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

[ballz]

I'm with RG (first time for everything right :nod

We should be focussing on having a strong economy so that young people are in demand... not focus on keeping them in demand by forcing people to retire...

I don't know how good or bad the pension is for government employees... but it seems irrelevant. If someone is 70 years old, has the skill and experience, and is making 100k a year, he/she shouldn't be forced into a lower standard of living (whether it's only down to 80k a year or all the way down to 20k a year) just to make room for somebody. It's robbing Peter to pay Paul.

 

[Stoker]

I'm with RG (first time for everything right :nod

We should be focussing on having a strong economy so that young people are in demand... not focus on keeping them in demand by forcing people to retire...

I don't know how good or bad the pension is for government employees... but it seems irrelevant. If someone is 70 years old, has the skill and experience, and is making 100k a year, he/she shouldn't be forced into a lower standard of living (whether it's only down to 80k a year or all the way down to 20k a year) just to make room for somebody. It's robbing Peter to pay Paul.

You would think after 40 or 50 years of working they would not need to work further and would like to enjoy themselves. Being pensioned off and having a lower paying job doesn't mean their quality of living is doing to drop that much.
Reeceguy is right that its not for anybody to tell him to stop working but in the mind of someone who can't get a job, not financially secure and has the same skills, well too bad for him right? life not fair right?

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this one.

 

[ballz]

You would think after 40 or 50 years of working they would not need to work further and would like to enjoy themselves.

But as RG alluded to, that's none of anybody's business. Most probably will not need to work further and would like to enjoy themselves, and I suspect the number of people working past 70 will be few.... That said, I'm convinced the day my old man retires is the day he will drop dead. You would think when he works 6 straight 12 hr days, he would want to enjoy his 6 days off.... nope, he builds a house each year in his spare time and sells it.... Some people just like working, he makes me sick sometimes haha.

but in the mind of someone who can't get a job, not financially secure and has the same skills, well too bad for him right? life not fair right?

Well, I wouldn't guess that a 20 year old has the same skill-set or experience as a 60 year old... but even if he did, how's it any different from two 30 year olds with the same skill-set and experience, and one of them is unemployed... Do you start making them "share" hours? Do you take the job away from one 30 year old and give it to the other? Why would that suddenly become fair the day someone turns 65? What was different the day before?

A 20 year old complaining about a 65 year old having a job that he's probably held and done well at since before that 20 year old was born is sort of OWS-style whining IMO.

In all seriousness, I do think it is a "life's not fair" thing... We can fix the problem a lot better, and more fairly, by creating a good economy, that's my two cents, but I'll agree with disagreeing... I'll give you the last word if you'd like to respond to this post and then we'll call it.

 

[Stoker]

But as RG alluded to, that's none of anybody's business. Most probably will not need to work further and would like to enjoy themselves, and I suspect the number of people working past 70 will be few.... That said, I'm convinced the day my old man retires is the day he will drop dead. You would think when he works 6 straight 12 hr days, he would want to enjoy his 6 days off.... nope, he builds a house each year in his spare time and sells it.... Some people just like working, he makes me sick sometimes haha.

Well, I wouldn't guess that a 20 year old has the same skill-set or experience as a 60 year old... but even if he did, how's it any different from two 30 year olds with the same skill-set and experience, and one of them is unemployed... Do you start making them "share" hours? Do you take the job away from one 30 year old and give it to the other? Why would that suddenly become fair the day someone turns 65? What was different the day before?

A 20 year old complaining about a 65 year old having a job that he's probably held and done well at since before that 20 year old was born is sort of OWS-style whining IMO.

In all seriousness, I do think it is a "life's not fair" thing... We can fix the problem a lot better, and more fairly, by creating a good economy, that's my two cents, but I'll agree with disagreeing... I'll give you the last word if you'd like to respond to this post and then we'll call it.

Fair enough, hopefully the economy will be better and there will be jobs to be had for everyone young and old :nod:

 

[GAP]

Then the argument will be about those Damn Immigrants taking our young's' jobs....imagine that!!

 

[Halifax Tar]

We'll just have to agree to disagree. It's my right to work as long as I want. I'll also be paying lots of tax. Lots of it. Paying into all of those government pension schemes, EI and the like. There's always going to be drains. Every generation , i.e: baby boomers, create huge gaps when they retire wholesale. This will spread it out.

Also, my pension has nothing to do with anything. You want something special from me, want me to give your son my job? You'll have to pay for it. Nothing is free in this world. Otherwise he can go find something else to do.

Besides, and this is the important part, this is my life and you're in no position, or have any authority, to tell me what to do with it.

I agree to disagree.  :nod:

I'm not going to reinforce my point any further as time will tell what effect this has on things.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

Canadian Human Rights Act

R.S.C., 1985, c. H-6

An Act to extend the laws in Canada that proscribe discrimination

SHORT TITLE

Short title

1. This Act may be cited as the Canadian Human Rights Act.

1976-77, c. 33, s. 1.

PURPOSE OF ACT

Purpose

2. The purpose of this Act is to extend the laws in Canada to give effect, within the purview of matters coming within the legislative authority of Parliament, to the principle that all individuals should have an opportunity equal with other individuals to make for themselves the lives that they are able and wish to have and to have their needs accommodated, consistent with their duties and obligations as members of society, without being hindered in or prevented from doing so by discriminatory practices based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, family status, disability or conviction for an offence for which a pardon has been granted.

Seems pretty clear to me. 

 

[Fishbone Jones]

People need to understand that not everyone has had a good, well paying government job for 30 years.

Many people have gone through a number of life changes and employment. Some no longer have employment with a pension plan. Some never reached the term where a plan would kick in before the shop closed. Some have just had setbacks that don't provide for their well being in the future.

I'll agree, that if a person has a pension plan, say it matures at 20 years, so that it reaches a point that if he pensioned he'd get 3/4 of his pay, then he really is just working for 1/4 of his regular wage.

Put in figures for example. He makes $100\ day working wage. If receiving full pension he would get $75\ day. If he remains working he is really only getting paid $25\ day.

It might be time to go.

But if he's not getting a pension, or it's only worth 50% of his daily rate, that could feasibly cut his standard of living by the same amount.

Not everyone has the luxury of RSPs, being mortgage free or having a single job, uneventful working life of 40 years.

Those people should have the choice about what they want to do, so long as they remain productive.

Of course, you could always take it to the other extreme. Upon retirement they climb aboard and ice flow and drift off into the night.

That or undergo the ritual of "Carrousel" a la Logan's Run  ;D

 

[Stoker]

People need to understand that not everyone has had a good, well paying government job for 30 years.

Many people have gone through a number of life changes and employment. Some no longer have employment with a pension plan. Some never reached the term where a plan would kick in before the shop closed. Some have just had setbacks that don't provide for their well being in the future.

I'll agree, that if a person has a pension plan, say it matures at 20 years, so that it reaches a point that if he pensioned he'd get 3/4 of his pay, then he really is just working for 1/4 of his regular wage.

Put in figures for example. He makes $100\ day working wage. If receiving full pension he would get $75\ day. If he remains working he is really only getting paid $25\ day.

It might be time to go.

But if he's not getting a pension, or it's only worth 50% of his daily rate, that could feasibly cut his standard of living by the same amount.

Not everyone has the luxury of RSPs, being mortgage free or having a single job, uneventful working life of 40 years.

Those people should have the choice about what they want to do, so long as they remain productive.

Of course, you could always take it to the other extreme. Upon retirement they climb aboard and ice flow and drift off into the night.

That or undergo the ritual of "Carrousel" a la Logan's Run  ;D

I see your point but like I mentioned in my other post the people who need to work for whatever reason I certainly do not have a problem with. The people I do is people with maxed pensions and very well off that could be retired and give that job up but won't because they want to more cash or to work for the sake of working. I know that's not a lot but there are some.
That's just my point of view on the matter.

 

[armyvern]

I wonder if the legislation also silently got in a little caveat giving the Feds the ability to fire the asses of civil servants who have "no real or sustainable" job (ie surplus to requirements) and those who are shitty and very poor performers without having to bear the wrath of the entire Union down upon them as they attempt to keep performing and deserving individuals employed and bring in those of new blood who would also perform? Probably not, those select few can now just drain our HR departments of critical resources for life now (and I have no doubt they will).

 

[OldSolduer]

One reason is that there are allot of people in there 20s and 30s right now who can't find a job and a big reason for this is people unwilling/able to retire... I think there needs to be mandatory retirement.

We started at the entry level. Quite a few of these 20-30s types want CEO jobs right out of university.

They don't warn entry level, they want the job we have now. Good luck with that.

I'm with RG on this.

 

[Stoker]

We started at the entry level. Quite a few of these 20-30s types want CEO jobs right out of university.

They don't warn entry level, they want the job we have now. Good luck with that.

I'm with RG on this.

Yes but even at the entry level, everyone must be able to move up.

 

[OldSolduer]

Yes but even at the entry level, everyone must be able to move up.

And they will once we retire. I am not working forever.

I had to wait over 30 years to get where I am. They can what, gain experience and then move up, just like we did.

 

[Maxadia]

And when the population keeps increasing, what do we do - then lower the mandatory age to 55? 50? 45?

No jobs?  Go find one....it won't get handed to you.  I had to move over halway across the country with my family to find work....but the part that is important is that I DID MOVE to find employment.  I see to many young people just sitting around wishing there were more jobs in their areas.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

And when the population keeps increasing, what do we do - then lower the mandatory age to 55? 50? 45?

Like France with their mandated 35 hr max weeks, 22 stat holidays and 8 weeks of vacation?

Overtime is outlawed. Many work on the black market to make ends meet.

Retirement before 60 is the norm. No choice

The 35-hour work week was meant to create new jobs. Unemployment was unaffected. It still hovers around 10 percent.

Not everyone is thrilled about working even 35 hours.

There is little room for advancement, so many just do enough to stop from getting fired.

It didn't work there. It won't work here, IMHO

 

[Halifax Tar]

Like France with their mandated 35 hr max weeks, 22 stat holidays and 8 weeks of vacation?

Overtime is outlawed. Many work on the black market to make ends meet.

Retirement before 60 is the norm. No choice

The 35-hour work week was meant to create new jobs. Unemployment was unaffected. It still hovers around 10 percent.

Not everyone is thrilled about working even 35 hours.

There is little room for advancement, so many just do enough to stop from getting fired.

It didn't work there. It won't work here, IMHO

:-\ Im befuddled here recceguy... Perhaps its my simple sailor mind but how does one go from a CRA discussion in Canada to working hours in France ?

Not intended to be rude, I just don't see the correlation.

 

[Halifax Tar]

Canadian Human Rights Act

R.S.C., 1985, c. H-6

An Act to extend the laws in Canada that proscribe discrimination

SHORT TITLE

Short title

1. This Act may be cited as the Canadian Human Rights Act.

1976-77, c. 33, s. 1.

PURPOSE OF ACT

Purpose

2. The purpose of this Act is to extend the laws in Canada to give effect, within the purview of matters coming within the legislative authority of Parliament, to the principle that all individuals should have an opportunity equal with other individuals to make for themselves the lives that they are able and wish to have and to have their needs accommodated, consistent with their duties and obligations as members of society, without being hindered in or prevented from doing so by discriminatory practices based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, family status, disability or conviction for an offence for which a pardon has been granted.

Seems pretty clear to me.

I fail to see how CRA is discrimination. But that is the law so my point its moot.

 

[Halifax Tar]

I wonder if the legislation also silently got in a little caveat giving the Feds the ability to fire the asses of civil servants who have "no real or sustainable" job (ie surplus to requirements) and those who are shitty and very poor performers without having to bear the wrath of the entire Union down upon them as they attempt to keep performing and deserving individuals employed and bring in those of new blood who would also perform? Probably not, those select few can now just drain our HR departments of critical resources for life now (and I have no doubt they will).

Amen to that

 

[Maxadia]

:-\ Im befuddled here recceguy... Perhaps its my simple sailor mind but how does one go from a CRA discussion in Canada to working hours in France ?

Not intended to be rude, I just don't see the correlation.

I suggested that having mandatory retirement so younger people can find jobs could eventually lead to a situation where people start asking to LOWER the age.  recceguy pointed out a situation where trying to lower to amount of working hours to increase jobs in another country didn't work either.

Seem right on topic to me.

 

[Halifax Tar]

I suggested that having mandatory retirement so younger people can find jobs could eventually lead to a situation where people start asking to LOWER the age.  recceguy pointed out a situation where trying to lower to amount of working hours to increase jobs in another country didn't work either.

Seem right on topic to me.

OK seen. Thanks.