Retire from CAF and entering Fed PS [Merged]

[Fishbone Jones]

I guess I just don't throw temper tantrums as often as you do...

 

[Occam]

One person seems to be, repeatedly.  :

Oh, come on and grow a pair and tell us who you're referring to. 

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

Occam,.........I noticed earlier where you mentioned about using the grievance process, speaking as a long time Union rep I don't really see a chance of a win here.
The differential treatment/discrimination subject would be the only option I can see but with several Federal Unions selling out their new hires to protect longer serving members benefits, that argument now gets shredded by an arbitrator.

Now keep in mind that's my 2 cents based on the OPSEU collective agreement.  As a rep I would file it on a coworkers behalf but I'd be brutally
honest with him/her about the chances of winning............

Even having said that, this would be a costly one for the Govt. to lose so if there was a chance of it winning, it would be buried for years and years....

 

[bridges]

The differential treatment/discrimination subject would be the only option I can see but with several Federal Unions selling out their new hires to protect longer serving members benefits, that argument now gets shredded by an arbitrator.

Ironically, it's the "new hires" (those w/ significant CF service) that would be getting the better deal, if the compensation advisor's interpretation is correct.  But it's possible that he or she is as much in the dark as the rest of us. 

Curiously, the government stands to gain, financially, by this not going through - as some PS employees who find 3 weeks restrictive have been using LIA (Leave with Income Averaging), which saves the government money. 

This is day 4 of budget debate in the House, and there is a limit of 4 days on a budget bill, so we can expect to see this going through shortly - as well as many other, arguably larger, issues. 

 

[Occam]

I mentioned nothing of a grievance.  The chatter at the office yesterday concerned how it was implemented when the same thing happened with the RCMP, and how it would be very unlikely that former CF members would be treated differently.  I doubt anyone would have to file a grievance; the unions would just run with it.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

Occam,...I guess I misunderstood what you meant by "the unions will have a field day with it'.
IMO, the advice is still good though......[pats himself on the back] :nod:

 

[Occam]

Seen.  I have two weeks vacation to gain out of this, with another week just around the corner.  However, there are lots of retired Chiefs and senior officers now in the PS who are in a similar position, and have more time in the Ottawa trenches to take the battle to TBS without me having to worry about doing anything.  I'm happy to ride their coattails on this one, if the interpretation turns out to be unfavorable.

 

[bridges]

Just an update on this - the UNDE (a sub-set of PSAC) is looking at this on behalf of their members.  I suspect PIPS is, as well. 

http://www.unde-uedn.com/e/index.php/en/what-s-new/899-prior-years-of-service-of-former-canadian-forces-members

UNDE's interpretation is just that, & it may or may not be borne out in the end.  Bottom line = the details are still not known.  I wouldn't book any five- or six-week summer vacations just yet.  In the meantime, happy long weekend, for those who get one! 

 

[Northern Ranger]

For all us former service members,  I went into the online leave program to check my sick days avail ( at about 60 days btw not bad for four years)  I happend to notice in one of the parts that allowed you to update your profile there is a spot that says someting like "member since" or "date of joining the program"  my date says Apr 4th 1987, this happens to be the day I joined the Reg Force.  I love that UNDE is stepping up to the plate to get us answers.

 

[Trail Rider]

I've heard that the RCMP have had this in place for years.  When they leave as uniformed members and roll into a civilian position, they were given the credit of years service towards leave.  So it's a matter of applying the same policy to CF as applied to RCMP.

However, we can all wait out for a while.  I heard this surprised HR.

 

[dapaterson]

I've heard that the RCMP have had this in place for years.  When they leave as uniformed members and roll into a civilian position, they were given the credit of years service towards leave.  So it's a matter of applying the same policy to CF as applied to RCMP.

However, we can all wait out for a while.  I heard this surprised HR.

RCMP has had this since 2010.  And the CF is more complex.  If we go by a strict reading, a Reg F member who went to the Sup Res is not a "former member" and would not be eligible.  There are also many Reservists who did years of B&C service then went to the Public Serivce but continued on class A - what happens to them?

Lots of details to be worked out on this one...

 

[maniac]

I was hired immediately but I do understand the frustration sometimes with the PSC HR policies.  PH only works IF the manager chooses to use it.  Obviously,  DND is going to support CF veterans and that is proven.  I have been at a few talks about this topic and they're saying 70% success.  Warning- Before you invoke PH,  be aware that "EXTERNAL HIRING" currently has a moratorium on new hiring,  they can only fill vacant positions.  To further complicate the problem,  because of the austere budget,  HR is recommended "INTERNAL" hiring process to offset the effected PS positions being targeted for termination.

You have 5 yrs from release to invoke and lasts 2 yrs.  Be aware,  it is in effect by the date the doctor signs and dates the letter you provide to the HRO,  that part is not well known.  It might be wise to wait for the PS to settle it's position terminations before invoking PH for yourself if you still have time.  Remember,  you first must meet the essential criteria before you are considered for PH,  write your resume accordingly.  You are up against some very creative writers!

 

[McG]

As of earlier this spring, the only hiring allowed was of priorety hires who are already DND employees - Unless something has changed, that would exlude CF and RCMP medically released pers from being hired into DND jobs. 

 

[LineJumper]

Why work public service? Maybe because I'm not from a pub works kinda trade, but with a pension(or otherwise) I'll take my skills where needed. Maybe I'm dumb, I don't know.

 

[maniac]

No that does not exclude PH.  Anyone can use a PH on an external hiring process. 

The only exception to PH is on internal hiring process where the person being hired is already a public servant.  To even get access to the internal process you need to be on a government computer (example DWAN).  CF mbrs can get access and apply for internal hiring process as long as they're still serving but PH can not be used in those cases.  This process is always used first and if they can not find a suitable candidate,  that is when you see them come up on "jobs open to the public" AKA = External Process where PH can be used.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Keep in mind many managers in the PS loath Priority Hires as they are often other managers problem children and high maintenance. You will likely be judged by this attitude regardless of the reason you are on PH.

 

[bcbarman]

This is great, as I just sent off a letter to my Compensation advisor to look into it a tad deeper.  I am one of those Reserve B&C commandoes up till I got a real job with the Gov't.  If anybody from the FB pay class has any history or precidents, private me please.

Cheers

 

[bridges]

This is great, as I just sent off a letter to my Compensation advisor to look into it a tad deeper.  I am one of those Reserve B&C commandoes up till I got a real job with the Gov't.  If anybody from the FB pay class has any history or precidents, private me please.

Cheers

There are a lot of us in the same boat as you.  If we take the RCMP implementation as an example, it looks promising.  The TB hasn't come out with their detailed directive for prior CF svc yet, so most of us only have speculation at this point - including some of the compensation advisors, it seems.  Good luck and I hope you hear something back.

 

[Canuck4ever]

Just a quick note - a few of us in Halifax are also concerned with the wording used.  Compared to what was outlined above for retired CF members, RCMP Treasury Board implementation guidance in 2010 read as follows;

"Effective April 1, 2010, employees who have prior service as a member of the RCMP will have their years of service recognized as public service and will be credited with the appropriate vacation leave credits as per the relevant collective agreement.  As such, eligible employees may receive additional vacation leave credits as of April 1, 2010.”
(http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/hr-rh/in-ai/2010/0504-eng.asp)

This is quite different from the wording in current budget for CF implementation.  I believe the key in our current budget is the "join" portion.  Will we end up with two types of retired CF members working for public service - those who joined after 1 Apr 2012 who's service counts for leave calculation purposes and those who joined before who's military service does not count for leave calculation purposes (does not sound right, but, with current Gov......).  To seek clarification, a few of us have decided to write our MPs and/or the MND to try and obtain clarification.  We developed a semi-form letter which can be tailored by the writer.  If interested let me know - I could post it.  Personally, I'd rather be proactive than wait.


Marc C. 

 

[RavRob]

Being proactive is likely the best course of action.  Nothing yet to clarify this statement.  Time to take action IMO.  If you could either post the letter or send via PM I would appreciate it. 

I would love to put my 25 years service and my 13 years as CS to good use. 

Thanks