Benefits Cut...

[bridges]

For the "suck it up" crowd, good luck using that in person to your troops who are affected by this.

Exactly.  While there is the odd exception, I suspect that many of the folks who speak of "short-term pain" and "suffering a bit now" are NOT the ones who are personally, directly affected by this change. 

Instead of taking benefits away from people who've already been approved for IR, and now have to eat the difference (so to speak), why don't they either grandfather it or give something like a one-year notice?  This would have alleviated some of the strain for the OSs awaiting training, for example, who are now stuck.

Get ready for the PLD and further pension reforms coming soon. I hope they have a better communication plan for the cuts still to come. 

    :nod:

 

[dapaterson]

Who does IR affect?  Primarily senior personnel.  As a proportion of pers at different ranks, you're most likley to be on IR if you're a CWO/CPO1, followed by GOFO or MWO/CPO2.  In raw numbers, the ranks with the most pers on IR are Sgt/PO2, WO/PO1 and Maj/LCdr. 


Is there some vast conspiracy?  No.  News releases and speaking points are always written in advance.  And this CANFORGEN was released on a Monday - no attempt to bury it as bad news on a Friday afternoon before a long weekend.

Were other L1s told this was coming?  Yes.  Were they able to announce it?  No.  Remember, discussions with the Treasury Board are considered cabinet confidences.  They cannot be released without authority.

 

[Good2Golf]

Not conspired? Hardly, my L1 was not even aware of this change.

Really?  Mind if I ask which L1 that was?

Will it affect members; yes, families; yes, Operations; yes, but I doubt they anticipated that.

Hmmmm...that must have completely slipped their minds, I suppose...

For all those of you who are "yes men" and "hey, it could be worse", good luck, there is more coming.

Perhaps you should tell your L1.  They might not know about the next round of cuts yet...

Yes we are compensated fairly, but the communication plan for this significantly large change in policy was one of "shock and awe", not what those in uniform deserve. Was there some abuse of the system, yes, but why punish the families who were not. Have the courtesy to at least give them time to plan for it.

You seem to agree with many of the "yes men" that we are fairly compensated.  So the issue is primarily one of communications, then? 

I haven't heard a single Colonel or General speak in the last 12 months without mentioning explicitly (and repeatedly) that we in DND are in for some significant belt tightening in the years to come.

For the "suck it up" crowd, good luck using that in person to your troops who are affected by this.

I intend to do exactly that, leading by example, as I will be on IR for 18 months. 

I and my family agreed that IR was best for the family situation, even having a very good idea (even as a lowly L4 type) that cuts to IR were imminent and that it could (likely would) result in a degree of financial encumbrance to my baseline earnings.

It is my responsibility to ensure that all my personnel are kept fully informed with whatever information is available.  I also look to pursue solutions that assist affected personnel and families as much as possible, and would expect the same effort from those affected.

Get ready for the PLD and further pension reforms coming soon. I hope they have a better communication plan for the cuts still to come.

And LDA, and X and Y...

So, could CF members members on IR be affected by an amount in some cases equal to a car payment (or more)?  Yes.  Would I prefer not to lose such benefits?  Certainly.  Will it make me change my family situation, understanding that which I anticipated through maintaining even moderate SA of the situation has now come to pass?  No, but that is of course a personal decision.  I know that there will be many who are adversely affected, some in situations that were not even of their own making, and that is unfortunate.

The mark of character comes, however, from how people deal with that which has come to be.  It is entirely within your and others' rights to be disappointed, and frustrated.  However, you should also be mindful of critiquing others who are accepting that which they can't change and are trying to make the best of the situation.

"It is easy to be pleasant when life flows by like a song,
but the man worth while is the one who will smile when everything goes dead wrong.
For the test of the heart is trouble, and it always comes with years,
and the smile that is worth the praises of earth is the smile that shines through the tears."
An old Irish proverb

It is what it is. 

Like I noted earlier, if it means ensuring we still have the kit and training that we need to conduct operations, I'd rather have that than fewer people in field units and unsuitable equipment.


Regards
G2G

 

[Journeyman]

The mark of character comes, however, from how people deal with that which has come to be.  It is entirely within your and others' rights to be disappointed, and frustrated.  However, you should also be mindful of critiquing others who are accepting that which they can't change and are trying to make the best of the situation.

I'd suggest that this is doubly important for those entrusted with leadership!

 

[4Feathers]

    4Feathers, I couldn't agree more.

Thanks Lardofthedance,
I see others on here really dislike my comments to the point of questioning my character, but it really is only showing their own colours IMHO. I have spent the last 25 years going and doing whatever I was told without question, paid the price family and health wise, so I believe I have a right to an opinion on here as much as anyone else without questioning their character. I lived through the cuts of the '90s, and what I see happening now brings back memories, but in this case with a serious lack of concern on the impact of no notice on peoples lives.
I will not be responding to the other derogatory comments on my opinion. Bottom line is we got dealt a shitty hand and the troops know it, no matter how much you try to paint it as positive. I love the military, but in this case, very poor judgement on how this was done by senior leadership.
Regards

 

[Strike]

Thanks Lardofthedance,
I see others on here really dislike my comments to the point of questioning my character, but it really is only showing their own colours IMHO. I have spent the last 25 years going and doing whatever I was told without question, paid the price family and health wise, so I believe I have a right to an opinion on here as much as anyone else without questioning their character. I lived through the cuts of the '90s, and what I see happening now brings back memories, but in this case with a serious lack of concern on the impact of no notice on peoples lives.
I will not be responding to the other derogatory comments on my opinion. Bottom line is we got dealt a shitty hand and the troops know it, no matter how much you try to paint it as positive. I love the military, but in this case, very poor judgement on how this was done by senior leadership.
Regards

4F - There is a big difference between someone questioning your opinions (which is what people here have been doing) and people questioning your character (which they have NOT).  Just because someone disagrees with your opinion does not mean they think your character should be questioned.

As for throwing around how many years you've been in and what you've given, several of the more long-winded posters to this thread have put in more than that in both time and effort so your reiterating it is not going to mean much to them.

Your latest reply smells of sour grapes to me.


Edited for grammar.

 

[dapaterson]

@4Feathers: My question:  Assume that the IR change would happen regardless - remember, the CDS does not set pay or benefit policy, nor does CMP - it's all by Treasury Board.  How would you have the senior leadership announce the implementation of the change?

 

[Wookilar]

The issue I have with the timing is that families made plans based on certain rules and now these rules are being changed outside of the APS (Who picked 1 Sep anyway?) after arrangements have been made (leases for example).

What I am waiting for now is a message coming out clarifying what is going to happen to all these students (or PATS especially) kids that are prohibited posted and getting low rate. Certainly not their choice, many want to move their families but not all are being allowed (for far too many reasons to be able to be covered succinctly).

 

[dogger1936]

I think they should look at TD rates as well. Every time I've been sent on a course or writing board etc to a different base I get a handful of cash. Meanwhile my lodging is paid for, I get a card to eat at the mess, and most times I have a vehicle from base. Aside from buying laundry detergent at location I was never out of pocket for anything required.

Aside from a box of detergent I usually arrive with my wash kit and all I need. I don't understand the requirement for 17 bucks (or what ever it is now) a day aside from extra drinking money.

All my TD money was spent in a bar or used to buy something I wanted (I.E a canoe once) with my advance.

There are plenty of benefits that can be cut yet. Why not get rid of TD as well.

 

[Sub_Guy]

I feel they should have tried to tackle those who abuse the system.  Myself and my wife have been on IR 3 times (2 for myself, and 1 for her).

As a service couple there were circumstances beyond our control that led to us having to rely on IR postings.  The first was a posting to Halifax for my BSQ (for my BSQ all the west coast personnel were posted out east for the course).  I had to go IR because my wife was still working in Esquimalt.  The 2nd time I was posted to Comox, while my wife remained in Esquimalt, all reasons beyond my control.

This new policy is really going to hurt some good honest folks.  As for those who have abused it, thanks for being "that guy", the one who messed it up for everyone else.

 

[Jungle]

There are plenty of benefits that can be cut yet. Why not get rid of TD as well.

Maybe because TD is a govt-wide benefit, while IR is mostly a CF thing ??

Personally, I don't mind the reduction in benefits (I'm on IR at this time) but I would have liked the IR benefit limited to one year after COS date, instead of an elimination. No more people riding the IR train for years, but temporary support for those who need a break when posted.

 

[jeffb]

Are people who are posted to one of the schools on a Prohibited posting on IR if they are married/common-law? When I was going through if you were married/common-law you did not have to pay R&Q but frankly I am quite ignorant as to what policy it was that covered that. 

 

[PuckChaser]

Personally, I don't mind the reduction in benefits (I'm on IR at this time) but I would have liked the IR benefit limited to one year after COS date, instead of an elimination. No more people riding the IR train for years, but temporary support for those who need a break when posted.

I think that's a fantastic 90% solution that both saves money and starts making people get off the IR gravy train which saves even more in the long run. If your IR benefits start going downhill after the first year, and every year after that, IR would finally be the temporary fix that its supposed to be. Not a money maker.

 

[Remius]

Maybe because TD is a govt-wide benefit, while IR is mostly a CF thing ??

True, but a simple change like "Receipts must be provided for meals, and you will be reimbursed up to X amount" would save a lot of money.  No actual cut to the amount of TD you are entitled to, just provide receipts for what you actually spent.

 

[bridges]

True, but a simple change like "Receipts must be provided for meals, and you will be reimbursed up to X amount" would save a lot of money.  No actual cut to the amount of TD you are entitled to, just provide receipts for what you actually spent.

OK, as long as we include $$ for the increased staff time & effort dealing with those receipts, adding them up one-by-one, photocopying them, processing stat decs for the missing ones, etc. etc.  The final cost-benefit analysis might not be as favourable as it initially seems.  I suspect there's a good reason why nobody in the government has to turn in receipts for meals on TD, in most situations. 

 

[McG]

For the first time in my over 30 years in the CF I feel betrayed.  Betrayed by the CDS, who I first met when he was the CO of the RCD in Pet., a man who I respected greatly, but who will now be remembered as the CDS who, on his watch, allowed the continuous erosion of our benefits without so much as a whimper. 

To be fair, the CDS can only recommend changes on compensation and benefits to TB.  If they choose to ignore his advice and go a different direction, that is the way of things.  While these changes to C&B may not be ideal, I do not think they are worth falling on a sword.  I am comfortable assuming the CDS gave appropriate recommendations and is now ensuring advice is being developed on how to mitigate the impacts for those who most needed the assistance.

Question: Are folks on IR living in quarters obliged to eat at the mess?  Given that they will no longer be provided rations at Crown expense, I would think that they would be able to choose.

On at least some bases, persons living in quarters (regardless of who is paying) are required to be on rations.  Most quarters do not have facilities for one to do their own cooking, and this forms the basis of arguments that R&Q cannot be de-linked.  Some bases even require members to pay for three meals every day of the week regardless of whether the member goes to the mess for the meal or not (so if you brown-bag it because it is not practical to walk 20 min walk each way, then you will pay for two lunches).  Of course, this is something within the CF's ability to control.  I see no problem with members paying actual cost for the meals that they actually eat in the mess.

Rations even with some of the reduced meal plan options are still pricey IMHO compared to what one can do for themselves.

Are ration prices set to be comparable to the local economy (as TB requires us to do with most other things such as PMQs and parking in cities)?  In the end, pers entitled to separation expense should be paying the cost of the food they eat, but they should not be paying the cost of preparing it and they certainly should not be paying restaurant prices - these higher prices are the costs of separation & are therefore a requirement imposed by service.

To change the IR benefit without notice is criminal, and yes, I do not consider 30 days appropriate notice. 

The issue I have with the timing is that families made plans based on certain rules and now these rules are being changed outside of the APS (Who picked 1 Sep anyway?) after arrangements have been made (leases for example).

It is concerning about both the short notice and the effects coming into play at a time when many people are still implementing financial decision made under the old rules.  The crown knew it was preparing to change the rules yet continued to advise personnel based on the old rules up until the publishing of this CANFORGEN.  If someone now finds them self taking a significant hit because of what was the right decision under the old rules, they would have the option of presenting their damages to Director Claims and Civil Litigation (DCCL).

IR ? IR was a gravytrain shitshow that should have been put to an end years ago. Too many people were going IR for reasons that were not those intended by the benefit.

The proper response to abuses would be to deny the benefit to those who abuse it.  After two years of IR because a member's spouse did not want to relocate, it is time to recognize that as a lifestyle choice and cease the benefit for that member.

Personally, I don't mind the reduction in benefits (I'm on IR at this time) but I would have liked the IR benefit limited to one year after COS date, instead of an elimination. No more people riding the IR train for years, but temporary support for those who need a break when posted.

I suspect the pendulum may have just swung from too generous to inadequate.  Rations and incidentals could have been reduced instead of eliminated.  Your idea of a maximum time duration might also be reasonable - though I would suggest 18 to 24 months from RFD as opposed to 12 months from COS.

IMO, the warning bells WRT IR came out last spring with the large changes to benefits (who could authorize, etc).  THAT should have been an indicator it was already being looked at, among other things.

That was not large changes that happened last year.  That was a correction after DND & the CF had deviated from TB processes without TB approval.  The only thing that changes was we went back to following the rules.

See I would agree if your son/ daughter was in special education that was only offered in one place. However if it's cause you guys didn't want to uproot him/her during their last year to ME that would be a personal decision.

For reasons already mentioned, the last year of highschool was one of the reasons specifically listed (when the DCBA aide-memoire was still used) as an acceptable reason for IR.  Children in college and/or university were not acceptable reasons for IR (though I know of cases where it was approved for this reason) - kids can move out at that age.

No change. He is attending PLQ on TD, not IR. The changes announced were for IR.

No.  The changes were for separation expense.  Members on IR are not unique in receiving separation expense.  However, you are correct that this does not impact personnel on TD.

Are people who are posted to one of the schools on a Prohibited posting on IR if they are married/common-law?

No they are not IR, but they would be entitled separation expense.

 

[EX--Royal]

Enough talk about IR, what about all the other benefits we are losing. I pity the poor soldier with a wife and kids that has a couple dogs and needs to explain to their kids that they can't bring them to their next posting because the cost is too high. If anyone has ever been posted with pets you'll know the cost is not cheap, kiss your posting allowance good-bye.
I do agree that the IR system has been abused and changes were needed, but the posting benefits are a little too much.

 

[Remius]

OK, as long as we include $$ for the increased staff time & effort dealing with those receipts, adding them up one-by-one, photocopying them, processing stat decs for the missing ones, etc. etc.  The final cost-benefit analysis might not be as favourable as it initially seems.  I suspect there's a good reason why nobody in the government has to turn in receipts for meals on TD, in most situations.

It likely wouldn't be much more effort than is already being done.  Hotels, cabs, car rentals etc are already being provided as part of your claim adding a few more receipts is not the end of the world.  Claims X isn't that hard to use either.

But you did get me thinking that people might just start spending the amounts they are entitled to knowing that they have to provide receipts rather than eat on the cheap and pocket the rest. So the savings might not be worth the effort.

 

[wesleyd]

I agree with cuts and doing our part to help balance the budget. But I disagree with doing it on the CF members backs. There are many other areas that can be streamlined or cut without having to take money out of CF members pockets. I think the hardest pill to swallow is that MP's have not had to make any significant adjustments during this time. Perhaps they should take some pointers from CF leadership and lead by example.  I would not point blame at any senior CF leadership they all have bosses and in the end must serve even if they do not agree with what is happening. Just my opinion.

 

[bridges]

It likely wouldn't be much more effort than is already being done.  Hotels, cabs, car rentals etc are already being provided as part of your claim adding a few more receipts is not the end of the world.  Claims X isn't that hard to use either.

But you did get me thinking that people might just start spending the amounts they are entitled to knowing that they have to provide receipts rather than eat on the cheap and pocket the rest. So the savings might not be worth the effort.

It'd be at least 3 receipts per day, for the duration of the claim.  Multiplied by the # of pers on TD.  Bit of extra paperwork.  As for Claims-X, I often end up helping others who use it too infrequently to be experts at things like meal exceptions, etc.  Sometimes the system simply doesn't give you what you're entitled to. 

I think you're right, in that people would just eat more expensively.  Personally, it's rare that I pocket any real cash from unused TD meal allowance.  I usually eat at restaurants with the people I'm travelling with; some days the meal rate covers the cost, others it doesn't.  It tends to even out.  If you have a longer pd of TD, more flexibility or access to a kitchenette, that changes.