I realize that introducing facts to a discussion on the internet is a fools errand, but here are two of the FAQs from the intranet site of the DIrectorate of Pay Policy Development
Can you give us the basic structure of CF Pay?
COMPARABILITY
Following unification of the Canadian Forces (CF) in the mid-60s, the Department of National Defence and the Treasury Board Secretariat adopted the principle of comparability between the CF and the Public Service (PS). There were two major reasons for instituting comparability - that CF members would benefit from the results of collective bargaining and that the federal government acted as the employer for both groups.
TEAM CONCEPT
As is the case in most militaries, the CF uses a rank-based "team concept" or institutional approach to determine pay. In this methodology, the average value of the work performed by all members of a specific rank level is considered in developing pay. This is quite different from the more common Public Service method in which an individual is paid the evaluated worth for the specific position they are filling. In exceptional cases, market factors force the CF to consider a handful of military occupations, such as doctors, dentists, lawyers and some high-tech trades, separate from the majority of CF members. However, within these special occupations, the "team concept" is applied.
Given the nature of the military's work, the "team concept" makes a lot of sense and it is used to the maximum extent possible. However, the use of the "team concept" presents some challenges when comparing the CF to non-military organizations that use an occupational or job-specific approach.
TOTAL COMPENSATION METHODOLOGY
In the late 70s, Treasury Board directed that the Department adopt Total Compensation (TC) analysis, which was also being developed for use in collective bargaining with the PS unions. Treasury Board wanted to ensure that the full value of the compensation and benefits made available by the employer to federal public servants was considered in negotiations. The methodology includes salary, but also evaluates benefits such as pensions, severance pay, acting pay, overtime and medical and dental services, as well as "time not worked", annual leave and sick leave being two examples.
The objective of this form of analysis, therefore, is to compare the compensation and benefits available to one group of employees to the compensation and benefits of another group. The end result provides a net value, expressed in terms of the dollars paid per hour actually worked, for the first group of employees, as compared to the net value of the dollars paid per hour actually worked for the second group. The warranted pay increase or decrease in a given year is the percentage difference between these two values. For the military, two TC analyses are conducted: one for general service officers and one for non-commissioned members. "Comparability" is considered to be achieved if the CF dollar per hour worked is equal to the PS dollar per hour worked.
The Military Factor
It is important to note that the TC analyses, as applied to the CF, also provide latitude to determine the dollar value of the unique aspects of CF service. The most obvious example is the Military Factor, which values the major characteristics of military service. Although the unique aspects of military service such as Code of Service Discipline, separation from family and posting turbulence are not easily quantified, the Military Factor was originally valued at 4% of salary for all non-commissioned members and general service officers. As of April 1, 1999, the Military Factor was improved to 7.5% for non-commissioned members and 6.5% for general service officers. On 1 April 2006, the Military Factor for general service officers and pilots was further increased to 7.5%. These recent increases were in recognition of a higher operational tempo and resulting increases in the incidence of separation, and a new component (Personal Limitations and Liabilities), which further recognizes the implications inherent in the military system of unlimited liability. Another less obvious example is the fact that CF members are not eligible for overtime. To adjust for this in the TC analyses, values of 6% of salary for non-commissioned members and 4% of salary for general service officers are used.
"Comparability", therefore, is not a case of making one rate of pay equal to another. Instead, a "comparability" shortfall is the amount of increase to CF pay that is needed to equalize the bottom line (dollars per hour worked) between the CF and the PS values, but only after considering all salary and applicable benefits including unique CF conditions of service.
PAY GROUPS
Non-Commissioned Members
Non-commissioned members are paid rates of pay determined through TC analysis. Within each rank there are a number of Pay Increments (PI), which represent automatic annual increases given in recognition of advancements in experience, skill and knowledge. As well, there are three sub-groups of pay into which non-commissioned member trade groups are slotted. These sub-groups are Standard, Specialist 1 and Specialist 2 and pay rates vary in each sub-group. The Specialist 1 and Specialist 2 sub-groups, which include trades such as Fire Control Systems Technicians, Flight Engineers, Biomedical Electronics Technicians, and Marine Engineering Artificers, comprise jobs which are highly complex in nature and whose skills are in high demand in the private sector.
General Service Officers
General service officers are all officers below the rank of colonel in all occupation groups except for pilots and specialist officers (legal, medical and dental officers). General service officers pay rates are also determined through TC analysis and they receive pay increment level increases just like non-commissioned members. One significant difference is that there are often more pay increment levels for officer ranks than there are for non-commissioned member ranks, on the basis that it takes longer for officers to gather all the experience, skill and knowledge required for their rank. Hence, they must wait longer than non-commissioned members to receive the job rate (maximum) for their rank.
Pilots
Pilots are paid general service officer rates of pay plus a pilot differential that is in recognition of private sector market factors.
Senior Officers (Colonels and above)
Officers, other than legal, medical and dental officers, at the rank of colonel and above are paid based upon direct benchmarks to the Public Service's Executive Category. Job analysis is used to establish the benchmarks and after that they receive the same pay and benefits as their PS counterparts. The base pay for Colonels and above includes a 6.5% Military Factor and a fixed percentage factor in recognition of the performance pay paid to the Public Service Executive Group. The value of this performance factor is the same for all officers at each rank regardless of individual performance in order to reflect the CF's Team Concept approach to pay.
Legal Officers
All CF legal officer (except military judges) rates of pay are based on direct benchmarks to the Public Service's Law Group. In addition, legal officers receive the same military factor as senior officers as analysis has proven that they are subjected to similar conditions as the general service officers. Legal officers also receive a performance pay factor in their base pay.
Military Judges
Military judges are paid based upon the recommendations of the Military Judges' Compensation Committee and the subsequent approval of both the Minister of National Defence and the Treasury Board. To ensure the independence of the military judges, their performance is not assessed and, hence, they do not receive performance pay.
Medical And Dental Officers
As of April 1, 1999, medical and dental officers' total compensation is determined in relation to private practice practitioners. Those below the rank of colonel receive the same military factor as senior and legal officers. Medical and dental officers in the ranks of captain and above receive a Special Military Differential that recognizes the uniqueness of military service.
Why do non-commissioned members have fewer pay increments than officers?
The Canadian Forces pay system is based on the principle of comparability with the Public Service. To that end, a series of Treasury Board Secretariat (TBS) approved salary benchmarks are used to develop the CF rates of pay.
The NCM benchmarks fix a lower and an upper limit. At the lower end, the Cpl benchmark matches CF occupations with PS trades at the journeyman level and include a military factor. The upper limit, Chief Warrant Officer Pay increment (PI) 4, is pegged as a Captain PI 5/6. Between the lower and upper limits, all ranks from Corporal to CWO, six in all, must be accommodated and a maximum salary cap given to each one. The pay structure developed for NCMs must provide reasonable salary progression in the form of pay increments and must provide for reasonable increases on promotion. Given the overall size of the NCM salary range, and the number of ranks involved, the number of pay increments at each rank level must be limited if the amount of each increment is to be of significance. The number of NCM pay increments is presently set at four. Ten pay increments, as there are for Captains, could easily be established mathematically, but annual increases would be so small as to be meaningless. Moreover, the sooner an individual reaches his/her pay ceiling at a given rank, the better off he or she will be financially.
By comparison, the general service officer (GSO) Pay Structure is developed through a comparison to approximately fifteen groups in the Scientific, Professional, and Administrative and Foreign Service categories of occupations in the PS. The result is a relatively broad salary range for each of the GSO Ranks, particularly at Captain, that reflects the scope of jobs, training, experience, responsibilities, and career progression at each rank level. The number of PIs for each rank has been established to account for these factors. It would be possible to reduce the number of PIs at each rank, but this would mean larger pay increment amounts or a larger salary gap between ranks, both unjustifiable based on the rank structure of the CF.
