Retro Pay & Allow 1Apr 2014 - 1Apr 2017

[ModlrMike]

I don't actually know the official reasoning for the 15% difference in pay, but I'm pretty sure it never had anything to do with Reservists not paying into the CFSA.  My argument against equal pay has always been the differences in terms of service.  Reservists can quit at any time on short notice and cannot be ordered to deploy (except by Order in Council, which has not happened since WWII).

I always thought that it was related to the RegF mbr's unlimited liability as well.

 

[Good2Golf]

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indeterminate and RegF, thus the 7.5% mil factor for NCMs and GSOs (your 6%/4% NCM/Offr 'mil factor' info is 17 years outdated, unless you meant the 6%/4% factor to compensate for lack of overtime eqvt w/PS, in which case you should have added the 7.5% to the 6%/4% and resulted in the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"

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

 

[kratz]

<snip>
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

Treasury Board policy is clear, CAF paid  moves for reservists come from command budgets. While the RCN will often pay for a move to fill class B positions, when reading REO, it is more common to see the onus on the individual to move on their own to fill the job.

There are many nuances at play between PRes and Reg F, that may or may not be within the control of DND.

 

[CountDC]

I suggest part time reservist (class a), short term class b for courses/summer tasks and Reg F.  The current long term class b and class c goes away and make use of FPS Reg F TOS instead.

Commands do not pay for reserve moves if the class b is 100% in support of reserve units - ie 1 Fd Regt in Halifax hires a clerk from Vancouver the move is covered by DCBA.

Regular Force posting refusal is a myth.  I can not actually refuse a posting, only voice my objection to the posting.  Ultimately though the CM can post me regardless of what I say.  My option then is to submit my application for release which the CM can hold me to 6 months if he wants even though I am a member of the 30/30 plan.  The 30 day release is not a mandatory give me but a normal practice. At one unit a member getting posted in tried the old I will release instead and that is exactly what the LCdr told the CM to do - post her and let her submit the release.  He would still expect her to be there for the 6 months and would not support a withdrawal of the release.

 

[Good2Golf]

CountDC, in general agreement, although I would caveat that with my thoughts that there is a place for Class C in today's construct, and I'm specifically thinking deployment of PRes pers on operations, to ensure compensation and coverage for what then would be equivalent duty to peer RegF pers.  On this specific issue, the reversion of a PRes member from Class C back to A (or short-term B, as you note) is an issue that I don't think is done as well (read: responsibly on the part of DND/CAF towards the PRes member) as it should be.  It seems that there are numerous cases where transfer of post-deployed PRes members from C back to A or B was needlessly (other than to save a proportionately minor amount of money) rushed, which is not the right way of doing things, particularly when there is uncertainty surrounding the post-depl effects on the PRes member.

Regards
G2G

 

[dapaterson]

Class C is not the panacea it is made out to be.  Not all benefits accrue to class C reservists; for example, the education and training packages that were leveraged for some of the injured from Afghanistan were not available in the same way to members of the Reserve Force.

Were I king for a day, we would instead stand up the Special Force for such missions; transfer all those deploying to the Special Force for the duration of their mission and any period of recovery after, and pass a single QR&O saying, "For the purposes of all regulations, orders, directives, policies or other instruments of instruction, members of the Special Force are deemed to be members of the Regular Force".

No more parsing of Regular vs Reserve, just a single standard for those who place themselves on the line.

 

[Good2Golf]

Class C is not the panacea it is made out to be.  Not all benefits accrue to class C reservists; for example, the education and training packages that were leveraged for some of the injured from Afghanistan were not available in the same way to members of the Reserve Force.

Were I king for a day, we would instead stand up the Special Force for such missions; transfer all those deploying to the Special Force for the duration of their mission and any period of recovery after, and pass a single QR&O saying, "For the purposes of all regulations, orders, directives, policies or other instruments of instruction, members of the Special Force are deemed to be members of the Regular Force".

No more parsing of Regular vs Reserve, just a single standard for those who place themselves on the line.

Indeed, and much more of a solution than a "patch" to make the two-component construct try to work.

 

[George Wallace]

Class C is not the panacea it is made out to be.  Not all benefits accrue to class C reservists; for example, the education and training packages that were leveraged for some of the injured from Afghanistan were not available in the same way to members of the Reserve Force.

Were I king for a day, we would instead stand up the Special Force for such missions; transfer all those deploying to the Special Force for the duration of their mission and any period of recovery after, and pass a single QR&O saying, "For the purposes of all regulations, orders, directives, policies or other instruments of instruction, members of the Special Force are deemed to be members of the Regular Force".

No more parsing of Regular vs Reserve, just a single standard for those who place themselves on the line.

:goodpost:

 

[Eye In The Sky]

So far none of the explanations listed in the last few posts is supported by any policy and or guideline or directives.  Just opinions and feelings.

The AG looked into it and found that there is nothing to support that disparity in pay.

http://www.oag-bvg.gc.ca/internet/English/parl_oag_201602_05_e_41249.html

Section 5.59


And DND agreed with that finding.  It also agreed to review the TOS for reservists.  When that will happen who knows.

The easiest explanation is money and not much else.

Having done both Reg and PRes Class A, B and B (A)...I'll add something to consider.

- as a Cl A, what happened if there was something else I was interested in more than a weekend ex;  nothing, I told my CofC I wouldn't be on the ex.  Reg force...don't show up, pay the piper.

- as Cl B, I accepted the dates, location ,tasking before proceeding on the B contract.  Reg Force, I don't have to 'accept' a task, course, etc.  But I still go.

- as Cl B(A), I was able to be sent on TD 'anywhere in Canada'.  Reg Force...I'm going where I'm told unless I'm broken and can't do my job, deploy, whatever.  Sure, people skirt deployments, but most of us go and earn our pay.

PRes moves;  are voluntary (i.e. not forced on the mbr).  Reg Force...refuse your posting message, your COS date can become your release date.

Trg - using the Armour Corps as an example, how big is the skillset of a PRES Crmn compared to a Reg force one?  Can the PRES mbr, on average, show up on a Monday at a Reg Frce Sqn and be equally employable as the Reg crmn?

I was a CL B Sgt working in a CBG HQ at one time.  If I didn't want to say, deploy to the sandbox, I simply didn't.  The Reg force Arty Sgt didn't have the same option, unless he wanted to play the DAG RED game.

There's more to it than the simple rank/MOSID aspect.  I work harder, and often away from my postal code, than I ever did as a Cl B type.  Being sent on TD in Canada is not the same as being tasked on Ops (CJOC ones) with sometimes less than 48 hours NTM. 

Unless Pres TOSs are written to match Reg Force ones, there's no substantiation for Pres to receive the same compensation as a Reg Frce mbr, except when they are Cl C.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

The mythical long-term class "B" guys/gals who are motivated to live on 180 day contracts at a 15% pay disadvantage and substantially reduced benefits because they don't want to get posted once every three or four years - I've never met 'em.

They exist, heck I worked with many B or B (A) folks who wanted exactly that.  Some of them are still doing it and have found ways to move around in the same geo location once they contract they were on was ending, or because they were in a hard MCpl position as a Sgt and a Sgt one opened up.

 

[McG]

Sadly your reasoning is not supported by any directive or policy. 

The pay rates come blessed out of TB.  That make them policy.
What is absent to your satisfaction is the academic argument that led to the current policy.
Others have filled in bits of this with reference to different levels of training, different QoL featurs, and different career progression thresholds.
Market factors also validate this level of pay.  Despite Reg F vacancies, people are continuing to choose work as career Class B at 85%.  Clearly, there is something that they do not feel the extra 15% is worth.

 

[CountDC]

CountDC, in general agreement, although I would caveat that with my thoughts that there is a place for Class C in today's construct, and I'm specifically thinking deployment of PRes pers on operations, to ensure compensation and coverage for what then would be equivalent duty to peer RegF pers.  On this specific issue, the reversion of a PRes member from Class C back to A (or short-term B, as you note) is an issue that I don't think is done as well (read: responsibly on the part of DND/CAF towards the PRes member) as it should be.  It seems that there are numerous cases where transfer of post-deployed PRes members from C back to A or B was needlessly (other than to save a proportionately minor amount of money) rushed, which is not the right way of doing things, particularly when there is uncertainty surrounding the post-depl effects on the PRes member.

Regards
G2G

The Class C would actually be covered by a FPS (Fixed Period of Service) with the Reg F and ensure the mbr gets all the pay and benefits of the career Reg F counterpart including a more proper return after deployment such as a month or two of Cl C to keep them in the system and observed.  Hopefully this would enable picking up more of the post-depl effects as they would be observed a lot more than if returned to Class A service where they can avoid work if they want.

 

[Good2Golf]

The Class C would actually be covered by a FPS (Fixed Period of Service) with the Reg F and ensure the mbr gets all the pay and benefits of the career Reg F counterpart including a more proper return after deployment such as a month or two of Cl C to keep them in the system and observed.  Hopefully this would enable picking up more of the post-depl effects as they would be observed a lot more than if returned to Class A service where they can avoid work if they want.

Agree DC.  I think that's what dapaterson was referring to, and I fully support such an approach because it has a better chance of being misused by the system to 'unsupport' a post-deployed member.

Regards
G2G

 

[FyroniK]

Theres alot of BLAH, BLAH, and BLAH over the last few pages of this thread that have nothing to do with the thread topic. Back to it please. Less BLAH.

It's been so long since a pay raise most of us have forgotten they even exists just like the thread topic I guess.

 

[NavyShooter]

There are a lot of factors that tie into pay raises, and the difference between RegF and Res Pay is something that I've not been deeply aware of, as a 24+ year member of the RegF. 

To clarify, I know there is a difference, and having deployed to the UK with a mixed team of Reg and Res personnel this summer for 3+ weeks, I got to see the special challenges that impact the Reserve world when it comes to pay being messed up and not having a full-time person they can go to in order to rectify issues. 

Would it be nice to see a pay raise?  Sure would. 

Would it be nice to see a retro-active pay-raise with back pay?  Sure would.

Would it be nice to see the 10+ months of Sea Duty Allowance that I'm missing?  Sure would.

I just got my mid-month pay statement, and none of that is listed, so I'm waiting at least until January before I see anything.

If nothing else, the military has taught me one special skill...that's how to be patient and wait in lines. 

NS

 

[dapaterson]

That's two skills...

 

[George Wallace]

There are a lot of factors that tie into pay raises, and the difference between RegF and Res Pay is something that I've not been deeply aware of, as a 24+ year member of the RegF. 

:warstory:

Looking through old papers and I found this pay statement; my pay statement for one training night in 1979 as a Reserve LT (Let the complaints begin.):

 

[Loachman]

Theres alot of BLAH, BLAH, and BLAH over the last few pages of this thread that have nothing to do with the thread topic. Back to it please. Less BLAH.

When there is something factual to add, somebody will add it. In the meantime, what do you want people say? You've not added anything of greater value than those about whom you are complaining.

 

[FyroniK]

When there is something factual to add, somebody will add it. In the meantime, what do you want people say? You've not added anything of greater value than those about whom you are complaining.

Neither have they by taking the topic OFF-Topic. Make a new topic for reserve pay issues and complaints, 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.

Latest Update on the ACTUAL topic as opposed to the BLAH, BLAH and BLAH is here as of December 5th, 2016.

http://psacunion.ca/update-treasury-board-bargaining-dates-mediator

"Update on Treasury Board bargaining: Dates with mediator

The Common Issues committee and PA bargaining team will resume negotiations with Treasury Board, with the assistance of a mediator, the week of December 12.

PSAC and the Employer returned to extended negotiations from November 1-9, after the Liberal government promised to bring a new mandate to the table.

At the end of that bargaining session, PSAC proposed continuing discussions with the assistance of a mediator. The government has since agreed to this.

More information will be provided once it becomes available.

Topics: Bargaining
Employers: Treasury Board
December 5, 2016"

 

[PuckChaser]

Maybe you should have led with that info, instead of coming off as a two year old demanding a treat.