I am a CAF member & I want better pay and benefits (a merged thread)

[Fishbone Jones]

Pete, don't take things so personal.

Nothing is going to get fixed anytime soon. Some people are going to have to make a choice.

Is it about what you do, or is it about money.

Different strokes for different folks is all.

 

[Brasidas]

Would it not make more sense to remove many, perhaps even most trades from the spec list and then apply spec pay only to that small fraction of CF trades that are in the most intense demand in the private sector?

I know it's heresy (and, waaaaay back, a half century ago I was a Group 3A tradesman when that level of trade's pay meant that a junior Gp3A corporal earned more than a middling senior Gp 3 sergeant) but shouldn't we aim to have no spec pay at all (maybe make a one time (taxable) payment on passing Gp 3 and Gp 4 course for selected trades) and pay everyone for a mix of technical skill, physical demands and risk? Why is an electronics technician worth (paid) more than an infantryman? I know the training is long and academically difficult, but, generally, the working conditions are a lot better ... and safer! (Once again, I speak from (very dated) experience, but I was both a Leading Infantryman and a Radio Mechanic ... I got paid a helluva lot more for being the latter, I'm not sure I deserved the extra pay based on just the technical/academic skills and knowledge.)

It would appear, the ones here anyway, that want spec pay, or more of it, seem to have one common premise.

That being, they want to be compensated based on what they do, what their training is and how much better their civie counterparts are doing.

Basically, saying they want more or else and blackmailing the CF to stay in that function, under threat of taking their free education and skills to the other side of the fence.

They are not here because it's a calling. They are not here out of patriotism. They are not here for any ideology, other than the almighty dollar.

Well, you have a choice. Nobody can make you do what you don't want to. There are always alternatives. Instead of bitching for more money, get out, hit the bricks and go get it.

That's all I have been able to glean and it might not be right. However, it's hard to hear because the whine is akin to being locked in a test cell with a jet engine run up.

I'm saying this as a guy who does not get spec pay.

Spec pay is supposed to encourage retention among troops who are trained in a specialty that they can easily walk in to a civilian workplace and receive an offer for a comparable position at more compensation than their trade in the military.

Telling them that they're not worth their spec pay, taking it away, and telling them to release if they're not happy about it means that there will be more of a drain on those trades - after they release, members of that trade will spend proportionally more time in the training system for less time being effective at their units.

Infantry and armour aren't in the same situation. Yes, there's been attrition in Edmonton with folks heading to Fort Mac for more cash, but regardless of the cost or duration of their courses, the military isn't effectively training them to take a civilian equivalent of their position.

The army sigs trades messed with with spec pay, promising to extend it to everyone. Instead, they effectively took it away from LCIS, with eternally-deferred "its still under review". There's more complications, with amalgamations and sub-occs and whatnot, but its led to plenty of releases and OT's to ATIS. The result is low morale, low trust, and fewer effective troops to perform the role.

Could a review of who gets spec pay be useful? Maybe, but it could be risky. A wholesale re-organization, stripping it and remaking it as an effective allowance ala special operations allowance for tough trades? I don't think so. Mr Campbell's suggestion sounds interesting, but it effectively trades retention of the trades that spec pay is designed to keep to retain combat arms and keep them from OTing.

With the course-completing bonus, everything's up front and the bonus at the end of the next course is the only carrot I'm seeing. A spec 1 warrant gets a bigger pension with the existing system, which encourages retention a lot more than a guy at the crossroads sticking it out to quit after their 6A's.

 

[RADOPSIGOPACCISOP]

The current government has made it exceedingly clear that the CAF is just a job. It's not special, there's no "social contract". They don't take care of their soldiers as they have done in the past.

I tell my subordinates not to take risks, not to rush things, not to try and lift anything over and above what the standards say. If they get injured the feds give them $10,000 lump sum and ask them to shut the door on the way out. It's awful.

The idea that people think this mentality isn't sinking in for the CAF is foolish. Many people are seeing it just as a job now, because their government tells them it is.

And thinking that the Public Service will fight our fight for us isn't neccessarily true. Remember the PS doesn't have the same benefits we do. They can and do regularly negociate for based on leave, sick leave, family leave, my wife is PS and her friend is highly involved with the union. The government might take wage concessions for leave concessions because the leave only benefits the PS and the wage concessions hit everyone CAF and RCMP. Throwing our lot in with them can work, unless they negociate based on benefits that don't apply to us.

Finally the piece about leading change. It's true, it is our responsiblilty to lead our soldiers through change, even bad change. That doesn't absolve us of the responsibilty to advocate for them and to push back on things when they're not fairly treated. Many things have changed in the CAF that isn't reflected in the slowly changing beauocracy. The quality of soldier I see joining today are better than what I seen when I joined. They're smarter, better educated (half of the guys I have coming have IT diplomas and quality real world experience), and more driven. I see a higher quality of work being done. They're joining for the adventure, and for the solid job security and good benefits for their families. If we want to keep seeing these kinds of recruits, we damn well better not start watering down those benefits.

Just because half of the people here suffered through the dark days of the mid 90s doesn't mean we ought to cheer the same thing happening to the people we are responsible for.

 

[Remius]

Finally the piece about leading change. It's true, it is our responsiblilty to lead our soldiers through change, even bad change. That doesn't absolve us of the responsibilty to advocate for them and to push back on things when they're not fairly treated. Many things have changed in the CAF that isn't reflected in the slowly changing beauocracy. The quality of soldier I see joining today are better than what I seen when I joined. They're smarter, better educated (half of the guys I have coming have IT diplomas and quality real world experience), and more driven. I see a higher quality of work being done. They're joining for the adventure, and for the solid job security and good benefits for their families. If we want to keep seeing these kinds of recruits, we damn well better not start watering down those benefits.

Just because half of the people here suffered through the dark days of the mid 90s doesn't mean we ought to cheer the same thing happening to the people we are responsible for.

Well I will agree that today's soldier is smarter and better educated.  I've seen it myself in the training system and during my time at recruiting.  But i also saw something else.  I saw the smarter, better education but I also saw the "me" generation.  The sense of entitlement without earning their wings.  Yes they have education and training but they rarely had time or experience.  They want to start at the top without working to get there.  They have the degree so they should be Majors when they start according to them.  I've seen the guy who has a qualification X and thinks that trumps the fact that he needs to be fit.  I've seen the IT guy layed off from Nortel who would rather be unemployed than accept secure emplyment at half the salary.  I've seen this newer type of soldier that does in fact think this is just a job but it started well before any benefits were cut (in fact they were increasing).  I've seen these bright, intelligent people who want to be coddled and given everythjing but don't want to put the effort into it.  And it isn't just the CF.  I've seen it civy side where young educated people with talent burn through their leave, sick leave and take LWOP before half the year is over lament their work situation and how awesome they think they are and underused.

This generation and even the last one has never really lived through any "real" hardship.  There are bumps in the road and individuals have their own hardships to deal with yes.  But as a whole Canada is a soft place to live and has been since the end of WW2.  You say they treat it like just a job because the government tells them it is, I say it's their attitude to begin with and to an extent their leadership that encourages that.  It wasn't the government that told me it was a calling or a job it was my section commander, platoon warrant and officers that showed it to me with their actions and their deeds, not what the liberals were doing 20 years ago and certainly not what the conservayives are doing now.

No one here is cheering the loss of benefits or the increase in cuts.  We keep saying that we are not the PS, that we are unique, that we are special.  What makes us special is how we handle the hard times.  Half of the people here that went through the dark days of the mid 90's as you put it, did that back then and will likely do it again this round.  They will handle it.  A lot didn't and they left.  And many of them came back (or tried) when times were better.  Says a lot about their character.  To each their own I guess but sometimes we need to look at ourselves first before we blame the world for our lot in life.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

:goodpost:

 

[TCM621]

First, re: Spec pay. In many cases, even with spec pay, people in specialist trades are still making significantly less then they could in the private sector. That extra pay is a reward for not running to the higher paying jobs, not an attempt at parity.

Second, CF members typically perform for one, or more, of three reasons: Pay, Promotion or Pride. I call it the 3P model of performance. Pride can carry you a long way but it is very hard to eat. We also don't have a great system to show our pride in our soldiers. Giving someone a medal takes an act of God and even then it may not get through the bureaucracy.
In many trades, promotions are hard to come by especially due to downsizing after Afghanistan.
Pay was crap, then is was good but now our pay isn't keeping up with inflation and pld is frozen cause more problems in certain areas like esquimalt and cold lake (to name only 2).

So right now, we have a situation where we tend to get and retain 2 types of people. We get the ones that will stay no matter how bad it gets because we love it and the ones who stay because they can't do anything else. Unfortunately, we can't survive with only the former and we can't excel relying on the latter. We need the guys and gals in the middle. The ones who have other options and will do the military thing as long as it isn't too much of a cost to their families. The lifers may be the backbone, but these people are the arms, legs, spleens, etc. that we need in order to be effective. That is why the old, "if you don't like it, quit" attitude can not be allowed to hold sway. We don't need to bow to their every desire but we do need to be cognizant of their needs. The plain fact is the military needs them more than they need the military.

I am a lifer. I will probably never quit. I have accepted that I will never be paid as much as people in the private sector. However, we can't stop fighting, within the bounds of the CSD, for better conditions. Just like we need good equipment, we need good conditions to recruit and keep good soldiers.

 

[RADOPSIGOPACCISOP]

Well I will agree that today's soldier is smarter and better educated.  I've seen it myself in the training system and during my time at recruiting.  But i also saw something else.  I saw the smarter, better education but I also saw the "me" generation.  The sense of entitlement without earning their wings.  Yes they have education and training but they rarely had time or experience.  They want to start at the top without working to get there.  They have the degree so they should be Majors when they start according to them.  I've seen the guy who has a qualification X and thinks that trumps the fact that he needs to be fit.  I've seen the IT guy layed off from Nortel who would rather be unemployed than accept secure emplyment at half the salary.  I've seen this newer type of soldier that does in fact think this is just a job but it started well before any benefits were cut (in fact they were increasing).  I've seen these bright, intelligent people who want to be coddled and given everythjing but don't want to put the effort into it.  And it isn't just the CF.  I've seen it civy side where young educated people with talent burn through their leave, sick leave and take LWOP before half the year is over lament their work situation and how awesome they think they are and underused.

This generation and even the last one has never really lived through any "real" hardship.  There are bumps in the road and individuals have their own hardships to deal with yes.  But as a whole Canada is a soft place to live and has been since the end of WW2.  You say they treat it like just a job because the government tells them it is, I say it's their attitude to begin with and to an extent their leadership that encourages that.  It wasn't the government that told me it was a calling or a job it was my section commander, platoon warrant and officers that showed it to me with their actions and their deeds, not what the liberals were doing 20 years ago and certainly not what the conservayives are doing now.

No one here is cheering the loss of benefits or the increase in cuts.  We keep saying that we are not the PS, that we are unique, that we are special.  What makes us special is how we handle the hard times.  Half of the people here that went through the dark days of the mid 90's as you put it, did that back then and will likely do it again this round.  They will handle it.  A lot didn't and they left.  And many of them came back (or tried) when times were better.  Says a lot about their character.  To each their own I guess but sometimes we need to look at ourselves first before we blame the world for our lot in life.

Ok, I've eventually got to call people on this. I don't think anyone on this board faught in world war 2, so we can stop using that as an arguement, I'd argue the soldiers we have now are at least as good and most likely as what we had 10 or 15+ years ago. Maybe the poor attitude some people have towards their younger soldiers is part of the reason why they don't seem to get hard work out of them. The subordinates I have need to be told when to down tools. They are always trying to improve things and come up with new ways of making things better. 10 year ago the people I worked with were satisified with accomplishing their tasks, the soldiers I have now always go that extra step and deliver more than expected.

The attitude of the leader towards their subordinates has an astounding effect and I'm not suprised with the different outcomes some forum members see reflected in their leadership and attitude.

 

[Remius]

Ok, I've eventually got to call people on this. I don't think anyone on this board faught in world war 2, so we can stop using that as an arguement, I'd argue the soldiers we have now are at least as good and most likely as what we had 10 or 15+ years ago. Maybe the poor attitude some people have towards their younger soldiers is part of the reason why they don't seem to get hard work out of them. The subordinates I have need to be told when to down tools. They are always trying to improve things and come up with new ways of making things better. 10 year ago the people I worked with were satisified with accomplishing their tasks, the soldiers I have now always go that extra step and deliver more than expected.

The attitude of the leader towards their subordinates has an astounding effect and I'm not suprised with the different outcomes some forum members see reflected in their leadership and attitude.

You totally missed the point of what I was arguing...Recceguy you were right 

 

[Bird_Gunner45]

Ok, I've eventually got to call people on this. I don't think anyone on this board faught in world war 2, so we can stop using that as an arguement, I'd argue the soldiers we have now are at least as good and most likely as what we had 10 or 15+ years ago. Maybe the poor attitude some people have towards their younger soldiers is part of the reason why they don't seem to get hard work out of them. The subordinates I have need to be told when to down tools. They are always trying to improve things and come up with new ways of making things better. 10 year ago the people I worked with were satisified with accomplishing their tasks, the soldiers I have now always go that extra step and deliver more than expected.

The attitude of the leader towards their subordinates has an astounding effect and I'm not suprised with the different outcomes some forum members see reflected in their leadership and attitude.

Earlier you stated, and I quote, "I tell my subordinates not to take risks, not to rush things, not to try and lift anything over and above what the standards say. If they get injured the feds give them $10,000 lump sum and ask them to shut the door on the way out. It's awful." Based on what you've said above about your subordinates being motivated it would seem that you are actually exhibiting extremely toxic leadership and attempting to drag your soldiers down. I dont know your situation, and frankly dont care as you come off as being somewhat entitled, but your own descriptions indicate my statements above.

 

[RADOPSIGOPACCISOP]

Earlier you stated, and I quote, "I tell my subordinates not to take risks, not to rush things, not to try and lift anything over and above what the standards say. If they get injured the feds give them $10,000 lump sum and ask them to shut the door on the way out. It's awful." Based on what you've said above about your subordinates being motivated it would seem that you are actually exhibiting extremely toxic leadership and attempting to drag your soldiers down. I dont know your situation, and frankly dont care as you come off as being somewhat entitled, but your own descriptions indicate my statements above.

There's a difference between safety and job performance. I remember taking safety risks when I was a new apprentice, but if I was injured there was a life long support system there for me. Soldiers now don't have that safety net. They are given a lump sum and pushed out the door.

Now motivating them to take non-safety risks and to lead change is entirely different. I think you've missed that entirely.

 

[Bird_Gunner45]

There's a difference between safety and job performance. I remember taking safety risks when I was a new apprentice, but if I was injured there was a life long support system there for me. Soldiers now don't have that safety net. They are given a lump sum and pushed out the door.

Now motivating them to take non-safety risks and to lead change is entirely different. I think you've missed that entirely.

I dont think I missed that as it was never discussed, or alluded to, or mentioned. How has the safety net changed in terms of injury? Personnel are released if they can no longer serve the Canadian Forces, same as ANY other job on civie street, except that they get more medical and release attention than most non-unionized pers. Are you suggesting that if someone is hurt that they should be compensated more than any other person in Canada??

The CAF, outside of specific areas, is still a top notch employer that offers good to excellent pay, medical, dental, and pension plans. Sure, if you live in Cold Lake or spots like that the pay is debatable, but I'm sure when they established the bases there the oil boom wasn't anticipated.

Could PLD be better? sure could. Could PMQs be cheaper? sure could. However, I guarantee you that you would never have this debate in the civilian world, as subsidized housing and PLD wouldn't be fathomed (for the most part, certainly the odd exception exists). Toss in the massive amount of leave, short days, christmas dinners/mess events people are given time off for, buckshee days, free afternoons, etc and there's no competition.

 

[Halifax Tar]

I dont think I missed that as it was never discussed, or alluded to, or mentioned. How has the safety net changed in terms of injury? Personnel are released if they can no longer serve the Canadian Forces, same as ANY other job on civie street, except that they get more medical and release attention than most non-unionized pers. Are you suggesting that if someone is hurt that they should be compensated more than any other person in Canada??

If you think the current policies and benefits are sufficient for injured members I think you may have your proverbial head in the sand.  No insult meant but people who risk their lives for the country, and are injured while doing so deserve more than a kick in the *** out the door and a one time cheque.  Yes they should be compensated more than any other person in Canada.

The CAF, outside of specific areas, is still a top notch employer that offers good to excellent pay, medical, dental, and pension plans. Sure, if you live in Cold Lake or spots like that the pay is debatable, but I'm sure when they established the bases there the oil boom wasn't anticipated.

I wont debate this because so long as your remain fit and uninjured then you are correct the benefits are sufficient and better than most employer competition.  With pay for certain areas being the only debatable point.

Toss in the massive amount of leave, short days, christmas dinners/mess events people are given time off for, buckshee days, free afternoons, etc and there's no competition.

Some of what you mention here is considered parades and mandatory functions.  Thus they are duty realted and are actually work.

Short leave is given as compensatory for duties that have taken you away from home for extended periods of time.  Find me a civilian organization that demands of its members what the CAF demands then tell me short leave should be in this equation.

 

[vonGarvin]

We have an entirely volunteer military.  If people don't like the terms of their employment, they can freely seek employment elsewhere.

I maintain that we all have many motivators for being in whichever job we currently hold.  I maintain that if monetary compensation is your primary* motivation for serving in HM The Queen's Canadian Armed Forces, then you are in the wrong career.

Having said all of this, there is of course good reason to be upset or even damned angry about governments changing policy after the fact.  In the end, there is a contract, and either party may change those terms.  We as serving members are somewhat at a disadvantage (unlimited liability and all that), but in the end, there are ways to terminate one's contract.  And if one feels mistreated by the system for whatever reason, there are a number of methods to seek "justice".


*Of course it is one of many motivations for 99.99% of us; however, it ought not be your main reason; if it is, you're a mercenary, and IMHO, not of value to the CAF.

:2c:

 

[Brasidas]

Earlier you stated, and I quote, "I tell my subordinates not to take risks, not to rush things, not to try and lift anything over and above what the standards say. If they get injured the feds give them $10,000 lump sum and ask them to shut the door on the way out. It's awful." Based on what you've said above about your subordinates being motivated it would seem that you are actually exhibiting extremely toxic leadership and attempting to drag your soldiers down. I dont know your situation, and frankly dont care as you come off as being somewhat entitled, but your own descriptions indicate my statements above.

(Been working on this post for a while, amidst work. More posts keep coming, and I've made changes)

Two statements by him:

1) (He tells his) subordinates not to take risks, not to rush things, not to try and lift anything over and above what the standards say.

2) If (his) subordinates get injured, the feds give them (a) $10,000 lump sum and ask them to shut the door on the way out. It's aweful.

That sounds to me like a leader who knows the consequences of his troops getting hurt and who is looking out for their welfare. Not one that reverses the order of mission, men, self. From those statements I see nothing that directly implies toxic leadership.

I've seen leaders ignorantly take unnecessary risks repeatedly, risking life and limb both alongside and watching their troops follow their direction. When I've followed up to prevent repetition, my focus is on safeguarding the welfare of my people, not on the leaders who lack of situational awareness.

A good way of preventing troops from getting hurt and getting tossed out on their butts is by educating them and encouraging their own situational awareness. A private shouldn't be second-guessing a warrant's direction when it means he gets the shitty end of the stick, but when he sees the warrant giving direction that could get his buddy's back broken, he should speak out and identify what he thinks is a safety issue. The private should be educated both in what the difference is between those two situations and that he needs to speak up in the latter.

Polite phrasing or not, its not toxic for him to be told that his government may not take care of all his buddy's needs if his back does get broken either.

A leader who's always running down the organization, his CoC, and generally de-motivates troops is toxic. I'm not seeing that here.

I dont think I missed that as it was never discussed, or alluded to, or mentioned. How has the safety net changed in terms of injury? Personnel are released if they can no longer serve the Canadian Forces, same as ANY other job on civie street, except that they get more medical and release attention than most non-unionized pers. Are you suggesting that if someone is hurt that they should be compensated more than any other person in Canada??

The statements that you quoted, implying toxic leadership, tied into the context of what he was saying, which is that troops who have effective leadership are motivated and have to be told when "to put down tools". They're there to accomplish the mission and it isn't all about them. As has always been the case, the leadership also needs to mentor them both to make sure they don't get hurt or that one of the subordinate leaders doesn't direct them to do something that can get them hurt.

The safety net has changed in that the lump sum system is designed to minimize liability to the government, as opposed to look out for troops' welfare.

I'll go ahead and suggest that yes, troops should be compensated at least as well as, and probably better than others. They're more likely to obey their leaders without question. The fact that they aren't means that we need to do a damned good job of making sure they know how and when to identify a safety issue.

 

[OldSolduer]

They told me I'd never get rich in the CAF and I still ain't rich.

And I'm still in the CAF - in the "hobby squad" so I guess my opinion means nada to some of you. Your loss.

 

[jollyjacktar]

Having said all of this, there is of course good reason to be upset or even damned angry about governments changing policy after the fact.  In the end, there is a contract, and either party may change those terms.  We as serving members are somewhat at a disadvantage (unlimited liability and all that), but in the end, there are ways to terminate one's contract.  And if one feels mistreated by the system for whatever reason, there are a number of methods to seek "justice".

I'm not sure I know how we, the member, might be able to change "those" terms of our "contract" between the CAF and ourselves.  They, as in the system, can, have and will do so ad nauseam in perpetuity.

Termination, however, of one's contract is just that.  Termination, not change.  Change, is from my vantage point, totally one sided.  Good or bad is left up to the individual's understanding and reality of said changes foisted upon them.  And if you as the member don't agree with the changes, there's always option two in red above.

 

[Transporter]

I'd like to see a separate process for determining military compensation and benefits, beyond the current practice of simply benchmarking with the public service (though that could certainly still be a consideration, or not, in the overall process). Call it the Canadian Forces Compensation and Benefits Board... or whatever you want.

For example, our close allies have distinct entities that look after military compensation issues:

- US: http://militarypay.defense.gov/Reports/QRMC/
- UK:  https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/armed-forces-pay-review-body
- AUS:  http://www.dfrt.gov.au/

By comparison, here is the CF approach (a methodolgy that goes back to the late 70's):  http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/caf-community-pay/index.page

Consider the "Military Factor" for example, which is 7.5% and has been for the past 15 years (since 1 Apr 99). Is 7.5% still appropriate/relevant? I read a StatsCan report yesterday which stated that 1 in 6 CF members report mental health or alcohol problems. There are stories every other week about the rate of PTSD and military suicides. What about all the guys who came home broken from Afg and other CF ops, lives changed forever, or the ones who paid the ultimate sacrifice? Is 7.5% really appropriate/relevant considering all of that? 7.5% equates to an additional $420/mo for a 6A Sgt, pay lvl 4, non-spec and $390/mo for a 5B Cpl, pay lvl 4, non-spec (my math). Is that "worth it"? Has anyone even reviewed that in the past 15 years? I don't know, but I think these are fair questions. And that's just but one example of the kinds of things that this board could look into, really peel the onion back and do a deep dive on this stuff, to factor in with all the other considerations of military service, and determine a fair compensation package.  And whatever that ended up being, I think it would be a far-easier pill to swallow knowing that what I end up with was based on due consideration for the specific requirements of my military service and not just what a PS union was able to negotiate, or not, in the collective bargaining process (again, not slagging the unions). Personally, I don't think that's too much to ask, but realistically, I know it'll never happen (or at least I'd be shocked if it did).

And while I'm on this topic, when was the last time there was a holistic review of CF compensation and benefits, including pay (not counting SCONDVA)? Anybody know? Is there even a process to do this on a regular basis? I tried finding some reports or something online but came up empty (but had no problems finding loads of info on how the US, UK and AUS are doing).

Something to consider...  :2c:

 

[stellarpanther]

We have an entirely volunteer military.  If people don't like the terms of their employment, they can freely seek employment elsewhere.

Why should someone quit their job because they don't think some of the policies are right?  I commend the young Cpl's that chose to take the government to court over certain policies.  Imagine if they just shut up.  When I joined, I was clear to the recruiter about my beliefs and didn't lie.  It took well over 6 months to get in so I had to time to have plenty of conversations and my opinions came up a lot.  If they didn't like it they shouldn't have let me in.

 

[Remius]

I'd like to see a separate process for determining military compensation and benefits, beyond the current practice of simply benchmarking with the public service (though that could certainly still be a consideration, or not, in the overall process). Call it the Canadian Forces Compensation and Benefits Board... or whatever you want.

For example, our close allies have distinct entities that look after military compensation issues:

- US: http://militarypay.defense.gov/Reports/QRMC/
- UK:  https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/armed-forces-pay-review-body
- AUS:  http://www.dfrt.gov.au/

By comparison, here is the CF approach (a methodolgy that goes back to the late 70's):  http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/caf-community-pay/index.page

Consider the "Military Factor" for example, which is 7.5% and has been for the past 15 years (since 1 Apr 99). Is 7.5% still appropriate/relevant? I read a StatsCan report yesterday which stated that 1 in 6 CF members report mental health or alcohol problems. There are stories every other week about the rate of PTSD and military suicides. What about all the guys who came home broken from Afg and other CF ops, lives changed forever, or the ones who paid the ultimate sacrifice? Is 7.5% really appropriate/relevant considering all of that? 7.5% equates to an additional $420/mo for a 6A Sgt, pay lvl 4, non-spec and $390/mo for a 5B Cpl, pay lvl 4, non-spec (my math). Is that "worth it"? Has anyone even reviewed that in the past 15 years? I don't know, but I think these are fair questions. And that's just but one example of the kinds of things that this board could look into, really peel the onion back and do a deep dive on this stuff, to factor in with all the other considerations of military service, and determine a fair compensation package.  And whatever that ended up being, I think it would be a far-easier pill to swallow knowing that what I end up with was based on due consideration for the specific requirements of my military service and not just what a PS union was able to negotiate, or not, in the collective bargaining process (again, not slagging the unions). Personally, I don't think that's too much to ask, but realistically, I know it'll never happen (or at least I'd be shocked if it did).

And while I'm on this topic, when was the last time there was a holistic review of CF compensation and benefits, including pay (not counting SCONDVA)? Anybody know? Is there even a process to do this on a regular basis? I tried finding some reports or something online but came up empty (but had no problems finding loads of info on how the US, UK and AUS are doing).

Something to consider...  :2c:

All good questions.  The question is would we better off with a separate entity reviewing our salary and benefits or is being linked to the ps a better option.  As far as I know we are one of the best paid forces so maybe it works?  Not sure but I found this comparison that someone made based on highest incentive at certain ranks between countries in 2010.  I'd say we are doing well enough but so many other factors come into play so take it with a grain of salt.  However we are still way ahead of our allies in that regard if you look at pay.

http://m.neogaf.com/showthread.php?t=401194

 

[vonGarvin]

Why should someone quit their job because they don't think some of the policies are right?

Why should a corporation, institution or other change for the one disgruntled person?  Don't like it?  Get out. 

When I joined, I was clear to the recruiter about my beliefs and didn't lie.  It took well over 6 months to get in so I had to time to have plenty of conversations and my opinions came up a lot.  If they didn't like it they shouldn't have let me in.

OK, I'll bite.....what is *your* beef? 

PS: Get in line.