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

Post MLR Sea-Pay?

jollyjacktar said:
Despite the electronic tools available to track folks correctly it still needs the meat interface to work and track.  I know it is still a dog's breakfast trying to account who is sailing properly with all the Chinese fire drills of personnel changes.

My SSI calculations have never been correct, they have me shorted on numerous trips and list me on a couple I did not do.  He'll, even my MPRR postings have gaps you could sail a task force through.  I gave up trying to get it right long ago. 

The meat interface that logs the data is your weakest link and frankly I don't have full confidence in it.

What you're referring to is the attempt to extract information from a system that was never designed to keep track of that information in the first place.  By starting afresh, most of the problems we have in getting the sea day count right can be eliminated.  Like I said before, if the system can track every hour that aircrew spend in the air, surely we can track every day that sailors spend at sea.  Will there be mistakes?  Of course, but for the most part, they would be minor and I would argue that any mistakes would almost exclusively involve cases of sailors being overpaid (folks who don't receive an allowance they're entitled to tend to kick up a stink about it).
 
Pusser said:
Let's put things into the context of when I wrote the paper.  At the time, SDA was payable to anyone posted to a ship or who was in a "Designated Position."  Giving SDA to anyone posted to a ship makes a lot of sense except for those select few who are posted to ships, but who never sail.  We had documented cases of individuals who would get their posting messages, report on board in order to start their SDA and then immediately report to Sick Bay in order to be declared unfit sea, walk ashore and still collect SDA for the next two years.  Did this happen a lot? Actually no, but it did happen (malingering is actually very rare).  However, in my last ship, we had a PO1 who never actually went to sea in the entire two years I was there.  What sometimes happened were cases where the medical staff, rather than increase TCATs to 12 months (which would stop SDA), would instead repeatedly issue TCATs of six months so the individual would keep their SDA (notwithstanding that they were not doing anything remotely connected to what the allowance was for).  I would argue that actual malingering is/was quite rare, but it is a fact that there is/was some abuse going on.

My big target was the list of Designated Positions, which included Sea Training (surprised to hear that they are on CASSDA now) and Fleet Staffs (i.e. largely senior officers and chiefs).  The issue here was that there were a fair number of personnel in Designated Positions who were not actually going to sea, at least nowhere near the number of days per year that they were supposed to (130 days/yr in 1994).  It is also worth noting that one of the BIG differences between SDA and CASSDA is that time drawing SDA is accumulative toward higher rates, whereas time drawing CASSDA is not.  In other words, CASSDA gives you money, but nothing else in the long run, so everyone wants to be on SDA if at all possible (another reason I'm surprised STS is apparently now on CASSDA).  The fight to get on that list of Designated Positions was pretty intense and trying to remove  a position from the List was tantamount to chopping off somebody's arm they way some folks reacted.  It was also very difficult to get a new deserving position on the list.

Another important thing to remember is that all of the environmental allowances were set up in an era when we did all of our bookkeeping by hand and paying a monthly allowance was much simpler than paying one out daily.  Field Operations Allowance (FOA) was an exception to this.  The casual allowances were designed for sporadic payments in small increments.  Otherwise, the norm was to pay environmental allowances monthly (except FOA).  Modern electronic accounting methods eliminate this concern and the payment of daily allowance is well within the realm of the possible.  For that matter, if we can track every hour that aircrew spend in the air (and have been since people started flying), surely we can track the number of days people spend at sea (would make the whole SSI thing a lot easier too).

Another thing to note is that in accordance with Treasury Board instruction, in order for SDA to paid to a unit, that unit was supposed to be spending a minimum of 130 days per year at sea.  Likewise, a Designated Position was one that was supposed to be spending a minimum of 130 days per year at sea.  I believe this number has been reduced to 90 days, but I'm not sure.

My proposal was to simplify the whole business and only have one allowance for sea duty and to pay it only for days actually spent at sea in the same way as we were paying FOA at the time.  (I'll point out here that we actually went the opposite direction and replaced FOA with LDA, which is modelled on SDA.)  Now before everybody howls and accuses me of stealing money from sailors, know that I did not propose simply paying CASSDA (which was a fixed rate) by another name.  Instead, I proposed an incremental allowance, ranging from about $6.00 to $45.00 per day  depending on one's accumulated sea-time (i.e using a point system).  I also proposed removing the cap that currently exists on CASSDA (i.e. no maximum amount per month).  My rates were based on the SDA rates at the time.  Using the same calculation method today, the rates would be from $41.00 to $104.00 per day.  The benefits to this were as follows:

1)  Eliminates people receiving or accusations of of people receiving an allowance they didn't earn.  In order to get it, you have to go to sea - period. 

2)  Eliminates the administration of the list of Designated Positions.

3)  Puts MORE money in the pockets of the folks who are actually earning it.  Consider this:  Right now, a sailor posted to a ship that isn't sailing much (e.g. spends 50 days at sea this year) draws the same amount of SDA as the poor sap who is constantly being attach posted from ship to ship and spends 300 days at sea this year.  Where's the fairness in that?

In summary, my proposal was to make the system more fair and redistribute the money to those who were actually earning it.

No, I think we can do this much better and LDA was the wrong way to go...

As far as I know Sea Training is still a Designated Position and getting full sea pay, or at least the Minor Warship guys are. I'm going to be selfish and say i'm against anything that could take money out of my pocket after many years at sea.
 
Pusser said:
What you're referring to is the attempt to extract information from a system that was never designed to keep track of that information in the first place.  By starting afresh, most of the problems we have in getting the sea day count right can be eliminated.  Like I said before, if the system can track every hour that aircrew spend in the air, surely we can track every day that sailors spend at sea.  Will there be mistakes?  Of course, but for the most part, they would be minor and I would argue that any mistakes would almost exclusively involve cases of sailors being overpaid (folks who don't receive an allowance they're entitled to tend to kick up a stink about it).

Tracking flying hours is relatively trivial. Crews are small and the aircraft captain records the hours flown after each flight- personally.
Are you suggesting Ships Captains be held to the same standard?  >:D
 
westcoastsailor said:
Do I take this to the ombudsman next?  Please someone chime in here.

Definitely not to the Ombudsman before using existing CAF processes such as the grievance system, if you even decide to pursue after all the info posted after yours.
 
SeaKingTacco said:
Tracking flying hours is relatively trivial. Crews are small and the aircraft captain records the hours flown after each flight- personally.
Are you suggesting Ships Captains be held to the same standard?  >:D

Of course not.  The Coxswain already keeps daily records of exactly who is on board when the ship is at sea.  It should be a relatively simple thing for the Ship's Office to input that into the pay system.  Remember, we used to do this manually for FOA, so the only thing that would be new would be the accumulative aspect of it and the pay system is more than capable of accounting for that.
 
Just a bit of an update here folks.  Of course, we already know that it is in the works to retroactively pay sea pay for all refits going back to 2001 when it became the policy of cut things off at the 6 month mark.  T he system was hoping to have everyone seen to by September 2016.  The update is that payments are coming in.  A west coaster who is on the other side of my big cubicle wall was paid out about a month or so ago.  Now mind you, he was only owed 3 months back pay so his file was somewhat simple, but the main point here is that it is happening.  I have been hearing of other guys too seeing it come in as well. So, good news. 
 
whoa - know we don't all know this.  Are you saying if I was on a ship in 2001 that was in refit and thus not paid sea pay they will now be issuing me it for that period? 
 
Yes, my man, you should be in for some money. 

They are going to pay everybody, who was in a refit going back that far, for the period of when the sea pay was stopped at 6 months until it was re-instated.  It won't matter if you've since released either, everyone is getting it.  The "policy" of cutting it off was deemed arbitrary and not on by TB (? can't remember just now) around June of last year.  We were briefed on it last fall by Admiral Norman where he went into the history of it and why the 180 was decided upon us.

I believe they were going to try and take care of personnel who are presently on ship first and then comb through the rest of us who are somewhere ashore or retired.

Some thing else to ponder.  For those of us, like myself, who have multiple refits behind us in the target zone, not only will they have to correct for the missing months but also adjust the levels from the first cut off to the last too boot.  That will mean more money as you will have your levels adjusted all the way along.  The taxman is really going to love some folks this coming tax season. 
 
Thanks  - found the CANFORGEN now.  Of course it is navy information so the wise army here didn't pass it on.  Normally I check but it was released in Mar so I missed it with leave and end FY.  I can't imagine my clerk has nothing better to do than look back to see what period we weren't paid it so will be happy if I ask her.    [;) 

My ears are already hurting.
 
Back
Top