# Sea Pay Navy - Needs to be changed



## Sub_Guy (22 Jun 2007)

Why is it that sailors are so whiney? 

The thought of Army guys working in field units earning full time field pay (identical to Aircrew Pay or Sea Pay) has some sailors all bent out of shape.  Some feel they have to justify their sea pay to their Army brothers who question them.  This is complete nonsense, we all want more money, but lets be reasonable.

Sea Pay is nice, but sailors do not earn it while sitting alongside, they are given it.  If you are working hard alongside then you are doing your job besides most of the jobs alongside are "joe" jobs, cleaning, painting, re-organizing, then re-organizing again, and training (Wednesday's) there are some positions in dockyard that will have you working a hell of a lot harder than those on the ship. .  They don't get sea pay, because they DON'T go to sea, PLUS they have to bring their own lunch!  I have heard duty watch rumblings, please....  A duty watch on ship does mess with your schedule but you are given lunch, supper, and breakfast, and not to mention that the next day you are usually gone by lunch time (depends on the department, so put down the Kleenex).  Having stood duty watches on the Victoria, I know how difficult they are... Lets see, we have the TV in the control room, you do rounds, you monitor various systems, and you play XBOX for the 8 hours you are off.  Doesn't that sound rough?  The only thing crappy about duty watch is sitting on the brow on the mids, but that alone doesn't justify full sea pay.

As a former sailor and submariner I know that sea pay is a joke, I know I shouldn't get it while on a 5 month long course, and if anyone else thinks they deserve it, they are just being greedy. I have stood duty watches on the surface and the submarine (sub duty watches are the cats ass, did 1 in 4 during a month long work period on the Victoria and I loved it.)

I certainly hope those Army guys who are sitting there watching fat a$$ sailors on course collecting sea pay get their full time field pay get their allowance backdated to Apr 07. 

Perhaps the way the Navy administers sea pay needs to be adjusted.  (ie. Immediately ceases when you are unfit, Immediately ceases when you go on course, Immediately ceases when you fail an expres test)


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (22 Jun 2007)

And why do you want to destroy a perk.... :

Show me where a sailor complained about the the guys in green getting FOA full time?


----------



## PO2FinClk (22 Jun 2007)

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> Show me where a sailor complained about the the guys in green getting FOA full time?


http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/63421.15.html Post by Navy_Blue

Dolphin_Hunter, the Navy (or CMS) do not control any envriomental allowance, nor do any of the ECS's. Their establishement was negotiated between DND & TB to compensate for additional hardships encountered in the work environement. CBI's establish who is eligible to receive it where it reads "an officer or non-commissioned member posted to a ship, other than a submarine, or serving in a sea-going position". If you desire to have people lose their SDA while on course and such you then end up having to be posted off the ship, or folks would simply do everything in their power to not go away on any course.

I fail to see any logical or plausible alternative in your post, unfortunately I see it as but a rant. I however do whole heartedly agree with you that Field Unit's should be in recipt of full time FOA. I have wondered for decades now why they were not in receipt of it deserve in full.


----------



## George Wallace (22 Jun 2007)

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> And why do you want to destroy a perk.... :
> 
> Show me where a sailor complained about the the guys in green getting FOA full time?



I haven't seen that, nor have I seen a Sailor stand up for it either.  Guys in Green pull off 24 hr Duty, as you say in the Navy - "watches" and they get no special pay for it, so why should a Sailor alongside in Halifax or Esquimalt?  Three meals seems a given, but extra pay for doing a Duty...... come on.  Even worse, why extra Sea Pay if you aren't at sea?  If it is good to give a Sailor those benefits, then why not the Field Unit Soldier?  Either pay both, or neither.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (22 Jun 2007)

I have no problems with the guys in green getting full time FOA equal to what we get as sea pay...only a dumb sailor would feel otherwise.

PO2finclk....reply#57


----------



## George Wallace (22 Jun 2007)

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> ....reply#57



OK......Someone broke these off and now this is reply #5.....................no wonder it is not making the sense it did when I first posted.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (22 Jun 2007)

George...this is a new topic started by dolphin hunter...what myself and PO2FinClk are referring too is :http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/63421.45.html


----------



## PO2FinClk (22 Jun 2007)

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> PO2finclk....reply#57


Actually was referring to Reply #22:
[quote author=Navy_Blue]Oh and please tell me your not going to get field pay full time on Canadian soil???  I can Justify my Sea pay while on ship full time.  Some one rationalize field pay full time for me.[/quote]


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (22 Jun 2007)

PO2FinClk said:
			
		

> http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/63421.15.html Post by Navy_Blue
> 
> Dolphin_Hunter, the Navy (or CMS) do not control any envriomental allowance, nor do any of the ECS's. Their establishement was negotiated between DND & TB to compensate for additional hardships encountered in the work environement. CBI's establish who is eligible to receive it where it reads "an officer or non-commissioned member posted to a ship, other than a submarine, or serving in a sea-going position". If you desire to have people lose their SDA while on course and such you then end up having to be posted off the ship, or folks would simply do everything in their power to not go away on any course.
> 
> I fail to see any logical or plausible alternative in your post, unfortunately I see it as but a rant. I however do whole heartedly agree with you that Field Unit's should be in recipt of full time FOA. I have wondered for decades now why they were not in receipt of it deserve in full.



Well looking at his profile he has an obvious hate on for the Navy so take his comments with a grain of salt.

PO2FinClk also look at 57.


----------



## PO2FinClk (22 Jun 2007)

I took a second look Ex-Dragoon, and I am getting the feeling he is not necessarily upset with the SDA construct, but rather with the SUBA eligibility:

[quote author=CBI 205.37]
3. (Limitations) An officer or non-commissioned member is not entitled to Submarine Allowance when the member is: 
a. in receipt of Sea Duty Allowance under CBI 205.35; 
b. a trainee undergoing the initial shore phase of submarine training; or 
c. in receipt of Joint Task Force 2 Allowance under CBI 205.385. [/quote]
As he is undergoing sub qual and no longer posted to a surface ship he is losing  both SDA & SUBA. He should therefore look to have the SUBA eligibility amended to become eligible while training.

However although not entitled to full time SUBA he is entitled to Casual SUBA (CBI 205.375) while doing his duty watches on a submarine. That being said he would be in receipt of allowances while undergoing training disqualying his statement that he is not being compensated while on a submarine.

Taking a few minutes to look up the definitions could have cleared up any misunderstanding of entitlements.


----------



## NCS_Eng (22 Jun 2007)

So one naval pers (on this board) has some reservations about giving Field Allowance full time and suddenly we are all whiners?

Please. It seems you may have an axe to grind in regard to the Navy but don't paint us all with such a broad brush. I've always thought that our Army colleagues should get the same treatment in regards to allowances as us and I'm glad it finally came through. As for the allowance itself I always looked at it as a nice perk, and while I no longer receive it (I'm posted to a desk) my QOL is a hell of a lot higher now than when I was in the fleet, so I think it balances out. And I've always seen that as the point.

Anecdotally, I run a section that is pretty purple (we've got Army, Navy and Air Force Personnel) and this was universally seen as a good thing.


----------



## Greymatters (22 Jun 2007)

Im not Navy but as I understand it from Navy guys I worked with, Sea Pay was jusitifed for the following things. 

1) While out of port, you were under the Captains thumb the whole trip, which was a high stress factor. 
2) Disobeying orders at sea was not a minor disobediance, it could be classified as mutiny and carry a much higher penalty.  
2) Even if you wanted to try to 'sneak out', youre surrounded by water so there was no where to go. 
2) Even if off duty, you could be called back to full duty through any conceivable act, be it rescue of another vessel to action stations. 
3) Even when in dock, you could be called back to duty within an hours notice and be back at sea, so could not leave the area.  

Apparently that was the original intent of compensation, and over time it got expanded to include all sort of other unique situations by senior navy staff who wanted to keep the pay and benefits wherever possible.  

In that light I see its not much different than field pay for troops (other than the mutiny potential and it was a bit easier for us Army guys to sneak away when we wanted to for some 'recreation'...)


----------



## kratz (22 Jun 2007)

During a Halifax PLQ last year, one of the courses was briefed by the Fleet Chief (or Formation Chief) that discussions were underway to amend SDA for those who always lineup to get landed prior to deployment. This same briefing also mentioned possible changes for full-time FOA for soldiers. While this is second hand information, and it is only at the discussion levels, it does recognize  those higher up are interested in addressing the issues mentioned here.


----------



## Northern Ranger (22 Jun 2007)

Does anyone remember the days when you would leave the Garrison in Shilo at 0615hrs and leave the guns out in the training area with a guard on them and you would return to the Garrison around 2300hrs and get told to be back at 0530hrs for a 0615 departure?  They would do this for a 4 day stint and then bring the guns back in to camp.  This avoided the guns paying out the field pay to the whole battery and only to the guards left behind.

Some call it making your FOA go further others like me called it cheap.  I wonder where (if it comes) the new allowance will come from, will the centre pay it or will it come out of the unit budget?

Bean counting, at one time it was the only war we had.....


----------



## Greymatters (22 Jun 2007)

Thats not bean-counting, that's a commander finding and exploiting a loophole in the field pay system... at the same time exploiting the troops!  Honest pay for honest work isnt a principal that commanders should ignore.


----------



## George Wallace (22 Jun 2007)

Sorry, but that was Bean Counting......and we can see the results everywhere in the Army today.  Going to the Range once a year for PWT.  Less time in the Field.  This is all Bean Counting and affecting the effectiveness of the Army.  Every Unit has to put forward a Training Plan and Budget for their next Training Year.  They only have so much funds, so they must make the decisions as to what Trg is most important.  Bullets are expensive.  FOA is expensive.  Long Road Moves are expensive.  Posting personnel In or Out is expensive.  Sending pers off on Course is expensive.  TD is expensive.  When they don't have a well prepared Training Plan and justifiable Budget, then everything will suffer.  It does come down the the Unit's "Business Plan" as to how FOA, and all other fiscal planning that the unit is required to do, will be administered. 

There are very few Units in the CF that have money coming out of their ears 'carte blanche'.  (We won't mention them here...  ;D)


----------



## Greymatters (22 Jun 2007)

True enough, but I tend to draw a more definate line between operational needs (commanders prioritizing expenses and saving money based on an allotted budget) and true 'bean-counting' (treasury and finance staff telling units to do more with less).  

I guess you can call it all bean-counting (and you have) but I see quite a difference between those who have been allotted limited money for x number of training days (by the bean counters), and commanders who squeeze in training days that were never allotted for in the budget in the first place.  In the end, the commander asked in his budget for x number of training days, was told 'NO', and then is going ahead and doing it anyway.  

While the need for training is valuable and should be prioritized as such, especially prior to deploying troops overseas, it defeats the purpose of the regulations regarding field pay, and raises questions of ethical behaviour on the part of commanders.  Those regulations were put in place so that soldiers were compensated for their extra work in the field, not so they could be sent home for 4 hours sleep on an endless basis.


----------



## eerickso (22 Jun 2007)

On base, you can expect to stand duty watch once every 4 months. On ship, it is 2-3 times every month. This is how I justified sea pay. However, when at sea, I sometimes feel I should be paying the navy.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (22 Jun 2007)

Do those that get sea pay get this bonus when their boat is not at sea?


----------



## George Wallace (22 Jun 2007)

YES.


----------



## Michael OLeary (22 Jun 2007)

205.35 – SEA DUTY ALLOWANCE



> 205.35 – SEA DUTY ALLOWANCE
> 
> 1. (Definition) In this instruction, “eligible service” means any period during which the officer or non-commissioned member was:
> 
> ...


----------



## Michael OLeary (22 Jun 2007)

And for comparison:

205.39 – FIELD OPERATIONS ALLOWANCE



> 205.39 – FIELD OPERATIONS ALLOWANCE
> 
> 1. (Definition) In this instruction, “field operation” means an operation ordered by the Chief of the Defence Staff or a field exercise or training exercise carried out under the authority of National Defence Headquarters or an officer commanding a command, formation, base or unit, in which an officer or non-commissioned member is required to live under field conditions for a period of not less than 24 consecutive hours, but does not include a survey operation.
> 
> ...


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (22 Jun 2007)

Well that seems fair.  At least it seems the consensus amongst most Navy pers is that they think the army should get something.


----------



## kratz (22 Jun 2007)

To make a proper comparison to the FOA daily rate of $18.46 to anyone eligable for itvice SDA:

SDA is divisiable by 30 days after the first month of egability, so:

Those with less than 5 years SDA = $9.50 daily
Those with more than 5 years SDA = $13.53 daily
Those with more than 9 years SDA = $17.53 daily
Those with more than 12 years SDA = $21.20 daily.

To earn a raise in SDA a member must be in a sea billet for the respective number of days (more than 5 years = 60 months or 1825 days)
A Pte(R) earns their $18.46 each day they are in the field.

The differences between SDA and FOA have been reviewed and looked at in the past. They are under review again.


----------



## aesop081 (22 Jun 2007)

Lone Wolf Quagmire said:
			
		

> Well that seems fair.  At least it seems the consensus amongst most Navy pers is that they think the army should get something.



Absolutely....in fact it is about time that personel in field units get some form of environmental allowance.  When i was still army, i often went to the filed with short notice just like today, some days i go to work not expecting to fly and i end up doing so.  Its only fair and i welcome full-time FOA for my army bretheren.


----------



## PO2FinClk (23 Jun 2007)

Northern Ranger said:
			
		

> Some call it making your FOA go further others like me called it cheap.  I wonder where (if it comes) the new allowance will come from, will the centre pay it or will it come out of the unit budget?


As is for SDA, AIRCRA, SARA, DIVA or any other continuous environmental allowance, the centre would absorb the cost. This in turn would free up funds for units as currently "Casual FOA" is paid from local funds.

The short of it is that the Budget 2007 intent is to re designate FOA as a continuous allowance following the same principles of others such as SDA or AIRCRA. This means there would be time incentives for those with various amount of years posted within field units. 

This in turn would mean that when  it would be officially announced a calculation of time within field units would have to be completed for every person; thus some serious time delay in determining the appropriate levels for all pers. The only other option I could see would be announcing that previous time does not count prior to (insert date) and that the clock starts now.

In its simplest terms, Continuous FOA would be administered no differently then is SDA or AIRCRA. Without official confirmation or direction, those are the only "assumptions" which can be deemed plausible with the following 2 options:
1- Clock starts now, all pers start with the basic level; or
2- A calculation for all pers of time spent (read posted) in field positions.

All in all, until determinations are completed and promulgated we can only speculate using existing, and comparable, entitlements to determine  eligibility as that would be the mainframe utilized.


----------



## PO2FinClk (23 Jun 2007)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> Its only fair and i welcome full-time FOA for my army bretheren.


 +1, Long time coming, what is good for the goose is good for the gander.


----------



## Sub_Guy (23 Jun 2007)

PO2FinClk said:
			
		

> However although not entitled to full time SUBA he is entitled to Casual SUBA (CBI 205.375) while doing his duty watches on a submarine. That being said he would be in receipt of allowances while undergoing training disqualying his statement that he is not being compensated while on a submarine.



Depends on what phase of the submarine training he is on.  During Basic Submarine Course (my course) we didn't stand duty watches, after the course you were attach posted back to either Mog 4/5 training billets for duty watches which you were double banked for a couple. Out west we were getting subspa and submarine allowance I don't know what they were getting out east.  

Trust me guys, submarine duty watches are great compared to the surface, besides its totally different when you volunteer to become a submariner, the last thing I heard when I was down there was moaning and bitching among trainees about allowances.  We were happy to be down there.

On the sub there are 3 messes, when you are duty there are 3 people....... (unless that changed) so each dude/dudette gets their own mess, there is not any fighting about what to watch on tv (or what to play on the xbox) and if you are watching a good show and it carries on into your watch, just head up  to control and finish watching it there.


----------



## Private Parts (28 Jun 2007)

kratz said:
			
		

> Those with less than 5 years SDA = $9.50 daily


Keep in mind these numbers are before taxes.  I got posted ashore not too long ago, expecting a sizeable drop with the loss of SDA.  It turned out to be $80/pay after taxes - or $5.33 daily.


----------



## NavyShooter (2 Jul 2007)

In truth guys, (and gals) I'd rather see them do away with sea pay entirely, and instead increase our base salary.

Why may you ask?

Because, as far as I understand, Sea Pay has no effect on my pension....only my Base Salary.  

So, if I'm getting an extra $500+ a month for my 9 years sea pay, that money does NOT factor into my pension calculations.  Meaning that my pensionable earnings are in fact $6000 a year LESS than what they would appear to be...

So, let's say my income from last year was $70,000, 40% of that is $28,000.  In fact, my pensionable amount is only $64,000, for $25,600, a reduction of $2400....

I'd rather have that $6000 as part of my base pay, so that it's factored into my pension.  That's $200 a month less (or more)....that's a full case of 9mm ammo each month!  (I shoot IPSC sometimes as well as service rifle, so equating it a chunck of my annual ammo budget is a good idea.)

NavyShooter


----------



## PO2FinClk (3 Jul 2007)

Valid point, but remember that enviromental allowances are designed to offset the lieu of employement and the "hardships" associated to it, thus not composite to your pensionable earnings.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (23 Sep 2007)

Any update on fulltime army pay?


----------



## PO2FinClk (24 Oct 2007)

Last I heard, and saw through email traffic, was the following:

It would be called Field Environment Allowance (FEA) and as of Sep 07, they were dafting and confirming the lists of positions which would be entitled to receive it. The entitlement would be based on the expectation that whomever would be in that position would be expected to be in the field for at least 60 days in a year to receive FEA. In essence the same, if not very similar, methodology used for SDA or AIRCRA.

That's all I have seen on it so won't even attempt speculate about a timeline as it could be very soon or very far.


----------



## navymich (24 Oct 2007)

PO2FinClk said:
			
		

> ... they were dafting ...



Those fin types always are a bit daft.


----------



## vonGarvin (24 Oct 2007)

PO2FinClk said:
			
		

> Last I heard, and saw through email traffic, was the following:
> 
> It would be called Field Environment Allowance (FEA) and as of Sep 07, they were dafting and confirming the lists of positions which would be entitled to receive it. The entitlement would be based on the expectation that whomever would be in that position would be expected to be in the field for at least 60 days in a year to receive FEA. In essence the same, if not very similar, methodology used for SDA or AIRCRA.



From what I heard about this through the water cooler traffic (take this as pure speculation), is that some units classify as field units.  EG: Reg Force infantry battalions, armoured regiments and so forth.  The schools are NOT part of the FEA (CON) element: FOA (as we know it) will be FEA (CAS) as in "casual".  If, however, a person fills a position in which he/she is deployed 60 days/annum, then they would qualify for FEA (CON) as in "continuous".  This has NOT yet been approved.  In fact, NOTHING has been approved, so don't buy those plasma TV's just yet!


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (24 Oct 2007)

Hopefully the gov't lasts long enough for this to be implemented.


----------



## PO2FinClk (24 Oct 2007)

Darn, too much of hurry to type to spell check!

What Mortarman states is also in line with the email traffic I have seen and simply reinforces the methodology used to be quite like the other Environmental Allowances. And yes nothing has been approved, it is still being "dafted"


----------



## jollyjacktar (24 Oct 2007)

Slightly off topic, but I am hearing whispers of a possible pay in the near future.  Something in the line of 3.8 percent as this it what the civil service have been rumored to have negotiated.  Has anyone heard anything else?


----------



## PO2FinClk (24 Oct 2007)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> Slightly off topic, but I am hearing whispers of a possible pay in the near future.  Something in the line of 3.8 percent as this it what the civil service have been rumored to have negotiated.  Has anyone heard anything else?


Ah yes, the most irritating and annoying rumour which makes its rounds every darn year.
Try this thread: http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/58972.0.html

Has the bargaining concluded? Don't believe anything until you see it


----------



## jollyjacktar (24 Oct 2007)

PO2, thank you for the link.  I should have done a better search before flapping my gate, apologies for the hijack.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (24 Oct 2007)

Would something like this being approved be mentioned in the CANFORGENS?


----------



## dapaterson (24 Oct 2007)

When the environmental allowance is announced I am certain a CANFORGEN will be released.  And when a pay increase occurs, I am certain there will be another CANFORGEN.

And if there is an interim pay increase pending final resolution of the Public Service bargaining, I'm certain we will see many CANFORGENs, first one announcing the interim increase, a second explaining why the interim increase has been delayed, a third reminding people that another increase is imminent, a fourth announcing the final increase, a fifth apologizing for the delay in implementing the final increase, and a sixth to announce that the following year's increase will not be announced until the fall, thus beginning the circle again.


----------



## Roy Harding (24 Oct 2007)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> When the environmental allowance is announced I am certain a CANFORGEN will be released.  And when a pay increase occurs, I am certain there will be another CANFORGEN.
> 
> And if there is an interim pay increase pending final resolution of the Public Service bargaining, I'm certain we will see many CANFORGENs, first one announcing the interim increase, a second explaining why the interim increase has been delayed, a third reminding people that another increase is imminent, a fourth announcing the final increase, a fifth apologizing for the delay in implementing the final increase, and a sixth to announce that the following year's increase will not be announced until the fall, thus beginning the circle again.



Ah, tradition - don't you love it?

Glad to see nothings changed.   


Roy


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (13 Nov 2007)

If a member gets out after the back dated time ie Dec 07 would he get a cheque in the mail for time served?


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO (13 Nov 2007)

Lone Wolf Quagmire said:
			
		

> If a member gets out after the back dated time ie Dec 07 would he get a cheque in the mail for time served?



 :rofl:


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (13 Nov 2007)

No seriously.


----------



## Inch (13 Nov 2007)

Lone Wolf Quagmire said:
			
		

> If a member gets out after the back dated time ie Dec 07 would he get a cheque in the mail for time served?



You'll get the money no matter what, even if you get out today, you'll still get back pay from today to Apr 1st.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (14 Nov 2007)

I thought as much but wanted to confirm, thanks.


----------

