• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Troops Forced To Pay Back Meal Claims Advances

Marauder

Sr. Member
Inactive
Reaction score
0
Points
210
http://www.canada.com/OwenSound/story.html?id=5dbc4bf3-0d81-4bd1-ac29-28b29f0ff8fc
Soldiers forced to repay Forces‘ food allowance
Ombudsman calls troops victims of ‘broken promises‘
Mike Blanchfield
CanWest News Service
Monday, March 08, 2004

The Canadian Forces clawed back $30,000 in meal allowances from 10 corporals it sent on a four-month training course, after deciding that their $50-a-day per diem was too high and would be cut to $17.50.

The decision forced at least two of the soldiers to seek loans to repay as much as $3,000 each from the four months they spent in the spring and summer of 2002 learning a new air force traffic control system in Richmond, B.C. The Forces ombudsman has slammed the military for "unfairness" and "broken promises" and called on them to compensate the soldiers.

"In the end, there can be only one conclusion. The broken promise has harmed members of the Canadian Forces. Fairness demands that they not be left to suffer," Ombudsman Andre Marin concludes in his report, which is to be made public today.

The matter is far from settled. Marin‘s recommendations are not binding on the military. But his report will land squarely in the lap of Defence Minister David Pratt, who has been an outspoken supporter of recent government initiatives that raised the quality of life of soldiers through modest pay and benefit increases.

The measures were designed to restore a decade of sagging morale among the rank and file.

When investigators from the ombudsman‘s office approached the military‘s Director of Compensation and Benefits Administration branch in December 2002 to try to settle the per diem claim, they received an icy reception.

"The bottom line is that DND is not a benefits smorgasborg (sic) and if military mbrs (sic) desire to be treated as civilians then there are options available," a senior official with the benefits branch snapped back to Marin‘s office in an e-mail.

Eventually, the two sides agreed to knock about $800 off each of the soldiers‘ debts, reducing the average to $2,200.

The conflict began in early 2002 when the Forces went looking for volunteer technicians to train on their new Military Automated Air Traffic System at the offices of defence contractor Raytheon Systems in Richmond, B.C.

The 102-day course ran from February to June. The Forces offered $50 a day to participants to cover the cost of their three meals.

The military paid the per diems in advance of the Feb. 23, 2002, start date for the course. On March 4, 2002, the students were informed their per diem was being cut to $17.50 a day.

But the students were reassured by their instructors and commanders back on their home bases that the $50-a-day promise would be honoured, and not to worry.

Then in October 2002, they were told they would be forced to repay the Defence Department 65 per cent of their per diems, about $3,000 each. At the time, annual salaries for corporals ranged from $43,644 to $53,808.

But by then, the money had been spent by many of the military families.

"According to the students we have spoken to, the per diem offered was an important factor in their decision to leave their homes and families for almost four months," says the report.

Two soldiers have had to take out loans.

"One complainant states he is reluctant to tell his wife about the error before it becomes absolutely necessary, because she will worry about the impact of repayment on the family budget."

The report says awareness of the treatment of the soldiers has had an adverse effect on morale.

"We have already started to receive indications that no students will be made available (for the next two courses) if this issue is not resolved," said an e-mail by a senior official.

© The Calgary Herald 2004
Screwed again. The worst part of the Forces has to be putting up with the constant petty, small-minded bullsh!t like this. Starve me, freeze me, bore me, beat me, but DON‘T F#CK WITH MY PAY OR PER DIEM!
 
"We have already started to receive indications that no students will be made available (for the next two courses) if this issue is not resolved," said an e-mail by a senior official.
What ever happened to you, Bloggins, pack your kit you‘re going on course.

The senior official in this story is correct, the military is not a smorgasbord of benefits. The military way of doing business is not to attempt to buy volunteers it is to order people to go if no one is willing to volunteer, not tell some one that you are going to break the law (yes, TD rates are regulations, and therefore legal documents) for them.

TD rates are well known and published, and the fact that they chose to ignore the obvious, places a fair amount of responsibility for this on them.
 
Don‘t feel so bad...it happens in the navy as well...a message came out to one of the CPFs where Ottawa decided that while it was deployed in the Gulf the crew were entitled to about an extra month hardship pay which equaled out to around 1700 what happens next is Ottawa decides that they made a mistake and everyone has to pay it back 2 years later.
 
xFusilier,

Eh????

The 102-day course ran from February to June. The Forces offered $50 a day to participants to cover the cost of their three meals.
They were told they would be getting $50/day for meals. Should it have been an incentive? I agree with you that it shouldn‘t have. But to be told to have to pay $2200 after-the-fact is wrong. You don‘t want to dish out $50/day for food, fine. Just don‘t give me the ok then tell me later I‘m paying it back because you suddenly feel it was too much.
 
This isn‘t an issue on wanting to pay or not wanting to pay, there is a TB directive that sets the meal rates. The CDS himself cannot vary those rates.

You are either entitled to an allowance or not entitled to it. It is your responsibility as a member be it CF, Public Service or RCMP, to ensure that when you take an advance that it is what you are entitled to. These guys took advances for monies they had no entitlement to.

Personally I think that these individuals chain of command should be fired for this type of crap, but the members themselfs are not blameless.
 
The per diem rate for meals today is $54.15 which means in the summer of 2002, the TD rate would have been around $50.
 
Money is money thats all the world revolves around.
 
Thats the kind of crap that makes me hesitate before joining the CF.

ie. Should I accept if my application is approved? Well...there was that one time where the ten Corporals got screwed...so no.

Good way to lose a great prospect eh?

Somebody better fix this crap.
 
Yes Sherwood, the instructions which should have been issued authorizing them to attend the training should have specified their entitlements. With us it‘s usually one of two things: you‘re either given rations and quarters at a CF base, or you‘re reimbursed commercial rates for lodging and given the per diem for meals.

Tonight‘s news stated that the Minister has instructed the CF to ‘sort it out.‘ The Ombudsman estimated that we‘ve spent ten times the disputed amount haggling over the troops‘ grievances.
 
If they weren‘t suppose to get it in the first place that‘s one thing. But to give it to them and then let so much time past and ask them to pay it back is just wrong.
 
TD rates are well known and published, and the fact that they chose to ignore the obvious, places a fair amount of responsibility for this on them.
If I‘m not mistaken the total amount reimbursable of all three meals is around fifty dollars a day.

$8-10 for breakfast
$9-12 for lunch
$25-27 for supper


Now the whole story isn‘t in the report. They never mentioned if they were living off the local economy. Nor did it say if their lodgings included food. So we are drawing conclusions from an incomplete story IMHO.

If they were living off the local economy, they would be(as far as I know and have seen) entitled to a per diem of all three meals a day.

If they weren‘t living on the local economy and meals were provided, their leadership dropped the ball and should rightfully be held accountable.
 
*chanting*

They say that in the army, the pay is mighty fine.
They give you 100 dollars, and take back 99!
 
A per diem rate is a per diem rate. I have NEVER heard of had someone say to me, ‘well, you were initially entitled to $50, as per CFAO, DAOD etc etc, but we decided that you‘re now entitled to $17.50. You may notice a small change in your pay statment..." In short, it‘s a clawback on an established entitlement, and it‘s cr@p.

A.A.

"The Army: There‘s no life...LIKE IT!"

or

"I love the f@rking Army, and the Army loves f@rking me..."
 
Plain and simple. If meals were not provided they were entiltled to the per diem, plus the $17.50 TD and their extra expense, like phone calls.
 
The meal rate is published and as pointed out, 50 dollars sounds about right. I‘m RMS and can attest to that...

As for "benefits smorgasborg", xFusilier obviously has no clue what he‘s talking about. If you‘re entitled, you‘re entitled. You‘re either in the field, for which you draw your FOA, or you‘re not in the field. You‘re either getting fed, or you‘re not.

Considering that these are tradesmen in short supply, guess what? Yeah, you do buy their love. They do the same with doctors, pilots and other skilled personnel, too. Why should the Armed Forces be any different in how it acquires skilled workers?
 
I heard the news story. It said that there was no place for the soldiers to eat on base so they would have been forced to live off of the local economy. Not sure about quarters though.

Slim
 
Under Treasury Board rules -- which apply to the entire public service, RCMP and DND -- a person is entitled to receive certain pay & benefits when assigned to work temporarily away from their normal duty location.

xFusilier is correct. If a DND member is entitled to receive pay under TB rules, the CDS, nor God himself, can do anything to alter the entitlement. Only the head of the Treasury Board, subject to ministerial approval, can vary rates of travel pay.

If one is entitled to receive travel/meal pay under TB rules, particularly for an expected long period of posting away from the normal work location, they are also entitled to receive an advance, based on an estimate of what they expect to receive.

Some of the benefits may include:

- Meals paid at TB rates, which can add up to $50+ per day
- Telephone expense ($3/day in 2001)
- Incidentals ($10/day in 2001) for periods of less than 60 days service
- Travel pay, per kilometre, the member is required to travel to the work location and back, and on travel weekends (every third weekend)

Now, I can see not being entitled to receive meal allowance if the government is feeding you. But there was no indication from the story that this was the case.

It seems very shortsighted and mean-spirited to clawback pay that members are probably rightly entitled to, especially months or years afterwards. This happens, however, in all government departments.

It‘s a shame, really, because department heads and famous for screwing the taxpayers over with travel/meal expenses. Just this week in the news, the Commissioner of the Correctional Service of Canada was "outed" as having spent extravagant sums of our money on luxury hotel stays to exotic locations for "prison conferences", and even nickle & diming us for bags of chips and bottles of pop for entertaining guests.

However, every travel claim I‘ve put in at my public service job, I can guarantee you is carefully scrutinized. Then again, I‘m pretty low on the totem pole.

Bottom line, don‘t mess with people‘s entitlements. Either pay them all fairly and equally, or expect to receive serious flak.
 
Just a link for you folks who want to look up Treasury Board travel pay charts, etc...

The benefits are quite generous, and I can see why the DND would want to reconsider paying them if they didn‘t think they had to...

http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/pubs_pol/hrpubs/TBM_113/td-dv-c_e.asp
 
There is not enough information in the story to go on but, If they were living in accomodations (say a suite hotel) with a kitchen, their entitlements for meals is reduced substantially, as do entiltlements for TD change the longer you remain in travel status.

And Michael, you are right if you‘re entitled, you‘re entitled, obviously these guys weren‘t entitled.
 
Back
Top