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

[dapaterson]

We are not employed by the CF or DND.
We are employed by Treasury Board.

Strictly speaking, CF are employed by the crown; Treasury Board sets the terms and conditions; those t&c are then administered by the CF.

Retired CF members have been able to go to work for the PS, DND, RCMP, etc. while collecting their pension. Wouldn't you want to retain that talent?
It is common here in the RCMP; Cpl, Sgt or Insp retires and they come back to work as a TCE (Temp Civ Empl) after a suitable break - collecting their well earned pension and we use their vast experience at a cheaper cost than to fill that position with a Cpl, Sgt, insp or CM.

So, a retired RCMP member is brought back as a civilian.  No issue.  If, on the other hand, they were brought back as a member of the Force, paid a salary and permitted to be simultaneously drawing their pension we'd be in the same situation that the CF is in with former Reg F members receiving an annuity while working on an ongoing full-time basis - in many cases, for years at a stretch.

As for the argument that a civilian company wouldn't pay a pension to an employee if they hired them again, it happens all the time: employee retires; company can't find enough qualified pers to fill the spot/function or the work is not enough to fill a full time spot: employee hired as a consultant, keeps collecting pension.
Y2K problem was a good example of that but there are many more and ongoing situations.

cheers,
Frank

Again, consultants and public service employment are different. and not part of this discussion.

I once read Quebec's "Sovereignty Association" as being "divorce with bed privileges".  That seems to be the desire of some - they want to leave the Reg F but still be a CF member full-time, all while drawing a pension for being a former CF member.

Tightening the rules to say "If you're doing it for more than a year, you get one year for free, but then you're back in" is not onerous or punitive.

 

[McG]

The Public Service offers something called transition leave.  In the year (or maybe two) leading up to retirement, pensionable employees are able to work significantly reduced numbers of hours while maintaining their income levels by starting to tap into their pension (though not drawing full benefits).  As Bruce points out, a similar system could be introduced in the CF for pensionable members who transition to the reserve force.  Conceivably, a pension top-up could also be offered in a system that allows Reg F members to serve at 85% the pay while serving like a PRes without obligation for postings or involuntary international operations (though admission to such a program would have to be managed through an AR process and directly linked to manning relative to PML on a year-by-year basis).

As I have stated in other posts, there is no other employer out there that will simultaneously pay a fulltime salary and a retirement pension.  It is absolutely ludicrous that the federal government does it.  I have proposed that all such federal employment pensions (CF, RCMP, PS, Judge, and MP) should be melded into a common program which facilitates movement between groups.

What motivates people to stay with the federal government under such a system?  The ability to continue growing the pension, and the fact that there are fewer and fewer other employers out there who are prepared to offer a decent pension.  I do believe that a converged pension system should continue to recognize greater physical and lifestyle hardships of the CF (and possibly RCMP) by allowing members to retire following shorter periods as compared to civilian PS, but the pension should also encourage service members to consider hanging around a little longer even if in the PS by offering the potential of a slightly higher percentage of base salary. 

In the past, this suggestion has gone down the path of opponents arguing that (40% of a full salary) plus (40% of a full salary) is (80% of a full salary), and therefore everyone should jump-ship as soon as they become pensionable under a system that does not allow double dipping because individuals will have a higher retirement income by getting out in time to earn that second pension somewhere else.  This logic holds up if your career has peaked prior to becoming pensionable (in which case, maybe it wouldn’t hurt if you made room for someone else in the system).  However, most people continue to see the base salary grow (through promotions, pay increments, and annual cost of living increases) at the same time the percentage grows.  So, two minimum time-in-job pensions do not necessarily equal one “maxed” pension even if a linear addition of the minimum time-in-job percentages is slightly higher than the “maxed” percentage.

 

[Remius]

Word is that a CANFORGEN is on its way at some point outlining rules for annuitants and their pensions.  Until that comes out, watch and shoot.

 

[dapaterson]

Until that comes out, watch and shoot.

[bad joke]

Or, on the internet, WATCH AND SHOUT.

[/bad joke]

 

[Remius]

;D  Something tells me that will be the case.

 

[Stoker]

I received a call today from a higher authority on the new regs concerning the double dip. There is a concern that any change of the regs IE not being able to collect a pension will cause these people to leave and affect manning. I told them if they want to give up a 70 grand a year job then that's their choice.
I would imagine that in the case of the army and air reserve then any change will potentially have repercussions. At the end of the day if the people need the job bad enough they won't leave. This is being looked at very closely and I doubt any rash decisions will be made.

 

[Jed]

Once more, the Bean Counters of the world strike a blow against the troops that just want to get on with the job. I hope all of you that moved your PERs to the justified right position by championing this effort, that will remove experienced personnel from the CF and put more work on those that remain, appreciate the results of your work.

I no longer have a dog in this fight but I do feel for those who will be affected.

 

[Harris]

And in addition to the above points, if former reg force pers do jump ship, I'm quite confident there are Class B or Class A reservists who would love to move into those full time posns.

 

[Chanada]

The Public Service offers something called transition leave.  In the year (or maybe two) leading up to retirement, pensionable employees are able to work significantly reduced numbers of hours while maintaining their income levels by starting to tap into their pension (though not drawing full benefits).  As Bruce points out, a similar system could be introduced in the CF for pensionable members who transition to the reserve force.  Conceivably, a pension top-up could also be offered in a system that allows Reg F members to serve at 85% the pay while serving like a PRes without obligation for postings or involuntary international operations (though admission to such a program would have to be managed through an AR process and directly linked to manning relative to PML on a year-by-year basis).

Just a point of clarification ref Public Service "Transition Leave"...Infact it allows the employee to work reduced hours and still be allowed to contribute the full employees contribution to their pension  (not to draw from it).  At the end of the period (max 2 years)...they must retire fully and go to pension (once they go on "transition leave" they lose the right to opt back in or change their mind).  During retirement leave if they work three days a week then their pay is based on three days per week while they pay their pension contribution as if they were working five.

The UK has a system of employing retired military into some public service (Defense Ministry owned civil service jobs) on a "Half Pay" basis that allows people to top up their pension while working.  You will frequently find them staffing things like army museums and sedentary range control jobs of the type that would often be contracted out on ASD.

 

[Chanada]

Apologies to MCG for messing up his quotation...my clarification below....

Just a point of clarification ref Public Service "Transition Leave"...Infact it allows the employee to work reduced hours and still be allowed to contribute the full employees contribution to their pension  (not to draw from it).  At the end of the period (max 2 years)...they must retire fully and go to pension (once they go on "transition leave" they lose the right to opt back in or change their mind).  During retirement leave if they work three days a week then their pay is based on three days per week while they pay their pension contribution as if they were working five.

The UK has a system of employing retired military into some public service (Defense Ministry owned civil service jobs) on a "Half Pay" basis that allows people to top up their pension while working.  You will frequently find them staffing things like army museums and sedentary range control jobs of the type that would often be contracted out on ASD.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Apologies to MCG for messing up his quotation...my clarification below....

Just a point of clarification ref Public Service "Transition Leave"...Infact it allows the employee to work reduced hours and still be allowed to contribute the full employees contribution to their pension  (not to draw from it).  At the end of the period (max 2 years)...they must retire fully and go to pension (once they go on "transition leave" they lose the right to opt back in or change their mind).  During retirement leave if they work three days a week then their pay is based on three days per week while they pay their pension contribution as if they were working five.

The UK has a system of employing retired military into some public service (Defense Ministry owned civil service jobs) on a "Half Pay" basis that allows people to top up their pension while working.  You will frequently find them staffing things like army museums and sedentary range control jobs of the type that would often be contracted out on ASD.

In fact you will often find ROs (as they were called in my day) staffing many highly specialized staff jobs in the MOD. My UK counterpart (15 to 20 years ago) was a retired Air Commodore - his position was Capt(N)/Col/GP Capt (retired) but it could be filled by any (recently) retired and appropriately qualified officer from Cdr/LCol/Wg Cdr through to Cmdr/Brig/AC. It's a good system which we ought to consider for some civil service positons that are always filled by retired military personnel, in ranks from WO through Col, because the civil service job descriptions (validly) call up extensive experience that can only be gained in the CF. My former deputy was one: by the time you tallied up all the required experience it meant he had to have spent 20+ years in the CF. The PSC challenged the job descriotion, as they should have, but looked at the job and agreed the description was fair and accurate and that only a recently retired CF member would do.

 

[armyvern]

Good question.  But is it really ' Full-time ' employment?  Class B employment is currently not really 'Full-time' if it is only for a short period of time -- 89 days.  If one wants to consider that full-time, I would question what their logic is.  Would 'Full-time' also then cover a five day Class B as well......taking us to the ridiculous, but not that far off. 

Also, at 15% less salary than what they made as a Reg Force member, why would that be an incentive to contemplate such a plan?  Are we looking at an equalization in pay for the Reserves with the Regular Force?  I haven't heard of that rumour.

After that question of two pay scales, another question along the lines of "there is one force that employs you" would be "Why then two Pension Plans?" 

Would this also give ALL Reservists the same Medical and Dental benefits as the Regular Force member, or will they still remain ineligible unless hired 'part-time'  > for over 180 days

This whole business is full of holes and a real can of worms.  So many questions -- so few answers.  Are the right questions even being asked of those powers that be?

Crantor

The Ex-Reg Force Class B Reservist I was thinking of, would be the pers that a Reserve Unit would be allowed/is allowed to employ to augment the RSS Staff, not a Class B posn outside the unit in support of a Reg Force unit or formation.  I would include the pers that CBGs are employing in that category as well, as many are hired from the PRL and do not tie down posns in a Res unit.

+300 George.

Although the same employer, they are distinctly different in terms of contractual obligations, pay, benefits, and liabilities.

Until all are treated the same on every one of those fronts, they are NOT the same.

"Same employer", but different pension plans, pay systems and responsibility to serve or deploy = not the same at all.

 

[dapaterson]

The NDA definition remains, regardless of what we may observe about the policies spawned beneath it.  Until the NDA definitions are changed, it's simple:  in law, there is one force.  (Or Force, but not in the "may it be with you" sense of the word)

 

[armyvern]

The NDA definition remains, regardless of what we may observe about the policies spawned beneath it.  Until the NDA definitions are changed, it's simple:  in law, there is one force.  (Or Force, but not in the "may it be with you" sense of the word)

It also remains a fact that DND, CF, RCMP, Agriculture Canada, Tn Canada etc are ALL federal public departments/employees paid, at the end of the day, by the Canadian Taxpayer. Departments are seperate departments, but be careful what you wish for when, in actuality, each and every one of those departments is indeed paid by the same "employer" --- I'd expect, rightfully, further "no double-dipping" pension creep to occur between all of those departments ultimately paid by and working for the same entity.

 

[dapaterson]

For members of specific groups, that's already the case.  You can't go from one public service job to another and begin collecting a pension.  You can't leave the RCMP, then rejoin as a member of the Force and collect a pension.

The CF's problem is entirely of its own making.  The NDA describes us as a single force, Reg, Res and Special Force; a single superannuation act that governs CF members and its associated regulations - a closed ecosystem.  At the end of the day if we are employing Reservists on continuing full-time service we're in contravention of the NDA.  If we're employing individuals on continuing full-time service who are in receipt of an annuity under the CFSA for periods of multiple years, we are violating the spirit if not the letter of the law.

If we change our policies to be better aligned with the Acts of Parliament that rule us, so be it.

 

[Remius]

And as well although there are seperate departements or agencies not all fall under the public service employment act.  The CF and RCMP have their own employment and superannuation act hence why CF members can work as civys and still collect their pension.  Same goes for a public servant that has a pension.  They have limitations on their employment.  If they come back full time for too long they have to start contributing and stop collecting their pensions.

The intent of the changes for annuitants is to be more in line with the spirit of the CFSA.  My understanding is that these changes will affect long term class bs of a year or more.  Class A and short term contracts (like summer tasks) will largely be unafffected.

 

[armyvern]

For members of specific groups, that's already the case.  You can't go from one public service job to another and begin collecting a pension.  You can't leave the RCMP, then rejoin as a member of the Force and collect a pension.

The CF's problem is entirely of its own making.  The NDA describes us as a single force, Reg, Res and Special Force; a single superannuation act that governs CF members and its associated regulations - a closed ecosystem.  At the end of the day if we are employing Reservists on continuing full-time service we're in contravention of the NDA.  If we're employing individuals on continuing full-time service who are in receipt of an annuity under the CFSA for periods of multiple years, we are violating the spirit if not the letter of the law.

If we change our policies to be better aligned with the Acts of Parliament that rule us, so be it.

In essence, you are saying that it's OK for an ex-General to collect his CF pension while being employed in DND as a public servant doing the same job he was as a general ... while if he went ResF it would be "wrong."

We'll have to agree to disagree as I am a firm believer that both are wrong; call it whatever you will, both situations reek.

 

[Remius]

No that would not and should not pass the smell test.  but there is nothing wrong with said general retiring and taking on a role as a civilian at DND or another department in a different capacity if he meets the requirements. 

 

[armyvern]

No that would not and should not pass the smell test.  but there is nothing wrong with said general retiring and taking on a role as a civilian at DND or another department in a different capacity if he meets the requirements.

Except that it does pass the test ... and the upcoming rumoured changes will do nothing to change that ex-general situation - only the Res F / Reg F situation.

Edited to add: and I see no difference between the two situations. Both are collecting federal pensions while still being employed full time by the feds.

 

[dapaterson]

Except that it does pass the test ... and the upcoming rumoured changes will do nothing to change that ex-general situation - only the Res F / Reg F situation.

Edited to add: and I see no difference between the two situations. Both are collecting federal pensions while still being employed full time by the feds.

There are differences between the military and the public service.


Saying that you're full time military while collecting a pension for your prior full-time military service is where the problem lies.  Shit or get off the pot.


(And, for the record, there are far more public servants who retired from the CF at much more humble ranks than there are public servants who retired while General officers)