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

I am a CAF member & I want better pay and benefits (a merged thread)

Status
Not open for further replies.
RADOPSIGOPACISSOP said:
Good point. We should just turn the voluntary force into a volunteer force. Our soldiers should learn to live on their sense of pride and self-satisfaction.

Trying to haul back on others gets no one any further ahead. I know many of us here on this forum are leaders, either MCpls, SNCOs, WOs or Officers. As leaders we ought to advocate for our soldiers, to push their interests before our own or champion their successes. We need to focus on things that benefit them. Trying to equalize everyone's balloon by deflating others is the worst sort of cynicism.

Give it a rest already - there are a pile of folks here, myself included, that had our pay frozen at whatever, with no incentive increases, for well over 5 years, some in trades with no upward mobility to compensate, and certainly nowhere to get deployed to where we'd get out salaries handed to us tax free.  We stuck it out for a couple reasons - we were professional service people and that's what professional soldiers do, they roll with punches; secondly, there was always the thought that there was someone out there that would happily take our job if we so desired, even if it meant ending up on the unemployment line...which leads to your second point.

Leadership is not solely about advocacy for your subordinates, it's also about doing the hard stuff like executing the crappy orders you're handed, with what you have.  That PER bubble "Leading Change" isn't just about you coming up with some idea, brilliant or otherwise, and pushing it forward, it is also dealing with the changes that come down from on high and leading your folks through them.  That's what professional leaders do - they throw things around in the privacy of their office, punch the wall, whine or complain upward as needed, but at the end of the day, they walk out and say "Ladies, Gents, Others, this is what is coming down the pipe, it's gonna suck, but we have to deal with it, and here's how it will happen".  If your people are having issues, you guide/direct/order as needed to see them through...if you/they find that you/they are unwilling or incapable of doing what needs to be done, then it's time to have the chat about looking for work elsewhere.  If your techs think they should be a CS instead, then they should pull pole and apply for said position.  This is exactly the advice I gave people when I was a Reg Force MCpl, Sgt, WO...and eventually had to look myself in the mirror and do the same thing.  And guess what?  I'm still having to deal with "Leading Crappy Changes" out in the real world, having to guide people through having stuff gradually taken away from them.  I felt sorry for some of my bosses back in the 90's, because I tended to act alot like how this thread has degenerated...then I got my Leaf and came to the realization that leadership can really suck - because you have to suck it up that much more to make sure the ones doing the majority of the sucking it up can depend on you for guidance...even if it isn't what they want to hear.

One of the problems with having everything is, eventually, you're going to lose some or all of it, and you have to learn cope with that.  If you as a leader don't/can't, how are you supposed to expect your subordinates to?


MM
 
Transporter said:
I think this thread was initially started more as a discussion of concern for the gradual erosion of the benefits/entitlements/remuneration that we already have, or had, versus a b**** session for wanting more... or that's how I saw it at least. Personally, I'd be happy just to have back the things that we've already lost and to not lose any more (or have any more contribution/payment increases). I'm not advocating for more, just no less.

Forget fighting over spec pay, here's what we should all be very, very concerned about. And the real disturbing thing is, as usual, we will have no say or input in the process, and will end up being handed whatever the PS unions can manage to salvage (and I don't mean that as a disparaging comment towards PS unions).

http://www.canada.com/News/canada/Government+seeks+funding+policy+pensions+with+funds/10106938/story.html

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Government seeks funding policy for pensions with no funds

By Kathryn May, Ottawa Citizen August 10, 2014 

The Conservative government is developing a funding policy for the pension plans of Canada’s public servants, military and RCMP, a move that baffles experts because the plans have no real funds and own no assets.

A funding policy typically sets the framework for how to cope with risk and manage any gains and losses by adjusting the contributions paid into pension plans.

But the policy, to be crafted by consultants, would cover years of pensionable service in accounts that are nothing more than ledger records with no real assets. Pension benefits are guaranteed by law and paid from government’s main bank account — the consolidated revenue fund.

Pension expert Malcolm Hamilton said he’s puzzled why the government is charging ahead with a funding policy for the “least funded parts” of its unfunded pension plans.

“Funding is about setting money aside to pay benefits and they don’t pay benefits from those accounts, so why do they need a funding policy?” he added.

“What, if anything, does it mean to fund a pension plan that, by the government’s own admission, has no fund in which assets are held and from which benefits are paid? Beats me. This might make sense if the government was proposing to change the way its handles the pension funds but there’s no suggestion that is the case.”

The public service pension plans are like no other. They aren’t governed by the Pension Benefits Standards Act, the assets aren’t in trust or managed by a trustee, and there is no segregated pension fund owned by the plan in which pension assets are held and invested and from which pension benefits are paid to retirees.

Treasury Board is hiring consultants to come up with a “funding policy,” as recommended by Auditor-General Michael Ferguson in his recent report on the sustainability of the three plans. Bidders have until Tuesday to submit proposals for the two-phase project, which must be completed six months.

The policy is being specifically drafted for the public service pension plan but it must be “flexible enough” to be adapted for the other plans. Consultants will provide a research report, followed by a second phase of weekly consultations on proposals developed for the final policy.

A funding policy sets the framework for funding a defined benefit pension plan, including factors such as workforce demographics, stability and affordability of contributions, and the handling of surpluses or deficits. It takes into account the employer’s — in this case the government’s — financial position and risk tolerance.

Without a policy, Ferguson said the Public Sector Pension Investment Board, which manages the plans’ assets, is forced to make assumptions about the government’s tolerance for risk and funding preferences when targeting rates of return in its investment strategy.

The bid documents, however, indicate the funding policy is for the pension assets and liabilities accrued before 2000, which aren’t managed by the investment board. All the pensionable service built up before 2000 is considered unfunded.

Treasury Board officials offered no explanation on why the policy is for the pre-2000 plan other than it would “provide additional guidance” for funding and financing decisions while also “strengthening” its guidance to the investment board on investment strategies and risk management.

Hamilton, the pension expert, said a funding policy also won’t resolve the major problems critics have with the way the government records the cost of the plans on the books.

The C.D. Howe Institute has long argued the plans are not fully funded and the government is grossly understating the size of Canada’s debt and deficit — and how much it pays thousands of bureaucrats, military and RCMP.

It argues the government should adopt “fair-value” accounting like the private sector, which uses current market prices to value assets and liabilities as a means to ensure plans are fully funded in the event they are liquidated or wound down.

The timing of the proposal has also raised eyebrows, particularly among unions locked in a testy round of collective bargaining with the government over its plan to replace the existing sick leave regime with a new short-term disability plan.

Ian Lee, a professor at Carleton University’s Sprott School of Business, said the project, which includes a sweeping report on the latest trends and best practices in the pension industry, will set the stage for Conservatives to make compensation reform, including a pension overhaul, a campaign promise in the 2015 election.

“I think this report is the first step in that journey,” he said. “They will run as the party with the courage, conviction and ability to reform the largest employer in Canada by modernizing its sick leave, pay, benefits and pensions. These are fundamental changes and they will seek a mandate from Canadians to do it.“


+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 
And as mentioned before the PS Unions will be the ones fighting this on all our behalfs. 
 
Crantor said:
And as mentioned before the PS Unions will be the ones fighting this on all our behalfs.

Nope. The PS unions will be fighting this with the best interests of their union membership as their only concern. They will do nothing on behalf of the Canadian Forces, because that's not their mandate, and nor would I expect them to. We will literally end up with whatever the outcome is, 100% uninfluenced by any inputs to issues of concern for us.

I know what you're saying, but there is a significant difference.
 
Transporter said:
Nope. The PS unions will be fighting this with the best interests of their union membership as their only concern. They will do nothing on behalf of the Canadian Forces, because that's not their mandate, and nor would I expect them to. We will literally end up with whatever the outcome is, 100% uninfluenced by any inputs to issues of concern for us.

I know what you're saying, but there is a significant difference.

Exactly. The Canadian Forces are furthest from their minds when negotiating.
 
Regardless.  Your fight is their fight.  It matters not.  The end result will either be that some of the proposed cuts will be dampened and any compensation in exchange for cuts will be applied to you.  You better hope they fight tooth and nail even if the CF is an afterthought to them.  If they lose, we all lose.
 
I used to believe that this (the CAF) was a higher calling, and pride and patriotism and all that mumbo jumbo but after 15 years I see it as something very different now.  This is a job, and one I am in too far to turn around on now.  Honestly, at the moment, its pull pole, pop smoke, collect my pension and run at the 20 year mark.

I tell every new OS/Pte who comes into my office that the biggest thing they need to pay attention to is personal financial planning.  Put and keep yourself in a sound financial position so that you can get out when you want too and not be roped into this because your house poor or bought a big boat.

It’s all fine and dandy to preach that we are something special, that this is a "profession of arms", but when you fill people’s heads with that crap it leads them to believe they are special and then they expect to be treated accordingly.  CAF pers should be treated differently than the PS.  We are tasked with unlimited liability and that is more than just laying your life down when asked.  It’s also postings, exercises, going to sea, family stresses, 3 star or lower hotels (had to get the RCAF in there somehow ;) ) ect ect ect. 

PS and the CAF are apples and oranges.  They have a very valuable asset in continuity but that does not trump the duties and obligations of a CAF member and CAF members should be treated differently and accordingly.  I do appreciate that the PS union in a de facto way works for us as well but the level of separation needs to exist or you loose the "profession of arms" aspect.  You can not compare the two.

Sometimes I think its time we give Harper the boot and let Trudeau have a kick at it.  Cant be any worse.  At least with liberal buggery you get sweet nothings whispered in your ear.


 
Crantor said:
Regardless.  Your fight is their fight.  It matters not.  The end result will either be that some of the proposed cuts will be dampened and any compensation in exchange for cuts will be applied to you.  You better hope they fight tooth and nail even if the CF is an afterthought to them.  If they lose, we all lose.

Crantor,

That's a realist view, it doesn't belong here. ;) People are only worried about getting more spec pay. Things will sort themselves out when that little bit from heaven anoints all those super duper whiz kids. Of course, by then they'll probably want more because some kid with a Heathkit just made the papers with a million dollar grant.  8)
 
Transporter said:
Ian Lee, a professor at Carleton University’s Sprott School of Business, s

Ian Lee is a professor and former Bureaucrat who once headed Canada Post.  It was way back in the Eighties when Canada Post decided to centralize mail sorting in many urban centers, closing down smaller sorting plants.  Where a letter was once mailed in Fredericton, sorted in Fredericton, and then delivered in Oromocto a couple days later; it was now mailed in Fredericton, trucked to St John for sorting and then trucked back to Oromocto for deliver seven or more days later.  Then came the Super Boxes.  Now Ottawa mail will be sent to Montreal for sorting.  Brilliant ideas from such brilliant men as Ian Lee have led to the degradation of Canada Posts service and the loss of customers witnessed today.  I would take anything from this type of 'expert' with a deep fear of the worse case scenario emerging.
 
Off topic, but just as stupid is VAC couriering all Western Canada mail to Kirkland Lake, ON to be stamped and mailed. Don't know about Eastern Canada.
 
Crantor said:
Regardless.  Your fight is their fight.  It matters not.  The end result will either be that some of the proposed cuts will be dampened and any compensation in exchange for cuts will be applied to you.  You better hope they fight tooth and nail even if the CF is an afterthought to them.  If they lose, we all lose.

Nope, wrong again. Sometimes they can win, or achieve a draw, and we still lose. For example, here's a cut and paste from the PSAC webpage explaining the loss of severance pay to its members:

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Q. What did we get in exchange for severance?

A. The bargaining teams fought hard to ensure that the trade-off for severance was fair. The increased wages will accumulate as pensionable earnings and employees will enjoy the benefits of that when they retire.

These wage increases benefit everyone equally and because salaries are compounded over time, the increase in wages will have an upward effect on pensions and overtime.The Union also achieved some concrete victories on longstanding demands, including better protections for term employees , increased bereavement leave, and more flexibility to access family-related responsibility leave. Other achievements include an improvement in Travel Status Leave, a 1.5% annual allowance for all EG members, and improved compensation  for certain classifications where there are retention and recruitment issues.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Do you see much in there that benefits CF members - other than pay increases we almost certainly would have gotten anyway - for the loss of the severance pay?

 
George Wallace said:
Ian Lee is a professor and former Bureaucrat who once headed Canada Post.  It was way back in the Eighties when Canada Post decided to centralize mail sorting in many urban centers, closing down smaller sorting plants.  Where a letter was once mailed in Fredericton, sorted in Fredericton, and then delivered in Oromocto a couple days later; it was now mailed in Fredericton, trucked to St John for sorting and then trucked back to Oromocto for deliver seven or more days later.  Then came the Super Boxes.  Now Ottawa mail will be sent to Montreal for sorting.  Brilliant ideas from such brilliant men as Ian Lee have led to the degradation of Canada Posts service and the loss of customers witnessed today.  I would take anything from this type of 'expert' with a deep fear of the worse case scenario emerging.

We'll just have to wait and see I guess. Honestly, I don't think we're done with the PS collective bargaining fratricide yet. But I guess with military compensation being not much more than an afterthought, there's not a whole lot, if anything, that anyone can do about it.
 
Transporter said:
We'll just have to wait and see I guess. Honestly, I don't think we're done with the PS collective bargaining fratricide yet. But I guess with military compensation being not much more than an afterthought, there's not a whole lot, if anything, that anyone can do about it.

Yup. It's out of your control and there is nothing to be done about it. What comes, comes. There's no sense even thinking about it, let alone have it bother you.

Most have other things, that they can control, to keep them busy.
 
recceguy said:
Yup. It's out of your control and there is nothing to be done about it. What comes, comes. There's no sense even thinking about it, let alone have it bother you.

Most have other things, that they can control, to keep them busy.

Wow. Do you want me to go to my room for a time out too?
 
What?? :o

I was agreeing with you. 8)

Stand on a chair next time you read one of my posts ;D
 
Transporter said:
Nope, wrong again. Sometimes they can win, or achieve a draw, and we still lose. For example, here's a cut and paste from the PSAC webpage explaining the loss of severance pay to its members:

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Q. What did we get in exchange for severance?

A. The bargaining teams fought hard to ensure that the trade-off for severance was fair. The increased wages will accumulate as pensionable earnings and employees will enjoy the benefits of that when they retire.

These wage increases benefit everyone equally and because salaries are compounded over time, the increase in wages will have an upward effect on pensions and overtime.The Union also achieved some concrete victories on longstanding demands, including better protections for term employees , increased bereavement leave, and more flexibility to access family-related responsibility leave. Other achievements include an improvement in Travel Status Leave, a 1.5% annual allowance for all EG members, and improved compensation  for certain classifications where there are retention and recruitment issues.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Do you see much in there that benefits CF members - other than pay increases we almost certainly would have gotten anyway - for the loss of the severance pay?

The increase was above the annual increase and many cf members received severances they never would have been entitled to.  Not saying it was awesome, but the government was hell bent on getting rid of it one way or the other.  For some it was good others not so much. Better that than nothing.  This government has its agenda and wants to modernize the public sector and it's benefits.  Benefits that non public sector employees see as extravagant. They care if you wear a uniform or not, they see it all as the same.

Next election you can make yourself heard and vote for the guy you think will support your benefits. 
 
recceguy said:
It would appear, the ones here anyway, that want spec pay, or more of it, seem to have one common premise.

That being, they want to be compensated based on what they do, what their training is and how much better their civie counterparts are doing.

Basically, saying they want more or else and blackmailing the CF to stay in that function, under threat of taking their free education and skills to the other side of the fence.

They are not here because it's a calling. They are not here out of patriotism. They are not here for any ideology, other than the almighty dollar.

Well, you have a choice. Nobody can make you do what you don't want to. There are always alternatives. Instead of bitching for more money, get out, hit the bricks and go get it.

That's all I have been able to glean and it might not be right. However, it's hard to hear because the whine is akin to being locked in a test cell with a jet engine run up.

I don't think it's unreasonable to question your pay scales when CAF pay doesn't compare to DND pay for doing the exact same job.  Patriotism is great, but doesn't pay the bills.  Also, loyalty is a two way street; when the government of the day shows no regard for using up and disposing of my friends, why shouldn't I be looking at other options?  The only thing between having a CAF pension and it being gone is the ruling party rubber stamping legislation.  The erosion on that has already started, and I suspect it will continue to happen one small reduction at a time until it's meaningless.  In general retiring is a baby boomer fantasy being paid for by the current and future generations, so the idea of relying on a pension being there some years down the road is a poor one, at best.

For most people in the CAF I think the whole idea of 'serving the greater good' is a lot more conceptual then concrete, so when you are crippled by bureaucracy and redundant processes you tend to have very little job satisfaction and can't see how you are making any difference.  When the senior leadership seems to be more concerned with covering their asses, shiny buttons and 'key performance indicators' then being an effective military, that's when you start comparing your apples to the other guys oranges.

Boomers love to rag on the current generations about being 'self entitled' while their generation managed to take the planet to the brink of a nuclear winter, created a society of mass consumerism and widespread environmental disasters.  If the current generations are looking out for themselves, that may be because the ones that came before us have clearly demonstrated they won't do it for us.  I think there is actually a very large number of very idealistic young people; it's just not blind idealism.

Personally, my big disatisfier with my job right now isn't pay, or benefits; it's that I go to work, seem to do a lot of good quality stuff within the system, but never get to do anything that leaves the world a better place then when I started in the morning.  So if I need to look outside of work to find something where I can actually make a positive difference, why would anyone possibly think saying 'it's a calling etc etc etc' would have any affect?  Maybe the whole thing is being amplified by the fact that the Navy is close to broken right now, but I for one am tired of out of touch fossils telling me to 'suck it up or get out'; which is what people are doing in droves, and it's not the bottom third jumping ship, so best of luck.

/rant

 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top