# Is there an "official" answer



## Future Pensioner (14 Mar 2007)

I have read through numerous threads on this forum and can not really find one that is suitable to post this question in, nor have I found a suitable answer to the question.  So I hope all of you, especially the Moderators, will bear with me and cut me some slack on this.  Here is my question:

Is there an "official" answer on why Reservists are paid at a rate of 85% of their counterparts in the Regular Force?  

Please, I am not looking for opinions or snide comments on this one, but an "official" answer that hopefully has some "official" references to it.  Maybe there is not "official" answer and if there is not, I would appreciate if someone would let me know that as well.

Thanks everyone for their time.


----------



## 241 (14 Mar 2007)

I would be willing to guess that it is because a Master in the reserves more often than not has only 3 or 4 years in (relatively no experience) while a reg for one likely has at least 8 or so, therefore why pay us the same as a reg force (more experienced) counterpart...


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (14 Mar 2007)

Could it also be more incentive for people to make the CF their primary career vice having it secondary to another career and or education? Its an unusual question for someone that has been in for 22 years though....


----------



## Future Pensioner (14 Mar 2007)

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> Its an unusual question for someone that has been in for 22 years though....



Which is exactly why I have asked about an "official" answer, as I have heard many "unofficial" explanations and opinions over the years.


----------



## PO2FinClk (14 Mar 2007)

I remember seeing the definition spelled out but and the old CANFORGEN's have since been repealed. I know that the CANFORGEN which initially announced this increase stated the rationale behind the difference in pay.

Some of the reasons were that Reservist's are not removed, or have to uproot, from their family envrionement in that they are not subject to be posted on regular intervals to locations which they have little say, and sometimes none, in the matter. As well RegF members are directed to go on tours and such as Reservists always have the option of saying no. 

Those are some of the factors in the determination of Reserve Pay. Note that this 85% salary was quite a raise from about 5 years ago when it used to be about 60% or something of the sort.

http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/newsroom/view_news_e.asp?id=396

http://www.dnd.ca/site/minister/eng/restructuring/e-p4-c12.html


			
				Special Commission on the Restructuring of the Reserves (the Commission) said:
			
		

> The Department of National Defence states that reservists should be paid at 85 percent of the regular rate for their rank, a differential we accept given the "unlimited liability'' that regulars face and NDHQ's right to post them anywhere without their consent. But some ranks, especially junior NCMs, are paid substantially less. A corporal, for example, receives 67.7 percent of the Regular Force basic rate of pay, while a 2nd Lieutenant gets only 72.7 percent.


----------



## dapaterson (14 Mar 2007)

A study was conducted in the 80s, comparing training and experience at the journeyman level for  a group of occupations, Regular Force and Reserve.  These differences, coupled with the reduced upheaval of Res versus Reg service, lead to a recommendation that Reserve rates of pay be set at 85% of Regular Force rates of pay.

Implementation was delayed during the Government of Canada's pay freeze in the 1990s.  And the ranks of Pte, OCdt, 2Lt and Lt use different formulae, providing greater than 85% of pay as a tool of attraction.


----------



## Disenchantedsailor (14 Mar 2007)

PO2FinClk said:
			
		

> Note that this 85% salary was quite a raise from about 5 years ago when it used to be about 60% or something of the sort



In Oct 97 Reservists along with the rest of the forces got a substantial increase in pay (first raise after the decade long pay freeze) thats when they bumped up from 65% to 85% of Reg force wages.  Now for my speculation.

Being both a former reservist and now reg force I can say that for MOST not all trades the coursing in the reg force is Longer, more detailed and the consolodation time (time between courses) is the same. ie Reg force guy goes to work every day for a year and Res guy goes to work 2 days a week (maybe). not saying the reservists are any less quality but it must be recognized that to fully integrate a reservist into the reg force may require further OJT.  Not only that when a reservist goes on a Class C contract they are considered to be on Reg force service and are paid accordingly.


----------



## navymich (14 Mar 2007)

Disenchantedsailor said:
			
		

> not saying the reservists are any less quality but it must be recognized that to fully integrate a reservist into the reg force may require further OJT.  Not only that when a reservist goes on a Class C contract they are considered to be on Reg force service and are paid accordingly.



However, on MCDVs, you have reserves on Class C serving side-by-side with reserves on Class B.  The "core crew" billets are considered operational, and therefore the personnel in those positions make 100%, while those doing the same job (and sometimes more, being there on OJT etc) are making only 85%.  Yes, sometimes the people in the OJT billets are there short-term.  But often they are bounced from position to position, which total months of employment, yet they are still only making Class B wages.


----------



## Disenchantedsailor (14 Mar 2007)

well said, 

but the MCDV's have only 2 req force pers on them, I may be mistaken but the class C "core crew" jobs replaced the old reg force jobs from the minesweeper days, but like I said I could be wrong.

Also the Class B guys don't pay R&Q but the class C guys if I'm not mistaken do, but you'd be the expert on that end, I'ts been 8 years since my last class b (before my reg force days) ps can't wait airmich my msg should be out soon, as early as tommorrow maybe 

cheers


----------



## navymich (14 Mar 2007)

IIRC, you pay R&Q only if you are over 180 days.  For 179 days and under, you don't.  But I remember there also being something about not paying if you are at sea?  If someone knows offhand on that, or I'll look it up tomorrow.

I have known people that are on Class B for over 180 days, and people on Class C under 180.  I sometimes think life was easier when we could live onboard ship if we didn't have a place of our own!

I'm not sure about the whole minesweeper-to-MCDV thing though.  But I do know that MCDVs aren't the only ones on Class C for NavRes, as PSS is also getting it.


----------



## aesop081 (14 Mar 2007)

airmich said:
			
		

> However, on MCDVs, you have reserves on Class C serving side-by-side with reserves on Class B.  The "core crew" billets are considered operational, and therefore the personnel in those positions make 100%, while those doing the same job (and sometimes more, being there on OJT etc) are making only 85%.  Yes, sometimes the people in the OJT billets are there short-term.  But often they are bounced from position to position, which total months of employment, yet they are still only making Class B wages.



Mich...those people on Class B may very well be doing the "same job" but they dont have the liabilities to go with it.......


----------



## Stoker (14 Mar 2007)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> Mich...those people on Class B may very well be doing the "same job" but they dont have the liabilities to go with it.......



Please explain "liabilities"


----------



## MJP (14 Mar 2007)

What aviator is referring to is that those people signed up for a specific job/task.  They will not endure any postings, they will not be told to deploy overseas(unless they want), they can quit anytime they want and a) go back home or b) quit to get a Class B job that they like better.  Reg Force people don't have those options and hence have greater liabilities.  We have gone over this ad nauseum on the site.  If you want do a search on terms like Reserve vs Reg force and the like.  Good reading if you can ignore the childish antics on both sides by some trying to pit one aganst the other.


----------



## Future Pensioner (14 Mar 2007)

Thanks for all the replies, but I do not think I am any futher ahead (although PO2FIN CLK came really close - thanks).  

I guess I am even more confused when I read that the two most common thoughts seem to be the difference in "experience" and the "lack of liabilities" especially when the same Reservist gets the "100%" rate when the agree to deploy overseas or are deployed on certain Domestic Operations - i.e. ice storm, floods, forest fires, etc.. - this would seem to dispel the two "common thoughts".

I do not want to start any heated debates over this, but I am still left wondering if there is an "official" answer on this subject.

Thanks again.


----------



## Stoker (14 Mar 2007)

MJP said:
			
		

> What aviator is referring to is that those people signed up for a specific job/task.  They will not endure any postings, they will not be told to deploy overseas(unless they want), they can quit anytime they want and a) go back home or b) quit to get a Class B job that they like better.  Reg Force people don't have those options and hence have greater liabilities.  We have gone over this ad nauseum on the site.  If you want do a search on terms like Reserve vs Reg force and the like.  Good reading if you can ignore the childish antics on both sides by some trying to pit one aganst the other.



Yes I can see that, as I member on Class C I have those liabilities now as well.
Thanks for the clarification.


----------



## aesop081 (14 Mar 2007)

MJP said:
			
		

> What aviator is referring to is that those people signed up for a specific job/task.  They will not endure any postings, they will not be told to deploy overseas(unless they want), they can quit anytime they want and a) go back home or b) quit to get a Class B job that they like better.  Reg Force people don't have those options and hence have greater liabilities.  We have gone over this ad nauseum on the site.  If you want do a search on terms like Reserve vs Reg force and the like.  Good reading if you can ignore the childish antics on both sides by some trying to pit one aganst the other.



Thanks MJP


----------



## PO2FinClk (14 Mar 2007)

It's really simple, as stated within other posts.

- Yes the reservist gets deployed, unless he chooses to stay home that morning, not quite for RegF.
- If the reservist does not like his job, he is free at anytime to either get a new one or simply quite.The are not subject to Postings
- Not all reserve trades have the same level of qualification a RegF pers, this is based on job employment and limitations thereof. The MP trade for one stands out in my mind, or does a ResF Stoker have the level of quals and experience as RegF?

*Edited for spelling.


----------



## Stoker (14 Mar 2007)

PO2FinClk said:
			
		

> It's really simple, as stated within other posts.
> 
> - Yes the reservist gets deployed, unless he chooses to stay home that morning, not quite for RegF.
> - If the reservist does not like his job, he is free at anytime to either get a new one or simply quite.The are not subject to Postings
> ...



You right the reserve stokers do not have the same qualifications as the regs, although we preform the same job and have more responsibility as our regular force counterparts. Some of us do get Class C but don't collect tech pay.


----------



## aesop081 (15 Mar 2007)

Stoker said:
			
		

> Some of us do get Class C but don't collect *tech pay*.



No such thing.......

http://www.forces.gc.ca/dgcb/dppd/pay/engraph/2006_NCMResForcePay_e.asp?sidesection=3&sidecat=28

Reserve MOCs are divided into standard/spec1/spec2 trade groups, just like RegF ones.  Wether you are on class B or C is not relevant.

http://www.forces.gc.ca/dgcb/dppd/pay/engraph/payo2tg_e.asp?sidesection=3&sidecat=28

Now if your MOC is "standard", as i beleive yours is initialy, no one, RegF, Res  class A or Res class B bets "spec/tech pay"


----------



## big_johnson1 (15 Mar 2007)

Keep in mind reservists on class B contracts are still expected to show up and perform daily, just like those in the reg force. They also are expected to parade on evenings and weekends with their class A brethren. You can also be "told" if you are on class B that you are going somewhere, although it's not overseas.

(And before I get flamed over this, yes, you can get out of a class B contract if you want to, but I know with my old unit, if you pull that without a good reason, you probably won't get another contract. Granted I've only had experience with one reserve unit.)

Engineers in the Air Force get trained to Reg Force standards on Reg Force courses. Unfortunately there is often a training delay as some of the courses only have 1-2 reserve slots, and those are spread out over the 4 AEF units across the country.


----------



## navymich (15 Mar 2007)

Feral said:
			
		

> They also are expected to parade on evenings and weekends with their class A brethren.



What??  Not sure where you are speaking of this from, but it certainly isn't across the board.  For NavRes, yes, if you were on a Class B contract at the unit, you were expected there for all functions and training days/nights.  However, if you are on Class B with a ship, you are attach-posted to that ship and are only required to work for/with that ship.


----------



## Donut (15 Mar 2007)

No, it isn't across the board, but if you're a reservist, on Cl B with your home unit, then, just like the RSS, you parade when the unit parades, as well as during the week during office hours.

There's exceptions, of course, but it's not uncommon in Army Res.


----------



## Stoker (15 Mar 2007)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> No such thing.......
> 
> http://www.forces.gc.ca/dgcb/dppd/pay/engraph/2006_NCMResForcePay_e.asp?sidesection=3&sidecat=28
> 
> ...



Your absolutely right, reg force engineering mechanics do not get "spec" pay, only when they do their tech course  in the case of spec 1 or spec 2 when they get their cert 3. Our MOC is only standard and do not have "spec 1" or "spec 2" although there is a proposal to get us at least spec 1 or some sort of extra pay when we go past the console level.


----------



## mudrecceman (15 Mar 2007)

Feral said:
			
		

> Keep in mind reservists on class B contracts are still expected to show up and perform daily, just like those in the reg force. They also are expected to parade on evenings and weekends with their class A brethren. You can also be "told" if you are on class B that you are going somewhere, although it's not overseas.



And so they should be.  They are on a contract to do "job A" from Start-Finish of the contract.  IAW current policies, they are expected to serve on TD "as required" within Canada.  They are also required to give 30 days notice of intent to leave before the end of contract, as the CF also has to give them 30 days notice for their part as well, if they remove said person from Class B service.

Not all units have their Class B pers parade 5 days a week, plus weekends and trng nights.  Some do, some don't, some do some of the time, depending on the requirements of the unit.

Point is, people on Class B read, agree to, and sign the SOU/contract and it terms, and should also be aware of the TOS that come with Class B/B(a) employment.  TOS for the most part, are something most PRes folks seem to be unaware of, whether for Cl A or B/B(a).


----------



## big_johnson1 (15 Mar 2007)

Mud Recce Man said:
			
		

> Not all units have their Class B pers parade 5 days a week, plus weekends and trng nights.  Some do, some don't, some do some of the time, depending on the requirements of the unit.



Sorry I wasn't trying to generalize, just trying to put in my experience from my unit. I realize it's not all the same. We used to get the occasional Friday off in exchange for working Thurs night plus a weekend. And you still get 2 days per month leave while on class B.


----------



## PO2FinClk (15 Mar 2007)

Stoker said:
			
		

> Our MOC is only standard and do not have "spec 1" or "spec 2"


That is because it is not one MOC but rather three MOC's (312, 313 & 314), which in turn means when you completed your QL5 (Tech Course) or got your Cert 3 you were effectively remustered to your new MOC. Thus granting you a new trade "title" (Tech or Art) and allowing for the granting of the Spec level of that trade.

I remember back in 2001/2002 when MP's went on Class C were not entitled to receive Spec 1 as were the RegF MP's. The rationale behind this was that due to legal requirements limiting, and in some cases preventing, the scope to which ResF MP's could be trained in some aspects of use of force. That to say that based on individual occupation constraints it is possible that an ResF pers on Class C would be granted Spec 1, obviously each would have to be determined by the approrpaite authorities within DAPPP/DPPD.


----------



## exgunnertdo (15 Mar 2007)

The official reason is simple:

Military pay at each rank level (Reg and Reserve) is linked to a "rank" in the public service (eg Captain is linked to a specific level of management in the federal public service.)

Reg Force and Class C get another 15% for the "unlimited liability" part of the job.   

The qualifications and/or experience have nothing to do with it.


----------



## dapaterson (15 Mar 2007)

exgunnerTDO:

Liability to serve is tied only to the "military factor" aspect of pay, which is a relatively minor portion of the overall compensation.  According to the Director, Pay policy Development website:



> It is important to note that the Total Compensation analyses, as applied to the CF, also provide latitude to determine the dollar value of the unique aspects of CF service. The most obvious example is the Military Factor, which values the major characteristics of military service. Although the unique aspects of military service such as Code of Service Discipline, separation from family and posting turbulence are not easily quantified, the Military Factor was originally valued at 4% of salary for all non-commissioned members and general service officers.As of April 1, 1999, the Military Factor stands at 7.5% for non-commissioned members and 6.5% for general service officers.



From a document I have kicking around, here's the process that was followed to get to 85%:



> 2.     	The 85 percent relativity in rates of pay associated with the different classes of Reserve service was implemented on 1 April 1997 as part of the Reserve Force Get Well Program.  This relativity is based on a 1990 Director General Compensation and Benefits (DGCB) study that compares the total tasks and duties based on trade specifications and training standards, of ten Reserve Force MOCs with their Regular Force counterpart MOCs.  Three Combat Arms MOCs, representing over 44 percent of the total Reserve NCM population, two Naval Reserve, one Air Reserve, one Communication Reserve and three support MOCs were included in the study.  The MOCs were evaluated using Course Training Standards (CTS) for apprentice and journeyman training.  The 10 Reserve MOCs represented 69 percent of the trained Reserve NCM population across the three environments and the Communication Reserve.  The study noted that the difference in qualifications between the Regular and Reserve Force was in the range of jobs performed not in direct job comparisons.  Regular Force MOCs were trained in more tasks and duties than Reserve Force MOCs and could therefore perform more jobs.


----------



## Staff Weenie (15 Mar 2007)

Dave - you beat me to the punch....

Actually, I put the 85% question to DQOL a few years ago. I asked them to explain, percentage point by percentage point, exactly how they arrived at a 15% pay difference, particularly in light of things like the Employment Equity Act, and statements such as 'equal pay for equal work of equal value performed under equivalent circumstances'.

The answer I received from a Colonel, was that during the late 80's and early 90's, as part of the 'Reserves Get Well Program', a comparative study of Reserve and Regular NCO trades was undertaken. The study looked at about 12 trades, primarily at Pte to MCpl and primarily Cbt Arms, and compared their CTS' from their respective schools. From this, it was determined that their was a gap (about 15%) between what the Reg F and Res F soldier, of the same rank and trade, knew/were capable of. And, adopting the Treasury Board's 'Team Based Approach' (I may have the name wrong - I'm out of office and away from sources), it was determined that basing Res F pay at 85% of Reg F was acceptable.

However.....this study was done at least 15 years ago - much has changed. It also looked at a selective group of NCO trades.

I would argue that - for many of today's MOS, the Reservist now does identical courses to the Reg F member. How about Doctors - we don't have our own Med School, and we don't give them their License. What about Dentists, Dental Hygienists, Nurses, X Ray (now diagnostic imaging), Lab, Social Work, Psychiatry, Bio Science, etc - they receive their clinical training or education outside the CF - and their military training is often no different (and in some cases less) than their Reserve counterpart. There's other non-medical MOS that have primarily civilian training - Padre etc.

I also know that Reserve Force Employment Project (now dead) sought a legal opinion and were told that the terms 'limited' and 'unlimited' liability are not as concrete as one would think, and can be stretched at the Govt's discretion if required. So that can't be something to base pay rates upon.

As for 'Cost Moves' - well, I've have mine - and I must say, I was nicely compensated for the most part in my move, above and beyond my salary. And, as I say - when General Motors shuts down a plant and moves production to Mexico, do you think they offer to move everyone there and pay all expenses? And don't get me going on "I go where I'm told" - I've seen far too many Doctors, Dentists, Nurses, Senior NCO Med Techs etc get exactly what they want by threatening to quit! I've been on Working Groups on Organization, where we had to revise plans completely because so many Senior Officers were refusing to accept possible postings, and nobody wanted to push them. I was also a national Tasker, and saw countless folks refuse deployments, and get away with it. We were forced to develop spreadsheets of each MOS and track who had/had not deployed in the last several years. And I always loved the folks who put their release in a month before deployment!

IMHO - the only folks that really get posted around are Junior NCO and Junior Officer, and usually only if they are in a trade which is near/at PML. Give them the extra pay!

The Yanks pay identical Res & Reg F pay rates (I had a US BGen tell me his troops would mutiny if given only 85% of the pay). The Brits pay 95%, with a 5% 'X Factor', which they can explain if desired.

From the International Reserves Conference, I learned that of the core NATO nations, or AUSCANUKUS, we have the greatest pay disparity between Reg F and Res F.

So - I think that the core logic used is highly flawed, and very outdated. The CF perpetuates this probably out of fear that many Reg F would jump to the Res if there was pay equity..... 

Rant Ends


----------



## PO2FinClk (15 Mar 2007)

With the Resf Pension coming online, I wonder how many folks would remain, or even enrol, in the RegF if salaries would 100% equal. There would be no incentive to join the Reg's.


----------



## Staff Weenie (15 Mar 2007)

I understand that issue completely. However, let us also consider that at any given point, there are almost 5,500 Cl B Reservists in Canada. Many of these folks perform in vital day-to-day positions. Indeed, many Physician's Assistants are now Cl B, delivering health care on a daily basis. At some HQ locations, the Res F personnel provide the critical continuity to the organization. I would think that many of us who have been long term Cl B have had to train more than a few Reg F supervisors as to how to do the job.

At 5,500 people, we are seeing the CF get a Brigade's worth of people for 15% less - is this really ethical? If the Federal Public Service hired 5,500 part time left handed touch-typists, and paid them 15% less, then the Govt would be in a world of hurt. 

The question to ask, is "Why is it acceptable to have such *a significant number of Reservists on 'full-time' employment*, and pay them 15% less?"


----------



## navymich (15 Mar 2007)

For many years, I've heard the mumblings about having 2 different Class B groups: long term and short term.  Those 180 days and over would get 100%, 179 days and under would remain how they are. 

Staff Weenie, you make very good points, excellent points in fact.  Who makes the decision as to what makes a reserve position operational?  How do you classify what positions are operational, and therefore make Class C?  Should Class C not be determined upon how long the contract is, how valid/important the position is?  Of course we all know what would happen there, as everyone would think that their position was important because of such and such, but the powers that be would play it down to save money.

But what about using Class B only for such things as courses, etc, where you are also making TD and therefore the requirement of an extra 15% really isn't needed??


----------



## niner domestic (15 Mar 2007)

This paper might assist the OP with their question, there is a substantial reference source listed in the footnotes. 

http://dsp-psd.communication.gc.ca/Collection-R/LoPBdP/BP/prb9911-e.htm


----------



## Staff Weenie (15 Mar 2007)

Airmich - the definition of Operational (when they restricted Class C positions), was in essence any position which was on, or in support of, a DCDS directed routine or contingency operation. Crew of MCDVs were also supposed to be Cl C, though CMS fought this extensively, and as noted, it's not universal.

There has been very little 'mission creep' in this regard. However, I've seen some intent recently to put support staff at CSOR/DHTC on Cl C. I can sympathize with this intent, but I'm also on as little as 6 hours NTM for my job at times....shouldn't I get Class C as well??

For the most part, it is a fairly black and white situation, but I'd venture that there are up to a couple of hundred who may be in a 'grey' area.....

Niner - thanks for the post - there is somewhat of a discrepancy between the data on the link, and the reply I received from DQOL. Not surprising though. That said - it doesn't change my core argument that the study data is well out of date, and hard to justify now!


----------



## mudrecceman (15 Mar 2007)

Staff Weenie said:
			
		

> The question to ask, is "Why is it acceptable to have such *a significant number of Reservists on 'full-time' employment*, and pay them 15% less?"



When I was Class B (for many years...), I couldn't be posted.  I couldn't be even moved to a different base if I didn't want to.  I couldn't be told "pack up, you are going "across the pond" where ever that may have been at the time.  I could actually, to a certain extent, pick the taskings I wanted.  "Hey Ops WO, can you put my name is for Pos # XXXXXXXXX in the summer tasking matrix/brick?".

While I may have been working fulltime, it was not with the same TOS as my Reg Force or Class C comrades.

Now considering that info, I know when I was at my last long term Class B, one of the Reg Force Sgt's was told "ruck up, they need you on TF1-07".

They couldn't say the same to me.  I think the ablity of the Government and the CF to deploy folks "anytime, anywhere", for that ability/committment Joe and Jane Taxpayer are getting their 15% worth for the extra pay those get  who agree to the TOS that say "_anywhere, anytime_".

IMHO, and I have been on both sides of the fence...so having been a long time "Class B bum"  ;D I can't honestly say I ever felt like I really qualified for, or deserved, the other 15%...


----------



## Disenchantedsailor (15 Mar 2007)

Staff Weenie said:
			
		

> I understand that issue completely. However, let us also consider that at any given point, there are almost 5,500 Cl B Reservists in Canada. Many of these folks perform in vital day-to-day positions. Indeed, many Physician's Assistants are now Cl B, delivering health care on a daily basis. At some HQ locations, the Res F personnel provide the critical continuity to the organization. I would think that many of us who have been long term Cl B have had to train more than a few Reg F supervisors as to how to do the job.
> 
> At 5,500 people, we are seeing the CF get a Brigade's worth of people for 15% less - is this really ethical? If the Federal Public Service hired 5,500 part time left handed touch-typists, and paid them 15% less, then the Govt would be in a world of hurt.
> 
> The question to ask, is "Why is it acceptable to have such *a significant number of Reservists on 'full-time' employment*, and pay them 15% less?"



I agree with you whole heartedly, my personal feeling is all Reservist employed on full time service in support of operations(soverienty) or in excess of 180 Days be employed as class C, that said I do hve to agree with Recceman, and the terminology I'll use is a little harsh, when mbrs go on extended class b position (ie the 3 year class B msgs I see coming ot almost daily) they loose the ability to hold the employing unit "hostage" no break in the contract at will, by either party without substantiaion ie I'd like to go back to school type of thing, it also makes the employing unit think real hard about what to do with a problem mbr rather than RTU them the CO of said employing unit would have some flexability to implement things like C&P or RW with he isn't quite able to do with a mbr who is not "posted" to that unit. Just my thoughts


----------



## Stoker (15 Mar 2007)

Well I heard today from a briefing from the onbudsman that Class B will be going to 91% after April 1st. I'm assuming that this is from the reserve issues investigation that they conducted sometime ago. I hope this happens and it doesn't fall through.


----------



## Staff Weenie (15 Mar 2007)

MRM - note that a Class B can be sent anywhere in Canada, their recourse is 30 days to release. That's part of how I fell into the Class B trap (11.5 yrs now) - my predecessor signed on in Hamilton, and was immediately told he'd be employed in BC for the next four to five months - he refused and had his employment cancelled.

I can, and have, been sent all over the country on little notice, that's part of the excitement for me. As I've mentioned, I hold the Alternate position for a High Readiness position, and once I convince 9'er Domestic, I'll get my name in for a Roto. I've trained many young Reg F HCA on their jobs, and I've got more field time than quite a few Reg F HCA. So, does the Reg F still get 15% more out of their people than me?

The thing is, I'm not unique - there's many many more Cl B Reservists who are even more dedicated (or insane, take your pick). I just find that as we slowly blur that line between Reg and Res, *as they were created decades ago*, then perhaps the relevance and ethics of a significant pay divide is no longer justifiable.


----------



## mudrecceman (15 Mar 2007)

Staff Weenie said:
			
		

> MRM - note that a Class B can be sent anywhere in Canada, their recourse is 30 days to release. That's part of how I fell into the Class B trap (11.5 yrs now) - my predecessor signed on in Hamilton, and was immediately told he'd be employed in BC for the next four to five months - he refused and had his employment cancelled.



Yes.  Perhaps my post was not clear, but that is what I was saying.  Serve in Canada as required, and have 30 days notice to end employment, whether it be you or the CF.


> I can, and have, been sent all over the country on little notice, that's part of the excitement for me. As I've mentioned, I hold the Alternate position for a High Readiness position, and once I convince 9'er Domestic, I'll get my name in for a Roto. I've trained many young Reg F HCA on their jobs, and I've got more field time than quite a few Reg F HCA. So, does the Reg F still get 15% more out of their people than me?
> 
> The thing is, I'm not unique - there's many many more Cl B Reservists who are even more dedicated (or insane, take your pick). I just find that as we slowly blur that line between Reg and Res, *as they were created decades ago*, then perhaps the relevance and ethics of a significant pay divide is no longer justifiable.



I agree there are MANY dedicated Reservists who serve the CF in long term capacities.  I was one of them for 17 years and know many many people who have served longer than that in Class B jobs and hold great wealths of "corporate knowledge" in the jobs and units that are quite honestly, vital to the success of said units.  Because of the longevity of their service in these units, they are very well connected, very well versed and extremely capable in their jobs.

However (there is always a however, isn't there?) what I was suggesting was that the Class B TOS are quite different from either Reg F or Class C, and that, if the pay is going to be comparable, then I would expect that the TOS for Class B would reflect that change as well.

As per my example, the difference between me and the other Sgt, who was Reg Frce in my previous unit, I could not be told to ruck up and go.  Different TOS, right?

So, I think my stance is not at all that Reservists in Class B don't perform to their Reg Force counterparts level, rather, that they are expected to go "anywhere, anytime" above and beyond here in our great country. And that deployability factor is the biggest difference in the TOS, IMHO of course.

FWIW, I think it IS time for there to be a change in the TOS for Class B/B(a), as suggested my AirMich IIRC that Class B "over 180 days" goes to a Class C pay level.  However, I would also suggest that the TOS must change as well.

The Reg F Sgt that I worked alongside and was friends with at my last unit before my CT and I worked equally as hard at our duties.  His duties took him across the pond, where I as Class B was not as deployable/employable.

I think we are agreeing with each other?

MRM

*edit for spelling and other PEI Engrish type stuff


----------

