• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Benefits Cut...

ArmyVern said:
I have no idea as to what the 400$ allowance is that you are speaking of.

I'm not sure either.  Every month I go and sign a claim- every day in which I'm not on leave or TD I get $10 or $14 or something- up to a max of I believe $400. Incidentals maybe? 
 
ObedientiaZelum said:
I'm not sure either.  Every month I go and sign a claim- every day in which I'm not on leave or TD I get $10 or $14 or something- up to a max of I believe $400. Incidentals maybe?

Yes; you're in shacks and eating in the mess?  That's the incidentals.
 
ObedientiaZelum said:
I'm not sure either.  Every month I go and sign a claim- every day in which I'm not on leave or TD I get $10 or $14 or something- up to a max of I believe $400. Incidentals maybe?

I average just under 400 now for se so that is probably what he means.

As for the change to a restricted posting, it is a great option for the member but it will probably be more expense to the military overall. Talking with my CoC today that is the solution that seems to be their best guess but, in my case at least, it would cost the military a full cost move rather than a 500 dollar ticket to Victoria. I understand not everyone can be posted to a base where their family is but it seems to me that it is a better option where it exists.
 
dapaterson said:
Slight tangent:

Perhaps we need to re-think some of those training plans.  Staff college, for example.  With the current mix of DL/residential students there has been no observable performance difference between the two groups.  That suggests we can do away with the current residential model and move to a model that's primarily DL, with perhaps a short (2-3 month?) residential portion.  That would represent a significant savings to DND - no more moves or IR for the course, and over 100 ATL positions to be re-invested.

Continuing slight tangent:

If we want to continue to view it as a pseudo grad school then yes.  If we want it to be a real staff college, then no.
 
wesleyd said:
I was on IR for 4 months, unaccompanied for 6 months first. My house was actively on the market and was priced 50k below assessed value ( which was 30k lower than the realtor wanted to list it for). After ten months my house sold and my family got to move here with me. Should someone in a similar situation be penalized for something that is beyond their control?
I would argue it should not cost someone in the circumstances you describe (and I have experience with such circumstances), but the TB has already made the decision to take away the funding which covers the additional expenses.  I suspect it would be futile, convincing TB to reverse its decision.  However, looking at existing mechanisms that we have to sp members temporarily away from home, I think the CF could improve the situation of most future pers going unaccompanied by convincing TB to cover that circumstance under CFTDTIs.

signalsguy said:
What about people who are posted to training establishments for 1 year courses?
We could use attached postings.
 
Tony Manifold said:
As for the change to a restricted posting, it is a great option for the member but it will probably be more expense to the military overall. Talking with my CoC today that is the solution that seems to be their best guess but, in my case at least, it would cost the military a full cost move rather than a 500 dollar ticket to Victoria. I understand not everyone can be posted to a base where their family is but it seems to me that it is a better option where it exists.

You are absolutely correct, this will cost the CF, as a whole, a crap ton more money. However, the optics of stopping all these people that have been "abusing" the system as well as the optics of reuniting families long separated look quite good.

Then we get into the different "types" of money on the fin side and which "pot" the money comes out of. The pot of money for SE has all dried up, however there is money left in the pot of money for cost moves for new recruits and their families.

This is where we get into semantics, and quite frankly, it gets stupid.
 
How would an attached posting work? lFTSP/ATWOP for example: posted to RMC for 11 months then posted to a new job, not back to the old job.

Isn't an attached posting assuming you will go back to your "home" unit?
 
Attached posted to the school until graduation, then a normal posting to the new unit. That is done in many other situations. For example, i was attached posted from my unit to CFANS until i graduated and then receive a normal posting message to another unit at another base.
 
signalsguy said:
How would an attached posting work? lFTSP/ATWOP for example: posted to RMC for 11 months then posted to a new job, not back to the old job.

Isn't an attached posting assuming you will go back to your "home" unit?

The justification for att-posting in those situations may be that you will not go on to the new job unless you pass the training - there's no guarantee.
 
CDN Aviator said:
Pretty interesting, I was sitting in the office with cdnnvyguy this afternoon and saying that i thought this is exactly what would happen.

It was as if you had a 6th sence  :P
 
Wookilar said:
Situations like these are why the whole IR thing is being looked at and changed.  And of course the cuts shouldn't bother you, in cases like these, I don't think there should be IR benefits.


Bingo!

When it really is a life style choice, then it should not be covered. Last year or two in highschool? Sure. Certain medical conditions? Maybe (Pet does not have the same access to health care as, say, Edmonton).

Spouse has a great job? No, sorry. My spouse had a great career, but she knew full well that when I was posted, it would be very difficult for her to recover that in the next posting. We made the LIFE STYLE decision that my job was more important (the whole "calling" thing I suppose).

If your spouse's job is so awesome, get off your high horse, get out and get yourself a job in that city. In the CF, there is no such thing a two important jobs in the family. There should only be one. Just as the needs of the CF dictate our postings, so does it dictate a number of factors in our lives.

We all knew this when we joined (or we should have), seems that some of us have forgotten.

Or maybe it really is coming down to the difference between a job and a calling?

(pm alreadfy sent to Quellefille)

Its a personal choice.  I don't abuse the system I use the program as its intended and that's that.  Whether you agree with my reason for going IR is inconsequential as its approved through the proper channels and all completely legit.

I have also stated that I think IR should be drastically changed to just R&Q no living on the economy and no benefits.  I think R&Q is more than fair. 

On a side note, I am not asking my wife (as of this Saturday :) )  to give up everything she worked for because an organization that only I belong too thinks they can run her life too.  I have 7 years left to complete then I will pull the pin.  If that means I`m on IR for 7 years or some version of it so be it.  If it means I don't get IR anymore and we live distantly so be it, but my last 7 is not worth nearly as much as her next 35.
 
Halifax Tar said:
Its a personal choice.  I don't abuse the system I use the program as its intended and that's that.  Whether you agree with my reason for going IR is inconsequential as its approved through the proper channels and all completely legit.

...
... I am not asking my wife (as of this Saturday :) )  to give up everything she worked for because an organization that only I belong too thinks they can run her life too.  I have 7 years left to complete then I will pull the pin.  If that means I`m on IR for 7 years or some version of it so be it.  If it means I don't get IR anymore and we live distantly so be it, but my last 7 is not worth nearly as much as her next 35.
You may be getting approval from the proper authorities, but you are not using the system as intended.  IR is intended to be a temporary deferment of a posting.  You are making a lifestyle choice to permanently put-off any posting.  You are not using the system as intended - you are part of the problem.

Halifax Tar said:
I have also stated that I think IR should be drastically changed to just R&Q no living on the economy and no benefits.  I think R&Q is more than fair. 
Many locations do not have quarters nor kitchens.  R&Q is not an option in many places.
 
You want to be on IR for 7 years then pull the pin?

Yea I don't think that's what IR was intended for.  Not cool dude.
 
ArmyVern said:
The message only notes that the meal portion and the incidental portion is being removed (although as shown - those incidentals still must occur for phone, laundry etc - now just 100% out of our own pockets) ... it states nothing about the "separation pay" portion being removed...

Actually, the message did outline that all separation expense claims would no longer be claimable, so the $400 a month that people were recieving for SE every month is no longer claimable.

4. EFFECTIVE 1 SEP 12, THE FOLLOWING BENEFITS UNDER THE CANADIAN
FORCES INTEGRATED RELOCATION PROGRAM (CFIRP) AND CB1 208 SHALL CEASE
FOR ALL CF MEMBERS:
A. THE MORTGAGE BREAKING PENALTIES AND MORTGAGE EARLY REPAYMENT
PENALTIES AND
B. THE MORTGAGE LOAN INSURANCE (MLI)
5. EFFECTIVE 1 SEP 12, THE FOLLOWING BENEFITS SHALL CEASE FOR ALL
REG F MEMBERS AND RES F MEMBERS SERVING ON CLASS C RESERVE SERVICE:
UNDER THE SEPARATION EXPENSE BENEFITS, BOTH THE INCIDENTAL EXPENSE
ALLOWANCE AND MEAL RATE INCLUDING RATIONS AT PUBLIC EXPENSE
6. EFFECTIVE 1 SEP 12, THE FOLLOWING BENEFITS SHALL CEASE TO APPLY
TO RES F MEMBERS SERVING ON CLASS B RESERVE SERVICE:
A. TRANSPORTATION ASSISTANCE FOR RES F PERSONNEL. THIS BENEFIT WILL
NOT APPLY TO CLASS B RES F PERSONNEL, BUT ONLY TO RES F PERSONNEL
SERVING ON CLASS A RESERVE SERVICE AND
B. SEPARATION EXPENSE (ALL RELATED BENEFITS)
7. EFFECTIVE 1 SEP 12, THE FOLLOWING CFIRP BENEFITS WILL BE
ADMINISTERED THROUGH THE PERSONALIZED FUNDING ENVELOPE AND CBI 208
WILL BE AMENDED ACCORDINGLY:
A. EXTENDED HOUSE HUNTING TRIP (HHT) (ALL RELATED BENEFITS)
B. COMMERCIAL PET CARE BOARDING COSTS DURING HHT
C. ACCOMPANYING PET IN COMMERCIAL LODGINGS WHILE TRAVELLING FOR
RELOCATION
D. PET SHIPMENT AND PET CARE BOARDING COSTS AT ORIGIN AND OR NEW
PLACE OF DUTY
E. ACCOMPANYING PET IN COMMERCIAL LODGINGS WHILE TRAVELLING FOR
RELOCATION
F. DISCONNECTION/CONNECTION FEES AT ORIGIN AND NEW PLACE OF DUTY
G. POSTAL AND COURIER SERVICES, NOT TO EXCEED 12 MONTHS DURATION
H. INTEREST ON HOME RELOCATION LOAN AND
I. ADDITIONAL APPRAISAL FEES
8. NOTWITHSTANDING THESE CHANGES...

As for possible solutions, I was also told today that they may be looking at changing my posting status from prohibited to allow me to move my wife and son here.  As long as it doesn't affect my course, or get me recoursed due to missing too many classes, I'm all for it.  The less time away from them, the better IMO.
 
Halifax Tar said:
On a side note, I am not asking my wife (as of this Saturday :) )  to give up everything she worked for because an organization that only I belong too thinks they can run her life too.  I have 7 years left to complete then I will pull the pin.  If that means I`m on IR for 7 years or some version of it so be it.  If it means I don't get IR anymore and we live distantly so be it, but my last 7 is not worth nearly as much as her next 35.

Had a guy like that, got himself a compassionate posting to a reserve unit near his home. He'd milked IR while in Petawawa, and got it again in KTown. He wanted a real spot near his house, CM told him to move unrestricted or release. He released and I don't think he got his 20 years. As its been said, you're part of the problem.
 
Halifax Tar said:
Its a personal choice.  I don't abuse the system I use the program as its intended and that's that.  Whether you agree with my reason for going IR is inconsequential as its approved through the proper channels and all completely legit.

I have also stated that I think IR should be drastically changed to just R&Q no living on the economy and no benefits.  I think R&Q is more than fair. 

On a side note, I am not asking my wife (as of this Saturday :) )  to give up everything she worked for because an organization that only I belong too thinks they can run her life too.  I have 7 years left to complete then I will pull the pin.  If that means I`m on IR for 7 years or some version of it so be it.  If it means I don't get IR anymore and we live distantly so be it, but my last 7 is not worth nearly as much as her next 35.

I call BS!  I might be new but even I know that's WRONG!

I have a career and job that I've had for 24 years.  I am marrying my guy in 38 days. 
He's been posted, I will move next summer sometime and guess what, I have made all the necessary arrangements to keep my job. 
My understanding of being the wife is I'm to follow him (when I am allowed) where he is sent, regardless of how much time he has left.  Isn't that part of our "job" as a military wife. 

I'm fairly certain your wife also knows what comes with marrying a military man......
 
MCG said:
You may be getting approval from the proper authorities, but you are not using the system as intended.  IR is intended to be a temporary deferment of a posting.  You are making a lifestyle choice to permanently put-off any posting.  You are not using the system as intended - you are part of the problem.
Many locations do not have quarters nor kitchens.  R&Q is not an option in many places.

Actually, as one of the persons who - just last month - fully supported his request for extension to his IR to the Career Manager (who approved it), his reasons were sound. It does have to do with lifestyle ... and yet he had ZERO intent of "being IR for the next 3, 4, 5, 6 or 7 years." He was, and isn't, part of the problem. He is aware that certain places do not have proper accommodations (we've actually talked about his opinion on that), but he is of the belief that building those appropriate accommodations would save the CF money in the long run - it's all in the context of the comments.

His referring to 7 years left and he will go unaccompanied for those 7 (at his own expense too) because his career is not more important than hers details exactly that he is not riding the system and that, if need be, in order for her not to get screwed in her career either, then they, as a couple, will incur all necessary costs for next 7 years out of their own pockets if his career requires him to go somewhere else to enable both careers rather than the taxpayer as it would then be a lifestyle choice.

Do they plan on being apart for next 7 years? No. It was a commentary on the current situation --- and that even if they cut IR to nil - he is not about to screw his wife's career at the behest of the CF and would pay himself to ensure he did not.

To be clear, his wife's budding career is not the sole reason for his current status.
 
Back
Top