Benefits Cut...
- Thread starter MasterInstructor
- Start date
So I heard today, unofficially, that these rate cuts/allowance removals ( whatever you would like to call them; the removal of these benefits that fall into 'separation allowance' et al.) including the enforcing of all members on IR to now pay for Quarters and Rations is under review and will not be put into effect 1 Sept., 2012. Has anyone else out there heard anything on this ?
- Reaction score
- 18,579
- Points
- 1,360
seadog70 said:
While there have already been a number of e-mails sent out talking about "softening the landing" or whatever other phrasing has been used, it is probably best not to fuel rumours (which can build unrealistic expectations), and to wait for the next CANFORGEN to come out providing additional information on the subject. Hopefully it comes out within the next couple of days so that any actions necessary by the CoC or by individuals can be assessed and implemented prior to 1 Sep.
Not to say that all those affected, as well as their supervisors (many also affected), aren't hoping for some reasonably good (less bad?) news, but the "I heard a rumbling" can often lead to even greater frustration if things turn out not to be as "rumbled."
True, hope is not a generally approved planning method, but I am certain that respective chains of command across the CF have been working hard to characterize the impact on affected members in greater detail to senior leadership, as well as providing numerous suggestions for mitigative efforts to offset the negative impact...but let's hope that their input has helped the developing situation.
Regards
G2G
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
Good2Golf said:
At this point, there are about 13 working hours to develop the fix, "assess" the necessary actions and implement them, prior to 1 Sep. I hope, for the sake of the junior members who've been hit by this after committing to the CF, that that's enough time for this to happen.
Eye In The Sky
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 3,780
- Points
- 1,160
Some good news folks.
---------------------------------------------------------
CANFORGEN 159/12 CMP 070/12 302017Z AUG 12
CHANGES TO SEPARATION EXPENSE - APS 12 TRANSITION
UNCLASSIFIED
REF: A. CANFORGEN 145/12 CF COMPENSATION AND BENEFIT FRAMEWORK
B. CANADIAN FORCES TEMPORARY DUTY TRAVEL INSTRUCTION (CFTDTI)
1. THIS CANFORGEN AMENDS THE IMPLEMENTATION DATE OF REF A FROM 1 SEP 12 TO 1 FEB 13. REF A ANNOUNCED THE CESSATION OF BOTH THE INCIDENTAL EXPENSE AND MEAL RATES (INCLUDING RATIONS AT PUBLIC EXPENSE) FOR REG F AND SERVING CLASS C MEMBERS, AS WELL AS THE ELIMINATION OF SE BENEFITS FOR RESERVISTS SERVING ON CLASS B
2. REGRETTABLY, THE LIMITED TIME BETWEEN THE RELEASE OF REF A AND ITS INTENDED 1 SEP 12 IMPLEMENTATION DATE DID NOT ALLOW OUR PERSONNEL TO ADEQUATELY PREPARE THEMSELVES OR THEIR FAMILIES FOR THE IMPACT. IN RECOGNITION OF THIS SHORTFALL, TREASURY BOARD HAS APPROVED DELAYING THE IMPLEMENTATION OF REF A PARA 5 AND PARA 6.B UNTIL 1 FEB 13
3. FOR MEMBERS CURRENTLY ON IMPOSED RESTRICTION AND RECEIVING SE BENEFITS, THE INTENT OF THIS DEFERRAL IS TO ALLOW AFFECTED PERSONNEL THE OPPORTUNITY TO REASSESS THEIR SITUATION AND DETERMINE IF THEY WISH TO REMAIN UNACCOMPANIED AT THE NEW DUTY LOCATION. FOR THOSE CHOOSING NOT TO MOVE THEIR FAMILY TO THEIR DUTY LOCATION AND WHO REMAIN UNACCOMPANIED, THE LIMITATIONS ANNOUNCED AT REF A PARA 5 AND PARA 6.B WILL BE EFFECTIVE AS OF 1 FEB 13
4. IT IS UNDERSTOOD THAT PERSONNEL PROCEEDING ON SHORT TERM ASSIGNMENTS OR TRAINING OF LESS THAN ONE YEAR THAT REQUIRE TEMPORARY GEOGRAPHIC RELOCATION CANNOT REASONABLY BE EXPECTED TO UPROOT THEIR FAMILIES. THE CF HAS AT ITS DISPOSAL A NUMBER OF ASSIGNMENT POLICIES (ATTACHED POSTING, TEMPORARY DUTY) THAT WILL ENSURE THAT THESE PERSONNEL ARE PROVIDED WITH APPROPRIATE SUPPORT DURING THESE SHORT TERM RELOCATIONS AND THAT FAMILIES ARE NOT SUBJECTED TO UNDUE ADDITIONAL FINANCIAL PRESSURE. SPECIFICALLY, PERSONNEL ON SHORT TERM ASSIGNMENTS MAY BE ATTACH POSTED AND THEREFORE ELIGIBLE TO BENEFITS UNDER REF B. ALONG THESE LINES, CAREER MANAGEMENT AUTHORITIES, IN CONCERT WITH FORCE GENERATORS, WILL EXPLORE INNOVATIVE METHODS TO MINIMIZE THE EFFECTS OF THE SE CHANGES BY REMAINING VIGILANT FOR OPPORTUNITIES TO REDUCE THE DEMAND FOR PERSONNEL TO BE SEPARATED FROM THEIR FAMILIES FOR PROTRACTED PERIODS
5. IN ADDITION, STEPS WILL BE TAKEN TO ENSURE THAT RECENTLY ENROLLED PERSONNEL ARE MANAGED WHILE ON THE BTL AS TO ENSURE THAT THEY ARE NOT SUBJECTED TO UNEXPECTED FINANCIAL HARDSHIP, PARTICULARLY WHEN TRAINING NECESSITATES THAT THEY PROCEED UNACCOMPANIED. THIS MAY ALSO INCLUDE ATTACH POSTINGS AND TEMPORARY DUTY BENEFITS AS PER REF B
6. THE AIM OF THIS STRATEGY IS TO PROVIDE CF PERSONNEL THE NECESSARY TIME TO ASSIMILATE THE IMPACTS OF REF A, AND IN PARTICULAR TO REASSESS THEIR FAMILY CIRCUMSTANCES TO ASCERTAIN WHETHER AN UNACCOMPANIED POSTING REMAINS THE BEST ALTERNATIVE. REGARDLESS, AFTER 1 FEB 13 IT WILL NOT BE POSSIBLE TO FURTHER APPLY THE MITIGATING STRATEGY DESCRIBED AT PARA 3 FOR MEMBERS CURRENTLY ON IR AND IN RECEIPT OF SE BENEFITS
7. WHILE THESE CHANGES WILL INEVITABLY AFFECT CF MEMBERS AND THEIR FAMILIES, WE CONTINUE TO RECEIVE OUTSTANDING GOVERNMENT SUPPORT IN THE FORM OF A FAIR AND EQUITABLE COMPENSATION AND BENEFITS FRAMEWORK. EVEN AS REDUCTIONS TAKE HOLD IN CERTAIN AREAS, NEW ALLOWANCES AND BENEFITS HAVE BEEN PUT IN PLACE THAT WILL NOT BE AFFECTED. WE MUST ALSO RECALL THE SIGNIFICANT CHALLENGES THAT AFFECT OUR CIVILIAN COLLEAGUES, MANY OF WHOM FACE UNCERTAINTY WITHOUT RECOURSE TO BENEFITS AFFORDED TO CF MEMBERS. ULTIMATELY, THESE CHANGES, ALONG WITH THOSE THAT HAVE YET TO BE IMPLEMENTED, EXEMPLIFY THE ONGOING EFFORT TO BALANCE CF EXPENDITURES, ALLOWING DND/CF TO MEET ITS SAVINGS TARGETS WHILE PRESERVING OUR ABILITY TO TRAIN, TO CONDUCT OPERATIONS IN SUPPORT OF THE FOUR PILLARS OF THE CANADA FIRST DEFENCE STRATEGY, TO INVEST FOR THE FUTURE, AND TO COMPENSATE OUR PERSONNEL ACCORDING TO OUR MEANS
GENERAL W.J. NATYNCZYK, CDS, SENDS
---------------------------------------------------------
CANFORGEN 159/12 CMP 070/12 302017Z AUG 12
CHANGES TO SEPARATION EXPENSE - APS 12 TRANSITION
UNCLASSIFIED
REF: A. CANFORGEN 145/12 CF COMPENSATION AND BENEFIT FRAMEWORK
B. CANADIAN FORCES TEMPORARY DUTY TRAVEL INSTRUCTION (CFTDTI)
1. THIS CANFORGEN AMENDS THE IMPLEMENTATION DATE OF REF A FROM 1 SEP 12 TO 1 FEB 13. REF A ANNOUNCED THE CESSATION OF BOTH THE INCIDENTAL EXPENSE AND MEAL RATES (INCLUDING RATIONS AT PUBLIC EXPENSE) FOR REG F AND SERVING CLASS C MEMBERS, AS WELL AS THE ELIMINATION OF SE BENEFITS FOR RESERVISTS SERVING ON CLASS B
2. REGRETTABLY, THE LIMITED TIME BETWEEN THE RELEASE OF REF A AND ITS INTENDED 1 SEP 12 IMPLEMENTATION DATE DID NOT ALLOW OUR PERSONNEL TO ADEQUATELY PREPARE THEMSELVES OR THEIR FAMILIES FOR THE IMPACT. IN RECOGNITION OF THIS SHORTFALL, TREASURY BOARD HAS APPROVED DELAYING THE IMPLEMENTATION OF REF A PARA 5 AND PARA 6.B UNTIL 1 FEB 13
3. FOR MEMBERS CURRENTLY ON IMPOSED RESTRICTION AND RECEIVING SE BENEFITS, THE INTENT OF THIS DEFERRAL IS TO ALLOW AFFECTED PERSONNEL THE OPPORTUNITY TO REASSESS THEIR SITUATION AND DETERMINE IF THEY WISH TO REMAIN UNACCOMPANIED AT THE NEW DUTY LOCATION. FOR THOSE CHOOSING NOT TO MOVE THEIR FAMILY TO THEIR DUTY LOCATION AND WHO REMAIN UNACCOMPANIED, THE LIMITATIONS ANNOUNCED AT REF A PARA 5 AND PARA 6.B WILL BE EFFECTIVE AS OF 1 FEB 13
4. IT IS UNDERSTOOD THAT PERSONNEL PROCEEDING ON SHORT TERM ASSIGNMENTS OR TRAINING OF LESS THAN ONE YEAR THAT REQUIRE TEMPORARY GEOGRAPHIC RELOCATION CANNOT REASONABLY BE EXPECTED TO UPROOT THEIR FAMILIES. THE CF HAS AT ITS DISPOSAL A NUMBER OF ASSIGNMENT POLICIES (ATTACHED POSTING, TEMPORARY DUTY) THAT WILL ENSURE THAT THESE PERSONNEL ARE PROVIDED WITH APPROPRIATE SUPPORT DURING THESE SHORT TERM RELOCATIONS AND THAT FAMILIES ARE NOT SUBJECTED TO UNDUE ADDITIONAL FINANCIAL PRESSURE. SPECIFICALLY, PERSONNEL ON SHORT TERM ASSIGNMENTS MAY BE ATTACH POSTED AND THEREFORE ELIGIBLE TO BENEFITS UNDER REF B. ALONG THESE LINES, CAREER MANAGEMENT AUTHORITIES, IN CONCERT WITH FORCE GENERATORS, WILL EXPLORE INNOVATIVE METHODS TO MINIMIZE THE EFFECTS OF THE SE CHANGES BY REMAINING VIGILANT FOR OPPORTUNITIES TO REDUCE THE DEMAND FOR PERSONNEL TO BE SEPARATED FROM THEIR FAMILIES FOR PROTRACTED PERIODS
5. IN ADDITION, STEPS WILL BE TAKEN TO ENSURE THAT RECENTLY ENROLLED PERSONNEL ARE MANAGED WHILE ON THE BTL AS TO ENSURE THAT THEY ARE NOT SUBJECTED TO UNEXPECTED FINANCIAL HARDSHIP, PARTICULARLY WHEN TRAINING NECESSITATES THAT THEY PROCEED UNACCOMPANIED. THIS MAY ALSO INCLUDE ATTACH POSTINGS AND TEMPORARY DUTY BENEFITS AS PER REF B
6. THE AIM OF THIS STRATEGY IS TO PROVIDE CF PERSONNEL THE NECESSARY TIME TO ASSIMILATE THE IMPACTS OF REF A, AND IN PARTICULAR TO REASSESS THEIR FAMILY CIRCUMSTANCES TO ASCERTAIN WHETHER AN UNACCOMPANIED POSTING REMAINS THE BEST ALTERNATIVE. REGARDLESS, AFTER 1 FEB 13 IT WILL NOT BE POSSIBLE TO FURTHER APPLY THE MITIGATING STRATEGY DESCRIBED AT PARA 3 FOR MEMBERS CURRENTLY ON IR AND IN RECEIPT OF SE BENEFITS
7. WHILE THESE CHANGES WILL INEVITABLY AFFECT CF MEMBERS AND THEIR FAMILIES, WE CONTINUE TO RECEIVE OUTSTANDING GOVERNMENT SUPPORT IN THE FORM OF A FAIR AND EQUITABLE COMPENSATION AND BENEFITS FRAMEWORK. EVEN AS REDUCTIONS TAKE HOLD IN CERTAIN AREAS, NEW ALLOWANCES AND BENEFITS HAVE BEEN PUT IN PLACE THAT WILL NOT BE AFFECTED. WE MUST ALSO RECALL THE SIGNIFICANT CHALLENGES THAT AFFECT OUR CIVILIAN COLLEAGUES, MANY OF WHOM FACE UNCERTAINTY WITHOUT RECOURSE TO BENEFITS AFFORDED TO CF MEMBERS. ULTIMATELY, THESE CHANGES, ALONG WITH THOSE THAT HAVE YET TO BE IMPLEMENTED, EXEMPLIFY THE ONGOING EFFORT TO BALANCE CF EXPENDITURES, ALLOWING DND/CF TO MEET ITS SAVINGS TARGETS WHILE PRESERVING OUR ABILITY TO TRAIN, TO CONDUCT OPERATIONS IN SUPPORT OF THE FOUR PILLARS OF THE CANADA FIRST DEFENCE STRATEGY, TO INVEST FOR THE FUTURE, AND TO COMPENSATE OUR PERSONNEL ACCORDING TO OUR MEANS
GENERAL W.J. NATYNCZYK, CDS, SENDS
- Reaction score
- 51
- Points
- 530
GAP said:
Yet, it does not address Married Service Couples. We fall neither into para 3 (those on Imposed Restriction - we're not IR), nor are we considered under para 4 (those on short-term assignments and trg less than 1 year) who can go TD or attach posted instead, nor do we fall under para 5 (BTL).
We are still lost in limbo.
Very happy to see the addressing of the situation for the other pers though, but will my Orderly Room take this newest CANFORGEN as "this one isn't applicable to you and therefore the old CANFORGEN still stands as you fall into none of the categories it addresses?" As this CANFORGEN reads, I am not subject to it and therefore I get to lose my benefits, though forced apart, on 01 Sept 12.
Someone, someone please tell the powers that be that MSCs are NOT "IR" --- someone is not grasping that concept and our situation keeps getting missed.
:facepalm:
- Reaction score
- 51
- Points
- 530
MCG said:
That is exactly where MSCs fall in. According to the latest CANFORGEN, it is us only who will be subject to cuts on 01 Sept 12 because it does nothing to address/mitigate us. I knew my career manager forgot I existed and had a family (unless they "must" post either one of us in the middle of the winter) ... now I just feel like the CF has forgotten that we exist too. Nice.
- Reaction score
- 13,107
- Points
- 1,010
Vern,
My recommendation is that you write a memo to your CO, explaining your problem and concerns. Hopefully, by Feb, the CoC can come up with a MSC solution, as well.
My recommendation is that you write a memo to your CO, explaining your problem and concerns. Hopefully, by Feb, the CoC can come up with a MSC solution, as well.
- Reaction score
- 51
- Points
- 530
SeaKingTacco said:
I will address through my OR to DCBA as soon as I get back to work this morning to obtain info on how they plan to treat MSC on 01 Sept. As I read it, we lose our benefits then - not on 01 Feb. as the new CANFORGEN does not mitigate or address us.
- Reaction score
- 13,107
- Points
- 1,010
Ahh. Good point.
Good luck Vern.
Good luck Vern.
- Reaction score
- 22,154
- Points
- 1,090
If I understand correctly, as a member of a MSC you are posted prohibited to your new place of duty. The SE CBI includes you in its elgibility definition - CBI 208.997(3)(e):
(e) the move of the member’s (D)HG&E at public expense to the new place of duty is, for service reasons, prohibited or restricted, in accordance with orders or instructions issued by the Chief of the Defence Staff;
(e) the move of the member’s (D)HG&E at public expense to the new place of duty is, for service reasons, prohibited or restricted, in accordance with orders or instructions issued by the Chief of the Defence Staff;
- Reaction score
- 268
- Points
- 780
I was discussing how I thought the impact of this ruling was unfair to MSCs with an admin colleague of mine, when he said something that made me stop and think. He said,
"How is a married service couple different than anyone else who decides on IR?" My first response was that they have no choice in the matter, the military is forcing them apart. He then said something I had never put into context before:
"They both choose to have a military career, and must accept being separated as a consequence. Other spouses don't get the option to have a full career if they have to follow their military spouse around. If the civilian spouse wants a career and can't move with the member, how is that different than MSCs?"
And to be honest, when I thought about it in that context, he is right. MSC's are no different than normal couples who both have careers. Either one or the other has to make the sacrifice, or they have live with the new regulations being brought in.
However, I do agree with Vern in that if everyone else is being given until 1 Feb to reevaluate their situation, so should MSCs.
"How is a married service couple different than anyone else who decides on IR?" My first response was that they have no choice in the matter, the military is forcing them apart. He then said something I had never put into context before:
"They both choose to have a military career, and must accept being separated as a consequence. Other spouses don't get the option to have a full career if they have to follow their military spouse around. If the civilian spouse wants a career and can't move with the member, how is that different than MSCs?"
And to be honest, when I thought about it in that context, he is right. MSC's are no different than normal couples who both have careers. Either one or the other has to make the sacrifice, or they have live with the new regulations being brought in.
However, I do agree with Vern in that if everyone else is being given until 1 Feb to reevaluate their situation, so should MSCs.
Eye In The Sky
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 3,780
- Points
- 1,160
captloadie said:
I'll have to respectfully disagree (and I am married but not a MSC). In the case of MSCs, they are seperated only because they could not be posted to the same geo area. A mbr's civilian spouse has a choice to move/not move, and although the MSC *technically* have that choice as well, the MSC mbr who refuses their posting now has their COS date changed to their release date.
That, to me, is a huge difference.
- Reaction score
- 51
- Points
- 530
captloadie said:
I too have heard this and I will tell you how we are different:
I 100% agree that the exengencies of the service must come first, and that MSCs will be posted together if possible. That's the rule.
We are different. With a MSC, career managers have found their answer to filling positions in the middle of the winter when someone in a must fill position CFRs or releases. They can, and do, post either of us to that required location in the middle of Feb simply because we can not say "no" or run to a social worker and get a "family must stay together or be compassionate for reason X" status assigned. And, to be sure, the CF is the beneficiary of BOTH of our employment - not just one member of our family. They have TWO members of this family they can, and do, send anywhere, anytime, for whatever. No other family in the CF is going to move/break up their family in the middle of the winter --- one quick trip to a social worker would put a stop to that. We ... are the perfect couple to mitigate that as we can not do SFA about it occuring to us unlike every other family in the CF. Us MSC who are posted apart are EXACTLY the people who DO do our jobs IAW CF policy, whereever, whenever and for whatever; we are posted apart precisely because we are both doing our jobs exactly as the CF requires of us both. A pers with a civ spouse is not in that category.
As well, according to the rule, if they must post us apart, then they must; I agree.
BUT, "must" they post us apart when he is posted to Pet and they are telling me they can not post me there ( a Sup tech!!??) when 2 pers same rank and trade as I am have been sitting in Pet 12+ years? Nope, it's not that they MUST post us apart, it's that the other 2 12+ers are getting to remain static for at least another year at my families expense, once again because I am 1/2 of an MSC and can not do SFA about it.
And, is it really "service requirements" dictate it be so when they send me to Borden instead ... and the guy living just up from me is also there and posted apart from his spouse because he is also 1/2 of a MSC ... he and my husband are same trade and rank as each other. His wife and I are both Sup Tech MWOs. His wife and my husband were both posted in Pet. He and I were both unaccompanied in Borden. How the fuck that does make sense? How is that cost effective to the CF? Yet, someone wants to argue that "service requirements made it so?" My ass.
Vern, I think that is just a case of career managers being lazy. There is no reason for you to be in that situation. However higher ranking members who are part of a MSC will probably end up posted apart more often because of the smaller amount of positions but that doesn't seem to be an issue in your case.
Similar threads
