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

[Brasidas]

Next question is:  Has the Reserve Pension been sorted out?  I am sure an Annuitant would just love to lose their pension and enter into one that has yet to be put into effect effectively.  (Brought to you by the Dept of Redundant Redundancies.)

Two answers: No it's not sorted out. It's sorted out for me because I said screw it, I'm not going to bother with four and a half of my years' service, and I've just been paying from where they made me start paying in. They're still sorting out the garbage bin full of elections for the guys who bought in.

My understanding for annuitants is that they will never be a part of part I.1, they remain in part I forever. Ditto reservists who've had 55 months full-time service in a 60 month period.

 

[Pusser]

Sorry to burst your bubble, but there are instances where a Class B Reservist is told to go somewhere and they must or give up the job.......Of course it is not to the same extent as the Reg Force member, but it is still in their SOU.......A Reg Force member has the same option,  "I don't want to do that -- I want a Release".  If you don't want a Posting/Tour; you too can Release.

Not quite true, a regular force member can have his/her release denied if the exigencies of the service require it.  In short, releasing in order to avoid an unwanted assignment or tasking is not necessarily possible (notwithstanding that we all know of folks who have done it or threatened to do it).  The following comes from the QR&O:

15.02 - RELEASE AS OF RIGHT

(1) Subsections 30(1) and (3) of the National Defence Act provide:

"30. (1) Except during an emergency, an officer or non-commissioned member who is not on active service is entitled to be released at the expiration of the term of service for which the officer or non-commissioned member is enrolled or re-engaged.

(3) Where the term of service for which an officer or non-commissioned member is enrolled or re-engaged expires during an emergency or when the officer or non-commissioned member is on active service or within one year after the expiration of an emergency or after he has ceased to be on active service, the officer or non-commissioned member is liable to serve until the expiration of one year after the emergency has ceased to exist or after he has ceased to be on active service, as the case may be."

(2) Unless the Chief of the Defence Staff otherwise directs, any period of absence without leave, or desertion, shall not be reckoned towards the completion of the period of service for which an officer or non-commissioned member was enrolled or re-engaged.

(3) Subject to paragraph (1), no officer or non-commissioned member may claim his release as of right except:

an officer not on active service by reason of an emergency
whose service entitles him to an immediate annuity under the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act,

under Item 4(c) (On Request - Other Causes) of the table to article 15.01 (Release of Officers and Non-commissioned Members) if he is an officer cadet who requests his voluntary release where he will otherwise be reverted to the rank from which he was promoted to officer cadet, or
who has completed his fixed period of service; or

a non-commissioned member not on active service by reason of an emergency
whose service entitles him to an immediate annuity under the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act, or
who has completed his fixed period of service.


15.18 - VOLUNTARY RELEASE - OFFICERS

(1) Every application by an officer for release under Item 4 (Voluntary) of the table to article 15.01 (Release of Officers and Non-commissioned Members) shall be made in writing through the commanding officer who shall add his recommendations when forwarding the application to National Defence Headquarters.

(2) Where a commanding officer recommends a voluntary release, he shall certify that his recommendation is not made for the purpose of allowing the applicant to avoid the consequences of his inefficiency, unsuitability or misconduct.

15.33 - RELEASE ON REQUEST - NON-COMMISSIONED MEMBERS

The release of a non-commissioned member under Item 4(c) (Voluntary - On Request - Other Causes) of the table to article 15.01 (Release of Officers and Non-commissioned Members) shall not be approved unless:

the applicant has good and substantial reasons for seeking his release and the exigencies of the service permit; and
the applicant is not on active service by reason of an emergency.

 

[Remius]

That is not a CF Reg Force, nor a Reserve problem, but one that has been created by YOUR UNIT.  With all the Class B cuts in the last two years, my unit has never made a person do any Class A and not get paid.  It is illegal.  If anyone in my unit has to come in to perform a duty, they are paid for it.  If instructors have to prepare lessons, they are paid for it.  If someone has an appointment to get an ID Card or be issued kit, they are paid for it.  This is a problem created by your unit and should be brought forward to your leadership.

Technically any work someone does should be paid for.  The unit does not force anyone to do anything without getting class a.  But every single e-mail I get asking for course nominations, fan outs and other admin is more about what I'm talking about.  Staff get a half day's pay a month for that but it that barely covers the real time spent doing it.  This isn't just one or two units issue.  I assure you this is happening at most large reserve units.  My point is that it is the dedicated individual doing pro-bono work out of some sense of duty that is at fault.  If the work keeps getting done then the issues and problems don't get fixed even though tasks and missions get completed.  I've only recently started telling the CoC to get the full time staff to conduct fan outs themselves for last minute crap.  I don't have the time to do it on someone elses time.  If it can wait until I get home or on training and admin nights then no problem.  But if it is an urgent last minute thing or task and you know that it happens a lot, the full time staff should deal with it.  Most don't want to be bothered though.

 

[McG]

Agreed, The CF Plan is pretty darn good, it used to be better. Just the ongoing erosion of existing benefits.

This is inconsistent with your previous assertion that the pension plan was protected from erosion by being separate from the PS pension plan.

The solution is to make all "Full-time" Reserve employment at the same pay as Reg Force.  Full-time is Full-time.  The Charter of Human Rights and Ezra Levant may have some points on this being discrimination of two persons doing the same job for different pay.  Just a thought.

We could achieve that by making all permanent full time employment Reg F employment.  Then there would be no messy questions about training deltas, posting obligations, deployment obligations, compensation & benefits differences, etc, etc, etc.

I don't agree.  They are two different pension plans.

It has already been pointed out many times now - The "Class B pension" is the "Reg F pension."  They are not different pension plans.  This is a fact of the legislation.

It's being argued that it [Reg & Res service] is the "same" employment for anti-double dipping (pension), but also argued that it's "not the same" employment for purposes of pay - often by the same individuals.

I'm on the side that it's two distinct types of employment and requirements/hardships that go along with it - thus the differences in that pay. How come that's not applicable when it comes to pension as well? That is why I think the NDA et al also need to be looked at.

It is the same employer (the federal government) and the same pension plan (under the CFSA).  The obligations of service are different as are the JBS and QS - so elements of the employment, for which pay compensates, are different.

And, oh yeah. MCG, I still think your plan will have the opposite effect of retention
But then I recall saying something to that effect in a very simialr thread.

I think it was earlier in this same thread.  In the end, I think we are stuck arguing opinion on this point.  We've both got our observations but at best they amount to anecdotal.  I see the majority of double dippers as pers who were not ready to leave the CF but needed more stability - they went to the greener pastures of full-time Cl B to reap all they wanted plus more take home pay, and most would have gone there had the double-dip not existed as an option.  You see the majority of double dippers as (I think) guys who were leaving regardless in order to reap the benefits of the earned pension sooner - these guys only come back because they can work somewhere familiar while continuing to collect the compensation of the pension.  We both know that Cl B annuitants include people from both groups, and I suspect neither one of us will succeed in convincing the other that "my group" is the one of most predominance in the equation.

If the double-dip option is ceased without any sort of grandfather mechanism, then this absolutely will have the one-time effect of chasing away guys currently working Cl B as annuitants.  However, this may be inevitable.  The current way of doing business is not in-step with the legal framework that we must follow, and so we need to do a correction in the way we do business.  If we are going to do a correction that has the potential to see Cl B annuitants protesting with their feet, then the best time is when we are also attempting to reduce the number of full-time reservists.

Okay, I admit it MCG, your comment that I am a professional victim pissed me off.

...

MCG, your words are getting a little too ostentatious for a simpleton like myself to hoist aboard. I had no intention of digging into your cunning proposal on what to do about the situation, I merely expressed my opinion, unwelcome as it is.

Your opinion made very specific criticisms and accusations despite (by your own admission) your decision not to even look at the information on which you were commenting - in fact, all the accusations of things unconsidered are demonstrably untrue on examination of my "cunning proposal."  So lets be clear - your opinion (back in Reply #463) is not unwelcome because it is dissenting of my own, but it is irrelevant as you consciously published it from a position of ignorance.

Ostentatious?  Maybe, but at least I know you are right there with me ... of course, only one of us is so presumptuous as to think we can outline in detail the deficiencies of the other's opinion without even the need to inform our self of said opinion.  And I stand by my professional victim assessment - not as it relates to your situation in life, but as you present yourself in here.  Presenting yourself as the little guy with his " unwelcome opinion" is a farce when you get called for speaking from a position of (self-admitted) ignorance.

 

[Jed]

MCG, You just can't leave it alone, can you? Please stop with your disparagement for no good purpose. If you want, post me with who you are so I can put a face to the commentator.

 

[Haggis]

It is the same employer (the federal government) and the same pension plan (under the CFSA).  The obligations of service are different as are the JBS and QS - so elements of the employment, for which pay compensates, are different.

The NCMGS and OGS were written for the Total Force.  No differentiation.

 

[McG]

The NCMGS and OGS were written for the Total Force.  No differentiation.

There is differentiation when you get into the occupational documents.

 

[George Wallace]

I think it was earlier in this same thread.  In the end, I think we are stuck arguing opinion on this point.  We've both got our observations but at best they amount to anecdotal.  I see the majority of double dippers as pers who were not ready to leave the CF but needed more stability - they went to the greener pastures of full-time Cl B to reap all they wanted plus more take home pay, and most would have gone there had the double-dip not existed as an option.  You see the majority of double dippers as (I think) guys who were leaving regardless in order to reap the benefits of the earned pension sooner - these guys only come back because they can work somewhere familiar while continuing to collect the compensation of the pension.  We both know that Cl B annuitants include people from both groups, and I suspect neither one of us will succeed in convincing the other that "my group" is the one of most predominance in the equation.

If the double-dip option is ceased without any sort of grandfather mechanism, then this absolutely will have the one-time effect of chasing away guys currently working Cl B as annuitants.  However, this may be inevitable.  The current way of doing business is not in-step with the legal framework that we must follow, and so we need to do a correction in the way we do business.  If we are going to do a correction that has the potential to see Cl B annuitants protesting with their feet, then the best time is when we are also attempting to reduce the number of full-time reservists.

I think this nails some of the problems with this discussion.  Most here are arguing points from one observation point, not the whole.  In some cases points that are relevent to their location, but not others.  I am sure that were we all face to face in a group discussion, we would likely present our perspectives better.

As an Annuitant, I fall into one of the descriptions put forward above by MCG.  Before Release from the Reg Force, I was asked if I would take an "Extension" and do a Tour to Afghanistan.  At the time my wife, who just got into a good Civil Service job, was fine with me doing so as being a Reg Force member it was "my job".  I was good with it as well.  Ottawa, however, said "NO", as I was at the end of a five year CE.  Too bad, so sad.  I Released, moved to join my wife in a new city, selling my house in Pet and paying off the mortgage on the other house.  I found a Reserve unit in the new location, where my wife and I settled, and reenlisted and did a VOT.  It was a small unit, that was being told to quadruple in size and was in need of some full time Day Staff, as the one RSS officer was constantly away, and the Branch could not fill the WO posn.  Four of us filled the Class B posns along with one Reg Force Chief Clerk (a Cpl promoted MCpl (Acting Lacking) with no idea of how the Reserve systems worked) to keep the unit from becoming completely disfunctional.  The Reg Force CC was also in charge of the administration of two other small units, and for the most part spent more time away on Stress Leave than in the office.  If it had not been for an officer and Snr NCO with short Reg Force careers (not enough for a pension) and myself as an Annuitant along with another young Reservist filling the Day Staff posns, I don't see how our unit would have survived. 

That is the perspective I have been looking from.  I can look and see a "special" unit across the hall who have relied heavily on Full-time Annuitants to operate, as well as a Bde HQ down the hall who rely heavily on Class B (both Annuitants and not) and Class A to operate. 

 

[PPCLI Guy]

I had occasion last week to brief the 31 annuitants with whom I work, out of a Cl B population of 55,  I was - and for those of you who know me -  I know this a shocker -  brutally frank.  I just happen to have a fair idea of both the policy implications of the annuitant changes, as well as the overall impacts to the Army.

So what I told then is that no one is special,  Annuitants are retired dudes.  Every year, 7% of the CF retires.  You know what happens to the CF the day after those 7,000 people retire, every single year?






Nothing.  We crack on.  We train soldiers.  We kill motherfuckers that need killing.  We fix trucks.  We respond to floods.  We go to bad places, full of bad people.

Bottom line is that we survive a 100% turn over every 14 years.

Want to  get a full time salary?  Work full time.  Want to be retired?  Retire, and get a real job.

Out here.

 

[George Wallace]

Para 4. of the CDS letter states:

4.  It is important to note that this change only affects annuitants who choose to serve as Reservists on a full-time basis for longer terms.  This change in no way impacts Reserve Force members who serve on a part-time basis or those who serve for shorter, task-based full time employment of less than 365 days.

 

[Infanteer]

I had occasion last week to brief the 31 annuitants with whom I work, out of a Cl B population of 55,  I was - and for those of you who know me -  I know this a shocker -  brutally frank.  I just happen to have a fair idea of both the policy implications of the annuitant changes, as well as the overall impacts to the Army.

So what I told then is that no one is special,  Annuitants are retired dudes.  Every year, 7% of the CF retires.  You know what happens to the CF the day after those 7,000 people retire, every single year?






Nothing.  We crack on.  We train soldiers.  We kill motherfuckers that need killing.  We fix trucks.  We respond to floods.  We go to bad places, full of bad people.

Bottom line is that we survive a 100% turn over every 14 years.

Want to  get a full time salary?  Work full time.  Want to be retired?  Retire, and get a real job.

Out here.

 

[Remius]

Exactly.  So short term taskings and class a are unnaffected.

 

[George Wallace]

People still need courses, or perhaps to instruct courses, in the Reserves.  Those are Class B.  To hamstring an annuitant from taking career courses with penalty of loosing their pension would not make sense........opps what am I thinking.    Damn Bean Counters..... >

 

[aesop081]

People still need courses, or perhaps to instruct courses, in the Reserves. 

Good opportunity for "actual" reservists to step up and lead.

 

[dapaterson]

People still need courses, or perhaps to instruct courses, in the Reserves.  Those are Class B.  To hamstring an annuitant from taking career courses with penalty of loosing their pension would not make sense........opps what am I thinking.    Damn Bean Counters..... >

What courses are there that are over a year?  As that appears to be the rule that's being proposed.  No issue - folks can still progess.

 

[George Wallace]

What courses are there that are over a year?  As that appears to be the rule that's being proposed.  No issue - folks can still progess.

That is just the point.  Annuitants can still do short term Class B with no penalty.

 

[aesop081]

That is just the point.  Annuitants can still do short term Class B with no penalty.

Problem solved then. We can all stop panicking now.

 

[Infanteer]

To add, I work in a HQ that went from 17 Annuitants to 0.  We're still here.

 

[George Wallace]

Good opportunity for "actual" reservists to step up and lead.

They do when they can.  The problem with all Reservists, no matter what their background, is that they need lots of lead time when notification comes on Crses or Taskings.  They usually need more than a couple of days notice to arrange time off from their Civilian Jobs to do military training or taskings.  Some need six months or longer, lead time to arrange for time off from some government jobs.  Class B and Students usually don't have such problems during summer months.  Fall, Winter and Spring are periods that have serious issues when tasking Reservists in any capacity.  (OFF TOPIC) This lack of lead time in loading Reservists onto crses and taskings is an even geater issue that  the various Schools and higher Commands have not come to grips with (and has been covered before in other topics).

 

[mariomike]

I hope this is the correct thread to post this information.

Reading another pension thread today reminded me of an item in a news letter I recently received "pertaining to certain changes to the Ontario Municipal Employees Retirement System ( OMERS ) Primary Pension Plan and the  Supplemental Pension Plan for Police, Firefighters and Paramedics."

"2.1 Change Concerning Purchase of Reservist Leave Service":
http://www.omerssc.com/pdf/By-Law_27_-_Plan_Change_re_reservist_leave(1).pdf