Allowances - Post Living Differential (PLD) [MERGED]
- Thread starter Sub_Guy
- Start date
- Reaction score
- 6,692
- Points
- 1,140
Excelt that Maj might decide their knowledge and skills are better used elsewhere, rather than take a posting that will negatively impact their lifestyle.
Also, let's keep the comparisons a bit more realistic. A standard S04 Sgt in Ottawa will make about $280 more a month than a S04 Cpl, after CAFHD is taken into account. That's a minimum of 7 years of increasing responsibility, for $280 difference in pay. That's essentially making the crappiness of MCpl stretch out over another entire rank, a key rank normally achieved about the time in service when people are already inclined to say "Bye Felicia" to the CAF.
Quirky
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 3,650
- Points
- 1,260
Assuming you aren't living in a PMQ therefore you'd lose whatever PLD you had.
- Reaction score
- 18,781
- Points
- 1,280
No - that’s why there are two tables for each location. The top table is PMQ (No CFHD), the bottom is on the economy (with CFHD)
- Reaction score
- 408
- Points
- 780
Someone above said that this was a band aid that needed to be ripped off, and suffer the pain now. I agree, and maybe the next band aid should be environmental allowances paid as a flat monthly fee regardless of time spent doing what the allowance is meant to compensate the individual for.
The largest complaint we are hearing about this policy is from members losing something they had come to rely on as part of their salary, whether the conditions existed for the compensation or not. Maybe it is time to start from zero and move forward with a better compensation package.
No one is speaking to the possible benefits of the CFHA in the long run. First - many individuals who were struggling will get some needed help. Second, it makes individuals less attached to a location solely because they make more in allowances. As individuals come up to the 7 year period, perhaps they will be more open to a geographical relocation. Thirdly, as much as it sucks to hear, and isn't necessarily right, DND does not want to be a landlord. More people on the economy, when and where they can afford it isn't a bad pers strategy. Does this do much for retention of current CAF members, not in some (many) cases. But for new members coming in, who start off with an understanding of what the new rules will mean for them, it might actually be better.
I can't explain why they used a seven year cutoff, unless someone did some research and determined that the greater percentage of personnel, once posted to a location, were posted away from that location within seven years. This allows them to assess their new financial position based on where and when they are posted in their career.
The largest complaint we are hearing about this policy is from members losing something they had come to rely on as part of their salary, whether the conditions existed for the compensation or not. Maybe it is time to start from zero and move forward with a better compensation package.
No one is speaking to the possible benefits of the CFHA in the long run. First - many individuals who were struggling will get some needed help. Second, it makes individuals less attached to a location solely because they make more in allowances. As individuals come up to the 7 year period, perhaps they will be more open to a geographical relocation. Thirdly, as much as it sucks to hear, and isn't necessarily right, DND does not want to be a landlord. More people on the economy, when and where they can afford it isn't a bad pers strategy. Does this do much for retention of current CAF members, not in some (many) cases. But for new members coming in, who start off with an understanding of what the new rules will mean for them, it might actually be better.
I can't explain why they used a seven year cutoff, unless someone did some research and determined that the greater percentage of personnel, once posted to a location, were posted away from that location within seven years. This allows them to assess their new financial position based on where and when they are posted in their career.
A Major will continue to make much more than a Cpl. the numbers are as plain to see for you as they are for me.
This policy is not saving money. Authorized funding for CFHD is higher than it was for PLD. Spending is being redistributed from some locations that could not objectively (still) justify as much PLD as they receive, to locations that received none but should based on changes in housing costs. Costs are also moving from those with enough income to not need housing assistance to those with lower income who do. Housing subsidy is moving much more closely towards a means and needs based system. Given that this is taxpayer funds, that’s appropriate stewardship of finite financial resources.
It’s far from a perfect system. The seven year limit should be scrapped, particularly if they want to mitigate harm to the navy. It may cause CAF, in the long run, to reassess whether certain units should be in certain places- e.g., why is staff college still in Toronto versus, say, consolidating in Kingston? (I have no insight, just an obvious example). I think it’s better, though, than a system that blindly subsidized Edmonton but not Ottawa.
FSTO
Army.ca Fixture
- Reaction score
- 5,864
- Points
- 1,210
If serious, you could set up basically a factory outside each base to build RTM's and pump them out like Ford Model T's.
- Reaction score
- 2,479
- Points
- 1,190
Toronto previously had 5 PLD areas, where now they had one. The area with the best PLD was TOR area 1, with a PLD of $1485/month, and the lowest was TOR area 2, with a PLD of $506/month. (Not sure where these PLDAs actually are). So, instead of showing tables for all 5 areas, here are the tables for TOR areas 1 and 2. So, if you currently live/work in what used to be called TORONTO AREA 2, you are doing well. If you currently live/work in what used to be called TORONTO AREA 1, you're getting screwed haaaaard if you don't qualify for for CFHD (do they even have PMQs anywhere in Toronto?).
- Reaction score
- 2,479
- Points
- 1,190
Affirmative. All the calculation include everyone losing the PLD that everyone used to get regardless of pay level.
Halifax Tar
Army.ca Fixture
- Reaction score
- 11,390
- Points
- 1,260
Merci beaucoup.
- Reaction score
- 2,479
- Points
- 1,190
Am I going to get some short leave for my efforts?
OldSolduer
Army.ca Relic
- Reaction score
- 15,557
- Points
- 1,260
Hell no that isn't needed
y'all get too much leave anyways....lol
Halifax Tar
Army.ca Fixture
- Reaction score
- 11,390
- Points
- 1,260
You get a pin with a number and bronze, silver or gold on it for how many times you do it.
Eaglelord17
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 2,071
- Points
- 1,040
I would say the solution to that isn't making it a part of the salary, rather make it like casual 'x' duty allowance instead. The whole point is to compensate people for going to sea or in the field. There are many ways to scam the system so people aren't doing either but still receiving the pay. To me it should be in the field, you get 'x' amount each day. If you aren't specifically in the field too bad.
- Reaction score
- 2,479
- Points
- 1,190
Jk I'll do it tonight or tomorrow.
CountDC
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 449
- Points
- 960
If the do they are doing a good job of hiding them from everyone.
Like the good old FOA we used to have? Go in the field 1 Mar come out 10 Mar. Of course like everything else people did it different ways - ie first and last day was TD Incidentals and rest were FOA and some just paid FOA for all 10 days rather than go through the hassle. I think everyone ignore parts of the regulation.
- Reaction score
- 4,711
- Points
- 1,160
