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

[PPCLI Guy]

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

Exactly.  We soooo have to get over ourselves.

 

[Halifax Tar]

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

I can see allot of denials and tissues being issued in the future.

OR Release approved no IRP benefits, time in posting to short. 

Good move on changing this policy.  Having said that, good for you OCCAM you used it while it was there and legal.  No bones from me. 

 

[Eye In The Sky]

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.

Would this not come into play though? 

http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/about-policies-standards-benefits-relocation/2014-directive-ch8.page#art-08-03-03

 

[Transporter]

Good move on changing this policy. 

As a CF member and thus someone who could have potentially used this entitlement to your benefit in the future, care to explain what's so good about this change?

 

[Fishbone Jones]

As a CF member and thus someone who could have potentially used this entitlement to your benefit in the future, care to explain what's so good about this change?

Sometimes it's just not 'all about me'.

 

[Transporter]

Sometimes it's just not 'all about me'.

It's a very simple question. And btw, what's it to you? As a non-serving member who is unaffected by these changes, your opinion - though entitled to it - really has no bearing on the topic of discussion.

 

[GAP]

It's a very simple question. And btw, what's it to you? As a non-serving member who is unaffected by these changes, your opinion - though entitled to it - really has no bearing on the topic of discussion.

I guess in your case it is "all about me"..............

recceguy is as entitled to his opinion on all subject on this forum, as are you....

he at least he has the courtesy to not dismiss the opinions of a large part of the membership because they "are not in".. :

 

[Transporter]

I guess in your case it is "all about me"..............

recceguy is as entitled to his opinion on all subject on this forum, as are you....

he at least he has the courtesy to not dismiss the opinions of a large part of the membership because they "are not in".. :

His opinions on the subject of discussion, as a guy with zero skin in the game, are irrelevant to me. I asked a simple, legitimate, question to a fellow serving member. Wasn't his place to answer, especially not with sarcasm, for which he has scolded many others.

Same goes for you. You don't have a dog in this fight either. Why would you tell a guy who does how he should feel about losing a benefit to which he was previously entitled?

 

[GAP]

Hmmm.....something is missing....oh I know.....what a discussion is....


discussion
[dih-skuhsh-uh n]

    Examples
    Word Origin

noun
1.
an act or instance of discussing; consideration or examination by argument, comment, etc., especially to explore solutions; informal debate.

 

[Remius]

It's a very simple question. And btw, what's it to you? As a non-serving member who is unaffected by these changes, your opinion - though entitled to it - really has no bearing on the topic of discussion.

As any Canadian that pays taxes that go into paying the public sector benefits his opinion and that of everyone else actually does have a bearing.  That is what is driving these cuts for good or for ill.

 

[kratz]

It's this type of exchange (ie: recceguy, Transporter, Jacktar, MARS, site DS) that kills discussion.

As a person with experience the past while:
(the examples below are not my own situation).

I find the hostility of this site exemplified when I see people:

- In the service, degrading those who wish to serve
- Those who are in service degrading those who just retired
- Paying members ignoring nonpaying members (forgetting some had paid in the past)

The Tone and Content of the site needs to be reminded.

We are a community of like minded members to discuss issues of interest and concern to us all.
We may not agree with each other, but through civilized discourse (discussion) we are able to politely disagree .



The tone on the site has swung too far.

 

[Occam]

Would this not come into play though? 

http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/about-policies-standards-benefits-relocation/2014-directive-ch8.page#art-08-03-03

Well, how about that.  It certainly appears like it would.

It's unfortunate that it amounts to saying to someone with more than 20 years of service, "Well, you are entitled to your 30 day release; however, if you do so and want to use your retirement move to IPR, you can have it but we'll recover those tens of thousands of dollars that most recent move just cost".  I guess you'd have to decide whether to stick it out a year or not.  You still end up moving the member twice if they choose to stick it out, and the CF only gains one further year of employment out of the member.

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

Considering the move to IPR on release only applies to medical releases (fixed release date), members with >10 years of service (max 6 months to release) and members with >20 years of service (30 day release), the issue of not granting the release is somewhat moot, isn't it?

 

[SeaKingTacco]

My issue with this new policy is the built in logical inconsistency.

You decide to retire.  You decide you want to move from Esquimalt, to St John's. No problem. Paid for. That has got to be- what, at least a 50k move?

However, if you decide to retire in the next suburb over, you are on your own.  Would that not be cheaper, and therefore something that should be encouraged to save money?

In 30 years, nobody particularly asked me where I wanted to live.  The CF just sent me where I was needed. Fine- sometimes I did not enjoy it, but mostly I did. I bought houses (or lived in PMQs) in  very short time spans with no thought that any of them might be my final house. They were all compromises.

That the current government and a good chunk of the public sees a final move of less than 40kms as an unnecessary luxury is I suppose fair, in the sense that we work for them.

But I do not to enjoy the experience of losing a benefit I might have actually used, nor do I have to be a cheerleader for those who would reduce our benefits.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

It's a very simple question. And btw, what's it to you? As a non-serving member who is unaffected by these changes, your opinion - though entitled to it - really has no bearing on the topic of discussion.

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  fucking taxpayer and that trumps any  of your holier than though, only for serving members bullshit.

 

[Furniture]

But I do not to enjoy the experience of losing a benefit I might have actually used, nor do I have to be a cheerleader for those who would reduce our benefits.

I think this quite nicely sums up many people's opinions on the matter.

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.

We are all tax payers, maybe you forgot that since you retired and are collecting a pension you didn't pay as much percentage of your wage into as the rest of us now have to... We can all play the moral superiority card if we want to, but in the end the seeming majority of currently serving members are not happy with the way things are going and feel the need/desire to voice their displeasure with it on a forum for people with an interest in the CAF.

As an aside, why the hostile attitude shown?   

 

[captloadie]

As much as I hate to see benefits of CAF members being eroded, this one that I as both a serving member and a taxpayer can agree with. Take the premise that we aren't special and have the same rights and responsibilities as any other average Joe.

Many "civilians" are moved across country for their work. Maybe they are reimbursed for their moves, maybe they aren't. Now I haven't done any in depth research, but I'm unaware of any company that pays their employees (with the exception maybe of some senior executive) a final move when they retire, or resign to work for a new company. It is a benefit that we are unique in receiving.

If I were going to rewrite the policy, I would make it even stricter than the proposal. I would like to see the policy say you are only entitled to an IPR if it is back to either your place of enrollment, or, a former place of duty that you had been previously moved to at public expense. Maybe add a clause that if you wish to remain in your current location, you are entitled to the cash equivalent of a local move for your city, excluding realty and lawyers fees. That way, individuals who actually purchased a home they can live with get some of the benefit too.

And for those who cry it must be equal for all, I'd like to point out that this is a democracy, not a socialist state. Decisions are made for the greater good.

 

[George Wallace]

Well, how about that.  It certainly appears like it would.

It's unfortunate that it amounts to saying to someone with more than 20 years of service, "Well, you are entitled to your 30 day release; however, if you do so and want to use your retirement move to IPR, you can have it but we'll recover those tens of thousands of dollars that most recent move just cost".  I guess you'd have to decide whether to stick it out a year or not.  You still end up moving the member twice if they choose to stick it out, and the CF only gains one further year of employment out of the now bitter member.

TFTFY

 

[Fishbone Jones]

We are all tax payers, maybe you forgot that since you retired and are collecting a pension you didn't pay as much percentage of your wage into as the rest of us now have to... We can all play the moral superiority card if we want to, but in the end the seeming majority of currently serving members are not happy with the way things are going and feel the need/desire to voice their displeasure with it on a forum for people with an interest in the CAF.

As an aside, why the hostile attitude shown? 

Perhaps you should know your audience before you start spouting stuff you know absolutely nothing about.

And yes, we are all tax payers. Some just care a little bit more on how our money gets spent.

I'm not bitter. I am, however, getting tired of self entitled gits that think they somehow have a higher calling and believe the rules shouldn't apply to them as they would to ordinary citizens. This ain't Starship Troopers.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

Once the all the mileage of the 'shame-a-potential-Liberal' candidate runs it's course maybe a compromise of a maximum claimable amount could be applied for the various fees* of the buying and selling instead.
If you have the money/desire to move a few blocks into a mega-house then you would be expected to fork out the overages.  Now before some claim that's not fair to those who have money, saved, blah, blah.............it already happens with taxes, insurance, etc.  Your place is worth more, you pay more..........just like ordinary folks.

EDIT: *  applying to retirement move only of course.

 

[Occam]

It is a benefit that we are unique in receiving.

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.