# Future of Government Pensions (PS, CF & RCMP) & CF pension "double-dip"



## McG (30 Dec 2009)

I've made no secret of my general disagreement with the ability of service personnel to remain fully employed and simultaneously collect a CF pension.

Why we pay Reservists what we do (Including Reg v.s. Cl B v.s. Cl C pay, and Double-Dippin')
Army wide Class B employment freeze!!! 
More "Double Dippers" to solve instructor manpower shortages

I do think the option to switch to full time reserve and collect a pay top-up would not be unreasonable.  However, as it stands now we are poaching people out of the Regular Force, converting them to a full time reservist (of less over all utility to the CF), and paying them more with a pension on top of full time reserve pay.

I wonder if this public service pension review will eventually see its way to looking at CF and RCMP pensions as well:


> *Ottawa targets public service pension plan for cutbacks*
> _Tories consider dropping early retirement provision as they review civil servants' plan in attempt to control ballooning deficit_
> Daniel Leblanc and Bill Curry
> Globe and Mail
> ...


http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-targets-public-service-pension-plan-for-cutbacks/article1414621/

_- mod edit to clean up thread title a bit -_


----------



## Kat Stevens (30 Dec 2009)

I'm curious whether MPs and MLAs pensions are being lined up for a good look see as well.  The small cynical side of me doubts it very much.


----------



## birdgunnnersrule (30 Dec 2009)

I like the point regarding the top up for full time reservists, but don't think it will happen. Having just jumped ship from the Regs to the Res for family reasons, I chose the accept 15% less to be my own career manager   I still work just as hard and well as before, just for less money and more stability at home. 

The government review of the pensions is a good idea, however, I don't think it will sit well with the PS unless they have stringent grandfathering rules.  Like the CF, the PS is facing the manning crunch as well of senior, experienced people that are set to retire.  Although recruiting efforts are successful, once you get through the red tape, it takes time to foster and develop the professional competence of individuals.  With a large outflux, there will be some growing pains in any organization.  I thought that the pension modernization package that was just delivered a few years back was part of our review, however, personally I do not think it addressed the core issues of retention.


----------



## McG (30 Dec 2009)

I posted what I saw as the solution a while back:


			
				MCG said:
			
		

> So, here is a crazy idea to some of the underlying problems (as I see them) of unrestrained Class B bloat.  As I see it we need a system that:
> 
> prevents just anyone with a budget from using money for empire building
> ensures full time personnel growth has oversight & control at the appropriate levels
> ...


I think it has the potential to nicely balance everyone's interests.



			
				Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> I'm curious whether MPs and MLAs pensions are being lined up for a good look see as well.  The small cynical side of me doubts it very much.


Given that I'm suggesting better synchronization of all federal government pensions, I'd agree that the MP pensions should be looked at with the PS, CF and RCMP.


----------



## George Wallace (31 Dec 2009)

MCG said:
			
		

> I posted what I saw as the solution a while back:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Do you really think that this is a good idea?  It is garbage.  Not only do you suggest paying a Regular Force person 15% less pay, but you put them in a position that they would never seriously take up such an offer.  This not only hurts a Regular Force soldier, but it hurts the Reserves.  The Reserves are a very cheap "Training System" for the Regular Force, training skilled soldiers at no expense to the Regular Force, and then watching as they CT to the Regular Force.  The Regular Force does not reciprocate by encouraging Regular Force personnel to CT to the Reserves at the ends of their careers, thus providing the Reserves with some skilled personnel to continue their training cycles.  Less pay for more work, as you propose, is a farce.  

On a whole, your above thoughts are ill conceived.  Someday, you may understand.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (31 Dec 2009)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Someday, you may understand.



But George, I am sure you did not "understand" many years ago whilst trying to scrounge up enough personal to fulfil a task.

"Understanding" can be such a funny word.


----------



## McG (1 Jan 2010)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Do you really think that this is a good idea?  It is garbage.


I suppose that depends on if your perspective is "what's in it for me" or "how can both sides benefit."



			
				George Wallace said:
			
		

> Not only do you suggest paying a Regular Force person 15% less pay, but ...


We already pay full time soldiers 15% less and it does not seem to chase them away.  Why would it make a difference if we call them "regular force" or "reserve force"?  Is it the introduction of career managers and merited promotion in competition with other full time soldiers that makes this a problem?



			
				George Wallace said:
			
		

> ... you put them in a position that they would never seriously take up such an offer.


Why not? There are already many taking the 15% pay-cut  to live a Class B life without risk of postings.

... oh wait.  I see, they take a 15 % pay cut, stop monthly pension deductions, start bringing home pension payments, and avoid the hassle of postings and mandated deployments.  The current system is like a cash cow that rewards people for leaving the regular force for the reserves.  That might make sense at a time when the military is bursting at the seams with manpower, but right now we are hurting at the levels that require TI to achieve.



			
				George Wallace said:
			
		

> ... it hurts the Reserves.


Why?  You will note that my proposal exclusively permitted Primary Reserve units & formations (so nothing higher than a CBG) to continue hiring full time reservists for longer durations.  



			
				George Wallace said:
			
		

> On a whole, your above thoughts are ill conceived.


You say ill-conceived, others have had opposite views:





			
				dapaterson said:
			
		

> Cutting the double dip will doom this interesting and useful plan right away.  As long as we have many senior folks (3+ bars) riding the gravy train, no one wants it to stop.  I recall the full Col Reg F who appointed himself to a Res F LCol position (at full pay as a Col) and did not understand why anyone squawked; I recall the Maj who switched to the Res F from the bottom of the merit list pointing out that between his annuity and Res pay he was making more than any BGen.
> 
> The Army is addicted to the cheap and easy fix that class B employment provides - look no further than LFDTS who refuse to come up with a plan for the future that doesn't include the massive class B augmentation "needed because troops are deployed and can't be tasked for augmentation".  How about running courses in unit lines instead - move the training to the troops, instead of the other way around?  How about doing better scheduling?  How about cutting the bloat from the HQs of LFDTS and CTC?  (And the Land Staff, which is remarkably large and slow).


----------



## George Wallace (1 Jan 2010)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> But George, I am sure you did not "understand" many years ago whilst trying to scrounge up enough personal to fulfil a task.
> 
> "Understanding" can be such a funny word.



Especially if we are only generalizing.  What about those 45 and 50 year old Reg Force guys, who have spouses who have found very well paying jobs in the Private Sector; guys who have put in 25 or 30 years of Service and have now planned their 'Retirement'?  Not all of them are "Three Ringers".  Most are Senior NCMs of varing ranks, who have knowledge and skills that are still in demand in the Reserves.  

A twenty or thirty year old with less than ten years in, doesn't have the knowledge, nor experience, these guys have; nor do they have a Pension, so we aren't even going to factor them into this equation.  Someone who has served twenty or twenty-five years, and earned a Pension are the people who are targeted here.  This is where I find MCG very much less than understanding; but he is still young and hasn't reached that position in life.....yet.


----------



## old fart (1 Jan 2010)

I am with George on this one and take it further.

Personally, I do not expect to take up any type of Reserve Force service at the end of my Reg Force career, the only way I would even remotely consider it would be under the auspices of a Class B contract.

I am OK with the previously Reg Force soldier becoming a full time reservist but I remain vehemently against any reservists  (less previous Reg Force who are annuitants) working full time, even on operations (of course this latter point is currently unworkable based on the size of the Regular CF and tempo of current ops).  I do respect each and every reservist that has accepted a full liability (deployed) period of service, and many have paid the ultimate sacrifice particularly this past couple days.   My views do not play down such service, just the current situation and bloated way of doing business which has created it.  

Again, you want a full time career join the Regs.  You want a part time job join the Reserves ,  where deployments overseas would occur on mobilization only , with an exception made to allow specialist trades persons/ medical support folks  as the service requirement dictates.  I think it was a bad move to introduce a pension for reserve service period.

At this present time gaining rank in the Reserves and hopping into the Reg Force (circumventing the process  applicable to Reg Force.  What do I mean by this... I mean proper development and experience in rank promoted within the main and comparable gene pool) without anywhere near the required experience for the position occupied would certainly piss me off if I was the committed regular force soldier suddenly commanded by an augmentee (class whatever) reservist with far less experience and (and likely ability) but senior rank (albeit reserve gained rank). 

Rank earned in the reserve world is not the same as earned in the Regular Force so reservists sitting around for years in Class B slots with such rank is just wrong.

Happy New Year, everyone


----------



## Occam (1 Jan 2010)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Especially if we are only generalizing.  What about those 45 and 50 year old Reg Force guys, who have spouses who have found very well paying jobs in the Private Sector; guys who have put in 25 or 30 years of Service and have now planned their 'Retirement'?  Not all of them are "Three Ringers".  Most are Senior NCMs of varing ranks, who have knowledge and skills that are still in demand in the Reserves.



Jeez, one would think you'd had my MPRR in front of you or something.   ;D



> A twenty or thirty year old with less than ten years in, doesn't have the knowledge, nor experience, these guys have; nor do they have a Pension, so we aren't even going to factor them into this equation.  Someone who has served twenty or twenty-five years, and earned a Pension are the people who are targeted here.  This is where I find MCG very much less than understanding; but he is still young and hasn't reached that position in life.....yet.



 :+1:

Very well said, George.



			
				old fart said:
			
		

> I am with George on this one and take it further.
> 
> Personally, I do not expect to take up any type of Reserve Force service at the end of my Reg Force career, the only way I would even remotely consider it would be under the auspices of a Class B contract.



I'm with you.  I've done 25 years of "career" service in the Regs.  If my skills can be put to good use as a Cl B reservist, where I can take a position, and hopefully stay with it for longer than three years, I'll be happy to continue putting on the uniform (and forgo any hopes of further promotion).  Otherwise, from where I sit, the grass is indeed greener on the other side - even with a modest pay cut to move into a civvy job.


----------



## McG (1 Jan 2010)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> This is where I find MCG very much less than understanding; but he is still young and hasn't reached that position in life.....yet.


Poor young MCG just doesn't understand.  Here you are firing with doom & gloom generalizations, meanwhile I have already addressed those concerns above.  It is like you have not even done me the courtesy of reading what I've written before posting to defend your sacred cow.



			
				George Wallace said:
			
		

> Especially if we are only generalizing.  What about those 45 and 50 year old Reg Force guys, who have spouses who have found very well paying jobs in the Private Sector; guys who have put in 25 or 30 years of Service and have now planned their 'Retirement'?  Not all of them are "Three Ringers".  Most are Senior NCMs of varing ranks, who have knowledge and skills that are still in demand in the Reserves.


I have described a mechanism where these individuals could be employed full time (at 85% pay with pension topping it back to 100% pay) with a guarantee of no postings outside the geographic area.  It is almost exactly the same as the Class B option now except that it remains within the Regular Force, and career managers are still responsible for these soldiers.


----------



## birdgunnnersrule (1 Jan 2010)

It has been a while since I looked at the retention numbers, but I suspect that a large number of folks are leaving the forces prior to pension eligibility.   

I am now aware of the large divide and some of the issues mention by Mr. Wallace on this site regarding reservists and agree with a lot of the statements.  However, there are a lot of good Regular Force personnel with skills, regardless of time in, that should be encouraged to remain active within the CF, once they decide to leave.  Some of the ideas that are tossed about by MCG are valid.  I am one of those guys that decided to take the 15% pay cut to be my own career manager, without having a pension to fall back on.  Do I want to be career managed? Not in the traditional sense, however, from the professional side, of course. It is extremely important that I continue to gain experience/training so I can keep working and performing at a high level, if not I am a waste of rations and space to the EU and I should be S*** ***ned.   People are your greatest resource and foster there development adds worth to the organization.  As a Reservist, the EU should weigh the benefits of the additional training as it could be quite easy for someone to take a course such AOC and quickly leave upon return.  This is where the idea of a management system for the PRL could work.  It would prevent qualified, but inexperienced, pers from taking posns of higher rank until they are deemed ready.  Just a thought.


----------



## Occam (1 Jan 2010)

MCG said:
			
		

> I have described a mechanism where these individuals could be employed full time (at 85% pay with pension topping it back to 100% pay) with a guarantee of no postings outside the geographic area.  It is almost exactly the same as the Class B option now except that it remains within the Regular Force, and career managers are still responsible for these soldiers.



That math still doesn't add up.  If I've stopped making contributions to the CFSA, and have enough time for an immediate annuity, then I should be receiving that annuity in full.  That pension is between the CFSA and me.

I'm getting reduced to 85% of Reg F pay in recognition of not being subject to periodic postings, and the reality that promotions in the Res F (as a Cl B reservist) are few and far between as it would involve being promoted right out of a job.

If the prospect of employing a Cl B reservist (who has completed a Reg F career already and is drawing an annuity) is unpalatable, then the positions need to be taken over by Reg F, or by Public Service/contractors - which are solutions which present their own headaches.


----------



## McG (1 Jan 2010)

Occam said:
			
		

> That math still doesn't add up.  If I've stopped making contributions to the CFSA, and have enough time for an immediate annuity, then I should be receiving that annuity in full.  That pension is between the CFSA and me.


Legally, that is the case right now.  For the future that system should be changed.  Nobody should be simultaneously collecting two full incomes from the governemt (so no full-time employee/service person simultaneously getting pension payments).  There is no where in private industry wher you will find a set-up where an employer will give retirement pension and simultaneous full time employment.



			
				Occam said:
			
		

> If the prospect of employing a Cl B reservist (who has completed a Reg F career already and is drawing an annuity) is unpalatable, then the positions need to be taken over by Reg F ....


That is exactly what I proposed.  Go back up and read it.


----------



## Occam (1 Jan 2010)

MCG said:
			
		

> Legally, that is the case right now.  For the future that system should be changed.  Nobody should be simultaneously collecting two full incomes from the governemt (so no full-time employee/service person simultaneously getting pension payments).  There is no where in private industry wher you will find a set-up where an employer will give retirement pension and simultaneous full time employment.



I don't understand why you seem to be fixated on the CFSA pension.  For starters, while it can be successfully argued that CFSA annuity payments come out of the government "cloud" of money, it most definitely does not come out of DND's budget - so there can be no linkage of the annuity to any cost savings for DND.  Secondly, I would argue that the CFSA annuity payments are far from a "full income" - at best, they're 70% of a full income, and few are hitting that figure.

It's probably true that there is no example in civvieland where you'll an annuitant also on the full time payroll of the same company where he earned the annuity.  However, does it really need to be pointed out that the military is nowhere near like a civvie employer, with four classes of service (Reg F, plus Cl A, B and C reserve), with unlimited liability (for any period of Reg F or Cl C service)?



> That is exactly what I proposed.  Go back up and read it.



You did indeed propose it.  Making it happen will be a whole 'nother ballgame.  The CF is having a hard enough time filling the existing Reg F positions, never mind planned expansion of the Reg F or assumption of Cl B positions.  I'm far from an expert on the subject, but my gut feeling is that before any plan can be implemented to convert Cl B positions to Reg F, the Reg F needs to get its own house in order with regard to manning.


----------



## McG (1 Jan 2010)

Occam said:
			
		

> I don't understand why you seem to be fixated on the CFSA pension.


Because it is a financial incentive to reduce one's utility to the CF.  Again, no other employer outside the government has a mechanism where an employee can reduce responsibility to the organization while at the same time increasing monthly take home pay.

You are right that the CF is not like civilian employment (I never implied otherwise).  However, those differences do not justify the current absurd arrangement.  We can recognize the high demands placed on service personnel (through a career of postings, deployments, maintaining universality of service requirements, unusual hours, etc, etc) with other mechanisms.  The limited obligation regular force TOS that I have proposed would be one way to do this.  Another option is to allow the pension to top-up pay for anyone that moves over to a lower paying position in the public service.



			
				Occam said:
			
		

> You did indeed propose it.  Making it happen will be a whole 'nother ballgame.  The CF is having a hard enough time filling the existing Reg F positions, never mind planned expansion of the Reg F or assumption of Cl B positions.  I'm far from an expert on the subject, but my gut feeling is that before any plan can be implemented to convert Cl B positions to Reg F, the Reg F needs to get its own house in order with regard to manning.


If the change were to come, current annuitants should be allowed to continue on their double-dipping ways.  All other permanent Class B employees would be directed to component transfer (with any additional training that may require) into a limited obligation regular force TOS.  There would be the same number of people available.  The difference would be that Career Managers could ensure that, within any given geographic region, the higher priority positions would be filled ahead of the lower priority positions.

The 35 day break requirement would also disappear.  So the limited obligation TOS would be a full 12 months' pay and with pension top-up for eligible service personnel.


----------



## Occam (1 Jan 2010)

So, let me get this straight:

- the "limited obligation Reg F" member would still get paid a reduced salary (85% for argument's sake)
- the "limited obligation Reg F" member would be allowed to draw a reduced annuity, to top up the salary to a max of 100% of Reg F pay

In effect, I would be neither allowed to draw my full annuity (without a full release from the CF, of course), nor would I be able to add to my contributions to the CFSA with the aim of increasing my annuity (that would be a nightmare to administrate!).

I don't see many buying into that.  I know I wouldn't.


----------



## McG (1 Jan 2010)

Occam said:
			
		

> In effect, I would be neither allowed to draw my full annuity (without a full release from the CF, of course), nor would I be able to add to my contributions to the CFSA with the aim of increasing my annuity (that would be a nightmare to administrate!).


Clearly, it would have to be possible for limited obligation reg force to contribute toward a pension.  How it would work for someone eligible for annuity but wanting to continue making contributions is one of those finer hand details that I'd previously mentioned would still need to be resolved.  Perhaps one could simultaneously make pension contributions while receiving the top-up.


----------



## Brasidas (1 Jan 2010)

MCG said:
			
		

> Because it is a financial incentive to reduce one's utility to the CF.  Again, no other employer outside the government has a mechanism where an employee can reduce responsibility to the organization while at the same time increasing monthly take home pay.



There are precedents for companies effectively shooting themselves in the foot by contracting out work. No benefits, higher pay, and a questionable cost savings to the company. Those contractors can wind up being ex-employees hired back as SMEs at higher pay.



> You are right that the CF is not like civilian employment (I never implied otherwise).  However, those differences do not justify the current absurd arrangement.  We can recognize the high demands placed on service personnel (through a career of postings, deployments, maintaining universality of service requirements, unusual hours, etc, etc) with other mechanisms.  The limited obligation regular force TOS that I have proposed would be one way to do this.  Another option is to allow the pension to top-up pay for anyone that moves over to a lower paying position in the public service.
> If the change were to come, current annuitants should be allowed to continue on their double-dipping ways.  All other permanent Class B employees would be directed to component transfer (with any additional training that may require) into a limited obligation regular force TOS.  There would be the same number of people available.  The difference would be that Career Managers could ensure that, within any given geographic region, the higher priority positions would be filled ahead of the lower priority positions.



The existing structure has the potential to keep folks inside the CF.  If you don't get a wonderful flood of folks transferring into the "limited reg force", as in you get the career reservists but not the semi-retired reg force who'd rather work civvy-side and keep their pension, your scheme's going to see a whole lot of contractors hired to make up the shortfall. And where do those contractors get recruited from? With time lag, the retired class-B guys who *didn't* find a civvy job they liked better and newly-releasing reg force guys.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (1 Jan 2010)

> Perhaps one could simultaneously make pension contributions while receiving the top-up.



I don't see how that could be possible to both receive a pension and simultaneously be paying into it.  Sorry, it's not just a fine detail that you can just gloss over.

We tried to stop double dipping in the mid 90s- I'm not sure if you remember or not.  It just led to a shortage of qualified people, because no one was going to cease their pension to rejoin.  We lost a lot of people permanently, or they just went the contractor route and worked for like $500-1000/ day.

MCG- I'm not denying the system is broken and I applaud you for at least attempting to propose a fix.  Perhaps the problem is not too few people (either Reg or Res Force).  Maybe the problem is too many tasks ?


----------



## McG (1 Jan 2010)

Brasidas said:
			
		

> There are precedents for companies effectively shooting themselves in the foot by contracting out work. No benefits, higher pay, and a questionable cost savings to the company. Those contractors can wind up being ex-employees hired back as SMEs at higher pay.


That's nice.  I am also largely opposed to using contractors.  I'd much rather us military or public servant.



			
				Brasidas said:
			
		

> The existing structure has the potential to keep folks inside the CF.  If you don't get a wonderful flood of folks transferring into the "limited reg force", as in you get the career reservists but semi-retired reg force who'd rather work civvy-side and keep their pension, your scheme's going to see a whole lot of contractors hired to make up the shortfall. And where do those contractors get recruited from? With time lag, the retired class-B guys who *didn't* find a civvy job they liked better and newly-releasing reg force guys.


I think a large majority of people who go the double-dipping route are doing it because they want to stay in the military but are done with postings.  Eliminating the double-dip will not impact the choice of these people - they would still take the limited obligation ref force TOS option.  However, there is another large group that wants to remain within the CF but sees financial incentive in the double-dip.  This group will choose differently with the removal of the double-dip and will choose full obligation over limited obligation TOS.

I've also been talking about better synchronization with all the other federal pensions.  Currently, even if a public servant has enough years of pensionable service, following retirement the annuitant payments do not begin until age 55 or 60.  Harmonization on this point could also aid in retention.  Once a service member has enough years of pensionable service, they could convert to limited obligation TOS and receive top-up money, they could switch to the PS and (if in a lower paying job) receive top-up money, they could continue to serve under full obligation TOS and build the pension, or they they could leave the Federal Government and wait until CRA before seeing any pension money.



			
				SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> I don't see how that could be possible to both receive a pension and simultaneously be paying into it.


It is possible if TB can be sold on it, and I think there is a fairly good case that this would be a reasonable retention mechanism given the high demands a CF career places on a member.  Similar arguments could also be made for RCMP in a harmonized Federal pension program.



			
				SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> Perhaps the problem is not too few people (either Reg or Res Force).  Maybe the problem is too many tasks ?


There is definitely some of that.  I think my proposal also adds further checks for someone to say "no, we are not going to do that" when new full time positions are created.  Currently, almost anyone with a budget can use Class B to empire build.  My proposal would see all full time positions requiring the same processes and approvals for creation as current regular force positions.


----------



## George Wallace (2 Jan 2010)

I still can't see any "Double Dippers" taking up any of your suggestions.  Why would they give up a pension. take a reduced wage and reduced pension, or any of your ideas, if they could keep the pension and work a second job anywhere else, including the Public Service, not requiring to take 35 days unpaid Annuitant's Leave.

I could see some "Double Dippers" going for your "Limited Obligation" Reg Force employment, at full wages, and paying into their Reg Force Pension Plan.  Don't forget, they will have to buy back their Class B and other Reserve time, as well, towards their Pension Plan if they do rejoin the Reg Force.  Then I could see some giving up collecting a pension to work, but not under any of your conditions.  Mortgages, Retirement Planning and other expenses and plans for life after work will play heavily in these decisions, as they will not have twenty or thirty years to make these purchases and settle into a community.


----------



## Brasidas (2 Jan 2010)

MCG said:
			
		

> I think a large majority of people who go the double-dipping route are doing it because they want to stay in the military but are done with postings.  Eliminating the double-dip will not impact the choice of these people - they would still take the limited obligation ref force TOS option.  However, there is another large group that wants to remain within the CF but sees financial incentive in the double-dip.  This group will choose differently with the removal of the double-dip and will choose full obligation over limited obligation TOS.



There's still the financial incentive of taking the retirement package and working elsewhere. I can think of a half dozen solid RSS fill-ins at reserve units who'd likely have a hard time justifying to their wives staying in the face of competitive employment alternatives where they could draw their pension.

That changes if you delay when they can draw their pension altogether or aggressively claw it back based on their income. The former's referenced earlier in the thread. But while its in play, the changes you're suggesting are going to be making an impact on these guys sticking around despite your attempts to mitigate it.

[quote author=George Wallace]
I still can't see any "Double Dippers" taking up any of your suggestions.  Why would they give up a pension. take a reduced wage and reduced pension, or any of your ideas, if they could keep the pension and work a second job anywhere else, including the Public Service, not requiring to take 35 days unpaid Annuitant's Leave.

I could see some "Double Dippers" going for your "Limited Obligation" Reg Force employment, at full wages, and paying into their Reg Force Pension Plan.  Don't forget, they will have to buy back their Class B and other Reserve time, as well, towards their Pension Plan if they do rejoin the Reg Force.  Then I could see some giving up collecting a pension to work, but not under any of your conditions.  Mortgages, Retirement Planning and other expenses and plans for life after work will play heavily in these decisions, as they will not have twenty or thirty years to make these purchases and settle into a community.[/quote]

Except that explicitly defeat's one of MCG's goals of stopping the attrition from reg force to reserve class B, unless I'm misunderstanding. Why the hell wouldn't anybody transfer to this "limited reg force" if they got their full pay and increasing pension? Slower promotion in the upper ranks?


----------



## George Wallace (2 Jan 2010)

Brasidas said:
			
		

> Except that explicitly defeat's one of MCG's goals of stopping the attrition from reg force to reserve class B, unless I'm misunderstanding. Why the hell wouldn't anybody transfer to this "limited reg force" if they got their full pay and increasing pension? Slower promotion in the upper ranks?



Exactly.  MCG may be looking at one type of member, while I am thinking of the member who has done twenty-five plus years in the CF, has planned and saved for his/her retirement, and has chosen to still serve his/her nation as a Reservist.  They have done their time.  They still have something to contribute.  They are not paying into a Reserve Pension, but collecting a Reg Force Pension, and if on a Class B of over 365 days are required to take 35 unpaid days Annuitant's Leave a year.  They have set themselves up in the location that they plan on "living out their days", and would see no sense in remaining in the service of the CF if all they could expect was to be "penalized" for doing so.  There are a lot of these guys around, and they have a lot of experience and knowledge that the Reserves will loose in seconds if MCG had his way.

Those who are not Annuitants would not be affected as greatly by any of MCG's suggestions, but they may also not have as much knowledge and experience to contribute to the Reserves.  They would be better off doing a complete CT.


----------



## PPCLI Guy (2 Jan 2010)

Occam said:
			
		

> I'm with you.  I've done 25 years of "career" service in the Regs.  If my skills can be put to good use as a Cl B reservist, where I can take a position, and hopefully stay with it for longer than three years, I'll be happy to continue putting on the uniform (and forgo any hopes of further promotion).  Otherwise, from where I sit, the grass is indeed greener on the other side - even with a modest pay cut to move into a civvy job.



Willing to do it if you can't also draw your pension?  If pension must be deferred until you truly stop serving the Queen?

Didn't think so.

Double dipping must stop.

Dave


----------



## SeaKingTacco (2 Jan 2010)

> Double dipping must stop.



Okay, then my bet is that the majority of annuitants will not elect reserve service post-regular force service, except possibly Class A.  If I am still so I inclined to work after 25 to 30 years in the CF, I would be out of my mind to not go work for a Defence Contractor (or even Home Depot) and get a wage plus pension and instead go to say 35 years service as a "limited" service Officer.

I recognize that there are some that will go for "limited" service, but they probably were going to stay to CRA anyway.

By all means, get rid of double dipping (it can be argued that the current Class B structure has grossly inflated and distorted our manning situation within the CF)- but be under no illusion about what will happen.  People will follow the money.  Unless you head them off at the pass and make it so that no CF member can get a pension before 55 or 60- regardless of years of service.  This may not be a smart idea either, as years of hard living in combat or in the field may render a pension uncollectable for a significant number of service members.

I don't know what the answer is.  What I do know is that swinging the pendulum all the way over to "no double-dipping" will have negative consequences, too.

Happy New Year, all.  I'm going to bed.


----------



## old fart (2 Jan 2010)

Here is what happens to British annuitant undertaking Full Time Reserve Service (FTRS):

“Reserve Service: 31. Abatement of Pension. In accordance with Treasury rules, those in receipt of an Armed Forces pension are liable to have that pension abated on re-employment in the Forces if the combined income from basic pay and pension exceeds the basic pay on their last day of Regular Service (up-rated by RPI since leaving Regular service). 

*Thus individuals will only be allowed to retain the amount of pension which, when added to their basic pay on re-employment on FTRS, equals the basic pay that they received on the last day of Regular Service (uprated by RPI). 
In cases where the total remuneration is greater than the level permitted, the AFPS pension in payment will be abated or suspended until the FTRS commitment is complete. *

Where an individual has received resettlement commutation and their pension in payment is subject to abatement in whole or in part, a reduction equal to the amount of pension commuted will be taken from their pension. 
Full details are in Reference I. Reservists should take advice from SPVA regarding the implications of an FTRS commitment on AFPS 75 or AFPS 05 and its effect on LS and EDP payments. “

http://www.army.mod.uk/documents/general/din_089.pdf 

There are some fundamental differences between the Brits and our own pension scheme which must be understood:

Firstly their pension plan is non-contributory, at any rate that’s the way it's sold to the rank and file (in reality they do pay towards their pension). 

Secondly most annuitants are shoved out the door at 22 year point (if they get there).   So if they want to serve on as a Full Time reservists the UK MOD have both the carrot and stick, in that they will allow a member to serve on as a full time reservist providing a salary they ordinarily would not have (havening already been shown the door) while at the same time the possibility of increasing pension final pension benefits.   

Because they know many of the folks with the requisite experience may have little alternative.   They get away with it because slots are limited and thus quite competitive, as for many continued service was the only place they could match their previous income and responsibility.

Underpinning all this is the premise that it just is not possible to gain an increased rate of pay over the equivalent Reg Force member.   

Perhaps if folks in the CF were shoved out the door *en-masse* at the 22 year point our bean counters could have grounds to work it the way the Brits do; but as we have potential pensionable service to 35 years, the Brit way would likely never work.

But then again, never say never.............. 

In closing, to accept an FTRS slot usually comes with an expectation that you will or could be deployed.

Old fart out.


----------



## armyvern (2 Jan 2010)

I'm still wondering how anyone thinks, that in the long run, the Reg F guy who "double-dips" has it better than the RegF guy who doesn't.

Stats presented by those "anti-double dippers" over in this thread clearly show that the guy who stays Reg F costs more money from the taxpayers coffers than those who don't:





			
				gcclarke said:
			
		

> Ok, so I decided to do some quick comparisons here.
> 
> Say you've got someone who's deciding whether or not to double dip or not. They're at 20 years in, and have maxed out seniority at Captain. For ease of calculations, let's assume that's 80 grand.
> 
> ...



Then this:





			
				gcclarke said:
			
		

> Ahhh right good point. That makes the reserve guy's annual income total during the 10 years 13500 higher than the reg force guy's, rather than 20000.
> 
> So the reg force dude achieves total income parity after 8.5 years.



Then my view on those stats:


			
				ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Pariety after 8.5 years --- then all heck breaks loose.
> 
> Your RegF guy is getting out at 50 years of age (say he joined when he was 20);
> Your RegF (20yr) / ResF (10yr) double dipper also joined at age 20, so is now 50 ...
> ...



Another thread later, I'm still wondering if the argument that the "double-dipper" makes more than the guy who stays Reg does is actually factual - it certainly doesn't seem to be. It certainly, based upon the actual pension figures presented over time, seems to be a strawman arguement.

In my mind, the double dipper earns less over his lifetime than the guy who stays RegF, and by double-dipping, he is still utilizing his skillsets by providing his experience , knowledge and expertize to the ResF - ergo, the taxpayer benefits by actually saving money in the long-run and the ResF benefits by still being availed of those ex-RegF pers skillsets; a bonus to both the RegF & ResF.

Maybe I'm missing something. No one "anti-double-dipping" addressed my above post in the last thread to point it out to me though. Perhaps I'm still missing something, but I can't for the life of me figure it out.


----------



## Monsoon (2 Jan 2010)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Maybe I'm missing something. No one "anti-double-dipping" addressed my above post in the last thread to point it out to me though. Perhaps I'm still missing something, but I can't for the life of me figure it out.


Whatever you may be missing (and I certainly can't see what it is), the "anti-double-dippers" have also missed the fact that people who get out of the Reg F to go class "B" generally do it for stability - that is, they're not taking postings away from home. That, coupled with the fact that reservists on contract in their local area don't get PLD, and the fact that many class "B" contracts forbid cost moves, means that the Reg F fellow in the calculation above will be costing an extra $7-8K more per year while employed than his class "B" counterpart, plus posting move expenses. It's just possible that the much-derided HQ "bean counters" have run the math on all of this and reached the same conclusion you did.

Anyway, if the principle is just that people on a government pension shouldn't be able to draw even a reduced government salary, wouldn't that also preclude Reg F pensioners from serving class "A"? That seems like throwing out the baby with the bathwater to me.


----------



## George Wallace (2 Jan 2010)

I am wondering what the preconceived perceptions are of who a "Double Dipper" may be?

They definitely are not 18 or 20 year olds who think that they are invincible, nor the more mature 30 year olds; as none of these members have been around long enough to earn a pension and become a "Double Dipper".   

They would be the over 45 year old, who has done their time and earned a pension, who has a work ethic and just can't handle the sitting around the house vacuuming the carpet, who is still able to pass a CF Expres and BFT, but not likely to survive long humping a ruck up and down mountains in a Infantry Bn in Afghanistan.  A person who may have lost most of his/her pension to their "Training Spouse".  A person who is looking towards a comfortable retirement in a few years without the fears of sitting on a piece of cardboard, with their faithful dog, in front of a storefront downtown begging for money and sleeping in a Shelter.   

Is there anyone here that thinks a life of Service will make one a millionaire?  The Government, in all Departments, has numerous cases of fraud and persons who have overcharged for their services, or found ways to embezzle.  I have yet to notice one who was formerly a member of the CF.  Double Dippers are not the problem.  The pittance that they add to Government expenses is so trivial that any savings made by ending them wouldn't affect the budgets of any Dept.  Perhaps catching guys who bill the Government for billions of dollars for Services, Supplies, or Construction not delivered would be a better plan, or perhaps incarcerating those caught for theft, rather than promoting them.

Young 'invicible' members making decisions, as opposed by the 'seasoned old hands', has always been an interesting proposition.  The results have quite often not been as desireable as they envisioned.


----------



## armyvern (2 Jan 2010)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> They would be the over 45 year old ...



Hey now!! Don't call me old!

12 Jan = Vern is pensionable = Vern at 41.

I guess, I should get out now and start double-dipping before some misguided soul tells me I am not able to do so any longer.

But ... wait a minute ... If I do that - I'll lose 1/2 a million by age 88 ... Hmmmmmmmm. decisions, decisions - NOT!!


----------



## George Wallace (2 Jan 2010)

The 20/40 Plan membership is getting smaller every day.    ;D


----------



## armyvern (2 Jan 2010)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> The 20/40 Plan membership is getting smaller every day.    ;D



I'd say George!! Given that the 20/40 plan offer ended before I even joined the CF!! I did 3 to start then was offered my IE during my 18th year (with pension ability kicking in at 20 yos) ... just a couple of months before they implemented the newest "25 year minimum requirement" ... I am one lucky beotch and now consider myself my "own" career manager.


----------



## Journeyman (2 Jan 2010)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> ....and now consider myself my "own" career manager.


Just remember, a career spent "burning bridges" does not make you a qualified engineer.    ;D


----------



## Zoomie (2 Jan 2010)

Sign me up for the double-dipping route - if that gets canned, Home Depot it is...

Almost every skilled PRes job in blue is a double-dipper (some exceptions).  Necessary staff jobs, backfill pilot/acso/fe postions get filled by that route.  I know that once I achieve 20 years of RegF time, I can elect to leave and receive my non-indexed pension.  If I get another job as a Class-B reservists, sobeit - I retired, what I do after that is no-one else's concern.


----------



## armyvern (2 Jan 2010)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> Just remember, a career spent "burning bridges" does not make you a qualified engineer.    ;D



Can you show me how to go about removing "Engineer Qualified" from my CV? I could certainly use your expertize to help with that. >


----------



## Loachman (2 Jan 2010)

Ending this would likely cripple the air reserve, mainly on the senior tech side in my unit. They'd still collect their pensions, but could make more money working for somebody else and we'd lose out big time. It's only a handful of guys, but they're in key positions and their experience and knowledge and dedication is invaluable. There is a huge shortage of Reg Force techs that come anywhere close, except perhaps in the dedication department.

It's not worth it.


----------



## Nfld Sapper (2 Jan 2010)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Can you show me how to go about removing "Engineer Qualified" from my CV? I could certainly use your expertize to help with that. >



Not the first time I have seen a Thumper Head-Bin Rat  ;D

One even worked next door to ya in Gagetown......


----------



## Jed (2 Jan 2010)

Right on George! Why are so many bashing the Double Dippers? I am currently one of them but anyone getting to this point has put in a long Reg Force career and has hit a transition point in their life. It works for the retiring member and for the CF. I do not know of any Double dippers that do not have a plan B that does not involve serving in the CF. Anyone who has TI knows the CF always wins when it comes to money. If there is a cheaper way to get the required personnel, through contracting, using a civi, using a Publc servant, it will be used.


----------



## observor 69 (2 Jan 2010)

Loachman said:
			
		

> Ending this would likely cripple the air reserve, mainly on the senior tech side in my unit. They'd still collect their pensions, but could make more money working for somebody else and we'd lose out big time. It's only a handful of guys, but they're in key positions and their experience and knowledge and dedication is invaluable. There is a huge shortage of Reg Force techs that come anywhere close, except perhaps in the dedication department.
> 
> It's not worth it.



I am a retired Avionics tech living in the GTA. As the Superintendent in the apartment building I live in I deal with techs on a regular basis, elevator techs, HVAC Heating Ventilation Air Conditioning, electricans etc. 
When I check the pay scale for a similar tech in the military I come up with a number like $61k. I am fairly sure a good HVAC tech or Otis elevator tech gets $61k or more and spends his life in a metropolitan area with all it offers plus has a good chance of paying off a mortgage before he retirees.
I enjoyed my job as a tech and I love aviation but I can see why the military may be losing or has trouble recruiting techs.


----------



## McG (2 Jan 2010)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> I still can't see any "Double Dippers" taking up any of your suggestions.  Why would they give up a pension. take a reduced wage and reduced pension, or any of your ideas, if they could keep the pension and work a second job anywhere else, including the Public Service, not requiring to take 35 days unpaid Annuitant's Leave.


Are you still not reading George or are you just pretending that  I've not addressed these statements of yours?
[list type=decimal]
[*]I have stated that would be grandfathering for existing double-dippers.  They would not need to give-up a pension.





			
				MCG said:
			
		

> If the change were to come, current annuitants should be allowed to continue on their double-dipping ways.


[*]The 35 day unpaid leave is not a factor against my proposal as I have stated it would be gone (TB could be sold on this as members would not be collecting the full pension)





			
				MCG said:
			
		

> The 35 day break requirement would also disappear.  So the limited obligation TOS would be a full 12 months' pay and with pension top-up for eligible service personnel.


[*]You are completely off the mark suggesting this would send people to the Public Service before limited obligation service because I have proposed that the same pension-top up would apply for PS employment.





			
				MCG said:
			
		

> Nobody should be simultaneously collecting two full incomes from the governemt (so no full-time employee/service person simultaneously getting pension payments).





			
				MCG said:
			
		

> ...allow the pension to top-up pay for anyone that moves over to a lower paying position in the public service.


[*]I have also addressed the option of going somewhere else to make more money.  That is done through better harmonization witht he rest of the federal government pensions.  If you want to see any of your entitlements prior to reaching CRA, you need to continue working somewhere in the government (military or PS).





			
				MCG said:
			
		

> Once a service member has enough years of pensionable service, they could convert to limited obligation TOS and receive top-up money, they could switch to the PS and (if in a lower paying job) receive top-up money, they could continue to serve under full obligation TOS and build the pension, or they they could leave the Federal Government and wait until CRA before seeing any pension money.


[/list]



			
				George Wallace said:
			
		

> MCG may be looking at one type of member, while I am thinking of the member who has done twenty-five plus years in the CF, has planned and saved for his/her retirement, and has chosen to still serve his/her nation as a Reservist.  They have done their time.  They still have something to contribute.


We are looking at different types of member, but not as you have laid it out.  You are focused on the members that have already made the jump and are double dipping.  I am focused on those who have not made the decision.  Your arguments are focused on protecting the double-dip for those who have it, but I have already conceded that protection through grandfathering.  



			
				ArmyVern said:
			
		

> I'm still wondering how anyone thinks, that in the long run, the Reg F guy who "double-dips" has it better than the RegF guy who doesn't.
> 
> Stats presented by those "anti-double dippers" over in this thread clearly show that the guy who stays Reg F costs more money from the taxpayers coffers than those who don't:


Vern, I did present a few more factors that never were put into that income model and scew it back toward the double-dipper  ... and I suspect things would ge even more strongly infavour of the double-dipper if you had a finance guy do it all in net-present value.




			
				MCG said:
			
		

> ... and of course, this model does not account for the the Pension deductions that come out of the still regular pay vs the absence of the deduction in the double-dipper pay.  It also doesn't account for the Reserve Travel Allowance that the full-time reservist is entitled.  Apparently the NCR has a case or two where guys are collecting an extra $21.06 for every day they come into the office comuting from Arnprior ... over the years, that's a lot of money that the Reg F guy does not get ... and I've heard pricier examples than this.



In any case, more money now (even if it is less agregated years down the road) is still a financial incentive and it will poach people who otherwise may have continued full obligation service.  We should be providing financial incetives that encourage providing maximum utility to the CF and not incentives that make reducing one's utility more attractive.



			
				hamiltongs said:
			
		

> Whatever you may be missing (and I certainly can't see what it is), the "anti-double-dippers" have also missed the fact that people who get out of the Reg F to go class "B" generally do it for stability - that is, they're not taking postings away from home.


That was not missed.  Providing an option for stability as a retention tool is the reason for including limited obligation Reg F TOS in my proposal.


----------



## 421_434_226 (2 Jan 2010)

All I know right now is that I have 242 days till I retire and am looking into taking one of those "B" positions here and doing some "double dipping" which actually will only be about the same as I am being paid now. Just feel that I have had enough of moving (7 times) besides my kids and grand kids are here and we like it here too.
Don't know if that makes me evil for "double dipping" or not also don't really care, if the position is not available I am sure that there is other work out there.


----------



## Jed (2 Jan 2010)

Exactly Gizmo, You and many folks looking at Class B feel this way. It sends shivers down my spine when the Bean Counters start sharpening their pencils and spend many hours of effort screwing up a process that works in order to save a few pennies.

I think there are are far better areas to tinker with to save a Budget Buck. Persuing this small pot of money will only effect the influx of capable people working for the CF.


----------



## armyvern (2 Jan 2010)

MCG said:
			
		

> Vern, I did present a few more factors that never were put into that income model and scew it back toward the double-dipper  ... and I suspect things would ge even more strongly infavour of the double-dipper if you had a finance guy do it all in net-present value.



Where did you post those factors? And, did you consider the PLD, posting allowances, costs for moves etc that Hamiltongs brought up?

So, here's me under your "new proposed way".

Pensionable, I retire, I go Class B at 85% wages and get topped up to max 100% of what I would have earned as pay had I stayed in. Even though, if I stayed RegF you'd be outpaying me longer in the long run?

OR ... I take my pension and go to work somewhere else (civ world) with my skillset while collecting my pension PLUS my new employers 100% wages and, as an added bonus, my hazmat quals etc would earn me more on civvie street with a civvie job than I'm currently making ... AND I get to work towards another pension!! That'll be two!!

Guess where I'm going to work all because I'm sick of moving and I can't double-dip anymore?? The correct option to me is pretty obvious.

What has the CF, ResF or RegF gained now? Well, they've just lost my skillsets and expertize, and much needed staffing still remains unfilled and I've gained a pension, a job at 100% wages and a possible second pension. Good on me and who could fault me for doing anything different?

Be careful what you wish for ... you just might get it.

Please stop making double-dippers out to be some financial drain that they aren't. The long-term pension facts and the figures do not seem to be backing up that arguement. No matter what other factors are added, the double-dipper & the guy who stayed RegF will achieve "Wage Pariety" at "year X" (whatever year that may be after they both retire), but that "pariety" will last only for that "Year X" --- then it's all about the guy who stayed in pulling handsomely into the lead ...


----------



## PPCLI Guy (2 Jan 2010)

My concern with double-dipping lies mostly with the fact that it has allowed the CF (and the Army in particular) to grow the full-time workforce in an unchallenged, ungoverned, and unsustainable way.  

I have less concern with the individual decision to do (in many cases) the same job for substantially more money and less than universal service, although it does irk me somewhat.  

I have great concern for those in senior positions who use their influence to fashion (or more charitably fall into) a golden parachute.

On a personal note, I intend to serve until I am ready to retire - and then retire and move on to other things.

My two Sheckels


----------



## armyvern (2 Jan 2010)

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> My concern with double-dipping lies mostly with the fact that it has allowed the CF (and the Army in particular) to grow the full-time workforce in an unchallenged, ungoverned, and unsustainable way.



100% agree. We need to get a grip on B Class posns to ensure both their usefullness and sustainability.


----------



## Petard (2 Jan 2010)

Perhaps all this is a moot point considering the sharp reduction in Class B positions ongoing; with fewer opportunities to draw pay as reservists, more of these potential "double dippers' will take their skill sets to the private sector and not publc service, in which case there would be no grounds to modify their pension terms anyway.


----------



## Journeyman (2 Jan 2010)

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> My concern with double-dipping lies mostly with the fact that it has allowed the CF (and the Army in particular) to grow the full-time workforce in an unchallenged, ungoverned, and unsustainable way.
> 
> I have great concern for *those in senior positions * who use their influence to fashion (or more charitably fall into) a golden parachute.


Imagine holding accountable "those in senior positions." Nahhh.....it's easier to just punt all the Cl B troops.

I'll just have another bitter cup of Labbe


----------



## Monsoon (2 Jan 2010)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> 100% agree. We need to get a grip on B Class posns to ensure both their usefullness and sustainability.


At the same time, this "tooth-to-tail" problem is endemic throughout the public service, which has grown considerably out of proportion to the CF. I would posit that the Financial Administration Act of 1985 is a big part of the problem: the dollar amounts requiring high-level approval are unchanged since 1985 while inflation has continued apace. So, for instance, s.41(1)e requiring full disclosure of contracts over $10k now applies to contracts of about half the real size that it did back in 1985. This means that a greatly increased number of analysts at all levels are required to generate, review and approve any expense leading to the bizarre situation of people getting paid $25K in salary to manage a $10K "project". I'm talking about financial administration, but the same goes for any number of admin overhead procedures.

The CF has responded to this in part by drawing on the class "B" labour pool (or using Reg F folks who are replaced in the jobs they would be doing by class "B"ers). Obviously it's ridiculous and untenable, but it's far from a CF-specific problem. And if DND is the first department to "get a grip" on it then that just means that we'll have less impact at the Treasury Board level and less ability to get our job done.

As military people we can recognize this as a problem in need of rectification. I can assure you that the boys over at HRSDC, PWGSC, Canada Post, DFAIT, etc, etc, etc have far fewer scruples about it.


----------



## dapaterson (2 Jan 2010)

The CF and DND do not adequate capture the true costs of class B service.  For example:  Employers of full-time Reservists do not pay for health care.  But each full-time CF member costs, roughly $5K per year in incremental health care costs to the CF.  Imagine if each employer in CNC had to pony up an additional $5K per full-time Reservist - I suspect the number of offers would shrink dramatically.

There are other problems as well - all due to a large bureaucratic organization that doesn't track expenditures or expenditure drivers well.  A good review of the current system would show the true costs to both the department and the Government - and see some radical changes.

(Side note: In the early 1970s the OAG reviewed and identified the double-dipping as a problem - thus the regs that permitted 180 days were drafted.  It was in the late '90s/ early '00s that the 330/35 rule was expanded from service with the Cadets to everywhere.)

We need to get past the "we're so screwed up that we can't change" mentality, and move to a "How can we make things work within our means" mindset - which will mean some hard decisions.  We're mandated to have a Reg F of 67K and a Reserve Force of 28K - the 8K (+/-) of full-time reservists are a blip caused by a departmental unwillingness to make decisions - and a refusal to follow through on other decisions.  Living within our means is not only $$$ but also FTEs.  Permanent, standing tasks are not part of the mandate of the Reserve Force in the NDA.  Should we choose to obey the law, that's going to mean tough choices for the senior and junior services.

Favorite quote:  At the national Recruiting conference a few years ago, from the CAS rep:  "We have no Reserve in the Air Force.".



> Reserve.  _noun_  a resource not normally called upon but available if needed.


----------



## McG (2 Jan 2010)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Where did you post those factors?


If you click the link just above a quote box it takes you to where the post was made.



			
				Jed said:
			
		

> I think there are are far better areas to tinker with to save a Budget Buck. Persuing this small pot of money will only effect the influx of capable people working for the CF.


Your concern is not relevant here and a red herring in the argument.  This proposal has absolutely nothing to do with saving the government or DND money.



			
				ArmyVern said:
			
		

> ... did you consider the PLD, posting allowances, costs for moves etc that Hamiltongs brought up?


There are Class B positions that pay PLD so this is still a potential benefit to the double-dipper.  The expenses associated with a move are costs to the crown and not benefits to the individual, so (because my goal is not about saving the system money) I am not really concerned.

However, if people want to consider costs to the system then it needs to be done at a higher level than just contrasting hypothetical individuals from Class B and Reg F service.  A Class B guy can sit fat & happy in a position that is of negligable significance to the CF while at the same time the system is forced to pay cost moves to regularly rotate Reg F pers through a nationally important possition in the same building.

How much does it cost the CF when higher priorety positions go empty while lower priorety Class B possitions are filled in the very same geographic location?  This is not only dollar value costs but opportunity costs & the cost of reduced effectiveness where it is needed.

How much does it cost to maintain and staff the various PRLs in existance to administer the various full time reservists (and we have threads full of people calling for more & larger PRLs to get career Class B pers out of PRes unit establishemts)?  Sure, converting all of these full time positions to Limited Obligation Reg F would require a little more manpower in the careers shop, but not as much manpower as is currently consumed in manageing PRLs.



			
				ArmyVern said:
			
		

> So, here's me under your "new proposed way".
> 
> Pensionable, I retire, I go Class B at 85% wages and get topped up to max 100% of what I would have earned as pay had I stayed in. Even though, if I stayed RegF you'd be outpaying me longer in the long run?
> 
> OR ... I take my pension and go to work somewhere else (civ world) with my skillset while collecting my pension PLUS my new employers 100% wages and, as an added bonus, my hazmat quals etc would earn me more on civvie street with a civvie job than I'm currently making ... AND I get to work towards another pension!! That'll be two!!


You've only half got it.  You could retire,  go Class B at 85% wages and get topped up to max 100% of what you would have earned as pay had you stayed in.  You could retier, go PS at whatever wage and get toppedup to max 100% of what you would have earned as pay had you stayed in.  OR, you could retier, get a job in the private sector and see absolutely nothing of your pension until reach CRA.



			
				PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> My concern with double-dipping lies mostly with the fact that it has allowed the CF (and the Army in particular) to grow the full-time workforce in an unchallenged, ungoverned, and unsustainable way.
> 
> I have less concern with the individual decision to do (in many cases) the same job for substantially more money and less than universal service, although it does irk me somewhat.
> 
> I have great concern for those in senior positions who use their influence to fashion (or more charitably fall into) a golden parachute.


Exactly.  Those who have followed my comments (in this thread and the three I linked in the first post) will know that this is also my concern.  We don't need a bloated structure of Class B untouchables growing on the CF and poaching regular force soldiers of higher utility to the CF.


----------



## Loachman (2 Jan 2010)

MCG said:
			
		

> Nobody should be simultaneously collecting two full incomes from the governemt (so no full-time employee/service person simultaneously getting pension payments).



Why not?

Really, what is the difference between somebody collecting a pension and working fulltime for another company? They're still collecting a pension _*and*_ salary.

Is it merely that the employer and pension-payer is the same entity? So what?

By ending evil double-dipping, the government would be paying out the evil double-dipper's pension (to which he/she contributed over their career), while losing his/her knowledge, skill, and experience and _*still*_ paying somebody - just a different somebody - to do his/her military job.

The cost of paying a pension and reduced (Class B) salary to one person is less than the cost of paying a pension to one person plus a higher salary (Reg Force) to a second person plus the cost of training that second person, moving them, possible PLD etcetera.

Regardless, there's still a pension and a salary going out.

Any perceived gain is illusory.

Yes, there may be individual abuses of the system which should be corrected, but beyond that I see no benefit from screwing with the status quo.

In time, when we get past the Decade of Darkness/FRP/minimal recruiting legacy (and perhaps the DotComs) and achieve a stable population across all age/rank/seniority/experience levels there will be a natural drop in the number of Class B positions. Until then, a lot of them, at least the ones that I see, are keeping us going.


----------



## armyvern (2 Jan 2010)

MCG said:
			
		

> You've only half got it.  You could retire,  go Class B at 85% wages and get topped up to max 100% of what you would have earned as pay had you stayed in.  You could retier, go PS at whatever wage and get toppedup to max 100% of what you would have earned as pay had you stayed in.  OR, you could retier, get a job in the public sector and see absolutely nothing of your pension until reach CRA.
> Exactly.  Those who have followed my comments (in this thread and the three I linked in the first post) will know that this is also my concern.  We don't need a bloated structure of Class B untouchables growing on the CF and poaching regular force soldiers of higher utility to the CF.



No, you've only got me half right --- when I say go work in the "civ world" I mean privately ... and taking my pension with me. And making at least 100% of what I'm making now with those quals.


----------



## McG (2 Jan 2010)

Loachman said:
			
		

> ... what is the difference between somebody collecting a pension and working fulltime for another company? They're still collecting a pension _*and*_ salary.


There really is not a difference, and if you have read what I have wrote, you are aware that I've said no pension money for that person who goes and works for another company until that person reaches CRA.



			
				Loachman said:
			
		

> By ending evil double-dipping, the government would be paying out the evil double-dipper's pension (to which he/she contributed over their career), while losing his/her knowledge, skill, and experience and _*still*_ paying somebody - just a different somebody - to do his/her military job.


Absolutely not.  If the member leaves with all his/her knowledge, skill, and experience then he still does not see a penny until CRA.



			
				Loachman said:
			
		

> Why not?


Because (as I have stated many times already) it is retarded to offer service personel a financial incentive to reduce thier utility to the CF.  It is more money in the individual's pocket right now, there is no more risk of being deployed to Afghanistan, there is no risk of an unrequested posting, you cannot even be moved from your current job to one down the hall in the same building regardless of the relative priorety of the two positions.



			
				Loachman said:
			
		

> Until then, a lot of them [double=dippers], at least the ones that I see, are keeping us going.


But it is a rediculous system.  We are short experienced regluar force personel to get work done so we create new Class B possitions and fill them by enticing pers out of the Reg F with the incentive of double dipping.  This does not solve the manning shortfall (we are just skimming pers from one pool and dumping them into another) but it does increase the impacts of the manning shortfall because now fewer people can be transfered to the work that is prioretized higher.  It is analogous to eating yourself to sustain yourself - it might work for a little while but it is not sustainable in the long term.

My position has largely been stated in a nutshell already:


			
				old fart said:
			
		

> ... you want a full time career join the Regs.  You want a part time job join the Reserves ...


I think it is fair to provide that option for reduced obligation (in that postings are only within the geographic area and there are no more obligatory deployments).  That is a reasonable retention tool, and if you've already gotten enough TI to have a pension entitlement then it also seems fair to top-up your pay as further incentive to keep your experience in the CF.

If you want to get out entirely, that is fine too but the annuitant payments should wait until you reach the age of retirement ... just like pretty much most other pensions out there.



			
				ArmyVern said:
			
		

> No, you've only got me half right --- when I say go work in the "civ world" I mean privately ... and taking my pension with me. And making at least 100% of what I'm making now with those quals.


And what I propose is that if you go work in pirvat sector, you don't see a dime of pension until you reach CRA.  You could earn a second pension in a private job, but you would not simultaneoulsy collect the geverment pension until CRA.  Just like how the Public Service pension is defered until 55 or 60.


----------



## old fart (2 Jan 2010)

MCG:

I have run my own numbers and it is clear to me that the only loser in the long run is me if I had accepted the Class B carrot then serving my last 4 years to 35 years on Class B.....My loss of lifetime earnings is as follows:

If I die at 65, by that age I will have earned 255K more with a full pension for 35 years vice serving the 4 years on Class B.  

At 65, I will have earned 255K more
At 75, I will have earned 405K more.
At 85, the difference is still 272K more if I stay Reg Force.

If you component transfer for financial reasons make sure you run your numbers....the CF certainly has. 

I will PM you these numbers if you would like to see them.  

In closing what you advocate will never work here, and it would be costly for the CF to go that way......I think our bean counters know it.  At the end of the day, I believe the annuitant who hops the fence looses and looses big time in the long run.  I don't think reservists who serve that way realize the impact either, but if that is what they want and the system allows it...so be it.

All the best, old fart


----------



## Kat Stevens (2 Jan 2010)

So we put in our 20+ plus years, say goodbye to the CF and make our way in the civy world until CRA.  At CRA we get our CF pension, minus of course the clawback from CPP.  Wow, you really don't want us retirees to get ahead at all, do you?  As an aside, just how many of us get live to a ripe old pension drawing age after 20-30 years of CF life?  Every year I get to put more and more old friends in the ground who never make it to CRA.


----------



## old fart (2 Jan 2010)

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> As an aside, just how many of us get live to a ripe old pension drawing age after 20-30 years of CF life?  Every year I get to put more and more old friends in the ground who never make it to CRA.



Ain't that the truth....that being said....still no Class B for me, at least until I reach the big 70%....at age 52...well 51 years 10 months but who's counting.

Happy New Year...West Ham Man....


----------



## observor 69 (2 Jan 2010)

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> As an aside, just how many of us get live to a ripe old pension drawing age after 20-30 years of CF life?  Every year I get to put more and more old friends in the ground who never make it to CRA.



Me.   ;D

And FYI, CFSA + CPP+ OAS = more than my previous full CFSA. 
To maximize my CPP I didn't take it until I was 65.


----------



## Kat Stevens (2 Jan 2010)

I'm glad you made it.  I'm going to assume you received a CFSA pension cheque every month since release?  What would your financial situation look like if you had to wait for CPP and CFSA to kick in on the same day, as is being proposed?


----------



## Jed (2 Jan 2010)

There seems to be considerable effort being brought to bear on the 'Evil Double Dipper problem'. To me this effort is worse than mere wasted effort as it will swiftly effect morale and potential employment of needed qualified people working on key tasks for the CF. 

Yes it is a problem that needs resolving as you need to control the staffing of the Class B resource but you do not need to over control it. This should resolve itself in time; put the effort into sorting out the larger Reserve issues and having Reserves and Public Servants or Contractors not do work that should be done by a Regular soldier, primarily fulfilling some sp task.

When the greater public service begins to get a grip on some of their issues and , Joe or Jane Public Service employee starts functioning as a part of a productive team again, maybe it is time to rip ourselves apart and an expose every small flaw in our CF systems so we can save that last bean to be put towards some much needed kit like the Leopard II.


----------



## armyvern (2 Jan 2010)

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> So we put in our 20+ plus years, say goodbye to the CF and make our way in the civy world until CRA.  At CRA we get our CF pension, minus of course the clawback from CPP.  Wow, you really don't want us retirees to get ahead at all, do you?  As an aside, just how many of us get live to a ripe old pension drawing age after 20-30 years of CF life?  Every year I get to put more and more old friends in the ground who never make it to CRA.



Given that our pension works differently than the civil service exactly as our pay differs from their "benchmark rates" of pay as well due to that "military factor" ... I'm wondering exactly why anyone would want to join the CF (ResF OR RegF) given the proposed way?

I suppose though, just to make us even more-even with the civil servants, MCG could take away our "military factor" off the pay too ... so I suppose, that is about all that could make it worse.

Crap, I'll issue clothing over the counter as a civvie instead of joining to serve overseas at risk to life and limb for diddly squat that being offered up in "the new way". Good luck with recruiting ...


----------



## armyvern (2 Jan 2010)

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> As an aside, just how many of us get live to a ripe old pension drawing age after 20-30 years of CF life?  Every year I get to put more and more old friends in the ground who never make it to CRA.



I'd wager that it's a lot more than those who don't. I'd also wager it's a lot more than those double-dippers sitting in BClass jobs that collect PLD too.


----------



## dapaterson (2 Jan 2010)

According to the '07-08 CFSA annual report, there are over 85K people currently in receipt of an annuity, and over 22k surviving spouses.

Age breakdowns and other information are all in the report.

(Why the CFSA "annual" reports come out more than 18 months after the end of the fiscal year they pertain to is another issue... imagine if any real-world financial company didn't release its financial results for over 18 months - the directors would be in jail...)


----------



## gcclarke (2 Jan 2010)

I've said it before and I'll say it again. If you cripple the pension available to member of the Canadian Armed Forces, for whatever reason, you also cripple both the best recruiting and retention incentive available. Yes, I said bloody retention incentive. If your problem is that, in your humble opinion, too many people are hitting the point when they can draw a pension, and decide to leave the regular force to do so, while drawing a salary at the same time, either via Class B work or the Public Service, and you decide to "fix" the issue by reducing their capability to do so, you will certainly fix that problem. By ensuring that far fewer people decide to remain in the regular force until they reach enough time in to draw a pension. 

Allow me to state this as well as I can. If I go into work on Tuesday (still being on leave for Monday), and I read that a change had been made to our pension plan such that when I retired, I couldn't get anything from my pension other than enough money to "top up" my income until I hit CRA, I would very likely start my new job search that day. 

If the problem is that too many people are leaving the regular force for semi-permanent work as Class B reservists, the solution is to stop offering so many Class B positions. If the problem is that too many people are leaving the regular force for positions in the public service, the solution is to stop hiring so many public servants. If the problem is that people are leaving the regular force because of too many postings, the solution is to stop posting people so often.

Frankly, to suggest that the problem is that our pension is too good is asinine, and to effect any changes to "fix" this problem would have repercussions that would haunt us for decades down the road.


----------



## George Wallace (2 Jan 2010)

MCG said:
			
		

> Your concern is not relevant here and a red herring in the argument.  This proposal has absolutely nothing to do with saving the government or DND money.
> There are Class B positions that pay PLD so this is still a potential benefit to the double-dipper.  The expenses associated with a move are costs to the crown and not benefits to the individual, so (because my goal is not about saving the system money) I am not really concerned.



If it isn't a cost saving scheme, then why are you going on so much about cutting Class B positions, Double Dippers, pensions until CRA is reached, etc.?




			
				MCG said:
			
		

> However, if people want to consider costs to the system then it needs to be done at a higher level than just contrasting hypothetical individuals from Class B and Reg F service.  A Class B guy can sit fat & happy in a position that is of negligable significance to the CF while at the same time the system is forced to pay cost moves to regularly rotate Reg F pers through a nationally important possition in the same building.
> How much does it cost the CF when higher priorety positions go empty while lower priorety Class B possitions are filled in the very same geographic location?  This is not only dollar value costs but opportunity costs & the cost of reduced effectiveness where it is needed.


  

So what?   Apples and oranges.




			
				MCG said:
			
		

> How much does it cost to maintain and staff the various PRLs in existance to administer the various full time reservists (and we have threads full of people calling for more & larger PRLs to get career Class B pers out of PRes unit establishemts)?  Sure, converting all of these full time positions to Limited Obligation Reg F would require a little more manpower in the careers shop, but not as much manpower as is currently consumed in manageing PRLs.
> You've only half got it.  You could retire,  go Class B at 85% wages and get topped up to max 100% of what you would have earned as pay had you stayed in.  You could retier, go PS at whatever wage and get toppedup to max 100% of what you would have earned as pay had you stayed in.  OR, you could retier, get a job in the private sector and see absolutely nothing of your pension until reach CRA.



You said this wasn't a question of cost saving?  So this should be no problem.  If the positions cannot be filled by Reg Force, then fill them with Reserve pers.  It is cheaper, if you want to go back to the theme of "cost savings".

gcclarke has made a good point and one that would greatly affect Recruiting and retention in the CF.  Screw around with the CF Pension and you remove an incentive for people to join the CF and serve for any length.  And what happens if in a few more years, the Government decides to yet again raise the age limits or change the rules of CRA?


----------



## Brasidas (2 Jan 2010)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> If it isn't a cost saving scheme, then why are you going on so much about cutting Class B positions, Double Dippers, pensions until CRA is reached, etc.?...
> 
> gcclarke has made a good point and one that would greatly affect Recruiting and retention in the CF.  Screw around with the CF Pension and you remove an incentive for people to join the CF and serve for any length.  And what happens if in a few more years, the Government decides to yet again raise the age limits or change the rules of CRA?



I'm looking forward to reading his spin on this. MCG, I'm going to summarize what I think you're saying, in my own words, and 

 From what I've read, I think that you're saying that you don't think that it's "fair" for folks who've served twenty-five years to get a pension in their late forties, and doubly unfair for them to earn an income from the same employer that they earned their pension in.

Said unfairness causes people to leave their career in the forces earlier than age 55 (or even 65). Attritions some of the most experienced people away from where they're most needed.

The "fair" way to address this problem is to grandfather the folks that have already been promised the old pension scheme much in the way the 20/40 plan was, and to allow those already on class B while receiving a pension to be allowed to continue to do so.

Meanwhile, there isn't going to be any more of this unfair attrition.

How competitive do you think it is for the Forces to only offer a pension that kicks in at CRA? That makes the pension laughable compared to as it is now, and I doubt you're going to see a hell of a lot of folks agree with you.

The folks I can see agreeing with you are going to be folks on the hunt for high-profile ways to save money, which you say you aren't looking to do with this.


----------



## armyvern (2 Jan 2010)

Brasidas said:
			
		

> Meanwhile, there isn't going to be any more of this unfair attrition.



I'd wager that attrition would actually go up ... and we wouldn't be going to work for the public service or the ResF. I's still get out at 25 ... save my CF pension until retirement AND in the meantime earn 100% or more of my current wages working in the private sector all the while earning time towards that second pension. In order to get enough TI in the private sector to earn that second pension - I'd have to get out of the CF sooner rather than later.

Sad, I guess, but not for me.

Either way, the CF loses the expertize, skillsets and much required staff ... far too early - only difference is that now the private sector will benefit from that vice the feds as they do now.


MCG: Are you aware that there is NO CRA age for public servants in DND (IAW charter rights regarding "age discrimination")? I had an STS with 56 years of service working for me in Gagetown ... 73 years old.

What age are you going to implement this at? And are you going to change the PSAC tables to make retirement mandatory at whatever age you choose to go with?


----------



## Brasidas (2 Jan 2010)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> I'd wager that attrition would actually go up ... and we wouldn't be going to work for the public service or the ResF. I's still get out at 25 ... save my CF pension until retirement AND in the meantime earn 100% or more of my current wages working in the private sector all the while earning time towards that second pension. In order to get enough TI in the private sector to earn that second pension - I'd have to get out of the CF sooner rather than later.
> 
> Sad, I guess, but not for me.
> 
> Either way, the CF loses the expertize, skillsets and much required staff ... far too early - only difference is that now the private sector will benefit from that vice the feds as they do now.



Those are my own thoughts too. I'm trying to make sure I'm understanding what MCG's saying. In particular, trying to make sure I understand where he's coming from with his changes. I think his two end objectives are to stop "unfairness" and avoid what he sees as a source of attrition from the reg force. 

I don't see his solution as either fair or likely to keep more experienced guys in the reg force.


----------



## McG (3 Jan 2010)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> I suppose though, just to make us even more-even with the civil servants, MCG could take away our "military factor" off the pay too ... so I suppose, that is about all that could make it worse.


Vern, this is a backhanded & dishonest argument you are making.  I have never suggested that service personnel should not be fairly compensated for the work or obligations placed on us.  I am not the boogie man trying to steal all the benefits of service personnel - you know this.  If you need to resort to petty personal attacks/suggestion, then please just sit on the side and read.



			
				George Wallace said:
			
		

> Screw around with the CF Pension and you remove an incentive for people to join the CF and serve for any length.





			
				ArmyVern said:
			
		

> ... I'm wondering exactly why anyone would want to join the CF (ResF OR RegF) given the proposed way?
> 
> Crap, I'll issue clothing over the counter as a civvie instead of joining to serve overseas at risk to life and limb for diddly squat that being offered up in "the new way". Good luck with recruiting ...


I am going to call BS on this.  Vern, I do not know anybody who decided to join the CF because of its pension and certainly not for a comparison of the CF pension to the PS pension.  But lets assume for the sake of argument that the pension is the number one reason that people join the CF.  Even with my proposals, the CF pension still beats just about anything else out there.



			
				George Wallace said:
			
		

> If it isn't a cost saving scheme, then why are you going on so much about cutting Class B positions, Double Dippers, pensions until CRA is reached, etc.?


I have proposed cutting long-term Class B because full time service personnel should be regular force, and they should be subjected to the same training standards, the same promotion merit process, and the same career management as everyone else.  The double dippers need to go because long-term Class B needs to go.  The proposal to defer pension to CRA is because all the critics in this thread quite clearly voiced that great hoards would start jumping ship if they could collect a pension in the private sector but not in the government.



			
				George Wallace said:
			
		

> So what?   Apples and oranges.


So what?  Some participants in this thread wanted to discuss costs to the government, but they limited the analysis to filling a hypothetical job with a Class B guy or posting a regular force guy.  That is not realistic, and it does not reflect the full spectrum of the cost of rampant Class B bloat on the CF.  I presented real costs to the CF & DND in the section you quoted.  If you want to argue this on costs to the service, then you cannot just "apples and oranges" away what I presented.



			
				George Wallace said:
			
		

> You said this wasn't a question of cost saving?  So this should be no problem.  If the positions cannot be filled by Reg Force, then fill them with Reserve pers.  It is cheaper, if you want to go back to the theme of "cost savings".


I don't want to go back to the "theme of cost savings."  I have humoured a few people who wanted to go down that past by replying to their comments, but otherwise I have avoided that topic.  Cost savings are not what I want to achieve.  

I don't want to throw more "cheaper" reservists into filling positions.  I want the more valuable regular force personnel to do this.



			
				ArmyVern said:
			
		

> MCG: Are you aware that there is NO CRA age for public servants in DND (IAW charter rights regarding "age discrimination")? I had an STS with 56 years of service working for me in Gagetown ... 73 years old.


I am aware that there is no CRA in the PS.  The CRA applies to service personnel only.  However, the PS also defers pension payments based on age (as you have read in that other thread you quoted from and in the first post of this thread) and there is talk of raising this age.

I chose CRA because once that age is reached, you are no longer in a position where pension offers a right-now incentive to get out.  Maybe CRA is too late of a deferment.  Maybe  55 is better.  Regardless, the PS arguments for raising the pension deferment age are also arguments applicable to the CF.



			
				gcclarke said:
			
		

> If the problem is that too many people are leaving the regular force for semi-permanent work as Class B reservists, the solution is to stop offering so many Class B positions. If the problem is that too many people are leaving the regular force for positions in the public service, the solution is to stop hiring so many public servants. If the problem is that people are leaving the regular force because of too many postings, the solution is to stop posting people so often.


Part of the problem is that too many people are moving from the regular force to long-term Class B (or from Class A into Class B).  They don't really want to leave the CF, but they don't want the typical full-timer hassles - it is an easy transition.  You are right that simply converting all these positions to regular force would close that path and force people to make the hard decision of stay in or get out.  

However, recognizing that the military is not the PS, I think there should be an option for a lower tempo career path for people who have done their time to slide into (maybe even before they are pensionable like birdgunnnersrule).  Reducing postings is not necessarily satisfactory, because many people have reached a point in their lives where one more posting is too many.  Limited obligation TOS would offer this, and it would provide an option for those who would otherwise release in the absence of the Class B option.

But, we cannot pay pension while the service person remains fully employed in the regular force.  The pension top-up is something we should be able to sell the TB.


----------



## George Wallace (3 Jan 2010)

MCG said:
			
		

> I don't want to throw more "cheaper" reservists into filling positions.  I want the more valuable regular force personnel to do this.



And I call BS to this as well.  I am in a Unit that has two Regular Force positions (one officer and one WO) that have not been filled in the last five years.  They are filled by Class B Resevists, who have been former Reg Force, and have several Tours under their belts.  We also have one Reg Force posn that has been filled constantly by a Cpl RMS Clerk, promoted acting lacking MCpl and made CC in an OR for two and possibly three Reserve Units (if PsyOPs comes into being), one being CIMIC and has its members scattered across the country.  That Reg Force clerk has no knowledge of the Reserve System and if it wasn't for Class B Reservists, she would be lost.  We have lost three clerks, put into that posn in the last year, due to stress and other health problems.  So don't pull this "more valuable regular force personnel" crap.

Our Unit is also being trained to the same standards as those in the Reg Force.  We send people on Reg Force Crses, and we also train Reg Force on our crses.  Same Standard, same experience.  Approx 50% of the pers on Tour in my Trade are Reservists, so once again don't pull this " more valuable regular force personnel" crap on me.  

Your whole arguement, as I said before, if flawed and ill thought out.  

I do, however, like your suggestion of getting rid of Annuitant Lve, as that would make these guys more deployable, and I know of several who have deployed in Trade on TAVs or as Civilian Contractors.  So, once again, these people are just as valuable as your "regular force personnel", in fact in some cases, more valuable.  Your suggestions would mean that they would leave altogether, and I just witnessed a WO do just that.  He loved the unit, but couldn't put up with the BS coming out of Area.  Replacing the BS from Area, with the BS from the Regs, as you suggest, would not solve any problems, but create more.


----------



## armyvern (3 Jan 2010)

MCG said:
			
		

> Vern, this is a backhanded & dishonest argument you are making.  I have never suggested that service personnel should not be fairly compensated for the work or obligations placed on us.  I am not the boogie man trying to steal all the benefits of service personnel - you know this.  If you need to resort to petty personal attacks/suggestion, then please just sit on the side and read.
> I am going to call BS on this.  Vern, I do not know anybody who decided to join the CF because of its pension and certainly not for a comparison of the CF pension to the PS pension.  But lets assume for the sake of argument that the pension is the number one reason that people join the CF.  Even with my proposals, the CF pension still beats just about anything else out there.
> I have proposed cutting long-term Class B because full time service personnel should be regular force, and they should be subjected to the same training standards, the same promotion merit process, and the same career management as everyone else.  The double dippers need to go because long-term Class B needs to go.  The proposal to defer pension to CRA is because all the critics in this thread quite clearly voiced that great hoards would start jumping ship if they could collect a pension in the private sector but not in the government.
> So what?  Some participants in this thread wanted to discuss costs to the government, but they limited the analysis to filling a hypothetical job with a Class B guy or posting a regular force guy.  That is not realistic, and it does not reflect the full spectrum of the cost of rampant Class B bloat on the CF.  I presented real costs to the CF & DND in the section you quoted.  If you want to argue this on costs to the service, then you cannot just "apples and oranges" away what I presented.
> ...



You can call BS if you like - that's up to you. If you think for one second that our pension plan is not an incentive that keeps people in at least until they hit that mark, good for you.

I'm not about to sit here with blinders on thinking that if you take that away that the status quo will continue. I just outlined what I'd do ... I'm sure I'm not the only one out there.

And, I brought up our pension plan because it is different precisely because WE are different from the civil service - exactly why WE are paid differently (over & above 'their' benchmarks for doing same 'storesman jobs' etc) by getting the military factor. Our pension plan is one of THE benefits, no where have I stated that it was THE benefit, or the only reason people joined.

You are proposing to treat our pension of that of the "regular civil service" ... why? If you can justify that when WE are different, then it's a logical next step for the bean counters to consider our "pay" in line with theirs too. 

There's a reason we are not treated the same - that is because we are not the same ... we are very very different from them and you've yet to consider that factoid in your proposal to treat us as one in the same.


----------



## gcclarke (3 Jan 2010)

MCG said:
			
		

> I am going to call BS on this.  Vern, I do not know anybody who decided to join the CF because of its pension and certainly not for a comparison of the CF pension to the PS pension.  But lets assume for the sake of argument that the pension is the number one reason that people join the CF.  Even with my proposals, the CF pension still beats just about anything else out there.



The generous pension plan that is currently offered is not "the reason" I joined up, but it is certainly in the top 2. And I frankly really doubt that I am alone in this. 

I understand what you're getting at with this series of posts. You're concerned, specifically, with the retention of regular force personnel once they have reached enough time in to allow them to draw a pension, in order to address part of our general manning issues. But you're going about it entirely the wrong way. 

Manning, as I see it, consists of three main elements. Recruiting new people, training them up, and convincing those we already have trained up to stick around. Recruitment, Training, and Retention. Two of those would be affected by your proposed changes. And not in an overall net positive manner. 

You are suggesting that we disincentivise (I don't know why Firefox is telling me that's a spelling mistake, it's a perfectly Cromulent word) people from pulling the plug from the reg force and going to work elsewhere by making changes to the pension system that would allow people to draw only enough of a pension to "top up" to your original salary (In the case of someone joining the reserves or public service) or none at all (in the case of someone joining working in the private sector). Yes, in this case, some of those people with 20+ or 25+ years in would be more likely to stick around. 

But you still haven't addressed the very very fundamental question of how your plan would affect people who currently have between 0 - 19 or 24 years TI, or those who are still trying to decide whether or not a career in the CF is the right thing for them. Your plan to change the pension to "punish" what you deem to be bad behavior is poorly thought out. In almost all cases, people do not respond as well to negative reinforcement as they do to positive reinforcement. *For people considering getting out, the proper way to get them to stick around is not to try and change things so that it would be worse for them if they left, but instead to change things so that it is better for them if they stay. More leave, more pay, re-signing bonuses, or something new. *

Personally, I'm not sure if I'm planning on sticking around more than 25 years, and I've plenty of time left to think about it. But if your plan is implemented, even making the (hopefully) unlikely assumption that I never get promoted again in my life, that change would cost me over half a million dollars if I were to get out at 25 years in and were to have to wait until I hit CRA to draw a pension. 

You don't seem to believe me that people would "join up for the pension", but the fact that someone can join up at the age of 18, and "retire" with a full 50% pension should they so choose at the age of 43 is one hell of a recruiting pitch. 

*This manning issue is about recruitment and retention. You cannot sustainably boost either of those by crippling one of our key benefits.* At best, your plan would temporarily convince some people to stick around for a few years past when they could retire. But when they do (and they will), there people who should have been there to replace them won't be, because it was no longer as worth while to bother sticking around till the 25+ year mark. 

Until you can either convincingly demonstrate how your plan wouldn't negatively affect recruitment or retention up to the 25 year mark, or amend it accordingly so that it doesn't, I shall continue to have to dismiss it as a short-sighted strategic failure.


----------



## George Wallace (3 Jan 2010)

Retention of members in the Regular Force has absolutely nothing to do with the Reserves.  It has absolutely nothing to do with Double Dippers, or any other former Regular Force personnel who have joined the Reserves.

Retention of Regular Force members is solely a Reg Force problem; no one else's.

I have often wondered why so many guys got out after a Tour.  Was the Tour so bad that they had had enough of the CF?  No, not at all.  These guys were planning on getting out anyway.  They had extended their Release until after they did a Tour, so that they could become more financially stable.  Whether they got out to go back to school or work in the Oil Patch, really doesn't matter; they wanted a bit of a 'nest egg' before they got out.  Very few joined the Reserves.

I am of the opposite view of MCG.  I think that the CF should be encouraging Reg Force members, who are Releasing, to join the Reserves.  Look at the money, training and experience that has been sunk into them.  Loosing them completely from the CF is a total waste.  If MCG thinks the Reg Force is hurting, he should look at the Reserves.  Approx 50% of every Reservist trained and sent on Tour, in some Trades, CT within a year of becoming qualified.  That means the Reserves can barely sustain their skills.  They need Ex-Reg Force pers to maintain some of their knowledge base and train the next generations.   The current 'regime' is bleeding the Reserves dry and destroying them.

So a Reg Force member has reached the point where (s)he becomes an Annuitant.  So what?  Bring in the young bucks.  Train them.  Let the Annuitant 'Double Dip' and pass on their knowledge and skills to Reservists, many of whom will CT to the Reg Force.   The Recruiters are doing their job at bringing in new Reg Force pers.  The Training System is letting them down and not completing their end of the bargain--not 'Double Dippers' in the Reserves.

If you want to keep all the "Old Soldiers" (These are they guys who are collecting the pensions) then get rid of Age Discrimination.  Why must an officer be too old to become a Major at 30?  Why is a Cpl or MCpl passed over for promotion and courses when they are in their mid-thirties?  If you haven't seen this, then you are blind.


----------



## armyvern (3 Jan 2010)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Retention of members in the Regular Force has absolutely nothing to do with the Reserves.  It has absolutely nothing to do with Double Dippers, or any other former Regular Force personnel who have joined the Reserves.
> 
> Retention of Regular Force members is solely a Reg Force problem; no one else's.
> ...



But that retention issue does have a domino effect which ends up affecting the ResF ... when those Reg F posns sit unfilled because we don't have the RegF members of appropriate rank, qual, experience etc to fill them with because we're 'understrength' --- you start seeing "B Class Job Opportunities" posted and when we hire a B Class to fill that posn; the ResF suffers from the loss of experience etc or we're hiring a guy who retired from the RegF into that posn as a B Class ... so that it's filled.

We could NOT have operated or succeeded at my last Unit without those BClass posns filling empty RegF billets due to our trade being well understrength and "red" is the RegF - but we still had a war, ops & trg to support.

It may very well be our "own" problem, but we all affect each other. One area can not be foresaken for the sake of the other.


----------



## George Wallace (3 Jan 2010)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> But that retention issue does have a domino effect which ends up affecting the ResF ... when those Reg F posns sit unfilled because we don't have the RegF members of appropriate rank, qual, experience etc to fill them with because we're 'understrength' --- you start seeing "B Class Job Opportunities" posted and when we hire a B Class to fill that posn; the ResF suffers from the loss of experience etc or we're hiring a guy who retired from the RegF into that posn as a B Class ... so that it's filled.
> 
> We could NOT have operated or succeeded at my last Unit without those BClass posns filling empty RegF billets due to our trade being well understrength and "red" is the RegF - but we still had a war, ops & trg to support.
> 
> It may very well be our "own" problem, but we all affect each other. One area can not be foresaken for the sake of the other.



True, but as I said, it is not a Reserve Problem.  It is a Reg Force problem, that they need to sort out.  They need to sort out the TRAINING SYSTEM so that there are no backlogs.  Putting new members through St Jean and Borden, and then putting them into a holding pattern for up to two years is the problem, not the Reservist backfilling a Reg Force posn.  Just be thankful that there are still some trained Reservists to fill those slots.  We all know (don't we) that this is only a temporary fix, until such time that a qualified Reg Force member can fill that slot.

On another track, back in the '70's there was a plan to do away with RSS posns at Reserve Units, and have the Reserves train themselves, having Reservists attend Reg Force crses and then return to their units to train their unit.  Train the Trainers.   That never happened as planned.  We have seen many RSS posns disappear lately, more due to the fact that Branches could not afford the pers to post into those posns.  Is it the plan to get rid of those Class B posns as well....................Sorry........LFC just did that in many places.

Fix the Training System.  It is broken.  It affects the whole CF, Reg and Reserve alike.


----------



## armyvern (3 Jan 2010)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> True, but as I said, it is not a Reserve Problem.  It is a Reg Force problem, that they need to sort out.  They need to sort out the TRAINING SYSTEM so that there is no backlogs.  Putting new members through St Jean and Borden, and then putting them into a holding pattern for up to two years is the problem, no the Reservist backfilling a Reg Force posn.  Just be thankful that there are still some trained Reservists to fill those slots.  We all know (don't we) that this is only a temporary fix, until such time that a qualified Reg Force member can fill that slot.
> 
> On another track, back in the '70's there was a plan to do away with RSS posns at Reserve Units, and have the Reserves train themselves, having Reservists attend Reg Force crses and then return to their units to train their unit.  Train the Trainers.   That never happened as planned.  We have seen many RSS posns disappear lately, more due to the fact that Branches could not afford the pers to post into those posns.  Is it the plan to get rid of those Class B posns as well....................Sorry........LFC just did that in many places.
> 
> Fix the Training System.  It is broken.  It affects the whole CF, Reg and Reserve alike.



Here's the issue:

We grew recruting because we are at war and had no choice. We didn't grow a single support staff to provide support though (and by this I mean instructors etc). The CF hasn't increased it's number of posns ...

WHERE do you want us to grow these people from?

The "Home of the Army" doesn't receive field allowance, yet they are constantly in the field. Very few pers "want" postings here. LOTS refuse postings here.

The suggestion to "not move" people as often that was earlier proposed by someone is all well & good ... unless you happen to be one of the ones sitting in Gagetown getting shafted. They get to sit "there" longer because 'others" don't want to go there and thus get out instead ... and the cycle continues. The guys in gagetown then pull pin because they're sick and tired of being there in NB getting shafted on their provincial taxes and by their employer ... thus "others" get told "too bad, you must go to Gagetown". Well says they, "no I'm not ... My mommas had the benefit of this big city for 7 or 8 years now and there's no way in hell she or my family is moving there. She's got a good job, My mortgage is almost paid off, I pay lower provincial taxes (or none!!), and my kids are settled." We cater to those guys, and those who are in the shitty jobs are expected to sit there even longer.

My solution? No more of this "lifetime" posting crap. Everybody gets to take their turn - just like it should be. No one gets "used" to sitting on one base for years, that way, everyone is treated the same. Base to base to base. We used to be used to that in the CF, now we've got pers who whine if they have to go on ex for a month. This used to be normal, no one joined the CF or expected to be "left" anywhere for as long as "their own self" wished. Now they do. The decade of darkness and it's budget cuts put the nail in that casket quite nicely and the regF (and the ResF) are still suffering the reprecussions of such - evidenced by this thread.

BUT, now that the economy has sharply downturned ... the release rate has gone down drasticlly too. I've said it before on this site, want to solve the retention issue? Start an economic depression - it works every time. I know many pers who VRd during the boom times who all waitied until after they got that tax-free tour money to toss in the paperwork ... who are all trying to get back in now.


----------



## George Wallace (3 Jan 2010)

Let's touch on another subject here:  Promotions.

Stopping the long service member, who has now earned a pension, from Releasing and perhaps joining the Reserves, is tying up a whole string of promotions.  The higher that person's rank, the more promotions they are holding up.  Ask the Career Manager about his model. 

Stopping promotions, stops younger blood from gaining the necessary skills and experience to step into the multitude of posns that will open up when the oldsters Retire en mass.  We have already experienced some of this in some units and Trades.


----------



## Michael OLeary (3 Jan 2010)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Fix the Training System.  It is broken.  It affects the whole CF, Reg and Reserve alike.



The training system (at all its levels) is stuck trying to manage limited resources to run the courses that have been designed by the various Corps, Branches, etc.  Maybe the first question we need to ask is why a Reservist trained on a shorter BMQ and (often) trades courses (and beyond in many cases) is acceptable for CT, but we still demand Reg F soldiers to have longer versions of the same courses.

We've created "Cadillac" versions of many courses, then stripped them to their essential training requirements to train Reserve soldiers - who are then readily acceptable for CT without any retraining.  Maybe there should be one standard in much of our training, but that doesn't mean that the current Reg F solution is the one it should be.

The issue at hand is far too complex and interwoven to say that any single simple "solution" exists.  There are issues in the way we train people, we need to re-examine why we depend on the Reserves and CT to fill shortfalls the training system no longer has the resources to meet, we need to examine sources of attrition in the Reg F to slow the demand that drains the Reserves and places undue demands on the training system ...


----------



## aesop081 (3 Jan 2010)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> The suggestion to "not move" people as often that was earlier proposed by someone is all well & good ...



I have to shake my head at the higher ups who think that posting people less often will accomplish anything. It might be a newsflash to them but its been tried before. The only result was a good chunk of the CF pissed off about being stuck somewhere and the other portion getting out if you even mentioned that they should move.

Pension ?

Dont touch my pension. When i joined the deal was i serve 20 and i get a pension every month for the rest of my life. If i get to 20, i get my money, that was the deal. What i do after that ( reserves, civvie, street bum) has nothing to do with what was promised me.

Yes i did join with that benefit firmly planted in my mind.........


----------



## OldSolduer (3 Jan 2010)

I concur with Cdn Aviator. I spent 24.5 years in the Reg Force and I earned the pension I receive. I do hold a Cl B position, but that position I competed for and won is a CL B Reserve position, not a Reg Force one.


----------



## Kat Stevens (3 Jan 2010)

The pension wasn't the first thing in my mind at the RC when I joined, but it was up there.  After my CD and a trip to a pretty unsavoury part of the world, and the closure of CFE, I was within a gnats pubie of quitting.  The pension kept me here, as I had more done than left to do.  Again in 96, when CFB Chilliwack was closed, I was ready to quit rather than go to Edmonton.  The pension kept me here,as I had only 4 years to get my 20.  I ended up doing 23, and would have done more if my back would have let me, for the pension.


----------



## HItorMiss (3 Jan 2010)

I know they have not nor do I think they would but if the CF tried to change my pension I will see them in court.

I signed a contract with them as my employer stating my service with a pension after 20yrs *"IF"* they ever tried to force a change on that I would find them to be in breach of contract and would seek legal recourse.


Bold added as a hypothetical as the CF has not nor have I heard any rumor that they would force a change to those on the "old" plan.


----------



## Jed (3 Jan 2010)

I too, did not join because of the pension. I did sign my IE though because of that. It was part of the deal. To me the system broke faith when they changed the CRA. Simply put, I do not trust the system one iota to keep its word. This is like changing the rules half way through the game. Hence my original comment wrt shivers going up my back when I see these desperate attempts at screwing with pension and well tried employment systems that function. It seems to me there are a lot of folks very bluntly discussing these issues and pointing out the effects of Bean Counter tinkering.

I hope those beans are worth the heart ache caused to anyone affected.


----------



## McG (4 Jan 2010)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> I do, however, like your suggestion of getting rid of Annuitant Lve, as that would make these guys more deployable, and I know of several who have deployed in Trade on TAVs ...


The problem is that we can't bring about this change without changing the pension. The 35 day brake is a loop-hole to get around the laws and regulations that already prohibit collecting that CF pension and being fully employed.  I am proposing a system that is upfront and not dependent on loop-holes.



			
				George Wallace said:
			
		

> Retention of members in the Regular Force has absolutely nothing to do with the Reserves.


It absolutely does when the reserves are poaching from the regular force to fill their Class B jobs.  (At the same time, Class B employers are also in competition with each other.  At the aggregate level, the Class B bloat is hoovering up pers from both the reserves and the regs, and it is crippling the sustainability of both components.  There is no check to ensure minimally significant positions are not tying people away from real important work.)



			
				George Wallace said:
			
		

> I am in a Unit that has two Regular Force positions (one officer and one WO) that have not been filled in the last five years.  They are filled by Class B Resevists, who have been former Reg Force, and have several Tours under their belts.  We also have one Reg Force posn that has been filled constantly by a Cpl RMS Clerk, promoted acting lacking MCpl and made CC ...


I have addressed this problem in my proposal.  How many Class B pers of the right quals are working in a bottom priority job somewhere in the bowels of NDHQ but untouchable to the CMs?  If the Class B option were replaced with Reg F limited obligation TOS, the CM would have the option of moving those guys in the same geographic location to the more important jobs (instead of units creating more Class B positions  that add to the problem).



			
				George Wallace said:
			
		

> ... don't pull this " more valuable regular force personnel" crap on me.


The simple fact that the Reg F personnel can be posted makes them more valuable.  They can be put where they fit better or are needed more.  At the aggregate level, even the limited obligation TOS provides more value to the CF than untouchable Class Bs.



			
				George Wallace said:
			
		

> I think that the CF should be encouraging Reg Force members, who are Releasing, to join the Reserves.  Look at the money, training and experience that has been sunk into them.  Loosing them completely from the CF is a total waste.  If MCG thinks the Reg Force is hurting, he should look at the Reserves.  Approx 50% of every Reservist trained and sent on Tour, in some Trades, CT within a year of becoming qualified.  That means the Reserves can barely sustain their skills.  They need Ex-Reg Force pers to maintain some of their knowledge base and train the next generations.   The current 'regime' is bleeding the Reserves dry and destroying them.


Instead, why not offer limited obligation TOS if we are trying to keep full time service pers to train the reserves?  If someone wants to go to geographic location X, then offer to post member there and provide limited obligation TOS.  Sure, some will end up in locations where there is only one unit and so the limited obligation TOS would work out the same as a Class B (from the member's perspective).  However, most pers accepting this offer would end-up in larger towns or cities with a handful of units, maybe a reserve formation HQ, a CFRC and possibly even a few fully regular force establishments.  The ability of the CM to move the limited obligation Reg F individual to higher priority employment would give greater flexibility to the system and make the individual more valuable to the system.



			
				ArmyVern said:
			
		

> ... I brought up our pension plan because it is different precisely because WE are different from the civil service - exactly why WE are paid differently (over & above 'their' benchmarks for doing same 'storesman jobs' etc) by getting the military factor. ...
> 
> You are proposing to treat our pension of that of the "regular civil service" ... why? If you can justify that when WE are different, then it's a logical next step for the bean counters to consider our "pay" in line with theirs too.
> 
> There's a reason we are not treated the same - that is because we are not the same ... we are very very different from them and you've yet to consider that factoid in your proposal to treat us as one in the same.


Vern, I have considered and accounted for that "factoid."  A Public Servant cannot choose to move to a lower paying position and receive pay top-up once they have achieved enough pensionable time.  The pay top-up option is how I propose we recognize the military difference.  Of course, I've already alluded to this:




			
				MCG said:
			
		

> However, recognizing that the military is not the PS, I think there should be an option for a lower tempo career path for people who have done their time to slide into



Your suggestion, that this is the first step toward removing pay compensation for extra work & obligation done in the military, is silly fear-mongering.  



			
				BulletMagnet said:
			
		

> I signed a contract with [the CF] as my employer stating my service with a pension after 20yrs *"IF"* they ever tried to force a change on that I would find them to be in breach of contract and would seek legal recourse.


You did not sign a contract.  You signed terms of service.  There is a recognized difference.



			
				gcclarke said:
			
		

> Frankly, to suggest that the problem is that our pension is too good is asinine, ...


It is not that the pension is too good.  It is that the pension gives-up its retention incentive too early.



			
				gcclarke said:
			
		

> But you still haven't addressed the very very fundamental question of ... those who are still trying to decide whether or not a career in the CF is the right thing for them.


They would join under the plan I have proposed.  As I stated earlier, I do not believe the mechanics of the pension are a major factor in the decision to join.  The fact that a pension exists is a factor, but for most new recruits it is a _check in the box_ type of factor and that check mark will still be achieved with the proposal I am making here.



			
				gcclarke said:
			
		

> But you still haven't addressed the very very fundamental question of how your plan would affect people who currently have between 0 - 19 or 24 years TI ...


You are right.  I have not addressed this yet.  There are a lot of ways to do this.  Grandfathering is the pretty obvious option, and would keep most people happy.  Maybe signing an IE 25 would be conditional on accepting the new pension plan, so only those already on IE 25 or IPS would be grandfathered while those just completing the first couple of years would have a choice to make.

There are options to make the pension more attractive at the same time as it is being deferred.  If the government is saving money because of the pension being deferred, then maybe that money go back into paying out a larger benefit when the time finally does come.  I've also already indicated that CRA maybe is not the right age to defer unitil.  Maybe 25 years service gets you a pension at CRA - 5, and 30 years service will lower the deferment to CRA - 10.  Depending on what the increased annual benefit might be, you could even see people volunteer to switch to the new pension at the end of their IE 25 (but I would not make new TOS conditional on accepting the new pension at this stage in a person's career).



			
				old fart said:
			
		

> I have run my own numbers and it is clear to me that the only loser in the long run is me if I had accepted the Class B carrot then serving my last 4 years to 35 years on Class B.....


As I stated earlier, you might want to consider your comparison in net present value as opposed to just absolute dollars.  It recognizes that a dollar this year is of more value to you than a dollar next year.  Regardless, for a lot of people, more money now is still a big incentive to double-dip even if it less total money down the road.


----------



## George Wallace (4 Jan 2010)

MCG said:
			
		

> It absolutely does when the reserves are poaching from the regular force to fill their Class B jobs.



But you see no problem with the Reg Force "poaching" from the Reserves.



			
				MCG said:
			
		

> (At the same time, Class B employers are also in competition with each other.  At the aggregate level, the Class B bloat is hoovering up pers from both the reserves and the regs, and it is crippling the sustainability of both components.  There is no check to ensure minimally significant positions are not tying people away from real important work.)



That is your opinion only.




			
				MCG said:
			
		

> .......If the Class B option were replaced with Reg F limited obligation TOS, the CM would have the option of moving those guys in the same geographic location to the more important jobs (instead of units creating more Class B positions  that add to the problem).
> The simple fact that the Reg F personnel can be posted makes them more valuable.  They can be put where they fit better or are needed more.  At the aggregate level, even the limited obligation TOS provides more value to the CF than untouchable Class Bs.
> Instead, why not offer limited obligation TOS if we are trying to keep full time service pers to train the reserves?  If someone wants to go to geographic location X, then offer to post member there and provide limited obligation TOS.  Sure, some will end up in locations where there is only one unit and so the limited obligation TOS would work out the same as a Class B (from the member's perspective).  However, most pers accepting this offer would end-up in larger towns or cities with a handful of units, maybe a reserve formation HQ, a CFRC and possibly even a few fully regular force establishments.  The ability of the CM to move the limited obligation Reg F individual to higher priority employment would give greater flexibility to the system and make the individual more valuable to the system.




I don't see this as an improvement.  It further compounds problems that the CF already have.  I can not see anyone wanting to remain in the CF, pay towards their pension, still have to be Posted or Deployed if the CM so dictates and all of that with a 15% Pay cut.

The other thing about this plan of yours is that these people would still be tying up posns in their Trade and the  CM would not be able to promote any of your "more valuable members".  This has a cause and effect on maintaining skill and experience in all Trades.  Promoting above the quotas set in the CM model for a Trade compounds the problem.  We have seen FRP and the disaster it caused in many Trades.  Now you want to keep the "long Service" members on the Rolls even longer, holding up promotions from top to bottom.  If you think that your plan should not be affected by this, then you are discriminating against the "long Service member" and encouraging them to leave.  People will work for rewards, not disenfranchisement.

Perhaps you would like to address this:



			
				George Wallace said:
			
		

> Let's touch on another subject here:  Promotions.
> 
> Stopping the long service member, who has now earned a pension, from Releasing and perhaps joining the Reserves, is tying up a whole string of promotions.  The higher that person's rank, the more promotions they are holding up.  Ask the Career Manager about his model.
> 
> Stopping promotions, stops younger blood from gaining the necessary skills and experience to step into the multitude of posns that will open up when the oldsters Retire en mass.  We have already experienced some of this in some units and Trades.




As for your tinkering with the Pension Plan, I would say that you are walking on thin ice.  People may not all join for the Pension, but once they have served for a period of time, it does become an incentive as Vern has stated: "where else can one retire with a Pension at 43?"  

You must also remember that your 'Double Dippers' are no longer paying into a Pension Plan.  They are not contributing to increasing their pension, nor contributing to a second Pension Plan.  As has been pointed out, if money was their goal, they are loosing out on the deal as is.


----------



## HItorMiss (4 Jan 2010)

MCG said:
			
		

> You did not sign a contract.  You signed terms of service.  There is a recognized difference.




I concede the point it is called a term of service not a contract. However There are penalties should I choose to break my term of service because it is a legal agreement between 2 parties. Should the CF choose to break their end of said agreement then they should be held accountable with penalties as well again forcing me to think about about legal action.

In the end changing the pension plan of those still under the 20 year pension plan would be fool hardy and IMO illegal. Wether you call it a term of service or a contract what it is, is a binding agreement between two parties full stop.


----------



## captloadie (4 Jan 2010)

This is the only point of this whole argument that I will agree with MCG on, we do not have a legal contract with our employer. If you look at the Grievance Board website at some of the case examples regarding terms of service, they consistently say that there is no binding legal contract between a member and the DND. We serve at the whim of the Crown, and that includes all things pay and pension included.

Like many others have stated, I didn't join because of the pension, but there are days when that's what is keeping me here.


----------



## George Wallace (4 Jan 2010)

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> The issue at hand is far too complex and interwoven to say that any single simple "solution" exists.  There are issues in the way we train people, we need to re-examine why we depend on the Reserves and CT to fill shortfalls the training system no longer has the resources to meet, we need to examine sources of attrition in the Reg F to slow the demand that drains the Reserves and places undue demands on the training system ...



As Michael O'Leary points out, we need to examine the sources of attrition in the Reg Force.  We have seen proposals made here that have been to 'attack' a certain demographic, and totally ignore the root cause of the problem.  The problem is not with people who have proven their dedication and commitment to the CF, but with the younger generation who do not see the commitment to continue in the CF.  MCG, that is your demographic.  Why do you want to 'punish' those who have shown a long lasting dedication and commitment to the CF, and continue to do so as Reservists; yet ignore the fact that it is your demographic who is abandoning the CF?  Why take away incentives, when you should be looking at what incentives may be needed to retain your demographic?  

The CF has been a victim of the 'Peace Dividend' since the 1950's and seen almost regular 50% cuts to the various Elements.  The current strength of the CF wouldn't even match that of one of the three Services prior to 'Unification'.  The Recruiting freeze, Pay freeze, and FRP twenty years ago also contributed greatly to the state we are in.  Penalizing members now is not the answer.   What incentives do the younger generation want?  Promotions is one.  Keeping (for an extreme example) 200 CWOs, 400 MWOs, 800 WOs, 1600 Sgts in the Infantry Branch would not be conducive to the retention of pers in the Regular Force Infantry.  Spread that across all Trades and we have a serious problem in the Regular Force--Too many Chiefs and not enough Indians--No place for advancement--No chance of perpetuating skill sets, knowledge and experience.


----------



## McG (4 Jan 2010)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> That is your opinion only.


Really George?  It is only my opinion that there is no mechanism to ensure Class B positions are filled on a priority basis?!  It is not opinion. There is no such mechanism.  It is also not "just my opinion" that Class B positions are in competition with each other.  I've seen the pool run dry of available Class B pers and important positons could not be filled.  I am sorry, but as soon as an argument becomes inconvenient, you cannot just magic-carpet it away with "that's your opinion" or "apples and oranges."

That is all I have time to address at the moment, but while you wait for my return you might want to go back and re-read what I've posted through this thread.  Once again, I have already addressed a lot of what you are raising.  I'd rather not make you look like a lazy debater by answering your arguments with quotes made prior to you posting the arguments (again).


----------



## gcclarke (4 Jan 2010)

MCG, before I go on addressing any of the points in your last post, allow me to pose one question. Step back and think for a minute before answering please. When a member of the regular force leaves the regular force shortly after they have enough time in to be able to draw a pension, which scenario do you honestly think is more likely: That member suddenly decided to leave a job that they would have otherwise liked to stay in because they now had an opportunity to make more money. Or; That member would probably have left the regular force years earlier, but instead decided to stay in long enough to reach enough time in to get the pension.

It is my contention that the latter is far more frequent than the former. Should your change be enacted, people would be much less inclined to bother staying in past the point when the excitement of a new job wears off. I would imagine that the majority of people who have significant time in could find higher paying work in the private sector anyways. It isn't merely about the money. 



			
				MCG said:
			
		

> George Wallace]Retention of members in the Regular Force has absolutely nothing to do with the Reserves. [/quote]
> It absolutely does when the reserves are poaching from the regular force to fill their Class B jobs.  (At the same time said:
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## armyvern (4 Jan 2010)

MCG said:
			
		

> Vern, I have considered and accounted for that "factoid."  A Public Servant cannot choose to move to a lower paying position and receive pay top-up once they have achieved enough pensionable time.  The pay top-up option is how I propose we recognize the military difference.  Of course, I've already alluded to this:
> 
> Your suggestion, that this is the first step toward removing pay compensation for extra work & obligation done in the military, is silly fear-mongering.
> 
> *It is not that the pension is too good.  It is that the pension gives-up its retention incentive too early.*



In your mind; not in mine.

Here I am at (say) 45 years of age. Sick of moving. I get out of the RegF. No more pension until I reach 55 (or 60 or whatever number you eventually settle on). 

Ergo, I need a job. Do I go B Class for the next 15 or 20 years until my pension kicks in earning 100% of my pay (with your proposed top-up) until such time ...

OR

Do I get a civvie job at 100% pay (_minimum_ involving my hazmat/DG quals) at age 45 instead ... working there for 20 years so that I now earn a second pension?

Hmmm, either way ... I'm done at 65 max. Your way, I'd have worked for the CF RegF for 25 years, then B Class for 20 (until CRA 60) then will collect one pension. My way, I'd have worked for the CF for 25 years deferring my pension until 60, then at a civ job for 20 years earning another pension, then retire from said civ job at 65 ... collecting TWO pensions for the rest of my life. Sure, I worked an extra 5 years but I've actually MADE a whole lot more money and am financially better-off in the long run.

Why then, given your proposal would anyone stay in the CF after they hit their "pensionability" year of service? They've got to still get a job when they get out ... and if they want to earn a pension (ie work towards something in that second job) they're best to get out sooner, rather than later.

The choice "for me" is pretty obvious to me.


----------



## CountDC (4 Jan 2010)

MCG said:
			
		

> I am going to call BS on this.  Vern, I do not know anybody who decided to join the CF because of its pension and certainly not for a comparison of the CF pension to the PS pension.



PICK ME PICK ME!!  

plain and simple - the only reason I am reg f now is because I wanted the pension. I know there were others that did CT's for the same reason.  What other reason could there be to give up full time Sgt posn with the reserves to become a Cpl in the reg f?? Postings? Redo courses that you know more about than the instructors?  I am also glad they changed the pension rules - I can retire earlier than under the old.  maybe in a few years I will double-dip.


----------



## armyvern (4 Jan 2010)

MCG said:
			
		

> Maybe 25 years service gets you a pension at CRA - 5, and 30 years service will lower the deferment to CRA - 10.



CRA minus 10 = 50.

Join at 20 years of age + 30 years of service = 50 years of age = immediately pensionable. Just as they are right now. That's some kind of incentive.

If they joined at 18, they're hitting the 30 year mark at 48, so have to wait two years to collect. That's generous of you. No thanks. Likewise, you punish those that join at an earlier age (isn't that who we're trying to attract??) by telling them that their 30 years of service are not on equal footing with a 20 year old (or 22 year olds yos). Because they joined younger (at 18), they can't have an immediate pension like their counterpart 20 year old from their BMQ who joined the CF on the same day as them and who retires 30 years later on the same day as them.

So, you have the long service folks who've demonstrated their loyalty being punished (but not as much, but punished none the less) for being sick and tired of moving and other assorted BS. 

Soory, but I, for one, wouldn't hang around that long.


----------



## George Wallace (4 Jan 2010)

I have to say that tinkering with members pensions does no good.  If some highlevel bean counter pulled off a "NORTEL" on the CF Pension Plan and left us all with the grand sum of "0" after years of paying into it, there would be just as much outcry as this plan is currently generating.  How do you morally and ethically justify changing a Pension Plan that you sold to the members, which those members paid into in good conscience?

Even if it is your plan to 'grandfather' those already enrolled, you are creating yet another tier in the administration.  You will have created yet another CF Pension to go with those still under the 20/40 Plan, and those under the newer 25 Year Plan.  Will this become an annual event; creating a new CF Pension Plan to meet conditions of the day?


----------



## observor 69 (4 Jan 2010)

FYI matching pension contributions from employer:

CFSA 3 to 1
Federal public service  2 to 1
Provincial public service 1 to 1.

Ref:  http://www.admfincs.forces.gc.ca/doc/dcf-dsp/ar-ra-0708-eng.pdf
       http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/editorials/dont-retire-yet/article1417808/


----------



## old fart (4 Jan 2010)

I will add this...if any changes are again made to our CFSA pension it will not be with a view to increasing benefits to the member.   

Hopefully any bean counters following these type of threads would only go down the change for change sake route with a full realization of how costly any changes can be.  I for one feel extremely fortunate that I was grandfathered when the  CFSA pension was tweaked the l ast time around (2007?) and thus not subjected to any of the new provisions/changes.  

As for the why we joined in the first place....the pension aspect was never a factor for me until I joined the CF from the Brits.   Pension soon became important as I realised I was in for the long haul!  

Why, when I first came over it was with the belief that all I had to do was top up my nine years Brit to the 20 year mark.  I was a tad surprised when I found out I had to do 20 YOS in the CF to get an annuity and could pay back my nine years Brit time if I desired.

Now at 48 years old with a Reg Force pension from 16.5 years of age...I am glad that I both  stuck around and decided to buy back the time (and I have a long since retired Pay CWO (Chilliwack circa 1987) to thank for that; his timely guidance prevented me making what would have been the worst possible financial mistake imaginable).


----------



## TCBF (4 Jan 2010)

- Amazing thread - I thank you all.

- In the back of my mind is the statement made at every SISIP briefing I ever attended as a young soldier: " The average CF retiree is dead within five years after CRA!"  Did they B.S. us, or what?

- I concur with giving career managers complete control over ALL positions filled by their occupations - Regular, Class B, etc.  That would sort things out, until...

... one hundred angry Members Of Parliament lead a torch march to the Prime Minister's door, wondering why their pet Class B "job creation positions" in their ridings dried up and flew away.  Yes, Virginia, their IS a political aspect to PS/DND HR issues.  Otherwise, the only civillians working on CF bases in areas of low employment would be CF spouses - somewhat like CFE in the good old days.  Everyone loves the Forces, until our wives take their jobs.


----------



## McG (4 Jan 2010)

gcclarke said:
			
		

> When a member of the regular force leaves the regular force shortly after they have enough time in to be able to draw a pension, which scenario do you honestly think is more likely: That member suddenly decided to leave a job that they would have otherwise liked to stay in because they now had an opportunity to make more money. Or; That member would probably have left the regular force years earlier, but instead decided to stay in long enough to reach enough time in to get the pension.
> 
> It is my contention that the latter is far more frequent than the former. Should your change be enacted, people would be much less inclined to bother staying in past the point when the excitement of a new job wears off.


I suspect you are right, but I also suspect that a sweetened benefit will compensate for the deferment and keep people around.



			
				gcclarke said:
			
		

> Fine, grandfather in those already on an IE or IPS. You *still* haven't addressed the fundamental question of why currently serving personnel who aren't on an IE or IPS wouldn't then leave in droves. I've already stated that if these changes were made, that I would be out the door shortly thereafter.


I believe that even with my proposed changes, our pension is better than most others out there.  It costs less, pays back well and I have proposed increasing the benefit to further compensate for the deferment.



			
				gcclarke said:
			
		

> If you want people to stay in the regular force longer, offer them incentives to do so. ... Offer up more leave past the 25 year point. Maybe have them start earning an additional 3% per year vice 2% past 25 years. Or think of something else.


I like these ideas, and there is no reason that these and my proposal need be exclusive of each other.



			
				gcclarke said:
			
		

> But of course, if you do grandfather in those on an IE or IPS, but still make the changes for everyone else, then guess what, we haven't accomplished any of our goals!


Not in the short term, but in the long term we would be better set-up having a pension that does not reflect design from a period of manpower abundance.  Something that rewards long service but does not prematurely give away the cow.

At the same the same time, there would be flexibility should we ever find ourselves in another period of manpower abundance.  This thread has demonstrated that raising retirements thresholds will see a revolt from those people who were planning on them.  However, there is would be far less push-back to lowering the minimum annuitant age for a temporary (maybe even several year period) early retirement programme.  All the while, new guys coming in the door understand that their annuitant age is CRA -5 to CRA -10 (depending on years of service).



			
				George Wallace said:
			
		

> But you see no problem with the Reg Force "poaching" from the Reserves.


I do not see the Reg F as poaching from the reserves because the Reg F does not offer a part-time military employment option.  To be fair, I should not say that the Reserves are poaching from the Reg F either.  Rather, I should say that the Class B bloat is doing the poaching with the double dip as one of the incentives.  Class B bloat is poaching full time service personnel from the regular force, and it is poaching reservists from the reserves.



			
				George Wallace said:
			
		

> I don't see this as an improvement.  It further compounds problems that the CF already have.  I can not see anyone wanting to remain in the CF, pay towards their pension, still have to be Posted or Deployed if the CM so dictates and all of that with a 15% Pay cut.


George, this is not how I described the limited obligation TOS.  In fact, I specifically said there would not be the obligatory deployments.  Yes there would be postings but only within the same geographic location.  




			
				MCG said:
			
		

> ... these individuals could be employed full time ... with a guarantee of no postings outside the geographic area.  It is almost exactly the same as the Class B option now except that it remains within the Regular Force, and career managers are still responsible for these soldiers.






			
				MCG said:
			
		

> I think it is fair to provide that option for reduced obligation (in that postings are only within the geographic area and there are no more obligatory deployments).



It is not really that grand a hassle to be told you are going to work at Star Top instead of at 101, or that you are going to work at 31 CBGHQ instead of 4 RCR or 1 H.

Why would people do this?  For the same reason that people are doing it now: because they don't want anymore moves and  they don't want to be deployed anymore, but they really don't want to leave the military.  I've raised this point to you before, but you seem to casually ignore it:




			
				MCG said:
			
		

> We already pay full time soldiers 15% less and it does not seem to chase them away.  Why would it make a difference if we call them "regular force" or "reserve force"?






			
				MCG said:
			
		

> Why not? There are already many taking the 15% pay-cut  to live a Class B life without risk of postings.






			
				birdgunnnersrule said:
			
		

> I am one of those guys that decided to take the 15% pay cut to be my own career manager, without having a pension to fall back on.






			
				George Wallace said:
			
		

> The other thing about this plan of yours is that these people would still be tying up posns in their Trade and the  CM would not be able to promote any of your "more valuable members".  This has a cause and effect on maintaining skill and experience in all Trades.  Promoting above the quotas set in the CM model for a Trade compounds the problem.  We have seen FRP and the disaster it caused in many Trades.  Now you want to keep the "long Service" members on the Rolls even longer, holding up promotions from top to bottom.  If you think that your plan should not be affected by this, then you are discriminating against the "long Service member" and encouraging them to leave.  People will work for rewards, not disenfranchisement.
> 
> Perhaps you would like to address this:
> 
> ...


George, I have presented the mechanism that will ensure limited obligation pers do not clog the promotion ways for the full obligation pers.  If a given occupation at a given rank is so fully manned that proper career progression & promotions have stopped, then the short limited obligation TOS will not be available for issue/renew.




			
				MCG said:
			
		

> Occupations at or above PML would not be allowed to issue/renew "limited obligation" TOS (so those pers who choose to be of lower utility would be let go to make room



I also presented other factors that will mitigate the risk the limited obligation pers plugging the promotions ways.  Recall that I indicated the regular force establishment would grow by converting all the long term reserve positions to Reg F PYs (my proposal was everything that has been around for 3 be converted).  This increase in positions increases the number of service personnel required to actually clog the system.



			
				George Wallace said:
			
		

> You must also remember that your 'Double Dippers' are no longer paying into a Pension Plan.  They are not contributing to increasing their pension, nor contributing to a second Pension Plan.  As has been pointed out, if money was their goal, they are loosing out on the deal as is.


But, as I and others have pointed out, more money right now is still an incentive for a lot of people even if it is not more money in ten years down the road.




			
				dapaterson said:
			
		

> I recall the Maj who switched to the Res F from the bottom of the merit list pointing out that between his annuity and Res pay he was making more than any BGen.






			
				MCG said:
			
		

> ... for a lot of people, more money now is still a big incentive to double-dip even if it less total money down the road.






			
				MCG said:
			
		

> In any case, more money now (even if it is less agregated years down the road) is still a financial incentive and it will poach people who otherwise may have continued full obligation service.  We should be providing financial incetives that encourage providing maximum utility to the CF and not incentives that make reducing one's utility more attractive.






			
				George Wallace said:
			
		

> As Michael O'Leary points out, we need to examine the sources of attrition in the Reg Force.


 This is correct.  We do need to look at all aspects of the problem, and that includes this aspects that I am raising here.



			
				ArmyVern said:
			
		

> CRA minus 10 = 50.
> 
> Join at 20 years of age + 30 years of service = 50 years of age = immediately pensionable. Just as they are right now. That's some kind of incentive.


Technically yes, but it is after five additional years of service as compared to now.



			
				ArmyVern said:
			
		

> ... you punish those that join at an earlier age by telling them that their 30 years of service are not on equal footing with a 20 year old (or 22 year olds yos). Because they joined younger (at 18), they can't ....


This is not something that is new or scandalous.  We already have pension entitlements that can become available simply for reaching the age of 50 (and I don't propose these benefits or the threshold change).  



			
				ArmyVern said:
			
		

> So, you have the long service folks who've demonstrated their loyalty being punished (but not as much, but punished none the less) for being sick and tired of moving and other assorted BS.


If they are sick and tired of moving and other assorted BS, I am offering limited obligation TOS and pay top-up.



			
				George Wallace said:
			
		

> If some highlevel bean counter pulled off a "NORTEL" on the CF Pension Plan and left us all with the grand sum of "0" after years of paying into it, there would be just as much outcry as this plan is currently generating.  How do you morally and ethically justify changing a Pension Plan that you sold to the members, which those members paid into in good conscience?


Nice rant.  Not relevant.  Remember:




			
				MCG said:
			
		

> Grandfathering



At the same time, it is interesting of you to remind us of the risk and danger associated with some private pension plans.  That risk doesn't exist if you stick around and continue building a public pension entitlement (such as the CF pension).



			
				ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Why then, given your proposal would anyone stay in the CF after they hit their "pensionability" year of service?


To grow that CF pension entitlement.  You might find another job to get a second pension, but not for the same low price as the CF pension costs:



			
				Baden  Guy said:
			
		

> FYI matching pension contributions from employer:
> 
> CFSA 3 to 1
> Federal public service  2 to 1
> Provincial public service 1 to 1.


----------



## armyvern (4 Jan 2010)

MCG said:
			
		

> Technically yes, but it is after five additional years of service as compared to now.
> This is not something that is new or scandalous.  We already have pension entitlements that can become available simply for reaching the age of 50 (and I don't propose these benefits or the threshold change).
> If they are sick and tired of moving and other assorted BS, I am offering limited obligation TOS and pay top-up.
> Nice rant.  Not relevant.  Remember:
> ...





I've already addressed what I'd do with my extra 5 years; despite your best hopes --- I'd be working them in the private sector earning 100% (your topup ergo means diddly squat to me) wages, with my CF pension sitting there deferred, but collecting it at CRA ... then working that exrta 5 years for the private sector (til 65) while collecting my CF pension AND 100% of that private sector pay AND at 65 ... retiring from them and having 2 pensions.

I'm OUT completely at 45 years old your way. 

Funny how my pointing that out to you is "a rant" and "not relevant" ... but you've just screwed the young ones that your trying to entice to join, and you've screwed the long-timers too. The people like me, we'll just be done with it all - gone. 

You seem to be very quick, almost like a dog with a bone, to point out how "good and enticing" your plan is (it isn't), while having no second thoughts about pointing out the flaws in private sector pensions while* repeatedly  * ignoring those flaws in your own.

If you think that your proposal is going to keep people like me around, you're wrong. If you think that an 18 year old will view it as "enticing" - you're wrong. Seems to me that the only pers in this thread so far who's finding it enticing is yourself.

Take a step back and read what some of us have posted (instead of telling us to read yours) that *are* flaws in your proposal. The problems it will create with recruting, retention, how it discriminates on age so that 2 people who join on the exact same day and realease on the exact same day 30 years later sees the 20 year old gaining thousands of dollars over the 18 year old while that 18 year old sits back and waits for CRA to kick in "just because". etc etc


----------



## McG (4 Jan 2010)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Take a step back and read what some of us have posted (instead of telling us to read yours) that *are* flaws in your proposal.


Vern, you hit post faster than you could have read from the time you saw my reply.  You complaint of being accused of ranting is off the mark.  That comment was not linked to any of the quotes from you.

That is fine that you would be gone at 45.  Some people will choose that.  I am not convinced your position is representative of decision a broader spectrum of pers would make. Five more years in the service would get you more than starting new somewhere else.


----------



## armyvern (5 Jan 2010)

MCG said:
			
		

> Vern, you hit post faster than you could have read from the time you saw my reply.  You complaint of being accused of ranting is off the mark.  That comment was not linked to any of the quotes from you.
> 
> That is fine that you would be gone at 45.  Some people will choose that.  I am not convinced your position is representative of decision a broader spectrum of pers would make. Five more years in the service would get you more than starting new somewhere else.



I read your reply.

You are telling George repeatedly to "read" ... no counter arguments to your proposal "are relevant" seemingly or we simply "haven't read". That was the point. Take your own advice.

5 *less* years in the service (retiring at 45) gets me TWO pensions for the rest of my life ... and I still get 100% wages between 45 and 65 working in the private sector ... and from 60 to 65 I'll be collecting my CF pension too.

If this thread is representative of how people feel (not just me) ... I quite suspect that you'd better "broaden that spectrum" of potential people like me who think your plan sucks.

What exactly do you propose when pers "max out" their pensionability? They still get to wait for CRA? Why go B Class then either. They'll need another job until their CRA kicks in ... might as well work towards a second pension too I guess.


----------



## McG (5 Jan 2010)

Vern, it's CRA-10.  If the pension is maxed, they certainly can be collecting.


----------



## aesop081 (5 Jan 2010)

MCG said:
			
		

> Five more years in the service would get you more than starting new somewhere else.



Maybe, maybe not. Regardless of that, 5 more years is not something i take lightly. 5 more years of service means at least one more deployment, several more trips across the country for training , one or 2 more postings ( with, undoubtably, some IR in there for good measure) and a whole lot of frustrations.

5 more years of dealing with that doesnt make for an easy decision. That a decision many of us on the edge of our 20 are facing and i will put cash money on a bet that there will be more than a few who will leave because of that "5 years".


----------



## armyvern (5 Jan 2010)

MCG said:
			
		

> Vern, it's CRA-10.  If the pension is maxed, they certainly can be collecting.



You're CRA -10 is age discriminatory as already pointed out with the 18/20 year old scenario.

It's one thing to discriminate based upon rank/pay/best '5' etc --- it's totally another to discriminate based soley upon age when pensioning 2 pers for the exact same years of service, entry & release date, rank etc because one of them joined at 18 and one joined at 20, but both are below CRA.

I'm not so sure it'd pass the Charter test.


----------



## McG (5 Jan 2010)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> Maybe, maybe not. Regardless of that, 5 more years is not something i take lightly. 5 more years of service means at least one more deployment, several more trips across the country for training , one or 2 more postings and a whole lot of frustrations.
> 
> 5 more years of dealing with that doesnt make for an easy decision. That a decision many of us on the edge of our 20 are facing and i will put cash money on a bet that there will be more than a few who will leave because of that "5 years".


What if you could still build that pension on limited obligation TOS?



			
				ArmyVern said:
			
		

> You're CRA -10 is age discriminatory as already pointed out with the 18/20 year old scenario.
> 
> It's one thing to discriminate based upon rank/pay/best '5' etc --- it's totally another to discriminate based soley upon age when pensioning 2 pers for the exact same years of service, entry & release date, rank etc because one of them joined at 18 and one joined at 20, but both are below CRA.
> 
> I'm not so sure it'd pass the Charter test.


It must pass the Charter test.  We are already doing it (reduced pension available at 50 even without the 25 years service) and the PS is doing it (30 years service at age 55 for early retirement benefit).


----------



## armyvern (5 Jan 2010)

MCG said:
			
		

> What if you could still build that pension on limited obligation TOS?
> It must pass the Charter test.  We are already doing it (reduced pension available at 50 even without he 25 years service) and the PS is doing it (30 years service at age 55 for early retirement benefit).



That's an option those members *choose* <--- operative word there. That means it's not discriminatory.

You are "enacting" a new pension plan that leaves "no choice" and outright discriminates against the younger member who has completed the exact same number of years of service as the other one did. That's a very large (and legal too me thinks) difference.


----------



## McG (5 Jan 2010)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> That's an option those members *choose* <--- operative word there. That means it's not discriminatory.
> 
> You are "enacting" a new pension plan that leaves "no choice" and outright discriminates against the younger member who has completed the exact same number of years of service as the other one did. That's a very large (and legal too me thinks) difference.


At 30 years of employment, a 55 year old public servant can retire with a unreduced pension entitlement.  At 30 years of employment,  a 53 year old public servant cannot retire and must wait until age 65.  I don't see the difference between this and what you have suggested is not legal in the proposal that I made.


----------



## armyvern (5 Jan 2010)

MCG said:
			
		

> At 30 years of employment, a 55 year old public servant can retire with a unreduced pension entitlement.  At 30 years of employment,  a 53 year old public servant cannot retire and must wait until age 65.  I don't see the difference between this and what you have suggested is not legal in the proposal that I made.



Your second public servant certainly can retire (at 55) and collect a reduced pension on *32* years of service vice 30. That's the plan they signed up for.

It's not what we signed on to. It hurts our 18 year old, and it hurts our long servers - and our 18 year old still gets to wait 2 years for his pension for the exact same number of years of service (while the 20 year old earns thousands more in pension during those 2 years for not a single day of service longer) ... and doesn't get an extra 2 years worth of pension time tacked onto it like the civ in your above scenario.


----------



## aesop081 (5 Jan 2010)

MCG said:
			
		

> limited obligation TOS?



A class B reserve job IS a limited obligation TOS. So why would anyone want to continue to build their pension for later when they can collect it now and have another source of income in addition ?

Even if one were to move to civvy street, you are not offering anything to entice anyone to stay.


----------



## armyvern (5 Jan 2010)

Here we go.

Here's a half-decent retirement plan. Imagine, the ability to retire at 50 with a 70% pension ... sure beats the heck out of ours.

Guess where I'm applying to when I'm 45?  8)

http://www.omers.com/Assets/supplemental+plans/Supplemental+Plan+handbook.pdf


----------



## McG (5 Jan 2010)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Your second public servant certainly can retire (at 55) and collect a reduced pension on *32* years of service vice 30. That's the plan they signed up for.


This is still tied to age. Your hypothetical 18 year old could retire at 50 with *32* years of service vice 30 and collect a full pension in my proposal.  He still would have been growing the pension over those two years.  What is the difference? 

PSPP Ref:  http://www.pspp.ca/mem-hb-04.html#when



			
				CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> A class B reserve job IS a limited obligation TOS. So why would anyone want to continue to build their pension for later when they can collect it now and have another source of income in addition ?


Well, under the hypothetical pension plan being discussed, the un-deferred pension would not be available until 30 years of service at age 50, and the double-dip would not be an option.  When you cannot collect now and have another source of income, do you go work some where else  or stay in the CF and keep building the pension?  You've stated that the five years is a pretty big consideration given many of the tasks that would certainly apply, so does it make a difference if you could continue building that pension on limited obligation TOS while your pay level is protected at 100% because you have more that 25 years service?


----------



## armyvern (5 Jan 2010)

MCG said:
			
		

> This is still tied to age. Your hypothetical 18 year old could retire at 50 with *32* years of service vice 30 and collect a full pension in my proposal.  He still would have been growing the pension over those two years.  What is the difference?



But, again, WHY would he? Why would anyone stay that long in the first place given your proposal? More wouldn't than would.

The major flaws in your proposal all feed off of each other - they'll cause pers to get out sooner, rather than later. You've therefore solved nothing except to screw them over for their pension.


----------



## McG (5 Jan 2010)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> But, again, WHY would he?


Because for the sake of two more years, he could get a un-reduced and un-deferred pension (probably the same reason the civilian would stick around in the PS example).

It might suck from his perspective that joining two years younger means waiting two years more to be eligible as an annuitant, but our pension already does provide various benefits sooner based on age or age + years service.


----------



## armyvern (5 Jan 2010)

MCG said:
			
		

> Because for the sake of two more years, he could get a un-reduced and un-deferred pension (probably the same reason the civilian would stick around in the PS example).
> 
> It might suck from his perspective that joining two years younger means waiting two years more to be eligible as an annuitant, but our pension already does provide various benefits sooner based on age or age + years service.



They wouldn't stick around for that extra 2 years because, as we've pointed out, they wouldn't be sticking around anywhere close to the thirty year mark. 20 - 25 and gone.

And, regarding our pension & its various benefits ... take a look at that municipal plan that I posted from Toronto ... now there's incentive (for me to get out as soon as this course is done and movve to Toronto!!).


----------



## George Wallace (5 Jan 2010)

MCG said:
			
		

> At the same the same time, there would be flexibility should we ever find ourselves in another period of manpower abundance.  This thread has demonstrated that raising retirements thresholds will see a revolt from those people who were planning on them.  However, there is would be far less push-back to lowering the minimum annuitant age for a temporary (maybe even several year period) early retirement programme.  All the while, new guys coming in the door understand that their annuitant age is CRA -5 to CRA -10 (depending on years of service).




I might remind you once again of what FRP and Recruiting Freeze did to us twenty years ago, and may have contributed greatly to the situation we are in now.  Now you are saying that we should emulate such an "early retirement programme" again in the future?







			
				MCG said:
			
		

> I do not see the Reg F as poaching from the reserves because the Reg F does not offer a part-time military employment option.  To be fair, I should not say that the Reserves are poaching from the Reg F either.  Rather, I should say that the Class B bloat is doing the poaching with the double dip as one of the incentives.  Class B bloat is poaching full time service personnel from the regular force, and it is poaching reservists from the reserves.
> George, this is not how I described the limited obligation TOS.  In fact, I specifically said there would not be the obligatory deployments.  Yes there would be postings but only within the same geographic location.



I seriously think that you really don't understand the 'Double Dipper', and have developed some sort of bias against these people for some perverted reason.   How you have come up with the idea that these evil Double Dippers are the cause of the Class B bloat is beyond me.  It is a Reg Force Problem that Reservists and Former Reg Force members have stepped in to alleviate.  Do we have to go back to FRP and the Recruiting Freeze to explain the root causes of the current situation again to explain it?  Once the Reg Force trains and fills posns in "Distressed Trades" and can once again fill those posns, the Class B Reservist, no matter who (s)he may be will be gone.  This will not happen overnight.  And don't forget, there are even posns that Class B have been unable to fill.  Your suggestions so far have proposed nothing credible to solve any of these problems, other than disenfranchising members.

I could point out that not all these posns are being filled by "Double Dippers" as Class B Reservists.  Many a CWO,  MWO, Capt, Maj, and LCol have been hired by Calian to fill posns as Contractors to teach Mil Crses at various Bases across the country.  They work at their leisure, when they want, etc.  If you find the Class B "Double Dipper" so 'distasteful', what do you think of these guys?  Why aren't we running our own Crses and Exercises?  This exasperates the current situation even more, and you can't blame the "Class B bloat" for that.  





			
				MCG said:
			
		

> George, I have presented the mechanism that will ensure limited obligation pers do not clog the promotion ways for the full obligation pers.  If a given occupation at a given rank is so fully manned that proper career progression & promotions have stopped, then the short limited obligation TOS will not be available for issue/renew.



So you discriminate against the Limited Obligation TOS pers, by freezing them in a posn and rank; with no chance for advancement or promotion?  No thanks.  Not all your Class B Double Dippers are in positions as you imagine.  Many are in positions where they are filling the "Minimum Rank", not the desired rank.  They should be given the opportunity for advancement like anyone else.  That means that they DO tie up posns in the Promotion Boards.  (And yes I have read your "grandfather clause statements" etc.)  If you seriously want to implement your Limited Obligation TOS, you CAN NOT disenfranchise the people you are targeting to accept it. 

There can be seen some benefits and some disadvantages to these people falling under the management of the CM.  It may permit them easier access to courses and promotion, but at the same time complicate the career progressions of Reg Force pers in that Trade.  They would have to be treated equally by the CM, or they are discriminated against, and that would mean that it is useless for them to be managed by the CM.  It would be a matter of being "in all the way" or "out" (as they are now).   You have already pointed out that you don't think they should be promoted, etc.  One incentive less for them to factor towards making such a decision. 



			
				MCG said:
			
		

> I also presented other factors that will mitigate the risk the limited obligation pers plugging the promotions ways.  Recall that I indicated the regular force establishment would grow by converting all the long term reserve positions to Reg F PYs (my proposal was everything that has been around for 3 be converted).  This increase in positions increases the number of service personnel required to actually clog the system.



Do you seriously think that someone would voluntarily become disenfranchised, loosing all chances of promotion or advancement and courses to accept your plan?


----------



## George Wallace (5 Jan 2010)

OK.  For the sake of argument; let's pretend that there is no such thing as a Class B Reservist or 'Double Dipper' to 'bloat' the system.  Where would your planned Limited Obligation TOS work?  The CF would still be facing a manning problem.  A problem of its own device.  FRP, Recruiting Freeze and then twenty to thirty years of incompetent CMs in various Trades have all contributed to this problem.  People reached a point in their career where they wanted more, and the CF didn't have the incentives to offer them inticing them to stay.  Your proposal is another incentive to leave.


Just be glad that there are Reserve Soldiers who have stepped up to the plate and volunteered to help alleviate these problems.  The Reserves are a large Force Generator for the Reg Force.

Now about those 'Double Dippers'; who are they?  They are former Reg Force personnel who have retired from the CF after many years with a pension.  They have continued to contribute to the CF in retirement as Reservists, passing on their knowledge and experience to maintain a viable Reserve Force.   Why are they Double Dippers?  Because:  They are retired and have the time to take a Class B contract.


----------



## dapaterson (5 Jan 2010)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Now about those 'Double Dippers'; who are they?  They are former Reg Force personnel who have retired from the CF after many years with a pension.  They have continued to contribute to the CF in retirement as Reservists, passing on their knowledge and experience to maintain a viable Reserve Force.   Why are they Double Dippers?  Because:  They are retired and have the time to take a Class B contract.



Here's the underlying problem we face: per the NDA, there is one force, the Canadian Armed Forces.  Thus, one cannot be simultaneously retired and not retired - you're either a member of Her Majesty's Canadian Armed Forces or you aren't.  Our current admin construct, "I'm retired from one component but still serving in another" does not hold water.  The CFSA regulations and other, DND policies, are convoluted in no small part because we try to warp and twist simple declarative statements.

While I do not think McG's proposal has legs (under the current political climate, no MP would support CFSA amendments reducing entitlements), we do need some long, hard consideration of what we want to do - as the current construct may crash and we could then be stuck with rules created by outside agencies that would give us the worst of all possible worlds.


----------



## George Wallace (5 Jan 2010)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Here's the underlying problem we face: per the NDA, there is one force, the Canadian Armed Forces.  Thus, one cannot be simultaneously retired and not retired - you're either a member of Her Majesty's Canadian Armed Forces or you aren't.  Our current admin construct, "I'm retired from one component but still serving in another" does not hold water.  The CFSA regulations and other, DND policies, are convoluted in no small part because we try to warp and twist simple declarative statements.



Let's remove "Double Dipper" and replace it with "18 year old" and take out "retired" and replace it with "unemployed".

Just wondering.


----------



## Jed (5 Jan 2010)

From DaPatterson

While I do not think McG's proposal has legs (under the current political climate, no MP would support CFSA amendments reducing entitlements), we do need some long, hard consideration of what we want to do - as the current construct may crash and we could then be stuck with rules created by outside agencies that would give us the worst of all possible worlds.

I believe it is far more likely that the construct for the Public Servant, at least productivity wise, is far more likely to crash than our DND Class B construct. Is tihs perfect? No. But it works for applying troops to task and it can expand and contract far faster than trying to adjust the throttle on personnel intake through the current Federal Government process. Have you seen the requirements needed to select a candidate to be a Federal Public servant? It is almost guaranteed that the only person you will get for the job is one qualified on paper and never the one person that you really know can get it done.

Does DND really want to move closer to this method of getting the right person to do the job in a time expedient manner?


----------



## dapaterson (5 Jan 2010)

Our current Class B system is a symptom of much larger problems.  We have an institutional unwillingness to divest ourselves of anything. Thus our personnel demand increases.  Rather than temper that with a fixed permanent establishment, anyone and his dog with money can hire a Reservist - and incur additional costs to the department in obvious and not-so-obvious ways.

The unconstrained growth of full-time Reserve positions has been a direct result of weak leadership unwilling to make hard decisions.  With increased funding for several years it has been a quick fix solution.

The current class B situation is a polite way of thumbing our nose at the government.  Thousands of additional full-time military members is not in line with the government's direction. 


The current annuitant employment policy is where we may face the biggest problems.  As I stated, there is one CF - you can't simultaneously claim to be retired and not retired from the CF.  We use an administrative dodge - releasing from the Reg F then re-enroling into the Res F - to trigger events such as eligibility for an annuity, and then build regulations and policies to dance around the legislation.  But this was already reviewed and found lacking by the OAG - nearly four decades ago.

The CF needs a proper plan to manage it full-time military structure (Reg and Res), and needs to be proactive is figuring out how to leverage and manage its Reg F pers nearing the end of their careers (vice pushing them into full-time Reserve positions).  The current class B system will not survive detailed external scrutiny - and we've built up such a dependence on it that its removal could be a near catastrophe.


----------



## Rifleman62 (6 Jan 2010)

Just to pile on with DAP. The current annuitant employment policy was developed by the Reg F. 

Ex Reg F pers can, of course, collect their pension, CT to the P Res, become Cl B, get paid = the _*full time * _ double dipper. They same annuitant employment policy, developed by the Reg F, states that a P Res pers can, of course, collect their pension, but cannot, of course, become *CL A or B, unless they cease their pension.*

The year I retired, I was surprised to hear of the retirement of three Reg F Colonels who I knew. Then I heard that they retired right into Cl B positions.

We, in the "Militia", have a name for this system.

 I completely agree with DAP's previous post.


----------



## George Wallace (6 Jan 2010)

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> Ex Reg F pers can, of course, collect their pension, CT to the P Res, become Cl B, get paid = the _*full time * _ double dipper. They same annuitant employment policy, developed by the Reg F, states that a P Res pers can, of course, collect their pension, but cannot, of course, become *CL A or B, unless they cease their pension.*



OK.  That is a little confusing.  I can see a Reservist collecting a Reg Force Pension on earning one, but I can not see a Reservist collecting a Reserve Pension that they are still paying into.  The 'Double Dipper' is no longer paying into any Pension Plan.  The Reservist would still be paying into one.  Quite a difference.





			
				Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> The year I retired, I was surprised to hear of the retirement of three Reg F Colonels who I knew. Then I heard that they retired right into Cl B positions.
> 
> We, in the "Militia", have a name for this system.



I could understand this happening in a few extreme cases, but like you, I would find this suspicious/distasteful.


I think DAP laid out a good argument.


----------



## dapaterson (6 Jan 2010)

George:

Reservists can have three pension statuses:

1.  Not enrolled - insufficient earnings to be entered into part I.1 (the part-time plan);

2.  Enrolled in the part-time plan (part I.1);

3.  Enrolled in the ful-time plan (part I) - the same as the Reg F plan.


A Reservist who is "deemed Reg F" and thus falls into category 3, above, can't "release", draw an annuity, and resume full-time service and draw both an annuity and a class B paycheque.  Indeed, a former Reg F member in receipt of an annuity who decides to re-enrol in the pension plan cannot later decide to "retire" again, resume drawing their annuity, and then resume class B employment - once you pay into part I (full-time plan) as a Reservist, you cannot then draw an annuity and Reserve pay at the same time.


We've built an odd and bizarre collection of Regulations and policies that impair our ability to achieve organizational objectives.  We need some Leadership - to decide what we will do, what we won't do, how we'll do it; from that, we can derive our HR policies to meet those needs.  The ongoing lack of leadership in that area is why we face these problems.


----------



## old fart (6 Jan 2010)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> "Our current Class B system is a symptom of much larger problems.  We have an institutional unwillingness to divest ourselves of anything. Thus our personnel demand increases.  Rather than temper that with a fixed permanent establishment, anyone and his dog with money can hire a Reservist - and incur additional costs to the department in obvious and not-so-obvious ways."
> 
> "The unconstrained growth of full-time Reserve positions has been a direct result of weak leadership unwilling to make hard decisions.  With increased funding for several years it has been a quick fix solution."




Totally agree with these comments.  As for annuitant Class B, my view is that if it works for the individual (with a realization that based on my own numbers, that I would loose in the long run if I CT'd to CL B) that the CF as a whole benefits (from the continued service and by likely paying less remuneration in the long run) if they desire continue to serve HM that way.  

I am not a proponent of non-annuitant Class B....my position has not changed, if you want a career join the Reg Force and contribute with a full liability, as expected from such service.   

And, in closing as I have said before, I appreciate the Reserves who have stepped up to the plate and deployed overseas...without them under our present deployment modus operandi, carrying out the mandate of the Government of Canada would not be possible. 

Yours aye....


----------



## McG (6 Jan 2010)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> I might remind you once again of what FRP and Recruiting Freeze did to us twenty years ago, and may have contributed greatly to the situation we are in now.  Now you are saying that we should emulate such an "early retirement programme" again in the future?


No George.  The greatest damage was caused by the recruiting freeze, and I have not proposed any such thing.  Back during the FRP, we closed the doors and a great big experience gap developed behind those people who came in just before the doors closed.

If the CF gets so full of pers that it is negatively impacting healthy career progression, having the ability to lower the retirement threshold (years service/age until un-deferred pension) provides a flexible mechanism to open things up so careers again progress at a healthy rate.  All the while, the recruiting system should continue function "business as usual" so that there is not another capability gap.



			
				George Wallace said:
			
		

> So you discriminate against the Limited Obligation TOS pers, by freezing them in a posn and rank; with no chance for advancement or promotion?  No thanks.


You are grossly misrepresenting my proposal and presenting things reversed to what I have stated (again).  Pers would not be frozen in rank or position.  All full time pers would be career managed and merited together (based on rank and MOSID).  Nobody would be "disenfranchise" and the posibilities for promotion or moving positions would be even greater under limited obligation TOS when compared to the current Class B system (where these opportunities are much fewer and farther between).  Nothing in the sniped you quoted said anything about allowing or disallowing limited TOS promotion, but previously I said:



			
				MCG said:
			
		

> A "limited obligation" regular force soldier would be managed by the same career manager as any other regular force member of the same occupation.  Come APS, the "limited obligation" soldier would never receive a cost move to another location but there would be no restrictions against no-cost moves.  The "limited obligation" soldier could be moved to fill a higher priority job, for career development reasons, or to avoid stagnant thinking within a staff organization.  Promotions could still occur for "limited obligation" soldiers, but they would be penalized by point reduction at the boards to reflect the reduced utility of not being geographically postable.






			
				George Wallace said:
			
		

> There can be seen some benefits and some disadvantages to these people falling under the management of the CM.  It may permit them easier access to courses and promotion, but at the same time complicate the career progressions of Reg Force pers in that Trade.  They would have to be treated equally by the CM, or they are discriminated against, and that would mean that it is useless for them to be managed by the CM.  It would be a matter of being "in all the way" or "out" (as they are now).   You have already pointed out that you don't think they should be promoted, etc.  One incentive less for them to factor towards making such a decision.


I agree with all the potential advantages you've pointed out.  However, I do not think it would be unfair that there be a penalty at the merit boards for choosing limited obligation TOS.  In fact, it already happens where individuals who have become geographically stagnant are missing-out on points for mobility at merit boards.  And there would still be increased opportunity for promotion over the current long-term Class B system.  So, in spite of a discrimination it is still an improvement for the members.



			
				George Wallace said:
			
		

> Do you seriously think that someone would voluntarily become disenfranchised, loosing all chances of promotion or advancement and courses to accept your plan?


As I have stated the opposite (that courses & promotions would still be available) this misrepresentation is not a concern.



			
				George Wallace said:
			
		

> How you have come up with the idea that these evil Double Dippers are the cause of the Class B bloat is beyond me.


I am not using the word "evil."  My problem is not with the individuals who choose to do double-dip; my problem is with the system which offers the double-dip.

I also have not said he double-dip was *the* cause.  I have said it was a contributing factor.  It is part of the problem because it is not career managed and position importance/priority is not the driving factor in which positions actually get filled.  It is part of the problem because it a "keep your cake and eat it too"  sort of option in that it offers more take home money now in return for less obligation to the service.



			
				George Wallace said:
			
		

> Many a CWO,  MWO, Capt, Maj, and LCol have been hired by Calian to fill posns as Contractors to teach Mil Crses at various Bases across the country.  They work at their leisure, when they want, etc.  If you find the Class B "Double Dipper" so 'distasteful', what do you think of these guys?


I’ve answered that. 



			
				MCG said:
			
		

> I am also largely opposed to using contractors.



In any case, this is another area where we are walking very close to the line as far as the law in concerned.  Far too often, financial decision making is delegated down to contractors, supervision/assessment of service personnel & public servants is delegated to contractors, contractors are speaking for the government, contractors are coming into the work place being directed and supervised by service personnel.  All of this is prohibited.  When we “fill positions” with contractors, we are getting into dangerous waters and some day someone will get smacked for it.



			
				George Wallace said:
			
		

> It is a Reg Force Problem that Reservists and Former Reg Force members have stepped in to alleviate.


Encouraging guys to get out so that they can become part of the band-aid does not work.  It is as sustainable as eating your limbs to feed yourself.

All of those reservists would do more to alleviate the problem if they joined the regular force (even on limited obligation TOS), and those departing regular force personnel could do more to alleviate the problem by switching to a limited obligation TOS.

Yes, it is a problem with roots well in the past.  Yes, it will be longer than an overnight fix.  The current Class B band-aid is not a good band-aid.



			
				George Wallace said:
			
		

> OK.  For the sake of argument; let's pretend that there is no such thing as a Class B Reservist or 'Double Dipper' to 'bloat' the system.  Where would your planned Limited Obligation TOS work?  The CF would still be facing a manning problem.


We would still be facing an experienced manning shortfall.  However, Career Management and only one type of establishment position would mean that the available manpower can be more effectively used.  Benefits of this would be:
The higher priority positions in any given geographic area will be getting filled ahead of the lower priority positions.  
The unrestrained growth that Class B currently allows would also be gone.  Every new full time position would be Reg F and it would have to go through the same vetting and approval processes to ensure that it is in line with CF priorities, that compensation & benefits money is set aside nationally, that he position is required, ect. 
Surplus and duplicate positions would be gone.  I have seen numerous examples of Class B positions created to back-fill for vacant Reg F positions, but when the Reg F position is eventually filled the Class B position is also kept.  With only Reg F position types, you would not be able to employee two service personnel against one job and hide it.



			
				Jed said:
			
		

> I believe it is far more likely that the construct for the Public Servant, at least productivity wise, is far more likely to crash than our DND Class B construct. Is tihs perfect? No. But it works for applying troops to task and it can expand and contract far faster than trying to adjust the throttle on personnel intake through the current Federal Government process. Have you seen the requirements needed to select a candidate to be a Federal Public servant? It is almost guaranteed that the only person you will get for the job is one qualified on paper and never the one person that you really know can get it done.
> 
> Does DND really want to move closer to this method of getting the right person to do the job in a time expedient manner?


The problem with the PS model is that every new job or promotion is a new competition.  Long term Class B is already pretty close to that with jobs being advertised, waiting periods, candidate selection, etc.  Career Management goes a long way to alleviating this.



			
				George Wallace said:
			
		

> Now about those 'Double Dippers'; who are they?  They are former Reg Force personnel who have retired from the CF after many years with a pension.  They have continued to contribute to the CF in retirement as Reservists, passing on their knowledge and experience to maintain a viable Reserve Force.


But they are not all contributing to the Reserve Force.  Many are contributing to the bloat of higher HQs and various regular force establishments in positions that were only locally vetted.  This is not healthy.



			
				George Wallace said:
			
		

> Why are they Double Dippers?  Because:  They are retired and have the time to take a Class B contract.


The vast majority that I know are doing it because they didn’t really want to leave the CF.  They just wanted to be done with postings and mandated deployments, and here we have this wonderful path which offers all of his and throws more money into their pockets right now.   That extra cash in the pocket is causing some pers to jump over sooner and brining people that otherwise would have stayed Regular Force longer.

I think it is perfectly legitimate to offer limited obligation TOS as a retention path for those who have had enough of the postings.  However, this path does not need to be sweetened with financial incentives.  The financial reward and slightly enhanced career opportunities should reward those committing to full obligation TOS.

Pension has to be factored into this because, as DAP has reiterated, the current system of double-dipping is toying on the fringes of legitimate.  Moving from Class B to limited liability Reg F would move double-dipping from grey area into a stronger shade of unacceptable.  



			
				George Wallace said:
			
		

> OK.  That is a little confusing.  I can see a Reservist collecting a Reg Force Pension on earning one, but I can not see a Reservist collecting a Reserve Pension that they are still paying into.  The 'Double Dipper' is no longer paying into any Pension Plan.  The Reservist would still be paying into one.  Quite a difference.


Actually, the Career Class B reservist is likely paying into the Regular Force pension.  They are just treated different:  http://www.cmp-cpm.forces.gc.ca/dgcb-dgras/ps/pen/res-01/ap-ar/jp-ar-eng.asp#whp-qep


----------



## McG (8 Jan 2010)

COBRA-6 said:
			
		

> ... the whole Reg F /Class B /Class C/double-dipping/CT employment mess needs to be revamped CF wide. There has got to be a better way to skin this cat.


+1


----------



## Petard (10 Jan 2010)

MCG said:
			
		

> I've made no secret of my general disagreement with the ability of service personnel to remain fully employed and simultaneously collect a CF pension.
> 
> Why we pay Reservists what we do (Including Reg v.s. Cl B v.s. Cl C pay, and Double-Dippin')
> Army wide Class B employment freeze!!!
> ...


Well now I want to call BS on your plan
So going back to your original point, what I see here is you trying to rationalize away the ability of Regular Force pers to draw an annuity until they reach CRA, and you're using this frigged up mess of the Class B positions to solve long standing HR problems to justify your argument.
Where I see your argument become especially hollow is your contention that  even those retiring Reg F pers not going into public service, or as Class B reservists, should not given their pension until CRA because this is somewhat they way the rest of PS deals with it.
I say this is a thin argument because you do not give any explanation why the annuitant CF or RCMP member's service should be considered as on par with that of PS employee who did not accept unlimited liability.
These Reg F pers have paid into this pension plan, have agreed to go whenever they were told, in many cases their families having to scarfice as well, and now having to go to some very dangerous places and quite often; I would say you cannot make a direct link between that service of a Reg F or RCMP member and that of a PS employee who has endured none of that.

Most of your conclusions seem to be based on your own anecdotal information, well I have some of my own as well.
Over the years I have seen a number of departure with dignities, they all had as many different reasons for leaving as for why they joined, many of these people were going to be able to draw a pension, some had marketable skill sets, some  not so much, and if there was a common thread amongst those that were going to draw a pension, it was that they all expected at some time or other to be able to fall back on that pension if their exit strategy didn't work out, and for many that is what happened. Further to that the majority of them did not go into Class B or PS, if they remained affiliated with DND at all it was usually as a private sector contractor. But then this is only my anecdotal view, although it is one from almost 30 years of Reg F experience.

I can agree with you on one thing, this class B business needs to be sorted out, but it should not be done on the backs of retiring CF and RCMP members . This rampant class B growth  may well take care of itself as the gov't reels in over programing , and the budget used to support these postions becomes smaller, and as was already mentioned we are seeing a sharp reduction in class B positions now. This all means even fewer opportunities for these would be double dippers to fit within your Class B top-up proposal, this in turn would cause  even more people to be in that situation I was describing of those expecting their pension to get them through the bumps, while transitioning to another career, or at least to be able to get a low paying job but counting on their pension to get them by, but by your scheme they would not have their pension to do even this, not until CRA.

After their long dedicated service I argue the retiring Reg force pers deserve better than what your proposal would provide. Someone just starting out may well look at it the same way


----------



## McG (10 Jan 2010)

Petard said:
			
		

> So going back to your original point, what I see here is you trying to rationalize away the ability of Regular Force pers to draw an annuity until they reach CRA


No.  Going back to the beginning, I proposed eliminating the double-dip.   I only proposed changes to the pension, for pers leaving the government entirely, in response to criticisms that there needed to be double-dipping as long as the pension allowed someone to release and collect an immediate unreduced annuity - the thread was already at reply #20 when I suggested this.   Personally, I would be content simply to turn off the double-dipping and leave the rest as it is.  At the same time, I don't think my suggestion to set the pensionable age at CRA (or CRA - 10 as a reward for even longer service) is nearly as villainous as has been suggested.



			
				Petard said:
			
		

> I say this is a thin argument because you do not give any explanation why the annuitant CF or RCMP member's service should be considered as on par with that of PS employee who did not accept unlimited liability.


I have not suggested it should be on par.  In fact, where I proposed pension changes for those leavening the government, there are still a number of benefits in place above those of the Public Servant.

The CF pension is cheaper to the member than the PS pension (at 1:3 vs 1:2)
The PS pension does not offer a pay top-up so that one may slide into a less arduous government job (Limited Obligation TOS or PS employment) after 25 years service.
I have proposed undeferred & unreduced pension at 25 years service and 55 years of age and that is 5 fewer years than a PS would need to retire under the same conditions at that age.(Post 83)
 I have proposed undeferred & unreduced pension at 30 years service and 50 years of age, and that is 5 years younger than a PS would need to retire under the same conditions with those years of employment. (Post 83)
 I have also suggesetd the annual pension benefit could be increased for CF members. (Post 83)



			
				Petard said:
			
		

> Most of your conclusions seem to be based on your own anecdotal information, well I have some of my own as well.


I will concede that a lot of anecdotal evidence has been used on both sides of this argument.  Unfortunately, there is no researched evidence  available to fill-in where anecdotal has been used.



			
				Petard said:
			
		

> Over the years I have seen a number of departure with dignities, they all had as many different reasons for leaving as for why they joined, many of these people were going to be able to draw a pension, some had marketable skill sets, some  not so much, and if there was a common thread amongst those that were going to draw a pension, it was that they all expected at some time or other to be able to fall back on that pension if their exit strategy didn't work out ...


So, had these people served under the pension plan I have proposed, there probably would have been a few sticking around longer, and a few more going PS or Class B because of the higher financial security of staying?



			
				Petard said:
			
		

> I can agree with you on one thing, this class B business needs to be sorted out, but it should not be done on the backs of retiring CF and RCMP members .


Okay then.  Recognizing that my initial position did not did not impact pers leaving the government all together (because they are not the group I want to influence), lets change the question.  If we left the pension exactly as it is now, could you support the concept of converting all full-time service into Regular Force service provided that limited obligation TOS are introduced and Class B annuitants are grandfathered so that they can continue their double-dipping ways up until whenever they do decide to cease full-time employment?



_Edit for spelling error._


----------



## armyvern (10 Jan 2010)

Proposed in a manner whereby those of us who get the "Mil factor" (as I pointed out many posts ago) are punished and lose money.

You still haven't offered any "carrots", rather you proposal is all "asparagus" (I apologize to all of you who actually like asparagus).

Even your "oh so generous" offer to give a -10 etc wait for pension means that a pers with 25 years of service has to work longer/wait longer (whereas they wait not at all now) just to receive exactly what he does now. That's NOT a carrot --- that's a deterrant --- and will "cause" more issue than you believe that you'll be "solving." Your proposal has been flawed from the get-go and it's not getting better.

And, you keep insisting that "those pers" will serve those few years longer so that they don't have to wait --- that's not the case: rather, they'd leave in droves a whole lot sooner --- for civvy street and a civ pension to go along with that mil one they'll receive 'later" ... because they are going to have to get another job anyway 'while they wait for it".

Again, no thanks. I think you're actually making the problem worse despite what you believe to be your best intentions.


Edited for darn spelling.


----------



## George Wallace (10 Jan 2010)

MCG said:
			
		

> I will concede that a lot of anecdotal evidence has been used on both sides of this argument.  Unfortunately, there is no researched evidence  available to fill-in where anecdotal has been used.



I am so glad that you consider the testimonies of those who are "Double Dippers" and other Class B Reservists as being "anecdotal".  





			
				MCG said:
			
		

> Okay then.  Recognizing that my initial position did not did not impact pers leaving the government all together (because they are not the group I want to influence), lets change the question.  If we left the pension exactly as it is now, could you support the concept of converting all full-time service into Regular Force service provided that limited obligation TOS are introduced and Class B annuitants are grandfathered so that they can continue their double-dipping ways up until whenever they do decide to cease full-time employment?



This does sound more thought out, and perhaps would even have your "Double Dippers" find it an acceptable proposition with them ceasing their pensions to once again pay into the Reg F Pension Plan, and have the same pay as their Reg F counter parts--none of this 15% less BS.  It may convice some that the slight loss of income towards their final Retirement is an acceptable move.


----------



## McG (10 Jan 2010)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Proposed in a manner whereby those of us who get the "Mil factor" (as I pointed out many posts ago) are punsihed and lose money.


Well, there is no "us" because of grandfathering.  It is only "them who come after."  But I digress.  How is this punishment?  Under the proposal that saw the pension plan change (as opposed to the proposal that simply killed the double-dip), I still presented something more generous that just about anything else out there (certainly the only examples I've seen come close are build for emergency service personel and these still don't payout till 30 years service at 50 years of age).



			
				ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Even your "oh so generous" offer to give a -10 etc wait for pension means that a pers with 25 years of service has to work longer/wait longer (whereas they wait not at all now) just to receive exactly what he does now.


That is not true if the member chooses to stay in the goverment.  After those 10 years, the member would have increased the percentage of of base salary from which the pension is paid.  If the member continued Reg F service, then pay incentives and promotion have also likely increased the base salary.

In any case though, I really don't care to fight the amended pension option any more (as I indicated, it was only introduced to appease certain critics who opposed elimiating the double-dip while allowing complete retirees to collect a pension at the same point in a career).

Vern,
If the current pension is not changed, what are your thoughts on replacing long-term Class B with limited TOS Reg F?



			
				George Wallace said:
			
		

> This does sound more thought out, and perhaps would even have your "Double Dippers" find it an acceptable proposition with them ceasing their pensions to once again pay into the Reg F Pension Plan, and have the same pay as their Reg F counter parts--none of this 15% less BS.  It may convice some that the slight loss of income towards their final Retirement is an acceptable move.


Absolutely.  I support to pay protection as a reward for 25 years service.


----------



## armyvern (10 Jan 2010)

MCG said:
			
		

> Well, there is no "us" because of grandfathering.  It is only "them who come after."  But I digress.  How is this punishment?  Under the proposal that saw the pension plan change (as opposed to the proposal that simply killed the double-dip), I still presented something more generous that just about anything else out there (certainly the only examples I've seen come close are build for emergency service personel and these still don't payout till 30 years service at 50 years of age).
> That is not true if the member chooses to stay in the goverment.  After those 10 years, the member would have increased the percentage of of base salary from which the pension is paid.  If the member continued Reg F service, then pay incentives and promotion have also likely increased the base salary.
> 
> In any case though, I really don't care to fight the amended pension option any more (as I indicated, it was only introduced to appease certain critics who opposed elimiating the double-dip while allowing complete retirees to collect a pension at the same point in a career).
> ...



I've already told you my thoughts on Class B (even with a limited TOS). No thanks. I'm going to the civvy world and I've explained why.

Many pers have already pointed out the "lack" of incentive towrds those not grandfathered and yet to be recruited. They'd do their 20, then they'd go work out on civvy street earning a second pension while they wait for their first (aged 50 or whatever) because they'd have to work anyway after they got out, so may as well get out sonner rather than later and earn time towards a second pension cheque for the rest of their lives. IE: They'd be better off financially to get out immediately after they do the *minimum* number of pensionable years, then work towards a second elsewhere.

Regarding the "best pension plan out there" ... yep, the one I posted you still have to wait until 50 to collect, but that's at a 70% rate too. That, sorry you missed it, beats the heck out of your proposal (and our pension) - they've got carrots - you do not.


----------



## George Wallace (10 Jan 2010)

Vern

Face it.  He has not reached the stage in his career where he is really concerned about life after work (CF or otherwise).  He is postulating a plan that he thinks will work.  He has his anecdotal cases, and thinks that any commentary from Class B, Double Dippers, or pers soon approaching Annuitant status is as anecdotal as his cases, dismissing them as they have not been published or part of any Government sponsored study.  Perhaps in ten or fifteen years his insight will be more along the line of yours.


----------



## McG (10 Jan 2010)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Regarding the "best pension plan out there" ... yep, the one I posted you still have to wait until 50 to collect, but that's at a 70% rate too. That, sorry you missed it, beats the heck out of your proposal (and our pension) - they've got carrots - you do not.


Of course, that also requires 30 years of service (same as what I proposed) to get that 70% rate at 50 (and I did say higher rates were an option for my proposal, so who is to say we wouldn't give a better rate).


----------



## armyvern (10 Jan 2010)

MCG said:
			
		

> Of course, that also requires 30 years of service (same as what I proposed) to get that 70% rate at 50 (and I did say higher rates were an option for my proposal, so who is to say we wouldn't give a better rate).



Right, but as said - yet again - those pers don't have to up and move their families upteen times in their careers. Isn't that what causes most of us to pull pin? Sick and tired of the moving: which those other 30 years/age 50/ 70 percent pension pers are NOT subject to? Nor do public servants have to put up with instability/uncertainty that we AND our families do for 30 years (that's what you're asking us to do). They and their families are all stable in their lives ... for 30 years, but not us. So, if you want me and my family to be unstable for 30 years --- you'd better ante up a *whole lot more * incentive than 50years/70% pension that those stable ones are enjoying.

That's a big part of WHY we are able to collect earlier. You want to take that away.

And, you can't (as pointed out already too) implement a "no move clause" because then the pers in the shitty postings get out because they get stuck staying in those shitty postings while you look after those in the 'good spots' to prevent them from getting out. That just causes Peter to get out instead of Paul - it solves nothing.


----------



## McG (10 Jan 2010)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Right, but as said - yet again - those pers don't have to up and move their families upteen times in their careers. Isn't that what causes most of us to pull pin? Sick and tired of the moving: which those other 30 years/age 50/ 70 percent pension pers are NOT subject to? Nor do public servants have to put up with instability/uncertainty that we AND our families do for 30 years (that's what you're asking us to do). They and their families are all stable in their lives ... for 30 years, but not us. So, if you want me and my family to be unstable for 30 years --- you'd better ante up a *whole lot more * incentive than 50years/70% pension that those stable ones are enjoying.


I recognize that hardship in the limited obligation TOS (where you could get paid, continue to build the pension, and be pay-level protected) and I do still allow a slightly earlier departure.   The military hardship is also already recognized in our pay.  We get paid more now because of it, and our pension will be higher because it is based on the pay that includes the military recognition.



			
				ArmyVern said:
			
		

> I've already told you my thoughts on Class B ...


You have told me that Class B is not what you want in the current system, and you don't want limited obligation TOS in the proposed system (with or without pension plan changes).  So I know what you will do (you are all in or you are all out).  But, this really doesn't tell me what you think about this Class B vs Limited Obligation Reg F for the CF as a whole and as an option for individuals who need a break in pace.  Unless ...



			
				ArmyVern said:
			
		

> And, you can't (as pointed out already too) implement a "no move clause" because then the pers in the shitty postings get out because they get stuck staying in those shitty postings while you look after those in the 'good spots' to prevent them from getting out. That just causes Peter to get out instead of Paul - it solves nothing.


Is it your opinion that all full-time service personnel should be postable?  There should be neither long-term Class B nor limited obligation Reg F TOS?


----------



## Lex Parsimoniae (13 Jan 2010)

MCG said:
			
		

> Is it your opinion that all full-time service personnel should be postable?


 Yes.


----------



## armyvern (13 Jan 2010)

Lex Parsimoniae said:
			
		

> Yes.



I'll echo your answer.



But, now I'll now qualify "full time service personnel" for the inevitable comment that will follow from someone:

Service personnel of the Regular Force = "full time service" = 100% of our paychecks each month; Long contract B Class personnel of the Reserve Force are _*not*_ included in my "yes" - they are not full-time service, nor do they collect 100% of our pay. They take annuitant leave every year this means they are not full-time.


----------



## OldSolduer (13 Jan 2010)

I did a good number of years in the Reg Force. I took every posting I was told to. I may not have liked it, but the CF is not in the business of pleasing people all of the time. If the posting preference of the member and the posting are the same, great.


----------



## dapaterson (13 Jan 2010)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> I'll echo your answer.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



No, class B pers do not take annuitant breaks.  Annuitants take annuitant breaks, and there are actually more pers on class B not drawing annuities than those that do, so most pers on class B are full-time.


And to argue that a 35 day break makes someone not full-time is stretching definitions - we permit other folks to take LWOP and yet still consider them full-time; annuitants can do the same job for 5 (calendar) years, and will take 165 days in unpaid leave - meaning they were paid for 4 1/2 of 5 years, which certainly sounds like full-time to me...


----------



## armyvern (13 Jan 2010)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> No, class B pers do not take annuitant breaks.  Annuitants take annuitant breaks, and there are actually more pers on class B not drawing annuities than those that do, so most pers on class B are full-time.
> 
> 
> And to argue that a 35 day break makes someone not full-time is stretching definitions - we permit other folks to take LWOP and yet still consider them full-time; annuitants can do the same job for 5 (calendar) years, and will take 165 days in unpaid leave - meaning they were paid for 4 1/2 of 5 years, which certainly sounds like full-time to me...



I agree with you on the problem of the proliferation of B Class and that it needs to get sorted out as I've stated numerous times on this site.

But, my take from a different PoV than you (and especially different than that of MCG).

There is a proliferation of B Class popping up because we can't fill RegF posns ... in many Units a whole lot more so than others - think Pri 6 etc. Sooooooo, in order to keep my Pri 6 Unit's nostrils above water to support Ops, trg, and every other task that they throw at us ... we hire a B Class to get that "undone, BUT required" job done.

Now, while that pri 6 Unit hires B Class to fill posns where we have to get the work done ... higher Pri Units sit at 10% overstrength levels, MMO (in order to "keep" a serving wife in the same location as her serving husband) etc etc).

At the particular location of which I speak ... there are HUGE multitudes of B Class personnel ... and thank gawd for that because if they weren't there than even the pittance of a trg system that exists today would FAIL. Of course, higher levels have deemed that a NO-FAIL ... ergo the B Class needs to be there.

So, enough of the molly-coddeling all those personnel who state "I ain't going there, they only get casual field pay, my wife has a good job here in this big city, my family is stable here because we've been here for 14 years ...". Just step up to the plate and say:

"Too damn bad, here's your options:"

1) RFD at location X IAW this posting instruction I'm cutting you right now with your family; or

2) RFD at location X IAW this posting instruction I'm cutting you right now on IR status without your family; or

3) Get the hell out, here's your posting message.

Because, each and every time one of "those people" gets mollycoddeled, that's one less posn getting filled at location X ... which equals one more B Class we're going to hire to do the job because we have no choice in the matter ... meanwhile the Unit where "that person was" continues to sit at overstrength level. I have BIG issues with that.

The after-effects of allowing someone to settle into a single location for a decade+ is setting in. But you know what? The effects have always been there since this "whatever the troop wants instead of what the CF requires" way of doing business began ... because people like me who do what the CF requires of me have packed up and moved 9 times in that 20 years, more than once on IR (because my spouse & I could not be posted to same location & both went instead where we were needed).

Two IRs ago, I had been in my new posting just 25 months ... when the CF needed someone of my rank & trade in another province ASAP. They came to me. I said "Am I ever going to get a posting that lasts more than 3 years? and why can't so&so go ...?" Answer: "He can't go right now." He was the same rank, same trade and single with ZERO kids. But, interestingly, he couldn't go. Too bad for me, my kids, my family (and eventually during that particular IR ... too bad for my marriage). Fun eh? But the very best part of the proceeding story is that "HE" - the single guy, was my sponsor during a earlier posting (91) ... as soon as I got posted in, he got posted out to location Y. In 95 I was also posted to location Y and he was my sponsor!!. In 97 I was posted out to location Z ... etc etc. Then, in 2003 ... I got posted BACK to location Y and there he still sat and he was my sponsor yet again!! Now, throughout my postings between my original posting to Y and back to it again the second time ... I also did a few tours ... not so "he". He *finally* was posted out in 2006 while I sat in that other province away from my family on IR. 15 years. 1 posting, no tours - had he. Same trade, same rank. Bullshit. (I'll add the caveat that I now outrank him by one). There's something wrong with that ... and I'm not alone.

It's time for the CF to get back to the business of getting the job done wherever it may be. And to stop "looking after" others who don't want to move at the expense of the rest of us who do what we signed up for _wherever_ the CF needs us to do that.

You want to see the excess of BClass "full-timers" disappear, then start making those regF pers who don't want to move ante up and do their jobs by going where they're told ... or getting out so we can recruit someone in who will learn and once again become accustomed to the fact that "moves are here-to-for expected and *will* happen".

Just the .02cents worth from my rosy-little fed-up with the molley coddeling at the expense of the rest of us world.


[/Vern's evening rant]


----------



## gcclarke (14 Jan 2010)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Two IRs ago, I had been in my new posting just 25 months ... when the CF needed someone of my rank & trade in another province ASAP. They came to me. I said "Am I ever going to get a posting that lasts more than 3 years? and why can't so&so go ...?" Answer: "He can't go right now." He was the same rank, same trade and single with ZERO kids. But, interestingly, he couldn't go. Too bad for me, my kids, my family (and eventually during that particular IR ... too bad for my marriage). Fun eh? But the very best part of the proceeding story is that "HE" - the single guy, was my sponsor during a earlier posting (91) ... as soon as I got posted in, he got posted out to location Y. In 95 I was also posted to location Y and he was my sponsor!!. In 97 I was posted out to location Z ... etc etc. Then, in 2003 ... I got posted BACK to location Y and there he still sat and he was my sponsor yet again!! Now, throughout my postings between my original posting to Y and back to it again the second time ... I also did a few tours ... not so "he". He *finally* was posted out in 2006 while I sat in that other province away from my family on IR. 15 years. 1 posting, no tours - had he. Same trade, same rank. Bullshit. (I'll add the caveat that I now outrank him by one). There's something wrong with that ... and I'm not alone.



The truth is that the fact this guy is single is irrelevant. The CF cannot legally discriminate against it's single personnel by forcing them to take shitty postings any more so than it can refuse to hire people with children because they're more likely to have to take time off when they're sick. Discrimination on the basis of family status is prohibited under the Canadian Human Rights Act. 

Now, don't get me wrong, all that other stuff you described is indeed really asinine, and I suspect is probably a result of a string of CM's not being willing to call someone's bluff when they shout "I'll VR if you try to post me". In my humble opinion, said bluff should be called a lot more often. 


From the Canadian Human Rights Act: 





> Employment
> 7. It is a discriminatory practice, directly or indirectly,
> (a) to refuse to employ or continue to employ any individual, or
> (b) in the course of employment, to differentiate adversely in relation to an employee,
> ...


 and 





> Prohibited grounds of discrimination
> 3. (1) For all purposes of this Act, the prohibited grounds of discrimination are race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, *family status*, disability and conviction for which a pardon has been granted.
> 
> Idem
> ...


----------



## McG (14 Jan 2010)

Lex Parsimoniae said:
			
		

> Yes.


So, under Lex, even Class B pers would be geographically "postable."  As long as we are not paying them 100%, I can't support this.



			
				ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Lex Parsimoniae said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Okay, you have no objection to different classes of service where one has higher pay and benefits while the other is not subject to geographic postings or directed deployments.  Given that you hold such opinion, would you mind telling ...



			
				MCG said:
			
		

> ... what you think about this Class B vs Limited Obligation Reg F for the CF as a whole and for individuals who need a break in pace.



?


----------



## Paladium (6 Mar 2011)

old fart said:
			
		

> MCG:
> 
> I have run my own numbers and it is clear to me that the only loser in the long run is me if I had accepted the Class B carrot then serving my last 4 years to 35 years on Class B.....My loss of lifetime earnings is as follows:
> 
> ...


----------



## PuckChaser (6 Mar 2011)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> There is a proliferation of B Class popping up because we can't fill RegF posns ... in many Units a whole lot more so than others - think Pri 6 etc. Sooooooo, in order to keep my Pri 6 Unit's nostrils above water to support Ops, trg, and every other task that they throw at us ... we hire a B Class to get that "undone, BUT required" job done.



I agree, but I'll add that some Reserve units are giving themselves a self-licking ice cream cone. I have a Cl B backfill in my section that I, nor my chain of command asked for, backfilling for SigOp Alt Custodian. This Cl B pers is neither a SigOp nor has a Custodian course, and is therefore useless to us. The running gag is that he's the designated heavy-lifting guy, because he doesn't know a lot of the stuff we do. The person that got approval for the backfill? A Cl B reserve officer from his unit.


----------



## Monsoon (6 Mar 2011)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> I agree, but I'll add that some Reserve units are giving themselves a self-licking ice cream cone. I have a Cl B backfill in my section that I, nor my chain of command asked for, backfilling for SigOp Alt Custodian. This Cl B pers is neither a SigOp nor has a Custodian course, and is therefore useless to us. The running gag is that he's the designated heavy-lifting guy, because he doesn't know a lot of the stuff we do. The person that got approval for the backfill? A Cl B reserve officer from his unit.


This anecdote has so many holes in it that I won't even trouble to address them (particularly as the post has nothing to do with this thread), except to suffice to say that backfills don't get staffed without a considerable amount of admin effort. Maybe your unit didn't ask for this position, but someone somewhere up your chain of command did and they probably had a good reason to. I'll also note that there's a COMSEC Custodian course running somewhere in the country an average of twice a month, so why not get your "useless" shad loaded on it so he can start working for you instead of griping about having to work with an officer.


----------



## PuckChaser (6 Mar 2011)

hamiltongs said:
			
		

> This anecdote has so many holes in it that I won't even trouble to address them (particularly as the post has nothing to do with this thread), except to suffice to say that backfills don't get staffed without a considerable amount of admin effort. Maybe your unit didn't ask for this position, but someone somewhere up your chain of command did and they probably had a good reason to. I'll also note that there's a COMSEC Custodian course running somewhere in the country an average of twice a month, so why not get your "useless" shad loaded on it so he can start working for you instead of griping about having to work with an officer.



I'd be more than happy to fill the holes in on the story in PM if you so desire, but I'll just state that I left out details to not divulge the person or the unit. However, if you want to go and tell me how many people I need to run the det in my section, you're more than welcome to get posted in and take my spot over.


----------



## Future Pensioner (8 Mar 2011)

If memory serves me correctly, the only people who CAN "double dip" are Regular Force personnel.  If a reservist with 25 years full time service "retires", he or she can not "rejoin" the reserves and continue receiving their pension.  Once they "rejoin", the have to stop receiving their pension and begin paying back into the pension.

Therefore, the earlier comments about the pension being between a member and the CFSA, just does not make as much of a "salient" point in this case.


----------



## armyvern (9 Mar 2011)

hamiltongs said:
			
		

> ... so why not get your "useless" shad loaded on it so he can start working for you instead of griping about having to work with an officer.



Can you please point out to me where his post stated that this pers was an Officer? I missed that bit; I did see the bit where he said that it was a "B Class Officer from his (the backfill guy's) Unit that got him the job." Certainly not that the backfill was an Officer though.

Even if so, buddy should rightly have the qualifications required to perform the B Class position* prior *to filling - else he isn't eligible to fill it. That's why there's supposed to be an interview for those posns undertaken. Given that the process obviously failed in this situation, certainly can be seen by some to be a bud "looking after buddy" situation rather than someone "just griping about having to work for an-assumed (on your part) Officer."


----------



## Monsoon (9 Mar 2011)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Can you please point out to me where his post stated that this pers was an Officer? I missed that bit; I did see the bit where he said that it was a "B Class Officer from his (the backfill guy's) Unit that got him the job." Certainly not that the backfill was an Officer though.


Sent you a PM - don't want to derail this thread.


----------



## GAP (7 Jan 2012)

Tories end forced retirement, decades of ‘age discrimination’
Kathryn Blaze Carlson  Dec 18, 2011
Article Link

Two decades since Ottawa’s first attempt to kill mandatory retirement, the Conservative government has managed to quietly overturn legislation that has for 30 years given federally regulated employers the right to force workers into retirement because of their age.

The section of the Canadian Human Rights Act that permitted mandatory retirement was officially repealed by the government’s Budget Implementation Bill, which received Royal Assent last week. Now that the budget bill is formally on the books, the country’s 12,000 federally regulated employers will no longer be able to force their 800,000 employees into retirement beginning December 2012.

“This was an overnight success after 20 years of lobbying,” said Susan Eng, a vice-president at CARP, Canada’s largest national organization representing seniors. “They buried it in the larger budget bill, and this is one time where I’m glad they did.”

All Canadian jurisdictions, with the exception of New Brunswick, have now abolished mandatory retirement, although there are some exceptions in some provinces for particular occupations. The latest budget bill means employers in federally regulated industries such as banking, transport, and communications will be allowed to continue working beyond the typically mandated ages of 60 or 65.

Successive Liberal and Conservative governments have promised to repeal the provision, but either an election or excessive lobbying by employers and unions meant bills continuously died on the Order Paper. David Dodge, the former Bank of Canada governor, catapulted the issue into the spotlight in 2004, when he challenged the status quo by calling mandatory retirement a “silly policy.”

A move that would have once sparked controversy went off last week without much ado — a signal, Ms. Eng said, that “there has been a sea-change in public values on the issue of forcing people to retire before their time.”

“We’re not born with date stamps saying our fitness for work expires at 65,” David Langtry, acting chief commissioner of the Canadian Human Rights Commission, said in a statement. “Age discrimination is age discrimination, pure and simple.”
More on link


----------



## jollyjacktar (7 Jan 2012)

Good, about time.  If you're willing and able to work past 60-65, why not?


----------



## Halifax Tar (7 Jan 2012)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> Good, about time.  If you're willing and able to work past 60-65, why not?



One reason is that there are allot of people in there 20s and 30s right now who can't find a job and a big reason for this is people unwilling/able to retire... I think there needs to be mandatory retirement.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (7 Jan 2012)

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> One reason is that there are allot of people in there 20s and 30s right now who can't find a job and a big reason for this is people unwilling/able to retire... I think there needs to be mandatory retirement.



I think if you're going to force me to end my career so your son or daughter can get my job, then you have to make it very financially sweet. I'm not talking CCP or OAS here either. I am not beholden to anyone to move over for anyone else if I can still do my job.


----------



## Stoker (7 Jan 2012)

So will this affect the CRA of 60 for the forces? or is it even being looked at?


----------



## Stoker (7 Jan 2012)

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> One reason is that there are allot of people in there 20s and 30s right now who can't find a job and a big reason for this is people unwilling/able to retire... I think there needs to be mandatory retirement.



With people living longer and healthier they are going to want to work longer. You right it is troubling for people who want jobs but can't get them because someone who wants to work but doesn't need to work are hanging on to those jobs. There's no real easy answer to that. I know if the forces got rid of the age 60 CRA there would be people there until their 70's.
If we need that skilled labor fine, but what do we do to employ the younger people who need the job and have young families?


----------



## Halifax Tar (7 Jan 2012)

recceguy said:
			
		

> I think if you're going to force me to end my career so your son or daughter can get my job, then you have to make it very financially sweet. I'm not talking CCP or OAS here either. I am not beholden to anyone to move over for anyone else if I can still do my job.



I disagree. Your pension is your "financially sweet" reward, as you put it, for a long career with an organization.  At a certain age people must be made to move aside to ensure we continue to grow and evolve our work force. Otherwise we end up with massive drains of experience all at once with little substance able to fill the gaps left behind. 

This is something, I maintain, the military and public service is heading towards.


----------



## Halifax Tar (7 Jan 2012)

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> With people living longer and healthier they are going to want to work longer. You right it is troubling for people who want jobs but can't get them because someone who wants to work but doesn't need to work are hanging on to those jobs. There's no real easy answer to that. I know if the forces got rid of the age 60 CRA there would be people there until their 70's.
> If we need that skilled labor fine, but what do we do to employ the younger people who need the job and have young families?



Well put my friend.  Its an interesting subject, and one that will be sure to be a interesting discussion. 

My wife is a teacher with the Halifax Regional School Board. She was very lucky to get full employment right away as she is a french teacher. The vast majority of our friends that are teachers are between the ages of 25-35 and cannot find full employment. A big reason they list is that older teachers just aren't willing to retire.


----------



## Stoker (7 Jan 2012)

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> Well put my friend.  Its an interesting subject, and one that will be sure to be a interesting discussion.
> 
> My wife is a teacher with the Halifax Regional School Board. She was very lucky to get full employment right away as she is a french teacher. The vast majority of our friends that are teachers are between the ages of 25-35 and cannot find full employment. A big reason they list is that older teachers just aren't willing to retire.



Don't get me wrong if the person needs to work and for unforeseen circumstances is not financially set and there is work available by all means. However if the person wants to work for sake of working, well that's just sad especially if it means someone else can't make their rent money.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (7 Jan 2012)

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> I disagree. Your pension is your "financially sweet" reward, as you put it, for a long career with an organization.  At a certain age people must be made to move aside to ensure we continue to grow and evolve our work force. Otherwise we end up with massive drains of experience all at once with little substance able to fill the gaps left behind.
> 
> This is something, I maintain, the military and public service is heading towards.



We'll just have to agree to disagree. It's my right to work as long as I want. I'll also be paying lots of tax. Lots of it. Paying into all of those government pension schemes, EI and the like. There's always going to be drains. Every generation , i.e: baby boomers, create huge gaps when they retire wholesale. This will spread it out.

Also, my pension has nothing to do with anything. You want something special from me, want me to give your son my job? You'll have to pay for it. Nothing is free in this world. Otherwise he can go find something else to do.

Besides, and this is the important part, this is my life and you're in no position, or have any authority, to tell me what to do with it.


----------



## ballz (7 Jan 2012)

I'm with RG (first time for everything right :nod

We should be focussing on having a strong economy so that young people are in demand... not focus on keeping them in demand by forcing people to retire...

I don't know how good or bad the pension is for government employees... but it seems irrelevant. If someone is 70 years old, has the skill and experience, and is making 100k a year, he/she shouldn't be forced into a lower standard of living (whether it's only down to 80k a year or all the way down to 20k a year) just to make room for somebody. It's robbing Peter to pay Paul.


----------



## Stoker (7 Jan 2012)

ballz said:
			
		

> I'm with RG (first time for everything right :nod
> 
> We should be focussing on having a strong economy so that young people are in demand... not focus on keeping them in demand by forcing people to retire...
> 
> I don't know how good or bad the pension is for government employees... but it seems irrelevant. If someone is 70 years old, has the skill and experience, and is making 100k a year, he/she shouldn't be forced into a lower standard of living (whether it's only down to 80k a year or all the way down to 20k a year) just to make room for somebody. It's robbing Peter to pay Paul.



You would think after 40 or 50 years of working they would not need to work further and would like to enjoy themselves. Being pensioned off and having a lower paying job doesn't mean their quality of living is doing to drop that much.
Reeceguy is right that its not for anybody to tell him to stop working but in the mind of someone who can't get a job, not financially secure and has the same skills, well too bad for him right? life not fair right?

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this one.


----------



## ballz (7 Jan 2012)

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> You would think after 40 or 50 years of working they would not need to work further and would like to enjoy themselves.



But as RG alluded to, that's none of anybody's business. Most probably will not need to work further and would like to enjoy themselves, and I suspect the number of people working past 70 will be few.... That said, I'm convinced the day my old man retires is the day he will drop dead. You would think when he works 6 straight 12 hr days, he would want to enjoy his 6 days off.... nope, he builds a house each year in his spare time and sells it.... Some people just like working, he makes me sick sometimes haha.



			
				Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> but in the mind of someone who can't get a job, not financially secure and has the same skills, well too bad for him right? life not fair right?



Well, I wouldn't guess that a 20 year old has the same skill-set or experience as a 60 year old... but even if he did, how's it any different from two 30 year olds with the same skill-set and experience, and one of them is unemployed... Do you start making them "share" hours? Do you take the job away from one 30 year old and give it to the other? Why would that suddenly become fair the day someone turns 65? What was different the day before?

A 20 year old complaining about a 65 year old having a job that he's probably held and done well at since before that 20 year old was born is sort of OWS-style whining IMO.

In all seriousness, I do think it is a "life's not fair" thing... We can fix the problem a lot better, and more _fairly_, by creating a good economy, that's my two cents, but I'll agree with disagreeing... I'll give you the last word if you'd like to respond to this post and then we'll call it.


----------



## Stoker (7 Jan 2012)

ballz said:
			
		

> But as RG alluded to, that's none of anybody's business. Most probably will not need to work further and would like to enjoy themselves, and I suspect the number of people working past 70 will be few.... That said, I'm convinced the day my old man retires is the day he will drop dead. You would think when he works 6 straight 12 hr days, he would want to enjoy his 6 days off.... nope, he builds a house each year in his spare time and sells it.... Some people just like working, he makes me sick sometimes haha.
> 
> Well, I wouldn't guess that a 20 year old has the same skill-set or experience as a 60 year old... but even if he did, how's it any different from two 30 year olds with the same skill-set and experience, and one of them is unemployed... Do you start making them "share" hours? Do you take the job away from one 30 year old and give it to the other? Why would that suddenly become fair the day someone turns 65? What was different the day before?
> 
> ...



Fair enough, hopefully the economy will be better and there will be jobs to be had for everyone young and old :nod:


----------



## GAP (7 Jan 2012)

Then the argument will be about those Damn Immigrants taking our young's' jobs....imagine that!!


----------



## Halifax Tar (7 Jan 2012)

recceguy said:
			
		

> We'll just have to agree to disagree. It's my right to work as long as I want. I'll also be paying lots of tax. Lots of it. Paying into all of those government pension schemes, EI and the like. There's always going to be drains. Every generation , i.e: baby boomers, create huge gaps when they retire wholesale. This will spread it out.
> 
> Also, my pension has nothing to do with anything. You want something special from me, want me to give your son my job? You'll have to pay for it. Nothing is free in this world. Otherwise he can go find something else to do.
> 
> Besides, and this is the important part, this is my life and you're in no position, or have any authority, to tell me what to do with it.



I agree to disagree.  :nod:

I'm not going to reinforce my point any further as time will tell what effect this has on things.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (7 Jan 2012)

Canadian Human Rights Act

R.S.C., 1985, c. H-6

An Act to extend the laws in Canada that proscribe discrimination

SHORT TITLE

Short title

1. This Act may be cited as the Canadian Human Rights Act.

1976-77, c. 33, s. 1.

PURPOSE OF ACT

Purpose

2. The purpose of this Act is to extend the laws in Canada to give effect, within the purview of matters coming within the legislative authority of Parliament, to the principle that all individuals should have an opportunity equal with other individuals to make for themselves the lives that they are able and wish to have and to have their needs accommodated, consistent with their duties and obligations as members of society, without being hindered in or prevented from doing so by discriminatory practices based  on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, family status, disability or conviction for an offence for which a pardon has been granted.

Seems pretty clear to me.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (7 Jan 2012)

People need to understand that not everyone has had a good, well paying government job for 30 years.

Many people have gone through a number of life changes and employment. Some no longer have employment with a pension plan. Some never reached the term where a plan would kick in before the shop closed. Some have just had setbacks that don't provide for their well being in the future.

I'll agree, that if a person has a pension plan, say it matures at 20 years, so that it reaches a point that if he pensioned he'd get 3/4 of his pay, then he really is just working for 1/4 of his regular wage.

Put in figures for example. He makes $100\ day working wage. If receiving full pension he would get $75\ day. If he remains working he is really only getting paid $25\ day. 

It might be time to go.

But if he's not getting a pension, or it's only worth 50% of his daily rate, that could feasibly cut his standard of living by the same amount.

Not everyone has the luxury of RSPs, being mortgage free or having a single job, uneventful working life of 40 years.

Those people should have the choice about what they want to do, so long as they remain productive.

Of course, you could always take it to the other extreme. Upon retirement they climb aboard and ice flow and drift off into the night.

That or undergo the ritual of "Carrousel" a la Logan's Run  ;D


----------



## Stoker (7 Jan 2012)

recceguy said:
			
		

> People need to understand that not everyone has had a good, well paying government job for 30 years.
> 
> Many people have gone through a number of life changes and employment. Some no longer have employment with a pension plan. Some never reached the term where a plan would kick in before the shop closed. Some have just had setbacks that don't provide for their well being in the future.
> 
> ...



I see your point but like I mentioned in my other post the people who need to work for whatever reason I certainly do not have a problem with. The people I do is people with maxed pensions and very well off that could be retired and give that job up but won't because they want to more cash or to work for the sake of working. I know that's not a lot but there are some.
That's just my point of view on the matter.


----------



## armyvern (7 Jan 2012)

I wonder if the legislation also silently got in a little caveat giving the Feds the ability to fire the asses of civil servants who have "no real or sustainable" job (ie surplus to requirements) and those who are shitty and very poor performers without having to bear the wrath of the entire Union down upon them as they attempt to keep performing and deserving individuals employed and bring in those of new blood who would also perform? Probably not, those select few can now just drain our HR departments of critical resources for life now (and I have no doubt they will).


----------



## OldSolduer (7 Jan 2012)

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> One reason is that there are allot of people in there 20s and 30s right now who can't find a job and a big reason for this is people unwilling/able to retire... I think there needs to be mandatory retirement.



We started at the entry level. Quite a few of these 20-30s types want CEO jobs right out of university.

They don't warn entry level, they want the job we have now. Good luck with that.

I'm with RG on this.


----------



## Stoker (7 Jan 2012)

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> We started at the entry level. Quite a few of these 20-30s types want CEO jobs right out of university.
> 
> They don't warn entry level, they want the job we have now. Good luck with that.
> 
> I'm with RG on this.



Yes but even at the entry level, everyone must be able to move up.


----------



## OldSolduer (7 Jan 2012)

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> Yes but even at the entry level, everyone must be able to move up.



And they will once we retire. I am not working forever. 

I had to wait over 30 years to get where I am. They can what, gain experience and then move up, just like we did.


----------



## Maxadia (7 Jan 2012)

And when the population keeps increasing, what do we do - then lower the mandatory age to 55? 50? 45?

No jobs?  Go find one....it won't get handed to you.  I had to move over halway across the country with my family to find work....but the part that is important is that I DID MOVE to find employment.  I see to many young people just sitting around wishing there were more jobs in their areas.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (7 Jan 2012)

RDJP said:
			
		

> And when the population keeps increasing, what do we do - then lower the mandatory age to 55? 50? 45?



Like France with their mandated 35 hr max weeks, 22 stat holidays and 8 weeks of vacation?

Overtime is outlawed. Many work on the black market to make ends meet.

Retirement before 60 is the norm. No choice

The 35-hour work week was meant to create new jobs. Unemployment was unaffected. It still hovers around 10 percent.

Not everyone is thrilled about working even 35 hours. 

There is little room for advancement, so many just do enough to stop from getting fired.

It didn't work there. It won't work here, IMHO


----------



## Halifax Tar (7 Jan 2012)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Like France with their mandated 35 hr max weeks, 22 stat holidays and 8 weeks of vacation?
> 
> Overtime is outlawed. Many work on the black market to make ends meet.
> 
> ...



 :-\ Im befuddled here recceguy... Perhaps its my simple sailor mind but how does one go from a CRA discussion in Canada to working hours in France ?

Not intended to be rude, I just don't see the correlation.


----------



## Halifax Tar (7 Jan 2012)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Canadian Human Rights Act
> 
> R.S.C., 1985, c. H-6
> 
> ...



I fail to see how CRA is discrimination. But that is the law so my point its moot.


----------



## Halifax Tar (7 Jan 2012)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> I wonder if the legislation also silently got in a little caveat giving the Feds the ability to fire the asses of civil servants who have "no real or sustainable" job (ie surplus to requirements) and those who are shitty and very poor performers without having to bear the wrath of the entire Union down upon them as they attempt to keep performing and deserving individuals employed and bring in those of new blood who would also perform? Probably not, those select few can now just drain our HR departments of critical resources for life now (and I have no doubt they will).



Amen to that


----------



## Maxadia (7 Jan 2012)

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> :-\ Im befuddled here recceguy... Perhaps its my simple sailor mind but how does one go from a CRA discussion in Canada to working hours in France ?
> 
> Not intended to be rude, I just don't see the correlation.



I suggested that having mandatory retirement so younger people can find jobs could eventually lead to a situation where people start asking to LOWER the age.  recceguy pointed out a situation where trying to lower to amount of working hours to increase jobs in another country didn't work either.

Seem right on topic to me.


----------



## Halifax Tar (7 Jan 2012)

RDJP said:
			
		

> I suggested that having mandatory retirement so younger people can find jobs could eventually lead to a situation where people start asking to LOWER the age.  recceguy pointed out a situation where trying to lower to amount of working hours to increase jobs in another country didn't work either.
> 
> Seem right on topic to me.



 OK seen. Thanks.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (7 Jan 2012)

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> :-\ Im befuddled here recceguy... Perhaps its my simple sailor mind but how does one go from a CRA discussion in Canada to working hours in France ?
> 
> Not intended to be rude, I just don't see the correlation.



It was a reponse to the part of RDJP's post that I quoted within my post. Constant lowering of the retirement age _could_ lead to the same problems as found in France.

Sharing work as means to employ everyone, young and old, is just part and parcel of the whole equation. My post also mentions forced retirement and the rest is simply some of the systemic things that could go with it and work sharing.

After all, if we're going to tell everyone what to do, whether they like it or not, we should look at all the extrapolations and how it will affect things and them, right?


----------



## Halifax Tar (7 Jan 2012)

recceguy said:
			
		

> It was a reponse to the part of RDJP's post that I quoted within my post. Constant lowering of the retirement age _could_ lead to the same problems as found in France.
> 
> Sharing work as means to employ everyone, young and old, is just part and parcel of the whole equation. My post also mentions forced retirement and the rest is simply some of the systemic things that could go with it and work sharing.
> 
> After all, if we're going to tell everyone what to do, whether they like it or not, we should look at all the extrapolations and how it will affect things and them, right?





> And when the population keeps increasing, what do we do - then lower the mandatory age to 55? 50? 45?
> 
> No jobs?  Go find one....it won't get handed to you.  I had to move over halfway across the country with my family to find work....but the part that is important is that I DID MOVE to find employment.  I see to many young people just sitting around wishing there were more jobs in their areas.



No one is lowering the CRA. In fact its been done away with. I personally think leaving it at 65 would have been fair to all parties. 

If you are not in a position after 45 years of working ability to retire than that's a "life is tough" scenario but you should still be made to move out of the way. It is your life you are correct. But the young deserve the same opportunities you got at that age. 

Sometimes governments should do what the people need, require and what is right. That may conflict with what they want. This is one of those cases. Unfortunately this will have a major negative impact on our work force over time.  But those who finally do retire at 80 years old wont care. 

I for one look forward to retirement in 8 years, with 20 years service. And I look forward to starting a new career at that point what ever it might be. I will guarantee you one thing, If I have to work past 65 something is very wrong.


----------



## mariomike (7 Jan 2012)

In OMERS ( which includes Ontario municipal emergency services ), once you turn 55, and have "maxed out" your pension to 70 per cent of pre-retirement income, there is little incentive to stay. You can stay if you wish to do so, but your pay will only be 30 per cent more than if you took the pension. 

Because the age of the average police, fire and paramedic recruit has steadily increased over the years, Ontario municipal contracts are being negotiated from a 2% to 2.33% accrual rate for those occupations. From best five years to best three years earnings formula. From a 90 Factor ( age + years of service - minimum age 55 ) to an 80 Factor ( minimum age 50 ).
It is now possible to retire on a 70 per cent pension on your 50th birthday, rather than your 55th.
This is recent. I served under the old plan. ( 2%, best five years, age 55 ).

Firefighters and paramedics in Toronto who have not retired by age 60 are removed from front-line 9-1-1 operations and placed in support positions until mandatory retirement at age 65. However, with the new federal legislation, and given that these support positions are in limited supply, emergency services will be challenged  to expand their accommodation efforts for an aging workforce who stay on ( whether by freedom of choice, or out of necessity because they joined later in life ) beyond the age of 65. 
I believe this will become an increasingly greater challenge as we "baby boomers" who joined straight out of high school retire, while call volume is increasing.

More on the above from the Canadian Association of Retired People CARP:
"Mandatory Retirement – federal step forward, Ontario steps back";
http://www.carp.ca/2011/11/18/mandatory-retirement-ontario-steps-back/


----------



## Maxadia (7 Jan 2012)

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> Well put my friend.  Its an interesting subject, and one that will be sure to be a interesting discussion.
> 
> My wife is a teacher with the Halifax Regional School Board. She was very lucky to get full employment right away as she is a french teacher. The vast majority of our friends that are teachers are between the ages of 25-35 and cannot find full employment. A big reason they list is that older teachers just aren't willing to retire.




Aren't you contradicting yourself? So if these friends can't find full time work for the next, say, 10 years - you think it's better that they retire at 65 to make room for others?

You have to remember things are changing. It's now believed that students in today's society may have an average of up to 17 different jobs over their working life...no facts to back it up, but from what I've seen it seems to be on the right track.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (7 Jan 2012)

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> No one is lowering the CRA. In fact its been done away with. I personally think leaving it at 65 would have been fair to all parties.
> 
> If you are not in a position after 45 years of working ability to retire than that's a "life is tough" scenario but you should still be made to move out of the way. It is your life you are correct. But the young deserve the same opportunities you got at that age.
> 
> ...



So if one of these 45 year, too bad so sad, life is tough people, can't make it in retirement, who takes care of him?

It's not a cut and dried consequence. I'm just spitballing and looking at different scenarios.

Cause and effect stuff.

Better than saying, " You're 60, hit the bricks".

I wish you luck in your endevours.


----------



## armyvern (7 Jan 2012)

recceguy said:
			
		

> So if one of these 45 year, too bad so sad, life is tough people, can't make it in retirement, who takes care of him?
> 
> It's not a cut and dried consequence. I'm just spitballing and looking at different scenarios.
> 
> ...



I'll just toss this out there then (and I'm pro-abolishment of CRA) as an answer to your highlighted question, in the same vein as "just looking at causes and effects" because there certainly WILL be some future effects felt when these _17careerers_ reach their own elderly years.

The exact same Canadian taxpayer who will have to fork out higher taxes and pension payments to look after our current generation of those just-entering the workforce who will now never have an opportunity to work towards earning a pension at one (or two) places long enough in their entire working-lives/years as they muddle through their 17 (probably minimum wage, non benefit paying, part-time _17_ careers).

They'll never earn a pension and you think somehow they'll just be left to rot on the side of the streets in their later years? I doubt it. I'll get ready for my grandchildren being part of the "Ultimate Social Program Generation" now all supported by the lifers in the Federal Service. Good work if you can get it.


----------



## a_majoor (7 Jan 2012)

Many older people need to continue working past 65 since they do not have high paying pensions and benefits. This isnt about rights or desire, but simple survival.


----------



## armyvern (7 Jan 2012)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Many older people need to continue working past 65 since they do not have high paying pensions and benefits. This isnt about rights or desire, but simple survival.



100 percent correct ...

Which is what an entire Generation of 17 career-in-a-lifetime pers will face when they hit their later years as per my post below ...

Thanks for re-inforcing that point.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (8 Jan 2012)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> I'll just toss this out there then (and I'm pro-abolishment of CRA) as an answer to your highlighted question, in the same vein as "just looking at causes and effects" because there certainly WILL be some future effects felt when these _17careerers_ reach their own elderly years.
> 
> The exact same Canadian taxpayer who will have to fork out higher taxes and pension payments to look after our current generation of those just-entering the workforce who will now never have an opportunity to work towards earning a pension at one (or two) places long enough in their entire working-lives/years as they muddle through their 17 (probably minimum wage, non benefit paying, part-time _17_ careers).
> 
> They'll never earn a pension and you think somehow they'll just be left to rot on the side of the streets in their later years? I doubt it. I'll get ready for my grandchildren being part of the "Ultimate Social Program Generation" now all supported by the lifers in the Federal Service. Good work if you can get it.



I don't _think_ anything of the sort. Just asked a question is all.

But thanks for your POV anyway.


----------



## SupersonicMax (8 Jan 2012)

Ahhh.. Baby Boomers... Always thinking of themselve before anything else...

Jokes aside, there has to be a rotation of personnel over time.  The olds need to give way to the younger generations.  This can be seen at Air Canada right now.  No place for advancement for new hires (they get stuck as a First Officier for 15+ years, not because they don't perform, because they can't.  The old farts stick around forever).  

Having a CRA has 2 big advantages: 
1- It protects people from themselve.  A lot of people WILL work themselve to death.. Litterally.
2- It forces a healthy rotation of personnel across all the industries.

By setting, let's say, CRA to 65 years of age, you send a clear message to people:  Be ready to retire by 65.  That's 40+ years!!  Save, have enough money available to maintain the lifestyle you want.  Be it with a pension plan, savings, RRSPs, piggy bank, whatever.  BUT, again, lots of baby boomers bought toys and had fun, instead of saving for retirement.  And then, when comes time for retirement, younger generations have to pay for their bad decisions.


----------



## a_majoor (8 Jan 2012)

Sadly, one of the answers to the problem has been blocked by the Federal Government for decades: increasing the contribution amounts to RRSP's.

The amount was supposed to be increased as far back as the 1990's, but the amount has not been raised to the amounts that actuaries recommended. I'm not ready to do the full Google Search for dates and amounts right now (but anyone who can weigh in with actual facts and figures is welcome to do so).

RRSP's are portable, self directed, may include employer contributions (for companies able and willing to do so) and quite flexible, so even a person who has 17 part-time careers through their working lifetime can set aside some monies for their retirement, and compound interest and a bit of self discipline will ensure a decent, but not lavish retirement.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (8 Jan 2012)

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> By setting, let's say, CRA to 65 years of age, you send a clear message to people:  Be ready to retire by 65 The Canadian Human Rights Act can be ignored and you are too old to work because younger people think their needs and wants are more important than yours.



Same message, just different wording...


----------



## SupersonicMax (8 Jan 2012)

It's not about anybody's need, but what good, in the long term, for the country.  An old working force with nobody below ready to take over is not healthy.


----------



## aesop081 (8 Jan 2012)

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> It's not about anybody's need, but what good, in the long term, for the country.  An old working force with nobody below ready to take over is not healthy.



While that is certainly true, it does not get us around the charter.


----------



## SupersonicMax (8 Jan 2012)

There are exceptions to the charter.  We are a good example.  Where there's a will, there's a way.

It's not discrimination when NOBODY past 65 can work.


----------



## Container (8 Jan 2012)

If people live longer and are "healthier" for more of their years- how does younger people having to advance slower in their careers hurt?

Just because they have to be "junior" longer? To be honest Im still "young"-ish. I have no intention of letting someone talking me in to a home because they want my job. You can have it when you prove better than me at it.

Not to long ago I was on a course being taught by a 60 year old assaulter. He still ran his physical at under 3:00minutes which is something most men in their twenties cant do. He should be pushed aside because some softer young fella wants his job?

The retirement age has been stagnant while peoples "good years" have gotten longer- why shouldnt it change too? If your in a job where your mind and body are required to show up it'll get pretty obvious when you need to leave.


----------



## SupersonicMax (8 Jan 2012)

If everybody retired at an appropriate age by themselve, it could work. However, you will always have a majority of people that won't have sufficiently contributed, a way or another, to retirement savings (and removing CRA will just be a catalyst, insiting people NOT to invest in their retirement, since they can work till they drop) and will keep working past normal retirement age.  This will always clog up the bottom and will, as a result, force the younger generation to work till they drop, since they will not have enough working years to save enough money to retire at a decent age.

At that stage, it's not about who's best for the job: there are plenty of people that can do the work these older people do, as good or sometimes better.  It's about making space at the bottom to train the next generation.


----------



## armyvern (8 Jan 2012)

recceguy said:
			
		

> I don't _think_ anything of the sort. Just asked a question is all.
> 
> But thanks for your POV anyway.



Actually it was a rhetorical question. Sorry that you took the "you" personally.

It was rather meant as "Canadians" (we baby boomers in general who are the beneficiaries of this recent change) have just collectively passed it off to the next generation. Nothing changes, just who and when. No matter, you and I probably won't be around when that generation hits their elderly years.


----------



## MJP (8 Jan 2012)

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> It's not discrimination when NOBODY past 65 can work.



The courts since the inception of the Charter have taken a different look at "equal" types of discrimination than what you are saying.  Before the charter, under the Bill of Rights, judges usually ruled the way you have presented the issue.  One example of this was the practice of native women losing their native status if they married someone non-native. Their were several cases raised and one that that made it to the Supreme Court in the Bill of Rights era around this issue.  The courts interpreted that since all native women were treated equally then there was no discrimination.1

After the Charter however this was changed and judges no longer look at there being no discrimination just because it applies equally to all people.  Rather _for discrimination to be found it must be determined if the burden or denial of benefit harms an individual's human dignity (Law v. Canada). That is, the discrimination will marginalize, ignore, or devalue an individual's sense of self-respect and self-worth._  There is more to it but it is as one can see quite different than the strict interpretation seen under the Bill of Rights.

Regardless it will be interesting in the next 10-15 years to see this new change being played out in the MSM and via the courts.

1http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attorney_General_of_Canada_v._Lavell


----------



## SupersonicMax (8 Jan 2012)

MJP, it was my opinion, and mine only. I should have specified. I understand what the law says. However, like I said, when there's will, there's a way. Exceptions to the law exist.


----------



## MJP (8 Jan 2012)

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> MJP, it was my opinion, and mine only. I should have specified. I understand what the law says. However, like I said, when there's will, there's a way. Exceptions to the law exist.



Seen.

Like I said it will be interesting to see the effects of this play out.  I personally can't see it being applied equally either FWIW.


----------



## armyvern (8 Jan 2012)

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> MJP, it was my opinion, and mine only. I should have specified. I understand what the law says. However, like I said, when there's will, there's a way. Exceptions to the law exist.



True that; in the CF we call  them "bona fide military requirements".


----------



## MJP (8 Jan 2012)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> True that; in the CF we call  them "bona fide military requirements Occupational Requirements ".



FTFY


----------



## PPCLI Guy (8 Jan 2012)

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> It's not about anybody's need, but what good, in the long term, for the country.  An old working force with nobody below ready to take over is not healthy.



And this is the demographic gap I intend to exploit.  The BLUF is that you are right - there is no one to take over right now.  I intend to part company with my Mistress (the Army) at about 54 or 55, in the full knowledge that there will be a huge gap in seasoned and experienced managers fit enough to work into their 70'sin the market place, as the Boomers leave, and the Xer's ain't ready....

Yes, I will be your worst nightmare.  A dude with a big pension who is going to work for 5-10 more years - and all of that to ensure that my 160 acre retirement anti zombie apocalypse compound plot of land has a view of the mountains instead of Fort Saskatchewan....


----------



## armyvern (8 Jan 2012)

What the heck is FTFY an acronym for?? I'm old.  :-[


----------



## armyvern (8 Jan 2012)

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> ... has a view of the mountains instead of Fort Saskatchewan....



Seriously!!??

Alberta for your retirement and return to watching MJ _Thriller _videos?? Alberta??  That could be 500 acres of prime waterfront on the_ L_East Coast. >


----------



## MJP (8 Jan 2012)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> What the heck is FTFY an acronym for?? I'm old.  :-[



Sorry it means fixed that for you.


----------



## armyvern (8 Jan 2012)

MJP said:
			
		

> Sorry it means fixed that for you.



Thanks!!  8)


----------



## PPCLI Guy (8 Jan 2012)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Seriously!!??
> 
> Alberta for your retirement and return to watching MJ _Thriller _videos?? Alberta??  That could be 500 acres of prime waterfront on the_ L_East Coast. >



Hey - I am as surprised as you are.  I always thought it would be Clearwater, Powell River, or Nova Scotia.  PPCLI Gal has recently announced that, although we are deep down Montreal liberals, that we are going to retire in Alberta.  I take my FAC next week, and am eyeing up a truck as we speak...


----------



## OldSolduer (8 Jan 2012)

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> There are exceptions to the charter.  We are a good example.  Where there's a will, there's a way.
> 
> It's not discrimination when NOBODY past 65 can work.



So who will look after the over 65 lot that have no pension or means of financial support? Will you willingly fork over more of your money to take care of them?

Be careful what you wish for.


----------



## captloadie (8 Jan 2012)

For all those who think that it is in their best interest to be allowed to work until they think they are ready to retire, have to considered what this really means for some professions? For example - school boards who now must keep teachers on staff until they are 70, 80, etc. More senior teachers cost more money than junior teachers, which means more money for salaries, and less for everything else. Also, who hasn't heard of that teacher their kid has now whose skills are already 20 years outdated? Think of what parents will be putting up with now. This also discourages young, bright people from entering the profession if they can't find a job.

Think also what this could mean to the CF, *if* it were applied. Plenty of senior NCMs are quite capable of meeting the U of S requirements past 60. What do you do with them though? Let them stay in the ever shrinking number of CWO positions, clogging advancement for everyone else?

All I am saying is I think that if you want to do away with CRA, you also must allow employers to create stricter guidelines and employment criteria to let people go (that apply to everyone, not just the aged).


----------



## SeaKingTacco (8 Jan 2012)

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> Hey - I am as surprised as you are.  I always thought it would be Clearwater, Powell River, or Nova Scotia.  PPCLI Gal has recently announced that, although we are deep down Montreal liberals, that we are going to retire in Alberta.  I take my FAC next week, and am eyeing up a truck as we speak...



Welcome to the dark side!

 >


----------



## SupersonicMax (8 Jan 2012)

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> So who will look after the over 65 lot that have no pension or means of financial support? Will you willingly fork over more of your money to take care of them?
> 
> Be careful what you wish for.



Did not plan ahead?  Too bad, so sad.  You get your old age security and CPP.  The country should not have to take the burden because you did not plan ahead. 

On other topics, lots of people here preach personal responsibility (just looking at the Occupy Movement thread...).  Because you are old doesn't make you all of the sudden special.  

I am a big proponent of personal responsibility.  Across the board.


----------



## GAP (8 Jan 2012)

Tell us that in 25-30 years.....


----------



## SupersonicMax (8 Jan 2012)

So GAP, please explain why the burden of someone's, or a group of people's bad decisions should be taken by the generations behind?


----------



## a_majoor (8 Jan 2012)

The real flaw in arguments like Max's is the underlying assumption there is a "fixed" number of jobs. This is a subset of the larger fallacy there is a "fixed" amount of wealth.

Consider the situation with Information Technology. Up until the 1930's, a "computer" was a job title for a mathematically inclined person who did routine mathematical equations. The job market for "computers" exploded with the demands of WWII, but since there is a limited number of people who can actually do the job and many applications (like ballistic fire control computers, designing military aircraft and  the Manhattan Project) far outstripped the supply and ability of human computers, mechanical and then electronic computers came to the fore. Human "computers" became obsolete, but new classes of jobs involving programming computers and maintaining the infrastructure were created instead.

The invention of personal computing, large scale networking and the Internet have driven an explosion of demand for programmers, IT techs, web designers and associated personnel, most of who's job descriptions did not even exist in the 1980's.

A similar situation exists in resource extraction, as materials like copper and steel are supplemented by silicon and composites. New jobs are appearing and old jobs are being eliminated to reflect the switch.

Finally, the overall numbers of jobs rise and fall with the economy. Bursts of wealth creation like the "Go Go 60's", and the Reagan Revolution are accompanied by massive surges in job creation, while times of economic contraction like the Great Depression and today's economic slowdown see the shedding of jobs.

The real goals of eliminating the CRA and mandatory retirement are to maintain the pool of skilled labour (since our demographic bust will reduce the number of workers overall) and reduce the pressure on the "entitlements" budget, as changing the retirement age is a prelude to changing the eligibility and start dates for CPP, OAS and unfunded liabilities like government pensions (est to be $500 billion in Canada, over $2 trillion in the US).


----------



## Journeyman (8 Jan 2012)

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> ...please explain why the burden of someone's, or a group of people's bad decisions should be taken by the generations behind?


A credible degree-granting institution may have introduced you to terms like "social safety net," "Tommy Douglas," "Canadian Universal Healthcare".....  

This isn't new


----------



## SupersonicMax (8 Jan 2012)

So, the social safety net works when you are old, but not when you are younger?


----------



## Journeyman (8 Jan 2012)

:  Obviously you're putting extra effort into being obtuse today. I'll pass.



Edit: typo


----------



## Infanteer (8 Jan 2012)

captloadie said:
			
		

> All I am saying is I think that if you want to do away with CRA, you also must allow employers to create stricter guidelines and employment criteria to let people go (that apply to everyone, not just the aged).



Those that have argued for CRA have raised a valid point.  There are good case studies - with the interwar period for both the Canadian and American examples being notable ones that I have seen - that feature a senior crop of leaders who, with no CRA, stick around too long and basically lock on most, if not all, senior positions within their organizations.

The result is that mid-level guys, guys with lots of talent (like Simmonds) end up sitting around with 10 years for promotion or, worse, leaving because of lack of opportunity.  The constant lesson in these case studies is that professional military organizations need mechanisms like CRA to ensure a constant "tilling" of the talent to keep fresh blood in the system.

Another trend in these old, non-CRA models is that most of these senior guys tended to get fired and shuffled off when the next war broke out and the middle guys flying through about 3-4 ranks in little to no time to take their places, but that's another phenomenon altogether.


----------



## OldSolduer (8 Jan 2012)

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> Did not plan ahead?  Too bad, so sad.  You get your old age security and CPP.  The country should not have to take the burden because you did not plan ahead.
> 
> On other topics, lots of people here preach personal responsibility (just looking at the Occupy Movement thread...).  Because you are old doesn't make you all of the sudden special.
> 
> I am a big proponent of personal responsibility.  Across the board.


As am I. But to toss the over 65 crowd to the wolves without support is cruel. A society is judged on how well it takes care of its elderly and animals.


----------



## SupersonicMax (8 Jan 2012)

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> As am I. But to toss the over 65 crowd to the wolves without support is cruel. A society is judged on how well it takes care of its elderly and animals.



OAS and CPP are a little more, than say, tossing the crowd to the wolves.  They have support.  Yes, basic, but enough to live.  Maybe not as comfortable as they want, but that's nowhere near cruel.  These programs are in place to prevent exactly that.

We could turn your sentence with any group.  "But to toss the 99% crowd to the wolves without support is cruel"  How does that sound??


----------



## navymich (8 Jan 2012)

Besides, there are many underlying factors that may have prevented the stockpiling for a winter day.  Or that have depleted that stockpile.  Things such as sick/disabled children or spouse, household expenses/repairs, cost of nursing home, education debts, etc etc.  Or even the fact that the plan started late due to debt, divorce or any of the items mentioned above.  There are many seniors that pick up a part-time job to help with expenses.  But those jobs aren't always easy to come by (something about young'uns that want them too?   )  So if they were able to keep their regular job to help themselves continue without being dependent on others, would you fault them?


----------



## krustyrl (8 Jan 2012)

:goodpost:

I for one started my plan later than expected due to a sick and disabled spouse.  Just doing the best I can and things are looking better.


----------



## Edward Campbell (8 Jan 2012)

We are at a point, in human 'development,' at which, even if we gave everyone the financial means to live their lives in relative security and comfort and to make adequate provisions for their retirement, most people cannot (or will not) do the necessary things. We have also learned that, despite the fact that people cannot/will not care for themselves, society (AKA government) cannot do it either. We have 'evolved' a lot since Bismarck introduced the _nanny state_ back about 140 years ago. (That's right, children, the modern welfare state was introduced, with the best of intentions, by the old _iron chancellor_.)






The arch-liberal Bismarck

Assuming, as I do, that we don't want to have tens of thousands of homeless people, including school children living on the streets of medium sized cities like Calgary or Hamilton and assuming that we don't want to sweep up dead bodies on an almost daily basis, we need to have some mechanism to marry up personal responsibility (and I agree with Max that we all *must* be responsible for ourselves), private (non-state) charity and public (state) support so that only a few people are homeless and starving and so on. I think we, currently, have unsound expectations - we (most of us) have, since about 1970, come to believe that the correct "mix" is public welfare, private charity and, only if absolutely necessary, a wee tiny bit of personal responsibility.

Unless Max and his generation are a whole helluva lot more fecund that were his parents and grandparents, or unless we import a whole lot more hard working, productive Chinese people, then our (the majority's) expectations are unaffordable.


----------



## a_majoor (8 Jan 2012)

There is no "one size fits all" solution. Things that will help include greater labour mobility (getting people to go to where the jobs are), greater wealth creation (so there are more jobs), detaching benefits from jobs (so workers can move benefits and savings with them if/when they change jobs) mostly through insurances and RRSP/TFSA type accounts and so on.

Stagnation within organizations is indeed a huge problem, but even there performance based evaluations such as the "up or out" policy of the US military "could" be made to work if the mechanism was objective and enforced (gaming the system and "ticket punching" are two obvious drawbacks to these sorts of systems if they are not monitored or allowed to drift into cronyism).

As for circumstances beyond your control, such as illness or life changing events, in the past there were families and charities to go to, and this may have to be the model in the future as nations slide deeper into debt.


----------



## SupersonicMax (8 Jan 2012)

airmich said:
			
		

> Besides, there are many underlying factors that may have prevented the stockpiling for a winter day.



Yup.  MOST of the reasons (not ALL of them) are because of a decision the person made, one way or another.  I know someone that is almost completely paralized (she can move her head and part of the right hand) and guess what, she worked for the last 35 years.  She is going to retire this year with enough to do whatever she wants and live wherever she wants.  Despite the fact she had to pay for homecare, home remodeling to accomodate her needs, etc, etc.  When there's a will there's a way.  

For the reasons that are out of one's control there is usually a social program to offset some of the burden.  And that's okay.

If people want to go to Unversity and get a degree in Basket Weaving and for some "magical", unknown reason, they cannot get a job, maybe looking back at the decision of going to University in Basket Weaving may be the root cause.  Maybe picking something that was more marketable would have been a smarter choice.  In that case, because someone makes bad career decision, the younger generations should take the burden of paying for them?  I think not.

Divorce?  Same thing.  It's all about personal responsibilities.


----------



## GAP (8 Jan 2012)

Nice discussion........by a bunch of people, most of whom are sitting on a comfortable pension at the end of 20/25 years.............ah, such sanctimony.... :


----------



## armyvern (8 Jan 2012)

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> As am I. But to toss the over 65 crowd to the wolves without support is cruel. A society is judged on how well it takes care of its elderly and animals.



My mother is actually like one of our current younger-generation who will be the future 17 career-in-a-lifetime kids. She will be one who will work well into her later years --- yet another knock-off of being a military spouse who has worked throughout her life, but with postings or non-job opportunities at some of those postings so has never been able to work towards a pension. I agree with this latest change to legislation as there are thousands of people out there like her in this country and none of them should be thrown to the wolves.

For me, this does not SOLVE the issue though, all it has done is pass it down to the next generation who will now experience the exact same thing on a much wider and grander scale as their opportunities to enter the workforce into a 'pensionable' long-term career have essentially all but vaporized. These pers too can not be thrown to the wolves and it is my belief that we need to come up with a solution to that "long-term" effect of this new policy now --- I believe that it is our generations duty to do so.

Someone earlier posted about they'd better start paying into RRSPs now etc and take some responsibility for their futures. All well and good and quite proper a thought. But, when looking forward to a lifetime of part-time, minimum wage, non benefit paying (such as dental) jobs with no guarantee of even holding those jobs "year-round", I'm going to wager that even those who are extremely personally responsible will have very very minimal contributions to such because the work force they are looking forward to participating in does not allow one to support themselves with the basic necessities that are required to live in their youth (we already have a preponderance of 'double income' households barely surviving due to the exact same types of "employment" on this basis) ... let alone allow RRSP contributions enough to allow them to survive without truly significant social programming in their later years.

We needed this legislation - it solves our generations problem. Now, what do we do to solve the problems that our fix has just created for our kids and their kids? Or, do we just skip that because it's not our problem and throw _them_ to the wolves instead?


----------



## Brad Sallows (9 Jan 2012)

The people thrown to the wolves are actually the younger generations.

The critical error in the creation of all the entitlements of the welfare state was not paying the full cost of the freight up front.  Each additional layer of welfare essentially created additional financial freedom.  The boomers essentially set up to tax future generations (deficit spending is simply future taxation moved into the present) for benefits payable to the boomers even as the boomers simultaneously elected to birth and raise fewer future taxpayers.  The boomers used their increased financial freedom (welfare and smaller families) in part to pursue bigger and better homes.  So the up-and-coming generations have higher hurdles to cross with respect to affordable family formation, even as they are charged to pay for themselves and their parents/grandparents.

A novel way of looking at the prospect of reduced retirement bennies for boomers would be this: they charged some of their goodies to the future; the future is now - pay up.  People who argue that they paid into CPP and are due have in fact already received their due.


----------



## McG (16 Jan 2012)

This is not the first time I've seen this topic pop-up recently.  It looks like an interesting debate is looming on the horozon.  Hopefully, we make out well in the end.


> *A public concern in the nation's capital
> Federal employees' generous plan leads to questions about sustainability - and whether it's a proper use of our tax dollars*
> Peter O'Neil
> Vancouver Sun
> ...


----------



## dapaterson (16 Jan 2012)

A few thoughts:

First, fact checking is not the writer's strong suit.  Since 2007, new CF members must serve 25 years, not 20, to qualify for an annuity under the CFSA.

Second, the article conveniently ignores that any actuarial deficits are greater than expected due to the Federal government removing significant surpluses in the 1990s.  It's similar to Lizzie Borden asking for mercy from the court because she's an orphan.

Third, it's ridiculous to state that the analysis should exclude low pension amounts.  Spurious logic to advance the casue serves no one's interest.

Fourth, pension plans do have to be re-examined over time to ensure they meet the need.  Lifespans have lengthened.  There is concern about a loss of knowledge and experience; altering plans to encourage longer-term retention might be advisable.

My suggestion?  For the Public Service, at least, move from 2% per year for a maximum 35 years to 1.8% per year to a maximum of 40 years.  The maximum is slightly increased, but personnel will have to stay 14% longer (five more years) to max out.  Longer service would also reduce long-term pension costs, as people would draw benefits for fewer years.  By lowering the benefit and maintaining the employee contribution rates a better balance between employer and employee contributions would be established.


----------



## Infanteer (16 Jan 2012)

I've never heard my own pension being termed as "gold-plated"....

The pension is a valuable tool; it serves to motivate professionals to stay in and dedicate themselves to their organization.  This is just my opinion, so take that for what it's worth, but I know I feel good about the time I put in uniform understanding that in 21 years I'll get something back.  I'm sure many fellow members feel the same.

That being said, I see know problem with increasing the member's portion - as discussed, the CANFORGEN was released last weak detailing the increase for this FY.  As well, I see no issue with dapaterson's proposal; people are working, and enjoy working, for longer periods of their life.


----------



## mariomike (17 Jan 2012)

> My suggestion?  For the Public Service, at least, move from 2% per year for a maximum 35 years to 1.8% per year to a maximum of 40 years.



Pension accural rates for certain occupations have recently _improved_  from 2% to 2.33%. 
Members can now "max-out" in 30 years.
http://www.omers.com/pdf/2010_2_33_Accrual_Rate_Benefit_Tables.pdf

"The Province is dismissing the best interests of OMERS members, pensioners, municipalities, tax payers and the long-term viability of the OMERS Pension Plan, by ensuring that police, firefighters and paramedics have access to supplemental benefits, regardless of the cost.":
http://www.amo.on.ca/AM/PrinterTemplate.cfm?Section=Bill_206&Template=/CM/HTMLDisplay.cfm&ContentID=49082


----------



## Container (18 Jan 2012)

I havent seen another thread where someone demanding to be allowed to work while they are fully capable are included with the "entitled".


----------



## PMedMoe (19 Jan 2012)

Well, I'm thinking the Members of Parliament won't be too concerned about our pensions as long as theirs don't change.

*MPs get 'platinum-plated' pensions*

Depending on where you're standing it's either the ultimate in freedom 55 - or "a ripoff on a massive scale." 

It's MP pensions, and a bombshell report released Wednesday by the Canadian Taxpayers Federation points to just how rich those pensions really are. 

"It's probably the best funded pension plan on Earth right now," said CTF federal director Gregory Thomas. 






More at link

Not that I'm shocked or anything.   :


----------



## Infanteer (19 Jan 2012)

We had a debate on this a while back, and it was a good one.  I certainly don't begrudge a good pension for an MP - we need the right benefits to convince talented professionals to walk away from their (probably prosperous) ventures.

That being said, they probably wouldn't be starving in the streets f they, like everything, took a 5 to 10% cut (or more) in this era of belt tightening.


----------



## GAP (19 Jan 2012)

Yeah, the optics would be encouraging.....


----------



## SeaKingTacco (19 Jan 2012)

...Or go more towards a self-directed RRSP while they serve as MPs, co-funded by the Crown.  When they retire (or are defeated) they keep the RRSP fund and then are given a (generous) gratuity, based on years of service completed in Parliament.

This method would allow Canada to rightly renumerate MPs for a difficult job, but once they are out of Parliament, the cost to Crown ceases also.


----------



## a_majoor (19 Jan 2012)

Well, MP's can now join the party. Any bets they will eat the shortfall and let taxpayers off the hook? /snark

http://www.citytv.com/toronto/citynews/news/national/article/181684--mps-pension-plan-faces-1b-shortfall-report



> *MPs' pension plan faces $1B shortfall: report*
> 01/19/2012  | The Canadian Press
> 
> A report from a prominent think tank says Canada's parliamentarians are facing even graver pension woes than the rest of the country.
> ...


----------



## Infanteer (19 Jan 2012)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> ...Or go more towards a self-directed RRSP while they serve as MPs, co-funded by the Crown.  When they retire (or are defeated) they keep the RRSP fund and then are given a (generous) gratuity, based on years of service completed in Parliament.
> 
> This method would allow Canada to rightly renumerate MPs for a difficult job, but once they are out of Parliament, the cost to Crown ceases also.



As usual, I like your ideas best.


----------



## PMedMoe (20 Jan 2012)

> A report from a prominent think tank says Canada's parliamentarians are facing even graver pension woes than the rest of the country.
> 
> The C.D. Howe Institute says the pension plan that secures retirement benefits for members of Parliament and senators is underfunded by up to $1 billion.
> 
> The report says the plan provides MPs with more than 50 per cent of their *six-figure salary*, but has no assets set aside to pay for those future benefits.



Awww, I really feel sorry for them.   :


----------



## MJP (20 Jan 2012)

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> Awww, I really feel sorry for them.   :



I feel sorry for us the taxpayer...we have to make up that unfunded liability.


----------



## PMedMoe (20 Jan 2012)

MJP said:
			
		

> I feel sorry for us the taxpayer...we have to make up that unfunded liability.



Yes, that too.


----------



## a_majoor (28 Jan 2012)

Pension reform is quite doable, and effective in saving taxpayer dollars as well. While this case study is from Wisconsin, (there is no comperable Canadian example, yet), we should all be aware that there is a $500 billion unfunded liability of government pensiona and benefits over and above the $500 billion + debt, so some changes are needed ASAP:

http://www.city-journal.org/2012/22_1_scott-walker.html



> *It’s Working in Walker’s Wisconsin*
> The governor’s controversial labor reforms are already saving taxpayers millions.
> 
> Public unions around the country have poured money into an effort to vote Walker out of office.
> ...


----------



## McG (30 Jan 2012)

I don't think there is anything terribly wrong with the pensions that currently exist for the CF, RCMP and PS.  Judges seem to become entitled to a pension very quickly, but to become a judge one must already have served most of a career as a lawyer so this does not seem too unreasonable.

If I were to reform federal pensions, I would introduce a single system that is able to account for differences between different types of employment of service.  With one system, I would hope to make movement between different parts of the federal government easier.  One system would be easier and cheaper to administer (though, that would only come with time as the "old systems" would continue to exist for the next 80 years as people currently entitled continue to live).  Full-time public servants should also see their pensions benefit from any part-time reserve service in which they participate.

I don't believe in double-dipping.  No other employer will pay someone both a pension and a paycheck because the individual changed departments under the same employer.  Double dipping would disappear under a unified pension system, but it would be replaced with the potential for a higher annuity as an incentive for retiring service members (CF or RCMP) to stay with the federal government.

Attached is one big-hand, small-map concept for such a system.


----------



## mariomike (30 Jan 2012)

MCG said:
			
		

> I don't believe in double-dipping.  No other employer will pay someone both a pension and a paycheck because the individual changed departments under the same employer.  Double dipping would disappear under a unified pension system, but it would be replaced with the potential for a higher annuity as an incentive for retiring service members (CF or RCMP) to stay with the federal government.



More on that,
Topic: "Ottawa targets public service pension plan for cutbacks - Should the CF pension "double-dip" be next":
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/91361.0.html
6 pages.

Topic: ' "Double Dippers" Mega Thread':
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/87805.0.html


----------



## McG (30 Jan 2012)

... some foot note changes already:


----------



## larry Strong (30 Jan 2012)

If the Goeverment is serious about MP pension reform, it will go along ways to shutting up the cacophonous shreik that is riseing over the OAS. It will be intersting to see where the most resistance comes from......

Shared with the usual caveats:
*
Tory government urges MP pension reform*

http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/sunnews/politics/archives/2012/01/20120130-145249.html



> OTTAWA - The Conservatives are pushing fellow MPs to reconsider their platinum-plated pension plan.
> Conservative house leader Peter Van Loan urged the MPs sitting on the Board of Internal Economy - a secretive all-party committee with exclusive authority over MP expenses - to look into scaling back the plan that sees taxpayers chip in $23 for every $1 an MP contributes.
> 
> "We don't think it's right we should be asking all of government and all Canadians to expect that we make savings across the board unless we're prepared to do it ourselves," he said.
> ...


----------



## The Bread Guy (30 Jan 2012)

Larry Strong said:
			
		

> If the Government is serious about MP pension reform, it will go along ways to shutting up the cacophonous shreik that is rising over the OAS.


The shriek will be even louder (and rightly so) if there isn't movement on MP pension reform.


----------



## larry Strong (31 Jan 2012)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> The shriek will be even louder (and rightly so) if there isn't movement on MP pension reform.



The MP plan definitely needs a big dose of reality.........


----------



## a_majoor (4 Feb 2012)

Larry Strong said:
			
		

> The MP plan definitely needs a big dose of reality.........



This guy does:


----------



## Jed (4 Feb 2012)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> This guy does:



Wow! That cracks me up.  :nod:


----------



## GAP (4 Feb 2012)

Again, dated but relevant.................

The Chopping Block: 4. Save billions via pension reform
Special to Financial Post  Oct 6, 2011
Article Link

By William Tufts and Lee Fairbanks

Public-sector unions have negotiated pensions that lift their retired members far above the poverty line. Their plans have been heavily funded by Canadian taxpayers and provide a seamless level of income support for public-sector employees, spanning their careers and continuing into their retirement until death.

In fact, many retirees on public-sector plans have a higher disposable income in retirement than they had on average during their working years. It is unfair for taxpayers to be on the hook for these liabilities.

There has been a serious lack of discussion in Canada about public-sector pension reform, but other governments have begun to address the issue. We suggest three ways to control the cost of public-sector employee benefits and at the same time make them fair for federal employees.

Equitable pension contributions between taxpayers and employees

Private-sector employers commonly match the retirement contributions of employees in Group RRSP savings plans. The federal government offers a very generous program whereby employees are required to fund only 35% of the cost of their retirement.

The C.D. Howe Institute estimates the federal public-sector pension plan to be underfunded by $200-billion. In 2010 total employee and taxpayers contributions into the federal employee pension plan were $4.3-billion, an increase of 15.5% over the previous year. Based on the current contribution levels (35%/65%), employees contributed $1.505-billion and taxpayers funded $2.795-billion in 2010.

If the contribution rates for public-sector employees and taxpayers were made equal (50/50) based on the current contribution rates this would have saved taxpayers $645-million based on last year’s numbers. Assuming the yearly increase in contribution rate is the same in 2011 (to $4.95-billion) as it was in 2010 (15.5%), the potential savings for 2011 would have been $742.5 million.
More on link


----------



## Edward Campbell (9 Feb 2012)

And a "blast from the past," from the Chrétien/Martin era, involving CF/RCMP/PS pensions, in this report which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Ottawa Citizen_:

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/business/court+hear+historic+battle+over+public+service+pension+surplus/6122452/story.html


> Top court to hear historic battle over public service pension surplus
> 
> By KATHRYN MAY, The Ottawa Citizen
> 
> ...




My guess (made without benefit of legal knowledge) is that the _Supremes_ are taking this case because it is a matter of national importance and not because there is some probability that the  Ontario Court of Appeal erred in its ruling (against the unions); this case will allow the SCC to delineate more clearly the relative "rights" of the government vs its servants.


----------



## GAP (9 Feb 2012)

PS pension surplus? correct me if I am wrong, but does not the Federal Government pay those pensions out of General Revenue? 

Top court to hear historic battle over public service pension surplus
 By KATHRYN MAY, The Ottawa Citizen February 8, 2012
Article Link

OTTAWA — Federal unions are making a final appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada this week in a long battle to recover the $28-billion surplus in public service, military and RCMP pension plans that the federal government used to help pay down the deficit more than a decade ago.

The Supreme Court granted the unions and retiree associations leave to appeal because of the national importance of the case, which affects more than 700,000 retired and existing public servants who belong to one of the country’s largest pension plans, many of whom live in the national capital region.

The hearing couldn’t come at a worse time for public service unions, which face growing resentment over the costly defined benefit pension plans that public servants enjoy. The government has indicated these pensions are being reviewed.

The 18 unions and pensioners’ groups are seeking an order to overturn an Ontario Court of Appeal decision that ruled they weren’t entitled to any of the $28-billion surplus at the centre of the historic legal battle over the government’s decision to amortize or write off the surplus against the debt between 1990 and 2000.

The unions and pensioners want the court to recognize that they have an “equitable” interest in the surplus, or at least the 42 per cent of it that experts estimate is how much public servants, RCMP and military contributed to the surplus in contributions and interest over the years.

They argue that Bill C-78, the legislation the government passed in 1999 to give it the authority to take the surplus, didn’t “extinguish” employees’ claim to a portion of the surplus.

The 18 unions and retirees associations face millions of dollars in legal bills, which have left some questioning why they continued to support a losing legal battle. Some were ready to pull out but stayed because of pressure from their members. Many admit they were surprised when the Supreme Court granted their appeal.

The case stands out because of its complexity, uniqueness and the billions of dollars that are involved. The plans are among the largest in the world. The government as lawmaker is like no other employer and has its own rules. The previous hearings saw a cast of accountants, actuaries and other specialists called to testify about whether the pension surplus is real, who owns it and who deserves it.
More on link


----------



## MJP (9 Feb 2012)

GAP said:
			
		

> PS pension surplus? correct me if I am wrong, but does not the Federal Government pay those pensions out of General Revenue?



Yes and mostly No.   

Short answer.  

Before 2000 pension contributions were dumped into an account and paid interest as if it had been invested in Canadian bonds.  Outside of this there were no other types of investing of the funds.

Since 2000 it had been dumped into a pension fund that is managed and is invested in the financial markets.

The yes part comes into play if there is a shortfall.  Then the Govt is required to make that up out of general revenues.

In Canada only the GIS & OAS are funded out of general revenues.


----------



## Pusser (10 Feb 2012)

MJP said:
			
		

> Yes and mostly No.
> 
> Short answer.
> 
> ...



However, prior to about 1990, all federal pensions *were* paid out of general revenue.  There were no liability accounts and no real accounting for members' contributions.  Another way of looking at it would be to say that the Government said they were paying us one amount, when in fact they were paying us less (i.e. less the pension "deductions").  Then, when we retired, we remained on the government payroll at a lesser rate.

Prior to that (i.e. sometime in the 1960s) there were no pension deductions from pay at all.  When you retired, you simply started collecting a pension, which also came from general revenue.  The only thing that changed when the three federal pension "plans" were introduced was the way were packaged.  The fundamental aspects of how they were funded remained the same pretty much until the beginning of the new millenium.

What I really fail to see is what exactly the unions expect to achieve with their court fight.  Even if they win and the money is put back into the pension fund, we won't see any actual benefit.  Remember that it's a "defined benefit" plan.  What we get in the end is based on our salaries at retirement and has nothing to do with how much money is in the "fund."  What we receive is still going to be 2% x years of service x average of best five years salary.  The amount of money in the "fund" won't change that.  If the "fund" is fat, we don't get any more and if the "fund" is short, the difference comes from general revenue.  In fact, one of the Government's arguments is that since they cover the shortfalls, they have full claim to the surpluses.  The unions et al are spending a lot of money on legal fees to try to make a point that won't provide one additional nickel to any retiree's benefits.


----------



## MJP (10 Feb 2012)

Pusser said:
			
		

> However, prior to about 1990, all federal pensions *were* paid out of general revenue.  There were no liability accounts and no real accounting for members' contributions.  Another way of looking at it would be to say that the Government said they were paying us one amount, when in fact they were paying us less (i.e. less the pension "deductions").  Then, when we retired, we remained on the government payroll at a lesser rate.
> 
> Prior to that (i.e. sometime in the 1960s) there were no pension deductions from pay at all.  When you retired, you simply started collecting a pension, which also came from general revenue.  The only thing that changed when the three federal pension "plans" were introduced was the way were packaged.  The fundamental aspects of how they were funded remained the same pretty much until the beginning of the new millenium.



True dat... which is why I said short story.  It isn't that relevant except to highlight that the govt realized that changes needed to be made in order to sustain the pension into the future.  Much like OAS the needs to be.

I find the whole OAS frighten the seniors shell game to be a crap move on the part of the Liberals and NDP.  If they were serious about helping seniors they would strengthen the GIS which is has a much lower means test threshhold.  For OAS one doesn't lose a single cent of it until their annual income is over $60000, which is bit higher than the Canadian average.  Plus the fact that many seniors especially those at that income level usually have greatly reduced debt loads makes that level of income go much further than it would for a younger people.


----------



## GAP (10 Feb 2012)

> For OAS one doesn't lose a single cent of it until their annual income is over $60000, which is bit higher than the Canadian average.



from Rethink retirement article posted in http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/104388/post-1113229/topicseen.html#new

Other OAS changes included indexation of benefits (1973), spousal allowance (1975) and the end of universality for high-income seniors (1989). The OAS is clawed back at the rate of 15¢ for every dollar when individual income is above a threshold (for 2012, $69,562). It is fully clawed back when income reaches $112,772.


----------



## Old Sweat (10 Feb 2012)

Pusser said:
			
		

> However, prior to about 1990, all federal pensions *were* paid out of general revenue.  There were no liability accounts and no real accounting for members' contributions.  Another way of looking at it would be to say that the Government said they were paying us one amount, when in fact they were paying us less (i.e. less the pension "deductions").  Then, when we retired, we remained on the government payroll at a lesser rate.
> 
> Prior to that (i.e. sometime in the 1960s) there were no pension deductions from pay at all.  When you retired, you simply started collecting a pension, which also came from general revenue.  The only thing that changed when the three federal pension "plans" were introduced was the way were packaged.  The fundamental aspects of how they were funded remained the same pretty much until the beginning of the new millenium.



I am not sure if you are including the CFSA in this statement, but when I joined the Canadian Army in 1957, I had 6% deducted as my pension contribution from day one. At some time in the mid-sixties the contribution was increased to 7.5% with the introduction of the CPP.


----------



## Pusser (11 Feb 2012)

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> I am not sure if you are including the CFSA in this statement, but when I joined the Canadian Army in 1957, I had 6% deducted as my pension contribution from day one. At some time in the mid-sixties the contribution was increased to 7.5% with the introduction of the CPP.



I could be wrong on the timing.  I simply assumed that the change happened in the 60s because there were a lot of pay and compensation reforms at that time.


----------



## Edward Campbell (17 Feb 2012)

And more, mostly "con," but a bit "pro" public sector pensions in this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/across-canada-economic-woes-put-public-service-pension-plans-in-the-spotlight/article2341570/


> Across Canada, economic woes put public-service pension plans in the spotlight
> 
> PAUL WALDIE
> 
> ...




While there are, indeed, _"plenty of examples of successful pension plans that do not burden taxpayers,"_ there are many, many more that do, and a balance must be found between increasing contributions and cutting and/or delaying benefits.


----------



## jollyjacktar (17 Feb 2012)

> From: peter.stoffer.a1@parl.gc.ca
> Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2012 12:47:27 -0500
> Subject: Update on Bill C-215: Vote Results
> 
> ...



Portion of an email I received WRT the private member's bill on the CF/RCMP clawback.


----------



## Stoker (26 Feb 2012)

So on Fri I was told by a friend in Ottawa that as of 1st Apr the pension rules are being amended and the annuitants will no longer be able to collect their pensions and work full time class B/C. Essentially their pension will stop and they will be allowed to pay in to it. Anyone hear the same thing?


----------



## Remius (27 Feb 2012)

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> So on Fri I was told by a friend in Ottawa that as of 1st Apr the pension rules are being amended and the annuitants will no longer be able to collect their pensions and work full time class B/C. Essentially their pension will stop and they will be allowed to pay in to it. Anyone hear the same thing?



There is a lot floating around right now.  Heard that specific thing as well.


----------



## Stoker (27 Feb 2012)

Crantor said:
			
		

> There is a lot floating around right now.  Heard that specific thing as well.


Thanks that's what I thought. If this goes through it certainly will change the way some people are employed,probably a good reason for doing it too.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (27 Feb 2012)

There are a lot of rumors floating around.  It would be best not to speculate or make career decisions until the official annuitant policy is announced.


----------



## Remius (27 Feb 2012)

That being said, preparing doesn't hurt and can keep you ahead of the eight ball.


----------



## George Wallace (27 Feb 2012)

I am hearing similar rumours.  One rumour being that there will be a "Grandfather Clause".

Now if we actually look at this, it only makes sense for someone who has not done 20 - 25, or more, years in the Reg Force; and they usually don't have a Reg Force Pension anyway.  The question that begs to be asked is:  Does this now mean that 'Annuitants' can now have Full Time Class A/B, B or C employment without the requirement for an 'Annuitant Break'?  If it does, then it should not create much of a problem if the Annuitant has a nice 'nest egg' in the Bank.  If a former CF member on Class A is now expected to give up a Reg Force Pension to contribute to a CF Reserve Pension Plan, then it is a serious kick in the junk.   Currently there are no guarantees to any "Full-time" Class B employment in the Reserves for any reasonable length of time.   Eighty-nine days of Class B employment, with no guarantee or hint of future employment, does not equate to giving up a Reg Force Pension for a pension that will perceivably offer less benefits.

Consequences would be that valuable experience of former Reg Force pers who for whatever reason think of joining the Reserves would be lost.  They will look at this as a loosing proposition.   With the training delta that is occurring in many Trades between the Reg and Res soldiers, this is a very negative plan.  In the Armour Reserve world, for instance, if they can attract former Reg Force Armour soldiers to the Reserve Regt, they will have some of the knowledge avail to pass on to Reservists who have no opportunities for hands on training of equipment they do not possess.  If they have no credible means to attract such experience, the Armour Reserve units will become  (some will argue that they already are) unemployable as armour soldiers if the opportunity arises for them to work in such a capacity with the Reg Force.  

I am convinced that many of these decisions are being made by people who have no idea of what they are ruling on and their main objective, besides cost saving for the government, is more often a very large bonus to their already large pay cheques.


----------



## dapaterson (27 Feb 2012)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> I am hearing similar rumours.  One rumour being that there will be a "Grandfather Clause".
> 
> Now if we actually look at this, it only makes sense for someone who has not done 20 - 25, or more, years in the Reg Force; and they usually don't have a Reg Force Pension anyway.  The question that begs to be asked is:  Does this now mean that 'Annuitants' can now have Full Time Class A/B, B or C employment without the requirement for an 'Annuitant Break'?  If it does, then it should not create much of a problem if the Annuitant has a nice 'nest egg' in the Bank.  If a former CF member on Class A is now expected to give up a Reg Force Pension to contribute to a CF Reserve Pension Plan, then it is a serious kick in the junk.   Currently there are no guarantees to any "Full-time" Class B employment in the Reserves for any reasonable length of time.   Eighty-nine days of Class B employment, with no guarantee or hint of future employment, does not equate to giving up a Reg Force Pension for a pension that will perceivably offer less benefits.
> 
> ...



"The Canadian Forces are the armed forces of Her Majesty raised by Canada and consist of one Service called the Canadian Armed Forces."

Thus, while there are the Regular, Reserve and when so constituted the Special Force, it doesn't matter where you serve - it's all the same.


That is part of the legal underpinning.  That is, there is one force that employs you.  Which in turn leads to a question:  How can you be working full time and drawing a pension simultaneously from the same employer?


----------



## Remius (27 Feb 2012)

GW:  That's a good point.  Not every type of unit need the benefit of annuitants or ex-reg force personel.  But in the case of units such as armoured, MPs, Medics this could be an issue that dilutes their skill sets and capabilities.  

But I would be curious to see how many of these annuitants are on Class B service with reserve establishments (CBGs, units etc).  My unit has a few ex-regs and their unique skills come in handy at times but none of them work fulltime elsewhere (ie class Bs) and what we get from them can be brought in from outside establishments if requested (mind you that is a hassle and some reserve units are more isolated than others)

My guess is that the bulk are working with reg force establishments.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (27 Feb 2012)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> That is part of the legal underpinning.  That is, there is one force that employs you.  Which in turn leads to a question:  How can you be working full time and drawing a pension simultaneously from the same employer?



I agree with that 100%, you shouldn't be allowed. [working full-time]
There are ways to keep good help to alleviate George's concerns, in the Ontario Govt.we have casuals [on call] who every quarter can earn UP TO the difference of what thier pensions are and what they would have earned working full-time doing the same job they left at.  A great way for retired folks to earn the same money, it helps keeps talent, and nicely fills in holes at peak vacation times.


----------



## dapaterson (27 Feb 2012)

Crantor said:
			
		

> GW:  That's a good point.  Not every type of unit need the benefit of annuitants or ex-reg force personel.  But in the case of units such as armoured, MPs, Medics this could be an issue that dilutes their skill sets and capabilities.
> 
> But I would be curious to see how many of these annuitants are on Class B service with reserve establishments (CBGs, units etc).  My unit has a few ex-regs and their unique skills come in handy at times but none of them work fulltime elsewhere (ie class Bs) and what we get from them can be brought in from outside establishments if requested (mind you that is a hassle and some reserve units are more isolated than others)
> 
> *My guess is that the bulk are working with reg force establishments.*



When I looked at such things for the Army, the overwhelming majority of Reg F members transferring to the Reserves went into Reg F establishments on full-time service.


----------



## George Wallace (27 Feb 2012)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> "The Canadian Forces are the armed forces of Her Majesty raised by Canada and consist of one Service called the Canadian Armed Forces."
> 
> Thus, while there are the Regular, Reserve and when so constituted the Special Force, it doesn't matter where you serve - it's all the same.
> 
> ...



Good question.  But is it really ' Full-time ' employment?  Class B employment is currently not really 'Full-time' if it is only for a short period of time -- 89 days.   If one wants to consider that full-time, I would question what their logic is.  Would 'Full-time' also then cover a five day Class B as well......taking us to the ridiculous, but not that far off.  

Also, at 15% less salary than what they made as a Reg Force member, why would that be an incentive to contemplate such a plan?  Are we looking at an equalization in pay for the Reserves with the Regular Force?  I haven't heard of that rumour.

After that question of two pay scales, another question along the lines of "there is one force that employs you" would be "Why then two Pension Plans?"  

Would this also give ALL Reservists the same Medical and Dental benefits as the Regular Force member, or will they still remain ineligible unless hired 'part-time'  > for over 180 days

This whole business is full of holes and a real can of worms.  So many questions -- so few answers.  Are the right questions even being asked of those powers that be?

Crantor

The Ex-Reg Force Class B Reservist I was thinking of, would be the pers that a Reserve Unit would be allowed/is allowed to employ to augment the RSS Staff, not a Class B posn outside the unit in support of a Reg Force unit or formation.   I would include the pers that CBGs are employing in that category as well, as many are hired from the PRL and do not tie down posns in a Res unit.


----------



## Remius (27 Feb 2012)

Agreed.  But I still think teh bulk are working full time for reg force esrtablishments.  Mind you I'm seeing from where I stand and may not be a true reflection.

And it does not reflect the amount that are working full time for a reg force establishment but choose to parade actively with a reserve unit.  This is the factor I am more worried about and how it might affect those particular units.

There are so many rumours about the pay differential that I would not be able to even speculate on where that is going.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (27 Feb 2012)

.............and to put on my Union hat for a second. If there are hours for full-time people than hire somebody fulltime.  

I know nothing of `class` [you know what I mean ] but from all the stuff I've read on this website over the years there must be a boatload of wasted manpower/money on " pay screw-ups/ contract screw-ups/ admin screw-ups" involved with it".  Yet I don't read/see that many with the full-time folks, so maybe that wasted money would be better spent on full-time people?


----------



## dapaterson (27 Feb 2012)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Good question.  But is it really ' Full-time ' employment?  Class B employment is currently not really 'Full-time' if it is only for a short period of time -- 89 days.   If one wants to consider that full-time, I would question what their logic is.  Would 'Full-time' also then cover a five day Class B as well......taking us to the ridiculous, but not that far off.



"Full time" are the folks who've been on the 330/35 plan since they took FRP in the mid 90s.



> Also, at 15% less salary than what they made as a Reg Force member, why would that be an incentive to contemplate such a plan?  Are we looking at an equalization in pay for the Reserves with the Regular Force?  I haven't heard of that rumour.



Until and unless terms of service are fully aligned between Res and Reg that won't happen.  (Though there is also mutterings of holding Reg F members to their TOS - so those on a fixed period of service may no longer be able to play the "post and I release" card - as their reelase will be refused.)



> After that question of two pay scales, another question along the lines of "there is one force that employs you" would be "Why then two Pension Plans?"



There is only one piece of legislation authorizing CF pensions; it is divided into two parts.



> Would this also give ALL Reservists the same Medical and Dental benefits as the Regular Force member, or will they still remain ineligible unless hired 'part-time'  > for over 180 days
> 
> This whole business is full of holes and a real can of worms.  So many questions -- so few answers.  Are the right questions even being asked of those powers that be?



The can of worms exists because, for years, we've been pretending that the phrase "other than continuing, full-time military service" does not exist in the NDA.  We've got a large workforce that exists (at best) on the margins of the NDA.  The solution is not to continue ignoring the problem.



> Crantor
> 
> The Ex-Reg Force Class B Reservist I was thinking of, would be the pers that a Reserve Unit would be allowed/is allowed to employ to augment the RSS Staff, not a Class B posn outside the unit in support of a Reg Force unit or formation.   I would include the pers that CBGs are employing in that category as well, as many are hired from the PRL and do not tie down posns in a Res unit.




I suspect that any change would only be going forward, and only for periods of service of a year or more.  So the shorter periods of service (a course, or a brief class B for a specific project, for example) would not be affected.


----------



## mariomike (27 Feb 2012)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> There are ways to keep good help to alleviate George's concerns, in the Ontario Govt.we have casuals [on call] who every quarter can earn UP TO the difference of what thier pensions are and what they would have earned working full-time doing the same job they left at.  A great way for retired folks to earn the same money, it helps keeps talent, and nicely fills in holes at peak vacation times.



I can't see certain municipal unions ever agreeing to that.
Certainly not Toronto police, fire or EMS. 
In 1991, TTC wanted to hire retired TTC drivers for 10 weeks during the summer months to cover vacations and the CNE. There was a ten day strike over it. The union won.


----------



## PanaEng (27 Feb 2012)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> "The Canadian Forces are the armed forces of Her Majesty raised by Canada and consist of one Service called the Canadian Armed Forces."
> 
> Thus, while there are the Regular, Reserve and when so constituted the Special Force, it doesn't matter where you serve - it's all the same.
> 
> ...



We are not employed by the CF or DND.
We are employed by Treasury Board.

Retired CF members have been able to go to work for the PS, DND, RCMP, etc. while collecting their pension. Wouldn't you want to retain that talent?
It is common here in the RCMP; Cpl, Sgt or Insp retires and they come back to work as a TCE (Temp Civ Empl) after a suitable break - collecting their well earned pension and we use their vast experience at a cheaper cost than to fill that position with a Cpl, Sgt, insp or CM.

As for the argument that a civilian company wouldn't pay a pension to an employee if they hired them again, it happens all the time: employee retires; company can't find enough qualified pers to fill the spot/function or the work is not enough to fill a full time spot: employee hired as a consultant, keeps collecting pension.
Y2K problem was a good example of that but there are many more and ongoing situations.

cheers,
Frank


----------



## dapaterson (27 Feb 2012)

PanaEng said:
			
		

> We are not employed by the CF or DND.
> We are employed by Treasury Board.



Strictly speaking, CF are employed by the crown; Treasury Board sets the terms and conditions; those t&c are then administered by the CF.



> Retired CF members have been able to go to work for the PS, DND, RCMP, etc. while collecting their pension. Wouldn't you want to retain that talent?
> It is common here in the RCMP; Cpl, Sgt or Insp retires and they come back to work as a TCE (Temp Civ Empl) after a suitable break - collecting their well earned pension and we use their vast experience at a cheaper cost than to fill that position with a Cpl, Sgt, insp or CM.



So, a retired RCMP member is brought back as a civilian.  No issue.  If, on the other hand, they were brought back as a member of the Force, paid a salary and permitted to be simultaneously drawing their pension we'd be in the same situation that the CF is in with former Reg F members receiving an annuity while working on an ongoing full-time basis - in many cases, for years at a stretch.



> As for the argument that a civilian company wouldn't pay a pension to an employee if they hired them again, it happens all the time: employee retires; company can't find enough qualified pers to fill the spot/function or the work is not enough to fill a full time spot: employee hired as a consultant, keeps collecting pension.
> Y2K problem was a good example of that but there are many more and ongoing situations.
> 
> cheers,
> Frank



Again, consultants and public service employment are different. and not part of this discussion.

I once read Quebec's "Sovereignty Association" as being "divorce with bed privileges".  That seems to be the desire of some - they want to leave the Reg F but still be a CF member full-time, all while drawing a pension for being a former CF member.

Tightening the rules to say "If you're doing it for more than a year, you get one year for free, but then you're back in" is not onerous or punitive.


----------



## McG (27 Feb 2012)

The Public Service offers something called transition leave.  In the year (or maybe two) leading up to retirement, pensionable employees are able to work significantly reduced numbers of hours while maintaining their income levels by starting to tap into their pension (though not drawing full benefits).  As Bruce points out, a similar system could be introduced in the CF for pensionable members who transition to the reserve force.  Conceivably, a pension top-up could also be offered in a system that allows Reg F members to serve at 85% the pay while serving like a PRes without obligation for postings or involuntary international operations (though admission to such a program would have to be managed through an AR process and directly linked to manning relative to PML on a year-by-year basis).

As I have stated in other posts, there is no other employer out there that will simultaneously pay a fulltime salary and a retirement pension.  It is absolutely ludicrous that the federal government does it.  I have proposed that all such federal employment pensions (CF, RCMP, PS, Judge, and MP) should be melded into a common program which facilitates movement between groups.

What motivates people to stay with the federal government under such a system?  The ability to continue growing the pension, and the fact that there are fewer and fewer other employers out there who are prepared to offer a decent pension.  I do believe that a converged pension system should continue to recognize greater physical and lifestyle hardships of the CF (and possibly RCMP) by allowing members to retire following shorter periods as compared to civilian PS, but the pension should also encourage service members to consider hanging around a little longer even if in the PS by offering the potential of a slightly higher percentage of base salary.  

In the past, this suggestion has gone down the path of opponents arguing that (40% of a full salary) plus (40% of a full salary) is (80% of a full salary), and therefore everyone should jump-ship as soon as they become pensionable under a system that does not allow double dipping because individuals will have a higher retirement income by getting out in time to earn that second pension somewhere else.  This logic holds up if your career has peaked prior to becoming pensionable (in which case, maybe it wouldn’t hurt if you made room for someone else in the system).  However, most people continue to see the base salary grow (through promotions, pay increments, and annual cost of living increases) at the same time the percentage grows.  So, two minimum time-in-job pensions do not necessarily equal one “maxed” pension even if a linear addition of the minimum time-in-job percentages is slightly higher than the “maxed” percentage.


----------



## Remius (27 Feb 2012)

Word is that a CANFORGEN is on its way at some point outlining rules for annuitants and their pensions.  Until that comes out, watch and shoot.


----------



## dapaterson (27 Feb 2012)

Crantor said:
			
		

> Until that comes out, watch and shoot.



[bad joke]

Or, on the internet, WATCH AND SHOUT.

[/bad joke]


----------



## Remius (27 Feb 2012)

;D  Something tells me that will be the case.


----------



## Stoker (27 Feb 2012)

I received a call today from a higher authority on the new regs concerning the double dip. There is a concern that any change of the regs IE not being able to collect a pension will cause these people to leave and affect manning. I told them if they want to give up a 70 grand a year job then that's their choice.
I would imagine that in the case of the army and air reserve then any change will potentially have repercussions. At the end of the day if the people need the job bad enough they won't leave. This is being looked at very closely and I doubt any rash decisions will be made.


----------



## Jed (27 Feb 2012)

Once more, the Bean Counters of the world strike a blow against the troops that just want to get on with the job. I hope all of you that moved your PERs to the justified right position by championing this effort, that will remove experienced personnel from the CF and put more work on those that remain, appreciate the results of your work.

I no longer have a dog in this fight but I do feel for those who will be affected.


----------



## Harris (27 Feb 2012)

And in addition to the above points, if former reg force pers do jump ship, I'm quite confident there are Class B or Class A reservists who would love to move into those full time posns.


----------



## Chanada (27 Feb 2012)

MCG said:
			
		

> The Public Service offers something called transition leave.  In the year (or maybe two) leading up to retirement, pensionable employees are able to work significantly reduced numbers of hours while maintaining their income levels by starting to tap into their pension (though not drawing full benefits).  As Bruce points out, a similar system could be introduced in the CF for pensionable members who transition to the reserve force.  Conceivably, a pension top-up could also be offered in a system that allows Reg F members to serve at 85% the pay while serving like a PRes without obligation for postings or involuntary international operations (though admission to such a program would have to be managed through an AR process and directly linked to manning relative to PML on a year-by-year basis).
> 
> Just a point of clarification ref Public Service "Transition Leave"...Infact it allows the employee to work reduced hours and still be allowed to contribute the full employees contribution to their pension  (not to draw from it).  At the end of the period (max 2 years)...they must retire fully and go to pension (once they go on "transition leave" they lose the right to opt back in or change their mind).  During retirement leave if they work three days a week then their pay is based on three days per week while they pay their pension contribution as if they were working five.
> 
> The UK has a system of employing retired military into some public service (Defense Ministry owned civil service jobs) on a "Half Pay" basis that allows people to top up their pension while working.  You will frequently find them staffing things like army museums and sedentary range control jobs of the type that would often be contracted out on ASD.


----------



## Chanada (27 Feb 2012)

Apologies to MCG for messing up his quotation...my clarification below....

Just a point of clarification ref Public Service "Transition Leave"...Infact it allows the employee to work reduced hours and still be allowed to contribute the full employees contribution to their pension  (not to draw from it).  At the end of the period (max 2 years)...they must retire fully and go to pension (once they go on "transition leave" they lose the right to opt back in or change their mind).  During retirement leave if they work three days a week then their pay is based on three days per week while they pay their pension contribution as if they were working five.

The UK has a system of employing retired military into some public service (Defense Ministry owned civil service jobs) on a "Half Pay" basis that allows people to top up their pension while working.  You will frequently find them staffing things like army museums and sedentary range control jobs of the type that would often be contracted out on ASD.


----------



## Edward Campbell (27 Feb 2012)

Chanada said:
			
		

> Apologies to MCG for messing up his quotation...my clarification below....
> 
> Just a point of clarification ref Public Service "Transition Leave"...Infact it allows the employee to work reduced hours and still be allowed to contribute the full employees contribution to their pension  (not to draw from it).  At the end of the period (max 2 years)...they must retire fully and go to pension (once they go on "transition leave" they lose the right to opt back in or change their mind).  During retirement leave if they work three days a week then their pay is based on three days per week while they pay their pension contribution as if they were working five.
> 
> The UK has a system of employing retired military into some public service (Defense Ministry owned civil service jobs) on a "Half Pay" basis that allows people to top up their pension while working.  You will frequently find them staffing things like army museums and sedentary range control jobs of the type that would often be contracted out on ASD.




In fact you will often find ROs (as they were called in my day) staffing many highly specialized staff jobs in the MOD. My UK counterpart (15 to 20 years ago) was a retired Air Commodore - his position was Capt(N)/Col/GP Capt (retired) but it could be filled by any (recently) retired and appropriately qualified officer from Cdr/LCol/Wg Cdr through to Cmdr/Brig/AC. It's a good system which we ought to consider for some civil service positons that are always filled by retired military personnel, in ranks from WO through Col, because the civil service job descriptions (validly) call up extensive experience that can only be gained in the CF. My former deputy was one: by the time you tallied up all the *required* experience it meant he had to have spent 20+ years in the CF. The PSC challenged the job descriotion, as they should have, but looked at the job and agreed the description was fair and accurate and that only a recently retired CF member would do.


----------



## armyvern (27 Feb 2012)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Good question.  But is it really ' Full-time ' employment?  Class B employment is currently not really 'Full-time' if it is only for a short period of time -- 89 days.   If one wants to consider that full-time, I would question what their logic is.  Would 'Full-time' also then cover a five day Class B as well......taking us to the ridiculous, but not that far off.
> 
> Also, at 15% less salary than what they made as a Reg Force member, why would that be an incentive to contemplate such a plan?  Are we looking at an equalization in pay for the Reserves with the Regular Force?  I haven't heard of that rumour.
> 
> ...



+300 George.

Although the same employer, they are distinctly different in terms of contractual obligations, pay, benefits, and liabilities.

Until all are treated the same on every one of those fronts, they are NOT the same.

"Same employer", but different pension plans, pay systems and responsibility to serve or deploy = not the same at all.


----------



## dapaterson (27 Feb 2012)

The NDA definition remains, regardless of what we may observe about the policies spawned beneath it.  Until the NDA definitions are changed, it's simple:  in law, there is one force.  (Or Force, but not in the "may it be with you" sense of the word)


----------



## armyvern (27 Feb 2012)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> The NDA definition remains, regardless of what we may observe about the policies spawned beneath it.  Until the NDA definitions are changed, it's simple:  in law, there is one force.  (Or Force, but not in the "may it be with you" sense of the word)



It also remains a fact that DND, CF, RCMP, Agriculture Canada, Tn Canada etc are ALL federal public departments/employees paid, at the end of the day, by the Canadian Taxpayer. Departments are seperate departments, but be careful what you wish for when, in actuality, each and every one of those departments _*is indeed*_ paid by the same "employer" --- I'd expect, rightfully, further "no double-dipping" pension creep to occur between all of those departments ultimately paid by and working for the same entity.


----------



## dapaterson (27 Feb 2012)

For members of specific groups, that's already the case.  You can't go from one public service job to another and begin collecting a pension.  You can't leave the RCMP, then rejoin as a member of the Force and collect a pension.

The CF's problem is entirely of its own making.  The NDA describes us as a single force, Reg, Res and Special Force; a single superannuation act that governs CF members and its associated regulations - a closed ecosystem.  At the end of the day if we are employing Reservists on continuing full-time service we're in contravention of the NDA.  If we're employing individuals on continuing full-time service who are in receipt of an annuity under the CFSA for periods of multiple years, we are violating the spirit if not the letter of the law.

If we change our policies to be better aligned with the Acts of Parliament that rule us, so be it.


----------



## Remius (27 Feb 2012)

And as well although there are seperate departements or agencies not all fall under the public service employment act.  The CF and RCMP have their own employment and superannuation act hence why CF members can work as civys and still collect their pension.  Same goes for a public servant that has a pension.  They have limitations on their employment.  If they come back full time for too long they have to start contributing and stop collecting their pensions.

The intent of the changes for annuitants is to be more in line with the spirit of the CFSA.  My understanding is that these changes will affect long term class bs of a year or more.  Class A and short term contracts (like summer tasks) will largely be unafffected.


----------



## armyvern (27 Feb 2012)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> For members of specific groups, that's already the case.  You can't go from one public service job to another and begin collecting a pension.  You can't leave the RCMP, then rejoin as a member of the Force and collect a pension.
> 
> The CF's problem is entirely of its own making.  The NDA describes us as a single force, Reg, Res and Special Force; a single superannuation act that governs CF members and its associated regulations - a closed ecosystem.  At the end of the day if we are employing Reservists on continuing full-time service we're in contravention of the NDA.  If we're employing individuals on continuing full-time service who are in receipt of an annuity under the CFSA for periods of multiple years, we are violating the spirit if not the letter of the law.
> 
> If we change our policies to be better aligned with the Acts of Parliament that rule us, so be it.



In essence, you are saying that it's OK for an ex-General to collect his CF pension while being employed in DND as a public servant doing the same job he was as a general ... while if he went ResF it would be "wrong."

We'll have to agree to disagree as I am a firm believer that both are wrong; call it whatever you will, both situations reek.


----------



## Remius (27 Feb 2012)

No that would not and should not pass the smell test.  but there is nothing wrong with said general retiring and taking on a role as a civilian at DND or another department in a different capacity if he meets the requirements.


----------



## armyvern (27 Feb 2012)

Crantor said:
			
		

> No that would not and should not pass the smell test.  but there is nothing wrong with said general retiring and taking on a role as a civilian at DND or another department in a different capacity if he meets the requirements.



Except that it does pass the test ... and the upcoming rumoured changes will do nothing to change that ex-general situation - only the Res F / Reg F situation.

Edited to add: and I see no difference between the two situations. Both are collecting federal pensions while still being employed full time by the feds.


----------



## dapaterson (27 Feb 2012)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Except that it does pass the test ... and the upcoming rumoured changes will do nothing to change that ex-general situation - only the Res F / Reg F situation.
> 
> Edited to add: and I see no difference between the two situations. Both are collecting federal pensions while still being employed full time by the feds.



There are differences between the military and the public service.


Saying that you're full time military while collecting a pension for your prior full-time military service is where the problem lies.  Shit or get off the pot.


(And, for the record, there are far more public servants who retired from the CF at much more humble ranks than there are public servants who retired while General officers)


----------



## OldSolduer (27 Feb 2012)

So what is the solution? Those who rightfully collect a pension under the CFSA be denied employment within the CF?

Let's go one further..once you retire and collect A CFSA pension bar the door for further service...even Class A.


----------



## Remius (27 Feb 2012)

And there is no way that retired public servant can return to the public service and work the same kind of time that a retired CF member can without getting back into the pension plan.  They can certainly come back at contractors but they are not employees of the PS.

As well there are instances of triple dipping.. CF pension, Class B pay then EI for the 35 day break.  The CF is really pushing the envelope.


----------



## Remius (27 Feb 2012)

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> So what is the solution? Those who rightfully collect a pension under the CFSA be denied employment within the CF?
> 
> Let's go one further..once you retire and collect A CFSA pension bar the door for further service...even Class A.



No.  and that is not what is being proposed.  Basically if you work on long term class b you start paying back intyo the pension. 1 Year or more.  Class A and temporary class bs would not be affected.  It brings it line with any other department or agency's policies on pensions and fulltime work.  Tell me why the CF should be any different?


----------



## OldSolduer (27 Feb 2012)

Crantor said:
			
		

> And there is no way that retired public servant can return to the public service and work the same kind of time that a retired CF member can without getting back into the pension plan.  They can certainly come back at contractors but they are not employees of the PS.
> 
> As well there are instances of triple dipping.. CF pension, Class B pay then EI for the 35 day break.  The CF is really pushing the envelope.



I am one of those so called "double dippers". I got the job because the Regular Force could not fill it. The only applicants were me, a "double dipper" (I am beginning to resent that term) and a Reg Force chap who was retiring. In fact, most of my unit is made up of reservists and yes, some of us are annuitants.
I don't know what the parameters of the regulations will be, but I will tell you one thing:

You are going to lose a large pool of talent. It's a short sighted move that is based on money and jealousy.


I do not go on EI for my 35 day break. I find work elsewhere.


----------



## Rifleman62 (27 Feb 2012)

Jim Seggie: 





> So what is the solution? Those who rightfully collect a pension under the CFSA be denied employment within the CF?
> 
> Let's go one further..once you retire and collect A CFSA pension bar the door for further service...even Class A.



If you are a recipient of the CFSA Reserve pension version, you cannot serve period unless you cease your pension.

Another example of how wonderful the head shed treats members of the Reserve.



> You are going to lose a large pool of talent. It's a short sighted move that is based on money and jealousy.



Agree, but do not understand "jealousy".


----------



## armyvern (27 Feb 2012)

Crantor said:
			
		

> And there is no way that retired public servant can return to the public service and work the same kind of time that a retired CF member can without getting back into the pension plan.  They can certainly come back at contractors but they are not employees of the PS.
> 
> As well there are instances of triple dipping.. CF pension, Class B pay then EI for the 35 day break.  The CF is really pushing the envelope.



Also triple dipping in that CF pension, Res F, and contract work all at the same time.


----------



## armyvern (27 Feb 2012)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> There are differences between the military and the public service.
> 
> 
> Saying that you're full time military while collecting a pension for your prior full-time military service is where the problem lies.  Shit or get off the pot.
> ...



And that IS where the debate lies; does the annuitant break constitute "full-time"? Some say "yea" and some say "nay".  There are two sides to the debate, not one. And some of us are still aware of the fact that at the end of the day we are *all* federally paid by the taxpayer. And yes, I am well aware that far more others than generals are employed in the PS ... it was *an example*.

Edit: And, there are differences between service in the RegF and the ResF ... but those HUGE differences don't seem to matter here.


----------



## Remius (27 Feb 2012)

Jim, there are plenty who go on EI.  Double Dipping/Dippers is a common term.  It's not meant as an insult.  Yes maybe some people spit the word out that way, that's not how I meant it.

Is it going to cause some hardship.  Yep.  So are all the other reserve class b cuts and the PS work force adjustments as well.  That's the situation we are in.  If an annuitant wants to cease serving because he has to choose one thing over the next, so be it.  Talent can be replaced.  it's going to suck for a while yes but eventually, if the job is that important they'll fill it.  Either with a reg force member or class b reservist willing to work full time.

And there will likely be exceptions that will be approved by higher authority if no other options exist.  Which is why the option to "double dip" is there in the first place.


----------



## Remius (27 Feb 2012)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Also triple dipping in that CF pension, Res F, and contract work all at the same time.



Except you are not paid by the government when working as contractor. (yes it is the same money)


----------



## Pusser (27 Feb 2012)

MCG said:
			
		

> In the past, this suggestion has gone down the path of opponents arguing that (40% of a full salary) plus (40% of a full salary) is (80% of a full salary), and therefore everyone should jump-ship as soon as they become pensionable under a system that does not allow double dipping because individuals will have a higher retirement income by getting out in time to earn that second pension somewhere else.  This logic holds up if your career has peaked prior to becoming pensionable (in which case, maybe it wouldn’t hurt if you made room for someone else in the system).  However, most people continue to see the base salary grow (through promotions, pay increments, and annual cost of living increases) at the same time the percentage grows.  So, two minimum time-in-job pensions do not necessarily equal one “maxed” pension even if a linear addition of the minimum time-in-job percentages is slightly higher than the “maxed” percentage.



That's actually not allowed.  If you leave the CF at twenty years and then join the public service, you are only allowed to contribute for an additional 15 years (i.e. you can only receive a total of 35 years pension benefits from the federal government).  Since most people leaving the CF go into lower paying jobs in the public service, their PSSA pension is usually worth less than their CFSA pension would have been, had they stayed in the CF for 35 years.  In short, 20 years CFSA, plus 15 years PSSA is usually worth quite a bit less than 35 years CFSA.  The saving grace; however, is that while you are working in the PS, you can still draw your CFSA benefits and if you're smart and invest it wisely, can be considerably better off in the end.  BUT, you need to be on the ball to do that.


----------



## McG (27 Feb 2012)

Pusser said:
			
		

> That's actually not allowed.  If you leave the CF at twenty years and then join the public service, you are only allowed to contribute for an additional 15 years (i.e. you can only receive a total of 35 years pension benefits from the federal government).  Since most people leaving the CF go into lower paying jobs in the public service, their PSSA pension is usually worth less than their CFSA pension would have been, had they stayed in the CF for 35 years.  In short, 20 years CFSA, plus 15 years PSSA is usually worth quite a bit less than 35 years CFSA.  The saving grace; however, is that while you are working in the PS, you can still draw your CFSA benefits and if you're smart and invest it wisely, can be considerably better off in the end.  BUT, you need to be on the ball to do that.


It is allowed if the other pension is not federal government, and that is what others argued - to bail at the earliest opportunity and get that other pension anywhere else ... though some suggested going the CFSA + PSSA route that you described, and (as you also pointed out) that is even more likely to lead to lower pension that sticking in the CF.

... of course, if we had a unified pension the annuity would be percentage times the best 5 years between across both civilian and military time.  That would be a good thing for retention.


----------



## Stoker (27 Feb 2012)

The Naval Reserves has annuitants, although not as many as the army or air force reserves. It has been policy (unofficial) that if we have a qualified reservist to go into the billet, then the non annuitant should be employed over the annuitant.  We have brought guys in with the understanding that after their initial employment is up, not to expect a extension. Do you guys agree with that policy?


----------



## armyvern (27 Feb 2012)

MCG said:
			
		

> It is allowed if the other pension is not federal government, and that is what others argued - to bail at the earliest opportunity and get that other pension anywhere else ... though some suggested going the CFSA + PSSA route that you described, and (as you also pointed out) that is even more likely to lead to lower pension that sticking in the CF.
> ...



Yes, but the equation is _still_ failing to consider that, even with only 15 years at the PS, that slightly lower pension (at 35 years) does not consider the 15 years of full time pay PS pay one would be receiving while collecting that 20 year pension (double-dipping) in such a manner. We did previously figure out the age where that would be "negated" and it was in the late 80 y.o. range IIRC. Most retired CF mbrs don't make it that long.


----------



## George Wallace (28 Feb 2012)

Crantor said:
			
		

> As well there are instances of triple dipping.. CF pension, Class B pay then EI for the 35 day break.  The CF is really pushing the envelope.



That statement is completely WRONG.  There is NO triple dipping.  The Annuitant may be collecting a pension and Class B pay, but will never collect all three.   The rules for collecting EI are very clear.  The Annuitant, like any other citizen, can collect EI when they are unemployed.  Whether or not they are collecting a pension is a moot point.  Being unemployed is the only criteria.

There are former CF members collecting a pension and working for the various levels of government as well.  



			
				Crantor said:
			
		

> Is it going to cause some hardship.  Yep.  So are all the other reserve class b cuts and the PS work force adjustments as well.  That's the situation we are in.  If an annuitant wants to cease serving because he has to choose one thing over the next, so be it.  Talent can be replaced.  it's going to suck for a while yes but eventually, if the job is that important they'll fill it.  Either with a reg force member or class b reservist willing to work full time.
> 
> And there will likely be exceptions that will be approved by higher authority if no other options exist.  Which is why the option to "double dip" is there in the first place.




Problem with this is that you now create another problem that we see; the Full-time Reservist.   There are many cases now of Full-time Reservists who have never served as Regular Force.  Their experience is not the same as that gained by an Annuitant.  A recent action taken was to lay them off and offer them Component Transfers.  These are the 'kids' who really need to CT and get on with their lives.  

Personnally, I see the Annuitant as being a more useful solution than any ideas of doing away with them.  These are former Service Members with a wealth of knowledge and experience, who are, for the most part, near the end of their "military shelf life" but still are dedicated to serve and mentor until CRA.......which may become 70 some day soon  ;D.  Many are still deployable.   They have "Retired" from the Reg Force, allowing for younger blood to maintain the rank and file, and become Reservists in turn where the demands and commitment may not be as great, but they can still contribute.   Priceless.

I am sure that they could just as easily collect their pensions and become Commissionaires, or work at Tim Horton's or Home Depot, but that may not be their style.   Would you like some fries with that?


----------



## George Wallace (28 Feb 2012)

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> The Naval Reserves has annuitants, although not as many as the army or air force reserves. It has been policy (unofficial) that if we have a qualified reservist to go into the billet, then the non annuitant should be employed over the annuitant.  We have brought guys in with the understanding that after their initial employment is up, not to expect a extension. Do you guys agree with that policy?



There are laws against "discrimination".  If you can not prove that the hiring of a person was solely based on merit, you would be facing serious legal charges under the Charter of Human Rights by hiring a Non-Annuitant over an Annuitant.

The other point, I already covered, is that you are creating another problem with a "Full-time" Reservist who will be earning less than a Regular Force member, and may stay in that position for a period up to ......let's say thirty years.  Would that be a case of "welfare" in the eyes of some?

There is a requirement in some Reserve units for full-time staff, other than the Reg Force Support Staff, to ensure the units daily operations running properly.  It really shouldn't matter if that person is a High School kid or a retired CF member.  Whoever is best qualified for the job should be the one hired.   Just remember, the "High School kid" will also have to be encouraged to make something of himself and "move on", not becoming a 'long term fixture' in the Armoury/Stone Frigate/Hangar.


----------



## armyvern (28 Feb 2012)

Crantor said:
			
		

> Except you are not paid by the government when working as contractor. (yes it is the same money)



Rest assured there are some_ freelancers _out there as contractors or consultants.


----------



## captloadie (28 Feb 2012)

To ensure I'm understanding this correctly, are the proposed rumored changes going to likely apply only to contracts greater than a year?

If so, will this not just result in units limiting all Class B/C contracts to 365 days, and running new competitions every year? In those cases (which seem to be quite common reading this thread) where only a handful of individuals (read annuitants) have the required skills, the same members would apply year after year? The downside is there is no job security (which I thought was supposed to be the case anyway), and a lot more staff work required. 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought that the Reserve Force was never meant to be a full time job for anyone.


----------



## Stoker (28 Feb 2012)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Problem with this is that you now create another problem that we see; the Full-time Reservist.   There are many cases now of Full-time Reservists who have never served as Regular Force.  Their experience is not the same as that gained by an Annuitant.  A recent action taken was to lay them off and offer them Component Transfers.  These are the 'kids' who really need to CT and get on with their lives.
> 
> Personnally, I see the Annuitant as being a more useful solution than any ideas of doing away with them.  These are former Service Members with a wealth of knowledge and experience, who are, for the most part, near the end of their "military shelf life" but still are dedicated to serve and mentor until CRA.......which may become 70 some day soon  ;D.  Many are still deployable.   They have "Retired" from the Reg Force, allowing for younger blood to maintain the rank and file, and become Reservists in turn where the demands and commitment may not be as great, but they can still contribute.   Priceless.
> 
> I am sure that they could just as easily collect their pensions and become Commissionaires, or work at Tim Horton's or Home Depot, but that may not be their style.   Would you like some fries with that?



George, I agree that there are lots of reservists that have been fulltime for various reasons for many years, their experience compared to a regular force member is deffinitely different however in most cases not in a negative way.
I agree that if a young mbr is starting out in the reserves and likes the military than they should transfer to the regs and get the stability they deserve and not be trapped in a situation a lot of use are finding ourselves in.
There is obviously a need for annuitants they bring valuable experience to the table, but if it came down to two guys, one with a pension and one without, same quals. I would rather see the guy with no pension employed over the guy with one.


----------



## Stoker (28 Feb 2012)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> There are laws against "discrimination".  If you can not prove that the hiring of a person was solely based on merit, you would be facing serious legal charges under the Charter of Human Rights by hiring a Non-Annuitant over an Annuitant.
> 
> The other point, I already covered, is that you are creating another problem with a "Full-time" Reservist who will be earning less than a Regular Force member, and may stay in that position for a period up to ......let's say thirty years.  Would that be a case of "welfare" in the eyes of some?
> 
> There is a requirement in some Reserve units for full-time staff, other than the Reg Force Support Staff, to ensure the units daily operations running properly.  It really shouldn't matter if that person is a High School kid or a retired CF member.  Whoever is best qualified for the job should be the one hired.   Just remember, the "High School kid" will also have to be encouraged to make something of himself and "move on", not becoming a 'long term fixture' in the Armoury/Stone Frigate/Hangar.



George, you are very correct where if proven there was some "discrimination" the job could be grieved and I have seen it happen a couple of times. Most annuitants in our element will not take jobs because it involves postings to Ottawa or Quebec, West Coast etc. In a lot of cases that's why they retired in the first place. I would like to think the most qualified person gets the position everytime, but that's not obviously the case i'm afraid and i'm sure it happens in other elements as well.


----------



## Remius (28 Feb 2012)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Rest assured there are some_ freelancers _out there as contractors or consultants.



And they are considered as "self-employed".  Several form their own companies for tax purposes even though they are just one person.


----------



## Remius (28 Feb 2012)

captloadie said:
			
		

> To ensure I'm understanding this correctly, are the proposed rumored changes going to likely apply only to contracts greater than a year?
> 
> If so, will this not just result in units limiting all Class B/C contracts to 365 days, and running new competitions every year? In those cases (which seem to be quite common reading this thread) where only a handful of individuals (read annuitants) have the required skills, the same members would apply year after year? The downside is there is no job security (which I thought was supposed to be the case anyway), and a lot more staff work required.
> 
> Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought that the Reserve Force was never meant to be a full time job for anyone.



My understanding is that it will apply to contracts greater than 364.


----------



## George Wallace (28 Feb 2012)

To be honest, the CF, like every other Government Dept is full of inefficiencies.  This is but another one of those proposals that is raising concerns rightly or wrongly among members.   It is systemic in our bureaucracy (all Gov't Depts).  The horror stories one may be privy to are so numerous and unbelievable, it is a wonder this country has survived this long.....We do have another topic that ponders these very questions, so I won't expand on this any further.


----------



## McG (28 Feb 2012)

Crantor said:
			
		

> And they are considered as "self-employed".  Several form their own companies for tax purposes even though they are just one person.


And when we start treating those contractors like employees (as many unfortunately do), it forms an employer-employee relationship and is in violation of contracting rules.



			
				captloadie said:
			
		

> To ensure I'm understanding this correctly, are the proposed rumored changes going to likely apply only to contracts greater than a year?





			
				Crantor said:
			
		

> My understanding is that it will apply to contracts greater than 364.


If anyone is actually privy to the details of some pending new change in policy, they should not be leaking those here prior to the publication of the CANFORGEN.


----------



## Remius (28 Feb 2012)

George:  You are in fact correct. An annuitant can claim EI.  But the way the system is set up, it not only enables it it also encourages it.

I would argue that in this day and age that there are plenty of those fulltime reservists that have plenty of experience if not more than some reg force personel.   Many have multiple tours and have worked in various class bs.  And experience is relative to what you are actually doing.  For some jobs it doesn't matter if you have 30 years as a gunner.  For some it will.

I don't see how it creates the problem of the fulltime reservist.  The problem already exists.

The majority of class b annuitants are not working in reserve establishments so they are not bringing that much to the reserve world.  Most are working for reg force establishments.  And if most of those are not actually supporting the reserves then there is a problem.

How many people with 20 or 25 years have gotten out only to land a class B becasue they didn't want to get posted or tasked?  If the class B+pension option wasn't there how many would have continued to 30 or 35?  I can name a few that I personally know.    Of those that just want to wear the uniform and still contribute, if that is really their motivation then I can see that some will still contribute through class A or short term contracts.  Some won't.  But eventually that will be the norm.  And it isn't like some of these people will be given their 30 days because they are annuitants.  They just won't be able to collect their pensions and will be contributing back into the plan.  The job and the ability to keep contributing is still there.  If they choose to leave then that is their choice.  And there will be the few I think that opt to go back into the regular force.


----------



## George Wallace (28 Feb 2012)

Crantor said:
			
		

> George:  You are in fact correct. An annuitant can claim EI.  But the way the system is set up, it not only enables it it also encourages it.



Are you arguing that an Annuitant should not be treated like any other Canadian citizen and not entitled to EI?  On retirement from the CF, the Annuitant was not allowed to collect EI like every other citizen until a period of time had passed.  Now you don't feel that being an unemployed Reservist, the Annuitant should not be entitled to EI?



			
				Crantor said:
			
		

> I would argue that in this day and age that there are plenty of those fulltime reservists that have plenty of experience if not more than some reg force personel.   Many have multiple tours and have worked in various class bs.  And experience is relative to what you are actually doing.



In some sense this is true.  I have seen many cases where Reservists have had more Tour experience than Regs.  This, however, does not equate to the corporate knowledge that the Reg may have acquired over their career.  There are many things about the way things are done, the administration required, procedures followed, etc. that these Reservists with Tours have no knowledge or experience with.  



			
				Crantor said:
			
		

> The majority of class b annuitants are not working in reserve establishments so they are not bringing that much to the reserve world.  Most are working for reg force establishments.  And if most of those are not actually supporting the reserves then there is a problem.



A fair number of them are filling positions in CBG HQs and contributing quite a bit to the operation of Bde and Area training and daily routines.



			
				Crantor said:
			
		

> How many people with 20 or 25 years have gotten out only to land a class B becasue they didn't want to get posted or tasked?  If the class B+pension option wasn't there how many would have continued to 30 or 35?  I can name a few that I personally know.    Of those that just want to wear the uniform and still contribute, if that is really their motivation then I can see that some will still contribute through class A or short term contracts.  Some won't.  But eventually that will be the norm.



Is this a bad thing?  Someone with 20 or 25 years of dedicated service, nearing their "Best Before" date, who wants to remain in the CF in some capacity but not deployed on a moments notice, setting up their final retirement residence, is not an evil ogre.



			
				Crantor said:
			
		

> And it isn't like some of these people will be given their 30 days because they are annuitants.



Being an Annuitant does not exempt them from being given 30 days notice of termination of their MOU/SOU.  They can be laid off like any other pers.



			
				Crantor said:
			
		

> They just won't be able to collect their pensions and will be contributing back into the plan.  The job and the ability to keep contributing is still there.  If they choose to leave then that is their choice.  And there will be the few I think that opt to go back into the regular force.



Class A/B, Class B and Class C employment is not a guarantee, so an Annuitant would have lost a pension and is taking a gamble on full-time employment being avail until they reach CRA.  This is not a good incentive.  Yes, some have already gone back to the Reg Force.  Some, however, have found it impossible to buy back their pensionable time.  This isn't much of a good news story for them.


----------



## dapaterson (28 Feb 2012)

The size of this population is under 5% of the Reserve Force.  Yet issues pertaining them occupy a disproportionate amount of staff time.  (Indeed, as a rule, issues that impact class A soldiers get short shrift because we're always obsessing about full-time reservists, annuitants or not).

The numbers I saw  (admittedly 3-4 years ago) suggested that at majority of annuitants were not employed at the unit or CBG level; rather, most were employed in various higher HQs and Reg F units.


Right now, every CF member contributing to pension plans is paying more because of the folks who are drawing while serving.  Should a Pte in Wainwright be paying more on their CFSA contributions because a LCol in Ottawa doesn't want to get posted, but equally doesn't want to take off the uniform?


(Edit to fix multiple typos that preceded my first coffee of the day)


----------



## Pusser (28 Feb 2012)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Are you arguing that an Annuitant should not be treated like any other Canadian citizen and not entitled to EI?  On retirement from the CF, the Annuitant was *not allowed to collect EI like every other citizen *    until a period of time had passed.  Now you don't feel that being an unemployed Reservist, the Annuitant should not be entitled to EI?
> 
> This is a common misconception.  CF members are not prohibited from collecting EI upon leaving the CF and in fact are treated the same as any other person legally employed in Canada (you don't have to be a citizen to collect EI) and entitled to EI benefits.  The reason most CF members cannot collect EI upon release is because any EI benefits available are reduced by any severance package received (this applies to everyone, not just CF members).  Since our severance package normally exceeds what is available under EI, no EI benefits are generally paid.  The end result is the same, but the argument that we are treated differently than anyone else and are, therefore somehow being mistreated, simply isn't true.
> 
> ...


----------



## armyvern (28 Feb 2012)

Crantor said:
			
		

> And they are considered as "self-employed".  Several form their own companies for tax purposes even though they are just one person.



Yes they are, but they are still *getting paid* 3 times by the same employer (pension, ResF pay, contracting pay). So, is it right or proper?

Funny how some are willing to excuse or gloss over _some_ "technicalities", but not other ones (ie: the fact that CF Reg F and Res F service are two totally different things with totally different expectations and liabilities) ... depending upon which side of the fence they're sitting on in this debate.

 :

That kills me.


----------



## Jed (28 Feb 2012)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Yes they are, but they are still *getting paid* 3 times by the same employer (pension, ResF pay, contracting pay). So, is it right or proper?
> 
> Funny how some are willing to excuse or gloss over _some_ "technicalities", but not other ones (ie: the fact that CF Reg F and Res F service are two totally different things with totally different expectations and liabilities) ... depending upon which side of the fence they're sitting on in this debate.
> 
> ...



I guess this would be the Jealousy that was mentioned in an earlier post.

Nobody ever said the Double Dip situation was fair and equitable. It is just an expedient system that works to employ needed people for the task at hand.


----------



## armyvern (28 Feb 2012)

Jed said:
			
		

> I guess this would be the Jealousy that was mentioned in an earlier post.
> 
> Nobody ever said the Double Dip situation was fair and equitable. It is just an expedient system that works to employ needed people for the task at hand.



Jealousy?? LMAO.

I am certainly not a double dipper. I actually do not agree with it (or with the triple-dipping). I think it ALL stinks to high-heaven. If the argument is that the same employer shouldn't be paying a pension and a paycheque  ... then that should be applicable to each and every case whereby the feds are doing this. To me, anything less is hypocritical.

BUT, I'm also willing to acknowledge that ResF and RegF service are two totally different beasts even though they have the same employer. I'm also willing to acknowledge that the exact same holds true for anyone collecting a federal pension from a plan due to their employment in a federal entity who then go on to collect another federal pay cheque somewhere else. It's still shit, just a different pile. They are all, at the end of the day, still being paid a pension and then a Canadian taxpayer funded paycheque. 

I also realize, that sometimes, double-dipping is a necessary evil. Myself being a Sup tech, know that ResF sup techs are not qualified to the same level as RegF sup techs, do not have the same access or abilities within the system and thus will lose a competition to an Annuitant when it comes to a competetion. I am also fully aware of the fact, especially at locations that support training (Pri 6 on the CF's priority list for filling), that B Class contracts are 200% necessary to fill those undermanned positions so that the whole of our training system does not collapse and fail. Period. In my trade, access is restricted precisely because they don't have months to spend on the courses required, they do not gain the experience required of the system and policies through diversified employment in the multitude of sections and ...

If they change one single flag in CFSS to the wrong setting, they can screw up the stock number in question for each and every supply customer out there. You can't just pull dude in off the street in our world. 

There's a whole lot wrong with the CF - perhaps their priorities should get into the right place. I know that in the supply world, this decision will have implications in a great many areas where ResF sup techs (vice annuitants) are rare and if they do exist, simply do not have the corporate or logistical knowledge required to be employed where what they do WILL affect others, and exercises, and budgets, and ops and etc etc etc.

I'll leave this thread now and leave it to the forgetful utopians.

Jealous? Absolutely not.


----------



## Jed (28 Feb 2012)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Jealousy?? LMAO.
> 
> There's a whole lot wrong with the CF - perhaps their priorities should get into the right place. I know that in the supply world, this decision will have implications in a great many areas where ResF sup techs (vice annuitants) are rare and if they do exist, simply do not have the corporate or logistical knowledge required to be employed where what they do WILL affect others, and exercises, and budgets, and ops and etc etc etc.
> 
> ...


----------



## Remius (28 Feb 2012)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Yes they are, but they are still *getting paid* 3 times by the same employer (pension, ResF pay, contracting pay). So, is it right or proper?
> 
> Funny how some are willing to excuse or gloss over _some_ "technicalities", but not other ones (ie: the fact that CF Reg F and Res F service are two totally different things with totally different expectations and liabilities) ... depending upon which side of the fence they're sitting on in this debate.
> 
> ...



It isn'ta  technicality.  Contractors are not employees of the government.  No more so than a mercenary hired by a government is.  It is a contract in exchange for services.  Contractors are either self employed or employed by whatever staffing company owns them.  They don't get vacation pay, no benefits etc etc.  

Does someone who works for say Bombardier or GM who is receiving their paycheque because those companies are receiving money from the feds mean that they have the same employer as you?  No.


----------



## Pusser (28 Feb 2012)

I don't like the term "double-dipping" as it is often applied to annuitants in Reserve billets.  To me, "double-dipping" is being paid twice for doing the same job.  This is not exactly what an annuitant is doing as in a Reserve capacity.  Instead, an annuitant is drawing a pension, for which they have completed the appropriate terms of service and which they have earned and paid for.  Then, they have also been hired, under different terms of service, to do a new job.  They are not double dipping in the classic (and negative) sense.

This is not an ideal situation, but unfortunately,  it has become the CF's virulent crack habit.  It started with FRP (hard to believe that that started almost 20 years ago), where we decimated the ranks and created a huge experience and qualification void.  I have no issue with Reservists filling Regular Force billets for the short term and recognize that it's a useful and effective management tool.  But to plan your succession based on continuously filling full-time billets with Reservists (annuitants or otherwise) for years and years on end is scandalous.  If a job needs to be filled full time, then it should be filled with a Regular Force person.  The focus of the Reserve should be the Reserve units and even those full-time Reserve responsibilities (e.g. MCDVs) should be filled with folks who do a tour and then return to Class A for awhile.  No one should be able to make a full-time career of the Reserve.  It's not doing the individual or the CF any favours.


----------



## dapaterson (28 Feb 2012)

Pusser said:
			
		

> This is not an ideal situation, but unfortunately,  it has become the CF's virulent crack habit.



Were you ever an Armoured LCol?  That's exactly the term a former boss used to describe the class B employment situation nearly a decade ago - and it's only gotten worse since then.



> It started with FRP (hard to believe that that started almost 20 years ago), where we decimated the ranks and created a huge experience and qualification void.  I have no issue with Reservists filling Regular Force billets for the short term and recognize that it's a useful and effective management tool.  But to plan your succession based on continuously filling full-time billets with Reservists (annuitants or otherwise) for years and years on end is scandalous.  If a job needs to be filled full time, then it should be filled with a Regular Force person.  The focus of the Reserve should be the Reserve units and even those full-time Reserve responsibilities (e.g. MCDVs) should be filled with folks who do a tour and then return to Class A for awhile.  No one should be able to make a full-time career of the Reserve.  It's not doing the individual or the CF any favours.



Preach it, brother!  Coupled with devolutions that let anyone and their dog with a valid fin code hire full-time Reservists, and we've got the mess we're in today.

(For the record: I am one of the "problem children" who spent over a decade on full-time Reserve service before moving to the Public Service and returning to class A service - so I am enrolled in part I of the CFSA and the PSSA simultaneously)


----------



## McG (28 Feb 2012)

Crantor said:
			
		

> The majority of class b annuitants are not working in reserve establishments so they are not bringing that much to the reserve world.  Most are working for reg force establishments.  And if most of those are not actually supporting the reserves then there is a problem.





			
				dapaterson said:
			
		

> The numbers I saw  (admittedly 3-4 years ago) suggested that at majority of annuitants were not employed at the unit or CBG level; rather, most were employed in various higher HQs and Reg F units.


Exactly, far too many double-dippers are riding a gravy train – pretending to still live the Reg F life (without any positive return to the PRes) while avoiding the inconveniences of postings and deployments.



			
				George Wallace said:
			
		

> Is this a bad thing?  Someone with 20 or 25 years of dedicated service, nearing their "Best Before" date, who wants to remain in the CF in some capacity but not deployed on a moments notice, setting up their final retirement residence, is not an evil ogre.


Nobody has accused Class B annuitants of being “evil orgres” – it is not the annuitants who are the problem.  The problem is the system which allows double-dipping to be possible.  The “bad thing” is that the system is offering financial incentive (the double-dip) and quality of life benefits (no more postings, and no involuntary deployments) that encourage members to leave the Reg F in order to (more often than not) continue doing Reg F work in a Reg F establishment with lesser obligation and utility to the organization as a whole. The other “bad thing” is nicely expressed by dapaterson here:





			
				dapaterson said:
			
		

> Right now, every CF member contributing to pension plans is paying more because of the folks who are drawing while serving.  Should a Pte in Wainwright be paying more on their CFSA contributions because a LCol in Ottawa doesn't want to get posted, but equally doesn't want to take off the uniform?


It is also a “bad thing” when annuitants start filling PRes positions that should be taken by someone who can speak with knowledge and experience of the reserve force:


			
				George Wallace said:
			
		

> Problem with this is that you now create another problem that we see; the Full-time Reservist.   There are many cases now of Full-time Reservists who have never served as Regular Force.  Their experience is not the same as that gained by an Annuitant.  ...
> 
> Personnally, I see the Annuitant as being a more useful solution than any ideas of doing away with them.  These are former Service Members with a wealth of knowledge and experience,...


George, the annuitant provides significant value to the PRes when employed in the PRes.  While you describe “the full-time reservist” as a problem because such pers lack the Reg F experience of an annuitant, you are forgetting that the “full time reservist” brings a knowledge and understanding of the PRes that is not had by an annuitant directly transferred from the Reg F.

We need mechanisms that guide retired Reg F into PRes units, PRes HQs, and PRes sp posns so that the reserves gain from this experience.  The current double-dip does not achieve this as the annuitants are staying in Reg F roles or organizations.  We also need mechanisms that guide “the full-time reservist” into those higher HQs where they can actually provide reserve input into decisions. The current double-dip does not achieve this as the annuitants are filling-up such positions and providing another Reg F opinion on a Cl B paycheck. 



As geographic stability provides a functional retention method, then I have no problem with the idea of offering a geographic accommodation to Reg F members with 25 years service or more.  Such members could apply to D Mil C through their CoC – if MOS/rank manning levels are conducive and the CM can support, then the mbr’s pay will be reduced to 85% and the mbr continues to serve without risk of posting from the geographic location.  Through the period of geographic retention, the mbr is still ranked and merit boards (though there may be a penalty applied to the score) and can still be promoted provided there is a posn of the right rank in the geographic area.  Geographic accommodations would be renewable on three year cycles and may not necessarily be renewed if conditions within the occupation no longer support such an arrangement.

I also support the idea of pay top-up for eligible annuitants on Class A and Class B reserve service within reserve establishments.  If we take Pusser’s suggestion and ensured Class B reservists in Reg F establishments always returned to PRes establishments after their tour, then I’d even support pay top-up for annuitants on Class A and Class B reserve service anywhere within the CF.





			
				Pusser said:
			
		

> I have no issue with Reservists filling Regular Force billets for the short term and recognize that it's a useful and effective management tool.  But to plan your succession based on continuously filling full-time billets with Reservists (annuitants or otherwise) for years and years on end is scandalous.  If a job needs to be filled full time, then it should be filled with a Regular Force person.  The focus of the Reserve should be the Reserve units and even those *full-time Reserve responsibilities (e.g. MCDVs) should be filled with folks who do a tour and then return to Class A for awhile*.  No one should be able to make a full-time career of the Reserve.  It's not doing the individual or the CF any favours.


 :goodpost:



			
				dapaterson said:
			
		

> For the record: I am one of the "problem children" who spent over a decade on full-time Reserve service before moving to the Public Service and returning to class A service - so I am enrolled in part I of the CFSA and the PSSA simultaneously.


You might be the poster child for the value of a consolidated federal employment pension programme.


----------



## Remius (28 Feb 2012)

For the record I have nothing against annuitants or full time class b folks.  However it is a systematic problem created by DND/CF.  These temporary positions have become pseudo permanent and no real solution has been put forward to properly staff these positions.

The way i see it if you are on long term class B it should be in support of reserve establishments be they CBGs or unit full time staff.

If you augment or fill a spot in a reg force establishment it should be a short term contract and that organisation take the time to properly staff it with reg force personnel.  Those contracts should be class C.

Of course exceptions will arise and should be made.

But employing annuitants and full time reservists for long term contracts should not be the default setting or the norm.


----------



## George Wallace (28 Feb 2012)

MCG

The points I am arguing are not for the Class B Annuitant filling a Reg Force position in a Reg Force unit, but for the Annuitant who is active in the Reserve unit or Reserve HQ, be it a CBG or Area.  

I, too, see no reason to have created a "Backfill" posn for a Reservist to replace a Reg Force person for any reason.  

Unfortunately, what I have seen at my level (More the 'Tactical' than the 'Strategic') under the previous CLS, is a cut to the Class B posns in the Reserve units and the effects that they have had on the daily operations of those units and Reg Force Support Staff.   Cycling Class A pers with little knowledge of how the system works through the daily tasks of running a unit is horribly inefficient, often counter productive.


----------



## Remius (28 Feb 2012)

George, I was a "victim" of those cuts so I know what you are saying.  It was done with very little thought and was more like chopping off limbs to prevent infection rather than going after the infection.  The impact was felt and is still felt at various units and CBGs.  

I think in a lot of cases, the wrong class bs were cut.  In fact most were reservists supporting reserve operations.

But those annuitants in those reserve positions are going to have to make a choice.  Given the amount of class bs being cut at all levels there will be no shortage of qualified people to fill those jobs should an annuitant feel it isn't worth his/her while.

And no, none of this is going to be easy on anyone.


----------



## Stoker (28 Feb 2012)

Pusser said:
			
		

> This is not an ideal situation, but unfortunately,  it has become the CF's virulent crack habit.  It started with FRP (hard to believe that that started almost 20 years ago), where we decimated the ranks and created a huge experience and qualification void.  I have no issue with Reservists filling Regular Force billets for the short term and recognize that it's a useful and effective management tool.  But to plan your succession based on continuously filling full-time billets with Reservists (annuitants or otherwise) for years and years on end is scandalous.  If a job needs to be filled full time, then it should be filled with a Regular Force person.  The focus of the Reserve should be the Reserve units and even those full-time Reserve responsibilities (e.g. MCDVs) should be filled with folks who do a tour and then return to Class A for awhile.  No one should be able to make a full-time career of the Reserve.  It's not doing the individual or the CF any favours.



Pusser I do agree with most of your comments. In regards to the MCDV's the original concept was much like you described, however the personnel simply didn't materialize to keep rotating personnel from the unit, to the ship and back. Most people are not going to take a three year contract and go back to the unit.
Unfortunately I, like a lot of people ended up staying, and next thing you know its been 17 years full time class B/C. I know that's not was intended but here we are and you're right it didn't do us any favors.
Hopefully I'm gambling I can get the next six years full time so I can get my 25. Mostly likely I will however its always in the back of my mind.


----------



## dapaterson (28 Feb 2012)

McG touched on an underlying question:  Do we need more "variable" TOS in the Reg F - not in terms of length of service, but in terms of geographic stability?  What trade-offs could be made to maintain effectiveness but provide pers with less disruption in their lives?


And Chief Stoker:  The NavRes problem, to my mind, was that they lacked the size to implement the original plan.  If all MCDVs were fully crewed that would require roughly 10% of the NavRes at sea at any one time.  A much larger NavRes would likely be able to sustain the "mostly short term" model - my back of the envelope calculation would be a regularly parading trained strength of about 6K (so 7K with the BTL) - roughly double what we have now.


----------



## Stoker (28 Feb 2012)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> McG touched on an underlying question:  Do we need more "variable" TOS in the Reg F - not in terms of length of service, but in terms of geographic stability?  What trade-offs could be made to maintain effectiveness but provide pers with less disruption in their lives?
> 
> 
> And Chief Stoker:  The NavRes problem, to my mind, was that they lacked the size to implement the original plan.  If all MCDVs were fully crewed that would require roughly 10% of the NavRes at sea at any one time.  A much larger NavRes would likely be able to sustain the "mostly short term" model - my back of the envelope calculation would be a regularly parading trained strength of about 6K (so 7K with the BTL) - roughly double what we have now.



That's about right and why manning is what it is. We have a massive BTL backlog which we're making good progress in clearing up. I doubt if we'll ever have enough people. When we first had the ships manning was good, but steadily declined. CT's really killed us.


----------



## ballz (2 Mar 2012)

Wow, talk about a champagne socialist, Ryan Cleary, who's been an MP for less than a year, is saying he wants a bigger pension

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/newfoundland-labrador/story/2012/03/02/nl-ryan-cleary-pension-302.html



> "I work my butt off,” Cleary said. “Would I deserve a pension of $28,000 after six years? Probably not. It should be more than that.”



More at the link.


----------



## GAP (2 Mar 2012)

He's gonna be disappointed when most of the Quebec NDP'ers go bye bye come next election....with no pension


----------



## OldSolduer (3 Mar 2012)

ballz said:
			
		

> Wow, talk about a champagne socialist, Ryan Cleary, who's been an MP for less than a year, is saying he wants a bigger pension
> 
> http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/newfoundland-labrador/story/2012/03/02/nl-ryan-cleary-pension-302.html
> 
> More at the link.


I saw that too....greedy bastard. I served 24.5 years and my annual pension isn't that big.


----------



## Remius (3 Mar 2012)

Yes, well apparently only MPs work their butts off and have jobs that are really lifestyles.  It's not as if they make a great salary plus expenses.  Oh, and the working environment is horrible.  Parliament buildinga are old and dank.  

To be honest, I'm the first to defend their salaries and the fact that most do work hard and that yes the job is 24/7.  But, the pensions are ridiculous (you won't find too many canadians, maybe 308 and most, that will be sorry to see changes to that) and for this idiot to talk the way he's talking while people lose their jobs and in some cases even their pensions or work 24/7 without getting pensions makes it sound like he didn't really know what he was getting into.


----------



## brihard (3 Mar 2012)

Regarding the double dip- just a simple thought, and I ask as a reservist who bounces between Cl A / short term Cl B for the most part- why not simply introduce regulations to the effect that an annuitant on Cl B service over 89 days shall, instead of drawing form their pension, simply continue to contribute to it until such time as they hit their 35 years pensionable service? If someone does their 35 between RefF / Cl B service and maxes out their pension, then I'm not too fussed by them 'double dipping'. We'd otherwise be losing them anyway to retirement, and the real incremental cost remains only the Cl B salary for doing a Cl B job. It seems fair. At the same time, one could not then do 25 years, hop out on 50% and work for 85%, being paid effectively 135% for another ten years before retiring back to 50% pension. Anyone who serves full time for 35 gets the pension for 35- but doesn't double dip to much greater income for the shorter term.

Is there something I'm missing on this that's precluding me from 'getting' how the double dip works?


----------



## Teeps74 (3 Mar 2012)

ballz said:
			
		

> Wow, talk about a champagne socialist, Ryan Cleary, who's been an MP for less than a year, is saying he wants a bigger pension
> 
> http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/newfoundland-labrador/story/2012/03/02/nl-ryan-cleary-pension-302.html
> 
> More at the link.



Not gonna lie, I lost my stuffing when I read that article. I had to read it three times just to try and figure out if this clown was joking or being sarcastic. I presume that this MP in question will be the first to stand to and vote "nay" on any changes at all to federally controlled pensions? 

I have a lot to say, none of it flattering. I will now just wonder away, go back to my home work, muttering about the world we live in today...

(Better news, just 4 more weeks of DL!!!).


----------



## Teeps74 (3 Mar 2012)

Crantor said:
			
		

> For the record I have nothing against annuitants or full time class b folks.  However it is a systematic problem created by DND/CF.  These temporary positions have become pseudo permanent and no real solution has been put forward to properly staff these positions.
> 
> The way i see it if you are on long term class B it should be in support of reserve establishments be they CBGs or unit full time staff.
> 
> ...


  

I put to you an exception to the rule. New capabilities which the CF has seen fit to develop can not be properly managed by the Reg F because of the transient nature of the Reg F. Influencing Activities (PSYOPS, IO and CIMIC) require years of training and study to get truly competent in, until such time as these capabilities are turned into a MOSID (which will never happen), these capabilities will only grow under the PRes, as the PRes will not leave unless they want to (no postings).

As a trainer, I truly wish I could say that when a candidate graduates my courses, they are fully competent and ready to deploy as a practitioner, but given that I have mere weeks to cram 2 years worth of boiled down college material, well... My graduates require more training.

A Reg F member who is posted out after 2-3 years would be posted just as they are getting good at what they do, and at about that time they should be turning around to help train the next generation of practitioners or deploy to a mission area. I do want to see more Reg F on these courses (a lot more), perhaps if every single soldier, sailor and airman/woman were trained up we could defeat the nature of the posting cycle (I also want to win the lottery, travel to the moon and find a cure for cancer).

This said, I do value reservists who continue to contribute to their units while employed on CL B. I have continuously done so myself for the past 6 years and expect the very same of the subordinates under me within my home unit. CL B can be a real drain on a home unit, as soldiers sometimes disappear on us for very long periods of time while remaining in our line serials (making recruitment for achieving effective strength difficult). 

(Now I truly have to get back to my studies... Pulling the plug!)


----------



## Jed (4 Mar 2012)

Teeps74 said:
			
		

> I put to you an exception to the rule. New capabilities which the CF has seen fit to develop can not be properly managed by the Reg F because of the transient nature of the Reg F. Influencing Activities (PSYOPS, IO and CIMIC) require years of training and study to get truly competent in, until such time as these capabilities are turned into a MOSID (which will never happen), these capabilities will only grow under the PRes, as the PRes will not leave unless they want to (no postings).
> As a trainer, I truly wish I could say that when a candidate graduates my courses, they are fully competent and ready to deploy as a practitioner, but given that I have mere weeks to cram 2 years worth of boiled down college material, well... My graduates require more training.
> 
> A Reg F member who is posted out after 2-3 years would be posted just as they are getting good at what they do, and at about that time they should be turning around to help train the next generation of practitioners or deploy to a mission area. I do want to see more Reg F on these courses (a lot more), perhaps if every single soldier, sailor and airman/woman were trained up we could defeat the nature of the posting cycle (I also want to win the lottery, travel to the moon and find a cure for cancer).
> ...



All good points _BUT_ Most reserve units don't want to use their senior officers/ NCMs for the CIMIC, PYOPS, IO jobs. With all the cuts, they need you to do whatever role your unit has to accomplish. Also, if you are filling a Class B job for the Reg force, they sure don't want to cut you any slack to help do extra Class A with the home unit.

Mix all that in with an unreal travel agenda with no fixed address for 3 years and this is why I dropped my, so called cushy Class B contract, half way through and eventually took off the green stuff permanently.


----------



## Teeps74 (4 Mar 2012)

Jed said:
			
		

> All good points _BUT_ Most reserve units don't want to use their senior officers/ NCMs for the CIMIC, PYOPS, IO jobs. With all the cuts, they need you to do whatever role your unit has to accomplish. Also, if you are filling a Class B job for the Reg force, they sure don't want to cut you any slack to help do extra Class A with the home unit.
> 
> Mix all that in with an unreal travel agenda with no fixed address for 3 years and this is why I dropped my, so called cushy Class B contract, half way through and eventually took off the green stuff permanently.



In Ontario, I know of at least one CBG that has mandated that all reserve units will develop an IA capability. 

The unit I am currently employed with is exceptionally supportive of my voluntary duties with my home unit. Crazy thing is, I would suggest that given the evenings and weekends nature, most employing units should not have too much grief with the voluntary service, as it does allow us to grow in our trades and our jobs (I also gain twice the opportunities to complete IBTS, and have become a lesser administrative burden to both units in this regard.)

(Anyhoo, time for bed... I have to finish my cursed paper tomorrow.)


----------



## Stoker (4 Mar 2012)

Brihard said:
			
		

> Regarding the double dip- just a simple thought, and I ask as a reservist who bounces between Cl A / short term Cl B for the most part- why not simply introduce regulations to the effect that an annuitant on Cl B service over 89 days shall, instead of drawing form their pension, simply continue to contribute to it until such time as they hit their 35 years pensionable service? If someone does their 35 between RefF / Cl B service and maxes out their pension, then I'm not too fussed by them 'double dipping'. We'd otherwise be losing them anyway to retirement, and the real incremental cost remains only the Cl B salary for doing a Cl B job. It seems fair. At the same time, one could not then do 25 years, hop out on 50% and work for 85%, being paid effectively 135% for another ten years before retiring back to 50% pension. Anyone who serves full time for 35 gets the pension for 35- but doesn't double dip to much greater income for the shorter term.
> 
> Is there something I'm missing on this that's precluding me from 'getting' how the double dip works?



The latest I heard this week was that its headed back to be re looked at and no decision was made yet. This week I talked to six annuitants with previous service from 20 years to 35 years and everyone of them said they will quit if forced to pay in and cease collecting their pension.


----------



## George Wallace (4 Mar 2012)

Brihard said:
			
		

> Regarding the double dip- just a simple thought, and I ask as a reservist who bounces between Cl A / short term Cl B for the most part- why not simply introduce regulations to the effect that an annuitant on Cl B service over 89 days shall, instead of drawing form their pension, simply continue to contribute to it until such time as they hit their 35 years pensionable service? If someone does their 35 between RefF / Cl B service and maxes out their pension, then I'm not too fussed by them 'double dipping'. We'd otherwise be losing them anyway to retirement, and the real incremental cost remains only the Cl B salary for doing a Cl B job. It seems fair. At the same time, one could not then do 25 years, hop out on 50% and work for 85%, being paid effectively 135% for another ten years before retiring back to 50% pension. Anyone who serves full time for 35 gets the pension for 35- but doesn't double dip to much greater income for the shorter term.
> 
> Is there something I'm missing on this that's precluding me from 'getting' how the double dip works?



Along with Chief Stokers comments, the Annuitant with 25 to 35 years Reg Force service only has a few years left before they reach CRA.  To take away their pension for that short period of time and have them pay into the Reserve pension while serving as Class B at only 85% of their former Reg Force salary is a slap in their junk.  Why would any sane person give up a pension for a job that has a 15% lower salary?  Perhaps, if Annuitants were offered Class C (equal to Reg Force pay scale, paid by the Reg Force Pay System) some would stay.  If not, then I agree with Chief Stoker's comments on most packing it in and leaving, taking all their experience and knowledge with them.


----------



## Stoker (4 Mar 2012)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Along with Chief Stokers comments, the Annuitant with 25 to 35 years Reg Force service only has a few years left before they reach CRA.  To take away their pension for that short period of time and have them pay into the Reserve pension while serving as Class B at only 85% of their former Reg Force salary is a slap in their junk.  Why would any sane person give up a pension for a job that has a 15% lower salary?  Perhaps, if Annuitants were offered Class C (equal to Reg Force pay scale, paid by the Reg Force Pay System) some would stay.  If not, then I agree with Chief Stoker's comments on most packing it in and leaving, taking all their experience and knowledge with them.



I like to point out four of the five are receiving Class C and are fairly close to CRA. The only way I can see an annuitant staying is if they need the job and the extra money due to divorce or something like that.
I suspect the powers to be want to weed out some of the annuitants without playing the bad guy and cutting their positions through strat review.


----------



## 421_434_226 (4 Mar 2012)

I am currently one of those evil "Double Dippers" (I really dislike that term). I am not sure what the problem is with being an annuitant and filling a Cl B position lies. Regardless if it is myself or someone else the wage will still need to be paid in order to have the job done. 
At my current job we are understaffed as it is in addition approximately 1/3 of the present workforce are annuitants. I could see this plan backfiring and our workplace losing all of these personnel to become even more undermanned then they are now. It is my understanding that my pension does not come out of the DND budget so I am unsure of where the "savings" would come in, or is it just the optics of "Double Dippers" that is the problem.


----------



## Brasidas (4 Mar 2012)

Gizmo 421 said:
			
		

> I am currently one of those evil "Double Dippers" (I really dislike that term). I am not sure what the problem is with being an annuitant and filling a Cl B position lies. Regardless if it is myself or someone else the wage will still need to be paid in order to have the job done.



Exactly.

To recap, iiirc, the primary arguments are against the following:

1) Somebody regforce walking out the door one day, walking back into the same (non-reserve unit) job the next day as a full-time reservist.

2) The class B grass being greener than the regforce grass, encouraging folks to release and take a class B contract; the corollary being that to cut the ability of an annuitant to draw their pension while in class B is to either stop releases from reg force or force folks to CT back to reg force.

3) Someone with a career in uniform behind them, being paid as an experienced uniformed member while still drawing a pension for their experience in uniform.

4) A federal employee drawing a federal pension, regardless of what department they worked for in the past and which one's employing them now.

5) Necessary jobs, mandated to be regforce, being permanently filled by full-time reservists because their priority is so low that they are never filled by regforce.

For 1), there's something sick with the establishment beyond double-dipping. Eliminating it might attrition the reservists who are employed in those permanent positions at reg force units, but why are reservists being employed in those situations in the first place?

For 2), they've earned their pension already. If they go to the public service, under hiring preferences, they're still going to get their pension. Or if they find a job in the private sector that wants their skills, they'll go there. You're unlikely to get a married warrant in his 40's or 50's to from a comfortable reserve Ops WO post back into the regular posting cycle. Jobs they can take while drawing their pension are out there, without the hassle of regforce obligations.

For a philosophical answer to 3), I refer to Gizmo's post. He's still getting paid the pension no matter where he gets his income. As per 1), his unit is sick and eliminating the members' ability to draw pensions at best replaces those experienced personnel with "experienced" class A reservists. It doesn't restructure the organization to get regforce personnel other than by having the unit collapse because of its inability to fulfill its mission.

In the case of a reserve unit's RSS positions, you're getting an experienced cadre to support a unit, without which you're again getting replacements that are currently class A personnel.

4) The regular force, RCMP, and public service are three separate government employers. Consolidating the pensions of the three cuts out much of the benefit of one beginning a second career with another. Who does it help to make that change?

If a reg force MP goes to the Edmonton Police service and keeps his pension, rather than the RCMP and draw nothing, who's benefiting? He's just going to grab a second pension at EPS instead.

Paying out a pension that's already been earned by the member doesn't come out of the operating budget of the CF, or, to my knowledge, any of the three mentioned employers.

5) There's a place for class B. I don't see a problem with a turnover of reserve augmentees at a training centre; drivers, lower skill support positions, and demo tp. But if there's a permanent, skilled position, with someone occupying a supervisory role that can't be filled by regforce due to it being a low priority, its an indication that something's wrong with how that job's priority is being handled.


----------



## 421_434_226 (4 Mar 2012)

OK, I think I can understand this a little more now, this is not a cost saving measure but a retention plan. Sort of like the old carrot and stick analogy, instead of using a carrot to convince Reg Force personnel to stay in they will use a stick to make certain options unattractive.


----------



## Jed (4 Mar 2012)

Gizmo 421 said:
			
		

> OK, I think I can understand this a little more now, this is not a cost saving measure but a retention plan. Sort of like the old carrot and stick analogy, instead of using a carrot to convince Reg Force personnel to stay in they will use a stick to make certain options unattractive.



Sounds about right in my opinion. Unfortunately, my relatively unique situation meant I pretty much had to do a Class B unless I resigned up to go all the way to 60 yrs plus or take a big hit on the pension. (old guy signing up on the old pension plan) But that's another story.

Looking back at this changing Class B situation, it will probably sort out favourably for most situations if that is its main purpose, to retain Reg personnel.


----------



## McG (4 Mar 2012)

Brasidas said:
			
		

> The regular force, RCMP, and public service are three separate government employers.


No.  Those are three different types of employment under the same employer.  In all three cases, the employer is the same: the federal government.



			
				Gizmo 421 said:
			
		

> OK, I think I can understand this a little more now, this is not a cost saving measure but a retention plan. Sort of like the old carrot and stick analogy, instead of using a carrot to convince Reg Force personnel to stay in they will use a stick to make certain options unattractive.


It may be that some people are planning to make a stick in order to chase annuitants away from current employment.  That is not where I want to go.  However, I want a different/new carrot to attract Reg F retiries to the PRes.  The double-dip should cease to be an option for those leaving the Reg F (if we want a grandfather mechanism for pers already retired, then someone can figure that out).  Instead, we should offer geographic accomodation (with 15% pay cut) as an option to retain pers in the Reg F, and we should offer pay top-up as an incentive for retiring annuitants to enter the PRes.


----------



## OldSolduer (4 Mar 2012)

Institute a guideline that states once retired and collecting a pension, no Class B for three years. Class A only, unless exceptional circumstances exist.


----------



## Brasidas (4 Mar 2012)

MCG said:
			
		

> No.  Those are three different types of employment under the same employer.  In all three cases, the employer is the same: the federal government.



They're pretty distinct organizations, to the extent that I don't see the point of arguing against a double pension for two careers of 20+ years. Again, I refer to the example of an MP going to work for a city police service vs the RCMP. Other than a philosophical dislike for two rather distinct organizations paying separate pensions under federal mandates, what's the difference for that MP getting a second pension after service with RCMP vs a city police service?



> It may be that some people are planning to make a stick in order to chase annuitants away from current employment.  That is not where I want to go.  However, I want a different/new carrot to attract Reg F retiries to the PRes.  The double-dip should cease to be an option for those leaving the Reg F (if we want a grandfather mechanism for pers already retired, then someone can figure that out).  Instead, we should offer geographic accomodation (with 15% pay cut) as an option to retain pers in the Reg F, and we should offer pay top-up as an incentive for retiring annuitants to enter the PRes.



So instead of a veteran earning a pension while working his new job, doing the same job for the same pay as a conventional reservist, you would keep him from drawing his pension and instead give him more pay.

Moreover, a clerk in an Edmonton unit who wants to stay in Edmonton could choose between getting cut to 85% pay and staying put or keeping his full pay and taking over the OR at a reserve unit.


----------



## Monsoon (5 Mar 2012)

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> Institute a guideline that states once retired and collecting a pension, no Class B for three years. Class A only, unless exceptional circumstances exist.


So 220 days a year of class "A" would be fine, but 15 days of class "B" would be out of the question?

This leads down a deep, dark rabbit hole.


----------



## Remius (5 Mar 2012)

Except that you can't work 220 days of class A a year unless you get special permission.


----------



## Pusser (5 Mar 2012)

hamiltongs said:
			
		

> So 220 days a year of class "A" would be fine, but 15 days of class "B" would be out of the question?
> 
> This leads down a deep, dark rabbit hole.



Actually, I think Jim makes a good point.  The bottom line is that some parties seem to want to eliminate or reduce the "double-dipping" (for lack of a better term).  Without going into a full discussion on the merits of Regular Force vs Full-time Reservist, what we really need to look at is where annuitants fall into this mix.  I think we can all agree that we don't want to lose the expertise that annuitants bring to the organization, but I think that this is best used in Reserve units (i.e. on a Class A basis) as it can help raise the professionalism bar, simply by the infusion of new experiences.  Using annuitants to fill full-time Class B billets that do not support the Reserve, do nothing in this regard.

I have to admit that I am being somewhat self-centred in this.  Once I retire from the Regular Force, I have no desire to take on a full-time Class B or C billet.  Frankly, I want to do something completely different with my life.  However, I would be very interested in going to a Reserve unit on a Class A basis.  Naturally, I would think that most people would want to do as me  ;D.  My only concern would be whether I would be restricted in working in the Reserve because of a broad-brush restriction on Class B/C service that would prevent me from completing any kind of training course,  prevent me from going on exercise or make me undeployable.  In other words, I would support restrictions on long-term Class B/C service for annuitants provided that short-term Class B service (i.e. courses, exercises, etc)and Class C deployments are not prohibited.

It is worth noting that this is not the first time that the Department has tried to deal with this issue.  Years ago, they tried applying sever restrictions on Class B/C employment for anyone who was *ex-Regular *  Force (i.e. not necessarily annuitants).  My office saw cases where young Reservists were losing their Class B positions because they has had the misfortune of spending a short time in the Regular Force, but had never earned or drawn a pension.


----------



## Brasidas (5 Mar 2012)

Pusser said:
			
		

> Actually, I think Jim makes a good point.  The bottom line is that some parties seem to want to eliminate or reduce the "double-dipping" (for lack of a better term).  Without going into a full discussion on the merits of Regular Force vs Full-time Reservist, what we really need to look at is where annuitants fall into this mix.  I think we can all agree that we don't want to lose the expertise that annuitants bring to the organization, but I think that this is best used in Reserve units (i.e. on a Class A basis) as it can help raise the professionalism bar, simply by the infusion of new experiences.



Agreed that bringing annutiants into the unit brings experience in there, and that that's a positive thing. 



> Using annuitants to fill full-time Class B billets that do not support the Reserve, do nothing in this regard.



Agreed. A class B annuitant in NDHQ, or any reg force unit, does nothing to support the reserve.

However, I don't see a need to keep them out of an RSS/class B reserve unit position, such as Ops WO, Trg NCO, or CC.

If DND actually fills these positions with experienced RegForce staff, great. If not, class B annuitants are a good fit.



> I have to admit that I am being somewhat self-centred in this.  Once I retire from the Regular Force, I have no desire to take on a full-time Class B or C billet.  Frankly, I want to do something completely different with my life.  However, I would be very interested in going to a Reserve unit on a Class A basis.  Naturally, I would think that most people would want to do as me  ;D.  My only concern would be whether I would be restricted in working in the Reserve because of a broad-brush restriction on Class B/C service that would prevent me from completing any kind of training course,  prevent me from going on exercise or make me undeployable.  In other words, I would support restrictions on long-term Class B/C service for annuitants provided that short-term Class B service (i.e. courses, exercises, etc)and Class C deployments are not prohibited.



If that were the case, we're back to less experienced reserve personnel being the ones shoved into those positions at the reserve unit; in many cases, those aren't going to be your best guys, its going to be whoever doesn't have an established job.

If they don't fulfill the role, we're down to maxing out class A days, having annuitants work 5 days a week, instead of giving the a class B contract. I've seen this happen in cases where necessary class B's don't get backfilled.

I agree that having experienced regforce personnel, annuitant and otherwise, on class A is a benefit to the unit. And at the very least, allowing an annuitant to support summer courses as senior staff without penalty is a good thing. I don't think that cutting them out of the permanent unit support staff is a good thing.


----------



## CountDC (5 Mar 2012)

If they don't fulfill the role, we're down to maxing out class A days, *having annuitants work 5 days a week,* instead of giving the a class B contract. I've seen this happen in cases where necessary class B's don't get backfilled.

Seen it tried until I pointed out it is against regulations.  You can not employ someone 5 days a week every week.  Trying to remember and I believe it is/was 12 days a month max for cl A and you couldn't do a mon to fri routine with weekends off to avoid the cl b.  I use to do a lot of volunteer days at the unit just to ensure the pay was done every month.  

Quote from: Pusser on Today at 12:33:32

"It is worth noting that this is not the first time that the Department has tried to deal with this issue.  Years ago, they tried applying sever restrictions on Class B/C employment for anyone who was ex-Regular Force (i.e. not necessarily annuitants).  My office saw cases where young Reservists were losing their Class B positions because they has had the misfortune of spending a short time in the Regular Force, but had never earned or drawn a pension."

I remember that - it was in the early 90's but I don't understand why they were losing their jobs.  We had a pte that tried the reg f life and didn't like it.  He only lasted a year and came back to us but that was long enough to get stung by the policy.  The only requirement was that they had to take the break the same as an annuitant.  Can't recall if it was the 30 day or 1 day break that was required.

Lot's of interesting points and arguments.

How about this - if it is a reg f job that needs to be filled and the reg f can't then instead of giving a cl b to an annuitant give a Fixed Period of Service contract to a p res that is not an annuitant.  Employ the annuitants at the units instead where they can pass on their valuable information to the p res mbrs.  Seems to be a good way to win all around.  The p res have full time jobs that give them a taste of the reg f life along with valuable work experience. The annuitant gets a full time job and the military benefits in that we not only retain the reg f mbrs skills but have them passed on.

Not perfect, doesn't solve the double-dip but it does deal with one of the large arguments used when dealing with the double-dip.


----------



## aesop081 (5 Mar 2012)

Brasidas said:
			
		

> Agreed. A class B annuitant in NDHQ, or any reg force unit, does nothing to support the reserve.



So, how does this translate to an organization like the air reserve. Class B annuitants do not "support the reserves", they serve along side their RegF counterparts in integrated units. There are essentialy no Air reserve units.


----------



## dapaterson (5 Mar 2012)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> So, how does this translate to an organization like the air reserve. Class B annuitants do not "support the reserves", they serve along side their RegF counterparts in integrated units. There are essentialy no Air reserve units.



There is no "Air Reserve".  If the pers are all committed to regular, full-time ongoing responsibilities, there's nothing left in the closet for surge or unexpected situations.  That means there is no reserve; it's been committed.  Rather than, at some point, saying "Troops to task doesn't work now" they muddled on as best they could.

Air Command got rid of any traditional part-time reservists a decade and a half ago (perhaps more).  The RCAF has now inherited that problem.


----------



## George Wallace (5 Mar 2012)

OK.  Pusser is looking at a Naval Reserve perspective.   The PRes has no Class C positions that I know of, except for those Reservists who have actually gotten onto the plane and departed on Tour.  A good majority of them have been Class B up until such time as their departure dates or there abouts.  

If you really think that a Reserve unit can operate on Class A alone, you are on hallucinogens.   There is a lot of day to day administration required to keep a Reserve unit functional or as functional as possible as not to become totally ineffective.  Not every Reservist parades on the same evenings and weekends.  Higher HQs do not often work those evenings and weekends.  Administration has to be done, pay approved, courses created, courses loaded, Route Letters and Claims processed, facilities and equipment maintained, etc.  The IT Help Desk is closed when most Reservists work, so any IT related problems would never be corrected.  

The Reg Force Support Staff are often overwhelmed in trying to keep a Reserve unit functioning without the help of full-time Reservists to assist them.  Orderly Rooms need to be manned to ensure Admin is done.  A QM must be manned to ensure the unit stores, kit, wpns, etc. are all maintained,  items repaired/ordered/reordered/replaced, etc.  Tpt Sections have to ensure vehicles are in running condition, properly dispatched, follow their Sevicing/Maint schedules, etc.   One Reg Force Capt, WO and MCpl Chief Clerk (Airforce Cpl acting lacking with only Reg Force RMS background - no idea of Reserve Pay or Admin differences) can not majically ensure that this is all done efficiently.  They do need help and Class As do help, but do not provide the continuity and corportate knowledge to the extent that a Class B may.  

I overlooked the Annuitant having to be on Class B for the purpose of attending a course or going on an Exercise or Tasking.  That does present an interesting problem.  Why should the Annuitant loose a pension to do one of these?


----------



## dapaterson (5 Mar 2012)

Question:  Everyone on here ranting and raving:  Who has read the NDA?  Who has read the CFSA and its regulations?

They make for an interesting read, and for interesting logical conclusions based on the legislation and related regulations (all of which are superior to any DAOD, CFAO, Command Order, Area directive or other admin fluff generated internal to the CF).


----------



## OldSolduer (5 Mar 2012)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Question:  Everyone on here ranting and raving:  Who has read the NDA?  Who has read the CFSA and its regulations?
> 
> They make for an interesting read, and for interesting logical conclusions based on the legislation and related regulations (all of which are superior to any DAOD, CFAO, Command Order, Area directive or other admin fluff generated internal to the CF).



Good point....well taken. Thank you.


----------



## Monsoon (5 Mar 2012)

Crantor said:
			
		

> Except that you can't work 220 days of class A a year unless you get special permission.


Sure, but the most egregious abusers of the Reg F retirement-cum-reservist class "B" guys are the full-bird Colonels/BGens who "retire" and then immediately assume their exact same function within the Reg F unit they were at on class "B" without every actually doing any time in the reserve organizations (a unit, or NAVRES). These are the only guys I'd characterize as "double-dippers". And these are exactly the guys who can get permission to work 220/300/364 days a year of class "A".

Differentiating between class "A" and "B" service for annuitants will only hurt the WO/Capts who retire, join the local unit and want to teach a PLQ course in the summer (and are desperately needed).


----------



## PPCLI Guy (5 Mar 2012)

hamiltongs said:
			
		

> Sure, but the most egregious abusers of the Reg F retirement-cum-reservist class "B" guys are the full-bird Colonels/BGens who "retire" and then immediately assume their exact same function within the Reg F unit they were at on class "B" without every actually doing any time in the reserve organizations (a unit, or NAVRES). These are the only guys I'd characterize as "double-dippers". And these are exactly the guys who can get permission to work 220/300/364 days a year of class "A".
> 
> Differentiating between class "A" and "B" service for annuitants will only hurt the WO/Capts who retire, join the local unit and want to teach a PLQ course in the summer (and are desperately needed).



Name them


----------



## The Anti-Royal (5 Mar 2012)

I've been around for 30 years and can't think of anyone who fits your description.  Can you name two of "those guys"?

D'oh . . . PPCLI Guy beat me to it.


----------



## dapaterson (5 Mar 2012)

hamiltongs said:
			
		

> Differentiating between class "A" and "B" service for annuitants will only hurt the WO/Capts who retire, join the local unit and want to teach a PLQ course in the summer (and are desperately needed).



From what has been posted, this proposal would only affect those working full time for a year or more - so the WO or Capt covering off a PLQ in the summer would see no change from the current status quo.

That would be consistent with the NDA definition of the Reserve Force and with the CFSA parameters defining re-enrolment.


----------



## Kat Stevens (5 Mar 2012)

I served 23 years and never saw a full bird colonel in a Canadian uniform, Res or Reg.


----------



## Monsoon (6 Mar 2012)

The Anti-Royal said:
			
		

> I've been around for 30 years and can't think of anyone who fits your description.  Can you name two of "those guys"?
> 
> D'oh . . . PPCLI Guy beat me to it.


As a matter of fact, I'm not bluffing and could name a number... and obviously won't on a public forum (and no, I'm not going to breech their right to privacy by messaging their names to you either). If you're not aware of them, it's because their employment status isn't widely advertised. But Maurice Baril was certainly the most prominent example.



			
				Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> I served 23 years and never saw a full bird colonel in a Canadian uniform, Res or Reg.


Ho-ho. You've heard of a figure of speech, I take it?

But getting back to the original topic, do the three guys who jumped down my neck on this support or oppose so-called "double-dipping"? Because I certainly support it; I'm just opposed to ham-fisted efforts to reign it in.



			
				dapaterson said:
			
		

> From what has been posted, this proposal would only affect those working full time for a year or more - so the WO or Capt covering off a PLQ in the summer would see no change from the current status quo.


Well, annuitants already don't work more than a year of class "B": they're obliged to take a service break of 35 days each year. Re-implementing exactly the same thing by saying, "Okay guys, we can only put you on an 11 month contract. After a one-month break we'll 'consider' employing you in the same position for another 11 months [wink-wink]", isn't going to change the effective status quo.


----------



## dapaterson (6 Mar 2012)

hamiltongs said:
			
		

> As a matter of fact, I'm not bluffing and could name a number... and obviously won't on a public forum (and no, I'm not going to breech their right to privacy by messaging their names to you either). If you're not aware of them, it's because their employment status isn't widely advertised. But Maurice Baril was certainly the most prominent example.



de Chastelain, perhaps, but not Baril.  Baril had less than 33 years of service when appointed CDS; flipping over would have kept him from reaching 35 years of servce, and would have removed several top-earning years from the average of his best five.




> Well, annuitants already don't work more than a year of class "B": they're obliged to take a service break of 35 days each year. Re-implementing exactly the same thing by saying, "Okay guys, we can only put you on an 11 month contract. After a one-month break we'll 'consider' employing you in the same position for another 11 months [wink-wink]", isn't going to change the effective status quo.



Right now annuitants do work more than one year - they accept three year positions with several blocks of leave without pay.  Calling it a break in service when they return to the same job is misleading at best.

I expect that any policy will make it clear that dodges such as successive short-term employment in the same position are unacceptable.  Again, the CFSA and NDA are valuable resources in defining the left and right of arc.  Prefacing comments with "Regardless of what the NDA may say..." (which I have heard) may be entertaining, but are neither supportable nor sustainable.


----------



## Monsoon (6 Mar 2012)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> de Chastelain, perhaps, but not Baril.  Baril had less than 33 years of service when appointed CDS; flipping over would have kept him from reaching 35 years of servce, and would have removed several top-earning years from the average of his best five.


Baril too was over 55 in his final couple of years as CDS and prior to the implementation of CRA 60. He retired, transferred to the CIC Reserve (where retirement at 55 was not obligatory) and served out his last couple as a dreaded "double-dipper". Didn't realize De Chastelain had done the same thing.



> Right now annuitants do work more than one year - they accept three year positions with several blocks of leave without pay.  Calling it a break in service when they return to the same job is misleading at best.


May be formation-dependent. In my experience, I've seen contracts are cut to start and end around the service breaks, which is what would be done elsewhere if a no-contracts-over-a-year policy were implemented generally.



> I expect that any policy will make it clear that dodges such as successive short-term employment in the same position are unacceptable.  Again, the CFSA and NDA are valuable resources in defining the left and right of arc.  Prefacing comments with "Regardless of what the NDA may say..." (which I have heard) may be entertaining, but are neither supportable nor sustainable.


But that won't stop some clever staff officers from figuring out a way to make it work if they have to (desk-swapping, etc). To my mind, all it would do is add admin burden in implementing the work-around, but goodness knows that hasn't ever stopped well-intentioned and ill-considered policies from being brought in. And on that note, I'm ducking out to do some "green" procurement.


----------



## Pusser (6 Mar 2012)

hamiltongs said:
			
		

> Baril too was over 55 in his final couple of years as CDS and prior to the implementation of CRA 60. He retired, transferred to the CIC Reserve (where retirement at 55 was not obligatory) and served out his last couple as a dreaded "double-dipper". Didn't realize De Chastelain had done the same thing.



This oft cited "fact" is a fallacy.  Gen Baril was never a member of the CIC, nor was there any reason to be.  There are procedures in place to extend periods of service beyond CRA if requried.


----------



## Monsoon (6 Mar 2012)

Pusser said:
			
		

> This oft cited "fact" is a fallacy.  Gen Baril was never a member of the CIC, nor was there any reason to be.  There are procedures in place to extend periods of service beyond CRA if requried.


If you say so. But given your element and place of employment, you do know exactly who I had in mind, right?


----------



## Jed (6 Mar 2012)

But, De Chastelaine was CIL at the last. (not guaranteed for sure on this)


----------



## Remius (6 Mar 2012)

I don't know if a majority are senior types.  That might just be the popular thing to say or assume.  I do know that there are some cases.  And some for valid reasons.  I have heard of one that had his position changed to a class B (or created one in the same place he worked as a reg) then had a civy position created after he reached CRA.  Seems abusive but I don't have the details to know the justification.  neither is it 1st hand knowledge (His wife was the one who talked about it at a briefing)  ie it isn't info worth anything.

Most annuitants I have known or know are Snr NCOs and Captains.  Most switched when they reached 20 or 25 years.  Some of those got out to avoid postings and went straight to class B.  And some got out for other reasons (wives careers, kids etc).  I only know one that is on class B (in a reg force establishment) and parades with a reserve unit.  ther rest are either PRL or work on class B for their unit.


----------



## Monsoon (6 Mar 2012)

Crantor said:
			
		

> I don't know if a majority are senior types.


I'll come right out and say that I believe that they represent a tiny minority. But they're the ones that make people raise eyebrows, and they're exactly the ones who can get whatever set of rules is put in place "gamed" in their favour.


----------



## armyvern (7 Mar 2012)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> ...
> 
> I expect that any policy will make it clear that dodges such as successive short-term employment in the same position are unacceptable.  Again, the CFSA and NDA are valuable resources in defining the left and right of arc.  Prefacing comments with "Regardless of what the NDA may say..." (which I have heard) may be entertaining, but are neither supportable nor sustainable.



What is not supportable or sustainable is the failure of some to recognize the fact (and it is *a fact*) that the training system would collapse without B Class augmentation - in the same numbers that currently exist. Unless, and until, Ottawa gets off it's ass and reassigns dotcom officer positions in the RegF back out to the boots on the ground positions within priority 6 units and training locations, B Class is a necessary and critical component to making the RegF (and ResF pers training at RegF establishments) training system work. Without it, the branch will fall off the tree. 

The NDA can be amended as well. You keep toting out "the rules" etc which is fine with me, but the system has worked for years just as it is now and will not work with the proposed changes to B Class that are being bantied about. Who's to say that it isn't the NDA that needs fixing because the proposed change certainly isn't going to fix anything; it will break it futher. 

Again, one only needs to look at courses getting canned NOW because of lack of instructors and the inability to forecast even the most basic of a training cycle schedule (and, no way in hell they could actually stick to one!) at CTC ... and realize that this utopian proposal only waxes over the actual issue. This proposal does nothing but "fix" the effect, but does not address or fix the cause of that effect. 

I wish all the army guys well in getting courses if this goes through; they can't seem to get them now with any reliability.

Additionally, if you think that the system will be "fixed" by retraining a new Class B guy _every year_ to do an essential job rather than utilizing 3 year contracts, you drain the system even more as that guy would be leaving just as he knows the job and would further drain services by the other guy who could be instructing being required to continuously train the new B Class guy every year.

How many courses (I'll just consider Army) are being cancelled these days due to lack of instructors? How many Captains does it take to work in Ottawa when Sgts and WOs can do the same jobs for less pay thereby freeing up SWE that could go towards more boots on the ground Reg F guys to employ in boots on the ground jobs? The ratio of Captains to troops these days is astonishing and the amount of these types employed in dotcom empires is indeed what is affecting the ability to man pri 6 and training locations. The Reg F needs to sort that type of issue first, THEN a lot of the other issues simply won't 'be' anymore.

And please, do not propose that we hire ResF Sup techs that are not annuitants; they are neither trained nor qualified to do the wide variety of critical tasks required.


----------



## Edward Campbell (7 Mar 2012)

I think Vern is on to something:

1. The _system_ is broken ~ one symptom is bloated, over ranked HQs that, despite too many people are unable to _manage_ necessary training. In my opinion the CF is badly organized, the super-structure _may_ be appropriate for a "million-man army" but it is unnecessary and, indeed, counter-productive for a force of one hundred thousand;

2. The CF _needs_ the talent - and labour pool - provided by the full time reservists. I agree that one should not _"double dip"_ by drawing a pension for CF uniformed service while still wearing a (paid) CF uniform ... except CIL, but maybe we need to revisit the foundations of the system, the NDA, to make it do what we clearly need. The CF, especially, the reserve component, has evolved (consider the existence of full time reserve manned _KINGSTON_ class warships ~ not what the NDA envisions but what successive governments have mandated) maybe the NDA needs to evolve, too; and

3. Training, for ALL CF members, needs to be a high priority ~ the *best* people should want to go to schools because the schools need the best, and good performance in a school should be a big step up the promotion ladder. Further, schools should be freed from some of the bureaucratic swamp that was created _circa_ 1965 - schools should be _managed_, directly, by the heads of services/branches using, mostly, a staff at the school. It may seem a bit strange but such a system worked for the Canadian Army for generations and works, today, in some other armies where schools are _senior_ units that do training, doctrine development, tests and trials and, and, and ... properly staffed (lots of the best people) schools can be an efficient, effective resource, not a burden.


----------



## McG (7 Mar 2012)

hamiltongs said:
			
		

> Sure, but the most egregious abusers of the Reg F retirement-cum-reservist class "B" guys are the full-bird Colonels/BGens who "retire" and then immediately assume their exact same function within the Reg F unit they were at on class "B" without every actually doing any time in the reserve organizations (a unit, or NAVRES).





			
				hamiltongs said:
			
		

> As a matter of fact, I'm not bluffing and could name a number...





			
				hamiltongs said:
			
		

> I'll come right out and say that I believe that they represent a tiny minority. But they're the ones that make people raise eyebrows, and they're exactly the ones who can get whatever set of rules is put in place "gamed" in their favour.


You are using some pretty strong language with "egregious abusers" who "gamed" [I read "manipulate"/"exploit"] the system to build themselves superflous jobs for double-dipping.  If you are not exagerating to embelish your position, then you are duty bound to name names - maybe not here, but to our internal ethics oversight.

However, I suspect these unnamed Col and Gen are just doing what most other Cl B annuitants are doing - they are taking advantage of an opportunity foolishly offered by the system.  The problem with the double dip is not the people that take it, the problem is in the system that enables and encourages it.  As stated in other places, a very large number of double-dippers are members that just did not want anymore postings.  Instead of the double dip, we should be looking at things like geographic accomodation to keep these members in the Reg F.



			
				ArmyVern said:
			
		

> What is not supportable or sustainable is the failure of some to recognize the fact (and it is *a fact*) that the training system would collapse without B Class augmentation - in the same numbers that currently exist.


My observations, limited to a few of the schools, is that the majority of Cl B augmentation is the "Cl B lifer" who is not an annuitant - there are annuitants out there in the schools, but the system will not collapse.



			
				ArmyVern said:
			
		

> How many courses (I'll just consider Army) are being cancelled these days due to lack of instructors?


By large, it is reserve courses that I see being cancelled due to lack of instructors.  It seems the Reserve Force is not getting its value from all the Cl B stuffed through Reg F establishments.



			
				ArmyVern said:
			
		

> The NDA can be amended as well. You keep toting out "the rules" etc which is fine with me, but the system has worked for years just as it is ...


We need to live within our means.  You are exactly right that the CF has many places of bloat.  I understand 10% of our numbers are in NDHQ.  We need to fix the structure, and to live within our means.  The laws can be amended, but we cannot expect the politicians will change the laws every time we over extend ourselves.



			
				ArmyVern said:
			
		

> ... and realize that this utopian proposal only waxes over the actual issue. This proposal does nothing but "fix" the effect, but does not address or fix the cause of that effect.


Fixing the double-dip and fixing our structural excesses are two different problems.  We should not close our eyes to the problems of the double-dip because correcting that will exacerbate the problem of our operating beyond our means.  Both problems need to be addressed.  The HQ and structure bloat already has a separate thread:  http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/97262/post-984784.html#msg984784


----------



## Jed (7 Mar 2012)

I will send ArmyVern some milpoints. She has nailed the problem on the head. I especially appreciate her comments that point out that if we continue down this path wrt strict adherance to the NDA rules, the military, especially the Army, just dramatically increases the work burden on the remaining staff.


----------



## Remius (7 Mar 2012)

Jed said:
			
		

> I will send ArmyVern some milpoints. She has nailed the problem on the head. I especially appreciate her comments that point out that if we continue down this path wrt strict adherance to the NDA rules, the military, especially the Army, just dramatically increases the work burden on the remaining staff.



It is exactly because the CF did not adhere to the intended rules that we are where we are today.


----------



## Jed (7 Mar 2012)

Crantor said:
			
		

> It is exactly because the CF did not adhere to the intended rules that we are where we are today.



No sh!t sherlock. You do what you have to do to get on with it. Did anyone die because of these decisions made years ago? Sometimes there are no win/win solutions.


----------



## Remius (7 Mar 2012)

Jed said:
			
		

> No sh!t sherlock. You do what you have to do to get on with it. Did anyone die because of these decisions made years ago? Sometimes there are no win/win solutions.



Thanks Watson.  But sometimes you have to fix the problems created years ago that have gotten out of hand.  Normally that requires painful decisons especially when they get to where they are now.


----------



## armyvern (7 Mar 2012)

MCG said:
			
		

> ...  We should not close our eyes to the problems of the double-dip because correcting that will exacerbate the problem of our operating beyond our means.  Both problems need to be addressed.  The HQ and structure bloat already has a separate thread:  http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/97262/post-984784.html#msg984784



You're due for a posting to Gagetown, if only for the eye-opening and a dose of reality.

Start with fixing the problem; most of the other stuff will then sort itself out. I don't expect politicians to sort out the CFs excesses', but I DO expect that Ottawa can recognize the fact that it is they who cause the "effect" of B Class employment within the trg system and they should fix their errors before expecting the boots on the ground to suffer even more.

I've always been taught that if it isn't broken, do not fix it. If they'd fix the structure and put SWE back to where it is required there wouldn't be a problem. Time for them to look in the mirror and start sorting themselves out: doing it the other way around - won't fix it, but will earn someone kudos and a great PER.  :

I'm no optimist these days: I really don't see Ottawa and the dotcoms slashing themselves before they cut the outsiders throats.


----------



## armyvern (7 Mar 2012)

Crantor said:
			
		

> It is exactly because the CF did not adhere to the intended rules that we are where we are today.



Sure, it is because boots on the ground jobs were converted into staff officer jobs and moved into dotcom empires during the height of building.

No, the CF didn't adhere to the rules, but it wasn't us troops, the schools, and the locations who will suffer that caused this mess. It was the exact offices who will now stomp down even further, pull B Class augmentation and break the training system because of their lack of clarity as to how it is in the real world of training outside of their towers. They will save their new-era past-decade positions and SWE at the expense of putting them back out to us peons so that we can recruit RegF troops to do critical tasks and jobs instead of requiring huge assistance to accomplish our tasks from B Class well-trained, well-experienced and capable double-dippers.

They indeed picked their own poison. The rest of us will pay.


----------



## NavyShooter (7 Mar 2012)

My boss just went to a meeting yesterday (brief from an Admiral type person) and one of the subjects that came up was Severance....has anyone else heard a rumble that Severance pay (1 week pay per year of service) is on the chopping block?  

Rumble being that those of us serving prior to 01 Apr 2012 will be entitled, anyone joining after that date will no longer be eligible?

NS


----------



## dapaterson (7 Mar 2012)

"The fault lies not with our stars, but with ourselves".  We've bred a generation of military managers (not leaders) unwilling to tell their commanders "Based on the resources you have given me, I can deliver A and B, but not C".  That's at every level.

It's not insubordination to tell a superior that something is impossible.  Finding clever work-arounds that rely on gaming the system is not a solution.  

The biggest problem I have seen in the Army CSS community is a decidedly risk-averse culture.  Decisions are delayed until perfect information is available.  And, by the time that perfect information comes around, the situation has changed or the environment has changed, so the information is no longer perfect, and so the cycle of indecision begins anew.


Those problems contributed to the growth of full-time Reserve personnel (annuitants or otherwise).  Temporary measures that became institutionalized by inertia that now will fall apart.

But reliance on temporary fixes do not mean the system isn't broken.  The reliance on full-time reservists is a symptom of a broken system.  Removing them isn't what causes the system to break - it's just exposing the festering wound that's been there all along.


----------



## dapaterson (7 Mar 2012)

NavyShooter said:
			
		

> My boss just went to a meeting yesterday (brief from an Admiral type person) and one of the subjects that came up was Severance....has anyone else heard a rumble that Severance pay (1 week pay per year of service) is on the chopping block?
> 
> Rumble being that those of us serving prior to 01 Apr 2012 will be entitled, anyone joining after that date will no longer be eligible?
> 
> NS



As a pubic servant who went through something similar,here's how it went down for us:

As of a specified date, we received our inflationary pay increase (1.75%).  The day after, we stopped accumulating severance pay.  Severance pay does remain on the books for anyone laid off in the future, but not for retirements.  We were then presented with three options: 1.  Take all the severance pay at our current rate of pay; 2.  Take none of it until we reitre, at our rate of pay on retirement; or 3. Take some now and some at retirement.

There is the ability to flip some over to an RRSP (provided you have contribution room).


If the government were to do something similar to severance pay and the RFRG I suspect it would follow the same general outline.


----------



## CountDC (7 Mar 2012)

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> Name them



I could name a CWO that did go directly from Reg F to P Res in the exact same job.  I could also name a WO that went directly from full time (class B/A) P Res to civilian in the exact same job.  I won't name either one as it is really no ones business the names, just that it did happen.  I know of other cases too where members went from Reg F to P Res, wore the same uniform, did the same job at the same desk.  Can't recall the names though. It does (or at least did) happen but I do not believe it is a rampant problem.  More an exception to the case.


----------



## armyvern (7 Mar 2012)

NavyShooter said:
			
		

> My boss just went to a meeting yesterday (brief from an Admiral type person) and one of the subjects that came up was Severance....has anyone else heard a rumble that Severance pay (1 week pay per year of service) is on the chopping block?
> 
> Rumble being that those of us serving prior to 01 Apr 2012 will be entitled, anyone joining after that date will no longer be eligible?
> 
> NS



I have; recently.

There were also thoughts of that occuring to us CF folks on this site way back when the union gave up theirs for a raise instead ... I believe we thanked them.  :  Will go search for a link ...

Edited to add link:

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/97867/post-996699.html#msg996699


----------



## Jed (7 Mar 2012)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> "The fault lies not with our stars, but with ourselves".  We've bred a generation of military managers (not leaders) unwilling to tell their commanders "Based on the resources you have given me, I can deliver A and B, but not C".  That's at every level.
> 
> It's not insubordination to tell a superior that something is impossible.  Finding clever work-arounds that rely on gaming the system is not a solution.
> 
> ...



Telling your superior the facts may be the right thing to do but it is often career adverse. Hense all the adverse aftermath.


----------



## The Anti-Royal (7 Mar 2012)

A few quotes from NDHQ 5323-1 (D Res), signed by the CDS on 5 March 2012 (sorry, would post a link but have only hard copy):

". . . one policy which . . . was discussed at [Armed Forces Council on 3 February 2012] was the . . . employment of CFSA annuitants in Reserve Force positions."

"The revised policy [effective 1 April 2012] will establish a more restrictive practice for the employment of Regular Force annuitants . . . and will introduce a centralized tracking process . . .".

"This change in no way impacts Reserve Force members who serve on a part-time basis or those who serve for shorter, task-based full-time employment of less than 365 days."

"I fully understand that this transition . . . may present challenges for operations and personnel management over the next year."

"The details related to the introduction of the new policy as well as details regarding a transition period will be forthcoming from the VCDS and CMP."

Have a nice day.


----------



## armyvern (7 Mar 2012)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> "The fault lies not with our stars, but with ourselves".  We've bred a generation of military managers (not leaders) unwilling to tell their commanders "Based on the resources you have given me, I can deliver A and B, but not C".  That's at every level.
> 
> It's not insubordination to tell a superior that something is impossible.  Finding clever work-arounds that rely on gaming the system is not a solution.
> ...



This is absolutely untrue. It is simply your perspective based upon the location you work in, but I am not about to sit here while you wax eloquently about my responsibility as a "leader" to say no when I have done and seen many "nos" sent all the way to Ottawa only to be fired back with a "oh yes you will".

At Gagetown, I experienced the exact opposite. We constantly fed back up the chain that we could NOT support tasks, requests, training, deploying staff without a backfill etc ... only to be told by that puzzle palace , "No, you are pri 6 and thus you WILL support the task, make it happen etc"; we then let the support to training suffer or worked 12-14 hour days and came in on weekends as a norm because we were ordered to make it happen by centre (and that is _*not*_ a manifestly unlawful order). We worked our butts off attempting to get reassigned as a higher priority listed Unit only to have that shut down by centre too. 

Absolutely everything was a higher pri than pri 6. We said no and we tried to change it. Ottawa was NOT OK with that. Another mirror check for them.

Guess what else? Courses at CTC are getting canned precisely because other Units etc are saying, "No, we can not support a request to augment your staff". Courses thus cancelled and more guys backlogged on BTL, PAT, over two years for their "mandatory" leadership courses etc. And, it goes on and on and on.

There's a whole lot of people and Units saying, "No." Those who can't hear those that may have missed the forest for the trees.

What you get to see in Ottawa, is not necessarily indicative of the state of affairs outside of your window and pan-CF.


----------



## armyvern (7 Mar 2012)

The Anti-Royal said:
			
		

> A few quotes from NDHQ 5323-1 (D Res), signed by the CDS on 5 March 2012 (sorry, would post a link but have only hard copy):
> 
> ". . . one policy which . . . was discussed at [Armed Forces Council on 3 February 2012] was the . . . employment of CFSA annuitants in Reserve Force positions."
> 
> ...



And so, the bleeding officially begins. Watch and shoot. Sad day for those Units and their troops who will now be the ones to pay for this with toil, sweat, stress and no simultaneous direction from Ottawa to force higher pri Reg F units to a "must sp" requests for essential and critical staff.

Thank Gawd I only have a couple years left to retirement when I shall go off to double dip as a public servant somewhere in the supply world.  :


----------



## Remius (7 Mar 2012)

Vern:  I work in an HQ environment and I can assure you that they are cutting class Bs at this level.  I'm not involved nor do I actually know the numbers but i've heard it is around 50% either being cut or not renewed.  And all this is happening before the budget is being announced.  I was interviewed last year for civy job at NDHQ and they stated that the easiest thing for them to do was to just staff it as a class b but that they had been told to use other means, so they staffed it with an internal civilian hire.  Keep in m ind that I am only talking about my particular L1.  I have colleagues working at CLS and they are seeing cuts at every level there as well.

The recruiting system (a system that has probably one of the highest ratios of class b pers.) is undergoing similar cuts for obvious reasons.

When the army cut two years ago, they did it without thinking of the impact.  From what I'm seeing, some organisations have learned from that mistake some probably have not.

navyshooter: I haven't heard but the military sometimes takes their cues from the PS.  So it would not shock me.


----------



## armyvern (7 Mar 2012)

Crantor said:
			
		

> Vern:  I work in an HQ environment and I can assure you that they are cutting class Bs at this level.  I'm not involved nor do I actually know the numbers but i've heard it is around 50% either being cut or not renewed.  And all this is happening before the budget is being announced.  I was interviewed last year for civy job at NDHQ and they stated that the easiest thing for them to do was to just staff it as a class b but that they had been told to use other means, so they staffed it with an internal civilian hire.  Keep in m ind that I am only talking about my particular L1.  I have colleagues working at CLS and they are seeing cuts at every level there as well.
> 
> The recruiting system (a system that has probably one of the highest ratios of class b pers.) is undergoing similar cuts for obvious reasons.
> 
> ...



You explain exactly the issue. Too many HQs (my "dotcom empires"); and overstaffed at that. Put that SWE back into "troops" (not staff officers OR staff positions OR public servants to do staff jobs) and those locations those boots positions came from. Then, get those RegF pers recruited to do the damn jobs that disappeared to make those bloated HQs and their staffs happen in the first place.

That would actually fix the problem.


----------



## dapaterson (7 Mar 2012)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> This is absolutely untrue. It is simply your perspective based upon the location you work in, but I am not about to sit here while you wax eloquently about my responsibility as a "leader" to say no when I have done and seen many "nos" sent all the way to Ottawa only to be fired back with a "oh yes you will".
> 
> At Gagetown, I experienced the exact opposite. We constantly fed back up the chain that we could NOT support tasks, requests, training, deploying staff without a backfill etc ... only to be told by that puzzle palace , "No, you are pri 6 and thus you WILL support the task, make it happen etc"; we then let the support to training suffer or worked 12-14 hour days and came in on weekends as a norm because we were ordered to make it happen by centre (and that is _*not*_ a manifestly unlawful order). We worked our butts off attempting to get reassigned as a higher priority listed Unit only to have that shut down by centre too.



Ottawa would not be ordering you to support the task.  You had an ASU above you, an ASG above that, an Area HQ above that... any one of which had the authority to order cross-levelling of support or incremental resources - and they didn't.  They had resource flexibility that they chose to employ in other ways.  So again, why exactly is it Ottawa's fault that the Area HQ would rather spend their money on the Halifax Tattoo than on support in Gagetown?



> Absolutely everything was a higher pri than pri 6. We said no and we tried to change it. Ottawa was NOT OK with that. Another mirror check for them.



Actually, at about that time I was tracking Pri 5 fills in Army Reserve units.  Despite pushing out 20% of mos deployments, Reserve untis were being filled at rates in the high 70s-low 80s.  Most combat arms units notionally have one Capt and one WO in trade - and some units were having both positions unfilled.  Pressures were felt everywhere; extra work was done everywhere.



> Guess what else? Courses at CTC are getting canned precisely because other Units etc are saying, "No, we can not support a request to augment your staff". Courses thus cancelled and more guys backlogged on BTL, PAT, over two years for their "mandatory" leadership courses etc. And, it goes on and on and on.



So people _can_ say "no" and get courses cancelled?  



> There's a whole lot of people and Units saying, "No." Those who can't hear those that may have missed the forest for the trees.
> 
> What you get to see in Ottawa, is not necessarily indicative of the state of affairs outside of your window and pan-CF.



I am not disputing that there are problems.  I am disputing (a) that it's all evil nasty stupid Ottawa's fault - there's lots of evil nasty and stupid between NDHQ and units as well and (b) that massive numbers of class B pers are anything but a stopgap - they are a symptom of the problem, but are not the solution to the problem.


----------



## armyvern (7 Mar 2012)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Ottawa would not be ordering you to support the task.  You had an ASU above you, an ASG above that, an Area HQ above that... any one of which had the authority to order cross-levelling of support or incremental resources - and they didn't.  They had resource flexibility that they chose to employ in other ways.  So again, why exactly is it Ottawa's fault that the Area HQ would rather spend their money on the Halifax Tattoo than on support in Gagetown?
> ...



You need to do some fact checking. While at it, check the org out for LFAA.

The tattoo comment also kills me being that it's coming from the same guy who always says, "that's a mere drop in the bucket". LFAA did support us with staffing ... it's called B Class (surprise!!); the only manning pool we had to pull from. We don't have the luxury of Svc Bns etc to augment.


----------



## Remius (7 Mar 2012)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Thank Gawd I only have a couple years left to retirement when I shall go off to double dip as a public servant somewhere in the supply world.  :



Don't count on that either.  With FTE limits being as restrictive as they are, hires coming from anywhere but within the PS (and in some cases individual departments and sections) are going to be few and far between.  Not to mention all the priority hires that will be created as a result of WFA...

Fun times ahead.


----------



## armyvern (7 Mar 2012)

Crantor said:
			
		

> Don't count on that either.  With FTE limits being as restrictive as they are, hires coming from anywhere but within the PS (and in some cases individual departments and sections) are going to be few and far between.  Not to mention all the priority hires that will be created as a result of WFA...
> 
> Fun times ahead.



No worries. Someone has to do the job; and, if it now can't be B Class, they'll have to fill them with someone. When you can't buy bullets, beans and equipment, you may as well just disband the entire CF.


----------



## Remius (7 Mar 2012)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> No worries. Someone has to do the job; and, if it now can't be B Class, they'll have to fill them with someone. When you can't buy bullets, beans and equipment, you may as well just disband the entire CF.



Wha?  That's a pretty negative attitude.  We'll still have stress balls, rubber bands paper clips and glossy front page maple leafs to showcase all of that


----------



## Stoker (7 Mar 2012)

Fielded a few calls today from worried annuitants concerning the coming pension changes as some were briefed that changes are indeed coming as are changes to PLD and the severance packages. These are not rumours but people are actually being briefed on whats coming. I basically told them to prepare for the worst and wait for the official msg. It will be interesting to see the results of all this.


----------



## The Bread Guy (7 Mar 2012)

Crantor said:
			
		

> Wha?  That's a pretty negative attitude.  We'll still have stress balls, rubber bands paper clips and glossy front page maple leafs to showcase all of that


Fixed that for you


----------



## McG (7 Mar 2012)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> You're due for a posting to Gagetown, if only for the eye-opening and a dose of reality.


Done.  As your default example is CTC, I can assure you that my experience is more relevant (having actually been posted within the beast as opposed to an adjacent support unit, dealing with manning and personnel) and more current than yours.  



			
				ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Courses at CTC are getting canned precisely because other Units etc are saying, "No, we can not support a request to augment your staff". Courses thus cancelled and more guys backlogged on BTL, PAT, over two years for their "mandatory" leadership courses etc. And, it goes on and on and on.


Again, my observation is that this problem is most prolific with PRes courses.  We need to get Cl B reservists out of doing Reg F work in Reg F establishments.  We need to get them back into supporting the reserves.



			
				ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Start with fixing the problem;


Absolutely.  There are two problems and both must be addressed. I don't understand why you are dragging this thread down into the mire of _Problem A is bigger, so forget about fixing Problem B_.  You were previously in agreement that the double-dip was a problem:


			
				ArmyVern said:
			
		

> I am certainly not a double dipper. I actually do not agree with it (or with the triple-dipping). I think it ALL stinks to high-heaven. If the argument is that the same employer shouldn't be paying a pension and a paycheque  ... then that should be applicable to each and every case whereby the feds are doing this. To me, anything less is hypocritical.


What changed?



			
				ArmyVern said:
			
		

> I don't expect politicians to sort out the CFs excesses.


It almost seems you do expect this.  The CF allowed unrestrained growth of Class B positions (amongst other things) to contribute to the current bloated structure.  Unrestrained growth of Class B was used to grow HQs and to backfill units where pers were unavailable because they were in higher priorety HQs or deployed.  Now the structure is addicted to this system.  It will not be easy to rein-in our excess.  Some leadership will be uncomfortable levelling resources, not wanting to upset a subordinates by reallocating PYs from from the ones who are currently doing are doing less with more (ie. the fat organizations).



			
				ArmyVern said:
			
		

> I've always been taught that if it isn't broken, do not fix it.


The current way of doing business is broken.  Our structures are unsustainable within our resource allocation (PY, PRes pay & Civ pay) - that is broken.  The current process of hiring annuitants on full-time multi-year Cl B TOS is not within legislation or higher government policy - that is also broken.



			
				ArmyVern said:
			
		

> I'm no optimist these days: I really don't see Ottawa and the dotcoms slashing themselves before they cut the outsiders throats.


Headquarters rationalization needs to happen.  It can happen internal to DND.  We should not protect our addition to Cl B bloated Reg F establishments so long as there is room to rationalize here.


----------



## Infanteer (7 Mar 2012)

MCG said:
			
		

> It almost seems you do expect this.  The CF allowed unrestrained growth of Class B positions (amongst other things) to contribute to the current bloated structure.  Unrestrained growth of Class B was used to grow HQs and to backfill units where pers were unavailable because they were in higher priorety HQs or deployed.  Now the structure is addicted to this system.  It will not be easy to rein-in our excess.  Some leadership will be uncomfortable levelling resources, not wanting to upset a subordinates by reallocating PYs from from the ones who are currently doing are doing less with more (ie. the fat organizations).



I've followed this thread with vague interest and have noticed there are some very deep trenches built.  Having worked in the HR world for a bit, I'd say this is the truest statement out there.  The CF is a junkie and needs to be broken from the habit.  Cutting the positions will not cause systemic collapse and ruin the military as some have suggested; the CF has faced worse in the past and simply adapts organizations to suit the purpose.

The important thing is that we rework our employment models to fit within the lawfully mandated direction contained within the NDA and within the resource limits placed on us by the DND.  Not enough people to handle our business process - well maybe the process needs revision.  Going cold turkey is probably the best way to impose this on the system.


----------



## armyvern (7 Mar 2012)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> I've followed this thread with vague interest and have noticed there are some very deep trenches built.  Having worked in the HR world for a bit, I'd say this is the truest statement out there.  The CF is a junkie and needs to be broken from the habit.  Cutting the positions will not cause systemic collapse and ruin the military as some have suggested; the CF has faced worse in the past and simply adapts organizations to suit the purpose.
> 
> The important thing is that we rework our employment models to fit within the lawfully mandated direction contained within the NDA and within the resource limits placed on us by the DND.  Not enough people to handle our business process - well maybe the process needs revision.  Going cold turkey is probably the best way to impose this on the system.



I'd agree with the above; where I differ is that 'cold turkey' should occur at locations who are suffering now rather than bloated. Cutting B Class at those bloated spots still leaves a whole lot of bloat to cut there. The re-distribution of those bloated excess' to the base peon level currently dependent upon B Class to succeed would then dissipate. 

Cause and effect.


----------



## armyvern (7 Mar 2012)

MCG said:
			
		

> ...



No change to my position MCG, but you already know that. The circle - as always - continues.  :


----------



## Brasidas (7 Mar 2012)

MCG said:
			
		

> The current way of doing business is broken.[  Our structures are unsustainable within our resource allocation (PY, PRes pay & Civ pay) - that is broken.



Agreed.



> The current process of hiring annuitants on full-time multi-year Cl B TOS is not within legislation or higher government policy - that is also broken.



The practice of hiring an annuitant, where otherwise there would be a non-annuitant class B, may not be within legislation or higher policy, but it is not a tool to throw away. Its one that should only be used for specific roles, such as key RSS positions. A regforce unit made up of permanent class B is an example of how not to do it.

Policy should be made on the basis of what is really needed and how best to accomplish that need. It shouldn't be one group pushing through a change like restricting annuitants to infinitely repeating 330- contracts. It doesn't free up pay and positions for people to be where they're needed, and it simply undermines stability for both the personnel and the organization involved.

An annuitant is always going to get their pension; if you take it away, they'll work elsewhere and you've got a lesser pool to work with. The pension money doesn't affect the pools of positions or pay.

Change the legislation and change the policy rationally; don't change it like an internally-squabbling hydra.



> Headquarters rationalization needs to happen.  It can happen internal to DND.  We should not protect our addition to Cl B bloated Reg F establishments so long as there is room to rationalize here.



Absolutely.


----------



## PPCLI Guy (7 Mar 2012)

Brasidas said:
			
		

> Policy should be made on the basis of what is really needed and how best to accomplish that need. It shouldn't be one group pushing through a change like restricting annuitants to infinitely repeating 330- contracts.



If by "one group", you mean the CDS (who has signed off on this change to policy), then you are completely wrong.


----------



## exabedtech (7 Mar 2012)

So 'double dipping' is a problem?  Why would that be??  If the best person available for the job happens to be receiving a pension, would denying this person the job simply based on their pension status not be discriminatory?  

I'm not a 'double dipper' myself, so I have no personal stake in this, but I cannot imagine why any organization would choose to not hire the best applicant based on that persons skill sets.  That said, I have seen cases where a 'competition' has been held solely for the purpose of hiring a soon to be released member, but I would imagine that there are all sorts of rules already for that kind of thing.  Whether they follow them or not is another matter.

Many times i've heard the shrill outrage in the media against 'double dipping'.  Are they suggesting that anyone in receipt of a pension should be denied work??  Fine with me as long as they jack up that pension until a person could actually retire on it!   :2c:


----------



## Stoker (7 Mar 2012)

exabedtech said:
			
		

> So 'double dipping' is a problem?  Why would that be??  If the best person available for the job happens to be receiving a pension, would denying this person the job simply based on their pension status not be discriminatory?
> 
> I'm not a 'double dipper' myself, so I have no personal stake in this, but I cannot imagine why any organization would choose to not hire the best applicant based on that persons skill sets.  That said, I have seen cases where a 'competition' has been held solely for the purpose of hiring a soon to be released member, but I would imagine that there are all sorts of rules already for that kind of thing.  Whether they follow them or not is another matter.
> 
> Many times i've heard the shrill outrage in the media against 'double dipping'.  Are they suggesting that anyone in receipt of a pension should be denied work??  Fine with me as long as they jack up that pension until a person could actually retire on it!   :2c:



No one is saying they won't be hired, they won't be able to collect their pension while working on Class B/C. If they want the job bad enough they will follow the new rules and pay in to their pensions again.


----------



## exabedtech (7 Mar 2012)

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> No one is saying they won't be hired, they won't be able to collect their pension while working on Class B/C. If they want the job bad enough they will follow the new rules and pay in to their pensions again.



Why would any pensioner take that job then???? Not as if public service work pays well lol.  Go ahead with the new rules and watch that talent pool move on to the private sector and keep their pensions.  Who wins??  Certainly not the public service!!  Pretty clear who loses I think.  

Sounds like a foolish policy rooted in jealousy.  If a service member retires and IAW his agreement is now in receipt of a pension, that should absolutely not restrict that persons job prospects.  Telling him that he loses his pension cheque if he takes the job is the same as telling him to go f&*k himself and work elsewhere.  So why are we wanting to treat veterans this way?  Hardly matters to me since i've done my time and have no further interest, but there are plenty of highly skilled and knowledgeable soldiers releasing every day who want to serve and have tons to offer.

Again, why exactly do we care what cheques this person receives?


----------



## aesop081 (7 Mar 2012)

exabedtech said:
			
		

> Not as if public service work pays well lol.



The public servants i work with are very well paid.



> rooted in jealousy.



Yes, i am sure that is the reason.  :



> that should absolutely not restrict that persons job prospects.



It doesn't. There is a difference between "won't take that job" and "cant take that job".


----------



## Brasidas (7 Mar 2012)

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> If by "one group", you mean the CDS (who has signed off on this change to policy), then you are completely wrong.



As in one group making a recommendation that the "problem of annuitants" be solved by restricting annuitants to shorter contracts, getting it signed off by the CDS as a step forward, and patting themselves on the back for leading change. 

The reserve units are going to get hammered by this and the CF will not benefit; addressing the rationalization of positions regardless of annuitant status would help the CF.


----------



## Stoker (7 Mar 2012)

exabedtech said:
			
		

> Why would any pensioner take that job then???? Not as if public service work pays well lol.  Go ahead with the new rules and watch that talent pool move on to the private sector and keep their pensions.  Who wins??  Certainly not the public service!!  Pretty clear who loses I think.
> 
> Sounds like a foolish policy rooted in jealousy.  If a service member retires and IAW his agreement is now in receipt of a pension, that should absolutely not restrict that persons job prospects.  Telling him that he loses his pension cheque if he takes the job is the same as telling him to go f&*k himself and work elsewhere.  So why are we wanting to treat veterans this way?  Hardly matters to me since i've done my time and have no further interest, but there are plenty of highly skilled and knowledgeable soldiers releasing every day who want to serve and have tons to offer.
> 
> Again, why exactly do we care what cheques this person receives?



Its not like this hasn't happened before. About 15 years ago or so annuitants were restricted to only 180 days per calender year or something similar that's all they were allowed to work.
I don't think its jealousy but I had more than one annuitant brag to my face they make more than the CO of the unit. So yes it does piss people off. You have to remember something,  its the regular force and the treasury board making these new rules. If I was a betting man its to bring us in line with existing rules.
I would love to keep the annuitants we have, but again if they want to continue to serve they will have to follow whatever rules that are set down.


----------



## Brasidas (7 Mar 2012)

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> Its not like this hasn't happened before. About 15 years ago or so annuitants were restricted to only 180 days per calender year or something similar that's all they were allowed to work.



And it was brought back for a reason.



> I don't think its jealousy but I had more than one annuitant brag to my face they make more than the CO of the unit. So yes it does piss people off. You have to remember something,  its the regular force and the treasury board making these new rules. If I was a betting man its to bring us in line with existing rules.
> I would love to keep the annuitants we have, but again if they want to continue to serve they will have to follow whatever rules that are set down.



Once upon a time, the dental corps saw folks given early retirement as it would be cheaper to use civilian staff to fill the clinics' positions.  A fraction of the retired folks applied for civilian staff positions, a smaller fraction in full-time, permanent positions. It was found that the clinics could not maintain sufficient support at the pay rates approved. The CF then offered bonuses for former members to rejoin. A fraction came back, often folks who were less succesful in private practice than their peers. There may have been a reason they weren't as successful.

And everybody got checks in the box for leading change.

This change isn't a step forward, and its going to bite the CF in the butt.


----------



## Stoker (7 Mar 2012)

Brasidas said:
			
		

> And it was brought back for a reason.
> 
> Once upon a time, the dental corps saw folks given early retirement as it would be cheaper to use civilian staff to fill the clinics' positions.  A fraction of the retired folks applied for civilian staff positions, a smaller fraction in full-time, permanent positions. It was found that the clinics could not maintain sufficient support at the pay rates approved. The CF then offered bonuses for former members to rejoin. A fraction came back, often folks who were less succesful in private practice than their peers. There may have been a reason they weren't as successful.
> 
> ...



I expect it will be a train wreck and we'll do a few years of this and probably go back to the way it was. Perhaps this will be a wake up call to overhaul the whole reserve system, because its not working very well.


----------



## Harris (7 Mar 2012)

So some of you are saying that it's OK for someone in the military to be drawing a pension and then rejoin the military and also draw a pay cheque?  As a reservist, where can I sign up for this plan?  I've got 25+ years in and would love to be able to do this too.  Oh wait, I can't.  Why then should the reg force pers be allowed to do so?

If we take the extreme of what some of you are saying, reg force members should be able to draw a pension after 20 years and continue also drawing a pay cheque.  Why even make them CT to the reserves?  How is it unfair to make them cease collecting a pension while they are working again for the same organization they earned it from in the first place, continue to pay into it, and resume drawing it when they cease employment?

It seems to me many annuitants want to draw a pension, draw a salary form the same organization, and also avoid the reg force issues of postings and deployments.  Where is the downside?

As for those who state Reserve Units will fail as a result of these new changes, I call BS.  The majority of the annuitants I know work at a Brigade or Area HQ and don't contribute to a reserve unit at all.

Finally, I've seen it touted numerous times in this thread the valuable knowledge that is brought by annuitants to the reserve world.  This somehow justifies them drawing two sources of income from the same employer.  I will concede that this is happening for some people in some trades.  But I don't agree that this is true in all of the cases.  For example I've dealt with reg force clerks who are annuitants who don't know a thing about reserve administration.  (not banging on clerks per se as I also know many who do know a lot).  Guess what, many reservists bring valuable knowledge to the table as well.  Yet we don't have the opportunity to "double-dip".  Nor should we in my opinion.


----------



## dapaterson (7 Mar 2012)

And again I return to my question: who is commenting on this thread who has read the NDA, CFSA and their associated regulations?

That we've been doing things in one way since 2002 or so does not mean that it's in accordance with the regulations and legislation in force.


This is an interesting example of a culture of entitlement that has evloved - "I'm entitled to a pension from the military while I work full time for the military."  Methinks certain CF members could give members of Parliament and some government appointees lessons in the entitlement culture.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (7 Mar 2012)

:goodpost:


----------



## Jed (7 Mar 2012)

Harris said:
			
		

> So some of you are saying that it's OK for someone in the military to be drawing a pension and then rejoin the military and also draw a pay cheque?  As a reservist, where can I sign up for this plan?  I've got 25+ years in and would love to be able to do this too.  Oh wait, I can't.  Why then should the reg force pers be allowed to do so?
> 
> If...



I guess this would be some of the jealousy coming out that seems to be the 'Elephant in the Room'  

A Reserve job is theoretically a part time job. You feed yourself and your family doing something else. 

Anyone who has been around the block knows full well that many people do not view the Reserve world this way.

However, that's the way the Militia was set up to function originally.

The whole Reserve system is a cluster most of the time, even though the people in the system are very capable folks.

It seems strange to me that there is a pension plan for a part time job. If you want a full time job, CT to the Reg Force.


----------



## exabedtech (7 Mar 2012)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> And again I return to my question: who is commenting on this thread who has read the NDA, CFSA and their associated regulations?
> 
> That we've been doing things in one way since 2002 or so does not mean that it's in accordance with the regulations and legislation in force.
> 
> ...



I really don't see the connection between the two.  They made it pretty clear when I signed up that I could receive an immediate pension after 20 years service.  They actually went on and on about it as if it were a major piece to their recruiting puzzle.  At no time did they tell me that such a pension would work against me if I applied for work with the reserves or anywhere else.  As far as I know, you cannot re-enlist in the regular force and continue receiving those pension cheques since you would now be paying back into that very same pension.  I know a few people in that situation, but there are simply building that pension up.
The same would not apply if I joined the reserves, were hired as a cook, electrician or cleaner at a military installation.  Exactly why would it pose a problem?  I'm glad i'm working in the private sector where no one ever disputes my eligibility to receive my pension.


----------



## armyvern (7 Mar 2012)

Jed said:
			
		

> I guess this would be some of the jealousy coming out that seems to be the 'Elephant in the Room'
> 
> A Reserve job is theoretically a part time job. You feed yourself and your family doing something else.
> 
> ...



Not to mention that double dipping will still occur; annuitants will just go elsewhere. The Public Service will still be one of those places (a federal employer too) and collect their CF pension while collecting full pay at the new place.

All the current move does is move those annuitants to a different sector - be it the PS or private.

I can not see why any sane or rational person who are annuitants would not move to the place where they can still collect the pension while simultaneously collecting a paycheque as well when the push comes to the shove.

If I had any plans on working after my retirement, I certainly would not be going back to work full-time while giving up my pension to collect 85% for _whatever_ number of years. I'd do the "other" sector thing and get both. It just makes financial sense; I suspect it's the same for most.

I think it's especially ironic that "other" can still be a federal employer just not the CF - the same employer supported by the Canadian taxpayer who pays me now. So, by the NDA, the rest of the feds can benefit from my experience if required, just not the CF - how cool is that? Yep, the NDA is definitely all peachy ~ no issues there. What an interesting perspective of self-flagellation.


----------



## exabedtech (7 Mar 2012)

:goodpost:

Couldnt have said it better....   If it isn't jealousy that drives this, please someone tell me what exactly it is.  Oh... I did 'double dip' once for a year working for the PS with the Union of National Defence Employees.  Big Deal.  So did at least 20 other guys where I worked at CE.


----------



## McG (7 Mar 2012)

exabedtech said:
			
		

> If the best person available for the job happens to be receiving a pension, would denying this person the job simply based on their pension status not be discriminatory?


Jobs are not and will not be denied.  Your hypothetical situation is therefore an irrelevant strawman.  It would not be discriminatory to suggest someone need to cease collecting pension payments if they want to return to work for the same employer (any employer other than the federal government would demand exactly that).  However, if you want to touch on discrimination, then you would find there is discrimination within the CF pension system.  A Reg F annuitant can double-dip  in the PRes, but a PRes annuitant cannot double-dip in either the Reg F or PRes.



			
				exabedtech said:
			
		

> Many times i've heard the shrill outrage in the media against 'double dipping'.  Are they suggesting that anyone in receipt of a pension should be denied work??


No.  They are suggesting the person should cease receiving a pension while they are back in full time government employment.



			
				exabedtech said:
			
		

> Why would any pensioner take that job then???? Not as if public service work pays well lol.


In the case of many annuitants, they don't want to leave the CF but they don't want the postings.  They take that job because it offers all the stability that they are looking for plus a greater monthly take home pay.  We should be replacing the double-dip with more incentives to stay in the Reg F (such as geographic accommodation with pay reduction).  And to keep some incentive to shift to PRes on retirement, we should consider incentives such as annuitant pay top-up. 



			
				Jed said:
			
		

> I guess this would be some of the jealousy coming out that seems to be the 'Elephant in the Room'
> 
> A Reserve job is theoretically a part time job. You feed yourself and your family doing something else.
> 
> ...


There must be sarcasm that I am missing in this.  The Reg F annuitant should be allowed to collect a pension while being payed for fulltime employment in the PRes, but the same idea coming from a reservist is jelousy and he should join the Reg F if he wants to work full time?  Is that really your argument?


----------



## McG (7 Mar 2012)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Not to mention that double dipping will still occur; annuitants will just go elsewhere. The Public Service will still be one of those places (a federal employer too) and collect their CF pension while collecting full pay at the new place.


Good thing we've already established that you do not agree such things happening fully within the federal government.


			
				ArmyVern said:
			
		

> I am certainly not a double dipper. I actually do not agree with it (or with the triple-dipping). I think it ALL stinks to high-heaven. If the argument is that the same employer shouldn't be paying a pension and a paycheque  ... then that should be applicable to each and every case whereby the feds are doing this. To me, anything less is hypocritical.


----------



## Brasidas (7 Mar 2012)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> This is an interesting example of a culture of entitlement that has evloved - "I'm entitled to a pension from the military while I work full time for the military."  Methinks certain CF members could give members of Parliament and some government appointees lessons in the entitlement culture.



As opposed to drawing a pension while teaching at CFSCE under contract through Calian?



			
				Harris said:
			
		

> So some of you are saying that it's OK for someone in the military to be drawing a pension and then rejoin the military and also draw a pay cheque?



Where "rejoining the military" means the reserve, yup.



> As a reservist, where can I sign up for this plan?  I've got 25+ years in and would love to be able to do this too.  Oh wait, I can't.



The reserve pension is a joke. 7 years in; in another 30 I can get a pension that might cover a quarter of my rent by then.



> Why then should the reg force pers be allowed to do so?



They've already got their pension. They will continue to have their pension. The question is whether there's a job available for them at the reserve level. A key class B job at a reserve unit, ie Ops WO, Trg NCO, CC, is a good fit for an ex regforce member.

How many 20+ years service reservist NCOs do you know? I can count the ones I know on my fingers. How many of them are interested in working as full-time support for a unit?

Ex-regforce class A personnel are great, but they can be particularly useful in one of the previously mentioned class B roles. Coming out of regforce service, they're less invested another job when the unit needs one of its positions filled. With a family on the go and an established career already, I sure as heck wouldn't take on a class B position if I could lose it the next time class B gets shaken up.



> If we take the extreme of what some of you are saying, reg force members should be able to draw a pension after 20 years and continue also drawing a pay cheque.  Why even make them CT to the reserves?



Different terms of service, no guarantee of a job. There shouldn't be permanent reservists integrated into regforce units. The regforce should be filling the RSS positions of reserve units itself. At the least, a class B in an RSS position is supporting the reserve.



> How is it unfair to make them cease collecting a pension while they are working again for the same organization they earned it from in the first place, continue to pay into it, and resume drawing it when they cease employment?



It's not appealing. They can go to a job of their choice, collect the pension that they've earned, and be doing better for themselves. In particular, they can go public service with hiring preference or to the RCMP and begin earning a second pension.

By failing to allow them their pension, to unit has to go with the next most competitive candidate.

There is no cost advantage to the tax payer to go with that next candidate. The pension is already being paid out whether or not the annuitant is the person in the position.



> It seems to me many annuitants want to draw a pension, draw a salary form the same organization, and also avoid the reg force issues of postings and deployments.  Where is the downside?



They get 85% pay, they do not have stability if the regforce are able to fill the position and remove the class B, and they don't get in on a second pension.



> As for those who state Reserve Units will fail as a result of these new changes, I call BS.  The majority of the annuitants I know work at a Brigade or Area HQ and don't contribute to a reserve unit at all.



And those positions should either be eliminated or replaced with regforce personnel.



> Finally, I've seen it touted numerous times in this thread the valuable knowledge that is brought by annuitants to the reserve world.  This somehow justifies them drawing two sources of income from the same employer.  I will concede that this is happening for some people in some trades.  But I don't agree that this is true in all of the cases.  For example I've dealt with reg force clerks who are annuitants who don't know a thing about reserve administration.  (not banging on clerks per se as I also know many who do know a lot).  Guess what, many reservists bring valuable knowledge to the table as well.  Yet we don't have the opportunity to "double-dip".  Nor should we in my opinion.



How exactly would a reservist "double-dip"? Have 20+ years of class B at 85% pay and draw on that ridiculous pension plan? Release then re-join on another class B contract? Show me a member that has anywhere near that time without much of it being regforce time.


----------



## armyvern (7 Mar 2012)

MCG said:
			
		

> ...
> In the case of many annuitants, they don't want to leave the CF but they don't want the postings.  They take that job because it offers all the stability that they are looking for plus a greater monthly take home pay.  We should be replacing the double-dip with more incentives to stay in the Reg F (such as geographic accommodation with pay reduction).  And to keep some incentive to shift to PRes on retirement, we should consider incentives such as annuitant pay top-up.
> ...



The flaw in the above is that most pers would not take a 5-15% pay cut to stay put if they were pensionable. They'd simply get out and either work on civvy street (quite possibly long enough to obtain a 2nd pension) or the public service ('cause this change doesn't address that double dipping situation) and collect their CF pension and a full-time wage for those hours they'd be working.

Take a pay cut to work full time and lose a pension? I'm thinking most wouldn't go for that option when a pension and a paycheque is still to be had ... just not with the CF. 

I dunno - maybe it's just me.


----------



## armyvern (7 Mar 2012)

MCG said:
			
		

> Good thing we've already established that you do not agree such things happening fully within the federal government.



That;s right MCG; I do not agree with it.


What does this change do to fix that? Nothing. So, where do you think the annuitants will go instead? Get the point yet?


----------



## McG (7 Mar 2012)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> What does this change do to fix that? Nothing. So, where do you think the annuitants will go instead? Get the point yet?


I presented a solution back in January to fix that  -  http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/91361/post-1109546.html#msg1109546


----------



## Jed (7 Mar 2012)

MCG said:
			
		

> There must be sarcasm that I am missing in this.  The Reg F annuitant should be allowed to collect a pension while being payed for fulltime employment in the PRes, but the same idea coming from a reservist is jelousy and he should join the Reg F if he wants to work full time?  Is that really your argument?



A full time PRes job. That is an oxymoron; at least if we consider the basic premise of the purpose of the Reserve Force in how it was set up and how the system was put in place to make it function.

I personnally have no problem with a PRes getting a pension and then somehow 'double dipping' to get two monthly cheques. 

Civi's also have the phrase 'Double Dipping'. They just do not sneer when they say it.


----------



## exabedtech (7 Mar 2012)

Hardly irrelevant.  You're suggesting that a veteran take a $20k haircut that has nothing to do with his employment.  That is akin to denying that person the job since he'd have to be an idiot to take the offer.

If he's applying to a job serviced by the same pension plan, ie reg force or RCMP, then yes, can't continue to draw the pension while paying into the exact same pension.  Should he be forced to give up his pension if he takes a job cutting grass for roads and grounds?  Where is the rationale?  What purpose is served?  oh...  i know what it is  -  :crybaby:


----------



## armyvern (7 Mar 2012)

MCG said:
			
		

> I presented a solution back in January to fix that  -  http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/91361/post-1109546.html#msg1109546



Then they still choose to go to the private sector. Believe it or not, annuitants *do* have options. I'd wager that most will choose what is in *their* best interests and there is zero wrong with that; they've served their time.

I don't see the rush to the door of pers willing to give up their pensions and then take a pay cut so that the CF can benefit from their experience. I suspect more will simply take their rightful pensions, and then their talents, elsewhere. They've already worked their butts off for _the man_ - they owe _the man_ nothing upon completion of their service. If _the man_ then doesn't want their experience, someone else will; I am quite certain of that.

And you're right, the man doesn't owe them anything either and will, no doubt, make that abundantly clear to them. No doubt that that, too, will make choices easier for annuitants as to where one prefers to work after having gained that pension.


Edited for typos.


----------



## McG (8 Mar 2012)

Vern,
Sure, there will be people who chose to head out into the private sector.  There are such people now too.

If motivations were purely financial, then I suppose you've found the math to show that everyone should get out the moment they are pensionable to double-dip, build another pension, do both, or just go find another job.  Yet, we have people who continue to serve beyond that 20 or 25 year mark.  If motivations were purely financial, there would be no such creature as the "career Cl B" because all such pers would have transferred to the Reg F.  Yet, there are plenty of examples of pers who have done (or are doing) a full time career in the reserve force.  The fact is, particularly when it comes to the military, there are many other motivators which are also at play.

I suspect a large majority of double dippers stick with the military because they want to stay in the military.  We don't need to gold-plate that option to keep them - the stability of no postings, no deployments is sufficient draw.  There are many people leaving the Reg F would would remain if we could offer geographic stability.  So, let's offer it.  But, just as the "career Cl B" is getting 15% because of that operational/geographic stability, so too must the geographically accommodated Reg F.

If someone wants to continue their service as a reservist within the reserve force (either Cl A or Cl B), then let that person draw a pay top-up if they are entitled to a pension. 

One of the reasons we are currently so dependant on Cl B within our Reg F establishments is that we lack Reg F pers to fill existing positions, and we then exacerbate the problem the gold-plated employment option (more take-home money, and no Reg F obligations).  Pers who would not have left are leaving, and the band-aid is cannibalizing the limb to sustain itself.


----------



## Brasidas (8 Mar 2012)

MCG said:
			
		

> If someone wants to continue their service as a reservist within the reserve force (either Cl A or Cl B), then let that person draw a pay top-up if they are entitled to a pension.



Just to be clear, you're saying that ex-regforce shouldn't be able to draw a pension while on class A on weekends or parade nights? That's a bit of a kick in the teeth.


----------



## McG (8 Mar 2012)

Brasidas said:
			
		

> Just to be clear, you're saying that ex-regforce shouldn't be able to draw a pension while on class A on weekends or parade nights? That's a bit of a kick in the teeth.


No.  On a 70% pension, a Cl A reservist could work two weekends (incl the Fri) and four parade nights every month and they would still not climb to 100% equivalent full-time pay.  Base the policy on the full year average and you are still able to send annuitant reservists on career courses without crossing that limit.

... or the top-up system could be calculated to the day.  A day of Cl A or B is Res pay (85% full time pay) + pension = 100% full time pay, a day on the couch = pension.


----------



## armyvern (8 Mar 2012)

MCG said:
			
		

> Vern,
> Sure, there will be people who chose to head out into the private sector.  There are such people now too.
> 
> If motivations were purely financial, then I suppose you've found the math to show that everyone should get out the moment they are pensionable to double-dip, build another pension, do both, or just go find another job.  Yet, we have people who continue to serve beyond that 20 or 25 year mark.  If motivations were purely financial, there would be no such creature as the "career Cl B" because all such pers would have transferred to the Reg F.  Yet, there are plenty of examples of pers who have done (or are doing) a full time career in the reserve force.  The fact is, particularly when it comes to the military, there are many other motivators which are also at play.
> ...



When I retire, I hope to retire. Fully. Many people truely enjoy their jobs and thus remain in past pensionable date. That's fine. I'm still in precisely because I enjoy my job. That does not = "people would be out if that were the case".

There are also those who are ready to settle down, permanently in one place, who - for financial reasons or other (boredom??) choose to go back to work full time. A lot of them choose the B Class route exactly because it keeps them in one place and/or they can still contribute their experience to the CF. But, take away their pension and a great many of them would instead opt to use their experience elsewhere at the expense of the CF. They are in B Class jobs now precisely because they can be and many want to continue contributing to their "family" in some way as their preference. Do not take it for granted that they would continue to do so for a loss of pension and a paycut when they have the option of "other" employment instead.

Although I am not supportive of double-dipping, I am acutely aware that it is a necessary evil in some locations and some trades. A blanket policy will not fix that and will be detrimental to those trades and/or locations. I am also aware that this policy does not address federal double-dipping in any way, shape or form so we will lose pers to that side of the house and/or the private sector.

Offering a loss of pension and a paycut to keep that experience in the ResF world isn't that promising and I think you'd see nibbles rather than bites. Evil as it may be, I'd rather see the guys who are retiring stay with this family rather than bed down with someone else. 

I see bed-hopping in the future for those who must/choose to work after retirement from the RegF, but if their pension is at stake, they'll go to the greener pastures where it and a paycheque are simultaneously available. After all, if they're continuing to work after retirement because they have to financially, they won't be choosing the option of working for the ResF at the expense of their pension cheque. They'd double-dip: elsewhere.

Topping up their pay to a max of 100% of equivalent full-time pay won't do it either I fear when the public and private sector are sitting right there for the taking. 100% RegF pay ... or ... a pension cheque and a pay cheque (and quite possibly a second pension too!) elsewhere ... hmmmmm.

This proposed "fix" does not fix the "gold plated option", it only makes them exercise the gaining of the paycheque on top of that pension elsewhere. I don't believe we'll ever see eye to eye on _*that*_.


----------



## eurowing (8 Mar 2012)

As a pensioner... I make nearly all my 33 year pension, thanks to pension income splitting, not spending 100 a week on gas driving to work, cheaper car insurance, and all the etc(UI, pension contributions)  that goes into making a wage...  I take home nearly what I did in the CF...  for breathing on the 1st of the month.  

Many are focusing on the reservists that parade one night a week and weekends.  Don't forget the folks in the Air Reserves, who don't parade, but work side by side with the Reg Force nearly full time. 
I can't speak for the present, but just 3 years ago, without these folks, some units would have had a VERY difficult time maintaining aircraft.  Some of them were key to success. Although the rank and file might not notice, their ETO and Air Supervisors counted on them for continuity, qualifications and training.  I would be curious if it is the same today and what the impact of the future pension rules may have for the Air side of the house.


----------



## OldSolduer (8 Mar 2012)

Just to reiterate not all of us annuitants take Class B employment for the money. 

I took a Class B position because it was right for me, and the CF. It is a Reg Force position that they could not fill.

I've done three years and now I'm going back to Class A, and I put the papers in before this was announced.

By the way, I did not retire and grab a Class B job right away. I retired  in 99, Joined the Reserves in 2003, and got the Class B in 2009.


----------



## Teeps74 (8 Mar 2012)

MCG said:
			
		

> Vern,
> Sure, there will be people who chose to head out into the private sector.  There are such people now too.
> 
> If motivations were purely financial, then I suppose you've found the math to show that everyone should get out the moment they are pensionable to double-dip, build another pension, do both, or just go find another job.  Yet, we have people who continue to serve beyond that 20 or 25 year mark.  If motivations were purely financial, there would be no such creature as the "career Cl B" because all such pers would have transferred to the Reg F.  Yet, there are plenty of examples of pers who have done (or are doing) a full time career in the reserve force.  The fact is, particularly when it comes to the military, there are many other motivators which are also at play.



I thought of CT a long time ago. But, I was also disillusioned with the system at the time... Was thinking "mark time" til pension time then get out. 

Then along came PSYOPS, CIMIC and IO. "Wow, the CF does truly care about winning!" I said to myself. My disillusionment vanished, and I got on board with PSYOPS. Sadly, this is not a Reg F move, and there appears to be little interest in the Reg F for this to be taken on (some at this stage, but not much).

This capability, as I said before, is not something that can be done part time, nor is it something that can tolerate and entirely new working group every 2-3 years. If it were to be taken on by the Reg F, it would need to be a MOSID or special status allowing for career development within the capability. As a reservist, I continue to contribute to my home unit while growing my beloved capability to make the CF ever more operationally effective.

Make this a Reg F capability as above and I will be first in line to CT, and I really do not care if you place the home base on Hans Island.

As an aside. If the command team was not thinking of allowing for some of us to make a career of it, why on earth did the C2 authorize a pension?


----------



## Remius (8 Mar 2012)

eurowing said:
			
		

> Many are focusing on the reservists that parade one night a week and weekends.  Don't forget the folks in the Air Reserves, who don't parade, but work side by side with the Reg Force nearly full time.
> I can't speak for the present, but just 3 years ago, without these folks, some units would have had a VERY difficult time maintaining aircraft.  Some of them were key to success. Although the rank and file might not notice, their ETO and Air Supervisors counted on them for continuity, qualifications and training.  I would be curious if it is the same today and what the impact of the future pension rules may have for the Air side of the house.



This is the kind of situation where it will hurt most and the CF needs to be careful.  In the airforce technicians trades in particular.  I'm not sure but at one time more than a third were reservists on contract and all had reg force experience.  These are the kinds of jobs where exceptions to the rule are supposed to be applied.  I happen to know of one guy who was retired and not actively looking for class b.  But he was contacted to see if he would come back as a reservist because of a critical shortage in his specialty.  It's not like he took on a  job at a CFRC or is the barracks NCO somewhere.

The thing is that the current situation the exceptions have become the rule and that has to stop.


----------



## Pusser (8 Mar 2012)

Jed said:
			
		

> But, De Chastelaine was CIL at the last. (not guaranteed for sure on this)



No, simply because there was absolutely no need to.  QR&O clearly states:

(5) The *retention of an officer of the Regular Force beyond the release age *  prescribed in subparagraph (1)(a) or the retention of an officer of the Reserve Force beyond the release age determined under paragraph (4) may be authorized:

a.  *by the Minister*; or 

b.  by the Chief of the Defence Staff if: 

     i.  the period is less than 365 days, or 

     ii.  the officer is of or below the rank of colonel. 

Why resort to subterfuge and sophistry when there is a perfectly legal means to achieve your aim?


----------



## Pusser (8 Mar 2012)

hamiltongs said:
			
		

> If you say so. But given your element and place of employment, you do know exactly who I had in mind, right?



Actually, I have no idea who you're talking about.  Although I'm aware of at least one senior officer who seemingly created a senior level civilian position in his organization before retirement and then competed for and won it in the subsequent "competition,"  I am not aware of anyone who kept serving as a Flag officer in the CIC/CIL.  As far as I know, there have only been three Admirals of the Royal Canadian Sea Cadets (George VI, the Duke of Edinburgh and the Duke of York).


----------



## George Wallace (8 Mar 2012)

Harris said:
			
		

> So some of you are saying that it's OK for someone in the military to be drawing a pension and then rejoin the military and also draw a pay cheque?  As a reservist, where can I sign up for this plan?  I've got 25+ years in and would love to be able to do this too.  Oh wait, I can't.  Why then should the reg force pers be allowed to do so?
> 
> If we take the extreme of what some of you are saying, reg force members should be able to draw a pension after 20 years and continue also drawing a pay cheque.  Why even make them CT to the reserves?  How is it unfair to make them cease collecting a pension while they are working again for the same organization they earned it from in the first place, continue to pay into it, and resume drawing it when they cease employment?
> 
> ...




I see a lot of confusion being perpetuated in this thread.  To address the above comments by Harris; a Class B Annuitant paid into a Reg Force Pension within the Reg Force Pay System and is now collecting a pension from the Canadian Government, not the Regular Force, nor the Reserves.  A Reservist in your question is being paid through the Reserve Pays System, as is the Annuitant, and paying into a Reserve Pension.  Again, if he collected a pension, it would be from the Canadian Government, not the Reserve Pays System, BUT his contributions and pay would both be tied to the Reserve Pay System.  The Annuitant would have contributed to their pension through the Reg Force Pay System, not the Reserve Pay System; two different systems.



Having receive a briefing last night from my WO, who just returned from his ALQ, who is also an Annuitant and was briefed by the powers that be while on Crse, there is NO clarity on this matter.  What I got from that brief was that an Annuitant on a Class B will have to make a decision to stop the Class B or continue full-time employment loosing their CF Reg Force pension and start paying into the Reserve Pension Plan AFTER reaching day 365 as a Class B.  An Annuitant on Class A or a Class B under 365 days would be unaffected.  As of yet, there is NO policy written in stone, and an effective date of 1 Apr 2012 is still only a rumour.   

Yes, the CDS has signed off a letter on this matter.   Other senior officers have produced documents.  The Income Tax Act has nothing on "Double Dipping" being illegal or a conflict of interest.   Treasury Board is often quite vague, even contradictory in some of its decisions and policies.  We will just have to wait until all the stars align and all of DND, the CF, and Government get their stories straight and legislation is made and a CANFORGEN on the matter is put out.

Me, as I see it, as an Annuitant, if I do not work 366 days as a full-time Class B, I have nothing to worry about.  330 days and an Annuitant Break fills that bill in my eyes.  I do not fill a HQ posn, nor do I work in a Reg Force posn.  I work in support of my unit, in that unit.  My posn is Budgetted by my CO in his/her Annual Budget.  <----- That I see as the main key that is overlooked in this discusion and all the rest of this discusion should be moot.

I have yet to figure out how some penny pincher has come up with the idea that hiring Reservists is more expensive than Reg Force?  My Pension is not coming out of the Defence Budget (Reg Force or Reserve).  I am not entitled to Medical or Dental, unless employed over 180 days.  Should I apply for a Class B in some other Province, I will most often have to cover my own costs for a move, unlike Reg Force pers on Posting, nor would I be allowed a HHT.  NO Class B is a guarantee of continuing long term employment.  On Retirement from the Reserves after 20 years, I would not be entitled to a moved to another location in Canada.   I make 85% of what a Reg Force member makes.   Reservists do not reap the same benefits offered Reg Force members.   I cry foul to any senior staff expousing that Reservists cost more in any of these briefings on this matter.  (foul is just being polite and not saying BS.)


----------



## dapaterson (8 Mar 2012)

On the subject of confusion:  There are two parts to the CFSA under which members may become entitled to annuities, part I and part I.1.

Part I is often mistakenly referred to as the Reg F plan,  It is, rather, the full time plan:  all members of the Reg F contribute on entry into the Reg F; members of the Res F enter the part I plan on completion of 55 of 60 months of paid full time service.

Part I.1 is for Res F members who meet certain thresholds over a two-year period.


So it is entirely possible for a Res F member to become eligible for an annuity under part I (the incorrectly-labelled Reg F plan).  However, unlike the Reg F member who currently may draw pay and annuity from the Crown simultaneously for military service, the Res F member must release from the CF to receive an annuity and perform no military service whatsoever - not even class A.


The current "annuitant break" came about in 2002 or so, when the previous restrictions were reduced (options used to be 180 days max, or re-enroll for a year or more).  The CFSA states that after one year of full-time service an individual is deemed re-enrolled under part I of the act and must resume contributions.  That's not optional - I know of at least one person who did not pay attention and wound up crossing the one year threshold and was foced back into the plan - and obliged to repay CFSA benefits he received from day 366 until the problem was detected.

The current dodge of 330/35/330/35/330 does not pass a cursory examination.  An individual working 990 days out of 1060 is working full-time for that employer.  Indeed, we have provisions under the QR&O for Reg F members to take leave without pay - which does not change their status from Reg to Res or released.  Thus, even taking those breaks on a recurring basis looks to be a deliberate attempt to defeat the spirit (if not the letter) of the law.


Will this change cause heartache, pain and problems?  Yes.  Certainly.  No doubt.

Would lesser changes achieve the desired effect?  Probably not.  Institutionally, CF/DND ignores small changes and fights to maintain status quo.


In most cases discussed here - the RCAF employment of techs, the Army backfilling low priority positions - class B employment was supposed to be a short-term measure until an appropriate long-term solution could be put in place.  However, with the problem "addressed", there was little impetus to "solve" it - whether through process improvement, restructure, reallocation of Reg F positions, increases in SWE or other.  

This change will force some organizations to finally address their personnel misalignment - a fancy way of saying too many people in the wrong places, doing the wrong things.  LGen Leslie's report provided some ideas (at a very high level) as to what could be done in terms of some NDHQ reductions.  I expect that in the next few months more changes will be announced as the goverment makes clear its plans for the already announced $1B in recurring savings from DND/CF and whatever further savings are announced in the Federal Budget.


----------



## Stoker (8 Mar 2012)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> I see a lot of confusion being perpetuated in this thread.  To address the above comments by Harris; a Class B Annuitant paid into a Reg Force Pension within the Reg Force Pay System and is now collecting a pension from the Canadian Government, not the Regular Force, nor the Reserves.  A Reservist in your question is being paid through the Reserve Pays System, as is the Annuitant, and paying into a Reserve Pension.  Again, if he collected a pension, it would be from the Canadian Government, not the Reserve Pays System, BUT his contributions and pay would both be tied to the Reserve Pay System.  The Annuitant would have contributed to their pension through the Reg Force Pay System, not the Reserve Pay System; two different systems.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



No rumour unfortunately as I saw a copy of  letter today and it has been distributed to Chief Clerks for distribution. Implementation of 1st Apr 2012 with details to follow. The Coles notes version is a policy review that hasn't been done since 2001 and the end of high OP tempo and low attrition rates in the regular force. We have briefed all our Annuitants to adopt a wait and see approach until the details come out as they are understandably upset.


----------



## armyvern (8 Mar 2012)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> ...
> Me, as I see it, as an Annuitant, if I do not work 366 days as a full-time Class B, I have nothing to worry about.  330 days and an Annuitant Break fills that bill in my eyes.  I do not fill a HQ posn, nor do I work in a Reg Force posn.  I work in support of my unit, in that unit.  My posn is Budgetted by my CO in his/her Annual Budget.  <----- That I see as the main key that is overlooked in this discusion and all the rest of this discusion should be moot.
> ...



George,

The issue lies in blanket statements such as the above. A great many RegF positions are directly involved in supporting ResF as well as RegF. I will, again, go to training locations and schools. CFSAL is RegF positions: they train both Res and Reg. My father was contacted after his retirement to come back as a Class B at CFSAL for 3 years as an instructor - thus an annuitant and collect a paycheque at 85%. CFSAL and other schools depend upon B Class augmentation to succeed at their mandate. 

3ASG is another example of same. It is the support Unit for CTC, LFAA(TC) etc etc as well as operational units. RegF positions within a pri 6 establishment that is the lowest priority for manning ... they too directly support shit tonnes of Res and Reg training. They exist without benefit of an ASU, a Svc Bn etc and are directly under their area HQ. They too rely on B Class to fill unmanned RegF positions to get shit done and ensure that Res and Reg training can continue.

A move to convert their "missing men" back into peons instead of Officers working in dotcoms would go far in allowing the availability of the trades to fill those spots once again thus negating the need to hire B Class.

Blanket policies will not fix the issue and blanket statements are not indicative of the pan-CF reality of the utilization of B Class personnel who happen to annuitants. What may work in one situation or place can have the exact opposite effect in other locations.

They do attempt to get RegF augmentation from other RegF units first (witness Moe's current augmentation to her respective school in Borden), but when those higher priority units all say, "no" to augmenting a lower priority training establishment because "they are too busy doing operational stuff" there isn't much other choice out there for them because those schools *must* continue to function. If they do not, both the ResF and the RegF suffer ...


----------



## dapaterson (8 Mar 2012)

This discussion is branching out into a larger issue of Army and CF pers management.

Has the insitution lost the bubble?  Are we permitting no-fills in situations where higher should be telling their subordinates "No-fill is not an option"?  Deployments overseas are seeing  many, many A/WSE ranks granted because of no-fills.  In one notorious instance, all 100ish Reg F Infantry LCols were all unavailable; all 380ish Reg F Infantry Majors were also unavailable to fill a single Infantry LCol position.  (Fill ended up as a P Res Maj, granted A/WSE LCol for the deployment)

Were all 480 (+/-) Infantry officers really occupied in other jobs that were a higher priority than mission success in deployed operations?  Or are we letting commanders get away with hiding people and refusing tasks?  It's the same situation when units refuse taskings to provide augmentation - when did "You are to provide XX pers to augment ASU Gagetown" become an option instead of an order?


----------



## aesop081 (8 Mar 2012)

exabedtech said:
			
		

> They made it pretty clear when I signed up that I could receive an immediate pension after 20 years service.



No. They made it clear that you could *retire* after 20 years of service and receive an immediate pension.

If you were to get back into the Regular force, you would cease to receive your pension and start paying into it again. This is the case going on with the guy sitting at the desk next to me. So why is it you think it should be different if a member becomes a reservist ?


----------



## exabedtech (8 Mar 2012)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> No. They made it clear that you could *retire* after 20 years of service and receive an immediate pension.
> 
> If you were to get back into the Regular force, you would cease to receive your pension and start paying into it again. This is the case going on with the guy sitting at the desk next to me. So why is it you think it should be different if a member becomes a reservist ?


Because it isnt the same pension plan.  To re-enlist reg force or join the RCMP would be, but not reserves, not public service, not political office.  
Why would anyone want a policy that discourages former reg force members from joining the reserves?  I served a couple years once as RSS and can honestly say that that unit would have been screwed without the class B ex reg force guys running ops and trg, BSM, RSM and a bunch of other key positions.  Once you tell them that the only way to keep getting the pension cheques they've clearly earned is to go find work away from the reserves, you can bet that they will do exactly that.  Losing those skill sets is well beyond bad policy and into the realm of utter stupidity.  Of course that doesnt discount it happening... as any fellow ex-CAR in here will attest.


----------



## Edward Campbell (8 Mar 2012)

We may be hearing a lot more about public service pensions, contracted people/consultants and so on when the _directed downsizing_ mentioned in this article, which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_, becomes reality:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/public-service-faces-deliberate-downsizing-as-tories-tackle-deficit/article2363131/


> Public service faces ‘deliberate downsizing’ as Tories tackle deficit
> 
> BILL CURRY
> 
> ...


----------



## McG (8 Mar 2012)

exabedtech said:
			
		

> Because it isnt the same pension plan.


It is the same plan.
As has been suggested, you should go read the legislation.


----------



## Jed (8 Mar 2012)

exabedtech said:
			
		

> Because it isn't the same pension plan.  To reenlist reg force or join the RCMP would be, but not reserves, not public service, not political office.
> Why would anyone want a policy that discourages former reg force members from joining the reserves?  I served a couple years once as RSS and can honestly say that that unit would have been screwed without the class B ex reg force guys running ops and trg, BSM, RSM and a bunch of other key positions.  Once you tell them that the only way to keep getting the pension cheques they've clearly earned is to go find work away from the reserves, you can bet that they will do exactly that.  Losing those skill sets is well beyond bad policy and into the realm of utter stupidity.  Of course that doesn't discount it happening... as any fellow ex-CAR in here will attest.



I have to agree with you on this point. Back to my first comment on this policy... I really feel for all Res and Reg pers that have to keep things going after it gets implemented. IMHO, this is unnecessary, poorly thought out change for change sake.

Will the CF recover? Of course. Just like they survived the decade of darkness. Things will not be fun, though.


----------



## exabedtech (8 Mar 2012)

MCG said:
			
		

> It is the same plan.
> As has been suggested, you should go read the legislation.



Then it shouldn't be.  Should actively recruit skilled ex reg force rather than hurling this 'double dipper' crap around.  I still cannot see a single logical argument against 'double dipping'.  I did it for a year with the PS as thousands do across the country.  In my case, I was medically released but still liked being around the army.  For me that quickly faded, but for many others its their life and the Forces needs those people.  Lots of these folks aren't doing it for the money, but if you take away the pension cheques then you make it about the money and lose the ones for whom taking away a grand or 2 a month affects their quality of life.  Why would you want that?  How does that benefit the CF?


----------



## George Wallace (8 Mar 2012)

exabedtech said:
			
		

> Then it shouldn't be.  Should actively recruit skilled ex reg force rather than hurling this 'double dipper' crap around.  I still cannot see a single logical argument against 'double dipping'.  I did it for a year with the PS as thousands do across the country.  In my case, I was medically released but still liked being around the army.  For me that quickly faded, but for many others its their life and the Forces needs those people.  Lots of these folks aren't doing it for the money, but if you take away the pension cheques then you make it about the money and lose the ones for whom taking away a grand or 2 a month affects their quality of life.  Why would you want that?  How does that benefit the CF?



Perhaps there is something in here, as well as what Army Vern alluded to earlier.  Why is it the "same" pension?  Are CIC Instructors with CF pensions not getting the same Annuity?  Cadets are NOT Reserves.  Reserves are NOT Reg Force.  Or will this affect Annutants who become involved with the Cadet Movement as well?  How far do we want to go with this?


----------



## McG (8 Mar 2012)

exabedtech said:
			
		

> Then it shouldn't be.


It should be. It should also be unified with all other federal employment pensions in a way that facilitates movement between types of employment (CF, PS, RCMP, judge) while continuing to build a single common/melded pension.  The federal government is one employer.  All pensionable employment for the federal government should contribute toward one "end-state" pension - http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/91361/post-1109546.html#msg1109546


----------



## Jed (8 Mar 2012)

MCG said:
			
		

> It should be. It should also be unified with all other federal employment pensions in a way that facilitates movement between types of employment (CF, PS, RCMP, judge) while continuing to build a single common/melded pension.  The federal government is one employer.  All pensionable employment for the federal government should contribute toward one "end-state" pension - http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/91361/post-1109546.html#msg1109546



No, it should not be.  The PS plan never, ever knitted with the CF plan. So you as a soldier feel your conditions of service are equivalent to a Federal Civil Servant? Not by a long shot. You are selling the CF very short with that thought process.


----------



## McG (9 Mar 2012)

Jed said:
			
		

> No, it should not be.  The PS plan never, ever knitted with the CF plan. So you as a soldier feel your conditions of service are equivalent to a Federal Civil Servant? Not by a long shot. You are selling the CF very short with that thought process.


I don't know why I am wasting time responding when you've clearly demonstrated that you won't take the time to inform yourself or read before charging back full of emotion and accusations that bear no relevance to the opinion you are rejecting.

Go have a look at the link that I posted and you quoted.  Go read and see that I have presented a model which does provide special considerations to the service member.  One common pension program which still allows the service member to retire with the min pension five years sooner than the PS.  One common pension program which allows the PS to gain benefit from days parading as a Cl A or Cl B reservist.  One common pension program which recognizes mil hardship by offering points that could allow one to exceed the max PS pension rate for time spent in the military.


----------



## Harris (9 Mar 2012)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Perhaps there is something in here, as well as what Army Vern alluded to earlier.  Why is it the "same" pension?  Are CIC Instructors with CF pensions not getting the same Annuity?  Cadets are NOT Reserves.  Reserves are NOT Reg Force.  Or will this affect Annuitants who become involved with the Cadet Movement as well?  How far do we want to go with this?



Agreed they're not the same type of service.  Why is it OK for the Reg force pers to double dip, but not the Reserves or CIC (assuming they ever get enough time to actually claim a pension)?

Are we not all part of the same military?  Or are you suggesting the "us" and "them" mentalities are correct?


----------



## Remius (9 Mar 2012)

CF Regular Force members are the only people in any federal system (lets call it that) that can work fulltime to the extent that they do and not have to buy back into their pension.  In the RCMP, Public Service, Crown Corps with other plans etc, no one can do this.  All this does is bring us in line with everyone else.

Will we lose people?  As mentioned, yes we will.  That's what happens when people *retire*

Our problem is ensuring that we have proper succession management rather than just react to the here and now with band aid solutions.


----------



## McG (9 Mar 2012)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Are CIC Instructors with CF pensions not getting the same Annuity?  Cadets are NOT Reserves. ...


Cadets are not reserves, you are right, but given the context of the statement it looks as though you indent to say that CIC are not reserves.  That would be untrue.  CIC members ARE reservists.

As dapaterson has suggested, a review of the CFSA will show you that I.1 applies to members of the reserve force - it does not pecify primary reserve, it states the whole of the reserve force.
http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/c-17/page-25.html#h-31


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (9 Mar 2012)

I do wonder if I went to my next Union convention, and made an impassioned speech that made the media, on why the Govt. should start letting us "poor downtrodden civil servants" retire and then start hiring us back so that we are "helping the system work" would be attacked in the Canadian Politics forum by the same folks saying it's alright for them to do it??

Just sayin'.........


----------



## Jed (9 Mar 2012)

MCG said:
			
		

> I don't know why I am wasting time responding when you've clearly demonstrated that you won't take the time to inform yourself or read before charging back full of emotion and accusations that bear no relevance to the opinion you are rejecting.
> 
> Go have a look at the link that I posted and you quoted.  Go read and see that I have presented a model which does provide special considerations to the service member.  One common pension program which still allows the service member to retire with the min pension five years sooner than the PS.  One common pension program which allows the PS to gain benefit from days parading as a Cl A or Cl B reservist.  One common pension program which recognizes mil hardship by offering points that could allow one to exceed the max PS pension rate for time spent in the military.



I am sorry that you think my opinion is charged with emotion and uninformed and that you just want to shut me up as I am not towing the line you are sending out.


The Federal Public Service Plan has gone through a number of changes in the last couple of decades just as the military plans have. The Terms of Service have been tweaked significantly for both plans.

My point is that they have been different for a long time, probably for good reason.

The end result is that everyone looses on the Pension Plans, the PS, the PRes and the Reg no matter how much you put lipstick on it. By lumping the Soldiers in with the PS you just make it easier for the man to take everyone down a notch.

At this point in time, it does not matter to me individually to me as I have whatever I'm going to get from 15 + years of various Public Service and 20 + years full time military and 2 + years part time military.

I suppose it should matter to me as a taxpayer, but I prefer that our troops get a better deal than the average Joe, as they, and their families, have made many more sacrifices for the sake of the country.

Also, my civilian wife does not have any job related Pension because the Army told me to go here and there for 20 years and she came along for the ride. (Something PRes never needs to worry about) 

I also recall many unpaid days for Class A and taking civilian leave time to do Class B. Negligible amounts of this time contributed to pensionable time. I do not think your proposal will significantly change this situation.


----------



## Remius (9 Mar 2012)

Jed said:
			
		

> I suppose it should matter to me as a taxpayer, but I prefer that our troops get a better deal than the average Joe, as they, and their families, have made many more sacrifices for the sake of the country.
> 
> Also, my civilian wife does not have any job related Pension because the Army told me to go here and there for 20 years and she came along for the ride. (Something PRes never needs to worry about)
> 
> I also recall many unpaid days for Class A and taking civilian leave time to do Class B. Negligible amounts of this time contributed to pensionable time. I do not think your proposal will significantly change this situation.



First of all you do get a better deal that the average Joe.  CF members get an excellent (if not above average) renumeration package.  CF members can retire earlier than the average joe. 100% medical and dental.  Educational opportunities.   Way more leave.   The grass is not as green as you think it is on the other side Jed.

Why are the decisions you and your civilian wife made the responsibility of the CF or the tax payer for that matter?  You both made a choice.  Hopefully it was an informed one.  I'm pretty sure thr conditions were all placed in front of you.

Unpaid Class A has been stopped.  If people are still doing it then they only have themselves to blame.  And yeah, part of the reserves is taking time off to do military stuff.  When I joined I knew that was part of the deal.  There are mechanisms in place to assist with that.  What does any of that have to do with the pension plan?


----------



## McG (9 Mar 2012)

Jed said:
			
		

> I am sorry ... that you just want to shut me up as I am not towing the line you are sending out.


You are quite the professional victim.  I don't care that you have a different opinion, but you are being dishonest in your debate when you choose not to misrepresent the counter arguments presented (as you did in the post I commented on) to protect your position.  It is called a strawman argument, and it is recognized to be a logical fallacy.



			
				Jed said:
			
		

> By lumping the Soldiers in with the PS you just make it easier for the man to take everyone down a notch.


This appears to be the crux of your argument.  You won't consider a unified plan because, even if it is better, it might one day be made worse.  This is a ridiculous argument.  Undesirable changes have the possibility of occurring whether federal employment pensions are separate or unified.  If the plans are separated, you can rest assured the unions will not make noise on our behalf and regulations will be used to keep service members from making comment to fight negative change.  You are arguing a slippery slope, and it too is a fallacious argument.



			
				Jed said:
			
		

> Also, my civilian wife does not have any job related Pension because the Army told me to go here and there for 20 years and she came along for the ride.


This seems a reality that could be ameliorated by allowing (as I have suggested) service members to receive a higher pension rate in comparison to the max rate for purely PS employment.


----------



## mariomike (9 Mar 2012)

MCG said:
			
		

> This seems a reality that could be ameliorated by allowing (as I have suggested) service members to receive a higher pension rate in comparison to the max rate for purely PS employment.



I agree. It has been done for other occupations. 
2.33% accrual rate
Best three years earnings formula.
80 Factor  ( age + service )


----------



## Jed (9 Mar 2012)

Okay, I admit it MCG, your comment that I am a professional victim pissed me off.

I am very satisfied with my personnal situation, and, Crantor, I was receiving some PS pension at the age of 50 so many past Pension plans had better and different benefits than the current military and PS plans.

Crantor, I am quite happy with the decisions my wife and I made wrt to moving around, and no, I do not expect the Canadian taxpayer to pick up the tab. I tried to succinctly point out the PRes life and Reg life has very different affects on people's Pension plans.

MCG, your words are getting a little too ostentatious for a simpleton like myself to hoist aboard. I had no intention of digging into your cunning proposal on what to do about the situation, I merely expressed my opinion, unwelcome as it is.

I also think there are many other people out there that have a similar lack of trust that Big Brother knows better and it is all going to work out in the end.


----------



## Remius (9 Mar 2012)

Jed said:
			
		

> I am very satisfied with my personnal situation, and, Crantor, I was receiving some PS pension at the age of 50 so many past Pension plans had better and different benefits than the current military and PS plans.
> 
> Crantor, I am quite happy with the decisions my wife and I made wrt to moving around, and no, I do not expect the Canadian taxpayer to pick up the tab. I tried to succinctly point out the PRes life and Reg life has very different affects on people's Pension plans.



Glad to hear it.  But your situation likely is not nor was not the norm.  And you said "some" meaning you likely took a penalty to do so.  Maybe not.  My father retired at 52 with 30 years as a public servant.  He went back full time, recontributed and increased his pension.  

I'm not attacking your life decisions just the fact that you are using that as an argument to support your position.


----------



## Jed (9 Mar 2012)

Crantor said:
			
		

> ...
> Unpaid Class A has been stopped.  If people are still doing it then they only have themselves to blame.  And yeah, part of the reserves is taking time off to do military stuff.  When I joined I knew that was part of the deal.  There are mechanisms in place to assist with that.  What does any of that have to do with the pension plan?



Thanks for the straight words, Crantor.  

However, I know that the official word has gone out that there will be no more unpaid Class A.  I am willing to bet you a Gazilion $ that, especially after these Class B changes are put in place, many dedicated PRes folks across the land will continue to pony up free Class A time just to make things work. None of this time will be official, of course.


----------



## dapaterson (9 Mar 2012)

[whole other topic]

The current class A pay model is fine for lower-ranking individuals.  But how do you pay COs, RSMs and other senior pers?  Emails and calls daily, work on their own time on unit related planning... how does the "half day / full day" model work for that?

[/whole other topic]


----------



## OldSolduer (9 Mar 2012)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> [whole other topic]
> 
> The current class A pay model is fine for lower-ranking individuals.  But how do you pay COs, RSMs and other senior pers?  Emails and calls daily, work on their own time on unit related planning... how does the "half day / full day" model work for that?
> 
> [/whole other topic]



Currently the RSM  can do Cl  A for a max 80 days on Niner's authority. Anything hire either goes to Area or Bde for approval IIRC.
I think it is the  same for Niner.


----------



## dapaterson (9 Mar 2012)

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> Currently the RSM  can do Cl  A for a max 80 days on Niner's authority. Anything hire either goes to Area or Bde for approval IIRC.
> I think it is the  same for Niner.



Correct.  But does the CO sign in every day he spend an hour doing email?  80 days goes mighty fast if you do that.  Or is that work _pro bono_?  With a unit training calendar of 37.5 days (for the troops) plus two admin evenings a month (12 days) plus four weekends for Bde functions (10 days) the CO's already at 59.5 days for the year...


----------



## armyvern (9 Mar 2012)

Crantor said:
			
		

> Glad to hear it.  But your situation likely is not nor was not the norm.  And you said "some" meaning you likely took a penalty to do so.  Maybe not.  My father retired at 52 with 30 years as a public servant.  He went back full time, recontributed and increased his pension.
> 
> I'm not attacking your life decisions just the fact that you are using that as an argument to support your position.



This is sweet. He has done exactly as you do. Using an example to support his side of the fence in the matter. His is irrelevant or "unusual" no more than any other situation is irrelevant or unusual. So your dad did one thing and he did another, what makes either of you wrong - or right?

Down here, you said:



			
				Crantor said:
			
		

> Our problem is ensuring that we have proper succession management rather than just react to the here and now with band aid solutions.



Guess what this band aid will do? It will moved desperately required skill workers to another sector. It will do nothing to ensure that RegF positions (that sp both Reg & Res F trg) are filled in pri 6 locations with boots on the ground rather than too many staff pers making too many powerpoints in too many HQs. So let's start there and actually tourinquette the problem, cut if off and then heal so that we don't need the band-aids on our toes constantly.

____________________

From my point of view, there is nothing wrong with the Feds acknowledging or recognizing the fact that CF members make choices that benefit their nation at the expense of better financial stability for themselves and their families. So yes, while mama and her soldier may have made the "choice" to pack up and move across the nation at the behest of Canada (my own mama being one of those who has worked her butt off her whole life and will continue to do so as she's never been able to pension down due to my father's duties), I find it a little perturbing that you'd actually come on here and state, "too bad, you made your bed so lay in it" for that is, in other words, exactly what you have done.

Who gives you the right? This is a soldier who did exactly his job and what his duty and nation required of him. You then hold him to account because he did exactly that? Wow. Because he and his family sacrificed his wife's stability for the nation? It is a fact of service in the CF (unfortunately for far too few of us these days) that this will occur and there is zero wrong with consideration of such future financial sacrifice in any decision making by the powers that be.

Which leads to another point: all these people posted for years upon years to the same location need to be packed up and posted. It should be routine. I know a pers (me) who couldn't get posted where her spouse was because there were "none avail", yet a mbr same trade/rank had been sitting there 14 damn years. 14. And, that mbr did not move that year (or the next). 23 years in, and I have done 10 physical geographical moves at the behest of this nation (and, a bunch of times because no one else would move to the spot ['cause their own wife had a good job, whatever, yadda yadda yadda]). It's a good damn thing that I am not married to a civilian as they'd never be able to get a job with all those moves let alone a pension. So, I did my job just as the other poster did his job. Nice choice. I'm here to tell you, you are way out of line as the people you are speaking to are the very people who do their duty to this country as per the job description.


----------



## dapaterson (9 Mar 2012)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Which leads to another point: all these people posted for years upon years to the same location need to be packed up and posted. It should be routine. I know a pers (me) who couldn't get posted where her spouse was because there were "none avail", yet a mbr same trade/rank had been sitting there 14 damn years. 14. And, that mbr did not move that year (or the next). 23 years in, and I have done 10 physical geographical moves at the behest of this nation (and, a bunch of times because no one else would move to the spot ['cause their own wife had a good job, whatever, yadda yadda yadda]). It's a good damn thing that I am not married to a civilian as they'd never be able to get a job with all those moves let alone a pension. So, I did my job just as the other poster did his job. Nice choice. I'm here to tell you, you are way out of line as the people you are speaking to are the very people who do their duty to this country as per the job description.



This is an area I agree with - in part.  We do need to change the pay system rather comprehensively and remove the part of Reg F pay that covers "frequent relocation".  Right now it's spread to everyone.  I'd rather take that money and give it as an allowance - say $300 per month for the first year after you're moved.  The year after, it's $150 per month.  Then nothing until you're moved again.  Moved constantly?   You get more money than your peers (and I'd make it pensionable, too).  Sitting in the same place for years?  No soup for you.  I met one gentleman posted to Ottawa for 27 years straight.


----------



## aesop081 (9 Mar 2012)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Moved constantly?



Fine by me. This summer is my 4th move in 7 years.


----------



## armyvern (9 Mar 2012)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> Fine by me. This summer is my 4th move in 7 years.



I hear 'ya. 6 since 2003.


----------



## PMedMoe (9 Mar 2012)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> I hear 'ya. 6 since 2003.



Yep.  Four in six years for me.


----------



## Remius (9 Mar 2012)

Vern.  You completely misunderstand what I'm getting at.

What Jed has stated does not make him right or wrong.  Using his example of his wife not getting a  pension is irrelevant to the discussion. 

My point isn't to demean anyone's service or any family's sacrifices.  But my point is that it is not the CF or the Government for that matter to factor in everyone's little social condition in determining what you are entitled to.  Where does it end?  I once heard someone bemoan their 54,000$ a year salary and how they should get more because she had three kids.  Why?  How about the guy who has been divorced three times and pays his exs?  Or how about the guy that chooses to live 2hrs away and wants to modify his work hours because of that?

Some people suddenly get this culture of entitlement because we serve our country.  We do.  We get compensated for that in pay and benefits others don't get.  We also have programs and opportunities because of that.  So do our families (no it isn't perfect but it is way ahead of some other organisations.) It is unfortunate that sometimes our families have to suffer because of it but we are not the only profession where this occurs.  When you sign the dotted line you know or should know the conditions.  The way you stated things in your finely worded rebuke of my point, is that there are no provisions for family situations.  You know as well as I do that there are.  If they aren't adequate, then yes, adress them by all means.  But it is another issue, different from teh annuitant one.

My example about my father was to show that yeah you can retire early from the PS but you pay back into the pension if you come back full time.


I don't know where you got that I was holding him to account for anything.  

I also don't recall saying "you made your bed so lay in it".  Just about everyone here will jump on the guy who comes on and says that he joined the forces but never thought he would deploy so now he wants to quit.  We have conditions of employment.  I know that you and Jed know this.  But we shouldn't sit here and say well, I retired, now I'm coming back full time, still want to draw my pension because my wife spent 20 years moving around with me.  That's the wrong argument to make.

And you are making valid points about postings being for ever for some.  As well, I do not dispute your point about getting boots on the ground at the expense of staff positions.  But you also are not seeing that in the long run, this policy might actually keep some boots on the ground and in the regs.  Class Bs *are* the band aid solution.  It's a drug we are addicted to.  But again, it is a seperate argument from the annuitant issue.


----------



## RCA (9 Mar 2012)

This is coming from a long-time Cl B non-annuitant Reservist for what is its worth. These comments are only applicable to those who serve on a Cl B greater then 189 days, not shorter contracts or Cl A. The CF must be the only department where a member can retire from it, but still work for it in the same capacity and collect a wage along with a pension when retired. The key phrase he is retire. It is called a component Transfer as in you are moving from one component to another, therefore as I see it a member is not retiring. For those who don’t like to be termed “double –dippers”, is no different me being called a “Mo”.

Saying it is all the same Fed Gov’t is a red-herring. If a PSA member retires from DND, and goes to work for the Dept of Agriculture, do they collect their pension and pay? I think not. It is the CF Superannuation Act not the Government of Canada Pension Act. Look at big picture, money may not come from CF, but it does come from the Gov’t because the pension is not fully funded by members.

From many on this board, the refrained is often heard if you don’t like any aspects of Class B then CT to the Reg F. The same thing can be said for those who think they need both their pension and Cl B, and can’t live on the 85% pay (as all non-annuitant do) without PLD etc - Then don’t retire. The 15% premium is for the universality of service for the Reg F, to which they are entitled. Most “double-dippers are SNCOs, WO, and Capts, so 85% is better then the 40-60% pension they would be receiving. Not too many places where you can retire (there’s that word again) at a relatively young age, and receive 40-60% of what many consider a very decent wage, and still be able to work in another field. (As an aside this 85% of a retired CF mbr nets higher then a non-annuitant Cl B, because of no CF pension deduction).

As have been suggested in previous posts, I disagree and there should be no top up, or this will create a two tiered system. Lose of experience will always be an issue, as it is with any organization, but double dipping should not be used as an incentive. Give non-annuitant reservists a chance to gain experience they can take back to their home units. Employing non-annuitant alleviates losing mbrs for 35 days on top of annual leave.

In my experience, double dippers do little for the unit. Before the advent of the PRL. retiring Reg F would CT into a unit, plug a position, and immediately go on Cl B, never to be seen by the unit. The minute the mbr had to go back to Cl A, they tended to disappear. Double dipping was the main reason for the CT. This does nothing for a unit, which always could use the experience of ex-Reg F mbrs.

Having said all that, there is nothing wrong with Cl B under 189 days collecting a pension, but those over should have pension stopped, but then should be able to contribute so as to increase there pension at 2% per year.

Lot of teeth gnashing as this is a Reg F problem, because Reserves a specifically prevented from double dipping (join reserves; CT to Reg Force can’t collect pension; CT back to reserves, still can’t collect; can only be eligible to collect when actually retire from the CF.) Where was the big cry when Reservists were saddled with high interests rates for our buyback in appreciation of our long service – nothing but deafen silence. 

I know this turned into a bit of a rant, and some of it off topic, but so be it.


----------



## armyvern (9 Mar 2012)

Crantor said:
			
		

> Vern.  You completely misunderstand what I'm getting at.
> 
> What Jed has stated does not make him right or wrong.  Using his example of his wife not getting a  pension is irrelevant to the discussion.
> ...



No, it's not irrelevant. He was using it as an example as to why our pensions are quite different than PS pensions and should remain that way because of the distinct differences in our service and requirements throughout the career while earning those pensions. The fact of the matter is PS do not move around the nation at a rate or pace required of CF members and that is a difference that directly impacts the future earning power and financial stability upon retirement to the negative of CF members and their families. I certainly do not think it is "irrelevant" to any discussion of lumping "us" in with "them"; rather it is a *fact of CF service* that certainly should be considered in any move or attempt to merge.


----------



## Remius (9 Mar 2012)

Jed said:
			
		

> Thanks for the straight words, Crantor.
> 
> However, I know that the official word has gone out that there will be no more unpaid Class A.  I am willing to bet you a Gazilion $ that, especially after these Class B changes are put in place, many dedicated PRes folks across the land will continue to pony up free Class A time just to make things work. None of this time will be official, of course.



Yes.  I get more part-time reserve e-mails at my full time work than I actually get from my full time work.  This is also a systemic problem.  And yes it is unpaid and in most cases expected.

It is a viscious cycle and unfortunately those dedicated pers. contribute to the problem.  When the army made cuts a few years back a colleague and I were both given our 30 days notice.  But the work still had to happen.  We were also told that they were limiting our class A as well.  But they still expected us to do the normal admin required.  My colleague had to take new recruits in for kitting.  No class A for that.  So he was going to do anyway.  Great dedication.  But as far as the top was comcerned, the job was going to get done.  He could have just not done it.  Then the top has to decide: get the funds to pay someone to do it.  Do it themselves (most hate that idea, let me tell you) or let it fail and explain why it failed so that their bosses see that there is a problem.  I refused to do any leg work for some tasks unless I got paid. They found the funds and the tasks happened.


----------



## Infanteer (9 Mar 2012)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> This is an area I agree with - in part.  We do need to change the pay system rather comprehensively and remove the part of Reg F pay that covers "frequent relocation".  Right now it's spread to everyone.  I'd rather take that money and give it as an allowance - say $300 per month for the first year after you're moved.  The year after, it's $150 per month.  Then nothing until you're moved again.  Moved constantly?   You get more money than your peers (and I'd make it pensionable, too).  Sitting in the same place for years?  No soup for you.  I met one gentleman posted to Ottawa for 27 years straight.



Actually, that's an interesting proposition.  Concomitant to looking at a "relocation allowance" should a revision of the career model.  Today's CF member doesn't fit the mold of "generally single, lives on base, has a social life based in the mess" paradigm from days gone past that the "post people all over the country routinely" career model was predicated upon.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (9 Mar 2012)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> No, it's not irrelevant. He was using it as an example as to why our pensions are quite different than PS pensions and should remain that way because of the distinct differences in our service and requirements throughout the career while earning those pensions. The fact of the matter is PS do not move around the nation at a rate or pace required of CF members and that is a difference that directly impacts the future earning power and financial stability upon retirement to the negative of CF members and their families. I certainly do not think it is "irrelevant" to any discussion of lumping "us" in with "them"; rather it is a *fact of CF service* that certainly should be considered in any move or attempt to merge.





I would say it already is "considered" by the fact you can walk a lot sooner without financial punishment for the rest of your life than anyone else in the public service.........except for "those folk" sitting on the hill,.....but then they can get voted off the island every 4 years or so also.


----------



## Remius (9 Mar 2012)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> No, it's not irrelevant. He was using it as an example as to why our pensions are quite different than PS pensions and should remain that way because of the distinct differences in our service and requirements throughout the career while earning those pensions. The fact of the matter is PS do not move around the nation at a rate or pace required of CF members and that is a difference that directly impacts the future earning power and financial stability upon retirement to the negative of CF members and their families. I certainly do not think it is "irrelevant" to any discussion of lumping "us" in with "them"; rather it is a *fact of CF service* that certainly should be considered in any move or attempt to merge.



No one is disputing that CF service is different and should be condsidered in any pension merge or change.  the fact that we have three defined benefit pensions in the Federal system aknowledges that.  One CF, one RCMP and one PS.  Even in MCGs proposed system, it still recognises that fact.  People sit here and lament the CF plan when most people would love that kind of plan.


----------



## armyvern (9 Mar 2012)

RCA said:
			
		

> ...
> Lot of teeth gnashing as this is a Reg F problem, because Reserves a specifically prevented from double dipping (join reserves; CT to Reg Force can’t collect pension; CT back to reserves, still can’t collect; can only be eligible to collect when actually retire from the CF.) Where was the big cry when Reservists were saddled with high interests rates for our buyback in appreciation of our long service – nothing but deafen silence.
> ...



If you think that, you need to search this site. Many posters in this very thread (pro and anti), Reg and Res, spoke to the crap that was the ResF pension buyback ... and continue to bitch about the schmoozle that is the Res pay system.

This is not an "us" versus "them" (Reg vs Res) issue. Many of those Reg F positions being filled by B Class directly support ResF training etc. Many trades can not simply bring in a Res F trade of same due to lack of authorities, experience and course equivalencies. If and when the CF manages to get all trades qualified to the exact same levels on courses in Reg and Res F, this would be alleviated. Unfortunately, not too many reservists have the time to spend doing the 17 week courses required to get some of the qualifications or specialty qualifications that are required to work in many jobs. I'll utilize the Sup tech who has been employed strictly in ResF positions --- they can not access the CFSS and perform a varied and multitude of transactions like their Reg counterparts simply because they do not have the skillset courses to the same standard and the experience levels to know and understand that checking flag X may work for them, but will fuck up the program for every other pan-CF user out there who is trying to make a purchase thus negatively impacting everyone outside of their own local bubble. And, there's hundreds of ways to do that and have that impact in the program. That's just at the basic Sup tech level.

Do I agree with it? No, but until and unless such time occurs that both Reg and Res earn qualifications in the same manner with the same requisites a Res F trade X does not equal a Reg F trade X. Some trades are on par, but some are not. Most who are not do not choose it to be that way, but the fact of life that a ResF pers can't give up voluminous amounts of time to attend such a course requirement hurts us all too. I would love to have been able to hire a couple of A Class Suppies that I interviewed for B Class positions in the RegF unit that I belonged to, but I could not as they simply did not meet the requirements (thus authorities) that the positions required. There were no annuitants out there, so the positions sat unfilled instead. That sucked.


----------



## Jed (9 Mar 2012)

Crantor said:
			
		

> No one is disputing that CF service is different and should be considered in any pension merge or change.  the fact that we have three defined benefit pensions in the Federal system acknowledges that.  One CF, one RCMP and one PS.  Even in MCGs proposed system, it still recognizes that fact.  People sit here and lament the CF plan when most people would love that kind of plan.



Agreed, The CF Plan is pretty darn good, it *used to be * better. Just the ongoing erosion of existing benefits.

From my personal experience of  living through and working within several bureaucratic environments, is that people only fool themselves that the new, improved benefits package is better. I suppose this in part explains my deep skepticism wrt changes pushed from above by Higher.

Speaking as a current civilian who is not going to be affected by what happens to the CF or PS pension plan or the current employment or non-employment of the evil 'Double Dippers', I am just saying to all you folks' in a uniform, *Watch your Back*. No one, certainly not the politician or the average non committal civilian will cover for you.


----------



## armyvern (9 Mar 2012)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> I would say it already is "considered" by the fact you can walk a lot sooner without financial punishment for the rest of your life than anyone else in the public service.........except for "those folk" sitting on the hill,.....but then they can get voted off the island every 4 years or so also.



I wonder if the above will hold true after the review of pensions currently going on with those 4 year guys & gals. We'll soon find out.


----------



## Remius (9 Mar 2012)

That remains to be seen.  But the talk of eliminating the severance and the way things are headed there could be fundamental changes.


----------



## Stoker (9 Mar 2012)

Crantor said:
			
		

> That remains to be seen.  But the talk of eliminating the severance and the way things are headed there could be fundamental changes.



Don't think the pay raise were getting won't be a excuse to drop stuff like PLD as well. There is a lot of not so nice changes coming.


----------



## Remius (9 Mar 2012)

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> Don't think the pay raise were getting won't be a excuse to drop stuff like PLD as well. There is a lot of not so nice changes coming.



To be honest Chief I think anything could be on the table at this point.  PLD, pensions, IR, housing etc etc


----------



## PMedMoe (9 Mar 2012)

Crantor said:
			
		

> To be honest Chief I think anything could be on the table at this point.  PLD, pensions, *IR*, housing etc etc



Great.  They'd better post me back home then.   :


----------



## armyvern (9 Mar 2012)

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> Great.  They'd better post me back home then.   :



But we're not actually "IR" as we're married to service spouses. Benefits run essentially the same, but ours is not a choice. None of my posting messages have stated "IR approved" as members moving without civilian spouses read; mine just state, "unaccompanied move, service spouse".

Had that big fight with IRPP during my last move when they insisted my posting message had to be amended to read, "IR approved" before they could action or before I could access any of the normal envelopes of funds - NDHQ ended up sending out an email on the rounds clarifying that posting messages for those of us married to service spouses who were not moving with us were not "IR" and thus our messages would not read as such.


----------



## PMedMoe (9 Mar 2012)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> But we're not actually "IR" as we're married to service spouses. Benefits run essentially the same, but ours is not a choice. None of my posting messages have stated "IR approved" as members moving without civilian spouses read; mine just state, "unaccompanied move, service spouse".
> 
> Had that big fight with IRPP during my last move when they insisted my posting message had to be amended to read, "IR approved" before they could action or before I could access any of the normal envelopes of funds - NDHQ ended up sending out an email on the rounds clarifying that posting messages for those of us married to service spouses who were not moving with us were not "IR" and thus our messages would not read as such.



As long as they don't cut the allowance, I don't care what they call it.


----------



## Stoker (9 Mar 2012)

Crantor said:
			
		

> To be honest Chief I think anything could be on the table at this point.  PLD, pensions, IR, housing etc etc



Unfortunately you may be right, I already had LTA denied to me recently and was told I am no longer entitled to CTA as well.


----------



## George Wallace (9 Mar 2012)

RCA said:
			
		

> This is coming from a long-time Cl B non-annuitant Reservist for what is its worth. These comments are only applicable to those who serve on a Cl B greater then 189 days, not shorter contracts or Cl A.



Everything I have seen states more than 365 days.



			
				RCA said:
			
		

> From many on this board, the refrained is often heard if you don’t like any aspects of Class B then CT to the Reg F. The same thing can be said for those who think they need both their pension and Cl B, and can’t live on the 85% pay (as all non-annuitant do) without PLD etc - Then don’t retire. The 15% premium is for the universality of service for the Reg F, to which they are entitled. Most “double-dippers are SNCOs, WO, and Capts, so 85% is better then the 40-60% pension they would be receiving. Not too many places where you can retire (there’s that word again) at a relatively young age, and receive 40-60% of what many consider a very decent wage, and still be able to work in another field. (As an aside this 85% of a retired CF mbr nets higher then a non-annuitant Cl B, because of no CF pension deduction).
> 
> As have been suggested in previous posts, I disagree and there should be no top up, or this will create a two tiered system. Lose of experience will always be an issue, as it is with any organization, but double dipping should not be used as an incentive. Give non-annuitant reservists a chance to gain experience they can take back to their home units. Employing non-annuitant alleviates losing mbrs for 35 days on top of annual leave.



The solution is to make all "Full-time" Reserve employment at the same pay as Reg Force.  Full-time is Full-time.  The Charter of Human Rights and Ezra Levant may have some points on this being discrimination of two persons doing the same job for different pay.  Just a thought.




			
				RCA said:
			
		

> In my experience, double dippers do little for the unit. Before the advent of the PRL. retiring Reg F would CT into a unit, plug a position, and immediately go on Cl B, never to be seen by the unit. The minute the mbr had to go back to Cl A, they tended to disappear. Double dipping was the main reason for the CT. This does nothing for a unit, which always could use the experience of ex-Reg F mbrs.



One of two things, or both:  You were unfortunate to be in a unit that allowed this, or you have no inside knowledge of what occured.  Either way, this is not the case in a majority of cases.



			
				RCA said:
			
		

> Having said all that, there is nothing wrong with Cl B under 189 days collecting a pension, but those over should have pension stopped, but then should be able to contribute so as to increase there pension at 2% per year.



I don't agree.  They are two different pension plans.  If this were to happen, the Annuitant WOULD have to give up his Reg Force pension and transfer it over to the Reserve Pension in order to continue to contribute.




			
				RCA said:
			
		

> Lot of teeth gnashing as this is a Reg F problem, because Reserves a specifically prevented from double dipping (join reserves; CT to Reg Force can’t collect pension; CT back to reserves, still can’t collect; can only be eligible to collect when actually retire from the CF.) Where was the big cry when Reservists were saddled with high interests rates for our buyback in appreciation of our long service – nothing but deafen silence.



Many questions from this paragraph that need answering.  First, how much of a Reserve Pension would one have earned as a Class A Reservist in one to five years before a CT to Reg Force?  Usually a Reservist would "Buy Back" his/her Reserve time towards their Reg Force Pension.   With a Reserve Pension Plan now, I imagine that the Reservist could then "Roll Over" their Reserve Pension into their Reg Force Pension and save on the "Buy Back" of old upon CT.  As for being saddled with "high interest rates for your buyback" I have no clue what you are talking about.  A Reservist buying back their Reserve time upon CT to the Reg Force will buy back that time on a rate that is calculated by the rank that they hold when they apply to buy back that time towards their pension.  If you are a Pte in the Regs buying back Reserve time, it will be calculated at your Reg Force Pte IPC.  If you join the Regs and keep a higher rank, that is the rank they will use to calculate you buy back.  My advice, and what I did, is to buy back your time at as low a rank as you can as soon as you can, and pay it back as fast as you can.


----------



## dapaterson (9 Mar 2012)

George:  Your ignorance of the military pension plans is showing.

(1) A former reg F member re-enrolled in the pension plan stays in the reg F plan.  No ifs, ands or buts about it.

(2) Interest charged to Reservists on buyback into the Reserve plan was 7% compound interest.  Interest on buyback into the Reg F plan is 4% simple interest.  The difference over ten years is 40% (simple) vs 97% (compound).


----------



## aesop081 (9 Mar 2012)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> The solution is to make all "Full-time" Reserve employment at the same pay as Reg Force.  Full-time is Full-time.  The Charter of Human Rights and Ezra Levant may have some points on this being discrimination of two persons doing the same job for different pay.  Just a thought.



George, you know better than to say this.

A Class B reservist does not serve under the same conditions than a regular force member. Thus, not "the same job".


----------



## dapaterson (9 Mar 2012)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> George, you know better than to say this.
> 
> A Class B reservist does not serve under the same conditions than a regular force member. Thus, not "the same job".



Exactly.  A class B reservist doesn't have the right to threaten release if he's posted  >


----------



## armyvern (9 Mar 2012)

Is it the same or isn't it?

It's being argued that it's the "same" employment for anti-double dipping (pension), but also argued that it's "not the same" employment for purposes of pay - often by the same individuals.

I'm on the side that it's two distinct types of employment and requirements/hardships that go along with it - thus the differences in that pay. How come that's not applicable when it comes to pension as well? That is why I think the NDA et al also need to be looked at.


----------



## aesop081 (9 Mar 2012)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Exactly.  A class B reservist doesn't have the right to threaten release if he's posted  >



RegF career managers have the right to say "buh bye" to people who say that.


----------



## Petard (9 Mar 2012)

Just to throw some monkey wrenches into the machinery here, in regards to the pay for posting concept: what do you do for someone who is trying to get posted, for years, but can't.
For instance, upon being told I had to stay yet another 2 to 3 years in the school, that if I didn't like it, then I can get out.
Then go through a squall of postings, 4 in 8 years, from one province to another, without a whole lot of input on any of them. Such is the life I chose, but not one that I believe should be necessarily rewarded nor penalized more than the next guy that also accepted these conditions. Should someone refuse a posting, there should, and often are, career consequences for that decision. I belive it should be left to that.

And, oh yeah. MCG, I still think your plan will have the opposite effect of retention 
But then I recall saying something to that effect in a very simialr thread.

All in all I think this discussion thread is getting pounded into the ground again by many of the same arguments made in very similar threads.


----------



## armyvern (9 Mar 2012)

Petard said:
			
		

> Just to throw some monkey wrenches into the machinery here, in regards to the pay for posting concept: what do you do for someone who is trying to get posted, for years, but can't...



Speaking of which - PM incoming.


----------



## Remius (9 Mar 2012)

Along those lines can anyone point to any treasury board guideline, NDA paragraph or anything that establishes pay why there is a 15% pay difference?  Some have mentioned a variety of things, hardship (I thought you had to be on a hardship posting for that), experience etc etc etc.  Because I really don't know what the real reason is.  I actually would appreciate the reference.  As far as I can tell it is an arbitrary number.

Can a reservist be posted?  Not in the traditional sense.  But i tell you that most class b reservists working at reserve establishments get tasked almost every year.  Sometimes for months.  Work in LFCA?  Enjoy meaford for at least 2 months a year.

When I was at CFRC more than half the staff were class b.  Many of those still paraded with their home units.  For no extra pay or time off.  The contribution they made to the CF reserve system was worth way more than the 15% they were not making doing the same work.  As near as I can Reg force salaries don't have a 15% hardship/posting/deployment factor.  Nor does the reserve system seem to have a 15% penalty for lack thereof.  And a reservist in class b position has 100% accountability and 100% expectation to perform in that position as far as I can tell.

A story that i heard was the number used to be at 65%.  Treasury board eventually questioned this and stated that it was wrong.  In the PS the salary rate for term is the same as indeterminate.  So the CF reset it to 85% as a compromise and it has not been revisited since.  This could be an old wives tale but no more so than the hardship reason.

Not trying to turn this into reg vs. reserve but I really would appreciate a real substantiated answer with a source.


----------



## Petard (9 Mar 2012)

Crantor said:
			
		

> Along those lines can anyone point to any treasury board guideline, NDA paragraph or anything that establishes pay why there is a 15% pay difference?
> .......
> Not trying to turn this into reg vs. reserve but I really would appreciate a real substantiated answer with a source.



The only inkling I ever heard on how that difference was divined, partly, was explained to me by someone that took part, as a public servant, in the mid 90's with a job spec analysis of various CF trades.  IIRC it was try to establish some corelation between specific CF trades to equivalent public servant positions for pay levels. The only part I remember from his explanation was that they looked at the duration and end skill levels of Reserve vs Regualr Force courses, in particular career courses that related to trade (not ILP for e.g.). I'm not sure what algorithm they applied, nor do I think it considered someone who CT from Reg F to P Res with those skills, or a P Rres who manged to get on the longer duration courses, but rather someone who remained only with the P Res and took P res training.
Maybe someone here has heard about something similar?

But this sounds like a tangent, and probably warrants a new thread, although its very likely there already is a very similar discussion buried somewhere in the archives.


----------



## George Wallace (9 Mar 2012)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> George:  Your ignorance of the military pension plans is showing.
> 
> (1) A former reg F member re-enrolled in the pension plan stays in the reg F plan.  No ifs, ands or buts about it.



Never mentioned anything along those lines.



			
				dapaterson said:
			
		

> (2) Interest charged to Reservists on buyback into the Reserve plan was 7% compound interest.  Interest on buyback into the Reg F plan is 4% simple interest.  The difference over ten years is 40% (simple) vs 97% (compound).



It has been a long time, at the very least two rosettes, since I bought back my Reserve time to put towards my Reg Force pension, and I have not bothered to take the least bit of concern about looking into switching over or buying into the Reserve Plan.  As it has been a long time, and I paid back into my Reg Force pension in less than three years, I can not remember what the INTEREST was, or if there even was any.

Like any "LOAN" you would pay back to the bank, it is always in one's best interest to pay it back ASAP if they are able to and knock down what one would pay in interest.  Now back to our regularly scheduled programming.


----------



## George Wallace (9 Mar 2012)

Crantor said:
			
		

> Yes.  I get more part-time reserve e-mails at my full time work than I actually get from my full time work.  This is also a systemic problem.  And yes it is unpaid and in most cases expected.
> 
> It is a viscious cycle and unfortunately those dedicated pers. contribute to the problem.  When the army made cuts a few years back a colleague and I were both given our 30 days notice.  But the work still had to happen.  We were also told that they were limiting our class A as well.  But they still expected us to do the normal admin required.  My colleague had to take new recruits in for kitting.  No class A for that.  So he was going to do anyway.  Great dedication.  But as far as the top was comcerned, the job was going to get done.  He could have just not done it.  Then the top has to decide: get the funds to pay someone to do it.  Do it themselves (most hate that idea, let me tell you) or let it fail and explain why it failed so that their bosses see that there is a problem.  I refused to do any leg work for some tasks unless I got paid. They found the funds and the tasks happened.



That is not a CF Reg Force, nor a Reserve problem, but one that has been created by YOUR UNIT.  With all the Class B cuts in the last two years, my unit has never made a person do any Class A and not get paid.  It is illegal.  If anyone in my unit has to come in to perform a duty, they are paid for it.  If instructors have to prepare lessons, they are paid for it.  If someone has an appointment to get an ID Card or be issued kit, they are paid for it.  This is a problem created by your unit and should be brought forward to your leadership.


----------



## George Wallace (9 Mar 2012)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> George, you know better than to say this.
> 
> A Class B reservist does not serve under the same conditions than a regular force member. Thus, not "the same job".




So, my working on a short term Class B as a Trg NCO along side a Reg Force Ops WO is not the same job, not deserving of equal pay (as per rank and IPC)?  That makes me a Second Class Citizen.


----------



## RCA (9 Mar 2012)

The 15% differential is because of the different terms of service. A reservist cannot deploy unless they volunteer. (ergo Cl C = Reg F pay and benefits)

  The 15% is an arbitarty number which I don't think you'll find anywhere. This was instituted in 1997. Up to that time, Reserve pay raises were tied directly to Reg F raises. When the Reg F got 2% so did the reserves, but because we we were at a lower rate of pay, we slowly fell furher and further behind.


----------



## aesop081 (9 Mar 2012)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> So, my working on a short term Class B as a Trg NCO along side a Reg Force Ops WO is not the same job, not deserving of equal pay (as per rank and IPC)?  That makes me a Second Class Citizen.



You are just being your normal self again, just about as i expected.

You are not going to get a call tonight saying "pack up and go to {insert international shithole here}".......You are not going to get in the office tomorrow and have your boss tell you that you are posted, 10 months after arriving at your current billet.

The RegF WO besides you has obligations that you do not. Both of you do not have the same terms of service and since he is a WO and you are not, you do not have the same job.

If you feel like a second class citizen, that is your burden.


----------



## Brasidas (9 Mar 2012)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> It has been a long time, at the very least two rosettes, since I bought back my Reserve time to put towards my Reg Force pension, and I have not bothered to take the least bit of concern about looking into switching over or buying into the Reserve Plan.  As it has been a long time, and I paid back into my Reg Force pension in less than three years, I can not remember what the INTEREST was, or if there even was any.
> 
> Like any "LOAN" you would pay back to the bank, it is always in one's best interest to pay it back ASAP if they are able to and knock down what one would pay in interest.  Now back to our regularly scheduled programming.



The guys buying into the reserve pension when it came out got screwed.

Whereas folks buying into part I had to pay 4% simple interest for previous time, part I.1 folks had to pay 7% compound interest. And they could buy either all or none of their time.

I had time going back to 99, then a few years break, then I came back. Some folks had time going back to the 70's. Paying 20+ years of compound interest isn't fun, and it was punitive relative to part I.

The cash going into the pension is going great despite the downturn in the market because they fleeced the folks buying into it.


----------



## George Wallace (9 Mar 2012)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> You are just being your normal self again, just about as i expected.
> 
> You are not going to get a call tonight saying "pack up and go to {insert international ******* here}".......You are not going to get in the office tomorrow and have your boss tell you that you are posted, 10 months after arriving at your current billet.
> 
> ...



Sorry to burst your bubble, but there are instances where a Class B Reservist is told to go somewhere and they must or give up the job.......Of course it is not to the same extent as the Reg Force member, but it is still in their SOU.......A Reg Force member has the same option,  "I don't want to do that -- I want a Release".  If you don't want a Posting/Tour; you too can Release.

Depending on their job, a Class B Reservist may very well be called in the middle of the night to respond.  

As for he is a WO and you are not, you missed the point.  Let me put in Mcdonald's terms for you: if employee A is serving customers Big Macs and employee B is in the back flipping burgers to make Big Macs, they are both employees of Mcdonalds and depending in their time on the job and advancement, they are both working on the same pay scales.  Whether they are full time or part time, they are both getting minimum wage.   Need I send you an application form?   >


----------



## George Wallace (9 Mar 2012)

Brasidas said:
			
		

> The guys buying into the reserve pension when it came out got screwed.



Next question is:  Has the Reserve Pension been sorted out?  I am sure an Annuitant would just love to lose their pension and enter into one that has yet to be put into effect effectively.  (Brought to you by the Dept of Redundant Redundancies.)


----------



## aesop081 (9 Mar 2012)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Of course it is not to the same extent as the Reg Force member,



There you go. Next time, a simple "you are right, of course, CDN" will do just fine.


----------



## Brasidas (9 Mar 2012)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Next question is:  Has the Reserve Pension been sorted out?  I am sure an Annuitant would just love to lose their pension and enter into one that has yet to be put into effect effectively.  (Brought to you by the Dept of Redundant Redundancies.)



Two answers: No it's not sorted out. It's sorted out for me because I said screw it, I'm not going to bother with four and a half of my years' service, and I've just been paying from where they made me start paying in. They're still sorting out the garbage bin full of elections for the guys who bought in.

My understanding for annuitants is that they will never be a part of part I.1, they remain in part I forever. Ditto reservists who've had 55 months full-time service in a 60 month period.


----------



## Pusser (9 Mar 2012)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Sorry to burst your bubble, but there are instances where a Class B Reservist is told to go somewhere and they must or give up the job.......Of course it is not to the same extent as the Reg Force member, but it is still in their SOU.......A Reg Force member has the same option,  "I don't want to do that -- I want a Release".  If you don't want a Posting/Tour; you too can Release.



Not quite true, a regular force member can have his/her release denied if the exigencies of the service require it.  In short, releasing in order to avoid an unwanted assignment or tasking is not necessarily possible (notwithstanding that we all know of folks who have done it or threatened to do it).  The following comes from the QR&O:

15.02 - RELEASE AS OF RIGHT

(1) Subsections 30(1) and (3) of the National Defence Act provide:

"30. (1) Except during an emergency, an officer or non-commissioned member who is not on active service is entitled to be released at the expiration of the term of service for which the officer or non-commissioned member is enrolled or re-engaged.

(3) Where the term of service for which an officer or non-commissioned member is enrolled or re-engaged expires during an emergency or when the officer or non-commissioned member is on active service or within one year after the expiration of an emergency or after he has ceased to be on active service, the officer or non-commissioned member is liable to serve until the expiration of one year after the emergency has ceased to exist or after he has ceased to be on active service, as the case may be."

(2) Unless the Chief of the Defence Staff otherwise directs, any period of absence without leave, or desertion, shall not be reckoned towards the completion of the period of service for which an officer or non-commissioned member was enrolled or re-engaged.

(3) Subject to paragraph (1), no officer or non-commissioned member may claim his release as of right except:

an officer not on active service by reason of an emergency
whose service entitles him to an immediate annuity under the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act,

under Item 4(c) (On Request - Other Causes) of the table to article 15.01 (Release of Officers and Non-commissioned Members) if he is an officer cadet who requests his voluntary release where he will otherwise be reverted to the rank from which he was promoted to officer cadet, or
who has completed his fixed period of service; or

a non-commissioned member not on active service by reason of an emergency
whose service entitles him to an immediate annuity under the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act, or
who has completed his fixed period of service.


15.18 - VOLUNTARY RELEASE - OFFICERS

(1) Every application by an officer for release under Item 4 (Voluntary) of the table to article 15.01 (Release of Officers and Non-commissioned Members) shall be made in writing through the commanding officer who shall add his recommendations when forwarding the application to National Defence Headquarters.

(2) Where a commanding officer recommends a voluntary release, he shall certify that his recommendation is not made for the purpose of allowing the applicant to avoid the consequences of his inefficiency, unsuitability or misconduct.

15.33 - RELEASE ON REQUEST - NON-COMMISSIONED MEMBERS

The release of a non-commissioned member under Item 4(c) (Voluntary - On Request - Other Causes) of the table to article 15.01 (Release of Officers and Non-commissioned Members) shall not be approved unless:

the applicant has good and substantial reasons for seeking his release and the exigencies of the service permit; and
the applicant is not on active service by reason of an emergency.


----------



## Remius (10 Mar 2012)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> That is not a CF Reg Force, nor a Reserve problem, but one that has been created by YOUR UNIT.  With all the Class B cuts in the last two years, my unit has never made a person do any Class A and not get paid.  It is illegal.  If anyone in my unit has to come in to perform a duty, they are paid for it.  If instructors have to prepare lessons, they are paid for it.  If someone has an appointment to get an ID Card or be issued kit, they are paid for it.  This is a problem created by your unit and should be brought forward to your leadership.



Technically any work someone does should be paid for.  The unit does not force anyone to do anything without getting class a.  But every single e-mail I get asking for course nominations, fan outs and other admin is more about what I'm talking about.  Staff get a half day's pay a month for that but it that barely covers the real time spent doing it.   This isn't just one or two units issue.  I assure you this is happening at most large reserve units.  My point is that it is the dedicated individual doing pro-bono work out of some sense of duty that is at fault.  If the work keeps getting done then the issues and problems don't get fixed even though tasks and missions get completed.  I've only recently started telling the CoC to get the full time staff to conduct fan outs themselves for last minute crap.  I don't have the time to do it on someone elses time.  If it can wait until I get home or on training and admin nights then no problem.  But if it is an urgent last minute thing or task and you know that it happens a lot, the full time staff should deal with it.  Most don't want to be bothered though.


----------



## McG (10 Mar 2012)

Jed said:
			
		

> Agreed, The CF Plan is pretty darn good, it *used to be * better. Just the ongoing erosion of existing benefits.


This is inconsistent with your previous assertion that the pension plan was protected from erosion by being separate from the PS pension plan.



			
				George Wallace said:
			
		

> The solution is to make all "Full-time" Reserve employment at the same pay as Reg Force.  Full-time is Full-time.  The Charter of Human Rights and Ezra Levant may have some points on this being discrimination of two persons doing the same job for different pay.  Just a thought.


We could achieve that by making all permanent full time employment Reg F employment.  Then there would be no messy questions about training deltas, posting obligations, deployment obligations, compensation & benefits differences, etc, etc, etc.



			
				George Wallace said:
			
		

> I don't agree.  They are two different pension plans.


It has already been pointed out many times now - The "Class B pension" is the "Reg F pension."  They are not different pension plans.  This is a fact of the legislation.



			
				ArmyVern said:
			
		

> It's being argued that it [Reg & Res service] is the "same" employment for anti-double dipping (pension), but also argued that it's "not the same" employment for purposes of pay - often by the same individuals.
> 
> I'm on the side that it's two distinct types of employment and requirements/hardships that go along with it - thus the differences in that pay. How come that's not applicable when it comes to pension as well? That is why I think the NDA et al also need to be looked at.


It is the same employer (the federal government) and the same pension plan (under the CFSA).  The obligations of service are different as are the JBS and QS - so elements of the employment, for which pay compensates, are different.



			
				Petard said:
			
		

> And, oh yeah. MCG, I still think your plan will have the opposite effect of retention
> But then I recall saying something to that effect in a very simialr thread.


I think it was earlier in this same thread.  In the end, I think we are stuck arguing opinion on this point.  We've both got our observations but at best they amount to anecdotal.  I see the majority of double dippers as pers who were not ready to leave the CF but needed more stability - they went to the _greener pastures_ of full-time Cl B to reap all they wanted plus more take home pay, and most would have gone there had the double-dip not existed as an option.  You see the majority of double dippers as (I think) guys who were leaving regardless in order to reap the benefits of the earned pension sooner - these guys only come back because they can work somewhere familiar while continuing to collect the compensation of the pension.  We both know that Cl B annuitants include people from both groups, and I suspect neither one of us will succeed in convincing the other that "my group" is the one of most predominance in the equation.

If the double-dip option is ceased without any sort of grandfather mechanism, then this absolutely will have the one-time effect of chasing away guys currently working Cl B as annuitants.  However, this may be inevitable.  The current way of doing business is not in-step with the legal framework that we must follow, and so we need to do a correction in the way we do business.  If we are going to do a correction that has the potential to see Cl B annuitants protesting with their feet, then the best time is when we are also attempting to reduce the number of full-time reservists.



			
				Jed said:
			
		

> Okay, I admit it MCG, your comment that I am a professional victim pissed me off.
> 
> ...
> 
> MCG, your words are getting a little too ostentatious for a simpleton like myself to hoist aboard. I had no intention of digging into your cunning proposal on what to do about the situation, I merely expressed my opinion, unwelcome as it is.


Your opinion made very specific criticisms and accusations despite (by your own admission) your decision not to even look at the information on which you were commenting - in fact, all the accusations of things unconsidered are demonstrably untrue on examination of my "cunning proposal."  So lets be clear - your opinion (back in Reply #463) is not unwelcome because it is dissenting of my own, but it is irrelevant as you consciously published it from a position of ignorance. 

Ostentatious?  Maybe, but at least I know you are right there with me ... of course, only one of us is so presumptuous as to think we can outline in detail the deficiencies of the other's opinion without even the need to inform our self of said opinion.  And I stand by my professional victim assessment - not as it relates to your situation in life, but as you present yourself in here.  Presenting yourself as the little guy with his " unwelcome opinion" is a farce when you get called for speaking from a position of (self-admitted) ignorance.


----------



## Jed (11 Mar 2012)

MCG, You just can't leave it alone, can you? Please stop with your disparagement for no good purpose. If you want, post me with who you are so I can put a face to the commentator.


----------



## Haggis (11 Mar 2012)

MCG said:
			
		

> It is the same employer (the federal government) and the same pension plan (under the CFSA).  The obligations of service are different as are the JBS and QS - so elements of the employment, for which pay compensates, are different.



The NCMGS and OGS were written for the Total Force.  No differentiation.


----------



## McG (11 Mar 2012)

Haggis said:
			
		

> The NCMGS and OGS were written for the Total Force.  No differentiation.


There is differentiation when you get into the occupational documents.


----------



## George Wallace (11 Mar 2012)

MCG said:
			
		

> I think it was earlier in this same thread.  In the end, I think we are stuck arguing opinion on this point.  We've both got our observations but at best they amount to anecdotal.  I see the majority of double dippers as pers who were not ready to leave the CF but needed more stability - they went to the _greener pastures_ of full-time Cl B to reap all they wanted plus more take home pay, and most would have gone there had the double-dip not existed as an option.  You see the majority of double dippers as (I think) guys who were leaving regardless in order to reap the benefits of the earned pension sooner - these guys only come back because they can work somewhere familiar while continuing to collect the compensation of the pension.  We both know that Cl B annuitants include people from both groups, and I suspect neither one of us will succeed in convincing the other that "my group" is the one of most predominance in the equation.
> 
> If the double-dip option is ceased without any sort of grandfather mechanism, then this absolutely will have the one-time effect of chasing away guys currently working Cl B as annuitants.  However, this may be inevitable.  The current way of doing business is not in-step with the legal framework that we must follow, and so we need to do a correction in the way we do business.  If we are going to do a correction that has the potential to see Cl B annuitants protesting with their feet, then the best time is when we are also attempting to reduce the number of full-time reservists.



I think this nails some of the problems with this discussion.  Most here are arguing points from one observation point, not the whole.  In some cases points that are relevent to their location, but not others.   I am sure that were we all face to face in a group discussion, we would likely present our perspectives better. 

As an Annuitant, I fall into one of the descriptions put forward above by MCG.  Before Release from the Reg Force, I was asked if I would take an "Extension" and do a Tour to Afghanistan.  At the time my wife, who just got into a good Civil Service job, was fine with me doing so as being a Reg Force member it was "my job".  I was good with it as well.  Ottawa, however, said "NO", as I was at the end of a five year CE.  Too bad, so sad.  I Released, moved to join my wife in a new city, selling my house in Pet and paying off the mortgage on the other house.   I found a Reserve unit in the new location, where my wife and I settled, and reenlisted and did a VOT.  It was a small unit, that was being told to quadruple in size and was in need of some full time Day Staff, as the one RSS officer was constantly away, and the Branch could not fill the WO posn.  Four of us filled the Class B posns along with one Reg Force Chief Clerk (a Cpl promoted MCpl (Acting Lacking) with no idea of how the Reserve systems worked) to keep the unit from becoming completely disfunctional.   The Reg Force CC was also in charge of the administration of two other small units, and for the most part spent more time away on Stress Leave than in the office.   If it had not been for an officer and Snr NCO with short Reg Force careers (not enough for a pension) and myself as an Annuitant along with another young Reservist filling the Day Staff posns, I don't see how our unit would have survived.   

That is the perspective I have been looking from.  I can look and see a "special" unit across the hall who have relied heavily on Full-time Annuitants to operate, as well as a Bde HQ down the hall who rely heavily on Class B (both Annuitants and not) and Class A to operate.


----------



## PPCLI Guy (12 Mar 2012)

I had occasion last week to brief the 31 annuitants with whom I work, out of a Cl B population of 55,   I was - and for those of you who know me -  I know this a shocker -  brutally frank.  I just happen to have a fair idea of both the policy implications of the annuitant changes, as well as the overall impacts to the Army.

So what I told then is that no one is special,   Annuitants are retired dudes.  Every year, 7% of the CF retires.  You know what happens to the CF the day after those 7,000 people retire, every single year?






Nothing.  We crack on.  We train soldiers.  We kill motherfuckers that need killing.  We fix trucks.  We respond to floods.  We go to bad places, full of bad people.

Bottom line is that we survive a 100% turn over every 14 years.

Want to  get a full time salary?  Work full time.  Want to be retired?  Retire, and get a real job.

Out here.


----------



## George Wallace (12 Mar 2012)

Para 4. of the CDS letter states:



> 4.  It is important to note that this change only affects annuitants who choose to serve as Reservists on a full-time basis for longer terms.  This change in no way impacts Reserve Force members who serve on a part-time basis or those who serve for shorter, task-based full time employment of less than 365 days.


----------



## Infanteer (12 Mar 2012)

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> I had occasion last week to brief the 31 annuitants with whom I work, out of a Cl B population of 55,   I was - and for those of you who know me -  I know this a shocker -  brutally frank.  I just happen to have a fair idea of both the policy implications of the annuitant changes, as well as the overall impacts to the Army.
> 
> So what I told then is that no one is special,   Annuitants are retired dudes.  Every year, 7% of the CF retires.  You know what happens to the CF the day after those 7,000 people retire, every single year?
> 
> ...


----------



## Remius (12 Mar 2012)

Exactly.  So short term taskings and class a are unnaffected.


----------



## George Wallace (12 Mar 2012)

People still need courses, or perhaps to instruct courses, in the Reserves.  Those are Class B.  To hamstring an annuitant from taking career courses with penalty of loosing their pension would not make sense........opps what am I thinking.    Damn Bean Counters..... >


----------



## aesop081 (12 Mar 2012)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> People still need courses, or perhaps to instruct courses, in the Reserves.



Good opportunity for "actual" reservists to step up and lead.


----------



## dapaterson (12 Mar 2012)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> People still need courses, or perhaps to instruct courses, in the Reserves.  Those are Class B.  To hamstring an annuitant from taking career courses with penalty of loosing their pension would not make sense........opps what am I thinking.    Damn Bean Counters..... >



What courses are there that are over a year?  As that appears to be the rule that's being proposed.  No issue - folks can still progess.


----------



## George Wallace (12 Mar 2012)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> What courses are there that are over a year?  As that appears to be the rule that's being proposed.  No issue - folks can still progess.



That is just the point.  Annuitants can still do short term Class B with no penalty.


----------



## aesop081 (12 Mar 2012)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> That is just the point.  Annuitants can still do short term Class B with no penalty.



Problem solved then. We can all stop panicking now.


----------



## Infanteer (12 Mar 2012)

To add, I work in a HQ that went from 17 Annuitants to 0.  We're still here.


----------



## George Wallace (12 Mar 2012)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> Good opportunity for "actual" reservists to step up and lead.



They do when they can.  The problem with all Reservists, no matter what their background, is that they need lots of lead time when notification comes on Crses or Taskings.  They usually need more than a couple of days notice to arrange time off from their Civilian Jobs to do military training or taskings.  Some need six months or longer, lead time to arrange for time off from some government jobs.  Class B and Students usually don't have such problems during summer months.  Fall, Winter and Spring are periods that have serious issues when tasking Reservists in any capacity.  (OFF TOPIC) This lack of lead time in loading Reservists onto crses and taskings is an even geater issue that  the various Schools and higher Commands have not come to grips with (and has been covered before in other topics).


----------



## mariomike (7 Jul 2012)

I hope this is the correct thread to post this information.

Reading another pension thread today reminded me of an item in a news letter I recently received "pertaining to certain changes to the Ontario Municipal Employees Retirement System ( OMERS ) Primary Pension Plan and the  Supplemental Pension Plan for Police, Firefighters and Paramedics."

"2.1 Change Concerning Purchase of Reservist Leave Service":
http://www.omerssc.com/pdf/By-Law_27_-_Plan_Change_re_reservist_leave(1).pdf


----------



## McG (9 Jul 2012)

mariomike said:
			
		

> I hope this is the correct thread to post this information.


Considering that this thread is about _federal_ pensions and your post is not, I would say that - no, this is not the right thread.


----------



## jollyjacktar (19 Dec 2012)

Throwing this in here as it will have and effect on future pensions.  Shared under the fair dealings provisions of the copyright act.  

Looks as if Paul Martin's stick up will not be rectified.  We've lost in the final decision of the Supremes.    



> Top court rules public unions not entitled to $28B pension surplus
> The Canadian Press Posted: Dec 19, 2012 10:05 AM ET Last Updated: Dec 19, 2012 11:08 AM ET
> 
> The Supreme Court of Canada says several major public unions are not entitled to a $28-billion pension surplus that the government hived off to help pay down the deficit.
> ...


----------



## PPCLI Guy (19 Dec 2012)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> Looks as if Paul Martin's stick up will not be rectified.  We've lost in the final decision of the Supremes.



Lost what?  We have a defined benefit pension, and the benefit has not changed.  Nothing was stolen from you.

Speaking as a taxpayer as well as a soldier, I think we need to get over ourselves a bit here.


----------



## dapaterson (19 Dec 2012)

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> Lost what?  We have a defined benefit pension, and the benefit has not changed.  Nothing was stolen from you.
> 
> Speaking as a taxpayer as well as a soldier, I think we need to get over ourselves a bit here.



+1


Too often CF members and public servants seem to channel their inner Dingwalls and proclaim that they are entitled to their entitlements.

The significant value of their benefits package is assumed away in their indignation; lots of folks walk out the door in a huff and are then in a hurry to get back in once they see the Real World out there.


----------



## McG (19 Dec 2012)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> Throwing this in here as it will have and effect on future pensions.  Shared under the fair dealings provisions of the copyright act.
> 
> Looks as if Paul Martin's stick up will not be rectified.  We've lost in the final decision of the Supremes.


As stated, it is a defined benefit.  The government assumes all the risk; if there is a shortfall then the government pays it.  It is only fair and appropriate that the government also receive the benefit when there is a surplus.


----------



## The Bread Guy (19 Dec 2012)

MCG said:
			
		

> As stated, it is a defined benefit.  The government assumes all the risk; if there is a shortfall then the government pays it ....


.... unless it decides to collect more?  Am I wrong, or with an extra $28B in the pension kitty, government could have looked elsewhere for ways to "(keep) taxes low and (return) to a balanced federal budget"?


----------



## brihard (19 Dec 2012)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> .... unless it decides to collect more?  Am I wrong, or with an extra $28B in the pension kitty, government could have looked elsewhere for ways to "(keep) taxes low and (return) to a balanced federal budget"?



Speaking as a taxpayer, for a second, and not as a military member- why should they not seek more equitable contributions from C.F. members, public servants, and RCMP?

The pensions we take for granted just don't exist anywhere else. The taxpayer outside of the public sector for whom defined benefit will never again be a reality is perfectly justified in at least expecting us to foot an equitable portion of the bill.

This is exactly the kind of crap that makes the rest of the public sneer at us as whiny and entitled. There are some occasions where we need to look at the contextual reality, shrug, nod, and say 'fair enough'. This is one of them.


----------



## The Bread Guy (20 Dec 2012)

I know public servants have a good great pension plan, and I don't mind paying more for a _very_ good plan, but it's hard to tell taxpayers we have to make changes to make the plan more sustainable while being able to, at any time, take big chunks of money out (maybe also affecting its sustainability?).

As for "defined benefit", for _now_, anyway  :Tin-Foil-Hat:?


----------



## dapaterson (20 Dec 2012)

Unfortunately, the unions never adequately explained (or perhaps understood) the issue.

"It's our money! Give it to us and improve benefits!" was the messaging that came across - and, if that is what was asserted in court, it was justifiably punted.

However, "It's the plan's money, removed in a time of plenty, and creating actuarial pressures now that are requiring increased contributions from current and future contributors" is a more valid concern.

As someone obliged by law to fund a union, I would hope that in future negotiations that PS unions will point out the increase in contributions as a factor to consider in overall compensation.  Given how quickly PSAC folded last time and looked after its senior members at the expense of its younger members, though, I have no real optimism that they will.


----------



## The Bread Guy (20 Dec 2012)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> "It's our money! Give it to us and improve benefits!" was the messaging that came across - and, if that is what was asserted in court, it was justifiably punted.
> 
> However, "It's the plan's money, removed in a time of plenty, and creating actuarial pressures now that are requiring increased contributions from current and future contributors" is a more valid concern.


Good point - VERY different messages there (and interesting choice of which one is used).



			
				dapaterson said:
			
		

> As someone obliged by law to fund a union, I would hope that in future negotiations that PS unions will point out the increase in contributions as a factor to consider in overall compensation.  Given how quickly PSAC folded last time and looked after its senior members at the expense of its younger members, though, I have no real optimism that they will.


True dat....


----------



## jollyjacktar (20 Dec 2012)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> However, "It's the plan's money, removed in a time of plenty, and creating actuarial pressures now that are requiring increased contributions from current and future contributors" is a more valid concern.



And that, was what I was given to understand was the situation at the time it was removed from the plan.  That it would cause future concerns on it's viability and longevity.  If I'm in err, then please do correct me.


----------



## Stoker (20 Dec 2012)

So its been a number of months when annuitants were told that they were only able to work up to a point in the reserves before they had to stop receiving their pension and pay in. So what are people doing, has anyone decided to cease their pension and pay in or have people just quit?
I know in my neck of the woods most if not all up and up quit and all secured jobs in the private sector.


----------



## OldSolduer (20 Dec 2012)

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> So its been a number of months when annuitants were told that they were only able to work up to a point in the reserves before they had to stop receiving their pension and pay in. So what are people doing, has anyone decided to cease their pension and pay in or have people just quit?
> I know in my neck of the woods most if not all up and up quit and all secured jobs in the private sector.



I packed in the Class B on 26 May. I know of a few others that have done the same. In effect, the CLass B fiasco gutted the unit.


----------



## ArmyRick (20 Dec 2012)

The unit I used to work for, almost all class b annuitants have quit, a few got back in the reg force and one or two are hanging on for now.


----------



## Brad Sallows (20 Dec 2012)

Regarding the federal pension "clawback", one perspective is that all of the money paid into a pension fund - employee and employer contributions - represents part of the sum of employee compensation (ie. it is all really the employees' money).  With a DC pension it is easy to draw that line; with a DB plan it is difficult to do so.

The decision is in one way favourable to employees: I think it remarkably increases the strength of the moral claim that the government is obligated to carry through on its payouts irrespective of future fiscal stress short of Mad Max.


----------



## jollyjacktar (20 Dec 2012)

I have a ponderance.  Upon my retirement, should it take some (months or longer) to recieve my first pension payment retroactive back to the first month following my release or what?


----------



## MJP (20 Dec 2012)

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> So its been a number of months when annuitants were told that they were only able to work up to a point in the reserves before they had to stop receiving their pension and pay in. So what are people doing, has anyone decided to cease their pension and pay in or have people just quit?
> I know in my neck of the woods most if not all up and up quit and all secured jobs in the private sector.





			
				Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> I know of a few others that have done the same. In effect, the CLass B fiasco gutted the unit.



Strangely enough despite the gloom and doom neither the loss of double dippers nor the Mayan calender have brought about the end of the world.

Have some units suffered?  I have no doubt.  Have we lost some great institutional knowledge?  Again yes.  Will it impinge our abilities to do our jobs?  I don't think so.  Turnover happens, good/bad people leave and organizations just carry on.


----------



## Remius (20 Dec 2012)

Where I am at civy side, there is a military component.  The admin was a class B annuitant who opted out.  The organisation here did the leg work and got a reg force member posted to the position as it should be.  It is a reg force unit not a reserve force one. 

I know of one former colleague who will also opt out.  A recruiter.  They will be able to train someone else to do the job just like they do every three to five years with reg force recruiters.

You are correct.  The world hasn't ended.  Just changed.


----------



## Stoker (20 Dec 2012)

MJP said:
			
		

> Strangely enough despite the gloom and doom neither the loss of double dippers nor the Mayan calender have brought about the end of the world.
> 
> Have some units suffered?  I have no doubt.  Have we lost some great institutional knowledge?  Again yes.  Will it impinge our abilities to do our jobs?  I don't think so.  Turnover happens, good/bad people leave and organizations just carry on.



Considering the amount of emails that went out on this in MARLANT we're sitting in a relatively good position here. Quite a few annuitants burned their bridges when they left and there was a lot of hard feelings by some however all knew this could dry up at any time. There was a period of readjustment but everything worked out. We still have a number of shore based billets we can't fill right now, but as time goes by they will get filled.


----------



## MJP (20 Dec 2012)

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> Considering the amount of emails that went out on this in MARLANT we're sitting in a relatively good position here. Quite a few annuitants burned their bridges when they left and there was a lot of hard feelings by some however all knew this could dry up at any time. There was a period of readjustment but everything worked out. We still have a number of shore based billets we can't fill right now, but as time goes by they will get filled.



Good to hear.  I am sure it was expected.  Any adjustment like this take time for all parties to get back in the groove.  Hey who knows maybe it will even make people make hard decisions rather than hiring problems away.


----------



## George Wallace (20 Dec 2012)

MJP said:
			
		

> Strangely enough despite the gloom and doom neither the loss of double dippers nor the Mayan calender have brought about the end of the world.



We haven't gotten through the 21st just yet.   >


Yes, we are seeing changes.  Short term losses will be recouped, I am sure, as younger members step in to fill vacancies.  The initial loss of experience will hurt for a while, but like FRP and other cases in our long history, we have managed to 'soldier on' and rebuild that experience improving on it.  Look at our history.  We almost stood down our military completely after the First and Second World Wars.  Korea came along.  After Korea, we saw sixty to seventy years of the Public calling for the "Peace Dividend", but we managed to fill our roles in NATO, as UN Peacekeepers and as warfighters.  New, fresh faces have always come up to fill the gaps and gain new experiences.

As a Double Dipper there for a while, I still see that there can be Double Dippers filling Class B positions, following the rules as laid out.  They just can not work more than 365 days without the fear of losing their pensions.  I am sure there are some very creative methods by which imaginative MOUs and SOUs can be written up.  If a Class B Annuitant worked 334 days as an Ops WO, took December off and went to Mexico for the holidays, and returned in January or February to fill a one year position as Trg WO, would that not fall within the guidelines?   Sort of like a "No Cost Posting" for the Regular Force Member.   What would the JAG say?  I wonder.


----------



## CombatDoc (20 Dec 2012)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> As a Double Dipper there for a while, I still see that there can be Double Dippers filling Class B positions, following the rules as laid out.  They just can not work more than 365 days without the fear of losing their pensions.  I am sure there are some very creative methods by which imaginative MOUs and SOUs can be written up.  If a Class B Annuitant worked 334 days as an Ops WO, took December off and went to Mexico for the holidays, and returned in January or February to fill a one year position as Trg WO, would that not fall within the guidelines?   Sort of like a "No Cost Posting" for the Regular Force Member.   What would the JAG say?  I wonder.


IIRC, that loophole is going to be closed by requiring a minimum time between contracts.  Although your proposal may fall within the guidelines per the letter of law, it violates the spirit.  Hopefully one of the admin folks who are in the know will chime in.


----------



## McG (20 Dec 2012)

I believe the coordinating instructions already do close that loop hole.
I know a few people who have gone Reg F to Cl B since the change, so it has not been the doom & gloom predicted by some.  I also know of annuitants who have switched to 5 Cl A half-days per week.  In my mind, that does a much better job of meeting the letter and spirit of the new direction.


----------



## a_majoor (23 Dec 2012)

The State of Kansas shows how government pensions might evolve in Canada, since we are under similar economic and fiscal pressures. The Canadian equivalent to a 401k is the RRSP, and Canada already has legislation for Group RRSP accounts which would cover many of the issues identified in this article.

Whatever you might think of various pension plans, the crunch points are:

a. Canadian government pensions are not fully funded; indeed the unfunded liability of pensions and benefits is thought to be the same size as the National Debt

b. Pension administration is very expensive. This is a year over year expense which costs millions for every agency which has a pension plan.

http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/wrm/2012/12/22/next-step-in-kansas-red-revolution-end-state-pensions/



> *Next Step in Kansas’ Red Revolution: End State Pensions?*
> Walter Russell Mead
> 
> Since the right wing of Kansas’ Republican party gained control over the state government last month (defeating both Democrats and moderate Republicans to establish perhaps the most pro-Tea Party state government anywhere in the United States), we’ve been keeping an eye on developments there that could tell us what Tea Party governance would look like.
> ...


----------



## Monsoon (23 Dec 2012)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> a. Canadian government pensions are not fully funded; indeed the unfunded liability of pensions and benefits is thought to be the same size as the National Debt


Where are you getting this from? As I understand it, far from being underfunded, the federal government clawed $28B in an actuarial surplus back from the PS pension fund between 1995 and 2006. This was the basis of a lawsuit between the public sector unions and the federal government (which the government recently won).


----------



## a_majoor (23 Dec 2012)

This is an ongoing area of concern; I've located a 2008 article which lays out the then figures, you can decide for yourself if effective action has been taken to close the unfunded liabilities gap:

http://www.canada.com/story_print.html?id=d254af34-6191-4989-8d36-54a3b23be2ce&sponsor=



> *Unfunded liabilities dwarf public debt and are growing*
> 
> How would you feel if the Canadian government sent you a letter suggesting you owe an extra $150,000?
> 
> ...



and more recently:

http://m.theglobeandmail.com/globe-investor/investment-ideas/can-canada-go-the-way-of-greece/article4179962/?service=mobile



> *Can Canada go the way of Greece?*
> 
> George Athanassakos
> 
> ...


----------



## Monsoon (25 Dec 2012)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> This is an ongoing area of concern; I've located a 2008 article which lays out the then figures, you can decide for yourself if effective action has been taken to close the unfunded liabilities gap:


Oh - you're talking about unfunded pension liabilities in all levels of government (this is particularly a problem at the municipal level). However, it's not a problem at the federal level.


----------



## a_majoor (25 Dec 2012)

It must depend on your definition of "not a problem"

http://www.cdhowe.org/ottawa%E2%80%99s-pension-gap-the-growing-and-under-reported-cost-of-federal-employee-pensions/16001



> *Ottawa’s Pension Gap: The Growing and Under-reported Cost of Federal Employee Pensions*
> 
> 2011 – Alexandre Laurin and William B.P. Robson
> 
> ...


----------



## DBA (26 Dec 2012)

All that PDF does is show the unfunded liabilities if the current historically low rates of return persist. They won't just as periods of high rates of returns don't.  Averaging or smoothing over a longer period will likely be a more reliable estimate of returns over multiple decades and prevent extremes of projecting decades of 20%+ returns or decades of 1% or less returns. 

As for OAS and other entitlement programs they look to be on a more solid footing with the recent tweaks like raising OAS eligibility from 65 to 67 gradually in 2023 to 2028.


----------



## BernDawg (27 Dec 2012)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> I have a ponderance.  Upon my retirement, should it take some (months or longer) to recieve my first pension payment retroactive back to the first month following my release or what?



In my case it was about 12 weeks and the first cheque had the 12 weeks of pension on it. Make sure you read all of the literature they give you at the release section. I missed a little tid- bit about filling out the form that stated that you were NOT drawing CPP and the amount of the monthly annuity was reduced from the get-go. The issue was easily rectified with a quick call to the CF Pension office and a faxed form resulting in another small chunk of back-pension.


----------



## McG (23 Feb 2015)

The media has found what it describes as a problem in the government's plan to give priority hire status to medically releasing service personnel who are moving the the PS.  The media is wrong.  They have found a problem, but it is purely a pension problem.



> New wrinkle develops in plan to fast-track veterans into civil service
> Murray Brewster, The Canadian Press
> CTV News
> 22 Feb 2015
> ...


http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/new-wrinkle-develops-in-plan-to-fast-track-veterans-into-civil-service-1.2247705


----------



## Monsoon (23 Feb 2015)

Saw that one. It's not even a "pension problem" really - people transferring to the PS are under no obligation to transfer their CAF pension over the PS plan. Doing so just allows them to draw benefits under the PS plan earlier, but in principle they can just choose to draw both pensions in parallel at a later date if they feel the transfer offer isn't good enough. It's just a matter of choices.


----------



## Remius (23 Feb 2015)

hamiltongs said:
			
		

> Saw that one. It's not even a "pension problem" really - people transferring to the PS are under no obligation to transfer their CAF pension over the PS plan. Doing so just allows them to draw benefits under the PS plan earlier, but in principle they can just choose to draw both pensions in parallel at a later date if they feel the transfer offer isn't good enough. It's just a matter of choices.



It is sort of.  You can only buy back class b time over 180 days or continuous unbroken time that amounts to 180 day or more.  You can't buy back class day time.  As well only regular force types can  forfeit and convert their pension.  Reservists cannot do that for now.


----------



## Monsoon (23 Feb 2015)

Crantor said:
			
		

> It is sort of.  You can only buy back class b time over 180 days or continuous unbroken time that amounts to 180 day or more.  You can't buy back class day time.  As well only regular force types can  forfeit and convert their pension.  Reservists cannot do that for now.


Reservists sure can - my brother converted his reserve time to PS (though he was only a Part I.1 contributor; that may make the difference). You're right that the conversion is only for 180+ days unbroken service, but like I said the very real alternative is not to convert the pension from CAF to PS and draw them as two separate pensions whenever you separately qualify for each of them. The lack of convertability of the CAF pension to private sector plans hasn't been upheld as a bigger barrier to entry for people moving that way; like I say, it's just a matter of choices.

I tend to be leery about discussions on the "fairness" of pensions - it's all actuarial. If you want more, you pay more into it, either in your own contributions or the government-side contributions that just come out of whatever pay adjustment you were going to get that year.


----------



## Remius (23 Feb 2015)

hamiltongs said:
			
		

> Reservists sure can - my brother converted his reserve time to PS (though he was only a Part I.1 contributor; that may make the difference). You're right that the conversion is only for 180+ days unbroken service, but like I said the very real alternative is not to convert the pension from CAF to PS and draw them as two separate pensions whenever you separately qualify for each of them. The lack of convertability of the CAF pension to private sector plans hasn't been upheld as a bigger barrier to entry for people moving that way; like I say, it's just a matter of choices.
> 
> I tend to be leery about discussions on the "fairness" of pensions - it's all actuarial. If you want more, you pay more into it, either in your own contributions or the government-side contributions that just come out of whatever pay adjustment you were going to get that year.



Reservists cannot forfeit their pension for conversion.  Not yet.  You can buy back reserve time that you have not elected to buy back though.  In my case I was able to buy back prior reserve service (service prior to 2007) that I had not elected to buy back through the rserve buy back. After 2007, I became a contributor to the pension.  That time cannot yet be converted to the PS plan. A regular force member who releases can forfeit his and convert its value but a reservist cannot yet (apparently it is currently being looked at) .


----------



## dapaterson (23 Feb 2015)

Be careful what you wish for. If rules change to permit her to buy back those part time years, then those years will count against the 35 year limit.
Right now she has a pension for those years plus can get full years in the PSSA to the 35 year limit, I suspect counting the part time years would significantly reduce her ultimate pension.


----------



## McG (23 Feb 2015)

Is PS pension not best 5 years?


----------



## dapaterson (23 Feb 2015)

Federal pensions are based on the average of your best five consecutive years of earnings.  However, you are limited to 35 years of pensionable service.  If you were to include years of part-time service, the benefit for those part-time years are pro-rated based on the proportion of the year you worked.  In other words, you've got thirty five calendar years to accumulate service; but if you only work partial years within those 35 years, your benefits for those partial years are pro-rated.

So: Assume you work 15 years in the primary reserve, averaging 1/3 of a year of work in each year (and never exceeding 180 days).  Then you work 25 years in the public service.  (To keep things simple, we'll assume no overlap between the two).

Under the current system, the reserve service, pensionable under part I.1 of the CFSA, does not count against the 35 year limit for all federal plans.  So the individual would receive a pension under part I.1, plus a PSSA pension of 25 years x 2% per year = 50% of their best five in the public service.  The full 25 years in the public service would be counted for PSSA purposes.

If they were able to transfer their part-time pension to the PSSA, they'd get: 15 x 1/3 = 5 years full-time equivalent credit from their reserve time, and then 20 years from the PSSA - since at that point, 15 + 20 = 35 year limit.  They would accrue no further pension benefits for the final five years of their public service career, and would end up with a 50% PSSA pension and zero CFSA pension.


----------



## a_majoor (24 Feb 2015)

I think a much more important issue is one which gets very little attention: the huge "unfunded liability" gap between what pension obligations exist to the military, the RCMP and Federal civil service and the funding that actually exists to cover that (currently @ $500 billion or so dollars).

At some point, the ability to pay for pension obligations may simply no longer exist, especially as the number of people drawing pensions outnumber the number of people paying in (the current Ponzi scheme model). You can see what can happen with the examples of Detroit or the array of bankrupt cities in California, where pension obligations and other spending eventually overwhelmed the existing tax base.


----------



## Remius (24 Feb 2015)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> I think a much more important issue is one which gets very little attention: the huge "unfunded liability" gap between what pension obligations exist to the military, the RCMP and Federal civil service and the funding that actually exists to cover that (currently @ $500 billion or so dollars).
> 
> At some point, the ability to pay for pension obligations may simply no longer exist, especially as the number of people drawing pensions outnumber the number of people paying in (the current Ponzi scheme model). You can see what can happen with the examples of Detroit or the array of bankrupt cities in California, where pension obligations and other spending eventually overwhelmed the existing tax base.



That likely explains why we are paying more into those pensions.  is it enough maybe not.  But we are paying more into our pensions now.


----------



## dapaterson (24 Feb 2015)

The unfunded gap is a legacy issue that will slowly disappear over time.  Current contributions, both employer and employee, are taken and invested in the markets by a third party body.

Costs of administration are prorated between the legacy accounts and the market investments.

The PSSA annual reports are available on the Treasury Board website and provide significant information on the administrtation of the plan.  If only the CFSA reports were also published on the web...


----------



## Pusser (24 Feb 2015)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Federal pensions are based on the average of your best five consecutive years of earnings.  However, you are limited to 35 years of pensionable service.  If you were to include years of part-time service, the benefit for those part-time years are pro-rated based on the proportion of the year you worked.  In other words, you've got thirty five calendar years to accumulate service; but if you only work partial years within those 35 years, your benefits for those partial years are pro-rated.
> 
> So: Assume you work 15 years in the primary reserve, averaging 1/3 of a year of work in each year (and never exceeding 180 days).  Then you work 25 years in the public service.  (To keep things simple, we'll assume no overlap between the two).
> 
> ...



I'm confused.  If 15 years of part-time service is only equivalent to five years of full time service in terms of benefits, then why would it still be equal to 15 years of pensionable/contribution time?

For instance, I was in the Reserve for almost three years.  When the calculation was done, I was granted approximately one year of equivalency for my CFSA benefits.  As far as I know, this means is that I only have to do 34 years of Regular Force service in order to collect my maximum pension.  (i.e. since I joined the Regular Force at age 20, I max out my pension at 54).  As I understand it, once I hit that point sometime after my 54th birthday, I simply stop contributing to the CFSA until I reach CRA (55).  As I see it, this is a nice bonus - extra money in my last year of service that I can invest, however I choose, yet maximum CFSA benefits upon retirement.  Why wouldn't this work the same way for someone transferring Reserve service into the PSSA?


----------



## dapaterson (24 Feb 2015)

Pusser said:
			
		

> I'm confused.  If 15 years of part-time service is only equivalent to five years of full time service in terms of benefits, then why would it still be equal to 15 years of pensionable/contribution time?
> 
> For instance, I was in the Reserve for almost three years.  When the calculation was done, I was granted approximately one year of equivalency for my CFSA benefits.  As far as I know, this means is that I only have to do 34 years of Regular Force service in order to collect my maximum pension.  (i.e. since I joined the Regular Force at age 20, I max out my pension at 54).  As I understand it, once I hit that point sometime after my 54th birthday, I simply stop contributing to the CFSA until I reach CRA (55).  As I see it, this is a nice bonus - extra money in my last year of service that I can invest, however I choose, yet maximum CFSA benefits upon retirement.  Why wouldn't this work the same way for someone transferring Reserve service into the PSSA?



The rules have changed since 2007. Now, once you enter the CFSA part I (Reg F plan), all prior service is retroactively counted as in the plan. So, in my case, I enrolled in the Reserves in 1989; once the new rules came into force I was enrolled in Part I of the CFSA (due to extended full-time service) and my enrolment date is 1989 - despite the fact that I started full-time service only in 1998.

Years of pensionable service do not have to be full time.  A year with part-time service has its value pro-rated for the purpose of calculating the pension benefit, but still counts as a year towards the 35 year limit.

(And don't get me started on simultaneous service in two plans at the same time, and how one calendar year can equal two years of pensionable service)


----------



## McG (24 Feb 2015)

The message in all of this is that there is a problem that needs to be fixed.  A PS who is Class A reserve should be able to aggregate both together, but not as one full time year and one part time year.  The PS/PRes contributor should have contributions recognized as being the same year with two sets of pay added together for when it comes time to calculate the best five consecutive years. Maybe this option could also be offered to RCMP who serve as CIC.

Periods of Class A service without overlapping PS employment should be delt through a mechanism that compresses these into a full time equivalent years ... perhapse the same mechanism that does this for the Reg F/full-time PRes pension.


----------



## dapaterson (24 Feb 2015)

McG: not so easy to do - these are distinct Acts, and changes of the nature you're proposing would require re-writing them (indeed, probably require their amalgamation into a single federal superannuation act). The terms of the acts are similar, but not identical, so there would be challenges in drafting a single consolidated act.  There would be individuals with legacy entitlements that would be grandfathered for another 50 to 60 years.  And I suspect any such effort would see lessened benefits for CAF members (that is, they'd be subject to similar terms to the Public Service, unlike the early retirement provisiosn under the CFSA).

You mention "the same mechanism as for the Reg F/ Full time PRes pension".  That's the mechanism that counts a calendar year as a pensionable year regardless of the number of days worked.  You also propose rolling together class A and PS pay; but there are two different military pension regimes a class A member can belong to, with two very different sets of rules. Again, this risks significant additional complexity.

I don't really see the problem here.  The individual in the news will receive a pension for their part-time years; they can elect when to start drawing it any time after age 50.  They will receive another pension for their full-time years (military and civilian), and will be able to contribute longer to that plan and build a bigger pension.  Adding additional complexity to a system that's already excessively complex only makes it more difficult and expensive to manage, and more difficult for people to understand. I suspect this individual did not do a comprehensive wargame to understand the implications of what they're asking for; in the long term, I suspect it would lower their retirement income.

(Side note: I am always amazed by how few military members take the time to understand their pension arrangements.  The combination with CPP/QPP that reduces the annuity at age 65 and other items are not well understood; people seem to assume that everything occurs magically and requires no effort on their part)


----------



## Brasidas (24 Feb 2015)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> (Side note: I am always amazed by how few military members take the time to understand their pension arrangements.  The combination with CPP/QPP that reduces the annuity at age 65 and other items are not well understood; people seem to assume that everything occurs magically and requires no effort on their part)



For the reservist portion of those military members who don't understand the pension, how much of the reserve is actually going to collect a pension? Of those who do, how meaningful will it be to them? Its a hobby that happens to put money in the bank account. While RRSPs are something they might spend time thinking about, unless they're serial class B I don't see much point in them giving it much consideration.

The proportion of reservists that get to ten years is miniscule, and the timelag between when they put money into the pot and when they take it out is huge. A reservist who joins in 2005 at 18, releases as Sgt in 2015 at 28, with some 2 years class B time and 8 years of class A gets some peanuts at 50. I've met one mythological beast who's been in since 88 (still a Cpl), who will actually get something substantial. But by and large? Pay the internet and/or cellphone bill.


----------

