Topic: CBI 205 Allowances Changes 1 Sept 17

[PuckChaser]

Surprised there isn't a topic here yet for this, considering the massive allowance savings the CAF is going to reap (if my non-HR Clerk brain has computed it correctly).

Here's the updated link: http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/about-policies-standards-benefits/ch-205-officer-ncm-allowance-rates-effective-01-sept-2017.page

Under the guise of "modernizing" the allowances, the changes have effectively frozen LDA, SDA and Hardship for any aircrew posted to TacHel/Ship as well as frozen LDA, Hardship for anyone collecting SOA. The CAF will save a killing, as those folks staying in TacHel/Ships/CANSOF for a long period of time will never gain a Hardship bonus or LDA/SDA increase as the points are going towards their Aircrew/SOA. The Hardship bonus is going to be particularly painful as members will no longer be bumping up Hardship bonus levels (CBI 10.3.05) which is supposed to conpenstate members for repeated deployments.

This is a massive change on how we're being compensated in the CAF, and the cynic in me thinks the recent pay increase combined with the tax-free deployments policy change is the reason why TB/DND had to make it to save some money. I'd be interested to see how many grievances are filed, there has to be thousands of troops affected by this change in a negative manner, and at least the Hardship change goes directly against CBI 10.3.05's intent.

[jollyjacktar]

Changes are rarely in the troops favour but the man's favour.  Same old, same old...

[kratz]

No gift comes without a consequence. 

[NavyShooter]

Historical aspect for consideration:

In the 90's, many of these allowances were created or increased in order to get around the 'no pay raise' and 'pay freeze' actions that we lived through.

This was also the source of much of the advanced promotion that we still see to this day.  Getting a sailor (or soldier/zoomie) promoted was the only way to get them a pay-raise, and when your monthly income was frozen at $1625 per month, getting promoted to LS/Cpl was a very nice bounce in pay, particularly if you got Specialist pay with it.

So, here's the problem with creating allowances to increase our troops pay.  They are not part of the base pay.  Which means they are not part of your best five years for your pension calculations.

I would much rather see our base salaries increase which they seem to have done...that $1625 has now become $2985/mo.  (Which is actually almost $500 ahead of the rate of inflation for 1994-2015 using the CUPE Inflation calculator https://cupe.ca/cpi-calculator )

Looking at the same stat, a LS/Cpl IPC 1 Specialist is also almost $500 ahead of inflation since 1996 as well. 

Honestly, I'd rather have our base salaries higher, if that means our allowances are lower, because in the end, our pensionable earnings is based not off our allowances, but off our base pay.  Higher allowances will recognize those who deploy, face risk/hazard/etc, however, they don't do a thing for our pensions.

Just my thoughts...

NS

[kratz]

Adding to NavyShooter's great points,

An increase in allowances do not influence other retirement benefits as well, such as with VAC - ELB or with SISIP - Voc Rehab.

[MCG]

Well this has hit the news:
http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/compensation-cut-for-elite-soldiers-if-injuries-last-more-than-180-days-1.3669908

The allowances needed a clean-up, but I don’t know that we got it right.  The system used to encourage guys to cling to a position whether they were fit to do the job or not, and many avoided seeking help that might lead to a posting.  Now, there will be less incentive for some to cling to positions for which they cannot do the work, but there is now more incentive to hide injury.

We probably just need to replace all the monthly allowances with “super” casual allowances.

[dapaterson]

Pay is not changing at all.

Allowances, paid with the expectation that an individual is able to perform specific duties, are being paid for six months while an individual is unfit and then stopped - and then restarted once they are able to resume those duties.

Can someone explain why someone unable to jump out of an aircraft should be paid an allowance for jumping out of aircraft?  Why someone unable to go to sea should be paid an allowance for going to sea?

[MCG]

A further correction: the allowances are not paid for being able to perform a duty, they are paid on the assumption that the duty is being performed.  The monthly payment just sort of levels the cash flow ... and causes people to perceive it as pay.

[PuckChaser]

Glad it finally hit the news. Hopefully it'll get changed back. Right now there is more incentive to hide injuries than report them and get treatment.

[Lumber]

What about people who are posted to a sea going unit, but aren't actually serving aboard said ship? Like people who are ashore on course for a whole year? Should they be getting sea pay? Excuse me for a moment, I've got to go brush this bitter taste out of my mouth...

[SeaKingTacco]

Glad it finally hit the news. Hopefully it'll get changed back. Right now there is more incentive to hide injuries than report them and get treatment.

Except that there are is an increasingly diminishing pool of healthy people actually doing the work at sea, in the field and in the aircraft, covering for everyone else.  What about them?

How about we go back to a system where you get get paid by the day or the event? That way, people don't begin to mistake their allowances for their pay.

[CountDC]

as much as that was a pain to admin it may by for the best of the mbrs.  Field allowance was a bonus when you actually went to the field, not a monthly amount added onto your pay.  Sea pay when you sail, not for sitting in Halifax harbour most of the year.

[Halifax Tar]

as much as that was a pain to admin it may by for the best of the mbrs.  Field allowance was a bonus when you actually went to the field, not a monthly amount added onto your pay.  Sea pay when you sail, not for sitting in Halifax harbour most of the year.

I cant ever remember a time SDA was administrated in any other way than it currently is, other than having the option to be paid in cash on pay days.  If the CA is incapable of effectively or appropriately administering their version of this benefit (LDA); the RCN shouldn't be forced to follow step and change our processes.

I have been a member of 5 ships companies and not once have I ever heard a sailor begrudge another because one ship is getting sea pay while alongside and the other is at sea. 

If SDA must be tinkered with it should done at the individual level; not upon the organization as a whole. 

 

[CountDC]

I have heard them complain. When a ship is sitting in harbour due to refit still not completed or when another ship is acting as an anchor (those sobs haven't sailed more than a day sail in almost 2 years but still get the same pay).  You never heard the "why is that guy with sea training getting SDA when he isn't even part of a ship, he is landed" complaint? 

Sailors are probably the worse for considering an allowance as part of their income as it has been done forever.  Do a statement of earnings for someone applying for a loan or mortgage and see how much they argue that your numbers are wrong because you don't have the allowance on there.  Posting off the ship is worse than sentencing to a public flogging and execution as you are making a large cut to their pay.

If we can track days for the SSI then I don't see any reason we can't do the same for SDA as it would be the same days.

In reality I hope it doesn't happen and would prefer the field, sea and air allowances all be based on postings to a designated billet and actually filling the requirements.  Landed on course for year doesn't seem to meet the requirements. An HRA sitting in Borden for 3 months shouldn't get SDA.  It is just a bit of a pain that everyone starts to think of it as part of their pay never to be taken away when it is an allowance for certain criteria.

[Halifax Tar]

I have heard them complain. When a ship is sitting in harbour due to refit still not completed or when another ship is acting as an anchor (those sobs haven't sailed more than a day sail in almost 2 years but still get the same pay).  You never heard the "why is that guy with sea training getting SDA when he isn't even part of a ship, he is landed" complaint?

I guess your ears are better than mine.  But I haven't heard it before.  And rarely is there a sailor static long enough to justify changing sea pay.  Sea trainers spend as much or more time at sea than any ships coy out there.  And I believe they get casual SDA.

Sailors are probably the worse for considering an allowance as part of their income as it has been done forever.  Do a statement of earnings for someone applying for a loan or mortgage and see how much they argue that your numbers are wrong because you don't have the allowance on there.  Posting off the ship is worse than sentencing to a public flogging and execution as you are making a large cut to their pay.

All of my recent financial work has included lenders not including allowances.  This seems to have caught on, in Halifax anyways.

If we can track days for the SSI then I don't see any reason we can't do the same for SDA as it would be the same days.

I don't know a member of the RCN who hasn't been short changed days on their SSI. 

In reality I hope it doesn't happen and would prefer the field, sea and air allowances all be based on postings to a designated billet and actually filling the requirements.  Landed on course for year doesn't seem to meet the requirements. An HRA sitting in Borden for 3 months shouldn't get SDA.  It is just a bit of a pain that everyone starts to think of it as part of their pay never to be taken away when it is an allowance for certain criteria.

I disagree here.  The only time a person should loose SDA while posted to an entitled unit is when they are medically unfit sea/alongside.

[Chief Stoker]

You never heard the "why is that guy with sea training getting SDA when he isn't even part of a ship, he is landed" complaint? 

I'm quite thankful to be receiving sea pay while i'm at Sea Training and quite busy at times.

[CountDC]

Historical aspect for consideration:


I would much rather see our base salaries increase which they seem to have done...that $1625 has now become $2985/mo.  (Which is actually almost $500 ahead of the rate of inflation for 1994-2015 using the CUPE Inflation calculator https://cupe.ca/cpi-calculator )

Looking at the same stat, a LS/Cpl IPC 1 Specialist is also almost $500 ahead of inflation since 1996 as well. 

Except the $1625 was from 1992 pay rates which didn't change until 1996 and using the same calculator it works out to be $2449 in 2015 dollars. Using CPI calculator purchase of goods and services at $1625 in 92 would cost you $2453 in 2015.  A small one but still a lost of purchasing power.  Then calculate in there increases that lower your net pay such as mess dues, ei, cpp and pension that are not generally part of the basket CPI uses and you start to get a hefty loss in actual spending dollars.   Anyone else remember when promotion to Sgt was a cut in net pay?  Pretty disheartening for that new proud Sgt when they were done at the pay office and realized they were out money instead of that little pay increase they expected.

Halifax Tar;

Perhaps just a crew that was bitter over losing SDA while in the shore office due to refit while watching another ship sitting as an anchor get the SDA and the MIR commando conveniently exempted due to medical every time they were scheduled to sail.  New to the ship and standing duty watches made it easy for some to voice their opinions.
Unless things have change since I was at CMS Sea Training has one or two positions that are designated for sea pay.  We were attempting to have that increased as they do spend so much time at sea, sometimes more than a single ships crew (probably not so much now with the under strength of the navy).

Allowances are never supposed to be included in the statement/letter of income we provide as it isn't part of the pay.  Still members argue that it should be in there as they see it as pay.

SSI short changes are sometimes just the opinion of the members.  I did quite a few of them and at the end there were only a few that I considered questionable although the members did not agree as in their minds in 1990 they sailed for 3 months which would be 90 days not the 70 days the records show.  Interestingly enough my calculation was and still is wrong as it gives me additional days that no one wants to change.  Has no bearing at this point so not even bothering.

Understood lots of people disagree with the SDA start dates and when it should be stopped. Some still feel it should start upon COS date vice reporting date.  I personally can not agree that if I leave the ship and go to Borden for several months I should still be entitled to an allowance that is paid to me for being with the ship and ready to sail.  They are not calling me back on a moments notice to sail.  In fact they may borrow a member from shore to go in my place so now they are paying two of us SDA for the same billet. Great for us but viewing it as a tax payer doesn't seem right to me.

[PuckChaser]

Except that there are is an increasingly diminishing pool of healthy people actually doing the work at sea, in the field and in the aircraft, covering for everyone else.  What about them?

How about we go back to a system where you get get paid by the day or the event? That way, people don't begin to mistake their allowances for their pay.

The new system has one good change, in that the CO can revoke an allowance if the member refuses to perform the duties. That seems significantly more far than docking allowances for temporary injuries incurred while performing the duties. It also doesn't address the fact that some folks can still go to sea/field/fly/special whatever even when on TCat. I was perfectly able to do my job around my TCat while waiting for surgery, which was a 6 month wait.

I concur we need better financial compensation instead of all these allowances, but we're stuck with what we have for the forceable future. What we didn't need was a knee jerk change to the far end of the spectrum when trying to incentivize folks from malingering on TCat while collecting the allowances. The change on points accumulation was wholly not required unless the goal was to save how much money they have per year on allowances.

[Chief Stoker]

Except the $1625 was from 1992 pay rates which didn't change until 1996 and using the same calculator it works out to be $2449 in 2015 dollars. Using CPI calculator purchase of goods and services at $1625 in 92 would cost you $2453 in 2015.  A small one but still a lost of purchasing power.  Then calculate in there increases that lower your net pay such as mess dues, ei, cpp and pension that are not generally part of the basket CPI uses and you start to get a hefty loss in actual spending dollars.   Anyone else remember when promotion to Sgt was a cut in net pay?  Pretty disheartening for that new proud Sgt when they were done at the pay office and realized they were out money instead of that little pay increase they expected.

Halifax Tar;

Perhaps just a crew that was bitter over losing SDA while in the shore office due to refit while watching another ship sitting as an anchor get the SDA and the MIR commando conveniently exempted due to medical every time they were scheduled to sail.  New to the ship and standing duty watches made it easy for some to voice their opinions.
Unless things have change since I was at CMS Sea Training has one or two positions that are designated for sea pay.  We were attempting to have that increased as they do spend so much time at sea, sometimes more than a single ships crew (probably not so much now with the under strength of the navy).

Allowances are never supposed to be included in the statement/letter of income we provide as it isn't part of the pay.  Still members argue that it should be in there as they see it as pay.

SSI short changes are sometimes just the opinion of the members.  I did quite a few of them and at the end there were only a few that I considered questionable although the members did not agree as in their minds in 1990 they sailed for 3 months which would be 90 days not the 70 days the records show.  Interestingly enough my calculation was and still is wrong as it gives me additional days that no one wants to change.  Has no bearing at this point so not even bothering.

Understood lots of people disagree with the SDA start dates and when it should be stopped. Some still feel it should start upon COS date vice reporting date.  I personally can not agree that if I leave the ship and go to Borden for several months I should still be entitled to an allowance that is paid to me for being with the ship and ready to sail.  They are not calling me back on a moments notice to sail.  In fact they may borrow a member from shore to go in my place so now they are paying two of us SDA for the same billet. Great for us but viewing it as a tax payer doesn't seem right to me.

All sea training positions are sea going positions.

[CountDC]

So they are now all getting SDA and not just casual for days they sail?  That was the target we were seeking and building a case for before I left.

[Chief Stoker]

So they are now all getting SDA and not just casual for days they sail?  That was the target we were seeking and building a case for before I left.

Yes that's right for some years. In regards to the reserve staff the sign a Class C SOU each time they deploy on ship. All receive SDA.

[George Wallace]

I am sure Mercedes Stephenson got an extra zero or perhaps two in her report as to how much a member may be losing in a six month period.  I find it hard to believe that a member could lose up to CDN$ 23+K in six months on losing an Allowance for not being fit to perform their duties.

Are members not told that their Allowance is for the time that they are actually "operational in" that position, not for the rest of their career?

[PuckChaser]

Assaulter makes SOA, LDA and assaulter allowance I'm pretty sure. Depending on the guy that's easily 3500 a month.

[MCG]

MND has now stated he will look into this.

http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/sajjan-looking-into-allowance-cut-for-ill-injured-soldiers-after-180-days-1.3674127

[Dolphin_Hunter]

MND has now stated he will look into this.

http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/sajjan-looking-into-allowance-cut-for-ill-injured-soldiers-after-180-days-1.3674127

I really don’t get it. If you can’t do the job then you shouldn’t get the allowance.  The fact that they get 6 months is pretty generous IMHO.