• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

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

Status
Not open for further replies.

dapaterson

Army.ca Myth
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
984
Points
890
ArmyVern said:
Which leads to another point: all these people posted for years upon years to the same location need to be packed up and posted. It should be routine. I know a pers (me) who couldn't get posted where her spouse was because there were "none avail", yet a mbr same trade/rank had been sitting there 14 damn years. 14. And, that mbr did not move that year (or the next). 23 years in, and I have done 10 physical geographical moves at the behest of this nation (and, a bunch of times because no one else would move to the spot ['cause their own wife had a good job, whatever, yadda yadda yadda]). It's a good damn thing that I am not married to a civilian as they'd never be able to get a job with all those moves let alone a pension. So, I did my job just as the other poster did his job. Nice choice. I'm here to tell you, you are way out of line as the people you are speaking to are the very people who do their duty to this country as per the job description.

This is an area I agree with - in part.  We do need to change the pay system rather comprehensively and remove the part of Reg F pay that covers "frequent relocation".  Right now it's spread to everyone.  I'd rather take that money and give it as an allowance - say $300 per month for the first year after you're moved.  The year after, it's $150 per month.  Then nothing until you're moved again.  Moved constantly?  You get more money than your peers (and I'd make it pensionable, too).  Sitting in the same place for years?  No soup for you.  I met one gentleman posted to Ottawa for 27 years straight.

 

Remius

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
410
Points
830
Vern.  You completely misunderstand what I'm getting at.

What Jed has stated does not make him right or wrong.  Using his example of his wife not getting a  pension is irrelevant to the discussion.

My point isn't to demean anyone's service or any family's sacrifices.  But my point is that it is not the CF or the Government for that matter to factor in everyone's little social condition in determining what you are entitled to.  Where does it end?  I once heard someone bemoan their 54,000$ a year salary and how they should get more because she had three kids.  Why?  How about the guy who has been divorced three times and pays his exs?  Or how about the guy that chooses to live 2hrs away and wants to modify his work hours because of that?

Some people suddenly get this culture of entitlement because we serve our country.  We do.  We get compensated for that in pay and benefits others don't get.  We also have programs and opportunities because of that.  So do our families (no it isn't perfect but it is way ahead of some other organisations.) It is unfortunate that sometimes our families have to suffer because of it but we are not the only profession where this occurs.  When you sign the dotted line you know or should know the conditions.  The way you stated things in your finely worded rebuke of my point, is that there are no provisions for family situations.  You know as well as I do that there are.  If they aren't adequate, then yes, adress them by all means.  But it is another issue, different from teh annuitant one.

My example about my father was to show that yeah you can retire early from the PS but you pay back into the pension if you come back full time.


I don't know where you got that I was holding him to account for anything. 

I also don't recall saying "you made your bed so lay in it".  Just about everyone here will jump on the guy who comes on and says that he joined the forces but never thought he would deploy so now he wants to quit.  We have conditions of employment.  I know that you and Jed know this.  But we shouldn't sit here and say well, I retired, now I'm coming back full time, still want to draw my pension because my wife spent 20 years moving around with me.  That's the wrong argument to make.

And you are making valid points about postings being for ever for some.  As well, I do not dispute your point about getting boots on the ground at the expense of staff positions.  But you also are not seeing that in the long run, this policy might actually keep some boots on the ground and in the regs.  Class Bs are the band aid solution.  It's a drug we are addicted to.  But again, it is a seperate argument from the annuitant issue.
 

RCA

Sr. Member
Reaction score
1
Points
0
This is coming from a long-time Cl B non-annuitant Reservist for what is its worth. These comments are only applicable to those who serve on a Cl B greater then 189 days, not shorter contracts or Cl A. The CF must be the only department where a member can retire from it, but still work for it in the same capacity and collect a wage along with a pension when retired. The key phrase he is retire. It is called a component Transfer as in you are moving from one component to another, therefore as I see it a member is not retiring. For those who don’t like to be termed “double –dippers”, is no different me being called a “Mo”.

Saying it is all the same Fed Gov’t is a red-herring. If a PSA member retires from DND, and goes to work for the Dept of Agriculture, do they collect their pension and pay? I think not. It is the CF Superannuation Act not the Government of Canada Pension Act. Look at big picture, money may not come from CF, but it does come from the Gov’t because the pension is not fully funded by members.

From many on this board, the refrained is often heard if you don’t like any aspects of Class B then CT to the Reg F. The same thing can be said for those who think they need both their pension and Cl B, and can’t live on the 85% pay (as all non-annuitant do) without PLD etc - Then don’t retire. The 15% premium is for the universality of service for the Reg F, to which they are entitled. Most “double-dippers are SNCOs, WO, and Capts, so 85% is better then the 40-60% pension they would be receiving. Not too many places where you can retire (there’s that word again) at a relatively young age, and receive 40-60% of what many consider a very decent wage, and still be able to work in another field. (As an aside this 85% of a retired CF mbr nets higher then a non-annuitant Cl B, because of no CF pension deduction).

As have been suggested in previous posts, I disagree and there should be no top up, or this will create a two tiered system. Lose of experience will always be an issue, as it is with any organization, but double dipping should not be used as an incentive. Give non-annuitant reservists a chance to gain experience they can take back to their home units. Employing non-annuitant alleviates losing mbrs for 35 days on top of annual leave.

In my experience, double dippers do little for the unit. Before the advent of the PRL. retiring Reg F would CT into a unit, plug a position, and immediately go on Cl B, never to be seen by the unit. The minute the mbr had to go back to Cl A, they tended to disappear. Double dipping was the main reason for the CT. This does nothing for a unit, which always could use the experience of ex-Reg F mbrs.

Having said all that, there is nothing wrong with Cl B under 189 days collecting a pension, but those over should have pension stopped, but then should be able to contribute so as to increase there pension at 2% per year.

Lot of teeth gnashing as this is a Reg F problem, because Reserves a specifically prevented from double dipping (join reserves; CT to Reg Force can’t collect pension; CT back to reserves, still can’t collect; can only be eligible to collect when actually retire from the CF.) Where was the big cry when Reservists were saddled with high interests rates for our buyback in appreciation of our long service – nothing but deafen silence.

I know this turned into a bit of a rant, and some of it off topic, but so be it.
 

armyvern

Army.ca Myth
Subscriber
Mentor
Reaction score
15
Points
430
Crantor said:
Vern.  You completely misunderstand what I'm getting at.

What Jed has stated does not make him right or wrong.  Using his example of his wife not getting a  pension is irrelevant to the discussion.
...

No, it's not irrelevant. He was using it as an example as to why our pensions are quite different than PS pensions and should remain that way because of the distinct differences in our service and requirements throughout the career while earning those pensions. The fact of the matter is PS do not move around the nation at a rate or pace required of CF members and that is a difference that directly impacts the future earning power and financial stability upon retirement to the negative of CF members and their families. I certainly do not think it is "irrelevant" to any discussion of lumping "us" in with "them"; rather it is a fact of CF service that certainly should be considered in any move or attempt to merge.
 

Remius

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
410
Points
830
Jed said:
Thanks for the straight words, Crantor. 

However, I know that the official word has gone out that there will be no more unpaid Class A.  I am willing to bet you a Gazilion $ that, especially after these Class B changes are put in place, many dedicated PRes folks across the land will continue to pony up free Class A time just to make things work. None of this time will be official, of course.

Yes.  I get more part-time reserve e-mails at my full time work than I actually get from my full time work.  This is also a systemic problem.  And yes it is unpaid and in most cases expected.

It is a viscious cycle and unfortunately those dedicated pers. contribute to the problem.  When the army made cuts a few years back a colleague and I were both given our 30 days notice.  But the work still had to happen.  We were also told that they were limiting our class A as well.  But they still expected us to do the normal admin required.  My colleague had to take new recruits in for kitting.  No class A for that.  So he was going to do anyway.  Great dedication.  But as far as the top was comcerned, the job was going to get done.  He could have just not done it.  Then the top has to decide: get the funds to pay someone to do it.  Do it themselves (most hate that idea, let me tell you) or let it fail and explain why it failed so that their bosses see that there is a problem.  I refused to do any leg work for some tasks unless I got paid. They found the funds and the tasks happened.
 

Infanteer

Army.ca Myth
Staff member
Directing Staff
Donor
Reaction score
375
Points
1,030
dapaterson said:
This is an area I agree with - in part.  We do need to change the pay system rather comprehensively and remove the part of Reg F pay that covers "frequent relocation".  Right now it's spread to everyone.  I'd rather take that money and give it as an allowance - say $300 per month for the first year after you're moved.  The year after, it's $150 per month.  Then nothing until you're moved again.  Moved constantly?  You get more money than your peers (and I'd make it pensionable, too).  Sitting in the same place for years?  No soup for you.  I met one gentleman posted to Ottawa for 27 years straight.

Actually, that's an interesting proposition.  Concomitant to looking at a "relocation allowance" should a revision of the career model.  Today's CF member doesn't fit the mold of "generally single, lives on base, has a social life based in the mess" paradigm from days gone past that the "post people all over the country routinely" career model was predicated upon.
 

Bruce Monkhouse

Army.ca Myth
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Reaction score
408
Points
1,010
ArmyVern said:
No, it's not irrelevant. He was using it as an example as to why our pensions are quite different than PS pensions and should remain that way because of the distinct differences in our service and requirements throughout the career while earning those pensions. The fact of the matter is PS do not move around the nation at a rate or pace required of CF members and that is a difference that directly impacts the future earning power and financial stability upon retirement to the negative of CF members and their families. I certainly do not think it is "irrelevant" to any discussion of lumping "us" in with "them"; rather it is a fact of CF service that certainly should be considered in any move or attempt to merge.



I would say it already is "considered" by the fact you can walk a lot sooner without financial punishment for the rest of your life than anyone else in the public service.........except for "those folk" sitting on the hill,.....but then they can get voted off the island every 4 years or so also.
 

Remius

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
410
Points
830
ArmyVern said:
No, it's not irrelevant. He was using it as an example as to why our pensions are quite different than PS pensions and should remain that way because of the distinct differences in our service and requirements throughout the career while earning those pensions. The fact of the matter is PS do not move around the nation at a rate or pace required of CF members and that is a difference that directly impacts the future earning power and financial stability upon retirement to the negative of CF members and their families. I certainly do not think it is "irrelevant" to any discussion of lumping "us" in with "them"; rather it is a fact of CF service that certainly should be considered in any move or attempt to merge.

No one is disputing that CF service is different and should be condsidered in any pension merge or change.  the fact that we have three defined benefit pensions in the Federal system aknowledges that.  One CF, one RCMP and one PS.  Even in MCGs proposed system, it still recognises that fact.  People sit here and lament the CF plan when most people would love that kind of plan.
 

armyvern

Army.ca Myth
Subscriber
Mentor
Reaction score
15
Points
430
RCA said:
...
Lot of teeth gnashing as this is a Reg F problem, because Reserves a specifically prevented from double dipping (join reserves; CT to Reg Force can’t collect pension; CT back to reserves, still can’t collect; can only be eligible to collect when actually retire from the CF.) Where was the big cry when Reservists were saddled with high interests rates for our buyback in appreciation of our long service – nothing but deafen silence.
...

If you think that, you need to search this site. Many posters in this very thread (pro and anti), Reg and Res, spoke to the crap that was the ResF pension buyback ... and continue to bitch about the schmoozle that is the Res pay system.

This is not an "us" versus "them" (Reg vs Res) issue. Many of those Reg F positions being filled by B Class directly support ResF training etc. Many trades can not simply bring in a Res F trade of same due to lack of authorities, experience and course equivalencies. If and when the CF manages to get all trades qualified to the exact same levels on courses in Reg and Res F, this would be alleviated. Unfortunately, not too many reservists have the time to spend doing the 17 week courses required to get some of the qualifications or specialty qualifications that are required to work in many jobs. I'll utilize the Sup tech who has been employed strictly in ResF positions --- they can not access the CFSS and perform a varied and multitude of transactions like their Reg counterparts simply because they do not have the skillset courses to the same standard and the experience levels to know and understand that checking flag X may work for them, but will fuck up the program for every other pan-CF user out there who is trying to make a purchase thus negatively impacting everyone outside of their own local bubble. And, there's hundreds of ways to do that and have that impact in the program. That's just at the basic Sup tech level.

Do I agree with it? No, but until and unless such time occurs that both Reg and Res earn qualifications in the same manner with the same requisites a Res F trade X does not equal a Reg F trade X. Some trades are on par, but some are not. Most who are not do not choose it to be that way, but the fact of life that a ResF pers can't give up voluminous amounts of time to attend such a course requirement hurts us all too. I would love to have been able to hire a couple of A Class Suppies that I interviewed for B Class positions in the RegF unit that I belonged to, but I could not as they simply did not meet the requirements (thus authorities) that the positions required. There were no annuitants out there, so the positions sat unfilled instead. That sucked.
 

Jed

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
0
Points
410
Crantor said:
No one is disputing that CF service is different and should be considered in any pension merge or change.  the fact that we have three defined benefit pensions in the Federal system acknowledges that.  One CF, one RCMP and one PS.  Even in MCGs proposed system, it still recognizes that fact.  People sit here and lament the CF plan when most people would love that kind of plan.

Agreed, The CF Plan is pretty darn good, it used to be better. Just the ongoing erosion of existing benefits.

From my personal experience of  living through and working within several bureaucratic environments, is that people only fool themselves that the new, improved benefits package is better. I suppose this in part explains my deep skepticism wrt changes pushed from above by Higher.

Speaking as a current civilian who is not going to be affected by what happens to the CF or PS pension plan or the current employment or non-employment of the evil 'Double Dippers', I am just saying to all you folks' in a uniform, Watch your Back. No one, certainly not the politician or the average non committal civilian will cover for you.

 

armyvern

Army.ca Myth
Subscriber
Mentor
Reaction score
15
Points
430
Bruce Monkhouse said:
I would say it already is "considered" by the fact you can walk a lot sooner without financial punishment for the rest of your life than anyone else in the public service.........except for "those folk" sitting on the hill,.....but then they can get voted off the island every 4 years or so also.

I wonder if the above will hold true after the review of pensions currently going on with those 4 year guys & gals. We'll soon find out.
 

Remius

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
410
Points
830
That remains to be seen.  But the talk of eliminating the severance and the way things are headed there could be fundamental changes.
 

Stoker

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
74
Points
530
Crantor said:
That remains to be seen.  But the talk of eliminating the severance and the way things are headed there could be fundamental changes.

Don't think the pay raise were getting won't be a excuse to drop stuff like PLD as well. There is a lot of not so nice changes coming.
 

Remius

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
410
Points
830
Chief Stoker said:
Don't think the pay raise were getting won't be a excuse to drop stuff like PLD as well. There is a lot of not so nice changes coming.

To be honest Chief I think anything could be on the table at this point.  PLD, pensions, IR, housing etc etc
 

PMedMoe

Army.ca Legend
Donor
Reaction score
284
Points
880
Crantor said:
To be honest Chief I think anything could be on the table at this point.  PLD, pensions, IR, housing etc etc

Great.  They'd better post me back home then.  ::)
 

armyvern

Army.ca Myth
Subscriber
Mentor
Reaction score
15
Points
430
PMedMoe said:
Great.  They'd better post me back home then.  ::)

But we're not actually "IR" as we're married to service spouses. Benefits run essentially the same, but ours is not a choice. None of my posting messages have stated "IR approved" as members moving without civilian spouses read; mine just state, "unaccompanied move, service spouse".

Had that big fight with IRPP during my last move when they insisted my posting message had to be amended to read, "IR approved" before they could action or before I could access any of the normal envelopes of funds - NDHQ ended up sending out an email on the rounds clarifying that posting messages for those of us married to service spouses who were not moving with us were not "IR" and thus our messages would not read as such.
 

PMedMoe

Army.ca Legend
Donor
Reaction score
284
Points
880
ArmyVern said:
But we're not actually "IR" as we're married to service spouses. Benefits run essentially the same, but ours is not a choice. None of my posting messages have stated "IR approved" as members moving without civilian spouses read; mine just state, "unaccompanied move, service spouse".

Had that big fight with IRPP during my last move when they insisted my posting message had to be amended to read, "IR approved" before they could action or before I could access any of the normal envelopes of funds - NDHQ ended up sending out an email on the rounds clarifying that posting messages for those of us married to service spouses who were not moving with us were not "IR" and thus our messages would not read as such.

As long as they don't cut the allowance, I don't care what they call it.  ;)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top