# Harper gov't cuts soldiers pay in Afghanistan



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

It's bad enough that Canada has lost 158 soldiers (husbands/fathers and women serving in our armed forces there),
but in a cost cutting measure, the Harper gov't has decided that the remaining Canadian force there is not in any danger anymore.
.so they have CUT their danger pay by $500 month, citing that the *remaining forces are not in any danger to warrant the pay.*
After all, the Taliban have been defeated in the last 10 years, the country is enjoying a peaceful idyllic life with no fear.

The Harper gov't will use the approximate $46,500 (per month) saved to pay for the senators living expenses..after all, 
they are in more danger facing the wrath of public opinion, sitting on their fat b#tts,
enjoying their fat salaries..good for their entire lives, even if they do nothing to earn it.

Of course, the Canadian gov't will still pay for any repatriation of soldiers that could be killed over there for free. :rolleyes2:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2013/04/09/afghanistan-soldiers-danger-pay.html


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

Weren't our soldiers supposed to be coming home for good sometime this year if not next? Our soldiers really shouldn't have been sent to Afghanistan in the first place, no business being there.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

I always thought it was disgraceful that police officers made so much more than soldiers...


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

Beaver101 said:


> Weren't our soldiers supposed to be coming home for good sometime this year if not next? Our soldiers really shouldn't have been sent to Afghanistan in the first place, no business being there.


Ok..where is the truth coming from the Harper gov't these days? If our soldiers are no longer in any danger, then they should be replaced by mercenary volunteers to continue with the Afghan forces training.
..otherwise..if they are still needed there..why cut their danger pay? Surely the families of the soldiers deserve the extra money!
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/...oops_could_stay_in_afghanistan_past_2014.html


> “Canadians do not want yet another Conservative extension of the mission in Afghanistan and the NDP will not support one,” Mulcair said.
> Unlike previous extensions, *the current Afghan training mission was not put to Parliament for a vote by the Tories because it did not involve combat *
> and* soldiers would not be put in danger. So far, one soldier has been killed in a roadside bomb blast*


The danger still exists there..but since Harper and Baird are not there to experience the day to day situations...it's easy to just extend the training mission and get on with other business at hand.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Disgraceful policy change..............what else can you say?


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

According to the latest reports, DND/PMO burecrats are rethinking that move. 
It's a bit of a cruel joke to play on our soldiers out in Afghanistan putting their lives on the line..
.and it's not even April 1st joke. 
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/story/2013/04/10/pol-soliders-danger-pay-afghanistan.html


----------



## none (Jan 15, 2013)

A Canadian soldier hasn't been killed in Afganistan for almost two years - perhaps it really isn't that dangerous anymore.

Anyway, I think the whole idea of 'danger pay' for soldiers is a little silly.


----------



## HaroldCrump (Jun 10, 2009)

If Ottawa would stop over-paying droves of paper pushing bureaucrats, perhaps they will have some money left over to pay the soldiers a fair danger pay.


----------



## none (Jan 15, 2013)

HaroldCrump said:


> If Ottawa would stop over-paying droves of paper pushing bureaucrats, perhaps they will have some money left over to pay the soldiers a fair danger pay.


Perhaps if Ottawa would pay paper pushing bureaucrats more so that top tallent is obtained then there wouldn't be a need for soldiers at all


----------



## HaroldCrump (Jun 10, 2009)

none said:


> Perhaps if Ottawa would pay paper pushing bureaucrats more so that top tallent is obtained then there wouldn't be a need for soldiers at all


Well, we _could_ hire all the Taliban militants in Afghanistan as bureaucrats in the public sector, and pay them Sunshine list salaries and pensions.

That ought to end the war in a hurry.

I am sure that qualifies as "top talent" per your definition, yeah?


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

^ :biggrin-new: on the response.


----------



## praire_guy (Sep 8, 2011)

none said:


> A Canadian soldier hasn't been killed in Afganistan for almost two years - perhaps it really isn't that dangerous anymore.
> 
> Anyway, I think the whole idea of 'danger pay' for soldiers is a little silly.


Or maybe we have just been lucky?

Are you saying they don't deserve danger pay, or are you saying the job of a soldier is dangerous overall?


----------



## none (Jan 15, 2013)

I meant that one should decide on a salary and pay them to do their job - whether they are in combat or not. 

When I do my consulting I get paid the same whether I am working at my desk (safe) or working in the bush (far more dangerous). I don't see how this should be any different. I can see how doing a 'risk assessment' of whether a zone is still considered dangerous or not would be difficult to communicate (as I assume happened here).


----------



## HaroldCrump (Jun 10, 2009)

There is a risk premium built into the wages in more dangerous parts of the world.
For instance an engineer or driller working in Saudi Arabia will make more than a comparable worker in the Canadian oil sands.
A private security ex-vet guy working in Toronto makes less than a similar ex-vet working in the middle east.

Because there is no "market price" for army personnel wages and salaries, the govt. sets a similar premium called this danger pay.
If there were a market price for army jobs, a similar premium will automatically get built into the wages.


----------



## none (Jan 15, 2013)

I think it's not the best use of public funds. I think there would be enough people of equivalent quality applying to join the military whether this danger pay was offered or not.

If you get the same amount and quality of people and they are payed a living wage I don't see why the tax payer should pay more.


----------



## HaroldCrump (Jun 10, 2009)

none said:


> I think it's not the best use of public funds.


Ha, you want to talk about a good use of public funds?
Where do you want to start?

How about we start by cutting 30% salaries and pensions of all public sector employees, and _then_ we can talk about danger pay for the army.



> I think there would be enough people of equivalent quality applying to join the military whether this danger pay was offered or not.


The danger pay is not an incentive for joining the army per se.
The danger pay is a premium for being posted in location where they can lose their life any minute.

And if you think army personnel ought to work for wages without a premium for the type of work they do i.e. purely out of a spirit of public service, then that rule ought to apply across the board for the public sector.
Let us cut 30% off the public sector compensation since there should be enough people of equivalent quality applying to join the public sector whether higher benefits was offered or not.



> If you get the same amount and quality of people and they are payed a living wage I don't see why the tax payer should pay more.


Yep, same rule ought to apply for the entire public sector.
They ought to be paid the living wage i.e. min. wage, and the tax payer should not have to pay more.
I am glad we agree.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

I would bet this is clearly a case where private sector security workers earn a whole lot more than a Canadian soldier.

I also think soldiers in a combat zone have more to worry about than how they are going to pay their bills at home this month.


----------



## Nemo2 (Mar 1, 2012)

HaroldCrump said:


> There is a risk premium built into the wages in more dangerous parts of the world.
> For instance an engineer or driller working in Saudi Arabia will make more than a comparable worker in the Canadian oil sands.


We were paid a premium to work in Saudi.....not because it was dangerous but because nobody would have gone there otherwise.


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

Nemo2 said:


> We were paid a premium to work in Saudi.....not because it was dangerous but because nobody would have gone there otherwise.


I don't understand what this argument is about.
If our soldiers are at home, doing regular soldier duties, then they don't get danger pay, that is understood.

But..when they are in what is considered a war zone..and Afghanistan has been a war zone since the 80s when the Russians first invaded,
(with a period where the Taliban took over and you could considered that a "peaceful" period, I suppose), Aghanistan has been basically a dangerous place since 9/11.

Maybe there hasn't been a soldier's death in 2 years (as someone pointed out), but given a chance, the insurgents wouldn't hesitate to harm our soldiers,
if they could get at them, and whether they are killed outright, or wounded somehow... that still warrants danger pay. 

My understanding is that the remaining CDN forces there are training the Afghans in defending themselves, so whether our soldiers are in protected zones and not taking part in actual
combat duties, I don't know, but the whole country is still considered unstable. Once the US military moves out next year, the insurgents will move back in to take over, and it may
revert to where it was in the late 90s..eventually.


----------



## HaroldCrump (Jun 10, 2009)

How much exactly was the federal govt. planning to save by cutting the "danger" pay for the couple of thousand soldiers still in Afghanistan?
Sure it is not hundreds of millions of $.

Compared to the billions that are simply thrown away in wasteful spending here at home.


----------



## Addy (Mar 12, 2010)

I'm on the fence about danger pay - even though my husband (a soldier in the Canadian Forces) nearly lost his life 18 months ago in Afghanistan. An IED went off in his convoy, blowing apart the vehicle after his vehicle barely missed running over the IED by a few inches.

My husband was away for 15 months, of which six he received extra pay (UN pay, possibly danger pay, allowances, most of which were tax free for the six months). When he left, he had 3 days notice to leave for 15 months, and we had a 21 month old daughter at the time. She was three years old when he returned. I'm NOT complaining, (at least I'm trying not to complain!), I'm trying to simply state facts.

My husband is a skilled trade, an electrician. 10 years ago, he was an electrician pre-military, working on high-rises in downtown Vancouver making well over 100K/year with overtime. He joined the forces and started making $50K/yr and I lost my job ($45K) as a result of my husband being posted away and we had to move. Again, not complaining, stating facts.

I love and hate being a military family, every move I lose most of my friends and social contacts. We live no where close to any family members, so we're on our own for everything - including births, illnesses and other urgent matters. It's a tough life, but has it's rewards as well - my husband has a secure job, he gets to travel fairly often, we have wonderful friends, and I am proud my husband is in the military. He could be out in the civvy world easily making twice what he does in the C.F.

The danger may be lower in Afghanistan now, I don't really know because I'm not living there now or have ever lived there when it was 'more dangerous'. I have noticed less death reports for soldiers in Afghanistan, due in part to way lower numbers of soldiers in Afghanistan, but perhaps because it is safer now.

The only issue I have with the Harper Government wanting to remove danger pay from soldiers there already is that they went overseas with the understanding they would receive these extra pays and allowances, and I feel at the very least the men and women there now should receive the same monies until the end of their tour. Then new soldiers going in will know before hand that they will not receive danger pay.

Yesterday I heard the danger pay clawback was nixed, I don't know the details so maybe it's being phased in as opposed to being put into effect immediately.

As a taxpayer, I say no danger pay, as a military spouse who's family took over a $95K/yr pay cut for my husband to join the Canadian Forces, I say keep the danger pay, it's the least we could do for our soldiers considering the huge cuts the government is already making to the military, which in turn is negatively affecting military soldiers and their families.


----------



## Nemo2 (Mar 1, 2012)

carverman said:


> I don't understand what this argument is about.


It was merely a response to HC's comment re engineers/oil workers in The Magic Kingdom..........as to the military, I feel that they should receive a premium while in Afghanistan.


----------



## HaroldCrump (Jun 10, 2009)

Addy said:


> As a taxpayer, I say no danger pay


As tax-payers, why do we not have a similar position when it comes to other compensation schemes we support for the federal govt., and the other 2 levels of govt.?

If tax payers say cut danger pay for soldiers in Afghanistan, why don't we also say cut the outrageous salaries, pensions, benefits, and perks of the rest of the public sector, none of who face half the types of risks that soldiers in Afghanistan face.

When TTC drivers or Canada Post clerks go on strike demanding double digit pay raises, why don't we say _stuff it_ to them?
When Ontario Provincial public servants strike secret deals with the govt. for 4% pay raises every year, why don't we say the same to them?

There is _so_ much dead wood to cut in the public services before we even get to the soldiers' danger pay and other such marginal, miniscule expenses.


----------



## Addy (Mar 12, 2010)

HaroldCrump said:


> There is _so_ much dead wood to cut in the public services before we even get to the soldiers' danger pay and other such marginal, miniscule expenses.


Is it bad that the first thought that popped into my mind when you said dead wood was harpers head on the chopping block???


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

HaroldCrump said:


> There is _so_ much dead wood to cut in the public services before we even get to the soldiers' danger pay and other such marginal, miniscule expenses.


Is this another case of "robbing peter" (our armed services) to "pay paul" (military budget/growing deficit), the gov`t has indeed stepped into a political minefield?



> The decision to cut pay mystified opposition politicians, who said Kabul may not be the killing fields of Kandahar, but troops still face dangers.
> 
> The mountains east of Kabul continue to see sporadic fighting with insurgents, while the Afghan capital itself has been the subject of suicide attacks and ambushes led by the Haqqani Network, an ultra-violent terrorist group separate from the Taliban, but loosely affiliated with al-Qaida.
> 
> ...


http://www.citynews.ca/2013/04/11/g...o-cut-danger-pay-for-soldiers-in-afghanistan/

Thank goodness we have some sensible people still left in gov`t with a conscience that represents Canadians, not this current PC gov`t that sees things only in dollars and cents. While cost cutting may be necessarily in certain areas of our military..taking it out on the paychecks of those servicemen (and women) that serve us in hot spots of the world is not the way to do it. We got involved at the request of
the US after 9/11 and we stuck it out even though we lost 158 of our young people. There is still a contigent of nearly 1000, that are still serving in that dangerous area.


----------



## praire_guy (Sep 8, 2011)

HaroldCrump said:


> As tax-payers, why do we not have a similar position when it comes to other compensation schemes we support for the federal govt., and the other 2 levels of govt.?
> 
> If tax payers say cut danger pay for soldiers in Afghanistan, why don't we also say cut the outrageous salaries, pensions, benefits, and perks of the rest of the public sector, none of who face half the types of risks that soldiers in Afghanistan face.
> 
> ...


As taxpayers why don't we complain about welfare recipients?

I'm not talking about the sick, elderly , and disabled, just the able bodied ones who can be working?


----------



## none (Jan 15, 2013)

I think you just did.


----------



## m3s (Apr 3, 2010)

Canada determines the level of this pay by assessing the risk of, it seems, a large group (possibly base/element) during a lengthy timeframe (seems to be annual) The paperwork is filled a few ranks above mine so I don't know the exact nitty gritty. I always expected to get it retroactively some day, but it seems I never will. This means some support trades who rarely go outside the wire benefit by working with those who do, and that in my case the vast majority of support on a safe base overshadows the few potentially catastrophic situations where a few risks overlapped each other. This just can't be captured in a single paper per year, there are just far too many individual circumstances

All, if not the vast majority, of my NATO peers get significant benefits for going to Afghanistan. Most of them write up any potentially dangerous situation they were in and are compensated even more afterward. I don't feel cheated because I know Canadian soldiers are paid well overall all things considered (compared to private sector as well as other country's soldiers) However, some people just end up deploying in dangerous situations far more and hence this benefit system that most countries use is better imo. I don't think tax payers should have any say on this, it should be considered a cost of going in the first place

I've volunteered many times to replace others who are having babies, weddings, whatever and Canadians have some of the most flexibility to do so. There always seem to be people who never volunteer to go or who always have an excuse, and if I have already gone x times with no benefits than I won't easily volunteer to replace them. If you volunteer to go when you are available for example, then there is much less chance of being forced to go when you are not (it does still happen of course nature of the job). I prefer our voluntary system over other countries which have far more restrictions on how often you can go, but in the end I'm deploying more with little financial benefit (free food!?..)


----------

