Benefits Cut...

[armyvern]

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.

Thanks, but this is the 4th of my career. Rank has SFA to do with it either. There are 8 of me in Pet.

If they want to say we are the same as "any other couple", and hold mefinancially responsible for it, then they need to come up with a policy whereby MSCs like myself are not suffering through this 4 times with a "your COS date is your release date if you don't do it the 5th time" while other members are sitting in spots 12+ years or never doing an IR in their career and yet they are not being told to "get out" like we MSC are.

24 years in. 11 pack my shit up and move postings. 4 of them IR. Who is the one who's not really willing to do their job? It ain't me and by default it sure as hell ain't my spouse either. I'm tired of hearing the, "Oh well, you're an MSC so this is part of your job" bullshit ... when it only seems to be part of some of the jobs of some of us to be posted - IR, unaccompanied or not.

 

[dapaterson]

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.

Obviously, the solution is for the CF to start filiming a reality TV series called "IR Wife Swap" where you & the other Sup Tech's husband become a couple, and the same with your husband and the other Sup Tech.

 

[armyvern]

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;

Yes, that's the correct CBI for us.

We were revoked these benefits on the original CANFORGEN 145/12 (CBI 208 entire was ref D of that CANFORGEN).

This CANFORGEN does not mitigate or delay our group.

 

[armyvern]

Obviously, the solution is for the CF to start filiming a reality TV series called "IR Wife Swap" where you & the other Sup Tech's husband become a couple, and the same with your husband and the other Sup Tech.

No one else would put up with my antics for long; trust me.  >

 

[dapaterson]

Yes, that's the correct CBI for us.

We were revoked these benefits on the original CANFORGEN 145/12 (CBI 208 entire was ref D of that CANFORGEN).

This CANFORGEN does not mitigate or delay our group.

Para 2 of the new CANFORGEN (159/12) delays the implementation of para 5 of 145/12 until 01 Feb 13.  While para 3 of 159/12 goes on to talk about folks on IR, the deferral is of implementation of the cancellation of meals & incidentals under SE.  As you're in receipt of SE, it should apply equally to you.

Longer term, though, I fully agree that the CF needs to be much more precise in the use of terms - IR is not SE, and prohibited posting is definitely not IR.

 

[armyvern]

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.

Chief Clerk seems to be in agreement with me; although revocation of these benefits occurred for MSCs in the original CANFORGEN, no mitigation/delay is included in the new CANFORGEN for unaccompanied or MSCs. CO will provide his input Tuesday morning, and it will be fired off to DCBA immediately afterwards.

As it stands at this Unit, after CC review, unaccompanied and MSC are still subject to cease of SE benefits on 01 Sept 12 as per the original CANFORGEN.

 

[armyvern]

Para 2 of the new CANFORGEN (159/12) delays the implementation of para 5 of 145/12 until 01 Feb 13.  While para 3 of 159/12 goes on to talk about folks on IR, the deferral is of implementation of the cancellation of meals & incidentals under SE.  As you're in receipt of SE, it should apply equally to you.

Longer term, though, I fully agree that the CF needs to be much more precise in the use of terms - IR is not SE, and prohibited posting is definitely not IR.

CC agrees that para 3 is caveated "IR" and therefore not applicable to MSC.

Longer term, the dudes who make this shit up need to sort this shit out. When even they are not aware of the categories they are affecting, addressing/not addressing and interchange the terminology at will ... it is a sad day.

With that, this 1/2 of a MSC is heading out to make her way home to the family for a much deserved long weekend with them; and lots of alcohol.

 

[captloadie]

I think I need to make what I was saying a little clearer. I am putting forward that being a MSC and being posted separately is a choice. And before you say, " Look idiot, I never had a choice, it was the career manager who had the choice." hear me out.

Vern, I'll use your case as an example. You are told one of you is being posted to X, and your spouse is staying put. Time of year is irrelevant. What are your options? Well, they are to go and be separated, so both careers stay in tact, or one of you releases and you stay together. Neither is the preferred solution, but they are your only choices, and they are personal decisions.

PO2 Bloggins' wife is civilian naval architect, who has a flourishing career in Halifax. PO2 Bloggins gets posted to Cold Lake where there is no opportunity (or positions) for his wife.  They have two options as well. One is to go on IR, and the other is for one of them to give up their career and stay together. Neither is the preferred solution, but they are the only choices and they are personal decisions.

So how do the two examples differ? They don't. We in the military often have a bias that civilian spouses can just pick up and follow their military spouses, because their careers aren't as important, or their not the main breadwinners. Then we say, oh, its not the same for MSCs, they don't have a choice.

And using the argument that my example is the exception to the rule holds no water, if you are going to say that everyone in uniform should be treated the same.

 

[bridges]

CC agrees that para 3 is caveated "IR" and therefore not applicable to MSC.

Longer term, the dudes who make this crap up need to sort this crap out. When even they are not aware of the categories they are affecting, addressing/not addressing and interchange the terminology at will ... it is a sad day.

With that, this 1/2 of a MSC is heading out to make her way home to the family for a much deserved long weekend with them; and lots of alcohol.

Sounds like you have a strong case.  Dapaterson makes some good points as well.  Often it falls to us, who experience the direct impact, to articulate this to the system - otherwise, how would it ever change?  It can be very stressful, but hopefully time well spent in the end, & it will benefit many others as well.     

This will get resolved one way or another.  Good luck & have a great weekend! 

 

[McG]

CC agrees that para 3 is caveated "IR" and therefore not applicable to MSC.

That is true, but it is para 2 within which the implementation is delayed until Feb.  Pers prohibited posted (including married service couples) and pers moved unaccompanied are covered by this delay of implementation.  It is simply that neither group has further or amplifying thoughts in the paragraphs that followed.  In otherwords, for these two groups there is a short term answer but there is not the hint of a long-term solution as there is with other groups.

You are covered by this brief reprieve, and hopefully the higher CoC can make more progress in the window of time created.

 

[armyvern]

I think I need to make what I was saying a little clearer. I am putting forward that being a MSC and being posted separately is a choice. And before you say, " Look idiot, I never had a choice, it was the career manager who had the choice." hear me out.

Vern, I'll use your case as an example. You are told one of you is being posted to X, and your spouse is staying put. Time of year is irrelevant. What are your options? Well, they are to go and be separated, so both careers stay in tact, or one of you releases and you stay together. Neither is the preferred solution, but they are your only choices, and they are personal decisions.

PO2 Bloggins' wife is civilian naval architect, who has a flourishing career in Halifax. PO2 Bloggins gets posted to Cold Lake where there is no opportunity (or positions) for his wife.  They have two options as well. One is to go on IR, and the other is for one of them to give up their career and stay together. Neither is the preferred solution, but they are the only choices and they are personal decisions.

So how do the two examples differ? They don't. We in the military often have a bias that civilian spouses can just pick up and follow their military spouses, because their careers aren't as important, or their not the main breadwinners. Then we say, oh, its not the same for MSCs, they don't have a choice.

And using the argument that my example is the exception to the rule holds no water, if you are going to say that everyone in uniform should be treated the same.

No, they are not the same. One of those couples doesn't get a "move or you are out". That other couple can visit the social worker and say, "I can not proceed on this posting due to kids' schooling or wife's job/education" ... and the social worker will recommend no or delay of posting and the CoC will, most likely, support that delay due to their factors.

Even if same factors exist for a MSC (kids' schooling etc), we are told, "well, too bad, you are going as you are 1/2 of a MSC" and if you don't like it - get out. Been there and done that. How come the guy/gal married to the civvie can stay/not move in February due to his kids' being in school yet that is not acceptable for an MSC whose kids are also in school? Can't his wife look after the kids' schooling just as my Svc spouse can? Why not? Yet, that guy married to the civvie with the kids in school is rarely (I've never heard of a case) even asked told to move in February let alone told to GTFO if he doesn't like it.

 

[Jed]

Me being on the outside of this see the difference between a MSC and the other variant, one service spouse and one civi spouse. The difference IMO, is not all that great.

The significant fact is that a MSC has the same employer, the CF, with very rigid employment criteria. The civi spouse will most likely have a different employer with less rigid criteria and with possible recourse through normal legal or Charter of Rights avenues, which is not really an option for someone in the CF.

As always, the most affected people are the children in the family unit. It is very difficult to bring up a family with both partners concurrently serving full time in the CF. (Actively as Reg or Class C or B Res)

 

[captloadie]

The point I was trying to make originally was why do we think our chosen career is more important than anybody elses, and if we expect non military spouses to give up a career, maybe we should expect the same of military spouses, or live with the consequences of personal choice - which may be to GTFO.

By the way, I don't agree with the changes that have been made. I think that when members are sperated from families for valid, approved reasons (personal or not), then IR and SE benefits should be provided, for a limited time (which for MSCs might be the duration of a posting).

For EITS - If you disagree with an opinion and want to deduct milpoints, at least have the balls to post it online.

 

[armyvern]

The point I was trying to make originally was why do we think our chosen career is more important than anybody elses, and if we expect non military spouses to give up a career, maybe we should expect the same of military spouses, or live with the consequences of personal choice - which may be to GTFO.
...

I'd agree with that ... if it were applicable to each and every serving member who's asked to move in the middle of the winter, but the fact of the matter is they come after MSCs to do that or the f'n jobs in spots that no one else will go to. It's either 1/2 of a MSC or the single guy with no dependents in school. But, they never even ask the other married couples to do that ergo those members never get the "or GTFO" in this case.

It is also a fact that the higher in rank one goes, the more often this may be applicable due to the fact that posting positions usually become a mere 2 year stint. It is cheaper for the CF (and ergo the taxpayer) to post 1/2 of a MSC away for that 2 years than it is to post anybody cost move for a mere two years. And, that is an even more cheaper option for them now that they've taken away our SE. Think they don't consider that as well? They do. MSC are really f'd now the way I see it.

I am well aware that I can GTFO captloadie - you are preaching to the choir.  No worries, I will finally be pensionable on 13 Jan 2013. I am in a one-of position and am also the A/QM as they've left that position unfilled this year for some ungawdly reason. My 9erD is also a one-of. Who do you think careers is going to go after this time to fill our positions in January? Someone married to a civvy? NOPE. They'll have to find two 1/2s of married service couples to fill those one-of spots. Then, their positions will have to be filled in January by another MSC etc etc etc. I wish them well.

Or do I get to say to careers, "stuff your posting ... I'll certainly go id service requirements dictate it must be so, but right now they don't as you haven't asked MWO X who has 13 years in location to go, nor have you asked the gal married to the civvy whose kids are in school. It's their turn, not mine."??

 

[4Feathers]

Given that all benefits are set by the Treasury Board, and that there have been, to my knowledge, no meetings of the Treasury Board since June, the CF has no legal authority to delay any of the changes.

Any CANFORGENs may address mitigations of the announced changes; any alterations to timelines are outside the authority of the CDS and Deputy Minister of National Defence.

Again, like I said previously, the amendment has arrived and it pertains to the timing of the implementation.  :cheers:

 

[dapaterson]

Again, like I said previously, the amendment has arrived and it pertains to the timing of the implementation.  :cheers:

Yep, and like I said, DND/CF couldn't do it on their own:

TREASURY BOARD HAS APPROVED DELAYING THE IMPLEMENTATION OF REF A PARA 5 AND PARA 6.B UNTIL 1 FEB 13

 

[4Feathers]

Given that all benefits are set by the Treasury Board, and that there have been, to my knowledge,[size=12pt] no meetings of the Treasury Board since June[/size], the CF has no legal authority to delay any of the changes.

Well I guess they had a meeting without your knowledge. The CF if in constant contact with TB, only requires approval of the TB Secretary to get amended, no meeting required. Bottom line is the Brass realized they did a "my bad" on this issue and have now taken the big step to make it a little more right.

 

[Jarnhamar]

Does this mean a member on imposed restriction (Ir) can continue to get meals from the kitchen and not pay out of pocket for it?

 

[PuckChaser]

Does this mean a member on imposed restriction (Ir) can continue to get meals from the kitchen and not pay out of pocket for it?

Until 1 Feb 13, sounds like it.

 

[Jarnhamar]

Until 1 Feb 13, sounds like it.

Sweet! Unwavering faith in the chain of command pays off.