McG
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 2,436
- Points
- 1,160
Allow me one pedantic moment here …
Imposed Restriction (IR) is not being changed. Separation Expense (SE) is being changed.
Changes to SE will impact upon pers on IR amongst many others.
Twenty seven pages into this thread and there are many who still use the terms IR and SE interchangeably. They are not the same thing. Words and terms have specific meanings, and people need to use the words that say what the communicator really to mean. Maybe it seems trivial to some, but we are probably in the current situation, at least in part, because of sloppy vernacular. When the responsible administrators and strategic advisors colloquially refer to all pers receiving SE as being on “IR status” then it becomes very easy to forget or overlook the fact that “IR status” actually includes many pers and situations that are not actually IR. I suspect someone may caught the implications of slashing SE prior to the decision had we been more accurate, institutionally, in saying what we mean.
IR has many problems, and they will all continue to exist though at smaller cost. At the same time, changes to SE have introduced problems for those pers who have had no choice or control on their situation.
That being said, every level that I have been observed at base, unit and formation levels seems to suggest that the leadership understands the huge impact of these changes, and all levels are working to mitigate this impact on individual members.
Imposed Restriction (IR) is not being changed. Separation Expense (SE) is being changed.
Changes to SE will impact upon pers on IR amongst many others.
Twenty seven pages into this thread and there are many who still use the terms IR and SE interchangeably. They are not the same thing. Words and terms have specific meanings, and people need to use the words that say what the communicator really to mean. Maybe it seems trivial to some, but we are probably in the current situation, at least in part, because of sloppy vernacular. When the responsible administrators and strategic advisors colloquially refer to all pers receiving SE as being on “IR status” then it becomes very easy to forget or overlook the fact that “IR status” actually includes many pers and situations that are not actually IR. I suspect someone may caught the implications of slashing SE prior to the decision had we been more accurate, institutionally, in saying what we mean.
IR has many problems, and they will all continue to exist though at smaller cost. At the same time, changes to SE have introduced problems for those pers who have had no choice or control on their situation.
Is SE a benefit, or is it compensation for the additional costs of being separated from F&E? So, to be correct, pers are not losing money from their pay checks but they are loosing money out of their pockets as they assume these additional costs. In the case of prohibited postings and unaccompanied pers, they are paying from their pockets to cover costs deriving from the exigencies of service. In other words, the government has transferred the costs of its decisions down to the members.PMedMoe said:
Donny said:
Pers on TD (0 to 6 months) or attached posted (0 to 12 months) are compensated under the Canadian Forces Temporary Duty Travel Instruction (CFTDTI). Pers on IR (6 to 24 months in concept, 0 to infinity in practice), prohibited posting (0 to infinity) or unaccompanied (0 to 6 months) are compensated through SE. CFTDTI is intended to compensate for temporary separations while SE is intended to compensate for semi-permanent to permanent separations.John_NL said:
DND and the CF advise TB. TB can then choose to take or leave the advice. Really, we (those of us neither involved in advising TB nor working within TB) cannot know that blame does not rest somewhere in the CF. It is possible that these changes are the “good idea” of someone in uniform.Strike said:
For the same reason we cannot know if the CF was the cause of these changes, we cannot know if the CF is fighting to reverse them.Tony Manifold said:
That being said, every level that I have been observed at base, unit and formation levels seems to suggest that the leadership understands the huge impact of these changes, and all levels are working to mitigate this impact on individual members.
I will give this another shot:Journeyman said:
- Amend Sect 3.01 of the CFTDTIs to extend benefits to unaccompanied pers as this is intended to be a temporary status not exceeding 6 months
- In the case of untrained personnel, the option exists to enrol them into a local BTL and then attach post those members to the successive schools required to get to OFP. At any point in time when the member is likely to remain under control of the same school/TE for 12 or more months, then the member will receive a restricted posting.
- Attached postings could also replace other uses of prohibited postings domestically.
- Limit IR to two years with a third year extension on approval of CMP
- Revisit the reduction of SE to find a more appropriate middle ground between what has been and what is coming into force.
- Introduce an “evenings & weekends” rations rate that would allow pers living in shacks to get supper seven days a week, and brunch on all weekends and holidays – recognizing that many pers eat lunch in the workplace and prefer smaller non-hot breakfasts during those same days.
- Invest in new singles quarters that meet the published standards of accommodation (why are we currently building Yukon Lodges all over the country to satisfy a requirement for more transient quarters when the existing permanent quarters meet the transient standard but fall sort of the permanent standard?)
" I guess. 
