No more LDA for certain Military Police Detachments

[SeanNewman]

Sorry to break the news, Gents:

http://www.cmp-cpm.forces.gc.ca/dgcb-dgras/pd/all-ind/mnd-pce/ldadu-iscud-17-eng.asp

1. REF C IS AMENDED BY REF B SO THAT THE FOLLOWING UNITS ARE DELETED AS DESIGNATED FIELD UNITS FOR THE PURPOSE OF LDA EFFECTIVE 19 APR 10:

UIC UNIT NAME
6355 2 MILITARY POLICE UNIT DETACHMENT LONDON
6356 2 MILITARY POLICE UNIT DETACHMENT OTTAWA
6477 2 MILITARY POLICE UNIT DETACHMENT TORONTO
6478 3 MILITARY POLICE UNIT HALIFAX
6479 5E MILITARY POLICE UNIT DETACHMENT MONTREAL
6484  1 MILITARY POLICE UNIT DETACHMENT CALGARY
6485 1 MILITARY POLICE UNIT DETACHMENT CHILLIWACK
6486 1 MILITARY POLICE UNIT DETACHMENT SHILO
6487 1 MILITARY POLICE UNIT DETACHMENT SUFFIELD
6488 1 MILITARY POLICE UNIT DETACHMENT WAINWRIGHT
6490 2 MILITARY POLICE UNIT DETACHMENT KINGSTON
6491 1 MILITARY POLICE UNIT DETACHMENT WINNIPEG
6492 2 MILITARY POLICE UNIT DETACHMENT SAULT STE MARIE
6493 3 MILITARY POLICE UNIT DETACHMENT GAGETOWN
6494 3 MILITARY POLICE UNIT DETACHMENT MONCTON
6496 5E MILITARY POLICE UNIT DETACHMENT ST JEAN
6500 1 MILITARY POLICE UNIT DETACHMENT VANCOUVER
6501 5E MILITARY POLICE UNIT DETACHMENT QUEBEC
6502 2 MILITARY POLICE UNIT DETACHMENT MEAFORD
6504 5E MILITARY POLICE UNIT DETACHMENT SAGUENAY

2. QUESTIONS SHOULD BE DIRECTED TO YOUR RESPECTIVE COMMANDS/ECS

 

[vonGarvin]

Mods
The title of this thread is misleading.  Perhaps it should be amended to read:
"No more LDA for certain MP Units"


Now, on topic, this makes sense.  PERFECT sense, given our frustration at CTC when the Base MPs (formerly recipients of LDA) refused to deploy to the field to support a non-LDA unit, that was in the field, conduct an investigation involving narcotics.

 

[SeanNewman]

Mods, The title of this thread is misleading.  Perhaps it should be amended to read: "No more LDA for certain MP Units"

No issues at all with the title being changed.

I wonder what the impact will be now that all of those people have budgeted that money into their expenses (and bought houses and cars counting on that money).

What the good CDS giveth, the good CDS can taketh away...

 

[PMedMoe]

I wonder what the impact will be now that all of those people have budgeted that money into their expenses (and bought houses and cars counting on that money).

Well, they were cautioned not to, so sucks to be them.  I wonder if there will be a claw back of anything they've received to date?

 

[SeanNewman]

Well, they were cautioned not to, so sucks to be them.  I wonder if there will be a claw back of anything they've received to date?

I can't see there being a claw back, but stranger things have happened.  How does an authority figure tell someone they are entitled to something and then retro take it back?

I can see them saying "Maybe we made a mistake so from _____ date forward that will be corrected", but that would be extremely harsh to claw it back.

If so, not only do you now not make that $300+/mo, you have to pay back $300+/mo above and beyong that.  So instead of a guy getting $4,000 + $300 = $4,300/mo, he's now making $4,000 - $300 = $3,700/mo until it's paid back.

And while I can not speak for everyone, I think I can safely say that the vast majority of people factored it into their budgets even if they were told not to.  All sorts of people would have bought a $250k house instead of a $200k house, or have two new cars instead of a new and a used car, etc.

 

[exgunnertdo]

The message says effective 19 April 10, so just under a month and a half would have to be paid back. April 19-30, and the May pay run has already been done, so May.

Entitlement to LDA can change. One could get posted from an LDA unit to a non-LDA unit on the same base, no cost move, and be in the same boat. People have to be responsible and know that that's a possibility. I have as much sympathy for someone in this situation as someone who makes financial plans based on their income while on tour. 

I personally found it laughable that MPs in Ottawa (and other major urban centres) got LDA! Unbelievable!

As with PLD, sorry, not a guarantee. Plan accordingly.

(edited for clarity)

 

[PMedMoe]

The message says effective 19 April 10, so just under a month and a half would have to be paid back. April 20-30, and the May pay run has already been done, so May.

Entitlement to LDA can change. One could get posted from an LDA unit to a non-LDA unit on the same base, no cost move, and be in the same boat. People have to be responsible and know that that's a possibility. I have as much sympathy for someone in this situation as someone who makes financial plans based on their income while on tour. 

I personally found it laughable that MPs in Ottawa got LDA! Unbelievable!

As with PLD, sorry, not a guarantee. Plan accordingly.

Agreed 100%!

 

[SeanNewman]

Getting posted to a different unit is different as a factor has changed.  I have no sympathy for those people, and in fact I went from an LDA unit to a non-LDA unit and I spend more time in the field now than I did before. 

I agree with you in a case like when I was a platoon commander and making Para Allowance, but then after my time was up I went upstairs to the unit HQ and lost that allowance because my job was fundamentally different.

However, I do have sympathy for the person who is doing the same job and is now making less money.  Whether or not an MP deserves that money in the first place is a separate matter, but at the end of the day the CF told them they would be getting that money for what they do and now that has changed.

 

[Strike]

I agree with you in a case like when I was a platoon commander and making Para Allowance, but then after my time was up I went upstairs to the unit HQ and lost that allowance because my job was fundamentally different.

However, I do have sympathy for the person who is doing the same job and is now making less money.  Whether or not an MP deserves that money in the first place is a separate matter, but at the end of the day the CF told them they would be getting that money for what they do and now that has changed.

Those MPs who are losing LDA are essentially in the situation that you mention above -- posted to a unit that doesn't deploy but they were still getting LDA.  Why?  Who knows.  As for it being a separate matter, I must disagree.  It is THE matter and is being rectified.  Imagine a pilot getting aircrew allowance while posted to a non-flying position.  Everyone would be raising all holy hell.  Why it took so long for this MP matter to be sorted is beyond me.

 

[gcclarke]

Does this mean that I'll have to wait until I get posted away from NDHQ to get sea-pay again?

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Anyone with the slightest hint of budgetary grey matter knows that you define your income on base salary and nothing that may be lost with the change of employment or job description.

 

[Gunner98]

Getting posted to a different unit is different as a factor has changed.  I have no sympathy for those people, and in fact I went from an LDA unit to a non-LDA unit and I spend more time in the field now than I did before.

That could be an unexpected windfall for you unless your "field trips"are not over-nighters and you are merely getting your boots dirty one partial day at a time.

 

[SeanNewman]

... you define your income on base salary and nothing that may be lost with the change of employment(1) or job description(2).

Base salary, yes...but these people losing LDA above do not meet the two criteria you listed because they have the exact same job.

Strike,

Almost nobody is going to disagree with you that they may not have never deserved the money in the first place, but at the end of the day someone way above that Cpl MP made the decision that he was entitled to it for doing X employment.  If his employment changes to Y then absolutely, but his employment is now ~X-$300 dollars. 

I'm not defending the poor MPs here, and the last thing I'm going to do is say they deserved that money at all.

What I am saying is that right or wrong, I would bet my bottom dollar that a lot of them made decisions based on that money budgeted into their income and now they're going to be in the hurt locker.

ST,

CMTC is perhaps the unit with people who deploy the most in the CF during garrison hours, and they don't get LDA (I'm not posted to Wainwright).  Some of the CTC units are very close behind and don't get LDA either.  I can personally say that in my time in the Infantry School, both as a candidate and instructor, have spent far more time in the field than I ever did in a field-entitled unit for LDA (3 RCR).

And when I was in the field, it was real field as in the sitting on an OP getting rained on and mosquito swarmed, not the field that involves mod tents and massive heaters.

I'm not going down that path though because it just sounds like whining.  I get what I get, and my bills are paid for a nice house, nice car, nice motorcycle, and a fridge full of food.

The ultimate irony though as Techno pointed out above was when the Infantry School was deployed to the field not getting LDA and asked for MP assistance for an investigation and had difficulties getting MPs to go out there.

 

[Swingline1984]

I'm sure the individuals'/units' respective chain of commands' would have informed them of this change prior to the amendment to the list in the CBI's and they therefore would have had fair warning not to spend it.  As for budgeting allowances into your cost of living expenses, I'd have to think most people are smarter than that...but...I've been wrong before.

 

[SeanNewman]

...As for budgeting allowances into your cost of living expenses, I'd have to think most people are smarter than that...

My friend, times are a-changin'. 

Our grandparents saved 10%, our parents broken even, and this generation spends 10%+ more than what they make.

Take any money away from them and it spirals worse and worse.

We are somewhat sheltered by that in the military as we have generally assured income and these sorts of instances are rare.  In the rest of the continent though, people budget in money they don't have at all, let alone allowances.

 

[armyvern]

Base salary, yes...but these people losing LDA above do not meet the two criteria you listed because they have the exact same job.

Strike,

Almost nobody is going to disagree with you that they may not have never deserved the money in the first place, but at the end of the day someone way above that Cpl MP made the decision that he was entitled to it for doing X employment.  If his employment changes to Y then absolutely, but his employment is now ~X-$300 dollars. 

I'm not defending the poor MPs here, and the last thing I'm going to do is say they deserved that money at all.

What I am saying is that right or wrong, I would bet my bottom dollar that a lot of them made decisions based on that money budgeted into their income and now they're going to be in the hurt locker.

...

One of those factors for eligibility - from the very beginning of this allowance - was that "minimum X number of days, on average, was spent out in the field per month". The fact that most MP Units listed as "being entitled" as having "MET" that factor right from the get-go while NOT meeting that specific factor has been a sore point from the beginning.

And, as the Greivance Board (as well as the Omsbudsman agreed) has ruled a great many times over ... "an error in determining your entitlement at the beginning, does NOT an entitlement create. Nor does that error create the entitlement to retain any allowances/benefits/pay received in error due to a wrong determination.""

 

[SeanNewman]

Vern,

Pretty much everyone on this thread so far agrees with what you have said; in fact, I don't even think anything is being debated by anyone.

General consensus seems to be that MPs (for the most part) do not meet the criteria to get LDA and this new amendment is a good thing.

I would even agree with those who have said that people should only ever count on their base salary, but that's just not the ground truth for most people. 

Fundamentally though, I see this as different than someone who changes jobs and makes less money because of it.  If you are on a ship away from home and then get posted close to home, of course you should make less money.  If you jump out of planes and put your body at risk and then you stop jumping, of course you should make less money. 

The error is that these guys were ever told in the first place that they should be getting it.  They're still ending up thousands ahead (if it doesn't get clawed back) so it's hard to feel sympathy, though.

PS - MPs, remember that a soldier (somewhat) supported you in this matter, so next time you pull a young troop over and you're on the fence... ;D

 

[Gunner98]

ST,

And when I was in the field, it was real field as in the sitting on an OP getting rained on and mosquito swarmed, not the field that involves mod tents and massive heaters.

I empathize, I spent close to 8 years at the Schools in Gagetown and Shilo and did not receive any credit for it toward LDA. :'(  My points were that if people are currently spending time in the field in a "non-operational" unit they are still entitled to Casual LDA when they get their boots dirty for more than 24 hours at a time.  It is the unit's role that dictates LDA or CLDA for the field time rather than the frequency, mosquitoes, weather, dust or location. AND If you are spending a lot of time in the field while at the school you should have a nice windfall from the large influx of CLDA! ;D

 

[SeanNewman]

CLDA is better than nothing, but nowhere near as much as LDA itself (especially at the higher incentives).

And as you mentioned, the double-whammy is that you don't get the points, either...so when you do go back to an LDA unit you're only make $450/mo now instead of $600 for example.

 

[Strike]

My friend, times are a-changin'. 

Our grandparents saved 10%, our parents broken even, and this generation spends 10%+ more than what they make.

That is a poor argument -- because our generation has to have bigger houses, cars, tv's, etc, is the only reason that "we" are spending 10% more than what we make.  By the way, allowances aside, equivalent jobs on civvie side are paid less than military so if a military person is finding themselves in the situation above they should probably be talking to a financial advisor.