# Pension contributions to increase to 50:50



## ARMY_101 (13 Dec 2012)

> CANFORGEN 238/12 CMP 113/12 121812Z DEC 12
> REG F PENSION CONTRIBUTION RATES
> UNCLASSIFIED
> 
> ...



Anyone know what percentage we members are contributing now? 70:30? 60:40?


----------



## Eye In The Sky (13 Dec 2012)

Just in time for Christmas!


----------



## Remius (13 Dec 2012)

Army 101: i believe it is 31% that CF members pay.  Somewhere around 36% for PS.  I may be off a few %.

Less take home for sure.


----------



## George Wallace (13 Dec 2012)

Interesting how there seems to be a trend to piss off Federal worker bees.  First there was the termination of Severance Pay.  Then came the Budget Cuts and "realignment" of job positions.  Now an increase/decrease in who is paying what into Federal Pension Plans.   Haven't seen anything yet on Senators' and MPs' pensions, etc.


----------



## a_majoor (13 Dec 2012)

They should just dump the entire pension and go for a group RRSP plan. Every financial institution in Canada would eat the administration costs to get the CF account, the RRSP program is flexible enough to accommodate Regular and Reserve members and all members get an immediate benefit (tax relief) as well as the long term benefit of the RRSP's accumulated savings. Members can also tailor the investments inside the plan to their own needs and risk tolernence.

Even with a 50:50 employer/employee contribution split, the CF and the Government would save literally millions/year on the administration cost of a pension plan (when I worked in the financial world, this was the biggest selling point of group RRSP's; the cost of administering and running a pension is huge and smaller business simply cannot pay that and still have a viable pension plan), which is the point of this exercise anyway. Changing over would need a grandfathering period, but otherwise should be simple to do.

As a BTW, I passed this up the chain of command back in the 1990's when reserve pensions were beeing mooted; the pension office sent me a nice note saying my suggestion had been placed in the round file. Makes you wonder who's interests are being looked after.

BTW George, there was an adjustment to Federal MP pensions.


----------



## The Bread Guy (13 Dec 2012)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Interesting how there seems to be a trend to piss off Federal worker bees.  First there was the termination of Severance Pay.  Then came the Budget Cuts and "realignment" of job positions.  Now an increase/decrease in who is paying what into Federal Pension Plans.


To be fair to government, some of this was negotiated away by unions.

However....


			
				George Wallace said:
			
		

> Haven't seen anything yet on Senators' and MPs' pensions, etc.


.... VERY good point there.


----------



## McG (13 Dec 2012)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Interesting how there seems to be a trend to piss off Federal worker bees.  First there was the termination of Severance Pay.


The unions traded away the severance pay.



			
				George Wallace said:
			
		

> Haven't seen anything yet on Senators' and MPs' pensions, etc.


Really?  The quoted CANFORGEN mentions MP pension changes.  Did you read it?


----------



## ARMY_101 (13 Dec 2012)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> They should just dump the entire pension and go for a group RRSP plan. Every financial institution in Canada would eat the administration costs to get the CF account, the RRSP program is flexible enough to accommodate Regular and Reserve members and all members get an immediate benefit (tax relief) as well as the long term benefit of the RRSP's accumulated savings. Members can also tailor the investments inside the plan to their own needs and risk tolernence.
> 
> Even with a 50:50 employer/employee contribution split, the CF and the Government would save literally millions/year on the administration cost of a pension plan (when I worked in the financial world, this was the biggest selling point of group RRSP's; the cost of administering and running a pension is huge and smaller business simply cannot pay that and still have a viable pension plan), which is the point of this exercise anyway. Changing over would need a grandfathering period, but otherwise should be simple to do.
> 
> ...



Great idea. I'd rather be completely responsible for my own pension: investing in markets I want and in line with my personal risk tolerance. And if I lose or make bad decisions? My fault.

P.S. Quick turnaround from the Pensions Office: both Reg and Res members currently contribute 33% with the CF contributing the other 66%.


----------



## Remius (13 Dec 2012)

ARMY_101 said:
			
		

> Great idea. I'd rather be completely responsible for my own pension: investing in markets I want and in line with my personal risk tolerance. And if I lose or make bad decisions? My fault.
> 
> P.S. Quick turnaround from the Pensions Office: both Reg and Res members currently contribute 33% with the CF contributing the other 66%.



Hmnnnn.....that seems to leave 1% unaccounted for...better get Occupy whatever in on this....


----------



## captloadie (13 Dec 2012)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> They should just dump the entire pension and go for a group RRSP plan. Every financial institution in Canada would eat the administration costs to get the CF account, the RRSP program is flexible enough to accommodate Regular and Reserve members and all members get an immediate benefit (tax relief) as well as the long term benefit of the RRSP's accumulated savings. Members can also tailor the investments inside the plan to their own needs and risk tolernence.
> 
> Even with a 50:50 employer/employee contribution split, the CF and the Government would save literally millions/year on the administration cost of a pension plan (when I worked in the financial world, this was the biggest selling point of group RRSP's; the cost of administering and running a pension is huge and smaller business simply cannot pay that and still have a viable pension plan), which is the point of this exercise anyway. Changing over would need a grandfathering period, but otherwise should be simple to do.


And can you find a company that will guarantee the funds will be there into perpetuity? What happens when something like what happened in the states, or let's say Nortel, where the money just disappeared, and employees were left with nothing? One of the reasons people stay in the CF is a defined, guaranteed pension at the end of 20/25/35 years. 

From the briefing I received, it will likely take between 7-10 years to bring the ratio up to 50/50.


----------



## pa471856 (13 Dec 2012)

captloadie said:
			
		

> And can you find a company that will guarantee the funds will be there into perpetuity? What happens when something like what happened in the states, or let's say Nortel, where the money just disappeared, and employees were left with nothing? One of the reasons people stay in the CF is a defined, guaranteed pension at the end of 20/25/35 years.
> 
> From the briefing I received, it will likely take between 7-10 years to bring the ratio up to 50/50.



Very good point and I wanted to expand on this idea as well.

In my opinion NOTHING is better than a defined benefits pension. You are GUARANTEED a % of your best "x" number of years not matter what happens in the market. If anyone has been following the markets lately they are not doing so great and there are many people who should and would normally retire but can't afford to because they have lost 100's of thousands of dollars in their RRSP portfolio. In general, no one is winning in the markets these days be it bonds or equities. (It doesn't look promising in the near future either...)

Another benefit of the defined benefits pension is that it applies for the rest of your life (and spouses), compared to your RRSP when it runs out that's it! All you have left is CPP, etc. (Other government funded defined benefit plans). Even if you die before collecting your pension or soon after before being able to collect the majority of it the balance with interest is paid to your estate. 

Even at a 50/50 contribution you can't argue the value of a guaranteed dignified retirement where you do not have to worry about finances or living below the poverty line. 

In my personal experience my Grandfather has now been retired for over 40 years and has now collected from his defined benefit pension from the province of Alberta for longer than he contributed. A nice perk for serving the people of the province and taking a lower salary than what he might make in private industry. 

Just some food for thought.


PA


----------



## dapaterson (13 Dec 2012)

pa471856 said:
			
		

> Another benefit of the defined benefits pension is that it applies for the rest of your life (and spouses), compared to your RRSP when it runs out that's it! All you have left is CPP, etc. (Other government funded defined benefit plans). Even if you die before collecting your pension or soon after before being able to collect the majority of it the balance with interest is paid to your estate.



Incorrect.  There is a minimum payout, but no balance cashout (at elast for the CFSA).



> In my personal experience my Grandfather has now been retired for over 40 years and has now collected from his defined benefit pension from the province of Alberta for longer than he contributed. A nice perk for serving the people of the province and taking a lower salary than what he might make in private industry.
> 
> Just some food for thought.
> 
> ...



The public service is the great unequalizer: jobs valued lower in the private sector are paid more in the public service; senior professionals are paid less.  For example, the assistant deputy minister of materiel in DND is paid $168K to $198K.  Even adding in the benefits package, that's materially (no pun intended) less than industry equivalents.


----------



## pa471856 (13 Dec 2012)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> The public service is the great unequalizer: jobs valued lower in the private sector are paid more in the public service; senior professionals are paid less.  For example, the assistant deputy minister of materiel in DND is paid $168K to $198K.  Even adding in the benefits package, that's materially (no pun intended) less than industry equivalents.



Agreed. However, there are pro's and cons to both. Job security etc, is an advantage of public service. My argument is not that public service is an equalizer or not, but that one of the perks to public service is a defined benefits pension and that it would not be in the best interest of a public employee to disband such a pension and accept a defined contribution pension.


----------



## Cardstonkid (13 Dec 2012)

The problem with a defined benefit retirement package is that is a millstone around the neck of the tax payer. These are called unfunded liabilities, and compounded with massive public debt these programs become a destabilizing force on the economy. 

Have a look at California, and even worse, our lovely Ontario. The unfunded pensions are crushing the taxpayer and making the financial future bleak.  A pension that pays out much more than what was ever paid into it is scary and shameful, is theft. It is not the fault of the person who collects it; it is the fault of the politicians and the voters that supported it. 

There is no free lunch. Someone is going to pick up the tab, and if you have no problem passing the bill to your kids or grand kids, then I guess you will have no problem with a defined benefit retirement plan. 

BTW the tiresome myth of the underpaid government worker does not stand up to scrutiny. Please show me where the average worker of comparable qualifications gets the benefits and pay of the average government employee. I agree that in the 70's and 80's that claim may have had some merit, but the collective agreements over the last decade and a half have made public sector employees well paid by any comparison

For example, if you compare an Alberta government employee's wage with a person of similar academic accomplishments and job experience, you will see the Alberta government employee has a heck of a good deal. Let's compare a Public servant level 3 vs a private sector employee.  A PS3 will have a liberal arts degree. (Most PS 3's have served for 5-10 years in government)  The PS3 employee will make approximately 70-80K a year, have paid vacation time, generous leave allowances for both personal and family reasons, they will have a fully funded pension and benefits package worth well in excess of $10,000 per year on top of their salary.  They will also have the protection of the union, EVEN IF they refuse to do their job or a completely incompetent.

Now compare that to a person with a liberal arts degree in the private sector. They will be qualified to work in McDonald's, but if they are lucky they might get a job in an office mail room, or maybe, a situation that offers some advancement. After 10 years they might see a wage that comes close the starting wage of a PS3 employee. In any case, the range in pay is likely to be half of what the public sector employee earns, AND most likely will have little to no benefits, never mind a pension of any kind. (It goes without saying that even if the public sector employee is working in a unionized shop, they will likely not have such robust union support for their incompetence or lack of performance.
On top of all the benefits the government employee gets, they have a guaranteed fixed benefit pension!

 Approximately 80% of government employees get this benefit in Canada, but it is not fair to the taxpayer. For those that work in the government, and in particular for those that actually are concerned for their country, consider this: the unfunded liability of a generous pension plan critically harms government services to the point where the total costs of manning essential services, prevents future employees from having proper equipment and support. There cannot be more costs associated with former employees than current. This is why it must change. I am not suggesting the military of any other public servant live in poverty in their golden years, but their retirement costs must not make indentured servants out of future employees.


----------



## MJP (13 Dec 2012)

Cardstonkid said:
			
		

> The problem with a defined benefit retirement package is that is a millstone around the neck of the tax payer. These are called unfunded liabilities, and compounded with massive public debt these programs become a destabilizing force on the economy.



This was true before 2000, but since then PSP Investments, a crown corporation has handled the contributions through various financial means.  Yes any shortfall has to be made up by the govt but even with the downturn (2009 was a bad year) the fund is still pretty healthy.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (13 Dec 2012)

Cardstonkid said:
			
		

> Now compare that to a person with a liberal arts degree in the private sector. They will be qualified to work in McDonald's,



You only make one side of an arguement here......................trust me, there isn't a tradesman in my building that couldn't make a lot more money in the private sector.
If you wish to present something as fact,...try to have them.


----------



## Cardstonkid (13 Dec 2012)

I think you are missing the point. A qualified tradesman is not qualified to work as a public employee in most government departments. Compare a person with the qualifications to be a public servant in most departments with a person of similar qualifications outside of government. The public employee almost always is both paid more and has a much more generous retirement package. 

Of course there are exceptions, a geologist working for Shell is likely to make as much or more than a government geologist, but the overwhelming majority of government employees have liberal arts degrees. They are not in much demand outside of government and the fast food industry.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (13 Dec 2012)

Cardstonkid said:
			
		

> I think you are missing the point. A qualified tradesman is not qualified to work as a public employee in most government departments.



Pardon???
OK,.....we are getting off topic here but I've never worked in a Govt. building that didn't have electricians, plumbers, etc..................they aren't here for the money as much as job security and pension benefits.


----------



## Cardstonkid (13 Dec 2012)

I do work for the government (Alberta) and yes, more often than not, building maintenance folks are paid less, even those with trade tickets, but they are a tiny minority of government workers. In the case of the Alberta government, most property management folks are not government employees. They are contract employees with much lower pay and benefits than union employees.


----------



## Remius (13 Dec 2012)

Cardstonkid said:
			
		

> I do work for the government (Alberta) and yes, more often than not, building maintenance folks are paid less, even those with trade tickets, but they are a tiny minority of government workers. In the case of the Alberta government, most property management folks are not government employees. They are contract employees with much lower pay and benefits than union employees.



I think you are looking at your own little piece of the world.  Where I am at, we have plenty of federal employees that make less that they could in the private sector.  Some gave up 6 figure salaries to come for stability and benefits.  Engineers, procurement types, technologists etc.  I can assure you that their degrees are not liberal arts degrees.  Are some classification groups better paid than their civy counterparts? yep.  And some are not.   Your brush is a little broad.


----------



## Cardstonkid (13 Dec 2012)

Possibly I am looking from a bias that I can't recognize from my vantage point. 

I would suggest that I have a unique insiders view of how a government works, and while I recognize the Alberta government is one of the most bloated and inefficient in Canada, it isn't alone. 

The truth is that many, probably most, government employees have no equal in the private sector, since there is no private sector equivalent. We can compare qualifications of those in each work force and determine what pay is received based on their qualifications.  I would bet my pension   that for every geologist, IT specialist and qualified tradesman who works for the government that is paid less than their counterpart in the private sector, I could find 2 government "workers" with a liberal arts degree that could not find a job in the private sector that could even cover their mortgage payment. (I know many do valuable work, and they are important, I am simply stating the obvious about the market value of their skill set.)

I think we have sidelined the thread enough, but back to the original point of this thread, the pension I have is not fair to the taxpayer. It needs to change. It must change, and I suspect in the next 10 years it will change.


----------



## Remius (13 Dec 2012)

It is changing.  PS workers no longer get a severance when they retire.  They will be paying 50% into their pension and the age of retirement is going to 65 from 60 for anyone who joins from 2013 onward.

If you want to attract talent to the PS you need to offer something to them.  A big incentive is the benefits.  If you take that away you get much enthousiasm for service to the crown.

Someone mentioned ADM Mat.  Responsible for a budget of 9 Billion dollars and makes roughly just under 200 000 a year.  How do you attract someone to man that ship when the private sector offers way more money for comparable work?  Even with the pension and benefits and bonus, the tax payer is getting a deal.

Oh and 42% of jobs in the federal PS are knowledge based.  Basically the largest chunk.  EC, EX, AS, CS.  Except for the CS group the degrees you would find are liberal arts for sure for ECs and AS, but not all AS need degrees.  EX is a mixed pot but many of them have masters degrees, CS is all computer tech.  Looking at all the others you have a variety of degrees and diplomas and others like some of the CR and GT where a degree isn't necessary.  80% of public service workers in the federal government do not have liberal arts degrees.


----------



## mariomike (14 Dec 2012)

pa471856 said:
			
		

> In my opinion NOTHING is better than a defined benefits pension.



Especially if it has the 2.33 per cent accrual rate.


----------



## wesleyd (14 Dec 2012)

MCG said:
			
		

> The unions traded away the severance pay.
> Really?  The quoted CANFORGEN mentions MP pension changes.  Did you read it?


Yes it mentions there retirement age is changing nothing about pension contributions or how much they recieve after they serve, I may be off a bit, seven years. I think they are entitled to 70% pension, and after 3 years they are entitled to a 70,000 severance package.


----------



## jeffb (14 Dec 2012)

So what does this mean in actual dollar figures? Are we talking dozens, hundreds or thousands of dollars adjustment on our take home pays?


----------



## dapaterson (14 Dec 2012)

jeffb said:
			
		

> So what does this mean in actual dollar figures? Are we talking dozens, hundreds or thousands of dollars adjustment on our take home pays?



For a very rough estimate: Look at your total CFSA contributions at the end of this year.  Increase it by half.  At the end state, likely over 5-6 years, that will be the difference.  That's based on the public service, where contributors currently pay about 1/3 and will move to 1/2; the delta between the two is 1/6, which is roughly half of the current 1/3.

Of course, the contributions to the CFSA/PSSA are at two rates, so the actual impact will be greater for those who make more money, and less for those who earn less.  As well, the plan as I understand it is for there to be a common contribution rate for the PSSA and CFSA, to hit 50% for the PSSA; that's good news for miitary members, because the military pension costs more than the PS one - members tend to retire and draw earlier, so the plan costs more.


In my case (in the public service), using the 50% increase estimate, my contributions would grow from a combined rate of 7.2% to 10.9% of my gross earnings.  Assuming it's phased in over 6 years, that would mean a change of about 0.6% per year.


----------



## jollyjacktar (14 Dec 2012)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Of course, the contributions to the CFSA/PSSA are at two rates, so the actual impact will be greater for those who make more money, and less for those who earn less.  As well, the plan as I understand it is for there to be a common contribution rate for the PSSA and CFSA, to hit 50% for the PSSA; that's good news for miitary members, because the military pension costs more than the PS one  - members tend to retire and draw earlier, so the plan costs more.



Scuse, me but I'm feeling rather more thick today than other days.  I take it to mean, (highlighted area) that we in the CF are already closer to the 50% mark already in compairison to the PS, so that we'll not have as far a jump to make for the pain to level out??   :stars:


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (14 Dec 2012)

No we are paying slightly less compared to those civvies that work in DND. We are around 31% right now I believe.


----------



## ARMY_101 (14 Dec 2012)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> Scuse, me but I'm feeling rather more thick today than other days.  I take it to mean, (highlighted area) that we in the CF are already closer to the 50% mark already in compairison to the PS, so that we'll not have as far a jump to make for the pain to level out??   :stars:



Other way around: we contribute 33%; the public service contributes 36% to their plan. So we're increasing by 17%, whereas they're only seeing an increase of 14%.


----------



## dapaterson (14 Dec 2012)

Sorry fror my lack of clarity.

Right now, the CF and public service pay the same percentage of their pay into their pension plans:

Up to the Yearly Maximum Pensionable Earnings (YMPE), it's 6.2%; above that, it's 8.6%.

However, the military plan permits earlier retirement, so it costs more to pay out benefits.  Costs more = a 50/50 split would mean higher contribution rates than the public service.

So, assuming rates stay the same in the future, if the public service is used for the benchmark to reach a 50/50 split, CF rates will remain slightly below 50%.


----------



## 2010newbie (14 Dec 2012)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> So, assuming rates stay the same in the future, if the public service is used for the benchmark to reach a 50/50 split, CF rates will remain slightly below 50%.



The CANFORGEN states that the contribution rates will increase over the next few years, so regardless of what way you want to slice it, the member will be paying more than they are now until they are paying 50% of the contribution towards the defined benefit plan. If they maintained current member contribution rates and decreased the gov't contribution, then the benefits received in the future would have to decrease.


----------



## kratz (14 Dec 2012)

Increased pension contributions + a likely reduced or even frozen pay increase for the next for years, = the 2010s equivalent of the dark days of the 1990s. The only part we are missing in the FRP, wait for it.


----------



## jollyjacktar (14 Dec 2012)

Oh yeah deja vu, it's the end times all over again.  If they were so foolish to offer an FRP like the first one, they'd have mass casuaties from the slow ones being run over in the rush to the exits.


----------



## PMedMoe (14 Dec 2012)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> Oh yeah deja vu, it's the end times all over again.  If they were so foolish to offer an FRP like the first one, they'd have mass casuaties from the slow ones being run over in the rush to the exits.



 :nod:


----------



## brihard (14 Dec 2012)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> Oh yeah deja vu, it's the end times all over again.  If they were so foolish to offer an FRP like the first one, they'd have mass casuaties from the slow ones being run over in the rush to the exits.



I'm not worried. An FRP won't happen, not when we're early into what will be a decade and a half of mass retirements.

It's not exactly an amazing job market out there at the moment.


----------



## jollyjacktar (14 Dec 2012)

Brihard said:
			
		

> I'm not worried. An FRP won't happen, not when we're early into what will be a decade and a half of mass retirements.
> 
> It's not exactly an amazing job market out there at the moment.



No, I don't believe there'll be an FRP either.  They learned their lessons last time.  Shame, that.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (14 Dec 2012)

FRP was what?
Lesson was what?


----------



## MJP (14 Dec 2012)

Sheep Dog AT said:
			
		

> FRP was what?
> Lesson was what?



Force Reduction Plan.  Essentially the Govt offered buyouts to folks to reduce the number of CF personnel.  It took a tremendous amount of institutional knowledge out of the CF that some argue took years to recover from.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (14 Dec 2012)

Appreciated


----------



## jollyjacktar (14 Dec 2012)

Sheep Dog AT said:
			
		

> FRP was what?
> Lesson was what?



In my old trade it was hoped that they might see 100-120 of the dead wood take the golden handshake (FRP).  To their horror, the dead wood didn't take the bait because they mostly knew they could not find good jobs easily in the real world.  What happened, was upwards of 450+ people applied and were subsequently released.  The vast majority were the really good people they could not afford to lose.  It was a body blow that hurt them badly.   That, was the lesson.


----------



## garb811 (14 Dec 2012)

MJP said:
			
		

> Force Reduction Plan.  Essentially the Govt offered buyouts to folks to reduce the number of CF personnel.  It took a tremendous amount of institutional knowledge out of the CF that some argue took years *some trades are still trying* to recover from.


Fixed that for you.



			
				jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> In my old trade it was hoped that they might see 100-120 of the dead wood take the golden handshake (FRP).  To their horror, the dead wood didn't take the bait because they mostly knew they could not find good jobs easily in the real world.  What happened, was upwards of 450+ people applied and were subsequently released.  The vast majority were the really good people they could not afford to lose.  It was a body blow that hurt them badly.   That, was the lesson.


Yup and it still hurts to be honest.


----------



## ARMY_101 (15 Dec 2012)

Great developments on the discussion. Most CF members I know are savvy enough to take care of investing as they see fit, if they're not already invested in the market in some form.

Poll added.


----------



## MJP (15 Dec 2012)

garb811 said:
			
		

> Fixed that for you.
> Yup and it still hurts to be honest.



While I admit that FRP has hurt many trades and the CF in general, I hardly find it the cause of our current woes.  Especially considering we are hitting the 20 year mark after FRP.  Rather stovepiping, empire building and lack of proper management within certain trades seems to be the a larger contributor to our current problems(among others).  FRP may have play a part but it is hardly the largest boogieman in the closet.  To continue to blame it simply says to me that certain organizations would rather blame the past rather than critique themselves and their current practices.  

Maybe you have a concrete example of how the MP trade is still reeling from something that happened 2 decades ago?


----------



## jollyjacktar (15 Dec 2012)

MJP said:
			
		

> Maybe you have a concrete example of how the MP trade is still reeling from something that happened 2 decades ago?


From what I saw at my base at the time, there were several very bright, capable outstanding MP's who left the trade and the CF for greener pastures.  These same people would have contributed to the betterment of the trade and by today would have been in senior ranks and positions where their full capabilities would have been and would possibly still be making a positive impact.

Concrete example?  How about comparing what happened to the Blue Jays in the mid 90's when several really talented, integral members of the team were traded away after 2 WS wins?  The team was gutted and have not played at that level of excellence since.  That's about as concrete as an example you're going to be able to give on anything with personnel losses, unless someone in particular goes on to singly handed find a cure for cancer in some other organization instead of yours.  It's all what could have been and now isn't.


----------



## MJP (15 Dec 2012)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> From what I saw at my base at the time, there were several very bright, capable outstanding MP's who left the trade and the CF for greener pastures.  These same people would have contributed to the betterment of the trade and by today would have been in senior ranks and positions where their full capabilities would have been and would possibly still be making a positive impact.
> 
> Concrete example?  How about comparing what happened to the Blue Jays in the mid 90's when several really talented, integral members of the team were traded away after 2 WS wins?  The team was gutted and have not played at that level of excellence since.  That's about as concrete as an example you're going to be able to give on anything with personnel losses, unless someone in particular goes on to singly handed find a cure for cancer in some other organization instead of yours.  It's all what could have been and now isn't.



I am not doubting that we lost some great people.  FRP is a Organizational Behaviourists dream case study in giving incentives for the wrong thing targetting the wrong people.    I am saying that too continue to make it the boogie man it is 20 years later tells me allot about the orgs that are using it as a crutch.  To say we are today gutted by lack of good leadership because of FRP stinks to high heaven to me.  It seems you and Garb are saying that instead of cutting out dead wood and making tough personnel decisions like leaders do,  they would rather say "Ok FRP happened and you are the best of the worst that was left over so we will keep you around in a position of influence".  I would like to think that isn't the case and that our woes are built upon a litany of organizational flaws, tempo and personality driven policies (FRP being only one small part of the puzzle).

Regardless this has nothing to do with the pension.  We can move to PM or if the mods want to split it off.


----------



## 4Feathers (23 Dec 2012)

What is happening now is not like the 90's. We are now dealing with the recommendations of strat review, and death by a thousand cuts. It coincided with the end of the "combat mission" in the STan. There are more cuts a coming and the line up at the release section is getting longer. Sure we have it better than some occupations in the private sector, but we sure deserve it based on the sacrifices we make.  Change is hard to accept, especially when it is negative after negative change.


----------



## ARMY_101 (7 Jan 2013)

Update with the specific per-year increases:



> CANFORGEN 250/12 CMP 117/12 211435Z DEC 12
> 
> PENSION CONTRIBUTION RATES FOR MEMBERS OF THE PART 1 CF PENSION PLAN (FULL TIME) FOR CALENDAR YEARS 2013-2015
> 
> ...


----------



## Jay4th (21 Jan 2013)

How much of an increase is that this yr?


----------



## ARMY_101 (21 Jan 2013)

Jay4th said:
			
		

> How much of an increase is that this yr?



...



> . BY WAY OF ILLUSTRATION, A MEMBER EARNING 60,000 DOLLARS WILL PAY 6 POINT 85 PERCENT ON EARNINGS TO A MAXIMUM OF 51,100 DOLLARS AND 9 POINT 2 PERCENT ON THE REMAINING 9,900 DOLLARS OF EARNINGS. THIS MEMBER WOULD SEE A MONTHLY INCREASE OF 30 DOLLARS 31 CENTS IN CONTRIBUTIONS OVER 2012 CONTRIBUTIONS


----------



## TCM621 (21 Jan 2013)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> Oh yeah deja vu, it's the end times all over again.  If they were so foolish to offer an FRP like the first one, they'd have mass casuaties from the slow ones being run over in the rush to the exits.



And like last time, the best and brightest will be the first out of the door. The only people who stay will be the ones who can't get, or don't want, other good jobs.

The only good thing I got going for me,  is that I saw the turn around so I know it can get better. Those people who joined in the last ten years are going to get a shock.


----------



## TCM621 (21 Jan 2013)

ARMY_101 said:
			
		

> Great developments on the discussion. Most CF members I know are savvy enough to take care of investing as they see fit, if they're not already invested in the market in some form.
> 
> Poll added.



You must know a whole different type of CF member than I have met in my career. For every CF member who has control over his money and is making money on solid investments, You have 2 members who think leased trucks and snow mobiles are good investments, 1 who is on his third wife and one who is somewhere in the middle.


----------



## dangerboy (21 Jan 2013)

Tcm621 said:
			
		

> And like last time, the best and brightest will be the first out of the door. The only people who stay will be the ones who can't get, or don't want, other good jobs.



Or the ones that are not in it for the pay, but believe in what they do and have a desire to serve Canada.


----------



## OldSolduer (21 Jan 2013)

dangerboy said:
			
		

> Or the ones that are not in it for the pay, but believe in what they do and have a desire to serve Canada.



Agreed. It's not always about the money, right Danger?


----------



## McG (21 Jan 2013)

Putting aside the fact that the only people talking about a new FRP is the poor-us crowd …



			
				Tcm621 said:
			
		

> And like last time, the best and brightest will be the first out of the door. The only people who stay will be the ones who … don't want, other good jobs.


Some how wanting to be in the CF is mutually exclusive of being more than the dredges of our organization?  I assume that I have misread your intent.  But if I did read you right, then don't let the door hot you on the way out.


----------

