Benefits Cut...

[aesop081]

MSCs are the cheapest option out there.

I agree. That being said, once either 1/2 of an MSC (or both) say "post me and i'll get out because of this IR stuff" (and that is what they WILL say), CMs will turn around and post the single guy. 19 times out of 20, the MSCs will stay in location and continue to serve. Those cases where the CM has balls and calls the bluff  ("go ahead, get out") will see 1/2 of the MSC get out and the single guy get posted.

Either way, the single guy moves, cost or no cost.

my  :2c: prediction.

 

[PPCLI Guy]

Reading the last few posts, it strikes me that the problem is not so much the policy but its application by the Career Managers.  In my experience in my trade, marital status was seldom if ever taken into account, and we tried to accomodate MSCs wherever possible. 

 

[4Feathers]

That CANFORGEN reads to me exactly as if it is indeed going to make it go away for a lot of the pers affected. Using TD and Attached Posted for example for 'short term' courses, BTL, ATL.

The only pers the problem isn't "going away" for are MSCs and those proceeding on unaccompanied postings; and, those who are IR.

Nevertheless, should be an interesting conference indeed.

AV, I feel for your situation. Although not on IR right now, I have spent many a years away from family, not by choice. I knew IR rule changes were coming but I never expected it to be this severe. the result of all this will be to lose many valued and experienced personnel, who have already sacrificed much in their career. For me, and I suspect you too, my next stop is a SCAN seminar and preparing an exit strategy for the next time I am posted. On the bright side for me, I have enough years in to have control over my future. This policy change just went too far. I had thought perhaps the fair idea would have been to feed IR pers in the mess or give them equivalent funds to feed themselves. Anyhow, it will be sad to lose pers like you who are actually needed more now than ever with the lack of overall experience in the CF right now. Cheers.

 

[armyvern]

Reading the last few posts, it strikes me that the problem is not so much the policy but its application by the Career Managers.  In my experience in my trade, marital status was seldom if ever taken into account, and we tried to accomodate MSCs wherever possible.

They did "accomodate" me on my last posting, apparently. They couldn't get me to Pet ( ???) where my svc spouse was then posted to, my posting was changed so many times - it's hard to track: I was first posted to Bagotteville (to stand up the EW), cancelled as they wanted someone with higher than just "B" language profiles and changed to a posting to the Canada School Public Service (Gatineau), cancelled because they had someone they had to keep in the NCR due to social worker visit and then changed to CSM CFRG Borden, cancelled due to position being downgraded, and then finally I was posted to ResF HQ in Winnipeg as the sergeant-major --- and I said, "look, I have never said no in my career, can't you at least get me somewhere within driving distance of my family on long weekends?" The answer was "no" until a last minute CFR resulted in my current position opening up and I finally got a message that was not cancelled & changed. I was only a 2.5 hour drive away at least. Then, the next January he got posted to Montreal (although someone same rank as he got posted to my current location this past summer) --- at least it's still only a 3 hour drive home.

Careers will tell you that they have accomodated me; I'm not in Winnipeg. 

 

[MeatheadMick]

The problem only seemed to have opened up after ATI req showed Sr. Officers on IR for years at a time, lives being paid for by the tax-payer when the mbr's family still lived close. The example that comes to mind is a LCol posted to Ottawa, on IR for 5 years, family was in Pet, cost of hotels reached over $125,000.  The problem isn't with IR benefits in my opinion, it's the mbr's who abuse them.  In this circumstance, the mbr was forced to pay a % of the cash back, and I'm sure there are others who are more informed on this matter than I am.

I believe there are many better strategies to cut costs than this... all this seems to afford are family problems and headaches for Career Managers... If they do away with PLD as another cost cutting method... I can see very many soldiers dealing with financial hardship.

Just my 2 Cents.

 

[4Feathers]

The problem only seemed to have opened up after ATI req showed Sr. Officers on IR for years at a time, lives being paid for by the tax-payer when the mbr's family still lived close. The example that comes to mind is a LCol posted to Ottawa, on IR for 5 years, family was in Pet, cost of hotels reached over $125,000.  The problem isn't with IR benefits in my opinion, it's the mbr's who abuse them.  In this circumstance, the mbr was forced to pay a % of the cash back, and I'm sure there are others who are more informed on this matter than I am.

I believe there are many better strategies to cut costs than this... all this seems to afford are family problems and headaches for Career Managers... If they do away with PLD as another cost cutting method... I can see very many soldiers dealing with financial hardship.

Just my 2 Cents.

I agree, but following this logic, a member does not approve himself to be on IR, it is a CoC thing. No matter what rank, the members CO or Formation Commander is the authority that allowed it.  Perhaps what should have been done is to change the guidelines or rules. I see requests for IR all the time and love it when the CO asks the hard questions.

 

[MeatheadMick]

this is incredibly true... now how is it that something like the above could be allowed... perhaps instead of changing the benefits received (including the IRP changes) the policy makers should have reviewed the application process.

 

[PanaEng]

The problem only seemed to have opened up after ATI req showed Sr. Officers on IR for years at a time, lives being paid for by the tax-payer when the mbr's family still lived close. The example that comes to mind is a LCol posted to Ottawa, on IR for 5 years, family was in Pet, cost of hotels reached over $125,000.  The problem isn't with IR benefits in my opinion, it's the mbr's who abuse them.  In this circumstance, the mbr was forced to pay a % of the cash back, and I'm sure there are others who are more informed on this matter than I am.

You are right on that one. Had a big discussion with someone familiar with the case a couple of days ago.
I is an issue that has bothered many ppl for a while now. But it seems we tend to reach for the sledge hammer when tweezers should have done the job. Not to disparage anyone but it seems we are being lazy when writing policy - don't TB submissions get checked by lawyers as well before they make it out of DND?

 

[aesop081]

don't TB submissions get checked by lawyers as well before they make it out of DND?

Maybe they were and you are just making the assumption that there is something legally contentious about the changes made.

 

[McG]

You are covered by this brief reprieve, and hopefully the higher CoC individual's can make more progress in the window of time created.

Each person involved now has an opportunity to 'seek out and accept responsibility.' Otherwise, how many troops are going to get bit with this a few months down the road because they sat back, doing nothing more than wishing the CoC would make this boogeyman simply go away, rather than making some fiscal adjustments on their own?

I would argue that both need to be the case.  Despite the delay and few mitigating measures indicated as planned, the new policy needs adjustment or more mitigation - so higher CoC still have work to do.  At the same time, individuals & families need to start planning as though nothing better is coming. 

MSCs and single guys (I already addressed the single guy/no dependents in another post). MSCs will be asked told first though, as they most often are now,  because they constitute a "no cost move" - that's why they already get posted unaccompanied (and mid-winter too) more often instead of single guys the CF has to pay to move their F&E and collecting a full month's pay every 18 months - 2 years.

Sadly, MSCs are the cheapest option out there.

Is it possible that you are living he worst case scenario?  I have known married service couples that were able to stay together throughout their careers, including at senior ranks.

Our discrimination policies (and laws) say that you cannot be singled out for a higher posting tempo or off-season postings based based on your marital status or your spouse's employment.  I am not saying such singling out has not happened, but for what you are describing there is recourse available within the system to challenge the system.  I know you are not one to back away from a fight, so maybe take a more formal route to making noise on this issue.

 

[PuckChaser]

Is it possible that you are living he worst case scenario?  I have known married service couples that were able to stay together throughout their careers, including at senior ranks.

If ArmyVern isn't living the worst case scenario, I'd hate to see what that scenario is.

 

[PanaEng]

Maybe they were and you are just making the assumption that there is something legally contentious about the changes made.

It is legally contentious because every TB submission is a legal document (when approved.) Both the policy analysts and the lawyers have to have a good read and analysis of the documents - lawyers for legality, legal consequences (intended or unintended - there might be some risk assessment/acceptance/mitigation) and analysts for drafting, fitting it in with current policy and implementation.
It is legally contentious when one group of employees is treated differently than others or in a manner contrary to TB directives.
Every word in those documents has a meaning and a consequence. Confusing or using IR, Prohibited Posting, Attached posted and using SE without context or clarity in a legally binding document has the type of consequences we have been discussing here and opens the door to challenges in the future - grievance, ombudsman involvement, MP, etc.

 

[Cdnleaf]

If ArmyVern isn't living the worst case scenario, I'd hate to see what that scenario is.

It's all a matter of.....

 

[armyvern]

...

Our discrimination policies (and laws) say that you cannot be singled out for a higher posting tempo or off-season postings based based on your marital status or your spouse's employment.  I am not saying such singling out has not happened, but for what you are describing there is recourse available within the system to challenge the system.  I know you are not one to back away from a fight, so maybe take a more formal route to making noise on this issue.

One of my original posts in this very thread pointed out that discrimantory practices based upon family status were ... wrong (that family status is actually incorporated into law. I know more like me; I am far from a one-of in the world of MSCs, out of season postings of short durations and moves every year or two with the almighty caveat for MSCs of, "move or your COS date is your release date". Does careers come to me more often because I've never said, "no"? Same for the other MSCs in our situation? That's possible, but I've never said "no" because I am acutely aware of the COS/Release date policy. The first time I say, "no" ... am I getting that GTFO message from them? Do you think I should try it? Eerily, that just goes to prove that it is us MSCs who don't say "no" and who DO do our jobs IAW CF policy are the ones paying the price of this practice vice those who say "no" or who bitch when told they're moving after 4 long years in one spot (and, yes, for me ... a 4 year long posting once in my career would be nice; that's double the time I've experienced so far).

I also stated that formal addressing of this was being undertaken by myself (and others) in one of my original posts into this thread a couple weeks ago. I am well aware of these things that affect me and how to address them. Thanks for pointing it out to me again though.

 

[Jay4th]

just had a mbr tell me he has been on IR since his base closed up and moved.  Now he is posted to a trg centre and is on IR from his IR posting.  Can one of the experts explain how this is possible?  I was under the impression that if on IR it ended one of three ways.
1. ASAP you move your family to your post and IR ends, (seems the intent of IR)
2. Spend entire 3 yr posting IR (applying every yr) and then likely return to posting in previous geographic area (seems the intent of my peers)
3. Complete your whole posting on IR and proceed to next posting WITH your family. (seems the usual end)

I was under the impression you don't go IR to IR unless part of an MSC getting split posted again.

 

[PPCLI Guy]

Winnipeg to Shilo, Shilo to Wainwright?

 

[OldSolduer]

just had a mbr tell me he has been on IR since his base closed up and moved.  Now he is posted to a trg centre and is on IR from his IR posting.  Can one of the experts explain how this is possible?  I was under the impression that if on IR it ended one of three ways.
1. ASAP you move your family to your post and IR ends, (seems the intent of IR)
2. Spend entire 3 yr posting IR (applying every yr) and then likely return to posting in previous geographic area (seems the intent of my peers)
3. Complete your whole posting on IR and proceed to next posting WITH your family. (seems the usual end)

I was under the impression you don't go IR to IR unless part of an MSC getting split posted again.

WOW.....

 

[buzgo]

I've seen that happen a few times. In my experience the Signal CMs have been telling people to just go on IR, and I know people that have gone from IR in Pet to IR in Ottawa and then home.

Its not just individuals abusing the system, its a systemic problem.

 

[McG]

… and that will continue because the current changes do nothing to address it.

 

[Jay4th]

Well, clearly this is happening with full career manager support (likely suggested by), as well as full Cof C support, including the losing and gaining unit chief clerks.  If this kind of thing is an abuse, it would have been stopped I imagine.