Benefits Cut...

[Haggis]

I thought Commuting assistance was to compensate you for having no choice but to live a distance from a work location which is not serviced by public transportation.

True, it is. (that's why I included the CBI number - probably should've cut & pasted the whole CBI).  Similarly, a Class B Reservist who is not moved at public expense due to inelgibility for such a move is in a similar situation.

 

[Occam]

True, it is. (that's why I included the CBI number - probably should've cut & pasted the whole CBI).  Similarly, a Class B Reservist who is not moved at public expense due to inelgibility for such a move is in a similar situation.

I don't see them as the same thing, though. 

In the Reg F case, you're posted to Unit X.  Unit X has no suitable residential community nearby, therefore you're forced to live at some distance from Unit X, but are compensated in the form of Commuting Assistance.

In the Res F case with TA, you're offered a Class B term of employment at Unit X.  If you live outside of the geographical area but chose to apply for the position at Unit X, you do so full well knowing that you have a commute.  If you don't want to pay for the commute, you have the option of not applying for the position.  Just like on civvie street.  I don't see why Transportation Assistance was ever offered.

 

[newwifey]

I think the members who are using IR as intended shouldn't be penalized.  I do think the ones abusing it should have the benefits stripped as soon as possible.  This cut with little notice is going to affect some people legitimately.

As for where they can cut some expenses, some of those per diems are outrageously high, cut a percentage there.

What about taskings where military air transportation is used whenever they can instead of rearranging their schedules for less expensive options?  I'm sure the RCN and CA have similar "perks" being utilized more often than they should.

As for the cuts I'm expecting to our move when I go, there are expenses when you move.  Whether it's by your own choice or the military's.  Quite frankly I'm happy to see most of what we will require will be covered, but ours should be fairly simple.  It should not be nor was it ever intended to be a money making venture.  There are people out their bragging how much they "got", like they're bragging.  So, no I'm not surprised at all to see more being cut here.

Whoever is juggling the numbers to make these cuts isn't looking at the "whole" picture.  They need some more objective eyes.

This is just a civvie perspective      (so please don't fire hate mail my way if I got it wrong, I am SUPER new!!)

 

[Remius]

NewWifey: Believe it or not, military transportation is actually cheaper than anything commercial.  Just from an optics point of view it may not seem that way.  It costs less for me to take a military vehicle on TD than renting a nice gucci one from Enterprise.  Same with Flights, that are by and large already paid for. 

The fact is that we also have ourselves to blame for some of this.  Some people really don't make the effort to find the most affordable accomodations.  Even if it is on the list of approved venues.  I booked some TD for trip that several dets were coming on as well.  I picked the cheapest hotel that was closest to the meeting site.  Yet some of the other dets chose a more expensive hotel further away (meaning longer cab rides) but they justified what they did by saying the hotel was on the approved list.  Or how many people still claim a  meal when it was provided at a conference or hotel.

It starts with all of us.  Beacuse yeah, the legit people end up paying for it.

 

[Teeps74]

TA for PRes CL B and CL A:

CL B, there are several instances across this nation, where the member filling the position and drawing TA is doing so as there is little other choice. As other have indicated, a CL B member is not always (usually not in fact) offered a cost move. Further, their spouse has that other very necessary job that is not transportable (sound familiar?). TA is only offered up to 200km. The impact is, a very real negative that should be assessed. Are there those abusing it? Sure, go after the ones abusing it it... But this cut is cutting off the arm to treat a wart.

CL A, I am fearful that the cut to CL B will be followed by a cut to the CL A TA. Many reserve units across Canada have very little problem recruiting Jr NCMs and Jr officers. Most units outside of major urban centres have very real difficulties retaining anyone beyond the 24-26 year old mark or the MCpl to Sgt transition. Parts of Ontario and most of Western area have very real challenges maintaining leadership as there are no available careers for for young men and women... Small units remain small as young adults, soldiers, sailors and airmen/women strike out to seek that life long career to complement a career in the PRes. TA helps abate the attrition of skilled leaders in rural units.

For the rest of it... Yes, I do agree that things need to be done to help do our part to save money... However, before the MPs tinkered with our pension, they should have lead the way and tinkered with their own golden egg first. There is no more generous pension plan in this nation then the plan offered to a 6 year "veteran" Member of Parliament. The slashing done to us certainly would be far more palatable if the pain was shared. ALL members who are public service, elected officials and members of the CF should face the same issues, instead of some.

 

[Occam]

What about taskings where military air transportation is used whenever they can instead of rearranging their schedules for less expensive options? 

It's funny you mention this.  On a somewhat related matter, I'm seeing ridiculous stuff on a grand scale when it comes to government travel.  Say you have to travel to Europe for five days on business.  You start to look into booking your flights, and you see that if you fly on a Monday and return on a Friday, you pay $X.  If you travelled on a Monday and returned on a Sunday, you could get a flight for $1600 cheaper, but would have to deal with a couple of extra nights in a hotel.  Even though you'd be saving the government money by travelling on Mon/Sun and taking a couple of days of personal leave, it's not allowed.  Not even if you paid the hotels yourself.  Supposedly it's now "Misuse of a TAN" (Travel authorization number).

Optics.

If you want to mix personal and business travel, what's supposed to happen (apparently) is that the business travel gets booked, at whatever cost.  Then, if you want a couple of extra days, you contact the airline, pay them the fee (out of your own pocket) for changing the flights, and then pay any extra (if any) on the airfare if the flight becomes more expensive.  What that policy doesn't take into consideration is: What happens if they flight becomes cheaper as a result?  I'm sure Air Canada will be banging on the door of the keeper of the Consolidated Revenue Fund saying "Cpl Bloggins just saved the Crown $1600 by taking two days leave and changing his travel dates.  Here's the Crown's $1600 in airfare savings back!".  Yep, I'm sure that'll be happening.  ;D

 

[Eye In The Sky]

Where does it say you are losing SE? All they are cutting from IR is the incidentals.

Maybe I am getting this wrong, but after reading thru CBI 208.997 (not that I understand it all, my frickin' eyes crossed at one point I am sure), SE *is* the incidentals, is it not?  75% of the TD allowance per day.

Para 5 of the CANFORGEN "Under the Seperation Expense Benefits, both the incidental expense allowance and meal rate including rations at public expense".

 

[McG]

So IR (a personal choice) doesnt look like a gravy train any more maybe just maybe it'll dissuade some folks from going on Chosen restrictions for 5 years or more.

Mind you, IR was not changed.  Separation expense (SE) was changed.  As dapaterson has pointed out, not everyone on IR is entitled to separation expense.  Further, not everyone entitled to separation expense was on IR - pers posted prohibited, pers unaccompanied, and married service couples are all examples of pers without a choice who will now be affected.  While this change does make IR less desirable to those who are abusing it, it does not stop anyone from abusing.

If the goal of the changes was to stop IR abuse, then the changes should have been specific to IR and probably should have seen the entitlement capped at two years (with CMP able to authorize a third year in extreme cases).  If the goal was to reduce the cost of SE (and I think it was more generous that required), then a more appropriate solution is probably something between the current SE and the SE expense coming 01 Sept.

 

[McG]

Maybe I am getting this wrong, but after reading thru CBI 208.997 (not that I understand it all, my frickin' eyes crossed at one point I am sure), SE *is* the incidentals, is it not?  75% of the TD allowance per day.

The incidental is part of SE.  Quarters and (up to now) rations were also part of SE.  Depending on the type of accommodations lodging the member, SE could also include other things such as basic phone, internet and cable.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

Ack.

So what I think is commonly known or referred to as SE amongst us unwashed masses  ;D is ka-put eff 01 Sep 12.

The OD who is married w/kids, and on a restricted posting to Esq for an extended period is accurate in saying there will now be a $934 difference in his take-home pay/bank account. 

Checked ADM (Mat) J4 Foods earlier;  caferteria svc  = $534/month, table svc  = $906/month eff 01 Aug 12. 

 

[Wookilar]

Exactly. If the cost of rations wasn't so out of touch with reality I wouldn't be worried about the students currently getting SE.

And don't get me started on $1000/month for table service being "not bad," mainly because the members do not have a choice in where they eat.

$600/month for rations is ridiculous. That's almost what I spend in a month for my family. If Base Foods didn't repeatedly give back money every year on most training bases, MAYBE I'd by it (no pun intended).

However, here in Gagetown (and I know Borden is the same) Base Foods gives back money every year, to the tune of a few hundred thousands/year (Don't get me started on how the kitchens are double charging the troops and schools).

 

[GAP]

Did not the option of 1/2 rations come out a couple of years ago, or was that only on some bases...?

 

[Eye In The Sky]

No, it is there (10 meals/week) at $310.52 (caf) and $518 (table).

 

[dapaterson]

It's funny you mention this.  On a somewhat related matter, I'm seeing ridiculous stuff on a grand scale when it comes to government travel.  Say you have to travel to Europe for five days on business.  You start to look into booking your flights, and you see that if you fly on a Monday and return on a Friday, you pay $X.  If you travelled on a Monday and returned on a Sunday, you could get a flight for $1600 cheaper, but would have to deal with a couple of extra nights in a hotel.  Even though you'd be saving the government money by travelling on Mon/Sun and taking a couple of days of personal leave, it's not allowed.  Not even if you paid the hotels yourself.  Supposedly it's now "Misuse of a TAN" (Travel authorization number).

Optics.

If you want to mix personal and business travel, what's supposed to happen (apparently) is that the business travel gets booked, at whatever cost.  Then, if you want a couple of extra days, you contact the airline, pay them the fee (out of your own pocket) for changing the flights, and then pay any extra (if any) on the airfare if the flight becomes more expensive.  What that policy doesn't take into consideration is: What happens if they flight becomes cheaper as a result?  I'm sure Air Canada will be banging on the door of the keeper of the Consolidated Revenue Fund saying "Cpl Bloggins just saved the Crown $1600 by taking two days leave and changing his travel dates.  Here's the Crown's $1600 in airfare savings back!".  Yep, I'm sure that'll be happening.  ;D

Do you have this in writing anywhere?  I ask because several years ago we were doing the reverse - requesting or directing (for civ and mil, respectively) pers to travel in advance to save money.  In one case we saved around $3K by getting a civilian to California for a weekend in advance of a conference - for some reason, she preferred to spend a February weekend in California over Ottawa...

 

[TCM621]

It would be fine if I had chosen to go on IR but I was posted prohibited with no end in sight and they say I have to pay for rations and lose 400 bucks a month. Awesome. 

 

[Jarnhamar]

$600/month for rations is ridiculous. That's almost what I spend in a month for my family. If Base Foods didn't repeatedly give back money every year on most training bases, MAYBE I'd by it (no pun intended).

When a member is on IR doesn't the kitchen (or whomever) charge the government $700+?  I had the exact number but I forget. 

 

[Towards_the_gap]

Ok, in regards to the SE for pers with literally no choice about their IR (prohibited postings etc), I'm now convinced. Let's get the pitchforks out. >

But as for the IRP benefit change/reduction, I still don't see cause for armed revolt/mutiny/mass VR's.

 

[Occam]

Do you have this in writing anywhere?  I ask because several years ago we were doing the reverse - requesting or directing (for civ and mil, respectively) pers to travel in advance to save money.  In one case we saved around $3K by getting a civilian to California for a weekend in advance of a conference - for some reason, she preferred to spend a February weekend in California over Ottawa...

There's a PPT going around, I'll see if I can get my hands on it.  It may be a Navy policy...and it's a new one.  Newer than my TD to Halifax a few weeks ago, where I took a couple of personal days (at my own cost in hotels, but I had to do a cost comparison to make the travel date change fly) and naught was said.

 

[Haggis]

It's funny you mention this.  On a somewhat related matter, I'm seeing ridiculous stuff on a grand scale when it comes to government travel.  Say you have to travel to Europe for five days on business.  You start to look into booking your flights, and you see that if you fly on a Monday and return on a Friday, you pay $X.  If you travelled on a Monday and returned on a Sunday, you could get a flight for $1600 cheaper, but would have to deal with a couple of extra nights in a hotel.  Even though you'd be saving the government money by travelling on Mon/Sun and taking a couple of days of personal leave, it's not allowed.  Not even if you paid the hotels yourself.  Supposedly it's now "Misuse of a TAN" (Travel authorization number).

Last year I went on TD in Spain for a week (never mind the criticism of the location, focus on the message) in a location not easy or cheap to get to by commercial arlines.  By delaying my return by one day, I saved the Crown $4,500.00 in airfare.  My DG signed off on this in a heartbeat.

 

[Harris]

So what are your thoughts on Class B reservists who volunteer Class A at their units, and who normally receive no financial or time off benefits?  This new rule will mean that every time they help out their home unit, they go in the hole for gas.  That hardly seems fair.  Is the answer for them to now claim MTEC (using a cost comparison) instead?