Again, my sarcasm game was weak. It's the exact opposite of a retention tool, as people advance they get less benefit, and take home close to the same pay they would at a lower rank. It creates an incentive to not advance in places with a large CFHD. When it was announced, I ran the numbers quickly for Ottawa, and the "pay" difference between a S04 S1 and S04 PO1 was about $800 a month. It's close to double that in locations without CFHD.
Sorry I missed your sarcasm completely then haha
I dunno, I kinda saw a valid possibility in there. Pay and time-in are highly correlated in the CAF, and the closer someone gets to 25 years the tighter those pension handcuffs get around their wrists. So this increased pay at the lower levels could get more people to that lock-in point (obviously that's an immeasurably different point for everyone) before the downside of this starts to hit them.
But I guess that goes to my unintended consequences point, there's a million scenarios that will unfold and how they look when aggregated is a guessing game, which is why they should just stick to sound HR policies as that's the best hope they've got. There's an easy argument for compensation to be adjusted geographically due to different labour markets / costs of living, there's also an easy argument that lower salaries are disproportionately effected and therefore the pay adjustment needs to be a somewhat sliding scale.
It would be interesting to get rid of PLD/CFHD, Spec Pay, etc., altogether and actually restructure the ranks and pay scales in accordance with market rates.
Try tying the various NCM salaries to what skilled tradesmen make in each market. In some cases it will be an easy comparison, in some others it would be require a bit more thought but not that much. An apprentice Carpenter makes ~$36/hr in Vancouver. So we'd be paying Privates/new Corporals around $75k a year in Vancouver, with 4 weeks paid vacation and a great pension. That's more than CPA Articling student with an accounting major makes (the latter obviously having higher earning potential in the long-run)... so a Pte(T) / new Corporal making more money than untrained 2LT... all seems to make sense to me.
Now said Cpl with $75k/year salary is posted to Edmonton, ends up taking a decrease in $4-5k decrease in gross pay but his new mortgage is much cheaper...
(Would also need to re-jig some rank characteristics i.e. as soon as you are fully trained and at OFP, you are not longer a 2Lt, you're an Lt with payscales that match that. No more of this silliness where a 2Lt is a Pl Comd for a 2 years in Battalion and hands his Platoon over to a Captain that just finished Phase training and makes $20k more a year than him.)
Could be a lot simpler to administer, gets rid of a lot of fights over spec pay and cost of living markers. At least it's a transparent system with actual industry markers used and it becomes very difficult to argue "well I could just jump to the private sector and make way more money." Add in some kind of posting bonus regardless of where the posting is (literally, here's a chunk of change, no strings attached, to compensate you for your mobility which is a trait the CAF
desires) and I think you're in a better place.
In other words, I suggest a complete overhaul of rank requirements and compensation be looked at, so good luck!!!
Just make the posting process more open.
Need a CPO2 in Timbuktu, put that out there. Let people volunteer for the position. And only post like we do now when we can't get a volunteer.
Side note, offer some serious financial benefits for the posting and make them non taxable.
Hey CPO2 Halifax Tar, thanks for volunteering for that job in Timbuktu, here's 10K, tax free, for taking one for the team. It will be in your account as soon as you RFD in you're new location, or we can cut you a cheque when you clear into the pay office, your choice.
*If you get more than one application/volunteer hold a hiring process and compete them.
Worth noting that the CAF, nor the Treasury Board, nor the Executive branch of government, can decide whether or not something is taxable. What's considered "income" and therefore taxable is provided in the Income Tax Act, a piece of legislation, and so the legislation would need to be amended.
Giving pay bonuses does have some potential merit, but why should the government pay more because some consider a posting less desirable? One mans trash is another mans treasure, so how does one fairly assess if there should be a bonus or not?
Because the labour market demands it. Every employer has to pay more to get workers to go somewhere that is, on the aggregate, less desireable. The question is why
shouldn't the government pay more like everyone else has to?
