Allowances - Post Living Differential (PLD) [MERGED]

[simysmom99]

As I recall in an earlier thread, there may be town hall meetings in certain areas.  Any word on that?  My dh doesn't really have the time to dig for such notices (and I don't think it is high on his priority list), so any update (if there is one  ) would be helpful.  As you all know, I like to use my big mouth for good.

 

[Disenchantedsailor]

on a side note - my mom just got home from work, the Canada Day holiday has been moved to the following Monday if it falls on a weekend, she poured coffee in Calgary today for $30/hr not including shift premium

 

[aesop081]

for the "aviator" class (read as: officers)

Not all military aviators are officers, just so we are clear

any extra pay (sea pay or air crew allowance).

That point is soon to be invalid, as you army folks in field positions will receive "full-time" FOA

 

[Disenchantedsailor]

I'll just add to that, this PLD issue is no different than D@#3 near every other year.

 

[scas]

I've been hearing some rumors. One guy said it was on the news the other day, and another said that its comming within the month. Has anyone else heard of PLD for edmonton coming in soon? And I'm not meaning that its still with the treasury board. I've also heard the RCMP has gotten theirs. Can anyone confirm these?

 

[geo]

They have been talking of revamping the whole enchelada......Not just for Edmonton

Still pending as far as I know.

Considering that this is going to be part of the remuneration package being worked out for us, I would not hold my breath...

 

[PO2FinClk]

scas, that has been the rumint for some time now based on tidbits of info "shared" throughout the past year. The same is mentioned in posts above by others.

Whatever the case may be, do no expect, anticipate or hope for anything and then there will be no chance of disappointment.

 

[armyvern]

scas, that has been the rumint for some time now based on tidbits of info "shared" throughout the past year. The same is mentioned in posts above by others.

Whatever the case may be, do no expect, anticipate or hope for anything and then there will be no chance of disappointment.

Our DCBA guest speaker gave us a brief on some of the proposed changes to PLD that were in the works this past spring on the ILQ. Again, one more time, this issue has been noted by DND/CF and changes have been recommended.

Patience people. It's not like the CF can just make those changes.

A whole bunch of you need to understand that the CF can recommend changes and propose them. Those proposals must then be staffed outside of DND/CF to Treasury Board. Anything affecting monies requires TB consent/approval.

The Treasury Board ACT is an ACT of Parliament ... the CF can't just change it overnight (and they sure as heck don't get to make the ultimate decision or the change itself anyway), no matter how common sense and desperately required those changes may be.

 

[PO2FinClk]

Vern, that is to be added to briefs by DMCARM last fall as well as the CF CWO last spring to the same effect.

 

[armyvern]

Vern, that is to be added to briefs by DMCARM last fall as well as the CF CWO last spring to the same effect.

It should be part of the briefs too.

You, I, and others understand how it works ...

Yet there are too many who just figure that seeing "no action" means that it's the CF and DND screwing them around when that is absolutely untrue.

 

[Command-Sense-Act 105]

DGRMC Seminar starts on Monday 29 Oct.  Probably a good chance for unit CClks and Adjts to ask DGCB or DCBA (at least one of the two of them will be there) about this.

 

[PO2FinClk]

Won't be there myself but would be a good venue to ask. However as far as I concerned, asking either of those two I would only expect results in the "We are aware of the issues and are currently working on it. Once information is available it shall then be distributed. Next question."

 

[Metricks]

Hello all, just a new person online in this forum.  I read the entire thread on this touchy topic with great interest.  I understand (albeit roughly) that it is a complex issue that involves many variables and the control of outside sources to boot (TB).  I do not want to argue with so many people who are likely better informed and more intelligent than myself. 
I wish to, instead, offer a different view entirely.  Does a person who chooses to serve his/her country deserve a certain quality of life?  To offer what many times amounts to the ultimate sacrifice, should be treated with respect, I would think.  What or how should such a person be supported/treated by his country?
I would argue that such a person should receive a stable income.  An income that matched the cost of living, with some ability to prepare for the inevitability of age.  I do not think they should be given money 'hand over fist'.  They should be, however, at least comfortable enough to perform the job asked of them, without constant fear of living pay to pay, or worse, falling short.  It is a valuable and necessary role we all pay as forces members.  Just as valuable as any other professionally paid member of the public.  Does anyone disagree?  I would be eager to invite any nay sayer to join us, and then say what we deserve.
Perhaps instead of arguing another allowance, one that inspires such fear, as it is NEEDED by so many to survive, we should be asking why we are not paid enough to negate this need?  Why we have to argue over this 'allowance' when we at least DESERVE to LIVE in the country we are sworn to, and volunteered to, protect.
Any feedback appreciated.  I state my opinion with no malice or contempt for anyone on this server. 

 

[Michael OLeary]

Hello all, just a new person online in this forum.  I read the entire thread on this touchy topic with great interest.  I understand (albeit roughly) that it is a complex issue that involves many variables and the control of outside sources to boot (TB).  I do not want to argue with so many people who are likely better informed and more intelligent than myself. 
I wish to, instead, offer a different view entirely.  Does a person who chooses to serve his/her country deserve a certain quality of life?  To offer what many times amounts to the ultimate sacrifice, should be treated with respect, I would think.  What or how should such a person be supported/treated by his country?
I would argue that such a person should receive a stable income.  An income that matched the cost of living, with some ability to prepare for the inevitability of age.  I do not think they should be given money 'hand over fist'.  They should be, however, at least comfortable enough to perform the job asked of them, without constant fear of living pay to pay, or worse, falling short.  It is a valuable and necessary role we all pay as forces members.  Just as valuable as any other professionally paid member of the public.  Does anyone disagree?  I would be eager to invite any nay sayer to join us, and then say what we deserve.
Perhaps instead of arguing another allowance, one that inspires such fear, as it is NEEDED by so many to survive, we should be asking why we are not paid enough to negate this need?  Why we have to argue over this 'allowance' when we at least DESERVE to LIVE in the country we are sworn to, and volunteered to, protect.
Any feedback appreciated.  I state my opinion with no malice or contempt for anyone on this server. 

Metricks, how about completing your profile so that those who wish to continue this discussion have a fair idea of your personal point of reference in terms of service years and experience.

Thank you.

 

[Metricks]

Profile added, my apologies.  As I mentioned, I am new to this site and was not even aware of the profile page until you mentioned it.

 

[Michael OLeary]

No worries, it helps to put posters' comments in perspective.  For example, your aim appears to be to state that the entire compensation package (pay and benefits) may not be satisfactory, yet I notice you haven't been in long enough to remember the days of the pay freeze and the raises since.

To aid the discussion, here's a reference to offer some background on how much has changed over the past while - http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/spsm-rgsp/er-ed/vol2/vol210_e.asp

Scroll about half-way down the page to Table 2086 - History of Increases for the Canadian Forces 1991 to 2003.

Changes since can be found checking the superceded rates under each rank here, and those earlier under the historic rate links.

 

[IN HOC SIGNO]

they introduced PLD when I was in Esquimalt in the late nineties. My first two years there I did live hand to mouth trying to pay a mortgage and raise two kids. The PLD helped a lot when it came in and then when I was posted to Gagetown I lost it because of the cost of living being way lower in NB vice BC.
Now that we have such high prices in Edmonton there really needs to be a review of the benefit there.
I like the PLD idea because every region is different and has different costs in this country.

 

[PO2FinClk]

Perhaps instead of arguing another allowance, one that inspires such fear, as it is NEEDED by so many to survive, we should be asking why we are not paid enough to negate this need?  Why we have to argue over this 'allowance' when we at least DESERVE to LIVE in the country we are sworn to, and volunteered to, protect.

Metricks, I fear you have completly missed the intent behind PLD or any other such allowance in its entirety. The intent of the allowance is to offset the various cost of living in different areas, where folks are posted to "beyond their control". You may state where you wish to be posted, but that is all the control you have as you are subject to "unlimited liability".

We are paid enough, really look at the salaries, even those just entering the service and we are well remunerated which is also regularly adjusted to comparability to the Public Sector.  Increasing the salaries would only again create inequity that Bob in NB sees more net salary (read cost of living including housing) then Jane in Edmonton. In short, right back to square one.

 

[Metricks]

Good day folks!  I had a night to toss this around in my head, and I came up with a few thoughts on the topic.  I remember my Dad was working in the military during the pay freeze days, painful times indeed.  They definately highlighted a need for change of policy.  However, I would argue that the intent behind the recent change was to bring parity between cost of living and our wage, which is still not achieved.  When a military member in good financial standing is priced out of the home market, there is a problem.  I am not talking about mansions here, but entry level homes at the bottom of the market range for the region.  I am talking about being debt free and earning a MCpl wage, with all associated allowances and benefits.  I am talking about a working spouse in the mix.  When a member in this position walks into a bank and doesn't get a second glance, that portrays an issue. 
I do not have any easy answers to this issue.  Perhaps a higher median pay across the board.  Perhaps legislation that forces banks to consider responsible military members for mortgages.  As I said, no easy answers.  But possibly sharing these ideas, sparking debate, may result in intelligent folks in the right positions to encourage change.  As always, I welcome any feedback, and write my thoughts with no malice or contempt.  Thanks guys and gals.

 

[niceasdrhuxtable]

Perhaps legislation that forces banks to consider responsible military members for mortgages.

I think you bring up an interesting argument but I'm afraid I have to disagree strongly with this idea. I think it would only serve to alienate the military from the general public as we'd start be viewed as in some sort of "privileged" class of society to whom the regular rules don't apply. Additionally, banks are in the business of making money and when they turn someone away for a mortgage, it's not because they want to be cruel or deny the dream of home ownership to somebody. It's because this person's income and credit history don't provide a reasonable expectation that they will be able to service this debt for the next 25 years. I think forcing the banks to start considering people who don't meet these requirements would just end up in losses for the banks and foreclosures and difficulties for the members who are entering into mortgages they can't really afford but were mandated to be provided by the banks.

Concerning PLD, I think the system just needs to be more flexible to the rapid shift in the cost of living throughout Canada. I think updating PLD rates on a semi-annual basis would alleviate a lot of the strain people are undertaking at the moment.