• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Occam said:
As a result, when you elect to release with more than 10 years of service ........


Correct me if I am wrong, but that entitlement to move to IPR was only for those who had reached their 20 year mark, now 25 years for the newer members, with a pension.  When you left with less than pensionable time (and not a Medical Release), taking a return of contributions, your move would be covered, but not all the Real Estate, Legal and other sundry fees involved in buying a home.

 
George Wallace said:
Correct me if I am wrong, but that entitlement to move to IPR was only for those who had reached their 20 year mark, now 25 years for the newer members, with a pension.  When you left with less than pensionable time (and not a Medical Release), taking a return of contributions, your move would be covered, but not all the Real Estate, Legal and other sundry fees involved in buying a home.

Certain members with more than 10 years service but less than 20 are eligible for a move to IPR. The IE 20/25 TOS issue hasn't yet reared its head in CFIRP.

Edit to add:  The eligibility for an IPR move is all or nothing.  You either get all of the benefits, or none of them.
 
Occam said:
It is precisely for that reason that the benefit is just, whether it be a move across the country, or a move across the street.

No other major employer (save for the RCMP) forces you to weigh anchor, up and move to a different location in Canada every 3 to 5 years (and in some cases more frequently).  That's why you won't find "Move to Intended Place of Residence (IPR) on Release" as a chapter to the NJC Relocation Directive.  Nobody can deny that when you're looking for a new residence on posting, your own personal needs as a military family take a back seat to those of the CF.  If that weren't the case, we wouldn't have such conditions like obligating you to seek permission from your CoC if you wish to live outside the geographical region for the place you're posted to.  If you were posted to Ottawa, and decided to buy a home in Winchester, for example - and then when at your new unit, you're frequently late for work because of the umpteen traffic snarls between your residence and workplace.  How much sympathy are you going to get if you tell your CoC "I'm sorry, sir/ma'am...but the traffic is too unpredictable for me to be reliably at work every day at 0800"?

That's why we choose a home that, first and foremost, allows us to carry out our employment without impediment arising from the location of the home we chose - within the constraints of our financial situation.  Things like the size of the home, specific area chosen, access to shopping or other conveniences, etc. all take a back seat to the need to be able to get to work every day at 0800, and the need to be able to unload the house on weeks notice a few years down the road when you're posted - hopefully without taking a huge loss on the sale of the house.

As a result, when you elect to release with more than 10 years of service or are medically released, you should be eligible for a reimbursed relocation to the home and location of your choosing - the one you would have chosen if you didn't have to make that SAR mission on a moment's notice, or make it to the dockyard reliably every working day for 0800.  If you give it to the member releasing in Halifax and electing Yellowknife as IPR, you have to give it to the member who releases in Ottawa, lives in Orleans, and chooses to elect Kanata as IPR.  Both members were subject to the same conditions and constraints when they chose their homes on posting to the final posting location - a location they probably didn't know would be their retirement location when they first got there.

I'm not unsympathetic to the cries of the taxpayer wanting overly generous benefits to the Public Service (and by extension, the CF) reigned in.  Contributing 50/50 towards the premiums for PSHCP is probably fair in comparison to similar civilian benefits.  Increasing the member contribution portion towards CFSA pensions is probably fair in comparison too.  However, there is a time for the CF to say "You know what, our employment is unique, and our benefits have to reflect that".  I honestly believe the move to IPR on release is one of them.

What irks me the most, is that all it would have taken to defuse the situation is for MND to stand up on the podium, and explain what I just said above to the Canadian public in front of a TV camera. The CPC Members of Parliament with a CF background lack the backbone to challenge the government stance on this.  Unfortunately, from a party point of view, it's not in their political best interests to do so when they can use the example of a retired CF general who decided to put on a Liberal hat to score political points on the backs of CF members.

Occam, I agree with everything you are saying and I agree with your argument.  Unfortunately, logic isn't often the driving factor behind any of these decisions.  This was a decision made for partisan political reasons and if the government gets the opportunity to destroy Andrew Leslie's reputation in the process than the rest of the CF can go fly a kite.  This isn't about saving money, it's about appealing to the political base and also about destroying the reputation of one of the A-Team opposition candidates. 

Unfortunately, this decision will also mostly only affect people posted to Ottawa with the the majority of personnel affected coming from the officer corps.  Lets face it, the average rank and file CF member isn't getting posted every two or three years.  The ones getting posted every other year are officers and very senior nco's who bounce back and fourth between Ottawa and the units.

E.R. Campbell had mentioned earlier in the thread that there is a disconnect between the costs/values of the private versus public sectors and attempt by the government to start chipping away at this.  Link:http://army.ca/forums/threads/115780/post-1324892.html#msg1324892

There is a trade off here though.  Government has grown and is looking after more portfolios and sectors than it ever has.  As well, this has been the expectation of Canadians writ large, they want the government to do more for them.  Many of these sectors are technical in nature and require a highly skilled labour force to manage them.  In order to attract these types of workers, salaries need to be competitive as does the benefits package.  It's quite simple really, if the pay is crap and the benefits are crap, you are going to get crap. 

The same principle can be applied to the military, start chipping away at the pay and benefits of the most skilled workers (i.e. Snr NCO's and Offr's) and they will begin to leave for brighter pastures and you will be left with the B-Team as a result.

 
RoyalDrew said:
Unfortunately, this decision will also mostly only affect people posted to Ottawa with the the majority of personnel affected coming from the officer corps.  Lets face it, the average rank and file CF member isn't getting posted every two or three years.  The ones getting posted every other year are officers and very senior nco's who bounce back and fourth between Ottawa and the units.

Agree with everything you said, except the passage above.  I'd love to be able to cite statistics, but I don't have any.  I would agree that hard sea trades (who have home port divisions), and the combat arms probably don't move around all that much given they have regimental affiliation.  However, just off the top of my head - ATIS Techs (from my own personal experience), Air Ops and Air Tech trades, support trades like RMS Clk, Sup Tech, Cook, etc. all get moved around on a regular basis.  The percentage who do expect 3-5 year postings is probably somewhat higher than what you think it is.
 
Moves occur on average every 7 to 8 years, excluding off-BTL and IPR moves.  While some move more often, that is the average.
 
Occam said:
Agree with everything you said, except the passage above.  I'd love to be able to cite statistics, but I don't have any.  I would agree that hard sea trades (who have home port divisions), and the combat arms probably don't move around all that much given they have regimental affiliation.  However, just off the top of my head - ATIS Techs (from my own personal experience), Air Ops and Air Tech trades, support trades like RMS Clk, Sup Tech, Cook, etc. all get moved around on a regular basis.  The percentage who do expect 3-5 year postings is probably somewhat higher than what you think it is.

Come to think of it, I think you are right... I made the above statement in haste based on my experience in the combat arms and how most soldiers in my regiment stay put.  Casting the net wider though, I can see how certain trades would get bumped around a fair bit.

As for the reduction in benefits, having worked with a GO and Fmn RSM for the past year and having seen the crap they need to put up with, I am skeptical whether I would want to punch my time in the organization that long and the reduction in benefits makes it even less appealing.  I think you will find that the military is going to have a hard time attracting younger folk due to the posting cycle and the fact that your significant other basically has to give up all his/her aspirations in order to pull the family cart while following you around the country.  Couple this with the reductions in benefits and the government basically washing its hands of the responsibility to provide services to its military members and the CF is going to begin to have harder time attracting strong candidates. 

For those that say, I challenge you to find another industry that pays out benefits as well as the CF does?  I ask you to turn your attention westward to the Oil & Gas industry as well as the Mining industry.  I know of a number of my peers that have already jumped ship and in case you failed to take notice, we have a a CMBG that is significantly under-strength because of this. 

Now I just brought up a whole bunch of other issues but IMO they are all pretty much inter-related.
 
dapaterson said:
Moves occur on average every 7 to 8 years, excluding off-BTL and IPR moves.  While some move more often, that is the average.

Could that average be attributed to hard sea trades and combat arms not moving as frequently?  I wonder what the average would be if they were excluded.
 
Occam said:
... support trades like RMS Clk, Sup Tech, Cook, etc. all get moved around on a regular basis.
I few times in my career I have lead or administered organizations comprising these support trades (as well as veh tech, EO tech and mat tech).  While they do get posted a lot, they appeared able to rack-up the no-cost moves to the point that they generally fall into the CF average.  There will be some exceptions who move more often and others who move less (and I know individuals in both groups).
 
Number of moves depends on rank and trade. Higher ranks also tend to move more frequently.
 
Not quite 23 years Reg Force, 7 paid moves, one of which was in Aug of 2003 and then in Apr of 2004, OT'd went to Kingston from Pet for trades training 7 months, full meal deal both times.
 
recceguy said:
Ok, want to get personal.You're already out of your league.

37 years, many moves under different rules entitles me to my opinion.

....and at any rate sunshine, I'm a  ******* taxpayer and that trumps any  of your holier than though, only for serving members bullshit.

Who's holier than thou? Never mind... I know your kind well. Not to worry though, as this will be my last post.
 
Transporter said:
Who's holier than thou? Never mind... I know your kind well. Not to worry though, as this will be my last post.

Don't forget your ball.
 
Transporter said:
Who's holier than thou? Never mind... I know your kind well. Not to worry though, as this will be my last post.

angry-computer-guycopy.jpg
 
I hope all you ladies and gentlemen still in uniform got kissed yesterday.



CANFORGEN 160/14 CMP 071/14 171505Z SEP 14
CHANGES TO THE INTENDED PLACE OF RESIDENCE POLICY AND ASSOCIATED RELOCATION BENEFITS
UNCLASSIFIED

REFS: A. CANADIAN FORCES INTEGRATED RELOCATION PROGRAM (CFIRP) DIRECTIVE EFF 16 SEP 14
B. CLARIFICATION BULLETINS 2009 (1-3, 6-14) AND 2010 (1-5)
C. CBI 208 SECTIONS 8-10
D. QR AND O CHAPTER 209 SECTION 2 - RELOCATION EXPENSES
E. CANFORGEN 089/14 CMP 041/14 281403Z MAY 14

1.  THE INTENDED PLACE OF RESIDENCE (IPR) RELOCATION BENEFITS PERMIT ELIGIBLE CANADIAN ARMED FORCES (CAF) REGULAR FORCE MEMBERS, WHO RELEASE OR TRANSFER TO THE RESERVE FORCE, TO ELECT A SUBSIDIZED MOVE FROM THEIR CURRENT RESIDENCE TO ANOTHER OF THEIR CHOOSING IN CANADA. THIS BENEFIT RECOGNIZES THAT MEMBERS MAY HAVE BEEN REQUIRED TO MOVE MANY TIMES OVER THEIR MILITARY CAREER UNDER SPECIFIC CONSTRAINTS, AND THEREFORE PROVIDES THEM WITH A CHOICE OF WHERE TO RESIDE AT THE END OF THEIR REGULAR FORCE SERVICE

2.  ON 16 SEP 14, THE TREASURY BOARD (TB) APPROVED CHANGES TO THE IPR POLICY AND ASSOCIATED RELOCATION BENEFITS. AS SUCH, CHAPTER 14 OF THE CFIRP DIRECTIVE (REF A) HAS BEEN AMENDED EFFECTIVE 16 SEP 14 TO COMPLY WITH TB POLICY. THE IPR POLICY CHANGES APPLY TO CURRENTLY- SERVING REG F MEMBERS ONLY. MEMBERS WHOSE RELEASE/TRANSFER DATE FROM THE REG F IS PRIOR TO 16 SEP 14 CONTINUE TO BE ADMINISTERED UNDER THE POLICY IN EFFECT PRIOR TO 16 SEP 14

3.  THE IPR POLICY CHANGES ARE SUMMARIZED AS FOLLOWS:

A.  TIME LIMIT. THE TIME LIMIT TO EXERCISE IPR RELOCATION ENTITLEMENTS HAS BEEN REDUCED FROM TWO YEARS TO ONE YEAR, IN ORDER TO BRING MORE PREDICTABILITY TO THE ANNUAL COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH RELOCATIONS ACROSS THE CAF. EXTENSIONS MAY BE POSSIBLE, AS APPROVED ON A CASE-BY-CASE BASIS, FOR A VARIETY OF REASONS WHICH ARE LISTED AT ARTICLE 14.1.02 OF REF A

B.  LOCAL IPR MOVES (40 KM OR LESS FROM DOOR TO DOOR). RELOCATION BENEFITS WILL NO LONGER BE PAYABLE, THEREBY BRINGING CONSISTENCY BETWEEN THE IPR POLICY AND THE WIDER RELOCATION POLICY WITHIN THE CAF WITH RESPECT TO MINIMUM DISTANCE OF A MOVE. EXCEPTIONS WILL BE MADE FOR PERSONNEL WHO ARE REQUIRED TO VACATE CROWN-CONTROLLED ACCOMMODATIONS ON RELEASE/TRANSFER, FOR PERSONNEL WHO ARE BEING MEDICALLY RELEASED AND FOR PERSONNEL WHO HAVE COMPASSIONATE CIRCUMSTANCES

4  THE AVAILABLE IPR RELOCATION BENEFITS REMAIN UNCHANGED FOR THOSE WHO ARE RELOCATING TO AN IPR LOCATION GREATER THAN 40 KM FROM THEIR CURRENT RESIDENCE

5.  IN ADDITION TO THE CHANGES SUMMARIZED ABOVE, EFFECTIVE 16 SEP 14, ANY TRAINED MEMBER MEDICALLY RELEASED, REGARDLESS OF YEARS OF SERVICE, WILL BE ENTITLED TO AN IPR MOVE TO ANYWHERE IN CANADA

6.  PERSONNEL WHO HAVE RELEASED/TRANSFERRED FROM THE REG FORCE OR WHO INTEND TO DO SO IN THE NEAR FUTURE ARE ENCOURAGED TO FAMILIARIZE THEMSELVES WITH REF A. THIS AND OTHER PUBLICATIONS, PLUS SPECIFIC INFORMATION ON THIS POLICY CHANGE, WILL BE AVAILABLE SHORTLY THROUGH THE DGCB INTRANET SITE HTTP://CMP-CPM.FORCES.MIL.CA/DGCB/ (CLICK DCBA LINK)

7.  THE REMAINDER OF CFIRP BENEFITS AVAILABLE TO POSTED PERSONNEL REMAIN UNCHANGED. REF A REPLACES CFIRP 2009, AND WILL REMAIN IN EFFECT AS THE CAF RELOCATIONS POLICY RENEWAL PROJECT CONTINUES (AS NOTED AT REF E). REF A INCLUDES SOME MINOR AMENDMENTS OF LANGUAGE FOR CLARITY PURPOSES. ADDITIONALLY, CLARIFICATION BULLETINS LISTED AT REF B REMAIN IN EFFECT. CLARIFICATION BULLETIN 2010-6 IS RESCINDED EFFECTIVE 16 SEP 14 AS IT HAS BEEN INCORPORATED INTO REF A
 
I know there are differing sides on this, and risking having rotten tomatoes and the like thrown at me, as a taxpayer and serving member, I don't really have any major issues with this change in policy.
 
Occam said:
5.  IN ADDITION TO THE CHANGES SUMMARIZED ABOVE, EFFECTIVE 16 SEP 14, ANY TRAINED MEMBER MEDICALLY RELEASED, REGARDLESS OF YEARS OF SERVICE, WILL BE ENTITLED TO AN IPR MOVE TO ANYWHERE IN CANADA
This is a good improvement.
 
Brihard said:
What was the old policy?

If you had less than 10 years and were released item 3 - medical, you only got a move back to place of enrolment (or any other location, but you were limited to the cost of a move back to place of enrolment).

If you had less than 10 years and were released item 3 - medical and were in receipt a VAC disability award or a medical pension, then you got a move anywhere.
 
MCG said:
This is a good improvement.
Well at least there's an improvement and it's not totally a fireplace poker shoved up the rectum.
 
jollyjacktar said:
Well at least there's an improvement and it's not totally a fireplace poker shoved up the rectum.

My opinion, it's a knee jerk political reaction to the "appearance" of excessive benefits being paid to senior officers.

A LGen makes upwards of $220K a year plus, so obviously he is going to be buying a home commensurate with his salary, no different than what a Cpl/MCpl/Sgt ($55K - $60K) would be doing under similar circumstances.  So the fees associated with a relocation, whether it be a regular posting or the move to IPR, are by virtue going to be much higher based on the purchase/sale price.

At the end of the day, it's the guys at the bottom who are the majority, end up taking it up the behind because of a perceived imbalance in benefits.

The only saving grace to all of this, is that the people who reside in Q's for whatever reason and those being medically released, get spared the axe.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top