"Double Dippers" Mega Thread

[George Wallace]

The pros and cons of this can fill a library.

 

[Remius]

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]

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]

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]

****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]

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

By Murray Brewster, CBC News  Posted: Aug 04, 2017 5:00 AM ET| Last Updated: Aug 04, 2017 5:20 AM ET
The Canadian military is searching for ways to remove or modify restrictions prohibiting retired Canadian Armed Forces members from collecting their military pensions while serving full-time and receiving pay cheques in the reserves.

The plan has the preliminary endorsement of the Liberal government, pending final details.

Reference to the idea was buried deep in the latest defence policy released in June.

The proposal is still very much in the nascent stage, but if successful it would effectively reverse regulatory changes — made last year and in 2012 — that set strict limits on double-dipping by soldiers.

It is an important tool in retaining experienced members and "top talent," Lt.-Gen. Chuck Lamarre, the chief of military personnel, told CBC News.

"I think you have a compelling argument in terms of the talent," he said in an interview.

"You've spent a lot of money training [people]. So, we're hoping to be able to convince folks with our proposals."

MPs reviewed double-dipping in 2010

The issue of whether ex-soldiers, with highly sought-after combat or technical skills, should be allowed to double dip preoccupied Parliament for three years during the war in Afghanistan; the practice annoyed the Conservative government of the day.

At the time there was a spike in the number of soldiers, aircrew or sailors who would retire and return the next day as civilian contractors, or reservists, doing the same job.


'They should be allowed to collect their pension. They've done their time. They've made an incredible contribution and fulfilled their obligation'
- NDP veterans affairs critic Irene Mathyssen

That led to scrutiny by the all-party Commons defence committee in the spring of 2010. One of Lamarre's predecessors told MPs the Afghan war created the demand to keep those positions filled.

The hearings led to a set of regulatory changes that strictly limited the practice. The last of those changes only came into effect in June 2016.

Under that new system, a retired member of the military can serve as a reservist full-time for only 364 days while collecting a military pension. After that period has passed they must decide whether or not to return to the regular force, pushing "pause" on their pension cheques.

Part-time reservists are not affected.

Thinning ranks

But the pressing policy issue today is rebuilding the reserve force, which the auditor general last year described as being in dire shape.

A scathing report by Michael Ferguson's office found that after years of budget restrictions and neglect, only roughly 14,000 troops — out of an active enrolment of 21,000 — were fit to deploy. The Liberal defence policy, issued in June, calls for a total reserve strength of 30,000 members.
■Canada's army reserve lacking soldiers, equipment, training, audit finds

Lamarre said one way to solve the quantity problem, and increase quality, is to look to retirees.

"As you can imagine, when we've taken the time to develop someone and they've worked 20 years, 25 years or 30 years and they go off to leave and they're looking at the outside market, one of the things that might interest them is a job in the reserves," he said.

Heading to private sector

Anecdotally, Lamarre said the military has had instances where personnel exiting the military have expressed the desire to serve in the reserves, but declined because a private-sector job would allow them to receive their military pension without restriction.

"I cannot see why the Forces insists on [the restrictions]," said retired colonel John Selkirk, of Reserves 2000, a coalition of ex-military members dedicated to the militia.

"If you are a public servant, nobody is going to make a fuss about it. You can be a public servant and draw your military pension."

On Thursday, CBC News reported that three dozen members of Parliament are double-dipping and nearly 20 per cent of them are collecting pensions from either the federal government or the Canadian Armed Forces.

The issue, as far as Selkirk is concerned, is the amount of experience that's walking out the door: "Why would you waste that training?"

NDP veterans critic Irene Mathyssen said she doesn't see a problem double-dipping in this circumstance as long as the federal government doesn't use it as an excuse to deny — or clawback — benefits from ex-soldiers.

"The reserves are having difficulty finding the talent they need and if people want to continue to serve, they should be able to," she said. "They should be allowed to collect their pension. They've done their time. They've made an incredible contribution and fulfilled their obligation."

The challenge, she said, will be to not "incentivize" double-dipping.

But even then, she said she doesn't anticipate a rush of people returning to the reserves as a result of the changes.

Lamarre said he isn't certain what the right balance will be, but he's confident there is one that is fair to both the individual and the taxpayer.

"I don't yet have the mechanism in place as to how we're going to do it," he said, adding his team hopes to have a proposal ready for the government within a year.

 

[Stoker]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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