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

[Transporter]

I suppose then, it can be turned around on you and say that you should not be eligible to participate in both the Public Service Health Care Plan and the Pensioners' Dental Services Plan on your retirement from the CAF.

Sure, no worries. We'll just call it the Retired Canadian Forces Health and Dental Care Plan. Nothing would make me happier than to de-link every single aspect of my compensation and benefits from the Public Service, for reasons I've previously stated elsewhere on here.

 

[brihard]

Precisely ...

There are two aspects to this:

    1. A partisan, political "war" against the public sector ... good politics in 200+ of the the 338 seats that will be contested in the next federal general election; and

    2. An honest, sincere attempt to restore some balance to public sector employment. Traditionally the public sector was (relatively) poorly paid but had nearly iron clad job security and very, very good benefits.
        For a generation plus we have watched public sector wages rise and, now, surpass private sector wages while benefits for civil servants were not "traded away" as private sector benefits have been. As a general rule the
        public sector, wanting to be seen to be exemplary employers, has expanded in both salaries and benefits. The "fat city" perception is real and it is not just an issue for "Joe Six-pack" either; many senior officials
        and academics are concerned that the broad public sector is unsustainable which means that the welfare state is in danger, too.

Not just senior officials and academics. Young professionals in the middle class tax brackets are increasingly paying attention to this too. We know what we're facing.

 

[George Wallace]

Sure, no worries. We'll just call it the Retired Canadian Forces Health and Dental Care Plan. Nothing would make me happier than to de-link every single aspect of my compensation and benefits from the Public Service, for reasons I've previously stated elsewhere on here.

Great!  As there are no such plans, and I highly doubt the CAF would then want to budget for such plans, I can't see that as a viable option.  I suppose you could try your luck with Veterans Affairs; but we all know how dealing with them brings so much satisfaction for 'claimants'.   

 

[TCM621]

There's so much wrong with what you said that I don't know where to start.

I was posted to Ottawa in 2008 with (at the time) 23 years service.  I had no intentions of getting out anytime soon.  We did our HHT in Ottawa with a one year old in tow, rushing around like fools trying to find a house in the 5 days allotted for a HHT.  I knew that I would be working at 101, downtown.  As anyone who's ever been to Ottawa knows, parking simply isn't an option at any of the downtown sites, unless you pay through the nose.  So, we chose a house based on the following criteria:

1.  Met all the criteria for being able to unload it quickly when the next posting came
2.  Was close to express public transit routes
3.  Met all of our needs as a family.

Fast forward to 2011.  I participated in a competition for a Public Service position.  I'm offered the position.  I submit my release from the CF with almost 26 years service to my name.  I'm in a house that I chose primarily for service reasons, a house that we've already outgrown after only three years, and most definitely not the house that we would have chosen if I were moving to Ottawa to retire from the CF.

I sold my 1100 sq. ft. home on a typical city lot in Orleans last August.  At the same time, I purchased the home I would have chosen had I knew I was coming here to retire, which is a 2400 sq ft home on a huge lot in rural Limoges, 33 km from my old home.  Bigger house, bigger property, don't need to worry about being close to transit because I can park at work, and it only takes me 10 minutes more to drive to work than at my old house.  I claimed my move to IPR on retirement just like Gen Leslie did.

Now, tell me why I'm not entitled to have my relocation costs covered for the move to my "local" intended place of residence, when the house I chose to move to when posted here was predominantly chosen because of service reasons?

Just off the top of my head:

The fact that you outgrew the house is irrelevant to the conversation.

You "could" still live in your old house after retirement.

Your inter-city move is no different than any other inter-city move a cf member makes on his own dime.

You are already where you plan to retire.

If you had been posted to a different unit in the Ottawa region, you would not be entitled to a cost move even if your house choice was based on your previous work place.

It was a loophole pure and simple. I highly doubt the policy was intended for local area moves. It was nice that some people got to take advantage of that but it was a pretty common sense move by the government.
There are so many other things to worry about but this just isn't one.

 

[jollyjacktar]

Where is this coming from? CANFORGEN? Policy Link? Or is this from the same rumour ilk of "LDA/SDA is going away 1 Apr!!!"

I got that straight from the clinic last week when I was there for an eye appointment.

 

[jollyjacktar]

I'm a Civil Servant and only get $175.00 toward my glasses. That I have to go to an appointment downtown for on my own time. God, this is getting :boring:

Actually it will benefit me as I have been buying my own glasses for the past couple of years as I think what was on offer at the hospital was shyte.  Be bored all you like, but it is another cutback that is coming down the pipe.

 

[captloadie]

Any reimbursement for CF members will be via some sort of claim, with receipts, through the Medical system. As CF members, we can't claim items under the PHSCP, as we aren't the ones covered, just our dependents. I'm sure any new policy would also have a long list of restrictions on what types, costs, etc, etc.

 

[Occam]

Just off the top of my head:

The fact that you outgrew the house is irrelevant to the conversation.

No, it's not.  If I was moving here to retire, I'd not have bought a 1100 sq. ft. house in Orleans (which was at the high end of my price range), I'd have chosen a much larger house further out where I'd get more for my money.  To get a house that met the requirement to be close to public transit and suitable for a quick resale, I had to settle for a smaller house to stay within my price range.

You "could" still live in your old house after retirement.

Why?  The guy who moves across the country gets his retirement home.  Why is the guy who moves across the street to the house he would've bought if he wasn't trying to meet the needs of the CF any different?

Your inter-city move is no different than any other inter-city move a cf member makes on his own dime.

If a CF member moves within a given area, either as a result of a "local" posting or otherwise, they're doing it by choice.

You are already where you plan to retire.

The hell I am.  I did not plan to retire in a suburban 1100 sq.ft. home in Orleans.  That home was bought with the expectation that another military move was coming a few years down the road, and the criteria used to choose it were primarily related to that expectation.

If you had been posted to a different unit in the Ottawa region, you would not be entitled to a cost move even if your house choice was based on your previous work place.

Irrelevant.  Whether you work at Startop, or you work at Shirley's Bay, public transit gets you there.  The furthest possible place I could have been "locally" posted from my home would've been DRDC Shirley's Bay - and I'd have had no problem taking public transit to/from work.  My home in Orleans would have remained suitable and I'd have had no reason to relocate.

It was a loophole pure and simple. I highly doubt the policy was intended for local area moves. It was nice that some people got to take advantage of that but it was a pretty common sense move by the government.
There are so many other things to worry about but this just isn't one.

It wasn't a loophole.  Nothing that big stays on the books that long without being detected if it's not in line with the intent of the policy.  This government hasn't got two clues what common sense is.

 

[MARS]

That home was bought with the expectation that another military move was coming a few years down the road, and the criteria used to choose it were primarily related to that expectation.

But then, by your own statement above, you[/i altered the equation/changed the situation when you applied for a PS job. 

The CF didnt do this to you.  You saw what I can only assume was a better opportunity/greener pasture and you acted.  Fair enough.  Smart move (no pun intended). Well done, even.

How does that choice become a CF issue to fund or in any way deal with?

Serious questions - not trying to nit pick.  I can't figure out what I am missing in this scenario.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

I get what he is saying..................why is someone MORE equal than others et al??

Seriously, this really does nothing but hurt those who have less control over their careers than others.  If I'm one of the countless floppers around the Ottawa area I just make sure I get posted out and then next year I put in my 30 day release.  Voila, new home and an extra move for the Govt. to pay for.

EDIT:  unless there is something about postings I'm not aware of.

 

[PMedMoe]

I get what he is saying..................why is someone MORE equal than others et al??

Seriously, this really does nothing but hurt those who have less control over their careers than others.  If I'm one of the countless floppers around the Ottawa area I just make sure I get posted out and then next year I put in my 30 day release.  Voila, new home and an extra move for the Govt. to pay for.

I agree.  I can see people already where they want to retire, getting/taking a posting elsewhere and then releasing and declaring their IPR where they were prior to that posting.

 

[Furniture]

:facepalm:

That is an old saw and a red herring of deflection. It gets hauled out as a last resort every time a service person cannot eloquently justify their point.

The idea that you should get free glasses because of the universality of service is so preposterous it goes beyond the pale.

Honestly I couldn't care less about the change to glasses policy because of the increased cost to the member, I already buy my own. What I do care about it the fact that it is yet another cut to the benefits package that CAF members receive.

To me the idea that my benefits should be the same as an administrative assistant working in an office in one city for their entire career is preposterous, obviously the folks at the Treasury Board counting the pennies aren't of the same opinion as me.

 

[George Wallace]

................................................... obviously the folks at the Treasury Board counting the pennies aren't of the same opinion as me.

For all your bitching and whining, will it make you feel any better if you knew that people in other Departments are all bitching and whining as well?  My brother is a Senior manager in a Federal Department and he is amazed at times at how completely out of touch some of the 'eggheads' working and advising the Mandarins in Ottawa really are.  This is not solely a "screw the Canadian Armed Forces" thing.  It is a "screw all Federal employees" thing.  ERC has stated that so many times, in so many ways.

 

[PuckChaser]

I'm wondering if the cost would have been that large if it wasn't a million dollar home. We already limit the lot sizes to prevent people from buying hobby farms, the remainder is up to the homeowner to foot the rest of the bill, so why not create a maximum value that creeps up by inflation rate every year? $500,000 buys you a pretty decent home in most marketplaces in Canada (save downtown Toronto), and if we're not covering people buying huge acreages, why are we covering people buying mansions in ritzy neighbourhoods?

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Honestly I couldn't care less about the change to glasses policy because of the increased cost to the member, I already buy my own. What I do care about it the fact that it is yet another cut to the benefits package that CAF members receive.

To me the idea that my benefits should be the same as an administrative assistant working in an office in one city for their entire career is preposterous, obviously the folks at the Treasury Board counting the pennies aren't of the same opinion as me.

PS benefits and wages are being slashed wholesale also. This is not only your tower to wail from either. What about RCMP and other LEOs that are also seeing the cuts.

There's plenty in the Service that will never or can never deploy into harms way for a myriad of reasons. Should your benefits outstrip theirs also?

I have a job where I go in unarmed, unarmoured and unprotected. The last people I dealt with had to spend over a half mil just on my say so. Situations like that can and do get violent.

What about Corrections Officers in a direct supervision facility. They spend their shift living with and among their inmate charges which can be up to 35 inmates. Not dangerous enough for you?

You are not special, because your job might be dangerous, at times.

 

[George Wallace]

I'm wondering if the cost would have been that large if it wasn't a million dollar home. We already limit the lot sizes to prevent people from buying hobby farms, the remainder is up to the homeowner to foot the rest of the bill, so why not create a maximum value that creeps up by inflation rate every year? $500,000 buys you a pretty decent home in most marketplaces in Canada (save downtown Toronto), and if we're not covering people buying huge acreages, why are we covering people buying mansions in ritzy neighbourhoods?

I know several members who bought 'hobby farms'.  This is "1984" -- All animals are equal; some are more equal than others.  Let's see?  Are we a communist society or a capiatlist society?  Should we all be driving VW Golfs? 

Seriously.  Are you going to tell me that you shouldn't buy what you can afford?

 

[PMedMoe]

I'm wondering if the cost would have been that large if it wasn't a million dollar home. We already limit the lot sizes to prevent people from buying hobby farms, the remainder is up to the homeowner to foot the rest of the bill, so why not create a maximum value that creeps up by inflation rate every year? $500,000 buys you a pretty decent home in most marketplaces in Canada (save downtown Toronto), and if we're not covering people buying huge acreages, why are we covering people buying mansions in ritzy neighbourhoods?

Seriously.  Are you going to tell me that you shouldn't buy what you can afford?

How about a cap on real estate fees reimbursed?

 

[Occam]

But then, by your own statement above, you[/i altered the equation/changed the situation when you applied for a PS job released from the CF. 

The CF didnt do this to you.  You saw what I can only assume was a better opportunity/greener pasture and you acted.  Fair enough.  Smart move (no pun intended). Well done, even.

How does that choice become a CF issue to fund or in any way deal with?

Serious questions - not trying to nit pick.  I can't figure out what I am missing in this scenario.

I made a correction to your statement (in yellow, above).  It matters not what reason I released for.  I could have been offered a PS job, offered a private sector job, or I simply decided to retire and take up beer tasting for a living.

Under existing rules, the whole idea is for members medically released, or those who have more than 10 years service to get a final move to IPR, be it across the street or across the country.  What does exercising my right to a 30 day release (regardless of reason why) have to do with the entitlement to a final move to IPR?  (Other than triggering the entitlement, that is.)

 

[Occam]

I agree.  I can see people already where they want to retire, getting/taking a posting elsewhere and then releasing and declaring their IPR where they were prior to that posting.

That is precisely what's going to happen.  People will do their 30 days at the new posting, and plonk down the release memo on day 31 and initiate a move right back to where they came from as their IPR...only in the home of their choosing.

Instead of moving someone locally to IPR on release once, the CF is going to end up moving people twice (potentially across the country).  The only money they'll save is on those people who can't wait until their posting is up (for whatever reason) to initiate their release.  Doing it the way they propose could potentially cost them even more than under existing policy.

 

[dapaterson]

Of course, that assumes the release will be granted. A potentially dangerous assumption.