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

2023 CAF Recruiting Ad

Agreed. I can't understand why our Combat Arms, which arguably have the worst working conditions and are expected to do the most soul destroying part of our job are only base pay.

But some RCAF tech or RCN Ops Room type who have pretty pampered careers in comparison get extra pay benefits. It's ridiculous.
I don't know how many times I cried all over my Spec pay and SDA over this...
 
My understanding was that the Spec trades were based on the level of training, qualifications, responsibility, and knowledge needed to be OFP.

I think that you're right and I think that's antiquated.

And I think entitlement to spec/tech pay has been massively watered down.

I've never been combat arms, but I worked with them, and I think they deserve more. And when contrasted beside those who do get more, it looks like an imbalance to me.

I don't know how many times I cried all over my Spec pay and SDA over this...

Ok.
 
Last edited:
I think that you're right and I think that's antiquated.

And I think entitlement to spec/tech pay has been massively watered down.

I've never been combat arms, but I worked with them, and I think they deserve more. And contrasted beside those who do get more looks like an imbalance to me.
That's why I agree with the way the Aussies set up their pay system, even though it is an eye chart.

10 sets of "General Service" pay (not including specialist officers like doctors, lawyers, dentists, etc)
  • Each trade is in that pay scale, e.g. Cook is pay scale 1 and Pilot is pay scale 10
  • Each rank has 2 IPCs
There's a whole other chart with Aircrew, SDA, etc equivalents as well as incentives for languages (other than the official ones), etc. If you have a language profile in Bahasa Indonesia or something, you get extra pay for it.

However, I would love to be a fly on the wall when the trades bun-fight over what will on which pay scales :ROFLMAO:

But, to bring it back to Recruiting, the ADF is having huge (arguably bigger) issues with recruiting and retention too.
 
That's why I agree with the way the Aussies set up their pay system, even though it is an eye chart.

10 sets of "General Service" pay (not including specialist officers like doctors, lawyers, dentists, etc)
  • Each trade is in that pay scale, e.g. Cook is pay scale 1 and Pilot is pay scale 10
  • Each rank has 2 IPCs
There's a whole other chart with Aircrew, SDA, etc equivalents as well as incentives for languages (other than the official ones), etc. If you have a language profile in Bahasa Indonesia or something, you get extra pay for it.

However, I would love to be a fly on the wall when the trades bun-fight over what will on which pay scales :ROFLMAO:

But, to bring it back to Recruiting, the ADF is having huge (arguably bigger) issues with recruiting and retention too.

Ya WRT recruiting I think it goes deeper than pay. But monetary investment in a lot of pers services is what we need to do to make us a preferred employer.
 
My understanding was that the Spec trades were based on the level of training, qualifications, responsibility, and knowledge needed to be OFP.
Spec Pay is actually an attempt at retention due to the fact the trades that receive spec pay get paid considerably more civilian side than in the CAF.

The reason a trade like the Infantry gets no Spec Pay is because the CAF doesn't have to compete with anyone for candidates. When the only other job prospects are the French Foreign Legion, Nefarious Private Entities and the Ukrainian Volunteer Corps, you can pay whatever you want 🤣

I can say with 100% certainty the training I did to become an Infantry Officer was academically and technically more challenging than my initial occupational training as an NWO. It was also done under considerably higher levels of physical and mental duress.

Infantry O also has a higher CFAT requirement than NWO, ironically.

True, which makes the recruiting strategy harder when:
  • There isn't a shooting war going on (at present, for us, for now)
  • The country is involved in wars that its public isn't 100% supportive of (the US in Iraq/Afghanistan by the end)
  • The country doesn't want to be involved in the shooting wars that are going on (pick a place in Africa)
How does the govt convince its citizens that there is a need for a permanent "war footing" without looking like a warmonger? Because I bet that if the public gets told that "the Armed Forces is a warfighting organization..." in any of those scenarios above, the first response will be "but what if there's no war?"

I mean, my response would be "if there's no fire, do we disband the firefighters?" but I don't know how that would play out politically.
It's all about Fighting "A War" not "The War". It's about promoting Military Service as not just "a job" but as a profession.
 
Agreed. I can't understand why our Combat Arms, which arguably have the worst working conditions and are expected to do the most soul destroying part of our job are only base pay.

But some RCAF tech or RCN Ops Room type who have pretty pampered careers in comparison get extra pay benefits. It's ridiculous.

Because it's wayyyyy more fun 'cause you get to blow things up and stab things as part of your job and everyone who is not combat arms is intensely jealous, and the chicks dig us the most ;)

#thankyouformyservice

Live Dangerously Austin Powers GIF
 
It's all about Fighting "A War" not "The War". It's about promoting Military Service as not just "a job" but as a profession.
Exactly. Hence my point about the firefighters.

I mean, technically the CAF is an "emergency management service" of a sort.
 
Spec Pay is actually an attempt at retention due to the fact the trades that receive spec pay get paid considerably more civilian side than in the CAF.

I hear this a lot but I've yet to see a direct comparison chart for each trade.
 
Combat arms, like combat sports are summed up nicely by Joe Rogan. "High level problem solving with dire physical consequences"

Anyone who puts themselves in harms way for the good of others should be paid the most but society never does that. The most physically demanding jobs are the least paid. I guess the hero status that comes with it is part of the compensation.
 
Anyone who puts themselves in harms way for the good of others should be paid the most but society never does that. The most physically demanding jobs are the least paid. I guess the hero status that comes with it is part of the compensation.

People who are put in harms way get compensated with hazard/tax free pay. Also work smarter not harder. The most physically demanding jobs are generally the least paid, that’s why general labourers get less than general contractors. Low skill, low pay, this isn’t a CAF phenomenon.
 
Problem with the CAF is the hard workers make the same as the malingerers.
I don't think that there is a wide enough scoop to account for different skills and the actual requirements of the job, for example a PRES Capt 10 makes the same amount as a CIC Capt 10.
 
My understanding was that the Spec trades were based on the level of training, qualifications, responsibility, and knowledge needed to be OFP.

Thinking of my QL3 course as an AES Op; hours of studying each night and I think 22 exams. Aircraft general, oceanography, RADAR theory, electronics, meteorology.

My QL3 as a crewman? Basically, basic voice procedure, driver a military vehicle and fire the GPMG.

Basic Passive Acoustics Analysis was way more challenging than my QL6B was and we had to pass Tp Ldr and Tp WO assessment. One Acoustics guy I used to fly with, who was the Standards guy was PPCLI and had been in the Medak. He said the Advanced Acoustic Analysis Course was “the hardest thing he’d done in his military career”.

True, which makes the recruiting strategy harder when:
  • There isn't a shooting war going on (at present, for us, for now)
  • The country is involved in wars that its public isn't 100% supportive of (the US in Iraq/Afghanistan by the end)
  • The country doesn't want to be involved in the shooting wars that are going on (pick a place in Africa)
How does the govt convince its citizens that there is a need for a permanent "war footing" without looking like a warmonger? Because I bet that if the public gets told that "the Armed Forces is a warfighting organization..." in any of those scenarios above, the first response will be "but what if there's no war?"

I mean, my response would be "if there's no fire, do we disband the firefighters?" but I don't know how that would play out politically.

I like the insurance example; “I didn’t have a car accident yesterday or last week, should I cancel my car insurance based on that?”

I think the govt is starting to communicate the potential threat and nations to Canadians, I’m just not sure Canadians get it or care to get it.
 
I like the insurance example; “I didn’t have a car accident yesterday or last week, should I cancel my car insurance based on that?”

I think the govt is starting to communicate the potential threat and nations to Canadians, I’m just not sure Canadians get it or care to get it.
Until relatively recently, all the good examples were either beyond many people's living memory or had very clear (or apparently clear) lines drawn under them (WWII, Cold War), and the end of history theme had got out and had its way with public understanding. Further, the CAF as a partner with various countries, organizations, and coalitions had clearly been able to do something, often quite creditably on an individual or unit level, in a variety of post-1991 settings (and neither of the most obvious failures, Rwanda and Somalia, were equipment/infrastructure/capability faults).

The plague, increasing fires and floods, and Ukraine all provide an educational opportunity for both the domestic utility of a large national pool of capable people and useful stuff and the specific need for a robust, modern, expensive armed force. The former isn't the primary mission, but it's as good a supporting argument for the latter as any I've seen.
 
Back
Top