# No more LDA for certain Military Police Detachments



## SeanNewman (12 May 2010)

Sorry to break the news, Gents:

http://www.cmp-cpm.forces.gc.ca/dgcb-dgras/pd/all-ind/mnd-pce/ldadu-iscud-17-eng.asp

1. REF C IS AMENDED BY REF B SO THAT THE FOLLOWING UNITS ARE DELETED AS DESIGNATED FIELD UNITS FOR THE PURPOSE OF LDA EFFECTIVE 19 APR 10: 

UIC UNIT NAME 
6355 2 MILITARY POLICE UNIT DETACHMENT LONDON 
6356 2 MILITARY POLICE UNIT DETACHMENT OTTAWA 
6477 2 MILITARY POLICE UNIT DETACHMENT TORONTO 
6478 3 MILITARY POLICE UNIT HALIFAX 
6479 5E MILITARY POLICE UNIT DETACHMENT MONTREAL 
6484  1 MILITARY POLICE UNIT DETACHMENT CALGARY 
6485 1 MILITARY POLICE UNIT DETACHMENT CHILLIWACK 
6486 1 MILITARY POLICE UNIT DETACHMENT SHILO 
6487 1 MILITARY POLICE UNIT DETACHMENT SUFFIELD 
6488 1 MILITARY POLICE UNIT DETACHMENT WAINWRIGHT 
6490 2 MILITARY POLICE UNIT DETACHMENT KINGSTON 
6491 1 MILITARY POLICE UNIT DETACHMENT WINNIPEG 
6492 2 MILITARY POLICE UNIT DETACHMENT SAULT STE MARIE 
6493 3 MILITARY POLICE UNIT DETACHMENT GAGETOWN 
6494 3 MILITARY POLICE UNIT DETACHMENT MONCTON 
6496 5E MILITARY POLICE UNIT DETACHMENT ST JEAN 
6500 1 MILITARY POLICE UNIT DETACHMENT VANCOUVER 
6501 5E MILITARY POLICE UNIT DETACHMENT QUEBEC 
6502 2 MILITARY POLICE UNIT DETACHMENT MEAFORD 
6504 5E MILITARY POLICE UNIT DETACHMENT SAGUENAY 

2. QUESTIONS SHOULD BE DIRECTED TO YOUR RESPECTIVE COMMANDS/ECS


----------



## vonGarvin (12 May 2010)

Mods
The title of this thread is misleading.  Perhaps it should be amended to read:
"No more LDA for certain MP Units"


Now, on topic, this makes sense.  PERFECT sense, given our frustration at CTC when the Base MPs (formerly recipients of LDA) refused to deploy to the field to support a non-LDA unit, that was in the field, conduct an investigation involving narcotics.


----------



## SeanNewman (12 May 2010)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> Mods, The title of this thread is misleading.  Perhaps it should be amended to read: "No more LDA for certain MP Units"



No issues at all with the title being changed.

I wonder what the impact will be now that all of those people have budgeted that money into their expenses (and bought houses and cars counting on that money).

What the good CDS giveth, the good CDS can taketh away...


----------



## PMedMoe (12 May 2010)

Petamocto said:
			
		

> I wonder what the impact will be now that all of those people have budgeted that money into their expenses (and bought houses and cars counting on that money).



Well, they were cautioned not to, so sucks to be them.  I wonder if there will be a claw back of anything they've received to date?


----------



## SeanNewman (12 May 2010)

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> Well, they were cautioned not to, so sucks to be them.  I wonder if there will be a claw back of anything they've received to date?



I can't see there being a claw back, but stranger things have happened.  How does an authority figure tell someone they are entitled to something and then retro take it back?

I can see them saying "Maybe we made a mistake so from _____ date forward that will be corrected", but that would be extremely harsh to claw it back.

If so, not only do you now not make that $300+/mo, you have to pay back $300+/mo above and beyong that.  So instead of a guy getting $4,000 + $300 = $4,300/mo, he's now making $4,000 - $300 = $3,700/mo until it's paid back.

And while I can not speak for everyone, I think I can safely say that the vast majority of people factored it into their budgets even if they were told not to.  All sorts of people would have bought a $250k house instead of a $200k house, or have two new cars instead of a new and a used car, etc.


----------



## exgunnertdo (12 May 2010)

The message says effective 19 April 10, so just under a month and a half would have to be paid back. April 19-30, and the May pay run has already been done, so May.

Entitlement to LDA can change. One could get posted from an LDA unit to a non-LDA unit on the same base, no cost move, and be in the same boat. People have to be responsible and know that that's a possibility. I have as much sympathy for someone in this situation as someone who makes financial plans based on their income while on tour.  

I personally found it laughable that MPs in Ottawa (and other major urban centres) got LDA! Unbelievable!

As with PLD, sorry, not a guarantee. Plan accordingly.

(edited for clarity)


----------



## PMedMoe (12 May 2010)

exgunnertdo said:
			
		

> The message says effective 19 April 10, so just under a month and a half would have to be paid back. April 20-30, and the May pay run has already been done, so May.
> 
> Entitlement to LDA can change. One could get posted from an LDA unit to a non-LDA unit on the same base, no cost move, and be in the same boat. People have to be responsible and know that that's a possibility. I have as much sympathy for someone in this situation as someone who makes financial plans based on their income while on tour.
> 
> ...



Agreed 100%!


----------



## SeanNewman (12 May 2010)

Getting posted to a different unit is different as a factor has changed.  I have no sympathy for those people, and in fact I went from an LDA unit to a non-LDA unit and I spend more time in the field now than I did before.  

I agree with you in a case like when I was a platoon commander and making Para Allowance, but then after my time was up I went upstairs to the unit HQ and lost that allowance because my job was fundamentally different.

However, I do have sympathy for the person who is doing the same job and is now making less money.  Whether or not an MP deserves that money in the first place is a separate matter, but at the end of the day the CF told them they would be getting that money for what they do and now that has changed.


----------



## Strike (12 May 2010)

Petamocto said:
			
		

> I agree with you in a case like when I was a platoon commander and making Para Allowance, but then after my time was up I went upstairs to the unit HQ and lost that allowance because my job was fundamentally different.
> 
> However, I do have sympathy for the person who is doing the same job and is now making less money.  Whether or not an MP deserves that money in the first place is a separate matter, but at the end of the day the CF told them they would be getting that money for what they do and now that has changed.



Those MPs who are losing LDA are essentially in the situation that you mention above -- posted to a unit that doesn't deploy but they were still getting LDA.  Why?  Who knows.  As for it being a separate matter, I must disagree.  It is THE matter and is being rectified.  Imagine a pilot getting aircrew allowance while posted to a non-flying position.  Everyone would be raising all holy hell.  Why it took so long for this MP matter to be sorted is beyond me.


----------



## gcclarke (12 May 2010)

Does this mean that I'll have to wait until I get posted away from NDHQ to get sea-pay again?


----------



## Fishbone Jones (12 May 2010)

Anyone with the slightest hint of budgetary grey matter knows that you define your income on base salary and nothing that may be lost with the change of employment or job description.


----------



## Gunner98 (12 May 2010)

Petamocto said:
			
		

> Getting posted to a different unit is different as a factor has changed.  I have no sympathy for those people, and in fact I went from an LDA unit to a non-LDA unit and I spend more time in the field now than I did before.



That could be an unexpected windfall for you unless your "field trips"are not over-nighters and you are merely getting your boots dirty one partial day at a time.


----------



## SeanNewman (12 May 2010)

recceguy said:
			
		

> ... you define your income on base salary and nothing that may be lost with the change of employment(1) or job description(2).



Base salary, yes...but these people losing LDA above do not meet the two criteria you listed because they have the exact same job.

Strike, 

Almost nobody is going to disagree with you that they may not have never deserved the money in the first place, but at the end of the day someone way above that Cpl MP made the decision that he was entitled to it for doing X employment.  If his employment changes to Y then absolutely, but his employment is now ~X-$300 dollars.  

I'm not defending the poor MPs here, and the last thing I'm going to do is say they deserved that money at all.

What I am saying is that right or wrong, I would bet my bottom dollar that a lot of them made decisions based on that money budgeted into their income and now they're going to be in the hurt locker.

ST,

CMTC is perhaps the unit with people who deploy the most in the CF during garrison hours, and they don't get LDA (I'm not posted to Wainwright).  Some of the CTC units are very close behind and don't get LDA either.  I can personally say that in my time in the Infantry School, both as a candidate and instructor, have spent far more time in the field than I ever did in a field-entitled unit for LDA (3 RCR).

And when I was in the field, it was real field as in the sitting on an OP getting rained on and mosquito swarmed, not the field that involves mod tents and massive heaters.

I'm not going down that path though because it just sounds like whining.  I get what I get, and my bills are paid for a nice house, nice car, nice motorcycle, and a fridge full of food.

The ultimate irony though as Techno pointed out above was when the Infantry School was deployed to the field not getting LDA and asked for MP assistance for an investigation and had difficulties getting MPs to go out there.


----------



## Swingline1984 (12 May 2010)

I'm sure the individuals'/units' respective chain of commands' would have informed them of this change prior to the amendment to the list in the CBI's and they therefore would have had fair warning not to spend it.  As for budgeting allowances into your cost of living expenses, I'd have to think most people are smarter than that...but...I've been wrong before.


----------



## SeanNewman (12 May 2010)

Swingline1984 said:
			
		

> ...As for budgeting allowances into your cost of living expenses, I'd have to think most people are smarter than that...



My friend, times are a-changin'.  

Our grandparents saved 10%, our parents broken even, and this generation spends 10%+ more than what they make.

Take any money away from them and it spirals worse and worse.

We are somewhat sheltered by that in the military as we have generally assured income and these sorts of instances are rare.  In the rest of the continent though, people budget in money they don't have at all, let alone allowances.


----------



## armyvern (12 May 2010)

Petamocto said:
			
		

> Base salary, yes...but these people losing LDA above do not meet the two criteria you listed because they have the exact same job.
> 
> Strike,
> 
> ...



One of those factors for eligibility - from the very beginning of this allowance - was that "*minimum X number of days, on average, was spent out in the field per month*". The fact that most MP Units listed as "being entitled" as having "MET" that factor right from the get-go while NOT meeting that specific factor has been a sore point *from the beginning*.

And, as the Greivance Board (as well as the Omsbudsman agreed) has ruled a great many times over ... "an error in determining your entitlement at the beginning, does NOT an entitlement create. Nor does that error create the entitlement to retain any allowances/benefits/pay received in error due to a wrong determination.""


----------



## SeanNewman (12 May 2010)

Vern,

Pretty much everyone on this thread so far agrees with what you have said; in fact, I don't even think anything is being debated by anyone.

General consensus seems to be that MPs (for the most part) do not meet the criteria to get LDA and this new amendment is a good thing.

I would even agree with those who have said that people should only ever count on their base salary, but that's just not the ground truth for most people.  

Fundamentally though, I see this as different than someone who changes jobs and makes less money because of it.  If you are on a ship away from home and then get posted close to home, of course you should make less money.  If you jump out of planes and put your body at risk and then you stop jumping, of course you should make less money.  

The error is that these guys were ever told in the first place that they should be getting it.  They're still ending up thousands ahead (if it doesn't get clawed back) so it's hard to feel sympathy, though.

PS - MPs, remember that a soldier (somewhat) supported you in this matter, so next time you pull a young troop over and you're on the fence... ;D


----------



## Gunner98 (13 May 2010)

Petamocto said:
			
		

> ST,
> 
> And when I was in the field, it was real field as in the sitting on an OP getting rained on and mosquito swarmed, not the field that involves mod tents and massive heaters.



I empathize, I spent close to 8 years at the Schools in Gagetown and Shilo and did not receive any credit for it toward LDA. :'(  My points were that if people are currently spending time in the field in a "non-operational" unit they are still entitled to Casual LDA when they get their boots dirty for more than 24 hours at a time.  It is the unit's role that dictates LDA or CLDA for the field time rather than the frequency, mosquitoes, weather, dust or location. AND If you are spending a lot of time in the field while at the school you should have a nice windfall from the large influx of CLDA! ;D


----------



## SeanNewman (13 May 2010)

CLDA is better than nothing, but nowhere near as much as LDA itself (especially at the higher incentives).

And as you mentioned, the double-whammy is that you don't get the points, either...so when you do go back to an LDA unit you're only make $450/mo now instead of $600 for example.


----------



## Strike (13 May 2010)

Petamocto said:
			
		

> My friend, times are a-changin'.
> 
> Our grandparents saved 10%, our parents broken even, and this generation spends 10%+ more than what they make.



That is a poor argument -- because our generation has to have bigger houses, cars, tv's, etc, is the only reason that "we" are spending 10% more than what we make.  By the way, allowances aside, equivalent jobs on civvie side are paid less than military so if a military person is finding themselves in the situation above they should probably be talking to a financial advisor.


----------



## SeanNewman (13 May 2010)

Strike said:
			
		

> That is a poor argument -- because our generation has to have bigger houses, cars, tv's, etc, is the only reason that "we" are spending 10% more than what we make.



I don't think our generation needs those things anymore than previous generations.  Nothing requires a soccer mom to have a $60,000 SUV to bring her one kid to soccer practice.

And I have already stated that we are very well-paid as-is.  

You are absolutely correct that a lot of people need financial advice, but that is of epidemic proportions in NA and not just military-wide.  

I hate to say this, but luckily the government is protecting "us" from our own stupidity by tightening mortgage rules to not allow people to buy things they can't afford.  Sadly if left to our own devices the common Canadian will debt themselves into bankruptcy or at minimum spend half their income on interest.


----------



## Strike (13 May 2010)

Petamocto said:
			
		

> I don't think our generation needs those things anymore than previous generations.  Nothing requires a soccer mom to have a $60,000 SUV to bring her one kid to soccer practice.



Okay.  Perhaps I should have put quotes around "has," as in, "our generation "has" to have bigger houses, cars, tv's, etc."  I didn't mean that society has to have these things in a literal sense.

It is because of this "need" to out-do the Jones' that people keep buying bigger and more expensive.  I'm sorry, but if some MP comes along and starts winging about being out a few hundred bucks a month when they are driving an Escalade and living in a 350+ house I will have no sympathy what so ever.  (Not saying that anyone is. Just saying that I will be right annoyd if they do.)


----------



## MP 811 (13 May 2010)

Petamocto said:
			
		

> 6491 1 MILITARY POLICE UNIT DETACHMENT WINNIPEG



Didnt know the det at Winnipeg fell under 1MPU?......is this the reserve plt?


----------



## SeanNewman (13 May 2010)

You're asking the wrong person, my friend.  All I did was a direct copy/paste of the DND website that shows who is entitled to all allowances and who isn't (not just LDA, but Sea Pay, Para allowance, etc).


----------



## lawandorder (13 May 2010)

The platoon in Winnipeg is the Reserve Platoon.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (13 May 2010)

Law & Order said:
			
		

> The platoon in Winnipeg is the Reserve Platoon.



I wasn't aware any Reserve units were allowed LDA anyway.


----------



## Nfld Sapper (13 May 2010)

recceguy said:
			
		

> I wasn't aware any Reserve units were allowed LDA anyway.



AFAIK we are entitled to CLDA......


----------



## MP 811 (14 May 2010)

recceguy said:
			
		

> I wasn't aware any Reserve units were allowed LDA anyway.



Neither did I.


----------



## Dissident (14 May 2010)

We were getting LDA for days spent in the field (week ends), which was just clawed back on this paycheck.

Going down the list I see all the reserve field platoon from 15 MP Coy UICs, including mine. Winnipeg, Calgary, Vancouver. Interestingly, HQ does not seem to be on that list.


----------



## lawandorder (16 May 2010)

The reserve MP units melded at different times depending on to the area in to one unit.   A "Total Force" concept.  The 3 reserve units in LFCA fall under the same CoC as the Regular Force.  For LFCA it was 2MPU.  2MPU was given LDA so that meant any Class B within that Org got it.  I'd assume it was the same for 1MPU and 5MPU.

Now just those MP's employed in Edmonton, Val Cartier, and Petawawa will be granted the LDA as the belief is that there is so much back and forth between the Detachments and Platoon.  Probably for the best.


----------



## Greymatters (18 May 2010)

Strike said:
			
		

> It is because of this "need" to out-do the Jones' that people keep buying bigger and more expensive.  I'm sorry, but if some MP comes along and starts winging about being out a few hundred bucks a month when they are driving an Escalade and living in a 350+ house I will have no sympathy what so ever.  (Not saying that anyone is. Just saying that I will be right annoyd if they do.)



Its more of a warped sense of what is needed versus what they actually need; like a husband/wife/1child combo thinking they need a 3000 sqft four bedroom-three bath house.  No sense of reality +no financial common sense +financial organizations providing advice that benefits them and not the consumer.  

If you complete twenty years of service, you should also have a house thats paid for.  Most military members who retire dont.  Repeating the previous comment, your house payments should be based on your base salary, not the amount the bank is willing to loan you based on your annual income.  And once youve got that loan, dont go out and buy one or two high-end vehicles.  Its a common mistake not only for military memebrs but for a large number of average Canadians.  

Back to the issue, is the loss of LDA really a big issue?  Have that many MPs taken it as something they deserve rather than a perk that could go away at any time?


----------



## Strike (18 May 2010)

Greymatters said:
			
		

> Back to the issue, is the loss of LDA really a big issue?  Have that many MPs taken it as something they deserve rather than a perk tjhat could go away at any time?



If their reaction to this thread is any indication, they're all probably not going to worry about it too much.


----------



## MP 811 (18 May 2010)

+1 Strike, personally, I could care less about LDA.


----------



## lawandorder (20 May 2010)

I saw it as bonus and put most of it away.  I haven't heard anyone truly complain yet.


----------

