When money is on the table, people stay in the room: Taking a page from the military’s pay hike

The CFO was clear.

We were in a boardroom with white walls and stale coffee, flip charts leaning in the corner, waiting for inspiration that would never come. He wanted ideas to boost morale. Pizza parties? Sure. Off-site team building? Great. But one rule: “Money’s off the table,” he said. “Everybody will always say they want more money.”

It was easy for him to say. His salary was measured in six figures and stock options.

For the front-line staff — the ones answering phones, stocking shelves, or managing customers who thought “express lane” meant “rules don’t apply” — the message landed like a cold gust through an open door. You’re not getting paid enough, and we’re not talking about it. But here’s a ping pong table.

That logic — perks over pay — has seeped into boardrooms, breakrooms, and recruitment campaigns everywhere. It is tidy, cost-controllable, and deeply flawed.

Last week, the Canadian government tore that page out of the playbook.

Prime Minister Mark Carney stood in a hangar at CFB Trenton, rows of uniformed personnel behind him, and led with money. He said what most leaders tiptoe around: if you want to fix recruitment and retention, pay isn’t the garnish. It’s the meal.

Starting pay for privates in the regular force will rise by 20 per cent, from $43,368 to $52,044. Reservists will see a 13 per cent boost. Other ranks will also get raises — eight per cent for colonels and above, 13 per cent for lieutenant-colonels and below — with all of it retroactive to April 1.

And there is more. The government is introducing $50,000 bonuses for “stressed occupations” — jobs like vehicle and maritime technicians, where staffing has dropped below 75 per cent. The entire package will cost about $2 billion annually, part of a $9.3 billion investment to meet NATO’s 2 per cent GDP defence spending target.

It is the largest military pay raise in a generation. Experts say it is long overdue. Fen Hampson, a professor at Carleton University, called it “a good way to do it.” David Perry, of the Canadian Global Affairs Institute, said it will make “a significant difference” in attracting new recruits.

The Armed Forces are struggling to fill 53 of 116 critical occupations. Many require specialized skills — signal operators, mechanics, maritime technicians — that the private sector is also chasing, often with salaries that don’t come with the risk of deployment. Patriotism, on its own, can’t close that gap.

Critics will argue that money alone won’t solve the problem, and they are right. Retention is shaped by leadership, culture, and opportunity. But pay is the foundation stone. Without it, the rest is just decoration. If you are in uniform, away from your family for months, training for high-risk missions, or responding to a natural disaster, financial stability is more than a perk — it is recognition, it is security, and it is a sign that your sacrifice is understood.

In HR circles, the term is “total rewards” — the mix of salary, benefits, work-life balance, and career growth. But the first word matters most. The government could have chosen the corporate approach: glossy recruitment ads, morale-boosting events, slogans on posters. Instead, it offered something far more concrete — proof in the paycheque.

There will still be battles ahead. Gen. Jennie Carignan, the Chief of the Defence Staff, has said retention is harder than recruitment. She’s right. But starting from a place of fair compensation changes the conversation. It makes people stay in the room.

You can’t buy loyalty. But you can make it a lot harder for people to leave.

In that old boardroom, the CFO’s opening condition silenced the discussion before it began. When the one thing people most need is declared off limits, the ideas dry up. On the tarmac in Trenton, the government put it back on the table — and for the sake of those who serve, that’s where it should stay.