Remius said:
Your argument might be valid if it was supported by a regulation or directive but it isn't. The Mil factor is what compensates for all of those things. If the Mil factor needs to increase fine. But it hasn't and it is not 15%.
I agree though about you saying that reserve took a 13% pay cut by paying into a pension is unwarranted. It is a significant benefit.
You continue to misinterpret the mil factor. It is to compensate between like structures of PS and CAF, i.e. indeterminate and RegF, thus the 7.5% mil factor for NCMs and GSOs (your 6%/4% NCM/Offr 'mil factor' info is 17 years outdated, unless you meant the 6%/4% factor to compensate for lack of overtime eqvt w/PS, in which case you should have added the 7.5% to the 6%/4% and resulted in the current 13.5% and 11.5% pay premiums that CAF NCMs and Offrs receive compared to eqvt PS classifications - refer to current policy here:
http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/caf-community-pay/pay-overview.page ) when one looks at a PS classification and pay level, with an equivalent CAF MOSID/Rank/IPC. What the CAF does internally to it's own personnel structure, including pay rates, has been approved by Treasury Board, the Government of Canada's authority on expenditure of public monies.
Several forum members have pointed out that the "extant policy" which you seek is in fact the Treasury Board policy as detailed in this case in its approval of
CBI 204. You say that such references are not a "directive or policy"
Remius said:
Sadly your reasoning is not supported by any directive or policy. The Mil Factor is what compensates for moving, tasks and what not. The mil factor is at 6% for NCMs 4% for officers. It is not set at 15%. I never said 100%. Equal pay minus the mil factor.
If you don't accept the GoC's official policy as policy, then there's not much more anyone can contribute to the discussion that will satisfy your wishes.
As others have pointed out several times, the perspective you place on the AG's report, regarding full-time reservist employment, appears to wish to justify complete equivalency of pay for equivalent work done, when other perspectives that many, including me, believe make the case that DND is continuing the employment of a component structure (specifically the Class B aspect) that appears incongruent with the NDA, and thus should not be continued. I had always understood that full-time Class B employment was only for the administration of the PRes itself, and not as a replacement for unfilled, or insufficient RegF manning. Has Class B become a "drug of sorts" that has been misused? Most certainly, although PRECS did much to reduce the dependancy on a full-time reserve force in support of the regular force.
We still haven't seen your direct response to many queries as to expectations on term Class B personnel should they ever be paid at the same rate as RegF pers? Amongst other questions, can they be posted to other geographical locations without choice in the matter?
Many of us are fully supportive of equivalent pay for equivalent employment and liability. Only in particular cases can a RegF member give 30-days notice to cease their employment. All PRes Class B members have such a right, understanding that such a right also comes with the risk that the Crown itself could equally terminate a Class B Term on 30 days notice.
So full equivalent pay for equivalent employment and liability? Absolutely! Does current Class B employment represent an equivalent liability (move, assignment, deployment, etc...) to that of the RegF? One waits to be provided an example where this is the case.
Regards
G2G