# "Double Dippers" Mega Thread



## Colin Parkinson (21 Jul 2009)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Shortage of Instructors is a Force wide problem.  Perhaps the TOP should come up with a plan for experienced Instructors leaving the CF to have an option of becoming "Double Dippers" and stay in uniform as Reservists.  They can even keep their hatbadges, as they would be in the Schools, or perhaps still in their Regiments, as Training Cadre on PRL.  That would mean that no Reserve Unit would be responsible for their administration, even though they were Reservists.  They could beef up the Regular Force Trg system as well as open up opportunities to run crses for the Reserves.
> 
> .....But we know that will never happen......eh!  They would rather become Civvies and work for Calian or GD Land Systems.



George I think a lot of people would take part in such a scheme. It would mean that much of that hard learned lessons could be passed on to the next generation. It would be a good place for some of the wounded who can no longer serve, but want to. Perhaps some of the money to pay them could come from a pot outside of DND? 

We had some old WO who served in Korea when i joined, they were the wise grandads of the unit passing on wisdom and stopping young officers and NCO's from making asses of themselves.


----------



## McG (23 Jul 2009)

I'm not too sure that I agree this would be such a great idea.  I do think the Army likes to invent wonderful ways to resolve manpower shortages, and then these ways come back and start poaching from the limited manpower pool that we were try to protect or make-up for.

There already is a healthy flow of regular force into double-dipper career Class B.  If we were to start pro-actively recruiting from the regular force, then we would start drawing people.  Think about it, you can make more money drawing a pension & still working in uniform, you get to pick your job, and you are never posted again (unless you search-out & ask for it).  Unfortunately, the net gain in manpower would be zero while at the same time we would be loosing significant flexibility to post people where they are needed.

Rather than recruit for double-dipping, we should improve regular force retention.  

... and if we are not actively recruiting but rather mentioning the option with a list of current employment opportunities during a members release .... well, already do that kind of thing.


----------



## dapaterson (23 Jul 2009)

What we do poorly if at all is encourage retiring Reg F to look for part-time service with units.  Bringing that knowledge back to units could be a treasure trove; when I made a quick and dirty staff check a few years ago the number of Reg F joining units part time was about equal to the number going on to double-dip.

The double-dip, as we do it now, is also problematic if you take a legalistic view of the National Defence Act.  Hiring folks for three years full-time is Reg Force if they're brought in on a BE; why would another three year period not be Reg F?  "Continuing full-time service" is the legal definition of the Reg F; if WO Bloggins transfers to the P Res in Gagetown to work there full-time for six years as a Reservist, isn't that continuing full-time service?

The rules are already being strained and stretched by our interpretations; if we're not careful we may break the whole system.


----------



## TCBF (23 Jul 2009)

- It isn't full time service because there is a 'statutory' break after each eleven months.

- Right now, Canada is operating under the benefits of partial mobilization. Would the politicians be willing to scale back our international commitments to stop this? I doubt it.


----------



## Haggis (23 Jul 2009)

There is considerable concern "at the TOP" about the continued and uncontrolled Class B growth (particularly in HQs) and the longer term effects of this.  It's definitely on the radar.


----------



## dapaterson (23 Jul 2009)

TCBF said:
			
		

> - It isn't full time service because there is a 'statutory' break after each eleven months.



Regulatory, not statutory.  And as Reg F members can take leave without pay and remain enrolled in the Reg F, hardly convincing.  We're clearly playing games within the NDA - and sometime, we'll get caught.  (Question:  If an Act of Parliament deems a Reserve Force member to be a Regular Force member, what are they?)



> - Right now, Canada is operating under the benefits of partial mobilization. Would the politicians be willing to scale back our international commitments to stop this? I doubt it.



We could easily sustain current deployments with about half the pers - and do a better job to boot. There's just a lack of will in the pers mgt side fo the Army to consider anything except the method we've used since Cyprus.  With a Reg F Army of 20K keeping 2500 in the field indefinitely should not be a problem.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (23 Jul 2009)

I was thinking more of people with specialist knowledge, senior NCO’s/Officers with wounds making them undeployable or retiring members with years of experience. It is a way to assist in the passing of knowledge to the next generation of soldiers. In recent years the military has gained a vast reservoir of experience, knowledge and lessons learned. However the reservoir will drain fairly quickly and you want to be able to pass it on to the maximum number of people possible in the timeframe that you have. The program could have a sunset clause requiring a review in 10 years to determine whether it is still needed. It could also be a mix of some people working fulltime and others part-time depending on the various needs and skill sets.


----------



## Dennis Ruhl (23 Jul 2009)

I'm not sure how it works today but years ago some militia colonels were very reluctant to have people do Class B or C service outside the unit.  Typically they never saw them again.  I remember one captain who transferred to an English Montreal unit to take a job 50 miles from his former home unit in the west.  The Montreal unit must have wanted any numbers while the western unit wanted soldiers working in the unit.  Overseas postings were encouraged but half of those were never seen again.


----------



## Nfld Sapper (23 Jul 2009)

Dennis Ruhl said:
			
		

> I'm not sure how it works today but years ago some militia colonels were very reluctant to have people do Class B or C service outside the unit.  Typically they never saw them again.  I remember one captain who transferred to an English Montreal unit to take a job 50 miles from his former home unit in the west.  The Montreal unit must have wanted any numbers while the western unit wanted soldiers working in the unit.  Overseas postings were encouraged but half of those were never seen again.



Things have changed, I spend more time away from my unit than at it.


----------



## George Wallace (23 Jul 2009)

If you are not parading at your Home Unit, while on Class B or C, then you should opt for the option of going PRL and be administered by the establishment that is employing you.  This way your Unit does not have a Posn Number tied up by a person who is not there, and they can recruit to fill those vacant posns.

Double Dippers don't have to belong to a Reserve Regt.  They can still keep their Regimental Affiliation on PRL.  As a Reservist, they can fill a spot in an organization, freeing up a Regular Force person for deployments.  This is an ideal situation for a Annuitant, who now has settled down and doesn't want to be Posted again, at the same time, if they want to volunteer for a Deployment, they are easily accessible.

The only drawbacks with Annuitants, as dapaterson points out, are the Rules and Regulations dictating they can not work more than 360 days a year.  They can plan a 35 day Unpaid Leave of Absence and collect EI, or break that 35 days up into smaller chunks (and perhaps not be eligible to collect EI).  It is manageable if one so wishes.


----------



## Nfld Sapper (23 Jul 2009)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> If you are not parading at your Home Unit, while on Class B or C, then you should opt for the option of going PRL and be administered by the establishment that is employing you.  This way your Unit does not have a Posn Number tied up by a person who is not there, and they can recruit to fill those vacant posns.



Good idea George but my position number is one that can't be filled by joe recruit.....


----------



## Eye In The Sky (24 Jul 2009)

NFLD Sapper said:
			
		

> Good idea George but my position number is one that can't be filled by joe recruit.....



BUT your unit could train/promote somone into that position.  The "domino effect" could mean the unit would be able to recruit 1 new Spr when all is said and done (if they are already at 100% of the ARE establishment for your unit).


----------



## 3VP Highlander (1 Oct 2011)

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> ...
> 
> [LGen Leslie] identified that 9,000 reservists are employed full time, and that 50 per cent should be demobilized to return to their former part-time service with their reserve units. Cost savings could also come from reducing the number of military and civilian personnel by 3,500 each and reinvesting the funds elsewhere.
> 
> ...


   My question ref the above is "How many of the above 9,000 reservists employed full time are actually annuitants who are double dipping?"  How many have a unit to go to?  I honestly believe that annuitants should be released or re-enrolled in the Forces.  Too many are taking advantage of a system which grants them a 35 day break, 22 days leave per year.  

    Finally, how many of these individuals just left their full time job and came back the next day as a "so called reservist".  It is my understanding that we have over 200 LCols / Cols who are back as reservists.  



[Edit to insert quote prior to thread split]


----------



## Drag (1 Oct 2011)

The problem with getting rid of the double dippers is who will be picking up the work that they are doing.  If the answer is nobody, we have a problem.  Reducing he size of HQs without changing the processes that necessitated the larger establishments will just bring everything to a stand still. 

We always talk about the lack of Project Management resources to push the capital program forward, however this could be also done by making the process more manageable and responsive.  While some of these processes are not internal to DND and are mandated by other government entities (Treasury Board, Industry Canada) we have many internal hoops that we jump though that could be streamlined.  While the current trend is towards downsizing, the "process monster" is still getting bigger.  Internal changes to the capital project approval process made this summer will add an additional 2-4 months to getting a Ministerial level project (one that does not have to go outside of DND for approval) approved. 

We are about to get the worst of both worlds: more cumbersome processes and less staff that can work through them.  The cynic in me thinks that we are doing this to our selves on purpose, to effectively cutting the budget without actually cutting it.


----------



## Michael OLeary (1 Oct 2011)

D3 said:
			
		

> The problem with getting rid of the double dippers is who will be picking up the work that they are doing.  If the answer is nobody, we have a problem.  Reducing he size of HQs without changing the processes that necessitated the larger establishments will just bring everything to a stand still.



There is the question no-one has been addressing. Even after rationalizing processes, assuming the bureaucracy is capable of that form of self-mutilation, we come back to the highlighted question.

Pick whatever pony you want to ride for who you don't think should be in those headquarters. Want to get rid of the double-dippers, the bad-back bad-knees brigade, the over 50s? Who steps up to fill the empty cubicles that are still required jobs? The resulting effect is that we pull people out of line unit jobs even faster, first to fill the holes, and then to maintain the increased attrition because we have shortened everyones' potential career by limiting who can push paper in the back ground for us.


----------



## George Wallace (1 Oct 2011)

3VP Highlander said:
			
		

> My question ref the above is "How many of the above 9,000 reservists employed full time are actually annuitants who are double dipping?"  How many have a unit to go to?  I honestly believe that annuitants should be released or re-enrolled in the Forces.  Too many are taking advantage of a system which grants them a 35 day break, 22 days leave per year.
> 
> Finally, how many of these individuals just left their full time job and came back the next day as a "so called reservist".  It is my understanding that we have over 200 LCols / Cols who are back as reservists.




I was one of those "Double Dippers" and hope to be again before I reach the latest CRA.  I was Released at the end of a five year CE.  No option to stay in.   I can still serve in the Reserves and pass on my experience and knowledge to others.  

Many Double Dippers realize that they are not 18 anymore, but can still fill a valued function within the CF or DND.  They have the proven loyalty, often the required Security Clearances, the knowledge of how the CF works, and most importantly "experience".  Hiring Civilians as Civil Servants or Consultants, who have no CF experience, does not provide you those qualifications.

If I had not joined the Reserves, but had joined as a Civil Servant, would you have been happier?




As for those LCols and other officers, I do feel your pain on that matter.   You will have to admit though, if you had the opportunity later in your life, would you not also become a "Double Dipper"


----------



## The Anti-Royal (1 Oct 2011)

3VP Highlander said:
			
		

> My question ref the above is "How many of the above 9,000 reservists employed full time are actually annuitants who are double dipping?"  How many have a unit to go to?  I honestly believe that annuitants should be released or re-enrolled in the Forces.  Too many are taking advantage of a system which grants them a 35 day break, 22 days leave per year.



I spent 28 of my 30 years of service as a Reg F officer.  With my qualifications and experience I'm as valuable as my Reg F peers at my rank, and the CF gets me at 85% of the salary I was being paid a year ago.  So that makes me a bargain, right?

My pension does not come from the CF operations and maintenance or pay envelopes.

And the 35-day break that you seem to equate with leave, isn't.  It's better known as unemployment.


----------



## Remius (4 Oct 2011)

I've always had an issue with the 85%.  Despite doing the same work you get paid less.

However I have seen first hand what the lure of double dipping can do.  I know several people who had their 20 or 25, were being posted and opted out for a reserve class b.  I think that retention is an issue and double dipping does nothing to help that.


----------



## dapaterson (4 Oct 2011)

Crantor said:
			
		

> I've always had an issue with the 85%.  Despite doing the same work you get paid less.
> 
> However I have seen first hand what the lure of double dipping can do.  I know several people who had their 20 or 25, were being posted and opted out for a reserve class b.  I think that retention is an issue and double dipping does nothing to help that.



Double edged sword, though: did the ability to double dip keep them in the family, where otherwise they would have left at 20 or 25 anyways?

That being said, our departmental accouting is horrific, in that anyone working class B has their pay deemed to be an expense in support of the Reserves.  Thus grossly inflating the cost of the Reserves.


----------



## Staff Weenie (4 Oct 2011)

I am not sure how well we could continue to provide services if we were to eliminate the double-dippers. While I am sure that there's a few on this site who could provide better info, I have been told that a double-dipping PA or GDMO still makes less than what they could in a pure civilian position. They stay because they like the work, they like the CF, and they like the hours.

I've had a number of PA tell me over the years that they would go elsewhere if the practice was stopped. Hiring them back as Calian employees would not be cheaper.

As for the report of 9,000 Cl B in the CF - I'm not sure it's accurate info at all. How many Res F members are there in total in the CF - about 45,000 or less? Does anybody really believe that 20% of the Res F is currently on Cl B? Looking at my troops in my unit, I know it's not true. I think there was significant double-counting of positions.


----------



## OldSolduer (4 Oct 2011)

I'm a double dipper and so is my OC.

These positions may not have been filled if PRes had not been available...or double dippers were excluded.


----------



## dapaterson (4 Oct 2011)

Staff Weenie said:
			
		

> As for the report of 9,000 Cl B in the CF - I'm not sure it's accurate info at all. How many Res F members are there in total in the CF - about 45,000 or less? Does anybody really believe that 20% of the Res F is currently on Cl B? Looking at my troops in my unit, I know it's not true. I think there was significant double-counting of positions.



The number was of full-time pers; it therefore includes class C.  The number is entirely plausible; before the full-on bow wave hit the Army was averaging over 4K on full-time service in a given month.  Some were for short-term periods, but there were many being hired on for a year or longer.  Add to that 1K on the NDHQ PRL, 2K in the Air Reserve, and another 1.5K in the NavRes (or is it the RCNVR?) and you're up to 8.5K - before considering the HS Reserve or any of the other organizations that employ full-time Reservists.


----------



## Haggis (4 Oct 2011)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> The number was of full-time pers; it therefore includes class C.  The number is entirely plausible; before the full-on bow wave hit the Army was averaging over 4K on full-time service in a given month.  Some were for short-term periods, but there were many being hired on for a year or longer.  Add to that 1K on the NDHQ PRL, 2K in the Air Reserve, and another 1.5K in the NavRes (or is it the RCNVR?) and you're up to 8.5K - before considering the HS Reserve or any of the other organizations that employ full-time Reservists.



If the double dipper sword is swung too blindly or broadly, the impact on the RCAF and RCN Reserves will be far more drastic than anything the Army Reserve will suffer.


----------



## dapaterson (4 Oct 2011)

There is no RCAF Reserve.  There is a holding organization for full-time personnel in the Reserve component.  A "reserve" implies a group that is uncommitted and able to be used to reinforce to meet a commander's plan.

The RCN has assigned continuing full-time tasks to the Reserve component.  This has lead to the creation of de facto two groups in the RCN reserve: the full-time sailors on the MCDVs and the part-time sailors at the stone frigates across the country.  The tensions between those groups are not being well managed.

The CA is probably in the worst place - they permtited wholesale growth of full-time positions inthe absence of any solid plan - anyone with a fin code could and did hire full0-time personnel, without a strong central vision or priorities.


Note that this is not a critique of any individuals.  The organizations have decided to fill gaps and holes with full-time military pers, rather than, at any time, stand up and say that they had been assigned tasks without adequate resoruces to accomplish them.


----------



## Pusser (4 Oct 2011)

I really wish people would stop using the term"double-dipping" in reference to ex-Regular Force annuitants now serving in Reserve positions.  It is not correct and frankly, insulting.  To "double-dip" is to receive two salaries for the same work and is a reprehensible practice.  This is not what ex-Regular Force annuitants are doing when they serve in a Reserve capacity.

To receive an annuity under the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act (CFSA), you must serve for specified period of time and pay into the plan.  When you leave, you receive an annuity that you have earned and paid for.  The fact that you continue to serve the Crown in another component of the CF is irrelevant.  As a Reservist you now receive a salary for what you are currently doing, but your annuity is for what you have done.  These are two different things and so two different payments are warranted and reasonable.  No one would accuse an annuitant who went to work for IBM of double-dipping, so why do they accuse annuitants of it when they join the Reserve?

The only real question is whether these full time Reserve positions should exist in the first place.


----------



## ModlrMike (4 Oct 2011)

Thank you Pusser for saying what I've been thinking for a long time. We don't treat members who have private pensions with the same disdain as we do ex-RegF. Nor should we. I earned my pension, and paid for it.


----------



## OldSolduer (4 Oct 2011)

As have I. I must say though I do get treated by Reg Force and Reserves equally well.


----------



## CountDC (5 Oct 2011)

Well said Pussar.

I believe people have somehow carried over the term double-dipper from the days (80's early 90's) when a member could take their retirement leave (so still technically Reg F and receiving pay) and go to work at a reserve unit as VOLEM and be paid again. It was a great system for them and was double-dipping but unless I am mistaken can no longer be done.


----------



## Haggis (5 Oct 2011)

CountDC said:
			
		

> I believe people have somehow carried over the term double-dipper from the days (80's early 90's) when a member could take their retirement leave (so still technically Reg F and receiving pay) and go to work at a reserve unit as VOLEM and be paid again. It was a great system for them and was double-dipping but unless I am mistaken can no longer be done.



It can no longer be done.  You cannot be a member of more than one component of the CF at any given time.


----------



## Stoker (5 Oct 2011)

We have a number of annuitants in the Naval Reserve, mostly full time class B and C. Quite a few took Class B and C contracts for various reasons. Some reasons I agree with,some include avoiding postings say to Ottawa I don't. For the most part I personally have no problem with annuitants if they are filling a billet that I have no primary reservist to go into. As soon as I have a qualified person, we try and find them a job, if nothing is available, then their services are no longer required.
What I do have a problem with is when we have a number of annuitants say in a ship position, their 35 day break and their leave usually puts us in a position whee I am hard pressed to find a back fill. I usually have to fill it with another primary reservist that sometimes just got back from deployment and have to cover off the annuitants job. As well when I am trying to fill a shore based position, the annuitants are the first to complain about loss of class C and sea pay.
I think the 35 day break should be done away with for starters and a limit on the amount of class B or C an annuitant can do in a year.


----------



## CountDC (6 Oct 2011)

I do agree with you Stoker on the break but don't see it going away anytime soon as it has to do with the pension.

I do not like class C - I think it should be done away with completely and Fixed Period of Service contracts used instead.

Not really a big fan of the long term class B and B/A either - they should be done as FPS too but do understand this could be a problem for retaining the experience.


----------



## dapaterson (21 Mar 2012)

Given the changes announced in annuitant employment policy, I've decided to post to this thread.

See below for a brief summary of scenarios and options CF members who are former Reg F members in receipt of an annuity will face as the new policies come into force.  Note that this is based on my understanding and interpretation of the CDS' announced intent, and related impacts based on the CFSA and its related regulations.


Assume we have Sgt Bloggins, who left the Reg F after 25 years and is now drawing an annuity.  He joins a reserve unit.


Scenario 1:  Class A and short-term class B (under one year).  In this scenario, Bloggins continues to draw his annuity and gets paid for his class A and class B work.  He can continue like this until he reaches CRA.


Scenario 2:  Bloggins accepts a three-year class B.  In this scenario, Bloggins draws both his annuity and his class B pay for the first 364 days.  On day 365, he is re-enrolled into the pension plan.  This means he no longer draws his annuity, and he also begins making contributions to the plan again.  However, he is now a Reserve contributor to the full-time pension plan, not a Regular Force contributor.  This changes his options once he stops working full-time.  

At the end of the three years of full-time service, assuming he does not continue class B or class C, he has two options:
Option 1: Release from the CF.  In this case, he would immediately resume drawing his annuity.  He has added two years to his full-time service, so his annuity would be based on 27 years instead of 25 years.

Option 2: Continue class A and short-term class B service.  As he is now a Reserve Force contributor to the full-time pension plan, he is not eligible to draw his annuity while he serves.  His continued service would count towards his pension (day for day on class B or C, and each class A day being credited as 1.4 days) and he would continue to make pension contributions.  Once Bloggins releases from the CF, he can resume drawing an annuity.  It will be based on his 25 years Reg F + 2 Years full-time class B for which he contributed + subsequent class A and class B time.

Once an individual becomes a Reserve Force contributor to the full-time pension plan they have two options to resume drawing their annuity.  They must either release outright from the CF, or must have one year (365 days) with no CF pay.  A transfer to the Supp Res will not trigger the annuity.  Working a single day on class A service would reset the 365 day clock to zero.


----------



## CountDC (21 Mar 2012)

hmmm - at one time in the early/mid 90's he would have had to pay back the pension he recieved for the year plus make the pension payments.  Some members chose to do this to increase their pensions - cross the 365, pension stop, payback plus pension payments then take a break and start pension again at a higher level.  PO I was working with increased his monthly pension by 2 to 3 hundred dollars.  Anything on if this would still be an option?


----------



## dapaterson (21 Mar 2012)

My understanding (and not having seen the official direction yet, one should take it with a grain of salt) is that Bloggins after year 1 may elect to pay back everything he received as pension payments plus pay the pension contributions he would have had to pay and thus get credit for that year as well.  However, if that's his plan it would probably make more sense to elect to buy back immediately, instead of getting then paying back.

Again, there should be further direction coming out to clarify the "what-ifs" - this is just one person's understanding of the regulations.


----------



## Aerobicrunner (21 Mar 2012)

Interesting scenarios, but what would be your understanding if an indivdiual left the Reg F after 37 years (no longer paying pension) and cannot pay into either the reserve or regular pension any more, then gets a 3 year Cl B contract, still does not pay into pension and the service time does not increase the current annuity the member is recieving?


----------



## bridges (21 Mar 2012)

dapaterson, thanks very much for the info.

In my small corner of DND, it's still a rumour.  Some kind of heads-up was circulated to some people, but not to all.  Any idea by what means the announcement has come / will come out?   Is it true that this takes effect 1 Apr 2012?   I wonder how they could implement the pay changes that quickly, for that many people.

It's a blow to people who may have made the decision to get out of the Reg F specifically based on this financial option - and who may have made financial commitments such as a new mortgage, university classes, etc.

This also strikes me as a way of cutting Class B numbers, without actually cutting Class B numbers.  Perhaps it will just be called attrition.  

Very interesting.


----------



## dapaterson (21 Mar 2012)

Aerobicrunner said:
			
		

> Interesting scenarios, but what would be your understanding if an indivdiual left the Reg F after 37 years (no longer paying pension) and cannot pay into either the reserve or regular pension any more, then gets a 3 year Cl B contract, still does not pay into pension and the service time does not increase the current annuity the member is recieving?



My understanding is that a individual drawing a 35 year pension would get the first year with both class B and pension; for year 2 and 3 they would be re-enrolled and receive their pay, and contribute 1% of earnings to the pension fund.


----------



## dapaterson (21 Mar 2012)

bridges said:
			
		

> dapaterson, thanks very much for the info.
> 
> In my small corner of DND, it's still a rumour.  Some kind of heads-up was circulated to some people, but not to all.  Any idea by what means the announcement has come / will come out?   Is it true that this takes effect 1 Apr 2012?   I wonder how they could implement the pay changes that quickly, for that many people.



The CDS letter has a 01 Apr start date, and was distributed to the VCDS and all L1s as action adressees, info to the DM and Associate DM

"The details related to the introduction of the new policy as well as details regarding a transition period will be forthcoming from VCDS and CMP."


----------



## OldSolduer (21 Mar 2012)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> The CDS letter has a 01 Apr start date, and was distributed to the VCDS and all L1s as action adressees, info to the DM and Associate DM
> 
> "The details related to the introduction of the new policy as well as details regarding a transition period will be forthcoming from VCDS and CMP."



Lets hope its not a fiasco.


----------



## bridges (21 Mar 2012)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> The CDS letter has a 01 Apr start date, and was distributed to the VCDS and all L1s as action adressees, info to the DM and Associate DM
> 
> "The details related to the introduction of the new policy as well as details regarding a transition period will be forthcoming from VCDS and CMP."



Thanks for the info, dapaterson - again!  Over here it was apparently circulated to Class B annuitants only.  I look forward to a CANFORGEN.


----------



## aesop081 (21 Mar 2012)

bridges said:
			
		

> In my small corner of DND, it's still a rumour.



Letter from the CDS on this was emailed around to us about a week ago. No rumour.


----------



## bridges (21 Mar 2012)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> Letter from the CDS on this was emailed around to us about a week ago. No rumour.



I believe you... but if it's being sent to only some people, not others - then effectively, it is a rumour for the ones who haven't seen it.  This particular case has been all hearsay so far, on a pretty significant policy change.  This will affect everyone in DND in some way, not only annuitants - but them most of all.

Communication and situational awareness are great things.  I'm glad I can come to Army.ca for both, in these rare cases, but wish I didn't have to.


----------



## aesop081 (21 Mar 2012)

bridges said:
			
		

> I believe you... but if it's being sent to only some people, not others - then effectively, it is a rumour for the ones who haven't seen it.



I didn't take a look to see how it was addressed. i do assure you that it exists.



> This particular case has been all hearsay so far,



PM me your work email if you wish and i will try and forward it to you tomorrow when i get to work, so that it is no longer "hearsay" as that ship has sailed over a week ago.


----------



## Stoker (21 Mar 2012)

bridges said:
			
		

> I believe you... but if it's being sent to only some people, not others - then effectively, it is a rumour for the ones who haven't seen it.  This particular case has been all hearsay so far, on a pretty significant policy change.  This will affect everyone in DND in some way, not only annuitants - but them most of all.
> 
> Communication and situational awareness are great things.  I'm glad I can come to Army.ca for both, in these rare cases, but wish I didn't have to.



It is so much rumour in the naval reserve that no new contracts are being cut for annuitants until the exact details are released. Also any new IR is being halted until the budget is released.


----------



## Aerobicrunner (21 Mar 2012)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> My understanding is that a individual drawing a 35 year pension would get the first year with both class B and pension; for year 2 and 3 they would be re-enrolled and receive their pay, and contribute 1% of earnings to the pension fund.



Sucks to be me.  But I do sympathize and see a point of view with reservists who meet the qualifying time to receive a pension, but are not allowed to release, reapply for a Cl B job and then also collect their pension like us in the Reg F could do.


----------



## bridges (21 Mar 2012)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> I didn't take a look to see how it was addressed. i do assure you that it exists.
> 
> PM me your work email if you wish and i will try and forward it to you tomorrow when i get to work, so that it is no longer "hearsay" as that ship has sailed over a week ago.



Thank you kindly for the offer, but I think I'm getting it shortly, from another source.  Much appreciated, though.

I'm told verbally, through the CoC, that the implementation date is 1 Sep 12, and CANFORGENs will be coming out NLT 1 Apr 12.


----------



## bridges (21 Mar 2012)

One wonders, will civilian employees be next?  Many of them are annuitants also.  That would have to be a government-wide change - but it is conceivable.  

In the meantime, I feel for the annuitants who will now have to cope with this, financially.  Not all of them are at highly-paid rank levels.


----------



## ModlrMike (21 Mar 2012)

CFMG is going to take a kick in the nuts over this. They hired back a large number of PAs as Class B rather than pay the commercial rate. These folks will not stay if they see their pay reduced by 30-40K.


----------



## armyvern (22 Mar 2012)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> CFMG is going to take a kick in the nuts over this. They hired back a large number of PAs as Class B rather than pay the commercial rate. These folks will not stay if they see their pay reduced by 30-40K.



So is the ARAF.  

If the CANFORGEN is the options detailed below, I'd be willing to flat out state right now that so will everyone else as Scenario 2, Option 2 is laughable -- at best.

Those ResF units who desperately require ex-Reg mbrs to pass on experience in one-of posns etc will suffer too. Quite frankly, I don't see any one of them continuing on to Option 2 so Units will dig for ways around that because they _*have*_ to. 

There will be those who get out, do the BClass and who will pay back into the pension during year 2 and 3, but if anyone thinks for a split second that they would ever consider working at "Option 2" after 3 years as a short-term B Class or as an A Class in a Res Unit and giving up their monthly cheque to do so ... they are dreaming. Hmmmm, 4 nights a month and a weekend with NO pension? Who the hell can live on that?

They'd have to then be collecting welfare from the taxpayer instead in order to opt for Option 2. Brilliant plan. Talk about robbing Peter to pay Paul. OR, they'd just say, "too bad" - I'll keep the pension cheque every month instead. So much for sharing their experience where it's needed.

I'll make another prediction right now too:

We are about to see an influx of postings for B Class contracts of 364 days in length. One guy "X" will work the job for 364 days, it'll sit vacant for a week, then another guy "Y" will fill the job for his 364 days, vacant for a week, guy "X" will then fill it again for 364, vacant a week, guy "Y" again, etc etc etc.

Actually, just for shits and giggles, I'm going to check the B Class listings tomorrow to see how many have already started looking for "364ers".

The only difference between my prediction above and the pulp and paper industry, is that the pulp and paper industry did this on 6 month cycles in my hometown: 1/2 the staff worked 6 months to make their pogey points, then got laid off for 6 months during which time they collected their pogey cheques while the other 1/2 worked to make their pogey points. Rotate, rotate, rotate. 

Only, in the B Class sense, they work for 364 collecting pay & pension and then "rest" for the full year collecting pension only while other dude does his 364 collecting both followed by his year of rest.

Interesting times indeed.


----------



## medicineman (22 Mar 2012)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> CFMG is going to take a kick in the nuts over this. They hired back a large number of PAs as Class B rather than pay the commercial rate. These folks will not stay if they see their pay reduced by 30-40K.



They also hired them based on PRes rates of pay too - no spec pay in the Reserve world for PA's because the trade doesn't exist as such (unless that's another BS story I got from PRL when I got out).  I suppose the pensions would even things out some, but I'm somewhat happier making more than my previous salary AND my pension on top of that, instead of just plain old breaking even...ish.  

MM


----------



## ARMY_101 (11 Apr 2012)

Another announcement:



> CANFORGEN 070/12 CMP 033/12 101602Z APR 12
> 
> CHANGES TO THE ADMINISTRATION UNDER CFSA PART 1 OF EMPLOYMENT OF ANNUITANTS IN CONTINUOUS RESERVE SERVICE
> UNCLASSIFIED
> ...


----------



## bridges (11 Apr 2012)

Thanks for posting this, Army_101.   There's a FAQ on the DGMC site as well.  http://cmp-cpm.forces.mil.ca/DGMC/docs/programs/dmcpg/Annuitant_FAQ_en.pdf

Hopefully they'll post a copy of ref C there too.


----------



## Remius (11 Apr 2012)

Not a bad FAQ actually.


----------



## misratah500 (29 Apr 2013)

I was aware that a couple of years ago if you retired from the Reg's and collected your pension you could work as a reservist and "double dip". I know that they put a stop to this now. 

But today I heard that as of this April you can no longer retire from the military and collect your superannuation anymore if you get a civvie federal government job? Has anyone heard about this or have any resources I can read on it. 

Looks like private sector when I retire then.


----------



## dapaterson (29 Apr 2013)

As far as I know this is merely a rumour; no one has been able to point to any amendments to the PSEA or any related regulations that would preclude collecting a CFSA part I pension at the same time as pay for public sector employment.

There are limits on pensions: you can only accumulate a maximum of 35 years in the Federal Government, combined - so exiting the CF with a 25 year pension means you can only collect another 10 years of pensionable service in the public service.  But that restriction has been in place for a long time.


----------



## dapaterson (29 Apr 2013)

Place to watch for info: the lobby group for federal retirees: http://www.fsna.com  Nothing posted there discussing this alleged change.

The other change that may be confusing people is the change in retirement age: if you join the Public Service now, your base retirement age becomes 65, not 60 as per earlier hires.  This should have no impact on your benefits under the CFSA.


----------



## misratah500 (29 Apr 2013)

If there is no change at all that's a good thing. You wouldn't believe the confusion some guys have about units. I heard these rumors from several PO1's.

Also I've had numerous brand new OS, AB, LS tell me that their pensions don't have immediate annuity and they have to wait to 60 to collect it. 

Why is there so much confusion with our pensions.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (29 Apr 2013)

misratah500 said:
			
		

> Why is there so much confusion with our pensions.





			
				misratah500 said:
			
		

> rumours



I let you answer your own question..............


----------



## cupper (29 Apr 2013)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> I let you answer your own question..............



 :goodpost:


----------



## George Wallace (30 Apr 2013)

misratah500 said:
			
		

> I was aware that a couple of years ago if you retired from the Reg's and collected your pension you could work as a reservist and "double dip". I know that they put a stop to this now.



Yes, Double Dippers worked in the Reserves and collected their Reg Force Pensions.  They were not paying into a Reserve Force Pension Plan.  Now if they want to work as a Class B Reservist for over 365 days, they cease their Reg Force Pension and start paying into the Reserve Force Pension Plan and collect their Pension when they retire from the Reserves.  Unless they are working full time for over 365 days as a Class B Reservist, there is no change to their collecting their Reg Force Pension.




			
				misratah500 said:
			
		

> But today I heard that as of this April you can no longer retire from the military and collect your superannuation anymore if you get a civvie federal government job? Has anyone heard about this or have any resources I can read on it.



It has always been that if you got a Civil Service job after earning a CF Pension, you would usually roll it over into the Public Service Pension Plan for a better pension in the end and again collected your pension when you retired from the Civil Service.  You could do this with both Provincial and Federal Civil Service jobs.   

So what is drastically new?


----------



## mariomike (30 Apr 2013)

> It has always been that if you got a Civil Service job after earning a CF Pension, you would usually roll it over into the Public Service Pension Plan for a better pension in the end and again collected your pension when you retired from the Civil Service.  You could do this with both Provincial and Federal Civil Service jobs.



Just to add to the above, the Government of Canada has pension transfer agreements with 95 employers.
http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/pensions/peserv-servpe-eng.asp#transf3


----------



## combatpostie (30 Apr 2013)

Apparantly since Jan 13, no more double dipping, if you're hired within the public service you must stop your pension just like you would be doing if you are pensioned and want to transfer to reserves.  I am grandfathered since I rolled over to the PS in 2007 after 26 years in the CF.  This is what is being advertised at Medical SCAN seminars.  I do not have supportting links to this. Will keep you posted.


----------



## captloadie (30 Apr 2013)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> It has always been that if you got a Civil Service job after earning a CF Pension, you would usually roll it over into the Public Service Pension Plan for a better pension in the end and again collected your pension when you retired from the Civil Service.  You could do this with both Provincial and Federal Civil Service jobs.
> 
> So what is drastically new?



I think that in the past it was an option to roll over your pension, but not a requirement. It now seems that, from reading posts in the forum, that it will now be mandatory to roll over your pension. If this is indeed the case, one of two things will likely happen:
1) Like as happened wrt reserves, retiring reg force members will no longer apply to public service positions; or
2) We face the reality that there is no longer support for individuals to "double dip"  - where double dipping is defined as receiving two paychecks from the government. 

It would appear that CAF members (and RCMP for that matter) are slowly being absorbed into the greater PS domain, where there will be one set of rules for everyone. It started with our salaries, moved to our severance packages, and will end with our retirement benefits.


----------



## dapaterson (30 Apr 2013)

Accorpding to the Public Service Superannuation Act, that is not the case.  You retain your annuity, allowance or pension.  See 39(5) of the PSSA (last updated 13 April 2013):

Any person who becomes a contributor
under this Part, having been a member of the
regular force and having become entitled to an
annuity, annual allowance or pension under the
Canadian Forces Superannuation Act, or having
been a member of the Force and having become
entitled to an annuity or annual allowance
under the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation
Act, is entitled, for the purposes
of this Part, to retain that annuity, annual allowance
or pension, but the period of service
on which that annuity, annual allowance or
pension was based may not be counted by that
person for the purposes of any benefit to which
he may become entitled under this Part by reason
of having become a contributor hereunder.


----------



## dapaterson (30 Apr 2013)

As mentioned on another thread, this is not the case.  The PSSA is very clear that CAF members (and RCMP members) may retain their pension.  You only cease and surrender your pension if you choose to transfer it to the PSSA.  PSSA 39(5), last updated 13 April 2013:

Any person who becomes a contributor
under this Part, having been a member of the
regular force and having become entitled to an
annuity, annual allowance or pension under the
Canadian Forces Superannuation Act, or having
been a member of the Force and having become
entitled to an annuity or annual allowance
under the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation
Act, is entitled, for the purposes
of this Part, to retain that annuity, annual allowance
or pension, but the period of service
on which that annuity, annual allowance or
pension was based may not be counted by that
person for the purposes of any benefit to which
he may become entitled under this Part by reason
of having become a contributor hereunder.


----------



## combatpostie (2 May 2013)

That's good news, will have to circulate to still serving getting released. Does not affect me, still don't understand why they are circulating this info.  Thansk


----------



## maniac (5 May 2013)

This is the truth,  Public Servants with past military service receiving a CFSA pension are not double dipping.  These are 2 very separate pension systems.  If you paid into one and want to port it to the other,  that is possible but it does not make it the same pension.  The "HATERS" like to call it that because they don't have it.  

An example of real double dipping is CF pers on Class B as a CFSA annuitant,  they are drawing from the pension system that they should be paying into.  The TB threatened to take over CFSA if the CF did not do something about the situation because it was not sustainable.


----------



## combatpostie (7 May 2013)

Just re-reading "dapaterson" and still bugs me, because it says "annual allowance or
pension was based may not be counted by that
person for the purposes of any benefit to which
he may become entitled under this Part by reason
of having become a contributor hereunder." but we've already won this part, as we can count our time towards leave now.  All ex-military/RCMP can count their previous service and go to the respective level of leave.  I left the military with 26 years, I was with the PS for 4 yrs when this came through and I went straight to 30 days leave (went from 3 weeks to 6 because of this new ruling) Hard to understand.


----------



## Occam (7 May 2013)

That's just leave, though.  It was a simple matter to amend the Public Service Employment Regulations to allow previous CF time to count towards PS leave increments.  That's a fairly simple change.

You'd have to change the CFSA in order to create a way to stop an annuitant from being able to draw their pension as a result of subsequent PS employment.  That's not such a simple change.


----------



## dapaterson (7 May 2013)

The PSSA quote refers exclusively to PSSA benefits - that is, you can't take your CF pension and, simultaneously, buy back your CF pension in the PS.  The "Part" referred to is Part I of the PSSA - if you need sleep aids, read the PSSA and its related regulations, alongside the CFSA and its related regulations.  Hundreds of pages of mind-numbing documents that cross-reference each other and yet still have gaps that leave questions open to interpretation.

To put the restriction into other words, you can't take a 25 year CF pension, go to the PS for 10 years & buy back your CF time with the PS while still getting your CF pension, to result in: 25 year CF plus 10+25=35 year PS pension.  Or, in simpler terms, you can't get a 60 year pension for 35 years of work.


----------



## maniac (11 May 2013)

I think if you read those pages it over complicates the issue to the average guy.  You're correct,  you can not collect CFSA and buy it back at the same time in PSSA and why would you?  However,  you are offered, but you would be crazy unless you're a deferred annuitant.  The CFSA annuitant joining the PS pays into the PSSA and must complete service to age 60 (any new hires is age 65) to get their immediate annuity from PSSA.


----------



## DAA (8 Aug 2013)

So I have to scratch my head on this topic and resurrect it.  We have guidance from above regarding the policy of employing Annuitants on Class B service but why are we now seeing people who chose not to surrender their pension, elected to convert to a "330 day" Class B contract, only to re-apply for the same job that they were doing before and are now going to be re-hired right back into the exact same job?  From what I can see, this is not only being condoned by higher levels but actually encouraged.

Mind you, they will be required to sign a "long term" contract (ie; in excess of 365 days) but in all likelihood, they will just submit an early termination (30-days notice) at day 300, release on day 330 and then reapply for their previous job and be rehired right back after they have been away for more than 35 days.

Something just doesn't seem quite right.


----------



## PPCLI Guy (8 Aug 2013)

DAA said:
			
		

> Something just doesn't see quite right.



Indeed


----------



## George Wallace (8 Aug 2013)

DAA said:
			
		

> So I have to scratch my head on this topic and resurrect it.  We have guidance from above regarding the policy of employing Annuitants on Class B service but why are we now seeing people who chose not to surrender their pension, elected to convert to a "330 day" Class B contract, only to re-apply for the same job that they were doing before and are now going to be re-hired right back into the exact same job?  From what I can see, this is not only being condoned by higher levels but actually encouraged.
> 
> Mind you, they will be required to sign a "long term" contract (ie; in excess of 365 days) but in all likelihood, they will just submit an early termination (30-days notice) at day 300, release on day 330 and then reapply for their previous job and be rehired right back after they have been away for more than 35 days.
> 
> Something just doesn't see quite right.



As I see it, the new policy has little affect on "Double Dippers" if they are employed as they were prior to this new policy coming into effect.  "Double Dippers" were only allowed 330 days a year as Class B, whether they were on a SOU of longer or not.  I was on a SOU for three years, and was required to take 35 days Annuitant Break, without pay, each Fiscal year.  Under this new plan. an Annuitant can work up to, but not over, 365 days without having to give up their Reg Force pension and sign onto the Reserve Pension with all its problems.  That is one very good point not to get your pension switched over.

Next point:  If you haven't noticed, the CAF is cutting Class B positions like mad.  Why would an Annuitant want to give up a Reg Force pension for the insecurity of Class B employment?  Why would an Annuitant want to give up a good pension to roll into the uncertainty of what is the Reserve Pension Plan that has less benefits.  They would be absolutely crazy and not very good at taking care of their finances.  

Another point:  These Class B positions are often positions that can not be filled by Reg Force pers, or are backfills for Reg Force pers on MATA/PATA or other long term absences.  Would you not want a knowledgeable person to fill those positions?    

The Reserves lose many people every year to the Regular Force through CTs.  Why is it not encouraged for the reverse to be done?  A Reg Force member, who still wants to serve after twenty or more years of service, has lots to offer the Reserves.   They should be encouraged to mentor younger soldiers in the Reserves; not dissuaded.   The Reserves could benefit from knowledge and experience of these Annuitants who may only have ten or less years before CRA, but are still fit to serve.  

Although the term "Conflict of Interest" is thrown about in these discussions; what is the difference of a former Reg Force member collecting a Reg Force pension and working for a civilian employer who has no pension plan for his/her employees and a former Reg Force member collecting a Reg Force pension and working for the Reserves and not paying into the Reserve Pension Plan ( which has less benefits )?  


I too scratch my head.  With the limit set by TBS on the numebers of pers that the Reg Force can maintain on strength, and the availability of Reservists, some being Annuitants, to fill necessary positions; why are they screwing the Annuitants over if they want quality and experienced people?   Just another set of rules set out by TBS, DND, etc. that make me wonder how this country will survive the next century.  (Well, less.)


----------



## dapaterson (8 Aug 2013)

The Canadian Forces are the armed forces of Her Majesty raised by Canada and consist of one Service called the Canadian Armed Forces. (NDA 14)


Reg and Res are two components from that one Force.  How can one claim to be retired from the Force, drawing a pension for that service, and then having them pay one as, essentially, a full-time member of that same Force?


----------



## DAA (8 Aug 2013)

I hear you George but what you are missing here, is that Regular Force Annuitants who go beyond the 365 day mark will not beceome part of the Reserve Pension plan but will now be deemed as re-enrolled and thus be "contributors" under the Regular Force Plan.  So they would now get the same pension credits, as a regular force member, calculated based on their best 5-years of annual accumulated income.

It was widely acknowledged that this new policy would most likely create a "knowledge/experience" vacuum that could not be filled by traditional reservists (ie; no Reg F experience/higher level positions) but that is the risk that has been assumed and must now be lived with.

What puzzles me, is that these people, freely elected the "330 day plan" in order to keep their pension, depart Her Majesty's Service, re-applied for the exact same job that they held prior and are being rehired.

I am only referring to "Class B Permanent" positions which are "3 years in length", which are the same jobs they were doing before, which they decided to leave.


----------



## dapaterson (8 Aug 2013)

There is risk for those individuals that when they return someone else may have applied for the job.  All things being equal, were I to hire someone, I'd hire the one who doesn't have a history of 10 months in the job then quitting.


----------



## George Wallace (8 Aug 2013)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> There is risk for those individuals that when they return someone else may have applied for the job.  All things being equal, were I to hire someone, I'd hire the one who doesn't have a history of 10 months in the job then quitting.



But the majority of your unit is Stood Down for two to  three months anyway.


----------



## dapaterson (8 Aug 2013)

A unit that isn't parading in the summer is still managing those on summer tasks / summer courses; preparing for the fall training; preparing for summer exercises; and having people away on summer leave so some continuity is needed.


----------



## George Wallace (8 Aug 2013)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> A unit that isn't parading in the summer is still managing those on summer tasks / summer courses; preparing for the fall training; preparing for summer exercises; and having people away on summer leave so some continuity is needed.



Yes, I know.

So when do you expect these people to take their Leave?  And do you only task one person to do a job, with no plan contingency plan in place?


----------



## George Wallace (8 Aug 2013)

The pros and cons of this can fill a library.


----------



## Remius (8 Aug 2013)

George, you bring up some valid points but, a good chunk of those class Bs (most in fact) do not directly support the primary reserve at all.  They fill regular force positions as class b reservists.  The L1 I work at had 170 class b positions before they scaled it down to 70.  That's just one place.  

That's the problem. And in 5 years when they review class Bs they'll likely reduce the time allowed, change TOS or whatever because the system was abused yet again, and we'll hear gripes and complaints again. 

I will say that I am in favour of exceptions for those annuitants that directly support a reserve establishment.  I know that will ruffle some feathers but whatever.  At the same time reservists should only get long term contracts when supporting reserve establishments and short term with regular force establishments.


----------



## PPCLI Guy (8 Aug 2013)

DAA said:
			
		

> It was widely acknowledged that this new policy would most likely create a "knowledge/experience" vacuum that could not be filled by traditional reservists (ie; no Reg F experience/higher level positions) but that is the risk that has been assumed and must now be lived with.



****Warning - Frank Opinion Follows****

I have never bought this argument.  5-7% of the CF retire every year, and yet we somehow manage without them.  Annuitants are no different - indeed they are those who retired yet lack the interest or perhaps even wherewithal to get a civie job.  We don't or won't miss them


----------



## McG (9 Aug 2013)

DAA said:
			
		

> So I have to scratch my head on this topic and resurrect it.  We have guidance from above regarding the policy of employing Annuitants on Class B service but why are we now seeing people who chose not to surrender their pension, elected to convert to a "330 day" Class B contract, only to re-apply for the same job that they were doing before and are now going to be re-hired right back into the exact same job?  From what I can see, this is not only being condoned by higher levels but actually encouraged.


Send names.  Then we will know who to blame when even more restrictive policies are emplaced by the CAF, DND and TB in responce to the deliberate undermining of the current policies' intent.

I predict a day where annuitants are limited to 90 days (total Cl A and Cl B time) in a calendar year with MND approval needed to go beyond.  Why 90 days?  Because decision makers in Ottawa will be familiar with that number as the ceiling for a civilian casual employee.

If one wants to avoid such a day, then we (the collective CAF) need to get behind the spirit of the current policies and orders.


----------



## bridges (9 Aug 2013)

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> ****Warning - Frank Opinion Follows****
> 
> I have never bought this argument.  5-7% of the CF retire every year, and yet we somehow manage without them.  Annuitants are no different - indeed they are those who retired yet lack the interest or perhaps even wherewithal to get a civie job.  We don't or won't miss them



Some of those 5-7% are senior & experienced, yes, but many are also recruits or privates.  I'm not sure that that number can be relied upon for this discussion.  

As for Reg F "retirees" lacking the interest or wherewithal to get a civvy job, this seems to imply that Res F jobs are easier to get and/or less important.  Most of the double-dippers I've talked to have said that they wanted to stay in uniform for a sense of being on the same team, and because they would miss it if they got out.  And also, frankly, because they weren't able to match the combination of salary & vacation time on civvy street (although the vacation has now been equalized).  But all of this doesn't mean they aren't very, very valuable sources of guidance and experience.  Some of them WILL be missed.   Just as with less experienced mbrs, it all depends on the individual.


----------



## jollyjacktar (4 Aug 2017)

I looked and there are so many "double dipping" threads out there, I decided to put this here to prevent confusion or missing anyone who might be interested.  Mods please feel free to move as you see fit if needed.



> http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/military-reserves-double-dipping-1.4234285
> 
> National Defence reviewing limits on 'double-dipping' for retired soldiers
> Military wants to keep talent in reserves, but retired soldiers limited to 364 days of paid full-time service
> ...


----------



## Stoker (4 Aug 2017)

I see the need to do this but the military is also losing so much talent from full time reservists who would love to retire and go class A but cannot.


----------



## Halifax Tar (4 Aug 2017)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> I looked and there are so many "double dipping" threads out there, I decided to put this here to prevent confusion or missing anyone who might be interested.  Mods please feel free to move as you see fit if needed.



Funny this was in the CBC yesterday:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/mps-pay-pensions-parliament-1.4231986

Dozens of members of Parliament are collecting thousands of dollars a year in pensions — several of them from the same federal government that issues their six-figure paycheques, CBC News has learned.

A CBC analysis of the ethics filings of Canada's 338 MPs found that 36 MPs reported receiving pension income on top of their salaries. Nearly 20 per cent of those MPs were getting pensions from either the federal government or the Canadian Armed Forces.


Coinky-dink ?


----------



## Ostrozac (4 Aug 2017)

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> I see the need to do this but the military is also losing so much talent from full time reservists who would love to retire and go class A but cannot.



Yeah, the whole thing about how annuitants coming off Class B/C can't go Class A (or even Supp Res) and are expected to release outright is very odd.


----------



## jollyjacktar (4 Aug 2017)

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> Coinky-dink ?


Perhaps they might be wanting to diffuse any unhappiness coming from our direction that may still be perceived, while at the same time undoing something the previous administration had set up.  Kill two birds with one stone.  And there are manning issues that need to be addressed.


----------



## Halifax Tar (4 Aug 2017)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> Perhaps they might be wanting to diffuse any unhappiness coming from our direction that may still be perceived, while at the same time undoing something the previous administration had set up.  Kill two birds with one stone.  And there are manning issues that need to be addressed.



I am all for it.  Its something I would like to do.


----------



## mariomike (4 Aug 2017)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> I looked and there are so many "double dipping" threads out there, I decided to put this here to prevent confusion or missing anyone who might be interested.



See also,

Future of Government Pensions (PS, CF & RCMP) & CF pension "double-dip" 
http://army.ca/forums/threads/91361.575.html
24 pages.


----------



## captloadie (4 Aug 2017)

Ostrozac said:
			
		

> Yeah, the whole thing about how annuitants coming off Class B/C can't go Class A (or even Supp Res) and are expected to release outright is very odd.


Is it the case they can't go back to Class A, or just can't go back to Class A and collect their pension? There is a big difference in those two statements.


----------



## Stoker (4 Aug 2017)

captloadie said:
			
		

> Is it the case they can't go back to Class A, or just can't go back to Class A and collect their pension? There is a big difference in those two statements.



I think what he means and its too bad is that a reservist who has done full time for many years cannot retire, collect their pension and work class A or B/C for that matter. A regular force member can retire and work class A, B or C up while collecting their pension to a point.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (4 Aug 2017)

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> I think what he means and its too bad is that a reservist who has done full time for many years cannot retire, collect their pension and work class A or B/C for that matter. A regular force member can retire and work class A, B or C up while collecting their pension to a point.



I am an annuitant. In the past year, I have worked all three classes of reserve service. My OR keeps track of my days of service and makes sure that I do not breach the terms of my pension by working too many days.


----------



## Ostrozac (4 Aug 2017)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> I am an annuitant. In the past year, I have worked all three classes of reserve service. My OR keeps track of my days of service and makes sure that I do not breach the terms of my pension by working too many days.



And I expect you were ex-Reg Force when you started collecting your pension? As I understand it, a member that has earned a pension with 25 or more years Class B service can't collect that pension without entirely releasing from the reserve force.


----------



## Stoker (4 Aug 2017)

Ostrozac said:
			
		

> And I expect you were ex-Reg Force when you started collecting your pension? As I understand it, a member that has earned a pension with 25 or more years Class B service can't collect that pension without entirely releasing from the reserve force.



That is correct


----------

