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

[armyvern]

A few quotes from NDHQ 5323-1 (D Res), signed by the CDS on 5 March 2012 (sorry, would post a link but have only hard copy):

". . . one policy which . . . was discussed at [Armed Forces Council on 3 February 2012] was the . . . employment of CFSA annuitants in Reserve Force positions."

"The revised policy [effective 1 April 2012] will establish a more restrictive practice for the employment of Regular Force annuitants . . . and will introduce a centralized tracking process . . .".

"This change in no way impacts Reserve Force members who serve on a part-time basis or those who serve for shorter, task-based full-time employment of less than 365 days."

"I fully understand that this transition . . . may present challenges for operations and personnel management over the next year."

"The details related to the introduction of the new policy as well as details regarding a transition period will be forthcoming from the VCDS and CMP."

Have a nice day.

And so, the bleeding officially begins. Watch and shoot. Sad day for those Units and their troops who will now be the ones to pay for this with toil, sweat, stress and no simultaneous direction from Ottawa to force higher pri Reg F units to a "must sp" requests for essential and critical staff.

Thank Gawd I only have a couple years left to retirement when I shall go off to double dip as a public servant somewhere in the supply world.  :

 

[Remius]

Vern:  I work in an HQ environment and I can assure you that they are cutting class Bs at this level.  I'm not involved nor do I actually know the numbers but i've heard it is around 50% either being cut or not renewed.  And all this is happening before the budget is being announced.  I was interviewed last year for civy job at NDHQ and they stated that the easiest thing for them to do was to just staff it as a class b but that they had been told to use other means, so they staffed it with an internal civilian hire.  Keep in m ind that I am only talking about my particular L1.  I have colleagues working at CLS and they are seeing cuts at every level there as well.

The recruiting system (a system that has probably one of the highest ratios of class b pers.) is undergoing similar cuts for obvious reasons.

When the army cut two years ago, they did it without thinking of the impact.  From what I'm seeing, some organisations have learned from that mistake some probably have not.

navyshooter: I haven't heard but the military sometimes takes their cues from the PS.  So it would not shock me.

 

[armyvern]

Vern:  I work in an HQ environment and I can assure you that they are cutting class Bs at this level.  I'm not involved nor do I actually know the numbers but i've heard it is around 50% either being cut or not renewed.  And all this is happening before the budget is being announced.  I was interviewed last year for civy job at NDHQ and they stated that the easiest thing for them to do was to just staff it as a class b but that they had been told to use other means, so they staffed it with an internal civilian hire.  Keep in m ind that I am only talking about my particular L1.  I have colleagues working at CLS and they are seeing cuts at every level there as well.

The recruiting system (a system that has probably one of the highest ratios of class b pers.) is undergoing similar cuts for obvious reasons.

When the army cut two years ago, they did it without thinking of the impact.  From what I'm seeing, some organisations have learned from that mistake some probably have not.

navyshooter: I haven't heard but the military sometimes takes their cues from the PS.  So it would not shock me.

You explain exactly the issue. Too many HQs (my "dotcom empires"); and overstaffed at that. Put that SWE back into "troops" (not staff officers OR staff positions OR public servants to do staff jobs) and those locations those boots positions came from. Then, get those RegF pers recruited to do the damn jobs that disappeared to make those bloated HQs and their staffs happen in the first place.

That would actually fix the problem.

 

[dapaterson]

This is absolutely untrue. It is simply your perspective based upon the location you work in, but I am not about to sit here while you wax eloquently about my responsibility as a "leader" to say no when I have done and seen many "nos" sent all the way to Ottawa only to be fired back with a "oh yes you will".

At Gagetown, I experienced the exact opposite. We constantly fed back up the chain that we could NOT support tasks, requests, training, deploying staff without a backfill etc ... only to be told by that puzzle palace , "No, you are pri 6 and thus you WILL support the task, make it happen etc"; we then let the support to training suffer or worked 12-14 hour days and came in on weekends as a norm because we were ordered to make it happen by centre (and that is not a manifestly unlawful order). We worked our butts off attempting to get reassigned as a higher priority listed Unit only to have that shut down by centre too.

Ottawa would not be ordering you to support the task.  You had an ASU above you, an ASG above that, an Area HQ above that... any one of which had the authority to order cross-levelling of support or incremental resources - and they didn't.  They had resource flexibility that they chose to employ in other ways.  So again, why exactly is it Ottawa's fault that the Area HQ would rather spend their money on the Halifax Tattoo than on support in Gagetown?

Absolutely everything was a higher pri than pri 6. We said no and we tried to change it. Ottawa was NOT OK with that. Another mirror check for them.

Actually, at about that time I was tracking Pri 5 fills in Army Reserve units.  Despite pushing out 20% of mos deployments, Reserve untis were being filled at rates in the high 70s-low 80s.  Most combat arms units notionally have one Capt and one WO in trade - and some units were having both positions unfilled.  Pressures were felt everywhere; extra work was done everywhere.

Guess what else? Courses at CTC are getting canned precisely because other Units etc are saying, "No, we can not support a request to augment your staff". Courses thus cancelled and more guys backlogged on BTL, PAT, over two years for their "mandatory" leadership courses etc. And, it goes on and on and on.

So people can say "no" and get courses cancelled? 

There's a whole lot of people and Units saying, "No." Those who can't hear those that may have missed the forest for the trees.

What you get to see in Ottawa, is not necessarily indicative of the state of affairs outside of your window and pan-CF.

I am not disputing that there are problems.  I am disputing (a) that it's all evil nasty stupid Ottawa's fault - there's lots of evil nasty and stupid between NDHQ and units as well and (b) that massive numbers of class B pers are anything but a stopgap - they are a symptom of the problem, but are not the solution to the problem.

 

[armyvern]

Ottawa would not be ordering you to support the task.  You had an ASU above you, an ASG above that, an Area HQ above that... any one of which had the authority to order cross-levelling of support or incremental resources - and they didn't.  They had resource flexibility that they chose to employ in other ways.  So again, why exactly is it Ottawa's fault that the Area HQ would rather spend their money on the Halifax Tattoo than on support in Gagetown?
...

You need to do some fact checking. While at it, check the org out for LFAA.

The tattoo comment also kills me being that it's coming from the same guy who always says, "that's a mere drop in the bucket". LFAA did support us with staffing ... it's called B Class (surprise!!); the only manning pool we had to pull from. We don't have the luxury of Svc Bns etc to augment.

 

[Remius]

Thank Gawd I only have a couple years left to retirement when I shall go off to double dip as a public servant somewhere in the supply world.  :

Don't count on that either.  With FTE limits being as restrictive as they are, hires coming from anywhere but within the PS (and in some cases individual departments and sections) are going to be few and far between.  Not to mention all the priority hires that will be created as a result of WFA...

Fun times ahead.

 

[armyvern]

Don't count on that either.  With FTE limits being as restrictive as they are, hires coming from anywhere but within the PS (and in some cases individual departments and sections) are going to be few and far between.  Not to mention all the priority hires that will be created as a result of WFA...

Fun times ahead.

No worries. Someone has to do the job; and, if it now can't be B Class, they'll have to fill them with someone. When you can't buy bullets, beans and equipment, you may as well just disband the entire CF.

 

[Remius]

No worries. Someone has to do the job; and, if it now can't be B Class, they'll have to fill them with someone. When you can't buy bullets, beans and equipment, you may as well just disband the entire CF.

Wha?  That's a pretty negative attitude.  We'll still have stress balls, rubber bands paper clips and glossy front page maple leafs to showcase all of that

 

[Stoker]

Fielded a few calls today from worried annuitants concerning the coming pension changes as some were briefed that changes are indeed coming as are changes to PLD and the severance packages. These are not rumours but people are actually being briefed on whats coming. I basically told them to prepare for the worst and wait for the official msg. It will be interesting to see the results of all this.

 

[The Bread Guy]

Wha?  That's a pretty negative attitude.  We'll still have stress balls, rubber bands paper clips and glossy front page maple leafs to showcase all of that

Fixed that for you

 

[McG]

You're due for a posting to Gagetown, if only for the eye-opening and a dose of reality.

Done.  As your default example is CTC, I can assure you that my experience is more relevant (having actually been posted within the beast as opposed to an adjacent support unit, dealing with manning and personnel) and more current than yours. 

Courses at CTC are getting canned precisely because other Units etc are saying, "No, we can not support a request to augment your staff". Courses thus cancelled and more guys backlogged on BTL, PAT, over two years for their "mandatory" leadership courses etc. And, it goes on and on and on.

Again, my observation is that this problem is most prolific with PRes courses.  We need to get Cl B reservists out of doing Reg F work in Reg F establishments.  We need to get them back into supporting the reserves.

Start with fixing the problem; 

Absolutely.  There are two problems and both must be addressed. I don't understand why you are dragging this thread down into the mire of Problem A is bigger, so forget about fixing Problem B.  You were previously in agreement that the double-dip was a problem:

I am certainly not a double dipper. I actually do not agree with it (or with the triple-dipping). I think it ALL stinks to high-heaven. If the argument is that the same employer shouldn't be paying a pension and a paycheque  ... then that should be applicable to each and every case whereby the feds are doing this. To me, anything less is hypocritical.

What changed?

I don't expect politicians to sort out the CFs excesses.

It almost seems you do expect this.  The CF allowed unrestrained growth of Class B positions (amongst other things) to contribute to the current bloated structure.  Unrestrained growth of Class B was used to grow HQs and to backfill units where pers were unavailable because they were in higher priorety HQs or deployed.  Now the structure is addicted to this system.  It will not be easy to rein-in our excess.  Some leadership will be uncomfortable levelling resources, not wanting to upset a subordinates by reallocating PYs from from the ones who are currently doing are doing less with more (ie. the fat organizations).

I've always been taught that if it isn't broken, do not fix it.

The current way of doing business is broken.  Our structures are unsustainable within our resource allocation (PY, PRes pay & Civ pay) - that is broken.  The current process of hiring annuitants on full-time multi-year Cl B TOS is not within legislation or higher government policy - that is also broken.

I'm no optimist these days: I really don't see Ottawa and the dotcoms slashing themselves before they cut the outsiders throats.

Headquarters rationalization needs to happen.  It can happen internal to DND.  We should not protect our addition to Cl B bloated Reg F establishments so long as there is room to rationalize here.

 

[Infanteer]

It almost seems you do expect this.  The CF allowed unrestrained growth of Class B positions (amongst other things) to contribute to the current bloated structure.  Unrestrained growth of Class B was used to grow HQs and to backfill units where pers were unavailable because they were in higher priorety HQs or deployed.  Now the structure is addicted to this system.  It will not be easy to rein-in our excess.  Some leadership will be uncomfortable levelling resources, not wanting to upset a subordinates by reallocating PYs from from the ones who are currently doing are doing less with more (ie. the fat organizations).

I've followed this thread with vague interest and have noticed there are some very deep trenches built.  Having worked in the HR world for a bit, I'd say this is the truest statement out there.  The CF is a junkie and needs to be broken from the habit.  Cutting the positions will not cause systemic collapse and ruin the military as some have suggested; the CF has faced worse in the past and simply adapts organizations to suit the purpose.

The important thing is that we rework our employment models to fit within the lawfully mandated direction contained within the NDA and within the resource limits placed on us by the DND.  Not enough people to handle our business process - well maybe the process needs revision.  Going cold turkey is probably the best way to impose this on the system.

 

[armyvern]

I've followed this thread with vague interest and have noticed there are some very deep trenches built.  Having worked in the HR world for a bit, I'd say this is the truest statement out there.  The CF is a junkie and needs to be broken from the habit.  Cutting the positions will not cause systemic collapse and ruin the military as some have suggested; the CF has faced worse in the past and simply adapts organizations to suit the purpose.

The important thing is that we rework our employment models to fit within the lawfully mandated direction contained within the NDA and within the resource limits placed on us by the DND.  Not enough people to handle our business process - well maybe the process needs revision.  Going cold turkey is probably the best way to impose this on the system.

I'd agree with the above; where I differ is that 'cold turkey' should occur at locations who are suffering now rather than bloated. Cutting B Class at those bloated spots still leaves a whole lot of bloat to cut there. The re-distribution of those bloated excess' to the base peon level currently dependent upon B Class to succeed would then dissipate.

Cause and effect.

 

[armyvern]

...

No change to my position MCG, but you already know that. The circle - as always - continues.  :

 

[Brasidas]

The current way of doing business is broken.[  Our structures are unsustainable within our resource allocation (PY, PRes pay & Civ pay) - that is broken.

Agreed.

  The current process of hiring annuitants on full-time multi-year Cl B TOS is not within legislation or higher government policy - that is also broken.

The practice of hiring an annuitant, where otherwise there would be a non-annuitant class B, may not be within legislation or higher policy, but it is not a tool to throw away. Its one that should only be used for specific roles, such as key RSS positions. A regforce unit made up of permanent class B is an example of how not to do it.

Policy should be made on the basis of what is really needed and how best to accomplish that need. It shouldn't be one group pushing through a change like restricting annuitants to infinitely repeating 330- contracts. It doesn't free up pay and positions for people to be where they're needed, and it simply undermines stability for both the personnel and the organization involved.

An annuitant is always going to get their pension; if you take it away, they'll work elsewhere and you've got a lesser pool to work with. The pension money doesn't affect the pools of positions or pay.

Change the legislation and change the policy rationally; don't change it like an internally-squabbling hydra.

Headquarters rationalization needs to happen.  It can happen internal to DND.  We should not protect our addition to Cl B bloated Reg F establishments so long as there is room to rationalize here.

Absolutely.

 

[PPCLI Guy]

Policy should be made on the basis of what is really needed and how best to accomplish that need. It shouldn't be one group pushing through a change like restricting annuitants to infinitely repeating 330- contracts.

If by "one group", you mean the CDS (who has signed off on this change to policy), then you are completely wrong.

 

[exabedtech]

So 'double dipping' is a problem?  Why would that be??  If the best person available for the job happens to be receiving a pension, would denying this person the job simply based on their pension status not be discriminatory? 

I'm not a 'double dipper' myself, so I have no personal stake in this, but I cannot imagine why any organization would choose to not hire the best applicant based on that persons skill sets.  That said, I have seen cases where a 'competition' has been held solely for the purpose of hiring a soon to be released member, but I would imagine that there are all sorts of rules already for that kind of thing.  Whether they follow them or not is another matter.

Many times i've heard the shrill outrage in the media against 'double dipping'.  Are they suggesting that anyone in receipt of a pension should be denied work??  Fine with me as long as they jack up that pension until a person could actually retire on it!  :2c:

 

[Stoker]

So 'double dipping' is a problem?  Why would that be??  If the best person available for the job happens to be receiving a pension, would denying this person the job simply based on their pension status not be discriminatory? 

I'm not a 'double dipper' myself, so I have no personal stake in this, but I cannot imagine why any organization would choose to not hire the best applicant based on that persons skill sets.  That said, I have seen cases where a 'competition' has been held solely for the purpose of hiring a soon to be released member, but I would imagine that there are all sorts of rules already for that kind of thing.  Whether they follow them or not is another matter.

Many times i've heard the shrill outrage in the media against 'double dipping'.  Are they suggesting that anyone in receipt of a pension should be denied work??  Fine with me as long as they jack up that pension until a person could actually retire on it!  :2c:

No one is saying they won't be hired, they won't be able to collect their pension while working on Class B/C. If they want the job bad enough they will follow the new rules and pay in to their pensions again.

 

[exabedtech]

No one is saying they won't be hired, they won't be able to collect their pension while working on Class B/C. If they want the job bad enough they will follow the new rules and pay in to their pensions again.

Why would any pensioner take that job then???? Not as if public service work pays well lol.  Go ahead with the new rules and watch that talent pool move on to the private sector and keep their pensions.  Who wins??  Certainly not the public service!!  Pretty clear who loses I think. 

Sounds like a foolish policy rooted in jealousy.  If a service member retires and IAW his agreement is now in receipt of a pension, that should absolutely not restrict that persons job prospects.  Telling him that he loses his pension cheque if he takes the job is the same as telling him to go f&*k himself and work elsewhere.  So why are we wanting to treat veterans this way?  Hardly matters to me since i've done my time and have no further interest, but there are plenty of highly skilled and knowledgeable soldiers releasing every day who want to serve and have tons to offer.

Again, why exactly do we care what cheques this person receives? 

 

[aesop081]

Not as if public service work pays well lol. 

The public servants i work with are very well paid.

rooted in jealousy.

Yes, i am sure that is the reason.  :

that should absolutely not restrict that persons job prospects.

It doesn't. There is a difference between "won't take that job" and "cant take that job".