Reserve Pension- Merged

[begbie]

So it appears that the changes to the RFRG makes it more difficult to earn given the new emphasis on paid service.  It appears that 10 years service is still the minimum required but for those whose grandfathered (elapsed time) service is less than 10 years, will now have to work 4 times longer to get it if a reservist primarily works on Class A service.

Am I reading the new documentation correctly?

 

[geo]

not too off the mark...
RFRG was a "present" of sorts for reservists prior to the idea of a pension plan for same said group.  Where a reservist on Cl B 365 days a year & Regs were entitled to
3.5 or 7 mandays per year of service, after 1st 10 yrs of service - up to a max of 30 yrs (total of 210 days).... the Class A guy would qualify for the same 3.5 or 7 mandays a year for anywhere between 40 to 90 mandays a year.

The new RRFG will take all Class A time X 1.4 ... which is not bad BUT, is not as good a deal as you / we had previously.

BUT,

again, you now have something that you did not have before... a pension plan. You can start with the reserve - transfer to the Regs (or the public service) and the employer's share of the pension plan will exist and follow you.... instead of coming out of your pocket - like it used to ...

 

[begbie]

Okay, so I am reading the it correctly then.  Perhaps those, like myself at 9 years, who are just shy of ten years will be disappointed that if they want it, will have to work more years than expected.  One would expect that once these changes were made, there would be no 10 year minimum like other federal public service jobs.  But we do get a pension now.  So maybe it will all even out.

Do RegF pers have to do 20 years or the new 25 to qualify for their severance packages?

Edit: Added additional comments for clarification.

 

[PO2FinClk]

Do RegF pers have to do 20 years or the new 25 to qualify for their severance packages?

If on an IE20, they qualify for Severance at 20, if on an IE25, they have to do 25 for full entitlement.

However, it used to be that those with >10 but <20 were entitled to half of the severance (3.5 days per completed year), and am unsure of what the changes will be for those on an IE25 with regards to that perspective.

Either way, if anyone wants clear and concise information on entitlements like these, you must speak to your Release section as they are the only ones aware of all the changes and how entitlements are affected by these changes.

 

[geo]

Okay, so I am reading the it correctly then.  Perhaps those, like myself at 9 years, who are just shy of ten years will be disappointed that if they want it, will have to work more years than expected.  One would expect that once these changes were made, there would be no 10 year minimum like other federal public service jobs.  But we do get a pension now.  So maybe it will all even out.

Do RegF pers have to do 20 years or the new 25 to qualify for their severance packages?

Edit: Added additional comments for clarification.

once you hit 10 years,
you hold a grandfather clause for the 1st 9 years @ 3.5 days per year.
I believe that the class A days you have earned in year 10 are to be multiplied by 1.4
(1.4X 37.5) = 53 days over 365 days = 14.4% x 3.5 days = a half day in year 10
... so you'd have something like 32 mandays for your trouble... I think

 

[begbie]

once you hit 10 years,
you hold a grandfather clause for the 1st 9 years @ 3.5 days per year.
I believe that the class A days you have earned in year 10 are to be multiplied by 1.4
(1.4X 37.5) = 53 days over 365 days = 14.4% x 3.5 days = a half day in year 10
... so you'd have something like 32 mandays for your trouble... I think

This is helpful I think... I follow your logic.  Is this an example or is there a quota of sorts that states how many class A days will constitute a full year for reservists?  I wonder because my recent posts on this were predicated on the notion that the average person works roughly 250 days a year less earned vacation.  By that assumption, it would take 4+ years of Class A service (60 days/year) to equal one year.  That seems to make sense given the factor of 1.4 in the new scheme?

 

[geo]

For my pension buyback, mine worked out to 1 in 3 but, everyone is different.

365 / 1.4 = 260 days per year. 

 

[Ed]

For my pension buyback, mine worked out to 1 in 3 but, everyone is different.

365 / 1.4 = 260 days per year. 

Where is the figure of 1.4 coming from.  104 days of weekends, 11 stat holidays, 30 days annual(my time anyway) and we all know about special leave gives you a figure a lot less than 260.  No full time person works 260 days, more like 220 days or less, so shouldn't that figure be something like 1.65 or larger.

 

[begbie]

Can anyone cut and paste this if it's not OPSEC: CBI 204.54 - RESERVE FORCE RETIREMENT GRATUITY since I'm not on the DIN but for a couple of times a month.  The old one was recinded on 01 Mar 07 and replaced with a new one.  I'd like to see what it says now, in particular, how many days constitutes a full year of service.

 

[PO2FinClk]

Can anyone cut and paste this if it's not OPSEC: CBI 204.54 - RESERVE FORCE RETIREMENT GRATUITY since I'm not on the DIN but for a couple of times a month. 

You don't need the DIN to lookup CBI's: http://www.forces.gc.ca/dgcb/cbi/engraph/home_e.asp?sidesection=6&Section=204.54&sidecat=21&Chapter=204#204.54

Or CFAO's, DAOD's & QR&O's for that matter.

 

[geo]

Where is the figure of 1.4 coming from.  104 days of weekends, 11 stat holidays, 30 days annual(my time anyway) and we all know about special leave gives you a figure a lot less than 260.  No full time person works 260 days, more like 220 days or less, so shouldn't that figure be something like 1.65 or larger.

1.4 days is the conversion factor that the CF & treasury board came up with.  That is it and that is all....

 

[dapaterson]

PO2FinClk:  The probelm is that the CBI is out of date - on both the DIN and the Internet.

Having perused the new RFRG form, I have been pleasantly surprised.  The changes are not as far-reaching as people thought - but they do make it much more confusing.

There are now two calculations required:  First, your Continuous Enrolled Service.  That is the time elapsed from when you enroll to when you release, less periods of NES, ED&T, Supp Res time other than class B or C...  That calculation determines whether you are entitled to no benefit, half benefit, or full benefit.

The new wrinkle is determining how many full-time years of service (or equivalent) you have.  The grandfathering means you get credit for 100% of your time prior to 01 March 2007 (less the NES, ED&T and such).  The rest is calculated by taking the total of Class A days multiplied by 1.4, and adding Class B and class C days.  That is added to your time prior to 01 March 2007 for a number of qualifying years.

What does this mean?  It means that someone who enrols today and releases 20 years from now without interruption of service, and who parades an average of 50 days per year over that time (class A only) would get their benefit calculated as follows:

Since they were enrolled for 20 years, they would get the full benefit (7 days), based on 50 days per year x 20 years x 1.4 Class A Factor = 1400 days = 3.8 years rounded down to 3 years.

Therefore, their RFRG would be 7 days x 3 years = 21 days pay at their rank and IPC on retirement (plus their pension benefits).


The short version:  You  still qualify for 3.5 or 7 days of pay depending on how many years you were enrolled; the amount paid is based on your full-time equivalent service.  So people will still qualify for the benefit; they'll just receive less from the RFRG.  The value of the pension plan should more than offset that reduction.

 

[begbie]

The short version:  You  still qualify for 3.5 or 7 days of pay depending on how many years you were enrolled; the amount paid is based on your full-time equivalent service.  So people will still qualify for the benefit; they'll just receive less from the RFRG.  The value of the pension plan should more than offset that reduction.

I agree that the current information posted on the changes to the RFRG is lacking at the moment.  But based on what you're saying, the changes aren't that drastic.  What I was afraid of was that someone would have to work the full-time equivalent of 10 years which on a Class A basis would make it virtually impossible to earn without either working Cl B or C or having existing time grandfathered. 

I was being cynical thinking that with the addition of the pension for reservists that the RFRG was being taken away without it being taken away if you get my drift... no such thing as a free lunch so I was expecting more significant changes.

 

[dapaterson]

For those interested in reading the regulations, they have been posted to the Canada Gazette website:

Reserve Force Pension Plan Regulations

http://canadagazette.gc.ca/partII/2007/20070307/html/sor32-e.html


And amendments to the current CFSA which, among other things, permits full-time reservists to be enrolled:

http://canadagazette.gc.ca/partII/2007/20070307/html/sor33-e.html


Of note is the fact that buying back service in the part-time plan is charged 7% compound interest; the parts discussing buying back the balance of Reserve service once enrolled in the full-time plan refer to the CFSA 7(2) which still cites 4% simple interest...

 

[Rifleman62]

Has anyone used the online Reserve Force Buyback Calculator (RFBC)?  http://www.admfincs.forces.gc.ca/rfpp/Tools_e.asp

It is very, very slow. Questioned why. Answer: They only have a limited number of licences!!! Funny, when the Press Release stated the new pension would be open to 20,000 Reservists. It took me almost 5 minutes to enter/save each data entry (year/total pay/days of CF service). Some surprises, well not really. I have always ranted about the wage index. Here are some updated earnings examples (your total pay with the wage index added) from the RFBC: my updated earnings for 1986 are 2.6 times what I actually made, and $13,400 more than I would make if I was in that rank today;
my updated earnings for 1990 are 2.0 times what I actually made, and $11,600 more than I would make if I was in that rank today and; my updated earnings for 1997 are 1.7 times what I actually made, and just over the base pay for next rank today. It is worse, for example: 1975, 6 times, 1980, 4.1 times, etc what I was paid (did not check against current pay rate). Add the increased contribution rate on the updated earnings, plus 7% compound interest = unaffordable. Even if I paid 50% of the buyback, and made monthly backpayments over the maximum 240 months, add another $45,000  to the buy back in the form of life insurance on the outstanding buy back amount.
Now that I have info from the Official RFBC to prove we are being ripped off,  I can proceed with my complaint outside the chain of command. Anyone put in a Redress of grievance yet?

P.S  For us old people who have been in too long, adding the Wage Index to what you actually made since 1972 , puts us over the YMPE for each year, thus increasing the contribution rate for any pay over the YMPE for thoes years. Back around the 70's, the YMPE was low.

 

[geo]

working on mine.... Interest rate & delay are the points I am targetting BUT, I have not received all info yet - working on it though

 

[54/102 CEF]

Can anyone advise what the PILL Column on the downloadable spreadsheet refers to?

 

[Donut]

PILL is Pay In Lieu of Leave.  11% (iirc) of your pay,  since Cl A has no paid leave associated with it.

I was just discussing it with my URS this afternoon.

 

[54/102 CEF]

Thanks - for the most part - I presume Class B full timers wouldn`t get that.

At this point - what we have is a best guess. Am I on the right path?

Would one just load their MPRR dates in and see what it comes up with?

 

[Nfld Sapper]

PILL is Pay In Lieu of Leave.  11% (iirc) of your pay,  since Cl A has no paid leave associated with it.

I was just discussing it with my URS this afternoon.

Thought it was 9%  ???