Benefits Cut...

[Wookilar]

Let's all just chill a bit. QL3 students in Borden (and Gagetown) have been getting approval for postings while on course for at least 20 years (true story). One memo up the chain to request a move (not a contingency cost move either) first, then we see what happens.

No need to email Uncle Walt just yet.

Word is there is a meeting taking place this afternoon involving CMP and whole lot of Col and above. Let's just wait and see what clarifications we get. While the CF may be a bit of a machine that, at times, chews us up and spits us out, there are good people at the top that are fighting for the troops.

I know I am, I know my boss is and I have no doubt that that is continuing up the chain to the L1's. Let's have faith in our best asset, our people. I'm not going to screw any future fire team partner and I don't think CMP or the L1's will either (without a fight).

 

[Eye In The Sky]

Before CO's get swamped with a gazillion "NOIs" or grievances and everyone at DGCFGA goes on stress leave, people also need to understand before they even think 'grievance' that this benefit change has signature, approval and support by the Treasury Board.  Refer back to Para 3 of the CANFORGEN.

WRT grievances, the starting place is QR & O, Volume I, Chapter 7 - Grievances.

Read 7.01, Right to Grieve. 

For a more detailed understanding of the CF Grievance System than I will go into here, you can go to the DGCFGA website and the CF Grievance Board website.

What people need to understand is that in the CF Grievance system, the highest "authority" on decisions WRT grievances submitted by CF members is the CDS (by way of finding and recommendations made to the CDS by DGCFGA/CFGB in which the CDS personally makes a decision or by DGCFGA rendering decision on the CDS's behalf [where applic IAW that delegated authority, Art 7.09]).

So...knowing that info, can the CDS overturn a decision made by the Treasury Board?  No.

Anyone see the problem with submitting a grievance on the changes made by the CANFORGEN now?

 

[Occam]

EITS:  While I agree that anyone considering it should wait until the dust settles at least, I disagree with your interpretation on the grievance process.

Anyone can grieve anything (except the prohibited reasons under QR&O 7.01), so long as they feel they've been wronged - regardless of whether the FA (Final Authority) has the authority to remedy the grievance.  In most cases, the FA can make a recommendation, and forward the grievance to whoever does have the authority to provide remedy.

Case in point:  the Home Equity Assistance matter, which is the subject of another thread here.  In that case, the CDS signed off as "Supported/Recommended", and referred it to TBS, who took a year to respond "Denied".

 

[OldSolduer]

Yeah, but they got the cross first......what are you going to use for an image?  ;D

7.62 NATO round should work as symbol.....

 

[OldSolduer]

lol Well I have met many people in the CF who have openly stated they have no intentions of ever going into harms way an will actively avoid it.  Hell I worked with one person who told me his career goal was to do 25 years and never leave Canada.  Your tugging at emotional, patriotic rah rah heart strings and unfortunately many people who join only do so because of the pay cheque  and the pension at the end.  That's a fact of life buddy. 

Yes and you should be telling them that if it is required that they go into harms way and they then refuse....then release them.

I have told people that , and they have released on their own. Call them on this BS....and tell them to move aside for those that want to go.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

EITS:  While I agree that anyone considering it should wait until the dust settles at least, I disagree with your interpretation on the grievance process.

Anyone can grieve anything (except the prohibited reasons under QR&O 7.01), so long as they feel they've been wronged - regardless of whether the FA (Final Authority) has the authority to remedy the grievance.  In most cases, the FA can make a recommendation, and forward the grievance to whoever does have the authority to provide remedy.

Case in point:  the Home Equity Assistance matter, which is the subject of another thread here.  In that case, the CDS signed off as "Supported/Recommended", and referred it to TBS, who took a year to respond "Denied".

I think what I wanted to make known (specifically for any of the new/Jnr NCM and Officers who might read this thread) was that the CDS is the FA, and the FA can't overturn TB policy.  If every mbr who is on PAT or course "pre-career status" with D, HG and E in another location (read "those who will feel this the most" and who would have the "best case for redress" IMO) submits a grievance, IMO the only thing that will happen for sure is the CF Grievance System will be overwhelmed, and the redress sought can not be granted by the FA to begin with.  If a grievance can't provide redress sought, then is the CF grievance system the best COA?

I don't think my interpretation of the grievance process is off WRT the point I was trying to make overall; the CDS, as FA, can't overturn the TB decision, and on my understanding of our griev system (which is far from all-encompassing and open to correction/clarification of course), I don't see that the griev system we have is the best COA for remedy.

:2c:

 

[McG]

I am a member currently on IR.  My spouse is masters degree level teacher in a very specified field in Halifax.  I have no intention of asking her to give up her career and pension for my last 7 years of service. 

Situations like these are why the whole IR thing is being looked at and changed.  And of course the cuts shouldn't bother you, in cases like these, I don't think there should be IR benefits.

I agree that the lifestyle choice of never going to move my spouse is something that should not be subsidised.  Unfortunately, the changes have been to SE and not IR - the Venn Diagram overlaps significantly but (as stated previously) the two are not the same thing.  IR needs to be fixed and (I believe) those fixes still need to be made (ie. Max 2 years with 3rd year in extraordinary situations on approval from CMP).

The changes have now been decreed.  So, this is going to happen and it is time now to find mitigation solutions within the mechanisms we have in order to help those pers who rightfully needed the benefit.  To that end, I propose we look to some precedent in Attached Postings to give us a path.

It used to be that mbrs attached posted received SE once in place at the gaining unit.  As TD could anything up to 6 months and attached postings could be anything up to 12 months, this resulted in the absurd situation where pers side-by-side with the equivalent circumstances and attending the same course were receiving different compensation.  To fix this, the entitlement for attached posted pers became the same as TD.  This went off the rails for a bit between Jan 2011 and Feb 2012 at which point the CFTDTI were amended to give the expenditure authority for attached posted pers.

In the case of untrained personnel, the option exists to enrol them into a local BTL and then attach post those members to the successive schools required to get to OFP.  At any point in time when the member is likely to remain under control of the same school/TE for 12 or more months, then the member will receive a restricted posting.  Attached postings could also replace other uses of prohibited postings domestically.

For pers moved unaccompanied, Sect 3.01 of the CFTDTIs could be amended to extend benefits just as was done for attached postings.  As an unaccompanied move is intended to temporarily position a member at the new place of duty while attempting to bring forward, the inclusion of unaccompanied moves would be consistent with the CFTDTIs compensation package designed to support members who must maintain a temporary living situation (the temporary nature of which keeps things more expensive than for a pers on IR who is settling into a more stable and predictable situation).  This amendment would have to go to TB for approval, because Sect 3.01 of the CFTDTIs is a TB authorized section (as opposed to one of the CDS authorized sections).

There is a risk that pers fully intent on going IR could take an unaccompanied move in order to claim the 6 months of TD benefits prior to actually switching to IR.  In the event of such an abuse, the money would be recoverable and the member subject to disciplinary & admin action because A-PP-005-IRP-AG-001 at section 11.2.02 makes very clear that there must be an intent to move the family, and that IR must be requested as soon as it is known that unaccompanied will extend beyond 6 months.


… Anyway, there are guys with much more admin acumen than I in this thread.  I would be interested in thoughts on this.

 

[Wookilar]

We just got a message in changing the posting status of some of our students from prohibited to restricted (authorized).

Some, not all. In line with what MCG is saying, this is one of those mitigation strategies that it appears some of D Mil C is going to use. Hope it carries on.

 

[armyvern]

I agree with that statement, but I have not read an article about CF members using food banks in a while.  I bet that guy with the Porsche isn't the one complaining about CF pay.

If she hadn't stated Edmonton, then I'd have assumed it was the young troop acrross the street from us in Pet who parked his newly acquired Porsche in his blanket-clad windows-PMQ driveway post tour ... after a couple of months it just sat there not being driven anywhere (couldn't afford the gas or the insurance once the tax free tour money was expended) ... two months after that it was just flat-out repossessed because by then he couldn't even afford it's payments. Couple of Hummers in Gagetown suffered same fate. At the end of the day, one can predict how absolutely stupid some people will be with money --- but you can't cure stupid.

 

[aesop081]

We just got a message in changing the posting status of some of our students from prohibited to restricted (authorized).

Some, not all. In line with what MCG is saying, this is one of those mitigation strategies that it appears some of D Mil C is going to use. Hope it carries on.

Pretty interesting, I was sitting in the office with cdnnvyguy this afternoon and saying that i thought this is exactly what would happen.

 

[armyvern]

...But when the military is not allowing your to move your family with you, you should get compensated for the fact that you now have to pay for two lives.

At the risk of sounding insensitive - why the entitlement to compensation?  You made an informed decision to join with a family; similarly I joined ~25 years ago with a suitcase. In hindsight for the first 6 years of my career believed being in the shacks paying rations was a great deal on my otherwise meager pay. Not happy, miss your family and can't afford it...get out. There is a line up at the recruiting centre and I offer that nugget to anyone who feels beleaguered by our current compensation package(s) (to include postings/movement of DF&E etc.).  All the best with your situation.

To be clear, I have issues with your statement here as well.

My concern is for the young families this will affect who are not IR (that "IR" status infers "choice"), but who are "restricted posted" or "prohibited posted" (this is where Married Service Couples and new recruits fall under). Those prohibited or restrcted are currently paid their benefits the "same as IR pers receive", but they are NOT "IR" - they are in these different categories of postings (restricted and prohibited) exactly because they "have no choice" as to whether or not their families move with them. Will those benefits for those groups now change as a result of this CANFORGEN (remember, these pers are not "IR" status).

And, regarding the comments about "don't join the CF then" ... (or "get out", but that's already discussed by others here) ... let's also be clear that we have hundreds more potential applicants knocking on our doors to join the CF than we have positions for ... to be CLEAR - these pers were merit listed and "selected" by the CF for those jobs offers. The CF "offered" those guys/gals those job offers knowing full well that that applicant had a family, a home, kids etc etc. It works both ways.

Don't tell the guy not to join then if he's got a family or "oh well, you chose to join" because that really means "why in the hell is the CF offering them the job then knowing that they come with families/homes/whatever!!??" The CF made those job offers knowing the facts/family/home ownership status, it also bears some of the responsibility as far as I'm concerned for changes it makes after those pers have accepted that offer.

On the deduction of the meal portion, I am an "Oh well, I'd have to pay to eat at home anyway" person. That doesn't bother me an iota. The incidentals bothers me as I should be covered to call my family once a week (pay hydro bills etc [a cost that is currently not covered as that is "what incidentals are for"] - utilities that I am still required to pay at my principal residence etc whether I am there or not [unlike meals]). They going to cover that stuff now? It just seems to me that using the argument, "well you'd have to pay for food at home and you are not, thus we are taking the meal portion away from you" means that "Hey, I am already paying hydro at home so should you NOT be reimbursing me for those essential utilities that I am paying for out of my own pocket?" is the other side of the coin.

I lucked out - I am in an all-inclusive (except for meals) apartment. Other who will now have only their rent covered are not in such a good position. Besides the food expense which will be personal (and I agree with that! But I also agree that guys on TD to courses etc should be paying for their own food as they too would be now NOT incurring those costs at home while they are on course), they'll also be paying heat, hydro, phone out of their own pockets now too despite the fact that they ARE incurring those costs at their principal residence whther they are reunited with it or not.

While on topic, I know a few too who are also eating up 4% rent hikes every year from their own pockets. Landlords charge the max rent that IR will pay out (they are not stupid!!) and some of those landlords are upping that rent by the 4% legal limit now ...which the compensation is NOT covering if their original rent was already the max allowable.

Joe Landlord sees the CF coming and going. While we are at it --- get rid of this f'n "1 bedroom MAX apartment allowable" rule too!! When every furnished 1 bedroom in town costs 1600 bucks a month (the max claimable and the only thing we are allowed to rent), yet a 2 bedroom furnished apartment goes for 900 (to Joe Blow local) ... who is screwing who? If the CF wants to save money, lose that rule and I can see a bunch of us IR folks moving into bigger apartments, but saving you 700 bucks every month!! I don't think it's rocket science, yet I realize that common sense is extremely rare in certain circles. Find an IR guy with his college going kid living with him, or sharing that apartment? CHARGE his ass with fraud. Recover the totality of your moneies he obtained fraudulently, and leave the rest of us pers who aren't riding the system out of it.  Quite simple really.

 

[PMedMoe]

Vern, just wondering where you're getting that heat, hydro etc isn't covered.  ???  Mine is, up to the max amount of rent, parking, furniture rental, etc.  The only things not covered is phone, cable and internet. 

I was tempted to tell my unit if they ever had a bug out, someone would have to come to my door since I wasn't going to get a phone.  And without a phone, they wouldn't be able to ring up to my apartment either.  >

 

[TCM621]

Since you asked, I would suggest, (as per Eye In The Sky post #292 and Occam post #298) that there is a system in place and parameters for its use. Escalating from a memo to the soldier's Sgt directly to the Ombudsman may not be the brightest move; in fact, as noted via MilPoints, it's likely the dumbest advice I've seen offered here.

As such, I suggest you may wish to adhere to that recurring phrase here -- stay in your lane (which in this instance appears to be repetitively wringing your hands and bemoaning your lot in life) -- and NOT give dubious advice that could have potential repercussions for the member in question.

Who said anything about a memo to the SGT? IT would go to the CO at the very least. You could grieve it, which would take a year or two. And since this is a treasury board decision, I am not sure what the benefit of that is. Or you could talk to the Ombudsmen and work something out. That is his job. As for the person who said you can't talk to him if you are still serving, you are wrong. Also talking to the ombudsman is not the same as submitting a complain. They have a lot of knowledge about what you can go about solving your issues.

Just to be clear, I would bet that the memo up the chain would probably solve 99% of people problems. That's what i'm doing and I am sure it will be worked out. And that is all I will say about that.

Wookilar, how would changing a posting from Prohibited to Restricted help?

 

[aesop081]

And since this is a treasury board decision, I am not sure what the benefit of that is.

None.

 

[Occam]

As for the person who said you can't talk to him if you are still serving, you are wrong. Also talking to the ombudsman is not the same as submitting a complain. They have a lot of knowledge about what you can go about solving your issues.

No, I'm not wrong.  You can talk to the Ombudsman until you're blue in the face.  If you haven't exhausted the grievance route, don't expect them to lift a finger to help you out.  They won't.  Again - Read the DAOD on the role of the Ombudsman.

 

[McG]

Vern, just wondering where you're getting that heat, hydro etc isn't covered.  ???  Mine is, up to the max amount of rent, parking, furniture rental, etc.  The only things not covered is phone, cable and internet. 

What is covered or not depends on the type of accomodation that one has.  It is written in CBI sup paras 208.997(7) to (10).  You can see it here:  http://www.cmp-cpm.forces.gc.ca/dgcb-dgras/pub/cbi-dra/208-eng.asp

Utilities are only covered for Non-Commercial Accommodations And Family Housing.  Coincidentally - basic cabal, internet and telephone are also covered for both of Non-Commercial Accommodations And Family Housing.

 

[McG]

No, I'm not wrong.  You can talk to the Ombudsman until you're blue in the face.  If you haven't exhausted the grievance route, don't expect them to lift a finger to help you out.  They won't.  Again - Read the DAOD on the role of the Ombudsman.

While I do not condone launching to the Ombudsman as step #2 in problem solving, he is correct that one cannot grieve TB policy.  There have been grievances that reached the FA and were forwarded to the TB when it was determined the matter was of TB authority, but the system is not intended to function that way.  (QR&Os) Volume I - Chapter 7 Subsections 29(2) states that There is no right to grieve in respect of a matter or case prescribed by the Governor in Council in regulations.  That means you cannot grieve a CBI (the grievance route is exhausted from the get-go).  You can grieve an interpretation, but the grievance route is closed if you disagree with the TB policy.

 

[armyvern]

Vern, just wondering where you're getting that heat, hydro etc isn't covered.  ???  Mine is, up to the max amount of rent, parking, furniture rental, etc.  The only things not covered is phone, cable and internet. 
...

"Up to your max rent claimable" being the keywords here. That over and above you are paying out of your own pocket.

Be thankful that you have a rent below the limit (obviously not in a military town) ... others are paying the max rent claimable, but do not have any room left on their max to be able to claim utilities up to their max. Some landlords are scum. When they know the CF will pay max 1600 for rent --- that's what they charge, and for some that's without utilities (and also for some - that's unfurnished so the cost of rental furniture is also coming out of their own pockets). When you are forced into that 1 bedroom because policy dictates such vice their being a "competitive market" of 1 and two bedrooms allowability to force landlords to compete for IR business - you are then forced to eat those utility costs yourself that are over and above the max rate because "that's what incidentals are for". No incidentals anymore. That means = member's own pocket (unless they plan on allowing for those costs to now be claimed to their fullest of the actual charges incurred for such). For some people - it ain't just the cost of food.

 

[Occam]

You can grieve an interpretation, but the grievance route is closed if you disagree with the TB policy.

No arguments here, but neither CDS nor Ombudsman have authority over TB policy, so going to the Ombudsman is just as pointless.  Note that I did say:

Anyone can grieve anything (except the prohibited reasons under QR&O 7.01), so long as they feel they've been wronged - regardless of whether the FA (Final Authority) has the authority to remedy the grievance.  In most cases, the FA can make a recommendation, and forward the grievance to whoever does have the authority to provide remedy.

The Home Equity Assistance saga I mentioned earlier is a TBS interpretation being grieved, which the CDS passed on to TBS to reconsider.

 

[armyvern]

...

I was tempted to tell my unit if they ever had a bug out, someone would have to come to my door since I wasn't going to get a phone.  And without a phone, they wouldn't be able to ring up to my apartment either.  >

Missed this bit --- akin to what I told mine when it the discussion was reference "30 days reunited throughout the year and you could lose your IR benefits":

OK then, on day 31 when you take my IR benefits away, please do not come knocking on either my military spouse's door at the house nor at my door in my apartment when I don't show up for work in that second location "because I'm not IR anymore; policy says so. Careful what you wish for ..."