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

[McG]

I've made no secret of my general disagreement with the ability of service personnel to remain fully employed and simultaneously collect a CF pension.

• Why we pay Reservists what we do (Including Reg v.s. Cl B v.s. Cl C pay, and Double-Dippin')
• Army wide Class B employment freeze!!!
• More "Double Dippers" to solve instructor manpower shortages

I do think the option to switch to full time reserve and collect a pay top-up would not be unreasonable.  However, as it stands now we are poaching people out of the Regular Force, converting them to a full time reservist (of less over all utility to the CF), and paying them more with a pension on top of full time reserve pay.

I wonder if this public service pension review will eventually see its way to looking at CF and RCMP pensions as well:

Ottawa targets public service pension plan for cutbacks
Tories consider dropping early retirement provision as they review civil servants' plan in attempt to control ballooning deficit
Daniel Leblanc and Bill Curry
Globe and Mail
Tuesday, Dec. 29, 2009 11:10PM EST

Ottawa — The generous pension plan enjoyed by federal civil servants is being targeted for possible cuts, including an end to early-retirement provisions for new hires, federal documents and sources say.

Newly released documents show that a group of deputy ministers has been taking a hard look at the federal pension plan, with concerns that fewer and fewer private-sector plans offer the same type of benefits.

“The government of Canada cannot isolate itself from this discussion,” said a Treasury Board presentation circulated in Ottawa's senior ranks.

The Conservative government raised the possibility this month of going after the bureaucracy's pension plan as it looks for ways to deal with a ballooning deficit.

But senior civil servants are also concerned that too many bureaucrats retire in their mid-50s, causing staff shortages that are set to worsen in coming years.

Any major change to the Public Service Superannuation Act, however, will be stiffly opposed by unions, which are trying to contain the growing criticism of their members' plans in an era of dwindling private-sector pensions.

One of the most controversial aspects of the federal pension plan is the ability to retire with a full pension at age 55, after 30 years of service. Federal officials expressed concerns that the provision is “reducing the pool of staff with experience,” with half of the executives in government eligible to retire by 2012.

“Current provisions are typical of plan designs conceived during a period of excess labour supply,” the presentation said.

Sources said the government has been exploring the possibility of modifying, or even removing, early-retirement incentives for new recruits as a long-term solution.

As it stands, federal officials feel that the provision “is working against us,” especially with impending labour shortages.

Another possibility would be allowing bureaucrats to collect partial pensions while continuing to work for the government.

“The Treasury Board Secretariat is evaluating the needs for a phased retirement initiative in the context of all of the existing human-resources policy instruments,” said spokesman Pierre-Alain Bujold.

The Canadian Federation of Independent Business has been arguing the current benefits and pensions offered to public servants are not sustainable. The CFIB is urging governments to increase the minimum retirement age and freeze benefits.

In a year-end interview, Finance Minister Jim Flaherty had said he discussed government pension plans at a recent meeting with his provincial counterparts.

“A good part of program spending relates to the cost of people of course,” he said. “And one of the things we were talking about in Whitehorse when we were discussing pension plans is the fact that, you know, there is a group of people in Canada who work for federal governments or provincial governments and territorial governments that have handsome pension arrangements.”

The minister's description of public-sector pensions drew immediate concern from one of the main unions representing federal public servants.

“It's no deep dark secret that this government has been talking about the pensions that federal public-sector workers receive being larger than they should be,” said John Gordon, president of the Public Service Alliance of Canada. “But the fact of the matter is that the public-sector workers pay for their pension plan … it's somewhat deferred salary.”

According to the Treasury Board, however, federal employees paid $1.2-billion into the plan in 2007-08, compared to the government's $2.6-billion share. That 32-per-cent employee contribution will go up, but only to 40 per cent by 2013.

Government pension plans in Ontario, Quebec and Alberta operate on a 50-50 basis, the Treasury Board says. On average, federal bureaucrats retire at 59 with a fully indexed pension of $38,000 a year.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-targets-public-service-pension-plan-for-cutbacks/article1414621/

- mod edit to clean up thread title a bit -

 

[Kat Stevens]

I'm curious whether MPs and MLAs pensions are being lined up for a good look see as well.  The small cynical side of me doubts it very much.

 

[birdgunnnersrule]

I like the point regarding the top up for full time reservists, but don't think it will happen. Having just jumped ship from the Regs to the Res for family reasons, I chose the accept 15% less to be my own career manager  I still work just as hard and well as before, just for less money and more stability at home.

The government review of the pensions is a good idea, however, I don't think it will sit well with the PS unless they have stringent grandfathering rules.  Like the CF, the PS is facing the manning crunch as well of senior, experienced people that are set to retire.  Although recruiting efforts are successful, once you get through the red tape, it takes time to foster and develop the professional competence of individuals.  With a large outflux, there will be some growing pains in any organization.  I thought that the pension modernization package that was just delivered a few years back was part of our review, however, personally I do not think it addressed the core issues of retention. 

 

[McG]

I posted what I saw as the solution a while back:

So, here is a crazy idea to some of the underlying problems (as I see them) of unrestrained Class B bloat.  As I see it we need a system that:

• prevents just anyone with a budget from using money for empire building
• ensures full time personnel growth has oversight & control at the appropriate levels
• allows full time pers to be centrally managed so that low priority positions are not filling-up and leaving high priority work unfilled
• ensures uniformity of training standards in full time pers
• provides an option for those pers who still want to serve, but cannot keep doing the postings
• provides a financial incentive for pers to continue serving when they reach the point where they are ready to get out
• does not provide a financial incentive that encourages pers, who would have kept serving, to reduce their utility to the CF

To do this, I propose that Class B employment > 100 days be prohibited outside of Primary Reserve Units & formations.

Instead, we create a "limited obligation" regular force TOS that are renewable on a three year cycle.  The "limited obligation" means the regular force soldier never gets a posting out of the geographic region and is paid at the reserve rate.

A "limited obligation" regular force soldier would be managed by the same career manager as any other regular force member of the same occupation.  Come APS, the "limited obligation" soldier would never receive a cost move to another location but there would be no restrictions against no-cost moves.  The "limited obligation" soldier could be moved to fill a higher priority job, for career development reasons, or to avoid stagnant thinking within a staff organization.  Promotions could still occur for "limited obligation" soldiers, but they would be penalized by point reduction at the boards to reflect the reduced utility of not being geographically postable.

Double-dipping would no longer be possible as this is simply an incentive to reduce one's utility to the CF by becoming unpostable.  However, to provide an incentive for pers considering retirement to not leave entirely, pensionable "limited obligation" soldiers could stop paying into the pension (thus freezing the benefit at its current level) and recieve a pay top-up (so they make the same pay as though they were not "limited obligation").

Unrestrained growth would be put to a stop because the "limited obligation" still fills a regular force establishment position, and so any growth would have to go through the same checks & approvals as are required for getting new regular force PYs now.

There are a lot more finer hand details that would need to go into this concept.  Occupations at or above PML would not be allowed to issue/renew "limited obligation" TOS (so those pers who choose to be of lower utility would be let go to make room for postable pers).  At the same time, there should be an occupation manning level threshold above which pers may only convert to "limited obligation" TOS on expiry of a "full obligation" regular force TOS, but below this manning level threshold it would be acceptable for direct reserve component transfer into a "limited obligation" TOS.

If we were to go down this crazy path, implementation should involve identifying every Class B possition outside of reserve units/brigades that has existed for three or more years.  All of those possitions would be converted to regular force and the incumbents would be invited to accept a component transfer and "limited obligation" TOS.

I think it has the potential to nicely balance everyone's interests.

I'm curious whether MPs and MLAs pensions are being lined up for a good look see as well.  The small cynical side of me doubts it very much.

Given that I'm suggesting better synchronization of all federal government pensions, I'd agree that the MP pensions should be looked at with the PS, CF and RCMP.

 

[George Wallace]

I posted what I saw as the solution a while back:

So, here is a crazy idea to some of the underlying problems (as I see them) of unrestrained Class B bloat.  As I see it we need a system that:

• prevents just anyone with a budget from using money for empire building
• ensures full time personnel growth has oversight & control at the appropriate levels
• allows full time pers to be centrally managed so that low priority positions are not filling-up and leaving high priority work unfilled
• ensures uniformity of training standards in full time pers
• provides an option for those pers who still want to serve, but cannot keep doing the postings
• provides a financial incentive for pers to continue serving when they reach the point where they are ready to get out
• does not provide a financial incentive that encourages pers, who would have kept serving, to reduce their utility to the CF

To do this, I propose that Class B employment > 100 days be prohibited outside of Primary Reserve Units & formations.

Instead, we create a "limited obligation" regular force TOS that are renewable on a three year cycle.  The "limited obligation" means the regular force soldier never gets a posting out of the geographic region and is paid at the reserve rate.

A "limited obligation" regular force soldier would be managed by the same career manager as any other regular force member of the same occupation.  Come APS, the "limited obligation" soldier would never receive a cost move to another location but there would be no restrictions against no-cost moves.  The "limited obligation" soldier could be moved to fill a higher priority job, for career development reasons, or to avoid stagnant thinking within a staff organization.  Promotions could still occur for "limited obligation" soldiers, but they would be penalized by point reduction at the boards to reflect the reduced utility of not being geographically postable.

Double-dipping would no longer be possible as this is simply an incentive to reduce one's utility to the CF by becoming unpostable.  However, to provide an incentive for pers considering retirement to not leave entirely, pensionable "limited obligation" soldiers could stop paying into the pension (thus freezing the benefit at its current level) and recieve a pay top-up (so they make the same pay as though they were not "limited obligation").

Unrestrained growth would be put to a stop because the "limited obligation" still fills a regular force establishment position, and so any growth would have to go through the same checks & approvals as are required for getting new regular force PYs now.

There are a lot more finer hand details that would need to go into this concept.  Occupations at or above PML would not be allowed to issue/renew "limited obligation" TOS (so those pers who choose to be of lower utility would be let go to make room for postable pers).  At the same time, there should be an occupation manning level threshold above which pers may only convert to "limited obligation" TOS on expiry of a "full obligation" regular force TOS, but below this manning level threshold it would be acceptable for direct reserve component transfer into a "limited obligation" TOS.

If we were to go down this crazy path, implementation should involve identifying every Class B possition outside of reserve units/brigades that has existed for three or more years.  All of those possitions would be converted to regular force and the incumbents would be invited to accept a component transfer and "limited obligation" TOS.

I think it has the potential to nicely balance everyone's interests.

Do you really think that this is a good idea?  It is garbage.  Not only do you suggest paying a Regular Force person 15% less pay, but you put them in a position that they would never seriously take up such an offer.  This not only hurts a Regular Force soldier, but it hurts the Reserves.  The Reserves are a very cheap "Training System" for the Regular Force, training skilled soldiers at no expense to the Regular Force, and then watching as they CT to the Regular Force.  The Regular Force does not reciprocate by encouraging Regular Force personnel to CT to the Reserves at the ends of their careers, thus providing the Reserves with some skilled personnel to continue their training cycles.  Less pay for more work, as you propose, is a farce. 

On a whole, your above thoughts are ill conceived.  Someday, you may understand.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

  Someday, you may understand.

But George, I am sure you did not "understand" many years ago whilst trying to scrounge up enough personal to fulfil a task.

"Understanding" can be such a funny word.

 

[McG]

Do you really think that this is a good idea?  It is garbage. 

I suppose that depends on if your perspective is "what's in it for me" or "how can both sides benefit."

Not only do you suggest paying a Regular Force person 15% less pay, but ...

We already pay full time soldiers 15% less and it does not seem to chase them away.  Why would it make a difference if we call them "regular force" or "reserve force"?  Is it the introduction of career managers and merited promotion in competition with other full time soldiers that makes this a problem?

... you put them in a position that they would never seriously take up such an offer. 

Why not? There are already many taking the 15% pay-cut  to live a Class B life without risk of postings.

... oh wait.  I see, they take a 15 % pay cut, stop monthly pension deductions, start bringing home pension payments, and avoid the hassle of postings and mandated deployments.  The current system is like a cash cow that rewards people for leaving the regular force for the reserves.  That might make sense at a time when the military is bursting at the seams with manpower, but right now we are hurting at the levels that require TI to achieve.

... it hurts the Reserves. 

Why?  You will note that my proposal exclusively permitted Primary Reserve units & formations (so nothing higher than a CBG) to continue hiring full time reservists for longer durations. 

On a whole, your above thoughts are ill conceived. 

You say ill-conceived, others have had opposite views:

Cutting the double dip will doom this interesting and useful plan right away.  As long as we have many senior folks (3+ bars) riding the gravy train, no one wants it to stop.  I recall the full Col Reg F who appointed himself to a Res F LCol position (at full pay as a Col) and did not understand why anyone squawked; I recall the Maj who switched to the Res F from the bottom of the merit list pointing out that between his annuity and Res pay he was making more than any BGen.

The Army is addicted to the cheap and easy fix that class B employment provides - look no further than LFDTS who refuse to come up with a plan for the future that doesn't include the massive class B augmentation "needed because troops are deployed and can't be tasked for augmentation".  How about running courses in unit lines instead - move the training to the troops, instead of the other way around?  How about doing better scheduling?  How about cutting the bloat from the HQs of LFDTS and CTC?  (And the Land Staff, which is remarkably large and slow).

 

[George Wallace]

But George, I am sure you did not "understand" many years ago whilst trying to scrounge up enough personal to fulfil a task.

"Understanding" can be such a funny word.

Especially if we are only generalizing.  What about those 45 and 50 year old Reg Force guys, who have spouses who have found very well paying jobs in the Private Sector; guys who have put in 25 or 30 years of Service and have now planned their 'Retirement'?  Not all of them are "Three Ringers".  Most are Senior NCMs of varing ranks, who have knowledge and skills that are still in demand in the Reserves. 

A twenty or thirty year old with less than ten years in, doesn't have the knowledge, nor experience, these guys have; nor do they have a Pension, so we aren't even going to factor them into this equation.  Someone who has served twenty or twenty-five years, and earned a Pension are the people who are targeted here.  This is where I find MCG very much less than understanding; but he is still young and hasn't reached that position in life.....yet.

 

[old fart]

I am with George on this one and take it further.

Personally, I do not expect to take up any type of Reserve Force service at the end of my Reg Force career, the only way I would even remotely consider it would be under the auspices of a Class B contract.

I am OK with the previously Reg Force soldier becoming a full time reservist but I remain vehemently against any reservists  (less previous Reg Force who are annuitants) working full time, even on operations (of course this latter point is currently unworkable based on the size of the Regular CF and tempo of current ops).  I do respect each and every reservist that has accepted a full liability (deployed) period of service, and many have paid the ultimate sacrifice particularly this past couple days.  My views do not play down such service, just the current situation and bloated way of doing business which has created it. 

Again, you want a full time career join the Regs.  You want a part time job join the Reserves ,  where deployments overseas would occur on mobilization only , with an exception made to allow specialist trades persons/ medical support folks  as the service requirement dictates.  I think it was a bad move to introduce a pension for reserve service period.

At this present time gaining rank in the Reserves and hopping into the Reg Force (circumventing the process  applicable to Reg Force.  What do I mean by this... I mean proper development and experience in rank promoted within the main and comparable gene pool) without anywhere near the required experience for the position occupied would certainly piss me off if I was the committed regular force soldier suddenly commanded by an augmentee (class whatever) reservist with far less experience and (and likely ability) but senior rank (albeit reserve gained rank).

Rank earned in the reserve world is not the same as earned in the Regular Force so reservists sitting around for years in Class B slots with such rank is just wrong.

Happy New Year, everyone

 

[Occam]

Especially if we are only generalizing.  What about those 45 and 50 year old Reg Force guys, who have spouses who have found very well paying jobs in the Private Sector; guys who have put in 25 or 30 years of Service and have now planned their 'Retirement'?  Not all of them are "Three Ringers".  Most are Senior NCMs of varing ranks, who have knowledge and skills that are still in demand in the Reserves. 

Jeez, one would think you'd had my MPRR in front of you or something.  ;D

A twenty or thirty year old with less than ten years in, doesn't have the knowledge, nor experience, these guys have; nor do they have a Pension, so we aren't even going to factor them into this equation.  Someone who has served twenty or twenty-five years, and earned a Pension are the people who are targeted here.  This is where I find MCG very much less than understanding; but he is still young and hasn't reached that position in life.....yet.

:+1:

Very well said, George.

I am with George on this one and take it further.

Personally, I do not expect to take up any type of Reserve Force service at the end of my Reg Force career, the only way I would even remotely consider it would be under the auspices of a Class B contract.

I'm with you.  I've done 25 years of "career" service in the Regs.  If my skills can be put to good use as a Cl B reservist, where I can take a position, and hopefully stay with it for longer than three years, I'll be happy to continue putting on the uniform (and forgo any hopes of further promotion).  Otherwise, from where I sit, the grass is indeed greener on the other side - even with a modest pay cut to move into a civvy job.

 

[McG]

This is where I find MCG very much less than understanding; but he is still young and hasn't reached that position in life.....yet.

Poor young MCG just doesn't understand.  Here you are firing with doom & gloom generalizations, meanwhile I have already addressed those concerns above.  It is like you have not even done me the courtesy of reading what I've written before posting to defend your sacred cow.

Especially if we are only generalizing.  What about those 45 and 50 year old Reg Force guys, who have spouses who have found very well paying jobs in the Private Sector; guys who have put in 25 or 30 years of Service and have now planned their 'Retirement'?  Not all of them are "Three Ringers".  Most are Senior NCMs of varing ranks, who have knowledge and skills that are still in demand in the Reserves. 

I have described a mechanism where these individuals could be employed full time (at 85% pay with pension topping it back to 100% pay) with a guarantee of no postings outside the geographic area.  It is almost exactly the same as the Class B option now except that it remains within the Regular Force, and career managers are still responsible for these soldiers.

 

[birdgunnnersrule]

It has been a while since I looked at the retention numbers, but I suspect that a large number of folks are leaving the forces prior to pension eligibility. 

I am now aware of the large divide and some of the issues mention by Mr. Wallace on this site regarding reservists and agree with a lot of the statements.  However, there are a lot of good Regular Force personnel with skills, regardless of time in, that should be encouraged to remain active within the CF, once they decide to leave.  Some of the ideas that are tossed about by MCG are valid.  I am one of those guys that decided to take the 15% pay cut to be my own career manager, without having a pension to fall back on.  Do I want to be career managed? Not in the traditional sense, however, from the professional side, of course. It is extremely important that I continue to gain experience/training so I can keep working and performing at a high level, if not I am a waste of rations and space to the EU and I should be S*** ***ned.  People are your greatest resource and foster there development adds worth to the organization.  As a Reservist, the EU should weigh the benefits of the additional training as it could be quite easy for someone to take a course such AOC and quickly leave upon return.  This is where the idea of a management system for the PRL could work.  It would prevent qualified, but inexperienced, pers from taking posns of higher rank until they are deemed ready.  Just a thought.

 

[Occam]

I have described a mechanism where these individuals could be employed full time (at 85% pay with pension topping it back to 100% pay) with a guarantee of no postings outside the geographic area.  It is almost exactly the same as the Class B option now except that it remains within the Regular Force, and career managers are still responsible for these soldiers.

That math still doesn't add up.  If I've stopped making contributions to the CFSA, and have enough time for an immediate annuity, then I should be receiving that annuity in full.  That pension is between the CFSA and me.

I'm getting reduced to 85% of Reg F pay in recognition of not being subject to periodic postings, and the reality that promotions in the Res F (as a Cl B reservist) are few and far between as it would involve being promoted right out of a job.

If the prospect of employing a Cl B reservist (who has completed a Reg F career already and is drawing an annuity) is unpalatable, then the positions need to be taken over by Reg F, or by Public Service/contractors - which are solutions which present their own headaches.

 

[McG]

That math still doesn't add up.  If I've stopped making contributions to the CFSA, and have enough time for an immediate annuity, then I should be receiving that annuity in full.  That pension is between the CFSA and me.

Legally, that is the case right now.  For the future that system should be changed.  Nobody should be simultaneously collecting two full incomes from the governemt (so no full-time employee/service person simultaneously getting pension payments).  There is no where in private industry wher you will find a set-up where an employer will give retirement pension and simultaneous full time employment.

If the prospect of employing a Cl B reservist (who has completed a Reg F career already and is drawing an annuity) is unpalatable, then the positions need to be taken over by Reg F ....

That is exactly what I proposed.  Go back up and read it.

 

[Occam]

Legally, that is the case right now.  For the future that system should be changed.  Nobody should be simultaneously collecting two full incomes from the governemt (so no full-time employee/service person simultaneously getting pension payments).  There is no where in private industry wher you will find a set-up where an employer will give retirement pension and simultaneous full time employment.

I don't understand why you seem to be fixated on the CFSA pension.  For starters, while it can be successfully argued that CFSA annuity payments come out of the government "cloud" of money, it most definitely does not come out of DND's budget - so there can be no linkage of the annuity to any cost savings for DND.  Secondly, I would argue that the CFSA annuity payments are far from a "full income" - at best, they're 70% of a full income, and few are hitting that figure.

It's probably true that there is no example in civvieland where you'll an annuitant also on the full time payroll of the same company where he earned the annuity.  However, does it really need to be pointed out that the military is nowhere near like a civvie employer, with four classes of service (Reg F, plus Cl A, B and C reserve), with unlimited liability (for any period of Reg F or Cl C service)?

That is exactly what I proposed.  Go back up and read it.

You did indeed propose it.  Making it happen will be a whole 'nother ballgame.  The CF is having a hard enough time filling the existing Reg F positions, never mind planned expansion of the Reg F or assumption of Cl B positions.  I'm far from an expert on the subject, but my gut feeling is that before any plan can be implemented to convert Cl B positions to Reg F, the Reg F needs to get its own house in order with regard to manning.

 

[McG]

I don't understand why you seem to be fixated on the CFSA pension.

Because it is a financial incentive to reduce one's utility to the CF.  Again, no other employer outside the government has a mechanism where an employee can reduce responsibility to the organization while at the same time increasing monthly take home pay.

You are right that the CF is not like civilian employment (I never implied otherwise).  However, those differences do not justify the current absurd arrangement.  We can recognize the high demands placed on service personnel (through a career of postings, deployments, maintaining universality of service requirements, unusual hours, etc, etc) with other mechanisms.  The limited obligation regular force TOS that I have proposed would be one way to do this.  Another option is to allow the pension to top-up pay for anyone that moves over to a lower paying position in the public service.

You did indeed propose it.  Making it happen will be a whole 'nother ballgame.  The CF is having a hard enough time filling the existing Reg F positions, never mind planned expansion of the Reg F or assumption of Cl B positions.  I'm far from an expert on the subject, but my gut feeling is that before any plan can be implemented to convert Cl B positions to Reg F, the Reg F needs to get its own house in order with regard to manning.

If the change were to come, current annuitants should be allowed to continue on their double-dipping ways.  All other permanent Class B employees would be directed to component transfer (with any additional training that may require) into a limited obligation regular force TOS.  There would be the same number of people available.  The difference would be that Career Managers could ensure that, within any given geographic region, the higher priority positions would be filled ahead of the lower priority positions.

The 35 day break requirement would also disappear.  So the limited obligation TOS would be a full 12 months' pay and with pension top-up for eligible service personnel. 

 

[Occam]

So, let me get this straight:

- the "limited obligation Reg F" member would still get paid a reduced salary (85% for argument's sake)
- the "limited obligation Reg F" member would be allowed to draw a reduced annuity, to top up the salary to a max of 100% of Reg F pay

In effect, I would be neither allowed to draw my full annuity (without a full release from the CF, of course), nor would I be able to add to my contributions to the CFSA with the aim of increasing my annuity (that would be a nightmare to administrate!).

I don't see many buying into that.  I know I wouldn't.

 

[McG]

In effect, I would be neither allowed to draw my full annuity (without a full release from the CF, of course), nor would I be able to add to my contributions to the CFSA with the aim of increasing my annuity (that would be a nightmare to administrate!).

Clearly, it would have to be possible for limited obligation reg force to contribute toward a pension.  How it would work for someone eligible for annuity but wanting to continue making contributions is one of those finer hand details that I'd previously mentioned would still need to be resolved.  Perhaps one could simultaneously make pension contributions while receiving the top-up.

 

[Brasidas]

Because it is a financial incentive to reduce one's utility to the CF.  Again, no other employer outside the government has a mechanism where an employee can reduce responsibility to the organization while at the same time increasing monthly take home pay.

There are precedents for companies effectively shooting themselves in the foot by contracting out work. No benefits, higher pay, and a questionable cost savings to the company. Those contractors can wind up being ex-employees hired back as SMEs at higher pay.

You are right that the CF is not like civilian employment (I never implied otherwise).  However, those differences do not justify the current absurd arrangement.  We can recognize the high demands placed on service personnel (through a career of postings, deployments, maintaining universality of service requirements, unusual hours, etc, etc) with other mechanisms.  The limited obligation regular force TOS that I have proposed would be one way to do this.  Another option is to allow the pension to top-up pay for anyone that moves over to a lower paying position in the public service.
If the change were to come, current annuitants should be allowed to continue on their double-dipping ways.  All other permanent Class B employees would be directed to component transfer (with any additional training that may require) into a limited obligation regular force TOS.  There would be the same number of people available.  The difference would be that Career Managers could ensure that, within any given geographic region, the higher priority positions would be filled ahead of the lower priority positions.

The existing structure has the potential to keep folks inside the CF.  If you don't get a wonderful flood of folks transferring into the "limited reg force", as in you get the career reservists but not the semi-retired reg force who'd rather work civvy-side and keep their pension, your scheme's going to see a whole lot of contractors hired to make up the shortfall. And where do those contractors get recruited from? With time lag, the retired class-B guys who didn't find a civvy job they liked better and newly-releasing reg force guys.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

Perhaps one could simultaneously make pension contributions while receiving the top-up.

I don't see how that could be possible to both receive a pension and simultaneously be paying into it.  Sorry, it's not just a fine detail that you can just gloss over.

We tried to stop double dipping in the mid 90s- I'm not sure if you remember or not.  It just led to a shortage of qualified people, because no one was going to cease their pension to rejoin.  We lost a lot of people permanently, or they just went the contractor route and worked for like $500-1000/ day.

MCG- I'm not denying the system is broken and I applaud you for at least attempting to propose a fix.  Perhaps the problem is not too few people (either Reg or Res Force).  Maybe the problem is too many tasks ?