"Double Dippers" Mega Thread

[mariomike]

It has always been that if you got a Civil Service job after earning a CF Pension, you would usually roll it over into the Public Service Pension Plan for a better pension in the end and again collected your pension when you retired from the Civil Service.  You could do this with both Provincial and Federal Civil Service jobs. 

Just to add to the above, the Government of Canada has pension transfer agreements with 95 employers.
http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/pensions/peserv-servpe-eng.asp#transf3

 

[combatpostie]

Apparantly since Jan 13, no more double dipping, if you're hired within the public service you must stop your pension just like you would be doing if you are pensioned and want to transfer to reserves.  I am grandfathered since I rolled over to the PS in 2007 after 26 years in the CF.  This is what is being advertised at Medical SCAN seminars.  I do not have supportting links to this. Will keep you posted.

 

[captloadie]

It has always been that if you got a Civil Service job after earning a CF Pension, you would usually roll it over into the Public Service Pension Plan for a better pension in the end and again collected your pension when you retired from the Civil Service.  You could do this with both Provincial and Federal Civil Service jobs. 

So what is drastically new?

I think that in the past it was an option to roll over your pension, but not a requirement. It now seems that, from reading posts in the forum, that it will now be mandatory to roll over your pension. If this is indeed the case, one of two things will likely happen:
1) Like as happened wrt reserves, retiring reg force members will no longer apply to public service positions; or
2) We face the reality that there is no longer support for individuals to "double dip"  - where double dipping is defined as receiving two paychecks from the government.

It would appear that CAF members (and RCMP for that matter) are slowly being absorbed into the greater PS domain, where there will be one set of rules for everyone. It started with our salaries, moved to our severance packages, and will end with our retirement benefits. 

 

[dapaterson]

Accorpding to the Public Service Superannuation Act, that is not the case.  You retain your annuity, allowance or pension.  See 39(5) of the PSSA (last updated 13 April 2013):

Any person who becomes a contributor
under this Part, having been a member of the
regular force and having become entitled to an
annuity, annual allowance or pension under the
Canadian Forces Superannuation Act, or having
been a member of the Force and having become
entitled to an annuity or annual allowance
under the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation
Act, is entitled, for the purposes
of this Part, to retain that annuity, annual allowance
or pension, but the period of service
on which that annuity, annual allowance or
pension was based may not be counted by that
person for the purposes of any benefit to which
he may become entitled under this Part by reason
of having become a contributor hereunder.

 

[dapaterson]

As mentioned on another thread, this is not the case.  The PSSA is very clear that CAF members (and RCMP members) may retain their pension.  You only cease and surrender your pension if you choose to transfer it to the PSSA.  PSSA 39(5), last updated 13 April 2013:

Any person who becomes a contributor
under this Part, having been a member of the
regular force and having become entitled to an
annuity, annual allowance or pension under the
Canadian Forces Superannuation Act, or having
been a member of the Force and having become
entitled to an annuity or annual allowance
under the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation
Act, is entitled, for the purposes
of this Part, to retain that annuity, annual allowance
or pension, but the period of service
on which that annuity, annual allowance or
pension was based may not be counted by that
person for the purposes of any benefit to which
he may become entitled under this Part by reason
of having become a contributor hereunder.

 

[combatpostie]

That's good news, will have to circulate to still serving getting released. Does not affect me, still don't understand why they are circulating this info.  Thansk

 

[maniac]

This is the truth,  Public Servants with past military service receiving a CFSA pension are not double dipping.  These are 2 very separate pension systems.  If you paid into one and want to port it to the other,  that is possible but it does not make it the same pension.  The "HATERS" like to call it that because they don't have it. 

An example of real double dipping is CF pers on Class B as a CFSA annuitant,  they are drawing from the pension system that they should be paying into.  The TB threatened to take over CFSA if the CF did not do something about the situation because it was not sustainable.

 

[combatpostie]

Just re-reading "dapaterson" and still bugs me, because it says "annual allowance or
pension was based may not be counted by that
person for the purposes of any benefit to which
he may become entitled under this Part by reason
of having become a contributor hereunder." but we've already won this part, as we can count our time towards leave now.  All ex-military/RCMP can count their previous service and go to the respective level of leave.  I left the military with 26 years, I was with the PS for 4 yrs when this came through and I went straight to 30 days leave (went from 3 weeks to 6 because of this new ruling) Hard to understand. 

 

[Occam]

That's just leave, though.  It was a simple matter to amend the Public Service Employment Regulations to allow previous CF time to count towards PS leave increments.  That's a fairly simple change.

You'd have to change the CFSA in order to create a way to stop an annuitant from being able to draw their pension as a result of subsequent PS employment.  That's not such a simple change.

 

[dapaterson]

The PSSA quote refers exclusively to PSSA benefits - that is, you can't take your CF pension and, simultaneously, buy back your CF pension in the PS.  The "Part" referred to is Part I of the PSSA - if you need sleep aids, read the PSSA and its related regulations, alongside the CFSA and its related regulations.  Hundreds of pages of mind-numbing documents that cross-reference each other and yet still have gaps that leave questions open to interpretation.

To put the restriction into other words, you can't take a 25 year CF pension, go to the PS for 10 years & buy back your CF time with the PS while still getting your CF pension, to result in: 25 year CF plus 10+25=35 year PS pension.  Or, in simpler terms, you can't get a 60 year pension for 35 years of work.

 

[maniac]

I think if you read those pages it over complicates the issue to the average guy.  You're correct,  you can not collect CFSA and buy it back at the same time in PSSA and why would you?  However,  you are offered, but you would be crazy unless you're a deferred annuitant.  The CFSA annuitant joining the PS pays into the PSSA and must complete service to age 60 (any new hires is age 65) to get their immediate annuity from PSSA.

 

[DAA]

So I have to scratch my head on this topic and resurrect it.  We have guidance from above regarding the policy of employing Annuitants on Class B service but why are we now seeing people who chose not to surrender their pension, elected to convert to a "330 day" Class B contract, only to re-apply for the same job that they were doing before and are now going to be re-hired right back into the exact same job?  From what I can see, this is not only being condoned by higher levels but actually encouraged.

Mind you, they will be required to sign a "long term" contract (ie; in excess of 365 days) but in all likelihood, they will just submit an early termination (30-days notice) at day 300, release on day 330 and then reapply for their previous job and be rehired right back after they have been away for more than 35 days.

Something just doesn't seem quite right.

 

[PPCLI Guy]

Something just doesn't see quite right.

Indeed

 

[George Wallace]

So I have to scratch my head on this topic and resurrect it.  We have guidance from above regarding the policy of employing Annuitants on Class B service but why are we now seeing people who chose not to surrender their pension, elected to convert to a "330 day" Class B contract, only to re-apply for the same job that they were doing before and are now going to be re-hired right back into the exact same job?  From what I can see, this is not only being condoned by higher levels but actually encouraged.

Mind you, they will be required to sign a "long term" contract (ie; in excess of 365 days) but in all likelihood, they will just submit an early termination (30-days notice) at day 300, release on day 330 and then reapply for their previous job and be rehired right back after they have been away for more than 35 days.

Something just doesn't see quite right.

As I see it, the new policy has little affect on "Double Dippers" if they are employed as they were prior to this new policy coming into effect.  "Double Dippers" were only allowed 330 days a year as Class B, whether they were on a SOU of longer or not.  I was on a SOU for three years, and was required to take 35 days Annuitant Break, without pay, each Fiscal year.  Under this new plan. an Annuitant can work up to, but not over, 365 days without having to give up their Reg Force pension and sign onto the Reserve Pension with all its problems.  That is one very good point not to get your pension switched over.

Next point:  If you haven't noticed, the CAF is cutting Class B positions like mad.  Why would an Annuitant want to give up a Reg Force pension for the insecurity of Class B employment?  Why would an Annuitant want to give up a good pension to roll into the uncertainty of what is the Reserve Pension Plan that has less benefits.  They would be absolutely crazy and not very good at taking care of their finances. 

Another point:  These Class B positions are often positions that can not be filled by Reg Force pers, or are backfills for Reg Force pers on MATA/PATA or other long term absences.  Would you not want a knowledgeable person to fill those positions?   

The Reserves lose many people every year to the Regular Force through CTs.  Why is it not encouraged for the reverse to be done?  A Reg Force member, who still wants to serve after twenty or more years of service, has lots to offer the Reserves.  They should be encouraged to mentor younger soldiers in the Reserves; not dissuaded.  The Reserves could benefit from knowledge and experience of these Annuitants who may only have ten or less years before CRA, but are still fit to serve. 

Although the term "Conflict of Interest" is thrown about in these discussions; what is the difference of a former Reg Force member collecting a Reg Force pension and working for a civilian employer who has no pension plan for his/her employees and a former Reg Force member collecting a Reg Force pension and working for the Reserves and not paying into the Reserve Pension Plan ( which has less benefits )? 


I too scratch my head.  With the limit set by TBS on the numebers of pers that the Reg Force can maintain on strength, and the availability of Reservists, some being Annuitants, to fill necessary positions; why are they screwing the Annuitants over if they want quality and experienced people?  Just another set of rules set out by TBS, DND, etc. that make me wonder how this country will survive the next century.  (Well, less.)

 

[dapaterson]

The Canadian Forces are the armed forces of Her Majesty raised by Canada and consist of one Service called the Canadian Armed Forces. (NDA 14)


Reg and Res are two components from that one Force.  How can one claim to be retired from the Force, drawing a pension for that service, and then having them pay one as, essentially, a full-time member of that same Force?

 

[DAA]

I hear you George but what you are missing here, is that Regular Force Annuitants who go beyond the 365 day mark will not beceome part of the Reserve Pension plan but will now be deemed as re-enrolled and thus be "contributors" under the Regular Force Plan.  So they would now get the same pension credits, as a regular force member, calculated based on their best 5-years of annual accumulated income.

It was widely acknowledged that this new policy would most likely create a "knowledge/experience" vacuum that could not be filled by traditional reservists (ie; no Reg F experience/higher level positions) but that is the risk that has been assumed and must now be lived with.

What puzzles me, is that these people, freely elected the "330 day plan" in order to keep their pension, depart Her Majesty's Service, re-applied for the exact same job that they held prior and are being rehired.

I am only referring to "Class B Permanent" positions which are "3 years in length", which are the same jobs they were doing before, which they decided to leave.

 

[dapaterson]

There is risk for those individuals that when they return someone else may have applied for the job.  All things being equal, were I to hire someone, I'd hire the one who doesn't have a history of 10 months in the job then quitting.

 

[George Wallace]

There is risk for those individuals that when they return someone else may have applied for the job.  All things being equal, were I to hire someone, I'd hire the one who doesn't have a history of 10 months in the job then quitting.

But the majority of your unit is Stood Down for two to three months anyway. 

 

[dapaterson]

A unit that isn't parading in the summer is still managing those on summer tasks / summer courses; preparing for the fall training; preparing for summer exercises; and having people away on summer leave so some continuity is needed.

 

[George Wallace]

A unit that isn't parading in the summer is still managing those on summer tasks / summer courses; preparing for the fall training; preparing for summer exercises; and having people away on summer leave so some continuity is needed.

Yes, I know.

So when do you expect these people to take their Leave?  And do you only task one person to do a job, with no plan contingency plan in place?