Benefits Cut...

[wesleyd]

Blacklab - having two dogs and two cats myself, I understand how it could aggravate you that you now have to eat up the extra costs.  However, not everyone has a pet, which is likely why the benefit was moved to the personal envelope.  You do realize that anything you HAVE to pay for in your move you can also claim on your income tax, making the bite not quite as big.

My husband and I will never be so lucky as he is self-employed and will have to eat up the costs of moving his equipment and likely wouldn't even be able to claim it OR write it off.

We all make sacrifices and, I hate to be so crass, but Joe Q Public doesn't give a crap that you have to pay extra to move your pets considering everything else that DOES get covered.  Before sitting down and saying, "Whoa is me," maybe you should be looking at how our benefits/services compare to other companies and government agencies when their employees are forced to move.

Other departments and some companies have much better benefits/services than we do. For example other federal departments get weekend travel assistance so they can go home to visit their families. We get one trip per year. Sucks if you live over 1500k away from home and cant zip down from the NCR on the weekends to see the kids. The majority of Joe Q Public thinks that we are paid tax free and the CF just buys our house from us when we are posted.  Joe Q public wouldn't move every three years or more. I had a job offer out west where my house would be purchased by the company, at market value, and they would sell it. Move furniture and pay all associated fees with the purchase of my house. Plus pay for my family and me to travel. If you compare CF to lets say a minimum wage employee yes we have it great. But if you compare us to a large corporation perhaps not that great. I don't think the overall point of this situation is what we do or do not received it is the implemention of the changes and how it will negatively affect the lower rank and file. An extra 550 a month out of pocket for rations is a very hard hit to any CF member, with perhaps the exception of higher ranking members. The ones who should be, and I am sure they are, trying to get this changed.

I think all these extra benefits have made us all feel a little too entitled in the past few years.

These aren't extra benefits , they are costs that are associated with moving. Joe Q Public wouldn't move unless a)it was paid for and b) there was a significant salary increase because of the move, by the way 138 pre- tax dollars per month is not significant, this is the amount a SGT to WO gets for promotion. This must be that generous compensation that CF members are enjoying.
I know I sound a bit jaded but it is because I am. Hard to say we look after our people when the ones that are affected by this the most are the ones that need the most looking after.

Fixed the quote.  Harris - Army.ca Staff.

 

[Blacklab]

Not sure everyone grasps the point of the Custom envelope.  It's for enhancements to the move.  Core can't account for everything.  My four pets might be your four cars, or someone else's upgraded travel.  Custom and Personal envelopes are there to provide flexibility, so I choose to use it for pet transport, and that is within arcs, then I can't see where anyone can criticize that.

Whether OUTCAN is a great opportunity is not the issue, and like everyone else, I require no incentive to serve anywhere.  I'd do it without any extra pay.  But we all structure our lives to fit within the military envelope and the parameters of military service, whatever it might be.  If I didn't think know that was funding available to move my pets, it's unlikely I would have four of them.  When the rules change without notice, it has an impact.  This is not about a sense of entitlement, or any lack of appreciation for opportunities and benefits that exist- it's about an expectation that new policies will be implemented with a bit more care and attention to their impact. 

@ Occam.  It may well be that the PS rules are changing too, and that their online directives haven't caught up.  The link between NJC's relocation directive and CFIRP is not direct.  NJC's policy specifically excludes the CF, but the CF is represented at the NJC table and clearly, our policy is closely modeled on it.  Similarly, Foreign Service Directives for PS are close, but not exactly the same as those for the CF.  Anecdotally, I'm told that our relocation benefits are much better in most areas.  I'm not sure which ones.  I did note that their incidental movement allowance was $2997, while ours (movement grant) remains at $650, which is a bit low for the incidental expenses of moving overseas, but we must make up for it elsewhere.  As with any CANFORGEN, I'm sure there is more to follow once the CF returns from summer vacation and various CoC look at this in detail.  Meanwhile, I'll be Stonehenge in an hour, spending my FSP with reckless abandon! With my dogs.  Ciao. 

 

[aesop081]

Not sure everyone grasps the point of the Custom envelope. 

This summer is posting #7 for me, 4 of them being in the last 7 years. I've got a fair grip on the system, thanks.

 

[4Feathers]

So my unit has finally received guidance on how this application of this new CANFORGEN will roll out and it doesn't look good for those members on a Prohibited posting.

Members who are posted prohibited will be required to remit the ration portion of their SE and will now only be covered for the quarters portion of it.  In plain English, if you are posted Prohibited you will be paying regardless of whether or not you are paying a mortgage/rent.  This is a drastic change from what most CF members have come to understand and I feel the impact is going to be huge.

I think this issue is really going to focus the spotlight on the high rates we charge for rations at all bases across Canada, $500 in some cases.  I, for one, know of several cases of members who are in the process of reassigning and will need to carry the rations payment in addition to their mortgage in one of Canada's most expensive housing markets.  The new rules seem to suggest that the CF expects the member's family to take the hit and subsidize his/her training that is mandated by the CF for that person to remain employed by the CF.  I also know that several of these same members are now reconsidering their decisions to remain with the CF, especially since the system that was designed to train and educate them is now charging them the equivalent of half a mortgage payment to eat. 

I know the thrust of this change was directed at the folks who sit on IR for years and collect scads of cash.  The same can't be said for Cpl. Dilligaf who just remustered to Firefighter and who likely took a hit to his pay to do so.  Cpl. Dilligaf used to be Sgt. Dilligaf or some other rank and now has to accept lower pay plus deal with the additional burden of financing his/her training by paying for rations that used to be covered.  That person had a life before remustering and a wife.  Now, we are effectively taking food off Mrs. Dilligaf's table because her husband is away in Borden waiting for up to a year for his new trade's coursing to begin.  This is bad timing on the part of the CF and I can tell you that Cpl. Dilligaf isn't happy, but he has to accept it and had to work out a budget to finance his training.  This is what we have become as a military.  Otherwise mandatory training is now becoming a burden to the member due simply to choices he/she made in previous years based on a salary that he/she was earning at the time.  Now with lower pay, that person is getting hammered again by this change and we are going to be seeing the impacts of this starting on 1 Sept 12.

There has to be a middle ground on this change.  It isn't fair to ask the Crown to fund a new boat by allowing Capt. Jones to remain on IR in Ottawa, but it isn't fair to ask Cpl. Dilligaf to fund his training either.  What was wrong with members receiving R&Q as their SE? There really wasn't anything complicated about it.  Training bases are now going to be scrambling to get ahead of this by finding ways to keep that Cpl. on his local economy for longer.  That has implications for employment, supervision, etc.  I have been really trying to figure this one out, but this change feels, to me at least, to be excessively punitive given the rates we charge members for rations.  Even the smartest financial planner would look at this change and see that there was no way to mitigate it.

I have read this thread several times and I have seen some callous comments like "if the military wanted you to have a family, it would have issued you one" or "if you don't like it, leave".  That is attitude is completely wrongheaded and it runs counter to the idea that we are making an investment in people here.  If Cpl. Dilligaf is happy, he is going to stay for 25-30 years and that keeps his experience in the CF.  If he leaves, then his experience leaves with him.  Meanwhile, Capt. Jones has a new boat and leaves as his obligatory service expires 5 years post-university.  The fact is that members have the right to change trades if found suitable and they do.  Yes, they need to be retrained but why punish them for changing trades? I am at a loss for words after seeing how this change is impacting members of an organization I care about.

Well said.  :goodpost:

 

[Nemo888]

That was a good post. It takes your first contract just to become competent at your trade.(Maybe I'm slow.) I would hate to think that the only guys still in the Army are the ones who don't have anything better going on.  Retaining the awesome soldiers is the real issue.

 

[Nemo888]

I can't  edit. Throw this in with the last.

My wife was top of her class for Nursing. She didn't become an Army nurse at that time because she got much better offers from the local hospitals. Eventually the Army must have noticed they were getting the leftovers and they had to up the pay substantially.

They are still stuck with the leftovers who will probably make a career of it. They will be higher rank than the newer better recruits and train them. Penny wise and pound foolish.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

Members are effectively subsidizing their own training if their net income is reduced by virtue of being sent on a prohibited/restricted posting.  I am not applying spin one way or the other.  I simply think what is being done is wrong and the burden of paying for rations should not be thrown on to someone who is already incurring a same or similar cost at home.  If at the end of the month a person in transition nets less money than what they earn, the CF really should look at things.  There is no way smart planning could have mitigated a change like this to something as expensive as rations.

First off, if you've read thru the whole thread, you would have seen where I and others have said more than a few times that this policy will affect the newest and lowest paid CF mbrs in the trg sys, who are on prohibited/restricted/etc posting while waiting for or attending initial occ/classification trg who have D, HG, & E in another location to maintain.  Wookilar and others have also posted solutions are being looked at WRT to that by the CF so these mbr's  aren't left hanging in the breeze.  To be honest, those are the ones who are truly on an imposed restriction, IMO, in the strictess sense of the word; the CF left them no choice.

I can see the point being raised and addressed by TB/whoever with the change to the free rations for mbrs who have D, HG & E;  while you aren't at home, you are not eating there, so that is $$ from your pay and benefits that is not being spent; why is Joe and Jane Taxpayer giving you free food?

I can also see the point that the current charges for rations is extremely high ($543/month is more than we spend on food in total, no question).  I also know the ration charges take into account more than the cost of purchase for the food.  IIRC is includes purchase, prep, maint of facilities, etc.

What is the solution, I don't know that.

What I do know is CF members do not subsidize their own trg costs, other than by virture of the taxes we, like all other Canadians, pay.

If you have people in the situation that they are going to be adveresly affected while in the trg system/pre-career status, start by taking a look at BTAGs, Section 3 for the current policies governing their posting status.

Suggesting that any CF members pays for their training, or sub's it, whatever IS misleading and putting a spin on the changes to benefits.  Full stop.

You can paint a log of shyte yellow, go around calling it a banana and expect people to believe you after they take a bite.  Ppl (for the most part) aren't that stupid.  Your 'spin' on this is something I'd expect to see in a CBC article or story comments. 

:2c:

 

[Journeyman]

I am pretty shocked that you all seem so unaffected....

Try not to confuse "unaffected" with "choosing to not whine incessantly." What I feel mostly, is pity for your co-workers.

 

[Petard]

I can see the point being raised and addressed by TB/whoever with the change to the free rations for mbrs who have D, HG & E;  while you aren't at home, you are not eating there, so that is $$ from your pay and benefits that is not being spent; why is Joe and Jane Taxpayer giving you free food?

By this logic personnel that are deployed or on Ex should pay for their rations too

 

[Strike]

I can't  edit. Throw this in with the last.

My wife was top of her class for Nursing. She didn't become an Army nurse at that time because she got much better offers from the local hospitals. Eventually the Army must have noticed they were getting the leftovers and they had to up the pay substantially.

They are still stuck with the leftovers who will probably make a career of it. They will be higher rank than the newer better recruits and train them. Penny wise and pound foolish.

Wow.  Really?  I know at least a dozen CF nurses that come nowhere near your generalization.  One of which is my sister-in-law, who has worked both sides of the fence.

I fail to see what nursing salaries (which I thought were the same as the rest of the GSO crowd) has to do with this CANFORGEN. 

Try not to confuse "unaffected" with "choosing to not whine incessantly." What I feel mostly, is pity for your co-workers.

Ditto.

 

[4Feathers]

I can't  edit. Throw this in with the last.

My wife was top of her class for Nursing. She didn't become an Army nurse at that time because she got much better offers from the local hospitals. Eventually the Army must have noticed they were getting the leftovers and they had to up the pay substantially.

They are still stuck with the leftovers who will probably make a career of it. They will be higher rank than the newer better recruits and train them. Penny wise and pound foolish.

:goodpost: So very true. After spending 4 years in recruiting I can tell you that is difficult to attract the best, even more so now. Being an employer of choice is getting much harder to sell. It may be OK now, but like all things, they go in cycles.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

By this logic personnel that are deployed or on Ex should pay for their rations too

Note I said "I can see the logic" but not that I agree with it. 

However, I'll throw this out there;  I can't believe people who are posted away from their family are going to be made to pay for their rations, yet the folks posted to a HMCS who are alongside will get soup and meals on the taxpayers dime and then go home for supper. Explain that to me.  Sailor Bloggins lives in Dartmouth or Cole Harbour and is no way "seperated" while alongside, but gets free eats.  Sailor Bloggins, who has a wife and kid in Halifax, but is in Esq on initial occ trg, will NOT get free rations.

If we are going to start injecting 'logic' into this...

 

[Journeyman]

:goodpost: 

Well said.  :goodpost:

:goodpost:

Someone found a new smiley.  :

 

[MJP]

:goodpost: So very true. After spending 4 years in recruiting I can tell you that is difficult to attract the best, even more so now. Being an employer of choice is getting much harder to sell. It may be OK now, but like all things, they go in cycles.

Yea you are right...All those open trades right now shows how hard of a sell it is.

 

[PuckChaser]

However, I'll throw this out there;  I can't believe people who are posted away from their family are going to be made to pay for their rations, yet the folks posted to a HMCS who are alongside will get soup and meals on the taxpayers dime and then go home for supper. Explain that to me.  Sailor Bloggins lives in Dartmouth or Cole Harbour and is no way "seperated" while alongside, but gets free eats.  Sailor Bloggins, who has a wife and kid in Halifax, but is in Esq on initial occ trg, will NOT get free rations.

Don't hate on the RCN, they have a strong lobby group!  >

 

[armyvern]

By this logic personnel that are deployed or on Ex should pay for their rations too

And while at sea, and on operations too.


There needs to be clear differentiation between Prohibited, Restricted, IR personnel. Although now they are all paid benefits as if on "IR" status --- they are clearly not all of the same status, but all currently seem to be affected by the CANFORGEN.

Prohibited:  Those in the trg system whose DF&E is not allowed to accompany them ... are not there by choice. They are there on that training because the CF Trg system his dictated they be there then and unaccompanied. Just as someone deployed or at sea is separated from their DF&E 'by force' (it's a word I'm using, no one is literally holding guns to anyone's heads).

IR: Personnel who apply for an unaccompanied move for whatever "temporary" reason be it wife's employment or kids' grade 12 next year. They are separated from their DF&E 'by choice'.

Someone needs to sort out the fact that the two are not comparable situations, determine what benefits should be applicable to/within each distinct class, and apply whatever benefits are found warranted to each of those classes distinctly and separately.



And, I still stand firm on my previous thoughts that if the TB and the CF powers-that-be determine that food is not reimbursable to either group because "everybody needs to pay to eat somewhere and neither group is paying to eat at their principal residence", then it logically follows that because they have applied that logic to the group above who is separated 'by force', then those at sea, field and on Ops should be prepping themselves for the logic and natural "next round" that removes free rations from themselves as well. That seems to be, after all, the logic being held by TB these days ...

 

[Gunner98]

I think this issue is really going to focus the spotlight on the high rates we charge for rations at all bases across Canada, $500 in some cases.

I know the thrust of this change was directed at the folks who sit on IR for years and collect scads of cash. 

Let's do some simple math to determine if these are really 'high rates' $540/90 meals =  $6 which includes beverages, fruit, desserts etc.  Far less than the average meal costs the mess to provide.

Let's do some logic analysis - do you really 'know' the thrust (a) how many people sit on IR for years, (b) that they are really collecting scads of cash now that they are abated for leave, TD etc. (c)  that the policy was really directed at them and there was no consideration beyond them to the thousands of others who are going to suffer. 

The real thrust is the DND budget was cut by more than $1B and the bean counters have been tasked by the top to find savings.  This is still the early stages so save some breath for the real rantings that will follow once further cuts are known.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

It's not relevant but ok, I'll bite:  A large breed dog, a small dog, and two cats. 

I'm going to make some assumptions here, and I'm probably wrong, but anyway............

My whole experience with 'breed dogs', other than the dog f*****s I regularly work with, are that the dogs are a business for making and selling more dogs.

If this is the case, why the f*** should my tax dollars move your business around? You chose to run a secondary business outside your CF career and that's YOUR responsibility.

Claim the expenses on your business taxes, unless of course, your working the underground economy on the side and aren't reporting the extra cash that you're making.

Given the cost of purebreds, you're way ahead of the game and have your cake as well as eating it. Whatever the CF is 'allegedly' clawing back from you, you've already made in spades by virtue of them putting you in a position (posting) favourable to your business. Time to pony up from your end for a change and spend some of your profits on your costs.

Again, I'm likely wrong, but that's the way this appears to me.

Just sayin'.

 

[armyvern]

I guess the next question I have for Blacklab is: "is it a large breed[ing] dog" or is it a "large breed big ass dog"?

(my thoughts are the same as Crusty's below should it be a large dog that you indeed breed and are thus garnering income from)

Having previously shipped pets myself, dog that are large breeds big ass in size, often cost more to ship than small dogs. I don't own any pets now, but am of the opinion that "personal" envelope is the more proper place for charges for their movement to be deducted from. Yes, they are members of the family, but that is the families choice to own pets and ergo the personal envelope.

I have shitloads of wine, that I move at my own expense as movers won't take glass bottles. I still move 'em and I figure that the cost of such is more than covered by my movement grant (650) and/or my extra full months pay posting allowance. I own them for my own benefit/pleasure. And yes, I know the "movement grant" is intended to cover incidentals caused by move and that it is a whole lot lower than other federal employees receive. Then, take it out of the posting allowance. We all make choices about what we wish to do with our own posting allowances - choose whatever you want: it's yours. If that's putting it towards the cost of moving your chosen pets or paying down some of your mortgage or whatever - so be it.

Crustette

 

[PPCLI Guy]

I'm going to make some assumptions here, and I'm probably wrong, but anyway............

My whole experience with 'breed dogs', other than the dog f*****s I regularly work with, are that the dogs are a business for making and selling more dogs.

If this is the case, why the f*** should my tax dollars move your business around? You chose to run a secondary business outside your CF career and that's YOUR responsibility.

Claim the expenses on your business taxes, unless of course, your working the underground economy on the side and aren't reporting the extra cash that you're making.

Given the cost of purebreds, you're way ahead of the game and have your cake as well as eating it. Whatever the CF is 'allegedly' clawing back from you, you've already made in spades by virtue of them putting you in a position (posting) favourable to your business. Time to pony up from your end for a change and spend some of your profits on your costs.

Again, I'm likely wrong, but that's the way this appears to me.

Just sayin'.

Just saying that you are, as you surmised, most likely wrong.  I have two purebred German Shepherds, a male and a female.  They are both from strong bloodlines, and are extraordinary specimens of the breed. Both are neutered. I, and most military dog owners I know, have no interest in breeding or showing them.  I enjoy their company, and their size and training provide both my wife and I some modicum of comfort during my frequent absences.  The opportunities were definitely there - my male in particular has generated many queries about breeding from him.  Again, I was never interested in the "business of making and selling more dogs".  I just enjoy the company of large and competent dogs.

I have to be honesty, the tone of your post is more than just a tad confrontational.  You made some very large assumptions and worked yourself into a fever-pitch.  Nowhere does the OP state that he is running a business.  Rather, he is concerned that the rules have changed mid APS, which is something that I understand.

It may be time to take this one down a notch - it appears to be getting quite personal.

Just saying.