I'll believe it when I see it.
Government hints at boosting Canada’s military spending
- Thread starter Maxman1
- Start date
Genetk44
Member
- Reaction score
- 69
- Points
- 460
Sorry…you are correct…it was Underway who gave the answer I was referencing to…my apologies.That's not what I said at all. That may be true, but is contradictory to the message they are sending that they won't protect an ally that doesn't take realistic steps to defend themselves. My position is entirely along the line of let's take them up on that and show them we are ready willing and able to defend ourselves and thereby be worthy of their added protection. As a by-product we create a credible deterrence against any aggression by a future James Maddison who believed Jefferson when he said in 1812 that:
Do you though?
The government can design military pay however they want. There's no reason to believe the current policy is immutable.
- Reaction score
- 9,786
- Points
- 1,160
That, to me, is a clear signal that something is wrong with the system. And this is the fundamental reason why.
At the legislative level, the RegF is defined as:
And the ResF as:
A reservists who serves for 15 years (and don't take me wrong, I fully understand your motivation and contribution - and many have served out 20-30 years that way) is a participant in a wink-wink, nudge-nudge institutional game. With a series of slight-of-hand manoeuvres the CAF make a Class B life-time career a possibility. That allows the RegF to not only fill holes but also expand their full-time numbers beyond authorized limits and often at the expense of Class A budgets.
IMHO, we have a basic problem with the RegF and ResF systems that can be fixed by making two classes of RegF service just as there are three for ResF. Let's call those two new classes Class U for unrestricted RegF service and Class R for restricted RegF service.
A Class U RegF member would in all respects be the same as the RegF is today.
A Class R, OTOH, would have certain restrictions and rights. Firstly the term of service would only be served within a defined geographic area, selected on enrollment, such as the Metropolitan Toronto area. The individual would be liable for operational tours and short duration exercises anywhere, be liable/eligible for a posting or promotion any where within the geographic area but can decline - without career implications - a posting or promotion that would take them outside the geographic area. Their pay would be less than a Class U (whether 15% or whether the Class Us receive an allowance is immaterial, just so long as there is a financial benefit for a Class U)
There would be the opportunity to elect back and forth between Class U and Class R contracts of service for fixed term contracts. As an example, a Class U could at the end of a fixed term Class U contract apply to convert to Class R service in a geographic area with an available vacancy. A Class U could convert to Class R at any time for a fixed term contract. (That obviously all needs some fine tuning and massaging but you get the basic idea - a class of full-time service in a defined geographic location so that families are guaranteed to stays put.
Class B's would be restricted to filling temporary holes in RegF positions with pay coming out of the RegF PY envelope. Class A budgets would be unaffected when unit members accept a temporary Class B contract.
That would work smashingly with designated Military Districts and Areas.
| Atlantic Militia Area | Eastern New Brunswick Militia District Western New Brunswick Militia District Western Nova Scotia Militia District Cape Breton Militia District Prince Edward Island Militia District Newfoundland Militia District |
| secteur de l'Est | Militia District Number 1 Militia District Number 2 Militia District Number 3 |
| Central Militia Area | Ottawa Militia District (OMD) Toronto Militia District (TMD) London Militia District (LMD) Northern Ontario Militia District (NOMD) Windsor Militia District (WMD) Hamilton Militia District (HMD) |
| Prairie Militia Area | Northern Alberta Militia District (NAMD) Southern Alberta Militia District (SAMD) Saskatchewan Militia District (SMD) Thunder Bay Militia District Manitoba(-Lakehead) Militia District |
| Pacific Militia Area | Vancouver Militia District Victoria Militia District |
Who knows maybe you could even find some militarily useful permanent tasks.
FJAG
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 15,544
- Points
- 1,160
Those would do as long as they are geographic areas on which units are superimposed. My thought goes along the line of - for example - a 30/70 brigade concentrated in Toronto with the geographic area extending out, let's say, a one hour commute. It gets a bit more complex when several units are spread around the area. It needs to be thought out more when you start selecting areas and the units to serve there and collecting as many of the Class R members in as close a location for day-to-day work as possible - say Downsview.
Literally, whatever they want. They have that power. But I'd argue something like a basket of emergency services and trades where a lot of enlisted go, would be a good start. But like I said, they can make up whatever they want.
I wouldn't say it's fantastical or unreasonable to consider those scenarios, since a version of the latter is playing out right before our eyes right nowYup. They're scenarios that seem fantastical but things have happened in the last three years that none of us saw as likely either. It's a whole new world - and not a better one - from the one that I grew up in. It's time to rethink a lot of things.
You say a lot has happened in the last 3 years...what are you thinking of though, exactly? (Russian-Ukrainian war?)
Halifax Tar
Army.ca Fixture
- Reaction score
- 13,910
- Points
- 1,260
Ok well here is your quote:
I didn't give a number that I thought anyone should be making. I don't think I can come up with a value on the spot, there are a lot of values to take into account. A great example of this is the pay rates within pay rates that we currently have for SAR, SOF, Pilots. I'm also open to different things, like I have talked about with benefits. Perhaps expanded leave, substantial resigning bonuses, linking pay rates to ones DAG form. All ideas I would be willing hear more about, and all things that should improve QOL and/or put more $$$ in the pocket of CAF members.
But why don't you think a Cpl/S1 should make 6 figures ? if I am misunderstanding your quote, please correct me.
No. You need a comparator to base your salary benchmark. You don’t need just that obviously but it is a factor in calculating your pay. The RCMP has comparators. The CAF uses the best comparator it has. The PS. If not the PS then what comparator would be used? The private sector? You’d see pay drop in most cases when using the whole formula. Which includes leave, pensions, medical, dental etc etc.
Yes. It amounts to just over 15% above the comparator. For NCMs. 13 or so for officers. It’s about 8% for reservists because they don’t get posting instability and the seperation part (I don’t recall the exact term). Personal Limitation and Liability, overtime and acting pay are all applied reg or reserve.
The Mil factor is one part to it. Comparators, benefits etc etc all fall into that.
And that’s fine but if we want pay increased there has to be a reason beyond just doing it because.
If you want to delink from the PS sure, but you’ll likely lose out over time.
Edit: here is the link now that I am off my phone and on a proper tablet.
Understanding military pay - Canada.ca
How pay rates are determined for ranks, occupations, and types of service in the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Special Forces, including the Reserves.www.canada.ca
I appreciate your insite on mil pay.
I disagree with your premise that we would lose out over time delinking with the PS. I think we bring higher value, commitment and adaptability than the PS and I think with collective bargaining that would be recognized and remunerated. The facts are we will probably never know, as I don't see the CAF ever unionizing.
Funny that eh? Come back with something and we can talk. Pay is good now and there is a calculation on how you get that. I’ve given you a link on how pay is calculated using several factors. All I have from you is “ more pay” but no reason why or how it should be decided. Linking it to the PS a has made the CAF one of the highest paid militaries in the world.
things like benefits? Yeah, I have been proposing things retention bonuses, mobility bonuses etc etc. Pay though is still good. The CAF is well renumerated.
Because most are already well paid. Rather than fork out 40% extra pay, I’d rather see money like that go to other things that really need fixing.
You would. But that’s what the CAF was doing before it did. Pay got better when linking happened. It’s a fact. Because any arbitrator is going to look at something comparable in its analysis if it can. If it can’t be the public service, it will be something like the private sector (so yay for professionals like engineers, doctors etc) but not so good for the rest. looking at foreign peer militaries, maybe, but I bet our salaries are already near the top..
Ever been a public servant? Just checking, you know, to see what experience you bring to the table and all that.
As to value? I don’t think the CAF brings value for dollar at all. And pay increases to already good salaries with no reason beyond we should be paid more is an example of that. That isn’t where we need to spend. Do we bring the same value as say the US? The UK? They both have lower salaries than us and I would argue they bring more value than us.
Commitment and adaptability? That’s already factored. The Mil Factor. And it gives you 15% over a PS.
Halifax Tar
Army.ca Fixture
- Reaction score
- 13,910
- Points
- 1,260
Look we push around abstract ideas on this forum all the time. Expecting me to have a fleshed out plan to grow CAF pay because you disagree that we should is just unreasonable. We play around with imaginary things and not fully fleshed out ideas all the time. Jesus we're also talking about Canada abandoning the Nuclear Proliferation treaty and getting the A-Bomb, in this thread.
I will say both Freeland and Carney are have said they want to up CAF pay so there's that.
I mean we have CAF pers couch surfing and setting up OF accounts to make coin because things have gotten too expensive for them. I'm not ok with that.
Like I said I disagree with your premise. I am not sure what more you want from me.
Ever been a public servant? Just checking, you know, to see what experience you bring to the table and all that.
Nope, never. I also don't take it personally that you're asking the question. Its a fair question.
I said CAF pers brings more than the PS. I didn't say we are optimal.
And the reaction here about things like 100% pay increase was met with the appropriate ridicule.
We have that all over the country in all sorts of fields and professions. Things are expensive for everyone. Tell me why my tax money should go to increase their salary one of the highest paid militaries in the world beyond just “because”. I have no issue with benefits because we move the, etc but why should their pay go up? Still have no real reason yet.
Affordability is the issue not pay. And that goes beyond just “pay”.
Nothing. You asked questions I responded and you provided nothing other than “because” in terms of delinking PS pay. I am getting nothing from this so I’m happy to stop.
Retention is the reason. The US, culturally, has similar issues as us. Military postings far from family and major urban centres (although their smaller centres are much larger). Their bases all provide substantially more housing, childcare, family healthcare, etc. Their housing allowances can be as large as a paycheque in high CoL areas.
I don't think it matters that much if it's pay or benefits. As long as compensation improves. That said, the CAF has absolutely sucked at fixing these problems for over a decade. Look at CFHD right now. So if they can't actually implement solutions, then the only option is to pay people. Fundamentally, nobody actually trusts the institution to fix any of the problems you propose to fix through supplementary programs.
I don’t disagree. But more pay won’t retain. Changes to how we manage our people will. And that includes a massive rethink on where and how we send people to work. We are using an archaic system that hasn’t evolved with the times.
And I bet the US has plenty of people couch surfing and doing OF to make ends meet as well.
This is where we diverge. I think effective benefits is what will help and less mobility and less isolated posting in the middle of nowhere with no prospects for spouses.
yes, they have sucked. The CAF has no clue how to do competent HR management. And throwing money at pay thinking that is the solution is exactly part of the problem.
Quirky
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 4,145
- Points
- 1,260
Keep whatever part of the pointy end we need to legally put bombs on foreheads in uniform, everyone else in the support roles can be contracted out. Let the companies pay their employees whatever market rates are needed to sustain the contracts. CAF clearly can't do it.
daftandbarmy
Army.ca Fossil
- Reaction score
- 36,755
- Points
- 1,160
Halifax Tar
Army.ca Fixture
- Reaction score
- 13,910
- Points
- 1,260
I didn't find the pay and bennies worth it anymore. And I just got home in Dec.
Also the CAF does more than Latvia for deployments.
Interesting concept, so get rid of all Log and Maint support, or just that from behind the first line units ?
You could easily (relatively speaking) civilianize a variety of things.
You still need a robust CSS. But I agree that a lot of back office and domestic stuff could be done by civilians.
Cool. But when are they going to do that? Give me a timeline. Because what they are doing right now is not working.
Like I said, if they don't have a credible plan that fixes things inside the length of an actual career, then the only alternative is paying up. The folks you are seeing calling for pay increases are doing so specifically because we don't trust the institution to deliver in 5, 10 or even 20 years.
I vehemently disagree. Everybody has a price. And also if "more pay won't retain" then why they hell do we pay generous retention bonuses to certain trades? Clearly, it's not needed. We should just move them up the PMQ waitlist and they'll stay right?
I did weapons support stuff. And a lot of the contractors essentially rely on the CAF to train personnel. I don't want to imagine what they'll start charging if they have to train people to do it.
But on the face of it, I don't disgaree with your idea of civilianizing all third line and maybe a good chunk of second line.
Similar threads
