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

[Kat Stevens]

The pension wasn't the first thing in my mind at the RC when I joined, but it was up there.  After my CD and a trip to a pretty unsavoury part of the world, and the closure of CFE, I was within a gnats pubie of quitting.  The pension kept me here, as I had more done than left to do.  Again in 96, when CFB Chilliwack was closed, I was ready to quit rather than go to Edmonton.  The pension kept me here,as I had only 4 years to get my 20.  I ended up doing 23, and would have done more if my back would have let me, for the pension.

 

[HItorMiss]

I know they have not nor do I think they would but if the CF tried to change my pension I will see them in court.

I signed a contract with them as my employer stating my service with a pension after 20yrs "IF" they ever tried to force a change on that I would find them to be in breach of contract and would seek legal recourse.


Bold added as a hypothetical as the CF has not nor have I heard any rumor that they would force a change to those on the "old" plan.

 

[Jed]

I too, did not join because of the pension. I did sign my IE though because of that. It was part of the deal. To me the system broke faith when they changed the CRA. Simply put, I do not trust the system one iota to keep its word. This is like changing the rules half way through the game. Hence my original comment wrt shivers going up my back when I see these desperate attempts at screwing with pension and well tried employment systems that function. It seems to me there are a lot of folks very bluntly discussing these issues and pointing out the effects of Bean Counter tinkering.

I hope those beans are worth the heart ache caused to anyone affected.

 

[McG]

I do, however, like your suggestion of getting rid of Annuitant Lve, as that would make these guys more deployable, and I know of several who have deployed in Trade on TAVs ...

The problem is that we can't bring about this change without changing the pension. The 35 day brake is a loop-hole to get around the laws and regulations that already prohibit collecting that CF pension and being fully employed.  I am proposing a system that is upfront and not dependent on loop-holes.

Retention of members in the Regular Force has absolutely nothing to do with the Reserves. 

It absolutely does when the reserves are poaching from the regular force to fill their Class B jobs.  (At the same time, Class B employers are also in competition with each other.  At the aggregate level, the Class B bloat is hoovering up pers from both the reserves and the regs, and it is crippling the sustainability of both components.  There is no check to ensure minimally significant positions are not tying people away from real important work.)

I am in a Unit that has two Regular Force positions (one officer and one WO) that have not been filled in the last five years.  They are filled by Class B Resevists, who have been former Reg Force, and have several Tours under their belts.  We also have one Reg Force posn that has been filled constantly by a Cpl RMS Clerk, promoted acting lacking MCpl and made CC ...

I have addressed this problem in my proposal.  How many Class B pers of the right quals are working in a bottom priority job somewhere in the bowels of NDHQ but untouchable to the CMs?  If the Class B option were replaced with Reg F limited obligation TOS, the CM would have the option of moving those guys in the same geographic location to the more important jobs (instead of units creating more Class B positions  that add to the problem).

... don't pull this " more valuable regular force personnel" crap on me. 

The simple fact that the Reg F personnel can be posted makes them more valuable.  They can be put where they fit better or are needed more.  At the aggregate level, even the limited obligation TOS provides more value to the CF than untouchable Class Bs.

I think that the CF should be encouraging Reg Force members, who are Releasing, to join the Reserves.  Look at the money, training and experience that has been sunk into them.  Loosing them completely from the CF is a total waste.  If MCG thinks the Reg Force is hurting, he should look at the Reserves.  Approx 50% of every Reservist trained and sent on Tour, in some Trades, CT within a year of becoming qualified.  That means the Reserves can barely sustain their skills.  They need Ex-Reg Force pers to maintain some of their knowledge base and train the next generations.  The current 'regime' is bleeding the Reserves dry and destroying them.

Instead, why not offer limited obligation TOS if we are trying to keep full time service pers to train the reserves?  If someone wants to go to geographic location X, then offer to post member there and provide limited obligation TOS.  Sure, some will end up in locations where there is only one unit and so the limited obligation TOS would work out the same as a Class B (from the member's perspective).  However, most pers accepting this offer would end-up in larger towns or cities with a handful of units, maybe a reserve formation HQ, a CFRC and possibly even a few fully regular force establishments.  The ability of the CM to move the limited obligation Reg F individual to higher priority employment would give greater flexibility to the system and make the individual more valuable to the system.

... I brought up our pension plan because it is different precisely because WE are different from the civil service - exactly why WE are paid differently (over & above 'their' benchmarks for doing same 'storesman jobs' etc) by getting the military factor. ...

You are proposing to treat our pension of that of the "regular civil service" ... why? If you can justify that when WE are different, then it's a logical next step for the bean counters to consider our "pay" in line with theirs too.

There's a reason we are not treated the same - that is because we are not the same ... we are very very different from them and you've yet to consider that factoid in your proposal to treat us as one in the same.

Vern, I have considered and accounted for that "factoid."  A Public Servant cannot choose to move to a lower paying position and receive pay top-up once they have achieved enough pensionable time.  The pay top-up option is how I propose we recognize the military difference.  Of course, I've already alluded to this:

• However, recognizing that the military is not the PS, I think there should be an option for a lower tempo career path for people who have done their time to slide into

Your suggestion, that this is the first step toward removing pay compensation for extra work & obligation done in the military, is silly fear-mongering. 

I signed a contract with [the CF] as my employer stating my service with a pension after 20yrs "IF" they ever tried to force a change on that I would find them to be in breach of contract and would seek legal recourse.

You did not sign a contract.  You signed terms of service.  There is a recognized difference.

Frankly, to suggest that the problem is that our pension is too good is asinine, ...

It is not that the pension is too good.  It is that the pension gives-up its retention incentive too early.

But you still haven't addressed the very very fundamental question of ... those who are still trying to decide whether or not a career in the CF is the right thing for them.

They would join under the plan I have proposed.  As I stated earlier, I do not believe the mechanics of the pension are a major factor in the decision to join.  The fact that a pension exists is a factor, but for most new recruits it is a check in the box type of factor and that check mark will still be achieved with the proposal I am making here.

But you still haven't addressed the very very fundamental question of how your plan would affect people who currently have between 0 - 19 or 24 years TI ...

You are right.  I have not addressed this yet.  There are a lot of ways to do this.  Grandfathering is the pretty obvious option, and would keep most people happy.  Maybe signing an IE 25 would be conditional on accepting the new pension plan, so only those already on IE 25 or IPS would be grandfathered while those just completing the first couple of years would have a choice to make.

There are options to make the pension more attractive at the same time as it is being deferred.  If the government is saving money because of the pension being deferred, then maybe that money go back into paying out a larger benefit when the time finally does come.  I've also already indicated that CRA maybe is not the right age to defer unitil.  Maybe 25 years service gets you a pension at CRA - 5, and 30 years service will lower the deferment to CRA - 10.  Depending on what the increased annual benefit might be, you could even see people volunteer to switch to the new pension at the end of their IE 25 (but I would not make new TOS conditional on accepting the new pension at this stage in a person's career).

I have run my own numbers and it is clear to me that the only loser in the long run is me if I had accepted the Class B carrot then serving my last 4 years to 35 years on Class B.....

As I stated earlier, you might want to consider your comparison in net present value as opposed to just absolute dollars.  It recognizes that a dollar this year is of more value to you than a dollar next year.  Regardless, for a lot of people, more money now is still a big incentive to double-dip even if it less total money down the road. 

 

[George Wallace]

It absolutely does when the reserves are poaching from the regular force to fill their Class B jobs.

But you see no problem with the Reg Force "poaching" from the Reserves.

(At the same time, Class B employers are also in competition with each other.  At the aggregate level, the Class B bloat is hoovering up pers from both the reserves and the regs, and it is crippling the sustainability of both components.  There is no check to ensure minimally significant positions are not tying people away from real important work.)

That is your opinion only.

.......If the Class B option were replaced with Reg F limited obligation TOS, the CM would have the option of moving those guys in the same geographic location to the more important jobs (instead of units creating more Class B positions  that add to the problem).
The simple fact that the Reg F personnel can be posted makes them more valuable.  They can be put where they fit better or are needed more.  At the aggregate level, even the limited obligation TOS provides more value to the CF than untouchable Class Bs.
Instead, why not offer limited obligation TOS if we are trying to keep full time service pers to train the reserves?  If someone wants to go to geographic location X, then offer to post member there and provide limited obligation TOS.  Sure, some will end up in locations where there is only one unit and so the limited obligation TOS would work out the same as a Class B (from the member's perspective).  However, most pers accepting this offer would end-up in larger towns or cities with a handful of units, maybe a reserve formation HQ, a CFRC and possibly even a few fully regular force establishments.  The ability of the CM to move the limited obligation Reg F individual to higher priority employment would give greater flexibility to the system and make the individual more valuable to the system.

I don't see this as an improvement.  It further compounds problems that the CF already have.  I can not see anyone wanting to remain in the CF, pay towards their pension, still have to be Posted or Deployed if the CM so dictates and all of that with a 15% Pay cut.

The other thing about this plan of yours is that these people would still be tying up posns in their Trade and the  CM would not be able to promote any of your "more valuable members".  This has a cause and effect on maintaining skill and experience in all Trades.  Promoting above the quotas set in the CM model for a Trade compounds the problem.  We have seen FRP and the disaster it caused in many Trades.  Now you want to keep the "long Service" members on the Rolls even longer, holding up promotions from top to bottom.  If you think that your plan should not be affected by this, then you are discriminating against the "long Service member" and encouraging them to leave.  People will work for rewards, not disenfranchisement.

Perhaps you would like to address this:

Let's touch on another subject here:  Promotions.

Stopping the long service member, who has now earned a pension, from Releasing and perhaps joining the Reserves, is tying up a whole string of promotions.  The higher that person's rank, the more promotions they are holding up.  Ask the Career Manager about his model.

Stopping promotions, stops younger blood from gaining the necessary skills and experience to step into the multitude of posns that will open up when the oldsters Retire en mass.  We have already experienced some of this in some units and Trades.

As for your tinkering with the Pension Plan, I would say that you are walking on thin ice.  People may not all join for the Pension, but once they have served for a period of time, it does become an incentive as Vern has stated: "where else can one retire with a Pension at 43?" 

You must also remember that your 'Double Dippers' are no longer paying into a Pension Plan.  They are not contributing to increasing their pension, nor contributing to a second Pension Plan.  As has been pointed out, if money was their goal, they are loosing out on the deal as is.

 

[HItorMiss]

You did not sign a contract.  You signed terms of service.  There is a recognized difference.

I concede the point it is called a term of service not a contract. However There are penalties should I choose to break my term of service because it is a legal agreement between 2 parties. Should the CF choose to break their end of said agreement then they should be held accountable with penalties as well again forcing me to think about about legal action.

In the end changing the pension plan of those still under the 20 year pension plan would be fool hardy and IMO illegal. Wether you call it a term of service or a contract what it is, is a binding agreement between two parties full stop.

 

[captloadie]

This is the only point of this whole argument that I will agree with MCG on, we do not have a legal contract with our employer. If you look at the Grievance Board website at some of the case examples regarding terms of service, they consistently say that there is no binding legal contract between a member and the DND. We serve at the whim of the Crown, and that includes all things pay and pension included.

Like many others have stated, I didn't join because of the pension, but there are days when that's what is keeping me here.

 

[George Wallace]

The issue at hand is far too complex and interwoven to say that any single simple "solution" exists.  There are issues in the way we train people, we need to re-examine why we depend on the Reserves and CT to fill shortfalls the training system no longer has the resources to meet, we need to examine sources of attrition in the Reg F to slow the demand that drains the Reserves and places undue demands on the training system ...

As Michael O'Leary points out, we need to examine the sources of attrition in the Reg Force.  We have seen proposals made here that have been to 'attack' a certain demographic, and totally ignore the root cause of the problem.  The problem is not with people who have proven their dedication and commitment to the CF, but with the younger generation who do not see the commitment to continue in the CF.  MCG, that is your demographic.  Why do you want to 'punish' those who have shown a long lasting dedication and commitment to the CF, and continue to do so as Reservists; yet ignore the fact that it is your demographic who is abandoning the CF?  Why take away incentives, when you should be looking at what incentives may be needed to retain your demographic? 

The CF has been a victim of the 'Peace Dividend' since the 1950's and seen almost regular 50% cuts to the various Elements.  The current strength of the CF wouldn't even match that of one of the three Services prior to 'Unification'.  The Recruiting freeze, Pay freeze, and FRP twenty years ago also contributed greatly to the state we are in.  Penalizing members now is not the answer.  What incentives do the younger generation want?  Promotions is one.  Keeping (for an extreme example) 200 CWOs, 400 MWOs, 800 WOs, 1600 Sgts in the Infantry Branch would not be conducive to the retention of pers in the Regular Force Infantry.  Spread that across all Trades and we have a serious problem in the Regular Force--Too many Chiefs and not enough Indians--No place for advancement--No chance of perpetuating skill sets, knowledge and experience.

 

[McG]

That is your opinion only.

Really George?  It is only my opinion that there is no mechanism to ensure Class B positions are filled on a priority basis?!  It is not opinion. There is no such mechanism.  It is also not "just my opinion" that Class B positions are in competition with each other.  I've seen the pool run dry of available Class B pers and important positons could not be filled.  I am sorry, but as soon as an argument becomes inconvenient, you cannot just magic-carpet it away with "that's your opinion" or "apples and oranges."

That is all I have time to address at the moment, but while you wait for my return you might want to go back and re-read what I've posted through this thread.  Once again, I have already addressed a lot of what you are raising.  I'd rather not make you look like a lazy debater by answering your arguments with quotes made prior to you posting the arguments (again).

 

[gcclarke]

MCG, before I go on addressing any of the points in your last post, allow me to pose one question. Step back and think for a minute before answering please. When a member of the regular force leaves the regular force shortly after they have enough time in to be able to draw a pension, which scenario do you honestly think is more likely: That member suddenly decided to leave a job that they would have otherwise liked to stay in because they now had an opportunity to make more money. Or; That member would probably have left the regular force years earlier, but instead decided to stay in long enough to reach enough time in to get the pension.

It is my contention that the latter is far more frequent than the former. Should your change be enacted, people would be much less inclined to bother staying in past the point when the excitement of a new job wears off. I would imagine that the majority of people who have significant time in could find higher paying work in the private sector anyways. It isn't merely about the money.

There are options to make the pension more attractive at the same time as it is being deferred.  If the government is saving money because of the pension being deferred, then maybe that money go back into paying out a larger benefit when the time finally does come.  I've also already indicated that CRA maybe is not the right age to defer unitil.  Maybe 25 years service gets you a pension at CRA - 5, and 30 years service will lower the deferment to CRA - 10.  Depending on what the increased annual benefit might be, you could even see people volunteer to switch to the new pension at the end of their IE 25 (but I would not make new TOS conditional on accepting the new pension at this stage in a person's career).

They only way I could see something like this working at all is if the "increased annual benefit" was of a sufficient amount that it quickly made up for any lost income from having to wait till the CRA - X point.

 

[armyvern]

Vern, I have considered and accounted for that "factoid."  A Public Servant cannot choose to move to a lower paying position and receive pay top-up once they have achieved enough pensionable time.  The pay top-up option is how I propose we recognize the military difference.  Of course, I've already alluded to this:

Your suggestion, that this is the first step toward removing pay compensation for extra work & obligation done in the military, is silly fear-mongering. 

It is not that the pension is too good.  It is that the pension gives-up its retention incentive too early.

In your mind; not in mine.

Here I am at (say) 45 years of age. Sick of moving. I get out of the RegF. No more pension until I reach 55 (or 60 or whatever number you eventually settle on).

Ergo, I need a job. Do I go B Class for the next 15 or 20 years until my pension kicks in earning 100% of my pay (with your proposed top-up) until such time ...

OR

Do I get a civvie job at 100% pay (minimum involving my hazmat/DG quals) at age 45 instead ... working there for 20 years so that I now earn a second pension?

Hmmm, either way ... I'm done at 65 max. Your way, I'd have worked for the CF RegF for 25 years, then B Class for 20 (until CRA 60) then will collect one pension. My way, I'd have worked for the CF for 25 years deferring my pension until 60, then at a civ job for 20 years earning another pension, then retire from said civ job at 65 ... collecting TWO pensions for the rest of my life. Sure, I worked an extra 5 years but I've actually MADE a whole lot more money and am financially better-off in the long run.

Why then, given your proposal would anyone stay in the CF after they hit their "pensionability" year of service? They've got to still get a job when they get out ... and if they want to earn a pension (ie work towards something in that second job) they're best to get out sooner, rather than later.

The choice "for me" is pretty obvious to me.

 

[CountDC]

I am going to call BS on this.  Vern, I do not know anybody who decided to join the CF because of its pension and certainly not for a comparison of the CF pension to the PS pension.

PICK ME PICK ME!! 

plain and simple - the only reason I am reg f now is because I wanted the pension. I know there were others that did CT's for the same reason.  What other reason could there be to give up full time Sgt posn with the reserves to become a Cpl in the reg f?? Postings? Redo courses that you know more about than the instructors?  I am also glad they changed the pension rules - I can retire earlier than under the old.  maybe in a few years I will double-dip.

 

[armyvern]

Maybe 25 years service gets you a pension at CRA - 5, and 30 years service will lower the deferment to CRA - 10. 

CRA minus 10 = 50.

Join at 20 years of age + 30 years of service = 50 years of age = immediately pensionable. Just as they are right now. That's some kind of incentive.

If they joined at 18, they're hitting the 30 year mark at 48, so have to wait two years to collect. That's generous of you. No thanks. Likewise, you punish those that join at an earlier age (isn't that who we're trying to attract??) by telling them that their 30 years of service are not on equal footing with a 20 year old (or 22 year olds yos). Because they joined younger (at 18), they can't have an immediate pension like their counterpart 20 year old from their BMQ who joined the CF on the same day as them and who retires 30 years later on the same day as them.

So, you have the long service folks who've demonstrated their loyalty being punished (but not as much, but punished none the less) for being sick and tired of moving and other assorted BS.

Soory, but I, for one, wouldn't hang around that long.

 

[George Wallace]

I have to say that tinkering with members pensions does no good.  If some highlevel bean counter pulled off a "NORTEL" on the CF Pension Plan and left us all with the grand sum of "0" after years of paying into it, there would be just as much outcry as this plan is currently generating.  How do you morally and ethically justify changing a Pension Plan that you sold to the members, which those members paid into in good conscience?

Even if it is your plan to 'grandfather' those already enrolled, you are creating yet another tier in the administration.  You will have created yet another CF Pension to go with those still under the 20/40 Plan, and those under the newer 25 Year Plan.  Will this become an annual event; creating a new CF Pension Plan to meet conditions of the day?

 

[observor 69]

FYI matching pension contributions from employer:

CFSA 3 to 1
Federal public service  2 to 1
Provincial public service 1 to 1.

Ref:  http://www.admfincs.forces.gc.ca/doc/dcf-dsp/ar-ra-0708-eng.pdf
      http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/editorials/dont-retire-yet/article1417808/

 

[old fart]

I will add this...if any changes are again made to our CFSA pension it will not be with a view to increasing benefits to the member. 

Hopefully any bean counters following these type of threads would only go down the change for change sake route with a full realization of how costly any changes can be.  I for one feel extremely fortunate that I was grandfathered when the  CFSA pension was tweaked the l ast time around (2007?) and thus not subjected to any of the new provisions/changes. 

As for the why we joined in the first place....the pension aspect was never a factor for me until I joined the CF from the Brits.  Pension soon became important as I realised I was in for the long haul! 

Why, when I first came over it was with the belief that all I had to do was top up my nine years Brit to the 20 year mark.  I was a tad surprised when I found out I had to do 20 YOS in the CF to get an annuity and could pay back my nine years Brit time if I desired.

Now at 48 years old with a Reg Force pension from 16.5 years of age...I am glad that I both  stuck around and decided to buy back the time (and I have a long since retired Pay CWO (Chilliwack circa 1987) to thank for that; his timely guidance prevented me making what would have been the worst possible financial mistake imaginable). 

 

[TCBF]

- Amazing thread - I thank you all.

- In the back of my mind is the statement made at every SISIP briefing I ever attended as a young soldier: " The average CF retiree is dead within five years after CRA!"  Did they B.S. us, or what?

- I concur with giving career managers complete control over ALL positions filled by their occupations - Regular, Class B, etc.  That would sort things out, until...

... one hundred angry Members Of Parliament lead a torch march to the Prime Minister's door, wondering why their pet Class B "job creation positions" in their ridings dried up and flew away.  Yes, Virginia, their IS a political aspect to PS/DND HR issues.  Otherwise, the only civillians working on CF bases in areas of low employment would be CF spouses - somewhat like CFE in the good old days.  Everyone loves the Forces, until our wives take their jobs.

 

[McG]

When a member of the regular force leaves the regular force shortly after they have enough time in to be able to draw a pension, which scenario do you honestly think is more likely: That member suddenly decided to leave a job that they would have otherwise liked to stay in because they now had an opportunity to make more money. Or; That member would probably have left the regular force years earlier, but instead decided to stay in long enough to reach enough time in to get the pension.

It is my contention that the latter is far more frequent than the former. Should your change be enacted, people would be much less inclined to bother staying in past the point when the excitement of a new job wears off.

I suspect you are right, but I also suspect that a sweetened benefit will compensate for the deferment and keep people around.

Fine, grandfather in those already on an IE or IPS. You still haven't addressed the fundamental question of why currently serving personnel who aren't on an IE or IPS wouldn't then leave in droves. I've already stated that if these changes were made, that I would be out the door shortly thereafter.

I believe that even with my proposed changes, our pension is better than most others out there.  It costs less, pays back well and I have proposed increasing the benefit to further compensate for the deferment.

If you want people to stay in the regular force longer, offer them incentives to do so. ... Offer up more leave past the 25 year point. Maybe have them start earning an additional 3% per year vice 2% past 25 years. Or think of something else.

I like these ideas, and there is no reason that these and my proposal need be exclusive of each other.

But of course, if you do grandfather in those on an IE or IPS, but still make the changes for everyone else, then guess what, we haven't accomplished any of our goals!

Not in the short term, but in the long term we would be better set-up having a pension that does not reflect design from a period of manpower abundance.  Something that rewards long service but does not prematurely give away the cow.

At the same the same time, there would be flexibility should we ever find ourselves in another period of manpower abundance.  This thread has demonstrated that raising retirements thresholds will see a revolt from those people who were planning on them.  However, there is would be far less push-back to lowering the minimum annuitant age for a temporary (maybe even several year period) early retirement programme.  All the while, new guys coming in the door understand that their annuitant age is CRA -5 to CRA -10 (depending on years of service).

But you see no problem with the Reg Force "poaching" from the Reserves.

I do not see the Reg F as poaching from the reserves because the Reg F does not offer a part-time military employment option.  To be fair, I should not say that the Reserves are poaching from the Reg F either.  Rather, I should say that the Class B bloat is doing the poaching with the double dip as one of the incentives.  Class B bloat is poaching full time service personnel from the regular force, and it is poaching reservists from the reserves.

I don't see this as an improvement.  It further compounds problems that the CF already have.  I can not see anyone wanting to remain in the CF, pay towards their pension, still have to be Posted or Deployed if the CM so dictates and all of that with a 15% Pay cut.

George, this is not how I described the limited obligation TOS.  In fact, I specifically said there would not be the obligatory deployments.  Yes there would be postings but only within the same geographic location. 

• ... these individuals could be employed full time ... 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.

• I think it is fair to provide that option for reduced obligation (in that postings are only within the geographic area and there are no more obligatory deployments). 

It is not really that grand a hassle to be told you are going to work at Star Top instead of at 101, or that you are going to work at 31 CBGHQ instead of 4 RCR or 1 H.

Why would people do this?  For the same reason that people are doing it now: because they don't want anymore moves and  they don't want to be deployed anymore, but they really don't want to leave the military.  I've raised this point to you before, but you seem to casually ignore it:

• 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"? 

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

• 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.

The other thing about this plan of yours is that these people would still be tying up posns in their Trade and the  CM would not be able to promote any of your "more valuable members".  This has a cause and effect on maintaining skill and experience in all Trades.  Promoting above the quotas set in the CM model for a Trade compounds the problem.  We have seen FRP and the disaster it caused in many Trades.  Now you want to keep the "long Service" members on the Rolls even longer, holding up promotions from top to bottom.  If you think that your plan should not be affected by this, then you are discriminating against the "long Service member" and encouraging them to leave.  People will work for rewards, not disenfranchisement.

Perhaps you would like to address this:

Let's touch on another subject here:  Promotions.

Stopping the long service member, who has now earned a pension, from Releasing and perhaps joining the Reserves, is tying up a whole string of promotions.  The higher that person's rank, the more promotions they are holding up.  Ask the Career Manager about his model.

Stopping promotions, stops younger blood from gaining the necessary skills and experience to step into the multitude of posns that will open up when the oldsters Retire en mass.  We have already experienced some of this in some units and Trades.

George, I have presented the mechanism that will ensure limited obligation pers do not clog the promotion ways for the full obligation pers.  If a given occupation at a given rank is so fully manned that proper career progression & promotions have stopped, then the short limited obligation TOS will not be available for issue/renew.

• 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

I also presented other factors that will mitigate the risk the limited obligation pers plugging the promotions ways.  Recall that I indicated the regular force establishment would grow by converting all the long term reserve positions to Reg F PYs (my proposal was everything that has been around for 3 be converted).  This increase in positions increases the number of service personnel required to actually clog the system.

You must also remember that your 'Double Dippers' are no longer paying into a Pension Plan.  They are not contributing to increasing their pension, nor contributing to a second Pension Plan.  As has been pointed out, if money was their goal, they are loosing out on the deal as is.

But, as I and others have pointed out, more money right now is still an incentive for a lot of people even if it is not more money in ten years down the road.

• 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.

• ... for a lot of people, more money now is still a big incentive to double-dip even if it less total money down the road. 

• In any case, more money now (even if it is less agregated years down the road) is still a financial incentive and it will poach people who otherwise may have continued full obligation service.  We should be providing financial incetives that encourage providing maximum utility to the CF and not incentives that make reducing one's utility more attractive.

As Michael O'Leary points out, we need to examine the sources of attrition in the Reg Force. 

This is correct.  We do need to look at all aspects of the problem, and that includes this aspects that I am raising here.

CRA minus 10 = 50.

Join at 20 years of age + 30 years of service = 50 years of age = immediately pensionable. Just as they are right now. That's some kind of incentive.

Technically yes, but it is after five additional years of service as compared to now.

... you punish those that join at an earlier age by telling them that their 30 years of service are not on equal footing with a 20 year old (or 22 year olds yos). Because they joined younger (at 18), they can't ....

This is not something that is new or scandalous.  We already have pension entitlements that can become available simply for reaching the age of 50 (and I don't propose these benefits or the threshold change). 

So, you have the long service folks who've demonstrated their loyalty being punished (but not as much, but punished none the less) for being sick and tired of moving and other assorted BS.

If they are sick and tired of moving and other assorted BS, I am offering limited obligation TOS and pay top-up.

If some highlevel bean counter pulled off a "NORTEL" on the CF Pension Plan and left us all with the grand sum of "0" after years of paying into it, there would be just as much outcry as this plan is currently generating.  How do you morally and ethically justify changing a Pension Plan that you sold to the members, which those members paid into in good conscience?

Nice rant.  Not relevant.  Remember:

• Grandfathering

At the same time, it is interesting of you to remind us of the risk and danger associated with some private pension plans.  That risk doesn't exist if you stick around and continue building a public pension entitlement (such as the CF pension).

Why then, given your proposal would anyone stay in the CF after they hit their "pensionability" year of service?

To grow that CF pension entitlement.  You might find another job to get a second pension, but not for the same low price as the CF pension costs:

• FYI matching pension contributions from employer:
  
  CFSA 3 to 1
  Federal public service  2 to 1
  Provincial public service 1 to 1.

 

[armyvern]

Technically yes, but it is after five additional years of service as compared to now.
This is not something that is new or scandalous.  We already have pension entitlements that can become available simply for reaching the age of 50 (and I don't propose these benefits or the threshold change). 
If they are sick and tired of moving and other assorted BS, I am offering limited obligation TOS and pay top-up.
Nice rant.  Not relevant.  Remember:

At the same time, it is interesting of you to remind us of the risk and danger associated with some private pension plans.  That risk doesn't exist if you stick around and continue building a public pension entitlement (such as the CF pension).
To grow that CF pension entitlement.  You might find another job to get a second pension, but not for the same low price as the CF pension costs:

• 
  
  I've already addressed what I'd do with my extra 5 years; despite your best hopes --- I'd be working them in the private sector earning 100% (your topup ergo means diddly squat to me) wages, with my CF pension sitting there deferred, but collecting it at CRA ... then working that exrta 5 years for the private sector (til 65) while collecting my CF pension AND 100% of that private sector pay AND at 65 ... retiring from them and having 2 pensions.
  
  I'm OUT completely at 45 years old your way.
  
  Funny how my pointing that out to you is "a rant" and "not relevant" ... but you've just screwed the young ones that your trying to entice to join, and you've screwed the long-timers too. The people like me, we'll just be done with it all - gone.
  
  You seem to be very quick, almost like a dog with a bone, to point out how "good and enticing" your plan is (it isn't), while having no second thoughts about pointing out the flaws in private sector pensions while repeatedly ignoring those flaws in your own.
  
  If you think that your proposal is going to keep people like me around, you're wrong. If you think that an 18 year old will view it as "enticing" - you're wrong. Seems to me that the only pers in this thread so far who's finding it enticing is yourself.
  
  Take a step back and read what some of us have posted (instead of telling us to read yours) that are flaws in your proposal. The problems it will create with recruting, retention, how it discriminates on age so that 2 people who join on the exact same day and realease on the exact same day 30 years later sees the 20 year old gaining thousands of dollars over the 18 year old while that 18 year old sits back and waits for CRA to kick in "just because". etc etc

 

[McG]

Take a step back and read what some of us have posted (instead of telling us to read yours) that are flaws in your proposal.

Vern, you hit post faster than you could have read from the time you saw my reply.  You complaint of being accused of ranting is off the mark.  That comment was not linked to any of the quotes from you.

That is fine that you would be gone at 45.  Some people will choose that.  I am not convinced your position is representative of decision a broader spectrum of pers would make. Five more years in the service would get you more than starting new somewhere else.