Benefits Cut...
- Thread starter MasterInstructor
- Start date
- Reaction score
- 114
- Points
- 680
Dolphin_Hunter said:
What is the difference between those troops in the field and those at sea, and those who are Prohibited Posted? Nothing. All are separated from their families because the CF has dictated they be so. None of the three groups above is incurring food costs at home while field, sea, or Prohibited Posted.
How then is it fair that only 1 of those groups now be charged for such? Explain to me how one group paying while the others do not is either fair or non-discriminatory. You may succeed in convincing me that I, and other prohibited posted personnel, should incur monetary loss to our in-the-bank pay while you do not.
And to be clear, while I believe that none of the pers above should be charged for rations while forcefully separated from their families, I also believe that if one group must, then they all should be.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
ArmyVern said:
ugh this is gonna turn into another field troops vs garrison troops debate, I can feel it.. But I certainly hope you're not trying to compare living on a ship with living in the field? The separation is the same, but to compare troops paying for IMPs vs making sailors pay for well cooked meals is apples and oranges.
- Reaction score
- 114
- Points
- 680
Sythen said:
Actually, we are comparing ALL troops who are forcefully separated from their families in whatever circumstances. We actually believe that none should be charged for rations in that circumstance. It's got SFA to do with standard of food while in garrison vs sea vs field vs anything. And, to be clear, not all soldiers consume all IMPs all the time in the field. Not that that means anything, but they don't eat just IMPs.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
ArmyVern said:
You're right. Sometimes they get hayboxes. Once a day, usually, was my experience. So my question still stands. My 2x IMP meals and 1x haybox a day is the equivalent of professional cooks preparing a meal, and sitting down in a mess on a ship and eatting?
- Reaction score
- 114
- Points
- 680
Sythen said:
The CF has just removed meal allowance from personnel who are forcefully separated from their families by CF direction. The reasoning is that those pers are not incurring meal expenses at home and thus must pay themselves. That exact same reasoning can then be applied to other groups who are also forcefully separated (for example, field and sea).
First they came for our money, and are taking it. The exact same "not at home, so you have to pay to eat somewhere reasoning" is also applicable to your group. Perhaps they'll come for yours next. Hopefully, there will be someone around to stick up for your group way up the food chain.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
ArmyVern said:
You will find no argument from me that the separation is the same. I completely agree with you there. My argument is that you advocate that if one has to pay they all do, but I do not see field and mess meals to be equal. Its apples and oranges.
- Reaction score
- 22,034
- Points
- 1,360
Sythen, ArmyVern's point is not that "rations" and "meals" are the same, she knows they are not. We have discussed earlier in the thread that even Treaasury Board ores the difference ($310/month for rations, $543/month for meals).
Her point is centred on the principle that those service personnel located away from their principle residence for reasons beyond their own choice (i.e. pers on prohibited postings or separated married service couples, etc...) should not be required to pay for rations any more than those not on rations, but provided rations or meals by the Crown due to the specific locations of service - field, ship, etc... That should be the preferred solution, but she notes that logically, there should be equitable treatment, in principle none should pay or that all should pay.
Unless I and others are missing what ArmyVern was saying, she was not advocating that all be charged rations/meals no matter the location of deployed service.
We haven't got to the "close battle" yet, but CoCs are putting significant effort into providing workable solutions up to the appropriate authorities. There still may be a number of means available to treat affected members equitably, in a manner that still complies with TB Directives.
Regards
G2G
Her point is centred on the principle that those service personnel located away from their principle residence for reasons beyond their own choice (i.e. pers on prohibited postings or separated married service couples, etc...) should not be required to pay for rations any more than those not on rations, but provided rations or meals by the Crown due to the specific locations of service - field, ship, etc... That should be the preferred solution, but she notes that logically, there should be equitable treatment, in principle none should pay or that all should pay.
Unless I and others are missing what ArmyVern was saying, she was not advocating that all be charged rations/meals no matter the location of deployed service.
We haven't got to the "close battle" yet, but CoCs are putting significant effort into providing workable solutions up to the appropriate authorities. There still may be a number of means available to treat affected members equitably, in a manner that still complies with TB Directives.
Regards
G2G
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 410
Sythen said:
Okay, seriously? She's using reverse psychology here stop trying to argue your point. She agrees with you! What she is saying is that ANYONE who is forced to live away from their family (IOW, probably NOT IR) should not have to pay for rations. She's stated it several times and used the field/ship meals as an example.
:facepalm:
George Wallace
Army.ca Dinosaur
- Reaction score
- 184
- Points
- 710
Sythen said:
Where did "professional cooks" get entered into the equation? The cost of the meal/food is the issue, not the cost of who prepares it.
Eye In The Sky
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 3,780
- Points
- 1,160
IIRC, the 'cost of prep' is included in the cost of rations/meals by the CF, not just the cost of groceries.
However, knowin' the cost of an IMP from the factory, I wouldn't want to be the one paying for THOSE either...
However, knowin' the cost of an IMP from the factory, I wouldn't want to be the one paying for THOSE either...
I can see Sythen's Apples and oranges argument though when it comes to rations in the field though. The fact that the Cf provides rations in the field has nothing to do with compensating you with being seperated from your family. Whereas on IR it does.
- Reaction score
- 114
- Points
- 680
Crantor said:
We are talking about "why" the rations were removed from pers prohibited posted away from their families. The reasoning for removal is applicable to both (you all have to pay to eat somewhere and you are not incurring expenses at home so now you will).
Try to keep in mind that Prohibited Posted personnel are not comparable to IR personnel (save for the SE they used to get) either, but that sure as heck didn't matter to TB. PP are forced apart (just like guys in the field) and IR pers have opted that separation. People who are PP are in situations better comparable to troops at sea and in the field: separated by force from their families at CF direction.
Perhaps you've missed the point: They've already officially decreed that apples can indeed be treated just like oranges. That's why PP are being treated exactly the same as IR. Perhaps you Granny Smiths are next now that they've taken out us MacIntoshs' with the tangerines.
J
jollyjacktar
Guest
:goodpost: Well put.
Towards_the_gap
Sr. Member
- Reaction score
- 3
- Points
- 230
What??? The TB are denying us Macintosh apples now?
I'm lost.....
I'm lost.....
Vern: Again I state that providing rations to troops in the field is not a way to compensate you for being away from your family. When you are/were on IR or prohibited posting it used to be provided to compensate you for a seperation from family. If the argument that it is about being seperated from you family is why you get rations paid for then it is is apples and oranges. Because whenit it is about being in the field it isn't about that.
If the argument is about being provided rations or compensation for it when away for anything,sure. then we should thyrough in TD, Incidentals etc etc.
For the record I am all for cutting rations for IR when it is a choice. I agree though that those on prohibited postings are getting a raw deal. But don't throw out the baby with the bathwater. If we state that prohibited postings should be exempt, fine, let's agree and voice our concerns. But if we start saying fine, but apply it fairly to everything then we might be end up being sorry for what we ask for.
If the argument is about being provided rations or compensation for it when away for anything,sure. then we should thyrough in TD, Incidentals etc etc.
For the record I am all for cutting rations for IR when it is a choice. I agree though that those on prohibited postings are getting a raw deal. But don't throw out the baby with the bathwater. If we state that prohibited postings should be exempt, fine, let's agree and voice our concerns. But if we start saying fine, but apply it fairly to everything then we might be end up being sorry for what we ask for.
- Reaction score
- 1,292
- Points
- 940
In case people really aren't getting this:
It's not about "compensation". It's not about "separation". It's about "reasoning".
The reasoning for not paying for (partial) meals for people on IR (or PP or RP) is that they are not incurring those costs at home. So, by the same token, people on TD, in the field or at sea are also not incurring those costs at home and therefore should not be covered for rations in those situations. Regardless of the cost/type/etc....
It's not about "compensation". It's not about "separation". It's about "reasoning".
The reasoning for not paying for (partial) meals for people on IR (or PP or RP) is that they are not incurring those costs at home. So, by the same token, people on TD, in the field or at sea are also not incurring those costs at home and therefore should not be covered for rations in those situations. Regardless of the cost/type/etc....
