Benefits Cut...

[McG]

Thanks!  I misunderstood that then.  I thought there might have been another component besides rent.

There might be.  It depends on the type of accommodation.  You need to consult the CBI.

 

[newwifey]

There might be.  It depends on the type of accommodation.  You need to consult the CBI.

Thank you!!
I'll have hubby check that when he arrives at his destination 

 

[TCM621]

I'm a little surprised that nothing has hit the news about this. I almost want to "accidentally" email this thread to the CBC. Except I hate the CBC. Hopefully now that the Olympics are done maybe this will get picked up.

 

[newwifey]

I'm a little surprised that nothing has hit the news about this. I almost want to "accidentally" email this thread to the CBC. Except I hate the CBC. Hopefully now that the Olympics are done maybe this will get picked up.

If you look back, I believe the first Canforgen was released, then a news release came out for more funding for homeless vets.  Coincidence??

Today, the Q&A came out clarifying(????) that Canforgen AND an announcement for all the Goose Bay infrastructure.

It's been buried on purpose, me thinks.....

And IF this did hit the news, you have to be careful.  The general public, I think, would be in favour of you paying for food (maybe not $543 worth) but paying nonetheless. Nor will they care that you locked in your mortgage prior to transfers or your pets.....double edged sword.....

I'd be super happy if the ones abusing IR were outed tho  8)

 

[brihard]

I'm a little surprised that nothing has hit the news about this. I almost want to "accidentally" email this thread to the CBC. Except I hate the CBC. Hopefully now that the Olympics are done maybe this will get picked up.

The general public will be entirely unsympathetic. The benefits of CF members put just about everything else to shame. This would immediately get spun as self-entitled soldiers whining about the gravy train slowing down a tad.

 

[Strike]

Actually, there was a certain journalist who shall not be named who wrote a piece on this, as well as a follow-up. Said follow-up included several very unsympathetic letters from readers.

 

[armyvern]

Actually, there was a certain journalist who shall not be named who wrote a piece on this, as well as a follow-up. Said follow-up included several very unsympathetic letters from readers.

That's all well and good, however, this very site (and CBC article comments) evidences how little average Canadians are actually aware of the full facts and implications. The CBC comments are prime examples of hatred, warranted or not, exists for the CF (and sometimes it's members).

I'd be pissed too if I were an average Canadian and was being given the impression that CF SE benefits are amongst "the best out there" (not when compared to other fed employees they aren't). I'd also be pissed too if I were given the impression that CF member's make this as a lifestyle choice and that they pay for it as taxpayers - not knowing, nor is the CF and TB acknowledging, that there are TWO distinct classes of people in this benefit boat - those who the government dictates must be separated from their families due to needs of the service and those who choose to be separated from their families for whatever reason.

Telling me to eat that cost now is all well and noble and I'm willing to do my part - provided that same trade/same rank person is forced to leave his base to make room for a reunification of my family first and foremost. Please publish the official announcements of reductions of these much higher benefits for my fellow public servants so that I know it's not deficit reduction on the backs of those who can not strike and have no choice. I haven't heard a peep from any other SE benefit reductions for other departments though ...

I once proceeded on a prohibited posting away from my family because my predecessor was arrested, charged with fraud and eventually court martialed (after he released). I moved on a weeks notice - in February - because that was a critical fill and one-of position in a province. This is exactly the situations where Career Managers love Married Service Couples as no member with a family and kids in school is going to uproot his family in February and move "because that would be detrimental to their family". A MSC however has no choice - they can post either of us wherever they want whether it is also detrimental to our families too or not.

Guess what answer careers will get from me next time (4th IR)? "NO. Nyet. Not when it's going to cost me money out of my pocket and mess with my family again so someone else's doesn't get messed with. It's their turn, not mine."

If this is caused by the CF requiring to reduce benefit expenditures by 10% due to budget constraints, then cut benefits by 10% across the board. 10 % of PLD, LDA, Sea Pay, SE, mileage claims, etc etc ... do not do it on the backs of some of us who have no choice. That's fair isn't it? Let all of us CF pers do our part? But oh so many more people would complain about something like that occurring - even the ones who would be in this thread telling others that's just the way it is because right now it just isn't applicable to them.

 

[Scoobs]

The Q&A that came out is simply damage control.  The grown ups have obviously heard the gripes.  If they didn't, then the Q&A wouldn't have been put out. 

I can foresee some of the following consequences of these decisions:
-pers refusing to be posted.  Yes, I don't agree with this, but I can foresee more of this occurring.  And yes, there are ways to deal with this (before anybody preaches to me);
-some pers decide to leave the CF;
-more people do everything they can to stay where they are rather than be posted;
-a negative impact on morale;
-grievances; and
-etc.

I do not promote or advocate any of the above.  I am simply stating that these are possible outcomes.

Also, I find it interesting that none of the Q&A talks about the piss poor timing of the adjustments.  I honestly believe that if this would have been better planned (most people can't argue that doing this after the APS is good for anyone), the troops would have been able to make their decisions as to IR, moving, etc, with ALL of the info in hand.  Sure, you will always get someone who complains, but at least they wouldn't have been able to complain that they weren't given advance notice.  As a leader, it bothers me how this was implemented.  I honestly would like to see an explanation from our leaders why these changes are being implemented after the APS?  I'm not debating the merits of the changes (for full disclosure I do not agree with all of them).  Rather, to me, it is a matter of timing and fairness to our pers.

Also, a word of caution about the "claiming some of the personalized funding costs on income tax".  Pay close attention that MLI is NOT, I say again, NOT, claimable on income tax.  I moved last APS and when doing taxes, did the research and determined that MLI is not claimable.  You will note that the Q&A conveniently leaves this rather important detail out.

 

[Baz]

And you continue to miss the point of FSP.  It is an incentive, to make foreign postings attractive.

CBI Chapter 10 - Military Foreign Service Instructions
10.14.02 - FOREIGN SERVICE PREMIUM
10.14.02(1) (Intent) The Foreign Service Premium (FSP) is an allowance payable to a member:
a.in recognition of foreign service and, as such, recognizes that there are disutilities and disincentives, some of which may be financial, resulting from service outside Canada; and
b.to cover expenses not specifically covered by other allowances and benefits.
http://www.cmp-cpm.forces.gc.ca/dgcb-dgras/pub/cbi-dra/10-eng.asp

It is not an incentive, in the stictest word; more importantly, it is not just an incentive. There is also PLA, which is meant to equalize cost of living.  Since every member is different it is impossible to create a benefit system that everyone will see as fair, especially as a lot of people think that someone else getting a benefit due to particular circumstances that they don't get is somehow unfair.


However, the basic issue stands.  The lack of warning means that some members will lose more than if they had been given a chance to plan for it.  That in itself will be a disatisfier for those members effected.

I think we all know that the cuts were forced upon us (for probably the right reasons), and the CF has been reacting to try to minimize the effects (as the organization sees them as a whole).

 

[Dovely74]

My husband is in Borden while on his QL3. In his class, out of the other personnel with dependants, he is the only one affected by the new changes as others are either TD or their dependants are with them.

Husband explained how TD is not the same as IR, but one has to wonder why the personnel on TD do not have to pay rations, while those on IR (as in fresh out of BMQ, priv 1 pay) do... Please understand that I am not saying that they should be charged the cost of rations. This is so confusing.

As for us, we'll suck it up, but I can't say that we planned the 583$ reduction in income (cost of rations) when he first joined in September last year. After 2 years of careful research, planning, etc., making sure we could afford his changing his career to a career in the CF. 

With the new rules...If they allow us to move now... we'll pay the mortgage penalty (his class ends Feb. Mortgage ends March. Yes we had planned it like that to avoid incurring a big loss.) If we wait till his class ends, we ultimately have to deal with a loss of income of $583/m for 6-7 months.  We lose money either way.  Sorry to whine and I know I will get no pity, but this is a bitter pill to swallow.

 

[Occam]

As for us, we'll suck it up, but I can't say that we planned the 583$ reduction in income (cost of rations) when he first joined in September last year. After 2 years of careful research, planning, etc., making sure we could afford his changing his career to a career in the CF. 

I was commenting to someone else last night that those personnel who are still in the initial trades training grinder (or worse, on PATs awaiting training) and enrolled with the knowledge that they would be provided free R&Q if they maintained a primary residence elsewhere just had a massive bait and switch fraud pulled on them.

I doubt that would pass the Globe and Mail test.

 

[Blacklab]

"CBI Chapter 10 - Military Foreign Service Instructions
10.14.02 - FOREIGN SERVICE PREMIUM
10.14.02(1) (Intent) The Foreign Service Premium (FSP) is an allowance payable to a member:
a.in recognition of foreign service and, as such, recognizes that there are disutilities and disincentives, some of which may be financial, resulting from service outside Canada; and
b.to cover expenses not specifically covered by other allowances and benefits.
http://www.cmp-cpm.forces.gc.ca/dgcb-dgras/pub/cbi-dra/10-eng.asp

It is not an incentive, in the strictest word"

Semantics.

FSD 56: "Foreign Service Premium is provided as an incentive to foreign service and as such recognizes that there are disutilities and disincentives, some of which may be financial, resulting from service outside Canada. "

 

[FishingFanatic]

Reading the first few pages of this thread I feel obliged to contribute my situation to compare and received any advice or opinions on these cuts.

I am currently posted to CFSCE at CFB Kingston (owning a home/paying the bills/meals on the table etc etc). My wife recently graduated basic training and was sent to CFB Bordon to join the ranks of PRETC while awaiting her training to be an RMS Clerk. She was recently informed she is going to be forced to pay rations and will be loosing her separation entitlement. Other than joining the forces this was by no means a decision she made, she was forced into this as part of the training system the military forces you through for the first (approx) year of your career. Honestly I agree cuts are necessary and we should all share the pain of helping the Canadian government reduce the deficit and create jobs for those in need. But this doesn't make sense for me, sure take away the separation expense but force her to pay rations where a portion of her pay is putting food on the table at home? Or at the very least give her an option to buy what she feels she needs be it out of the mess or at a local Tim Horton's.

Thanks for listening, enjoy your day, solider on, VVV

 

[TCM621]

Reading the first few pages of this thread I feel obliged to contribute my situation to compare and received any advice or opinions on these cuts.

I am currently posted to CFSCE at CFB Kingston (owning a home/paying the bills/meals on the table etc etc). My wife recently graduated basic training and was sent to CFB Bordon to join the ranks of PRETC while awaiting her training to be an RMS Clerk. She was recently informed she is going to be forced to pay rations and will be loosing her separation entitlement. Other than joining the forces this was by no means a decision she made, she was forced into this as part of the training system the military forces you through for the first (approx) year of your career. Honestly I agree cuts are necessary and we should all share the pain of helping the Canadian government reduce the deficit and create jobs for those in need. But this doesn't make sense for me, sure take away the separation expense but force her to pay rations where a portion of her pay is putting food on the table at home? Or at the very least give her an option to buy what she feels she needs be it out of the mess or at a local Tim Horton's.

Thanks for listening, enjoy your day, solider on, VVV

As screwed as I am by this, service couples who are forced to seperate postings are getting even more screwed than I am. Hope this works out for you.

 

[armyvern]

Your husband therefore falls into the category of "Prohibited Move". By force, not by choice.

My husband is in Borden while on his QL3. In his class, out of the other personnel with dependants, he is the only one affected by the new changes as others are either TD or their dependants are with them.

Husband explained how TD is not the same as IR, but one has to wonder why the personnel on TD do not have to pay rations, while those on IR (as in fresh out of BMQ, priv 1 pay) do... Please understand that I am not saying that they should be charged the cost of rations. This is so confusing.

As for us, we'll suck it up, but I can't say that we planned the 583$ reduction in income (cost of rations) when he first joined in September last year. After 2 years of careful research, planning, etc., making sure we could afford his changing his career to a career in the CF. 

With the new rules...If they allow us to move now... we'll pay the mortgage penalty (his class ends Feb. Mortgage ends March. Yes we had planned it like that to avoid incurring a big loss.) If we wait till his class ends, we ultimately have to deal with a loss of income of $583/m for 6-7 months.  We lose money either way.  Sorry to whine and I know I will get no pity, but this is a bitter pill to swallow.

You and your wife are a Married Service Couple falling under the "Prohibited Move" area. By force, not by choice.

Reading the first few pages of this thread I feel obliged to contribute my situation to compare and received any advice or opinions on these cuts.

I am currently posted to CFSCE at CFB Kingston (owning a home/paying the bills/meals on the table etc etc). My wife recently graduated basic training and was sent to CFB Bordon to join the ranks of PRETC while awaiting her training to be an RMS Clerk. She was recently informed she is going to be forced to pay rations and will be loosing her separation entitlement. Other than joining the forces this was by no means a decision she made, she was forced into this as part of the training system the military forces you through for the first (approx) year of your career. Honestly I agree cuts are necessary and we should all share the pain of helping the Canadian government reduce the deficit and create jobs for those in need. But this doesn't make sense for me, sure take away the separation expense but force her to pay rations where a portion of her pay is putting food on the table at home? Or at the very least give her an option to buy what she feels she needs be it out of the mess or at a local Tim Horton's.

Thanks for listening, enjoy your day, solider on, VVV

Both of your situations are representative of those in this situation "by force" and certainly not "True IR = By Choice". Exactly that situation highlighted by the cold hard fact that you are prohibited by force of your employer (the CF) from being co-located with your respective families at this time. Your are, in fact, separated from them due to bonified requirements of the service's best interests and not of your own volition.

You are separated from them due to the exact same factors causing a troop on exercise in the field to be separated from his, yet that troop will not pay rations. I recognize the difference between yourselves and those who are "Imposed Restricted". I am also one of you.

Myself, and a few more have already started collecting references, files, and precedents of those who will continue to receive free R&Q while on course, in the field etc (and who are thus incurring no expenses at home either for these things) but whom are not affected by this change. The arguement is, that in effect, we are now being discriminated against monetarily due to (separated family status) a situation the CF itself has forced us into dictated we shall live like while others (field etc) who are also of a separated family status by force will not be required to "pay" as we will be.

 

[Towards_the_gap]

...you just know they'll end up charging those who live out for rations on exercise/course.

 

[armyvern]

...you just know they'll end up charging those who live out for rations on exercise/course.

Yet, isn't that how it should be then? If the reason we who are separated "by force" now have to pay is because "we aren't maintaining those expenses at home", then the exact same thing is applicable to those in the field etc.

It all sucks. But it should suck equally and fairly for all of us in the same "forced apart" situation ... not just the group with fewest to vocalize dissatisfaction.

It's kind of like being tossed under the bus; exactly what the CF has just done to it's members on Prohibited Postings. Some of those who would stand to lose if charged rations while in the field etc have been some of those same pers who wandered in here with comments saying "learn to like, or leave it" then (not attributable to any one pers or any direct quote, just based on some of the comments).

Thing is, who is the next step after us "forced" members if we don't stick up for ourselves? Simply the next guy in line who finds himself being charged for rations while in the field after the next round of cuts --- and they wouldn't have a leg to stand on as then the powers that be would claim, "but Prohibited Posted members forced apart from their families have been forced to pay rations and there was no uproar from or for them, so learn to like it or leave".

Do I think that troops in the field should be paying rations - 200% "no", as they are forcefully separated, exactly the same as Prohibted Posted personnel are; NEITHER group should incur costs due to a forceful separation from their DF&E that the CF has dictated will occur.

 

[Gunner98]

I agree Vern, fair is fair - troops forced to pay for ration cards should be provided free meals in the field.  Those living with their families should pack a brown bag lunch or cooler for the longer exercises or pay as they eat.  There should be no free lunch for anyone!

 

[Jay4th]

Vern is absolutely right!  This sword MUST cut both ways, or not cut at all.  If the reasoning truly is "Mbr would be incurring food costs at home" or some such thing, then it stands to reason that we should all pay for food, all the time, since we would be incurring food costs if we were at home.  This needs to apply on courses, TD, exercises, travel, etc.  This is far from ideal, but it is FAIR.

 

[Sub_Guy]

I agree Vern, fair is fair - troops forced to pay for ration cards should be provided free meals in the field.  Those living with their families should pack a brown bag lunch or cooler for the longer exercises or pay as they eat.  There should be no free lunch for anyone!

So with that logic, do you expect a ships company to pay for all their meals while they are at sea?