2Lt pay incremental after 5 years in the rank

[Nemo1304]

Good day everyone,

I've tried to research it myself but I couldn't find anything and no one could at my OR. Does anyone heard of regulation regarding pay increase for Reg force DEO 2Lt's being in the rank for over 5 years? I've only heard rumors but can't find anything on that. I'll be appreciated for any info.

 

[bradley247]

I was a DEO 2Lt for 5 years back when the wait for pilot training was ridiculous. You are only entitled to 2 pay increases.

CBI Ch204.211(12) (Completion of training) If the Chief of the Defence Staff, or any officer designated by the Chief of the Defence Staff, determines that an officer cannot complete military occupation training required for progression to the next rank solely as a result of a delay from scheduling of the training or a change in training requirements in the military occupation, and the required occupation training is not subsequent to a voluntary occupational transfer after one year of occupation training in the former military occupation, the maximum number of pay increment increases that may be provided to an officer under paragraph (11) is increased, but not to exceed the maximum number of pay increments for the applicable pay level and table, as follows:

    a) in the case of a delay of one year or less, by one pay increment; and
    b) in the case of a delay of more than one year, by two pay increments.

 

[Messerschmitt]

2LT DEO has 6 increments
http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/caf-community-pay/reg-force-class-c-officer-rates.page

AFAIK when you reach the last, you no longer get any increases (other than all over the board increase when they bump everyone up; which as can be seen from that link was March 2013 so over 2 years ago)
ROTP 2LT seem a lot more nasty since after 2 years there are no more increases. The difference is huge too. Almost 1300$/mth more

 

[bradley247]

2LT DEO has 6 increments
http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/caf-community-pay/reg-force-class-c-officer-rates.page

AFAIK when you reach the last, you no longer get any increases (other than all over the board increase when they bump everyone up; which as can be seen from that link was March 2013 so over 2 years ago)
ROTP 2LT seem a lot more nasty since after 2 years there are no more increases. The difference is huge too. Almost 1300$/mth more

As the CBI mentions above, DEO 2Lts don't move up incentives like other CF members. They are limited to 2 incentives, and only if their training is delayed.

 

[George Wallace]

2LT DEO has 6 increments
http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/caf-community-pay/reg-force-class-c-officer-rates.page

AFAIK when you reach the last, you no longer get any increases (other than all over the board increase when they bump everyone up; which as can be seen from that link was March 2013 so over 2 years ago)
ROTP 2LT seem a lot more nasty since after 2 years there are no more increases. The difference is huge too. Almost 1300$/mth more

All ranks suffer the same fate if the member is in rank longer than the number of IPCs for that rank.  2 Lts are no different.

 

[MJP]

All ranks suffer the same fate if the member is in rank longer than the number of IPCs for that rank.  2 Lts are no different.

DEO 2LTs according to the CBIs are treated differently.  Usually because they don't stay that rank for that long.  I have seen some long in the tooth 2LTs mostly because they couldn't pass the requisite crses but medical issues and in some cases occupational training delays.

IMHO sounds ripe for a grievance.

 

[bradley247]

IMHO sounds ripe for a grievance.

The 2Lt mafia is way ahead of you! http://mgerc-ceegm.gc.ca/cs-sc/2014-113-eng.html

 

[MJP]

The 2Lt mafia is way ahead of you! http://mgerc-ceegm.gc.ca/cs-sc/2014-113-eng.html

Hmm denied.  I can see the denial of the promotion.  One needs to be qualified (generally) to be promoted, but don't see why they can't move up the IPC scale.  If that that is the case why have 6 increments at all?  ROTP, UTPNCM and CFR which produce most of the other officers for the CAF all have their own scales, so it isn't like they are all lumped together.  The only scenario in my small brain that I see for having six increments is someone with former service joining as a DEO officer. 

 

[Nemo1304]

Thanks for all your replies! It seems there's no such a regulation exist.

 

[George Wallace]

I don't see any exceptions being made to 2 Lt pay incentives.  If for whatever reasons, a decision is made to increase the number of pay incentive levels for 2 Lt's, then it opens a can of worms where other ranks that have few pay incentive levels, (such as Pte and Cpl) will also demand increasing their numbers. 

The can of worms then raises the problem of a lower rank, in rare occasions, attaining a higher pay than the next higher rank.

It is an unfortunate fact of life that injuries occur, but to make exceptional conditions to raise one's income over a series of years beyond the set levels of pay incentives, while a person is not progressing in their occupation does not make sense.  If a person is injured and unable to fulfill the "universality of Service" for such a length of time then the question should be: "Why have they not been Released?"

 

[dapaterson]

George,

Pay for officers at the rank of Lt is different.  As spelled out in CBI 204.211(11), 2Lts do not receive the full range of pay increments; they'll receive a maximum one or three, depending on their entry plan.  However, they will not necessarily start at the bottom PI either, depending on their entry plan.  (For all the gory details, read CBI 204.211 at http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/about-policies-standards-benefits/ch-204-pay-policy-officers-ncms.page)

Very different from Ptes.

 

[Nemo1304]

Sometimes due to a circumstances such as an injury, cancellation of the courses, availability of the courses - once a year for instance, change of the trade/element, member stuck in the rank of 2Lt for quiet a few years. And according to CBI entitled only to one incremental. So for next few years member will be seeing no increase in the salary at all...

 

[George Wallace]

So?

Seriously.  I have no pity on someone in that situation.  Other people do not receive special compensation for similar situations.  This reeks of a sense of entitlement to me.  Sorry.

 

[Nemo1304]

George,

Who said I'm looking for "pity" here? I've posted a question on important to me topic and asked for an advice. If you don't have anything to say on it just move on to Mental Health or PTSD topics of this forum as its seems more appropriate for your attitude.

Let me clear this for the rest of "posters": I heard a rumor that such regulation exist but neither OR, my research or anyone else could prove it. So topic is closed.

George, save it and move on.

 

[MJP]

So?

Seriously.  I have no pity on someone in that situation.  Other people do not receive special compensation for similar situations.  This reeks of a sense of entitlement to me.  Sorry.

I actually think that there is a case here.  2Lts are treated in this manner, a manner that isn't consistent with the rest of the CAF.  There is a loss of procedural fairness in the consistency of increasing IPCs for these folks.  There is no entitlement issue but rather an equality issue. 

Do I think that some of the people caught up in this bind are people that otherwise shouldn't be in the CAF because they can't pass a crse or are "chronically" injured.  Absolutely.  But that doesn't mean there good people caught up in what at first blush seems to bad policy.  The situation with pilots a few years ago is a good example.

 

[Pusser]

The determination of pay rates is a very complicated issue that I won't even begin to try and explain in detail here.  However, I can say that this issue cannot be resolved by simply increasing the number of pay incentives on a particular pay scale.  One of the features of our pay rates that many folks don't seem to understand is that there is generally a top pay rate and a bottom pay rate for each rank or rank group within a certain group of people.  Generally, increasing the number of pay incentives would not mean adding more pay to existing rates, but rather reducing the middle rate increases.  To illustrate this, imagine that a Basic 2Lt receives $1000/mo, an IPC1 receives $1300 and an IPC2 receives $1600.  Adding an IPC3 to the scale does not mean a new higher rate of $1900.  Instead it means that IPC1 will be $1200 and 1PC2 will be $1400.  IPC Basic and IPC3 stay the same. 

The more IPCs there are, the longer it takes to get to the top of the scale.  Fewer IPCs are actually better because it means people are getting more money earlier.

 

[Lumber]

The determination of pay rates is a very complicated issue that I won't even begin to try and explain in detail here.  However, I can say that this issue cannot be resolved by simply increasing the number of pay incentives on a particular pay scale.  One of the features of our pay rates that many folks don't seem to understand is that there is generally a top pay rate and a bottom pay rate for each rank or rank group within a certain group of people.  Generally, increasing the number of pay incentives would not mean adding more pay to existing rates, but rather reducing the middle rate increases.  To illustrate this, imagine that a Basic 2Lt receives $1000/mo, an IPC1 receives $1300 and an IPC2 receives $1600.  Adding an IPC3 to the scale does not mean a new higher rate of $1900.  Instead it means that IPC1 will be $1200 and 1PC2 will be $1400.  IPC Basic and IPC3 stay the same. 

The more IPCs there are, the longer it takes to get to the top of the scale.  Fewer IPCs are actually better because it means people are getting more money earlier.

Zing!

 

[MJP]

The determination of pay rates is a very complicated issue that I won't even begin to try and explain in detail here.  However, I can say that this issue cannot be resolved by simply increasing the number of pay incentives on a particular pay scale.  One of the features of our pay rates that many folks don't seem to understand is that there is generally a top pay rate and a bottom pay rate for each rank or rank group within a certain group of people.  Generally, increasing the number of pay incentives would not mean adding more pay to existing rates, but rather reducing the middle rate increases.  To illustrate this, imagine that a Basic 2Lt receives $1000/mo, an IPC1 receives $1300 and an IPC2 receives $1600.  Adding an IPC3 to the scale does not mean a new higher rate of $1900.  Instead it means that IPC1 will be $1200 and 1PC2 will be $1400.  IPC Basic and IPC3 stay the same. 

The more IPCs there are, the longer it takes to get to the top of the scale.  Fewer IPCs are actually better because it means people are getting more money earlier.

Pusser no one is arguing that the pay range should increase.  Both you and George have read it wrong.  There are already 6 increments.  2Lts don't progress up those incentives like the rest of the CAF, they only get a max of 2 incentive increases.

 

[bradley247]

My bad, I thought you were asking what rule prevents them from getting all the IPCs, not if there was a rule allowing them to.

Back when pilot training was taking years, you could actually request a higher IPC through the "career manager" for untrained pilots. As far as I know it wasn't based on any policy, but it usually would be approved if you could justify it (ie, I have a wife and kids). Several of my fellow student pilots at the time got additional IPCs just by asking.

 

[swonder25]

I realize this thread has not been posted on for quite some time but it seems to be the most relevant place.

I was looking for some clarification on this from cbi 204.

a) in the case of a delay of one year or less, by one pay increment; and
    b) in the case of a delay of more than one year, by two pay increments.

Example:
Member is posted to a unit in Feb 2018. Not placed on a course until July 2018 and will not finish phase training until June 2019.

This is a delay of 1 year or more based solely on scheduling and the member would thus be eligible for a 2nd increment.

Am I correct in my interpretation?