Allowances - Post Living Differential (PLD) [MERGED]

[armyman7877]

I agree while not everyone is cut for management, but there's still an old outdated mentality that exists within the c.f especially among the higher ups, that drinking at the mess with the boys, and helping him with his house on the weekend, lending your truck, or providing extra favors to your boss outside of work is more than likely going to get promoted faster than someone else who may be better at thier job,. People just get tired of this old boys club and they get out.

 

[Fabius]

Lots of issues and only a few suggestions for improvements.

CAF pay is largely tied to rank and then secondary to trade (Spec pay). Should that change to being a base pay tied to rank (ie. management expectations) and then an almost equal amount tied to qualifications? Ie. The more trained and professionally knowledgeable you are the more you are compensated.

How do we do use allowances, ie PLD, LDA etc. Their purpose is to either balance QoL (PLD) and we therefore need a baseline QoL. What is that? A national cost of living average with all provinces, territories and the three major urban areas added in additionally? Any posting with a cost of living higher than the average gets PLD?

LDA etc. should those allowances reward more time in field units etc.? Should it be for being in a unit or should it be for actual time away? How do we deal with people being posted out and losing the allowance and making less in a new rank? Does that matter as it’s pay for separate expectations?

What should the base pay be for an entry level person who the institution will train? Does that need to equal or exceed the base pay for that trade on the civilian side where the person is responsible for their own training prior to being hired?

Should we explore and use retention signing bonuses to retain people? How do we use them and how big should they be to work? How much of a restricted release period should there be with those.

Just some random thoughts.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

I think implying a new system where promotions where based on a how well you can actually do your job , rather than outdated favoritism write ups we still have e today, would have a better impact on c.fs morale.

I've done my job, very well in some cases. I've applied myseld and never needed kneepads. I've been 'first look' my last 2 promotions and am situated fairly well again for 2023 selection boards.

I can actually do my "flying" and "WO" jobs, and anyone who knows me likely wouldn't agree I aim for 'favoritism' write ups. To my own detriment, I care little for what most people think of me...so, some of us actual "merit" and the merit boards.

It's not that what you said isn't accurate, but I don't believe it is the default in the CFPAS system. There's also a fairly well exercised grievance system in place to handle PER errors/omissions.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

Lots of issues and only a few suggestions for improvements.

CAF pay is largely tied to rank and then secondary to trade (Spec pay). Should that change to being a base pay tied to rank (ie. management expectations) and then an almost equal amount tied to qualifications? Ie. The more trained and professionally knowledgeable you are the more you are compensated.

How do we do use allowances, ie PLD, LDA etc. Their purpose is to either balance QoL (PLD) and we therefore need a baseline QoL. What is that? A national cost of living average with all provinces, territories and the three major urban areas added in additionally? Any posting with a cost of living higher than the average gets PLD?

LDA etc. should those allowances reward more time in field units etc.? Should it be for being in a unit or should it be for actual time away? How do we deal with people being posted out and losing the allowance and making less in a new rank? Does that matter as it’s pay for separate expectations?

What should the base pay be for an entry level person who the institution will train? Does that need to equal or exceed the base pay for that trade on the civilian side where the person is responsible for their own training prior to being hired?

Should we explore and use retention signing bonuses to retain people? How do we use them and how big should they be to work? How much of a restricted release period should there be with those.

Just some random thoughts.

Federal tax rates for Reg Force CAF members regardless of province of posting (Res if they have had a mandatory, not elective, move).

My environmental allowance doesn't and shouldn't factor into it. I can lose it/keep it on posting, position, medical status, etc.

Pilots and SAR Techs had the AIRCRA and Rescue Specialist allowances rolled into base pay. Its not pensionable; extend that to hard air/sea/land trades who are fit MOSID.

 

[Halifax Tar]

Lots of issues and only a few suggestions for improvements.

CAF pay is largely tied to rank and then secondary to trade (Spec pay). Should that change to being a base pay tied to rank (ie. management expectations) and then an almost equal amount tied to qualifications? Ie. The more trained and professionally knowledgeable you are the more you are compensated.

How do we do use allowances, ie PLD, LDA etc. Their purpose is to either balance QoL (PLD) and we therefore need a baseline QoL. What is that? A national cost of living average with all provinces, territories and the three major urban areas added in additionally? Any posting with a cost of living higher than the average gets PLD?

LDA etc. should those allowances reward more time in field units etc.? Should it be for being in a unit or should it be for actual time away? How do we deal with people being posted out and losing the allowance and making less in a new rank? Does that matter as it’s pay for separate expectations?

What should the base pay be for an entry level person who the institution will train? Does that need to equal or exceed the base pay for that trade on the civilian side where the person is responsible for their own training prior to being hired?

Should we explore and use retention signing bonuses to retain people? How do we use them and how big should they be to work? How much of a restricted release period should there be with those.

Just some random thoughts.

We need to look beyond training and rank and start to look at responsibility. A good example of this is the CPO2 in D206 in HMC Dkyrd. Responsible for 100++ pers both Civ and Mil and responsible for millions of dollars with of kit and equipment. And they are a base pay CPO2. Mean while there is a LT(N) at RCSU that is IC canoes, and they make more than the CPO2.

Maybe we need to base pay on positions ?

 

[McG]

Maybe we need to base pay on positions ?

I don’t want to see what happens to the national case load of grievances if the day comes where an opaque career manager decision can raise or lower a person’s pay.

Positions should be established with a rank that is commensurate with the responsibility. If that is not happening, then fix the problem there and not inside the pay system.

 

[Halifax Tar]

I don’t want to see what happens to the national case load of grievances if the day comes where an opaque career manager decision can raise or lower a person’s pay.

Positions should be established with a rank that is commensurate with the responsibility. If that is not happening, then fix the problem there and not inside the pay system.

Agreed. I could foresee stormy weather that's for sure.

What about an allowance system like SDA or LDA ? A higher responsibility allowance say ?

I just don't see us adjusting positions, and really where do you go after CPO2 now ?

 

[Good2Golf]

I agree while not everyone is cut for management, but there's still an old outdated mentality that exists within the c.f especially among the higher ups, that drinking at the mess with the boys, and helping him with his house on the weekend, lending your truck, or providing extra favors to your boss outside of work is more than likely going to get promoted faster than someone else who may be better at thier job,. People just get tired of this old boys club and they get out.

Playing hockey: Has entered the chat.

 

[McG]

What about an allowance system like SDA or LDA ? A higher responsibility allowance say ?

LDA produces a lot of unintended consequences. People find constructive ways to hold onto the position to keep the pay without meeting the obligations. I would not spread that model to other compensation. Further, I think we would find other dissatisfiers quickly appear from a “responsibility allowance.” The jobs that most people here would pick for a “responsibility bonous” are leadership positions, which are typically baseline employment. So you create a system where everyone gets a big step in pay within a year of promotion, then take a drop in pay for their remaining time in rank. And it is still a system that gives an opaque career manager decision process the power to give and take the amount of pay someone gets.

I just don't see us adjusting positions, and really where do you go after CPO2 now ?

Commission. I know we have built a culture that teaches the only successful non-commissioned career path is one that culminates with a Canadian coat of arms, but we sort of need to kill that thinking.

If that means we need a new badge to sell the idea, then maybe we do that & all environments can take a pause from inventing new bling to show their guys who’ve always been officers are better than other guys who’ve always been officers.

 

[dimsum]

Mean while there is a LT(N) at RCSU that is IC canoes, and they make more than the CPO2.

Tell me more about this position and how one can get it...

If that means we need a new badge to sell the idea, then maybe we do that & all environments can take a pause from inventing new bling to show their guys who’ve always been officers are better than other guys who’ve always been officers.

...the CD with 2 clasps?

 

[OldSolduer]

Playing hockey: Has entered the chat.

In some instances yes. However in any organization some cronyism is tolerated.

 

[Quirky]

Hockey, golf, badminton, running, soccer, basketball etc the list goes on. No different than kit shop rep, general safety, or the other handful of useless secondary duties people use for points. At least sports takes skill.

 

[McG]

...the CD with 2 clasps?

Maybe, but I have noticed a tendancy (including amongst NCO who need to be inspired by individuals by those who have commissioned and achieved success) to see that Maj or LCol with with two clasps and ask what he did to fail. Meanwhile, in response to my question as to whether the naval warfare officer badge communicates anything that cannot be inferred between an individual’s rank and the sea service badge over the opposite pocket:

Yes. It communicates that you have a BWK, done an ORO tour or been a CO of a ship (I wonder if PRes Stone Frigates count?).

All hard sea trade officers have the same cap badge and SSE as NWO's do, so just looking for a SSE colour or cap badge doesn't really tell you much different as you could be an Engineer who's sailed a lot (or CFR'd etc...).

The CAF’s peacock badges & bling obsession has been predominantly weighted to maximize occupational & environmental distinction for officers, where in reality this effort should be weighted to maximize distinction for the junior ranks. We also want a little bit of that distinctiveness on the people in the jobs that privates, sailors, and corporals should be aspiring toward.

But we now have a badge that allows one to quickly identify those NWO who have followed the “proper” career path and to distinguish them above that rare naval engineer with a pretty exceptional career path or the Coxn who CFRed. The commander with two clasps and formerly filled the senior appointment on a coast is more likely to be assessed as a turd who could not even check the obligatory boxes when met by the newest crop of sailors and A/SLt.

As an aside, even pilots seemingly do not feel the need to “level up” their wings to reflect various career checks in the box.

 

[dimsum]

As an aside, even pilots seemingly do not feel the need to “level up” their wings to reflect various career checks in the box.

That's because they've always been there and (at least for the British-inspired air forces), unchanged. That's the "tradition" now.

The USAF, however, does have different "grades" of wings. The USN, USMC, etc do not.

The RCAF does sort of distinguish folks by patches on flight suits. Qualified Flying Instructor, Instrument Check Pilot, etc.

 

[brihard]

That isn’t a strong argument foundation. Most Canadians don’t get relocated against their will to posting locations like I am subject to. I had a posting message in 2019 (out of geo), 2020 (same gel location) and 2021 (out of geo). Should they take away posting allowances too because “most Canadians” don’t get them?



PLD is not just a housing benefit, though. It’s not about being necessary, it’s about offsetting the COL when the government forces you and your family to relocate somewhere that creates a disadvantage. That disadvantage doesn’t go away at the +2 year point or on the mbrs next promotion.

View attachment 70899View attachment 70900

PLD has broken and has failed. It no longer effectively does what it’s supposed to do. The peg to an Ottawa baseline has been allowed to become a polite fiction- those in a position of responsibility know that with what Ottawa has done in the past six years, a reassessment of PLD against the Ottawa baseline would result in a massive loss of PLD benefits.

I believe the housing affordability issue has grown much larger than simply PLD as an allowance. If CAF wants to retain a benefit for things like fuel and groceries cost, sure. There’s even other precedent for that in the Isolated Posts and Government Housing Directive that PS/RCMP have for some isolated locations. There’s a ‘living cost differential’ and an ‘shelter cost differential’ as two different rates.

Separate housing from other issues, and deal with it as the recruiting and retention imperative that it is.

I stand by having it means tested. To be blunt, I feel you were deliberately oversimplifying and dumbing down what I said, as if someone would be financially disadvantaged by promotion and losing such a benefit. In reality, a financial benefit could easily be scaled to avoid that, and still to cease at a certain amount of income (perhaps relative to a points matrix for different markets).

The fear of equity loss could be mitigated by a fairly applied home equity assistance benefit tied to relocation. A version of this already exists.

I don’t think it’s unreasonable to think that assistance specifically for home ownership should ramp down eventually once you’ve attained a rank and salary that should be more able to support it. The hardest part is getting into the market. Once you start building equity, if equity losses on posting are compensated, that’s pretty fair and reasonable.

Again, any such benefit needs to be defensible as a military necessity, to a population that doesn’t receive it. Only CAF gets PLD, and CAF salaries are already pretty good compared to the population at large.

One thing that will be neat to see will be if the trend towards more remote work will help favour spousal employment. Maybe CFMWS could put a project together to help to entice remote employers to employ CAF spouses. That would bridge one of the major structural gaps in this whole thing.

 

[daftandbarmy]

We need to look beyond training and rank and start to look at responsibility. A good example of this is the CPO2 in D206 in HMC Dkyrd. Responsible for 100++ pers both Civ and Mil and responsible for millions of dollars with of kit and equipment. And they are a base pay CPO2. Mean while there is a LT(N) at RCSU that is IC canoes, and they make more than the CPO2.

Maybe we need to base pay on positions ?

Or we shed positions that aren't 'death tech' jobs that could be done cheaper and better by civilians like, you know, sports stuff

 

[dimsum]

Or we shed positions that aren't 'death tech' jobs that could be done cheaper and better by civilians like, you know, sports stuff

Hey hey you're cutting off my last posting!

 

[McG]

Or we shed positions that aren't 'death tech' jobs that could be done cheaper and better by civilians like, you know, sports stuff

That is the path to the Russian logistics model.

 

[Oldarmyguy77]

The issue we have with career managers is that are always people who play the system to get what they want on the backs of others. We have people who use tactics like refusing all postings, and delaying a promotion for a year because they know a better position is coming up next posting season. We also have members in places Valcartier who have been there for 15 years often blocking anyone else from taking g that position. Also, navy members posted to Halifax and the island in 2000 have been receiving pld for 20 years at this point. How would thier col be the same as a new member? They would receive an extra benefit over thier career without any of the hardships tha tother members endure by postings.

 

[rmc_wannabe]

That is the path to the Russian logistics model.

Agreed. Even the non-"death tech' trades require people who can be employed outside of a garrison environment.

I had someone try to say the RCCS' woes with personnel could be fixed by hiring more Civilians/contractors to fill the gap. I pointed out that civilian staffing falls to pieces when you need a combat nerd to go forward to make the bleeps bloop. Unlimited liability is something you can't contract out.