Author Topic: Retro Pay & Allow 1Apr 2014 - 1Apr 2017  (Read 209462 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline MCG

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 192,525
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 11,532
Re: Pay Raise (2014 - 2016) & Back Pay
« Reply #225 on: November 04, 2016, 07:57:56 »
For those who want to see the policy, recognize that pay CAF pay rates come through TB.  They are policy.

Offline Lumber

  • Donor
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 43,449
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,691
Re: Pay Raise (2014 - 2016) & Back Pay
« Reply #226 on: November 04, 2016, 08:22:51 »
  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.
"Aboard his ship, there is nothing outside a captain's control." - Captain Sir Edward Pellew

“Extremes to the right and to the left of any political dispute are always wrong.”
― Dwight D. Eisenhower

Death before dishonour! Nothing before coffee!

Offline Remius

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 63,705
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,338
Re: Pay Raise (2014 - 2016) & Back Pay
« Reply #227 on: November 04, 2016, 08:51:51 »
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. 
Optio

Offline Remius

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 63,705
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,338
Re: Pay Raise (2014 - 2016) & Back Pay
« Reply #228 on: November 04, 2016, 08:53:26 »

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.
Optio

Offline Humphrey Bogart

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 89,264
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,554
Re: Pay Raise (2014 - 2016) & Back Pay
« Reply #229 on: November 04, 2016, 09:03:51 »
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.

Quote
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.


Offline MCG

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 192,525
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 11,532
Re: Pay Raise (2014 - 2016) & Back Pay
« Reply #230 on: November 04, 2016, 09:22:28 »
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. 
« Last Edit: November 04, 2016, 09:25:34 by MCG »

Offline MCG

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 192,525
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 11,532
Re: Pay Raise (2014 - 2016) & Back Pay
« Reply #231 on: November 04, 2016, 09:34:24 »
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.

Offline Pusser

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 75,395
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,567
Re: Pay Raise (2014 - 2016) & Back Pay
« Reply #232 on: November 04, 2016, 11:02:23 »
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.
Sure, apes read Nietzsche.  They just don't understand it.

Offline Remius

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 63,705
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,338
Re: Pay Raise (2014 - 2016) & Back Pay
« Reply #233 on: November 04, 2016, 12:32:39 »
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. 
Optio

Offline Remius

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 63,705
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,338
Re: Pay Raise (2014 - 2016) & Back Pay
« Reply #234 on: November 04, 2016, 12:38:20 »
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.   
Optio

Offline Tcm621

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • 4,890
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 581
Re: Pay Raise (2014 - 2016) & Back Pay
« Reply #235 on: November 04, 2016, 13:10:25 »
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


Offline dapaterson

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 376,590
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 14,971
Re: Pay Raise (2014 - 2016) & Back Pay
« Reply #236 on: November 04, 2016, 14:13:08 »
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.
This posting made in accordance with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, section 2(b):
Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms: freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication
http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/charter/1.html

Offline Remius

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 63,705
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,338
Re: Pay Raise (2014 - 2016) & Back Pay
« Reply #237 on: November 04, 2016, 14:19:31 »
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. ^
Optio

Offline PPCLI Guy

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 129,000
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 4,860
  • It's all good
Re: Pay Raise (2014 - 2016) & Back Pay
« Reply #238 on: November 04, 2016, 15:14:43 »


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.....
"The higher the rank, the more necessary it is that boldness should be accompanied by a reflective mind....for with increase in rank it becomes always a matter less of self-sacrifice and more a matter of the preservation of others, and the good of the whole."

Karl von Clausewitz

Offline Remius

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 63,705
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,338
Re: Pay Raise (2014 - 2016) & Back Pay
« Reply #239 on: November 04, 2016, 15:22:27 »
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.
Optio

Offline ModlrMike

    : Riding time again... woohooo!

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 200,064
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,481
    • Canadian Association of Physician Assistants
Re: Pay Raise (2014 - 2016) & Back Pay
« Reply #240 on: November 04, 2016, 15:22:48 »
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).

I always thought that it was related to the RegF mbr's unlimited liability as well.
WARNING: The consumption of alcohol may create the illusion that you are tougher,smarter, faster and better looking than most people.
Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit upon his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats. (H.L. Mencken 1919)
Zero tolerance is the politics of the lazy. All it requires is that you do nothing and ban everything.

Offline Good2Golf

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 169,170
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,918
  • Dammit! I lost my sand-wedge on that last jump!
Re: Pay Raise (2014 - 2016) & Back Pay
« Reply #241 on: November 04, 2016, 15:27:21 »
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.   

You continue to misinterpret the mil factor.  It is to compensate between like structures of PS and CAF, i.e. indeterminate and RegF, thus the 7.5% mil factor for NCMs and GSOs (your 6%/4% NCM/Offr 'mil factor' info is 17 years outdated, unless you meant the 6%/4% factor to compensate for lack of overtime eqvt w/PS, in which case you should have added the 7.5% to the 6%/4% and resulted in the current 13.5% and 11.5% pay premiums that CAF NCMs and Offrs receive compared to eqvt PS classifications - refer to current policy here: http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/caf-community-pay/pay-overview.page ) when one looks at a PS classification and pay level, with an equivalent CAF MOSID/Rank/IPC.  What the CAF does internally to it's own personnel structure, including pay rates, has been approved by Treasury Board, the Government of Canada's authority on expenditure of public monies.

Several forum members have pointed out that the "extant policy" which you seek is in fact the Treasury Board policy as detailed in this case in its approval of CBI 204.  You say that such references are not a "directive or policy"
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.

If you don't accept the GoC's official policy as policy, then there's not much more anyone can contribute to the discussion that will satisfy your wishes.

As others have pointed out several times, the perspective you place on the AG's report, regarding full-time reservist employment, appears to wish to justify complete equivalency of pay for equivalent work done, when other perspectives that many, including me, believe make the case that DND is continuing the employment of a component structure (specifically the Class B aspect) that appears incongruent with the NDA, and thus should not be continued.  I had always understood that full-time Class B employment was only for the administration of the PRes itself, and not as a replacement for unfilled, or insufficient RegF manning.  Has Class B become a "drug of sorts" that has been misused?  Most certainly, although PRECS did much to reduce the dependancy on a full-time reserve force in support of the regular force. 

We still haven't seen your direct response to many queries as to expectations on term Class B personnel should they ever be paid at the same rate as RegF pers?  Amongst other questions, can they be posted to other geographical locations without choice in the matter?

Many of us are fully supportive of equivalent pay for equivalent employment and liability.  Only in particular cases can a RegF member give 30-days notice to cease their employment.  All PRes Class B members have such a right, understanding that such a right also comes with the risk that the Crown itself could equally terminate a Class B Term on 30 days notice.

So full equivalent pay for equivalent employment and liability?  Absolutely!  Does current Class B employment represent an equivalent liability (move, assignment, deployment, etc...) to that of the RegF?  One waits to be provided an example where this is the case.

Regards
G2G

Offline kratz

    Happy 150th.

  • Float, Move, Fight
  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 226,293
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,784
Re: Pay Raise (2014 - 2016) & Back Pay
« Reply #242 on: November 04, 2016, 15:54:05 »
<snip>
We still haven't seen your direct response to many queries as to expectations on term Class B personnel should they ever be paid at the same rate as RegF pers?  Amongst other questions, can they be posted to other geographical locations without choice in the matter?

Many of us are fully supportive of equivalent pay for equivalent employment and liability.  Only in particular cases can a RegF member give 30-days notice to cease their employment.  All PRes Class B members have such a right, understanding that such a right also comes with the risk that the Crown itself could equally terminate a Class B Term on 30 days notice.

So full equivalent pay for equivalent employment and liability?  Absolutely!  Does current Class B employment represent an equivalent liability (move, assignment, deployment, etc...) to that of the RegF?  One waits to be provided an example where this is the case.

Regards
G2G

Treasury Board policy is clear, CAF paid  moves for reservists come from command budgets. While the RCN will often pay for a move to fill class B positions, when reading REO, it is more common to see the onus on the individual to move on their own to fill the job.

There are many nuances at play between PRes and Reg F, that may or may not be within the control of DND.
Quote from: Pipe *General Call*
"Tanning Stations on the flight deck"


Remember, this site is unofficial and privately owned. The site benefits from the presence of current members willing to answer questions.

Offline CountDC

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 25,180
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,424
Re: Pay Raise (2014 - 2016) & Back Pay
« Reply #243 on: November 04, 2016, 16:32:10 »
I suggest part time reservist (class a), short term class b for courses/summer tasks and Reg F.  The current long term class b and class c goes away and make use of FPS Reg F TOS instead.

Commands do not pay for reserve moves if the class b is 100% in support of reserve units - ie 1 Fd Regt in Halifax hires a clerk from Vancouver the move is covered by DCBA.

Regular Force posting refusal is a myth.  I can not actually refuse a posting, only voice my objection to the posting.  Ultimately though the CM can post me regardless of what I say.  My option then is to submit my application for release which the CM can hold me to 6 months if he wants even though I am a member of the 30/30 plan.  The 30 day release is not a mandatory give me but a normal practice. At one unit a member getting posted in tried the old I will release instead and that is exactly what the LCdr told the CM to do - post her and let her submit the release.  He would still expect her to be there for the 6 months and would not support a withdrawal of the release.
"When the power of love, overcomes the love of power....the world will know peace" - Jimi Hendrix [1942-1970]

Offline Good2Golf

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 169,170
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,918
  • Dammit! I lost my sand-wedge on that last jump!
Re: Pay Raise (2014 - 2016) & Back Pay
« Reply #244 on: November 04, 2016, 17:14:58 »
CountDC, in general agreement, although I would caveat that with my thoughts that there is a place for Class C in today's construct, and I'm specifically thinking deployment of PRes pers on operations, to ensure compensation and coverage for what then would be equivalent duty to peer RegF pers.  On this specific issue, the reversion of a PRes member from Class C back to A (or short-term B, as you note) is an issue that I don't think is done as well (read: responsibly on the part of DND/CAF towards the PRes member) as it should be.  It seems that there are numerous cases where transfer of post-deployed PRes members from C back to A or B was needlessly (other than to save a proportionately minor amount of money) rushed, which is not the right way of doing things, particularly when there is uncertainty surrounding the post-depl effects on the PRes member.

Regards
G2G

Offline dapaterson

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 376,590
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 14,971
Re: Pay Raise (2014 - 2016) & Back Pay
« Reply #245 on: November 04, 2016, 19:23:18 »
Class C is not the panacea it is made out to be.  Not all benefits accrue to class C reservists; for example, the education and training packages that were leveraged for some of the injured from Afghanistan were not available in the same way to members of the Reserve Force.

Were I king for a day, we would instead stand up the Special Force for such missions; transfer all those deploying to the Special Force for the duration of their mission and any period of recovery after, and pass a single QR&O saying, "For the purposes of all regulations, orders, directives, policies or other instruments of instruction, members of the Special Force are deemed to be members of the Regular Force".

No more parsing of Regular vs Reserve, just a single standard for those who place themselves on the line.
This posting made in accordance with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, section 2(b):
Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms: freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication
http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/charter/1.html

Offline Good2Golf

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 169,170
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,918
  • Dammit! I lost my sand-wedge on that last jump!
Re: Pay Raise (2014 - 2016) & Back Pay
« Reply #246 on: November 04, 2016, 19:36:36 »
Class C is not the panacea it is made out to be.  Not all benefits accrue to class C reservists; for example, the education and training packages that were leveraged for some of the injured from Afghanistan were not available in the same way to members of the Reserve Force.

Were I king for a day, we would instead stand up the Special Force for such missions; transfer all those deploying to the Special Force for the duration of their mission and any period of recovery after, and pass a single QR&O saying, "For the purposes of all regulations, orders, directives, policies or other instruments of instruction, members of the Special Force are deemed to be members of the Regular Force".

No more parsing of Regular vs Reserve, just a single standard for those who place themselves on the line.

Indeed, and much more of a solution than a "patch" to make the two-component construct try to work.

Offline George Wallace

  • Army.ca Fossil
  • *****
  • 430,330
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 31,445
  • Crewman
Re: Pay Raise (2014 - 2016) & Back Pay
« Reply #247 on: November 04, 2016, 19:55:42 »
Class C is not the panacea it is made out to be.  Not all benefits accrue to class C reservists; for example, the education and training packages that were leveraged for some of the injured from Afghanistan were not available in the same way to members of the Reserve Force.

Were I king for a day, we would instead stand up the Special Force for such missions; transfer all those deploying to the Special Force for the duration of their mission and any period of recovery after, and pass a single QR&O saying, "For the purposes of all regulations, orders, directives, policies or other instruments of instruction, members of the Special Force are deemed to be members of the Regular Force".

No more parsing of Regular vs Reserve, just a single standard for those who place themselves on the line.
:goodpost:
DISCLAIMER: The opinions and arguments of George Wallace posted on this Site are solely those of George Wallace and not the opinion of Army.ca and are posted for information purposes only.
Unless so stated, they are reflective of my opinion -- and my opinion only, a right that I enjoy along with every other Canadian citizen.

Offline Eye In The Sky

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 183,020
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 7,614
    • VP INTERNATIONAL
Re: Pay Raise (2014 - 2016) & Back Pay
« Reply #248 on: November 04, 2016, 21:57:47 »
So far none of the explanations listed in the last few posts is supported by any policy and or guideline or directives.  Just opinions and feelings.

The AG looked into it and found that there is nothing to support that disparity in pay.

http://www.oag-bvg.gc.ca/internet/English/parl_oag_201602_05_e_41249.html

Section 5.59


And DND agreed with that finding.  It also agreed to review the TOS for reservists.  When that will happen who knows.

The easiest explanation is money and not much else.

Having done both Reg and PRes Class A, B and B (A)...I'll add something to consider.

- as a Cl A, what happened if there was something else I was interested in more than a weekend ex;  nothing, I told my CofC I wouldn't be on the ex.  Reg force...don't show up, pay the piper.

- as Cl B, I accepted the dates, location ,tasking before proceeding on the B contract.  Reg Force, I don't have to 'accept' a task, course, etc.  But I still go.

- as Cl B(A), I was able to be sent on TD 'anywhere in Canada'.  Reg Force...I'm going where I'm told unless I'm broken and can't do my job, deploy, whatever.  Sure, people skirt deployments, but most of us go and earn our pay.

PRes moves;  are voluntary (i.e. not forced on the mbr).  Reg Force...refuse your posting message, your COS date can become your release date.

Trg - using the Armour Corps as an example, how big is the skillset of a PRES Crmn compared to a Reg force one?  Can the PRES mbr, on average, show up on a Monday at a Reg Frce Sqn and be equally employable as the Reg crmn?

I was a CL B Sgt working in a CBG HQ at one time.  If I didn't want to say, deploy to the sandbox, I simply didn't.  The Reg force Arty Sgt didn't have the same option, unless he wanted to play the DAG RED game.

There's more to it than the simple rank/MOSID aspect.  I work harder, and often away from my postal code, than I ever did as a Cl B type.  Being sent on TD in Canada is not the same as being tasked on Ops (CJOC ones) with sometimes less than 48 hours NTM. 

Unless Pres TOSs are written to match Reg Force ones, there's no substantiation for Pres to receive the same compensation as a Reg Frce mbr, except when they are Cl C.
The only time you have "too much gas" is when you're on fire.

Offline Eye In The Sky

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 183,020
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 7,614
    • VP INTERNATIONAL
Re: Pay Raise (2014 - 2016) & Back Pay
« Reply #249 on: November 04, 2016, 22:11:20 »
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.

They exist, heck I worked with many B or B (A) folks who wanted exactly that.  Some of them are still doing it and have found ways to move around in the same geo location once they contract they were on was ending, or because they were in a hard MCpl position as a Sgt and a Sgt one opened up.
The only time you have "too much gas" is when you're on fire.