Home Equity Assistance & "Military Families Pushed to Financial Ruin" (Merge)

[dapaterson]

Full-time military compensation is extremely generous.  Pay scales are public information.  No one goes in blind.  If you can't make do on the CF's pay (and benefits), don't join.

It's really quite simple.


(And re: Canex: it costs more to run than it returns to communities.  Contract it out what's needed in remote areas and close the remainder.  Cheaper and better service, too).

 

[Pusser]

I guess the dinosaur attitude of "the Army didn't issue you that family" never really goes away, does it?

Sure, we don't need PMQs. Must not need the MFRC, or the Canex either. I'm sure if you told a family of 5 (heck even 4) that instead of their $800 a month PMQ, they have to spend $1000 on a mortgage, plus utilities, plus property tax, they'd have some choice words thrown in your general direction. Oh, but they could live 45 minutes out of town and spend 80 bucks a week on gas even in a good mileage 4 cylinder car just to get back and forth to work.

At what point did the taxpayer become responsible for a CF member's lifestyle choices?  Does anyone dump on IBM because they no longer provide housing for their employees?  People need to grow up and learn to live within their means.  Although there are certain locations where PMQs should be provided, for the most part, we should be getting out of the housing business.  It's a huge money loser and what we spend in maintenance could be better spent on other programs (e.g. PLD).

The CF provides a generous compensation package by any standard and it is worth noting that if you compare it to those militaries that have "better" housing benefits, you will also find that their pay packages are considerably less than ours.  In short, they are completely dependent on their respective militaries to provide them with housing and when they retire, they are left in the cold.  Remember also that a higher salary (which comes with lesser housing benefits) also leads to a better pension in the end.  The lesson here is to understand how much money you make and find accommodation within your means.  As a final note, before you moan and drip about how much you have to spend on gas when you live way out in the boonies, consider selling the car and using the money you save to live closer and take the bus.

 

[armyvern]

I guess the dinosaur attitude of "the Army didn't issue you that family" never really goes away, does it?

Sure, we don't need PMQs. Must not need the MFRC, or the Canex either. I'm sure if you told a family of 5 (heck even 4) that instead of their $800 a month PMQ, they have to spend $1000 on a mortgage, plus utilities, plus property tax, they'd have some choice words thrown in your general direction. Oh, but they could live 45 minutes out of town and spend 80 bucks a week on gas even in a good mileage 4 cylinder car just to get back and forth to work.

You forget though that MFRC's exist now exactly because of those "dinosaurs" who are serving. The same dinosaurs who are "the higher ups making so much money these days who can afford to live on the local economy" (according to acooper). The same dinosaurs who, a mere decade and a half ago when they were Ptes & Cpls, had to go to food banks to feed their families because, unlike now, they weren't even paid a livable wage. Those same guys & gals that stood before SCONDVA with their complaints about "not getting paid enough to support myself, let alone a family. Having to declare bankruptcy, going deeper into debt each month, etc." Those dinosaurs certainly didn't have the benefit of tax-free tours or left-overs from weekly pays to save up for downpayments for home purchases. Some of them went so far into debt during that time period that it is only in the past few years that they are able to save up for downpayments.

The ironic thing is ... those that are dinosaurs still living in Qs now are, a whole lot of the time, the same ones we all said to ourselves back then when they were Ptes/Cpls "we don't make a decent living wage ... STOP having kids if you can't afford them." Lots of them "chose" to keep having more kids anyway --- with an expectation that they could afford it because the CF is "obligated" to provide me with subsidized housing (says who!!??). Only just now (that the kids are moving out) able to afford to save up for a downpayment ... and some even still paying of credit cards they racked up back then.

No one should be having kids or more kids, regardless of employment, if they expect grease from their employer or the taxpayer to make that "affordable" for them; that's their lifestyle choice, but it shouldn't be dependant upon someone "else" who is NOT part of their family having to do anything to make it "affordable" for them. We already have incentives that cover higher cost of living areas etc; we call it PLD and people know what their wages are going to be when they volunteer to join this outfit.

Qs began being torn down in the mid-90s ... this is not new and shouldn't be a surprise to anyone.

 

[Lex Parsimoniae]

I understand that several applications have been sent up and none have been approved.

HEA has been approved in at least one APS 2010 case in Esquimalt.

 

[GINge!]

Hey folks:

Looking to start a discussion on HEA (100% from Core). 

Heavy Reader - any follow up to this? Market out here took another stumble this summer. Looks like I will be asking the CM to keep me here for a 5th year to avoid losing on the house. At this point, I'd rather take the hit to the career than the wallet...hopefully the branch gives me that option. Two IR's out of 8 cost moves...not looking to do a third IR.

 

[4Feathers]

BINGO, but it would not have been your loss would it?

Try finding a civvy employer anywhere who would do such a thing for their employee who had to move!! You won't; they get the old "move or you're fired. period."

Damn, we doooooo have it good here in the CF with the options we get.

As a professional in many major corps, not only do they pay for everything to move you, they buy your house for you if it does not sell. Not sure where you are getting your info from. Also, some other federal gov't departments buy your home from you if it does not sell and they have moved your employment. Our system with IRP is not as golden as you think it is, and just my opinion but I think it is pathetic  considering our unlimited liability clause and requirement to move when it suits them.

 

[George Wallace]

......... Also, some other federal gov't departments buy your home from you if it does not sell and they have moved your employment. Our system with IRP is not as golden as you think it is, and just my opinion but I think it is pathetic  considering our unlimited liability clause and requirement to move when it suits them.

I don't know where you got this information, and would be curious to see it in "Black and White", as Treasury Board makes the policies, not individual Gov't Depts.  I have never heard of any Gov't Dept buying a person's home if they could not sell it.


As for major Corporations doing this, I can agree that they will bend over backwards to attract their "high priced talent", but are unlikely to do so for their "common peons".  As an example, Chrysler may have done that for Lee Iaccoca, but surely didn't do it for someone working on the assembly line floor.

 

[4Feathers]

I don't know where you got this information, and would be curious to see it in "Black and White", as Treasury Board makes the policies, not individual Gov't Depts.  I have never heard of any Gov't Dept buying a person's home if they could not sell it.


As for major Corporations doing this, I can agree that they will bend over backwards to attract their "high priced talent", but are unlikely to do so for their "common peons".  As an example, Chrysler may have done that for Lee Iaccoca, but surely didn't do it for someone working on the assembly line floor.

RCMP and CSIS both offer to buy your home in their relocation benefits, not to mention at least half of the top 100 employers list for Canada. This is for the rank and file, not just the CEO's. http://www.canadastop100.com/national/

 

[George Wallace]

RCMP and CSIS both offer to buy your home in their relocation benefits, not to mention at least half of the top 100 employers list for Canada. This is for the rank and file, not just the CEO's. http://www.canadastop100.com/national/

I haven't read anywhere of any Gov't Dept buying your home if you can't sell it.  I did read:

extensive relocation support services (from a guaranteed home sale program to language training for spouses);

; and that does not say anything about the Gov't buying your home.  It says that they have a program similar to our IRP program.

I'll let an RCMP member on this site confirm or deny your claims about the RCMP purchasing a member's home when they are posted and can not sell.

 

[aesop081]

RCMP relocation policy :

http://www.irp-pri.com/images/filesFor_about_otherInfo/RCMP_IRP_2009_10_FINAL_E.pdf

Policy does not contain any provisions for the GoC to buy your home if you cant sell.

 

[Zoomie]

RCMP uses the same company (Brookfield) to relocate.  They are subject to the same conditions under IRP.

The difference that exists in our National Police force is that you are not expected to move until your house is sold.  We had a local mountie stave off a posting by up to 2 years by purposedly being obstinate in dealing with would-be buyers and by overpricing her home.

 

[Pusser]

ALL Federal Government employee/member (i.e. CF, RCMP, Public Service) moves fall under the same Treasury Board policies.  In fact it's the same person at Treasury Board Secretariat who manages the program.  It's also a single program with a single contract for all three groups (i.e. the INTEGRATED Relocation Program).  Although there are some minor differences between how the program is administered among the three groups, the major benefits are identical.  The Federal Government does not buy mounties' or public servants' homes.

 

[4Feathers]

ALL Federal Government employee/member (i.e. CF, RCMP, Public Service) moves fall under the same Treasury Board policies.  In fact it's the same person at Treasury Board Secretariat who manages the program.  It's also a single program with a single contract for all three groups (i.e. the INTEGRATED Relocation Program).  Although there are some minor differences between how the program is administered among the three groups, the major benefits are identical.  The Federal Government does not buy mounties' or public servants' homes.nn

I work in the same building as CSIS, the policies are applied a lot differently, as they are with the RCMP. I would sure like the option of not moving until my house sold. If you have a spouse, two kids and a dog and are posted during the normal APS, I bet things go well, but if you just got back from Afghanistan, are a single parent, then posted in the dead of winter things are not always as simple. I suppose it always looks greener, but IMHO our IRP benefits are not that great, and I bet if we did a pole for those who have moved 3 or 4 times in the last ten years most would agree.  I will do a quick check and confirm how many thousand grievances we have in the system related to move benefits.

 

[Pusser]

I work in the same building as CSIS, the policies are applied a lot differently, as they are with the RCMP. I would sure like the option of not moving until my house sold. If you have a spouse, two kids and a dog and are posted during the normal APS, I bet things go well, but if you just got back from Afghanistan, are a single parent, then posted in the dead of winter things are not always as simple. I suppose it always looks greener, but IMHO our IRP benefits are not that great, and I bet if we did a pole for those who have moved 3 or 4 times in the last ten years most would agree.  I will do a quick check and confirm how many thousand grievances we have in the system related to move benefits.

Don't confuse apples and oranges.  The move benefits available to the CF/RCMP/Public Service are pretty much the same.  But the timing of a posting and/or move (e.g. immediately upon return from deployment) is not an IRP issue.  It's a chain of command issue.

I've moved twice under IRP and found it to be quite superior to the way we used to do it.

 

[PPCLI Guy]

but IMHO our IRP benefits are not that great, and I bet if we did a pole for those who have moved 3 or 4 times in the last ten years most would agree. 

I have moved 4 times in the last 5 years including one OUTCAN, and I am now renting out my house in Ottawa while I rent here in Edmonton.  IRP is what it is, and moving frequently comes with the territory for some members of the forces (but evidently not all members).  I have yet to suffer any financial losses as a result of moving (less OUTCAN, where my wife's visa precluded her from working), and so IRP works just fine from my perspective.

If I wanted stability and predictability in my life, I would have stayed a civvie - but then of course I would have been in a job that added little in value to the country as a whole.  I traded up to a job that matters in the larger scheme of things, at the cost of stability and predictability.  From my perspective, I made the right choice.

 

[Pusser]

I'm with PPCLI Guy on that one.  Predictability = BORING!  Sure, there have been a few pain in the butt things over the years, but the number of really cool things I've done have made it well worth the cost.

As an aside, on the OUTCAN posting, didn't the Status of Forces Agreement allow your wife to work (SOFAs usually do)?  When we were OUTCAN, we were told that immigration officers will often put the standard stamp in the spouse's passport (which says he/she cannot work), but that it is a mistake and you just had to contact the right person to get it corrected.  My wife was able to work when we were overseas.

 

[Black_and_Gold]

I'm going through the same situation. Looking at losing about 70k from my purchase price. I'm single though and don't even have the option of IR. Submitted several memos and did a redress to try and get the posting cancelled. All denied. I'm amazed at the lack of support I'm getting from the military, a quote from one of my higher ups was "no one ordered you to buy a home".

At this point I'd gladly release to avoid the loss but I can't even do that because I'm on T-Cat. I didn't think you could get posted on T-Cat but I guess I'm wrong, my only hope now is that I get bumped up to P-Cat and medically released. FML.

 

[Skoubi]

how about keep your home and rent it?

 

[4Feathers]

My quick staff check reveals that in 2009 there were over 700 new grievances related to move benefits that made it to the final authority. That represents 10% of all grievances submitted. Not sure how many relate directly to HEA, but it sure is significant and I would suggest indicative of a problem with our relocation system.

 

[Maritimegal]

well it looks like grievances are making their way and the grievance board is recomending a review of the policy:

Case #: 2010-015

Case Summary
Date: 6/30/2010

The grievor was posted after only one year of what he had expected to be a three-year posting. During that one year, the local housing market declined approximately 14% in general. The grievor's principal residence was eventually sold at a loss of approximately 12% or $44,000.

After being reimbursed the maximum $15,000 in home equity assistance (HEA) available from core funding under the CF Integrated Relocation Programme (CF IRP), the grievor requested reimbursement of the additional equity loss of $29,000 that he had suffered. His request was denied on the basis that his situation did not fall within the CF IRP definition for a "depressed market" (that being a market decline of 20% or more as confirmed by the Treasury Board).

There was no initial authority (IA) decision on file because the grievor had denied an IA request for additional response time.

The Board found that the CF IRP policy had been applied correctly to the grievor's circumstances and recommended that the Final Authority (FA) deny the grievance.

Notwithstanding, the Board also had concerns about the adequacy of the policy and the lack of a mechanism to address exceptional cases as appeared to be present with this grievor. The Board found that the CF should not oblige a member to move after just one year in a posting and simply ignore the fact that the member has suffered a loss of $29,000 in home equity as a consequence of the posting. The Board found the 20% market decline threshold required to trigger the definition of a "depressed market" to be quite restrictive and an odd construct, noting that had the market in the area declined by 20% rather than 14%, the grievor would presumably have been compensated for his entire loss of $44,000 rather than the $15,000 he received.

The Board recommended that the FA direct a review of the provisions of the CF IRP regarding HEA with a view to re-examining the 20% threshold needed to trigger a "depressed market" and to consider providing the authority to the Chief of the Defence Staff to reimburse equity losses based upon a determination of "undue hardship".

CDS Decision

CDS Decision Pending