Author Topic: Suggested changes to CAF TOS [split from changes to dress]  (Read 10312 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline SeaKingTacco

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 135,390
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 5,055
  • Door Gunnery- The Sport of Kings!
Re: Suggested changes to CAF TOS [split from changes to dress]
« Reply #125 on: April 19, 2018, 09:01:57 »
Well sure. You had already been literally torn a news arsehole. What else was left for the infantry school to do to you?

Well played, sir. Well played.

Offline Humphrey Bogart

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 106,004
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,947
Re: Suggested changes to CAF TOS [split from changes to dress]
« Reply #126 on: April 19, 2018, 09:16:47 »
Well sure. You had already been literally torn a news arsehole. What else was left for the infantry school to do to you?

 :rofl:

I treated the surgery and follow up care as a pre-course "enema"  ;D


Offline Pusser

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 84,960
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,766
Re: Suggested changes to CAF TOS [split from changes to dress]
« Reply #127 on: April 19, 2018, 10:34:39 »

The allowance is tied to "service in an operational unit" it doesn't quantify what that service is.  Clawing back allowances is a punitive measure designed to target a very small minority of malingerers.

Not true at all.  Although the specific factors for which environmental allowances are paid are not laid out in the regulations, they are included in the Treasury Board submissions and approvals.  In other words, TB approves these allowances based on the assumption that the recipients are being subjected to very specific things for specific amounts of time (e.g. there is a minimum amount per year that a ship is supposed to be at sea in order for members of that ship's company to receive SDA on a monthly basis otherwise, they should be drawing CASSDA).  If the CAF were to ignore the specific factors, there is a risk that TB approval of the allowance could be rescinded.

Personnel who are not being subjected to the specific factors for which environmental allowances are paid should not be drawing them.  However, hanging the sick and injured out to dry is not acceptable either.  A better solution needs to be found.  Having said that, why should the cook who's posted to a ship and gets hit by a bus on his way to work in his homeport continue to draw SDA, while his buddy, who's a cook posted to a galley ashore and was hit by the same bus and suffered the same injuries and prognosis, does not?
Sure, apes read Nietzsche.  They just don't understand it.

Offline Humphrey Bogart

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 106,004
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,947
Re: Suggested changes to CAF TOS [split from changes to dress]
« Reply #128 on: April 19, 2018, 14:39:47 »
Not true at all.  Although the specific factors for which environmental allowances are paid are not laid out in the regulations, they are included in the Treasury Board submissions and approvals.  In other words, TB approves these allowances based on the assumption that the recipients are being subjected to very specific things for specific amounts of time (e.g. there is a minimum amount per year that a ship is supposed to be at sea in order for members of that ship's company to receive SDA on a monthly basis otherwise, they should be drawing CASSDA).  If the CAF were to ignore the specific factors, there is a risk that TB approval of the allowance could be rescinded.

Personnel who are not being subjected to the specific factors for which environmental allowances are paid should not be drawing them.  However, hanging the sick and injured out to dry is not acceptable either.  A better solution needs to be found.  Having said that, why should the cook who's posted to a ship and gets hit by a bus on his way to work in his homeport continue to draw SDA, while his buddy, who's a cook posted to a galley ashore and was hit by the same bus and suffered the same injuries and prognosis, does not?

Technically, you are correct.  The reality is there is a list of units that get certain allowances.  You automatically get them when posted there.  Irrespective of your job.

My point is, instead of clawing someone's allowance.  Post the person so they no longer collect it.  It's pretty simple.  The mechanisms for removing the allowance are already there, it's called posting someone to either JPSU or a non-operational unit.

The real red herring in the room is CAF Human Resources Malpractice.  We have all the policy in the world to deal with these issues, we just refuse to because it's easier to maintain the status quo.

CANSOF is a prime example of this.  They created brand new trades CBRN Op, SF Op, Assaulter, etc and now they have nowhere to put guys when they inevitably get broken because those trades have no ERE. 

They did this because the Army and other Elements display no sort of maturity in dealing with specialists and rather than seeing them as assets, took an adversarial approach when dealing with them.

I've personally experienced this in my own trade.  Be a little different, go against the tribe, get burned  8)

Our attempt to deal with this is to create ever larger number of sub-classifications, sub-occupations, new commands, etc.  Our solutions cause more problems.
« Last Edit: April 19, 2018, 14:47:53 by Humphrey Bogart »

Offline MCG

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 205,315
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 11,708
Re: Suggested changes to CAF TOS [split from changes to dress]
« Reply #129 on: April 19, 2018, 17:04:08 »
Moving to a Restricted/Unrestricted model is fundamentally flawed as it subverts the fundamentals of the Profession of Arms as outlined in the capstone document Duty with Honour …
I assume you are referencing the fact that that Duty with Honour describes unlimited liability a definitive element that makes military service a true and unique profession.  But being honest, unlimited liability already is not applicable to PRes service for Class A, B, and B/A.  And some of what Journey will do is to relax some of the liabilities currently imposed on Reg F (Class C PRes would not see any reprieve of liabilities as they are effectively unlimited liability Reg F).

Moving to a Restricted/Unrestricted model is fundamentally flawed as it …[will] require significant changes to the NDA and QR&O.
Neither of these should be barriers to progress.  Both are amendable.  Where the previous government changed both to advance its buttons & bows transformation initiative, we should not be afraid to have them changed again to achieve actual benefits to the operations and management of the CAF. 

… And even if we want to keep the status quo, we probably need to change the NDA as it currently has continuous full time employment as a feature of the Reg F where we have thoroughly established that in the PRes with Class B/A (and even some cases of persistent Class B spots).

… what do you do with those that declare to be unrestricted (ie Reg Force today) yet DAG Red or are left out of Battle for other reasons?
“LOB for other reasons” means we are looking at a CAF decision not to deploy a member.  In that case, there is no requirement to remove the member from their status as unlimited liability.  To DAG red would be more complicated.  For both medical and compassionate scenarios, the CAF would have to determine how long it is prepared to maintain pay for something the member is not able to do.  I would say 12 months is probably good, and within that period of time there will be an APS during which someone could be posted to a limited liability compatible position if the compassionate or medical situation will last longer.

It would be better to equalize a base rate of pay and incentivize actions rather than gambling on future potential.
In general, I think I agree with this.  It is exactly the position that I have taken with respect to LDA, dive pay, parachute pay, and most other environmental allowances for a number of years now.  So if we are serious about really looking at how we do things, then I guess this needs examination too.  From another thread:
The Military [Pay] Factor is defined as:

It is important to note that the TC analyses, as applied to the CAF, also provide latitude to determine the dollar value of the unique aspects of CAF service. The most obvious example is the Military Factor, which values the major characteristics of military service. Although the unique aspects of military service such as Code of Service Discipline, separation from family and posting turbulence are not easily quantified, the Military Factor was originally valued at 4% of salary for all non-commissioned members and general service officers. As of April 1, 2016, the Military Factor stands at 8.7% for non-commissioned members and for general service officers. These recent increases were in recognition of a higher operational tempo and resulting increases in the incidence of separation, and a new component (Personal Limitations and Liabilities), which further recognizes the implications inherent in the military system of unlimited liability. Another less obvious example is the fact that CAF members are not eligible for overtime. To adjust for this in the TC analyses, values of 6% of salary for non-commissioned members and 4% of salary for general service officers are used.



Link is here:http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/caf-community-pay/pay-overview.page
So, limited liability and unlimited liability pay goes to 86.3% of current Reg F pay (ie. 91.3 % is the new 100%).  Environmental allowances become replaced by casual “super” allowances (eg. LDA is replaced by a super LDA). Posting benefits are increased such that, on top of the posting allowance, a 20% monthly bonous is paid the first year in a new location, a 10% monthly bonous is paid the second year, and then the posting benefits stops. We will need a mechanism to pay overtime in garrison (field and sea pay should account for this so that overtime is not required with these activities), and this mechanism might include more flexibility to employ short leave (then again, it could cause more restrictions on how we use short leave).

But under the “be careful what you wish for” column, it is important to consider that anything which reduces base pay by transferring compensation to an allowance will also have the effect of reducing pension potential.


Allowances are not pay.

If you're unfit to conduct the duties that an allowance is additional compensation for, you should not be compensated for it.
Completely fair, especially if it was the Army that decided you should jump out of an airplane in parachutes with an ungodly descent rate where you shattered your back. Or if you got shot overseas and now have to come home and lose your LDA as well as your ability to walk while you recover.  :facepalm: 
The Army (and most other military L1s for that matter) is routinely deciding for take away environmental allowances for far more reasons that just medical.  "You are doing exceptionally well Bloggins, so we have decided to send you in as RSS to support the PRes across town.  By the way, your LDA will stop with this."

Clawing back allowances is a punitive measure designed to target a very small minority of malingerers. 
... instead of clawing someone's allowance.  Post the person so they no longer collect it.  It's pretty simple.  The mechanisms for removing the allowance are already there, it's called posting someone to either JPSU or a non-operational unit.
Those who are posted for being medically unfit will still see the process as punitive.  And what if a field unit has a job that can accommodate a medically unfit member?  Why not have a mechanism that allows a mutually beneficial accommodation even while the member is unable to go to the field and earn LDA?