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

[Brasidas]

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

As in one group making a recommendation that the "problem of annuitants" be solved by restricting annuitants to shorter contracts, getting it signed off by the CDS as a step forward, and patting themselves on the back for leading change.

The reserve units are going to get hammered by this and the CF will not benefit; addressing the rationalization of positions regardless of annuitant status would help the CF.

 

[Stoker]

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?

Its not like this hasn't happened before. About 15 years ago or so annuitants were restricted to only 180 days per calender year or something similar that's all they were allowed to work.
I don't think its jealousy but I had more than one annuitant brag to my face they make more than the CO of the unit. So yes it does piss people off. You have to remember something,  its the regular force and the treasury board making these new rules. If I was a betting man its to bring us in line with existing rules.
I would love to keep the annuitants we have, but again if they want to continue to serve they will have to follow whatever rules that are set down.

 

[Brasidas]

Its not like this hasn't happened before. About 15 years ago or so annuitants were restricted to only 180 days per calender year or something similar that's all they were allowed to work.

And it was brought back for a reason.

I don't think its jealousy but I had more than one annuitant brag to my face they make more than the CO of the unit. So yes it does piss people off. You have to remember something,  its the regular force and the treasury board making these new rules. If I was a betting man its to bring us in line with existing rules.
I would love to keep the annuitants we have, but again if they want to continue to serve they will have to follow whatever rules that are set down.

Once upon a time, the dental corps saw folks given early retirement as it would be cheaper to use civilian staff to fill the clinics' positions.  A fraction of the retired folks applied for civilian staff positions, a smaller fraction in full-time, permanent positions. It was found that the clinics could not maintain sufficient support at the pay rates approved. The CF then offered bonuses for former members to rejoin. A fraction came back, often folks who were less succesful in private practice than their peers. There may have been a reason they weren't as successful.

And everybody got checks in the box for leading change.

This change isn't a step forward, and its going to bite the CF in the butt.

 

[Stoker]

And it was brought back for a reason.

Once upon a time, the dental corps saw folks given early retirement as it would be cheaper to use civilian staff to fill the clinics' positions.  A fraction of the retired folks applied for civilian staff positions, a smaller fraction in full-time, permanent positions. It was found that the clinics could not maintain sufficient support at the pay rates approved. The CF then offered bonuses for former members to rejoin. A fraction came back, often folks who were less succesful in private practice than their peers. There may have been a reason they weren't as successful.

And everybody got checks in the box for leading change.

This change isn't a step forward, and its going to bite the CF in the butt.

I expect it will be a train wreck and we'll do a few years of this and probably go back to the way it was. Perhaps this will be a wake up call to overhaul the whole reserve system, because its not working very well.

 

[Harris]

So some of you are saying that it's OK for someone in the military to be drawing a pension and then rejoin the military and also draw a pay cheque?  As a reservist, where can I sign up for this plan?  I've got 25+ years in and would love to be able to do this too.  Oh wait, I can't.  Why then should the reg force pers be allowed to do so?

If we take the extreme of what some of you are saying, reg force members should be able to draw a pension after 20 years and continue also drawing a pay cheque.  Why even make them CT to the reserves?  How is it unfair to make them cease collecting a pension while they are working again for the same organization they earned it from in the first place, continue to pay into it, and resume drawing it when they cease employment?

It seems to me many annuitants want to draw a pension, draw a salary form the same organization, and also avoid the reg force issues of postings and deployments.  Where is the downside?

As for those who state Reserve Units will fail as a result of these new changes, I call BS.  The majority of the annuitants I know work at a Brigade or Area HQ and don't contribute to a reserve unit at all.

Finally, I've seen it touted numerous times in this thread the valuable knowledge that is brought by annuitants to the reserve world.  This somehow justifies them drawing two sources of income from the same employer.  I will concede that this is happening for some people in some trades.  But I don't agree that this is true in all of the cases.  For example I've dealt with reg force clerks who are annuitants who don't know a thing about reserve administration.  (not banging on clerks per se as I also know many who do know a lot).  Guess what, many reservists bring valuable knowledge to the table as well.  Yet we don't have the opportunity to "double-dip".  Nor should we in my opinion.

 

[dapaterson]

And again I return to my question: who is commenting on this thread who has read the NDA, CFSA and their associated regulations?

That we've been doing things in one way since 2002 or so does not mean that it's in accordance with the regulations and legislation in force.


This is an interesting example of a culture of entitlement that has evloved - "I'm entitled to a pension from the military while I work full time for the military."  Methinks certain CF members could give members of Parliament and some government appointees lessons in the entitlement culture.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

:goodpost:

 

[Jed]

So some of you are saying that it's OK for someone in the military to be drawing a pension and then rejoin the military and also draw a pay cheque?  As a reservist, where can I sign up for this plan?  I've got 25+ years in and would love to be able to do this too.  Oh wait, I can't.  Why then should the reg force pers be allowed to do so?

If...

I guess this would be some of the jealousy coming out that seems to be the 'Elephant in the Room' 

A Reserve job is theoretically a part time job. You feed yourself and your family doing something else.

Anyone who has been around the block knows full well that many people do not view the Reserve world this way.

However, that's the way the Militia was set up to function originally.

The whole Reserve system is a cluster most of the time, even though the people in the system are very capable folks.

It seems strange to me that there is a pension plan for a part time job. If you want a full time job, CT to the Reg Force.

 

[exabedtech]

And again I return to my question: who is commenting on this thread who has read the NDA, CFSA and their associated regulations?

That we've been doing things in one way since 2002 or so does not mean that it's in accordance with the regulations and legislation in force.


This is an interesting example of a culture of entitlement that has evloved - "I'm entitled to a pension from the military while I work full time for the military."  Methinks certain CF members could give members of Parliament and some government appointees lessons in the entitlement culture.

I really don't see the connection between the two.  They made it pretty clear when I signed up that I could receive an immediate pension after 20 years service.  They actually went on and on about it as if it were a major piece to their recruiting puzzle.  At no time did they tell me that such a pension would work against me if I applied for work with the reserves or anywhere else.  As far as I know, you cannot re-enlist in the regular force and continue receiving those pension cheques since you would now be paying back into that very same pension.  I know a few people in that situation, but there are simply building that pension up.
The same would not apply if I joined the reserves, were hired as a cook, electrician or cleaner at a military installation.  Exactly why would it pose a problem?  I'm glad i'm working in the private sector where no one ever disputes my eligibility to receive my pension.

 

[armyvern]

I guess this would be some of the jealousy coming out that seems to be the 'Elephant in the Room' 

A Reserve job is theoretically a part time job. You feed yourself and your family doing something else.

Anyone who has been around the block knows full well that many people do not view the Reserve world this way.

However, that's the way the Militia was set up to function originally.

The whole Reserve system is a cluster most of the time, even though the people in the system are very capable folks.

It seems strange to me that there is a pension plan for a part time job. If you want a full time job, CT to the Reg Force.

Not to mention that double dipping will still occur; annuitants will just go elsewhere. The Public Service will still be one of those places (a federal employer too) and collect their CF pension while collecting full pay at the new place.

All the current move does is move those annuitants to a different sector - be it the PS or private.

I can not see why any sane or rational person who are annuitants would not move to the place where they can still collect the pension while simultaneously collecting a paycheque as well when the push comes to the shove.

If I had any plans on working after my retirement, I certainly would not be going back to work full-time while giving up my pension to collect 85% for whatever number of years. I'd do the "other" sector thing and get both. It just makes financial sense; I suspect it's the same for most.

I think it's especially ironic that "other" can still be a federal employer just not the CF - the same employer supported by the Canadian taxpayer who pays me now. So, by the NDA, the rest of the feds can benefit from my experience if required, just not the CF - how cool is that? Yep, the NDA is definitely all peachy ~ no issues there. What an interesting perspective of self-flagellation.

 

[exabedtech]

:goodpost:

Couldnt have said it better....  If it isn't jealousy that drives this, please someone tell me what exactly it is.  Oh... I did 'double dip' once for a year working for the PS with the Union of National Defence Employees.  Big Deal.  So did at least 20 other guys where I worked at CE. 

 

[McG]

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? 

Jobs are not and will not be denied.  Your hypothetical situation is therefore an irrelevant strawman.  It would not be discriminatory to suggest someone need to cease collecting pension payments if they want to return to work for the same employer (any employer other than the federal government would demand exactly that).  However, if you want to touch on discrimination, then you would find there is discrimination within the CF pension system.  A Reg F annuitant can double-dip  in the PRes, but a PRes annuitant cannot double-dip in either the Reg F or PRes.

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?? 

No.  They are suggesting the person should cease receiving a pension while they are back in full time government employment.

Why would any pensioner take that job then???? Not as if public service work pays well lol. 

In the case of many annuitants, they don't want to leave the CF but they don't want the postings.  They take that job because it offers all the stability that they are looking for plus a greater monthly take home pay.  We should be replacing the double-dip with more incentives to stay in the Reg F (such as geographic accommodation with pay reduction).  And to keep some incentive to shift to PRes on retirement, we should consider incentives such as annuitant pay top-up.

I guess this would be some of the jealousy coming out that seems to be the 'Elephant in the Room' 

A Reserve job is theoretically a part time job. You feed yourself and your family doing something else.

...

It seems strange to me that there is a pension plan for a part time job. If you want a full time job, CT to the Reg Force.

There must be sarcasm that I am missing in this.  The Reg F annuitant should be allowed to collect a pension while being payed for fulltime employment in the PRes, but the same idea coming from a reservist is jelousy and he should join the Reg F if he wants to work full time?  Is that really your argument? 

 

[McG]

Not to mention that double dipping will still occur; annuitants will just go elsewhere. The Public Service will still be one of those places (a federal employer too) and collect their CF pension while collecting full pay at the new place.

Good thing we've already established that you do not agree such things happening fully within the federal government.

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.

 

[Brasidas]

This is an interesting example of a culture of entitlement that has evloved - "I'm entitled to a pension from the military while I work full time for the military."  Methinks certain CF members could give members of Parliament and some government appointees lessons in the entitlement culture.

As opposed to drawing a pension while teaching at CFSCE under contract through Calian?

So some of you are saying that it's OK for someone in the military to be drawing a pension and then rejoin the military and also draw a pay cheque?

Where "rejoining the military" means the reserve, yup.

As a reservist, where can I sign up for this plan?  I've got 25+ years in and would love to be able to do this too.  Oh wait, I can't.

The reserve pension is a joke. 7 years in; in another 30 I can get a pension that might cover a quarter of my rent by then.

  Why then should the reg force pers be allowed to do so?

They've already got their pension. They will continue to have their pension. The question is whether there's a job available for them at the reserve level. A key class B job at a reserve unit, ie Ops WO, Trg NCO, CC, is a good fit for an ex regforce member.

How many 20+ years service reservist NCOs do you know? I can count the ones I know on my fingers. How many of them are interested in working as full-time support for a unit?

Ex-regforce class A personnel are great, but they can be particularly useful in one of the previously mentioned class B roles. Coming out of regforce service, they're less invested another job when the unit needs one of its positions filled. With a family on the go and an established career already, I sure as heck wouldn't take on a class B position if I could lose it the next time class B gets shaken up.

If we take the extreme of what some of you are saying, reg force members should be able to draw a pension after 20 years and continue also drawing a pay cheque.  Why even make them CT to the reserves?

Different terms of service, no guarantee of a job. There shouldn't be permanent reservists integrated into regforce units. The regforce should be filling the RSS positions of reserve units itself. At the least, a class B in an RSS position is supporting the reserve.

How is it unfair to make them cease collecting a pension while they are working again for the same organization they earned it from in the first place, continue to pay into it, and resume drawing it when they cease employment?

It's not appealing. They can go to a job of their choice, collect the pension that they've earned, and be doing better for themselves. In particular, they can go public service with hiring preference or to the RCMP and begin earning a second pension.

By failing to allow them their pension, to unit has to go with the next most competitive candidate.

There is no cost advantage to the tax payer to go with that next candidate. The pension is already being paid out whether or not the annuitant is the person in the position.

It seems to me many annuitants want to draw a pension, draw a salary form the same organization, and also avoid the reg force issues of postings and deployments.  Where is the downside?

They get 85% pay, they do not have stability if the regforce are able to fill the position and remove the class B, and they don't get in on a second pension.

As for those who state Reserve Units will fail as a result of these new changes, I call BS.  The majority of the annuitants I know work at a Brigade or Area HQ and don't contribute to a reserve unit at all.

And those positions should either be eliminated or replaced with regforce personnel.

Finally, I've seen it touted numerous times in this thread the valuable knowledge that is brought by annuitants to the reserve world.  This somehow justifies them drawing two sources of income from the same employer.  I will concede that this is happening for some people in some trades.  But I don't agree that this is true in all of the cases.  For example I've dealt with reg force clerks who are annuitants who don't know a thing about reserve administration.  (not banging on clerks per se as I also know many who do know a lot).  Guess what, many reservists bring valuable knowledge to the table as well.  Yet we don't have the opportunity to "double-dip".  Nor should we in my opinion.

How exactly would a reservist "double-dip"? Have 20+ years of class B at 85% pay and draw on that ridiculous pension plan? Release then re-join on another class B contract? Show me a member that has anywhere near that time without much of it being regforce time.

 

[armyvern]

...
In the case of many annuitants, they don't want to leave the CF but they don't want the postings.  They take that job because it offers all the stability that they are looking for plus a greater monthly take home pay.  We should be replacing the double-dip with more incentives to stay in the Reg F (such as geographic accommodation with pay reduction).  And to keep some incentive to shift to PRes on retirement, we should consider incentives such as annuitant pay top-up.
...

The flaw in the above is that most pers would not take a 5-15% pay cut to stay put if they were pensionable. They'd simply get out and either work on civvy street (quite possibly long enough to obtain a 2nd pension) or the public service ('cause this change doesn't address that double dipping situation) and collect their CF pension and a full-time wage for those hours they'd be working.

Take a pay cut to work full time and lose a pension? I'm thinking most wouldn't go for that option when a pension and a paycheque is still to be had ... just not with the CF.

I dunno - maybe it's just me.

 

[armyvern]

Good thing we've already established that you do not agree such things happening fully within the federal government.

That;s right MCG; I do not agree with it.


What does this change do to fix that? Nothing. So, where do you think the annuitants will go instead? Get the point yet?

 

[McG]

What does this change do to fix that? Nothing. So, where do you think the annuitants will go instead? Get the point yet?

I presented a solution back in January to fix that  -  http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/91361/post-1109546.html#msg1109546

 

[Jed]

There must be sarcasm that I am missing in this.  The Reg F annuitant should be allowed to collect a pension while being payed for fulltime employment in the PRes, but the same idea coming from a reservist is jelousy and he should join the Reg F if he wants to work full time?  Is that really your argument?

A full time PRes job. That is an oxymoron; at least if we consider the basic premise of the purpose of the Reserve Force in how it was set up and how the system was put in place to make it function.

I personnally have no problem with a PRes getting a pension and then somehow 'double dipping' to get two monthly cheques.

Civi's also have the phrase 'Double Dipping'. They just do not sneer when they say it.

 

[exabedtech]

Hardly irrelevant.  You're suggesting that a veteran take a $20k haircut that has nothing to do with his employment.  That is akin to denying that person the job since he'd have to be an idiot to take the offer.

If he's applying to a job serviced by the same pension plan, ie reg force or RCMP, then yes, can't continue to draw the pension while paying into the exact same pension.  Should he be forced to give up his pension if he takes a job cutting grass for roads and grounds?  Where is the rationale?  What purpose is served?  oh...  i know what it is  -  :crybaby:

 

[armyvern]

I presented a solution back in January to fix that  -  http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/91361/post-1109546.html#msg1109546

Then they still choose to go to the private sector. Believe it or not, annuitants do have options. I'd wager that most will choose what is in their best interests and there is zero wrong with that; they've served their time.

I don't see the rush to the door of pers willing to give up their pensions and then take a pay cut so that the CF can benefit from their experience. I suspect more will simply take their rightful pensions, and then their talents, elsewhere. They've already worked their butts off for the man - they owe the man nothing upon completion of their service. If the man then doesn't want their experience, someone else will; I am quite certain of that.

And you're right, the man doesn't owe them anything either and will, no doubt, make that abundantly clear to them. No doubt that that, too, will make choices easier for annuitants as to where one prefers to work after having gained that pension.


Edited for typos.