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

[Remius]

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

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

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

My understanding is that it will apply to contracts greater than 364.

 

[George Wallace]

To be honest, the CF, like every other Government Dept is full of inefficiencies.  This is but another one of those proposals that is raising concerns rightly or wrongly among members.  It is systemic in our bureaucracy (all Gov't Depts).  The horror stories one may be privy to are so numerous and unbelievable, it is a wonder this country has survived this long.....We do have another topic that ponders these very questions, so I won't expand on this any further.

 

[McG]

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

And when we start treating those contractors like employees (as many unfortunately do), it forms an employer-employee relationship and is in violation of contracting rules.

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

My understanding is that it will apply to contracts greater than 364.

If anyone is actually privy to the details of some pending new change in policy, they should not be leaking those here prior to the publication of the CANFORGEN.

 

[Remius]

George:  You are in fact correct. An annuitant can claim EI.  But the way the system is set up, it not only enables it it also encourages it.

I would argue that in this day and age that there are plenty of those fulltime reservists that have plenty of experience if not more than some reg force personel.  Many have multiple tours and have worked in various class bs.  And experience is relative to what you are actually doing.  For some jobs it doesn't matter if you have 30 years as a gunner.  For some it will.

I don't see how it creates the problem of the fulltime reservist.  The problem already exists.

The majority of class b annuitants are not working in reserve establishments so they are not bringing that much to the reserve world.  Most are working for reg force establishments.  And if most of those are not actually supporting the reserves then there is a problem.

How many people with 20 or 25 years have gotten out only to land a class B becasue they didn't want to get posted or tasked?  If the class B+pension option wasn't there how many would have continued to 30 or 35?  I can name a few that I personally know.    Of those that just want to wear the uniform and still contribute, if that is really their motivation then I can see that some will still contribute through class A or short term contracts.  Some won't.  But eventually that will be the norm.  And it isn't like some of these people will be given their 30 days because they are annuitants.  They just won't be able to collect their pensions and will be contributing back into the plan.  The job and the ability to keep contributing is still there.  If they choose to leave then that is their choice.  And there will be the few I think that opt to go back into the regular force.

 

[George Wallace]

George:  You are in fact correct. An annuitant can claim EI.  But the way the system is set up, it not only enables it it also encourages it.

Are you arguing that an Annuitant should not be treated like any other Canadian citizen and not entitled to EI?  On retirement from the CF, the Annuitant was not allowed to collect EI like every other citizen until a period of time had passed.  Now you don't feel that being an unemployed Reservist, the Annuitant should not be entitled to EI?

I would argue that in this day and age that there are plenty of those fulltime reservists that have plenty of experience if not more than some reg force personel.  Many have multiple tours and have worked in various class bs.  And experience is relative to what you are actually doing. 

In some sense this is true.  I have seen many cases where Reservists have had more Tour experience than Regs.  This, however, does not equate to the corporate knowledge that the Reg may have acquired over their career.  There are many things about the way things are done, the administration required, procedures followed, etc. that these Reservists with Tours have no knowledge or experience with. 

The majority of class b annuitants are not working in reserve establishments so they are not bringing that much to the reserve world.  Most are working for reg force establishments.  And if most of those are not actually supporting the reserves then there is a problem.

A fair number of them are filling positions in CBG HQs and contributing quite a bit to the operation of Bde and Area training and daily routines.

How many people with 20 or 25 years have gotten out only to land a class B becasue they didn't want to get posted or tasked?  If the class B+pension option wasn't there how many would have continued to 30 or 35?  I can name a few that I personally know.    Of those that just want to wear the uniform and still contribute, if that is really their motivation then I can see that some will still contribute through class A or short term contracts.  Some won't.  But eventually that will be the norm. 

Is this a bad thing?  Someone with 20 or 25 years of dedicated service, nearing their "Best Before" date, who wants to remain in the CF in some capacity but not deployed on a moments notice, setting up their final retirement residence, is not an evil ogre.

And it isn't like some of these people will be given their 30 days because they are annuitants.

Being an Annuitant does not exempt them from being given 30 days notice of termination of their MOU/SOU.  They can be laid off like any other pers.

They just won't be able to collect their pensions and will be contributing back into the plan.  The job and the ability to keep contributing is still there.  If they choose to leave then that is their choice.  And there will be the few I think that opt to go back into the regular force.

Class A/B, Class B and Class C employment is not a guarantee, so an Annuitant would have lost a pension and is taking a gamble on full-time employment being avail until they reach CRA.  This is not a good incentive.  Yes, some have already gone back to the Reg Force.  Some, however, have found it impossible to buy back their pensionable time.  This isn't much of a good news story for them.

 

[dapaterson]

The size of this population is under 5% of the Reserve Force.  Yet issues pertaining them occupy a disproportionate amount of staff time.  (Indeed, as a rule, issues that impact class A soldiers get short shrift because we're always obsessing about full-time reservists, annuitants or not).

The numbers I saw  (admittedly 3-4 years ago) suggested that at majority of annuitants were not employed at the unit or CBG level; rather, most were employed in various higher HQs and Reg F units.


Right now, every CF member contributing to pension plans is paying more because of the folks who are drawing while serving.  Should a Pte in Wainwright be paying more on their CFSA contributions because a LCol in Ottawa doesn't want to get posted, but equally doesn't want to take off the uniform?


(Edit to fix multiple typos that preceded my first coffee of the day)

 

[Pusser]

Are you arguing that an Annuitant should not be treated like any other Canadian citizen and not entitled to EI?  On retirement from the CF, the Annuitant was not allowed to collect EI like every other citizen until a period of time had passed.  Now you don't feel that being an unemployed Reservist, the Annuitant should not be entitled to EI?

This is a common misconception.  CF members are not prohibited from collecting EI upon leaving the CF and in fact are treated the same as any other person legally employed in Canada (you don't have to be a citizen to collect EI) and entitled to EI benefits.  The reason most CF members cannot collect EI upon release is because any EI benefits available are reduced by any severance package received (this applies to everyone, not just CF members).  Since our severance package normally exceeds what is available under EI, no EI benefits are generally paid.  The end result is the same, but the argument that we are treated differently than anyone else and are, therefore somehow being mistreated, simply isn't true.

In some sense this is true.  I have seen many cases where Reservists have had more Tour experience than Regs.  This, however, does not equate to the corporate knowledge that the Reg may have acquired over their career.  There are many things about the way things are done, the administration required, procedures followed, etc. that these Reservists with Tours have no knowledge or experience with. 

Excellent point.  There is more to "experience" than the pointy end.

 

[armyvern]

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

Yes they are, but they are still getting paid 3 times by the same employer (pension, ResF pay, contracting pay). So, is it right or proper?

Funny how some are willing to excuse or gloss over some "technicalities", but not other ones (ie: the fact that CF Reg F and Res F service are two totally different things with totally different expectations and liabilities) ... depending upon which side of the fence they're sitting on in this debate.

:

That kills me.

 

[Jed]

Yes they are, but they are still getting paid 3 times by the same employer (pension, ResF pay, contracting pay). So, is it right or proper?

Funny how some are willing to excuse or gloss over some "technicalities", but not other ones (ie: the fact that CF Reg F and Res F service are two totally different things with totally different expectations and liabilities) ... depending upon which side of the fence they're sitting on in this debate.

:

That kills me.

I guess this would be the Jealousy that was mentioned in an earlier post.

Nobody ever said the Double Dip situation was fair and equitable. It is just an expedient system that works to employ needed people for the task at hand.

 

[armyvern]

I guess this would be the Jealousy that was mentioned in an earlier post.

Nobody ever said the Double Dip situation was fair and equitable. It is just an expedient system that works to employ needed people for the task at hand.

Jealousy?? LMAO.

I am certainly not a double dipper. I actually do not agree with it (or with the triple-dipping). I think it ALL stinks to high-heaven. If the argument is that the same employer shouldn't be paying a pension and a paycheque  ... then that should be applicable to each and every case whereby the feds are doing this. To me, anything less is hypocritical.

BUT, I'm also willing to acknowledge that ResF and RegF service are two totally different beasts even though they have the same employer. I'm also willing to acknowledge that the exact same holds true for anyone collecting a federal pension from a plan due to their employment in a federal entity who then go on to collect another federal pay cheque somewhere else. It's still shit, just a different pile. They are all, at the end of the day, still being paid a pension and then a Canadian taxpayer funded paycheque.

I also realize, that sometimes, double-dipping is a necessary evil. Myself being a Sup tech, know that ResF sup techs are not qualified to the same level as RegF sup techs, do not have the same access or abilities within the system and thus will lose a competition to an Annuitant when it comes to a competetion. I am also fully aware of the fact, especially at locations that support training (Pri 6 on the CF's priority list for filling), that B Class contracts are 200% necessary to fill those undermanned positions so that the whole of our training system does not collapse and fail. Period. In my trade, access is restricted precisely because they don't have months to spend on the courses required, they do not gain the experience required of the system and policies through diversified employment in the multitude of sections and ...

If they change one single flag in CFSS to the wrong setting, they can screw up the stock number in question for each and every supply customer out there. You can't just pull dude in off the street in our world.

There's a whole lot wrong with the CF - perhaps their priorities should get into the right place. I know that in the supply world, this decision will have implications in a great many areas where ResF sup techs (vice annuitants) are rare and if they do exist, simply do not have the corporate or logistical knowledge required to be employed where what they do WILL affect others, and exercises, and budgets, and ops and etc etc etc.

I'll leave this thread now and leave it to the forgetful utopians.

Jealous? Absolutely not.

 

[Jed]

Jealousy?? LMAO.

There's a whole lot wrong with the CF - perhaps their priorities should get into the right place. I know that in the supply world, this decision will have implications in a great many areas where ResF sup techs (vice annuitants) are rare and if they do exist, simply do not have the corporate or logistical knowledge required to be employed where what they do WILL affect others, and exercises, and budgets, and ops and etc etc etc.

I'll leave this thread now and leave it to the forgetful utopians.

Roger, that. ArmyVern. As I have said in a previous post, I have no dog in this fight. I feel for those who will have to carry  on with the daily business and do so without experienced personnel that the inefficient double dip system helps to carry on.
Jealous? Absolutely not.

 

[Remius]

Yes they are, but they are still getting paid 3 times by the same employer (pension, ResF pay, contracting pay). So, is it right or proper?

Funny how some are willing to excuse or gloss over some "technicalities", but not other ones (ie: the fact that CF Reg F and Res F service are two totally different things with totally different expectations and liabilities) ... depending upon which side of the fence they're sitting on in this debate.

:

That kills me.

It isn'ta  technicality.  Contractors are not employees of the government.  No more so than a mercenary hired by a government is.  It is a contract in exchange for services.  Contractors are either self employed or employed by whatever staffing company owns them.  They don't get vacation pay, no benefits etc etc. 

Does someone who works for say Bombardier or GM who is receiving their paycheque because those companies are receiving money from the feds mean that they have the same employer as you?  No.

 

[Pusser]

I don't like the term "double-dipping" as it is often applied to annuitants in Reserve billets.  To me, "double-dipping" is being paid twice for doing the same job.  This is not exactly what an annuitant is doing as in a Reserve capacity.  Instead, an annuitant is drawing a pension, for which they have completed the appropriate terms of service and which they have earned and paid for.  Then, they have also been hired, under different terms of service, to do a new job.  They are not double dipping in the classic (and negative) sense.

This is not an ideal situation, but unfortunately,  it has become the CF's virulent crack habit.  It started with FRP (hard to believe that that started almost 20 years ago), where we decimated the ranks and created a huge experience and qualification void.  I have no issue with Reservists filling Regular Force billets for the short term and recognize that it's a useful and effective management tool.  But to plan your succession based on continuously filling full-time billets with Reservists (annuitants or otherwise) for years and years on end is scandalous.  If a job needs to be filled full time, then it should be filled with a Regular Force person.  The focus of the Reserve should be the Reserve units and even those full-time Reserve responsibilities (e.g. MCDVs) should be filled with folks who do a tour and then return to Class A for awhile.  No one should be able to make a full-time career of the Reserve.  It's not doing the individual or the CF any favours.

 

[dapaterson]

This is not an ideal situation, but unfortunately,  it has become the CF's virulent crack habit.

Were you ever an Armoured LCol?  That's exactly the term a former boss used to describe the class B employment situation nearly a decade ago - and it's only gotten worse since then.

It started with FRP (hard to believe that that started almost 20 years ago), where we decimated the ranks and created a huge experience and qualification void.  I have no issue with Reservists filling Regular Force billets for the short term and recognize that it's a useful and effective management tool.  But to plan your succession based on continuously filling full-time billets with Reservists (annuitants or otherwise) for years and years on end is scandalous.  If a job needs to be filled full time, then it should be filled with a Regular Force person.  The focus of the Reserve should be the Reserve units and even those full-time Reserve responsibilities (e.g. MCDVs) should be filled with folks who do a tour and then return to Class A for awhile.  No one should be able to make a full-time career of the Reserve.  It's not doing the individual or the CF any favours.

Preach it, brother!  Coupled with devolutions that let anyone and their dog with a valid fin code hire full-time Reservists, and we've got the mess we're in today.

(For the record: I am one of the "problem children" who spent over a decade on full-time Reserve service before moving to the Public Service and returning to class A service - so I am enrolled in part I of the CFSA and the PSSA simultaneously)

 

[McG]

The majority of class b annuitants are not working in reserve establishments so they are not bringing that much to the reserve world.  Most are working for reg force establishments.  And if most of those are not actually supporting the reserves then there is a problem.

The numbers I saw  (admittedly 3-4 years ago) suggested that at majority of annuitants were not employed at the unit or CBG level; rather, most were employed in various higher HQs and Reg F units.

Exactly, far too many double-dippers are riding a gravy train – pretending to still live the Reg F life (without any positive return to the PRes) while avoiding the inconveniences of postings and deployments.

Is this a bad thing?  Someone with 20 or 25 years of dedicated service, nearing their "Best Before" date, who wants to remain in the CF in some capacity but not deployed on a moments notice, setting up their final retirement residence, is not an evil ogre.

Nobody has accused Class B annuitants of being “evil orgres” – it is not the annuitants who are the problem.  The problem is the system which allows double-dipping to be possible.  The “bad thing” is that the system is offering financial incentive (the double-dip) and quality of life benefits (no more postings, and no involuntary deployments) that encourage members to leave the Reg F in order to (more often than not) continue doing Reg F work in a Reg F establishment with lesser obligation and utility to the organization as a whole. The other “bad thing” is nicely expressed by dapaterson here:

Right now, every CF member contributing to pension plans is paying more because of the folks who are drawing while serving.  Should a Pte in Wainwright be paying more on their CFSA contributions because a LCol in Ottawa doesn't want to get posted, but equally doesn't want to take off the uniform?

It is also a “bad thing” when annuitants start filling PRes positions that should be taken by someone who can speak with knowledge and experience of the reserve force:

Problem with this is that you now create another problem that we see; the Full-time Reservist.  There are many cases now of Full-time Reservists who have never served as Regular Force.  Their experience is not the same as that gained by an Annuitant.  ...

Personnally, I see the Annuitant as being a more useful solution than any ideas of doing away with them.  These are former Service Members with a wealth of knowledge and experience,...

George, the annuitant provides significant value to the PRes when employed in the PRes.  While you describe “the full-time reservist” as a problem because such pers lack the Reg F experience of an annuitant, you are forgetting that the “full time reservist” brings a knowledge and understanding of the PRes that is not had by an annuitant directly transferred from the Reg F.

We need mechanisms that guide retired Reg F into PRes units, PRes HQs, and PRes sp posns so that the reserves gain from this experience.  The current double-dip does not achieve this as the annuitants are staying in Reg F roles or organizations.  We also need mechanisms that guide “the full-time reservist” into those higher HQs where they can actually provide reserve input into decisions. The current double-dip does not achieve this as the annuitants are filling-up such positions and providing another Reg F opinion on a Cl B paycheck.



As geographic stability provides a functional retention method, then I have no problem with the idea of offering a geographic accommodation to Reg F members with 25 years service or more.  Such members could apply to D Mil C through their CoC – if MOS/rank manning levels are conducive and the CM can support, then the mbr’s pay will be reduced to 85% and the mbr continues to serve without risk of posting from the geographic location.  Through the period of geographic retention, the mbr is still ranked and merit boards (though there may be a penalty applied to the score) and can still be promoted provided there is a posn of the right rank in the geographic area.  Geographic accommodations would be renewable on three year cycles and may not necessarily be renewed if conditions within the occupation no longer support such an arrangement.

I also support the idea of pay top-up for eligible annuitants on Class A and Class B reserve service within reserve establishments.  If we take Pusser’s suggestion and ensured Class B reservists in Reg F establishments always returned to PRes establishments after their tour, then I’d even support pay top-up for annuitants on Class A and Class B reserve service anywhere within the CF.

I have no issue with Reservists filling Regular Force billets for the short term and recognize that it's a useful and effective management tool.  But to plan your succession based on continuously filling full-time billets with Reservists (annuitants or otherwise) for years and years on end is scandalous.  If a job needs to be filled full time, then it should be filled with a Regular Force person.  The focus of the Reserve should be the Reserve units and even those full-time Reserve responsibilities (e.g. MCDVs) should be filled with folks who do a tour and then return to Class A for awhile.  No one should be able to make a full-time career of the Reserve.  It's not doing the individual or the CF any favours.

:goodpost:

For the record: I am one of the "problem children" who spent over a decade on full-time Reserve service before moving to the Public Service and returning to class A service - so I am enrolled in part I of the CFSA and the PSSA simultaneously.

You might be the poster child for the value of a consolidated federal employment pension programme. 

 

[Remius]

For the record I have nothing against annuitants or full time class b folks.  However it is a systematic problem created by DND/CF.  These temporary positions have become pseudo permanent and no real solution has been put forward to properly staff these positions.

The way i see it if you are on long term class B it should be in support of reserve establishments be they CBGs or unit full time staff.

If you augment or fill a spot in a reg force establishment it should be a short term contract and that organisation take the time to properly staff it with reg force personnel.  Those contracts should be class C.

Of course exceptions will arise and should be made.

But employing annuitants and full time reservists for long term contracts should not be the default setting or the norm.

 

[George Wallace]

MCG

The points I am arguing are not for the Class B Annuitant filling a Reg Force position in a Reg Force unit, but for the Annuitant who is active in the Reserve unit or Reserve HQ, be it a CBG or Area. 

I, too, see no reason to have created a "Backfill" posn for a Reservist to replace a Reg Force person for any reason. 

Unfortunately, what I have seen at my level (More the 'Tactical' than the 'Strategic') under the previous CLS, is a cut to the Class B posns in the Reserve units and the effects that they have had on the daily operations of those units and Reg Force Support Staff.  Cycling Class A pers with little knowledge of how the system works through the daily tasks of running a unit is horribly inefficient, often counter productive. 

 

[Remius]

George, I was a "victim" of those cuts so I know what you are saying.  It was done with very little thought and was more like chopping off limbs to prevent infection rather than going after the infection.  The impact was felt and is still felt at various units and CBGs. 

I think in a lot of cases, the wrong class bs were cut.  In fact most were reservists supporting reserve operations.

But those annuitants in those reserve positions are going to have to make a choice.  Given the amount of class bs being cut at all levels there will be no shortage of qualified people to fill those jobs should an annuitant feel it isn't worth his/her while.

And no, none of this is going to be easy on anyone.

 

[Stoker]

This is not an ideal situation, but unfortunately,  it has become the CF's virulent crack habit.  It started with FRP (hard to believe that that started almost 20 years ago), where we decimated the ranks and created a huge experience and qualification void.  I have no issue with Reservists filling Regular Force billets for the short term and recognize that it's a useful and effective management tool.  But to plan your succession based on continuously filling full-time billets with Reservists (annuitants or otherwise) for years and years on end is scandalous.  If a job needs to be filled full time, then it should be filled with a Regular Force person.  The focus of the Reserve should be the Reserve units and even those full-time Reserve responsibilities (e.g. MCDVs) should be filled with folks who do a tour and then return to Class A for awhile.  No one should be able to make a full-time career of the Reserve.  It's not doing the individual or the CF any favours.

Pusser I do agree with most of your comments. In regards to the MCDV's the original concept was much like you described, however the personnel simply didn't materialize to keep rotating personnel from the unit, to the ship and back. Most people are not going to take a three year contract and go back to the unit.
Unfortunately I, like a lot of people ended up staying, and next thing you know its been 17 years full time class B/C. I know that's not was intended but here we are and you're right it didn't do us any favors.
Hopefully I'm gambling I can get the next six years full time so I can get my 25. Mostly likely I will however its always in the back of my mind.

 

[dapaterson]

McG touched on an underlying question:  Do we need more "variable" TOS in the Reg F - not in terms of length of service, but in terms of geographic stability?  What trade-offs could be made to maintain effectiveness but provide pers with less disruption in their lives?


And Chief Stoker:  The NavRes problem, to my mind, was that they lacked the size to implement the original plan.  If all MCDVs were fully crewed that would require roughly 10% of the NavRes at sea at any one time.  A much larger NavRes would likely be able to sustain the "mostly short term" model - my back of the envelope calculation would be a regularly parading trained strength of about 6K (so 7K with the BTL) - roughly double what we have now.