I am a CAF member & I want better pay and benefits (a merged thread)

[Sf2]

By that logic, how do you think the military would retain doctors, dentists etc....they face minimal risk in their daily duties.  If we paid them as such, I'm pretty sure it would be a retention nightmare.

 

[George Wallace]

Would it not make more sense to remove many, perhaps even most trades from the spec list and then apply spec pay only to that small fraction of CF trades that are in the most intense demand in the private sector?

I know it's heresy (and, waaaaay back, a half century ago I was a Group 3A tradesman when that level of trade's pay meant that a junior Gp3A corporal earned more than a middling senior Gp 3 sergeant) but shouldn't we aim to have no spec pay at all (maybe make a one time (taxable) payment on passing Gp 3 and Gp 4 course for selected trades) and pay everyone for a mix of technical skill, physical demands and risk? Why is an electronics technician worth (paid) more than an infantryman? I know the training is long and academically difficult, but, generally, the working conditions are a lot better ... and safer! (Once again, I speak from (very dated) experience, but I was both a Leading Infantryman and a Radio Mechanic ... I got paid a helluva lot more for being the latter, I'm not sure I deserved the extra pay based on just the technical/academic skills and knowledge.)

To take to an extreme a point of view on what ERC has stated above, could be: why are we paying members Spec Pay in Trades that are easily transferable to civilian occupations, and paying less to Trades that are not easily transferable to civilian occupations?  While those who are collecting Spec Pay are banking their earnings, the poor Infantryman is struggling.  While those who are banking Spec Pay make plans to "jump ship" for a higher paying civilian job, the poor Infantryman is striving to attain advancement in the Profession of Arms.  It is a form of "planned obsolescence" in those Trades with the spending the DND/CF budget to train personnel in Trades that encourage them to seek civilian employment well before they have completed even half a commitment towards a full CAF Pension.  Some of these Trades are nothing more than civilian 'Community Colleges', training people to fill occupations in the civilian work place, while providing them with a very decent "nest egg" to do so.  Is this what the CAF should be?

Just boils down to: "we are our own worse enemy".

 

[Sf2]

Your argument is actually in favour of spec pay. 

If you pay someone a competitive wage compared to their civilian counterpart, they are LESS likely to seek that civilian employment.

 

[Transporter]

I think this thread was initially started more as a discussion of concern for the gradual erosion of the benefits/entitlements/remuneration that we already have, or had, versus a b**** session for wanting more... or that's how I saw it at least. Personally, I'd be happy just to have back the things that we've already lost and to not lose any more (or have any more contribution/payment increases). I'm not advocating for more, just no less.

 

[RADOPSIGOPACCISOP]

What a prime example of the "I am entitled to this" generation...... :

What else should we give you?

It's not the entitled generation when you are working for a salary and then TB comes by and cuts that salary. We don't live on wishes and unicorn dust.

My comment was to what I think is the ridiculous statement by Jim, that Reservists, who generally don't rely on the military as their sole source of income, don't complain about the pay cuts so we shouldn't either.

When you have 2 or 3 kids and one source of income because your wife had to quit her job when you are newly posted, and then the government decides to make a backdoor paycut by taking an additional $200 a month in pension contributions it has a serious and very real impact on soldiers.

I understand that if you have 20 years in and are making a very comfortable salary, probably have all the kids out of the house, losing that money doesn't really sting, but frankly, it's sad that there doesn't seem to be more upset at the higher levels of the impact on the lower levels. But frankly, that's the problem with the older "not my problem" generation.

 

[Furniture]

Would it not make more sense to remove many, perhaps even most trades from the spec list and then apply spec pay only to that small fraction of CF trades that are in the most intense demand in the private sector?

I know it's heresy (and, waaaaay back, a half century ago I was a Group 3A tradesman when that level of trade's pay meant that a junior Gp3A corporal earned more than a middling senior Gp 3 sergeant) but shouldn't we aim to have no spec pay at all (maybe make a one time (taxable) payment on passing Gp 3 and Gp 4 course for selected trades) and pay everyone for a mix of technical skill, physical demands and risk? Why is an electronics technician worth (paid) more than an infantryman? I know the training is long and academically difficult, but, generally, the working conditions are a lot better ... and safer! (Once again, I speak from (very dated) experience, but I was both a Leading Infantryman and a Radio Mechanic ... I got paid a helluva lot more for being the latter, I'm not sure I deserved the extra pay based on just the technical/academic skills and knowledge.)

The idea of a one time bonus payment is the best idea I've yet seen for dealing with spec pay. It frees up a lot of money in the pay envelope for providing appropriate PLD in expensive markets while still rewarding people for the extra time and effort in training required for some of the spec trades. It's imperfect, but it's closer to appropriate than the system we have in place now. I've always found it odd that people who specialize in high risk jobs like Infantry, Armoured, Field Engineering, etc.. are paid less than a guy who swaps parts on an aircraft in the warmth and safety of a hangar in Trenton. More specifically why a Sgt who may lead troops in combat is paid less than a CFL AVN Tech...

Further, I believe that much of the discontent is based on the stripping away of benefits and the out of whack PLD system rather than on the overall pay scales. It is hard to justify why a Cpl in Cold Lake is barely able to keep up with his bills while a Cpl in Halifax or Victoria is able to live large and have all his toys. We are well paid, and have pretty cool jobs in the grand scheme of things.

 

[Infanteer]

shouldn't we aim to have no spec pay at all (maybe make a one time (taxable) payment on passing Gp 3 and Gp 4 course for selected trades) and pay everyone for a mix of technical skill, physical demands and risk? Why is an electronics technician worth (paid) more than an infantryman? I know the training is long and academically difficult, but, generally, the working conditions are a lot better ... and safer!

Boom.

I have Infantrymen that don't get any spec pay.  They maintain a high level of fitness, possess numerous technical skills (helicopter insertion methods, sniper, jumpmaster, etc) and live in the dirt when they go to the field.  I'm not sure why change/lack of spec pay would be a worthy hill for some to die on and release.

 

[RADOPSIGOPACCISOP]

The idea of a one time bonus payment is the best idea I've yet seen for dealing with spec pay. It frees up a lot of money in the pay envelope for providing appropriate PLD in expensive markets while still rewarding people for the extra time and effort in training required for some of the spec trades. It's imperfect, but it's closer to appropriate than the system we have in place now. I've always found it odd that people who specialize in high risk jobs like Infantry, Armoured, Field Engineering, etc.. are paid less than a guy who swaps parts on an aircraft in the warmth and safety of a hangar in Trenton. More specifically why a Sgt who may lead troops in combat is paid less than a CFL AVN Tech...

Further, I believe that much of the discontent is based on the stripping away of benefits and the out of whack PLD system rather than on the overall pay scales. It is hard to justify why a Cpl in Cold Lake is barely able to keep up with his bills while a Cpl in Halifax or Victoria is able to live large and have all his toys. We are well paid, and have pretty cool jobs in the grand scheme of things.

Yes, because lump sum has been such a boon to the CAF for other things.

We don't need to be trying to strip benefits away from some soldiers, addition by subtraction is self defeating. If the goal is to boost the equity of the PLD system, that should be the focus.

More specifically why a Sgt who may lead troops in combat is paid less than a CFL AVN Tech...

A Sgt pushing to take from a JNCO to benefit themselves is disgraceful.

 

[Shamrock]

A Sgt pushing to take from a JNCO to benefit themselves is disgraceful.

Where did that conclusion come from?

I see no harm in a supervisor wanting greater compensation than a subordinate. I mean really, makes sense if we want to incentivize successive generations.

 

[Furniture]

A Sgt pushing to take from a JNCO to benefit themselves is disgraceful.

I can see why you'd say that... Being a Sgt myself does make that seem self serving. The idea I was trying to convey is that people in high risk jobs should paid well to compensate, while those in low risk jobs should be paid well but paid in line with their risk. I don't think a person should be paid more than their boss because they took a course 15 years ago in a trade that happens to be on the spec pay list. I'm not advocating for less pay for the troops, I'm saying our system is less than ideal and should be replaced by one that rewards advancement and professional development(because I believe this is a profession and not merely a job...).

To be honest I think I've over ranked and over paid for what I do on a day to day basis, but when the CO wants the latest and greatest weather forecast I'm worth my weight in (fools)gold.

 

[RADOPSIGOPACCISOP]

Where did that conclusion come from?

I see no harm in a supervisor wanting greater compensation than a subordinate. I mean really, makes sense if we want to incentivize successive generations.

No harm in a supervisor wanting more compensation than a subordinate... unless they want to lower the subordinates pay in order to make that happen.

Nothing wrong with asking for more, it's when you ask that others get less it's disgraceful.

 

[RADOPSIGOPACCISOP]

I can see why you'd say that... Being a Sgt myself does make that seem self serving. The idea I was trying to convey is that people in high risk jobs should paid well to compensate, while those in low risk jobs should be paid well but paid in line with their risk. I don't think a person should be paid more than their boss because they took a course 15 years ago in a trade that happens to be on the spec pay list. I'm not advocating for less pay for the troops, I'm saying our system is less than ideal and should be replaced by one that rewards advancement and professional development(because I believe this is a profession and not merely a job...).

To be honest I think I've over ranked and over paid for what I do on a day to day basis, but when the CO wants the latest and greatest weather forecast I'm worth my weight in (fools)gold.

I myself don't get spec pay, but I have a couple of subordinates that do recieve it (former LCIS techs still on frozen Spec) and as their supervisor I'd fight tooth and nail to argue they are worth every penny and more, regardless of whether they make more than I do or not (they do). I know how hard they work, and I know the incredible level of expertise they have developed, not just from their military training, but in how the constantly educate themselves in emerging trends on their own time. I'm not going to argue with someone that this trade or that trade has it harder, my job is to advocate for my subordinates. If an infantry Sgt wants to advocate that his troops deserve Spec pay, or any other beneift, then I commend him on being an advocate for his subordiantes, because I have no doubt they probably deserve every penny they get and more as well. It's our job as leaders to advocate for our subordinates, but not to raise ourselves by pushing down others.

 

[Furniture]

No harm in a supervisor wanting more compensation than a subordinate... unless they want to lower the subordinates pay in order to make that happen.

Nothing wrong with asking for more, it's when you ask that others get less it's disgraceful.

I never said that people should be paid more, I suggested that our system of spec pay be revised along the lines that ER Campbell suggested, that at the completion of a course the member is paid a bonus and then carries on at the appropriate pay scale for their rank. I fail to see the benefit to the CAF of paying an AVN/AVS/NCIOP/NECOP LS/Cpl more than a Sgt/PO2 for having completed a course years ago and which may not apply to their current job.  Why should an AVN Cpl make more in a recruiting position than an infantry Cpl?

I get that a change in the system would impact many people, but it's no less impact than a PLD change would have. Why should select trades have immunity to the fiscal challenges the CAF is facing?

 

[chrisf]

I'm a reservist, former Reg Force.

My reservist don't complain about pay or benefits. They do this because they love doing it.

Great, you must be tied up with an outstanding reserve unit, while almost every other reservist in the country is a poor student doing it to pay for school...

We've hit a wall locally with recruiting because most of our potential recruits can make almost as much or more at traditionally minimum wage jobs due to labour shortages, and retaining troops has become difficult due to budgetary reductions meaning we can't offer them nearly as much work as before, so they get second part time jobs, an those second part time jobs become priorities when we can't offer them a stable schedule to plan around.

Myself, I make an excellent living civi side and have absolutely no financial need to keeping working as a reservist, but don't kid yourself into thinking the vast majority are doing it for anything other than financial reasons... You've got to make a living and put food onto your table.

 

[Biggoals2bdone]

Exactly.

Not to sound arrogant/naive, but listening to some of my non-military friends talk about their jobs makes me very, very glad of my career choice, even with the moving around and such.  Like MARS, I've also travelled the world in some awesome (and some not-so-awesome) spots, worked with amazing folks and had more than a few "once in a lifetime" experiences.  Yes, there is quite a bit of time away from home but I'm also friends with airline pilots and FIFO mining geologists who spend as much or more away from home, and I usually beat them in the "so what did you do today?" story competition.   

Another big difference I notice between the military and the private sector is, as ERC has alluded to, the camaraderie and networking opportunities.  Most of my non-military friends go to after-work drinks and such, but aside from that they seem to be happy to get away from work people ASAP after hours. 

With the amount of education opportunities in the CF (ASC, sponsored post-grad, etc.) there really shouldn't be an excuse to stay in a job rut.  If free education isn't your thing, there's always OT/CT.

I guess there's a huge difference in the whole camaraderie aspect depending on which trade you are in, my trade is known for people f@cking each other over to get ahead, other than maybe 2-3 times in the last 4yrs i've never hung out with coworkers or other members of my trade outside of work. Most of my buddies are at CANSOF or 3RCR.  I personally don't see all the networking opportunities you speak of, most of the people I know when the work day is over, its get the hell out of here and i'm not talking to anyone from work until tomorow morning.  I am at the point where I do truly not enjoy my job and that's why i'm changing things, but the picture you paint about all this camaraderie and cool stuff happening at work...has more or less NOT been my experience (more than 1 trade also) in my 9yrs in.  The only time i've ever really felt that was when I have been on course and you are in essence forced to be and live with these people, I do hope that picture changes.

In regards to pay, I understand what is being said about the cbt arms trades, that because they are doing dangerous stuff they should get paid more, but you also have to factor in training cost, how much does it cost to train an infantryman up to a deployable level vs an AVN or AVS tech.  I am not trying to be rude but saying my job is more dangerous than yours ergo I should get paid more even though all I needed for my job was a grade 10, whereas you had to finish HS and than do post-secondary, and all these specialty courses, is really dumbing things down in your favour.  There are many factors in deciding pay levels; education, training time, retention issues, danger, comparative civilian pay, rarity of skills/knowledge, etc...

 

[George Wallace]

I guess there's a huge difference in the whole camaraderie aspect depending on which trade you are in, my trade is known for people f@cking each other over to get ahead, other than maybe 2-3 times in the last 4yrs i've never hung out with coworkers or other members of my trade outside of work. Most of my buddies are at CANSOF or 3RCR.  I personally don't see all the networking opportunities you speak of, most of the people I know when the work day is over, its get the hell out of here and i'm not talking to anyone from work until tomorow morning.  I am at the point where I do truly not enjoy my job and that's why i'm changing things, but the picture you paint about all this camaraderie and cool stuff happening at work...has more or less NOT been my experience (more than 1 trade also) in my 9yrs in.  The only time i've ever really felt that was when I have been on course and you are in essence forced to be and live with these people, I do hope that picture changes.

We have a whole topic dedicated to camaraderie. 

In regards to pay, I understand what is being said about the cbt arms trades, that because they are doing dangerous stuff they should get paid more, but you also have to factor in training cost, how much does it cost to train an infantryman up to a deployable level vs an AVN or AVS tech.  I am not trying to be rude but saying my job is more dangerous than yours ergo I should get paid more even though all I needed for my job was a grade 10, whereas you had to finish HS and than do post-secondary, and all these specialty courses, is really dumbing things down in your favour.  There are many factors in deciding pay levels; education, training time, retention issues, danger, comparative civilian pay, rarity of skills/knowledge, etc...

Let's see; you are getting paid more to be in a Trade that prepares you for a better paying job on civilian street, so you have no real commitment to stay in the CAF other than feathering your bank account for the day you eventually jump ship.  Meanwhile, your friends in the Infantry are putting themselves into harms way and don't get any compensation for doing what the CAF is all about.  Seems fair, right?  It seems to me to be counter productive to be paying people more so that they can leave, than paying people more for staying and doing the "dangerous" work that the military is designed to do. 

ERC has made a comment that Spec Pay should be revamped to a one time only lump sum bonus paid on gaining a qualification.  An even more drastic change, and one that I am sure some 'Think Tank' and politicians may come to accept in the future, would be the replacement of all Spec Trades with civilian contractors.  Unfortunately, the newer members of the CAF, who have been brought up having developed a 'sense of entitlement' feel that these options would be totally unacceptable.  They go so far as to insult those who have gone before them and suffered through even greater hardships, in their constant whining that theirs is such a outrageous infringement on their "Rights".  Even when they have the hard facts put in front of them, they go into a state of denial and continue to whine.

What kind of cheese should we serve up to these folk?

 

[Fishbone Jones]

It would appear, the ones here anyway, that want spec pay, or more of it, seem to have one common premise.

That being, they want to be compensated based on what they do, what their training is and how much better their civie counterparts are doing.

Basically, saying they want more or else and blackmailing the CF to stay in that function, under threat of taking their free education and skills to the other side of the fence.

They are not here because it's a calling. They are not here out of patriotism. They are not here for any ideology, other than the almighty dollar.

Well, you have a choice. Nobody can make you do what you don't want to. There are always alternatives. Instead of bitching for more money, get out, hit the bricks and go get it.

That's all I have been able to glean and it might not be right. However, it's hard to hear because the whine is akin to being locked in a test cell with a jet engine run up.

 

[RADOPSIGOPACCISOP]

We have a whole topic dedicated to camaraderie. 

Let's see; you are getting paid more to be in a Trade that prepares you for a better paying job on civilian street, so you have no real commitment to stay in the CAF other than feathering your bank account for the day you eventually jump ship.  Meanwhile, your friends in the Infantry are putting themselves into harms way and don't get any compensation for doing what the CAF is all about.  Seems fair, right?  It seems to me to be counter productive to be paying people more so that they can leave, than paying people more for staying and doing the "dangerous" work that the military is designed to do. 

ERC has made a comment that Spec Pay should be revamped to a one time only lump sum bonus paid on gaining a qualification.  An even more drastic change, and one that I am sure some 'Think Tank' and politicians may come to accept in the future, would be the replacement of all Spec Trades with civilian contractors.  Unfortunately, the newer members of the CAF, who have been brought up having developed a 'sense of entitlement' feel that these options would be totally unacceptable.  They go so far as to insult those who have gone before them and suffered through even greater hardships, in their constant whining that theirs is such a outrageous infringement on their "Rights".  Even when they have the hard facts put in front of them, they go into a state of denial and continue to whine.

What kind of cheese should we serve up to these folk?

That makes little sense. The purpose of Spec pay is to entice people to stay in the trade rather than leaving for better pay in the civilian side. Spec isn't and never was a benefit based on the physical difficulty of a job, or for people that don't have a transferable trade to civilian life. It's a retention benefit, to balance against higher pay in similar public service or civilain jobs.

Like I said, in the ACISS-IST realm, I work with dozens of Ptes and Cpls that are far more competant and knowlegable than their CS-01 and CS-02 counterparts that I worked extensively with as well. I would line a senior Cpl IST against a CS-02 any day and I win the bet 7 or 8 times out of 10. I think they should be paid just as well as any CS-01 or CS-02, but they're paid nowhere near the same, and it's laughable when you see them work side by side after hours and weekends on call when the civilian is making overtime while the Pte or Cpl is doing the work because they know how to do it. Half of the CS-02s I worked with wouldn't even be able to function on a 1st line help desk.
Replacing these guys with civilian contractors is a complete farce. While many of the contractors I worked with are very capable, they are billing between $500 and $1200 a day. Tell me where the savings are there?

I know my subordinates are worth every penny and more. If leaders in other trades think that this is unfair, I challange them to fight to raise the pay of their subordinates, because this race to the bottom bit is not benefiting anyone.

 

[RADOPSIGOPACCISOP]

It would appear, the ones here anyway, that want spec pay, or more of it, seem to have one common premise.

That being, they want to be compensated based on what they do, what their training is and how much better their civie counterparts are doing.

Basically, saying they want more or else and blackmailing the CF to stay in that function, under threat of taking their free education and skills to the other side of the fence.

They are not here because it's a calling. They are not here out of patriotism. They are not here for any ideology, other than the almighty dollar.

Well, you have a choice. Nobody can make you do what you don't want to. There are always alternatives. Instead of bitching for more money, get out, hit the bricks and go get it.

That's all I have been able to glean and it might not be right. However, it's hard to hear because the whine is akin to being locked in a test cell with a jet engine run up.

Good point. We should just turn the voluntary force into a volunteer force. Our soldiers should learn to live on their sense of pride and self-satisfaction.

Reminds me of a joke. There was a fisherman on a wharf in Halifax. He had 3 buckets, 2 with lids labeled "Jamaica" and "Maine" and the last one with no lid labeled "Canada". A man asked the fisherman why the last bucket had no lid, to which the fisherman replied "Because those are Canadian lobsters, if one starts to crawl out, the others grab a hold of him and haul him back in."

Trying to haul back on others gets no one any further ahead. I know many of us here on this forum are leaders, either MCpls, SNCOs, WOs or Officers. As leaders we ought to advocate for our soldiers, to push their interests before our own or champion their successes. We need to focus on things that benefit them. Trying to equalize everyone's balloon by deflating others is the worst sort of cynicism.

 

[Shamrock]

In regards to pay, I understand what is being said about the cbt arms trades, that because they are doing dangerous stuff they should get paid more, but you also have to factor in training cost, how much does it cost to train an infantryman up to a deployable level vs an AVN or AVS tech. 

Tankers' pay would double overnight if duration and cost of training was a factor in pay.