Government hints at boosting Canada’s military spending

I'll believe it when I see it.

 

[Fabius]

Given the current pay scales as a start point, question for those that want an increase.
What is an acceptable pay scale in your opinion? NCM and Officer.

Current pay scale as per @childs56

Private 1 $3614- $5304 $21.34- $33.15hr

Cpl $6069- $6493 $37.93- $40.58hr

Cpl Spec $6731- $7142 $42.06- $44.63hr

Mcpl $6299- $6939 $39.36- $43.36 hr

Mcpl Spec $6929- $7404 $43.30- $46.27hr

Sgt $7043- $7380 $44.01-$46.12

 

[MilEME09]

Serious questions: Which people do you want to keep? And how many of them?

Some folks are apparently run off their feet while others are pushing brooms to fill time.

Any trade with a long training time should be the primary retention focus, such as aircraft techs, vehicle techs etc especially at the MCpl and above rank so we have the Institutional knowledge

 

[Kirkhill]

Any trade with a long training time should be the primary retention focus, such as aircraft techs, vehicle techs etc especially at the MCpl and above rank so we have the Institutional knowledge

That is fair. But as I have been saying there is a fundamental difference between the needs of the technical trades and the needs of the combat arms.

While it is likely true that there is a lot of time pandering to the Combat Arms when the Trades suffer, it is equally true that the Trades exist to support the Combat Arms and we seem to be struggling to meet those requirements as well.

As I have said before we need to split the problem in two. Two separate streams requiring two separate approaches.

 

[IKnowNothing]

Any trade with a long training time should be the primary retention focus, such as aircraft techs, vehicle techs etc especially at the MCpl and above rank so we have the Institutional knowledge

Does the CAF have any mechanism in place to try and enable the retention of such skillsets in grade or a pretty contanst race to the peter principle?

 

[ytz]

Which sort leads to the point that @FJAG, @KevinB
and I have been alluding to: there is a difference between youngsters joining for excitement and careerists.

We want to exploit that difference. There should be a lot, and I mean a lot, more short term enlistments, followed by reserve service OR the option to sign on for a career.

Sure. Pony up. A force which relies on short enlistments will need a massive training pipeline. And guess who all the trainers are? Those folks that are 10 years in.

We're 16 000 short. That's not all recruits. The obsession over recruits is at least partly because we have substantially given up on retention. We're actually trying to do that short term model more and failing.

 

[ytz]

Does the CAF have any mechanism in place to try and enable the retention of such skillsets in grade or a pretty contanst race to the peter principle?

Retention bonuses exist. They are rare and largely target some highly skilled trades (think pilots and doctors) where shortages become obvious immediately. But in most other trades, the CAF simply accepts the shortages. At best, they'll give signing bonuses to try and get new recruits into those occupations.

 

[Fabius]

The macro numbers for the CAF don’t seem to show a retention problem that has increased in size over the last decade nor are the numbers outside that experienced historically by us or other forces.

That’s not as true for some specific trades but overall the numbers aren’t showing a retention problem.

Are the numbers wrong or is it something else?

 

[IKnowNothing]

Retention bonuses exist. They are rare and largely target some highly skilled trades (think pilots and doctors) where shortages become obvious immediately. But in most other trades, the CAF simply accepts the shortages. At best, they'll give signing bonuses to try and get new recruits into those occupations.

So nothing to enable and incentivize the proverbial "career corporal/captain" to remain in as a round peg in round hole

 

[ytz]

So nothing to enable and incentivize the proverbial "career corporal/captain" to remain in as a round peg in round hole

To a large extent, not. That's why, as I pointed out earlier, we have a problem where some trades are inverted where the Cpl/Capt ranks are more short than the NCO/Snr Officer ranks.

 

[Quirky]

So nothing to enable and incentivize the proverbial "career corporal/captain" to remain in as a round peg in round hole

CAF still thinks everyone should aspire to be a chief or CO. Career Cpl/Capt SMEs are non existent even if the member wanted it. Promotions are all but an eventuality.

 

[Brad Sallows]

There's an old joke that goes, "Money can't buy me happiness. But money can buy me a Ferrari. And a Ferrari makes me happy."

When I was in the US, I had a navy nuke friend. Navy LT. Got paid close to US$130k. This was in 2015. And he was resigning for a generous bonus. He was quite happy to do it, because he made enough that his wife didn't have to work. She took care of the home. And he got to focus on work. Housing and healthcare was taken care of by the military. Everybody forgets how much housing allowance the Americans pay too. He routinely flew his wife and kids to anywhere in the world to meet his sub. Would a person like that do it for half the pay, no housing allowance and no healthcare benefits (the CAF offer)? Doubtful.

Money won't solve all the CAF's problems. But I do think, it could solve two of the largest irritants almost immediately: housing and childcare.

Other than comparing our retention problems to retaining qualified people for the nuclear powered vessels we don't have, what else comes to mind?

 

[ytz]

The macro numbers for the CAF don’t seem to show a retention problem that has increased in size over the last decade nor are the numbers outside that experienced historically by us or other forces.

That’s not as true for some specific trades but overall the numbers aren’t showing a retention problem.

Are the numbers wrong or is it something else?

We're ~7k short each in the Reg F and Res F. The Reg F has been at low 60s for years. We're basically treading water. And this macro number doesn't show the inside picture. If you're in a trade with in-demand skills or rely on such a trade substantially, the releases, especially post-Covid, are far more obvious.

 

[ytz]

Other than comparing our retention problems to retaining qualified people for the nuclear powered vessels we don't have, what else comes to mind?

Replace navy nuke with pilot or cyber operator and we have the same problem in Canada. The pilots now have something insane like 20 pay incentives. After all that bitching about QoL, turns out that money makes a difference. I don't see why it should be different for any other trade.

Note that, I'm not saying money will solve all problems. But given the absolute incompetence of the institution to solve some of these problems for literally decades, it might be time to just pay people more and let them find a way to deal with the problems through economic means.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Given the current pay scales as a start point, question for those that want an increase.
What is an acceptable pay scale in your opinion? NCM and Officer.

Current pay scale as per @childs56

Private 1 $3614- $5304 $21.34- $33.15hr

Cpl $6069- $6493 $37.93- $40.58hr

Cpl Spec $6731- $7142 $42.06- $44.63hr

Mcpl $6299- $6939 $39.36- $43.36 hr

Mcpl Spec $6929- $7404 $43.30- $46.27hr

Sgt $7043- $7380 $44.01-$46.12

The problem isn't pay. The problem is having to frequently relocate to where you are told, rather than where you choose to plant yourself and start working.

 

[Fabius]

We're ~7k short each in the Reg F and Res F. The Reg F has been at low 60s for years. We're basically treading water. And this macro number doesn't show the inside picture. If you're in a trade with in-demand skills or rely on such a trade substantially, the releases, especially post-Covid, are far more obvious.

Being short personnel does not equal a retention problem.
A failure to recruit at a replacement rate for a decade can generate the problem we are seeing.

The problem isn't pay. The problem is having to frequently relocate to where you are told, rather than where you choose to plant yourself and start working.

I agree to some degree, however a number of people believe that the pay is an issue so I am curious what pay they think will make it not be an issue.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Replace navy nuke with pilot or cyber operator and we have the same problem in Canada. The pilots now have something insane like 17 pay incentives. After all that bitching about QoL, turns out that money makes a difference. I don't see why it should be different for any other trade.

So there are specific skills that are pain points.

Across the board, what is on offer is enough to keep things near the size we want, in a worker's market. If we wanted to have a force size proportionate to what the US has, we'd probably have to offer more. But we don't want that.

First change the targets. That will mean first changing the government. As long as even people in the forces themselves are willing to vote for status quo, there's no worry about looking two steps down the road.

 

[ytz]

Being short personnel does not equal a retention problem.
A failure to recruit at a replacement rate for a decade can generate the problem we are seeing.

You need recruiting and retention to grow the force. If you're not retaining, the number of recruits you need goes up.

Also, as discussed here, some of the disadvantages in recruiting can be solved with pay. There's a reason we give out signing bonuses in some occupations.

I agree to some degree, however a number of people believe that the pay is an issue so I am curious what pay they think will make it not be an issue.

Exact level probably needs more detailed study. But we can't even get to studying it before the subject stops being taboo.

Personally, I think if we had something like BAH in the US, that would address most of the complaints. Basically, some kind of much more generous housing allowance than PLD (CFHD now). After that, maybe a childcare allowance. That's 70% of what bugs most people.

 

[Fabius]

Exact level probably needs more detailed study. But we can't even get to studying it before the subject stops being taboo.

I think there needs to be some general discussion of what people are thinking when they say more pay.

Were the LPC candidates in the ball park throwing out stuff like a 50% increase across the board?

Ie Sgt going from $7043 to $10,564.


Edited to add:
This is a good BAH primer. Currently US military personnel are expected to contribute 5% of their base pay to housing costs with BAH covering the rest in line with the averages for their duty station rental market and various factors such dependants and rank.

https://media.defense.gov/2022/Jun/23/2003023204/-1/-1/0/BAH-PRIMER.PDF

 

[MilEME09]

Posting here instead of the Ukraine thread because the last part of this statement applies to this thread

https://twitter.com/x/status/1901360012049416376

 

[ytz]

Were the LPC candidates in the ball park throwing out stuff like a 50% increase across the board?

I mean one of the most conservative, Trump loving guys at work, told me he'd vote for Freeland if this was her policy.

But I don't think it needs to be that high. Housing program like BAH would be good. If that can't be done at all, I'd say probably something like 15% meets most of the intent. Though I'd prefer a more robust housing allowance. It provides the QoL boost without increasing pension obligations.

Would also add a childcare allowance. People get all worked up about this. "Why should the CAF pay you to have a kid?" But the way I see it, is that the CAF is paying for the inconvenience that is caused every time the member moves and re-enters the Hunger Games for childcare. Gives the member the resources to outbid others. It also reduces the economic disadvantage against the spouse who is often stuck with childcare.

At the end of the day, there's a certain quality of life that most people aspire to, for themselves and their families. There's zero chance the CAF can grow, if it doesn't deliver for members.