# Why we pay Reservists what we do (Including Reg v.s. Cl B v.s. Cl C pay, and Double-Dippin')



## MAJOR_Baker (19 Sep 2003)

I asked a Canadian Regular Force officer about pay for reserve officers while they are deployed (I apologize if I am not using CDN Army terms).  He stated that reserve soldiers do not receive the same pay as a regular force soldier.

1. Is that true?
2. Does it cause problems with deployments?
3. Do regular force soldiers look down on reservists as not being trained as well, does it cause any conflicts?


----------



## Jarnhamar (19 Sep 2003)

1. For the reservsts going on deployment (To bosnia anyways) they are now making the exact same as their regular force counterparts though their pay levels technically drop (ie. private 3 would be on paper a private 1 because of the time in rank ) they still make more than they normally would have.

3. Not always but a considerable amount of the time. Reserves here do not deploy at unit level with the exception of the new light patrol vehicle companies going to bosnia so often your placing a kid with a few years experence on thursday nights and week-ends in the mix with guys who do it 24/7 for half a dozen years give or take.


----------



## d53642 (19 Mar 2008)

http://www.thechronicleherald.ca/Metro/1044466.html

The federal labour minister was in Halifax on Tuesday trumpeting legislation aimed at protecting the civilian jobs of reservists while they’re conducting military training or deployed overseas.

But some people in the audience at HMCS Scotian seemed more interested in when reservists will be paid the same as their regular force counterparts.

"It’s a great first step, this initiative," said Petty Officer 1st Class Bernard Quigley, the coxswain of HMCS Shawinigan. "What about now, pay equity and equity of benefits for reserves who are standing full time, shoulder to shoulder with the reg force?

"There are many places where you will have a reservist doing exactly the same job, full time, beside the reg force member and the differences can be up to over $20,000 a year in pay and benefits."

Labour Minister Jean-Pierre Blackburn said that inequity won’t be covered by the new law.

"I’m sorry, I don’t have an answer for you right now," Mr. Blackburn said. 

About 200 people in army and navy uniforms attended the minister’s speech.

"That’s why I think a lot of people were here today, because when they talked about labour, we were hoping it was more about pay equality between the reg force and the reserve," said Petty Officer 2nd Class Sonya Elson, a reservist cook who works full time in an administrative job with the navy.

"And yes, we do have a significant amount of difference. We do the same job as a reg force member . . . but yet we get paid less."

She earns about $46,000 a year for a job that pays her regular force counterparts $52,000 annually.

"It’s quite a big difference," said Petty Officer 2nd Class Elson, who has been working full time for the military for the past 10 years. She can’t join the regular force because her eyesight has degraded since joining the navy.

"Although the military allows me to do a reg force position, they won’t let me go reg force because of my eyesight," Petty Officer 2nd Class Elson said.

Petty Officer 2nd Class Ryan Byrne also questioned why reservists who are doing the same job as a regular force member aren’t paid the same.

"It’s not fair. But that’s the card you get dealt, I guess, being a reservist."

After a decade in the reserves, he’s now looking into joining the regular force because of the pay difference.

"The reserves has its benefits, but it also has its drawbacks," said Petty Officer 2nd Class Byrne, a navy cook who orders food rations for coastal defence vessels and submarines.

He doubts the government will ever pay reservists the same as regular force members for jobs here in Halifax.

"It’s all about money. It’s cheaper to employ a reservist in a position where a regular force would do it because there’s less money to hand out."

Reservists generally make 15 per cent less than their regular force counterparts, said Capt. Ron Kronstein of army public affairs.

"It’s seen as a form of compensation for not being posted or told where to go every few years," Capt. Kronstein said in an e-mail.

"There are always rumours that that gap is being closed because so many reservists are working full time. But right now it’s just that, a rumour."

Any time reservists work a contract over 180 days, they get full medical and dental benefits, he said.

When reservists volunteer, train and go to Afghanistan, they are paid the same as regular force soldiers, Capt. Kronstein said. "No difference in pay, benefits or anything else."

The Conservative government said the new legislation will protect the jobs of reservists who work in the federal civil service or in federally regulated industries. The proposed amendments to a handful of laws will also apply to reservists enrolled full time at post-secondary institutions by allowing them to keep their student status active in the Canada Student Loan program.

"When you come home from a mission, you return to your companies and to your work as civilians, it is important that Canada does everything it can to ensure that you never have to worry about being penalized for serving your country," Mr. Blackburn said.

The guarantee of unpaid leave for reservists is "a step in the right direction," said Lt.-Col. Robert Knapp, commanding officer of the Princess Louise Fusiliers, a reserve infantry regiment in Halifax.

Lt.-Col. Knapp was initially worried the new law would make employers reluctant to hire reservists.

"That was a concern of mine, coming here this morning, whether there was going to be any thumbscrews put to employers that may have that effect. That’s what we worry about a great deal as reservists, having difficulty finding jobs in the first place."

As an insurance broker with seven employees, he was also worried about "having onerous legislation imposed upon us that makes us extend benefits to employees that we really are uncomfortable with."

Nothing the minister said Tuesday falls into that category, Lt.-Col. Knapp said.

"Holding someone’s job, it’s no more onerous than a maternity leave," he said.

Six provinces, including Nova Scotia, have already passed legislation protecting reservists’ jobs.


----------



## Haggis (19 Mar 2008)

Equal pay would imply equal liability to serve/train.  Anywhere, anytime.  No saying "Sorry, I can't deploy until I finish college." or "I can't go on exercise this weekend.  My wife is ovulating."

A wise man once said "Be careful what you ask for.  You just might get it".


----------



## zipperhead_cop (19 Mar 2008)

Interesting.  I wonder if anyone will really pursue it.  Eliminating the Class B system would be quite the upheaval of the CF.


----------



## Pte.Butt (19 Mar 2008)

I think if the pay was equal, there would be far less people enlisting in the Regular force, and the Reserves would get rather large.
But more money would be great  ;D


----------



## aesop081 (19 Mar 2008)

ButtA said:
			
		

> But more money would be great  ;D



As noted above, be careful what you wish for.


----------



## d53642 (19 Mar 2008)

Being a former reservist and working at a reserve unit now as a reg force member, I don't agree either they should be on equal grounds.

I agree with you totally Haggis. Ran in my local paper and thought I would share it with everyone else.


----------



## zipperhead_cop (19 Mar 2008)

ButtA said:
			
		

> I think if the pay was equal, there would be far less people enlisting in the Regular force, and the Reserves would get rather large.
> But more money would be great  ;D



But the Class B positions would still be the same number.  However, with a bit of competition for them maybe we could clear out some of the dead wood and get some solid people in some of the cushy positions.  
And the money would only be 15% more


----------



## Shamrock (19 Mar 2008)

Haggis said:
			
		

> Equal pay would imply equal liability to serve/train.  Anywhere, anytime.  No saying "Sorry, I can't deploy until I finish college." or "I can't go on exercise this weekend.  My wife is ovulating."



I can't comment on equal liability in terms of service, but I do think this would be an excellent opportunity for reserve units to train their soldiers on the same courses and of the same length as their regular counterparts.  They serve in the same theatres and face the same risks -- their training and promotion periods should be on par with ours.


----------



## ark (19 Mar 2008)

On top of what has been already said, reservists are generally promoted faster than Reg force members as Res careers are shorter but positions in units must be filled anyway.

If you are doing the same job as a Reg force member, why not join the reg force? I guess some want the best of both worlds with minimum sacrifice.


----------



## Yrys (19 Mar 2008)

Haggis said:
			
		

> "I can't go on exercise this weekend.  My wife is ovulating."



Is that coming from experience ?

civilian question : I thought that reservist was always part time job. Any thread here about reservist with full time job, 
which jobs are they holding, for how long they can do that or anything related ?


----------



## X-mo-1979 (19 Mar 2008)

I actually surfed away from this topic,but had to come back and voice my opinion.

The reserves have taken a way larger role in the CF since IIRC roto 13 to Bosnia.Ever since then a fair number of reservist have been deployed with each battle group.I 100% agree with the job protection for reservist,and hopefully this will also allow other reservist who before due to job could not deploy do so.

On the equal pay.At first reading it my first thought was why should they?They can pick their own jobs,become a civilian,pick and choose deployments to meet family commitments (wife having baby for example)etc.However then I realised its not my money!Honestly the way the benefits are finally heading towards the reserves it is starting to entice me as a regular force member to CT over and persue other goals such as school and other employment.

Has anyone up higher thought about what happens when you make the other side more enticing?


----------



## TCBF (19 Mar 2008)

zipperhead_cop said:
			
		

> Interesting.  I wonder if anyone will really pursue it.  Eliminating the Class B system would be quite the upheaval of the CF.



- Class B positions are considered regional make-work programs: The locals get to play, but don't get posted away from their villages.  Keeps them paying taxes at home and everybody is happy.  Do we NEED all of those positions?

NO. 

-  We ran things just fine without them before.  You could slash the Class B budgets and give the cash to the Class A budgets and the Militia could increase their strength.


----------



## geo (19 Mar 2008)

There are tons of differences between the terms of service for reservists & regs.

Reservists who apply for an operational tasking within the framework of a TF are paid class "C" from the very moment that they have dagged green and are posted to their unit.

Reservists on class A are paid 85% of Reg salary.  They are also paid the equivalent of 9% "in lieu of vacation" pay.  so, all of a sudden we are talking about a reservist being paid 94% of Reg salary - without the committment of having to accept the tasking given to him.

Reservists on class B are paid 85% of Reg salary with vacation days tacked onto the end of their Class B employment.

When discussing reservists you have to discuss the benefits that the reservists on long term contracts are entitled to...


----------



## Haggis (19 Mar 2008)

Yrys said:
			
		

> Is that coming from experience ?



Yes, it is.  I heard this from one of my NCOs once.  And people wonder why I have grey hair.



> civilian question : I thought that reservist was always part time job. Any thread here about reservist with full time job,
> which jobs are they holding, for how long they can do that or anything related ?



The Reserves are part time, however Reservists have the OPTION of volunteering for deployments.  How long an employer  can/must/will hold a civilian positions for a deployed Reservist is determined by what province you live in, what legislation governs your type of employment and what your collective agreeement provides.


----------



## Pte.Butt (19 Mar 2008)

zipperhead_cop said:
			
		

> But the Class B positions would still be the same number.  However, with a bit of competition for them maybe we could clear out some of the dead wood and get some solid people in some of the cushy positions.
> *And the money would only be 15% more *



Hey! That money is better in my pocket, then not.


----------



## Yrys (19 Mar 2008)

Haggis said:
			
		

> Yes, it is.  I heard this from one of my NCOs once.  And people wonder why I have grey hair.



 Well, next time invite the wife to the excersice!



			
				Haggis said:
			
		

> The Reserves are part time, however Reservists have the OPTION of volunteering for deployments.  How long an employer  can/must/will hold a civilian positions for a deployed Reservist is determined by what province you live in, what legislation governs your type of employment and what your collective agreeement provides.



I know about the option for reservists to deploy. But I was getting a vibe from this thread that they were reservists that hold full time job without the "deployment is required"
of regulars... I 'm curious about those...


----------



## geo (19 Mar 2008)

Haggis said:
			
		

> Yes, it is.  I heard this from one of my NCOs once.  And people wonder why I have grey hair.
> 
> The Reserves are part time, however Reservists have the OPTION of volunteering for deployments.  How long an employer  can/must/will hold a civilian positions for a deployed Reservist is determined by what province you live in, what legislation governs your type of employment and what your collective agreeement provides.


ALSO
Reservists are free to apply to fill temporary full time positions within the CF.  You will find reservists working at pert much every level of command throughout the CF.  Contracts can be for as long as 3 years... renewable


----------



## TCBF (19 Mar 2008)

We need a flexible system where the career manager gets to decide if a position is Class B or not.  That way, he could take a Regular or Reservist who has just came back from a bad tour and give him a year with the 4th Bn Foreskin Fusileers, or whatever.  The B occupying that position can slide into a tasking elsewhere or be made redundant.


----------



## dapaterson (19 Mar 2008)

TCBF:

interesting perspective.

Way out to lunch in many respects.

But interesting nonetheless...

Of the Army reservists working full time:  About 1/8 are outside the Army - lots in the recruiting and training systems, some scattered throughout NDHQ, and others working for other environments (and, of course, the dot COM and their RJFT HQs).  Of the remainder, they're in three roughly equal groups:  those deployed or in pre-deployment training; those working in Reserve units, and those backfilling the Reg F in area HQs, army schools, and bases.

In terms of the Res units, there's an official template for the full-time support they should get.  But the Reg F is failing to pull its weight - about 25% of those positions have gone unfilled.  So more reservists get hired to backfill those slots.  There are a few folks above and beyond those level as well.



			
				TCBF said:
			
		

> -  We ran things just fine without them before.  You could slash the Class B budgets and give the cash to the Class A budgets and the Militia could increase their strength.



And we also spent decades with the Reg F "training for war" but parked on their rucks doing nothing.  The Reserve contribution to the Army today is what's kept the Army from collapsing years ago (not my words - those of a Reg F BGen).


----------



## TCBF (19 Mar 2008)

geo said:
			
		

> ALSO
> Reservists are free to apply to fill temporary full time positions within the CF.  You will find reservists working at pert much every level of command throughout the CF.  Contracts can be for as long as 3 years... renewable



- But those positions should not be sacred.  He may have a three year contract, buy if I need that posting for one of my people, the Career Manager should be able to de-list it as a Reserve vacancy and post in a Regular - before three years.


----------



## TCBF (19 Mar 2008)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> And we also spent decades with the Reg F "training for war" but parked on their rucks doing nothing.



 ;D

- You don't play well with others, do you?


----------



## dapaterson (19 Mar 2008)

Nah, why should I play nice?  >

But on a more serious note, right now the shortage of pers at key ranks means career managers don't have the luxury of posting people to "R&R" postings; instead, they work to fill the Pri 1 and pri 2 positions.  Anything else that gets filled is just gravy.  In certain corps, the Reg F is filling less than 40% of positions in support of Reserve units - they just don't have the people to do fill positions.

We are years away from getting to the new normal in personnel; the lack of Reg F recruiting in the 90s has lead to the shortfalls in mid-level leadership the Reg F is facing today.  No easy fixes - and an institution that is slow to adapt - all make for what promises to be an interesting decade ahead...


----------



## X-mo-1979 (19 Mar 2008)

How about next we move into deploying FULL reserve units to support task forces as well.

-1H will deploy as a full unit to support the next battle group.Send out the job protection notification's and release those who can't go.Thus making a stronger unit with total experience and flush the guys who just want to stay in canada for 35 years looking good in uniform.

-students? put school as a secondary priority like us reg force bums trying to work,deploy, and get a BA done (not fun).

-Start posting class B positions to get a greater job knowledge/diverse learning.

But by this point next year there will proably be a 455th reserve Soldiers united union started. ;D


----------



## TCBF (19 Mar 2008)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Nah, why should I play nice?  >
> 
> But on a more serious note, right now the shortage of pers at key ranks means career managers don't have the luxury of posting people to "R&R" postings; instead, they work to fill the Pri 1 and pri 2 positions.  Anything else that gets filled is just gravy.  In certain corps, the Reg F is filling less than 40% of positions in support of Reserve units - they just don't have the people to do fill positions.
> 
> We are years away from getting to the new normal in personnel; the lack of Reg F recruiting in the 90s has lead to the shortfalls in mid-level leadership the Reg F is facing today.  No easy fixes - and an institution that is slow to adapt - all make for what promises to be an interesting decade ahead...



- - You got that right. Lack of recruiting plus the Somalia debacle plus disbanding the Cdn AB Regt gave the youth of Canada the impression that the government of the day did not view the military in a favourable light.  Now, who wants to join an institution in decline? Nobody.

Problem 2: FRP convinced many INSIDE the CF that perhaps it was time for a change, so they started to leave.  And leave.  And leave.  Soon 90,000 was down to 45,000.  Or less.  And when we cut a hierarchy by 50%, we loose 75% of our experience.

No wonder nobody knows how do do anything anymore.

And don't ever mention the mythical 4CMBG as a place that clicked.  Nope. That would peg you as a "man of the past"!


----------



## combat_medic (19 Mar 2008)

There are about a thousand questions that would need to be answered before any consideration of job protection and equal pay can be considered. 

1. Does job protection = mandatory deployments?
2. Would there be protection for reservists whose employers manage to fire them anyway (as happens all the time in the US)?
3. Would it be illegal to discriminate for hiring based on CF employment? Would that legislation be enforced?
4. Would reservists be less likely to disclose service to potential employers?
5. Would more equal pay = mandatory deployments?
6. Would it mean less class B positions?
7. Would units have to reduce strength because of the the increase in pay?
8. Would Reg Force recruiting suffer? (how many reservists on long term Cl B end up going reg because of the additional money?)
9. Would Res promotions be put in line with the Reg?
10. Would other Res benefits suffer as a result of paying 15% more? (RFRG, pension, education, dental, etc.)


A lot of American reservists have mentioned how job protection has done them little good. Many lost their jobs after a 2-year stint in Iraq because their employers let them go because of cutbacks, restructuring, or some other reason. While they weren't officially let go because of their service, the employers just managed to find obvious loopholes to replace them while they were away. The US military also uses job protection as the justification for mandatory deployments for reserve and national guard personnel. 

While I would certainly like to see job protection that is equitable and fair, and allows me to choose when I want to go on course/task/deployment, and would love to see a 15% pay raise, I'm hesitant to jump on board with this one. After all, the money has to come out of somewhere. What are reservists willing to risk in order to get that extra pay? I doubt very much that the Federal Government is sitting on millions of extra dollars that they want to earmark to pay the reserves more. Especially in the current political climate when the government is being criticized for their increased spending on the Afghanistan mission, I doubt they, or the voting public will see this expenditure as a priority.


----------



## geo (19 Mar 2008)

TCBF said:
			
		

> - But those positions should not be sacred.  He may have a three year contract, buy if I need that posting for one of my people, the Career Manager should be able to de-list it as a Reserve vacancy and post in a Regular - before three years.


The position should not be sacred - agreed BUT, if you start punting someone out of a Class B with only 30 days notice you'll see just how hard it is to get someone to apply for another class B sometime later.  «if the reservist has committed himself to 3 years, then he is employable (and deployable IMHO)


----------



## Pikache (19 Mar 2008)

This has potential to turn into another Regs vs Res flame war and I'm frankly sick of those threads.

Let's keep the debate professional 

-Army.ca Staff


----------



## 54/102 CEF (19 Mar 2008)

Just me talking here ---- I believe what is keeping this shell game going is the same thing that I posted on the Janis Stein / Eugene Lang book in PATH TO WAR last week - Bone headed ignorance of defence and strategic issues by our political leadership. Its easier to tax and spend internal to Canada than it is to get a feel for the world. 

Cdn politicians are behind the rest of NATO in how to deploy a force - witness repeated "We were never told this or that statements from ex - cabinet ministers" ref the Cdn deployments - That CDS sure is a shyster - early in early out - Wooo! Afghanistan is getting Iraquized (Bill Graham on the use of IEDs)

If the policy makers - i.e. Government are out in left field looking for a game they can play (liberals on Defence) then who's to say the incoming team has any better idea - true there are some major big ticket items in the purchasing pipeline - but all the stuff - can’t deploy without a human filled team across the entire defence spectrum

Now we see "We need help in Khandahar" True or not - it is what we hear from all levels. You might say just mobilise the reserves - an example at the link http://www.coxwashington.com/hp/content/reporters/stories/2008/02/01/GUARD_GA01_COX.html suggests that’s easier done than said - i.e. - a US Reserve force designed for the Cold War to MAYBE deploy and then be continually deployed leads to a non realisation of Strategic goals - i.e.: what if we deploy and deploy and deploy and its still not enough?

So we have a reserve augmented force deployed - that needs down time - but the large majority of the reserves don’t seem to be under any orders to do anything -----------> This is a mismatch of ends and means ------ if you can’t tap them why do you have them? Same goes for all the regulars who are not in battle group or combatant trades. Then you have a case of a demographic imbalance in the reg forces where 65% are over 35 and 35% are under 35 – old forces don’t fight forever. (This percentage was in the CF pers newsletter about 3-4 years back).

At the same time, the regular forces can deploy so many times on the 6 months overseas cycle before the in service troops say screw this - I am gone. 

That is because it’s not a War accompanied by wartime rules such as holding onto people in deployment critical skills until NATO or whatever higher level political organisation figures out what to do where we are deployed.

So - the decades long political wisdom to under fund the forces (not the under recruiting) has come back to hit the government - the fixed ceiling reg force isn’t big enough to handle a Khandahar Mission alone - the reserves can augment it for a while - but sooner or later the bottom is reached (NATO has to help with troops)

Grenades with Pins in will be accepted - flamethrowers will get Strategic UAV generated metallic email.


----------



## 54/102 CEF (19 Mar 2008)

HighlandFusilier said:
			
		

> This has potential to turn into another Regs vs Res flame war and I'm frankly sick of those threads.
> 
> Let's keep the debate professional
> 
> -Army.ca Staff



The trouble starts at the political level - regs and reserves are doing way more than there share to keep things going.


----------



## Shamrock (19 Mar 2008)

TCBF said:
			
		

> We need a flexible system where the career manager gets to decide if a position is Class B or not.  That way, he could take a Regular or Reservist who has just came back from a bad tour and give him a year with the 4th Bn Foreskin Fusileers, or whatever.  The B occupying that position can slide into a tasking elsewhere or be made redundant.



I don't know where I stand on this.  I think having these positions available to regular and reserve soldiers could be a good idea; however, if a reservist is already filling the position and it seems unfair to bump one soldier in favor of another simply because of component precedence/priority.  That said, if the reservist has already committed himself to 3 years of full-time military service, and he's fighting trim... why not deploy him in the place of a worn-out counterpart who can take up the cozy Cl. B position?  The other down side is the cost to post or task regular soldiers to the various locations.  Cl B reservists are not entitled to a posting regardless of the job's location whereas his reg counterpart would be (under certain circumstances, I realize).

Finally, the reserves aren't the only component with deadbeats.  How often has it been heard that some bloated tick can't go on tour because his taxes are due or he can't be posted to Wainwright because Edmonton is the only place that sells his favourite brand of dogfood?


----------



## Haggis (19 Mar 2008)

combat_medic said:
			
		

> There are about a thousand questions that would need to be answered before any consideration of job protection and equal pay can be considered.



OK, I'll take a stab at this:

1. Does job protection = mandatory deployments?  I don't think we're there yet.  Reg F are meeting thier recruiting numbers and attrition is slowing.  However, this could eventually be the case if, for example, we were to commit somewhere else while still in Kandahar. As *TCBF* and *dapaterson* discussed, the CF manning problem is at the mid level, where emplyment protection will have greatest effect.
2. Would there be protection for reservists whose employers manage to fire them anyway (as happens all the time in the US)?   Canadian employers wil quickly learn how to circumvent the legislation.  Liklely we will have no recourse against them.
3. Would it be illegal to discriminate for hiring based on CF employment? Would that legislation be enforced?   The Canadian Human Rights Act would have to be amended and that's not likely.  Joining the Reserves is a CHOICE.  Being born a black female isn't.
4. Would reservists be less likely to disclose service to potential employers? Likely, but this could open them up to dismissal for cause (non disclosure of information which could prejudice employability). 
5. Would more equal pay = mandatory deployments?  See question 1.
6. Would it mean less class B positions?  Under the current construct, equal pay would essentially mean Class C for everyone, thereby eliminating Class B Terms of Service.
7. Would units have to reduce strength because of the the increase in pay? Unless such an icreasee in pay was accompanied by an increase in unit SWE (funding) then, yes.
8. Would Reg Force recruiting suffer? (how many reservists on long term Cl B end up going reg because of the additional money?) Possibly, as the financial incentives of CT would be eliminated.  However, the career/employment/mobility opportunities of the Reg F would remain.
9. Would Res promotions be put in line with the Reg?  Shouldn't happen until the training delta is closed.
10. Would other Res benefits suffer as a result of paying 15% more? (RFRG, pension, education, dental, etc.)  Res F benefits are pretty good now.  RFRG may have to disappear but the rest should/could remain as is.


----------



## Panzer Grenadier (19 Mar 2008)

I'm a reservist, I'm getting my paperwork going for TF 1-10, and I don't think I'm a deadbeat.  There are some I'm aware off, few though, which is good.  I would honestly like to have one of those cozy 3 year cl B's.  If a reg force counterpart, back from his 3rd tour and is worn out, bumps me from that 3 year cl b that's fine.  My caveat is that I get deployed overseas for whatever number of months the standard length tour is at the moment (once I get all my kit together and dagged green) and upon my return I finish what (if any) length of time was left on that 3 yr cl b.  

Its a fools dream, but what a dream it is.


----------



## Reccesoldier (19 Mar 2008)

If it isn't broke...

To me, as a reservist, this sounds like a whole lot of bitching in which people have either not thought it through or expect to have their cake and eat it too.  Tell them they'll be deployed or released because of universality of service and they'll shut up right quick.


----------



## IntlBr (19 Mar 2008)

The CIC is part of the ResF.  Should they be getting RegF Captain's pay too?


----------



## Panzer Grenadier (19 Mar 2008)

Corps of Guides said:
			
		

> The CIC is part of the ResF.  Should they be getting RegF Captain's pay too?



Interesting point.


----------



## Nfld Sapper (19 Mar 2008)

Corps of Guides said:
			
		

> The CIC is part of the ResF.  Should they be getting RegF Captain's pay too?



Different kettle of fish.


----------



## Haggis (19 Mar 2008)

Corps of Guides said:
			
		

> The CIC is part of the ResF.  Should they be getting RegF Captain's pay too?



Don't start.


----------



## IntlBr (19 Mar 2008)

Not a different kettle of fish, and I'm not starting anything.  It is a legitimate comment, and question.

The CIC is part of the ResF.  They would be included in any acts amending the ResF pay structure.


----------



## Haggis (19 Mar 2008)

Going back to the beginning of this thread and the news article that spawned it, it's interesting to note that the comments regarding equal pay were made by Naval Reservists.

The Naval and Air Reserve are, by far, more equaly aligned in terms of training equivalency and employability.  For instance, Air Reserve members must complete the exact same rank and trade courses as the Regular Force counterparts.

Can the Army say that?  No.  Can the CIC say that???  No, again.  So the argument of a pan CF Reserve policy engendering equal pay for equal work of equal value is pointless for this reason alone.


----------



## Nfld Sapper (19 Mar 2008)

Corps of Guides said:
			
		

> Not a different kettle of fish, and I'm not starting anything.  It is a legitimate comment, and question.
> 
> The CIC is part of the ResF.  They would be included in any acts amending the ResF pay structure.



Yes different kettle of fish as they deal children and IMHO should not be paid on par with the Reg Force or with that of the P.Res, they should have their own pay scales.


----------



## Nfld Sapper (19 Mar 2008)

Haggis said:
			
		

> Going back to the beginning of this thread and the news article that spawned it, it's interesting to note that the comments regarding equal pay were made by Naval Reservists.
> 
> The Naval and Air Reserve are, by far, more equaly aligned in terms of training equivalency and employability.  For instance, Air Reserve members must complete the exact same rank and trade courses as the Regular Force counterparts.
> 
> Can the Army say that?  No.  Can the CIC say that???  No, again.  So the argument of a pan CF Reserve policy engendering equal pay for equal work of equal value is pointless for this reason alone.



Haggis this is now changing too for the Army.

As an example:

In the Engineer world the Reg. Force QL3/DP1/Section Member/What ever the flavour of the day is +/- 6 months or so while the P.Res QL3/DP1/Section Member/What ever the flavour of the day is now split into 2 parts of 6 weeks each, and that equals the Reg Force course.


----------



## IntlBr (19 Mar 2008)

Yes, Sapper, I understand that is how you _feel_ about the situation, but what I'm stating is the reality.  Would you be on board for pan ResF pay raises if you knew it was _pan_ ResF?


----------



## Nfld Sapper (19 Mar 2008)

Personally I'm content with staus quo.


----------



## Reccesoldier (19 Mar 2008)

Sapper, as members of the primary reserve CIC officers can also compete for and be placed on Class B contracts.


----------



## Pikache (19 Mar 2008)

Reccesoldier said:
			
		

> Sapper, as members of the primary reserve CIC officers can also compete for and be placed on Class B contracts.


well, now I'm curious.

exactly what courses do CIC officers take that makes them remotely as qualified to do tasks as res officers?


----------



## Nfld Sapper (19 Mar 2008)

I realize that Reccesoldier that's why I said IMHO

:cheers:


----------



## armyvern (19 Mar 2008)

Reccesoldier said:
			
		

> Sapper, as members of the primary reserve CIC officers can also compete for and be placed on Class B contracts.



CIC Officers are *not* _Primary_ Reservists, but are Reservists.

They are not eligible for BClass contracts unless in a position directly supporting the Canadian Cadet Movement. These rules changed a few years ago. They are also not deployable in the CIC capacity as a ResF member (even should they volunteer to do so).


----------



## IntlBr (19 Mar 2008)

Reccesoldier, I'm afraid you're a bit confused.. the CIC is its own part of the ResF, and is seperate and distinct from the PRes.  That said, they can still (and do) work Class B contracts like the rest of the ResF.


----------



## Nfld Sapper (19 Mar 2008)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> CIC Officers are *not* _Primary_ Reservists, but are Reservists.
> 
> They are not eligible for BClass contracts unless in a position directly supporting the Canadian Cadet Movement. These rules changed a few years ago. They are also not deployable in the CIC capacity as a ResF member (even should they volunteer to do so).



Right and with that they are a _SUB_- Component of the Reserves.



> Composition of the Reserve Force
> 
> The Reserve Force is organized into four sub-components:
> 
> ...


----------



## Reccesoldier (19 Mar 2008)

I stand corrected.


----------



## armyvern (19 Mar 2008)

Corps of Guides said:
			
		

> Reccesoldier, I'm afraid you're a bit confused.. the CIC is its own part of the ResF, and is seperate and distinct from the PRes.  That said, they can still (and do) work Class B contracts like the rest of the ResF.



No, not like the rest of the ResF, and quite unlike the PRes. The CIC are limited to BClass posns in direct support of the CCM as they are not members of the Primary Reserve (DAOD 5023-1 refers).

CANFORGEN 081/05 VCDS 016 270938Z APR 05 refers:



> ANFORGEN 081/05 VCDS 016 270938Z APR 05
> CLARIFICATION ON THE USE OF CADET INSTRUCTOR CADRE (CIC) OFFICERS OUTSIDE THE CANADIAN CADET MOVEMENT
> UNCLASSIFIED
> 
> ...





> THE PURPOSE OF THIS MESSAGE IS TO REITERATE THE POLICY THAT CIC OFFICERS WILL NOT BE USED OUTSIDE THE CCM....
> 
> CIC OFFICERS WERE REMINDED THAT IF THEY WISHED TO CONTINUE THEIR SERVICE OUTSIDE THE CCM, THEY SHOULD REQUEST A TRANSFER TO THE PRES....


----------



## armyvern (19 Mar 2008)

NFLD Sapper said:
			
		

> Right and with that they are a _SUB_- Component of the Reserves.



Then why did you agree with this post?? Note very carefully what he says ... Hint: look for the word "primary" !!  >

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/72153/post-690005.html#msg690005


----------



## Nfld Sapper (19 Mar 2008)

oopsie missed that point.


----------



## armyvern (19 Mar 2008)

NFLD Sapper said:
			
		

> oopsie missed that point.



I'm going to get the whip.  ;D


----------



## Nfld Sapper (19 Mar 2008)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> I'm going to get the whip.  ;D



I might like it too much  ;D


----------



## Stoker (19 Mar 2008)

I guess when command made going to Scotian a mandatory event, they didn't count on the Minister being a pin cushion >. I guess i'll wade in on this one. I'm a reservist who have been full time for the last 14 years, over five of them been Class C. I have the same responsibilities as my regular force counterpart and I am getting Class C, yet another person who is serving next to me say in a OJT billet is getting 85% or in a shore billet like in the BOR doing the same job as the reg force clerk. Whatever happened to equal pay for equal work. As a Class C, I sign a contract that says I can be deployed anywhere the CF tells me to go.  My opinion is that if you wear the uniform, you should be prepared to go ANYWHERE the military tells you to go,that should be the same for Class B. People are always telling me join the reg force, I have my reasons not wanting to join. I think there should be some sort of restructuring, say having a active duty reserve vice a inactive duty reserve like the US military. With the manpower shortages we have now, the forces need the reserves and we shouldn't be utilized as a cheap source of labour. Remember all the years when we were paid 65%.


----------



## X-mo-1979 (19 Mar 2008)

Stoker said:
			
		

> I guess when command made going to Scotian a mandatory event, they didn't count on the Minister being a pin cushion >. I guess i'll wade in on this one. I'm a reservist who have been full time for the last 14 years, over five of them been Class C. I have the same responsibilities as my regular force counterpart and I am getting Class C, yet another person who is serving next to me say in a OJT billet is getting 85% or in a shore billet like in the BOR doing the same job as the reg force clerk. Whatever happened to equal pay for equal work. As a Class C, I sign a contract that says I can be deployed anywhere the CF tells me to go.  My opinion is that if you wear the uniform, you should be prepared to go ANYWHERE the military tells you to go,that should be the same for Class B. People are always telling me join the reg force, I have my reasons not wanting to join. I think there should be some sort of restructuring, say having a active duty reserve vice a inactive duty reserve like the US military. With the manpower shortages we have now, the forces need the reserves and we shouldn't be utilized as a cheap source of labour. Remember all the years when we were paid 65%.



So if its such a big deal and your already doing the same job with the same pay/deployments....why dont you join the reg force?


----------



## armyvern (19 Mar 2008)

Stoker said:
			
		

> I guess when command made going to Scotian a mandatory event, they didn't count on the Minister being a pin cushion >. I guess i'll wade in on this one. I'm a reservist who have been full time for the last 14 years, over five of them been Class C. I have the same responsibilities as my regular force counterpart and I am getting Class C, yet another person who is serving next to me say in a OJT billet is getting 85% or in a shore billet like in the BOR doing the same job as the reg force clerk. Whatever happened to equal pay for equal work. As a Class C, I sign a contract that says I can be deployed anywhere the CF tells me to go.  My opinion is that if you wear the uniform, you should be prepared to go ANYWHERE the military tells you to go,that should be the same for Class B. People are always telling me join the reg force, I have my reasons not wanting to join. I think there should be some sort of restructuring, say having a active duty reserve vice a inactive duty reserve like the US military. With the manpower shortages we have now, the forces need the reserves and we shouldn't be utilized as a cheap source of labour. Remember all the years when we were paid 65%.



But there's the kicker of the difference between you (C Class) and a B Class. A B Class pers is only a short term contract, for example to fill in for one of my troops while she completes her maternity leave and he is therefore not deployable, further taskable to CFSAL/TAVs etc (even with LOTS of notice, unlike some of my RegF troops who find themselves with as little as 24 hours notice before being sent away to teach for 12-16 weeks etc away from their families). <--- You see ... WE RegF get "short term employment" in other places too --- but we do NOT have the option of saying no, even with as little as 24hour notice / the job requirements are VASTLY different ... it is not a case of unequal pay for equal work. Rather it's a case a RegF (or Class C) being paid more exactly because we have no choice, no say, and WILL do (or go to jail); not will do if we feel like it.

You, being C Class, are on a long term contract --- subject to the same rig-a-ma-roll that the RegF guy/gal next to you is ... and you get 100% of the pay to show for it.


----------



## aesop081 (19 Mar 2008)

Stoker said:
			
		

> Whatever happened to equal pay for equal work.



Class A and Class B service is *Not* equal work


----------



## Stoker (19 Mar 2008)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> But there's the kicker of the difference between you (C Class) and a B Class. A B Class pers is only a short term contract, for example to fill in for one of my troops while she completes her maternity leave and he is therefore not deployable, further taskable to CFSAL/TAVs etc (even with LOTS of notice, unlike some of my RegF troops who find themselves with as little as 24 hours notice before being sent away to teach for 12-16 weeks etc away from their families).
> 
> You, being C Class, are on a long term contract --- subject to the same rig-a-ma-roll that the RegF guy/gal next to you is ... and you get 100% of the pay to show for it.



Vern, for us (Navy) Class B pers on also on long term contracts (up to 3 years). If I want to say have a shore posting i'm expected to take a 15% pay cut, even though while ashore i'm either teaching or performing a variation of my job on ship. In some cases we are utilized to teach regular force personnel while ashore.


----------



## armyvern (19 Mar 2008)

Stoker said:
			
		

> Vern, for us (Navy) Class B pers on also on long term contracts (up to 3 years). If I want to say have a shore posting i'm expected to take a 15% pay cut, even though while ashore i'm either teaching or performing a variation of my job on ship. In some cases we are utilized to teach regular force personnel while ashore.



Can you be tasked out of the area and away from home (and your family) to a school in .... hmmm... Borden, Ontario for 16 weeks to instruct on a PLQ with 24hours NTM right now?

What if they moved the Fleet School to Petawawa --- would you take a posting there (not that you could be posted [because ResF members can't be posted like RegF people who get shipped out to holes all the time whether we like it or not ...] --- but would you??) (I'll go easy on the Fleet School to Pet idea --- it is so assinine they just might like it!!)

Answer very carefully ...  >


----------



## Stoker (19 Mar 2008)

X-mo-1979 said:
			
		

> So if its such a big deal and your already doing the same job with the same pay/deployments....why dont you join the reg force?



Like I said in my earlier post, I have my reasons. Especially because it involves a substantial rank adjustment.


----------



## kratz (19 Mar 2008)

WRT NavRes sailors, there are a large number of them who have been employed on multiple long term class B contracts rotating through various positions for 8, 10, or 15 years. With minimal time in class A positions waiting for the next class B opening. 

Those long term class B sailors must also sign a terms of service, with unlimited liability, just like the class C sailor, with the same obligation to serve as directed. WithVern's question on being tasked away, yes often the NavRes Recruiters are tasked to NRTD in Borden for the BRT courses through the year. Duty watches, ships slipping in ports and other duties are assigned and met as directed by class B.


----------



## X-mo-1979 (19 Mar 2008)

Stoker said:
			
		

> Like I said in my earlier post, I have my reasons. Especially because it involves a substantial rank adjustment.



If your doing the same job as other reg force PO's wouldnt that make you as qualified?So why would you lose rank?Or are the regualr force members more qualified...you have me confused now.


----------



## 54/102 CEF (19 Mar 2008)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Can you be tasked out of the area and away from home (and your family) to a school in .... hmmm... Borden, Ontario for 16 weeks to instruct on a PLQ with 24hours NTM right now?
> 
> 
> Answer very carefully ...  >



Ref short term taskings  and the over night train to Borden. We can all see its possible but I don`t hear it happening over and over and over.

Half this forum is arguing the hard headed reg force join us or nothing approach - part is arguing if I`m in reserves and done my training and have time in I MAY want to control my own destiny.

But if the skills and qualifications are equal is being avoided.

So lets focus on get trained - get time in - it shouldn't matter if you are qualified. 

When the gap is closed - even the dumbest Liberal ex Defence Hack should agree that there is a strong basis for equal pay when the gaps are closed.

So eat your weakest man if you want - it only depletes the sum of us all.


----------



## Stoker (19 Mar 2008)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Can you be tasked out of the area and away from home (and your family) to a school in .... hmmm... Borden, Ontario for 16 weeks to instruct on a PLQ with 24hours NTM right now?
> 
> What if they moved the Fleet School to Petawawa --- would you take a posting there (not that you could be posted [because ResF members can't be posted like RegF people who get shipped out to holes all the time whether we like it or not ...] --- but would you??) (I'll go easy on the Fleet School to Pet idea --- it is so assinine they just might like it!!)
> 
> Answer very carefully ...  >



Well I never been tasked to go to Borden, however i'v been given 2 days notice to sail to Europe for a guy who was Dagged red at the last moment. I also have gotten home after a several month trip and given a couple of days notice and been expected to sail on another ship for another couple of months deployment a number of times. Things like that are happening much often.
If they moved the fleet school to Petawawa from Quebec, to be honest that would be a improvement 8). But seriously being in the Navy and in a hard sea trade, that doesn't usually happen. IF it did, I would suck it up and go.


----------



## Haggis (19 Mar 2008)

kratz said:
			
		

> Those long term class B sailors must also sign a terms of service, with unlimited liability, just like the class C sailor, with the same obligation to serve as directed.



So Nav Res Class B members are subject to *additional* terms of service and liability *above and beyond* those in CMP Instruction 20-04?

The "liability" in Class B employment is selective.  You have been hired for a SPECIFIC job and signed an SOU agreeing to that with your employing unit. However, once there your employing unit can employ you in virtually any capacity for which your rank, trade and experience qualfies you.  If the employing unit sees fit to send you to, say, Gagetown (sorry Vern) to teach at CTC, you have two choices:

a. Go.  Have fun.  Don't forget to vist the big gun store in McAdam; or
b. give your 30 day notice and quit.

Simple, eh?

And therein, folks, lies he biggest difference between Reg F and Res F Terms of Service:  CHOICE.


----------



## armyvern (19 Mar 2008)

54/102 CEF said:
			
		

> Ref short term taskings  and the over night train to Borden. We can all see its possible but I don`t hear it happening over and over and over.
> 
> Half this forum is arguing the hard headed reg force join us or nothing approach - part is arguing if I`m in reserves and done my training and have time in I MAY want to control my own destiny.
> 
> ...



I guess you've never heard of CFSAL ...  :

Skills and quals for my trade have only just recently changed --- with SOME now being equal.

I am NOT arguing the RegF vs ResF join us or nothing route.

RegF is good for some pers. ResF is good for some pers.

Some pers never want to be subjected to an NDHQ posting, or a tour to someplace not nice, or to frequent moving of their families and the upheaval upon those spouses and children that causes.

People that don't want that -- most certainly should NOT join the RegF and should remain in the ResF.

SKILLS and QUALS are NOT all that is applicable to this pay equation. We in the RegF who don't agree that ResF members should be paid the same as us, will argue that skills & quals ARE not all that is applicable and that frequent postings, inability to refuse to deploy etc, family upheaval all play a factor in that wage difference.

Those that want equal pay --- will argue that those differences should NOT count ... and will tell us to keep "focused" on the topic when we bring up the obvious differences in the "equitableness of the work", which are the reasons that the pay is NOT equitable.


----------



## Harris (19 Mar 2008)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Can you be tasked out of the area and away from home (and your family) to a school in .... hmmm... Borden, Ontario for 16 weeks to instruct on a PLQ with 24hours NTM right now?



I'm can't speak for anyone other than myself, but I fully expect that to happen this summer to me.  I have no doubt I'll be told to go somewhere not in Halifax to run a course and I won't have a choice of where it is.  (I'm on a 3 yr contract as a PSYOPS 2IC Class B)


----------



## Stoker (19 Mar 2008)

X-mo-1979 said:
			
		

> If your doing the same job as other reg force PO's wouldnt that make you as qualified?So why would you lose rank?Or are the regualr force members more qualified...you have me confused now.



My schooling in my trade is not exactly the same as my regular force counterpart, although I perform the same job on ship. Most other trades are but just say you are a PO, all you can hope for in the regs is LS and still have to do your 3's.


----------



## Harris (19 Mar 2008)

Stoker said:
			
		

> Well I never been tasked to go to Borden, however i'v been given 2 days notice to sail to Europe for a guy who was Dagged red at the last moment. I also have gotten home after a several month trip and given a couple of days notice and been expected to sail on another ship for another couple of months deployment a number of times. Things like that are happening much often.
> If they moved the fleet school to Petawawa from Quebec, to be honest that would be a improvement 8). But seriously being in the Navy and in a hard sea trade, that doesn't usually happen. IF it did, I would suck it up and go.



In a similar vein, a few years ago while working Class B as the Unit Ops O, I got a call telling me to be on the next plane to Norway.  The Orginal guy got sick and I'm tasked as the replacement.  Where I'm at most of the Class B guys will get tasked this summer.


----------



## Poppa (19 Mar 2008)

Personally, I think the 15% is a good price to pay for being my own career manager.


----------



## Stoker (19 Mar 2008)

Poppa said:
			
		

> Personally, I think the 15% is a good price to pay for being my own career manager.



I don't think it is when your're trying to raise a family and pay the bills.


----------



## armyvern (19 Mar 2008)

Haggis said:
			
		

> If the employing unit sees fit to send you to, say, Gagetown (sorry Vern) to teach at CTC, you have two choices:



Why sorry?? Does he need kit!!?? Are you filling up the appointment books??  




That's OK --- I don't work in clothing anymore!!  ;D


----------



## armyvern (19 Mar 2008)

Stoker said:
			
		

> I don't think it is when your're trying to raise a family and pay the bills.



Depends on what your reasons are.

If you are staying ResF so that you and your family are not subject to the rigors of postings, your spouses employment, your childrens education etc, unwanted operational tours to austere locations (vice painting boats in Bermuda etc) ... then that, combined with your own personal career management, certainly would make it worth it to some. But that's another bit about that 15% --- you have a choice and you didn't go RegF, but chose to stay ResF for some "reason" --- so even YOU found it worth it (worth 15%) at some point, because we in the RegF don't get the option of "choosing" to opt out due to any of the above reasons.


----------



## geo (19 Mar 2008)

Corps of Guides said:
			
		

> Not a different kettle of fish, and I'm not starting anything.  It is a legitimate comment, and question.
> 
> The CIC is part of the ResF.  They would be included in any acts amending the ResF pay structure.



CIC officers are paid based on the Reserve scale of pay.
CIC officers are not employable in any reserve or regular position.
CIC officers are "reservists" for admin purposes more than anything else AND it makes them subject to the code of service discipline.


----------



## Stoker (19 Mar 2008)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Depends on what your reasons are.
> 
> If you are staying ResF so that you and your family are not subject to the rigors of postings, your spouses employment, your childrens education etc, unwanted operational tours to austere locations (vice painting boats in Bermuda etc) ... then that, combined with your own personal career management, certainly would make it worth it to some. But that's another bit about that 15% --- you have a choice and you didn't go RegF, but chose to stay ResF for some reason --- so even YOU found it worth it at some point.



We don't paint ships down south anymore Vern :'(. Your right it is a choice. To tell you the truth if we still only made 65% perhaps i'd be happier.  Since we have been getting the 85% and now 100% for Class C ,I still think we should in the case of class B get that extra 15%, does that make me greedy?


----------



## geo (19 Mar 2008)

Stoker said:
			
		

> I don't think it is when your're trying to raise a family and pay the bills.


If you have so much time invested in the Navy ..... why don't you do a CT, bite the bullet and go Reg!

I have a friend who was a Res RMS Clerk Sgt.
He CTd to RMS Clerk in the regs and is .... a Sgt - doing the same job with the additional 15% pay hike AND the Housing allowance....


----------



## Stoker (19 Mar 2008)

geo said:
			
		

> If you have so much time invested in the Navy ..... why don't you do a CT, bite the bullet and go Reg!
> 
> I have a friend who was a Res RMS Clerk Sgt.
> He CTd to RMS Clerk in the regs and is .... a Sgt - doing the same job with the additional 15% pay hike AND the Housing allowance....



Sigh, like I said in my previous posts, I have my reasons why i'm still in the reserves. If I was to transfer tomorrow, all I would hope to get is recruit school bypass, my LS and time in. I would probally get my PLQ, SLC and ALQ credited. I would have to go back and redo ALL my trades training and i'll be lucky to see my PO's before I get out.


----------



## Reccesoldier (19 Mar 2008)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> Class A and Class B service is *Not* equal work



Really?  I perform the exact same job as the 5 reg force Sgts in occupying the exact same chair doing the exact same shifts so care to tell me just what it is about my current tasking and the job I do that is different in any way?


----------



## aesop081 (20 Mar 2008)

Reccesoldier said:
			
		

> Really?  I perform the exact same job as the 5 reg force Sgts in occupying the exact same chair doing the exact same shifts so care to tell me just what it is about my current tasking and the job I do that is different in any way?



The conditions under which a reservist serves ( A&B class) are nowhere near the same.


----------



## Reccesoldier (20 Mar 2008)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> The conditions under which a reservist serves ( A&B class) are nowhere near the same.



The work *IS* equal


----------



## Pikache (20 Mar 2008)

Didn't someone already say that RegF gets 15% extra because they don't have a choice of postings?


----------



## Jarnhamar (20 Mar 2008)

X-mo-1979 said:
			
		

> So if its such a big deal and your already doing the same job with the same pay/deployments....why dont you join the reg force?



Because the reg forces isn't for everyone. Some people like the idea of putting their career on hold, putting the uniform on, doing their part and then going back to their family life.
The reg force is brutal on some relationships and families.

Do you realize how crazy it is for an army spouse to find decent work around a base? Something in their field?


----------



## McG (20 Mar 2008)

NFLD Sapper said:
			
		

> Haggis this is now changing too for the Army.
> 
> As an example:
> 
> In the Engineer world the Reg. Force QL3/DP1/Section Member/What ever the flavour of the day is +/- 6 months or so while the P.Res QL3/DP1/Section Member/What ever the flavour of the day is now split into 2 parts of 6 weeks each, and that equals the Reg Force course.


2 x 6 weeks is less than 6 months.  Additionally, there are far more OSQs that you will find in the Regular Force than in the PRes.  Throw in job related experience and things are certainly not changing for the Army.  In fact, if you go and read Training Canada's Army you will find that the training delta (between regular force & primary reserve) is a formally established concept.  Even reservists who deploy operationally only receive training to cover the portion of the delta which is deemed specifically relevant to the mission.



			
				Reccesoldier said:
			
		

> The work *IS* equal


It is equal in your office today.  Unfortunately, that office is not a microcosm of the CF.  Those other Sgt's working around you will likely have several OSQs  which will qualify them to be employed in a whole host of tasks for which you will rarely find a reservist qualified to conduct.  Those Sgt's will likely take see several postings over the 10 to 15 years that a reservist can choose to sit at the same job.

What does the 15% pay for?

typically higher Op & tasking tempo
Often unpredictable & late notice Op & tasking deployments
surrendering the freedom to choose postings
surrendering the freedom to get out of undesirable tasks through 30 days notice
Resultant hardship on families
Not being your own career manager
typically greater job experience
typically higher job qualifications
typically broader job qualifications
Now, before anyone jumps in here to point out the exceptions, remember that pay rates are not based on the exceptions within trade & rank.  Pay is based on what is the norm for a given rank & occupation.  At the same time, there may very well be merit in arguing that some Class B jobs should be Class C due to the nature of the work.  I could accept that, but it becomes a case by case issue (and no longer the broad brush approach).  I could also accept an argument that there are certain hardships/frustrations unique to the typical full time Class B (3 year terms) which are not shared by the regular force (like carrying the burden of pre & post ex drills).  Maybe one should make a case for a Class B+ at 90% + pay?



			
				TCBF said:
			
		

> We need a flexible system where the career manager gets to decide if a position is Class B or not.  That way, he could take a Regular or Reservist who has just came back from a bad tour and give him a year with the 4th Bn Foreskin Fusileers, or whatever.  The B occupying that position can slide into a tasking elsewhere or be made redundant.


We would probably be better served by a system that allowed for a more rapid & seamless transition for soldiers moving between the Regular Force and the Reserves (either way).  This would require that the training delta be eliminated (same courses for all) or a mechanism be created to rapidly ramp-up a reservist on the missed Delta.


----------



## d53642 (20 Mar 2008)

Stoker said:
			
		

> I guess when command made going to Scotian a mandatory event, they didn't count on the Minister being a pin cushion >. I guess i'll wade in on this one. I'm a reservist who have been full time for the last 14 years, over five of them been Class C. I have the same responsibilities as my regular force counterpart and I am getting Class C, yet another person who is serving next to me say in a OJT billet is getting 85% or in a shore billet like in the BOR doing the same job as the reg force clerk. Whatever happened to equal pay for equal work. As a Class C, I sign a contract that says I can be deployed anywhere the CF tells me to go.  My opinion is that if you wear the uniform, you should be prepared to go ANYWHERE the military tells you to go,that should be the same for Class B. People are always telling me join the reg force, I have my reasons not wanting to join. I think there should be some sort of restructuring, say having a active duty reserve vice a inactive duty reserve like the US military. With the manpower shortages we have now, the forces need the reserves and we shouldn't be utilized as a cheap source of labour. Remember all the years when we were paid 65%.



Being a reg force clerk at a reserve unit and one of the bigger ones and more active NRD's in NAVRES, I make more money as a LS than my MS reserve counter part does. Even though we do, do the same work they also get TD for their contract because both the clerks are from Ontario. They also get the option to end their contract at anytime were if I don't care for the posting I am stuck with it.

I am not saying reserves don't do the same amount of work, I see a lot of reserves that work harder than some reg force people, but if they want equal pay then everything should be equal across the board which includes active postings and fulfilling any contracts they sign or suffer some sort of penalty.


----------



## willy (20 Mar 2008)

Reccesoldier said:
			
		

> The work *IS* equal



In a case like the one you described earlier, then yes it is.  I agree 100%.  I'm not sure that it is for a Cl A soldier though.  (I say that having been one myself).



			
				HighlandFusilier said:
			
		

> Didn't someone already say that RegF gets 15% extra because they don't have a choice of postings?



Someone said that, but I believe they were stating their opinion vice CF or Government policy.  In fact I have yet to see the official policy statement on the pay difference, and would be curious to do so.

MY opinion is as follows:

I believe that the gripe the guys quoted in the original article had was that they were working on Cl B directly alongside Reg F pers.  They were therefore doing equal work for unequal pay.  I don't think there's all that much wrong with having a separate (unequal) pay scale for Cl A and maybe even for some short-term Cl B personnel.  I think that what these guys were saying though was that if they were going to be employed for long periods as an alternative to posting in a Reg F member that they should be paid accordingly.  I.E. their contracts should be Cl C vice Cl B.

In other words, if you want to have the flexibility to only parade one night a week, then maybe you aren't deserving of the same pay scale as the Reg F.  I think the same could be said if you want to go on a two week course and then go directly home.  On the other hand, if you want to go in day after day after day (for years in some cases) and work in the same office/sail on the same ship/work on the same aircraft/crew the same vehicle as your Reg Force peers, and if the Reg Force agrees to sign you to a contract to do so, then maybe you should get paid the same way as they do.  YOUR LIABILITY SHOULD ALSO BE THE SAME, AT LEAST FOR THE PERIOD IN QUESTION (and would be, as soon as you signed a Cl C contract). My solution to the problem would be to offer more Cl C and less Cl B contracts.  The only problem with that is, of course, money, and which budget things come out of.  Maybe that should be the focus of this discussion.


----------



## garb811 (20 Mar 2008)

This is a topic where no-one is going to agree but...

The fact is, all kinds of people do equal work for unequal pay depending on their individual circumstances.  For instance, people who work night shifts get paid a shift premium to do the exact same work those on the day shift do but they get compensated for working when they'd normally be sleeping.  Should the day worker complain that they are being unfairly compensated because their counterpart on the night shift is making more money for doing the same work or should they recognize the fact that the actual conditions of work are not the same, notwithstanding the fact that the work is essentially the same?

I don't think some Res F pers understand the consequences and turmoil created by an involuntary posting, not just on the individual but more importantly on the family.  This is particularly true when it is to a location the family has no desire to move to, how do you compensate for the turmoil and stress that that causes in a family?  What about the effect on a spouse with a professional career of being posted to someplace like Goose Bay, Gander or Wainwright...tell her to go work at Canex if she wants to work?  What about a spouse who started educational upgrading only to end up being posted before it could be completed?  I've seen a spouse be 3/4 of the way through her RN degree get posted to a location without a University she could transfer to because her spouse was promoted and posted.  She was very bitter about that and the stress that caused took them to the edge of divorce.  The last I heard, 10 years on she still has not completed her degree, so much for that investment of time, money and effort.  

I'm sorry but the ONLY thing I'm reading from most of the "full time" Reservists in this thread is the reason they don't want to go Reg Force for 100% of the pay is because they are unwilling to make the personal, professional and/or familial sacrifices that come with doing that.  This is something that we in the Reg Force do, or are willing to do, every day of our career.  I don't begrudge you your choice, nor the fact that doing this essentially allows you to do military service on your terms, but please, do not begrudge me for being compenstated a bit for being willing to do my military service on the CF's terms.


----------



## Dissident (20 Mar 2008)

MCG said:
			
		

> Often unpredictable & late notice Op & tasking deployments



This is also SOP for reservists. We may be able to say no, but who wants to pass up on basic training or trades course?

And I had a pretty short notice for TF1-07.


----------



## willy (20 Mar 2008)

garb811 said:
			
		

> This is something that we in the Reg Force do, or are willing to do, every day of our career.  I don't begrudge you your choice, nor the fact that doing this essentially allows you to do military service on your terms, but please, do not begrudge me for being compenstated a bit for being willing to do my military service on the CF's terms.



I don't begrudge you, and to my mind you've raised a valid point.  However, as I said before, I'd still be interested to see the official explanation for the pay difference.  Can anyone confirm that this is the official rationale?


----------



## garb811 (20 Mar 2008)

Dissident said:
			
		

> This is also SOP for reservists. We may be able to say know, but who wants to pass up on basic training or trades course?
> 
> And I had a pretty short notice for TF1-07.


No offense but you could have said "no" to TF1-07.  While away on task I got 7 days notice I was being deployed.  By the time I got back from task I had 4 days with my family before I got on the plane.  I didn't have the option of saying "no".


----------



## Dissident (20 Mar 2008)

garb811 said:
			
		

> While away on task I got 7 days notice I was being deployed.  By the time I got back from task I had 4 days with my family before I got on the plane.  I didn't have the option of saying "no".



Yup, that sucks the big one. 



			
				garb811 said:
			
		

> No offense but you could have said "no" to TF1-07.


Indeed, I could have. And I know some people have pulled the pin at some very inopportune times (for the CF).

I'm not arguing that reservist should make the extra 15% with anyone here. There is indeed a whole other level of commitment associated with being a reg force member vice a PRes, one that is worthy of extra compensation.

And even if you don't use it, the reality of the big red militia button:"I'm not going" is that it does lower the stress level significantly.

All I was saying was: Last minute taskings and training is not the exclusivity of the reg force. Sure, you can say no in the reserve. But if you want to be taken seriously, be seen as a reliable troop and eventually get to the higher levels of leadership, you will suck it up and go. At the cost of familly, friends and civy work. Seen it. Been there, done that.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (20 Mar 2008)

There are lots of very good and valid points being raised here, on all sides.  I wanted to raise a few points, some of which may have already been covered in the past 7 pages.  A reservist can be employed in Class A, Class B, Class B (A) and Class C employment.  Obviously, Class C is equal to Reg Force pay and benefits, in a Reg Frce position.  Class B employment is for any temporary full time Reserve employment.  Class B (A) employment is a full time position within the Primary Reserve.  Even those mbrs on Class B (A) are still serving under different TOS than a Reg Frce mbr.  

Reg Frce and Class C service = *Anytime, anywhere*.  Class B/B(A) = *Anytime, anywhere (in Canada only, and I can't be posted.  I get to pick where I live and what unit I serve in)*.  Class A = If and when I can or do make it.

The terms and conditions of service are the difference.  Most of the focus is on Reservists working side by side with Reg Frce people, doing similar or equal *work* but for 15% less pay.  Sure, I'll agree to that, same hours, same work.  But, IMO, thats where the similarity ends.  Scenario, 2 Supply Tech Sgts are working at unit X.  1 is Reg, 1 is Class B.  Now, a position needs be filled immediately at KAF or CM for a Supply Sgt and Unit X is tasked to fill it.  Who is deploying?  Who is going home to pack?  That, to me, is the difference.  IF a Reservist on Class B gets 100% of the pay, they should also be prepared to serve with the exact same TOS and deployment potential as their Reg Frce comrades.  You can't have the best of both worlds.


----------



## armyvern (20 Mar 2008)

Stoker said:
			
		

> We don't paint ships down south anymore Vern :'(. Your right it is a choice. To tell you the truth if we still only made 65% perhaps i'd be happier.  Since we have been getting the 85% and now 100% for Class C ,I still think we should in the case of class B get that extra 15%, does that make me greedy?



Yep, because I'll guarantee you that IF Reservists who are NOT subject to the exact same things we are (taskings/tours/ability to say "no" to postings for myriad of reasons) start receiving the same pay that I receive while not being able to make those same "choices" and "refusals" ... then I'll be bicthing for MORE pay ... to make up for the "more" that I am subjected to and the "choices" that I do not receive like they do. And, the circle continues ...

And, it's time to go Army if you ain't painting boats in Bermuda anymore!!   >


----------



## armyvern (20 Mar 2008)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Scenario, 2 Supply Tech Sgts are working at unit X.  1 is Reg, 1 is Class B.  Now, a position needs be filled immediately at KAF or CM for a Supply Sgt and Unit X is tasked to fill it.  Who is deploying?  Who is going home to pack?  That, to me, is the difference.



The similarities don't just stop there in the Sup world ... there's a thread in here somewhere denoting the vast differences in what a Sup Tech job within a Res Unit entails and what a Sup Tech job entails in the RegF world; they are worlds apart. Most of the ResF Units Sup work (ie disposal processing to CADC, contracting, ITAR etc is done for them by the RegF support base and the Sup Techs employed at that support base) ... ResF Sup Techs are strictly limited (to one profile) in terms of what they can and can not do on the Supply system and in the Supply system. 

The ResF Sup Tech in that ResF Unit would be doing the same job as a RegF Sup Tech posted to that ResF Unit, but they are doing nothing close (nor as diversified) to what RegF Sup Techs are doing daily on RegF bases as part of daily workload.


----------



## Stoker (20 Mar 2008)

d53642 said:
			
		

> Being a reg force clerk at a reserve unit and one of the bigger ones and more active NRD's in NAVRES, I make more money as a LS than my MS reserve counter part does. Even though we do, do the same work they also get TD for their contract because both the clerks are from Ontario. They also get the option to end their contract at anytime were if I don't care for the posting I am stuck with it.
> 
> I am not saying reserves don't do the same amount of work, I see a lot of reserves that work harder than some reg force people, but if they want equal pay then everything should be equal across the board which includes active postings and fulfilling any contracts they sign or suffer some sort of penalty.



I doubt if those clerks get TD. The only way they would get TD is that they are there on course or TD'ed there to fill a temporary critical billet. If we as a reservist get posted, we don't get TD. I have a question for you, does that MS do the same work as you? Is that MS clerk in charge of you? Do you write that MS PER? Now yes the MS can put in notice to cut his/her contract, usually with 30 days notice, however the military can say no and keep you there(highly unlikely) if you are over 180 days Class B. If you as a regular force clerk wants to get out, you can put in your notice as well, I don't know about 30 days but you can leave as well.


----------



## sjm (20 Mar 2008)

I don't mind the 85% pay, but it would be nice to get payed for all the free Class A time performed by many of us.  With the added burden of the new pension it gets a bit tight at times but hey what can you do.  I wasn't planning on living long enough to collect a pension anyway, now I have to plan for the future.

The leave issue mentioned on the first page of this thread is a bit misleading.  Any accumulated leave over the span of a contract - be it 180 days or 3 years, must be used before the end of the contract unless your next contract is with the same employer and they let you continue to accumulate.

If I need the extra money, I'll take another tour.  I'm looking kind of pale anyway and I found the dry heat made my aching joints feel a bit better.

The system here in Ottawa seems to easing away from Class Bs and hiring "Contractors" starting at $300 per diem for the absolute lowest rated PS contractor position; I'll take one of those thanks.

Back to the job protection issue.  NDHQ/DND is one of the worst employers when it comes to job protection for Reservists going on tour.  I had an agreement in place before I left and when I came back it seemed all was forgotten.  The CFLC apparently doesn't include the CF.   But I have a history of admin nightmares following me all around the world.


----------



## armyvern (20 Mar 2008)

Stoker said:
			
		

> Now yes the MS can put in notice to cut his/her contract, usually with 30 days notice, however the military can say no and keep you there(highly unlikely) if you are over 180 days Class B. If you as a regular force clerk wants to get out, you can put in your notice as well, I don't know about 30 days but you can leave as well.



Here's a big difference in your above scenario that you fail to make mention of:

If the ResF member puts in his 30 days notice to get out of a contracted posn they no longer want to serve in -- he will get out of the particluar contract, BUT he still has a job in the ResF and can STILL sign another contract for another BClass posn somewhere that he wants/chooses to.

The RegF pers putting in their notice -- has *NO* more job. They are *RELEASED*.

That is absolutely NOT the case with a ResF pers putting in 30 days notice to get out of a BClass contract etc.

That's one hell of a difference to be overlooking, and actually only serves as one more "substantiating reason" for that 15% difference in pay between the two. 

Apples/Oranges.


----------



## d53642 (20 Mar 2008)

Stoker said:
			
		

> I doubt if those clerks get TD. The only way they would get TD is that they are there on course or TD'ed there to fill a temporary critical billet. If we as a reservist get posted, we don't get TD. I have a question for you, does that MS do the same work as you? Is that MS clerk in charge of you? Do you write that MS PER? Now yes the MS can put in notice to cut his/her contract, usually with 30 days notice, however the military can say no and keep you there(highly unlikely) if you are over 180 days Class B. If you as a regular force clerk wants to get out, you can put in your notice as well, I don't know about 30 days but you can leave as well.



Trust me they do, I watch them fill out the claim every month for it.


----------



## armyvern (20 Mar 2008)

d53642 said:
			
		

> Trust me they do, I watch them fill out the claim every month for it.



If they do, then they are TDd to that location -- not "posted" to that location. There's a HUGE difference. And, RegF members who are TDd to another Unit away from their "posted to" Unit also receive TD.


----------



## Stoker (20 Mar 2008)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Yep, because I'll guarantee you that IF Reservists who are NOT subject to the exact same things we are (taskings/tours/ability to say "no" to postings for myriad of reasons) start receiving the same pay that I receive while not being able to make those same "choices" and "refusals" ... then I'll be bicthing for MORE pay ... to make up for the "more" that I am subjected to and the "choices" that I do not receive like they do. And, the circle continues ...
> 
> And, it's time to go Army if you ain't painting boats in Bermuda anymore!!   >



I agree Vern IF we are ever given the extra 15% we should be subject to the same postings/taskings as the rest. I think the Canadian reserve system should be overhauled and a variation of the American system be used. Everyone joins the same, the same trades training and you are given a choice to go regular or reserve. If you are reserve you can go active or inactive. The active persons are intergraded within the regular forces and are subject to the same postings as there regular counterparts. If a regular forces wants a break or wants to go back to school etc, they can seamlessly transfer to the reserves and go inactive. The system we have now is cumberson at best, for example when you go to regs from reserves you actually have to "get out" for one day and then "rejoin" the regs. There has to be a better system.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (20 Mar 2008)

Stoker said:
			
		

> I have a question for you, does that MS do the same work as you? Is that MS clerk in charge of you? Do you write that MS PER? Now yes the MS can put in notice to cut his/her contract, usually with 30 days notice, however the military can say no and keep you there(highly unlikely) if you are over 180 days Class B. If you as a regular force clerk wants to get out, you can put in your notice as well, I don't know about 30 days but you can leave as well.



Stoker,

Not to throw rocks here but you are only focused on that 'do the same work' part.  There is more to it than that, which is the point of my post earlier on this page.


----------



## armyvern (20 Mar 2008)

Stoker said:
			
		

> I agree Vern IF we are ever given the extra 15% we should be subject to the same postings/taskings as the rest...



Then there'd be no more ResF ... we'd all be one in the same, and you could find yourself (and your family) on the move to NDHQ/Goose Bay/Wainwright (as a trg cell staff etc) etc tomorrow with no ability to say "no".

Like someone else has already posted ... 

"Be very careful what you wish for ... you might just get it."


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (20 Mar 2008)

Haven't I read this thread a few times before?


----------



## armyvern (20 Mar 2008)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Haven't I read this thread a few times before?



Yep, every time that equal pay for equal work is brought up ... and the differences between "service requirements between the two" begins to be discussed.


----------



## Stoker (20 Mar 2008)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Here's a big difference in your above scenario that you fail to make mention of:
> 
> If the ResF member puts in his 30 days notice to get out of a contracted posn they no longer want to serve in -- he will get out of the particluar contract, BUT he still has a job in the ResF and can STILL sign another contract for another BClass posn somewhere that he wants/chooses to.
> 
> ...



Your're right Vern, its not the same. I guess these will always be reasons for that 15% difference in pay. For us in my trade, if you do cut your contract you usually don't get another one until the date runs out on the contract you cut, depends on the reason why?


----------



## PO2FinClk (20 Mar 2008)

Shamrock said:
			
		

> They serve in the same theatres and face the same risks


They do get the same pay as they are on Class C.



			
				HighlandFusilier said:
			
		

> Didn't someone already say that RegF gets 15% extra because they don't have a choice of postings?


More then just Postings an enunciated in other posts, not having the choice of where or when in all other tasks also accounts for it. This has been stated a few times already in this thread.


			
				willy said:
			
		

> Someone said that, but I believe they were stating their opinion vice CF or Government policy.  In fact I have yet to see the official policy statement on the pay difference, and would be curious to do so.


It is not a matter of opinion but of Unlimited Liability, this was also covered in an earlier thread. Further, a review was conducted by Special Commission on the Restructuring of the Reserves (SCRR) which raised the parity to 85% acknowledging the issue of unlimited liability of the Reg F justifying the 15% differential.

http://dsp-psd.pwgsc.gc.ca/Collection-R/LoPBdP/BP/prb9911-e.htm#5.%20Paytxt


> The Special Commission’s report reaffirmed the Department’s position that pay for reservists should continue to be slightly less than Regular Force pay (about 85%). The rationale for this discrepancy is that Regular Force personnel must be available to be deployed at any time to operations within and outside Canada. However, despite the 85% rule, the Commission also noted several inequities in reserve pay scales, which varied not only according to rank and pay categories, but also according to the number of hours on duty. For example, reserve corporals received 67.7% of the Regular Force pay rate, whereas entry-level reserve privates received more than their Regular Force counterparts. In light of this disparity, the Special Commission recommended that the Department ensure that the 85% guideline be treated as a minimum for the pay rate for each rank.
> 
> In 1997, the Department established a multi-phased Revised Pay System for the Reserves (RPSR), reaffirming its commitment to bring pay for all reserve ranks into line with the 85% rule. Further wage-comparability adjustments formerly restricted to Regular Force members now apply to reservists: pilots, medical and dental officers and lawyers get extra pay, and holiday and specialist pay are being introduced for all members of the reserves. The RPSR first became operational in the Land Force Atlantic Area and was expected to be in place throughout the country by the end of 1997.


----------



## 2 Cdo (20 Mar 2008)

As a retired member currently working as a B Class reservist I'm able to see both sides of the coin. Yes, some positions involve the same work, same schedule etc for what amounts to 15% less pay. But as others have alluded to, we reservists have much more say over our career than our reg force counterparts. I don't have to put up with postings anymore, I can actually put roots down in a community.

The other thing I will bring up is level of training.  Through no fault of the reserves much of their training is not on par with their regular force counterparts, thus the loss of rank for many who CT from reserve to reg to reflect the difference in level of training. This obviously does not include our reservists who deploy overseas as they do the same work up training as their regular force counterpart prior to deployment.

In the end reservists should be careful what they wish for, they just might get it.


----------



## Teeps74 (20 Mar 2008)

TCBF said:
			
		

> - But those positions should not be sacred.  He may have a three year contract, buy if I need that posting for one of my people, the Career Manager should be able to de-list it as a Reserve vacancy and post in a Regular - before three years.



At which point in time, I assume that YOU will pay my mortgage? If there was a danger of that, there is no way I would have taken my currant contract. I could guess, I would not be alone.


----------



## milley (20 Mar 2008)

Do the reserves just recieve only 85% less pay if they are not deployed overseas? 
If they volunteer to be sent over, do they then recieve the same ammount of pay as a regular force member?


----------



## WLSC (20 Mar 2008)

Unless I'm mistaking, if a reg f personnal his posted for 3 years in CFLRS, his chance of beiing deployed are neer too nil.  If a res f personnal his in the same shcool for 3 years, I dont see why, the pay should not be the same.  Unlees I'm mistaking when a res F sign his 3 year contract, it's says he can be deployed, like a reg f pers.  Whit the same neer to nil chances.  When you have Mcpl that have the same pay then a WO, it's a bizar feeling.  For a field unit, if a res f perosnnal his there, most of the time, it's for deployement.  They will be class C.


----------



## aesop081 (20 Mar 2008)

FusMR said:
			
		

> Unless I'm mistaking, if a reg f personnal his posted for 3 years in CFLRS, his chance of beiing deployed are neer too nil.  If a res f personnal his in the same shcool for 3 years, I dont see why, the pay should not be the same.



Because that RegF guy can walk in to work on any given day and be told that he is now posted to Yellowknife ( for example). If he doesnt like that idea, or if his wife will kill him, thats just too f'ing bad....off he goes. A ResF member in the exact same unit, in the exact same job, does not have such worries. Thats one example of how conditions of service are different. Thus, IMHO, justifying the pay difference. Theres more to a military job than just the current job description.


----------



## sjm (20 Mar 2008)

Agreed, but odds are the position in Yellowknife will in fact be filled by a reservist looking for greener (or whiter) patures.

The miracle of the CFTPO...


----------



## WLSC (20 Mar 2008)

Ok, but you know and I know regF pers who arrange, for family or other reasons not to be posted or not to be depoyed.


----------



## Teeps74 (20 Mar 2008)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> The conditions under which a reservist serves ( A&B class) are nowhere near the same.



Funny, long term CL B. I was told I was going to Afghanistan on a TAV last Jan, touched down in March (it took that long for the dorks in Ottawa to get my contract straighened out, and my pay was still screwed well into April).

I pull the same hours (actually much longer, because I work in the same town as my home unit). I am subject to the exact same short term short notice taskings as my peers. I am expected to remain green throughout. I could find myself in Wainright next week, as easily as I can find myself at my desk... How is my job any different?


----------



## PO2FinClk (20 Mar 2008)

milley said:
			
		

> Do the reserves just recieve only 85% less pay if they are not deployed overseas?
> If they volunteer to be sent over, do they then recieve the same ammount of pay as a regular force member?


Do a search this subject, covered many times and also mentioned by myself in my earlier post. Reservists who deploy are on Class C thus receiving the same pay as Reg Force members.


----------



## Teeps74 (20 Mar 2008)

FusMR said:
			
		

> Ok, but you know and I know regF pers who arrange, for family or other reasons not to be posted or not to be depoyed.


----------



## kratz (20 Mar 2008)

With the pay rate increased from 64% of RegF pay in 1999, last year's pension addition to benefits and the enforcement of DAOD 5023, it is not suprising that PRes members are looking for that additional 15%. On one hand they now have to pay into the pension, but that benefit has now reduced their take home pay. They are now expected to have the same medical and fitness standards, but are held to a low expectation of performance?



<<Edit to correct spelling>>


----------



## armyvern (20 Mar 2008)

Teeps74 said:
			
		

> Funny, long term CL B. I was told I was going to Afghanistan on a TAV last Jan, touched down in March (it took that long for the dorks in Ottawa to get my contract straighened out, and my pay was still screwed well into April).
> 
> I pull the same hours (actually much longer, because I work in the same town as my home unit). I am subject to the exact same short term short notice taskings as my peers. I am expected to remain green throughout. I could find myself in Wainright next week, as easily as I can find myself at my desk... How is my job any different?



If you are on contract due to deployment and are still working on top of that "contracted" duty with your Home Unit (even if they are in the same town) ... you are doing that at your own choosing. They are not your employer, nor are they your "owning Unit" while you serve on the "contract" and you are under no obligation to report to those Unit lines to work.


----------



## PO2FinClk (20 Mar 2008)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> Thus, IMHO, justifying the pay difference.



You are correct, however it is not just a matter of opnion but rather of fact. There are several documents out there outlining this precisely, one of which I mentioned in my earlier post. It all boils down to Unlimited Liability, rather then Selective.


----------



## armyvern (20 Mar 2008)

FusMR said:
			
		

> Ok, but you know and I know regF pers who arrange, for family or other reasons not to be posted or not to be depoyed.



Yes, that does happen --- due to extenuating circumstances such as critical health issues or terminal illness' etc. A child that requires treatment at sick kids etc for a life threatening illness ... will not find his parents posted to Wainright or deployed. This falls under the "Compassionate Posting" category, and, in these circumstances the RegF members career progression CEASES. No courses, no postings, no promotions. THAT is NOT applicable to the ResF member who can say "no" and STILL enjoy courses, taskings AND career progression and promotions.

However, if I don't want to be posted to Wainwright because my "spouse has a good job in Halifax" ... that's just too f'n bad for me and my family --- and I either PROCEED on the posting ... or GET OUT. Or, I can also choose to proceed on that posting IR -- leaving my family in Halifax while I serve 3 or 4 years in Wainright. A ResF member will NOT find themselves forced into any of this. They have the choice to just say "no" without any career implications or upheaval to their families.

You, as a reservists can say "no" anyway ... and STILL have a job.

Again, Apples/Oranges ...


----------



## PO2FinClk (20 Mar 2008)

kratz said:
			
		

> They are now expected to have the same medical and fitness standards


Regardless of Reg or Res, they are members of the CF where Medical and Fitness is the cornerstone of anyone wearing the uniform.

People can come up with endless arguments to attempt to justify their arguments, this has been the case for decades and will likely continue. Until the Res F is subject to the same impositions as the Reg F where their personal desires are but suggestions to someone who effects control over your career (and in aspects of your personal life), the variance will remain.

Beating a long dead and buried horse unfortunately, other threads have run their course on the very same subject.


----------



## armyvern (20 Mar 2008)

Teeps74 said:
			
		

> At which point in time, I assume that YOU will pay my mortgage? If there was a danger of that, there is no way I would have taken my currant contract. I could guess, I would not be alone.



I sincerely hope that you did not base your 25 year mortgage upon a 3 year temp employment contract. How will you pay that mortgage in 3 years when that contract is done --- and not re-signed and no others are available for you?? I'm curious. Thousands of Canadians find themselves in this situation (with no permanent work) ... what do they do, certainly no one is paying their mortgages for them?


----------



## Teeps74 (20 Mar 2008)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> If you are on contract due to deployment and are still working on top of that "contracted" duty with your Home Unit (even if they are in the same town) ... you are doing that at your own choosing. They are not your employer, nor are they your "owning Unit" while you serve on the "contract" and you are under no obligation to report to those Unit lines to work.



So I walk away from my home unit. My unit then decides that they can not afford to lose any more people, and thus no longer approves TD taskings or longer term employment out of the unit (yes, units can do that, and in fact are expected to manage their own manpower readiness). Further, I lose my career advancement. 

It is more then just a choice. Some of us stay reservists out of loyalty to our units. I took this job because it is local. And the idea that it is a "choice" does not ring true to me, simply because it may be a legal choice, does not mean it is one I can ethically make. Ask a Royal to rebadge to Vandoo or Pat sometime... A percentage I am sure would. I would guess that would be a very small percentage, expecially as one moves up in rank.

Further, my home unit IS my owning unit. My employing unit does not administer me in any way (which made for all sorts of pay difficulties when I deployed to Afghanistan last year, both on the front end and on the back... That is a different subject altogeather). I was sent on the TAV (not that I would have turned it down, I suppose I had the option), and my home unit was burdened with all the paperwork associated.


----------



## Teeps74 (20 Mar 2008)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> I sincerely hope that you did not base your 25 year mortgage upon a 3 year temp employment contract. How will you pay that mortgage in 3 years when that contract is done --- and not re-signed and no others are available for you?? I'm curious. Thousands of Canadians find themselves in this situation (with no permanent work) ... what do they do, certainly no one is paying their mortgages for them?



It is one thing to offer me a three year contract. It is another thing entirely to end my contract early because you decide you want someone else. If there is a breach of contract on my end, sure, I can see that, and breaching a contract IS terms for immediate termination.

But that is not what is being discussed in this case. "Gee, let's send WO Bloggins to replace that toon over there... WO Bloggins needs a break." That is not grounds to take money out of my pocket.


----------



## armyvern (20 Mar 2008)

Teeps74 said:
			
		

> So I walk away from my home unit. My unit then decides that they can not afford to lose any more people, and thus no longer approves TD taskings or longer term employment out of the unit (yes, units can do that, and in fact are expected to manage their own manpower readiness). Further, I lose my career advancement.
> 
> It is more then just a choice. Some of us stay reservists out of loyalty to our units. I took this job because it is local. And the idea that it is a "choice" does not ring true to me, simply because it may be a legal choice, does not mean it is one I can ethically make. Ask a Royal to rebadge to Vandoo or Pat sometime... A percentage I am sure would. I would guess that would be a very small percentage, expecially as one moves up in rank.
> 
> Further, my home unit IS my owning unit. My employing unit does not administer me in any way (which made for all sorts of pay difficulties when I deployed to Afghanistan last year, both on the front end and on the back... That is a different subject altogeather). I was sent on the TAV (not that I would have turned it down, I suppose I had the option), and my home unit was burdened with all the paperwork associated.



Ahhh see, there's the kicker. YOU were on a TAV and thus were TDd. YOU were not on a C Class contract (thus still falling under your Home Unit). NOW, with those facts out -- your original statement becomes a tad bit more acurate. You were a TAV ... you were not deployed overseas as a member of the tour for a pro-longed period and you were not subject to the same vigors and extent of work up training that those pers who formed the actual deployed battle group were.

Please --- don't come back with a "TAV" pers are equal to "deployed pers" comment; many on here who have been deployed will be quick to point out the vast differences between TAV (Military tourism [sometimes essential/sometimes not, but always only for the short time ... even some times -- just long enough to qualify for the medal]) and actual long-term deployed members and their tasks/duties in-theatre.


----------



## armyvern (20 Mar 2008)

Teeps74 said:
			
		

> It is one thing to offer me a three year contract. It is another thing entirely to end my contract early because you decide you want someone else. If there is a breach of contract on my end, sure, I can see that, and breaching a contract IS terms for immediate termination.
> 
> But that is not what is being discussed in this case. "Gee, let's send WO Bloggins to replace that toon over there... WO Bloggins needs a break." That is not grounds to take money out of my pocket.



And, I'm sure that were this scenario ever to come to pass, that you would receive some sort of "contract breaking restitution" (or "severance pay" per se) ... but asking them to make your mortgage payments for you is a wee bit much no?? No one else in Canada gets that benefit.


----------



## Teeps74 (20 Mar 2008)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> And, I'm sure that were this scenario ever to come to pass, that you would receive some sort of "contract breaking restitution" (or "severance pay" per se) ... but asking them to make your mortgage payments for you is a wee bit much no?? No one else in Canada gets that benefit.



No one else would not be subjected to such a severe breach of trust.


----------



## Spartan (20 Mar 2008)

While I understand the differences in pay between the components, I wonder with these discussions if the policies will change to recognize Cl A days at greater than a quarter when someone considers transferring to the Reg F.  Because as it stands now, it seems like alot of the additional Cl A days that one might pick up are not simply make work projects but aid greatly in running and/or supporting a unit/ex/ even courses - both Reg and Res- effectively.


----------



## Haggis (20 Mar 2008)

Teeps74 said:
			
		

> But that is not what is being discussed in this case. "Gee, let's send WO Bloggins to replace that toon over there... WO Bloggins needs a break." That is not grounds to take money out of my pocket.



If you are in a Class B position which is wholly and totally in support of Res F activities, this is unlikely.  However if you are a Class B position that is a Reg F backfill, keep your résumé up to date at all times. 

Life sucks.  Grab a helmet.


----------



## Teeps74 (20 Mar 2008)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Ahhh see, there's the kicker. YOU were on a TAV and thus were TDd. YOU were not on a C Class contract. NOW, with those facts out -- your original statement becomes a tad bit more acurate. You were a TAV ... you were not deployed overseas as a member of the tour for a pro-longed period and you were not subject to the same vigors and extent of work up training that those pers who formed the actual deployed battle group were.
> 
> Please --- don't come back with a "TAV" pers are equal to "deployed pers" comment; many on here who have been deployed will be quick to point out the vast differences between TAV (Military tourism) and actual long-term deployed members and their tasks/duties in-theatre.



My military tourism adventure saw me hoping from FOB to FOB, spent most of my time at JPCC, some at PRT with a very little amount of time in KAF. Not all TAVs are created equal, but that is not the subject at hand. I do maintain my deployment status as green for my job, and would gladly go on any TAV or full tour offered.

And I have done full tours, I do not need the differences pointed out to me.

Further, I did deploy under CL C contract, to do otherwise is illegal. The TAV I was on was cyclical and is now a part of the operational TO&E, the job description is the same now (on full blown CFTPO written roto) as it was on the TAV.


----------



## armyvern (20 Mar 2008)

Teeps74 said:
			
		

> No one else would not be subjected to such a severe breach of trust.



Really?

It happens all the time. Just up the road here at the mill a whole bunch of locals who were permanently employed got laid off ... they received the appropriate severence pay.

Here's a breach of trust for you:

For 20 years I went where & when I was told to. Then, I choose to say "no" to a certain posting. I'm handed my release paperwork <--- awesome job security there I tell you.

After 20 years of Class B contracts, they tell you that you asre going "here", and you say "no" ... you just don't go. You still have a job.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (20 Mar 2008)

Teeps74 said:
			
		

> I could find myself in Wainright next week, as easily as I can find myself at my desk... How is my job any different?



There is a substantial difference between Wainwright and some wadi in the sandbox, wouldn't you agree?


----------



## armyvern (20 Mar 2008)

Teeps74 said:
			
		

> My military tourism adventure saw me hoping from FOB to FOB, spent most of my time at JPCC, some at PRT with a very little amount of time in KAF. Not all TAVs are created equal, but that is not the subject at hand. I do maintain my deployment status as green for my job, and would gladly go on any TAV or full tour offered.
> 
> And I have done full tours, I do not need the differences pointed out to me.
> 
> Further, I did deploy under CL C contract, to do otherwise is illegal. The TAV I was on was cyclical and is now a part of the operational TO&E, the job description is the same now (on full blown CFTPO written roto) as it was on the TAV.



And, you recd 100% of the pay yes while on that Class C?? What's your point?


----------



## Teeps74 (20 Mar 2008)

Haggis said:
			
		

> If you are in a Class B position which is wholly and totally in support of Res F activities, this is unlikely.  However if you are a Class B position that is a Reg F backfill, keep your résumé up to date at all times.
> 
> Life sucks.  Grab a helmet.



Reg F back fill positions are advertised as such. Anyone going into such a job with delusions of long term employment deserves the hard fall they take.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (20 Mar 2008)

milley said:
			
		

> Do the reserves just recieve only 85% less pay if they are not deployed overseas?
> If they volunteer to be sent over, do they then recieve the same ammount of pay as a regular force member?


If they are overseas, they are on Class C and get the pay/benefits = to a Regular Force mbr.  In Canada, it depends on what position they are in.  Some are Class C (MCDVs come to mind), some Class B and some Class B (A).


----------



## Teeps74 (20 Mar 2008)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> There is a substantial difference between Wainwright and some wadi in the sandbox, wouldn't you agree?



Have I argued differently?


----------



## Teeps74 (20 Mar 2008)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> And, you recd 100% of the pay yes while on that Class C?? What's your point?



My point is that in some cases there is almost zero difference in expectations between Pres on CL B, CL B/A and Reg F...

Some CL B/A jobs out there SHOULD be CL C jobs with ALL of the expectations of Reg F members placed on them (as the CL C contract is clearly written out).


----------



## Eye In The Sky (20 Mar 2008)

Teeps74 said:
			
		

> Have I argued differently?



No but, in the big scheme of things, thats the huge difference IMO.  While you are and did deploy overseas, not all Reservists will/would.  Had you of not said yes to your TAV/Class C, you would not have gone.


----------



## Teeps74 (20 Mar 2008)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> No but, in the big scheme of things, thats the huge difference IMO.  While you are and did deploy overseas, not all Reservists will/would.  Had you of not said yes to your TAV/Class C, you would not have gone.



I also would not have likely been offered a new contract when my last one expired. 

Personal opinion. Any of us who take long term employment should be deployable, no option.


----------



## aesop081 (20 Mar 2008)

Teeps74 said:
			
		

> My point is that in *some* cases there is *almost* zero difference in expectations between Pres on CL B, CL B/A and Reg F...



SOME does not justify wholesale pay equity.

ALMOST means that there are still differences and those differences remain significant.


----------



## kratz (20 Mar 2008)

One point that is glossed over is that while a reservist can chose to not accept a contract and still be employed part-time, nobody is mentioning that the RegF member who is handed their release paperwork has the option of joining the PRes or SHR. This is part of the reason for improving CTs between the two elements. 

From this perspective, both groups still have an opportunity at earning a wage with the military.


----------



## Teeps74 (20 Mar 2008)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> SOME does not justify wholesale pay equity.
> 
> ALMOST means that there are still differences and those differences remain significant.



IMHO both deltas need to be worked on. What reasoning is there for the deltas? I have watched the PRes and Reg F training systems change over the years (and not necessarily for the better... BMQs no longer learn turns on the march?! In favour of history and honours and awards?!).

Further, if we as PRes are not going on at least one deployment, what function are we filling? Those deployments do fill a lot of the training delta very quickly (at least for infantry).


----------



## MED_BCMC (20 Mar 2008)

While the idea of a pay raise is nice, it opens the door to a negative possible outcome as well. I know that Reg F organizations have differing levels of Funding available for Class Bs. If the average salary of a reservist goes up, and the funding available does not (I can't expect that it would), some Reservists might find themselves out in the cold (without anyone paying their morgages, so to speak). 

As a Reservist, I am completely comfortable paying (or realistically, not receiving) that extra 15% so that I can manage my own career and "postings". 

Cheers, 

BCM


----------



## Teeps74 (20 Mar 2008)

Doing a self analysis in this thread, I guess I am reacting to a perceived "we are better..." attitude directed at PRes. Perceptions can be evil, and not always match what the other person is trying to say. So, if I am coming off strong in this thread, that is why.

I have in the past, borne the brunt of the "toon" slurs, and have had to work twice as hard as my Reg F peers just to get half the respect. I have met a fair amount of junk and flotsam in the Reg F on my taskings and tours, just as I have met a fair amount of the same in the PRes.

Yes, there is an institutionalized difference. I do not see the logical reasoning for most of these differences any longer. Especially on the training side. It has always been my contention that us reservists should do at least one operational tour (especially for those wishing to stay in beyond 3 years).

Should we get 100% pay in all instances? I do not think you will find many reserveists that would argue yes. CL A should stay at 85%. Short term CL B and backfills should also stay at 85% IMO. 

Long term, should be on CL C with most of the same requirements as Reg F, and ALL of the benifits (we on CL C or B/A are NOT entitled to move of F&E, house hunting trips, or any of that other stuff, and infact live on TD (not IR) while doing pre-deployment training for a mission... Those of us with families are away from our families for a full year +, as opposed just six months (there is no incentive for the duration during pre-deployment away from our families, but we do it anyways)).


----------



## blacktriangle (20 Mar 2008)

ButtA said:
			
		

> I think if the pay was equal, there would be far less people enlisting in the Regular force, and the Reserves would get rather large.
> But more money would be great  ;D



I'm a reservist but see it the other way...why should I get the same level of pay for doing an ex or working a class B, when I get to choose my contracts, work oppourtunities etc all while living in a large city. I personally am not a fan of Class B Commandos (lifers) but understand it fills a needed gap, but unless on work up or tour, I see no reason why reservists should make the same as a reg force pers.

If we (the p res) want equal pay, we better be prepared to meet equal hardships.


----------



## armyvern (20 Mar 2008)

kratz said:
			
		

> One point that is glossed over is that while a reservist can chose to not accept a contract and still be employed part-time, nobody is mentioning that the RegF member who is handed their release paperwork has the option of joining the PRes or SHR. This is part of the reason for improving CTs between the two elements.
> 
> From this perspective, both groups still have an opportunity at earning a wage with the military.



Sure, they have the option of going ResF ... but into a Class A posn (one night per week) *IF* there happens to be any vacant posns in whatever ResF Unit ... they certainly are not guaranteed that they'll be going into a Class B posn (full time/short term contract) and, most certainly, not into a Class C (at 100% of their pay).

We can opt out of a tour/task/posting we don't like by putting our release in, but are NOT guaranteed, far from it, even part time service in the local ResF Unit due to ceilings on manning levels. A reservist opting out of a BClass position is still guaranteed at least part-time Class A employment within his local Res Unit ... and ergo opportunity for further Class B (or C) in a position he finds more to his liking.


----------



## ark (20 Mar 2008)

Since we are on the subject of pay, can anyone explain me why Class B are paid 7 days/week while they normally work only 5 days? Class A are paid per day of work and do not get that extra "free" pay.


----------



## armyvern (20 Mar 2008)

Teeps74 said:
			
		

> Should we get 100% pay in all instances? I do not think you will find many reserveists that would argue yes. CL A should stay at 85%. Short term CL B and backfills should also stay at 85% IMO.
> 
> Long term, should be on CL C with most of the same requirements as Reg F, and ALL of the benifits (we on CL C or B/A are NOT entitled to move of F&E, house hunting trips, or any of that other stuff, and infact live on* TD (not IR) * while doing pre-deployment training for a mission... Those of us with families are away from our families for a full year +, as opposed just six months (there is no incentive for the duration during pre-deployment away from our families, but we do it anyways)).



Clas B (A) Sup Techs in ResF Units are NOT performing, nor are qualified, to perform the same daily Supply work that their RegF counterparts do daily as part of their trade. Class B(A) in my trade does NOT equal a RegF Sup Techs "daily" jobs.

RegF pers doing pre-deployment trg do NOT receive IR benefits either ... they are in fact Attach Posted or TDd as well. ZERO difference there. And, word up -- shitloads of RegF people are away from their families doing that pre-deployment training as well (and thus rec that TD just like you) and for just as long --- those that find themselves doing pre-deployment trg at their home base where their families are located --- don't get squat above their regular pay.


----------



## aesop081 (20 Mar 2008)

Teeps74 said:
			
		

> Yes, there is an institutionalized difference. I do not see the logical reasoning for most of these differences any longer. Especially on the training side.



Training differences are only one aspect. You seem to be disregarding all others. Even the training delata is hard to close. In my old trade the Ql6A was 6 months long. Find me a way to make reservists go on a 6-month  long career course. And  No, an operational tour is not enough to close the difference in every single case, in every single trade.





> Long term, should be on CL C with most of the *same requirements * as Reg F, and *ALL of the benifits *



I agree.


----------



## armyvern (20 Mar 2008)

ark said:
			
		

> Since we are on the subject of pay, can anyone explain me why Class B are paid 7 days/week while they normally work only 5 days? Class A are paid per day of work and do not get that extra "free" pay.



Because they are liable to do duties such as "Duty Supply Tech" which involves being on call 24/7 for week-long periods etc while under that B Class contract.

Class A picks and chooses which weekends/nights they report for work. You will not find a Class A pers unlocking the Armoury gates and putting up the flag etc as the "day staff" do.


----------



## geo (20 Mar 2008)

There was a time when reservists working on long term contracts (eg: 3 yrs) would have been paid class C
Then again, there was a time when reserve class A pay was less than reserve class B pay.


----------



## aesop081 (20 Mar 2008)

ark said:
			
		

> Since we are on the subject of pay, can anyone explain me why Class B are paid 7 days/week while they normally work only 5 days? Class A are paid per day of work and do not get that extra "free" pay.



Think about that one a few times ok


----------



## geo (20 Mar 2008)

Believe me, no one receives "free pay"... ever.
There are always strings attached.


----------



## kratz (20 Mar 2008)

geo said:
			
		

> Believe me, no one receives "free pay"... ever.
> There are always strings attached.



+1. The attached strings have been mentioned in many other threads.


----------



## armyvern (20 Mar 2008)

geo said:
			
		

> There was a time when reservists working on long term contracts (eg: 3 yrs) would have been paid class C
> Then again, there was a time when reserve class A pay was less than reserve class B pay.



Class A pay and Class B pay still differs ...

In that Class B are paid 7 days / week, Class A is only paid for days they actually RFD. That's because Class B is required to RFD "whenever" for the duration of their Class B contract while a Class A pers is not required to do so.

Now, let's look at it this way. Class A work remains the same as it is now --- they get to pick and choose when and what they RFD for. Class B pers also stay the same, they MUST report 5 days per week/must do duties etc while Class A pers do NOT.

All things being equal --- and for arguements sake --- because Class A Suppies do the same job when they choose to report for work Thursday Night as the Class B guy next to them in the QM ... they deserve equal pay and benefits at a rate of 7 days per week too (that's what's being argued by some here for Class B being paid the same rate as RegF <--- that *while at work * "we are doing the exact same thing"). 

Never mind the fact that the BClass guy worked from 0730-1600hrs, then again from 1800-2100hrs that day, and the A Class guy worked Thursday night from 1800-2100hrs only. THEY did the EXACT same job during those 1800-2100hrs. Start paying A Class 7 days per week too, at 100% pay ... it's the exact same thing.  :  Seem silly?? It is. The responsibilities and requirements to RFD are NOT comparable, just as they are NOT comparable between RegF and ResF (less those on Class C -- long term Class B in RegF positions).


----------



## milley (20 Mar 2008)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> If they are overseas, they are on Class C and get the pay/benefits = to a Regular Force mbr.  In Canada, it depends on what position they are in.  Some are Class C (MCDVs come to mind), some Class B and some Class B (A).



Ah, okay, thank you (and you, PO2FinClk). I didn't quite understand the different Class levels, I think I understand it all now, thanks again.


----------



## kratz (20 Mar 2008)

There are some valid points  in that Vern. If there is only a NavRes unit nearby and you are a retired medic or AVS tech, there is no position available to you in that unit. I did mention that there is an opportunity to join the PRes though. Just as a PRes takes a rank reduction when they CT, if a retired member wanted employment, they can retrain in the PRes and take on a new MOS. During the initial PRes time in, yes it is class A, but once they are up to speed (unit, training and element dependant) class B and class C opportunities are available.

Reserve CMs have been telling us for years, if you want guaranteed work, join the RegF. So no, there is no expectation of full-time, long term employment for most PRes trades. But those uncertainties are part of acceptance in remaining PRes vice RegF.

As for class A and class B paid differently, they are paid the same. Those class A earn PILL, during their RFD time, while the class B earns annual leave and in many units , ETO or CTO for training nights.  As that time is not discretionary at the unit level, it is not guaranteed.


----------



## ark (20 Mar 2008)

geo said:
			
		

> Believe me, no one receives "free pay"... ever.
> There are always strings attached.



Yeah I know there are strings attached, so that is why I wrote "free" as in there is nothing really free. 
I know what justifies the Class B vs Reg force pay difference and I was looking for a similar explanation when it comes to Class B vs Class A as the Class A gets 71% of what Class B gets.


----------



## Kiwi99 (20 Mar 2008)

Ok, time to ruffle some feathers. I ahve a couple questions that nobody really seems to have an answer for, at least not one I like.  

First, why do we offer three year full time comtracts to reservists anyway?  If they want to work full time, why do the not go reg force?  Seems logical to me.  If you want the same pay and benefits, then go regs and get them.  

Secondly, why is there always such a push to get the reserves on tour?  On roto 11 to Bosnia we had to take a full coy of reservists.  So the soldiers in the battalion that show up every day, go on every exercise and so on, they are forces to miss out.  The same goes for current tours to Astan.  Reg force soldiers miss out as there has to be a certain anmount of reservists who have to deploy.  Again, why does the guy or girl who works full time, miss out.

Just a couple thoughts that had me thinking.  But at the end of the day, same pay means same job which means same workload.


----------



## ark (20 Mar 2008)

kratz said:
			
		

> As for class A and class B paid differently, they are paid the same. Those class A earn PILL, during their RFD time, while the class B earns annual leave and in many units , ETO or CTO for training nights.  As that time is not discretionary at the unit level, it is not guaranteed.



Class B is paid 7 days for 5 days of work + he gets annual leave.
Class A is paid per day of work so for 5 days of work he is paid 5 days + 9% to compensate for leave.

How is that same pay? I know some people who were put on Class A for 4 days/week so that the unit would not have to pay them on Class B which would mean 2 extra days of "free" pay.


----------



## armyvern (20 Mar 2008)

kratz said:
			
		

> There are some valid points  in that Vern. If there is only a NavRes unit nearby and you are a retired medic or AVS tech, there is no position available to you in that unit. I did mention that there is an opportunity to join the PRes though. *Just as a PRes takes a rank reduction when they CT, ...*



That's not necessarily the case either. If you are PRes and have real-time operational tour experience at an on-par level with the RegF pers of the same trade, you can CT directly to the RegF and suffer NO reduction in rank, qualification level, or pay. It's all about CTing you into the RegF at the rank that your qualifications AND actual work experience deem at a level commesurate with where a RegF pers of similar trade experience and work experience would sit.

Qual levels, as spoken to before, differ vastly in their requirements, thus not all QL6 quald Reservists are equal to QL6 quald Regs in actual "work & knowledge" --- despite perhaps being of the same rank levels (promotions come much faster in the ResF world).

As for your comment about Class A and Class B being paid the same --- name me just ONE Class A pers who gets paid 7 days per week. Please, I'd love to meet them.

Their pay does differ ... substantially. One works 5 and is paid for 7. The other works one works one --- and gets paid only for that one day. That's because they differ in the "other" requirements relating to their "terms of service" (one REQUIRED to show up, do duties, perform shitty Unit taskings/parades; the other is NOT). Just as RegF is REQUIRED to RFD at shitty postings or to deploy on shitty tours ... while B Class are not.


----------



## zipperhead_cop (20 Mar 2008)

Kiwi99 said:
			
		

> Secondly, why is there always such a push to get the reserves on tour?



Seems to me that "push" is a demonstrated need.  By all means, prohibit the Res from going on tours.  Hope your Reg buddies on their seventh tour to Afghanistan thank you appropriately.


----------



## aesop081 (20 Mar 2008)

ark said:
			
		

> Class B is paid 7 days for 5 days of work + he gets annual leave.
> Class A is paid per day of work so for 5 days of work he is paid 5 days + 9% to compensate for leave.
> 
> How is that same pay? I know some people who were put on Class A for 4 days/week so that the unit would not have to pay them on Class B which would mean 2 extra days of "free" pay.



A class B guy might have to work on those 2 extra days....hes on duty 24/7

a Class A guy is not

I dont know why you dont understand the difference.


----------



## armyvern (20 Mar 2008)

ark said:
			
		

> Class B is paid 7 days for 5 days of work + he gets annual leave.
> Class A is paid per day of work so for 5 days of work he is paid 5 days + 9% to compensate for leave.
> 
> How is that same pay? I know some people who were put on Class A for 4 days/week so that the unit would not have to pay them on Class B which would mean 2 extra days of "free" pay.



Yet, I'll point out that NO Class A pers will work those 5 days in one week. Enough with the "free pay" already -- there is NO such thing. And, figure it out -- 7 days per week, less 4 days they worked = 3 days pay saved not 2.

I have still yet to meet an A Class pers who was "reqd/ordered" to work even 4 days per week <--- they can say "no, I'm A Class". But, I know some B Class pers who are ordered to work ... even after having already put in a good 12 hours that day ... or a good 60 hours that week (and that's exactly why they get that "free pay" for those 2 days).

Anyone?? Bueller??


----------



## OldSolduer (20 Mar 2008)

KIWI 99
If we didn't have the reservists in 93, 2VP would have had to take full coys from the RCR and other PPCLI bns. That would have seen RegF doing multiple tours in a short time. This is why Reservists are being pushed to go on tours,.
I've worked both sides of the fence, so I'm going to ruffle yours....some Reg Force members (and Reservists) are not fit to go on tour for various reasons, which I won't go into here. The operation requires a backfill, so if a Reservist is qualified....why not?
Also, some Reservists are uniquely qualified....ie CIMIC & PsyOps...why take a Reg Force Officeror NCO, whose skills are needed elsewhere ie in the BG ? CIMIC and Psy Ops are a perfect fit for the Reserves.
If you are working side by side with a Reg Force member, doing the same job on an op taking the same risks....then you should get equal pay.


----------



## armyvern (20 Mar 2008)

OldSolduer said:
			
		

> If you are working side by side with a Reg Force member, doing the same job on an op taking the same risks....then you should get equal pay.



No one here is arguing that ResF members deployed on tours and subject to those same risks should NOT receive the same 100% wage. Rather, I think we ALL agree with that.

And, ResF members DO already receive 100% when operationally deployed. No one has any issues with that.


----------



## aesop081 (20 Mar 2008)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> (and that's exactly why they get that "free pay" for those 2 days).



And when they are required to work saturday and sunday......those "free " days aren't exactly free are they ?


----------



## OldSolduer (20 Mar 2008)

Glad to hear that Vern.
In 93, my reserve Cpl was being paid as a Private.....on an operation....jsut wondering if it had sorted itself out.


----------



## armyvern (20 Mar 2008)

OldSolduer said:
			
		

> Glad to hear that Vern.
> In 93, my reserve Cpl was being paid as a Private.....on an operation....jsut wondering if it had sorted itself out.



It has. Thankfully.


----------



## armyvern (20 Mar 2008)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> And when they are required to work saturday and sunday......those "free " days aren't exactly free are they ?



Which is exactly why I stated can be called in "whenever", duties, parades, shitty weekend taskings etc ... 

Far from "free".


----------



## ark (20 Mar 2008)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Yet, I'll point out that NO Class A pers will work those 5 days in one week. Enough with the "free pay" already -- there is NO such thing. And, figure it out -- 7 days per week, less 4 days they worked = 3 days pay saved not 2.
> 
> I have still yet to meet an A Class pers who was "reqd/ordered" to work even 4 days per week <--- they can say "no, I'm A Class". But, I know some B Class pers who are ordered to work ... even after having already put in a good 12 hours that day ... or a good 60 hours that week.
> 
> Anyone?? Bueller??



I have already explained that "free" is not really free. When someone works 4 days/week on Class A the unit can then give a 1/day per week Class A to someone else thus the work of a 5 days/week Class B is done but you do not have to pay for the weekend.

In the cases I have seen, no they were not ordered to work 4 days, it was their choice (or lack of choice) as they needed money and were willing to take anything. But yes they had the choice and I know part of the difference in pay is to have that choice.
Once the Class A signs the pay sheet he is also subject to overtime work so that is no different than Class B logging more hours than a standard week of work.


----------



## aesop081 (20 Mar 2008)

ark said:
			
		

> Once the Class A signs the pay sheet he is also subject to overtime work so that is no different than Class B logging more hours than a standard week of work.



But the Class A guy has to come in in the first place to sign the pay sheet before he does "overtime"....if he doesnt show up, no over time. The Class B guy gets a call at home saturday night saying "get your ass in here" and he doesnt get to say "no".


----------



## ark (20 Mar 2008)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> And when they are required to work saturday and sunday......those "free " days aren't exactly free are they ?



I do not know if that is a genereal rule but here those on Class B who have to work on weekends or parade on a Tuesday night can take compensatory days.


----------



## ark (20 Mar 2008)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> But the Class A guy has to come in in the first place to sign the pay sheet before he does "overtime"....if he doesnt show up, no over time. The Class B guy gets a call at home saturday night saying "get your *** in here" and he doesnt get to say "no".



Yup, as I stated, that choice explains in part the pay difference. Keep in mind, the Class A must have a valid reason for not showing up if it is a mandatory training.


----------



## aesop081 (20 Mar 2008)

ark said:
			
		

> Yup, as I stated, that choice explains in part the pay difference.



So why are you still arguing ?


----------



## NL_engineer (20 Mar 2008)

MCG said:
			
		

> 2 x 6 weeks is less than 6 months.  Additionally, there are far more OSQs that you will find in the Regular Force than in the PRes.  Throw in job related experience and things are certainly not changing for the Army.  In fact, if you go and read Training Canada's Army you will find that the training delta (between regular force & primary reserve) is a formally established concept.  Even reservists who deploy operationally only receive training to cover the portion of the delta which is deemed specifically relevant to the mission.



MCG, NFLD_sapper was right be it only for the short period of time (last summer) right up to the start of the first 6 month one on or around 10 Sept 2007 (forgot the exact date).

The course was the same for a wile (the res course was extended, at the same time they introduced the 14 week reg course, all the same ttps were covered, just in a different order).  As the reg course is back to 6 months, with a lot more ttps, they are no longer the same.


----------



## Jarnhamar (20 Mar 2008)

ark said:
			
		

> I do not know if that is a genereal rule but here those on Class B who have to work on weekends or parade on a Tuesday night can take compensatory days.



I believe this is offered (and taken by) reg force members working at reserve units too.

Seems fair, too bad something like this wasn't offered to reg force members at their own bases.


----------



## aesop081 (20 Mar 2008)

ark said:
			
		

> Keep in mind, the Class A must have a valid reason for not showing up if it is a mandatory training.



And a class B guy needs a good reason not to attend anything, maditory or not.



> Seems fair, too bad something like this wasn't offered to reg force members at their own bases.



Its like that where i work


----------



## ark (20 Mar 2008)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> So why are you still arguing ?



I was arguing other points.


----------



## Dissident (20 Mar 2008)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> I have still yet to meet an A Class pers who was "reqd/ordered" to work even 4 days per week <--- they can say "no, I'm A Class". But, I know some B Class pers who are ordered to work ... even after having already put in a good 12 hours that day ... or a good 60 hours that week (and that's exactly why they get that "free pay" for those 2 days).



Actually, a unit that shall remain nameless, hired two class A pers for 3 days a week to fill in a full time clerks position. Equal or more work, for less pay.


----------



## Yrys (20 Mar 2008)

zipperhead_cop said:
			
		

> Seems to me that "push" is a demonstrated need.  By all means, prohibit the Res from going on tours.  Hope your Reg buddies on their seventh tour to Afghanistan thank you appropriately.



... or longer time away from love ones!


'Not ruling out' longer Afghanistan rotations for Canadian soldiers: MacKay



> KANDAHAR, Afghanistan - Canada's defence minister is not ruling out the possibility of longer rotations for Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan.
> 
> Peter MacKay is on his way back to Canada after a three-day visit to Kandahar province, during which he toured a road construction project and a local field hospital.
> He says it's up to the Canadian Forces to decide whether troops should be in Afghanistan for more than six months at a stretch. MacKay says Canada is focused on
> ...


----------



## aesop081 (20 Mar 2008)

Dissident said:
			
		

> Actually, a unit that shall remain nameless, hired two class A pers for 3 days a week to fill in a full time clerks position. Equal or more work, for less pay.



If they were serving on Class A.....it is NOT equal work as their terms of service are different from a member on class B/c or a RegF member. The job while sitting at the desk may be the same but the liabilities of their contract is not.


----------



## WLSC (20 Mar 2008)

The problem wont be solve here.  Administrativelly, there is certainly a difference but all I can read here his that there his so much more to do on both side.  All we are asking his that our contribution his fully acknoleged.  Wich his not.  An action will always be less good when it's done by a reservist.  Maybe, you wont see it like that but, it's the way we perceive it.  Perception his not all but a lot of it.


----------



## aesop081 (20 Mar 2008)

FusMR said:
			
		

> All we are asking his that our contribution his fully acknoleged.  Wich his not.



Oh please enlighten me........

This thread has been about pay. Now you are talking about actions. 2 separate issues.


----------



## zipperhead_cop (20 Mar 2008)

FusMR said:
			
		

> All we are asking his that our contribution his fully acknoleged.  Wich his not.  An action will always be less good when it's done by a reservist.  Maybe, you wont see it like that but, it's the way we perceive it.  Perception his not all but a lot of it.



Guh.  That will be good for another 180+ posts in less than 24 hrs  
Make deployment a criteria for promotion in the Res.  That should square away the dead wood and provide a steady stream of pulses to show up as needed.  At such time as we are deployed or in training for it, we are making the full cash.


----------



## kratz (20 Mar 2008)

Dissident said:
			
		

> Actually, a unit that shall remain nameless, hired two class A pers for 3 days a week to fill in a full time clerks position. Equal or more work, for less pay.



Reading CMP Instruction 20-04, the intent of this instruction was to cease such examples that DL gave and to prove  Vern's point WRT units deliberately employing members in class A positions and performing class B duties, without the pay and benefits.


----------



## geo (20 Mar 2008)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Class A pay and Class B pay still differs ...


Noooo... I really mean that there was a different pay rate between A & B for the same rank & same IPC.
Pte Pay level C class A would be pais 6.40$ per day
Pte pay level C class B would be paid 7.10$ per day

IIRC there was a difference thru to +/- 1980


----------



## ark (20 Mar 2008)

Dissident said:
			
		

> Actually, a unit that shall remain nameless, hired two class A pers for 3 days a week to fill in a full time clerks position. Equal or more work, for less pay.



It is not always a bad thing. Units always have to deal with limited ressources and sometime may want to spread them to as many people as possible. By taking two Class A members, they can split the money to more people instead of having a single one siphoning everything. At the same time the unit saves money on the two extra weekend pay days which can be also used to create extra Class A for someone else.


----------



## geo (20 Mar 2008)

ark said:
			
		

> Yup, as I stated, that choice explains in part the pay difference. Keep in mind, the Class A must have a valid reason for not showing up if it is a mandatory training.



Ohhh... some of those reasons are really quite weak.


----------



## Nfld Sapper (20 Mar 2008)

geo said:
			
		

> Ohhh... some of those reasons are really quite weak.



Yeah like,

I'm laying down carpet this weekend


----------



## OldSolduer (20 Mar 2008)

I agree with zipperhead_cop.....make an operational deployment mandatory.


----------



## geo (20 Mar 2008)

NFLD Sapper said:
			
		

> Yeah like,
> 
> I'm laying down carpet this weekend



Err - can't you get your 9D to deal with it?  >


----------



## WLSC (20 Mar 2008)

> zipperhead_cop Today at 14:50:27
> Make deployment a criteria for promotion in the Res.  That should square away the dead wood and provide a steady stream of pulses to show up as needed.
> 
> That's his not our call, that the goverment call but the training we do in our unit his training.  Maybe not as big then regF unit, off coure but still valuable training.  As for the cleaning his concern, it's a fight for each unit.  But on that basis, it would help.


----------



## the 48th regulator (20 Mar 2008)

OldSolduer said:
			
		

> I agree with zipperhead_cop.....make an operational deployment mandatory.



As long as the goverment lawfully enforces total job security, I would agree.

dileas

tess


----------



## geo (20 Mar 2008)

OldSolduer said:
			
		

> I agree with zipperhead_cop.....make an operational deployment mandatory.



Umm.... If a person has made himself available for a 3 year contract then yes, I agree that he should be "fair game" for a mandatory deployment if he is needed.


----------



## ark (20 Mar 2008)

geo said:
			
		

> Ohhh... some of those reasons are really quite weak.



Hah, yeah I know, but in theory they should be solid.


----------



## OldSolduer (20 Mar 2008)

I'm Class A and I want to deploy.....what are the ramifications, pay wise and pension wise....


----------



## McG (20 Mar 2008)

Some days it really does feel like nobody takes the time to read the whole thread.  We still have people showing up demanding 100 % pay for deployed reservists despite the fact that nobody is arguing against this & that reservists already receive this.  There has been a whole list of interconnected reinforcing arguments for the 15 % difference, and we still have people showing up to dismiss the whole thing by illustrating occasionally some reservists may sometimes be an exception to the norm while ignoring the reinforcing issues on the periphery (ie: pointing out that reservists can get short notice employment during the summer course/tasking season while failing to account for the difference in choice, frequency, duration, and probability in contrast to typical regular force service member).  If anyone really wants to argue that Class A & Class B reservists deserve 100 %, then they had better start by going back to my shopping list of differences & addressing the whole thing in a complete argument.



			
				sjm said:
			
		

> The system here in Ottawa seems to easing away from Class Bs and hiring "Contractors" starting at $300 per diem for the absolute lowest rated PS contractor position;


Contractors are not public servants; they are not government employees.  





			
				sjm said:
			
		

> Agreed, but odds are the positionposting in Yellowknife will in fact be filled by a reservist looking for greener (or whiter) patures.
> 
> The miracle of the CFTPO...


No.  CFTPO does not fill postings.  It is a tasking program and separate from what the career managers do.



			
				Dissident said:
			
		

> Actually, a unit that shall remain nameless, hired two class A pers for 3 days a week to fill in a full time clerks position. Equal or more work, for less pay.


Two people doing the job of one is equal?  



			
				Kiwi99 said:
			
		

> First, why do we offer three year full time comtracts to reservists anyway?  If they want to work full time, why do the not go reg force?  Seems logical to me.  If you want the same pay and benefits, then go regs and get them.


Kiwi,
While your question about the "right" of limited numbers of reservists to deploy ahead of regulars in low tempo times may be a worthy debate, it is not germane to the discussion of reserve pay rates & can only serve to make an already volatile topic more explosive.  However, I will address this question because it is the Class B(A) that is closest to having a legitimate case for more equalized pay (though it'd still not be 100%) & one might be inclined to dismiss this debate by dismissing the requirement for Class B(A).  However, there is a requirement for Class B(A).  Just as it would make no sense for infantry not to be represented within the ranks of an HQ overseeing a force of/containing infantry, it would not make sense for the full time HQ positions overseeing reservists to have no reservists (each understands some of the issues peculiar to its own).  Thus there is a place for full time reservists in reserve units, reserve Bde HQs, Area HQs, Land/maritime/air staffs, & various places in NDHQ.   While the proportion of res to reg should diminish as you get into the higher HQs, the reservist still belongs.  (though, one could argue that the 15 year DLR Class B reservist no longer really brings the reserve perspective so much as the uniformed bureaucrat perspective)


----------



## geo (20 Mar 2008)

ark said:
			
		

> Hah, yeah I know, but in theory they should be solid.


There are no teeth to the application of those regulations.
So long as they do not go NES (or at least not do so too often) the Class A soldier can drag this on for an awful long time.  Under the old way of calculating the Reserve Force Retirement Gratuity, there were tons of Reservists who barely hung on to pump up their severance pay... (that has been fixed though)


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (20 Mar 2008)

Well folks, IMO, this can can be easily summed up.

If enough Reserve personall think that they are getting burned than I see no reason why they do not form an unofficial association,[not union] take a vote, and if the results are in favour of some kind of action, such as withdrawing service,[not strike] then maybe the Govt. would talk more...........

.....oh, hasn't been done yet?  Obviously lots of people are happy with the way things are, or at least, happy enough to keep collecting a pay. 
Once again, careful what you wish for.    [I'd go back to binding arbritation in my job in a heartbeat.]

[6 posts while I was typing, hope this still goes with the theme]


----------



## garb811 (20 Mar 2008)

Wow!  Some random thoughts on various posts:

Folks are complaining that a PART TIME JOB has a pension plan and are upset that they have to actually pay THEIR money into said plan?!  What other part time job has that??  My Dad worked 48 years at the same company and when he retired, he got a gold watch.  Also, in case you didn't know it, Reg Force have to pay into the Pension plan too...and unless we are lucky enough to have a few spare bucks to throw into an RRSP every now and then, that is the only pension we are accumulating.  How many Reservists are going to end up with 2 pensions at the end of it all?  Quite a few I'm thinking.

Folks are upset Cpls are making more $$ than a MCpl.  Guess what, my Cpl with 4 years in the CF total is taking home more money than an non-spec Sgt at the top incentive.

Here's a reversal for you...when a Res MP goes on Cl C, if they do not qualify to be issued a badge, they make the exact same money as his Reg Force counterpart even though the Reserve MP cannot do the full spectrum of duties of the Reg Force MP.  Additionally, he does not face the same legal liabilities WRT the MP Code of Conduct as the Reg Force MP does plus the Reg Force MP is also liable for the conduct of the Reservist if a complaint is laid with the MP Complaints Commission about any Police Ops matter where the Res MP was in attendance with the Reg MP.  Where's the equity in that turn of events from the Reg Force member's standpoint?



			
				Teeps74 said:
			
		

> ...I guess I am reacting to a perceived "we are better..." attitude directed at PRes.


This is not a "We are better..." issue for Reg Force pers, this is simply a case of certain people in this thread refusing to acknowledge that we are payed differently because we face more legal obligations than Reservists when we sign on the dotted line.

Finally, unless the Reservist is a student, if they are banking on the Res Force employment to fund their life via Class Bs and Cs they really, really need to take a long hard look at themselves.  This is akin to planning for retirement via buying lottery tickets.


----------



## Dissident (20 Mar 2008)

I didn't get spec pay during my class C. Neither did the other reservists going over with me, or before me.

Edit: I got it the wrong way around. I forgot RegF QL3 MP don't get Spec pay anymore.


----------



## Poppa (20 Mar 2008)

garb811 said:
			
		

> they make the exact same money as his Reg Force counterpart



Well actually if reg Cpl doesn't have their 5's a res Cpl of the same IPC will make the same on Cl C.

I agree with the rest of your points vis a vis accountability btw.

Cheers


----------



## garb811 (20 Mar 2008)

Thanks for adding the clarification of the rank which I missed.   :-[


----------



## Harris (20 Mar 2008)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> IF a Reservist on Class B gets 100% of the pay, they should also be prepared to serve with the exact same TOS and deployment potential as their Reg Frce comrades.  You can't have the best of both worlds.



Being a Class B guy, I agree %100.


----------



## garb811 (20 Mar 2008)

Harris said:
			
		

> Being a Class B guy, I agree %100.


But, if you're making 100% of the $$ and have the exact same TOS, you are no longer a Reservist.  You can't have the cake and eat it too.

As has been stated previously, the best bet would be to fully implement the vision they had about seamless transitions between Reg Force and Reserve.  If a Reserve guy signs a 3 year contract, he's essentially enrolling into the Reg Force for that period of time and at the end of the 3 year contract he slides back into the Reserves.  Of course, that would mean you were liable to posting out of the area which seems to be the huge stumbling block for many Reservists.  One seemingly simple yet incredibly complex solution to that is to start guaranteeing Reg Force that they won't be posted for 3 year blocks as well...


----------



## Harris (20 Mar 2008)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> If you are on contract due to deployment and are still working on top of that "contracted" duty with your Home Unit (even if they are in the same town) ... you are doing that at your own choosing. They are not your employer, nor are they your "owning Unit" while you serve on the "contract" and you are under no obligation to report to those Unit lines to work.



Maybe where you are, but it was made quite clear to me that before I would be allowed to accept my 3 yr Class B, I had to agree to continue to work with my home Unit (83 Km away one way no less).  Up until last weekend, I had worked every day for the previous 5 weeks in a row.  Either at my "day time" job, or at my Home Unit on evenings and weekends.  I am NOT working the Class A bit of my own choosing.


----------



## Haggis (20 Mar 2008)

MCG said:
			
		

> While the proportion of res to reg should diminish as you get into the higher HQs, the reservist still belongs.  (though, one could argue that the 15 year DLR Class B reservist no longer really brings the reserve perspective so much as the uniformed bureaucrat perspective)



Thankfully CMP Instr 20-04 allows for this in that Reservists serving in Class B, B(A) and C positions may, _with the consent of the employing unit_, continue to parade and train with either their parent units (if geographically able) or another nearby Reserve unit.  Interstingly, if a Reservist requests this, the employing unit must justify why it will *not* support the request.

This should be encouraged in order to prevent the long term Class B'ers from developing exactly the mindset you describe.  It also ensures that units are not handicapped by having key members on full time service and unable to contribute to the growth, prosperity and succession of the very units which nominated and supported them in their quests for full time employment.


----------



## George Wallace (20 Mar 2008)

:

I must say, Reservist today make a heck of a lot more than Reservists did in the 1970's.  That being said, I have an idea for a lot of Reservists and Regs;  you want to make more money.......join the Regs and work towards a Pension.......CT from the Regs to the PRes once you have a Pension and then double dip.  Then you'll make more part-time than you did full-time.   ;D


----------



## armyvern (20 Mar 2008)

kratz said:
			
		

> Reading CMP Instruction 20-04, the intent of this instruction was to cease such examples that DL gave and to prove  Vern's point WRT units deliberately employing members in class A positions and performing class B duties, without the pay and benefits.


`

I think that`s why he`s got the Unit remaining nameless.

Regardless ... I`ve still got no names in response to my post which asked someone to show me an A Class pers who worked 4 days a week -- I figured I`d get an actual example of that from the guy who posted it as occuring. Guess not.


----------



## Teeps74 (20 Mar 2008)

garb811 said:
			
		

> Wow!  Some random thoughts on various posts:
> 
> Folks are complaining that a PART TIME JOB has a pension plan and are upset that they have to actually pay THEIR money into said plan?!  What other part time job has that??  My Dad worked 48 years at the same company and when he retired, he got a gold watch.  Also, in case you didn't know it, Reg Force have to pay into the Pension plan too...and unless we are lucky enough to have a few spare bucks to throw into an RRSP every now and then, that is the only pension we are accumulating.  How many Reservists are going to end up with 2 pensions at the end of it all?  Quite a few I'm thinking.



Just thought I would point out, the pension (like a Reg F pension) means SFA without several years to back it up. So those that go on contract for a spell wind up getting a return of contributions, or a couple of dollars towards beer at the end of a career. For a PRes person to bank on the pension, they, like you are looking at min 20 years service. For those of us that can not afford the buy back of service, that means the clock started with contributions start date. Meaning nineteen years from now (I'll be 55 years young at that point).

A CL A reservist might have an opportunity to get two pensions... 

After twenty years of service they can expect a monthly check of what? 

$150? That's something I suppose. Money is better put in RRSPs at that point though (tax shelter now, with a much greater potential for growth on investments).



> Folks are upset Cpls are making more $$ than a MCpl.  Guess what, my Cpl with 4 years in the CF total is taking home more money than an non-spec Sgt at the top incentive.
> 
> Here's a reversal for you...when a Res MP goes on Cl C, if they do not qualify to be issued a badge, they make the exact same money as his Reg Force counterpart even though the Reserve MP cannot do the full spectrum of duties of the Reg Force MP.  Additionally, he does not face the same legal liabilities WRT the MP Code of Conduct as the Reg Force MP does plus the Reg Force MP is also liable for the conduct of the Reservist if a complaint is laid with the MP Complaints Commission about any Police Ops matter where the Res MP was in attendance with the Reg MP.  Where's the equity in that turn of events from the Reg Force member's standpoint?
> This is not a "We are better..." issue for Reg Force pers, this is simply a case of certain people in this thread refusing to acknowledge that we are payed differently because we face more legal obligations than Reservists when we sign on the dotted line.
> ...




Then why bring on the pension? It is a taxable thing, which most of us will just likely take a return of contributions on, at which point in time we will get taxed again. The pension should be an option... There is no ability for us to opt out, with little in the way of short term benefit. Those that stick it out for 20 years on CL B service are in for a very nice little pension (though not as nice as a Reg F pension). Short term Bs, not so much, and CL A can expect to put the money down as payments for a nice new TV. 

Now, not saying that we should or should not have a pension, just bringing up the realities of the Res pension plan (which is a nightmare to figure out by the way).


----------



## aesop081 (20 Mar 2008)

Teeps74 said:
			
		

> The pension should be an option... There is no ability for us to opt out,



Now i know i need to stay away from this thread.

First it was "bitch bitch bitch whine whine whine" to have a pension plan........now its "it should be optional" ?

 :


----------



## Teeps74 (20 Mar 2008)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> Now i know i need to stay away from this thread.
> 
> First it was "***** ***** ***** whine whine whine" to have a pension plan........now its "it should be optional" ?
> 
> :



When you quote me like that, the assumption is made I was whining for the pension. I was not.


----------



## George Wallace (20 Mar 2008)

Teeps74 said:
			
		

> Just thought I would point out, the pension (like a Reg F pension) means SFA without several years to back it up. So those that go on contract for a spell wind up getting a return of contributions, or a couple of dollars towards beer at the end of a career. For a PRes person to bank on the pension, they, like you are looking at min 20 years service. For those of us that can not afford the buy back of service, that means the clock started with contributions start date. Meaning nineteen years from now (I'll be 55 years young at that point).
> 
> A CL A reservist might have an opportunity to get two pensions...
> 
> ...



I was going to comment on your post, but there is so much wrong with it, I would suggest you do more research before you post crap like this again.


----------



## Teeps74 (20 Mar 2008)

I give up. :brickwall:


----------



## kratz (20 Mar 2008)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> `
> 
> I think that`s why he`s got the Unit remaining nameless.
> 
> Regardless ... I`ve still got no names in response to my post which asked someone to show me an A Class pers who worked 4 days a week -- I figured I`d get an actual example of that from the guy who posted it as occuring. Guess not.



My PER from Sept 2004 through to April 2005, I worked 136 class A days. This works out to an average of 4.85 days per week. It is rare to see a PRes work those number of days, but it is more than possible.


----------



## armyvern (20 Mar 2008)

kratz said:
			
		

> My PER from Sept 2004 through to April 2005, I worked 136 class A days. This works out to an average of 4.85 days per week. It is rare to see a PRes work those number of days, but it is more than possible.



How many of those days were regular work days vice being on course, in the field, otherwise tasked due to attending required proceedings etc etc ... because the BClass pers would have done time on courses & in the field on TOP of those 5 days per week they worked. I too could spend 10 or 12 weeks on course one year (getting paid for those days as a Class A), and report one night per week ... my pay would then show me working 136 days (52 evenings once per week per year & 12 weeks X 7 days = 84 days on course).

Not quite the same thing.


----------



## George Wallace (20 Mar 2008)

Teeps74 said:
			
		

> Just thought I would point out, the pension (like a Reg F pension) means SFA without several years to back it up. So those that go on contract for a spell wind up getting a return of contributions, or a couple of dollars towards beer at the end of a career. For a PRes person to bank on the pension, they, like you are looking at min 20 years service. For those of us that can not afford the buy back of service, that means the clock started with contributions start date. Meaning nineteen years from now (I'll be 55 years young at that point).
> 
> A CL A reservist might have an opportunity to get two pensions...
> 
> ...





			
				Teeps74 said:
			
		

> I give up. :brickwall:



So you don't have any idea of what you have said wrong, do you?

First off - A Reservist can not have the opportunity of receiving two pensions from the CF.  (I am sure that is what you were implying.)

Second - A pension is a great deal more than $150 a month after 20 years Reg Force Service.  $2,000 would probably be the minimum.

Third - A smart Service Member would have his/her SISIP coverage continue after Service and fees deducted from their Pension.  The same can be said for their Public Service Dental and Health Plans.

Forth - A smart Reservist, on joining the Reg Force, would buy back their Reserve time as quickly as possible, as it works towards their Pensionable benefits at the end of their career.  The buy back is like paying a bank loan payments; the quicker you pay them back, the less it costs you.

Fifth - An Annuitant would be a fool to give up his/her Reg Force Pension and Benefits to buy into the Reserve Force Pension and less benefits.


----------



## kratz (20 Mar 2008)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> How many of those days were regular work days vice being on course, in the field, otherwise tasked due to attending required proceedings etc etc ... because the BClass pers would have done time on courses & in the field on TOP of those 5 days per week they worked. I too could spend 10 or 12 weeks on course one year (getting paid for those days as a Class A), and report one night per week ... my pay would then show me working 136 days (52 evenings once per week per year & 12 weeks X 7 days = 84 days on course).
> 
> Not quite the same thing.



I was in the unit 6 hours  minimum per day every day that  I paid. I was not on course or backfilling a BA pers. On those days that were a training night, I put in a 10hour work day without the benifit of a CTO that week that the BA pers were given. If I wanted the paycheck for that CTO day, As a class A, I worked that day.


----------



## George Wallace (20 Mar 2008)

If I understand it correctly, a Unit can give up to 14 days of Class A time to a member for work.  I would guess that if they wanted a person for longer, they would have to tender a competition for a Class B position.  That would have to go through Area.  

RMS clerks must go insane figuring out how all these contracts work.


----------



## Haggis (20 Mar 2008)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> If I understand it correctly, a Unit can give up to 14 days of Class A time to a member for work.  I would guess that if they wanted a person for longer, they would have to tender a competition for a Class B position.  That would have to go through Area.



Darn close, George!

Class A service can be up to:

-12 consecutive "days" (a "day" being  either a full or half day of pay); or
-14 non consecutive days in any month.

Class B vacancies of 89 days or less need not be advertised or competed.  Units can hire direct.  Anything over 90 days must be posted and competed.


----------



## Teeps74 (20 Mar 2008)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> So you don't have any idea of what you have said wrong, do you?



No I do not, and apparently neither do you.



> First off - A Reservist can not have the opportunity of receiving two pensions from the CF.  (I am sure that is what you were implying.)



A reservist can not receive two MILITARY pensions. Nor can a reg mbr. I NEVER implied otherwise. Look at the post I responded to. How's about asking as opposed to assuming?



> Second - A pension is a great deal more than $150 a month after 20 years Reg Force Service.  $2,000 would probably be the minimum.



Yes, for FULL TIME service, a CL B would be close to that as well. HOWEVER a CL A service pension would come out to far less (as I indicated)... Hence, the theory that a reservist could draw two pensions, one CL A and another civi side.



> Third - A smart Service Member would have his/her SISIP coverage continue after Service and fees deducted from their Pension.  The same can be said for their Public Service Dental and Health Plans.



SISIP does a pretty good brief on this when you sign. Everyone should be talking to SISIP.



> Forth - A smart Reservist, on joining the Reg Force, would buy back their Reserve time as quickly as possible, as it works towards their Pensionable benefits at the end of their career.  The buy back is like paying a bank loan payments; the quicker you pay them back, the less it costs you.



Again, never argued otherwise. Same is said for long term CL B pensions... Assuming one can afford the buy back.



> Fifth - An Annuitant would be a fool to give up his/her Reg Force Pension and Benefits to buy into the Reserve Force Pension and less benefits.



Did I argue otherwise?


----------



## Teeps74 (20 Mar 2008)

There are three (yes 3) pension streams for reservists.  CL A, some full time service, and full time service. So, a CL A career is not going to get the same in pension as a full time career (nor should it). The some full time service pension is a lot of fun to work out... Don't make any plans when you start working on it. A full time pension is well worth it from top to bottom. Not as robust as the Reg F pension, but it is survivable, especially when looking at mortgage paid off and RRSP contributions.


----------



## PuckChaser (20 Mar 2008)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> `
> 
> I think that`s why he`s got the Unit remaining nameless.
> 
> Regardless ... I`ve still got no names in response to my post which asked someone to show me an A Class pers who worked 4 days a week -- I figured I`d get an actual example of that from the guy who posted it as occuring. Guess not.



I worked Cl A 5 days a week, and on some weekends for approx 3 months while I waited for Group to shuffle enough paper to approve it. Was hardly my reserve unit's fault, they gave me as much work as they could so I wasn't living in a cardboard box.


----------



## the 48th regulator (20 Mar 2008)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> `
> 
> I think that`s why he`s got the Unit remaining nameless.
> 
> Regardless ... I`ve still got no names in response to my post which asked someone to show me an A Class pers who worked 4 days a week -- I figured I`d get an actual example of that from the guy who posted it as occuring. Guess not.




My hand in the air,

Mind you this was the early 90's, and there was no one joining the military, so the reserve regiments had class A cash to burn as opposed to having a Class B contract approved.

Then again, beers were 2 dollars in the mess and we were allowed to sing the S and M man....

dileas

tess


----------



## Michael OLeary (20 Mar 2008)

OK folks, we're done here.  We really didn't need another 16 pages of Reg vs Res banter.  Most people serve on the side of that divide they choose, and all are contributing to the main effort of fulfilling the missions our nation gives us.  Let's leave this be and wait until the system makes any proposed changes before we rehash this again.

Locked

Milnet.ca Staff


----------



## Jarnhamar (28 Sep 2009)

What's the reasoning behind reservists on class B jobs making less than reservists on class C (who are if I'm not mistaken on par with the reg force)

I'm on a class B contract right now in my home town and I'm making over $400 _less_ a month than I was making while on a class C contract in Petawawa.  
I'm not lying when I say I'm working 5 times as hard, if not more, than I was during my class C contract. At times in Petawawa I felt like I was just getting paid to workout and eat. 

Now I'm making $400 less feeling worn out, missing meals at times and feeling like there's not enough hours in a day to get the job done.

I'm not complaining I'm lucky to have work and I enjoy the challange. I'm having a blast working in my home town (for the first time in 13 years) but I don't understand why I'm loosing over $400 a month while working much harder?

I understand why class A pers would make less but why not pay reservists who are working full time on class B the came as what people on class C make?


----------



## FDO (28 Sep 2009)

I asked this same question a few months ago because the Reserves I have working for me were doing the same job as the RegF guys. And yes they were working just as hard and in some cases harder. So I asked and I was told it's due to the unique situation Reserves are in. At anytime the RegF members in this office can get a call and be gone anywhere the CF decides they need to go. Also if a PRes wants to terminate their contract it takes 30 days. RegF takes 6 months. Class C is the same as RegF. If called you go where and when the CF wants.

 Whether this is fair or not I'm not about to debate. But let me say that if it was me I'd be ok with knowing that I am going to be going home every night for the rest of my contract. If I had my choice I would never have left the comfort of my ship on the East Coast. But my Career Manager had a different idea so now I'm in Toronto. When I first joined the Reserves in 1978 we were paid 60% of the RegF and I did several contracts on the RegF ships. It was kind of disheartening knowing that a kid with less than a year in was being paid a lot more than I was. But then again I could walk away anytime I wanted.


----------



## X-mo-1979 (28 Sep 2009)

Flawed Design said:
			
		

> Now I'm making $400 less feeling worn out, missing meals at times and feeling like there's not enough hours in a day to get the job done.
> 
> I'm not complaining I'm lucky to have work and I enjoy the challange. I'm having a blast working in my home town (for the first time in 13 years) but I don't understand why I'm loosing over $400 a month while working much harder?



I'm sure some others would say I gladly take a pay cut and work like a dog to actually be in my home province.I know I would.Same could be said for me and a beancounter getting paid the same overseas.Not fair IMHO however he signed a contract and so did I.

The way I always understood it class B was a part time job.Thus the lack of a full wage.It's also a job you can pick,which regular force members dont get to do (unless your drinking buddy is the CM).


----------



## dapaterson (28 Sep 2009)

Where's the can of worms animated icon?

The CF has sufficiently bastardized full-time employment, Res and Reg, that it's problematic to discuss the differences between class B and Reg F (class C).  But here goes.  The two main reasons for different Reg/Res scales are:

(1) As discussed, no postings / liability to serve differences.
(2) Training deltas.


Class C is now reserved for "Operations"; certain additional beenfits attach when on class C vs class B (SDB, among others) and one policy goal in providing class C for much of the pre-deployment training is to ensure proper coverage in the event of accident/incident.

There does need to be simplification of full-time reserve pay; I've aruged in other places that ful-time Reserve service should be based on monthly rates of pay, just like the Reg F.  That would permit a single full-time pay system, simplifying admin significantly.  It would also avoid the annual end-Feb cries of "Why is my pay so low?" from pers on class B.

I will quibble with one of your points - "I understand why class A pers would make less".  The current payscales penalize the class A reservist.  Where the full-time CF member generally works 5 days a week (less deployments) but is paid for 7, a class A reservist working 5 days will be paid for 5 - that's 40% less compared full-time pers.  (Annual leave is a non-issue, as part-time Reservists do receive PILL).  Any change to this would however have to move the "class B threshold" from the current 13 days to 5 days - it would also dis-incent units from the reprehensible practice of having soldier work class A monday to Friday, not paying them for the weekend, then repeating for weeks (or months) on end.


----------



## Infanteer (28 Sep 2009)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Where the full-time CF member generally works 5 days a week (less deployments) but is paid for 7, a class A reservist working 5 days will be paid for 5 - that's 40% less compared full-time pers.



That is the wrong way of looking at it - do not count "work" as being in and around the desk or company lines.  Duty shifts, support to unit events, or having to come into the DB at 0540 on a Sunday because one of your soldiers stepped on his weiner are all part of being in full-time service.  Hell, guys come in on Saturdays or Sundays to get PERs or other admin done and to make sure stuff is good to go for the next week.

Just because a unit is stood down on weekends doesn't mean a full-time serving member only works 5 days a week.


----------



## Haggis (28 Sep 2009)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> The two main reasons for different Reg/Res scales are:
> 
> (1) As discussed, no postings / liability to serve differences.
> (2) Training deltas.



The training delta is a red herring.  The Air Reserve which has a much, much smaller training delta than the Army Reserve, is almost entirely Class B.

The overarching reason for the 15% pay disparity (it used to be 50% so count yourself lucky) is the relative stability afforeded to a Class B member.  As stated above, no postings, you get to choose where and when you work, you can quit at any time (with 30 days notice), you can choose to deploy (or not) and you cannot be involuntarily deployed.




			
				dapaterson said:
			
		

> Any change to this would however have to move the "class B threshold" from the current 13 days to 5 days - it would also dis-incent units from the reprehensible practice of having soldier work class A monday to Friday, not paying them for the weekend, then repeating for weeks (or months) on end.



Current policy is that terms of employment in excess of 12 consecutive days or 16 cumulative days in a month must be Class B service.  So, in fact, units cannot employ members on Class A service from Monday to Friday infinitely.


----------



## COBRA-6 (28 Sep 2009)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> That is the wrong way of looking at it - do not count "work" as being in and around the desk or company lines.  Duty shifts, support to unit events, or having to come into the DB at 0540 on a Sunday because one of your soldiers stepped on his weiner are all part of being in full-time service.  Hell, guys come in on Saturdays or Sundays to get PERs or other admin done and to make sure stuff is good to go for the next week.
> 
> Just because a unit is stood down on weekends doesn't mean a full-time serving member only works 5 days a week.



Agreed, but I would suggest the average over a year would be closer to 5 days per week than 7 days per week, even within the field force which is only one chunk of CF Regular Force PYs. 

On the other hand you have the hours PRes people put in that are either not signed in for or not captured completely (i.e. Class B pers at NDHQ working "for free" at their unit on nights/weekends).   

The situation across the board is so convoluted from original intent that a complete review/overhaul is needed. One example: if I were king any long term Class B/C contract would come with the posibility of being deployed during that time.


----------



## MARS (28 Sep 2009)

This has been discussed at length in another thread.  To pick up dapaterson's second point:

About a year ago I was shown the abstract from some study - perhaps done by CDA ( I can't recall) - about the 15% gap.  If I recall, it was, in very general terms, because a RegF member had 15% more knoweldge and training (I use those terms loosely - that may not have been the exact wording, but rather the general idea) than a ResF member of the same rank and MOC.  Again, if I recall correctly, that was an average of all differences studied.  I will see if I can find it again.  Can't just have been a NAVRES thing, and red herring or not, I know what I saw.

I recall making 65% and I recall, as a young (17yr old) ResF AB Boatswain, about 1 day prior to deploying in PROVIDER for the South Pacific, a CPO2 came by and asked/told me to sign a form.  The form being quite lengthy and the good Chief being in a hurry, I quickly asked what it was I was signing (as I was already signing).  He told me that it was a waiver of sorts - that if I jumped ship in some foreign port, I would have to find/pay my own way home.  The days of "green sheeting" had only just passed and were a bad memory for most.

That of course led to me almost jumping ship when some honey in a foreign port asked me to marry her...

What?  I mean, I did seek wise and sage counsel - from my messmates and fellow boatswains - they all roundly said "Go For It!" and "Git 'er done!" and then went back to drinking and watching porn  

Obviously that did not come to fruition.

The 30 day thing - I just researched that.  I had no idea.  All of my time in Ships has been and will be Class C where that does regulation does not seem apply - at least not as a rule.  I have held people for 6 months before - I guess I can't do that to my sailors here in Toronto.  Good to know.

I am also subject to a call for ..yes.. a "posting" - albeit a domestic one - to move some place (if I want to remain employed).  Although, aren't ALL OUTCAN postings (less deployments) voluntary to some degree, even for RegF?  This "posting"of mine is IAW the link below (regret, a DIN link only). I go where the Service requires/tells me to go, which means I move on from Toronto NLT 1 Jan 10.  Don't know where yet - likely back to the Fleet - that is up to my CM.  I get asked what I would like to do - in this case, I asked for a West Coast posting in the Fleet, but the CM is making no promises. Maybe to HQ in QC, maybe Ottawa, maybe East.  This will be my 5th move, I guess.  I mean, I can say no, but then I don't have employment.  Is this strictly a NAVRES thing?  Do the Air and Army reserves not mve their people all over the place?  Heck, just about everyone I know working Class B/C in the Naval Reserve has been posted somewhere at some point...

http://hr.ottawahull.mil.ca/docs/instruction/instructions/instruction_docs/pdf/instruction_20_04_e.pdf

extract - sub para c refers:

CF MIL PERS INSTR 20/04 – ADMINISTRATIVE POLICY OF CLASS “A”, CLASS “B” AND CLASS “C” RESERVE SERVICE

2.4 Definitions and abbreviations - Clarification
The terms set out below are generally misunderstood in the CF as they relate to the Res F. This section provides clarification.

a. Attached posting – Reserve Force (Att Post – Res F). Att posts are used when there is a requirement to assign a Res F mbr, on a temporary basis, to a component, sub-component, element or unit within the CF other than the one in which the mbr is ordinarily held on strength. The mbr continues to fill an establishment position (posn) within the mbr's home unit or remains in the Supp Res;

b. Out of Country Posting – Reserve Force. There may be instances where there is a requirement to use a posting instr message (msg) format for a Res F mbr who will serve outside Canada for a period in excess of 365 days in order to ensure that the mbr receives all associated posting (vice att post) benefits and allowances. The mbr will continue to hold a Res F establishment posn concurrent with the out of country posn. This is to ensure that the mbr remains eligible for the appropriate posting benefits and allowances of a posting, without jeopardizing their entitlement to various Res F benefits;

c. Posting – Reserve Force. A posting of a Res F mbr, other than an out of country posting, is used when a mbr is posted from the establishment of one unit to the establishment of another unit within the same Res F sub-component;

d. Temporary Duty – Reserve Force (TD – Res F). TD is used when a member is required to attend a course or perform a duty, for a period of six months or less, at a place outside the location of the member’s home unit. TD includes the travelling time to the place of TD and return;


----------



## dapaterson (28 Sep 2009)

Sigh - I'm stil looking for that can of worms icon...

Class A leadership are also engaged in work outside of their duty hours - planning, co-ord, etc doesn't nicely fit into 3-6 hours a week.  That's also not paid service - some units have folks sign for a half day or a day a month extra to compensate for the additional effort, but that's a stop-gap measure.

Haggis:  Air Res is a bad, bad, bad example - they are overwhelmingly ex-Reg F, thus trg deltas aren't there.  Looking at the Res F as a whole, the majority is Army - where the trg deltas are there, no ifs, ands or buts.

The compensation models used by the CF, Reg and Res, full-time and part-time, are in desperate need of a top-to-bottom review.  The "Team" approach needs to be abandonned - so no more "extra base pay because we make you move" but rather "a three year sliding allowance because you moved" - so the folks with 19 years straight in Ottawa get less than the folks who do pick up and move every year few years.  No "bilingual bonus spread across everyone" but rather "you maintained your language profile - you get more".

MARS:  The NavRes has mobilized, for lack of a better word.  Permanently manning operational vessels 24/7 with Reserve crews is a great stretch of the NDA - what part of "other than continuing full-time service" as a definition of "The Reserve Force" is misunderstood?  The Army is equally guilty, and the Air Force leads the parade of corruption of those rules.  (And how you can keep working full-time in the same job for years after leaving the Reg F but be deemed a Reservist is an absurd fallacy - designed solely to line pockets)

We've built a fine house of cards with full-time Reserve service (one I inhabited for a decade); I fear it's about to come tumbling down around us.  The impact will not be pretty.

We made it cheap and easy to hire full-time reservists and placed no meaningful controls on the system.  No prioritization, no rank controls, no efforts to ensure the demand was sustainable, not a glance on the impact of the draw on the units providing the personnel.  But now that we've got thousands on the payroll, the inevitable correction will be painful to the institution (when we finally stop doing things we shouldn't be doing in the first place) and to the individuals (who will suddenly learn that their 7 years of full time service get them 30 days notice, no more).


----------



## COBRA-6 (28 Sep 2009)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Sigh - I'm stil looking for that can of worms icon...
> 
> Class A leadership are also engaged in work outside of their duty hours - planning, co-ord, etc doesn't nicely fit into 3-6 hours a week.  That's also not paid service - some units have folks sign for a half day or a day a month extra to compensate for the additional effort, but that's a stop-gap measure.
> 
> ...



I agree. 

The pain train is coming, and we're all standing on the tracks.


----------



## Infanteer (28 Sep 2009)

COBRA-6 said:
			
		

> The situation across the board is so convoluted from original intent that a complete review/overhaul is needed. One example: if I were king any long term Class B/C contract would come with the posibility of being deployed during that time.





			
				dapaterson said:
			
		

> The compensation models used by the CF, Reg and Res, full-time and part-time, are in desperate need of a top-to-bottom review.  The "Team" approach needs to be abandonned - so no more "extra base pay because we make you move" but rather "a three year sliding allowance because you moved" - so the folks with 19 years straight in Ottawa get less than the folks who do pick up and move every year few years.  No "bilingual bonus spread across everyone" but rather "you maintained your language profile - you get more".



Bingo.  I think you both have it here.

So, to take the discussion beyond a gripe, let's start an overhaul.

Here's my 3 picks:

1.  Only two types of service - part time (sign a contract agreeing to duty X amount of days a year) or full time (contracted to be on duty 24/7 for X months) - all pay is the same.

2.  I like dapaterson's idea of sliding benefits for actually doing something vice something that may happen.  It really sucks never getting settled in your home as a junior officer....

3.  One of the biggest shitshows I ever saw was watching a Reserve Warrant Officer, who got out of the Regs after 25 come over from the Reserves to collect Reg Force WO pay along with his pension while his peer in the same company who stayed in simply got his Reg Force Pay.  Lets have a single pension for uniformed service that transfers seamlessly.  A guy can do a 3 year VIE, go to the Reserves for 4 years and try civvie life out, get fed up with the reg force after 8 years and go back to the reserves for 2 and then spend two more back in the Reg Force on a tour and then back to the Regs until he gets his pension.  Granted the calculation will be a bit off but it can work.

Changing pay means changing the way we view training Reservists, but that's another story.


----------



## FDO (28 Sep 2009)

I like the full time/part time idea. We could have a part time military, lets call them "Reserves" Then we could have a full time military, we could call them  "Regular". Oh wait I think I've heard of that somewhere. 

If you want to work full time and get the full time pay and the full time benefits. Go RegF. If you want to have your cake and eat it too, go Reserve. Correct me if I'm wrong but as a Reserve you sign a contract  stating where you will work and what job you will do as well as what rank you will be paid at. The choice is yours. If you don't like the pay don't sign the contract!


----------



## PuckChaser (28 Sep 2009)

FDO said:
			
		

> Correct me if I'm wrong but as a Reserve you sign a contract  stating where you will work and what job you will do as well as what rank you will be paid at. The choice is yours. If you don't like the pay don't sign the contract!



You are correct, however it's not a contract (that implies DND legally has to employ you). At any time DND can give you 30 days notice and stop your Cl B.

Having been a reservist for nearly 7 years, I took the leap and I won't look back. No more admin headaches, more money, and more opportunity for advancement. I transferred and got lucky enough to stay in the same unit I was employed at Cl B, doing the same job, for more money and actually more leadership responsibilities. I guess I did the reverse of what everyone else does, pull pin for the reserves, get a Cl B and milk the system for Cl B money AND a pension.


----------



## gwp (29 Sep 2009)

The "Reserve Pay" of 85% went into effect in 1997.  This link will take you to a transcript of a discussion of the Standing Committee On National Defence and Veterans Affairs on reserve pay



> As you know, there is a proposal in front of Treasury Board, which hopefully will be approved relatively soon, that will bring the pay up to 85% of our regular force sailors. Quite frankly, from my understanding from my reservists, they're very comfortable with that 85% because, of course, they do not have the same unlimited liability that our regular force has. They can, for example, in terms of the contracts that are presented to them, decide to terminate their contract whenever they wish, whereas those in the regular force do not have the same ability to do that. So 85% of what the regular force makes is, on balance, from their sense and from our perspective, a reasonable level of pay for them.



http://www.cmp-cpm.forces.gc.ca/scondva-cpdnac/tra-tem/1998/26031998-eng.asp

This link is a more complete description of Class of Pay. 
http://www.vcds-vcemd.forces.gc.ca/dres/cs/index-eng.asp

While the 85% Pay for Cl A and B service is arguable, more important is the benefits for Class B that are different from Class A or C.  i.e. It is wrong to be employed class A 5 days a week to avoid a Class B contract and that should be reported as the individual is being disadvantaged regarding other benefits.

This link is an Obundsman's report on Reserve Benefits or lack of them. 

http://www.ombudsman.forces.gc.ca/rep-rap/sr-rs/rc-str/doc/rc-str-eng.pdf


----------



## c_canuk (29 Sep 2009)

FDO said:
			
		

> I like the full time/part time idea. We could have a part time military, lets call them "Reserves" Then we could have a full time military, we could call them  "Regular". Oh wait I think I've heard of that somewhere.
> 
> If you want to work full time and get the full time pay and the full time benefits. Go RegF. If you want to have your cake and eat it too, go Reserve. Correct me if I'm wrong but as a Reserve you sign a contract  stating where you will work and what job you will do as well as what rank you will be paid at. The choice is yours. If you don't like the pay don't sign the contract!



Fair enough, however I think you'll find that if you gave reservists the option of going on Class C, the overwelming majority would take C over B, regardless of the added stipulations of a Class C contract.

I'd also like to see less bureacratic bungling, when you want someone for 3 years, make the contract for three years, don't do what happened to me

1 year contract, got TD for 364 days, Contract gets extended, now I don't qualify for TD, but because my current remaining contract is not longer than one year, I also don't qualify for a move to location that had the contract been made longer than 1 year I would have been entitled for.

don't look me in the face after screwing me like that and saying it's dishonest for me to ask that they put a 1 day break in the contracts so I can still collect TD since I'm not able to get a cost move. Especially after I've been working a month off contract signing class A pay sheets that are held just in case I get injured or something, while I'm unpaid because you couldn't be bothered to have the contract extended on time.

Don't fight my claim for TAA after I am required to vacate the shacks and live at my standard residence 1hr and 10 minutes away.

Dont get pissed off at me for going reg force after I've given you 3 years good service while claiming to support my going on tour while throwing the wrench into ever single opportunity to deploy behind my back, so you can continue to employ someone in a position, that is normally filled by a tech earning spec pay, who earns 15% less and does not qualify for spec pay.


Edited to add:

to further clarify the extention was supposed to be for 3 more years, and I'd spent a month and a half spending an extra 600 a month in fuel commuting while not recieving pay, and did not even start getting TAA for 3 more months after having to fight for it within the local COC

Seriously Guys, if you are a young Class B Reservist looking to make a go of it, CT to the regs, unfortunatly you probably won't get to teach at the schools in the summer anymore, but the lack of bumbling administration and job security make up for it. 

Now if I could just get to a field unit when I'm up for posting.


----------



## gcclarke (29 Sep 2009)

c_canuk said:
			
		

> Fair enough, however I think you'll find that if you gave reservists the option of going on Class C, the overwelming majority would take C over B, regardless of the added stipulations of a Class C contract.



Class C should be reserved only for personnel being deployed. I agree with you hat most people would take Class C over class B, if it is for their regular job at home. However, they should not ever be given that option. But I don't think that an "overwhelming majority" of people currently on Class B would prefer to be deployed at the moment. 



			
				c_canuk said:
			
		

> Dont get pissed off at me for going reg force after I've given you 3 years good service while claiming to support my going on tour while throwing the wrench into ever single opportunity to deploy behind my back, so you can continue to employ someone in a position, that is normally filled by a tech earning spec pay, who earns 15% less and does not qualify for spec pay.



The notion of anyone getting pissed off because you decide to transfer to the reg force is, in my not so humble opinion, ridiculous. I mean, really, how dare you decide to sign on the dotted line, giving the CF the right to use you and your skills in whatever capacity it deems necessary. How selfish of you! It should be needless to say, but I am being sarcastic. If someone is of that opinion, feel free to discount their opinion as worthless.


----------



## Jarnhamar (29 Sep 2009)

I'm glad I asked this question I've learned a lot.



> I'm sure some others would say I gladly take a pay cut and work like a dog to actually be in my home province.I know I would.Same could be said for me and a beancounter getting paid the same overseas.Not fair IMHO however he signed a contract and so did I.



I hear ya.  Maybe ot on the same level but in 13 years I've worked in my home town twice o class B.
Once during the ice storm for a month and now, which was supposed to be a year but cut back to two weeks, now two months with a possibility of longer.

Which brings up a second point.
Yes it takes 6 months to quit a class C contract and only 1 month to quit a class B one but that works both ways. Even though I may sign a 1 year class B, I can be told to find a job in a month.

I cannot be posted anywhere or ordered overseas (Mind you I'd love to go) but being on class B means if I have to work week-ends, I work.  Also subject to duty at 530 in the morning.
If I take a class B in Petawawa I'm also subject to duty.  
If one of my soldiers steps on their dick (or in my case, when I do) the leadership still gets involved only it's  on their time and not the CFs.


> Changing pay means changing the way we view training Reservists, but that's another story.



 True, maybe it's time we do that though.  This morning an email went out looking for PLQ qualified class A reservists to take a 2 month class B contract in Petawawa. Their job is to help build, run and tear down ranges for one of the battalions there. 
Reg force infantry sections doing live fire section and platoon attacks with a reservist class A (well B) MCpl or PLQ Cpl running behind  as ARSO's.
Given the reservists will get nice TD but point being if a reservist can do that job (ARSO for a reg force infantry section live fire) why pay them less?  If their being employed in that role the training difference can't be THAT much.


----------



## Haggis (29 Sep 2009)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> You are correct, however it's not a contract (that implies DND legally has to employ you). At any time DND can give you 30 days notice and stop your Cl B.



You, as well, can give the CF 30 days (or less if mutually agreed upon) notice to terminate your employment.  The CF can also retain you for up to a year in case of emergency.  (of note is that the CF is also under no obligation to employ or extend you beyond the stipulated end date of your term of employment.)

You are entitled, in writing, to such generally accepted allowances such as leave, TD when away from home, and other such mutually agreed upon considerations as noted in your Statement of Understanding which you are required to sign before commencing any Class B service of over 30 days duration.

Your signed SOU is a legally binding contract between you and the CF.


----------



## George Wallace (29 Sep 2009)

Let's not forget, Class B and Class A are both administered through the Reserve Pay System.  Class C, is full Reg Force Pay, administered through the Reg Force Pay Ststem.

Making Class C only applicable to pers Deploying is a Black and White view of the system.  There are Reservists in various 'special' units who are on Class C.  As such, they are subject to the same 'rules' as a Reg Force member, and must go where dictated, and that may not mean AFG.


----------



## X-mo-1979 (29 Sep 2009)

I've tried to write this at least 5 times now.However ever time it comes off a crude.
I'll try again.

It's time to revamp the reserve system and make them a full deployable force.
Our army is so small we have shown during this conflict that we depend heavily on the reserves.

Let's give them job protection,let's give them on par pay,let's deploy them as the units they are.

They keep saying we need more teeth less tail,HLTA drains resources,well lets start attaching cohesive platoon/troop's to every roto.

I would like to think this would also force all the mess commando's out.Let's face it you know who they are.Maybe setting up a provincial guard where guy's who absolutely no interest in ever deploying can serve their country at home.

It's time for a revamp.


----------



## George Wallace (29 Sep 2009)

X-mo-1979 said:
			
		

> It's time to revamp the reserve system and make them a full deployable force.
> Our army is so small we have shown during this conflict that we depend heavily on the reserves.



Looking at actual figures: the Reg Force Army is just over 20,000; while the Reserves (Army) are just over 16,000.  Currently the Reserves are filling 30 - 40 % of positions on ROTOs.  In some Trades those percentages are even higher.  How do you plan on revamping the Reserves any more to make them deployable?



			
				X-mo-1979 said:
			
		

> Let's give them job protection,let's give them on par pay,let's deploy them as the units they are.



I know the Reserves would love more pay, but you have to have the same calibre and dedication across the land as you find in the majority of Reg Force units when it comes to deploying them as formed units.  Some units would be up to the task.  Others are just "junk".



			
				X-mo-1979 said:
			
		

> I would like to think this would also force all the mess commando's out.Let's face it you know who they are.Maybe setting up a provincial guard where guy's who absolutely no interest in ever deploying can serve their country at home.



I imagine it would.  Perhaps send them off to the "Veterans Guard".   >


----------



## gcclarke (29 Sep 2009)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Let's not forget, Class B and Class A are both administered through the Reserve Pay System.  Class C, is full Reg Force Pay, administered through the Reg Force Pay Ststem.
> 
> Making Class C only applicable to pers Deploying is a Black and White view of the system.  There are Reservists in various 'special' units who are on Class C.  As such, they are subject to the same 'rules' as a Reg Force member, and must go where dictated, and that may not mean AFG.



Ok, perhaps not only "for deployments", but at the very least Class C should be reserved for positions within units that do frequently deploy. SOFCOM positions (And not just HQ!), spots on ship, etc. If there isn't a likelihood of being sent on operations, within or outside of Canada, it shouldn't be Class C.


----------



## Haggis (29 Sep 2009)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Looking at actual figures: the Reg Force Army is just over 20,000; while the Reserves (Army) are just over 16,000.  Currently the Reserves are filling 30 - 40 % of positions on ROTOs.  In some Trades those percentages are even higher.  How do you plan on revamping the Reserves any more to make them deployable?



As briefed at Army Council last week, the Army Reserve is at present over their establishment of 18,500, at about 22,500.  The overall "cap" on Reserve participation on international ops is 20%.  So, even if some trades are filling upwards of 50% of deployed positions, others are at 1-2% and some zero.  It evens out at around 20%.



> I know the Reserves would love more pay, but you have to have the same calibre and dedication across the land as you find in the majority of Reg Force units when it comes to deploying them as formed units.



"More pay" is shortsighted.  It just means you get taxed more when combined with your civvy income.  What really matters is better and more comprehensive benefits.  A dead/disabled Reservist should get EXACTLY the same benefits as a dead/disabled Reg F guy.  After all, the Reservist is losing two jobs.


----------



## dapaterson (29 Sep 2009)

Haggis said:
			
		

> As briefed at Army Council last week, the Army Reserve is at present over their establishment of 18,500, at about 22,500.



As the guy who, until a year ago, provided those numbers, I call BS (not on you - I believe it was presented to Army Council - I'm calling the numbers BS). Unless the Army Reserve's parade strength increased by over 3K in a single year (when units were not recruiting), the Land Staff G1 bozos changed the reporting methodology.

The 22500 they report is the total enrolled strength.  The target is based on a parade strength.  Given the poor admin of many Reserve units, we carry literally thousands of folks who are NES or just don't show up (the units don't do the NES paperwork).  Some units have literally dozens of folks on the rolls who have not paraded for a year or more (39 CBG is apparently allergic to paperwork).

In years past, reports would be based on parade strength - those who are actually showing up and being paid - be it A, B or C (and C regardless of whether paid via RPSR or CCPS - yes, RPSR can pay class C).  The Army G1, who until forced almost at gunpoint didn't care about reporting Reserve strengths, are now reporting on everyone enrolled.

The Army's target _*parade strength*_ for the Reserves is about 18 500.  Not enrolled.  Looks like I'm going to make some calls soon to try to get the Army gripped again.

Where's the "Bozo the clown in uniform with red tabs" icon - time to slap it on the national G1 staff.


----------



## Nfld Sapper (29 Sep 2009)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Let's not forget, Class B and Class A are both administered through the Reserve Pay System.  Class C, is full Reg Force Pay, administered through the Reg Force Pay Ststem.
> 
> Making Class C only applicable to pers Deploying is a Black and White view of the system.  There are Reservists in various 'special' units who are on Class C.  As such, they are subject to the same 'rules' as a Reg Force member, and must go where dictated, and that may not mean AFG.



Reserve Backfill at DART is one good example.


----------



## charlesm (29 Sep 2009)

:nod:

DataPerson, I can agree with you on 39 CBG!!

But our unit budgets are based upon Paraded Strength through RPSR. No one will give you a budget based upon enrolled strength.

I know that right now LFC is reviewing every Class "B" position to see if they are on the establishment or done outside of it.

Many Class "B" positions will not be filled this year as they will not post them.

I have been on Class "A" all my time in the service, except when on tour and then I was Class "C".

I would prefer to see 1 pay system first before we start changing contracts. Why do I have to release from the Reg Force after tour to go back to Class "A"?

There should be a difference in pay if someone doesn't want to get deployed oversea's, but that doesn't stop you from getting sent to WATC to teach for a summer or more.

Also how long will TB allow ex-Reg force to Double Dip with a pension and a job on Class "BA"?


----------



## PMedMoe (29 Sep 2009)

charlesm said:
			
		

> Also how long will TB allow ex-Reg force to Double Dip with a pension and a job on Class "BA"?



The same amount of time they will allow them to work for PS (or any other job for that matter) and collect a pension.

Double-dipping it may be, but don't forget, they *earned* that pension by fulfilling a 20 year (or longer) contract.


----------



## Infanteer (29 Sep 2009)

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> The same amount of time they will allow them to work for PS (or any other job for that matter) and collect a pension.
> 
> Double-dipping it may be, but don't forget, they *earned* that pension by fulfilling a 20 year (or longer) contract.



A Reg Force person with 27 years in has also earned that pension - why can't he just start collecting it while he is still serving?

Serving in the military for 20 years and than jumping over to Environment BC is one thing, and understandable (IMO), but serving in the military and than quitting to continue serving in the military is merde.  You're either in or you're out.


----------



## Jarnhamar (29 Sep 2009)

charlesm said:
			
		

> :nod:
> 
> 
> 
> But our unit budgets are based upon Paraded Strength through RPSR. No one will give you a budget based upon enrolled strength.



Question.
How do (for example)  the 12 solders on class C work up training, 5 on course for a month and 5 away on class B come into play?
Are they considered Parading at the unit? If not that would be 20+ people who would regularly attend but are away and not counted.

If I was a CO I'd probably think twice about sending so many people away if it meant a lower budget.


----------



## gcclarke (29 Sep 2009)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> A Reg Force person with 27 years in has also earned that pension - why can't he just start collecting it while he is still serving?
> 
> Serving in the military for 20 years and than jumping over to Environment BC is one thing, and understandable (IMO), but serving in the military and than quitting to continue serving in the military is merde.  You're either in or you're out.



I personally wouldn't have a problem with someone starting to double dip while still in the reg force. As long as, while doing so, they stop accumulating pensionable time.


----------



## McG (29 Sep 2009)

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> The same amount of time they will allow them to work for PS (or any other job for that matter) and collect a pension.


I @#$ hate double dipping.  In maybe half the cases it provides a positive incentive for retiring full time Regular Force to provide thier time, skill and experience to help develop & bring-along a reserve unit.

In all the other cases, it provides some guy on the way out with more money to fill what probably should be a regular force job & at the same time that individual gets the privilage of never being posted while denying that career management flexibility to the CF.

I personally think the government should not be paying wages (military, Public Servant, or RCMP) while paying a full retirement pension.  You want to work & collect a pension, that's fine but your pension should not raise your take home pay above 100% of the rate the pension is based on.


----------



## dapaterson (29 Sep 2009)

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> The same amount of time they will allow them to work for PS (or any other job for that matter) and collect a pension.
> 
> Double-dipping it may be, but don't forget, they *earned* that pension by fulfilling a 20 year (or longer) contract.



I really want that can of worms icon.

From a narrow legal perspective, there is one force: the Canadian Armed Forces.  There are two components currently of that force:  The Regular Force, and the Reserve Force.

The Regular Force is personnel enrolled for continuing full time service; the Reserve Force is personnel enrolled for other than continuing full-time service when not on active service.  (National Defence Act or NDA descriptions)

(PLEASE - for the love of whatever deity you may follow - let's not go down the "What is Active Service?" rabbit hole.)

If a Regular Force member transfers to the Reserve Force and immediately resumes full-time military service, is DND just playing fast and loose with the rules?  What has changed from the NDA perspective?  (This also leads to the question - at what point should a Reservist on full-time service be automatically enrolled in the Regular Force as they are engaged in "continuing full-time service").


Lots and lots of worms in our current employment frameworks - while some argue we're not breaking the law, no one can deny we're stretching it to the limit, at the very least...


----------



## McG (29 Sep 2009)

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> Double-dipping it may be, but don't forget, they *earned* that pension by fulfilling a 20 year (or longer) contract.


Surely they did not "earn" more then the person who worked twenty years and then kept working in the regular force for another 10 to 15.  Why the hell do we reward guys with more pay for shifting to less obligation & less utility to the organization as a whole?  The double dipper should not be getting more then if he stayed regular force.


----------



## PMedMoe (29 Sep 2009)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> A Reg Force person with 27 years in has also earned that pension - why can't he just start collecting it while he is still serving?
> 
> Serving in the military for 20 years and than jumping over to Environment BC is one thing, and understandable (IMO), but serving in the military and than quitting to continue serving in the military is merde.  You're either in or you're out.



Well, that may be so.  Maybe we should start allowing members to collect a pension while they serve.  Maybe, just maybe, that person who retires from the RegF and gets in the ResF, wants to continue in the military but is unable to remain full-time.  Could be family problems, posting issues, you name it.

My original post was only meant to say that the TB won't be able to say squat about it.

I still don't agree with ResF members getting 100% of RegF pay outside of Class C.  Sorry, but you won't sell me on "they're doing the same job".  If that's the case then they should have the same training (not courses at their unit), the same time lines for promotion (not every two years) and not receive more than 20 days annual leave per year until they have five years in, to start.  Oh, and then they should be subject to the same postings, deployments, etc as the RegF.  Oh wait, didn't that just describe the RegF?  I'm pretty sure we've had this argument here before.

Anyway, I'll leave the rest of you to it, as I have no dog in this fight.   :-\


----------



## kratz (29 Sep 2009)

[quote author=dapaterson]I really want that can of worms icon.[/quote]


----------



## Haggis (29 Sep 2009)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> The 22500 they report is the total enrolled strength.  The target is based on a parade strength.  Given the poor admin of many Reserve units, we carry literally thousands of folks who are NES or just don't show up (the units don't do the NES paperwork).  Some units have literally dozens of folks on the rolls who have not paraded for a year or more (39 CBG is apparently allergic to paperwork).



Which is why, in LFCA at least, direction from "higher" is to clean house and do it ASAP.


----------



## FDO (29 Sep 2009)

One of the best things about being Canadian and being in the CF and especially the PRes is if you don't like what your doing, or you don't like how your being treated OR you don't like the pay your getting you can walk away. You can always get a job making the same money doing less on civvy street. All kinds of jobs out there. Go get them!


----------



## George Wallace (29 Sep 2009)

MCG said:
			
		

> Surely they did not "earn" more then the person who worked twenty years and then kept working in the regular force for another 10 to 15.  Why the hell do we reward guys with more pay for shifting to less obligation & less utility to the organization as a whole?  The double dipper should not be getting more then if he stayed regular force.



 :

So a guy gets out after 20 years and collects a pension while in the Reserves.  So what!  (S)He would be a fool to buy into the Reserve Pension Plan.

Meanwhile the guy who after 20 years, has earned the same pension, but decides to serve in the Regs for another 10 to 15 years has increased his/her pension by 2% for every following year served and also will likely get a great deal more pay for his/her last 5-6 years of service increasing his/her pension even more.  Yeah!  That makes sense now.   :


----------



## George Wallace (29 Sep 2009)

MCG and Infanteer

I think it is time you should attend a SCAN Seminar and find out about Pensions.


----------



## PuckChaser (29 Sep 2009)

Haggis said:
			
		

> Which is why, in LFCA at least, direction from "higher" is to clean house and do it ASAP.



Upwards of 130 pers losing their Cl B (on a priority basis) as well. There are a lot of units having space filled up by NES or not trained pers, and I applaud the LFCA Comd for finally getting a grip on it.


----------



## gcclarke (29 Sep 2009)

MCG said:
			
		

> I @#$ hate double dipping.  In maybe half the cases it provides a positive incentive for retiring full time Regular Force to provide thier time, skill and experience to help develop & bring-along a reserve unit.
> 
> In all the other cases, it provides some guy on the way out with more money to fill what probably should be a regular force job & at the same time that individual gets the privilage of never being posted while denying that career management flexibility to the CF.
> 
> I personally think the government should not be paying wages (military, Public Servant, or RCMP) while paying a full retirement pension.  You want to work & collect a pension, that's fine but your pension should not raise your take home pay above 100% of the rate the pension is based on.



Getting rid of the capability to double dip would indeed likely increase the number of people with 20+ years of experience who continue to stick on in the reg force. However, it would also very likely drastically decrease the number of people who decide to stick around until they have hit the 20 (or 25) year mark. 

The pension system that we have set up is one of the if not the best benefit of being a member of the Canadian Armed Forces. If you gut it by removing the capability to double dip, you also remove one of the best reasons for people to A) Join up in the first place, and B) Remain in the Forces for long enough to earn said pension.

If it were amended to make it so that people were only able to draw a pension if they were working for someone other than the CF / Government of Canada, the situation would be even worse, as that would incentivise  people to serve their time, and then go work somewhere completely different, meaning that their expertise would be lost completely to the Canadian Armed Forces, as opposed to simply using them in a different role.


----------



## George Wallace (29 Sep 2009)

charlesm said:
			
		

> Also how long will TB allow ex-Reg force to Double Dip with a pension and a job on Class "BA"?



The answer to that is stated in TB regulations.  A "Double Dipper" who serves on a Class B for more than 330 days (331 in a leapyear) concurrently is then considered "Full-time" and in the Regs again.  It has sever ramifications to their pension.   ;D


"Double Dippers" are required to take 35 unpaid days leave in their 'year'.  Does that sound fair to you?  Does that justify 85% Reg Force Pay?  Does that justify them collecting a pension?


----------



## Occam (29 Sep 2009)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> So a guy gets out after 20 years and collects a pension while in the Reserves.  So what!  (S)He would be a fool to buy into the Reserve Pension Plan.



A former RegF member drawing an annuity can't buy into the reserve pension plan.  All they can do is elect to stop the RegF annuity and start paying into the RegF pension plan as a reservist.


----------



## George Wallace (29 Sep 2009)

I don't know how this got onto the "Double Dipper" and persons having served 20 Plus years in the Regs moving on to the Reserves.  I am actively trying to encourage the "REVERSE CT" to help keep some of the knowledge, experience and mentorship in the Reserves, as opposed to the Reserves being a cheap Training System for the Regular Force (BMQ, SQ, Trades Trg).


----------



## gcclarke (29 Sep 2009)

Ok, so I decided to do some quick comparisons here. 

Say you've got someone who's deciding whether or not to double dip or not. They're at 20 years in, and have maxed out seniority at Captain. For ease of calculations, let's assume that's 80 grand.

If they were to retire from the reg force, and transfer to reserves, and manage to get a class B, they'll be getting their pension at 40% (32,000), and their salary at 85% of the reg force captain's salary (68000), for a total of 100,000 a year. This is 20,000 a year extra.

Whereas if they stay in, even assuming they never get promoted to major, when they retire, say, 10 years later, they'll still be getting that 80,000 salary, but when they start drawing their pension, it's at 60% vice 40%, $48000. 

So, assuming this person wanted to actually retire at the same time, the captain who went Class B that time made a total of 200,000 more than his imaginary reg force counterpart, who will be making 16,000 more on his pension than his imaginary reservist counterpart.

Pure dollars and sense, the Reg Force guy would have to live at least 12.5 years past retirement for his total income earned to exceed that of the Reserve Force guy. 

Of course, one you start throwing compound interest into things, it screws stuff my calculations up and sweetens the deal for the dude making the component transfer.


----------



## George Wallace (29 Sep 2009)

gcclarke said:
			
		

> Whereas if they stay in, even assuming they never get promoted to major, when they retire, say, 10 years later, they'll still be getting that 80,000 salary, .........




What?  They didn't give him a raise in ten years......he had his wages frozen for ten years?  What fool would put up with that........Double Dip man.


----------



## gcclarke (29 Sep 2009)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> What?  They didn't give him a raise in ten years......he had his wages frozen for ten years?  What fool would put up with that........Double Dip man.



Meh, if they're maxed out IPCs for their rank, no promotion means no pay increase, unless everyone gets one. Hard to tell when those will come, so you really shouldn't do any long term financial planning based upon that. 

I'm sure he'd hardly be the only imaginary career captain.


----------



## Occam (29 Sep 2009)

gcclarke said:
			
		

> Of course, one you start throwing compound interest into things, it screws stuff my calculations up and sweetens the deal for the dude making the component transfer.



Don't forget the guy doing the CT to the reserves only works 330 paid days out of the year.

This stuff makes my brain hurt.


----------



## FDO (29 Sep 2009)

Why is no one complaining of the PRes who has a civvy job for 20 years and retires with a pension for that job and takes a class B contract. They will be "Double Dipping". That is going to be OK because they have paid into the pension plan so deserve to collect on retirement. So now the RegF member pays into a pension plan for 20-30 years and on retirement collects a pension that they have paid into and takes a second job and collects a paycheck for doing that job. 

What's the issue?


----------



## gcclarke (29 Sep 2009)

Occam said:
			
		

> Don't forget the guy doing the CT to the reserves only works 330 paid days out of the year.
> 
> This stuff makes my brain hurt.



Ahhh right good point. That makes the reserve guy's annual income total during the 10 years 13500 higher than the reg force guy's, rather than 20000. 

So the reg force dude achieves total income parity after 8.5 years.


----------



## George Wallace (29 Sep 2009)

gcclarke said:
			
		

> Meh, if they're maxed out IPCs for their rank, no promotion means no pay increase, unless everyone gets one. Hard to tell when those will come, so you really shouldn't do any long term financial planning based upon that.
> 
> I'm sure he'd hardly be the only imaginary career captain.



So he maxed out on IPCs.  Are you still thinking that he will not get a pay raise, along with the remainder of the CF, for his ten years?


----------



## McG (29 Sep 2009)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> MCG and Infanteer
> 
> I think it is time you should attend a SCAN Seminar and find out about Pensions.


I'm sorry George, but it's just not that simple.  If the overwhelming majority of double-dippers were, much like your self, employed within the reserves then I would probably happily turn a blind eye.  Unfortunately, that is not the case.

As likely as not, double-dippers are filling jobs that should be done by regular force personnel.  When one considers the 85% PRes pay rate and the pension, those individuals are making a higher income (and even higher take-home without the pension deductions) than their regular force pears and with less obligation (ie. no postings or directed deployments).

Right now LFDTS has a pot of money called the Individual Training Cadre Backfill (ITCB).  The ITCB pays reservists to back fill regular force instructor establishment positions because there aren't currently enough regular force.  The funny bit is that a lot of ITCB reservists are double-dippers.  Bringing home more money each day & living the good life of no postings, no operations and getting to pick the job.  Of course, all those same double-dippers living the gravy train in reg force positions are pushing the burden back onto fewer regular force peers (because now the fewer have to shoulder the burden of more tours & more postings). Double-dippers could be shouldering the burden.  They choose not to & collect more for it now.

The same is true of rampant HQ bloat through reserve hiring.  Here again we see regular force being lured away to live the life of a double-dipping reservist in an NDHQ job that was not high enough priority for anyone to be posted to(and at the same time the CMs now have that many fewer people to post to the jobs that really matter).

From the "what's in it for me" perspective, sure the double dipping thing seems great.  And, as I said above, where double-dippers are actually in the reserve units they are providing a strong return to the institution.  However, the double-dippin' gravy train that is roaming about the rest of the CF is degrading the institution.

As I said before (and particularly given the excessive bloat of double-dipping outside the reserves), if guys want to collect a CF pension and continue to serve in the reserves full-time, then the pension should only serve to bring that 85% pay up to not more than 100% (until the member actually retires).


----------



## George Wallace (29 Sep 2009)

What is your opinion of the high paid help hired by firms like Calian?  Those officers and Snr NCOs who O'Brien has hired to do business with DND.  All those Sgt Majors in Meaford teaching D&M when they aren't hunting or fishing.  All those former CO's drafting up and running Exercises.  That is an even bigger scam.


----------



## armyvern (29 Sep 2009)

gcclarke said:
			
		

> Ahhh right good point. That makes the reserve guy's annual income total during the 10 years 13500 higher than the reg force guy's, rather than 20000.
> 
> So the reg force dude achieves total income parity after 8.5 years.



Pariety after 8.5 years --- then all heck breaks loose.

Your RegF guy is getting out at 50 years of age (say he joined when he was 20);
Your RegF (20yr) / ResF (10yr) double dipper also joined at age 20, so is now 50 ...

At age 58.5 they hit wage pariety ... the RegF guy pulls into the lead handsomely because he's making at least $16 000 more a year on his pension than the double dipper for the rest of his life. If they both die at age 88.5 --- that's --- $460 000 more pensioned out over the 30 years for the guy who didn't double-dip ... almost 1/2 a million.

I love stats and figures ... one can really play with them to make any point they wish to. 

Personally, After 20 years service and 9 cost moves ... if I want to retire because I'm sick of it (the moving) ... why the heck shouldn't I be able to get another govnt job? Civvies can retire from their jobs and go onto other jobs earning a 2nd pension; why the heck shouldn't I be able to do same?


----------



## McG (29 Sep 2009)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> What is your opinion of the high paid help hired by firms like Calian?


Where the contractor becomes an almost permanent staff, this is at least an equally bad way to blow public funds into the wind while providing a financial incentive to poach from the very manpower pools we are trying to protect. Unlike double-dipping reservists, contractors are even more limited as they cannot supervise, manage, or assess service members or government employees, and they cannot make decisions on behalf of the crown. 

... and there this contractor approach in many cases also introduces the very real risk of establishing an illegal employer-employee relationship.

... but this is getting onto another topic.


----------



## Occam (29 Sep 2009)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> So he maxed out on IPCs.  Are you still thinking that he will not get a pay raise, along with the remainder of the CF, for his ten years?



If the RegF guy in his example gets a raise, his Cl B counterpart will get a corresponding raise to maintain the 85% rate - making the issue of pay raises moot in his example.


----------



## gcclarke (29 Sep 2009)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> So he maxed out on IPCs.  Are you still thinking that he will not get a pay raise, along with the remainder of the CF, for his ten years?



Yes, he likely would. Like I mentioned, I personally can't forecast the timing and amount of those increases, as I'm sure you also cannot. And it makes my back of the envelope calculations a heck of a lot simpler when I don't try to account for an unknown number of pay increases at unknown intervals of an unknown amount. And since both members would get the same pay increase, it somewhat balances out.



			
				ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Personally, After 20 years service and 9 cost moves ... if I want to retire because I'm sick of it (the moving) ... why the heck shouldn't I be able to get another govnt job? Civvies can retire from their jobs and go onto other jobs earning a 2nd pension; why the heck shouldn't I be able to do same?



I'm fairly certain that this would be my prime motivation as well. Stability is a major factor. Indeed, as was discussed earlier, it's major enough of a factor to be considered worth about 15% of your salary.



			
				George Wallace said:
			
		

> What is your opinion of the high paid help hired by firms like Calian?  Those officers and Snr NCOs who O'Brien has hired to do business with DND.  All those Sgt Majors in Meaford teaching D&M when they aren't hunting or fishing.  All those former CO's drafting up and running Exercises.  That is an even bigger scam.



Well, the contracts are given to the firm. Said firm needs to hire people to be able to fulfill their obligations. Obviously they're going to go looking towards people who have experience in the relevant field. Even assuming the firm does some active "poaching" of personnel, in no case can I really fault the individual in question. If they felt that they could have a better life working for a company instead of in the Forces, who am I to stop them? They've put in the time, they've bloody well earned the right to tap out without me saying boo.

And if the amount of services being contracted out is honestly a problem... well, stop contracting out those services. Either do it yourself or go without.


----------



## Occam (29 Sep 2009)

gcclarke said:
			
		

> I'm fairly certain that this would be my prime motivation as well. Stability is a major factor. Indeed, as was discussed earlier, it's major enough of a factor to be considered worth about 15% of your salary.



It's actually a little more than 23%, if you factor in the 330 days paid service vice 365.

A maxed out, spec 1 MCpl in the RegF makes 65724/yr, while a Cl B counterpart would earn 50508/yr, taking into account the 35 day break.


----------



## George Wallace (29 Sep 2009)

Occam said:
			
		

> A maxed out, spec 1 MCpl in the RegF makes 65724/yr, while a Cl B counterpart would earn 50508/yr, taking into account the 35 day break.



There is no Spec Pay in the Reserves.


----------



## George Wallace (29 Sep 2009)

gcclarke said:
			
		

> Yes, he likely would. Like I mentioned, I personally can't forecast the timing and amount of those increases, as I'm sure you also cannot. And it makes my back of the envelope calculations a heck of a lot simpler when I don't try to account for an unknown number of pay increases at unknown intervals of an unknown amount. And since both members would get the same pay increase, it somewhat balances out.



No, it doesn't balance out.  A pay increase on an 85% wage, and no increase on the pension being received, does not equal the pay increases and added 2% per year served towards a pension on the highest wages earned in a person's best five or six years.



			
				gcclarke said:
			
		

> I'm fairly certain that this would be my prime motivation as well. Stability is a major factor. Indeed, as was discussed earlier, it's major enough of a factor to be considered worth about 15% of your salary.
> 
> Well, the contracts are given to the firm. Said firm needs to hire people to be able to fulfill their obligations. Obviously they're going to go looking towards people who have experience in the relevant field. Even assuming the firm does some active "poaching" of personnel, in no case can I really fault the individual in question. If they felt that they could have a better life working for a company instead of in the Forces, who am I to stop them? They've put in the time, they've bloody well earned the right to tap out without me saying boo.
> 
> And if the amount of services being contracted out is honestly a problem... well, stop contracting out those services. Either do it yourself or go without.



So what you are saying is a "Double Dipper" isn't the same thing.  They are Second Class citizens in your eyes, because they have remained dedicated to the CF and still want to contribute as they prepare their "Dream Retirement" and fix up their "Dream Home", etc.  They are no different than any other CF member who has planned their life's goals and want to settle down.  They just have some lingering dedication to the CF that they would like to fulfill.  Are you suggesting they work at Tim Hortons or Home Depot instead?


----------



## Occam (29 Sep 2009)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> There is no Spec Pay in the Reserves.



There are plenty of trades with Spec Pay in the Reserves.  The Navy is the only element that doesn't have any spec 1 trades in the PRes, and even that's about to change.  LCIS Tech, ATIS Tech, all the 500 series aircraft techs...they're all Spec 1 in the PRes.  I'm pretty sure there are a few other Army ones as well.


----------



## George Wallace (29 Sep 2009)

MCG said:
			
		

> As I said before (and particularly given the excessive bloat of double-dipping outside the reserves), if guys want to collect a CF pension and continue to serve in the reserves full-time, then the pension should only serve to bring that 85% pay up to not more than 100% (until the member actually retires).



That is a huge penalty to place on that person, and would result in a great loss to the Reserves as all these former Reg Force pers leave enmasse.


----------



## PuckChaser (29 Sep 2009)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> That is a huge penalty to place on that person, and would result in a great loss to the Reserves as all these former Reg Force pers leave enmasse.



I agree its a big financial penalty, but I'm willing to bet most Cl B Ex-Reg members are on Cl B outside of their reserve units, or may even be a PRL. Former Regs leaving Cl B enmasse would hurt the RegF units that hired them more than the PRes. There are only a handful of Ex-Reg members that I can remember in my PRes unit that stuck around for more than a few months of Cl A before finding a lucrative Cl B somewhere.


----------



## gcclarke (29 Sep 2009)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> No, it doesn't balance out.  A pay increase on an 85% wage, and no increase on the pension being received, does not equal the pay increases and added 2% per year served towards a pension on the highest wages earned in a person's best five or six years.



Granted, but we can't be certain, when making the decision to CT or not, that any pay increases will be coming at all, or when they will come. 

In any case, it skews things more towards the reg force guy, likely reducing that 8.5 parity figure. Of course, we probably should also take into account interest earned on investements, but then we start getting really speculative.



			
				George Wallace said:
			
		

> So what you are saying is a "Double Dipper" isn't the same thing.  They are Second Class citizens in your eyes, because they have remained dedicated to the CF and still want to contribute as they prepare their "Dream Retirement" and fix up their "Dream Home", etc.  They are no different than any other CF member who has planned their life's goals and want to settle down.  They just have some lingering dedication to the CF that they would like to fulfill.  Are you suggesting they work at Tim Hortons or Home Depot instead?



Ummm no I am saying that I do not have a problem whatsoever with someone drawing a pension and a salary, no matter who they are drawing said salary from. I have no problem whatsoever with the concept of double dipping, and frankly think that the ability to do so is one of the better benefits that comes with this job. If someone has put in enough time to be able to get a pension, they have damn well earned, many times over, the right to determine what to do with the rest of their lives, without criticism from anyone else.


----------



## gcclarke (29 Sep 2009)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> I agree its a big financial penalty, but I'm willing to bet most Cl B Ex-Reg members are on Cl B outside of their reserve units, or may even be a PRL. Former Regs leaving Cl B enmasse would hurt the RegF units that hired them more than the PRes. There are only a handful of Ex-Reg members that I can remember in my PRes unit that stuck around for more than a few months of Cl A before finding a lucrative Cl B somewhere.



I don't really think "hurting the reg force" would also be a good consequence of this decision.


----------



## mariomike (29 Sep 2009)

FDO said:
			
		

> a civvy job for 20 years and retires with a pension



What company does that?


----------



## George Wallace (29 Sep 2009)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> I agree its a big financial penalty, but I'm willing to bet most Cl B Ex-Reg members are on Cl B outside of their reserve units, or may even be a PRL. Former Regs leaving Cl B enmasse would hurt the RegF units that hired them more than the PRes. There are only a handful of Ex-Reg members that I can remember in my PRes unit that stuck around for more than a few months of Cl A before finding a lucrative Cl B somewhere.



Actually with Op Tempo, more and more units are replacing Reg Force RSS with Class B pers.  Many Reserve Units are finding that they have no other choice but to hire Class B to keep their daily operations going.  I will not comment on how many Reservists are filling positions in the Recruiting System at CFRCs, nor how many Reservists are making decisions in NDHQ.  

In actual fact, back in the 1970's the plan was for the Reserves to eventually "Train themselves".  They are pretty much in that position now, without the Reg Force support staff.


----------



## armyvern (29 Sep 2009)

mariomike said:
			
		

> What company does that?



Well, DND federal public servant employees just for one, amongst others ... Canada Post, Tn Canada etc etc etc. 

Collecting Federal pensions for their work there ... serving in the ResF too ...


----------



## mariomike (29 Sep 2009)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Well, DND federal public servant employees just for one, amongst others ... Canada Post, Tn Canada etc etc etc.
> Collecting Federal pensions for their work there ... serving in the ResF too ...



Thank you, Vern. I did not know that. City employees can not retire until age 55. Even if you've been with "the company" for 37 years. I should have joined the Posties! Thanks!
ooops maybe not the posties. I just checked their plan. No Thanks! It says if you go before age 55 they will *reduce* your pension! Or *defer* it to age 60. ouch!
http://www.cpcpension.com/displayContent.aspx?contentID=23&language=english


----------



## Occam (29 Sep 2009)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Actually with Op Tempo, more and more units are replacing Reg Force RSS with Class B pers.  Many Reserve Units are finding that they have no other choice but to hire Class B to keep their daily operations going.



You're not kidding.

Take a look at this page:  http://www.navy.forces.gc.ca/navres/12/12-n_eng.asp?category=155 - and click on the link for "Job Bank – Permanent positions (snapshot of the table on Intranet, by rank)".

There's a lot of sea-going positions in there, but there are an awful lot of full-time positions at Naval Reserve units as well.  Mostly ATR recruiting spots, supply, and RMS clerks, but lots of Class B positions they can't fill.


----------



## McG (30 Sep 2009)

mariomike said:
			
		

> What company does that?


Only the government.  The government is also the only employer that will let you transfer between jobs and start collecting a full pension while they still fully employ you (on a movement between RCMP, CF or PS).

The CF is the only place where you can transfer from "indeterminant" to years long "term" and still collect a full pension.

PS Pension Plan:  http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/hr-rh/bp-rasp/index-eng.asp


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (30 Sep 2009)

Whole different can of worms I know but MCG said earlier about maxing out at 100% of members pay. That is very close to what we do in Ontario Corrections, the member can work until his pay and pension become what would be approx. their full pay if they were still fully employed. Then, unless they wish to work for free, they can enjoy retirement until the next pay period.

This allows holes to be filled and keeps experience in the game. [although from what I read here the military has raging leaks, not just holes]


----------



## armyvern (30 Sep 2009)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> This allows holes to be filled and keeps experience in the game. [although from what I read here the military has raging leaks, not just holes]



Gaping holes for sure. For trades that haven't been the beneficiary of recruitment over the past 6 years or so, even normal retirement patterns have led to 72% manning levels ... Of all those Suppies I know who've retired over the past year, only 2 have gone to the ResF (after a gap in service - thus their service did not actually continue full-time as implied in a statement below). The ResF is also hurting for Sup techs ...

So what do we do if we prohibit the hiring of those already experienced and trained (who have indeed released/retired) from filling some of those gaps? Either way, the CF needs them and the gaping holes will just get bigger without them. Either that, or I can become a teacher for say 20 years and collect a double pension from another employer ...


----------



## Jarnhamar (30 Sep 2009)

FDO said:
			
		

> One of the best things about being Canadian and being in the CF and especially the PRes is if you don't like what your doing, or you don't like how your being treated OR you don't like the pay your getting you can walk away. You can always get a job making the same money doing less on civvy street. All kinds of jobs out there. Go get them!



Are you implying that if we don't like how things are and we see ways to improve the forces we should just forget about it and quit?

If we still thought that way we'd be standing up out of our trenches in Afghanistan and _walking_ towards machinegun fire  


George I agree, class Bs are needed.
The reg forces needs a lot of manpower drawn form the reserves for various tasks. In order for reserve regiments to have those soldiers trained, equipped and prepared to augment the regular force they need full time staff running the regiment.
In my opinion if reserve units have full time staff who are training up a pool of oldiers to augment the regular force they should be paid the same. Someone can argue pro's and cons of each, who does duty, who has to work saturday mornings but in the end when the regular force says to the reserves we need 800 people- they're there.

By the sounds of it there are a lot of un-required class B jobs floating around in headquarters type establishments ie Ottawa. I thought THATS where the class B cuts were originally supposed to be culled from.

All this talk about pension, I'm going to look into buying back my pension time once someone at my unit explains it to me.  In a nutshell if I transfer to the regular force (5th time trying to CT is a charm) I get an amount of years towards my pension that I have to 'buy' and once bought then they will go towards my thingie when I can retire?


----------



## PMedMoe (30 Sep 2009)

Flawed Design said:
			
		

> In a nutshell if I transfer to the regular force (5th time trying to CT is a charm) I get an amount of years towards my pension that I have to 'buy' and once bought then they will go towards my thingie when I can retire?



The years you buy back may or may not account for time in, but they will count for your pension.


----------



## begbie (30 Sep 2009)

MCG said:
			
		

> Only the government.  The government is also the only employer that will let you transfer between jobs and start collecting a full pension while they still fully employ you (on a movement between RCMP, CF or PS).
> 
> The CF is the only place where you can transfer from "indeterminant" to years long "term" and still collect a full pension.
> 
> PS Pension Plan:  http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/hr-rh/bp-rasp/index-eng.asp



For clarity, I assume we're only talking about pers who were in the CF.  Any federal public servant can obviously leave government at any time but will only be able to draw a pension benefit until much later in life (I think it's 55 - I should George's advise and take that retirement seminar).  Non-former military public servants are not 'retiring' after 20 years and immediately drawing a pension.


----------



## mariomike (30 Sep 2009)

MCG said:
			
		

> Pension Plan:  http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/hr-rh/bp-rasp/index-eng.asp


It's same deal as the one I posted above for the posties, and PSAC: 
http://www.psac-afpc.com/documents/what/retiring_from_ps_usefultips-e.pdf
"Retirement at or after 60, or at 55 with 30 or more years of pensionable service".
They all say you must be age 55 to receive an *unreduced* pension. Even if you have been a member since you were nine years old. ( CF excluded ).

Whoever you work for, whatever work you do, your "company" lifetime pension should be 70 per cent of your pre-retirement earnings. That is considered to be the benchmark for quality of life in retirement.  Indexed to inflation every year. That is the pension *only*.   "Bridge Benefit" to C.P.P., personal savings, properties, and other sources of income are above and beyond that.
An OMERS pension has two components:
1) A  lifetime ( indexed  to inflation every year ) pension of 70 percent of pre-retirement earnings, plus;
2) A "Bridge Benefit" payable until age 65, in addition to the OMERS pension. Even after you begin collecting collecting C.P.P. at age 60.
Considering the fact that from age 55 you no longer are paying CPP, E.I., union dues, or OMERS *and* now receiving the Bridge Benefit, your pension is only a few dollars shy of your pre-retirement earnings.  
There is now a "new and improved" OMERS plan for Police, Fire and Paramedics in Ontario:
http://www.omers.com/Assets/supplemental+plans/Supplemental+Plan+handbook.pdf
1) You can now retire with an *unreduced* pension after 30 years on the job at age 50. It used to be 30 years of service +  *minimum* age 55. Regardless of Time In, you had to wait till you turned 55. 
2) It now has a 2.33% pension accrual rate. This allows members to reach the 70% maximum of pensionable earnings in thirty years. It used be 2% X 35 years.
3) It is now based on the member's best *three* years earnings. It used to be the best five years.


----------



## McG (30 Sep 2009)

My understanding is that there are three different pensions from the government (not counting what is available to political positions):  The CF pension, the RCMP pension and the Public Service Pension.

The posties may have thier own website outlining the pension, but it is the same pension plan as the civi clerks in your OR.


----------



## dapaterson (30 Sep 2009)

MCG said:
			
		

> My understanding is that there are three different pensions from the government (not counting what is available to political positions):  The CF pension, the RCMP pension and the Public Service Pension.
> 
> The posties may have thier own website outlining the pension, but it is the same pension plan as the civi clerks in your OR.



It's more complex than that. For the Federal Government, there's RCMP, Public Service, CFSA Part I (Reg F and long-serving full-time Reservists), CFSA Part I.1 (part-time Reservists), Lieutenant Governors' Superannuation Act, Members of Parliament Retiring Allowance Act and the Diplomatic Service (Special) Superannuation Act.

Al of which (in theory) need to be kept co-ordinated... three guesses as to whether or not they are.

And Flawed Design: As a Reservist, you must elect to buy back your pensionable time no later than the end of February - time is getting short.  No election = no buyback.


----------



## Stoker (1 Oct 2009)

Occam said:
			
		

> There are plenty of trades with Spec Pay in the Reserves.  The Navy is the only element that doesn't have any spec 1 trades in the PRes, and even that's about to change.  LCIS Tech, ATIS Tech, all the 500 series aircraft techs...they're all Spec 1 in the PRes.  I'm pretty sure there are a few other Army ones as well.



What trades in the naval reserve are going to be spec 1?


----------



## CountDC (1 Oct 2009)

Flawed Design said:
			
		

> George I agree, class Bs are needed.
> The reg forces needs a lot of manpower drawn form the reserves for various tasks. In order for reserve regiments to have those soldiers trained, equipped and prepared to augment the regular force they need full time staff running the regiment.
> In my opinion if reserve units have full time staff who are training up a pool of oldiers to augment the regular force they should be paid the same. Someone can argue pro's and cons of each, who does duty, who has to work saturday mornings but in the end when the regular force says to the reserves we need 800 people- they're there.



nah - do away with cl b and c.  Two types of service - part time - reserves, full time - reg f.  Replace the cl b and c with fixed period of service contracts. Mbr then gets pay and benefits of reg f (because they are) and is still signing to work full time for the same period.  



			
				Flawed Design said:
			
		

> By the sounds of it there are a lot of un-required class B jobs floating around in headquarters type establishments ie Ottawa. I thought THATS where the class B cuts were originally supposed to be culled from.



There are?  Where are they hiding them.  I know here it is practically impossible to get a class b even as a mata/pata fill in. By the time we thought we were getting approval there was only a few months left so we didn't bother. Every cl b I know of is needed - or else they need to post in a reg f or hire a civilian.

Oh - to add - there was a major cull of all posns at headquarters in 1997 (mostly Cl B) - LFAAHQ went from a staff of 250+ down to around 98.



			
				Flawed Design said:
			
		

> All this talk about pension, I'm going to look into buying back my pension time once someone at my unit explains it to me.  In a nutshell if I transfer to the regular force (5th time trying to CT is a charm) I get an amount of years towards my pension that I have to 'buy' and once bought then they will go towards my thingie when I can retire?



sort of but the math is different for your class a and short cl b (under 3 months I believe) time.  Pension buy back they siimply credit you quarter time for your class a and short class b periods - 1 year equals 3 months.  When they calculate the time served credit they look for actual days worked so that same year may count for more or less than 3 months. 17 Dec 2013 I have 25 years pension time, 1 Jan 2014 I have 25 years time served so I can retire and draw my IA. In my case the dates are close as the few years I received quarter time for I actually worked a lot. If you only worked the training night and weekends with no short class b periods then you will have a larger gap.

Good luck on the 5th try.


----------



## Occam (1 Oct 2009)

Stoker said:
			
		

> What trades in the naval reserve are going to be spec 1?



I've heard through the grapevine that there is soon to be a Reserve Naval Electronics Technician (or Weapons Engineering Technician abomination, if you prefer).


----------



## PMedMoe (1 Oct 2009)

Occam said:
			
		

> I've heard through the grapevine that there is soon to be a Reserve Naval Electronics Technician (or Weapons Engineering Technician abomination, if you prefer).



From what I last heard (regarding my trade) was that Spec pay was still under review for the reserves.  If one trade gets it, they're going to pretty much have to give it to all qualifying trades.

Usually, when a PMed Tech goes to the ResF, they fill a Med Tech position as PMed does not exist in the ResF world.  They also do not get Spec pay.


----------



## Occam (1 Oct 2009)

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> Usually, when a PMed Tech goes to the ResF, they fill a Med Tech position as PMed does not exist in the ResF world.  They also do not get Spec pay.



NE Tech is being added to the ResF world, as I understand it.


----------



## dapaterson (1 Oct 2009)

CountDC said:
			
		

> sort of but the math is different for your class a and short cl b (under 3 months I believe) time.  Pension buy back they siimply credit you quarter time for your class a and short class b periods - 1 year equals 3 months.  When they calculate the time served credit they look for actual days worked so that same year may count for more or less than 3 months. 17 Dec 2013 I have 25 years pension time, 1 Jan 2014 I have 25 years time served so I can retire and draw my IA. In my case the dates are close as the few years I received quarter time for I actually worked a lot. If you only worked the training night and weekends with no short class b periods then you will have a larger gap.
> 
> Good luck on the 5th try.



They have changed the rules significantly, as part of pension modernization.  A current reservist buying back service up to 28 Feb 07 (everything since then is already covered) buys back actual days days - no more 1/4 time (* unless the pay records are completely lost for that period of time).  The math can get complex (since, for purposes of longevity of service, 1 day class A = 1.4 days calendar), and tracking records to determine actual pay is horrible (the bright brains in DND turned off the old reserve pay system without first making an electronic copy of the data - so if you ask for records, they go through old microfiches of pictures of the pay printouts, copy your information for each month, block out the other people on the list, copy that sheet, then compile them and send them to you).

There's another whole thread on Reserve Pensions, and the grand (lack of) success it has been to date.


----------



## CountDC (2 Oct 2009)

Is that on component transfer?  Didn't realize the 1/4 time was removed from there. I know the purely reserve pension is a mess.


Had the fun of going for my records to get my pension straight.  had to go through Ottawa to get an actual daily count as the reg f clerk that received my pers file stripped it of all the reserve docs except enolment forms.  The original pension calculation only gave me 3 years credit - didn't count anything as cl b which most of my time was. Only took 5 years to get it right.

As for spec pay - I heard the navy wanted to give it to the reserve trades that matched with regular force trades.  That was a while ago though.


----------



## dapaterson (2 Oct 2009)

As a Reservist, to get into the Reg F pension, first you must be in the Res F pension - so you buy-back under part I.1, then top-up under part I.  It's a terrible mess, with many other impacts.

So, to buy back, dig out all your old records (and DND's delays are your problem - not theirs - interest continues to accrue while you wait for your docs).  If, after all efforts, you can't find records for 1992, for example, you'll be credited with 1/4 time for that period - less any time you can produce class B route letters / class C messages for (those periods you'll get at 1:1).


----------



## Reserve4Life (2 Oct 2009)

After reading all of the posts I was amazed at all of the conversation with regards to Reserve, Regular Forces, Retired Regular Force turned Reservist and Pay Equity. 

I have been a life long Reservist, joined in 81 and still going.  I chose to be a Reservist first and foremost, to have a part time job while I went to school.  While there I met my husband and stayed a Reservist so that I could move with him to various postings. Although I had the desire to move up and become Regular Force, or RCMP, I also wanted to be a mother one day and my concerns were that I did not want to chance leaving my child and doing 6 months tours, which at that time was Cypress, Damascus, Alert and various others.   I decided to stay a Reservist, and in doing so I have had what I call a wonderful, exciting, everchanging life.  I would never call being a Reservist a full time Career for me, but it has turned out that way.  I now have 23 years of full time service.  I bought back my pensionable time, and am looking forward to one day retiring with a monthly paycheck (pension) and enjoying my old age.

When I joined and up till the pay increase, I received 65% of Regular Force Pay.  Not only did I work full time on various bases, but as well trained with my unit at night and on weekends, with no extra pay.  Full Days Pay was just that, regardless of who you were working for and the hours you put in.  Some employing units would compensate my extra hours with early Fridays off, only in turn to travel to my unit to get ready for a weekend exercise.  But I loved what I did and I believe I did it well.  As I moved through the ranks I hit a brick wall.  I could not possibly move to the next rank level because there was no vacant position for me to move into at my Home Unit.  Why, because the position was occupied by a retired Regular Force Member, who was employed on Full Time Class B at the Base near our Unit and did I mention, did not bother to train with our Home Unit.  I have come to find out over the years that this is an ongoing trend.  Pure Reservists (those that have never been Regular Force) have limited career progression.  For the many that have chosen to compete for Full Time positions, have lost out in competitions to ex-regular Force members that got out 1 day to take the full time posn the next.  How does one compete with that.  As well the Regular Force Member that comes to work everyday for his 1 paycheck and works along side an ex Regular Force member who is double-dipping.  There is case on both sides, but in the end, we all have choices to make.  I am happy with my choice and it has paid off for me because not only can I buy back 23 years of full time service, retire in two. I also invested for 28 years and will walk away with two pensions, equal to, if not more than what I now make yearly.   :camo:

I would never turn down a pay increase, but I know what worked for me. If I wanted more I would have signed up for the Regular Force, and could be double dipping as we speak.  Nah, there is Pros and Cons to both, I shall always be a Reservist4Life.


----------



## George Wallace (2 Oct 2009)

Interesting post.  Some good points, but I do have a few questions.



			
				Reservist4Life said:
			
		

> ...........  As I moved through the ranks I hit a brick wall.  I could not possibly move to the next rank level because there was no vacant position for me to move into at my Home Unit.  Why, because the position was occupied by a retired Regular Force Member, who was employed on Full Time Class B at the Base near our Unit and did I mention, did not bother to train with our Home Unit.



Why didn't your unit CO, DCO, Admin O, and Chief Clerk, not all get that person off your nominal roll.  That person should have been on the PRL list for whatever unit they were working for, thus freeing up that posn in your Reserve Unit.  That can be done with any Reservist on a Class B, whether they are a "Double Dipprer" or not.



			
				Reservist4Life said:
			
		

> I have come to find out over the years that this is an ongoing trend.  Pure Reservists (those that have never been Regular Force) have limited career progression.  For the many that have chosen to compete for Full Time positions, have lost out in competitions to ex-regular Force members that got out 1 day to take the full time posn the next.  How does one compete with that.  As well the Regular Force Member that comes to work everyday for his 1 paycheck and works along side an ex Regular Force member who is double-dipping.  There is case on both sides, but in the end, we all have choices to make.



Only comment I can say here, is that those posns should have been filled by "merit" not as a favour to someone on the "Old Boys Net".  Again, that is a Unit CO's choice.


----------



## McG (2 Oct 2009)

gcclarke said:
			
		

> Ok, so I decided to do some quick comparisons here.
> 
> ...
> 
> ...





			
				Occam said:
			
		

> Don't forget the guy doing the CT to the reserves only works 330 paid days out of the year.





			
				gcclarke said:
			
		

> Ahhh right good point. That makes the reserve guy's annual income total during the 10 years 13500 higher than the reg force guy's, rather than 20000.
> 
> So the reg force dude achieves total income parity after 8.5 years.


... and of course, this model does not account for the the Pension deductions that come out of the still regular pay vs the absence of the deduction in the double-dipper pay.  It also doesn't account for the Reserve Travel Allowance that the full-time reservist is entitled.  Apparently the NCR has a case or two where guys are collecting an extra $21.06 for every day they come into the office comuting from Arnprior ... over the years, that's a lot of money that the Reg F guy does not get ... and I've heard pricier examples than this.



			
				George Wallace said:
			
		

> Why didn't your unit CO, DCO, Admin O, and Chief Clerk, not all get that person off your nominal roll.  That person should have been on the PRL list for whatever unit they were working for, thus freeing up that posn in your Reserve Unit.  That can be done with any Reservist on a Class B, whether they are a "Double Dipprer" or not.


Most units & formations do not have a PRL.  LFDTS is full of fulltime reservists, but there is no PRL there (not even down in CTC).  The only PRLs that I am familiar with are the NDHQ PRL & the Land Staff PRL (and both serving the NCR).  I assume there are other PRLs, but for most cases that I know of there is no PRL.


----------



## George Wallace (2 Oct 2009)

MCG said:
			
		

> Most units & formations do not have a PRL.  LFDTS is full of fulltime reservists, but there is no PRL there (not even down in CTC).  The only PRLs that I am familiar with are the NDHQ PRL & the Land Staff PRL (and both serving the NCR).  I assume there are other PRLs, but for most cases that I know of there is no PRL.



The looks of it, the PRL may be a little secret that has not been fully exposed or exploited.  We may need a SME to come forward to explain it.

If I remember correctly, CF members who were injured were being put into a holding pattern in ...... I thought.... the PRL.  They did not belong to any one Reserve Unit, and were administered through the CF.  There are also former Reg Force members wearing the hatbadge of their Reg Force affiliation, who also do not belong to any one Reserve Unit.  Under what "program" are they working?  I have seen this across the country, not just in Ottawa/NCR.


----------



## Occam (2 Oct 2009)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> If I remember correctly, CF members who were injured were being put into a holding pattern in ...... I thought.... the PRL.  They did not belong to any one Reserve Unit, and were administered through the CF.



You're thinking of the Service Personnel Holding List (SPHL), where injured RegF people could be posted to free up a position so that a healthy person can be posted into it.


----------



## MARS (2 Oct 2009)

At the risk of taking this thread further away from the stated title,  here is the latest NAVRESGEN on administration of the MARCOM PRL:

  01  231939Z  JUN  08  RR    UUUU                  N11-3 04318

             NAVRESHQ QUEBEC
             NAVRESGEN

UNCLAS NAVRESGEN 027/08 N11-3 04318
SIC WAF
BILINGUAL MESSAGE/MESSAGE BILINGUE
SUBJ: ADMINISTRATION OF THE MARCOM PRIMARY RESERVE LIST(MARCOM PRL)
REF: A. CFAO 2-8
B. MARCORD 9-1 (DRAFT)NOTAL
1. NAVRESHQ IS ADMINISTERING THE MARCOM PRL ON BEHALF OF CMS IAW REF 
A. THE MARCOM PRL IS AN ELEMENT OF THE NAVAL PRIMARY RESERVE. ALL 
DIRECTIVES PERTAINING TO THIS DELEGATION OF AUTHORITY WILL BE 
INCLUDED IN A FORTHCOMING AMENDMENT TO MARCORD 9-1 (REF B)
2. ONE OF THE MAIN ELEMENTS OF THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE MARCOM PRL 
IS THE STATUS OF EMPLOYMENT IN THE NAVAL RESERVE. THE BASIS OF THE 
NAVAL RESERVE POLICY IS THAT A MEMBER WORKING FOR THE NAVAL RESERVE 
SHOULD GET THE BENEFITS OF THE PRIMARY RESERVE. THE BENEFITS 
AVAILABLE TO SUPP RES MEMBERS VICE PRIMARY RESERVE MEMBERS ARE 
SIGNIFICANTLY LESS. THE DIFFERENCE IN BENEFITS WILL SOON BE PUBLISHED 
ON THE NAVRES WEBPAGE
3. IT IS THE INTENTION OF THIS HQ TO ENROL ALL PERSONNEL WHO ARE 
CURRENTLY ATTACH POSTED FROM THE SUPP TO THE MARCOM PRL WHERE THE 
PERIOD OF EMPLOYMENT IS EXPECTED TO BE MORE THAN 6 MONTHS (NOT 
NECESSARILY CONTINUOUS). THIS POLICY APPLIES TO CLASS A, B OR C 
SERVICE. A MEMBER OF THE SUPP RES IS NOT OBLIGATED TO ACCEPT THIS 
OFFER
4. MEMBERS ENROLLED AND POSTED ON MARCOM PRL ON AN ESTABLISHED POSN 
WILL BE ADMINISTERED AS OTHER PRIMARY RESERVISTS BY A HOST URS. THEY 
MAY FURTHER BE CONSIDERED FOR POSTING TO AN ESTABLISHED NRD POSN 
SHOULD IT BE INTENDED THAT THEY WILL BE SERVING AT THAT NRD AND THAT 
A POSN IN THE NAVRES TOTAL ESTABLISHMENT IS AVAIL
5. DETAILED ADMIN PROCEDURES FOR ENROLMENT IN THE NAVRES AND POSTING 
TO THE MARCOM PRL WILL BE FURTHER DEFINED IN DUE COURSE. THE HOST URS 
WILL BE REQUIRED TO COMPLETE A CF 444 ENROLMENT DOCUMENT. MED AND 
FITNESS REQR ARE COMPULSORY
6. UNITS WHERE SUPP RES MEMBERS ARE CURRENTLY EMPLOYED WILL BE REQ   
TO CONFIRM BY EMAIL MBR ACCEPTANCE AND CO S CONCURRENCE


----------



## Colin Parkinson (2 Oct 2009)

I recently went about buying back some Public Service time and Reserve time from the 70-80’s. The PS time was easily figured out, but they estimated that it would take a year to year and half to figure out what I am eligible to buy back from the military. They used the year I joined and year I left to calculate possible eligible time, although I knew we would not be getting all of it. We elected to pay lump sum for what I thought I could get and monthly payments on that which they thought was possible. As the new fiscal year was coming that locked in all payments at the current rate, once Apr 1st rolled around the cost to me would have jumped 4%. There is no real risk, if they determined that you have less eligible time than you paid for, you get a refund, your only loss is the potential interest you might have earned putting the money elsewhere. I would certainly recommend this approach. I suggest if you are youngish flush with cash and have time you could buy back. Buy it now! Waiting as I did means I am paying $11,000 per year for that time. My young assistant is buying back her time at $800 a year. However as the males in my family are long lived, it will be a 50% return on that investment down the road.


----------



## 1feral1 (2 Oct 2009)

I think the whole pay issue between CF res/reg has to be revamped.

Here the Reserves are tax free pay and up to 200 days a year, and any time with the regs on a contract is at their rate. None of this us/them pay wise.

If you are ex Reg, you get a non-discounted rate to keep one interested in Res svc, so we get more pay that Res who have no Reg time for same job and rank, about $10-$15 more a day.

There is also a home loan scheme with excellent benifits. Too bad the CF does not see outside the circle.  There  is no pension for Res and Reg (used to be DFRDB for Regs - some still on it), we have a super-annuation scheme for Regs and nothing for the Res. I am told this is being reviewed.

Res pay = Reg pay even part time on a daily basis (7 day work week can even be more), and with field pay on a 7 day a week basis Res is more and this pisses them off. The them used to be me, ha! So when Res go in the field say for an annual 16 day ex, with or without Regs we get more.

OWDU


----------



## McG (2 Oct 2009)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> The looks of it, the PRL may be a little secret that has not been fully exposed or exploited.  We may need a SME to come forward to explain it.
> 
> If I remember correctly, CF members who were injured were being put into a holding pattern in ...... I thought.... the PRL.


You are thinking of what used to be Service Personnel Holding List (SPHL) and is not the Retention & Transition List (RTL) - This is a regular force thing.

A PRL is unit which exists solely to be the home unit for full time reservists employed in non reserve units (like NDHQ).


----------



## Occam (2 Oct 2009)

MCG said:
			
		

> You are thinking of what used to be Service Personnel Holding List (SPHL) and is not the Retention & Transition List (RTL) - This is a regular force thing.



Should that be "now" vice "not"?  It's a little confusing as it reads.

Did they rename yet another organization?


----------



## McG (3 Oct 2009)

It should read "now."
The rename is part of a change in role & the whole new JPSU thing.


----------



## PMedMoe (3 Oct 2009)

Reservist4Life said:
			
		

> Not only did I work full time on various bases, but as well trained with my unit at night and on weekends, with no extra pay.  Full Days Pay was just that, regardless of who you were working for and the hours you put in.



Reg F personnel don't get paid extra for working nights or weekends either.  Other than that, interesting first post!


----------



## armyvern (4 Oct 2009)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> If I remember correctly, CF members who were injured were being put into a holding pattern in ...... I thought.... the PRL.  They did not belong to any one Reserve Unit, and were administered through the CF.  There are also former Reg Force members wearing the hatbadge of their Reg Force affiliation, who also do not belong to any one Reserve Unit.  Under what "program" are they working?  I have seen this across the country, not just in Ottawa/NCR.



I know two who wear their former RegF Unit capbadges still who are employed in CTC; I'll send them an email tomorrow (although - I'm sure they had both mentionned before they were PRL & ergo the reasons they were allowed to wear their regF capbadge still). Will confirm.

But, my friend WO Ian Culbertson (now deceased) was definetely PRL. He was burried in his PPCLI cap badge - the same one he wore whilst RegF and once he retired and began working as a Class B as the 3 ASG HA until his death last fall.


----------



## McG (5 Oct 2009)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> I know two who wear their former RegF Unit capbadges still who are employed in CTC;


There are some employed at CTC in Gagetown who are on the NDHQ PRL. That could be the case with the pers you know.  I've also known some reservists to keep wearing whatever they used to wear despite what was currently being worn by the regiment that owned them.


----------



## Reserve4Life (5 Oct 2009)

geo said:
			
		

> Reservists on class B are paid 85% of Reg salary with vacation days tacked onto the end of their Class B employment.
> 
> When discussing reservists you have to discuss the benefits that the reservists on long term contracts are entitled to...



I am not sure where these "vacation days" went but I didn't get any at the end of my contracts.  What I did get was 2 days leave for every 30 days on Class B, 22 days for a full year contract.  If that is what your referring too, it is not tacked onto the end and it isn't in the form of money.  Leave must be taken prior to end of contract.

Class A reservists get the "PILL" Pay in Lieu of Leave.


----------



## kratz (5 Oct 2009)

I'm not certain about the Army Reserve, but for the Navy IAW MARGEN 9-1 the unit is able to approve up to three days leave at the end of a contract. Any remaining leave must be approved by higher command. In practice, this means, use your leave or lose it unless there is an operational reason not to use it.


----------



## dapaterson (5 Oct 2009)

kratz said:
			
		

> I'm not certain about the Army Reserve, but for the Navy IAW MARGEN 9-1 the unit is able to approve up to three days leave at the end of a contract. Any remaining leave must be approved by higher command. In practice, this means, use your leave or lose it unless there is an operational reason not to use it.



Leave is an entitlement - a superior can't order a subordinate to forfeit leave.  Indeed, it's the superior's fault their subordinate still has leave remaining at the end of a period of employment - why didn't they provide supervision and ensure their subordinate took their leave?  Sounds like the supervisor was negligent in the performance of a duty to me...

The new leave admin manual discusses that situation, and provides for three options for Reservists with leave remaining at the end of a period of full-time service:

(1) Extend the period of service to provide the leave (and note that this could result in more calendar days, if it goes over stat holidays or weekends);
(2) If the member is continuing on full-time service with a new employer, with that employer's permission carry the leave entitlement forward with them; or
(3) Cash out of leave IAW CBI 205.75 (I think that's the ref).

"Refuse to give them leave and tell them tough" doesn't appear to be a legal option.


----------



## dapaterson (5 Oct 2009)

MCG said:
			
		

> There are some employed at CTC in Gagetown who are on the NDHQ PRL. That could be the case with the pers you know.  I've also known some reservists to keep wearing whatever they used to wear despite what was currently being worn by the regiment that owned them.



Strictly speaking: If they are employed at CTC they are probably on the LFC PRL, not the NDHQ PRL.  On the other hand, if they were working at the CFRC in Fredericton, they'd be more likely to be on the NDHQ PRL.

(And I have seen one forlorn major in NDHQ wandering around with the crossed rifles of the Inf corps badge, though of late he seems to have picked up the accoutrements of one of the highland regiments.  There was also a Cpl with a tan beret and the Inf badge)


----------



## McG (6 Oct 2009)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Strictly speaking: If they are employed at CTC they are probably on the LFC PRL, not the NDHQ PRL.  On the other hand, if they were working at the CFRC in Fredericton, they'd be more likely to be on the NDHQ PRL.


Is it the LFC or (as I'd always heard) Land Staff PRL?  Either way, the examples I am aware of employed in CTC are most definitely on the NDHQ PRL (even if the other would be more appropriate).


----------



## dapaterson (6 Oct 2009)

MCG said:
			
		

> Is it the LFC or (as I'd always heard) Land Staff PRL?  Either way, the examples I am aware of employed in CTC are most definitely on the NDHQ PRL (even if the other would be more appropriate).



It is the LFC PRL - UIC 1184 (although a PRL is not a unit).


----------



## jbeach95 (7 Dec 2009)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> The new leave admin manual discusses that situation, and provides for three options for Reservists with leave remaining at the end of a period of full-time service:
> 
> (1) Extend the period of service to provide the leave (and note that this could result in more calendar days, if it goes over stat holidays or weekends);
> (2) If the member is continuing on full-time service with a new employer, with that employer's permission carry the leave entitlement forward with them; or
> ...



Does anyone know if this would apply to leave received in 2007 but not used? Specifically the cash out option?
I had a Class B contract for a course and a Class C contract for workup/tour overlap, so I lost 3 annual leave days. I asked to take the leave while on the Class C but was told no. Since getting back from tour, I've been bugging my BOR about it, but I they have not been able to give me an answer.


----------



## CountDC (7 Dec 2009)

As far as I recall it has been the policy since they introduced reserve leave that it had to be used, added to the end or carried over to the new contract.  Don't know about the cash out as never had that come up for reserves.  

The problem now is that if you were able to get the cash out it should have been done in 2007. 

You could try a redress of grievance but even that is supposed to be submitted within 6 months of the event grieved and you are well past that.  Unless you can proof exceptional circumstances for submitting one so late they might not even consider it.


----------



## mariomike (3 Mar 2018)

This was posted in another discussion yesterday,



			
				Piece of Cake said:
			
		

> I would argue that reservists are underpaid by 15 per cent.



Saw this explanation from 2008,



			
				d53642 said:
			
		

> Reservists generally make 15 per cent less than their regular force counterparts, said Capt. Ron Kronstein of army public affairs.
> 
> "It’s seen as a form of compensation for not being posted or told where to go every few years," Capt. Kronstein said in an e-mail.


----------

