"Double Dippers" Mega Thread

[OldSolduer]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[CountDC]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.