MCG said:
Not sure why you have used the quotation marks as those are not my words, and they also miss the point.
They are my words as to what his intent
is not for the next number of years and thus the quotation.
The point is that he has decided to permanently defer moving - that is very much not the intent nor the explicitly stated purpose of IR.
He has done no such thing; nor did he state such. What he did infer that was, if in the future he and his wife could not pursue their careers together in the same location, that he would be willing to complete the remainder of his contract at a separate location from her and would absorb those costs himself. He did not say that was his intent (it isn't) or plan. He did not say that she would not move either. He simply put it out there that he is one of those ones who would not put his wife's career at risk should they be required to be separated for X number of years whether the CF covered it or not.
If the CM has a plan that he will be two years in your unit and return to where he came from next APS, then fine - if that is the case, then there may be justification. However, that is not the model he presented to this board.
Show me where he said he did not plan on moving his wife for the next 7 years, or that she refused to move. He didn't.
He presented us a description with no specific vision for his future other than his decision to remain on IR before ever moving his wife over the course of the next 7 years.
Rather, he presented the vision that he has 7 years left and that he and his wife if unable to pursue each of their careers together at same location (
whatever location that may be in the future) would go whereever they were required (in their own respective careers) and would foot their own bills for it.
If there is no plan for him to get posted back home (and by his presentation there is no reason to believe such a thing exists), then he is making a permanent lifestyle choice and he should pay for that out of his pocket.
No he won't. Unaccompanied is something else. This may seem pedantic, but within the current discussion that word means something specific and limited in duration to not more than 6 months. It is not IR and it is not permanently living in different locations at one's own expense.
I will leave it at, he is not here IR solely due to his wife's employment (I already posted that too) although that is small factor. There are other factors at play.
As a person who has done numerous restricted postings of my own - at mt families expense so that other families could be coddled or looked after, I assure you that I would not and do not support those who ride the system. I detest them.
I am actually of the opinion that those who have no choice (the students on trg etc)
are should be treated completely different from those who have a choice.
I am all for taking the food away as I said (and I am against forcing IR pers who live in to either eat at or pay the astounding meal rates charged to them at our CF dining facilities). We all should be paying to eat somewhere. The only issue that I have is that if the reasoning is exactly that "we all need to pay to eat somewhere", yet this mantra is only applicable to those on IR (or prohibited or restricted) status. Shouldn't same be said for those on QL5s? Ilks? In the field? At sea? Deployed? They aren't incurring costs of their meals at home either yet aren't being charged rations. Is it because those groups have NO choice but to be on course or deployed? If so, then there are a whole bunch of pers in the "no choice" posting bracket too who
will be are now going to pay out ... not the case with those who "Opt IR" status.
Perhaps that is where this issue is best sorted out at: clearly differentiate between "compulsory separation" and "voluntary separation" and apply the allowances (or lack thereof) as applicable.
And, I wholeheartedly agree that those whose wives just don't want to move or who just don't want to give up job to move should be financing themselves as opposed to the taxpayer doing it. How do you catch those ones though? Give 'em year 1, without meals, perhaps a year 2 (if they managed to justify why) then cut off everything. I go with the 2 year time frame because if whatever the reason you've justified your IR with can't be solved in 2 years even a Compassionate Posting is of no good to you. If it's other spouse's employment in his/her excellent job --- you've got a 2 year warning to start saving that income up to pay the second rent/mortgage somewhere else. I've already used a situation that I am aware of where IR was granted due to kid entering grade 12 the next year ... 6 years later - dude is still IR and the taxpayer is still covering it. "WTF!!??" say I to that.
Edited to correct typos that spellcheck 'corrected' for me - "pers" is now back to pers from spellcheck's "pears" etc :blotto:
Re-edited to correct more typos and perform a slashthrough to clarify that
are to a "should be".
