Benefits Cut...

[newwifey]

Good for you! What a very idealistic view of being a military wife (spouse).  I hope your sacrifices are worth it, but in reality, when retirement is inevitable, it's your family that will hopefully call on you from time to time, not the military. Most military families end up making sacrifices for their childrens education, family health reasons etc. It is part of the sacrifices we make as CF members, not just the deployments. In my experience, being proud to serve has to be balanced with making the right decisions for family, whether that's children, parents or spouses. There is no "job description" as a military spouse from what I can find, so I try to not judge others decisions on what is best for their own families. Society and military has changed a lot in the last 30 years, and the military promotes a well balanced military/family life (at least where I am).

My post was in response to a now dead issue!  Thank you again Armyvern for filling in the gaps.

My point was the "wife" would obviously know there are some expectations when you marry a military member, period.  No judgment there!!  I completely get that everyone will do what they deem right for their circumstances.  Personally I'd be thrilled if I could have a manual and job description on how to be a military spouse and fit in because the promotion of a well balanced life isn't my current reality! 

My sacrifices??  I am staying here for a year so my kid can finish high school, I am then leaving an area where I have lived my whole entire life and leaving a home I have lived in since my children were babies, chances are really good I am also leaving one or both of them behind.  I am moving away from my parents and my grandparents and they are losing me and my assistance.  I am leaving just about everything I KNOW!  When I made the choice to say yes to marrying a military man, I knew transfers would likely follow and so would these tough decisions and/or sacrifices.

Knowing he had to move and knowing I would follow, I found a way to keep my job.  Silly me thought that was the right thing to do.  It's not idealistic?!?!  It's realistic, I still have 25 years before I reach that magic age of 67......

So tell me, what's the better decision, refuse to move??  Come up with something else where I don't perceive we are taking advantage of the current system and won't go broke in the process?  WE aren't in a financial situation where sustaining two households is a reasonable solution.  Nor would I want to live apart from my soon to be husband for what could be 9 years.  That is MY reality.  I know  :crybaby: :crybaby: :crybaby:

I will repeat again, I am very new to this, I am a civilian thru and thru and I have often said these are only MY opinions and I see things totally different than most of you.  I do not know this system, at all!  And what I have been exposed to has been a very frustrating experience to say the least.

When this whole topic came up, my issue was and still is things are being changed after the fact when no one can do anything about it.  I still think it's not right to penalize people doing IR, or whatever other terminology you want to throw in there, properly when there are people abusing it, period and I still am of the opinion, there were other areas they could have looked at for budget cuts that wouldn't tick people off so much.  As for the food thing, I don't have a problem with that either, I do have a problem when that cost for one is going to be more than I spend now for four.

None of the above is aimed at anyone posting in this thread!  

**anyways, that was a totally different tangent and not meant to sway this thread, but maybe if you can have a little understanding of this NEWBIE position, you'll tolerate my bonehead comments a little and not take them completely out of context**

I look forward to seeing more clarification in the upcoming communications and would appreciate it if someone could post those as they become available.

 

[Wanderingaimlessly]

So my unit has finally received guidance on how this application of this new CANFORGEN will roll out and it doesn't look good for those members on a Prohibited posting.

Members who are posted prohibited will be required to remit the ration portion of their SE and will now only be covered for the quarters portion of it.  In plain English, if you are posted Prohibited you will be paying regardless of whether or not you are paying a mortgage/rent.  This is a drastic change from what most CF members have come to understand and I feel the impact is going to be huge.

I think this issue is really going to focus the spotlight on the high rates we charge for rations at all bases across Canada, $500 in some cases.  I, for one, know of several cases of members who are in the process of reassigning and will need to carry the rations payment in addition to their mortgage in one of Canada's most expensive housing markets.  The new rules seem to suggest that the CF expects the member's family to take the hit and subsidize his/her training that is mandated by the CF for that person to remain employed by the CF.  I also know that several of these same members are now reconsidering their decisions to remain with the CF, especially since the system that was designed to train and educate them is now charging them the equivalent of half a mortgage payment to eat. 

I know the thrust of this change was directed at the folks who sit on IR for years and collect scads of cash.  The same can't be said for Cpl. Dilligaf who just remustered to Firefighter and who likely took a hit to his pay to do so.  Cpl. Dilligaf used to be Sgt. Dilligaf or some other rank and now has to accept lower pay plus deal with the additional burden of financing his/her training by paying for rations that used to be covered.  That person had a life before remustering and a wife.  Now, we are effectively taking food off Mrs. Dilligaf's table because her husband is away in Borden waiting for up to a year for his new trade's coursing to begin.  This is bad timing on the part of the CF and I can tell you that Cpl. Dilligaf isn't happy, but he has to accept it and had to work out a budget to finance his training.  This is what we have become as a military.  Otherwise mandatory training is now becoming a burden to the member due simply to choices he/she made in previous years based on a salary that he/she was earning at the time.  Now with lower pay, that person is getting hammered again by this change and we are going to be seeing the impacts of this starting on 1 Sept 12.

There has to be a middle ground on this change.  It isn't fair to ask the Crown to fund a new boat by allowing Capt. Jones to remain on IR in Ottawa, but it isn't fair to ask Cpl. Dilligaf to fund his training either.  What was wrong with members receiving R&Q as their SE? There really wasn't anything complicated about it.  Training bases are now going to be scrambling to get ahead of this by finding ways to keep that Cpl. on his local economy for longer.  That has implications for employment, supervision, etc.  I have been really trying to figure this one out, but this change feels, to me at least, to be excessively punitive given the rates we charge members for rations.  Even the smartest financial planner would look at this change and see that there was no way to mitigate it.

I have read this thread several times and I have seen some callous comments like "if the military wanted you to have a family, it would have issued you one" or "if you don't like it, leave".  That is attitude is completely wrongheaded and it runs counter to the idea that we are making an investment in people here.  If Cpl. Dilligaf is happy, he is going to stay for 25-30 years and that keeps his experience in the CF.  If he leaves, then his experience leaves with him.  Meanwhile, Capt. Jones has a new boat and leaves as his obligatory service expires 5 years post-university.  The fact is that members have the right to change trades if found suitable and they do.  Yes, they need to be retrained but why punish them for changing trades? I am at a loss for words after seeing how this change is impacting members of an organization I care about. 

 

[Eye In The Sky]

Rations are the same across the board.  $543 for full rations/cafeteria.

Cpl Anyone's PAY is not affected.  This is a change to some benefits.

CF mbr's aren't 'funding their own trg".  The spin you are putting on the changes in your post is extremely misleading, to put it nicely.

 

[aesop081]

That person had a life before remustering and a wife.

Nobody put a gun to Cpl Dilligaf's head and said "you're a firefighter now".  The individual asked for an OT and accepted an offer that clearly stated there was a new rank and lower pay.

 

[Towards_the_gap]

But what about medical OT's?

 

[Eye In The Sky]

They have vested rights to pay; if you are a Sgt Combat Arms, get a Medical OT to RMS or Comm Rsch or whatever, you keep your pay.

 

[Towards_the_gap]

Ah, ok, this I didn't know. Thanks.

 

[bridges]

Nobody put a gun to Cpl Dilligaf's head and said "you're a firefighter now".  The individual asked for an OT and accepted an offer that clearly stated there was a new rank and lower pay.

Agreed - but did that offer also mention a charge of $543/month for rations while on training?

 

[aesop081]

but did that offer also mention a charge of $543/month for rations while on training?

Immaterial to the point wanderingaimlessly was attempting to make, when he/she said "had a life before remustering and a wife" and "a burden to the member due simply to choices he/she made in previous years based on a salary that he/she was earning at the time. ". That member made a conscious decision to accept a lower rate of pay. If a member made financial decisions based on the Sgt rank and then remusters on a VOT, you can't turn around and bitch about your lower pay.

 

[Blacklab]

It's a shame that this cuts to benefits (carefully sandwiched in between reminders of all the "recent improvements") couldn't have been published prior to APS '12.  Then I could have drowned or strangled my family's pets prior to moving overseas.  The cost (over $10k) came out of Custom and dug well into Personalized.  When we return, that $10K + expense will be out of pocket.  As much as we love our pets, that is not an amount of money we could afford.  I would have turned down this posting (which I did not request) had I known.  Perhaps when we drown our pets before we are posted back, CMP would enjoy the video so they can think about the value of timely info dissemination, and see the real life impact of these cuts.  Or should I just be thankful that the CF benefits from "outstanding government support"? 

 

[Strike]

It's a shame that this cuts to benefits (carefully sandwiched in between reminders of all the "recent improvements") couldn't have been published prior to APS '12.  Then I could have drowned or strangled my family's pets prior to moving overseas.  The cost (over $10k) came out of Custom and dug well into Personalized.  When we return, that $10K + expense will be out of pocket.  As much as we love our pets, that is not an amount of money we could afford.  I would have turned down this posting (which I did not request) had I known.  Perhaps when we drown our pets before we are posted back, CMP would enjoy the video so they can think about the value of timely info dissemination, and see the real life impact of these cuts.  Or should I just be thankful that the CF benefits from "outstanding government support"?

I know you're upset, but suggesting that someone might actually do harm to animals because of this is inappropriate.  Please remember that media do frequent this site.

 

[Blacklab]

"I know you're upset, but suggesting that someone might actually do harm to animals because of this is inappropriate.  Please remember that media do frequent this site."

True, I am upset.  Who wouldn't be?  I shipped my pets overseas based on one set of regulations, and now it will cost me $10K to get them home because the rules changed without adequate notice.  I might have made other arrangements if I had known.  My comment is not inappropriate, even if it is disturbing.  You can anticipate very reasonably that not everyone will take the time and effort (and expense!) to rehome their pets.  And I wouldn't post it if I was concerned about who might read it.  This is the first time I have ever felt so betrayed by policy.  What a slap in the face, to read a CANFORGEN describing how good we have it while materially denying that pet relocation is a legitimate moving expense. 

 

[Sig_Des]

"I know you're upset, but suggesting that someone might actually do harm to animals because of this is inappropriate.  Please remember that media do frequent this site."

True, I am upset.  Who wouldn't be?  I shipped my pets overseas based on one set of regulations, and now it will cost me $10K to get them home because the rules changed without adequate notice.  I might have made other arrangements if I had known.  My comment is not inappropriate, even if it is disturbing.

Nah, it is pretty damned disturbing, and to be perfectly honest, you're trying to use shock to warp the argument to your benefit IMO.

Let's ignore the other avenues available for getting rid of your animals. It sucks that it's going to cost you 10K to get them home. But what if you'd been posted a year prior, and were well into the way to a 3 year posting. You'd still have the same issue. What kind of notice do you want? "In 3 year, benefits might change, and you might get screwed."

 

[aesop081]

FSP level 1 for member with 2 dependants = $894/month,  3 dependants = $939/month

$10k shipping costs made up in about a year.

 

[Jarnhamar]

It really costs $10'000 to ship a pet somewhere?

 

[Michael OLeary]

This is the first time I have ever felt so betrayed by policy.  What a slap in the face, to read a CANFORGEN describing how good we have it while materially denying that pet relocation is a legitimate moving expense.

Have you formally grieved the change to ask if those who moved pets out of country will be grandfathered for the return trip?

Maybe that is where your energy should be focused, rather than making implied threats to kill your pets because of a policy change.

 

[armyvern]

It really costs $10'000 to ship a pet somewhere?

Perhaps it's an exotic ... say an elephant??  :blotto:

Levity; this thread requires levity.

Temporary Tangent:

I post this for you all. Just laughed my wee ass off as it's the best London 2012 commentary I've seen yet.  ;D

Sailing - London 2012

 

[Blacklab]

The FSP isn't intended to be used to ship animals, it's an incentive to foreign service.  And that's not comparing apples to apples, is it?  You could also point out that my salary is adequate to cover $10K.  That's not the point.  It's the impact of the benefit change that I'm commenting on.  It would be perfectly possible to implement this change incrementally.  Ex: all "next posts" will include pet relocation but future postings won't.  That would allow sufficient flexibility.  And to the other post: yes, it did cost that much, no it wasn't an elephant (not permissible under IRP).  Transport overseas + pet boarding + vaccinations required by the move.  All the things that were covered this year.  Actually closer to $12K but I like round numbers.  Even if it was only $100, the problem remains.  The only logic I can see for putting out this CANFORGEN now is that it is unlikely to stir the usual media interest because 1) it's summer and 2) the Olympics will overshadow it.  All that said, if you really don't see why I'm upset about this, then you must be far more tolerant and willing to accept without question. Clearly I am not the perfect company man- these things annoy me, personally and for everyone else they adversely impact.  I guess if it doesn't personally affect you though, then who cares, right?  Or if I don't like it, gtfo?  Are we back to that?

 

[aesop081]

  That's not the point. 

The point is that you don't have to drown your pets and you don't have to break the bank to avoid it. Who f****g cares what FSP was intended for. You have extra money you can use to ship your dogs back when you get posted. Yeah, it leaves less for your bank account, it sucks, but you're not without options.

  I guess if it doesn't personally affect you though, then who cares, right?  Or if I don't like it, gtfo?  Are we back to that?

Yes, that is me : The company "yes man" who only cares when it affects him.  :


I'm shipping my dog this APS and IRP doesn't know if i will be able to claim it as the expense was incured prior to 01 Sep but my claim will not be submited until after 01 Sep. So yeah, i'm not affected.......

For the record, i understand why you are upset. That being said, you are taking things to extreme. It's not like you wont be able to afford to ship your pets back and it wont be out of your regular pay.

 

[Blacklab]

If the expense was incurred prior to 1 Sep, then you "should" be able to claim it.  I wouldn't accept "don't know" from IRP as an answer- that leaves them wiggle room, which rarely ends well.  If you can at least post the receipts to a draft claim expense you will be on more solid ground.  Shame that moves always seem to go this way- fighting for benefits, ambiguity from Brookfield and nothing but stock answers.  Good luck.  My pets are still in quarantine, I won't have them until 23 Aug, so it's unlikely I will have filed my claim before 1 Sep either.  @ the comment about filing a grievance, ummm no, if the past 48 hrs I haven't managed to look into grandfathering.  A bit busy with work and collecting HG&E and so on.