Retire from CAF and entering Fed PS [Merged]

[bridges]

If it goes ahead as Canuck4ever and his colleagues foresee, that would result in people with less total service to the Crown having more vacation time than people with more service.  That'd be a stark inequity, and a pretty good argument could be made for objecting to it.   

For example - I'll gain my 4th week of vacation at a total of 27 years of service (19 CF + 8 PS), whereas someone with a total of 8 years of service (4 years in the CF and 4 in the PS) could get their 4th week at that point.  Examples abound.

I'm no longer surprised by much that the system does, at this point, so maybe it makes sense to be prepared.   

 

[Occam]

What I'd like to know is precisely how the legislative change in status of previous CF members will be enacted.  Currently, former CF members can't use their previous CF service towards PS leave credits because the CF isn't listed in the definition of "Public Service" in the Financial Administration Act (FAA).

There's nothing amending the FAA to include the CF in the definition under the FAA in Bill C-38, which is the budget bill.  For that matter, there's no reference whatsoever to the Canadian Forces (save for a minor amendment to the New Veterans Charter) in C-38.

 

[dapaterson]

Prior to changes in 2009, a former CF member who surrendered their annuity (ie transferred their military annuity to the PSSA) on entry into the PS within 3 months of leaving the CF received credit for their former military service - see http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/pol/doc-eng.aspx?evttoo=X&id=12118&section=text for the definition of "continuous employment" and its relationship to leave entitlements.

Thus, there's precedent for CF members receiving recognition of their military service for leave purposes.


EDIT:  There's no need to legislative change; the regulations governing employment are all that will require adjustment.

 

[bridges]

Prior to changes in 2009, a former CF member who surrendered their annuity (ie transferred their military annuity to the PSSA) on entry into the PS within 3 months of leaving the CF received credit for their former military service - see http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/pol/doc-eng.aspx?evttoo=X&id=12118&section=text for the definition of "continuous employment" and its relationship to leave entitlements.

Thus, there's precedent for CF members receiving recognition of their military service for leave purposes.

Good point, and it will be useful if needed.  Thanks, dapaterson. 

Personally, and I know it's off-topic, I have bigger questions about C-38 than vacation time.  It's just one of many interesting and seemingly unrelated things added into the "budget" bill - the topic of a whole different thread elsewhere on army.ca.  But this particular provision, if it goes through and in a just manner, stands to improve the QOL of a lot of experienced folks who've been serving their country for some time. 

 

[Timex]

Another former CF member just pointed out to me that if you go into your leave page in peoplesoft (Personal Information Summary), your start date now appears as your enrolment date, I just had a look and he's right. I could be wrong but I don't remember seeing that before.

 

[Occam]

Thanks dap...I had not seen that policy page before.

 

[bridges]

Another former CF member just pointed out to me that if you go into your leave page in peoplesoft (Personal Information Summary), your start date now appears as your enrolment date, I just had a look and he's right. I could be wrong but I don't remember seeing that before.

I noticed that in March 2012 as well, and submitted a web query to the compensation folks about it.  I was told that "This is an issue for ex-mil employees but it does not have any effect on your civilian records.  In short, there is nothing that needs to be fixed and there aren't any ramifications."

This leaves the impression that it's a long-standing, known issue, and not a harbinger of added vacation time.  However - as long as it's there, that would certainly make implementation easier when the time comes.

 

[dapaterson]

Another former CF member just pointed out to me that if you go into your leave page in peoplesoft (Personal Information Summary), your start date now appears as your enrolment date, I just had a look and he's right. I could be wrong but I don't remember seeing that before.

To my knowledge that has always been present.  (At least since I entered the PS just over 3 1/2 years ago).  That information is required in the civilian payroll system for calculation of PSSA contributions, as individuals previously enrolled in the CFSA Part I will only contribute to the PSSA for a total of 35 years (CFSA part I and PSSA combined).  For those in part I.1 of the CFSA their CFSA I.1 time does not apply and thus their PSSA contributions will run a full 35 years.


EDIT:  The "Enrol Date" also includes members of the Reserve Force, meaning it won't be of that much use in determining entitlements.  A Reservist would likely not receive credit for all their enrolled time, but only for periods of full-time service. 

Suffice it to say that it's a complex issue, and will take time to sort out - I suspect there will be multiple iterations of the policy as issues arise in interpretation.

 

[Timex]

Thanks DP, sorry for spreading false "Data", I'll put that rumor to bed around here.

 

[bridges]

EDIT:  The "Enrol Date" also includes members of the Reserve Force, meaning it won't be of that much use in determining entitlements.  A Reservist would likely not receive credit for all their enrolled time, but only for periods of full-time service. 

I wouldn't be too sure about that, yet.  As we've seen from the ordeal of those who've chosen to buy back past Res F service, making a definitive determination of days served is a huge, multi-year undertaking for any given member.  ATI requests to get your own Class A paysheets from decades ago, spreadsheets, 4 levels of audit... Oy! 

The stakes are nowhere near as high for the GoC this time, financially.  A bit of time to implement, and a bit higher salary costs if anyone who was on the 11/12ths plan goes back to regular hours, now that they have reasonable vacation time.  IMO, anyone with a passing familiarity of the Res F pension debacle would probably be inclined to think it's just not worth the effort to count Class A paid days, and go with the enrolment date.  It's used to define service overall, and for TIR for promotion, CD, etc...  to me it doesn't seem unreasonable that it would define service for vacation entitlement as well.  We're talking about people who used some of their free time to serve the Crown, so hopefully the vacation time wouldn't be begrudged.

Suffice it to say that it's a complex issue, and will take time to sort out - I suspect there will be multiple iterations of the policy as issues arise in interpretation.

Indeed.  I'd be skeptical of seeing this implemented before the next FY, regardless of eff date. 

 

[dapaterson]

For me, the key question is whether the budget wording will be slavishly followed or not.  If they insist it applies only to "former members" then anyone who joined the Supp Res would be ineligible; anyone still serving in the P Res would be ineligible.  It would create powerful disincentives to Reserve service.

 

[bridges]

For me, the key question is whether the budget wording will be slavishly followed or not.  If they insist it applies only to "former members" then anyone who joined the Supp Res would be ineligible; anyone still serving in the P Res would be ineligible.  It would create powerful disincentives to Reserve service.

No kidding.

Budget language is often inexact, compared to how it eventually turns out.  Hopefully they will go with wording along the lines of "...with former CF service".  That would cover everybody, including those still serving in both CF and PS. 

 

[Northern Ranger]

I do find it funny though, how quickly something that takes away from an employee can be implemented, however something that is a benfit that is announced takes much longer.  Can this be any more complicated than lowering the GST, or PLD?  I understand that this is much more wide reaching than the PLD as it is only CF members that get it, but you would think some one in HR (National Level) would have sent something out by now.

 

[captloadie]

Lowering the GST, or implementing CF specific legislation doesn't involve dealing with the multiple Unions and bargaining agreements. Before anything can be done, there needs to be some kind approval from them. I would say that there are probably some senior union management types who would consider opposing this, saying it disadvantages current union members. For example, Civil Servant A works in an office with three people. He has x amount of leave days. One of the other two retires and is replaced with ex-CF member, who because of prior service, now has x+5 days of leave. Civil Servant A now has to work, in comparison, 5 extra days compared to the new guy.

Yes it is silly, but hey, some people are bitter. 

 

[dapaterson]

CaptLoadie:  No union negotiations are needed.  The PSEA lets the governemnt issue regulations; this change to leave entitlements will be managed through regulation.

 

[bridges]

...there are probably some senior union management types who would consider opposing this, saying it disadvantages current union members. For example, Civil Servant A works in an office with three people. He has x amount of leave days. One of the other two retires and is replaced with ex-CF member, who because of prior service, now has x+5 days of leave. Civil Servant A now has to work, in comparison, 5 extra days compared to the new guy.

Yes it is silly, but hey, some people are bitter.

In fact, it's the new PS mbr, in your scenario, who's been disadvantaged until now.  If leave changes to be something that's based on total service to the Crown, then everyone would actually be treated equally - in that regard, at least.  Civil Servant A would need to look at his or her total service (CF + RCMP + PS) and ask if it is long enough to merit x+5 days of vacation.

I wonder if there were any such union challenges when this was implemented for employees with former service in the RCMP?

 

[Remius]

For me, the key question is whether the budget wording will be slavishly followed or not.  If they insist it applies only to "former members" then anyone who joined the Supp Res would be ineligible; anyone still serving in the P Res would be ineligible.  It would create powerful disincentives to Reserve service.

I honestly can't see that happening.  I see it as whatever time you had as a reservist prior to joining the PS.  Meaning whatever time you have that is concurrent doesn't count and Supp reserve time, NES, ED&T etc would not count either.

 

[bridges]

I do find it funny though, how quickly something that takes away from an employee can be implemented, however something that is a benfit that is announced takes much longer.  Can this be any more complicated than lowering the GST, or PLD?  I understand that this is much more wide reaching than the PLD as it is only CF members that get it, but you would think some one in HR (National Level) would have sent something out by now.

In this case, nobody can send anything out yet because this is part of the budget bill C-38, which hasn't been passed by Parliament.

Once it's approved in principle, THEN the delays can begin.    Although it's possible they're already hammering out the details behind the scenes.  I only hope they go with the simple solution and not get mired down in, say, adding up Class A days for mbrs with Res F time....   

 

[the 48th regulator]

I have had my public service start date changed recently to my original TOS witht he military!

Anyone int he PS should check out their People Soft profile.

 

[Occam]

I have had my public service start date changed recently to my original TOS witht he military!

Anyone int he PS should check out their People Soft profile.

It was probably that way from the start.  I only came into the PS last Sept and the "start" date in PeopleSoft (self service leave module) always indicated my CF enrolment date.