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

[armyvern]

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.

I read your reply.

You are telling George repeatedly to "read" ... no counter arguments to your proposal "are relevant" seemingly or we simply "haven't read". That was the point. Take your own advice.

5 less years in the service (retiring at 45) gets me TWO pensions for the rest of my life ... and I still get 100% wages between 45 and 65 working in the private sector ... and from 60 to 65 I'll be collecting my CF pension too.

If this thread is representative of how people feel (not just me) ... I quite suspect that you'd better "broaden that spectrum" of potential people like me who think your plan sucks.

What exactly do you propose when pers "max out" their pensionability? They still get to wait for CRA? Why go B Class then either. They'll need another job until their CRA kicks in ... might as well work towards a second pension too I guess.

 

[McG]

Vern, it's CRA-10.  If the pension is maxed, they certainly can be collecting.

 

[aesop081]

Five more years in the service would get you more than starting new somewhere else.

Maybe, maybe not. Regardless of that, 5 more years is not something i take lightly. 5 more years of service means at least one more deployment, several more trips across the country for training , one or 2 more postings ( with, undoubtably, some IR in there for good measure) and a whole lot of frustrations.

5 more years of dealing with that doesnt make for an easy decision. That a decision many of us on the edge of our 20 are facing and i will put cash money on a bet that there will be more than a few who will leave because of that "5 years".

 

[armyvern]

Vern, it's CRA-10.  If the pension is maxed, they certainly can be collecting.

You're CRA -10 is age discriminatory as already pointed out with the 18/20 year old scenario.

It's one thing to discriminate based upon rank/pay/best '5' etc --- it's totally another to discriminate based soley upon age when pensioning 2 pers for the exact same years of service, entry & release date, rank etc because one of them joined at 18 and one joined at 20, but both are below CRA.

I'm not so sure it'd pass the Charter test.

 

[McG]

Maybe, maybe not. Regardless of that, 5 more years is not something i take lightly. 5 more years of service means at least one more deployment, several more trips across the country for training , one or 2 more postings and a whole lot of frustrations.

5 more years of dealing with that doesnt make for an easy decision. That a decision many of us on the edge of our 20 are facing and i will put cash money on a bet that there will be more than a few who will leave because of that "5 years".

What if you could still build that pension on limited obligation TOS?

You're CRA -10 is age discriminatory as already pointed out with the 18/20 year old scenario.

It's one thing to discriminate based upon rank/pay/best '5' etc --- it's totally another to discriminate based soley upon age when pensioning 2 pers for the exact same years of service, entry & release date, rank etc because one of them joined at 18 and one joined at 20, but both are below CRA.

I'm not so sure it'd pass the Charter test.

It must pass the Charter test.  We are already doing it (reduced pension available at 50 even without the 25 years service) and the PS is doing it (30 years service at age 55 for early retirement benefit).

 

[armyvern]

What if you could still build that pension on limited obligation TOS?
It must pass the Charter test.  We are already doing it (reduced pension available at 50 even without he 25 years service) and the PS is doing it (30 years service at age 55 for early retirement benefit).

That's an option those members choose <--- operative word there. That means it's not discriminatory.

You are "enacting" a new pension plan that leaves "no choice" and outright discriminates against the younger member who has completed the exact same number of years of service as the other one did. That's a very large (and legal too me thinks) difference.

 

[McG]

That's an option those members choose <--- operative word there. That means it's not discriminatory.

You are "enacting" a new pension plan that leaves "no choice" and outright discriminates against the younger member who has completed the exact same number of years of service as the other one did. That's a very large (and legal too me thinks) difference.

At 30 years of employment, a 55 year old public servant can retire with a unreduced pension entitlement.  At 30 years of employment,  a 53 year old public servant cannot retire and must wait until age 65.  I don't see the difference between this and what you have suggested is not legal in the proposal that I made.

 

[armyvern]

At 30 years of employment, a 55 year old public servant can retire with a unreduced pension entitlement.  At 30 years of employment,  a 53 year old public servant cannot retire and must wait until age 65.  I don't see the difference between this and what you have suggested is not legal in the proposal that I made.

Your second public servant certainly can retire (at 55) and collect a reduced pension on 32 years of service vice 30. That's the plan they signed up for.

It's not what we signed on to. It hurts our 18 year old, and it hurts our long servers - and our 18 year old still gets to wait 2 years for his pension for the exact same number of years of service (while the 20 year old earns thousands more in pension during those 2 years for not a single day of service longer) ... and doesn't get an extra 2 years worth of pension time tacked onto it like the civ in your above scenario.

 

[aesop081]

limited obligation TOS?

A class B reserve job IS a limited obligation TOS. So why would anyone want to continue to build their pension for later when they can collect it now and have another source of income in addition ?

Even if one were to move to civvy street, you are not offering anything to entice anyone to stay.

 

[armyvern]

Here we go.

Here's a half-decent retirement plan. Imagine, the ability to retire at 50 with a 70% pension ... sure beats the heck out of ours.

Guess where I'm applying to when I'm 45?  8)

http://www.omers.com/Assets/supplemental+plans/Supplemental+Plan+handbook.pdf

 

[McG]

Your second public servant certainly can retire (at 55) and collect a reduced pension on 32 years of service vice 30. That's the plan they signed up for.

This is still tied to age. Your hypothetical 18 year old could retire at 50 with 32 years of service vice 30 and collect a full pension in my proposal.  He still would have been growing the pension over those two years.  What is the difference?

PSPP Ref:  http://www.pspp.ca/mem-hb-04.html#when

A class B reserve job IS a limited obligation TOS. So why would anyone want to continue to build their pension for later when they can collect it now and have another source of income in addition ?

Well, under the hypothetical pension plan being discussed, the un-deferred pension would not be available until 30 years of service at age 50, and the double-dip would not be an option.  When you cannot collect now and have another source of income, do you go work some where else  or stay in the CF and keep building the pension?  You've stated that the five years is a pretty big consideration given many of the tasks that would certainly apply, so does it make a difference if you could continue building that pension on limited obligation TOS while your pay level is protected at 100% because you have more that 25 years service?

 

[armyvern]

This is still tied to age. Your hypothetical 18 year old could retire at 50 with 32 years of service vice 30 and collect a full pension in my proposal.  He still would have been growing the pension over those two years.  What is the difference?

But, again, WHY would he? Why would anyone stay that long in the first place given your proposal? More wouldn't than would.

The major flaws in your proposal all feed off of each other - they'll cause pers to get out sooner, rather than later. You've therefore solved nothing except to screw them over for their pension.

 

[McG]

But, again, WHY would he?

Because for the sake of two more years, he could get a un-reduced and un-deferred pension (probably the same reason the civilian would stick around in the PS example).

It might suck from his perspective that joining two years younger means waiting two years more to be eligible as an annuitant, but our pension already does provide various benefits sooner based on age or age + years service. 

 

[armyvern]

Because for the sake of two more years, he could get a un-reduced and un-deferred pension (probably the same reason the civilian would stick around in the PS example).

It might suck from his perspective that joining two years younger means waiting two years more to be eligible as an annuitant, but our pension already does provide various benefits sooner based on age or age + years service.

They wouldn't stick around for that extra 2 years because, as we've pointed out, they wouldn't be sticking around anywhere close to the thirty year mark. 20 - 25 and gone.

And, regarding our pension & its various benefits ... take a look at that municipal plan that I posted from Toronto ... now there's incentive (for me to get out as soon as this course is done and movve to Toronto!!).

 

[George Wallace]

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).

I might remind you once again of what FRP and Recruiting Freeze did to us twenty years ago, and may have contributed greatly to the situation we are in now.  Now you are saying that we should emulate such an "early retirement programme" again in the future?

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.
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.

I seriously think that you really don't understand the 'Double Dipper', and have developed some sort of bias against these people for some perverted reason.  How you have come up with the idea that these evil Double Dippers are the cause of the Class B bloat is beyond me.  It is a Reg Force Problem that Reservists and Former Reg Force members have stepped in to alleviate.  Do we have to go back to FRP and the Recruiting Freeze to explain the root causes of the current situation again to explain it?  Once the Reg Force trains and fills posns in "Distressed Trades" and can once again fill those posns, the Class B Reservist, no matter who (s)he may be will be gone.  This will not happen overnight.  And don't forget, there are even posns that Class B have been unable to fill.  Your suggestions so far have proposed nothing credible to solve any of these problems, other than disenfranchising members.

I could point out that not all these posns are being filled by "Double Dippers" as Class B Reservists.  Many a CWO,  MWO, Capt, Maj, and LCol have been hired by Calian to fill posns as Contractors to teach Mil Crses at various Bases across the country.  They work at their leisure, when they want, etc.  If you find the Class B "Double Dipper" so 'distasteful', what do you think of these guys?  Why aren't we running our own Crses and Exercises?  This exasperates the current situation even more, and you can't blame the "Class B bloat" for that. 

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.

So you discriminate against the Limited Obligation TOS pers, by freezing them in a posn and rank; with no chance for advancement or promotion?  No thanks.  Not all your Class B Double Dippers are in positions as you imagine.  Many are in positions where they are filling the "Minimum Rank", not the desired rank.  They should be given the opportunity for advancement like anyone else.  That means that they DO tie up posns in the Promotion Boards.  (And yes I have read your "grandfather clause statements" etc.)  If you seriously want to implement your Limited Obligation TOS, you CAN NOT disenfranchise the people you are targeting to accept it.

There can be seen some benefits and some disadvantages to these people falling under the management of the CM.  It may permit them easier access to courses and promotion, but at the same time complicate the career progressions of Reg Force pers in that Trade.  They would have to be treated equally by the CM, or they are discriminated against, and that would mean that it is useless for them to be managed by the CM.  It would be a matter of being "in all the way" or "out" (as they are now).  You have already pointed out that you don't think they should be promoted, etc.  One incentive less for them to factor towards making such a decision.

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.

Do you seriously think that someone would voluntarily become disenfranchised, loosing all chances of promotion or advancement and courses to accept your plan? 

 

[George Wallace]

OK.  For the sake of argument; let's pretend that there is no such thing as a Class B Reservist or 'Double Dipper' to 'bloat' the system.  Where would your planned Limited Obligation TOS work?  The CF would still be facing a manning problem.  A problem of its own device.  FRP, Recruiting Freeze and then twenty to thirty years of incompetent CMs in various Trades have all contributed to this problem.  People reached a point in their career where they wanted more, and the CF didn't have the incentives to offer them inticing them to stay.  Your proposal is another incentive to leave.


Just be glad that there are Reserve Soldiers who have stepped up to the plate and volunteered to help alleviate these problems.  The Reserves are a large Force Generator for the Reg Force.

Now about those 'Double Dippers'; who are they?  They are former Reg Force personnel who have retired from the CF after many years with a pension.  They have continued to contribute to the CF in retirement as Reservists, passing on their knowledge and experience to maintain a viable Reserve Force.  Why are they Double Dippers?  Because:  They are retired and have the time to take a Class B contract.

 

[dapaterson]

Now about those 'Double Dippers'; who are they?  They are former Reg Force personnel who have retired from the CF after many years with a pension.  They have continued to contribute to the CF in retirement as Reservists, passing on their knowledge and experience to maintain a viable Reserve Force.  Why are they Double Dippers?  Because:  They are retired and have the time to take a Class B contract.

Here's the underlying problem we face: per the NDA, there is one force, the Canadian Armed Forces.  Thus, one cannot be simultaneously retired and not retired - you're either a member of Her Majesty's Canadian Armed Forces or you aren't.  Our current admin construct, "I'm retired from one component but still serving in another" does not hold water.  The CFSA regulations and other, DND policies, are convoluted in no small part because we try to warp and twist simple declarative statements.

While I do not think McG's proposal has legs (under the current political climate, no MP would support CFSA amendments reducing entitlements), we do need some long, hard consideration of what we want to do - as the current construct may crash and we could then be stuck with rules created by outside agencies that would give us the worst of all possible worlds.

 

[George Wallace]

Here's the underlying problem we face: per the NDA, there is one force, the Canadian Armed Forces.  Thus, one cannot be simultaneously retired and not retired - you're either a member of Her Majesty's Canadian Armed Forces or you aren't.  Our current admin construct, "I'm retired from one component but still serving in another" does not hold water.  The CFSA regulations and other, DND policies, are convoluted in no small part because we try to warp and twist simple declarative statements.

Let's remove "Double Dipper" and replace it with "18 year old" and take out "retired" and replace it with "unemployed".

Just wondering.

 

[Jed]

From DaPatterson

While I do not think McG's proposal has legs (under the current political climate, no MP would support CFSA amendments reducing entitlements), we do need some long, hard consideration of what we want to do - as the current construct may crash and we could then be stuck with rules created by outside agencies that would give us the worst of all possible worlds.

I believe it is far more likely that the construct for the Public Servant, at least productivity wise, is far more likely to crash than our DND Class B construct. Is tihs perfect? No. But it works for applying troops to task and it can expand and contract far faster than trying to adjust the throttle on personnel intake through the current Federal Government process. Have you seen the requirements needed to select a candidate to be a Federal Public servant? It is almost guaranteed that the only person you will get for the job is one qualified on paper and never the one person that you really know can get it done.

Does DND really want to move closer to this method of getting the right person to do the job in a time expedient manner?

 

[dapaterson]

Our current Class B system is a symptom of much larger problems.  We have an institutional unwillingness to divest ourselves of anything. Thus our personnel demand increases.  Rather than temper that with a fixed permanent establishment, anyone and his dog with money can hire a Reservist - and incur additional costs to the department in obvious and not-so-obvious ways.

The unconstrained growth of full-time Reserve positions has been a direct result of weak leadership unwilling to make hard decisions.  With increased funding for several years it has been a quick fix solution.

The current class B situation is a polite way of thumbing our nose at the government.  Thousands of additional full-time military members is not in line with the government's direction.


The current annuitant employment policy is where we may face the biggest problems.  As I stated, there is one CF - you can't simultaneously claim to be retired and not retired from the CF.  We use an administrative dodge - releasing from the Reg F then re-enroling into the Res F - to trigger events such as eligibility for an annuity, and then build regulations and policies to dance around the legislation.  But this was already reviewed and found lacking by the OAG - nearly four decades ago.

The CF needs a proper plan to manage it full-time military structure (Reg and Res), and needs to be proactive is figuring out how to leverage and manage its Reg F pers nearing the end of their careers (vice pushing them into full-time Reserve positions).  The current class B system will not survive detailed external scrutiny - and we've built up such a dependence on it that its removal could be a near catastrophe.