Strike

[Halifax Tar]

I don’t know why anyone bitches about the PS and it’s pay/benefits over private industry… we all choose our path.

There is that too.

 

[Jarnhamar]

I don’t know why anyone bitches about the PS and it’s pay/benefits over private industry… we all choose our path.

The military isn't just a career, it's a calling!

 

[brihard]

And retiring 2.4 years earlier. And 9x more likely to have a defined benefit pension (which as time progresses shall only increase in numbers).

I dunno- is there much private sector DB left? I don’t think there’s much room for the denominator on that one to shrink further.

Public sector fully indexed DB plans are starting to be on the radar for whittling. In the past year or two I know that the Ontario municipal plan imposed a cap on indexing; a very minor erosion, but one nonetheless. I suspect in the next decade we’ll see more talk of public sector plans shifting to defined contribution or something like it.

The federal pension plans - PSSA, CFSA, RCMPSA will probably be the last holdouts on defined benefit long in the future, simply by virtue of scale scale and public service union size.

 

[Good2Golf]

Agree @brihard - Fully-indexed* DB is likely not long for this world (expect MPs…)


*indexed to CPI without food and fuel…

 

[Furniture]

And retiring 2.4 years earlier. And 9x more likely to have a defined benefit pension (which as time progresses shall only increase in numbers). This also doesn't factor in more vacation time on average, only 5 sick days above what the average worker has.

If I miss 5 days of work in a year, I get to have a meeting with HR and my bosses over why I am missing so much work. All those days are also unpaid as well.



Oh of course, whats a heavily unionized environment without your regular malingerers.

Why isn't your union fighting for more/better?

Should everyone join the race to the bottom for worker compensation while executive compensation climbs higher?

 

[mariomike]

In the past year or two I know that the Ontario municipal plan imposed a cap on indexing; a very minor erosion, but one nonetheless.

I've been an OMERS member for over 50 years.
Changes do not affect retired members. But, for anyone interested in plan changes for current / future members ,

OMERS Plan Updates: Plan Changes | OMERS Members | myOMERS

Stay informed on the latest OMERS plan updates, including changes to retirement age, service adjustments, leave purchase deadlines, and more. Learn how these updates, made after careful reviews for plan sustainability, can affect your pension planning.

www.omers.com

Municipal Retirees Organization of Ontario ( MROO ) enhances the retirement experience for OMERS retirees.

Home

www.mroo.org

 

[Halifax Tar]

Why isn't your union fighting for more/better?

Should everyone join the race to the bottom for worker compensation while executive compensation climbs higher?

Solid counter. I find myself straddling this issue, with feet in both camps.

 

[Halifax Tar]

I dunno- is there much private sector DB left? I don’t think there’s much room for the denominator on that one to shrink further.

Public sector fully indexed DB plans are starting to be on the radar for whittling. In the past year or two I know that the Ontario municipal plan imposed a cap on indexing; a very minor erosion, but one nonetheless. I suspect in the next decade we’ll see more talk of public sector plans shifting to defined contribution or something like it.

The federal pension plans - PSSA, CFSA, RCMPSA will probably be the last holdouts on defined benefit long in the future, simply by virtue of scale scale and public service union size.

I do believe a few years back the CFSA was adjusted so that we contribute more. I stand to be corrected.

 

[Remius]

I think it was also 2013 or so that also adjusted when people can retire. 65 vs 60 and 60 vs 55.

 

[brihard]

I do believe a few years back the CFSA was adjuster that we contribute more. I stand to be corrected.

Actually I think your right- member contributions increased. That’s certainly in play in discussing the erosion of public sector pensions.

 

[dapaterson]

CFSA part I contributions are adjusted annually, and do not exceed the same as those paid by PSSA group 1 contributors (CFSA 5(1) and 5(3) refer) . PSSA contributions are intended to be half the cost of the benefits earned. Because CFSA part I benefits are significantly more valuable than those of PSSA group 1, it results in the government contributing about $1.50 per dollar contributed by CAF members.

The OSFI reports on the three mail public sector superannuation acts on a regular basis, and you can read their reports for more details.

 

[Good2Golf]

CFSA part I contributions are adjusted annually, and do not exceed the same as those paid by PSSA group 1 contributors (CFSA 5(1) and 5(3) refer) . PSSA contributions are intended to be half the cost of the benefits earned. Because CFSA part I benefits are significantly more valuable than those of PSSA group 1, it results in the government contributing about $1.50 per dollar contributed by CAF members.

The OSFI reports on the three mail public sector superannuation acts on a regular basis, and you can read their reports for more details.

Is CFSA contribution really 40/60? I thought it had been updated to 50/50 years ago? I do remember (many) years ago, the rate was 35/65…about the time the Jean Chretien had a large portion of CFSA’s real assets cashed in against the debt, and replaced with operational V1 monies in the out years.

 

[Eaglelord17]

I don’t know why anyone bitches about the PS and it’s pay/benefits over private industry… we all choose our path.

Well one reason is paying for the PS comes out of our taxes. The higher the PS salaries go, the higher my taxes go, diminishing the amount the private sector employees get to take home.

Why isn't your union fighting for more/better?

Should everyone join the race to the bottom for worker compensation while executive compensation climbs higher?

Only so much you can fight. At the end of the day unlike the public sector which has no real cap on spending due to it all being raised from taxes, a private company does have limits. If you demand too much the company becomes unprofitable or less profitable than exporting it to a foreign country.

Coupled with some specific taxes you only pay on goods manufactured in Canada (carbon tax) well not effecting foreign manufacturing (no equivalent tariffs to even the playing field), we are basically subsidizing foreign industry to sell in Canada.

 

[Spencer100]

Well one reason is paying for the PS comes out of our taxes. The higher the PS salaries go, the higher my taxes go, diminishing the amount the private sector employees get to take home.

Only so much you can fight. At the end of the day unlike the public sector which has no real cap on spending due to it all being raised from taxes, a private company does have limits. If you demand too much the company becomes unprofitable or less profitable than exporting it to a foreign country.

Coupled with some specific taxes you only pay on goods manufactured in Canada (carbon tax) well not effecting foreign manufacturing (no equivalent tariffs to even the playing field), we are basically subsidizing foreign industry to sell in Canada.

Its almost like there is a plan to limit and stop manufacturing and production in Canada? LOL that is the plan and we all know it. Just subsidizes the ones left and/or the political "right" ones.

 

[dapaterson]

Is CFSA contribution really 40/60? I thought it had been updated to 50/50 years ago? I do remember (many) years ago, the rate was 35/65…about the time the Jean Chretien had a large portion of CFSA’s real assets cashed in against the debt, and replaced with operational V1 monies in the out years.

The move to 50/50 was for the PS, and CAF is locked in to their rates. Since CAF benefits can be drawn earlier, and have more ill/injured retirees drawing immediate indexing, the plan is more costly.

Prior to the establishment of the investment funds for the three big plans, all federal pensions were held as accounts on the federal ledger. The actuarial surplus absorbed by the GoC when Chretien was PM was an accounting issue - there were no tangible assets. The GoC retained the ultimate liability for any plan deficits. (A great discussion over beers: moral hazard for PSP investments given any failure on their part will ultimately be paid by the public).

The CFSA holds the CAF contribution rates to the same as the PSSA rates, so when the PSSA is at 50 percent, the CAF is at the same percentage of pay - but that covers less than half the actuarial cost, so the balance is paid by GoC.

(PSSA has two sets of rates, CAF rates are tied to the older rates, those for PS members pre 2012).

 

[Good2Golf]

Tx for the clarification, dap.

 

[Spencer100]

The move to 50/50 was for the PS, and CAF is locked in to their rates. Since CAF benefits can be drawn earlier, and have more ill/injured retirees drawing immediate indexing, the plan is more costly.

Prior to the establishment of the investment funds for the three big plans, all federal pensions were held as accounts on the federal ledger. The actuarial surplus absorbed by the GoC when Chretien was PM was an accounting issue - there were no tangible assets. The GoC retained the ultimate liability for any plan deficits. (A great discussion over beers: moral hazard for PSP investments given any failure on their part will ultimately be paid by the public).

The CFSA holds the CAF contribution rates to the same as the PSSA rates, so when the PSSA is at 50 percent, the CAF is at the same percentage of pay - but that covers less than half the actuarial cost, so the balance is paid by GoC.

(PSSA has two sets of rates, CAF rates are tied to the older rates, those for PS members pre 2012).

The thing is 50/50 is not a really the number. With a DB plan the government on the hook for the short fall. And every plan will have shortfalls.....Teachers, Omers to name a few are looking into a blackhole. A VP at one fund told me in the end there is no way they can ever make enough money to fund the future obligations.

 

[dapaterson]

The thing is 50/50 is not a really the number. With a DB plan the government on the hook for the short fall. And every plan will have shortfalls.....Teachers, Omers to name a few are looking into a blackhole. A VP at one fund told me in the end there is no way they can ever make enough money to fund the future obligations.

Properly run plans smooth actuarial fluctuations over time.

And there was an actuarial surplus removed by the employer and used to pay down debt a number of years ago, so your alleged VP friend hasn't done much examining of the real world.

 

[Spencer100]

Properly run plans smooth actuarial fluctuations over time.

And there was an actuarial surplus removed by the employer and used to pay down debt a number of years ago, so your alleged VP friend hasn't done much examining of the real world.

That was Lord Crossharbor and the law was changed because of it. Employers can not remove funds. Not a 100% sure about public employers, I know we can't as I sit on the pension committee here.

But I would have you look in the out years of the public pension funds. They will have huge problems. Also how much has the employer (gov) put in over the regular contribution over the years?

 

[Good2Golf]

But I would have you look in the out years of the public pension funds. They will have huge problems.

PSSA-CFSA-RCMPSA check their numbers…

CPP: Hold my beer…