Nearly 4,500 Canadian Armed Forces members, families waiting for military housing

[dapaterson]

Why do CAF members, paid above Canadian average wages, with above average benefits, deserve additional special considerations?

That's the foundational question that must be substantively answered before any material change will be enacted.

 

[FSTO]

Why do CAF members, paid above Canadian average wages, with above average benefits, deserve additional special considerations?

That's the foundational question that must be substantively answered before any material change will be enacted.

Because they can be ordered to get killed?

 

[KevinB]

Why do CAF members, paid above Canadian average wages, with above average benefits, deserve additional special considerations?

That's the foundational question that must be substantively answered before any material change will be enacted.

Two reasons I can list immediately.
1) Unlimited Liability
2) Postings at the CAF convenience.

If Cost of Living is too high in areas, anyone else can generally give their notice and leave, it’s not that easy in the CAF…

 

[Halifax Tar]

Why do CAF members, paid above Canadian average wages, with above average benefits, deserve additional special considerations?

That's the foundational question that must be substantively answered before any material change will be enacted.

If you want unlimited liability you need to pay for it. Right now the Gov seems to be not providing that incentive. If our recruiting and retention woes are to be believed.

I think its time we are (re ? ) established as a separate and distinct organization, with separate and distinct obligations; that needs to be delinked from local economies and national average income levels. We need to offer services and benefits, that other jobs don't, that make a career in the CAF more attractive and practical for people.

Why shouldn't the CAF be looking for a better quality of life for its members ?

 

[Navy_Pete]

Why do CAF members, paid above Canadian average wages, with above average benefits, deserve additional special considerations?

That's the foundational question that must be substantively answered before any material change will be enacted.

Do CAF members get paid above average wage, if you compare it to the similar industry rates, and add in things like overtime, being on call etc?

Some do, some don't.

Other sectors with high rates of moving people tend to have better benefits and coverage for the moves as well.

If we're hemorraging people and unable to recruit enough, maybe the pay isn't as good as people think for what is required of the job?

 

[Brad Sallows]

Businesses either pay people enough, or move to where the cost of living is low enough to suit what the business wants to pay. Choose one.

 

[Remius]

Do CAF members get paid above average wage, if you compare it to the similar industry rates, and add in things like overtime, being on call etc?

Some do, some don't.

Other sectors with high rates of moving people tend to have better benefits and coverage for the moves as well.

If we're hemorraging people and unable to recruit enough, maybe the pay isn't as good as people think for what is required of the job?

Yes I would say so. Better pay, better benefits, leave etc.

Better conditions might be a different story.

 

[Ostrozac]

Businesses either pay people enough, or move to where the cost of living is low enough to suit what the business wants to pay. Choose one.

Treasury Board seems to have ruled out the first option. The second option — moving entire units to where military personnel can afford to live, seems like an obvious choice — but it doesn‘t seem to be happening. Senior leadership prefers to bang their heads against the PLD brick wall, I suppose.

 

[GR66]

Two reasons I can list immediately.
1) Unlimited Liability
2) Postings at the CAF convenience.

If Cost of Living is too high in areas, anyone else can generally give their notice and leave, it’s not that easy in the CAF…

Both are valid but some may argue that by joining the military the member has already made the choice to accept the Unlimited Liability portion of the deal. The 2nd item however is completely out of the member's control unlike the vast majority of non-CF employees in the country.

Many employees in the natural resources sector are put up in housing where they are required to work. I don't see why it would be unreasonable for CF members to have the same opportunity for housing where they are required to work as well.

Have accommodation available at a flat rate that is the same wherever you are posted. If a member wishes to take the opportunity to build their equity by getting into the housing market then that is their choice.

 

[KevinB]

Both are valid but some may argue that by joining the military the member has already made the choice to accept the Unlimited Liability portion of the deal. The 2nd item however is completely out of the member's control unlike the vast majority of non-CF employees in the country.

Many employees in the natural resources sector are put up in housing where they are required to work. I don't see why it would be unreasonable for CF members to have the same opportunity for housing where they are required to work as well.

Have accommodation available at a flat rate that is the same wherever you are posted. If a member wishes to take the opportunity to build their equity by getting into the housing market then that is their choice.

Yes, but a lot of folks also joined back when the CAF was in the Property game.
At the end of the day, security of self and family are major issues, and if the CAF is missing recruiting numbers, the TB needs to be reckoned with.

 

[Halifax Tar]

Both are valid but some may argue that by joining the military the member has already made the choice to accept the Unlimited Liability portion of the deal. The 2nd item however is completely out of the member's control unlike the vast majority of non-CF employees in the country.

Many employees in the natural resources sector are put up in housing where they are required to work. I don't see why it would be unreasonable for CF members to have the same opportunity for housing where they are required to work as well.

Have accommodation available at a flat rate that is the same wherever you are posted. If a member wishes to take the opportunity to build their equity by getting into the housing market then that is their choice.

The whole idea of enrollment is one accepting that unlimited liability.

The problem is if you want people in accept that you need to ensure people are remunerated for it. Perhaps part of our retention and requirement woes is because our society is viewing it as a juice not worth the squeeze.

We have to decide, do we want; a CAF that's just an extension of the civil service, no different than a police service or waste management organization or do we want a military ?

 

[GR66]

The whole idea of enrollment is one accepting that unlimited liability.

The problem is if you want people in accept that you need to ensure people are remunerated for it. Perhaps part of our retention and requirement woes is because our society is viewing it as a juice not worth the squeeze.

We have to decide, do we want; a CAF that's just an extension of the civil service, no different than a police service or waste management organization or do we want a military ?

Not questioning that at all. In my opinion wages and benefits (Pension & VAC) are where one should be compensated for accepting Unlimited Liability.

For the burden of being posted wherever the CAF decides they need you I suggested that housing should be provided (at a reasonable equal cost across the country) for those that require it. If a member instead chooses to go into the private housing market in order to earn capital then they should also have that choice (with existing moving benefits when relocated at the discretion of the CAF).

 

[dapaterson]

Note I am not fundamentally disagreeing, but the CAF has never adequately articulated foundational principles that should drive leg, reg & policy change. Nor provided adequate framing / boundaries.

 

[GR66]

Note I am not fundamentally disagreeing, but the CAF has never adequately articulated foundational principles that should drive leg, reg & policy change. Nor provided adequate framing / boundaries.

Why should the housing issue be any different than the rest of the issues facing the CAF?

 

[Navy_Pete]

The closest comparison for moving around in the government is likely the RCMP (although DFAIT and others also jump around). Near as I can tell, they have better compensation packages for moving, and significantly better monthly allowances for situations like IR. I know when I was on IR in Halifax, the real estate agent I was talking to had to cut out a lot of options when they found out the monthly rate was significantly lower, but only have that one from word of mouth. But IIRC it was something like $1400/month plus up to $100 month for parking, and the RCMP limit was over $2k/month. In practical terms I was happy to find somewhere without bedbugs within a reasonable distance to the base, as I was working insane hours and didn't have a parking pass.

 

[daftandbarmy]

Businesses either pay people enough, or move to where the cost of living is low enough to suit what the business wants to pay. Choose one.

No other business on the face of the planet does that, so why should the CAF?

 

[Brad Sallows]

Businesses can't force people to take up employment. Obviously if they have employees, they are offering enough for someone. Media have served up plenty of articles in past few months about businesses raising compensation to attract workers, or moving to lower CoL locations (or adopting other trade-offs, like remote work). Equally obviously, remote work isn't viable for most CAF functions.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Why do CAF members, paid above Canadian average wages, with above average benefits, deserve additional special considerations?

That's the foundational question that must be substantively answered before any material change will be enacted.

Housing is a pretty standard give for most Armed Forces, instead of PMQ's, your housing might be an apartment based on your rank and family size. I visited my wife's cousin who was a Police Constable in Malaysia. He got a small apartment for his family, similar for the military there.

 

[OldSolduer]

Because developers lobbied the government to both get rid of PMQs and stop CAF members paying lower than local rates for rental of the remaining PMQs.

Herein lies the problem:

Lets say Building Company X wins the competition to build X number of houses. Immediately Company Y sues because they lost fair and square. THEN its bogged down for years and fuck all gets built.

 

[childs56]

Treasury Board enters the conversation.

Subsidized housing would have to be a taxable benefit to members.

The general consensus from many of the public is they think the Military gets free housing already. Those who are friends with, or close to, work around I would hope they know difference. That is why there appears little sympathy with Military members on housing issues.

Ultimately the GOC is going to have to fix this issues or they are going to have bigger issue with members refusing to be posted out for compassionate reasons. Push come to shove the members will win. The GOC will look like idiots.

Members also have to be aware that they may not ever own a home, or if they do it will be years of planning and socking away their Sea pay, Field pay, or second job.