# Pay Increase



## jc5778 (10 Feb 2005)

Hey, why not.  Thought we might as well amuse ourselves while waiting..........................  :dontpanic:


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (10 Feb 2005)

you suck


----------



## Morgs (10 Feb 2005)

CFL said:
			
		

> you suck



Haha!  ;D


----------



## childs56 (10 Feb 2005)

why do we want a pay raise, lets take those millions of dollars and put it into bullets and fuel so we can train better. Damn we already get paid well for what we do.  
On a side note I figure it will be the 6.6% hopefully not a penny less. and then the 2.4%  01april. cheers


----------



## silentbutdeadly (10 Feb 2005)

i agree with the fuel and bullets and equipment idea , but at least maybe not tax us as much and i think people would be happier with what they  have now.


----------



## RCA (10 Feb 2005)

Again this fanning the rumour mill and creating undue speculation. Can't anyone be patient anymore. 

Fact - what ever the raise will be, you will receive back pay from 1 Apr 04.

Fact - you will also receive a raise 1 Apr 05.

Fact - The announcement will be made sometime.

Fact - You can't spend money you don't have

Anything over 2% count as gravy. The public contract was settled for something like 9-10% over 4 yrs. You figure it out.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (10 Feb 2005)

While saying that it would be better to give our raises for _bullets and training_ have you guys stopped a minute to actually think about that? Shake your heads....while an admirable statement  :  have you looked at the prices of things these days?I don't think you have.  Gas keeps going up as does food, rent etc etc etc. Some of us have families and some of us have bills it would actually be nice to get a little ahead these days and have a little left over.


----------



## S McKee (10 Feb 2005)

6.6, 6.5% pay raise!?!      Where are you guys getting these fiqures from? It would be great but I'm not holding my breath.   :-\


----------



## jc5778 (10 Feb 2005)

keep in mind I'm doing this purely out of evil fascination......I too, am hoping for the best, but after enough years in this man's army, I know better!  I'm just curious what the realistic expectations are for most of us! >


----------



## perry (10 Feb 2005)

I'm thinking that this pay raise and retro-pay is a lot of hype, lets just wait til we get the raise  and the money is in our hands.


----------



## sapper13 (10 Feb 2005)

Here is what is going around right now about the payraise


----------



## Michael OLeary (10 Feb 2005)

Looks like that same unsubstantiated spreadsheet that's been circulating. And still no CANFORGEN. Please stop speculating and spreading rumours until the official message is released.


----------



## WATCHDOG-81 (10 Feb 2005)

Well, it looks like someone spent a lot of time on this, however, they neglected the spec trades as well as the breakdown of the officer classifications (GSO/Pilot/Medical/Etc.)   WAIT FOR THE CANFORGEN!!!!!!


----------



## Armymedic (10 Feb 2005)

hey, not like we are not being adequately paid now.....no?

matters not the %, 10-12 months back pay still equals an nice chuck. It would be nice to put into 2004 RRSP, but that doesn't look realistic.


----------



## Navalsnpr (10 Feb 2005)

Armymedic said:
			
		

> It would be nice to put into 2004 RRSP, but that doesn't look realistic.



Would be nice... doubt it will arrive before the cut off!!


----------



## Big Foot (10 Feb 2005)

Hmmm, that spreadsheet also makes no mention of us lowly officer cadets. Oh well, gotta wait for the CANFORGEN.


----------



## CdnArtyWife (11 Feb 2005)

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> While saying that it would be better to give our raises for _bullets and training_ have you guys stopped a minute to actually think about that? Shake your heads....while an admirable statement   :   have you looked at the prices of things these days?I don't think you have.   Gas keeps going up as does food, rent etc etc etc. Some of us have families and some of us have bills it would actually be nice to get a little ahead these days and have a little left over.



And some of us are just looking forward to being able to pay all the bills in a month without having to rob Peter to pay Paul.


----------



## camochick (11 Feb 2005)

Ok everyone is going to yell at me for this but i'm going to say it anyhow. I am not in the military but I am a tax payer and i would love to see the military get more funding before i see them get a pay raise. There are not many jobs you can go into without any post secondary education and make the kind of money our soldiers make. My father made less than a private does now a days when he retired ten years ago(when he was a private my mother made more working in a hospital cafeteria). Yes , there has been inflation in the price of gas, food etc.But being in the military isnt sapposed to be about the pay. I know plenty of non military families who get by on a lot less than military families do and they make out just fine. I think definately we should be spending more on the actual funding of the military before a pay increase.


----------



## bridges (11 Feb 2005)

That's what I like about this forum - free speech!   BTW Camochick, did you know that the military pay raise follows directly from the public service pay raise?   The question about salary increases vs. the money being better spent (or not) on other things is government-wide, not just DND.   Believe me, the vast majority of military members, in my experience anyway, recognize that their salaries are decent in comparison to much of society.   A lot of military mbrs spend a lot of time away from their families for the sake of their country, so I hope people don't begrudge us the government-wide pay increase when it does come.

Re:


> Please stop speculating and spreading rumours until the official message is released.



IMHO, it's not too surprising that people are amusing themselves by speculating, in the complete absence of any official info for almost two months now!   It's just human nature; why not let them have a little fun in the meantime if they're so inclined?   I think everyone recognizes it for what it is:   just rumour and speculation.   In the meantime, it's a relatively harmless outlet for the questions that most of us have been asking since last April.


----------



## zero-five-two (11 Feb 2005)

Camochick;

Yes, the military is paid very well. However I make no apologies for pulling in a good wage and not having a post secondary education. It was a matter of choice. Also, I believe that as a middle class citizen, we are always looking to make our lives a little less burdensome financially. We live in a world where a pro hockey player holds out for an extra million on top of 4 or 5 he already has. I don't think an extra 2.5% is too much to expect on a yearly basis. That is my opinion on the matter. You put forth a good argument though so I don't think anyone will "yell" at you.


----------



## 404SqnAVSTeach (11 Feb 2005)

bridges said:
			
		

> IMHO, it's not too surprising that people are amusing themselves by speculating, in the complete absence of any official info for almost two months now!  It's just human nature; why not let them have a little fun in the meantime if they're so inclined?  I think everyone recognizes it for what it is:  just rumour and speculation.  In the meantime, it's a relatively harmless outlet for the questions that most of us have been asking since last April.



What made things worse this time is that famous speadsheet.  I bet the leadership is having a big laugh.  Probably waiting for the troops to calm down before annoucing anything.


----------



## bridges (11 Feb 2005)

Yeah, that spreadsheet....joke's on us all, eh?    

Well, I think that if there were going to be a significant delay, they would have sent another CFG to advise us of that - so perhaps no news is good news right now.  I wouldn't be surprised if the CFG were ready & awaiting signature as we speak.  

Well, back to work - thanks for the coffee break chat!


----------



## AmmoTech90 (11 Feb 2005)

What I find very Dilbertesq about the whole spreadsheet fiasco was that widespread emails were sent instructing pers to destroy all copies of the spreadsheet.  These destruction emails had the spreadsheet attached... ???  :


----------



## 404SqnAVSTeach (11 Feb 2005)

AmmoTech90 said:
			
		

> What I find very Dilbertesq about the whole spreadsheet fiasco was that widespread emails were sent instructing pers to destroy all copies of the spreadsheet.  These destruction emails had the spreadsheet attached... ???  :



That is hillarious... I missed that email.  That speadsheet is still going around. :  I got it yesterday(again), except that the original message is missing, so now people probably will take this as face value.  email is awsome, but it has its drawbacks also.


----------



## Navalsnpr (11 Feb 2005)

Someone emailed me this at work today... Thought it was funny due to the long....drawn out debate regarding the pay raise:

Pay Increase

Need power point to view.


----------



## Wizard of OZ (11 Feb 2005)

camochick said:
			
		

> Ok everyone is going to yell at me for this but i'm going to say it anyhow. I am not in the military but I am a tax payer and i would love to see the military get more funding before i see them get a pay raise. There are not many jobs you can go into without any post secondary education and make the kind of money our soldiers make. My father made less than a private does now a days when he retired ten years ago(when he was a private my mother made more working in a hospital cafeteria). Yes , there has been inflation in the price of gas, food etc.But being in the military isnt sapposed to be about the pay. I know plenty of non military families who get by on a lot less than military families do and they make out just fine. I think definately we should be spending more on the actual funding of the military before a pay increase.



But in today's military it is not what it used to be.  PMQ are run down and shacks aren't what they should be.  Most bases are near large urban centers where rent is much more expensive.  And even when they move a base to a smaller community that community raises its prices to take adavantage of the new cash flow.  I agree we need more and better equipment but we have to keep the guys who are using it happy as well.


----------



## garb811 (11 Feb 2005)

Camochick, while I also don't disagree with the sentiment:

I guess it depends on what you consider to be a post-secondary education.   My estimate is by the time the average Infanteer makes it through battle school they've done more man-hours of work to get there than someone who's done a two year college course.   Throw in all of the courses we take over the course of a career and you're quite likely up to about 3 complete calendar years of dedicated â Å“school basedâ ? training by the 20 year mark which is more than what is required to get most undergrad degrees.   These time-lines are guesstimates only, I stand to be corrected if anyone wants to do the actual math.

Some other things to consider:

We are liable for recall 24/7, 365 days a year.   Do this for a civilian employee and you're on overtime, big time overtime.   For most this isn't a huge issue, but if you're in the Immediate Reaction Unit for example, this can have a huge impact on what you can do on your free time for pretty significant stretches.   Through in sundry unit and base duties and suddenly your â Å“free timeâ ? is significantly less free.

We get paid the same whether we work 7.5 hours a day or 24 hours a day.   Having said that, we'd also get the same $$ if we worked 2 hours a day...

Even on Annual leave we must provide contact information where we can be reached.   We can be ordered back from said leave.   If we are on Annual leave and we become aware of a â Å“National Emergencyâ ? it is our duty to immediately contact the nearest Unit, Base or if we're out of the country, Embassy, to report our location and get instructions on how to proceed.

If we wish to proceed outside of our place of duty (usually defined as a circle with a radius of 50 km or so from your place of duty) we technically require a leave pass, even if it is during the evening or weekend.

We do have allowances to compensate us for unusual conditions of work (Sea Pay, Field Operations Allowance, Aircrew etc), but they generally work out to be less than $1 per hour and this money is taxed.   Ironically we would make more money going on course and living in barracks...oh, and for some reason this money isn't taxed, probably because every other government employee gets it as well when they go away on business.

Even when not on tour we get sent all over the country on individual and/or unit tasks for months at a time.   As it is only TD, you are not entitled to bring your family.   Although there are provisions to get back to visit, it's just not the same as you being there, particularly from your spouse's viewpoint when s/he is dealing with all of the family issues when you're on the other side of the country.

We get called out when the river breaks its banks, the Ice Storm hits, the mountainsides erupt into flame, Toronto gets a bit of snow or a hurricane hits and we get the honour and privilege of assisting civilian workers who are quite likely at triple time.   Lets not mention the New York Power workers who got $2000 vacations to Quebec in appreciation...on top of their pay.   In case you're wondering, I seem to recall us Army guys got FOA for helping out, which I believe was about $11/day at that time.

I've been posted 10 times in 19 years, mostly to places I wouldn't dream of living on my own but fortunately I haven' t had a say in the matter as each and every one of those has been a fantastic experience.    But how do you compensate someone for moving your family away from their family and friends?   What about the effect of moving children from one province's education system to another to another?   What about those cases where a Franco family gets posted to Vancouver or an Anglo family goes to Valcartier and the spouse is unilingual?  What about the effect upon a spouse who is trying to build a career, unless they are lucky enough to get into the Public Service?

Perhaps most importantly we face â Å“ultimate liabilityâ ?.   No one else in Canada can be ordered into a situation where the likely outcome is death and be liable to judicial punishment for refusing to obey that order.   This includes civilian fire fighters and police.   Although most Canadians believe the Death penalty was abolished in 1976, it might be interesting to know that it was kept on the books in the NDA until 1998 for offences such as â Å“failure to diligently carry out an operation of war, when so orderedâ ? and â Å“cowardice before the enemyâ ?.

I'm sure there are a gazzilion other issues but I'm sure you get my drift.

Having said all that, if it wasn't for the family, I'd do this for free R&Q and enough money to pay for a car and a new computer every two years because you're right, I didn't join for the money.


----------



## zero-five-two (11 Feb 2005)

Extremely well-put


----------



## camochick (12 Feb 2005)

Ok, I do have to say you have some valid points in your post  MP 00161 .I hope no one thought i was refering to military people as uneducated, when i talked about post secondary, i just meant its a good paying job without having to attend post secondary. The thing is, that even though you are getting an education through your military training, you are not paying for that education, and you are being paid to get the training. I think many students, if not all ,would love to have free education and get paid to do it. 
   My biggest problem with your whole argument is that you signed up for this. You knew you would be on call, that you would have to live in places you might not want to, that you would have to go to places where you could be injured or killed.
   I dont disagree with the fact that our soldiers should be paid for their hard work. I just think that everyone bitches and moans about funding for the military and yet they all want a pay raise. The money could be better spent on the equipment and such. 
   I guess i see lots of civilian families doing well for themselves on the same money military families have and i can't figure out what makes them any different. 
   I think that there has to be a line when it comes to military pay, you can't pay too little or people won't join and you can't pay too much or else you get too many people joining for the money.


----------



## big_johnson1 (12 Feb 2005)

Maybe we should stop wasting the money we already get before we ask for more (the military I mean).. And I don't mean wasting on training or bullets or any of that, I mean the politics that drain us dry. It's unfortunate that at the highest levels of government it's no longer business but politics.


----------



## KevinB (12 Feb 2005)

Camochick,

You missed the point - myself and most other Infanteers would prefer to have the money (that will get taken out of the fixed budget$) into trg rather than salary - most of us joined to do the job not sit back play cards or otherwise find some synonym for sticking one finger in their arse.   However this is not a CF pay raise but a Civil Service one - one that we are slaved to since we don't have any bargaining ability.

 I dont see anyone at work as here for the $, especially when you factor the conditions we work in...
   Its the buddies and the job, nothign more.


----------



## camochick (12 Feb 2005)

I can't even get on the topic of the civil service without wanting to freak out. They are the most overpaid , underworked bunch of babies I have ever seen.  >
   I know that when they get a raise you get one too and I am not saying that people are only in the military for the money. I am sure there are a few but most of the people I have encountered have all been in it for the job and the friends like you have said. 
  I guess in my opinion military personnel are paid adequately and maybe its not the pay but their lifestyles that make their financial situations hard for themselves ( I am not implying this for everyone) I dunno.


----------



## SHELLDRAKE!! (12 Feb 2005)

Camochick, I am thinking maybee your perception of the current state of members of the CF is a little off.Try looking at the military members as individuals and not a group.These days a single private fresh out of high school with no bills does make it appear that with little education,he/she has a heck of alot of drinking money.But in the same recruiting sweep, a 38 year old father of four with a doctorate, gets in and tries to make ends meet.I can honestly say I have yet to meet anyone who joined for the money.Just my 2 cents.


----------



## 54/102 CEF (12 Feb 2005)

So - the info gathering on htis thread is very Rear Echelon. When and how much?

Get me some news - or invent some!

Signed
Director General Public Affairs  8)


----------



## Inch (12 Feb 2005)

camochick, this isn't a payraise per se, it's a cost of living raise. It matches inflation and whatever the civil servants get. If we didn't get them, you'd be hard pressed to even live since inflation is in the neighbourhood of 1% a year. We haven't had a cost of living increase since 2001 IIRC, thus inflation has gone up about 4%, probably more, and we've made the same money, so as far as purchasing power goes, we make less now than we did 4 years ago. Everybody gets cost of living increases, even minimum wage burger flippers, how do you think minimum wage got to $7/hr? 

Also, that money for the raise doesn't come out of the military budget, it's added to our budget to cover the raise. So even with the pay raise, we're not getting any less funding for beans or bullets. They're not related.


----------



## jc5778 (12 Feb 2005)

MP 00161 said:
			
		

> Camochick, while I also don't disagree with the sentiment:
> 
> I guess it depends on what you consider to be a post-secondary education.  My estimate is by the time the average Infanteer makes it through battle school they've done more man-hours of work to get there than someone who's done a two year college course.  Throw in all of the courses we take over the course of a career and you're quite likely up to about 3 complete calendar years of dedicated â Å“school basedâ ? training by the 20 year mark which is more than what is required to get most undergrad degrees.  These time-lines are guesstimates only, I stand to be corrected if anyone wants to do the actual math.
> 
> ...


wow, very well put.  Enough said on that.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (12 Feb 2005)

See what you started.


----------



## NCRCrow (12 Feb 2005)

Canada above self


----------



## jc5778 (12 Feb 2005)

lol, i know.  It makes for good conversation though, especially when civilians think they have a shmick about our lives. :warstory:


----------



## CdnArtyWife (12 Feb 2005)

> My biggest problem with your whole argument is that you signed up for this. You knew you would be on call, that you would have to live in places you might not want to, that you would have to go to places where you could be injured or killed.




Yes, we knew what we signed up for, but that is not reason to esentially tell military families to "put up or shut up".

My family (my hubby, myself and my children) has had the pleasure of existing both as civilians trying to cut it working in the education system, and now as a military family. Both my hubby and I agree, that when he swore in and signed on the dotted line, so did I - in invisible ink. We both were very aware as to what our sacrifices would be (ranging from my hubby not able to be at the birth of his first born, not meeting him till he was 2 months old - to having to meet in clandestine so that I could take his kit home and wash it for him while he was on course). Knowing does not make it any easier. I am so tired of hearing civilians judge military families for complaining. I was civilian, I used to judge, I am now ashamed that I ever did. The military life is vastly different from that of civilian life....I have lived both, I can attest, and until you have lived it, you will never fully understand.

We are one of those mature families with kids, barely able to make the ends meet. Would I trade it? Hell NO! The experience, and the people have helped me grow in ways I cannot describe. As for the raise, bring it on, a cost of living raise, just might cover the increase in both rent and insurance rates that we have experienced over the last 4 years.

I appologize now, for anyone that I may have offended with my rant, but I needed to get that off of my chest. Thanks for letting me vent.


----------



## Michael OLeary (12 Feb 2005)

7 - 10 days said:
			
		

> lol, i know.  It makes for good conversation though, especially when civilians think they have a shmick about our lives. :warstory:



Let them do the math comparing a pay increase of a few percentage against putting our pay on a "civilian" footing and paying overtime.  I know one gentleman who retired from the Navy and was employed as a civilian inspector at Halifax Dockyard. Because of his unique skills and experience, there was a requirement for him to sail for a week on  one of the Oberon subs, for which received his basic wage for 8 hours per day, time and a half for the next eight hours, and double time for the third eight hours - all based on the consideration that simply being there denied him any civilian equivalent of the off-duty chance to remove himself from the workplace and its hazards.

Even with our current "parity" with the civil service wage structure, service mebers are cheap by any comparative estimate based on what a civilian would expect for similar workplace demands. And in a world where an auto mechanic can charge $60 per hour, any argument that soldiers are overpaid because they may only have a high schol education is fallacious.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (12 Feb 2005)

Michael,
...a very good point that I wanted to post last night, but hey my shift was up! ;D
I would be making about the same money[base] that I would be making if I were still in, the big difference is, tonight I'm staying 4 hours over my shift and will make the same amount of money that I would make by spending 10 days in the field  ,and if they told you to stay 4 hours extra tonight what would you get?.....4 hours less with your family.

To me that is the BIG difference, I know my days off for the next year, if need be, I can earn extra money, most military personall cannot, therefore if you have not lived the life, do not think for a second these men and women are overpaid.


----------



## Sapper6 (12 Feb 2005)

MP 00161 said:
			
		

> Perhaps most importantly we face â Å“ultimate liabilityâ ?.   No one else in Canada can be ordered into a situation where the likely outcome is death and be liable to judicial punishment for refusing to obey that order.   This includes civilian fire fighters and police.



Agreed.  It all comes down to "ultimate liability".   How does one put a wage on the price of duty?   IMHO we all get paid reasonably well for what we do in general; however, the soldiers who die from friendly fire, mine strikes, fighting fires on subs, or lost a hand touching wires underwater during the Red River floods - didn't serve their country for a weekly paycheque.

It may not be the perfect system but pay comparibility to the Public Service is reasonable until a better model comes along.  

S6


----------



## Gunner98 (12 Feb 2005)

Folks...Let's use the correct terminology - it is Unlimited Liability - and no - we don't get paid extra for it.  We accept it when we take the Oath of Allegiance.  Risk and Hardship allowances have been added and increased to account for this.  Not all of us are called daily to risk life or kill others in the line of duty.  But by taking the oath, we accept that we may be called to do so according to law (NDA).

Background from Somalia Inquiry docs at http://www.dnd.ca/somalia/vol1/v1c5e.htm :

"Moreover, the service to be performed by Canada's military is total, involving what British General Sir John Hackett has called the "clause of unlimited liability" -- or loss of life: 

The essential basis of military life is the ordered application of force under an unlimited liability. It is the unlimited liability, which sets the man who embraces this life somewhat apart. He will be (or should be) always a citizen. So long as he serves he will never be a civilian.

The concept of unlimited liability in defence of national interests distinguishes members of the military profession from other professions. Furthermore, the military allows for the lawful killing of others in the performance of duty. Moreover, the responsibility of military leadership permits the sacrifice of soldiers' lives in order to achieve military objectives. The stark and brutal reality of these differences from normal society has traditionally been a distinguishing feature of military life, contributing to a sense of separateness -- even superiority -- in relation to the civilian population.

Ultimate liability is what the Crown takes for actions while in uniform under the Crown Liability Act.  Nuff said...carry on.


----------



## Sapper6 (12 Feb 2005)

Gunner98 said:
			
		

> Folks...Let's use the correct terminology - it is Unlimited Liability - and no - we don't get paid extra for it.   We accept it when we take the Oath of Allegiance.   Risk and Hardship allowances have been added and increased to account for this.   Not all of us are called daily to risk life or kill others in the line of duty.   But by taking the oath, we accept that we may be called to do so according to law (NDA).



Gunner98,

You are absolutely correct.  Being Army staffed trained, I'm embarrassed that I didn't catch that one... too quick to push send I guess.  Thanks for the correction.

Sapper6


----------



## 54/102 CEF (12 Feb 2005)

Ref unlimited liability 

I think that`s been discredited - there are risks but to say that its unlimited is not really true - it might have been true for the human wave attacks of 1914 but its not today.

If the government dleays equpt replacements and underfunds DND - the frontline troops risk goes way up sooner or later.


----------



## Michael OLeary (12 Feb 2005)

54/102 CEF said:
			
		

> Ref unlimited liability
> 
> I think that`s been discredited - there are risks but to say that its unlimited is not really true - it might have been true for the human wave attacks of 1914 but its not today.
> 
> If the government dleays equpt replacements and underfunds DND - the frontline troops risk goes way up sooner or later.



How exactly has the concept that a member of the Canadian Forces may be ordered into a area or situation where the course of their duties may result in injury or loss of life been "discredited"?


----------



## Chief Clerk (12 Feb 2005)

Bullets dont put food on the table, or pay for your kids education.  If we keep telling everyone we are WELL paid - we will revert back to the days when we were NOT paid well (some of us certainly recall those days - where putting food on the table was far from as easy as it is today
). Some of us actually work well past what the Govt pay us! Not saying we are POOR by any means, but keep telling the public your well paid and we will revert to the GOOD (BAD) old days of little to very poor pay.


----------



## S McKee (12 Feb 2005)

Chief Clerk said:
			
		

> Bullets dont put food on the table, or pay for your kids education.   If we keep telling everyone we are WELL paid - we will revert back to the days when we were NOT paid well (some of us certainly recall those days - where putting food on the table was far from as easy as it is today
> ). Some of us actually work well past what the Govt pay us! Not saying we are POOR by any means, but keep telling the public your well paid and we will revert to the GOOD (BAD) old days of little to very poor pay.



Agreed! I remember the "good bad ole days" too, paycheck to paycheck no pay raise. The Queen gets her monies worth out of me. J


----------



## 54/102 CEF (12 Feb 2005)

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> How exactly has the concept that a member of the Canadian Forces may be ordered into a area or situation where the course of their duties may result in injury or loss of life been "discredited"?



Michael - I didn't talk about any concepts - I said unlimited liability isn't - and if I had the time I could show you where this term has been dredged up from old time Brit terminology - but I don't right now - but will keep an eye out for the ref (I was a bit amazed to see it played down the way it has been - but don't take my word for it - but just that clue should help you on your search for any concepts you may be interested in.) My point is - its been rejected elsewhere and as you'll see below - has been clearly rejected in Canada as it applies to the military

Its like this

The government says send troops

DND sends the troops the government says send - DND having previously trained the troops to their usual high standards 

The government accepts the risk there may be losses - the troops accept the pay and benefits 

You may say not so - we do it for our buddies - that is true but they also do it at a handsome wage while they are gone.

Don`t add in anything but the facts here. No one forces anyone to go into the military.

In the book CARNAGE AND CULTURE by Victor Davis Hanson ISBN: 0385720386 - published 2002 he makes the observation that western armies are Mercenary (think OPERATIONAL PAY AND TAX FREE PAY AND LTA AND WIFE COMES TO VISIT YOU) 

vs. WW1, WW2 and Korea and the grasping existence of short service troops of those eras.

Still not convinced? Get the book. 

Still not convinced? Why after all these years does the government equate DND pay with the civil service?

In the view of the Crown - the all seeing all powerful self that is our government that can have Gene Cretin get off scot free for spreading the pork to his buddies - let Jane Stewart spread the pork to her buddies - let the gun control program spread pork to their buddies - pay RCMP constables a princes wage to start as patrolmen - 

The lowly soldier who has more destructive power at his finger tips than ever in our history 

Is just a civil servant.

Still disagree? Defence minister rips military policy paper as 'dreck', demands rewrite
STEPHEN THORNE, Canadian Press

OTTAWA (CP) - Defence Minister Bill Graham has tossed out initial drafts of the department's comprehensive policy review, calling it "dreadful dreck" and demanding a clear bold vision.

Graham's frustration shows how difficult it can be to propel conservative generals and defence bureaucrats in a radically new direction, particularly in a minority government. Policy-makers at National Defence had been labouring on a blueprint for the future of Canada's military for almost a year when Graham arrived there in July.

DND has no friends http://news.channels.aol.ca/news/article.adp?id=20050211165809990018 until the roof falls in

Tommy this and Tommy that ..............


----------



## camochick (12 Feb 2005)

CdnArtyWife said:
			
		

> Yes, we knew what we signed up for, but that is not reason to esentially tell military families to "put up or shut up".
> 
> My family (my hubby, myself and my children) has had the pleasure of existing both as civilians trying to cut it working in the education system, and now as a military family. Both my hubby and I agree, that when he swore in and signed on the dotted line, so did I - in invisible ink. We both were very aware as to what our sacrifices would be (ranging from my hubby not able to be at the birth of his first born, not meeting him till he was 2 months old - to having to meet in clandestine so that I could take his kit home and wash it for him while he was on course). Knowing does not make it any easier. I am so tired of hearing civilians judge military families for complaining. I was civilian, I used to judge, I am now ashamed that I ever did. The military life is vastly different from that of civilian life....I have lived both, I can attest, and until you have lived it, you will never fully understand.
> 
> ...




I agree that the military should be paid well enough to support their families. I am alos not your average civilian, since I grew up in the military and have had ties to it since birth. I am way more knowledgable than most civilians and I am not judging the military by any means. I am a huge supporter and I plan on dedicating my career to making the general population aware of the issues surrounding the military. Do I have more to learn, of course I do, I am learning more and more everyday. Great the military is getting a pay raise, I am glad, of course people should be able to support their families. But I know the pay scales and who makes what and I happen to think that it is adequate, but some don't. I was mearly expressing an opinion and I am glad that so many have responded with well thought out rebuttals.


----------



## Michael OLeary (12 Feb 2005)

54/102,

despite opinions on the semantic accuracy of the phrase "unlimited liability" it remains the term in common usage describing that aspect of a soldier's (sailors' or airman's) duties that he/she may expect that they can be directed into acivities that may result in their death or injury, while other "government employees" have stringent regulations to protect themselves from any similar such conditions. That aspect, regardless of its veracity or applicability across trades, ranks and units, is one factor that deserves some small measure of consideration in the development of equitable reimbursement for the contracted "labour." While the individual's motivation may be to "fight with his buddies" or to receive a well-appointed salary and benefits package, in a volunteer force if we depended solely on the first to bring candidates in the door, our current recruiting problems would be a shadow of their potential conditions, even if accepting the latter is to result in some considering the modern soldier to be a mercenary by definition.


----------



## 54/102 CEF (12 Feb 2005)

"Deserves consideration" is not strong enough - I suspect if more people knew the conditions the active force serves in - as reserves may do the same job in Canada but are not paid the same - then the pay for the active force might be significantly higher than RCMP wage scales.

The public can see an RCMP or OPP cleaning up the aftermath of a car crashs - or nasty public safety events - but the public rarely sees the solders do their thing. 

Hence - out of sight - out of mind.

Its not right - but I suspect it`s how it is.


----------



## Pte. Bloggins (13 Feb 2005)

Does anyone know how the pay raise will affect reservists? (ie. do we just get a 6.5%-or whatever the magic number is- more on our day/half-day's pay? I'm guessing that's what it is...


----------



## perry (13 Feb 2005)

We will get our retro pay per each day worked and half of that for each  half day worked


----------



## Navalsnpr (13 Feb 2005)

Check out the CF Personnel Newsletter:

2004 pay increases delay


----------



## Spooks (13 Feb 2005)

CdnArtyWife said:
			
		

> Yes, we knew what we signed up for, but that is not reason to esentially tell military families to "put up or shut up".
> 
> My family (my hubby, myself and my children) has had the pleasure of existing both as civilians trying to cut it working in the education system, and now as a military family. Both my hubby and I agree, that when he swore in and signed on the dotted line, so did I - in invisible ink. We both were very aware as to what our sacrifices would be (ranging from my hubby not able to be at the birth of his first born, not meeting him till he was 2 months old - to having to meet in clandestine so that I could take his kit home and wash it for him while he was on course). Knowing does not make it any easier. I am so tired of hearing civilians judge military families for complaining. I was civilian, I used to judge, I am now ashamed that I ever did. The military life is vastly different from that of civilian life....I have lived both, I can attest, and until you have lived it, you will never fully understand.
> 
> ...



Cost of living raise? It's not hard to raise people on the wages we get. With all the extra pay we get (some of it even non taxable) we make over enough. Field pay, seperation pay, hazard pay - all things that get added on. I was raised in a single-parent household of three boys on an income of not even half of what I make at the moment. We paid the same rent, paid same for food and we lived okay. There is even the extra pay you get in the military based on your location and the average cost of living there.

I am very lucky to be in this job, with the little skillbase that I have and make as much as I do. You know what I believe would be far more beneficial to the military than a 'cost of living pay' increase? Dump ALL of that money into training, into equipment, into things that benefit the Forces as a whole. We, as a Canadian society, complain that the CF doesn't have any transport aircraft to move our troops, or how we have to use green camo in a brown desert, or having to shout 'bang bang' at EN force because we don't have enough ammunition to train with. Dump every single last penny of the 'raise' into things like that and bulk up our abilities. That would make our job a lot more enjoyable knowing that we are A) Using our time wisely rather than 'wasting it on another make-work task' B) Increase our skills so there is a smaller chance that Johnny will die because of a lack of training that would have kept him alive, and C) Be recognised on the world stage as an indepedent military that can pull its own weight rather than hopping on the back of other, more well-equipped countries like the US, Britain, or even Russia for that matter.

I would much rather make this job better to be in than being handed more money and told to forget about the issues at hand. 

My 3 rubles
-Spooks


----------



## aesop081 (13 Feb 2005)

CdnArtyWife said:
			
		

> Yes, we knew what we signed up for, but that is not reason to esentially tell military families to "put up or shut up".
> 
> My family (my hubby, myself and my children) has had the pleasure of existing both as civilians trying to cut it working in the education system, and now as a military family. Both my hubby and I agree, that when he swore in and signed on the dotted line, so did I - in invisible ink. We both were very aware as to what our sacrifices would be (ranging from my hubby not able to be at the birth of his first born, not meeting him till he was 2 months old - to having to meet in clandestine so that I could take his kit home and wash it for him while he was on course). Knowing does not make it any easier. I am so tired of hearing civilians judge military families for complaining. I was civilian, I used to judge, I am now ashamed that I ever did. The military life is vastly different from that of civilian life....I have lived both, I can attest, and until you have lived it, you will never fully understand.
> 
> ...



If it is sympathy you are looking for let me tell you that you are SOL.  It was your choice to have children, not the CF's.......you decide how you spend your money, the CF doesent.  I have a raise a family of 4 on a Cpl's salary and managed to own a house in Edmonton, a car and live quite comfortably. My family also managed to live weel during the wage freeze when i was only at private 2 pay.  I suspect that there is a big expensive SUV or truck in your driveway and that you can "barely make ends meet" because you have made a concious choice to live beyond your means. Has your husband been on any tours lately ?  What have you chosen to do with all the extra money ?

We get paid quite well people.  My dad ( a 22-year CF member himself) told me when i joined that i would never be rich in this line of work. It didn't bother me as i got in with the "service before thy self" outlook.  I have paid the price that goes along with that and i still don't care about the money. Remember that we as military pers ( and families by extension) have benefits that go along with our pay that are very expensive on civy street and that not all jobs out there give you those benefits ( medical, dental, paid time off, LTA, MFRC,.......)

Artywife,

I do not sympathise one bit, and i have lived the life so you canot waive that one in my face.  Camochick is a military brat and used to live with me so she knows what the life is and i support her view.


----------



## CdnArtyWife (13 Feb 2005)

aesop081 said:
			
		

> If it is sympathy you are looking for let me tell you that you are SOL.   It was your choice to have children, not the CF's.......you decide how you spend your money, the CF doesent.   I have a raise a family of 4 on a Cpl's salary and managed to own a house in Edmonton, a car and live quite comfortably. My family also managed to live weel during the wage freeze when i was only at private 2 pay.   I suspect that there is a big expensive SUV or truck in your driveway and that you can "barely make ends meet" because you have made a concious choice to live beyond your means. Has your husband been on any tours lately ?   What have you chosen to do with all the extra money ?
> 
> We get paid quite well people.   My dad ( a 22-year CF member himself) told me when i joined that i would never be rich in this line of work. It didn't bother me as i got in with the "service before thy self" outlook.   I have paid the price that goes along with that and i still don't care about the money. Remember that we as military pers ( and families by extension) have benefits that go along with our pay that are very expensive on civy street and that not all jobs out there give you those benefits ( medical, dental, paid time off, LTA, MFRC,.......)
> 
> ...



I am not looking for sympathy, not in the slightest. This life is a choice we made, and we made it proudly.

I could go into the details of our money coming in vs. money going out woes, but I don't need to, you don't want to hear it, no one does, and I don't like to spew it. I will, however, clarify that - no, we do not have a big SUV in the yard....it is a 93 Dodge Shadow with paint flicking off and a MVI rejection sticker on it....and in no condition to drive. My hubby has only been in for 3 years....and only months ago did he finally get out of the training system. He has no tours under his belt, but you can't be deployed if you are not yet operational. He is looking forward to a tour, but money is not the reason, experience, and the sense of duty calls him.

I posted that mostly because I am tired of hearing from people who say they are my supporters (my family) that live in a "military town" who tell me that they are tired of hearing all the (and I quote my sister here) "poor little wives crying boo hoo everytime their hubby is gone for 6 months". I fully appreciate the sacrifices that single parent families make on a daily basis. I too, agree with most of what Camogirl is saying. I would just prefer that if people think that we military folk (members and family alike) are whining and crying about this or that, to please just put theirselves in your/our shoes first, look at it from our point of view, try to empathise. If, after this, they still see it the same way....don't complain to me, and make blanket statements about all military families. I respect everyone's opinion, I may not agree with some, but I still respect them.


----------



## jc5778 (14 Feb 2005)

This potential pay increase is exactly why I chose my handle, remember all those saying the increase would be announce LAST monday?  Yah in 7 - 10 days we will know.  Standard answer, good at any time!!


----------



## George Wallace (14 Feb 2005)

It's more like 7 - 10 months....  ;D

GW


----------



## 043 (14 Feb 2005)

Who cares??? People are still going to piss moan anyways so it doesn't make a difference.


----------



## garb811 (14 Feb 2005)

camochick said:
			
		

> My biggest problem with your whole argument is that you signed up for this. You knew you would be on call, that you would have to live in places you might not want to, that you would have to go to places where you could be injured or killed.
> I dont disagree with the fact that our soldiers should be paid for their hard work. I just think that everyone bitches and moans about funding for the military and yet they all want a pay raise. The money could be better spent on the equipment and such.
> I guess i see lots of civilian families doing well for themselves on the same money military families have and i can't figure out what makes them any different.
> I think that there has to be a line when it comes to military pay, you can't pay too little or people won't join and you can't pay too much or else you get too many people joining for the money.


Have no fear, I knew exactly what I was doing when I signed up 19 years ago.   My issue is when people try to equate a civiilan job with what we do.   We don't do a job, contrary to what too many of "us" feel, we joined an organization which owns us 24/7 and that is a lifestyle all of it's own that can't be compared to anything on civie street, at least IMHO.   Whether or not we are paid adequately for living that lifestyle is always going to be open for debate.  As you can see we can't even agree amongst ourselves.

BTW, any student who wishes to get the free education we offer is more than welcome to walk down to the nearest CFRC, although it will probably be a little light on the humanities for most tastes.


----------



## Inch (15 Feb 2005)

01   01   151335Z FEB 05   RR   RR   UUUU                           	CDS 010

                    NDQH//CDS//
                    CANFORGEN
UNCLAS CANFORGEN 033/05 CDS 010
SIC WAA
BILINGUAL MESSAGE/MESSAGE BILINGUE
SUBJ: FY 04/05 AND 05/06 PAY INCREASES
REF: CANFORGEN 155/04 ADM(HR-MIL) 083 171309Z DEC 04
1. THE MINISTER OF NATIONAL DEFENCE IS PLEASED TO ANNOUNCE THE 
FOLLOWING INCREASES TO PAY AND ENVIRONMENTAL ALLOWANCES
2. *CF NON-COMMISSIONED MEMBERS * 
A. *EFFECTIVE 1 APR 04*
(1) AN ECONOMIC ADJUSTMENT OF *2.25 PERCENT * AND 
(2) AN ADJUSTMENT OF *4.25 PERCENT * TO RESTORE COMPARABILITY WITH THE 
PUBLIC SERVICE (PS)
(3) EXAMPLES OF AMT OF BACK PAY BEFORE DEDUCTIONS.   CPL STD IPC4 
WILL RECEIVE BACK PAY OF APPROX 3120 DOLLARS WHEREAS CWO IPC4 WILL 
RECEIVE APPROX 4824 DOLLARS
B. *EFFECTIVE 1 APR 05 * AN ECONOMIC ADJUSTMENT OF *2.4 PERCENT*
3. *CF GENERAL SERVICE OFFICERS (GSO)/PILOTS (LCOL AND BELOW) AND 
MEDICAL AND DENTAL OFFICERS (LT AND 2LT)* WILL RECEIVE
A. *EFFECTIVE 1 APR 04*
(1) AN ECONOMIC ADJUSTMENT OF *2.25 PERCENT * AND
(2) AN ADJUSTMENT OF *1.03 PERCENT* TO RESTORE COMPARABILITY WITH THE 
PS
(3) EXAMPLES OF BACKPAY BEFORE DEDUCTIONS.   2LT WILL RECEIVE FROM 
1128 DOLLARS TO 2088 DOLLARS, CAPT GSO IPC10 2604 DOLLARS AND LCOL 
GSO IPC4 3288 DOLLARS
B.   *EFFECTIVE 1 APR 05 * 
(1) AN ECONOMIC ADJUSTMENT OF *2.4 PERCENT * AND
(2) THERE ARE STILL A LARGE NUMBER OF LAPSED AGREEMENTS FOR PS 
GROUPS.   SHOULD THE SETTLEMENT RATES FOR LAPSED AGREEMENTS FOR THE 
BENCHMARKED PUBLIC SERVICE GROUPS EVENTUALLY PROVE TO BE HIGHER THAN 
THE PAY ADJUSTMENTS AWARDED TO AFFECTED OFFICERS FOR FISCAL YEARS 
2003/2004, 2004/2005 AND 2005/2006, TB APPROVAL WILL BE SOUGHT TO 
AUTHORIZE LUMP SUMS OF PAY IN THE AMOUNT OF THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN 
THE ECONOMIC INCREASE APPROVED FOR GSOS FOR FY 2005/2006 AND THE 
AMOUNT OF THE PAY ADJUSTMENT THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN APPROVED FOR FY 
2005/2006 HAD THE PUBLIC SERVICE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING PROCESS BEEN 
SUBSTANTIALLY COMPLETED
4. *ENVIRONMENTAL AND SPECIAL ALLOWANCES WILL BE ADJUSTED AS FOLLOWS*
(A) *EFF 1 APR 04 5.68 PERCENT * AND
(B) *EFF 1 APR 05 2.4 PERCENT*
5. *THE ABOVE INCREASES SHOULD BE REFLECTED IN THE END MAR 05 PAY  FOR 
MOST CF MEMBERS * 6. THE REVISED RATES ARE AVAILABLE ON THE DGCB INTERNET SITE AT 
HTTP://WWW.DND.CA/HR/DPPD// AND INTRANET 
HTTP://HR.DWAN.DND.CA/DGCB/DPPD//
END OF ENGLISH TEXT / LE TEXT FRANCAIS SUIT
SUJET: AF 04/05 ET 05/06 AUGMENTATIONS DE LA REMUNERATION FC
REF : CANFORGEN 155/04 ADM (HR-MIL) 083 171309Z DEC 04
1. LE MINISTRE DE LA DEFENSE A LE PLAISIR D ANNONCER LES 
AUGMENTATIONS DE SOLDE ET D INDEMNITES ENVIRONMENTALES SUIVANTES 
POUR LES FC 
2. LES MILITAIRES DU RANG (MR) 
A. EFFECTIF 1 AVR 04
(1) UN RAJUSTEMENT ECONOMIQUE DE 2.25 POURCENT ET
(2) UN AJUSTEMENT DE 4.25 POURCENT AFIN DE RETABLIR LA COMPARABILITE 
DE LA SOLDE AVEC LA FONCTION PUBLIQUE FEDERALE (FPF)
(3) EXEMPLES DE RETROACTIVITE AVANT DEDUCTIONS: CPL STANDARD CPR 4 
RECEVRONT APPROX 3120 DOLLARS, ADJUC CPR 4 RECEVRONT APPROX 4824 
DOLLARS
B. EFFECTIF 1 AVR 05, UN RAJUSTEMENT ECONOMIQUE DE 2.4 POURCENT
3. LES OFFICIERS DU SERVICE GENERAL (OSG)/PILOTES (LCOL ET EN 
DESSOUS) ET LES MEDECINS ET DENTISTES (SLT ET LT) DES FC RECEVRONT
A. EFFECTIF 1 AVR 04
(1) UN RAJUSTEMENT ECONOMIQUE DE 2.25 POURCENT ET
(2) UN AJUSTEMENT DE 1.03 POURCENT AFIN DE RETABLIR LA COMPARABILITE 
DE LA SOLDE AVEC LA FPF
(3) EXEMPLES DE RETROACTIVITE AVANT DEDUCTIONS: 2LT RECEVRONT DE 
1128 DOLLARS A 2088 DOLLARS, CAPT OSG CPR 10 2604 DOLLARS ET LCOL 
OSG CPR 4 3288 DOLLARS
B. EFFECTIF 1 AVR 05
(1) UN RAJUSTEMENT ECONOMIQUE DE 2.4 POURCENT ET 
(2) IL EXISTE UN GRAND NOMBRE DE CONVENTIONS COLLECTIVES QUI NE SONT 
PAS RATIFIEES.   SI LES TAUX DE REGLEMENTS DES CONVENTIONS 
COLLECTIVES PERIMEES POUR LES GROUPES REPERES DE LA FPF S AVERENT 
ETRE PLUS ELEVES QUE LES AJUSTEMENTS DE SOLDE ACCORDES AUX OFFICIERS 
AFFECTES POUR LES ANNEES FINANCIERES 2003-2004, 2004-2005 ET 
2005-2006, UNE APPROBATION DU CONSEIL DU TRESOR SERA DEMANDEE POUR 
AUTORISER UN MONTANT FORFAITAIRE COUVRANT LA DIFFERENCE ENTRE L 
AUGMENTATION ECONOMIQUE APPROUVEE POUR LES OSG POUR L ANNEE 
FINANCIERE 2005-2006 ET L AJUSTEMENT DE SOLDE QUI AURAIT ETE 
APPROUVEE POUR L ANNEE FINANCIERE 2005-2006 SI LE PROCESSUS DE 
NEGOTIATION COLLECTIVE DE LA FONCTION PUBLIQUE AVAIT ETE COMPLETE
4. LES INDEMNITES ENVIRONMENTALES ET SPECIALES SERONT AUGMENTEES DE 
LA FACON SUIVANTE 
A. EFFECTIF 1 AVR 04, 5.68 POURCENT ET
B. EFFECTIF 1 AVR 05, 2.4 POURCENT
5. LA PLUPART DES MIL DES FC RECEVRONT CES AUGMENTATIONS AVEC LA 
SOLDE DE LA FIN MARS 05
6. LES TAUX DE SOLDE REVISES SERONT PUBLIES PAR VOIE DU SITE 
INTERNET DGRAS A HTTP://WWW.DND.CA/HR/DPPD// ET INTRANET A 
HTTP://HR.DWAN.DND.CA/DGCB/DPPD//.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (15 Feb 2005)

(2) AN ADJUSTMENT OF 4.25 PERCENT  TO RESTORE COMPARABILITY WITH THE
PUBLIC SERVICE (PS)

So for all of you who gave me grief :-* for supporting the PS during the strike, buying me beer sure would ease the pain I feel...........


----------



## MJP (15 Feb 2005)

Where did you dig it up from Inch?  The national DIN menu for CANFORGENS shows nothing right now...I'd love to believe it but after the recent spreadsheet fiasco, I'm a little leery.


----------



## Michael OLeary (15 Feb 2005)

I have the same message through the chain of command.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (15 Feb 2005)

I overheard the CO/DCO/Adj talk about this today and they are just waiting for the CANFORGEN to come out.  Needless to say its already scheduled for the next O-group without the CANFORGEN being issued thus far.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (15 Feb 2005)

Like MJP said Inch, how did you get CANFORGEN 33 when http://vcds.mil.ca/vcds-exec/pubs/canforgen/2005/intro_e.aspb is only listing up to 32


----------



## Sub_Guy (15 Feb 2005)

Do you honestly think that the CANFORGEN site is updated right away?  I have the message here, in my hands..................Benefits of being in comms........$$$$$$


----------



## big_johnson1 (15 Feb 2005)

So does this affect PLD? Or rather, will it affect PLD (higher raise = lower PLD)?


----------



## George Wallace (15 Feb 2005)

Ok, I am still going to wait and see.  The info from Inch doesn't match what I just got from my old Pay Office this morning.  That print out has NCMs getting 6.50% from 1 Apr 04 and an increase of 2.4% on 1 Apr 05.  Back pay is due in the end Mar Pay.  All Officer ranks have a 3.28% raise effective both 1 Apr 04 and 05.  

I like what I got from a reliable source, but will wait and see.  I sorry to be getting out on 28 Mar if this is really true.

GW


----------



## Sub_Guy (15 Feb 2005)

Wait and see?  Maybe your pay office should wake up.... I have the message in hand..... on paper......


----------



## George Wallace (15 Feb 2005)

Sub_Guy said:
			
		

> Wait and see? Maybe your pay office should wake up.... I have the message in hand..... on paper......



They got it right.....I missed a line in the message.... :

That would be the best raise I got since Cpl...

GW


----------



## mbhabfan (15 Feb 2005)

so a new recruit would now start at $2218/month plus the 6.5% =$2362.17 then another raise in April of 2.4% = $2418.86, does this seem correct to everyone else??  I just wanted to see if I had the math calculated correctly.


----------



## George Wallace (15 Feb 2005)

Current $2218

New $2362

Next Apr $2419




(The chart doesn't get into the "cents")

GW


----------



## Navalsnpr (15 Feb 2005)

I received the CANFORGEN today just before lunch (Atlantic Time) and can confirm what Inch posted.

Too bad we couldn't have received the back pay prior to RRSP deadlines!!


----------



## Inch (15 Feb 2005)

MJP said:
			
		

> Where did you dig it up from Inch?   The national DIN menu for CANFORGENS shows nothing right now...I'd love to believe it but after the recent spreadsheet fiasco, I'm a little leery.



It came down the chain, I got it from 423 Sqn this morning and 406 Sqn an hour or so later. The one from 423 was the one I posted, the one I got from 406 was an actual link to the CANFORGEN. I'll post it tomorrow if you really want to see it, but you'll need to be on the DIN to access it of course.



			
				Feral said:
			
		

> So does this affect PLD? Or rather, will it affect PLD (higher raise = lower PLD)?



No, PLD should not be affected. PLD is related to local cost of living, the pay raise is equalization with the Public Sector as well as overall cost of living increase (read inflation).


----------



## big_johnson1 (15 Feb 2005)

I understand how PLD is linked to cost of living, but it seems like every time they give us something with one hand, they take something away with the other.. I'm just curious if PLD would go down because of this.. 

And yeah, it sucks that we won't get it before the RRSP deadline, although there are always loans


----------



## 043 (15 Feb 2005)

PLD- Pld is more closely linked to taxes than cost of living. That is why PLD in Toronto is much higher than PLD in Ottawa. Taxes!


----------



## BKells (15 Feb 2005)

"Environmental and special allowances"

Is TD one of those?


----------



## Inch (15 Feb 2005)

BKells said:
			
		

> "Environmental and special allowances"
> 
> Is TD one of those?



TD isn't an allowance, they're talking about allowances like Aircrew, Sea Duty, Paratroop, FOA, etc.


----------



## Navalsnpr (15 Feb 2005)

The list of Allowances and Special Allowances are as follows and are available on the DPPD site

Allowances 

Paratroop Allowances 
Casual Paratroop Allowance 
Rescue Specialist 
Aircrew Allowance 
Casual Aircrew Allowance 
Diving Allowance 
Casual Diving Allowance 
Sea Duty Allowance 
Casual Sea Duty Allowance 
Hypobaric Chamber Allowance 
Submarine Allowance 
Casual Submarine Allowance 
Exceptional Hazard Allowance 
Joint task Force 2 Allowance 
Field Operations 
Survey Allowance 

Special Allowances 

Isolation Allowance 
Submarine Specialty Allowance 
Posting Allowance 
Medical and Dental Officer Specialist Allowance 
Maternity Allowance - Members on Leave without pay and Allowances 
Parental Allowance 
Allowance for Personal Requirements - Persons held in service custody 
Stress Allowance for Test Participants 
Special Allowance - CFS Alert


----------



## MJP (15 Feb 2005)

Inch said:
			
		

> It came down the chain, I got it from 423 Sqn this morning and 406 Sqn an hour or so later. The one from 423 was the one I posted, the one I got from 406 was an actual link to the CANFORGEN. I'll post it tomorrow if you really want to see it, but you'll need to be on the DIN to access it of course.



No need to post it bud, I got a boo at it late in the day.  I was leery becuase I couldn't find it on the DIN, and we had been talking about how easy it would be to fake a CANFORGEN by using an old one, changing key dates and sending it through the email without the big CANFORGEN header at the top last week.


----------



## Glorified Ape (16 Feb 2005)

I can't follow the intERnet link in the CANFORGEN and I've got a couple of questions which might sound stupid, but hey.... 

1) Do they tax the retro-pay? (I assume so, but who knows - not me obviously)
2) What's the difference between an adjustment and "economic" adjustment? Is the former the future increase and the latter the retroactive?


----------



## George Wallace (16 Feb 2005)

Yes retro pay is taxable; unless during a period of that time you were on Tour, then it is a nice tax free bonus.

For the other questions, you would be best advised to talk to your local pay clerk.

Gw


----------



## BKells (16 Feb 2005)

An economic adjustment means the raise was given to offset inflation (If you look at the Bank of Canada website, the past few years inflation has been hovering around 1.9%, so 2.25% is above and beyond)

A bland 'adjustment' is your typical raise for doing a good job.


----------



## Glorified Ape (17 Feb 2005)

Ah, ok. Thanks guys.


----------



## Inch (18 Feb 2005)

Pay tables have been updated for those of you that aren't very good at math.  ;D

http://www.forces.gc.ca/dgcb/dppd/engraph/home_e.asp?sidesection=3&sidecat=28


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (19 Feb 2005)

All I've got to say to that is what do I have to do to become specialist 2?


----------



## big_johnson1 (19 Feb 2005)

CFL said:
			
		

> All I've got to say to that is what do I have to do to become specialist 2?



Remuster?


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (19 Feb 2005)

I know, which trades are spec 2?  I know do a search but its late.


----------



## meaf0rdm0 (19 Feb 2005)

well the pay raise is not the problem it is the cost of living if you are a Pte just getting in with a family of two or more kids the cost of a PMQ on most bases he/she cant afford to live in because they cost so damn much i thought the whole idea of having base housing was to make it affordable to serving member not to gouge all the money you can out of them.
i also don't see the reason paying U.I i cant collect it until after my pay as a service member, is not able to be counted as income because our severance package is to great if you have any more time then three years of service your income is to hight to allow you to collect it so i cant see the reason to pay for some service i can never use i might as well be paying breast implants on flies


----------



## aesop081 (19 Feb 2005)

CFL said:
			
		

> I know, which trades are spec 2?   I know do a search but its late.



Flight engineer ( requires 6 years as AVN tech) , SAR Tech and Marine engineer artificier are spec 2 trades


----------



## childs56 (19 Feb 2005)

First of all i have to say this, if the money isnt good then find another job else where. Not many jobs will pay you a wage of $13.86 an hour (based on 40hrs per week) unskilled. Some one is going to say we dont work 40 hrs per week. No not all the time, but once you get past the initial training you will realize some times you work less then 40 hrs a week. Think of this, as a student who usually pays you the decent wage of what a private makes to go to school and learn a trade. very few companies do, I do mean very few. after your second year you will make $16.95 an hour then in your third year $20.00 an hour. These pay raises are automatic. After the time has elasped. One of our problems is we think we deserve much more then we have. The military pays you based on what is a fair and reasonable wage, we are one of the highest paid militarys in the world, you shoudl be thankfull for that. I for one would like to see the goverment implement projects such as how the Canex use to be and housing use to be where things were at just above cost, when gas was 10cents cheaper then the local civie station, housing was lot cheaper. This i think would solve soem of our problems with reguards to quality of life for the memebers. I do feel for a Pte who has a family and has limited income, at the same time you shoudl have done the research to see if it was viable for you to have joined the military. The amount of money you make and military housing prices can all be found on the internet if you look hard enough. It is all about career descisons, what i want, what do i expect my employer to give me, what am i willing to give to my employer. Then you need to look at the situation and the money aspects, and long term goals of such. If the military does  not pay a competitive wage and provide with competitive benifits then why join in the first place. You should have known how much the pay was and if you could live off of it or not. So please do not say you dont make enough money to support your family, and if things are that bad then go see a financial expert who can help you manage your money  alittle better. the CF has them free of charge i beleive. I do understand that the starting wage is not as great as we think we all deserve but it is a nice and fair wage non the less. In closing I just want to say that their are always exceptions to the rule about some people, do to mishaps are in bad situations financally, but these are far and few between and an exception not the normal. For these people i hope your leadership steers you in the right direction as to how to gain a foot hold. For the rest of us well i dont think i need to say any more.    
One person mentioned before that if we make the public think we are paid enough then we will stop getting pay raises. I disagree. I do think that the public needs to know more of what we do and how we do it so they can make better informed descions as to our job and wages. The problem lies with Memebers who think they should be making more money and that we are piad poorly for what we do. The fact is if we pay you $80000 a year you still would not be happy, so you need to jump into reality and figure out if you liek the jop or just liek the money. if it is the latter then you can make better money else where. and please do go their. I think if our wages are kept where they are now and the goverment stopped the inscessant gouging of our memebers for things such as health care and housing, returned back to where the Canex and housing and other base support services actually had the intention of giving the memebers of the military sevice with out the need for profit gains then those benifits coudl out weigh the need  for such large pay increases all the time. The military shoudl also have things such as low interest loans for memebers to buy houses and such.  well i shall end things their for now and wait for the rebuttles, i really do think though that any rebuttles will be with memebrs who really do think they are owed more then they are. have a good day


----------



## Sundborg (19 Feb 2005)

CTD said:
			
		

> when gas was 10cents cheaper then the local civie station



That's what we need, and one that only CF members can use.


----------



## 043 (19 Feb 2005)

CTD said:
			
		

> First of all i have to say this, if the money isnt good then find another job else where. Not many jobs will pay you a wage of $13.86 an hour (based on 40hrs per week) unskilled. Some one is going to say we dont work 40 hrs per week. No not all the time, but once you get past the initial training you will realize some times you work less then 40 hrs a week. Think of this, as a student who usually pays you the decent wage of what a private makes to go to school and learn a trade. very few companies do, I do mean very few. after your second year you will make $16.95 an hour then in your third year $20.00 an hour. These pay raises are automatic. After the time has elasped. One of our problems is we think we deserve much more then we have. The military pays you based on what is a fair and reasonable wage, we are one of the highest paid militarys in the world, you shoudl be thankfull for that. I for one would like to see the goverment implement projects such as how the Canex use to be and housing use to be where things were at just above cost, when gas was 10cents cheaper then the local civie station, housing was lot cheaper. This i think would solve soem of our problems with reguards to quality of life for the memebers. I do feel for a Pte who has a family and has limited income, at the same time you shoudl have done the research to see if it was viable for you to have joined the military. The amount of money you make and military housing prices can all be found on the internet if you look hard enough. It is all about career descisons, what i want, what do i expect my employer to give me, what am i willing to give to my employer. Then you need to look at the situation and the money aspects, and long term goals of such. If the military does   not pay a competitive wage and provide with competitive benifits then why join in the first place. You should have known how much the pay was and if you could live off of it or not. So please do not say you dont make enough money to support your family, and if things are that bad then go see a financial expert who can help you manage your money   alittle better. the CF has them free of charge i beleive. I do understand that the starting wage is not as great as we think we all deserve but it is a nice and fair wage non the less. In closing I just want to say that their are always exceptions to the rule about some people, do to mishaps are in bad situations financally, but these are far and few between and an exception not the normal. For these people i hope your leadership steers you in the right direction as to how to gain a foot hold. For the rest of us well i dont think i need to say any more.
> One person mentioned before that if we make the public think we are paid enough then we will stop getting pay raises. I disagree. I do think that the public needs to know more of what we do and how we do it so they can make better informed descions as to our job and wages. The problem lies with Memebers who think they should be making more money and that we are piad poorly for what we do. The fact is if we pay you $80000 a year you still would not be happy, so you need to jump into reality and figure out if you liek the jop or just liek the money. if it is the latter then you can make better money else where. and please do go their. I think if our wages are kept where they are now and the goverment stopped the inscessant gouging of our memebers for things such as health care and housing, returned back to where the Canex and housing and other base support services actually had the intention of giving the memebers of the military sevice with out the need for profit gains then those benifits coudl out weigh the need   for such large pay increases all the time. The military shoudl also have things such as low interest loans for memebers to buy houses and such.   well i shall end things their for now and wait for the rebuttles, i really do think though that any rebuttles will be with memebrs who really do think they are owed more then they are. have a good day



Exactly...............and very well said!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (19 Feb 2005)

Well guys..I for one am happy that we are getting this pay raise. If you really don't want it or need it, you can always go to your pay office and whatever extra is given to you, you can have that donated to the charity of your choice.


----------



## Griswald DME (19 Feb 2005)

I am very thankful for the raise, although I have never complained of being underpaid in the CF.   Yes, we do put ourselves at more risk than our civy counterparts, but you have to look further than just the paycheque.   I am going to make at least 20K less in the military than I do in my civy job which is the same trade (well as close as it gets).   That, plus my wife will no longer be working will mean a loss of over hmm about 70K or so each year.   But I'm not complaining.   I'm happy to take the less money and enjoy the other perks the military offers.   Its what you make of it, and I'm darn well going to make the most of it.

DME


----------



## childs56 (19 Feb 2005)

I am not saying the pay raise isnt nice i for one am looking forward to it, had i of not gotten it, i would not and did not complain about the money that we made prior to the raise. I am saying that some members seem to think the military owes them everything. And because they cant makes ends meat on a entry level pay it is the militarys fault, some cant make it on  spec pay. I hate this saying but "no one forced you to join the military with three kids and a wife".


----------



## someguyincanada (19 Feb 2005)

does anyone know what the
Pte 1-4 will make and also cpl 1-4 for this pay increase

Thanks
Jay


----------



## WATCHDOG-81 (19 Feb 2005)

All new pay rates have been published and can be found at: 

http://www.forces.gc.ca/dgcb/dppd/engraph/home_e.asp?sidesection=3


----------



## Sapper6 (19 Feb 2005)

CTD said:
			
		

> .... I do feel for a Pte who has a family and has limited income, at the same time you shoudl have done the research to see if it was viable for you to have joined the military. The amount of money you make and military housing prices can all be found on the internet if you look hard enough. It is all about career descisons, what i want, what do i expect my employer to give me, what am i willing to give to my employer. Then you need to look at the situation and the money aspects, and long term goals of such. If the military does   not pay a competitive wage and provide with competitive benifits then why join in the first place. You should have known how much the pay was and if you could live off of it or not. So please do not say you dont make enough money to support your family, and if things are that bad then go see a financial expert who can help you manage your money   alittle better....



CTD,


Well said.   My impression is that most criticism is aimed at/or comes from the Pte/2Lt pay levels.   I wholly agree that the "hypothetical" 32 yr old with a spouse and three children should not expect to be paid 'journeyman' wages when he is really an 'apprentice'.   Because you had a previous career and have chosen to change employment doesn't mean you necessarily should make what your last job paid you.   Finally, once you reach the rank of Cpl/Capt (4 yrs max in most cases) the wages are more than adequate [ie. $48,828/yr for a first yr Cpl] IMHO.

S6


----------



## someguyincanada (19 Feb 2005)

Thanks watchdog


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (20 Feb 2005)

> Finally, once you reach the rank of Cpl/Capt (4 yrs max in most cases) the wages are more than adequate [ie. $48,828/yr for a first yr Cpl] IMHO.



Funny you did not include your rank level in there Sir as a Major making:
$85,320 to $95, 688


----------



## meaf0rdm0 (20 Feb 2005)

come on now does anyone really think that  any of us do this job for the pay it used to be like that about 20 yrs ago now it is not even close to why we do this job for,  we do what we because of the pride and patriotism   we have for this great country of ours nobody here honestly thinks that they could not get out and make a decent job and make a living and you would not have to worry about the constant deployments or exercises i was talking to a friend a couple of weeks ago and in two years he has been with his family for 90 total calender days that person is not doing this job for the money.  but come on now lets be realistic here if we want to sustain the military at the present tempo of deployments and or taskings there has to be some monetary reason to keep these people in if not there will not be a military and we might as well all vote NDP


----------



## Gunner (20 Feb 2005)

> Funny you did not include your rank level in there Sir as a Major making: $85,320 to $95, 688



I agree with Sapper6.  Cpls making $48K a year are making a very good salary by Canadian standards.  If a Cpl wants to make the same salary as a Major, he/she can also take all the responsibility and requirements that go with it.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (20 Feb 2005)

I guess we will have to agree to disagree on this one. I am glad about the raise, I will not turn this or any future raises down, what other people do with their raise whether they give it to charity or what not (cause they obviously feel they don't need it)I frankly don't care. Some of us can make good use of it. I for one, am not one of those who are financial irresponsible as _some_ alluded to, but I like the idea of being brought in line with my civillian counterparts.


----------



## Sapper6 (20 Feb 2005)

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> Funny you did not include your rank level in there Sir as a Major making:
> $85,320 to $95, 688



Ex-Dragoon,

No, I didn't, but in my profile I'm not hiding the fact that I'm an officer.  I, for one, am not staying in the military because the pay is great.  Given the fact that I have an Engineering degree, some project management experience, and quite a bit of leadership opportunities...I'm guessing that I could probably get a job on civvy street making between $85-96K with a whole lot less responsibility.

Gunner,

Noted.

S6


----------



## Jungle (20 Feb 2005)

Frankly, I was not expecting that big a raise. I will gladly take it, as it has been determined that the work I do is worth the money they pay me...  
There are people who do this partly for the money. They are usually younger members, and don't stay very long... On my first tour, 20 years ago, I was getting $153/month in allowances. NOBODY even talked about that money back then... Now, when a unit receives a warning order, the first thing you hear is kids going about how they will spend that money; some actually start spending it before deploying.
Bottom line is: some people go on tour for the wrong reason (or wrong motivation), and end up causing most of the (admin) problems. Same principle applies about joining the CF.


----------



## mbhabfan (20 Feb 2005)

on those earlier pay tables there is a corporal 5a basic, 1, 2, 3, 4 then a corporal 5b basic 1, 2, 3, 4.  Is there that many levels of corporal one would have to rise up through or what is the difference?


----------



## dangerboy (20 Feb 2005)

Where it says Cpl 5B read MCpl


----------



## mbhabfan (20 Feb 2005)

so dumb question here maybe, are each of those levels usually one year in length or would some skip some levels?  I understand the earning of rank but all things equal as far as doing a good job etc is each level a year?


----------



## Inch (20 Feb 2005)

mbhabfan said:
			
		

> so dumb question here maybe, are each of those levels usually one year in length or would some skip some levels?   I understand the earning of rank but all things equal as far as doing a good job etc is each level a year?



Yes, you go up one incentive every year until you max out, then the only way to make more money is a promotion. The incentives are based on your promotion date.

There are a few ways to skip incentive levels, basically if in your new rank you'd make less, you'll go to an incentive that either equals or exceeds your current pay. So instead of starting at Basic, you may start at IPC 1 if what you were making before exceeds the Basic level pay but is less than IPC 1.

Clear as mud?


----------



## Wizard of OZ (21 Feb 2005)

Jungle said:
			
		

> Frankly, I was not expecting that big a raise. I will gladly take it, as it has been determined that the work I do is worth the money they pay me...
> There are people who do this partly for the money. They are usually younger members, and don't stay very long... On my first tour, 20 years ago, I was getting $153/month in allowances. NOBODY even talked about that money back then... Now, when a unit receives a warning order, the first thing you hear is kids going about how they will spend that money; some actually start spending it before deploying.
> Bottom line is: some people go on tour for the wrong reason (or wrong motivation), and end up causing most of the (admin) problems. Same principle applies about joining the CF.



Agreed if you are doing this job for the money then you are in the wrong line of work.

problem is that if we don't pay them well then no one wants to join up then we have no one to do the work required.  Maybe if they started to give incentives instead of cash we could keep guys longer.  You know like cheap housing or such.  Might be worth it.


----------



## big_johnson1 (21 Feb 2005)

You've got to admit that we do have it pretty good though. I'm pretty sure that Private and OCdt pay is not designed for families, and as an OCdt making 1250$ a month, it's nice to see things like CFAO 28-4 11.d that limits rent to 25% of gross pay. Makes me happy to be able to afford a decent place with the girlfriend even though I'm not making much. There are other perks too, like the CANEX buying plans, and education grants for your children, and CFPAF loans. I think the problem is that people don't always know about this stuff.


----------



## 043 (21 Feb 2005)

Wizard of OZ said:
			
		

> Agreed if you are doing this job for the money then you are in the wrong line of work.
> 
> problem is that if we don't pay them well then no one wants to join up then we have no one to do the work required.   Maybe if they started to give incentives instead of cash we could keep guys longer.   You know like cheap housing or such.   Might be worth it.



I agree, and how about a Canex that offers dirt cheap prices????? How about a canex that doesn't make a profit?


----------



## Spr.Earl (22 Feb 2005)

I joined the Miltia in 76 when a Sapper got only what? $12.50 for a day's a pay and then we only got paid every 3 to 6 months and then it all went to pay off your Mess Chit.

As many have said if your here for the money,save our time and yours and get a Civie Job because there is no money compared to time spent vs Civie life.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (22 Feb 2005)

Spr.Earl said:
			
		

> I joined the Miltia in 76 when a Sapper got only what? $12.50 for a day's a pay and then we only got paid every 3 to 6 months and then it all went to pay off your Mess Chit.



Shoulda tried it in '68  ;D


----------



## theleg1 (22 Feb 2005)

Question? If I was at a P 2 pay level for half the year, and then P3 for the other half, would my back pay reflect both pay levels? I know it sounds like a dumb question but you won,t believe the different answers I get at work....THanks...


----------



## childs56 (22 Feb 2005)

The following is a list of a few jobs and their respective pays and the respective pay in the military. The following reflect that the person has reached journeyman(ql5) qual and or other professional level of competence except in the cause of labourers/ Pte's. Some may say this has no relevance but i feel that comments made to bring on par, us with our civie counter parts only reflects the nature and level of misunderstanding members have of our civie counter parts. Also we
 have to remember that we made a decent wage while attending school and getting qualified for our job. I have not included any allowances as i do not have a list of such items at this time. 

Pilot
Civie                                                                                                       Military
$67000   high                                                                               $5040/ 7493 Capt

Marine Engineer (non officer civie)                                           military
low $3366                                                                                          $4018/4299

airplane mechanic                                                                            miltary
3520/4604                                                                                        $4018/4299

Labourer                                                                                              Pte untrained (level 1 and 2)
$1859/2534                                                                                       $2218/ 2712

these are the gross monthly salaries based on our old table's and the Ontario Human Resources site. Although they reflect some of the pay differences, we have to remember that our training and education is provided to us while we train and learn the skills. Most trades and jobs in Civie land cost thousands of dollars and years to complete. i only did this cause the comments of bringing us on to our civie counter parts was mentioned. I think we are equal if not farther ahead then our counterparts. And we do not have to repay back thousands of dollars worth of loans and such. 

one thing further a comment was made that flying old aircraft and sailing on old ships and such warrented the allowances, I would tend to guess that if we got new ships and aircraftthen those risks would cease and such no more need for them. 
The fact is their is some jobs in the civie sector that pay more, or they have individual companies that pay more those are far and few between. I don't think anyone here can say that we don't make enough money. we make the average salary of a Canadian.


----------



## George Wallace (22 Feb 2005)

Your pay raise will reflect the appropriate amount of time that you were in each pay level.   If you were in one level for two days, your raise will cover that level for two days, and then your raise will cover the remainder at your next level.


----------



## George Wallace (22 Feb 2005)

CTD

I am sure that your accurate portrayal of Civilian wages compared to their common Military equivalents is a true indicator as to why so many CF members jump ship and take the Civie job over their Military one.

I think your figures are a little skewed.

GW


----------



## Inch (22 Feb 2005)

CTD said:
			
		

> Pilot
> Civie                                                                     Military
> $67000  high                                                     $5040/ 7493 Capt
> 
> one thing further a comment was made that flying old aircraft and sailing on old ships and such warrented the allowances, I would tend to guess that if we got new ships and aircraftthen those risks would cease and such no more need for them.



Where'd you get those numbers for civvie pilots? 

I don't recall complaining about my pay and I don't recall a whole lot of people complaining either for that matter, which is what you keep saying is happening. Comments were made once the pay raise was announced, no one started a thread saying "we should be paid more", so quit harping on that BS that no one but yourself seems to bring up.

As for my comment about flying old helos from old ships, I said I wasn't sure if the $500 I get was enough to cover that, I in no way said I shouldn't get it if we get new helos and new ships.
Here's the quote right here actually:


> I'm still not sure that $500 a month is enough to compensate me for flying a 40 year old helo over 2 degree water from a 30 year old destroyer in the North Atlantic, but it was my choice to come here.



The fact of the matter is that it's a dangerous job and all hazardous situations in the CF warrant an allowance of some sort. Also, I know of guys in the MH community that have spent 300+ days a year at sea, no amount of money in the world can offset only seeing your family for 2 months out of an entire year.

I'll sum up this post with a quote from you:


> we make the average salary of a Canadian.


Right you are and the civil service got a raise, thus so did we. Go buy some cheese with your new found money and quit your whining.


----------



## Slim (22 Feb 2005)

> one thing further a comment was made that flying old aircraft and sailing on old ships and such warrented the allowances, I would tend to guess that if we got new ships and aircraftthen those risks would cease and such no more need for them.



How much does a military funeral cost...?!

Because regardless of the amount of money involved, old kit will eventually get you one.

Up-to-date military kit has a value that far outways the financial burden that is placed on the system...Soldier's lives are far more important than balancing the books.

Think I'm full of it...?Next time you go on rotation, ask to go on a fighting patrol...then see what your opinion of new kit is.

Thanks for coming out.

Slim


----------



## Michael Dorosh (22 Feb 2005)

Setting up an argument that doesn't exist and then debating it is called creating a "strawman".  Just in case anyone wants to know.


----------



## Sundborg (22 Feb 2005)

So...  who wants to go watch the snow melt?


----------



## Slim (22 Feb 2005)

Michael Dorosh said:
			
		

> Setting up an argument that doesn't exist and then debating it is called creating a "strawman".   Just in case anyone wants to know.



I think its busy catching fire...


----------



## Sapper24 (22 Feb 2005)

Ohhh watching the snow melt sounds like fun...hahahahaha


----------



## George Wallace (22 Feb 2005)

I prefer watching paint dry......I'm getting high on the fumes.....


----------



## Missile Man (23 Feb 2005)

I see a lot of banter about the recent pay raise.  I am surprised there is no mention of officers getting a smaller back-dated pay raise than NCMs?  Interesting that officers are only getting 3.28% whereas NCMs will see 6.5%....I wonder what kind of a ruckus would ensue if the tables were turned?  If, heaven forbid, officers got 6.5% and NCMs a mere 3.28%?  I think there may actually have been a mutiny...  Thoughts, anyone?  Perhaps that officers are paid too much as it is?  Or because NCMs do all the real work and should get the largest increase?


----------



## Michael Dorosh (23 Feb 2005)

Missile Man said:
			
		

> I see a lot of banter about the recent pay raise.   I am surprised there is no mention of officers getting a smaller back-dated pay raise than NCMs?   Interesting that officers are only getting 3.28% whereas NCMs will see 6.5%....I wonder what kind of a ruckus would ensue if the tables were turned?   If, heaven forbid, officers got 6.5% and NCMs a mere 3.28%?   I think there may actually have been a mutiny...   Thoughts, anyone?   Perhaps that officers are paid too much as it is?   Or because NCMs do all the real work and should get the largest increase?



You choose to make this your first contribution to the board?  Pity, as it really doesn't show much thought.  Shall I define "flamebait" now, too?


----------



## Wizard of OZ (23 Feb 2005)

No we all learned the hard way by having our hand burnt on the stove let him.

No Pain No Gain.

Funny my boss was saying the same thing in the lunch room today.  But he understood why it was done that way.  (he is a Maj) I don't but i will not complain he still makes close to 80 gs and i am no where near that.


----------



## NCRCrow (23 Feb 2005)

boo-hoo- SWC


----------



## Inch (23 Feb 2005)

I'll bite, because if you keep giving everyone the same raise, the gap between officers and NCMs gets bigger and they probably want to keep the difference fairly constant instead of having it diverge with every raise. I can't see any other way of giving a fair raise to us then the way they did it.


----------



## Island Ryhno (23 Feb 2005)

$29,000 as a buck private, I gotta start running harder, I need back into this cash cow  : Military people get paid a fair standard of living, but give up much more than any civvie. I think perhaps anyone who would like to dump their pay raise into something is more than welcome to pay off my student loan, giving right back to our generous government. BTW how about that budget . The money is good, it is well deserved in each trade in the forces. Putting your family and yourself second does not have a price tag. IMHO


----------



## Sundborg (23 Feb 2005)

( Sorry this is a side note.  I always see IMHO posted everywhere.  Does it mean "In My Honest Opinion?" )


----------



## Inch (23 Feb 2005)

Sundborg said:
			
		

> ( Sorry this is a side note.   I always see IMHO posted everywhere.   Does it mean "In My Honest Opinion?" )



A-firm


----------



## Fraser.g (23 Feb 2005)

Sundborg said:
			
		

> ( Sorry this is a side note.   I always see IMHO posted everywhere.   Does it mean "In My Honest Opinion?" )



Honest or Humble depending on the statement

IMHO


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (24 Feb 2005)

humble


----------



## 1R22eR (24 Feb 2005)

i have receive the new payrool for the augmentation, and its 6,5% now and 2,4% for the april 1st 2005


----------



## childs56 (24 Feb 2005)

so after April 1st 05 will be get a 8.9% increase on top of the pay or do we receive a 6.5% back pay and Just a 2.4% from april with the 6.5 just being a one time payment. Just wondering


----------



## 404SqnAVSTeach (24 Feb 2005)

Technically... it is not 6.5%... it is a compounded 2.25 and 4.25.  if you look at the pay scale http://hr.dwan.dnd.ca/DGCB/DPPD//pay/engraph/home_e.asp?sidesection=3&sidecat=28 If you take you pay (Apr03) and multiply by 6.5 your number should be lower than the one on the pay scale.  And the 2.4 is also compounded.  So the total is a bit more that 9%.


----------



## 043 (24 Feb 2005)

Man you guys like to analize the crap out of everything on here. Bottom line, are we getting 8.9% more than what we got last month??? YES!!!


----------



## PPCLI Guy (24 Feb 2005)

CHIMO!!!!! said:
			
		

> Man you guys like to analize the crap out of everything on here. Bottom line, are we getting 8.9% more than what we got last month??? YES!!!



Amen.

And I would add - are we getting 12.9B more over the next 5 years?  YES!


----------



## Sundborg (24 Feb 2005)

Thanks guys.  IMHO


----------



## Missile Man (24 Feb 2005)

Michael Dorosh said:
			
		

> You choose to make this your first contribution to the board?   Pity, as it really doesn't show much thought.   Shall I define "flamebait" now, too?



Speaking of not showing much thought - your response, my dear.  The intent was to generate discussion on this topic, not to generate civil unrest.  I want to actually hear  your opinion on this uneven increase, not hear how "salty" you guys are and how "new" I am to this forum.  Hit me with your intellectual best regarding this pay announcement, if you please!


----------



## Missile Man (24 Feb 2005)

NCRCrow said:
			
		

> boo-hoo- SWC


A Navy League Cadet knows what a SWC is?  Impressive.  Now, what does it stand for?


----------



## S McKee (24 Feb 2005)

Missile Man said:
			
		

> Speaking of not showing much thought - your response, my dear.   The intent was to generate discussion on this topic, not to generate civil unrest.   I want to actually hear  your opinion on this uneven increase, not hear how "salty" you guys are and how "new" I am to this forum.   Hit me with your intellectual best regarding this pay announcement, if you please!



You want the great unwashed masses response to the pay raise difference between officers and NCOs ummmm lets see something intellectual well, ooooh you like the big words, ok  how about  " Nah Nah Nana Nah"...how's that?


----------



## Fraser.g (24 Feb 2005)

Jumper said:
			
		

> You want the great unwashed masses response to the pay raise difference between officers and NCOs ummmm lets see something intellectual well, ooooh you like the big words, ok   how about   " Nah Nah Nana Nah"...how's that?



LOLOL


----------



## Missile Man (25 Feb 2005)

Jumper said:
			
		

> You want the great unwashed masses response to the pay raise difference between officers and NCOs ummmm lets see something intellectual well, ooooh you like the big words, ok   how about   " Nah Nah Nana Nah"...how's that?


I take it from your "witty retort" that you can't actually back up the uneven pay raise?  I thank you for your constructive, thoughtful analysis on this subject.  Looks like this issue is closed. "Na na nah"?  I'll have to get my infant son to translate that one for me.  I shudder to think how active this post would be if the numbers were reversed..good Lord, we would never hear the end of it!


----------



## S McKee (25 Feb 2005)

Why do you want people on this forum to back up the pay raise, you make it sound like the lower deckers actually orchestrated this diabolical plot so the snotters would get less..give it a rest man. You want justification go after the Treasury Board. Remember a Capt or Lt(N) in your case gets far more pay incentives than a peon LS. And you don't need your infant son to translate I can...it means I'm getting more than you.


----------



## Navalsnpr (25 Feb 2005)

Although for the most part pay raises have been similar across the board, there have been times where there is a large difference between the Officers and NCM's. After the pay freeze in the 90's, the Officers did receive a much larger percentage than the NCM's, if memory serves me correctly, I think it was around 10-12 % more than the NCM's received.

The fact of the matter is that the Treasury Board decided what we were going to get based on the contracts that were signed over the past 6-12 months.

Lets keep the sticks on the ice....


----------



## Missile Man (26 Feb 2005)

Navalsnipr said:
			
		

> Although for the most part pay raises have been similar across the board, there have been times where there is a large difference between the Officers and NCM's. After the pay freeze in the 90's, the Officers did receive a much larger percentage than the NCM's, if memory serves me correctly, I think it was around 10-12 % more than the NCM's received.
> 
> The fact of the matter is that the Treasury Board decided what we were going to get based on the contracts that were signed over the past 6-12 months.
> 
> Lets keep the sticks on the ice....



Thank God, some thoughtful discussion on this topic, kudos to the Navy.  Sniper, you are exactly right, we are at the receiving end of Treasury Board decisions, and ultimately what happens in the private sector.  I do indeed remember that massive pay increase after the freeze, it was around 97-98?  Hopefully now that we are more closely aligned with the private sector we will not endure another freeze like that one.


----------



## George Wallace (26 Feb 2005)

Another part of the problem is Treasury Boards attempts to pigeon hole Military Trades into levels of Civil Service Jobs, and descriptions of managerial and executive positions.

Gw


----------



## NiTz (26 Feb 2005)

Hi!
I'm not a member of the CF yet but I can tell you that the pay is very good even for a starting Pte. I work as a mechanic in a Honda dealer, and we are the most paid mechanics over all the industry. Now, if you consider that the maximum i'll be making in 3 years getting fully qualified is around 47900$ and that i'll actually keep this pay UNTIL I get out of the job at 65 yrs old... and this with little augmentation every 4 years due to inflation. Plus, I have to pay for dental insurance wich is 30$ a week, stupid union dues of 31.25$ a week, and all the other crap you get for free in the CF (except for the stupid union, of course). Now, if I would work ALL year long, i'd be making around 32000$ but wait... there's no job all year long in garages, and I get like 3 months of E-I a year because there's no job for me during the winter. So this year, I made 24000$ and it's been 4 years since i'm in, and more frustrating, I still wait for my E-I checks every 2 weeks, hoping my boss will call me anytime. Pretty boring and desperating.

According to the fact that a basic corporal makes around 49000$ a year and that you become a corporal automatically after 4 years, that sounds very good. Sure you guys have a much harder job than I do (for now), but you also get a very good pay for that all. 

And more, you actually CAN get promoted and you can get on courses at any times! Listen, it makes 4 years I work in the same garage, and I NEVER went to any course of any type, because, as my dumb-ass boss says, "courses are very expensive". Now how would I progress in my career without going on any course? That's why I applied in the military, I wanna learn! I wanna progress and that's kind of an impossible thing on the civvy. I want to identify myself to my work environment, wich I don't do now because my work environment is composed of slackers and "we don't work too fast, or the boss is always gonna ask us for more" types. Actually, if I ever try to progress, I get slowed down by all the others because "hey, don't give too much to him (the boss)". This is, again, a result of this stupid union. .. 

Again, this is my opinion and i'm not in the military yet, so feel free to correct me if my interpretation of the military is bad. Anyways, I hope to join the team ASAP (waiting for my med file to come back)

Have a good day!


Nitz


----------



## jc5778 (26 Feb 2005)

good luck and I hope to god you are picking a trade when u get in (hint hint)  The pay and benefits are obviously good.


----------



## NiTz (28 Feb 2005)

Thank you very much.. and yes I applied FCS tech   I hope everything will go fine as I've read all over the forum that the recruiting process is such a pain in the ***. Yes, the benefits are very good, and the job is VERY interesting and challenging!


Have a good one!


----------



## PPCLI Guy (28 Feb 2005)

Here is a backgrounder on pay:



> Backgrounder
> Canadian Forces Pay
> BG-05.004 - February 25, 2005
> 
> ...


----------



## Wizard of OZ (1 Mar 2005)

MM  I am curious are you asking me to justify the NCM pay raise or are you complaing that it is larger then yours?  (not being sarcastic an actual question)

I think the largest part of the pay raise comes as a adjustment to what the private sector makes and other then that we are on the same level, other then the 4.25 compared to your 1.03 public adjustment, we are receiving the same increase correct. 
 So all that tells me is that the Treasury board see that you were making closer to what your job would be equal to in the civi world as a supervisor as opposed to Joe NCM who is making close to 5 % less his buddy who works in civi land. 

Are you complaing and think that you are not being payed enough or that you think we are being payed to much?

I agree this post would be way more active if it was the other way around but i think right fully so.  A Cpl has only 4 levels before they top out and MCpl has another 4 while a Captain and Major have what 8 levels.  So you can continue to increase your pay without a promotion for almost a decade while a NCM has to get promoted every 5 yrs to try and keep ahead of inflation (without pay adjustments).  Tell me how that is fair?  

I don't know if you were just trying to get the old grey matter a spinning or if was an actual bitter post.  Either way you got it MOO.


----------



## George Wallace (1 Mar 2005)

Wizard of Oz

Your comments on Cpl and MCpl having four pay levels is deceptive, especially when you put a caveat on it to the effect that a NCM requires to be promoted every 5 years.  A Cpl promoted to MCpl goes into the same pay level as he left.  If he was a Cpl 3, he is promoted into MCpl 3 not MCpl 1.  That gives the Cpl/MCpl rank together only four levels not eight.

GW


----------



## S McKee (1 Mar 2005)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Wizard of Oz
> 
> Your comments on Cpl and MCpl having four pay levels is deceptive, especially when you put a caveat on it to the effect that a NCM requires to be promoted every 5 years.   A Cpl promoted to MCpl goes into the same pay level as he left.   If he was a Cpl 3, he is promoted into MCpl 3 not MCpl 1.   That gives the Cpl/MCpl rank together only four levels not eight.
> 
> GW



I think you better check your facts there George, you don't automatically jump to a incentive three in the next rank just because you were an incentive three in the previous.


----------



## gunner56 (1 Mar 2005)

So,let me see.I've been out of Militia  since 1978,and working for Coca Cola for the last 21.5 years.We just got a 2.5% increase which brings me to 23.55/hr.I also have to pay premiums for group health,and Alberta health care.A new Corporal gets almost as much as I do after only 4 years.Well so he should(and perhaps more yet).You guys are in a much more dangerous line of work than I am.After all,I only drive a forklift.
p.s. I'm not being sarcastic here,I'm serious!


----------



## Fraser.g (1 Mar 2005)

Jumper said:
			
		

> I think you better check your facts there George, you don't automatically jump to a incentive three in the next rank just because you were an incentive three in the previous.




GW is correct

It is true for the movement from the RANK of Cpl to the APPOINTMENT of MCpl.
If you are cpl three you do infact go directly to MCpl three.

GF


----------



## big_johnson1 (1 Mar 2005)

And I will confirm that yet again as I went from Cpl IPC 3 to MCpl IPC 3.


----------



## Wizard of OZ (1 Mar 2005)

Yup your right GW you go to the incentive or the one above depending on your pay scale.  All i was saying is that it is harder for the NCMs to keep ahead of the game then for Officers.

I hope you don't think i was slaming the NCM's i would not trash my own backyard.  Just trying to figure out where MM is comming from.

MOO


----------



## S McKee (1 Mar 2005)

I stand corrected, should have checked with my CC first..hey it's been a while....


----------



## Fraser.g (2 Mar 2005)

I went from Cpl 4 to MCpl 4

Next argument

GF


----------



## Nfld Sapper (3 Mar 2005)

"4. ENVIRONMENTAL AND SPECIAL ALLOWANCES WILL BE ADJUSTED AS FOLLOWS
(A) EFF 1 APR 04 5.68 PERCENT AND
(B) EFF 1 APR 05 2.4 PERCENT
5. THE ABOVE INCREASES SHOULD BE REFLECTED IN THE END MAR 05 PAY FOR 
MOST CF MEMBERS 6. THE REVISED RATES ARE AVAILABLE ON THE DGCB INTERNET SITE AT 
HTTP://WWW.DND.CA/HR/DPPD// AND INTRANET 
HTTP://HR.DWAN.DND.CA/DGCB/DPPD//"

Just heard today for my OR that the increase in now going to be effective mid-April and not as what was mentioned in the snip from CANFORGEN 033/05 CDS 010


----------



## Chags (3 Mar 2005)

No.. the increase will still be effective 01 Apr 05 (with Back pay from 01 Apr 04).. It just wont be on your pay until the mid-april pay cheque..  

Check out CANFORGEN 043/05..  its all there.


----------



## NCRCrow (7 Mar 2005)

I checked the link at the Internet site and my pay remains the same as before.

Is there an updated version on the INTRANET?


----------



## DAA (8 Mar 2005)

Sorry but I don't have access to the intranet, but here is the link for the updated internet site:

NCMs - http://www.forces.gc.ca/dgcb/dppd/pay/engraph/NCMRegFPayRate_e.asp?sidesection=3&sidecat=28

Offrs - http://www.forces.gc.ca/dgcb/dppd/pay/engraph/OfficerRegFPayRate_e.asp?sidesection=3&sidecat=28

Rates listed above are effective 1 Apr 05.

I saw the announcement on the delay in implementing the pay increase.  Makes me wonder what they mean by "DUE TO AN UNFORESEEN PROBLEM OUTSIDE THE DEPTS CONTROL"??  Sounds like an exercise in financial management to keep operating costs down for the FY 04/05, seeing as all that back-dated pay would have come from this years budget, but by delaying the payment of the increase until after 1 Apr 05, it would go against the bottom line of next FY, or could it be because PSAC has not yet "signed" the new contracts which were ratified?


----------



## NCRCrow (8 Mar 2005)

Thanks,

the Command Chief told us the delay was that the Budget had to be signed in the H of C.


----------



## bridges (10 Mar 2005)

Which begs the question...just out of curiosity:     _if_ the pay increase had not actually been approved prior to yesterday, and the CF has been telling us since last summer to have confidence that it will be coming, on the basis of what have they been telling us this?   Was the concept of an increase approved by Treasury Board, but not the specific amounts?   And if that's the case, how were the specific amounts able to be released in a CANFORGEN on 15 Feb, when the budget wasn't passed by the H of C until yesterday?   

The Conservatives abstained from the vote yesterday, but what if they had all voted against the budget and forced an election - would we now be reading another CANFORGEN telling us to wait until September for our increase, but to have confidence that it's coming?

Personally I'm still inclined to give the system the benefit of the doubt; most of us are overworked and sometimes not all the info gets through to everyone, or signals get crossed, or whatever.     But it still looks odd, and it _looks_ as if the CANFORGEN announcements were premature, or worded incorrectly.   There must be some reason why DND has not been able to tell us more until now.  If anyone reading this has some personal knowledge of how this worked, and is in a posn to clear this up, I'd be all ears.     ???           

Edited for typos


----------



## George Wallace (10 Mar 2005)

bridges said:
			
		

> Which begs the question...if the pay increase had not actually been approved prior to yesterday, why has the CF been telling us since last summer that it was approved?   Was it simply a staff mix-up?   I'd like to give the system the benefit of the doubt; most of us are overworked and sometimes not all the info gets through to everyone, or signals get crossed, or whatever.     But it's still odd.   Is anyone reading this in a posn to clear this up?



The pay raise is part of a complicated procedure.   *It was approved*.   The amount of the raise was to be set at a comparable rate to that the Public Civil Service got, which meant that we had to wait until their STRIKE was SETTLED.   Now we have to wait for the Federal Government to approve their BUDGET, to give us the money to pay for that raise.   Do you understand now?

GW


----------



## bridges (10 Mar 2005)

No need to get testy - I trust you didn't intend to come across that way.  People today are more inquisitive and require a little more info sometimes, than they did in the old days.  And when there is a lack of info, people quite rightly ask questions - as we have all seen in this forum.   

BTW, all of what you have said was already public knowledge.  I was asking about the part that we haven't been told - the fact that it looks as if we didn't actually have the money approved until yesterday, even while we've been assured for months now that it had been approved.  

Is anyone _inside_ the pay increase process in a posn to shed any light here?


----------



## George Wallace (10 Mar 2005)

Not being testy; but as you say "it is all public knowledge" so all you need is some patience.  Pay Pers have already posted above.  I imagine that they are getting a bit testy with too many inquiries about the same thing that they have posted.  Again, patience.


----------



## bridges (10 Mar 2005)

Thanks for your comments, GW.   I'll respectfully differ with you on a few points:

IMO, we shouldn't be trying to shut down sincere questions.   Isn't part of Army.ca's purpose to provide a forum for them?   In all my years as a pay clerk, I never once received a frivolous question.   Bottom line, it's mbrs' right as soldiers and citizens to understand things that affect them, if they choose.   This isn't like a life-or-death sit, where you do things without questioning.   

Thanks for the reminder about "patience", but it's irrelevant to this question.   It doesn't matter to me when the pay raise comes in, and I believe our leaders when they say it's coming eventually.   I haven't already spent it...good thing, as it turns out.   Just trying to understand the approval process.

There's a mis-quote in your post.   I didn't say that all the info that I am seeking is public knowledge already.   Rather, I said that all the info that _*you*_ had provided was public knowledge.   The info _I'm_ looking for doesn't seem to be out there.      

If any of the posts in this thread were in fact from pay staff, this question didn't get answered.   If I'm missing it in some other thread, I'd be grateful for a point in the right direction, fm anyone.

My question is similar to the one that DAA posted above on 08 Mar:   if the budget was only approved on 09 Mar, how was the MND able to announce the rates & implementation date back on 15 Feb?   Did DND have (or need) a backup plan to find this money if the budget had been voted down?   Or, if parliament had been dissolved on 09 Mar because of the budget being voted down, would we now be seeing another CANFORGEN saying that, due to factors outside the dept's control, the implementation of the pay raise is postponed until parliament resumes after the election?   

This isn't a "straw man" question.   Even though TB may have approved the raise, the budget to pay for it still has to pass the senate, as far as I know, and then the H of C again for the final reading.   It _seems_ like the CANFORGEN might have more accurately said "IF THE BUDGET IS PASSED BY THE HOUSE OF COMMONS AND THE SENATE, THEN THE PAY RAISE WILL BE IMPLELENTED IN MID-APRIL"   - but we don't know, because this part isn't widely known w/in DND.   And judging from this forum, I'm not the only person who's interested.   So the question remains.   

I have trust in our system & leadership - just curious about this sit.   If anyone's reading this who knows the answer, or has a plausible guess, I'm all ears.      

Hope y'all are having a good day.
Shannon.

Edited for typos & clarity...or an attempt at it anyway....


----------



## Sundborg (6 Apr 2005)

Just to get clarified on the subject...

Is our back pay and raise going to be all on our mid April pay?


----------



## jc5778 (6 Apr 2005)

latest info is YES mid april pay


----------



## Sundborg (7 Apr 2005)

7 - 10 days said:
			
		

> latest info is YES mid april pay



Right on thanks.


----------



## someguyincanada (7 Apr 2005)

it hasnt shown up in EMAA yet  i wonder when it will


----------



## someguyincanada (10 Apr 2005)

bump
and also can anyone tell me how much a pte 3 will bring home on the 15th. Its actually really important that i know this info if you have any questions pm me


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (10 Apr 2005)

You really can't wait 4 days?


----------



## aesop081 (10 Apr 2005)

he probably wants to know how much he can spend at "leon's no money miracle" and pay it off in a week !

just kiddin'  ;D


----------



## Korus (10 Apr 2005)

you'll bring home roughly (0.065)*(12.5 months)*(Pte 3 pay before the raise)


----------



## aesop081 (10 Apr 2005)

so what you are saying is:

divide by2 , carry the 4...multiply by 3, take out taxes, EI and my shrae of adscam.....i get what again ?  ;D


----------



## belka (10 Apr 2005)

aesop081 said:
			
		

> so what you are saying is:
> 
> divide by2 , carry the 4...multiply by 3, take out taxes, EI and my shrae of adscam.....i get what again ?   ;D



Chump Change.  ;D


----------



## aesop081 (10 Apr 2005)

And i was worried i would have moneu burning a hole in my wallet...thank god for spec pay and aircrew allowance !!


----------



## someguyincanada (11 Apr 2005)

~RoKo~ said:
			
		

> you'll bring home roughly (0.065)*(12.5 months)*(Pte 3 pay before the raise)



So what your saying is im going to be bringing home

0.065*12.5*1183.50

961.59375 dollars

hrmmm maybe im calculating it wrong...


----------



## George Wallace (11 Apr 2005)

someguyincanada said:
			
		

> So what your saying is im going to be bringing home
> 
> 0.065*12.5*1183.50
> 
> ...



Now take a 'conservative' 46% off for taxes and that should be it.....   ;D


And as Inch said in another post on this matter:



> Since this is added onto our pay, they tax it based on the last dollar they anticipate us to make. In my case I was taxed at 43%, then they took pension because the money is pensionable, and of course CPP and EI. Now, I did get an incentive on Apr 2nd as well so a good comparison for my pay won't come until next month, but I still paid almost double what I normally pay in income tax, Pension, CPP and EI and my back pay was less than half my normal pay.


----------



## belka (11 Apr 2005)

A guy on our course checked his pay statement for mid-April and he will receive $1250 for a Private One. Just gives you an idea.


----------



## jc5778 (11 Apr 2005)

I've got my mid-april statement right in front of me, I am a Cpl 1 as of Oct 04, my Backpay is $1635.52 (after tax).  My paycheck is up about $90 per pay after tax. Yes $180 total per month after tax


----------



## PPCLI MCpl (11 Apr 2005)

MCpl 4 = $1892

For me anyway.


----------



## Inch (12 Apr 2005)

Capt (Pilot) Basic for the period of the back pay and I'm going to see about $1000 out of $2200 before taxes, but as it said in the post that George quoted, I can't really tell the difference between my normal pay and the back pay since I also got one of the larger incentives for Capt this month.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (12 Apr 2005)

$1700 extra on my pay.   Cpl 4  As per pay stub.


----------



## kincanucks (12 Apr 2005)

Captain IPC 9 - 1300.00 extra clear.


----------



## Canadian Sig (12 Apr 2005)

Pte 3 $1475.00


----------



## Fraser.g (12 Apr 2005)

$ 1117.00 MO Bucks before tax

Not bad for Lt IPC 3


----------



## aesop081 (12 Apr 2005)

$ 2000.00 Cpl 2 spec 1 with aircrew allowance............


----------



## Pte. Bloggins (12 Apr 2005)

$726.52 after taxes. ($858.79 before).

Not too shabby for a Pte (2) reservist. ;D


----------



## KevinB (12 Apr 2005)

FWIW 

I got 7379.84 this month 

$ 3041.84  more than my months pay

Less taxes etc. I am seeing about $1950 extra


----------



## Fishbone Jones (12 Apr 2005)

Figures. Just recieved an email saying the RPSR in Toronto is screwed up and I'll (we) have to wait til the end of the month (wonder what will go wrong for that date).   ;D Well, I'm OK. Never believed it would come off without a hitch anyway, so I haven't spent mine yet. Bet there'll be a lot of kraft dinner for others till month end though.


----------



## gun plumber (12 Apr 2005)

2700.00 total(reg pay plus backpay)as a cpl basic


----------



## Zoomie (12 Apr 2005)

Captain/Pilot (Incentive 1 & 2) with aircrew allowance = $2322 pre taxes, $1434 post


----------



## PPCLI MCpl (13 Apr 2005)

Zoomie said:
			
		

> Captain/Pilot (Incentive 1 & 2) with aircrew allowance = $2322 pre taxes, $1434 post



How the hell did I make more than a pilot Capt?


----------



## Michael OLeary (13 Apr 2005)

6.5% of your pay is more than 2.4% of his.


----------



## PPCLI MCpl (14 Apr 2005)

Hmmm,  I see my Math 11R (Remedial) hasn't assisted me in life.


----------

