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

[Rifleman62]

Just to pile on with DAP. The current annuitant employment policy was developed by the Reg F.

Ex Reg F pers can, of course, collect their pension, CT to the P Res, become Cl B, get paid = the full time double dipper. They same annuitant employment policy, developed by the Reg F, states that a P Res pers can, of course, collect their pension, but cannot, of course, become CL A or B, unless they cease their pension.

The year I retired, I was surprised to hear of the retirement of three Reg F Colonels who I knew. Then I heard that they retired right into Cl B positions.

We, in the "Militia", have a name for this system.

I completely agree with DAP's previous post.

 

[George Wallace]

Ex Reg F pers can, of course, collect their pension, CT to the P Res, become Cl B, get paid = the full time double dipper. They same annuitant employment policy, developed by the Reg F, states that a P Res pers can, of course, collect their pension, but cannot, of course, become CL A or B, unless they cease their pension.

OK.  That is a little confusing.  I can see a Reservist collecting a Reg Force Pension on earning one, but I can not see a Reservist collecting a Reserve Pension that they are still paying into.  The 'Double Dipper' is no longer paying into any Pension Plan.  The Reservist would still be paying into one.  Quite a difference.

The year I retired, I was surprised to hear of the retirement of three Reg F Colonels who I knew. Then I heard that they retired right into Cl B positions.

We, in the "Militia", have a name for this system.

I could understand this happening in a few extreme cases, but like you, I would find this suspicious/distasteful.


I think DAP laid out a good argument.

 

[dapaterson]

George:

Reservists can have three pension statuses:

1.  Not enrolled - insufficient earnings to be entered into part I.1 (the part-time plan);

2.  Enrolled in the part-time plan (part I.1);

3.  Enrolled in the ful-time plan (part I) - the same as the Reg F plan.


A Reservist who is "deemed Reg F" and thus falls into category 3, above, can't "release", draw an annuity, and resume full-time service and draw both an annuity and a class B paycheque.  Indeed, a former Reg F member in receipt of an annuity who decides to re-enrol in the pension plan cannot later decide to "retire" again, resume drawing their annuity, and then resume class B employment - once you pay into part I (full-time plan) as a Reservist, you cannot then draw an annuity and Reserve pay at the same time.


We've built an odd and bizarre collection of Regulations and policies that impair our ability to achieve organizational objectives.  We need some Leadership - to decide what we will do, what we won't do, how we'll do it; from that, we can derive our HR policies to meet those needs.  The ongoing lack of leadership in that area is why we face these problems.

 

[old fart]

"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."

Totally agree with these comments.  As for annuitant Class B, my view is that if it works for the individual (with a realization that based on my own numbers, that I would loose in the long run if I CT'd to CL B) that the CF as a whole benefits (from the continued service and by likely paying less remuneration in the long run) if they desire continue to serve HM that way. 

I am not a proponent of non-annuitant Class B....my position has not changed, if you want a career join the Reg Force and contribute with a full liability, as expected from such service. 

And, in closing as I have said before, I appreciate the Reserves who have stepped up to the plate and deployed overseas...without them under our present deployment modus operandi, carrying out the mandate of the Government of Canada would not be possible.

Yours aye....

 

[McG]

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?

No George.  The greatest damage was caused by the recruiting freeze, and I have not proposed any such thing.  Back during the FRP, we closed the doors and a great big experience gap developed behind those people who came in just before the doors closed.

If the CF gets so full of pers that it is negatively impacting healthy career progression, having the ability to lower the retirement threshold (years service/age until un-deferred pension) provides a flexible mechanism to open things up so careers again progress at a healthy rate.  All the while, the recruiting system should continue function "business as usual" so that there is not another capability gap.

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.

You are grossly misrepresenting my proposal and presenting things reversed to what I have stated (again).  Pers would not be frozen in rank or position.  All full time pers would be career managed and merited together (based on rank and MOSID).  Nobody would be "disenfranchise" and the posibilities for promotion or moving positions would be even greater under limited obligation TOS when compared to the current Class B system (where these opportunities are much fewer and farther between).  Nothing in the sniped you quoted said anything about allowing or disallowing limited TOS promotion, but previously I said:

• 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.

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 agree with all the potential advantages you've pointed out.  However, I do not think it would be unfair that there be a penalty at the merit boards for choosing limited obligation TOS.  In fact, it already happens where individuals who have become geographically stagnant are missing-out on points for mobility at merit boards.  And there would still be increased opportunity for promotion over the current long-term Class B system.  So, in spite of a discrimination it is still an improvement for the members.

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

As I have stated the opposite (that courses & promotions would still be available) this misrepresentation is not a concern.

How you have come up with the idea that these evil Double Dippers are the cause of the Class B bloat is beyond me. 

I am not using the word "evil."  My problem is not with the individuals who choose to do double-dip; my problem is with the system which offers the double-dip.

I also have not said he double-dip was the cause.  I have said it was a contributing factor.  It is part of the problem because it is not career managed and position importance/priority is not the driving factor in which positions actually get filled.  It is part of the problem because it a "keep your cake and eat it too"  sort of option in that it offers more take home money now in return for less obligation to the service.

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? 

I’ve answered that.

• I am also largely opposed to using contractors. 

In any case, this is another area where we are walking very close to the line as far as the law in concerned.  Far too often, financial decision making is delegated down to contractors, supervision/assessment of service personnel & public servants is delegated to contractors, contractors are speaking for the government, contractors are coming into the work place being directed and supervised by service personnel.  All of this is prohibited.  When we “fill positions” with contractors, we are getting into dangerous waters and some day someone will get smacked for it.

It is a Reg Force Problem that Reservists and Former Reg Force members have stepped in to alleviate. 

Encouraging guys to get out so that they can become part of the band-aid does not work.  It is as sustainable as eating your limbs to feed yourself.

All of those reservists would do more to alleviate the problem if they joined the regular force (even on limited obligation TOS), and those departing regular force personnel could do more to alleviate the problem by switching to a limited obligation TOS.

Yes, it is a problem with roots well in the past.  Yes, it will be longer than an overnight fix.  The current Class B band-aid is not a good band-aid.

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. 

We would still be facing an experienced manning shortfall.  However, Career Management and only one type of establishment position would mean that the available manpower can be more effectively used.  Benefits of this would be:

• The higher priority positions in any given geographic area will be getting filled ahead of the lower priority positions. 
• The unrestrained growth that Class B currently allows would also be gone.  Every new full time position would be Reg F and it would have to go through the same vetting and approval processes to ensure that it is in line with CF priorities, that compensation & benefits money is set aside nationally, that he position is required, ect.
• Surplus and duplicate positions would be gone.  I have seen numerous examples of Class B positions created to back-fill for vacant Reg F positions, but when the Reg F position is eventually filled the Class B position is also kept.  With only Reg F position types, you would not be able to employee two service personnel against one job and hide it.

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?

The problem with the PS model is that every new job or promotion is a new competition.  Long term Class B is already pretty close to that with jobs being advertised, waiting periods, candidate selection, etc.  Career Management goes a long way to alleviating this.

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. 

But they are not all contributing to the Reserve Force.  Many are contributing to the bloat of higher HQs and various regular force establishments in positions that were only locally vetted.  This is not healthy.

Why are they Double Dippers?  Because:  They are retired and have the time to take a Class B contract.

The vast majority that I know are doing it because they didn’t really want to leave the CF.  They just wanted to be done with postings and mandated deployments, and here we have this wonderful path which offers all of his and throws more money into their pockets right now.  That extra cash in the pocket is causing some pers to jump over sooner and brining people that otherwise would have stayed Regular Force longer.

I think it is perfectly legitimate to offer limited obligation TOS as a retention path for those who have had enough of the postings.  However, this path does not need to be sweetened with financial incentives.  The financial reward and slightly enhanced career opportunities should reward those committing to full obligation TOS.

Pension has to be factored into this because, as DAP has reiterated, the current system of double-dipping is toying on the fringes of legitimate.  Moving from Class B to limited liability Reg F would move double-dipping from grey area into a stronger shade of unacceptable. 

OK.  That is a little confusing.  I can see a Reservist collecting a Reg Force Pension on earning one, but I can not see a Reservist collecting a Reserve Pension that they are still paying into.  The 'Double Dipper' is no longer paying into any Pension Plan.  The Reservist would still be paying into one.  Quite a difference.

Actually, the Career Class B reservist is likely paying into the Regular Force pension.  They are just treated different:  http://www.cmp-cpm.forces.gc.ca/dgcb-dgras/ps/pen/res-01/ap-ar/jp-ar-eng.asp#whp-qep

 

[McG]

... the whole Reg F /Class B /Class C/double-dipping/CT employment mess needs to be revamped CF wide. There has got to be a better way to skin this cat.

+1

 

[Petard]

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

Well now I want to call BS on your plan
So going back to your original point, what I see here is you trying to rationalize away the ability of Regular Force pers to draw an annuity until they reach CRA, and you're using this frigged up mess of the Class B positions to solve long standing HR problems to justify your argument.
Where I see your argument become especially hollow is your contention that  even those retiring Reg F pers not going into public service, or as Class B reservists, should not given their pension until CRA because this is somewhat they way the rest of PS deals with it.
I say this is a thin argument because you do not give any explanation why the annuitant CF or RCMP member's service should be considered as on par with that of PS employee who did not accept unlimited liability.
These Reg F pers have paid into this pension plan, have agreed to go whenever they were told, in many cases their families having to scarfice as well, and now having to go to some very dangerous places and quite often; I would say you cannot make a direct link between that service of a Reg F or RCMP member and that of a PS employee who has endured none of that.

Most of your conclusions seem to be based on your own anecdotal information, well I have some of my own as well.
Over the years I have seen a number of departure with dignities, they all had as many different reasons for leaving as for why they joined, many of these people were going to be able to draw a pension, some had marketable skill sets, some  not so much, and if there was a common thread amongst those that were going to draw a pension, it was that they all expected at some time or other to be able to fall back on that pension if their exit strategy didn't work out, and for many that is what happened. Further to that the majority of them did not go into Class B or PS, if they remained affiliated with DND at all it was usually as a private sector contractor. But then this is only my anecdotal view, although it is one from almost 30 years of Reg F experience.

I can agree with you on one thing, this class B business needs to be sorted out, but it should not be done on the backs of retiring CF and RCMP members . This rampant class B growth  may well take care of itself as the gov't reels in over programing , and the budget used to support these postions becomes smaller, and as was already mentioned we are seeing a sharp reduction in class B positions now. This all means even fewer opportunities for these would be double dippers to fit within your Class B top-up proposal, this in turn would cause  even more people to be in that situation I was describing of those expecting their pension to get them through the bumps, while transitioning to another career, or at least to be able to get a low paying job but counting on their pension to get them by, but by your scheme they would not have their pension to do even this, not until CRA.

After their long dedicated service I argue the retiring Reg force pers deserve better than what your proposal would provide. Someone just starting out may well look at it the same way

 

[McG]

So going back to your original point, what I see here is you trying to rationalize away the ability of Regular Force pers to draw an annuity until they reach CRA

No.  Going back to the beginning, I proposed eliminating the double-dip.  I only proposed changes to the pension, for pers leaving the government entirely, in response to criticisms that there needed to be double-dipping as long as the pension allowed someone to release and collect an immediate unreduced annuity - the thread was already at reply #20 when I suggested this.  Personally, I would be content simply to turn off the double-dipping and leave the rest as it is.  At the same time, I don't think my suggestion to set the pensionable age at CRA (or CRA - 10 as a reward for even longer service) is nearly as villainous as has been suggested.

I say this is a thin argument because you do not give any explanation why the annuitant CF or RCMP member's service should be considered as on par with that of PS employee who did not accept unlimited liability.

I have not suggested it should be on par.  In fact, where I proposed pension changes for those leavening the government, there are still a number of benefits in place above those of the Public Servant.

• The CF pension is cheaper to the member than the PS pension (at 1:3 vs 1:2)
• The PS pension does not offer a pay top-up so that one may slide into a less arduous government job (Limited Obligation TOS or PS employment) after 25 years service.
• I have proposed undeferred & unreduced pension at 25 years service and 55 years of age and that is 5 fewer years than a PS would need to retire under the same conditions at that age.(Post 83)
• I have proposed undeferred & unreduced pension at 30 years service and 50 years of age, and that is 5 years younger than a PS would need to retire under the same conditions with those years of employment. (Post 83)
• I have also suggesetd the annual pension benefit could be increased for CF members. (Post 83)

Most of your conclusions seem to be based on your own anecdotal information, well I have some of my own as well.

I will concede that a lot of anecdotal evidence has been used on both sides of this argument.  Unfortunately, there is no researched evidence  available to fill-in where anecdotal has been used.

Over the years I have seen a number of departure with dignities, they all had as many different reasons for leaving as for why they joined, many of these people were going to be able to draw a pension, some had marketable skill sets, some  not so much, and if there was a common thread amongst those that were going to draw a pension, it was that they all expected at some time or other to be able to fall back on that pension if their exit strategy didn't work out ...

So, had these people served under the pension plan I have proposed, there probably would have been a few sticking around longer, and a few more going PS or Class B because of the higher financial security of staying?

I can agree with you on one thing, this class B business needs to be sorted out, but it should not be done on the backs of retiring CF and RCMP members .

Okay then.  Recognizing that my initial position did not did not impact pers leaving the government all together (because they are not the group I want to influence), lets change the question.  If we left the pension exactly as it is now, could you support the concept of converting all full-time service into Regular Force service provided that limited obligation TOS are introduced and Class B annuitants are grandfathered so that they can continue their double-dipping ways up until whenever they do decide to cease full-time employment?



Edit for spelling error.

 

[armyvern]

Proposed in a manner whereby those of us who get the "Mil factor" (as I pointed out many posts ago) are punished and lose money.

You still haven't offered any "carrots", rather you proposal is all "asparagus" (I apologize to all of you who actually like asparagus).

Even your "oh so generous" offer to give a -10 etc wait for pension means that a pers with 25 years of service has to work longer/wait longer (whereas they wait not at all now) just to receive exactly what he does now. That's NOT a carrot --- that's a deterrant --- and will "cause" more issue than you believe that you'll be "solving." Your proposal has been flawed from the get-go and it's not getting better.

And, you keep insisting that "those pers" will serve those few years longer so that they don't have to wait --- that's not the case: rather, they'd leave in droves a whole lot sooner --- for civvy street and a civ pension to go along with that mil one they'll receive 'later" ... because they are going to have to get another job anyway 'while they wait for it".

Again, no thanks. I think you're actually making the problem worse despite what you believe to be your best intentions.


Edited for darn spelling.

 

[George Wallace]

I will concede that a lot of anecdotal evidence has been used on both sides of this argument.  Unfortunately, there is no researched evidence  available to fill-in where anecdotal has been used.

I am so glad that you consider the testimonies of those who are "Double Dippers" and other Class B Reservists as being "anecdotal". 

Okay then.  Recognizing that my initial position did not did not impact pers leaving the government all together (because they are not the group I want to influence), lets change the question.  If we left the pension exactly as it is now, could you support the concept of converting all full-time service into Regular Force service provided that limited obligation TOS are introduced and Class B annuitants are grandfathered so that they can continue their double-dipping ways up until whenever they do decide to cease full-time employment?

This does sound more thought out, and perhaps would even have your "Double Dippers" find it an acceptable proposition with them ceasing their pensions to once again pay into the Reg F Pension Plan, and have the same pay as their Reg F counter parts--none of this 15% less BS.  It may convice some that the slight loss of income towards their final Retirement is an acceptable move. 

 

[McG]

Proposed in a manner whereby those of us who get the "Mil factor" (as I pointed out many posts ago) are punsihed and lose money.

Well, there is no "us" because of grandfathering.  It is only "them who come after."  But I digress.  How is this punishment?  Under the proposal that saw the pension plan change (as opposed to the proposal that simply killed the double-dip), I still presented something more generous that just about anything else out there (certainly the only examples I've seen come close are build for emergency service personel and these still don't payout till 30 years service at 50 years of age).

Even your "oh so generous" offer to give a -10 etc wait for pension means that a pers with 25 years of service has to work longer/wait longer (whereas they wait not at all now) just to receive exactly what he does now.

That is not true if the member chooses to stay in the goverment.  After those 10 years, the member would have increased the percentage of of base salary from which the pension is paid.  If the member continued Reg F service, then pay incentives and promotion have also likely increased the base salary.

In any case though, I really don't care to fight the amended pension option any more (as I indicated, it was only introduced to appease certain critics who opposed elimiating the double-dip while allowing complete retirees to collect a pension at the same point in a career).

Vern,
If the current pension is not changed, what are your thoughts on replacing long-term Class B with limited TOS Reg F?

This does sound more thought out, and perhaps would even have your "Double Dippers" find it an acceptable proposition with them ceasing their pensions to once again pay into the Reg F Pension Plan, and have the same pay as their Reg F counter parts--none of this 15% less BS.  It may convice some that the slight loss of income towards their final Retirement is an acceptable move. 

Absolutely.  I support to pay protection as a reward for 25 years service. 

 

[armyvern]

Well, there is no "us" because of grandfathering.  It is only "them who come after."  But I digress.  How is this punishment?  Under the proposal that saw the pension plan change (as opposed to the proposal that simply killed the double-dip), I still presented something more generous that just about anything else out there (certainly the only examples I've seen come close are build for emergency service personel and these still don't payout till 30 years service at 50 years of age).
That is not true if the member chooses to stay in the goverment.  After those 10 years, the member would have increased the percentage of of base salary from which the pension is paid.  If the member continued Reg F service, then pay incentives and promotion have also likely increased the base salary.

In any case though, I really don't care to fight the amended pension option any more (as I indicated, it was only introduced to appease certain critics who opposed elimiating the double-dip while allowing complete retirees to collect a pension at the same point in a career).

Vern,
If the current pension is not changed, what are your thoughts on replacing long-term Class B with limited TOS Reg F?
Absolutely.  I support to pay protection as a reward for 25 years service.

I've already told you my thoughts on Class B (even with a limited TOS). No thanks. I'm going to the civvy world and I've explained why.

Many pers have already pointed out the "lack" of incentive towrds those not grandfathered and yet to be recruited. They'd do their 20, then they'd go work out on civvy street earning a second pension while they wait for their first (aged 50 or whatever) because they'd have to work anyway after they got out, so may as well get out sonner rather than later and earn time towards a second pension cheque for the rest of their lives. IE: They'd be better off financially to get out immediately after they do the minimum number of pensionable years, then work towards a second elsewhere.

Regarding the "best pension plan out there" ... yep, the one I posted you still have to wait until 50 to collect, but that's at a 70% rate too. That, sorry you missed it, beats the heck out of your proposal (and our pension) - they've got carrots - you do not.

 

[George Wallace]

Vern

Face it.  He has not reached the stage in his career where he is really concerned about life after work (CF or otherwise).  He is postulating a plan that he thinks will work.  He has his anecdotal cases, and thinks that any commentary from Class B, Double Dippers, or pers soon approaching Annuitant status is as anecdotal as his cases, dismissing them as they have not been published or part of any Government sponsored study.  Perhaps in ten or fifteen years his insight will be more along the line of yours.

 

[McG]

Regarding the "best pension plan out there" ... yep, the one I posted you still have to wait until 50 to collect, but that's at a 70% rate too. That, sorry you missed it, beats the heck out of your proposal (and our pension) - they've got carrots - you do not.

Of course, that also requires 30 years of service (same as what I proposed) to get that 70% rate at 50 (and I did say higher rates were an option for my proposal, so who is to say we wouldn't give a better rate).

 

[armyvern]

Of course, that also requires 30 years of service (same as what I proposed) to get that 70% rate at 50 (and I did say higher rates were an option for my proposal, so who is to say we wouldn't give a better rate).

Right, but as said - yet again - those pers don't have to up and move their families upteen times in their careers. Isn't that what causes most of us to pull pin? Sick and tired of the moving: which those other 30 years/age 50/ 70 percent pension pers are NOT subject to? Nor do public servants have to put up with instability/uncertainty that we AND our families do for 30 years (that's what you're asking us to do). They and their families are all stable in their lives ... for 30 years, but not us. So, if you want me and my family to be unstable for 30 years --- you'd better ante up a whole lot more incentive than 50years/70% pension that those stable ones are enjoying.

That's a big part of WHY we are able to collect earlier. You want to take that away.

And, you can't (as pointed out already too) implement a "no move clause" because then the pers in the shitty postings get out because they get stuck staying in those shitty postings while you look after those in the 'good spots' to prevent them from getting out. That just causes Peter to get out instead of Paul - it solves nothing.

 

[McG]

Right, but as said - yet again - those pers don't have to up and move their families upteen times in their careers. Isn't that what causes most of us to pull pin? Sick and tired of the moving: which those other 30 years/age 50/ 70 percent pension pers are NOT subject to? Nor do public servants have to put up with instability/uncertainty that we AND our families do for 30 years (that's what you're asking us to do). They and their families are all stable in their lives ... for 30 years, but not us. So, if you want me and my family to be unstable for 30 years --- you'd better ante up a whole lot more incentive than 50years/70% pension that those stable ones are enjoying.

I recognize that hardship in the limited obligation TOS (where you could get paid, continue to build the pension, and be pay-level protected) and I do still allow a slightly earlier departure.  The military hardship is also already recognized in our pay.  We get paid more now because of it, and our pension will be higher because it is based on the pay that includes the military recognition.

I've already told you my thoughts on Class B ...

You have told me that Class B is not what you want in the current system, and you don't want limited obligation TOS in the proposed system (with or without pension plan changes).  So I know what you will do (you are all in or you are all out).  But, this really doesn't tell me what you think about this Class B vs Limited Obligation Reg F for the CF as a whole and as an option for individuals who need a break in pace.  Unless ...

And, you can't (as pointed out already too) implement a "no move clause" because then the pers in the shitty postings get out because they get stuck staying in those shitty postings while you look after those in the 'good spots' to prevent them from getting out. That just causes Peter to get out instead of Paul - it solves nothing.

Is it your opinion that all full-time service personnel should be postable?  There should be neither long-term Class B nor limited obligation Reg F TOS?

 

[Lex Parsimoniae]

Is it your opinion that all full-time service personnel should be postable?

Yes.

 

[armyvern]

Yes.

I'll echo your answer.



But, now I'll now qualify "full time service personnel" for the inevitable comment that will follow from someone:

Service personnel of the Regular Force = "full time service" = 100% of our paychecks each month; Long contract B Class personnel of the Reserve Force are not included in my "yes" - they are not full-time service, nor do they collect 100% of our pay. They take annuitant leave every year this means they are not full-time.

 

[OldSolduer]

I did a good number of years in the Reg Force. I took every posting I was told to. I may not have liked it, but the CF is not in the business of pleasing people all of the time. If the posting preference of the member and the posting are the same, great.

 

[dapaterson]

I'll echo your answer.



But, now I'll now qualify "full time service personnel" for the inevitable comment that will follow from someone:

Service personnel of the Regular Force = "full time service" = 100% of our paychecks each month; Long contract B Class personnel of the Reserve Force are not included in my "yes" - they are not full-time service, nor do they collect 100% of our pay. They take annuitant leave every year this means they are not full-time.

No, class B pers do not take annuitant breaks.  Annuitants take annuitant breaks, and there are actually more pers on class B not drawing annuities than those that do, so most pers on class B are full-time.


And to argue that a 35 day break makes someone not full-time is stretching definitions - we permit other folks to take LWOP and yet still consider them full-time; annuitants can do the same job for 5 (calendar) years, and will take 165 days in unpaid leave - meaning they were paid for 4 1/2 of 5 years, which certainly sounds like full-time to me...