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

[Eye In The Sky]

I read that and, I don't honestly ever see it changing from it current model, with the exception of perhaps some trades losing spec pay - which wouldn't surprise me and in the end only takes the stroke of a pen.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

The current government has made it exceedingly clear that the CAF is just a job. It's not special, there's no "social contract". They don't take care of their soldiers as they have done in the past.

I don't know, but guessing by your forum handle you've been around the mob for a while too (since '89 for me).  I'm no expect in government policy, I don't remember all the little details of how things were with every PM and every Parliament that has sat since I did my Oath.

However, our current Prime Minister and government, overall, has been the most supportive to the CF overall during it tenure.  Again, just IMO, all things considered - equipment purchases, pay, VAC changes, possible pension changes...the whole sha-bang. 

I know things have taken a turn for the worse with some aspects (or a return to the way it was pre-Afghanistan...) but...I am far more concerned about the reality of life for not just the CAF, but Canada as a whole, if the government changes hands in the next federal election.  And what "we don't give a f**k about you anymore" feeling CAF mbrs will experience THEN if they are experiencing them now.

:2c:

 

[Transporter]

Say goodbye to another benefit...

http://globalnews.ca/news/1530365/exclusive-dnd-to-stop-compensating-same-city-moves-for-retiring-military/

 

[Occam]

Say goodbye to another benefit...

http://globalnews.ca/news/1530365/exclusive-dnd-to-stop-compensating-same-city-moves-for-retiring-military/

I just posted it in the Leslie relocation thread.  Not sure which is more appropriate.

 

[George Wallace]

"Optics" trump "common sense" and "Fairness".

 

[TCM621]

"Optics" trump "common sense" and "Fairness".

I don't know. That seems like a common sense move to me. Why should the cf pay to move a guy down the road? In no other case will the CF pay for a move with in the geographic area, that I am aware of anyway. Even on a posting within the geographic area, you wouldn't be entitled to a move.

If you managed to get posted to where you want to retire, good on you but the benefit is, and always was, intended for a final move from your last posting to where you plan to retire.

General Leslie did nothing wrong because he simply followed the policy as it was being interpreted but this is more of closing a loophole then getting rid of a benefit.

 

[George Wallace]

I don't know. That seems like a common sense move to me. Why should the cf pay to move a guy down the road? In no other case will the CF pay for a move with in the geographic area, that I am aware of anyway. Even on a posting within the geographic area, you wouldn't be entitled to a move.

If you managed to get posted to where you want to retire, good on you but the benefit is, and always was, intended for a final move from your last posting to where you plan to retire.

General Leslie did nothing wrong because he simply followed the policy as it was being interpreted but this is more of closing a loophole then getting rid of a benefit.

Common sense is not applied in his instance.....Optics were.  Look at the expenses and break them down and you will find nothing out of order with them. 

Suppose he lived in a PMQ at Uplands and then decided on retirement to buy a home in Ottawa.  Would you suggest that he not be entitled to the same benefits that he would if he had decided to retire in Victoria instead?  That is what this 'knee jerk' policy is; all about optics.

(If you want to look at the question of expenses charged in this case, READ all the posts in these threads dealing with that subject.)

 

[TCM621]

As I said earlier, Gen Leslie merely followed the policy as it stood. Yes the optics were bad and yes that is why the policy was looked into.

As for the second part of your post, that is exactly what I am saying. If one is retiring in the geographic area one is currently posted in, one should not need or require the same benefits as someone who is retiring elsewhere.
Because we are unable to dictate where we are living prior to retirement, it is fair to expect a cost move to that location. However, if we are already in that location, either through luck or through negotiations with the career manager, there is no requirement. If someone chooses to live in a pmq, while posted in their chosen retirement location, right up to his end date the CF should not be on the hook for his poor planning.
You have up to 2 years after posting to get all the house buying benefits so in a standard 3 year posting, you would only have to buy 1 year out from retirement.
Proper retirement planning is not the CFs job even though they do, in fact, give plenty of thought to education through scan seminars and such.

 

[Transporter]

As I said earlier, Gen Leslie merely followed the policy as it stood. Yes the optics were bad and yes that is why the policy was looked into.

As for the second part of your post, that is exactly what I am saying. If one is retiring in the geographic area one is currently posted in, one should not need or require the same benefits as someone who is retiring elsewhere.
Because we are unable to dictate where we are living prior to retirement, it is fair to expect a cost move to that location. However, if we are already in that location, either through luck or through negotiations with the career manager, there is no requirement. If someone chooses to live in a pmq, while posted in their chosen retirement location, right up to his end date the CF should not be on the hook for his poor planning.
You have up to 2 years after posting to get all the house buying benefits so in a standard 3 year posting, you would only have to buy 1 year out from retirement.
Proper retirement planning is not the CFs job even though they do, in fact, give plenty of thought to education through scan seminars and such.

One day, you too will understand grasshopper...

 

[jollyjacktar]

Another cut back as well...  this fall, all eye clinics with the exception of St Jean and Ottawa will be closed out and out sourced downtown.  Further, as of 1 Apr the member will be required to pay for their eyeglasses and will only be reimbursed $200 of the costs.  Damn, but that Federal budget will look sooooo rosy come the election.  (Too bad it won't get my vote.)

 

[George Wallace]

Another cut back as well...  this fall, all eye clinics with the exception of St Jean and Ottawa will be closed out and out sourced downtown.  Further, as of 1 Apr the member will be required to pay for their eyeglasses and will only be reimbursed $200 of the costs.  Damn, but that Federal budget will look sooooo rosy come the election.  (Too bad it won't get my vote.)

But you forget that you can submit a Claim through your PSHCP for this.

 

[Occam]

General Leslie did nothing wrong because he simply followed the policy as it was being interpreted but this is more of closing a loophole then getting rid of a benefit.

As for the second part of your post, that is exactly what I am saying. If one is retiring in the geographic area one is currently posted in, one should not need or require the same benefits as someone who is retiring elsewhere.
Because we are unable to dictate where we are living prior to retirement, it is fair to expect a cost move to that location. However, if we are already in that location, either through luck or through negotiations with the career manager, there is no requirement. If someone chooses to live in a pmq, while posted in their chosen retirement location, right up to his end date the CF should not be on the hook for his poor planning.

There's so much wrong with what you said that I don't know where to start.

I was posted to Ottawa in 2008 with (at the time) 23 years service.  I had no intentions of getting out anytime soon.  We did our HHT in Ottawa with a one year old in tow, rushing around like fools trying to find a house in the 5 days allotted for a HHT.  I knew that I would be working at 101, downtown.  As anyone who's ever been to Ottawa knows, parking simply isn't an option at any of the downtown sites, unless you pay through the nose.  So, we chose a house based on the following criteria:

1.  Met all the criteria for being able to unload it quickly when the next posting came
2.  Was close to express public transit routes
3.  Met all of our needs as a family.

Fast forward to 2011.  I participated in a competition for a Public Service position.  I'm offered the position.  I submit my release from the CF with almost 26 years service to my name.  I'm in a house that I chose primarily for service reasons, a house that we've already outgrown after only three years, and most definitely not the house that we would have chosen if I were moving to Ottawa to retire from the CF.

I sold my 1100 sq. ft. home on a typical city lot in Orleans last August.  At the same time, I purchased the home I would have chosen had I knew I was coming here to retire, which is a 2400 sq ft home on a huge lot in rural Limoges, 33 km from my old home.  Bigger house, bigger property, don't need to worry about being close to transit because I can park at work, and it only takes me 10 minutes more to drive to work than at my old house.  I claimed my move to IPR on retirement just like Gen Leslie did.

Now, tell me why I'm not entitled to have my relocation costs covered for the move to my "local" intended place of residence, when the house I chose to move to when posted here was predominantly chosen because of service reasons?

 

[PuckChaser]

Another cut back as well...  this fall, all eye clinics with the exception of St Jean and Ottawa will be closed out and out sourced downtown.  Further, as of 1 Apr the member will be required to pay for their eyeglasses and will only be reimbursed $200 of the costs.  Damn, but that Federal budget will look sooooo rosy come the election.  (Too bad it won't get my vote.)

Where is this coming from? CANFORGEN? Policy Link? Or is this from the same rumour ilk of "LDA/SDA is going away 1 Apr!!!"

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Another cut back as well...  this fall, all eye clinics with the exception of St Jean and Ottawa will be closed out and out sourced downtown.  Further, as of 1 Apr the member will be required to pay for their eyeglasses and will only be reimbursed $200 of the costs.  Damn, but that Federal budget will look sooooo rosy come the election.  (Too bad it won't get my vote.)

I'm a Civil Servant and only get $175.00 toward my glasses. That I have to go to an appointment downtown for on my own time. God, this is getting :boring:

 

[Furniture]

I'm a Civil Servant and only get $175.00 toward my glasses. That I have to go to an appointment downtown for on my own time. God, this is getting :boring:

When the civil service as a whole is required to meet the same standards of employability (at home and deployed) the CF is required to meet that will be a great argument. Until then, not so much...  :boring:

 

[Remius]

When the civil service as a whole is required to meet the same standards of employability (at home and deployed) the CF is required to meet that will be a great argument. Until then, not so much...  :boring:

Unfortunately the average tax paying citizen won't see it that way and will likely be high fiving when you have to file your own eye glass claim rather than having your hand held through the process.  And the optics of a cf member complaining that he only has 200$ for glasses and has to claim it himself won't fly very well with public sympathy either. 

Hopefully the whole thing is just a rumour and we can stay calm and carry on.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Unfortunately the average tax paying citizen won't see it that way and will likely be high fiving when you have to file your own eye glass claim rather than having your hand held through the process.  And the optics of a cf member complaining that he only has 200$ for glasses and has to claim it himself won't fly very well with public sympathy either ...

Precisely ...

There are two aspects to this:

    1. A partisan, political "war" against the public sector ... good politics in 200+ of the the 338 seats that will be contested in the next federal general election; and

    2. An honest, sincere attempt to restore some balance to public sector employment. Traditionally the public sector was (relatively) poorly paid but had nearly iron clad job security and very, very good benefits.
        For a generation plus we have watched public sector wages rise and, now, surpass private sector wages while benefits for civil servants were not "traded away" as private sector benefits have been. As a general rule the
        public sector, wanting to be seen to be exemplary employers, has expanded in both salaries and benefits. The "fat city" perception is real and it is not just an issue for "Joe Six-pack" either; many senior officials
        and academics are concerned that the broad public sector is unsustainable which means that the welfare state is in danger, too.

 

[Sub_Guy]

I think this is a good idea, if I can take the $200 and get my glasses from wherever I want.... Costco...

 

[George Wallace]

When the civil service as a whole is required to meet the same standards of employability (at home and deployed) the CF is required to meet that will be a great argument. Until then, not so much...  :boring:

I suppose then, it can be turned around on you and say that you should not be eligible to participate in both the Public Service Health Care Plan and the Pensioners' Dental Services Plan on your retirement from the CAF. 

 

[Fishbone Jones]

When the civil service as a whole is required to meet the same standards of employability (at home and deployed) the CF is required to meet that will be a great argument. Until then, not so much...  :boring:

:facepalm:

That is an old saw and a red herring of deflection. It gets hauled out as a last resort every time a service person cannot eloquently justify their point.

The idea that you should get free glasses because of the universality of service is so preposterous it goes beyond the pale.