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

[OldSolduer]

So what is the solution? Those who rightfully collect a pension under the CFSA be denied employment within the CF?

Let's go one further..once you retire and collect A CFSA pension bar the door for further service...even Class A.

 

[Remius]

And there is no way that retired public servant can return to the public service and work the same kind of time that a retired CF member can without getting back into the pension plan.  They can certainly come back at contractors but they are not employees of the PS.

As well there are instances of triple dipping.. CF pension, Class B pay then EI for the 35 day break.  The CF is really pushing the envelope.

 

[Remius]

So what is the solution? Those who rightfully collect a pension under the CFSA be denied employment within the CF?

Let's go one further..once you retire and collect A CFSA pension bar the door for further service...even Class A.

No.  and that is not what is being proposed.  Basically if you work on long term class b you start paying back intyo the pension. 1 Year or more.  Class A and temporary class bs would not be affected.  It brings it line with any other department or agency's policies on pensions and fulltime work.  Tell me why the CF should be any different?

 

[OldSolduer]

And there is no way that retired public servant can return to the public service and work the same kind of time that a retired CF member can without getting back into the pension plan.  They can certainly come back at contractors but they are not employees of the PS.

As well there are instances of triple dipping.. CF pension, Class B pay then EI for the 35 day break.  The CF is really pushing the envelope.

I am one of those so called "double dippers". I got the job because the Regular Force could not fill it. The only applicants were me, a "double dipper" (I am beginning to resent that term) and a Reg Force chap who was retiring. In fact, most of my unit is made up of reservists and yes, some of us are annuitants.
I don't know what the parameters of the regulations will be, but I will tell you one thing:

You are going to lose a large pool of talent. It's a short sighted move that is based on money and jealousy.


I do not go on EI for my 35 day break. I find work elsewhere.

 

[Rifleman62]

Jim Seggie:

So what is the solution? Those who rightfully collect a pension under the CFSA be denied employment within the CF?

Let's go one further..once you retire and collect A CFSA pension bar the door for further service...even Class A.

If you are a recipient of the CFSA Reserve pension version, you cannot serve period unless you cease your pension.

Another example of how wonderful the head shed treats members of the Reserve.

You are going to lose a large pool of talent. It's a short sighted move that is based on money and jealousy.

Agree, but do not understand "jealousy".

 

[armyvern]

And there is no way that retired public servant can return to the public service and work the same kind of time that a retired CF member can without getting back into the pension plan.  They can certainly come back at contractors but they are not employees of the PS.

As well there are instances of triple dipping.. CF pension, Class B pay then EI for the 35 day break.  The CF is really pushing the envelope.

Also triple dipping in that CF pension, Res F, and contract work all at the same time.

 

[armyvern]

There are differences between the military and the public service.


Saying that you're full time military while collecting a pension for your prior full-time military service is where the problem lies.  Shit or get off the pot.


(And, for the record, there are far more public servants who retired from the CF at much more humble ranks than there are public servants who retired while General officers)

And that IS where the debate lies; does the annuitant break constitute "full-time"? Some say "yea" and some say "nay".  There are two sides to the debate, not one. And some of us are still aware of the fact that at the end of the day we are all federally paid by the taxpayer. And yes, I am well aware that far more others than generals are employed in the PS ... it was an example.

Edit: And, there are differences between service in the RegF and the ResF ... but those HUGE differences don't seem to matter here.

 

[Remius]

Jim, there are plenty who go on EI.  Double Dipping/Dippers is a common term.  It's not meant as an insult.  Yes maybe some people spit the word out that way, that's not how I meant it.

Is it going to cause some hardship.  Yep.  So are all the other reserve class b cuts and the PS work force adjustments as well.  That's the situation we are in.  If an annuitant wants to cease serving because he has to choose one thing over the next, so be it.  Talent can be replaced.  it's going to suck for a while yes but eventually, if the job is that important they'll fill it.  Either with a reg force member or class b reservist willing to work full time.

And there will likely be exceptions that will be approved by higher authority if no other options exist.  Which is why the option to "double dip" is there in the first place.

 

[Remius]

Also triple dipping in that CF pension, Res F, and contract work all at the same time.

Except you are not paid by the government when working as contractor. (yes it is the same money)

 

[Pusser]

In the past, this suggestion has gone down the path of opponents arguing that (40% of a full salary) plus (40% of a full salary) is (80% of a full salary), and therefore everyone should jump-ship as soon as they become pensionable under a system that does not allow double dipping because individuals will have a higher retirement income by getting out in time to earn that second pension somewhere else.  This logic holds up if your career has peaked prior to becoming pensionable (in which case, maybe it wouldn’t hurt if you made room for someone else in the system).  However, most people continue to see the base salary grow (through promotions, pay increments, and annual cost of living increases) at the same time the percentage grows.  So, two minimum time-in-job pensions do not necessarily equal one “maxed” pension even if a linear addition of the minimum time-in-job percentages is slightly higher than the “maxed” percentage.

That's actually not allowed.  If you leave the CF at twenty years and then join the public service, you are only allowed to contribute for an additional 15 years (i.e. you can only receive a total of 35 years pension benefits from the federal government).  Since most people leaving the CF go into lower paying jobs in the public service, their PSSA pension is usually worth less than their CFSA pension would have been, had they stayed in the CF for 35 years.  In short, 20 years CFSA, plus 15 years PSSA is usually worth quite a bit less than 35 years CFSA.  The saving grace; however, is that while you are working in the PS, you can still draw your CFSA benefits and if you're smart and invest it wisely, can be considerably better off in the end.  BUT, you need to be on the ball to do that.

 

[McG]

That's actually not allowed.  If you leave the CF at twenty years and then join the public service, you are only allowed to contribute for an additional 15 years (i.e. you can only receive a total of 35 years pension benefits from the federal government).  Since most people leaving the CF go into lower paying jobs in the public service, their PSSA pension is usually worth less than their CFSA pension would have been, had they stayed in the CF for 35 years.  In short, 20 years CFSA, plus 15 years PSSA is usually worth quite a bit less than 35 years CFSA.  The saving grace; however, is that while you are working in the PS, you can still draw your CFSA benefits and if you're smart and invest it wisely, can be considerably better off in the end.  BUT, you need to be on the ball to do that.

It is allowed if the other pension is not federal government, and that is what others argued - to bail at the earliest opportunity and get that other pension anywhere else ... though some suggested going the CFSA + PSSA route that you described, and (as you also pointed out) that is even more likely to lead to lower pension that sticking in the CF.

... of course, if we had a unified pension the annuity would be percentage times the best 5 years between across both civilian and military time.  That would be a good thing for retention.

 

[Stoker]

The Naval Reserves has annuitants, although not as many as the army or air force reserves. It has been policy (unofficial) that if we have a qualified reservist to go into the billet, then the non annuitant should be employed over the annuitant.  We have brought guys in with the understanding that after their initial employment is up, not to expect a extension. Do you guys agree with that policy?

 

[armyvern]

It is allowed if the other pension is not federal government, and that is what others argued - to bail at the earliest opportunity and get that other pension anywhere else ... though some suggested going the CFSA + PSSA route that you described, and (as you also pointed out) that is even more likely to lead to lower pension that sticking in the CF.
...

Yes, but the equation is still failing to consider that, even with only 15 years at the PS, that slightly lower pension (at 35 years) does not consider the 15 years of full time pay PS pay one would be receiving while collecting that 20 year pension (double-dipping) in such a manner. We did previously figure out the age where that would be "negated" and it was in the late 80 y.o. range IIRC. Most retired CF mbrs don't make it that long.

 

[George Wallace]

As well there are instances of triple dipping.. CF pension, Class B pay then EI for the 35 day break.  The CF is really pushing the envelope.

That statement is completely WRONG.  There is NO triple dipping.  The Annuitant may be collecting a pension and Class B pay, but will never collect all three.  The rules for collecting EI are very clear.  The Annuitant, like any other citizen, can collect EI when they are unemployed.  Whether or not they are collecting a pension is a moot point.  Being unemployed is the only criteria.

There are former CF members collecting a pension and working for the various levels of government as well. 

Is it going to cause some hardship.  Yep.  So are all the other reserve class b cuts and the PS work force adjustments as well.  That's the situation we are in.  If an annuitant wants to cease serving because he has to choose one thing over the next, so be it.  Talent can be replaced.  it's going to suck for a while yes but eventually, if the job is that important they'll fill it.  Either with a reg force member or class b reservist willing to work full time.

And there will likely be exceptions that will be approved by higher authority if no other options exist.  Which is why the option to "double dip" is there in the first place.

Problem with this is that you now create another problem that we see; the Full-time Reservist.  There are many cases now of Full-time Reservists who have never served as Regular Force.  Their experience is not the same as that gained by an Annuitant.  A recent action taken was to lay them off and offer them Component Transfers.  These are the 'kids' who really need to CT and get on with their lives. 

Personnally, I see the Annuitant as being a more useful solution than any ideas of doing away with them.  These are former Service Members with a wealth of knowledge and experience, who are, for the most part, near the end of their "military shelf life" but still are dedicated to serve and mentor until CRA.......which may become 70 some day soon  ;D.  Many are still deployable.  They have "Retired" from the Reg Force, allowing for younger blood to maintain the rank and file, and become Reservists in turn where the demands and commitment may not be as great, but they can still contribute.  Priceless.

I am sure that they could just as easily collect their pensions and become Commissionaires, or work at Tim Horton's or Home Depot, but that may not be their style.  Would you like some fries with that? 

 

[George Wallace]

The Naval Reserves has annuitants, although not as many as the army or air force reserves. It has been policy (unofficial) that if we have a qualified reservist to go into the billet, then the non annuitant should be employed over the annuitant.  We have brought guys in with the understanding that after their initial employment is up, not to expect a extension. Do you guys agree with that policy?

There are laws against "discrimination".  If you can not prove that the hiring of a person was solely based on merit, you would be facing serious legal charges under the Charter of Human Rights by hiring a Non-Annuitant over an Annuitant.

The other point, I already covered, is that you are creating another problem with a "Full-time" Reservist who will be earning less than a Regular Force member, and may stay in that position for a period up to ......let's say thirty years.  Would that be a case of "welfare" in the eyes of some?

There is a requirement in some Reserve units for full-time staff, other than the Reg Force Support Staff, to ensure the units daily operations running properly.  It really shouldn't matter if that person is a High School kid or a retired CF member.  Whoever is best qualified for the job should be the one hired.  Just remember, the "High School kid" will also have to be encouraged to make something of himself and "move on", not becoming a 'long term fixture' in the Armoury/Stone Frigate/Hangar.

 

[armyvern]

Except you are not paid by the government when working as contractor. (yes it is the same money)

Rest assured there are some freelancers out there as contractors or consultants.

 

[captloadie]

To ensure I'm understanding this correctly, are the proposed rumored changes going to likely apply only to contracts greater than a year?

If so, will this not just result in units limiting all Class B/C contracts to 365 days, and running new competitions every year? In those cases (which seem to be quite common reading this thread) where only a handful of individuals (read annuitants) have the required skills, the same members would apply year after year? The downside is there is no job security (which I thought was supposed to be the case anyway), and a lot more staff work required.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought that the Reserve Force was never meant to be a full time job for anyone.

 

[Stoker]

Problem with this is that you now create another problem that we see; the Full-time Reservist.  There are many cases now of Full-time Reservists who have never served as Regular Force.  Their experience is not the same as that gained by an Annuitant.  A recent action taken was to lay them off and offer them Component Transfers.  These are the 'kids' who really need to CT and get on with their lives. 

Personnally, I see the Annuitant as being a more useful solution than any ideas of doing away with them.  These are former Service Members with a wealth of knowledge and experience, who are, for the most part, near the end of their "military shelf life" but still are dedicated to serve and mentor until CRA.......which may become 70 some day soon  ;D.  Many are still deployable.  They have "Retired" from the Reg Force, allowing for younger blood to maintain the rank and file, and become Reservists in turn where the demands and commitment may not be as great, but they can still contribute.  Priceless.

I am sure that they could just as easily collect their pensions and become Commissionaires, or work at Tim Horton's or Home Depot, but that may not be their style.  Would you like some fries with that?

George, I agree that there are lots of reservists that have been fulltime for various reasons for many years, their experience compared to a regular force member is deffinitely different however in most cases not in a negative way.
I agree that if a young mbr is starting out in the reserves and likes the military than they should transfer to the regs and get the stability they deserve and not be trapped in a situation a lot of use are finding ourselves in.
There is obviously a need for annuitants they bring valuable experience to the table, but if it came down to two guys, one with a pension and one without, same quals. I would rather see the guy with no pension employed over the guy with one.

 

[Stoker]

There are laws against "discrimination".  If you can not prove that the hiring of a person was solely based on merit, you would be facing serious legal charges under the Charter of Human Rights by hiring a Non-Annuitant over an Annuitant.

The other point, I already covered, is that you are creating another problem with a "Full-time" Reservist who will be earning less than a Regular Force member, and may stay in that position for a period up to ......let's say thirty years.  Would that be a case of "welfare" in the eyes of some?

There is a requirement in some Reserve units for full-time staff, other than the Reg Force Support Staff, to ensure the units daily operations running properly.  It really shouldn't matter if that person is a High School kid or a retired CF member.  Whoever is best qualified for the job should be the one hired.  Just remember, the "High School kid" will also have to be encouraged to make something of himself and "move on", not becoming a 'long term fixture' in the Armoury/Stone Frigate/Hangar.

George, you are very correct where if proven there was some "discrimination" the job could be grieved and I have seen it happen a couple of times. Most annuitants in our element will not take jobs because it involves postings to Ottawa or Quebec, West Coast etc. In a lot of cases that's why they retired in the first place. I would like to think the most qualified person gets the position everytime, but that's not obviously the case i'm afraid and i'm sure it happens in other elements as well.

 

[Remius]

Rest assured there are some freelancers out there as contractors or consultants.

And they are considered as "self-employed".  Several form their own companies for tax purposes even though they are just one person.