Retro Pay & Allow 1Apr 2014 - 1Apr 2017

[Good2Golf]

Term is essentially your class b.  Paid the same.

You also forgot indeterminate that can work part time.  No difference in pay.

Didn't forget, just another way of looking at things.  So if you want to play the "should be the same as PS but with mil factor," are you saying Class B terms should only be 90 days max, like in the PS?

 

[PPCLI Guy]

This would violate so many human rights laws it isn't even funny.  A more realistic option would be the CAF, particularly the officer corps, having a more flexible contract scheme.  My 13 years are up in 18 months and I've indicated already I won't be resigning my TOS because the only option is 25.  Does my pay drop if I refuse to be posted in the APS, for a seven month posting?  In what world does that make sense?  The way the military manages its people is already fubared enough and that idea is quite frankly ridiculous.

You know me, and you know that I am trying to make a point.  We have entirely too many officers who simply do not move, for one reason or another.......like say, in Kingston.  Why should they get full pay, when they are essentially long term Class Bs?  Why do some people have to do all of the moves, while others have stability in their lives?

As to human rights, are you suggesting that our mobility policy violates human rights?  That my rights have been routinely violated in my career?

On the TOS topic, I agree with you.  We have 1950s HR practices in the 21st century.  I actually believe that we need full permeability between Reg F service (whereby you are subject to moves), Full time geo-static, and part time.  I also believe that we need a model that accepts that the youth of today expect to have 7-9 jobs in their lives - and then do all that we can to ensure that 3-5 of them are in the military.

 

[Remius]

Didn't forget, just another way of looking at things.  So if you want to play the "should be the same as PS but with mil factor," are you saying Class B terms should only be 90 days max, like in the PS?

Actually you didn't even look at it. 

You need to educate yourself on how the PS works with regards to employment.

Ive already explained that casuals are not employees of the public service nor are they hired under the PSEA.

90 days is the max for casuals.

  Terms can be up to three years just like class B.

So yes it should be the same.  But guess what? After three years term employees have to be appointed to the PS as indeterminate employees.  That should also be the same.  Want to work for a three year contract and continue again? Then you CT. 

 

[Monsoon]

So yes it should be the same.  But guess what? After three years term employees have to be appointed to the PS as indeterminate employees.  That should also be the same.  Want to work for a three year contract and continue again? Then you CT.

What always gives me a chuckle is the number of Reg F folks who don't realize that that's exactly what most long-term class "B" folks would be most happy with. What keeps people on long-term class "B":

- CTs delayed by inadequacies with our 1950s-era HR management processes; and
- A desire not to be demoted and have to spend a year or more retraining to continue to do substantially the same work they were doing while on class "B".

And that's it. The mythical long-term class "B" guys/gals who are motivated to live on 180 day contracts at a 15% pay disadvantage and substantially reduced benefits because they don't want to get posted once every three or four years - I've never met 'em.

 

[McG]

It a PS goes over three years as term, they become indeterminant.  So you want all Cl B reservists to get 100% pay and a posting message when they get to three years and a day?

 

[McG]

For those who want to see the policy, recognize that pay CAF pay rates come through TB.  They are policy.

 

[Lumber]

  My 13 years are up in 18 months and I've indicated already I won't be resigning my TOS because the only option is 25. 

<sigh> Is it really coming that soon? Better start taking a much more serious look at my life plans, and start bugging my CM...

Except that none of that is written anywhere, those benchmarks you are mentioning are just as anecdotal.  Unless you have a reference for that (please say you do because I've always wanted that reference).

I've also never understood the philosophy that equal work does not equate to equal pay that permeates so many regular force members.

I think you have your answer Remius, in that, there is no answer. The difference in pay between RegF and ResF does is not in congruence with the military factor. Why it wasn't made to be so when RegF an ResF pay were brought closer together years ago? Well that is nothing more than a history lesson at this point. Why they don't do that now? Probably for all the reasons that are being made quite evident on here. People have said (myself included) that the reason for the pay difference is because of the 100% deployability at a moment's notice of RegF personnel. Perhaps that's not the reasons it was made 15% in the first place, but I would argue it's certainly the reason that no one has an appetite to change it.

 

[Remius]

It a PS goes over three years as term, they become indeterminant.  So you want all Cl B reservists to get 100% pay and a posting message when they get to three years and a day?

Nope.  See policy here.

1.Subject to section 7.2, where a person who has been employed in the same department/agency as a term employee for a cumulative working period (see definition in Appendix A) of three (3) years without a break in service longer than sixty (60) consecutive calendar days, the department/agency must appoint the employee indeterminately at the level of his/her substantive position.

Class B reservists should be paid an amount equal to the regular force minus the mil factor.  And that factor isn't 15%.  Nobody is addressing that at all here. If they want to to work beyond 3 years without a break of at least sixty days then they should be CTed.

We've created a class of employee that should not exist. 

The fact is this.  If the Reserves were brought up to 6% of Regular force pay there would be howls from the regular force and a likely exodus from the reg force of people willing to take a pay cut of 6 % for a class B. Also DND is likely not too keen on what a mounts to a 9% pay increase for the reserves. And they won't change the mil factor because it would mean a 9% hike to reg force pay which would be even more expensive..

It's about money.  The CAF gets cheap labour by breaking the rules or creating its own.  There won't be a short term solution to this at all, I realise that. 

 

[Remius]

I think you have your answer Remius, in that, there is no answer. The difference in pay between RegF and ResF does is not in congruence with the military factor. Why it wasn't made to be so when RegF an ResF pay were brought closer together years ago? Well that is nothing more than a history lesson at this point. Why they don't do that now? Probably for all the reasons that are being made quite evident on here. People have said (myself included) that the reason for the pay difference is because of the 100% deployability at a moment's notice of RegF personnel. Perhaps that's not the reasons it was made 15% in the first place, but I would argue it's certainly the reason that no one has an appetite to change it.

Like I said.  It has to do with money.  It's that simple.  No one wants to spend it and no one wants to piss off the masses.

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

You know me, and you know that I am trying to make a point.  We have entirely too many officers who simply do not move, for one reason or another.......like say, in Kingston.  Why should they get full pay, when they are essentially long term Class Bs?  Why do some people have to do all of the moves, while others have stability in their lives?

As to human rights, are you suggesting that our mobility policy violates human rights?  That my rights have been routinely violated in my career?

The mobility policy doesn't violate human rights but your pay policy most certainly would.  Hypothetical situation:  you have a soldier who has a child that's born that has a serious disability requiring significant medical attention, they're to be posted this upcoming APS from Kingston to Shilo, Manitoba which would cause a serious upheaval to their childs medical care.  They request to stay in the same geographical location.  You're the career manager and you tell them "posting or 15% pay cut".  Is this ethical treatment of an employee?  Does this decision pass the Globe & Mail test?  You're also now affecting the financial well-being of the employee who is going to come under additional financial pressure from medical bills, etc.

I think you'd be opening the organization up to not only terrible publicity but also a potential lawsuit.  There is a better way which ties in to your next point.

On the TOS topic, I agree with you.  We have 1950s HR practices in the 21st century.  I actually believe that we need full permeability between Reg F service (whereby you are subject to moves), Full time geo-static, and part time.  I also believe that we need a model that accepts that the youth of today expect to have 7-9 jobs in their lives - and then do all that we can to ensure that 3-5 of them are in the military.

A better way to do this would be to download contract management to the respective units, I'll elaborate.  If someone is posted to, let's say Kingston, they sign a contract based on the amount of time the military anticipates being posted to Kingston which could be loosely tied to their respective MOS development period with the option of extending if required or desired.  The benefit is the military deals with shorter term contracts and this gives additional flexibility to career managers to negotiate with units and members.  It also provides the option to not renew a contract if a member doesn't want to be posted and they've expended maximum time in one location, or they're not performing.

Members would also be able to compete for positions that open up, the openings tracker on EMAA would actually be useful.  This would also help members sort their own personal lives out.  Myself, I was recently offered a job via handshake at a unit in Petawawa that requires a minimum three year commitment.  If I could simply sign a new three year contract and take the job with the option to reevaluate in three years, I would take the job but the fact I'm required to sign 25 means it's a deal breaker for me.

 

[McG]

Class B reservists should be paid an amount equal to the regular force minus the mil factor.

If they want the same pay, they should join the Reg F.  Every excuse/argument why such individuals do not want to join the Reg F is clearly justification of the pay delta.  If full time reservists wanted 100% of the pay as a priority, they would join the Reg F (there are vacancies).  But there is something, a feature of PRes life wanted or a feature of Reg F life undesired, which the career Class B sees as undesirable.  Whatever the PRes positives or Reg F negatives, the 15% additional pay compensates.

If they want to work beyond 3 years without a break of at least sixty days then they should be CTed.

Sure.  So why allow permanent Class B positions to even exist on the establishment?  If we know that the job should exist indeterminately, then it should be Reg F, right? 
 

We've created a class of employee that should not exist.

Yes.  So why are you wasting time arguing that more pay is owed to this class of employee that should not exist?

The CAF gets cheap labour by breaking the rules or creating its own. 

No.  See above about pay rates going through TB.  The CAF is not breaking any rules nor creating its own. 

 

[McG]

The mobility policy doesn't violate human rights but your pay policy most certainly would.  Hypothetical situation:  you have a soldier who has a child that's born that has a serious disability requiring significant medical attention, they're to be posted this upcoming APS from Kingston to Shilo, Manitoba which would cause a serious upheaval to their childs medical care.  They request to stay in the same geographical location.  You're the career manager and you tell them "posting or 15% pay cut".  Is this ethical treatment of an employee?  Does this decision pass the Globe & Mail test?  You're also now affecting the financial well-being of the employee who is going to come under additional financial pressure from medical bills, etc.

I think you'd be opening the organization up to not only terrible publicity but also a potential lawsuit. 

We have compassionate status and compassionate postings to address legitimate cases of this sort.

 

[Pusser]

When the PRes rates increased to 85% of Reg F (from 75%) back in 1998, I was informed the 15% difference was because the PRes did not pay into the pension or the SDB. In 2007, when PRes started paying into the pension, some people started asking if we would see that 13% pay increase? Nothing has come from it yet. So essentially, PRes members have seen a 13% reduction in pay for the past 9 years.

I don't actually know the official reasoning for the 15% difference in pay, but I'm pretty sure it never had anything to do with Reservists not paying into the CFSA.  My argument against equal pay has always been the differences in terms of service.  Reservists can quit at any time on short notice and cannot be ordered to deploy (except by Order in Council, which has not happened since WWII).

To argue that Reservists have received a 13% drop in pay in the last nine years is unfair.  This "drop" is because Reservists are now contributing to the CFSA (which Reservists had been lobbying for for years).  The benefit they receive from this is worth far more than the deductions that are currently being made on their pay.

 

[Remius]

If they want the same pay, they should join the Reg F.  Every excuse/argument why such individuals do not want to join the Reg F is clearly justification of the pay delta.  If full time reservists wanted 100% of the pay as a priority, they would join the Reg F (there are vacancies).  But there is something, a feature of PRes life wanted or a feature of Reg F life undesired, which the career Class B sees as undesirable.  Whatever the PRes positives or Reg F negatives, the 15% additional pay compensates.
Sure.  So why allow permanent Class B positions to even exist on the establishment?  If we know that the job should exist indeterminately, then it should be Reg F, right? 
  Yes.  So why are you wasting time arguing that more pay is owed to this class of employee that should not exist?
No.  See above about pay rates going through TB.  The CAF is not breaking any rules nor creating its own.

Sadly your reasoning is not supported by any directive or policy.  The Mil Factor is what compensates for moving, tasks and what not.  The mil factor is at 6% for NCMs 4% for officers.  It is not set at 15%.  I never said 100%.  Equal pay minus the mil factor.  But again, as I mentioned that would cause an uproar if that was brought in.  The regular force would see it as a pay raise they weren't getting rather than bringing into line (like most of our NATO allies do btw).  15 5 is just an arbitrary number that no one can justify other than opinion and stories with nothing to back it up.

I agree with you on the permanent class B not existing.  It should be regular force.  Full time should be full time. the thing is that Class b is the drug of choice for staffing.  easy, cheap and requires less work to fill than actually staffing it properly.  It's gone on for so long that we are now dependant on it so much so that the organisation would collapse without it.  The TOS need to change.

My argument is that more pay is owed for the same work.

Did you read the AG report I quoted?  It clearly says that we have a class of reservist that isn't supported by the regulations in the NDA. 

 

[Remius]

I don't actually know the official reasoning for the 15% difference in pay, but I'm pretty sure it never had anything to do with Reservists not paying into the CFSA.  My argument against equal pay has always been the differences in terms of service.  Reservists can quit at any time on short notice and cannot be ordered to deploy (except by Order in Council, which has not happened since WWII).

Your argument might be valid if it was supported by a regulation or directive but it isn't.  The Mil factor is what compensates for all of those things.  If the Mil factor needs to increase fine.  But it hasn't and it is not 15%. 

I agree though about you saying that reserve took a 13% pay cut by paying into a pension is unwarranted.  It is a significant benefit.   

 

[TCM621]

What always gives me a chuckle is the number of Reg F folks who don't realize that that's exactly what most long-term class "B" folks would be most happy with. What keeps people on long-term class "B":

- CTs delayed by inadequacies with our 1950s-era HR management processes; and
- A desire not to be demoted and have to spend a year or more retraining to continue to do substantially the same work they were doing while on class "B".

And that's it. The mythical long-term class "B" guys/gals who are motivated to live on 180 day contracts at a 15% pay disadvantage and substantially reduced benefits because they don't want to get posted once every three or four years - I've never met 'em.

I have met a ton of them.  I know of one individual who is kind of my go to example. He is a very good soldier, multiple tours, and a great guy. However,  he has been a full time reservist for almost twenty years. He won't join the regular force because he doesn't want to go to Shilo (infantry officer) and when he wants to go on tour he puts his hand up and when he doesn't, he just doesn't volunteer.  He has an advantage over every reg force person in his position because he lives where he wants and goes on deployment when he wants,  not when the CoC wants. For a reg force person the CoC has the final say in what you do and where you go. In the reserve force,  the member does.  While the CoC can keep you from going anywhere (not as easy as it sounds ) they can't force you to go anywhere. 

Finally,  the use of class B as a cheap full time work staff is wrong. However the solution is less and short class B with more reg force not more long term class B.

Sent from my SM-G900W8 using Tapatalk

 

[dapaterson]

The only people who whine more about their mistreatment and underpayment than full-time reservists who've never been in the Regular Force are full-time Reservists retired from the Regular Force and are simultaneously drawing an annuity.

Which is why full-time Reserve issues tend to get much more heat and light than part-time Reserve issues - they have the spare time to whinge about it.

 

[Remius]

Finally,  the use of class B as a cheap full time work staff is wrong. However the solution is less and short class B with more reg force not more long term class B.

this. ^

 

[PPCLI Guy]

And that's it. The mythical long-term class "B" guys/gals who are motivated to live on 180 day contracts at a 15% pay disadvantage and substantially reduced benefits because they don't want to get posted once every three or four years - I've never met 'em.

I met one.  He was a long-time Class B who applied for a CT at the rank of LCol.  Recognizing his quality, he was offered a position as a LCol in the Reg F, and in the Combat Arms at that.  The position that he was offered required him to move.  He refused the CT, stating that he wasn't willing to be posted.....

 

[Remius]

I met one.  He was a long-time Class B who applied for a CT at the rank of LCol.  Recognizing his quality, he was offered a position as a LCol in the Reg F, and in the Combat Arms at that.  The position that he was offered required him to move.  He refused the CT, stating that he wasn't willing to be posted.....

I've met plenty.  They probably would have CTed earlier in their career but once they were on their 3rd or 4th contract and well established with family and spouses with better paying jobs they weren't going to move.