Retro Pay & Allow 1Apr 2014 - 1Apr 2017

[Loachman]

Make a new topic for reserve pay issues and complaints,

Is that an order, Herr Kommandant?

What does that have to do with "2014 - 2016 Raise and Back pay". Nothing. People are subscribed to this thread they don't want to see spam from off topic issues in their emails.

Feel free to apply to become DS here, so that you can cull out all of the posts that you do not like. Those of us that are DS do not have the time - we have lives outside of this Site, too.

Every thread on this Site wanders off topic from time to time. Few whine about it, even on their favourite threads.

You're getting pretty good service here for the cost. Think about that for a bit.

But thanks for the info.

 

[slayer/raptor]

http://ottawacitizen.com/news/politics/pipsc-union-and-federal-government-close-in-on-deal

If this goes through for us as well, 1.25% seems rather low compared to the increases we had last time: 1.75% for 2011-2012, 1.50% for 2012-2013, and 2.00% for 2013-2014.

Better than nothing I suppose. I wonder if the allowances (LDA, Sea etc) will go up as well.

 

[Occam]

Speaking as a public servant, I can live with 1.25% per year, so long as they take the sick leave changes off the table.  Hollow victory for the CF, I know - sick leave aspects of the collective agreements have no impact on CF pay and benefits.  I think getting any more than 1.25% was near impossible in this fiscal climate.  Too bad it couldn't have been closer to the figure that Members of Parliament get as raises.

 

[jollyjacktar]

Too bad it couldn't have been closer to the figure that Members of Parliament get as raises.

Do as I say, not, as I do...

 

[George Wallace]

.......  Too bad it couldn't have been closer to the figure that Members of Parliament get as raises.

[Inside voice]
Too bad is right.  Too bad that ALL such raises were fixed to their raise in pay.  Perhaps that would cause our politicians to be more realistic and responsible in their spending.....
[/Inside voice]

 

[Pusser]

Better than nothing I suppose. I wonder if the allowances (LDA, Sea etc) will go up as well.

Yes, they will.  It's also worth noting that if the PS is getting a 1.25%/yr increase, the increase to CAF pay will likely be slightly higher.

 

[dapaterson]

Yes, they will.  It's also worth noting that if the PS is getting a 1.25%/yr increase, the increase to CAF pay will likely be slightly higher.

And you are basing that on?  There have been no material changes to working conditions that would warrant a higher rate of increase; those elements are already factored in to the military compensation model.

Besides, should there be any pay increase to the public service that includes amounts for changes to sick leave, for example, the military raise would be lower than the PS, as military sick leave would not be changed.

 

[RedcapCrusader]

It should be noted that this negotiation is not for a real salary increase, it's a cost of living adjustment.

A pay raise is supposed to be higher than annual inflation in order to get you ahead and be able to afford the current cost of living, with a little extra on the side.

This 1.25% per year over 4 years is less than the average annual inflation of 1.36% over the last 3 years.

Still, any increase is better than none, but cost of living adjustments don't cut it when we lose so much of our salaries to pay for R&Q, pensions etc., On top of high income tax rates.

(...and at times, exorbitant mandatory mess dues.)

As much as we're not completely hard done by, one of the biggest retention issues of the last decade is noncompetitive salaries and if we're all not given a proper salary boost soon, it's going to get worse.

Cost of living only goes up.

 

[Pusser]

And you are basing that on?  There have been no material changes to working conditions that would warrant a higher rate of increase; those elements are already factored in to the military compensation model.

Besides, should there be any pay increase to the public service that includes amounts for changes to sick leave, for example, the military raise would be lower than the PS, as military sick leave would not be changed.

You're right, there have been no substantial changes to working conditions.  However, as a general rule, once the pay comparability formula is applied, CAF increases tend to be higher than PS increases.  Obviously, this is not an absolute, but it has historically been true, at least most of the time.  The Sick Leave issue may become a factor in the future, but I'm speculating that it won't this time around simply because it has apparently been taken off the table for the moment (it's to be dealt with separately at a future point in time).

 

[Lumber]

It should be noted that this negotiation is not for a real salary increase, it's a cost of living adjustment.

A pay raise is supposed to be higher than annual inflation in order to get you ahead and be able to afford the current cost of living, with a little extra on the side.

This 1.25% per year over 4 years is less than the average annual inflation of 1.36% over the last 3 years.

Still, any increase is better than none, but cost of living adjustments don't cut it when we lose so much of our salaries to pay for R&Q, pensions etc., On top of high income tax rates.

(...and at times, exorbitant mandatory mess dues.)

As much as we're not completely hard done by, one of the biggest retention issues of the last decade is noncompetitive salaries and if we're all not given a proper salary boost soon, it's going to get worse.

Cost of living only goes up.

My salary might not be as competitive, but compared to most private sector jobs that I know of, the difference in salary is more than made up for by:

1. Job Security;
2. 6 Weeks of vacation every year (and then some);
3. Full benefits;
4. Mostly full benefits for my family;
5. Variety of jobs, tasks and assignments;
6. PENSION;
7. LDA, SDA, HDA, OSP, AIRCRA, DIVGA....basically all of chapters 10 and 205 of the CBIs.

I'd say the military has done a pretty decent job competing to keep me in the Forces and away from the private sector.

I could literally stop caring, stop trying, let me level of effort drop to the bareminimum, and I'd still be getting $85,000 a year and all listed above bonuses. The military spoon feeds me everything I need to do and everything I need to know. There is no requirement to ensure profits or "a positive customer relations experience".

Now, I try really hard and I want to do well, but in what other private sector job could I slack off and still expect 10+ more years at close to 6 figure?

 

[MJP]

My salary might not be as competitive, but compared to most private sector jobs that I know of, the difference in salary is more than made up for by:

1. Job Security;
2. 6 Weeks of vacation every year (and then some);
3. Full benefits;
4. Mostly full benefits for my family;
5. Variety of jobs, tasks and assignments;
6. PENSION;
7. LDA, SDA, HDA, OSP, AIRCRA, DIVGA....basically all of chapters 10 and 205 of the CBIs.

I'd say the military has done a pretty decent job competing to keep me in the Forces and away from the private sector.

I could literally stop carrying, let me level of effort drop to the bare, bare minimum, and I'd still be getting $85

Well said.  I keep saying we need to get over ourselves, we are not hard done by for the most part.

 

[Pusser]

It should be noted that this negotiation is not for a real salary increase, it's a cost of living adjustment.

A pay raise is supposed to be higher than annual inflation in order to get you ahead and be able to afford the current cost of living, with a little extra on the side.

This 1.25% per year over 4 years is less than the average annual inflation of 1.36% over the last 3 years.

Still, any increase is better than none, but cost of living adjustments don't cut it when we lose so much of our salaries to pay for R&Q, pensions etc., On top of high income tax rates.

(...and at times, exorbitant mandatory mess dues.)

As much as we're not completely hard done by, one of the biggest retention issues of the last decade is noncompetitive salaries and if we're all not given a proper salary boost soon, it's going to get worse.

Cost of living only goes up.

By your definition, we never have and never will receive a real salary increase.  Although there is a market force element involved to some extent, our general pay increases are almost entirely about cost of living increases.  General pay increases have nothing to do with "getting ahead."  Why should the employer (the government) pay more for someone to do the same job tomorrow, that they're doing today?  "Getting ahead," comes through promotion (which includes incentive increases).

 

[RedcapCrusader]

By your definition, we never have and never will receive a real salary increase.  Although there is a market force element involved to some extent, our general pay increases are almost entirely about cost of living increases.  General pay increases have nothing to do with "getting ahead."  Why should the employer (the government) pay more for someone to do the same job tomorrow, that they're doing today?  "Getting ahead," comes through promotion (which includes incentive increases).

I guess it's trade dependent. I'm very good at my job but promotions are a struggle. This year they say they lost too many people and can't promote very many to the next rank... So if you're already topped out, no raise in 3 years, and can't get promoted through no fault of your own it really feels like you're falling behind.

I'm just trying to play the other side of the coin, personally I'm much of the same mindset as Lumber.

However, I've seen many good people leave because the private sector offered them better (maybe not so in terms of some benefits, but clearly enough to pull them away).

 

[Pusser]

I guess it's trade dependent. I'm very good at my job but promotions are a struggle. This year they say they lost too many people and can't promote very many to the next rank... So if you're already topped out, no raise in 3 years, and can't get promoted through no fault of your own it really feels like you're falling behind.

I'm just trying to play the other side of the coin, personally I'm much of the same mindset as Lumber.

However, I've seen many good people leave because the private sector offered them better (maybe not so in terms of some benefits, but clearly enough to pull them away).

In the Public Service, pay rates are based on occupation, so if the demand for a particular occupation goes way up, this will often factor into PS increases for that occupation (happened a few years ago for computer people, who saw huge increases).  In short, PS pay increases can be driven by market forces.  This is factored into pay increases for the CAF as well, but since our pay comparability formula uses benchmarks from across the whole spectrum of the PS, a significant increase for a single PS occupation is watered down by all the other benchmarks in play, so we don't see it as much.  However, since our pay is based on rank and, for the most part, not by occupation (there being a few notable exceptions), we all see a little bit of a significant increase to a PS occupation, but no one sees all of it.

 

[jollyjacktar]

I guess it's trade dependent. I'm very good at my job but promotions are a struggle. This year they say they lost too many people and can't promote very many to the next rank... So if you're already topped out, no raise in 3 years, and can't get promoted through no fault of your own it really feels like you're falling behind.

I'm just trying to play the other side of the coin, personally I'm much of the same mindset as Lumber.

However, I've seen many good people leave because the private sector offered them better (maybe not so in terms of some benefits, but clearly enough to pull them away).

Welcome to the Chretien years.  One guy with me in Halifax was # 1 in the trade three years running.  No promotion. 

We were told by the NPM in 96-97 that where we were in rank was where we were going to retire.  No promotions were forecasted and if we didn't like it we could hit the door.  I remustered in 99.  Things only really changed I am told after 9/11 when the trade expanded and Spec pay was brought in.

 

[armyvern]

Welcome to the Chretien years.  One guy with me in Halifax was # 1 in the trade three years running.  No promotion. 

This happened to a few of us.  But, as noted during SCONDVA, they certainly had us working jobs that were 2 X levels higher than the rank they left us stagnant at. 

Ergo, SCONDVA recommendation that personnel who were posted into jobs described and intended as higher rank levels must either be promoted to the appropriate rank level or WSE'd.

 

[jollyjacktar]

This happened to a few of us.  But, as noted during SCONDVA, they certainly had us working jobs that were 2 X levels higher than the rank they left us stagnant at. 

Ergo, SCONDVA recommendation that personnel who were posted into jobs described and intended as higher rank levels must either be promoted to the appropriate rank level or WSE'd.

Well, I did run into Ken on my last tour at KAF.  He was a MWO and running a NCIU team.  It was nice to see he made it far beyond the Cpl merry go nowhere we were both riding back in the day.

 

[armyvern]

Well, I did run into Ken on my last tour at KAF.  He was a MWO and running a NCIU team.  It was nice to see he made it far beyond the Cpl merry go nowhere we were both riding back in the day.

Agreed ... that was the CFL era - Corporals For Life and Captains For Life.

I'm still not certain this era is comparable as promotions are not stagnating due to tightening of the purse string -- Ie:  saving money by not promoting, but employing in higher-ranked positions anyways.  We were actually over-strength at the lower rank levels back in those days, but under strength at the higher ranks; it was, indeed, all about saving money.

Currently rather, the release rates are quite high coupled with a broken recruiting system and lots of red trades, too many people have been getting promoted too quickly.  We have Warrant Officers with a couple years in rank who have no idea what a 'caution' is for crying out loud.  We have people being promoted on a developing and a ready PER.  At some point, the CAF needs to kick back and let people gain the necessary experience and knowledge they require before promoting them into the next rank level where they fail due to the lack of experience.  As well for the red trades, even though we have vacancies at higher rank levels, we can not afford to keep promoting unready personnel up into those positions as that just creates even more vacancies at the Pte/Cpl level where the real work actually gets done.  The current recruiting schmogle is not helping.

 

[PuckChaser]

Rather, the release rates are quite high coupled with a broken recruiting system and lots of red trades, too many people have been getting promoted too quickly.  We have Warrant Officers with a couple years in rank who have no idea what a 'caution' is for crying out loud.  We have people being promoted on a developing and a ready PER.  At some point, the CAF needs to kick back and let people gain the necessary experience and knowledge they require before promoting them into the next rank level where they fail due to the lack of experience. 

We're probably way off topic of a pay raise now, but this caught my eye. We have a tendency to promote until incompetent, or promote solely based on technical skills. The best technical Cpl could have terrible leadership skills, but we have to link a high performance to high potential. Coupled with the fact that we promote people into a rank, and then a year or 2 later they're finally qualified in that rank gives us a giant recipe for disaster.

If the training system is so backlogged (ILP looking at you), we should be holding people back until they get those courses to enable success.

 

[jollyjacktar]

Agreed ... that was the CFL era - Corporals For Life and Captains For Life.

I'm still not certain this era is comparable as promotions are not stagnating due to tightening of the purse string -- Ie:  saving money by not promoting, but employing in higher-ranked positions anyways.  We were actually over-strength at the lower rank levels back in those days, but under strength at the higher ranks; it was, indeed, all about saving money.

Currently rather, the release rates are quite high coupled with a broken recruiting system and lots of red trades, too many people have been getting promoted too quickly.  We have Warrant Officers with a couple years in rank who have no idea what a 'caution' is for crying out loud.  We have people being promoted on a developing and a ready PER.  At some point, the CAF needs to kick back and let people gain the necessary experience and knowledge they require before promoting them into the next rank level where they fail due to the lack of experience.  As well for the red trades, even though we have vacancies at higher rank levels, we can not afford to keep promoting unready personnel up into those positions as that just creates even more vacancies at the Pte/Cpl level where the real work actually gets done.  The current recruiting schmogle is not helping.

Well said, Vern.  I fear it won't get any better for the foreseeable future for that matter.  I can't speak for the other kids, but the Navy is in for some very rough seas to come.  Most of it, self inflicted.