• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

CANFORGEN on Pay and PIL

Still haven't received mine and I don't live in B.C.  :)
I did receive an email from my BOR asking if I wanted the full amount or if it was going into an RRSP a few weeks back. So I would think it should be showing up soon.
This whole evolution has been lacking to say the least.
Time served and rate of pay were the only items required, yet a full audit was done on all members. And one will be done again at release regardless of when the PIL audit was done.
 
stokerwes said:
Time served and rate of pay were the only items required, yet a full audit was done on all members. And one will be done again at release regardless of when the PIL audit was done.

Time served has to be confirmed against both Reg and Res, and then verified that no prior severance or RFRG had been paid.

Rate of Pay on the date had to be confirmed - individuals holding acting rank, or Reservists on class C service on the date were all special cases that had to be addressed.

Full audit was done only on individuals with any Res F service, or Reg only service asking for 50% or more.


I don't see many RMS clerks telling stokers how to do their jobs...
 
Interesting grievance at: http://mgerc-ceegm.gc.ca/cs-sc/2013-066-eng.html

Short version: Sgt in 2005; A/L WO in 2010 pending ILQ; got ILQ in June 2012.  Thus, when the severance deadline occurred, he was still a substantive Sgt and got his cashout as a Sgt.

His grievance says, essentially, the CAF had more than six years to train me and didn't - and I'm being financially penalized now because of it.

The Military Grievance External Review Committee is supporting this; it will be interesting to see how the CDS responds...
 
Very interesting, I was denied being paid out as a Sgt despite being WSE to that rank, held quals to be substantive and was selected for promotion.
 
PuckChaser said:
Very interesting, I was denied being paid out as a Sgt despite being WSE to that rank, held quals to be substantive and was selected for promotion.

My wife would probably inform me that we were filing a grievance the next day if and when we were at a party/mess dinner/bbq and that story came up. $230 a month adds up to a servicable car at 10 years service.
 
Guess he shouldn't have taken the payout then.  That's why I didn't.  Not to mention, yes the ILQ is needed for substantive WO rank, however, there would be no need to send a newly promoted Sgt on the course.  But there is definite delays.  It took me over two years to get my course too.
 
PMedMoe said:
Guess he shouldn't have taken the payout then.  That's why I didn't.  Not to mention, yes the ILQ is needed for substantive WO rank, however, there would be no need to send a newly promoted Sgt on the course.  But there is definite delays.  It took me over two years to get my course too.
One of my supervisors, who had just returned from his ILQ, said that it was wasted on him as a P1 as he already knew/had a grip on the materials presented.  He was of the opinion that it would have been beneficial to get the course when he was a P2.  I tend to agree with him on that point.  Just as PLQ should be given to junior members who will be coming into a junior supervisory role in the near future and not necessarily when you're already in the hot seat.
 
I kind of thought the ILQ was a waste of time.  Just my  :2c:

:dunno:
 
jollyjacktar said:
........  Just as PLQ should be given to junior members who will be coming into a junior supervisory role in the near future and not necessarily when you're already in the hot seat.

I have always been against the idea of certain Trades promoting their people to MCpl without a PLQ.  Many of us have witnessed MCpls who have held the rank for several years without ever being on a PLQ. 

This is a matter for all the CMs and Corps/Branch Advisors to get a grip on and sort out.  Many Trades follow the rule that they will not promote without qualifications, while some Trades totally ignore qualifications in their promotion strategies.
 
Sheep Dog AT said:
In the army it seems, except for Cmbt Arms, a lot of trades promote without the leadership course.

Because we can't afford to wait for Div TC's to load Cpl's on PLQ's.  With the attrition rate we have the TC's can't keep up.  So it's not just a CM/Corp problem, I know in my RCEME shop I have been loading AL/MCpl on a PLQ within 6 months which is not bad, and in the mean time the MCpl are certainly earning their extra pay :p
 
[slight OT]As Old EO Tech notes, many of the AL/MCpls are working hard while they wait for their (currently backlogged) PLQ.  The CoC should be keeping a close eye on AL/MCpls' progress as well as the flow of upcoming PLQ courses to ensure they do not surpass the 12-month maximum waiver and force a reversion back to Cpl.
[/slight OT]

Regards
G2G
 
Sheep Dog AT said:
Are you sure 12 months OS accurate?  I went way past that.

SDAT, I haven't seen the hard copy policy so I can't provide the ref. per se, however, one of my troop's PLQ course was rescheduled from within 12 months to beyond 12 months and the CM called my RSM to voice his concern that the MCpl would have to relinquish his rank.  CM helped to get him re-loaded within 12 months, so we didn't actually see a relinquishment situation, just the warning/concern.  Good on the CM for: a) being on the ball, and b) caring about the member to warn us of the situation.  :salute:

Regardes
G2G
 
I have heard of this as well, but was informed it was a 2 year policy before a CM could request relinquishment, however it had to be the member that was dodging the PLQ course. In some cases, there are so few spots that members are waiting those full 2 years or more to be course loaded.

I do know of the CANFORGEN/CANARMYGEN outlining PLQ mod dates, and a PLQ Mod 1 will expire if the remainder of the PLQ isn't completed within 1 year from completion date.
 
I did my SLC in Gagetown in 2002; at the same time there were 2 PLQs running.  Every single candidate was an A/L jack.  And here we are 12 years later SSDD (or year).  I am not a fan of prmotion before qual crap. 
 
I was in that boat myself. My course was probably 1/3 A/L. You can't blame the soldier though. They won't allow a pers to do the PLQ if they don't have SQ for the Army PLQ
 
Eye In The Sky said:
I did my SLC in Gagetown in 2002; at the same time there were 2 PLQs running.  Every single candidate was an A/L jack.  And here we are 12 years later SSDD (or year).  I am not a fan of prmotion before qual crap.
I agree with this.  It doesn't happen a lot but some of these A/L MCpls fail PLQ.  You then have to reload them as soon as possible so they can keep the rank and do the job they are posted into. This pushes more people back. Occasionally a mbr fails two or three times and losses the rank.  You have now wasted a promotion on someone who wasn't deserving, denying one to someone who may have been.

Occasionally one may have to be promoted A/L but it should be pretty rare.  If the CM can't promote enough guys because he doesn't have enough qualified pers then that is some pretty good ammo to get some courses run. What happens more often is that unqualified pers are promoted over qualified pers because the system overvalues subjective attributes and undervalues quantifiable things like qualifications.  A person who has passed the leadership course has been evaluated and found to be an acceptable leader, rarely should someone who hasn't score higher in leadership.
 
Tcm621 said:
I agree with this.  It doesn't happen a lot but some of these A/L MCpls fail PLQ.  You then have to reload them as soon as possible so they can keep the rank and do the job they are posted into. This pushes more people back. Occasionally a mbr fails two or three times and losses the rank.  You have now wasted a promotion on someone who wasn't deserving, denying one to someone who may have been.

Occasionally one may have to be promoted A/L but it should be pretty rare.  If the CM can't promote enough guys because he doesn't have enough qualified pers then that is some pretty good ammo to get some courses run. What happens more often is that unqualified pers are promoted over qualified pers because the system overvalues subjective attributes and undervalues quantifiable things like qualifications. A person who has passed the leadership course has been evaluated and found to be an acceptable leader, rarely should someone who hasn't score higher in leadership.

Interesting way of thought..............so the qualifications of leadership are far more important then actual leadership??    What a course staff of 5/6 people think is more important then what the individual units know?
 
Bruce Monkhouse said:
Interesting way of thought..............so the qualifications of leadership are far more important then actual leadership??    What a course staff of 5/6 people think is more important then what the individual units know?
Then why have it? If the opinion of the people we task with evaluating leadership isn't relevant then save some money and get rid of it.

The potential for leadership, as judged by ones superiors, gets you on the course. You are then formally evaluated for leadership skills. From that pool of qualified individuals you choose who is ready for promotion.  In this way,  you get both a formal evaluation by an outside agency and an informal opinion based on day to day observations. They work together to provide the best candidates for the next rank level.
 
Back
Top