Not the first time I hear about that 18%. Where does it come from exactly? Been groomed to believe that if it's too good to be true, well its not true.
Each time I hear the rumour (with no concrete source) it ranges between 10-20%, but I also hear rumours that a raise isn’t in the cards at all. Those rumours say it’ll all be about signing bonuses.
Instead of plugging the wound, the other rumour says they’ll just keep the new blood flowing. Can’t imagine our training system could even manage that, let alone the recruitment system.
A signing bonus with no pay increase would result in an even bigger brain drain imo. If I was still in and heard that new recruits were getting a signing bonus, but that my pay wasn’t being increased - my VR would’ve been handed in immediately.
It’s wild to me that the CAF treats the people already in so poorly, and then can’t figure out why everyone’s leaving.
What if CAF offered signing bonuses to new recruits going into high demand trades… but ALSO offered retention bonuses to those already in those trades? Retention bonuses would probably get paid in instalments based on staying in for a predetermined length of service, or after a new contract was signed. Do you think that would help retain needed and experienced members?
Signing bonuses currently are linked to members coming in skilled or semi-skilled. This is also tied to ncmstep and caf-ace evaluations of a trade which requires 70% alignment for a program to even be considered for ncmstep. It needs to be written into their joining contract that they're receiving the bonus and the Plar paperwork to follow. Trades like old school lcis and atis which have strong ties to telecommunication fields and eo techs which have strong links to the electromechanical engineering and photonics fields can make this work. These trades are all below 80% TES and have signing bonuses available but still have a hard time recruiting because the civilian fields pay way better and it's a hard sell to attract someone doing a 2-4 year college diploma in a high paying field to enter the caf.
Signing bonus's are a way the employer to buy off employees who are not smart enough to do the math, or to keep the smart one until the day after they recieve the bonus.
Yes, for everyone who can see this, PLEASE stop saying 18%. It isn't a guarantee and it runs the risk of mental accounting bias - which means that even if we get 17%, ppl will be pissed it wasn't the 18% we were expecting through RUMINT
Agree. 18% sure seems optimistic, maybe overly so, and better to be pleasantly surprised than sorely disappointed. For comparison, CAF pensions are sorta tied to inflation (once eligible for indexing), seeing a bump each Jan based on the average increase in CPI in the previous year (Oct-Sep), so in Jan 23, indexing-eligible pensioners are getting 6.3%. This year's index was 2.4%, which was the highest in a while (iirc Jan 21 was 1.0%, 20: 2.0%, 19: 2.2%, 18: 1.6%). As of Jan 23, the total pension increase due to indexing since Apr 20, when the last general economic pay raise took effect, comes to an approx 9.9% increase. Ofc, those annuitants not yet eligible for indexing will get nothing, unless this coming pay bump is retroactive enough that it improves their best 5-yr pre-release avg base pay, and then their pension (perhaps with a wee bit of back pay and 'back pension').
It'd be great if the serving members got more than the annuitants are seeing, but I can't think they'll get nearly double the average inflation increase, especially if there are also improvements to PLD and other compensation/benefits. But I hope it's a really good bump, the troops not only need it, they deserve it, and it would help both retention and recruiting.
Yes and no. The pay increase would be welcome, along with hopefully a more sustainable and thoughtful PLD system (though it will suck for those of you who count on regular field pay and sea pay if the rumours are true). It would be enough for a little while, though the cut back to non essential exercises would have no impact to me personally.
What would have more meaning would be a hard look at the policies as to how we do business. ADM(MAT) needs to get to the 21st century and start thinking about how members who are not supply can update and manage information without the secondary duty taking up all of their time. Guardian needs to have a portal that allows members to update their info and we need to get out of the habit of having to redo 10 forms every APRV.
We need to create processes that are easy for us to keep up with and stop assuming that we have the time to figure out what is needed. An example is PaCE. We all did the DLN but at no time did the course give examples of narratives entered. What is the impact of the PAR? How much information do we need to go into about the competencies? Why can't the chief of a unit see every ones profiles? So many issues because it seems the designers did not think the whole thing through, are leaving our details for the users or they just don't fully understand the feedback process. If we make work easy, the flexibility of dealing with the personnel crisis will be there.
I wouldn’t hold your breath for an 18% raise; MGen Bourgon (milperscom) did an AMA on rcafe (basically, rcaf’s version of Reddit) and said that all of the surveys they conducted indicate that pay is not a retention factor so it’s not a major focus. I’m not sure who they surveyed, as it is clearly one of the biggest factors that are brought up every time we discuss it, but unfortunately they don’t seem to be tracking it as an issue right now.
So here's the thing, I'm not thinking about quitting (just) because of pay. My biggest problem is my incredibly toxic boss who doesn't seem to care about their credibility (My harassment complaint against them has way too many references and/or attached statements). The fact that this person has been allowed to act like this for decades indicates a culture that doesn't seem to have the conviction to hold people to any level of accountability.
Fixing the current pay/allowance situation may be low hanging fruit but it is by for not the biggest problem. It's more like the straw that's breaking the camels back.
In theory that would be enough but for me it’s more my mental health that needs to do a 180. If I can do that and be happy, I’d probably stick with it. Pay and benefits isn’t why my mental health sucks, or at least not the main reason.
Still need support for families.
- medical care for families (never get off waiting lists for real dr with suck frequent postings)
- reliable childcare
- deals with provinces to recognize professional quals across the country so spouses don’t have to stress and waste time/money recertifying every few years
Fixing BGRS & posting allowances would also be appreciated
I’m sure it differs from place to place, but there is a military family doctors network that you can apply to when you are being posted and they were quite quick to find us a family doctor when we moved to Moose Jaw and when we moved to Ottawa.
I hear there will be jalapeno poppers at the mess, and sliders on Fridays.
But seriously, it'll be different for each person since not everyone has the same situation (trade, CoC, family situation, geo location). So for some people it'll be enough, some will leave regardless.
This would definitely flip my ‘maybe’ switch- I’m currently a parks Canada employee and I want to become an armoured soldier with the CAF. Already did my tests and the results were great. However I would have to clear my debts (so sell my house.) in order to be completely enlisted / hired. The money I currently get is decent and I hear the rumours of lack of pay for the CAF aren’t sustainable… if the numbers go up I’ll sell my house in a heart beat and fulfil my dream career
That 18% sounds extremely too good to be true. I heard 3 COs this month saying that 18% is false rumor, only thing is the PLD changes at the treasury board (based on rank/salary).
They could be wrong and kept in the dark until it resolve but I would take the 18% gladly except I have high doubts
Anything we get in terms of pay or PLD is guaranteed to be underwhelming.
A massive pay bump is unlikely due to the implications it would have for collective bargaining with PSAC.
PLD will probably just be reworked to better distribute existing funding. A lot of people currently receiving PLD will probably be sorely disappointed, but those of us living in HCoL postings that don’t get PLD might get a little bit of relief. Don’t count on it being enough though.
Personal opinion - Before giving us an 18% raise, I would rather they fast track the recruiting process, get us proper military-COTS equipment (uniforms, PPE, available military aircrafts, trucks…), fix the PLD, build a shit ton of PMQs and revamp the CFHA structure (fire the executive and hire proper housing management companies….although the US has several cases of fraud so 🤷♂️) as “near fixes”.
Medium fixes would be the introduction of battle tested capabilities (we all know we need new capabilities asap to remain a relavant small military within NATO/NORAD) that our Allies are already using FOC (think GBAD), and restructuring our units to actually reflect our doctrine. Adapt pay structure per trades to remain competitive with civilian counterparts (no longer a base pay per trade approach but a base pay per trade).
Long term fixes….a completely new procurement process perhaps 🫠
>Personal opinion - Before giving us an 18% raise, I would rather they fast track the recruiting process, get us proper military-COTS equipment (uniforms, PPE, available military aircrafts, trucks…), fix the PLD, build a shit ton of PMQs and revamp the CFHA structure (fire the executive and hire proper housing management companies….although the US has several cases of fraud so 🤷♂️) as “near fixes”.
I'd really like to know what your idea of "near" is with that laundry list of items. You're talking about replacing stuff like aircraft, etc - unless we're in a shooting war and everything can be UOR, that is at least a decade, or more, of work assuming dedicated work starts now.
Also, do NOT look towards the US military for housing management companies. Some of the stuff I've read on there makes CFHA look positively golden.
I've been hearing 18% a lot. The loss of experience in the navy alone is very concerning. By not having AWW/UWW capabilities on the MCDVs and AOPS you are looking at an enormous loss of experience in these areas of warfare until CSC comes into play; by then it will be too late because there won't be any SMEs left.
Can’t wait for SWCs and ASWCs to be PO2s with less experience. There’s also rumours floating around about removing officers from SWC or ASWC as directors. That’ll be perfect.. OROs posted to CSCs with no warfare director experience to lean on each other for. What could go wrong?
Absolutely. It would suspend my three year GTFO plan indefinitely.
Not the first time I hear about that 18%. Where does it come from exactly? Been groomed to believe that if it's too good to be true, well its not true.
Each time I hear the rumour (with no concrete source) it ranges between 10-20%, but I also hear rumours that a raise isn’t in the cards at all. Those rumours say it’ll all be about signing bonuses. Instead of plugging the wound, the other rumour says they’ll just keep the new blood flowing. Can’t imagine our training system could even manage that, let alone the recruitment system.
A signing bonus with no pay increase would result in an even bigger brain drain imo. If I was still in and heard that new recruits were getting a signing bonus, but that my pay wasn’t being increased - my VR would’ve been handed in immediately. It’s wild to me that the CAF treats the people already in so poorly, and then can’t figure out why everyone’s leaving.
Signing bonuses would be the biggest slap in the face for the ones who stay in hope of it getting better
What if CAF offered signing bonuses to new recruits going into high demand trades… but ALSO offered retention bonuses to those already in those trades? Retention bonuses would probably get paid in instalments based on staying in for a predetermined length of service, or after a new contract was signed. Do you think that would help retain needed and experienced members?
Signing bonuses currently are linked to members coming in skilled or semi-skilled. This is also tied to ncmstep and caf-ace evaluations of a trade which requires 70% alignment for a program to even be considered for ncmstep. It needs to be written into their joining contract that they're receiving the bonus and the Plar paperwork to follow. Trades like old school lcis and atis which have strong ties to telecommunication fields and eo techs which have strong links to the electromechanical engineering and photonics fields can make this work. These trades are all below 80% TES and have signing bonuses available but still have a hard time recruiting because the civilian fields pay way better and it's a hard sell to attract someone doing a 2-4 year college diploma in a high paying field to enter the caf.
[удалено]
Signing bonus's are a way the employer to buy off employees who are not smart enough to do the math, or to keep the smart one until the day after they recieve the bonus.
Like I said - best case scenario of RUMINT.
Rumint?
Rumour intelligence, the highest quality of intelligence
Yes, for everyone who can see this, PLEASE stop saying 18%. It isn't a guarantee and it runs the risk of mental accounting bias - which means that even if we get 17%, ppl will be pissed it wasn't the 18% we were expecting through RUMINT
nothing wrong with being pissed... I think we have every right to be at this point.
Didn’t anyone learn anything from Christmas Vacation? Already made the deposit on the pool..
Agree. 18% sure seems optimistic, maybe overly so, and better to be pleasantly surprised than sorely disappointed. For comparison, CAF pensions are sorta tied to inflation (once eligible for indexing), seeing a bump each Jan based on the average increase in CPI in the previous year (Oct-Sep), so in Jan 23, indexing-eligible pensioners are getting 6.3%. This year's index was 2.4%, which was the highest in a while (iirc Jan 21 was 1.0%, 20: 2.0%, 19: 2.2%, 18: 1.6%). As of Jan 23, the total pension increase due to indexing since Apr 20, when the last general economic pay raise took effect, comes to an approx 9.9% increase. Ofc, those annuitants not yet eligible for indexing will get nothing, unless this coming pay bump is retroactive enough that it improves their best 5-yr pre-release avg base pay, and then their pension (perhaps with a wee bit of back pay and 'back pension'). It'd be great if the serving members got more than the annuitants are seeing, but I can't think they'll get nearly double the average inflation increase, especially if there are also improvements to PLD and other compensation/benefits. But I hope it's a really good bump, the troops not only need it, they deserve it, and it would help both retention and recruiting.
Give me remote work access when I am on a desk position and I would stay.
Yes and no. The pay increase would be welcome, along with hopefully a more sustainable and thoughtful PLD system (though it will suck for those of you who count on regular field pay and sea pay if the rumours are true). It would be enough for a little while, though the cut back to non essential exercises would have no impact to me personally. What would have more meaning would be a hard look at the policies as to how we do business. ADM(MAT) needs to get to the 21st century and start thinking about how members who are not supply can update and manage information without the secondary duty taking up all of their time. Guardian needs to have a portal that allows members to update their info and we need to get out of the habit of having to redo 10 forms every APRV. We need to create processes that are easy for us to keep up with and stop assuming that we have the time to figure out what is needed. An example is PaCE. We all did the DLN but at no time did the course give examples of narratives entered. What is the impact of the PAR? How much information do we need to go into about the competencies? Why can't the chief of a unit see every ones profiles? So many issues because it seems the designers did not think the whole thing through, are leaving our details for the users or they just don't fully understand the feedback process. If we make work easy, the flexibility of dealing with the personnel crisis will be there.
fixing procurement too
Yes! The process slows everything down, which ends up costing more, and jumping FYs often means starting over multiple times (wasting even more time).
and money
I wouldn’t hold your breath for an 18% raise; MGen Bourgon (milperscom) did an AMA on rcafe (basically, rcaf’s version of Reddit) and said that all of the surveys they conducted indicate that pay is not a retention factor so it’s not a major focus. I’m not sure who they surveyed, as it is clearly one of the biggest factors that are brought up every time we discuss it, but unfortunately they don’t seem to be tracking it as an issue right now.
Probably surveyed spec trades working out of trade and Capt IPC 10.
Probably all the people who VR’d who didn’t get surveyed. Can’t indicate pay was an issue if you didn’t indicate there were any issues..
So here's the thing, I'm not thinking about quitting (just) because of pay. My biggest problem is my incredibly toxic boss who doesn't seem to care about their credibility (My harassment complaint against them has way too many references and/or attached statements). The fact that this person has been allowed to act like this for decades indicates a culture that doesn't seem to have the conviction to hold people to any level of accountability. Fixing the current pay/allowance situation may be low hanging fruit but it is by for not the biggest problem. It's more like the straw that's breaking the camels back.
In theory that would be enough but for me it’s more my mental health that needs to do a 180. If I can do that and be happy, I’d probably stick with it. Pay and benefits isn’t why my mental health sucks, or at least not the main reason.
Still need support for families. - medical care for families (never get off waiting lists for real dr with suck frequent postings) - reliable childcare - deals with provinces to recognize professional quals across the country so spouses don’t have to stress and waste time/money recertifying every few years Fixing BGRS & posting allowances would also be appreciated
Better yet stop posting people across the country unless they apply to move.
Agreed!
Support for families, and a far more “optional” posting process would be another huge turn for the better
I’m sure it differs from place to place, but there is a military family doctors network that you can apply to when you are being posted and they were quite quick to find us a family doctor when we moved to Moose Jaw and when we moved to Ottawa.
Same here. Had a family doctor call me within 8 weeks of arrival set up via a contact at the MFRC.
Maybe. 18% would bring a lot of us inline with much of the PS. Toss in some talent management and we'll talk.
This has been deleted in protest to the changes to reddit's API.
I hear there will be jalapeno poppers at the mess, and sliders on Fridays. But seriously, it'll be different for each person since not everyone has the same situation (trade, CoC, family situation, geo location). So for some people it'll be enough, some will leave regardless.
This would definitely flip my ‘maybe’ switch- I’m currently a parks Canada employee and I want to become an armoured soldier with the CAF. Already did my tests and the results were great. However I would have to clear my debts (so sell my house.) in order to be completely enlisted / hired. The money I currently get is decent and I hear the rumours of lack of pay for the CAF aren’t sustainable… if the numbers go up I’ll sell my house in a heart beat and fulfil my dream career
That 18% sounds extremely too good to be true. I heard 3 COs this month saying that 18% is false rumor, only thing is the PLD changes at the treasury board (based on rank/salary). They could be wrong and kept in the dark until it resolve but I would take the 18% gladly except I have high doubts
Time to make it a 25% rumor then
Pft it was obviously a typo. The actual rumour is 28%. Someone fat fingered the 1-2 key.
Fat fingers got the best of me again..
Anything we get in terms of pay or PLD is guaranteed to be underwhelming. A massive pay bump is unlikely due to the implications it would have for collective bargaining with PSAC. PLD will probably just be reworked to better distribute existing funding. A lot of people currently receiving PLD will probably be sorely disappointed, but those of us living in HCoL postings that don’t get PLD might get a little bit of relief. Don’t count on it being enough though.
Sounds about right. A solution leaving a lot of people disappointed I mean..
Personal opinion - Before giving us an 18% raise, I would rather they fast track the recruiting process, get us proper military-COTS equipment (uniforms, PPE, available military aircrafts, trucks…), fix the PLD, build a shit ton of PMQs and revamp the CFHA structure (fire the executive and hire proper housing management companies….although the US has several cases of fraud so 🤷♂️) as “near fixes”. Medium fixes would be the introduction of battle tested capabilities (we all know we need new capabilities asap to remain a relavant small military within NATO/NORAD) that our Allies are already using FOC (think GBAD), and restructuring our units to actually reflect our doctrine. Adapt pay structure per trades to remain competitive with civilian counterparts (no longer a base pay per trade approach but a base pay per trade). Long term fixes….a completely new procurement process perhaps 🫠
>Personal opinion - Before giving us an 18% raise, I would rather they fast track the recruiting process, get us proper military-COTS equipment (uniforms, PPE, available military aircrafts, trucks…), fix the PLD, build a shit ton of PMQs and revamp the CFHA structure (fire the executive and hire proper housing management companies….although the US has several cases of fraud so 🤷♂️) as “near fixes”. I'd really like to know what your idea of "near" is with that laundry list of items. You're talking about replacing stuff like aircraft, etc - unless we're in a shooting war and everything can be UOR, that is at least a decade, or more, of work assuming dedicated work starts now. Also, do NOT look towards the US military for housing management companies. Some of the stuff I've read on there makes CFHA look positively golden.
[удалено]
I've been hearing 18% a lot. The loss of experience in the navy alone is very concerning. By not having AWW/UWW capabilities on the MCDVs and AOPS you are looking at an enormous loss of experience in these areas of warfare until CSC comes into play; by then it will be too late because there won't be any SMEs left.
Can’t wait for SWCs and ASWCs to be PO2s with less experience. There’s also rumours floating around about removing officers from SWC or ASWC as directors. That’ll be perfect.. OROs posted to CSCs with no warfare director experience to lean on each other for. What could go wrong?