I am a CAF member & I want better pay and benefits (a merged thread)

[dapaterson]

I don't think there was a link between the establishment of the Reserve Pension c. 2007 and the elimination of the RFRG in 2012.

Also I should rephrase:
12. Severance pay (Reg F) and Reserve Force Retirement Gratuity

The '07 change of the RFRG to actual time served from calendar time enrolled was tied to the intro of CFSA part I.1.  The consolidation of the RFRG and CF Severance into a single benefit, and the elimination of accumulation (other than under limited circumstances) was part of the larger federal initiative to reduce the long-term liability of severance, and not connected to the CFSA.

 

[Rheostatic]

Right, I'm referring to the cessation of accumulation announced in 2012.

 

[Transporter]

It'd be interesting to see a list compiled of all the benefits that have been cut/frozen/scaled back in this "death by a thousand cuts."  You'd think, if that list was compiled, there would be a lot more advocacy against said cuts and the cumulative effect it's had/is having on our members.

Here are a few that come to mind for me:

1) Elimination of severance pay
2) Increased pension contributions
3) Elimination of mortgage cancellation fee reimbursement on posting (though some banks will now waive, but onus is on the member, and not guaranteed)
4) Other scaled-back IRP entitlements
5) Scaled-back IR entitlements
6) Pay for parking (location dependant)
7) Increased PSHCP premiums in retirement
8. New veterans charter (lump sum vs pension)
9) Curtailment/elimination of Class B double-dip opportunities
10) 25 years service (versus 20) for immediate annuity
11) Elimination of annual leave accumulation (admittedly quite a few yrs ago now, but during my time in)
12) FY 13/14 pay increase of 1.5% (2013 inflation 1.24%; currently 2.4% for Jul 14)

A couple of others that I have heard talked about that I wouldn't be surprised if done away with or significantly curtailed:

1) Final IPR move within same geographic locn
2) OUTCAN posting benefits (FSP, PSA, PLA, etc)

On the plus side, if you stick around for 28+ years you get another week of annual leave, which is nice I guess. Can't think of any other policy changes lately that have enhanced my overall compensation package though.

I like my job, and I'm not sniveling, but these are the facts. I'm sure there are likely others, both pro and con. Have at 'er.

 

[jollyjacktar]

When I enrolled in 89 there was a benefit for retraining after completion of 20 years service equal to $1000/yr of service, and the training could be for anything you wanted to do.  Now, it's $5400 and it must be trade related.  Gee, thanks, bean counting MFs.

 

[dapaterson]

Here are a few that come to mind for me:

1) Elimination of severance pay
2) Increased pension contributions
3) Elimination of mortgage cancellation fee reimbursement on posting (though some banks will now waive, but onus is on the member, and not guaranteed)
4) Other scaled-back IRP entitlements
5) Scaled-back IR entitlements
6) Pay for parking (location dependant)
7) Increased PSHCP premiums in retirement
8. New veterans charter (lump sum vs pension)
9) Curtailment/elimination of Class B double-dip opportunities
10) 25 years service (versus 20) for immediate annuity
11) Elimination of annual leave accumulation (admittedly quite a few yrs ago now, but during my time in)
12) FY 13/14 pay increase of 1.5% (2013 inflation 1.24%; currently 2.4% for Jul 14)

A couple of others that I have heard talked about that I wouldn't be surprised if done away with or significantly curtailed:

1) Final IPR move within same geographic locn
2) OUTCAN posting benefits (FSP, PSA, PLA, etc)

On the plus side, if you stick around for 28+ years you get another week of annual leave, which is nice I guess. Can't think of any other policy changes lately that have enhanced my overall compensation package though.

I like my job, and I'm not sniveling, but these are the facts. I'm sure there are likely others, both pro and con. Have at 'er.

1.  Severance has not been eliminated.  If you are severed, you will get the payment.  If you choose to retire, you will not.  That is the change.

3.  I fully support requiring CF members to have portable mortgages - but the transition was very poorly done; to my mind, there should have been grandfathering for current mortgages, with new ones as of date XXXX having to be portable.

9.  There is one force - the Canadian Armed Forces (it's actually in the NDA).  So explain to me how we can, with a straight face, pay someone a pension for being retired from the organization that pays them twice a month for their full-time job?

 

[Shamrock]

10. Loss of LTA for personnel on long term Class B/Class C
11. Loss of CTA for personnel on long term Class B/Class C

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm under the impression those moved at public expense retain these.

 

[Transporter]

1.  Severance has not been eliminated.  If you are severed, you will get the payment.  If you choose to retire, you will not.  That is the change.

3.  I fully support requiring CF members to have portable mortgages - but the transition was very poorly done; to my mind, there should have been grandfathering for current mortgages, with new ones as of date XXXX having to be portable.

9.  There is one force - the Canadian Armed Forces (it's actually in the NDA).  So explain to me how we can, with a straight face, pay someone a pension for being retired from the organization that pays them twice a month for their full-time job?

1. I fully understand the change. Bottom line - if you join today, serve 30 years for example, and then retire, you will not get any severance, whereas up until 2012 you would have. That to me sounds like the loss of a benefit that we once enjoyed. Am I missing something?

3. Let's say I get a portable 3 year mortgage and then, after only one or two years in location (having expected three), I get posted OUTCAN where I can't purchase a house. Who pays the fee then? Or, let's say I get a portable three year mortgage, and after a year I'm posted to a location where the housing market is in turmoil, on a downward slide, and I decide to rent because I don't want to get caught holding the bag for a mortgage on a house that after two years will be worth $80K less than I paid for it (I have very little confidence in TB approving HEA claims given their track record). Who pays then? Once again, bottom line is where once there was a benefit, there is no longer - simple statement of fact, whether you agree with the change or not.

9. (Putting on straight face) We seemingly had no problem paying someone a pension and employing them Class B for the past 20 years or so, so what's the problem now? Besides, can't I retire, collect my pension and go work for the RCMP, CSIS or any other Federal Dept? What's the difference then between doing that and coming back to work Class B? It's all Federal employment n'est pas? Regardless, once again I'm just stating fact... where once there existed an opportunity for some of us to get ahead financially and better our lot in life, that opportunity no longer exists, whether you agree with the change or not.

 

[ModlrMike]

So explain to me how we can, with a straight face, pay someone a pension for being retired from the organization that pays them twice a month for their full-time job?

Oooooh, my favorite soap box. Must.... resist... temptation... to rant...

 

[dapaterson]

9. (Putting on straight face) We seemingly had no problem paying someone a pension and employing them Class B for the past 20 years or so, so what's the problem now? Besides, can't I retire, collect my pension and go work for the RCMP, CSIS or any other Federal Dept? What's the difference then between doing that and coming back to work Class B? It's all Federal employment n'est pas? Regardless, once again I'm just stating fact... where once there existed an opportunity for some of us to get ahead financially and better our lot in life, that opportunity no longer exists, whether you agree with the change or not.

The double-dip policy was in place from around 2003 to 2012; prior to that, your options were 180 days then a break, or get re-enrolled in the pension plan - only pers in sp of cadets could do the 330/35 dance.

The difference between working for de Federal Department of Basket Weaving and being employed as a CAF member is very basic - you're either an active CAF member, or you're not.  You can't simultaneously be an active CAF member and a retired CAF member - yet the old annuitant employment policy made that rather remarkable assertion.

That a dodge and work around the spirit of the CFSA was viewed in some circles as an entitlement is unfortunate.

 

[George Wallace]

At the same time, a part time job, even as a Class B with no guarantees of rehiring, or a pension, do not equate to any honest breaking of the rules.

 

[Transporter]

The double-dip policy was in place from around 2003 to 2012; prior to that, your options were 180 days then a break, or get re-enrolled in the pension plan - only pers in sp of cadets could do the 330/35 dance.

The difference between working for de Federal Department of Basket Weaving and being employed as a CAF member is very basic - you're either an active CAF member, or you're not.  You can't simultaneously be an active CAF member and a retired CAF member - yet the old annuitant employment policy made that rather remarkable assertion.

That a dodge and work around the spirit of the CFSA was viewed in some circles as an entitlement is unfortunate.

So has the CFSA been specifically amended to expressly forbid it, or has it simply been reinterpreted to meet the desire to do away with the practice? And, for the record, I never called it an entitlement, just an opportunity that no longer exists.

 

[Stoker]

So has the CFSA been specifically amended to expressly forbid it, or has it simply been reinterpreted to meet the desire to do away with the practice? And, for the record, I never called it an entitlement, just an opportunity that no longer exists.

We still have a member on Class C contract that was extended several times, who is an annunitant. I also believe a regular force member can take a full pension and go class A and still collect, whereas a reserve member cannot.

 

[Stoker]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm under the impression those moved at public expense retain these.

Don't think so. I'm currrently on Class C and lost both several years ago due to a change of the rules. I believe you will only get it until the end of your original 2 yr SOU.

 

[dapaterson]

The CFSA has never changed.  (Or, to be precise, that portion of the CFSA hasn't undergone any material changes over the past 20 years.  Other parts have undergone change after change - the introduction of part I.1 and the changes to 25 year pensions, for example).

What changed was CAF policies: loosening up around 2003, and tightening up around 2012.  The policies are internal to DND/CAF; the regulations and legislation are external.  As always, ask two lawyers and you'll get three or more opinions on what can and can't be done; there is a great deal of grey within the legislation and regulation.  However, push too far and you may see regulation or legislation amended giving less flexibility.  So it's sometimes in the CAF's best interests not to push too far, to keep that flexibility for when it's truly needed...

 

[dapaterson]

Don't think so. I'm currrently on Class C and lost both several years ago due to a change of the rules. I believe you will only get it until the end of your original 2 yr SOU.

CBI 209.50 and 209.51 both still show members on Class B & C service who were relocated at crown expense as being eligible. 

Both read

(3) (Entitlement) A member of the Regular Force – or of the Reserve Force who is both on Class B or C Reserve Service and authorized to move their household goods and effects at public expense for that Class B or C Reserve Service – is entitled ... if all of the following conditions are satisfied after 31 January 2011:

There may be some argument over the phrase "for that Class B or C Reserve Service" in the case of an individual relocated for an earlier period of service; to my mind, however, if you were relocated and still have a relocation entitlement at the end of your period of service you should be covered.

You may want to chase down a senior clerk and get clarification on this.

 

[Navy_Pete]

I think that MARS' post is excellent.  :nod:

But then, I've never had the mindset of a whiney, self-entitled civil servant.....who happens to wear a uniform.  I'm a soldier.  My job rocks.



By the way, even whiney, self-entitled civil servants have to pay for parking; get over yourself.  If that's your major crisis, WalMart employees get to park for free.

I normally like my job too, I've gotten to do some pretty crazy stuff and have far more responsibility then I would if I had gone civie.  There are some pretty crappy days (normally due to fighting the procurement machine), but have also gotten to dangle on a rope between two ships, fight fires, fly in helicopters, fire missiles, and all kinds of other cool stuff.  I get to work with a lot of really good people to do something better that is doing something a bit more productive then making widgets.

I just don't think we should pretend that we always get paid better, that our benefits aren't gradually eroding, and that we aren't treated as increasingly expendable.  This isn't a job you do for money; but every time there yet another minor cut or other nickle and dime cutback, it becomes more of just another job.  Ignoring this simple fact is a pretty good indicator of why we have a hard time with retention of skilled trades.

 

[George Wallace]

.......  This isn't a job you do for money;

The number crunchers who may sit back for shytes and giggles and take their pay and break it down to dollars/hr would likely agree with you there.

..... but every time there yet another minor cut or other nickle and dime cutback, it becomes more of just another job.  Ignoring this simple fact is a pretty good indicator of why we have a hard time with retention of skilled trades.

So true, and it affects all Trades across the Forces.

 

[Transporter]

The CFSA has never changed.  (Or, to be precise, that portion of the CFSA hasn't undergone any material changes over the past 20 years.  Other parts have undergone change after change - the introduction of part I.1 and the changes to 25 year pensions, for example).

What changed was CAF policies: loosening up around 2003, and tightening up around 2012.  The policies are internal to DND/CAF; the regulations and legislation are external.  As always, ask two lawyers and you'll get three or more opinions on what can and can't be done; there is a great deal of grey within the legislation and regulation.  However, push too far and you may see regulation or legislation amended giving less flexibility.  So it's sometimes in the CAF's best interests not to push too far, to keep that flexibility for when it's truly needed...

That's what I thought. So, in essence, there is nothing in legislation expressly prohibiting it. We just decided that it would look a whole lot better if we didn't do it for too long in case somebody noticed and we'd have to answer a difficult question. Got it.

BTW, to your knowledge (or anyone else's on here for that matter), were we taking any fire over the Class B double-dip or were we just being preemptive in curtailing it?

 

[TwoTonShackle]

CBI 209.50 and 209.51 both still show members on Class B & C service who were relocated at crown expense as being eligible. 

(3) (Entitlement) A member of the Regular Force – or of the Reserve Force who is both on Class B or C Reserve Service and authorized to move their household goods and effects at public expense for that Class B or C Reserve Service – is entitled ... if all of the following conditions are satisfied after 31 January 2011:

The salt rub in the wound is "authorized to move their household goods and effects at public expense for that Class B or C Reserve Service".  Reservists are only authorized the move during their first contract/SOU which is normally ~2yrs.  When the next contract comes in the Reservists (if they have moved during the previous contract to their place of employment) are already in the geographical area, not entitled to a move and therefore lose the LTA/CTA benefit.  At least this is how the rules have been interpreted for the past few years.

I ran into this issue a few years ago when a crew member's aunt (who had raised her and was listed 1st on her NOK) had passed away.  When I contacted the Chief Clerk (reserve) about CTA options, I was told the member didn't qualify.  Her last sentence to me (not a word of a lie): "If we fly everyone home for funerals how would we afford pay raises." 

I got the above interpretation from another clerk who attempted in vain to have the LTA/CTA re-evaluted/re-interpreted/re-written/reconsidered.  Thankfully the Fleet Chief at the time was a wise and knowledgeable individual who was able to help out the member.

 

[Crispy Bacon]

BTW, to your knowledge (or anyone else's on here for that matter), were we taking any fire over the Class B double-dip or were we just being preemptive in curtailing it?

This is the boilerplate response from DGMC:

Q2: Why are these changes necessary? Why am I limited in my ability to receive a pension while working as a Reservist?

The CAF is responsible for the administration of its pension plan and regularly reviews its policies and practices. The last comprehensive review of annuitant policy occurred in 2001. At that time, the CAF faced an increased operational tempo and high attrition. The policy in use today was introduced to take advantage of this valuable source of highly skilled manpower to support CAF operations. The latest change is being implemented as the staffing needs of the CAF have evolved. The reduced operational tempo following the conclusion of combat operations in Afghanistan and low Regular Force attrition are two principal factors that contributed to this change in practice.

The change will also serve to improve transparency with respect to (WRT) the CF’s commitment to manage its pension responsibilities in accordance with the CFSA and Income Tax Act. The CFSA is the legislation which establishes the Canadian Forces pension plans and is intended to provide members with financial support upon retirement. When full-time service continues for a significant period of time, a member can no longer be considered retired. Accordingly, Armed Forces Council agreed to transition to an already existing employment practice for annuitants employed in year-round Reserve Service, in accordance with (IAW) CF Mil Pers Instruction 20/04 Section 2.13.

and

Q10: What is influencing these changes?

First, the CAF must adhere to requirements in the CFSA when managing its pension programme. The Act allows the CAF to employ annuitants on long term, full-time periods of service; but the Act also attaches consequences to continuous full-time service longer than one year.

Second, the Income Tax Act establishes certain requirements for pension plans. The CAF needs to adhere to those requirements in order to ensure continuing compliance with that Act.

Third, the staffing needs of the CAF have evolved with a reduced operational tempo following the conclusion of combat operations in Afghanistan and a low Regular Force attrition rate have contributed to the CAF’s decision to reorient its service structure.