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

[Tibbson]

I think a huge problem with Spec pay is that it has led to a lot of "Green Eyed Monster"ism between trades. I've seen this for the last five years internally within the C&E Branch alone.

I think you are right in that if you ask anyone, of any trade, they will usually be able to make an argument that they should get spec pay.  I'm not saying the argument would ultimately be valid but everyone has an argument to make and for those who don't get it, it just creates bad feelings.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

True but we all accept entrance into our trades.  I fly on the same aircraft as the FE but he gets spec 2.  If I really care about spec 2 I guess I should have went after a different set of wings. 

 

[Ostrozac]

I too had a similar conversation after I signed my IE 25. The I think the atmosphere is that the US has more to invest in retention. Canada doesn't, however recruitment is a constant element in our manning. Kinda backwards really.

The US believes in retention bonuses -- but they are highly targeted bonuses. On the same day that the US may be giving drone pilots and Arabic linguists six figure sums, they might be giving air defense captains and armor sergeants pink slips.

The Canadian system is a little different. I am on IPS as a Captain -- it wasn't competitive to get IPS, 100% of my rank and occupation got offered it the year I did -- and if I do a thoroughly mediocre job then I can still expect to serve at the same rank until age 55. In the US system if my branch was overborne, and I wasn't being promoted, odds are slim that I'd still be in uniform at that age.

 

[rmc_wannabe]

True but we all accept entrance into our trades.  I fly on the same aircraft as the FE but he gets spec 2.  If I really care about spec 2 I guess I should have went after a different set of wings.

Ask a former LCIS Tech if they had the same impression on enrollment, only to be on a pay freeze for 5 years due to the MES debacle. Same this with the new Information Systems Techs (Army, New Sub Occ, No Spec) that are doing the same work, in the same shop alongside ATIS  Techs (AT, Old Trade, Spec 1) and having 600 dollars less a month compared to their colleagues. It seems too cut and dry a situation to blame the applicant on enrollment in every situation.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

It's not a matter of blame at all.  There are choices; apply for an OT, engage the grievance system, etc.  Regardless we are all in our MOcs by our own choice at the end of the day.  I was in a spec 1 trade AND moved to a better spec 1 trade. 

 

[SupersonicMax]

I once had it put to me this way:  To bring in and train a new recruit can take months if not years but it's done at a recruits pay level.
To replace an experience senior NCO takes a promotion message.  In other words, it's easier to replace someone then it is to hire someone new so they can concentrate more on bringing in new people at a lower wage than keeping the experience.  We've never really valued that experience as much as I think we should.  Especially when we've paid people to leave early in the past.

In many trades, salary is a very small fraction of the training bill.  Training a Fighter Pilot has to be around 2M$ in flight hours alone. 

Your logic behind the replacement of a Senior NCO is a bit flawed.  It is true for thhat specific position, but you also need to train and replace everyone down the chain that gets a promotion message as a result of the release.  And the experience level of the person is not te same.

Let's take the example of a 2500 Hornet hours Major that releases.  This guy had 2 combat tours, a fighter weapons instructor, instrument check pilot, multiple tours in an Operationnal Squadron.  Yup, to fill the void, all you have to do is promote a Capt to Maj.  But that Capt probably doesn't have all the qualifications and experience the Maj had.  And you'll have to train another fighter pilot that year at a cost of more than 2M$.  Would a 400K bonus keep him for a couple more year?  I think so,  lots of the guys get out to go instruct in the ME where they make 200K tax free, so money IS a motivator in most cases.

Now, apply this to a large scale.  Your training organization doesn't have to be as big, you can keep your experienced pilots in thre Op Squadrons instead of training units and your experience level increases (instead of decreasing like it is now).

Bottom line?  Reduce the  bullshit people have to deal with and don't shortchange your experience.  Experience is worth a lot of money and takes a long time to build.

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

In many trades, salary is a very small fraction of the training bill.  Training a Fighter Pilot has to be around 2M$ in flight hours alone. 

Your logic behind the replacement of a Senior NCO is a bit flawed.  It is true for thhat specific position, but you also need to train and replace everyone down the chain that gets a promotion message as a result of the release.  And the experience level of the person is not te same.

Let's take the example of a 2500 Hornet hours Major that releases.  This guy had 2 combat tours, a fighter weapons instructor, instrument check pilot, multiple tours in an Operationnal Squadron.  Yup, to fill the void, all you have to do is promote a Capt to Maj.  But that Capt probably doesn't have all the qualifications and experience the Maj had.  And you'll have to train another fighter pilot that year at a cost of more than 2M$.  Would a 400K bonus keep him for a couple more year?  I think so,  lots of the guys get out to go instruct in the ME where they make 200K tax free, so money IS a motivator in most cases.

Now, apply this to a large scale.  Your training organization doesn't have to be as big, you can keep your experienced pilots in thre Op Squadrons instead of training units and your experience level increases (instead of decreasing like it is now).

Bottom line?  Reduce the  bullshit people have to deal with and don't shortchange your experience.  Experience is worth a lot of money and takes a long time to build.

For trades with high training bills, and limited ability to regenerate themselves, an incentive for someone to stay is definitely something that should be explored.  for the army this is less of a pressing issue because many of our trades just aren't that technical.  Air Force trades; however, are a whole other story.  It could be a solution for helping prevent above average attrition out of places like Cold Lake where tradesmen are in high demand.

 

[Tibbson]

In many trades, salary is a very small fraction of the training bill.  Training a Fighter Pilot has to be around 2M$ in flight hours alone. 

Your logic behind the replacement of a Senior NCO is a bit flawed.  It is true for thhat specific position, but you also need to train and replace everyone down the chain that gets a promotion message as a result of the release.  And the experience level of the person is not te same.

Let's take the example of a 2500 Hornet hours Major that releases.  This guy had 2 combat tours, a fighter weapons instructor, instrument check pilot, multiple tours in an Operationnal Squadron.  Yup, to fill the void, all you have to do is promote a Capt to Maj.  But that Capt probably doesn't have all the qualifications and experience the Maj had.  And you'll have to train another fighter pilot that year at a cost of more than 2M$.  Would a 400K bonus keep him for a couple more year?  I think so,  lots of the guys get out to go instruct in the ME where they make 200K tax free, so money IS a motivator in most cases.

Now, apply this to a large scale.  Your training organization doesn't have to be as big, you can keep your experienced pilots in thre Op Squadrons instead of training units and your experience level increases (instead of decreasing like it is now).

Bottom line?  Reduce the  bullshit people have to deal with and don't shortchange your experience.  Experience is worth a lot of money and takes a long time to build.

I'm not saying I agreed or disagreed with the theory but it certainly does appear to still be valid in most cases.  You assume that immediate steps will be taken to bring the replacement up to the skill level of the incumbent that left while I contend that it is part of the brain drain that we always seem to have.  You can't tell me that there are not under qualified supply techs, mechanics, wpns techs or any other trade you may choose who are either under ranked for the positions they are currently filling or who are eventually promoted due to attrition.  In fact I believe we have a whole other thread recently speaking about the high number of people A/L or attending various career courses already promoted. 

Sgts/WOs get ticked with the system and decide to leave for better paying jobs outside the CAF and instead of a trade promoting the top X on the merit list to make up the difference they now must promote X+ and many of the extras may not otherwise have been merited high enough to get promoted otherwise.  Those promoted are doing their best and are put into a situation whereby they may not be ready for promotion but the CAF has no choice but to promote to replace those who may otherwise have stayed but who left disgruntled or disillusioned.  Those promoted that way are doing their best and they are not failing the CAF, its the CAF that is failing them but putting them into that position.

 

[upandatom]

I think a huge problem with Spec pay is that it has led to a lot of "Green Eyed Monster"ism between trades. I've seen this for the last five years internally within the C&E Branch alone.

That "Green Eyed Monsterism" is what caused the nightmare that is MES. No ifs and or buts. There was no way to keep Sig Ops in, especially in todays society where high school students are learning TCP/IP and erver admin and have them come into being a Sig Op, get treated like a bag of left handed hammers and develop a phobia of knives in their back.
Especially when Civi side jobs for this skillset is paying more.

The money the CF is offering in Salary and benefits is falling behind fast for various trades. Pulling benefits such as this just make the grass look greener.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

The Army Sigs world fucked itself.  Spec pay issues aren't widespread across the CF.  Just the army Sigs mess.

OT out because there IS greener grass in the CAF. 

 

[Navy_Pete]

The Army Sigs world ****ed itself.  Spec pay issues aren't widespread across the CF.  Just the army Sigs mess.

OT out because there IS greener grass in the CAF.

It's also a big deal across the Navy tech trades.  It takes years and some fairly demanding boards for the stokers to get their various qualifications, and their spec pay is still 'under review' as far as I know after their cert 2.  You need so many of them on board to go to sea, and every time a ship is sailing, there are critical shortages.  Their skillset is in demand and there will be a big hire once the platform ISSCs come in for the new ships where RCN experience will be an asset.  So coming in on one ship and transferring on a RIB to another ship on it's way out the harbour tends to diminish enthusiasm for the job, oddly enough.

Similar for the naval tech officer trades; between the various ISSCs and other contracts, there will suddenly be a big demand for them when the new ships are coming in, and the bidders have already poached a number of people to work for them.

Oddly if you get the right job, you can almost do more for the Navy as a civilian working for an ISSC, if you can make sure the RCN gets treated fairly while the contractor still makes money so everyone is happy.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

Ok well...spec pay is not an issue in the RCAF then.  AVOTP CANFORGEN should be out soon.  :blotto:

 

[PuckChaser]

Its not a big deal in any trades that have had it for years. Anyone trying to change/add it, TBS puts up so much red tape we're waiting years for pay reviews to be completed.

 

[McG]

Budget stealth cuts?

 

[MilEME09]

Its not a big deal in any trades that have had it for years. Anyone trying to change/add it, TBS puts up so much red tape we're waiting years for pay reviews to be completed.

Now lets get rid of spec pay all together, and see how fast people leave those trades

 

[Brasidas]

Now lets get rid of spec pay all together, and see how fast people in those trades leave those trades the CF.

FTFY

 

[MilEME09]

FTFY

thank you, that is what i was trying to say. Any way I think it would take something like a mass exodus from those spec pay trades to really see a over haul of our pay system, yes I understand not every trade is equal but Why should navy and airforce techs get spec pay and not army techs for example? Even with spec pay the grass is greener for many of these trades civi side. I once met in Borden a aircraft structures tech who was leaving the CF after he was done teaching a course after being offered a job for 4 times what he currently made. Now I understand the CF can't compete with that kind of money however the CF I believe has to be somewhat competitive with the private sector to attract people.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

So, you are suggesting a materials tech has the same responsibility as say, a multi-engine aircraft flight engineer.  Or risks themselves and has a skillset comparable to a SAR tech.  Both of those trades are Spec 2, while mine is Spec 1 yet we are all involved in flying ops.  You'll never hear me say I should get Spec 2 because they do so I should too.

If you don't like your trade, VOT, take your commission, or something.

 

[rmc_wannabe]

If you don't like your trade, VOT, take your commission, or something.

I love my trade, I just wish to be compensated in a manner comparitive to others doing the same work type of work in the CAF without having to VOT in order to get it.

I think its too easy to suggest people VOT or Commission or Release IOT gloss over the bigger problem at hand.

 

[George Wallace]

I think its too easy to suggest people VOT or Commission or Release IOT gloss over the bigger problem at hand.

I suppose this is what the differences between some members of the CAF, and what Trades that they are in, comes down to.  Some members join the CAF with a sense of duty.  Others join the CAF as an easy way to get an education in a certain field and a Trade for a civilian occupation.  Some join purely for monetary reasons.  There are many reasons one joins the CAF.  One who looks closely at the people in all the various Trades and Occupations between all the Elements of the CAF will see different degrees of dedication to the CAF and vastly different work ethics.  Some members actually think that they are working in "9 to 5" jobs.  Some members have very inflated senses of entitlement.  In today's military, technology is used at all levels in all Trades, so points about needing a certain level of education are becoming mote points.  Some Trades and Occupations do require higher education than others, but in the end all Trades are working as one cog in a much larger machine.  Which cog, if removed, will NOT cause the machine to fail to function?  Are some cogs more essential than others in the machine to keep it functioning; and more importantly, are those the cogs that ensure the machine fulfills it main function?