Gizmo 421 said:
I am currently one of those evil "Double Dippers" (I really dislike that term). I am not sure what the problem is with being an annuitant and filling a Cl B position lies. Regardless if it is myself or someone else the wage will still need to be paid in order to have the job done.
Exactly.
To recap, iiirc, the primary arguments are against the following:
1) Somebody regforce walking out the door one day, walking back into the same (non-reserve unit) job the next day as a full-time reservist.
2) The class B grass being greener than the regforce grass, encouraging folks to release and take a class B contract; the corollary being that to cut the ability of an annuitant to draw their pension while in class B is to either stop releases from reg force or force folks to CT back to reg force.
3) Someone with a career in uniform behind them, being paid as an experienced uniformed member while still drawing a pension for their experience in uniform.
4) A federal employee drawing a federal pension, regardless of what department they worked for in the past and which one's employing them now.
5) Necessary jobs, mandated to be regforce, being permanently filled by full-time reservists because their priority is so low that they are never filled by regforce.
For 1), there's something sick with the establishment beyond double-dipping. Eliminating it might attrition the reservists who are employed in those permanent positions at reg force units, but why are reservists being employed in those situations in the first place?
For 2), they've earned their pension already. If they go to the public service, under hiring preferences, they're still going to get their pension. Or if they find a job in the private sector that wants their skills, they'll go there. You're unlikely to get a married warrant in his 40's or 50's to from a comfortable reserve Ops WO post back into the regular posting cycle. Jobs they can take while drawing their pension are out there, without the hassle of regforce obligations.
For a philosophical answer to 3), I refer to Gizmo's post. He's still getting paid the pension no matter where he gets his income. As per 1), his unit is sick and eliminating the members' ability to draw pensions at best replaces those experienced personnel with "experienced" class A reservists. It doesn't restructure the organization to get regforce personnel other than by having the unit collapse because of its inability to fulfill its mission.
In the case of a reserve unit's RSS positions, you're getting an experienced cadre to support a unit, without which you're again getting replacements that are currently class A personnel.
4) The regular force, RCMP, and public service are three separate government employers. Consolidating the pensions of the three cuts out much of the benefit of one beginning a second career with another. Who does it help to make that change?
If a reg force MP goes to the Edmonton Police service and keeps his pension, rather than the RCMP and draw nothing, who's benefiting? He's just going to grab a second pension at EPS instead.
Paying out a pension that's already been earned by the member doesn't come out of the operating budget of the CF, or, to my knowledge, any of the three mentioned employers.
5) There's a place for class B. I don't see a problem with a turnover of reserve augmentees at a training centre; drivers, lower skill support positions, and demo tp. But if there's a permanent, skilled position, with someone occupying a supervisory role that can't be filled by regforce due to it being a low priority, its an indication that something's wrong with how that job's priority is being handled.
