# New Compulsory Retirement - 60 years



## casing (12 Jul 2004)

Effective July 1, 2004 the mandatory compulsory retirement age is increased to 60.  Didn't see anything mentioned about a change in required pension service.  So, a good thing!

http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/newsroom/view_news_e.asp?id=1405


----------



## Sundborg (12 Jul 2004)

Well that's cool in a way.  Now I can stay in the forces for 42 years


----------



## Gunnar (12 Jul 2004)

Gives the Ottawa bureaucrats something to do until they are forced out of their positions by a competent government.  Since they have ample time at present, they may as well extend the retirement age...


----------



## casing (12 Jul 2004)

The increase in retirement age is for military members, not government bureaucrats.  Or am I missing some sort of ironic sarcasm here? 

???


----------



## Inch (12 Jul 2004)

Casing said:
			
		

> Effective July 1, 2004 the mandatory compulsory retirement age is increased to 60.   Didn't see anything mentioned about a change in required pension service.   So, a good thing!



There are changes coming to the pension as well as the Terms of Service.  I'm not sure what changes are in store for the pension but in the new terms of service you'll be required to do 25 yrs vice 20 to get an undiminished pension.  It's still 2% per year so you'll get a 50% pension, you just have to do 25 years to be eligible for it.  This will affect anyone not on an Intermediate Engagement (IE).  The changes are coming into effect Jan 1st 2005, and anyone on a 20 year IE will have the option to change over to the 25yr IE within 1 year after the changes take effect.  For pers on their second BE, or on an SE or SSE (those that are on them know what I'm talking about), they've authorized the Unit COs to offer early IE's. Normally an IE is offered in the 2nd last year of an SSE, SE and second BE, they're now permitted to offer the IE up to 4 years prior to the end of the contract.

So to sum it up, for the newbies and guys that don't qualify for the IE offer, it's going to be 25yrs before you can get a pension.  For guys that sign the IE offered to them, you'll have the choice of doing 20 or 25 yrs.

Cheers


----------



## Lance Wiebe (12 Jul 2004)

Casing, not to answer for Gunnar, but I think that most of our uniformed types in Ottawa are the bureaucrats he's talking about.


----------



## Infanteer (12 Jul 2004)

I don't see it as a bad thing, since modern demographics means people aged 55-60 are more than capable of filling many occupational roles.  However, I am a little concerned that this may be a "band-aid" approach to covering up recruiting and retention problems.


----------



## portcullisguy (13 Jul 2004)

There is talk that the gov't wants to raise the retirement age for the rest of the public service as well (excluding the RCMP).  Now that they've done it to the CF, it's only a matter of time before they do it to the rest of the federal workers.

This is a bad thing, since I already have to work 31 years in order to retire with a full pension, and soon they will change it to 36 or 41 years, depending on what they set the age to.

One of the things that attracts people to the public service is the earlier retirement age.  That, along with relative job security, are two compelling reasons (beyond the "call of duty" need that some feel, myself included) for remaining in the public employ.  It certainly isn't the pay and other benefits, which pale in comparison to other governments (provincial, municipal) and to the private sector.

Oh well!  Shoulda voted for someone other than Liberal!  Oops, I *did* vote for osmeone other than Liberal!  And I'm still getting screwed.


----------



## casing (13 Jul 2004)

I have to agree with portcullisguy.  I believe that one of the reasons people choose the CF for a career is the possibility of retiring after 20 years of service.  If the changes go through as Inch suggests above, then quite a few people who enrolled under the assumption of 20 years are going to be very upset when they suddenly are told that an extra 5 years are necessary.  

It isn't the end all, be all for me, but my wife's support will likely wane somewhat when I tell her she'll have to put up with a couple of more relocations.  Considering we are 34 now, on the commencement of my Reg Force CF service, that is a big deal.  Ah well...  I can only hope that Inch is somewhat wrong and everyone in at the time of the change will be grandfathered.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (13 Jul 2004)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> However, I am a little concerned that this may be a "band-aid" approach to covering up recruiting and retention problems.



Not to be a smart-arse, but in all honesty - why else would they do it?  The good of their hearts?


----------



## Infanteer (13 Jul 2004)

I think we are mixing up two different concepts here; raised retirement age and increase in time required for a pension.  Raising the time in for a pension makes it necessary for a person who enrolled out of highschool at 19 able to get out at 44 instead of 39, gaining an extra 10% increase in their pension as well.  Raising the manadatory age requirement is a seperate matter which allows people to retire at 60 rather than 55; either is likely to have served beyond the time required for full pension unless they enrolled past 35.

As for Michael's statement, I would hope that the age requirement was done in the spirit of recognition that modern standard of living has made people in their late 50's quite productive.  Often, the arbitrary line that delinates mandatory retirement often has the effect of canning people who still are willing and capable of executing their tasks.  I would hope this is what the policy change was enacted for, but I have a feeling that it is in the spirit of "Well, we don't have enough 19 year old recruits, so let's keep that fat corporal who drives the bus to Wainwright on for another 5 years...."


----------



## JasonH (13 Jul 2004)

On a related note...

OTTAWA -- The Canadian Forces wants more bang for its buck from the people it hires and trains. Doug Lock, Defence Department spokesman, said the military has concluded it's not getting a full return on its investment when training soldiers and has launched a full blown review of its enrolment contracts to make up the shortfall. 

Lock said the Forces want longer commitments than three years from many of those without a university degree. 

"If we find the right people who have the right attitude and right commitment, then the theory is that they'll stay longer," he said. 

The brass heading 100-plus military occupations have been ordered by month's end to hammer out how long each soldier must serve to cover the cost of their training. 

The military shells out $80,000 to shape a recruit into a battle-ready infantry soldier over eight months of training. 

To keep soldiers serving longer, the Canadian Forces is implementing a plan next year that requires soldiers work five more years -- or 25-years -- before they are eligible for pension. 

http://www.canoe.ca/NewsStand/CalgarySun/News/2004/07/13/537622.html


----------



## Lance Wiebe (13 Jul 2004)

I wonder if it is a two purpose plan?

The number one plan would be, as mentioned, to make up for the shortall in recruiting over the short term.

The number two plan, well, believe it or not, military pensions gets paid out of the DND budget.  Don't confuse this with Veteran Affairs!But this would also give DND less pension payouts over the short term, but bigger payouts over the long term.

Could this be how they plan on paying for the MGS, the new supply ships, and so on?

While I am not against the raising of the retirement age, I wonder how the 59 year old Sgt leading an Infantry section in an assault under NBCD conditions in August would feel about it?  There has to be some kind of common sense applied to this.  The combat arms are, really, more of a young mans game than one for grandpa's and grandma's.  But, the FCS tech and the IT techs and so on can easily work until 60.


----------



## Inch (13 Jul 2004)

Casing said:
			
		

> It isn't the end all, be all for me, but my wife's support will likely wane somewhat when I tell her she'll have to put up with a couple of more relocations.   Considering we are 34 now, on the commencement of my Reg Force CF service, that is a big deal.   Ah well...   I can only hope that Inch is somewhat wrong and everyone in at the time of the change will be grandfathered.



There is a grandfather clause built into the new TOS, the problem for the newbies is that you have to have signed an IE to be covered by the grandfather clause. That's why the big push was on for those of us that are eligible to sign the IE prior to the changes.  If I don't sign and just finish out my SSE, I'll be under the 25yr thing too if I decide to sign my IE in 2 years when I'd normally be eligible for it. I'll talk to the Sqn AdminO tomorrow to clarify but the question was brought up a couple times during the briefing. 

The relocations aren't all that bad, in most cases you can stay in one spot for quite a few years, the DCO of 423 Sqn has been in Shearwater for 18 years.  It's all part of the new quality of life initiative that's rolling in now, happy soldiers stay in  ;D

Cheers


----------



## Scott (13 Jul 2004)

I agree wholeheartedly with Lance, that this move is going to cover the CF's backside when it comes to retention and recruiting problems. But this is only a band-aid solution if these are in fact some of the reasons.

I do applaud the CF for letting their members work longer, many may want to stay but are forced out. I mean, if a 52 (I think he was that old) year old man can pass through PPCLI battleschool then we should at least look at upping the age by a little! 

He was Reg Force was he not? It's been a while since the story came out.

Cheers!


----------



## Spr.Earl (13 Jul 2004)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> I don't see it as a bad thing, since modern demographics means people aged 55-60 are more than capable of filling many occupational roles.   However, I am a little concerned that this may be a "band-aid" approach to covering up recruiting and retention problems.


Infanteer,the way I see it is it's designed to keep those who have the experience to stay in and pass on that experience on to the new generation which I totaly agree with.
I don't kow if you remebr what happened when FRP was offered ?
We lost so many Men/Women with experiance that they were offered good bonus's to renlist.
All the course's in the world do not make a soldier but experience does!

I for one am going to inform my respective Unit that I wish to stay till 60.
Yes I may not be able for Op.'s but I can pass on my Knowledge!!
I learnt alot from our Korean Vet's in the Wack way back in 76,77,78 .
Just because your old in number's does not mean you are dead.


----------



## ZipperHead (16 Jul 2004)

I think that this is more a part of the "social experiment" that the CF continues itself to be a part of. By undertaking these types of initiatives, we seem to be, IMO, diluting the strength of the Forces, rather than doing any to make it any more effective. As Lance mentioned, could you imagine (the average) 59 year old Sgt leading a section attack, or doing most battle related tasks. "Well, he won't have to do that, he can just teach." Well, once his walker gets bogged down whilst showing the young bucks how to do said section attack in the field, then what?!?  :'( We always seem to find a job for people that can't cut it. Can't load a HESH round in a Leopard on the move? we'll make you a driver. Can't lift a road wheel? We'll make you an Iltis driver. Can't drive because you lost your license for DUI? We'll make you a canteen guy..... and the list goes on.....

Where does it end? Ever hear of Universality of Service? As it is, we already have people who can't go to the field, on tour, on taskings because they are unfit physically and/or medically, and somebody else (ie. fit, non-adminstrative burdened, etc soldiers) have to take up the slack. Every unit has the "usual suspects" who couldn't find the closest training area or training center with a truckload of GPS' and all the maps in the world. They still get the same pay/benefits/career progression as the guys who do all the heavy lifting, and help create the promotion log-jam that almost all trades experience, without really contributing to the CF.

If anybody thinks that career progression is slow now, wait til you have to wait another 5 (or more) years for CWO's, MWO's, WO's, etc to retire...... If they think that it is going to help retention, I think they will actually find it will discourage people from joining (the 20 year pension sounded pretty good to me 16 years ago......) and will push out people because they don't want to see what becomes of the Forces after this latest fiasco in the making..... As it is, I am seeing less and less of the "lifers" (guys who stay in for more than 20 years) because of the BS that is coming down the pipeline. And too many guys who stay on seem to be the prime candidates for FRP (Forced Retirement Plan).

Sigh.....  Is it 2008 (or 2013 if I'm feeling particularly giddy if they offer me a 5 year CE) yet?????

Al


----------



## Spr.Earl (17 Jul 2004)

Allen don't underestimate those aged in number's.
In WW2 many 50 yr old's trained those who whent over.

Age is just a number and remenber that,it's what in is the mind of the beholder. 

I could teach you a few thing's which you have never been taught.


----------



## Bert (17 Jul 2004)

Not to be too cyncial, but I don't know how effective the 60 year old retirement age is.  
The member at 55 to 60 still has to pass medical and fitness standards for their age
category.  I was told by a Logistics Corporal in the Forces serving some time that from
the age of 30 to 55, keeping the fit and proper is managable.  From 55 to 60 everything
starts to fall apart.  Rising the retirment age may actually reduce the number of people
able to reach that age of 60 being medically and phgysically fit thus reduce the 
government's need to pay out (full pension and benefits).  Just a thought but I don't 
know how valid it is.


----------



## Scott (18 Jul 2004)

Good point, Bert, didn't think of it that way.


----------



## commando_wolf63 (18 Jul 2004)

Depending on a persons heath and physical fitness I dont see a problem with raising the retirement age. If a person can still do their job why not. If a person were to take thier release at lets say between 50 and 55yrs what employer would want to hire that person when they can hire a younger person who would give the place of employment many more yrs of service.


----------



## Inch (18 Jul 2004)

This whole retirement age is a mute point for most people, the CANFORGEN on the subject stated that it doesn't necessarily extend a person's career, 35 yrs is the max pensionable time and it's to be considered a full career, so unless you're over 20 when you start, you won't make it to 60 anyway.

My opinion on it, if they can do the job, have at 'er.

Cheers


----------



## ZipperHead (18 Jul 2004)

I can understand the need to use soldiers over the age of 50 to train soldiers for overseas service in WWII, but what do you suppose the reason for that was? Could it be because these soldiers were WWI vets, many of whom were possibly injured during that war and would be unable to fight the new war, but were fully capable of instructing (probably not in the field though....)? Could it be because we had a huge military (I'm trying to find exact numbers, but am being stumped..... I remember reading/hearing that our military was over 1 million soldiers/sailors/airmen) and we didn't need the 50 year old soldiers to fight, only to teach? Unfortunately we don't have that luxury anymore. Our military is tiny, and we need every soldier in every possible position, in every unit. To say that someone will exclusively train soldiers is a pipe-dream. I currently work at the Armour School, and to say that every instructor is capable of going to the field, let alone overseas is very optimistic (I'd be more critical, but there are many instructors at the school who read this forum, and I'm one of the few who don't hide behind a nickname....). 

If we could use the "old-timers" strictly as instructors, and it wouldn't affect our manning numbers, that would be great, but that isn't the case. I have seen many old guys who can out run, out ruck, out soldier the young soldiers any day of the week (mainly due to the higher standards expected of soldiers back in the old days), but what I can see happening (and I predict will continue to happen) is that it will be a case of too many people who couldn't hack it on Civvie Street staying in until 60 just to collect a paycheck (and the higher pension). 

I would like to see some of the soldiers trained in the old days stick around just to make sure that the level of training that new soldiers get stays higher than what is being expected by those up higher (ie. making soldiers try to exceed the pathetically low standards expected of them). I just hope that these older guys don't fall prey to the current apathy that seems to be permeating many of the units and/or schools, where the 60% solution is completely acceptable, and even encouraged (would you want the Sapper who got 60% on his mine-clearing PO check come out to pull your injured ass out of a minefield, or the Sapper who tried to get 100%??). 

I don't really care how old someone is (or what gender/orientation/colour/height/etc), just as long as they give 100% all the time. If a 59 yr old Sergeant can lead his troops to the battle at the summit, and not stay in the valley, that's great. I have a hard time believing that the AVERAGE 59 year old can do it, that's all. Remember, the military is a young mans game (why else would the British military impose the 22 years in, then you're out policy? They've been fighting wars a little bit longer than we have, haven't they???)

I know that people will say that we don't need to apply this 60 years of age retirement to members of the combat arms, but to only allow CSS trades to get the extra five years wouldn't really be fair to the people in the combat arms, now would it? Not that "fair" should apply, but that's what seems to make our army go 'round nowadays. Gotta be fair, and don't forget to have big group hugs......

Anyway, that's what I have to say about that....

Al


----------



## MJP (18 Jul 2004)

> Where does it end? Ever hear of Universality of Service? As it is, we already have people who can't go to the field, on tour, on taskings because they are unfit physically and/or medically, and somebody else (ie. fit, non-adminstrative burdened, etc soldiers) have to take up the slack. Every unit has the "usual suspects" who couldn't find the closest training area or training center with a truckload of GPS' and all the maps in the world. They still get the same pay/benefits/career progression as the guys who do all the heavy lifting, and help create the promotion log-jam that almost all trades experience, without really contributing to the CF.



WOW, I can unequivocally say that is probably one the best statements I have read here in a long time.   Well put Allan, I would use four paragrapghs to put what you said in three sentences.   We have a canteen in our unit that employs 1 Sgt, 1 MCpl and a few Cpl types, all drawing the same pay and benefits for serving coffee....   Don't tell me it doesn't demoralize soldiers going off to the field or to the fires to see these people work half days and get paid the same(oh did I mention they work half days?).

As for extending the retirement age,   Like many people here have said if they can carry on then there is no problem, it's when they become a burden and are shuffled off to some position to laze away the days until they retire it becomes a problem.


----------

