# CAF Specialist Pay [Spec Pay]- All Trades [MERGED]



## korgano (17 Dec 2001)

I want to know if there are any specialty courses in the Artillery that would qualify me for spec pay. I was told by my unit pay clerk that there are no spec pay trades in the artillery, but I know that there are specialty courses available. (Basic arty Tech being one of them).

So, what does it take to get spec pay?


----------



## McG (17 Dec 2001)

You neeed to have a technical job, requiring a significant amount of training, with skills easily transferable to the civi world . . . it is a sort of "please don‘t leave the CF" pay.


----------



## RCA (18 Dec 2001)

Confirming that no Arty trades are consdered specilists (although most of us would argue the point).

Most spec pays are in the air force and comms trades (like the IT trades). No ***  in the grass types are consdered.

And the Arty tech crse is actually a trade course (ie QL4) for s gunners.


----------



## mod13 (21 Aug 2003)

Can anybody tell me why and how certain trades recieve Spec pay while other trades doing similar or more work do not recieve these extra dollars. When was the last time the military did a review as to why these trades recieve this extra money. 

Please do not tell me it is related to retention issues or being on par with civilian pay.  If that was the fact there would be a lot more trades with Spec pay and a few that have it would and should be dropped.

As for extra training, that doesn‘t seem to wash either.


----------



## klumanth (21 Aug 2003)

It has everything to do with training and retention.  In the instance of an LCIS Tech, it‘s a lot cheaper to pay us the extra bucks than to have people leaving for the civy world and have to train new LCIS Techs.  People still do leave for the civy world and they do quite well.  If you‘re a decent tech you‘ll have a list of certifications as long as your arm within a few years.  They put literally ****loads of money into us and it‘s just not cost effective to have us walk away because we‘re not being payed enough.


----------



## mod13 (22 Aug 2003)

I would have to agree with you partially. ATIS, LCIS...ect are trades where training and money issues definitly hinder retention, therefore I feel Spec pay is warranted.

But what about a Vehicle Tech, a CPL with a Heavey Duty Ticket, paid for by the military, can get out and make double what he is making in the CF. A Lineman can get out and make almost double what they make in the CF. The list could go on, then there are 291ers, are they paid more simply beacause of there security clearance, or a second language? If they are they better start dishing out the cash, I know a lot of people cleared Top Secret or better that know a second language!

All I am asking is when was the last time they reviewed the situation, and what is the criteria for Spec Pay?


----------



## klumanth (22 Aug 2003)

I agree that there are more trades that need spec pay.  From the CF point of view though, they‘re not going to give spec pay until retention becomes a problem.  They‘re talking about spec pay for Sig Ops now because retention has been a problem.  291ers get spec pay because the training is long and costly.  As well, anyone that is often privy to top secret material needs to be paid fairly well so they‘re not tempted to sell secrets.

  I don‘t think there is any actual criteria for a trade to have spec pay.  From what I‘ve seen, they give it out when retention becomes a serious problem.


----------



## shado_wolf (22 Aug 2003)

Hello,

Can someone tell me if the issue of Sig Ops getting spec pay soon truth or fiction?  I am waiting for my offer which hopefully should come in the next couple weeks and to make a long story short I just switched from LCIS to Sig as LCIS isn‘t open now.  I am hoping to remuster after 3 years or so.  But if I move to spec pay at Sigs I may not.....

Thanks,
Dylan

PS 
At my interview I asked the career counciler (sp?) but he hadn‘t heard of that at all.....

Edit
And I just asked a friend who is a Sig Op and he said they are always talkin bout it but doesn‘t think they‘ll do before he finishes his 14 years he has left.


----------



## klumanth (22 Aug 2003)

I‘ve heard many people swear it‘s the truth and chances are good but like anything else in the army, don‘t count on it.  An important thing to note is that spec pay does not take effect until you reach the rank of corporal so it won‘t make a difference for your first four years.


----------



## radop211tc (23 Aug 2003)

Personally, I think it is an Urban Myth, I had heard it mentioned when I was in,years ago.
Until, it shows up in your Bank Account, I wouldnt bank on it.

Tc...
VVV


----------



## poetboy (20 Aug 2004)

As of 30th July, 2004, if you are not a Cpl in a "Spec" trade already making spec pay, you will no longer be eligible for spec pay until you are fully QL5 qualified effective 30, August 2004.
This means all of us people halfway through POET in Kingston and those waiting training in Borden have joined the CF anticipating 3 years of hard work and study in order to receive the reward of "Spec Pay" have been deceived! People receiving their Cpl stripes this September will NOT get spec pay yet people promoted in July WILL. Argghhhh. Calculating the time it iwll take to become QL5 qulaified and the cost of inflation/annual increases, the financial cost to technicians will be approximately $20,000 each, not including the reduction in benefits and pension. Given that most people will be barely QL3 if that when their initial contract expires, I am wondering how many people are going to consider resigning the military's gracious offer of cooks pay for specialist technicians work? I am amazed that after all of the studies identifying the need for an incentive package to retain and recruit technicians, escpecially FCS Techs, that now of all times they have introduced a wage rollback to the lowest paid members of the Forces?
Keep in mind this has no affect on Privates pay 1 - 3, only Corporals pay in Specialist 1 trades like FCS, AVS, ATIS etc.
What do you guys think?


----------



## mazda3mazdaspeed (20 Aug 2004)

Could you please tell me what FCS, AVS, and ATIS stands for? I've been trying to figure this out for quite some time. Thanks all!


----------



## poetboy (20 Aug 2004)

FCS = Fire Control Systems Technician (make munitions land where they're supposed to!)
AVS = Avionics Systems Technician (make planes electronics work properly)
ATIS = Aerospace Telecommunications Informations Systems (satelite comms, radar, Airport comms)

They are all available on the DND site too


----------



## Armymedic (20 Aug 2004)

The problem isn't that you won't be entitlted the pay. 

The problem is that it takes trades that long to get the course to get the level of knowledge that deserves the pay...

Lengthy waits are a problem in all trades...yours just has a financial penalty to it now.

(ps, if you look in the pay guide, ranks are tied to qualifications pte=QL 3, Cpl=QL 5a, MCpl=5b)


----------



## poetboy (20 Aug 2004)

The problem is, the current standard has been that Cpl has been granted in the fourth year of service and Spec Pay has been paid to all persons serving in a spec trade or training such trade until fully qualified. This has been done as an incentive to retain and recruit new technicians to the under staffed MOC's. Yes the long waits for courses are an issue, but the main problem here is going to be the incentive for a person to choose a trade that is considerably more difficult WELL before QL5 level for the same pay as standard trades. The average tech will now be looking at 5-8 years of standard pay and high level work/training before receiving the "spec pay" that everyone else has already been receiving for the same work. What I am trying to say is that there should be some form of remuneration for the advanced work and schooling we are required to do in the technicians trades compared to non skilled trades prior to the QL5 level.


----------



## Armymedic (20 Aug 2004)

_What I am trying to say is that there should be some form of remuneration for the advanced work and schooling we are required to do in the technicians trades compared to non skilled trades prior to the QL5 level._

And what clearly defined line would that be, entry, QL 3?

There must be an incentive to stay after gaining knowledge and experience.


----------



## poetboy (20 Aug 2004)

I agree! I think that the appropriate level for spec pay should remain where it has been, at the fourth year or Cpl incentive pay level. This is usually where most people that are new to the CF have finished or are close to finishing their 3's and also provides an incentive for OT's into a flagged trade. Pushing it into the 7th to 8th year is going to remove a lot of the incentive part of the training. Consider that when most people are at the end of their initial contract, having that "spec pay" carrot an inch in front of their nose is a great incentive to get someone to resign. And let's face it, the work being doen by technicians in those first 7 - 8 years is not brainless papershuffling. We are not untrained lackeys incapable of carrying out skilled repairs and maintenance. Although you may not be QL5'd you can still perform most tasks with little supervision and guidance.


----------



## Yard Ape (22 Aug 2004)

QL 5a being journeyman, if you left before getting that course under your belt you would be short of the qualifications someone might get by going through college.  Civi street likely will not give you full recognition of your training.

So, why pay spec pay to someone who does not yet have the qualifications might inspire a civillian employer to offer him more?


----------



## Bert (22 Aug 2004)

Depending on the employer and the position, I don't think civilian employers have a problem
drawing parallels between the military training system and the civilian education.  In some
cases its equivalent and in others its not.  Even in the civilian world, Ontario education is not
recognized well in Alberta and vice versa without inter-provincial certification or a 
provincial AEETT.

Another point that makes life difficult to attain Cpl spec pay is that some units don't manage
OJT or rotational work well leading to QL5.   If a Cpl gets stuck in a section and the supervisor
doesn't note it to the WO, then the member stays in limbo for awhile and it slows the process.


----------



## Yard Ape (22 Aug 2004)

No, I don't think civillian employers object to drawing parallels, but without the journyman qualification there is not much to parallel to.


----------



## Armymedic (22 Aug 2004)

Poetboy,
I understand your gripe on this subject and if I were in your shoes I would be pissed as well.

Unfortunately for you, I understand the reasoning for the policy as detrimental financially as it is for you...

Understand does not = agree though

As of yet Med tech do not recieve spec pay but when they do, I would agree with this policy. As a Med Tech you may get promoted Cpl, and recieved the training for the civilian equivelent as part of the QL 3. But its not until they are comlete thier QL 5 that Med Techs can become fully funtional in all roles a Cpl/Mcpl can fill.

I don't quite know how POET trades relate in this fashion, but as I said, I understand the policy.


----------



## poetboy (22 Aug 2004)

Basically, the spec pay was introduced as an incentive to retain and recruit members. It was a way to get people to resign their contracts ESPECIALLY at the end of the crucial three year intital engagement. This is when most techs are finished (ing) their QL3 stage and reaching their CPL status. At this point, civilian recruiters recognized the high skill level of the CF members and the low pay levels of the standard scale. Many techs were offered jobs in the civilian sector that were too good to pass up; the CF had no way to compensate it members to get them to stay. As a result, the "spec pay" was brought about to enhance the pay of trades that were considered highly desirable positions to the public sector and that incentives would be paid to keep and recruit people in these positions. Spec pay was paid to everyone in the trades allocated as soon as you reached Cpl status as an incentive to stay in the program, regardless of what QL level you had reached. This was of course due to the horrendous backlog of people in the training system. We have all heard of the horror stories of people in Borden for two years waiting for POET and then waiting another year for their 3's. People were VR'ing (quitting) while waiting for courses. Morale was dead low and people were OT'ing to other trades just to get out of Borden and just to DO SOMETHING. In my case I was only waiting a year for POET, which I consider average amongst the people here. The point being: when my three year contract comes up, I will be QL3 qualified, a Cpl, an OACETT student member, and in the eyes of most public sector employers, extremely well qualified to do electronics repairs. Now the question is, do I resign a contract with the military that will offer me the same wages as the cooks for the next 3 years, or do I explore my options as a civilian? The whole point of the spec pay was to remove that doubt of resigning from our minds. 
On another note, some trades that are similar to FCS but do not include a QL5 component WILL receive spec pay upon reaching their QL3's as it is their standards level. Again, this is another incentive for people in a flagged trade to choose to either OT to a non QL5 course or for people choosing a career to avoid FCS altogether.


----------



## Bert (22 Aug 2004)

Poetboy >
"Now the question is, do I resign a contract with the military that will offer me the same 
wages as the cooks for the next 3 years, or do I explore my options as a civilian? The whole 
point of the spec pay was to remove that doubt of resigning from our minds."

Its safe to say that everyone is in charge of their future and considering all options is a 
responsible method.   The trick is to figure out the best path.

I've had alot of experience in the civilian world and enough to say that getting and keeping
a good paying technical job in the private sector is difficult.   The last few years have been
turbulent especially in hi-tech and hi-tech manufacturing.   Most techical sectors are still
recovering, others are recessed, and the looming question of how strong the economy is
going to be in the next few years.

Many electronics technicians and technologists seriously considered and followed-up on a
military career for the job security, the training, and the possibility of doing more than a 
8-4 kind of job.   The draw-backs may be the member doesn't always perform technical
work, the job is more system level than component level, and there is competition
for courses.

The pay/benefits in the private sector are not always that great especially during initial
employment.   It takes several years and hard work and acquired experience to get 
anything close to $50,000 generally speaking.   In the military, Private pay is not 
spectacular yet is comparable to civilian junior technicians and even better in many cases.
The difference is in the benefits, deployment pay, and whether you like the varied 
characteristic of military life.

I'd say if you got a definite handle on a civy job with good pay, security, and the chance to
progress in position and increasing pay, then its worth considering.   If you don't, then
you may find that the grass is not necessarily greener in the civy world.

In my opinion, the military technical training system is good for job specific training at the
system level and product training.   Yet, the electronic fundamental theory and experience
is quickly brushed over.   Civy technicians who went thru college have better fundamentals
in a two or three year program than a CF member with just Poet and QL3s.   Its a balance
of things too.

My advice would be to stay in the CF, take the courses you think lie in a good career path,
and bank the money.   At the same time, watch the markets, the jobs (private and public),
project where you want to be and when the timing is right, make you're move.   If you hop
out of the miltiary too quickly, you might regret it.


----------



## poetboy (22 Aug 2004)

To Bert:

Thank you for your considerable thoughts on the situation. I appreciate your insight and opinion. I will definitely weigh my options carefully when the time comes to resign my contract. In the meantime, I am still discouraged by the change of heart in the CF to take away something that had been in place for so long, even if it was merely a goodwill gesture to beleaguered technicians awaiting completion of training.


----------



## Armymedic (22 Aug 2004)

poetboy said:
			
		

> Basically, the spec pay was introduced as an incentive to retain and recruit members. It was a way to get people to resign their contracts ESPECIALLY at the end of the crucial three year intital engagement. This is when most techs are finished (ing) their QL3 stage and reaching their CPL status. At this point, civilian recruiters recognized the high skill level of the CF members and the low pay levels of the standard scale. Many techs were offered jobs in the civilian sector that were too good to pass up; the CF had no way to compensate it members to get them to stay. As a result, the "spec pay" was brought about to enhance the pay of trades that were considered highly desirable positions to the public sector and that incentives would be paid to keep and recruit people in these positions. Spec pay was paid to everyone in the trades allocated as soon as you reached Cpl status as an incentive to stay in the program, regardless of what QL level you had reached. This was of course due to the horrendous backlog of people in the training system. We have all heard of the horror stories of people in Borden for two years waiting for POET and then waiting another year for their 3's.



Uhm, thaks but wrong....Spec pay has been in the CF for quite a long time (over 20 yrs). While you are indeed correct that it was in response to higher paying civilian jobs poaching CF members, it did not have anything to do amount of time waiting for courses.  It was also given because of higher levels of learning (ie long and hard courses, hence why infantry doesn't get it). In fact up until the last 5-10 yrs, many trades required QL 5 to be promoted to Cpl, and most trades were loaded 2 yrs after completion of QL 3. In fact failure of QL 5 course can prevent you from being promoted.

And its only been in the last 3-5 yrs that the poaching of training personnel to beef up operations has caused this shortages of staff and therefor the back log of PATs. 

I feel your understanding of the background issues maybe flawed due to your personal intrest in this decision. 

Questions: Did you join under the NCM-SEP? Did you get promoted to Cpl on completion of your MOC training?

Further, are you aware that there are changes in the career progression for trades...First BE may be 5-7 yrs before initial contract is reviewed....

Too bad you wasted bandwith explaining to me what Specialist Pay is.


----------



## poetboy (22 Aug 2004)

Armymedic said:
			
		

> Questions: Did you join under the NCM-SEP? Did you get promoted to Cpl on completion of your MOC training?
> 
> Further, are you aware that there are changes in the career progression for trades...First BE may be 5-7 yrs before initial contract is reviewed....




1) Yes, I joined as an NCM, standard engagement, if that is what you meant
2) No, I have not completed MOC training nor have I been promoted to Cpl
3) Please explain the changes to the BE you mention. Are you saying that they are going to change the contracts for new recruits or they are going to change the existing contracts for NCM's.

I appreciate your feedback and criticisms. I accept that I am close to this issue and not fully aware of all the background issues that may be behind it. I am however, aware of how it affects the morale of the 900 or so students presently studying at CFSCSE. I defer to your greater experience and knowledge of the Spec Pay history. I apologize for my inaccuracies.


----------



## ModlrMike (24 Aug 2004)

poetboy said:
			
		

> As of 30th July, 2004, if you are not a Cpl in a "Spec" trade already making spec pay, you will no longer be eligible for spec pay until you are fully QL5 qualified effective 30, August 2004.
> ...snip...
> What do you guys think?


I think that if you're not qualified in your trade, then you're not entitled to the same pay as those that are qualified. I also think that this is a Treasury Board driven issue and not the CFs doing.


----------



## Spr.Earl (24 Aug 2004)

The only pers.who deserve Spec. Pay are those in high risk trades which they have volunteered for.
Like S.A.R.Tech.'s,etc.


----------



## poetboy (24 Aug 2004)

High risk trades have their own pay incentives and allowances such as Divers Clearance, Field Pay, Flight Engineers Pay, Pilots Pay, Etc. Specialist Pay recognizes higher levels of education and training and is paid to SAR techs as well due to their advanced training and levels of readiness. They are Spec 2, the highest category. I have no problem with people in high risk trades being compensated for their work and agree wholeheartedly with you there. But let's let's keep this thread on topic.


----------



## George Wallace (24 Aug 2004)

poetboy said:
			
		

> High risk trades have their own pay incentives and allowances such as Divers Clearance, Field Pay, Flight Engineers Pay, Pilots Pay, Etc. .



Excuse me????

What are you talking about?  These are not Spec Pay.  

Pilots, Doctors and Lawyers are separate Pay Scales.

Field Pay, Sea Pay, Jump Allowances, etc. are all allowances that all members of the CF, no matter what Pay Scale they may have, including Spec Pay, are entitled to if they are filling a position in such a role.



GW


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (24 Aug 2004)

Hate to burst your bubble poetboy but some operator trades in the navy now get Spec1.


----------



## Armymedic (24 Aug 2004)

Does this policy span all spec pay earning MOS's?

I'll have to see on on the pay and benifits site...

If it does, then sounds like yours might just be an unfotunate victim...


----------



## Armymedic (24 Aug 2004)

Found it, and it sucks to be you and a whole bunch of other people....


This is a DIN link so I'll copy the CANFORGEN here for you....
http://vcds.mil.ca/vcds-exec/pubs/canforgen/2004/111-04_e.asp

CANFORGEN 111/04 ADM(HR-MIL) 059 061843Z AUG 04
RESTRUCTURE OF OCCUPATIONS RECEIVING SPECIALIST PAY
UNCLASSIFIED


REF: A. AIG 1764/1760 DPPD 022 181129Z JUL 04 
B. 5555-111-1(MOSART 2-2) DATED 16 JUL 04 



THIS MESSAGE IS FURTHER TO THE ADVANCE NOTICE AT REF A, AND PROVIDES DETAILED INFORMATION ON THE APPROVED RESTRUCTURE OF THE SPECIALIST ONE OR SPECIALIST TWO PAY TRADE GROUPS EFFECTIVE 1 AUG 04. AFFECTED OCC INCLUDING THOSE PREVIOUSLY RESTRUCTURED BY INDIVIDUAL OCCUPATIONAL STRUCTURE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN (OSIP) ARE: AEROSPACE CONTROL OPERATOR (AC OP), AIRCRAFT STRUCTURES TECH (ACS TECH), AIRBORNE ELECTRONIC SENSOR OPERATOR (AES OP), AEROSPACE TELECOMMUNICATIONS AND INFORMATION SYSTEMS TECHNICIAN (ATIS TECH), AVIATION SYSTEMS TECHNICIAN (AVN TECH), AVIONIC SYSTEMS TECHNICIAN (AVS TECH), BIOMEDICAL ELECTRONICS TECHNOLOGIST (BE TECH), CLEARANCE DIVER (CL DVR), COMMUNICATOR RESEARCH (COMM RSCH), ELECTRICAL TECHNICIAN (E TECH), FIRE CONTROL SYSTEMS TECHNICIAN (FCS TECH), FLIGHT ENGINEER (FLT ENGR), GEOMATICS TECHNICIAN (GEO TECH), HULL TECHNICIAN (H TECH), LAND COMMUNICATIONS AND INFORMATION SYSTEMS TECHNICIAN (LCIS TECH), MARINE ENGINEERING ARTICIFER (MAR ENG ART), MARINE ENGINEERING TECHNICIAN (MAR ENG TECH), MEDICAL TECHNICIAN PHYSICIAN ASSISTANT (MED TECH PA), MEDICAL TECHNICIAN OPERATING ROOM TECHNICIAN (MED TECH OR), MEDICAL TECHNICIAN PREVENTATIVE MEDICINE TECHNICIAN (MED TECH PMED), MEDICAL TECHNICIAN AERO-MEDICAL TECHNICIAN (MED TECH AEROMED), MEDICAL LABORATORY TECHNOLOGIST (MLAB TECH), MEDICAL RADIATION TECHNOLOGIST (MRAD TECH), MILITARY POLICE (MP), NAVAL COMBAT INFORMATION OPERATOR (NCI OP), NAVAL ELECTRONIC SENSOR OPERATOR (NES OP), NAVAL ELECTRONICS TECHNICIAN (ACOUSTIC) (NE TECH (A)), NAVAL ELECTRONICS TECHNICIAN COMMUNICATIONS (NE TECH (C)), NAVAL ELECTRONICS TECHNICIAN TACTICAL (NE TECH (T)), NAVAL ELECTRONICS TECHNICIAN (MANAGER) (NE TECH (M)), NON DESTRUCTIVE TESTING TECHNICIAN (NDT TECH), NAVAL WEAPONS TECHNICIAN (NW TECH), SEARCH AND RESCUE TECHNICIAN (SAR TECH), TACTICAL ACOUSTIC SENSOR OPERATOR (TAS OP) 

DETAILS: THIS RESTRUCTURE WILL INTRODUCE A NEW MILITARY OCCUPATIONAL STRUCTURE (MOS) AND MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK FOR THE STRUCTURING, TRAINING, PERSONNEL DEVELOPMENT AND CAREER MANAGEMENT OF AFFECTED OCC 

THE REGULAR FORCE (REG F) OCC WILL BE DIVIDED INTO TWO SUB-DIVISIONS CONSISTING OF JUNIOR (JR) AND OCC QUALIFIED SUB-DIVISION. THOSE PRIMARY RESERVE (P RES) OCC THAT MUST BE FULLY QUALIFIED TO THE REG F OCC STANDARDS WILL ALSO BE RESTRUCTURED ACCORDINGLY 

ESTABLISHMENT DETAIL: DIRECTORATE OF FORCE PLANNING AND PROGRAM COORDINATION (DFPPC) WILL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE CONVERSION OF OCC GROUP IDENTIFICATION. DFPPC, IN CONJUNCTION WITH DIRECTORATE MILITARY HUMAN RESOURCE REQUIREMENTS (DMHRR) AND DIRECTORATE HUMAN RESOURCES INFORMATION MANAGEMENT (DHRIM) WILL DEVELOP AN ACTION AND IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY THAT WILL AMEND THE OCCUPATIONAL TABLES, OCCUPATIONAL GROUP TABLES AND THE ESTABLISHMENT DATABASE WITHIN THE DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL DEFENCE (DND) HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM (HRMS) 

DFPPC STAFF IN CONJUNCTION WITH DMHRR AND DHRIM WILL: 

ENSURE THAT ALL EXISTING OCC POSITIONS ARE REASSIGNED TO THE NEW OCC STRUCTURE, AND 

PROCEED WITH A MASTER ESTABLISHMENT CHANGE (EC) 

HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM (HRMS): ENVIRONMENTAL COMMANDS ARE TO PROVIDE DIRECTION TO UNIT BOR/URS TO UPDATE PERSONNEL (PERS) MATRIX PROVIDED BY DHRIM 

DHRIM WILL BE RESPONSIBLE TO: 

MOVE ALL REG F AND P RES TO THEIR NEW SUB-DIVISION, AT THE APPLICABLE QUALIFICATION LEVEL (QL), EFFECTIVE 1 AUG 04, AND 

ANNOTATE APPLICABLE AUTOMATED PERS FILES 

INDIVIDUAL TRAINING: NO CONVERSION TRAINING (CT) WILL BE REQUIRED AS A RESULT OF THIS NEW STRUCTURE 

QUALIFICATION MANAGEMENT: MOSART WILL BE RESPONSIBLE TO: 

CREATE AND ISSUE NEW CODES FOR USE WITH THE NEW STRUCTURES, AND 

DMHRR 4-2-5 WILL CREATE NEW OCC IN HRMS 

MANUAL URS ACTION IS STILL REQUIRED TO AWARD MEMBERS THE APPROPRIATE QL IN THE MEMBER OCC PANEL 

RECRUITING: NEW RECRUITING INFORMATION AIDS (RIA) AND VIDEO UPDATES MAY BE REQUIRED TO REFLECT THE STRUCTURAL CHANGES AND PROGRESSION REQUIREMENTS. ADM (PA) WILL BE RESPONSIBLE TO: 

IN CONSULTATION WITH THE BRANCH/MA AMEND THE RECRUITING LITERATURE, AND 

UPDATE THE APPROPRIATE RECRUITING VIDEOS 

_COMPENSATION AND BENEFITS: UPON OSIP IMPLEMENTATION ALL MEMBERS WHO HAVE ACHIEVED THE RANK OF LS/CPL AND ARE IN RECEIPT OF SPECIALIST PAY AS OF 31 JUL 04, INCLUDING ACTING LACKING, WILL BE ASSIGNED TO THE OCC QUALIFIED SUBDIVISION AND WILL CONTINUE TO RECEIVE THOSE RATES OF PAY. EFFECTIVE 1 AUG 04 PERSONNEL NOT INCLUDED AS OUTLINED ABOVE WHO HAVE NOT REPEAT NOT ACHIEVED THE OCC QUALIFICATIONS REQUIRED FOR THEIR RANK, AS DETAILED IN THE OSIP, WILL BE ASSIGNED TO THE JR SUBDIVISION AND WILL BE ENTITLED TO PAY AT THE RATE OF PAY ASSIGNED TO THAT SUBDIVISION. FURTHER ADMIN DETAILS WILL BE PROVIDED BY DPPD TO UNIT ADMIN STAFF _ 


PERSONNEL RECORDS: IT IS TO THE MEMBER S ADVANTAGE TO ENSURE THAT PERS RECORDS REFLECT THEIR PARTICULAR QUALIFICATIONS AND THEY SHOULD BRING TO THE ATTENTION OF THEIR SUPERVISORS ANY DISCREPANCY. THE FOLLOWING RECORDS SHALL BE AMENDED: 


HRMS AUTOMATED: HRMS RECORDS WILL REFLECT THE STRUCTURAL CHANGES RESULTING FROM THE CREATION OF THE NEW SUB-DIVISIONS UPON COMPLETION OF MOSID AND ESTABLISHMENT ACTION IAW REF. FUTURE OUTPUT PRODUCTS FROM THE NDHQ PRR WILL AUTOMATICALLY REFLECT THE APPLICABLE MOSID, 


NON-HRMS AUTOMATED: INDIVIDUAL SYSTEM OWNERS MUST MODIFY/UPDATE STAND-ALONE IT SYSTEMS TO REFLECT THE NEW SUB-DIVISIONAL STRUCTURE, 


MANUAL: THE BASE/WING OR URS WILL AMEND THE MEDICAL AND DENTAL RECORDS, UERS, CONDUCT SHEETS (IF APPLICABLE) AND THE MEMBERS PERS FILES AND PRRS TO REFLECT THE NEW MOSID, AND 


PAY: CCPS WILL BE UPDATED SEPARATELY USING THE NEW MOSID CODES. DIRECTOR GENERAL ACCOUNTS PROCESSING PAY AND PENSIONS (DGAPPP) WILL ENSURE THAT THE MASTER PAY RECORD IS AMENDED TO REFLECT THE STRUCTURAL CHANGE OF THE NEW OCC. DIRECTORATE PAY POLICY AND DEVELOPMENT (DPPD) WILL LIAISE WITH DGAPPP ON ANY PAY POLICY MATTERS THAT ARISE BECAUSE OF A CHANGE IN THE STRUCTURE CONCERNED IN THIS OSIP 


MEDICAL STANDARDS: THERE WILL BE NO CHANGE TO THE MEDICAL STANDARDS AS A RESULT OF THIS OSIP 


SECURITY CLEARANCE: THERE WILL BE NO CHANGE TO THE SECURITY CLEARANCE LEVEL FOR THE OCC 


DOCUMENTATION AMENDMENTS: THE OSIP TEAM AND NDHQ OPIS WILL BE RESPONSIBLE TO IDENTIFY ANY PUBLICATIONS INCL CFAO, DAOD, QR&O, STANAGS, ATO OR CFTO THAT WILL REQUIRE AMENDMENTS TO REFLECT THE STRUCTURAL CHANGES 


PROGRESS REVIEW UPDATE: EACH OCI SHALL PROVIDE MOSART WITH QUARTERLY PROGRESS REPORTS AND, IN THE EVENT OF ANY UNFORESEEN DIFFICULTY IN THEIR AREA OF RESPONSIBILITY, PROVIDE EXCEPTION REPORTS 

 
Poetboy,
So as a brand new member your complaining....I notice that Preventative Medicine techs are included. They are Med Techs who OT to that trade (after 4 yrs and earning their ql 5) do their course, be promote to MCpl, then work for 3-5 yrs as a PMED, and only then get their spec pay at the completion of their 6A course.....

As bad as it is for you...Its always worse for someone else....


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (24 Aug 2004)

For my trade, MS and above are entitled to Spec 1 LS and below are not. For the two other operator trades you must be LS QL5 qualified. you get shafted, it happens its a fact of life, get over it. I am not happy of the situation either but its the way things are.


----------



## poetboy (24 Aug 2004)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Excuse me????
> 
> What are you talking about?   These are not Spec Pay.
> 
> ...




What are YOU talking about?? I was making it clear that they ARE NOT part of the spec pay category that they ARE separate pay categories. Please read posts carefully before responding. 

It seems that this thread has become convoluted with people more inclined to tell me that their lot is always much worse than mine. I should shut up and toe the line. All right. Point taken, I could always have it worse and some do. 

The original point that I made and still make WAS:

-  It was being being paid to unqualified Cpl's last month, it is not being paid to new Cpl's this month. The training hasn't changed, the requirements haven't changed, the work hasn't changed. Only the pay. End of story. End of posts. I apoligize if I have offended other trades that don't receive spec pay or have similar difficulties in receiving it. I was being specific in my complaint and expected responses to deal with that issue in point.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (24 Aug 2004)

Well I think all bases have been covered in this discussion and before it turns into a flame war on who deserves it and who doesn't I am going to shut it down.


----------



## KaptKain (29 Oct 2004)

I am a reservist doing the CT to the Regs. I am going LCIS and was curious about spec pay.
I am getting in as a Cpl from my accumulated Res. time. Have to do my POET and QL3 LCIS before being put out on the floor.
Can anybody confirm or refer me to documentation on when I would be eligible to collect spec pay? Some say cause I join as Cpl I will collect spec pay after my QL3. Others say I do not collect spec pay till I am QL5 qualified.
Anybody able to confirm the truth...or a link to the truth (Canforgens)?
(Tried to find, but no luck so far)

NOTE: MY CF Recruit Centre has no idea or cannot confirm when i collect. I am usign these forums for another reference to the question.


----------



## KaptKain (3 Nov 2004)

Well I was able to find out for myself the answer.
Spec pay is not granted until you are QL5A qualified. Effective 1Aug04.
If you wer in the trade before hand the grandfather clause is there for the Pte/Cpl that are not 5A qualified.
GRRRR


----------



## aesop081 (3 Nov 2004)

I just had to go trough all that "dog's breakfast" !!

I remustered to AESOp from combat engineer in april and started collecting spec pay right from the start even though i was not QL5A because i came in the trade as a Cpl.  Recently a CANFORGEN came out amending this policy.  Begining 0ctober 1st of this year, all pers coming in to a spec trade, would no longer receive spec pay until they were qualified QL5A. The trades were then split in to the MOC and MOC Junior (jr) on MPRR's.  What happened to us is that we camne into the trade prior to the new policy taking effect.  NDHQ took our spec pay away and clawed back the spec pay already dished out leaving me with $0.00 on payday !!  They subsequently corrected that error and gave me back my money !!


----------



## hiv (4 Nov 2004)

Tell me about it! I was promoted about 3 months ago and I finally had the pay show up on this pay statement. However, they felt it necessary to subtract $1,200 worth of spec pay off my back pay for some mysterious reason. The OR said it was a flaw in the pay statement that had been affecting many people....makes you think maybe they could fix it...


----------



## m_a_c (4 Nov 2004)

What about trades that do not have a QL5, do they receive their spec pay upon completion of their respective QL3?  or will there be a set time of OJT?


----------



## aesop081 (4 Nov 2004)

Not too sure about that one......Every trade is different i guess, after all, my MOC has no QL3 !!!


----------



## hiv (5 Nov 2004)

There are MOCs without QL5s?


----------



## aesop081 (5 Nov 2004)

Infantry has no QL5 i beleive


----------



## JimmyPeeOn (25 Feb 2005)

LCIS has thier own "In-house OJT" for a QL5.  So if you're a Cpl and you get on your chain for the packege you might get it sooner than you think.  It's a good trade though, I work with techs, we have a lot of shit pump techs though. som really good guys too.

The infantry have 2 Ql5's thier PLQ and Infantry Section Commanders Course DP2A i think its called now, it was the ISCC when I was there.
Plus a whole buch of 4's.


----------



## Inf Sig (25 Feb 2005)

This might cheer you up - knew a Infanteer who joined the Cele world - 1 1.2 yrs ago, and was happier than a pig in XXXX cause, while waiting for his crse to start in Kingston, was collecting spec pay in Wpg - with no training. The reason being - he was a Cpl. Ptes - (B) or (T), do not rx spec pay UNTIL they rx their Cpls. Lucky for you!


----------



## Radop (25 Feb 2005)

KaptKain said:
			
		

> Well I was able to find out for myself the answer.
> Spec pay is not granted until you are QL5A qualified. Effective 1Aug04.
> If you wer in the trade before hand the grandfather clause is there for the Pte/Cpl that are not 5A qualified.
> GRRRR



There is no more 5s so they did away with that and made it the Cpl qualification.  Several of the people I know have gotten it as soon as they remustered, not even completed poet or LCIS trg.  One did it last month and he has already collected his spec pay.


----------



## KaptKain (25 Feb 2005)

Radop said:
			
		

> There is no more 5s so they did away with that and made it the Cpl qualification. Several of the people I know have gotten it as soon as they remustered, not even completed poet or LCIS trg. One did it last month and he has already collected his spec pay.



WTF!!!!!!!!!!!
I am here on my POET as a Cpl 3 and they wont even let me see my spec pay till I do my OJT package!
He must have been forced from his prior trade.
I even did a LCIS post for 3 years and they wont grant me spec pay.
Hopefully I will get my OJT written off quicker with my prev trade skills and time prior.


----------



## Radop (25 Feb 2005)

I will talk to some of my LCIS Buddies and ask them when they got it.  Keep you posted.


----------



## bob the piper (5 Apr 2005)

Does anyone know or know of a list of the MOCs that recieve Spec 1 or 2 pay, preferably showing which are 1 and which are 2?


----------



## Inch (6 Apr 2005)

There's only 4 trades that get spec 2, SAR techs (MOC 131), Flight Engineers (MOC 091), Non Destructive Testing Techs (MOC 532) and Marine Engineering Artificer (MOC 314).

There's a whole bunch that get Spec 1, too many to list. Try this site: http://www.forces.gc.ca/dgcb/dppd/pay/MOC_List_Active.xls


----------



## bob the piper (6 Apr 2005)

Thanks Inch.


----------



## paracowboy (7 Apr 2005)

slight tangent that I always find amusing: Specialist pay seems to be for those who receive 'extra' education/training in trades that practically guarantee them employment on civvie street, no? Whereas, I am so 'specialized' that there is no equivalent to my trade and will probably end up either digging a ditch, or being a mall security guard.

"Let's see, according to your resume you can jump out of airplanes and blow stuff up. How do you feel about the food service industry?" ;D


----------



## D-C (20 Nov 2005)

Can anyone out tell me if MP's still it spec pay or not!

Thanks.


----------



## George Wallace (20 Nov 2005)

I am out.  MP's still get Spec Pay.


----------



## HADES 1962 (20 Nov 2005)

as i remember yes they do still get it.


----------



## Navalsnpr (21 Nov 2005)

Yes the Military Police MOSID receives spec pay.

The list of all trades and there assignments pertaining to spec pay can be found at:

     DPPD MOC/MOSID List


----------



## D-C (21 Nov 2005)

Thanks, Navalsnipr for the lists!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## bubble.tea (16 Jan 2006)

Inch said:
			
		

> There's only 4 trades that get spec 2, SAR techs (MOC 131), Flight Engineers (MOC 091), Non Destructive Testing Techs (MOC 532) and Marine Engineering Artificer (MOC 314).
> 
> There's a whole bunch that get Spec 1, too many to list. Try this site: http://www.forces.gc.ca/dgcb/dppd/pay/MOC_List_Active.xls



awesome file.  How did you ever find it?


----------



## S McKee (19 Jan 2006)

paracowboy said:
			
		

> slight tangent that I always find amusing: Specialist pay seems to be for those who receive 'extra' education/training in trades that practically guarantee them employment on civvie street, no? Whereas, I am so 'specialized' that there is no equivalent to my trade and will probably end up either digging a ditch, or being a mall security guard.
> 
> "Let's see, according to your resume you can jump out of airplanes and blow stuff up. How do you feel about the food service industry?" ;D



First just because your a death tech, don't write off your training and leadership experience, albeit right now there is a glut of machinegunners and mortar-men out there in civvie street. However you do have qualifications and traits that employers love in applicants. The fact that many ex-031s are so  readily excepted on city police forces across Canada shows that your a highly sought after commodity. Secondly, some Spec trades require a diploma or university degree prior to entry into that trade.


----------



## Navy_Blue (15 Feb 2006)

OK before we get started; no one here should question how much work a bos'n does at sea or along side.  They work there bags off and put up with allot.

Now, I heard today that starting next year QL5 qualified Bos'n will get spec pay.  Not only spec pay but retro back 3 yrs.  Can anyone confirm this??

It seems the military is trying to solve its manning issues by throwing money at the problem.  I'm an ET who is on his Tech course.  The members of the MSE & CSE classically got spec pay to account for how much schooling we go through and knowledge (we must retain) necessary to do our jobs.  Not to mention a typically slow career progression.  

Now we have most trades in Ops and Bos'n who will have spec pay.  The question being asked by allot of people in my trade is why go through 3 yrs of university crammed into a year and half.  Most Ops trades QL5 are short and sweet.  

My point is, (I don't wish to offend anyone here)  we pay doctors high wages for the knollage, training and accountability they must endour to become one.  Conversely we pay Nurses less because of there lower level training in the medical field.  It is the same case here I believe. I hope one day the people at the top of the MSE chain will Sue for Spec 2.

Sorry if I just stuck a stick in the hornets nest  >



Where does it all stop??


----------



## FSTO (15 Feb 2006)

As far as I know,( I'm at Sea Div) Bosn's are NOT getting spec pay.


----------



## who980 (15 Feb 2006)

I hate to play devils advocate here but without that all those personnel manning the ops room that warship now becomes a cruise ship.  Basically, no operators = no warship.  MSE, CSE, Stewards, Supply Techs, Cooks etc are all onboard to support the Ops room in the end.  If they need to pay operators more to keep them around, then so be it.  Lets be real here, the ops room loses a lot of people to attrition and remuster than any other trade onboard a warship.   The people in those jobs only do their jobs when a ship is at sea, but they are a necessary element of an operational warship.  They are highly specialized and highly skilled.  As well, personnel who are in ops trades have no real prospects of employment post military due to their highly specialized training.  

Just a point of view
Ryan


----------



## Navy_Blue (15 Feb 2006)

I agree a specialist pay scale is necessary and I even agree some of the ops trades do deserve spec pay.  But where do you draw the line?? Medics are a highly skilled trade I feel deserves some recognition before anyone.  They're still waiting.  

It comes down to a list of tasks and a good CPO1 at the top driving the fight.  I think any trade on board ship but the logistics and fire fighters could come up with enough tasks to justify spec pay at the QL5 level.

There should be more levels of spec pay than just 2.  Say a master seaman in ops has this very heavy responsibility well give him more pay while in that billet.  IMCS techs give them a higher level of pay while in that billet.  There are many positions on board where people do much more than there counter parts.  With that kind of system not only can you reward people with promotions and spec pay; but it can be a reward to people who except responsibility, accountability and preform.  It would be more of an allowance and it would be somewhat short term.  Even account time in that postion and give the member a bonus when they are posted.  They know they are getting it then and don't miss it when its gone.

Your justification for your spec pay was that without you we're a cruise ship.  And we loose you to re musters.  We're gonna turn it around now and the MSE & CSE will be headed your way.  How many nights have you had to work along side?  How many weekend have you been called in to look at your radars in the ops room?  How many years have you slaved through school?  MSE & CSE are the first on and last off everyday and every trip.  We don't have any mystical trainers to go too all we have is constant maintenance and an expectation from the CO that we will sail when he wants.  They expect more from us academically and more work hours from us along side @ home or foreign port.  At sea we tend to stand one in three even when the rest of the ship is 1 in 4.  If you where asked if you would take the same pay for more work would you take it?  Its come full circle at one time the MSE where considered people with lower...we'll say job expectations (DIB's).  Then as our equipment and training evolved the Ops types became the (DIB's).  Its turning around again. 

Oh and without CSE and MSE your cruise ship is an ugly grey barge.  We get you where you need to go and make sure your guns shoot and missiles strike home.  I can't believe you stuck us in the same list as Stewards (No offence to stewards...But seriously).


----------



## Melbatoast (15 Feb 2006)

A lot of bos'ns have been yapping about spec pay for years.  There's no way I can see them getting it, as the resulting feces storm would be huge.

As for the resentment from the techs about spec pay for the ops guys, I understand it because the ops community is largely pretty shiftless and don't work to earn it.  The Navy isn't discouraging that attitude, either, as the empasis seems to be just getting the ships out to sea, and treating fighting effectiveness as a secondary thing.  But if the ops guys are sitting around for months on end doing sweet FA a couple of things are going to happen - fighting the ship goes to hell, because it's a very hard thing to do unless you do it often, and the guys get resentful and cynical in a vicious cycle of hating themselves and their jobs.

We should really be going to those "mysterious trainers" at least a couple of times a week as a full team, instead of a few times a year.  Or at least at the section level, which my ship has been very good about this over the last year.  An added benefit is that you achieve CRRs well in advance of stuff like workups.  I've seen highly trained and regularly exercised ops teams, and my lord it is something to see in action.  I've also seen more undertrained ones and that can get pretty ugly.

The spec pay is a nice reward along the road to becoming a warfare director, which has got to up there among the most stressful jobs in the world.  And believe it or not there is a great deal of non-intuitive, specialist knowledge that you have to roll into talent to be an effective operator.  You absolutely have to develop the thinking part of your brain, it's hardly rote knowledge and digging into maintenance manuals.

Just because you may see a lot of ops guys sitting around revelling in their sloth doesn't mean _that's_ why they get the incentive.


----------



## Navalsnpr (16 Feb 2006)

The original question at hand is answered by reviewing the document contained on the Director of Pay Policy and Development website at:

      MOC Trade Group

This will 100% answer all questions regarding who gets spec pay and who does not. As for Bosn MOC 181 (MOSID 00105), the answer is NO the do not receive specialist pay.

Trade Managers must apply to have a trade reassigned as "Specialist 1" or "Specialist 2" trade group, which ultimately goes to Treasury Board. This application must list all the "Tasks" that are required by the trade at each rank level. Each task is given a point value and a certain number of points is required to achieve each level. As well, tasks are assigned different points depending on hazard, complexness, training required, as well as other things. Additionally, some trades require a certain level of training to achieve Specialist Pay.


----------



## Navy_Blue (16 Feb 2006)

I know they don't as of right now.  Just wondering if it was in the works and further than just talk.  Thanks for the info sniper 

As for the Point system MSE combined has over 15000 points.  Someone should be looking for spec 2.  This info is from a CPO that gave us a lecture in 04.  Does anyone know where you can find a site with info on the points system and what the requirement is for each level??  For my bank of useless info.  I'm just curious what it takes.  We all did that survey a few years back when ops was on there push for spec one.  I'll keep my fingers crossed  :

Melbatoast, are you suggesting that the tech trades only require book smarts to get the job done??



> You absolutely have to develop the thinking part of your brain, it's hardly rote knowledge and digging into maintenance manual.



I'm definitely not an expert in the ops room and what goes on.  I know where the breakers are for the lights you guys manage to trip off regularly.  But I don't think you quite realize what it takes to get through our packages.  Stokers by far more than anyone have months of drawings and boards, mind numbing boards.  

I'm gonna show how much of a big geek I am and use an example from Star Trek.  Ever see Scotty or La Forge pull a solution to fix the shields out of his A$$.  "We'll re-rout the power through the EPS conduit 69...."   How could anyone know a ship that is that big from top to bottom?  Well after being in MSE for the last 4 years I know.  We have the same expectation and we're expected to work on the fly probably not unlike yourself.


----------



## Melbatoast (16 Feb 2006)

No, I was thinking about this a bit today (because I don't have anything else to do...joking) and I believe it's because even though tech and operator trades both require high levels of knowledge and commitment, the fact is that tech trades have to apply it near 100% of the time (or the ship won't work), whereas it's possible for an operator to slack off for long periods of time and not appear to _lose_ anything.  But the fact is that when the crap hits the fan it becomes very obvious who kept up their training and who didn't, and an operator has to do a lot of reading and practicing to maintain a decent edge, no matter how much talent he may have.

Short form - a tech has to learn everything in his field or he isn't effective 90% of the time.  An operator doesn't have to learn everything in his field because he will be able to get away with it 90% of the time.

We have an AB in the section right now who is a posterchild shiftless operator.  He's proud of the fact that he thinks we have "nothing to do," while his trade knowledge remains near zero despite the fact there is every opportunity for him to use his own initiative to get to a reasonable level.  What's even scarier is the fact that there are a lot of operators in the fleet like that - guys that wouldn't be able to tell you what TASOP stood for.  And I'm not kidding.  And for that I can see where the resentment comes from.  But I earn my spec 1, just as a lot of us do.  I really doubt the knowledge level between a junior stoker and a (quality) junior operator is much different, but the type of knowledge is.  The hard/dirty work, first aboard/last ashore business comes down to the old "I didn't make you choose your trade," as bad as it sounds.  I can see spec 2 for P2 and above stokers, but why not for 6B operators, too?

Furthermore I apologize for the booksmart comments, as I was getting a bit snippy.  But I'm pretty worn thin from the bitching, as it has been going on since the change was announced and continues to go on.


----------



## hugh19 (16 Feb 2006)

Just in curiousness a friend of mine is a PO1 Cert 3. he tells me that once you get it you get spec 2. So why would they try to get spec 2 for a ql5 tech?


----------



## Navy_Blue (17 Feb 2006)

Thanks Melba  .  We used to tell you guys the same thing "you pick your trade."  

Cert 3 Stokers do get spec two.  That scale worked for us, before everyone else got spec pay it worked for them too.  I'm not necessarily saying a QL5 tech should get it either.  3 MOC's get spec 2, SAR Techs, Cert 3 Stokers and JTF.  If you can't tell form the list they are probably pretty intense mind altering jobs.  

This will all change.  If not were gonna start seeing the circle come round again and we (MSE & CSE) will have the manning issues again (we already do).  Why should I stay a LS or MS tech while my friends in the ops room all move into the C&PO's mess.  They need to add more levels of pay or come up with a new system.

"Its a vicious circle I'm fat because I eat and I eat because I'm fat"...lol  Same applies to Tech vs Ops.


----------



## Melbatoast (17 Feb 2006)

Navy_Blue said:
			
		

> This will all change.  If not were gonna start seeing the circle come round again and we (MSE & CSE) will have the manning issues again (we already do).  Why should I stay a LS or MS tech while my friends in the ops room all move into the C&PO's mess.  They need to add more levels of pay or come up with a new system.



Believe me, not all ops/cbt guys are getting fasttracked.  Sonar is very stagnant (at least out here), because we went though that phase.  And i just missed it, wouldn't you know it.  A buddy and I sat down the other day and tried to figure out the soonest I could get a leaf, let alone my P2s, and we figured it would be at least after 9 years in, no sooner.  Lots of young Chiefs, even younger P1s, and a whole lot of 6B and ILQ qualified P2s are clogging stuff up from the mid level on up.

Navcomm is about where you'd expect it, not too fast and not too slow.  NCI, I don't really pay attention as nobody seems to stay posted in one place long enough in that trade to tell.  NESOP seems to be the only fast moving combat trade right now - one guy on my boat just (this week) got his leaf after only two PERs.

I don't think spec 1 is going to keep too many people in sonar as near-career killicks.


----------



## Navy_Blue (18 Feb 2006)

Ah Your wave is coming down then.  We are starting to see the top of ours.  Will be headed down soon.  Starting to see some very young chief and PO1's now.


----------



## who980 (18 Feb 2006)

I was having a discussion with some of my co-workers about this very topic and we came to the conclusion that why is it such a big deal if operators get spec pay?  You arent going to lose your spec pay and it isnt coming out of your pocket.  In the end we are all a team and should be supporting each other.

Ryan


----------



## Zoomie (18 Feb 2006)

What the heck trade is Cert 3 Stokers - if they are Spec 2 and lumped in with the boys in Orange and Squirrels - they must be some pretty elite coal shovelers.


----------



## NCRCrow (18 Feb 2006)

Why should an MARS Officer SWC/ASWC ,make 15K more than a PO1 Director for doing the same stressful job? Plus the Po1 is the section head.

Why should a NESOP make less money than his counterparts (AESOP/291) in ELINT related jobs in Ottawa? That require retarded long math radar/EW courses?

It is good to sea that NDHQ is realizing all the different aspects/jobs of Naval trades ashore and the abilities/skills needed to be competant.

I forgot my point, but please do give INT OPS spec pay!!!! They just put there name on other people information and call there own.


----------



## Collin.t (19 Feb 2006)

HFXCrow said:
			
		

> Why should a NESOP make less money than his counterparts (AESOP/291) in ELINT related jobs in Ottawa? That require retarded long math radar/EW courses?



I don't think the two (275 and 291) really can relate that much to each other, 291 is more sigint, as in interception capabilities and direction finding, hell they spend over a year learning morse code....


----------



## hugh19 (19 Feb 2006)

Collin.T said:
			
		

> I don't think the two (275 and 291) really can relate that much to each other, 291 is more sigint, as in interception capabilities and direction finding, hell they spend over a year learning morse code....



Um 276 is the old nesop trade number. What do u think a Nesop does? Interception and direction finding plus other jobs. I am a ew analyst in Ottawa.  Thats funny a year to learn morse?  Navcomms have much less time to learn morse plus many other things. So does that mean 291ers are really really slow?


----------



## NCRCrow (19 Feb 2006)

Mr Collin T:

Thats a pretty rookie statement!! A better statement would be:

291ers deal with strategic SIGINT and NESOP's tactical SIGINT level.

Have you ever heard of Trinity/Athena/CFEWC?

NESOPS do ELINT and COMINT plus all levels of Radar Analysis. So do 291ers! What a coincidence!

CDSE is under the PO1 NESOP SWC on ships!


----------



## Inch (19 Feb 2006)

Navy_Blue said:
			
		

> Cert 3 Stokers do get spec two.  That scale worked for us, before everyone else got spec pay it worked for them too.  I'm not necessarily saying a QL5 tech should get it either.  3 MOC's get spec 2, SAR Techs, Cert 3 Stokers and JTF.  If you can't tell form the list they are probably pretty intense mind altering jobs.



Not entirely correct, there are 4 trades that get Spec 2: Flight Engineer (MOC 091) , SAR Tech (MOC 131), Non-Destructive Testing Tech (MOC 532) and Marine Engineering Artificer (MOC 314). 

JTF is not a trade, they would get their normal pay plus their secret squirrel allowance.


----------



## Navy_Blue (19 Feb 2006)

We did an Ex with the JTF and they said they get spec 2??  Must not want to tell us about secret squirrel pay.  I though when you re muster to JTF you get a new MOC?? Even there support element.  They told us you effectively go to LS/CPL rank as soon as you sign over if your a private.  We had a little requiting brief in the main cave.


----------



## Inch (19 Feb 2006)

Navy_Blue said:
			
		

> We did an Ex with the JTF and they said they get spec 2??  Must not want to tell us about secret squirrel pay.  I though when you re muster to JTF you get a new MOC?? Even there support element.  They told us you effectively go to LS/CPL rank as soon as you sign over if your a private.  We had a little requiting brief in the main cave.



All the guys I've ever met still had their original MOC. To my knowledge, JTF is an employment, not a trade.

Secret squirrel pay can be found in the pay tables.
http://www.forces.gc.ca/dgcb/cbi/engraph/home_e.asp?sidesection=6&Section=205.385&sidecat=22&Chapter=205#205.385


----------



## Collin.t (19 Feb 2006)

sledge said:
			
		

> Um 276 is the old nesop trade number. What do u think a Nesop does? Interception and direction finding plus other jobs. I am a ew analyst in Ottawa.  Thats funny a year to learn morse?  Navcomms have much less time to learn morse plus many other things. So does that mean 291ers are really really slow?



sorry was really late when I posted the reply, but a year is the QL3 duration and you listen to morse code almost everyday during that time, contrary to navcomm they don't send morse code, they listen to it.


----------



## axeman (19 Feb 2006)

What the heck trade is Cert 3 Stokers - if they are Spec 2 and lumped in with the boys in Orange and Squirrels - they must be some pretty elite coal shovelers.

they are by inlarge the ppl that know the ship at every rivit and bulkhead the operating peramiters [sp] of each and every system that drives the ship.while doing duty rounds there this weekend i was amazed what a cert 3 stoker we have on board knows about evry system that in held in the hull .. not only his but the et's and the ht's.  you want to know dry and factual. valve lift points valve 1/2 set and ful open perssures  what do they need to be able to draw cold from memory 64 + systems? . man as a ht  i go to they system specialist and ask him / her before i crack a valve . if a stoker has to do that he  has just shown a basic lack of his systems ... he may get posted from a 280 toa frigate but he will be expected to know the systems ,,, i may not like having to deal wi the the retards who flush deck rags and what damages it incrues to they system i deal with but i wont trade my adze and mallet for the prop and guages


----------



## NCRCrow (19 Feb 2006)

I have not heard a NAVCOMM ever listen to morse code. As it is officially dead since 1994.

Are u RMS?


----------



## Collin.t (19 Feb 2006)

did the comm rsch QL3 until the last 2 weeks, then remustered to RMS (big mistake don't ask why)


----------



## Navy_Blue (19 Feb 2006)

Thanks inch I wasn't sure.  I was sure they said they get spec 2 though.  They are almost an other element onto them selves figured they had there own MOC.  I guess though keep it simple.


----------



## hugh19 (19 Feb 2006)

Navcomms might not listen to morse, but they do send and receive it by flashing light.


----------



## Melbatoast (19 Feb 2006)

sledge said:
			
		

> Navcomms might not listen to morse, but they do send and receive it by flashing light.



Yep, they do this fairly often.  And semaphore, too.  Walk by N50 at almost any time of year and there will be QL3 Navcomms in the parking lot reading lights.


----------



## NCRCrow (19 Feb 2006)

Semaphore is flags and reading light is morse.

But NAVCOMMS do not listen to it. Well, not on Reg Force ships anyway.

Whats with quitting  or remustering 2 weeks near the end? 

Anyway none of my biznazz!

Whats with Canada anyway...its 2-0 Finland


----------



## Collin.t (19 Feb 2006)

well long story short I was only planning to do my IE back then, so I didnt see much perspective as a comm rsch in that time span except for listening to morse code, which was really driving me nuts.

Switch to RMS to get a posting out west.


----------



## Melbatoast (19 Feb 2006)

HFXCrow said:
			
		

> But NAVCOMMS do not listen to it. Well, not on Reg Force ships anyway.



I think the point is that Navcomms do Morse all the time.  Whether it's reading lights or listening to it is pretty irrelevant, as it's the same code.


----------



## NCRCrow (19 Feb 2006)

okay.....................so NAVCOMMS get spec...........

pretty soon the INT OPS will want it....cut...paste....sign..........INT QL5 ........complete


----------



## TAS278 (21 Feb 2006)

Zoomie said:
			
		

> What the heck trade is Cert 3 Stokers - if they are Spec 2 and lumped in with the boys in Orange and Squirrels - they must be some pretty elite coal shovelers.



That is hilarious. Made me laugh out loud


----------



## pteosborne (9 May 2006)

I was wondering if any knew the answer to a couple of questions
no one around here seems to know the answer to.
I'm currently attending course (AVN) in CFASTE.

1. when do you recieve your first chevron?
2. when do you start recieving spec pay? ???

Tks.


----------



## Eagle_Eye_View (9 May 2006)

You receive your first chevron after 3 years in service. You'll see your spec pay once you finish your rotation or QL5A.
cheers


----------



## cp140tech (10 May 2006)

The chevron will be presented to you ideally at the 30 month mark, or whenever they get around to giving it to you.  It doesn't really mean much, it just lets people know that you've been around long enough to know better.  
   You start drawing spec pay when you're promoted to corporal.  It used to be that you would get spec pay as a Cpl no matter what, my roommate in Borden was ex Air Defense, he drew spec pay the whole time he was on his AVN 3's course.  I believe you need your QL 5's to draw it now, but there are no spec Pte pay levels, so if you've got your 5's as a Pte, you still wait until you're promoted to get the extra pay.....  that was what happened in my case anyhow.


----------



## pteosborne (11 May 2006)

thanks guys.
cpl140tech how long till you were QL5 qualified after leaving CFSATE?


----------



## childs56 (11 May 2006)

You do 18 months in Borden, trades training
After three years in you will receive your first hook. 
After 4 years you will receive your Cpls.
Once you arrive at your first posting after your trades training you will have to do a OJT time on the specific A/C. How long this takes to complete depends on the fleet, usually 6 months. 
During your OJT you will have to attend HPAMA training, and A/C general introduction. 
Once you have completed your OJT you will have to attend your type course. Again the length of time to attend the course or to finish it depends on your A/C type. 

    All said and done for a new recruit coming into the Forces, you should be able to attain Cpl Spec with in 4 years of joining. Although there may be exceptions to this either longer or less, I would plan on 4 year time frame. (Same as Civie side 4-5 year apprentice)

Good luck and hope that Borden isn't filling you with to many false promises


----------



## pteosborne (12 May 2006)

CTD said:
			
		

> Good luck and hope that Borden isn't filling you with to many false promises



Thanks for the timeframe.

P.S. no false hope here just dream crushing horror.  :crybaby:




[Edited for Code]


----------



## cp140tech (12 May 2006)

pteosborne said:
			
		

> thanks guys.
> cpl140tech how long till you were QL5 qualified after leaving CFSATE?


  
  I honestly can't remember for certain, probably about 18 months or so.  
  It's quite a bit different here in Greenwood with the new guys coming in now, much more structured and controlled.  They're still working out the details of the new CP 140/A AVN type training where the guys coming off the longer course are concerned.  The guys have been doing a common servicing phase, and then moving onto a type course.... for AVN, it's either propulsion - engines of course, or flight systems - everything else, like weapons, airframe, safety systems.  The type courses are 4 or 5 months long I believe, but don't quote me, things are in a fairly constant state of flux, at least on this fleet.  The AVS guys are along the same lines, but do a common communications core with a specialty in tactical, or navigation systems.... I'm not even going to pretend to explain the differences..... all the AVS stuff is acronyms and I haven't a clue what they're talking about half the time.
   Any other questions feel free to ask.

   hope you're having fun in Borden....

  chris


----------



## Navy_Blue (12 Jun 2006)

Allow me to shake up the hornets nest for a sec.  >  

As a LS MAREL on my tech course and being payed at IPC level 1 and soon 2, I was expecting to get off course and get LS with an IPC 2 and spec pay.   Not so now.   I guess back in 2004 a new policy came into effect and now when I finish my course I will be knocked back to LS basic with spec pay.   It is still a raise but seriously why screw people who have worked so hard to get this training?  If I was at IPC 4, I would be making 16$ more a pay after taxes when I complete my course.  So an LS MAREL with four years in rank will only make 16$ less.  Not quite right...

To take it a step further PO2 Stokers once they get their cert 3 and start getting spec 2 will go back to basic IPC again too.  They will not be happy with this.

There will always be people who get boned in a transition period but why do they even need to change this.

Not many happy MSE types at the school right now  :rage:


----------



## 17thRecceSgt (12 Jun 2006)

This is weird.  How can you "take away" someone's IPC?????  Never heard of THAT before...


----------



## navymich (12 Jun 2006)

Ditto with what Mud said.  I've never heard of it either.

I'm searching for the policy that you are speaking about Navy_Blue, but nothing yet.  Do you have the reference for it?

As well, I can't really understand why there would be so many unhappy people at the school.  Yes, I understand they are unhappy about losing their IPC, but if this policy has been in effect for a couple years, shouldn't the information be widely known by now?


----------



## Navy_Blue (12 Jun 2006)

IPC is pay level right???  So LS has up to level 4.  Well when we go to LS Tech we will get knocked back now.  Our Div cell came over this morning and informed us.  I will get the msg from the reg office tomorow.  

 :warstory:


----------



## Navalsnpr (12 Jun 2006)

I received an email from one of the trade advisors indicating exactly what Navy_Blue stated, which is a new policy.

When you achieve your QL5 qualification, only at that point will the pay system will grant you Specialist Pay. If you happened to be at IPC 4 at a LS/CPL Standard, then on completion of your QL5 you will shift over to "IPC Basic" in the Spec 1 column.

This also appies to the NET(T); NET(A); NETC) & NWT trades as well

Current Pay rates can be also viewed at:

Regular Force Non Commissioned Members (NCM) Rates


----------



## 17thRecceSgt (12 Jun 2006)

I bet that don't put THAT policy on the recruiting brochures.

Ok so it is a policy.  The obvious question is...why??????????


----------



## Navalsnpr (12 Jun 2006)

Mud Recce Man said:
			
		

> Ok so it is a policy.  The obvious question is...why??????????


I don't know why it was changed, but I do know that the upper ranks of my trade know about it and understand that it is a issue.


----------



## 17thRecceSgt (12 Jun 2006)

roger.  I am not trying to be outta my lane being a green-machine type, but this IS odd.  Thanks for the info.

Mud


----------



## navymich (12 Jun 2006)

If the policy went into effect in 2004, why is it just coming to light now?  Or is it actually more of a recent thing?

Navalsnipr, how did it work when you got your spec pay, just across the board maintaining IPC?

This is an interesting hornets nest, as you call it Navy_Blue.  It will be interesting to see how this effects component transfers (and regular recruiting) as well, as I know that the spec pay is a great enticement.


----------



## Navy_Blue (12 Jun 2006)

The courses that started in 04/05 would have been grandfathered to the old way.  The courses starting late 05/06 will be the the new way once they graduate.  Most MSE and CSE tech courses last for a year plus so it took that long for anyone it would effect to clue in.

I don't know for sure but now that half the CF gets spec pay some officer/bureaucrat in Ottawa must have had an Epiphany and realized we could save allot of cash if we switch the way we pay our specialists.  That would be my guess.  There has been a movement afoot to increase the number of IPC's LS/CPL have, this would be a way to say "hey look guys...you have 8!!! levels now isn't that great!!!"   :threat: 

The people this new policy bones the most is the new Cert 3 stokers.  I would be pissed if I worked that hard to get spec 2 and got shafted like this.


----------



## navymich (12 Jun 2006)

Thank you for the clarification on this.  It doesn't effect me, but it is nice to stay on top of stuff like this in the fleet.  Maybe now that the word is finally getting out about this, changes will be made.  Highly unlikely I know, but one can always hope.

I have been hearing the rumour about more IPC levels for LS for years now.  On one hand, it would be good to have, similar to Lt(N) where you can end up being for years.  But knowing the luck, they will just keep the same pay difference from basic to 8, that they have from basic to 4 and just make the the increases smaller.  But that's another topic for discussion.  ;D


----------



## Navy_Blue (12 Jun 2006)

As far as I know this is forces wide so you Army and Zoomy guys out there let your friends know.  I doubt we have any grounds to redress this but you never know.  

Everyone should know when they are going to kicked in the sack.

Cheers


----------



## 17thRecceSgt (12 Jun 2006)

Well, there's my interest, I am CTing to 226 (ATIS) in the Air Force, and...when they make me an offer it will include my IPC (expecting IPC 4).

And then they think they are gonna take my IPC away and make me Cpl Base?  LMAO.  Right.  After 17 years in...Cpl O.  good one.

I am curious...is your trade one of those "you will be given A/Cpl" as a signing incentive?  But you don't really have enough TI for Cpl/LS??


----------



## navymich (12 Jun 2006)

Navy_Blue said:
			
		

> Everyone should know when they are going to kicked in the sack.



Guess I'm okay then.... ;D

But seriously, what Mud said.  I wasn't thinking outside of the Navy spectrum.  My first choice for CT is AESOp, so this could effect me also.  Definitely something to keep an eye on.


----------



## Navy_Blue (12 Jun 2006)

I've been a LS for 2 years, three guys on my course have maxed out IPC for LS.  Your not going to loose money its just less than expected now.  Really when you get down to it though its still crappy.  

So mud if this works like they are saying you will be CPL max level 4 till you graduate and then will shift back to CPL basic with spec pay.  If you look at the pay scale that is 86$ a month more before taxes.

Again we're not loosing money.  The CF is starting to pinch pennies now if they are pulling stuff like this.

Sorry to darken you Monday


----------



## axeman (12 Jun 2006)

i was grandfathered into spec pay when i went HT  00124. and was bumped down to lvl 0 IPC now am slowly regaining the IPC lvls i lost. 
they will have a real fight if when i go for my 5's if they drop me down again ..

 >


----------



## navymich (12 Jun 2006)

axeman said:
			
		

> i was grandfathered into spec pay when i went HT  00124. and was bumped down to lvl 0 IPC now am slowly regaining the IPC lvls i lost.
> they will have a real fight if when i go for my 5's if they drop me down again ..
> 
> >



Sorry, I'm confused.  If you were grandfathered in, why were you dropped IPC's then?  My understanding of the grandfathering in, is that you wouldn't have fallen under the new system Navy_Blue is talking about.  As well, I am assuming that HT is Hull Tech (not up on my MOSID's yet to confirm that), yet your profile says infantry.  ???


----------



## axeman (12 Jun 2006)

ah yes ill update that one day sigh.the reason i dropped was the fact that i went into a whole new trade system i was granfathered into spec py but when you draw it now  you drop down to the base lvl ie 5a vs 5 b   . sigh its still a raise  but then its better the a kick in the junk


----------



## navymich (12 Jun 2006)

Thank you for the clarification axeman


----------



## Navalsnpr (12 Jun 2006)

If this affects you or your trade, then it should be brought up to your MOC advisors and during the current rounds of MOSART briefings as a dis-satisfier.


----------



## 17thRecceSgt (13 Jun 2006)

Navy_Blue said:
			
		

> I've been a LS for 2 years, three guys on my course have maxed out IPC for LS.  Your not going to loose money its just less than expected now.  Really when you get down to it though its still crappy.
> 
> So mud if this works like they are saying you will be CPL max level 4 till you graduate and then will shift back to CPL basic with spec pay.  If you look at the pay scale that is 86$ a month more before taxes.
> 
> ...



Actually, to me its a huge deal.  If/when I sign my contract with CFRC, I will DEFINTELY be askings this question.  If they give me IPC 4, they give me it.  Once its on paper as a CONTRACT...good luck taking it.  maybe this will be different for me cause I am a CT.

AND...not to darken your Monday...but...the difference between Cpl Base Spec 1 and Cpl 4 Spec 1 is close to $400...thats the way I look at it.

This is crap, and I question the ability of this to stand up to a redress.  IPC is "how much time you have in rank" and how do you take THAT away from someone?

Well, the CF can expect some loyalty from their people over this one!  a slap in the face and the CoC should be howling at NDHQ.  Specially the CWO/CP01s.


----------



## Navy_Blue (13 Jun 2006)

That's what I thought too but if you look at it through the eyes of bureaucrats my rank was LS MAREL and will soon be LS ET.  Hence back to square one.  I would guess that's how they see it and justify this move.


----------



## 17thRecceSgt (13 Jun 2006)

Maybe so.  I would think that for "morale and GAFF", they would want to make people happy not...the other way (pissed off!)   >

But back to reality...


----------



## Sub_Guy (13 Jun 2006)

The only message I could locate talking about this issue is CANFORGEN 111/04.  I just hope that this isn't a case of people running wild spreading rumours about pay backs and all that jazz....... Because that never happens in the military right?


----------



## Navalsnpr (13 Jun 2006)

Sub_Guy said:
			
		

> There is no message out on the street for this yet.



There won't be as the policy was changed a couple of years ago.


----------



## Navy_Blue (13 Jun 2006)

Get this!

The stokers that have got they're Cert 3 between 2004 and now are expected to pay back the difference too.  It just keeps getting better and better.  From what they are saying at the school the average would be $3800.  Our div cell is telling us we're lucky the stokers are going to fight this.  I'm just keeping my fingers crossed.   Its ridiculous its all coming out after the fact, after everyone has been paid like this for two years.  TIme to hang some pay clerks....just kidding  ;D

What a kick in the sack  :rage:


----------



## navymich (13 Jun 2006)

WOW, that is just nasty, no that's beyond nasty.  Can't say the words on here unfortunately, but I am sure that anyone else following this thread is sure of a couple.

This is really going to be a fight.  Keep us posted.


----------



## NavyShooter (14 Jun 2006)

navymich said:
			
		

> Thank you for the clarification on this.  It doesn't effect me, but it is nice to stay on top of stuff like this in the fleet.  Maybe now that the word is finally getting out about this, changes will be made.  Highly unlikely I know, but one can always hope.
> 
> I have been hearing the rumour about more IPC levels for LS for years now.  On one hand, it would be good to have, similar to Lt(N) where you can end up being for years.  But knowing the luck, they will just keep the same pay difference from basic to 8, that they have from basic to 4 and just make the the increases smaller.  But that's another topic for discussion.  ;D



Having more IPC levels will not make you get more money.

The upper and lower IPC levels will not change.  So your maximum pay level will remain the same.  It'll just take you twice as long to get there.

As an example: consider, if you have 4 IPC Levels, $1000, 1200, 1400, and $1600.  (Numbers chosen for simplicity in explanation.)

In your first year, you make $12,000

In your second year, you get $14,400

In your third year, you get $16,800

In your fourth year, you get $19,200

After your 4th year, you've made a total of $62,400


Consider if you break those 4 levels into 7.    (I'm using 7 to keep the math simpler.)

Your first level will still be the $1000, and the top level will still be $1600.  

Here are your pay levels: 

Year 1:  $1000
Year 2:  $1100
Year 3:  $1200
Year 4:  $1300
Year 5:  $1400
Year 6:  $1500
Year 7:  $1600

So, in year 1, you still make $12,000

In year 2, you make $13,200

In year 3, you make $14,400

In year 4, you make $15,600

In year 5, you make $16,800

In year 6, you make $18,000

In year 7, you make $19,200


So, looking at the numbers, by the end of year 4, with more IPC levels, you have made $55,200.  *This is $7200 LESS* than you'd have made with only 4 incentive levels.

Carrying this on to year 7:

With 4 IPC's your total income would be :  $120,000

With 7 IPC's, your total income after 7 years would be:  $109,200

This means that in this limited example, you'd have made *$10,800* less over the duration of your 7 IPC's than you would have if you'd only had 4 IPC's.

Having more incentive levels means LESS money in our pockets, because it'll take longer to get to a higher level of income.

NavyShooter


----------



## Navy_Blue (14 Jun 2006)

I wouldn't want to see them add more IPC's by dividing up what we have more.  Add more to the top  ;D  Then everyone has to have the top end move up...so not very likely.  

Anyone notice if the Army and Airforce have clued into this yet??


----------



## navymich (14 Jun 2006)

I haven't heard anything about Army/Airforce noticing or not.  Mud is Army, but is doing CT into Airforce, so he has noticed, as seen.  Maybe we should get this thread moved somewhere else so it is more noticeable?  I am curious as to how they are taking the news, or even if it has been brought to their attention yet.


----------



## 17thRecceSgt (14 Jun 2006)

I am going to talk to the CFRC on Friday about this...my MCC is a very good straight forward Capt (Army) and I am sure he will have/get an answer for me.

I am one of the Army going Air Force types to 226 so this is particularly interesting to me.  As a referenece, I believe MP recruits are getting Cpl Base w/spec 1 on completion of BMQ!  I have a buddy how just went MP a year or two ago and when I can I will ask him...


----------



## Sub_Guy (14 Jun 2006)

There is still something funny about all of this..............seems to be a lot of hear say (in ref to paying back).  I will be surprised if that happens


----------



## Navy_Blue (15 Jun 2006)

For anyone who cares:

Its called

Specialist Pay Occupational Implementation Plan (OSIP) For NCMS.  It's on the DIN just do a search in quotes.  

This confirms this is forces wide.

The thing is why has it taken two years for some officer or pay clerk to read this crap.  Now it is our fault we didn't know??

There are 2 stoker up here who got their Cert 3 around the same time.  One just before this came into effect one two weeks after.  The later owes DND over $3000.  

I don't know why we think its so sketchy do we not remember sea pay audits???


----------



## aesop081 (15 Jun 2006)

Navy_Blue said:
			
		

> For anyone who cares:
> 
> Its called
> 
> ...



I remustered in 2004 and was in the first batch to be impacted by the new policy.  thank god for grandfather clauses


----------



## crackshot17 (17 Jun 2006)

Just got my OT and am off to Halifax for NE TECH training.  Was a MCPL knocking me down to LS IPC 4, accordign to this I will be IPC4 for the course and then until my 5's are over...what then, bumped back down to IPC 0 with Spec.  What a load, bad enough I have to lose my pay to OT but lose it again later when I get more education and qualifications.....NOT RIGHT....


----------



## Navalsnpr (17 Jun 2006)

crackshot17 said:
			
		

> Was a MCPL knocking me down to LS IPC 4, according to this I will be IPC4 for the course and then until my 5's are over...what then, bumped back down to IPC 0 with Spec.



Unfortunately you have it bang on. Here is how it will go...

You just CT'ed to NET, and due to your previous rank being MCpl, your new rank is LS IPC4 -Standard ($4303/Month). Once you attain your QL5 certification in your new trade, there will be an update in the pay system to change your pay to LS IPC Basic - Spec 1 ($4386/Month).


----------



## 17thRecceSgt (17 Jun 2006)

I still don't know how they can (legally?) drop your IPC.  Has this ever been challenged with a redress?  I thought the only time  you lost your IPC was a trip to Club Ed.  In that case, it makes sense, you are being punished, right?  

This will be interesting for me, I am CTing to 226 ATIS.  I am going to get an offer, and was told to expect Cpl IPC 4.  So when I finish POET and ATIS Apprentice, and OJT (which I am assuming you need to get Spec 1), then they are going to bump me back to IPC 0?  I can't see how they will be able to, when THEY are making an offer IPC 4 because of all my time in.  And, if loosing your IPC is part of punishment for something that you would go to Club Ed for...I can't see how this "policy" would stand up to a redress.  

It's like, if you have a recruit that screws up.  You can't do something to him for "extra's" or "corrective training" that is part of QR & O Vol.2, Table 108.11, Powers of Punishment for Delegated Officers.  Because those are punishments, he hasn't been charged and found quilty of a service offence.  Makin' any sense?  So stripping someone's IPC is the same. 

I still think, either way, its a slap in the face and the CF should shake their head for f**k sakes.


----------



## NavyShooter (17 Jun 2006)

Just as we're trying to retain personnel, they come up with a way to peeve new trainees and convince them once again that the system is against them.

*sigh*

How the heck do they plan to get 20+ thousand people in, and how do they plan to retain them if they keep pennypinching like this?

NS


----------



## 17thRecceSgt (17 Jun 2006)

NS

As per my earlier post, I think this is part of the old "FRP Force Reduction Plan" of a decade ago.  Tick people off, and watch them get out, and take their training and "corporate knowledge" with them for less BS, more money at some civie job.

Oh, on top of that, they can't get  Spec until they are 5 qual'd, so put ALL the new recruits in PAT platoons for 6-18 months of their BE.  That is saving money now too!  Gosh this system is working!   

 ;D


----------



## Navalsnpr (17 Jun 2006)

Mud Recce Man said:
			
		

> I still don't know how they can (legally?) drop your IPC.  Has this ever been challenged with a redress?



I know of a member who submitted a redress around 4 months ago and he received word back that it was denied last month.


----------



## glenndon (17 Jun 2006)

I get the impression this policy is to. . .  help people decide NOT to OT.  That way, they train you as an infanteer/armoured/insert trade here, have you in the trade for 4+ years and you make it to MCpl or what not, then decide a career change is in order.  With losing money going into the new trade, more people will be likely NOT to OT, simply because they have a car payment, the wife doesn't want a drop in pay, whatever.  That way the military gets their full value training you in your original trade and keeping you in it as long as possible.

I want to OT to AES Op, and I already make Spec Pay in my current trade. . .  with this policy I will lose money for a few years, then take a few more to make what I make now again. . .  oh my wife will LOVE that.  

Glenn


----------



## aesop081 (17 Jun 2006)

glenndon said:
			
		

> I get the impression this policy is to. . .  help people decide NOT to OT.  That way, they train you as an infanteer/armoured/insert trade here, have you in the trade for 4+ years and you make it to MCpl or what not, then decide a career change is in order.  With losing money going into the new trade, more people will be likely NOT to OT, simply because they have a car payment, the wife doesn't want a drop in pay, whatever.  That way the military gets their full value training you in your original trade and keeping you in it as long as possible.
> 
> I want to OT to AES Op, and I already make Spec Pay in my current trade. . .  with this policy I will lose money for a few years, then take a few more to make what I make now again. . .  oh my wife will LOVE that.
> 
> Glenn



you are going to make a little less money for a whole of 5 months.,....yeah, there's something to bitch about !!  Ask yourself why you want to remuster, then shake your head....how much do you like your current job ?


----------



## 17thRecceSgt (17 Jun 2006)

aesop081 said:
			
		

> If its such an injustice, you could always stay in your old trade, you are obviously very happy there ?



You think this is a GOOD policy to have then do you??

Its not so much about me, really, its the other people that are getting screwed by this.

I do ask though, what do you think is GOOD about this policy?

And, I might add..you are already thru this, according to a post I read, and back at MCpl (4) with Spec 2 I am assuming.  Others like me are just getting in the breech.  So, with all my time in, I will get Cpl 4 Standard most likely...then...wait for POET, and ATIS Apprentice..should put me about the 19 years in mark.  And once I get qual'd for Spec 1 pay...I should go back to IPC Base.

Please, explain how this is something that should be viewed as positive AesOp.  Not starting a flame war here, seriously.  But tell me how that is the best thing to do for any service member.


----------



## navymich (17 Jun 2006)

Don't get me wrong, I love money as much as the next person, but it seems that many people here are really really worried about what they aren't going to be making.  You're not losing any money, you're just not making what you hope for, as soon as you could have before.  Think back to when we didn't get a pay increase for a couple of years and liken it to that.  Or maybe you should be taking some of the "Advice for FNG's", especially the money advice from Paracowboy.

And if you're doing your current job for the money only, or you're CTing for the money only, then maybe you should rethink things.  And if it's not about the money only, then carry on, enjoy your job and accept the benefit of a pay increase when it comes.

Yes, I'm kind of saying the same things that aesop081 just posted, but I already had this typed up, so I'm posting it anyway.


----------



## aesop081 (17 Jun 2006)

Mud Recce Man said:
			
		

> You think this is a GOOD policy to have then do you??
> 
> Its not so much about me, really, its the other people that are getting screwed by this.
> 
> ...



Mud, my intention is not to flame or anything, and no i'm not a fan of the policy.  What i am getting at is are you remustering only for the money or because you need something new or unhappy in your current MOC.......if you are unhappy then whats it worth to you to leave ?


----------



## glenndon (17 Jun 2006)

aesop081 said:
			
		

> you are going to make a little less money for a whole of 5 months.,....yeah, there's something to ***** about !!  Ask yourself why you want to remuster, then shake your head....how much do you like your current job ?



Hey I'm fine with it don't get me wrong, I really want to be an AES Op.  But if you read the CBI, I won't get back to Cpl Spec 3 (which is what I'd be if I OT next year) for 2 years AFTER I get my Spec Pay back again. . .  But like I said I really want to make the move so . . .   that's that.

Glenn


----------



## 17thRecceSgt (17 Jun 2006)

Well I am not remustering really, I am CTing.  It's not the money.  I will make alittle more as a IPC 4 Cpl than I do as a Class B IPC 4 Sgt (and have been IPC 4 for awhile, with no room to move), but its the whole IPC thing.  I always thought the only way you could loose IPC was a Service Offense that entails DB time.  Why would you do something similar to Spec trades for successfully completing a higher level of ability?????????  It hasn't happened to me, might never happen to me (I already knew I would need to be QL5 in 226 for Spec Pay) BUT...for those that are being talked about on the thread, like stokers and the like...man, that is such a kick in the balls IMO.  

I am not going to a tech trade because of the money, cause really it is only $390ish a month.   Not that that is BAD, but its not the difference between say...Cpl and Capt's pay   

I just think the policy is insulting to the servicemember who was goes from IPC 4 to IPC Base and it seems like a crappy policy to save a few bucks.  Now, I realize there might be some "substantiation" to the policy, however, I have not seen it at all, and am making my opinions based on the (little and vague) information that I have.  

Also, I think the CF should be better at getting this info out, if there were people who were not aware of this policy for whatever reason and now are having $$ recovered...how do you think that person's morale and GAFF will be.  

Loyalty is a 2 way street, and its hard to get someone's GAFF into the green after some of this stuff happens, IMHO.


----------



## 17thRecceSgt (17 Jun 2006)

Its not all about the $$.  My own personal motivation to the 226 trade is I love tech ( I work with it in my current Class B job and have 3 years of technical college).  I personally have the goal of being in this unit.  (The money is nice, the personal goal is worth more...)

http://www.airforce.forces.gc.ca/8wing/squadron/8accs_e.asp

My other 2 choices are not tech trades...AC Op and Traffic Tech.  But I like to fix stuff and the spec pay will be a small bonus.  Although, I completely expect to be in a slower moving trade, so in the end the $$ will likely be the same...

I think I am advocating for the people who are really being (what I consider) screwed over somewhat on this policy.  Not the CTing folks like me.


----------



## crackshot17 (17 Jun 2006)

Don't get me wrong, the money is a nice perkof an OT from Lineman to NE TECH but not the focal point.  The only thing I am sayin is that the people giving the offers should be more explicit when they make the offer.  NO WHERE was this explained to me prior to the offer and my acceptance.  I understand some are motivated monitarily to transfer, but not this guy.  There has been a lot of change in the last few years wrt Spec pay and it is all a bit overwhelming at times.  Take the time to fully understand what you are getting into.  Yes, losing mky leaf sucks, but I only have 7 years in I certainly hope I can get it back before I am done.  If it had been fully described before I signed, I would have felt better than finding it in the CBI myself after the fact....I still would have signed but would have been fully informed and accepting.


----------



## Messmom (19 Jun 2006)

If a remuster or CT costs you a few bucks then that is the price of a new trade. What truely sucks about this policy is that some trades ( stoker comes RIGHT to mind ) spend 3 or 4 or in some case more years as LS in their trade waiting for the tech course only to go through the course to come out the other end with about 30 bucks a month more than you went in with is just a kick in the groin. Then a LS Sonar OP or NES OP ( no digs at the operators for the spec pay here...honest...really I understand how it came about) does a quick 6 month QL5 course 3 months after getting their LS and boom, there is the spec pay. The stoker spent hundreds of hours preping for the Cert boards to get the chance at taking a bag drive of a tech course to get the same outcome.....

Just an FYI I am NOT a stoker, nor anywhere in the MSE world. I come from the CSE side of the house so I do know what a bag drive the tech courses are and I used to be an Op so I knew the coursing there as well. With the new policy for advanced promotions there is a kid at CFNES as we speak who worked his butt off to get his shipside QL4 package done in record time ( along with his MCR watch keeper and NETP packages ) so he could get course loaded on his QL5s. He will finish up after 13 months in school as a fully trained Journeyman NET while still an AB for three months until his 4 years is complete. Now there is a deal for the navy. Fully trained tech we get to underpay for 3 months. Where is the incentive for these kids? Certainly not in a 25 year contract. I fully expect to see this kid either out or in the wardroom within 2 years.................


----------



## 17thRecceSgt (27 Jun 2006)

Ok folks...here it is.

SUBJ: SPECIALIST PAY OCCUPATIONAL IMPLEMENTATION PLAN (OSIP) FOR NCMS - ADMINISTRATIVE DIRECTION

REFS: (removed, you can ask me for them if you want them)

1. IN ORDER TO ENSURE THAT ASSIGNMENT OF SPECIALIST PAY IS ADMINISTERED APPROPRIATELY, THE FOLLOWING DIRECTION IS PROVIDED AS INDICATED AT REF C PARA 12

2. FOR CFRG, ALL PERSONNEL ENROLLED INTO A SPECIALIST OCCUPATION ARE TO BE ENROLLED INTO THE JR SUB-DIVISION FOR THAT OCCUPATION

3. THE INTENTION OF THE OSIP IS TO ENSURE THAT PERSONNEL ONLY RECEIVE SPECIALIST PAY WHEN THEY ARE FULLY QUALIFIED IAW THEIR OCCUPATION SPECIFICATION (OS) AND HAVE ACHIEVED THE REQUIRED RANK IAW OCCUPATION REQUIREMENTS (SEE CHART ON DPPD WEBSITE) HTTP(removed) AND DOWNLOAD EXCEL SPREADSHEET

4. UNITS ARE ONLY TO MOVE PERSONNEL INTO THE QUALIFIED SUB-DIVISION UPON ACHIEVEMENT OF BOTH THE REQUIRED RANK AND THE REQUIRED QUALIFICATION FOR THAT SUBDIVISION, WHICHEVER COMES LATER

5. NCMS IN THE RANK OF LS/CPL PRIOR TO ACHIEVING TRADE QUALIFICATION (OR MS/MCPL, PO2/SGT OR PO1/WO) AS REQUIRED FOR THE SPECIFIC OCCUPATION) INCLUDING:

A. MBRS PROMOTED ACTING LACKING
B. MBRS PROMOTED SUBSTANTIVE, AND
C. MBRS WHO ARE VOLUNTARILY OCCUPATIONAL TRANSFERRED

WILL REMAIN IN THE JUNIOR SUB-DIVISION AT STANDARD TRADE GROUP RATES OF PAY (EXCEPT FLT ENG AND NDT TECH MOCS WHICH WILL BE SPEC1 IN THE JR SUBDIVISION) UNTIL ALL OCCUPATIONAL QUALIFICATIONS REQUIREMENTS FOR THE OCCUPATION ARE SUCCESSFULLY ATTAINED. ONCE OCCUPATIONALLY QUALIFIED, THAT MBR WILL BE TRANSFERRED TO THE APPLICABLE SUB-DIVISION AND BE REMUNERATED ACCORDINGLY (SPEC 1 OR SPEC 2). THE RATE OF PAY SHALL BE ESTABLISHED AT THE INCENTIVE PAY CATEGORY FOR THE MBR'S RANK, PAY LEVEL AND NEW TRADE GROUP THAT IS NEAREST TO BUT NOT LESS THAN, THE RATE OF PAY THE MBR WAS RECEIVING ON THE DAY IMMEDIATELY PRIOR TO THE MBR'S TRANSFER FOR THE PURPOSES OF IPC INCREASES, THE IPC ANNIVERSARY DATE SHALL BE THE ACTUAL DATE OF TRANSFER FROM THE STANDARD TRADE GROUP TO THE SPECIALIST TRADE GROUP

Ok, the Spec pay thing I agree with.  I still will never agree to lowering someone's IPC to save a few bucks.


----------



## M Feetham (28 Jun 2006)

Can someone explain to me where it says the the IPC is lowered to base rate. From what I read it says nearest to but not less than the members level of pay the day prior to his OT/CT. To me that says you get your ipc level of pay plus spec. Someone please show me the light if I am reading this wrong, I'm an operator not a pay clerk.
Marc.


----------



## aesop081 (28 Jun 2006)

M Feetham said:
			
		

> Can someone explain to me where it says the the IPC is lowered to base rate. From what I read it says nearest to but not less than the members level of pay the day prior to his OT/CT. To me that says you get your ipc level of pay plus spec. Someone please show me the light if I am reading this wrong, I'm an operator not a pay clerk.
> Marc.



You do NOT go to base IPC......i went from MCpl 4 standard to CPL spec1 because that was the closet IPC to my previous pay level......


----------



## Bigmac (29 Sep 2006)

As you all know the Med Tech trade has been undergoing a great deal of transition over the last few years. The first thing to change was the trade name from Medical Assistant to Medical Technician. "Technician " denotes a higher level of knowledge. The problem is how do you compare the military Med Techs to Civilian Paramedics? This comparison to the civilian counterparts is how treasury board determines pay scales for military trades.  The military police have managed to obtain spec pay in this way. What would the Med Tech trade need to do to obtain spec pay?


----------



## dapaterson (29 Sep 2006)

Military pay policy:  managed by Director, Pay Policy Development (DPPD) within the Director General, Compensation and Benefits, within the Chief of Military Personnel.  If the Branch can make a compelling case, DPPD will engage TB (if it hasn't already started).


----------



## old medic (29 Sep 2006)

Bigmac said:
			
		

> The problem is how do you compare the military Med Techs to Civilian Paramedics?



Assuming a medic has a modern QL3 (Reg) with PCP or Res QL4 with PCP, then the comparision
is with civilian PCP (Primary Care Paramedic). 

CFHS has a seat on the PAC board, http://www.paramedic.ca/structure
and follows the NOCP for PCP.


----------



## pinkbug (29 Sep 2006)

This is actually interesting.
I am waiting on the feedback from others on this one.
I have given it some thought in the past but never brought up the subject.
I'm glad you did!

How about YOUR views on it ?


----------



## Bigmac (29 Sep 2006)

In the modern battlefield the Med Techs must be up on both their trauma skills and soldiering.  Although PCP training is fine for in Garrison duties it does not prepare the Med Techs for their true calling in battle. Civilian protocols are tossed out the window when you are dealing with multiple wounded while being fired upon by the enemy. Med Techs must all have ATLS as well as regular tactical casualty care training. If they emphasize trauma training and increased soldiering skills then they would definitely deserve spec pay.
   I understand that by taking civilian paramedic courses makes it easier to compare jobs but there is no comparison. Med Techs are soldiers first and medical specialists second. I say stop trying to civilianize the Med Tech trade. The quest for civilian equivilancy could very well lead to Med Techs being replaced by soldiers with advanced medical skills such as ATLS and TCCC. 
  Don't get me wrong, I still believe Med Techs are extremely important. But with increased trauma skills and soldiering they will become invaluable assets and thus desrving of a higher payscale.


----------



## pinkbug (29 Sep 2006)

Well, BigMac, I have to agree with you. Fully.

Paramedic are paid a certain amount of dollars and they have to do most of the same training/take most of the same courses as a Med Tech.
There are certain instance where the Paramedic has to risk his/her life as much as the Med Tech. 
But to balance it off, I think the pay should be more for the Med Tech due to the fact, they are soldiers first. And they risk their lives way more than a Civilian Medic.

If I was to vote on this, my personal vote would be to increase the pay for the med tech. Without second thoughts.
I speak of experience


----------



## old medic (29 Sep 2006)

The Primary Care Paramedic (PCP) has successfully completed a recognized educational program in paramedicine at the primary care level. PCPs may be volunteer or career paramedics associated with urban, suburban, rural, remote, industrial, air ambulance and / or military services. PCPs constitute the largest group of paramedic practitioners in Canada. They are expected to demonstrate excellent decision-making skills, based on sound knowledge and principles. Controlled or delegated medical acts1 identified in the PCP competency profile include semi-automated defibrillation and the administration of certain medications.

The Advanced Care Paramedic (ACP) has successfully completed a recognized educational program in paramedicine at the advanced care level. Such programs often require prior certification at the PCP level (or equivalent). ACPs are most often employed by urban, suburban, air ambulance and / or military services. Currently relatively few ACPs are found in rural areas. ACPs are expected to build upon the foundation of PCP competencies, and apply their added knowledge and skills to provide enhanced levels of assessment and care. This includes the added responsibilities and expectations related to an increased number of controlled or delegated medical acts available. Controlled or delegated medical acts1 identified in the ACP competency profile include advanced techniques to manage life-threatening problems affecting patient airway, breathing, and circulation. ACPs may implement treatment measures that are invasive and / or pharmacological in nature.

The Critical Care Paramedic (CCP) has successfully completed a recognized educational program in paramedicine at the critical care level. This is currently the highest level of paramedic certification available. CCPs are most often associated with large urban and / or air ambulance services, and are not found in all provinces. The CCP is expected to perform thorough assessments that include the interpretation of patient laboratory and radiological data. CCPs’ high levels of decision-making and differential discrimination skills relating to patient care, result in their implementing treatment measures both autonomously and after consultation with medical authorities. Many controlled or delegated medical acts1 are available to the CCP. Those identified in the CCP competency profile include the use of invasive hemodynamic monitoring devices and advanced techniques to manage life-threatening problems affecting patient airway, breathing, and circulation. CCPs typically implement treatment measures that are invasive and / or pharmacological in nature.

The competencies at each practitioner level are cumulative, in that each level includes, and exceeds, the competencies of the previous level. Furthermore the competencies defined in these profiles are the minimum required at each practitioner level. Employment jurisdictions can, and frequently do, exceed these requirements.

*Regulation of Paramedic Practice and Approval of Training Programs*

The practice of paramedicine in Canada is regulated by each province or, in the case of federal jurisdictions such as the military, by an appropriate federal authority.

Each regulator is free to determine the scope of practice and practitioner classification system that applies in its jurisdiction. Similarly the regulator may approve training program(s) that are a prerequisite to employment.

A number of regulators are aligning their practitioner classifications with PAC’s levels.

In addition to complying with local regulatory requirements, many training programs across the country have elected to participate in the voluntary national accreditation process for paramedic training administered by the Canadian Medical Association (CMA). CMA issues Requirements for Accreditation that include an expectation that a program ensures that its graduates possess the competencies determined by the national professional association.


----------



## old medic (29 Sep 2006)

Bigmac said:
			
		

> In the modern battlefield the Med Techs must be up on both their trauma skills and soldiering.  Although PCP training is fine for in Garrison duties it does not prepare the Med Techs for their true calling in battle. Civilian protocols are tossed out the window when you are dealing with multiple wounded while being fired upon by the enemy. Med Techs must all have ATLS as well as regular tactical casualty care training. If they emphasize trauma training and increased soldiering skills then they would definitely deserve spec pay.
> I understand that by taking civilian paramedic courses makes it easier to compare jobs but there is no comparison. Med Techs are soldiers first and medical specialists second. I say stop trying to civilianize the Med Tech trade. The quest for civilian equivilancy could very well lead to Med Techs being replaced by soldiers with advanced medical skills such as ATLS and TCCC.
> Don't get me wrong, I still believe Med Techs are extremely important. But with increased trauma skills and soldiering they will become invaluable assets and thus desrving of a higher payscale.



I couldn't disagree more. Without proper training, there would be no Med Tech. We'd still be using Cas Aids. 
Nor would there be any thought of Spec. Pay, as we would be operating at a first aid level.

You seem to be advocating that PCP skills are no good, and first aid is only good for the battle field.

I don't understand how you can ask for civilian equivelent spec pay, then say Med Techs should be dumbed down 
and not get spec pay. 

If tactical training actually qualified someone for Spec pay, then everyone would get it.


----------



## Bigmac (29 Sep 2006)

Lots of info Old Medic. Since you are obviously well versed on PCP etc, what direction do you see the Med Tech trade going in the future?? Do you agree that Med Techs need more tactical based training on a regular basis?


----------



## old medic (29 Sep 2006)

Everyone in the the army needs tactical training. Medics like everyone else. 

However, Just like you wouldn't want an X-Ray tech or Dental tech without proper training, 
you wouldn't want a Med Tech performing controlled medical acts on you with them being 
properly trained, delegated and accountable.  Doctors, Nurses, Pharmacists and Dentists must 
be properly trained, so too must Medics. Quality of care would be out the window otherwise.

MP's get spec pay because they are doing a job similar to their civilian counterparts. i.e. Police work. 
The argument for Medics getting spec pay has to come from performing the same skills as other 
pre-hospital care providers. CMA accreditation and meeting the National Occupational Competency
Profile is the only argument possible for spec pay.


----------



## Bigmac (29 Sep 2006)

I am not arguing the importance of increased medical skills for the trade. I believe the trade is getting away from the military portion of it's training. For all the money being spent on PCP and bridging I sure hope there is a clear direction for the trade. To me the Med Tech trade is still unsure what standard of training it should follow. Civilian qualifications are great but the Med Techs should also be experts in tactical trauma care.


----------



## medicineman (29 Sep 2006)

This argument has been going on since I joined the Reg Force 18 something years ago, was going on prior to that and has been the entire time I've been in.  It was a miracle that PA's managed to get it - and despite all the arguing, they were the only ones that did get it (except 6A PMed Sgts and above).  

On a personal level, I find it difficult to believe that a person who fixes computers and electronics gets specialist pay, but if they screw something up, e-mail is down for a bit and we actually have to get off our butts and got talk to someone or pick up a phone.  I screw up, I can kill someone or worse, but that' s pretty much ok I guess (I know it's a bit simplistic, but not far off the mark).

I've taken ATLS, have taught TCCC and believe me there is no comparison.  One is medicine in fairly well controlled setting and the other is the opposite.  I found I didn't get alot of extra tools in my tool kit out of ATLS for combat use - other than a few novel ways of getting IV fluid into people and putting in chest tubes (which I won't be doing while under fire - somewhere safer) and surgical airways - the anaesthetist basically didn't even let us think about trying anything useful like RSI or even difficult intubations, as he felt only the gas passers should be doing that.  It did give me some extra assessment tools, but again, alot still related to me being in a controlled sitution with at least a rudiment of "basic" things like X-Ray and that sort of thing.  As far as point of injury treatment and assessment, again nothing I learned in the hospital would change how I deal with someone under fire.  If you want something like ATLS for combat, you need to take the OEMS course offered to special ops guys which is ATLS from Hell - it's designed for a more austere environment and makes people think on their toes a little more (oems.org).

Medics are now required, regardless of environment, to do SQ - which is a good step in the right direction.  Now they need to add more field medical techniques training at the school - TCCC as a start, among other things.

This argument is going to go on for ever and a day about our pay scale as Med Techs - fact is Treasury Board doesn't think that medics should be considered a specialist pay MOC.  It could be as simple as a bad presentation when it's taken up or that, as far as skills and knowledge requirements brought to the table, we are on par with our bretheren in the combat arms - which is exactly how it was explained to me as the explanation as to why medics aren't a specialist trade.

Rambling ends ... for now.

MM


----------



## Armymedic (29 Sep 2006)

Should Med Techs get Spec pay?

From QL 5 Med Tech (Cpl rank) and up, absolutely.

What do we have to do to get it? Well that is quite a long story, but it is being worked on. Med Techs were turned down for spec pay a couple yrs ago, and the recommendations for the next application are being implemented so that future applications will hopefully be successful.

If you are doing a comparison of a civ paramedic with a military med tech, remember PCP is one of the BASIC trade qualifications for a med tech. Our job is much more medicine then the monkey medicine prehospital skills entail.


----------



## xo31@711ret (29 Sep 2006)

Just from an 'old' 6A med "tech" who recently retired after 24+ years service ( first 6 infantry, last 18 med a). We've been hearing since the 80's that med A's / techs were getting spec pay & it was always 'just around the corner'; finally it came (for 6B's / WO's; old and new). I hope it happens for the rest, especially for those just entering the trade - but my cynical side can't see it happening soon ( I truly hope that I'm wrong). For those of us a bit 'long in the tooth', don't you find it ironic that when we were young cpls working for example, as company med A's that (in the field) we: diagnosed; treated injuries; prescribed 'basic' meds (eg, antibiotics / T1's & 2's); sutured (minor injuries); IVed when necessary; given the responsibility to set up / run / triage a CCP (casualty collection point), etc, etc. But as time went by / policies changed: for example, as a SNR NCO in charge of a MIR or TMT room, and supervising anywhere from 3 to 20 junior pers, that clinically we basically screen only and make recommendations before seeking further clarification (eg from a MO). Basically from a clinical point of view, we were able to do more as a young jnr med a, than could as a SNR NCO med tech due to policies. I realize that in the long run it probably is for the better, but sometimes I feel that something was lost on the way during the transitional period of 'mil trade to-equal-civ-counterpart.
Just my 2 cents

-gerry


----------



## Armymedic (29 Sep 2006)

And thanks to that lack of universal standards previously, we now have the restrictions on what we can do today.

Now we write standardized tests to pass prior giving out drugs, and have a maintenance of compentancy to maintain our skills.

(PS-the only thing a properly trained Coy medic can't do today is Rx antibiotics.)


----------



## medicineman (29 Sep 2006)

I always used to laugh at nurses who told me I couldn't do something because I didn't have a license - I promptly told them what I was doing was a delegated medical act, which, being under a physician's license, doesn't actually require one of me.  I'd then remind them that some of the things they were "licensed" to do in Ontario for instance, were in fact delegated MEDICAL acts as well - IV's, well any kind of injection actually (according to the Ontario College of Physicians and Surgeons), suturing and so on.  One of our civvy docs in Kingston was quite adamant about the delegation - he carried around a copy of what a physician was in fact allowed to delegate and how to do it as well.  The PCRI people didn't like him much.  This is what happens when people start letting nurses rule the roost  :   >.

From my not so schizo side, I have a sneaking suspicion that unless we hire a professional seller to present this to the TB, our junior techs are once again going to lose out on something we all know they deserve - recognition for what they do and how they do it.

MM


----------



## DartmouthDave (1 Oct 2006)

Hello,

Civilian PCP pay isn't that great in general. According to the DND homepage regular force NCM start at 30K and reach 50K in 5 years.  Very few PCP make much more than 30K let alone 50K.  I figure 50K a year is around $25hr or so civilian side.  Find a PCP job that pay this, good luck.  A friend of mine with 5 years  as an ACP for a large Alberta city service made 55k.  (7 years experience....2 years as aPCP and 5 as an ACP) 

ACP pay is an other matter.  The same for CCP pay.  I don't think one could argue that a jr Med-A has the same training and skill that these individuals possess.  However, throw in the other skills a med-a must know  (i.e. field craft, comms equipment, small arms, ect....) and I feel this would support the need for specialist pay.

Alas, soon it will only be the CBT arms that will not get specialist pay  

As for the ugly 'I have a license' argument......

For the CF license for a med-a isn't required.  The CF has mean to address poor patient care that a civilian service doesn't.  A licence allows a mean of dealing with patient care issues outside of the union and employer.  No licence...can't work....dosen't matter what the union says.

David


----------



## old medic (1 Oct 2006)

A full time PCP in Ontario starts at around 61K. That is based on 12 hour shifts full time at 28 dollars per hour. 
28 / hour is fairly low, a large number of Ontario PCP's are in the 30.00 dollar range, and next year the pay rate
in Durham Region for a PCP will be $35.30.  (77000.00 / year)
Source: http://www.ottawaparamedics.ca/misc/2005-07-05_PCPwages.pdf

I would strongly advocate spec pay at the QL3 level.  I believe It would greatly help retension.


----------



## Armymedic (1 Oct 2006)

old medic said:
			
		

> I would strongly advocate spec pay at the QL3 level.  I believe It would greatly help retension.



Can't happen. The CF does not all anyone to get spec pay until you are a Cpl.


----------



## old medic (1 Oct 2006)

Gotcha. Still problematic however if we loose good people.


----------



## Donut (1 Oct 2006)

David, funny you should mention pay.

I was in Nova Scotia the other week, and I was genuinely shocked by how little PCP's make there; I was really shocked to discover that I, as a junior part-time PCP, am making more then a NS ACP per hour.  Several services in Ontario make more then that, too.

Now, factor in cost of living and all that...but most BC Paramedics don't live in Vancouver, which is where everyone bases their cost of living estimates on.  

In BC it's kind of like the regs, in that you'll live in some places where it's dirt cheap, and others that are grotesquely overpriced; the pay will stay the same, and you hope to come out ahead at the end of the day.  Lots of us also commute rediculous distances to our stations.  I consider myself lucky in that I'm only about 75 minutes from my station (Whistler) to home (North Vancouver). 

Interestingly, dispatchers here start at the ALS pay rate, about $75K.  

But I digress.

My CO took a report I wrote to 1HSG about HS recruiting, and one of my points is that we're not competitive, salary-wise, with our civi counterparts.  I find it really hard to attract PCP to join when we're offering them about 50% of a day's wage compared to the competition.  I won't comment on the average pay for PCP's nationally, but here we're behind the curve next to our contemporaries, and spec pay might go a little ways to address that.

I will wade in and comment that I find it curious that so many Med Techs have such a narrow view of EMS work, and consider their (the Military) "additional" skills so, well, additional.  I suspect it's based on what they see on their on-car sessions, the driver drives, so far as they see, and the attendant just attends.  

I suspect they're not realizing the 14 communities, 4 trauma centers, 7 other hospitals, MPDS codes, datahead operations, flight ops, SAR, HAZMAT, CBRN, Auto Ex, psych resources, corrections and detention facilities etc both those paramedics have to be intimately familiar with.  It's not just driving to the scene and taking sick people to the hospital (Taking really sick people to the hospital slightly faster) as much as we might joke it is.

Well, that's my digression for a Saturday night.

DF


----------



## Armymedic (1 Oct 2006)

As a Sgt 2, I earn roughly $56,600 a yr gross.

I do not know of too many paramedics outside of the big 3 provinces who make such after 10 yrs. But if you work in the Reg CF, the money you can make moonlighting (against regulations) is pretty good, apparently.



			
				ParaMedTech said:
			
		

> I will wade in and comment that I find it curious that so many Med Techs have such a narrow view of EMS work, and consider their (the Military) "additional" skills so, well, additional.  I suspect it's based on what they see on their on-car sessions, the driver drives, so far as they see, and the attendant just attends.
> 
> I suspect they're not realizing the 14 communities, 4 trauma centers, 7 other hospitals, MPDS codes, datahead operations, flight ops, SAR, HAZMAT, CBRN, Auto Ex, psych resources, corrections and detention facilities etc both those paramedics have to be intimately familiar with.  It's not just driving to the scene and taking sick people to the hospital (Taking really sick people to the hospital slightly faster) as much as we might joke it is.



How many paramedics does it take to set up, administer, operate and support a walk in clinic? How many paramedics work on a Med/Surg floor or ICU? ... 

Which in this discussion means that we should be paid better then our civilian counterparts


----------



## DartmouthDave (5 Oct 2006)

Hello,

EMS pay in Canada varies greatly with Ontario and BC and the top end for pay. Now, the USA has LOW pay for EMS!!  A friend of mine make hardly anything!!

The CF needs to raise pay in order to be competitive in Central and Western Canada.  Form my experience, it seems that a large percentage of the CF is from the East!!

I feel that an influx of civilian medical professionals could help the CFMS greatly.  For example, recruit experienced RNs (ICU,ER,ect) as direct entry officer rather than ROTP RN that graduate school and have limited experience.  The same for PCP and ACP. They could bring new ideas and more experience to the mix.

Now, I am not trying to say that the CF isn't capable of training and maintining highly skilled medical staff.  What I am saying is higher pay will bring in people that have many of the needed medical skills and only require military skills.  In effect, a new med-a could be ready to deploy faster than sending somebody through basic, then med-a training, and then time need to gain hands on clinical experience.

Thank you,
David


----------



## Stokers_Rule (29 Jan 2007)

Technically when Stokers get their Tech (QL5) course you change trades from 00121 to 00122 and when you get your Cert 3, 00122 to 00123.  It's like this for most trades I assume.  From what I understand if you change trades (IE remuster or OT) you were supposed to drop incentives.  Some clown somewhere applied it to us and here we are, trade changed on paper and that's all that matters to someone making policy in Ottawa.  Apparently there is a plan afoot to change the policy so it doesn't apply to trades that are simply progressing.  We'll see.

This is how I understand it, pretty sure I got what I was told right, but maybe not.


----------



## PO2FinClk (4 Feb 2007)

CBI 204.30 para 5
http://www.dnd.ca/dgcb/cbi/engraph/home_e.asp?sidesection=6&Section=204.30&sidecat=21&Chapter=204#204.30


> (5) (Rate of pay – voluntary occupational transfer to a higher trade group) A non-commissioned member who voluntarily transfers after March 2002 to a military occupation in a higher trade group, under such conditions as established in orders or instructions issued by the Chief of the Defence Staff, shall be paid the rate of pay established for the pay increment for the member’s rank, pay level and new trade group *that is nearest to, but not less than, the rate of pay the member was receiving on the day immediately prior* to the member’s transfer, but not to exceed the rate of pay for the highest pay increment in the new rank and trade group.


Now although the situations listed above do not entail a change in MOC, rather only a change in qualification, the same principle is applied.

In short, NO IPC IS TAKEN AWAY, rather you are being bumped to the next nearest pay rate level as spec 1, which coincides with the IPC level.

These chnages in policy stem from the "Pay Simplification" conmpleted a few years ago. For those who wish to read through the shlew of explanations, I provide you with the links below:

Internet:
http://www.forces.gc.ca/hr/cfpn/engraph/06_02_paystructure_e.asp

Intranet (DIN - Baseline):
http://admfincs.mil.ca/rpsr/sops/aideMemoireVer1_e.pdf


----------



## Navy_Blue (16 Feb 2007)

This is up to the treasury board now.

after you are in its question 2


http://admfincs.mil.ca/ccps/faq/intro_e.asp?sel=ccps&topic=1

We did not voluntarily change therefore if things go as planed we will maintain our incentives after our re muster.

My fingers are crossed...


----------



## PMedMoe (11 Sep 2007)

This came up today, more of a curiosity thing than a real-life story:

If someone is in a Spec pay trade, however for whatever reason, they are unable to do their job (but have not changed MOC), do they still get Spec pay?
For example, someone on SPHL, doing an admin job.


----------



## dapaterson (11 Sep 2007)

Spec pay is paid to members of a trade group, regardless of where they are employed.  It differes from certain allowances (Sub allowance, AIrcrew allowance) in that it isn't tied to a speicific position.


----------



## PMedMoe (11 Sep 2007)

That's kind of what I figured, I just wondered where the justification was in continuing to pay them at Spec level when they are no longer employed in the same capability.


----------



## Inch (11 Sep 2007)

It's the same with pilots, as long as you're able to be posted back to a flying position, you still get pilot pay.


----------



## niceasdrhuxtable (11 Sep 2007)

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> That's kind of what I figured, I just wondered where the justification was in continuing to pay them at Spec level when they are no longer employed in the same capability.



I think it would become a bureaucratic nightmare to administer it otherwise. You'd have to look at every billet a trade has and determine which of them require "spec" skills and which don't. Then you'd inevitably have all the grievances from members of the same trade wanting to know why xxx position doesn't get spec pay when it was the same skills as xxx position which does get spec pay. Finally, it would definitely make some postings extremely unpopular if you lost your spec pay to fill a billet. In our case where we collect aircrew allowance and sea pay, I can't imagine having to lose your spec pay as well because you went to fill a job at CFLRS or some other out of trade posting.


----------



## PMedMoe (12 Sep 2007)

I'm talking about someone who would be no longer working in their trade at all.  I can understand if a Spec level pay person went to work at a Recruiting Centre as they are still able to perform the job for which they get the pay for.  But if a person is no longer able (medically, psychologically, etc) to actually work in said trade, should they still get Spec pay?


----------



## Inch (12 Sep 2007)

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> I'm talking about someone who would be no longer working in their trade at all.  I can understand if a Spec level pay person went to work at a Recruiting Centre as they are still able to perform the job for which they get the pay for.  But if a person is no longer able (medically, psychologically, etc) to actually work in said trade, should they still get Spec pay?



I think if you're no longer able to work in your spec pay trade, you would have a forced remuster and you would lose your spec pay. I can't say for sure though, I know that's what happens with pilots.


----------



## garb811 (12 Sep 2007)

This is akin to the debate about allowances and members injured in Afghanistan.  Should a member be financially penalized for reasons over which they (usually) have no control?

In the big scheme of things, the amount involved is chump change and as one of the goals of SPHL should be to bring the member back to full duty, the blow to the morale of the member isn't worth it.  People feel bad enough about being "dumped" into SPHL by units in order to free up the position to have a healthy body posted in, lets not make it worse.  While admittedly rarer than it should be, people do occasionally fight their way out of the pit which is SPHL and become productive members of the CF again.


----------



## armyvern (12 Sep 2007)

garb811 said:
			
		

> While admittedly rarer than it should be, people do occasionally fight their way out of the pit which is SPHL and become productive members of the CF again.



They do!! And it is indeed rare. One of my Cpls worked her butt off to come back from some serious injuries from a tour accident. In her final year of being "accomodated," she finally overcame the last hurdles. It was extremely hard work, but she was very dedicated ... and I'm glad to see her out and about still, kicking butt, and promoted to boot.

She certainly earned it.


----------



## PMedMoe (13 Sep 2007)

garb811 said:
			
		

> This is akin to the debate about allowances and members injured in Afghanistan.  Should a member be financially penalized for reasons over which they (usually) have no control?



Here's a scenario, based on Spec pay being awarded by rank:
Person X                                          Person Y
QL6A                                               QL6A
Sgt                                                 MCpl
Employed outside trade                       Employed in trade
Spec pay                                         No Spec pay

How is this scenario fair?  I agree, it's not person X's fault they cannot work, however, it's not person Y's fault the Spec pay is based on rank.


----------



## Sig_Des (13 Sep 2007)

Moe, if I read you right, you're leaning towards making spec pay something akin to jump pay.

Specifically, if you're not working in that position, you don't get that pay.

If that's what you're saying...I dig it


----------



## PMedMoe (13 Sep 2007)

Sig_Des said:
			
		

> Moe, if I read you right, you're leaning towards making spec pay something akin to jump pay.
> Specifically, if you're not working in that position, you don't get that pay.



Not necessarily, as I mentioned above, someone could be posted to a recruiting centre or CFLRS and should still receive the Spec pay as they are still employable in their trade.
Or make the Spec pay based on *qualification* vs *rank*.  For example, for the PAs (Physician's Asst) the Spec pay is based on rank (WO).  IIRC, the people on the course, get their WO rank at the end of the first year, as long as they meet all the requirements.  After all, it's all about rentention, isn't it?


----------



## armyvern (13 Sep 2007)

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> Not necessarily, as I mentioned above, someone could be posted to a recruiting centre or CFLRS and should still receive the Spec pay as they are still employable in their trade.
> Or make the Spec pay based on *qualification* vs *rank*.  For example, for the PAs (Physician's Asst) the Spec pay is based on rank (WO).  IIRC, the people on the course, get their WO rank at the end of the first year, as long as they meet all the requirements.  After all, it's all about rentention, isn't it?



OK,

I understand what you've said above, but then couldn't the arguement then be made that:

Basing it upon *qualification* (as you've said above): is anyone Basic Para qualified and who is still employable in a jump position eligible to keep their jump pay?? (I know the answer is no). 

They don't decide where they are posted to either (by the same token that the other guy doesn't get to decide his rank -- uhmm ranked is earned via merit BY the individual though) ... and they don't decide what position they fill either; they go where the service deems them necessary, and that's not necessarily into a Jump Coy or CPC. But they lose it when they are not actually doing the job, which is not necessarily through any action that was preventable by themselves. 

That's bad for retention too. It's the exact same scenario ... only on a smaller scale.

I see problems with the way it works no matter which way it's based on; neither is fool-proof and either way, someone is going to end up unhappy with it ... due to circumstances of qualifications, posting location, or rank which was entirely out of their personal control.


----------



## PMedMoe (13 Sep 2007)

Good point Vern.  Although isn't Jump Pay an allowance like flight pay and only allocated per position?
I know, there's no way to make everyone happy.  There's people that remuster and get Spec pay before they're even qaulified.



			
				ArmyVern said:
			
		

> rank is earned via merit BY the individual though



And we all know the PER system is _so fair_.  :
The PER is not just who is getting written up, it's also who's doing the writing.


----------



## armyvern (13 Sep 2007)

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> Good point Vern.  Although isn't Jump Pay an allowance like flight pay and only allocated per position?
> I know, there's no way to make everyone happy.  There's people that remuster and get Spec pay before they're even qaulified.
> 
> And we all know the PER system is _so fair_.  :
> The PER is not just who is getting written up, it's also who's doing the writing.



Yes Jump Pay is an operational/enviornmental allowance in that sense ...

But then, so was that overseas operational allowance. Just one short year ago one had to be in the position overseas doing the job to collect it. Through _no fault of the soldiers_ injured, that was changed and they now collect the appropriate sum (under a different area) based upon the dates they _would_ have been in-theatre collecting the operational allowances. 

So, in essence, what I'm getting at is that, through no fault of their own: posting posn/injury (sometimes caused by doing their jobs jumping in the first place), there are others who _lose_ the benefits of their operational allowances; the difference is: it just happens to be happening to them when they're here in Canada vice deployed. 

Same thing, smaller scale, and not in the media or the public eye.

_Edited to add:_  And, I have a hard time reconciling the fact that a jumper injured in Canada and therefore removed from a jump position would lose his jump pay, without question, because he is no longer in a jump position through no fault of his own ... yet it is deemed acceptable to pay someone spec pay when they are not in a spec position (through no fault of their own).

And, yes the PER system is sometimes unfair...but then again, sometimes all isn't well when one is selected to attend certain qualifications either. There is most certainly bias that occurs in course selection (ergo the qualification based spec pay) as well.


----------



## PMedMoe (13 Sep 2007)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> And, yes the PER system is sometimes unfair...but then again, sometimes all isn't well when one is selected to attend certain qualifications either. There is most certainly bias that occurs in course selection (ergo the qualification based spec pay) as well.



Actually, in our trade, the QL6A is a merit listed course.  There are a few that have done it without being merited, by replacing a no-show, for example.


----------



## armyvern (13 Sep 2007)

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> Actually, in our trade, the QL6A is a merit listed course.  There are a few that have done it without being merited, by replacing a no-show, for example.



That's exactly it. But isn't that merit list is also the same one that's based upon those (biased??) PER write-ups that decide who does/doesn't get promoted (in my trade it is)?


----------



## PMedMoe (13 Sep 2007)

True.  Boy, I'm glad I have a common-sense person like you to explain things to dopey me!!  ;D


----------



## garb811 (13 Sep 2007)

I also have the situation where I have a 15 year Cpl with his JLC and a 6 year MS without his PLQ.  One gets the extra $, one doesn't...



			
				PMedMoe said:
			
		

> There's people that remuster and get Spec pay before they're even qaulified.


I thought they fixed that loophole?


----------



## armyvern (13 Sep 2007)

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> True.  Boy, I'm glad I have a common-sense person like you to explain things to dopey me!!  ;D



It's not dopiness!!  

I have no common sense either. It's just me doubting that there is a way to do this that someone else wouldn't view as unfair.

I see the point about spec pay being collected while they can do their jobs (but are posted elsewhere through no part of their own), but same thing happens to jumpers etc who can still DO the job but just aren't posted into that position; They lose that allowance because they are not posted into an applicable position even though they are still able to be.

Same thing for people who can't do their jobs due to injury. The troops in Afghanistan who still collect due to being injured through no fault of their own ... is also akin to those jumpers etc losing their allowances because they were injured doing their jobs here in Canada, but they lose theirs.

No one will ever be happy, no matter which way they do it. That sucks.


WOW!!! Garb ... 6 years as a MS with no PLQ?? There's a whole 'nother story behind that, I'm quite sure. So, why's the rank still on him??


----------



## garb811 (13 Sep 2007)

Ooopps!  Not time in rank, time in.  The Cpl's been in for 15 years, the MS has been in for 6 years.

Sorry for the confusion!   :-[


----------



## PO2FinClk (13 Sep 2007)

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> There's people that remuster and get Spec pay before they're even qaulified.





			
				garb811 said:
			
		

> I thought they fixed that loophole?


Yes, they did through the "Pay Simplification Process", it has been discussed at length in other threads.


----------



## armyvern (13 Sep 2007)

garb811 said:
			
		

> Ooopps!  Not time in rank, time in.  The Cpl's been in for 15 years, the MS has been in for 6 years.
> 
> Sorry for the confusion!   :-[



Same question: 2 years TIR and still no PLQ?? What's up with that?? Extended into the 3rd year of a Compassionate posting (I think not as then he couldn't have been promoted on that status either)?? Pre-deployment trg/deployment scenario taking up all his time the past 2 years?? _Edited to add:_ an out of country posting that they can't _possibly_ send him back from to attend the course is a possibility, although I did have one of those guys on my ILQ with me.


----------



## garb811 (13 Sep 2007)

The MS only got promoted this APS, so he's kinda slow in our trade given today's standards and I'm pretty disappointed in him. 

The Branch brings people back from overseas postings for career courses now.  It was causing too many problems by not bringing them back (ie. people release on return while A/L, people are merited high enough to be promoted while still A/L in the current rank etc).  While it is possible to defer for a little bit of time, there's no more putting off career courses for the entire 4 years someone is at an Embassy, GK or SHAPE.


----------



## armyvern (13 Sep 2007)

;D

Seen.

I knew there was a story.


----------



## Inch (13 Sep 2007)

You guys are confusing operational/environmental allowances and vested pay. Environmental allowances cease when the member is no longer posted to a position that is eligible to collect the environmental allowance. Spec pay and Pilot pay (in essence Spec pay for pilots), are trade based and are actual pay rates. _One is pensionable, one is not. _ 

You can argue till the cows come home about who gets it and what their qualifications are, but it's all decided in Ottawa based on what a particular person with a defined skill set (and sometimes medical category) would be making in the public sector.

So, a pilot in a designated flying position is eligible for aircrew allowance and pilot pay, once posted out of a flying position, aircrew allowance ceases but pilot pay does not. If you lose your med cat and are no longer fit for pilot, it's a forced remuster and you lose your pilot pay. The same goes for AESOps, they get Spec 1 and aircrew allowance until they're posted to a non-flying position in which case they lose their aircrew allowance but keep their Spec 1 since they still meet the requirements to be an AESOp.


----------



## PO2FinClk (13 Sep 2007)

Inch summed it up very nicely, and what he states about Aircrew Allowance is the same for Sea Duty Allowance.

PS: The very same rationale will, and is, also be applied to the Field Environment Allowance. In fact they are in the process of determining those positions entitled to receive FEA on a continuous basis (60 days of FOA throughout the year on a continuous basis will entitle FEA).


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (13 Sep 2007)

Very nice to see the guys and gals in green getting the same allowances as we do in the Air Force and the Navy. A long time overdue IMHO.


----------



## dapaterson (13 Sep 2007)

There's work underway now to identify time posted to field units in the past; just like air and sea allowances, the new field allowance will increase with time served - and there will be credit for past service.  So everyone will not start at the same point on day one... a nice reward for the folks with the most time in field units.


----------



## armyvern (14 Sep 2007)

Inch said:
			
		

> You guys are confusing operational/environmental allowances and vested pay. Environmental allowances cease when the member is no longer posted to a position that is eligible to collect the environmental allowance. Spec pay and Pilot pay (in essence Spec pay for pilots), are trade based and are actual pay rates. _One is pensionable, one is not. _



We didn't confuse them. We actually pointed out that jump pay fell under the Operational/enviornmental allowances and also that one must be IN the position to collect them.

But, it was also pointed out that those tax-free operational allowances in Afghanistan once were the EXACT same way. And, the CF managed to fix that no?? Why can't they fix the other operational/enviornmental allowances that see jumpers etc who are injured doing their jobs (thus removed from the 'entitled' position number) and who also lose their allowance due to circumstances beyond their control??

I think that was the point ... 

It doesn't seem quite right or "fair" that it is OK to take away an allowance from someone injured during the performance of their job because they require to be removed from that position due to injury, yet it is allowable to allow others to collect spec pay etc when they are not employed in a specific spec position doing that spec job. Neither person is out of that position through any fault of their own ... yet only one loses the benefits of that position. The guys medevaced from theatre used to too, but that's been corrected.


----------



## Inch (14 Sep 2007)

Vern, 

Spec pay and environmental allowances are very different beasts. Jumper is not a trade, it has no MOC/MOSID nor is the allowance pensionable, neither is aircrew, sea duty, foreign service, etc. When you are no longer employed in a position that is entitled to an environmental allowance, you shouldn't get it anymore. Getting Spec pay when posted out of your field is entirely different than losing jump pay when posted out of a para coy.

When I am posted out of 423 Sqn, I will take a pay cut, period. I will lose my sea pay and my aircrew allowance when I go to a non-flying position. And the fact of the matter is while you may not be flying, turning wrenches or fixing things, you can still be employed in a job that requires your _expertise but not your skills_, hence the reason you keep Spec/Pilot pay.

If you let everyone keep sea pay, aircrew allowance, etc just because they were posted, why not just jack up the pay rates and eliminate allowances altogether? But that would defeat the purpose of the allowances wouldn't it? Allowances exist to compensate you for your working conditions, flying is inherently dangerous, thus we get aircrew allowance when in a flying position. Sailing is also dangerous and uncomfortable, so we get sea pay to compensate us for that, something someone working in an orderly room doesn't have to put up with usually.

For the record, people don't lose their sea pay, or aircrew allowance for being on a TCat, I'm not sure the time required before you lose environmental allowances but I would guess if you're on TCat for less than 6 months you would keep it. I can't say for jumpers but I doubt that their jump pay ceases the moment they break an ankle. 

My understanding of the foreign service pay, risk and hazard allowances that the injured guys in Afghanistan are allowed to keep is only the amount that they would have gotten had they stayed in theatre. It doesn't continue indefinitely.


----------



## armyvern (14 Sep 2007)

Inch said:
			
		

> My understanding of the foreign service pay, risk and hazard allowances that the injured guys in Afghanistan are allowed to keep is only the amount that they would have gotten had they stayed in theatre. It doesn't continue indefinitely.



I absolutely 100% agree with your post. But in the case above ... those amounts they are now collecting for the time they would have been in theatre were also originally intended for:



> Allowances exist to compensate you for your working conditions,



It was changed as the soldiers were injured through no fault of their own and thus were losing that operational allowance (that was based upon them being actually employed in that op position doing the job). So jumpers are, let's say, normally posted into a jump posn for a 3 year stint (I think that's still the "agreement" when you request that basic para course ... 3 years service with a jump coy etc), why not then, when they are injured ... continue to pay them their jump pay for whatever remains of that 3 year period the same way those injured in Afghanistan are now compensated for money they lose due to injury?? There are parallels.

The period of time may be longer in the case above than that of an Op tour, but the monies are of significantly smaller amounts as well.

There will never be an easy way to accomplish any of this, and what others see as "fair," others do not. That will always be the case. They have to leave soldiers with something to bitch about ... or else soldiers would have nothing to bitch about and that is a pre-req for soldiers.


----------



## PO2FinClk (14 Sep 2007)

No one here is arguing that Pay and Allowances are one in the same - quite to the contrary. 

What is being stated is that the rationale which was employed to secure allowances for pers unable to continue to serve in the qualifying conidtions could be employed in a similar manner to "above base" pay.

6 1/2 Dozen


----------



## armyvern (14 Sep 2007)

PO2FinClk said:
			
		

> No one here is arguing that Pay and Allowances are one in the same - quite to the contrary.
> 
> What is being stated is that the rationale which was employed to secure allowances for pers unable to continue to serve in the qualifying conidtions could be employed in a similar manner to "above base" pay.
> 
> 6 1/2 Dozen



No, it was used as a basis for showing that if it were to be based upon "qualification" that it would still be found to be unfair by some.


----------



## armyvern (14 Sep 2007)

silver said:
			
		

> This discussion makes no sense. As everyone pretty much agreed already allowances and pay rates are entirely different.
> 
> I am in a spec 1 trade and I am also qualified basic para. I didn't receive my spec pay until I was a QL5 qualified Cpl, also I'm not in a jump position now so I only receive the casual Para allowance when I jump.
> 
> ...



I guess you missed the "jumper injured doing their job" part right?? In comparing it being OK to then take their allowance operational allowance away because of that injury. This used to happen to our injured in Afghanistan too (ie they also lost their operational allowances when injured and removed from the "entitled position" ... until the CF fixed it!!

So, like was said earlier ... you see that as fair. Others don't. It's the exact same situation on a smaller scale, but doesn't garner the media attention (also pointed out earlier).


----------



## navychick77 (4 Oct 2007)

Below are a few links on Spec pay and a newsletter outlining Specialist pay and how it works, one of the quotes below fm the article. 

The CF does not pay personnel based on individual qualifications, but on the requirements of the occupation. In order to receive Specialist Pay, the majority of personnel in a Specialist Pay occupation must be doing jobs that score in the Specialist Pay range in accordance with the CFTEP methodology.  


http://www.forces.gc.ca/hr/cfpn/engraph/7_06/7_06_dgcb_spec-pay_e
http://www.forces.gc.ca/dgcb/dppd/pay/engraph/specpay_article_e.a


Hope this helps a bit. 

Cheers


----------



## PO2FinClk (4 Oct 2007)

Those with Baseline access can find all the relavent directives to the re-administration of Spec Pay at this link:
http://www.forces.gc.ca/dgcb/dppd/pay/engraph/SpecPay_e.asp?sidesection=3

Happy reading.


----------



## PMedMoe (4 Oct 2007)

I read the part about not getting Spec pay until one was qualified (regardless if they held the rank).  What about personnel who have the qualification but not the rank (when Spec pay is based on rank)?


----------



## PO2FinClk (4 Oct 2007)

Question is a bit vague PMedJoe, but if a Pte holds the QL5 qual, he does not get Spec as there are no provisions for Spec pay for Pte's.


----------



## Klinkaroo (27 Feb 2008)

I was just currious and have spent exactly an hour and a half searching and googling thru the QR&O and the CBI and just can't seem to get anywhere... just keeps throwing me back and forth... Does anyone have a nice list of the trades to make life easier for me?


----------



## 211RadOp (27 Feb 2008)

Klinkaroo said:
			
		

> I was just currious and have spent exactly an hour and a half searching and googling thru the QR&O and the CBI and just can't seem to get anywhere... just keeps throwing me back and forth... Does anyone have a nice list of the trades to make life easier for me?



If you go here there is an excel spreadsheet with all the trades and the spec lvl.


----------



## blacktriangle (27 Feb 2008)

Spec pay is a fair chunk of change.

If you're looking to OT, don't base it just off of who makes more money. Trust me- I almost got talked into a spec pay trade by a recruiter, but now realize its not worth the extra money (which doesn't start until QL5/ Cpls)  to give up what I really want to do in the CF. There's plenty of higher paying jobs elsewhere if you need the money above all else...


----------



## infamous_p (27 Feb 2008)

Perhaps <a href="http://www.dnd.ca/hr/dgcb/dppd/pay/engraph/2006PerformanceRegFPay_e.asp?sidesection=3&sidecat=28"><b><i>this</i></b></a> will help a bit?


----------



## Klinkaroo (27 Feb 2008)

First off, for some reason that first link I get a Server not Found Error,

Second of all, Yeah I will never base my trade on the salary, one of the reasons I love the military is everyone is basically paid the same... I was just curious if something interested me if it was spec or not to see if I could make a budget with it...

Third off, Thanks I was looking for a website for the pay table, couldn't seem to find it before


----------



## Nfld Sapper (27 Feb 2008)

First link is avail only through the DWAN/DIN and not the internet.


----------



## BinRat55 (27 Feb 2008)

popnfresh said:
			
		

> Trust me- I almost got talked into a spec pay trade by a recruiter, but now realize its not worth the extra money (which doesn't start until QL5/ Cpls)



Really?  Now, see, I was under the impression that we had to remuster into all spec trades.  Can someone confirm the validity / non-validity of this thinking?  I went through the list and as far as I can see, there are no trades off the block that one would exit basic and enter spec world...


----------



## aesop081 (27 Feb 2008)

BinRat55 said:
			
		

> Really?  Now, see, I was under the impression that we had to remuster into all spec trades.



WRONG


----------



## Sig_Des (27 Feb 2008)

BinRat55 said:
			
		

> Really?  Now, see, I was under the impression that we had to remuster into all spec trades.  Can someone confirm the validity / non-validity of this thinking?  I went through the list and as far as I can see, there are no trades off the block that one would exit basic and enter spec world...



LCIS has direct entry, but as mentioned, doesn't get Spec Pay until member is QL5 qualified.

I do believe MP's get Spec pay after 3's, though.


----------



## blacktriangle (27 Feb 2008)

BinRat55 said:
			
		

> Really?  Now, see, I was under the impression that we had to remuster into all spec trades.  Can someone confirm the validity / non-validity of this thinking?  I went through the list and as far as I can see, there are no trades off the block that one would exit basic and enter spec world...



It would have been a re-muster for me, but that means nothing as you probably have kit older then me, nevermind time in!

Spec Pay seems to come in after QL5 qual's in alot of MOSID's, but I'm not sure on the details. The trade I was speaking of was LCIS Tech...

Heres something I found as well for those without DIN access: http://www.dnd.ca/dgcb/dppd/pay/engraph/payo2tg_e.asp?sidesection=3&sidecat=28


----------



## Marshall (27 Feb 2008)

i do not know if this is of any assistance now, but easy to read payscale sheets can be found here: http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/48593.0.html


----------



## Klinkaroo (29 Feb 2008)

Thanks popnfresh that was exactely the kind of thing I was looking for.

Thanks you all for the help


----------



## The_Falcon (29 Feb 2008)

BinRat55 said:
			
		

> Really?  Now, see, I was under the impression that we had to remuster into all spec trades.  Can someone confirm the validity / non-validity of this thinking?  I went through the list and as far as I can see, there are no trades off the block that one would exit basic and enter spec world...



A lot of naval trades and a few air trades, and of course MPs get spec pay, no prior service required.


----------



## PO2FinClk (1 Mar 2008)

BinRat55, have a look at the list, there are more direct entry trades then OT only Spec trades.


----------



## adaminc (9 Mar 2008)

I was just recently looking at the Regular Force Pay (NCM), the link is below. I was specifically looking at the Spec 1 pay levels since I will be joining up as LCIS, and I noticed that Pay Increment 4 for Pay Level 5A is $5003, however the Base Pay Increment for Pay Level 5B is $4855, so when you are promoted, you get paid less? or would you be pushed to Pay Increment 2 or 3 of Pay Level 5B?

http://64.254.158.112/pdf/RegularForcePay.pdf


----------



## aesop081 (9 Mar 2008)

adaminc said:
			
		

> I was just recently looking at the Regular Force Pay (NCM), the link is below. I was specifically looking at the Spec 1 pay levels since I will be joining up as LCIS, and I noticed that Pay Increment 4 for Pay Level 5A is $5003, however the Base Pay Increment for Pay Level 5B is $4855, so when you are promoted, you get paid less? or would you be pushed to Pay Increment 2 or 3 of Pay Level 5B?
> 
> http://64.254.158.112/pdf/RegularForcePay.pdf




if you go from 5A increment 4 and get promoted , you go to 5B increment 4.....not to base level


----------



## BinRat55 (9 Mar 2008)

Maybe someone here can clarify as to why, but we go from Cpl (pay increment 4) to MCpl - pay increment 4.  I honestly don't know why there is a 1,2,3 for MCpl (5B) - it migh have something to do with it being an appointment - or accellerations, i.e. you can't go from a Cpl 2 to a MCpl 4, you would go to a MCpl 2...


----------



## Klinkaroo (9 Mar 2008)

Yay I get to awnser this one 

It is because it is an appointement. If you we're a CPL increment 2 when you got you're promotion you would have got Mcpl icnrement 2. Because you are still a CPL you don't lose you years as a CPL...


----------



## axeman (9 Mar 2008)

Now when you remuster you don ot get spec pay till you get QL5  qual in your new trade. i was one that snuck in  right as they were closing the door. one class got it for the remusters one did not .  now the door is closed and you have to wait till your finished your 5's . ah the wheels of progress


----------



## PO2FinClk (10 Mar 2008)

Anyone who has any amount of time in ought to know that MCpl/MS is not a promotion but an appointment, even moreso one who has/had reached that rank. Also, anyone who has any time in ought to have the ability to research pubs to find answers to these questions as it is every CF members responsibility to do so and not simply rely on clerks to do it for them.

Now, a twist to this in the same breath as the information already provided, if a MCpl/MS is demoted, he/she goes down to Pte and not Cpl as you lose a rank and not an appintment. In the same breath, a Sgt who is demoted goes to Cpl as once again you lose a rank, any appointment does not factor in.


----------



## BinRat55 (11 Mar 2008)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Not Really.  Your profile says you should have the TI and experience to know the answer to the question you asked.



I have read some of your previous posts, and I really don't understand why you seem to feel it necessary to belittle the people who post here.  I'm not here to get into a pissing match with anyone here - over TI and knowledge of this or that.  That being said, I (unlike others in here) do NOT know it all.  If you read my post, I never actually ASKED anything - I merely stated that I couldn't answer the "why", whereas someone else better informed than I could have.  I was a Cpl alot longer than 4, so why on earth would I know why there is a MCpl level 2 or 3?  I actually asked the question once and the answer I received was not sufficient.  I believe at that time I was more involved with doing my job than wasting time finding an answer to a truly useless question (useless to me at the time...)

Make sense?

Mr. Wallace - nothing personal, but you don't need to be so... know-it-all ish.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (11 Mar 2008)

BinRat55 said:
			
		

> I have read some of your previous posts, and I really don't understand why you seem to feel it necessary to belittle the people who post here.  I'm not here to get into a pissing match with anyone here - over TI and knowledge of this or that.  That being said, I (unlike others in here) do NOT know it all.  If you read my post, I never actually ASKED anything - I merely stated that I couldn't answer the "why", whereas someone else better informed than I could have. * I was a Cpl alot longer than 4, so why on earth would I know why there is a MCpl level 2 or 3? * I actually asked the question once and the answer I received was not sufficient.  I believe at that time I was more involved with doing my job than wasting time finding an answer to a truly useless question (useless to me at the time...)
> 
> Make sense?
> 
> Mr. Wallace - nothing personal, but you don't need to be so... know-it-all ish.



Just a clarification on the part I bolded....you mean to tell me you never looked at a payguide at all to see what other ranks made?


----------



## RTaylor (11 Mar 2008)

If you want to find out, just go to the forces.ca webpage, login to the chat that happens every day and talk to the recruiter. They can tell you what you want to know


----------



## BinRat55 (12 Mar 2008)

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> Just a clarification on the part I bolded....you mean to tell me you never looked at a payguide at all to see what other ranks made?



Of course I have.  Reread your bolded in my post.  The word "Why" was used. Answer me this - "Why" are there only 4 increments in the Cpl rank and not 10? No, i'm not trying to be argumentative, just trying to prove a point.  I know "what" we get paid and I know the "structure" but what i'm saying is that I don't know "why" there are 3 increments in the MCpl rank / appointment...


----------



## RatCatcher (12 Mar 2008)

Some trades have other hitches. For PMed, as an example, you have to have your 6A and your Sgts to get the spec. Therefore you are MCpl 6A...No spec, you are Sgt 5B.... No spec.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (12 Mar 2008)

Sgt 5B would be *A/L* Sgt right?  

The best thing to do is look at the MOC Active List spreadsheet avail thru the very first link, which you must have access to the Intr*a*Net (DIN or DWAN access or whatever you prefer to call it) to be able to get to.


----------



## RatCatcher (12 Mar 2008)

Thats a mute point to the argument, 6A Masters still don't get the pay. IMHO for some trades it should be linked to QL level and not rank+trade level.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (12 Mar 2008)

What is a 5B Sgt then?   ;D  You could have said "Sgt, substantive".

Most of them link to rank and qual level.  You won't see an LCIS Tech or ATIS Tech Pte with his journeymen's getting spec pay either, has to be a Cpl w/QL5.  (Cpl, substantive).

Others, like AES Op, you have to have your QL5 and your MCpls to get spec pay.  MPs, you get your Cpls right out of CFLRS, and your spec pay after you complete the 3s course at the Academy.  I believe it is left up to each MA to determine the criteria for spec in their respective MOSIDs.


----------



## aesop081 (12 Mar 2008)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Others, like AES Op, you have to have your QL5 and your MCpls to get spec pay.



MCpl and MOAT/OTU qualified now to get paid in the specialist one category.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (12 Mar 2008)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> MCpl and MOAT/OTU qualified now to get paid in the specialist one category.



Seen.  I assumed (and just kicked myself for _that_) that you had to be complete trng (MOAT or OTU) to be promoted to MCpl.


----------



## aesop081 (12 Mar 2008)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Seen.  I assumed (and just kicked myself for _that_) that you had to be complete trng (MOAT or OTU) to be promoted to MCpl.



No to take this further off track but....

AES Op promotion to MCpl comes 12 months after the date of graduation from BAC wether or not one has completed MOAT/OTU.


----------



## Klinkaroo (9 Apr 2008)

Found this on the internet, thought it could help some people that we're looking at this post

http://www.dnd.ca/hr/cfpn/Engraph/7_06/7_06_dgcb_spec-pay_e.asp


----------



## Brew (13 Apr 2008)

Currently firefighter in the cf, new to the trade and heard plenty of rumours of firefighters recieving spec pay in the near future.. can anyone shed any light on this for me?


----------



## PO2FinClk (14 Apr 2008)

Nope, never heard anything about that.


----------



## Brew (23 Apr 2008)

currently a firefighter and wondering the status of firefighter spec pay?


----------



## yoeun (30 Oct 2008)

I went and took a look at the Spec pay sheet. I understand that as an AVS/AVN we do receive spec 1. Now the question is, under "Quals" it says Q5LA. What exactly is that?

So I take it, its not true being a Corporal, you don't receive Spec pay 1 immediately?

Can someone explain to me how quickly it would take for someone to come out of civie college and into AVS to get spec pay.

thanks!


----------



## aesop081 (30 Oct 2008)

You must be CPL QL5A to be paid according to the specialist 1 pay group.


----------



## yoeun (30 Oct 2008)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> You must be CPL QL5A to be paid according to the specialist 1 pay group.



Is QL5A an equivalent to a civilian license? Could you tell me how quickly it would take to get there and finish?


----------



## aesop081 (30 Oct 2008)

yoeun said:
			
		

> Is QL5A an equivalent to a civilian license? Could you tell me how quickly it would take to get there and finish?



I have no idea as i am not a tecnician.


----------



## cp140tech (30 Oct 2008)

yoeun said:
			
		

> Is QL5A an equivalent to a civilian license? Could you tell me how quickly it would take to get there and finish?


 
 It is not the same as a civilian license.  It is generally granted at the completion of apprenticeship training following your QL3 course. 

 Most techs have their QL5A completed before they are promoted to Cpl, so your spec pay will kick in as you get your Cpls.  Timing really depends on the fleet.


----------



## Klinkaroo (30 Oct 2008)

If you look at the pay tables you will see that a private does not receive spec pay... There is a "-" in the box. So Cpls and quals to get spec pay.


----------



## cp140tech (30 Oct 2008)

Who said anything about Ptes getting spec pay?  He just wants to know what QL5A means and how long to get it.


----------



## Klinkaroo (30 Oct 2008)

yoeun said:
			
		

> So I take it, its not true being a Corporal, you don't receive Spec pay 1 immediately?



He also asked if he needed his corporals to get spec pay or did he get it after just his QL5A.


----------



## cp140tech (30 Oct 2008)

Exactly, he's asking what is required for spec pay in addition to being a Cpl....  we're just distracting from the point of the thread now.  I'm done on this one.


----------



## Klinkaroo (30 Oct 2008)

Same, I could have misread.


----------



## childs56 (31 Oct 2008)

QL5 When you finished your on Type Aircraft Training. For Example you were finished your OT for The F18 for starts, parks etc. Any where from 6 months to a year after you finished your AVN Tech Training in Borden.


----------



## cp140tech (31 Oct 2008)

People posted into shops are granted a QL5 having never completed a type course.  
It used to be granted on completion of your rotation, but I'm not sure what they use now...  it hasn't been necessarily tied to type specific training in the units I've been employed in.  Things are always changing, it's really tough to say how long it can take.


----------



## strauss (4 Nov 2008)

There was some talk back in April about Firefighters getting spec pay. With the new 170+ day QL3 course just brought in, has there been an update on going to spec 1?


----------



## BiNkY (2 Jan 2009)

I've searched the archives and haven't found anything more recent than 2006 on this. 
I was talking to a CSOR dude in washington a couple weeks ago and he mentioned they are suppose to get their spec pay sometime soon, anywhere from $1800-3000. I know it has been sitting on the board for awhile, I wondering if anyone knows more about this.


----------



## dapaterson (2 Jan 2009)

Members of CSOR do not remuster to a new occupation.  Therefore, they will not receive spec pay - spec pay is assigned to specific occupations (like LCIS tech or SAR tech).  It is possible (and perhaps likely) that they will receive an allowance similar to SOA (CBI 205.401), as received by JTF-2 members.


----------



## Infanteer (2 Jan 2009)

I couldn't decipher the difference in that CBI between JTF2 allowance and SOA allowance - are the two mutually exclusive?  And am I correct in assuming that the difference between Table's A and B of the JTF2 Allowance are dependant on the position one fills in that unit?


----------



## 421_434_226 (2 Jan 2009)

I could see the SOA allowance for the personnel who actually fill those positions, although would the supporters not be entitled to LDA by virtue of the unit.


----------



## dapaterson (2 Jan 2009)

The CBI for the JTF 2 alowance reads (in part):



> (Entitlement) A member on eligible service is entitled to Joint Task Force 2 Allowance at the applicable monthly rate as set out in Table "A" or "B" to this instruction for the member's accumulated eligible service and Joint Task Force 2 category of service as designated by the Chief of the Defence Staff.



which suggests, to me, that there is a need to know document, issued under the authority of the CDS, that designates what you are entitled to.  Only folks who could give a perfect answer, though, are those who do the pers admin for folks entitled - and I suspect they aren't talking. (At least, I hope they're not).


There's nothing in the text for the SOA and JTF2 allowances that makes them mutually exclusive.  Thus, certain folks may be collecting both.  Again, only their hairdressers know for sure...


----------



## Infanteer (2 Jan 2009)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> There's nothing in the text for the SOA and JTF2 allowances that makes them mutually exclusive.  Thus, certain folks may be collecting both.  Again, only their hairdressers know for sure...



If barbers ever got together and decided to write a book.... >


----------



## Good2Golf (2 Jan 2009)

The CBI information available on DND's internet site indicates the separate nature of the environmental allowance (205.385) as a member of JTF 2, and the specialty allowance (205.401) as a qualified special operations assaulter.  205.401 notes that you may be eligible for the specialty allowance while not currently serving at the unit.

Infanteer, you're joking about there being a barber at the unit, right?   ;D


----------



## Nfld Sapper (2 Jan 2009)

Maybe he knows something that we don't G2G  ;D


----------



## Infanteer (2 Jan 2009)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Infanteer, you're joking about there being a barber at the unit, right?   ;D



Hey, someone has to be there to keep those wicked sideburns and handlebar mustaches in check.  Anyways, I read it in a book I got at Chapters with some cool pictures on the cover....


----------



## Good2Golf (2 Jan 2009)

True, only they seem to get away with sideburns that once used to be "the standard" (as in back when work dress and ascots were dress of the day)...oh for the good old days!


----------



## Armymedic (2 Jan 2009)

To answer the original question, CANSOF has pertitioned the Treasury Board for approval of allowances for CSOR along the same line and in accordance with JTF2/SOA remuneration. Members of CSOR do not earn any extra money beyond Para Allowance and the new FOA allowances at the present time.


----------



## dapaterson (2 Jan 2009)

Actually, CANSOF would to the CF authorities, and DGCB, part of CMP, would draft the documentation and go to TB.  No other L1s would go outside DND for pay and compensation issues.


----------



## The_Falcon (3 Jan 2009)

Yeah, basically good2golf covered it in regards to the JTF2 allowances.  I asked one of their recruiters about it, basically said the same thing the JTF2 Allowance is for all personnel employed in the unit (with the varying levels dependant on your job function), and the SOA allowance was, an additional allowance for the assualters (they get both, and if my memory is correct it was to try to provide an incentive to stay, rather than go work for a PMC back at the begining of OIF/OEF).


----------



## 421_434_226 (3 Jan 2009)

Thanks for the links Good2Golf, I now understand better how the JTF2 and SOA allowances would work, and how a similar allowance would most likely work for CSOR also.

edit: for clarity


----------



## NCRCrow (3 Jan 2009)

A question: If a volunteer of CSOR was a receiving spec pay for his trade. Would they still receive it as a member of CSOR. 

If CSOR makes the same money as JTF2 assaulter, what makes being at the Farm anymore elite. 

I do not think CSOR should be entitled to the same compensation as JTF2. My opinion and my experience.


----------



## PMedMoe (3 Jan 2009)

HFXCrow said:
			
		

> A question: If a volunteer of CSOR was a receiving spec pay for his trade. Would they still receive it as a member of CSOR.



Since spec pay is trade based and not unit based, I would say that yes, they still get it.


----------



## Good2Golf (3 Jan 2009)

HFX, as it stands now (confirmed by the publicly avail CBI's quoted earlier in the thread) there is neither a specific environmental allowance, nor a specific special allowance for members of CSOR.  All allowances are established taking into account numerous factors, policies, etc... so it would stand to reason that a CSOR environmental allowance and a CSOR assaulter special allowance, once/if established, would be be developed relative to CSOR's sister unit (i.e. similar in structure, but not the same amount.)

PMedMoe is right about the specialist (MOSID) pay, but also note that as per CBI 205.385(7), there are some cases where certain allowances (SAR Tech, Para, Aircrew, Dive, etc...) are forfeited while receiving JTF 2 environmental allowance (see earlier post link as well).

Cheers
G2G


----------



## NCRCrow (3 Jan 2009)

Thanks for the response. G2G

Now for a Naval Yarn:

It has been mentioned that at some meetings (Fleet Week etc.) that the Naval Boarding party should receive an additional allowance. The whole senior audience groaned in unison.

I just wonder where its going to stop? CSOR, DART, NBP, Scullery, GD?


----------



## Good2Golf (3 Jan 2009)

Some folks may groan because they imagine the administrative work it would take to establish, track, maintain, etc...  

Pulling back for the bigger picture, the test would be to determine if NBP meets the same test as the other environmental allowances, i.e. something that is performed by an identifiably large enough group, to a specific standard/qualification.  If it does, then one could suppose that a case could be made for such a qual and subsequent environmental allowance.

I don't know, is NBP training regimented strictly enough, to an established and identified standard, that it is currently a formal qualification (which all the other allowances are based on), or is it something more like 'damage control' training (not sure if I'm using the correct term) that isn't (or is it) based on an environmental qualification?  Knowing how other CF members qualify and train to specific MOSID or environmental standards to be eligible for an environmental allowance, my gut feel is that NBP wouldn't not fully qualify for an allowance.

G2G


----------



## HItorMiss (3 Jan 2009)

HFX are you insinuating that the Operators of CSOR do not deserve an extra allowance for the hardships they entail?

In terms of NBP they are not on call 24/7 365 like the Operators of CSOR they are when on ship but that is it. No they don't qualify as the CBI's relate to a special allowance.

As for the Allowance for Operators (Assaulters are JTF2) Its going to be relative to the job specific training they do. Will it be the same amount as an Assaulter I have no idea might be less (likely less as CSOR does not have a domestic CT task). But it is well deserved they along with JTF2 are the only units in the CF that operate at the end of the spectrum that they do. The Operators of CSOR (the ones I know of and am friends with) spend significant time away doing dangerous demanding work in all environments at all hours on a constant basis. 

It is because of their enhanced level of training and the constant danger of their work and the significant time away that the CF and the TB have acknowledge the need for an allowance for the Operators of CSOR based on the allowance system for the Assaulters of JTF2.

Now take this all for what it is worth of course, it's just my observations

EDIT: Grammar


----------



## NCRCrow (3 Jan 2009)

HFX are you insinuating that the Operators of CSOR do not deserve an extra allowance for the hardships they entail?

Answer: yes


----------



## blacktriangle (3 Jan 2009)

They take an extra step, give them the extra pay. Do not the Aussies give higher pay to members of 4RAR (commando) over conventional infantry? and an even higher allowance for SASR?


----------



## meni0n (3 Jan 2009)

HFXCrow said:
			
		

> HFX are you insinuating that the Operators of CSOR do not deserve an extra allowance for the hardships they entail?
> 
> Answer: yes



And you base that on what?


----------



## George Wallace (3 Jan 2009)

HFXCrow said:
			
		

> HFX are you insinuating that the Operators of CSOR do not deserve an extra allowance for the hardships they entail?
> 
> Answer: yes



I suppose that would equate to Sailors posted to a ship not being entitled to Sea Pay, as they never leave their posting........it goes with them wherever they sail.    >


----------



## HItorMiss (3 Jan 2009)

I wish to know your reasoning behind that answer, Why is it you believe they are not entitled to a specialist allowance for the job they do?


----------



## NCRCrow (3 Jan 2009)

FOA, PARA Pay?

Whats next for SOA for HUMINT, CP Op etc?

My answer is still no. But that's my opinion.


----------



## Armymedic (3 Jan 2009)

Re: extra pay for CSOR operators. I respectfully tell you that you are incorrect in your opinion. They do deserve the extra pay. Everyone from the Treasury Board on down agree they do, how much the remuneration should be is the remaining question.

As for troops like HUMINT, CP operators and Bboarding parties; if troops are in those roles where they require additional and specialized training beyond that of their normal trade, then by all means they deserve to be paid for their additional skills.


----------



## George Wallace (3 Jan 2009)

HFXCrow said:
			
		

> FOA, PARA Pay?
> 
> Whats next for SOA for HUMINT, CP Op etc?
> 
> My answer is still no. But that's my opinion.



I guess then that you have no real idea of what Spec Pay, Environmental Allowance, and all the other different allowances are all about then.  Guess that precludes you from further discussion.  ?


----------



## HItorMiss (3 Jan 2009)

Ahhh well I can sort that confusion out..

upon receipt of the Spec Ops Allowance the Operator/Assaulter no longer gains FOA and Para allowance. To be more accurate it is worked into the SOA.

When it comes to the FOA though they do still accumulate points for when/if they return to a normal field unit.

What you have to take into account is that the members of these two units do not have the normal responsibilities or jobs like regular members of the CF. Are they special yes (super human no) They work hours you and I would detest on a constant basis they work hard, harder then just about any person I have met and their families suffer for it. Does your pager go off at 0300 in the morning and you leave your family for weeks perhaps months without them knowing where you are or what you are doing? All they know (they being the family) is that you are ok.

Not to mention the risk they take just in training the skills they have far exceed that of regular members of the CF (regardless of trade). Sorry HFX if you saw or worked with or were a part of those units you would change your tune I think.


----------



## dapaterson (3 Jan 2009)

Perhaps the question is really whether most folks are overpaid - if we have a Reg F that isn't ready to bug out at 0300, that isn't maintaining its skillsets at a high level, are we overpaying them?  I'd argue that if it takes us 6+ months to get a BG ready to deploy, we're not keeping folks at the level they should be at - and their pay should be adjusted downwards in consequence (starting with the "leaders" who've permitted this state of affairs to arise).


----------



## HItorMiss (3 Jan 2009)

Sorry DA but you are arguing apples to oranges when you compare Reg F units to CSOR and/or JTF2

Should a Reg F unit be able to bug out at 0300 absolutely and they do (well in Pet they have a few times now) But no Reg unit can or should be bugged out at 0300hr to complete a no fail mission of National intrest in a non permissible environment without detection. That's why we have these units and that is why their skills are so high and why they should receive compensation for it.


----------



## Good2Golf (3 Jan 2009)

HFXCrow said:
			
		

> FOA, PARA Pay?
> 
> Whats next for SOA for HUMINT, CP Op etc?
> 
> My answer is still no. But that's my opinion.



HFXCrow, if you read the posts previously, or read the CBI references, you would have seen that JTF 2 assaulters cease receiving other environmental allowances (land ops, para, etc...) while they are in receipt of the SOA special allowance.  It would stand to reason that CSOR operators, when the special allowance is approved, would also cease receipt of other environmental allowances as well.


----------



## Infanteer (4 Jan 2009)

HFXCrow said:
			
		

> FOA, PARA Pay?
> 
> Whats next for SOA for HUMINT, CP Op etc?



HUMINT, CP Op and Boarding Parties all possess special skills that are employed from time to time in an operational environment.

If anything, they would merit a "Casual Allowance", not a full-on one.  But that would be silly - as that is what the paycheck is for in the first place.  Of course, to stay consistent, this probably means I support axing jump pay, as it is another way to get to work (this benefit is probably something we do simply because we did it in the Second World War).

The allowances for CANSOFCOM, to me at least, appear justified for reasons Bulletmagnet explained.  A boarding party specialist isn't expected to be roused from his bed at 0400 in Halifax to go do a board a vessel.


----------



## NCRCrow (4 Jan 2009)

I have my opinion and its that JTF2 shoud be only entitled to SOA.

sorry forum....


----------



## Good2Golf (4 Jan 2009)

HFXCrow said:
			
		

> I have my opinion and its that JTF2 shoud be only entitled to SOA.
> 
> sorry forum....



No need to apologize, your opinion conforms perfectly to CBI 205.401 -- JTF 2 SOA-qualified assaulters are the only personnel entitled to SOA special allowance.


----------



## HItorMiss (4 Jan 2009)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> No need to apologize, your opinion conforms perfectly to CBI 205.401 -- JTF 2 SOA-qualified assaulters are the only personnel entitled to SOA special allowance.




And CSOR Operators will qualify for their own allowance as deemed appropritae by the TB using the criteria and levels of the SOA but not being SOA.


----------



## Good2Golf (4 Jan 2009)

BulletMagnet said:
			
		

> And CSOR Operators will qualify for their own allowance as deemed appropritae by the TB using the the criteria and levels of the SOA but not being SOA.



Absolutely, BM.  Then we're all in agreement.

Regards
G2G


----------



## HItorMiss (4 Jan 2009)

Absolutely G2G...

For myself though I would like to see a consise argument supporting HFX reasoning as to why Operators do not deserve an allowance. As it stands right now to my knowledge an operator could work less hours be away from their family significantly less and make the same pay being in a normal hard para posn in a regular Bn ( As per HFX's reasoning of FOA, Para pay).


----------



## dapaterson (4 Jan 2009)

The validity of the current jump allowance needs to be revisited; given the few jumps that are made, are the people maintaining those skills?

The risk in requesting new allowances or funds is that someone will revisit the old ones - and discover that the rationale no longer exists.


----------



## aesop081 (4 Jan 2009)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> The validity of the current jump allowance needs to be revisited; given the few jumps that are made, are the people maintaining those skills?
> 
> The risk in requesting new allowances or funds is that someone will revisit the old ones - and discover that the rationale no longer exists.



A case of "beware what you wish for " ?


----------



## HItorMiss (4 Jan 2009)

Deepends on what unit DA

Regular Jump Coy's probably aren't jumping that much but they do refresh enough that they could jump easily. Our SOF units soon wont be in recipe of Jump pay as their allowance will forfit the Para pay.


----------



## Nfld Sapper (4 Jan 2009)

Bit out of my lane but I think QOR does a few jumps a year as they maintain the only Reserve Para Coy. So do they get para only when jumping or all the time?


----------



## HItorMiss (4 Jan 2009)

You are right NFLD they do, last I worked with members of the QOR they were Jumping failry regularly and do many support task to CFLAWC


----------



## Nfld Sapper (4 Jan 2009)

Rumor mill has it that they do more jumps than the Reg Force.........

So back to my question are they in receipt of the Para allowance all the time or just during the time they are jumping.


----------



## HItorMiss (4 Jan 2009)

No they receive Cas Para pay unless they are on a class B contract


----------



## Nfld Sapper (4 Jan 2009)

OK, thx.

Now back to your regularly scheduled topic.

 ;D


----------



## dapaterson (4 Jan 2009)

By regulation, QoR (or any Reservist doing casual para) should receive the cas para allowance when jumping whether on A, B or C service.

This does go to the fundamental question: What do we want who do, and where, when and how often do we want them to do it?  Those questions should inform what we pay them - what's base pay, and what's incremental in the form of allowances.


----------



## Fusaki (4 Jan 2009)

> Whats next for SOA for HUMINT, CP Op etc?



I sure hope so! I _am_ CP Operator after all. 

I'm LFC2IS qualified and ready to do radiochecks every hour on the hour on a moment's notice! Now where's my logbook? ;D


----------



## HItorMiss (4 Jan 2009)

HFX have you a proper argument that has not been invalidated by the CBI's (IE: FOA and para pay) as to why CSOR Operators should not be in receipt of an Allowance?


----------



## NCRCrow (4 Jan 2009)

We have one elite unit the JTF.

The Airborne did not get an additional allowance.  My Dad didn't get extra pay when the truck came through the PMQ's broadcasting "SNOWBALL x3" in Germany. He was into work within the hour and no beeper.

If my ship gets recalled to do a drug bust or SAR we are gone within 3-6 hours.

I think of CSOR as a another unit with a mandate. 

For the record by next year all these specialized units and people in specialized secondary roles will be asking CBI for additional allowances.


----------



## punkd (4 Jan 2009)

Keep in mind these guys went through the rigors of selection, completed SOBQ and are qualified Special Operators. This is a SOF unit.

There is a reason the pass rate on selection is low.. Not everyone is capable of the requirements of the job.

Sure they may not be the elite counter terrorism unit such as JTF2 or 1 SFOD-D, DEVGRU.. If you want to use American Terms these guys are Tier 1

So they would fall in just below them then.. On a Tier 2 level such as Navy Seals, Green Beret's , CSOR. They have their own roll.

There is alot of money invested in training these Operators.. They deserve their own allowance.. Not SOA allowance but something tailored directly to them.


My 2 cents.


----------



## meni0n (4 Jan 2009)

HFX so you are going to be advocating the big fight to get rid of sea pay then?


----------



## pteosborne (29 Jan 2009)

I was granted my QL5 on the Aurora fleet after completing my type training about 10 months after landing in Greenwood. Of course AVS and other Fleets may vary.


----------



## B RAD (1 Mar 2009)

In case some of you were wondering, VOT offers are now being sent out. I received mine DTG 261844ZFEB09.

I am transferring from NCIOP to INT and cannot seem to find the reference regarding spec pay. From what I understand, I will loose my leaf effective my transfer date but keep my current pay. Does this also include spec pay? My gut tells me I will loose it but cannot seem to find it in black and white.

Cheers and good luck to all patiently waiting for an VOT offer.

B RAD


----------



## ModlrMike (1 Mar 2009)

I wouldn't be surprised to see your pay reduced to Cpl4, standard pay field. The rationale being that you're technically no longer in your old trade, and not qualified in your new trade ergo there's no ability to pay you spec.


----------



## Occam (1 Mar 2009)

B RAD said:
			
		

> I am transferring from NCIOP to INT and cannot seem to find the reference regarding spec pay. From what I understand, I will loose my leaf effective my transfer date but keep my current pay. Does this also include spec pay? My gut tells me I will loose it but cannot seem to find it in black and white.



You're looking for something which doesn't exist.  You'll revert to whatever IPC you have, in the Cpl Basic pay field if that's where Int Ops are located.  There are written provisions which would allow you to keep specialist pay rates in certain circumstances - promotion to OCdt comes to mind.


----------



## Grunt_031 (1 Mar 2009)

You have no vested rights when you do a Voluntary OT. You will drop back to Cpl4, If the new trade has spec pay you will not see it until your QL 5 Qual. I went from Sgt 4 to Cpl 4 on my date of transfer.


----------



## ModlrMike (1 Mar 2009)

Further to my comments, the following is taken from the link below:

"PERSONNEL ONLY RECEIVE SPECIALIST PAY WHEN THEY ARE FULLY QUALIFIED IAW THEIR OCCUPATION SPECIFICATION (OS) AND HAVE ACHIEVED THE REQUIRED RANK IAW OCCUPATION REQUIREMENTS"

"NCMS IN THE RANK OF LS/CPL PRIOR TO ACHIEVING TRADE QUALIFICATION (OR MS/MCPL, PO2/SGT OR PO1/WO) AS REQUIRED FOR THE SPECIFIC OCCUPATION) INCLUDING:

A. MBRS PROMOTED ACTING LACKING
B. MBRS PROMOTED SUBSTANTIVE, AND
*C. MBRS WHO ARE VOLUNTARILY OCCUPATIONAL TRANSFERRED
*
WILL REMAIN IN THE JUNIOR SUB-DIVISION AT STANDARD TRADE GROUP RATES OF PAY"

LINK


----------



## Armymedic (11 Mar 2009)

I know this is a narcothread, but it is relevant.

Today I read an email from the Branch chief.

Rumours of medics getting spec 1 pay soon are somewhat exaggerated. Currently the proposal for that is sitting unsigned in the Director of Pay part of the Treasury Board (exact name of the 4 letter acronym escapes me).

Needless to say, my interpretation is that while it is looking good to come soon, soon is not for a while yet. Sources cleared to rumor in other parts of the CF have discussed with me that a whole whack of pay and benefits are being held up thanks to the proroguing of parliament and now with the current economic crisis and federal budget.


Info should be coming down your chain of command soon.


----------



## dapaterson (11 Mar 2009)

Within DND, it's DPPD that would prepare the file, which would then go as a corporate submission to TB.  It would not go alone; any other changes to spec pay for other trades would probably go in as an omnibus.

The process is never fast, and never guaranteed.


----------



## mariomike (14 Mar 2009)

I think they should:
http://www.jems.com/news_and_articles/news/09/pentagon_honors_medics_killed_in_wars.html


----------



## medicineman (14 Mar 2009)

I got a rather terse e-mail at work the other day telling us bluntly that we would know when and if it happens - otherwise, stop asking.  This has been going on for the 20 years I've been a Reg Force medic, so I'll believe it when I see it.

MM


----------



## Armymedic (14 Mar 2009)

MM,
thats the consensus in the classroom as well. 

One guy said he first heard medics were getting spec pay when he joined....
in 1986.


----------



## medicineman (14 Mar 2009)

Yup - and now I have it.  But alas, I'm not a medic anymore  :.

MM


----------



## Pea (14 Mar 2009)

I'm still keeping my fingers crossed... but definitely not holding my breath!


----------



## Armymedic (14 Mar 2009)

Medi,
If you are a Sgt, and still saying medics will get spec pay.... 

MM,
good news is, if they get spec pay, we'll go up to either spec 2 or Capt 6+ levels, its all good for us regardless.


----------



## GAP (19 May 2009)

Hundreds of special forces soldiers to get pay raise
Last Updated: Tuesday, May 19, 2009 | 6:33 PM ETCBC News 
Article Link

Hundreds of Canadian soldiers will receive a pay raise this month — as much as $18,000 per year in some cases — CBC News has learned.

The military has approved a new allowance for some members of the Canadian Special Operations Forces Command. Troops as well as technicians and support staff who work with the elite troops are eligible for the pay increase.

"When we're looking at the whole command, we're really deploying a special operations task force," said the command's chief of staff, Lt.-Col. Jean-Francois Prevost. "We pick the right capabilities from each one of those units."

The special forces command runs several regiments, and one of Prevost's duties is overseeing administration and support for the elite forces.

One of those units, the secretive Joint Task Force 2, is quite well known, and its soldiers are said to be among the most highly trained in the world. These troops, whose mission is to focus on counter-terrorism and hostage rescue, have received extra pay for years.

Two other special forces units that send their members into the field alongside those commandos will now also start receiving that extra pay.

This includes soldiers with specialized training in handling nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. It also includes commandos who perform the most daring infantry attacks and patrol behind enemy lines. The extra pay ranges from $8,000 to nearly $18,000 a year.

"It's really to be fairly compensated for what we're asking them to do," said Prevost. "It shows our people that we care for them."
More on link


----------



## McG (19 May 2009)

There was a CANFORGEN on the special operations allowance recently.  Those who are interested can go looking for details.

... and it's in addition to the Land Duty Allowance too.


----------



## sidereus (21 May 2009)

1 word :   keshink !! $$$

that's a great news for the soldiers... But I still think that our soldiers are not earning as much as they should. After all, their job is dangerous !


----------



## Michael OLeary (21 May 2009)

sidereus said:
			
		

> 1 word :   keshink !! $$$
> 
> that's a great news for the soldiers... But I still think that our soldiers are not earning as much as they should. After all, their job is dangerous !



So, how much do you think our soldiers should be earning?


----------



## vonGarvin (21 May 2009)

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> So, how much do you think our soldiers should be earning?


Personally,I think we should earn one billion dollars (said in best Dr. Evil voice, of course).

;D


----------



## ringer98 (21 May 2009)

Midnight Rambler said:
			
		

> Personally,I think we should earn one billion dollars (said in best Dr. Evil voice, of course).
> 
> ;D



No, no, too greedy. I'm thinking $250,000 plus quartly weekend trips comped to Caesers Palace in Vegas would do nicely. And free Timmies


----------



## sidereus (21 May 2009)

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> So, how much do you think our soldiers should be earning?



well...well  ;D

if u ask me... hmm more than a Hockey player...that's for sure...

You know, it's difficult to define what a good salary is for that kind of job... ???

What about you ? How much do you think a soldier should be earning ?


----------



## Armymedic (22 May 2009)

Best part about it for those whom are receiving the allowance for the first time is that it is retro to 1 Apr 07.

I also note that they are adding a casual SOA allowance...perhaps for a reserve unit/reservists?


----------



## Michael OLeary (22 May 2009)

sidereus said:
			
		

> What about you ? How much do you think a soldier should be earning ?



Well, after the improvements in pay scales of the past few decades, I wouldn't say any of us are particularly underpaid.  There are situations like these new allowances which I suspect are to provide greater pay parity with civilian opportunities to hopefully lessen attrition, but that doesn't mean everyone deserves an increase.


----------



## Antoine (22 May 2009)

Congrats guys, from my civilian point of view, I always thought that more money should be put in the CF, knowing that in the past the government may have spent money in controversial areas, it is a good news.


----------



## sidereus (22 May 2009)

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> but that doesn't mean everyone deserves an increase.



honestly... I don't want to be in the crew of the guy who doesn't deserve it :-\ ... especially on the battlefields :2c:


----------



## Michael OLeary (22 May 2009)

sidereus said:
			
		

> honestly... I don't want to be in the crew of the guy who doesn't deserve it :-\ ... especially on the battlefields :2c:



Interesting twist on wordplay there.  You still haven't said what you think service members should be paid, so why keep trying to milk this thread?  Your remarks are now just trolling.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (22 May 2009)

X-mo-1979 said:
			
		

> I'm special.





			
				X-mo-1979 said:
			
		

> Extra 18000 and you can do what you want.
> I hope it includes (which I sure it will) a pay jump for our 427 pilots/crew and clerks as well.Well deserved to all,never complain about people getting more money.



Hope your first purchase with your new found wealth is a big box of 'humble'. So much for quiet professionalism. No one bemoans a well earned benefit to those that deserve it, but there is no need to rub the noses of those less fortunate in it. 

While there is no need to complain about extra money, it's immature and unprofessional to flaunt it.


----------



## Strike (22 May 2009)

I must say, it's coming at  handy time administratively.  All I have to do is pull out my LDA form to back up my request for back-pay on this allowance.  Granted, it's not much monetarily, but the points are now already calculated.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (22 May 2009)

Strike said:
			
		

> I must say, it's coming at  handy time administratively.  All I have to do is pull out my LDA form to back up my request for back-pay on this allowance.  Granted, it's not much monetarily, but the points are now already calculated.



Congratulations. I'm glad those receiving it are getting it. In the vast majority of the cases, it's well deserved.


----------



## Strike (22 May 2009)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Congratulations. I'm glad those receiving it are getting it. In the vast majority of the cases, it's well deserved.



Awe...does that mean you think I'm special too?  You are so sweet!     (I'd prefer to add  heart emoticon here but am just too lazy to search for one!)


----------



## X-mo-1979 (22 May 2009)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Hope your first purchase with your new found wealth is a big box of 'humble'. So much for quiet professionalism. No one bemoans a well earned benefit to those that deserve it, but there is no need to rub the noses of those less fortunate in it.
> 
> While there is no need to complain about extra money, it's immature and unprofessional to flaunt it.



It's was a joke.I am getting LDA....that's about it.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (22 May 2009)

Strike said:
			
		

> Awe...does that mean you think I'm special too?  You are so sweet!     (I'd prefer to add  heart emoticon here but am just too lazy to search for one!)



Your always special Strike


----------



## TripFlar3 (23 May 2009)

Let's put it this way. We could consider the army like a world police. When overseas you get more money for danger toughness bla bla. When in garrison some trades are home pretty early while others work late. Does everybody deserve the same pay? CANSOF deserve that allowance NO DOUBT. They have it for the pager and the sacrifice of going left and right when ever they are needed. REG forces salary? CPL makes grossly anywhere from 52k to 56k I think. Is it enough? Of course I can say know we always want more. I think we should make as much as police officers. But now..is the army in arms way everyday?!?!? It's yes and no. Same debate as infanteer and a postal overseas with the same allowance?!?! It's a never ending story. Let's just love what we do regardless and be proud to be in the CF and Canadian!


----------



## Cooldevil789 (27 May 2009)

I am new to this website and army recruit (hopeful).

I am in complete agreement with tripflar3. I feel a soldier should make as much as a police officer, and maybe a little less. But once a mission in foreign, or possible unsafe territories comes about; I feel the danger pay should be increased quite a bit.

I am in no way complaining about the pay structure as it stands, but I definitely feel that our serving members overseas deserve a little more positive recognition, even if that recognition comes in a monetary form.

Enough said.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (27 May 2009)

Seeing how you have never served a day in the CF as of yet do you really think you are qualified to say derserve less or more then such and such?


----------



## Cooldevil789 (27 May 2009)

No most definitely do not, but serves as an opinion. That being said, there was no mention of "deserving" less. They deserve every penny they get, the emphasis was on increasing the pay when a dangerous mission is called upon them.

I am a civilian, I have family that are police officers and I also have family members who have served. With this in mind, I made an opinion.

An opinion is not wrong regardless if it is misinformed or not, it is an opinion. I value our soldiers very much, and is also the reason why I am joining. 

To sum it up; "I" feel that our troops overseas risking there lives should have a wage increase, even if that means I have to lose a small amount of money while at home. 

Once again. Opinion.

I'm not trying to belittle anybody I was just making a statement, which I never figured would be ridiculed. "Give our troops more money" he says... and go figure I'm flamed for it.


----------



## aesop081 (27 May 2009)

Cooldevil789 said:
			
		

> To sum it up; "I" feel that our troops overseas risking there lives should have a wage increase, even if that means I have to lose a small amount of money while at home.



I'm glad you are willing to give up some of your money. I'm not. I put my ass on the line in some pretty dangerous work when i fly from home base. I wouldnt mind keeping my pay. The SOF guys getting more, i'm all for that.


----------



## Cooldevil789 (27 May 2009)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> I'm glad you are willing to give up some of your money. I'm not. I put my *** on the line in some pretty dangerous work when i fly from home base. I wouldnt mind keeping my pay. The SOF guys getting more, i'm all for that.




I was using that as a basis which to start upon. But there is no reason why there should be other government jobs which aren't physically or mentally dangerous to be paid as much as they are, and our soldier elite are getting scrutinized for a pay increase.

Long live the soldier.


----------



## chris_log (27 May 2009)

Cooldevil789 said:
			
		

> No most definitely do not, but serves as an opinion. That being said, there was no mention of "deserving" less. They deserve every penny they get, the emphasis was on increasing the pay when a dangerous mission is called upon them.
> 
> I am a civilian, I have family that are police officers and I also have family members who have served. With this in mind, I made an opinion.
> 
> ...



I'm not giving up my few allowances just so I or someone else can get paid more for the (relatively, compared to an entire career) short time spent overseas. 

The system we have now works just fine (IMHO, there needs to be a reality check with PLD rates but other then that...).


----------



## bradlupa (20 Jun 2009)

i have done a few searches for specialist pay trying to find what occupations are considered for spec pay.  I have found the criteria for how they determine if spec pay wil be payed and a couple example occupations.

does anybody know of a comprehensive list of jobs that are included in the spec pay table either spec 1 or spec 2

I searched both Google.ca and came up with this page

and the main fourm with no real answers


----------



## Occam (20 Jun 2009)

bradlupa said:
			
		

> i have done a few searches for specialist pay trying to find what occupations are considered for spec pay.  I have found the criteria for how they determine if spec pay wil be payed and a couple example occupations.
> 
> does anybody know of a comprehensive list of jobs that are included in the spec pay table either spec 1 or spec 2
> 
> ...



It's right there on your second link - it contains a link called "Occupation Trade Group Update - Active Occupations" - which leads to an Excel spreadsheet which lists every trade in the CF and their allocation to Std/Spec1/Spec2 pay fields.


----------



## PMedMoe (20 Jun 2009)

It's also here by rank (not job) in the pay tables.  Keep in mind, to receive spec pay, some trades have a training requirement (e.g. QL5 or whatever), some have a rank requirement and some have both.


----------



## Jayson Wonder (28 Jun 2009)

Hello,

Just wondering if an Inf Officer can do trades or jobs that are entitled to spec pay?


----------



## George Wallace (28 Jun 2009)

No.


----------



## Michael OLeary (28 Jun 2009)

Let's assume that the original poster doesn't mean "spec pay" in its restrictive sense as an official term.

Infantry officers are eligible for various allowances dependent on training and employment such as the Paratroop allowance and the Special Operations Allowance.

CBI Chapter 205 - Allowances for officers and non-commissioned members


----------



## Jayson Wonder (28 Jun 2009)

Thanks for that reply.

I was looking at the pay tables for NCM's and it seems that there are various pay incentive rates that if the NCM's was to receive that "spec pay" (please forgive if I am not clear on term, I'm still a civilian) they could actually get paid more then an officer could at least until the officer reaches captain rank.

Am I correct in thinking this? What recommendations or advice could you give me in regards to the earning maximum pay as a new officer in combat arms. What jobs training etc. should I be seeking as am hope to gain entry as an Inf Officer.

No, my motivation for joining is NOT money but I in mid 30's and have a family so I wish to be wise in my trade selection and career path.

Thank you kindly.

Regards,


----------



## Michael OLeary (28 Jun 2009)

Combat arms officers are paid on the scale for General Service Officers.  That scale can be supplemented by the allowances identified in the CBI linked above as eligibility through qualifications and experience dictates. There's no simple way to increase those pay levels.


----------



## Cabral (19 Jul 2009)

Hi I am going tomorrow morning to enlist in the CF for the Navy with the hopes of becoming a Boatswain.

My question is, is there any type of training or anything that can be done to be qualified for spec pay?

Thanks in advance for any responses.

** I did try to search but found nothing regarding boatswain and spec pay.


----------



## Otis (19 Jul 2009)

Bosn's do not receive "Spec pay" ...

There ARE several other benefits above and beyond basic pay that you may receive in the future once qualified such as sea pay, possibly dangerous duty pay etc ... (and some others that MAY Possibly become benefits in the future i.e. Boarding Party Qual if they ever get around to granting it) but these are far in to your future and not worth worrying about yet.


----------



## PMedMoe (19 Jul 2009)

According to website below, Boatswains get standard pay.  A trade is either designated as Spec pay or not.  There is no training that will get you Spec pay if the trade is not designated for it.

Note:  The Excel spreadsheet must be downloaded from the link.

http://www.cmp-cpm.forces.gc.ca/dgcb-dgras/ps/je-ee/faq/otguao-mjgpmga-eng.asp


----------



## Cabral (19 Jul 2009)

Thanks a bunch guys that link was great should be stickied somewhere. The spec pay won't change my decision at all I was just curious.

Thanks again.

Cabral


----------



## George Wallace (19 Jul 2009)

As the topic of SPEC PAY has been covered in depth already:


TOPIC LOCKED!!


----------



## lavoie020 (10 Sep 2009)

Sorry to bring this Narcothread back, but the rumor mill is going stronger than ever. Ans still there is never smoke without fire, the latest rumor is that it's been approved by TB and should take effect early next year. As anyone else heard info regarding that, or is it just wishfull thinking again?


----------



## dapaterson (10 Sep 2009)

Any changes to compensation will be formally announced and promulgated.  Watch the DPPD intranet site; I'm sure if things do change, there will be soemthing there.

However, just because senior people may have been consulted does nto mean that any change has been made.  Many reviews and consultations are done that do not meet the needed standard to introduce changes; don't hold your breath and don't start spending anything.


----------



## medicineman (10 Sep 2009)

Until you're formally told through your CoC, don't hold your breath or spend any money.

MM


----------



## Armymedic (10 Sep 2009)

lavoie020 said:
			
		

> Ans still there is never smoke without fire, the latest rumor is that it's been approved by TB and should take effect early next year. As anyone else heard info regarding that, or is it just wishfull thinking again?



You are, unfortunately, confusing smoke with pure hot air. The last in May, direct from the Chief is that the TB is NOT considering it this year.


----------



## medicineman (2 Dec 2009)

Got this e-mail the other day through the CoC from the Branch Chief (English version only):

Subject:	Spec Pay Udate - Mise a jour paye du spécialiste

BILINGUAL TEXT / TEXTE BILINGUE

Good day all,

During my visits to the various H Svcs units over the past year, I have often mentioned to the troops the submission for Specialist pay for the Med Tech 00334-1 MOS ID. Since the original submission early 2009 there have been some very positive developments with the submission, and I would like to provide you with an update on this issue.

Director Pay Policy Development (DPPD) recently advised Director Health Services Personnel ( D H Svcs Pers) that the evaluation of our submission has resulted in the determination that the Med Tech 00334-1 occupation has met the criteria for Specialist Pay level 1. However there is a caveat to this decision and the actual implementation of Specialist Pay for our folks. Since the submission for Spec pay included the AEC component of the QL5A course, DPPD has indicated that Spec Pay will only be implemented once we have attained the point of having 50% of our QL5 Med Techs qualified with the AEC component. This is certainly a great motivating factor for us to place a high priority on course loading for the AEC component.

We will hopefully meet the target of having 50% of our Med Techs qualified AEC by sometime late in 2010. This is a very positive development and I feel that it is a confirmation of the high level of training provided to our Med Techs and their continuing devotion to professional development and the provision of high quality health care to CF members.

D.L. Horlick   MMM, CD
CWO | adjuc  
MED BR CWO  |  ADJUC BR MED
CF H Svcs Gp HQ|QG Gp Svcs S FC
National Defence|Défense Nationale  
Ottawa, Canada K1A 0K6
horlick.dl@forces.gc.ca
Telephone|Téléphone 613-945-6830 
Facsimile|Télécopieur 613-990-1345
Government of Canada|Gouvernement du Canada 
" Militi Succurrimus"


MM


----------



## medaid (2 Dec 2009)

This is great news!


----------



## Armymedic (2 Dec 2009)

No, its not...

I will be a PA and promoted to WO come July 2010.

Yes, it is all about me.

Seriously though; reading between the lines, it means that medics should not expect to see Spec Pay on your pay guide before 1 Apr 11.


----------



## ModlrMike (2 Dec 2009)

Let me be the first to ask about the elephant in the room.....


Where does that leave the Reserve Med Techs?


----------



## medicineman (2 Dec 2009)

My guess is the same place Reserve PA's are - without Spec Pay.  I'm thinking they might be able to make a case on an individual basis if they're ACP's, but I'd be talking out of my butt to say anything otherwise.

MM


----------



## Armymedic (2 Dec 2009)

Let me ask you back:

Do reservists in other trades get spec pay for holding the exact same trade qualification as their reg f counterparts?

MM,
 I might be mistaken here, but as far as I know there no official "reserve PA's" because the reserve force does not have 732.


----------



## medicineman (2 Dec 2009)

Correct - so the guys that get hired back in uniform off the PRL are actually paid as general service WO's, even if they were 00334-2's in the Reg Force, the MOSID doesn't exist in the PRes.  Hence the reason I'm seesawing back and forth about cuttling loose just yet...

MM


----------



## Blackadder1916 (2 Dec 2009)

This may answer some of the questions about spec pay for reservists.

http://www.cmp-cpm.forces.gc.ca/dgcb-dgras/ps/je-ee/faq/index-eng.asp


> *Reserve Force Jobs*
> 
> I used to be in the Reg F and my occupation received Spec pay. Now I am in the Res F why don’t I get Spec pay, I still hold the same qualifications?
> 
> There are two sides to the answer to this question. First, as mentioned earlier, *the CF does not pay members based on individual qualifications, but on the requirements of the occupation. Although similar to those in the Reg F, Res F occupation requirements are not always exactly the same and therefore may not evaluate at the Specialist Pay Trade Group*. Second, in order for an occupation to receive Specialist pay, it must have scored in the Specialist pay range, and, it must be assigned to the Specialist Pay Trade Group by the CDS. In order for this to occur, the Branch Advisor or Managing Authority must have submitted it for evaluation. *There are only seven Reserve occupations that have successfully undergone the process and been assigned to a Specialist Pay Trade Group*.



And about being occupationally qualified for spec pay generally.
http://www.cmp-cpm.forces.gc.ca/dgcb-dgras/ps/je-ee/ove-ape/index-eng.asp


> *Occupationally Qualified*
> 
> Until recently, technological limitations in the CF pay system did not allow a means of differentiating between “occupation qualified” IAW occupation specifications and “non-occupation-qualified” members for the purposes of pay. Therefore, if you became a Cpl in an occupation that was assigned to a Specialist Pay Trade Group you were paid Spec pay, whether you were qualified to do the job or not. The administration of Specialist Pay was challenged in the 2003 Chief of Review Services Report on the basis that personnel who were not qualified were in receipt of Specialist pay. Consequently, changes to the CF pay system , and the introduction of the Occupation Structure Implementation Plan (OSIP) in Aug 04, have now afforded us the opportunity to rectify this situation in ensuring that Specialist Pay is administered appropriately. *As of 1 Aug 04, if you are not qualified to do the job in accordance with the occupation requirements and specifications provided by your branch’s Managing Authority, then you are not be entitled to receive Specialist Pay*.


----------



## ModlrMike (3 Dec 2009)

That answers the question then. I only asked because I knew someone would eventually.


----------



## Medtech711 (30 May 2010)

I know the topic has been beaten like dead horse. Med tech are getting spec pay lvl 1 sometime but is going to be back pay to to 1 Apr or starting as soon as we get the 50 % done.


----------



## Armymedic (30 May 2010)

You asking or telling?


----------



## MedTechStudent (31 May 2010)

Medtech711 said:
			
		

> I know the topic has been beaten like dead horse. Med tech are getting spec pay lvl 1 sometime but is going to be back pay to to 1 Apr or starting as soon as we get the 50 % done.



I've heard its "coming down the tube" for about a year and a half now.  I'll believe it when my cheque comes in.


----------



## Medtech711 (31 May 2010)

SFB I just asking and wondering because you hear so much from the rumor mill. Like hearing from horse mouth 

AS qouted by Med BR CWO 
Subject:   Spec Pay Udate - Mise a jour paye du spécialiste

BILINGUAL TEXT / TEXTE BILINGUE

Good day all,

During my visits to the various H Svcs units over the past year, I have often mentioned to the troops the submission for Specialist pay for the Med Tech 00334-1 MOS ID. Since the original submission early 2009 there have been some very positive developments with the submission, and I would like to provide you with an update on this issue.

Director Pay Policy Development (DPPD) recently advised Director Health Services Personnel ( D H Svcs Pers) that the evaluation of our submission has resulted in the determination that the Med Tech 00334-1 occupation has met the criteria for Specialist Pay level 1. However there is a caveat to this decision and the actual implementation of Specialist Pay for our folks. Since the submission for Spec pay included the AEC component of the QL5A course, DPPD has indicated that Spec Pay will only be implemented once we have attained the point of having 50% of our QL5 Med Techs qualified with the AEC component. This is certainly a great motivating factor for us to place a high priority on course loading for the AEC component.

We will hopefully meet the target of having 50% of our Med Techs qualified AEC by sometime late in 2010. This is a very positive development and I feel that it is a confirmation of the high level of training provided to our Med Techs and their continuing devotion to professional development and the provision of high quality health care to CF members.


----------



## PMedMoe (31 May 2010)

So I'm guessing that you will only receive Spec pay after being QL5 *and* AEC qualified?

I see no reference to "back pay to 1 Apr", though.


----------



## Armymedic (31 May 2010)

Moe,
Dont work that way...Spec pay is all or nothing, by trade/rank, cant pick out peoples despite what the rumours say.

M711,
once the trade is 50%+ then they can resubmit to Treasury Board for approval. Dont expect anything before Apr 1, 2011.


----------



## aesop081 (31 May 2010)

SFB said:
			
		

> Dont work that way



It most certainly does. My trade is a perfect example of that.


----------



## PMedMoe (31 May 2010)

SFB said:
			
		

> Moe,
> Dont work that way...Spec pay is all or nothing, by trade/rank, cant pick out peoples despite what the rumours say.



I agree with CDN Aviator.  It most certainly does.  My trade is also a perfect example.  QL6 *and* Sgt rank are both required prior to receiving Spec Pay.  

If you're going to base someone receiving Spec Pay on a qualification, why should they get Spec Pay if they don't have that qualification?

Don't even get me started on trades where it's rank only.......   :


----------



## Armymedic (31 May 2010)

My bad...not specific enough. Of course, I know of a Med Tech WO who is not getting spec pay because he is not 732.

What I meant was that the AEC is a civilian qual...Spec pay to medics will be to Cpl QL 5 qualified, they can't pick out those who are or not, hence why they need 50%+ QL 5 Cpls to be AEC for them to resubmit to the TB. 

Thats the way it was explained to me. Assume my source wasnt talking out of thier ass, me believing them completely.

But regardless...I will get spec pay in a couple months. And thats all that really counts...    :nana:


----------



## PMedMoe (31 May 2010)

SFB said:
			
		

> But regardless...I will get spec pay in a couple months. And thats all that really counts...



And I've been getting it for 3 years.   :nana: 

BTW, does your computer not have apostrophes?


----------



## armyvern (1 Jun 2010)

Medtech711 said:
			
		

> Like hearing from horse mouth
> 
> ...




You might want to edit your original; I'm sure that the Horse's Mouth is just going to love receiving spam emails and unsolicited phone calls from gawd-knows-who because you've unilaterally decided to post his full name, phone number, email addy etc into cyberspace. Heard of something called PERSEC??


----------



## Medtech711 (1 Jun 2010)

Army Verm you may also look back on all Army and see who put the orginnal one up and while you at check all the other one to for that and tell them too.


----------



## PMedMoe (1 Jun 2010)

Medtech711 said:
			
		

> Army Verm you may also look back on all Army and see who put the orginnal one up and while you at check all the other one to for that and tell them too.



Just edit the post.   

I shudder to think you're a Med Tech if you can't write clearly.

Edit to add:  Thanks Bruce.


----------



## MedTechStudent (1 Jun 2010)

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> I shudder to think you're a Med Tech if you can't write clearly.



Yea, only Doctors can get away with that.


----------



## PMedMoe (1 Jun 2010)

MedKAWD said:
			
		

> Yea, only Doctors can get away with that.



Messy writing is one thing.  Lack of clarity in expression or statement is quite another.


----------



## justmyalias (23 Nov 2010)

Medtech711 said:
			
		

> ... by sometime late in 2010. ...
> 
> DPPD has indicated that Spec Pay will only be implemented once we have attained the point of having 50% of our QL5 Med Techs qualified with the AEC component....


So....is it late 2010 enough or still?

What's the latest word on this?

Could it still be shut down, or is it essentially just demonstrating that the 50% threshold has been met?


----------



## medicineman (23 Nov 2010)

You'll know when we do...when the Treasury Board is satisfied, you'll find yourself getting a raise if you're entitled to it.

MM


----------



## justmyalias (24 Nov 2010)

^
That's not really answering the question, but I guess the impression is...nobody knows?

If I may try again, whatever has been accomplished thus far, could this initiative still get shut down, or is it a formality of meeting qualified pers percentage now? (Okay, I'll say it...'in an ideal world' hehe-I guess ultimately ANYTHING could get shut down for whatever reasons right?)


----------



## medicineman (24 Nov 2010)

Actually it is answering the question - it's just not the answer you want to hear.  The people that are in the know aren't telling anyone anything until it's certain one way or the other.  This issue has been ongoing since I got in 22+ years ago and sometime before that even.  It's not something that's likely going to happen even in the one year since that message came out from the Branch Chief.  This could be shut down in a heart beat and they'd have to start all over again like they do every year - all depends on whether all the "I's" are dotted, "T's" crossed and there are pennies in the piggy bank...and even then, the TB may come up with some new criteria they have to prove to them that the trade is deserving of spec pay.  

To reiterate - you'll know when the rest of us know.

MM


----------



## justmyalias (28 Nov 2010)

medicineman said:
			
		

> ... The people that are in the know aren't telling anyone anything until it's certain one way or the other.  This issue has been ongoing since I got in 22+ years ago and sometime before that even.  It's not something that's likely going to happen even in the one year since that message came out from the Branch Chief.  This could be shut down in a heart beat and they'd have to start all over again like they do every year - all depends on whether all the "I's" are dotted, "T's" crossed and there are pennies in the piggy bank...and even then, the TB may come up with some new criteria they have to prove to them that the trade is deserving of spec pay.......


ahhh., now that answers it beautifully.  Thank you so much.

I got this impression essentially from all the 'seasoned' folk.  The younger mbrs seem understandably a little more bedazzled that it's a surething as of now...22year eh...ouch.  Would it be fair to say that with what you've said in mind however, that currently it's progressed as close to it has ever before?

Kindly,


----------



## militaryNick1234 (3 Jan 2011)

Is there spec pay currently for Naval communications?


----------



## hugh19 (3 Jan 2011)

Nope, and they complain about it. iper:


----------



## Occam (4 Jan 2011)

It's been evaluated several times over the years, and the answer has always been no.  Personally, I don't see that changing anytime soon.


----------



## Navalsnpr (4 Jan 2011)

If you are interested in Communications, have you thought about NET (C) MOSID 00117? This MOC is a SPEC trade.


----------



## Sub_Guy (4 Jan 2011)

sledge said:
			
		

> Nope, and they complain about it. iper:



Can't say I blame those who complain, IMHO, the only ones complaining should be the ones who were in before the Ops room got their spec pay.

It bothers me when I hear some new guy complaining about how the Navcomm's don't get Spec pay.


----------



## chrisf (4 Jan 2011)

Here's the test for spec pay....

Can this person quit tommorow and find a job making a barrel more civi side with only his military training?

If yes, then ask the next question.

Does the military give a damn if they (Collectively referring to that trade) go?

If yes, then spec pay is awarded.

Realistically has very little to do with "specialization".


----------



## PuckChaser (4 Jan 2011)

There's quite a bit more to it than that, a lot has to do with training days required to qualify someone.


----------



## Navalsnpr (7 Jan 2011)

There is a lot involved and there is a lengthy thread (Specialist [Spec] Pay Superthread- All Trades- Merged) in the Military Administration section.

Normally most trades undergo a review every 5 years or when there is major re-structuring of the trade. Quite a lengthly process from my understanding speaking with my MOC Manager.


----------



## diveguy (19 Jan 2011)

The Most recent answer on this is that the trade requires 325 Med Techs to be AEC Qualified, the last count sent from Branch and the CM to our unit was that we are sitting at about 210 Med Techs qualified.

It is up to the members to push to go on the AEC course and the units to support, I know with Op Tempo and all this can be difficult but this will be a good move for the trade


----------



## Armymedic (19 Jan 2011)

Yeah, numbers are climbing. The Chief previously thought the trade would be good to go for this Apr, but now he is thinking the trade should hit its numbers around end year.


----------



## Shacoon (16 Mar 2011)

Hi there,
I searched the website for an answer, couldnt find it, so here it is:

Im currently in the Canadian Forces (Army) and my contract is up in a year. I am having second thoughts on resigning. I like the trade but not enough to stay in for 25 years. Im posted in Edmonton, which is fairly close to my home town of Vancouver. I would like to find a different CF trade that is either closer to home (Esquimalt), or a trade where I am actually working towards something more positive and useful (Sorry to all who think being an armoured crewman is a great trade).

Problem:
The recruiting website does not have spec pay jobs posted on their website, which is what is probably gonna drive my OT the most, and calling the recruitment centre as a CF member just gets me redirected to my VPSO (who I will talk to after my field ex). 

I am hoping to get an answer from you guys about what trades have spec pay in any element, and if there is any Navy trades out there that you can only have in BC.

I just think theres more to the CF than sweeping floors every day.

Thanks for your time


----------



## motox (16 Mar 2011)

This info is already on the site, but  I am unable to link to the thread right now.   Info is from 2005. 

From a post by garb811:

Spec 1

Aerospace Control Operator - Radar Control
Aircraft Structures Technician
Airborne Electronic Sensor Operator
Aerospace Telecommunications & Information Systems Technician
Aerospace Telecommunications & Information Systems Technician
Aviation Systems Technician
Biomedical Electronics Technologist
Clearance Diver
Communications Research
Electrical Technician
Fire Control Systems Technician
Flight Engineer - Junior
Geomatics Technician
Hull Technician
Helicopter Shipborne Sensor Operations
Land Communications & Information Systems Technician 
Marine Engineering Technician
Medical Technician - AEROMED
Medical Technician - OR
Medical Technician - PA
Medical Technician - Preventive Medicine
Medical Laboratory Technologist
Military Police
Maritime Patrol Sensor Operator
Medical Radiation technologist
Naval Combat Information Operator
Non Destructive Testing Technologist - Junior
Naval Electronics Technician (Acoustic)
Naval Electronics Technician (Communications)
Naval Electronics Technician      ( Manager)
Naval Electronics Technician (Tactical)
Naval Electronic Sensor Operator
Naval Weapons Technician
Tactical Acoustic Sensor Operator

Spec 2

Flight Engineer
Marine Engineering Artificer
Non Destructive Testing Technologist
Search and Rescue Technician


----------



## motox (16 Mar 2011)

http://www.cmp-cpm.forces.gc.ca/dgcb-dgras/ps/je-ee/faq/otguao-mjgpmga-eng.asp


----------



## blacktriangle (16 Mar 2011)

Yeah that list looks accurate. Keep in mind there's a few of those listed that are essentially sub-specialties of trades, in which you already have to be in that trade before you can go for the training that will eventually get you spec pay (and even that some trades only grant spec at particular ranks) Hopefully someone with more info can chime in, but that's just an FYI. Oh, and a few of the trades in there E.g. LCIS tech (and now even NET and NWT?) are undergoing transformations as a part of trade amalgamations. So who knows exactly how it will turn out...


----------



## Shacoon (16 Mar 2011)

Thanks for all the quick replies they're all very helpful, please keep em coming.
Does anyone know if (any) of the trades posted are given in Esquimalt only?

thanks again.

p.s. that link is from 2008


----------



## aesop081 (16 Mar 2011)

Shacoon said:
			
		

> Does anyone know if (any) of the trades posted are given in Esquimalt only?





> and if there is any Navy trades out there that you can only have in BC.



None of them.


----------



## aesop081 (16 Mar 2011)

motox said:
			
		

> Helicopter Shipborne Sensor Operations
> Maritime Patrol Sensor Operator



These 2 trades do not exist in the regular force. They are Pres divisions of AES Op.


----------



## motox (16 Mar 2011)

Thanks for the clarification CDN Aviator.  I simply copy and pasted from garb811's post from 2005, but I later found the actual link and XLS file which I posted afterwards - which I believe has more accurate information.


----------



## Occam (16 Mar 2011)

Stacked said:
			
		

> Interesting, always thought Sonar Op's got spec pay.  I always thought spec pay was defined basically by whether there is a civilian equivalent to the job, I guess that was VERY wrong!



They do get spec pay, but only at the QL5 level and above.

And spec pay is FAR more complicated than simply whether there is a civilian equivalent to the job or not.


----------



## aesop081 (16 Mar 2011)

Stacked, the reason why you didnt see Sonar Op on the spec pay list is because it is old and has it under one of its former names "



			
				motox said:
			
		

> Tactical Acoustic Sensor Operator


----------



## WestCoaster (16 Mar 2011)

Here's an even more up to date list, effective 1 April 2010.
http://www.cmp-cpm.forces.gc.ca/dgcb-dgras/pub/cbi-dra/204-eng.asp
Look for "TABLE A TO CBI 204.30 - ALLOCATION OF MOSID TO SPECIALIST TRADE GROUPS" about halfway down the page.


----------



## Pusser (18 Mar 2011)

There are no navy trades that are west coast only (sandy bottom sailing is not a trade ;D).  The best you could hope for would be to request a navy trade and then ask for Esquimalt as your "Home Port Division."  An HPD West would keep you in Esquimalt for the bulk of your career (with the exception of postings to Ottawa - no one is exempted those -, RSS in western Canadian Naval Reserve units, CFRC or CFLRS staff, etc.).  You also need to be careful as some navy trades (especially the smaller ones) do not have  HPDs, which means you can be posted back and forth from coast to coast.


----------



## Cdnrednk (22 Apr 2011)

The next QL5 that was supposed to start has been cancelled from all the sources I've heard, so we will be stalled for a while.


----------



## pokio (17 May 2011)

After your trade course. Like Borden or other trade school. Since it take about 4 years, guess what, you will be cpl or pretty close before you get it.

Pokio


----------



## Sparkplugs (17 May 2011)

pokio said:
			
		

> After your trade course. Like Borden or other trade school. Since it take about 4 years, guess what, you will be cpl or pretty close before you get it.
> 
> Pokio



I can't speak for other fleets, but on the Herc, you have to be both trades (QL5) qualified, and a Cpl.  People here are getting their 5's with 2 years in, so they're having to wait a year, year and a half before spec pay is even on the horizon.


----------



## nickanick (18 Sep 2011)

Do you get to choose the type of aircraft to work on for the QL5?
Or You get whatever aircraft that is short for  AVN Techs?


----------



## cp140tech (18 Sep 2011)

It will be the airframe you're working on at your first posting out of trades training.  Where your first posting will be is beyond anybody but the career manager to say.


----------



## nickanick (18 Sep 2011)

mr peabody said:
			
		

> It will be the airframe you're working on at your first posting out of trades training.  Where your first posting will be is beyond anybody but the career manager to say.



Thank you for the explanation.
So, we do have our own choice of which type of airframe to work on?
assuming different types of aircraft having different airframe


----------



## aesop081 (18 Sep 2011)

nickanick said:
			
		

> So, we do of our own choice of which type of airframe to work on,



No, you do not.


----------



## cp140tech (18 Sep 2011)

You'll get to select 3 bases that you'd like to be posted to; but as CDN Aviator pointed out, the choice will be made by the CF with consideration given to many variables, one of which will be your preference.


----------



## Kennedy890 (20 Sep 2011)

After your 14 weeks in Basic you will be sent to Borden , in Borden you will learn basic aircraft knowledge ( Theory of flight , basic electrical , how to use tool properly and a basic introduction to all aircraft. ) you will be there close to 2 years depending the final trade you choose , before ( and I mean like 4 to 6 weeks before )  you gradguate from Borden you will choose 3 Units you would like to go to ( again depending on trade )
Now depending on your current Rank , previous experiance , time of year and availability of  your chosen trade, the units you choose from will depend on where you get sent.  ( Me personaly, I'm from the East coast as well and chose Sheerwater , Trenton, Greenwood and I got Cold Lake Alberta. )  The Military Physical year starts in April so if you gradguate from Borden in say March there will not be many of the "good" postings left to fill that year so what is left is what you will get.    Career manager does not have time for a new Pvt so you are basically a number and there are slots to fill. Unsure if it is the same but when I went through the TOP STUDENT of the class got there choice of posting.
Now that you are a QL3 Tech and are at your 1st Home Unit you will be placed on a waiting list for your QL5 this is to teach you your trade for the Aircraft of the Unit they chose for you aprox another 6 months ( depending on trade ) . Once you are trained you will then be qualified to work on the Aircraft under supervision.  

First year in Borden you will prob be making aprox $32000/yr
Withen 3 years I was QL5 trained at this time making aprox $40000/yr 
4 years to the first day of your basic training you will be Cpl ( CPL AND QL5 = spec 1 ) aprox $60000/yr and will slowley climb every additional year.

Sorry for the long dragged out msg but trying to answer all of your other posts all in one here.


----------



## nickanick (27 Sep 2011)

Don't the following trades can spec 1 pay?? 
Medical Technician - AEROMED
Medical Technician - OR
Medical Technician - PA
Medical Technician - Preventive Medicine


----------



## medicineman (27 Sep 2011)

They do - but they are specialty trades in the medical branch or Senior Med Techs.  PMed IIRC correctly has to have their 6A and Sgt's to collect it unless they've changed it.  PA's have to spend 2 years solidly in school, and to get there, you have to be a Sgt Med Tech first.

MM


----------



## nickanick (27 Sep 2011)

medicineman said:
			
		

> They do - but they are specialty trades in the medical branch or Senior Med Techs.  PMed IIRC correctly has to have their 6A and Sgt's to collect it unless they've changed it.  PA's have to spend 2 years solidly in school, and to get there, you have to be a Sgt Med Tech first.
> 
> MM



Thanks for the reply.
So how long will it take a new recruit to get to spec 1 pay?


----------



## medicineman (27 Sep 2011)

I got my WO's after 20 years...if you're switched on and have good bosses, you could get there in 12-15 years.  Unless the mythical pay scale change for the QL5's comes out of the mist in the near future...then about 4-5 years.

MM


----------



## nickanick (27 Sep 2011)

medicineman said:
			
		

> I got my WO's after 20 years...if you're switched on and have good bosses, you could get there in 12-15 years.  Unless the mythical pay scale change for the QL5's comes out of the mist in the near future...then about 4-5 years.
> 
> MM



4-5 years to spec 1 pay aren't too bad. Besides, 1 year will be primarily training and college studies. 
 thank so much for the information!


----------



## medicineman (27 Sep 2011)

Like I said - depends all upon the mythical pay increase approval.

MM


----------



## nickanick (27 Sep 2011)

Can you be posted in the navy or airforce during the initial employment? 
Or you have to stick with the Army ?


----------



## medicineman (27 Sep 2011)

The uniform is the clothes you wear to work - I had some folks in Vic when I was there that were fresh out of school...you go where you're needed, but more often than not, usually army first.

MM


----------



## PMedMoe (27 Sep 2011)

medicineman said:
			
		

> PMed IIRC correctly has to have their 6A and Sgt's to collect it unless they've changed it.



Correct.   :nod:


----------



## VanStoker (8 Mar 2012)

So I’ve been hearing a bit about this Spec pay freeze within our trade.  

One of my requisites, one that I was very strict about before joining the Canadian forces was to only apply for a Spec 1/2 trade.  No offence to anyone here in a basic trade, but I scored very high on my initial aptitude test,  I have a college education, a head on my shoulders, am in a fair bit of debt, and the extra $4000 - $5000+ per year that spec trades offer made the difference for me choosing this trade.

I’ve heard from some stoker’s, of all different ranks, not to worry about it; that the freeze will be lifted soon enough because our trade is in a bit of trouble.  Yet I’ve heard other stokers give me the advice: “Get out now!”  (Duly noted that most of these stokers are L.S. who probably were the first one’s to get their pay held back)

I’m seriously considering getting the ball rolling on an O.T. to Air-AVN tech, where the spec pay is not in question, and by the sounds of things, I’ll be able to climb the rank ladder/pay scale much quicker.  (Was interested in AVN to begin with, but really want to sail)

Can anyone else lend an opinion to this conversation?


----------



## aesop081 (8 Mar 2012)

VanStoker said:
			
		

> I’ll be able to climb the rank ladder/pay scale much quicker.



No, you won't.

I've spent the last several years working along side aircraft technicians who have spent many, many years ( many will continue to do so) at the rank of Cpl.


----------



## Stoker (8 Mar 2012)

VanStoker said:
			
		

> So I’ve been hearing a bit about this Spec pay freeze within our trade.
> 
> One of my requisites, one that I was very strict about before joining the Canadian forces was to only apply for a Spec 1/2 trade.  No offence to anyone here in a basic trade, but I scored very high on my initial aptitude test,  I have a college education, a head on my shoulders, am in a fair bit of debt, and the extra $4000 - $5000+ per year that spec trades offer made the difference for me choosing this trade.
> 
> ...



From what I been told and briefed the trade is in review in regards to occupational specifications which hasn't been done for years, this determines the spec pay. While this is happening spec 1 and 2 pay is frozen. It is possible that Spec 2 will be eliminated if the justification cannot be made(highly unlikely) Anyone already with spec pay 2 will be grandfathered.
This is expected to be concluded fairly quickly. Don't listen to LS that tell you to get out now, things are moving along and the trade has a bright future.

Pat in Halifax may have additional information on this.


----------



## Pat in Halifax (8 Mar 2012)

Hi and welcome to the BEST trade!
First off, I checked your profile and as a stoker, as of 1 Feb 12, you are MOSID 00367 (there was a MARGEN but I cannot find it right now). Part of the reason for our audit now is because the 3 previous trades Mar Eng Mech, Mar Eng Tech and Mar Eng Art are now simply one trade; Mar Eng.
Second, this is an ongoing audit by Treasury Board and I suspect that ALL Spec trades will go through this.
Third, as a new entry stoker, you would not be entitled to Spec 1 (like most Spec trades) until you complete QL5 (and I mean 'complete' - getting your Cert 2), which for the stoker trade is a minimum of 4-5 years out. Relax, the audit will be done by then and is not likely to change much from what it was. Those who were entitled during the freeze, will be back dated.

Next time I am talking to the Occ Mgr (we live in the same building here in Ottawa), I will clarify but this has been a hot discussion (as you can imagine) since it was signalled about a year ago.

I am curious who told you that "...the trade is in trouble..."

If you feel it necessary to VOT, that is your prerogative but you may find yourself going into a trade commencing their audit as it is lifted for the Mar Eng one.

Good Luck and I do feel the frustration. Many of us here in Ottawa tried everything to at the very least expedite the process if not put it off all together.


----------



## jollyjacktar (8 Mar 2012)

Pat in Halifax said:
			
		

> Hi and welcome to the BEST trade!



Not nice to tell fibs to the new guys.     HT is the best of course.   :bowing:  All kidding aside, any trade is what you make of it.  I know plenty of Stokers who are happy and unhappy both.  

I'll echo CDN re the Air side of the house.  While that trade is a fantastic trade, and has great after job marketability it does not necessarily move swiftly.  I have encountered many of that particular trade who have been Cpls for some time, and it's not because they are slugs either.  The other Zoomie trades I rub shoulders with on ship can also be that way too.  They are all great trades, but not screamer ones from what I have seen.   That seems to be the Aircrew folks where there is better movement from what I have seen.


----------



## NavyShooter (8 Mar 2012)

An interesting e-mail I got today (a part of it at least) regarding the WEng Trades:

" Our pay review has been completed. Good news! DPPD has agreed that we will get spec pay after our W Eng Maintainer Board. No spec 2 pay however, that is what we expected following discussions during our MESIP. "

NS


----------



## gcclarke (8 Mar 2012)

NavyShooter said:
			
		

> An interesting e-mail I got today (a part of it at least) regarding the WEng Trades:
> 
> " Our pay review has been completed. Good news! DPPD has agreed that we will get spec pay after our W Eng Maintainer Board. No spec 2 pay however, that is what we expected following discussions during our MESIP. "
> 
> NS



I presume that's what I've previous seen referred to as the "Leading Seaman rank Qual" board?


----------



## cp140tech (9 Mar 2012)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> No, you won't.
> 
> I've spent the last several years working along side aircraft technicians who have spent many, many years ( many will continue to do so) at the rank of Cpl.



I'm on my thirteenth year in the trade, people have been getting promoted quickly for about 5 years now.  I have seen promotions to MCpl with only one Cpl PER, on more than one occasion.  Any Cpl who wants to progress can.  It will slow eventually, but things are a bit ridiculous now, particularly in the maritime helicopter world.  Plenty of folks getting Sgt with minimum time spent at MCpl as well.


----------



## NavyShooter (9 Mar 2012)

gcclarke said:
			
		

> I presume that's what I've previous seen referred to as the "Leading Seaman rank Qual" board?



Ayup.  Here's a couple of additional bites:



> OFFICIALLY AUTHORIZED: Spec Pay will be granted AFTER completion of OJPR2 (Maintainer OJPR…ie LS Rank Qual Board)





> The new ACISS occupation did not get spec pay and remain in the standard pay field. Mar Eng pay review will be conducted this year.


----------



## Pat in Halifax (9 Mar 2012)

Can't figure out how to 'insert' ppt slides but this was from a presentation given by the MAR ENG/ET Occ Mgr to the coasts in January. (Note: It is UNCLAS)

Slide 1:
Spec 1 & 2 Pay Review:
Triggered with stand-up of any new occupation
New MARENG occ effective Feb 12 with approval of MESIP:
No pay review since 1975
Disconnect between extant Occ Spec and CBI Spec Pay
Occ Spec – Spec 1 after QL5 & Cert 2
CBI – Spec 1 after QL5

Possible outcomes (know by) of the Spec pay review are:
Yes Spec 1 upon completion of QL5 (Jun 2012) and Yes Spec 2 upon completion of QL6 (Nov/Dec 2012);
Yes Spec 1 upon completion of QL5 (Jun 2012) but No Spec 2 (Nov/Dec 2012);
No Spec 1 upon completion of QL5 (Jun 2012) but Yes Spec 1 upon completion of QL6 (Nov/Dec 2012);
No Spec 1 upon completion of QL5 (Jun 2012) but Yes Spec 2 upon completion of QL6 (Nov/Dec 2012); or
No Spec pay (Nov/Dec 2012).

Slide 2:
So what - using the noted pay review approach means:
If no Spec pay is awarded, post pay review, then there will be no requirement to clawback any pay from any sailor; or
If Spec pay is awarded, any commencement of Spec pay and back-pay to our sailors, who may have qualified for Spec pay during the pay review, should occur within 2 mths (WRT Spec pay start) and within 4 mths (WRT Spec pay back-pay) respectively.

Response - we will have clarity WRT the MARENG Spec 1 & 2 pay review/outcome(s) before end 2012
Less than 11 mths from the MESIP implementation
_______________________________
From me:

Keep in mind, he has covered ALL potential scenarios. I am not a fortune teller but the feeling is that there will be little change when this is done. Again, I am NOT a fortune teller.
For those of you getting your Cert 2/3 (I know you're out there-I've seen the messages) or those getting promoted PO1 - CPO2 (because of the move from PO1 Spec 2 direct to 3rd Incent CPO2) during the review, note the 3rd line of slide 2.

If you have any specific questions, talk to your supervisors or even ask to talk to the CM/Occ Mgr. Barring that, PM me. If you PM me, know that my first question to you will be "Have you checked with your divisional system?"

Pat


----------



## Sig_Des (9 Mar 2012)

NavyShooter said:
			
		

> Ayup.  Here's a couple of additional bites:
> 
> *The new ACISS occupation did not get spec pay and remain in the standard pay field.*



Tangent; do you have a ref for the bolded? Thanks


----------



## Pat in Halifax (9 Mar 2012)

I didn't look yet but this came with the ppt presentation earlier.
I assume they are CBIs?

Refs: A. 204.03(1)(b) 
B. 204.03(2)(b)


----------



## PuckChaser (10 Mar 2012)

Pat in Halifax said:
			
		

> I didn't look yet but this came with the ppt presentation earlier.
> I assume they are CBIs?
> 
> Refs: A. 204.03(1)(b)
> B. 204.03(2)(b)



CBI 204 hasn't been updated since Mar 2009, so it does not have any information on ACISS and only holds the old information for Stoker.


----------



## NavyShooter (11 Mar 2012)

Beadwindow,

I have a copy of the e-mail from the folks in DMAR PERS.  

Shoot me a message at work and I'll forward it to you Monday.

NS


----------



## NavyShooter (12 Mar 2012)

E-mail sent to Puck.

NS


----------



## Sig_Des (12 Mar 2012)

NavyShooter said:
			
		

> Beadwindow,
> 
> I have a copy of the e-mail from the folks in DMAR PERS.
> 
> ...



Cheers. Email sent


----------



## Donny (26 May 2012)

AWST said:
			
		

> After your 14 weeks in Basic you will be sent to Borden , in Borden you will learn basic aircraft knowledge ( Theory of flight , basic electrical , how to use tool properly and a basic introduction to all aircraft. ) you will be there close to 2 years depending the final trade you choose , before ( and I mean like 4 to 6 weeks before )  you gradguate from Borden you will choose 3 Units you would like to go to ( again depending on trade )
> Now depending on your current Rank , previous experiance , time of year and availability of  your chosen trade, the units you choose from will depend on where you get sent.  ( Me personaly, I'm from the East coast as well and chose Sheerwater , Trenton, Greenwood and I got Cold Lake Alberta. )  The Military Physical year starts in April so if you gradguate from Borden in say March there will not be many of the "good" postings left to fill that year so what is left is what you will get.    Career manager does not have time for a new Pvt so you are basically a number and there are slots to fill. Unsure if it is the same but when I went through the TOP STUDENT of the class got there choice of posting.
> Now that you are a QL3 Tech and are at your 1st Home Unit you will be placed on a waiting list for your QL5 this is to teach you your trade for the Aircraft of the Unit they chose for you aprox another 6 months ( depending on trade ) . Once you are trained you will then be qualified to work on the Aircraft under supervision.
> 
> ...


lot of good information i was looking for - thanks


----------



## justmyalias (18 Jun 2012)

motox said:
			
		

> http://www.cmp-cpm.forces.gc.ca/dgcb-dgras/ps/je-ee/faq/otguao-mjgpmga-eng.asp


Firstly, yay for searching.  I knew it had to be in here somewhere.

If you browse that website coming down from root, you end up at the FAQ where you see " "Occupation Trade Group Update - Active Occupations".  If you click that, the link is broken and it doesn't point to the spreadsheet above...which is strangely actually IN THE SAME section of that FAQ.  Where's the webmaster? hehe.

Anyway,  Thanks for the file & info.

Can I ask, is this it for spec pay?  1 & 2?  There's no classified trades that get anything beyond this?


----------



## aesop081 (18 Jun 2012)

justmyalias said:
			
		

> classified trades



What is a "classified trade" ?



> that get anything beyond this?



There is nothing indicated after specialist 2. What does this tell you ?


----------



## seawolf (18 Jun 2012)

So there are no Officer trades that get "spec" pay or other incentives?


----------



## aesop081 (18 Jun 2012)

seawolf said:
			
		

> So there are no Officer trades that get "spec" pay



No.

Certain officer MOS have their own separate pay scale, however (such as pilots, lawyers and doctors).


----------



## seawolf (18 Jun 2012)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> No.
> 
> Certain officer MOS have their own separate pay scale, however (such as pilots, lawyers and doctors).



Yea, i was just wondering if there was anything else. That's ok though.

I assume it's because officer pay is generally higher anyways?


----------



## aesop081 (18 Jun 2012)

seawolf said:
			
		

> I assume it's because officer pay is generally higher anyways?



No. Officer pay is higher because the responsibilities and scope of employment are much different. Most officer MOS are in a group called "general service officers" so there is no "spec pay" as they are generalists.

NCM trades function in a different way.

That's my Cole's notes explanation.


----------



## CombatDoc (18 Jun 2012)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> No.
> 
> Certain officer MOS have their own separate pay scale, however (such as pilots, lawyers and doctors).


And not to be left out, our Dental Officer colleagues.


----------



## babydoc922 (8 Jan 2013)

Hi, this has thread has been in limbo for some time. Just before Christmas this message was set out as a update to all Reg F Med Techs. 



COMMUNIQUE	DIRECTORATE HEALTH SERVICES PERSONNEL	12 December 2012	   
SUBJECT	Pay Evaluation – Reg F MED TECH (00334)		   
	Ref: 1727/10 D H Svcs Pers 08 Jan 10		   
	5555-00334 (DPPD4) 31 Oct 12 (NOTAL)		   
DETAILS	
The following is the second SITREP on the pay evaluation process for Reg F MED TECH 

Despite the satisfaction of previous conditions set by the Directorate Pay Policy Development (DPPD), and their indication that the pay evaluation would continue once 50% of the MED TECH achieved the AEC qualification; DPPD has now indicated that new processes for the allocation of pay groups have been adopted.  Consequently, the pursuit of the MED TECH pay evaluation requires the completion of the MED TECH occupation restructuring.  This initiative includes the development/analysis of the MED TECH occupational jobs which has already commenced and will continue in the new year.  The pay evaluation process will be based on the approved and validated Job Based Specifications/Job Descriptions.  This process is expected to take a minimum of two years.  

Although DPPD is responsible for pay evaluation for the purpose of allocation of trade groups, the Director Health Services Personnel remains committed to the advancement of this high priority file.

Addressees are required to widely disseminate this message to all units to ensure that all MED TECH are informed of the pay evaluation situation.
		   




COMMUNIQUE	DIRECTION PERSONNEL SERVICES DE SANTE	12 Decembre 2012	   
OBJET	Évaluation de solde – TEC MED F rég (00334)		   
	Ref: 1727/10 D Pers SS 08 Jan 10		   
DETAILS	
Cette missive est la deuxième mise-à-jour concernant le processus d’évaluation de la solde de TEC MED F rég. 

La Direction Politique et Développement (Solde) (DPDS) nous a avisé qu’un nouveau visant l’attribution des groupes de solde est présentement en vigueur.  En conséquence, afin de poursuivre le travail en vue de l’évaluation de la solde des TEC MED se poursuivra alors que nous aurons complété la restructuration prochaine du groupe militaire TEC MED.  Cette initiative prévue pour débuter en 2013 comprend le développement/analyse des attributions de travail des TEC MED.  Le processus d’évaluation de la solde sera basé sur l’évaluation des Description de spécification de travail/ Attributions de travail tel qu’approuvées et validées.  Le résultat de la restructuration de ce GPM ne sera pas connu avant au moins deux ans. 

Bien que l’évaluation de solde relève de la DPDS, le Directeur Personnel des Services de santé demeure pleinement engagé envers l’avancement de ce dossier.

On demande aux destinataires de disséminer ce message à toutes les unités au sein de leur chaine de commandement afin que tous les TEC MED reçoivent cette mise-à-jour concernant l’évaluation de la solde.


----------



## PMedMoe (8 Jan 2013)

So, basically they're still working on it......

Maybe you should have titled your post differently.


----------



## Armymedic (8 Jan 2013)

babydoc922 said:
			
		

> Consequently, the pursuit of the MED TECH pay evaluation requires the completion of the MED TECH occupation restructuring.  This initiative includes the development/analysis of the MED TECH occupational jobs which has already commenced and will continue in the new year.  The pay evaluation process will be based on the approved and validated Job Based Specifications/Job Descriptions.  This process is expected to take a minimum of two years.
> 
> Although DPPD is responsible for pay evaluation for the purpose of allocation of trade groups, the Director Health Services Personnel remains committed to the advancement of this high priority file.



Short form: Keep waiting.


----------



## MedCorps (8 Jan 2013)

Rider Pride said:
			
		

> Short form: Keep waiting.



Sadly yes... 

MC


----------



## ArmyGuy99 (9 Jan 2013)

:crybaby:

Ok, now seriously though, is anyone surprised about this??  It's amazing that as we keep meeting the standard a new one appears. 



			
				babydoc922 said:
			
		

> Hi, this has thread has been in limbo for some time. Just before Christmas this message was set out as a update to all Reg F Med Techs.



Uh, guess we didn't get that memo/e-mail.  Where was the message published to so I can look it up and get it passed around tomorrow at work?

Thanks


----------



## medicineman (9 Jan 2013)

My guess is sitting in your RSM's in box...

MM


----------



## cfred0912 (14 Jul 2014)

Hello,
any news about the spec pay, I'm starting my BMQ in august and trying to do my personal budget (loosing 70k) joining the navy as stolker. 

any advise can be good before my swearing on the 29'th of july.

thanks


----------



## George Wallace (14 Jul 2014)

cfred0912 said:
			
		

> Hello,
> any news about the spec pay, I'm starting my BMQ in august and trying to do my personal budget (loosing 70k) joining the navy as stolker.
> 
> any advise can be good before my swearing on the 29'th of july.
> ...



Don't worry about Spec Pay.  You are not even in yet and you will not be eligible for Spec Pay until you are Trade Qualified.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (14 Jul 2014)

Just to add a little, you won't qualify for spec pay until you are a Leading Seaman, with is normally around 4 years of service from your enrolment date, as well as having the required qual (normally QL5).

http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/caf-community-pay/specialist-pay-reg-force-ncm-mosids.page


----------



## Pinggew (14 Jul 2014)

cfred0912 said:
			
		

> Hello,
> any news about the spec pay, I'm starting my BMQ in august and trying to do my personal budget (loosing 70k) joining the navy as stolker.
> 
> any advise can be good before my swearing on the 29'th of july.
> ...



Get used to earning 1400 a month at basic.


----------



## rabidpiglet (8 Sep 2014)

Pat in Halifax said:
			
		

> Can't figure out how to 'insert' ppt slides but this was from a presentation given by the MAR ENG/ET Occ Mgr to the coasts in January. (Note: It is UNCLAS)
> 
> Slide 1:
> Spec 1 & 2 Pay Review:
> ...



Pat, you seem to be a good 'go to' on this subject, but I have noticed that the information has taken a bit of a stand still since your last post from 2012. Now as we enter the last quarter of 2014, has there been any new news on the subject?  Is there anything official that at least lets the community know what the hold up on this is?  I can't say that I mind not having Spec Pay (or knowing if I even still qualify for it).  I am QL5 as of 2013, and I know my next step is completion of my Cert 2.  The part that gets me is that we are left in the dark - this site has been the most informative of all, and it's not even deemed 'official' information.  The only answer I get from my COC is 'when we know more, you will know more', and I have to trust that this is true.  I just think that there are so many decisions being made by our fellow stokers to either leave the trade, or leave the forces all together, and some of the reasons are that they just don't have any answers or feel that we're never going to get an answer.

I want to thank you Pat, and anyone else here that has some direct connection to our trade for posting, but the trade needs something official to be posted on our Forces.Ca site, or an email to all MSE-Eng to let us know that this is either coming to a close soon, or at the very least what is going on.  I think that someone owes the trade at least that, this has been in the dark for us for the last few years with no end in site.

Thank you for your time,


----------



## donaldk (8 Sep 2014)

It is a damn shame this STILL hasn't been sorted out yet and I hate still having to give the answer "when I know more, you will know more" to those stokers I are divisionally responsible for.


Just like the HEA issue that took Treasury Board years to sort out, this won't move any faster unfortunately as it still goes by these clowns for approval.

Edit: P.S. note removed...


----------



## VanStoker (8 Sep 2014)

Pat in Halifax said:
			
		

> Response - we will have clarity WRT the MARENG Spec 1 & 2 pay review/outcome(s) before end 2012
> Less than 11 mths from the MESIP implementation
> 
> Pat



BUMPP...

Well, I'm the guy who started this thread 2 + years ago...and it's been too long...Still putting up with: "when we know more we'll tell you".

Now my 5's course is in the near future.  Still in the back of my mind, I'm thinking why the hell am I sticking around here when 75% of my peers are disgusted with the Navy.

Do I vot to a spec trade in the air element where I'm sure from all the people I've spoke to that quality of life is much much better... Or do I hang around another two years to become one of those disappointed QL5 graduates who aren't making the money that they deserve?  I picked this trade because of the spec 1 & 2 potentials.

And how long ago was it that I heard this review was almost complete?  And now the news on the block is that it was sent back to Ottawa again to sit on someone's desk for another few years?  What gives?

Pat in Halifax?  Chief Stoker?  NavyShooter?  What do you guys have to say for people in my position today?  And I think telling these young guys not to worry about it because they are still 4 years away from being eligible for spec pay is off the table, when it seems like the ball has bounced back and forth for almost 3 years now. 

Anything?


----------



## Pat in Halifax (8 Sep 2014)

I am afraid that I cannot offer anything more and am responding because I feel anyone who asks a question on this deserves some sort of response. I have been 'chewed out' by a certain SA CPO1 here recently for 'daring' to encourage someone to ask the question during a Fireside chat. The most recent 'promise'; come and gone was 1 Sep. I can only say that we (meaning the senior leadership of the trade) have asked for someone in a senior position in this process to make an announcement even if there is nothing to announce to no avail. I have heard ALL the rumours you have and all I can say is that they are RUMOUR. Though you may feel that you have heard more on Navy.ca than anywhere else, really, nothing has been revealed at all and I shamefully admit that the lack of information from the leadership of the Navy on this is unacceptable.
Once more please; If you do not hear it from the Occ Mgr (who is now settled in and is a good guy...even if he is an ETech!!), assume it to be a rumour ESPECIALLY if you read it here!
If I do get word of an outcome-I will NOT be posting it here but will be relaying it through Chiefs to Ships, School etc.

I wish there were more I could say...
...Pat


----------



## stokerwes (20 Sep 2014)

This goes out to any recruiters who have recently enrolled or had to answer questions for any potential Marine Engineers.
Do you still mention Spec 1 pay is received after QL5, and Spec 2 is after CERT 3 qualification?
The reason I ask is that since the pay freeze, sorry, the MOS review that stared almost three years ago there is no new Spec pay.
For instance a  LS completes QL5 and CERT 2 qual. They won't get spec pay until after this review is complete. Whenever that might be.
In the beginning of the review it was not an issue as it was thought the review would be complete before any recruits would be eligible for Spec pay. But now some that have joined shortly before the review started will soon be eligible for spec pay yet won't receive it, and when choosing the trade many choose it for the spec pay.
I know of only one senior Mar Eng that pushing for a resolution to this issue.
Just curious if the recruiters were aware they may be hiring using information that isn't entirely accurate?
Thanks.


----------



## VanStoker (7 Nov 2014)

I'll just throw this out there...  The recruiters that I spoke with filled my head with more misinformation than correct information.  And I concluded to myself that these people aren't posted to a recruiting center because they are good at what they do.  Sure, that's not going to be the rule for everyone.  But my experience with the recruiting center was horrible. 

I would assume unless you are speaking with a stoker at a recruiting center, they have no idea about the freeze.


----------



## Pat in Halifax (8 Nov 2014)

Misinformation indeed. CRCN made a statement about this already and indeed Spec Pay WILL return to status quo before the end of the fiscal year so if CFRG are saying it's there, they are not wrong.

I am a little disturbed about your comment re disinformation though. If you want to PM me and give me specifics (place, name, info), I PROMISE I will look into it.

Pat


----------



## VanStoker (1 Dec 2014)

I am a little disturbed about your comment re "Spec Pay WILL return to status quo before the end of the fiscal year.".  

My unit has not made us aware of this information...and most of the LS techs in my unit who should be receiving this entitlement are only growing more furious (than they were 2 years ago) at the navy and their lack of accountability towards this subject.  We had to get this answer from the ombudsman which in my opinion should be an embarrassment to the brass. 

We junior ranks feel we have no support from the leadership in this Nay.

I can't comment on all the recruiting centers across the country.  But I will call a few random recruiting centers tomorrow and inquire.  My guess is that they will have no idea about this spec pay freeze and are advertising whatever 5 year old information they have available to them at their center.

I remember when I joined the military (early 2012) I could find on the internet that the Mar Eng trade was eligible for Spec 2.  This was 99% of the reason I joined this trade.  After a quick search today, I can't find anything on the subject of Specialist Pay rates for Mar Eng.

Looks like I'll be wearing blue soon... I have to say this outfit is the most unorganized I've worked for in my life.  The way this freeze has gone on...and the lack of information being passed around the troops is unforgivable.


----------



## PuckChaser (1 Dec 2014)

LCIS, Sorry ACISS-CST has been pay frozen for almost 3 years now. Its not just the Navy that's failing its troops in this regard, WCS.


----------



## Pat in Halifax (2 Dec 2014)

westcoastsailor said:
			
		

> I am a little disturbed about your comment re "Spec Pay WILL return to status quo before the end of the fiscal year.".
> 
> My unit has not made us aware of this information...and most of the LS techs in my unit who should be receiving this entitlement are only growing more furious (than they were 2 years ago) at the navy and their lack of accountability towards this subject.  We had to get this answer from the ombudsman which in my opinion should be an embarrassment to the brass.
> 
> ...


I don't know what to say other than I am sorry that you did not hear this information through your CoC as it was circulated (including to the west coast and Ottawa area stokers) within a week of being announced by CRCN. I can tell you that the RCN CPO was queried as recently as last week and there was no update. Please know that this is NOT the Navy's doing and CRCN as well as the CF CWO have been actively a part of this resolution process for quite some time; your leadership is NOT failing you though there is obviously a failure in this process. I can only hope and pray that the Pay review does not take this long following amalgamation with the ETechs.
If you would PM me some of your details, I will find out why you are not getting updated...promise.

Pat


----------



## cfred0912 (4 Dec 2014)

Hello Pat,
were did you get that info, we saw the carreer manager ealier this and did'nt have any answer about our spec pay if your right, that would be the best news of the year.
let me know were I can find the info.

Best regard,


----------



## Pat in Halifax (4 Dec 2014)

cfred0912 said:
			
		

> Hello Pat,
> were did you get that info, we saw the carreer manager ealier this and did'nt have any answer about our spec pay if your right, that would be the best news of the year.
> let me know were I can find the info.
> 
> Best regard,


You wont 'find' it anywhere although I find it odd (again) that this was not passed on by the CMs. I will look into this when I get into work today. Keep in mind, this came from the Occ Mgr in an email in early October and I have been saying all along that he is the 'authority' on this.


----------



## Pat in Halifax (4 Feb 2015)

CRCN announced in Esquimalt yesterday that Spec Pay for Mar Eng will return to pre 1 Feb 12 levels effective immediately. He went further to state that most should see it on their end Feb pay. For further info, I would ask that you wait for the info to come down through the chain which should be over the course of today. I do not have anything more but would ask that you NOT start nagging your Pay Offices.

Pat


----------



## stokerwes (5 Feb 2015)

;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
Thanks Pat in Halifax


----------



## AuthenticTshirt (7 Feb 2015)

First if you are viewing this thread to learn info, I can tell you two things. No you do not get fast-tracked to Cpl and No you don't get spec pay after training. Unfortunately, the recruiting centers seem to forget the Military ethos part about integrity when they are just blinding guaranteeing you these things that are completely false. 

My question is what is the QL4/pre-QL5 training? How long does it take? Can you do it all at you first posting or do you have to go to other wings for training?

Is spec pay given right after QL4/pre-QL5 training?


----------



## Eye In The Sky (7 Feb 2015)

Spec pay starts when you are a Cpl with your QL5 complete.


----------



## mariomike (26 Mar 2016)

This was posted today in another thread. Adding it here as an update,

Specialist Pay - For Regular Force NCM MOSIDs
Date modified: 2015-06-09
http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/caf-community-pay/specialist-pay-reg-force-ncm-mosids.page


----------



## LCIS-Tech (10 Jan 2017)

Commander
Military Personnel Command
5555-1 (DPPD)
/ tl August 2016
Distribution List
National Defence
Headquarters
Ottawa, Ontario
K1A OK2
Commandant du
Commandement du personnel militaire
auartier general de
la Defense nationale
Ottawa (Ontario)
K1A OK2
REQUEST TO RESCIND PROVISIONAL PAY GROUP ASSIGNMENT
ARMY COMMUNICATIONS AND INFORMATION SYSTEMS SPECIALIST (ACISS)
References: A. QR&O 2.10
B. CDS Order dated 25 January 2012
C. 7200-1 (DRCCS) 16 February 2016
1. Your request under ref C where you sought my support to petition the CDS to
rescind his order in ref B that provisionally assigned the ACISS occupation to the
Standard pay group has been reviewed. Although a significant amount of time has
transpired since the decision was made, it is clear to me that there are compelling
circumstances that warranted a re-assessment of the situation.
2. The Canadian Armed Forces assigns NCM occupations and sub-occupations to
the Standard, Specialist 1 or Specialist 2 pay groups using the Canadian Forces Trade
Evaluation Plan (CFTEP). The CFTEP is a point factor job evaluation system that has
been used since 1973. On 4 December 2014, the CDS, in recognition of the
· requirement to modernize the CFTEP, directed the suspension of all current and future
evaluations pending implementation of a modernized methodology. On 23 February
2015, CMP issued an associated direction the product of which will be launched as the
Canadian Forces Job Evaluation System (CFJES) in early 2017.
3. Since 2011, following the approval of the respective Military Employment
Structure Implementation Plans (MESIP), newly created occupations and existing
occupations undergoing structural or qualification standard changes have been
assigned provisionally to the Standard pay group until a formal evaluation can be
conducted using the CFTEP methodology normally within twelve months. Where
applicable, pay protection pursuant to CBI 204.03 is accorded members who are at a
higher pay group when the lower provisional pay group is assigned. Pursuant to QR&O
2.10, the CDS approves all provisional and final pay group assignments. He exercises
this authority through a CDS Order that is effective on the date of signature. On 9
February 2014, my predecessor amended this approach by having the effective date of
each evaluation correspond to the date on which the CDS Order is signed. He further
directed that in cases where members of an occupation/sub-occupation have a current
1/3
I.I National Defense
Defence nationale Canada
pay group assignment that the pay group would be maintained until such time as the
results of the evaluation have been considered and approved by the CDS.
4. As you know, on 1 October 2011, a MESIP was approved that combined three
existing stand-alone legacy occupations into a newly developed ACISS occupation.
Members were formally transferred to the new occupation on that date. Only one of the
previous sub-occupations (LCIS Tech) was in the Specialist 1 pay group. At that time,
DPPD and DPGR assessed that the ACISS occupation was a new occupation and
accordingly recommended provisional assignment to the Standard pay group. The CDS
concurred and approved the assignment on 25 January 2012. Pay protection pursuant
to QR&O 2.1 O was accorded members as applicable.
5. DPPD was advised by the ACISS OA during the formal evaluation process that
the required documentation was incomplete and in addition that the ACISS structure
was not necessarily functional. As a result, the OA was provided with an additional 4-5
months to furnish additional and/or revised documentation. DPPD received the
documents in December 2014. As a result of the CDS direction on 4 December 2014 to
suspend current and future evaluations, any further action on the ACISS evaluation was
suspended pending implementation of the CF JES.
6. Your letter under ref Chas provided valuable insight as to the adverse effect the
provisional pay group assignment and the ongoing delay in finalizing the CFJES is
having on ACISS soldiers from the former LCIS Tech sub-occupation. As I have stated,
at the time of the assignment of the provisional pay group, the ACISS occupation was
deemed a new occupation which pursuant to procedure required that the occupation be
provisionally assigned to the Standard pay group. DPPD has had an opportunity to
revisit the 2012 decision. He has concluded that the ACISS occupation should not have
been identified as a "new" occupation in the context of provisional pay group
assignment; and, as a direct consequence, pay group assignments should have been
maintained. He further assesses that the unavoidable delay in completing the
modernization of the evaluation methodology is a complicating factor. It is reasonable,
therefore, to conclude that the ACISS provisional assignment to the Standard pay group
should not have been recommended. Accordingly, QLSA qualified members of the
LCIS Tech sub-occupation should have retained their Specialist 1 pay group pending
CDS approval of a formal evaluation. On receipt of this letter, DPPD will initiate steps to
rescind the 2012 CDS Order which, if approved, will re-instate QLSA qualified members
of the previous LCIS Tech to the Specialist 1 pay group.
~#,, ..
/'..c:r" C.T. Whitecross
Lieutenant-General
213
Distribution List
Action
Comd CA
DGCB
Info
DLPM
DRCCS
DPPD
2/3

Director General Compensation and Benefits
National Defence Headquarter
MGen George R. Pearkes Bldg
101 Colonel By Drive
Ottawa ON KIA OK2

5555-00100 (DPPD 4)

November 2016

LGen P.F. Wynnyk
Commander Canadian Army

ALLOCATION OF MILITARY OCCUPATION TO TRADE GROUP – ACISS

Reference: A 7200-1 (DRCCS) 16 February 2016
B. CDS Order 050/16 (Notal)
C. 5555-00362 (DPPD 4) 5 November 2016

1.	In answer to your request, reference A, at reference B, a new CDS Order was issued allowing the ACISS sub-occupation, LCIS, previous Trade Group Allocation to be rescinded, allocating the LCIS sub-occupation back to its original Spec 1 Pay allocation.

2.	In reference C, DMPAP was task to initiate a pay system adjustment for former and present LCIS personnel to reflect the CDS Order.  The pay adjustments are projected to be complete by the last pay period of January 2017.

3.	Once the new pay evaluation guide is approved for use, a formal pay evaluation will conducted upon the entire occupation.

4.	 For further information or question, please contact Maj Jean Godin, DPPD 4, at 613-996-8360.





Mary-Catherine Johnson
Acting-Director Pay Policy and Development


----------



## mariomike (10 Jan 2017)

For reference,

ACISS Occupation - Spec Pay (former LCIS Techs) 
http://milnet.ca/forums/threads/124963/post-1471696/topicseen.html#new


----------



## coolstorybro (24 Jul 2017)

Hello,

I was just wondering what exactly is a Trade Group Specialist 1 and 2 ? and how you become a Specialist - I see these options in the pay scale starting at Corporal , I am assuming you become a Specialist after completing courses? or am I totally wrong

Thank you


----------



## LightFighter (24 Jul 2017)

LND Infantry said:
			
		

> Hello,
> 
> I was just wondering what exactly is a Trade Group Specialist 1 and 2 ? and how you become a Specialist - I see these options in the pay scale starting at Corporal , I am assuming you become a Specialist after completing courses? or am I totally wrong
> 
> Thank you



Some trades qualify for Specialist pay, there are two levels of Spec Pay(some trades are level 1, others are level 2). Infantry does not get Spec Pay. 

These are the trades that get Spec Pay 
http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/caf-community-pay/specialist-pay-reg-force-ncm-mosids.page


----------



## coolstorybro (24 Jul 2017)

LightFighter said:
			
		

> Some trades qualify for Specialist pay, there are two levels of Spec Pay(pay dependant). Infantry does not get Spec Pay.
> 
> These are the trades that get Spec Pay
> http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/caf-community-pay/specialist-pay-reg-force-ncm-mosids.page



Thank you for your reply


----------



## TCM621 (23 Aug 2017)

Any one who OT'd into a spec trade after 2004 should probably speak to their orderly room. IAW the CBI, all time served plus the time spent in the jnr. Sub OCC was supposed to be counter to calculation of IPC I  the specialist pay category. They have been only using the time in the jnr sub OCC to calculate it. A number of grievances have resulted in D Mil Pay going back to correct the error. We received an email about it on Monday. There are like 1400 pers across the forces affected, so if you may be one of them make sure you are on the list.

Edit: I will try to post the message when I get into work tonight.


----------



## Eagle_Eye_View (23 Aug 2017)

You're right I contacted my OR and right now they are compiling names of people affected by this. Rumors are they want this completed by March next year.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (23 Aug 2017)

Tcm621 said:
			
		

> Any one who OT'd into a spec trade after 2004 should probably speak to their orderly room. IAW the CBI, all time served plus the time spent in the jnr. Sub OCC was supposed to be counter to calculation of IPC I  the specialist pay category. They have been only using the time in the jnr sub OCC to calculate it. A number of grievances have resulted in D Mil Pay going back to correct the error. We received an email about it on Monday. There are like 1400 pers across the forces affected, so if you may be one of them make sure you are on the list.
> 
> Edit: I will try to post the message when I get into work tonight.



Woot...Christmas money!   8)


----------



## TCM621 (23 Aug 2017)

Here is the message (on DWAN) http://cmp.mil.ca/assets/CMP_Intranet/docs/en/aig-1760-006-17.pdf

Also http://cmp-cpm.mil.ca/assets/CMP_Intranet/docs/en/aig-1760-008-17.pdf


----------



## Eye In The Sky (23 Aug 2017)

If the message is UNCLASS etc...any chance someone can post it up?  I am away from my postal code and the DWAN for awhile.


----------



## Eagle_Eye_View (23 Aug 2017)

I'll post it tomorrow when I go back to work.


----------



## TCM621 (24 Aug 2017)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> If the message is UNCLASS etc...any chance someone can post it up?  I am away from my postal code and the DWAN for awhile.



the message was a scanned PDF so I could only copy the picture of text. Sorry.


----------



## Sub_Guy (24 Aug 2017)

FM NDHQ DMPAP OTTAWA
TO AIG 1760
AIG 1742
BT
UNCLAS AIG 006/17
SIC WHA
SUBJ: AMENDMENT - CALCULATE SPECIALIST PAY ON VOT
REF: CBI 203.03(5) PAY ON OCCUPATIONAL TRANSFER
1. AS A RESULT OF THE CBI VERSION DATED 1 APR 2004, NUMEROUS 
GRIEVANCES HAVE BEEN GRANTED AS A RESULT OF A DISCREPANCY IN THE 
DETERMINATION OF A MEMBER S PAY INCREMENT (PI) UPON BECOMING 
OCCUPATIONALLY QUALIFIED IN A SPECIALIST TRADE GROUP.  IT HAS BEEN 
DETERMINED THAT THERE IS A REQUIREMENT TO RECTIFY THE PI LEVEL 
ASSESSMENT.  A NEW CBI HAS BEEN APPROVED BUT UNTIL IT IS RELEASED 
MEMBERS THAT HAVE VOT SINCE 1 APR 2004, SHALL HAVE ALL THEIR TIME IN 
RANK AND IC COUNT TOWARDS THEIR SPECIALIST TRADE.  THIS APPLIES TO 
BOTH SPECIALIST 1 AND SPECIALIST 2 TRADES.
2. AN ANALYSIS OF 1852 PAY RECORDS ARE AFFECTED BY THIS ISSUE.  



PAGE 2 RCCPJAQ1014 UNCLAS
GIVEN THE NUMEROUS AMOUNT OF FILES, MIL PAY OPS WILL PROCEED WITH 
CORRECTIVE ACTION TO ADJUST THE PAY INCREMENT OF ALL SERVING, 
RELEASED AND DECEASED MEMBERS.
3.  MPAO S OF REG F AND RES F UNITS CAN CONTACT MIL PAY IN ORDER TO 
OBTAIN A LIST OF AFFECTED MEMBERS FOR THEIR UNIT.
4. FOR MORE INFORMATION, AFFECTED MEMBERS SHOULD CONTACT THEIR LOCAL 
PAY OFFICE AND QUERIES MAY BE DIRECTED TO THE MIL PAY HELPDESK VIA 
ASSYST.
END OF ENGLISH TEXT / DEBUT DU TEXTE FRANCAIS


----------



## Sub_Guy (24 Aug 2017)

R 141513Z AUG 17
FM NDHQ DMPAP OTTAWA
TO AIG 1760
AIG 1742
BT
UNCLAS AIG 008/17
SUBJ: REVISED CALCULATE SPECIALIST PAY ON VOT
REF:  AIG 006/17 2418216Z JUL 17
1. THE ANTICIPATED DATE OF COMPLETION FOR FILES IS 31 MAR 2018.  THIS 
DATE COULD CHANGE DEPENDING ON THE PRIORITIES AND WORK LOAD OF MIL 
PAY STAFF.  PAY NOTES WILL BE ADDED BY MIL PAY TO INDIVIDUAL ACCOUNTS 
WHEN ADJUSTMENTS, IF NECESSARY, ARE COMPLETED. UNITS SHOULD NOT SEND 
IN ASSYST TICKETS WITH INQUIRIES ON EXPECTED COMPLETION DATES OF 
ACCOUNTS.  WHEN ALL WORK IS COMPLETED MIL PAY WILL SEND OUT AN 
ADVISORY.
2. IF UNITS HAVE REQUESTED AND RECEIVED A LISTING OF THEIR AFFECTED 
MEMBERS AND A MEMBER IS NOT IDENTIFIED ON THE LISTING, SUBMIT A 
TICKET TO THE MIL PAY HELPDESK TO HAVE THE MEMBER ADDED TO THE LIST 
FOR REVIEW AS PART OF THE PROJECT.  UNITS WILL NEED TO ACTION SPEC 



PAGE 2 RCCPJAQ1002 UNCLAS
PAY TIME CREDIT CALCULATION IAW AIG 006 17 FOR ANY MEMBERS WHO HAVE 
QUALIFYING TIME AFTER 24 JUL 2017 AS THESE MEMBERS WILL NOT BE 
ACTIONED BY MIL PAY.
3. RPPO WILL BE THE POC AND WILL BE CORRECTING ACCOUNTS FOR ALL 
RELEASED AND DECEASED MEMBERS.  CONTACT INFORMATION FOR RPPO CAN BE 
FOUND ON THE DMPAP WEBPAGE:  
HTTP://CMP-CPM.MIL.CA/EN/SUPPORT/MILITARY-PAY/INDEX.PAGE
END OF ENGLISH TEXT /


----------



## Eye In The Sky (24 Aug 2017)

awesome thanks!


----------



## Lumber (14 Dec 2017)

What, exactly, is the requirement for a trade to receive spec pay? I legitimately do not know.


----------



## Lumber (14 Dec 2017)

Damn, you guys are quick.


----------



## mariomike (14 Dec 2017)

Lumber said:
			
		

> What, exactly, is the requirement for a trade to receive spec pay? I legitimately do not know.





			
				MCG said:
			
		

> You neeed to have a technical job, requiring a significant amount of training, with skills easily transferable to the civi world . . . it is a sort of "please don‘t leave the CF" pay.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (14 Dec 2017)

It's all laid out here by MOSID.

Pay Overview -->  http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/caf-community-pay/pay-overview.page

Team Concept

As is the case in most militaries, the CAF uses a rank-based team concept or institutional approach to determine pay. In this methodology, the average value of the work performed by all members of a specific rank level is considered in developing pay. This is quite different from the more common Public Service method in which an individual is paid the evaluated worth for the specific position they are filling. In exceptional cases, market factors force the CAF to consider a handful of military occupations, such as doctors, dentists, lawyers and some high-tech trades, separate from the majority of CAF members. However, within these special occupations, the team concept is applied.

Pay Groups

Non-Commissioned Members

Non-commissioned members are paid rates of pay determined through TC analysis. Within each rank there are a number of Pay Increments (PI) which represent automatic annual increases given in recognition of advancements in experience, skill and knowledge. As well, there are three sub-groups of pay into which non-commissioned member trade groups are slotted. These sub-groups are Standard, Specialist 1 and Specialist 2 and pay rates vary in each sub-group. The Specialist 1 and Specialist 2 sub-groups, which include trades such as Fire Control Systems Technicians, Flight Engineers, Biomedical Electronics Technicians, and Marine Engineering Artificers, comprise jobs which are highly complex in nature and whose skills are in high demand in the private sector.

Reg Force Spec pay -->  http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/caf-community-pay/specialist-pay-reg-force-ncm-mosids.page

Res Force Spec pay -->  http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/caf-community-pay/specialist-pay-res-force-ncm-mosids.page


----------



## cinderblocked (14 Feb 2018)

Dolphin_Hunter said:
			
		

> R 141513Z AUG 17
> FM NDHQ DMPAP OTTAWA
> TO AIG 1760
> AIG 1742
> ...




So, correct me if I'm wrong here, but if someone completes the trade course that grants them Spec pay, would the move from (for example) Corporal 3 pay incentive to Corporal 3 (Specialist pay) ? or would it reset?

cheers


----------



## TCM621 (14 Mar 2018)

cinderblocked said:
			
		

> So, correct me if I'm wrong here, but if someone completes the trade course that grants them Spec pay, would the move from (for example) Corporal 3 pay incentive to Corporal 3 (Specialist pay) ? or would it reset?
> 
> cheers



The way it works is that upon qualifying for Spec pay (QL5 Cpl for most trades), you are entitled to spec pay at the rate of any pervious time spent at the rank of Cpl or a above + any time spent in the new trade prior to qualifying for spec pay. For Example:

Cpl Bloggins is a Cpl IPC 2 infantryman. Cpl Bloggins transfers to AVN tech 1 Jan 15. He received his QL 5 AVN tech 13 Jan 17. He has 3 years as a CPL in the infantry. He has 2 years as a AVN-jnr (ie apprentice). 3 +2 equals 5 years at as a Cpl. He will now be paid as a Cpl IPC 4 Spec 1.


----------



## trooper142 (14 Mar 2018)

Tcm621 said:
			
		

> The way it works is that upon qualifying for Spec pay (QL5 Cpl for most trades), you are entitled to spec pay at the rate of any pervious time spent at the rank of Cpl or a above + any time spent in the new trade prior to qualifying for spec pay. For Example:
> 
> Cpl Bloggins is a Cpl IPC 2 infantryman. Cpl Bloggins transfers to AVN tech 1 Jan 15. He received his QL 5 AVN tech 13 Jan 17. He has 3 years as a CPL in the infantry. He has 2 years as a AVN-jnr (ie apprentice). 3 +2 equals 5 years at as a Cpl. He will now be paid as a Cpl IPC 4 Spec 1.



 :goodpost:

The way it was explained to me is your spec pay is calculated based on time in MOSID. This was frustrating for me because I am Cpl 4(previous time in another trade) about to get spec pay upon completion of QL5, and I would have been bumped to Cpl 2 spec 1. 

I am delighted to see this is not the case, and I will bump over to Cpl 4 Spec 1. 

Thanks for the clarifying information.


----------



## CAFtastic (5 Jun 2019)

I'm about to join up for a specialist 1 trade (cyber op). On the specialist pay list, it says that spec pay applies to Cpl and higher ranks.

Does that mean that there is an automatic promotion to Cpl when trade training is complete? Also, prior to completing trade training, will I stay at the bottom Pvt pay step? 

Thanks for clearing things up.


----------



## Kokanee (5 Jun 2019)

CAFtastic said:
			
		

> I'm about to join up for a specialist 1 trade (cyber op). On the specialist pay list, it says that spec pay applies to Cpl and higher ranks.
> 
> Does that mean that there is an automatic promotion to Cpl when trade training is complete? Also, prior to completing trade training, will I stay at the bottom Pvt pay step?
> 
> Thanks for clearing things up.



It means that you have had to have completed the trades training, AND be Cpl or above.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (5 Jun 2019)

Normally, NCMs are promoted to Cpl after 48 months of service and completion of whatever trade training requirements (may differ by trade).  There is a chance of being what is called accelerated promoted, but that is the exception, not the rule usually.


----------



## Loachman (5 Jun 2019)

CAFtastic said:
			
		

> will I stay at the bottom Pvt pay step?



Seemingly minor point, perhaps, but the abbreviation for "Private" in Canada and elsewhere in the Commonwealth is "Pte".

"Pvt" is American, but also a joking abbreviation for "pervert" (or at least was in the not-that-distant past) here.


----------



## TCM621 (6 Jun 2019)

trooper142 said:
			
		

> :goodpost:
> 
> The way it was explained to me is your spec pay is calculated based on time in MOSID. This was frustrating for me because I am Cpl 4(previous time in another trade) about to get spec pay upon completion of QL5, and I would have been bumped to Cpl 2 spec 1.
> 
> ...



Here is the relevant CBI 204 para.

204.03(5) (Rate of pay - occupational career progression) A non-commissioned member who progresses in their occupational career shall be paid the rate of pay established in the senior Military Occupational Structure Identification (MOSID) in a specialist occupation, for the pay increment and qualifying service for their rank pertaining to the sum of:
a.the pay increment for their rank in the higher trade group that is nearest to, but not less than, the rate of pay the member was receiving on the day immediately prior to meeting the conditions the senior MOSID; _and_
b.the qualifying service accumulated in the junior MOSID of the same occupation for the member’s present rank, including any acting rank, (italics mine)

There was a bunch of grievances over this a couple years ago. Ottawa had been applying para a and only applying para b. Some of us got a nice check in the mail over that.


----------



## brihard (6 Jun 2019)

CAFtastic said:
			
		

> I'm about to join up for a specialist 1 trade (cyber op). On the specialist pay list, it says that spec pay applies to Cpl and higher ranks.
> 
> Does that mean that there is an automatic promotion to Cpl when trade training is complete? Also, prior to completing trade training, will I stay at the bottom Pvt pay step?
> 
> Thanks for clearing things up.



Bear in mind that as part of being a recruit, the CAF will be paying you a salary and benefits while also sending you to and paying for a pretty decent college program with considerable transferable skills. So while your spec pay may not kick in til you get Corporal around the 4 year mark, you'll be getting very considerable value for money out of your first few years. Also as a new private you're still very much learning the job. Think of it as almost being an apprentice.

When you look at the pay tables, in the row for 'Private', you move up in pay one step each year from your date of enrollment. You're not stuck at the bottom of the private pay scale- movement within a rank's pay levels is not dependent on completion of training or qualifications, it's strictly time in.

All in all, the Cyber Op trade with spec pay and a paid college program looks like a pretty good deal. And I can think of a couple federal agencies that are probably salivating at the prospect of poaching trained and experienced cyber operators in a few years time.


----------

