Pointer said:
Actually, my objection to the hazard pay issue and EOD allowance is motivated by quite the opposite feeling as that which you've attributed to me. After watching subordinates and peers get blown up, I'm more than a little annoyed that "hazard pay" isn't scaled to the actual hazards. My objection to the EOD allowance isn't that it exists, but that regular Combat Engineers don't get any similar compensation when they're the ones usually involved in one of the most dangerous stages of counter-IED operations (namely finding the IED and confirming it).
Sorry. I missed that nuance in your post. I will agree with you on your clarification.
Pointer said:
What distaste for other CF members? My distaste is with our asinine compensation regime. Actually, maybe I do have a certain distaste for certain CF members - namely the ones that are responsible for designing said compensation regime. If you're referring to the "desk jockey" crack - I'm now one of them. "Desk jockies" exist in all trades.
I am sure many others hold these opinions, but are not cognisant as to the difficulties to create a fair and just system to cover compensation. I am sure that the CF members and their civilian counterparts are trying their best to create a fair system. I am also sure that some CF members have ulterior motives as well; to promote change more for the points on their own PERs than for anything else. Why else does it seem that we are constantly "reinventing the wheel", and not always for the better? I also know that outside agencies, such as Treasury Board will dictate what we do or do not do.
Pointer said:
Right. Where does any of that mean that hazard pay can't be scaled to hazard?
It is. Are there not four different levels to Hazard Pay. Afghanistan falls into the top level, if I am correct. Other AORs are paid lesser levels.
Pointer said:
By your logic, we shouldn't pay spec pay, SOF pay, the EOD allowance, jump pay, etc.
Are not those deployed also keeping their various Spec Pay, Operations Allowances, different levels of pay for time served outside of Canada, etc.?
Pointer said:
Ignoring the ridiculously steep discrepancy in "hazard" experienced by different groups in the interests of "equality" and "the team" is outrageous. The hazard isn't equal, therefore the pay shouldn't be. There are a million other areas where we aren't paid "as a team", I'm not sure why combat operations shouldn't be one of them. It could be $50 a month - it's the principle that bothers me.
I disagree. There are no frontlines in Afghanistan. This is COIN. KAF has been attacked. People in KAF have been awarded medals for bravery, Remember the Engineers who hopped into a LAV and fought off a bunch of insurgents infiltrating the wire?
Pointer said:
No, my post was a sarcastic jab at an utterly stupid policy. Admittedly, I probably could have taken a couple edges off of it but I don't think it was overly cryptic in what it was getting at. It certainly didn't warrant the equivalent of "you deserve to die". Knee-jerk sensitivity and back-shooting may be your chosen COA - that's your decision. Your response, thus far, has been embarrassingly ridiculous with talk of "fragging", all motivated (apparently) by vicarious offense on behalf of a group of people whom, in every dealing I've had, agree with me entirely. I'm not sure if it's just PC-ness or an issue of reading comprehension, but it's completely disproportionate and fails to address the issue at hand.
Yes - my troops, whom I had the utmost love and respect for and did my best to protect (unsuccessfully, at times), absolutely hated me for feeling that they should be better compensated for the risks they experienced overseas and for actively advocating therefor. My overworked, sherpa-like combat engineers that had the admirable task of digging in the dirt to confirm if they were huddled over a padlock or a 120mm arty shell connected to some Iranian lamp cord and a motorcycle battery absolutely despised my respect for their intestinal fortitude and my feeling that they be justly and fairly compensated. Same thing with my medic - when he got concussed and his eardrum blown out by the blast that almost killed the guy in front of him, he absolutely loathed me for believing he should be paid a little more than someone sharing the same risks as a Tim Horton's employee on KAF. They could barely contain their desire to shoot me in the back.
And no, I'm not going to tiptoe around the fact that a person that comes back home missing parts or disabled was paid the same "hazard" pay as someone that spent their entire time in a fortified sea container because some of the latter may get offended. That's what the senior leadership in charge of such policy has decided to do. The issue of equal pay for completely unequal hazard is an absolute insult to the troops bearing the brunt of the hazard and just reveals how far down the PC, ignore-the-elephant-in-the-room, head-in-sand hole the CF has gone.
Well then I apologize. The "automatic sarcasm indicator" hasn't been implemented in the software running this site, and it is a bytch trying to read it in at times. I am sure that
when until such time thatMike develops a better website, where using software that marries SKYPE, Facebook, Chat, YouTube and whatever other programs necessary to present audio video posts on this forum, we will continue to have this problem of accurately reading what it truly is that a person is trying to post; sarcasm, humour, tongue in cheek, etc.
It will be a long day coming, however, when we will see any honest and fair compensation dealt out to our pers for their service and injuries incurred in the service of the nation. We can call for perfection, but never achieve it. Someone will always feel maligned. Would inserting a chip into every CF Member be acceptable? A chip that would record every movement they make in their careers, that would record their level of training, qualifications, time outside of country on missions or training, time at sea, time in the air, Spec Pay level, time they get on a plane to deploy, time they arrive in/depart an operational theatre, what level of Hazard Pay that operation theatre warrants, time they were in contact with an enemy, etc. Would that be possible? Would it even be acceptable under the Charter of Human Rights and Privacy Act?
We can tinker with our Pay and Allowances all we want, but there will be no perfect solution that will be accepted that has no detractors. Someone will always find reason to complain.