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

[armyvern]

No, class B pers do not take annuitant breaks.  Annuitants take annuitant breaks, and there are actually more pers on class B not drawing annuities than those that do, so most pers on class B are full-time.


And to argue that a 35 day break makes someone not full-time is stretching definitions - we permit other folks to take LWOP and yet still consider them full-time; annuitants can do the same job for 5 (calendar) years, and will take 165 days in unpaid leave - meaning they were paid for 4 1/2 of 5 years, which certainly sounds like full-time to me...

I agree with you on the problem of the proliferation of B Class and that it needs to get sorted out as I've stated numerous times on this site.

But, my take from a different PoV than you (and especially different than that of MCG).

There is a proliferation of B Class popping up because we can't fill RegF posns ... in many Units a whole lot more so than others - think Pri 6 etc. Sooooooo, in order to keep my Pri 6 Unit's nostrils above water to support Ops, trg, and every other task that they throw at us ... we hire a B Class to get that "undone, BUT required" job done.

Now, while that pri 6 Unit hires B Class to fill posns where we have to get the work done ... higher Pri Units sit at 10% overstrength levels, MMO (in order to "keep" a serving wife in the same location as her serving husband) etc etc).

At the particular location of which I speak ... there are HUGE multitudes of B Class personnel ... and thank gawd for that because if they weren't there than even the pittance of a trg system that exists today would FAIL. Of course, higher levels have deemed that a NO-FAIL ... ergo the B Class needs to be there.

So, enough of the molly-coddeling all those personnel who state "I ain't going there, they only get casual field pay, my wife has a good job here in this big city, my family is stable here because we've been here for 14 years ...". Just step up to the plate and say:

"Too damn bad, here's your options:"

1) RFD at location X IAW this posting instruction I'm cutting you right now with your family; or

2) RFD at location X IAW this posting instruction I'm cutting you right now on IR status without your family; or

3) Get the hell out, here's your posting message.

Because, each and every time one of "those people" gets mollycoddeled, that's one less posn getting filled at location X ... which equals one more B Class we're going to hire to do the job because we have no choice in the matter ... meanwhile the Unit where "that person was" continues to sit at overstrength level. I have BIG issues with that.

The after-effects of allowing someone to settle into a single location for a decade+ is setting in. But you know what? The effects have always been there since this "whatever the troop wants instead of what the CF requires" way of doing business began ... because people like me who do what the CF requires of me have packed up and moved 9 times in that 20 years, more than once on IR (because my spouse & I could not be posted to same location & both went instead where we were needed).

Two IRs ago, I had been in my new posting just 25 months ... when the CF needed someone of my rank & trade in another province ASAP. They came to me. I said "Am I ever going to get a posting that lasts more than 3 years? and why can't so&so go ...?" Answer: "He can't go right now." He was the same rank, same trade and single with ZERO kids. But, interestingly, he couldn't go. Too bad for me, my kids, my family (and eventually during that particular IR ... too bad for my marriage). Fun eh? But the very best part of the proceeding story is that "HE" - the single guy, was my sponsor during a earlier posting (91) ... as soon as I got posted in, he got posted out to location Y. In 95 I was also posted to location Y and he was my sponsor!!. In 97 I was posted out to location Z ... etc etc. Then, in 2003 ... I got posted BACK to location Y and there he still sat and he was my sponsor yet again!! Now, throughout my postings between my original posting to Y and back to it again the second time ... I also did a few tours ... not so "he". He finally was posted out in 2006 while I sat in that other province away from my family on IR. 15 years. 1 posting, no tours - had he. Same trade, same rank. Bullshit. (I'll add the caveat that I now outrank him by one). There's something wrong with that ... and I'm not alone.

It's time for the CF to get back to the business of getting the job done wherever it may be. And to stop "looking after" others who don't want to move at the expense of the rest of us who do what we signed up for wherever the CF needs us to do that.

You want to see the excess of BClass "full-timers" disappear, then start making those regF pers who don't want to move ante up and do their jobs by going where they're told ... or getting out so we can recruit someone in who will learn and once again become accustomed to the fact that "moves are here-to-for expected and will happen".

Just the .02cents worth from my rosy-little fed-up with the molley coddeling at the expense of the rest of us world.


[/Vern's evening rant]

 

[gcclarke]

Two IRs ago, I had been in my new posting just 25 months ... when the CF needed someone of my rank & trade in another province ASAP. They came to me. I said "Am I ever going to get a posting that lasts more than 3 years? and why can't so&so go ...?" Answer: "He can't go right now." He was the same rank, same trade and single with ZERO kids. But, interestingly, he couldn't go. Too bad for me, my kids, my family (and eventually during that particular IR ... too bad for my marriage). Fun eh? But the very best part of the proceeding story is that "HE" - the single guy, was my sponsor during a earlier posting (91) ... as soon as I got posted in, he got posted out to location Y. In 95 I was also posted to location Y and he was my sponsor!!. In 97 I was posted out to location Z ... etc etc. Then, in 2003 ... I got posted BACK to location Y and there he still sat and he was my sponsor yet again!! Now, throughout my postings between my original posting to Y and back to it again the second time ... I also did a few tours ... not so "he". He finally was posted out in 2006 while I sat in that other province away from my family on IR. 15 years. 1 posting, no tours - had he. Same trade, same rank. Bullshit. (I'll add the caveat that I now outrank him by one). There's something wrong with that ... and I'm not alone.

The truth is that the fact this guy is single is irrelevant. The CF cannot legally discriminate against it's single personnel by forcing them to take shitty postings any more so than it can refuse to hire people with children because they're more likely to have to take time off when they're sick. Discrimination on the basis of family status is prohibited under the Canadian Human Rights Act.

Now, don't get me wrong, all that other stuff you described is indeed really asinine, and I suspect is probably a result of a string of CM's not being willing to call someone's bluff when they shout "I'll VR if you try to post me". In my humble opinion, said bluff should be called a lot more often.


From the Canadian Human Rights Act:

Employment
7. It is a discriminatory practice, directly or indirectly,
(a) to refuse to employ or continue to employ any individual, or
(b) in the course of employment, to differentiate adversely in relation to an employee,
on a prohibited ground of discrimination.

1976-77, c. 33, s. 7.

and

Prohibited grounds of discrimination
3. (1) For all purposes of this Act, the prohibited grounds of discrimination are race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, family status, disability and conviction for which a pardon has been granted.

Idem
(2) Where the ground of discrimination is pregnancy or child-birth, the discrimination shall be deemed to be on the ground of sex.
R.S., 1985, c. H-6, s. 3; 1996, c. 14, s. 2.

 

[McG]

Yes.

So, under Lex, even Class B pers would be geographically "postable."  As long as we are not paying them 100%, I can't support this.

Yes.

I'll echo your answer.

But, now I'll now qualify "full time service personnel" for the inevitable comment that will follow from someone:

Service personnel of the Regular Force = "full time service" = 100% of our paychecks each month; Long contract B Class personnel of the Reserve Force are not included in my "yes" -

Okay, you have no objection to different classes of service where one has higher pay and benefits while the other is not subject to geographic postings or directed deployments.  Given that you hold such opinion, would you mind telling ...

• ... what you think about this Class B vs Limited Obligation Reg F for the CF as a whole and for individuals who need a break in pace.

?

 

[Paladium]

MCG:

I have run my own numbers and it is clear to me that the only loser in the long run is me if I had accepted the Class B carrot then serving my last 4 years to 35 years on Class B.....My loss of lifetime earnings is as follows:

If I die at 65, by that age I will have earned 255K more with a full pension for 35 years vice serving the 4 years on Class B. 

At 65, I will have earned 255K more
At 75, I will have earned 405K more.
At 85, the difference is still 272K more if I stay Reg Force.


I don't see how the math adds up on this one

But let's say you are a Capt making $90k with 31 years in and you joined when you were 19.

So as a double dipper you make

56,000 pension
214/day x 329 = 70,000

(126,000 - 90000) x 4 = $144,000 extra for 4 years you are now 54 and get out

90000 x 70% = 63,000

63000 - 56,000 = 7,000

144,000 / 7 = 20. 5 years to make up the difference = 74.

That is not including the double dipper is eligible for 1 year UIC because the pension isn't counted.

That's not counting that the double dipper has that money in hand after 4 years and could have been investing in rrsps

That's not counting that severance had been working for him for if deposited into rrsps for an additional 4 years

doesn't include extra 4 mths off over that period

At some point financially, case specific, double dipping is the way to go - whether it's right or not is another matter.

 

[PuckChaser]

There is a proliferation of B Class popping up because we can't fill RegF posns ... in many Units a whole lot more so than others - think Pri 6 etc. Sooooooo, in order to keep my Pri 6 Unit's nostrils above water to support Ops, trg, and every other task that they throw at us ... we hire a B Class to get that "undone, BUT required" job done.

I agree, but I'll add that some Reserve units are giving themselves a self-licking ice cream cone. I have a Cl B backfill in my section that I, nor my chain of command asked for, backfilling for SigOp Alt Custodian. This Cl B pers is neither a SigOp nor has a Custodian course, and is therefore useless to us. The running gag is that he's the designated heavy-lifting guy, because he doesn't know a lot of the stuff we do. The person that got approval for the backfill? A Cl B reserve officer from his unit.

 

[Monsoon]

I agree, but I'll add that some Reserve units are giving themselves a self-licking ice cream cone. I have a Cl B backfill in my section that I, nor my chain of command asked for, backfilling for SigOp Alt Custodian. This Cl B pers is neither a SigOp nor has a Custodian course, and is therefore useless to us. The running gag is that he's the designated heavy-lifting guy, because he doesn't know a lot of the stuff we do. The person that got approval for the backfill? A Cl B reserve officer from his unit.

This anecdote has so many holes in it that I won't even trouble to address them (particularly as the post has nothing to do with this thread), except to suffice to say that backfills don't get staffed without a considerable amount of admin effort. Maybe your unit didn't ask for this position, but someone somewhere up your chain of command did and they probably had a good reason to. I'll also note that there's a COMSEC Custodian course running somewhere in the country an average of twice a month, so why not get your "useless" shad loaded on it so he can start working for you instead of griping about having to work with an officer.

 

[PuckChaser]

This anecdote has so many holes in it that I won't even trouble to address them (particularly as the post has nothing to do with this thread), except to suffice to say that backfills don't get staffed without a considerable amount of admin effort. Maybe your unit didn't ask for this position, but someone somewhere up your chain of command did and they probably had a good reason to. I'll also note that there's a COMSEC Custodian course running somewhere in the country an average of twice a month, so why not get your "useless" shad loaded on it so he can start working for you instead of griping about having to work with an officer.

I'd be more than happy to fill the holes in on the story in PM if you so desire, but I'll just state that I left out details to not divulge the person or the unit. However, if you want to go and tell me how many people I need to run the det in my section, you're more than welcome to get posted in and take my spot over.

 

[Future Pensioner]

If memory serves me correctly, the only people who CAN "double dip" are Regular Force personnel.  If a reservist with 25 years full time service "retires", he or she can not "rejoin" the reserves and continue receiving their pension.  Once they "rejoin", the have to stop receiving their pension and begin paying back into the pension.

Therefore, the earlier comments about the pension being between a member and the CFSA, just does not make as much of a "salient" point in this case.

 

[armyvern]

... so why not get your "useless" shad loaded on it so he can start working for you instead of griping about having to work with an officer.

Can you please point out to me where his post stated that this pers was an Officer? I missed that bit; I did see the bit where he said that it was a "B Class Officer from his (the backfill guy's) Unit that got him the job." Certainly not that the backfill was an Officer though.

Even if so, buddy should rightly have the qualifications required to perform the B Class position prior to filling - else he isn't eligible to fill it. That's why there's supposed to be an interview for those posns undertaken. Given that the process obviously failed in this situation, certainly can be seen by some to be a bud "looking after buddy" situation rather than someone "just griping about having to work for an-assumed (on your part) Officer."

 

[Monsoon]

Can you please point out to me where his post stated that this pers was an Officer? I missed that bit; I did see the bit where he said that it was a "B Class Officer from his (the backfill guy's) Unit that got him the job." Certainly not that the backfill was an Officer though.

Sent you a PM - don't want to derail this thread.

 

[GAP]

Tories end forced retirement, decades of ‘age discrimination’
Kathryn Blaze Carlson  Dec 18, 2011
Article Link

Two decades since Ottawa’s first attempt to kill mandatory retirement, the Conservative government has managed to quietly overturn legislation that has for 30 years given federally regulated employers the right to force workers into retirement because of their age.

The section of the Canadian Human Rights Act that permitted mandatory retirement was officially repealed by the government’s Budget Implementation Bill, which received Royal Assent last week. Now that the budget bill is formally on the books, the country’s 12,000 federally regulated employers will no longer be able to force their 800,000 employees into retirement beginning December 2012.

“This was an overnight success after 20 years of lobbying,” said Susan Eng, a vice-president at CARP, Canada’s largest national organization representing seniors. “They buried it in the larger budget bill, and this is one time where I’m glad they did.”

All Canadian jurisdictions, with the exception of New Brunswick, have now abolished mandatory retirement, although there are some exceptions in some provinces for particular occupations. The latest budget bill means employers in federally regulated industries such as banking, transport, and communications will be allowed to continue working beyond the typically mandated ages of 60 or 65.

Successive Liberal and Conservative governments have promised to repeal the provision, but either an election or excessive lobbying by employers and unions meant bills continuously died on the Order Paper. David Dodge, the former Bank of Canada governor, catapulted the issue into the spotlight in 2004, when he challenged the status quo by calling mandatory retirement a “silly policy.”

A move that would have once sparked controversy went off last week without much ado — a signal, Ms. Eng said, that “there has been a sea-change in public values on the issue of forcing people to retire before their time.”

“We’re not born with date stamps saying our fitness for work expires at 65,” David Langtry, acting chief commissioner of the Canadian Human Rights Commission, said in a statement. “Age discrimination is age discrimination, pure and simple.”
More on link

 

[jollyjacktar]

Good, about time.  If you're willing and able to work past 60-65, why not?

 

[Halifax Tar]

Good, about time.  If you're willing and able to work past 60-65, why not?

One reason is that there are allot of people in there 20s and 30s right now who can't find a job and a big reason for this is people unwilling/able to retire... I think there needs to be mandatory retirement.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

One reason is that there are allot of people in there 20s and 30s right now who can't find a job and a big reason for this is people unwilling/able to retire... I think there needs to be mandatory retirement.

I think if you're going to force me to end my career so your son or daughter can get my job, then you have to make it very financially sweet. I'm not talking CCP or OAS here either. I am not beholden to anyone to move over for anyone else if I can still do my job.

 

[Stoker]

So will this affect the CRA of 60 for the forces? or is it even being looked at?

 

[Stoker]

One reason is that there are allot of people in there 20s and 30s right now who can't find a job and a big reason for this is people unwilling/able to retire... I think there needs to be mandatory retirement.

With people living longer and healthier they are going to want to work longer. You right it is troubling for people who want jobs but can't get them because someone who wants to work but doesn't need to work are hanging on to those jobs. There's no real easy answer to that. I know if the forces got rid of the age 60 CRA there would be people there until their 70's.
If we need that skilled labor fine, but what do we do to employ the younger people who need the job and have young families?

 

[Halifax Tar]

I think if you're going to force me to end my career so your son or daughter can get my job, then you have to make it very financially sweet. I'm not talking CCP or OAS here either. I am not beholden to anyone to move over for anyone else if I can still do my job.

I disagree. Your pension is your "financially sweet" reward, as you put it, for a long career with an organization.  At a certain age people must be made to move aside to ensure we continue to grow and evolve our work force. Otherwise we end up with massive drains of experience all at once with little substance able to fill the gaps left behind.

This is something, I maintain, the military and public service is heading towards.

 

[Halifax Tar]

With people living longer and healthier they are going to want to work longer. You right it is troubling for people who want jobs but can't get them because someone who wants to work but doesn't need to work are hanging on to those jobs. There's no real easy answer to that. I know if the forces got rid of the age 60 CRA there would be people there until their 70's.
If we need that skilled labor fine, but what do we do to employ the younger people who need the job and have young families?

Well put my friend.  Its an interesting subject, and one that will be sure to be a interesting discussion.

My wife is a teacher with the Halifax Regional School Board. She was very lucky to get full employment right away as she is a french teacher. The vast majority of our friends that are teachers are between the ages of 25-35 and cannot find full employment. A big reason they list is that older teachers just aren't willing to retire.

 

[Stoker]

Well put my friend.  Its an interesting subject, and one that will be sure to be a interesting discussion.

My wife is a teacher with the Halifax Regional School Board. She was very lucky to get full employment right away as she is a french teacher. The vast majority of our friends that are teachers are between the ages of 25-35 and cannot find full employment. A big reason they list is that older teachers just aren't willing to retire.

Don't get me wrong if the person needs to work and for unforeseen circumstances is not financially set and there is work available by all means. However if the person wants to work for sake of working, well that's just sad especially if it means someone else can't make their rent money.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

I disagree. Your pension is your "financially sweet" reward, as you put it, for a long career with an organization.  At a certain age people must be made to move aside to ensure we continue to grow and evolve our work force. Otherwise we end up with massive drains of experience all at once with little substance able to fill the gaps left behind.

This is something, I maintain, the military and public service is heading towards.

We'll just have to agree to disagree. It's my right to work as long as I want. I'll also be paying lots of tax. Lots of it. Paying into all of those government pension schemes, EI and the like. There's always going to be drains. Every generation , i.e: baby boomers, create huge gaps when they retire wholesale. This will spread it out.

Also, my pension has nothing to do with anything. You want something special from me, want me to give your son my job? You'll have to pay for it. Nothing is free in this world. Otherwise he can go find something else to do.

Besides, and this is the important part, this is my life and you're in no position, or have any authority, to tell me what to do with it.