Bridger said:
Being a married member on prohibited posting (currently on PAT) I've benefited from two of the biggest benefits being cut; and quite frankly they're going to hurt... That said, I'm not opposed to what they're doing.
It would appear they're still going to pay for my quarters and maybe some duplicate expenses (as they should, I'm not separated by choice); but I'm very concerned about the cost of rations. I'm not against paying for rations, fair enough, I'm not currently paying to feed myself at home or otherwise... My concern (like others) is the cost... I used to budget about $200/month to feed myself at home, I ate well enough, it was reasonable. Unfortunatly $200 is a far cry from the $500+ being charged to eat at the mess; and I don't seem to have a choice with regards to paying for that.
Forgive me for sounding like an absolute noob to the CF (because I am), but is there anyway to get the message accross to the decision makers that more reasonable options are needed?
I'm okay with losing the SE payments (sucks, but sacrifices must be made), I'm even okay with paying something for my food; but they need to compensate for the difference in cost...
Bridger, 'noob' or not, you have stated well the challenges that the majority of those policy-abiding folks on IR will experience, including as a number of us have also said, contributing a reasonable portion of costs incurred by the CF to provide services in the IR location. The impact to members on IR will be significant and does have a clearly quantifiable effect on CF members' family budgets. It is even worse when you consider that the money you will be paying is "post-tax", and how much "pre-tax" equivalent of your overall salary is effectively used supporting continued IR/restricted postings. Depending on a member's tax bracket, that $543 can be as much as $900-1000/month of one's pre-tax salary, certainly not an insignificant impact to the member.
Jay4th said:
...So the way I see it, I'm out $860 bucks. Please point out to me how I was abusing the system, or how any of this was really my choice. I know several Sgts, for whom driving home to see their kids will literally take food from their mouths.
Jay4th, you are in no way abusing the system, but are in fact absolutely representative of a significant number of members being put demonstrably in a financially strained situation by the CF due to the service's primary needs. $800-900/month of anyone's disposable income is a HUGE amount, and is particularly difficult to swallow when it comes from a situation that the CF (via the CMs) recommended to you to help resolve its operational/personnel situation in Wainright. My numbers are similar to yours and I'm not overly thrilled with the prospect of paying close to $20,000 over the next 22 months, but the policy changes have also made a move even costlier, so it's the lesser of two evils for me... :-\
I'm likely not the only one who has done so, but I can tell you that I have already submitted a quantitative and qualitative assessment through my chain of command regarding the impact on my unit's personnel on IR and I included a number of COAs that could be pursued to mitigate the impact of these changes, including phasing of benefit reductions or adjustment to CF rations policies that would still conform to TB directives.
I agree that there definitely need to be meaningful options now provided to CF members on IR regarding rations. For example, the application of a blanket, mandatorily-linked (to quarters) rations charge is in many (or most) cases unreasonable.
Being on IR myself, I can say that I probably eat less than half my meals at the mess, the balance being either a light breakfast that I can provide in my (ant-infested) room in the barracks to "after mess hours" meals on the local economy [...since I don't have accommodations that conform to the TB directives re: meal preparation - CF would probably say "we provide you rations on base, so you're not entitled to a room that has food storage/prep/cooking facilities..."] I have no doubt that if given a "pay-as-you-go" per meal option, I would not even come close to $543/month of meals consumed.
I'm not sure it applies exactly to the situation of a CF member on IR, but there certainly is reason to investigate the different rates that even the National Joint Council states for rations vs. meals:
http://www.njc-cnm.gc.ca/directive/index.php?sid=134&lang=eng - Appendix I to the NJC Isolated Posting and Government Housing Directive
Effective date: 01.08.2012
When employees and their dependents (if any) are provided with meals or rations by or on behalf of the employer, they shall be charged:
a. 310.52 dollars per month per person aged 12 years and over for rations
or
b. 543.41 dollars per month per person aged 12 years and over for meals
and
c. one-half of the rates referred to in paragraph a. or b. per person under the age of 12 years.
I was unable to identify the difference between rations and meals, but it would appear there is an existing NJC directive (the Public Service's 'bible' for stating in plain-speak the applicable TB policies) that the CF could use to adjust the costs it is going to charge CF members on IR, i.e. charge them $310 instead of the $543 we have been told we'll be paying after 1 Sep.
It would also be interesting to see if the CF would accept "reverse abatement" on rations, i.e. reduce your ration charge for days that you have traveled to return to your family...after all, the SE benefits were abated for any period you returned to your principle residence...fair's fair, after all.
The irony regarding IR cancellation of benefits is that there is a particular group (likely the LARGEST group?) that will not be affected proportionately as much as others, i.e. those members on IR in the NCR, for whom there are no available DND rations and quarters available. They will continue to get up to the maximum of $1600/month commercial accommodation + $100/month parking, so their out of pocket costs only be the food they actually eat, as they will no longer receive the 75% incidentals and 65% of the
NJC Travel Directive - Annex C Allowances dinner meal rate equating to $26.55/day.
Those being affected to the greatest degree are pretty much anyone NOT in the NCR, in that the CF provides rations and quarters pretty much to everyone else. These members go from being provided R&Q and the SE incidentals ($13 per unabated day) to having to pay $543/month (unless the CF allows 'de-linking' rations (or more accurately a mandatory meal plan) from the provision of quarters). Furthermore, as Jay4th mentioned in his post, where the incidentals generally offset, either partially or wholly, the weekend travel back to their families, this travel now becomes directly out-of-pocket expense. This is where the difference lies between those who feel that some members on IR were "counting on" additional income in the form of the IR benefits, and the reality that will be true out of pocket costs, particularly unfortunate for those CF members who had little or no choice in their situation.
As well, for the record (confirm-able by a search of this thread), the only people who have actually said "suck it up," are those saying that others have said it, which they hadn't. There is a difference between some of us saying, "it is what it is...let's find ways to deal with it" and a "suck it up" which no one has said themselves to others of the situation.
None of us in any of the situations resulting from the upcoming policy change is thrilled with the prospects of the significant financial impact it will entail and all the warm fuzzy "world-renowned benefits and compensation" of Para 2 of the CANFORGEN will do little if anything to remedy the situations. This policy will no doubt force some CF members to make life influencing decisions and that is very unfortunate, but
as alluded to earlier, much of what went on in arbitrating whatever will come in future amended CBIs was conducted in Cabinet Confidence and so it is unfair in my opinion for people to accuse CF leadership of doing nothing to shield potentially affected CF members.
What will help is if members continue to provide suggestions and options through their respective chains of command for mitigating the situation so that lower-level workable plans can be developed to address the issues.
Regards
G2G
*edited for spelling/grammar*
And we will survive, not happily but it's doable.
