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

[stealthylizard]

Been following this thread, and I have to comment that it's sad to see how many have the opinion that if you don't like it, get out.

Scrap the whole pension - don't like it, get out.
Get rid of the health benefits - don't like it, get out.
Get rid of the paid vacation.  You will instead receive 4% every pay for you to save towards vacation. - don't like it get out.

I could go on, and on.

Thankfully, there are people that are opposed to the gradual diminishing of benefits and "perks" and will speak out against it, so that the future generation(s) of serving military will have some incentive to treat their service as something more than just a job.

 

[RADOPSIGOPACCISOP]

Been following this thread, and I have to comment that it's sad to see how many have the opinion that if you don't like it, get out.

Scrap the whole pension - don't like it, get out.
Get rid of the health benefits - don't like it, get out.
Get rid of the paid vacation.  You will instead receive 4% every pay for you to save towards vacation. - don't like it get out.

I could go on, and on.

Thankfully, there are people that are opposed to the gradual diminishing of benefits and "perks" and will speak out against it, so that the future generation(s) of serving military will have some incentive to treat their service as something more than just a job.

It makes no sense to me either. "We have it good, the military is a unique institution, but cheer while those benefits are cut back. Don't like it get out."

It's an ridiculous extremist proposition, that the only solution to any problem is to leave. Don't like the fact the government has been continually curtailing civil liberties? Move somewhere else.  Boss harrassing you? Quit. Kid won't stop screaming? Leave the family.

 

[Transporter]

All good questions.  The question is would we better off with a separate entity reviewing our salary and benefits or is being linked to the ps a better option.  As far as I know we are one of the best paid forces so maybe it works?  Not sure but I found this comparison that someone made based on highest incentive at certain ranks between countries in 2010.  I'd say we are doing well enough but so many other factors come into play so take it with a grain of salt.  However we are still way ahead of our allies in that regard if you look at pay.

http://m.neogaf.com/showthread.php?t=401194

I agree that we are paid pretty well, but I think that table is a little off. I had a look at pay rates for Cpl, Sgt, Capt and LCol in the CF, US, UK and AUS (pay level 1, non-spec pay). Whilst near impossible to draw a direct correlation, here is what I came up with (monthly rates, converted to CAD):

Country/Rank Cpl         Sgt         Capt LCol
CAN                 $4,714 $5,416 $6,202 $9,719
US                 $3,789 $5,465 $7,463 $11,406
UK                 $4,147 $4,714 $5,956 $10,530
AUS                 $5,263 $5,919 $6,449 $10,859

US pay includes Basic Allowance for Housing (BAH), which is not taxed. Also, nine US states don't tax military pay and 24 others offer various tax deductions/exemptions for military pay. And for what it's worth, 13 other states (in addition to the nine) don't tax military pension income either; a military pension that US personnel don't contribute a single dime to - 100% gov funded - and which they can draw immediately after 20 years of service, calculated at 2.5% per year (versus our 2.0%) of service on the average of their best three years of pay (versus our five).

AUS pay includes an annual $12,924 service allowance (taxed) to all full-time personnel (part time get the allowance tax-free).

Links are here:

US: http://militarypay.defense.gov/Pay/BASIC/docs/Active%20Duty%20Tables/2014BasicPayTableActiveUncapped.pdf
UK: http://www.armedforces.co.uk/armypayscales.php#.U-rYsPldVRp
AUS: http://content.defencejobs.gov.au/pdf/triservice/DFT_Document_PayRates.pdf

Slow night.

 

[McG]

Is your Sgt column for rank bearing the name or for OR-5 (US SSgt)?

 

[RADOPSIGOPACCISOP]

I agree that we are paid pretty well, but I think that table is a little off. I had a look at pay rates for Cpl, Sgt, Capt and LCol in the CF, US, UK and AUS (pay level 1, non-spec pay). Whilst near impossible to draw a direct correlation, here is what I came up with (monthly rates, converted to CAD):

Country/Rank Cpl         Sgt         Capt LCol
CAN                 $4,714 $5,416 $6,202 $9,719
US                 $3,789 $5,465 $7,463 $11,406
UK                 $4,147 $4,714 $5,956 $10,530
AUS                 $5,263 $5,919 $6,449 $10,859

US pay includes Basic Allowance for Housing (BAH), which is not taxed. Also, nine US states don't tax military pay and 24 others offer various tax deductions/exemptions for military pay. And for what it's worth, 13 other states (in addition to the nine) don't tax military pension income either; a military pension that US personnel don't contribute a single dime to - 100% gov funded - and which they can draw immediately after 20 years of service, calculated at 2.5% per year (versus our 2.0%) of service on the average of their best three years of pay (versus our five).

AUS pay includes an annual $12,924 service allowance (taxed) to all full-time personnel (part time get the allowance tax-free).

Links are here:

US: http://militarypay.defense.gov/Pay/BASIC/docs/Active%20Duty%20Tables/2014BasicPayTableActiveUncapped.pdf
UK: http://www.armedforces.co.uk/armypayscales.php#.U-rYsPldVRp
AUS: http://content.defencejobs.gov.au/pdf/triservice/DFT_Document_PayRates.pdf

Slow night.

Nice! Kind of wondered about the  comparisons, quite suprised by them too. Also take into account the difference in average time to promotion. I was talking with a US Army guy who said one guy he worked with made it to Sgt in 3 or 4 years, and that it took him 8 years, which was a little longer than average. In the CF it's nearly double that.

 

[dimsum]

If we're going to compare benefits as well, the CAN leave entitlements are higher than the US and AUS. 

US may have higher number of leave days on paper, but their weekends are counted as leave and therefore are subtracted.  Also, they do not get block Xmas leave (folks I know at US units go into work between Christmas and New Years.) 

AUS have 20 days of Annual (30 if Aircrew) but that never goes up.  After a certain time (I believe it's 10 years) they get "Long Service Leave" which is a one-time, 3-month block. 

Not sure about the UK entitlements.



Edited to add: 

Also, pay-wise AUS is different in that there are 10 pay groups you can be in (dependent on trade) that can vary wildly on how much they actually make. 

http://www.defence.gov.au/dpe/pac/Pay_Current_Rates.pdf

 

[RADOPSIGOPACCISOP]

If we're going to compare benefits as well, the CAN leave entitlements are higher than the US and AUS. 

US may have higher number of leave days on paper, but their weekends are counted as leave and therefore are subtracted.  Also, they do not get block Xmas leave (folks I know at US units go into work between Christmas and New Years.) 

AUS have 20 days of Annual (30 if Aircrew) but that never goes up.  After a certain time (I believe it's 10 years) they get "Long Service Leave" which is a one-time, 3-month block. 

Not sure about the UK entitlements.



Edited to add: 

Also, pay-wise AUS is different in that there are 10 pay groups you can be in (dependent on trade) that can vary wildly on how much they actually make. 

http://www.defence.gov.au/dpe/pac/Pay_Current_Rates.pdf

Yes, however the tax rate for the US is lower, while at the same time they do get the universal medical care that our higher tax rate supposedly funds.

 

[Towards_the_gap]

I agree that we are paid pretty well, but I think that table is a little off. I had a look at pay rates for Cpl, Sgt, Capt and LCol in the CF, US, UK and AUS (pay level 1, non-spec pay). Whilst near impossible to draw a direct correlation, here is what I came up with (monthly rates, converted to CAD):

Country/Rank Cpl         Sgt         Capt LCol
CAN                 $4,714 $5,416 $6,202 $9,719
US                 $3,789 $5,465 $7,463 $11,406
UK                 $4,147 $4,714 $5,956 $10,530
AUS                 $5,263 $5,919 $6,449 $10,859

US pay includes Basic Allowance for Housing (BAH), which is not taxed. Also, nine US states don't tax military pay and 24 others offer various tax deductions/exemptions for military pay. And for what it's worth, 13 other states (in addition to the nine) don't tax military pension income either; a military pension that US personnel don't contribute a single dime to - 100% gov funded - and which they can draw immediately after 20 years of service, calculated at 2.5% per year (versus our 2.0%) of service on the average of their best three years of pay (versus our five).

AUS pay includes an annual $12,924 service allowance (taxed) to all full-time personnel (part time get the allowance tax-free).

Links are here:

US: http://militarypay.defense.gov/Pay/BASIC/docs/Active%20Duty%20Tables/2014BasicPayTableActiveUncapped.pdf
UK: http://www.armedforces.co.uk/armypayscales.php#.U-rYsPldVRp
AUS: http://content.defencejobs.gov.au/pdf/triservice/DFT_Document_PayRates.pdf

Slow night.

The comparison is also off when you consider a UK Cpl does the work of a Canadian/US Sgt (section commander/squad leader), whilst a Canadian Cpl is literally a time served rubber stamp.

 

[George Wallace]

........... Also take into account the difference in average time to promotion. I was talking with a US Army guy who said one guy he worked with made it to Sgt in 3 or 4 years, and that it took him 8 years, which was a little longer than average. In the CF it's nearly double that.

Also take into account the differences in training.  In the US, Sgt is, more or less, the working rank; while here you will find a Cpl doing the same work and more.  International comparisons are generalizations and do not accurately reflect the facts.  In all cases, each nation has different criteria in their training, duties, benefits, etc. so an accurate comparison is next to impossible.  I have met many Americans who have asked about the possibilities to transfer from the American Forces to the Canadian Armed Forces.  It is a case of "the grass appears to be greener on the other side of the fence" when it may in actual fact not be.

If you have not worked with foreign Forces, you will have not had the opportunity to compare.  Many of us who have, are for the most part glad our system is what it is.  Don't for a moment think that our system is stagnant and opposed to change.  It has changed greatly over the years, for the most part for the better.  With the exception of a few things, like Pips and Crowns, the change comes about with slow deliberation.  Bitterness and whining has never worked in promoting any of that change.

 

[Haggis]

:goodpost:

Part of our collective problem is that the more we sound and act like "public servants", the more the goverment will regard us as such, thereby eroding our "differentness" which stems from the unique demands of military service, i.e. unlimited liability.

 

[Remius]

Plenty of stuff to add to the mix as well.

The US BHA isn't factored in to your retirement pay.  I believe you need 20 years to qualify for retirement pay as well, if less than that you get nada. and you can get called back into service after retirement...

I've been on a few US bases...no thanks.  George summed it up nicely.

MATA/PATA.  A full year off, topped up.  For every kid you have.  What's the value of that?

As for those offended by the "don't like it get out" comments some posters have made, consider why they are making them. 

Many people here are indeed complaining and are indeed sounding completely unprofessional.  We should have X because they have X is complaning.  We should have X because of Y is being more reasonable.  You have to justify why you should have X and no one else should.  Or not have to pay for X when everyone else does.  See?  When some of you are looking to the PS as a comparison and complaining about how much better they have it pay and pension wise, non-public sector types are doing the same to you and they are in fact cheering those changes.   

So far I've seen some people here slag the reserves, the public service, the government and just about anyone else they can to justify their point and point to the fact that everywhere else is so much better. 

So why are you still in the CF with all of that?  That's why people are saying why not get out.  Apparently you are all making it sound so bad when it isn't anywhere near the appocalypse it is being made out to be. 

There are so many other trades and careers and jobs in this country that are far more important than ours in the grand scheme and many many of those get nowhere near what we get.  Sometimes we overvalue ourselves more than we should and we need to be brought down a few notches.

So for those that want better pay and better benefits, how much more and how many and how would you justify all that to Canadians?

Another note on other countries, many of our allies are actually cutting troop levels in this economic climate.  What do you think a 5%-10% reduction in personel will do to us?  Paying for parking like everyone else and paying our share of our pension (when most don't even have a pension) is a small trade off when looking at it strategically and with the bigger picture in mind.

 

[dimsum]

Plenty of stuff to add to the mix as well.

The US BHA isn't factored in to your retirement pay.  I believe you need 20 years to qualify for retirement pay as well, if less than that you get nada. and you can get called back into service after retirement...

I've been on a few US bases...no thanks.  George summed it up nicely.

MATA/PATA.  A full year off, topped up.  For every kid you have.  What's the value of that?

As for those offended by the "don't like it get out" comments some posters have made, consider why they are making them. 

Many people here are indeed complaining and are indeed sounding completely unprofessional.  We should have X because they have X is complaning.  We should have X because of Y is being more reasonable.  You have to justify why you should have X and no one else should.  Or not have to pay for X when everyone else does.  See?  When some of you are looking to the PS as a comparison and complaining about how much better they have it pay and pension wise, non-public sector types are doing the same to you and they are in fact cheering those changes.   

So far I've seen some people here slag the reserves, the public service, the government and just about anyone else they can to justify their point and point to the fact that everywhere else is so much better. 

So why are you still in the CF with all of that?  That's why people are saying why not get out.  Apparently you are all making it sound so bad when it isn't anywhere near the appocalypse it is being made out to be. 

There are so many other trades and careers and jobs in this country that are far more important than ours in the grand scheme and many many of those get nowhere near what we get.  Sometimes we overvalue ourselves more than we should and we need to be brought down a few notches.

So for those that want better pay and better benefits, how much more and how many and how would you justify all that to Canadians?

Another note on other countries, many of our allies are actually cutting troop levels in this economic climate.  What do you think a 5%-10% reduction in personel will do to us?  Paying for parking like everyone else and paying our share of our pension (when most don't even have a pension) is a small trade off when looking at it strategically and with the bigger picture in mind.

:goodpost:

The US and UK are actually handing out pink slips, some to those still in places like Afghanistan.  And yes, US retirement pay is at 20 years, with not a cent paid for any less than that.

 

[Transporter]

Is your Sgt column for rank bearing the name or for OR-5 (US SSgt)?

E6 with 12 yrs service (with BAH) if I remember correctly.

 

[Transporter]

For the record, I have no complaints about the pay or other benefits I currently receive, nor was I trying to imply that anyone else should either. I think my posts have been fairly consistent in not putting down anyone, or any group, but what I have expressed is my opinion that there is likely a better way to address military compensation other than simply benchmarking with the public service (plus military factor, etc), and attempted to show that other allied armed forces take a different approach in this regard. I am certainly not screaming that the grass is clearly greener on the other side, but I do feel there is a better way to take a more holistic view of what constitutes fair compensation for military service. I could be wrong... happened once before.

As previously stated, my concern is not that we get more, but that we somehow find a way to stem the tide of receiving less and less. Sure, on an issue-by-issue basis (like parking, for example), it may seem petty. But taken as a whole, it adds up to more than one might realize over time.

I think it's healthy to encourage discussion on these issues. Nobody needs to be singling-out anyone else on here as wrong, or disloyal.

 

[TCM621]

The only people complaining are the ones complaining about people who feel "entitled". The reason people are comparing themselves to the public service is because the government uses that comparison when it wants to take something away. The PS get to give and take through negotiations, we don't get that right.
A lot of the older guard here seem to be using the argument that they lived through the decade of darkness and these people don't know how good they have it. To a very large extent, this is a justified attitude. However, a lot if us are seeing the signs of a return to that. Forums like this one are one of the ways our voices get heard and maybe we can prevent a return to the dark days.
Anyone, anywhere and in any instance who fights to uphold the status quo will eventually be seen as part of problem. It may not seem like it now but the CF has to grow and adapt to ensure long term success. It is people who identify problems and seek solutions who will contribute to that growth, even if their solutions are not the right ones. The very act of identifying the potential problem and proposing a solution, begins the cycle which leads to change.

 

[Brad Sallows]

>No insult meant but people who risk their lives for the country, and are injured while doing so deserve more

People who risk their lives for the country, and are wounded while doing so deserve more.

 

[Transporter]

:goodpost:

The US and UK are actually handing out pink slips, some to those still in places like Afghanistan.  And yes, US retirement pay is at 20 years, with not a cent paid for any less than that.

I think the pink slips will continue for the foreseeable future along with incentivized early out options.  And I believe an overhaul of the US retirement system is being considered to, among other things, address the fact that those leaving with less than 20 yrs of service currently get nothing.

EDIT: Fixed quote box.

 

[Jungle]

The US Military have the "up or out" to contend with; I am currently working with ex-LCols who were shown the door because they were not going up... they are now working as contractors.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

ERC has made a comment that Spec Pay should be revamped to a one time only lump sum bonus paid on gaining a qualification.  An even more drastic change, and one that I am sure some 'Think Tank' and politicians may come to accept in the future, would be the replacement of all Spec Trades with civilian contractors.

I don't think you will see civilian SAR Techs, Engineers and AES Ops in the RCAF - all specialist pay flying trades.  And the navy, many sailors are specialist pay MOCs.  Specialist pay is not "physical fitness pay".  Combat arms get their LDA, the same as I get my Aircrew Allowance, for the day to day hazards/hardships of the job we do.  I think the line is getting hazy on what pay is for what.

Flt Eng's are Spec 2 pay.  Knowing what they do, and how important it is to every part of getting the mission done, they earn it.  SAR Tech's earn their Spec 2 as well.  There are some trades is baffles me that they do not receive spec pay - Med Tech is the first one that comes to mind.  They keep people alive when the SHTF.  No spec pay?  :dunno:

I have to agree with the earlier statement about "spec pay is to attract and keep people FROM the civilian world".  Maybe that's not 'fair', but it is reality. 

 

[George Wallace]

I don't think you will see civilian SAR Techs, Engineers and AES Ops in the RCAF - all specialist pay flying trades.  And the navy, many sailors are specialist pay MOCs.  Specialist pay is not "physical fitness pay".  Combat arms get their LDA, the same as I get my Aircrew Allowance, for the day to day hazards/hardships of the job we do.  I think the line is getting hazy on what pay is for what.

Flt Eng's are Spec 2 pay.  Knowing what they do, and how important it is to every part of getting the mission done, they earn it.  SAR Tech's earn their Spec 2 as well.  There are some trades is baffles me that they do not receive spec pay - Med Tech is the first one that comes to mind.  They keep people alive when the SHTF.  No spec pay?  :dunno:

I have to agree with the earlier statement about "spec pay is to attract and keep people FROM the civilian world".  Maybe that's not 'fair', but it is reality.

I think you missed what ERC said.  He did not say that Spec Pay would be done away with, but revamped.  Revamped so that a member in a 'Specialist Trade' did not get a monthly boost in pay due to Spec Pay.  Instead they would get a "One Time Payment" paid out when the member has successfully completed the level of training for that 'Specialist Trade'.  This may even produce different Levels of specialist within that 'Specialist Trade'.