# Benefits Cut...



## MasterInstructor (30 Jul 2012)

RAAUZYUW RCCPJAW4007 2121559-UUUU--RCWEWLA RCWEZNA RCWMCTS RCWMFYS
RCWMHBS RCWMHVS RCWMKES RCWMMFS RCWMMGA RCWMMIS RCWMNHS RCWMNMS
RCWMPCA RCWMRGS RCWMTRS RCWMWGS RCWMWIS RCWMWVA.
ZNR UUUUU ZOC
R 301435Z JUL 12
FM NDHQ CMP OTTAWA
TO CANFORGEN
BT
UNCLAS CANFORGEN 145/12 CMP 063/12
SIC WAF
SECTION 1 OF 2
SUBJ: CF COMPENSATION AND BENEFIT FRAMEWORK
BILINGUAL MESSAGE / MESSAGE BILINGUE
REFS: A. CBI 205.45
B. CBI 208.832
C. CBI 208.96
D. CBI 208.997
E. CFIRP
1. LIKE THE OTHER FEDERAL DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES, THE CF ARE
ACCOUNTABLE TO THE CANADIAN TAXPAYER AND, IN THIS REGARD, THEY MUST
REVIEW THEIR BUDGET REGULARLY TO REMAIN FISCALLY RESPONSIBLE.
THROUGH RECENT INITIATIVES, THE CF HAVE BEEN ENGAGED IN EFFORTS TO
SUPPORT THE GOVERNMENT OF CANADA S GOAL OF RETURNING TO A BALANCED
BUDGET
PAGE 2 RCCPJAW4007 UNCLAS
2. THE CF CONTINUE TO BENEFIT FROM OUTSTANDING GOVERNMENT SUPPORT.
MORE SPECIFICALLY, MANY OF THE COMPENSATION AND BENEFITS SHORTFALLS
IDENTIFIED IN THE 1998 SCONDVA REPORT HAVE BEEN ADDRESSED. NEW
ALLOWANCES HAVE BEEN CREATED, INCLUDING A NUMBER OF ENVIRONMENTAL
ALLOWANCES. MOST RECENTLY, IMPROVED BENEFITS FOR ILL AND INJURED
PERSONNEL HAVE BEEN PUT IN PLACE TO ENSURE THEIR CONTINUED
WELL-BEING. THESE HAVE RESULTED IN SIGNIFICANT IMPROVEMENTS TO
COMPENSATION AND BENEFITS FOR CF PERSONNEL, SUCH THAT THE CF HAVE A
WORLD-RENOWNED COMPENSATION AND BENEFITS SCHEME
3. SO AS TO MEET THE GOVERNMENT S INTENT WHILE ENSURING A BALANCING
OF THE FOUR PILLARS (PERSONNEL, EQUIPMENT, READINESS AND
INFRASTRUCTURE) OF THE CANADA FIRST DEFENCE STRATEGY (CFDS), A
CRITICAL REVIEW OF PERSONNEL PROGRAMS HAS BEEN UNDERTAKEN. THE
TB-APPROVED CHANGES TO THE CF COMPENSATION AND BENEFIT FRAMEWORK
ANNOUNCED HEREIN ARE REASONABLE IN THE CURRENT ENVIRONMENT AND THEY
HAVE BEEN CHOSEN WITH A VIEW TO MINIMIZING THE IMPACT ON OUR PEOPLE
4. EFFECTIVE 1 SEP 12, THE FOLLOWING BENEFITS UNDER THE CANADIAN
FORCES INTEGRATED RELOCATION PROGRAM (CFIRP) AND CB1 208 SHALL CEASE
FOR ALL CF MEMBERS:
A. THE MORTGAGE BREAKING PENALTIES AND MORTGAGE EARLY REPAYMENT
PAGE 3 RCCPJAW4007 UNCLAS
PENALTIES AND
B. THE MORTGAGE LOAN INSURANCE (MLI)
5. EFFECTIVE 1 SEP 12, THE FOLLOWING BENEFITS SHALL CEASE FOR ALL
REG F MEMBERS AND RES F MEMBERS SERVING ON CLASS C RESERVE SERVICE:
UNDER THE SEPARATION EXPENSE BENEFITS, BOTH THE INCIDENTAL EXPENSE
ALLOWANCE AND MEAL RATE INCLUDING RATIONS AT PUBLIC EXPENSE
6. EFFECTIVE 1 SEP 12, THE FOLLOWING BENEFITS SHALL CEASE TO APPLY
TO RES F MEMBERS SERVING ON CLASS B RESERVE SERVICE:
A. TRANSPORTATION ASSISTANCE FOR RES F PERSONNEL. THIS BENEFIT WILL
NOT APPLY TO CLASS B RES F PERSONNEL, BUT ONLY TO RES F PERSONNEL
SERVING ON CLASS A RESERVE SERVICE AND
B. SEPARATION EXPENSE (ALL RELATED BENEFITS)
7. EFFECTIVE 1 SEP 12, THE FOLLOWING CFIRP BENEFITS WILL BE
ADMINISTERED THROUGH THE PERSONALIZED FUNDING ENVELOPE AND CBI 208
WILL BE AMENDED ACCORDINGLY:
A. EXTENDED HOUSE HUNTING TRIP (HHT) (ALL RELATED BENEFITS)
B. COMMERCIAL PET CARE BOARDING COSTS DURING HHT
C. ACCOMPANYING PET IN COMMERCIAL LODGINGS WHILE TRAVELLING FOR
RELOCATION
D. PET SHIPMENT AND PET CARE BOARDING COSTS AT ORIGIN AND OR NEW
PAGE 4 RCCPJAW4007 UNCLAS
PLACE OF DUTY
E. ACCOMPANYING PET IN COMMERCIAL LODGINGS WHILE TRAVELLING FOR
RELOCATION
F. DISCONNECTION/CONNECTION FEES AT ORIGIN AND NEW PLACE OF DUTY
G. POSTAL AND COURIER SERVICES, NOT TO EXCEED 12 MONTHS DURATION
H. INTEREST ON HOME RELOCATION LOAN AND
I. ADDITIONAL APPRAISAL FEES
8. NOTWITHSTANDING THESE CHANGES, CF PERSONNEL WILL CONTINUE TO
ENJOY A ROBUST AND COMPREHENSIVE FIRST-CLASS SUPPORT AND
COMPENSATION AND BENEFIT FRAMEWORK WHILE HAVING ACCESS TO GENEROUS
AND EQUITABLE REIMBURSEMENT PROGRAMS AND SERVICES. WE HAVE ALWAYS
LOOKED AFTER OUR PEOPLE AND THEIR FAMILIES AND WE WILL CONTINUE TO
DO SO
9. ONCE AMENDED, REFS A TO E WILL BE PROMULGATED AND POSTED TO THE
FOLLOWING WEB SITE:
HTTP://CMP-CPM.FORCES.MIL.CA/DGCB/CBI/ENGRAPH/HOME (UNDERSCORE SIGN)
E.ASP(QUESTION MARK)SIDESECTION(EQUAL SIGN)6(PLUS SIGN)
10. SIGNED BY RADM A. SMITH, CMP
END OF ENGLISH TEXT / LE TEXT FRANCAIS SUIT
OBJET : LE CADRE DE LA REMUNERATION ET DES AVANTAGES SOCIAUX
APPLICABLES AUX FC
PAGE 5 RCCPJAW4007 UNCLAS
REF: A. DRAS 205.45
B. DRAS 208.832
C. DRAS 208.96
D. DRAS 208.997
E. PRIFC
1. COMME TOUS LES
MINISTERES ET ORGANISMES FEDERAUX, LES FC SONT IMPUTABLES ENVERS LES
CONTRIBUABLES CANADIENS ET, A CET EGARD, SE DOIVENT D EXAMINER LEUR
BUDGET REGULIEREMENT DE MANIERE A DEMEURER RESPONSABLES SUR LE PLAN
FINANCIER. GRACE A DE RECENTES INITIATIVES, LES FC ONT ENTREPRIS DES
EFFORTS EN APPUI AU BUT DU GOUVERNEMENT DU CANADA EN VUE DE RENOUER
AVEC L EQUILIBRE BUDGETAIRE
2. LES FC CONTINUENT DE JOUIR DE L APPUI EXCEPTIONNEL DU
GOUVERNEMENT. DE FACON PLUS PRECISE, NOMBRE DE LACUNES EN MATIERE DE
REMUNERATION ET D AVANTAGES SOCIAUX RELEVEES PAR LE RAPPORT DU
CPDNAC DE 1998 ONT ETE REGLEES. DE NOUVELLES INDEMNITES ONT ETE
CREEES, NOTAMMENT UN CERTAIN NOMBRE D INDEMNITES ENVIRONNEMENTALES.
PLUS RECEMMENT, DES PRESTATIONS AMELIOREES POUR LES MILITAIRES
MALADES ET BLESSES ONT ETE MISES EN PLACE DE MANIERE A ASSURER LEUR
BIEN-ETRE. AINSI, LA REMUNERATION ET LES AVANTAGES SOCIAUX DES
PAGE 6 RCCPJAW4007 UNCLAS
MILITAIRES DES FC ONT FAIT L OBJET D IMPORTANTES AMELIORATIONS,
FAISANT EN SORTE QUE LES FC POSSEDENT UN PROGRAMME DE REMUNERATION
ET D AVANTAGES SOCIAUX DE RENOMMEE INTERNATIONALE
3. AFIN DE RESPECTER LES INTENTIONS DU GOUVERNEMENT TOUT EN S
ASSURANT  D EQUILIBRER LES QUATRE PILIERS (PERSONNEL, EQUIPEMENT,
DISPONIBILITE OPERATIONNELLE ET INFRASTRUCTURE) DE LA STRATEGIE DE
DEFENSE LE CANADA D ABORD (SDCD), UN EXAMEN CRITIQUE DES PROGRAMMES
A ETE ENTREPRIS. LES CHANGEMENTS APPROUVES PAR LE CT AU CADRE DE LA
REMUNERATION ET DES AVANTAGES SOCIAUX DES FC ICI ANNONCES SONT
RAISONNABLES DANS LE CONTEXTE ACTUEL ET ILS ONT ETE CHOISIS EN
FONCTION DE LA REDUCTION DES REPERCUSSIONS SUR NOTRE PERSONNEL
4. A COMPTER DU 1ER SEPTEMBRE 2012, LES INDEMNITES SUIVANTES DU
PROGRAMME DE REINSTALLATION DES FORCES CANADIENNES (PRIFC) ET DE LA
DRAS 208 PRENDRONT FIN POUR TOUS LES MILITAIRES DES FC :
A. LES PENALITES POUR RUPTURE D HYPOTHEQUE ET POUR ACQUITTEMENT
ANTICIPE DE L HYPOTHEQUE
B. L ASSURANCE PRET HYPOTHECAIRE (APH)
5. A COMPTER DU 1ER SEPTEMBRE 2012, LES INDEMNITES SUIVANTES
PRENDRONT FIN POUR TOUS LES MILITAIRES DE LA FORCE REGULIERE ET TOUS
LES MILITAIRES DE LA RESERVE EN SERVICE DE CLASSE C :
UNCLAS CANFORGEN 145/12 CMP 063/12
SIC WAF
FINAL SECTION OF 2
DANS LE CAS DES INDEMNITES D ABSENCE DU FOYER, LES INDEMNITES DE
FAUX FRAIS ET LES MONTANTS DE REPAS, Y COMPRIS LES VIVRES AUX FRAIS
DE L ETAT
6. LES INDEMNITES SUIVANTES PRENDRONT FIN A COMPTER DU 1ER SEPTEMBRE
2012 POUR TOUS LES MILITAIRES DE LA RESERVE EN SERVICE DE CLASSE B :
A. INDEMNITE DE DEPLACEMENT DES RESERVISTES. CETTE INDEMNITE NE S
APPLIQUERA PAS AUX RESERVISTES EN SERVICE DE CLASSE B, MAIS
UNIQUEMENT AUX RESERVISTES EN SERVICE DE CLASSE A
B. FRAIS D ABSENCE DU FOYER (TOUTES LES INDEMNITES CONNEXES)
7. A COMPTER DU 1ER SEPTEMBRE 2012, LES INDEMNITES SUIVANTES DU
PRIFC SERONT ADMINISTREES PAR L ENTREMISE DE L ENVELOPPE DE
FINANCEMENT PERSONNALISEE ET LA DRAS 208 SERA MODIFIEE CONFORMEMENT:
A. VOYAGE PROLONGE DE RECHERCHE D UN DOMICILE (VRD) (TOUTES LES
PAGE 2 RCCPJAW4008 UNCLAS CANFORGEN 145/12
INDEMNITES CONNEXES)
B. FRAIS ENCOURUS POUR LA PENSION COMMERCIALE D UN ANIMAL DE
COMPAGNIE PENDANT UN VRD
C. L ACCOMPAGNEMENT D UN ANIMAL DE COMPAGNIE A UN HEBERGEMENT
COMMERCIAL AU POINT
D ORIGINE ET/OU AU NOUVEAU LIEU DE SERVICE
D. TRANSPORT D ANIMAUX DE COMPAGNIE ET FRAIS ENCOURUS POUR LA
PENSION D UN ANIMAL DE COMPAGNIE AU POINT D ORIGINE ET/OU AU NOUVEAU
LIEU DE SERVICE
E. L ACCOMPAGNEMENT D UN ANIMAL DE COMPAGNIE A UN HEBERGEMENT
COMMERCIAL PENDANT UN VOYAGE LIE A UNE REINSTALLATION
F. FRAIS DE DEBRANCHEMENT / BRANCHEMENT AU POINT D ORIGINE ET/OU AU
NOUVEAU LIEU DE SERVICE
G. SERVICES POSTAUX ET DE MESSAGER N EXCEDANT PAS UNE DUREE DE 12
MOIS
H. INTERETS SUR UN PRET A LA REINSTALLATION
I. FRAIS POUR EVALUATIONS SUPPLEMENTAIRES
8. NONOBSTANT CES CHANGEMENTS, LES MILITAIRES DES FC CONTINUERONT DE
JOUIR D UN CADRE DE SOUTIEN AINSI QUE DE REMUNERATION ET D AVANTAGES
SOCIAUX SOLIDES TOUT EN AYANT ACCES A DES PROGRAMMES ET A DES
PAGE 3 RCCPJAW4008 UNCLAS CANFORGEN 145/12
SERVICES DE REMBOURSEMENT EQUITABLES ET GENEREUX. NOUS NOUS SOMMES
TOUJOURS PREOCCUPES DE NOS MILITAIRES ET DE LEURS FAMILLES ET
CONTINUERONS DE LE FAIRE
9. UNE FOIS MODIFIEES, LES REFERENCES DE A JUSQU A E SERONT
PROMULGUEES ET AFFICHEES SUR LE SITE WEB QUE VOICI :
HTTP://CMP-CPM.FORCES.MIL.CA/DGCB/CBI/FRGRAPH/ HOME(TRAIT DE
SOULIGNEMENT) F.ASP(POINT D INTERROGATION)SIDESECTION(SIGNE D
EGALITE)6(SIGNE PLUS)
10. SIGNE PAR LE CAM A. SMITH, CPM
BT
#4007
WBO513 DELIVERED 2121607


----------



## aesop081 (30 Jul 2012)

Well, that's mighty white of them, cuts just in time for my relocation.......



> 7. EFFECTIVE 1 SEP 12, THE FOLLOWING CFIRP BENEFITS WILL BE
> ADMINISTERED THROUGH THE PERSONALIZED FUNDING ENVELOPE AND CBI 208
> WILL BE AMENDED ACCORDINGLY:
> 
> ...



Nice. Thank you CF.


----------



## dogger1936 (30 Jul 2012)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> Well, that's mighty white of them, cuts just in time for my relocation.......
> 
> Nice. Thank you CF.



Don't thank the CF; thank the current CF loving government.


----------



## dapaterson (30 Jul 2012)

Methinks para 5 may cause some angst as well; folks on IR will no longer get paid rations and incidentals.



> 5. EFFECTIVE 1 SEP 12, THE FOLLOWING BENEFITS SHALL CEASE FOR ALL
> REG F MEMBERS AND RES F MEMBERS SERVING ON CLASS C RESERVE SERVICE:
> UNDER THE SEPARATION EXPENSE BENEFITS, BOTH THE INCIDENTAL EXPENSE
> ALLOWANCE AND MEAL RATE INCLUDING RATIONS AT PUBLIC EXPENSE


----------



## bridges (30 Jul 2012)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Methinks para 5 may cause some angst as well; folks on IR will no longer get paid rations and incidentals.



Agreed, although I have mixed feelings on that one.  Never been in the IR posn myself, but I've seen many people gloating about it over the last few years, talking about how it paid for various "splurge" purchases.  But presumably there must be cases where it's actually financially necessary.   And, if someone on IR doesn't have access to a kitchenette, they'd be losing $$$ eating in restaurants 3 meals/day.  That doesn't seem right, nor healthy.

The TA for Class B will be felt by a few people around here.

I wonder what the rationale is, for losing the mortgage-breaking penalty - it's not like you have a choice, when you're posted.    ???

I wish the DWAN's CANFORGEN page were up to date.  At this moment, the latest is 143/12.  Thanks to MasterInstructor for posting this.


----------



## McG (30 Jul 2012)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Methinks para 5 may cause some angst as well; folks on IR will no longer get paid rations and incidentals.


For the most part, that is not unreasonable.  Food is not free at home, so it makes sense that one pays while IR.  However - that means IR pers eating in messes should have the flexibility of only paying what they eat in the mess & not paying for every meal whether they eat it or not.  A kitchen or kitchenette should also become part of the minimum accommodations standard.

For a lot of folks, the incidentals were a bit of a gravy train - they did cover legitimate costs that were the result of separation but the dollar value was a little high.  With this change, any subscription services that must be duplicated as a result of the separation (phone, internet, etc) should be reimbursed.  Long distance costs to call home should also be covered to a level equivalent to the entitlement when deployed.  I am not confident that either will happen.


----------



## aesop081 (30 Jul 2012)

dogger1936 said:
			
		

> Don't thank the CF; thank the current CF loving government.



It's kind of a present from the government for putting up with 4 postings in 7 years. 

Oh well........such is life. Still not a bad benefit package compared to some other militaries.


----------



## aesop081 (30 Jul 2012)

bridges said:
			
		

> I wonder what the rationale is, for losing the mortgage-breaking penalty - it's not like you have a choice, when you're posted.    ???



Solidifies my decision to go with a 100% open mortgage.


----------



## dogger1936 (30 Jul 2012)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> It's kind of a present from the government for putting up with 4 postings in 7 years.
> 
> Oh well........such is life. Still not a bad benefit package compared to some other militaries.



4 postings in 7 years I hear yah I'm on number 4 and final here now. 

I do however wonder what outrage would occur on this board if it had been a Liberal or NDP government in power.

As a once very adamant Tory supporter I will never vote for this government again.


----------



## bridges (30 Jul 2012)

MCG said:
			
		

> Food is not free at home, so it makes sense that one pays while IR.



I wonder if it's that simple.  At home you can lay in a lot of staples for lower cost, and you presumably have more complete cooking facilities, storage, implements, etc. - so there may be some duplication involved, if you're trying to replicate your normal diet in a hotel kitchenette.   Maybe that was the rationale.  But the rates did seem a bit high.  

At any rate, I agree with you about the mess option, in places where there is a mess.


----------



## PuckChaser (30 Jul 2012)

dogger1936 said:
			
		

> As a once very adamant Tory supporter I will never vote for this government again.



I somehow don't think the government got into the weeds and picked which things to cut in our benefits. This looks like a CMP decision after being told to save X% of dollars to meet deficit reduction targets. They picked and chose which things to chop out to meet those targets.


----------



## dapaterson (30 Jul 2012)

MCG said:
			
		

> For a lot of folks, the incidentals were a bit of a gravy train - they did cover legitimate costs that were the result of separation but the dollar value was a little high.  With this change, any subscription services that must be duplicated as a result of the separation (phone, internet, etc) should be reimbursed.  Long distance costs to call home should also be covered to a level equivalent to the entitlement when deployed.  I am not confident that either will happen.



Current policy, which the CANFORGEN does not discuss, provides for reimbursement of:



> actual and reasonable basic internet, basic cable and cellular or land-line telephone connection expenses.



Given that most cell plans include Canada-wide calling, and software like Skype or MSN messenger let you chat online for no cost, I think the comms home are taken care of.


----------



## dapaterson (30 Jul 2012)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> I somehow don't think the government got into the weeds and picked which things to cut in our benefits. This looks like a CMP decision after being told to save X% of dollars to meet deficit reduction targets. They picked and chose which things to chop out to meet those targets.



CMP does not operate in a vacuum.  Any changes would involve discussions with the RCN, CA and RCAF, and would have a heavy dose of Treasury Board engagement (as TB approves the benefits).

The CDS on behalf of the CF can make recommendations for changes, but ultimately it is the Treasury Board that sets and establishes compensation & benefits for the CF - see NDA 12(3).


----------



## Remius (30 Jul 2012)

Same reason we'll be paying more into our pensions than we were before.  Or why they are doing away with severance at retirement.  The CF or the PS didn't come up with that.  The current government is looking for cuts.  It is certainly better optics for them to cut these benefits than cut equipment or troops.


----------



## dogger1936 (30 Jul 2012)

Making cuts to the PS/CF, VAC, and OAS while collecting a full pension after a rough 6 years working. I would personally be too embarrassed to show my face in public; alas I guess that's why they are in charge of the country and I am not.


----------



## Strike (30 Jul 2012)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> Solidifies my decision to go with a 100% open mortgage.



Also solidifies why people need to make sure their mortgage is portable!  You may pay an initial fine/fee for breaking the mortgage but, for most portable mortgages, if you reinstate it within a certain finite period of time (I've seen anything from 30 days to 3 months) that money ends up being refunded.  So, although it looks like an initial kick in the teeth, it's not going to save the CF a whole whack of money.


----------



## McG (30 Jul 2012)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Current policy, which the CANFORGEN does not discuss, provides for reimbursement of:


True for most types of accomodation, but not for commercial accomodations.  Maybe it was assumed that one can find those services included within the cost of a hotel, motel, tourist home, guest cottage or similar commercial property.


----------



## wesleyd (31 Jul 2012)

bridges said:
			
		

> Agreed, although I have mixed feelings on that one.  Never been in the IR posn myself, but I've seen many people gloating about it over the last few years, talking about how it paid for various "splurge" purchases.  But presumably there must be cases where it's actually financially necessary.   And, if someone on IR doesn't have access to a kitchenette, they'd be losing $$$ eating in restaurants 3 meals/day.  That doesn't seem right, nor healthy.
> 
> The TA for Class B will be felt by a few people around here.
> 
> ...


Been on IR and you need that money for food or you will be taking food off your families table . You can't buy a club pack of whatever and put it in the deep freeze in your one bedroom apartment so you have to buy one item for the same price that four would cost you. Initally when the amount you recieved over 1000/month for food and the incidental expenses that was a bit decadent, but when it was reduce to just over 600/month I found that was adequate. It is the little things that add up, having to buy smaller portions from the grocery store is a lot more expensive than if you buy in bulk which is what most families do to some extent.
I noticed that there were no changes to any of the MP's benifits, must be rough serving six whole years in an air conditioned office with no one shooting at you.
I think the IR thing will cause some career managers inboxes to be flooded with requests for cost contingency moves and compasionate status. Members aren't going to go bankrupt to serve. We already give enough things up.
And to compare our benifits to other nations is unfair and just not acceptable.


----------



## Haggis (31 Jul 2012)

Transoportation Assistance (para 6A) was cut once back in 2003 and reinstated, after a series of redresses that determined that the cut was done improperly,  in 2007.  At that time we in receipt of TA were warned that it would only be a matter of time before the benefit was done away with permanently (in accordance with due process), so this should not really be a surprise to anyone.


----------



## bridges (31 Jul 2012)

Haggis said:
			
		

> Transoportation Assistance (para 6A) was cut once back in 2003 and reinstated, after a series of redresses that determined that the cut was done improperly,  in 2007.  At that time we in receipt of TA were warned that it would only be a matter of time before the benefit was done away with permanently (in accordance with due process), so this should not really be a surprise to anyone.



Just for clarification, it's only being done away with for Res F mbrs serving on Class B.  For those serving on Class A, it remains in effect - so far.


----------



## Jorkapp (31 Jul 2012)

> 7. EFFECTIVE 1 SEP 12, THE FOLLOWING CFIRP BENEFITS WILL BE
> ADMINISTERED THROUGH THE PERSONALIZED FUNDING ENVELOPE AND CBI 208
> WILL BE AMENDED ACCORDINGLY:
> F. DISCONNECTION/CONNECTION FEES AT ORIGIN AND NEW PLACE OF DUTY



This I don't understand. Personalized funds are for, in the words of the CFIRP manual, "Non-essential, but attributable for a relocation", whereas Core funds are for things "Essential to a relocation"

Someone mind telling me how hooking up things like Water, Heat, and Hydro suddenly became non-essential?


----------



## PuckChaser (31 Jul 2012)

Guy Incognito said:
			
		

> This I don't understand. Personalized funds are for, in the words of the CFIRP manual, "Non-essential, but attributable for a relocation", whereas Core funds are for things "Essential to a relocation"
> 
> Someone mind telling me how hooking up things like Water, Heat, and Hydro suddenly became non-essential?



Thats easy, they'll just issue a new CFIRP manual next year that changes the definition.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (31 Jul 2012)

Atleast they gave the CF a pay raise to pay for all the expenses not covered anymore.   ;D

Cuts such as we've experienced recent months make things like the 1812 Pin purchase (which will go a Round #2 as the "made in China" ones are sub-standard, that makes me ROFL), etc seem all the more ridiculous to oar-pullers like me.


----------



## Towards_the_gap (31 Jul 2012)

wesleyd said:
			
		

> I noticed that there were no changes to any of the MP's benifits, must be rough serving six whole years in an air conditioned office with no one shooting at you.
> And you get shot at how often? Let's have a little perspective.
> 
> I think the IR thing will cause some career managers inboxes to be flooded with requests for cost contingency moves and compasionate status. Members aren't going to go bankrupt to serve. We already give enough things up.
> ...



I don't see why not, people will realise that we have it pretty darned good here. I say this as someone who was on the other side of the fence, and can tell you that for looking after its own, relocation wise, the CF grass is greener. Cuts are never nice, but does anyone NOT realise we are in a recession, and the only way to stay out of one is to be fiscally prudent? That being said, as EITS remarked, it makes the 1812 pin and other tat even more ridiculous. Anyone ever see those Army Ethics insulated mugs? We had cases of them in Afghan, and I couldn't help but wonder the cost of that crap.


----------



## brihard (31 Jul 2012)

wesleyd said:
			
		

> And to compare our benifits to other nations is unfair and just not acceptable.



Tha't sup for debate. But I'd certainly think it fair to compare our pay and benefits to those NOT employed federally, who work in the private sector. As our very generous pay and entitlements are covered by all taxpayers colelctively - not just we ourselves - there's merit in looking at how we've got it in comparison.


----------



## AEH (31 Jul 2012)

For the first time in my over 30 years in the CF I feel betrayed.  Betrayed by the CDS, who I first met when he was the CO of the RCD in Pet., a man who I respected greatly, but who will now be remembered as the CDS who, on his watch, allowed the continuous erosion of our benefits without so much as a whimper.  How he continues to disappoint.  
To change the IR benefit without notice is criminal, and yes, I do not consider 30 days appropriate notice.  I am not now, nor will I ever be on IR, but to have COs and Base Commanders approve IR benefits last week, just have them terminated in 30 days is stupid.  Imagine being posted to Petawawa where there is a nine month wait for a PMQ.  Not being able to buy a house you proceed on IR only to find out today that you will lose your incidental payments and now be charged $554. a month in rations.  A difference of approx $1000 a month, and what does our leadership do?  Defend the benefit cuts as the best for all.  If this is the best you can do, at least have the moral courage to resign in protest.  Shame on all of you, who, with your inaction only serve to perpetuate the death of our benefits by a thousand cuts.   From hero to zero with one CANFORGEN!  I cannot find the words to describe the level of disgust I feel for this betrayal.  Smiling faces tell lies.  “WE HAVE ALWAYS LOOKED AFTER OUR PEOPLE AND THEIR FAMILIES AND WE WILL CONTINUE TO DO SO”  - just not as well as we use to.. Sad day indeed.


----------



## Nostix (31 Jul 2012)

That's not going to go over so well with folks on IR in Halifax where rations are increasing to $900 / month at the same time.


----------



## aesop081 (31 Jul 2012)

Nostix said:
			
		

> That's not going to go over so well with folks on IR in Halifax where rations are increasing to $900 / month at the same time.



You mean the people on "Imposed Restrictions" or the great many on what i call "Chosen Restrictions" (You know the ones who wife had a good job, kids didn't want to move, etc...).

Anyone on IR that is really caught by surprise on this, needs to re-evaluate their SA skills.

Now, for the doom & gloom crowd, at the rates our benefits go, there wont be much of a CF in a decade or two. When your personnel costs go above 50% of your budget, it's a warning sign.........


----------



## Towards_the_gap (31 Jul 2012)

AEH said:
			
		

> For the first time in my over 30 years in the CF I feel betrayed.  Betrayed by the CDS, who I first met when he was the CO of the RCD in Pet., a man who I respected greatly, but who will now be remembered as the CDS who, on his watch, allowed the continuous erosion of our benefits without so much as a whimper.  How he continues to disappoint.
> To change the IR benefit without notice is criminal, and yes, I do not consider 30 days appropriate notice.  I am not now, nor will I ever be on IR, but to have COs and Base Commanders approve IR benefits last week, just have them terminated in 30 days is stupid.  Imagine being posted to Petawawa where there is a nine month wait for a PMQ.  Not being able to buy a house you proceed on IR only to find out today that you will lose your incidental payments and now be charged $554. a month in rations.  A difference of approx $1000 a month, and what does our leadership do?  Defend the benefit cuts as the best for all.  If this is the best you can do, at least have the moral courage to resign in protest.  Shame on all of you, who, with your inaction only serve to perpetuate the death of our benefits by a thousand cuts.   From hero to zero with one CANFORGEN!  I cannot find the words to describe the level of disgust I feel for this betrayal.  Smiling faces tell lies.  “WE HAVE ALWAYS LOOKED AFTER OUR PEOPLE AND THEIR FAMILIES AND WE WILL CONTINUE TO DO SO”  - just not as well as we use to.. Sad day indeed.



Why don't you try and tell that sob story in Windsor, St Thomas, London, or any other town hit hard by the latest econo-meltdown, and let us know what they think.

Again, when all is said and done, we have it pretty cushty benefit wise, and perhaps we are finally at a point, financially, where it is unsustainable, as alluded to by Cdn_aviator.


----------



## PuckChaser (31 Jul 2012)

AEH said:
			
		

> To change the IR benefit without notice is criminal, and yes, I do not consider 30 days appropriate notice.  I am not now, nor will I ever be on IR, but to have COs and Base Commanders approve IR benefits last week, just have them terminated in 30 days is stupid.



I'm not sure when you want the notice given. There's always gonna be someone who gets the 30 days, regardless of when they do it.


----------



## Jed (31 Jul 2012)

Well, well. Dark days for current serving members.

I guess the slowly eroding benefits are to make up for the 'unprecedented pay hikes' (sarcasm intended) that were granted 10 years or so ago. 

Serving members and their families will have to pull together internally more than ever towards the collective military family.

As always, civilian support is 'a mile wide and an inch deep'. I guess soldiers are just not important until the proverbial sh!t hits the fan.


----------



## AEH (31 Jul 2012)

Why don't you try and tell that sob story in Windsor, St Thomas, London, or any other town hit hard by the latest econo-meltdown, and let us know what they think.

Again, when all is said and done, we have it pretty cushty benefit wise, and perhaps we are finally at a point, financially, where it is unsustainable, as alluded to by Cdn_aviator.

Why would you compare military duty to civilian life in Windsor?  Who cares?  When DND was asked to reduce spending and find some money the leadership decided to reach into the soldier's pocket and find some there.  Just saying.


----------



## aesop081 (31 Jul 2012)

AEH said:
			
		

> When DND was asked to reduce spending and find some money the leadership decided to reach into the soldier's pocket and find some there.  Just saying.



Yup. We could always take it from O&M or capital expenditures to the point where we pay soldiers with no equipment to use or training to do, right ?

Instead, people have to use their posting allowance to ship the dog, connection fees, redirect their mail....all out of money that is not part of their pay and thus not out of their pockets. MLI and mortgage penalties ? Try planing better.

IR ? IR was a gravytrain shitshow that should have been put to an end years ago. Too many people were going IR for reasons that were not those intended by the benefit. Now, we pay the price.


----------



## Towards_the_gap (31 Jul 2012)

CDN Aviator- you took the words right out of my mouth.

Yes, let's pay for this instead of the LAV III upgrade, load carriage system, new CIED capabilities.

Grand idea.


----------



## Towards_the_gap (31 Jul 2012)

Edit - bad example.Not relevant to IR.


----------



## dogger1936 (31 Jul 2012)

AEH said:
			
		

> For the first time in my over 30 years in the CF I feel betrayed.  Betrayed by the CDS, who I first met when he was the CO of the RCD in Pet., a man who I respected greatly, but who will now be remembered as the CDS who, on his watch, allowed the continuous erosion of our benefits without so much as a whimper.  How he continues to disappoint.
> To change the IR benefit without notice is criminal, and yes, I do not consider 30 days appropriate notice.  I am not now, nor will I ever be on IR, but to have COs and Base Commanders approve IR benefits last week, just have them terminated in 30 days is stupid.  Imagine being posted to Petawawa where there is a nine month wait for a PMQ.  Not being able to buy a house you proceed on IR only to find out today that you will lose your incidental payments and now be charged $554. a month in rations.  A difference of approx $1000 a month, and what does our leadership do?  Defend the benefit cuts as the best for all.  If this is the best you can do, at least have the moral courage to resign in protest.  Shame on all of you, who, with your inaction only serve to perpetuate the death of our benefits by a thousand cuts.   From hero to zero with one CANFORGEN!  I cannot find the words to describe the level of disgust I feel for this betrayal.  Smiling faces tell lies.  “WE HAVE ALWAYS LOOKED AFTER OUR PEOPLE AND THEIR FAMILIES AND WE WILL CONTINUE TO DO SO”  - just not as well as we use to.. Sad day indeed.



While I agree this government is no different than the liebrals a few years ago; I don't blame the CDS. I personally don't want a CDS out stamping around holding his breath in public. I trust that the good General made the best decisions he could with the cuts this current government is making.

The CDS is a professional soldier and I'm glad this one acts as such.


----------



## aesop081 (31 Jul 2012)

To think, there is never a shortage of military guys on here bitching about overpaid union workers and their never ending drive for more, more, more.


----------



## Towards_the_gap (31 Jul 2012)

To anyone on here crying foul at these VERY MODEST cuts, predicting doom and gloom and an end to wednesday morning coffee....

Let's put it all in perspective shall we?


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/8645851/MoD-sacrifices-manpower-to-pay-for-equipment.html


There is “considerable disquiet” among commanders after ministers announced plans to reduce the Army to its smallest size since Victorian times. replacing regular soldiers with part-timers. Military commanders and opposition politicians said the drastic reduction raised questions about whether the military will ever stage major operations abroad again. There are also fears that the Army will no longer be able to wage armoured warfare after ministers refused to give a guarantee that a £5 billion programme for 2,000 armoured vehicles will go ahead.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/jul/05/thousands-soldiers-compulsory-redundancy

Thousands of soldiers could face compulsory redundancy over the next two years as the army pushes through radical reforms that will be outlined on Thursday. With the army needing to axe 20,000 posts because of budget cuts, commanders are pushing to downsize as quickly as possible rather than prolong the process. This means the next two tranches of redundancy will be huge – and are likely to coincide with the draw-down from Afghanistan, leaving the army to start afresh in 2015. Though it is hoped many soldiers will leave under the voluntary redundancy scheme, the Ministry of Defence acknowledges the target cannot be reached without pushing some to the door. Another reason the army wants to press ahead with the cuts is to protect its personnel from EU legislation due to become effective in 2015, which will mean they are entitled to only three months pay if made redundant, rather than the nine months salary given now.


----------



## dapaterson (31 Jul 2012)

@AEH:  Have you ever read the NDA?  The CDS has zero authority over pay and benefits.  Zero.  Nada.  Rien.  Zilch.  Sweet fuck all.


Question: Are folks on IR living in quarters obliged to eat at the mess?  Given that they will no longer be provided rations at Crown expense, I would think that they would be able to choose.

One more observation: With fewer IR commandos around (did you know some folks have had "temporary" conditions keeping them on IR for five years or more?) I strongly suspect we'll see significant savings on TD - since those "trips down east" or "trips to Ottawa" that were not 100% needed, but let Bloggins get back home for a few days so the boss let them slide will suddenly not be needed.


----------



## Journeyman (31 Jul 2012)

AEH said:
			
		

> For the first time in my over 30 years in the CF I feel betrayed....



That's quite the change from:





			
				AEH said:
			
		

> ......you are either part of the problem or part of the solution.  You decide!!  Throughout my 25 years I have always been amazed at how many pers bitch and wine and do nothing, and how few sappers take the opportunity to try to influence things!!!  May not always be successful, but at least TRY.


But of course, you weren't commissioned then.

I guess now that you're an officer and a role model for your troops, and the CDS doesn't live up to your standards, _you'll_ do the right thing and resign.   :


----------



## Good2Golf (31 Jul 2012)

I'd rather have good gear to fly and have to eat (so to speak) the costs of feeding myself (as dapaterson noted, maybe a 'mess opt-out' will be considered) and driving home when I can out of my regular salary, thus being able to feel that I am in some part contributing to the government's actions to reduce overall costs.  Anyone who was in during the early-90's will likely agree that Para 8 is still fairly accurate, as well.

While I do believe that the Queen does get fairly good value from those on IR (full family, cost move is not cheap), CDN Aviator and others are absolutely right, the writing was on the wall for this one a long, long, long time ago.


Regards
G2G


----------



## dapaterson (31 Jul 2012)

It's easy to make light of issues on the internet.  Theses changes will have a material effect on some CF members, and that shouldn't be discounted.  Leadership at all levels must look for ways to support their pers given these changes.

That said, the number of folks on IR is limited.  In the grand scheme of things, we are all replaceable - thought many of us would try to deny it.  If I decide the benefits are offensive and inadequate I can always release - and someone else will be promoted to fill my spot, and so on down the line until the CFRC gets their SIP adjusted for +1...


----------



## aesop081 (31 Jul 2012)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Theses changes will have a material effect on some CF members, and that shouldn't be discounted.  Leadership at all levels must look for ways to support their pers given these changes.



Quite right.


----------



## ff149 (31 Jul 2012)

I have just been posted on IR (daughters finishing High school next school year). Lucky for me, I am living out of the shacks and cooking my own food. If these cuts mean that there are not larger cuts coming, or that more equipment can be purchased I can live with this. I'll watch what I buy for food and such. I figured something like this was on the way after IR made the news earlier in the year and after the last couple of years of changes. I hope that for those that have to live in shacks they do have an "opt out" option ( I can see this being a problem).


----------



## dogger1936 (31 Jul 2012)

ff149 said:
			
		

> I have just been posted on IR (daughters finishing High school next school year). Lucky for me, I am living out of the shacks and cooking my own food. If these cuts mean that there are not larger cuts coming, or that more equipment can be purchased I can live with this. I'll watch what I buy for food and such. I figured something like this was on the way after IR made the news earlier in the year and after the last couple of years of changes. I hope that for those that have to live in shacks they do have an "opt out" option ( I can see this being a problem).



Is your kids finishing school the reasoning for IR?


----------



## ff149 (31 Jul 2012)

Yes, my family's intention is to move next year after she finishes high school.


----------



## Good2Golf (31 Jul 2012)

This does not apply uniquely to IR, but also to the initial 6-month restricted/unaccompanied period associated with all moves, should housing not be available to a member and their family.  The second aspect is one which will have a significant impact on CF families that were not able to secure housing during the regular APS and intended for the member to move to the new posting location and the family to follow.

While I did note earlier that many who served during the mid-90's may feel that things are still pretty decent compared to other folks in Canadian society (I do), it does set a very clear tone as to the exigencies of the Service being first and foremost over the family.  

It will be interesting to see if there are any DND/CF or Government policies that are developed in an attempt to assist other family members who will now be more inclined to move with the CF members immediately (teacher/nursing seniority, etc...).

Regards
G2G


----------



## brihard (31 Jul 2012)

At my present age of 25, with some sixty years of paying taxes ahead of me, and the hope that we will retain a capable military with a better operational focus- I say good! We cannot affor everything we want or would like. Our salaries and benefits remain bloody excellent. If cuts like this are the worst we face in today's economy, we're doing just fine. Better this than shuttering units, cutting pensions, or further cuts still to the care our our injured.

We can hardly watch the rest of the country tighten belts and applaud government measures to reduce spending and not face some of it ourselves.


----------



## dogger1936 (31 Jul 2012)

ff149 said:
			
		

> Yes, my family's intention is to move next year after she finishes high school.



See I would agree if your son/ daughter was in special education that was only offered in one place. However if it's cause you guys didn't want to uproot him/her during their last year to ME that would be a personal decision.

My son don't like leaving bases and friends either.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (31 Jul 2012)

IMO, the warning bells WRT IR came out last spring with the large changes to benefits (who could authorize, etc).  THAT should have been an indicator it was already being looked at, among other things.

This calendar year, Canadians some of us know have completely lost their government jobs to cuts; things could be a LOT worse than the trimming of benefits.

I'd not be surprised if PLD is being given a rather close look as well...

 :2c:


----------



## PuckChaser (31 Jul 2012)

dogger1936 said:
			
		

> See I would agree if your son/ daughter was in special education that was only offered in one place. However if it's cause you guys didn't want to uproot him/her during their last year to ME that would be a personal decision.
> 
> My son don't like leaving bases and friends either.



Its the last year of school, and pretty important in determining university placement. Being that person who's moved in the last year of high school, and in the middle of primary school, the last year of high school was the worst and I will endeavor to make sure my children don't have to go through that. Its a personal decision not to sell your house (obviously if theres no offers thats different) or have your spouse not quit their job too. FF149 has a great attitude about IR being that its a temporary placement and wants to be off it as soon as his daughter's school year is done. That's what IR is for, not for a 5 year posting to Ottawa on the government dime.


----------



## Nemo888 (31 Jul 2012)

There is another course of action available. In the USA during the last depression pensions were introduced, millions of government jobs were created, infrastructure was built and the top tax rate topped 80%. It eventually reached 94% for those who were making over 350,000 in today's dollars. I don't want to go anywhere near that far of course.

Between 1918 and 1970 the top tax rate in Canada did not drop below 60% IIRC. We have  a very low corporate tax rate of 28%.  Capital gains are taxed at 50% the rate of income. Since times are tough we could ask those with more  to temporarily pay what they used to. This was a great country when the rich paid taxes. 

http://elsa.berkeley.edu/~saez/course/Labortaxes/taxableincome/taxableincome_attach.pdf


----------



## PuckChaser (31 Jul 2012)

Nemo888 said:
			
		

> There is another course of action available. In the USA during the last depression pensions were introduced, millions of government jobs were created, infrastructure was built and the top tax rate topped 80%. It eventually reached 94% for those who were making over 350,000 in today's dollars. I don't want to go anywhere near that far of course.
> 
> Between 1918 and 1970 the top tax rate in Canada did not drop below 60% IIRC. We have  a very low corporate tax rate of 28%.  Capital gains are taxed at 50% the rate of income. Since times are tough we could ask those with more  to temporarily pay what they used to. This was a great country when the rich paid taxes.



Times are different. Businesses don't have to be in Canada. They'll pick up and go wherever the corporate rate is the lowest. We're gaining jobs, albeit slowly but that's because we're tied to an economy down south that is doing exactly what you want, tax the living hell out of rich people and pray its enough to fix it.


----------



## ff149 (31 Jul 2012)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Its the last year of school, and pretty important in determining university placement.



That was the reason we decided to do the IR process this year. My daughter is looking at various universities (including RMC) and my wife and I would do anything to help her. I know this is a personal decision and it was one that we took after much discussion, including my daughter saying that she did not want to be the "reason the family was separated". As I mentioned before, if these adjustments mean that other things can continue than I am all for it and can live with this.

Sorry did not mean to derail the topic


----------



## Strike (31 Jul 2012)

dogger1936 said:
			
		

> See I would agree if your son/ daughter was in special education that was only offered in one place. However if it's cause you guys didn't want to uproot him/her during their last year to ME that would be a personal decision.
> 
> My son don't like leaving bases and friends either.



When it comes to the last year of high school you also have to remember that choices for the last year were made prior to the previous year finishing and reflect what the student wants to do in college/university the next year.  Perhaps the new posting didn't have the same offerings in courses or opportunities.

The fact that the poster is intending to limit this to a year is exactly why IR was put in place to begin with.

As for rations, have bases gotten away from de-linking?


----------



## PuckChaser (31 Jul 2012)

ff149 said:
			
		

> Sorry did not mean to derail the topic



Don't think its a derail, one of the benefits being cut is from IR, and you're explaining your IR situation. Its good to have someone who's actually going to have to deal with the change drop their 2 cents.


----------



## MJP (31 Jul 2012)

Strike said:
			
		

> As for rations, have bases gotten away from de-linking?



I think this is the pertinent question for the IR folks that are living in considering the re-linking of all living in pers just a few short years ago.  Rations even with some of the reduced meal plan options are still pricey IMHO compared to what one can do for themselves.


----------



## Sub_Guy (31 Jul 2012)

What about service couples?  If one is posted to another location, and the other is not, it is not the choice of the members to go IR, unless they release they have no other option.  This new policy is going to sting for those members.


----------



## Journeyman (31 Jul 2012)

Nemo888 said:
			
		

> This was a great country when the rich paid taxes.


As PuckChaser mentions below, and you may have missed it, this is not 1928 -- corporations, and where they invest, are much different creatures now. Driving out those who invest will benefit Malaysia and Singapore _much_ more than it will benefit us or punish them.

But since you're adamant about banging your "Occupy" drum, feel free to disregard reality in lieu of pithy expressions.....  :not-again:


----------



## Dexen (1 Aug 2012)

I currently live in shacks in Esquimalt where our rooms have no facilities to cook our own food. I will now be forced to pay rations and ill be losing separation pay. My wife lives in Halifax and i'll be here until atleast June 2013 when my course finishes. This will be the equivalent of me maintaining 2 households on an Os salary.


----------



## blacktriangle (1 Aug 2012)

So your wife doesn't work or anything?


----------



## Strike (1 Aug 2012)

Dexen said:
			
		

> I currently live in shacks in Esquimalt where our rooms have no facilities to cook our own food. I will now be forced to pay rations and ill be losing separation pay. My wife lives in Halifax and i'll be here until atleast June 2013 when my course finishes. This will be the equivalent of me maintaining 2 households on an Os salary.



Careful with that.  Without giving a reason as to why she didn't join you out west you might not get much sympathy.


----------



## Occam (1 Aug 2012)

Strike said:
			
		

> Careful with that.  Without giving a reason as to why she didn't join you out west you might not get much sympathy.



He posted in April of last year as a civilian.  Judging by the trades he was pursuing, my guess is that he's on PATs in Esquimalt while awaiting QL3 training, and isn't allowed to move DF&E yet.


----------



## Harbinger343 (1 Aug 2012)

If they are looking to save some money maybe doing away with posting me every 2 years would kill two birds with one stone. 
That might take some personnel management skills and the ability to plan past the next fiscal year though.

Taking a long hard look at the 25% unfit-for-sea rate here on the west coast would probably help as well. 70 million in salary wasted on malingerers, while you burn out the guys and gals that actually go out and do their jobs.

Screw it, 2 more months and the powers that be can continue merrily destroying the CF while I enjoy my retirement and try to forget all about this train wreck that their abysmal leadership has created.


----------



## Strike (1 Aug 2012)

Occam said:
			
		

> He posted in April of last year as a civilian.  Judging by the trades he was pursuing, my guess is that he's on PATs in Esquimalt while awaiting QL3 training, and isn't allowed to move DF&E yet.



Would that not be a different situation than the classic IR situation?  If there's any question in your case I would recommend you talk to your OR.


----------



## Scoobs (1 Aug 2012)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> Yup. We could always take it from O&M or capital expenditures to the point where we pay soldiers with no equipment to use or training to do, right ?
> 
> Instead, people have to use their posting allowance to ship the dog, connection fees, redirect their mail....all out of money that is not part of their pay and thus not out of their pockets. MLI and mortgage penalties ? Try planing better.
> 
> IR ? IR was a gravytrain shitshow that should have been put to an end years ago. Too many people were going IR for reasons that were not those intended by the benefit. Now, we pay the price.



1.  IR serves a purpose.  Agreed that some pers have abused it, but the reality is that this will hurt a lot of pers on IR.  I agree that more notice could have been given, rather than 30 days plus or minus a few.  Note to all:  I've never been on IR.  This is my opinion on what is simply right to do, be it for any elimination of a benefit.  A good example of how the CF/DND handled the elimination of a policy was the PLD issue.  I had lots of notice that I was going to have it reduced and lots of notice that I wouldn't get it where I was being posted to.  Thus, this *sufficient* notice allowed me to properly plan.

2.  The reason why I quoted Cdn Aviator is his comment in regards to "planning better" in regards to the need for MLI.  Here's my situation.  Was in a reasonable house.  Not a mansion.  Just a three bedroom house.  Happily paying my mortgage and all bills.  Nobody gave me a dime for anything I have today as I lost both my parents when I was a child.  Thus, it wasn't like I had money flowing out of my ass.  Then I was posted to an area where the real estate market is considerably costlier.  I bought a *smaller* house in the new location for $70,000 more than my previous house.  It wasn't like I said, "hey, let's pay more money for a smaller house than what we had before".  Also, I bought the home outside of the normal area where mil pers buy so that I could keep the cost down (thus, planned to mitigate the increased costs).  The increase in mortgage resulted in an increase in the CMHC fees that I had to incur.  So, how would "planning better" help here?  The reality is that the military posted me and I never complained.  I followed my orders and moved.  Should I have bought a trailer and moved my family into that?  I'm being sarcastic because you can't make generalities such as "plan better" because sometimes your personal situation just doesn't allow for it.


----------



## blacktriangle (1 Aug 2012)

If the military really wanted to save money, they should just pay overtime to the people that actually produce results, and pink slip the rest.


----------



## Journeyman (1 Aug 2012)

Scoobs said:
			
		

> I'm being sarcastic because you can't make generalities such as "plan better" because sometimes your personal situation just doesn't allow for it.


It sounds as though you _did_ "plan better," given the hand that you were dealt. Kudos to you.


Edit: the rest has been deleted. Spectrum: are you going to cull the herd based on PERs, self-perception, or the depth of thought posted here?  :


----------



## exabedtech (1 Aug 2012)

Nemo888 said:
			
		

> There is another course of action available. In the USA during the last depression pensions were introduced, millions of government jobs were created, infrastructure was built and the top tax rate topped 80%. It eventually reached 94% for those who were making over 350,000 in today's dollars. I don't want to go anywhere near that far of course.
> 
> Between 1918 and 1970 the top tax rate in Canada did not drop below 60% IIRC. We have  a very low corporate tax rate of 28%.  Capital gains are taxed at 50% the rate of income. Since times are tough we could ask those with more  to temporarily pay what they used to. This was a great country when the rich paid taxes.
> 
> http://elsa.berkeley.edu/~saez/course/Labortaxes/taxableincome/taxableincome_attach.pdf



Please tell me you don't seriously believe this.

Corporations come in all shapes and sizes and employ a hell of a lot of Canadians.  Increasing taxes for large corporations provides them with an incentive to move jobs to jurisdictions with lower taxes.  Increasing taxes for small corporations simply reduces profitability and forces them to make some tough choices about where they spend money.  As a business owner, I can tell you that no single line item is more costly than labour, so guess where the first hard cuts will be made.

You don't improve the governments cash flow by increasing taxes, you do it by improving the business environment so that more can be employed.  Employed people pay taxes.  

I have no idea exactly who you would deem to be rich, but the idea that those who can afford good lawyers and accountants can avoid taxes is false.  You hire good lawyers and accountants because tax law gets very complex and you need to be sure you are fully compliant in order to avoid the penalties CRA so willingly hands out.


----------



## Dexen (1 Aug 2012)

Strike said:
			
		

> Careful with that.  Without giving a reason as to why she didn't join you out west you might not get much sympathy.



She isn't allowed to move here with me. I asked if she could move here either paid by the military or out of my own pocket and I was told if she moved here I would have to stay in the shacks, pay rations and quarters and lose seperation pay.


----------



## Delaney1986 (1 Aug 2012)

Hey Everyone,

   I'm just trying to understand what some of this means exactly. Do the cuts to separation pay include stuff like;
a.) When my husband goes away on course - does he still not pay for rations or anything while he's gone? I think he was away for about 2 months on his PLQ, that sort of thing.
b.) Does that effect if you join the military and go away for basic training? I know if you could provide proof of marriage you didn't have to pay rations or quarters.
c.) Does this effect military spouses who get posted to separate bases?

   I'm sorry if I derail, I'm just trying to understand what these changes mean exactly. I tried searching to CF website but it only talked specifically about IR and I didn't think any of the above would fit into that?

Do incidentals just mean quarters?

   Thanks for your patience with a confused civi!


----------



## aesop081 (1 Aug 2012)

Delaney1986 said:
			
		

> a.) When my husband goes away on course - does he still not pay for rations or anything while he's gone? I think he was away for about 2 months on his PLQ, that sort of thing.



No change. He is attending PLQ on TD, not IR. The changes announced were for IR.



> Do incidentals just mean quarters?



No. Think of incidentals as "minor expenses".


----------



## 4Feathers (1 Aug 2012)

This is nothing less than a modern version of the FRP, in reverse. The timing sucks, could have been announced early in year when personnel could have planned for it. Nice to see the Members of Parliament kept their benefits etc when they are not living at home. I am not on IR, but have to deal with all the members who are. Also interesting the MRLs were published on 23 Jul, a week before the actual message. Well done to release it during the Olympics too, not much media sympathy as they are focused elsewhere. There is more coming too, strat review is a success! No more worries about the lack of attrition over the past few years, it is about to catch up.


----------



## Hurricane (1 Aug 2012)

Dexen said:
			
		

> She isn't allowed to move here with me. I asked if she could move here either paid by the military or out of my own pocket and I was told if she moved here I would have to stay in the shacks, pay rations and quarters and lose separation pay.



That is very interesting, since I personally know 2 people who were entitled to a PMQ and a move for their families while just awaiting course let alone being on course. This was due to the fact that their wait/course was longer than 6 months. Has this policy changed? Does it vary from school to school? Is it possible that these 2 instances were done in a large clerical error?


----------



## Remius (1 Aug 2012)

4Feathers said:
			
		

> This is nothing less than a modern version of the FRP, in reverse. The timing sucks, could have been announced early in year when personnel could have planned for it. Nice to see the Members of Parliament kept their benefits etc when they are not living at home. I am not on IR, but have to deal with all the members who are. Also interesting the MRLs were published on 23 Jul, a week before the actual message. Well done to release it during the Olympics too, not much media sympathy as they are focused elsewhere. There is more coming too, strat review is a success! No more worries about the lack of attrition over the past few years, it is about to catch up.



Not even remotely the same as FRP.  The reason they are cutting certain benefits is to avoid doing things like FRP.  The easiest, shortest possible route is to just say "Ok, let's cut 10 000" soldiers.  problem solved.  The CF isn't the only one going through this kind of stuff.  Every department is doing its part to reduce and find efficiencies.  The world's economy is in the the tubes right now and people are complaining about a partial cut to a benefit when people are losing their jobs outright.

For those of you disapointed in our leadership and feel betrayed, take a good hard look again.  You are still getting a paycheque.  Frankly they are squeezing every possible dime out of every other area to avoid reducing our numbers by force.  Like I said, the easiest way would just to be to lay off a few thousand soldiers, airmen and sailors and be done with it.  If anything they are showing real leadership by actually thinking about smarter ways to save money than things like FRP.

Although, your conspiracy theory sounds interesting, the timelines for these things are established and direction on this was probably given when the budget was dropped if not before.  nobody said "hey, let's tell everyone during the Olympics."  I'd be more inclined to wonder if they had announced it on a Friday at 16:00hrs  before a long weekend.  Likely they were told to get it done in time for the 2nd quarter of the fiscal year, but hey, I wasn't at that O group so who knows

Unfortunately things like IR, class Bs, annuitants etc etc all have a purpose,yes.  but they've been abused for so long that it they are doing more damage than good.  The CF needs to clean up its house and it sucks that those currently in have to suffer a bit today to make things better for tommorrow but that's the way it goes.


----------



## Lardofthedance (1 Aug 2012)

I've seen several cynical comments written here about IR and the benefits involved. IR is not a gravy train as it was referred to. It is a benefit to offset additional burdens to a family during a geographic separation. There are hundreds+ CF members on IR due to the fact that their families CANNOT be with them, whether it be due to employment or medical reasons, or with that said a married service couple. IR is abused, there is no questioning that, but have you seen a Cpl with enough clout to sneak him/herself into an IR posting and "abuse" it? 

IR needs to be administered properly, and that starts with the senior leaders who quite often enable it. There are going hundreds+ families driven into extreme hardships, and for anybody to say something as stupid as "if you don't like it get out" or that "pink slips need to be handed out" you really need to pull your heads out of your ----'s, because you are not as important as you believe you are.

Idiotic  comments and backwards thinking  because it doesn't affect you directly doesn't go far in supporting you brothers and sisters in arms.


----------



## 4Feathers (1 Aug 2012)

Crantor said:
			
		

> For those of you disapointed in our leadership and feel betrayed, take a good hard look again.  You are still getting a paycheque.  Frankly they are squeezing every possible dime out of every other area to avoid reducing our numbers by force.  Like I said, the easiest way would just to be to lay off a few thousand soldiers, airmen and sailors and be done with it.  If anything they are showing real leadership by actually thinking about smarter ways to save money than things like FRP.
> 
> Although, your conspiracy theory sounds interesting, the timelines for these things are established and direction on this was probably given when the budget was dropped if not before.  nobody said "hey, let's tell everyone during the Olympics."  I'd be more inclined to wonder if they had announced it on a Friday at 16:00hrs  before a long weekend.  Likely they were told to get it done in time for the 2nd quarter of the fiscal year, but hey, I wasn't at that O group so who knows


 Not conspired? Hardly, my L1 was not even aware of this change. Will it affect members; yes, families; yes, Operations; yes, but I doubt they anticipated that. For all those of you who are "yes men" and "hey, it could be worse", good luck, there is more coming. Yes we are compensated fairly, but the communication plan for this significantly large change in policy was one of "shock and awe", not what those in uniform deserve. Was there some abuse of the system, yes, but why punish the families who were not. Have the courtesy to at least give them time to plan for it. For the "suck it up" crowd, good luck using that in person to your troops who are affected by this. Get ready for the PLD and further pension reforms coming soon. I hope they have a better communication plan for the cuts still to come.


----------



## Lardofthedance (1 Aug 2012)

4Feathers, I couldn't agree more.


----------



## Remius (1 Aug 2012)

Yep it is going to suck and has sucked.  Are you suggesting that the CF should be immune from any type of cut or reform in this kind of economic climate?

Tell me what YOU would do. Oh and you only have a few months to get it done without pissing anyone off.  And...go.

This isn't as simple as them against us and screwing us over.

As for pension reform stuff, that is completely out of the CF's hands and will also affect the PS, the CF and the RCMP.  It will likely have us pay more into our pension to bring us more in line with the private sector and closer to 50/50 for contributions.  There.  You heard it here, so when you get your severance, instead of buying a boat save it to offset that.   I'm already looking at the numbers and how it will affect my take home when the pensions get reformed and plan on being ready because I know it's coming.  Somebody said to plan better.  Those are good words of advice.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (1 Aug 2012)

Yup,.....I'd hate to see the long faces and whining on this board if some of these folks had to plan to not be paid for anywhere from 2 to 20 weeks just to secure the type of raises that are handed to them from the Unioned Govt. employee's................


----------



## bridges (1 Aug 2012)

4Feathers said:
			
		

> For the "suck it up" crowd, good luck using that in person to your troops who are affected by this.



Exactly.  While there is the odd exception, I suspect that many of the folks who speak of "short-term pain" and "suffering a bit now" are NOT the ones who are personally, directly affected by this change.  

Instead of taking benefits away from people who've already been approved for IR, and now have to eat the difference (so to speak), why don't they either grandfather it or give something like a one-year notice?  This would have alleviated some of the strain for the OSs awaiting training, for example, who are now stuck.



> Get ready for the PLD and further pension reforms coming soon. I hope they have a better communication plan for the cuts still to come.


     :nod:


----------



## dapaterson (1 Aug 2012)

Who does IR affect?  Primarily senior personnel.  As a proportion of pers at different ranks, you're most likley to be on IR if you're a CWO/CPO1, followed by GOFO or MWO/CPO2.  In raw numbers, the ranks with the most pers on IR are Sgt/PO2, WO/PO1 and Maj/LCdr.  


Is there some vast conspiracy?  No.  News releases and speaking points are always written in advance.  And this CANFORGEN was released on a Monday - no attempt to bury it as bad news on a Friday afternoon before a long weekend.

Were other L1s told this was coming?  Yes.  Were they able to announce it?  No.  Remember, discussions with the Treasury Board are considered cabinet confidences.  They cannot be released without authority.


----------



## Good2Golf (1 Aug 2012)

4Feathers said:
			
		

> Not conspired? Hardly, my L1 was not even aware of this change.



Really?  Mind if I ask which L1 that was?



			
				4Feathers said:
			
		

> Will it affect members; yes, families; yes, Operations; yes, but I doubt they anticipated that.



Hmmmm...that must have completely slipped their minds, I suppose...



			
				4Feathers said:
			
		

> For all those of you who are "yes men" and "hey, it could be worse", good luck, there is more coming.



Perhaps you should tell your L1.  They might not know about the next round of cuts yet... 



			
				4Feathers said:
			
		

> Yes we are compensated fairly, but the communication plan for this significantly large change in policy was one of "shock and awe", not what those in uniform deserve. Was there some abuse of the system, yes, but why punish the families who were not. Have the courtesy to at least give them time to plan for it.



You seem to agree with many of the "yes men" that we are fairly compensated.  So the issue is primarily one of communications, then?  

I haven't heard a single Colonel or General speak in the last 12 months without mentioning explicitly (and repeatedly) that we in DND are in for some significant belt tightening in the years to come.



			
				4Feathers said:
			
		

> For the "suck it up" crowd, good luck using that in person to your troops who are affected by this.



I intend to do exactly that, leading by example, as I will be on IR for 18 months.  

I and my family agreed that IR was best for the family situation, even having a very good idea (even as a lowly L4 type) that cuts to IR were imminent and that it could (likely would) result in a degree of financial encumbrance to my baseline earnings.

It is my responsibility to ensure that all my personnel are kept fully informed with whatever information is available.  I also look to pursue solutions that assist affected personnel and families as much as possible, and would expect the same effort from those affected.



			
				4Feathers said:
			
		

> Get ready for the PLD and further pension reforms coming soon. I hope they have a better communication plan for the cuts still to come.



And LDA, and X and Y...

So, could CF members members on IR be affected by an amount in some cases equal to a car payment (or more)?  Yes.  Would I prefer not to lose such benefits?  Certainly.  Will it make me change my family situation, understanding that which I anticipated through maintaining even moderate SA of the situation has now come to pass?  No, but that is of course a personal decision.  I know that there will be many who are adversely affected, some in situations that were not even of their own making, and that is unfortunate.

The mark of character comes, however, from how people deal with that which has come to be.  It is entirely within your and others' rights to be disappointed, and frustrated.  However, you should also be mindful of critiquing others who are accepting that which they can't change and are trying to make the best of the situation.

"It is easy to be pleasant when life flows by like a song, 
but the man worth while is the one who will smile when everything goes dead wrong. 
For the test of the heart is trouble, and it always comes with years, 
and the smile that is worth the praises of earth is the smile that shines through the tears." 
_An old Irish proverb_

It is what it is.  

Like I noted earlier, if it means ensuring we still have the kit and training that we need to conduct operations, I'd rather have that than fewer people in field units and unsuitable equipment.


Regards
G2G


----------



## Journeyman (1 Aug 2012)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> The mark of character comes, however, from how people deal with that which has come to be.  It is entirely within your and others' rights to be disappointed, and frustrated.  However, you should also be mindful of critiquing others who are accepting that which they can't change and are trying to make the best of the situation.


I'd suggest that this is doubly important for those entrusted with leadership!


----------



## 4Feathers (1 Aug 2012)

Lardofthedance said:
			
		

> 4Feathers, I couldn't agree more.



Thanks Lardofthedance, 
I see others on here really dislike my comments to the point of questioning my character, but it really is only showing their own colours IMHO. I have spent the last 25 years going and doing whatever I was told without question, paid the price family and health wise, so I believe I have a right to an opinion on here as much as anyone else without questioning their character. I lived through the cuts of the '90s, and what I see happening now brings back memories, but in this case with a serious lack of concern on the impact of no notice on peoples lives.
I will not be responding to the other derogatory comments on my opinion. Bottom line is we got dealt a shitty hand and the troops know it, no matter how much you try to paint it as positive. I love the military, but in this case, very poor judgement on how this was done by senior leadership.
Regards


----------



## Strike (1 Aug 2012)

4Feathers said:
			
		

> Thanks Lardofthedance,
> I see others on here really dislike my comments to the point of questioning my character, but it really is only showing their own colours IMHO. I have spent the last 25 years going and doing whatever I was told without question, paid the price family and health wise, so I believe I have a right to an opinion on here as much as anyone else without questioning their character. I lived through the cuts of the '90s, and what I see happening now brings back memories, but in this case with a serious lack of concern on the impact of no notice on peoples lives.
> I will not be responding to the other derogatory comments on my opinion. Bottom line is we got dealt a shitty hand and the troops know it, no matter how much you try to paint it as positive. I love the military, but in this case, very poor judgement on how this was done by senior leadership.
> Regards



4F - There is a big difference between someone questioning your opinions (which is what people here have been doing) and people questioning your character (which they have NOT).  Just because someone disagrees with your opinion does not mean they think your character should be questioned.

As for throwing around how many years you've been in and what you've given, several of the more long-winded posters to this thread have put in more than that in both time and effort so your reiterating it is not going to mean much to them.

Your latest reply smells of sour grapes to me.


Edited for grammar.


----------



## dapaterson (1 Aug 2012)

@4Feathers: My question:  Assume that the IR change would happen regardless - remember, the CDS does not set pay or benefit policy, nor does CMP - it's all by Treasury Board.  How would you have the senior leadership announce the implementation of the change?


----------



## Wookilar (1 Aug 2012)

The issue I have with the timing is that families made plans based on certain rules and now these rules are being changed outside of the APS (Who picked 1 Sep anyway?) after arrangements have been made (leases for example).

What I am waiting for now is a message coming out clarifying what is going to happen to all these students (or PATS especially) kids that are prohibited posted and getting low rate. Certainly not their choice, many want to move their families but not all are being allowed (for far too many reasons to be able to be covered succinctly).


----------



## dogger1936 (1 Aug 2012)

I think they should look at TD rates as well. Every time I've been sent on a course or writing board etc to a different base I get a handful of cash. Meanwhile my lodging is paid for, I get a card to eat at the mess, and most times I have a vehicle from base. Aside from buying laundry detergent at location I was never out of pocket for anything required.

Aside from a box of detergent I usually arrive with my wash kit and all I need. I don't understand the requirement for 17 bucks (or what ever it is now) a day aside from extra drinking money.

All my TD money was spent in a bar or used to buy something I wanted (I.E a canoe once) with my advance.

There are plenty of benefits that can be cut yet. Why not get rid of TD as well.


----------



## Sub_Guy (1 Aug 2012)

I feel they should have tried to tackle those who abuse the system.  Myself and my wife have been on IR 3 times (2 for myself, and 1 for her).

As a service couple there were circumstances beyond our control that led to us having to rely on IR postings.  The first was a posting to Halifax for my BSQ (for my BSQ all the west coast personnel were posted out east for the course).  I had to go IR because my wife was still working in Esquimalt.  The 2nd time I was posted to Comox, while my wife remained in Esquimalt, all reasons beyond my control.

This new policy is really going to hurt some good honest folks.  As for those who have abused it, thanks for being "that guy", the one who messed it up for everyone else.


----------



## Jungle (1 Aug 2012)

dogger1936 said:
			
		

> There are plenty of benefits that can be cut yet. Why not get rid of TD as well.



Maybe because TD is a govt-wide benefit, while IR is mostly a CF thing ??

Personally, I don't mind the reduction in benefits (I'm on IR at this time) but I would have liked the IR benefit limited to one year after COS date, instead of an elimination. No more people riding the IR train for years, but temporary support for those who need a break when posted.


----------



## jeffb (1 Aug 2012)

Are people who are posted to one of the schools on a Prohibited posting on IR if they are married/common-law? When I was going through if you were married/common-law you did not have to pay R&Q but frankly I am quite ignorant as to what policy it was that covered that.


----------



## PuckChaser (1 Aug 2012)

Jungle said:
			
		

> Personally, I don't mind the reduction in benefits (I'm on IR at this time) but I would have liked the IR benefit limited to one year after COS date, instead of an elimination. No more people riding the IR train for years, but temporary support for those who need a break when posted.



I think that's a fantastic 90% solution that both saves money and starts making people get off the IR gravy train which saves even more in the long run. If your IR benefits start going downhill after the first year, and every year after that, IR would finally be the temporary fix that its supposed to be. Not a money maker.


----------



## Remius (1 Aug 2012)

Jungle said:
			
		

> Maybe because TD is a govt-wide benefit, while IR is mostly a CF thing ??



True, but a simple change like "Receipts must be provided for meals, and you will be reimbursed up to X amount" would save a lot of money.  No actual cut to the amount of TD you are entitled to, just provide receipts for what you actually spent.


----------



## bridges (1 Aug 2012)

Crantor said:
			
		

> True, but a simple change like "Receipts must be provided for meals, and you will be reimbursed up to X amount" would save a lot of money.  No actual cut to the amount of TD you are entitled to, just provide receipts for what you actually spent.



OK, as long as we include $$ for the increased staff time & effort dealing with those receipts, adding them up one-by-one, photocopying them, processing stat decs for the missing ones, etc. etc.  The final cost-benefit analysis might not be as favourable as it initially seems.   I suspect there's a good reason why nobody in the government has to turn in receipts for meals on TD, in most situations.


----------



## McG (1 Aug 2012)

AEH said:
			
		

> For the first time in my over 30 years in the CF I feel betrayed.  Betrayed by the CDS, who I first met when he was the CO of the RCD in Pet., a man who I respected greatly, but who will now be remembered as the CDS who, on his watch, allowed the continuous erosion of our benefits without so much as a whimper.


To be fair, the CDS can only recommend changes on compensation and benefits to TB.  If they choose to ignore his advice and go a different direction, that is the way of things.  While these changes to C&B may not be ideal, I do not think they are worth falling on a sword.  I am comfortable assuming the CDS gave appropriate recommendations and is now ensuring advice is being developed on how to mitigate the impacts for those who most needed the assistance.



			
				dapaterson said:
			
		

> Question: Are folks on IR living in quarters obliged to eat at the mess?  Given that they will no longer be provided rations at Crown expense, I would think that they would be able to choose.


On at least some bases, persons living in quarters (regardless of who is paying) are required to be on rations.  Most quarters do not have facilities for one to do their own cooking, and this forms the basis of arguments that R&Q cannot be de-linked.  Some bases even require members to pay for three meals every day of the week regardless of whether the member goes to the mess for the meal or not (so if you brown-bag it because it is not practical to walk 20 min walk each way, then you will pay for two lunches).  Of course, this is something within the CF's ability to control.  I see no problem with members paying actual cost for the meals that they actually eat in the mess.


			
				MJP said:
			
		

> Rations even with some of the reduced meal plan options are still pricey IMHO compared to what one can do for themselves.


Are ration prices set to be comparable to the local economy (as TB requires us to do with most other things such as PMQs and parking in cities)?  In the end, pers entitled to separation expense should be paying the cost of the food they eat, but they should not be paying the cost of preparing it and they certainly should not be paying restaurant prices - these higher prices are the costs of separation & are therefore a requirement imposed by service.



			
				AEH said:
			
		

> To change the IR benefit without notice is criminal, and yes, I do not consider 30 days appropriate notice.





			
				Wookilar said:
			
		

> The issue I have with the timing is that families made plans based on certain rules and now these rules are being changed outside of the APS (Who picked 1 Sep anyway?) after arrangements have been made (leases for example).


It is concerning about both the short notice and the effects coming into play at a time when many people are still implementing financial decision made under the old rules.  The crown knew it was preparing to change the rules yet continued to advise personnel based on the old rules up until the publishing of this CANFORGEN.  If someone now finds them self taking a significant hit because of what was the right decision under the old rules, they would have the option of presenting their damages to Director Claims and Civil Litigation (DCCL).



			
				CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> IR ? IR was a gravytrain shitshow that should have been put to an end years ago. Too many people were going IR for reasons that were not those intended by the benefit.


The proper response to abuses would be to deny the benefit to those who abuse it.  After two years of IR because a member's spouse did not want to relocate, it is time to recognize that as a lifestyle choice and cease the benefit for that member.



			
				Jungle said:
			
		

> Personally, I don't mind the reduction in benefits (I'm on IR at this time) but I would have liked the IR benefit limited to one year after COS date, instead of an elimination. No more people riding the IR train for years, but temporary support for those who need a break when posted.


I suspect the pendulum may have just swung from too generous to inadequate.  Rations and incidentals could have been reduced instead of eliminated.  Your idea of a maximum time duration might also be reasonable - though I would suggest 18 to 24 months from RFD as opposed to 12 months from COS.



			
				Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> IMO, the warning bells WRT IR came out last spring with the large changes to benefits (who could authorize, etc).  THAT should have been an indicator it was already being looked at, among other things.


That was not large changes that happened last year.  That was a correction after DND & the CF had deviated from TB processes without TB approval.  The only thing that changes was we went back to following the rules.



			
				dogger1936 said:
			
		

> See I would agree if your son/ daughter was in special education that was only offered in one place. However if it's cause you guys didn't want to uproot him/her during their last year to ME that would be a personal decision.


For reasons already mentioned, the last year of highschool was one of the reasons specifically listed (when the DCBA aide-memoire was still used) as an acceptable reason for IR.  Children in college and/or university were not acceptable reasons for IR (though I know of cases where it was approved for this reason) - kids can move out at that age.



			
				CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> No change. He is attending PLQ on TD, not IR. The changes announced were for IR.


No.  The changes were for separation expense.  Members on IR are not unique in receiving separation expense.  However, you are correct that this does not impact personnel on TD.



			
				jeffb said:
			
		

> Are people who are posted to one of the schools on a Prohibited posting on IR if they are married/common-law?


No they are not IR, but they would be entitled separation expense.


----------



## EX--Royal (1 Aug 2012)

Enough talk about IR, what about all the other benefits we are losing. I pity the poor soldier with a wife and kids that has a couple dogs and needs to explain to their kids that they can't bring them to their next posting because the cost is too high. If anyone has ever been posted with pets you'll know the cost is not cheap, kiss your posting allowance good-bye.
I do agree that the IR system has been abused and changes were needed, but the posting benefits are a little too much.


----------



## Remius (1 Aug 2012)

bridges said:
			
		

> OK, as long as we include $$ for the increased staff time & effort dealing with those receipts, adding them up one-by-one, photocopying them, processing stat decs for the missing ones, etc. etc.  The final cost-benefit analysis might not be as favourable as it initially seems.   I suspect there's a good reason why nobody in the government has to turn in receipts for meals on TD, in most situations.



It likely wouldn't be much more effort than is already being done.  Hotels, cabs, car rentals etc are already being provided as part of your claim adding a few more receipts is not the end of the world.  Claims X isn't that hard to use either.

But you did get me thinking that people might just start spending the amounts they are entitled to knowing that they have to provide receipts rather than eat on the cheap and pocket the rest. So the savings might not be worth the effort.


----------



## wesleyd (1 Aug 2012)

I agree with cuts and doing our part to help balance the budget. But I disagree with doing it on the CF members backs. There are many other areas that can be streamlined or cut without having to take money out of CF members pockets. I think the hardest pill to swallow is that MP's have not had to make any significant adjustments during this time. Perhaps they should take some pointers from CF leadership and lead by example.  I would not point blame at any senior CF leadership they all have bosses and in the end must serve even if they do not agree with what is happening. Just my opinion.


----------



## bridges (1 Aug 2012)

Crantor said:
			
		

> It likely wouldn't be much more effort than is already being done.  Hotels, cabs, car rentals etc are already being provided as part of your claim adding a few more receipts is not the end of the world.  Claims X isn't that hard to use either.
> 
> But you did get me thinking that people might just start spending the amounts they are entitled to knowing that they have to provide receipts rather than eat on the cheap and pocket the rest. So the savings might not be worth the effort.



It'd be at least 3 receipts per day, for the duration of the claim.  Multiplied by the # of pers on TD.  Bit of extra paperwork.  As for Claims-X, I often end up helping others who use it too infrequently to be experts at things like meal exceptions, etc.  Sometimes the system simply doesn't give you what you're entitled to.  

I think you're right, in that people would just eat more expensively.  Personally, it's rare that I pocket any real cash from unused TD meal allowance.  I usually eat at restaurants with the people I'm travelling with; some days the meal rate covers the cost, others it doesn't.  It tends to even out.  If you have a longer pd of TD, more flexibility or access to a kitchenette, that changes.


----------



## Sub_Guy (1 Aug 2012)

Crantor said:
			
		

> It likely wouldn't be much more effort than is already being done.  Hotels, cabs, car rentals etc are already being provided as part of your claim adding a few more receipts is not the end of the world.  Claims X isn't that hard to use either.
> 
> But you did get me thinking that people might just start spending the amounts they are entitled to knowing that they have to provide receipts rather than eat on the cheap and pocket the rest. So the savings might not be worth the effort.



Having to keep meal receipts and having clerks go through them could be a pain.  I will use my current squadron for example,  let's say we send an Aurora away with 20 pers for two weeks, 14 days, 3 meals a day, that works out to 840 receipts.  Consider we seem to have a crew gone somewhere every 3 weeks (on average) the work load on our clerks would be overwhelming.  Keeping receipts for meals, in my opinion would be a bad idea, the system works just fine now.


----------



## dapaterson (1 Aug 2012)

bridges said:
			
		

> It'd be at least 3 receipts per day, for the duration of the claim.  Multiplied by the # of pers on TD.  Bit of extra paperwork.



And, since the government doesn't pay for alcohol, every receipt would have to be reviewed and any drinks taken out.  Then the section 34 reviewer would also have to go over everything... (which already happens; it would just be longer).

Claims are already admin-heavy; adding more work would mean either more staff or long delays in getting paid.


----------



## bridges (1 Aug 2012)

EX--Royal said:
			
		

> I pity the poor soldier with a wife and kids that has a couple dogs and needs to explain to their kids that they can't bring them to their next posting because the cost is too high. If anyone has ever been posted with pets you'll know the cost is not cheap, kiss your posting allowance good-bye.



Sad but true.  We moved across the country with 3 cats, and spent about a month in a hotel waiting for the possession date on the new house.  (This was several years ago - I think they've cut that kind of thing significantly since then.)  Anyway, the hotel wanted to charge an addl $10 per day for the cats, and after some pleading on our part, they agreed to reduce it to a one-time fee of $50 or so.  Most of the other places en route didn't charge more $, but did stick us in smoking rooms.   

I'm one of those people who considers pets family members and would sooner cut cable, the internet or my own food allotment than leave one of them behind, but I know not everyone will make those choices with their personalized funding envelope.  Maybe the SPCAs and humane societies should get ready for more unwanted pets on their doorstep.   :not-again:


----------



## Sub_Guy (1 Aug 2012)

Am I reading the order wrong, doesn't it say the benefits regarding pets and stuff will now be taken care of by the personalized envelope?

So won't we will still get those?


----------



## PuckChaser (1 Aug 2012)

bridges said:
			
		

> Maybe the SPCAs and humane societies should get ready for more unwanted pets on their doorstep.   :not-again:



Or they get released in the PMQs and become feral like Kingston and Uplands. That's even worse, at least the SPCA would try to find them a home.


----------



## Dexen (1 Aug 2012)

Here in Esquimalt while living in the shacks rations are going to cost $543 as of next month. That $543 is for 6 swipes of the meal card, which usually I only use 2 maybe 3 per day. It would be a totally different situation if I only paid for what I use.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (1 Aug 2012)

EX--Royal said:
			
		

> Enough talk about IR, what about all the other benefits we are losing. I pity the poor soldier with a wife and kids that has a couple dogs and needs to explain to their kids that they can't bring them to their next posting because the cost is too high. If anyone has ever been posted with pets you'll know the cost is not cheap, kiss your posting allowance good-bye.



Sorry, but this seems alittle too over-the-top for me.  Its not like ALL $ benefits were cut, right?  Poor soldier with wife, kids and dogs still gets paid, still has $$ avail (personalized benefits) to pay for this.  Sure, it *dips* into the $ left in your bank account for a posting allowance, but isn't that $ part of what a PA is actually for ???

Having pets = personal choice.  Personalized benefits (those deemed non-essential but attributable to relocation, reimbursement of these expenses must not constitute personal gain).

In a case like this, or ones similar, I have to say it *seems* like ppl will be pissed-off because they will have less of a cash-out on their PBs because of their personal choice (having pets).  I don't think portraying that Johny and Susy Q will have to leave their beloved pets behind because Daddy's CFIRP benefits were cut is accurate, and any CF mbr who is a parent and uses that line with their kids... :

 :2c:  I am far from an expert but that is how is seems/reads to me.


----------



## dapaterson (1 Aug 2012)

Dolphin_Hunter said:
			
		

> Am I reading the order wrong, doesn't it say the benefits regarding pets and stuff will now be taken care of by the personalized envelope?
> 
> So won't we will still get those?



That's the way it reads.  It just comes out of a different envelope.


----------



## Strike (1 Aug 2012)

EX--Royal said:
			
		

> Enough talk about IR, what about all the other benefits we are losing. I pity the poor soldier with a wife and kids that has a couple dogs and needs to explain to their kids that they can't bring them to their next posting because the cost is too high. If anyone has ever been posted with pets you'll know the cost is not cheap, *kiss your posting allowance good-bye.*



Wow.  Greedy much?  That allowance is there to help cover incidentals not covered in Custom.  It is not an extra bit of money that you can automatically use to pay down your mortgage.

You realize that anyone with a horse had to pay out of their own pocket.  And I can name off a good dozen people who have had to do that because the CF moved them and, since horses are considered livestock, they weren't covered at all.  Considerably higher in cost than kenneling/flying a couple of dogs or cats (which is still getting covered, just not in custom).


----------



## bridges (1 Aug 2012)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Or they get released in the PMQs and become feral like Kingston and Uplands. That's even worse, at least the SPCA would try to find them a home.



Yup - if they have enough room to keep them more than a couple of days. 

[tangent alert]  When Rockcliffe closed a few years ago, several cats were left behind to their own devices, which is not good in an Ottawa winter; local animal welfare agencies wanted to go in & collect them but were prevented from doing so, as the whole place was fenced off and access denied.  I'm betting the same thing will happen in Toronto with the closure & redevelopment of the Qs there.  

Pets are a lifestyle choice, but a highly beneficial & health-supporting one for many people.   Glad to see TB has kept an option to defer the expenses of bringing them along.   :nod:


----------



## bridges (1 Aug 2012)

Dexen said:
			
		

> Here in Esquimalt while living in the shacks rations are going to cost $543 as of next month. That $543 is for 6 swipes of the meal card, which usually I only use 2 maybe 3 per day. It would be a totally different situation if I only paid for what I use. Paying $543 out of pocket and losing $400 per month is a $943 swing on my Os salary.



That, to me, gets to the crux of the matter.  And I'm betting other people in similar situations did not know, ahead of time, that the IR benefits would be cut during their posting.  Whether L1s knew it or not.

I think if the CF wants to mitigate the damage of the IR cuts, both financially and in terms of mbrs' trust, they may want to consider not shackling affected pers to rations expenses like the ones described above.    :2c:


----------



## Jed (1 Aug 2012)

In Camp Faoaur the Austrians had a solution for all those feral cats and dogs. Little Johnnie and Suzie Q probably would not have appreciated the solution.  >


----------



## PMedMoe (1 Aug 2012)

Dolphin_Hunter said:
			
		

> What about service couples?  If one is posted to another location, and the other is not, it is not the choice of the members to go IR, unless they release they have no other option.  This new policy is going to sting for those members.



Exactly.  I should request a fucking posting....   :



			
				Lardofthedance said:
			
		

> I've seen several cynical comments written here about IR and the benefits involved. IR is not a gravy train as it was referred to. It is a benefit to offset additional burdens to a family during a geographic separation. There are hundreds+ CF members on IR due to the fact that their families CANNOT be with them, whether it be due to employment or medical reasons, or with that said a married service couple. IR is abused, there is no questioning that, but have you seen a Cpl with enough clout to sneak him/herself into an IR posting and "abuse" it?
> 
> IR needs to be administered properly, and that starts with the senior leaders who quite often enable it. There are going hundreds+ families driven into extreme hardships, and for anybody to say something as stupid as "if you don't like it get out" or that "pink slips need to be handed out" you really need to pull your heads out of your ----'s, because you are not as important as you believe you are.
> 
> Idiotic  comments and backwards thinking  because it doesn't affect you directly doesn't go far in supporting you brothers and sisters in arms.



 :goodpost:


----------



## codboymt (1 Aug 2012)

Not to beat a dead horse, but I just want to clarify...
I am currently in St. John's doing training for the NET (now WENG Tech) program. I have one semester left. I am considered TD and not IR, yes?  Both terms have been floated around interchangeably when referring to the group of us who are here and separated from our family. My biggest concern is that I will NOT be able to afford my last semester here. It seems silly that I may have to consider taking a loan out to complete the training necessary to do the job I have been hired to do.


----------



## McG (1 Aug 2012)

codboymt said:
			
		

> I am considered TD and not IR, yes?


You may be, or not.  You might be prohibited, which is something else again.  As a start point, you need to look at your last posting message.


----------



## codboymt (1 Aug 2012)

MCG said:
			
		

> You may be, or not.  You might be prohibited, which is something else again.  As a start point, you need to look at your last posting message.



Thanks,  I'm pretty sure we're not considered 'prohibited'. We were told TD for the longest time but lately they've been saying IR. I'll have to check with my div. staff tomorrow, it'll be quicker than digging out my posting message and we're in exam week, not a stress I needed right now.


----------



## Disenchantedsailor (1 Aug 2012)

Folks after just having time to read this particular thread let's put some perspective on this.
The department has to slash 1.9 Billion dollars, in a short amount of time.

So IR (a personal choice) doesnt look like a gravy train any more maybe just maybe it'll dissuade some folks from going on Chosen restrictions for 5 years or more.
TAA for Class B personnel really, they are working full time, someone try to show me anywhere that another government department pays their full time employees to drive to work.  It's called a full time job, if you don't like it McDonald's is always hiring.
IRP Benefits, ok maybe a little odd in the areas they chose to cut or shift but really, I've had 6 moves and made money on every one of them, lets stop bitching before FRP comes back


----------



## Dexen (1 Aug 2012)

Not_So_Arty_Newbie said:
			
		

> Folks after just having time to read this particular thread let's put some perspective on this.
> The department has to slash 1.9 Billion dollars, in a short amount of time.
> 
> So IR (a personal choice) doesnt look like a gravy train any more maybe just maybe it'll dissuade some folks from going on Chosen restrictions for 5 years or more.
> ...



I don't think you understand.


----------



## Towards_the_gap (1 Aug 2012)

Dexen said:
			
		

> I don't think you understand.



Articulate and informative post. Enlighten us.

Where should those 1.9billion in savings come from instead? Please tell me.


----------



## dogger1936 (1 Aug 2012)

Towards_the_gap said:
			
		

> Articulate and informative post. Enlighten us.
> 
> Where should those 1.9billion in savings come from instead? Please tell me.



Make MP's serve 25 years to get their pensions would be a start!


----------



## aesop081 (1 Aug 2012)

dogger1936 said:
			
		

> Make MP's serve 25 years to get their pensions would be a start!



Military police do have to serve 25 years to get a pension.

That's what you meant, right ? Since member of parliament pensions are not in DND's budget.


----------



## dogger1936 (1 Aug 2012)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> Military police do have to serve 25 years to get a pension.
> 
> That's what you meant, right ? Since member of parliament pensions are not in DND's budget.



Take a little from here...little from there... hey it aint like the govt don`t skim of other envelopes when it benefits them!


----------



## Towards_the_gap (1 Aug 2012)

Thing is dogger, that's what they appear to be trying to do. Other departments are going through much worse in comparison to DND, and at least DND itself is trying to shield the frontline (operations, equipment and soldiers/sailors/airpersons on said operations) from cuts that are too deep. And I say this as probably the last guy you would expect to see sticking up for the system/CofC.

Someone show me the math on how they will be out of pocket, ie losing money each month, or going into debt, from these cuts. Seriously.


----------



## ModlrMike (1 Aug 2012)

dogger1936 said:
			
		

> Make MP's serve 25 years to get their pensions would be a start!





			
				CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> Military police do have to serve 25 years to get a pension.
> 
> That's what you meant, right ? Since member of parliament pensions are not in DND's budget.



I think this has more to do with Treasury Board than Parliament.


----------



## Sub_Guy (1 Aug 2012)

Towards_the_gap said:
			
		

> Someone show me the math on how they will be out of pocket, ie losing money each month, or going into debt, from these cuts. Seriously.



If you have a service couple, where one is forced to go on IR, I could see this new policy really affecting their budget.  

I think they should have a hard drawn line in the sand.  No IR over a year, period.  Service couples should have rations paid for, as it is not their choice to go IR (if the other spouse can not get posted to the same location).


----------



## Towards_the_gap (1 Aug 2012)

Dolphin_Hunter said:
			
		

> If you have a service couple, where one is forced to go on IR, I could see this new policy really affecting their budget.
> 
> I think they should have a hard drawn line in the sand.  No IR over a year, period.  Service couples should have rations paid for, as it is not their choice to go IR (if the other spouse can not get posted to the same location).



I agree, IR should be solely a temporary measure. I bet that would keep costs down immeasurably.

But aren't we always told to plan according to your base salary alone and not to count on benefits/allowances? As they are the first to go at the whim of the TB?


----------



## blacktriangle (1 Aug 2012)

Dolphin_Hunter said:
			
		

> If you have a service couple, where one is forced to go on IR, I could see this new policy really affecting their budget.
> 
> I think they should have a hard drawn line in the sand.  No IR over a year, period.  Service couples should have rations paid for, as it is not their choice to go IR (if the other spouse can not get posted to the same location).



That sounds pretty fair to me. 

A lot easier to support than commuting assistance for Class B...I can't believe that was even being paid but I have seen a few people claim it.  :


----------



## Sub_Guy (1 Aug 2012)

Towards_the_gap said:
			
		

> I agree, IR should be solely a temporary measure. I bet that would keep costs down immeasurably.
> 
> But aren't we always told to plan according to your base salary alone and not to count on benefits/allowances? As they are the first to go at the whim of the TB?



So are you telling me that service couples should budget for two households, just on the off chance they can't get posted together.

As for allowances being cut on a whim, this irks me especially when talking about PLD, the sole reason for this allowance was to offset living expenses at locations with a higher cost of living.  So if we are not supposed to factor that into the budget then why give it to us?


----------



## PuckChaser (2 Aug 2012)

Dolphin_Hunter said:
			
		

> So if we are not supposed to factor that into the budget then why give it to us?



Exactly! You can't tell Pte Bloggins with 3 kids not to rely on his PLD in Edmonton, and just save it. People would be knocking that soldier if he used the money for a XBox instead of food for the month or rent because he's not supposed to count on it and now he's living in a shady part of town. I understand the calculation going a few dollars left or right every year, but to kick everyone in Edmonton down $850 a month is criminal. But using PLD and to a lesser extent LDA/SDA/Aircrew as part of his income is just heresy, that money is for saving, not spending!


----------



## Dexen (2 Aug 2012)

Towards_the_gap said:
			
		

> Articulate and informative post. Enlighten us.
> 
> Where should those 1.9billion in savings come from instead? Please tell me.



He said IR is a personal choice, if he read all of the thread like he said, then he would of read the part where I said I am forced to live on base. So now as of September first I'm obligated to pay $543 of rations. IR for me was never a gravy train it was something necessary for me to be able afford to serve my country. I know people here in Esquimalt that are on pat like myself with kids that may have to release in order to pay their bills now.

*edit* Apparantly I misunderstood the part about the seperation pay.


----------



## Towards_the_gap (2 Aug 2012)

Where does it say you are losing SE? All they are cutting from IR is the incidentals.


----------



## wesleyd (2 Aug 2012)

Towards_the_gap said:
			
		

> Thing is dogger, that's what they appear to be trying to do. Other departments are going through much worse in comparison to DND, and at least DND itself is trying to shield the frontline (operations, equipment and soldiers/sailors/airpersons on said operations) from cuts that are too deep. And I say this as probably the last guy you would expect to see sticking up for the system/CofC.
> 
> Someone show me the math on how they will be out of pocket, ie losing money each month, or going into debt, from these cuts. Seriously.


You ever been on IR and had kids at home with a wife/husband who couldnt find employment because your husband/wife has to move every couple of years. Then you cant sell your house unless you want to take a 50-75k loss, than you paid for it not market value? So hubby/wifey goes on IR on their next posting not because they want to but because they have no other option other than declare bankruptcy. These are the people who will be going in the whole every month, seriously. This situation is not an uncommon one. Not everyone has taken a ride on the gravy train. Seriously.


----------



## wesleyd (2 Aug 2012)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Sorry, but this seems alittle too over-the-top for me.  Its not like ALL $ benefits were cut, right?  Poor soldier with wife, kids and dogs still gets paid, still has $$ avail (personalized benefits) to pay for this.  Sure, it *dips* into the $ left in your bank account for a posting allowance, but isn't that $ part of what a PA is actually for ???
> 
> Having pets =* personal choice*.  Personalized benefits (those deemed non-essential but attributable to relocation, reimbursement of these expenses must not constitute personal gain).
> 
> ...



So aside from the pets having electricity,water, natural gas connected to your house would be personal choices too??


----------



## Towards_the_gap (2 Aug 2012)

wesleyd said:
			
		

> You ever been on IR and had kids at home with a wife/husband who couldnt find employment because your husband/wife has to move every couple of years. Then you cant sell your house unless you want to take a 50-75k loss, than you paid for it not market value? So hubby/wifey goes on IR on their next posting not because they want to but because they have no other option other than declare bankruptcy. These are the people who will be going in the whole every month, seriously. This situation is not an uncommon one. Not everyone has taken a ride on the gravy train. Seriously.



No, what I am asking for is the actual working out of income vs expenses where someone is losing money because of these changes. If you can show that to me, where soldier X will end up in the red each month, then I will agree with you that these cuts are unfair.


----------



## Towards_the_gap (2 Aug 2012)

wesleyd said:
			
		

> So aside from the pets having electricity,water, natural gas connected to your house would be personal choices too??



Are you paying out of pocket for them? No. It is still paid for.


----------



## Occam (2 Aug 2012)

Towards_the_gap said:
			
		

> Are you paying out of pocket for them? No. It is still paid for.



Yes, it's still paid for...out of the Personalized funding envelope.  The envelope which gets its funds from the Movement Grant (the purpose of which is "to offset various losses or expenses incurred but not specifically provided for"), the Posting Allowance (the purpose of which is "intended to provide compensation for the turbulence associated with relocation of CF members of the Regular Force"), and "Incentives and Savings", which is money you've saved the Crown by being keen (or lucky) enough to shorten their HHT, or by not selling their primary residence.

They may call it a "Personalized envelope", but what it really amounts to is "the CF member's money".  Let's look at the components individually.

The Movement Grant is to compensate you for suddenly having drapes that are too long to fit your new windows at destination, or for having a half-freezer full of food that you can't take with you, or the dozens of aerosol cans of various household products that you can't take, or paint/oil/hazardous goods that you can't take with you, or propane tanks.  It's not meant to line your pocket, but it is your money intended to replace all of these things.

The Posting Allowance is intended as compensation for "the turbulence associated with relocation of CF members of the Regular Force".  Personally, I don't think the Posting Allowance is meant to be like the Civilian Dress Assistance Allowance, in that you're being reimbursed for something you periodically have to pay for.  I believe the Posting Allowance is along the lines of Sea Duty Allowance, which compensates you for having to periodically eat the crap sandwich of being stuck on the ship for duty watches every 12 days, amongst all the other hardships that go along with being a sailor.  The Posting Allowance varies by marital status and rank.  Does it cost more to get your cable/telephone/electricity/gas disconnected/connected if you're a Colonel than if you're a Corporal?  Does shipping your St-Bernard dog become cheaper if you're single?

Things like the savings incentive for the HHT put money in your Personalized Envelope because of savings you've made on Core.  Since funds in Personalized that are unused are paid out to you in cash (i.e. "the CF member's money"), there's an incentive to shorten your HHT.  If you start taking a bunch of expenses which used to be in Custom and shove them into Personalized, you're eroding "the CF member's money".

I note that the NJC Relocation Directive still allows pet kennelling/transportation under the Customized funding envelope, as are utility connect/disconnect fees.  Since the NJC Relocation Directive forms part of the collective agreements of the Public Service, I don't expect to see changes to that policy anytime soon.  Did they hit the CF because they were an easy target?

edit: punctuation and clarity


----------



## Eye In The Sky (2 Aug 2012)

wesleyd said:
			
		

> So aside from the pets having electricity,water, natural gas connected to your house would be personal choices too??



I think you and I can both see I never mentioned that part, right?

However, Disconnet/Connect fees at origin and new place of duty have been moved from Core, and IIRC, there is a $650 movement grant within the Personalized envelope.  According to the new way of things, the $650 will/can be used to cover disconnect/connect fees and other expenses.

I am not saying I agree or disagree, and can't comment on if the $650 Movement grant is enough to cover the things it is supposed to cover.

** Thanks Occam for explaining it in detail.   :goodpost:

I will say that, I think the whole thing is coming into effect TOO quickly.  I think the "new" rules should only apply to any situations that begin after 01 Sep 12.  There should be a 12 month period, IMO, for people who are affected to make adjustments to their current situation.  This would give each mbr's CofC time to make decisions, Career Mgr's time to react/plan, etc.

Make changes as needed, fine but do it in a way that gives mbr's who will be directly adversely affected (some people are legitimately on IR and qualify for IR vice the Chosen version) time to react and make decisions/changes.


----------



## Haggis (2 Aug 2012)

Spectrum said:
			
		

> A lot easier to support than commuting assistance for Class B...I can't believe that was even being paid but I have seen a few people claim it.  :



If a member accepts a Class B for one year, s/he is not entitled to a cost move.  In many cases, employing units do not offer a cost move for Class B's over a year (despite what it says in the CFIRPP), and restirct opportunities to members in the geographical area of the employing unit.  However, the employing unit  would offer TA if a suitable/qualified candidate could not be found within the geographical region of the employing unit but within commuting distance. The other options were to hire a lesser qualifed candidate or simply no-fill the position.

Plus, we pay Commuting Assistance (CBI 209.28) to Reg F members who reside outside the geographical area of thier units.  How is this so much different from TA?


----------



## bridges (2 Aug 2012)

Haggis said:
			
		

> If a member accepts a Class B for one year, s/he is not entitled to a cost move.  In many cases, employing units do not offer a cost move for Class B's over a year (despite what it says in the CFIRPP), and restirct opportunities to members in the geographical area of the employing unit.  However, the employing unit  would offer TA if a suitable/qualified candidate could not be found within the geographical region of the employing unit but within commuting distance. The other options were to hire a lesser qualifed candidate or simply no-fill the position.
> 
> Plus, we pay Commuting Assistance (CBI 209.28) to Reg F members who reside outside the geographical area of thier units.  How is this so much different from TA?



Exactly.  I've seen units whose key positions were filled by someone on TA, because the _only_ - not just "most qualified" - applicant lived outside the geographical area.  Chief clerk, for example.  

Between this and the elimination of the pension & 35-day break for former Reg F mbrs, it's getting harder for units to keep certain posns filled.  We have a few mbrs on Class B who are looking for non-uniformed jobs now, so they can keep drawing their Reg F pension instead.  That experience will be lost.  Yes, these benefits are not exactly "core" to CF operations, and maybe they are an appropriate target at this time - but the impact on staffing needs to be acknowledged.


----------



## Occam (2 Aug 2012)

Haggis said:
			
		

> Plus, we pay Commuting Assistance (CBI 209.28) to Reg F members who reside outside the geographical area of thier units.  How is this so much different from TA?



They do?

I've only drawn commuting assistance once, and it was when my (former) spouse and I resided at a station outside the geographical area of Halifax (she was posted to the station).  I got commuting assistance when I was posted to Halifax, in lieu of being eligible for free R&Q should I have chosen to live in shacks.  Commuting assistance (which was low rate km if I recall) was much cheaper than paying for my free R&Q.

Someone posted into a unit who chooses to live outside that unit's geographical area does so at their own cost without the benefit of commuting assistance, do they not?  I thought Commuting assistance was to compensate you for having no choice but to live a distance from a work location which is not serviced by public transportation.


----------



## Haggis (2 Aug 2012)

Occam said:
			
		

> I thought Commuting assistance was to compensate you for having no choice but to live a distance from a work location which is not serviced by public transportation.



True, it is. (that's why I included the CBI number - probably should've cut & pasted the whole CBI).  Similarly, a Class B Reservist who is not moved at public expense due to inelgibility for such a move is in a similar situation.


----------



## Occam (2 Aug 2012)

Haggis said:
			
		

> True, it is. (that's why I included the CBI number - probably should've cut & pasted the whole CBI).  Similarly, a Class B Reservist who is not moved at public expense due to inelgibility for such a move is in a similar situation.



I don't see them as the same thing, though.  

In the Reg F case, you're posted to Unit X.  Unit X has no suitable residential community nearby, therefore you're *forced* to live at some distance from Unit X, but are compensated in the form of Commuting Assistance.

In the Res F case with TA, you're offered a Class B term of employment at Unit X.  If you live outside of the geographical area but chose to apply for the position at Unit X, you do so full well knowing that you have a commute.  If you don't want to pay for the commute, you have the *option* of not applying for the position.  Just like on civvie street.  I don't see why Transportation Assistance was ever offered.


----------



## newwifey (2 Aug 2012)

I think the members who are using IR as intended shouldn't be penalized.  I do think the ones abusing it should have the benefits stripped as soon as possible.  This cut with little notice is going to affect some people legitimately.

As for where they can cut some expenses, some of those per diems are outrageously high, cut a percentage there.

What about taskings where military air transportation is used whenever they can instead of rearranging their schedules for less expensive options?  I'm sure the RCN and CA have similar "perks" being utilized more often than they should.

As for the cuts I'm expecting to our move when I go, there are expenses when you move.  Whether it's by your own choice or the military's.  Quite frankly I'm happy to see most of what we will require will be covered, but ours should be fairly simple.  It should not be nor was it ever intended to be a money making venture.  There are people out their bragging how much they "got", like they're bragging.  So, no I'm not surprised at all to see more being cut here.

Whoever is juggling the numbers to make these cuts isn't looking at the "whole" picture.  They need some more objective eyes.

This is just a civvie perspective      (so please don't fire hate mail my way if I got it wrong, I am SUPER new!!)


----------



## Remius (2 Aug 2012)

NewWifey: Believe it or not, military transportation is actually cheaper than anything commercial.  Just from an optics point of view it may not seem that way.  It costs less for me to take a military vehicle on TD than renting a nice gucci one from Enterprise.  Same with Flights, that are by and large already paid for.  

The fact is that we also have ourselves to blame for some of this.  Some people really don't make the effort to find the most affordable accomodations.  Even if it is on the list of approved venues.  I booked some TD for trip that several dets were coming on as well.  I picked the cheapest hotel that was closest to the meeting site.  Yet some of the other dets chose a more expensive hotel further away (meaning longer cab rides) but they justified what they did by saying the hotel was on the approved list.  Or how many people still claim a  meal when it was provided at a conference or hotel.

It starts with all of us.  Beacuse yeah, the legit people end up paying for it.


----------



## Teeps74 (2 Aug 2012)

TA for PRes CL B and CL A:

CL B, there are several instances across this nation, where the member filling the position and drawing TA is doing so as there is little other choice. As other have indicated, a CL B member is not always (usually not in fact) offered a cost move. Further, their spouse has that other very necessary job that is not transportable (sound familiar?). TA is only offered up to 200km. The impact is, a very real negative that should be assessed. Are there those abusing it? Sure, go after the ones abusing it it... But this cut is cutting off the arm to treat a wart.

CL A, I am fearful that the cut to CL B will be followed by a cut to the CL A TA. Many reserve units across Canada have very little problem recruiting Jr NCMs and Jr officers. Most units outside of major urban centres have very real difficulties retaining anyone beyond the 24-26 year old mark or the MCpl to Sgt transition. Parts of Ontario and most of Western area have very real challenges maintaining leadership as there are no available careers for for young men and women... Small units remain small as young adults, soldiers, sailors and airmen/women strike out to seek that life long career to complement a career in the PRes. TA helps abate the attrition of skilled leaders in rural units.

For the rest of it... Yes, I do agree that things need to be done to help do our part to save money... However, before the MPs tinkered with our pension, they should have lead the way and tinkered with their own golden egg first. There is no more generous pension plan in this nation then the plan offered to a 6 year "veteran" Member of Parliament. The slashing done to us certainly would be far more palatable if the pain was shared. ALL members who are public service, elected officials and members of the CF should face the same issues, instead of some.


----------



## Occam (2 Aug 2012)

newwifey said:
			
		

> What about taskings where military air transportation is used whenever they can instead of rearranging their schedules for less expensive options?



It's funny you mention this.  On a somewhat related matter, I'm seeing ridiculous stuff on a grand scale when it comes to government travel.  Say you have to travel to Europe for five days on business.  You start to look into booking your flights, and you see that if you fly on a Monday and return on a Friday, you pay $X.  If you travelled on a Monday and returned on a Sunday, you could get a flight for $1600 cheaper, but would have to deal with a couple of extra nights in a hotel.  Even though you'd be saving the government money by travelling on Mon/Sun and taking a couple of days of personal leave, it's not allowed.  Not even if you paid the hotels yourself.  Supposedly it's now "Misuse of a TAN" (Travel authorization number).

Optics.

If you want to mix personal and business travel, what's supposed to happen (apparently) is that the business travel gets booked, at whatever cost.  Then, if you want a couple of extra days, you contact the airline, pay them the fee (out of your own pocket) for changing the flights, and then pay any extra (if any) on the airfare if the flight becomes more expensive.  What that policy doesn't take into consideration is: What happens if they flight becomes cheaper as a result?  I'm sure Air Canada will be banging on the door of the keeper of the Consolidated Revenue Fund saying "Cpl Bloggins just saved the Crown $1600 by taking two days leave and changing his travel dates.  Here's the Crown's $1600 in airfare savings back!".  Yep, I'm sure that'll be happening.   ;D


----------



## Eye In The Sky (2 Aug 2012)

Towards_the_gap said:
			
		

> Where does it say you are losing SE? All they are cutting from IR is the incidentals.



Maybe I am getting this wrong, but after reading thru CBI 208.997 (not that I understand it all, my frickin' eyes crossed at one point I am sure), SE *is* the incidentals, is it not?  75% of the TD allowance per day.

Para 5 of the CANFORGEN "Under the Seperation Expense Benefits, both the incidental expense allowance  and meal rate including rations at public expense".


----------



## McG (2 Aug 2012)

Not_So_Arty_Newbie said:
			
		

> So IR (a personal choice) doesnt look like a gravy train any more maybe just maybe it'll dissuade some folks from going on Chosen restrictions for 5 years or more.


Mind you, IR was not changed.  Separation expense (SE) was changed.  As dapaterson has pointed out, not everyone on IR is entitled to separation expense.  Further, not everyone entitled to separation expense was on IR - pers posted prohibited, pers unaccompanied, and married service couples are all examples of pers without a choice who will now be affected.  While this change does make IR less desirable to those who are abusing it, it does not stop anyone from abusing. 

If the goal of the changes was to stop IR abuse, then the changes should have been specific to IR and probably should have seen the entitlement capped at two years (with CMP able to authorize a third year in extreme cases).  If the goal was to reduce the cost of SE (and I think it was more generous that required), then a more appropriate solution is probably something between the current SE and the SE expense coming 01 Sept.


----------



## McG (2 Aug 2012)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Maybe I am getting this wrong, but after reading thru CBI 208.997 (not that I understand it all, my frickin' eyes crossed at one point I am sure), SE *is* the incidentals, is it not?  75% of the TD allowance per day.


The incidental is part of SE.  Quarters and (up to now) rations were also part of SE.  Depending on the type of accommodations lodging the member, SE could also include other things such as basic phone, internet and cable.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (2 Aug 2012)

Ack.

So what I think is commonly known or referred to as SE amongst us unwashed masses  ;D is ka-put eff 01 Sep 12. 

The OD who is married w/kids, and on a restricted posting to Esq for an extended period is accurate in saying there will now be a $934 difference in his take-home pay/bank account.  

Checked ADM (Mat) J4 Foods earlier;  caferteria svc  = $534/month, table svc  = $906/month  eff 01 Aug 12.


----------



## Wookilar (2 Aug 2012)

Exactly. If the cost of rations wasn't so out of touch with reality I wouldn't be worried about the students currently getting SE.

And don't get me started on $1000/month for table service being "not bad," mainly because the members do not have a choice in where they eat.

$600/month for rations is ridiculous. That's almost what I spend in a month for my family. If Base Foods didn't repeatedly give back money every year on most training bases, MAYBE I'd by it (no pun intended).

However, here in Gagetown (and I know Borden is the same) Base Foods gives back money every year, to the tune of a few hundred thousands/year (Don't get me started on how the kitchens are double charging the troops and schools).


----------



## GAP (2 Aug 2012)

Did not the option of 1/2 rations come out a couple of years ago, or was that only on some bases...?


----------



## Eye In The Sky (2 Aug 2012)

No, it is there (10 meals/week) at $310.52 (caf) and $518 (table).


----------



## dapaterson (2 Aug 2012)

Occam said:
			
		

> It's funny you mention this.  On a somewhat related matter, I'm seeing ridiculous stuff on a grand scale when it comes to government travel.  Say you have to travel to Europe for five days on business.  You start to look into booking your flights, and you see that if you fly on a Monday and return on a Friday, you pay $X.  If you travelled on a Monday and returned on a Sunday, you could get a flight for $1600 cheaper, but would have to deal with a couple of extra nights in a hotel.  Even though you'd be saving the government money by travelling on Mon/Sun and taking a couple of days of personal leave, it's not allowed.  Not even if you paid the hotels yourself.  Supposedly it's now "Misuse of a TAN" (Travel authorization number).
> 
> Optics.
> 
> If you want to mix personal and business travel, what's supposed to happen (apparently) is that the business travel gets booked, at whatever cost.  Then, if you want a couple of extra days, you contact the airline, pay them the fee (out of your own pocket) for changing the flights, and then pay any extra (if any) on the airfare if the flight becomes more expensive.  What that policy doesn't take into consideration is: What happens if they flight becomes cheaper as a result?  I'm sure Air Canada will be banging on the door of the keeper of the Consolidated Revenue Fund saying "Cpl Bloggins just saved the Crown $1600 by taking two days leave and changing his travel dates.  Here's the Crown's $1600 in airfare savings back!".  Yep, I'm sure that'll be happening.   ;D



Do you have this in writing anywhere?  I ask because several years ago we were doing the reverse - requesting or directing (for civ and mil, respectively) pers to travel in advance to save money.  In one case we saved around $3K by getting a civilian to California for a weekend in advance of a conference - for some reason, she preferred to spend a February weekend in California over Ottawa...


----------



## TCM621 (2 Aug 2012)

It would be fine if I had chosen to go on IR but I was posted prohibited with no end in sight and they say I have to pay for rations and lose 400 bucks a month. Awesome.


----------



## Jarnhamar (2 Aug 2012)

Wookilar said:
			
		

> $600/month for rations is ridiculous. That's almost what I spend in a month for my family. If Base Foods didn't repeatedly give back money every year on most training bases, MAYBE I'd by it (no pun intended).



When a member is on IR doesn't the kitchen (or whomever) charge the government $700+?  I had the exact number but I forget.


----------



## Towards_the_gap (2 Aug 2012)

Ok, in regards to the SE for pers with literally no choice about their IR (prohibited postings etc), I'm now convinced. Let's get the pitchforks out. > 

But as for the IRP benefit change/reduction, I still don't see cause for armed revolt/mutiny/mass VR's.


----------



## Occam (2 Aug 2012)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Do you have this in writing anywhere?  I ask because several years ago we were doing the reverse - requesting or directing (for civ and mil, respectively) pers to travel in advance to save money.  In one case we saved around $3K by getting a civilian to California for a weekend in advance of a conference - for some reason, she preferred to spend a February weekend in California over Ottawa...



There's a PPT going around, I'll see if I can get my hands on it.  It may be a Navy policy...and it's a new one.  Newer than my TD to Halifax a few weeks ago, where I took a couple of personal days (at my own cost in hotels, but I had to do a cost comparison to make the travel date change fly) and naught was said.


----------



## Haggis (2 Aug 2012)

Occam said:
			
		

> It's funny you mention this.  On a somewhat related matter, I'm seeing ridiculous stuff on a grand scale when it comes to government travel.  Say you have to travel to Europe for five days on business.  You start to look into booking your flights, and you see that if you fly on a Monday and return on a Friday, you pay $X.  If you travelled on a Monday and returned on a Sunday, you could get a flight for $1600 cheaper, but would have to deal with a couple of extra nights in a hotel.  Even though you'd be saving the government money by travelling on Mon/Sun and taking a couple of days of personal leave, it's not allowed.  Not even if you paid the hotels yourself.  Supposedly it's now "Misuse of a TAN" (Travel authorization number).



Last year I went on TD in Spain for a week (never mind the criticism of the location, focus on the message) in a location not easy or cheap to get to by commercial arlines.  By delaying my return by *one day*, I saved the Crown $4,500.00 in airfare.   My DG signed off on this in a heartbeat.


----------



## Harris (2 Aug 2012)

So what are your thoughts on Class B reservists who volunteer Class A at their units, and who normally receive no financial or time off benefits?  This new rule will mean that every time they help out their home unit, they go in the hole for gas.  That hardly seems fair.  Is the answer for them to now claim MTEC (using a cost comparison) instead?


----------



## Haggis (2 Aug 2012)

Harris said:
			
		

> So what are your thoughts on Class B reservists who volunteer Class A at their units, and who normally receive no financial or time off benefits?  This new rule will mean that every time they help out their home unit, they go in the hole for gas.  That hardly seems fair.  Is the answer for them to now claim MTEC (using a cost comparison) instead?



You are not the first to ask this question this week.

Here's a radical idea (which I've already pushed up the chain of command):  tie the entitlement of TA for Class B members to the Class A duties being performed by the member - irrespective of what TOS the member is being paid under - and leave it to either the unit or formation level to approve/deny the allowance.  If the member voluntarily chooses to support his/a unit, the unit supports him back.


----------



## ArmyGuy99 (2 Aug 2012)

Begin Rant.....

Ok, so I've spent the day reading over the posts and absorbing what everyone is saying about the IR deductions, and the movement of some items from one Move Folder to another in IRP.  

What my main concern is, and what nobody else has mentioned, is the loss of MLI and the mortgage penalties.  And yes I know we are supposed to get Portable Mortgages (mine is btw).  What if the bank won't give you one.  And thanks to a lack of RHU's or even affordable RHUs practically everywhere, this could present a problem;

Eg:

Pte Bloggins is posted from his QL3 crse to his first unit.  Now Pte Bloggins has a young wife and a small child.  He calls up his new base and finds there are no RHU's or SQ's available (Not Unheard of).  He /she must now live out.  There is no suitable or affordable place to rent, so he seeks a mortgage to purchase a house. Because Pte. Bloggins is young and has little to no credit, the bank forces him /her into a non-portable mortgage.  Which is still cheaper then rentling.

3 years later

With 2 years left on the mortgage Pte Bloggins is posted to a new base.  Under the old rules, not a big problem while the funds might not  cover ALL the penalties, the impact was lessoned (I know I had this happen to me).

Under the new rules, Pte. Bloggins can't afford to sell or he/she will loose $1000's in penalties.  So Pte. Bloggins can either eat it and maybe suffer financially, or cost the crown more $$ by going on IR.  But wait, there's nowhere for pte bloggins to live, without causing undo hardship, and if he/she manages to get into SQ the amount charged for R&Q..... I think you guys get the picture here.


Now I realize that not all trades are on a 5 year posting cycle, and some may move around a little more than others, and that buying a house is always a gamble no matter what.  So if that's the case, either convince whoever has the Defense Banking Contract to offer affordable 3 yr mortgages, or provide more AFFORDABLE RHU's.  My Mortage with Property taxes is almost 50% cheaper then the rent for a similar sqft RHU.  


....Rant Completed  :2c: deposited


----------



## newwifey (2 Aug 2012)

According to another site, there is another canforgen to come out that's to explain how this last one will be applied.

I asked if it was expected Aug. 31/12   ;D


----------



## TCM621 (2 Aug 2012)

One of the things I hate about these types of canforgens is they are a one page format with no explanation. When I go see the clerk's tomorrow demanding an explanation, they will have nothing to tell me. When I send up a memo, requesting a posting back to my family based on the prohibitive cost of seperation, they won't have any idea how to proceed and probably make a poor decision because they have no info


----------



## Grunt (2 Aug 2012)

I love the Canadian Forces, for all its faults I have worked with amazing people the past five years.  Some came here to succeed, while others just want to do the bare minimum, sit in the locker area and complain if were not off of work by 2pm on a friday.  All im going to say is im worried about the state of the Forces over the next few years; this is disappointing and to those saying "if you dont like it then leave".  Look around the Military the past few years and you will notice one thing, is that many experienced guys that have goals and drive, not the guys just looking to get on the cadpat welfare train and do the bare minimum are getting out and moving onto bigger and better things.  IMHO if you want to attract people that want to stay in the CF, and make a serious career of it with a family you have to pay better to compete with the private sector.  And if higher pay is not possible there has to be benefits (ie a Cpl makes around 52,000 a year while a police officer of roughly the same experience will make around 70,000 not including over time, which a CF member will never be paid for).  For example why does a Cpl/Mcpl with a family want to stick around a job that outright screws with his personal admin (oh your wife has a degree and a career how dare she!), and make less money on a job where he can be a phone call away from deploying half way around the world for months on end when he can return to school and get a better paying job?  Treat people like the lowest common denominator and dont be surprised if thats all we have left hanging around the Forces in the next few years.


----------



## exabedtech (2 Aug 2012)

Grunt said:
			
		

> I love the Canadian Forces, for all its faults I have worked with amazing people the past five years.  Some came here to succeed, while others just want to do the bare minimum, sit in the locker area and complain if were not off of work by 2pm on a friday.  All im going to say is im worried about the state of the Forces over the next few years; this is disappointing and to those saying "if you dont like it then leave".  Look around the Military the past few years and you will notice one thing, is that many experienced guys that have goals and drive, not the guys just looking to get on the cadpat welfare train and do the bare minimum are getting out and moving onto bigger and better things.  IMHO if you want to attract people that want to stay in the CF, and make a serious career of it with a family you have to pay better to compete with the private sector.  And if higher pay is not possible there has to be benefits (ie a Cpl makes around 52,000 a year while a police officer of roughly the same experience will make around 70,000 not including over time, which a CF member will never be paid for).  For example why does a Cpl/Mcpl with a family want to stick around a job that outright screws with his personal admin (oh your wife has a degree and a career how dare she!), and make less money on a job where he can be a phone call away from deploying half way around the world for months on end when he can return to school and get a better paying job?  Treat people like the lowest common denominator and dont be surprised if thats all we have left hanging around the Forces in the next few years.



This is nothing new, I watched the same thing happen throughout my career and it always will.  We always had a saying for it "The Army is like an oil filter... the good stuff flows on the though, but the shit stays forever".  

Sorry, but get used to it.


----------



## Bridger (2 Aug 2012)

Being a married member on prohibited posting (currently on PAT) I've benefited from two of the biggest benefits being cut; and quite frankly they're going to hurt...  That said, I'm not opposed to what they're doing.

It would appear they're still going to pay for my quarters and maybe some duplicate expenses (as they should, I'm not separated by choice); but I'm very concerned about the cost of rations.  I'm not against paying for rations, fair enough, I'm not currently paying to feed myself at home or otherwise...  My concern (like others) is the cost...  I used to budget about $200/month to feed myself at home, I ate well enough, it was reasonable.  Unfortunatly $200 is a far cry from the $500+ being charged to eat at the mess; and I don't seem to have a choice with regards to paying for that.

Forgive me for sounding like an absolute noob to the CF (because I am), but is there anyway to get the message accross to the decision makers that more reasonable options are needed?

I'm okay with losing the SE payments (sucks, but sacrifices must be made), I'm even okay with paying something for my food; but they need to compensate for the difference in cost...


----------



## astecki (2 Aug 2012)

My wife and I are both recent recruits, I graduated BMQ in Dec 11 and she in Apr 12.  I am posted to Meaford and she is in Borden, both of us sitting on PAT (or PRETC) waiting for our QL3 courses.  We also still maintain our apartment in the west end of the GTA where we live on weekends.  Until this point, only she has been paying rations and we have been receiving IR pay, so with the changes that pay will be gone and I will now be charged for rations.  As both of us are "students", there is no option at all to live off base or opt out of rations.  These changes represent a full 29% reduction in our combined take home monthly pay.  We'll survive, but that is a HUGE hit to take.

I am so glad that I listened in BMQ when they said "Never count IR pay when making a budget, you never know when it will be taken away".  Until now, it's been going into a savings account for a rainy day.  Now it looks like it'll be a couple of rainy months.


----------



## NavyHopeful (2 Aug 2012)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Who does IR affect?  Primarily senior personnel.  As a proportion of pers at different ranks, you're most likley to be on IR if you're a CWO/CPO1, followed by GOFO or MWO/CPO2.  In raw numbers, the ranks with the most pers on IR are Sgt/PO2, WO/PO1 and Maj/LCdr.



While this statement is likely true, I find myself in the same situation as Dexen.  I am currently on my QL3s, and I start my 2nd semester in September.  I am in Halifax, and my wife and 1 year old son are near Petawawa, on the Quebec side.  I have been told by my PO that I can write a memo to have my posting status changed to an advanced posting status to move my family before my course is done, but standard procedure is to keep the member "Restricted Posted" until after the QL3 phase is complete.  I am an OS, making the bare minimum, and I am realizing that housing in Halifax is more expensive than what I pay back home.  I know that if they were here, the costs of living might be a little easier of a pill to swallow, but I find myself a little dazed at having to figure out how to keep food on the table at home, diapers on the boy-o, and whether I should be paying more than my current rent payment for full-rations, or more than my car payment for half-rations.  It's likely that I will end up becoming the poster boy for KD and Mr. Noodles, because, with the wife out of work, and unable to find anything back home for work, I am the ONLY source of income.

Yeah, from what I've gained here, people do abuse the system.  And I know that, no matter how much I whine, cry, stomp, kick, or complain, this is not going to be reversed or changed.  So what happens now?  Well, it's a good thing my wife has been saving whatever she can, and used the savings to get my flight home for 2 weeks leave in August, or I wouldn't get to see my son for more than 2 weeks this year.  Flights to Ottawa are expensive, especially when you don't have any disposable income, and LTA is only available once a year.

I know some may rip on this post, and tell me to "suck it up" or "If I don't like it, I can leave", and those are valid comments, from their point of view.  The reality is, if I do VR, I have nothing career-wise to go back to.  Some join the CF as a first choice, some because they pay for the education, and others join because life has chewed them up, and spit them out, and have nowhere else to go.  I am one of those who has tried everything and came to the CF as a last resort, just to have some form of job security.  I did not join for the money, and I did not join for the benefits.  I joined to serve my country, and to do something worthwile with myself.  Plain and simple.

Yeah, IR is getting cut back.  And if rations in Halifax are getting boosted up to $900/month, like what was posted earlier, well forget it.  I can eat Mr. Noodles until I look like them.  I don't care.  I'll still be here.  

I don't like being on IR.  I wish I COULD have my family with me.  I would rather be living in some shitbox house with my wife and son, and have to pay for my food and housing, then to have to live away from them for over 19 months, paying for some other shitbox house I only see for about a month of the year (along with the costs of running said shitbox house), and groceries for both residences, and a car that I don't get to drive unless I'm home.

I'll do what I have to do, in order to do the job I signed up for, because, other than my family, it's all I have left.


----------



## Towards_the_gap (2 Aug 2012)

NavyHopeful said:
			
		

> I know some may rip on this post, and tell me to "suck it up" or "If I don't like it, I can leave", and those are valid comments, from their point of view.  The reality is, if I do VR, I have nothing career-wise to go back to.  Some join the CF as a first choice, some because they pay for the education, and others join because life has chewed them up, and spit them out, and have nowhere else to go.  I am one of those who has tried everything and came to the CF as a last resort, just to have some form of job security.  I did not join for the money, and I did not join for the benefits.  I joined to serve my country, and to do something worthwile with myself.  Plain and simple.




So you joined because it was the last resort? 

Was the length of your course, and the fact that you would be posted restricted until completion of said course, never mentioned to you? Did you not expect that, upon joining the CF (as much as it was the last thing in the world you wanted to do apparently, there was nothing else left right???), that some sacrifices would have to be made, and that, despite your BMQ certificate of military achievement, you are actually a very inconsequential part of a very big machine? You haven't done any tours, deployed anywhere, you aren't even qualified to do your job, yet believe that you deserve the same benefits and entitlements as those of us who have deployed, who have been in longer that 5 minutes, that have made the same sacrifices you are making, over and over again? When I joined I received no allowance to travel home, no special perks, no seperation expense, no rations at public expense, no mileage allowance when I was posted during basic and trades training, no LTA, and my family was 3,000 miles away. I accepted this because I made the choice knowing full well I was on my own if I wanted to see anyone from my family. Quite frankly, it's part of the job. 

I'm not trying to have a go at those of you in the training system who find yourselves in this situation, but I do not have sympathy for you. You should have made yourselves aware of all the potential implications of your career and trade choice, and as one poster said, not counted on IR benefits, particularly when you are at the start of your career.


----------



## Jarnhamar (2 Aug 2012)

NavyHopeful said:
			
		

> I am one of those who has tried everything and came to the CF as a last resort
> I joined to serve my country, and to do something worthwile with myself.


 Serve your country and do something worth while as a last resort, how noble of you  ;D

Mind you I joined for a cheese burger..



Shit I just realized I won't be getting free food at the kitchen anymore!
Second job here I come.


----------



## brihard (2 Aug 2012)

Grunt said:
			
		

> I love the Canadian Forces, for all its faults I have worked with amazing people the past five years.  Some came here to succeed, while others just want to do the bare minimum, sit in the locker area and complain if were not off of work by 2pm on a friday.  All im going to say is im worried about the state of the Forces over the next few years; this is disappointing and to those saying "if you dont like it then leave".  Look around the Military the past few years and you will notice one thing, is that many experienced guys that have goals and drive, not the guys just looking to get on the cadpat welfare train and do the bare minimum are getting out and moving onto bigger and better things.  IMHO if you want to attract people that want to stay in the CF, and make a serious career of it with a family you have to pay better to compete with the private sector.  And if higher pay is not possible there has to be benefits (ie a Cpl makes around 52,000 a year while a police officer of roughly the same experience will make around 70,000 not including over time, which a CF member will never be paid for).  For example why does a Cpl/Mcpl with a family want to stick around a job that outright screws with his personal admin (oh your wife has a degree and a career how dare she!), and make less money on a job where he can be a phone call away from deploying half way around the world for months on end when he can return to school and get a better paying job?  Treat people like the lowest common denominator and dont be surprised if thats all we have left hanging around the Forces in the next few years.



So you're comparing a Cpl with a police officer? I assume you've not applied to a police force lately? They're a hell of a lot more selective than the CF is, and the degree of individual responsibility greatly exceeds what we see out of most Pte/Cpls. And I don't know why you'd bring up police pay when your sentence started with 'compare with the private sector'.

Tell me where else someone with no education will make 55k a year within 4 years, get all of their technical and trade training paid for, will have real career prospects where they are actively guided towards and through advancement, where subsequent education is heavily subsidized, and wher eth ekind of leave, benefits, and pension we have actually exist.

I think you're looking at the world with rose coloured glasses if you think our compensation package doesn't compare brilliantly to the civilian job market. If you think the CF treats us like the 'lowest common denominator', go put some time in retail, or a call center, or landscaping or what have you. And if going to school equalled a high(er) paying job by default I'd have a lot of damned well off friends. Instead with what I make as a reserve JNCO I'm doing a hell of a lot better than nearly everyone I got an undergraduate degree with.

No, your complaints do not pass the sniff test.


----------



## Towards_the_gap (2 Aug 2012)

^^^^^^THIS ^^^^^^^

 :goodpost:


----------



## eliminator (2 Aug 2012)

Grunt said:
			
		

> I love the Canadian Forces, for all its faults I have worked with amazing people the past five years.  Some came here to succeed, while others just want to do the bare minimum, sit in the locker area and complain if were not off of work by 2pm on a friday.  All im going to say is im worried about the state of the Forces over the next few years; this is disappointing and to those saying "if you dont like it then leave".  Look around the Military the past few years and you will notice one thing, is that many experienced guys that have goals and drive, not the guys just looking to get on the cadpat welfare train and do the bare minimum are getting out and moving onto bigger and better things.  IMHO if you want to attract people that want to stay in the CF, and make a serious career of it with a family you have to pay better to compete with the private sector.  And if higher pay is not possible there has to be benefits (ie a Cpl makes around 52,000 a year while a police officer of roughly the same experience will make around 70,000 not including over time, which a CF member will never be paid for).  For example why does a Cpl/Mcpl with a family want to stick around a job that outright screws with his personal admin (oh your wife has a degree and a career how dare she!), and make less money on a job where he can be a phone call away from deploying half way around the world for months on end when he can return to school and get a better paying job?  Treat people like the lowest common denominator and dont be surprised if thats all we have left hanging around the Forces in the next few years.



The grass is always greener on the other side eh? I have a good friend who left the CF as a Cpl for a job with the OPP. While he did make in excess of 100k last year after overtime, he regrets leaving the CF for a numbers of reasons. Bottom line, money isn't everything.  Go read some of the British military forums out there and read about some of the cuts they're dealing with to add some perspective.


----------



## Petard (2 Aug 2012)

bridges said:
			
		

> Exactly.  I've seen units whose key positions were filled by someone on TA, because the _only_ - not just "most qualified" - applicant lived outside the geographical area.  Chief clerk, for example.
> 
> Between this and the elimination of the pension & 35-day break for former Reg F mbrs, it's getting harder for units to keep certain posns filled.  We have a few mbrs on Class B who are looking for non-uniformed jobs now, so they can keep drawing their Reg F pension instead.  That experience will be lost.  Yes, these benefits are not exactly "core" to CF operations, and maybe they are an appropriate target at this time - but the impact on staffing needs to be acknowledged.



This is definitely a dilemma the unit I am with faces. Some likely openings began to appear in our line serials late last winter, one because the Class B person was going to quit, another because a Reg F pers made plans to get out on being posted to the unit, and yet a third for the same reason. We had some interest expressed by some retired Reg F pers in the area, but once the prohibition of "double dipping" came into effect, they went away.
There seemed to be some hope with qualified P Res pers applying, but they all lived some distance away, and now with no TAA, will not be applying either
We may get the odd local person applying, but all under ranked, and therefore not fully qualified

For those pushing the "suck it up butter cup, these are hard times", you might want to dial it down a tad.  These might seem like minor reductions over all, and harder times might yet be coming, I get that, but this is incremental, and I think we're only seeing the thin side of the wedge here.


----------



## Towards_the_gap (3 Aug 2012)

Petard said:
			
		

> For those pushing the "suck it up butter cup, these are hard times", you might want to dial it down a tad.  These might seem like minor reductions over all, and harder times might yet be coming, I get that, but this is incremental, and I think we're only seeing the thin side of the wedge here.



Then again, by the same notion, we should remember this furore in 12 months time when, having bicycled to the ranges for our 10rd Lee Enfield PWT, the 15 of us left ante-reductionem will look back fondly on the time when we got more than iron ingots for barter as pay. ;D


----------



## SeaKingTacco (3 Aug 2012)

That is some funny sh!t.   :goodpost:


----------



## Jay4th (3 Aug 2012)

I bought a house in Edmonton this winter while on second language training after being told I was going to 1 PPCLI post course.  I recieved a posting message to 1PPCLI and my wife got a class B in Edmonton.  All is right with the world....

Career Mgr calls, crying for a Sgt to go to Wainwright... I explain about the new house, wife's contract and he explains IR to me.  I speak to wife, and we agree to do it for a year til her contract ends at which time we will try to sell the house if possible, and move her to Wainwright as well. No big Deal, if we can only sell for what we paid, at least the early repayment fees are covered.......NOW THIS CRAP !!!   
Convertible mortgage and buy in Wainwright? NO WAY!! The people leaving there can't sell theirs now, I'm not buying there.
Now basically my damned employer gets to dictate what kind of mortgage I can accept!!! WT? people.
Generally speaking, if you were willing to lock in, you could negotiate a better interest rate, if you got posted, part of the breaking fees were covered.  Now, mortgage brokers and banks should see us comin, see us as a risk, give us crappy rate knowing we have no choice!

 Wainwright has a yukon lodge, so I live there, I pay my own internet, I pay gas to go home on weekends.  The $320 bucks I get from the clerk each month covers that.  NOT ANY MORE!!!  (the inter-base bus service died long ago)

Wainwright kitchen has only an "all or nuthin" plan.  So as of Sept I pay $540/month or I eat microwavables because thats the only appliance allowed!!

So the way I see it, I'm out $860 bucks.  Please point out to me how I was abusing the system, or how any of this was really my choice.  I know several Sgts, for whom driving home to see their kids will literally take food from their mouths.


----------



## wesleyd (3 Aug 2012)

Towards_the_gap said:
			
		

> Are you paying out of pocket for them? No. It is still paid for.


But these are cost essential to moving not of personal choice.


----------



## wesleyd (3 Aug 2012)

Jay4th said:
			
		

> I bought a house in Edmonton this winter while on second language training after being told I was going to 1 PPCLI post course.  I recieved a posting message to 1PPCLI and my wife got a class B in Edmonton.  All is right with the world....
> 
> Career Mgr calls, crying for a Sgt to go to Wainwright... I explain about the new house, wife's contract and he explains IR to me.  I speak to wife, and we agree to do it for a year til her contract ends at which time we will try to sell the house if possible, and move her to Wainwright as well. No big Deal, if we can only sell for what we paid, at least the early repayment fees are covered.......NOW THIS CRAP !!!
> Convertible mortgage and buy in Wainwright? NO WAY!! The people leaving there can't sell theirs now, I'm not buying there.
> ...


----------



## 4Feathers (3 Aug 2012)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> @4Feathers: My question:  Assume that the IR change would happen regardless - remember, the CDS does not set pay or benefit policy, nor does CMP - it's all by Treasury Board.  How would you have the senior leadership announce the implementation of the change?


They have known about it since January, so why not announce it before people make family decisions. Sometimes leadership needs to questions decisions that affect their personnel so negatively instead of blindly taking the "get on with it" stance. That is the reason we need people like Gen Hilliar back, he did not blindly accept what the politicians and treasury board tried to ram down our throats. Good Leadership requires courage to question those things which require it.  They may lose but the troops will respect them more in the end.


----------



## aesop081 (3 Aug 2012)

4Feathers said:
			
		

> Sometimes leadership needs to questions decisions that affect their personnel so negatively instead of blindly taking the "get on with it" stance.



That is making the broad assumption that the leadership did not protest the changes. I tell my boss all the time i disagree with his decisions but after we talk about it, if he wants to go ahead, i have to "get on with it". The CDS is no different and neither are you.


----------



## Remius (3 Aug 2012)

4Feathers said:
			
		

> They have known about it since January, so why not announce it before people make family decisions. Sometimes leadership needs to questions decisions that affect their personnel so negatively instead of blindly taking the "get on with it" stance. That is the reason we need people like Gen Hilliar back, he did not blindly accept what the politicians and treasury board tried to ram down our throats. Good Leadership requires courage to question those things which require it.  They may lose but the troops will respect them more in the end.



Once my platoon commander or company makes a decision, wether I agree with him or not, I execute his orders.  I'll help them in the decision making process but once that happens I do my job.  That's likely what they did.  And be careful about what you are saying.  The CF has gotten intself in lots of trouble before, exactly because they didn't listen to what the treasury board and politicians tried to "ram" down our throats.


----------



## Sub_Guy (3 Aug 2012)

4Feathers said:
			
		

> They have known about it since January, so why not announce it before people make family decisions. Sometimes leadership needs to questions decisions that affect their personnel so negatively instead of blindly taking the "get on with it" stance. That is the reason we need people like Gen Hilliar back, he did not blindly accept what the politicians and treasury board tried to ram down our throats. Good Leadership requires courage to question those things which require it.  They may lose but the troops will respect them more in the end.



I don't think this is a fair statement.  We have no idea what went on behind closed doors, if they did indeed know since Jan, maybe it took them this long to sort it out.  I highly doubt the CDS said "What a fantastic idea, lets go with it".

Anyone who put some serious thought into this policy change would have known it would hurt many.  I wonder when the new CBI's are written if there will be exemptions given to those who are forced into situations beyond their control.


----------



## newwifey (3 Aug 2012)

Towards_the_gap said:
			
		

> So you joined because it was the last resort?
> 
> Was the length of your course, and the fact that you would be posted restricted until completion of said course, never mentioned to you? Did you not expect that, upon joining the CF (as much as it was the last thing in the world you wanted to do apparently, there was nothing else left right???), that some sacrifices would have to be made, and that, despite your BMQ certificate of military achievement, you are actually a very inconsequential part of a very big machine? You haven't done any tours, deployed anywhere, you aren't even qualified to do your job, yet believe that you deserve the same benefits and entitlements as those of us who have deployed, who have been in longer that 5 minutes, that have made the same sacrifices you are making, over and over again? When I joined I received no allowance to travel home, no special perks, no seperation expense, no rations at public expense, no mileage allowance when I was posted during basic and trades training, no LTA, and my family was 3,000 miles away. I accepted this because I made the choice knowing full well I was on my own if I wanted to see anyone from my family. Quite frankly, it's part of the job.
> 
> I'm not trying to have a go at those of you in the training system who find yourselves in this situation, but I do not have sympathy for you. You should have made yourselves aware of all the potential implications of your career and trade choice, and as one poster said, not counted on IR benefits, particularly when you are at the start of your career.




With all due respect here, your benefits aren't tied into tours and deployments and so on, you are rewarded for those appropriately as you do them.  What he knows is the here and now, not what you received or didn't receive before.  Also, if he is the only one currently earning a wage and supporting a family, of course taking away those IR benefits is going to hurt.  

That's the same in our situation, DH has been in 20+ years, but his benefits are what I know today.  He has to go IR for a year before I can go.  Expecting families to make some fairly tough adjustments all in the space of a month isn't very realistic.

Not everyone on IR is milking it for all they can.  Unfortunately it's the folks doing it right that are being penalized for the ones doing it very, very wrong. And it will have an adverse effect on not all, but some.

I maintain, more objective eyes would have presented other options as alternatives for cuts.  There are plenty of areas where it wouldn't have as much of an outcry as this one is.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (3 Aug 2012)

Dolphin_Hunter said:
			
		

> Anyone who put some serious thought into this policy change would have known it would hurt many.  I wonder when the new CBI's are written if there will be exemptions given to those who are forced into situations beyond their control.



It seems that those who will feel this the most are the newest mbrs;  NCMs and Officers who are newly in, still in the trg system and have not attained Career Status yet (no CFIRP benefits without that) and obviously at the bottom of the applic pay rates tables.  The young Ptes/OS, the OCdt/2Lts who are on prohibited status with D, HG & E to maintain in another location who have no choice but to live-in and pay rations are the ones who will feel the changes the most.  However, just because they are the newbies, with no tours, etc I don't think their welfare should be discounted.  

What is the solution though?  Not sure.  Section 3 of the BTAGs (Assignment of Personnel) details the specific policies WRT posting status for these BTL mbrs, and its clear they can't be posted for basic/initial Occ trg with a cost move, IR policy, etc.  However, some of them are on PAT, then course, then maybe PAT again waiting for Pt/Mod/Phase 'X' of a course, etc for a fairly long time.  It is a hardship to the mbr's QOL and family and I can understand their concerns and low morale WRT the issue.

I am just an oar-puller, but I am hopeful that AFC, L1s, etc are looking at this from different angles with the welfare of our newest mbrs (who will form the CF of tomorrow afterall) in mind.


----------



## newwifey (3 Aug 2012)

Dolphin_Hunter said:
			
		

> I don't think this is a fair statement.  We have no idea what went on behind closed doors, if they did indeed know since Jan, maybe it took them this long to sort it out.  I highly doubt the CDS said "What a fantastic idea, lets go with it".
> 
> Anyone who put some serious thought into this policy change would have known it would hurt many.  I wonder when the new CBI's are written if there will be exemptions given to those who are forced into situations beyond their control.



If they did know since January, telling all of you wouldn't have changed anything.  Transfers still have to happen.  Posting messages would still have been sent.  Can you plan better whether the family comes or goes, whether you found out now or back in January???  I don't think so.  It also depends what your Unit and Career Manager have to say.  The family is an even smaller cog in that big wheel.

In our instance it wouldn't have changed a thing.  We did request extensions and delays for a year, escalated it, it was declined.  So he will go, I will stay behind until my daughter graduates in June/13.  And because there are days where I feel common sense isn't really all that common we will now be penalized because he HAS to go.      And we will survive, not happily but it's doable.

It's been interesting reading all the comments here and the Military Spouse page.  Hopefully, some "right" people see it too.


----------



## Good2Golf (3 Aug 2012)

Bridger said:
			
		

> Being a married member on prohibited posting (currently on PAT) I've benefited from two of the biggest benefits being cut; and quite frankly they're going to hurt...  That said, I'm not opposed to what they're doing.
> 
> It would appear they're still going to pay for my quarters and maybe some duplicate expenses (as they should, I'm not separated by choice); but I'm very concerned about the cost of rations.  I'm not against paying for rations, fair enough, I'm not currently paying to feed myself at home or otherwise...  My concern (like others) is the cost...  I used to budget about $200/month to feed myself at home, I ate well enough, it was reasonable.  Unfortunatly $200 is a far cry from the $500+ being charged to eat at the mess; and I don't seem to have a choice with regards to paying for that.
> 
> ...



Bridger, 'noob' or not, you have stated well the challenges that the majority of those policy-abiding folks on IR will experience, including as a number of us have also said, contributing a reasonable portion of costs incurred by the CF to provide services in the IR location.  The impact to members on IR will be significant and does have a clearly quantifiable effect on CF members' family budgets.  It is even worse when you consider that the money you will be paying is "post-tax", and how much "pre-tax" equivalent of your overall salary is effectively used supporting continued IR/restricted postings.  Depending on a member's tax bracket, that $543 can be as much as $900-1000/month of one's pre-tax salary, certainly not an insignificant impact to the member.



			
				Jay4th said:
			
		

> ...So the way I see it, I'm out $860 bucks.  Please point out to me how I was abusing the system, or how any of this was really my choice.  I know several Sgts, for whom driving home to see their kids will literally take food from their mouths.



Jay4th, you are in no way abusing the system, but are in fact absolutely representative of a significant number of members being put demonstrably in a financially strained situation by the CF due to the service's primary needs.  $800-900/month of anyone's disposable income is a HUGE amount, and is particularly difficult to swallow when it comes from a situation that the CF (via the CMs) recommended to you to help resolve its operational/personnel situation in Wainright.  My numbers are similar to yours and I'm not overly thrilled with the prospect of paying close to $20,000 over the next 22 months, but the policy changes have also made a move even costlier, so it's the lesser of two evils for me...  :-\ 

I'm likely not the only one who has done so, but I can tell you that I have already submitted a quantitative and qualitative assessment through my chain of command regarding the impact on my unit's personnel on IR and I included a number of COAs that could be pursued to mitigate the impact of these changes, including phasing of benefit reductions or adjustment to CF rations policies that would still conform to TB directives.  

I agree that there definitely need to be meaningful options now provided to CF members on IR regarding rations.  For example, the application of a blanket, mandatorily-linked (to quarters) rations charge is in many (or most) cases unreasonable.  

Being on IR myself, I can say that I probably eat less than half my meals at the mess, the balance being either a light breakfast that I can provide in my (ant-infested) room in the barracks to "after mess hours" meals on the local economy [...since I don't have accommodations that conform to the TB directives re: meal preparation - CF would probably say "we provide you rations on base, so you're not entitled to a room that has food storage/prep/cooking facilities..."]  I have no doubt that if given a "pay-as-you-go" per meal option, I would not even come close to $543/month of meals consumed.

I'm not sure it applies exactly to the situation of a CF member on IR, but there certainly is reason to investigate the different rates that even the National Joint Council states for rations vs. meals: http://www.njc-cnm.gc.ca/directive/index.php?sid=134&lang=eng - Appendix I to the NJC Isolated Posting and Government Housing Directive



> Effective date: 01.08.2012
> 
> When employees and their dependents (if any) are provided with meals or rations by or on behalf of the employer, they shall be charged:
> 
> ...



I was unable to identify the difference between rations and meals, but it would appear there is an existing NJC directive (the Public Service's 'bible' for stating in plain-speak the applicable TB policies) that the CF could use to adjust the costs it is going to charge CF members on IR, i.e. charge them $310 instead of the $543 we have been told we'll be paying after 1 Sep.

It would also be interesting to see if the CF would accept "reverse abatement" on rations, i.e. reduce your ration charge for days that you have traveled to return to your family...after all, the SE benefits were abated for any period you returned to your principle residence...fair's fair, after all.

The irony regarding IR cancellation of benefits is that there is a particular group (likely the LARGEST group?) that will not be affected proportionately as much as others, i.e. those members on IR in the NCR, for whom there are no available DND rations and quarters available.  They will continue to get up to the maximum of $1600/month commercial accommodation + $100/month parking, so their out of pocket costs only be the food they actually eat, as they will no longer receive the 75% incidentals and 65% of the NJC Travel Directive - Annex C Allowances dinner meal rate equating to $26.55/day.

Those being affected to the greatest degree are pretty much anyone NOT in the NCR, in that the CF provides rations and quarters pretty much to everyone else.  These members go from being provided R&Q and the SE incidentals ($13 per unabated day) to having to pay $543/month (unless the CF allows 'de-linking' rations (or more accurately a mandatory meal plan) from the provision of quarters).  Furthermore, as Jay4th mentioned in his post, where the incidentals generally offset, either partially or wholly, the weekend travel back to their families, this travel now becomes directly out-of-pocket expense.  This is where the difference lies between those who feel that some members on IR were "counting on" additional income in the form of the IR benefits, and the reality that will be true out of pocket costs, particularly unfortunate for those CF members who had little or no choice in their situation.

As well, for the record (confirm-able by a search of this thread), the only people who have actually said "suck it up," are those saying that others have said it, which they hadn't.  There is a difference between some of us saying, "it is what it is...let's find ways to deal with it" and a "suck it up" which no one has said themselves to others of the situation.

None of us in any of the situations resulting from the upcoming policy change is thrilled with the prospects of the significant financial impact it will entail and all the warm fuzzy "world-renowned benefits and compensation" of Para 2 of the CANFORGEN will do little if anything to remedy the situations.  This policy will no doubt force some CF members to make life influencing decisions and that is very unfortunate, but
as alluded to earlier, much of what went on in arbitrating whatever will come in future amended CBIs was conducted in Cabinet Confidence and so it is unfair in my opinion for people to accuse CF leadership of doing nothing to shield potentially affected CF members.

What will help is if members continue to provide suggestions and options through their respective chains of command for mitigating the situation so that lower-level workable plans can be developed to address the issues.


Regards
G2G

_*edited for spelling/grammar*_


----------



## TCM621 (3 Aug 2012)

As you said, the biggest group of people affected will those least able to afford it. It won't be people who made choice to go on Ir for 3 years in Ottawa on a CWO or Col salary. It will be private or 2lt blogging who is stuck on pat away from his family for two years and isn't given a choice. 
The reason for the hate on snr leadership, is it appears to be another cut to the troops well being and the senior leaders will be fine. It may not be true but the perception is there. Also the last para of the canforgen is really really condescending.


----------



## Towards_the_gap (3 Aug 2012)

newwifey said:
			
		

> With all due respect here, your benefits aren't tied into tours and deployments and so on, you are rewarded for those appropriately as you do them.  What he knows is the here and now, not what you received or didn't receive before.  Also, if he is the only one currently earning a wage and supporting a family, of course taking away those IR benefits is going to hurt.
> 
> That's the same in our situation, DH has been in 20+ years, but his benefits are what I know today.  He has to go IR for a year before I can go.  Expecting families to make some fairly tough adjustments all in the space of a month isn't very realistic.
> 
> ...



newwifey - good post, points I hadn't considered. 

G2G - likwise, excellent post.


----------



## Haggis (3 Aug 2012)

Tony Manifold said:
			
		

> The reason for the hate on snr leadership, is it appears to be another cut to the troops well being and the senior leaders will be fine. It may not be true but the perception is there. Also the last para of the canforgen is really really condescending.



Your "hate on" is misplaced.

Throughout this thread are statements from folks "in the know" that this was NOT a CF leadership decision.  Even if the CF leadership _strongly advised against _ these changes, Treasury Board is not bound to abide by that advice and will make such decisions as they see fit for the benefit of the public purse.  At the end of the day, the job of the CF leadership - yes including the much beloved Codfather - is to put goverment and Treasury Board direction into action.  Any CDS, including Gen Hillier, who is found to be willfully obstructing the direction of the government is liable to be replaced.

Hate the *government* - it's as Canadian a passtime as b!tching about the weather.


----------



## Jarnhamar (3 Aug 2012)

If the crack down on members abusing the IR system would have happened 10 years ago perhaps we wouldn't be in this place.


----------



## Journeyman (3 Aug 2012)

Tony Manifold said:
			
		

> It may not be true but the perception is there.


Especially if one is going to repeat it over.....and over......and over again -- notwithstanding the reality being explained here.


----------



## Good2Golf (3 Aug 2012)

Tony Manifold said:
			
		

> As you said, the biggest group of people affected will those least able to afford it. It won't be people who made choice to go on Ir for 3 years in Ottawa on a CWO or Col salary. It will be private or 2lt blogging who is stuck on pat away from his family for two years and isn't given a choice.



I didn't say that -- I said the opposite; that I believe the largest group is likely formed of those on IR in the NCR.  

What I also said though, was that the cuts will have a disproportionate affect on those who are currently provided R&Q (i.e. those not in the NCR), especially if the CF refuses to de-link rations from Gov't-provided quarters -- these members will be forced to pay the flat-rate $543.10CR.  This is notably more than one would have to pay out of pocket if you have in-suite food storage and preparation facilities.

If the CF refuses to de-link rations from provided quarters (i.e. deduct $543.10/month from their pay), one option is for members on IR to leave quarters entirely, grouping together and renting something that combined rent and groceries will still be less than the free quarters and $543/month rations.  At some point, the business case to do so is valid -- potentially a very sad comment on the CF's support to its members on IR that it is actually more economical to move off base entirely, banding together to help support each other to minimize the personal costs...


Regards
G2G


----------



## old fart (3 Aug 2012)

Ref G2G's Post 187....

"...They will continue to get up to the maximum of $1600/month commercial accommodation + $100/month parking, so their out of pocket costs only be the food they actually eat, as they will no longer receive the 75% incidentals and 65% of the NJC Travel Directive - Annex C Allowances dinner meal rate equating to $26.55/day."

SE is $26.55 (65% of the evening meal rate)....there is no incidental amount.  SE is stopped (abated) when receiving TD/Operational allowances or when reunited, with D-F&E.

Incidental amounts are not payed...at least to those in the NCR.

I have been on IR for the last year....first time in 34 years.....

Yours aye....


----------



## Good2Golf (3 Aug 2012)

Thanks, old fart, for clarifying that.   I had a short stint of IR in the NCR and received both SE and incidentals (without at home abatement, just leave and TD)...they must have eliminated the incidentals after 2009.  

Regards
G2G


----------



## Northern Ranger (3 Aug 2012)

I wonder if there is any movement to consider a leagal course of action.  You would think that the change would some how come across as a breach of contract.

I get the fact that the changes may be needed. But to tell bloggins that "Yes you signed up for the CF and we are sending you to Base X for two years and you can't take your family and move until your done training.  Dont worry you eat for free and stuff." One year later " Hey we are changing the rules you now owe us"

I'm sure we have seen courts get involved for less and put a hold on some employers COA.   I not sure but I think they are called injunctions.

I'm not one to rock the boat, but I think that alot of those with the mind set of, "good the gravy train needs to end", need to think about this, 

We ask you to go on TD, you leave for 30 days, you come back settle your claim and later on you find out that the powers that be have said, meal rates are 50% and max for a hotel is $60, and you pay half the flights,  I know it sounds simplistic, but is it really that much different?

I'm out now and sorta glad, as this just doesn't seem right (the way it is being phased in) and even if it doesn't effect me these types of things bothered me.

At what point do you get to change a contract, and not allow those involved to back out, just a thought.

Can some one give G2Golf some mil points for that excellent post, I'm sort of a lurker /noob.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (3 Aug 2012)

Northern Ranger,

Please read the NDA.  We all serve, quite literally, at the pleasure of the Crown.

There is no "contract" in the legal sense of the word that limits the Crown's power to amend our terms of service, at will.

In short- go ahead, hire a lawyer.  The lawyer will make money.  You won't.


----------



## Northern Ranger (4 Aug 2012)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> Northern Ranger,
> 
> Please read the NDA.  We all serve, quite literally, at the pleasure of the Crown.
> 
> ...



You might be surprised to find out what a contract is in the normal world (i.e outside of the CF). Like I said, I don't need a lawyer as I'm out.


----------



## aesop081 (4 Aug 2012)

Northern Ranger said:
			
		

> You might be surprised to find out what a contract is in the normal world .



You might be surprised to find out it is not relevant.


----------



## Scott (4 Aug 2012)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> You might be surprised to find out it is not relevant.



You might be likely aren't at all surprised at what some people will try to argue.


----------



## Northern Ranger (4 Aug 2012)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> You might be surprised to find out it is not relevant.



Or is relevant.  Time will only tell.


----------



## Towards_the_gap (4 Aug 2012)

Northern Ranger said:
			
		

> Or is relevant.  Time will only tell.



Stop being obtuse. Please explain to me how we, 'serving members of the CF' have legal recourse when the Treasury Board changes our compensation and benefits. What legal ground is there for this? Show me precedence? Do you think we can take this to arbitration or somethings?


----------



## Northern Ranger (4 Aug 2012)

Serving members (and as stated I am no longer)  have many avenues that I think some one could go to, be it against the TBS or the CF.  You do have the CF Grievnce board, the ombudsman and lastly the media,  Do you recall standing in food lines back in 1997 at food banks (I don't)in Nova Scotia and the media feast on that.  Shortly after that we had SCONDA, look at the pay raises that followed.

Do you recall when the a member was hurt on tour and they took away his danger pay because he was in hostpital, and due to a father talking to the press, the Govt reversed that, just think a member getting something that he isn't earning.

I would also like to make it clear on what I am talking about. To me its about the time that they intend to implement this, 60 days notice, give me a break, If the TBS/DND/ any other dept, changed the rules of what I'm entitlled to after the "point of departure" I would spend some time trying to fight it.  They would never change the max  hotel rate for a city mid stride on a TD trip would they, can you immagine if they did, the out cry from all the departments would be huge.

Its not for me to provide the presedence etc, but rather for those that have been effected by this rash decision that I think is screwing over the rank and file of those on PAT etc and just taking an IR only weeks ago for a valid reason to find out everything has changed its for them to search and do the work.  If they feel its wrong they will do something I'm sure and if they think, hey thats ok, I can take the hit, atleast we will have F35's in 12 years.........

My intial post was for that of an opion, if your looking for answers, sorry can't provide.  If you totaly disagree with it thats fine too, have a good one, hope it works out for those effected. Out.


----------



## Strike (4 Aug 2012)

Northern Ranger said:
			
		

> Serving members (and as stated I am no longer)  have many avenues that I think some one could go to, be it against the TBS or the CF.  You do have the CF Grievnce board, the ombudsman and lastly the media,  Do you recall standing in food lines back in 1997 at food banks (I don't)in Nova Scotia and the media feast on that.  Shortly after that we had SCONDA, look at the pay raises that followed.



I also remember seeing many people being interviewed by CBC et al. in front of their PMQs, whose driveways held SUVs, RVs and/or power boats.




			
				Northern Ranger said:
			
		

> Do you recall when the a member was hurt on tour and they took away his danger pay because he was in hostpital, and due to a father talking to the press, the Govt reversed that, just think a member getting something that he isn't earning.



And I remember how many colleagues disagreed with the move because it was felt members would then start spending money they did not yet have or had earned.  It also grated on people that the guy's father got involved since he probably did not know where this regulation was coming from.

I also know how annoyed members get when either a serving member of family member goes to the press to complain about a perceived fault without having all the facts.

Neither of these comparisons is really reflective of what is going on here, if only because the full directive has not come out.  There are many people much higher than any of us, and a few Sr members who are working hard to ensure there is proper guidance and direction, especially to those who will be most affected.

I know that sometimes going to the press is warranted, but until the full direction comes out, I'm going to have to say that it's not in this case.  If a member or their other half went to the media right now, they would likely be seen by many of their colleagues as whining about something that they still don't fully comprehend, forget the fact that said member would then likely have to deal with their chain of command.

Media assessment and how people react to media reports is what I do, so this is not just a half-assed guess.


----------



## TangoTwoBravo (5 Aug 2012)

Ranger is not happy that he now has to pay to move Mr Whiskers and Stanley.


----------



## Jungle (5 Aug 2012)

All, changing the rules is one thing, implementing those changes is another. From what I hear, it may not be as drastic as some have speculated here.

Wait out.


----------



## FSTO (5 Aug 2012)

Jungle said:
			
		

> All, changing the rules is one thing, implementing those changes is another. From what I hear, it may not be as drastic as some have speculated here.
> 
> Wait out.



Great, more confusion. Why can't they sort themselves out before they release the CANFORGEN?


----------



## McG (5 Aug 2012)

old fart said:
			
		

> SE is $26.55 (65% of the evening meal rate)....there is no incidental amount.  ...
> 
> Incidental amounts are not payed...at least to those in the NCR.


According to the CBI, SE is not based on your location (ie - NCR vs Shilo).  It is based on on the type of accommodation you have.



			
				MedTech32 said:
			
		

> What my main concern is, and what nobody else has mentioned, is the loss of MLI and the mortgage penalties.  And yes I know we are supposed to get Portable Mortgages (mine is btw).


Having a portable mortgage also does not help if you were a home owner but conditions at destination require you to move into a rental property or PMQ - If you sell but do not buy, you have to break your mortgage as a result of the move.



			
				Northern Ranger said:
			
		

> I wonder if there is any movement to consider a leagal course of action.  You would think that the change would some how come across as a breach of contract.





			
				Northern Ranger said:
			
		

> Serving members (and as stated I am no longer)  have many avenues that I think some one could go to, be it against the TBS or the CF.  You do have the CF Grievnce board, the ombudsman and lastly the media,  ...


Not a breach of contract, but potentially negligent misrepresentation.  The crown is seen as monolithic - if the crown was advising you on financial entitlements & compensation while the crown knew it was going to remove those, then you might be able to claim damages if you incur them because of the changes.  The grievance process has no sway over TB policy/direction.  You would need to make your case to DCCL (see my earlier post).  I really would not recommend crying in the press as a suitable solution.


----------



## aesop081 (5 Aug 2012)

MCG said:
			
		

> Having a portable mortgage also does not help if you were a home owner but conditions at destination require you to move into a rental property or PMQ - If you sell but do not buy, you have to break your mortgage as a result of the move.



There are still solutions. My mortgage is 100% open and has zero penalties for early repayment, should i sell and not buy.


----------



## Towards_the_gap (5 Aug 2012)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> There are still solutions. My mortgage is 100% open and has zero penalties for early repayment, should i sell and not buy.



Unless of course you're Pte Bloggins with an OK yet short credit history and only 5-10% to put down (this is before the new mortgage rules), in which case you are highly unlikely to be able to get a 100% open mortgage, at least not at rates affordable on a 40k p.a. salary. 

Just saying...


----------



## Grunt (5 Aug 2012)

Brihard said:
			
		

> So you're comparing a Cpl with a police officer? I assume you've not applied to a police force lately? They're a hell of a lot more selective than the CF is, and the degree of individual responsibility greatly exceeds what we see out of most Pte/Cpls. And I don't know why you'd bring up police pay when your sentence started with 'compare with the private sector'.



Gauging from your comment, perhaps you are the one seeing the world through "rose coloured glasses" Mr Brihard, I suggest spending some time in an Infantry Battalian and your perception may change a bit.

Nevertheless have a nice day.


----------



## aesop081 (5 Aug 2012)

Towards_the_gap said:
			
		

> Just saying...



Then don't freakin' buy !!

Rent until you can afford to get the right mortgage. After my divorce (that left me with a less than OK credit record) I rented. No PMQ either, CFHA would not give me one. I saved what i could until i got a mortgage that i could afford and made sense (i knew i was getting posted in 12-24 months). Since i had been in location for a few years, i had to pay everything on my own. I bought just enough to have a place to live with my 2 kids.

When i first got married, it was a while before we had enough to buy my first home.

When did "owning a home right out of the gate" become an entitlement driving our compensation package ?

EDIT: These changes do suck for someone 3 years into a 5-year fixed, i know. Some banks may offer more flex than others and i hope something can be sorted out for them. For those who have yet to buy a home, the new rules are known and there are options.


----------



## OldSolduer (5 Aug 2012)

Grunt said:
			
		

> Gauging from your comment, perhaps you are the one seeing the world through "rose coloured glasses" Mr Brihard, I suggest spending some time in an Infantry Battalian and your perception may change a bit.
> 
> Nevertheless have a nice day.



And you may want to suck back and reload. I HAVE spent time in a Bn, and cpls do not generally do the same things as cops do. 
I am now in a reserve unit and most of our cops are Sgts.


----------



## Haggis (6 Aug 2012)

Grunt said:
			
		

> Gauging from your comment, perhaps you are the one seeing the world through "rose coloured glasses" Mr Brihard, I suggest spending some time in an Infantry Battalian and your perception may change a bit.



Grunt, the degree of responsibility, accountability and autonomy of your_ average Pte/Cpl _ in the CF comes _nowhere near that_ of a police officer.  The benefits and allowances available to a Pte/Cpl (i.e 1-4 years of service) far exceed those of most police officers (with the possible exception of the RCMP).  Pay, however, is a vastly different kettle of fish.

So, I agree with Brihard.  In the context of this discussion, comparing a civilian police officer to a CF Pte/Cpl is like comparing apples and bricks.

You have a nice day as well.


----------



## Towards_the_gap (6 Aug 2012)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> Then don't freakin' buy !!
> 
> Rent until you can afford to get the right mortgage. After my divorce (that left me with a less than OK credit record) I rented. No PMQ either, CFHA would not give me one. I saved what i could until i got a mortgage that i could afford and made sense (i knew i was getting posted in 12-24 months). Since i had been in location for a few years, i had to pay everything on my own. I bought just enough to have a place to live with my 2 kids.
> 
> ...



Agreed, you and I are on the same wave length, I was just saying that more junior members/those with less than excellent credit ratings won't be able to get such mortgages. You and I know that in that instance you shouldn't buy, but we also both know that financial common sense is as rare as a PMQ without a Dodge Ram parked in front of it.


----------



## Strike (6 Aug 2012)

Towards_the_gap said:
			
		

> ...but we also both know that financial common sense is as rare as a PMQ without a Dodge Ram parked in front of it.



Or a Porche, which I have seen in the Qs here in Edmonton.   :


----------



## blacktriangle (6 Aug 2012)

Strike said:
			
		

> Or a Porche, which I have seen in the Qs here in Edmonton.   :



Someone mistook a portable mortgage for having a mortgage on something portable...  ;D


----------



## Petard (6 Aug 2012)

The timing of this announcement, no matter how you want to twist it, is odd; right in the middle of APS. Why couldn't it of been announced this year that it would be coming into effect next FY? Is there worse yet to come?

By "suck it up", I mean in telling people in the middle of being posted this year that they should have seen this coming, fits that notion. Of course they can do nothing but absorb it. Having it occur like this does not, in my opinion, make it acceptable.  Had it been announced before the start of this FY, it would have allowed those being affected by it this year to of made a more informed decision, whether it was a mortgage term, or the effect it might have on their whole family. Guessing it might be coming is not reasonable to most family members. I understand very well uncertainty is part of the vagaries of being in the service, but to me announcing something like this, makes people suspicious of "what's next?

I too know of quite a few folks that went the IR route, and I wondered why. But I've seen quite a few who were only doing it to keep something of a stable homelife, and/or not sacrifice their spouse's career by making them move too.  Somewhere about last fall, into the winter, when the career manager's were building their posting plots, many people looking at a posting would no doubt have taken into consideration these things, and some would've asked if they could go IR to protect that family life. Part of this assessment is usually the cost to get back to your family, whenever that might be. In a lot of cases some of these benefits will have a direct affect on that frequency.

Some, such as those just starting out in the service, have no choice in the matter and will deal with the consequences; I'm not sure if it would've affected their decision to join or not, if they had known, but we should hear them out to see how they manage (or don't).

Anyone joining the military has got to be honest with themselves that they've got to be willing to accept whatever may come with that decision, check, but some consideration has to be given to our families as these vicissitudes occur.  The timing of this announcement did not allow for any of that.

 What this does in the opinion of many I'm seeing on social networks, is question what's next? What else should I suspect is going to be reduced? When might it be announced? 
But are there yet more benefit reductions coming? Will there be a significant change in overall unit strengths (such as a large adjustment in the ARE?)
What effect will these reductions have over time? I'm not just talking about the IR thing, but what effect might this have on the availability of trained pers as the uncertainty of other reductions pop up? How many will decide to consider family before service, and leave, rather than risk them all together.

Relatively speaking, I don't see these recent reduction in IR benefits as being that big, but some of the other reductions has had a direct effect on our unit Ops. Maybe these recent benefit reductions really are only minor compared to what's coming next, who knows?


----------



## mariomike (6 Aug 2012)

Haggis said:
			
		

> Grunt, the degree of responsibility, accountability and autonomy of your_ average Pte/Cpl _ in the CF comes _nowhere near that_ of a police officer.  The benefits and allowances available to a Pte/Cpl (i.e 1-4 years of service) far exceed those of most police officers (with the possible exception of the RCMP).  Pay, however, is a vastly different kettle of fish.
> 
> So, I agree with Brihard.  In the context of this discussion, comparing a civilian police officer to a CF Pte/Cpl is like comparing apples and bricks.
> 
> You have a nice day as well.



The only non-compensated expense a TPS officer would  have is the cost of attending the Ontario Police College: $7,500.00. 

However, they get paid while training at the college: $53,605.

Candidates classified as Cadets in Training are on full benefits.

As far as TPS is concerned, there is no comparison between the military and the police: "Although we appreciate your service in the military, all current and past members of any military service will proceed through the Constable Selection System like any other candidate.":
http://www.torontopolice.on.ca/careers/uni_faq.php#q28


----------



## brihard (6 Aug 2012)

Grunt said:
			
		

> Gauging from your comment, perhaps you are the one seeing the world through "rose coloured glasses" Mr Brihard, I suggest spending some time in an Infantry Battalian and your perception may change a bit.
> 
> Nevertheless have a nice day.



Thanks, but I'm pretty up to speed on what's expected of our infantry Ptes and Cpls; I'd be a crappy NCO if that were not the case. I don't think there's likely anything massively different between your tour and mine, or the mod 6 you took and the one that I taught that qualifies you particularly strongly on this one over myself. And if you don't take my word for it- we have several other members above whose experience puts both of ours to shame who have already offered their bit.

If the expectations for cops were on par with infantry corporals, that would be reflected in hiring practices for the former. It most certainly is not.

Everything I said stands.





			
				mariomike said:
			
		

> The only non-compensated expense a TPS officer would  have is the cost of attending the Ontario Police College: $7,500.00.
> 
> However, they get paid while training at the college: $53,605.
> 
> ...



I would characterize the post secondary education that is now very nearly a sine qua non to get hired as a police officer as a 'non-compensated expense' inasmuch as it's relevant to the discussion. Yup, a few people are still getting in without an education- but we're talking about 18 year olds fresh out of (or maybe not even having completed) high school here when we talk about military hiring and compensation. Your 4-5 year cop and your 4-5 year soldier are gonna be pretty distinct from each other on average.


----------



## mariomike (6 Aug 2012)

Brihard said:
			
		

> I would characterize the post secondary education that is now very nearly a sine qua non to get hired as a police officer as a 'non-compensated expense' inasmuch as it's relevant to the discussion. Yup, a few people are still getting in without an education- but we're talking about 18 year olds fresh out of (or maybe not even having completed) high school here when we talk about military hiring and compensation. Your 4-5 year cop and your 4-5 year soldier are gonna be pretty distinct from each other on average.



Good point you make about age.

I recently read that the average age of TPS recruits is now 28, with lots of "life experience".

That was a factor that lead to improving the pension accural rate for the emergency services. 

Hard to believe now, but remembering back to the 1970's it was customary to run into 17-18 year old guys working full-time as Metro Police cadets.


----------



## Jarnhamar (6 Aug 2012)

Brihard said:
			
		

> Thanks, but I'm pretty up to speed on what's expected of our infantry Ptes and Cpls; I'd be a crappy NCO if that were not the case. I don't think there's likely anything massively different between your tour and mine, or the mod 6 you took and the one that I taught that qualifies you particularly strongly on this one over myself. And if you don't take my word for it- we have several other members above whose experience puts both of ours to shame who have already offered their bit.
> 
> If the expectations for cops were on par with infantry corporals, that would be reflected in hiring practices for the former. It most certainly is not.
> 
> ...



Some corporals in battalion really stand out as having their shit together.  Some don't. Most are just dudes Doing their thing. None have te same responsibilities as cops. I would argue most sgts or wo's don't even carry the same weight of responsibility as a police officer.  IMO for what it's worth there is zero comparison.


----------



## Old Sweat (6 Aug 2012)

In the late 1950s the Metro Toronto Police used to advertise in the Pembroke Observer, and I don't think they were aiming their ad at the locals that hung around the MacKay House. The requirements were pretty basic - grade 10 or thereabouts education and 5'10' minimum height.

Things have changed just a tad.


----------



## Coynemachine (6 Aug 2012)

I have one question about the benefit cuts, and I have not read all the previous postings but I wanted to know if I have a mortage will I now have to pay rations and quarters due to the new cuts??


----------



## Infanteer (6 Aug 2012)

Tango2Bravo said:
			
		

> Ranger is not happy that he now has to pay to move Mr Whiskers and Stanley.



Tell me about it...you know how hard it is to get someone to feed a honey badger that subsists off of beef jerkey and camals.  F**K!


----------



## Teeps74 (7 Aug 2012)

ObedientiaZelum said:
			
		

> Some corporals in battalion really stand out as having their crap together.  Some don't. Most are just dudes Doing their thing. None have te same responsibilities as cops. I would argue most sgts or wo's don't even carry the same weight of responsibility as a police officer.  IMO for what it's worth there is zero comparison.



I agree... The only time a Sgt, WO or commissioned officer is even in the same ball park is when we are deployed.  A police officer's accountability follows them in every way every day until they retire (sometimes follows them even after retirement). 

They go out for dinner, next table over might be someone they busted some time ago for something... A cop never gets to turn it off the way we do. 

Comparing police to the military just does not work. For some of us, it is a good place to go when done with the military, but the careers are just so different that they can not be compared.


----------



## Gunner98 (7 Aug 2012)

Teeps74 said:
			
		

> I agree... The only time a Sgt, WO or commissioned officer is even in the same ball park is when we are deployed.  A police officer's accountability follows them in every way every day until they retire (sometimes follows them even after retirement).
> 
> They go out for dinner, next table over might be someone they busted some time ago for something... A cop never gets to turn it off the way we do.
> 
> Comparing police to the military just does not work. For some of us, it is a good place to go when done with the military, but the careers are just so different that they can not be compared.



Teeps74

Thank-you for speaking as 18-year Reservist on behalf of all the Sgt, WO and Offrs Reg Force and getting it wrong.  There is a big similarity, some cops go outside the wire and others work in the rear echelon.  A regular force Sgt and above's accountability follows them everyday and not just on the day's that they sign a pay sheet and turn it on!


----------



## Teeps74 (7 Aug 2012)

Simian Turner said:
			
		

> Teeps74
> 
> Thank-you for speaking as 18-year Reservist on behalf of all the Sgt, WO and Offrs Reg Force and getting it wrong.  There is a big similarity, some cops go outside the wire and others work in the rear echelon.  A regular force Sgt and above's accountability follows them everyday and not just on the day's that they sign a pay sheet and turn it on!



Actually, I got it right. If you think the jobs are even remotely similar, feel free to talk to a cop sometime. We mostly train, then we go out and do the job for a short period then train some more. We do the job for six to eight months, sometimes up to a year plus. But for the most part we train.

When we come home from deployment, we leave the bad guys over there. Last time I went out for dinner, I was not concerned at all about the possibility of some Talib being one table over.

I do not doubt my own accountability and culpability. These are clearly laid out in our NDA. Nor did I intend my post to denigrate us. Yes, we are accountable 24/7, but see above. But we really are comparing two totally different things.

As to your first sentence... I guess I could express my disappointment, but that would just be wasting my time.


----------



## Jay4th (7 Aug 2012)

Simian Turner said:
			
		

> Teeps74
> 
> Thank-you for speaking as 18-year Reservist on behalf of all the Sgt, WO and Offrs Reg Force and getting it wrong.  There is a big similarity, some cops go outside the wire and others work in the rear echelon.  A regular force Sgt and above's accountability follows them everyday and not just on the day's that they sign a pay sheet and turn it on!




Simian, What does his being a resevist have to do with his comparison of our job to the Police job?  Wonderfully condescending.
I agree with Teeps.  I went to Law enforcement college and see no comparison whatsoever to our responsibility or accountability when compared to a police officer.  The only time its even close is while depoyed.  Even then, a little white card tells me what to do.  
Surely someone will say "but if we make a mistake, people get injured or die".  This is true on operations, however it is other trained soldiers at risk from our errors.  Not the general public.
     The police officer on the other hand has to think about the entire Criminal Code of Canada, half dozen other Federal Acts, Prov or Muni statutes, and of course departmental policies.  He is responsible for the safety of a helpless populace.  Every action he takes or doesn't has to be defendable in court.  His handling of evidence and his notes decides whether chid molesters, wife beaters, drug dealers go free and do it again, or go to jail.
       

I love being an Infantry Sgt, but nothing I do, face, or put on the line equals what a cop does every shift.  There just simply is no comparison.


----------



## Gunner98 (7 Aug 2012)

There you go again with the 'we' broad brush.  We are all soldiers first, but  I guess as a member of the Health Services, we see some of our patients every day.  If you are only looking for the adversarial side (shoot-em-up) of what being a cop is then I get it.  My point is I don't train to do my job some of the time, I do my job everyday whether in garrison or in the field and your secrets are safe with me even if I see you at the table next to me in the restaurant.  I am accountable for what I do everyday not just while I am on deployment. Trust me in the health services if we get it wrong someone might be injured or die.  We don't need to hunt bad guys, they find you and make you our patients.


----------



## Harris (7 Aug 2012)

Any chance we can keep the discussion back on topic please?

Army.ca Mod.


----------



## dapaterson (7 Aug 2012)

Coyner said:
			
		

> I have one question about the benefit cuts, and I have not read all the previous postings but I wanted to know if I have a mortage will I now have to pay rations and quarters due to the new cuts??



Under the new rules quarters will continue to be provided; rations will not.


----------



## wesleyd (7 Aug 2012)

Teeps74 said:
			
		

> I agree... The only time a Sgt, WO or commissioned officer is even in the same ball park is when we are deployed.  A police officer's accountability follows them in every way every day until they retire (sometimes follows them even after retirement).
> 
> 
> > Umm... how many police officers are directly responsible for the safety of 200-300 pers 24 hours a day 7 days a week? When a ship goes to sea, not just deployments, there are many senior NCO's that through there action or inaction can directly affect the lives of all people on board. I dont get to turn off a bad decision when I go home, whenver that may be. All CF members are accountable 24/7 and we are expected to give our lives if required without question. Police officers are not expected to give their lives for the greater good.
> ...


----------



## Harris (7 Aug 2012)

Wesleyd - What part of back on topic did you not understand?

If you want to discuss Police vs Army make a new thread.

Army.ca Staff.


----------



## wesleyd (7 Aug 2012)

Harris said:
			
		

> Wesleyd - What part of back on topic did you not understand?
> 
> If you want to discuss Police vs Army make a new thread.
> 
> Army.ca Staff.


apologies
end rant


----------



## cdnnvyguy (7 Aug 2012)

Scoobs said:
			
		

> 1.  IR serves a purpose.  Agreed that some pers have abused it, but the reality is that this will hurt a lot of pers on IR.  I agree that more notice could have been given, rather than 30 days plus or minus a few.  Note to all:  I've never been on IR.  This is my opinion on what is simply right to do, be it for any elimination of a benefit.  A good example of how the CF/DND handled the elimination of a policy was the PLD issue.  I had lots of notice that I was going to have it reduced and lots of notice that I wouldn't get it where I was being posted to.  Thus, this *sufficient* notice allowed me to properly plan.
> 
> 2.  The reason why I quoted Cdn Aviator is his comment in regards to "planning better" in regards to the need for MLI.  Here's my situation.  Was in a reasonable house.  Not a mansion.  Just a three bedroom house.  Happily paying my mortgage and all bills.  Nobody gave me a dime for anything I have today as I lost both my parents when I was a child.  Thus, it wasn't like I had money flowing out of my ***.  Then I was posted to an area where the real estate market is considerably costlier.  I bought a *smaller* house in the new location for $70,000 more than my previous house.  It wasn't like I said, "hey, let's pay more money for a smaller house than what we had before".  Also, I bought the home outside of the normal area where mil pers buy so that I could keep the cost down (thus, planned to mitigate the increased costs).  The increase in mortgage resulted in an increase in the CMHC fees that I had to incur.  So, how would "planning better" help here?  The reality is that the military posted me and I never complained.  I followed my orders and moved.  Should I have bought a trailer and moved my family into that?  I'm being sarcastic because you can't make generalities such as "plan better" because sometimes your personal situation just doesn't allow for it.



Very well said! "planning better" seems to be spin word of senior personnel who already have significant salaries and "perks" of the job. It’s hard as a spec killick in Ottawa; I don't honestly know how the private clerk in my orderly room survives.

I do however know friends working for Transport Canada who are in "imposed restriction" positions and they make significantly more to do so, again the RCMP receive significantly more for similar postings.

Having said this we all know there are many fat cats sucking on the government tit and abusing IR. Having a wife and not wanting to sell your house back home is not justification for going on IR, however it doesn’t seem to be an issue when you hit a certain rank level.

The sad part is that the people this will hurt most are the most vulnerable members, the most junior… who don’t forget, is every one of our responsibilities to look out for their welfare.


----------



## aesop081 (7 Aug 2012)

cdnnvyguy said:
			
		

> Very well said! "planning better" seems to be spin word of senior personnel who already have significant salaries and "perks" of the job.



I am the one who said "plan better" on here. Clearly i am very senior and have lots of perks.

 :



> who don’t forget, is every one of our responsibilities to look out for their welfare.



I am aware of what my responsabilities are but thanks for comming out anyways.


----------



## Jarnhamar (7 Aug 2012)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Under the new rules quarters will continue to be provided; rations will not.




I foresee the kitchen services taking a huge hit to their incoming cash over this.
I can't imagine many people previously on IR choosing to pay the ridiculous amount 'Rations  charges people.
I wonder if they will raise the cost of what members are paying now to make up for the losses.


----------



## TCM621 (7 Aug 2012)

Plan better is all well and good when you have a choice. Just to use my case as an example, I was prohibited posted one day before I left to go on what was supposed to be a TD course. At no time was there any other option given. I know a fair number of people who have been posted with a couple of weeks notice. You can't sell a house in that time frame. If your spouse is a professional of any kind a month's notice to find a replacement is considered the norm.

Yes people abuse IR. But rather than kill everything at once with no notice how about just administer it right? In the past week I have talked to a bunch of people who will not be able to feed their families if this goes through without amendment. I personally couldn't afford it for more than a month or two without seriously destroying what little financial health I have.


----------



## cdnnvyguy (7 Aug 2012)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> I am aware of what my responsabilities are but thanks for comming out anyways.



Responsibilities. Coming. There is a spell check button.

You are not the first person who used this term in a financial context about a CF member.

And your welcome.


----------



## dapaterson (7 Aug 2012)

ObedientiaZelum said:
			
		

> I foresee the kitchen services taking a huge hit to their incoming cash over this.
> I can't imagine many people previously on IR choosing to pay the ridiculous amount 'Rations  charges people.
> I wonder if they will raise the cost of what members are paying now to make up for the losses.



Rations rates are set by D Foods.  Current policy has R&Q linked on most bases - that is, if you're in quaters, you must be on ration strength.  Most quarters on base are not set up to permit pers to cook their own meals - there are food safety, electrical safety and pest issues that would have to be addressed.


----------



## Journeyman (7 Aug 2012)

cdnnvyguy said:
			
		

> Responsibilities. Coming. There is a spell check button.
> 
> And your *you're* welcome.


If you're going to be a pedantic dick towards a site member, try not to screw it up.


----------



## PPCLI Guy (7 Aug 2012)

cdnnvyguy said:
			
		

> Responsibilities. Coming. There is a spell check button.
> 
> You are not the first person who used this term in a financial context about a CF member.
> 
> And *your* welcome.



Grammar.  The difference between knowing your shit, and knowing you`re shit.

Just saying.


----------



## cdnnvyguy (7 Aug 2012)

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> Grammar.  The difference between knowing your crap, and knowing you`re crap.
> 
> Just saying.



Good pick


----------



## aesop081 (7 Aug 2012)

Tony Manifold said:
			
		

> Plan better is all well and good when you have a choice.



I am single parent so IR is never an option. "Plan better" is not just some random words i throw around, i have to live by it.


----------



## Remius (7 Aug 2012)

Tony Manifold said:
			
		

> Plan better is all well and good when you have a choice. Just to use my case as an example, I was prohibited posted one day before I left to go on what was supposed to be a TD course. At no time was there any other option given. I know a fair number of people who have been posted with a couple of weeks notice. You can't sell a house in that time frame. If your spouse is a professional of any kind a month's notice to find a replacement is considered the norm.
> 
> Yes people abuse IR. But rather than kill everything at once with no notice how about just administer it right? In the past week I have talked to a bunch of people who will not be able to feed their families if this goes through without amendment. I personally couldn't afford it for more than a month or two without seriously destroying what little financial health I have.



Unfortunately the problem is systematic in our society.  We just don't plan better at all.  Everyone always says to have funds saved up to cover three months salary, put away 10% and pay yourself first etc etc.  People buyng homes with mortgages they can't afford if something goes wrong, own vs rent, raking up credit debt etc etc.  I know, because I was once like that.  I know someone that would rather starve than cut his expensive sports cable package and then complains that he's broke.  Sorry I can't feel sorry for that.

Also, this has been coming.  It's been rumoured for a while and given the economic climate people could have been better prepared.  But some people don't stay informed, read the paper or follow anything that isn't beyond their own personal workspace.  it's like a variable mortgage.  people like them because they normally have lower interest rates.  All of a sudden the rate goes up, even one percent and people can't handle it.  They couldn't have known that was going to happen, even though the markets may have indicated a possible hike.  But they also didn't prepare fopr the eventuality.

It isn't just about being prepared for this particular thing, it's about being prepared for any type of economic issue.  We, as Canadians, just aren't.


----------



## Jarnhamar (7 Aug 2012)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Rations rates are set by D Foods.  Current policy has R&Q linked on most bases - that is, if you're in quaters, you must be on ration strength.  Most quarters on base are not set up to permit pers to cook their own meals - there are food safety, electrical safety and pest issues that would have to be addressed.



Ouch.
Why wouldn't they allow a member to stay in quarters and not pay for rations? They must figure members won't be able to resist being a food terrorist and cooking up food in the shacks.


----------



## dapaterson (7 Aug 2012)

ObedientiaZelum said:
			
		

> Ouch.
> Why wouldn't they allow a member to stay in quarters and not pay for rations? They must figure members won't be able to resist being a food terrorist and cooking up food in the shacks.



Problems that occured when R&Q were delinked included unsanitary conditions, safety hazards from hotplates and other cooking systems, and unhealthy eating habits.


----------



## bridges (7 Aug 2012)

Towards_the_gap said:
			
		

> So you joined because it was the last resort?
> 
> Was the length of your course, and the fact that you would be posted restricted until completion of said course, never mentioned to you? Did you not expect that, upon joining the CF (as much as it was the last thing in the world you wanted to do apparently, there was nothing else left right???), that some sacrifices would have to be made, and that, despite your BMQ certificate of military achievement, you are actually a very inconsequential part of a very big machine? You haven't done any tours, deployed anywhere, you aren't even qualified to do your job, yet believe that you deserve the same benefits and entitlements as those of us who have deployed, who have been in longer that 5 minutes, that have made the same sacrifices you are making, over and over again? When I joined I received no allowance to travel home, no special perks, no seperation expense, no rations at public expense, no mileage allowance when I was posted during basic and trades training, no LTA, and my family was 3,000 miles away. I accepted this because I made the choice knowing full well I was on my own if I wanted to see anyone from my family. Quite frankly, it's part of the job.
> 
> I'm not trying to have a go at those of you in the training system who find yourselves in this situation, but I do not have sympathy for you. You should have made yourselves aware of all the potential implications of your career and trade choice, and as one poster said, not counted on IR benefits, particularly when you are at the start of your career.



Great recruiting speech.

I, for one, am concerned to hear these anecdotal reports from some of our junior pers on trg, or awaiting trg - particularly given the relatively short notice.  It's not like the affected members can do anything about it now, nor were most of them likely aware the change was coming.   

And those rations rates ... not sure whose budget is being pacified with those, but it's not the food & sustenance budget of the troops eating the meals.   

If the CF is that concerned about IR abuse, I go back to the recommendation of a 1-year max.   That would give some time to those who need it - but don't tell them to plan better, while pulling the rug out from under their feet.


----------



## Jay4th (7 Aug 2012)

Wainwright currently allows troops that have chosen to live in the shacks to de-link and just pay quarters.  They are allowed to have the bar fridge and microwave that come with the room.  Those of us here on IR are currently seeking clarity whether this applies to us as well, or if we will be required to pay the monthly rate $540.

Edmonton apparently has a 2 meal/day  5 days/week plan and we are trying to get Wainwright to offer something similar.

A month isn't a long time to try and get anything done however.


----------



## GAP (7 Aug 2012)

ObedientiaZelum said:
			
		

> Ouch.
> Why wouldn't they allow a member to stay in quarters and not pay for rations? They must figure members won't be able to resist being a food terrorist and cooking up food in the shacks.



Was that not why they started allowing 1/2 rations, because of the cost vs the usage?


----------



## Jarnhamar (7 Aug 2012)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Problems that occured when R&Q were delinked included unsanitary conditions, safety hazards from hotplates and other cooking systems, and unhealthy eating habits.



Ahh, understood.  That stuff still happens and people still get dinged for it when their caught.  




			
				GAP said:
			
		

> Was that not why they started allowing 1/2 rations, because of the cost vs the usage?



I'm unsure, I've never heard of half rations before.


----------



## GAP (7 Aug 2012)

ObedientiaZelum said:
			
		

> I'm unsure, I've never heard of half rations before.



My son was living in the shacks and had the same complaints about the high cost. I assume enough people were complaining (I don't know the real reason) that they instituted 1/2 rations, which made eminently more sense, at least in his case....


----------



## TCM621 (7 Aug 2012)

Crantor said:
			
		

> Unfortunately the problem is systematic in our society.  We just don't plan better at all.  Everyone always says to have funds saved up to cover three months salary, put away 10% and pay yourself first etc etc.  People buyng homes with mortgages they can't afford if something goes wrong, own vs rent, raking up credit debt etc etc.  I know, because I was once like that.  I know someone that would rather starve than cut his expensive sports cable package and then complains that he's broke.  Sorry I can't feel sorry for that.
> 
> Also, this has been coming.  It's been rumoured for a while and given the economic climate people could have been better prepared.  But some people don't stay informed, read the paper or follow anything that isn't beyond their own personal workspace.  it's like a variable mortgage.  people like them because they normally have lower interest rates.  All of a sudden the rate goes up, even one percent and people can't handle it.  They couldn't have known that was going to happen, even though the markets may have indicated a possible hike.  But they also didn't prepare fopr the eventuality.
> 
> It isn't just about being prepared for this particular thing, it's about being prepared for any type of economic issue.  We, as Canadians, just aren't.



Maybe it has been rumour but I didn't hear about it. Besides, rumours are rumours. PLD has been rumoured to be ending for 5-10 years. As for being prepared, I would love to be able to eat this and to have savings but life isn't always like that. You don't know the personal situation of a lot of people. Maybe their spouse lost their job in the downturn, maybe they have personal issues that are making money tight. The fact is that the people who will be hit the hardest are the privates/ocdts/2lts who are sitting on Pat platoon waiting for course (which is likely not running for a while because of budget cuts) and are not given a chance to decide if they want to move their family.  I don't care about IR. I mean it sucks for people who were told IR was good to go and are now getting screwed. But when the military is not allowing your to move your family with you, you should get compensated for the fact that you now have to pay for two lives. Your bills don't go away just because you aren't there, in fact they often go up if your spouse now has to pay to have someone do all the handyman stuff around the house. And if you want to have something of a life while away, you are going to have bills. For example, I am paying two internet bills right now. One here and one at home.  I have to take taxis everywhere because I left my car at home. My monthly grocery bill at home for a family of 4 is less then CF rations for one. I have to eat at mess hours or pay retail prices because I can't just whip up a sandwich like at home so that adds to the expense.

I know that we need to save money but there are better ways. Like how about not keeping guys making 50 grand a year stay on pat platoon doing nothing for 2 or 3 years. I know a large number of guys doing that. It is just an example, but taking it out of the soldiers pockets is not the way to do it. For those of you that remember the 90s, wait for it. I forsee it being a lot like it was back then and that is what pisses me off the most.


----------



## aesop081 (7 Aug 2012)

Well, i just called Rogers to cancel my cable TV and internet service. I was on a 1-year contract and bailing out early as i am posted again.

"No problem Sir, you are on a fix term but we will not charge you since you are military and don't have a choice"

One more IRP change calamity averted, eh !!


----------



## TCM621 (7 Aug 2012)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> Well, i just called Rogers to cancel my cable TV and internet service. I was on a 1-year contract and bailing out early as i am posted again.
> 
> "No problem Sir, you are on a fix term but we will not charge you since you are military and don't have a choice"
> 
> One more IRP change calamity averted, eh !!


 
That is actually pretty good of them.


----------



## aesop081 (7 Aug 2012)

Tony Manifold said:
			
		

> That is actually pretty good of them.



Yup. No connection fees for Hydro at the other end too. 2 minutes of being nice and polite on the phone.........


----------



## Sub_Guy (7 Aug 2012)

Strike said:
			
		

> Or a Porche, which I have seen in the Qs here in Edmonton.   :



I don't know what this is supposed to mean.  Fellas in Q's can't own nice cars?  Not everyone living in PMQ's is financially retarded.

For some living in the Q's is a choice, like myself for example.  I moved up to Comox from Victoria, sold my house there, made some serious money, we could have purchased up here but we decided to rent (knowing the posting here could be somewhat shorter).  We ended up in a fully (rebuilt from the ground up, they also added an extension on both floors) renovated PMQ, two full bathrooms, sure it is smaller than our previous house, but it works for us right now.

Our decision not to buy here was for various reasons, the main one was that we don't have to mess around with selling when it comes time to move, and now with the upcoming changes I am glad we don't.


----------



## OldSolduer (7 Aug 2012)

Dolphin_Hunter said:
			
		

> I don't know what this is supposed to mean.  Fellas in Q's can't own nice cars?  Not everyone living in PMQ's is financially retarded.



Nothing wrong with owning "nice" cars BUT when there are articles about CF soldiers at food banks, maybe a "nice" car is too much.

Don't expect the taxpayer to pay for your "nice" car.


----------



## Grunt_031 (7 Aug 2012)

> Like how about not keeping guys making 50 grand a year stay on pat platoon doing nothing for 2 or 3 years. I know a large number of guys doing that. It is just an example, but taking it out of the soldiers pockets is not the way to do it. For those of you that remember the 90s, wait for it. I forsee it being a lot like it was back then and that is what pisses me off the most.



I can see the reclassification of pers on PAT as in the 90's to critically short trades, if there are any. I remember a couple AVN Techs and MPs offered Cook or MSEOp or release.


----------



## Sub_Guy (7 Aug 2012)

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> Nothing wrong with owning "nice" cars BUT when there are articles about CF soldiers at food banks, maybe a "nice" car is too much.
> 
> Don't expect the taxpayer to pay for your "nice" car.



I agree with that statement, but I have not read an article about CF members using food banks in a while.  I bet that guy with the Porsche isn't the one complaining about CF pay.


----------



## Gramps (7 Aug 2012)

In the mid 90's I remember a couple of stories about members using food banks. I also distinctly remember a fund raising drive so a young member could get holiday food and presents for his family.


----------



## Cdnleaf (7 Aug 2012)

_...But when the military is not allowing your to move your family with you, you should get compensated for the fact that you now have to pay for two lives._

At the risk of sounding insensitive - why the entitlement to compensation?  You made an informed decision to join with a family; similarly I joined ~25 years ago with a suitcase. In hindsight for the first 6 years of my career believed being in the shacks paying rations was a great deal on my otherwise meager pay. Not happy, miss your family and can't afford it...get out. There is a line up at the recruiting centre and I offer that nugget to anyone who feels beleaguered by our current compensation package(s) (to include postings/movement of DF&E etc.).  All the best with your situation.


----------



## Jarnhamar (7 Aug 2012)

cdnleaf said:
			
		

> and I offer that nugget to anyone who feels beleaguered by our current compensation package(s)



I have a great spot in mind for that nugget of yours.

The whole "if you don't like it, quit" is a shitty mentality that's a double edged blade. Some took the very same attitude towards gays wanting to be allowed in the cf, women in the combat arms etc..

Do you really think the CF can afford to push that mind set?  You don't like back to back to back tours? Gtfo then..
Perhaps not the very same thing but for an organization facing a lack of instructors, lack of speciality trades, lack of targeted diverse visible minorities that whole if you don't love it leave mantra is weak.


----------



## Sub_Guy (7 Aug 2012)

cdnleaf said:
			
		

> _...But when the military is not allowing your to move your family with you, you should get compensated for the fact that you now have to pay for two lives._
> 
> At the risk of sounding insensitive - why the entitlement to compensation?  You made an informed decision to join with a family; similarly I joined ~25 years ago with a suitcase. In hindsight for the first 6 years of my career believed being in the shacks paying rations was a great deal on my otherwise meager pay. Not happy, miss your family and can't afford it...get out. There is a line up at the recruiting centre and I offer that nugget to anyone who feels beleaguered by our current compensation package(s) (to include postings/movement of DF&E etc.).  All the best with your situation.



You have to be kidding me right?   I have heard some stupid things over the past few days, but this tops the list.

Anyway the last time I checked the Military allows your family to move with you.  Any choice made to leave your family behind is a personal choice, not the military.   Unless you are a service couple, then you sometimes don't have a choice.  It should always be on the mind of service couples that when posting season comes around one of you could be posted. 



			
				Gramps said:
			
		

> In the mid 90's I remember a couple of stories about members using food banks. I also distinctly remember a fund raising drive so a young member could get holiday food and presents for his family.



I was a base brat during the lean years, I do recall that the cupboards and fridge looked pretty bare a few days before pay day.   Amazingly though, my father always seemed to have beer and smokes!   I will be the first to call BS on the food bank families, it is all about priorities and a good budget.


----------



## TCM621 (7 Aug 2012)

cdnleaf said:
			
		

> _...But when the military is not allowing your to move your family with you, you should get compensated for the fact that you now have to pay for two lives._
> 
> At the risk of sounding insensitive - why the entitlement to compensation?  You made an informed decision to join with a family; similarly I joined ~25 years ago with a suitcase. In hindsight for the first 6 years of my career believed being in the shacks paying rations was a great deal on my otherwise meager pay. Not happy, miss your family and can't afford it...get out. There is a line up at the recruiting centre and I offer that nugget to anyone who feels beleaguered by our current compensation package(s) (to include postings/movement of DF&E etc.).  All the best with your situation.



Been in 16 years chief, why should I have to quit my career and give up the pension I have been working for? Guys like you are the reason why the military has a hard time keeping quality people. You know what happens when you say, "Don't like it, Get out"? The best and the brightest leave unless they are really, really keen to serve. You get left with the dregs of the army. How about we make the CF a competitive employer who actually attracts quality people and keeps them. What a concept.


----------



## PuckChaser (7 Aug 2012)

Dolphin_Hunter said:
			
		

> You have to be kidding me right?   I have heard some stupid things over the past few days, but this tops the list.
> 
> Anyway the last time I checked the Military allows your family to move with you.  Any choice made to leave your family behind is a personal choice, not the military.   Unless you are a service couple, then you sometimes don't have a choice.  It should always be on the mind of service couples that when posting season comes around one of you could be posted.



I think he was referring to guys on prohibited postings, basically waiting a year or more for courses without their families and paying for 2 households.


----------



## Strike (7 Aug 2012)

Dolphin_Hunter said:
			
		

> I don't know what this is supposed to mean.  Fellas in Q's can't own nice cars?  Not everyone living in PMQ's is financially retarded.



No, there's nothing wrong, but I remember those news bits in the 90s when people were complaining about how low our salaries were while they had RVs and boats sitting in their driveways.

IOW, these people with the nice cars and all the toys better think twice before complaining to the media because they won't get much sympathy from Joe Q Public, who will automatically question their priorities.


----------



## Gramps (7 Aug 2012)

Dolphin_Hunter said:
			
		

> I will be the first to call BS on the food bank families, it is all about priorities and a good budget.



Call BS all you like, I remember it being on the TV news and in print. I could not find links to the original stories but found some reference to them. 

From the Canadian encyclopedia " . A parliamentary commission learned that lower-rank pay was so low that some married soldiers sought part-time jobs or visited food banks to feed their families."
 http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/m/article.cfm?params=A1&id=A0000307

From CBC " During the 1990s, a series of highly publicized articles on military personnel using food banks fuelled a widely held belief that our military is grossly underpaid."

 http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2009/01/13/f-vp-smol.html

From The Canadian Parliamentary Review. " They were told of sailors who had to live onboard ship because they could not afford local rents for even the most basic accommodation. They heard of military personnel who had to go to food banks in order to be able to feed their young families."

 http://www.revparl.ca/english/issue.asp?param=70&art=131


----------



## PPCLI Guy (7 Aug 2012)

Tony Manifold said:
			
		

> How about we make the CF a competitive employer who actually attracts quality people and keeps them.



Given that we have a monopoly on the exercise of state violence, and have the rather unusual clause of unlimited liability, what or who exactly are we competing with?

If you mean a job, well sure - many of us could make shed loads more money on civie street, including me.  The reason I (and I suspect many others) don't "get out" is that we like the fact that what we do actually matters in the greater sense.  It is important.  Someone has to so it. I am one of the people I trust to do it on behalf of my family, loved ones, and country.

So, I have a counter proposal. How about we make the CF a calling vice a "competitive employer", and foster a sense of belief in the rightness of what we do, from recruitment through to retirement.  That will attract and keep the *right* people, and not just* enough * people.


----------



## PuckChaser (7 Aug 2012)

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> Given that we have a monopoly on the exercise of state violence, and have the rather unusual clause of unlimited liability, what or who exactly are we competing with?



These guys? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o0l3E8_FuFc  ;D


----------



## mariomike (7 Aug 2012)

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> How about we make the CF a calling vice a "competitive employer",



"More than a job. A calling." 

Saw that on a wall poster where I used to work.


----------



## OldSolduer (8 Aug 2012)

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> Given that we have a monopoly on the exercise of state violence, and have the rather unusual clause of unlimited liability, what or who exactly are we competing with?
> 
> If you mean a job, well sure - many of us could make shed loads more money on civie street, including me.  The reason I (and I suspect many others) don't "get out" is that we like the fact that what we do actually matters in the greater sense.  It is important.  Someone has to so it. I am one of the people I trust to do it on behalf of my family, loved ones, and country.
> 
> So, I have a counter proposal. How about we make the CF a calling vice a "competitive employer", and foster a sense of belief in the rightness of what we do, from recruitment through to retirement.  That will attract and keep the *right* people, and not just* enough * people.



I quite agree. Good post.


----------



## Journeyman (8 Aug 2012)

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> So, I have a counter proposal. * How about we make the CF a calling vice a "competitive employer"*, and foster a sense of belief in the rightness of what we do, from recruitment through to retirement.  That will attract and keep the *right* people, and not just* enough * people.


----------



## Quellefille (8 Aug 2012)

ok, someone give me a hand.

I am a brand spanking new military spouse.  He joined in January, just finished basic training last week(medical recourses suck) and now he's in borden.  He's got his schedule and he's got, like 5 different courses to get through.  I only recognize 2 of them, but basiclly starting in september he's on course for a few weeks, then off course for a few weeks until March when he gets onto his trade course.  he will be done his training in borden in September of 2013, but non of his individual courses are over 6 months.

We can't afford to keep two households.  One of the selling points of the recruiter was that either the military will pay for his lodgings, or we'll be together.  They did talk about what would happen if he got shipped somewhere expensive and my answer was I'd go.  It's just me and him and I'm unemployed at the moment so if I was offered a move I would be there in an instant.

But I read this whole briefing and it seems to say that he's going to have to start paying for his rations and board and we can't afford that.  I'm happy to go live in a pmq in borden with him, I'd be ready to go tomorrow if they said the word, but no ones brought that up and no ones told him that I can move at all.  Toss in the fact that he's french and sometimes the way he explains things isn't quite right.

Can someone help me.  Without a million acronyms.  I don't speak acronym yet.  I'm working on it, but this whole things is overwhelming.


----------



## Sub_Guy (8 Aug 2012)

Gramps said:
			
		

> Call BS all you like, I remember it being on the TV news and in print. I could not find links to the original stories but found some reference to them.
> 
> From the Canadian encyclopedia " . A parliamentary commission learned that lower-rank pay was so low that some married soldiers sought part-time jobs or visited food banks to feed their families."
> http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/m/article.cfm?params=A1&id=A0000307
> ...



I recall the same news stories.  My main point was that with a sound budget they would probably not have to resort to food banks.  My parents made it work, and I recall them complaining about the same news stories.


----------



## Jarnhamar (8 Aug 2012)

Dolphin_Hunter said:
			
		

> I recall the same news stories.  My main point was that with a sound budget they would probably not have to resort to food banks.  My parents made it work, and I recall them complaining about the same news stories.



You can't use anecdotal evidence for something like that.  Some members do have messed up priorities and will bitch about money but always have a fridge full of beer and cigarettes.  Others may have genuine money problems and through fault of their own or not are barely scraping by.


----------



## Halifax Tar (8 Aug 2012)

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> So, I have a counter proposal. How about we make the CF a calling vice a "competitive employer", and foster a sense of belief in the rightness of what we do, from recruitment through to retirement.  That will attract and keep the *right* people, and not just* enough * people.



Because you cant make something a calling.  For some people it is for others its just a job.   

How do you propose we screen for those with "the calling" during the recruitment process ?  Or how do we deal with those who join because of the calling and then as time goes on they begin to see the CF as a job and a means to a pension ? 


Back on topic: 

I am a member currently on IR.  My spouse is masters degree level teacher in a very specified field in Halifax.  I have no intention of asking her to give up her career and pension for my last 7 years of service.  

The cuts don't bother me, I could see the writing on the wall.


----------



## OldSolduer (8 Aug 2012)

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> Because you cant make something a calling.



Baloney. The church has done it. Why can't we?

It is more than a job. Anyone willing to take a bullet for his fellow man as a condition of employment is, IMO, heard the call.


----------



## GAP (8 Aug 2012)

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> Baloney. The church has done it. Why can't we?
> 
> It is more than a job. Anyone willing to take a bullet for his fellow man as a condition of employment is, IMO, heard the call.



Yeah, but they got the cross first......what are you going to use for an image?  ;D


----------



## Halifax Tar (8 Aug 2012)

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> Baloney. The church has done it. Why can't we?



lol ok lets set ourselves up like the church there's a great path to follow...

How exactly do you make the CF a calling ?



> It is more than a job. Anyone willing to take a bullet for his fellow man as a condition of employment is, IMO, heard the call.



Well I have met many people in the CF who have openly stated they have no intentions of ever going into harms way an will actively avoid it.  Hell I worked with one person who told me his career goal was to do 25 years and never leave Canada.  Your tugging at emotional, patriotic rah rah heart strings and unfortunately many people who join only do so because of the pay cheque  and the pension at the end.  That's a fact of life buddy.  

No matter how much I may agree with you just can't up and make something a calling.  For some people it will be for others it wont.


----------



## NavyHopeful (8 Aug 2012)

So, between reading more of the postings on this topic, and speaking with my PO and a couple other people who have their finger on the pulse, I figure it's better just to deal with it, head on.

One of the pieces of advice I had received was to go to SISP and get them to draw up a budget with me, that would detail out a monthly spending regime.  That way, if need be, I can see where I can either afford this outcome, or not.  Right there in black and white.

When I asked about what I should do, should my budget costs exceed my monthly income, there was a lot of shrugging.  Apparently, the problem I am having with this isn't the removal of the benefits (I never wanted the damned things in the first place... I would've rather had my family move here from the get go), but the fact that there is still a lot of obscurity with how this will actually be implemented.

Hopefully, we can get some more information on the "how's" and not the "why's" of what is going on.  It isn't the loss that is frustrating, it's the not knowing what's really accurate, and what is just rumour.


----------



## McG (8 Aug 2012)

Dolphin_Hunter said:
			
		

> Anyway the last time I checked the Military allows your family to move with you.  Any choice made to leave your family behind is a personal choice, not the military.   Unless you are a service couple, then you sometimes don't have a choice.


Your check was shallow & missed things - as a result you are commenting in ignorance.  Had you actually checked, you would have found things such as prohibited postings and unacompanied moves.


----------



## newwifey (8 Aug 2012)

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> Back on topic:
> 
> I am a member currently on IR.  My spouse is masters degree level teacher in a very specified field in Halifax.  I have no intention of asking her to give up her career and pension for my last 7 years of service.
> 
> The cuts don't bother me, I could see the writing on the wall.



I'm going to sound kinda cranky here, but no disrespect is intended towards anyone.  Just so that's clear first!!

Situations like these are why the whole IR thing is being looked at and changed.  And of course the cuts shouldn't bother you, in cases like these, I don't think there should be IR benefits.

These are just my newbie wife opinions and if I'm way off base, my apologies.  I'm not up to speed on your policies:
If a member and his family CHOOSE to be separated because the spouse earns more money, can't/won't relocate their career, etc.  NO extras should be given.  That is a conscious decision, I assume, made by those families at that point in time.

If a member cannot move his family because the military said they couldn't go, why should the whole family be impacted?!?!?!

If a member did everything they were supposed to for requesting extensions so postings could coincide with real life happenings, like kids graduations, why should they be penalized and impacted?!?!?!?!

I won't even get started on the mortgages and changes to the envelopes.  Being a newbie, I see things a little differently than folks who have been in for some time.  My opinion isn't a popular one!!

The speculation this canforgen has caused has been ridiculous!  All those t's should have been crossed and i's dotted before this came out so it clearly stated the who's, what's, why's so everyone can stop flipping out!

*end rant*


----------



## Jed (8 Aug 2012)

An old Army saying; ' If the Army would've wanted you to have a wife and kids they would have issued you one. '

It appears as if this attitude is starting to come back. Most probably inevitable due to human nature, etc. Anyway, back to my orginal comment ... The military family will have to pull together more than ever during the times that are coming.


----------



## bridges (8 Aug 2012)

Jed said:
			
		

> An old Army saying; ' If the Army would've wanted you to have a wife and kids they would have issued you one. '
> 
> It appears as if this attitude is starting to come back. Most probably inevitable due to human nature, etc.



 :nod:    Yep.  It's as if the CF wants to mainly attract & keep single members (who don't own homes).  



			
				Quellefille said:
			
		

> One of the selling points of the recruiter was that either the military will pay for his lodgings, or we'll be together.



Hmmm... seems like they might want to revise their spiel, and perhaps provide an actual estimate of what training will cost, in terms of separation-related expenses.

Meanwhile - is anybody in a position to help Quellefille with her question?


----------



## Wookilar (8 Aug 2012)

Situations like these are why the whole IR thing is being looked at and changed.  And of course the cuts shouldn't bother you, in cases like these, I don't think there should be IR benefits.
[/quote]

Bingo!

When it really is a life style choice, then it should not be covered. Last year or two in highschool? Sure. Certain medical conditions? Maybe (Pet does not have the same access to health care as, say, Edmonton). 

Spouse has a great job? No, sorry. My spouse had a great career, but she knew full well that when I was posted, it would be very difficult for her to recover that in the next posting. We made the LIFE STYLE decision that my job was more important (the whole "calling" thing I suppose).

If your spouse's job is so awesome, get off your high horse, get out and get yourself a job in that city. In the CF, there is no such thing a two important jobs in the family. There should only be one. Just as the needs of the CF dictate our postings, so does it dictate a number of factors in our lives.

We all knew this when we joined (or we should have), seems that some of us have forgotten.

Or maybe it really is coming down to the difference between a job and a calling?

(pm alreadfy sent to Quellefille)


----------



## TCM621 (8 Aug 2012)

Quellefille said:
			
		

> ok, someone give me a hand.
> 
> I am a brand spanking new military spouse.  He joined in January, just finished basic training last week(medical recourses suck) and now he's in borden.  He's got his schedule and he's got, like 5 different courses to get through.  I only recognize 2 of them, but basiclly starting in september he's on course for a few weeks, then off course for a few weeks until March when he gets onto his trade course.  he will be done his training in borden in September of 2013, but non of his individual courses are over 6 months.
> 
> ...


The first step is for him to write a memo asking for a contingency cost move for personal reasons, citing the prohibitive cost of the new rules. After that he can contact the ombudsman but I would be prepared for a bit of a wait as imagine he will be busy for awhile. There is a daod or qr&o that covers contingency cost moves but I'm posting from my phone so I can't tell you which one it is. It should definitely be read.


----------



## Quellefille (8 Aug 2012)

Wookilar said:
			
		

> Spouse has a great job? No, sorry. My spouse had a great career, but she knew full well that when I was posted, it would be very difficult for her to recover that in the next posting. We made the LIFE STYLE decision that my job was more important (the whole "calling" thing I suppose).
> 
> If your spouse's job is so awesome, get off your high horse, get out and get yourself a job in that city. In the CF, there is no such thing a two important jobs in the family. There should only be one. Just as the needs of the CF dictate our postings, so does it dictate a number of factors in our lives.
> 
> ...



When my dude signed up, he asked me this, asked me what I would do if I had an amazing job that I couldn't leave.  And the answer is that if there is a job thats more important that my husband, then either I need to dump the husband or we'd need to make some sacrifices.  If they said 'ok, but she has to move tomorrow' my answer would be 'Well how soon can I get an advance'  because I'd be ready to go in a jiffy.  Thats the life I signed up for when he was sworn in.  But NO ONE on my dudes platoon has been told they'll have to start paying rations in september and some of them have large families back home so they're in for a nasty shock.


----------



## bridges (8 Aug 2012)

Wookilar said:
			
		

> (pm alreadfy sent to Quellefille)



Thanks.  I wasn't sure if she was still out there, waiting while we discussed the philosophical underpinnings of a career in the CF.

Agreed, on the job vs. calling thing.  There are many other honourable ways to serve one's society too - some equally dangerous, in different ways.  We are unique but not the only one.  In the reality of it, if we got rid of everyone in the CF who does NOT constantly want to make their job # 1 over their family or financial health, it would probably be a much smaller force.  Whether that's good or bad, I don't know.


----------



## bridges (8 Aug 2012)

Tony Manifold said:
			
		

> The first step is for him to write a memo asking for a contingency cost move for personal reasons, citing the prohibitive cost of the new rules. After that he can contact the ombudsman but I would be prepared for a bit of a wait as imagine he will be busy for awhile. There is a daod or qr&o that covers contingency cost moves but I'm posting from my phone so I can't tell you which one it is. It should definitely be read.



Here's the link:   http://www.admfincs-smafinsm.forces.gc.ca/dao-doa/5000/5003-6-eng.asp

Not sure if it would apply to this kind of situation though.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (8 Aug 2012)

Before suggesting anyone run off directly to the Ombudsman, you'd better read DAOD 5047-1, Office of the Ombudsman, specifically:

- Operating Principles, Failure to Comply and

- Annex A, (Existing Mechanisms), Para 13.


Additionally, I would start off with getting a copy of the Basic Training List Administrative Guide (BTAGs) and read Section 3 to understand the policies WRT CF members who are not occupationally qualified/not at Career Status.  There are some options that can be requested/looked at.


----------



## Journeyman (8 Aug 2012)

Tony Manifold said:
			
		

> After that he can contact the ombudsman....


   :not-again:

Step #1 - write a memo
Step #2 - Ombudsman?!      Perhaps "giving informed advice" isn't for you.


----------



## Quellefille (8 Aug 2012)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Additionally, I would start off with getting a copy of the Basic Training List Administrative Guide (BTAGs) and read Section 3 to understand the policies WRT CF members who are not occupationally qualified/not at Career Status.  There are some options that can be requested/looked at.



ok, where do I get this?  Google is failing me.  i'm willing to do the work and the reading (As the dude is currently at borden being shown around and I have the free time)


----------



## Eye In The Sky (8 Aug 2012)

Its not avail on the internet that I could find, which is why I didn't attach a copy to my post.  However, your dude should be able to get it from whoever he works for from the CF IntraNet.

While I understand your desire to be helpful, etc I also think you need to understand, early on, that there are some things that as the spouse, you are going to have to let your dude handle, as he is the CF member.  I don't mean that to be condesending in any way and hope you understand what I am saying.  Its more important that HE reads and understands the document.

Again, I mean no offense, but "my wife was talking to someone on a forum and they told her that  :blah:" won't help him much at all.   ;D


----------



## TCM621 (8 Aug 2012)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> :not-again:
> 
> Step #1 - write a memo
> Step #2 - Ombudsman?!      Perhaps "giving informed advice" isn't for you.



And what would you suggest? I am assuming that we are not talking just being financially uncomfortable but actual financial hardship. The first step is  a memo requesting a solution within the current rules. If that doesn't work the ombudsman is there for that kind of stuff. Obviously try to work with the system firstbut if that doesn't work that is why the positions was created.


----------



## Jimmy_D (8 Aug 2012)

How about: 

1: Memo
2: Financial Counceller
3: (If a real hardship and not too many toys) the Padre
4: Then if it comes down to it the Ombudsman


----------



## Occam (8 Aug 2012)

Tony Manifold said:
			
		

> And what would you suggest? I am assuming that we are not talking just being financially uncomfortable but actual financial hardship. The first step is  a memo requesting a solution within the current rules. If that doesn't work the ombudsman is there for that kind of stuff. Obviously try to work with the system firstbut if that doesn't work that is why the positions was created.



If you're serving, the Ombudsman is not an avenue you can use unless you have either:

A.  Exhausted the grievance process; or
B.  You are not getting a response via the grievance process (note - this does not mean you don't like that they've asked you for an extension, it means you're not getting ANY response from a submitted grievance, IAW the published time limits for grievances)

The Ombudsman's office will tell you that they cannot help you unless you have gone the grievance route first.  Did you read the DAOD on the Ombudsman?


----------



## Journeyman (8 Aug 2012)

Tony Manifold said:
			
		

> And what would you suggest?


Since you asked, I would _suggest_, (as per Eye In The Sky  post #292 and Occam post #298) that there is a system in place and parameters for its use. Escalating from a memo to the soldier's Sgt directly to the Ombudsman may not be the brightest move; in fact, as noted via MilPoints, it's likely the dumbest advice I've seen offered here.

As such, I _suggest_ you may wish to adhere to that recurring phrase here -- stay in your lane (which in this instance appears to be repetitively wringing your hands and bemoaning your lot in life) -- and NOT give dubious advice that could have potential repercussions for the member in question.


----------



## Wookilar (8 Aug 2012)

Let's all just chill a bit. QL3 students in Borden (and Gagetown) have been getting approval for postings while on course for at least 20 years (true story). One memo up the chain to request a move (not a contingency cost move either) first, then we see what happens.

No need to email Uncle Walt just yet.

Word is there is a meeting taking place this afternoon involving CMP and whole lot of Col and above. Let's just wait and see what clarifications we get. While the CF may be a bit of a machine that, at times, chews us up and spits us out, there are good people at the top that are fighting for the troops.

I know I am, I know my boss is and I have no doubt that that is continuing up the chain to the L1's. Let's have faith in our best asset, our people. I'm not going to screw any future fire team partner and I don't think CMP or the L1's will either (without a fight).


----------



## Eye In The Sky (8 Aug 2012)

Before CO's get swamped with a gazillion "NOIs" or grievances and everyone at DGCFGA goes on stress leave, people also need to understand before they even think 'grievance' that this benefit change has signature, approval and support by the Treasury Board.  Refer back to Para 3 of the CANFORGEN.

WRT grievances, the starting place is QR & O, Volume I, Chapter 7 - Grievances.

Read 7.01, Right to Grieve.  

For a more detailed understanding of the CF Grievance System than I will go into here, you can go to the DGCFGA website and the CF Grievance Board website.

What people need to understand is that in the CF Grievance system, the highest "authority" on decisions WRT grievances submitted by CF members is the CDS (by way of finding and recommendations made to the CDS by DGCFGA/CFGB in which the CDS personally makes a decision or by DGCFGA rendering decision on the CDS's behalf [where applic IAW that delegated authority, Art 7.09]).

So...knowing that info, can the CDS overturn a decision made by the Treasury Board?  No. 

Anyone see the problem with submitting a grievance on the changes made by the CANFORGEN now?


----------



## Occam (8 Aug 2012)

EITS:  While I agree that anyone considering it should wait until the dust settles at least, I disagree with your interpretation on the grievance process.

Anyone can grieve anything (except the prohibited reasons under QR&O 7.01), so long as they feel they've been wronged - regardless of whether the FA (Final Authority) has the authority to remedy the grievance.  In most cases, the FA can make a recommendation, and forward the grievance to whoever does have the authority to provide remedy.

Case in point:  the Home Equity Assistance matter, which is the subject of another thread here.  In that case, the CDS signed off as "Supported/Recommended", and referred it to TBS, who took a year to respond "Denied".


----------



## OldSolduer (8 Aug 2012)

GAP said:
			
		

> Yeah, but they got the cross first......what are you going to use for an image?  ;D



7.62 NATO round should work as symbol.....


----------



## OldSolduer (8 Aug 2012)

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> lol Well I have met many people in the CF who *have openly stated they have no intentions of ever going into harms way an will actively avoid it.  Hell I worked with one person who told me his career goal was to do 25 years and never leave Canada.  * Your tugging at emotional, patriotic rah rah heart strings and unfortunately many people who join only do so because of the pay cheque  and the pension at the end.  That's a fact of life buddy.



Yes and you should be telling them that if it is required that they go into harms way and they then refuse....then release them. 

I have told people that , and they have released on their own. Call them on this BS....and tell them to move aside for those that want to go.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (8 Aug 2012)

Occam said:
			
		

> EITS:  While I agree that anyone considering it should wait until the dust settles at least, I disagree with your interpretation on the grievance process.
> 
> Anyone can grieve anything (except the prohibited reasons under QR&O 7.01), so long as they feel they've been wronged - regardless of whether the FA (Final Authority) has the authority to remedy the grievance.  In most cases, the FA can make a recommendation, and forward the grievance to whoever does have the authority to provide remedy.
> 
> Case in point:  the Home Equity Assistance matter, which is the subject of another thread here.  In that case, the CDS signed off as "Supported/Recommended", and referred it to TBS, who took a year to respond "Denied".



I think what I wanted to make known (specifically for any of the new/Jnr NCM and Officers who might read this thread) was that the CDS is the FA, and the FA can't overturn TB policy.  If every mbr who is on PAT or course "pre-career status" with D, HG and E in another location (read "those who will feel this the most" and who would have the "best case for redress" IMO) submits a grievance, IMO the only thing that will happen for sure is the CF Grievance System will be overwhelmed, and the redress sought can not be granted by the FA to begin with.  If a grievance can't provide redress sought, then is the CF grievance system the best COA? 

I don't think my interpretation of the grievance process is off WRT the point I was trying to make overall; the CDS, as FA, can't overturn the TB decision, and on my understanding of our griev system (which is far from all-encompassing and open to correction/clarification of course), I don't see that the griev system we have is the best COA for remedy.

 :2c:


----------



## McG (8 Aug 2012)

newwifey said:
			
		

> Halifax Tar said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I agree that the lifestyle choice of _never going to move my spouse_ is something that should not be subsidised.  Unfortunately, the changes have been to SE and not IR - the Venn Diagram overlaps significantly but (as stated previously) the two are not the same thing.  IR needs to be fixed and (I believe) those fixes still need to be made (ie. Max 2 years with 3rd year in extraordinary situations on approval from CMP).

The changes have now been decreed.  So, this is going to happen and it is time now to find mitigation solutions within the mechanisms we have in order to help those pers who rightfully needed the benefit.  To that end, I propose we look to some precedent in Attached Postings to give us a path.

It used to be that mbrs attached posted received SE once in place at the gaining unit.  As TD could anything up to 6 months and attached postings could be anything up to 12 months, this resulted in the absurd situation where pers side-by-side with the equivalent circumstances and attending the same course were receiving different compensation.  To fix this, the entitlement for attached posted pers became the same as TD.  This went off the rails for a bit between Jan 2011 and Feb 2012 at which point the CFTDTI were amended to give the expenditure authority for attached posted pers.

In the case of untrained personnel, the option exists to enrol them into a local BTL and then attach post those members to the successive schools required to get to OFP.  At any point in time when the member is likely to remain under control of the same school/TE for 12 or more months, then the member will receive a restricted posting.  Attached postings could also replace other uses of prohibited postings domestically.

For pers moved unaccompanied, Sect 3.01 of the CFTDTIs could be amended to extend benefits just as was done for attached postings.  As an unaccompanied move is intended to temporarily position a member at the new place of duty while attempting to _bring forward_, the inclusion of unaccompanied moves would be consistent with the CFTDTIs compensation package designed to support members who must maintain a temporary living situation (the temporary nature of which keeps things more expensive than for a pers on IR who is settling into a more stable and predictable situation).  This amendment would have to go to TB for approval, because Sect 3.01 of the CFTDTIs is a TB authorized section (as opposed to one of the CDS authorized sections).

There is a risk that pers fully intent on going IR could take an unaccompanied move in order to claim the 6 months of TD benefits prior to actually switching to IR.  In the event of such an abuse, the money would be recoverable and the member subject to disciplinary & admin action because A-PP-005-IRP-AG-001 at section 11.2.02 makes very clear that there must be an intent to move the family, and that IR must be requested as soon as it is known that unaccompanied will extend beyond 6 months.


… Anyway, there are guys with much more admin acumen than I in this thread.  I would be interested in thoughts on this.


----------



## Wookilar (8 Aug 2012)

We just got a message in changing the posting status of some of our students from prohibited to restricted (authorized).

Some, not all. In line with what MCG is saying, this is one of those mitigation strategies that it appears some of D Mil C is going to use. Hope it carries on.


----------



## armyvern (8 Aug 2012)

Dolphin_Hunter said:
			
		

> I agree with that statement, but I have not read an article about CF members using food banks in a while.  I bet that guy with the Porsche isn't the one complaining about CF pay.



If she hadn't stated Edmonton, then I'd have assumed it was the young troop acrross the street from us in Pet who parked his newly acquired Porsche in his blanket-clad windows-PMQ driveway post tour ... after a couple of months it just sat there not being driven anywhere (couldn't afford the gas or the insurance once the tax free tour money was expended) ... two months after that it was just flat-out repossessed because by then he couldn't even afford it's payments. Couple of Hummers in Gagetown suffered same fate. At the end of the day, one can predict how absolutely stupid some people will be with money --- but you can't cure stupid.


----------



## aesop081 (8 Aug 2012)

Wookilar said:
			
		

> We just got a message in changing the posting status of some of our students from prohibited to restricted (authorized).
> 
> Some, not all. In line with what MCG is saying, this is one of those mitigation strategies that it appears some of D Mil C is going to use. Hope it carries on.



Pretty interesting, I was sitting in the office with cdnnvyguy this afternoon and saying that i thought this is exactly what would happen.


----------



## armyvern (8 Aug 2012)

cdnleaf said:
			
		

> _...But when the military is not allowing your to move your family with you, you should get compensated for the fact that you now have to pay for two lives._
> 
> At the risk of sounding insensitive - why the entitlement to compensation?  You made an informed decision to join with a family; similarly I joined ~25 years ago with a suitcase. In hindsight for the first 6 years of my career believed being in the shacks paying rations was a great deal on my otherwise meager pay. Not happy, miss your family and can't afford it...get out. There is a line up at the recruiting centre and I offer that nugget to anyone who feels beleaguered by our current compensation package(s) (to include postings/movement of DF&E etc.).  All the best with your situation.



To be clear, I have issues with your statement here as well.

My concern is for the young families this will affect who are not IR (_that_ "IR" status infers "choice"), but who are "restricted posted" or "prohibited posted" (this is where Married Service Couples and new recruits fall under). Those prohibited or restrcted are currently paid their benefits the "same as IR pers receive", but they are NOT "IR" - they are in these different categories of postings (restricted and prohibited) exactly because they "have no choice" as to whether or not their families move with them. Will those benefits for those groups now change as a result of this CANFORGEN (remember, these pers are not "IR" status).

And, regarding the comments about "don't join the CF then" ... (or "get out", but that's already discussed by others here) ... let's also be clear that we have hundreds more potential applicants knocking on our doors to join the CF than we have positions for ... to be CLEAR - these pers were merit listed and "selected" by the CF for those jobs offers. The CF "offered" _those guys/gals_ those job offers knowing full well that that applicant had a family, a home, kids etc etc. It works both ways.

Don't tell the guy not to join then if he's got a family or "oh well, you chose to join" because that really means "why in the hell is the CF offering them the job then knowing that they come with families/homes/whatever!!??" The CF made those job offers knowing the facts/family/home ownership status, it also bears some of the responsibility as far as I'm concerned for changes it makes after those pers have accepted that offer.

On the deduction of the meal portion, I am an "Oh well, I'd have to pay to eat at home anyway" person. That doesn't bother me an iota. The incidentals bothers me as I should be covered to call my family once a week (pay hydro bills etc [a cost that is currently not covered as that is "what incidentals are for"] - utilities that I am still required to pay at my principal residence etc whether I am there or not [unlike meals]). They going to cover that stuff now? It just seems to me that using the argument, "well you'd have to pay for food at home and you are not, thus we are taking the meal portion away from you" means that "Hey, I am already paying hydro at home so should you NOT be reimbursing me for those essential utilities that I am paying for out of my own pocket?" is the other side of the coin.

I lucked out - I am in an all-inclusive (except for meals) apartment. Other who will now have only their rent covered are not in such a good position. Besides the food expense which will be personal (and I agree with that! But I also agree that guys on TD to courses etc should be paying for their own food as they too would be now NOT incurring those costs at home while they are on course), they'll also be paying heat, hydro, phone out of their own pockets now too despite the fact that they ARE incurring those costs at their principal residence whther they are reunited with it or not.

While on topic, I know a few too who are also eating up 4% rent hikes every year from their own pockets. Landlords charge the max rent that IR will pay out (they are not stupid!!) and some of those landlords are upping that rent by the 4% legal limit now ...which the compensation is NOT covering if their original rent was already the max allowable.

Joe Landlord sees the CF coming and going. While we are at it --- get rid of this f'n "1 bedroom MAX apartment allowable" rule too!! When every furnished 1 bedroom in town costs 1600 bucks a month (the max claimable and the only thing we are allowed to rent), yet a 2 bedroom furnished apartment goes for 900 (to Joe Blow local) ... who is screwing who? If the CF wants to save money, lose that rule and I can see a bunch of us IR folks moving into bigger apartments, but saving you 700 bucks every month!! I don't think it's rocket science, yet I realize that common sense is extremely rare in certain circles. Find an IR guy with his college going kid living with him, or sharing that apartment? CHARGE his ass with fraud. Recover the totality of your moneies he obtained fraudulently, and leave the rest of us pers who aren't riding the system out of it.  Quite simple really.


----------



## PMedMoe (8 Aug 2012)

Vern, just wondering where you're getting that heat, hydro etc isn't covered.   ???  Mine is, up to the max amount of rent, parking, furniture rental, etc.  The only things not covered is phone, cable and internet.  

I was tempted to tell my unit if they ever had a bug out, someone would have to come to my door since I wasn't going to get a phone.  And without a phone, they wouldn't be able to ring up to my apartment either.   >


----------



## TCM621 (8 Aug 2012)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> Since you asked, I would _suggest_, (as per Eye In The Sky  post #292 and Occam post #298) that there is a system in place and parameters for its use. Escalating from a memo to the soldier's Sgt directly to the Ombudsman may not be the brightest move; in fact, as noted via MilPoints, it's likely the dumbest advice I've seen offered here.
> 
> As such, I _suggest_ you may wish to adhere to that recurring phrase here -- stay in your lane (which in this instance appears to be repetitively wringing your hands and bemoaning your lot in life) -- and NOT give dubious advice that could have potential repercussions for the member in question.



Who said anything about a memo to the SGT? IT would go to the CO at the very least. You could grieve it, which would take a year or two. And since this is a treasury board decision, I am not sure what the benefit of that is. Or you could talk to the Ombudsmen and work something out. That is his job. As for the person who said you can't talk to him if you are still serving, you are wrong. Also talking to the ombudsman is not the same as submitting a complain. They have a lot of knowledge about what you can go about solving your issues. 

Just to be clear, I would bet that the memo up the chain would probably solve 99% of people problems. That's what i'm doing and I am sure it will be worked out. And that is all I will say about that.

Wookilar, how would changing a posting from Prohibited to Restricted help?


----------



## aesop081 (8 Aug 2012)

Tony Manifold said:
			
		

> And since this is a treasury board decision, I am not sure what the benefit of that is.



None.


----------



## Occam (8 Aug 2012)

Tony Manifold said:
			
		

> As for the person who said you can't talk to him if you are still serving, you are wrong. Also talking to the ombudsman is not the same as submitting a complain. They have a lot of knowledge about what you can go about solving your issues.



No, I'm not wrong.  You can talk to the Ombudsman until you're blue in the face.  If you haven't exhausted the grievance route, don't expect them to lift a finger to help you out.  They won't.  Again - Read the DAOD on the role of the Ombudsman.


----------



## McG (8 Aug 2012)

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> Vern, just wondering where you're getting that heat, hydro etc isn't covered.   ???  Mine is, up to the max amount of rent, parking, furniture rental, etc.  The only things not covered is phone, cable and internet.


What is covered or not depends on the type of accomodation that one has.  It is written in CBI sup paras 208.997(7) to (10).  You can see it here:  http://www.cmp-cpm.forces.gc.ca/dgcb-dgras/pub/cbi-dra/208-eng.asp

Utilities are only covered for Non-Commercial Accommodations And Family Housing.  Coincidentally - basic cabal, internet and telephone are also covered for both of Non-Commercial Accommodations And Family Housing.


----------



## McG (8 Aug 2012)

Occam said:
			
		

> No, I'm not wrong.  You can talk to the Ombudsman until you're blue in the face.  If you haven't exhausted the grievance route, don't expect them to lift a finger to help you out.  They won't.  Again - Read the DAOD on the role of the Ombudsman.


While I do not condone launching to the Ombudsman as step #2 in problem solving, he is correct that one cannot grieve TB policy.  There have been grievances that reached the FA and were forwarded to the TB when it was determined the matter was of TB authority, but the system is not intended to function that way.  (QR&Os) Volume I - Chapter 7 Subsections 29(2) states that There is no right to grieve in respect of a matter or case prescribed by the Governor in Council in regulations.  That means you cannot grieve a CBI (the grievance route is exhausted from the get-go).  You can grieve an interpretation, but the grievance route is closed if you disagree with the TB policy.


----------



## armyvern (8 Aug 2012)

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> Vern, just wondering where you're getting that heat, hydro etc isn't covered.   ???  Mine is, up to the max amount of rent, parking, furniture rental, etc.  The only things not covered is phone, cable and internet.
> ...



"Up to your max rent claimable" being the keywords here. That over and above you are paying out of your own pocket.

Be thankful that you have a rent below the limit (obviously not in a military town) ... others are paying the max rent claimable, but do not have any room left on their max to be able to claim utilities up to their max. Some landlords are scum. When they know the CF will pay max 1600 for rent --- that's what they charge, and for some that's without utilities (and also for some - that's unfurnished so the cost of rental furniture is also coming out of their own pockets). When you are forced into that 1 bedroom because policy dictates such vice their being a "competitive market" of 1 and two bedrooms allowability to force landlords to compete for IR business - you are then forced to eat those utility costs yourself that are over and above the max rate because "that's what incidentals are for". No incidentals anymore. That means = member's own pocket (unless they plan on allowing for those costs to now be claimed to their fullest of the actual charges incurred for such). For some people - it ain't just the cost of food.


----------



## Occam (8 Aug 2012)

MCG said:
			
		

> You can grieve an interpretation, but the grievance route is closed if you disagree with the TB policy.



No arguments here, but neither CDS nor Ombudsman have authority over TB policy, so going to the Ombudsman is just as pointless.  Note that I did say:



			
				Occam said:
			
		

> Anyone can grieve anything (except the prohibited reasons under QR&O 7.01), so long as they feel they've been wronged - regardless of whether the FA (Final Authority) has the authority to remedy the grievance.  In most cases, the FA can make a recommendation, and forward the grievance to whoever does have the authority to provide remedy.



The Home Equity Assistance saga I mentioned earlier is a TBS interpretation being grieved, which the CDS passed on to TBS to reconsider.


----------



## armyvern (8 Aug 2012)

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> ...
> 
> I was tempted to tell my unit if they ever had a bug out, someone would have to come to my door since I wasn't going to get a phone.  And without a phone, they wouldn't be able to ring up to my apartment either.   >



Missed this bit --- akin to what I told mine when it the discussion was reference "30 days reunited throughout the year and you could lose your IR benefits":

OK then, on day 31 when you take my IR benefits away, please do not come knocking on either my military spouse's door at the house nor at my door in my apartment when I don't show up for work in that second location "because I'm not IR anymore; policy says so. Careful what you wish for ..."


----------



## armyvern (8 Aug 2012)

MCG said:
			
		

> What is covered or not depends on the type of accomodation that one has.  It is written in CBI sup paras 208.997(7) to (10).  You can see it here:  http://www.cmp-cpm.forces.gc.ca/dgcb-dgras/pub/cbi-dra/208-eng.asp
> 
> Utilities are only covered for Non-Commercial Accommodations And Family Housing.  Coincidentally - basic cabal, internet and telephone are also covered for both of Non-Commercial Accommodations And Family Housing.



After 4 IR postings ... I am quite aware of that. "Up to the allowable max of your claimable rent" being key. The rest is out of pocket. And to be clear, phone, cable, net etc is "initial installation" covered - certainly not the monthly bill. Now that incidentals are gone ... are they going to reimburse the cost of 1 X long distance call to my family per week to me? All things that "incidentals" used to cover.

Another thing is trips back to family. I have it good ... I can at least travel home on weekends to visit as I can drive there. What about Dude X posted in Edmonton whose wife is posted to Gagetown ... he gets one claimable trip to see his family per year ... yet if he were deployed he'd get one per 6 months. What's the difference - he's not there by choice either. Either way, it baffles me when guys on course have food paid for despite the fact they are no longer incurring that expense at home ... yet they use the same "well you'd have to incur food expenses at home anyway" reasoning to take meal allowance away from others who are not at home. In the sit above, both pers are separated from their families not by choice, but due to the needs of the service - why the difference in travel entitlements to see their families? Or to long distance calls being covered? Or to food being covered?

Make up your minds and make every pers applicable to same rules regarding all of that. Whichever way they decide is good with me ... just apply like logic to all either way, not to just one group.


----------



## wesleyd (8 Aug 2012)

MCG said:
			
		

> Situations like these are why the whole IR thing is being looked at and changed.  And of course the cuts shouldn't bother you, in cases like these, I don't think there should be IR benefits.I agree that the lifestyle choice of _never going to move my spouse_ is something that should not be subsidised.  Unfortunately, the changes have been to SE and not IR - the Venn Diagram overlaps significantly but (as stated previously) the two are not the same thing.  IR needs to be fixed and (I believe) those fixes still need to be made (ie. Max 2 years with 3rd year in extraordinary situations on approval from CMP).
> 
> The changes have now been decreed.  So, this is going to happen and it is time now to find mitigation solutions within the mechanisms we have in order to help those pers who rightfully needed the benefit.  To that end, I propose we look to some precedent in Attached Postings to give us a path.
> 
> ...



I was on IR for 4 months, unaccompanied for 6 months first. My house was actively on the market and was priced 50k below assessed value ( which was 30k lower than the realtor wanted to list it for). After ten months my house sold and my family got to move here with me. Should someone in a similar situation be penalized for something that is beyond their control? I had to pay for internet and phone out of pocket as my rent with furniture and utilities was 1600.


----------



## blacktriangle (8 Aug 2012)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Joe Landlord sees the CF coming and going. While we are at it --- get rid of this f'n "1 bedroom MAX apartment allowable" rule too!! When every furnished 1 bedroom in town costs 1600 bucks a month (the max claimable and the only thing we are allowed to rent), yet a 2 bedroom furnished apartment goes for 900 (to Joe Blow local) ... who is screwing who? If the CF wants to save money, lose that rule and I can see a bunch of us IR folks moving into bigger apartments, but saving you 700 bucks every month!! I don't think it's rocket science, yet I realize that common sense is extremely rare in certain circles. Find an IR guy with his college going kid living with him, or sharing that apartment? CHARGE his *** with fraud. Recover the totality of your moneies he obtained fraudulently, and leave the rest of us pers who aren't riding the system out of it.  Quite simple really.



As an owner of a property in the NCR, I recently looked at renting it out to someone on IR.  I could charge 1000-1100 a month on it and be perfectly happy doing so. It's a new 2 Bedroom with lots of room and a parking space. I was told that my place didn't meet the IR standard...so yeah, some poor guy on IR will get a crappier place and it will cost the CF more. Brilliant.


----------



## PPCLI Guy (8 Aug 2012)

Spectrum said:
			
		

> As an owner of a property in the NCR, I recently looked at renting it out to someone on IR.  I could charge 1000-1100 a month on it and be perfectly happy doing so. It's a new 2 Bedroom with lots of room and a parking space. I was told that my place didn't meet the IR standard...so yeah, some poor guy on IR will get a crappier place and it will cost the CF more. Brilliant.



Same here.  I rented my 3 bdrm house in Rockland to an IR guy until they changed the rules.  Funny thing is, rent was only 1300.....


----------



## PMedMoe (8 Aug 2012)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> "Up to your max rent claimable" being the keywords here. That over and above you are paying out of your own pocket.
> 
> Be thankful that you have a rent below the limit (obviously not in a military town) ... others are paying the max rent claimable, but do not have any room left on their max to be able to claim utilities up to their max. Some landlords are scum. When they know the CF will pay max 1600 for rent --- that's what they charge, and for some that's without utilities (and also for some - that's unfurnished so the cost of rental furniture is also coming out of their own pockets). When you are forced into that 1 bedroom because policy dictates such vice their being a "competitive market" of 1 and two bedrooms allowability to force landlords to compete for IR business - you are then forced to eat those utility costs yourself that are over and above the max rate because "that's what incidentals are for". No incidentals anymore. That means = member's own pocket (unless they plan on allowing for those costs to now be claimed to their fullest of the actual charges incurred for such). For some people - it ain't just the cost of food.



I know.  It's not my first time doing this.  But it is my last time.   :nod:



			
				ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Missed this bit --- akin to what I told mine when it the discussion was reference "30 days reunited throughout the year and you could lose your IR benefits":
> 
> OK then, on day 31 when you take my IR benefits away, please do not come knocking on either my military spouse's door at the house nor at my door in my apartment when I don't show up for work in that second location "because I'm not IR anymore; policy says so. Careful what you wish for ..."



Nah, they'd just tell you that your benefits are gone and charge you with AWOL....   :


----------



## armyvern (8 Aug 2012)

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> ...
> Nah, they'd just tell you that your benefits are gone and charge you with AWOL....   :



Yep, and they'd have a year to court martial me (accompanied by my civvy lawyer) for that after my release date (which would be what paperwork I would be submitting at the place of my primary residence on day 31).  ;D


----------



## armyvern (8 Aug 2012)

wesleyd said:
			
		

> ... I had to pay for internet and phone out of pocket as my rent with furniture and utilities was 1600.



Even if your rent wasn't max'd, you'd still have had to pay for your net and phone out of pocket as "that is what incidentals are for". That's why I'm curious as to whether or not they are now going to cover the 1 X long distance call home per week along with the rent ('cause that "incidentals" portion of the SE will be disappearing next month - what about the costs of taking my clothes and uniforms to the laundromat - a necessary expense previously covered as "incidentals" because my washer and drier is at my primary residence??).


----------



## Eye In The Sky (8 Aug 2012)

Wookilar said:
			
		

> We just got a message in changing the posting status of some of our students from prohibited to restricted (authorized).
> 
> Some, not all. In line with what MCG is saying, this is one of those mitigation strategies that it appears some of D Mil C is going to use. Hope it carries on.



This is what I was referring to and thinking about a few pages back about AFC, L1's, etc looking for solutions.  I also mentioned the BTAGs, Section 3 several times because I went and read it and saw that the contents of this particular section is the applic part for people in the trg system (exempt OTs who are posted to a BTL vice pre-positioned for Initial Occ trg).

For anyone out there who has troops in the trg system this affects and wants to know what the policies are WRT posting status, training durations, etc etc etc...BTAGs, Section 3 lays it all out.  Included in this Section is the process to request a change in status.


----------



## TCM621 (8 Aug 2012)

Occam said:
			
		

> No, I'm not wrong.  You can talk to the Ombudsman until you're blue in the face.  If you haven't exhausted the grievance route, don't expect them to lift a finger to help you out.  They won't.  Again - Read the DAOD on the role of the Ombudsman.



We have obviously have had different experiences with the ombudsman. Their office is quit helpful in giving advice and directing people to the right route. Hey if that wasn't the way it worked for you, I understand.


----------



## Jarnhamar (8 Aug 2012)

So is someone on IR no longer getting that up to $400 a month allowance?


----------



## Eye In The Sky (8 Aug 2012)

Tony Manifold said:
			
		

> We have obviously have had different experiences with the ombudsman. Their office is quit helpful in giving advice and directing people to the right route. Hey if that wasn't the way it worked for you, I understand.



Be mindful that follow-on readers will get advice (good, bad, or otherwise) from threads like these.

While perhaps the big O office has spoken to you and offered advice, have you gone to them with a formal complaint?  An earlier post suggested that is Step #2.  That is wrong advice, full stop.

Don't get your knicker in a knot about it, you haven't been in long enough to know how best to play the game whereas others of us have and have already learned from experience and mistakes.

Suck back and re-load, the wording of the DAOD is clear and while your CofC either doesn't know you've gone there or they have turned an blind eye to it, remember Pte Bloggins might read this in a week or year or whatever, and see "hey this guy went right to the Ombudsmen and nothing happened to him", only to find himself on Remedial Measures and/or Summary Proceeding after doing so and his CofC being made aware.

I suggest you suck back, relax and think before you post again, learn from the experience of others on here who know this system and its rules and realities much better than you do.

Advice like always can be taken, or ignored.  I suggest that caution be exercised when considering the Ombudsmen in any COA.   :2c:


----------



## buzgo (8 Aug 2012)

So I have a question:


What about people who are posted to training establishments for 1 year courses? Staff college, LFTSP etc. As far as I know they can either go IR or move their family. It is clearly a temporary situation (doesn't last 365 days) and there are generally no quarters available so IR on the economy is typical. What about this situation? Shouldn't the CFTDI apply? Why are these courses dealt with like postings? 

A full move for a 1 year course followed by a full move at the end of the course would end up costing something like 3 x as much a 1 year on IR with meals and SE, correct?


----------



## dapaterson (8 Aug 2012)

signalsguy said:
			
		

> So I have a question:
> 
> 
> What about people who are posted to training establishments for 1 year courses? Staff college, LFTSP etc. As far as I know they can either go IR or move their family. It is clearly a temporary situation (doesn't last 365 days) and there are generally no quarters available so IR on the economy is typical. What about this situation? Shouldn't the CFTDI apply? Why are these courses dealt with like postings?
> ...



Slight tangent:

Perhaps we need to re-think some of those training plans.  Staff college, for example.  With the current mix of DL/residential students there has been no observable performance difference between the two groups.  That suggests we can do away with the current residential model and move to a model that's primarily DL, with perhaps a short (2-3 month?) residential portion.  That would represent a significant savings to DND - no more moves or IR for the course, and over 100 ATL positions to be re-invested.


----------



## armyvern (8 Aug 2012)

ObedientiaZelum said:
			
		

> So is someone on IR no longer getting that up to $400 a month allowance?



I have no idea as to what the 400$ allowance is that you are speaking of.

Pers on IR were paid up to the max / month in rent monies (that max amount differs by area you are located at).

Here, the max is 1600 bucks. One could claim their rent, and utilities, furniture rental - all with receipts required - to that max limit. Any of those costs over and above that max is out of pocket.

Additionally, one is paid SE (Seperation Expense) at either the high rate (in commercial accommodations: /apartments etc) or low rate (pers in shacks) per day.

Both the low rate SE and high rate SE are comprised of portions ("incidentals", "Seperation Pay", and "meal allowance" [itself a partial amount of the daily meal rate]). Those in the low rate bracket got lower rate SE because shacks have common rooms with cable TV, free laundry facilities, minimum availability of a pay phone etc in the shacks, meals at kitchen etc. Those on high rate SE are paid higher rate as they have to pay  for meals, cook, laundry, insurance on their stuff in the apartment etc etc.

Those monies were deducted (abated) each month by the number of days you were reunited with your F&E ... you do not collect that day's SE if you get to be lucky and go home on the weekend, nor when you are on leave, TD, attach posted, in the field etc. Therefore the amount paid each month varies by member, but it can be higher than 400 bucks a month - it can also be lower.

The message only notes that the meal portion and the incidental portion is being removed (although as shown - those incidentals still must occur for phone, laundry etc - now just 100% out of our own pockets) ... it states nothing about the "separation pay" portion being removed; I have no idea what that "separation portion" amount within the total of either the low or high rate SE is. The message gives the impression that at least that portion will be remaining, but an inquiry to our clerks did not, at this point, yield any answer as to whether that is factual or as to what that amount per day would be - if any. 

I am quite certain that this is being looked at by those much higher than me in the food chain to figure all this stuff out. Although, it does bother me that the announced "take away of the benefit" was announced while work is apparently still being done to sort the nitty gritty details at the highest levels and before those who be getting asked the questions at ground level were given any clarifying information for the myriad of questions that one knew were going to be flying it at the ground level.

I am also quite certain that no conspiracy to screw the troops is occurring. I have known for months that IR was being reviewed and that changes were coming although I was not aware (until the message) as to what exactly those changes would be. If someone is IR and was not aware that it "was under review" - that is a personal CoC issue and certainly _*not*_ any conspiracy by higher. I'm sure time will see it sorted out and remaining questions answered (one would hope those answers come prior to the announced start date of this new policy).

I do though still find it curious that other federal employees have always been entitled to much higher rates when "IR" away from their family - even when being in Ottawa etc, their max rent levels there are much higher, travel to family different in coverage etc etc. I would hope that this "new TB way" is NOT just being applied to us CF members and is applicable to one and all in the federal service ... same town - same max rate and same SE per day rates and no meals covered for them either now. Same TB is governing all of us.


----------



## Journeyman (8 Aug 2012)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Staff college, for example....
> 
> ...That suggests we can do away with the current residential model and move to a model that's primarily DL......


I just felt a tremor in the force.....   ;D


----------



## PPCLI Guy (9 Aug 2012)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Slight tangent:
> 
> Perhaps we need to re-think some of those training plans.  Staff college, for example.  With the current mix of DL/residential students there has been no observable performance difference between the two groups.  That suggests we can do away with the current residential model and move to a model that's primarily DL, with perhaps a short (2-3 month?) residential portion.  That would represent a significant savings to DND - no more moves or IR for the course, and over 100 ATL positions to be re-invested.



That will be a natural fallout of this initiative, along with others.


----------



## Towards_the_gap (9 Aug 2012)

Here's a question for those of you with more financial know-how.

The budget for FY 2012 has been set, has it not? Therefore the money for IR/IRP stuff is still there, this year at least, on paper. Why are they not bringing this change in next March?


----------



## dapaterson (9 Aug 2012)

Towards_the_gap said:
			
		

> Here's a question for those of you with more financial know-how.
> 
> The budget for FY 2012 has been set, has it not? Therefore the money for IR/IRP stuff is still there, this year at least, on paper. Why are they not bringing this change in next March?



The Government announced reductions to DND's budget (or at least reductions to  planned growth - I'm not certain about whether the net has gone up or down) already.  That means that the plans for this year already either cut those funds or reallocated them elsewhere.

So no, the money's not there this year.


----------



## Wookilar (9 Aug 2012)

Tony Manifold said:
			
		

> Wookilar, how would changing a posting from Prohibited to Restricted help?



Prohibited basically you are screwed. No move allowed, few benefits remaining.

Restricted (authorized) essentially leaves the authority at the CO level to approve the move of the family. Once the member secures accommodations, the CO can authorize the lifting of the restriction and the family can be moved. Fin authority is in the actual posting message and comes from DCBA or CFSTG (usually).


----------



## bridges (9 Aug 2012)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Besides the food expense which will be personal (and I agree with that! But I also agree that guys on TD to courses etc should be paying for their own food as they too would be now NOT incurring those costs at home while they are on course)



I'm not sure why this continues to come up.   Full rations are $554/month.  Even when you factor in the preparation and clean-up time, this will be a significant _increase_ in food costs for most people, compared to eating at home.   I believe one person said this was equivalent to the monthly food budget for their family of 4.  I'm ok with not _making_ money on TD or IR, but people shouldn't be _losing_ this kind of money on basic necessities like food, because of military requirements.  This needs to be fixed.


----------



## Jarnhamar (9 Aug 2012)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> I have no idea as to what the 400$ allowance is that you are speaking of.



I'm not sure either.  Every month I go and sign a claim- every day in which I'm not on leave or TD I get $10 or $14 or something- up to a max of I believe $400. Incidentals maybe?


----------



## dapaterson (9 Aug 2012)

ObedientiaZelum said:
			
		

> I'm not sure either.  Every month I go and sign a claim- every day in which I'm not on leave or TD I get $10 or $14 or something- up to a max of I believe $400. Incidentals maybe?



Yes; you're in shacks and eating in the mess?  That's the incidentals.


----------



## TCM621 (9 Aug 2012)

ObedientiaZelum said:
			
		

> I'm not sure either.  Every month I go and sign a claim- every day in which I'm not on leave or TD I get $10 or $14 or something- up to a max of I believe $400. Incidentals maybe?



I average just under 400 now for se so that is probably what he means.

As for the change to a restricted posting, it is a great option for the member but it will probably be more expense to the military overall. Talking with my CoC today that is the solution that seems to be their best guess but, in my case at least, it would cost the military a full cost move rather than a 500 dollar ticket to Victoria. I understand not everyone can be posted to a base where their family is but it seems to me that it is a better option where it exists.


----------



## Infanteer (9 Aug 2012)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Slight tangent:
> 
> Perhaps we need to re-think some of those training plans.  Staff college, for example.  With the current mix of DL/residential students there has been no observable performance difference between the two groups.  That suggests we can do away with the current residential model and move to a model that's primarily DL, with perhaps a short (2-3 month?) residential portion.  That would represent a significant savings to DND - no more moves or IR for the course, and over 100 ATL positions to be re-invested.



Continuing slight tangent:

If we want to continue to view it as a pseudo grad school then yes.  If we want it to be a real staff college, then no.


----------



## McG (9 Aug 2012)

wesleyd said:
			
		

> I was on IR for 4 months, unaccompanied for 6 months first. My house was actively on the market and was priced 50k below assessed value ( which was 30k lower than the realtor wanted to list it for). After ten months my house sold and my family got to move here with me. Should someone in a similar situation be penalized for something that is beyond their control?


I would argue it should not cost someone in the circumstances you describe (and I have experience with such circumstances), but the TB has already made the decision to take away the funding which covers the additional expenses.  I suspect it would be futile, convincing TB to reverse its decision.  However, looking at existing mechanisms that we have to sp members temporarily away from home, I think the CF could improve the situation of most future pers going unaccompanied by convincing TB to cover that circumstance under CFTDTIs.



			
				signalsguy said:
			
		

> What about people who are posted to training establishments for 1 year courses?


We could use attached postings.


----------



## Wookilar (9 Aug 2012)

Tony Manifold said:
			
		

> As for the change to a restricted posting, it is a great option for the member but it will probably be more expense to the military overall. Talking with my CoC today that is the solution that seems to be their best guess but, in my case at least, it would cost the military a full cost move rather than a 500 dollar ticket to Victoria. I understand not everyone can be posted to a base where their family is but it seems to me that it is a better option where it exists.



You are absolutely correct, this will cost the CF, as a whole, a crap ton more money. However, the optics of stopping all these people that have been "abusing" the system as well as the optics of reuniting families long separated look quite good.

Then we get into the different "types" of money on the fin side and which "pot" the money comes out of. The pot of money for SE has all dried up, however there is money left in the pot of money for cost moves for new recruits and their families.

This is where we get into semantics, and quite frankly, it gets stupid.


----------



## buzgo (9 Aug 2012)

How would an attached posting work? lFTSP/ATWOP for example: posted to RMC for 11 months then posted to a new job, not back to the old job.

Isn't an attached posting assuming you will go back to your "home" unit?


----------



## aesop081 (9 Aug 2012)

Attached posted to the school until graduation, then a normal posting to the new unit. That is done in many other situations. For example, i was attached posted from my unit to CFANS until i graduated and then receive a normal posting message to another unit at another base.


----------



## dapaterson (9 Aug 2012)

signalsguy said:
			
		

> How would an attached posting work? lFTSP/ATWOP for example: posted to RMC for 11 months then posted to a new job, not back to the old job.
> 
> Isn't an attached posting assuming you will go back to your "home" unit?



The justification for att-posting in those situations may be that you will not go on to the new job unless you pass the training - there's no guarantee.


----------



## cdnnvyguy (9 Aug 2012)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> Pretty interesting, I was sitting in the office with cdnnvyguy this afternoon and saying that i thought this is exactly what would happen.



It was as if you had a 6th sence


----------



## aesop081 (9 Aug 2012)

cdnnvyguy said:
			
		

> There is a spell check button.





			
				cdnnvyguy said:
			
		

> sence



That would be "sense". There is a "spell check" function on this site, maybe you can manage to use it.


----------



## Halifax Tar (9 Aug 2012)

Wookilar said:
			
		

> Situations like these are why the whole IR thing is being looked at and changed.  And of course the cuts shouldn't bother you, in cases like these, I don't think there should be IR benefits.
> 
> 
> Bingo!
> ...



Its a personal choice.  I don't abuse the system I use the program as its intended and that's that.  Whether you agree with my reason for going IR is inconsequential as its approved through the proper channels and all completely legit.

I have also stated that I think IR should be drastically changed to just R&Q no living on the economy and no benefits.  I think R&Q is more than fair.  

On a side note, I am not asking my wife (as of this Saturday  )  to give up everything she worked for because an organization that only I belong too thinks they can run her life too.  I have 7 years left to complete then I will pull the pin.  If that means I`m on IR for 7 years or some version of it so be it.  If it means I don't get IR anymore and we live distantly so be it, but my last 7 is not worth nearly as much as her next 35.


----------



## McG (9 Aug 2012)

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> Its a personal choice.  I don't abuse the system I use the program as its intended and that's that.  Whether you agree with my reason for going IR is inconsequential as its approved through the proper channels and all completely legit.
> 
> ...
> ... I am not asking my wife (as of this Saturday  )  to give up everything she worked for because an organization that only I belong too thinks they can run her life too.  I have 7 years left to complete then I will pull the pin.  If that means I`m on IR for 7 years or some version of it so be it.  If it means I don't get IR anymore and we live distantly so be it, but my last 7 is not worth nearly as much as her next 35.


You may be getting approval from the proper authorities, but you are not using the system as intended.  IR is intended to be a temporary deferment of a posting.  You are making a lifestyle choice to permanently put-off any posting.  You are not using the system as intended - you are part of the problem.



			
				Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> I have also stated that I think IR should be drastically changed to just R&Q no living on the economy and no benefits.  I think R&Q is more than fair.


Many locations do not have quarters nor kitchens.  R&Q is not an option in many places.


----------



## Jarnhamar (9 Aug 2012)

You want to be on IR for 7 years then pull the pin?

Yea I don't think that's what IR was intended for.  Not cool dude.


----------



## NavyHopeful (9 Aug 2012)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> The message only notes that the meal portion and the incidental portion is being removed (although as shown - those incidentals still must occur for phone, laundry etc - now just 100% out of our own pockets) ... it states nothing about the "separation pay" portion being removed...



Actually, the message did outline that all separation expense claims would no longer be claimable, so the $400 a month that people were recieving for SE every month is no longer claimable.



> 4. EFFECTIVE 1 SEP 12, THE FOLLOWING BENEFITS UNDER THE CANADIAN
> FORCES INTEGRATED RELOCATION PROGRAM (CFIRP) AND CB1 208 SHALL CEASE
> FOR ALL CF MEMBERS:
> A. THE MORTGAGE BREAKING PENALTIES AND MORTGAGE EARLY REPAYMENT
> ...



As for possible solutions, I was also told today that they may be looking at changing my posting status from prohibited to allow me to move my wife and son here.  As long as it doesn't affect my course, or get me recoursed due to missing too many classes, I'm all for it.  The less time away from them, the better IMO.


----------



## PuckChaser (9 Aug 2012)

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> On a side note, I am not asking my wife (as of this Saturday  )  to give up everything she worked for because an organization that only I belong too thinks they can run her life too.  I have 7 years left to complete then I will pull the pin.  If that means I`m on IR for 7 years or some version of it so be it.  If it means I don't get IR anymore and we live distantly so be it, but my last 7 is not worth nearly as much as her next 35.



Had a guy like that, got himself a compassionate posting to a reserve unit near his home. He'd milked IR while in Petawawa, and got it again in KTown. He wanted a real spot near his house, CM told him to move unrestricted or release. He released and I don't think he got his 20 years. As its been said, you're part of the problem.


----------



## newwifey (9 Aug 2012)

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> Its a personal choice.  I don't abuse the system I use the program as its intended and that's that.  Whether you agree with my reason for going IR is inconsequential as its approved through the proper channels and all completely legit.
> 
> I have also stated that I think IR should be drastically changed to just R&Q no living on the economy and no benefits.  I think R&Q is more than fair.
> 
> On a side note, I am not asking my wife (as of this Saturday  )  to give up everything she worked for because an organization that only I belong too thinks they can run her life too.  I have 7 years left to complete then I will pull the pin.  If that means I`m on IR for 7 years or some version of it so be it.  If it means I don't get IR anymore and we live distantly so be it, but my last 7 is not worth nearly as much as her next 35.



I call BS!  I might be new but even I know that's WRONG!

I have a career and job that I've had for 24 years.  I am marrying my guy in 38 days.  
He's been posted, I will move next summer sometime and guess what, I have made all the necessary arrangements to keep my job.  
My understanding of being the wife is I'm to follow him (when I am allowed) where he is sent, regardless of how much time he has left.  Isn't that part of our "job" as a military wife.  

I'm fairly certain your wife also knows what comes with marrying a military man......


----------



## armyvern (9 Aug 2012)

MCG said:
			
		

> You may be getting approval from the proper authorities, but you are not using the system as intended.  IR is intended to be a temporary deferment of a posting.  You are making a lifestyle choice to permanently put-off any posting.  You are not using the system as intended - you are part of the problem.
> Many locations do not have quarters nor kitchens.  R&Q is not an option in many places.



Actually, as one of the persons who - just last month - fully supported his request for extension to his IR to the Career Manager (who approved it), his reasons were sound. It does have to do with lifestyle ... and yet he had ZERO intent of "being IR for the next 3, 4, 5, 6 or 7 years." He was, and isn't, part of the problem. He is aware that certain places do not have proper accommodations (we've actually talked about his opinion on that), but he is of the belief that building those appropriate accommodations would save the CF money in the long run - it's all in the context of the comments.

His referring to 7 years left and he will go unaccompanied for those 7 (at his own expense too) because his career is not more important than hers details exactly that he is not riding the system and that, if need be, in order for her not to get screwed in her career either, then they, as a couple, will incur all necessary costs for next 7 years out of their own pockets if his career requires him to go somewhere else to enable both careers rather than the taxpayer as it would then be a lifestyle choice.

Do they plan on being apart for next 7 years? No. It was a commentary on the current situation --- and that even if they cut IR to nil - he is not about to screw his wife's career at the behest of the CF and would pay himself to ensure he did not.

To be clear, his wife's budding career is not the sole reason for his current status.


----------



## newwifey (9 Aug 2012)

PS - congratulations on your wedding.


----------



## armyvern (9 Aug 2012)

newwifey said:
			
		

> I call BS!  I might be new but even I know that's WRONG!
> ...



In this case, you'd be 100% wrong. Just sayin'.


----------



## newwifey (9 Aug 2012)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> In this case, you'd be 100% wrong. Just sayin'.



We can agree to disagree.     

What your policies and grey areas might be indicating and what the moral line would suggest, aren't the same.

I am not overly familiar with all your P&P and have said as much.

Switching topic a little, did anyone hear how that meeting went yesterday?  Or is there a more definitive answer on when the next memo is due??

Thanks!


----------



## armyvern (9 Aug 2012)

NavyHopeful said:
			
		

> Actually, the message did outline that all separation expense claims would no longer be claimable, so the $400 a month that people were recieving for SE every month is no longer claimable.
> 
> As for possible solutions, I was also told today that they may be looking at changing my posting status from prohibited to allow me to move my wife and son here.  As long as it doesn't affect my course, or get me recoursed due to missing too many classes, I'm all for it.  The less time away from them, the better IMO.



It says no such thing. What it actually says is:



> 5. EFFECTIVE 1 SEP 12, THE FOLLOWING BENEFITS SHALL CEASE FOR ALL
> REG F MEMBERS AND RES F MEMBERS SERVING ON CLASS C RESERVE SERVICE:
> UNDER THE SEPARATION EXPENSE BENEFITS, BOTH THE INCIDENTAL EXPENSE
> ALLOWANCE AND MEAL RATE INCLUDING RATIONS AT PUBLIC EXPENSE



will cease.

SE is made up of three things, not two.

SE (*S*eperation *E*xpense) is made up of: incidentals (ceasing), meal allowance (ceasing) and *s*eperation *p*ay (not mentioned in the message is it?)

Way back when I was a wee dinosaur, ie: my first IR, all three of the above were figured and doled out as three separate allowances. Those three items were combined into a single thing that is now called "SE".

Thus the query to the clerks here, who couldn't answer: "what's happening with the old Seperation Pay (SP) portion of that SE as the CANFORGEN doesn't say it's being taken away? Is it staying and, if so, what is the amount".


----------



## armyvern (9 Aug 2012)

newwifey said:
			
		

> We can agree to disagree.
> 
> What your policies and grey areas might be indicating and what the moral line would suggest, aren't the same.
> 
> ...



Excuse me?

I don't MAKE policy. Ottawa does and he is FULLY compliant with policy and the reasons are sound and are NOT intended to be permanent rather temporary and that is EXACTLY why IR exists.

Keep your morality comments about me or he or anyone else to yourself.

'Nuff said.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (9 Aug 2012)

Sep Expense is not Sep "pay"?

I think part of the problem is the misuse of terms and that leads to confusion on peoples part, mine included.  Example

- when I was on my 3s and 5s, I was Attach Posted to the TE.  Because I am married and maintain a residence, etc...while on those courses I didn't pay R & Q and once a month I went to the WOR wth my "SE form" filled out to get my "Sep Pay" as it was called.

So was that SE or SP?   ???  If I were to be on course AP or TD  today, would I still get it as a married w/residence mbr?

Editted for obvious brain-fart WRT TD....TDA.  duh.


----------



## armyvern (9 Aug 2012)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Sep Expense is not Sep "pay"?
> 
> I think part of the problem is the misuse of terms and that leads to confusion on peoples part, mine included.  Example
> 
> ...



"Seperation Pay" ceased to exist years ago when they combined the three seperate allowances into one allowance that is now called "Seperation Expense".

Remember when Incidentals used to be called "Incidental Allowance"; Separation pay was "Separation Pay" and Meal allowance was called exactly that? They all now form a portion of one combined allowance called "Separtion Expense".


----------



## Eye In The Sky (9 Aug 2012)

holy frack.   :blotto:

We (CF mbrs across the board) really need to stop inter-changing acronyms and terms around.  No wonder people can't make sense of stuff.


----------



## McG (9 Aug 2012)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> ...he had ZERO intent of "being IR for the next 3, 4, 5, 6 or 7 years." ...


Not sure why you have used the quotation marks as those are not my words, and they also miss the point.  The point is that he has decided to permanently defer moving - that is very much not the intent nor the explicitly stated purpose of IR.  If the CM has a plan that he will be two years in your unit and return to where he came from next APS, then fine - if that is the case, then there may be justification.  However, that is not the model he presented to this board.  He presented us a description with no specific vision for his future other than his decision to remain on IR before ever moving his wife over the course of the next 7 years.  If there is no plan for him to get posted back home (and by his presentation there is no reason to believe such a thing exists), then he is making a permanent lifestyle choice and he should pay for that out of his pocket.



			
				ArmyVern said:
			
		

> His referring to 7 years left and he will go unaccompanied for those 7 ...


No he won't.  Unaccompanied is something else.  This may seem pedantic, but within the current discussion that word means something specific and limited in duration to not more than 6 months.  It is not IR and it is not permanently living in different locations at one's own expense.



			
				ArmyVern said:
			
		

> His referring to 7 years left and he will go unaccompanied for those 7 (at his own expense too) because his career is not more important than hers details exactly that he is not riding the system and that, if need be, in order for her not to get screwed in her career either, then they, as a couple, will incur all necessary costs for next 7 years out of their own pockets if his career requires him to go somewhere else to enable both careers rather than the taxpayer as it would then be a lifestyle choice.


If he is IR, then the government is financing this permanent lifestyle choice and they are not paying the true cost out of their pockets.  If the CM anticipates keeping him with your unit or posting him to an altogether different location at which he will initiate IR again, then (base purely on the information given) this is a lifestyle choice and perhaps the member should concede being outside the intent in IR.  In this latter case, he and his wife could choose to continue their arrangement but all SE stop (including accommodations).



			
				ArmyVern said:
			
		

> To be clear, his wife's budding career is not the sole reason for his current status.


Okay, I will assume the secret bits that make this a legitimate IR are hidden in these other reasons.  Maybe there is some compassionate factor, a CM intent that this was (and is still to be) a two year stint and then back to the previous place of employment, or some other element.  We can now move on from this point of discussion recognizing that the situation is not as he actually presented it (ie. it is not an intent to maintain an indefinite IR up to 7 years simply for the sake of allowing his wife to maintain a lifestyle in a specific geo-location)



			
				Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> If I were to be on course AP or TD  today, would I still get it as a married w/residence mbr?


Attached postings are now covered under CFTDTIs as of last Feb.  You would no longer be covered by SE bu instead be getting the same as TD.  It is actually a better deal for us in most (if not all) cases.

You can see some of the background here: http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/106874/post-1163278.html#msg1163278


----------



## armyvern (9 Aug 2012)

MCG said:
			
		

> Not sure why you have used the quotation marks as those are not my words, and they also miss the point.



They are my words as to what his intent _is not_ for the next number of years and thus the quotation.



> The point is that he has decided to permanently defer moving - that is very much not the intent nor the explicitly stated purpose of IR.



He has done no such thing; nor did he state such. What he did infer that was, if in the future he and his wife could not pursue their careers together in the same location, that he would be willing to complete the remainder of his contract at a separate location from her and would absorb those costs himself. He did not say that was his intent (it isn't) or plan. He did not say that she would not move either. He simply put it out there that he is one of those ones who would not put his wife's career at risk should they be required to be separated for X number of years whether the CF covered it or not.



> If the CM has a plan that he will be two years in your unit and return to where he came from next APS, then fine - if that is the case, then there may be justification.  However, that is not the model he presented to this board.


  
Show me where he said he did not plan on moving his wife for the next 7 years, or that she refused to move. He didn't.



> He presented us a description with no specific vision for his future other than his decision to remain on IR before ever moving his wife over the course of the next 7 years.


  

Rather, he presented the vision that he has 7 years left and that he and his wife if unable to pursue each of their careers together at same location (_whatever_ location that may be in the future) would go whereever they were required (in their own respective careers) and would foot their own bills for it.



> If there is no plan for him to get posted back home (and by his presentation there is no reason to believe such a thing exists), then he is making a permanent lifestyle choice and he should pay for that out of his pocket.
> No he won't.  Unaccompanied is something else.  This may seem pedantic, but within the current discussion that word means something specific and limited in duration to not more than 6 months.  It is not IR and it is not permanently living in different locations at one's own expense.



I will leave it at, he is not here IR solely due to his wife's employment (I already posted that too) although that is small factor. There are other factors at play.

As a person who has done numerous restricted postings of my own - at mt families expense so that other families could be coddled or looked after, I assure you that I would not and do not support those who ride the system. I detest them.

I am actually of the opinion that those who have no choice (the students on trg etc) are should be  treated completely different from those who have a choice.

I am all for taking the food away as I said (and I am against forcing IR pers who live in to either eat at or pay the astounding meal rates charged to them at our CF dining facilities). We all should be paying to eat somewhere. The only issue that I have is that if the reasoning is exactly that "we all need to pay to eat somewhere", yet this mantra is only applicable to those on IR (or prohibited or restricted) status. Shouldn't same be said for those on QL5s? Ilks? In the field? At sea? Deployed? They aren't incurring costs of their meals at home either yet aren't being charged rations. Is it because those groups have NO choice but to be on course or deployed? If so, then there are a whole bunch of pers in the "no choice" posting bracket too who will be are now going to pay out ... not the case with those who "Opt IR" status.

Perhaps that is where this issue is best sorted out at: clearly differentiate between "compulsory separation" and "voluntary separation" and apply the allowances (or lack thereof) as applicable.

And, I wholeheartedly agree that those whose wives just don't want to move or who just don't want to give up job to move should be financing themselves as opposed to the taxpayer doing it. How do you catch those ones though? Give 'em year 1, without meals, perhaps a year 2 (if they managed to justify why) then cut off everything. I go with the 2 year time frame because if whatever the reason you've justified your IR with can't be solved in 2 years even a Compassionate Posting is of no good to you. If it's other spouse's employment in his/her excellent job --- you've got a 2 year warning to start saving that income up to pay the second rent/mortgage somewhere else. I've already used a situation that I am aware of where IR was granted due to kid entering grade 12 the next year ... 6 years later - dude is still IR and the taxpayer is still covering it. "WTF!!??" say I to that.


Edited to correct typos that spellcheck 'corrected' for me - "pers" is now back to pers from spellcheck's "pears" etc :blotto:

Re-edited to correct more typos and perform a slashthrough to clarify that are to a "should be".


----------



## Eye In The Sky (9 Aug 2012)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> I am actually of the opinion that those who have no choice (the students on trg etc) are should be  treated completely different from those who have a choice.
> 
> I am all for taking the food away as I said (and I am against forcing IR pers who live in to either eat at or pay the astounding meal rates charged to them at our CF dining facilities). We all should be paying to eat somewhere. The only issue that I have is that if the reasoning is exactly that "we all need to pay to eat somewhere", yet this mantra is only applicable to those on IR (or prohibited or restricted) status. Shouldn't same be said for those on QL5s? Ilks? In the field? At sea? Deployed? They aren't incurring costs of their meals at home either yet aren't being charged rations. Is it because those groups have NO choice but to be on course or deployed? If so, then there are a whole bunch of pers in the "no choice" posting bracket too who will be are now going to pay out ... not the case with those who "Opt IR" status.
> 
> ...



 :goodpost:


----------



## McG (9 Aug 2012)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Show me where he said he did not plan on moving his wife for the next 7 years, or that she refused to move. He didn't.


I am not sure what else to infer from this:




			
				Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> I am a member currently on IR.  My spouse is masters degree level teacher in a very specified field in Halifax.  I have no intention of asking her to give up her career and pension for my last 7 years of service.






			
				Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> I have 7 years left to complete then I will pull the pin.  If that means I`m on IR for 7 years or some version of it so be it.  If it means I don't get IR anymore and we live distantly so be it, but my last 7 is not worth nearly as much as her next 35.



To his credit, he has said he is prepared to fully foot the bill for this life decision.  Based exclusively on the information that he provided, I would think he should take that full cost out of his own pocket.  However, I will continue to accept your assertion that there is hidden information that makes this a legit IR case.



			
				ArmyVern said:
			
		

> And, I wholeheartedly agree that those whose wives just don't want to move or who just don't want to give up job to move should be financing themselves as opposed to the taxpayer doing it. How do you catch those ones though? Give 'em year 1, without meals, perhaps a year 2 (if they managed to justify why) then cut off everything. I go with the 2 year time frame because if whatever the reason you've justified your IR with can't be solved in 2 years even a Compassionate Posting is of no good to you. If it's other spouse's employment in his/her excellent job --- you've got a 2 year warning to start saving that income up to pay the second rent/mortgage somewhere else. I've already used a situation that I am aware of where IR was granted due to kid entering grade 12 the next year ... 6 years later - dude is still IR and the taxpayer is still covering it. "WTF!!??" say I to that.


This seems mostly reasonable.  Such a policy should be set so that one cannot circumvent it by skipping between various geolocations doing 2 years IR at each.  There also needs to be an escape valve - something to allow the military to extend the benefit for exceptional circumstances.  I would suggest CMP should have the authority to sign-off on a 3rd year.


----------



## newwifey (9 Aug 2012)

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> Its a personal choice.  I don't abuse the system I use the program as its intended and that's that.  Whether you agree with my reason for going IR is inconsequential as its approved through the proper channels and all completely legit.
> 
> I have also stated that I think IR should be drastically changed to just R&Q no living on the economy and no benefits.  I think R&Q is more than fair.
> 
> On a side note, I am not asking my wife (as of this Saturday  )  to give up everything she worked for because an organization that only I belong too thinks they can run her life too.  I have 7 years left to complete then I will pull the pin.  If that means I`m on IR for 7 years or some version of it so be it.  If it means I don't get IR anymore and we live distantly so be it, but my last 7 is not worth nearly as much as her next 35.



R & Q being paid isn't him footing the bill either.

ArmyVern, I wasn't questioning your morals.  And in case my username isn't specific enough, I'm NEW to this, I don't know nearly as much as you, so if I need correcting, kinder and gentler would be appreciated.  My comments don't intend any disrespect.  I call it as I see it currently as a civilian and where I see possible issues.

Based on the comments, he was/is knowingly using the system.  With your further input there are obviously other points that could not be revealed.  I spoke against what I viewed as an outright misuse of that policy.
My apologies.


----------



## armyvern (10 Aug 2012)

newwifey said:
			
		

> R & Q being paid isn't him footing the bill either.
> 
> ArmyVern, I wasn't questioning your morals.  And in case my username isn't specific enough, I'm NEW to this, I don't know nearly as much as you, so if I need correcting, kinder and gentler would be appreciated.  My comments don't intend any disrespect.  I call it as I see it currently as a civilian and where I see possible issues.
> 
> ...



He is stating that he believes that RIGHT NOW all IR pers should be living in with just R&Q covered.

He is then stating that, *if* _in the future_, he and his wife can not be in same place (wherever that place may be in the future: he never said "at location X" only, exclusively etc etc) to follow their chosen career paths, that he would not put her career at risk and would then do the remainder of his contract with the CF in that seperate location if that's where the CF required him to be and they would do so at their own expense.

What is it about that you do not get?


----------



## armyvern (10 Aug 2012)

MCG said:
			
		

> I am not sure what else to infer from this:
> ...



She works in a highly specialized field.

It's not him saying that she can only work in Halifax, or that she will never leave Halifax or that their intent is to have her (and he) remain there indefinitely with him going IR indefinitely.  There are other places where he can go that her field is also employable. Here certainly isn't one of them, nor is Pet for example.  If one of those other places isn't an option for them in the future because he can't get posted to one of those mutually beneficial locations, then they are willing to leave her wherever she can/is then work(ing) and for him to go where the CF needs him and to foot their own bill for it as they would then be separated as a result of 100% lifestyle choice.


----------



## newwifey (10 Aug 2012)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> He is stating that he believes that RIGHT NOW all IR pers should be living in with just R&Q covered.
> 
> He is then stating that, *if* _in the future_, he and his wife can not be in same place (wherever that place may be in the future: he never said "at location X" only, exclusively etc etc) to follow their chosen career paths, that he would not put her career at risk and would then do the remainder of his contract with the CF in that seperate location if that's where the CF required him to be and they would do so at their own expense.
> 
> What is it about that you do not get?



About as much as you are missing the NEW statement.

Sorry for putting in my one cent.  I'll just monitor the thread for further info.  Thanks.


----------



## McG (10 Aug 2012)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> She works in a highly specialized field.
> 
> It's not him saying that she can only work in Halifax …


He also mentioned her being tied to the pension she is currently building.  So, okay.  Maybe he current employer has other jobs in her highly specialized field at other locations coincident with military posting opportunities.  So, she is still geographically tied to an employer.  To say that one day the stars may align and bring them together, well, that is pie in the sky.  IR not for supporting the lifestyle choice of till fate bring us back together - that is really no different than a mbr sitting on IR indefenatly hoping to be posted back to the last place the spouse was left. If the separation is indefinite without some concept of when & where they will re-unite, then the information given in this thread doesn't show this to be within the IR intent.

But that is okay.  You are right.  I've already told you, those other factors of which we have no knowledge make you right.  I expect there are legitimate privacy issues that prevent you from sharing the full details of this, and I am sure those details would neatly tie-up the missing ends for those of us who don't see why this fits IR.  I am okay with not knowing the details.  So please, before someone from DCBA reads this thread and decides to do an IR audit, I encourage you to stop speaking for the mbr and just let this go.


----------



## armyvern (10 Aug 2012)

MCG said:
			
		

> ...  I am okay with not knowing the details.  So please, before someone from DCBA reads this thread and decides to do an IR audit, I encourage you to stop speaking for the mbr and just let this go.



He'd pass the audit - I've said there were other factors at play since my very first post (when did you finally pick that part up?)

So, accepting that, let's have some others stop deciding what his intent, morality and the legitimacy of his IR and insisting that he is a part of the problem due to them having read into his post "never, and won't, no intent" themselves perhaps causing a DCBA audit of this individual based upon their own comments here on a read-in of one post. In doing such, those posters are also deciding that I am officially covering up for and allowing someone riding the system, have illegitimately put my official signature onto that request and have somehow snaggled careers into authorizing it.   Me - supporting a train rider - the thought would have my chain of command ROTFLTAO.


----------



## McG (10 Aug 2012)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> I've said there were other factors at play since my very first post (when did you finally pick that part up?)


I have acknowledge your hidden other factors in every reply to you (I guess you never picked that part up).




			
				MCG said:
			
		

> Okay, I will assume the secret bits that make this a legitimate IR are hidden in these other reasons.  Maybe there is some compassionate factor, a CM intent that this was (and is still to be) a two year stint and then back to the previous place of employment, or some other element.  We can now move on from this point of discussion recognizing that the situation is not as he actually presented it (ie. it is not an intent to maintain an indefinite IR up to 7 years simply for the sake of allowing his wife to maintain a lifestyle in a specific geo-location).






			
				MCG said:
			
		

> However, I will continue to accept your assertion that there is hidden information that makes this a legit IR case.



Now that we have established who has been following more closely...


			
				ArmyVern said:
			
		

> So, accepting that, let's have some others stop deciding what his intent, morality and the legitimacy of his IR and insisting that he is a part of the problem due to them having read into his post "never, and won't, no intent" ...


Based on what he put into this thread, there was nothing else to logically infer.  But it is okay Vern, the others have also acknowledged that they will accept your hidden information as the justification (guess you missed picking up on that too), so you are right and we can move on.


----------



## 4Feathers (10 Aug 2012)

newwifey said:
			
		

> I call BS!  I might be new but even I know that's WRONG!
> 
> I have a career and job that I've had for 24 years.  I am marrying my guy in 38 days.
> He's been posted, I will move next summer sometime and guess what, I have made all the necessary arrangements to keep my job.
> ...


Good for you! What a very idealistic view of being a military wife (spouse).  I hope your sacrifices are worth it, but in reality, when retirement is inevitable, it's your family that will hopefully call on you from time to time, not the military. Most military families end up making sacrifices for their childrens education, family health reasons etc. It is part of the sacrifices we make as CF members, not just the deployments. In my experience, being proud to serve has to be balanced with making the right decisions for family, whether that's children, parents or spouses. There is no "job description" as a military spouse from what I can find, so I try to not judge others decisions on what is best for their own families. Society and military has changed a lot in the last 30 years, and the military promotes a well balanced military/family life (at least where I am).


----------



## McG (10 Aug 2012)

4Feathers ,
That raises a good point for consideration.  With some of these recent benefit reductions, we probably need to enhance other areas like improving opportunitites for spousal employment, better protecting members from financial losses on home sales and ensuring that those who want to sell are able to do so.


----------



## Cdnleaf (10 Aug 2012)

ObedientiaZelum said:
			
		

> I have a great spot in mind for that nugget of yours.
> 
> The whole "if you don't like it, quit" is a shitty mentality that's a double edged blade. Some took the very same attitude towards gays wanting to be allowed in the cf, women in the combat arms etc..
> 
> ...



Off for a couple of days - policies at the time dictated what was normative concerning some of your absolute statements above. I'm fortunate to serve in an organization that celebrates diversity and cultural pluralism.  Equally, IMO the non-prdjudicial changes in policies/benefits are and will continue to shape CF members; specifically those of us with families.  Vern posted a great response above concerning the landscape for newly joining members with families, much appreciated.  My 3 year IR (NCR) was not enjoyable to say the least and I would rather live in a closet with my family, than go through that again.  Shortages in the REMAR/TO&E, during my brief time (.25 century) have been something I managed to serve capably and effectively with. Equally, though not a historian would suggest that shortages plagued the otherwise successful armies that existed when your profile rank was used. All the best.


----------



## newwifey (10 Aug 2012)

4Feathers said:
			
		

> Good for you! What a very idealistic view of being a military wife (spouse).  I hope your sacrifices are worth it, but in reality, when retirement is inevitable, it's your family that will hopefully call on you from time to time, not the military. Most military families end up making sacrifices for their childrens education, family health reasons etc. It is part of the sacrifices we make as CF members, not just the deployments. In my experience, being proud to serve has to be balanced with making the right decisions for family, whether that's children, parents or spouses. There is no "job description" as a military spouse from what I can find, so I try to not judge others decisions on what is best for their own families. Society and military has changed a lot in the last 30 years, and the military promotes a well balanced military/family life (at least where I am).



My post was in response to a now dead issue!  Thank you again Armyvern for filling in the gaps.

My point was the "wife" would obviously know there are some _expectations_ when you marry a military member, period.  No judgment there!!  I completely get that everyone will do what they deem right for their circumstances.  Personally I'd be thrilled if I could have a manual and job description on how to be a military spouse and fit in because the promotion of a well balanced life isn't my current reality!  

My sacrifices??  I am staying here for a year so my kid can finish high school, I am then leaving an area where I have lived my whole entire life and leaving a home I have lived in since my children were babies, chances are really good I am also leaving one or both of them behind.  I am moving away from my parents and my grandparents and they are losing me and my assistance.  I am leaving just about everything I KNOW!  When I made the choice to say yes to marrying a military man, I knew transfers would likely follow and so would these tough decisions and/or sacrifices.

Knowing he had to move and knowing I would follow, I found a way to keep my job.  Silly me thought that was the right thing to do.  It's not idealistic?!?!  It's realistic, I still have 25 years before I reach that magic age of 67......

So tell me, what's the better decision, refuse to move??  Come up with something else where I don't perceive we are taking advantage of the current system and won't go broke in the process?  WE aren't in a financial situation where sustaining two households is a reasonable solution.  Nor would I want to live apart from my soon to be husband for what could be 9 years.   That is MY reality.  I know  :crybaby: :crybaby: :crybaby:

I will repeat again, I am very new to this, I am a civilian thru and thru and I have often said these are only MY opinions and I see things totally different than most of you.   I do not know this system, at all!  And what I have been exposed to has been a very frustrating experience to say the least.

When this whole topic came up, my issue was and still is things are being changed after the fact when no one can do anything about it.  I still think it's not right to penalize people doing IR, or whatever other terminology you want to throw in there, properly when there are people abusing it, period and I still am of the opinion, there were other areas they could have looked at for budget cuts that wouldn't tick people off so much.  As for the food thing, I don't have a problem with that either, I do have a problem when that cost for one is going to be more than I spend now for four.

_None of the above is aimed at anyone posting in this thread! _  

**anyways, that was a totally different tangent and not meant to sway this thread, but maybe if you can have a little understanding of this NEWBIE position, you'll tolerate my bonehead comments a little and not take them completely out of context** 

I look forward to seeing more clarification in the upcoming communications and would appreciate it if someone could post those as they become available.


----------



## Wanderingaimlessly (10 Aug 2012)

So my unit has finally received guidance on how this application of this new CANFORGEN will roll out and it doesn't look good for those members on a Prohibited posting.

Members who are posted prohibited will be required to remit the ration portion of their SE and will now only be covered for the quarters portion of it.  In plain English, if you are posted Prohibited you will be paying regardless of whether or not you are paying a mortgage/rent.  This is a drastic change from what most CF members have come to understand and I feel the impact is going to be huge.

I think this issue is really going to focus the spotlight on the high rates we charge for rations at all bases across Canada, $500 in some cases.  I, for one, know of several cases of members who are in the process of reassigning and will need to carry the rations payment in addition to their mortgage in one of Canada's most expensive housing markets.  The new rules seem to suggest that the CF expects the member's family to take the hit and subsidize his/her training that is mandated by the CF for that person to remain employed by the CF.  I also know that several of these same members are now reconsidering their decisions to remain with the CF, especially since the system that was designed to train and educate them is now charging them the equivalent of half a mortgage payment to eat.  

I know the thrust of this change was directed at the folks who sit on IR for years and collect scads of cash.  The same can't be said for Cpl. Dilligaf who just remustered to Firefighter and who likely took a hit to his pay to do so.  Cpl. Dilligaf used to be Sgt. Dilligaf or some other rank and now has to accept lower pay plus deal with the additional burden of financing his/her training by paying for rations that used to be covered.  That person had a life before remustering and a wife.  Now, we are effectively taking food off Mrs. Dilligaf's table because her husband is away in Borden waiting for up to a year for his new trade's coursing to begin.  This is bad timing on the part of the CF and I can tell you that Cpl. Dilligaf isn't happy, but he has to accept it and had to work out a budget to finance his training.  This is what we have become as a military.  Otherwise mandatory training is now becoming a burden to the member due simply to choices he/she made in previous years based on a salary that he/she was earning at the time.  Now with lower pay, that person is getting hammered again by this change and we are going to be seeing the impacts of this starting on 1 Sept 12.

There has to be a middle ground on this change.  It isn't fair to ask the Crown to fund a new boat by allowing Capt. Jones to remain on IR in Ottawa, but it isn't fair to ask Cpl. Dilligaf to fund his training either.  What was wrong with members receiving R&Q as their SE? There really wasn't anything complicated about it.  Training bases are now going to be scrambling to get ahead of this by finding ways to keep that Cpl. on his local economy for longer.  That has implications for employment, supervision, etc.  I have been really trying to figure this one out, but this change feels, to me at least, to be excessively punitive given the rates we charge members for rations.  Even the smartest financial planner would look at this change and see that there was no way to mitigate it.

I have read this thread several times and I have seen some callous comments like "if the military wanted you to have a family, it would have issued you one" or "if you don't like it, leave".  That is attitude is completely wrongheaded and it runs counter to the idea that we are making an investment in people here.  If Cpl. Dilligaf is happy, he is going to stay for 25-30 years and that keeps his experience in the CF.  If he leaves, then his experience leaves with him.  Meanwhile, Capt. Jones has a new boat and leaves as his obligatory service expires 5 years post-university.  The fact is that members have the right to change trades if found suitable and they do.  Yes, they need to be retrained but why punish them for changing trades? I am at a loss for words after seeing how this change is impacting members of an organization I care about.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (10 Aug 2012)

Rations are the same across the board.  $543 for full rations/cafeteria.

Cpl Anyone's PAY is not affected.  This is a change to some benefits.

CF mbr's aren't 'funding their own trg".  The spin you are putting on the changes in your post is extremely misleading, to put it nicely.


----------



## aesop081 (10 Aug 2012)

Wanderingaimlessly said:
			
		

> That person had a life before remustering and a wife.



Nobody put a gun to Cpl Dilligaf's head and said "you're a firefighter now".  The individual asked for an OT and accepted an offer that clearly stated there was a new rank and lower pay.


----------



## Towards_the_gap (10 Aug 2012)

But what about medical OT's?


----------



## Eye In The Sky (10 Aug 2012)

They have vested rights to pay; if you are a Sgt Combat Arms, get a Medical OT to RMS or Comm Rsch or whatever, you keep your pay.


----------



## Towards_the_gap (10 Aug 2012)

Ah, ok, this I didn't know. Thanks.


----------



## bridges (10 Aug 2012)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> Nobody put a gun to Cpl Dilligaf's head and said "you're a firefighter now".  The individual asked for an OT and accepted an offer that clearly stated there was a new rank and lower pay.



Agreed - but did that offer also mention a charge of $543/month for rations while on training?


----------



## aesop081 (10 Aug 2012)

bridges said:
			
		

> but did that offer also mention a charge of $543/month for rations while on training?



Immaterial to the point wanderingaimlessly was attempting to make, when he/she said "had a life before remustering and a wife" and "a burden to the member due simply to choices he/she made in previous years based on a salary that he/she was earning at the time. ". That member made a conscious decision to accept a lower rate of pay. If a member made financial decisions based on the Sgt rank and then remusters on a VOT, you can't turn around and bitch about your lower pay.


----------



## Blacklab (10 Aug 2012)

It's a shame that this cuts to benefits (carefully sandwiched in between reminders of all the "recent improvements") couldn't have been published prior to APS '12.  Then I could have drowned or strangled my family's pets prior to moving overseas.  The cost (over $10k) came out of Custom and dug well into Personalized.  When we return, that $10K + expense will be out of pocket.  As much as we love our pets, that is not an amount of money we could afford.  I would have turned down this posting (which I did not request) had I known.  Perhaps when we drown our pets before we are posted back, CMP would enjoy the video so they can think about the value of timely info dissemination, and see the real life impact of these cuts.  Or should I just be thankful that the CF benefits from "outstanding government support"?


----------



## Strike (10 Aug 2012)

Blacklab said:
			
		

> It's a shame that this cuts to benefits (carefully sandwiched in between reminders of all the "recent improvements") couldn't have been published prior to APS '12.  Then I could have drowned or strangled my family's pets prior to moving overseas.  The cost (over $10k) came out of Custom and dug well into Personalized.  When we return, that $10K + expense will be out of pocket.  As much as we love our pets, that is not an amount of money we could afford.  I would have turned down this posting (which I did not request) had I known.  Perhaps when we drown our pets before we are posted back, CMP would enjoy the video so they can think about the value of timely info dissemination, and see the real life impact of these cuts.  Or should I just be thankful that the CF benefits from "outstanding government support"?



I know you're upset, but suggesting that someone might actually do harm to animals because of this is inappropriate.  Please remember that media do frequent this site.


----------



## Blacklab (10 Aug 2012)

"I know you're upset, but suggesting that someone might actually do harm to animals because of this is inappropriate.  Please remember that media do frequent this site."

True, I am upset.  Who wouldn't be?  I shipped my pets overseas based on one set of regulations, and now it will cost me $10K to get them home because the rules changed without adequate notice.  I might have made other arrangements if I had known.  My comment is not inappropriate, even if it is disturbing.  You can anticipate very reasonably that not everyone will take the time and effort (and expense!) to rehome their pets.  And I wouldn't post it if I was concerned about who might read it.  This is the first time I have ever felt so betrayed by policy.  What a slap in the face, to read a CANFORGEN describing how good we have it while materially denying that pet relocation is a legitimate moving expense.


----------



## Sig_Des (10 Aug 2012)

Blacklab said:
			
		

> "I know you're upset, but suggesting that someone might actually do harm to animals because of this is inappropriate.  Please remember that media do frequent this site."
> 
> True, I am upset.  Who wouldn't be?  I shipped my pets overseas based on one set of regulations, and now it will cost me $10K to get them home because the rules changed without adequate notice.  I might have made other arrangements if I had known.  My comment is not inappropriate, even if it is disturbing.



Nah, it is pretty damned disturbing, and to be perfectly honest, you're trying to use shock to warp the argument to your benefit IMO.

Let's ignore the other avenues available for getting rid of your animals. It sucks that it's going to cost you 10K to get them home. But what if you'd been posted a year prior, and were well into the way to a 3 year posting. You'd still have the same issue. What kind of notice do you want? "In 3 year, benefits might change, and you might get screwed."


----------



## aesop081 (10 Aug 2012)

FSP level 1 for member with 2 dependants = $894/month,  3 dependants = $939/month

$10k shipping costs made up in about a year.


----------



## Jarnhamar (10 Aug 2012)

It really costs $10'000 to ship a pet somewhere?


----------



## Michael OLeary (10 Aug 2012)

Blacklab said:
			
		

> This is the first time I have ever felt so betrayed by policy.  What a slap in the face, to read a CANFORGEN describing how good we have it while materially denying that pet relocation is a legitimate moving expense.



Have you formally grieved the change to ask if those who moved pets out of country will be grandfathered for the return trip?

Maybe that is where your energy should be focused, rather than making implied threats to kill your pets because of a policy change.


----------



## armyvern (10 Aug 2012)

ObedientiaZelum said:
			
		

> It really costs $10'000 to ship a pet somewhere?



Perhaps it's an exotic ... say an elephant??   :blotto:

Levity; this thread requires levity.

Temporary Tangent:

I post this for you all. Just laughed my wee ass off as it's the best London 2012 commentary I've seen yet.  ;D

Sailing - London 2012


----------



## Blacklab (10 Aug 2012)

The FSP isn't intended to be used to ship animals, it's an incentive to foreign service.  And that's not comparing apples to apples, is it?  You could also point out that my salary is adequate to cover $10K.  That's not the point.  It's the impact of the benefit change that I'm commenting on.  It would be perfectly possible to implement this change incrementally.  Ex: all "next posts" will include pet relocation but future postings won't.  That would allow sufficient flexibility.  And to the other post: yes, it did cost that much, no it wasn't an elephant (not permissible under IRP).  Transport overseas + pet boarding + vaccinations required by the move.  All the things that were covered this year.  Actually closer to $12K but I like round numbers.  Even if it was only $100, the problem remains.  The only logic I can see for putting out this CANFORGEN now is that it is unlikely to stir the usual media interest because 1) it's summer and 2) the Olympics will overshadow it.  All that said, if you really don't see why I'm upset about this, then you must be far more tolerant and willing to accept without question. Clearly I am not the perfect company man- these things annoy me, personally and for everyone else they adversely impact.  I guess if it doesn't personally affect you though, then who cares, right?  Or if I don't like it, gtfo?  Are we back to that?


----------



## aesop081 (10 Aug 2012)

Blacklab said:
			
		

> That's not the point.



The point is that you don't have to drown your pets and you don't have to break the bank to avoid it. Who f****g cares what FSP was intended for. You have extra money you can use to ship your dogs back when you get posted. Yeah, it leaves less for your bank account, it sucks, but you're not without options.



			
				Blacklab said:
			
		

> I guess if it doesn't personally affect you though, then who cares, right?  Or if I don't like it, gtfo?  Are we back to that?



Yes, that is me : The company "yes man" who only cares when it affects him.   :


I'm shipping my dog this APS and IRP doesn't know if i will be able to claim it as the expense was incured prior to 01 Sep but my claim will not be submited until after 01 Sep. So yeah, i'm not affected.......

For the record, i understand why you are upset. That being said, you are taking things to extreme. It's not like you wont be able to afford to ship your pets back and it wont be out of your regular pay.


----------



## Blacklab (10 Aug 2012)

If the expense was incurred prior to 1 Sep, then you "should" be able to claim it.  I wouldn't accept "don't know" from IRP as an answer- that leaves them wiggle room, which rarely ends well.  If you can at least post the receipts to a draft claim expense you will be on more solid ground.  Shame that moves always seem to go this way- fighting for benefits, ambiguity from Brookfield and nothing but stock answers.  Good luck.  My pets are still in quarantine, I won't have them until 23 Aug, so it's unlikely I will have filed my claim before 1 Sep either.  @ the comment about filing a grievance, ummm no, if the past 48 hrs I haven't managed to look into grandfathering.  A bit busy with work and collecting HG&E and so on.


----------



## Strike (10 Aug 2012)

Blacklab, I have to ask.  WTF are you shipping that it would cost ten grand?  The most expensive cost I saw was approx 2,200 Cdn from Europe to Canada for a giant breed dog (Great Dane, Irish Wolfhound, Newfoundland).


----------



## aesop081 (10 Aug 2012)

Blacklab said:
			
		

> I wouldn't accept "don't know" from IRP as an answer- that leaves them wiggle room, which rarely ends well.



Without the amended CBIs and little in the way of clarification, i understand their answer of "i don't know". Either way, my posting allowance covers it if all else fails. I'm posted out of a location and job i don't like, back to one i love so things are still coming up CDN Aviator.


----------



## Wanderingaimlessly (10 Aug 2012)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Rations are the same across the board.  $543 for full rations/cafeteria.
> 
> Cpl Anyone's PAY is not affected.  This is a change to some benefits.
> 
> CF mbr's aren't 'funding their own trg".  The spin you are putting on the changes in your post is extremely misleading, to put it nicely.



Members are effectively subsidizing their own training if their net income is reduced by virtue of being sent on a prohibited/restricted posting.  I am not applying spin one way or the other.  I simply think what is being done is wrong and the burden of paying for rations should not be thrown on to someone who is already incurring a same or similar cost at home.  If at the end of the month a person in transition nets less money than what they earn, the CF really should look at things.   There is no way smart planning could have mitigated a change like this to something as expensive as rations.


----------



## Blacklab (10 Aug 2012)

Strike said:
			
		

> Blacklab, I have to ask.  WTF are you shipping that it would cost ten grand?  The most expensive cost I saw was approx 2,200 Cdn from Europe to Canada for a giant breed dog (Great Dane, Irish Wolfhound, Newfoundland).



It's not relevant but ok, I'll bite:  A large breed dog, a small dog, and two cats.  Shipping: $8769.  Custom crates to meet AC Cargo regs: $900.  Pet boarding during ILM&M: $800.  Quarantine for 21 days at destination: $1800.  Transport from customs to quarantine @ destination: $90 (not optional).  And if you have pets, you know that it actually all costs more than that.  Now, I can hear the comments already: you don't need four pets, suck it up, etc etc.  And when I first joined, I would probably have agreed.  But I've been around for a while, and I see things with a bit more maturity today.  Each erosion of benefits just reduces the CF's ability to attract and retain the best.  I have a blended family.  Yes, I could have chosen not to get married to someone with pets, or I could have our kids just "suck it up" and rehome the animals.  The CF clearly didn't expect anyone to do that yesterday, but today we are just supposed to accept it lying down.  So much for QOL and care for the CF families then, eh?  

I generally try to promote things that make life better for soldiers, instead of taking the hardline : accept it or leave approach.  That's why it's frustrating to see these changes so poorly implemented.  There are good and bad ways to go about cuts, and this seems to have been poorly done.  This CANFORGEN is a slap in the face with its mention of improvements to pay and benefits (which are themselves debatable) followed by a list of cuts.   It's insulting to be told you have it so good while getting the knife in the back, n'est-ce pas?  Pets are not commodities, they are part of our lives and our kids lives.  They can't be easily thrown away, and they deserve a bit more consideration than this.  This callous approach undermines the message that the CF cares, and sets the conditions for people to seek fulfillment elsewhere.  Sure I can cover it out of pocket.  I don't expect every family could though.  And it will have a financial impact somewhere.  Am I the only one for whom $10K is not pocket change?  Should I be happy to radically alter my family's budget to absorb this expense, and just tell my wife to be happy that our benefits are so good?  Come on.  

I'm new to the forum, obviously.  I don't really care about whatever point scheme exists here, but I find it amusing that I received two emails: one says my post is inspirational, the other says is it inappropriate.  Wow.


----------



## Remius (10 Aug 2012)

Ok, I understand and even respect the attachment people have towards their pets.  But, I don't know if joe public, given the economic climate (Canada just lost 30 000 jobs this month alone), lay offs, cuts etc is going to be sympathetic to the Canadian Forces complaining about the cuts to the cost of moving your pet let alone 4.  And close to 10 000$.

I know, it isn't "just" about the pets, but you've made that the central part of your argument.  I agree about the points with you, they don't really matter to me.  but I can see why some found your post inspirational (obvious pet lovers lol), to innapropriate I mean, you stated you would have to drown your pets (likely another pet lover lol)


----------



## aesop081 (10 Aug 2012)

Blacklab said:
			
		

> Sure I can cover it out of pocket.



FSP is hardly "out of pocket". Can i have your FSP for a month ? The military doesn't cover the cost of having my tenants move out before the end of their lease because i am posted back to the original location less that a year later.

Yes, I am harping on FSP but because of it, you make much more money than most and thus have the ability to cushion the cost of moving your pets in the future, without using your salary. A great many of us are not that lucky, yet, you're resorting to absurdities............


----------



## meni0n (10 Aug 2012)

I did an OT not so long ago and I was restricted posted to the base where the school was for the duration of my course. I got a wife and two kids and back then my wife was not working. It would have been impossible for me to pay for groceries back home and the rations at the same time because I definitely wasn't consuming 500$+ of groceries by myself a month. Hopefully the CF does the smart thing in situations like that just posts people to the local BTL and just sends people on TD for the duration of their course because otherwise people would just be going into debt to go on career courses.


----------



## Strike (10 Aug 2012)

Blacklab - having two dogs and two cats myself, I understand how it could aggravate you that you now have to eat up the extra costs.  However, not everyone has a pet, which is likely why the benefit was moved to the personal envelope.  You do realize that anything you HAVE to pay for in your move you can also claim on your income tax, making the bite not quite as big.

My husband and I will never be so lucky as he is self-employed and will have to eat up the costs of moving his equipment and likely wouldn't even be able to claim it OR write it off.

We all make sacrifices and, I hate to be so crass, but Joe Q Public doesn't give a shit that you have to pay extra to move your pets considering everything else that DOES get covered.  Before sitting down and saying, "Whoa is me," maybe you should be looking at how our benefits/services compare to other companies and government agencies when their employees are forced to move.

I think all these extra benefits have made us all feel a little too entitled in the past few years.


----------



## Blacklab (10 Aug 2012)

@ CDN aviator:  I'll spare you all the math, but the bottom line is that FSP don't put my family ahead at all.  Once you factor in the cost of living here (gas is $2.20/liter), the incidental expenses (way, way beyond $650 move grant), loss of LDA and PLD etc etc, I can assure you that the overall effect is that we would be better off financially if we had not come here.  And you continue to miss the point of FSP.  It is an incentive, to make foreign postings attractive.  That incentive value is completely lost if I have to use all of it to pay for something which was previously covered as a Custom component expense.  So, on top of the fact that I am not financially ahead of anyone because of FSP, I am seriously peeved at this arbitrary policy change.  If you want my FSP for a month, you can have it but you get all the expenses too.  Then see if you want it!


----------



## aesop081 (10 Aug 2012)

Blacklab said:
			
		

> loss of LDA and PLD etc etc,



I lost ceased to qualify for AIRCRA and get no PLD (unlike many of my co-workers) at my current location and no FSP. You're still not convincing me you are hard done by.



> And you continue to miss the point of FSP.



I am well aware of the intent behind FSP.


Edit: As per PPCLI Guy's excellent post below.


----------



## PPCLI Guy (10 Aug 2012)

Blacklab said:
			
		

> , loss of LDA and PLD etc etc,



You didn't lose PLD and LDA - you ceased to qualify.  Big difference.  It is not an entitlement, it is an allowance.



> I can assure you that the overall effect is that we would be better off financially if we had not come here.  And you continue to miss the point of FSP.  It is an incentive, to make foreign postings attractive.



No.  I have had two OUTCANs.  It is NOT an incentive - it is merely intended to assist you in absorbing additional costs incurred from living overseas.  If you need an incentive to serve overseas, send me a PM and I will try and have you sent home, so that a family who understands the extraordinary opportunity that an OUTCAN represents can replace you.


----------



## PuckChaser (10 Aug 2012)

Blacklab said:
			
		

> @ CDN aviator:  I'll spare you all the math, but the bottom line is that FSP don't put my family ahead at all.  Once you factor in the cost of living here (gas is $2.20/liter), the incidental expenses (way, way beyond $650 move grant), loss of LDA and PLD etc etc, I can assure you that the overall effect is that we would be better off financially if we had not come here.  And you continue to miss the point of FSP.  It is an incentive, to make foreign postings attractive.  That incentive value is completely lost if I have to use all of it to pay for something which was previously covered as a Custom component expense.  So, on top of the fact that I am not financially ahead of anyone because of FSP, I am seriously peeved at this arbitrary policy change.  If you want my FSP for a month, you can have it but you get all the expenses too.  Then see if you want it!



There's a lineup of a hundred people that want your OUTCAN spot, maybe you should ask your CM for a move and give the posting to someone that wants/deserves it.


----------



## Haggis (10 Aug 2012)

:goodpost: X 2

Lots of CF members would knife fight their mothers for an OUTCAN.


----------



## aesop081 (10 Aug 2012)

I'll trade your OUTCAN. You can even keep the FSP.


----------



## Blacklab (10 Aug 2012)

Want and deserve are not the same thing.   I'm not interested in debating the merits of OUTCAN, who wants it, who gets it, or who deserves it.  But if you want to have that discussion as a sidebar, I definitely have an opinion and you are welcome to it.  Back to topic though,  I am pretty shocked that you all seem so unaffected by significant cuts in relocation benefits, that you are so callous about the impact of a $10k bill.  Wish I had your money, and glad I'm not relying on any of you to champion my welfare.  I should just suck it up then, or gtfo.  Turns out that WAS you position after all!


----------



## Strike (10 Aug 2012)

Blacklab said:
			
		

> Want and deserve are not the same thing.   I'm not interested in debating the merits of OUTCAN, who wants it, who gets it, or who deserves it.  But if you want to have that discussion as a sidebar, I definitely have an opinion and you are welcome to it.  Back to topic though,  I am pretty shocked that you all seem so unaffected by significant cuts in relocation benefits, that you are so callous about the impact of a $10k bill.  Wish I had your money, and glad I'm not relying on any of you to champion my welfare.  I should just suck it up then, or gtfo.  Turns out that WAS you position after all!



You seem to forget that not everyone HAS a pet, so why would such a benefit as paying for their move be included in something other than personal?

Does it suck that your bill happens to be a bit higher than the normal CF member during a move? For you, yes, but we can't base a benefit on the lowest common denominator. Period.


----------



## Jarnhamar (10 Aug 2012)

Blacklab said:
			
		

> @ CDN aviator:  I'll spare you all the math, but the bottom line is that FSP don't put my family ahead at all.  Once you factor in the cost of living here (gas is $2.20/liter), the incidental expenses (way, way beyond $650 move grant), loss of LDA and PLD etc etc, I can assure you that the overall effect is that we would be better off financially if we had not come here.  And you continue to miss the point of FSP.  It is an incentive, to make foreign postings attractive.  That incentive value is completely lost if I have to use all of it to pay for something which was previously covered as a Custom component expense.  So, on top of the fact that I am not financially ahead of anyone because of FSP, I am seriously peeved at this arbitrary policy change.  If you want my FSP for a month, you can have it but you get all the expenses too.  Then see if you want it!



What are the ladies like where you are?

Speaking of which, maybe you could find a loophole in the system and marry your dog and have their flight covered.

Just kidding (mostly). I have a blacklab that's like family to me. I'd be pretty pissed too if the CF covered their move one way then changed policy.  Maybe you really should look into seeing if you can be grandfathered or something. You said you're pretty busy, well $10'000 grand is worth devoting some time to..

On the same note, maybe the CF shouldn't have had that policy in the first place. Cantors right, media wise paying $10'000 grand (just for example) to move pets would be hard for a lot of tax payers to swallow- even though they're pretty much "family" to the member.

Take the time and see what your CoC can do for you.


----------



## Occam (11 Aug 2012)

What irks me is that those of you still in uniform are now having to play by different rules than the Public Service.

The NJC Relocation Directive still allows for mortgage breaking penalties from Core, MLI from Customized/Personalized, extended HHT/pet boarding/pet travel/utility connects & disconnect fees from Customized/Personalized.  I can't tell you about the Separation Expense because reading the documentation on it just makes my brain bleed.

These financial hits are being shoved down the CF's throat because there's no recourse, yet the same benefits are still present in the NJC Relocation Directive which forms a part of the collective agreements of the PS.

Is the CF pay/benefits envelope not supposed to be tied directly to that of the PS?  If so, they just sliced a sizable chunk of compensation out of the CF envelope while there's been no change to that of the PS.


----------



## buzgo (11 Aug 2012)

What about RCMP?


----------



## 4Feathers (11 Aug 2012)

Blacklab said:
			
		

> It's not relevant but ok, I'll bite:  A large breed dog, a small dog, and two cats.  Shipping: $8769.  Custom crates to meet AC Cargo regs: $900.  Pet boarding during ILM&M: $800.  Quarantine for 21 days at destination: $1800.  Transport from customs to quarantine @ destination: $90 (not optional).  And if you have pets, you know that it actually all costs more than that.  Now, I can hear the comments already: you don't need four pets, suck it up, etc etc.  And when I first joined, I would probably have agreed.  But I've been around for a while, and I see things with a bit more maturity today.  Each erosion of benefits just reduces the CF's ability to attract and retain the best.  I have a blended family.  Yes, I could have chosen not to get married to someone with pets, or I could have our kids just "suck it up" and rehome the animals.  The CF clearly didn't expect anyone to do that yesterday, but today we are just supposed to accept it lying down.  So much for QOL and care for the CF families then, eh?
> 
> I generally try to promote things that make life better for soldiers, instead of taking the hardline : accept it or leave approach.  That's why it's frustrating to see these changes so poorly implemented.  There are good and bad ways to go about cuts, and this seems to have been poorly done.  This CANFORGEN is a slap in the face with its mention of improvements to pay and benefits (which are themselves debatable) followed by a list of cuts.   It's insulting to be told you have it so good while getting the knife in the back, n'est-ce pas?  Pets are not commodities, they are part of our lives and our kids lives.  They can't be easily thrown away, and they deserve a bit more consideration than this.  This callous approach undermines the message that the CF cares, and sets the conditions for people to seek fulfillment elsewhere.  Sure I can cover it out of pocket.  I don't expect every family could though.  And it will have a financial impact somewhere.  Am I the only one for whom $10K is not pocket change?  Should I be happy to radically alter my family's budget to absorb this expense, and just tell my wife to be happy that our benefits are so good?  Come on.
> 
> I'm new to the forum, obviously.  I don't really care about whatever point scheme exists here, but I find it amusing that I received two emails: one says my post is inspirational, the other says is it inappropriate.  Wow.



 :goodpost:  Don`t  worry about the idealistic crowd on here, In my job I can tell you that the overwhelming majority of CF personnel agree with you and have recognized a recent trend in the erosion of our benefits, with more to come. Sure we have to do our share in balancing the budget, but most would agree that this so called `strat review`attack on our benefits is really are going to hurt the rank and file of our organization. Like all things, these things go in cycles, the last one during the 90s. And for those who say they would forgo the FSP to get out of country, then let them sign a waiver and send them on their way. Hang in there, we are all in this together. ;D


----------



## wesleyd (11 Aug 2012)

Strike said:
			
		

> Blacklab - having two dogs and two cats myself, I understand how it could aggravate you that you now have to eat up the extra costs.  However, not everyone has a pet, which is likely why the benefit was moved to the personal envelope.  You do realize that anything you HAVE to pay for in your move you can also claim on your income tax, making the bite not quite as big.
> 
> My husband and I will never be so lucky as he is self-employed and will have to eat up the costs of moving his equipment and likely wouldn't even be able to claim it OR write it off.
> 
> We all make sacrifices and, I hate to be so crass, but Joe Q Public doesn't give a crap that you have to pay extra to move your pets considering everything else that DOES get covered.  Before sitting down and saying, "Whoa is me," maybe you should be looking at how our benefits/services compare to other companies and government agencies when their employees are forced to move.



Other departments and some companies have much better benefits/services than we do. For example other federal departments get weekend travel assistance so they can go home to visit their families. We get one trip per year. Sucks if you live over 1500k away from home and cant zip down from the NCR on the weekends to see the kids. The majority of Joe Q Public thinks that we are paid tax free and the CF just buys our house from us when we are posted.  Joe Q public wouldn't move every three years or more. I had a job offer out west where my house would be purchased by the company, at market value, and they would sell it. Move furniture and pay all associated fees with the purchase of my house. Plus pay for my family and me to travel. If you compare CF to lets say a minimum wage employee yes we have it great. But if you compare us to a large corporation perhaps not that great. I don't think the overall point of this situation is what we do or do not received it is the implemention of the changes and how it will negatively affect the lower rank and file. An extra 550 a month out of pocket for rations is a very hard hit to any CF member, with perhaps the exception of higher ranking members. The ones who should be, and I am sure they are, trying to get this changed.



			
				Strike said:
			
		

> I think all these extra benefits have made us all feel a little too entitled in the past few years.



These aren't extra benefits , they are costs that are associated with moving. Joe Q Public wouldn't move unless a)it was paid for and b) there was a significant salary increase because of the move, by the way 138 pre- tax dollars per month is not significant, this is the amount a SGT to WO gets for promotion. This must be that generous compensation that CF members are enjoying.
I know I sound a bit jaded but it is because I am. Hard to say we look after our people when the ones that are affected by this the most are the ones that need the most looking after.

Fixed the quote.   Harris - Army.ca Staff.


----------



## Blacklab (11 Aug 2012)

Not sure everyone grasps the point of the Custom envelope.  It's for enhancements to the move.  Core can't account for everything.  My four pets might be your four cars, or someone else's upgraded travel.  Custom and Personal envelopes are there to provide flexibility, so I choose to use it for pet transport, and that is within arcs, then I can't see where anyone can criticize that.

Whether OUTCAN is a great opportunity is not the issue, and like everyone else, I require no incentive to serve anywhere.  I'd do it without any extra pay.  But we all structure our lives to fit within the military envelope and the parameters of military service, whatever it might be.  If I didn't think know that was funding available to move my pets, it's unlikely I would have four of them.  When the rules change without notice, it has an impact.  This is not about a sense of entitlement, or any lack of appreciation for opportunities and benefits that exist- it's about an expectation that new policies will be implemented with a bit more care and attention to their impact.  

@ Occam.  It may well be that the PS rules are changing too, and that their online directives haven't caught up.  The link between NJC's relocation directive and CFIRP is not direct.  NJC's policy specifically excludes the CF, but the CF is represented at the NJC table and clearly, our policy is closely modeled on it.  Similarly, Foreign Service Directives for PS are close, but not exactly the same as those for the CF.  Anecdotally, I'm told that our relocation benefits are much better in most areas.  I'm not sure which ones.  I did note that their incidental movement allowance was $2997, while ours (movement grant) remains at $650, which is a bit low for the incidental expenses of moving overseas, but we must make up for it elsewhere.   As with any CANFORGEN, I'm sure there is more to follow once the CF returns from summer vacation and various CoC look at this in detail.  Meanwhile, I'll be Stonehenge in an hour, spending my FSP with reckless abandon! With my dogs.  Ciao.


----------



## aesop081 (11 Aug 2012)

Blacklab said:
			
		

> Not sure everyone grasps the point of the Custom envelope.



This summer is posting #7 for me, 4 of them being in the last 7 years. I've got a fair grip on the system, thanks.


----------



## 4Feathers (11 Aug 2012)

Wanderingaimlessly said:
			
		

> So my unit has finally received guidance on how this application of this new CANFORGEN will roll out and it doesn't look good for those members on a Prohibited posting.
> 
> Members who are posted prohibited will be required to remit the ration portion of their SE and will now only be covered for the quarters portion of it.  In plain English, if you are posted Prohibited you will be paying regardless of whether or not you are paying a mortgage/rent.  This is a drastic change from what most CF members have come to understand and I feel the impact is going to be huge.
> 
> ...



Well said.  :goodpost:


----------



## Nemo888 (11 Aug 2012)

That was a good post. It takes your first contract just to become competent at your trade.(Maybe I'm slow.) I would hate to think that the only guys still in the Army are the ones who don't have anything better going on.  Retaining the awesome soldiers is the real issue.


----------



## Nemo888 (11 Aug 2012)

I can't  edit. Throw this in with the last. 

My wife was top of her class for Nursing. She didn't become an Army nurse at that time because she got much better offers from the local hospitals. Eventually the Army must have noticed they were getting the leftovers and they had to up the pay _substantially_. 

They are still stuck with the leftovers who will probably make a career of it. They will be higher rank than the newer better recruits and train them. Penny wise and pound foolish.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (11 Aug 2012)

Wanderingaimlessly said:
			
		

> Members are effectively subsidizing their own training if their net income is reduced by virtue of being sent on a prohibited/restricted posting.  I am not applying spin one way or the other.  I simply think what is being done is wrong and the burden of paying for rations should not be thrown on to someone who is already incurring a same or similar cost at home.  If at the end of the month a person in transition nets less money than what they earn, the CF really should look at things.   There is no way smart planning could have mitigated a change like this to something as expensive as rations.



First off, if you've read thru the whole thread, you would have seen where I and others have said more than a few times that this policy will affect the newest and lowest paid CF mbrs in the trg sys, who are on prohibited/restricted/etc posting while waiting for or attending initial occ/classification trg who have D, HG, & E in another location to maintain.  Wookilar and others have also posted solutions are being looked at WRT to that by the CF so these mbr's  aren't left hanging in the breeze.  To be honest, those are the ones who are truly on an imposed restriction, IMO, in the strictess sense of the word; the CF left them no choice.

I can see the point being raised and addressed by TB/whoever with the change to the free rations for mbrs who have D, HG & E;  while you aren't at home, you are not eating there, so that is $$ from your pay and benefits that is not being spent; why is Joe and Jane Taxpayer giving you free food?

I can also see the point that the current charges for rations is extremely high ($543/month is more than we spend on food in total, no question).  I also know the ration charges take into account more than the cost of purchase for the food.  IIRC is includes purchase, prep, maint of facilities, etc.

What is the solution, I don't know that.

What I do know is CF members do not subsidize their own trg costs, other than by virture of the taxes we, like all other Canadians,  pay.

If you have people in the situation that they are going to be adveresly affected while in the trg system/pre-career status, start by taking a look at BTAGs, Section 3 for the current policies governing their posting status.

Suggesting that any CF members pays for their training, or sub's it, whatever IS misleading and putting a spin on the changes to benefits.  Full stop.

You can paint a log of shyte yellow, go around calling it a banana and expect people to believe you after they take a bite.  Ppl (for the most part) aren't that stupid.  Your 'spin' on this is something I'd expect to see in a CBC article or story comments.  

 :2c:


----------



## Journeyman (11 Aug 2012)

Blacklab said:
			
		

> I am pretty shocked that you all seem so unaffected....


Try not to confuse "unaffected" with "choosing to not whine incessantly." What I feel mostly, is pity for your co-workers.


----------



## Petard (11 Aug 2012)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> I can see the point being raised and addressed by TB/whoever with the change to the free rations for mbrs who have D, HG & E;  while you aren't at home, you are not eating there, so that is $$ from your pay and benefits that is not being spent; why is Joe and Jane Taxpayer giving you free food?



By this logic personnel that are deployed or on Ex should pay for their rations too


----------



## Strike (11 Aug 2012)

Nemo888 said:
			
		

> I can't  edit. Throw this in with the last.
> 
> My wife was top of her class for Nursing. She didn't become an Army nurse at that time because she got much better offers from the local hospitals. Eventually the Army must have noticed they were getting the leftovers and they had to up the pay _substantially_.
> 
> They are still stuck with the leftovers who will probably make a career of it. They will be higher rank than the newer better recruits and train them. Penny wise and pound foolish.



Wow.  Really?  I know at least a dozen CF nurses that come nowhere near your generalization.  One of which is my sister-in-law, who has worked both sides of the fence.

I fail to see what nursing salaries (which I thought were the same as the rest of the GSO crowd) has to do with this CANFORGEN.  



			
				Journeyman said:
			
		

> Try not to confuse "unaffected" with "choosing to not whine incessantly." What I feel mostly, is pity for your co-workers.



Ditto.


----------



## 4Feathers (11 Aug 2012)

Nemo888 said:
			
		

> I can't  edit. Throw this in with the last.
> 
> My wife was top of her class for Nursing. She didn't become an Army nurse at that time because she got much better offers from the local hospitals. Eventually the Army must have noticed they were getting the leftovers and they had to up the pay _substantially_.
> 
> They are still stuck with the leftovers who will probably make a career of it. They will be higher rank than the newer better recruits and train them. Penny wise and pound foolish.


 :goodpost: So very true. After spending 4 years in recruiting I can tell you that is difficult to attract the best, even more so now. Being an employer of choice is getting much harder to sell. It may be OK now, but like all things, they go in cycles.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (11 Aug 2012)

Petard said:
			
		

> By this logic personnel that are deployed or on Ex should pay for their rations too



Note I said "I can see the logic" but not that I agree with it.   

However, I'll throw this out there;  I can't believe people who are posted away from their family are going to be made to pay for their rations, yet the folks posted to a HMCS who are alongside will get soup and meals on the taxpayers dime and then go home for supper. Explain that to me.  Sailor Bloggins lives in Dartmouth or Cole Harbour and is no way "seperated" while alongside, but gets free eats.  Sailor Bloggins, who has a wife and kid in Halifax, but is in Esq on initial occ trg, will NOT get free rations.

If we are going to start injecting 'logic' into this...


----------



## Journeyman (11 Aug 2012)

4Feathers said:
			
		

> :goodpost:





			
				4Feathers said:
			
		

> Well said.  :goodpost:





			
				4Feathers said:
			
		

> :goodpost:



Someone found a new smiley.   :


----------



## MJP (11 Aug 2012)

4Feathers said:
			
		

> :goodpost: So very true. After spending 4 years in recruiting I can tell you that is difficult to attract the best, even more so now. Being an employer of choice is getting much harder to sell. It may be OK now, but like all things, they go in cycles.



Yea you are right...All those open trades right now shows how hard of a sell it is.


----------



## PuckChaser (11 Aug 2012)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> However, I'll throw this out there;  I can't believe people who are posted away from their family are going to be made to pay for their rations, yet the folks posted to a HMCS who are alongside will get soup and meals on the taxpayers dime and then go home for supper. Explain that to me.  Sailor Bloggins lives in Dartmouth or Cole Harbour and is no way "seperated" while alongside, but gets free eats.  Sailor Bloggins, who has a wife and kid in Halifax, but is in Esq on initial occ trg, will NOT get free rations.



Don't hate on the RCN, they have a strong lobby group!  >


----------



## armyvern (11 Aug 2012)

Petard said:
			
		

> By this logic personnel that are deployed or on Ex should pay for their rations too



And while at sea, and on operations too.


There needs to be clear differentiation between Prohibited, Restricted, IR personnel. Although now they are all paid benefits as if on "IR" status --- they are clearly _not_ all of the same status, but all currently seem to be affected by the CANFORGEN.

Prohibited:  Those in the trg system whose DF&E is not allowed to accompany them ... are not there by choice. They are there on that training because the CF Trg system his dictated they be there then and unaccompanied. Just as someone deployed or at sea is separated from their DF&E 'by force' (it's a word I'm using, no one is literally holding guns to anyone's heads).

IR: Personnel who apply for an unaccompanied move for whatever "temporary" reason be it wife's employment or kids' grade 12 next year. They are separated from their DF&E 'by choice'.

Someone needs to sort out the fact that the two are not comparable situations, determine what benefits should be applicable to/within each distinct class, and apply whatever benefits are found warranted to each of those classes distinctly and separately. 



And, I still stand firm on my previous thoughts that if the TB and the CF powers-that-be determine that food is not reimbursable to either group because "everybody needs to pay to eat somewhere and neither group is paying to eat at their principal residence", then it logically follows that because they have applied that logic to the group above who is separated 'by force', then those at sea, field and on Ops should be prepping themselves for the logic and natural "next round" that removes free rations from themselves as well. That seems to be, after all, the logic being held by TB these days ...


----------



## Gunner98 (11 Aug 2012)

Wanderingaimlessly said:
			
		

> I think this issue is really going to focus the spotlight on the high rates we charge for rations at all bases across Canada, $500 in some cases.
> 
> I know the thrust of this change was directed at the folks who sit on IR for years and collect scads of cash.



Let's do some simple math to determine if these are really 'high rates' $540/90 meals =  $6 which includes beverages, fruit, desserts etc.  Far less than the average meal costs the mess to provide.

Let's do some logic analysis - do you really 'know' the thrust (a) how many people sit on IR for years, (b) that they are really collecting scads of cash now that they are abated for leave, TD etc. (c)  that the policy was really directed at them and there was no consideration beyond them to the thousands of others who are going to suffer.  

The real thrust is the DND budget was cut by more than $1B and the bean counters have been tasked by the top to find savings.  This is still the early stages so save some breath for the real rantings that will follow once further cuts are known.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (11 Aug 2012)

Blacklab said:
			
		

> It's not relevant but ok, I'll bite:  A large breed dog, a small dog, and two cats.



I'm going to make some assumptions here, and I'm probably wrong, but anyway............

My whole experience with 'breed dogs', other than the dog f*****s I regularly work with, are that the dogs are a business for making and selling more dogs.

If this is the case, why the f*** should my tax dollars move your business around? You chose to run a secondary business outside your CF career and that's YOUR responsibility.

Claim the expenses on your business taxes, unless of course, your working the underground economy on the side and aren't reporting the extra cash that you're making.

Given the cost of purebreds, you're way ahead of the game and have your cake as well as eating it. Whatever the CF is 'allegedly' clawing back from you, you've already made in spades by virtue of them putting you in a position (posting) favourable to your business. Time to pony up from your end for a change and spend some of your profits on your costs.

Again, I'm likely wrong, but that's the way this appears to me.

Just sayin'.


----------



## armyvern (11 Aug 2012)

I guess the next question I have for Blacklab is: "is it a large breed_[ing]_ dog" or is it a "large breed big ass dog"?

(my thoughts are the same as Crusty's below should it be a large dog that you indeed breed and are thus garnering income from)

Having previously shipped pets myself, dog that are large breeds big ass in size, often cost more to ship than small dogs. I don't own any pets now, but am of the opinion that "personal" envelope is the more proper place for charges for their movement to be deducted from. Yes, they are members of the family, but that is the families choice to own pets and ergo the personal envelope. 

I have shitloads of wine, that I move at my own expense as movers won't take glass bottles. I still move 'em and I figure that the cost of such is more than covered by my movement grant (650) and/or my extra full months pay posting allowance. I own them for my own benefit/pleasure. And yes, I know the "movement grant" is intended to cover incidentals caused by move and that it is a whole lot lower than other federal employees receive. Then, take it out of the posting allowance. We all make choices about what we wish to do with our own posting allowances - choose whatever you want: it's yours. If that's putting it towards the cost of moving your chosen pets or paying down some of your mortgage or whatever - so be it.

Crustette


----------



## PPCLI Guy (11 Aug 2012)

recceguy said:
			
		

> I'm going to make some assumptions here, and I'm probably wrong, but anyway............
> 
> My whole experience with 'breed dogs', other than the dog f*****s I regularly work with, are that the dogs are a business for making and selling more dogs.
> 
> ...



Just saying that you are, as you surmised, most likely wrong.  I have two purebred German Shepherds, a male and a female.  They are both from strong bloodlines, and are extraordinary specimens of the breed. Both are neutered. I, and most military dog owners I know, have no interest in breeding or showing them.  I enjoy their company, and their size and training provide both my wife and I some modicum of comfort during my frequent absences.  The opportunities were definitely there - my male in particular has generated many queries about breeding from him.  Again, I was never interested in the "business of making and selling more dogs".  I just enjoy the company of large and competent dogs.

I have to be honesty, the tone of your post is more than just a tad confrontational.  You made some very large assumptions and worked yourself into a fever-pitch.  Nowhere does the OP state that he is running a business.  Rather, he is concerned that the rules have changed mid APS, which is something that I understand.

It may be time to take this one down a notch - it appears to be getting quite personal.

Just saying.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (11 Aug 2012)

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> Just saying that you are, as you surmised, most likely wrong.  I have two purebred German Shepherds, a male and a female.  They are both from strong bloodlines, and are extraordinary specimens of the breed. Both are neutered. I, and most military dog owners I know, have no interest in breeding or showing them.  I enjoy their company, and their size and training provide both my wife and I some modicum of comfort during my frequent absences.  The opportunities were definitely there - my male in particular has generated many queries about breeding from him.  Again, I was never interested in the "business of making and selling more dogs".  I just enjoy the company of large and competent dogs.
> 
> I have to be honesty, the tone of your post is more than just a tad confrontational.  You made some very large assumptions and worked yourself into a fever-pitch.  Nowhere does the OP state that he is running a business.  Rather, he is concerned that the rules have changed mid APS, which is something that I understand.
> 
> ...



Nope, not worked up. No fever pitch. That's why the caveat at the front. If it is in fact just a big dog, I'll withdraw from the conversation. 

If it is in fact a breeder, I'll stand by my comments. It's the way I read it. Internet stuff and all.

You can be as _honesty_ as you want. You call it confrontational, that's just your opinion. 

I don't consider it such. It's not personal either. 

It's not the taxpayers job to move anyone's business, if that's what it is. That's all, plain and simple.

Glad you enjoy the company of your big dogs.

Just sayin'


----------



## 4Feathers (11 Aug 2012)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> Someone found a new smiley.   :



I like yours too! :


----------



## 4Feathers (11 Aug 2012)

MJP said:
			
		

> Yea you are right...All those open trades right now shows how hard of a sell it is.



I get the sarcasm, but like I said in my post, when the intake goes back up again, like it has been for years up until late 2010, we will have another problem. I don`t like comparing our benefits package to that of the private sector just like I don`t like comparing what we do for a living to that of the private sector. We want to attract the best of the best.


----------



## MJP (11 Aug 2012)

4Feathers said:
			
		

> I get the sarcasm, but like I said in my post, when the intake goes back up again, like it has been for years up until late 2010, we will have another problem. I don`t like comparing our benefits package to that of the private sector just like I don`t like comparing what we do for a living to that of the private sector. We want to attract the best of the best.



We saw an increase in recruiting because we got an increase in overall numbers.  But I do agree that numbers are cyclical.  I really don't think that our total compensation package except for some specialists will be a barrier to reaching our recruiting numbers in the future.  Our total compensation package is, despite the recent and maybe soon to be cuts, is one of the better ones.  Anyone arguing they are not paid well for what they do, is deluding themselves.

There are outliers, but I know of very few industries where a 20ish year old person can make close to $4-50,000 with only grade 12.


----------



## Infanteer (11 Aug 2012)

Starting with 20 days paid leave a year (not including weekends), a healthy pension, and a robust system of self-development and advancement.


----------



## Nostix (11 Aug 2012)

We need to be very careful about generalizing too much when talking about the overall strength of recruiting and retention. 

Only a few positions in the forces are filled by a 20 year old with a grade 12 education. We quickly turn them into 23/30/35 year olds with a valuable 3/10/15 years of work experience and training. It's a complex situation.

There is an enormous gap between "intake for infantry is full" and "we have no issues to address with recruiting and retention".


----------



## Proud Canadian (13 Aug 2012)

The latest

http://cmp-cpm.forces.mil.ca/dgcb/dcba/docs/cffaqa_e.doc

ISSUE : CF Compensation and Benefits Framework

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) related to changes announced in CANFORGEN 145/12, effective 1 September 2012

Q1. In the Canadian Forces Integrated Relocation Program (CFIRP) Directive, how are the Core, Customized and Personalized monetary envelopes described and how do they fit together?
A1. 
	Core benefits are those considered to be essential to relocation and are funded directly by the Department, such as move of Household Goods and Effects (HG&E), transportation, meal reimbursement while transiting, commercial lodging expenses.  Members are not required to use these benefits; however, unused benefits cannot be exchanged or assigned a monetary value to pay for other benefits or expenses. CF members who do not use core benefits shall forfeit them, i.e. the money goes back to the Government coffers. 

	Custom benefits are enhancements to relocation and the funding is calculated based on three factors: accommodation, transportation and shipment of HG&E.  Custom funding is based on the factors of type of accommodation, distance traveled and family size. The custom funding formula is used by CF members to pay for custom benefits (e.g. shipment of a recreational vehicle, expenses beyond one month for reverse Temporary Dual Residency Allowance). CF members who do not use custom benefits shall forfeit them, i.e. the money goes back to the Government coffers. On the other hand, once the customized funds have been used remaining expenditures are from the personalized funds.

	Personalized benefits are those deemed non-essential but attributable to relocation, with funding based on a formula composed of a variety of elements (if eligible): movement grant, posting allowance (or Reserve Relocation Allowance), Long Term Storage (LTS) Incentives and House Hunting Trip (HHT) Savings.  Relocation expenses may be reimbursed from the personalized funds when the expenditure is attributable to the relocation and meets the intent of the CFIRP. These must be reasonable, justifiable, and supported by receipts. The reimbursement of these expenses must not constitute personal gain.  It is within CF members’ discretion to use personalized benefits. The personalized funding formula is subject to Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) regulations and available for use in three ways:

o	it can pay for any personalized benefits, thereby reducing the tax deducted at source for some eligible benefits as per CRA guidelines;
o	it can pay for additional custom benefits beyond what can be covered by the custom funding formula; and
o	remaining funds can be cashed out and paid directly to CF members. 

Q2. In the CFIRP directive, how is the Personalized budgetary envelope calculated for a CF member?
A2. 
a. Reg F members: if the Reg F member is moving without dependant(s), mbr will get half a month’s salary for a posting allowance (a full month’s salary if moving with dependants), $650 for the movement grant.  In addition, a CF member may also be eligible for the following incentives:  Real Estate Incentive (REI) (up to $12,000), Long Term Storage (LTS) Incentive, and the House Hunting Trip Savings (HHT) Incentives.

b. Res F members: receive a Reserve relocation allowance ($1000) when authorized to relocate their (D)HG&E,  and $650 for the movement grant.  In addition, a CF member may also be eligible for the following incentives:  Real Estate Incentive (REI) (up to $12,000), Long Term Storage (LTS) Incentive, and the House Hunting Trip Savings (HHT) Incentives.
Q3.  When do the changes announced in CANFORGEN 145/12 take effect?  
A3.  The effective date is 1 Sep 2012.  

•	SEPARATION EXPENSE BENEFITS: changes are effective 1 Sep 2012

•	TRANSPORTATION ASSISTANCE FOR RESERVE FORCE: changes are effective 1 Sep 2012

•	RELOCATIONS (CFIRP & CBI 208 Section 8 relocations) changes are administered as follows:

Member’s situation…	Policy* in effect prior to 1 Sep 12	Policy* in effect 1 Sep 12 and after
Posting msg or transfer msg DTG of 31 Aug 12 or before (regardless of COS/RFD date)
	X	
Posting msg or transfer msg DTG of 1 Sep 12 and after
(regardless of COS/RFD date)
		X
Imposed Restriction - Reg F members on approved IR under a post instr of DTG of 31 Aug 12 or before, who now decide to relocate their (D)HG&E 
	X	
Imposed Restriction - Res F members on Class "C" reserve service on approved IR status (under a posting instr of DTG of 31 Aug 12 or before) AND who have at least 12 months remaining to serve in the period of employment (POE) and/or POE extension and now decide to relocate their (D)HG&E 

Note: if mbr serving on class "C" reserve service has less than 12 months remaining to serve on their POE and/or POE extension, there is no authority to relocate (D)HG&E however, provided members continue to meet the IR requirements determined by DGMC, mbrs would be eligible to receive SE benefits until the end of POE and/or extension.
	X	
Imposed Restriction - Res F members on Class "B" reserve service on approved IR status (under a posting instruction with a DTG of 31 Aug 2012 or before) AND who have at least 12 months remaining to serve in the POE and/or POE extension and now decide to relocate their (D)HG&E.  Separation expense (SE) benefit ceases 1 Sep 12.  As such, the restriction is lifted and relocation must occur within 6 months of 1 Sep 12.  Failure to meet this deadline, for other than service reasons, will result in the forfeiture of relocation benefits.

Note: if a mbr serving on class "B" reserve service has less than 12 months remaining to serve on their POE and/or POE extension, there is no authority to relocate (D)HG&E at Public expense. And, effective 1 Sep 12, there is no authority to receive separation expense (SE) benefit.
	X	
Intended Place of Residence (IPR) – mbrs who are eligible to and elect their IPR or early IPR prior to 1 Sep 2012 (CFAO 15-2 Annex C Appendix 2 para 2 a.)
	X	
Intended Place of Residence (IPR) – mbrs who are eligible to and elect their IPR or early IPR on or after 1 Sep 2012 (CFAO 15-2 Annex C Appendix 2 para 2 a.)
		X
* Policy = CFIRP directive and CBI 208 Section 8 relocations (with the exception of CBI 208.997 in which the changes are effective 1 Sep 12 for all CF mbrs)

Q4.  Mortgage Breaking Penalties, Mortgage Early Repayment Penalties Benefit – will members be grandfathered?  
A4.  No.  However, as these expenses are no longer reimbursed by the employer (CF), these expenses may be claimable under Personal Income Tax.

Q5.  If I was previously on Imposed Restriction (IR) and receiving Separation Expense benefits, can I now opt for Special Commuting Assistance (SCA)?
A5.  No.  Members on IR cannot opt for special commuting Assistance (SCA) and members on SCA cannot opt for SE benefits once they have started to receive SCA. The choice of SCA or SE benefit must be made prior to the commencement of reimbursement the benefit
Q6.  If I was previously on Imposed Restriction (IR) in a location where rations were available and provided at no cost to members prior to 1 Sep 12, will I be grandfathered?
A6. No.  Effective 1 Sep 12, members will be responsible to cover the cost of their own meals.

Q7.  Will CF members see a future pay adjustment to compensate for the loss of benefits?
A7.  No. Pay adjustments are not intended to compensate for the loss of benefits. Benefits are being realigned between the various relocation funding envelopes, offering our members the opportunity to better weigh the variety of options that are available to them and make the best choices when managing their own moves or their particular situation.  In most cases, the changes reflect minor adjustments to very robust and generous overall compensation frameworks and reimbursement programs.

Q8.  Will members moving summer 2012 be affected by these changes?
A8.  Yes. Separation expense and reserve transportation allowance will change on 1 Sep 12.  For relocations under CFIRP and CBI 208 Section 8, your posting instruction/transfer message or IPR election date will determine if you are or are not affected by these changes. A DTG or IPR election date prior to 1 Sep 2012 will be administered under the policy in effect prior to 1 Sep 12. (Q3 provides detailed answer).

Q9.  If my relocation costs would be such that they exceeded my “Personalized envelope”, would I have to pay for the rest out of pocket?
A9.  As a CF member, you decide what benefits you want covered under your “Personalized envelope”.  As part of your decision making process, you should research CRA guidelines for claimable benefits as additional expenses not reimbursed by the CF may be claimed as a moving expense on the CF member’s tax return. 

Q10.  Why are CF members losing their benefits?
A10.  For CF relocations, while the majority of core benefits will remain, some of the benefits that were covered through the Customized envelope will now be covered by the Personalised envelope.  For those benefits that will cease to be supported such as: Mortgage Breaking Penalties/Early repayment penalties and Mortgage Loan Insurance, Separation Expense applicability to members on Class “B” reserve service, Separation Expense Meals and rations and incidentals benefit, Transportation assistance for members on Class “B” reserve service, this realignment is to ensure core military requirements are covered.

Q11. Why are the CF Relocation benefits different than those of other government departments (OGD)?
A11.  The benefits package is in line with unique requirements of the Canadian Forces and this is why there are some differences with what other government organisations may receive.  Since relocations are closely related to operational requirements and career progression, CF members may be called upon to move more frequently than employees of other government organisations and as such, benefit packages are tailored accordingly.

Q12. Will the changes related to the separation expense benefits affect members posted outside Canada?
A12.  No.  CBI 208.997 (formerly 209.997) is not applicable to members posted outside Canada.  In their case, they are entitled to benefits under CBI 10 (Military Foreign Service Instructions). (MFSI 10.2.13). 

Q13. I am a member who is serving on a class “B” reserve period of employment, with an approved relocation of (D)HG&E. I was authorized IR status and received SE benefits until 31 Aug 2012. What are my options for 1 Sep 12 and on?
A13.  As of 1 Sep 12, members serving on Class “B” reserve service authorized a relocation at Public expense are no longer eligible to separation expense (SE) benefits. The time remaining to serve in the POE and/or POE extension is key:

a. if you have more than one year remaining to serve on the POE and/or POE extension, you have six months from 1 Sep 12 to relocate your (D)HG&E at Public expense; or

b. if you have less than one year remaining to serve on the POE and/or POE extension, there is no authority to relocate your (D)HG&E at Public expense. 
You are encouraged to familiarize yourself with CFIRP article 13.09 Return move and CFIRP article 13.10 Early termination of employment to make informed decisions.

Q14. I am posted prohibited to Borden for military occupation/trades training. Will I receive rations and quarters at public expense?
A14. No. Provided you qualify for SE under CBI 208.997(3), your entitlement will be for quarters at public expense but you will no longer receive rations at public expense nor low rate incidentals starting 1 Sep 12.

Q15. I have received my posting message.  I have requested and been approved for IR status, what are my entitlements at my new place of duty?
A15. Effective 1 Sep 12, Reg F and Res F on class “C” proceeding on authorized IR and in receipt of separation expense (SE) who:

a.	are occupying commercial, non-commercial accommodation or family housing may be reimbursed up to the maximum monthly accommodation rate, inclusive of furniture rental (where applicable) detailed at CBI 208.997 Annex A, actual and reasonable monthly parking charges to a maximum of $100.00/month  and actual and reasonable basic internet, basic cable and cellular or land-line connection expenses (where applicable);
b.	those occupying private accommodation, where rations and quarters (R&Q) are unavailable, are eligible to be reimbursed an amount not to exceed the monthly charge under paragraph (1) of QR&O 208.50 for single quarter type H1 (very good), actual and reasonable parking charges not to exceed $100.00/month, actual and reasonable basic internet, basic cable and cellular or land-line telephone connection fees; or  
c.	where R&Q are available, the entitlement will be quarters at public expense, parking charges prescribed in  paragraph (1) of QR&O 208.50(if applicable), and actual and reasonable basic internet, basic cable and cellular or land-line telephone connection expenses.  The provision for reimbursement of  65% of the daily dinner rate, rations at public expense and/or incidental expense will no longer be part of the core SE benefits package as of 1 Sep 12.


Q16. I am part of a service couple and posted away from my current place of duty at which my service spouse will remain.  As we could not be co-located for service reasons, what are my entitlements as I am separated from my (D) HG&E? 
A16. Effective 1 Sep 12, service couples who qualify for SE IAW CBI 208.997  may be reimbursed the applicable rates, depending on the temporary accommodation, identified at Q15above.  The previous provision to for 65% of the daily dinner rate, rations at public expense and/or incidentals will no longer be part of the core SE benefits package as of 1 Sep 12.

Q17. I am a member serving on a Class “B” reserve service and have accepted a 3 year period of employment (POE) with relocation authorized.  My family will not be relocating with me; will I receive separation expense benefits under CBI 208.997?
A17. No. Effective 1 Sep 12, benefits under CBI 208.997 are not payable to members accepting a period of employment of on Class “B” reserve service, when the relocation is authorized.  

 Q18. I am a member serving on a Class “B” reserve service and I have accepted a 3 year period of employment (POE) and I was not authorized relocation at Public expense.  Will I receive Reserve Transportation Assistance under CBI 209.045?
A18. No. Effective 1 Sep 12, only members serving on a Class “A” reserve service are eligible to receive of Reserve Transportation Assistance.  The benefit will no longer be payable to members on Class “B” reserve service


----------



## TCM621 (13 Aug 2012)

Proud Canadian said:
			
		

> Q14. I am posted prohibited to Borden for military occupation/trades training. Will I receive rations and quarters at public expense?
> A14. No. Provided you qualify for SE under CBI 208.997(3), your entitlement will be for quarters at public expense but you will no longer receive rations at public expense nor low rate incidentals starting 1 Sep 12.



So as expected, members on prohibited posting are fucked. The only option is to post families whole hog. That's going to save the CF money  ???

And just to ensure I am reading that right, Those who qualify for SE get quarters and nothing else? A thousand dollar hit a month. That is going to hurt, a lot.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (13 Aug 2012)

Yes, unless one of the options in BTAGs, Section 3 applies (or the re-word some stuff).


----------



## armyvern (13 Aug 2012)

Proud Canadian said:
			
		

> The latest
> ...
> Q11. Why are the CF Relocation benefits different than those of other government departments (OGD)?
> A11.  The benefits package is in line with unique requirements of the Canadian Forces and this is why there are some differences with what other government organisations may receive.  Since relocations are closely related to operational requirements and career progression, CF members may be called upon to move more frequently than employees of other government organisations and as such, benefit packages are tailored accordingly.





> Q16. I am part of a service couple and posted away from my current place of duty at which my service spouse will remain.  As we could not be co-located for service reasons, what are my entitlements as I am separated from my (D) HG&E?
> A16. Effective 1 Sep 12, service couples who qualify for SE IAW CBI 208.997  may be reimbursed the applicable rates, depending on the temporary accommodation, identified at Q15above.  The previous provision to for 65% of the daily dinner rate, rations at public expense and/or incidentals will no longer be part of the core SE benefits package as of 1 Sep 12.



Q19 (caused by answer to Q16 - A16):  Can you explain why it is then that their benefits are higher because this answer makes it seem as if we "are called upon more frequently than employees of other government organisations and, as such benefit packages are tailored accordingly." For example, weekend travel assistance to see their families when separted vs our 'once per year' assistance when separated or 2200.00 bucks per month rent in a location by another federal department vs our 1600.00 in same location?? Hopefully, this isn't because they negotiate these things and can strike when we can not; after all, you took away our severance pay based upon their union negotiations - why not the same rates and entitlements for us?

Q20 (caused by answer to Q11 - A11): :

This is where I fall in (4th posting as such). Is there a movement now afoot to ensure that same trade/same rank pers such as myself are now forcefully moved (as some have been sitting in their current postings for 16+ years!!)?? I can't get to where my old man is posted because "there are no empty positions for me", yet persons of same same trade/rank as me were sitting in that same base/location for 15+ years!!

This old boys network needs to cease, officially, now that my family will be paying out of our pocket when we have _no_ choice - especially given that we are one of those married service couples who actually do our jobs and meet our contract obligations by going "where ever, whenever for whatever" that the CF requires of us.

MWO X in location Y refuses that spot you just had to put me in? Post him/her anyway and deny the IR request that he/she is going to submit.

I have serious issues with MSC now paying out of pocket (and those who are prohibited posted by force) when others same trade/rank have been, are allowed to, and - no doubt - will continue to be allowed to grow roots in certain locations. Now that mantra effects me and my family financially (it's always affected my family morale and QOL) as well. 
_____________________

I foresee a grievance within my ~30 day future; I can't be the only one posted separately while others same trade/rank get coddled and grow roots.

So, I see that nothing here actually fixes or corrects the problems with gravy train riders or with the propensity for previous IR approvals for person who never did have intent to, and never will move their families to their new location of posting. It also doesn't address other items such as troops in the field paying to eat etc (they are _not_ deployed overseas) just as the rest of us (MSCs and new entrants on courses etc - prohibited moves) who are "forcefully separated" from our families at the CF's behest are.

Are they still working on it, or is this the end result of "it's still being sorted out and worked on?"


----------



## aesop081 (13 Aug 2012)

The IR claims section at the CFSU(O) orderly room was an interesting place this morning.............


----------



## TCM621 (13 Aug 2012)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Q19 (caused by answer to Q11 - A11):  Can you explain why it is then that their benefits are higher because this answer makes it seem as if we "are called upon more frequently than employees of other government organisations and, as such benefit packages are tailored accordingly." For example, weekend travel assistance to see their families when separted vs our 'once per year' assistance when separated or 2200.00 bucks per month rent in a location by another federal department vs our 1600.00 in same location?? Hopefully, this isn't because they negotiate these things and can strike when we can not; after all, you took away our severance pay based upon their union negotiations - why not the same rates and entitlements for us?





> I foresee a grievance within my ~30 day future; I can't be the only one posted separately while others same trade/rank get coddled and grow roots.
> 
> So, I see that nothing here actually fixes or corrects the problems with gravy train riders or with the propensity for previous IR approvals for person who never did have intent to, and never will move their families to their new location of posting. It also doesn't address other items such as troops in the field paying to eat etc (they are _not_ deployed overseas) just as the rest of us (MSCs and new entrants on courses etc - prohibited moves) who are "forcefully separated" from our families at the CF's behest are.
> 
> Are they still working on it, or is this the end result of "it's still being sorted out and worked on?"



I may have to grieve as well. We'll see how my memo comes up. I have already been told by my immediate supervisor he won't support it but it may be approved in the end.


----------



## Cdnleaf (13 Aug 2012)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> The IR claims section at the CFSU(O) orderly room was an interesting place this morning.............



Come on...


----------



## armyvern (13 Aug 2012)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> The IR claims section at the CFSU(O) orderly room was an interesting place this morning.............



I bet you're glad your you're cleared.

I pity the clerks as they will be at the coalface bearing the wrath of those who are not in these circumstances by choice. I still think they need to come up with something such as a "Guarantee of IR/Intent to move DF&E" to weed out legit IRs from those with not an iota of intent to ever move their family to whatever location:



> "You have recently applied for an Imposed Restriction (IR) posting status to be posted separately from your DF&E as your dependent child is entering Grade 12 and is graduating in June 2013. We agree that, in the circumstances, moving your child with you this APS would adversely effect his ability to program-choose last year course to be used for entry into a post secondary education facility. We are approving your application for this _choice_ of status, with an expirey date of 30 Aug 2013. As high schools hold graduation ceremonies in June of each year, you must contact careers immediately upon your child's graduation so that message can be cut lifting your restriction. You will then be required to relocate your family no later than 30 Aug 2013. Failure to  relocate your DF&E to your location by that date will result in a ceasing of your benefits effective 01 Sep 2013. It is not the taxpayers responsibilty to pay for your family to maintain 2 seperate residences when you have chosen to live in this manner.
> 
> Please sign below as having read and understood in front of the witnessing officer and return to this career shop so that we can proceed with cutting your message authorizing your IR. A failure to sign and return this document will be interpreted as advising that IR status is no longer requested/required by you and your family.
> 
> Thanks, and have a great day.


"


----------



## aesop081 (13 Aug 2012)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> I bet you're glad your cleared.



That's putting it mildly  ;D


----------



## Occam (13 Aug 2012)

Tony Manifold said:
			
		

> I may have to grieve as well. We'll see how my memo comes up. I have already been told by my immediate supervisor he won't support it but it may be approved in the end.



Me to immediate supervisor: "You're not going to support it?  Well, it's a good thing you're not the IA, then...because nobody's asking your opinion".

If it may be approved in the end, but he won't support it, clearly there's something wrong with his thought process.  Just sayin'.


----------



## newwifey (13 Aug 2012)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> You have recently applied for an Imposed Restriction (IR) posting status to be posted separately from your DF&E as your dependent child is entering Grade 12 and is graduating in June 2013. We agree that, in the circumstances, moving your child with you this APS would adversely effect his ability to program-choose last year course to be used for entry into a post secondary education facility. We are approving your application for this choice of status, with an expirey date of 30 Aug 2013. As high schools hold graduation ceremonies in June of each year, you must contact careers immediately upon your child's graduation so that message can be cut lifting your restriction. You will then be required to relocate your family no later than 30 Aug 2013. Failure to  relocate your DF&E to your location by that date will result in a ceasing of your benefits effective 01 Sep 2013.



Heck, I'd even sign that as the "Dependent"  

Question, so if the incidentals and meals and such are being taken away, how much is the SE portion then??


----------



## McG (13 Aug 2012)

newwifey said:
			
		

> Question, so if the incidentals and meals and such are being taken away, how much is the SE portion then??


The answer has been posts in this thread.  You need to read the CBI as SE varies depending on the type of accommodation that one has.  In all cases, the rent is part of SE.


----------



## newwifey (13 Aug 2012)

MCG said:
			
		

> The answer has been posts in this thread.  You need to read the CBI as SE varies depending on the type of accommodation that one has.  In all cases, the rent is part of SE.



Thanks!  I misunderstood that then.  I thought there might have been another component besides rent.

Yikes, this is gonna be a tight year to look forward to.


----------



## TCM621 (13 Aug 2012)

Occam said:
			
		

> Me to immediate supervisor: "You're not going to support it?  Well, it's a good thing you're not the IA, then...because nobody's asking your opinion".
> 
> If it may be approved in the end, but he won't support it, clearly there's something wrong with his thought process.  Just sayin'.



That is sort of how it went. Even if they won't support it, it has to get denied first before I can move to the next step. I think they are trying to come up with an answer but it isn't the same answer as I think works best. It is a process.


----------



## McG (13 Aug 2012)

newwifey said:
			
		

> Thanks!  I misunderstood that then.  I thought there might have been another component besides rent.


There might be.  It depends on the type of accommodation.  You need to consult the CBI.


----------



## newwifey (13 Aug 2012)

MCG said:
			
		

> There might be.  It depends on the type of accommodation.  You need to consult the CBI.



Thank you!!
I'll have hubby check that when he arrives at his destination


----------



## TCM621 (13 Aug 2012)

I'm a little surprised that nothing has hit the news about this. I almost want to "accidentally" email this thread to the CBC. Except I hate the CBC. Hopefully now that the Olympics are done maybe this will get picked up.


----------



## newwifey (13 Aug 2012)

Tony Manifold said:
			
		

> I'm a little surprised that nothing has hit the news about this. I almost want to "accidentally" email this thread to the CBC. Except I hate the CBC. Hopefully now that the Olympics are done maybe this will get picked up.


If you look back, I believe the first Canforgen was released, then a news release came out for more funding for homeless vets.  Coincidence??

Today, the Q&A came out clarifying(????) that Canforgen AND an announcement for all the Goose Bay infrastructure.

It's been buried on purpose, me thinks.....

And IF this did hit the news, you have to be careful.  The general public, I think, would be in favour of you paying for food (maybe not $543 worth) but paying nonetheless. Nor will they care that you locked in your mortgage prior to transfers or your pets.....double edged sword.....

I'd be super happy if the ones abusing IR were outed tho   8)


----------



## brihard (13 Aug 2012)

Tony Manifold said:
			
		

> I'm a little surprised that nothing has hit the news about this. I almost want to "accidentally" email this thread to the CBC. Except I hate the CBC. Hopefully now that the Olympics are done maybe this will get picked up.



The general public will be entirely unsympathetic. The benefits of CF members put just about everything else to shame. This would immediately get spun as self-entitled soldiers whining about the gravy train slowing down a tad.


----------



## Strike (14 Aug 2012)

Actually, there was a certain journalist who shall not be named who wrote a piece on this, as well as a follow-up. Said follow-up included several very unsympathetic letters from readers.


----------



## armyvern (14 Aug 2012)

Strike said:
			
		

> Actually, there was a certain journalist who shall not be named who wrote a piece on this, as well as a follow-up. Said follow-up included several very unsympathetic letters from readers.



That's all well and good, however, this very site (and CBC article comments) evidences how little average Canadians are actually aware of the full facts and implications. The CBC comments are prime examples of hatred, warranted or not, exists for the CF (and sometimes it's members). 

I'd be pissed too if I were an average Canadian and was being given the impression that CF SE benefits are amongst "the best out there" (not when compared to other fed employees they aren't). I'd also be pissed too if I were given the impression that CF member's make this as a lifestyle choice and that they pay for it as taxpayers - not knowing, nor is the CF and TB acknowledging, that there are TWO distinct classes of people in this benefit boat - those who the government dictates must be separated from their families due to needs of the service and those who choose to be separated from their families for whatever reason.

Telling me to eat that cost now is all well and noble and I'm willing to do my part - provided that same trade/same rank person is forced to leave his base to make room for a reunification of my family first and foremost. Please publish the official announcements of reductions of these much higher benefits for my fellow public servants so that I know it's not deficit reduction on the backs of those who can not strike and have no choice. I haven't heard a peep from any other SE benefit reductions for other departments though ...

I once proceeded on a prohibited posting away from my family because my predecessor was arrested, charged with fraud and eventually court martialed (after he released). I moved on a weeks notice - in February - because that was a critical fill and one-of position in a province. This is exactly the situations where Career Managers love Married Service Couples as no member with a family and kids in school is going to uproot his family in February and move "because that would be detrimental to their family". A MSC however has no choice - they can post either of us wherever they want whether it is also detrimental to our families too or not.

Guess what answer careers will get from me next time (4th IR)? "NO. Nyet. Not when it's going to cost me money out of my pocket and mess with my family again so someone else's doesn't get messed with. It's their turn, not mine."

If this is caused by the CF requiring to reduce benefit expenditures by 10% due to budget constraints, then cut benefits by 10% across the board. 10 % of PLD, LDA, Sea Pay, SE, mileage claims, etc etc ... do not do it on the backs of some of us who have no choice. That's fair isn't it? Let all of us CF pers do our part? But oh so many more people would complain about something like that occurring - even the ones who would be in this thread telling others that's just the way it is because right now it just isn't applicable to them.


----------



## Scoobs (14 Aug 2012)

The Q&A that came out is simply damage control.  The grown ups have obviously heard the gripes.  If they didn't, then the Q&A wouldn't have been put out.  

I can foresee some of the following consequences of these decisions:
-pers refusing to be posted.  Yes, I don't agree with this, but I can foresee more of this occurring.  And yes, there are ways to deal with this (before anybody preaches to me);
-some pers decide to leave the CF;
-more people do everything they can to stay where they are rather than be posted;
-a negative impact on morale;
-grievances; and
-etc.

I do not promote or advocate any of the above.  I am simply stating that these are possible outcomes.

Also, I find it interesting that none of the Q&A talks about the piss poor timing of the adjustments.  I honestly believe that if this would have been better planned (most people can't argue that doing this after the APS is good for anyone), the troops would have been able to make their decisions as to IR, moving, etc, with ALL of the info in hand.  Sure, you will always get someone who complains, but at least they wouldn't have been able to complain that they weren't given advance notice.  As a leader, it bothers me how this was implemented.  I honestly would like to see an explanation from our leaders why these changes are being implemented after the APS?  I'm not debating the merits of the changes (for full disclosure I do not agree with all of them).  Rather, to me, it is a matter of timing and fairness to our pers.

Also, a word of caution about the "claiming some of the personalized funding costs on income tax".  Pay close attention that MLI is NOT, I say again, NOT, claimable on income tax.  I moved last APS and when doing taxes, did the research and determined that MLI is not claimable.  You will note that the Q&A conveniently leaves this rather important detail out.


----------



## Baz (14 Aug 2012)

Blacklab said:
			
		

> And you continue to miss the point of FSP.  It is an incentive, to make foreign postings attractive.



CBI Chapter 10 - Military Foreign Service Instructions
10.14.02 - FOREIGN SERVICE PREMIUM 
10.14.02(1) (Intent) The Foreign Service Premium (FSP) is an allowance payable to a member:
a.in recognition of foreign service and, as such, recognizes that there are disutilities and disincentives, some of which may be financial, resulting from service outside Canada; and
b.to cover expenses not specifically covered by other allowances and benefits.
http://www.cmp-cpm.forces.gc.ca/dgcb-dgras/pub/cbi-dra/10-eng.asp

It is not an incentive, in the stictest word; more importantly, it is not just an incentive. There is also PLA, which is meant to equalize cost of living.  Since every member is different it is impossible to create a benefit system that everyone will see as fair, especially as a lot of people think that someone else getting a benefit due to particular circumstances that they don't get is somehow unfair.


However, the basic issue stands.  The lack of warning means that some members will lose more than if they had been given a chance to plan for it.  That in itself will be a disatisfier for those members effected.

I think we all know that the cuts were forced upon us (for probably the right reasons), and the CF has been reacting to try to minimize the effects (as the organization sees them as a whole).


----------



## Dovely74 (14 Aug 2012)

My husband is in Borden while on his QL3. In his class, out of the other personnel with dependants, he is the only one affected by the new changes as others are either TD or their dependants are with them. 

Husband explained how TD is not the same as IR, but one has to wonder why the personnel on TD do not have to pay rations, while those on IR (as in fresh out of BMQ, priv 1 pay) do... Please understand that I am not saying that they should be charged the cost of rations. This is so confusing. 

As for us, we'll suck it up, but I can't say that we planned the 583$ reduction in income (cost of rations) when he first joined in September last year. After 2 years of careful research, planning, etc., making sure we could afford his changing his career to a career in the CF.  

With the new rules...If they allow us to move now... we'll pay the mortgage penalty (his class ends Feb. Mortgage ends March. Yes we had planned it like that to avoid incurring a big loss.) If we wait till his class ends, we ultimately have to deal with a loss of income of $583/m for 6-7 months.  We lose money either way.  Sorry to whine and I know I will get no pity, but this is a bitter pill to swallow.


----------



## Occam (14 Aug 2012)

Dovely74 said:
			
		

> As for us, we'll suck it up, but I can't say that we planned the 583$ reduction in income (cost of rations) when he first joined in September last year. After 2 years of careful research, planning, etc., making sure we could afford his changing his career to a career in the CF.



I was commenting to someone else last night that those personnel who are still in the initial trades training grinder (or worse, on PATs awaiting training) and enrolled with the knowledge that they would be provided free R&Q if they maintained a primary residence elsewhere just had a massive bait and switch fraud pulled on them.

I doubt that would pass the Globe and Mail test.


----------



## Blacklab (14 Aug 2012)

"CBI Chapter 10 - Military Foreign Service Instructions
10.14.02 - FOREIGN SERVICE PREMIUM 
10.14.02(1) (Intent) The Foreign Service Premium (FSP) is an allowance payable to a member:
a.in recognition of foreign service and, as such, recognizes that there are disutilities and disincentives, some of which may be financial, resulting from service outside Canada; and
b.to cover expenses not specifically covered by other allowances and benefits.
http://www.cmp-cpm.forces.gc.ca/dgcb-dgras/pub/cbi-dra/10-eng.asp

It is not an incentive, in the strictest word"

Semantics.

FSD 56: "Foreign Service Premium is provided as an incentive to foreign service and as such recognizes that there are disutilities and disincentives, some of which may be financial, resulting from service outside Canada. "


----------



## FishingFanatic (14 Aug 2012)

Reading the first few pages of this thread I feel obliged to contribute my situation to compare and received any advice or opinions on these cuts.

I am currently posted to CFSCE at CFB Kingston (owning a home/paying the bills/meals on the table etc etc). My wife recently graduated basic training and was sent to CFB Bordon to join the ranks of PRETC while awaiting her training to be an RMS Clerk. She was recently informed she is going to be forced to pay rations and will be loosing her separation entitlement. Other than joining the forces this was by no means a decision she made, she was forced into this as part of the training system the military forces you through for the first (approx) year of your career. Honestly I agree cuts are necessary and we should all share the pain of helping the Canadian government reduce the deficit and create jobs for those in need. But this doesn't make sense for me, sure take away the separation expense but force her to pay rations where a portion of her pay is putting food on the table at home? Or at the very least give her an option to buy what she feels she needs be it out of the mess or at a local Tim Horton's. 

Thanks for listening, enjoy your day, solider on, VVV


----------



## TCM621 (14 Aug 2012)

FishingFanatic said:
			
		

> Reading the first few pages of this thread I feel obliged to contribute my situation to compare and received any advice or opinions on these cuts.
> 
> I am currently posted to CFSCE at CFB Kingston (owning a home/paying the bills/meals on the table etc etc). My wife recently graduated basic training and was sent to CFB Bordon to join the ranks of PRETC while awaiting her training to be an RMS Clerk. She was recently informed she is going to be forced to pay rations and will be loosing her separation entitlement. Other than joining the forces this was by no means a decision she made, she was forced into this as part of the training system the military forces you through for the first (approx) year of your career. Honestly I agree cuts are necessary and we should all share the pain of helping the Canadian government reduce the deficit and create jobs for those in need. But this doesn't make sense for me, sure take away the separation expense but force her to pay rations where a portion of her pay is putting food on the table at home? Or at the very least give her an option to buy what she feels she needs be it out of the mess or at a local Tim Horton's.
> 
> Thanks for listening, enjoy your day, solider on, VVV



As screwed as I am by this, service couples who are forced to seperate postings are getting even more screwed than I am. Hope this works out for you.


----------



## armyvern (14 Aug 2012)

Your husband therefore falls into the category of "Prohibited Move". By force, not by choice.



			
				Dovely74 said:
			
		

> My husband is in Borden while on his QL3. In his class, out of the other personnel with dependants, he is the only one affected by the new changes as others are either TD or their dependants are with them.
> 
> Husband explained how TD is not the same as IR, but one has to wonder why the personnel on TD do not have to pay rations, while those on IR (as in fresh out of BMQ, priv 1 pay) do... Please understand that I am not saying that they should be charged the cost of rations. This is so confusing.
> 
> ...



You and your wife are a Married Service Couple falling under the "Prohibited Move" area. By force, not by choice.



			
				FishingFanatic said:
			
		

> Reading the first few pages of this thread I feel obliged to contribute my situation to compare and received any advice or opinions on these cuts.
> 
> I am currently posted to CFSCE at CFB Kingston (owning a home/paying the bills/meals on the table etc etc). My wife recently graduated basic training and was sent to CFB Bordon to join the ranks of PRETC while awaiting her training to be an RMS Clerk. She was recently informed she is going to be forced to pay rations and will be loosing her separation entitlement. Other than joining the forces this was by no means a decision she made, she was forced into this as part of the training system the military forces you through for the first (approx) year of your career. Honestly I agree cuts are necessary and we should all share the pain of helping the Canadian government reduce the deficit and create jobs for those in need. But this doesn't make sense for me, sure take away the separation expense but force her to pay rations where a portion of her pay is putting food on the table at home? Or at the very least give her an option to buy what she feels she needs be it out of the mess or at a local Tim Horton's.
> 
> Thanks for listening, enjoy your day, solider on, VVV



Both of your situations are representative of those in this situation "by force" and certainly not "True IR = By Choice". Exactly that situation highlighted by the _*cold hard fact*_ that you are prohibited by force of your employer (the CF) from being co-located with your respective families at this time. Your are, in fact, separated from them due to bonified requirements of the service's best interests and not of your own volition.

You are separated from them due to the exact same factors causing a troop on exercise in the field to be separated from his, yet that troop will not pay rations. I recognize the difference between yourselves and those who are "Imposed Restricted". I am also one of you.

Myself, and a few more have already started collecting references, files, and precedents of those who will continue to receive free R&Q while on course, in the field etc (and who are thus incurring no expenses at home either for these things) but whom are not affected by this change. The arguement is, that in effect, we are now being discriminated against monetarily due to (separated family status) a situation the CF itself has forced us into dictated we shall live like while others (field etc) who are also of a separated family status by force will not be required to "pay" as we will be.


----------



## Towards_the_gap (14 Aug 2012)

...you just know they'll end up charging those who live out for rations on exercise/course.


----------



## armyvern (14 Aug 2012)

Towards_the_gap said:
			
		

> ...you just know they'll end up charging those who live out for rations on exercise/course.



Yet, isn't that how it should be then? If the reason we who are separated "by force" now have to pay is because "we aren't maintaining those expenses at home", then the exact same thing is applicable to those in the field etc.

It all sucks. But it should suck equally and fairly for all of us in the same "forced apart" situation ... not just the group with fewest to vocalize dissatisfaction.

It's kind of like being tossed under the bus; _*exactly*_ what the CF has just done to it's members on Prohibited Postings. Some of those who would stand to lose if charged rations while in the field etc have been some of those same pers who wandered in here with comments saying "learn to like, or leave it" then (not attributable to any one pers or any direct quote, just based on some of the comments). 

Thing is, who is the next step after us "forced" members if we don't stick up for ourselves? Simply the next guy in line who finds himself being charged for rations while in the field after the next round of cuts --- and they wouldn't have a leg to stand on as then the powers that be would claim, "but Prohibited Posted members forced apart from their families have been forced to pay rations and there was no uproar from or for them, so learn to like it or leave".

Do I think that troops in the field should be paying rations - 200% "*no*", as they are forcefully separated, exactly the same as Prohibted Posted personnel are; NEITHER group should incur costs due to a forceful separation from their DF&E that _*the CF*_ has dictated will occur.


----------



## Gunner98 (15 Aug 2012)

I agree Vern, fair is fair - troops forced to pay for ration cards should be provided free meals in the field.  Those living with their families should pack a brown bag lunch or cooler for the longer exercises or pay as they eat.  There should be no free lunch for anyone!


----------



## Jay4th (15 Aug 2012)

Vern is absolutely right!  This sword MUST cut both ways, or not cut at all.  If the reasoning truly is "Mbr would be incurring food costs at home" or some such thing, then it stands to reason that we should all pay for food, all the time, since we would be incurring food costs if we were at home.  This needs to apply on courses, TD, exercises, travel, etc.  This is far from ideal, but it is FAIR.


----------



## Sub_Guy (15 Aug 2012)

Simian Turner said:
			
		

> I agree Vern, fair is fair - troops forced to pay for ration cards should be provided free meals in the field.  Those living with their families should pack a brown bag lunch or cooler for the longer exercises or pay as they eat.  There should be no free lunch for anyone!



So with that logic, do you expect a ships company to pay for all their meals while they are at sea?


----------



## Gunner98 (15 Aug 2012)

Dolphin_Hunter said:
			
		

> So with that logic, do you expect a ships company to pay for all their meals while they are at sea?



No just those not on ration strength back in port and they should certainly pay the normal mess prices for alcohol like their mates back in port, too!  ;D


----------



## armyvern (15 Aug 2012)

Dolphin_Hunter said:
			
		

> So with that logic, do you expect a ships company to pay for all their meals while they are at sea?



What is the difference between those troops in the field and those at sea, and those who are Prohibited Posted? Nothing. All are separated from their families because the CF has dictated they be so. None of the three groups above is incurring food costs at home while field, sea, or Prohibited Posted.

How then is it fair that only 1 of those groups now be charged for such? Explain to me how one group paying while the others do not is either fair or non-discriminatory. You *may* succeed in convincing me that I, and other prohibited posted personnel, should incur monetary loss to our in-the-bank pay while you do not.


And to be clear, while I believe that none of the pers above should be charged for rations while forcefully separated from their families, I also believe that if one group must, then they all should be.


----------



## armyvern (15 Aug 2012)

Simian Turner said:
			
		

> I agree Vern, fair is fair - troops forced to pay for ration cards should be provided free meals in the field.  ...



And the fact that they are not abated their rations costs for the days they are in the field has irritated me for years. I agree.


----------



## Sythen (15 Aug 2012)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> What is the difference between those troops in the field and those at sea, and those who are Prohibited Posted?



ugh this is gonna turn into another field troops vs garrison troops debate, I can feel it.. But I certainly hope you're not trying to compare living on a ship with living in the field? The separation is the same, but to compare troops paying for IMPs vs making sailors pay for well cooked meals is apples and oranges.


----------



## armyvern (15 Aug 2012)

Sythen said:
			
		

> ugh this is gonna turn into another field troops vs garrison troops debate, I can feel it.. But I certainly hope you're not trying to compare living on a ship with living in the field? The separation is the same, but to compare troops paying for IMPs vs making sailors pay for well cooked meals is apples and oranges.



Actually, we are comparing ALL troops who are_ forcefully separated_ from their families in whatever circumstances. We actually believe that none should be charged for rations in that circumstance. It's got SFA to do with standard of food while in garrison vs sea vs field vs anything. And, to be clear, not all soldiers consume all IMPs all the time in the field. Not that that means anything, but they don't eat just IMPs.


----------



## Sythen (15 Aug 2012)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Actually, we are comparing ALL troops who are forcefully separated from their families in whatever circumstances. We actually believe that none should be charged for rations in that circumstance. It's got SFA to do with garrison vs sea vs field vs anything. And, to be clear, not all soldiers consume all IMPs all the time in the field. Not that that means anything, but they don't eat just IMPs.



You're right. Sometimes they get hayboxes. Once a day, usually, was my experience. So my question still stands. My 2x IMP meals and 1x haybox a day is the equivalent of professional cooks preparing a meal, and sitting down in a mess on a ship and eatting?


----------



## armyvern (15 Aug 2012)

Sythen said:
			
		

> So what you're saying then is cooked meals by professionals = IMPs and if one has to pay, they all do?



The CF has just removed meal allowance from personnel who are forcefully separated from their families by CF direction. The reasoning is that those pers are not incurring meal expenses at home and thus must pay themselves. That exact same reasoning can then be applied to other groups who are also forcefully separated (for example, field and sea).

First they came for our money, and are taking it. The exact same "not at home, so you have to pay to eat somewhere reasoning" is also applicable to your group. Perhaps they'll come for yours next. Hopefully, there will be someone around to stick up for your group way up the food chain.


----------



## Sythen (15 Aug 2012)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> The CF has just removed meal allowance from personnel who are forcefully separated from their families by CF direction. The reasoning is that those pers are not incurring meal expenses at home and thus must pay themselves. That exact same reasoning can then be applied to other groups who are also forcefully separated (for example, field and sea).
> 
> First they came for our money, and are taking it. The exact same "not at home, so you have to pay to eat somewhere reasoning" is also applicable to your group. Perhaps they'll come for yours next. Hopefully, there will be someone around to stick up for your group way up the food chain.



You will find no argument from me that the separation is the same. I completely agree with you there. My argument is that you advocate that if one has to pay they all do, but I do not see field and mess meals to be equal. Its apples and oranges.


----------



## armyvern (15 Aug 2012)

Sythen said:
			
		

> You will find no argument from me that the separation is the same. I completely agree with you there. My argument is that you advocate that if one has to pay they all do, but I do not see field and mess meals to be equal. Its apples and oranges.



Yet, the reasoning for removing them is equally applicable.


----------



## Sythen (15 Aug 2012)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Yet, the reasoning for removing them is equally applicable.



Wait, removing what? Last I checked, no one is compensated for their meals in the field?


----------



## Good2Golf (15 Aug 2012)

Sythen, ArmyVern's point is not that "rations" and "meals" are the same, she knows they are not. We have discussed earlier in the thread that even Treaasury Board  ores the difference ($310/month for rations, $543/month for meals). 

Her point is centred on the principle that those service personnel located away from their principle residence for reasons beyond their own choice (i.e. pers on prohibited postings or separated married service couples, etc...) should not be required to pay for rations any more than those not on rations, but provided rations or meals by the Crown due to the specific locations of service - field, ship, etc...   That should be the preferred solution, but she notes that logically, there should be equitable treatment, in principle none should pay or that all should pay.  

Unless I and others are missing what ArmyVern was saying, she was not advocating that all be charged rations/meals no matter the location of deployed service.

We haven't got to the "close battle" yet, but CoCs are putting significant effort into providing workable solutions up to the appropriate authorities.  There still may be a number of means available to treat affected members equitably, in a manner that still complies with TB Directives.

Regards 
G2G


----------



## Strike (15 Aug 2012)

Sythen said:
			
		

> You will find no argument from me that the separation is the same. I completely agree with you there. My argument is that you advocate that if one has to pay they all do, but I do not see field and mess meals to be equal. Its apples and oranges.



Okay, seriously?  She's using reverse psychology here stop trying to argue your point.  She agrees with you!  What she is saying is that ANYONE who is forced to live away from their family (IOW, probably NOT IR) should not have to pay for rations.  She's stated it several times and used the field/ship meals as an example.

 :facepalm:


----------



## George Wallace (15 Aug 2012)

Sythen said:
			
		

> You're right. Sometimes they get hayboxes. Once a day, usually, was my experience. So my question still stands. My 2x IMP meals and 1x haybox a day is the equivalent of professional cooks preparing a meal, and sitting down in a mess on a ship and eatting?



Where did "professional cooks" get entered into the equation?  The cost of the meal/food is the issue, not the cost of who prepares it.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (15 Aug 2012)

IIRC, the 'cost of prep' is included in the cost of rations/meals by the CF, not just the cost of groceries.

However, knowin' the cost of an IMP from the factory, I wouldn't want to be the one paying for THOSE either...


----------



## Remius (15 Aug 2012)

I can see Sythen's Apples and oranges argument though when it comes to rations in the field though.  The fact that the Cf provides rations in the field has nothing to do with compensating you with being seperated from your family.  Whereas on IR it does.


----------



## armyvern (15 Aug 2012)

Crantor said:
			
		

> I can see Sythen's Apples and oranges argument though when it comes to rations in the field though.  The fact that the Cf provides rations in the field has nothing to do with compensating you with being seperated from your family.  Whereas on IR it does.



We are talking about "_*wh*_y" the rations were removed from pers prohibited posted away from their families. The reasoning for removal is applicable to both (you *all* have to pay to eat somewhere and you are not incurring expenses at home so now you will). 

Try to keep in mind that Prohibited Posted personnel are _*not*_ comparable to IR personnel (save for the SE they used to get) either, but that sure as heck didn't matter to TB. PP are forced apart (just like guys in the field) and IR pers have opted that separation. People who are PP are in situations better comparable to troops at sea and in the field: separated by force from their families at CF direction.

Perhaps you've missed the point:  They've already officially decreed that apples can indeed be treated just like oranges. That's why PP are being treated exactly the same as IR. Perhaps you Granny Smiths are next now that they've taken out us MacIntoshs' with the tangerines.


----------



## jollyjacktar (15 Aug 2012)

:goodpost:  Well put.


----------



## Towards_the_gap (15 Aug 2012)

What??? The TB are denying us Macintosh apples now?

I'm lost.....


----------



## Remius (15 Aug 2012)

Vern:  Again I state that providing rations to troops in the field is not a way to compensate you for being away from your family.  When you are/were on IR or prohibited posting it used to be provided to compensate you for  a seperation from family.   If the argument that it is about being seperated from you family is why you get rations paid for then it is is apples and oranges.  Because whenit it is about being in the field it isn't about that.

If the argument is about being provided rations or compensation for it when away for anything,sure.  then we should thyrough in TD, Incidentals etc etc.

For the record I am all for cutting rations for IR when it is a choice. I agree though that those on prohibited postings are getting a raw deal.  But don't throw out the baby with the bathwater.  If we state that prohibited postings should be exempt, fine, let's agree and voice our concerns.   But if we start saying fine, but apply it fairly to everything then we might be end up being sorry for what we ask for.


----------



## PMedMoe (15 Aug 2012)

In case people _really_ aren't getting this:

It's not about "compensation".  It's not about "separation".  It's about "reasoning".

The reasoning for not paying for (partial) meals for people on IR (or PP or RP) is that they are *not* incurring those costs at home.  So, by the same token, people on TD, in the field or at sea are _*also*_ not incurring those costs at home and therefore should not be covered for rations in those situations.  Regardless of the cost/type/etc....


----------



## PuckChaser (15 Aug 2012)

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> The reasoning for not paying for (partial) meals for people on IR (or PP or RP) is that they are *not* incurring those costs at home.  So, by the same token, people on TD, in the field or at sea are _*also*_ not incurring those costs at home and therefore should not be covered for rations in those situations.  Regardless of the cost/type/etc....



Yeah, but I have a fridge, a freezer and a stove at my house where I can eat comfortably for a couple hundred a month. I don't know what single guy eats $700 worth of food a month. Rations need to be delinked or this whole policy is just to screw troops over to save a few bucks.


----------



## Jarnhamar (15 Aug 2012)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Yeah, but I have a fridge, a freezer and a stove at my house where I can eat comfortably for a couple hundred a month. I don't know what single guy eats $700 worth of food a month. Rations need to be delinked or this whole policy is just to screw troops over to save a few bucks.



A pregnancy test from the pharmacy costs $10.
If someone gets a pregnancy test done from the hospital it costs over $100 due to paying wages of people working etc..

Maybe the ridiculous price of rations is due to similar reasons?

There's no way I can afford to pay for rations.

If people DO pay for rations they should not be charged extra if they get it to go.


----------



## PuckChaser (15 Aug 2012)

Thats fine, then maybe the CF needs to look at how it does the Food Svcs business. Ordering someone to go to a certain place, and then ordering them to pay nearly double what they would at home is just insane. IR is mostly a choice, and should not be put on the same breath as prohibited posting. These young soldiers don't have a choice to go, and they're going to be incurring all sorts of debt and destroying quality of life at home. Looks like a big cash grab to me, cancel rations for prohibited and then order them on ration strength. Sounds like a good way to double your money.


----------



## 4Feathers (15 Aug 2012)

Much effort has been made by the TB and our CoC to justify these SE cuts are logical because members would have to pay for their food and incidentals whether they were at home or away regardless.  I totally concur with this logic and think it is a fair way to screw the troops forced to be away from home, but only after our Members of Parliament set the example:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/interactives/mp-cost/


----------



## Eye In The Sky (15 Aug 2012)

ObedientiaZelum said:
			
		

> Maybe the ridiculous price of rations is due to similar reasons?



Yes, rations charges account for more than just 'the cost of groceries'.  I read something on it last week on the ADM (Mat), Food Svcs DIN site.  Will look again and post it tomorrow.


----------



## Quellefille (16 Aug 2012)

I am just more and more angry because its seriously been a bait and switch for us.  When he joined, we were told he wouldn't have to pay r&q for his training because he's got me at home.  Suddenly halfway through he does?  Maybe some people can afford the 583 a month reduction, we can't.  I will not be able to save any money, or make extra large payments on any of our debts.  We're both dealing with debt, and it's TOTALLY our own fault.  i don't expect anyone to bail me out.  But we pay everything on time, and his joining was the first time we were able to just start paying things off constantly cause it's the first time we've both had good jobs.  Then I got laid off, and now this?  After Rent and utilities and basic payments of bills, we used to have 1200 dollars a month.  - roughly 400 for seperation expenses being cut(Which I don't disagree with I understand that) and add in a payment of the 583, and suddenly we have 220.  320 if I cut my groceries.

So now he's got a memo in to move which is going to be much more expensive than just paying his damned rations for the rest of his training.  And I have to move, which was not the plan until next September.  Thank god this came down BEFORE I enrolled in school because we could not have afforded to leave me behind to finish my college course.  And thank god borden is a place that we can live cheaper in than we live now.

I just hope they sort this out.  They'll loose a lot of great candidates if they know they have to pay rations when they have no choice.  And the guys on PAT in Borden have to live in the Shacks,  That's the worst part for me.  The IR abusers live in apartments, how sad for them, they can cook.  My guy has to pay rations which are a whole lot more expensive than groceries.


----------



## armyvern (16 Aug 2012)

Quellefille said:
			
		

> I am just more and more angry because its seriously been a bait and switch for us.  When he joined, we were told he wouldn't have to pay r&q for his training because he's got me at home.



I feel for you. I really do. My family can afford this (we are both MWOs) if it's forced fed down our throats under the guise of "but we really look after our personnel" (good comms strategy there!!), but we shouldn't have to. It isn't about how much money whichever troop makes. It is about fairness and equitability. We didn't choose to be separated.

Our personnel new to the CF who are prohibited posted will suffer the greatest from this most certainly because that rations charge is a greater percentage of their income. It's fucked and it shouldn't be happening to you guys. I'll apologize for the fact that it is as it is certainly never good to be tossed under the bus by your employer and creates an extremely bad impression and taste to be left in your mouths thinking about how much the CF _really_ cares about you.

In the end, I hope that the fight others will be going through beginning 01 Sept, will benefit families and young troops like yourselves who are the ones who suffer the greatest impact by this. It is what us leaders are supposed to do. Someone needs to look after you. This is far more than just personal to me. You young folks _*are*_ the future of this organization I love. 

For me, I'm pensionable end January. My attitude is now that careers can find someone else to post in the middle of the winter now away from their family because it won't be me anymore. Then, they'll have two spots to fill instead of one.


----------



## smale436 (16 Aug 2012)

" If people DO pay for rations they should not be charged extra if they get it to go."

I just returned from 3 weeks in Alaska for Red Flag. Unlke previous TD's where we were on full per diem despite our lodging being walking distance to a mess hall, we were directed to eat at the mess hall for free (the Alaskan mess charged $3.90 per meal per person rate) and received only 17.30 per day incidentals. After having experienced the mess hall here, although it was nowhere near as good as Canadian messes (especially Comox!), I was impressed with how the US runs their food facilities here. I don't know what the US living in pers pay here, if anything, but they allow people, after they eat dinner at a table, to fill yet another tray of hot food to go and put it in a plastic bag with cans of pop, salads, etc. They also have a midnight meal where the mess is open 11pm to 1am. Cost of preparation, dishwashing staff, etc aside, if people are forced into paying rations the $500+ figure is ridiculous. Especially considering many students on course or PAT are not allowed the option of 1/2 rations like people who voluntarily live in the shacks have depending on their base. I didn't spend that when I was buying for a family of 3.


----------



## FSTO (16 Aug 2012)

There was a story on the National (CBC) last night. So it is getting out there.

I am on IR in Esquimalt (currently in Halifax on TD) and will be living on the economy once I get back. Since I will be getting Sea Pay that will offset the loss of rations and SE, so I will be one of the "lucky" ones. 

I am with Army Vern, I am already pensionable and the pull to call it a day is very strong. Lets hope the CoC is working at making this directive from the commissar   Treasury Board more reasonable for those affected.


----------



## PMedMoe (16 Aug 2012)

Quellefille said:
			
		

> The IR abusers



I agree with your statement and like Vern, feel that the new recruits will be hit by this the hardest, but please don't paint everyone on IR with such a broad brush.  I've said it before, and I'll say it again, _anyone_ on IR who was actually making money off of it, was either starving or _possibly_ committing fraud.


----------



## George Wallace (16 Aug 2012)

Quellefille said:
			
		

> I just hope they sort this out.  They'll loose a lot of great candidates if they know they have to pay rations when they have no choice.




No they won't.   New candidates will not miss something they never had.


----------



## Occam (16 Aug 2012)

Posted with the usual Copyright Act caveats...

Original link

Military meal program cut will cause 'undue hardship'

Defence department will save $30M by cutting back on expense program

CBC News Posted: Aug 16, 2012 9:44 AM AT Last Updated: Aug 16, 2012 10:48 AM AT 

Military workers will soon see their living expenses go up when the federal government cuts a program that pays for meals and other costs when they are working away from their families.

The Department of National Defence is cutting part of the Separation Expense Benefits Program on Sept. 1, which will save an estimated $30 million.

When the military puts members on "imposed restriction” — when they are forced to move away for a short period of time, such as a year, from their family for work — it pays for their room and board.

But military members will now be forced to pay for meals and other incidental living costs starting next month when they are on imposed restriction.

Some people fear the change is going to be a hardship for many families.

Susan Gullacher’s husband was posted to CFB Cold Lake last October, but she decided to stay in the family’s mobile home near Edmonton.

Gullacher said she thought her family could handle the separation.

But that was until the military sent them a memo earlier this month saying it was cutting her husband’s meal allowance.

"I said to him, ‘This is going to destroy us. We just don't have that money. You wouldn't be able to come home on weekends,’” she said.

Gullacher said her husband doesn't have a kitchenette in his room at the base so he would have to purchase meals in the military mess.

She said a full meal plan costs $550, which is about the same amount she used to spend on groceries to feed her entire family of four for a month.

“There has been no warning — nothing,” she said.

“It’s just 30 days and it is going to take effect. I can't even plan to make sure my family stays secure. "

Mary Chamberlain, the executive vice-president of the Union of National Defence Employees, said she has been calling for changes to the imposed restrictions program. But these changes are not what she was anticipating.

She said there were times when the program was being abused. But she said the elimination of the program is not the way to deal with the previous problems.

“People should be compensated reasonably for what they're entitled to. I mean, the military is putting them in these circumstances,” Chamberlain said.

The defence department said it is looking at ways to help families who may now have trouble making ends meet.

But Chamberlain said she believes this specific change is “going to cause undue hardship in the future" for families who cannot afford to live in two places at once.

The federal government’s cuts aren’t being criticized by everyone, however.

Stephanie Sherwood’s ex-husband works at CFB Gagetown near Fredericton. She said her family got money when he was placed elsewhere for work.

But she said she doesn't think the payments are necessary.

"I understand that it's hard for families to be [apart], but under the same circumstance they need to realize that this is what happens when you get into this line of work," she said.

"It's money that comes out of our pocket that I feel could be put elsewhere."


----------



## jollyjacktar (16 Aug 2012)

They are cutting here and there using every excuse in the book.  Some of these cuts will bite them hard in the ass  I fear.


----------



## TCM621 (16 Aug 2012)

CDNAIRFORCE said:
			
		

> " If people DO pay for rations they should not be charged extra if they get it to go."
> 
> I just returned from 3 weeks in Alaska for Red Flag. Unlke previous TD's where we were on full per diem despite our lodging being walking distance to a mess hall, we were directed to eat at the mess hall for free (the Alaskan mess charged $3.90 per meal per person rate) and received only 17.30 per day incidentals. After having experienced the mess hall here, although it was nowhere near as good as Canadian messes (especially Comox!), I was impressed with how the US runs their food facilities here. I don't know what the US living in pers pay here, if anything, but they allow people, after they eat dinner at a table, to fill yet another tray of hot food to go and put it in a plastic bag with cans of pop, salads, etc. They also have a midnight meal where the mess is open 11pm to 1am. Cost of preparation, dishwashing staff, etc aside, if people are forced into paying rations the $500+ figure is ridiculous. Especially considering many students on course or PAT are not allowed the option of 1/2 rations like people who voluntarily live in the shacks have depending on their base. I didn't spend that when I was buying for a family of 3.



This is the other thing that often gets missed. We pay about 400 dollars a month in groceries for a family of four. That includes snacks when ever I want them. The 550 includes 3 meals only when the mess is open. I still pay for snacks. I still pay for coffee at a dollar a pop(which for me is a huge expense) instead of a 5 dollar can of folgers a month. If I want to sleep in on sunday, I have to go pay for breakfeast somewhere else. If I work through lunch or dinner, I have to pay for food. I would estimate that the average person is going to pay 100-150 over an above the 550.



> Stephanie Sherwood’s ex-husband works at CFB Gagetown near Fredericton. She said her family got money when he was placed elsewhere for work.
> 
> But she said she doesn't think the payments are necessary.



I love how they went to someone's ex to that quote. Probably couldn't get one single spouse to give them one.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (16 Aug 2012)

Occam said:
			
		

> Susan Gullacher’s husband was posted to CFB Cold Lake last October, but she decided to stay in the family’s mobile home near Edmonton.



I'm sorry, but everything after that was just white noise...........................


----------



## Tow Tripod (16 Aug 2012)

The war is over! We have entered a period of Force Reduction (Program) by other means. Its starting to feel like 1992 again.
I would love to see how the army now intends to get SNCO's to be posted to CFB Wainwright next summer.Brutal.


----------



## Jarnhamar (16 Aug 2012)

Occam said:
			
		

> "I understand that it's hard for families to be [apart], but under the same circumstance they need to realize* that this is what happens when you get into this line of work,*" she said.



Yup. And those people were told by CF recruiters if they are forced to move away from their family for X amount of time they will qualify for IR et el.


----------



## Quellefille (16 Aug 2012)

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> I agree with your statement and like Vern, feel that the new recruits will be hit by this the hardest, but please don't paint everyone on IR with such a broad brush.  I've said it before, and I'll say it again, _anyone_ on IR who was actually making money off of it, was either starving or _possibly_ committing fraud.



I am not.  I was specifying those who are abusing IR.  There are people on it for perfectly valid reasons.  My friends husband went IR as she has 3 surgeries scheduled in the next year and it's just not possible to pick up and move.  He went IR a few years back for 6 months or so so his son could finish high school.  My aunt did the same thing when she was posted to Edmonton during her sons last year of high school.  I'm pointing out that those who are using the IR system as a way to just not move the family aren't the ones stuck in the shacks with no option but to pay rations

Edit: Looking at the comments in that articleon CBC, I'm please to see it's almost overwhelmingly supportive of the soldiers.  Because they don't like the idea of soldiers being away from their families for work and having to pay their own meals.


----------



## newwifey (16 Aug 2012)

Quellefille said:
			
		

> I am not.  I was specifying those who are abusing IR.  There are people on it for perfectly valid reasons.  My friends husband went IR as she has 3 surgeries scheduled in the next year and it's just not possible to pick up and move.  He went IR a few years back for 6 months or so so his son could finish high school.  My aunt did the same thing when she was posted to Edmonton during her sons last year of high school.  I'm pointing out that those who are using the IR system as a way to just not move the family aren't the ones stuck in the shacks with no option but to pay rations
> 
> Edit: Looking at the comments in that article on CBC, I'm please to see it's almost overwhelmingly supportive of the soldiers.  Because they don't like the idea of soldiers being away from their families for work and having to pay their own meals.



They are supportive because they think this is the penalty for F-35's.....

I don't think this is a very good article.  To ask someone who is at most living 3 hours apart and then asking an ex-wife for the opposing opinion.  
Yeah no biases here!   :

Nice it's come out but I'm not holding my breath for sweeping changes now?!?!  I think there will be more to come once grievances are filed.


----------



## Navy_Pete (16 Aug 2012)

This one is a bit mind boggling.  If this was meant to tackle IR abuses, it falls way short of the goal.

Will wait and see how this turns out, but I was actually seriously considering going on IR to Esquimalt in a few years for an 18 month stint on ship before the inevitable pull back to Ottawa.

There are lots of reasons for this to be attractive; I'll (hopefully) be deployed with the ship more often then in port.  Also, prices in Esquimalt are way out of my range, and Qs are in short supply, so I'll most likely be either having a huge commute or renting at more then what I currently pay for a mortgage.  My wife currently works here, and there is no guarantee she'd be able to find a job in Esquimalt.  

So while it would be my choice, it is financially far less with the current benefit package without these cuts to SE. The most recent move here from Halifax cost the crown over 30k by the time it was all said and done.  So two full moves in two years or less vice me going up on my own and living in either quarters or in an apartment.  And if I live in the shacks I'll typically be gone before they serve meals and back after they are done, so if I'm required to pay rations, I'll be shelling out for food I'll never eat (although at least I can eat onboard, but someone is paying for that mostly deep fried food as well).

So if this stays as is, I'll be looking at a couple of options; 
-taking two full moves at a significant cost to the crown ($60-80k)
-going on IR anyway and most likely trying to find an apartment rather then paying for rations I'll almost never use
-turning down a career posting that I spent 6 years training to do, which would mean I'm actively looking for a civvie job

One of the early posts mentioned that they being in the CF should be a calling and not 'just a job'.  I agree with that.  I joined the Navy to serve my country, and I love doing it.  But nickle and diming me at every opportunity, and putting me in a situation where I will potentially be in significantly worse financial shape knocks a lot of that sheen off.  This is exactly the kind of thing that makes people look at it as 'just a job'.

Feel free to tell me to suck it up and go find another job if I don't like it.  I don't want to, but I'm also not stupid.  On the plus side, all the (expensive) training I've gotten has given me some pretty marketable skills.  So if push comes to shove I may pull the plug with much regret and work elsewhere, and the CF will never get back it's investment.  And I'm done my training... if I was one of the guys on a restricted posting now on QL3s etc and this came down, guess how much of a calling the CF would seem like then?

Hope it'll change, this is pretty shortsighted.  Might save $30M on paper, but if you alienate a good portion of the trainees there may not be anyone left in the pipes to run or maintain any of the fancy new gear they may or may not ever buy.


----------



## Occam (16 Aug 2012)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> I'm sorry, but everything after that was just white noise...........................



Without knowing the circumstances, it's not really fair to say that, Bruce.  There are a lot of people in Edmonton right now with mortgages worth more than their homes are, because of the dive in the market out there.  A quick look at the Home Equity Assistance thread will show that.  That's a pretty powerful incentive to stick around and hope the market swings back.  From what I hear, Cold Lake isn't a particularly cheap place to buy now either, so there's a disincentive to move there if you're already in a hole and trying to climb out...


----------



## TCM621 (16 Aug 2012)

Navy_Pete said:
			
		

> So if this stays as is, I'll be looking at a couple of options;
> -taking two full moves at a significant cost to the crown ($60-80k)
> 
> Hope it'll change, this is pretty shortsighted.  Might save $30M on paper, but if you alienate a good portion of the trainees there may not be anyone left in the pipes to run or maintain any of the fancy new gear they may or may not ever buy.



Here's the thing. It will end up costing the military money in the long and short term. For a person who is on course for a year or in a very short term posting. Spending 1000 or so bucks a month in SE benefits is still cheaper than two cost moves in that same year period. 

Another thing is that right now we have a great opportunity to recruit some great semi-skilled technicians as the Military is seen as having job security. These people tend to be older with a family. Now try to recruit this guy with, "Well it will cost you 800-1000 bucks a month to go do basic and your trades training. And you have to leave your family at home."

I just can't see an upside to this that couldn't be better served by just properly administering the rules that are in place.


----------



## TCM621 (16 Aug 2012)

Occam said:
			
		

> Without knowing the circumstances, it's not really fair to say that, Bruce.  There are a lot of people in Edmonton right now with mortgages worth more than their homes are, because of the dive in the market out there.  A quick look at the Home Equity Assistance thread will show that.  That's a pretty powerful incentive to stick around and hope the market swings back.  From what I hear, Cold Lake isn't a particularly cheap place to buy now either, so there's a disincentive to move there if you're already in a hole and trying to climb out...



Cold Lake has disgusting home prices. It is one of the few posting where selling my house in Victoria wouldn't put me much ahead (granted I have one of the cheapest houses in Victoria). And its cold lake.

The average price of a home in Cold Lake is $322,088 (Northeastern Alberta Realtor Association, 2010).
Average price for an 1 bedroom apartment with heat included in Cold Lake is $595.00 per month and a three-bedroom apartment is $1,024 (Canadian Mortgage and Housing Corporation)


----------



## Jarnhamar (16 Aug 2012)

Navy_Pete said:
			
		

> Feel free to tell me to suck it up and go find another job if I don't like it.  I don't want to, but I'm also not stupid.  On the plus side, all the (expensive) training I've gotten has given me some pretty marketable skills.  So if push comes to shove I may pull the plug with much regret and work elsewhere, and the CF will never get back it's investment.



I hear you. I'm in the infantry, good luck replacing me!   ;D



			
				Occam said:
			
		

> Without knowing the circumstances, it's not really fair to say that, Bruce.  There are a lot of people in Edmonton right now with mortgages worth more than their homes are, because of the dive in the market out there.  A quick look at the Home Equity Assistance thread will show that.  That's a pretty powerful incentive to stick around and hope the market swings back.  From what I hear, Cold Lake isn't a particularly cheap place to buy now either, so there's a disincentive to move there if you're already in a hole and trying to climb out...



I'm with Bruce on this one.  In the context of the article it sounds like they simply decided she's going to stay home and try to stick it out.

[quote[was posted to CFB Cold Lake last October, but she *decided to stay in the family’s mobile home*.
thought her family could *handle the separation.*
You wouldn't be able to* come home on weekends*[/quote]

When I read this the picture I see painted is that he got posted "not too far away" so they figured he go on IR get the extra cash and just commute on weekends. I've met a few guys on IR who have zero intention of moving their families and intended to milk IR for as long as possible..
There may be other circumstances not mentioned in the case above of course.



> Gullacher said her husband doesn't have a kitchenette in his room at the base so he would have to purchase meals in the military mess.
> 
> She said a full meal plan costs $550, which is about the same amount she used to spend on groceries to feed her entire family of four for a month.


This I agree with. People in the shacks shouldn't be forced to pay rations if they don't want to.


----------



## meni0n (16 Aug 2012)

This will pretty much stop most people who are married or have dependents from applying.


----------



## smale436 (16 Aug 2012)

"Average price for an 1 bedroom apartment with heat included in Cold Lake is $595.00 per month and a three-bedroom apartment is $1,024 (Canadian Mortgage and Housing Corporation)"

 - Those numbers are either extremely outdated or, more likely in my opinion, right out to lunch. I've lived in CL for 4 years and right now the WCom has been working hard to get the high PMQ rents addressed with the higher-ups. His biggest issue is how the oil and gas industry is creating havoc with the local market housing charges, which is what the CFHA increases are tied to and how  Edmonton has much more beneficial and Quality of LIfe services yet receives twice the amount of PLD. (Cold Lake gets 320) 

Having been in the boat of being a renter in Cold Lake, people are renting individual bedrooms in their houses for $800-900 and sharing the kitchen, laundry, etc. The few apartment blocks in town are $1000-1200 for 1 and 2BR and houses and condos are renting for $1800-2000. Higher for larger, executive type houses.


----------



## aesop081 (16 Aug 2012)

CDNAIRFORCE said:
			
		

> The few apartment blocks in town are $1000-1200 for 1 and 2BR



That's what I pay for a shitty 2-bedroom in Ottawa and no PLD here.


----------



## 4Feathers (16 Aug 2012)

Tow Tripod said:
			
		

> The war is over! We have entered a period of Force Reduction (Program) by other means. Its starting to feel like 1992 again.
> I would love to see how the army now intends to get SNCO's to be posted to CFB Wainwright next summer.Brutal.



Pretty much sums it up perfectly.


----------



## Cdnleaf (16 Aug 2012)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> That's what I pay for a shitty 2-bedroom in Ottawa and no PLD here.



At start of IR was informed that I wasn't entitled to 2 bedrooms (same price) in Kanata. So I ended up getting a 1 bedroom @ 1600 + 100 for parking downtown - which was ok. There is going to be some creative lease agreements in lieu of the changes ie. $1000 for a basement apartment / how about 1700 with parking and abate $400 for a meal allowance?  After 3 years I'm off IR thank god and I'm not endorsing the 'creative leasing,' just sayin.


----------



## Adam (16 Aug 2012)

I'm trying to help a friend of mine who is caught in a tough situation.  My friend and I worked together for the last year, he was injured on BMQ and was attached to my unit while he recovered.  He recently left his wife and 3 young children to attend BMQ.  Today, the staff told him he would be required to pay Rations & Quarters and would loose all his separation benefits due to the new policy.  He can not afford to attend BMQ/QL 3.   How on earth does Ottawa expect all these Privates with families to survive.

This guy was one of the best hard working troops I have ever worked.  And I would hate to see his family evicted from the Q's because he has to pay for $600 for the five star accommodations in St Jean.  I think he has grounds for a grievance but I need advice on what steps I should take to help.


----------



## wesleyd (16 Aug 2012)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> I'm sorry, but everything after that was just white noise...........................
> [/quote
> Their choice was was between having a roof over their heads or being bankrupt, they live in a mobile home because they can't afford anything else as they have lost so much from several previous postings.
> A little empathy doesn't hurt.


----------



## PuckChaser (16 Aug 2012)

He won't get money anytime soon. Here's the grievance link: http://www.cfga.forces.gc.ca/index-eng.asp.

Only way he can get something changed soon is if his wife goes to the media, and make sure she says its a prohibited posting, which is not his choice to be separated. This is a junk policy being blanket applied to prohibited vice IR folks.


----------



## Strike (16 Aug 2012)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> He won't get money anytime soon. Here's the grievance link: http://www.cfga.forces.gc.ca/index-eng.asp.
> 
> Only way he can get something changed soon is if his wife goes to the media, and make sure she says its a prohibited posting, which is not his choice to be separated. This is a junk policy being blanket applied to prohibited vice IR folks.



Before anyone jumps the gun and goes to the media with what they THINK they know, maybe people should get all the facts.

He will NOT have to pay for quarters.  He WILL have to pay for rations HOWEVER many bases are looking very closely at having a pay-as-you-go option and, although he will likely be at all meals during the week, those weekends when he has a chance to head off the base, he may not get stuck paying for a meal he may not eat.

If the $550 odd a month is going to be such a hardship, I highly recommend that he ask the staff for an appointment with SISIP, who will help him in sorting out an appropriate budget for his family.

Once all of this information and these actions are taken, he could consider going the route suggested by PC, but I'm sure his chain of command would not be impressed.


----------



## wesleyd (16 Aug 2012)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> No they won't.   New candidates will not miss something they never had.


They'll think twice about signing when they find out they have to pay 500+ bucks out of their paycheck during training. Especially the candidates with spouse and children.


----------



## PuckChaser (16 Aug 2012)

SISIP will just give him a low interest loan. Making soldiers take out loans to pay for being forced away from their families is crazy. Media is definitely a last resort. I think the problem with the rations is that it'll take them months to figure out a policy and this young soldier will just get further and further into debt, which is great when they move to an area where he's forced to live on the economy because the CF tore down all the PMQs and they can't afford a mortgage.


----------



## aesop081 (16 Aug 2012)

wesleyd said:
			
		

> They'll think twice about signing when they find out they have to pay 500+ bucks out of their paycheck during training. *Especially the candidates with spouse and children.*



The single guys will still join, just like they always have. Those with no spouses have always paid R&Q so no change. I was paying a little over $350/month in Petawawa back in 1993 (inflation has not stood still since then), it didn't stop any of use from joining.

The married guys might find it tougher. Some will balk, those that want to do this will do it anyways.


----------



## Strike (16 Aug 2012)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> SISIP will just give him a low interest loan...



Well, I guess their web site lies then.

https://public.cfpsa.com/en/AboutUs/SISIPFS/FinancialCounselling/Pages/default.aspx

This is why you should never take forum advice as the last word.  Tell your buddy to make an appointment with the OR to get the straight scoop and talk to someone from SISIP.


----------



## aesop081 (16 Aug 2012)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> SISIP will just give him a low interest loan.



Think again.


----------



## buzgo (16 Aug 2012)

Maybe what this really indicates is that times and attitudes change and we need to come up with a more flexible IR (or posting) system that isn't designed for a 1 year separation but can accommodate different situations.

My wife doesn't have a job, she has a career, do people seriously think that she should give up her career because of a posting? She certainly doesn't think she should have to do that, and she worked a lot harder than I did to get to where she is. We agree that life in the military involves sacrifices, but those sacrifices are things like multiple operational deployments, exercises, long courses - being forced into poverty for a posting shouldn't be on the list. I know people who spouses are teachers, professors, nurses, doctors - they don't have a lot of flexibility to pack up and leave their careers - are they supposed to find a job at Tim Horton's or something?

I am ok with the cuts as long as the housing allowance is still there, I fully intend to apply for IR for my next posting because my family will not move right now, I'm not saying never, but just not right now. 

This is 2012 not 1972. If the CF wants to hold on to valuable experienced and highly qualified people, and attract the type of people that we need for the future then its time to wake up and modernize some of the Victorian era policies and mentalities that are floating around out there.


----------



## aesop081 (16 Aug 2012)

signalsguy said:
			
		

> My wife doesn't have a job, she has a career, do people seriously think that she should give up her career because of a posting?



My only concern with this type of consideration is that, as a single guy, i don't want to be the one moving every single APS because the married guy's wife has a job and doesn't want to move.

"You don't want to move because of your wife's career, no problem, we'll just post Bloggins, he's single".

It already happens enough.


----------



## smale436 (16 Aug 2012)

"If the $550 odd a month is going to be such a hardship, I highly recommend that he ask the staff for an appointment with SISIP, who will help him in sorting out an appropriate budget for his family."

 - Pte 1 pay is now $2750 or so. 7 years ago when I was in BMQ as a single guy Pte 1 pay was $2484. I had 82 dollars per month deducted for quarters and 397 for rations. After those deductions and taxes my pays were $678 twice a month. Drawing up a Sisip budget is not going to change the fact that there is likely, if he has kids, more money going out then coming in. I really hope that students and pats are not forced into 3 meal per day 30 days per month rations like I was when in Borden. A friend living in shacks now (post training) says the now "mandatory for living in plan" works well for him on the 1/2 rations plan. He's never there on the weekends and eats cereal/oatmeal type things for breakfast and brown bags a lunch. Commuting to Toronto a lot on weekends while in Borden and buying cereal for my room made me wish we had other options back then. As I was certainly not utilizing $397.00 per month of rations. Luckily Shearwater let me delink entirely while living there for an 8 month course.


----------



## buzgo (16 Aug 2012)

I will still go, she's just not going with me...


----------



## Strike (16 Aug 2012)

CDNAIRFORCE - you are assuming that his is the only income.  That may be the case but it certainly wasn't mentioned in the original post and many families are double income nowadays.

And remember, quarters (which, granted, doesn't cost that much) is still being covered.

I'd an organization like SISIP can make things easier (maybe not perfect, but at least better) than what's the harm?


----------



## George Wallace (16 Aug 2012)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> My only concern with this type of consideration is that, as a single guy, i don't want to be the one moving every single APS because the married guy's wife has a job and doesn't want to move.
> 
> "You don't want to move because of your wife's career, no problem, we'll just post Bloggins, he's single".
> 
> It already happens enough.



Too true; and that has been abused too often as well.  That should be a "Compassionate" and have a detrimental affect on the member's career, as they are not showing commitment/dedication/etc to their employer (the CF).  If your spouse has such a high paying job that you "don't" want to be posted - RELEASE.  Too often others have had less than desirable postings and career progression because of so many of these types 'screwing' them over.  Same goes for the people who "refuse" to go on tour or the women who become pregnant so they can't go on Tour.  Saw 2 SVC Bn pull that one year, where they couldn't get enough Truckers to go on Tour, so all the other units in the Bde had to fill the posns.  

But this takes us off topic.


----------



## buzgo (16 Aug 2012)

- Was going to be a flip response but really not worth it....


----------



## Adam (16 Aug 2012)

Thank you for the advice,  I'm sure SISSIP and the release section will be very busy at the training bases.

Just a thought for the troops with bad or no credit.  Maybe they can qualify for a student loan?  I wonder if Basic Training qualifies?

Any BPSO's out there?


----------



## rampage800 (16 Aug 2012)

George really ? I thought the "if the military wanted you to have a wife they'd have issued you one" mentality went out with the whole putting butter on a burn concept.


----------



## George Wallace (16 Aug 2012)

Adam said:
			
		

> Thank you for the advice,  I'm sure SISSIP and the release section will be very busy at the training bases.
> 
> Just a thought for the troops with bad or no credit.  Maybe they can qualify for a student loan?  I wonder if Basic Training qualifies?
> 
> Any BPSO's out there?



Interesting.  You do know that RECRUITS go through a CREDIT CHECK as part of the enrollment procedure; right?

I know you are also being sarcastic in mentioning a 'student loan'.  Right?


----------



## buzgo (16 Aug 2012)

rampage800 said:
			
		

> George really ? I thought the "if the military wanted you to have a wife they'd have issued you one" mentality went out with the whole putting butter on a burn concept.



Thats a better response than mine was.


----------



## Strike (16 Aug 2012)

rampage800 said:
			
		

> George really ? I thought the "if the military wanted you to have a wife they'd have issued you one" mentality went out with the whole putting butter on a burn concept.



That's not what he said.  He was referring to single people getting screwed over and over having to move every couple of years simply because they were single and someone didn't want to uproot the family.


----------



## George Wallace (16 Aug 2012)

rampage800 said:
			
		

> George really ? I thought the "if the military wanted you to have a wife they'd have issued you one" mentality went out with the whole putting butter on a burn concept.



Really?   Where did I mention "if the military wanted you to have a wife, they'd have issued you one"?  I did say that if a member DID NOT WANT to get posted because their spouse made such a large amount of money in their job, then they should RELEASE.   If you show no dedication to the job, no loyalty to the job, etc. then get out.  Find a civilian job where you can live on your spouse's income.

You come off as sounding like one of the "ME Generation".  As a member of the CF, you should be expected to show some dedication to your profession.   I have seen too many instances where people have refused to be posted for purely personal reasons, such as a spouse's job paying a large wage.  Your refusal to be posted on those grounds only screws over other members.  You are adversely affecting someone else's career.  The question is:  Are you in the military or not?   What are your priorities?  If none are to the CF, then get out.


----------



## armyvern (16 Aug 2012)

Strike said:
			
		

> That's not what he said.  He was referring to single people getting screwed over and over having to move every couple of years simply because they were single and someone didn't want to uproot the family.



Single people and Married Service Couples (even those MSCs with kids). No one wants to go in February?? Well, we'll just post a single guy or one half of a married service couple instead because neither of those two groups will have a choice or any acceptable excuse. Just sayin'. If neither the single guy nor one half of the MSC wants to go ... well they can just get out then (note sarcasm - but that's the attitude at the career shop)... yet there sitteth the guy who originally didn't want to move and who didn't move still employed by the CF.


----------



## George Wallace (16 Aug 2012)

Yes, Vern it does happen.  What is most aggravating, are the people who have abused it.  The "MIR Commandos of the Posting Season".   We all know some.


----------



## armyvern (16 Aug 2012)

signalsguy said:
			
		

> - Was going to be a flip response but really not worth it....



I get you; you said you'd go but that you'd go unaccompanied. Nothing wrong with that - you'd still move.

I guess the question is about the "as long as my rent is covered" bit. That's where the whole IR debate comes in to play ... how long should the taxpayer be required to pay your rent because your wife chooses to keep her job? That is an acceptable choice for you to make and for your wife to make. But should the taxpayer be required to subsidize your families choice forever? For a year? For 6 months? It's your choice to do that. Many of us have no choice.

If she has no intent to join you at your new location by date X (or whatever time period) - should the taxpayer even have to subsidize your rent long term? A great many folks from the unwashed masses would say, "nope" (I am one of them).


----------



## Journeyman (16 Aug 2012)

signalsguy said:
			
		

> That*'*s a better response than mine was.


And just as misquoting as yours was before deleting. 

As said by Strike, ArmyVern, and George Wallace, it's not uncommon for single troops and MSC to get screwed over to support the lifestyle of some married troops, 'MIR commandos,' _et al_. That is not remotely the same as "if the army wanted you to have a wife...."

But don't let lack of comprehension interfere with a good retort.


----------



## Strike (16 Aug 2012)

To bring things back to the topic at hand, heard from my coworker, who's on IR because they can't sell their house in Vancouver, that Edmonton has authorized members moving to properties off base if they choose.  He did the math and can head home for the long weekend, buy a beater, live in town and still not pay as much as the rations in shacks after considering the car, insurance, gas, etc.  it will also make it easier for him to visit family on the weekends.

His hope is that the house will sell within the year.


----------



## armyvern (16 Aug 2012)

Strike said:
			
		

> To bring things back to the topic at hand, heard from my coworker, who's on IR because they can't sell their house in Vancouver, that Edmonton has authorized members moving to properties off base if they choose.  He did the math and can head home for the long weekend, buy a beater, live in town and still not pay as much as the rations in shacks after considering the car, insurance, gas, etc.  it will also make it easier for him to visit family on the weekends.
> 
> His hope is that the house will sell within the year.



Just had one of our troops manage to sell his that was on the market out there since last APS - just in time as he was on IR until that occurred too. Hopefully, it doesn't take as long for your friend to sell and that he is able to be reunited with his family.

Glad to hear that Edmonton is going to allow their IR pers to live out and thus incur rational meal expenses (thus lower cost of living) from their pockets now vice outrageous mess costs.

They have got to do something for the Prohibited Posted pers in the training system who are forced to live in quarters though. Although I too fall in to the Prohibited Posted group, at least I can live out like your friend above. Our lowest paid troops on prohibited posting status do not have that option. This really sucks for them.


----------



## Navy_Pete (16 Aug 2012)

So again, doesn't this come back to enforcing the existing regulations rather then cutting reasonable SE benefits like meal allowances?  I don't think this is a better solution then grabbing a set and dealing with the people playing the current system.  If IR is used for the short term postings like it is supposed to be,  shouldn't be an issue.  There is a even a legitimate business case that it will save the government money.

Short term they will probably alienate enough of the very junior people in the training system to put some of the trades back in the red.  Maybe they'll put an exemption for the guys on Prohibited Postings and cover their meals.


----------



## SupersonicMax (16 Aug 2012)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> As a member of the CF, you should be expected to show some dedication to your profession.



And as an employer that demands and orders sacrifices from its members, the CF should show dedication and commitment in return to its most valuable asset... Clearly not happening now.  It is a two-way street, if you want to keep quality personnel in, you need to make some effort in compensating them.  And in this day and age, a pat on the back just won't cut it.  The old "I am dedicated to the CF 100% and would work for free" ain't so anymore.  Money talks and believe it or not, it will keep people happy.  

I agree that the IR system has been abused greatly in the past.  However, penalizing everyone is not the solution. I feel for those on prohibited posting that will essentially have a 900$ gap into their budget as of Sept 1.  It is NOT negligible.

This issue does not affect me, however I find it totally outrageous...


----------



## MedCorps (16 Aug 2012)

Someone help me with the math here... 

So if a Pte (1) is making $32,000 / year and R&Q for him is $6000 a year it still means that he earns, after is food and accommodation are looked after for him, $26,000. The taxation on $32,000 is $4458 (Ontario) so he is good an clear with $21,542. This might even be higher if he gets some tax breaks / allowances for having children / being in a low income situation. 

Now nobody wants to support a family (especially one with a house / children) on $21,542 a year but assuming your wife gets a minimum wage job at 40/hr a week ($17,692 after tax)  and/or you rent a modest place to live (say, $14,000 a year, rent which is tax claimable and you get some back) she is looking at living on $7542 a year if she cannot work or $25234 if she is working. 

It is still very doable and there are people in far worse shape in Canada then this couple. Agreed that there is no extravagant living like this, but you can survive for a year or two until R&Q ceases when you are done training (like winning the lotto with an extra $6000 a year and bringing the family income up to $13,754 or $31,234) or you start to move up the pay scale. 

All this while getting some useful life skills, maybe some useful technical skills , and the privilege to serve your Queen and country. Medical and dental paid for as well as work clothing and work tools. 

It only gets better from being a Pte (1) and assuming he is not a goat turd he will make it to Cpl (4) at $56,796 / year and then his wife can sit at their nice mortgaged house and not work if she does not want or can continue to contribute to the household with her minimum wage $17,692 a year job and have a gross family income that puts him in pretty good shape (but still less than the national average). Things only get better if wife can find a better job than minimum wage. 

Being in the Pte (1) suck is only a one year gig and might be part of the lived experience for him and his family. 

As Napoleon said: "Povery, privation and want are the schools of a good soldier".  

MC


----------



## Red Devil (16 Aug 2012)

As a married new recruit currently at Borden undergoing training I don't know if I can actually survive with losing approx. $1000 per month from my paycheck (rations and loss of separation benefits).  I can't sell my house, get my wife relocated to Borden and into a new job in 2 weeks. If I could, the government will have a load of moving expenses to pay, and in a years time we'll have to do the whole thing over again when I get posted.....RIDICULOUS!!!!!!!!!!!!

Several times before signing on the dotted line I was asked if I was sure that I could survive, and it was stressed to me how important it was that I shouldn't have financial worries which could be used against me. I had done my homework over the previous 18 months and knew exactly what I would be receiving in wages and benefits, so I confidently answered that everything was good. 

I think I just found out what it's like to be a pretty boy in maximum security prison.......if you know what I mean!

Now, I honestly don't know what I'm going to do. It may be that my only option is to VR which will mean the government will have wasted a whole lot of cash putting me through BMQ. I wonder if they'll let me release with 2 weeks notice, just like the notice they've given me?

AND....why do they want to charge me $550ish for rations when my wife and I eat quite comfortably for about $500 per month including toiletries??????

I'm gutted, furious and watching my dreams go down the pan. Any advice would be gratefully received....please don't suggest opting out of the rations, because I've already been told that isn't an option unless I move out of barracks.

  :rage:

PS If anyone wants to question my dedication because I stated that I may have to VR, I just want to remind everyone that when I signed up, I (and everyone else in my situation) agreed to put myself in harms way to protect Canada and it's people, up to and including giving my own life.


----------



## MedCorps (17 Aug 2012)

meni0n said:
			
		

> This will pretty much stop most people who are married or have dependents from applying.



Do you know how much easier my life would have been as a Pl Comd / OC / CO if all of my Privates (and Subalterns for that matter) were single and did not have dependents?  My productivity would have gone up 200% from the lack of admin BS in dealing with all of these problems that families in Privates cause. 

Oh... it would be like a fantasy leadership and management world.... sigh... now back to reality. 

MC


----------



## Strike (17 Aug 2012)

Red Devil said:
			
		

> As a married new recruit currently at Borden undergoing training I don't know if I can actually survive with losing approx. $1000 per month from my paycheck (rations and loss of separation benefits).



It's been said before earlier in this thread and is worth repeating.

For those who are afraid they won't be able to cope with the financial change, go to SISIP and have them help you work out a plan.  That's what they do.  Not saying that there won't be a bit of debt incurred, but at least they can help to make the hit a little easier.


----------



## George Wallace (17 Aug 2012)

MedCorps

You left out some important information to make a comparison:  What is the "Average Income in Canada"?

Average income after tax by economic family types  2006 - 2010.

Before and After Tax Low-Income Cut-Offs (LICOs), 2006 (Poverty Line)


----------



## SupersonicMax (17 Aug 2012)

MedCorps said:
			
		

> Do you know how much easier my life would have been as a Pl Comd / OC / CO if all of my Privates (and Subalterns for that matter) were single and did not have dependents?  My productivity would have gone up 200% from the lack of admin BS in dealing with all of these problems that families in Privates cause.
> 
> Oh... it would be like a fantasy leadership and management world.... sigh... now back to reality.
> 
> MC



Wow... Really?


----------



## MedCorps (17 Aug 2012)

George, 

Link does not work... but the earning is still less than the average for Canadians.  There is no doubt about that.  Still do able nonetheless. Only 50% of Canadians are above the average. 

MC


----------



## SupersonicMax (17 Aug 2012)

Strike said:
			
		

> It's been said before earlier in this thread and is worth repeating.
> 
> For those who are afraid they won't be able to cope with the financial change, go to SISIP and have them help you work out a plan.  That's what they do.  Not saying that there won't be a bit of debt incurred, but at least they can help to make the hit a little easier.



So you are now suggesting that it's okay, go to SISIP, they will work out a plan but you'll still get in debt because of the change of policy?  Someone can be managing his finances to the cent and SISIP is of no help.  The system is to blame on that one....


----------



## George Wallace (17 Aug 2012)

Fixed.

I do not believe more recent numbers have been published yet.


----------



## George Wallace (17 Aug 2012)

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> And as an employer that demands and orders sacrifices from its members, the CF should show dedication and commitment in return to its most valuable asset... Clearly not happening now.  It is a two-way street, if you want to keep quality personnel in, you need to make some effort in compensating them.  And in this day and age, a pat on the back just won't cut it.  The old "I am dedicated to the CF 100% and would work for free" ain't so anymore.  Money talks and believe it or not, it will keep people happy.
> 
> I agree that the IR system has been abused greatly in the past.  However, penalizing everyone is not the solution. I feel for those on prohibited posting that will essentially have a 900$ gap into their budget as of Sept 1.  It is NOT negligible.
> 
> This issue does not affect me, however I find it totally outrageous...



You are correct.  It is a two-way street.   If the bureaucracy in DND and the CF are now doing something that the rest of the Public Service are not, then it can legitimately be grieved.  If thier allowances and benefits are not changing, why should the CF's?  Or at the very least match?

You must also remember that there are people abusing the system for their own gain.  I did not post something, but I will bring it back:

I went close to ten years with no entitlement to IR.  While I was on Tour, my wife found a high paying job two hours away, commuting back and forth on weekends.  She paid her own rent and expenses there.  Later, we bought a house there, which had me paying two mortgages for three years.  Still no IR.  Why?  It was our choice to do this, not the military's.   Does the money get tight?  Of course it does.  In the long term, though, I sold one house and paid off the other.  I bit the bullet for the short term for a long term gain.  

Don't get me wrong.  There are people with legitimate reasons to not get posted on compassionate grounds, such as a child with special medical needs.  Somehow, the wages that a spouse earns don't fit into that category.  I am sure some of the people responding can remember when 1 RCR were moved to Petawawa from London, 1 CMBG complete from Calgary to Edmonton, and 2 PPCLI from Winnipeg to Shilo.  How many spouses had good paying jobs in those instances?

You make choices.  You have to live with them.   At the same time, what does screwing over a fellow Service Member say about your morals and ethics?


----------



## Strike (17 Aug 2012)

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> So you are now suggesting that it's okay, go to SISIP, they will work out a plan but you'll still get in debt because of the change of policy?  Someone can be managing his finances to the cent and SISIP is of no help.  The system is to blame on that one....



I am suggesting no such thing.

What I AM suggesting is that people stop the woe is me attitude that we have been hearing for a million pages now because there are many, many Sr ranks and bases trying to find a way to help out those who are prohibited posting or FORCED on IR and, in the meantime, try and help themselves.

Heaven forbid someone actually take the initiative and try to make the best of a bad situation.

I am simply offering advice in order for that to happen.


----------



## George Wallace (17 Aug 2012)

MedCorps said:
			
		

> George,
> 
> Link does not work... but the earning is still less than the average for Canadians.  There is no doubt about that.  Still do able nonetheless. Only 50% of Canadians are above the average.
> 
> MC



Career progression quickly closes those gaps.  One does not remain a Pte in the CF for a long period of time, unlike a day labourer or casual employee who may.


----------



## Red Devil (17 Aug 2012)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> You are correct.  It is a two-way street.   If the bureaucracy in DND and the CF are now doing something that the rest of the Public Service are not, then it can legitimately be grieved.  If thier allowances and benefits are not changing, why should the CF's?  Or at the very least match?
> 
> You must also remember that there are people abusing the system for their own gain.  I did not post something, but I will bring it back:
> 
> ...



With all due respect George - I made my choices based on all the information available and then, after I gave my commitment, the government moved the goalposts. I will try everything I can to make this work. I didn't jump through hoops and give up a far better paying job because of greed, but I have to eat.


----------



## armyvern (17 Aug 2012)

Red Devil said:
			
		

> As a married new recruit currently at Borden undergoing training I don't know if I can actually survive with losing approx. $1000 per month from my paycheck (rations and loss of separation benefits).  I can't sell my house, get my wife relocated to Borden and into a new job in 2 weeks. If I could, the government will have a load of moving expenses to pay, and in a years time we'll have to do the whole thing over again when I get posted.....RIDICULOUS!!!!!!!!!!!!
> 
> Several times before signing on the dotted line I was asked if I was sure that I could survive, and it was stressed to me how important it was that I shouldn't have financial worries which could be used against me. I had done my homework over the previous 18 months and knew exactly what I would be receiving in wages and benefits, so I confidently answered that everything was good.
> 
> ...



As Strike has stated, I too hear that there are some very senior military staff fighting this and attempting to get a distinguishment between those who "choose IR" (wife's employment) and those who are "forced" (you and I) Prohibited Post (not the same as being posted IR). Fighting for options such as "benefits remain for those who are forced (you and I)", and benefits for IR occur (perhaps without meals) but only for a limited time etc (because there are legit cases where a temporary IR is warranted; for example, the woman in the CBC article who is awaiting surgery - she'd have to move to the bottom of the waiting list if she were to follow her spouse to another province now).

If they are addressing this issue and re-assessing though ---- the silence above is deafening. Another bit of bad comms strategy if this is indeed occurring and they aren't sending the word down to those of us directly affected by it. In fact, the only communique that I have seen at my level via official means on any "clarification or re-evaluating" is from DCBA confirming that we are fucked on 01 Sept even if forced into separation.

There are also many of us already working on grieveances and we are working on it together, but will have to file as individuals ... but we are pooling our resources to pull appropriate precedents, policies for other Gov't Depts (who certainly are not seeing their higher-than-the CF's SE benefits, including their weekend travel back home allowance reduced) etc etc.

If you want to serve your country, I can only encourage you hang in, do what you can to sort yourself monetarily (visit SISIP etc as per Strike) now and hold on tight until while the good fight gets fought. Hopefully that fight will see the "forced into this on the CF's orders" side win. If not, you won't be the only one in line contemplating VRing.

As one half of a MSC who has been IR 4 times, I'm not willing to allow the CF to solve it's manning issues at my families expense and charge me for it too just because I have no choice.

I have now been PP (prohibited posted) for 4 years straight - constituting 2 prohibited postings in a row; my service spouse has also been posted twice in that 4 years. None of those 4 locations is the same. I have been to two bases, and he has been to two totally different bases (and even though our DF&E remains with him and moves with him --- even he was packed up and moved from one province to another in January). Four damn years. No choice. And, I did 2 prohibited postings before that.

For the earlier poster who made the comment about the IR guy getting to go home on weekends because it was only a 3 hour trip ... so f'n what!!?? She's saying that now he won't be able to afford the damn gas to get home on a weekend. He was not paid SE for those days he was home. You think me getting to get home on some weekends after 4 years of this forced shit is somehow wrong? I pay for those trips home out of my own damn pocket and do not get paid SE during those times. And, I'm supposed to feel like I'm doing something wrong or immoral because I get to see my hubby and kids? Wow. Vern shakes head.


----------



## George Wallace (17 Aug 2012)

Red Devil said:
			
		

> With all due respect George - I made my choices based on all the information available and then, after I gave my commitment, the government moved the goalposts. I will try everything I can to make this work. I didn't jump through hoops and give up a far better paying job because of greed, but I have to eat.



With all due respect, not being entitled to the same IR benefits as others for ten years, (Starting in the "Dark Days" of the '90's.) was not pleasant.  Nor was the added three years of paying two mortgages in different locations.  Don't think that I did not inquire about it.  

Long gone are the days of the RSM's living in the Q's with their big trucks, nice car, boat and trailer, ATV and Ski-Doo.  They never planned for retirement and it bit them hard when they did and had to move out of that Q with no place to go.  The days of the young soldier having the fast car or big truck, big screen TVs, ATV and/or Ski-Doo, and perhaps a boat are still here.  Perhaps some should be looking at some of the "luxuries" that they may have and can do without.  Perhaps some people have grown too accustomed to a higher standard of living than perhaps they can afford and are now getting caught in the crunch.

Out of curiousity, how many of you take Advances on a Claim?  I know I never do.  I don't want to be bit by having to pay back monies, rather than recieve money.


----------



## 4Feathers (17 Aug 2012)

Adam said:
			
		

> Thank you for the advice,  I'm sure SISSIP and the release section will be very busy at the training bases.
> 
> Just a thought for the troops with bad or no credit.  Maybe they can qualify for a student loan?  I wonder if Basic Training qualifies?
> 
> Any BPSO's out there?



You are not alone in your plight, and quite correct about the release and SISIP sections getting busy. You are probably kidding about the student loan while on Basic but that is understandable considering the curve ball you have been thrown.  Your concerns have been staffed to senior leadership, as this new policy change is going to hurt the new recruits and lower ranks the most. We are going to lose a lot of good people as a result of this. Best of luck to you.


----------



## 4Feathers (17 Aug 2012)

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> And as an employer that demands and orders sacrifices from its members, the CF should show dedication and commitment in return to its most valuable asset... Clearly not happening now.  It is a two-way street, if you want to keep quality personnel in, you need to make some effort in compensating them.  And in this day and age, a pat on the back just won't cut it.  The old "I am dedicated to the CF 100% and would work for free" ain't so anymore.  Money talks and believe it or not, it will keep people happy.
> 
> I agree that the IR system has been abused greatly in the past.  However, penalizing everyone is not the solution. I feel for those on prohibited posting that will essentially have a 900$ gap into their budget as of Sept 1.  It is NOT negligible.
> 
> This issue does not affect me, however I find it totally outrageous...



Your post is pretty much the prevalent feeling in the CF right now on what this means. Those more senior will be able to weather this but those on prohibited posting who are new to the CF are getting the worst of it. I am hoping they do something for these folks as we are going to lose a lot of them, and probably the best ones who have other options.


----------



## 4Feathers (17 Aug 2012)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Interesting.  You do know that RECRUITS go through a CREDIT CHECK as part of the enrollment procedure; right?



GW, yes we do credit checks, but they only tell us if the member is making the minimum monthly payment on their debts, not the extent to which they are already leveraged. Having interviewed many potential recruits, they are living on the "line" already and so long as they are not defaulting on loans or getting things repossessed, they easily pass the credit check. Part of the allure to the CF is an otherwise good benefits package. To have that pulled out from under them mid way through training is not fair IMHO.


----------



## PMedMoe (17 Aug 2012)

One thing I'd like to mention is people saying that they will be "losing" the amount of SE from their "paycheque".  To be correct, you are not.  SE is an allowance (or benefit) and not part of your pay.  This is the same as people posted from a position that receives LDA (or Air or Sea allowance) to one that does not, stating they are "taking a pay cut" with their posting (and trust me, I've heard it).

I know, it's just semantics.  Some of these people are going to be hit hard.  Particularly those who relied on SE as part of their budget.


----------



## Pat in Halifax (17 Aug 2012)

I just came off 20 months of IR in Ottawa and to quell any ideas, IR was NEVER a money maker. There were 4 major changes in my relatively short time but each one impacted in a different way. One thing to keep in mind is that though rent is still covered, nothing else (SE) is (as of 1 Sep). There are utilities, there is apartment insurance, there is parking (ALWAYS above the $100 max) and these are expenses that would not normally be incurred as extras to most of us (unless you maintain 2 homes for whatever reason). In Ottawa, I budgetted $300/mth for utilities (phone, internet, power etc), $400/mth for groceries and $50 (over and above the allowance) for parking in my building. At 26.55/day SE, that worked out to just under $800/mth. In May, I was in Halifax on course for most of the month so was abated and was paid only a little over $200 in SE though I still had utilities/insurance and a weeks of groceries to cover in Ottawa. My last 4 months in Ottawa 'cost' me about $800 to live.
I see alot of cease training requests and promotion refusals coming our way. If this was not what was intended by the 'author' of this change, then there should be a simple way to reverse it...No? 
Moe, I know SE is not part of the 'paycheque' but on IR (or any other separated TD), essentially it is exactly that-It is an offset so that the inconvenience of your working away from home does not cost you out of pocket and this is how it was expalined (for IR anyway) right up until atleast Dec 2010 when I left for Ottawa. 
I think what sickens many is that the CF seems to take the hits first wrt benefits and subsequent cuts to them. I am not saying that this is necessarily true but this is how it is relayed through media. It will be interesting to see how this all changes our demographics in the coming months...or...if someone wakes up and smells the coffee.


----------



## PMedMoe (17 Aug 2012)

Pat in Halifax said:
			
		

> Moe, I know SE is not part of the 'paycheque' but on IR (or any other separated TD), essentially it is exactly that-It is an offset so that the inconvenience of your working away from home does not cost you out of pocket and this is how it was expalined (for IR anyway) right up until atleast Dec 2010 when I left for Ottawa.



I know that.  I think it was more the "I'll be losing $1000 off my paycheque" comment that prompted me to post.  Yes, they will be out of pocket for that, and in some cases more...



			
				Pat in Halifax said:
			
		

> I think what sickens many is that the CF seems to take the hits first wrt benefits and subsequent cuts to them. I am not saying that this is necessarily true but this is how it is relayed through media. It will be interesting to see how this all changes our demographics in the coming months...or...if someone wakes up and smells the coffee.



I agree.  I heard CBSA is getting some of these cuts as well.  I'd love to know to what extent, since they used to get more than we did.  And don't even mention politicians....   :


----------



## Teeps74 (17 Aug 2012)

I'll mention politicians... Isn't it nice how they are leading from the front with all of the cuts to their own benefits? And the way they equalized their pension?

I think I managed to get an entire month's worth of sarcasm out in just two sentences.


----------



## PMedMoe (17 Aug 2012)

This was mentioned on another forum:

While we're at it, let's cut the Family Care Assistance too.  Talk about personal choices....


----------



## Eye In The Sky (17 Aug 2012)

Adam said:
			
		

> I'm trying to help a friend of mine who is caught in a tough situation.  My friend and I worked together for the last year, he was injured on BMQ and was attached to my unit while he recovered.  He recently left his wife and 3 young children to attend BMQ.  Today, the staff told him he would be required to pay Rations & Quarters and would loose all his separation benefits due to the new policy.  He can not afford to attend BMQ/QL 3.   How on earth does Ottawa expect all these Privates with families to survive.
> 
> This guy was one of the best hard working troops I have ever worked.  And I would hate to see his family evicted from the Q's because he has to pay for $600 for the five star accommodations in St Jean.  I think he has grounds for a grievance but I need advice on what steps I should take to help.



I posted my understanding of the CF griev system/how it would apply/work WRT this situation here followed by what is, IMO, a good point of view from Occam.

If COs and DGCFGA are flooded with grievances by people on prohibited status, etc, perhaps this would be deemed a 'systemic' issue that would see involvement from other org's outside the CF, such as CF Grievance Board, Office of the Ombudsmen, etc.

My overall point on the grievance submission is, even if the CDS as FA agreed with the griev, he cannot 'grant redress'.  Therefore, submitting a grievance in itself would not result in a change of anything in the short term.

I am still hopeful there will be an amendment to follow that will result in the reversal of the "rations NOT at public expense for those prohibited with D, HG and E at their place of enrolment", and to MSCs on prohibited as well (sorry, forgot about you folks until reading Verns posts).  Those are the actual "prohibited" folks, IMO.

I don't think there is a hope in hell for any amendment other than this one, and it is the one, IMO, that should be made without question.


----------



## wesleyd (17 Aug 2012)

MedCorps said:
			
		

> Do you know how much easier my life would have been as a Pl Comd / OC / CO if all of my Privates (and Subalterns for that matter) were single and did not have dependents?  My productivity would have gone up 200% from the lack of admin BS in dealing with all of these problems that families in Privates cause.
> 
> Oh... it would be like a fantasy leadership and management world.... sigh... now back to reality.
> 
> MC


Wow that is some fantastic support for your subordinates. Glad I wont be one of yours  
 Apologies did not read the full comment. Yes it would be nice but it is the reality we live with.
Thanks George


----------



## TCM621 (17 Aug 2012)

Teeps74 said:
			
		

> I'll mention politicians... Isn't it nice how they are leading from the front with all of the cuts to their own benefits? And the way they equalized their pension?
> 
> I think I managed to get an entire month's worth of sarcasm out in just two sentences.


----------



## Occam (17 Aug 2012)

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> I agree.  I heard CBSA is getting some of these cuts as well.  I'd love to know to what extent, since they used to get more than we did.  And don't even mention politicians....   :



Border Services employees are represented by PSAC, which follows the NJC Relocation Directive as part of their collective agreement.  No change there....yet.


----------



## PMedMoe (17 Aug 2012)

Occam said:
			
		

> Border Services employees are represented by PSAC, which follows the NJC Relocation Directive as part of their collective agreement.  No change there....yet.



Of course not.


----------



## George Wallace (17 Aug 2012)

wesleyd said:
			
		

> Wow that is some fantastic support for your subordinates. Glad I wont be one of yours.



Guess that that all passed right over your head.  Give it some time to sink in.


----------



## wesleyd (17 Aug 2012)

Teeps74 said:
			
		

> I'll mention politicians... Isn't it nice how they are leading from the front with all of the cuts to their own benefits? And the way they equalized their pension?
> 
> I think I managed to get an entire month's worth of sarcasm out in just two sentences.


----------



## PMedMoe (17 Aug 2012)

Seems there's an echo in here....   :


----------



## Jarnhamar (17 Aug 2012)

It's not just a job it's a calling; do it for your country ish comments are a slippery slope.
What about discussing canceling foreign service pay? Serving Canada overseas is an honour and deploying overseas is a part of the job- maybe members shouldn't get monetary bonus's for doing so.

Or after members take so many trips to the MIR they start getting docked pay for the amount of time they miss work. Because we all know people that spend what seems to be most of their career in and out of there- how much money is being wasted THAT way.


"My partner's career shouldn't suffer because of mine" isn't a valid excuse. Moving from a big city with a big city job to a base is obviously going to suck for someone with a career that's not easily picked up again on a base/small town.   That's a decision a couple has to make.  If the military member does not want their spouses career to suffer because of them then they should consider leaving the military. I'm not saying if you don't like it, quit. But getting posted to different places IS a part of the job.


I'm not THAT heart broken over a single dude with 1 year in getting posted somewhere because someone else in line for the position has a spouse, kids, house- but that can easily be abused.I think what they do to married service couples is shit however.


----------



## buzgo (17 Aug 2012)

ObedientiaZelum said:
			
		

> "My partner's career shouldn't suffer because of mine" isn't a valid excuse. Moving from a big city with a big city job to a base is obviously going to suck for someone with a career that's not easily picked up again on a base/small town.   That's a decision a couple has to make.  If the military member does not want their spouses career to suffer because of them then they should consider leaving the military. I'm not saying if you don't like it, quit. But getting posted to different places IS a part of the job.



I think it is valid, and thats why I said that there should be an option other than IR. If the CF wants to hold on to the people it values, then it needs to offer up some flexibility.

In my situation, if push comes to shove, I will pay OUT OF POCKET to go on an unacommpanied posting.


----------



## OldSolduer (17 Aug 2012)

Had a nice chat with a higher up last night. If it does any good, they are not pleased with this either.


----------



## TCM621 (17 Aug 2012)

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> Had a nice chat with a higher up last night. If it does any good, they are not pleased with this either.



I've heard this a few times. While it is nice to hear, I want to hear that they are doing something about it. I would be happy with a message about recognizing the financial burden on members and that they are exploring ways to mirage it. Instead we get, "the cf offers great compensation, etc".


----------



## Journeyman (17 Aug 2012)

Tony Manifold said:
			
		

> I've heard this a few times.


Yes, we've all heard no end of repetition here.



> I want to hear that they are doing something about it.


And are you doing anything about it? 
You know, "seek out and accept responsibility" -- looking at various courses of action _just in case_ the government doesn't start off next week with a message saying, "Ha! No one expected an April Fools' prank in August!"

Or, as it appears, you and several others are spending your days here, endlessly repeating "woe is me; the government sucks; I'm going to quit.....right after I'm forced to drown my cats."


Yes it sucks; no one is arguing that point.  
Now show familiarity with a professional military ethic and *do something about it*! 


This isn't aimed specifically at TM, but rather at the "collective" who have managed to spend 24 pages (with no end in sight) with precious little useful advice for the way ahead.


----------



## FSTO (17 Aug 2012)

So the higher ups are not pleased. I have heard this a couple of times, but my question is this:
- did TB ask for something to be cut and DND gave them IR; or
- did TB do a scan and told DND "You will cut SE and Food from pers on IR and no, you cannot question this"


----------



## dennmu (17 Aug 2012)

Wow! As a new recruit yet to even go to BMQ. I'm shocked as what I am reading. I currently live in one of the poorest provinces, I came from one of the richest provinces. The more money you make the more you spend. I have a spouse, two dogs a house and a car. I did it all on less then I will be paid in the forces. I shocked at the amount of new and current recruits that are complaining so much about budget cuts. All it takes is a smart money managing, living within your means. 

We need to ask ourselves, why we joined. What do we get out of it? I know I get a free education in a job that the majority of the population will never experience. I will be payed competitively solely based upon my performance, and with that comes great benefits, and a great pension. I don't have to pay a gym to maintain good physical health. My wife and children will be looked after should something happen to me. All my tools for my trade will be payed for. I never need to look for another job, nor do I need to worry about losing one, unless by my own faults. There is numerous tax benefits provided to be, simply because I am serving my country, and that's just federal. There are numerous advantages from civilian store owners.

Now I don't know nearly as much as most of you, and I'm not claiming too. From where I am sitting it seems like I'll be getting a lot, and if that's what it take is to pay for my food and bed, to be part of such and exciting career, and have the chance to proudly stand for my country. I'd say I'm getting off easy. I didn't join for the money, i joined for the opportunity to do something worth while with my life, to have the opportunity to help others in need. To defend my rights of freedom, and above all to stand against those that oppose those rights where ever it may be. Not everthing in life will be a cake walk, sometimes you have to eat crow. When life hands you lemons, freeze them and turn them into weapons!


----------



## armyvern (17 Aug 2012)

dennmu said:
			
		

> Wow! As a new recruit yet to even go to BMQ. I'm shocked as what I am reading. I currently live in one of the poorest provinces, I came from one of the richest provinces. The more money you make the more you spend. I have a spouse, two dogs a house and a car. I did it all on less then I will be paid in the forces. I shocked at the amount of new and current recruits that are complaining so much about budget cuts. All it takes is a smart money managing, living within your means.
> 
> We need to ask ourselves, why we joined. What do we get out of it? I know I get a free education in a job that the majority of the population will never experience. I will be payed competitively solely based upon my performance, and with that comes great benefits, and a great pension. I don't have to pay a gym to maintain good physical health. My wife and children will be looked after should something happen to me. All my tools for my trade will be payed for. I never need to look for another job, nor do I need to worry about losing one, unless by my own faults. There is numerous tax benefits provided to be, simply because I am serving my country, and that's just federal. There are numerous advantages from civilian store owners.
> 
> Now I don't know nearly as much as most of you, and I'm not claiming too. From where I am sitting it seems like I'll be getting a lot, and if that's what it take is to pay for my food and bed, to be part of such and exciting career, and have the chance to proudly stand for my country. I'd say I'm getting off easy. I didn't join for the money, i joined for the opportunity to do something worth while with my life, to have the opportunity to help others in need. To defend my rights of freedom, and above all to stand against those that oppose those rights where ever it may be. Not everthing in life will be a cake walk, sometimes you have to eat crow. When life hands you lemons, freeze them and turn them into weapons!



Single guy eh? Without a wife and kids to feed I bet.


----------



## Strike (17 Aug 2012)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Single guy eh? Without a wife and kids to feed I bet.



Did you read his first para?


----------



## Journeyman (17 Aug 2012)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> > I have a spouse, two dogs a house and a car. I did it all on less then I will be paid in the forces.
> 
> 
> Single guy eh? Without a wife and kids to feed I bet.


Turn off the computer and go to TGIF.

Or have a Kitkat; you know how you can be when you're hungry.   ;D


----------



## PuckChaser (17 Aug 2012)

signalsguy said:
			
		

> I think it is valid, and thats why I said that there should be an option other than IR. If the CF wants to hold on to the people it values, then it needs to offer up some flexibility.
> 
> In my situation, if push comes to shove, I will pay OUT OF POCKET to go on an unacommpanied posting.



That's the right kind of attitude, shame some people don't have it. 

I'm more up in arms about prohibited posting being included on this IR clawback. It is directly going to hit the pocket book of new recruits, who have no choice but to go and pay rations for a year or two while they wait for courses. Someone far up the chain needs to step in and go to bat for the troops, because Pte Bloggins at CFB Borden with 2 kids and a wife at home paying double for what his family uses for food in a month just for himself is not on.


----------



## dennmu (17 Aug 2012)

If you read my post your would see that i do have a wife, and two dogs, a house and a car. I had child, unfortunately we have lost her   Working on more now


----------



## OldSolduer (17 Aug 2012)

Thus far I have seen lots of infighting on this thread. And I am not about to share what the higher ups are doing as they didn't share it with me. 

One thing they are not doing is going on line and complaining vociferously. 



			
				dennmu said:
			
		

> If you read my post your would see that i do have a wife, and two dogs, a house and a car. I had child, unfortunately we have lost her   Working on more now



I am sorry for your loss.  

That has to be the worst experience a parent can go through.


----------



## 4Feathers (17 Aug 2012)

dennmu said:
			
		

> Wow! As a new recruit yet to even go to BMQ. I'm shocked as what I am reading. I currently live in one of the poorest provinces, I came from one of the richest provinces. The more money you make the more you spend. I have a spouse, two dogs a house and a car. I did it all on less then I will be paid in the forces. I shocked at the amount of new and current recruits that are complaining so much about budget cuts. All it takes is a smart money managing, living within your means.
> 
> We need to ask ourselves, why we joined. What do we get out of it? I know I get a free education in a job that the majority of the population will never experience. I will be payed competitively solely based upon my performance, and with that comes great benefits, and a great pension. I don't have to pay a gym to maintain good physical health. My wife and children will be looked after should something happen to me. All my tools for my trade will be payed for. I never need to look for another job, nor do I need to worry about losing one, unless by my own faults. There is numerous tax benefits provided to be, simply because I am serving my country, and that's just federal. There are numerous advantages from civilian store owners.
> 
> Now I don't know nearly as much as most of you, and I'm not claiming too. From where I am sitting it seems like I'll be getting a lot, and if that's what it take is to pay for my food and bed, to be part of such and exciting career, and have the chance to proudly stand for my country. I'd say I'm getting off easy. I didn't join for the money, i joined for the opportunity to do something worth while with my life, to have the opportunity to help others in need. To defend my rights of freedom, and above all to stand against those that oppose those rights where ever it may be. Not everthing in life will be a cake walk, sometimes you have to eat crow. When life hands you lemons, freeze them and turn them into weapons!



I commend your idealistic views on service to country, but reign it in a bit. Most of the people that are reading your post have sacrificed a great deal for many many years; spent countless months away from families missing birthdays, anniversary's, Christmas etc. Yes we vent when we lose benefits as is the trend now with loss of severance, SE benefits, move benefits, reserve employment rules, and more to come. One thing we do all share though is our commitment to the service of our great nation, so don't be shocked at what you are reading. Keep up the positive attitude though, it will help you through the tough times. Best of luck at basic trg.


----------



## Jarnhamar (17 Aug 2012)

dennmu said:
			
		

> Wow! As a new recruit yet to even go to BMQ. I'm shocked as what I am reading. I currently live in one of the poorest provinces, I came from one of the richest provinces. The more money you make the more you spend. I have a spouse, two dogs a house and a car. I did it all on less then I will be paid in the forces. I shocked at the amount of new and current recruits that are complaining so much about budget cuts. All it takes is a smart money managing, living within your means.
> 
> We need to ask ourselves, why we joined. What do we get out of it? I know I get a free education in a job that the majority of the population will never experience. I will be payed competitively solely based upon my performance, and with that comes great benefits, and a great pension. I don't have to pay a gym to maintain good physical health. My wife and children will be looked after should something happen to me. All my tools for my trade will be payed for. I never need to look for another job, nor do I need to worry about losing one, unless by my own faults. There is numerous tax benefits provided to be, simply because I am serving my country, and that's just federal. There are numerous advantages from civilian store owners.
> 
> Now I don't know nearly as much as most of you, and I'm not claiming too. From where I am sitting it seems like I'll be getting a lot, and if that's what it take is to pay for my food and bed, to be part of such and exciting career, and have the chance to proudly stand for my country. I'd say I'm getting off easy. I didn't join for the money, i joined for the opportunity to do something worth while with my life, to have the opportunity to help others in need. To defend my rights of freedom, and above all to stand against those that oppose those rights where ever it may be. Not everthing in life will be a cake walk, sometimes you have to eat crow. When life hands you lemons, freeze them and turn them into weapons!



Could I paraphrase and suggest that since *I* went through Afghanistan without a hint of PTSD- anyone who comes back and claims to have PTSD just didn't know how to deal with it? And since *I* managed to avoid it everyone else should be able to avoid it too?


----------



## meni0n (17 Aug 2012)

dennmu said:
			
		

> Wow! As a new recruit yet to even go to BMQ. I'm shocked as what I am reading. I currently live in one of the poorest provinces, I came from one of the richest provinces. The more money you make the more you spend. I have a spouse, two dogs a house and a car. I did it all on less then I will be paid in the forces. I shocked at the amount of new and current recruits that are complaining so much about budget cuts. All it takes is a smart money managing, living within your means.
> 
> We need to ask ourselves, why we joined. What do we get out of it? I know I get a free education in a job that the majority of the population will never experience. I will be payed competitively solely based upon my performance, and with that comes great benefits, and a great pension. I don't have to pay a gym to maintain good physical health. My wife and children will be looked after should something happen to me. All my tools for my trade will be payed for. I never need to look for another job, nor do I need to worry about losing one, unless by my own faults. There is numerous tax benefits provided to be, simply because I am serving my country, and that's just federal. There are numerous advantages from civilian store owners.
> 
> Now I don't know nearly as much as most of you, and I'm not claiming too. From where I am sitting it seems like I'll be getting a lot, and if that's what it take is to pay for my food and bed, to be part of such and exciting career, and have the chance to proudly stand for my country. I'd say I'm getting off easy. I didn't join for the money, i joined for the opportunity to do something worth while with my life, to have the opportunity to help others in need. To defend my rights of freedom, and above all to stand against those that oppose those rights where ever it may be. Not everthing in life will be a cake walk, sometimes you have to eat crow. When life hands you lemons, freeze them and turn them into weapons!



I am very curious how do you manage to get all of that at 2751$ before taxes a month. And don't forget you will be paying 500$ on top of all the payments you will be making. Would you be able to survive with your spouse losing her employment tomorrow? Too many variables, you're also forgetting you will be paying into two pensions so your take home pay would be less than what you take in civvie street.


----------



## Strike (17 Aug 2012)

meni0n said:
			
		

> Would you be able to survive with your spouse losing her employment tomorrow?



You've just identified a major problem.

It was drilled in to me from when I started working that I should always have 3 months worth of pay in reserve, that would allow me to pay bills, debts, etc without having to worry over that period.  It came in very handy for me two summers ago when I took a pay cut (from pilot to GSO and also had to give up LDA) as part of my OT.  I had three months of buffer to learn to live in my new pay scale.

Obviously having 3 months of pay set aside to use only in emergencies is no longer the norm?


----------



## PuckChaser (17 Aug 2012)

Strike said:
			
		

> Obviously having 3 months of pay set aside to use only in emergencies is no longer the norm?



Or no longer possible with the rising cost of pretty much everything.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (17 Aug 2012)

dennmu said:
			
		

> Wow! As a new recruit yet to even go to BMQ. I'm shocked as what I am reading. I currently live in one of the poorest provinces, I came from one of the richest provinces. The more money you make the more you spend. I have a spouse, two dogs a house and a car. I did it all on less then I will be paid in the forces. I shocked at the amount of new and current recruits that are complaining so much about budget cuts. All it takes is a smart money managing, living within your means.
> 
> We need to ask ourselves, why we joined. What do we get out of it? I know I get a free education in a job that the majority of the population will never experience. I will be payed competitively solely based upon my performance, and with that comes great benefits, and a great pension. I don't have to pay a gym to maintain good physical health. My wife and children will be looked after should something happen to me. All my tools for my trade will be payed for. I never need to look for another job, nor do I need to worry about losing one, unless by my own faults. There is numerous tax benefits provided to be, simply because I am serving my country, and that's just federal. There are numerous advantages from civilian store owners.
> 
> Now I don't know nearly as much as most of you, and I'm not claiming too. From where I am sitting it seems like I'll be getting a lot, and if that's what it take is to pay for my food and bed, to be part of such and exciting career, and have the chance to proudly stand for my country. I'd say I'm getting off easy. I didn't join for the money, i joined for the opportunity to do something worth while with my life, to have the opportunity to help others in need. To defend my rights of freedom, and above all to stand against those that oppose those rights where ever it may be. Not everthing in life will be a cake walk, sometimes you have to eat crow. When life hands you lemons, freeze them and turn them into weapons!



Well, lets see if you feel that if you get to BMQ, get injured, and spent an extended time on PAT, without any rations on the Queens' shilling, etc...and start paying Qc income tax amounts, and when your morale is down, and so on.

Or...after that, when/if you are still on prohibited status on proceeding to CFSATE for your AVN courses...which likely means you know that you will probably be able to move your family up for your 3s, right?  (I know many people are allowed because of the length of PAT, common corse and 3s trg)  Then you'll be posted to a Sqn and on type, so its very unlikely, aside from BMQ, that you will experience 4+ years of this, such as Army Vern and her family have.

Your lecturing some people from the OTHER end of the tunnel, and you should look around and notice you're in the group that is without the "been there, done that" T-shirt.


----------



## dennmu (17 Aug 2012)

meni0n said:
			
		

> I am very curious how do you manage to get all of that at 2751$ before taxes a month. And don't forget you will be paying 500$ on top of all the payments you will be making. Would you be able to survive with your spouse losing her employment tomorrow? Too many variables, you're also forgetting you will be paying into two pensions so your take home pay would be less than what you take in civvie street.



Smart budgeting and living within your means. I have purchased my house and car over time. I am a 20 year old know it all. I'm 32 and have been working in the civi world for quite some time. and let me tell you it is no picnic either. To answer your questions. Yes I could survive if my wife lost work, it's happened many times. I don't pay into pensions, but i do pay into rrsp's both of them. Not mention, we get dinged every tax season, because civi's have nothing to able to write off.  I'm not here to make people angry, I am merely saying it can be done.


----------



## Towards_the_gap (17 Aug 2012)

dennmu said:
			
		

> we get dinged every tax season, because civi's have nothing to able to write off.




Just what do you think military members write off? I don't get any tax breaks due to my profession, apart from when I deployed.


----------



## dennmu (17 Aug 2012)

Towards_the_gap said:
			
		

> Just what do you think military members write off? I don't get any tax breaks due to my profession, apart from when I deployed.



I never said you did.


----------



## OldSolduer (17 Aug 2012)

dennmu said:
			
		

> I never said you did.



Stop mincing your words. You inferred we did. 


Guardhouse lawyers are not welcome.


----------



## Red Devil (17 Aug 2012)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> With all due respect, not being entitled to the same IR benefits as others for ten years, (Starting in the "Dark Days" of the '90's.) was not pleasant.  Nor was the added three years of paying two mortgages in different locations.  Don't think that I did not inquire about it.
> 
> Long gone are the days of the RSM's living in the Q's with their big trucks, nice car, boat and trailer, ATV and Ski-Doo.  They never planned for retirement and it bit them hard when they did and had to move out of that Q with no place to go.  The days of the young soldier having the fast car or big truck, big screen TVs, ATV and/or Ski-Doo, and perhaps a boat are still here.  Perhaps some should be looking at some of the "luxuries" that they may have and can do without.  Perhaps some people have grown too accustomed to a higher standard of living than perhaps they can afford and are now getting caught in the crunch.
> 
> Out of curiousity, how many of you take Advances on a Claim?  I know I never do.  I don't want to be bit by having to pay back monies, rather than recieve money.



Having a beat up Ford Focus, a medium sized TV, no ATV, no Skidoo or boat and having joined the CF at age 50 George I have every sympathy for your plight...BUT I'm talking about the here and now. I grew up with a house with no heating other than from the fireplace, no telephone or TV until the black and white one arrived in my teens ETC ETC but I don't expect anyone to go through that kind of thing now...there's just no need. I applaud you for sticking with the CF through many hardships but the "boo sucks I had it tougher than you" really isn't helping anyone.


----------



## Red Devil (17 Aug 2012)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> As Strike has stated, I too hear that there are some very senior military staff fighting this and attempting to get a distinguishment between those who "choose IR" (wife's employment) and those who are "forced" (you and I) Prohibited Post (not the same as being posted IR). Fighting for options such as "benefits remain for those who are forced (you and I)", and benefits for IR occur (perhaps without meals) but only for a limited time etc (because there are legit cases where a temporary IR is warranted; for example, the woman in the CBC article who is awaiting surgery - she'd have to move to the bottom of the waiting list if she were to follow her spouse to another province now).
> 
> If they are addressing this issue and re-assessing though ---- the silence above is deafening. Another bit of bad comms strategy if this is indeed occurring and they aren't sending the word down to those of us directly affected by it. In fact, the only communique that I have seen at my level via official means on any "clarification or re-evaluating" is from DCBA confirming that we are ****ed on 01 Sept even if forced into separation.
> 
> ...



Thanks Army Vern. Fingers crossed that we all make it through until normality is restored ;-)


----------



## meni0n (17 Aug 2012)

dennmu said:
			
		

> Smart budgeting and living within your means. I have purchased my house and car over time. I am a 20 year old know it all. I'm 32 and have been working in the civi world for quite some time. and let me tell you it is no picnic either. To answer your questions. Yes I could survive if my wife lost work, it's happened many times. I don't pay into pensions, but i do pay into rrsp's both of them. Not mention, we get dinged every tax season, because civi's have nothing to able to write off.  I'm not here to make people angry, I am merely saying it can be done.



So how does that compare to the 24-25 year old with a wife and a kid renting in a large city. Your comparisons are totally out of whack. You can stop paying into RRSPs and control your food expense. You can't control pension deductions nor the amount that you will have to dish out for rations for the first 1+ years in the beginning of your career. I wonder if you will be able to call home and say to your wife to skip a meal or two to keep the expenses down.


----------



## Remius (17 Aug 2012)

Red Devil said:
			
		

> Having a beat up Ford Focus, a medium sized TV, no ATV, no Skidoo or boat and having joined the CF at age 50 George I have every sympathy for your plight...BUT I'm talking about the here and now. I grew up with a house with no heating other than from the fireplace, no telephone or TV until the black and white one arrived in my teens ETC ETC but I don't expect anyone to go through that kind of thing now...there's just no need. I applaud you for sticking with the CF through many hardships but the "boo sucks I had it tougher than you" really isn't helping anyone.



I don't think that's what he meant.  The problem with the here and now is that we (today's society and more so for today's young adults) is that we live way more than we can afford.  Debt is easily racked up with the play now pay later attitude.  Plus there are things we can do without.  Some people pay 150$ in cable just to get sports channels, others need the latest i-phone when they have last year's model, others get a new shiny car.  All of a sudden things get tough and and we can't cope.  I have friends that are house poor because they made bad decisions when buying. Do you really need three coffees a day?  Hoppw about cigarette smoking?  

We all have a severance coming to us.  How many are actually going to do something smart with that and how many are going to waste it?  if the public service experience is any indication, my bet is on the people wasting it because it will be accessible money, in the right now.


----------



## GAP (17 Aug 2012)

dennmu said:
			
		

> I stand corrected. to everyone that has read my posts. It was not my intention disrespect our generation served. Please accept my humble apology. I respect each and everyone. Very few can do what you have. I only hope I can be half of what you already are. I expect to serve my time, and I don't anticipate it will be easy, especially starting over at 32. Since I am ignorant to this topic, please feel free to message me on what it is that I can do to help.
> 
> Repectfully yours,
> 
> Dennmu



You have made your point, now stop. Read more.


----------



## Red Devil (17 Aug 2012)

Crantor said:
			
		

> I don't think that's what he meant.  The problem with the here and now is that we (today's society and more so for today's young adults) is that we live way more than we can afford.  Debt is easily racked up with the play now pay later attitude.  Plus there are things we can do without.  Some people pay 150$ in cable just to get sports channels, others need the latest i-phone when they have last year's model, others get a new shiny car.  All of a sudden things get tough and and we can't cope.  I have friends that are house poor because they made bad decisions when buying. Do you really need three coffees a day?  Hoppw about cigarette smoking?
> 
> We all have a severance coming to us.  How many are actually going to do something smart with that and how many are going to waste it?  if the public service experience is any indication, my bet is on the people wasting it because it will be accessible money, in the right now.



Good luck with spending your severance - I can only speak from the point of view of a Pte one month into training and fresh out of BMQ.....if only I had a severance pay to put towards the extra costs which I was previously told I would not have to pay....but, of course, this whole thread has nothing whatsoever to do with severance pay. With hindsight I could have made better decisions in my life, and I bet you could say the same. My problem is with the fact that a few months ago I signed a 5 year contract based on certain criteria. The money wasn't really an issue so long as I could survive a few years until the promotions came along and life would get a little easier. I understood that I was making financial sacrifices and was prepared to deal with that - my wife understood that as well. All of a sudden my employer has changed the payment plan. I haven't screwed up - I'm being screwed. Please understand that I am only talking from my perspective, as that is all I know. I'm not going to comment on this subject anymore - I didn't join this discussion to fall out with anyone. I wanted to air my point of view and discuss possible solutions with like minded people who were in similar situations.  Good luck to all affected by this..I sincerely hope you all survive without having your dreams taken from you.

 :2c:


----------



## TCM621 (17 Aug 2012)

Crantor said:
			
		

> I don't think that's what he meant.  The problem with the here and now is that we (today's society and more so for today's young adults) is that we live way more than we can afford.  Debt is easily racked up with the play now pay later attitude.  Plus there are things we can do without.  Some people pay 150$ in cable just to get sports channels, others need the latest i-phone when they have last year's model, others get a new shiny car.  All of a sudden things get tough and and we can't cope.  I have friends that are house poor because they made bad decisions when buying. Do you really need three coffees a day?  Hoppw about cigarette smoking?
> 
> We all have a severance coming to us.  How many are actually going to do something smart with that and how many are going to waste it?  if the public service experience is any indication, my bet is on the people wasting it because it will be accessible money, in the right now.


So some people are stupid. I get it. I drive a 05 cavalier (only car) and don't even pay for cable. I still don't know how my kids are eating next month. Yeah, I have memo in but my entire unit is on block leave and won't know the answer until sometime after labour day. 

After 16 years in the cf, I don't expect much from the establishment. I know individual COs are going to do the best they can but I would really like an official statement to the effect that the cf, as an entity, has a clue just what they have done to a generation of members and that they are working on it.


----------



## Ayrsayle (17 Aug 2012)

Crantor said:
			
		

> I don't think that's what he meant.  The problem with the here and now is that we (today's society and more so for today's young adults) is that we live way more than we can afford.  Debt is easily racked up with the play now pay later attitude.  Plus there are things we can do without.  Some people pay 150$ in cable just to get sports channels, others need the latest i-phone when they have last year's model, others get a new shiny car.  All of a sudden things get tough and and we can't cope.  I have friends that are house poor because they made bad decisions when buying. Do you really need three coffees a day?  Hoppw about cigarette smoking?
> 
> We all have a severance coming to us.  How many are actually going to do something smart with that and how many are going to waste it?  if the public service experience is any indication, my bet is on the people wasting it because it will be accessible money, in the right now.



Not that I can speak for my entire generation - but the lion's share of my "disposable income" goes to my Student Loan. Not that I was particularly lazy in university (Civ U, worked 30 hours a week to pay for rent, food, etc - loans paid for tuition). Things getting rough is only part of the problem; it is hitting even the frugal. I have no other debt then what was needed to obtain my job - and now I'll be keeping the debt a few more years accordingly.

I just spent a few hours with my father on the phone about our particular situations, and the ramifications: He's a MWO with 33.5years in (currently mid 50's) - Family owns a home in Calgary, he's posted to Suffield. He'll be out approx 1300 dollars a month from the changes, but by and large will be fine - Mortgage already paid off, wife that works, etc. This made the decision for him however - he'll be releasing with 35 years in and no longer as it is simply too expensive to maintain both locations. He'd make almost as good retiring completely and be in Calgary with his wife. I'm less then a year in, 2Lt in Gagetown - Wife is back in Vancouver. Wife is currently in school (University) and we live off of my salary. We rent an apartment in Vancouver. I will see a Net difference of around 1000 in pay per month. 

Our situations differ in many ways - a MWO and 2Lt pay are not comparable (neither is Pte pay with 2Lt for that matter). Both the New Pte and myself are likely on prohibited postings - even if I wanted to move my wife here (her leaving school undone, etc) I'd still have to pay more in food then we'd ever spend together on just myself. As noted elsewhere - I signed on (and had the wife's blessing) with the understanding that the separation would mean she could finish school - a much more difficult task now.

Do I feel like I am being treated unfairly? Mixed opinion - I still have an amazing job with good benefits. In a few years time I reasonably expect to make a Captain's Salary, etc. Am I put out that I have no other options besides quit in dealing with the immediate present? Yes - I'm finding it hard to explain how I am going to eat 650ish dollars in rations in a month. I'm simply going to break even for a few years rather then get out of debt according to plan. The new Pte coming into the system - well, at least he doesn't have student debt on his shoulders (I hope). I really don't know how it will work for him.

Telling me that I simply need to tighten my belt rings a little hollow as I spent one month in the last 12 at home - a situation that is not even a choice due to the prohibited posting. Have no mortgage, bought no car (sold when I joined), live in a cheap place for Vancouver. Pretty sure my severance will not cover much of anything, actually. Might be best to jump off the soap box for a while.


----------



## Strike (17 Aug 2012)

Tony Manifold said:
			
		

> After 16 years in the cf, I don't expect much from the establishment. I know individual COs are going to do the best they can but I would really like an official statement to the effect that the cf, as an entity, has a clue just what they have done to a generation of members and that they are working on it.



People need to remember that this is NOT the fault of the CF.  This change was mandated by TSB, of which the CF has no control, so it does no good to go blaming the CoC for this.

Are they working to make the situation better?  From what I've seen and heard on the Edmonton side, the higher ups are trying to find solutions and stop-gaps to make the hits easier as short-term solutions.  I cannot speak for other bases, but I'm sure they're not sitting on their asses.  Perhaps the lack of communication is because they want to wait until they have someone solid to pass on instead of maybes?


----------



## TCM621 (18 Aug 2012)

Strike said:
			
		

> People need to remember that this is NOT the fault of the CF.  This change was mandated by TSB, of which the CF has no control, so it does no good to go blaming the CoC for this.
> 
> Are they working to make the situation better?  From what I've seen and heard on the Edmonton side, the higher ups are trying to find solutions and stop-gaps to make the hits easier as short-term solutions.  I cannot speak for other bases, but I'm sure they're not sitting on their asses.  Perhaps the lack of communication is because they want to wait until they have someone solid to pass on instead of maybes?



I get that, I really do. However, I would sleep a lot better at night if I knew, officially, uncle Walt and the gang recognized the situation and we're working on it.


----------



## armyvern (18 Aug 2012)

Tony Manifold said:
			
		

> I get that, I really do. However, I would sleep a lot better at night if I knew, officially, uncle Walt and the gang recognized the situation and we're working on it.



+300 milpoints for you! (I know COs and Comds get it). And with that, I am out of this thread.


----------



## winnipegoo7 (18 Aug 2012)

This thread has made me realize how fortunate I am. I'm only a leading seaman, but luckily (since apparently no woman would have me, but that's another story) I'm single, so I have been able to put a lot of money into savings. (And saving money turns me on, which is better than a girlfriend, but don't tell anyone I said that.) I have been banking about $15K a year on average. This is the best paying job I have ever had and wouldn't be anywhere near as well off in the civy world.

I do agree the Rations are fairly expensive, and it annoys me that you pay the same no matter how much or how little you eat. Last time I lived in shacks I didn't 'buy' rations and bought a $50 microwave and a lot of tuna and Raymen noodles. I recommend to everyone to refuse rations and 'rough it' and feed yourself. The food may suck but the savings are awesome!

This is Stats Canada's average Canadian salary after taxes.
http://www.statcan.gc.ca/tables-tableaux/sum-som/l01/cst01/famil21a-eng.htm


----------



## Eye In The Sky (18 Aug 2012)

dennmu said:
			
		

> civi's have nothing to able to write off.



Aside from the posters who have corrected you on the misconception CF folks get 'write-offs', to say civies don't get any is not true either.  We ALL get the same ones except CF mbrs who deploy to a theatre, but if you want to see some civies who also get 'write-offs', I can tell you I know someone who has a child with a certain medical condition that gives signicant 'tax breaks', I know people who own their own business/small business (everything from a construction business to the lady who does Avon on the side) and they too, also enjoy 'write-offs'.

I am not deployed to a SDA, so I pay the same taxes at the same applic rates as everyone else in NS.


----------



## Scott (18 Aug 2012)

Hrm. I'm a civvy and I have loads of write offs every year. All legal-like and in tact after audits. 

Read more, post less.

I could go into detail, but why bother?


----------



## Pat in Halifax (18 Aug 2012)

Tony Manifold said:
			
		

> I get that, I really do. However, I would sleep a lot better at night if I knew, officially, uncle Walt and the gang recognized the situation and we're *working on it*.



Without revealing too much, know that there are several determined individuals working on a plan atleast to address those on BTL or ATL at Schools. We keep referring to the $500/mth for Jr ranks-Keep in mind, ALL Officers and Snr rates are grouped together at a little over $900/mth. For a young SLt(N)/2ndLt who gets paid about the same as a OS/Pvt, that is a true kick in the cookies.

Pat


----------



## Strike (18 Aug 2012)

As nice as it would be to know the man in charge is looking in to things, realistically, when has the CDS EVER revealed what he is doing before the end product?

I know this is hitting a lot of people very hard but he's not going to reveal anything to anyone until there is a solution.  Imagine how it would look for him to say he's working on it and then have nothing come out of it, or we get a new CDS and everything has to be started over.


----------



## 4Feathers (18 Aug 2012)

Strike said:
			
		

> As nice as it would be to know the man in charge is looking in to things, realistically, when has the CDS EVER revealed what he is doing before the end product?
> 
> I know this is hitting a lot of people very hard but he's not going to reveal anything to anyone until there is a solution.  Imagine how it would look for him to say he's working on it and then have nothing come out of it, or we get a new CDS and everything has to be started over.



Good point. Fact is though we are getting a new CDS in the next monthish, Uncle Walt is retiring in two weeks.


----------



## Donny (18 Aug 2012)

Does this apply to new recruits that are going to CFLRS? According to their website, no indication about any changes yet. I will be attending of BMQ within next few weeks and i am married. Before i was told i don't have to pay for rations because i have a family and a house to maintain. I am trying to clarify this but the person i called at my local RC yesterday did not have any idea about it. 
It seems tough to pay for two places with a recruit's pay.


----------



## PMedMoe (18 Aug 2012)

Donny said:
			
		

> Does this apply to new recruits that are going to CFLRS? According to their website, no indication about any changes yet. I will be attending of BMQ within next few weeks and i am married. Before i was told i don't have to pay for rations because i have a family and a house to maintain. I am trying to clarify this but the person i called at my local RC yesterday did not have any idea about it.
> It seems tough to pay for two places with a recruit's pay.



You will get quarters covered and, more than likely under this new standard, you will pay for rations.


----------



## Adam (18 Aug 2012)

Donny,

Rations at CFLRS are around $550 per month.  But the good news is that rumour has it,  the line at the Galley will be getting a whole lot smaller really soon.


----------



## Jarnhamar (18 Aug 2012)

Have faith in the chain of command and the CF leadership.


NCOs and Officers DO care and are not blind to the plight that many members are in.

You (should) never hear a platoon commander bitching about the CO.  Likewise the senior leadership isn't going to jump on the news and talk shit about this new policy.

It IS nice to hear that the chain of command recognizes the issues and are looking at ways to mitigate it but you (we) need to trust that it is what they are doing regardless. I guarantee my OC and CO are loosing sleep over this.



On another note did I read a post here about new jets for the snowbirds costing 700+ million?  I hope THAT plan gets mothballed.


----------



## wesleyd (18 Aug 2012)

ObedientiaZelum said:
			
		

> Have faith in the chain of command and the CF leadership.
> 
> 
> NCOs and Officers DO care and are not blind to the plight that many members are in.
> ...


----------



## smale436 (18 Aug 2012)

"Rations at CFLRS are around $550 per month.  But the good news is that rumour has it,  the line at the Galley will be getting a whole lot smaller really soon."

 - Will pers on training, for however long, have the option of 1/2 rations if it's cheaper though? When I last lived in shacks for 8 months I delinked entirely which worked well enough for me. I know they instituted mandatory ration linking a few years ago and people "living in after the training system" have the choice of a reduced plan. When I was in Borden for a year I was never there from 1600 Fri till late Sunday night on any weekend and was more of a "coffee and cereal in my room for breakfast" kind of guy. There was no lesser ration option available despite me only eating there twice a day maybe 4 days a week. (Since you order the odd pizza or go out) I would have appreciated the lesser option as a Pte1 to have a bit more pocket money. I understand recruits would need to pay full price since they are pretty much locked in the building for 3 months. Do all bases now have a reduced ration plan or does it vary base to base?


----------



## TCM621 (18 Aug 2012)

Strike said:
			
		

> As nice as it would be to know the man in charge is looking in to things, realistically, when has the CDS EVER revealed what he is doing before the end product?
> 
> I know this is hitting a lot of people very hard but he's not going to reveal anything to anyone until there is a solution.  Imagine how it would look for him to say he's working on it and then have nothing come out of it,or we get a new CDS and everything has to be started over.



I have been trying to remember this for a few days. A few years ago, treasury board nixed a benefit that had been put in without proper approval. Within a day or two, a canforgen was out explaining what had happened and that they were working on having it fixed. It may have been TD. Does anyone remember that?


----------



## Remius (18 Aug 2012)

It was several things actually.  The biggest was storage of things like vehicles while deployed.  The CF just went ahead and did it without TB approval over the span of something like ten years.  TB got wise and the CF did some damage control.  I'll try and find a link to it.


----------



## mariomike (18 Aug 2012)

Crantor said:
			
		

> It was several things actually.  The biggest was storage of things like vehicles while deployed.  The CF just went ahead and did it without TB approval over the span of something like ten years.  TB got wise and the CF did some damage control.  I'll try and find a link to it.



This thread may be relevant.

Topic: "DND halts millions in benefits":  
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/99003/post-1018620.html#msg1018620
6 pages.


----------



## Remius (18 Aug 2012)

That's the one.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (18 Aug 2012)

Pat in Halifax said:
			
		

> We keep referring to the $500/mth for Jr ranks-Keep in mind, ALL Officers and Snr rates are grouped together at a little over $900/mth. For a young SLt(N)/2ndLt who gets paid about the same as a OS/Pvt, that is a true kick in the cookies.



Charges for rations are based on standard of 'service' (cafeteria or table svc) however, not the rank structure.  I messed at the Officers, WOs and Sgt's mess at CFLRS at there was no table service, so in that case, the rations charges would be $543/month (full meal plan, cafeteria).


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (18 Aug 2012)

It's too bad that they didn't have some sort of "double declining balance" for the messes like that you find at a university.  At least that way soldiers could pay as they go and have some sort of say over their matters.


----------



## mariomike (19 Aug 2012)

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> It's too bad that they didn't have some sort of "double declining balance" for the messes like that you find at a university.  At least that way soldiers could pay as they go and have some sort of say over their matters.



Regarding "Pay as they go". 

Some interesting points were made in the "Rations and Quarters merged thread" ( reply #38 ).

"Really practical on paper.  Doesn't work in Real Life.":
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/33594/post-673734.html#msg673734


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (19 Aug 2012)

mariomike said:
			
		

> Regarding "Pay as they go".
> 
> Some interesting points were made in the "Rations and Quarters merged thread" ( reply #38 ).
> 
> ...



I read that thread, and still dont really see why a university can have a system like the double declining balance card where you can eat at any of x cafeterias or the campus pub, fast food, etc with your card, but the army can't.  The cards would only be for those on the meal plan, ie- those already on the meal plan who just pay a flat rate.  Gets rid of the double payments for those in quarters who want to eat out while still allowing people to pay if they just want to go.  

What I dont see working in real life is the current system of food management... how much money do we waste on hayboxes that someone might eat 1/3 to 1/2 of, or box lunches, etc.  Or just the messes and the shear amount of waste.


----------



## Remius (19 Aug 2012)

interesting.  this talk of university meal plans and R&Q makes me question what will happen to a unit like Ceremonial Guard based out of Carleton University, where ALL members get three meals a day regardless of being on TD or being local.


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (19 Aug 2012)

Crantor said:
			
		

> interesting.  this talk of university meal plans and R&Q makes me question what will happen to a unit like Ceremonial Guard based out of Carleton University, where ALL members get three meals a day regardless of being on TD or being local.



Maybe the ceremonial guard can be made up of people in Ottawa on IR... LOL


----------



## Donny (19 Aug 2012)

Whats TD?


----------



## PPCLI Guy (19 Aug 2012)

Donny said:
			
		

> Whats TD?



Temporary Duty - which normally comes with free rations and quarters, sometimes in the form of hotels and a meal allowance, as well as incidental expenses.


----------



## Donny (20 Aug 2012)

thank you,
From what i understand after reading, they will no longer be covering rations and quarters when you are on TD right? I called my RC few days ago to ask about this but they said they dont know. I just dont have the time to get down there until resign from my present job.


----------



## armyvern (20 Aug 2012)

Crantor said:
			
		

> interesting.  this talk of university meal plans and R&Q makes me question what will happen to a unit like Ceremonial Guard based out of Carleton University, where ALL members get three meals a day regardless of being on TD or being local.



Very interesting; thanks.


----------



## Dyolfknip (20 Aug 2012)

Donny said:
			
		

> thank you,
> From what i understand after reading, they will no longer be covering rations and quarters when you are on TD right? I called my RC few days ago to ask about this but they said they dont know. I just dont have the time to get down there until resign from my present job.



No, the benifits cut are affecting meals while on IR....meals while on TD are untouched. Two different things.

(and yes I registered after being a long time lurker, JUST to nip this one in the butt)


----------



## Donny (20 Aug 2012)

Is the time you spend to do QL3 considered TD?


----------



## aesop081 (20 Aug 2012)

Donny said:
			
		

> From what i understand after reading, they will no longer be covering rations and quarters when you are on TD right?



That's incorrect.


----------



## John_NL (20 Aug 2012)

Wondering mainly what the difference is between IR and TD. 

Did some searching, found a blog of a army wife who went into some details about IR and the cuts. 

http://jorgbiz.wordpress.com/2011/12/12/imposed-restriction/

http://jorgbiz.wordpress.com/2012/08/15/imposed-restriction-2012-budget-cuts/

"IR is where the military member moves to the new location and leaves the family at the old location."


TD: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temporary_duty_assignment    (It says US army, assuming it means about the same.)

"A temporary duty assignment (TDA), also known as "temporary additional duty" (TAD), "temporary duty travel" (TDT) or "temporary duty" (TDY), refers to a United States Government employee travel assignment at a location other than the employee's permanent duty station."


***********************

How do these changes effect BMQ / SQ / Trade school then? It sounds like it is being considered IR.


----------



## aesop081 (20 Aug 2012)

Let's say I am posted to 1st battalion of the Upper palm panel regiment in Saskachewan. I got on the 3 week advanced widget inspection course in Gagetown NB and then go back home, That is going on TD.


----------



## John_NL (20 Aug 2012)

K, so is it related to the length of the course at all?


----------



## aesop081 (20 Aug 2012)

John_NL said:
			
		

> K, so is it related to the length of the course at all?



TD is not only for courses but the length is, generally, short , and you return home. There was nothing changed to TD in this CANFORGEN.


----------



## John_NL (20 Aug 2012)

Okay, that's what I am trying to work out here. I am a currently merit listed with a family, so I am mainly trying to let my wife know we are going to be fine until pay picks up. 

What about trade training after BMQ / SQ? Which is that considered?


----------



## armyvern (20 Aug 2012)

John_NL said:
			
		

> Okay, that's what I am trying to work out here. I am a currently merit listed with a family, so I am mainly trying to let my wife know we are going to be fine until pay picks up.
> 
> What about trade training after BMQ / SQ? Which is that considered?



You won't be TD while on BMQ, SQ, QL3. You'll be Prohibited Posted which falls into the IR category (it shouldn't, but it currently does). Stay tuned for updates.


----------



## John_NL (20 Aug 2012)

Thanks Armyvern and CDN Aviator.

From here I guess it is just a matter of waiting to see how it all goes.


----------



## McG (21 Aug 2012)

Allow me one pedantic moment here …
*Imposed Restriction (IR) is not being changed.  Separation Expense (SE) is being changed.
Changes to SE will impact upon pers on IR amongst many others.*
Twenty seven pages into this thread and there are many who still use the terms IR and SE interchangeably.  They are not the same thing.  Words and terms have specific meanings, and people need to use the words that say what the communicator really to mean.  Maybe it seems trivial to some, but we are probably in the current situation, at least in part, because of sloppy vernacular.  When the responsible administrators and strategic advisors colloquially refer to all pers receiving SE as being on “IR status” then it becomes very easy to forget or overlook the fact that “IR status” actually includes many pers and situations that are not actually IR.  I suspect someone may caught the implications of slashing SE prior to the decision had we been more accurate, institutionally, in saying what we mean.

IR has many problems, and they will all continue to exist though at smaller cost.  At the same time, changes to SE have introduced problems for those pers who have had no choice or control on their situation.



			
				PMedMoe said:
			
		

> One thing I'd like to mention is people saying that they will be "losing" the amount of SE from their "paycheque".  To be correct, you are not.  SE is an allowance (or benefit) and not part of your pay.


Is SE a benefit, or is it compensation for the additional costs of being separated from F&E?  So, to be correct, pers are not losing money from their pay checks but they are loosing money out of their pockets as they assume these additional costs.  In the case of prohibited postings and unaccompanied pers, they are paying from their pockets to cover costs deriving from the exigencies of service.  In other words, the government has transferred the costs of its decisions down to the members.



			
				Donny said:
			
		

> Whats TD?





			
				John_NL said:
			
		

> Wondering mainly what the difference is between IR and TD.


Pers on TD (0 to 6 months) or attached posted (0 to 12 months) are compensated under the Canadian Forces Temporary Duty Travel Instruction (CFTDTI).  Pers on IR (6 to 24 months in concept, 0 to infinity in practice), prohibited posting (0 to infinity) or unaccompanied (0 to 6 months) are compensated through SE.  CFTDTI is intended to compensate for temporary separations while SE is intended to compensate for semi-permanent to permanent separations.



			
				Strike said:
			
		

> People need to remember that this is NOT the fault of the CF.  This change was mandated by TSB, of which the CF has no control, so it does no good to go blaming the CoC for this.


DND and the CF advise TB.  TB can then choose to take or leave the advice.  Really, we (those of us neither involved in advising TB nor working within TB) cannot know that blame does not rest somewhere in the CF.  It is possible that these changes are the “_good idea_” of someone in uniform.



			
				Tony Manifold said:
			
		

> … I would sleep a lot better at night if I knew, officially, uncle Walt and the gang recognized the situation and we're working on it.


For the same reason we cannot know if the CF was the cause of these changes, we cannot know if the CF is fighting to reverse them.

That being said, every level that I have been observed at base, unit and formation levels seems to suggest that the leadership understands the huge impact of these changes, and all levels are working to mitigate this impact on individual members.



			
				Journeyman said:
			
		

> This isn't aimed specifically at TM, but rather at the "collective" who have managed to spend 24 pages (with no end in sight) with precious little useful advice for the way ahead.


I will give this another shot:

Amend Sect 3.01 of the CFTDTIs to extend benefits to unaccompanied pers as this is intended to be a temporary status not exceeding 6 months 
 In the case of untrained personnel, the option exists to enrol them into a local BTL and then attach post those members to the successive schools required to get to OFP.  At any point in time when the member is likely to remain under control of the same school/TE for 12 or more months, then the member will receive a restricted posting. 
 Attached postings could also replace other uses of prohibited postings domestically.
Limit IR to two years with a third year extension on approval of CMP
Revisit the reduction of SE to find a more appropriate middle ground between what has been and what is coming into force.
Introduce an “evenings & weekends” rations rate that would allow pers living in shacks to get supper seven days a week, and brunch on all weekends and holidays – recognizing that many pers eat lunch in the workplace and prefer smaller non-hot breakfasts during those same days.
Invest in new singles quarters that meet the published standards of accommodation (why are we currently building Yukon Lodges all over the country to satisfy a requirement for more transient quarters when the existing permanent quarters meet the transient standard but fall sort of the permanent standard?)


----------



## TCM621 (22 Aug 2012)

One quick thing. You are incorrect. IR is being changed. 


> EFFECTIVE 1 SEP 12, THE FOLLOWING BENEFITS UNDER THE CANADIAN
> FORCES INTEGRATED RELOCATION PROGRAM (CFIRP) AND CB1 208 SHALL CEASE
> FOR ALL CF MEMBERS:


----------



## Dyolfknip (22 Aug 2012)

Tony Manifold said:
			
		

> One quick thing. You are incorrect. IR is being changed.




*facepalm*

Imposed Restriction and Integrated Relocation are two different "IR's"

Lol.


----------



## aesop081 (22 Aug 2012)

Tony Manifold said:
			
		

> One quick thing. You are incorrect. IR is being changed.



Your use of "IR" as "Integrated Relocation" is disingenuous at best.


----------



## TCM621 (22 Aug 2012)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> Your use of "IR" as "Integrated Relocation" is disingenuous at best.



My mistake. Little slow this morning.


----------



## Dyolfknip (24 Aug 2012)

Rumor mill says there may be a CANFORGEN coming that delays the meal cuts. Take it for what it is, rumor mill.


----------



## alejo (24 Aug 2012)

I am for one, against the changes to the SE benefit. Even though I know it has been abused, there is no reason to punish people for being separated from their families.

Before I joined I remember that it was one of the questions that I asked. If I had to pay for rations having a spouse (since rations were overpriced from my perspective). I do not even believe that single people should need to pay for them either, but that's just wishful thinking. They were very clear that whenever I was separated from my spouse I would not have to pay for rations. If I would have had to pay for them during basic training, I would have not have been able to join due to my financial situation at the time. I'm sure this decision will prevent a lot of applications for married/common-law couples as stated before by other members.

The SE allowance benefit was helpful, but to be honest I never knew about it until I was going basic training. It is something I could have lived without, since I never really put it as part of my budget. Luckily for me my spouse was able to move to Halifax with me (she had to transfer her studies from Ottawa). The most important thing is for her to finish her education, which she will be unable to do if I get posted somewhere else before she completes her studies (unlikely though).

People in the higher ranks and higher salaries will more likely be able to cope with these issues more easily. I really worry about those that are just beginning their trainings. Especially those still at basic, since they really have no way of moving their spouses at all. If these had happened while I was doing basic training I know I would have had to VR, because 550 out of my pocket was something that was paying for 80% of my rent at home.

What needs to be done at the very least is let people move their families with them despite their restriction, and those who can't for any reason should be provided with better accommodations (a place that at least has a kitchen), so that they can pay reasonable prices for food. 

However, this will probably cost more money so I doubt it will happen. I hope the right decisions are taken, otherwise I'm sure we will be losing a lot of good people in our ranks.


----------



## Jarnhamar (24 Aug 2012)

In protest I'm eating as much food as I can manage on my IR funded meal card until it's canceled 1 Sept.


Last night for supper I had 7 delicious Cajan chicken breasts with an over filled salad.  I had so much cheese the guy behind me said hey asshole leave some cheese for everyone else.






Now without IR meal plans,  instead of chicken breast and high protein foods (for getting big and strong) I'll be eating rice bread crumbs and sadness.

This;







will quickly turn into this;









Cuts to IR will make soldiers weaker!


----------



## Dyolfknip (24 Aug 2012)

ObedientiaZelum said:
			
		

> In protest I'm eating as much food as I can manage on my IR funded meal card until it's canceled 1 Sept.
> 
> 
> Last night for supper I had 7 delicious Cajan chicken breasts with an over filled salad.  I had so much cheese the guy behind me said hey ******* leave some cheese for everyone else.
> ...



That was a lot of work just to show off a bicep with a bad joke.


----------



## Jarnhamar (24 Aug 2012)

Not much work at all.

But by all means don't let my attempts at levity stop you from telling us about what rumors you've heard. 
Rumors are exactly what people need right now.
K go


----------



## Journeyman (24 Aug 2012)

Dyolfknip said:
			
		

> That was a lot of work just to show off a bicep with a bad joke.


I thought it was funny   :nod:

...and probably as beneficial as the overwhelming majority of posts in the preceding 26 pages...


Edited to remove some insensitivity, because I care most about those who whine the loudest.  :nod:


----------



## Dyolfknip (24 Aug 2012)

ObedientiaZelum said:
			
		

> Not much work at all.
> 
> But by all means don't let my attempts at levity stop you from telling us about what rumors you've heard.
> Rumors are exactly what people need right now.
> K go



My bad, I should have put a "" I guess. 
Joke still sucked though. Lol.


----------



## turretmonster (24 Aug 2012)

"Edited to remove some insensitivity, because I care most about those who whine the loudest. "

You get all my mil points for that one line, please..I insist!

TM


----------



## 4Feathers (24 Aug 2012)

Senior leadership does care, expect some new announcements on Monday about the implementation of the benefit cuts. From what I saw, it pertains to the  timing of when they will come into effect. I am optimistic there will be some positive change.


----------



## Dyolfknip (25 Aug 2012)

4Feathers said:
			
		

> Senior leadership does care, expect some new announcements on Monday about the implementation of the benefit cuts. From what I saw, it pertains to the  timing of when they will come into effect. I am optimistic there will be some positive change.



Careful, people get snippy around here with rumours.


----------



## Jarnhamar (25 Aug 2012)

Dyolfknip said:
			
		

> Careful, people get snippy around here with rumours.



There is no difference at all between a member here actually seeing email traffic or physical proof of some changes to a policy  and someone "hearing a rumor" about it from an unidentified source.     

Our little banter aside, people here actually DO frown upon rumors- especially spreading rumors ON this site. 
It may not be a significant thing to you but if some young soldier reads your "rumor" and passes it on to someone else (as young soldiers often do) "I heard such an such at army.ca" and it proves to be right out to lunch then this message forum looses credibility.


----------



## Dyolfknip (25 Aug 2012)

ObedientiaZelum said:
			
		

> There is no difference at all between a member here actually seeing email traffic or physical proof of some changes to a policy  and someone "hearing a rumor" about it from an unidentified source.
> 
> Our little banter aside, people here actually DO frown upon rumors- especially spreading rumors ON this site.
> It may not be a significant thing to you but if some young soldier reads your "rumor" and passes it on to someone else (as young soldiers often do) "I heard such an such at army.ca" and it proves to be right out to lunch then this message forum looses credibility.



You assume there is some sort of decorum of "credibility" on an open forum?

Anyway, I digress. Watch and shoot, as usual.


----------



## Jarnhamar (25 Aug 2012)

Dyolfknip said:
			
		

> You assume there is some sort of decorum of "credibility" on an open forum?



Yes. It's an "open forum" but we try and make sure any information posted here is as accurate as possible. 
Unless it's war stores, then they tend towards exaggeration 



> Anyway, I digress. Watch and shoot, as usual.



For sure.


----------



## Journeyman (25 Aug 2012)

Dyolfknip said:
			
		

> You assume there is some sort of decorum of "credibility" on an open forum?



There must be. 
Several thousand times the Recruiting threads have seen "go talk to a recruiter," yet still get dismissed by some dingbat saying:





			
				Paladium said:
			
		

> ...just because a recruiter tells you something doesn't always make it so - much more often then not they are right buteen policies change and recruiters were unaware



Obviously anonymous internet posters have more credibility...."much more often _than_ not."   :nod:

/tangent


----------



## Donny (25 Aug 2012)

ObedientiaZelum said:
			
		

> In protest I'm eating as much food as I can manage on my IR funded meal card until it's canceled 1 Sept.
> 
> 
> Last night for supper I had 7 delicious Cajan chicken breasts with an over filled salad.  I had so much cheese the guy behind me said hey ******* leave some cheese for everyone else.
> ...


----------



## natharr (26 Aug 2012)

Donny said:
			
		

> Does this apply to new recruits that are going to CFLRS? According to their website, no indication about any changes yet. I will be attending of BMQ within next few weeks and i am married. Before i was told i don't have to pay for rations because i have a family and a house to maintain. I am trying to clarify this but the person i called at my local RC yesterday did not have any idea about it.
> It seems tough to pay for two places with a recruit's pay.



My husband started BMOQ last week. They have told all the recruits that as of Sept 1 they will have to pay $540/month for food. So yes, it does apply to new recruits at CFLRS.

I know it's all been said, but this is really upsetting for a couple reasons:

1. No notice. All during the recruiting process they said that food would be covered during training. Not ONCE did someone say, "And you should budget $540/month so that you can eat."

2. No choice. You have to live there and you have to eat there and you can't buy and make your own food. It's essentially a $540/month pay cut.

3. The amount. $540 is more than what it costs to feed both of us for a month. So if we don't want our food costs to skyrocket, I will have to live on ramen.

This is all new to me. This is the first week of the next six (or more) years. Is this what it's like? Where they promise something and then take it away? It's a really crappy way to welcome people into the Canadian Forces.

(I hate being so negative. I hope the rumours of someone, somewhere, doing something are true.)


----------



## Grunt_031 (26 Aug 2012)

> This is all new to me. This is the first week of the next six (or more) years. Is this what it's like? Where they promise something and then take it away? It's a really crappy way to welcome people into the Canadian Forces.



This is way the CF and government operate. We are our own worst enemies. I feel your pain but in the end it will be a small bump in history. There will always be something along the way. There were many an event like this through my 23 yr career.

i.e In 1990, as a young private with a family, I was to set on my first tour and the LdSH Battlegroup arranged for prepayment of our HLTA with the travel agent. My wife and I used this opportunity to take that dream honeymoon in Europe. The cost was $5000 and it was to be spread over the length of the tour in installments. One month into the tour it came down that the CO did not have the authorization and that all accounts with the travel agent had to be paid in full or a immediate cost recovery would happen (My pay would be zero until it was recovered).  It was alot of stress but in the end a better (not much better) solution was adopted.

Hopefully the CofC will allow the current affected to be cushioned but in the end the marching orders for money are given by Treasury and in the next couple years this will be a semi event forgotten by the majority.


----------



## MedCorps (26 Aug 2012)

harriet said:
			
		

> 3. The amount. $540 is more than what it costs to feed both of us for a month. So if we don't want our food costs to skyrocket, I will have to live on ramen.



This will make the first of many sacrifices that you will have to make as the wife of an officer. Be also prepared for him being away for most anniversaries, missing the birth of your child, working late as to not help with child rearing to the full extent you (and he) would like, lots of mixed dinning ins where you have to buy something nice to wear only to listen to boring speeches all night, and functions / parties with the OC / COs wife - someone which you may not even like or a function that want to go, but that will have impact on your husbands career / posting survival. Also be prepared to move every 3-5 years when you are looking to establish your career. 

I know ramen sucks, but this whole military experience is indeed a family team sport.  If you are not up to it, let him know now before he has committed blood and tears into his new calling, complete BMOQ and things get ugly.



			
				harriet said:
			
		

> This is all new to me. This is the first week of the next six (or more) years. Is this what it's like? Where they promise something and then take it away?



Yep.  Welcome to the suck my friend. Wait until you meet the variation on this situation called, "on the bus, off the bus".  You will like that one also. 

MC


----------



## SupersonicMax (26 Aug 2012)

MedCorps said:
			
		

> This will make the first of many sacrifices that you will have to make as the wife of an officer.



Wow, again, really?  So, because she is the wife of oh, an officer, she would have to eat ramen in order for their budget to balance, because rules changes with no notice and no way to avoid?  Give your cranium a good shake.....  

Families should not suffer because of atrocious policies.  It seems that some people wouldn't be able to tell bad policies if it raped them... Keep drinking the cool aid...

Hopefully something gets done, quickly, or the CF will lose some of their most valuable resource: people.


----------



## Good2Golf (26 Aug 2012)

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> Wow, again, really?  So, because she is the wife of oh, an officer, she would have to eat ramen in order for their budget to balance, because rules changes with no notice and no way to avoid?  Give your cranium a good shake.....
> 
> Families should not suffer because of atrocious policies.  It seems that some people wouldn't be able to tell bad policies if it raped them... Keep drinking the cool aid...
> 
> Hopefully something gets done, quickly, or the CF will lose some of their most valuable resource: people.



While MedCorps is giving his head a shake on your orders, why don't you give your head a shake too?  With 28 years in the CF and 22 of that married to a wife who made countless concessions in support of my career, I can tell you that both I and my wife agree with 100% of what he said.  Not saying we like(d) it, but it is what it is.

At no time did MedCorps say he agreed with the new policy, but he was advising poster Harriet that if things don't get sorted out on the SE benefit reduction, that eating ramen noodles may very well be but one of the number of significant concessions she will have to make in the future; not because she is a woman or a wife per se, but as the spouse of an officer who, we'll assume has a reasonable career growth path ahead of him, will have to live with shorter posting cycles than NCMs (peak for my wife and me was five postings in as many years to four different cities) and "non-mandatory" costs (material and time) related to social and official functions, etc... that are part of the "support your spouse, even if you aren't a big fan of their bosses, system, organization, etc..." program.

MedCorps' comment about life in the CF being a "family sport" is about as close to the truth as anyone could get.  Unless I am completely missing his intent though, his comments were all meant to inform Harriet of the potential (likely) impact of how family life in the CF will unfold - forewarned is forearmed.  Frankly, I wish that both I and my wife had had someone tell us this much earlier in our careers such that when the posting message arrived, often without warning (especially that 5-in-a-row period) it would have made my wife putting yet again another job/career on hold or stopping yet again another degree in mid-course a bit more palatable...or at least understandable.

Over time (22 years to be exact) my wife is less surprised by things that happen in the CF that seem to either make no sense at all or, worse yet, bring hardships to bear on families.  That doesn't make those things any more palatable, but it has made both of us much more attuned to the plight of everyone affected by such policy changes and to help, as much as we can as a less formal "command team", CF members and their families understand and try to deal with their respective situations, including making social events with chain of command far less uncaring and unrespectful than when my wife and I were starting out our "marriage in/with the CF."

Deride MedCorps and others all you want with you "Kool-aid" comments and the like, Max, but don't lose sight of the fact that MedCorps' words were given with an aim of helping Harriet and other spouses to understand and prepare for what may (likely) come in the future, not to try to convince them to like what happened recently with cuts to SE benefits. 


Regards
G2G


----------



## Grunt_031 (26 Aug 2012)

> Hopefully something gets done, quickly, or the CF will lose some of their most valuable resource: people.



We lose good people very day. As they fall to the side other people step up and new people join. You make contributions and sacrifice to the CF but once you leave they are a distant memory brought up at reunions. Your Creations, SOP's, Policies are changed or modified with the new people wanting to make their mark.  Remember it is always to the the benefit of the CF and the Crown not the other way round. The Army (CF) marchs on.  The camp followers are the ones that have to pick up the pieces after the battle.


----------



## SupersonicMax (26 Aug 2012)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> While MedCorps is giving his head a shake on your orders, why don't you give your head a shake too?  With 28 years in the CF and 22 of that married to a wife who made countless concessions in support of my career, I can tell you that both I and my wife agree with 100% of what he said.  Not saying we like(d) it, but it is what it is.



I did not say that as a military spouse, you shouldn't make concessions and sacrifices... Quite to the contrary and I hope anyone joining the CF understands that.  I also think most people understand that policy changes will happen over time.  However, the latest round of policy change is simply unacceptable and saying that "This will make the first of many sacrifices that you will have to make as the wife of an officer" simply doesn't cut it, especially by a "Senior Officer".  

If any company tried that on a new hire, I can tell you lawsuits would follow... 



			
				Good2Golf said:
			
		

> At no time did MedCorps say he agreed with the new policy, but he was advising poster Harriet that if things don't get sorted out on the SE benefit reduction, that eating ramen noodles may very well be but one of the number of significant concessions she will have to make in the future.



The way I read it was along the lines of "suck it up, buttercup, hubby joined the military now your life is second to his".  In fact, I believe that military families are the backbone of our organization.  Keep them happy and they will go the extra mile without saying a word.  As soon as you cut into their basic needs, this is when it starts going sideways.  A soldier/airman/sailor cannot perform at work, especially not if deployed, then the family behind is not supportive at 100%.  The old days of "if they army wanted you to have a wife, it would issue you one" are, thankfully, gone.



			
				Good2Golf said:
			
		

> MedCorps' comment about life in the CF being a "family sport" is about as close to the truth as anyone could get.  Unless I am completely missing his intent though, his comments were all meant to inform Harriet of the potential (likely) impact of how family life in the CF will unfold - forewarned is forearmed.  Frankly, I wish that both I and my wife had had someone tell us this much earlier in our careers such that when the posting message arrived, often without warning (especially that 5-in-a-row period) it would have made my wife putting yet again another job/career on hold or stopping yet again another degree in mid-course a bit more palatable...or at least understandable.



They way I interpreted his comments is "If you think eating ramen because you have no money to buy anything else is bad, let you hubby know now, so he can release."  Again, basic needs.  She can't be supportive of an organization that has little considerations for the consequences of policy change (I know the CF had its hand tied, however from a recruit's perspective, I think, it was for me back when I joined 12 years ago, it's all the same...)  And it's a very bad first impression of an organization that is supposedly an "employer of choice".



			
				Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Deride MedCorps and others all you want with you "Kool-aid" comments and the like, Max, but don't lose sight of the fact that MedCorps' words were given with an aim of helping Harriet and other spouses to understand and prepare for what may (likely) come in the future, not to try to convince them to like what happened recently with cuts to SE benefits.



By not being sympathetic to the cause, he comes across, to me anyways, as not caring for the welfare of those involved.  I am in no way affected a bit by this, however I can sympathize with those that are and I certainly do not defend the system that is screwing its own people right now.



			
				Grunt_031 said:
			
		

> We lose good people very day. As they fall to the side other people step up and new people join. You make contributions and sacrifice to the CF but once you leave they are a distant memory brought up at reunions. Your Creations, SOP's, Policies are changed or modified with the new people wanting to make their mark.  Remember it is always to the the benefit of the CF and the Crown not the other way round. The Army (CF) marchs on.  The camp followers are the ones that have to pick up the pieces after the battle.



Attracting people is easy enough... Attracting quality people is a different matter...  Belive it or not, money talks, even in the CF.  If the CF and the Crown wants to benefit something, the CF and the Crown will have to give a little.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (26 Aug 2012)

Max,

Reference your "lawsuit" comment-

The fact of the matter is that, you, we, us  Do Not work for a corporation.

We all serve at the pleasure of the Crown.

Think about that line for a second.

The Crown is free to adjust the terms and conditions of our service, at will.

This is not an endorsement of the mess that has become of SE and meal plans, particularly for junior folks under training.  It is instead, a reminder to that we work for a rather unique employer- an employer who quite literally holds all the cards.


----------



## SupersonicMax (26 Aug 2012)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> Max,
> 
> Reference your "lawsuit" comment-
> 
> ...



My comment was meant to be a contrast to the "Employer of choice" slogan widely used by the CF...   Having said that, I do not believe that the government has every and any right to do whatever it wants with its personnel and their benefit.  It still needs to stand in court if challenge (and there are avenues to challenge the policies).


----------



## SeaKingTacco (26 Aug 2012)

Really, Max?

Really?

You do understand the term "unlimited liability", right?

I am losing patience for your self entitled BS.

You do not have to like this latest benefits fiasco (and it is a fiasco), but you need to keep some perspective.

Do you think that you would realistically be making the equivalent of your entire compensation package (which amounts to more than 100k/annum) flying anywhere else in North America, with (I'm guessing here), less than 1000hrs of total flying time?

I've been doing this for more than 27 years.  95% of the time, we are vastly over compensated for what we do.

The other 5% of the time, there is not enough money in the world.

In other words, you had better be in this gig for reasons other than money.


----------



## PPCLI Guy (26 Aug 2012)

Max,

You have repeatedly stated that you have no skin in this game, and yet weigh in with proscriptive if not apocalyptic pronouncements.  Easy to do without any skin - and I am assuming that you statements means that none of your subordinates (if you indeed have any) are in anyway impacted by this policy change.

Consider this.  Many of the poster on this thread, including the "Senior Officers" that you dimissively referred to have a lot of skin in this game.  They have subordinates that are severely affected by this policy change. And yet they have made the effort to truly understand the nature of the organisation in which they serve, and are now working diligently to not only mitigate the impact of the changes where possible, but also to be the public face of the policy change.

If you are not prepared to do so yourself, now or in the future, you should give West Jet a call.  I hear they are an "employer of choice", and you will get to belong to a union as well, protecting you from ever having to think hard about issues lkike unlimited liability, service to the country, or definitions of fair compensation.


----------



## aesop081 (26 Aug 2012)

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> It still needs to stand in court if challenge (and there are avenues to challenge the policies).



When can we expect you to do so ?


----------



## George Wallace (26 Aug 2012)

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> ...........   Having said that, I do not believe that the government has every and any right to do whatever it wants with its personnel and their benefit.  It still needs to stand in court if challenge (and there are avenues to challenge the policies).



Tell that to the Public Civil Service unions.  I am sure they will all rally around you.  They just gave up Severence Pay, and other benefits due to 'discussions' with Treasury Board/our Government.


----------



## armyvern (26 Aug 2012)

Grunt_031 said:
			
		

> We lose good people very day. As they fall to the side other people step up and new people join. You make contributions and sacrifice to the CF but once you leave they are a distant memory brought up at reunions. Your Creations, SOP's, Policies are changed or modified with the new people wanting to make their mark.  Remember it is always to the the benefit of the CF and the Crown not the other way round. The Army (CF) marchs on.  The camp followers are the ones that have to pick up the pieces after the battle.



Careful with that statement. I am one who has picked up the pieces. 4 Prohibited Postings so far in my career, and at least 1 "middle of February" P.P. move for both myself and my Svc Spouse ... we are the ones who go "wherever, whenever, for whatever" and do our jobs. 

Careers seriously can't find a spot for a Sup Tech in Petawawa with her Svc Spouse (at a time when at least two other sup techs of same rank had +12 years there)? In Petawawa!!?? My gawd. At a time when I was PP in Borden with a gentlemen of same rank/trade as my husband who was also PP - while both our spouses were in Pet (and she same trade/rank as I)? When I am P.P. here and he was posted to Quebec in last January while I was deployed ... and yet his career shop has since posted 2 members same rank/trade as him here to my location (1 of them IR!!)?? Yet we are still separated!?

And now, they want me to pay for those costs? How fun. Makes one think. You are right of course, I am replaceable; so is my service spouse. We who *both* do our jobs whenever and wherever are absolutely replaceable; we understand that careers will colocate us "when they can, but that exigencies of the service come first". Do exigencies of the service count when others rot in locations? When others of same rank/trade have never had to suffer through even ONE posting away from their family? Usually of the two latter groups precisely because they will not do the "whenever, wherever" thing as we who are now financially impacted have more than proven we are willing to do? Yes, we are a MSC, but the CF certainly benefits from the employment of us both.

To me, that means next time they want to post either one of us in February, the possibility exists that they can go ahead and replace us two replaceable people. That means they'd have to fill whatever job it was they were posting me to, fill the job I would currently be sitting in, and fill his job he'd be sitting in. In February. I wish them well with that should that be what it comes down to. Replace 3 for failing to look after the 1 who has no choice.

I'll give careers credit: on the last posting (his to Quebec), he was supposed to be posted in December. As the DF&E moves with him and I am the prohibited posted party, our taxes would have then been payable in Quebec tax rate for the year. Nice. When he talked to his career shop and pointed out they'd be screwing our family for an extra 10K in taxes from the two of us by posting him prior to 31 December, they relented and COSd him in on 5 Jan. Of course, that meant we were in a hotel over Christmas with my meals not covered under "his" move of course because I was attached posted to Edmonton for WU Trg (and posted PP somewhere else). But, best thing to happen to us from our respective career shops in many a years now.



+++ And, I've yet to hear whether or not it was the CF itself who offered up these areas for cuts or whether they were TB directed. So far, the benefits have not changed in the NJC for other government departments ...


----------



## Wookilar (27 Aug 2012)

Ok so Monday is not done just quite yet, but nothing new that I have seen. I've been out in the woods sans 3G for the last 2 weeks plus so I had a bit of reading to do   

I see that CANFORGEN 083/11 Clarification of Restricted Move was cancelled last week.

I haven't seen any new info that would replace said CANFORGEN. Part of a larger consolidation of Restricted/Prohibited et al perhaps?


----------



## DAA (27 Aug 2012)

Email came out today regarding the subject as a result of discussions at AFC.  The policy with respect to IR and its' benefits is being reviewed and an amendment on the CANFORGEN is forthcoming, hppefully by the end of this week.  There was no mention of just what is going to change, other than the comment of a "soft landing".....


----------



## SupersonicMax (27 Aug 2012)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> You do understand the term "unlimited liability", right?



I am pretty sure it doesn't mean the government can frig you over all it wants.  Yes, it can send you to war, ask you to kill people and lay down your live.  That is in the law and we, as soldiers/airmen/sailors, understand and accept it.  



			
				SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> Do you think that you would realistically be making the equivalent of your entire compensation package (which amounts to more than 100k/annum) flying anywhere else in North America, with (I'm guessing here), less than 1000hrs of total flying time?



I am pretty sure I could make close to 100K a year flying right now on the civy streets/other militaries, or more if not flying, however that is not the point. I would not be expected to fly over bad guy land, being shot at and kill people with Air Canada.  Oh, and I am pretty sure I wouldn't work 60hrs a week on average working for Air Canada. Remember that "umlimited liability" thing?  It does have a price tag in the end.



			
				SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> I've been doing this for more than 27 years.  95% of the time, we are vastly over compensated for what we do.



Putting things into perspective, and taking into consideration what we could and are asked to do(kill or be killed), the sacrifices we need to make (I am gone 4-5 months out of every year for work, work countless week ends in the QRA, etc, etc) I don't think we are over compensated for what we do. 



			
				SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> In other words, you had better be in this gig for reasons other than money.



Yup, I don't do it for the money.  I'm pretty sure I could have made a whole lot more money somewhere else.  But I wouldn't be doing what I love the most. However, you cannot expect your personnel to be happy when they can't meet the basic needs or their family because of horrible policies.  Money may not be the sole motivation for most people, however it is a very good enabler.  Think of people that went on tours because they netted a whole lot more money?

I am not arguing about IR.  I agree, IR was the sacred cow that people abused over the years.  It has a place and a use, but sadly, a few abused the system (and even with the latest changes, it looks like some will still be able to milk that cow).  I am mostly upset about the impact it has on personnel on prohibited posting, where the CF orders someone, somewhere and doesn't allow the families to come with, but puts the families (especially young privates/2Lts undergoing training) under a significant financial stress.  I am happy to see, with the latest post, that the upper echelon of the CF are trying to do something, but I am disappointed that nothing was done before the policy was unveiled. 

CDN Aviator:  I would most definitely challenge the policy if it implicated me by all means possible, up to and including court.  I am very much a "It's not that bad, we'll live through it" kind of guy, but this is simply outrageous.  

GW: We also lost severange pay.  I am not bitching about that.



			
				PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> Consider this.  Many of the poster on this thread, including the "Senior Officers" that you dimissively referred to have a lot of skin in this game.  They have subordinates that are severely affected by this policy change. And yet they have made the effort to truly understand the nature of the organisation in which they serve, and are now working diligently to not only mitigate the impact of the changes where possible, but also to be the public face of the policy change.



There is always a way to deal with a bad policy internally.  Saving face at the expense of your people is not an option imo.  A spade needs to be called a spade.  



			
				PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> If you are not prepared to do so yourself, now or in the future, you should give West Jet a call.  I hear they are an "employer of choice", and you will get to belong to a union as well, protecting you from ever having to think hard about issues lkike unlimited liability, service to the country, or definitions of fair compensation.



Just to be clear, Westjet pilots do not have a union.  And I am not very pro-union.  But flying airlines is not in my future plans...  Thanks for the advice though..


----------



## George Wallace (27 Aug 2012)

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> GW: We also lost severange pay.  I am not bitching about that.



We all know that......It seems the point I was trying to make went right over your head.




			
				SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> ...........   Having said that, I do not believe that the government has every and any right to do whatever it wants with its personnel and their benefit.  It still needs to stand in court if challenge (and there are avenues to challenge the policies).



It appears that the government does do what it wants with its personnel and their benefits.


----------



## 4Feathers (27 Aug 2012)

Wookilar said:
			
		

> Ok so Monday is not done just quite yet, but nothing new that I have seen. I've been out in the woods sans 3G for the last 2 weeks plus so I had a bit of reading to do
> 
> I see that CANFORGEN 083/11 Clarification of Restricted Move was cancelled last week.
> 
> I haven't seen any new info that would replace said CANFORGEN. Part of a larger consolidation of Restricted/Prohibited et al perhaps?



Hurry up and wait, it is coming as I said last Friday. Likely pertains to the timing of the benefit changes.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (27 Aug 2012)

Max,

To avoid a total thread derail, I will just say that I disagree with just about everything you have just posted.

Good day.


----------



## dapaterson (27 Aug 2012)

4Feathers said:
			
		

> Hurry up and wait, it is coming as I said last Friday. Likely pertains to the timing of the benefit changes.



Given that all benefits are set by the Treasury Board, and that there have been, to my knowledge, no meetings of the Treasury Board since June, the CF has no legal authority to delay any of the changes.

Any CANFORGENs may address mitigations of the announced changes; any alterations to timelines are outside the authority of the CDS and Deputy Minister of National Defence.


----------



## FSTO (28 Aug 2012)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Given that all benefits are set by the Treasury Board, and that there have been, to my knowledge, no meetings of the Treasury Board since June, the CF has no legal authority to delay any of the changes.
> 
> Any CANFORGENs may address mitigations of the announced changes; any alterations to timelines are outside the authority of the CDS and Deputy Minister of National Defence.



Could you tell me how Treasury Board (TB) comes to their decisions? Do they constantly review our policies and then tells the Department what can be added or deleted? Or does TB come down and say "you must cut 10% and it must come from certain aspects of Compensation and Benefits".

It just seems that changes to our C&B come out of the blue with no preparation other than " don't count on allowances such as SDA, PLD, etc ". It would be advantageous to us as leaders to have an inkling of how these decisions are made.   This would avoid the usual shrug of the shoulders and "those **** in Ottawa" when our subordinates ask the questions.


----------



## dapaterson (28 Aug 2012)

FSTO said:
			
		

> Could you tell me how Treasury Board (TB) comes to their decisions? Do they constantly review our policies and then tells the Department what can be added or deleted? Or does TB come down and say "you must cut 10% and it must come from certain aspects of Compensation and Benefits".
> 
> It just seems that changes to our C&B come out of the blue with no preparation other than " don't count on allowances such as SDA, PLD, etc ". It would be advantageous to us as leaders to have an inkling of how these decisions are made.   This would avoid the usual shrug of the shoulders and "those **** in Ottawa" when our subordinates ask the questions.



The short answer is:  It's complicated.

The longer answer:

The Treasury Board (TBS) is a statutory committee of parliament.  There are half a dozen members, plus alternates, who meet pretty much weekly while Parliament is in session to make decisions.  These decisions cover a wide range of areas.  For example: they will approve projects for departments, at various stages.  They also approve labour agreements with publc sector unions.

TB is supported by the Treasury Board Secretariat (TBS), supporting the ministers of TB.  They do a great deal of the heavy lifting behind the scenes, co-ordinating with departments to ensure that submissons put before the board provide a complete picture.  TBS will write summaries of submissions, and include recommendations as to whether they think the Board should approve, reject or approve with conditions the submissions.  Ministers are not bound by the staff recommendations.

Submissions to the Treasury Board are Cabinet Confidences, and treated as Protected B as a minimum.  They are considered as advice to government and thus are not releaseable under ATI.

In this specific case?  All departments were instructed to find reductions.  Not sitting at the left hand of the DM and CDS, I do not know what was directed from above (TB or TBS), and what was identified from below.  However, the VCDS co-ordinated the CF returns.  Options would have been presented together with impact assessments from all organizations within the Department.  The VCDS would have reviewed, compiled, and submitted those, approved by the CDS and DM, with costings confirmed by the Departmental Chief Financial Officer.

Once reduction proposals were submitted, they would be reviewed by TBS staff, questions directed to DND OPIs for clarification, and the TBS staff would draft recommendations for the TB ministers to decide what reductions to make.

TB Ministers met, decided which options to select from each department, and directed that those reductions be made.


That's a very abbreviated version of the process.


----------



## 4Feathers (28 Aug 2012)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Given that all benefits are set by the Treasury Board, and that there have been, to my knowledge, no meetings of the Treasury Board since June, the CF has no legal authority to delay any of the changes.
> 
> Any CANFORGENs may address mitigations of the announced changes; any alterations to timelines are outside the authority of the CDS and Deputy Minister of National Defence.



Yes you are correct, somewhat. I am no expert as I do not work in Ottawa (nor would want to). But for a policy change to an existing policy you would first need a Memorandum to Cabinet (MC), and Govenor In Council (GIC) approval. The TB is the approving authority only of the design, deliver and implementation of the program. The secretary of the TB has the authority, with the recommendation of the sponsoring Minister, to amend any of this. AFC just sat, and hopefully put together a compelling case for the MND to request these changes to the Secretary of the TB. It is all very confusing, and likely designed by lawyers so that we as ordinary tax payers, are kept in the dark as to how things happen. Perhaps they could dumb up the process a little more so that it is understood, or they could do a book called "How the Government works for Dummies". Bottom line is I hope we see some amendments soon, whether it be time lines, or to protect those on Restricted posting. I tend to be an optimist in any case.


----------



## FSTO (28 Aug 2012)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> The short answer is:  It's complicated.
> 
> The longer answer:
> 
> ...



Thanks for the answer.

Seeing that this proposed change would have gone through several levels of senior NDHQ directorates that they would have know the impact of said change. Or are they that far removed from the folks most effected that they never considered the implications? 
And they are so surprised by the reactions that the AFC has to sit to make adjustments? Are they that daft?


----------



## Remius (28 Aug 2012)

Well, they've also cut and are cutting Class B positions (as in you are no longer required, find a job somewhwere else), they've cut some 1200 civilian positions, pretty much have told annuitants to take a walk and are cutting some benefits.   Are they daft? No.  Did they consider the ramifications?  Something tells me yes.

Maybe they also had the option of mothballing some ships, disbanding some units and releasing some members.  Maybe they looked at those ramifications as well...


----------



## dapaterson (28 Aug 2012)

1.  An MC would be required to institute an entirely new benefit or significant policy change.  Altering benefits likely would not have required an MC.

2.  Changes to benefits require the approval of the TB as a whole; while certain administrative details can be left to the secretary, policy changes would require a meeting of the board.

3.  A fundamental rule of the military applies equally to government: No plan survives first contact with the enemy or with reality.  It is extremely unliklely that the original plan was to give 30 days notice in the middle of the summer.  However, if approvals were delayed, hands may well have been tied: remember, TB submissions are cabinet confidences; disclosing them is an offense.  So announcements can't be made until approval from TB is received.  Assuming that TB direction includes an effective date a department can end up with very limited time to react.

4.  There are many other initiaitves proceeding from the Strategic Review and Deficit Reduction Action Plan, both inside DND/CF and in the larger Government of Canada.  The impacts of this are severe, but so are he impacts of many other changes hitting DND/CF and other departments.  As anyone who's spent time in a CP can testify, when lots of things are movign fast & furious, sometimes somedetails are overlooked.  That's not an excuse, but an explanation.


----------



## dapaterson (28 Aug 2012)

4Feathers said:
			
		

> Yes you are correct, somewhat. I am no expert as I do not work in Ottawa (nor would want to). But for a policy change to an existing policy you would first need a Memorandum to Cabinet (MC), and Govenor In Council (GIC) approval. The TB is the approving authority only of the design, deliver and implementation of the program. The secretary of the TB has the authority, with the recommendation of the sponsoring Minister, to amend any of this. AFC just sat, and hopefully put together a compelling case for the MND to request these changes to the Secretary of the TB. It is all very confusing, and likely designed by lawyers so that we as ordinary tax payers, are kept in the dark as to how things happen. Perhaps they could dumb up the process a little more so that it is understood, or they could do a book called "How the Government works for Dummies". Bottom line is I hope we see some amendments soon, whether it be time lines, or to protect those on Restricted posting. I tend to be an optimist in any case.



[tangent]

The processes of Government seem complex at first, but aren't really.  Some of the internal admin to supprot the processes can become involved, but overall, it's fairly straightforward.

1.  Requirement identified.  Can be top down (political) or bottom up (departmental).

2.  Policy cover.  Can be existing from legislation or regulation, or may require a Memorandum to Cabinet.

3.  Approval (including spending).  May be addressed through existing departmental authorities, or may require a submission to the Treasury Board.


Lots of process hoops to jump through along the way, but not overly complex.


----------



## armyvern (28 Aug 2012)

Crantor said:
			
		

> Well, they've also cut and are cutting Class B positions (as in you are no longer required, find a job somewhwere else), they've cut some 1200 civilian positions, pretty much have told annuitants to take a walk and are cutting some benefits.   Are they daft? No.  Did they consider the ramifications?  Something tells me yes.
> 
> Maybe they also had the option of mothballing some ships, disbanding some units and releasing some members.  Maybe they looked at those ramifications as well...



There are those of us who'd point out that the Snowbirds and Skyhawks are still around drumming up CF business. Perhaps the govn't should pay for those political keepers out of differing coffers from the CFs then before removing either essential CF Units and Eqpt or food from troops' mouths?


----------



## Monsoon (28 Aug 2012)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> There are those of us who'd point out that the Snowbirds and Skyhawks are still around drumming up CF business. Perhaps the govn't should pay for those political keepers out of differing coffers from the CFs then before removing either essential CF Units and Eqpt or food from troops' mouths?


I suspect you'll find that the political benefit those flakey programmes accrue gives us the political leverage needed to keep some of our operational units; in that sense you may have the "supporter" and "supported" backwards.


----------



## 4Feathers (28 Aug 2012)

Thankfully, there are Ottawa (or google) experts on here, and the mystery is solved, we did this to ourselves and are now trying to dig ourselves out of a hole.


----------



## MedCorps (28 Aug 2012)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> There are those of us who'd point out that the Snowbirds and Skyhawks are still around drumming up CF business. Perhaps the govn't should pay for those political keepers out of differing coffers from the CFs then before removing either essential CF Units and Eqpt or food from troops' mouths?



I was under the impression that Canadian Heritage already paid for the Snowbirds and that their flying and maintenance budget (I have heard the number 10 million used) does not come out of the RCAF / CF coffers.  I think this happened in 1999 when Air Command was ordered to make cuts and the first thing they offered up was 431 Sqn.  This did not go over well with the general public or PMO but it was a hard argument to justify getting rid of another "operational" Air Command sqn. As such the Department of Canadian Heritage kicked up the cash.  

I have no first hand knowledge or source documentation.  This could be mess rumour. One of the tell tail signs may be who approves their yearly roster of shows. Anyone know? 

MC


----------



## Remius (28 Aug 2012)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> There are those of us who'd point out that the Snowbirds and Skyhawks are still around drumming up CF business. Perhaps the govn't should pay for those political keepers out of differing coffers from the CFs then before removing either essential CF Units and Eqpt or food from troops' mouths?



Sure.

But I'm sure they looked at the ramifications of doing that as well.


----------



## armyvern (28 Aug 2012)

Crantor said:
			
		

> Sure.



But, now I am interested in seeing who pays their bills due to the previous response from MedCorps.


----------



## Paladium (28 Aug 2012)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> There must be.
> Several thousand times the Recruiting threads have seen "go talk to a recruiter," yet still get dismissed by some dingbat saying:
> Obviously anonymous internet posters have more credibility...."much more often _than_ not."   :nod:
> 
> /tangent



Let's just talk about this a little shall we.

There are an awful lot of policies in recruiting and I can tell you straight out that it is impossible to know everything about everyone.  I said recruiters are right more often then not - but in some cases there is no harm in double checking.  That is all I am saying.  Have I ever met a recruiter who had misconceptions about certain programs or how a policy is applied - absolutely - but it is not commonplace - typically if recruiters don't know an answer they will find someone who does.

Policies change from one day to the next - take the Separation expense policy - one week we were telling married people that they wouldn't be paying for rations and low and behold now they are.  Recruiters have told some people their degree is accredited (an off the beaten track degree) when it has proven in the end not to be the case.  Again recruiters are great but there are some unique and rare programs that they may not be totally versed upon depending on where in the country they are from - or if it a program they rarely deal with.

In the east a recruiters knowledge of Aboriginal programs may not be as in-depth as say someone from Edmonton who deals with those programs everyday - nor should it be.

To reiterate  I am not trying to disparage recruiters they are great - I am promoting double checking - depending on the situation.


----------



## Remius (28 Aug 2012)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> But, now I am interested in seeing who pays their bills due to the previous response from MedCorps.


.

I wouldn't be surprised if other departments and or agencies or whatever pour some funds into those things.  I know that Tourism Ottawa for example forks over some cash to the Ceremonial Guard in Ottawa as an example.

In the end though the bulk of the costs though, come from DND.

And as far as this CANFORGEN goes, I wouldn't be surprised if an ammendment, modification, delay or combination of all three comes out sooner rather than later.  As much as some people here think the CoC is daft and clueless, I think they are working to minimise the impact.


----------



## dapaterson (29 Aug 2012)

re: External funding:  There may have been some long-ago historical funding transfer from Heritage Canada for the Snowbirds; if so, as far as I know, it's been lost in the mists of time.  (Random tangent:  What's the French name of the Snowbirds?  Les Floridiens?)  Year to year, it's RCAF money spent to sustain them.

As for the CG: While Tourism Ottawa may provide some funds for promotion, the pay & operating costs for the CG are borne by the Army.


Having been through several iterations of reductions while working on the Land Staff, I'll say that usually one of the first pieces of direction given to the staff is "Do not propose the CG"; I'll assume the RCAF gives similar directions concerning the Snowbirds.  Those are two high profile public faces of the CF.  Their costs compared to overall departmental budgets are not that large; there are many other things that the CF does that can also be evaluated to find savings.  Not to say that the CG and Snowbirds are immune; the length of the public duties season has been shortened.  But it's far too easy to claim that there's no other fluff in the CF and that therefore we must cut very public activities; it's much more intellectually honest to look at everything.


----------



## PPCLI Guy (29 Aug 2012)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> it's much more intellectually honest to look at *everything.* *headquarters*


----------



## CombatDoc (29 Aug 2012)

Crantor said:
			
		

> And as far as this CANFORGEN goes, I wouldn't be surprised if an ammendment, modification, delay or combination of all three comes out sooner rather than later.  As much as some people here think the CoC is daft and clueless, I think they are working to minimise the impact.


I know that the CoC and their staff are working to minimize the impact, particularly the impact on our most vulnerable junior ranks.  We'll see what comes out of their efforts.


----------



## DAA (29 Aug 2012)

With regards to "Separation Expense" and the announced cuts.....

If it was to be changed, would it not sound "reasonable" to break this into two categories?  Those whose status gave rise to the beneift (ie; IR Requests, occupational transfers. etc, basically internally for serving members) and those whose status is as a result of assignment for training (ie; new enrolments).  Mind you, for new enrolments, we can always say "you want the job or not?"

You only get, what you ask for...


----------



## armyvern (29 Aug 2012)

DAA said:
			
		

> With regards to "Separation Expense" and the announced cuts.....
> 
> If it was to be changed, would it not sound "reasonable" to break this into two categories?  Those whose status gave rise to the beneift (ie; IR Requests, occupational transfers. etc, basically internally for serving members) and those whose status is as a result of assignment for training (ie; new enrolments).  Mind you, for new enrolments, we can always say "you want the job or not?"
> 
> You only get, what you ask for...



Which category are you putting MSCs into? The "choice" or "no choice" one (some OTs are also non-choice due to medical injury etc ... careful)?


----------



## seadog70 (29 Aug 2012)

So I heard today, unofficially, that these rate cuts/allowance removals ( whatever you would like to call them; the removal of these benefits that fall into 'separation allowance' et al.) including the enforcing of all members on IR to now pay for Quarters and Rations is under review and will not be put into effect 1 Sept., 2012. Has anyone else out there heard anything on this ?


----------



## Good2Golf (30 Aug 2012)

seadog70 said:
			
		

> So I heard today, unofficially, that these rate cuts/allowance removals ( whatever you would like to call them; the removal of these benefits that fall into 'separation allowance' et al.) including the enforcing of all members on IR to now pay for Quarters and Rations is under review and will not be put into effect 1 Sept., 2012. Has anyone else out there heard anything on this ?



While there have already been a number of e-mails sent out talking about "softening the landing" or whatever other phrasing has been used, it is probably best not to fuel rumours (which can build unrealistic expectations), and to wait for the next CANFORGEN to come out providing additional information on the subject.  Hopefully it comes out within the next couple of days so that any actions necessary by the CoC or by individuals can be assessed and implemented prior to 1 Sep.

Not to say that all those affected, as well as their supervisors (many also affected), aren't hoping for some reasonably good (less bad?) news, but the "I heard a rumbling" can often lead to even greater frustration if things turn out not to be as "rumbled." 

True, hope is not a generally approved planning method, but I am certain that respective chains of command across the CF have been working hard to characterize the impact on affected members in greater detail to senior leadership, as well as providing numerous suggestions for mitigative efforts to offset the negative impact...but let's hope that their input has helped the developing situation.


Regards
G2G


----------



## bridges (30 Aug 2012)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Hopefully it comes out within the next couple of days so that any actions necessary by the CoC or by individuals can be assessed and implemented prior to 1 Sep.



At this point, there are about 13 working hours to develop the fix, "assess" the necessary actions and implement them, prior to 1 Sep.  I hope, for the sake of the junior members who've been hit by this _after_ committing to the CF, that that's enough time for this to happen.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (31 Aug 2012)

Some good news folks.  

---------------------------------------------------------

CANFORGEN 159/12 CMP 070/12 302017Z AUG 12

CHANGES TO SEPARATION EXPENSE - APS 12 TRANSITION
UNCLASSIFIED

REF: A. CANFORGEN 145/12 CF COMPENSATION AND BENEFIT FRAMEWORK 

B. CANADIAN FORCES TEMPORARY DUTY TRAVEL INSTRUCTION (CFTDTI) 

1.  THIS CANFORGEN AMENDS THE IMPLEMENTATION DATE OF REF A FROM 1 SEP 12 TO 1 FEB 13. REF A ANNOUNCED THE CESSATION OF BOTH THE INCIDENTAL EXPENSE AND MEAL RATES (INCLUDING RATIONS AT PUBLIC EXPENSE) FOR REG F AND SERVING CLASS C MEMBERS, AS WELL AS THE ELIMINATION OF SE BENEFITS FOR RESERVISTS SERVING ON CLASS B 

2.  REGRETTABLY, THE LIMITED TIME BETWEEN THE RELEASE OF REF A AND ITS INTENDED 1 SEP 12 IMPLEMENTATION DATE DID NOT ALLOW OUR PERSONNEL TO ADEQUATELY PREPARE THEMSELVES OR THEIR FAMILIES FOR THE IMPACT. IN RECOGNITION OF THIS SHORTFALL, TREASURY BOARD HAS APPROVED DELAYING THE IMPLEMENTATION OF REF A PARA 5 AND PARA 6.B UNTIL 1 FEB 13  

3.  FOR MEMBERS CURRENTLY ON IMPOSED RESTRICTION AND RECEIVING SE BENEFITS, THE INTENT OF THIS DEFERRAL IS TO ALLOW AFFECTED PERSONNEL THE OPPORTUNITY TO REASSESS THEIR SITUATION AND DETERMINE IF THEY WISH TO REMAIN UNACCOMPANIED AT THE NEW DUTY LOCATION. FOR THOSE CHOOSING NOT TO MOVE THEIR FAMILY TO THEIR DUTY LOCATION AND WHO REMAIN UNACCOMPANIED, THE LIMITATIONS ANNOUNCED AT REF A PARA 5 AND PARA 6.B WILL BE EFFECTIVE AS OF 1 FEB 13 

4.  IT IS UNDERSTOOD THAT PERSONNEL PROCEEDING ON SHORT TERM ASSIGNMENTS OR TRAINING OF LESS THAN ONE YEAR THAT REQUIRE TEMPORARY GEOGRAPHIC RELOCATION CANNOT REASONABLY BE EXPECTED TO UPROOT THEIR FAMILIES. THE CF HAS AT ITS DISPOSAL A NUMBER OF ASSIGNMENT POLICIES (ATTACHED POSTING, TEMPORARY DUTY) THAT WILL ENSURE THAT THESE PERSONNEL ARE PROVIDED WITH APPROPRIATE SUPPORT DURING THESE SHORT TERM RELOCATIONS AND THAT FAMILIES ARE NOT SUBJECTED TO UNDUE ADDITIONAL FINANCIAL PRESSURE. SPECIFICALLY, PERSONNEL ON SHORT TERM ASSIGNMENTS MAY BE ATTACH POSTED AND THEREFORE ELIGIBLE TO BENEFITS UNDER REF B. ALONG THESE LINES, CAREER MANAGEMENT AUTHORITIES, IN CONCERT WITH FORCE GENERATORS, WILL EXPLORE INNOVATIVE METHODS TO MINIMIZE THE EFFECTS OF THE SE CHANGES BY REMAINING VIGILANT FOR OPPORTUNITIES TO REDUCE THE DEMAND FOR PERSONNEL TO BE SEPARATED FROM THEIR FAMILIES FOR PROTRACTED PERIODS 

5.  IN ADDITION, STEPS WILL BE TAKEN TO ENSURE THAT RECENTLY ENROLLED PERSONNEL ARE MANAGED WHILE ON THE BTL AS TO ENSURE THAT THEY ARE NOT SUBJECTED TO UNEXPECTED FINANCIAL HARDSHIP, PARTICULARLY WHEN TRAINING NECESSITATES THAT THEY PROCEED UNACCOMPANIED. THIS MAY ALSO INCLUDE ATTACH POSTINGS AND TEMPORARY DUTY BENEFITS AS PER REF B 

6.  THE AIM OF THIS STRATEGY IS TO PROVIDE CF PERSONNEL THE NECESSARY TIME TO ASSIMILATE THE IMPACTS OF REF A, AND IN PARTICULAR TO REASSESS THEIR FAMILY CIRCUMSTANCES TO ASCERTAIN WHETHER AN UNACCOMPANIED POSTING REMAINS THE BEST ALTERNATIVE. REGARDLESS, AFTER 1 FEB 13 IT WILL NOT BE POSSIBLE TO FURTHER APPLY THE MITIGATING STRATEGY DESCRIBED AT PARA 3 FOR MEMBERS CURRENTLY ON IR AND IN RECEIPT OF SE BENEFITS 

7.  WHILE THESE CHANGES WILL INEVITABLY AFFECT CF MEMBERS AND THEIR FAMILIES, WE CONTINUE TO RECEIVE OUTSTANDING GOVERNMENT SUPPORT IN THE FORM OF A FAIR AND EQUITABLE COMPENSATION AND BENEFITS FRAMEWORK. EVEN AS REDUCTIONS TAKE HOLD IN CERTAIN AREAS, NEW ALLOWANCES AND BENEFITS HAVE BEEN PUT IN PLACE THAT WILL NOT BE AFFECTED. WE MUST ALSO RECALL THE SIGNIFICANT CHALLENGES THAT AFFECT OUR CIVILIAN COLLEAGUES, MANY OF WHOM FACE UNCERTAINTY WITHOUT RECOURSE TO BENEFITS AFFORDED TO CF MEMBERS. ULTIMATELY, THESE CHANGES, ALONG WITH THOSE THAT HAVE YET TO BE IMPLEMENTED, EXEMPLIFY THE ONGOING EFFORT TO BALANCE CF EXPENDITURES, ALLOWING DND/CF TO MEET ITS SAVINGS TARGETS WHILE PRESERVING OUR ABILITY TO TRAIN, TO CONDUCT OPERATIONS IN SUPPORT OF THE FOUR PILLARS OF THE CANADA FIRST DEFENCE STRATEGY, TO INVEST FOR THE FUTURE, AND TO COMPENSATE OUR PERSONNEL ACCORDING TO OUR MEANS 


GENERAL W.J. NATYNCZYK, CDS, SENDS


----------



## GAP (31 Aug 2012)

Well...........that's puts "paid" to most of the immediate concerns......


----------



## McG (31 Aug 2012)

GAP said:
			
		

> Well...........that's puts "paid" to most of the immediate concerns......


Not the married service couple.


----------



## armyvern (31 Aug 2012)

GAP said:
			
		

> Well...........that's puts "paid" to most of the immediate concerns......



Yet, it does not address Married Service Couples. We fall neither into para 3 (those on Imposed Restriction - we're not IR), nor are we considered under para 4 (those on short-term assignments and trg less than 1 year) who can go TD or attach posted instead, nor do we fall under para 5 (BTL).

We are still lost in limbo. 

Very happy to see the addressing of the situation for the other pers though, but will my Orderly Room take this newest CANFORGEN as "this one isn't applicable to you and therefore the old CANFORGEN still stands as you fall into none of the categories it addresses?" As this CANFORGEN reads, I am not subject to it and therefore I get to lose my benefits, though forced apart, on 01 Sept 12.

Someone, _someone_ please tell the powers that be that MSCs are NOT "IR" --- someone is not grasping that concept and our situation keeps getting missed.

 :facepalm:


----------



## McG (31 Aug 2012)

… and by next APS, there will have to be something in place to address the unaccompanied move - it too is not IR.  Most existing cases will expire prior to the new deadline.


----------



## armyvern (31 Aug 2012)

MCG said:
			
		

> … and by next APS, there will have to be something in place to address the unaccompanied move - it too is not IR.  Most existing cases will expire prior to the new deadline.



That is exactly where MSCs fall in. According to the latest CANFORGEN, it is us only who will be subject to cuts on 01 Sept 12 because it does nothing to address/mitigate us. I knew my career manager forgot I existed and had a family (unless they "must" post either one of us in the middle of the winter) ... now I just feel like the CF has forgotten that we exist too. Nice.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (31 Aug 2012)

Vern,

My recommendation is that you write a memo to your CO, explaining your problem and concerns.  Hopefully, by Feb, the CoC can come up with a MSC solution, as well.


----------



## armyvern (31 Aug 2012)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> Vern,
> 
> My recommendation is that you write a memo to your CO, explaining your problem and concerns.  Hopefully, by Feb, the CoC can come up with a MSC solution, as well.



I will address through my OR to DCBA as soon as I get back to work this morning to obtain info on how they plan to treat MSC on 01 Sept. As I read it, we lose our benefits then - not on 01 Feb. as the new CANFORGEN does not mitigate or address us.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (31 Aug 2012)

Ahh.  Good point.

Good luck Vern.


----------



## dapaterson (31 Aug 2012)

If  I understand correctly, as a member of a MSC you are posted prohibited to your new place of duty.  The SE CBI includes you in its elgibility definition - CBI 208.997(3)(e):

(e) the move of the member’s (D)HG&E at public expense to the new place of duty is, for service reasons, prohibited or restricted, in accordance with orders or instructions issued by the Chief of the Defence Staff;


----------



## captloadie (31 Aug 2012)

I was discussing how I thought the impact of this ruling was unfair to MSCs with an admin colleague of mine, when he said something that made me stop and think. He said, 
"How is a married service couple different than anyone else who decides on IR?" My first response was that they have no choice in the matter, the military is forcing them apart. He then said something I had never put into context before:
"They both choose to have a military career, and must accept being separated as a consequence. Other spouses don't get the option to have a full career if they have to follow their military spouse around. If the civilian spouse wants a career and can't move with the member, how is that different than MSCs?" 

And to be honest, when I thought about it in that context, he is right. MSC's are no different than normal couples who both have careers. Either one or the other has to make the sacrifice, or they have live with the new regulations being brought in.

However, I do agree with Vern in that if everyone else is being given until 1 Feb to reevaluate their situation, so should MSCs.


----------



## bridges (31 Aug 2012)

captloadie said:
			
		

> However, I do agree with Vern in that if everyone else is being given until 1 Feb to reevaluate their situation, so should MSCs.



 :nod:   Agreed, on this.   If MSCs have in fact fallen through a crack here, time to pull them back up and plug the crack.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (31 Aug 2012)

captloadie said:
			
		

> "They both choose to have a military career, and must accept being separated as a consequence. Other spouses don't get the option to have a full career if they have to follow their military spouse around. If the civilian spouse wants a career and can't move with the member, how is that different than MSCs?"
> 
> And to be honest, when I thought about it in that context, he is right. MSC's are no different than normal couples who both have careers. Either one or the other has to make the sacrifice, or they have live with the new regulations being brought in.



I'll have to respectfully disagree (and I am married but not a MSC).  In the case of MSCs, they are seperated only because they could not be posted to the same geo area.  A mbr's civilian spouse has a choice to move/not move, and although the MSC *technically* have that choice as well, the MSC mbr who refuses their posting now has their COS date changed to their release date.  

That, to me, is a huge difference.


----------



## PMedMoe (31 Aug 2012)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> I'll have to respectfully disagree (and I am married but not a MSC).  In the case of MSCs, they are seperated only because they could not be posted to the same geo area.  A mrb with a civilian spouse has a choice to move/not move, and although the MSC *technically* have that choice as well, the MSC mbr who refuses their posting now has their COS date changed to their release date.  That, to me, is a huge difference.



 :goodpost:


----------



## armyvern (31 Aug 2012)

captloadie said:
			
		

> I was discussing how I thought the impact of this ruling was unfair to MSCs with an admin colleague of mine, when he said something that made me stop and think. He said,
> "How is a married service couple different than anyone else who decides on IR?" My first response was that they have no choice in the matter, the military is forcing them apart. He then said something I had never put into context before:
> "They both choose to have a military career, and must accept being separated as a consequence. Other spouses don't get the option to have a full career if they have to follow their military spouse around. If the civilian spouse wants a career and can't move with the member, how is that different than MSCs?"
> 
> ...



I too have heard this and I will tell you how we are different:

I 100% agree that the exengencies of the service *must* come first, and that MSCs will be posted together _*if*_ possible. That's the rule.

We *are* different. With a MSC, career managers have found their answer to filling positions in the middle of the winter when someone in a must fill position CFRs or releases. They can, and do, post either of us to that required location in the middle of Feb simply because we can not say "no" or run to a social worker and get a "family must stay together or be compassionate for reason X" status assigned. And, to be sure, the CF is the beneficiary of BOTH of our employment - not just one member of our family. They have TWO members of this family they can, and do, send anywhere, anytime, for whatever. No other family in the CF is going to move/break up their family in the middle of the winter --- one quick trip to a social worker would put a stop to that. We ... are the perfect couple to mitigate that as we can not do SFA about it occuring to us unlike every other family in the CF. Us MSC who are posted apart are EXACTLY the people who DO do our jobs IAW CF policy, whereever, whenever and for whatever; we are posted apart precisely because we are both doing our jobs exactly as the CF requires of us both. A pers with a civ spouse is not in that category.

As well, according to the rule, if they must post us apart, then they must; I agree.

BUT, "must" they post us apart when he is posted to Pet and they are telling me they can not post me there ( a Sup tech!!??) when 2 pers same rank and trade as I am have been sitting in Pet 12+ years? Nope, it's not that they MUST post us apart, it's that the other 2 12+ers are getting to remain static for at least another year at my families expense, once again because I am 1/2 of an MSC and can not do SFA about it.

And, is it really "service requirements" dictate it be so when they send me to Borden instead ... and the guy living just up from me is also there and posted apart from his spouse because he is also 1/2 of a MSC ... he and my husband are same trade and rank as each other. His wife and I are both Sup Tech MWOs. His wife and my husband were both posted in Pet. He and I were both unaccompanied in Borden. How the fuck that does make sense? How is that cost effective to the CF? Yet, someone wants to argue that "service requirements made it so?" My ass.


----------



## TCM621 (31 Aug 2012)

Vern, I think that is just a case of career managers being lazy. There is no reason for you to be in that situation. However higher ranking members who are part of a MSC will probably end up posted apart more often because of the smaller amount of positions but that doesn't seem to be an issue in your case.


----------



## armyvern (31 Aug 2012)

Tony Manifold said:
			
		

> Vern, I think that is just a case of career managers being lazy. There is no reason for you to be in that situation. However higher ranking members who are part of a MSC will probably end up posted apart more often because of the smaller amount of positions but that doesn't seem to be an issue in your case.



Thanks, but this is the 4th of my career. Rank has SFA to do with it either. There are 8 of me in Pet.

If they want to say we are the same as "any other couple", and hold mefinancially responsible for it, then they need to come up with a policy whereby MSCs like myself are not suffering through this 4 times with a "your COS date is your release date if you don't do it the 5th time" while other members are sitting in spots 12+ years or never doing an IR in their career and yet they are not being told to "get out" like we MSC are.

24 years in. 11 pack my shit up and move postings. 4 of them IR. Who is the one who's not really willing to do their job? It ain't me and by default it sure as hell ain't my spouse either. I'm tired of hearing the, "Oh well, you're an MSC so this is part of your job" bullshit ... when it only seems to be part of some of the jobs of some of us to be posted - IR, unaccompanied or not.


----------



## dapaterson (31 Aug 2012)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> And, is it really "service requirements" dictate it be so when they send me to Borden instead ... and the guy living just up from me is also there and posted apart from his spouse because he is also 1/2 of a MSC ... he and my husband are same trade and rank as each other. His wife and I are both Sup Tech MWOs. His wife and my husband were both posted in Pet. He and I were both unaccompanied in Borden. How the fuck that does make sense? How is that cost effective to the CF? Yet, someone wants to argue that "service requirements made it so?" My ass.



Obviously, the solution is for the CF to start filiming a reality TV series called "IR Wife Swap" where you & the other Sup Tech's husband become a couple, and the same with your husband and the other Sup Tech.


----------



## armyvern (31 Aug 2012)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> If  I understand correctly, as a member of a MSC you are posted prohibited to your new place of duty.  The SE CBI includes you in its elgibility definition - CBI 208.997(3)(e):
> 
> (e) the move of the member’s (D)HG&E at public expense to the new place of duty is, for service reasons, prohibited or restricted, in accordance with orders or instructions issued by the Chief of the Defence Staff;



Yes, that's the correct CBI for us.

We were revoked these benefits on the original CANFORGEN 145/12 (CBI 208 entire was ref D of that CANFORGEN).

This CANFORGEN does not mitigate or delay our group.


----------



## armyvern (31 Aug 2012)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Obviously, the solution is for the CF to start filiming a reality TV series called "IR Wife Swap" where you & the other Sup Tech's husband become a couple, and the same with your husband and the other Sup Tech.



No one else would put up with my antics for long; trust me.  >


----------



## dapaterson (31 Aug 2012)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Yes, that's the correct CBI for us.
> 
> We were revoked these benefits on the original CANFORGEN 145/12 (CBI 208 entire was ref D of that CANFORGEN).
> 
> This CANFORGEN does not mitigate or delay our group.



Para 2 of the new CANFORGEN (159/12) delays the implementation of para 5 of 145/12 until 01 Feb 13.  While para 3 of 159/12 goes on to talk about folks on IR, the deferral is of implementation of the cancellation of meals & incidentals under SE.  As you're in receipt of SE, it should apply equally to you.

Longer term, though, I fully agree that the CF needs to be much more precise in the use of terms - IR is not SE, and prohibited posting is definitely not IR.


----------



## armyvern (31 Aug 2012)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> Vern,
> 
> My recommendation is that you write a memo to your CO, explaining your problem and concerns.  Hopefully, by Feb, the CoC can come up with a MSC solution, as well.



Chief Clerk seems to be in agreement with me; although revocation of these benefits occurred for MSCs in the original CANFORGEN, no mitigation/delay is included in the new CANFORGEN for unaccompanied or MSCs. CO will provide his input Tuesday morning, and it will be fired off to DCBA immediately afterwards.

As it stands at this Unit, after CC review, unaccompanied and MSC are still subject to cease of SE benefits on 01 Sept 12 as per the original CANFORGEN.


----------



## armyvern (31 Aug 2012)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Para 2 of the new CANFORGEN (159/12) delays the implementation of para 5 of 145/12 until 01 Feb 13.  While para 3 of 159/12 goes on to talk about folks on IR, the deferral is of implementation of the cancellation of meals & incidentals under SE.  As you're in receipt of SE, it should apply equally to you.
> 
> Longer term, though, I fully agree that the CF needs to be much more precise in the use of terms - IR is not SE, and prohibited posting is definitely not IR.



CC agrees that para 3 is caveated "IR" and therefore not applicable to MSC.

Longer term, the dudes who make this shit up need to sort this shit out. When even they are not aware of the categories they are affecting, addressing/not addressing and interchange the terminology at will ... it is a sad day.

With that, this 1/2 of a MSC is heading out to make her way home to the family for a much deserved long weekend with them; and lots of alcohol.


----------



## captloadie (31 Aug 2012)

I think I need to make what I was saying a little clearer. I am putting forward that being a MSC and being posted separately is a choice. And before you say, " Look idiot, I never had a choice, it was the career manager who had the choice." hear me out.

Vern, I'll use your case as an example. You are told one of you is being posted to X, and your spouse is staying put. Time of year is irrelevant. What are your options? Well, they are to go and be separated, so both careers stay in tact, or one of you releases and you stay together. Neither is the preferred solution, but they are your only choices, and they are personal decisions.

PO2 Bloggins' wife is civilian naval architect, who has a flourishing career in Halifax. PO2 Bloggins gets posted to Cold Lake where there is no opportunity (or positions) for his wife.  They have two options as well. One is to go on IR, and the other is for one of them to give up their career and stay together. Neither is the preferred solution, but they are the only choices and they are personal decisions.

So how do the two examples differ? They don't. We in the military often have a bias that civilian spouses can just pick up and follow their military spouses, because their careers aren't as important, or their not the main breadwinners. Then we say, oh, its not the same for MSCs, they don't have a choice.

And using the argument that my example is the exception to the rule holds no water, if you are going to say that everyone in uniform should be treated the same.


----------



## bridges (31 Aug 2012)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> CC agrees that para 3 is caveated "IR" and therefore not applicable to MSC.
> 
> Longer term, the dudes who make this crap up need to sort this crap out. When even they are not aware of the categories they are affecting, addressing/not addressing and interchange the terminology at will ... it is a sad day.
> 
> With that, this 1/2 of a MSC is heading out to make her way home to the family for a much deserved long weekend with them; and lots of alcohol.



Sounds like you have a strong case.  Dapaterson makes some good points as well.  Often it falls to us, who experience the direct impact, to articulate this to the system - otherwise, how would it ever change?   It can be very stressful, but hopefully time well spent in the end, & it will benefit many others as well.       

This will get resolved one way or another.  Good luck & have a great weekend!


----------



## McG (31 Aug 2012)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> CC agrees that para 3 is caveated "IR" and therefore not applicable to MSC.


That is true, but it is para 2 within which the implementation is delayed until Feb.  Pers prohibited posted (including married service couples) and pers moved unaccompanied are covered by this delay of implementation.  It is simply that neither group has further or amplifying thoughts in the paragraphs that followed.  In otherwords, for these two groups there is a short term answer but there is not the hint of a long-term solution as there is with other groups.

You are covered by this brief reprieve, and hopefully the higher CoC can make more progress in the window of time created.


----------



## armyvern (31 Aug 2012)

captloadie said:
			
		

> I think I need to make what I was saying a little clearer. I am putting forward that being a MSC and being posted separately is a choice. And before you say, " Look idiot, I never had a choice, it was the career manager who had the choice." hear me out.
> 
> Vern, I'll use your case as an example. You are told one of you is being posted to X, and your spouse is staying put. Time of year is irrelevant. What are your options? Well, they are to go and be separated, so both careers stay in tact, or one of you releases and you stay together. Neither is the preferred solution, but they are your only choices, and they are personal decisions.
> 
> ...



No, they are not the same. One of those couples doesn't get a "move or you are out". That other couple can visit the social worker and say, "I can not proceed on this posting due to kids' schooling or wife's job/education" ... and the social worker will recommend no or delay of posting and the CoC will, most likely, support that delay due to their factors.

Even if same factors exist for a MSC (kids' schooling etc), we are told, "well, too bad, you are going as you are 1/2 of a MSC" and if you don't like it - get out. Been there and done that. How come the guy/gal married to the civvie can stay/not move in February due to his kids' being in school yet that is not acceptable for an MSC whose kids are also in school? Can't his wife look after the kids' schooling just as my Svc spouse can? Why not? Yet, that guy married to the civvie with the kids in school is rarely (I've never heard of a case) even asked told to move in February let alone told to GTFO if he doesn't like it.


----------



## Jed (31 Aug 2012)

Me being on the outside of this see the difference between a MSC and the other variant, one service spouse and one civi spouse. The difference IMO, is not all that great. 

The significant fact is that a MSC has the same employer, the CF, with very rigid employment criteria. The civi spouse will most likely have a different employer with less rigid criteria and with possible recourse through normal legal or Charter of Rights avenues, which is not really an option for someone in the CF.

As always, the most affected people are the children in the family unit. It is very difficult to bring up a family with both partners concurrently serving full time in the CF. (Actively as Reg or Class C or B Res)


----------



## captloadie (31 Aug 2012)

The point I was trying to make originally was why do we think our chosen career is more important than anybody elses, and if we expect non military spouses to give up a career, maybe we should expect the same of military spouses, or live with the consequences of personal choice - which may be to GTFO.

By the way, I don't agree with the changes that have been made. I think that when members are sperated from families for valid, approved reasons (personal or not), then IR and SE benefits should be provided, for a limited time (which for MSCs might be the duration of a posting).

For EITS - If you disagree with an opinion and want to deduct milpoints, at least have the balls to post it online.


----------



## armyvern (31 Aug 2012)

captloadie said:
			
		

> The point I was trying to make originally was why do we think our chosen career is more important than anybody elses, and if we expect non military spouses to give up a career, maybe we should expect the same of military spouses, or live with the consequences of personal choice - which may be to GTFO.
> ...



I'd agree with that ... if it were applicable to each and every serving member who's asked to move in the middle of the winter, but the fact of the matter is they come after MSCs to do that or the f'n jobs in spots that no one else will go to. It's either 1/2 of a MSC or the single guy with no dependents in school. But, they never even ask the other married couples to do that ergo those members never get the "or GTFO" in this case.

It is also a fact that the higher in rank one goes, the more often this may be applicable due to the fact that posting positions usually become a mere 2 year stint. It is cheaper for the CF (and ergo the taxpayer) to post 1/2 of a MSC away for that 2 years than it is to post anybody cost move for a mere two years. And, that is an even more cheaper option for them now that they've taken away our SE. Think they don't consider that as well? They do. MSC are really f'd now the way I see it. 

I am well aware that I can GTFO captloadie - you are preaching to the choir.  No worries, I will finally be pensionable on 13 Jan 2013. I am in a one-of position and am also the A/QM as they've left that position unfilled this year for some ungawdly reason. My 9erD is also a one-of. Who do you think careers is going to go after this time to fill our positions in January? Someone married to a civvy? NOPE. They'll have to find two 1/2s of married service couples to fill those one-of spots. Then, their positions will have to be filled in January by another MSC etc etc etc. I wish them well.

Or do I get to say to careers, "stuff your posting ... I'll certainly go id service requirements dictate it must be so, but right now they don't as you haven't asked MWO X who has 13 years in location to go, nor have you asked the gal married to the civvy whose kids are in school. It's their turn, not mine."??


----------



## 4Feathers (31 Aug 2012)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Given that all benefits are set by the Treasury Board, and that there have been, to my knowledge, no meetings of the Treasury Board since June, the CF has no legal authority to delay any of the changes.
> 
> Any CANFORGENs may address mitigations of the announced changes; any alterations to timelines are outside the authority of the CDS and Deputy Minister of National Defence.



Again, like I said previously, the amendment has arrived and it pertains to the timing of the implementation.   :cheers:


----------



## dapaterson (31 Aug 2012)

4Feathers said:
			
		

> Again, like I said previously, the amendment has arrived and it pertains to the timing of the implementation.   :cheers:



Yep, and like I said, DND/CF couldn't do it on their own:

*TREASURY BOARD HAS APPROVED* DELAYING THE IMPLEMENTATION OF REF A PARA 5 AND PARA 6.B UNTIL 1 FEB 13


----------



## 4Feathers (1 Sep 2012)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Given that all benefits are set by the Treasury Board, and that there have been, to my knowledge,[size=12pt] *no meetings of the Treasury Board since June[/siz*e], the CF has no legal authority to delay any of the changes.



Well I guess they had a meeting without your knowledge. The CF if in constant contact with TB, only requires approval of the TB Secretary to get amended, no meeting required. Bottom line is the Brass realized they did a "my bad" on this issue and have now taken the big step to make it a little more right.


----------



## Jarnhamar (1 Sep 2012)

Does this mean a member on imposed restriction (Ir) can continue to get meals from the kitchen and not pay out of pocket for it?


----------



## PuckChaser (1 Sep 2012)

ObedientiaZelum said:
			
		

> Does this mean a member on imposed restriction (Ir) can continue to get meals from the kitchen and not pay out of pocket for it?



Until 1 Feb 13, sounds like it.


----------



## Jarnhamar (1 Sep 2012)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Until 1 Feb 13, sounds like it.



Sweet! Unwavering faith in the chain of command pays off.


----------



## Cdnleaf (1 Sep 2012)

ObedientiaZelum said:
			
		

> Sweet! Unwavering faith in the chain of command pays off.



See you in six months after 10 Cajun chicken breasts and cheese / day.  ;D


----------



## Journeyman (1 Sep 2012)

> You are covered by this brief reprieve, and hopefully the higher CoC individual's can make more progress in the window of time created.


Each person involved now has an opportunity to 'seek out and accept responsibility.' Otherwise, how many troops are going to get bit with this a few months down the road because they sat back, doing nothing more than wishing the CoC would make this boogeyman simply go away, rather than making some fiscal adjustments on their own?


----------



## Ostrozac (1 Sep 2012)

Paragraph 4 of the most recent CANFORGEN is interesting.

4.  IT IS UNDERSTOOD THAT PERSONNEL PROCEEDING ON SHORT TERM ASSIGNMENTS OR TRAINING OF LESS THAN ONE YEAR THAT REQUIRE TEMPORARY GEOGRAPHIC RELOCATION CANNOT REASONABLY BE EXPECTED TO UPROOT THEIR FAMILIES. THE CF HAS AT ITS DISPOSAL A NUMBER OF ASSIGNMENT POLICIES (ATTACHED POSTING, TEMPORARY DUTY) THAT WILL ENSURE THAT THESE PERSONNEL ARE PROVIDED WITH APPROPRIATE SUPPORT DURING THESE SHORT TERM RELOCATIONS AND THAT FAMILIES ARE NOT SUBJECTED TO UNDUE ADDITIONAL FINANCIAL PRESSURE. SPECIFICALLY, PERSONNEL ON SHORT TERM ASSIGNMENTS MAY BE ATTACH POSTED AND THEREFORE ELIGIBLE TO BENEFITS UNDER REF B. ALONG THESE LINES, CAREER MANAGEMENT AUTHORITIES, IN CONCERT WITH FORCE GENERATORS, WILL EXPLORE INNOVATIVE METHODS TO MINIMIZE THE EFFECTS OF THE SE CHANGES BY REMAINING VIGILANT FOR OPPORTUNITIES TO REDUCE THE DEMAND FOR PERSONNEL TO BE SEPARATED FROM THEIR FAMILIES FOR PROTRACTED PERIODS 

This implies that short-term ATL postings (CFC Toronto, year-long french courses, tech staff) that often had candidates posted on IR will now have their trainees on Attached Posting or TD. The cost of which would likely be greater than the previous cost of maintaining pers on IR status. I wonder if joining instructions (for say, ATWO at RMC) will specify to Attach Post married pers and Post single pers, or if they have even thought that far ahead.

So if the purpose of this change is to save money -- it may not actually save too much, if instead of using IR we use more Attached Posting and TD. This whole plan doesn't seem to have been wargamed out in detail. There are just too many gaps in it.


----------



## PPCLI Guy (1 Sep 2012)

Ostrozac said:
			
		

> This implies that short-term ATL postings (CFC Toronto, year-long french courses, tech staff) that often had candidates posted on IR will now have their trainees on Attached Posting or TD.



Your quote implies that one year is a short term posting.  From 2006 to 2010 my wife and I moved four times - a two year posting, a one year posting, another one year posting, and then posted to my curent location.  In 24 years of service, I have moved twelve times, eight of them with my son until he decided to stay in location and start his own life.

All of that to say that I would imagine (but do not know for certain) that the policy does not see a one year posting (at which point one becomes entitlesd to a cost move) as "short-term".


----------



## armyvern (1 Sep 2012)

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> ...
> All of that to say that I would imagine (but do not know for certain) that the policy does not see a one year posting (at which point one becomes entitlesd to a cost move) as "short-term".



+100

I hear you; perhaps the CF needs to redefine it's definition of "short-term".

Like yourself, I have had postings to 7 bases since 2003. Not because I was fired or incompetent, but because I was posted to fill positions of pers in one-ofs who were CFRing, releasing or being court-martialled; twice in the middle of the winter. Only this most recent posting is a 2 year position, one was for year-long course. All the rest should have been "normal moves" involving staying at that spot for a "greater than 2 year time period".

During same time period, I spent 5 months attached posted in Edmonton (it is not one of the 7 postings I've stated) and have done 2 X 10 month tours.

As none of these spots was "short term", had I been married to non-svc spouse it would have involved the CF paying for 7 X cost moves for my family in 9 years. As it is, because I am a svc spouse, the CF is saving beaucoup d'argent by moving me instead. 1/2 months posting allowance and the costs of my rent/SE comes nowhere close to what it would have cost them to move another family like this, this often.

Much cheaper to post unaccompanied personnel heading in to 2 year stints and I understand that situation. But, when this is occurring to pers like me who were not going to 2 year command/line positions for example, there is a flaw in our system. This seems to be normal for quite a few MSCs I know who are not in those 2 year positions (I believe PMedMoe has moved just as often as 1/2 of a MSC). Moves every 18 months or so --- from place to place wondering if the CF ever has any intent of attempting to eventually relocate us with our Svc Spouse.

When someone can show me a MCpl, Sgt or WO married to civilian in "everyday jobs" who has been subject to same, then I'll consider my MWO spouse equivilent to a civilian. And, although I have always been the member sent away unaccompanied while F&E remained with spouse, even he too has been subjected to being posted in the middle of winter as the other 1/2 of this MSC with the "COS date is release date if you don't go caveat".

If the system wants to say that MSCs are just like anybody else with a civilian spouse, then the system itself should start treating us the same and cease and desist posting us under threat while NCM X of same rank/trade married to civilian is never subject to postings every 18 months to "solve" problems for the CF.

I totally understand this the higher one goes in rank, the lesser positions and the shorter the term of the position. I've living like this since I was a MCpl though and I find that very _very_ curious indeed.

I am now in my longest posting since 2003 ... at 2.5 years at this Unit --- even after taking away the 15 months pre-deployment trg and deployment. Wow.


----------



## Ostrozac (1 Sep 2012)

It was the CANFORGEN that chose to describe less than one-year assignments and training as "short term", not me. I am well aware that there is no minimum length of a posting. A career manager can, in theory, cost move you, then cost move you three months later when you get promoted, then cost move you again three months later when your new unit is disbanded and new position deleted. I've had five cost moves in the last ten years, so I'm nowhere near the pace of some of you.

Given that current policy limits an Attached Posting to 364 days, and TD to 180 days, I infer that will be one factor that will drive future decisions on which ATL positions will receive cost moves and which will be Attach Posted/TD.


----------



## Donny (1 Sep 2012)

Does this mean new members don't have to pay for their rations while in BMQ/BMOQ till Feb 1st?


----------



## armyvern (1 Sep 2012)

Donny said:
			
		

> Does this mean new members don't have to pay for their rations while in BMQ/BMOQ till Feb 1st?



Correct.


----------



## Donny (1 Sep 2012)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Correct.


Thats good news!
thank you for the quick reply


----------



## 4Feathers (2 Sep 2012)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> Each person involved now has an opportunity to 'seek out and accept responsibility.' Otherwise, how many troops are going to get bit with this a few months down the road because they sat back, doing nothing more than wishing the CoC would make this boogeyman simply go away, rather than making some fiscal adjustments on their own?



That is truly the bottom line here. DCBA conf in Ottawa in Sep should be interesting.


----------



## armyvern (2 Sep 2012)

4Feathers said:
			
		

> That is truly the bottom line here. DCBA conf in Ottawa in Sep should be interesting.



That CANFORGEN reads to me exactly as if it is indeed going to make it go away for a lot of the pers affected. Using TD and Attached Posted for example for 'short term' courses, BTL, ATL.

The only pers the problem isn't "going away" for are MSCs and those proceeding on unaccompanied postings; and, those who are IR.

Nevertheless, should be an interesting conference indeed.


----------



## Jarnhamar (2 Sep 2012)

cdnleaf said:
			
		

> See you in six months after 10 Cajun chicken breasts and cheese / day.  ;D



I do this in the name of science and protest


----------



## Eye In The Sky (2 Sep 2012)

captloadie said:
			
		

> The point I was trying to make originally was why do we think our chosen career is more important than anybody elses, and if we expect non military spouses to give up a career, maybe we should expect the same of military spouses, or live with the consequences of personal choice - which may be to GTFO.
> 
> By the way, I don't agree with the changes that have been made. I think that when members are sperated from families for valid, approved reasons (personal or not), then IR and SE benefits should be provided, for a limited time (which for MSCs might be the duration of a posting).
> 
> For EITS - If you disagree with an opinion and want to deduct milpoints, at least have the balls to post it online.



Seriously?  :  You have your panties in a wad over MilPoints?   :'(  

Few additional points, for clarity.   **NOTE** I'd simply of PMd you, but that might have you questioning my balls, etc so...for everyone to see "online".

1.  I replied to your first post here, where I (politely) indicated I disagreed and why. You then tried to clarify your thoughts, although anyone with half the sense God gave a wheelbarrow already knew what you meant.  Rather than send a PM, or post something of no value added to the thread, I *gasp* decided to do the horrible act of -300 MilPoints.  So, my question to you is, what in your opinion was wrong with that exactly?  What should I have done then?  As a leader, certainly you are familiar with the concept of not only identifying a problem, but suggesting a solution as well.  I'm all ears.

2.  WRT your contention of 'if I have the balls to disagree with an opinion and the question of my balls being big enough to do it online'.  I was on my computer, which was connected to the InterNet, which was used to connect my laptop to this website, which I believe constitutes "online".  If it doesn't, please, educate me on what "online" is.   As for my -MilPoints and comments as to why, they are on your MilPoints page for all to see, so I'd say its fairly safe to say that the online/publicly/have I got the balls question you seem to have about me can be considered "clarified".  If I've broken some site rule by the -MilPoints, please contact a moderator and they can sort me out.

3.  I'll have to be honest and state, publicly, online (so you don't question if I have balls, etc...) that when I read your post the first time, I actually laughed, because it made me think of this movie scene.  (Its worth the 3 minutes, IMO).  So, thanks for the chuckle WRT to that!

 :waiting:


----------



## birdgunnnersrule (3 Sep 2012)

The latest CANFORGEN, although welcomed, does not alleviate any of the issues associated for those that are on Imposed Restriction less a short term reprieve.  I suspect that many families will not choose to up root themselves in the middle of the school year to reunite by Feb 2013.  Although TB driven, it is very disheartening that the social contract was broken and only aligned with the intervention at the last minute before its implementation.  It provides some time for the chain of command to react to posting request and to allow 'individuals' to assess their own situation before making a decision that is in their best interest.  I foresee a delay in release requests until just before the holidays so that folks that are caught by the policy changes have the opportunity to look at the various courses of actions and the career management system can accommodate an influx of posting requests. 

As for the MSC, you must be extremely patient and understanding.  With only one in the service, it is very difficult to balance the family commitments and I cannot fathom the challenges that are faced with two serving members in a family.

I am sure that I will get the suck it up buttercup treatment or the GTFO attitude that has ebbed and flowed throughout this thread.  Folks it is 2012, dual income families are a necessity, schools, health care, and a host of other considerations come into play when decisions are made regarding the family decision to proceed on imposed restriction.  If folks are going on IR for financial gain, than perhaps it is time that you reevaluate your career choice or get some financial counselling.  No issue with a removal or reduction of the SE, however, very concerned with the rations issue for those on bases that have facilities that have inadequate food preparation areas or are locked into a ration plan that exceeds the family monthly budget for groceries at home.


----------



## armyvern (3 Sep 2012)

birdgunnnersrule said:
			
		

> The latest CANFORGEN, although welcomed, does not alleviate any of the issues associated for those that are on Imposed Restriction less a short term reprieve.  I suspect that many families will not choose to up root themselves in the middle of the school year to reunite by Feb 2013.  Although TB driven, it is very disheartening that the social contract was broken and only aligned with the intervention at the last minute before its implementation.  It provides some time for the chain of command to react to posting request and to allow 'individuals' to assess their own situation before making a decision that is in their best interest.  I foresee a delay in release requests until just before the holidays so that folks that are caught by the policy changes have the opportunity to look at the various courses of actions and the career management system can accommodate an influx of posting requests.
> 
> As for the MSC, you must be extremely patient and understanding.  With only one in the service, it is very difficult to balance the family commitments and I cannot fathom the challenges that are faced with two serving members in a family.
> 
> I am sure that I will get the suck it up buttercup treatment or the GTFO attitude that has ebbed and flowed throughout this thread.  Folks it is 2012, dual income families are a necessity, schools, health care, and a host of other considerations come into play when decisions are made regarding the family decision to proceed on imposed restriction.  If folks are going on IR for financial gain, than perhaps it is time that you reevaluate your career choice or get some financial counselling.  No issue with a removal or reduction of the SE, however, very concerned with the rations issue for those on bases that have facilities that have inadequate food preparation areas or are locked into a ration plan that exceeds the family monthly budget for groceries at home.



Excellent post. As 1/2 of a MSC, I am looking into the _only_ available option for MSCs given in your para 1 - release. Indeed, we are not the same as other's families who get to choose from your many stated options under the circumstances. We have but one, go or get out. Have booked onto a SCAN seminar in two weeks time; it's full already. Sad day for me, but for my family ---* they* are actually the family that will still be there for me after my release, and have been the family that have stood by me throughout my use as a cheap/easy problem solving solution by careers and ergo the CF at large. Already have a B Class job opportunity too --- 80%, forego my pension, but family together at long last and well-deservedly so.

Good luck to all the other MSCs who may choose to stick it out in the RegF in the future. I fear for you as you guys are now the cheapest option, by far, for the CF to solve it's whenever, wherever and for whatever issues with given you have only one choice and are always the first ones approached to go at any time, anywhere (it's more than a little ironic that it is precisely you who are willing, and do, live by that CF mantra of "Country first, family second" and that now you will suffer for it even more by being sent unaccompanied more often as a cost savings measure and will pay out of your own pockets for it else be told to GTFO). I feel for you.


----------



## aesop081 (3 Sep 2012)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> are always the first ones approached to go at any time, anywhere. I feel for you.



Vern, do not worry too much. MSCs can relax a little in the knowledge that there is one CF demographic that will get the bone even more and take the brunt of all this:

People like me.


----------



## krustyrl (3 Sep 2012)

> Have booked onto a SCAN seminar in two weeks time; it's full already.



Most SCAN seminars I've been often fill up early but when it comes to going, there are quite often seats open.  I book early as I'm on a 3b but just what I've seen most times.  If you're really wanting to go, might be worth a check and see.?


----------



## armyvern (3 Sep 2012)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> Vern, do not worry too much. MSCs can relax a little in the knowledge that there is one CF demographic that will get the bone even more and take the brunt of all this:
> 
> People like me.



MSCs and single guys (I already addressed the single guy/no dependents in another post). MSCs will be asked told first though, as they most often are now,  because they constitute a "no cost move" - that's why they already get posted unaccompanied (and mid-winter too) more often instead of single guys the CF has to pay to move their F&E and collecting a full month's pay every 18 months - 2 years.

Sadly, MSCs are the cheapest option out there.


----------



## armyvern (3 Sep 2012)

krustyrl said:
			
		

> Most SCAN seminars I've been often fill up early but when it comes to going, there are quite often seats open.  I book early as I'm on a 3b but just what I've seen most times.  If you're really wanting to go, might be worth a check and see.?



I'm booked.


----------



## krustyrl (3 Sep 2012)

Ahhh.. misread ...sorry. Just tryin' to help.!


----------



## aesop081 (3 Sep 2012)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> MSCs are the cheapest option out there.



I agree. That being said, once either 1/2 of an MSC (or both) say "post me and i'll get out because of this IR stuff" (and that is what they WILL say), CMs will turn around and post the single guy. 19 times out of 20, the MSCs will stay in location and continue to serve. Those cases where the CM has balls and calls the bluff  ("go ahead, get out") will see 1/2 of the MSC get out and the single guy get posted.

Either way, the single guy moves, cost or no cost.

my  :2c: prediction.


----------



## PPCLI Guy (3 Sep 2012)

Reading the last few posts, it strikes me that the problem is not so much the policy but its application by the Career Managers.  In my experience in my trade, marital status was seldom if ever taken into account, and we tried to accomodate MSCs wherever possible.


----------



## 4Feathers (3 Sep 2012)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> That CANFORGEN reads to me exactly as if it is indeed going to make it go away for a lot of the pers affected. Using TD and Attached Posted for example for 'short term' courses, BTL, ATL.
> 
> The only pers the problem isn't "going away" for are MSCs and those proceeding on unaccompanied postings; and, those who are IR.
> 
> Nevertheless, should be an interesting conference indeed.



AV, I feel for your situation. Although not on IR right now, I have spent many a years away from family, not by choice. I knew IR rule changes were coming but I never expected it to be this severe. the result of all this will be to lose many valued and experienced personnel, who have already sacrificed much in their career. For me, and I suspect you too, my next stop is a SCAN seminar and preparing an exit strategy for the next time I am posted. On the bright side for me, I have enough years in to have control over my future. This policy change just went too far. I had thought perhaps the fair idea would have been to feed IR pers in the mess or give them equivalent funds to feed themselves. Anyhow, it will be sad to lose pers like you who are actually needed more now than ever with the lack of overall experience in the CF right now. Cheers.


----------



## armyvern (3 Sep 2012)

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> Reading the last few posts, it strikes me that the problem is not so much the policy but its application by the Career Managers.  In my experience in my trade, marital status was seldom if ever taken into account, and we tried to accomodate MSCs wherever possible.



They did "accomodate" me on my last posting, apparently. They couldn't get me to Pet ( ???) where my svc spouse was then posted to, my posting was changed so many times - it's hard to track: I was first posted to Bagotteville (to stand up the EW), cancelled as they wanted someone with higher than just "B" language profiles and changed to a posting to the Canada School Public Service (Gatineau), cancelled because they had someone they had to keep in the NCR due to social worker visit and then changed to CSM CFRG Borden, cancelled due to position being downgraded, and then finally I was posted to ResF HQ in Winnipeg as the sergeant-major --- and I said, "look, I have never said no in my career, can't you at least get me somewhere within driving distance of my family on long weekends?" The answer was "no" until a last minute CFR resulted in my current position opening up and I finally got a message that was not cancelled & changed. I was only a 2.5 hour drive away at least. Then, the next January he got posted to Montreal (although someone same rank as he got posted to my current location this past summer) --- at least it's still only a 3 hour drive home.

Careers will tell you that they have accomodated me; I'm not in Winnipeg.


----------



## MeatheadMick (3 Sep 2012)

The problem only seemed to have opened up after ATI req showed Sr. Officers on IR for years at a time, lives being paid for by the tax-payer when the mbr's family still lived close. The example that comes to mind is a LCol posted to Ottawa, on IR for 5 years, family was in Pet, cost of hotels reached over $125,000.  The problem isn't with IR benefits in my opinion, it's the mbr's who abuse them.  In this circumstance, the mbr was forced to pay a % of the cash back, and I'm sure there are others who are more informed on this matter than I am.

I believe there are many better strategies to cut costs than this... all this seems to afford are family problems and headaches for Career Managers... If they do away with PLD as another cost cutting method... I can see very many soldiers dealing with financial hardship.

Just my 2 Cents.


----------



## 4Feathers (3 Sep 2012)

MPMick said:
			
		

> The problem only seemed to have opened up after ATI req showed Sr. Officers on IR for years at a time, lives being paid for by the tax-payer when the mbr's family still lived close. The example that comes to mind is a LCol posted to Ottawa, on IR for 5 years, family was in Pet, cost of hotels reached over $125,000.  The problem isn't with IR benefits in my opinion, it's the mbr's who abuse them.  In this circumstance, the mbr was forced to pay a % of the cash back, and I'm sure there are others who are more informed on this matter than I am.
> 
> I believe there are many better strategies to cut costs than this... all this seems to afford are family problems and headaches for Career Managers... If they do away with PLD as another cost cutting method... I can see very many soldiers dealing with financial hardship.
> 
> Just my 2 Cents.



I agree, but following this logic, a member does not approve himself to be on IR, it is a CoC thing. No matter what rank, the members CO or Formation Commander is the authority that allowed it.  Perhaps what should have been done is to change the guidelines or rules. I see requests for IR all the time and love it when the CO asks the hard questions.


----------



## MeatheadMick (3 Sep 2012)

this is incredibly true... now how is it that something like the above could be allowed... perhaps instead of changing the benefits received (including the IRP changes) the policy makers should have reviewed the application process.


----------



## PanaEng (3 Sep 2012)

MPMick said:
			
		

> The problem only seemed to have opened up after ATI req showed Sr. Officers on IR for years at a time, lives being paid for by the tax-payer when the mbr's family still lived close. The example that comes to mind is a LCol posted to Ottawa, on IR for 5 years, family was in Pet, cost of hotels reached over $125,000.  The problem isn't with IR benefits in my opinion, it's the mbr's who abuse them.  In this circumstance, the mbr was forced to pay a % of the cash back, and I'm sure there are others who are more informed on this matter than I am.



You are right on that one. Had a big discussion with someone familiar with the case a couple of days ago. 
I is an issue that has bothered many ppl for a while now. But it seems we tend to reach for the sledge hammer when tweezers should have done the job. Not to disparage anyone but it seems we are being lazy when writing policy - don't TB submissions get checked by lawyers as well before they make it out of DND?


----------



## aesop081 (3 Sep 2012)

PanaEng said:
			
		

> don't TB submissions get checked by lawyers as well before they make it out of DND?



Maybe they were and you are just making the assumption that there is something legally contentious about the changes made.


----------



## McG (4 Sep 2012)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> > You are covered by this brief reprieve, and hopefully the higher CoC individual's can make more progress in the window of time created.
> 
> 
> Each person involved now has an opportunity to 'seek out and accept responsibility.' Otherwise, how many troops are going to get bit with this a few months down the road because they sat back, doing nothing more than wishing the CoC would make this boogeyman simply go away, rather than making some fiscal adjustments on their own?


I would argue that both need to be the case.  Despite the delay and few mitigating measures indicated as planned, the new policy needs adjustment or more mitigation - so higher CoC still have work to do.  At the same time, individuals & families need to start planning as though nothing better is coming.  



			
				ArmyVern said:
			
		

> MSCs and single guys (I already addressed the single guy/no dependents in another post). MSCs will be asked told first though, as they most often are now,  because they constitute a "no cost move" - that's why they already get posted unaccompanied (and mid-winter too) more often instead of single guys the CF has to pay to move their F&E and collecting a full month's pay every 18 months - 2 years.
> 
> Sadly, MSCs are the cheapest option out there.


Is it possible that you are living he worst case scenario?  I have known married service couples that were able to stay together throughout their careers, including at senior ranks.

Our discrimination policies (and laws) say that you cannot be singled out for a higher posting tempo or off-season postings based based on your marital status or your spouse's employment.  I am not saying such singling out has not happened, but for what you are describing there is recourse available within the system to challenge the system.  I know you are not one to back away from a fight, so maybe take a more formal route to making noise on this issue.


----------



## PuckChaser (4 Sep 2012)

MCG said:
			
		

> Is it possible that you are living he worst case scenario?  I have known married service couples that were able to stay together throughout their careers, including at senior ranks.



If ArmyVern isn't living the worst case scenario, I'd hate to see what that scenario is.


----------



## PanaEng (4 Sep 2012)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> Maybe they were and you are just making the assumption that there is something legally contentious about the changes made.


It is legally contentious because every TB submission is a legal document (when approved.) Both the policy analysts and the lawyers have to have a good read and analysis of the documents - lawyers for legality, legal consequences (intended or unintended - there might be some risk assessment/acceptance/mitigation) and analysts for drafting, fitting it in with current policy and implementation.
It is legally contentious when one group of employees is treated differently than others or in a manner contrary to TB directives.
Every word in those documents has a meaning and a consequence. Confusing or using IR, Prohibited Posting, Attached posted and using SE without context or clarity in a legally binding document has the type of consequences we have been discussing here and opens the door to challenges in the future - grievance, ombudsman involvement, MP, etc.


----------



## Cdnleaf (4 Sep 2012)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> If ArmyVern isn't living the worst case scenario, I'd hate to see what that scenario is.



It's all a matter of.....


----------



## armyvern (6 Sep 2012)

MCG said:
			
		

> ...
> 
> Our discrimination policies (and laws) say that you cannot be singled out for a higher posting tempo or off-season postings based based on your marital status or your spouse's employment.  I am not saying such singling out has not happened, but for what you are describing there is recourse available within the system to challenge the system.  I know you are not one to back away from a fight, so maybe take a more formal route to making noise on this issue.



One of my original posts in this very thread pointed out that discrimantory practices based upon _family status_ were ... wrong (that family status is actually incorporated into law. I know more like me; I am far from a one-of in the world of MSCs, out of season postings of short durations and moves every year or two with the almighty caveat for MSCs of, "move or your COS date is your release date". Does careers come to me more often because I've never said, "no"? Same for the other MSCs in our situation? That's possible, but I've never said "no" because I am acutely aware of the COS/Release date policy. The first time I say, "no" ... am I getting that GTFO message from them? Do you think I should try it? Eerily, that just goes to prove that it is us MSCs who don't say "no" and who DO do our jobs IAW CF policy are the ones paying the price of this practice vice those who say "no" or who bitch when told they're moving after 4 long years in one spot (and, yes, for me ... a 4 year long posting once in my career would be nice; that's double the time I've experienced so far).

I also stated that formal addressing of this was being undertaken by myself (and others) in one of my original posts into this thread a couple weeks ago. I am well aware of these things that affect me and how to address them. Thanks for pointing it out to me again though.


----------



## Jay4th (8 Sep 2012)

just had a mbr tell me he has been on IR since his base closed up and moved.  Now he is posted to a trg centre and is on IR from his IR posting.  Can one of the experts explain how this is possible?  I was under the impression that if on IR it ended one of three ways.
1. ASAP you move your family to your post and IR ends, (seems the intent of IR)
2. Spend entire 3 yr posting IR (applying every yr) and then likely return to posting in previous geographic area (seems the intent of my peers)
3. Complete your whole posting on IR and proceed to next posting WITH your family. (seems the usual end)

I was under the impression you don't go IR to IR unless part of an MSC getting split posted again.


----------



## PPCLI Guy (8 Sep 2012)

Winnipeg to Shilo, Shilo to Wainwright?


----------



## OldSolduer (8 Sep 2012)

Jay4th said:
			
		

> just had a mbr tell me he has been on IR since his base closed up and moved.  Now he is posted to a trg centre and is on IR from his IR posting.  Can one of the experts explain how this is possible?  I was under the impression that if on IR it ended one of three ways.
> 1. ASAP you move your family to your post and IR ends, (seems the intent of IR)
> 2. Spend entire 3 yr posting IR (applying every yr) and then likely return to posting in previous geographic area (seems the intent of my peers)
> 3. Complete your whole posting on IR and proceed to next posting WITH your family. (seems the usual end)
> ...


WOW.....


----------



## buzgo (9 Sep 2012)

I've seen that happen a few times. In my experience the Signal CMs have been telling people to just go on IR, and I know people that have gone from IR in Pet to IR in Ottawa and then home. 

Its not just individuals abusing the system, its a systemic problem.


----------



## McG (9 Sep 2012)

… and that will continue because the current changes do nothing to address it.


----------



## Jay4th (9 Sep 2012)

Well, clearly this is happening with full career manager support (likely suggested by), as well as full Cof C support, including the losing and gaining unit chief clerks.  If this kind of thing is an abuse, it would have been stopped I imagine.


----------



## aesop081 (9 Sep 2012)

Jay4th said:
			
		

> including the losing and gaining unit chief clerks.



Unit CC have no authority WRT imposed restrictions.


----------



## PuckChaser (9 Sep 2012)

Jay4th said:
			
		

> If this kind of thing is an abuse, it would have been stopped I imagine.



People are unwilling or unable to stop it, and that's why they had to figure out how to save money from IR, hence the change.


----------



## Jay4th (10 Sep 2012)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> Unit CC have no authority WRT imposed restrictions.



Ack, only mentioned because these things cross their desks and if against policy, would raise eyebrows among clerks familiar with policy.


----------



## MeatheadMick (10 Sep 2012)

Jay4th said:
			
		

> Ack, only mentioned because these things cross their desks and if against policy, would raise eyebrows among clerks familiar with policy.



Who may in fact turn a blind eye, especially if it benefits the clerk in any way... makes me recall a recent Court Martial actually.


----------



## McG (11 Sep 2012)

Jay4th said:
			
		

> If this kind of thing is an abuse, it would have been stopped I imagine.


I would not make that assumption.  It is possible for deviation from policy (or expected practice) to become so culturally engrained that nobody even bats an eye to continued abuse of the rules.  Many things contribute to such situations such as lazy staff officers who do not know (but believe they know) the policies, rules, and regulations for which they are responsible to advise and administer, or leaders who are overly familiar with subordinates and who don’t want to be seen to say “no.” Once a deviation becomes culturally engrained, it takes a particularly strong leader well up the chain of command to turn things around (because nobody below wants to be the only one to “screw his guys” by being the only one to conform to policy) – score inflation on PERs is one symptom of this sort of dynamic.

That being said and as stated earlier, I believe that the change to SE was an attempt to stop the abuse.  Unfortunately, the change was too broad a hammer aimed at the wrong target.  As a result, many pers not on IR were in the beaten zone and the IR abuses loop-holes remain in place for those who decide to exploit them.


----------



## bridges (11 Sep 2012)

Also, sometimes the original intent of a policy has been overtaken by events, lost in the mists of time or is otherwise no longer relevant, yet the policy persists.  Sometimes it takes a while for these things to be identified, analyzed & rectified.


----------



## 4Feathers (11 Sep 2012)

MPMick said:
			
		

> Who may in fact turn a blind eye, especially if it benefits the clerk in any way... makes me recall a recent Court Martial actually.



Pretty harsh generalization, if I were a clerk I would take objection to your comment. Seems to me I have seen all trades represented at STs and CMs, including MPs.


----------



## Towards_the_gap (12 Sep 2012)

What are you on about? He didn't say 'All clerks are knowing participants in fraudulent IR claims', he just highlighted the possibility that maybe, somewhere, the CF has within it's ranks persons of less than stellar morals, who could be inclined to 'look the other way'.


----------



## bridges (12 Sep 2012)

MPMick said:
			
		

> Who may in fact turn a blind eye, especially if it benefits the clerk in any way...



Actually I could have done without seeing that as well.  But I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and assume he had one or two individuals in mind, rather than a general tendency for a group of people to manipulate situations to their own advantage.    :not-again:


----------



## Shamrock (12 Sep 2012)

bridges said:
			
		

> Actually I could have done without seeing that as well.  But I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and assume he had one or two individuals in mind, rather than a general tendency for a group of people to manipulate situations to their own advantage.    :not-again:



I suspect he had a former chief clerk in mind.  Incidentally, that individual was figured out by another clerk.


----------



## MeatheadMick (13 Sep 2012)

Shamrock said:
			
		

> I suspect he had a former chief clerk in mind.  Incidentally, that individual was figured out by another clerk.



That would be the one.  Don't really see how my previous comment could have been seen as a rude generalization. It was definitely not aimed at a specific trade. I have had the opportunity to work with STELLAR members of the CF as well as those who really should NOT be in the CF. Any person regardless of trade can fudge benefits in his or her favour. I was merely referring to a specific case in which a clerk happened to be the subject of. I too have seen MPs in shit, I am the last person to say my trade is perfect... if I did that'd be bringjng my own integrity into question 

No offense intended, my apologies to those I did.


----------



## armyvern (11 Oct 2012)

Just recd into my inbox from the career manager ...

latest and greatest CANFORGEN on IR; it actually acknowledges that there are indeed three distinct classes of personnel separated from family:

1)  Authorized to move DF&E;
2)  Restricted Move of DF&E; and
3)  those Prohibited by the CF from moving DF&E.



> 01  01  101509Z OCT  12  RR      UUUU                 CMP 078/12
> NDHQ CMP OTTAWA
> CANFORGEN
> UNCLAS CANFORGEN 184/12 CMP 078/12
> ...



Interesting in that it does not mention any differentation in entitlements etc for the three distinct groups, yet it places authority back with the Career Managers. In my situation, it has always been my CM granting the authority as I fall into category 3 (prohibited) being 1/2 of an MSC.

The tidbit that I find interesting is "IR STATUS MAY BE GRANTED FOR A MAX OF FOUR CONSECUTIVE YEARS, AFTER WHICH THE IR STATUS *SHALL* BE TERMINATED". Being that I'm in my 4th year now (after two postings for me to a separate locations from my spouse [two postings for him too in 4 years, neither of which was to where I am]), the word "shall" indicates that there is no choice in the matter and that the status will terminate. I'd like to see what career shops does with those of us in category 3 (prohibited) after the 4 year cut-off ... will they then make all attempts to finally post MSCs together to "break" that 4 year in a row clause and give us some time to spend together as a family too ... or do they just say "f' it, your 4 years is up and you're done" despite the fact that we are prohibited move of F&E. 

I also like the bit about "the member's effort to locate their family with them at the member's place of duty" being a factor that must be considered in approving IR requests. I hope that those with the powers of approval read this as I do ... No effort/intent to move your family to your place of duty = no IR ... or IR with NO entitlement to SE (another lovely bit in the above message). I have a feeling that will succeed in knocking quite a few free-riders off of that gravy train.


----------



## DAA (11 Oct 2012)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Just recd into my inbox from the career manager ...
> 
> latest and greatest CANFORGEN on IR; it actually acknowledges that there are indeed three distinct classes of personnel separated from family:
> 
> ...



The classes above have always existed and apply to everyone whether single or married.

Years ago, IR had to be reviewed on an annual basis and was only granted in one year increments.  Once the cost of maintaining a service member on IR reach the equivalent of a cost move, the CM would advise the member that should the IR continue beyond that point, there would be no entitlement to a cost move for the family.  I also seem to recall IR being restricted to a max of 7 years as well.

In my opinion, MSC's should be administered differently as they are NOT the ones requesting IR Status, it is being imposed on them due to service reasons.

IR is merely a short term tool available to a CF member, which allows transition into a new job and location without creating undue hardship on the family unit.  If someone is proceeding to a new location on IR and have absolutely NO intention of relocating their family to that area, then they are defeating the purpose of IR.


----------



## McG (11 Oct 2012)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Interesting in that it does not mention any differentation in entitlements etc for the three distinct groups, yet it places authority back with the Career Managers. In my situation, it has always been my CM granting the authority as I fall into category 3 (prohibited) being 1/2 of an MSC.
> 
> The tidbit that I find interesting is "IR STATUS MAY BE GRANTED FOR A MAX OF FOUR CONSECUTIVE YEARS, AFTER WHICH THE IR STATUS *SHALL* BE TERMINATED". Being that I'm in my 4th year now (after two postings for me to a separate locations from my spouse [two postings for him too in 4 years, neither of which was to where I am]), the word "shall" indicates that there is no choice in the matter and that the status will terminate. I'd like to see what career shops does with those of us in category 3 (prohibited) after the 4 year cut-off ... will they then make all attempts to finally post MSCs together to "break" that 4 year in a row clause and give us some time to spend together as a family too ... or do they just say "f' it, your 4 years is up and you're done" despite the fact that we are prohibited move of F&E.


Careful Vern.  You are slipping into the missing the distinction between SE entitlement and IR through the old inaccurate colloquialism of referring to both groups under the same label of "IR status."

There are three categories of DHGE movement related to a member who is posted (Authorized, Restricted, Prohibited), but these are not directly analogous to the three types of separation related to a move (Unaccompanied, IR and Prohibited).  Unaccompanied is an option lasting up to six months for somebody who is posted Restricted; IR is something that can be requested and authorized for somebody posted Authorized or Restricted; and Prohibited is Prohibited.

This CANFORGEN speaks to IR, and one should not attempt to extrapolate implications for SE as it relates to Unaccompanied moves or Prohibited postings.



			
				DAA said:
			
		

> In my opinion, MSC's should be administered differently as they are NOT the ones requesting IR Status, it is being imposed on them due to service reasons.


MSCs and other pers prohibited posted are not on "IR Status."  That term never accurately applied and this CANFORGEN does not change that.  Let's not slip back into that sloppy vernacular because it will inevitably lead to some lazy administrators missunderstanding the policy they apply ... likely such sloppiness will see entitled MSCs denied SE when some fool slaps them under the "IR Status" label.  That being said, perhaps we could now look at reversing some of the SE cuts exclusively for those who are either unaccompanied or Prohibited.

This CANFORGEN is a step in the direction that should have been taken as opposed to the extent of the initial SE cuts.  I am happy to see it, though I might have gone farther. As quality of life is an underlying theme, I would also like to see some sort of direction restraining durations and frequencies of prohibited postings and MSC separations.


----------



## navymich (11 Oct 2012)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> The tidbit that I find interesting is "IR STATUS MAY BE GRANTED FOR A MAX OF FOUR CONSECUTIVE YEARS, AFTER WHICH THE IR STATUS *SHALL* BE TERMINATED". Being that I'm in my 4th year now (after two postings for me to a separate locations from my spouse [two postings for him too in 4 years, neither of which was to where I am]), the word "shall" indicates that there is no choice in the matter and that the status will terminate.






> 8. WITH RESPECT TO MBRS ON IR PRIOR TO 15 OCT 12, NOTHING IN THE
> ABOVE SHALL BE INTERPRETED OR APPLIED IN A WAY THAT CHANGES THEIR IR
> STATUS ON 15 OCT 12.  IR DURATION IAW PARA 6 BEGINS ON 15 OCT 12



The way that I read this is that the 4 year clock starts on 15 Oct 12.  Unless I've interpreted it wrong?


----------



## armyvern (11 Oct 2012)

airmich said:
			
		

> The way that I read this is that the 4 year clock starts on 15 Oct 12.  Unless I've interpreted it wrong?



No, that's correct. I'm already in my fourth year and the clock starts ticking anew on 15 Oct. I wonder if my mangler will observe that now and attempt to co-locate finally (IE: the spirit of the CANFORGEN, that families should be together at least one year after every four apart), or whether he says he can send me somewhere else again for another 4 years ... or whether he says "F it, you're done with being authorized" this next APS when I come up for authority renewal (at the end of this current 4 years of being separated) and still keeps me separated.


----------



## armyvern (11 Oct 2012)

MCG said:
			
		

> Careful Vern.
> 
> There are three...



 :

Just stop. Stop responding to my posts; you and I have been through this routine so many times, regardless of the topic, it is ridiculous. You are VERY well aware that I know the difference between the three.  I actually find your posts (and not just those posts to me) quite very patronizing; it's getting very old, very quick.

I flat out stated there were three distinct groups identified and that no differentiation was made in this CANFORGEN regarding benefits for any of them either. None. As far as this latest reads, we are still all being treated the same benefits wise. I do not confuse the three.

This is the last time I will respond to one of your posts to me as you simply see my name and don't bother to read what I wrote ...

I respectfully bow to your smuggy superior knowledge and SMEness of ... well ... apparently ... everything.

I, quite literally, do not have a dick in this contest. Done. [add to ignore]


----------



## DAA (11 Oct 2012)

MCG said:
			
		

> MSCs and other pers prohibited posted are not on "IR Status."  That term never accurately applied and this CANFORGEN does not change that.  Let's not slip back into that sloppy vernacular because it will inevitably lead to some lazy administrators missunderstanding the policy they apply ... likely such sloppiness will see entitled MSCs denied SE when some fool slaps them under the "IR Status" label.



Oh but they are on IR Status............Regretably, I think we may have already gone that way with respect to MSC's.  This past APS we had part of an MSC posted to our unit and the spouse was posted elsewhere (ie; not geographically co-located) and she took possession of the HG&E and children.  However, the supporting URS for our guy refused to pay SE without an approved IR.  In my mind, it was a "no brainer" and SE should have been automatic, as it always had been.  But after consulting with DCBA, it came to light that there are currently "no provisions" within the policy to automatically approve SE benefits for one part of an MSC when geographical separation occurs.

Hence, they actually have to go through the process of applying for IR and once granted, they become entitled to SE.   :   OMG......is there no common sense left?


----------



## armyvern (11 Oct 2012)

DAA said:
			
		

> Regretably, I think we may have already gone that way with respect to MSC's.  This past APS we had part of an MSC posted to our unit and the spouse was posted elsewhere (ie; not geographically co-located) and she took possession of the HG&E and children.  However, the supporting URS for our guy refused to pay SE without an approved IR.  In my mind, it was a "no brainer" and SE should have been automatic, as it always had been.  But after consulting with DCBA, it came to light that there are currently "no provisions" within the policy to automatically approve SE benefits for one part of an MSC when geographical separation occurs.
> 
> Hence, they actually have to go through the process of applying for IR and once granted, they become entitled to SE.   :   OMG......is there no common sense left?



The authority for MSCs has always been the career manager. I have never had to "apply for IR" to my CM via that little IR request form they make others do as he knows exactly why I am going unaccompanied - HE and my spouse's CM decided I would go that way. I'm going to fill out a form telling him why he is sending me prohibited?? That's hilarious ... and wrong. My posting messages have never stated "IR authorized until ..." rather they have read "Prohibited move authorized until XX Month XX".

DCBA actually cut an email out ~2010 to CClerks that pointed out that MSCs were NOT IR and thus would (should) never have a message stating "IR authorized" rather that it should be the posting message from the CM that simply states "Prohibited move auth until ..."

Your guy's CM simply needs to ensure his posting message reads "prohibited move authorized until ..." - the CM can't authorize him to be IR exactly because he is a MSC.


----------



## McG (11 Oct 2012)

Well, I am sorry differing opinions are so difficult on you (or in this case, a caution on how you represent mutually accepted facts).  In any case ...


			
				ArmyVern said:
			
		

> You are VERY well aware that I know the difference between the three.


I am aware that you know the difference between IR and Prohibited postings.  However, when you read a CANFORGEN on IR changes and then describe its application on yourself (a person not IR), then it is not clear to the reader that you are correctly interpreting that CANFORGEN.  In fact, your narrative (and posts since) falsely suggests that MSC will loose entitlement to SE after 4 years - nowhere in the CANFORGEN does it say that, and the only way to arrive at that conclusion is to incorrectly equate IR and SE.

But, it is not all about you anyway.  While I replied to your post, you were not my target audience.  I was hoping to interdict the individual who will otherwise come into this thread and lead us down the imagined rabbit-hole of MSC being served an injustice through being forced to cover the costs of separation after 4 years.  Understanding that SE and IR are different, one sees that this injustice is not going to exist.



			
				ArmyVern said:
			
		

> As far as this latest reads, we [three groups entitled to SE] are still all being treated the same benefits wise. I do not confuse the three.


You have confused things.  This CANFORGEN applies changes to only one group (IR), and you have interpreted that change across all groups entitled to SE.  You are putting things into the message that are not there.


----------



## armyvern (12 Oct 2012)

DAA said:
			
		

> Oh but they are on IR Status...



Just to clarify, my previous MSCs are not on IR status, but are treated the same and paid SE benefits IAW IR policy (even though we are not ourselves IR).

Regarding the 2nd CANFORGEN out on these cuts, I had posted that I consulted with CClerk, who went to DCBA who confirmed that these CANFORGENs regarding SE benefits and cuts are applicable to MSCs even though we are not IR precisely because we are entitled to our benefits IAW and as per IR policy.

Although this latest CANFORGEN clarifies that there are three groups, it still does not indicate any different application of SE benefits to any of those groups.


----------



## McG (12 Oct 2012)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Although this latest CANFORGEN clarifies that there are three groups, it still does not indicate any different application of SE benefits to any of those groups.


The CANFORGEN did state that there were three categories of DHGE movement related to a member who is posted (it made no mention of three groups/types of separated personnel as your post stated and, while there are links, the categories of DHGE movement and the groups of separated personnel are not directly analogous).  After listing the three categories of DHGE movement, the CANFORGEN in the next line identifies IR as something different.  Paragraph 9 of the CANFORGEN goes on to differentiate between SE and IR, pointing back to CBI 208.997 – SEPARATION EXPENSE as the authority for SE entitlement.  It is clear that the author of this CANFORGEN understands what IR is as something distinct from SE and the various types of DHGE movement.  The changes announced in the CANFORGEN are explicitly made to IR – they cannot be extrapolated to other SE entitled pers by a whim of the administering staff.



			
				ArmyVern said:
			
		

> … these CANFORGENs regarding SE benefits and cuts are applicable to MSCs even though we are not IR precisely because we are entitled to our benefits IAW and as per IR policy.


No.  There is no IR policy that governs MSC entitlement to SE.  Rather there is a SE policy that grants entitlement based on a number of criteria.  This means that changes to IR are not automatically transposed on-top of other SE entitled members.  You’ve seen the policy; it is CBI 208.997 – SEPARATION EXPENSE.  It may be pedantic, but if your SMEs are telling you that you are governed under an IR policy, it is a sign that they are being sloppy in their interpretation and understanding of the policies that apply to you.  



			
				ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Regarding the 2nd CANFORGEN out on these cuts, I had posted that I consulted with CClerk, who went to DCBA who confirmed that ...


I have been very successful on many occasions in getting my COs what they want and/or protecting my soldiers by demonstrating that higher staff officers are applying/enforcing their policies as they want or imagine those policies to be.  DCBA in particular is bad for this.  I personally saved myself several thousand dollars by showing in a grievance that DCBA was not applying its policies as written, and most recently (and more significantly) as an assisting officer I developed arguments that saved one of my soldiers six figures for DCBA attempting to impose policy as it wanted/imagined and not as it was written.

Vern,
Regardless of if you are hearing it from your CM and some desk officer in DCBA, you are settling for wrong answers.  Hold people’s feet to the fire and make them account for what is actually written in the CANFORGEN.  Don’t accept people telling you policy as they want or imagine it to be.

The only way that MSC will be held responsible for the costs of their separation at the four year mark will be if a new CANFORGEN or policy is published.


----------



## DAA (12 Oct 2012)

I fully understand the IR and SE policies.  I am just saying that what happened to us this past APS was well out in left field and had me scratching my head.  Here is what we had to deal with:

a.  the Posting Instruction identified our guy as part of an MSC and his move of DHG&E was tagged as "Restricted";

b.  para 6 of the Posting Instr states and I quote "members spouse is MCpl X who will be posted to CFB X with both members F&E.  Therefore it is expected, MCpl Y will apply for IR status."

c.  then from DCBA "there are currently no provisions within the latest policy that address the issue of MSC's, therefore, in order for them to receive SE benefits, they will have to go through the IR application process as it currently reads.  There is not much more that can be done until the Mil Pers Instr is promulgated from DGMC."

Made no sense what so ever to me but to get the member his benefits, we still had to do it, whether right or wrong.....


----------



## bridges (12 Oct 2012)

DAA said:
			
		

> I fully understand the IR and SE policies.  I am just saying that what happened to us this past APS was well out in left field and had me scratching my head.  Here is what we had to deal with:
> 
> a.  the Posting Instruction identified our guy as part of an MSC and his move of DHG&E was tagged as "Restricted";
> 
> ...



It sounds to me like MSCs' expenses related to CF-imposed separation should be automatically approved by the org that posts them apart.  IMO those members shouldn't have to apply for anything.  

It doesn't make sense to try to fit MSCs into the "boxes" designed for other situations - and especially not to compare MSCs to members who are choosing IR.   Unless the CF feels that it's the MSC's choice to _be married_ in the first place?     :facepalm:     :2c:


----------



## Paladium (15 Oct 2012)

2 questions

I see all this info on IR but with respect to SE - my benefits still are ending in Feb 13? As in now stands?

I have been on IR for a few months what happens if I want to end it and have my family move with me here?  What do I have to do - initially the base authorized my IR for the first year.

Thanks


----------



## DAA (15 Oct 2012)

Paladium said:
			
		

> 2 questions
> 
> I see all this info on IR but with respect to SE - my benefits still are ending in Feb 13? As in now stands?
> 
> ...



Check with your supporting orderly room.  To have the IR lifted you will first need to secure accommodations for your family.  Once this is done, then you can submit a request to have the IR lifted and then carry on with your relocation.


----------



## McG (15 Oct 2012)

Paladium said:
			
		

> I have been on IR for a few months what happens if I want to end it and have my family move with me here?  What do I have to do - initially the base authorized my IR for the first year.


Yes you can.  See para 15 of CFAO 209-28 for how.


----------



## Paladium (15 Oct 2012)

Thanks


----------



## big45-70 (27 Jan 2013)

Has there been any update on this?  For those of us on course and married will our rations and quarters be cut after Febuary 1st?


----------



## Eye In The Sky (28 Jan 2013)

There is no CANFORGEN out yet.  

Unofficially, the only thing I've seen is this post from a different thread.  

Perhaps a merge here Mods?


----------



## DAA (29 Jan 2013)

Seeing as the CANFORGEN came out sometime ago, I am actually surprised that there has been nothing to address the issue of Married Service Couples (MSC) not being co-located.

Which makes me wonder if the thought process on high has taken on a dramatic new look?    Such as --------- The CF posts you where ever and when ever they need to.  If you are part of an MSC not being co-located, oh well the CM tried to accommodate, it was your choice to marry another service member just like anyone else who got married, so you have some serious choices to make.    Only a thought!!!

I get the feeling that this may very be what is happening.......(pendulum swing).


----------



## technophile (29 Jan 2013)

I know I am leaving the door open for a blast of S*** from a few members here.

But, I fail to see the difference between a MSC and a military member and their spouse with civilian employment with regards to whether or not separation expenses and meals being cut is fair or not.

Should the advice " if  you are posted and your spouse doesn't want to leave their job then get out " apply to both groups here ?  If you are a MSC and posted apart, then shouldn't one make the " family sacrifice" and release ?

Some members spouses have put significant time into achieving their career goals, ( as I am sure military pers have ) only to be treated as second class citizens and forced to " be the good wife " and follow their husbands. ( or wives, whatever the case may be )  I don't see how a MSC differ in this regard and should and are asking to be  treated as "special".  Of course, the rules currently apply to both parties, but here I am hearing more arguing on this forum  from MSC who feel they should be treated differently.

I really feel for both groups in this situation.  I will be a tough decision this posting season when members are forced to chose their career or their family.   I am not choosing one side or the other, I just think the same rules should apply.


----------



## DAA (29 Jan 2013)

technophile said:
			
		

> I know I am leaving the door open for a blast of S*** from a few members here.
> 
> But, I fail to see the difference between a MSC and a military member and their spouse with civilian employment with regards to whether or not separation expenses and meals being cut is fair or not.
> 
> ...



And this is exactly what I think may be the "new thought".......


----------



## Eye In The Sky (29 Jan 2013)

technophile said:
			
		

> I know I am leaving the door open for a blast of S*** from a few members here.
> 
> But, I fail to see the difference between a MSC and a military member and their spouse with civilian employment with regards to whether or not separation expenses and meals being cut is fair or not.
> 
> ...



Disagree.  In a MSC situation where they are posted to different locations, has their employer really left them with a choice?  "quit your job" isn't really a choice now is it?  What if you are 18-19 years into a IE20 and close to an earned pension?

The difference really comes down to the word "choice", and MSC posted to 2 different locations are not left with a REALISTIC one ('release or suck it up' doesn't fall into the def of realistic in this context IMO).

 :2c:


----------



## TiffyMurmur (29 Jan 2013)

Has anyone actually looked at what the budget cuts are specifically?
There was someone who posted a link in a different thread (I can't find it again for the life of me) that stated every single change that will start Feb 1st.

Two of the changes popped out at me, 1 is that they will no longer pay lawyers fees or pay to break your mortgage upon a new posting, the other was about the rations. Everyone, whether deployed, temporary posted, or on training (for whatever reason) will now be paying for rations. Married CF personnel will be exempt from paying for their quarters Only. 

Just what I read. Don't know how true it is. 

I am not interested in the separation benefit, but having to pay for rations will set my family behind a tad


----------



## PMedMoe (29 Jan 2013)

TiffyMurmur said:
			
		

> There was someone who posted a link in a different thread (I can't find it again for the life of me) that stated every single change that will start Feb 1st.



It's right here: http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/106874.0.html


----------



## Eye In The Sky (29 Jan 2013)

These changes, like all negative changes, will result in a lower GAFF for a lot of ppl, IMO.

But, they don't care about that.


----------



## TiffyMurmur (29 Jan 2013)

> It's right here: http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/106874.0.html



Thanks for grabbing that for me


----------



## Quellefille (29 Jan 2013)

TiffyMurmur said:
			
		

> Has anyone actually looked at what the budget cuts are specifically?
> There was someone who posted a link in a different thread (I can't find it again for the life of me) that stated every single change that will start Feb 1st.
> 
> Two of the changes popped out at me, 1 is that they will no longer pay lawyers fees or pay to break your mortgage upon a new posting



Lawyers fees and penalties aren't covered anymore because we live in a world of portable mortgages.  if you are in the CF, you should know better than to sign a non-portable mortgage.  There are issues with this cause people have unexpected problems(banks refusing to blend and port the mortgage when they move to a place where the housing costs are lower or higher)  They still pay the fees tp buy and sell the home, just not the fees for breaking your mortgage


----------



## Strike (29 Jan 2013)

Quellefille said:
			
		

> Lawyers fees and penalties aren't covered anymore because we live in a world of portable mortgages.  if you are in the CF, you should know better than to sign a non-portable mortgage.  There are issues with this cause people have unexpected problems(banks refusing to blend and port the mortgage when they move to a place where the housing costs are lower or higher)  They still pay the fees tp buy and sell the home, just not the fees for breaking your mortgage



And so what about those who are posted out to areas where they are not permitted to buy, like OUTCAN?  Sure, we should all be able to port our mortgages, but sometimes you still have to break one and it's not a choice.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (29 Jan 2013)

Quellefille said:
			
		

> Lawyers fees and penalties aren't covered anymore because we live in a world of portable mortgages.  if you are in the CF, you should know better than to sign a non-portable mortgage.  There are issues with this cause people have unexpected problems(banks refusing to blend and port the mortgage when they move to a place where the housing costs are lower or higher)  They still pay the fees tp buy and sell the home, just not the fees for breaking your mortgage



So, you're saying that the CF policy should determine what type of mortgage people get?


----------



## 63 Delta (29 Jan 2013)

If the CF requires you to move, then they should have to cover all the expenses.

And as for portable mortgages... As stated, things become sticky if you are moving to a higher or lower market. And since so many bases vary in prices, its going to be hard for many members to port. And porting is at the discretion of the lender. You're not guaranteed to get a port.

As well, for new members, and first time home buyers, along with all the other rules and regulations they must know, you expect them to make sure they get a portable mortgage? I bought my first house in 2010. It was hard enough going through all the forms, IRP, broker, realtor's, house inspection, work, variable vs fixed, terms, open or closed. Having a portable mortgage should not be the onus of the member.


----------



## armyvern (29 Jan 2013)

technophile said:
			
		

> I know I am leaving the door open for a blast of S*** from a few members here.
> 
> But, I fail to see the difference between a MSC and a military member and their spouse with civilian employment with regards to whether or not separation expenses and meals being cut is fair or not.
> 
> ...



It has been addressed in this thread already.

The CF, thus Canada, benefits from the employment of a MSC twice.  Two people who are willing to go anywhere, anytime for anything.  The CF does not reap the same benefit from a member with a civilian spouse.

MSC are also not availed of the same "fall back" opportunities (or "outs" if you like to call them that) as a member with a civilian spouse.

We can't go to the padre/social worker and get a "stay" on a posting for compassionate grounds or kid's educational needs for example.  

My spouse just recd word today that he is posted to Ottawa end-Apr/beginning May. Period. Interesting that.  I am the pers in the apartment in a different location than his current or future location ... he's now posted prior to end-year.  Good thing the kids have now graduated else they'd apparently have to live on their own until the end of the school year. No "outs" for us in that respect.

Show me a military member with a civilian spouse who'd have to up and move like that without regard for the kids or their schooling. If our kids were still in grade school, they'd have no choice but to transfer schools in April - even if they were in grade 12.

MSCs are not comparable to mil/civ couples.  We are treated very differently by the system and are both expected to react to that system - anytime of year; regardless of circumstances. And, in our case we do exactly that.   This new policy negatively impacts exactly those of us who do exactly as our country requires, whenever and wherever required at the CF's direction. We, truly, have NO choice in the matter.  To be clear, it is us MSCs who do all the shitty outside of APS postings so members with civilian families do not get interrupted. Screw us.  Yet again.  This will now be the third time in 5 years one of us has been posted in the Jan-Apr time frame to fill essential positions vacated by others so that mil/civ spouse do not have to do so and interrupt their family.

If this was a mil/civ family, the mil guy would go by himself and move his family during APS. That is not an option we MSCs get.

Edit to add:  Single CF members are often posted mid-year as above so that mil/civ spouse couples do not have their family's quality of life interrupted as well. However, in the case of a single member who has a home, they have the option of proceeding unaccompanied (thus having rent covered until APS) until their home sells etc.  An MSC who are posted apart do not have that option under the "mid-year posting circumstances" as one of them is already receiving that benefit.  If their home can't sell until APS, too bad. The other half must still move to the posting location and incur financial expenses for accommodations and costs associated with the new posting until their home (that no one is now living in) is sold.  People may call this "rare" occasion, but it sure as hell is not for us!!  Yep, two members paying for accommodations in two locations while the CF covers one's rent in a third location.  You'll NEVER see that occur with a civ/mil couple.

As for the poster who indicated that careers attempts to accomodate ... you should read the entire thread.  Two MSCs, both men same rank and trade and both women same rank and trade.  Me and her husband both unaccompanied at one base while his wife and my husband were posted to another base.  How does that make sense!!?? Awesome "accommodation" that is (how about no attempt??).  Speak of that which you know, but do not assume that is actually occurring out here in the real world because it is not.


----------



## TCM621 (29 Jan 2013)

> Show me a military member with a civilian spouse who'd have to up and move like that without regard for the kids or their schooling. If our kids were still in grade school, they'd have no choice but to transfer schools in April - even if they were in grade 12.



You are looking at one. I had a choice. To spend another year away from my family or move them. My wife is giving up a very good job, moving my family in the middle of the school year and she is doing it because I have no choice where I live.


Vern, I know being a MSC sucks sometimes and I do have empathy for your situation. However, every Career Manager brief I have ever been too specifically states that accommodation will be attempted but the needs of the CF come first. You both agreed to unlimited liability. The civilian spouse never did. The civilian spouse just happened to fall in love with the fine people that CF members are. Her (or his) choice to is to marry the member and put up with all the shit for no extra gain or leave them. No matter how many ways you slice it, they are not the same thing. The military can fuck both members of a MSC around because they both signed on the dotted line.

That said, I totally agree with you that if they split you up they should expect you to have to support two households. In that regard, MSC should have equal (or more benefits) then civilian/member pairings because Civ/mbr pairings, in theory, have the ability to choice separation.


On another note, it feels like Sept all over again. I don't know if I will be losing 1000 bucks come Friday. I would hate to bounce my mortgage payment just before I sell my house and move my family here.


----------



## Ayrsayle (29 Jan 2013)

Not entirely sure how helpful this update is for all examples, but here in Edmonton I've just had a brief this morning as follows:

Separation expense is now gone. We will be paying for two residences (I'm currently in the shacks here in Edmonton, thankfully it'll only be an additional 310 a month). PLD is remaining in place for the near future, and LDA for the longer future. As an Lt straight out of the training system, I'll be losing 700 (Separation + second accommodations), but also gaining 300ish for LDA. Not quite as nightmarish as originally feared, but a loss nonetheless. It is however manageable.

All of this is to occur on Feb 1st - with decisions regarding quarters and rations being deferred to Feb 4th.


----------



## armyvern (29 Jan 2013)

Tcm621 said:
			
		

> You are looking at one. I had a choice. To spend another year away from my family or move them. My wife is giving up a very good job, moving my family in the middle of the school year and she is doing it because I have no choice where I live.
> 
> 
> Vern, I know being a MSC sucks sometimes and I do have empathy for your situation. However, every Career Manager brief I have ever been too specifically states that accommodation will be attempted but the needs of the CF come first. You both agreed to unlimited liability. The civilian spouse never did. The civilian spouse just happened to fall in love with the fine people that CF members are. Her (or his) choice to is to marry the member and put up with all the shit for no extra gain or leave them. No matter how many ways you slice it, they are not the same thing. The military can fuck both members of a MSC around because they both signed on the dotted line.
> ...



And yes, you may have chosen to move your family with you mid-year ... but you had a CHOICE to do so and could have chosen to wait until the end of the school year. We do not have the benefit of making either of those choices. Very different situation.

I have been away for 5 years straight now and have had restricted postings away from my family prior to the recent spat of them as well. I am quite aware of that liability and I and my svc spouse have never hesitated to react and do exactly what we were called upon to do in respect to that liability/CF requirement.  I am a Sup tech - we are everywhere.  Believe you me that there were plenty of Sup techs positions at my husbands former places of duty my rank/trade.  No accomodation by careers (for me) ... while pers of my rank/trade got to remain in those "unavailable" (to me) positions, some for upwards of 15 years.  Until shit like *that  * ceases, accomodation is a nice word that is not actually occurring nor being attempted.

Thank you for highlighting my point about us MSC's being completely different: we both signed on and can both be fucked around and the CF is EXACTLY the entity benefitting from BOTH of our employment.  NOT the same as the other situation.

To be clearer on my part about paying for multiple accomodations:  we will be paying full and all expenses for two residences, two residental utilities, upkeep maintenance etc; one at his new place of duty and one at the old place of duty (even though it's going to be vacant - it must still be paid for, heated etc).  I will also be paying for my daily living expenses at a third location (my rent will be covered as I am the unaccompanied one).

BTW, I've posted on here that I agree with paying for meals - that is not what I have the issue with.  My issue is with incuring basic expenses (laundry, phone, insurance etc) out of my famly's pocket for what will be two locations --- and in April three locations --- all so the CF can benefit from the employment of us _*both*_.  At the end of the day, you are arguing with the wrong person about needs of the service. I know what they are and I am well aware that the CF's needs come first.  They get that twice and double the bang for their bucks out of this family. That's the difference.


----------



## SupersonicMax (30 Jan 2013)

Vern,

Unless your spouse or you is under obligatory service, you also have the choice to quit your job or move.  Same with the civilian spouse.  Yes, it may be a decision that makes little sense financially, but family-wise it makes sense.  Same on both ends.  If it doesn't suit your job doesn't suit your family lifestyle (regardless of whether it's a military career or a civilian career), time to make a choice.  And that choice will depend on your personal priorities.


----------



## armyvern (30 Jan 2013)

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> Vern,
> 
> Unless your spouse or you is under obligatory service, you also have the choice to quit your job or move.  Same with the civilian spouse.  Yes, it may be a decision that makes little sense financially, but family-wise it makes sense.  Same on both ends.  If it doesn't suit your job doesn't suit your family lifestyle (regardless of whether it's a military career or a civilian career), time to make a choice.  And that choice will depend on your personal priorities.



LMAO.

Now you're the expert on IR and career accomodation and MSCs too??  Funny that you fit into none of the three groups and have just started your own career (four years in school don't really count in my book as to what it's like in the real world).  When the CF gives me the same choices avail to a mil/civ spouse regarding delays of postings, time of year etc, then you can call us the same Max. Til then Max, we are *not* the same - no matter how you wish to paint it.  Now hush.  I wouldn't wish upon you what my family has done/gone through for this nation because we both love our jobs through no choice of our own. Our only choice is "go NOW or get out", not so for mil/civ who can delay a move, go see a padre etc etc ... Nor would I wish it upon any of my other worst (insert what you will).


----------



## SupersonicMax (30 Jan 2013)

Yes Vern, your situation is much worse than anybody out there.   

I had my fair share of career accommodation with my spouse, and had to make choices.  Some were family choices, some were work choices.  Yes, I had to do a stint on IR.  But I honestly don't see service spouse any different than civilian spouses.  Options are the same:  Both move, 1 leave the job or go IR.  Asking for a delay in a posting may not happen with a civilian spouse either.  Again, service needs before yours.  I had to move before it was ideal for my situation because of service needs.  It happens.  I don't know about your CM, but I know (from at least 2 cases) that CMs will make compromises for MSCs and apply common sense to the formula.  

You may have an attachment to your military career, either emotionally or financially (pension), but that's not to say that civilian spouses don't have the same attachments to their jobs (hell, my spouse had to quit a 120K$ a year job that she liked doing to follow).  Yes we may be "held to higher standards", and may have "greater responsibilities than the average joe" and all that cool aid drinking stuff.  The reality is that the military is really just a line of work when in Canada. We are not much different than the average canadian.  In fact, the CF should be a cross section of the canadian population.  We are only as special as we make it look like.


----------



## armyvern (30 Jan 2013)

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> Yes Vern, your situation is much worse than anybody out there.
> 
> I had my fair share of career accommodation with my spouse, and had to make choices.  Some were family choices, some were work choices.  Yes, I had to do a stint on IR.  But I honestly don't see service spouse any different than civilian spouses.  Options are the same:  Both move, 1 leave the job or go IR.  Asking for a delay in a posting may not happen with a civilian spouse either.  Again, service needs before yours.  I had to move before it was ideal for my situation because of service needs.  It happens.  I don't know about your CM, but I know (from at least 2 cases) that CMs will make compromises for MSCs and apply common sense to the formula.
> 
> You may have an attachment to your military career, either emotionally or financially (pension), but that's not to say that civilian spouses don't have the same attachments to their jobs (hell, my spouse had to quit a 120K$ a year job that she liked doing to follow).  Yes we may be "held to higher standards", and may have "greater responsibilities than the average joe" and all that cool aid drinking stuff.  The reality is that the military is really just a line of work when in Canada. We are not much different than the average canadian.  In fact, the CF should be a cross section of the canadian population.  We are only as special as we make it look like.



Please quote where I have ever stated that my situation was worse than anybody else's out there Lord SME.

For those who have said it is rare, I have stated that it is not for this family. 5 restricted postings now. And now into year 5 of the most recent series of them.

For those who have stated "careers attempts to accomodate", I have posted facts that show they have not.  Me and another's spouse unaccompanied at one location (costing the taxpayers money) while my spouse and his were in another location.  Telling me (in writing) that they could not accomodate me at location X because person A, B, and C all required to remain there for at least another year (all had been in that location for a minimum of 12 years - one had been there 15 [and that guy had a wife who didn't work --- why couldn't he be moved after 15 damn years?]). They were there when I left that place 7 postings ago! Old Boys Network; that's why.

As long as any backs are getting scratched --- "accomodation" is window dressing and using that as a fallback caveat is not on when it's not attempted.  I know it; I am living it as is my family. Their experience may differ from mine ... but my family's experience IS my family's experience --- a look at our respective MPRRs would tell anyone as much.

For those who say, "CF requirements come first", I say, "I know" and neither my spouse nor I has _ever_ put ourself first. We do exactly our jobs and, in case you missed it, my bitch is not the requirement to be seperated from my family. I KNOW that. We are both willing to do that and DO do that and have proven such.  But, now, because some asshats abused IR ... it is precisely those of us who DO our jobs exactly as our demands of us who get screwed and get to pay for it.  Talk about collective punishment.  That is my issue with all of this.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (30 Jan 2013)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> But, now, because some asshats abused IR ...



No, no, nope,...they were ALLOWED to abuse IR.   I don't blame the employee's for piss-poor management..............


----------



## armyvern (30 Jan 2013)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> No, no, nope,...they were ALLOWED to abuse IR.   I don't blame the employee's for piss-poor management..............



I'd agree; but, I'd follow it up with a charge their asses for fraud and leave the rest of us out of it.  Some of these fraudsters and abusers are _supposed_ leaders. Good times; thanks for screwing the rest of us is all I have to say to them.


----------



## Pandora114 (30 Jan 2013)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> I'd agree; but, I'd follow it up with a charge their asses for fraud and leave the rest of us out of it.  Some of these fraudsters and abusers are _supposed_ leaders. Good times; thanks for screwing the rest of us is all I have to say to them.



Maybe that is why they aren't going for that option. Diffuse the c.o.c.k across every one and their stuff gets overlooked and they come out smelling like roses.


----------



## Strike (30 Jan 2013)

Max, the problem with telling a MSC to get out if they don't like it is that some trades are very MSC heavy, such as my own. Imagine the potential for harm to a trade if that was the attitude that the CF had.


----------



## TCM621 (30 Jan 2013)

Vern, your situation sucks. That much is clear. It also seems that your career managers have been really lazy.


----------



## armyvern (30 Jan 2013)

Tcm621 said:
			
		

> Vern, your situation sucks. That much is clear. It also seems that your career managers have been really lazy.



We are under new management these days ( ); that management gave me three choices when I met with them in November for APS 2014 due to some forecasted retirements/"aging out" for that year.  

I had them strike one immediately off the list (not due to the position offered [that posn would be seen by most Army types to be the most prestigious of the three], but due to it's location).  The other two positions (certainly not bad slots either) should get me a little closer to home.

In my world though, 2014 is still a long way off ... and I've found myself posted on less than 30 days notice before to fill some must-fill slot in jan or Feb because someone pulled pin.  Fingers crossed for 2014 holding.


----------



## GnyHwy (30 Jan 2013)

My immediate thought back when this stuff was still rumour was there should be a tiered system.  Up to 2 years full benefits, followed by benefits decreasing every year thereafter and ceasing at some point around 5 years.  Kind of the inverse of LDA.


----------



## SupersonicMax (30 Jan 2013)

Strike said:
			
		

> Max, the problem with telling a MSC to get out if they don't like it is that some trades are very MSC heavy, such as my own. Imagine the potential for harm to a trade if that was the attitude that the CF had.



Then it's a manning issue and bot necessarily an allowance issue, isn't it?  I get it, it sucks having to make the choice, but that's also a choice non-service couples have to do pretty much every posting.

If you are away from your family for service reasons, the benefit package should be the same, regardless of where your spouse works.  In the end, we all gave to make the same choice.


----------



## big45-70 (30 Jan 2013)

What is PLD and LDA?


----------



## mariomike (30 Jan 2013)

big45-70 said:
			
		

> What is PLD and LDA?



Post Living Differential

Land Duty Allowance


----------



## TCM621 (30 Jan 2013)

Talked to the clerks today and they don't have any more info than I do. They don't even know if they are supposed start taking rations and quarters, just quarters, just sep expense, etc. 

I also called Brookfield to ask if because I am awaiting my family selling the house and moving here, and I am going to have to start paying for a second residence (be it shacks or taking possession of my Q early) does that count as a Temp. Dual Residence. They have no idea because this just isn't an issue typically and they have nothing to go on.

I would suggest that anyone who is my particular situation, i.e. living in single quarters while awaiting their family joining them, to contact your brookfield rep and see if you can claim TDRA.


----------



## TCM621 (30 Jan 2013)

FM IRP Directive:
http://www.cmp-cpm.forces.gc.ca/dgcb-dgras/pd/rel-rei/aps-paa-2011/chapter-chapitre-11-eng.asp#sec-11-02


> 11.2.09 Interim accommodations/HHT on IR
> 
> CF members (with the exception of members serving on Class “A” or Class “B” reserve service) proceeding unaccompanied to the new place of duty where Government rations and quarters are not available are entitled to be reimbursed for either:
> 
> ...


----------



## GnyHwy (31 Jan 2013)

Tcm621 said:
			
		

> Talked to the clerks today and they don't have any more info than I do. They don't even know if they are supposed start taking rations and quarters, just quarters, just sep expense, etc.
> 
> I also called Brookfield to ask if because I am awaiting my family selling the house and moving here, and I am going to have to start paying for a second residence (be it shacks or taking possession of my Q early) does that count as a Temp. Dual Residence. They have no idea because this just isn't an issue typically and they have nothing to go on.
> 
> I would suggest that anyone who is my particular situation, i.e. living in single quarters while awaiting their family joining them, to contact your brookfield rep and see if you can claim TDRA.



Is signing for a 4man tent, and living behind your place of employment an option?  

***The previous comment was not entirely  :sarcasm:***


----------



## TCM621 (31 Jan 2013)

GnyHwy said:
			
		

> Is signing for a 4man tent, and living behind your place of employment an option?
> 
> ***The previous comment was not entirely  :sarcasm:***



It's cold here. A give man attic rent would be nice. Get a cot, maybe an immersion heater for abulutions.


----------



## dapaterson (31 Jan 2013)

Accomodation is still covered for pers on IR.  So no need for tents.


----------



## The Bread Guy (31 Jan 2013)

Tcm621 said:
			
		

> .... A *give man attic rent *  would be nice ....


Gotta love the word completion function....


----------



## TCM621 (31 Jan 2013)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Gotta love the word completion function....



Damn auto correct. However giving me attic rent would be preferable to a 5 man artic tent.


----------



## armyvern (31 Jan 2013)

Tcm621 said:
			
		

> Damn auto correct. However giving me attic rent would be preferable to a 5 man artic tent.



Well, heat does rise so it should cut down on utilities too!!  :nod:


----------



## GnyHwy (31 Jan 2013)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Accomodation is still covered for pers on IR.  So no need for tents.



I was referring to persons having 2 residents because they can't afford to take the hit.


----------



## TCM621 (31 Jan 2013)

GnyHwy said:
			
		

> I was referring to persons having 2 residents because they can't afford to take the hit.



Seen that recently. One person I know of was posted and if they sold their house at the going rate they would be 80,000 underwater on their mortgage. They are attempting to rent it so they can afford to live in their new posting place.

There is a CANFORGEN put out in the last couple of days which clarifies the changes which come in effect tomorrow. Anyone seen it?


----------



## McG (31 Jan 2013)

It does not clarify, it just repeats what has been said.



> CANFORGEN 015/13 CMP 010/13 251825Z JAN 13
> REMINDER - AMENDMENTS TO CBI 208.997 SEPARATION EXPENSE (SE) - EFF 1 FEB 13
> UNCLASSIFIED
> 
> ...


----------



## captloadie (1 Feb 2013)

Tcm621 said:
			
		

> Seen that recently. One person I know of was posted and if they sold their house at the going rate they would be 80,000 underwater on their mortgage. They are attempting to rent it so they can afford to live in their new posting place.
> 
> There is a CANFORGEN put out in the last couple of days which clarifies the changes which come in effect tomorrow. Anyone seen it?



Tell that person that if he rents out his former home he will no longer be eligible for the benefits of the sale from Brookfield. The policy states you have to have been the last to occupy the dwelling for it not to be counted as a income property, to which there is no eligibilty for reimbursement on sale. He will also no longer be eligible for TDRA.


----------



## TCM621 (1 Feb 2013)

Yeah. I know but I think in this case it is the best of a Shitty situation to do it.


----------



## Pat in Halifax (2 Feb 2013)

Hmmm. Maybe post Andy to a 'depressing-market-area', tell him he will be there for 4 years and then 6 months later, post him to an 'overly-inflated-market' area. I think the decision makers (not necessarily policy makers) need to experience this firsthand to fully comprehend the impact this has on people's lives.

Pat


----------



## horatio749 (2 Feb 2013)

Pat in Halifax said:
			
		

> Hmmm. Maybe post Andy to a 'depressing-market-area', tell him he will be there for 4 years and then 6 months later, post him to an 'overly-inflated-market' area. I think the decision makers (not necessarily policy makers) need to experience this firsthand to fully comprehend the impact this has on people's lives.
> 
> Pat



Just saw an article on this the other day at work which outlined how the ombudsman's office is trying to get them to change the relocation policy. Makes me wonder, as I am just getting in, if PMQ's are the better option  over buying a house? I know they are their own headache but I certainly don't want to be out $80,000 on a mortgage. 
Might take another ten years for anything to happen out of the ombudsman's office though.... 


"Military ombudsman says DND must rethink relocation policies for thousands of military personnel
Grievances rise over real estate losses and other costs of moving soldiers"
Read more: http://www.ottawacitizen.com/life/Military+ombudsman+says+must+rethink+relocation+policies+thousands+military+personnel/7890233/story.html#ixzz2JlPNFlBl


----------



## Pandora114 (2 Feb 2013)

horatio749 said:
			
		

> Just saw an article on this the other day at work which outlined how the ombudsman's office is trying to get them to change the relocation policy. Makes me wonder, as I am just getting in, if PMQ's are the better option  over buying a house? I know they are their own headache but I certainly don't want to be out $80,000 on a mortgage.
> Might take another ten years for anything to happen out of the ombudsman's office though....
> 
> 
> ...



That's *if* you're able to get into a PMQ.  Some bases have some rather long waiting lists for their Q's


----------



## PuckChaser (2 Feb 2013)

horatio749 said:
			
		

> Just saw an article on this the other day at work which outlined how the ombudsman's office is trying to get them to change the relocation policy. Makes me wonder, as I am just getting in, if PMQ's are the better option  over buying a house? I know they are their own headache but I certainly don't want to be out $80,000 on a mortgage.
> Might take another ten years for anything to happen out of the ombudsman's office though....



Good luck getting a PMQ. There's a 6 month wait in Kingston for people with families, other bases are worse. They've been destroying PMQs as they are all old and rotten, but not rebuilding forcing military members into the gamble of home ownership.


----------



## McG (2 Feb 2013)

The ombudsman's fight and the home equity non-protection is being covered in another thread:  http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/95326.0.html
However, the two topics definitely share a lot of interconnections.  In many cases, mbrs are being forced to choose between the pain of one failed policy or the pain of the other.


----------



## McG (15 Apr 2013)

Interesting macro-view on compensation and benefits at the end of this article:





> *Tories chafe at call to cut danger pay
> Bureaucrats urge reduction to troops in Kabul*
> Murray Brewster
> Calgary Herald
> ...


----------

