Allowances - Post Living Differential (PLD) [MERGED]

[Fabius]

If that example fits the CBI, then the action should be as per the CBI.

No one except the mbr and clinician knows to should know what condition(s) warrant MELs. Does it seem fishy? Who cares? COs can discuss with the B Surg etc but I don’t see where they have authority to disallow the allowance if it doesn’t match policy such as CBI.

These little unit “review boards” are challenging the Health Services authority more than the mbr. The BSurg should be addressing that appropriately.

How is the unit CoC challenging Health Services?
The member is completely free to continue getting MELs before every exercise. The CoC does not consider if the MELs are valid or not, like you said it’s outside their scope.

The item is strictly has the member refused service. If they are deploying to the field they get the allowance if they don’t they don’t. There is no judgment on the validity of the refusal.

 

[captloadie]

How is the unit CoC challenging Health Services?
The member is completely free to continue getting MELs before every exercise. The CoC does not consider if the MELs are valid or not, like you said it’s outside their scope.

The item is strictly has the member refused service. If they deploying the field they get the allowance if they don’t they don’t. There will s no judgment on the validity of the refusal.

And actions like this will be what hastens the changes to SDA/LDA policy. As soon as the policy is not applied equally (as opposed to fairly) across units, grievances will occur, and the decision makers in Ottawa will once again devise a policy with even less decision space for the tactical level. It will also allow for greater changes, using the excuse that policy could be applied as written at the local level, so "We" are making changes to improve it (which never actually ends in a positive manner for the troops).

 

[MJP]

is the CBI 6 months? What defines 6 months without going to the field? Is that 6 months of Mel’s limiting you, does it have to be concurrent? What if there was no opportunity? Ect ect. I said 1 CMBG because that’s were the directive came from. Obviously the policy is CAF wide.

If that example fits the CBI, then the action should be as per the CBI.

No one except the mbr and clinician knows to should know what condition(s) warrant MELs. Does it seem fishy? Who cares? COs can discuss with the B Surg etc but I don’t see where they have authority to disallow the allowance if it doesn’t match policy such as CBI.

These little unit “review boards” are challenging the Health Services authority more than the mbr. The BSurg should be addressing that appropriately.

The 1 CMBG SOI follows the CBI and doesn't have it's own set of sub rules. That would be silly and open them up to grievances.

It was introduced to make sure that if a CoC decides to remove LDA from a person that the process is procedurally fair and transparent. Before was hodge podge of CoCs enforcing the CBI while others didn't. In addition, some units had mbr input while others made arbitrary decisions, so the SOI levels the playing field and formalizes the process. Ironically before the SOI was published the Svc Bn had the most robust review process in the Bde.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

How is the unit CoC challenging Health Services?
The member is completely free to continue getting MELs before every exercise. The CoC does not consider if the MELs are valid or not, like you said it’s outside their scope.

IMO, because the MELs are issued by a health clinician, not the mbr.

The item is strictly has the member refused service. If they are deploying to the field they get the allowance if they don’t they don’t. There is no judgment on the validity of the refusal.

That’s not how the CBIs says the allowance is to be administered, and therein lies the problem with “unit review boards”.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

The 1 CMBG SOI follows the CBI and doesn't have it's own set of sub rules. That would be silly and open them up to grievances.

It was introduced to make sure that if a CoC decides to remove LDA from a person that the process is procedurally fair and transparent. Before was hodge podge of CoCs enforcing the CBI while others didn't. In addition, some units had mbr input while others made arbitrary decisions, so the SOI levels the playing field and formalizes the process. Ironically before the SOI was published the Svc Bn had the most robust review process in the Bde.

This seems like a corrective action to standardize the administration; that a BZ then IMO.

 

[dapaterson]

It was introduced to make sure that if a CoC decides to remove LDA from a person that the process is procedurally fair and transparent. Before was hodge podge of CoCs enforcing the CBI while others didn't. In addition, some units had mbr input while others made arbitrary decisions, so the SOI levels the playing field and formalizes the process. Ironically before the SOI was published the Svc Bn had the most robust review process in the Bde.

...and now the LCol who was CO of the Svc Bn is promoted, and is DMCA...

 

[Fabius]

And actions like this will be what hastens the changes to SDA/LDA policy. As soon as the policy is not applied equally (as opposed to fairly) across units, grievances will occur, and the decision makers in Ottawa will once again devise a policy with even less decision space for the tactical level. It will also allow for greater changes, using the excuse that policy could be applied as written at the local level, so "We" are making changes to improve it (which never actually ends in a positive manner for the troops).

Honestly if we write policy’s that appear to give decision space to COs but then get upset with their use of that space and their decisions within it, we are better off without it.

Perhaps ironically it’s not the CoC that is most frustrated with the current situation it’s the peers of those who are getting the allowance while doing nothing to earn it.

 

[Fabius]

The 1 CMBG SOI follows the CBI and doesn't have it's own set of sub rules. That would be silly and open them up to grievances.

It was introduced to make sure that if a CoC decides to remove LDA from a person that the process is procedurally fair and transparent. Before was hodge podge of CoCs enforcing the CBI while others didn't. In addition, some units had mbr input while others made arbitrary decisions, so the SOI levels the playing field and formalizes the process. Ironically before the SOI was published the Svc Bn had the most robust review process in the Bde.

How does the SOI understand a refusal? What decision space does a CoC have in that?

 

[Halifax Tar]

...and now the LCol who was CO of the Svc Bn is promoted, and is DMCA...

Honestly if we write policy’s that appear to give decision space to COs but then get upset with their use of that space and their decisions within it, we are better off without it.

Perhaps ironically it’s not the CoC that is most frustrated with the current situation it’s the peers of those who are getting the allowance while doing nothing to earn it.

Why do we give COs room to move on administrative and financial rules and regulations ?

These kinds of things should be bullet proof; and if they no longer work or fit then its the COs job to represent that to their higher authorities and petition to have them adjusted.

 

[MJP]

...and now the LCol who was CO of the Svc Bn is promoted, and is DMCA...

The policy within the Svc Bn pre-dated them, however it was cleaned up and strengthened under their time as CO. They also briefed the policy to the Bde under them. I do recall one unit CO saying they would get skewered by the troops if it was introduced at their unit.

 

[Quirky]

The Duty Officer is expected to answer the phone at 0200 and head downtown as a liaison to pick up the soldier who got punched out in a bar and is being hospitalized with injuries.

I wonder how many other employers offer babysitting services to grown adults.

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

I don't think people have an issue with the class (Rank) system, I think its the perceived or real lack of representation and care for welfare of the lower class (Ranks), i.e. the JRs.

Understood, decades of ignoring our infrastructure and equipment problems are coming to head, but sharing the adversity of your people will go a long way to letting them know we are all in this together vice the us VS them feeling that seems to be growing.

I think it's more an issue that we've let the infrastructure degrade so much.

Shared accommodations are not an issue. When shared accommodations have mold, asbestos, rats, etc. That's the issue.

I stayed in a Mod Tent on my Phase 2 and H-Lines on Phase 3. The shacks didn't really matter, we weren't there much.

Got the D-Lines on Phase 4. They were brand new then and had that new car smell, was a nice change.

 

[markppcli]

No, but I am stating that offering affordable accommodations with shared washrooms and, possibly, shared living space is not unusual nor unique to the military.

I was just talking to a soldier who lives in the shacks. He says he doesn't mind it (it was his first time away from home) and that he and a friend are looking to move out into either a PMQ or rent something on the civilian market.

I'm really not seeing the issue here - the soldier has choices.



Different duty requirements - the Duty NCO and Cpl are required to be on hand to ensure security and 24 hour access of the facility, the Duty Officer isn't. The Duty Officer is expected to answer the phone at 0200 and head downtown as a liaison to pick up the soldier who got punched out in a bar and is being hospitalized with injuries.

I know you are not being disingenuous here. I'm just trying to point out that there are in many cases bona fide reasons why there is a difference in employment between the two as opposed to it simply being a case of a preferential treatment towards a commission. In many of these cases, as @Humphrey Bogart alluded to, it is simply normal Western hierarchical manager/worker split (WOs on the unit duty roster either) and is not unique to the military. In other cases it is a lack of investment in resources. FWIW, I've shared a bunk bed in the shacks with a Colonel (who snored loud!) because that is what was available - the corporal and CWO were across from us. The Army is actually better than a lot of other fields and occupations in sharing the conditions of employment.

Thank, and again not saying it’s dastardly or wrong; just pointing out that this is the most obvious example of the class system Fabius asked an example of.

 

[CountDC]

We need a better system of accountability and the ability to fire people. I'd rather cut the dead weight than have to dedicate resources to babysit and constantly mentor the untrainable. We don't owe employment to anyone.

We do have the ability to fire people. The problem is most people don't want to do the work involved or won't get the support from the chain of command to carry through. C&P although meant with the main goal of helping the member become a good addition to the CAF does have an end state of release from the CAF if the member doesn't meet the objective. I participated in one in the early 90s that resulted in the member released and associated with another member that failed his and was released. It can be a long process requiring work, but it is there to be used in hopefully fixing a wayward member or releasing them if they can't be changed.

 

[Furniture]

Yes there is a form of class system in the CAF and yes commissioned officers get better quarters and accommodations than the rank and file.

But....

It's also a Volunteer Military and everyone is free to try and become an Officer if they want so it's not like the old days when Commissions were bought and paid for.

Want to live in the nice shacks, put the hand up, undergo the selection process, do the training and coursing and you too can enjoy the fruits of your labour!

We generally have equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome.

Alternatively the troops can put their release in and go find work somewhere else if they find conditions not acceptable.

Not that people would leave the CAF because the CAF makes working for it unappealing...

 

[Quirky]

The problem is most people don't want to do the work involved or won't get the support from the chain of command to carry through.

The problem is the process itself so people just give up. It's easier to just stick the person in some position they can't do any damage or make them someone else's problem by posting or positional change.

 

[CountDC]

The problem is the process itself so people just give up. It's easier to just stick the person in some position they can't do any damage or make them someone else's problem by posting or positional change.

That is exactly my point - people don't want to put in the effort and would rather pass the buck or don't have the support. The process itself isn't actually hard. You do the documents, have an occasional meeting. know of cases where instead the supervisor opted to give a blazing PER to the member hoping they would get promoted and posted. The one we released was highly recommended as a superb worker that should be promoted. Turned out to be the most useless clerk I ever worked with and was released based on inability to function as a clerk. When I talked to people I knew it came out that the only thing the clerk was good at was making sure that the MWO always had his coffee. Guess they should have worked at Tim Horton's instead.

 

[Quirky]

the clerk was good at was making sure that the MWO always had his coffee. Guess they should have worked at Tim Horton's instead.

People should be charged with self-mutilation for drinking that poison.

 

[dapaterson]

We do have the ability to fire people. The problem is most people don't want to do the work involved or won't get the support from the chain of command to carry through. C&P although meant with the main goal of helping the member become a good addition to the CAF does have an end state of release from the CAF if the member doesn't meet the objective. I participated in one in the early 90s that resulted in the member released and associated with another member that failed his and was released. It can be a long process requiring work, but it is there to be used in hopefully fixing a wayward member or releasing them if they can't be changed.

Adding: Even successful completion of remedial measures can be an element in future administrative action. If there is demonstrated recurring inability to work / behave properly, release can be ordered.

 

[CountDC]

People should be charged with self-mutilation for drinking that poison.

That poison is my life blood in the morning. No half a pot of coffee to wake up and no work gets done.