Danger Pay Reduction for Our Troops

[1000yards]

http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/danger-...stan-1.1231338



"A Department of National Defence official said Tuesday that the change in hardship and risk pay is part of an annual review that reassesses how dangerous each mission abroad is."
a $500 dollar reduction per month, because it is so much safer over there now.

[Big Daddy Badger]

Originally Posted by 1000yards

http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/danger-...stan-1.1231338



"A Department of National Defence official said Tuesday that the change in hardship and risk pay is part of an annual review that reassesses how dangerous each mission abroad is."
a $500 dollar reduction per month, because it is so much safer over there now.

What a joke.

So... exactly where in Afghanistan is it safe now?

Hmmmm... just a few days ago a bunch of folks were killed in that so called safer area.

Sooooo predictable.

Too bad I got mauled so bad when I predicted this a few months back when they were busy rebranding the navy.

Classic political bait and snatch... and by now soldiers are pretty used to it.

[Vingiu]

This is stupid. How do they deem it "safe"? Do they have a bunch of pinhead analysts in helicopters flying over the country, looking for "danger"? How do they justify this?

These areas are still dangerous, and it's not like our troops are worth less because they're in less danger... I think we oughta be throwing money at our boys because of the service they do all of us, whether they're in a warzone or otherwise. Just my 2 cents.

[Big Daddy Badger]

Originally Posted by MiDaLeonardo

This is stupid. How do they deem it "safe"? Do they have a bunch of pinhead analysts in helicopters flying over the country, looking for "danger"? How do they justify this?

These areas are still dangerous, and it's not like our troops are worth less because they're in less danger... I think we oughta be throwing money at our boys because of the service they do all of us, whether they're in a warzone or otherwise. Just my 2 cents.

Only the secret squirrels with pocket protectors and slide rules and magic calculators really know.

Its all relative to the number of incidents that have occured, lives lost, and public perception/awareness etc etc.

We've been told that the combat mission is over.
The inference being that Canadians will no longer be in danger.
Thats kind of like saying....

This is a bad neighbourhood but the next street is a good neighbourhood.
Life isn't that cut and dry and danger in Afghanistan has legs just like hoods in Edmonton do.

The reality is that Canadians will be very much in danger but they will not be actively seeking it.
Of course that might actually increase risk since it is more of a defensive stance and they won't have the same level of ready support should something happen but if nobody tells Mr and Mrs Canada that... they'll be none the wiser.

No worries... the troops will make out OK if not because of the government...then in spite of it.... as always.
They are still making a lot more money overseas than they would have 10 or so years ago.

The real sting will be the slight.

[Selkirk]

Originally Posted by pesky672

. . . The real sting will be the slight.

X2^!

Not to mention, the very strong message being sent to potential new recruits.

The writing is on the wall ... Canada's military is in for yet another 'dark period'. But this time, it's at the hands of the Conservatives

TF

[HunterDave]

As a retired soldier I'd like to side with the troops but I think that I understand where the government is coming from with this. The mission has changed and our troops aren't exposed to as much danger as was involved in the original mission.

Here's the problem though. When our troops go to places like Afghanistan everyone gets the same level of danger pay just for being there. I know for sure that the guys out in the sh*t had a hard time with the support types (ie cooks, clerks, supply techs, etc) that never went outside the wire getting the same level danger pay as them, and let's face it, it wasn't near as dangerous. Maybe what they should have done is had two different tiers of danger pay.....one for outside the wire and one for inside the wire.

Receiving danger pay on my third tour to Bosnia after the war was over was a bit of a joke in relation to my first and second tours. Just sayin'.

[het4human]

Govt needs to cut their own salaries and expense accounts before they take away from the military.

[79ford]

Cutting pay and increasing the burial tax credit for family members of veterans... Really goes to show who this government cares about. I wonder if that is apart of 'the economic action plan'??

They must be getting desperate to get the budget somewhere remotely near back in the green after running 26 billion $$$$+ deficits for the last 4 years.

The civil service has expanded to near record highs that were set in the late 80's and very early 90's..... There is about 80 000 extra government employees in the last 7 years I am sure the axe could be swinging there before soldiers danger pay is taken away.

[CNP]

Originally Posted by pesky672

What a joke.

So... exactly where in Afghanistan is it safe now?

Hmmmm... just a few days ago a bunch of folks were killed in that so called safer area.

Sooooo predictable.

Too bad I got mauled so bad when I predicted this a few months back when they were busy rebranding the navy.

Classic political bait and snatch... and by now soldiers are pretty used to it.

Who is it you "blame"? A "National Defence" official announced the cuts........not the conservative govenrment.......and the thing about rebranding the Navy and the Air force.........that is what those two entities had asked for.......the government only had to nod it's head and it was so. There is no blame to be laid. Some things are the right thing to do.

[Titan 08]

I just read a news article a few minutes ago where the PMO office reversed this decision stating that it had not been authorized by them. The article a CBC news article.

[58thecat]

Originally Posted by Titan 08

I just read a news article a few minutes ago where the PMO office reversed this decision stating that it had not been authorized by them. The article a CBC news article.

Well it sure created a s*&tstir, our troops deserve the best!

[Selkirk]

Originally Posted by Titan 08

I just read a news article a few minutes ago where the PMO office reversed this decision stating that it had not been authorized by them. The article a CBC news article.

Sh*t must have hit the fan ... http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/stor...ghanistan.html

TF

[Okotokian]

It's a hardship and risk allowance. Two parts to it with points awarded for each. They are in a training role now. One would assume the hardship portion is less not being in forward combat bases, living in tents, etc. The lack of casualties the past few years suggests the risk may be less as well.

"The Canadian training effort will be concentrated in Kabul with two satellite sites in Herat and Mazar-e-Sharif. Canadian Forces members will fill a number of positions and deliver training in areas such as leadership, health care, literacy improvement and the core professional skills of soldiers."

Doesn't sound quite as hard and risky as the combat patrols they used to do.

Logically it might make sense to come down a bit. Politically as the Minister, I wouldn't have bothered adjusting it. Mission will be done next year anyway. Looks like minds are being changed as we speak LOL Mid level bureaucrat never checked with his political masters.... or so the story will go.

Interesting so many CBC haters are checking/following CBC stories uncovering stuff like this and the RBC immigrant workers fiasco.

[CheeseBurger]

Send the pencil pushers that made that decision, that thankfully has been reversed, overseas and see if they want danger pay.

[Fisherpeak]

If your guys are volunteers,carry weapons and are required to get killed sometimes.......?These young men and women could be working the oilpatch,making 10 times the money with 1% of the risk and getting home every 2 weeks to see their families.
Any SOB Civil servant who wants to cut their pay should have to spend 6 months in those guys boots.
If the money is tight then lets cut down the perks the fat bas@rd criminal Senate gets.
I want the guys who make sure I sleep safe WELL PAID.

[recce43]

the DnD is reversing there plans now about the cuts thanks to the media

[Big Daddy Badger]

Originally Posted by ehntr

Who is it you "blame"? A "National Defence" official announced the cuts........not the conservative govenrment.......and the thing about rebranding the Navy and the Air force.........that is what those two entities had asked for.......the government only had to nod it's head and it was so. There is no blame to be laid. Some things are the right thing to do.

The cuts were announced by a DND official... they were determined by a bunch of civil servants.
Harper ordered it reversed today so it is by now.... a moot point.

But... to answer your question... the government elect.
Thay have a majority and are responsible regardless of whether they actively pardticipated in the decission or not.
that is what we pay em for and what they are expected to do.

And... who says it was the right thing to do?

And... neither entity asked for those name changes.
Shake your head.
Do you honestly believe todays service man wants to be reminded that we are colonials after their predecessors worked to overcome that?
Do you really think that they felt it was good investment of effort and money when guys are riding around in a war zone in trucks older than they are?


the face you see on TV and what is said amonst service persons in private are not at all the same.

Here is a quote for ya...

"The Canadian government has an addiction. They are addicted to the blood of Canadian soldiers and they have been for about 20 years now.
As a result... we will no doubt see another deployement to another hot spot before the next federal election... if not within the next year. It is not a matter of if... only when. The where is narrowed down to 2 or 3 places already..."

That was from one of the most Sr Officers in Western Canada not 3 weeks ago and I stood 10 feet from him when he said it.
He further inferred that his information was not mere speculation and that things were already being penciled in.

Trust me... there is more at play than what you see on TV.

I predicted a cut to pay and benefits as soon as they announced the name changes and the mission change.

Note... those announcements were front page news and lead stories while the pay change was not.

It is a consistent pattern... regardless of the party in power.
I've seen this a thousand times.

I am surprised and VERY pleased that Harper has reversed the decission.
THAT is a rare thing.
Hopefully others will take his lead in future.

[Big Daddy Badger]

Originally Posted by Okotokian

It's a hardship and risk allowance. Two parts to it with points awarded for each. They are in a training role now. One would assume the hardship portion is less not being in forward combat bases, living in tents, etc. The lack of casualties the past few years suggests the risk may be less as well.

"The Canadian training effort will be concentrated in Kabul with two satellite sites in Herat and Mazar-e-Sharif. Canadian Forces members will fill a number of positions and deliver training in areas such as leadership, health care, literacy improvement and the core professional skills of soldiers."

Doesn't sound quite as hard and risky as the combat patrols they used to do.

Logically it might make sense to come down a bit. Politically as the Minister, I wouldn't have bothered adjusting it. Mission will be done next year anyway. Looks like minds are being changed as we speak LOL Mid level bureaucrat never checked with his political masters.... or so the story will go.

Interesting so many CBC haters are checking/following CBC stories uncovering stuff like this and the RBC immigrant workers fiasco.

Right.

People are still being attacked and they are dying in the area that they will be in.
Regardless of the perception of reduced threat... are we that broke that we are willing to pinch 500 bucks from a foot soldier in a crappy place like that when executives and civil servants here are not suffering any reduction in pay and benefits at all? After all its a pretty unique situatrion thay have to deal with... most folks don't want any part of it....for any amount of money.

Fine... take the money.
But... will every other person who gets a check from the government for any reason accept a proportionate cut to that?

Not bloody likely.

I can see it now.

There'd be blood in the streets if everyone else had their Maternity Time chopped or their GST check cut or the baby check or their pay.

But... if its a soldier that gets his pay cut....waaaaay over in Afghanistan.... well thats OK then...

[Samhael]

I agree that any soldier on patrol, spending time outside the compound should receive full danger pay.

Tell me why an officer that never leaves his bunker/base should receive danger pay? Cut the $ given to the officers/safe butts and keep the $ going to the grunts!

[nekred]

I see many opinions and sides to this story.

This is a hard decision to make.
If you leave it to the gys in the field... Of course they are going to exaggerate the danger because it is in their vested interest to do so....

If you leave it to the REMF's then they may not be getting real information.

If you do it by body count... then compared to WW2 this is a walk in the park. A friend just passed away that was one of 28 survivors out of his original 1000.

Then politics and emotions also get wrapped up in it. This needs to be established with each mission change, not partway through a mission change.

Just for the note officers actually have a lot of risk to because they are greater targets of opportunity.

[CNP]

Originally Posted by pesky672

The cuts were announced by a DND official... they were determined by a bunch of civil servants.
Harper ordered it reversed today so it is by now.... a moot point.

But... to answer your question... the government elect.
Thay have a majority and are responsible regardless of whether they actively pardticipated in the decission or not.
that is what we pay em for and what they are expected to do.

And... who says it was the right thing to do?

And... neither entity asked for those name changes.
Shake your head.
Do you honestly believe todays service man wants to be reminded that we are colonials after their predecessors worked to overcome that?
Do you really think that they felt it was good investment of effort and money when guys are riding around in a war zone in trucks older than they are?


the face you see on TV and what is said amonst service persons in private are not at all the same.

Here is a quote for ya...

"The Canadian government has an addiction. They are addicted to the blood of Canadian soldiers and they have been for about 20 years now.
As a result... we will no doubt see another deployement to another hot spot before the next federal election... if not within the next year. It is not a matter of if... only when. The where is narrowed down to 2 or 3 places already..."

That was from one of the most Sr Officers in Western Canada not 3 weeks ago and I stood 10 feet from him when he said it.
He further inferred that his information was not mere speculation and that things were already being penciled in.

Trust me... there is more at play than what you see on TV.

I predicted a cut to pay and benefits as soon as they announced the name changes and the mission change.

Note... those announcements were front page news and lead stories while the pay change was not.

It is a consistent pattern... regardless of the party in power.
I've seen this a thousand times.

I am surprised and VERY pleased that Harper has reversed the decission.
THAT is a rare thing.
Hopefully others will take his lead in future.

First. Debunking your statement that neigher entity asked for their name changes. You believe the Commander of the RCN and the RCAF do not speak to the Chief and their political masters. You believe that this was thrust upon them rather than the Commanders themselves instilling the whole notion? A private members bill was inspired by talks with former (and current) Admirals. You believe a private members bill would pass if it was opposed by the Navy? Read this open source. You have a hate for all things "Royal". You make that point clear in your posts. That is fine, as some share your opinion. I however, do not share that opoinion. Being an oficer in the CAF and the RCAF requires me to by loyal to the Crown. "Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom, Canada and her other realms and Territories Queen, Head of Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith to XXXXXXXXXXXX, Hereby appointed an officer in Her Majesty's Canadian Armed Forces".

I don't know where you are going with the quote from an anonymous senior officer. You seem to allow yourself to be a predictor of events yet to come. Sure, a future deployment, I predict that will happen lol. We wear uniforms, train with the stuff we use when called upon, thats part of the job. It's not the peace corp. Moving on to pay and allowances........pay and allowances are reviewed. That is where we usually get a bump in pay or allowances. There is nothing wrong with a scale back in allowances if the current allowance does not describe the situation. Civilians do not comprehend the array of allowances that we receive and the recent news that our soldiers are getting their danger pay cut back received emotional reviews by the public at large. Let me ask you.......did a soldier in "Task Force Kandahar" receive the same allowances as a soldier in "NTM-A". Both of those missions, both of which being conducted in Afghanistan, are easily distinguishable in terms of danger. The public does not know this. The public only reacts to what is presented to them. Military pay is public record, anyone can access it....

Canadian military personnel in operations in Afghanistan and the Middle East will be receiving smaller paycheques beginning next week. DND spokeswoman Cmdr. Nathalie Garcia says hardship and risk allowances for about 980 personnel are being reduced April 15 after new assessments of the conditions the troops face. Garcia said Tuesday that soldiers deployed for the first time in Afghanistan will now receive $848 a month for hardship and risk - down from $1,356 - and an additional foreign service premium of $759 per month. Those with previous tours will receive more. Additionally, they receive a tax relief benefit for the entire period of their deployment, adding up to in excess of $14,000 over six months. Garcia said that the allowances are not subject to deficit reduction initiatives, but are reassessed based on input from deployed military personnel.

[Camdelle]

I dont see why everyone is so upset by this.... Harper and his cronies need some way to bump up their pay!!!!!


Troops on the front line taking cuts. What is this country coming to....... TH U.S.A????

Then read through thread....

Glad to see it was reversed. Sad to see harper taking the credit for it. I am sure it was him that ordered. The guy is such a control freak that nothing gets done unless he approves it.... But hey now Harper's a combat veteran as well and should get danger pay..... After all he just shot the messenger didnt he?

[CaberTosser]

Originally Posted by HunterDave

As a retired soldier I'd like to side with the troops but I think that I understand where the government is coming from with this. The mission has changed and our troops aren't exposed to as much danger as was involved in the original mission.

Here's the problem though. When our troops go to places like Afghanistan everyone gets the same level of danger pay just for being there. I know for sure that the guys out in the sh*t had a hard time with the support types (ie cooks, clerks, supply techs, etc) that never went outside the wire getting the same level danger pay as them, and let's face it, it wasn't near as dangerous. Maybe what they should have done is had two different tiers of danger pay.....one for outside the wire and one for inside the wire.

Receiving danger pay on my third tour to Bosnia after the war was over was a bit of a joke in relation to my first and second tours. Just sayin'.

<<<---------- This!

[Big Daddy Badger]

Originally Posted by ehntr

First. Debunking your statement that neigher entity asked for their name changes. You believe the Commander of the RCN and the RCAF do not speak to the Chief and their political masters. You believe that this was thrust upon them rather than the Commanders themselves instilling the whole notion? A private members bill was inspired by talks with former (and current) Admirals. You believe a private members bill would pass if it was opposed by the Navy? Read this open source. You have a hate for all things "Royal". You make that point clear in your posts. That is fine, as some share your opinion. I however, do not share that opoinion. Being an oficer in the CAF and the RCAF requires me to by loyal to the Crown. "Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom, Canada and her other realms and Territories Queen, Head of Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith to XXXXXXXXXXXX, Hereby appointed an officer in Her Majesty's Canadian Armed Forces".

I don't know where you are going with the quote from an anonymous senior officer. You seem to allow yourself to be a predictor of events yet to come. Sure, a future deployment, I predict that will happen lol. We wear uniforms, train with the stuff we use when called upon, thats part of the job. It's not the peace corp. Moving on to pay and allowances........pay and allowances are reviewed. That is where we usually get a bump in pay or allowances. There is nothing wrong with a scale back in allowances if the current allowance does not describe the situation. Civilians do not comprehend the array of allowances that we receive and the recent news that our soldiers are getting their danger pay cut back received emotional reviews by the public at large. Let me ask you.......did a soldier in "Task Force Kandahar" receive the same allowances as a soldier in "NTM-A". Both of those missions, both of which being conducted in Afghanistan, are easily distinguishable in terms of danger. The public does not know this. The public only reacts to what is presented to them. Military pay is public record, anyone can access it....

Whatever... you must be in a different military than mine.

[petew]

Not disputing if the pay should be higher or not, but is the job not supposed to be dangerous when you join the Armed Forces ?

[HunterDave]

Originally Posted by petew

Not disputing if the pay should be higher or not, but is the job not supposed to be dangerous when you join the Armed Forces ?

As opposed to what? If you simply put in your time and don't volunteer to go anywhere or do anything then you get your regular pay. However, if you volunteer to do dangerous duties like a ship's diver, jumping out of planes, going to combat zones, etc then you get compensated a little extra for doing it.

Everyone calls it danger pay but the proper terminology is "hazardous duty and hardship allowance"......or something to that effect. Part of it is a way of rewarding people for sleeping in a trench as opposed to sleeping beside your wife in your bed at home.

[kargor]

for the record the allowances have been restored , thanks to the leadership of the CAF and the courage of our government to right a wrong

[Big Daddy Badger]

Originally Posted by kargor

for the record the allowances have been restored , thanks to the leadership of the CAF and the courage of our government to right a wrong

Yup the PM reversed it the day after it was announced.
Good on him!

[Selkirk]

Originally Posted by kargor

for the record the allowances have been restored , thanks to the leadership of the CAF and the courage of our government to right a wrong

Tis true ^ ... see posts #10, #11, & #12 from three days ago.

TF

[Morpheus32]

Hello from Afghanistan,

Always important to have facts when arguing...unless you just want to argue. Firstly, the process to review the allowances is done by Treasury Board, not DND. DND did not direct this nor can DND direct/influence it. Everyone was surprised by this as the process was not open/transparent to all. Made for lots of excitement over here but it is fixed. The PMO stepped in and sorted it out. Sounds like leadership to me. The issue is bureaucrats in government rather than government or military direction. Big difference.

Interesting to see my comments about officers, inside and outside the wire pay levels. All red herrings and arm chair quarterbacking. Sure some people never left camp on tours....but most did and most do today, right now. It really does not matter except for those who don't understand how things work overseas. Our clerks sort out my pay and allowances so I don't have to worry about admin, the doctors look after us when we get injuried, same with the supply guys. They deserve the same as us and I have no issues. It is a non issue, as mentioned, except for those who really don't understand how the army works. Officers vs soldier discussion...again, say that to the Platoon and Company commanders, Forward Observers, Engineers. While you are thinking bad US movies, have a look at the casualties....all ranks share the danger, all ranks pay in blood including some friends of mine. Rather childish and amateurish to suggest otherwise.

It is fixed and I am happy it is.