To confirm, you're saying the issue is the member playing those cards, not the CMs themselves, right?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.
To confirm, you're saying the issue is the member playing those cards, not the CMs themselves, right?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.
The addition of these badges mirrors the US, UK, RAN and other commonwealth countries. If there is a fault in it is perhaps perception, or that we don't have naval air integrated into the RCN.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:
May I introduce you to the French and Americans? We are hardly bling obsessed. It's not even close. The fact that the CAF is after decades of not recognizing anything is trying to recognize things is a good sign (SSE for example). As for Jr Rank's distinctiveness, they wear their trade badges. Naval Officers do not get trade badges (though Log is easy enough with their cap badge).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.
This matches the US, UK and other commonwealth initiatives. The only difference is perhaps that they have either naval air integrated into the navy or in the US case they are all SWO and not all of them achieve the qualification (due to branching career paths). As far as Coxn who CFR'd there are plenty of techs who CFR to engineering all the time with a lot of sea days when they reach PO1 or CPO2. It's more common than you think.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.
When you pay your troops crap, the bling helps...May I introduce you to the French and Americans? We are hardly bling obsessed. It's not even close.
One of my buddies retired as a SGM from the CAG, even with his assaulter allowance etc I thought his pay rate was criminal.Officers are pretty equivalent with the exchange rate. The NCM rates are criminal though. I know there are other benefits like on base accommodation etc.. but wow, that's not the greatest.
Brings me back to my assessment of allowing non-citizens to join the CAF.
I had a great "discussion" on CAF Reddit with others who were convinced that with the allowances, etc that US NCMs were paid better than CAF NCMs.When you pay your troops crap, the bling helps...
Compare the US Army
Army Pay Chart & Army Base Pay – Active Duty
TO Canadian Armed Forces
Military pay - Canada.ca
This page displays information about pay for Canadian Armed Forces members.www.canada.ca
BAH is probably what keeps a lot of U.S. service members from being below the poverty line. Add in the fact that a lot of their bases have adequate (in numbers, quality may vary) housing for single members, thus not requiring a lot of RHUs or off-Post living for single personnel, the system works out swimmingly for the member and the service.One very important thing to keep in mind when looking at the US military pay scales is the Basic Allowance for Housing (BAH). A US Army soldier who lives "on post" is not paying for their house (their BAH goes to that). If they live off-post they receive the BAH which varies by rank, location and whether they have dependents or not. An E1 with dependents living off-post at Fort Benning receives 1,305 USD per month in BAH while an O6 receives 1,920. An E1 with dependents living off-post in Seattle receives 2,436 USD a month. So factor that into comparison.
This system accommodates the very different housing costs of a far-flung military while still having compensation linked with rank.
How is BAH different the PLD? Seems to me PLD is an attempt at an equivalent allowance.BAH is probably what keeps a lot of U.S. service members from being below the poverty line. Add in the fact that a lot of their bases have adequate (in numbers, quality may vary) housing for single members, thus not requiring a lot of RHUs or off-Post living for single personnel, the system works out swimmingly for the member and the service.
Here in the CAF, we expect the same level of adaptability because "service before self", while hoping and wishing CAF members will behave like PS employees wearing green.
I would love to see a similar system of BAH for CAF members. It would alleviate so many issues IRT housing.
I think (could be wrong) that BAH is also rank-dependent.How is BAH different the PLD? Seems to me PLD is an attempt at an equivalent allowance.
We have published standards of for permanent quarters and I have not seen a single base where the existing single quarters meet that standard. Most permanent singles quarters (even the "nice" ones) only meet the standard of transient quarters. Yet, the major living quarters construction projects have been for newer, fancier transient quarters and not to build the minimum adequate permanent quarters. I mean we would have more transient quarters if we could take all current occupants of sub-standard “permanent” accommodations and move them into something that is actually to standard, but then the same people who prioritize creating new bling for themselves would have to stay in a room a little more rustic that that of a hotel when visiting another base.BAH is probably what keeps a lot of U.S. service members from being below the poverty line. Add in the fact that a lot of their bases have adequate (in numbers, quality may vary) housing for single members, thus not requiring a lot of RHUs or off-Post living for single personnel, the system works out swimmingly for the member and the service.
Here in the CAF, we expect the same level of adaptability because "service before self", while hoping and wishing CAF members will behave like PS employees wearing green.
BAH is everywhere. So when you look at the pay scales for US servicefolks you need to add in the BAH. PLD is not everywhere.How is BAH different the PLD? Seems to me PLD is an attempt at an equivalent allowance.
You are correct. As a MCpl I was posted to CFRS and was allowed to occupy a Q that was designated for a Snr NCO. About six months later it was legal for me to occupy it.I think (could be wrong) that BAH is also rank-dependent.
I recall that a while back, if you lived in their version of the Qs, you pay different rates depending on rank. They also had different housing for Jr NCMs, Snr NCMs, Officers, and GOFOs. But, in some places where Officers and NCMs live side by side (Fort Irwin being one), the Officer pays more for the same house.
It does indeed vary by rank (I gave the range for one location). If you live on-post, though, your BAH pays for your house. So its not that the Capt is paying more out of their pocket than the Sgt if they nature of on-post housing means they have the same style of house. They wouldn't see their BAH if they live on-post.I think (could be wrong) that BAH is also rank-dependent.
I recall that a while back, if you lived in their version of the Qs, you pay different rates depending on rank. They also had different housing for Jr NCMs, Snr NCMs, Officers, and GOFOs. But, in some places where Officers and NCMs live side by side (Fort Irwin being one), the Officer pays more for the same house.
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.
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.![]()
The RCAF does sort of distinguish folks by patches on flight suits. Qualified Flying Instructor, Instrument Check Pilot, etc.
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’spayearnings.