CAF Specialist Pay [Spec Pay]- All Trades [MERGED]

[dapaterson]

Spec pay is paid to members of a trade group, regardless of where they are employed.  It differes from certain allowances (Sub allowance, AIrcrew allowance) in that it isn't tied to a speicific position.

 

[PMedMoe]

That's kind of what I figured, I just wondered where the justification was in continuing to pay them at Spec level when they are no longer employed in the same capability.

 

[Inch]

It's the same with pilots, as long as you're able to be posted back to a flying position, you still get pilot pay.

 

[niceasdrhuxtable]

That's kind of what I figured, I just wondered where the justification was in continuing to pay them at Spec level when they are no longer employed in the same capability.

I think it would become a bureaucratic nightmare to administer it otherwise. You'd have to look at every billet a trade has and determine which of them require "spec" skills and which don't. Then you'd inevitably have all the grievances from members of the same trade wanting to know why xxx position doesn't get spec pay when it was the same skills as xxx position which does get spec pay. Finally, it would definitely make some postings extremely unpopular if you lost your spec pay to fill a billet. In our case where we collect aircrew allowance and sea pay, I can't imagine having to lose your spec pay as well because you went to fill a job at CFLRS or some other out of trade posting.

 

[PMedMoe]

I'm talking about someone who would be no longer working in their trade at all.  I can understand if a Spec level pay person went to work at a Recruiting Centre as they are still able to perform the job for which they get the pay for.  But if a person is no longer able (medically, psychologically, etc) to actually work in said trade, should they still get Spec pay?

 

[Inch]

I'm talking about someone who would be no longer working in their trade at all.  I can understand if a Spec level pay person went to work at a Recruiting Centre as they are still able to perform the job for which they get the pay for.  But if a person is no longer able (medically, psychologically, etc) to actually work in said trade, should they still get Spec pay?

I think if you're no longer able to work in your spec pay trade, you would have a forced remuster and you would lose your spec pay. I can't say for sure though, I know that's what happens with pilots.

 

[garb811]

This is akin to the debate about allowances and members injured in Afghanistan.  Should a member be financially penalized for reasons over which they (usually) have no control?

In the big scheme of things, the amount involved is chump change and as one of the goals of SPHL should be to bring the member back to full duty, the blow to the morale of the member isn't worth it.  People feel bad enough about being "dumped" into SPHL by units in order to free up the position to have a healthy body posted in, lets not make it worse.  While admittedly rarer than it should be, people do occasionally fight their way out of the pit which is SPHL and become productive members of the CF again.

 

[armyvern]

While admittedly rarer than it should be, people do occasionally fight their way out of the pit which is SPHL and become productive members of the CF again.

They do!! And it is indeed rare. One of my Cpls worked her butt off to come back from some serious injuries from a tour accident. In her final year of being "accomodated," she finally overcame the last hurdles. It was extremely hard work, but she was very dedicated ... and I'm glad to see her out and about still, kicking butt, and promoted to boot.

She certainly earned it.

 

[PMedMoe]

This is akin to the debate about allowances and members injured in Afghanistan.  Should a member be financially penalized for reasons over which they (usually) have no control?

Here's a scenario, based on Spec pay being awarded by rank:
Person X                                          Person Y
QL6A                                               QL6A
Sgt                                                 MCpl
Employed outside trade                       Employed in trade
Spec pay                                         No Spec pay

How is this scenario fair?  I agree, it's not person X's fault they cannot work, however, it's not person Y's fault the Spec pay is based on rank.

 

[Sig_Des]

Moe, if I read you right, you're leaning towards making spec pay something akin to jump pay.

Specifically, if you're not working in that position, you don't get that pay.

If that's what you're saying...I dig it 

 

[PMedMoe]

Moe, if I read you right, you're leaning towards making spec pay something akin to jump pay.
Specifically, if you're not working in that position, you don't get that pay.

Not necessarily, as I mentioned above, someone could be posted to a recruiting centre or CFLRS and should still receive the Spec pay as they are still employable in their trade.
Or make the Spec pay based on qualification vs rank.  For example, for the PAs (Physician's Asst) the Spec pay is based on rank (WO).  IIRC, the people on the course, get their WO rank at the end of the first year, as long as they meet all the requirements.  After all, it's all about rentention, isn't it?

 

[armyvern]

Not necessarily, as I mentioned above, someone could be posted to a recruiting centre or CFLRS and should still receive the Spec pay as they are still employable in their trade.
Or make the Spec pay based on qualification vs rank.  For example, for the PAs (Physician's Asst) the Spec pay is based on rank (WO).  IIRC, the people on the course, get their WO rank at the end of the first year, as long as they meet all the requirements.  After all, it's all about rentention, isn't it?

OK,

I understand what you've said above, but then couldn't the arguement then be made that:

Basing it upon qualification (as you've said above): is anyone Basic Para qualified and who is still employable in a jump position eligible to keep their jump pay?? (I know the answer is no).

They don't decide where they are posted to either (by the same token that the other guy doesn't get to decide his rank -- uhmm ranked is earned via merit BY the individual though) ... and they don't decide what position they fill either; they go where the service deems them necessary, and that's not necessarily into a Jump Coy or CPC. But they lose it when they are not actually doing the job, which is not necessarily through any action that was preventable by themselves.

That's bad for retention too. It's the exact same scenario ... only on a smaller scale.

I see problems with the way it works no matter which way it's based on; neither is fool-proof and either way, someone is going to end up unhappy with it ... due to circumstances of qualifications, posting location, or rank which was entirely out of their personal control.

 

[PMedMoe]

Good point Vern.  Although isn't Jump Pay an allowance like flight pay and only allocated per position?
I know, there's no way to make everyone happy.  There's people that remuster and get Spec pay before they're even qaulified.

rank is earned via merit BY the individual though

And we all know the PER system is so fair.  :
The PER is not just who is getting written up, it's also who's doing the writing.

 

[armyvern]

Good point Vern.  Although isn't Jump Pay an allowance like flight pay and only allocated per position?
I know, there's no way to make everyone happy.  There's people that remuster and get Spec pay before they're even qaulified.

And we all know the PER system is so fair.  :
The PER is not just who is getting written up, it's also who's doing the writing.

Yes Jump Pay is an operational/enviornmental allowance in that sense ...

But then, so was that overseas operational allowance. Just one short year ago one had to be in the position overseas doing the job to collect it. Through no fault of the soldiers injured, that was changed and they now collect the appropriate sum (under a different area) based upon the dates they would have been in-theatre collecting the operational allowances.

So, in essence, what I'm getting at is that, through no fault of their own: posting posn/injury (sometimes caused by doing their jobs jumping in the first place), there are others who lose the benefits of their operational allowances; the difference is: it just happens to be happening to them when they're here in Canada vice deployed.

Same thing, smaller scale, and not in the media or the public eye.

Edited to add:  And, I have a hard time reconciling the fact that a jumper injured in Canada and therefore removed from a jump position would lose his jump pay, without question, because he is no longer in a jump position through no fault of his own ... yet it is deemed acceptable to pay someone spec pay when they are not in a spec position (through no fault of their own).

And, yes the PER system is sometimes unfair...but then again, sometimes all isn't well when one is selected to attend certain qualifications either. There is most certainly bias that occurs in course selection (ergo the qualification based spec pay) as well.

 

[PMedMoe]

And, yes the PER system is sometimes unfair...but then again, sometimes all isn't well when one is selected to attend certain qualifications either. There is most certainly bias that occurs in course selection (ergo the qualification based spec pay) as well.

Actually, in our trade, the QL6A is a merit listed course.  There are a few that have done it without being merited, by replacing a no-show, for example.

 

[armyvern]

Actually, in our trade, the QL6A is a merit listed course.  There are a few that have done it without being merited, by replacing a no-show, for example.

That's exactly it. But isn't that merit list is also the same one that's based upon those (biased??) PER write-ups that decide who does/doesn't get promoted (in my trade it is)?

 

[PMedMoe]

True.  Boy, I'm glad I have a common-sense person like you to explain things to dopey me!!  ;D

 

[garb811]

I also have the situation where I have a 15 year Cpl with his JLC and a 6 year MS without his PLQ.  One gets the extra $, one doesn't...

There's people that remuster and get Spec pay before they're even qaulified.

I thought they fixed that loophole?

 

[armyvern]

True.  Boy, I'm glad I have a common-sense person like you to explain things to dopey me!!  ;D

It's not dopiness!!  

I have no common sense either. It's just me doubting that there is a way to do this that someone else wouldn't view as unfair.

I see the point about spec pay being collected while they can do their jobs (but are posted elsewhere through no part of their own), but same thing happens to jumpers etc who can still DO the job but just aren't posted into that position; They lose that allowance because they are not posted into an applicable position even though they are still able to be.

Same thing for people who can't do their jobs due to injury. The troops in Afghanistan who still collect due to being injured through no fault of their own ... is also akin to those jumpers etc losing their allowances because they were injured doing their jobs here in Canada, but they lose theirs.

No one will ever be happy, no matter which way they do it. That sucks.


WOW!!! Garb ... 6 years as a MS with no PLQ?? There's a whole 'nother story behind that, I'm quite sure. So, why's the rank still on him??

 

[garb811]

Ooopps!  Not time in rank, time in.  The Cpl's been in for 15 years, the MS has been in for 6 years.

Sorry for the confusion!  :-[