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

Allowances - Post Living Differential (PLD) [MERGED]

So, given the tables, as I suspected:

Coasts, Edmonton, and Toronto (not on there but they had high PLD) lose. Others roughly gain.
 
Any Major will make at least significantly, and usually vastly more than any Cpl, CFHD and income offsets notwithstanding. Housing assistance isn’t a ‘gimme’, it’s a policy to protect recruiting and retention by protecting a member’s ability to have a basic, decent standard of living regardless of where CAF sends them. A brand new Maj makes $122k. They can afford to live on the economy, in any market, within their means so long as they make responsible decisions. A junior troop, without CFHD, in some places cannot, no matter how financially responsible they are. This policy corrects that.

I can speak from firsthand experience in an expensive market with income equivalent to a Maj. I neither need nor deserve taxpayer subsidy beyond my normal income, and neither do my economic equivalents in CAF. The situation is very different for the sigs Pte posted to Leitrim, the clerk Cpl sent to Esquimault, or the new sailor in Halifax. Canada needs to recruit and keep these people, especially those with difficult to replace technical skills. Housing costs and posting could force them out. It’s much less likely to do that to the Major who’s making $122-137k.
Excelt that Maj might decide their knowledge and skills are better used elsewhere, rather than take a posting that will negatively impact their lifestyle.

Also, let's keep the comparisons a bit more realistic. A standard S04 Sgt in Ottawa will make about $280 more a month than a S04 Cpl, after CAFHD is taken into account. That's a minimum of 7 years of increasing responsibility, for $280 difference in pay. That's essentially making the crappiness of MCpl stretch out over another entire rank, a key rank normally achieved about the time in service when people are already inclined to say "Bye Felicia" to the CAF.
 
Assuming you aren't living in a PMQ therefore you'd lose whatever PLD you had.
No - that’s why there are two tables for each location. The top table is PMQ (No CFHD), the bottom is on the economy (with CFHD)
 
Someone above said that this was a band aid that needed to be ripped off, and suffer the pain now. I agree, and maybe the next band aid should be environmental allowances paid as a flat monthly fee regardless of time spent doing what the allowance is meant to compensate the individual for.

The largest complaint we are hearing about this policy is from members losing something they had come to rely on as part of their salary, whether the conditions existed for the compensation or not. Maybe it is time to start from zero and move forward with a better compensation package.

No one is speaking to the possible benefits of the CFHA in the long run. First - many individuals who were struggling will get some needed help. Second, it makes individuals less attached to a location solely because they make more in allowances. As individuals come up to the 7 year period, perhaps they will be more open to a geographical relocation. Thirdly, as much as it sucks to hear, and isn't necessarily right, DND does not want to be a landlord. More people on the economy, when and where they can afford it isn't a bad pers strategy. Does this do much for retention of current CAF members, not in some (many) cases. But for new members coming in, who start off with an understanding of what the new rules will mean for them, it might actually be better.

I can't explain why they used a seven year cutoff, unless someone did some research and determined that the greater percentage of personnel, once posted to a location, were posted away from that location within seven years. This allows them to assess their new financial position based on where and when they are posted in their career.
 
A major is supposed to make more than a corporal. Simply temporarily closing the gap between the bottom and middle rung is not in my mind a sound policy. Either raise base rates, or more appropriately, pay allowances to all affected by the locale. A consistent approach would be far better, not this all over the map business.

I'm guessing this policy was chosen because they can address the biggest issue and reduce overall costs (which is at the expense of everyone else). I don't think this should be celebrated as a win.
A Major will continue to make much more than a Cpl. the numbers are as plain to see for you as they are for me.

This policy is not saving money. Authorized funding for CFHD is higher than it was for PLD. Spending is being redistributed from some locations that could not objectively (still) justify as much PLD as they receive, to locations that received none but should based on changes in housing costs. Costs are also moving from those with enough income to not need housing assistance to those with lower income who do. Housing subsidy is moving much more closely towards a means and needs based system. Given that this is taxpayer funds, that’s appropriate stewardship of finite financial resources.

It’s far from a perfect system. The seven year limit should be scrapped, particularly if they want to mitigate harm to the navy. It may cause CAF, in the long run, to reassess whether certain units should be in certain places- e.g., why is staff college still in Toronto versus, say, consolidating in Kingston? (I have no insight, just an obvious example). I think it’s better, though, than a system that blindly subsidized Edmonton but not Ottawa.
 
To make that happen though would take some serious investment in infrastructure which they don't seem to want to make. Even if they did make it, your looking at years out to have those buildings completed. It should be a easy enough sell to the government, make a few billion dollar investment today and you get to save 150m each year, plus the CAF members would be paying rent to offset the cost of the buildings.
If serious, you could set up basically a factory outside each base to build RTM's and pump them out like Ford Model T's.
 
So, given the tables, as I suspected:

Coasts, Edmonton, and Toronto (not on there but they had high PLD) lose. Others roughly gain.

Toronto previously had 5 PLD areas, where now they had one. The area with the best PLD was TOR area 1, with a PLD of $1485/month, and the lowest was TOR area 2, with a PLD of $506/month. (Not sure where these PLDAs actually are). So, instead of showing tables for all 5 areas, here are the tables for TOR areas 1 and 2. So, if you currently live/work in what used to be called TORONTO AREA 2, you are doing well. If you currently live/work in what used to be called TORONTO AREA 1, you're getting screwed haaaaard if you don't qualify for for CFHD (do they even have PMQs anywhere in Toronto?).


TOR A1 and A2.jpg
 
Looks like a small pay bump...

@Lumber does your equation take into account for losing PLD ? If so I may actually be a loss.

As I said before. Aug 1 will be the tell for me.
Affirmative. All the calculation include everyone losing the PLD that everyone used to get regardless of pay level.
 
Am I going to get some short leave for my efforts?
Season 5 Nbc GIF by The Office
 
Someone above said that this was a band aid that needed to be ripped off, and suffer the pain now. I agree, and maybe the next band aid should be environmental allowances paid as a flat monthly fee regardless of time spent doing what the allowance is meant to compensate the individual for.

The largest complaint we are hearing about this policy is from members losing something they had come to rely on as part of their salary, whether the conditions existed for the compensation or not. Maybe it is time to start from zero and move forward with a better compensation package.

No one is speaking to the possible benefits of the CFHA in the long run. First - many individuals who were struggling will get some needed help. Second, it makes individuals less attached to a location solely because they make more in allowances. As individuals come up to the 7 year period, perhaps they will be more open to a geographical relocation. Thirdly, as much as it sucks to hear, and isn't necessarily right, DND does not want to be a landlord. More people on the economy, when and where they can afford it isn't a bad pers strategy. Does this do much for retention of current CAF members, not in some (many) cases. But for new members coming in, who start off with an understanding of what the new rules will mean for them, it might actually be better.

I can't explain why they used a seven year cutoff, unless someone did some research and determined that the greater percentage of personnel, once posted to a location, were posted away from that location within seven years. This allows them to assess their new financial position based on where and when they are posted in their career.
I would say the solution to that isn't making it a part of the salary, rather make it like casual 'x' duty allowance instead. The whole point is to compensate people for going to sea or in the field. There are many ways to scam the system so people aren't doing either but still receiving the pay. To me it should be in the field, you get 'x' amount each day. If you aren't specifically in the field too bad.
 
do they even have PMQs anywhere in Toronto?).
If the do they are doing a good job of hiding them from everyone.
I would say the solution to that isn't making it a part of the salary, rather make it like casual 'x' duty allowance instead. The whole point is to compensate people for going to sea or in the field. There are many ways to scam the system so people aren't doing either but still receiving the pay. To me it should be in the field, you get 'x' amount each day. If you aren't specifically in the field too bad.
Like the good old FOA we used to have? Go in the field 1 Mar come out 10 Mar. Of course like everything else people did it different ways - ie first and last day was TD Incidentals and rest were FOA and some just paid FOA for all 10 days rather than go through the hassle. I think everyone ignore parts of the regulation.
 
Back
Top