benefit was worth it.

That was then, this is now.  From the DGMC FAQ response above, it sounds like the Res F is no longer hurting for leadership (although the Army would disagree...) and the Reg F isn't seeing the attrition it once was, meaning the policy had to change.

There's also, ethically speaking, the issue of circumventing the spirit of the CFSA by allowing members to take 35 day "breaks" and only work 330 days so as to purposely not be re-enrolled in the pension plan after 365.   But that's another story...


----------



## George Wallace

Crispy Bacon said:
			
		

> Here's my understanding of the policy:
> 
> The Reserves were hurting for experienced and knowledgable leaders (Sgts, WOs, Capts, Majs), and the Reg F was seeing a lot of leaders of those ranks releasing.  As an incentive to keep the corporate knowledge of those Reg F pers in the system, the incentive was that they would be allowed to "retire" from the Reg F, collect their Reg F pension, but still work as a Res F member.  The result was WOs and Majs taking their $60,000-90,000 salaries *on top of * their $30,000-50,000 pensions.  Is a WO's work worth $90,000?  A Maj's work worth $140,000?  At the time, when they allowed double dipping, apparently the cost-benefit was worth it.
> 
> That was then, this is now.  From the DGMC FAQ response above, it sounds like the Res F is no longer hurting for leadership (although the Army would disagree...) and the Reg F isn't seeing the attrition it once was, meaning the policy had to change.
> 
> There's also, ethically speaking, the issue of circumventing the spirit of the CFSA by allowing members to take 35 day "breaks" and only work 330 days so as to purposely not be re-enrolled in the pension plan after 365.   But that's another story...



If only it was the Reserves benefiting from the retiring Regular Force members.  Unfortunately, many of those Double Dippers in Class B positions were Reservists backfilling Regular Force positions of pers deploying or on MATA/PATA Lve during the years of high intensity deployments.  Very few of those Class B positions were where you would ideally want them, in actual Reserve units where they would mentor the Reserves.  

I saw several positions in Standards and Training filled at the School by recently retired Reg Force members, who had no concept on what the Reserves actually were, and treated the Reserves just as they would Regular Force pers.  These people could not, and still can not, conceive the idea that you need to  more than a few days to announce a Crse Start Date and course load Reservists.  I had Reservists who needed a minimum of six months to book Leave from their civilian jobs to attend courses.  

It is mostly those Double Dipping Class B Reservists who were back-filling Reg Force positions, that Gen Leslie came down on.......which also encompassed those Double Dippers who were in Reserve units.


----------



## Brasidas

Crispy Bacon said:
			
		

> The Reserves were hurting for experienced and knowledgable leaders (Sgts, WOs, Capts, Majs), and the Reg F was seeing a lot of leaders of those ranks releasing.  As an incentive to keep the corporate knowledge of those Reg F pers in the system, the incentive was that they would be allowed to "retire" from the Reg F, collect their Reg F pension, but still work as a Res F member.  The result was WOs and Majs taking their $60,000-90,000 salaries *on top of * their $30,000-50,000 pensions.  Is a WO's work worth $90,000?  A Maj's work worth $140,000?  At the time, when they allowed double dipping, apparently the cost-benefit was worth it.



There was no cost-benefit, and they were not being paid extra to "stay in the system". They could go elsewhere, collect a comparable salary (its not unreasonable to expect that they could find a job that paid at least 85% of their trade), and either have nothing to do with the CF or be a normal Class A reservist.

It was paying them the $60-90,000 salaries that were already being paid to fill cadre positions at reserve units (which would only be *not* paid if no one qualified applied for the job), along with their pensions.

Abuse occurred in putting so many class B's in places such as HQ's that had nothing to do with the reserve. The reserve does offer a safety valve of being able to backfill positions, but relying upon it in the long term is a problem. If turning off the safety valve is necessary to fix the problem, so be it.

I'm not arguing whether it was appropriate under CFSA or anything else, but cost has little to do with it.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

While I don't like to lose benefits or pay more for my pension than I did 5 years ago, the one policy change that has left that crappy taste in my mouth is the posted prohibited (if that is the right term) folks who are pre-OFP and in the training system having to pay for rations while on course.  The lowest paid folks, new to the CAF, away from their D HG & E and who have little choice but to "take the hit" or not join.  That has and never will sit right with me.

Personally, WRT pay/benefits/etc I think the 'worst is yet to come' if the next fed election sees JT and the gang at the helm.  I seem to recall pay raises multiple years in a row in the past 1/2 decade'ish.  Wonder how many of those we will see in years to come.


----------



## noneck

dapaterson said:
			
		

> You can accumulate only 35 years total of pensionable service for the Federal government (excluding the part-time pension plan for the CAF).  So release with a 25 year CAF pension and you can then get a 10 year PS pension.
> 
> This gets wonky if you are in the full-time CAF plan, return to part-time service while still contributing, then join the public service plan.  So, if you join at 20, leave at 35 with 15 years in the CAF plan but continue as a part-time Reservist and join the public service plan you'll reach 35 years of pensionable service - 25 in the CAF and 10 in the public service - at age 45.
> 
> (EDIT: spelling)



Quick question for you DA, how does an RCMP pension fit into the mix? Can you do 25-35 with the RCMP, then get out and work a number of full time years Class B on top of (by that time almost 30 years) Class A? Just thinking about retirement job options post RCMP. Cheers Noneck


----------



## dapaterson

The max is 35 years under all federal plans (less the part-time Reserve plan).

So, in theory, I guess you could do 35 years RCMP, followed by Reserve service that never crosses the 55 out of 60 months threshold and thus never enter the Reg F (full-time) pension plan, and collect both the 35 year RCMP pension and the Reserve part-time pension once you want to put up your feet for good.


----------



## CountDC

As I do not have first hand knowledge I will put it out there up front.  What we have been told second hand from an employee  that was working here is that one of the pension gods advised her that the mbrs serving both RCMP and Reserve should be aware that the time is counting for both.  If our RCMP mbrs work with the reserves at the same time they would be at their 35 years threshold once both reach a total of 35 years ie 20 years RCMP and 15 years Reserve pension time.    No stipulation on Full time vice Part time.


----------



## dapaterson

CountDC said:
			
		

> As I do not have first hand knowledge I will put it out there up front.  What we have been told second hand from an employee  that was working here is that one of the pension gods advised her that the mbrs serving both RCMP and Reserve should be aware that the time is counting for both.  If our RCMP mbrs work with the reserves at the same time they would be at their 35 years threshold once both reach a total of 35 years ie 20 years RCMP and 15 years Reserve pension time.    No stipulation on Full time vice Part time.



Reserve time only counts against the 35 year limit when it is in Part I of the CFSA, not part I.1.  See CANFORGEN 180/09 para 4.



> INFORMATION REGARDING THE CANADIAN FORCES MEMBERS AND THE PUBLIC SERVICE SUPERANNUATION ACT(PSSA)
> 
> 4. IMPACT ON 35 YEAR PENSIONABLE SERVICE LIMIT: THE PSSA DOES NOT RECOGNIZE PENSIONABLE SERVICE ACCRUED UNDER PART I.1 OF THE CFSA, THEREFORE, IT DOES NOT COUNT FOR THE 35 YEAR PENSIONABLE LIMIT ALLOWABLE UNDER THE THREE FEDERAL PENSION PLANS (IMPOSED UNDER THE PSSA, CFSA AND THE ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE SUPERANNUATION ACT (RCMPSA)). HOWEVER, SERVICE ACCRUED UNDER PART I OF THE CFSA IS SUBJECT TO THE 35 YEAR LIMIT AND ANY SERVICE FROM PART I.1 OF THE CFSA THAT IS TRANSFERRED TO PART I OF THE CFSA WILL BE INCLUDED IN THE 35 YEAR LIMIT.



See also the PWGSC SAM Special Bulleting 2009-003 para 3.3.


----------



## CountDC

dapaterson said:
			
		

> CBI 209.50 and 209.51 both still show members on Class B & C service who were relocated at crown expense as being eligible.
> 
> Both read
> There may be some argument over the phrase "for that Class B or C Reserve Service" in the case of an individual relocated for an earlier period of service; to my mind, however, if you were relocated and still have a relocation entitlement at the end of your period of service you should be covered.
> 
> You may want to chase down a senior clerk and get clarification on this.



We are still paying the mbrs all benefits if they were relocated and extended.  The only stipulation is that when the position is readvertised for competition it must be advertised nationally and indicate move will be considered. if we advertise it only locally then the mbr loses the benefits.  This does have the slight draw back for the mbr in that they may lose the competition and have to look for a new job.


----------



## CountDC

George Wallace said:
			
		

> The answer to the RMS Clerk should have been:  "Easily covered by the termination of one RMS Clerk from the gene pool with extreme prejudice."



Agree


----------



## CountDC

Thanks DAP - good to have as we have several RCMP and Border mbrs with the unit.


----------



## noneck

DAP thanks for the clarification. 

I have 15 years with the Force and over 27 in PRes service and I am already planning my exit at 24 and a day from the Force. I previously elected to buy back 5 years of Class B (a) and Class C service and will go at 24 and a day with 30 years of pensionable RCMP service. I am now trying to factor in the PRes pension plan to work out what exactly I can do with the PRes when I retire from the day job. Your information and insight helps greatly.

Cheers
Noneck


----------



## stellarpanther

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> And?
> 
> We are talking about people who chose to be in the military, not the RCMP.
> 
> Again, the taxpayers pay us well, and we need to get over ourselves.



I don't mean to just complain about this quote because there are others as well that are similar, but what is with this attitude "people choose to be in the military or nobody forced you to join or stay"?  Is there something wrong with wanting things to be better or doing what you can to fight for change?


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

Nothing at all..................................but if you have nothing but a bitch to add, then expected to be bitch-slapped.


----------



## upandatom

RADOPSIGOPACISSOP said:
			
		

> It depends on where you work. I have Ptes and Cpls as ACISS-IST doing the same job (and more if you include their radio, satellite and line tasks) as CS-01 and CS-02 personnel. A step 1 CS-01 gets paid $53k while a step 8 CS-02 gets paid $81k. Add on top of that, after hours upgrades and maintainance is overtime for the CS personnel but is free labor for the military. I have had these people working side by side doing weekend upgrades, one gets overtime the other doesn't.
> 
> The same goes for other specialities. Yes, admin and clerks are paid more than CR counterparts, but in the IT world, military are paid less for more work.



DONT forget to add in with the increase in pay, Many of them receive free training, that in the civilian sector, they would have to shell out a portion or full price for, and some of these courses are $2500 a week. 

They also get a tonne of leave, annual vacation and sick, and they have easily the ability to carry it over year per year, they also have a "honeymoon" week, where at one time in their career they get a free paid extra week of vacation, and to add even more. 

They can opt out to make 11 months pay spread out over the 12 month period for a year, in exchange for an extra 20 days leave. 

Math time, thats 74k a year, for a possible 9.5 months work with leave included. Still more then I make, and they have more leave, and I was their supervisor. 

They are also DAMN near impossible to fire, or get rid of. 

Current unit I am at has many civilian employees, there is even one that said last september he was going to retire june, looking at the books he was physically at work 3 of those 8 months, the rest was on leave. But still paid.

So do not go crying "DND civilian employees arent paid enough" some of the quality of work I see, I'd rather pay a monkey $50k a year to fling shit around the office then have some of the system abusers I see. At least there is entertainment value in that.  

(Not saying all civie employees are this way, majority of the ones I have worked with are)


----------



## dapaterson

So, CSes get 3 weeks of leave for their first eight years (plus a one-time, one week bonus after 2 years); and 5 weeks of leave after 18 years.  Assuming a 25 year career, that CS will receive: 3x8 +1 + 10x4 + 7*5 = 100 weeks of leave.

A military member, over 25 years, will get 4 weeks leave for 5 years, 5 weeks leave for 20 years, plus 2 days special for Christmas every year.  That makes 5x4 + 20x5 + (2 x 25 / 5) = 130 weeks leave.


In other words, the military member is getting about 30% more leave over the same timeframe.


----------



## upandatom

WeatherdoG said:
			
		

> I'll make one simple point...
> 
> If the people under you who "literally get out of my way, and they just about come to the position of attention as well,..." are complaining about pay and benefits, maybe it's in your best interests to listen to them rather than come here and talk about how much respect and authority you command.  While I get that we are paid more than our base civilian counterparts, most troops are smart enough to see that we are losing what were benefits at the same time we being asked to do more with less. This leads good qualified people, like Stokers to leave and make their way elsewhere. When enough people leave because they are disgusted  there will be nobody to man the lines to get the boats off the wall, or stand in the flats at attention to appease your ego.
> 
> EDIT: To clarify, I get that you were trying to make a bit of a joke of it all, but it comes across as arrogant and condescending.



Agreed, I am grasping what MARS is saying, although in a condescending and @$$hole way  

A Commision entitles an officer to Respect, but there is a difference between forced respect, and genuine respect, genuine respect that that Officer has earned, worked for and shown he/she deserves.

If those people that are pulling the trigger on those 50s, loading those tracers, doing the work you tell them too arent happy, are not paid well enough, or are plain and simple worried and occupied about their homelife,  then your going to lose that "Respect" and the high quality of work, very fast. The stress that the lack of pay and promise of "we are fixing this" makes your soldiers, airmen and sailors say "WTF is the point of this," they lose faith in you and your ability to protect them. Their work ethic, their morale, their GAF flies out the window. Shortly there after comes a VR Lettter. 

I myself have become very bitter over the past two to three years,  as well I know many others that have as well, almost directly from that attitude similar to what is being portrayed. I have had many great officers and NCOs, and some crap ones. 

The crap ones always followed their own ambitions, never gave a rats *** about the men and women under their command.  Not caring about their welfare, morale, families, health or mental health. 

Overconfident officers are NOT what made the CAF great,  great leaders and the NCMs working hand in hand have.

I will say this, the mass exodus, FRP or not is starting to occur, The CAF is losing some of its best Sailors, Airmen and Soldiers due to stripping away what was given to them due to that hard work. With the increase in social media, and media in general, over the past decade, I find it hard to believe that the next time the world needs the CAF to step in and help, many people will remember how it was "After the Afghan War" and not during. 

Yes MARS, I am not saying you are one of the crap ones, not by any means, I am just shedding some light on why your sailors may be unhappy, and yes what you have been doing sounds cool, you are living a movie. Just try to understand from both sides of the fence next time. I had my RSM ask me why I wasnt happy where I am, I told him, I feel abandoned by my unit and by the CAF. All I wanted to do was be closer to my daughter, I had even found positions i could of easily gone into. Now, I am being sent 4000 km farther away from her, even after informing the right people, I cant do this.  

EDIT- Due to a later post from MARS


----------



## upandatom

dapaterson said:
			
		

> So, CSes get 3 weeks of leave for their first eight years (plus a one-time, one week bonus after 2 years); and 5 weeks of leave after 18 years.  Assuming a 25 year career, that CS will receive: 3x8 +1 + 10x4 + 7*5 = 100 weeks of leave.
> 
> A military member, over 25 years, will get 4 weeks leave for 5 years, 5 weeks leave for 20 years, plus 2 days special for Christmas every year.  That makes 5x4 + 20x5 + (2 x 25 / 5) = 130 weeks leave.
> 
> 
> In other words, the military member is getting about 30% more leave over the same timeframe.



your forgetting 20 days sick, and 10 family days for the Civilian, each year.


----------



## dapaterson

upandatom said:
			
		

> your forgetting 20 days sick, and 10 family days for the Civilian, each year.



Civilians do get 15 (not 20) sick days per year.  Military get sick leave as well, as required.  And while there may be some civilians who abuse sick leave, there are also military members who do the same - it's a wash.

Family days are up to 5 per year (37.5 hours, to be precise).  Military members can be given short leave for similar purposes, and I know of many units that provide pers with time off for such things that's off the books.


----------



## MJP

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Civilians do get 15 (not 20) sick days per year.  Military get sick leave as well, as required.  And while there may be some civilians who abuse sick leave, there are also military members who do the same - it's a wash.
> 
> Family days are up to 5 per year (37.5 hours, to be precise).  Military members can be given short leave for similar purposes, and I know of many units that provide pers with time off for such things that's off the books.



Stop letting facts get in the way of a good rant...Geez don't ya know?  'Muh entitlements.


----------



## Journeyman

upandatom said:
			
		

> The CAF is losing some of its best Sailors, Airmen and Soldiers......


.......as well as some who never miss an opportunity to whine, complain, and wallow in self-pity -- you know, the ones whose self-centred bitterness poison a work environment.  Good riddance.


----------



## Northern Ranger

upandatom said:
			
		

> your forgetting 20 days sick, and 10 family days for the Civilian, each year.


It's nonsense like this that helps build the feelings of contempt towards civilians. Do you work for the treasury board?


----------



## upandatom

Journeyman said:
			
		

> .......as well as some who never miss an opportunity to whine, complain, and wallow in self-pity -- you know, the ones whose self-centred bitterness poison a work environment.  Good riddance.



Yes I agree, we are losing both.



			
				Northern Ranger said:
			
		

> It's nonsense like this that helps build the feelings of contempt towards civilians. Do you work for the treasury board?


No I dont get paid that much to work for them. But yes my numbers were corrected, I was going off of what I see daily due to the local CBA,


----------



## Lardofthedance

If you don't like it get out.....Whiners....Entitled.........

Enough of that talk. I dread the idea of of the people who throw those comments around so freely having subordinates, or worse, perceiving themselves as mentors.

Yes, there has been a severe change in the delivery of benefits and compensation, and likely more to follow, but you are correct to voice your concerns here in this open forum, but do not hide these concerns to your CoC or from the next Town Hall, etc, as we DO NOT have a union (as some perceive). Our collective voice funnels through our CoCs.

It's 2014, our people are intelligent, well educated and deserving of our support. 

Disagree?? Stand and be heard.


----------



## Remius

You should also be comparing pensions.  The CF pension is much better that the PS one.  You should also look at the fact that the CF regular Force isn't facing layoffs and pink slips like the PS is right now.  Are they harder to fire?  About as hard as it is to fire a CF member.   

The CF doesn't have a claim to being the only ones with low morale and having their benefits clawed back right now I can assure you.  

You are only looking at your own unique bubble upandatom and you don't have all your facts straight either.  Leave with income averaging is something that a member pays for.  It isn't free. And it needs to be approved.  You make it sound like everyone takes all their sick days and all their family related.  They don't.  There are also people that put in overtime and never ask to be compensated for it.  

How many times have you been let off early for long weekends or even on fridays?  How about mess events like men's x-mas dinners?  I can assure you that none of that is the norm in the PS.  Add that all up too.  Adventure training?  Yeah.  Or how about the hour for PT a day?  Right.  How many people take their hour at the end of the day only to disapear...the PS isn't the only one to have claim to malingerers either.

PS get 85% of dental, medical, prescriptions, eyewear covered.  How much do CF mmbers get covered for?  Oh yeah, right. 100%. 

And ever try and get a family doctor these days?  Took me almost two years and got an in through a friend.

I've been on both sides of the coin.  Somethings are better on one side than the other.  Instead of whining about what everyone else gets look at what you get and maybe it isn't as bad as you think it is.  Considering most people don't even come close.  The CF is the only employer I can think of where a grade 10 education will get you close to 55 000$ in four years.

There may be a wage disparity with certain trades yes, but we're soldiers first and that is what you are being paid to be.  If you happen to get specialist pay or are in a professional category good for you, you get paid more than the guy who is the same rank and has the same TI as you even though you might actually be doing the same job.

If the grass is truly greener then make the jump.  If it isn't then fine, stay where you are and affect change in a positive way.  Slamming the PS isn't going to help you one bit.

Lardofthedance:  I agree with you to the extent of what you are saying but when people start slamming other organisations for THEIR benefits with a narrow minded ill-informed viewpoint and point at everyonelse it is whining and does create the impression of entitlement. Stand and be heard but make sure you have all the facts and do it constructively.  It will get you much farther.


----------



## dapaterson

Creating a culture of us vs them (civ vs mil, Reg vs res, blue vs red...) is ultimately defeating.  

Looking at Comp & Ben in total - and letting leadership know what is important - is something that everyone should do - be they mil or civ.

That said, leadership are going to identify which hills are worth fighting for.  For example, with the cessation of severance for voluntary releases, accumulated benefits were retained; benefits for those with under 10 years accumulated were doubled, there was additional pay increase granted (which, in the long term, will increase pensions), and there was a one-time ability to take the accumulated severance before retirement.  Had senior leaders tried to fight to keep severance at all costs, it's likely none of those mitigations would have been put into place.

Don't assume that everyone is out to get you personally.  Don't assume that you know all the discussions and deliberations that go into making decisions.


----------



## Stoker

Lardofthedance said:
			
		

> If you don't like it get out.....Whiners....Entitled.........
> 
> Enough of that talk. I dread the idea of of the people who throw those comments around so freely having subordinates, or worse, perceiving themselves as mentors.
> 
> Yes, there has been a severe change in the delivery of benefits and compensation, and likely more to follow, but you are correct to voice your concerns here in this open forum, but do not hide these concerns to your CoC or from the next Town Hall, etc, as we DO NOT have a union (as some perceive). Our collective voice funnels through our CoCs.
> 
> It's 2014, our people are intelligent, well educated and deserving of our support.
> 
> Disagree?? Stand and be heard.



In my element its astonding the lack of overall morale that we are facing right now, the amount of personnel with 10, 12  or 14 yrs in that are leaving is truely eyeopening, these are the people that we need to stay and build for the future. All the town halls that I have been to, paint a cheerly picture but it becomes quite evident that the powers to be are truely out of touch with the rank and file. I think its safe to say that the benefits the PS and Military enjoy are somewhat different, however overall are fairly equal. I would like to see what the PS have lost over the last few years in regards to benefits. Yes as leaders we can bring it up through the COC, but in my experience for the most part results are disapointing. I wonder what would happen if the PS lost the kind of benefits that have been disapearing on our end over the last few years?


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> In my element its astonding the lack of overall morale that we are facing right now, the amount of personnel with 10, 12  or 14 yrs in that are leaving is truely eyeopening, these are the people that we need to stay and build for the future. All the town halls that I have been to, paint a cheerly picture but it becomes quite evident that the powers to be are truely out of touch with the rank and file.



Exact same argument pretty much word for word that I heard from 1978 to 1988 and yet the CAF still exists somehow...................




			
				Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> I would like to see what the PS have lost over the last few years in regards to benefits. Yes as leaders we can bring it up through the COC, but in my experience for the most part results are disapointing. I wonder what would happen if the PS lost the kind of benefits that have been disapearing on our end over the last few years?



I can't speak for the Federal PS but if it makes you feel better the Ontario PS [excluding the OPP whom sits in someone's pocket it seems] has pretty much taken it dry for 4 or 5 years now.


----------



## dapaterson

Off the top of my head:

PS has lost severance (like the military); increased pension contributions (ditto); new pension rules for new hires - later retirement age; pay icnreaes below inflation (like the military); reduction of 25000 people...

and I'm sure there are more.


----------



## Remius

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> In my element its astonding the lack of overall morale that we are facing right now, the amount of personnel with 10, 12  or 14 yrs in that are leaving is truely eyeopening, these are the people that we need to stay and build for the future. All the town halls that I have been to, paint a cheerly picture but it becomes quite evident that the powers to be are truely out of touch with the rank and file. I think its safe to say that the benefits the PS and Military enjoy are somewhat different, however overall are fairly equal. I would like to see what the PS have lost over the last few years in regards to benefits. Yes as leaders we can bring it up through the COC, but in my experience for the most part results are disapointing. I wonder what would happen if the PS lost the kind of benefits that have been disapearing on our end over the last few years?



Well I can speak from what've experienced in the last few years:

1- Severance elimination (yes there was a trade off) just like the CF
2- Sick leave will likely be changed this year (not likely to affect the CF)
3- Pension contributions have been raised 
4- Workforce adjustment.  Pink slips, layoffs and cuts at every level. (my team alone has gone from 6 civilians to 3 with no plans to replace anytime soon)

CF members need to also remember that while they may suffer the consequences of benefit reductions that the PS suffers at times, they also benifit from the good stuff as well with no need to pay for collective bargaining.  

A few things that CF members get due to the PS:

1-Pay increases are linked to PS collective bargaining.  Paid for by PS members union dues.
2-Access to internal job postings.  CF members do love to state that they are not public servants...until they want to be one.
3-Vacation and pensionable time linked to CF service if they do switch.  See the last part of point number 2.

A lot of CF benefits and compensation, are a result of collective bargaining by PS unions.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

Crantor said:
			
		

> A lot of CF benefits and compensation, are a result of collective bargaining by PS unions.



Oh good,...someone else who'll get 'hate PM's" besides myself now...... ;D


----------



## Remius

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Oh good,...someone else who'll get 'hate PM's" besides myself now...... ;D



Lol.  I'm not a fan of unions some union activities but I can still recognise their uses and acknowledge the good they can do.


----------



## Stoker

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Exact same argument pretty much word for word that I heard from 1978 to 1988 and yet the CAF still exists somehow...................
> 
> 
> I can't speak for the Federal PS but if it makes you feel better the Ontario PS [excluding the OPP whom sits in someone's pocket it seems] has pretty much taken it dry for 4 or 5 years now.



I know the CF will march on because there are enough people who won't say anything and will take it just like during the dark days of the CF. The difference I can see and and I see this everyday, is that instead of talking about it, they are leaving and have access to very high paying jobs in the private sector.I can also understand to some extent the loss of some benefits due to a downturn of the ecomomy, however not to the extent to what are seeing now.  Being that i'm in a part of the military and don't work with PS employee's its certainly an eye opening to what they lost and are losing. I always hated the fact we are compared to the PS and linked to them on our benefits. Its nice that they fought on our behalf and gained things, but also lost things as well.  I picked this career and for better or for worst i'm not going anywhere and will speak up against any further loss of benefits. It will be intersting to see if benefits will further decline in the next few years.


----------



## Edward Campbell

Well, aren't we all special?








First, a history lesson (and, yes, I know I'm repeating myself): in the real decades of darkness, when Rick Hillier was still a schoolboy, the army was, as it had been for decades centuries millennia, underpaid - sometimes so grossly underpaid that it had real trouble attracting anything but the absolute dregs of society into its ranks. By the 1960s things needed to change. We, Navy, Army and Air Force, were changing - new, sophisticated weapon systems, alone, required "better" people to operate and maintain them. Successive Canadian Ministers of National Defence, post about 1955, saw this and went to cabinet with proposals to increase defence spending to accomplish two things: *a)* buy all this fancy new, high tech (for their day) weapons systems and *b)* hire the right sort of people, people who could command good salaries on "civvie street," to operate and maintain them. Successive governments, cabinets, including the ones led by "friends" of the military, like Lester B Pearson (himself a combat veteran), denied those budget increases. One of the primary goals of one part of Minister Paul Hellyer's _experiment_ was to address  that issue by, in effect, destroying the ranks of corporal and captain in order to give junior soldiers and junior officers real, useful salaries. The other big part of that decision was to "benchmark" selected military occupations to civil service equivalents and adjust military pay accordingly. It was, without putting too fine a point on it, a stroke of bureaucratic genius ... I notice no one here suggests we go back to the old system, going hat in hand to cabinet for pay and allowances, and it would be stupid to do so. You are, for all intents and purposes, _public servants_ and, today, in the 21st century there is a broad and general perception that _public sector_ pay and benefits, including pensions, are too generous. The government is, mainly, resounding to the "will of the people" when it cuts benefits.

Second, some of you amaze me with your ignorance. MARS explained that he loves the responsibilities of command at sea, he is, as are many, many CF members, officers and NCMs alike, living a dream. Do sailors "make way" when he's hurrying to the bridge? Yes, they do. Is that a "perk?" Are they "tugging their forelocks," 21st century style? I suppose some stupid people think so, but I guarantee you that the smart people are making way because they want MARS on his bridge, they know that he is needed there to make decisions - sometimes life and death decisions: decisions about their lives. It is the same in the Army when the CO goes into his command post - the CP crew makes way for him at the map and someone fetches a coffee. Are they "sucking up?" No. They, too, want the CO to make a decision, about all those red marks on that map. It, the command decisions, are his burden, as are the tough decisions on the bridge MARS' burden; and they are not burdens that any ship's captain or any CO can or would share with any of you ... no matter that, very often, they might wish they could. Those of you who think MARS and I and people like us are _elitists_ or that we demand special treatment are amateurs, not military professionals, you want a job, not a calling. You are just uniformed civil servants.

It's been said before, but I'll echo it: get over yourselves. Yes, you're special ... but so are a lot of people, each in their own way, just as "special" as you. You made a career choice, you're welcome to make other choices. Of course it's your right to bitch and to question government polices - I would worry if you weren't bitching, but you are also displaying the enduring characteristics of Canadian civilians: greed and envy ... and it is unbecoming.


----------



## cupper

:goodpost:


----------



## Transporter

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Well, aren't we all special?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First, a history lesson (and, yes, I know I'm repeating myself): in the real decades of darkness, when Rick Hillier was still a schoolboy, the army was, as it had been for decades centuries millennia, underpaid - sometimes so grossly underpaid that it had real trouble attracting anything but the absolute dregs of society into its ranks. By the 1960s things needed to change. We, Navy, Army and Air Force, were changing - new, sophisticated weapon systems, alone, required "better" people to operate and maintain them. Successive Canadian Ministers of National Defence, post about 1955, saw this and went to cabinet with proposals to increase defence spending to accomplish two things: *a)* buy all this fancy new, high tech (for their day) weapons systems and *b)* hire the right sort of people, people who could command good salaries on "civvie street," to operate and maintain them. Successive governments, cabinets, including the ones led by "friends" of the military, like Lester B Pearson (himself a combat veteran), denied those budget increases. One of the primary goals of one part of Minister Paul Hellyer's _experiment_ was to address  that issue by, in effect, destroying the ranks of corporal and captain in order to give junior soldiers and junior officers real, useful salaries. The other big part of that decision was to "benchmark" selected military occupations to civil service equivalents and adjust military pay accordingly. It was, without putting too fine a point on it, a stroke of bureaucratic genius ... I notice no one here suggests we go back to the old system, going hat in hand to cabinet for pay and allowances, and it would be stupid to do so. *You are, for all intents and purposes, public servants* and, today, in the 21st century there is a broad and general perception that _public sector_ pay and benefits, including pensions, are too generous. The government is, mainly, resounding to the "will of the people" when it cuts benefits.
> 
> Second, some of you amaze me with your ignorance. MARS explained that he loves the responsibilities of command at sea, he is, as are many, many CF members, officers and NCMs alike, living a dream. Do sailors "make way" when he's hurrying to the bridge? Yes, they do. Is that a "perk?" Are they "tugging their forelocks," 21st century style? I suppose some stupid people think so, but I guarantee you that the smart people are making way because they want MARS on his bridge, they know that he is needed there to make decisions - sometimes life and death decisions: decisions about their lives. It is the same in the Army when the CO goes into his command post - the CP crew makes way for him at the map and someone fetches a coffee. Are they "sucking up?" No. They, too, want the CO to make a decision, about all those red marks on that map. It, the command decisions, are his burden, as are the tough decisions on the bridge MARS' burden; and they are not burdens that any ship's captain or any CO can or would share with any of you ... no matter that, very often, they might wish they could. Those of you who think MARS and I and people like us are _elitists_ or that we demand special treatment *are amateurs, not military professionals, you want a job, not a calling. You are just uniformed civil servants.*
> 
> It's been said before, but I'll echo it: get over yourselves. Yes, you're special ... but so are a lot of people, each in their own way, just as "special" as you. You made a career choice, you're welcome to make other choices. Of course it's your right to ***** and to question government polices - I would worry if you weren't bitching, but you are also displaying the enduring characteristics of Canadian civilians: greed and envy ... and it is unbecoming.



I get your points and agree with much of what you say. However, aren't the portions highlighted above contradictory?


----------



## Edward Campbell

Transporter said:
			
		

> I get your points and agree with much of what you say. However, aren't the portions highlighted above contradictory?




On the surface I suppose they appear that way.

You are part of the _public sector_. Our government has decided, wisely, in my view, and beneficially for you, to tie your remuneration to that of the unionized civil service work force.

But, you are not civil servants, you are part of the armed services and you get a few - maybe fewer than you would like - extra benefits to take account of your unique conditions of service. My rant at the end is based on a quip by Evelyn Waugh (In _Officers and Gentlemen_, I think) about he and his colleagues in arms being little more than "heavily armed civilians" or the "unformed civil service" or something like that. My point is that if you want to be civilians you have that option, the government did not introduce conscription while I wasn't looking.

You are special, but not all that special, and I repeat: the bitching is healthy ... but some of it is unbecoming.


----------



## upandatom

Crantor said:
			
		

> You are only looking at your own unique bubble upandatom and you don't have all your facts straight either.  Leave with income averaging is something that a member pays for.  It isn't free. And it needs to be approved.  You make it sound like everyone takes all their sick days and all their family related.  They don't.  There are also people that put in overtime and never ask to be compensated for it.
> 
> How many times have you been let off early for long weekends or even on fridays?  How about mess events like men's x-mas dinners?  I can assure you that none of that is the norm in the PS.  Add that all up too.  Adventure training?  Yeah.  Or how about the hour for PT a day?  Right.  How many people take their hour at the end of the day only to disapear...the PS isn't the only one to have claim to malingerers either.
> 
> PS get 85% of dental, medical, prescriptions, eyewear covered.  How much do CF mmbers get covered for?  Oh yeah, right. 100%.



I agree, I am looking at my own bubble, 

And to add, I sure hope we would get 100% medical coverage, as we are expected to be in top shape, healthy and fit.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

upandatom said:
			
		

> And to add, I sure hope we would get 100% medical coverage, as we are expected to be in top shape, healthy and fit.



So those of us who are expected to be all that but don't have 100% coverage, nor access to an MIR everyday, should be full of good whine like yourself??


----------



## Infanteer

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> In my element its astonding the lack of overall morale that we are facing right now, the amount of personnel with 10, 12  or 14 yrs in that are leaving is truely eyeopening, these are the people that we need to stay and build for the future. All the town halls that I have been to, paint a cheerly picture but it becomes quite evident that the powers to be are truely out of touch with the rank and file.



Is this a Navy problem?  I've got a parade square full of soldiers, attrition rate (appears) to me to be normal, and we are starting to get guys back from the oil patch who did a year of civilian life and realized the grass wasn't very green on the other side of the fence.

Not really seeing the sky falling from where I am sitting.  Certainly nobody is lining up to tell me that their pay and benefits suck or that the Public Service is screwing them over.


----------



## upandatom

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> So those of us who are expected to be all that but don't have 100% coverage, nor access to an MIR everyday, should be full of good whine like yourself??



Well if you dont, your either a Reservist or PS. 
I dont know the whole ins and outs of the Reserves, Im sorry. 

I do know, that even in OUTCANs and Small mission tours, there are always ways of arranging medical care,

As a matter of fact, part of the screening for places where there isnt an MIR, or there is limited healthcare, is a Health and mental health screening, whichs states that there isnt a critical condition.


----------



## vonGarvin

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> get over yourselves.


----------



## Stoker

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Is this a Navy problem?  I've got a parade square full of soldiers, attrition rate (appears) to me to be normal, and we are starting to get guys back from the oil patch who did a year of civilian life and realized the grass wasn't very green on the other side of the fence.
> 
> Not really seeing the sky falling from where I am sitting.  Certainly nobody is lining up to tell me that their pay and benefits suck or that the Public Service is screwing them over.



Perhaps it is. There is a lot of disatisfaction right now with pers trying to have packages signed off on a increasingly shrinking number of platforms and this will continue at least in the short term. I know with the Mar Eng, many pers are disatisfied with the freeze of spec pay and the impending conbining of the ET and Mar Eng trades. Iriving will be hiring more personnel as the ship building ramps up and I expect some will go over to that. I went to a town hall a few months ago and a lot was said of the disatisfaction of their people. Like it was mentioned before the CF and the RCN will continue on regardless, but when you see people with 12, 13 years in suddenly get out that really concerns me.


----------



## upandatom

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> Perhaps it is. There is a lot of disatisfaction right now with pers trying to have packages signed off on a increasingly shrinking number of platforms and this will continue at least in the short term. I know with the Mar Eng, many pers are disatisfied with the freeze of spec pay and the impending conbining of the ET and Mar Eng trades. Iriving will be hiring more personnel as the ship building ramps up and I expect some will go over to that. I went to a town hall a few months ago and a lot was said of the disatisfaction of their people. Like it was mentioned before the CF and the RCN will continue on regardless, but when you see people with 12, 13 years in suddenly get out that really concerns me.



ITs kind of all over, Army Sigs is the same way right now.


----------



## kratz

Part of the challenge when comparing attrition rate between elements is shear numbers. 
Losing 100 sailors vice losing 100 soldiers and seeing 5% of sailors or 20% soldiers reenroll 
has a very different impact on each element, as the RCN is much smaller than the CA.
(NTF: numbers are used for example only)


----------



## TCM621

At the end of the day being in the CAF is a calling. If you are doing for strictly monetary reasons you will be dissatisfied. With that said, most of us joined under an expectation of certain benefits. Those benefits are being steadily reduced. Typically, the justification is to bring us inline with other public services. However, we are not like other public services, a fact we are constantly reminded of any time they get a benefit we don't.

For example, not only could public servants bank leave, they could take a pay out. They are entitled to more trips home when they are tasked away. They must _request_ to be transferred, they cannot be posted against their will. Yet our posting benefits must be inline with theirs.

I am a lifer in the CAF and I truly have a hard time imagining myself in any life outside if it. I get that I, and my family, make certain sacrifices for my country and my chosen profession. What bugs me is that the senior leadership appears to be abdicating their responsibilities in many areas when it comes to the welfare of the troops. It is easy to throw up your hands and say, "I agree with you, you should get 100% HEA. But I can't do anything about it, that's Treasury Board" or "yes PMQs in Cold  lake are crappy and over priced. But that is CMHC's jurisdiction". You may argue that their hands are tied, but they allowed them to be tied and they need to untie them. That is their responsibility: to know their subordinates and promote their welfare.

Just once I would like a senior leader launch a challenge to promote our welfare, rather than parrot a line of bullshit. I know it would probably mean the end of their progression but it would go a long way to improve morale.


----------



## jollyjacktar

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> Perhaps it is. There is a lot of disatisfaction right now with pers trying to have packages signed off on a increasingly shrinking number of platforms and this will continue at least in the short term. I know with the Mar Eng, many pers are disatisfied with the freeze of spec pay and the impending conbining of the ET and Mar Eng trades. Iriving will be hiring more personnel as the ship building ramps up and I expect some will go over to that. I went to a town hall a few months ago and a lot was said of the disatisfaction of their people. Like it was mentioned before the CF and the RCN will continue on regardless, but when you see people with 12, 13 years in suddenly get out that really concerns me.


It's going to be a problem and fairly serious if many of the Cert 3's and 4's punch out, as I understand 100% of the Cert 4 and a very large number of the Cert 3 personnel are eligible for an immediate pension.  Many I know are very unhappy, especially re: the spec pay issue.  The knowledge and experience they possess doesn't grow on trees, took many years to acquire and will make a huge gap and capability issue if a mass exodus does come.   It comes up in discussion almost daily at work and today the talk was that the patch is recognizing the Stoker military quals, big time, now.

Yes, there is a normal attrition rate for most things.  When the CPF's and 280's etc were in the pipe, many took the leap and it will happen when and if the shipbuilding projects come on stream.  That alone will add to the losses and I believe is expected.   But if triggers start getting pulled, it will hurt and will adversely affect capabilities for a unknown period of time as it will be beyond normal attrition rates.  My  :2c:


----------



## Navy_Pete

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> It's going to be a problem and fairly serious if many of the Cert 3's and 4's punch out, as I understand 100% of the Cert 4 and a very large number of the Cert 3 personnel are eligible for an immediate pension.  Many I know are very unhappy, especially re: the spec pay issue.  The knowledge and experience they possess doesn't grow on trees, took many years to acquire and will make a huge gap and capability issue if a mass exodus does come.   It comes up in discussion almost daily at work and today the talk was that the patch is recognizing the Stoker military quals, big time, now.
> 
> Yes, there is a normal attrition rate for most things.  When the CPF's and 280's etc were in the pipe, many took the leap and it will happen when and if the shipbuilding projects come on stream.  That alone will add to the losses and I believe is expected.   But if triggers start getting pulled, it will hurt and will adversely affect capabilities for a unknown period of time as it will be beyond normal attrition rates.  My  :2c:



Also for the cert 2s who finished slogging through their two year OJTs and boards, got qualified, didn't get spec pay, and are now jetty hopping on MCDVs and frigates.  When you have years of further OJTs/boards ahead of you (argueably more then any other naval technician trade), and you get offers to go work somewhere else for far more cash, the part about it 'being a calling' wears pretty thin.  Don't think it's as prevalent for electricians, but the delta training for getting their industrial electrician ticket is pretty small, so I can see a number of them pulling the plug when the trade amalgamation rolls in.

Have been off the coast for a few years now, but Friday sliders are a thing of the past, and aside from the Christmas dinner, a lot of the fun things are disappearing.  And aside from the one or two missions where you actually do anything meaningful, most sailors aren't getting a lot sea time, and when you do, the ports are limited and you can spend half the port visit on duty depending on the force protection requirements or supporting repairs.

Add in one bad posting/supervisor or whatever, and there are enough small disatisfiers that doing just about anything else is appealing.  Money and benefits don't really matter at that point, but particularly not when the civilian working next to you is making the same/more for doing the same job, without any of the additional commitments.


----------



## Brad Sallows

Skill demand and portability keep popping up as factors.  There will always be occupations for which the qualifications are easily transferable and the private sector demand is high.  There is a limit to what the CF can do to compete without skewing its pay scales heavily and having to jerk them up and down in response to movements in the economy at large.

Most of the complaints regarding pullbacks don't look bad from where I have been sitting the past 5 years, and most of the summaries of pay and benefits look good.

Do the arithmetic on what you would need to save each year to buy your pension if you were entirely dependent on your own savings.


----------



## Navy_Pete

The pension argument is a bit of a red herring, as most people now will be unable to truly retire on a full pension, and it's only getting worse.  If you were to get an incremental pay raise in a new career and do something smart like pay off your mortgage early and invest a bit, you are probably better off financially.

I think the biggest kicker is probably the large size of even a modest mortgage now; it's getting increasingly unaffordable for most people to do anything less then a 20+ year mortgage.  Combine that with kids in school or something else similar, and folks work well past 60.

Money completely aside, with all the ISSCs coming down the pipe the work I really like to do is mostly going to be contracted.  So with all the fun work going, and our system getting increasingly paralyzed by bureaucracy (DPS anyone?), getting harder to find a reason to stick it out.  I think you can almost have more a direct and positive impact on the Navy working for a future ISSC then you can in the actual Navy, which is a bit ludicrous.


----------



## Brad Sallows

>The pension argument is a bit of a red herring

My point isn't with respect to whether it's enough to live on; my point is that the total cost of employer/employee contributions + private savings to achieve income target "$X" from a DB pension and private savings is generally less than the cost of private savings alone.  I'd be very happy if I could achieve my retirement target with, say, 6%-and-6% instead of 20%.


----------



## upandatom

Tcm621 said:
			
		

> At the end of the day being in the CAF is a calling. If you are doing for strictly monetary reasons you will be dissatisfied. With that said, most of us joined under an expectation of certain benefits. Those benefits are being steadily reduced. Typically, the justification is to bring us inline with other public services. However, we are not like other public services, a fact we are constantly reminded of any time they get a benefit we don't.
> 
> For example, not only could public servants bank leave, they could take a pay out. They are entitled to more trips home when they are tasked away. They must _request_ to be transferred, they cannot be posted against their will. Yet our posting benefits must be inline with theirs.
> 
> I am a lifer in the CAF and I truly have a hard time imagining myself in any life outside if it. I get that I, and my family, make certain sacrifices for my country and my chosen profession. What bugs me is that the senior leadership appears to be abdicating their responsibilities in many areas when it comes to the welfare of the troops. It is easy to throw up your hands and say, "I agree with you, you should get 100% HEA. But I can't do anything about it, that's Treasury Board" or "yes PMQs in Cold  lake are crappy and over priced. But that is CMHC's jurisdiction". You may argue that their hands are tied, but they allowed them to be tied and they need to untie them. That is their responsibility: to know their subordinates and promote their welfare.
> 
> Just once I would like a senior leader launch a challenge to promote our welfare, rather than parrot a line of bullshit. I know it would probably mean the end of their progression but it would go a long way to improve morale.



 :goodpost:

Have to agree with that 100%. 
They can always say "your our priority" but I have yet to see actions that show that over the past few.


----------



## Edward Campbell

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> >The pension argument is a bit of a red herring
> 
> My point isn't with respect to whether it's enough to live on; my point is that the total cost of employer/employee contributions + private savings to achieve income target "$X" from a DB pension and private savings is generally less than the cost of private savings alone.  I'd be very happy if I could achieve my retirement target with, say, 6%-and-6% instead of 20%.




And this is part of the underlying reason that governments, local, provincial and federal, are "at war" with the public sector. The majority off Canadians do not have anything like the "generous" pay, benefits and, above all, defined benefit pension schemes that people on the public payroll enjoy. Further, that majority doesn't 'see' the sort of value in you, or a prison guard or a teacher or a nurse our any civil servant, that would justify the pay, benefits and pensions. The "claw backs" and "freezes" are mighty popular.


----------



## George Wallace

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> And this is part of the underlying reason that governments, local, provincial and federal, are "at war" with the public sector. The majority off Canadians do not have anything like the "generous" pay, benefits and, above all, defined benefit pension schemes that people on the public payroll enjoy. Further, that majority doesn't 'see' the sort of value in you, or a prison guard or a teacher or a nurse our any civil servant, that would justify the pay, benefits and pensions. The "claw backs" and "freezes" are mighty popular.



At the same time, it is not the fault of the Public Sector Unions for having fought for pensions.  Many Private Sector companies have pension plans for their employees.  Perhaps it is time for those who do not have some sort of pension plan in their workplace to stand up and fight for one.  Those not in a position to be in a Union or workplace that is large enough to facilitate one, should then do some financial planning of their own and create a "Retirement Savings Plan".   The fact that so many in this country can't plan past the ends of their noses, or further than the present, should not have them rallying against those who have a plan for their retirement.   "Generous" payments of pensions to those who have worked towards their pensions, only reflects on the lack of knowledge of those protesting.  What is even more disconcerting, is not that Public Sector, Military and RCMP pension plans are being affected, but that the public is totally ignoring the "LAVISH" pensions that our political figures have garnered for themselves, with much less time in service to their country, province, community.  Where is the uproar there?


----------



## dapaterson

George Wallace said:
			
		

> What is even more disconcerting, is not that Public Sector, Military and RCMP pension plans are being affected, but that the public is totally ignoring the "LAVISH" pensions that our political figures have garnered for themselves, with much less time in service to their country, province, community.  Where is the uproar there?



Define "Lavish".  Do you know the terms of the MP pension plan?  Have you ever stood up for election - with your job at stake every four years?  Would you take years out of your peak earning period to try?

Would you rather have a political system that only permits the idle rich to run for office?


----------



## Fishbone Jones

George Wallace said:
			
		

> At the same time, it is not the fault of the Public Sector Unions for having fought for pensions.  Many Private Sector companies have pension plans for their employees.  Perhaps it is time for those who do not have some sort of pension plan in their workplace to stand up and fight for one.  Those not in a position to be in a Union or workplace that is large enough to facilitate one, should then do some financial planning of their own and create a "Retirement Savings Plan".   The fact that so many in this country can't plan past the ends of their noses, or further than the present, should not have them rallying against those who have a plan for their retirement.   "Generous" payments of pensions to those who have worked towards their pensions, only reflects on the lack of knowledge of those protesting.  What is even more disconcerting, is not that Public Sector, Military and RCMP pension plans are being affected, but that the public is totally ignoring the "LAVISH" pensions that our political figures have garnered for themselves, with much less time in service to their country, province, community.  Where is the uproar there?



So, you're advocating what the McWynne government is planning on doing? Imposing more fees on employers and workers alike to float a pension fund for those that can't afford one. 

It a money grab. I'll just about bet that, while not part of the General Revenues Fund, McWynne will be able to dip into the dividends in order to fund her pet projects. More Ontario Liebral smoke and mirrors. "We're helping the impoverished" while they rob us blind............again.


----------



## dapaterson

recceguy said:
			
		

> It a money grab. I'll just about bet that, while not part of the General Revenues Fund, McWynne will be able to dip into the dividends in order to fund her pet projects. More Ontario Liebral smoke and mirrors. "We're helping the impoverished" while they rob us blind............again.



No, it will be like the Caisse des Depots in Quebec - an investment fund where ideology will triumph over sound investing.


----------



## Brasidas

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Define "Lavish".  Do you know the terms of the MP pension plan?  Have you ever stood up for election - with your job at stake every four years?  Would you take years out of your peak earning period to try?
> 
> Would you rather have a political system that only permits the idle rich to run for office?



The terms are six years service. They need to be elected at least twice. Short of that, they get a return of contributions.

Candidates take a huge risk regardless if they're not in a coronation riding like rural Alberta. I don't see a six year pension for life vice return of contributions making the difference.

To paraphrase earlier in the thread, its a calling. One that I don't have.  If someone's risking their ability to pay their mortgage by not getting elected three times in a row, they've got more immediate problems than are compensated for by the MP pension system. I don't see it as the decisive difference in encouraging less than wealthy leaders from politics.


----------



## Kirkhill

Navy_Pete said:
			
		

> The pension argument is a bit of a red herring, as most people now will be unable to truly retire on a full pension, and it's only getting worse.  If you were to get an incremental pay raise in a new career and do something smart like pay off your mortgage early and invest a bit, you are probably better off financially.
> 
> I think the biggest kicker is probably the large size of even a modest mortgage now; it's getting increasingly unaffordable for most people to do anything less then a 20+ year mortgage.  Combine that with kids in school or something else similar, and folks work well past 60.
> 
> Money completely aside, with all the ISSCs coming down the pipe the work I really like to do is mostly going to be contracted.  So with all the fun work going, and our system getting increasingly paralyzed by bureaucracy (DPS anyone?), getting harder to find a reason to stick it out.  I think you can almost have more a direct and positive impact on the Navy working for a future ISSC then you can in the actual Navy, which is a bit ludicrous.



Pete - you've nailed a couple of good points there.

WRT the point on ISSCs though:  Is it a bad thing that skilled long service personnel like yourself "transfer" from duty with the RCN to duty with an ISSC provider?  

Without wanting to create a storm about the relative physicality of the various services I believe that, at least for the army's combat arms, there is merit in moving long service personnel from the active list to the reserve list while preferentially employing them in ISSCs.

My rationale is that most of the Combat Arms field is a young man's game. They need to be physically fit for field service.  And like pro sports players they wear out early.  However the skills that many of them pick up during their field careers are invaluable both to their parent service and, accordingly, ISSC providers.

If the individual in question puts in his/her time in field service and then is "transferred" to an ISSC then those skills are retained and the individual's career is potentially lengthened.  Between being retained on reserve status and the increasing requirement for ISSCs to deploy further and further forward in support working for an ISSC would not mean the individual necessarily gives up on field duties/sea duties right away, nor would it require the individual to sever completely connections with the military world.  It would put the individual in a better position to pick and choose "postings" and manage their own career.  Alternately it would better place the individual to transition completely out of the military world into civvy life.

From the government's, and the "institutional service's" position it would decrease the need to retain skills in the deployable, uniformed force which would free up positions for youngsters in the front lines meaning that a greater proportion of the 65,000 authorized regular force positions could be "teeth positions" with "tail positions" (like - for example - Small Arms R&D - being contracted out to ISSCs with long service SA experts on their staff - or marine engineers - or weapons systems operators).

Advantage for the government is not so much in terms of the cost of maintaining a national defence capability as allowing the government to supply that capability in the face of a "skeptical" public and permit them to sell a Zero-growth defence plan (Zero-growth in authorized PYs).    

At the same time the budget can be more easily manipulated (not always a bad word) so as to funnel defence supporting activities through other government funded activities - labour force training, R&D, regional supports, foreign relations......

The idea, like so many (most) of mine, is not new.  The most recent model is from before WW1 when the Commissary and the Wagon Train were commonly private ISSCs.  

I believe WW1 to have been the aberration in history because it coincided with the arrival of miraculous technologies that were not commonly understood.

Prior to WW1 the army could commandeer a farmer, his horses or oxen, and his wagons and get good immediate service out of them.

During WW1 the army needed to teach the farmer how to drive and maintain his brand new petrol driven wagon and create a whole new logistical supply chain to support them.

WW2 followed suit on WW1.

We have followed suit on WW2.

But now everybody knows how to drive a truck and could easily be commandeered, along with the Hertz rental fleet and supply good immediate service.

More tellingly most of the miraculous technologies are being applied first in the civilian world and only after much struggle and debate, in the military world.  ISSCs - as civilians - are better placed to parlay those miraculous technologies into real time support to the field elements as they are freer to experiment with things like, for example, platforms.  Eyes in the sky via satellite, blimps, aerostats, UAVs, 737s, Beech Airs or even Textron Scorpions, or fleet refuelling via Waves, Berlins, Cantabrias or via DC10s or Airbuses - all those debates go away.  All the end user has to do is sign a contract to have a given good or service delivered to them at a particular time and place.  Managing all the extraneous risks associated with platform selection and mixed fleets also all go away from the service and become the problem of the ISSC provider.

Sorry for the long, and meandering, post .... got onto a hobby horse again.


----------



## George Wallace

recceguy said:
			
		

> So, you're advocating what the McWynne government is planning on doing? Imposing more fees on employers and workers alike to float a pension fund for those that can't afford one.
> 
> It a money grab. I'll just about bet that, while not part of the General Revenues Fund, McWynne will be able to dip into the dividends in order to fund her pet projects. More Ontario Liebral smoke and mirrors. "We're helping the impoverished" while they rob us blind............again.



Absolutely not.  I have many questions as to McWynne's plans.  Do all Ontarians benefit from her plan?  Do new immigrants to Ontario receive the same benefits as a lifelong resident?  Would someone moving from Ontario to Alberta in search of employment still be eligible to receive their Ontario Pension?  Would someone returning to from outside Ontario to fulfill their retirement plan, receive benefits from the Ontario Pension Plan?   Would Ontarians be able to collect if they moved to another province or country on retirement?

I agree.  It is a ill-thought scheme on the part of the Ontario Liberals that makes no sense.  Unlike the national plans, which cover all provinces and territories, this one is fraught with potential problems in its administration as to whom is and whom is not eligible to receive benefits.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

As I've said to my wife, I will never be $$ rich from serving in the CAF, I certainly won't be poor either.  I get paid, steady;  break a leg?  No penalty to my pay, even though I can't do my job for a while.  I was lucky enough to get into a trade that has spec pay and an environmental allowance, but I had to apply, be successful etc to have it.  Some make far less than me, other make more.  Regardless, I have a nice home, my wife drives a new car, and we have money to "do stuff" when we have time off.  Her medical/dental are great because of our PSHCP coverage.  If I die at work, she will be bill-free and never really have to work a day in her life again unless she wants.  All in all, not much to _really_ complain about on the QOL side.  

Aside from all the pay and benefits stuff, the big reason I love my job is that very few people in Canada, and even the CAF, get to do it.  No PS employee will ever get to earn their pay the way I do, see or do what I get to do, be part of that 'something' that is different than pretty much any other job in the civilian world.  Oil patch dude might take home more a year than me, and good for him.  That job and life strikes me as EXTREMELY boring compared to where I work...

The QOL I have, from the job I have (one of the best NCM jobs in the CAF IMO) leaves me feeling prettyyyyyyyyy lucky I get to do what I do.  The fact that I am just starting 16 days of summer leave makes it even sweeter...glass half full type I guess.


----------



## Occam

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Define "Lavish".  Do you know the terms of the MP pension plan?  Have you ever stood up for election - with your job at stake every four years?  Would you take years out of your peak earning period to try?
> 
> Would you rather have a political system that only permits the idle rich to run for office?



We already have that.  The average Joe can't fund a campaign without injecting some of their own cash to do so, putting it out of the reach of many Canadians.

The last batch of NDP rookies aside, none of the serving MPs are going to starve if they don't get re-elected.  They're lawyers, economists, accountants, and the like.  The pension they're eligible to receive (and yes, I have looked up their benefits) is lavish - too lavish.  Yes, an MPs job is demanding, and they're remunerated in salary ($163,700/yr) to reflect that.  There's no reason why their pension benefits should be pegged at 3% per year of service when the PS, CF and RCMP are pegged at 2%.  As I said, they can go out and get another job if they get turfed.


----------



## dapaterson

Occam said:
			
		

> We already have that.  The average Joe can't fund a campaign without injecting some of their own cash to do so, putting it out of the reach of many Canadians.
> 
> The last batch of NDP rookies aside, none of the serving MPs are going to starve if they don't get re-elected.  They're lawyers, economists, accountants, and the like.  The pension they're eligible to receive (and yes, I have looked up their benefits) is lavish - too lavish.  Yes, an MPs job is demanding, and they're remunerated in salary ($163,700/yr) to reflect that.  There's no reason why their pension benefits should be pegged at 3% per year of service when the PS, CF and RCMP are pegged at 2%.  As I said, they can go out and get another job if they get turfed.



So, they're paid about the same as a BGen.  Unlike the BGen, the MP can't draw a pension until age 55.


----------



## Occam

dapaterson said:
			
		

> So, they're paid about the same as a BGen.  Unlike the BGen, the MP can't draw a pension until age 55.



That's okay.  The MP doesn't spend a career doing all the dirty work that leads up to being a BGen, and it's not like we have BGens retiring and drawing pensions at the age of 30.  How old would a switched on, fast-tracked BGen be?  Maybe 40, with 45 being perhaps the average? I'm okay with paying a BGen (or a Cpl) his pension 10 years earlier than a MP.

Like I said, most MPs had careers before they were elected, and most go back to those careers after politics.  The pension is a little too golden for the short time most of them spend in office.   :2c:


----------



## Remius

There are plans to fix the pension disparity that MPs enjoy.  Right now they pay 14%.  Plan is to move it closer to 50. Drawing it at 65 vice 55 as well.


----------



## TCM621

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Define "Lavish".  Do you know the terms of the MP pension plan?  Have you ever stood up for election - with your job at stake every four years?  Would you take years out of your peak earning period to try?
> 
> Would you rather have a political system that only permits the idle rich to run for office?



I have a problem when they get raises while everyone else gets freezes or cuts. However, the fact remains most MPs take a pay cut to be an MP. That is part of the reasoning behind their pay.


----------



## OldSolduer

I'm a reservist, former Reg Force.

My reservist don't complain about pay or benefits. They do this because they love doing it.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> I'm a reservist, former Reg Force.
> 
> My reservist don't complain about pay or benefits. They do this because they love doing it.



 :facepalm: Oh Jim, Jim, Jim. What have you just done  :dunno:


----------



## kratz

Jim,

Terrific your people are not complaining to you. 
absent of a complaint, does not absolve an issue.

One of our PRes sailors this week  asked a 
redundant question a few post back (drawing from a different thread)
asking about commuting assistance and not knowing to ask for TAA.
Through this website, the member's concern is answesrd and if needed 
continued guidance to resolution.

It's a nice axiom that we a b!ching about the degradtion of pay and benifits,
but much like the reminder when WWII ended:
- First they came for...
-Then they came for...

My point being, this is FRP 2014, for R/P Force.


----------



## RADOPSIGOPACCISOP

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> I'm a reservist, former Reg Force.
> 
> My reservist don't complain about pay or benefits. They do this because they love doing it.



Glad the hobby squads are happy to bend over and take the pay reductions. Maybe they can take a bigger cut so the rest of us that do this as a job can keep our take home stable.


----------



## George Wallace

RADOPSIGOPACISSOP said:
			
		

> Glad the hobby squads are happy to bend over and take the pay reductions. Maybe they can take a bigger cut so the rest of us that do this as a job can keep our take home stable.



What a prime example of the "I am entitled to this" generation...... :

What else should we give you?


----------



## OldSolduer

RADOPSIGOPACISSOP said:
			
		

> Glad the hobby squads are happy to bend over and take the pay reductions. Maybe they can take a bigger cut so the rest of us that do this as a job can keep our take home stable.



Really now is this necessary? 


Do you realize that many of the reservists....sorry "hobby squads" often have to jump through hoops to deploy on ops with the "professional " army? And you know what....they can do just a good a job as you "professionals".

I rarely have  to deal with troops fighting, impaired driving, sexual harassment etc ....but my Reg a Force counterparts see it very Monday morning.....so wind it in mister.....

Maybe you can come show me how it's really done.....


----------



## McG

... And on that note, this thread will now get away from the tired Reg vs Res topic.

Carry on arguing between those who believe CAF pay is extravagant, those who believe it is adequate, and those who just want more money now.


----------



## MilEME09

MCG said:
			
		

> ... And on that note, this thread will now get away from the tired Reg vs Res topic.
> 
> Carry on arguing between those who believe CAF pay is extravagant, those who believe it is adequate, and those who just want more money now.



perhaps instead of arguing about how large the pie is, maybe we should look at how its sliced up, look at all the allowances we get, and extra pay (http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/about-policies-standards-benefits/toc-ch-205-officer-ncm-allowance-rates.page), not to mention spec pay for some trades. It makes no sense to me how an EO tech can get spec 1 pay, but not say a vehicle tech, weapons tech(L), Geo tech or a handful of other trades for that matter. I would argue to be competitive with the civilian world something like spec pay would be needed for vehicle techs, since a QL5 Vehicle tech could easily make more money on civi street.


----------



## Edward Campbell

Would it not make more sense to *remove* many, perhaps even most trades from the _spec_ list and then apply _spec_ pay only to that small fraction of CF trades that are in the most intense demand in the private sector?

I know it's heresy (and, _waaaaay_ back, a half century ago I was a Group 3A tradesman when that level of trade's pay meant that a junior Gp3A corporal earned more than a middling senior Gp 3 sergeant) but shouldn't we aim to have no _spec_ pay at all (maybe make a one time (taxable) payment on passing Gp 3 and Gp 4 course for selected trades) and pay everyone for a *mix* of technical skill, physical demands and risk? Why is an electronics technician _worth_ (paid) more than an infantryman? I know the training is long and academically difficult, but, generally, the working conditions are a lot better ... and safer! (Once again, I speak from (very dated) experience, but I was both a Leading Infantryman and a Radio Mechanic ... I got paid a helluva lot more for being the latter, I'm not sure I _deserved_ the extra pay based on just the technical/academic skills and knowledge.)


----------



## Sf2

By that logic, how do you think the military would retain doctors, dentists etc....they face minimal risk in their daily duties.  If we paid them as such, I'm pretty sure it would be a retention nightmare.


----------



## George Wallace

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Would it not make more sense to *remove* many, perhaps even most trades from the _spec_ list and then apply _spec_ pay only to that small fraction of CF trades that are in the most intense demand in the private sector?
> 
> I know it's heresy (and, _waaaaay_ back, a half century ago I was a Group 3A tradesman when that level of trade's pay meant that a junior Gp3A corporal earned more than a middling senior Gp 3 sergeant) but shouldn't we aim to have no _spec_ pay at all (maybe make a one time (taxable) payment on passing Gp 3 and Gp 4 course for selected trades) and pay everyone for a *mix* of technical skill, physical demands and risk? Why is an electronics technician _worth_ (paid) more than an infantryman? I know the training is long and academically difficult, but, generally, the working conditions are a lot better ... and safer! (Once again, I speak from (very dated) experience, but I was both a Leading Infantryman and a Radio Mechanic ... I got paid a helluva lot more for being the latter, I'm not sure I _deserved_ the extra pay based on just the technical/academic skills and knowledge.)



To take to an extreme a point of view on what ERC has stated above, could be: why are we paying members Spec Pay in Trades that are easily transferable to civilian occupations, and paying less to Trades that are not easily transferable to civilian occupations?  While those who are collecting Spec Pay are banking their earnings, the poor Infantryman is struggling.  While those who are banking Spec Pay make plans to "jump ship" for a higher paying civilian job, the poor Infantryman is striving to attain advancement in the Profession of Arms.   It is a form of "planned obsolescence" in those Trades with the spending the DND/CF budget to train personnel in Trades that encourage them to seek civilian employment well before they have completed even half a commitment towards a full CAF Pension.  Some of these Trades are nothing more than civilian 'Community Colleges', training people to fill occupations in the civilian work place, while providing them with a very decent "nest egg" to do so.  Is this what the CAF should be? 

Just boils down to: "we are our own worse enemy".


----------



## Sf2

Your argument is actually in favour of spec pay.  

If you pay someone a competitive wage compared to their civilian counterpart, they are LESS likely to seek that civilian employment.


----------



## Transporter

I think this thread was initially started more as a discussion of concern for the gradual erosion of the benefits/entitlements/remuneration that we already have, or had, versus a b**** session for wanting more... or that's how I saw it at least. Personally, I'd be happy just to have back the things that we've already lost and to not lose any more (or have any more contribution/payment increases). I'm not advocating for more, just no less.


----------



## RADOPSIGOPACCISOP

George Wallace said:
			
		

> What a prime example of the "I am entitled to this" generation...... :
> 
> What else should we give you?



It's not the entitled generation when you are working for a salary and then TB comes by and cuts that salary. We don't live on wishes and unicorn dust.

My comment was to what I think is the ridiculous statement by Jim, that Reservists, who generally don't rely on the military as their sole source of income, don't complain about the pay cuts so we shouldn't either.

When you have 2 or 3 kids and one source of income because your wife had to quit her job when you are newly posted, and then the government decides to make a backdoor paycut by taking an additional $200 a month in pension contributions it has a serious and very real impact on soldiers. 

I understand that if you have 20 years in and are making a very comfortable salary, probably have all the kids out of the house, losing that money doesn't really sting, but frankly, it's sad that there doesn't seem to be more upset at the higher levels of the impact on the lower levels. But frankly, that's the problem with the older "not my problem" generation.


----------



## Furniture

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Would it not make more sense to *remove* many, perhaps even most trades from the _spec_ list and then apply _spec_ pay only to that small fraction of CF trades that are in the most intense demand in the private sector?
> 
> I know it's heresy (and, _waaaaay_ back, a half century ago I was a Group 3A tradesman when that level of trade's pay meant that a junior Gp3A corporal earned more than a middling senior Gp 3 sergeant) but shouldn't we aim to have no _spec_ pay at all (maybe make a one time (taxable) payment on passing Gp 3 and Gp 4 course for selected trades) and pay everyone for a *mix* of technical skill, physical demands and risk? Why is an electronics technician _worth_ (paid) more than an infantryman? I know the training is long and academically difficult, but, generally, the working conditions are a lot better ... and safer! (Once again, I speak from (very dated) experience, but I was both a Leading Infantryman and a Radio Mechanic ... I got paid a helluva lot more for being the latter, I'm not sure I _deserved_ the extra pay based on just the technical/academic skills and knowledge.)



The idea of a one time bonus payment is the best idea I've yet seen for dealing with spec pay. It frees up a lot of money in the pay envelope for providing appropriate PLD in expensive markets while still rewarding people for the extra time and effort in training required for some of the spec trades. It's imperfect, but it's closer to appropriate than the system we have in place now. I've always found it odd that people who specialize in high risk jobs like Infantry, Armoured, Field Engineering, etc.. are paid less than a guy who swaps parts on an aircraft in the warmth and safety of a hangar in Trenton. More specifically why a Sgt who may lead troops in combat is paid less than a CFL AVN Tech...

Further, I believe that much of the discontent is based on the stripping away of benefits and the out of whack PLD system rather than on the overall pay scales. It is hard to justify why a Cpl in Cold Lake is barely able to keep up with his bills while a Cpl in Halifax or Victoria is able to live large and have all his toys. We are well paid, and have pretty cool jobs in the grand scheme of things.


----------



## Infanteer

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> shouldn't we aim to have no _spec_ pay at all (maybe make a one time (taxable) payment on passing Gp 3 and Gp 4 course for selected trades) and pay everyone for a *mix* of technical skill, physical demands and risk? Why is an electronics technician _worth_ (paid) more than an infantryman? I know the training is long and academically difficult, but, generally, the working conditions are a lot better ... and safer!



Boom.

I have Infantrymen that don't get any spec pay.  They maintain a high level of fitness, possess numerous technical skills (helicopter insertion methods, sniper, jumpmaster, etc) and live in the dirt when they go to the field.  I'm not sure why change/lack of spec pay would be a worthy hill for some to die on and release.


----------



## RADOPSIGOPACCISOP

WeatherdoG said:
			
		

> The idea of a one time bonus payment is the best idea I've yet seen for dealing with spec pay. It frees up a lot of money in the pay envelope for providing appropriate PLD in expensive markets while still rewarding people for the extra time and effort in training required for some of the spec trades. It's imperfect, but it's closer to appropriate than the system we have in place now. I've always found it odd that people who specialize in high risk jobs like Infantry, Armoured, Field Engineering, etc.. are paid less than a guy who swaps parts on an aircraft in the warmth and safety of a hangar in Trenton. More specifically why a Sgt who may lead troops in combat is paid less than a CFL AVN Tech...
> 
> Further, I believe that much of the discontent is based on the stripping away of benefits and the out of whack PLD system rather than on the overall pay scales. It is hard to justify why a Cpl in Cold Lake is barely able to keep up with his bills while a Cpl in Halifax or Victoria is able to live large and have all his toys. We are well paid, and have pretty cool jobs in the grand scheme of things.



Yes, because lump sum has been such a boon to the CAF for other things.

We don't need to be trying to strip benefits away from some soldiers, addition by subtraction is self defeating. If the goal is to boost the equity of the PLD system, that should be the focus.



			
				WeatherdoG said:
			
		

> More specifically why a Sgt who may lead troops in combat is paid less than a CFL AVN Tech...



A Sgt pushing to take from a JNCO to benefit themselves is disgraceful.


----------



## Shamrock

RADOPSIGOPACISSOP said:
			
		

> A Sgt pushing to take from a JNCO to benefit themselves is disgraceful.



Where did that conclusion come from?

I see no harm in a supervisor wanting greater compensation than a subordinate. I mean really, makes sense if we want to incentivize successive generations.


----------



## Furniture

RADOPSIGOPACISSOP said:
			
		

> A Sgt pushing to take from a JNCO to benefit themselves is disgraceful.



I can see why you'd say that... Being a Sgt myself does make that seem self serving. The idea I was trying to convey is that people in high risk jobs should paid well to compensate, while those in low risk jobs should be paid well but paid in line with their risk. I don't think a person should be paid more than their boss because they took a course 15 years ago in a trade that happens to be on the spec pay list. I'm not advocating for less pay for the troops, I'm saying our system is less than ideal and should be replaced by one that rewards advancement and professional development(because I believe this is a profession and not merely a job...).

To be honest I think I've over ranked and over paid for what I do on a day to day basis, but when the CO wants the latest and greatest weather forecast I'm worth my weight in (fools)gold.


----------



## RADOPSIGOPACCISOP

Shamrock said:
			
		

> Where did that conclusion come from?
> 
> I see no harm in a supervisor wanting greater compensation than a subordinate. I mean really, makes sense if we want to incentivize successive generations.



No harm in a supervisor wanting more compensation than a subordinate... unless they want to lower the subordinates pay in order to make that happen. 

Nothing wrong with asking for more, it's when you ask that others get less it's disgraceful.


----------



## RADOPSIGOPACCISOP

WeatherdoG said:
			
		

> I can see why you'd say that... Being a Sgt myself does make that seem self serving. The idea I was trying to convey is that people in high risk jobs should paid well to compensate, while those in low risk jobs should be paid well but paid in line with their risk. I don't think a person should be paid more than their boss because they took a course 15 years ago in a trade that happens to be on the spec pay list. I'm not advocating for less pay for the troops, I'm saying our system is less than ideal and should be replaced by one that rewards advancement and professional development(because I believe this is a profession and not merely a job...).
> 
> To be honest I think I've over ranked and over paid for what I do on a day to day basis, but when the CO wants the latest and greatest weather forecast I'm worth my weight in (fools)gold.



I myself don't get spec pay, but I have a couple of subordinates that do recieve it (former LCIS techs still on frozen Spec) and as their supervisor I'd fight tooth and nail to argue they are worth every penny and more, regardless of whether they make more than I do or not (they do). I know how hard they work, and I know the incredible level of expertise they have developed, not just from their military training, but in how the constantly educate themselves in emerging trends on their own time. I'm not going to argue with someone that this trade or that trade has it harder, my job is to advocate for my subordinates. If an infantry Sgt wants to advocate that his troops deserve Spec pay, or any other beneift, then I commend him on being an advocate for his subordiantes, because I have no doubt they probably deserve every penny they get and more as well. It's our job as leaders to advocate for our subordinates, but not to raise ourselves by pushing down others.


----------



## Furniture

RADOPSIGOPACISSOP said:
			
		

> No harm in a supervisor wanting more compensation than a subordinate... unless they want to lower the subordinates pay in order to make that happen.
> 
> Nothing wrong with asking for more, it's when you ask that others get less it's disgraceful.



I never said that people should be paid more, I suggested that our system of spec pay be revised along the lines that ER Campbell suggested, that at the completion of a course the member is paid a bonus and then carries on at the appropriate pay scale for their rank. I fail to see the benefit to the CAF of paying an AVN/AVS/NCIOP/NECOP LS/Cpl more than a Sgt/PO2 for having completed a course years ago and which may not apply to their current job.  Why should an AVN Cpl make more in a recruiting position than an infantry Cpl? 

I get that a change in the system would impact many people, but it's no less impact than a PLD change would have. Why should select trades have immunity to the fiscal challenges the CAF is facing?


----------



## chrisf

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> I'm a reservist, former Reg Force.
> 
> My reservist don't complain about pay or benefits. They do this because they love doing it.



Great, you must be tied up with an outstanding reserve unit, while almost every other reservist in the country is a poor student doing it to pay for school...

We've hit a wall locally with recruiting because most of our potential recruits can make almost as much or more at traditionally minimum wage jobs due to labour shortages, and retaining troops has become difficult due to budgetary reductions meaning we can't offer them nearly as much work as before, so they get second part time jobs, an those second part time jobs become priorities when we can't offer them a stable schedule to plan around.

Myself, I make an excellent living civi side and have absolutely no financial need to keeping working as a reservist, but don't kid yourself into thinking the vast majority are doing it for anything other than financial reasons... You've got to make a living and put food onto your table.


----------



## Biggoals2bdone

Dimsum said:
			
		

> Exactly.
> 
> Not to sound arrogant/naive, but listening to some of my non-military friends talk about their jobs makes me very, very glad of my career choice, even with the moving around and such.  Like MARS, I've also travelled the world in some awesome (and some not-so-awesome) spots, worked with amazing folks and had more than a few "once in a lifetime" experiences.  Yes, there is quite a bit of time away from home but I'm also friends with airline pilots and FIFO mining geologists who spend as much or more away from home, and I usually beat them in the "so what did you do today?" story competition.
> 
> Another big difference I notice between the military and the private sector is, as ERC has alluded to, the camaraderie and networking opportunities.  Most of my non-military friends go to after-work drinks and such, but aside from that they seem to be happy to get away from work people ASAP after hours.
> 
> With the amount of education opportunities in the CF (ASC, sponsored post-grad, etc.) there really shouldn't be an excuse to stay in a job rut.  If free education isn't your thing, there's always OT/CT.



I guess there's a huge difference in the whole camaraderie aspect depending on which trade you are in, my trade is known for people f@cking each other over to get ahead, other than maybe 2-3 times in the last 4yrs i've never hung out with coworkers or other members of my trade outside of work. Most of my buddies are at CANSOF or 3RCR.  I personally don't see all the networking opportunities you speak of, most of the people I know when the work day is over, its get the hell out of here and i'm not talking to anyone from work until tomorow morning.  I am at the point where I do truly not enjoy my job and that's why i'm changing things, but the picture you paint about all this camaraderie and cool stuff happening at work...has more or less NOT been my experience (more than 1 trade also) in my 9yrs in.  The only time i've ever really felt that was when I have been on course and you are in essence forced to be and live with these people, I do hope that picture changes.

In regards to pay, I understand what is being said about the cbt arms trades, that because they are doing dangerous stuff they should get paid more, but you also have to factor in training cost, how much does it cost to train an infantryman up to a deployable level vs an AVN or AVS tech.  I am not trying to be rude but saying my job is more dangerous than yours ergo I should get paid more even though all I needed for my job was a grade 10, whereas you had to finish HS and than do post-secondary, and all these specialty courses, is really dumbing things down in your favour.  There are many factors in deciding pay levels; education, training time, retention issues, danger, comparative civilian pay, rarity of skills/knowledge, etc...


----------



## George Wallace

MrBlue said:
			
		

> I guess there's a huge difference in the whole camaraderie aspect depending on which trade you are in, my trade is known for people f@cking each other over to get ahead, other than maybe 2-3 times in the last 4yrs i've never hung out with coworkers or other members of my trade outside of work. Most of my buddies are at CANSOF or 3RCR.  I personally don't see all the networking opportunities you speak of, most of the people I know when the work day is over, its get the hell out of here and i'm not talking to anyone from work until tomorow morning.  I am at the point where I do truly not enjoy my job and that's why i'm changing things, but the picture you paint about all this camaraderie and cool stuff happening at work...has more or less NOT been my experience (more than 1 trade also) in my 9yrs in.  The only time i've ever really felt that was when I have been on course and you are in essence forced to be and live with these people, I do hope that picture changes.



We have a whole topic dedicated to camaraderie.  



			
				MrBlue said:
			
		

> In regards to pay, I understand what is being said about the cbt arms trades, that because they are doing dangerous stuff they should get paid more, but you also have to factor in training cost, how much does it cost to train an infantryman up to a deployable level vs an AVN or AVS tech.  I am not trying to be rude but saying my job is more dangerous than yours ergo I should get paid more even though all I needed for my job was a grade 10, whereas you had to finish HS and than do post-secondary, and all these specialty courses, is really dumbing things down in your favour.  There are many factors in deciding pay levels; education, training time, retention issues, danger, comparative civilian pay, rarity of skills/knowledge, etc...



Let's see; you are getting paid more to be in a Trade that prepares you for a better paying job on civilian street, so you have no real commitment to stay in the CAF other than feathering your bank account for the day you eventually jump ship.  Meanwhile, your friends in the Infantry are putting themselves into harms way and don't get any compensation for doing what the CAF is all about.  Seems fair, right?  It seems to me to be counter productive to be paying people more so that they can leave, than paying people more for staying and doing the "dangerous" work that the military is designed to do.  

ERC has made a comment that Spec Pay should be revamped to a one time only lump sum bonus paid on gaining a qualification.   An even more drastic change, and one that I am sure some 'Think Tank' and politicians may come to accept in the future, would be the replacement of all Spec Trades with civilian contractors.  Unfortunately, the newer members of the CAF, who have been brought up having developed a 'sense of entitlement' feel that these options would be totally unacceptable.  They go so far as to insult those who have gone before them and suffered through even greater hardships, in their constant whining that theirs is such a outrageous infringement on their "Rights".  Even when they have the hard facts put in front of them, they go into a state of denial and continue to whine.

What kind of cheese should we serve up to these folk?


----------



## Fishbone Jones

It would appear, the ones here anyway, that want spec pay, or more of it, seem to have one common premise.

That being, they want to be compensated based on what they do, what their training is and how much better their civie counterparts are doing.

Basically, saying they want more or else and blackmailing the CF to stay in that function, under threat of taking their free education and skills to the other side of the fence.

They are not here because it's a calling. They are not here out of patriotism. They are not here for any ideology, other than the almighty dollar.

Well, you have a choice. Nobody can make you do what you don't want to. There are always alternatives. Instead of bitching for more money, get out, hit the bricks and go get it.

That's all I have been able to glean and it might not be right. However, it's hard to hear because the whine is akin to being locked in a test cell with a jet engine run up.


----------



## RADOPSIGOPACCISOP

George Wallace said:
			
		

> We have a whole topic dedicated to camaraderie.
> 
> Let's see; you are getting paid more to be in a Trade that prepares you for a better paying job on civilian street, so you have no real commitment to stay in the CAF other than feathering your bank account for the day you eventually jump ship.  Meanwhile, your friends in the Infantry are putting themselves into harms way and don't get any compensation for doing what the CAF is all about.  Seems fair, right?  It seems to me to be counter productive to be paying people more so that they can leave, than paying people more for staying and doing the "dangerous" work that the military is designed to do.
> 
> ERC has made a comment that Spec Pay should be revamped to a one time only lump sum bonus paid on gaining a qualification.   An even more drastic change, and one that I am sure some 'Think Tank' and politicians may come to accept in the future, would be the replacement of all Spec Trades with civilian contractors.  Unfortunately, the newer members of the CAF, who have been brought up having developed a 'sense of entitlement' feel that these options would be totally unacceptable.  They go so far as to insult those who have gone before them and suffered through even greater hardships, in their constant whining that theirs is such a outrageous infringement on their "Rights".  Even when they have the hard facts put in front of them, they go into a state of denial and continue to whine.
> 
> What kind of cheese should we serve up to these folk?



That makes little sense. The purpose of Spec pay is to entice people to stay in the trade rather than leaving for better pay in the civilian side. Spec isn't and never was a benefit based on the physical difficulty of a job, or for people that don't have a transferable trade to civilian life. It's a retention benefit, to balance against higher pay in similar public service or civilain jobs.

Like I said, in the ACISS-IST realm, I work with dozens of Ptes and Cpls that are far more competant and knowlegable than their CS-01 and CS-02 counterparts that I worked extensively with as well. I would line a senior Cpl IST against a CS-02 any day and I win the bet 7 or 8 times out of 10. I think they should be paid just as well as any CS-01 or CS-02, but they're paid nowhere near the same, and it's laughable when you see them work side by side after hours and weekends on call when the civilian is making overtime while the Pte or Cpl is doing the work because they know how to do it. Half of the CS-02s I worked with wouldn't even be able to function on a 1st line help desk.
Replacing these guys with civilian contractors is a complete farce. While many of the contractors I worked with are very capable, they are billing between $500 and $1200 a day. Tell me where the savings are there?

I know my subordinates are worth every penny and more. If leaders in other trades think that this is unfair, I challange them to fight to raise the pay of their subordinates, because this race to the bottom bit is not benefiting anyone.


----------



## RADOPSIGOPACCISOP

recceguy said:
			
		

> It would appear, the ones here anyway, that want spec pay, or more of it, seem to have one common premise.
> 
> That being, they want to be compensated based on what they do, what their training is and how much better their civie counterparts are doing.
> 
> Basically, saying they want more or else and blackmailing the CF to stay in that function, under threat of taking their free education and skills to the other side of the fence.
> 
> They are not here because it's a calling. They are not here out of patriotism. They are not here for any ideology, other than the almighty dollar.
> 
> Well, you have a choice. Nobody can make you do what you don't want to. There are always alternatives. Instead of bitching for more money, get out, hit the bricks and go get it.
> 
> That's all I have been able to glean and it might not be right. However, it's hard to hear because the whine is akin to being locked in a test cell with a jet engine run up.



Good point. We should just turn the voluntary force into a volunteer force. Our soldiers should learn to live on their sense of pride and self-satisfaction.

Reminds me of a joke. There was a fisherman on a wharf in Halifax. He had 3 buckets, 2 with lids labeled "Jamaica" and "Maine" and the last one with no lid labeled "Canada". A man asked the fisherman why the last bucket had no lid, to which the fisherman replied "Because those are Canadian lobsters, if one starts to crawl out, the others grab a hold of him and haul him back in."

Trying to haul back on others gets no one any further ahead. I know many of us here on this forum are leaders, either MCpls, SNCOs, WOs or Officers. As leaders we ought to advocate for our soldiers, to push their interests before our own or champion their successes. We need to focus on things that benefit them. Trying to equalize everyone's balloon by deflating others is the worst sort of cynicism.


----------



## Shamrock

MrBlue said:
			
		

> In regards to pay, I understand what is being said about the cbt arms trades, that because they are doing dangerous stuff they should get paid more, but you also have to factor in training cost, how much does it cost to train an infantryman up to a deployable level vs an AVN or AVS tech.



Tankers' pay would double overnight if duration and cost of training was a factor in pay.


----------



## medicineman

RADOPSIGOPACISSOP said:
			
		

> Good point. We should just turn the voluntary force into a volunteer force. Our soldiers should learn to live on their sense of pride and self-satisfaction.
> 
> Trying to haul back on others gets no one any further ahead. I know many of us here on this forum are leaders, either MCpls, SNCOs, WOs or Officers. As leaders we ought to advocate for our soldiers, to push their interests before our own or champion their successes. We need to focus on things that benefit them. Trying to equalize everyone's balloon by deflating others is the worst sort of cynicism.



Give it a rest already - there are a pile of folks here, myself included, that had our pay frozen at whatever, with no incentive increases, for well over 5 years, some in trades with no upward mobility to compensate, and certainly nowhere to get deployed to where we'd get out salaries handed to us tax free.  We stuck it out for a couple reasons - we were professional service people and that's what professional soldiers do, they roll with punches; secondly, there was always the thought that there was someone out there that would happily take our job if we so desired, even if it meant ending up on the unemployment line...which leads to your second point.

Leadership is not solely about advocacy for your subordinates, it's also about doing the hard stuff like executing the crappy orders you're handed, with what you have.  That PER bubble "Leading Change" isn't just about you coming up with some idea, brilliant or otherwise, and pushing it forward, it is also dealing with the changes that come down from on high and leading your folks through them.  That's what professional leaders do - they throw things around in the privacy of their office, punch the wall, whine or complain upward as needed, but at the end of the day, they walk out and say "Ladies, Gents, Others, this is what is coming down the pipe, it's gonna suck, but we have to deal with it, and here's how it will happen".  If your people are having issues, you guide/direct/order as needed to see them through...if you/they find that you/they are unwilling or incapable of doing what needs to be done, then it's time to have the chat about looking for work elsewhere.  If your techs think they should be a CS instead, then they should pull pole and apply for said position.  This is exactly the advice I gave people when I was a Reg Force MCpl, Sgt, WO...and eventually had to look myself in the mirror and do the same thing.  And guess what?  I'm still having to deal with "Leading Crappy Changes" out in the real world, having to guide people through having stuff gradually taken away from them.  I felt sorry for some of my bosses back in the 90's, because I tended to act alot like how this thread has degenerated...then I got my Leaf and came to the realization that leadership can really suck - because you have to suck it up that much more to make sure the ones doing the majority of the sucking it up can depend on you for guidance...even if it isn't what they want to hear.

One of the problems with having everything is, eventually, you're going to lose some or all of it, and you have to learn cope with that.  If you as a leader don't/can't, how are you supposed to expect your subordinates to?


MM


----------



## Transporter

Transporter said:
			
		

> I think this thread was initially started more as a discussion of concern for the gradual erosion of the benefits/entitlements/remuneration that we already have, or had, versus a b**** session for wanting more... or that's how I saw it at least. Personally, I'd be happy just to have back the things that we've already lost and to not lose any more (or have any more contribution/payment increases). I'm not advocating for more, just no less.



Forget fighting over spec pay, here's what we should all be very, very concerned about. And the real disturbing thing is, as usual, we will have no say or input in the process, and will end up being handed whatever the PS unions can manage to salvage (and I don't mean that as a disparaging comment towards PS unions).

http://www.canada.com/News/canada/Government+seeks+funding+policy+pensions+with+funds/10106938/story.html 

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

*Government seeks funding policy for pensions with no funds*

By Kathryn May, Ottawa Citizen August 10, 2014   

The Conservative government is developing a funding policy for the pension plans of Canada’s public servants, military and RCMP, a move that baffles experts because the plans have no real funds and own no assets.

A funding policy typically sets the framework for how to cope with risk and manage any gains and losses by adjusting the contributions paid into pension plans.

But the policy, to be crafted by consultants, would cover years of pensionable service in accounts that are nothing more than ledger records with no real assets. Pension benefits are guaranteed by law and paid from government’s main bank account — the consolidated revenue fund.

Pension expert Malcolm Hamilton said he’s puzzled why the government is charging ahead with a funding policy for the “least funded parts” of its unfunded pension plans.

“Funding is about setting money aside to pay benefits and they don’t pay benefits from those accounts, so why do they need a funding policy?” he added.

“What, if anything, does it mean to fund a pension plan that, by the government’s own admission, has no fund in which assets are held and from which benefits are paid? Beats me. This might make sense if the government was proposing to change the way its handles the pension funds but there’s no suggestion that is the case.”

The public service pension plans are like no other. They aren’t governed by the Pension Benefits Standards Act, the assets aren’t in trust or managed by a trustee, and there is no segregated pension fund owned by the plan in which pension assets are held and invested and from which pension benefits are paid to retirees.

Treasury Board is hiring consultants to come up with a “funding policy,” as recommended by Auditor-General Michael Ferguson in his recent report on the sustainability of the three plans. Bidders have until Tuesday to submit proposals for the two-phase project, which must be completed six months.

*The policy is being specifically drafted for the public service pension plan but it must be “flexible enough” to be adapted for the other plans*. Consultants will provide a research report, followed by a second phase of weekly consultations on proposals developed for the final policy.

A funding policy sets the framework for funding a defined benefit pension plan, including factors such as workforce demographics, stability and affordability of contributions, and the handling of surpluses or deficits. It takes into account the employer’s — in this case the government’s — financial position and risk tolerance.

Without a policy, Ferguson said the Public Sector Pension Investment Board, which manages the plans’ assets, is forced to make assumptions about the government’s tolerance for risk and funding preferences when targeting rates of return in its investment strategy.

The bid documents, however, indicate the funding policy is for the pension assets and liabilities accrued before 2000, which aren’t managed by the investment board. All the pensionable service built up before 2000 is considered unfunded.

Treasury Board officials offered no explanation on why the policy is for the pre-2000 plan other than it would “provide additional guidance” for funding and financing decisions while also “strengthening” its guidance to the investment board on investment strategies and risk management.

Hamilton, the pension expert, said a funding policy also won’t resolve the major problems critics have with the way the government records the cost of the plans on the books.

The C.D. Howe Institute has long argued the plans are not fully funded and the government is grossly understating the size of Canada’s debt and deficit — and how much it pays thousands of bureaucrats, military and RCMP.

It argues the government should adopt “fair-value” accounting like the private sector, which uses current market prices to value assets and liabilities as a means to ensure plans are fully funded in the event they are liquidated or wound down.

*The timing of the proposal has also raised eyebrows, particularly among unions locked in a testy round of collective bargaining with the government over its plan to replace the existing sick leave regime with a new short-term disability plan.

Ian Lee, a professor at Carleton University’s Sprott School of Business, said the project, which includes a sweeping report on the latest trends and best practices in the pension industry, will set the stage for Conservatives to make compensation reform, including a pension overhaul, a campaign promise in the 2015 election.

“I think this report is the first step in that journey,” he said. “They will run as the party with the courage, conviction and ability to reform the largest employer in Canada by modernizing its sick leave, pay, benefits and pensions. These are fundamental changes and they will seek a mandate from Canadians to do it.“*

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++


----------



## Remius

And as mentioned before the PS Unions will be the ones fighting this on all our behalfs.


----------



## Transporter

Crantor said:
			
		

> And as mentioned before the PS Unions will be the ones fighting this on all our behalfs.



Nope. The PS unions will be fighting this with the best interests of their union membership as their only concern. They will do nothing on behalf of the Canadian Forces, because that's not their mandate, and nor would I expect them to. We will literally end up with whatever the outcome is, 100% uninfluenced by any inputs to issues of concern for us.

I know what you're saying, but there is a significant difference.


----------



## PuckChaser

Transporter said:
			
		

> Nope. The PS unions will be fighting this with the best interests of their union membership as their only concern. They will do nothing on behalf of the Canadian Forces, because that's not their mandate, and nor would I expect them to. We will literally end up with whatever the outcome is, 100% uninfluenced by any inputs to issues of concern for us.
> 
> I know what you're saying, but there is a significant difference.



Exactly. The Canadian Forces are furthest from their minds when negotiating.


----------



## Remius

Regardless.  Your fight is their fight.  It matters not.  The end result will either be that some of the proposed cuts will be dampened and any compensation in exchange for cuts will be applied to you.  You better hope they fight tooth and nail even if the CF is an afterthought to them.  If they lose, we all lose.


----------



## Halifax Tar

I used to believe that this (the CAF) was a higher calling, and pride and patriotism and all that mumbo jumbo but after 15 years I see it as something very different now.  This is a job, and one I am in too far to turn around on now.  Honestly, at the moment, its pull pole, pop smoke, collect my pension and run at the 20 year mark. 

I tell every new OS/Pte who comes into my office that the biggest thing they need to pay attention to is personal financial planning.  Put and keep yourself in a sound financial position so that you can get out when you want too and not be roped into this because your house poor or bought a big boat. 

It’s all fine and dandy to preach that we are something special, that this is a "profession of arms", but when you fill people’s heads with that crap it leads them to believe they are special and then they expect to be treated accordingly.  CAF pers should be treated differently than the PS.  We are tasked with unlimited liability and that is more than just laying your life down when asked.  It’s also postings, exercises, going to sea, family stresses, 3 star or lower hotels (had to get the RCAF in there somehow  ) ect ect ect.  

PS and the CAF are apples and oranges.  They have a very valuable asset in continuity but that does not trump the duties and obligations of a CAF member and CAF members should be treated differently and accordingly.  I do appreciate that the PS union in a de facto way works for us as well but the level of separation needs to exist or you loose the "profession of arms" aspect.  You can not compare the two. 

Sometimes I think its time we give Harper the boot and let Trudeau have a kick at it.  Cant be any worse.  At least with liberal buggery you get sweet nothings whispered in your ear.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Crantor said:
			
		

> Regardless.  Your fight is their fight.  It matters not.  The end result will either be that some of the proposed cuts will be dampened and any compensation in exchange for cuts will be applied to you.  You better hope they fight tooth and nail even if the CF is an afterthought to them.  If they lose, we all lose.



Crantor,

That's a realist view, it doesn't belong here.  People are only worried about getting more spec pay. Things will sort themselves out when that little bit from heaven anoints all those super duper whiz kids. Of course, by then they'll probably want more because some kid with a Heathkit just made the papers with a million dollar grant.   8)


----------



## George Wallace

Transporter said:
			
		

> Ian Lee, a professor at Carleton University’s Sprott School of Business, s



Ian Lee is a professor and former Bureaucrat who once headed Canada Post.  It was way back in the Eighties when Canada Post decided to centralize mail sorting in many urban centers, closing down smaller sorting plants.  Where a letter was once mailed in Fredericton, sorted in Fredericton, and then delivered in Oromocto a couple days later; it was now mailed in Fredericton, trucked to St John for sorting and then trucked back to Oromocto for deliver seven or more days later.  Then came the Super Boxes.  Now Ottawa mail will be sent to Montreal for sorting.  Brilliant ideas from such brilliant men as Ian Lee have led to the degradation of Canada Posts service and the loss of customers witnessed today.  I would take anything from this type of 'expert' with a deep fear of the worse case scenario emerging.


----------



## Rifleman62

Off topic, but just as stupid is VAC couriering all Western Canada mail to Kirkland Lake, ON to be stamped and mailed. Don't know about Eastern Canada.


----------



## Transporter

Crantor said:
			
		

> Regardless.  Your fight is their fight.  It matters not.  The end result will either be that some of the proposed cuts will be dampened and any compensation in exchange for cuts will be applied to you.  You better hope they fight tooth and nail even if the CF is an afterthought to them.  If they lose, we all lose.



Nope, wrong again. Sometimes they can win, or achieve a draw, and we still lose. For example, here's a cut and paste from the PSAC webpage explaining the loss of severance pay to its members:

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
*Q. What did we get in exchange for severance?*

A. The bargaining teams fought hard to ensure that the trade-off for severance was fair. The increased wages will accumulate as pensionable earnings and employees will enjoy the benefits of that when they retire.

These wage increases benefit everyone equally and because salaries are compounded over time, the increase in wages will have an upward effect on pensions and overtime.The Union also achieved some concrete victories on longstanding demands, including better protections for term employees , increased bereavement leave, and more flexibility to access family-related responsibility leave. Other achievements include an improvement in Travel Status Leave, a 1.5% annual allowance for all EG members, and improved compensation  for certain classifications where there are retention and recruitment issues.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Do you see much in there that benefits CF members - other than pay increases we almost certainly would have gotten anyway - for the loss of the severance pay?


----------



## Transporter

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Ian Lee is a professor and former Bureaucrat who once headed Canada Post.  It was way back in the Eighties when Canada Post decided to centralize mail sorting in many urban centers, closing down smaller sorting plants.  Where a letter was once mailed in Fredericton, sorted in Fredericton, and then delivered in Oromocto a couple days later; it was now mailed in Fredericton, trucked to St John for sorting and then trucked back to Oromocto for deliver seven or more days later.  Then came the Super Boxes.  Now Ottawa mail will be sent to Montreal for sorting.  Brilliant ideas from such brilliant men as Ian Lee have led to the degradation of Canada Posts service and the loss of customers witnessed today.  I would take anything from this type of 'expert' with a deep fear of the worse case scenario emerging.



We'll just have to wait and see I guess. Honestly, I don't think we're done with the PS collective bargaining fratricide yet. But I guess with military compensation being not much more than an afterthought, there's not a whole lot, if anything, that anyone can do about it.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Transporter said:
			
		

> We'll just have to wait and see I guess. Honestly, I don't think we're done with the PS collective bargaining fratricide yet. But I guess with military compensation being not much more than an afterthought, there's not a whole lot, if anything, that anyone can do about it.



Yup. It's out of your control and there is nothing to be done about it. What comes, comes. There's no sense even thinking about it, let alone have it bother you.

Most have other things, that they can control, to keep them busy.


----------



## Transporter

recceguy said:
			
		

> Yup. It's out of your control and there is nothing to be done about it. What comes, comes. There's no sense even thinking about it, let alone have it bother you.
> 
> Most have other things, that they can control, to keep them busy.



Wow. Do you want me to go to my room for a time out too?


----------



## Fishbone Jones

What?? 

I was agreeing with you. 8)

Stand on a chair next time you read one of my posts ;D


----------



## Transporter

recceguy said:
			
		

> What??
> 
> I was agreeing with you. 8)
> 
> Stand on a chair next time you read one of my posts ;D



My bad... I take it back


----------



## Fishbone Jones

No sweat. 8)


----------



## Remius

Transporter said:
			
		

> Nope, wrong again. Sometimes they can win, or achieve a draw, and we still lose. For example, here's a cut and paste from the PSAC webpage explaining the loss of severance pay to its members:
> 
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> *Q. What did we get in exchange for severance?*
> 
> A. The bargaining teams fought hard to ensure that the trade-off for severance was fair. The increased wages will accumulate as pensionable earnings and employees will enjoy the benefits of that when they retire.
> 
> These wage increases benefit everyone equally and because salaries are compounded over time, the increase in wages will have an upward effect on pensions and overtime.The Union also achieved some concrete victories on longstanding demands, including better protections for term employees , increased bereavement leave, and more flexibility to access family-related responsibility leave. Other achievements include an improvement in Travel Status Leave, a 1.5% annual allowance for all EG members, and improved compensation  for certain classifications where there are retention and recruitment issues.
> 
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> 
> Do you see much in there that benefits CF members - other than pay increases we almost certainly would have gotten anyway - for the loss of the severance pay?



The increase was above the annual increase and many cf members received severances they never would have been entitled to.  Not saying it was awesome, but the government was hell bent on getting rid of it one way or the other.  For some it was good others not so much. Better that than nothing.  This government has its agenda and wants to modernize the public sector and it's benefits.  Benefits that non public sector employees see as extravagant. They care if you wear a uniform or not, they see it all as the same.

Next election you can make yourself heard and vote for the guy you think will support your benefits.


----------



## Navy_Pete

recceguy said:
			
		

> It would appear, the ones here anyway, that want spec pay, or more of it, seem to have one common premise.
> 
> That being, they want to be compensated based on what they do, what their training is and how much better their civie counterparts are doing.
> 
> Basically, saying they want more or else and blackmailing the CF to stay in that function, under threat of taking their free education and skills to the other side of the fence.
> 
> They are not here because it's a calling. They are not here out of patriotism. They are not here for any ideology, other than the almighty dollar.
> 
> Well, you have a choice. Nobody can make you do what you don't want to. There are always alternatives. Instead of bitching for more money, get out, hit the bricks and go get it.
> 
> That's all I have been able to glean and it might not be right. However, it's hard to hear because the whine is akin to being locked in a test cell with a jet engine run up.



I don't think it's unreasonable to question your pay scales when CAF pay doesn't compare to DND pay for doing the exact same job.  Patriotism is great, but doesn't pay the bills.  Also, loyalty is a two way street; when the government of the day shows no regard for using up and disposing of my friends, why shouldn't I be looking at other options?  The only thing between having a CAF pension and it being gone is the ruling party rubber stamping legislation.  The erosion on that has already started, and I suspect it will continue to happen one small reduction at a time until it's meaningless.  In general retiring is a baby boomer fantasy being paid for by the current and future generations, so the idea of relying on a pension being there some years down the road is a poor one, at best.

For most people in the CAF I think the whole idea of 'serving the greater good' is a lot more conceptual then concrete, so when you are crippled by bureaucracy and redundant processes you tend to have very little job satisfaction and can't see how you are making any difference.  When the senior leadership seems to be more concerned with covering their asses, shiny buttons and 'key performance indicators' then being an effective military, that's when you start comparing your apples to the other guys oranges.

Boomers love to rag on the current generations about being 'self entitled' while their generation managed to take the planet to the brink of a nuclear winter, created a society of mass consumerism and widespread environmental disasters.  If the current generations are looking out for themselves, that may be because the ones that came before us have clearly demonstrated they won't do it for us.  I think there is actually a very large number of very idealistic young people; it's just not _blind_ idealism.

Personally, my big disatisfier with my job right now isn't pay, or benefits; it's that I go to work, seem to do a lot of good quality stuff within the system, but never get to do anything that leaves the world a better place then when I started in the morning.  So if I need to look outside of work to find something where I can actually make a positive difference, why would anyone possibly think saying 'it's a calling etc etc etc' would have any affect?  Maybe the whole thing is being amplified by the fact that the Navy is close to broken right now, but I for one am tired of out of touch fossils telling me to 'suck it up or get out'; which is what people are doing in droves, and it's not the bottom third jumping ship, so best of luck.

/rant


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Crantor said:
			
		

> Next election you can make yourself heard and vote for the guy you *think* will support your benefits.



None of them will, of course.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Pete, don't take things so personal.

Nothing is going to get fixed anytime soon. Some people are going to have to make a choice.

Is it about what you do, or is it about money.

Different strokes for different folks is all.


----------



## Brasidas

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Would it not make more sense to *remove* many, perhaps even most trades from the _spec_ list and then apply _spec_ pay only to that small fraction of CF trades that are in the most intense demand in the private sector?
> 
> I know it's heresy (and, _waaaaay_ back, a half century ago I was a Group 3A tradesman when that level of trade's pay meant that a junior Gp3A corporal earned more than a middling senior Gp 3 sergeant) but shouldn't we aim to have no _spec_ pay at all (maybe make a one time (taxable) payment on passing Gp 3 and Gp 4 course for selected trades) and pay everyone for a *mix* of technical skill, physical demands and risk? Why is an electronics technician _worth_ (paid) more than an infantryman? I know the training is long and academically difficult, but, generally, the working conditions are a lot better ... and safer! (Once again, I speak from (very dated) experience, but I was both a Leading Infantryman and a Radio Mechanic ... I got paid a helluva lot more for being the latter, I'm not sure I _deserved_ the extra pay based on just the technical/academic skills and knowledge.)





			
				recceguy said:
			
		

> It would appear, the ones here anyway, that want spec pay, or more of it, seem to have one common premise.
> 
> That being, they want to be compensated based on what they do, what their training is and how much better their civie counterparts are doing.
> 
> Basically, saying they want more or else and blackmailing the CF to stay in that function, under threat of taking their free education and skills to the other side of the fence.
> 
> They are not here because it's a calling. They are not here out of patriotism. They are not here for any ideology, other than the almighty dollar.
> 
> Well, you have a choice. Nobody can make you do what you don't want to. There are always alternatives. Instead of bitching for more money, get out, hit the bricks and go get it.
> 
> That's all I have been able to glean and it might not be right. However, it's hard to hear because the whine is akin to being locked in a test cell with a jet engine run up.



I'm saying this as a guy who does not get spec pay.

Spec pay is supposed to encourage retention among troops who are trained in a specialty that they can easily walk in to a civilian workplace and receive an offer for a comparable position at more compensation than their trade in the military.

Telling them that they're not worth their spec pay, taking it away, and telling them to release if they're not happy about it means that there will be more of a drain on those trades - after they release, members of that trade will spend proportionally more time in the training system for less time being effective at their units.

Infantry and armour aren't in the same situation. Yes, there's been attrition in Edmonton with folks heading to Fort Mac for more cash, but regardless of the cost or duration of their courses, the military isn't effectively training them to take a civilian equivalent of their position.

The army sigs trades messed with with spec pay, promising to extend it to everyone. Instead, they effectively took it away from LCIS, with eternally-deferred "its still under review". There's more complications, with amalgamations and sub-occs and whatnot, but its led to plenty of releases and OT's to ATIS. The result is low morale, low trust, and fewer effective troops to perform the role.

Could a review of who gets spec pay be useful? Maybe, but it could be risky. A wholesale re-organization, stripping it and remaking it as an effective allowance ala special operations allowance for tough trades? I don't think so. Mr Campbell's suggestion sounds interesting, but it effectively trades retention of the trades that spec pay is designed to keep to retain combat arms and keep them from OTing. 

With the course-completing bonus, everything's up front and the bonus at the end of the next course is the only carrot I'm seeing. A spec 1 warrant gets a bigger pension with the existing system, which encourages retention a lot more than a guy at the crossroads sticking it out to quit after their 6A's.


----------



## RADOPSIGOPACCISOP

The current government has made it exceedingly clear that the CAF is just a job. It's not special, there's no "social contract". They don't take care of their soldiers as they have done in the past. 

I tell my subordinates not to take risks, not to rush things, not to try and lift anything over and above what the standards say. If they get injured the feds give them $10,000 lump sum and ask them to shut the door on the way out. It's awful.

The idea that people think this mentality isn't sinking in for the CAF is foolish. Many people are seeing it just as a job now, because their government tells them it is.

And thinking that the Public Service will fight our fight for us isn't neccessarily true. Remember the PS doesn't have the same benefits we do. They can and do regularly negociate for based on leave, sick leave, family leave, my wife is PS and her friend is highly involved with the union. The government might take wage concessions for leave concessions because the leave only benefits the PS and the wage concessions hit everyone CAF and RCMP. Throwing our lot in with them can work, unless they negociate based on benefits that don't apply to us.

Finally the piece about leading change. It's true, it is our responsiblilty to lead our soldiers through change, even bad change. That doesn't absolve us of the responsibilty to advocate for them and to push back on things when they're not fairly treated. Many things have changed in the CAF that isn't reflected in the slowly changing beauocracy. The quality of soldier I see joining today are better than what I seen when I joined. They're smarter, better educated (half of the guys I have coming have IT diplomas and quality real world experience), and more driven. I see a higher quality of work being done. They're joining for the adventure, and for the solid job security and good benefits for their families. If we want to keep seeing these kinds of recruits, we damn well better not start watering down those benefits. 

Just because half of the people here suffered through the dark days of the mid 90s doesn't mean we ought to cheer the same thing happening to the people we are responsible for.


----------



## Remius

RADOPSIGOPACISSOP said:
			
		

> Finally the piece about leading change. It's true, it is our responsiblilty to lead our soldiers through change, even bad change. That doesn't absolve us of the responsibilty to advocate for them and to push back on things when they're not fairly treated. Many things have changed in the CAF that isn't reflected in the slowly changing beauocracy. The quality of soldier I see joining today are better than what I seen when I joined. They're smarter, better educated (half of the guys I have coming have IT diplomas and quality real world experience), and more driven. I see a higher quality of work being done. They're joining for the adventure, and for the solid job security and good benefits for their families. If we want to keep seeing these kinds of recruits, we damn well better not start watering down those benefits.
> 
> Just because half of the people here suffered through the dark days of the mid 90s doesn't mean we ought to cheer the same thing happening to the people we are responsible for.



Well I will agree that today's soldier is smarter and better educated.  I've seen it myself in the training system and during my time at recruiting.  But i also saw something else.  I saw the smarter, better education but I also saw the "me" generation.  The sense of entitlement without earning their wings.  Yes they have education and training but they rarely had time or experience.  They want to start at the top without working to get there.  They have the degree so they should be Majors when they start according to them.  I've seen the guy who has a qualification X and thinks that trumps the fact that he needs to be fit.  I've seen the IT guy layed off from Nortel who would rather be unemployed than accept secure emplyment at half the salary.   I've seen this newer type of soldier that does in fact think this is just a job but it started well before any benefits were cut (in fact they were increasing).  I've seen these bright, intelligent people who want to be coddled and given everythjing but don't want to put the effort into it.  And it isn't just the CF.  I've seen it civy side where young educated people with talent burn through their leave, sick leave and take LWOP before half the year is over lament their work situation and how awesome they think they are and underused.

This generation and even the last one has never really lived through any "real" hardship.  There are bumps in the road and individuals have their own hardships to deal with yes.  But as a whole Canada is a soft place to live and has been since the end of WW2.  You say they treat it like just a job because the government tells them it is, I say it's their attitude to begin with and to an extent their leadership that encourages that.   It wasn't the government that told me it was a calling or a job it was my section commander, platoon warrant and officers that showed it to me with their actions and their deeds, not what the liberals were doing 20 years ago and certainly not what the conservayives are doing now.

No one here is cheering the loss of benefits or the increase in cuts.  We keep saying that we are not the PS, that we are unique, that we are special.  What makes us special is how we handle the hard times.  Half of the people here that went through the dark days of the mid 90's as you put it, did that back then and will likely do it again this round.  They will handle it.  A lot didn't and they left.  And many of them came back (or tried) when times were better.  Says a lot about their character.  To each their own I guess but sometimes we need to look at ourselves first before we blame the world for our lot in life.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

:goodpost:


----------



## TCM621

First, re: Spec pay. In many cases, even with spec pay, people in specialist trades are still making significantly less then they could in the private sector. That extra pay is a reward for not running to the higher paying jobs, not an attempt at parity.

 Second, CF members typically perform for one, or more, of three reasons: Pay, Promotion or Pride. I call it the 3P model of performance. Pride can carry you a long way but it is very hard to eat. We also don't have a great system to show our pride in our soldiers. Giving someone a medal takes an act of God and even then it may not get through the bureaucracy.
In many trades, promotions are hard to come by especially due to downsizing after Afghanistan.
Pay was crap, then is was good but now our pay isn't keeping up with inflation and pld is frozen cause more problems in certain areas like esquimalt and cold lake (to name only 2).

So right now, we have a situation where we tend to get and retain 2 types of people. We get the ones that will stay no matter how bad it gets because we love it and the ones who stay because they can't do anything else. Unfortunately, we can't survive with only the former and we can't excel relying on the latter. We need the guys and gals in the middle. The ones who have other options and will do the military thing as long as it isn't too much of a cost to their families. The lifers may be the backbone, but these people are the arms, legs, spleens, etc. that we need in order to be effective. That is why the old, "if you don't like it, quit" attitude can not be allowed to hold sway. We don't need to bow to their every desire but we do need to be cognizant of their needs. The plain fact is the military needs them more than they need the military.

I am a lifer. I will probably never quit. I have accepted that I will never be paid as much as people in the private sector. However, we can't stop fighting, within the bounds of the CSD, for better conditions. Just like we need good equipment, we need good conditions to recruit and keep good soldiers.


----------



## RADOPSIGOPACCISOP

Crantor said:
			
		

> Well I will agree that today's soldier is smarter and better educated.  I've seen it myself in the training system and during my time at recruiting.  But i also saw something else.  I saw the smarter, better education but I also saw the "me" generation.  The sense of entitlement without earning their wings.  Yes they have education and training but they rarely had time or experience.  They want to start at the top without working to get there.  They have the degree so they should be Majors when they start according to them.  I've seen the guy who has a qualification X and thinks that trumps the fact that he needs to be fit.  I've seen the IT guy layed off from Nortel who would rather be unemployed than accept secure emplyment at half the salary.   I've seen this newer type of soldier that does in fact think this is just a job but it started well before any benefits were cut (in fact they were increasing).  I've seen these bright, intelligent people who want to be coddled and given everythjing but don't want to put the effort into it.  And it isn't just the CF.  I've seen it civy side where young educated people with talent burn through their leave, sick leave and take LWOP before half the year is over lament their work situation and how awesome they think they are and underused.
> 
> This generation and even the last one has never really lived through any "real" hardship.  There are bumps in the road and individuals have their own hardships to deal with yes.  But as a whole Canada is a soft place to live and has been since the end of WW2.  You say they treat it like just a job because the government tells them it is, I say it's their attitude to begin with and to an extent their leadership that encourages that.   It wasn't the government that told me it was a calling or a job it was my section commander, platoon warrant and officers that showed it to me with their actions and their deeds, not what the liberals were doing 20 years ago and certainly not what the conservayives are doing now.
> 
> No one here is cheering the loss of benefits or the increase in cuts.  We keep saying that we are not the PS, that we are unique, that we are special.  What makes us special is how we handle the hard times.  Half of the people here that went through the dark days of the mid 90's as you put it, did that back then and will likely do it again this round.  They will handle it.  A lot didn't and they left.  And many of them came back (or tried) when times were better.  Says a lot about their character.  To each their own I guess but sometimes we need to look at ourselves first before we blame the world for our lot in life.



Ok, I've eventually got to call people on this. I don't think anyone on this board faught in world war 2, so we can stop using that as an arguement, I'd argue the soldiers we have now are at least as good and most likely as what we had 10 or 15+ years ago. Maybe the poor attitude some people have towards their younger soldiers is part of the reason why they don't seem to get hard work out of them. The subordinates I have need to be told when to down tools. They are always trying to improve things and come up with new ways of making things better. 10 year ago the people I worked with were satisified with accomplishing their tasks, the soldiers I have now always go that extra step and deliver more than expected.

The attitude of the leader towards their subordinates has an astounding effect and I'm not suprised with the different outcomes some forum members see reflected in their leadership and attitude.


----------



## Remius

RADOPSIGOPACISSOP said:
			
		

> Ok, I've eventually got to call people on this. I don't think anyone on this board faught in world war 2, so we can stop using that as an arguement, I'd argue the soldiers we have now are at least as good and most likely as what we had 10 or 15+ years ago. Maybe the poor attitude some people have towards their younger soldiers is part of the reason why they don't seem to get hard work out of them. The subordinates I have need to be told when to down tools. They are always trying to improve things and come up with new ways of making things better. 10 year ago the people I worked with were satisified with accomplishing their tasks, the soldiers I have now always go that extra step and deliver more than expected.
> 
> The attitude of the leader towards their subordinates has an astounding effect and I'm not suprised with the different outcomes some forum members see reflected in their leadership and attitude.



You totally missed the point of what I was arguing...Recceguy you were right


----------



## Bird_Gunner45

RADOPSIGOPACISSOP said:
			
		

> Ok, I've eventually got to call people on this. I don't think anyone on this board faught in world war 2, so we can stop using that as an arguement, I'd argue the soldiers we have now are at least as good and most likely as what we had 10 or 15+ years ago. Maybe the poor attitude some people have towards their younger soldiers is part of the reason why they don't seem to get hard work out of them. The subordinates I have need to be told when to down tools. They are always trying to improve things and come up with new ways of making things better. 10 year ago the people I worked with were satisified with accomplishing their tasks, the soldiers I have now always go that extra step and deliver more than expected.
> 
> The attitude of the leader towards their subordinates has an astounding effect and I'm not suprised with the different outcomes some forum members see reflected in their leadership and attitude.



Earlier you stated, and I quote, "I tell my subordinates not to take risks, not to rush things, not to try and lift anything over and above what the standards say. If they get injured the feds give them $10,000 lump sum and ask them to shut the door on the way out. It's awful." Based on what you've said above about your subordinates being motivated it would seem that you are actually exhibiting extremely toxic leadership and attempting to drag your soldiers down. I dont know your situation, and frankly dont care as you come off as being somewhat entitled, but your own descriptions indicate my statements above.


----------



## RADOPSIGOPACCISOP

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> Earlier you stated, and I quote, "I tell my subordinates not to take risks, not to rush things, not to try and lift anything over and above what the standards say. If they get injured the feds give them $10,000 lump sum and ask them to shut the door on the way out. It's awful." Based on what you've said above about your subordinates being motivated it would seem that you are actually exhibiting extremely toxic leadership and attempting to drag your soldiers down. I dont know your situation, and frankly dont care as you come off as being somewhat entitled, but your own descriptions indicate my statements above.



There's a difference between safety and job performance. I remember taking safety risks when I was a new apprentice, but if I was injured there was a life long support system there for me. Soldiers now don't have that safety net. They are given a lump sum and pushed out the door. 

Now motivating them to take non-safety risks and to lead change is entirely different. I think you've missed that entirely.


----------



## Bird_Gunner45

RADOPSIGOPACISSOP said:
			
		

> There's a difference between safety and job performance. I remember taking safety risks when I was a new apprentice, but if I was injured there was a life long support system there for me. Soldiers now don't have that safety net. They are given a lump sum and pushed out the door.
> 
> Now motivating them to take non-safety risks and to lead change is entirely different. I think you've missed that entirely.



I dont think I missed that as it was never discussed, or alluded to, or mentioned. How has the safety net changed in terms of injury? Personnel are released if they can no longer serve the Canadian Forces, same as ANY other job on civie street, except that they get more medical and release attention than most non-unionized pers. Are you suggesting that if someone is hurt that they should be compensated more than any other person in Canada??

The CAF, outside of specific areas, is still a top notch employer that offers good to excellent pay, medical, dental, and pension plans. Sure, if you live in Cold Lake or spots like that the pay is debatable, but I'm sure when they established the bases there the oil boom wasn't anticipated. 

Could PLD be better? sure could. Could PMQs be cheaper? sure could. However, I guarantee you that you would never have this debate in the civilian world, as subsidized housing and PLD wouldn't be fathomed (for the most part, certainly the odd exception exists). Toss in the massive amount of leave, short days, christmas dinners/mess events people are given time off for, buckshee days, free afternoons, etc and there's no competition.


----------



## Halifax Tar

> I dont think I missed that as it was never discussed, or alluded to, or mentioned. How has the safety net changed in terms of injury? Personnel are released if they can no longer serve the Canadian Forces, same as ANY other job on civie street, except that they get more medical and release attention than most non-unionized pers. Are you suggesting that if someone is hurt that they should be compensated more than any other person in Canada??



If you think the current policies and benefits are sufficient for injured members I think you may have your proverbial head in the sand.  No insult meant but people who risk their lives for the country, and are injured while doing so deserve more than a kick in the *** out the door and a one time cheque.  Yes they should be compensated more than any other person in Canada. 



> The CAF, outside of specific areas, is still a top notch employer that offers good to excellent pay, medical, dental, and pension plans. Sure, if you live in Cold Lake or spots like that the pay is debatable, but I'm sure when they established the bases there the oil boom wasn't anticipated.



I wont debate this because so long as your remain fit and uninjured then you are correct the benefits are sufficient and better than most employer competition.  With pay for certain areas being the only debatable point. 



> Toss in the massive amount of leave, short days, christmas dinners/mess events people are given time off for, buckshee days, free afternoons, etc and there's no competition.



Some of what you mention here is considered parades and mandatory functions.  Thus they are duty realted and are actually work.

Short leave is given as compensatory for duties that have taken you away from home for extended periods of time.  Find me a civilian organization that demands of its members what the CAF demands then tell me short leave should be in this equation.


----------



## vonGarvin

We have an entirely volunteer military.  If people don't like the terms of their employment, they can freely seek employment elsewhere.

I maintain that we all have many motivators for being in whichever job we currently hold.  I maintain that if monetary compensation is your *primary** motivation for serving in HM The Queen's Canadian Armed Forces, then you are in the wrong career.

Having said all of this, there is of course good reason to be upset or even damned angry about governments changing policy _after the fact_.  In the end, there is a contract, and either party may change those terms.  We as serving members are somewhat at a disadvantage (unlimited liability and all that), but in the end, there are ways to terminate one's contract.  And if one feels mistreated by the system for whatever reason, there are a number of methods to seek "justice".


*Of course it is one of many motivations for 99.99% of us; however, it ought not be your main reason; if it is, you're a mercenary, and IMHO, not of value to the CAF.

:2c:


----------



## Brasidas

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> Earlier you stated, and I quote, "I tell my subordinates not to take risks, not to rush things, not to try and lift anything over and above what the standards say. If they get injured the feds give them $10,000 lump sum and ask them to shut the door on the way out. It's awful." Based on what you've said above about your subordinates being motivated it would seem that you are actually exhibiting extremely toxic leadership and attempting to drag your soldiers down. I dont know your situation, and frankly dont care as you come off as being somewhat entitled, but your own descriptions indicate my statements above.



(Been working on this post for a while, amidst work. More posts keep coming, and I've made changes)

Two statements by him:

1) (He tells his) subordinates not to take risks, not to rush things, not to try and lift anything over and above what the standards say.

2) If (his) subordinates get injured, the feds give them (a) $10,000 lump sum and ask them to shut the door on the way out. It's aweful.

That sounds to me like a leader who knows the consequences of his troops getting hurt and who is looking out for their welfare. Not one that reverses the order of mission, men, self. From those statements I see nothing that directly implies toxic leadership.

I've seen leaders ignorantly take unnecessary risks repeatedly, risking life and limb both alongside and watching their troops follow their direction. When I've followed up to prevent repetition, my focus is on safeguarding the welfare of my people, not on the leaders who lack of situational awareness.

A good way of preventing troops from getting hurt and getting tossed out on their butts is by educating them and encouraging their own situational awareness. A private shouldn't be second-guessing a warrant's direction when it means he gets the shitty end of the stick, but when he sees the warrant giving direction that could get his buddy's back broken, he should speak out and identify what he thinks is a safety issue. The private should be educated both in what the difference is between those two situations and that he needs to speak up in the latter.

Polite phrasing or not, its not toxic for him to be told that his government may not take care of all his buddy's needs if his back does get broken either. 

A leader who's always running down the organization, his CoC, and generally de-motivates troops is toxic. I'm not seeing that here.



			
				Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> I dont think I missed that as it was never discussed, or alluded to, or mentioned. How has the safety net changed in terms of injury? Personnel are released if they can no longer serve the Canadian Forces, same as ANY other job on civie street, except that they get more medical and release attention than most non-unionized pers. Are you suggesting that if someone is hurt that they should be compensated more than any other person in Canada??



The statements that you quoted, implying toxic leadership, tied into the context of what he was saying, which is that troops who have effective leadership are motivated and have to be told when "to put down tools". They're there to accomplish the mission and it isn't all about them. As has always been the case, the leadership also needs to mentor them both to make sure they don't get hurt or that one of the subordinate leaders doesn't direct them to do something that can get them hurt.

The safety net has changed in that the lump sum system is designed to minimize liability to the government, as opposed to look out for troops' welfare.

I'll go ahead and suggest that yes, troops should be compensated at least as well as, and probably better than others. They're more likely to obey their leaders without question. The fact that they aren't means that we need to do a damned good job of making sure they know how and when to identify a safety issue.


----------



## OldSolduer

They told me I'd never get rich in the CAF and I still ain't rich.

And I'm still in the CAF - in the "hobby squad" so I guess my opinion means nada to some of you. Your loss.


----------



## jollyjacktar

General Disorder said:
			
		

> Having said all of this, there is of course good reason to be upset or even damned angry about governments changing policy _after the fact_.  In the end, there is a contract, and either party may change those terms.  We as serving members are somewhat at a disadvantage (unlimited liability and all that), but in the end, there are ways to terminate one's contract.  And if one feels mistreated by the system for whatever reason, there are a number of methods to seek "justice".


I'm not sure I know how we, the member, might be able to change "those" terms of our "contract" between the CAF and ourselves.  They, as in the system, can, have and will do so ad nauseam in perpetuity.

Termination, however, of one's contract is just that.  Termination, not change.  Change, is from my vantage point, totally one sided.  Good or bad is left up to the individual's understanding and reality of said changes foisted upon them.  And if you as the member don't agree with the changes, there's always option two in red above.


----------



## Transporter

I'd like to see a separate process for determining military compensation and benefits, beyond the current practice of simply benchmarking with the public service (though that could certainly still be a consideration, or not, in the overall process). Call it the Canadian Forces Compensation and Benefits Board... or whatever you want. 

For example, our close allies have distinct entities that look after military compensation issues:

- US: http://militarypay.defense.gov/Reports/QRMC/
- UK:  https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/armed-forces-pay-review-body
- AUS:  http://www.dfrt.gov.au/ 

By comparison, here is the CF approach (a methodolgy that goes back to the late 70's):  http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/caf-community-pay/index.page

Consider the "Military Factor" for example, which is 7.5% and has been for the past 15 years (since 1 Apr 99). Is 7.5% still appropriate/relevant? I read a StatsCan report yesterday which stated that 1 in 6 CF members report mental health or alcohol problems. There are stories every other week about the rate of PTSD and military suicides. What about all the guys who came home broken from Afg and other CF ops, lives changed forever, or the ones who paid the ultimate sacrifice? Is 7.5% really appropriate/relevant considering all of that? 7.5% equates to an additional $420/mo for a 6A Sgt, pay lvl 4, non-spec and $390/mo for a 5B Cpl, pay lvl 4, non-spec (my math). Is that "worth it"? Has anyone even reviewed that in the past 15 years? I don't know, but I think these are fair questions. And that's just but one example of the kinds of things that this board could look into, really peel the onion back and do a deep dive on this stuff, to factor in with all the other considerations of military service, and determine a fair compensation package.  And whatever that ended up being, I think it would be a far-easier pill to swallow knowing that what I end up with was based on due consideration for the specific requirements of my military service and not just what a PS union was able to negotiate, or not, in the collective bargaining process (again, not slagging the unions). Personally, I don't think that's too much to ask, but realistically, I know it'll never happen (or at least I'd be shocked if it did).

And while I'm on this topic, when was the last time there was a holistic review of CF compensation and benefits, including pay (not counting SCONDVA)? Anybody know? Is there even a process to do this on a regular basis? I tried finding some reports or something online but came up empty (but had no problems finding loads of info on how the US, UK and AUS are doing). 

Something to consider...  :2c:


----------



## stellarpanther

General Disorder said:
			
		

> We have an entirely volunteer military.  If people don't like the terms of their employment, they can freely seek employment elsewhere.



Why should someone quit their job because they don't think some of the policies are right?  I commend the young Cpl's that chose to take the government to court over certain policies.  Imagine if they just shut up.  When I joined, I was clear to the recruiter about my beliefs and didn't lie.  It took well over 6 months to get in so I had to time to have plenty of conversations and my opinions came up a lot.  If they didn't like it they shouldn't have let me in.


----------



## Remius

Transporter said:
			
		

> I'd like to see a separate process for determining military compensation and benefits, beyond the current practice of simply benchmarking with the public service (though that could certainly still be a consideration, or not, in the overall process). Call it the Canadian Forces Compensation and Benefits Board... or whatever you want.
> 
> For example, our close allies have distinct entities that look after military compensation issues:
> 
> - US: http://militarypay.defense.gov/Reports/QRMC/
> - UK:  https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/armed-forces-pay-review-body
> - AUS:  http://www.dfrt.gov.au/
> 
> By comparison, here is the CF approach (a methodolgy that goes back to the late 70's):  http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/caf-community-pay/index.page
> 
> Consider the "Military Factor" for example, which is 7.5% and has been for the past 15 years (since 1 Apr 99). Is 7.5% still appropriate/relevant? I read a StatsCan report yesterday which stated that 1 in 6 CF members report mental health or alcohol problems. There are stories every other week about the rate of PTSD and military suicides. What about all the guys who came home broken from Afg and other CF ops, lives changed forever, or the ones who paid the ultimate sacrifice? Is 7.5% really appropriate/relevant considering all of that? 7.5% equates to an additional $420/mo for a 6A Sgt, pay lvl 4, non-spec and $390/mo for a 5B Cpl, pay lvl 4, non-spec (my math). Is that "worth it"? Has anyone even reviewed that in the past 15 years? I don't know, but I think these are fair questions. And that's just but one example of the kinds of things that this board could look into, really peel the onion back and do a deep dive on this stuff, to factor in with all the other considerations of military service, and determine a fair compensation package.  And whatever that ended up being, I think it would be a far-easier pill to swallow knowing that what I end up with was based on due consideration for the specific requirements of my military service and not just what a PS union was able to negotiate, or not, in the collective bargaining process (again, not slagging the unions). Personally, I don't think that's too much to ask, but realistically, I know it'll never happen (or at least I'd be shocked if it did).
> 
> And while I'm on this topic, when was the last time there was a holistic review of CF compensation and benefits, including pay (not counting SCONDVA)? Anybody know? Is there even a process to do this on a regular basis? I tried finding some reports or something online but came up empty (but had no problems finding loads of info on how the US, UK and AUS are doing).
> 
> Something to consider...  :2c:



All good questions.  The question is would we better off with a separate entity reviewing our salary and benefits or is being linked to the ps a better option.  As far as I know we are one of the best paid forces so maybe it works?  Not sure but I found this comparison that someone made based on highest incentive at certain ranks between countries in 2010.  I'd say we are doing well enough but so many other factors come into play so take it with a grain of salt.  However we are still way ahead of our allies in that regard if you look at pay.

http://m.neogaf.com/showthread.php?t=401194


----------



## vonGarvin

stellarpanther said:
			
		

> Why should someone quit their job because they don't think some of the policies are right?


Why should a corporation, institution or other change for the one disgruntled person?  Don't like it?  Get out.  



			
				stellarpanther said:
			
		

> When I joined, I was clear to the recruiter about my beliefs and didn't lie.  It took well over 6 months to get in so I had to time to have plenty of conversations and my opinions came up a lot.  *If they didn't like it they shouldn't have let me in*.



OK, I'll bite.....what is *your* beef?  

PS: Get in line.


----------



## stealthylizard

Been following this thread, and I have to comment that it's sad to see how many have the opinion that if you don't like it, get out.

Scrap the whole pension - don't like it, get out.
Get rid of the health benefits - don't like it, get out.
Get rid of the paid vacation.  You will instead receive 4% every pay for you to save towards vacation. - don't like it get out.

I could go on, and on.

Thankfully, there are people that are opposed to the gradual diminishing of benefits and "perks" and will speak out against it, so that the future generation(s) of serving military will have some incentive to treat their service as something more than just a job.


----------



## RADOPSIGOPACCISOP

stealthylizard said:
			
		

> Been following this thread, and I have to comment that it's sad to see how many have the opinion that if you don't like it, get out.
> 
> Scrap the whole pension - don't like it, get out.
> Get rid of the health benefits - don't like it, get out.
> Get rid of the paid vacation.  You will instead receive 4% every pay for you to save towards vacation. - don't like it get out.
> 
> I could go on, and on.
> 
> Thankfully, there are people that are opposed to the gradual diminishing of benefits and "perks" and will speak out against it, so that the future generation(s) of serving military will have some incentive to treat their service as something more than just a job.









It makes no sense to me either. "We have it good, the military is a unique institution, but cheer while those benefits are cut back. Don't like it get out."

It's an ridiculous extremist proposition, that the only solution to any problem is to leave. Don't like the fact the government has been continually curtailing civil liberties? Move somewhere else.  Boss harrassing you? Quit. Kid won't stop screaming? Leave the family.


----------



## Transporter

Crantor said:
			
		

> All good questions.  The question is would we better off with a separate entity reviewing our salary and benefits or is being linked to the ps a better option.  As far as I know we are one of the best paid forces so maybe it works?  Not sure but I found this comparison that someone made based on highest incentive at certain ranks between countries in 2010.  I'd say we are doing well enough but so many other factors come into play so take it with a grain of salt.  However we are still way ahead of our allies in that regard if you look at pay.
> 
> http://m.neogaf.com/showthread.php?t=401194



I agree that we are paid pretty well, but I think that table is a little off. I had a look at pay rates for Cpl, Sgt, Capt and LCol in the CF, US, UK and AUS (pay level 1, non-spec pay). Whilst near impossible to draw a direct correlation, here is what I came up with (monthly rates, converted to CAD):

Country/Rank	Cpl	        Sgt	        Capt 	LCol
CAN	                $4,714	$5,416	$6,202	$9,719
US	                $3,789	$5,465	$7,463	$11,406
UK	                $4,147	$4,714	$5,956	$10,530
AUS	                $5,263	$5,919	$6,449	$10,859

US pay includes Basic Allowance for Housing (BAH), which is not taxed. Also, nine US states don't tax military pay and 24 others offer various tax deductions/exemptions for military pay. And for what it's worth, 13 other states (in addition to the nine) don't tax military pension income either; a military pension that US personnel don't contribute a single dime to - 100% gov funded - and which they can draw immediately after 20 years of service, calculated at 2.5% per year (versus our 2.0%) of service on the average of their best three years of pay (versus our five).

AUS pay includes an annual $12,924 service allowance (taxed) to all full-time personnel (part time get the allowance tax-free). 

Links are here:

US: http://militarypay.defense.gov/Pay/BASIC/docs/Active%20Duty%20Tables/2014BasicPayTableActiveUncapped.pdf
UK: http://www.armedforces.co.uk/armypayscales.php#.U-rYsPldVRp
AUS: http://content.defencejobs.gov.au/pdf/triservice/DFT_Document_PayRates.pdf

Slow night.


----------



## McG

Is your Sgt column for rank bearing the name or for OR-5 (US SSgt)?


----------



## RADOPSIGOPACCISOP

Transporter said:
			
		

> I agree that we are paid pretty well, but I think that table is a little off. I had a look at pay rates for Cpl, Sgt, Capt and LCol in the CF, US, UK and AUS (pay level 1, non-spec pay). Whilst near impossible to draw a direct correlation, here is what I came up with (monthly rates, converted to CAD):
> 
> Country/Rank	Cpl	        Sgt	        Capt 	LCol
> CAN	                $4,714	$5,416	$6,202	$9,719
> US	                $3,789	$5,465	$7,463	$11,406
> UK	                $4,147	$4,714	$5,956	$10,530
> AUS	                $5,263	$5,919	$6,449	$10,859
> 
> US pay includes Basic Allowance for Housing (BAH), which is not taxed. Also, nine US states don't tax military pay and 24 others offer various tax deductions/exemptions for military pay. And for what it's worth, 13 other states (in addition to the nine) don't tax military pension income either; a military pension that US personnel don't contribute a single dime to - 100% gov funded - and which they can draw immediately after 20 years of service, calculated at 2.5% per year (versus our 2.0%) of service on the average of their best three years of pay (versus our five).
> 
> AUS pay includes an annual $12,924 service allowance (taxed) to all full-time personnel (part time get the allowance tax-free).
> 
> Links are here:
> 
> US: http://militarypay.defense.gov/Pay/BASIC/docs/Active%20Duty%20Tables/2014BasicPayTableActiveUncapped.pdf
> UK: http://www.armedforces.co.uk/armypayscales.php#.U-rYsPldVRp
> AUS: http://content.defencejobs.gov.au/pdf/triservice/DFT_Document_PayRates.pdf
> 
> Slow night.



Nice! Kind of wondered about the  comparisons, quite suprised by them too. Also take into account the difference in average time to promotion. I was talking with a US Army guy who said one guy he worked with made it to Sgt in 3 or 4 years, and that it took him 8 years, which was a little longer than average. In the CF it's nearly double that.


----------



## dimsum

If we're going to compare benefits as well, the CAN leave entitlements are higher than the US and AUS.  

US may have higher number of leave days on paper, but their weekends are counted as leave and therefore are subtracted.  Also, they do not get block Xmas leave (folks I know at US units go into work between Christmas and New Years.)  

AUS have 20 days of Annual (30 if Aircrew) but that never goes up.  After a certain time (I believe it's 10 years) they get "Long Service Leave" which is a one-time, 3-month block.  

Not sure about the UK entitlements.



Edited to add:  

Also, pay-wise AUS is different in that there are 10 pay groups you can be in (dependent on trade) that can vary wildly on how much they actually make.  

http://www.defence.gov.au/dpe/pac/Pay_Current_Rates.pdf


----------



## RADOPSIGOPACCISOP

Dimsum said:
			
		

> If we're going to compare benefits as well, the CAN leave entitlements are higher than the US and AUS.
> 
> US may have higher number of leave days on paper, but their weekends are counted as leave and therefore are subtracted.  Also, they do not get block Xmas leave (folks I know at US units go into work between Christmas and New Years.)
> 
> AUS have 20 days of Annual (30 if Aircrew) but that never goes up.  After a certain time (I believe it's 10 years) they get "Long Service Leave" which is a one-time, 3-month block.
> 
> Not sure about the UK entitlements.
> 
> 
> 
> Edited to add:
> 
> Also, pay-wise AUS is different in that there are 10 pay groups you can be in (dependent on trade) that can vary wildly on how much they actually make.
> 
> http://www.defence.gov.au/dpe/pac/Pay_Current_Rates.pdf



Yes, however the tax rate for the US is lower, while at the same time they do get the universal medical care that our higher tax rate supposedly funds.


----------



## Towards_the_gap

Transporter said:
			
		

> I agree that we are paid pretty well, but I think that table is a little off. I had a look at pay rates for Cpl, Sgt, Capt and LCol in the CF, US, UK and AUS (pay level 1, non-spec pay). Whilst near impossible to draw a direct correlation, here is what I came up with (monthly rates, converted to CAD):
> 
> Country/Rank	Cpl	        Sgt	        Capt 	LCol
> CAN	                $4,714	$5,416	$6,202	$9,719
> US	                $3,789	$5,465	$7,463	$11,406
> UK	                $4,147	$4,714	$5,956	$10,530
> AUS	                $5,263	$5,919	$6,449	$10,859
> 
> US pay includes Basic Allowance for Housing (BAH), which is not taxed. Also, nine US states don't tax military pay and 24 others offer various tax deductions/exemptions for military pay. And for what it's worth, 13 other states (in addition to the nine) don't tax military pension income either; a military pension that US personnel don't contribute a single dime to - 100% gov funded - and which they can draw immediately after 20 years of service, calculated at 2.5% per year (versus our 2.0%) of service on the average of their best three years of pay (versus our five).
> 
> AUS pay includes an annual $12,924 service allowance (taxed) to all full-time personnel (part time get the allowance tax-free).
> 
> Links are here:
> 
> US: http://militarypay.defense.gov/Pay/BASIC/docs/Active%20Duty%20Tables/2014BasicPayTableActiveUncapped.pdf
> UK: http://www.armedforces.co.uk/armypayscales.php#.U-rYsPldVRp
> AUS: http://content.defencejobs.gov.au/pdf/triservice/DFT_Document_PayRates.pdf
> 
> Slow night.



The comparison is also off when you consider a UK Cpl does the work of a Canadian/US Sgt (section commander/squad leader), whilst a Canadian Cpl is literally a time served rubber stamp.


----------



## George Wallace

RADOPSIGOPACISSOP said:
			
		

> ........... Also take into account the difference in average time to promotion. I was talking with a US Army guy who said one guy he worked with made it to Sgt in 3 or 4 years, and that it took him 8 years, which was a little longer than average. In the CF it's nearly double that.



Also take into account the differences in training.  In the US, Sgt is, more or less, the working rank; while here you will find a Cpl doing the same work and more.  International comparisons are generalizations and do not accurately reflect the facts.  In all cases, each nation has different criteria in their training, duties, benefits, etc. so an accurate comparison is next to impossible.  I have met many Americans who have asked about the possibilities to transfer from the American Forces to the Canadian Armed Forces.  It is a case of "the grass appears to be greener on the other side of the fence" when it may in actual fact not be.

If you have not worked with foreign Forces, you will have not had the opportunity to compare.   Many of us who have, are for the most part glad our system is what it is.  Don't for a moment think that our system is stagnant and opposed to change.  It has changed greatly over the years, for the most part for the better.  With the exception of a few things, like Pips and Crowns, the change comes about with slow deliberation.  Bitterness and whining has never worked in promoting any of that change.


----------



## Haggis

:goodpost:

Part of our collective problem is that the more we sound and act like "public servants", the more the goverment will regard us as such, thereby eroding our "differentness" which stems from the unique demands of military service, i.e. unlimited liability.


----------



## Remius

Plenty of stuff to add to the mix as well.

The US BHA isn't factored in to your retirement pay.  I believe you need 20 years to qualify for retirement pay as well, if less than that you get nada. and you can get called back into service after retirement...

I've been on a few US bases...no thanks.  George summed it up nicely. 

MATA/PATA.  A full year off, topped up.  For every kid you have.  What's the value of that?

As for those offended by the "don't like it get out" comments some posters have made, consider why they are making them.  

Many people here are indeed complaining and are indeed sounding completely unprofessional.  We should have X because they have X is complaning.   We should have X because of Y is being more reasonable.  You have to justify why you should have X and no one else should.  Or not have to pay for X when everyone else does.  See?  When some of you are looking to the PS as a comparison and complaining about how much better they have it pay and pension wise, non-public sector types are doing the same to you and they are in fact cheering those changes.     

So far I've seen some people here slag the reserves, the public service, the government and just about anyone else they can to justify their point and point to the fact that everywhere else is so much better.  

So why are you still in the CF with all of that?  That's why people are saying why not get out.  Apparently you are all making it sound so bad when it isn't anywhere near the appocalypse it is being made out to be.  

There are so many other trades and careers and jobs in this country that are far more important than ours in the grand scheme and many many of those get nowhere near what we get.  Sometimes we overvalue ourselves more than we should and we need to be brought down a few notches.

So for those that want better pay and better benefits, how much more and how many and how would you justify all that to Canadians?

Another note on other countries, many of our allies are actually cutting troop levels in this economic climate.  What do you think a 5%-10% reduction in personel will do to us?  Paying for parking like everyone else and paying our share of our pension (when most don't even have a pension) is a small trade off when looking at it strategically and with the bigger picture in mind.


----------



## dimsum

Crantor said:
			
		

> Plenty of stuff to add to the mix as well.
> 
> The US BHA isn't factored in to your retirement pay.  I believe you need 20 years to qualify for retirement pay as well, if less than that you get nada. and you can get called back into service after retirement...
> 
> I've been on a few US bases...no thanks.  George summed it up nicely.
> 
> MATA/PATA.  A full year off, topped up.  For every kid you have.  What's the value of that?
> 
> As for those offended by the "don't like it get out" comments some posters have made, consider why they are making them.
> 
> Many people here are indeed complaining and are indeed sounding completely unprofessional.  We should have X because they have X is complaning.   We should have X because of Y is being more reasonable.  You have to justify why you should have X and no one else should.  Or not have to pay for X when everyone else does.  See?  When some of you are looking to the PS as a comparison and complaining about how much better they have it pay and pension wise, non-public sector types are doing the same to you and they are in fact cheering those changes.
> 
> So far I've seen some people here slag the reserves, the public service, the government and just about anyone else they can to justify their point and point to the fact that everywhere else is so much better.
> 
> So why are you still in the CF with all of that?  That's why people are saying why not get out.  Apparently you are all making it sound so bad when it isn't anywhere near the appocalypse it is being made out to be.
> 
> There are so many other trades and careers and jobs in this country that are far more important than ours in the grand scheme and many many of those get nowhere near what we get.  Sometimes we overvalue ourselves more than we should and we need to be brought down a few notches.
> 
> So for those that want better pay and better benefits, how much more and how many and how would you justify all that to Canadians?
> 
> Another note on other countries, many of our allies are actually cutting troop levels in this economic climate.  What do you think a 5%-10% reduction in personel will do to us?  Paying for parking like everyone else and paying our share of our pension (when most don't even have a pension) is a small trade off when looking at it strategically and with the bigger picture in mind.



 :goodpost:

The US and UK are actually handing out pink slips, some to those still in places like Afghanistan.  And yes, US retirement pay is at 20 years, with not a cent paid for any less than that.


----------



## Transporter

MCG said:
			
		

> Is your Sgt column for rank bearing the name or for OR-5 (US SSgt)?



E6 with 12 yrs service (with BAH) if I remember correctly.


----------



## Transporter

For the record, I have no complaints about the pay or other benefits I currently receive, nor was I trying to imply that anyone else should either. I think my posts have been fairly consistent in not putting down anyone, or any group, but what I have expressed is my opinion that there is likely a better way to address military compensation other than simply benchmarking with the public service (plus military factor, etc), and attempted to show that other allied armed forces take a different approach in this regard. I am certainly not screaming that the grass is clearly greener on the other side, but I do feel there is a better way to take a more holistic view of what constitutes fair compensation for military service. I could be wrong... happened once before. 

As previously stated, my concern is not that we get more, but that we somehow find a way to stem the tide of receiving less and less. Sure, on an issue-by-issue basis (like parking, for example), it may seem petty. But taken as a whole, it adds up to more than one might realize over time. 

I think it's healthy to encourage discussion on these issues. Nobody needs to be singling-out anyone else on here as wrong, or disloyal.


----------



## TCM621

The only people complaining are the ones complaining about people who feel "entitled". The reason people are comparing themselves to the public service is because the government uses that comparison when it wants to take something away. The PS get to give and take through negotiations, we don't get that right.
A lot of the older guard here seem to be using the argument that they lived through the decade of darkness and these people don't know how good they have it. To a very large extent, this is a justified attitude. However, a lot if us are seeing the signs of a return to that. Forums like this one are one of the ways our voices get heard and maybe we can prevent a return to the dark days.
Anyone, anywhere and in any instance who fights to uphold the status quo will eventually be seen as part of problem. It may not seem like it now but the CF has to grow and adapt to ensure long term success. It is people who identify problems and seek solutions who will contribute to that growth, even if their solutions are not the right ones. The very act of identifying the potential problem and proposing a solution, begins the cycle which leads to change.


----------



## Brad Sallows

>No insult meant but people who risk their lives for the country, and are injured while doing so deserve more

People who risk their lives for the country, and are *wounded* while doing so deserve more.


----------



## Transporter

Dimsum said:
			
		

> :goodpost:
> 
> The US and UK are actually handing out pink slips, some to those still in places like Afghanistan.  And yes, US retirement pay is at 20 years, with not a cent paid for any less than that.



I think the pink slips will continue for the foreseeable future along with incentivized early out options.  And I believe an overhaul of the US retirement system is being considered to, among other things, address the fact that those leaving with less than 20 yrs of service currently get nothing.

EDIT: Fixed quote box.


----------



## Jungle

The US Military have the "up or out" to contend with; I am currently working with ex-LCols who were shown the door because they were not going up... they are now working as contractors.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

George Wallace said:
			
		

> ERC has made a comment that Spec Pay should be revamped to a one time only lump sum bonus paid on gaining a qualification.   An even more drastic change, and one that I am sure some 'Think Tank' and politicians may come to accept in the future, would be the replacement of all Spec Trades with civilian contractors.



I don't think you will see civilian SAR Techs, Engineers and AES Ops in the RCAF - all specialist pay flying trades.  And the navy, many sailors are specialist pay MOCs.  Specialist pay is not "physical fitness pay".  Combat arms get their LDA, the same as I get my Aircrew Allowance, for the day to day hazards/hardships of the job we do.  I think the line is getting hazy on what pay is for what. 

Flt Eng's are Spec 2 pay.  Knowing what they do, and how important it is to every part of getting the mission done, they earn it.  SAR Tech's earn their Spec 2 as well.  There are some trades is baffles me that they do not receive spec pay - Med Tech is the first one that comes to mind.  They keep people alive when the SHTF.  No spec pay?   :dunno:

I have to agree with the earlier statement about "spec pay is to attract and keep people FROM the civilian world".  Maybe that's not 'fair', but it is reality.


----------



## George Wallace

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> I don't think you will see civilian SAR Techs, Engineers and AES Ops in the RCAF - all specialist pay flying trades.  And the navy, many sailors are specialist pay MOCs.  Specialist pay is not "physical fitness pay".  Combat arms get their LDA, the same as I get my Aircrew Allowance, for the day to day hazards/hardships of the job we do.  I think the line is getting hazy on what pay is for what.
> 
> Flt Eng's are Spec 2 pay.  Knowing what they do, and how important it is to every part of getting the mission done, they earn it.  SAR Tech's earn their Spec 2 as well.  There are some trades is baffles me that they do not receive spec pay - Med Tech is the first one that comes to mind.  They keep people alive when the SHTF.  No spec pay?   :dunno:
> 
> I have to agree with the earlier statement about "spec pay is to attract and keep people FROM the civilian world".  Maybe that's not 'fair', but it is reality.



I think you missed what ERC said.  He did not say that Spec Pay would be done away with, but revamped.  Revamped so that a member in a 'Specialist Trade' did not get a monthly boost in pay due to Spec Pay.  Instead they would get a "One Time Payment" paid out when the member has successfully completed the level of training for that 'Specialist Trade'.  This may even produce different Levels of specialist within that 'Specialist Trade'.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

I read that and, I don't honestly ever see it changing from it current model, with the exception of perhaps some trades losing spec pay - which wouldn't surprise me and in the end only takes the stroke of a pen.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

RADOPSIGOPACISSOP said:
			
		

> The current government has made it exceedingly clear that the CAF is just a job. It's not special, there's no "social contract". They don't take care of their soldiers as they have done in the past.



I don't know, but guessing by your forum handle you've been around the mob for a while too (since '89 for me).  I'm no expect in government policy, I don't remember all the little details of how things were with every PM and every Parliament that has sat since I did my Oath.

However, our current Prime Minister and government, overall, has been the most supportive to the CF overall during it tenure.  Again, just IMO, all things considered - equipment purchases, pay, VAC changes, possible pension changes...the whole sha-bang.  

I know things have taken a turn for the worse with some aspects (or a return to the way it was pre-Afghanistan...) but...I am far more concerned about the reality of life for not just the CAF, but Canada as a whole, if the government changes hands in the next federal election.  And what "we don't give a f**k about you anymore" feeling CAF mbrs will experience THEN if they are experiencing them now.

 :2c:


----------



## Transporter

Say goodbye to another benefit... 

http://globalnews.ca/news/1530365/exclusive-dnd-to-stop-compensating-same-city-moves-for-retiring-military/


----------



## Occam

Transporter said:
			
		

> Say goodbye to another benefit...
> 
> http://globalnews.ca/news/1530365/exclusive-dnd-to-stop-compensating-same-city-moves-for-retiring-military/



I just posted it in the Leslie relocation thread.  Not sure which is more appropriate.


----------



## George Wallace

"Optics" trump "common sense" and "Fairness".


----------



## TCM621

George Wallace said:
			
		

> "Optics" trump "common sense" and "Fairness".



I don't know. That seems like a common sense move to me. Why should the cf pay to move a guy down the road? In no other case will the CF pay for a move with in the geographic area, that I am aware of anyway. Even on a posting within the geographic area, you wouldn't be entitled to a move.

If you managed to get posted to where you want to retire, good on you but the benefit is, and always was, intended for a final move from your last posting to where you plan to retire.

General Leslie did nothing wrong because he simply followed the policy as it was being interpreted but this is more of closing a loophole then getting rid of a benefit.


----------



## George Wallace

Tcm621 said:
			
		

> I don't know. That seems like a common sense move to me. Why should the cf pay to move a guy down the road? In no other case will the CF pay for a move with in the geographic area, that I am aware of anyway. Even on a posting within the geographic area, you wouldn't be entitled to a move.
> 
> If you managed to get posted to where you want to retire, good on you but the benefit is, and always was, intended for a final move from your last posting to where you plan to retire.
> 
> General Leslie did nothing wrong because he simply followed the policy as it was being interpreted but this is more of closing a loophole then getting rid of a benefit.



Common sense is not applied in his instance.....Optics were.  Look at the expenses and break them down and you will find nothing out of order with them.  

Suppose he lived in a PMQ at Uplands and then decided on retirement to buy a home in Ottawa.  Would you suggest that he not be entitled to the same benefits that he would if he had decided to retire in Victoria instead?  That is what this 'knee jerk' policy is; all about optics.

(If you want to look at the question of expenses charged in this case, READ all the posts in these threads dealing with that subject.)


----------



## TCM621

As I said earlier, Gen Leslie merely followed the policy as it stood. Yes the optics were bad and yes that is why the policy was looked into.

As for the second part of your post, that is exactly what I am saying. If one is retiring in the geographic area one is currently posted in, one should not need or require the same benefits as someone who is retiring elsewhere. 
Because we are unable to dictate where we are living prior to retirement, it is fair to expect a cost move to that location. However, if we are already in that location, either through luck or through negotiations with the career manager, there is no requirement. If someone chooses to live in a pmq, while posted in their chosen retirement location, right up to his end date the CF should not be on the hook for his poor planning. 
You have up to 2 years after posting to get all the house buying benefits so in a standard 3 year posting, you would only have to buy 1 year out from retirement.
Proper retirement planning is not the CFs job even though they do, in fact, give plenty of thought to education through scan seminars and such.


----------



## Transporter

Tcm621 said:
			
		

> As I said earlier, Gen Leslie merely followed the policy as it stood. Yes the optics were bad and yes that is why the policy was looked into.
> 
> As for the second part of your post, that is exactly what I am saying. If one is retiring in the geographic area one is currently posted in, one should not need or require the same benefits as someone who is retiring elsewhere.
> Because we are unable to dictate where we are living prior to retirement, it is fair to expect a cost move to that location. However, if we are already in that location, either through luck or through negotiations with the career manager, there is no requirement. If someone chooses to live in a pmq, while posted in their chosen retirement location, right up to his end date the CF should not be on the hook for his poor planning.
> You have up to 2 years after posting to get all the house buying benefits so in a standard 3 year posting, you would only have to buy 1 year out from retirement.
> Proper retirement planning is not the CFs job even though they do, in fact, give plenty of thought to education through scan seminars and such.



One day, you too will understand grasshopper...


----------



## jollyjacktar

Another cut back as well...  this fall, all eye clinics with the exception of St Jean and Ottawa will be closed out and out sourced downtown.  Further, as of 1 Apr the member will be required to pay for their eyeglasses and will only be reimbursed $200 of the costs.  Damn, but that Federal budget will look sooooo rosy come the election.  (Too bad it won't get my vote.)


----------



## George Wallace

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> Another cut back as well...  this fall, all eye clinics with the exception of St Jean and Ottawa will be closed out and out sourced downtown.  Further, as of 1 Apr the member will be required to pay for their eyeglasses and will only be reimbursed $200 of the costs.  Damn, but that Federal budget will look sooooo rosy come the election.  (Too bad it won't get my vote.)



But you forget that you can submit a Claim through your PSHCP for this.


----------



## Occam

Tcm621 said:
			
		

> General Leslie did nothing wrong because he simply followed the policy as it was being interpreted but this is more of closing a loophole then getting rid of a benefit.





			
				Tcm621 said:
			
		

> As for the second part of your post, that is exactly what I am saying. If one is retiring in the geographic area one is currently posted in, one should not need or require the same benefits as someone who is retiring elsewhere.
> Because we are unable to dictate where we are living prior to retirement, it is fair to expect a cost move to that location. However, if we are already in that location, either through luck or through negotiations with the career manager, there is no requirement. If someone chooses to live in a pmq, while posted in their chosen retirement location, right up to his end date the CF should not be on the hook for his poor planning.



There's so much wrong with what you said that I don't know where to start.

I was posted to Ottawa in 2008 with (at the time) 23 years service.  I had no intentions of getting out anytime soon.  We did our HHT in Ottawa with a one year old in tow, rushing around like fools trying to find a house in the 5 days allotted for a HHT.  I knew that I would be working at 101, downtown.  As anyone who's ever been to Ottawa knows, parking simply isn't an option at any of the downtown sites, unless you pay through the nose.  So, we chose a house based on the following criteria:

1.  Met all the criteria for being able to unload it quickly when the next posting came
2.  Was close to express public transit routes
3.  Met all of our needs as a family.

Fast forward to 2011.  I participated in a competition for a Public Service position.  I'm offered the position.  I submit my release from the CF with almost 26 years service to my name.  I'm in a house that I chose primarily for service reasons, a house that we've already outgrown after only three years, and most definitely not the house that we would have chosen if I were moving to Ottawa to retire from the CF.

I sold my 1100 sq. ft. home on a typical city lot in Orleans last August.  At the same time, I purchased the home I would have chosen had I knew I was coming here to retire, which is a 2400 sq ft home on a huge lot in rural Limoges, 33 km from my old home.  Bigger house, bigger property, don't need to worry about being close to transit because I can park at work, and it only takes me 10 minutes more to drive to work than at my old house.  I claimed my move to IPR on retirement just like Gen Leslie did.

Now, tell me why I'm not entitled to have my relocation costs covered for the move to my "local" intended place of residence, when the house I chose to move to when posted here was predominantly chosen because of service reasons?


----------



## PuckChaser

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> Another cut back as well...  this fall, all eye clinics with the exception of St Jean and Ottawa will be closed out and out sourced downtown.  Further, as of 1 Apr the member will be required to pay for their eyeglasses and will only be reimbursed $200 of the costs.  Damn, but that Federal budget will look sooooo rosy come the election.  (Too bad it won't get my vote.)



Where is this coming from? CANFORGEN? Policy Link? Or is this from the same rumour ilk of "LDA/SDA is going away 1 Apr!!!"


----------



## Fishbone Jones

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> Another cut back as well...  this fall, all eye clinics with the exception of St Jean and Ottawa will be closed out and out sourced downtown.  Further, as of 1 Apr the member will be required to pay for their eyeglasses and will only be reimbursed $200 of the costs.  Damn, but that Federal budget will look sooooo rosy come the election.  (Too bad it won't get my vote.)



I'm a Civil Servant and only get $175.00 toward my glasses. That I have to go to an appointment downtown for on my own time. God, this is getting :boring:


----------



## Furniture

recceguy said:
			
		

> I'm a Civil Servant and only get $175.00 toward my glasses. That I have to go to an appointment downtown for on my own time. God, this is getting :boring:



When the civil service as a whole is required to meet the same standards of employability (at home and deployed) the CF is required to meet that will be a great argument. Until then, not so much...  :boring:


----------



## Remius

WeatherdoG said:
			
		

> When the civil service as a whole is required to meet the same standards of employability (at home and deployed) the CF is required to meet that will be a great argument. Until then, not so much...  :boring:



Unfortunately the average tax paying citizen won't see it that way and will likely be high fiving when you have to file your own eye glass claim rather than having your hand held through the process.  And the optics of a cf member complaining that he only has 200$ for glasses and has to claim it himself won't fly very well with public sympathy either.  

Hopefully the whole thing is just a rumour and we can stay calm and carry on.


----------



## Edward Campbell

Crantor said:
			
		

> Unfortunately the average tax paying citizen won't see it that way and will likely be high fiving when you have to file your own eye glass claim rather than having your hand held through the process.  And the optics of a cf member complaining that he only has 200$ for glasses and has to claim it himself won't fly very well with public sympathy either ...




Precisely ...

There are two aspects to this:

     1. A partisan, political "war" against the public sector ... good politics in 200+ of the the 338 seats that will be contested in the next federal general election; and

     2. An honest, sincere attempt to restore some _balance_ to public sector employment. Traditionally the public sector was (relatively) poorly paid but had nearly iron clad job security and very, very good benefits.
         For a generation plus we have watched public sector wages rise and, now, surpass private sector wages while benefits for civil servants were not "traded away" as private sector benefits have been. As a general rule the
         public sector, wanting to be seen to be exemplary employers, has expanded in both salaries and benefits. The "fat city" perception is real and it is not just an issue for "Joe Six-pack" either; many senior officials
         and academics are concerned that the broad public sector is unsustainable which means that the welfare state is in danger, too.


----------



## Sub_Guy

I think this is a good idea, if I can take the $200 and get my glasses from wherever I want.... Costco...


----------



## George Wallace

WeatherdoG said:
			
		

> When the civil service as a whole is required to meet the same standards of employability (at home and deployed) the CF is required to meet that will be a great argument. Until then, not so much...  :boring:



I suppose then, it can be turned around on you and say that you should not be eligible to participate in both the Public Service Health Care Plan and the Pensioners' Dental Services Plan on your retirement from the CAF.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

WeatherdoG said:
			
		

> When the civil service as a whole is required to meet the same standards of employability (at home and deployed) the CF is required to meet that will be a great argument. Until then, not so much...  :boring:



 :facepalm:

That is an old saw and a red herring of deflection. It gets hauled out as a last resort every time a service person cannot eloquently justify their point.

The idea that you should get free glasses because of the universality of service is so preposterous it goes beyond the pale.


----------



## Transporter

George Wallace said:
			
		

> I suppose then, it can be turned around on you and say that you should not be eligible to participate in both the Public Service Health Care Plan and the Pensioners' Dental Services Plan on your retirement from the CAF.


 Sure, no worries. We'll just call it the Retired Canadian Forces Health and Dental Care Plan. Nothing would make me happier than to de-link every single aspect of my compensation and benefits from the Public Service, for reasons I've previously stated elsewhere on here.


----------



## brihard

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Precisely ...
> 
> There are two aspects to this:
> 
> 1. A partisan, political "war" against the public sector ... good politics in 200+ of the the 338 seats that will be contested in the next federal general election; and
> 
> 2. An honest, sincere attempt to restore some _balance_ to public sector employment. Traditionally the public sector was (relatively) poorly paid but had nearly iron clad job security and very, very good benefits.
> For a generation plus we have watched public sector wages rise and, now, surpass private sector wages while benefits for civil servants were not "traded away" as private sector benefits have been. As a general rule the
> public sector, wanting to be seen to be exemplary employers, has expanded in both salaries and benefits. The "fat city" perception is real and it is not just an issue for "Joe Six-pack" either; many senior officials
> and academics are concerned that the broad public sector is unsustainable which means that the welfare state is in danger, too.



Not just senior officials and academics. Young professionals in the middle class tax brackets are increasingly paying attention to this too. We know what we're facing.


----------



## George Wallace

Transporter said:
			
		

> Sure, no worries. We'll just call it the Retired Canadian Forces Health and Dental Care Plan. Nothing would make me happier than to de-link every single aspect of my compensation and benefits from the Public Service, for reasons I've previously stated elsewhere on here.



Great!  As there are no such plans, and I highly doubt the CAF would then want to budget for such plans, I can't see that as a viable option.  I suppose you could try your luck with Veterans Affairs; but we all know how dealing with them brings so much satisfaction for 'claimants'.


----------



## TCM621

Occam said:
			
		

> There's so much wrong with what you said that I don't know where to start.
> 
> I was posted to Ottawa in 2008 with (at the time) 23 years service.  I had no intentions of getting out anytime soon.  We did our HHT in Ottawa with a one year old in tow, rushing around like fools trying to find a house in the 5 days allotted for a HHT.  I knew that I would be working at 101, downtown.  As anyone who's ever been to Ottawa knows, parking simply isn't an option at any of the downtown sites, unless you pay through the nose.  So, we chose a house based on the following criteria:
> 
> 1.  Met all the criteria for being able to unload it quickly when the next posting came
> 2.  Was close to express public transit routes
> 3.  Met all of our needs as a family.
> 
> Fast forward to 2011.  I participated in a competition for a Public Service position.  I'm offered the position.  I submit my release from the CF with almost 26 years service to my name.  I'm in a house that I chose primarily for service reasons, a house that we've already outgrown after only three years, and most definitely not the house that we would have chosen if I were moving to Ottawa to retire from the CF.
> 
> I sold my 1100 sq. ft. home on a typical city lot in Orleans last August.  At the same time, I purchased the home I would have chosen had I knew I was coming here to retire, which is a 2400 sq ft home on a huge lot in rural Limoges, 33 km from my old home.  Bigger house, bigger property, don't need to worry about being close to transit because I can park at work, and it only takes me 10 minutes more to drive to work than at my old house.  I claimed my move to IPR on retirement just like Gen Leslie did.
> 
> Now, tell me why I'm not entitled to have my relocation costs covered for the move to my "local" intended place of residence, when the house I chose to move to when posted here was predominantly chosen because of service reasons?



Just off the top of my head:

The fact that you outgrew the house is irrelevant to the conversation.

You "could" still live in your old house after retirement.

Your inter-city move is no different than any other inter-city move a cf member makes on his own dime.

You are already where you plan to retire.

If you had been posted to a different unit in the Ottawa region, you would not be entitled to a cost move even if your house choice was based on your previous work place.

It was a loophole pure and simple. I highly doubt the policy was intended for local area moves. It was nice that some people got to take advantage of that but it was a pretty common sense move by the government. 
There are so many other things to worry about but this just isn't one.


----------



## jollyjacktar

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Where is this coming from? CANFORGEN? Policy Link? Or is this from the same rumour ilk of "LDA/SDA is going away 1 Apr!!!"


I got that straight from the clinic last week when I was there for an eye appointment.


----------



## jollyjacktar

recceguy said:
			
		

> I'm a Civil Servant and only get $175.00 toward my glasses. That I have to go to an appointment downtown for on my own time. God, this is getting :boring:


Actually it will benefit me as I have been buying my own glasses for the past couple of years as I think what was on offer at the hospital was shyte.  Be bored all you like, but it is another cutback that is coming down the pipe.


----------



## captloadie

Any reimbursement for CF members will be via some sort of claim, with receipts, through the Medical system. As CF members, we can't claim items under the PHSCP, as we aren't the ones covered, just our dependents. I'm sure any new policy would also have a long list of restrictions on what types, costs, etc, etc.


----------



## Occam

Tcm621 said:
			
		

> Just off the top of my head:
> 
> The fact that you outgrew the house is irrelevant to the conversation.



No, it's not.  If I was moving here to retire, I'd not have bought a 1100 sq. ft. house in Orleans (which was at the high end of my price range), I'd have chosen a much larger house further out where I'd get more for my money.  To get a house that met the requirement to be close to public transit and suitable for a quick resale, I had to settle for a smaller house to stay within my price range.



> You "could" still live in your old house after retirement.



Why?  The guy who moves across the country gets his retirement home.  Why is the guy who moves across the street to the house he would've bought if he wasn't trying to meet the needs of the CF any different?



> Your inter-city move is no different than any other inter-city move a cf member makes on his own dime.



If a CF member moves within a given area, either as a result of a "local" posting or otherwise, they're doing it by choice.



> You are already where you plan to retire.



The hell I am.  I did not plan to retire in a suburban 1100 sq.ft. home in Orleans.  That home was bought with the expectation that another military move was coming a few years down the road, and the criteria used to choose it were primarily related to that expectation.



> If you had been posted to a different unit in the Ottawa region, you would not be entitled to a cost move even if your house choice was based on your previous work place.



Irrelevant.  Whether you work at Startop, or you work at Shirley's Bay, public transit gets you there.  The furthest possible place I could have been "locally" posted from my home would've been DRDC Shirley's Bay - and I'd have had no problem taking public transit to/from work.  My home in Orleans would have remained suitable and I'd have had no reason to relocate.



> It was a loophole pure and simple. I highly doubt the policy was intended for local area moves. It was nice that some people got to take advantage of that but it was a pretty common sense move by the government.
> There are so many other things to worry about but this just isn't one.



It wasn't a loophole.  Nothing that big stays on the books that long without being detected if it's not in line with the intent of the policy.  This government hasn't got two clues what common sense is.


----------



## MARS

Occam said:
			
		

> That home was bought with the expectation that another military move was coming a few years down the road, and the criteria used to choose it were primarily related to that expectation.



But then, by your own statement above, _you[/i altered the equation/changed the situation when you applied for a PS job.  

The CF didnt do this to you.  You saw what I can only assume was a better opportunity/greener pasture and you acted.  Fair enough.  Smart move (no pun intended). Well done, even.

How does that choice become a CF issue to fund or in any way deal with?

Serious questions - not trying to nit pick.  I can't figure out what I am missing in this scenario._


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

I get what he is saying..................why is someone MORE equal than others et al??

Seriously, this really does nothing but hurt those who have less control over their careers than others.   If I'm one of the countless floppers around the Ottawa area I just make sure I get posted out and then next year I put in my 30 day release.   Voila, new home and an extra move for the Govt. to pay for.

EDIT:  unless there is something about postings I'm not aware of.


----------



## PMedMoe

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> I get what he is saying..................why is someone MORE equal than others et al??
> 
> Seriously, this really does nothing but hurt those who have less control over their careers than others.   If I'm one of the countless floppers around the Ottawa area I just make sure I get posted out and then next year I put in my 30 day release.   Voila, new home and an extra move for the Govt. to pay for.



I agree.  I can see people already where they want to retire, getting/taking a posting elsewhere and then releasing and declaring their IPR where they were prior to that posting.


----------



## Furniture

recceguy said:
			
		

> :facepalm:
> 
> That is an old saw and a red herring of deflection. It gets hauled out as a last resort every time a service person cannot eloquently justify their point.
> 
> The idea that you should get free glasses because of the universality of service is so preposterous it goes beyond the pale.



Honestly I couldn't care less about the change to glasses policy because of the increased cost to the member, I already buy my own. What I do care about it the fact that it is yet another cut to the benefits package that CAF members receive. 

To me the idea that my benefits should be the same as an administrative assistant working in an office in one city for their entire career is preposterous, obviously the folks at the Treasury Board counting the pennies aren't of the same opinion as me.


----------



## George Wallace

WeatherdoG said:
			
		

> ................................................... obviously the folks at the Treasury Board counting the pennies aren't of the same opinion as me.



For all your bitching and whining, will it make you feel any better if you knew that people in other Departments are all bitching and whining as well?  My brother is a Senior manager in a Federal Department and he is amazed at times at how completely out of touch some of the 'eggheads' working and advising the Mandarins in Ottawa really are.   This is not solely a "screw the Canadian Armed Forces" thing.  It is a "screw all Federal employees" thing.  ERC has stated that so many times, in so many ways.


----------



## PuckChaser

I'm wondering if the cost would have been that large if it wasn't a million dollar home. We already limit the lot sizes to prevent people from buying hobby farms, the remainder is up to the homeowner to foot the rest of the bill, so why not create a maximum value that creeps up by inflation rate every year? $500,000 buys you a pretty decent home in most marketplaces in Canada (save downtown Toronto), and if we're not covering people buying huge acreages, why are we covering people buying mansions in ritzy neighbourhoods?


----------



## Fishbone Jones

WeatherdoG said:
			
		

> Honestly I couldn't care less about the change to glasses policy because of the increased cost to the member, I already buy my own. What I do care about it the fact that it is yet another cut to the benefits package that CAF members receive.
> 
> To me the idea that my benefits should be the same as an administrative assistant working in an office in one city for their entire career is preposterous, obviously the folks at the Treasury Board counting the pennies aren't of the same opinion as me.



PS benefits and wages are being slashed wholesale also. This is not only your tower to wail from either. What about RCMP and other LEOs that are also seeing the cuts.

There's plenty in the Service that will never or can never deploy into harms way for a myriad of reasons. Should your benefits outstrip theirs also?

I have a job where I go in unarmed, unarmoured and unprotected. The last people I dealt with had to spend over a half mil just on my say so. Situations like that can and do get violent.

What about Corrections Officers in a direct supervision facility. They spend their shift living with and among their inmate charges which can be up to 35 inmates. Not dangerous enough for you?

You are not special, because your job _might_ be dangerous, at times.


----------



## George Wallace

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> I'm wondering if the cost would have been that large if it wasn't a million dollar home. We already limit the lot sizes to prevent people from buying hobby farms, the remainder is up to the homeowner to foot the rest of the bill, so why not create a maximum value that creeps up by inflation rate every year? $500,000 buys you a pretty decent home in most marketplaces in Canada (save downtown Toronto), and if we're not covering people buying huge acreages, why are we covering people buying mansions in ritzy neighbourhoods?



I know several members who bought 'hobby farms'.  This is "1984" -- All animals are equal; some are more equal than others.  Let's see?  Are we a communist society or a capiatlist society?  Should we all be driving VW Golfs?   

Seriously.  Are you going to tell me that you shouldn't buy what you can afford?


----------



## PMedMoe

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> I'm wondering if the cost would have been that large if it wasn't a million dollar home. We already limit the lot sizes to prevent people from buying hobby farms, the remainder is up to the homeowner to foot the rest of the bill, so why not create a maximum value that creeps up by inflation rate every year? $500,000 buys you a pretty decent home in most marketplaces in Canada (save downtown Toronto), and if we're not covering people buying huge acreages, why are we covering people buying mansions in ritzy neighbourhoods?





			
				George Wallace said:
			
		

> Seriously.  Are you going to tell me that you shouldn't buy what you can afford?



How about a cap on real estate fees reimbursed?


----------



## Occam

MARS said:
			
		

> But then, by your own statement above, _you[/i altered the equation/changed the situation when you applied for a PS job released from the CF.
> 
> The CF didnt do this to you.  You saw what I can only assume was a better opportunity/greener pasture and you acted.  Fair enough.  Smart move (no pun intended). Well done, even.
> 
> How does that choice become a CF issue to fund or in any way deal with?
> 
> Serious questions - not trying to nit pick.  I can't figure out what I am missing in this scenario.
> _


_

I made a correction to your statement (in yellow, above).  It matters not what reason I released for.  I could have been offered a PS job, offered a private sector job, or I simply decided to retire and take up beer tasting for a living.

Under existing rules, the whole idea is for members medically released, or those who have more than 10 years service to get a final move to IPR, be it across the street or across the country.  What does exercising my right to a 30 day release (regardless of reason why) have to do with the entitlement to a final move to IPR?  (Other than triggering the entitlement, that is.)_


----------



## Occam

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> I agree.  I can see people already where they want to retire, getting/taking a posting elsewhere and then releasing and declaring their IPR where they were prior to that posting.



That is precisely what's going to happen.  People will do their 30 days at the new posting, and plonk down the release memo on day 31 and initiate a move right back to where they came from as their IPR...only in the home of their choosing.

Instead of moving someone locally to IPR on release once, the CF is going to end up moving people twice (potentially across the country).  The only money they'll save is on those people who can't wait until their posting is up (for whatever reason) to initiate their release.  Doing it the way they propose could potentially cost them even more than under existing policy.


----------



## dapaterson

Of course, that assumes the release will be granted. A potentially dangerous assumption.


----------



## PPCLI Guy

recceguy said:
			
		

> You are not special, because your job _might_ be dangerous, at times.



Exactly.  We soooo have to get over ourselves.


----------



## Halifax Tar

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Of course, that assumes the release will be granted. A potentially dangerous assumption.



I can see allot of denials and tissues being issued in the future. 

OR Release approved no IRP benefits, time in posting to short.  

Good move on changing this policy.  Having said that, good for you OCCAM you used it while it was there and legal.  No bones from me.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Occam said:
			
		

> That is precisely what's going to happen.  People will do their 30 days at the new posting, and plonk down the release memo on day 31 and initiate a move right back to where they came from as their IPR...only in the home of their choosing.
> 
> Instead of moving someone locally to IPR on release once, the CF is going to end up moving people twice (potentially across the country).  The only money they'll save is on those people who can't wait until their posting is up (for whatever reason) to initiate their release.  Doing it the way they propose could potentially cost them even more than under existing policy.



Would this not come into play though?  

http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/about-policies-standards-benefits-relocation/2014-directive-ch8.page#art-08-03-03


----------



## Transporter

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> Good move on changing this policy.



As a CF member and thus someone who could have potentially used this entitlement to your benefit in the future, care to explain what's so good about this change?


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Transporter said:
			
		

> As a CF member and thus someone who could have potentially used this entitlement to your benefit in the future, care to explain what's so good about this change?



Sometimes it's just not 'all about me'.


----------



## Transporter

recceguy said:
			
		

> Sometimes it's just not 'all about me'.



It's a very simple question. And btw, what's it to you? As a non-serving member who is unaffected by these changes, your opinion - though entitled to it - really has no bearing on the topic of discussion.


----------



## GAP

Transporter said:
			
		

> It's a very simple question. And btw, what's it to you? As a non-serving member who is unaffected by these changes, your opinion - though entitled to it - really has no bearing on the topic of discussion.



I guess in your case it is "all about me"..............

recceguy is as entitled to his opinion on all subject on this forum, as are you....

he at least he has the courtesy to not dismiss the opinions of a large part of the membership because they "are not in".. :


----------



## Transporter

GAP said:
			
		

> I guess in your case it is "all about me"..............
> 
> recceguy is as entitled to his opinion on all subject on this forum, as are you....
> 
> he at least he has the courtesy to not dismiss the opinions of a large part of the membership because they "are not in".. :



His opinions on the subject of discussion, as a guy with zero skin in the game, are irrelevant to me. I asked a simple, legitimate, question to a fellow serving member. Wasn't his place to answer, especially not with sarcasm, for which he has scolded many others.

Same goes for you. You don't have a dog in this fight either. Why would you tell a guy who does how he should feel about losing a benefit to which he was previously entitled?


----------



## GAP

Hmmm.....something is missing....oh I know.....what a discussion is....


discussion
[dih-skuhsh-uh n]

    Examples
    Word Origin

noun
1.
an act or instance of discussing; consideration or examination by argument, comment, etc., especially to explore solutions; informal debate.


----------



## Remius

Transporter said:
			
		

> It's a very simple question. And btw, what's it to you? As a non-serving member who is unaffected by these changes, your opinion - though entitled to it - really has no bearing on the topic of discussion.



As any Canadian that pays taxes that go into paying the public sector benefits his opinion and that of everyone else actually does have a bearing.  That is what is driving these cuts for good or for ill.


----------



## kratz

It's this type of exchange (ie: recceguy, Transporter, Jacktar, MARS, site DS) that kills discussion.

As a person with experience the past while:
(the examples below are not my own situation).

I find the hostility of this site exemplified when I see people:

- In the service, degrading those who wish to serve
- Those who are in service degrading those who just retired
- Paying members ignoring nonpaying members (forgetting some had paid in the past)

The Tone and Content of the site needs to be reminded.

We are a community of like minded members to discuss issues of interest and concern to us all.
We may not agree with each other, but through civilized discourse (discussion) we are able to politely disagree .



The tone on the site has swung too far.


----------



## Occam

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Would this not come into play though?
> 
> http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/about-policies-standards-benefits-relocation/2014-directive-ch8.page#art-08-03-03



Well, how about that.  It certainly appears like it would.

It's unfortunate that it amounts to saying to someone with more than 20 years of service, "Well, you are entitled to your 30 day release; however, if you do so and want to use your retirement move to IPR, you can have it but we'll recover those tens of thousands of dollars that most recent move just cost".  I guess you'd have to decide whether to stick it out a year or not.  You still end up moving the member twice if they choose to stick it out, and the CF only gains one further year of employment out of the member.



			
				dapaterson said:
			
		

> Of course, that assumes the release will be granted. A potentially dangerous assumption.



Considering the move to IPR on release only applies to medical releases (fixed release date), members with >10 years of service (max 6 months to release) and members with >20 years of service (30 day release), the issue of not granting the release is somewhat moot, isn't it?


----------



## SeaKingTacco

My issue with this new policy is the built in logical inconsistency.

You decide to retire.  You decide you want to move from Esquimalt, to St John's. No problem. Paid for. That has got to be- what, at least a 50k move?

However, if you decide to retire in the next suburb over, you are on your own.  Would that not be cheaper, and therefore something that should be encouraged to save money?

In 30 years, nobody particularly asked me where I wanted to live.  The CF just sent me where I was needed. Fine- sometimes I did not enjoy it, but mostly I did. I bought houses (or lived in PMQs) in  very short time spans with no thought that any of them might be my final house. They were all compromises.

That the current government and a good chunk of the public sees a final move of less than 40kms as an unnecessary luxury is I suppose fair, in the sense that we work for them.

But I do not to enjoy the experience of losing a benefit I might have actually used, nor do I have to be a cheerleader for those who would reduce our benefits.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Transporter said:
			
		

> It's a very simple question. And btw, what's it to you? As a non-serving member who is unaffected by these changes, your opinion - though entitled to it - really has no bearing on the topic of discussion.



Ok, want to get personal.You're already out of your league.

37 years, many moves under different rules entitles me to my opinion.

....and at any rate sunshine, I'm a  fucking taxpayer and that trumps any  of your holier than though, only for serving members bullshit.


----------



## Furniture

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> But I do not to enjoy the experience of losing a benefit I might have actually used, nor do I have to be a cheerleader for those who would reduce our benefits.



I think this quite nicely sums up many people's opinions on the matter. 



			
				recceguy said:
			
		

> Ok, want to get personal.You're already out of your league.
> 
> 37 years, many moves under different rules entitles me to my opinion.
> 
> ....and at any rate sunshine, I'm a  ******* taxpayer and that trumps any  of your holier than though, only for serving members bullshit.



We are all tax payers, maybe you forgot that since you retired and are collecting a pension you didn't pay as much percentage of your wage into as the rest of us now have to... We can all play the moral superiority card if we want to, but in the end the seeming majority of currently serving members are not happy with the way things are going and feel the need/desire to voice their displeasure with it on a forum for people with an interest in the CAF. 

As an aside, why the hostile attitude shown?


----------



## captloadie

As much as I hate to see benefits of CAF members being eroded, this one that I as both a serving member and a taxpayer can agree with. Take the premise that we aren't special and have the same rights and responsibilities as any other average Joe.

Many "civilians" are moved across country for their work. Maybe they are reimbursed for their moves, maybe they aren't. Now I haven't done any in depth research, but I'm unaware of any company that pays their employees (with the exception maybe of some senior executive) a final move when they retire, or resign to work for a new company. It is a benefit that we are unique in receiving. 

If I were going to rewrite the policy, I would make it even stricter than the proposal. I would like to see the policy say you are only entitled to an IPR if it is back to either your place of enrollment, or, a former place of duty that you had been previously moved to at public expense. Maybe add a clause that if you wish to remain in your current location, you are entitled to the cash equivalent of a local move for your city, excluding realty and lawyers fees. That way, individuals who actually purchased a home they can live with get some of the benefit too.

And for those who cry it must be equal for all, I'd like to point out that this is a democracy, not a socialist state. Decisions are made for the greater good.


----------



## George Wallace

Occam said:
			
		

> Well, how about that.  It certainly appears like it would.
> 
> It's unfortunate that it amounts to saying to someone with more than 20 years of service, "Well, you are entitled to your 30 day release; however, if you do so and want to use your retirement move to IPR, you can have it but we'll recover those tens of thousands of dollars that most recent move just cost".  I guess you'd have to decide whether to stick it out a year or not.  You still end up moving the member twice if they choose to stick it out, and the CF only gains one further year of employment out of the now bitter member.



TFTFY


----------



## Fishbone Jones

WeatherdoG said:
			
		

> We are all tax payers, maybe you forgot that since you retired and are collecting a pension you didn't pay as much percentage of your wage into as the rest of us now have to... We can all play the moral superiority card if we want to, but in the end the seeming majority of currently serving members are not happy with the way things are going and feel the need/desire to voice their displeasure with it on a forum for people with an interest in the CAF.
> 
> As an aside, why the hostile attitude shown?



Perhaps you should know your audience before you start spouting stuff you know absolutely nothing about.

And yes, we are all tax payers. Some just care a little bit more on how our money gets spent.

I'm not bitter. I am, however, getting tired of self entitled gits that think they somehow have a higher calling and believe the rules shouldn't apply to them as they would to ordinary citizens. This ain't Starship Troopers.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

Once the all the mileage of the 'shame-a-potential-Liberal' candidate runs it's course maybe a compromise of a maximum claimable amount could be applied for the various fees* of the buying and selling instead.
If you have the money/desire to move a few blocks into a mega-house then you would be expected to fork out the overages.  Now before some claim that's not fair to those who have money, saved, blah, blah.............it already happens with taxes, insurance, etc.  Your place is worth more, you pay more..........just like ordinary folks. 

EDIT: *  applying to retirement move only of course.


----------



## Occam

captloadie said:
			
		

> It is a benefit that we are unique in receiving.



It is *precisely* for that reason that the benefit is just, whether it be a move across the country, or a move across the street.

No other major employer (save for the RCMP) forces you to weigh anchor, up and move to a different location in Canada every 3 to 5 years (and in some cases more frequently).  That's why you won't find "Move to Intended Place of Residence (IPR) on Release" as a chapter to the NJC Relocation Directive.  Nobody can deny that when you're looking for a new residence on posting, your own personal needs as a military family take a back seat to those of the CF.  If that weren't the case, we wouldn't have such conditions like obligating you to seek permission from your CoC if you wish to live outside the geographical region for the place you're posted to.  If you were posted to Ottawa, and decided to buy a home in Winchester, for example - and then when at your new unit, you're frequently late for work because of the umpteen traffic snarls between your residence and workplace.  How much sympathy are you going to get if you tell your CoC "I'm sorry, sir/ma'am...but the traffic is too unpredictable for me to be reliably at work every day at 0800"?

That's why we choose a home that, first and foremost, allows us to carry out our employment without impediment arising from the location of the home we chose - within the constraints of our financial situation.  Things like the size of the home, specific area chosen, access to shopping or other conveniences, etc. all take a back seat to the need to be able to get to work every day at 0800, and the need to be able to unload the house on weeks notice a few years down the road when you're posted - hopefully without taking a huge loss on the sale of the house.

As a result, when you elect to release with more than 10 years of service or are medically released, you should be eligible for a reimbursed relocation to the home and location of your choosing - the one you would have chosen if you didn't have to make that SAR mission on a moment's notice, or make it to the dockyard reliably every working day for 0800.  If you give it to the member releasing in Halifax and electing Yellowknife as IPR, you have to give it to the member who releases in Ottawa, lives in Orleans, and chooses to elect Kanata as IPR.  Both members were subject to the same conditions and constraints when they chose their homes on posting to the final posting location - a location they probably didn't know would be their retirement location when they first got there.

I'm not unsympathetic to the cries of the taxpayer wanting overly generous benefits to the Public Service (and by extension, the CF) reigned in.  Contributing 50/50 towards the premiums for PSHCP is probably fair in comparison to similar civilian benefits.  Increasing the member contribution portion towards CFSA pensions is probably fair in comparison too.  However, there is a time for the CF to say "You know what, our employment is unique, and our benefits have to reflect that".  I honestly believe the move to IPR on release is one of them.

What irks me the most, is that all it would have taken to defuse the situation is for MND to stand up on the podium, and explain what I just said above to the Canadian public in front of a TV camera. The CPC Members of Parliament with a CF background lack the backbone to challenge the government stance on this.  Unfortunately, from a party point of view, it's not in their political best interests to do so when they can use the example of a retired CF general who decided to put on a Liberal hat to score political points on the backs of CF members.


----------



## George Wallace

Occam said:
			
		

> As a result, when you elect to release with more than 10 years of service ........




Correct me if I am wrong, but that entitlement to move to IPR was only for those who had reached their 20 year mark, now 25 years for the newer members, with a pension.  When you left with less than pensionable time (and not a Medical Release), taking a return of contributions, your move would be covered, but not all the Real Estate, Legal and other sundry fees involved in buying a home.


----------



## Occam

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Correct me if I am wrong, but that entitlement to move to IPR was only for those who had reached their 20 year mark, now 25 years for the newer members, with a pension.  When you left with less than pensionable time (and not a Medical Release), taking a return of contributions, your move would be covered, but not all the Real Estate, Legal and other sundry fees involved in buying a home.



Certain members with more than 10 years service but less than 20 are eligible for a move to IPR. The IE 20/25 TOS issue hasn't yet reared its head in CFIRP.

Edit to add:  The eligibility for an IPR move is all or nothing.  You either get all of the benefits, or none of them.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

Occam said:
			
		

> It is *precisely* for that reason that the benefit is just, whether it be a move across the country, or a move across the street.
> 
> No other major employer (save for the RCMP) forces you to weigh anchor, up and move to a different location in Canada every 3 to 5 years (and in some cases more frequently).  That's why you won't find "Move to Intended Place of Residence (IPR) on Release" as a chapter to the NJC Relocation Directive.  Nobody can deny that when you're looking for a new residence on posting, your own personal needs as a military family take a back seat to those of the CF.  If that weren't the case, we wouldn't have such conditions like obligating you to seek permission from your CoC if you wish to live outside the geographical region for the place you're posted to.  If you were posted to Ottawa, and decided to buy a home in Winchester, for example - and then when at your new unit, you're frequently late for work because of the umpteen traffic snarls between your residence and workplace.  How much sympathy are you going to get if you tell your CoC "I'm sorry, sir/ma'am...but the traffic is too unpredictable for me to be reliably at work every day at 0800"?
> 
> That's why we choose a home that, first and foremost, allows us to carry out our employment without impediment arising from the location of the home we chose - within the constraints of our financial situation.  Things like the size of the home, specific area chosen, access to shopping or other conveniences, etc. all take a back seat to the need to be able to get to work every day at 0800, and the need to be able to unload the house on weeks notice a few years down the road when you're posted - hopefully without taking a huge loss on the sale of the house.
> 
> As a result, when you elect to release with more than 10 years of service or are medically released, you should be eligible for a reimbursed relocation to the home and location of your choosing - the one you would have chosen if you didn't have to make that SAR mission on a moment's notice, or make it to the dockyard reliably every working day for 0800.  If you give it to the member releasing in Halifax and electing Yellowknife as IPR, you have to give it to the member who releases in Ottawa, lives in Orleans, and chooses to elect Kanata as IPR.  Both members were subject to the same conditions and constraints when they chose their homes on posting to the final posting location - a location they probably didn't know would be their retirement location when they first got there.
> 
> I'm not unsympathetic to the cries of the taxpayer wanting overly generous benefits to the Public Service (and by extension, the CF) reigned in.  Contributing 50/50 towards the premiums for PSHCP is probably fair in comparison to similar civilian benefits.  Increasing the member contribution portion towards CFSA pensions is probably fair in comparison too.  However, there is a time for the CF to say "You know what, our employment is unique, and our benefits have to reflect that".  I honestly believe the move to IPR on release is one of them.
> 
> What irks me the most, is that all it would have taken to defuse the situation is for MND to stand up on the podium, and explain what I just said above to the Canadian public in front of a TV camera. The CPC Members of Parliament with a CF background lack the backbone to challenge the government stance on this.  Unfortunately, from a party point of view, it's not in their political best interests to do so when they can use the example of a retired CF general who decided to put on a Liberal hat to score political points on the backs of CF members.



Occam, I agree with everything you are saying and I agree with your argument.  Unfortunately, logic isn't often the driving factor behind any of these decisions.  This was a decision made for partisan political reasons and if the government gets the opportunity to destroy Andrew Leslie's reputation in the process than the rest of the CF can go fly a kite.  This isn't about saving money, it's about appealing to the political base and also about destroying the reputation of one of the A-Team opposition candidates.  

Unfortunately, this decision will also mostly only affect people posted to Ottawa with the the majority of personnel affected coming from the officer corps.  Lets face it, the average rank and file CF member isn't getting posted every two or three years.  The ones getting posted every other year are officers and very senior nco's who bounce back and fourth between Ottawa and the units. 

E.R. Campbell had mentioned earlier in the thread that there is a disconnect between the costs/values of the private versus public sectors and attempt by the government to start chipping away at this.  Link:http://army.ca/forums/threads/115780/post-1324892.html#msg1324892

There is a trade off here though.  Government has grown and is looking after more portfolios and sectors than it ever has.  As well, this has been the expectation of Canadians writ large, they want the government to do more for them.  Many of these sectors are technical in nature and require a highly skilled labour force to manage them.  In order to attract these types of workers, salaries need to be competitive as does the benefits package.  It's quite simple really, if the pay is crap and the benefits are crap, you are going to get crap.   

The same principle can be applied to the military, start chipping away at the pay and benefits of the most skilled workers (i.e. Snr NCO's and Offr's) and they will begin to leave for brighter pastures and you will be left with the B-Team as a result.


----------



## Occam

RoyalDrew said:
			
		

> Unfortunately, this decision will also mostly only affect people posted to Ottawa with the the majority of personnel affected coming from the officer corps.  Lets face it, the average rank and file CF member isn't getting posted every two or three years.  The ones getting posted every other year are officers and very senior nco's who bounce back and fourth between Ottawa and the units.



Agree with everything you said, except the passage above.  I'd love to be able to cite statistics, but I don't have any.  I would agree that hard sea trades (who have home port divisions), and the combat arms probably don't move around all that much given they have regimental affiliation.  However, just off the top of my head - ATIS Techs (from my own personal experience), Air Ops and Air Tech trades, support trades like RMS Clk, Sup Tech, Cook, etc. all get moved around on a regular basis.  The percentage who do expect 3-5 year postings is probably somewhat higher than what you think it is.


----------



## dapaterson

Moves occur on average every 7 to 8 years, excluding off-BTL and IPR moves.  While some move more often, that is the average.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

Occam said:
			
		

> Agree with everything you said, except the passage above.  I'd love to be able to cite statistics, but I don't have any.  I would agree that hard sea trades (who have home port divisions), and the combat arms probably don't move around all that much given they have regimental affiliation.  However, just off the top of my head - ATIS Techs (from my own personal experience), Air Ops and Air Tech trades, support trades like RMS Clk, Sup Tech, Cook, etc. all get moved around on a regular basis.  The percentage who do expect 3-5 year postings is probably somewhat higher than what you think it is.



Come to think of it, I think you are right... I made the above statement in haste based on my experience in the combat arms and how most soldiers in my regiment stay put.  Casting the net wider though, I can see how certain trades would get bumped around a fair bit.

As for the reduction in benefits, having worked with a GO and Fmn RSM for the past year and having seen the crap they need to put up with, I am skeptical whether I would want to punch my time in the organization that long and the reduction in benefits makes it even less appealing.  I think you will find that the military is going to have a hard time attracting younger folk due to the posting cycle and the fact that your significant other basically has to give up all his/her aspirations in order to pull the family cart while following you around the country.  Couple this with the reductions in benefits and the government basically washing its hands of the responsibility to provide services to its military members and the CF is going to begin to have harder time attracting strong candidates.  

For those that say, I challenge you to find another industry that pays out benefits as well as the CF does?  I ask you to turn your attention westward to the Oil & Gas industry as well as the Mining industry.  I know of a number of my peers that have already jumped ship and in case you failed to take notice, we have a a CMBG that is significantly under-strength because of this.  

Now I just brought up a whole bunch of other issues but IMO they are all pretty much inter-related.


----------



## Occam

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Moves occur on average every 7 to 8 years, excluding off-BTL and IPR moves.  While some move more often, that is the average.



Could that average be attributed to hard sea trades and combat arms not moving as frequently?  I wonder what the average would be if they were excluded.


----------



## McG

Occam said:
			
		

> ... support trades like RMS Clk, Sup Tech, Cook, etc. all get moved around on a regular basis.


I few times in my career I have lead or administered organizations comprising these support trades (as well as veh tech, EO tech and mat tech).  While they do get posted a lot, they appeared able to rack-up the no-cost moves to the point that they generally fall into the CF average.  There will be some exceptions who move more often and others who move less (and I know individuals in both groups).


----------



## dapaterson

Number of moves depends on rank and trade. Higher ranks also tend to move more frequently.


----------



## 421_434_226

Not quite 23 years Reg Force, 7 paid moves, one of which was in Aug of 2003 and then in Apr of 2004, OT'd went to Kingston from Pet for trades training 7 months, full meal deal both times.


----------



## Transporter

recceguy said:
			
		

> Ok, want to get personal.You're already out of your league.
> 
> 37 years, many moves under different rules entitles me to my opinion.
> 
> ....and at any rate sunshine, I'm a  ******* taxpayer and that trumps any  of your holier than though, only for serving members bullshit.



Who's holier than thou? Never mind... I know your kind well. Not to worry though, as this will be my last post.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Transporter said:
			
		

> Who's holier than thou? Never mind... I know your kind well. Not to worry though, as this will be my last post.



Don't forget your ball.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

Transporter said:
			
		

> Who's holier than thou? Never mind... I know your kind well. Not to worry though, as this will be my last post.


----------



## Occam

I hope all you ladies and gentlemen still in uniform got kissed yesterday.



CANFORGEN 160/14 CMP 071/14 171505Z SEP 14
CHANGES TO THE INTENDED PLACE OF RESIDENCE POLICY AND ASSOCIATED RELOCATION BENEFITS
UNCLASSIFIED

REFS: A. CANADIAN FORCES INTEGRATED RELOCATION PROGRAM (CFIRP) DIRECTIVE EFF 16 SEP 14 
B. CLARIFICATION BULLETINS 2009 (1-3, 6-14) AND 2010 (1-5) 
C. CBI 208 SECTIONS 8-10 
D. QR AND O CHAPTER 209 SECTION 2 - RELOCATION EXPENSES 
E. CANFORGEN 089/14 CMP 041/14 281403Z MAY 14

1.  THE INTENDED PLACE OF RESIDENCE (IPR) RELOCATION BENEFITS PERMIT ELIGIBLE CANADIAN ARMED FORCES (CAF) REGULAR FORCE MEMBERS, WHO RELEASE OR TRANSFER TO THE RESERVE FORCE, TO ELECT A SUBSIDIZED MOVE FROM THEIR CURRENT RESIDENCE TO ANOTHER OF THEIR CHOOSING IN CANADA. THIS BENEFIT RECOGNIZES THAT MEMBERS MAY HAVE BEEN REQUIRED TO MOVE MANY TIMES OVER THEIR MILITARY CAREER UNDER SPECIFIC CONSTRAINTS, AND THEREFORE PROVIDES THEM WITH A CHOICE OF WHERE TO RESIDE AT THE END OF THEIR REGULAR FORCE SERVICE 

2.  ON 16 SEP 14, THE TREASURY BOARD (TB) APPROVED CHANGES TO THE IPR POLICY AND ASSOCIATED RELOCATION BENEFITS. AS SUCH, CHAPTER 14 OF THE CFIRP DIRECTIVE (REF A) HAS BEEN AMENDED EFFECTIVE 16 SEP 14 TO COMPLY WITH TB POLICY. THE IPR POLICY CHANGES APPLY TO CURRENTLY- SERVING REG F MEMBERS ONLY. MEMBERS WHOSE RELEASE/TRANSFER DATE FROM THE REG F IS PRIOR TO 16 SEP 14 CONTINUE TO BE ADMINISTERED UNDER THE POLICY IN EFFECT PRIOR TO 16 SEP 14 

3.  THE IPR POLICY CHANGES ARE SUMMARIZED AS FOLLOWS: 

A.  TIME LIMIT. THE TIME LIMIT TO EXERCISE IPR RELOCATION ENTITLEMENTS HAS BEEN REDUCED FROM TWO YEARS TO ONE YEAR, IN ORDER TO BRING MORE PREDICTABILITY TO THE ANNUAL COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH RELOCATIONS ACROSS THE CAF. EXTENSIONS MAY BE POSSIBLE, AS APPROVED ON A CASE-BY-CASE BASIS, FOR A VARIETY OF REASONS WHICH ARE LISTED AT ARTICLE 14.1.02 OF REF A 

B.  LOCAL IPR MOVES (40 KM OR LESS FROM DOOR TO DOOR). RELOCATION BENEFITS WILL NO LONGER BE PAYABLE, THEREBY BRINGING CONSISTENCY BETWEEN THE IPR POLICY AND THE WIDER RELOCATION POLICY WITHIN THE CAF WITH RESPECT TO MINIMUM DISTANCE OF A MOVE. EXCEPTIONS WILL BE MADE FOR PERSONNEL WHO ARE REQUIRED TO VACATE CROWN-CONTROLLED ACCOMMODATIONS ON RELEASE/TRANSFER, FOR PERSONNEL WHO ARE BEING MEDICALLY RELEASED AND FOR PERSONNEL WHO HAVE COMPASSIONATE CIRCUMSTANCES 

4  THE AVAILABLE IPR RELOCATION BENEFITS REMAIN UNCHANGED FOR THOSE WHO ARE RELOCATING TO AN IPR LOCATION GREATER THAN 40 KM FROM THEIR CURRENT RESIDENCE 

5.  IN ADDITION TO THE CHANGES SUMMARIZED ABOVE, EFFECTIVE 16 SEP 14, ANY TRAINED MEMBER MEDICALLY RELEASED, REGARDLESS OF YEARS OF SERVICE, WILL BE ENTITLED TO AN IPR MOVE TO ANYWHERE IN CANADA 

6.  PERSONNEL WHO HAVE RELEASED/TRANSFERRED FROM THE REG FORCE OR WHO INTEND TO DO SO IN THE NEAR FUTURE ARE ENCOURAGED TO FAMILIARIZE THEMSELVES WITH REF A. THIS AND OTHER PUBLICATIONS, PLUS SPECIFIC INFORMATION ON THIS POLICY CHANGE, WILL BE AVAILABLE SHORTLY THROUGH THE DGCB INTRANET SITE HTTP://CMP-CPM.FORCES.MIL.CA/DGCB/ (CLICK DCBA LINK) 

7.  THE REMAINDER OF CFIRP BENEFITS AVAILABLE TO POSTED PERSONNEL REMAIN UNCHANGED. REF A REPLACES CFIRP 2009, AND WILL REMAIN IN EFFECT AS THE CAF RELOCATIONS POLICY RENEWAL PROJECT CONTINUES (AS NOTED AT REF E). REF A INCLUDES SOME MINOR AMENDMENTS OF LANGUAGE FOR CLARITY PURPOSES. ADDITIONALLY, CLARIFICATION BULLETINS LISTED AT REF B REMAIN IN EFFECT. CLARIFICATION BULLETIN 2010-6 IS RESCINDED EFFECTIVE 16 SEP 14 AS IT HAS BEEN INCORPORATED INTO REF A


----------



## Eye In The Sky

I know there are differing sides on this, and risking having rotten tomatoes and the like thrown at me, as a taxpayer and serving member, I don't really have any major issues with this change in policy.


----------



## McG

Occam said:
			
		

> 5.  IN ADDITION TO THE CHANGES SUMMARIZED ABOVE, EFFECTIVE 16 SEP 14, ANY TRAINED MEMBER MEDICALLY RELEASED, REGARDLESS OF YEARS OF SERVICE, WILL BE ENTITLED TO AN IPR MOVE TO ANYWHERE IN CANADA


This is a good improvement.


----------



## brihard

MCG said:
			
		

> This is a good improvement.



What was the old policy?


----------



## Occam

Brihard said:
			
		

> What was the old policy?



If you had less than 10 years and were released item 3 - medical, you only got a move back to place of enrolment (or any other location, but you were limited to the cost of a move back to place of enrolment).

If you had less than 10 years and were released item 3 - medical and were in receipt a VAC disability award or a medical pension, then you got a move anywhere.


----------



## jollyjacktar

MCG said:
			
		

> This is a good improvement.


Well at least there's an improvement and it's not totally a fireplace poker shoved up the rectum.


----------



## DAA

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> Well at least there's an improvement and it's not totally a fireplace poker shoved up the rectum.



My opinion, it's a knee jerk political reaction to the "appearance" of excessive benefits being paid to senior officers.

A LGen makes upwards of $220K a year plus, so obviously he is going to be buying a home commensurate with his salary, no different than what a Cpl/MCpl/Sgt ($55K - $60K) would be doing under similar circumstances.  So the fees associated with a relocation, whether it be a regular posting or the move to IPR, are by virtue going to be much higher based on the purchase/sale price.

At the end of the day, it's the guys at the bottom who are the majority, end up taking it up the behind because of a perceived imbalance in benefits.

The only saving grace to all of this, is that the people who reside in Q's for whatever reason and those being medically released, get spared the axe.


----------



## jollyjacktar

DAA said:
			
		

> The only saving grace to all of this, is that the people who reside in Q's for whatever reason and those being medically released, get spared the axe.


And thus my response.


----------



## PPCLI Guy

DAA said:
			
		

> it's a knee jerk *political *reaction to the "appearance" of excessive benefits being paid to senior officers.



FTFY.  This solution was imposed on us


----------



## dimsum

Somehow I see a lot of older/senior folks getting homes at the geographical limits of their base in the near future.


----------



## a_majoor

People will always try to "game" the system. If the _real_ issue was the "optics" of senior pers purchasing expensive homes and thus paying/receiving more in fees etc. then the "correct" solution might have been to cap the benefits to reflect what a Captain or Senior NCO might be paying for housing _they_ could afford. It's not like a person making $100+ K is going to be financially devastated because the benefits reflect smaller and more affordable housing that the median income serving members can afford.

Indeed, using a formulation where benefits reflect the median income of serving members and all receive the same benefits (no more, no less) would enormously simplify administration, and simplified administration would also translate into large savings since fewer clerks, bureaucrats etc. are needed to administer and adjudicate benefits. Since the real need is ultimately to maintain _operational_ effectiveness with fewer resources, then any savings in administration, logistics and other overhead should be pursued aggressively to preserve monies for training and operations.


----------



## 421_434_226

Dimsum said:
			
		

> Somehow I see a lot of older/senior folks getting homes at the geographical limits of their base in the near future.



And I see geographical limits being lowered to 30-35 km from base.


----------



## PMedMoe

Thucydides said:
			
		

> If the _real_ issue was the "optics" of senior pers purchasing expensive homes and thus paying/receiving more in fees etc. then the "correct" solution might have been to cap the benefits to reflect what a Captain or Senior NCO might be paying for housing _they_ could afford.



I said that a couple of weeks ago...



			
				PMedMoe said:
			
		

> How about a cap on real estate fees reimbursed?


----------



## TCM621

As I have said before, I think this is a pretty reasonable move. What I object too is the " it's not us, it's the TB" tone of the message. I must have missed the class where they described their role in the CoC. 

Either the CF has done things without needing TB approval for decades, directly ignored TB rules or this is another political cop out. Just take ownership.  What is so hard about saying, "In an effort to combat reductions in the budget, we have recognized an inefficiency in the way we handle end of contract moves. Rather than providing moves with in the local area, which cost the CAF X dollars annually, we will work to educate and assist members in their career planning...blah blah blah"?

I don't know how anyone else feels but every time I see a message like this one I feel as if we have been let down by our leadership, military and political.  Even in cases like this one where I ultimately agree with the decision, it still seems that the people who, by law, have no say in the manner are being taken advantage of. I know it's just a tone thing and I know a lot of stuff happens behind the scenes we don't see, but the feeling is still there.


----------



## Pusser

Thucydides said:
			
		

> People will always try to "game" the system. If the _real_ issue was the "optics" of senior pers purchasing expensive homes and thus paying/receiving more in fees etc. then the "correct" solution might have been to cap the benefits to reflect what a Captain or Senior NCO might be paying for housing _they_ could afford. It's not like a person making $100+ K is going to be financially devastated because the benefits reflect smaller and more affordable housing that the median income serving members can afford.
> 
> Indeed, using a formulation where benefits reflect the median income of serving members and all receive the same benefits (no more, no less) would enormously simplify administration, and simplified administration would also translate into large savings since fewer clerks, bureaucrats etc. are needed to administer and adjudicate benefits. Since the real need is ultimately to maintain _operational_ effectiveness with fewer resources, then any savings in administration, logistics and other overhead should be pursued aggressively to preserve monies for training and operations.



I don't entirely disagree with this concept, but we have to be careful.  If we accept that we pay higher ranking individuals more money (i.e. for greater workloads, responsibility, knowledge, wisdom, experience, etc. - that's the theory anyway), then presumably we accept that they should be able to enjoy the fruits of their labours.  However, if we curtail their benefits to the extent that they are no further ahead than their subordinates (e.g. pay two individuals different salaries, but tax the higher earner to the extent that both their take-home pay is the same), then where is the incentive to work harder?  Why take on the added responsibility of being a sergeant if my lifestyle will remain the same as when I was a corporal?


----------



## Pusser

I have known about the IPR benefit for decades and this is not the first time that "moves across the street" have been criticized.  However, I have to say that this recent change definitely seems like a knee-jerk reaction for political purposes.  Would there have been the same outrage had the IPR move across town of a corporal, without opposition political party affiliations, made it to the front page?  I have not yet decided where I'm going to retire and in fact, should I happen to retire in same area as my last posting, the liklihood of me wanting to leave that particular house and neighbourhood is remote.  However, we were all promised years ago that if we stuck it out and met certain criteria, here was an option that was available to us.  I cannot help but feel somewhat betrayed.  Notwithstanding that I followed all the rules, a promise has now been broken.


----------



## George Wallace

Pusser said:
			
		

> Thucydides said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> People will always try to "game" the system. If the _real_ issue was the "optics" of senior pers purchasing expensive homes and thus paying/receiving more in fees etc. then the "correct" solution might have been to cap the benefits to reflect what a Captain or Senior NCO might be paying for housing _they_ could afford. It's not like a person making $100+ K is going to be financially devastated because the benefits reflect smaller and more affordable housing that the median income serving members can afford.
> 
> Indeed, using a formulation where benefits reflect the median income of serving members and all receive the same benefits (no more, no less) would enormously simplify administration, and simplified administration would also translate into large savings since fewer clerks, bureaucrats etc. are needed to administer and adjudicate benefits. Since the real need is ultimately to maintain _operational_ effectiveness with fewer resources, then any savings in administration, logistics and other overhead should be pursued aggressively to preserve monies for training and operations.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't entirely disagree with this concept, but we have to be careful.  If we accept that we pay higher ranking individuals more money (i.e. for greater workloads, responsibility, knowledge, wisdom, experience, etc. - that's the theory anyway), then presumably we accept that they should be able to enjoy the fruits of their labours.  However, if we curtail their benefits to the extent that they are no further ahead than their subordinates (e.g. pay two individuals different salaries, but tax the higher earner to the extent that both their take-home pay is the same), then where is the incentive to work harder?  Why take on the added responsibility of being a sergeant if my lifestyle will remain the same as when I was a corporal?
Click to expand...



One factor that is being overlooked in this discussion, is the income of the non-military spouse.  Perhaps there is validity in the above suggestions of setting benefits' caps on the medium wages of the member or groupings of pay levels.  This would correct an problem where a per chance a Cpl lived in a million dollar home, that was purchased through their spouse's wages from a much higher paying civilian job, resulting in much higher than the norm IPR benefits.  

This would mean that the member's Pay Level would be used to calculate benefits, not the value of the property involved in the move, within reason.


----------



## Navy_Pete

I am skeptical they would be able to come up with a cap system that doesn't screw everyone, some more then others.

Rather then cap the members, why not reduce the rate at which real estate fees are paid out at?  Military moves are done quickly, probably less then a week or two of work for the agents, so why not cap that as a % not to exceed some median housing value in the area.  That way the members aren't out of pocket.


----------



## Occam

There was one of those DWAN-wide spam e-mails today trying in vain to convince the masses that the changes to the policy regarding move to IPR were to bring the CF benefit in line with other federal departments (such as RCMP).  

It wasn't mentioned in the CANFORGEN, but if the e-mail sent today is to be believed, then those of you who are in Crown-managed accommodations such as PMQs, exceptions will be made for you to take a move to IPR within the local area (less than 40 km), *but the cost will be capped at $10,000*.

Yay, Treasury Board.  Jerks.


----------



## Ostrozac

Occam said:
			
		

> It wasn't mentioned in the CANFORGEN, but if the e-mail sent today is to be believed, then those of you who are in Crown-managed accommodations such as PMQs, exceptions will be made for you to take a move to IPR within the local area (less than 40 km), *but the cost will be capped at $10,000*.
> 
> Yay, Treasury Board.  Jerks.



And that is probably the final nail in the coffin for official residences. Last I checked, we only have a handful left, but, when retiring locally, if full Colonels and Generals have to move out of them at their own expense ($10K is not even going to cover the Posting Allowance for a Colonel), then good luck getting someone to agree to live in one.


----------



## Occam

There's no posting allowance on a move to IPR.  All of the other benefits associated with buying a home are in play, though.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Navy_Pete said:
			
		

> I am skeptical they would be able to come up with a cap system that doesn't screw everyone, some more then others.
> 
> Rather then cap the members, why not reduce the rate at which real estate fees are paid out at?  Military moves are done quickly, probably less then a week or two of work for the agents, so why not cap that as a % not to exceed some median housing value in the area.  That way the members aren't out of pocket.



I think they are 4% now for IRP moves.  How well received do you think a drop would be by the realtor world and what kind of chance would people have at retaining one after a reduction?

I recall reading a thread where the poster said the IRP rate was capped at 4% but the local market rate was 5%, so they were advised to top up their realtor fees out of pocket if they really wanted their house marketed agressively.


----------



## Occam

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> I think they are 4% now for IRP moves.  How well received do you think a drop would be by the realtor world and what kind of chance would people have at retaining one after a reduction?
> 
> I recall reading a thread where the poster said the IRP rate was capped at 4% but the local market rate was 5%, so they were advised to top up their realtor fees out of pocket if they really wanted their house marketed agressively.



That was me.  Last I looked at the table for maximum real estate commission percentages, they varied from province to province from 3.8 to 4.4%.  Ontario was 4.1% when I moved last year.

The problem with the commission being capped at some rate lower than the market is commanding is that when a buyer's agent is looking at the MLS listing, and they see 4.1% (in Ontario), right off the bat they know it's a government relocation, and a resulting high likelihood that it's a military move.  That immediately puts the seller at a disadvantage because the buyer knows there is a degree of urgency to sell the house, so they're more likely to lowball the offer in the hopes of catching a military family desperate to sell.


----------



## c_canuk

I just took a 12k hit. after 2 months of no viewings, I had 6 in a row and an offer. They knew I was military and low balled me knowing I was anxious to sell so I could get off IR what with having a 1 year old and a 5 year old.

I've sold for 12k less than the appraised value, but because I paid 14 less originally, I'm out that equity because all of my renovations were to repair existing structure, electrical and plumbing problems. According to my brookfield agent apparently I can't claim those repair receipts against lost equity. 

Can anyone point out how my brookfield adviser might be out of er?


----------



## dapaterson

Per the policy:

8.2.10 Capital improvements
Custom benefit
Limited capital improvements may be reimbursed in accordance with the table below:

Capital Improvement Benefit Formula
Original purchase price
+ Eligible capital expenses
- Sale price
= Reimbursable loss (if result is negative)

The following is an all-inclusive list of eligible capital improvements:

Additions - bedroom, bathroom, deck/patio, porch, walkway, storage shed, garage.
Installations - new windows, driveway (including paving), central air conditioning.
Complete modernization – kitchen (new cupboards, countertops, sink, taps, etc) or bathroom (new cupboard/vanity, countertop, sink, shower/tub, etc).
Heating System – change from hot water radiator to forced gas or upgrade to high efficiency furnace and required ductwork.
Basic Landscaping – other than decorative including the installation of a perimeter fence. (On new home construction excludes initial landscaping which occurs within one year of occupancy when not identified by Building Agreement.)

Personalized funds
When all custom funds have been expended.

Eligible period
Capital improvements must have been carried out after CF members have taken possession and before the sale of the residence.

Receipts
Original receipts are required for all capital improvements.


and for equity assistance:

8.2.13 Home Equity Assistance (HEA)
As per the HEA calculation criteria listed below, CF members who sell their home at a loss are entitled to reimbursement for up to 100% of the difference between the original purchase price and the sale price from specific funding envelopes as follows:

Core benefit
80% of the loss, to a maximum of $15,000; and
100% of the loss, in places designated as depressed market areas by Treasury Board Secretariat (TBS).
Custom benefit
In excess of core entitlement.

Personalized benefit
When all custom funds have been expended.

HEA calculation criteria

Properties selling for less than 95% of the market value require DCBA approval prior to qualifying for this benefit. Market value is to be based on the appraisal provided by CFIRP.
Capital improvements shall not be included in the calculation of HEA but may be claimed separately as per art 8.2.10.
Any reductions of the sale price based upon deferred maintenance shall not be included when calculating HEA.
The original purchase price for new home construction consists of costs:
identified in the Building Agreement, and
for initial landscaping which occurs within one year of occupancy (when not identified in the Building Agreement).
Depressed market, as established by Treasury Board Secretariat, is defined as a community where the housing market has dropped more than 20%.

Depressed market status may be evaluated when:

A CF member and the Realtor build a case for depressed market status by submitting the following documentation to DCBA through the CF Relocation Coordinator for review, DCBA will forward it to IRP Program Authority at Treasury Board Secretariat:

Personal introduction including an outline of changes in the local economy evident during the time at origin.
All pertinent information with respect to the purchase of the subject property. This would include the original purchase agreement, the current appraisal report, list of the capital improvements made to the property and the related costs. Also, the appraised value when originally purchased and any property assessments since the time of purchase. Regarding cost of construction, this will require submission of original receipts to confirm the original purchase price, if a building contract was not used. Capital improvements must be supported by original receipts only.
General and specific information on the geographic location and local economic state; i.e. the circumstances that may be happening in the surrounding areas such as mill closures, unemployment rate, school closures. Include relative newspaper articles, memos, and objective evidence of market decline. Also, include sale date, date offer received, listing date list price, lowered list price and any home equity loss paid.
For real estate information:
Letter from Realtor expressing his/her professional opinion of the overall decline in the market since time of purchase;
Copies of comparable sales (similar type homes) that were concluded within the past 6 to 12 months;
Number of current listings in various price ranges and number of days on the market;
Number of sales (year-to-date) in various price ranges and number of days on the market;
Number of sales during previous 2 years in various price ranges and number of days on the market;
Number of foreclosures (year-to-date) and same for previous 2 years; and
Current vacancy rates, and similar information from previous years.
Note: All items must be labelled with a table of contents.


----------



## c_canuk

dapaterson said:
			
		

> The following is an all-inclusive list of eligible capital improvements:
> 
> Additions - bedroom, bathroom, deck/patio, porch, walkway, storage shed, garage.
> Installations - new windows, driveway (including paving), central air conditioning.
> Complete modernization – kitchen (new cupboards, countertops, sink, taps, etc) or bathroom (new cupboard/vanity, countertop, sink, shower/tub, etc).
> Heating System – change from hot water radiator to forced gas or upgrade to high efficiency furnace and required ductwork.
> Basic Landscaping – other than decorative including the installation of a perimeter fence. (On new home construction excludes initial landscaping which occurs within one year of occupancy when not identified by Building Agreement.)



Thanks that's what I was talking about. I have read through the manual a bunch of times, I was just hoping someone knew of an alternate avenue of appeal.

I find it really obtuse to pay for an appraiser just to disregard his results, and only support a small pigeon hole of improvements that are generally luxuries, over genuine necessities like electrical that doesn't burn down the residence, plumbing that doesn't leak, poison or vent explosive sewer gas into the home, or repair post footings that on failure will allow the home to collapse.

Next time I won't fix anything and save my money, then when the market crashes at least I won't be out my investment and have to downsize because my potential down payment is halved.


----------



## c_canuk

and I won't buy a place with a finished basement ever again.


----------



## Pusser

The only renovations that are accounted for in the adjusted purchase price (i.e. that which helps determine your loss in a home equity claim) are capital improvements, which are things that actually raise the value of the property.  Maintenance is considered a responsibility of home ownership and as such is not a capital improvement.  Fixing the electrical system, replacing an old roof, painting etc. are all considered maintenance.  You won't increase the value of the property by doing them, but you will increase your ability to sell it.


----------



## PuckChaser

c_canuk said:
			
		

> over genuine necessities like electrical that doesn't burn down the residence, plumbing that doesn't leak, poison or vent explosive sewer gas into the home, or repair post footings that on failure will allow the home to collapse.



That's what a home inspection is for?


----------



## TCM621

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> That's what a home inspection is for?


Exactly. Caveat emptor.  The CAF is not liable for you not doing due diligence.  By recognizing improvements,  they recognize that the purchase price would have been more than it was paid for.


----------



## c_canuk

The statement that major capital repairs towards problems that existed at the time of the sale, do not increase the equity of a property is stunning. I'm amazed someone can let that flow from their fingertips with conviction.

Upgrading electrical from a badly maintained fuse box, to a brand new electrical panel will indeed improve your property's value. 
Fixing any improper installations will indeed increase your property value.
Repairing any faults that existed in plain sight during the sale of the residence will indeed increase it's value.
The same house with a 20 year old roof will not have the same appraised value as if it had a new roof.

The fact that the appraised value of my house went up 16 grand in 4 years attests to that. My house is the only one in the area that has sold since the spring. I sold for 12 K less than the appraised value. My house was the most viewed in the area and I had 8 viewers in 3 months. I was able to sell in the current market which many have not been able to do yet. Had I not accepted the offer I could have waited up to 24 months to get what it's worth according to market reports. 

For that time I could have remained on IR and cost the military 1700 a month until a buyer was willing to pay what I put into it but I felt the ethical thing to do was take the sale (even though the closing date was 3 weeks from the offer, that wasn't fun!). I didn't expect to recoup all my costs but some would have been nice.

As for implying I didn't perform due diligence, Home inspections do not and cannot find problems located behind a finished wall if there are no external tells. They can only look for surface problems. Anything hidden (unsafe electrical, no P Traps on drains, compromised joists, removed posts, improper window headers) they cannot always detect and they do not accept responsibility for any problems they missed. Also see my comment about never buying a place with a finished basement ever again.

Upgrading the visible fuse panel from the 50s to a brand new to code panel with permits and inspections does increase a properties value. Stating otherwise is absurd. Keep in mind, that was not maintenance as the old system was grandfathered, it was an upgrade. The wiring had been fixed prior to the panel upgrade and the reason I upgraded the panel is that one of the key things on my home inspection report was the age of the panel. One main item people are looking for in a home is new to code electrical.

That said, I now view the situation in a different way. I traded 12 Grand to relocate my family to my new place of work, and in that frame of reference, it's well worth it despite the fact that my range of replacement residence was a steep step downward as I lost equity and have moved to a higher cost of living area.

Now that I'm better acquainted with what IRP considers a capital improvement vs reality, I will shop in the future with those points in mind. Not being familiar with that part of the program and trusting a home inspection to catch all problems was a failure on my part. 

In my defense, I would have done all the repairs anyway. I vaguely knew of the equity reimbursement section and had undue confidence I wouldn't loose any money while completing the upgrades and maintenance that needed to be done anyway. Oh well, learning has occurred.


----------



## captloadie

Substandard electrical, leaking foundations (if known), bad roofs etc., are all items that one should take into account when making the purchase and negotiated at the time of sale. It shouldn't be the taxpayer on the hook for an individual buying a fixer upper and then get reimbursed for the repairs, plus reap the benefits of the higher market value.


----------



## TCM621

captloadie said:
			
		

> Substandard electrical, leaking foundations (if known), bad roofs etc., are all items that one should take into account when making the purchase and negotiated at the time of sale. It shouldn't be the taxpayer on the hook for an individual buying a fixer upper and then get reimbursed for the repairs, plus reap the benefits of the higher market value.


This is my point. Upgrading the electrical system to take advantage of new technology is an upgrade. Repairing substandard wiring is regular home maintenance. Adding a new deck or updating a deck is an improvement.  Replacing rotted wood and repainting is regular maintenance. 

While doing maintenance the old owner didn't do is going to increase the value of the house, it is expected that it would be reflected in the appraisal price both before and after.


----------



## c_canuk

captloadie said:
			
		

> Substandard electrical, leaking foundations (if known), bad roofs etc., are all items that one should take into account when making the purchase and negotiated at the time of sale. It shouldn't be the taxpayer on the hook for an individual buying a fixer upper and then get reimbursed for the repairs, plus reap the benefits of the higher market value.



It was negotiated at the time of sale, then I poured money into it to fix the problems, which raised my equity 16 grand.

Fast forward to four years later when it's time to sell, I had to sell below my appraised value, but because none of the items save windows, were on the list of approved capital improvements, I didn't get to claim any of the lost equity.

Your last sentence is a gross lack of understanding of the situation. One cannot get reimbursed on work that increases their equity if their house sells at or above appraised value. The whole point of the section is to protect you against loss of equity for work put into a residence. Why the hell shouldn't you be able to use the section for exactly what it was meant for?

Look, let me illustrate further.

I paid out Purchase price + repairs = X, which resulted in appraised value Y as of june 2014. Keep in mind, Y is still smaller than X

So I'm already technically out money, however that's the nature of renovations.

I was able to sell for Y - 12 K. 

A loss of 12K in equity. Even if I got the appraised value I'm still out money paid into renos that did not return 100% of value put in, but like I said, that's very common with renovations.

Now, because the original purchase price was on par with the sale price and none of the 20K + of repairs and upgrades are on the IRP programs cherry picked list there is no loss of equity coverage for me. I don't get to claim it even though the real appraised value for the house to sell at if it remained on the market for the current average local sale time (12-24 months) would not have seen the loss. 

Also keep in mind that in purchasing a discounted residence and fixing it up myself, I saved the CF some in real estate fees as well.

This is not about doing repairs and putting it on the tax payer, this is I built equity but lost it due to uncontrolled circumstances and being irritated that major capital upgrades don't count while things like building a gazebo do.

I know some of you like to put your blinders on the instant someone is less than thrilled about a situation and warp your view of reality so you can blame the person commenting, but really? To imply attempting to use a program in exactly the way it was meant to be used is dishonest? Get real.


----------



## upandatom

You cant Cap it-

If that Cpl has a spouse or family money that they can afford to purchase that million dollar home then good for them. Why should they get punished or not the same benefits due to their financial stability. That opens a whole new can of worms for a new type of discrimination.


----------



## PuckChaser

upandatom said:
			
		

> You cant Cap it-
> 
> If that Cpl has a spouse or family money that they can afford to purchase that million dollar home then good for them. Why should they get punished or not the same benefits due to their financial stability. That opens a whole new can of worms for a new type of discrimination.



Are you that bored at work that you're going around necroposting with your  :2c: on topics that have literally been dead for months?


----------



## Eye In The Sky

According to another thread he is releasing...gotta do something now that there's no need to worry about RMs and adverse PERs.   8)


----------



## MilEME09

I just read an article that the US military is considering pay incentives for drone pilots in order to attract more people to the trade. Wondering what this community thinks of add something like a bonus pay for a trade that might be short on personal and having a hard time recruiting people.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

When it is needed, the CAF does already do this.  recruiting bonus, CT bonus, etc.


----------



## SupersonicMax

A USAF pilot friend of mine signed a 400K bonus for a 9 year commitment.  Not a bad deal.  We, in the CAF, would rather see experienced pilots release so we can train a brand new pilot and keep him for 9 years.  While there are no figures attached, I bet training a pilot to the level of experience that the releasing ones have is much more expensive than 400K.  And I am sure it would keep quite a few guys in.


----------



## jollyjacktar

The US does that as a general rule as I understand, you get a bonus for re-upping.  I was comparing this with an American Capt. at the boardwalk over a coffee.  He was hoping to get his re-enlistment offer while he was in country because it would then be tax free on top of it all.  I said that I had signed my IPS before going on deployment.  I explained the terms of an IPS offer and he got quite excited and asked me what I got the making that commitment.  I laughed and replied that I got to keep my job.  He was rather crestfallen by that.


----------



## Tibbson

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> I just read an article that the US military is considering pay incentives for drone pilots in order to attract more people to the trade. Wondering what this community thinks of add something like a bonus pay for a trade that might be short on personal and having a hard time recruiting people.



You either have to add the pay incentive, it and be prepared to keep it, or expect to chase the problem around the trades.  Put in some incentive because of shortfalls and once the shortfall is addressed you remove the incentive and people get ticked with what is essentially a pay cut.  

As for signing bonuses, or something like that upon enrollment, its been done before and while it may have worked to solve manning issues it still created plenty of hard feelings.  Back in the 90s the MP Branch changed to require a community college diploma in Police Foundations to join as an MP NCM.  At around the same time they offered a "signing bonus" of (I believe) $20,000 to new recruits who would get half upon signing and half upon completing their QL3 (or half upon completing QL3 and the rest at the end of their BE).  The amount may have been lower, in the $10,000 range but 20k comes to mind.  The point is new recruits received a pretty good chunk of money for joining

In any event that, and the intro of Spec pay, went a long way towards solving the manning issue but the bitterness from others still continues today.  Many, if not all, in the Branch complained about the money being paid to get new people but nothing for those already in the Branch as a "retention bonus" or whatever you wanted to call it.  Those with 5, 10 or more years of experience were left to feel like the new people were valued more then those who had already put in a great amount of time and who may be considering a career choice.  There was nothing to keep them from making that career change.  

Not strictly because of this but because of some other factors combined with it we now have 4-5 year MCpls and 7-8 year Sgts without the required experience to do their jobs effectively because they have a vacuum to fill and they don't do 4 years as a Pte.  They are all good people but we've ended up doing them a disservice by forcing them through the ranks too quickly into positions they may not be properly prepared for.  

So no, I don't believe signing incentives work in the long run.  They may solve an immediate shortfall/problem but if not properly implemented they can cause a whole host of others.


----------



## rmc_wannabe

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> The US does that as a general rule as I understand, you get a bonus for re-upping.  I was comparing this with an American Capt. at the boardwalk over a coffee.  He was hoping to get his re-enlistment offer while he was in country because it would then be tax free on top of it all.  I said that I had signed my IPS before going on deployment.  I explained the terms of an IPS offer and he got quite excited and asked me what I got the making that commitment.  I laughed and replied that I got to keep my job.  He was rather crestfallen by that.



I too had a similar conversation after I signed my IE 25. The I think the atmosphere is that the US has more to invest in retention. Canada doesn't, however recruitment is a constant element in our manning. Kinda backwards really.


----------



## George Wallace

rmc_wannabe said:
			
		

> ....... Kinda backwards really.




Even more so if you remember FRP and actually paying bonus' for pers to Release.    >


----------



## Tibbson

rmc_wannabe said:
			
		

> I too had a similar conversation after I signed my IE 25. The I think the atmosphere is that the US has more to invest in retention. Canada doesn't, however recruitment is a constant element in our manning. Kinda backwards really.



I once had it put to me this way:  To bring in and train a new recruit can take months if not years but it's done at a recruits pay level.
To replace an experience senior NCO takes a promotion message.  In other words, it's easier to replace someone then it is to hire someone new so they can concentrate more on bringing in new people at a lower wage than keeping the experience.  We've never really valued that experience as much as I think we should.  Especially when we've paid people to leave early in the past.


----------



## Navy_Pete

I think it depends on the trade as well; when I joined they had a signing bonus for a number of DEOs for distressed trades.  It was enough that, after taxes, it wiped out my student debts, but was still cheap in comparison to four years tuition and salary.

If you start including the cost of facilities, personnel running the training etc, it can really get really expensive to increase your training capacity.  So if one of the reasons a trade is short is because of lack of capacity to get people through the system, then signing bonuses make sense for new members.

I think for most trades we're at the point where the pay system should be looked at for overhaul though.  Aside from a few specialized trades like doctors and pilots, everyone else is on the same pay scale.  If you do a direct comparison to the PS equivalent designations doing similar jobs (where applicable) we usually come up short by a fair bit.  They used to balance that out with spec pay for the NCMs, but that is now such a sh*t show that it is directly affecting retention in a huge way.


----------



## rmc_wannabe

Navy_Pete said:
			
		

> I think it depends on the trade as well; when I joined they had a signing bonus for a number of DEOs for distressed trades.  It was enough that, after taxes, it wiped out my student debts, but was still cheap in comparison to four years tuition and salary.
> 
> If you start including the cost of facilities, personnel running the training etc, it can really get really expensive to increase your training capacity.  So if one of the reasons a trade is short is because of lack of capacity to get people through the system, then signing bonuses make sense for new members.
> 
> I think for most trades we're at the point where the pay system should be looked at for overhaul though.  Aside from a few specialized trades like doctors and pilots, everyone else is on the same pay scale.  If you do a direct comparison to the PS equivalent designations doing similar jobs (where applicable) we usually come up short by a fair bit.  They used to balance that out with spec pay for the NCMs, but that is now such a **** show that it is directly affecting retention in a huge way.



I think a huge problem with Spec pay is that it has led to a lot of "Green Eyed Monster"ism between trades. I've seen this for the last five years internally within the C&E Branch alone.


----------



## Tibbson

rmc_wannabe said:
			
		

> I think a huge problem with Spec pay is that it has led to a lot of "Green Eyed Monster"ism between trades. I've seen this for the last five years internally within the C&E Branch alone.



I think you are right in that if you ask anyone, of any trade, they will usually be able to make an argument that they should get spec pay.  I'm not saying the argument would ultimately be valid but everyone has an argument to make and for those who don't get it, it just creates bad feelings.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

True but we all accept entrance into our trades.   I fly on the same aircraft as the FE but he gets spec 2.   If I really care about spec 2 I guess I should have went after a different set of wings.


----------



## Ostrozac

rmc_wannabe said:
			
		

> I too had a similar conversation after I signed my IE 25. The I think the atmosphere is that the US has more to invest in retention. Canada doesn't, however recruitment is a constant element in our manning. Kinda backwards really.



The US believes in retention bonuses -- but they are highly targeted bonuses. On the same day that the US may be giving drone pilots and Arabic linguists six figure sums, they might be giving air defense captains and armor sergeants pink slips.

The Canadian system is a little different. I am on IPS as a Captain -- it wasn't competitive to get IPS, 100% of my rank and occupation got offered it the year I did -- and if I do a thoroughly mediocre job then I can still expect to serve at the same rank until age 55. In the US system if my branch was overborne, and I wasn't being promoted, odds are slim that I'd still be in uniform at that age.


----------



## rmc_wannabe

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> True but we all accept entrance into our trades.   I fly on the same aircraft as the FE but he gets spec 2.   If I really care about spec 2 I guess I should have went after a different set of wings.



Ask a former LCIS Tech if they had the same impression on enrollment, only to be on a pay freeze for 5 years due to the MES debacle. Same this with the new Information Systems Techs (Army, New Sub Occ, No Spec) that are doing the same work, in the same shop alongside ATIS  Techs (AT, Old Trade, Spec 1) and having 600 dollars less a month compared to their colleagues. It seems too cut and dry a situation to blame the applicant on enrollment in every situation.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

It's not a matter of blame at all.  There are choices; apply for an OT, engage the grievance system, etc.  Regardless we are all in our MOcs by our own choice at the end of the day.  I was in a spec 1 trade AND moved to a better spec 1 trade.


----------



## SupersonicMax

Schindler's Lift said:
			
		

> I once had it put to me this way:  To bring in and train a new recruit can take months if not years but it's done at a recruits pay level.
> To replace an experience senior NCO takes a promotion message.  In other words, it's easier to replace someone then it is to hire someone new so they can concentrate more on bringing in new people at a lower wage than keeping the experience.  We've never really valued that experience as much as I think we should.  Especially when we've paid people to leave early in the past.



In many trades, salary is a very small fraction of the training bill.  Training a Fighter Pilot has to be around 2M$ in flight hours alone.  

Your logic behind the replacement of a Senior NCO is a bit flawed.  It is true for thhat specific position, but you also need to train and replace everyone down the chain that gets a promotion message as a result of the release.  And the experience level of the person is not te same.

Let's take the example of a 2500 Hornet hours Major that releases.  This guy had 2 combat tours, a fighter weapons instructor, instrument check pilot, multiple tours in an Operationnal Squadron.  Yup, to fill the void, all you have to do is promote a Capt to Maj.  But that Capt probably doesn't have all the qualifications and experience the Maj had.  And you'll have to train another fighter pilot that year at a cost of more than 2M$.  Would a 400K bonus keep him for a couple more year?  I think so,  lots of the guys get out to go instruct in the ME where they make 200K tax free, so money IS a motivator in most cases.

Now, apply this to a large scale.  Your training organization doesn't have to be as big, you can keep your experienced pilots in thre Op Squadrons instead of training units and your experience level increases (instead of decreasing like it is now).

Bottom line?  Reduce the  bullshit people have to deal with and don't shortchange your experience.  Experience is worth a lot of money and takes a long time to build.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> In many trades, salary is a very small fraction of the training bill.  Training a Fighter Pilot has to be around 2M$ in flight hours alone.
> 
> Your logic behind the replacement of a Senior NCO is a bit flawed.  It is true for thhat specific position, but you also need to train and replace everyone down the chain that gets a promotion message as a result of the release.  And the experience level of the person is not te same.
> 
> Let's take the example of a 2500 Hornet hours Major that releases.  This guy had 2 combat tours, a fighter weapons instructor, instrument check pilot, multiple tours in an Operationnal Squadron.  Yup, to fill the void, all you have to do is promote a Capt to Maj.  But that Capt probably doesn't have all the qualifications and experience the Maj had.  And you'll have to train another fighter pilot that year at a cost of more than 2M$.  Would a 400K bonus keep him for a couple more year?  I think so,  lots of the guys get out to go instruct in the ME where they make 200K tax free, so money IS a motivator in most cases.
> 
> Now, apply this to a large scale.  Your training organization doesn't have to be as big, you can keep your experienced pilots in thre Op Squadrons instead of training units and your experience level increases (instead of decreasing like it is now).
> 
> Bottom line?  Reduce the  bullshit people have to deal with and don't shortchange your experience.  Experience is worth a lot of money and takes a long time to build.


 For trades with high training bills, and limited ability to regenerate themselves, an incentive for someone to stay is definitely something that should be explored.  for the army this is less of a pressing issue because many of our trades just aren't that technical.  Air Force trades; however, are a whole other story.  It could be a solution for helping prevent above average attrition out of places like Cold Lake where tradesmen are in high demand.


----------



## Tibbson

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> In many trades, salary is a very small fraction of the training bill.  Training a Fighter Pilot has to be around 2M$ in flight hours alone.
> 
> Your logic behind the replacement of a Senior NCO is a bit flawed.  It is true for thhat specific position, but you also need to train and replace everyone down the chain that gets a promotion message as a result of the release.  And the experience level of the person is not te same.
> 
> Let's take the example of a 2500 Hornet hours Major that releases.  This guy had 2 combat tours, a fighter weapons instructor, instrument check pilot, multiple tours in an Operationnal Squadron.  Yup, to fill the void, all you have to do is promote a Capt to Maj.  But that Capt probably doesn't have all the qualifications and experience the Maj had.  And you'll have to train another fighter pilot that year at a cost of more than 2M$.  Would a 400K bonus keep him for a couple more year?  I think so,  lots of the guys get out to go instruct in the ME where they make 200K tax free, so money IS a motivator in most cases.
> 
> Now, apply this to a large scale.  Your training organization doesn't have to be as big, you can keep your experienced pilots in thre Op Squadrons instead of training units and your experience level increases (instead of decreasing like it is now).
> 
> Bottom line?  Reduce the  bullshit people have to deal with and don't shortchange your experience.  Experience is worth a lot of money and takes a long time to build.



I'm not saying I agreed or disagreed with the theory but it certainly does appear to still be valid in most cases.  You assume that immediate steps will be taken to bring the replacement up to the skill level of the incumbent that left while I contend that it is part of the brain drain that we always seem to have.  You can't tell me that there are not under qualified supply techs, mechanics, wpns techs or any other trade you may choose who are either under ranked for the positions they are currently filling or who are eventually promoted due to attrition.  In fact I believe we have a whole other thread recently speaking about the high number of people A/L or attending various career courses already promoted.  

Sgts/WOs get ticked with the system and decide to leave for better paying jobs outside the CAF and instead of a trade promoting the top X on the merit list to make up the difference they now must promote X+ and many of the extras may not otherwise have been merited high enough to get promoted otherwise.   Those promoted are doing their best and are put into a situation whereby they may not be ready for promotion but the CAF has no choice but to promote to replace those who may otherwise have stayed but who left disgruntled or disillusioned.  Those promoted that way are doing their best and they are not failing the CAF, its the CAF that is failing them but putting them into that position.


----------



## upandatom

rmc_wannabe said:
			
		

> I think a huge problem with Spec pay is that it has led to a lot of "Green Eyed Monster"ism between trades. I've seen this for the last five years internally within the C&E Branch alone.



That "Green Eyed Monsterism" is what caused the nightmare that is MES. No ifs and or buts. There was no way to keep Sig Ops in, especially in todays society where high school students are learning TCP/IP and erver admin and have them come into being a Sig Op, get treated like a bag of left handed hammers and develop a phobia of knives in their back. 
Especially when Civi side jobs for this skillset is paying more. 

The money the CF is offering in Salary and benefits is falling behind fast for various trades. Pulling benefits such as this just make the grass look greener.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

The Army Sigs world fucked itself.  Spec pay issues aren't widespread across the CF.   Just the army Sigs mess.

OT out because there IS greener grass in the CAF.


----------



## Navy_Pete

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> The Army Sigs world ****ed itself.  Spec pay issues aren't widespread across the CF.   Just the army Sigs mess.
> 
> OT out because there IS greener grass in the CAF.



It's also a big deal across the Navy tech trades.  It takes years and some fairly demanding boards for the stokers to get their various qualifications, and their spec pay is still 'under review' as far as I know after their cert 2.  You need so many of them on board to go to sea, and every time a ship is sailing, there are critical shortages.  Their skillset is in demand and there will be a big hire once the platform ISSCs come in for the new ships where RCN experience will be an asset.  So coming in on one ship and transferring on a RIB to another ship on it's way out the harbour tends to diminish enthusiasm for the job, oddly enough.

Similar for the naval tech officer trades; between the various ISSCs and other contracts, there will suddenly be a big demand for them when the new ships are coming in, and the bidders have already poached a number of people to work for them.

Oddly if you get the right job, you can almost do more for the Navy as a civilian working for an ISSC, if you can make sure the RCN gets treated fairly while the contractor still makes money so everyone is happy.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Ok well...spec pay is not an issue in the RCAF then.  AVOTP CANFORGEN should be out soon.   :blotto:


----------



## PuckChaser

Its not a big deal in any trades that have had it for years. Anyone trying to change/add it, TBS puts up so much red tape we're waiting years for pay reviews to be completed.


----------



## McG

Budget stealth cuts?


----------



## MilEME09

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Its not a big deal in any trades that have had it for years. Anyone trying to change/add it, TBS puts up so much red tape we're waiting years for pay reviews to be completed.



Now lets get rid of spec pay all together, and see how fast people leave those trades


----------



## Brasidas

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> Now lets get rid of spec pay all together, and see how fast people in those trades leave those trades the CF.



FTFY


----------



## MilEME09

Brasidas said:
			
		

> FTFY



thank you, that is what i was trying to say. Any way I think it would take something like a mass exodus from those spec pay trades to really see a over haul of our pay system, yes I understand not every trade is equal but Why should navy and airforce techs get spec pay and not army techs for example? Even with spec pay the grass is greener for many of these trades civi side. I once met in Borden a aircraft structures tech who was leaving the CF after he was done teaching a course after being offered a job for 4 times what he currently made. Now I understand the CF can't compete with that kind of money however the CF I believe has to be somewhat competitive with the private sector to attract people.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

So, you are suggesting a materials tech has the same responsibility as say, a multi-engine aircraft flight engineer.   Or risks themselves and has a skillset comparable to a SAR tech.  Both of those trades are Spec 2, while mine is Spec 1 yet we are all involved in flying ops.  You'll never hear me say I should get Spec 2 because they do so I should too.

If you don't like your trade, VOT, take your commission, or something.


----------



## rmc_wannabe

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> If you don't like your trade, VOT, take your commission, or something.



I love my trade, I just wish to be compensated in a manner comparitive to others doing the same work type of work in the CAF without having to VOT in order to get it. 

I think its too easy to suggest people VOT or Commission or Release IOT gloss over the bigger problem at hand.


----------



## George Wallace

rmc_wannabe said:
			
		

> I think its too easy to suggest people VOT or Commission or Release IOT gloss over the bigger problem at hand.



I suppose this is what the differences between some members of the CAF, and what Trades that they are in, comes down to.  Some members join the CAF with a sense of duty.  Others join the CAF as an easy way to get an education in a certain field and a Trade for a civilian occupation.  Some join purely for monetary reasons.  There are many reasons one joins the CAF.  One who looks closely at the people in all the various Trades and Occupations between all the Elements of the CAF will see different degrees of dedication to the CAF and vastly different work ethics.  Some members actually think that they are working in "9 to 5" jobs.  Some members have very inflated senses of entitlement.   In today's military, technology is used at all levels in all Trades, so points about needing a certain level of education are becoming mote points.  Some Trades and Occupations do require higher education than others, but in the end all Trades are working as one cog in a much larger machine.  Which cog, if removed, will NOT cause the machine to fail to function?  Are some cogs more essential than others in the machine to keep it functioning; and more importantly, are those the cogs that ensure the machine fulfills it main function?


----------



## Eye In The Sky

rmc_wannabe said:
			
		

> I love my trade, I just wish to be compensated in a manner comparitive to others doing the same work type of work in the CAF without having to VOT in order to get it.
> 
> I think its too easy to suggest people VOT or Commission or Release IOT gloss over the bigger problem at hand.



If you are ACISS and sitting next to an ATIS Tech doing the 'same work' right now, will you be posted to a NavAids section next, keeping the PAR up or whatever radar system?

Because that 226er could be.  ATIS Techs do everything on a Wing "comms related" except the stuff we have onboard; that is an AVS world piece of kit then.  Point?  226ers do a lot in their trade and you can't just look at the micro-bubble of the CAF you are in and limit it to that.  226 folks could be on the helpdesk one month, and then NavAids the next keeping TACANs and RADARs up, directly supporting the ability to conduct missions.  

For RCAF 500 series, I guess it is easy for the Air Ops folks to justify their spec. Our Tech's keep aircraft in the air, and with that is a great amount of responsibility directly involved with mission success.  Case in point.

I feel for you guys in the army sigs NCM world, I do, but you can't blame the spec pay system, or anyone other than the Army C & E folks for the clusterfuck the ACISS world is in.

If people are that unhappy, do something.  If you want out, there is VOT, release, CT, etc.  If you want to stay in the trade but aren't happy...and feel you've been wronged, submit a well-written and supported grievance.


----------



## upandatom

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Its not a big deal in any trades that have had it for years. Anyone trying to change/add it, TBS puts up so much red tape we're waiting years for pay reviews to be completed.



Its not just a matter of TB red tape, I fully agree with that, I dont understand how someone that has no clue what the ACTUAL job entails can decide of specialist pay, but alos the higher ups that said, "All or none" and then "IST, and CST, and LST" and then "IST, CST" and now its "hopefully CST" 

The red tape is ridiculous for giving benefits and way to easy to take them away. Look at what it took to increase pay after the 90s, and even now we still dont compare to other militaries out there. And before you give me some thrid world army that you get a bag of rice and twenty bucks a month, WE ARE NOT THAT COUNTRY. We are a highly developed world leader. Called upon for humanitarian, strategical and tactical ops throughout the world by our peers. 
Before you even mention the poor pay in the states for their military, even when deployed, Look at the local economy benefits they recieve for discounts on vehicles, groceries, Housing(that isnt run by a corrupt money grab covered in more red tape, that is ran by their own people) so in their economy it balances out. Their trade specs and qualifications carry over to civilian side without having to pay some college to do it. 
Members are paying $1100 plus $300+ a month for heating bills, and im pretty sure also paying for their garbage pick up soon. for a Newpsaper insulated, mold infested PMQ. with very little PLD. That, once again is tied up in red tape.


----------



## MilEME09

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> If people are that unhappy, do something.  If you want out, there is VOT, release, CT, etc.  If you want to stay in the trade but aren't happy...and feel you've been wronged, submit a well-written and supported grievance.



This is part of the problem right here, we shouldn't ever get to the point "oh you want more money, CT to this trade", Why should that culture in the CF even exist? we have a two tiered pay system. Personally I don't care whether you work on the Engine of a Leopard, F-18, or a Halifax, you should all make the same money. Spec pay has created a monster that is on one side resentment and envy from those that don't get it. On the other side a culture of entitlement by some individuals with spec pay that defend their spec pay but don't really offer reasoning why X is better then Y.

That is my 2 cents.


----------



## upandatom

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> This is part of the problem right here, we shouldn't ever get to the point "oh you want more money, CT to this trade", Why should that culture in the CF even exist? we have a two tiered pay system. Personally I don't care whether you work on the Engine of a Leopard, F-18, or a Halifax, you should all make the same money. Spec pay has created a monster that is on one side resentment and envy from those that don't get it. On the other side a culture of entitlement by some individuals with spec pay that defend their spec pay but don't really offer reasoning why X is better then Y.
> 
> That is my 2 cents.



Probably becasue the Technical ability, skillset, and knowledge of a member that is required to repair Nav-aids, keep communications up and running for strategic and tactical comms, repair ground, air and naval weapons targeting systems, components in electronics, ensure naval Satcomm, radars,  and  fault finding those systems is far above the norm in some positions in the CAF. The amount and cost of training those soldiers, seaman and airmen is high, and you cant dump them into a technical position while their civilian counterparts get paid 10-40k more a year, and on top of that expect them to deal with the military extra such as constant deployments, time away from home etc. 
In my trade, it took me 2 years to get wualified and out the door. I have friends from basic that were in for the same amount of time that were qualified, out the door and on tour while I was still being trained. Get paid for what you know. The same way a doctor gets paid more then a dentist in your mentality. They are both important for your health, just one gets paid more because they know more. 



If you had somewhat of an educated response, you would know there is more then one Spec Pay incentive level, there is PLD, LDA, and Sea Pay, TD Pay, various amounts of fringe pay benefits one can receive if in the CAF.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> This is part of the problem right here, we shouldn't ever get to the point "oh you want more money, CT to this trade",



EVERY single person who joins as an NCM, signs the line agreeing to "X" trade and knows what they are going to be paid.  If they don't research, I can't help that.  IF they are picking a trade solely because it is Spec Pay...I think that is a mistake.  If you are telling me that say, a postal clerk has the same responsibility I have, and the same requirements, you are missing something.  They don't.  



> Why should that culture in the CF even exist?



It shouldn't.  Cooks, clerks, etc shouldn't complain about not getting spec pay because they didn't join a trade deemed a Specialist trade.  Can it be more simple?



> we have a two tiered pay system.



Actually its more than 2 tiers.  We have NCM, NCM Spec trades, Officers, Officers specialty trades (ever take a look what a Med O Major makes??), and then we have Reg Force, and PRES Cl A and Cl B.  Doesn't that make you feel better?

Look, I am Spec 1 and the lowest paid trade on my crew (everyone else is Spec 2 or Officers).  I don't feel any 'resentment'; I picked my trade, knowing it was what it is pay-wise.  I don't have the same responsibility as the FE, or the Pilot.  I shouldn't expect (and I don't) the same pay simply 'because we are all on the same aircraft'. 



> Personally I don't care whether you work on the Engine of a Leopard, F-18, or a Halifax, you should all make the same money.



If the engine on a leopard breaks down, the tracks stop turning.  In combat that is BAD; in peacetime in Canada, anywhere other than the live 2-way range, it's an inconvenience.  

If the engines on the F-18 stop...training, peacetime, whatever.  ITS BAD.  



> Spec pay has created a monster that is on one side resentment and envy from those that don't get it. On the other side a culture of entitlement by some individuals with spec pay that defend their spec pay but don't really offer reasoning why X is better then Y.
> 
> That is my 2 cents.



When was this 'monster' created; my dad was a FE and made spec pay, and he retired in '81.

I think this is already past the  :deadhorse: point so I'll go on read-only mode...


----------



## MilEME09

upandatom said:
			
		

> If you had somewhat of an educated response, you would know there is more then one Spec Pay incentive level, there is PLD, LDA, and Sea Pay, TD Pay, various amounts of fringe pay benefits one can receive if in the CAF.



I am well aware of Spec 1, and Spec 2 pay levels, and all the extra allowances that exist in the CF. However one with Spec pay can make those same allowances, do people who get spec pay + allowances deserve it? Yes I'm not arguing that at all, I'm saying that the system as a whole is broken and needs to be reviewed. You mention how it took you two years to get trained, I know your pain, I'm a weapons tech, I watched my combat arms buddies go on tour, and be promoted long before me. Frankly Yes it annoyed me but I picked my trade, and I love my trade, should I get spec pay? Nope. Do I think all the trades that get spec pay deserve it? Nope I do not.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> Do I think all the trades that get spec pay deserve it? Nope I do not.



Mind listing the ones that are spec pay that you think should not be, and why?  Maybe it we narrow the arc's here some, the thread won't be locked or circle the shyte tube.


----------



## MilEME09

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Mind listing the ones that are spec pay that you think should not be, and why?  Maybe it we narrow the arc's here some, the thread won't be locked or circle the shyte tube.



Sure no problem, Though I'll admit right now I don't have in depth knowledge of all these trades so just like everyone else here my opinion is open to interpretation based on facts that may be presented.

Communicator Research Operator - it's a sig op with a couple extra pieces of kit, they are mostly equipment operators, sounds like a fair bit of extra work to me. However from what I've read and heard from people it doesn't sound intensive enough to earn spec pay, I don't see a danger involved with the trade it self.

EO techs - Now while EO techs do repair & maintain very sensitive equipment its just a piece of the puzzle that if any piece doesn't work your screwed. Take a M777 for example I'm told it's mostly an EO tech job because of the electronics. Now say there is a problem with a structure of that gun or with the breach or barrel, its just as ineffective in battle as if that all mighty computer didn't work.


----------



## jollyjacktar

Comms Research is more about what you know than what you do per se.  IIRC, they do things such as learn second languages (not French/English) in order to do their jobs here and there.


----------



## Tibbson

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> Communicator Research Operator - it's a sig op with a couple extra pieces of kit, they are mostly equipment operators, sounds like a fair bit of extra work to me. However from what I've read and heard from people it doesn't sound intensive enough to earn spec pay, *I don't see a danger involved with the trade it self*.



So spec pay equates to the danger level for a job?



			
				MilEME09 said:
			
		

> EO techs - Now while EO techs do repair & maintain very sensitive equipment its just a piece of the puzzle that if any piece doesn't work your screwed. Take a M777 for example I'm told it's mostly an EO tech job because of the electronics. Now say there is a problem with a structure of that gun or with the breach or barrel, its just as ineffective in battle as if that all mighty computer didn't work.



Now, i don't know what else an EO tech does but I would assume its more then M777 computers.  It would also seem to me that trained operators could swap out a barrel or conduct front line repairs to make that gun mechanically effective but without the computer it would be pretty much ineffective.


----------



## dimsum

For a different perspective, this is what the Australian Defence Force has for its members:

http://www.defence.gov.au/dpe/pac/Rates.htm

All trades are paid according to their pay groups (1-10).  As an example, Pilot is 10 and Intelligence Officer is 5.  Then there are allowances, increments, etc. like the CAF.

I can assure you that I hear mumbles of discontent from various ADF trades similar to what I see on this thread.


----------



## sidemount

EO techs look after every piece of optical, night vision, thermal, and surveying equipment in the army. As well as the serv kit on the coyote, turrets, power distribution.....basically anything electronic (except radios), electrical, and optical in the army.


----------



## PuckChaser

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> Communicator Research Operator - it's a sig op with a couple extra pieces of kit, they are mostly equipment operators, sounds like a fair bit of extra work to me. However from what I've read and heard from people it doesn't sound intensive enough to earn spec pay, I don't see a danger involved with the trade it self.



That trade was already warned that a pay review is incoming (apparently spec pay trades are supposed to be reviewed every 5 years?), and that they shouldn't bank on keeping it. I don't agree with them having it either, it has nothing to do with danger.

You're dead wrong when you think they're not employed in dangerous situations, PM me if you want further explanation.


----------



## sidemount

Pretty common for other eme trades to think EO techs dont deserve spec pay though....nothing new there.

The LCIS  guys though......man did that whole aciss thing ever screw you guys....don't know what the Sigs branch was trying to do there.


----------



## Tibbson

I think (and it's only just my basic understanding of the overall issue) that most people don't really understand what goes into a decision about whether or not a trade successfully can lobby for spec pay.  It seems many have a "them against us" view when it comes to one trade or another getting or not getting spec pay.  I'm sure there are some criteria somewhere that has to be met.  Just what goes into the process?


----------



## Happy Guy

The request and justification for spec pay by any trade that feels that they deserve it has been  a tough nut to crack for years.  Every trade within the CAF can make a case for spec pay.  All technical trades (repair of equipment) firmly believe that their highly specialized skills, some of which are in high demand by the civilian world, is sufficient justification.
A cook, sup tech, MSE OP, Tfc tech, RMS clk all have specialized skills too.  What do you think it requires to run a major base kitchen that feeds hundreds of people everyday?  What about the skills required to managed a supply system or drive a large tractor trailer?  Is not a competent RMS clk worth their weight in gold?
I do not have an answer to this except that it appears that if a trade is in high demand by the civilian world then it seems that DND answers with spec pay to compete.  What I guess what I'm trying to say is that everyone needs everyone else to make the system work.  Does this justifies only a few select trades get spec pay or the team?


----------



## dapaterson

I realize that introducing facts to a discussion on the internet is a fools errand, but here are two of the FAQs from the intranet site of the DIrectorate of Pay Policy Development


Can you give us the basic structure of CF Pay?

COMPARABILITY

Following unification of the Canadian Forces (CF) in the mid-60s, the Department of National Defence and the Treasury Board Secretariat adopted the principle of comparability between the CF and the Public Service (PS). There were two major reasons for instituting comparability - that CF members would benefit from the results of collective bargaining and that the federal government acted as the employer for both groups.

TEAM CONCEPT

As is the case in most militaries, the CF uses a rank-based "team concept" or institutional approach to determine pay. In this methodology, the average value of the work performed by all members of a specific rank level is considered in developing pay. This is quite different from the more common Public Service method in which an individual is paid the evaluated worth for the specific position they are filling. In exceptional cases, market factors force the CF to consider a handful of military occupations, such as doctors, dentists, lawyers and some high-tech trades, separate from the majority of CF members. However, within these special occupations, the "team concept" is applied. 

Given the nature of the military's work, the "team concept" makes a lot of sense and it is used to the maximum extent possible. However, the use of the "team concept" presents some challenges when comparing the CF to non-military organizations that use an occupational or job-specific approach.

TOTAL COMPENSATION METHODOLOGY

In the late 70s, Treasury Board directed that the Department adopt Total Compensation (TC) analysis, which was also being developed for use in collective bargaining with the PS unions. Treasury Board wanted to ensure that the full value of the compensation and benefits made available by the employer to federal public servants was considered in negotiations. The methodology includes salary, but also evaluates benefits such as pensions, severance pay, acting pay, overtime and medical and dental services, as well as "time not worked", annual leave and sick leave being two examples.

The objective of this form of analysis, therefore, is to compare the compensation and benefits available to one group of employees to the compensation and benefits of another group. The end result provides a net value, expressed in terms of the dollars paid per hour actually worked, for the first group of employees, as compared to the net value of the dollars paid per hour actually worked for the second group. The warranted pay increase or decrease in a given year is the percentage difference between these two values. For the military, two TC analyses are conducted: one for general service officers and one for non-commissioned members. "Comparability" is considered to be achieved if the CF dollar per hour worked is equal to the PS dollar per hour worked.

The Military Factor

It is important to note that the TC analyses, as applied to the CF, also provide latitude to determine the dollar value of the unique aspects of CF 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 was improved to 7.5% for non-commissioned members and 6.5% for general service officers. On 1 April 2006, the Military Factor for general service officers and pilots was further increased to 7.5%. 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 CF 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.

"Comparability", therefore, is not a case of making one rate of pay equal to another. Instead, a "comparability" shortfall is the amount of increase to CF pay that is needed to equalize the bottom line (dollars per hour worked) between the CF and the PS values, but only after considering all salary and applicable benefits including unique CF conditions of service. 

PAY GROUPS

Non-Commissioned Members

Non-commissioned members are paid rates of pay determined through TC analysis. Within each rank there are a number of Pay Increments (PI), which represent automatic annual increases given in recognition of advancements in experience, skill and knowledge. As well, there are three sub-groups of pay into which non-commissioned member trade groups are slotted. These sub-groups are Standard, Specialist 1 and Specialist 2 and pay rates vary in each sub-group. The Specialist 1 and Specialist 2 sub-groups, which include trades such as Fire Control Systems Technicians, Flight Engineers, Biomedical Electronics Technicians, and Marine Engineering Artificers, comprise jobs which are highly complex in nature and whose skills are in high demand in the private sector.

General Service Officers

General service officers are all officers below the rank of colonel in all occupation groups except for pilots and specialist officers (legal, medical and dental officers). General service officers pay rates are also determined through TC analysis and they receive pay increment level increases just like non-commissioned members. One significant difference is that there are often more pay increment levels for officer ranks than there are for non-commissioned member ranks, on the basis that it takes longer for officers to gather all the experience, skill and knowledge required for their rank. Hence, they must wait longer than non-commissioned members to receive the job rate (maximum) for their rank.

Pilots

Pilots are paid general service officer rates of pay plus a pilot differential that is in recognition of private sector market factors.

Senior Officers (Colonels and above)

Officers, other than legal, medical and dental officers, at the rank of colonel and above are paid based upon direct benchmarks to the Public Service's Executive Category. Job analysis is used to establish the benchmarks and after that they receive the same pay and benefits as their PS counterparts. The base pay for Colonels and above includes a 6.5% Military Factor and a fixed percentage factor in recognition of the performance pay paid to the Public Service Executive Group. The value of this performance factor is the same for all officers at each rank regardless of individual performance in order to reflect the CF's Team Concept approach to pay. 

Legal Officers

All CF legal officer (except military judges) rates of pay are based on direct benchmarks to the Public Service's Law Group. In addition, legal officers receive the same military factor as senior officers as analysis has proven that they are subjected to similar conditions as the general service officers. Legal officers also receive a performance pay factor in their base pay.

Military Judges

Military judges are paid based upon the recommendations of the Military Judges' Compensation Committee and the subsequent approval of both the Minister of National Defence and the Treasury Board. To ensure the independence of the military judges, their performance is not assessed and, hence, they do not receive performance pay.

Medical And Dental Officers

As of April 1, 1999, medical and dental officers' total compensation is determined in relation to private practice practitioners. Those below the rank of colonel receive the same military factor as senior and legal officers. Medical and dental officers in the ranks of captain and above receive a Special Military Differential that recognizes the uniqueness of military service.


Why do non-commissioned members have fewer pay increments than officers?

The Canadian Forces pay system is based on the principle of comparability with the Public Service. To that end, a series of Treasury Board Secretariat (TBS) approved salary benchmarks are used to develop the CF rates of pay.

The NCM benchmarks fix a lower and an upper limit. At the lower end, the Cpl benchmark matches CF occupations with PS trades at the journeyman level and include a military factor. The upper limit, Chief Warrant Officer Pay increment (PI) 4, is pegged as a Captain PI 5/6. Between the lower and upper limits, all ranks from Corporal to CWO, six in all, must be accommodated and a maximum salary cap given to each one. The pay structure developed for NCMs must provide reasonable salary progression in the form of pay increments and must provide for reasonable increases on promotion. Given the overall size of the NCM salary range, and the number of ranks involved, the number of pay increments at each rank level must be limited if the amount of each increment is to be of significance. The number of NCM pay increments is presently set at four. Ten pay increments, as there are for Captains, could easily be established mathematically, but annual increases would be so small as to be meaningless. Moreover, the sooner an individual reaches his/her pay ceiling at a given rank, the better off he or she will be financially.

By comparison, the general service officer (GSO) Pay Structure is developed through a comparison to approximately fifteen groups in the Scientific, Professional, and Administrative and Foreign Service categories of occupations in the PS. The result is a relatively broad salary range for each of the GSO Ranks, particularly at Captain, that reflects the scope of jobs, training, experience, responsibilities, and career progression at each rank level. The number of PIs for each rank has been established to account for these factors. It would be possible to reduce the number of PIs at each rank, but this would mean larger pay increment amounts or a larger salary gap between ranks, both unjustifiable based on the rank structure of the CF.


----------



## Tibbson

Happy Guy said:
			
		

> The request and justification for spec pay by any trade that feels that they deserve it has been  a tough nut to crack for years.  Every trade within the CAF can make a case for spec pay.  All technical trades (repair of equipment) firmly believe that their highly specialized skills, some of which are in high demand by the civilian world, is sufficient justification.
> A cook, sup tech, MSE OP, Tfc tech, RMS clk all have specialized skills too.  What do you think it requires to run a major base kitchen that feeds hundreds of people everyday?  What about the skills required to managed a supply system or drive a large tractor trailer?  Is not a competent RMS clk worth their weight in gold?
> I do not have an answer to this except that it appears that if a trade is in high demand by the civilian world then it seems that DND answers with spec pay to compete.  What I guess what I'm trying to say is that everyone needs everyone else to make the system work.  Does this justifies only a few select trades get spec pay or the team?



I think civilian demand plays into it but I know from my own trades perspective it took more then that.  At the time we got spec pay we were down in numbers due to civilian police departments "poaching" MPs or many just leaving to go over because of pay.  At the same time though, our getting spec pay was not just due to retention.  There was a trade off in that we now require our new recruits to have a college diploma upon enrollment.  If we no longer had that requirement we'd lose the spec pay for sure.  Yes, retention was part of the problem but it certainly was not the issue that resulted in spec pay.  I'll have to dig around the network tomorrow to see what I can find on the topic I guess.


----------



## upandatom

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> I am well aware of Spec 1, and Spec 2 pay levels, and all the extra allowances that exist in the CF. However one with Spec pay can make those same allowances, do people who get spec pay + allowances deserve it? Yes I'm not arguing that at all, I'm saying that the system as a whole is broken and needs to be reviewed. You mention how it took you two years to get trained, I know your pain, I'm a weapons tech, I watched my combat arms buddies go on tour, and be promoted long before me. Frankly Yes it annoyed me but I picked my trade, and I love my trade, should I get spec pay? Nope. Do I think all the trades that get spec pay deserve it? Nope I do not.



Ill agree that not all that get it deserve it, and there are some that dont get it that do (Med Tech is a prime example)

But a big thing is, positional. The job you are doing at that time. Does that deserve Spec Pay? Sometimes a spec pay trade position doesnt deserve spec pay, yes they know how to do the job, but are they doing/using their technical experitise? 
You cant start telling people in this position you will get spec and in this one you wont. You will have people fist fighting for positions. 

EO techs do deserve it, (same situation stands as some positions are alot more technical then others) but i have seen some EO techs do some very precise technicial work in 3rd line repair. 

Weapons techs, possibly too, there is the argument there(precision required and knowledge, small arms and larger weapons systems)

same as mat techs when comparing welders pay in the oil fields. 

The TB has spec pay so weighed down with red tape it possibly costs more to run it through the TB then actually just granting and paying the trades that have it.


----------



## McG

upandatom said:
			
		

> You cant start telling people in this position you will get spec and in this one you wont. You will have people fist fighting for positions.


Why not?  We do it with LDA and some recepients of the allowance don't even have to spend time in the field to get it.


----------



## Halifax Tar

MCG said:
			
		

> Why not?  We do it with LDA and some recepients of the allowance don't even have to spend time in the field to get it.



This is the mistake the CA made when it tried to copy the RCNs issuance of SDA.  

If you tied Spec/Tech pay to positions vice trades you would create massive headaches for the respective trade's career shops.  

How would you get pers to CFLRS or Any other non-technical or ATR billet ?


----------



## McG

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> How would you get pers to CFLRS or Any other non-technical or ATR billet ?


How does the Army get pers to CFLRS or any other non-field position?  
I am not saying such a system is desirable, but it can be done.  It is done.


Anyway, here is an article that comes to an interesting recomendation for members of the CAF.  Some in this thread my find their problems can be addressed throught the conclusion.


> Financial peace of mind important for military families
> Michael Staples
> The Daily Gleaner
> 14 Jan 2015
> 
> If you're a military family in the U.S. making at least $50,000 a year, financial concerns are not likely high on the list of things that keep you awake at night.
> 
> A report released last week by the First Command Financial Behaviours Index reveals that monetary confidence is edging up amongst such groups in that country.
> 
> The findings say it's happening despite ongoing concerns related to sequestration - a process that automatically cuts federal spending cross most U.S. departments and agencies, including Defence, if Congress fails to agree on a deficit-reducing budget before a specified date.
> 
> Even with that in mind, America's career military is growing more confident in their overall finances, declares the report.
> 
> The index assesses trends among the American public's financial behaviours, attitudes and intentions through a monthly survey of approximately 530 U.S. consumers aged 25 to 70 with annual household incomes of at least $50,000
> 
> "As military families navigate the uncertainties of sequestration and defence downsizing, they are taking actions that help them feel more optimistic about their financial security," Scott Spiker, CEO of First Command Financial Services Inc., said in a news release
> 
> The report, citing third-quarter results, reveals that more than half of middle-class military families (senior NCOs and commissioned officers) believe their financial situation will improve in the next year (up six points to 54 per cent).
> 
> Career military families are also growing more confident in their ability to retire comfortably (up 11 points to 50 per cent) and less likely to feel financially stretched month to month (down 17 points to 39 per cent), the report said.
> 
> Eighteen months ago, this same index revealed that 68 per cent of middle-class U.S. military families felt they wouldn't be able to retire as comfortably as prior generations.
> 
> These new figures represent a dramatic turnaround.
> 
> Considering the uncertain times that are plaguing economies worldwide, these findings and the apparent reversal in fortunes are borderline shocking.
> 
> But, as the report reveals, this new found confidence is being realized with the assistance of some common sense, based on smart thinking and clever planning. In other words, military families are seeking professional financial help and placing their funds in safe places.
> 
> Monthly savings rates are being positively impacted by the support of a financial advisor, the report said.
> 
> During the third quarter, military families working with a financial adviser were considerably more likely to save - and put away more dollars - than their do-it-yourself counterparts, findings revealed.
> 
> "Saving money gives families a greater sense of control over their finances, which we see reflected in growing feelings of confidence," Spiker said.
> 
> Looking ahead, the report found that most military members expect to continue their savings behaviours in the coming months. Half of those surveyed in September said they are increasing the amount they are saving, according to the report.
> 
> Service members with a financial advisor are more likely than those without to anticipate increasing their monthly savings amounts (39 per cent versus 28 per cent).
> 
> The report also found that while overall financial confidence is growing, sequestration is never far away from the minds of U.S. military families.
> 
> Fortunately no such process exists in this country.
> 
> Results reveal that 76 per cent of military respondents feel anxious about cuts to defence spending. That's up 14 points from the end of the first quarter.
> 
> Roughly four out of five military families expect to be financially impacted by sequestration, and are continuing to take action through a variety of positive behaviours.
> 
> In contrast, concern remains muted in the general population with about two out of five civilian respondents expressing anxiety, the report said.
> 
> If this U.S. report can be used as an accurate yardstick to measure confidence, then financial stability can make a huge difference when it comes to security and peace of mind.
> 
> So, what does all this mean for Canadian military families?
> 
> The answer is simple. Start saving.
> 
> Seek professional help in putting you financial matters in order.
> 
> The proof as to what all this will mean down the road is seemingly in the pudding.


----------



## upandatom

MCG said:
			
		

> Why not?  We do it with LDA and some recepients of the allowance don't even have to spend time in the field to get it.



Ill be the first to admit, at JSR we should of not recieved LDA. Parking Lot exercises and all. It wasnt until 2011 that as a unit it started to work for its LDA. 
Same way, Some units Deserve LDA, others do not. (My biggest piss off is the sick lame and lazy, Stay healthy to get to a unit that can get them LDA, and then two weeks in or a week before their exercise magical T-Cat comes up and they still recieve LDA)


----------



## dangerboy

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> This is the mistake the CA made when it tried to copy the RCNs issuance of SDA.
> 
> If you tied Spec/Tech pay to positions vice trades you would create massive headaches for the respective trade's career shops.
> 
> How would you get pers to CFLRS or Any other non-technical or ATR billet ?



You do what my career manager did, told either go or put your release in and get out.  It is very simple.


----------



## Tibbson

At the end of the day, if all other arguments fail, one still has two choices:

1)  Take it; or
2)  Leave it.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Schindler's Lift said:
			
		

> At the end of the day, if all other arguments fail, one still has two choices:
> 
> 1)  Take it; or
> 2)  Leave it.




............and with that, I think it's time to take a breather on this one.

Staff


----------

