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

[McG]

I hope this is the correct thread to post this information.

Considering that this thread is about federal pensions and your post is not, I would say that - no, this is not the right thread.

 

[jollyjacktar]

Throwing this in here as it will have and effect on future pensions.  Shared under the fair dealings provisions of the copyright act. 

Looks as if Paul Martin's stick up will not be rectified.  We've lost in the final decision of the Supremes. 

Top court rules public unions not entitled to $28B pension surplus
The Canadian Press Posted: Dec 19, 2012 10:05 AM ET Last Updated: Dec 19, 2012 11:08 AM ET 

The Supreme Court of Canada says several major public unions are not entitled to a $28-billion pension surplus that the government hived off to help pay down the deficit.

The high court ruled 9-0 that the government does not have a "fiduciary obligation" to return funds to the public sector unions.

The unanimous ruling ends a long legal battle dating back to the 1990s in which unions representing public servants, the RCMP and the military wanted the surplus money returned.

The unions and professional associations were attempting to overturn an Ontario Court of Appeal ruling that said they weren't entitled to the money.

The unions argued that the government improperly took their money, from the mandatory, defined benefit plans.

The plans are among some of the most handsome pensions in the country.

Paul Cavalluzzo, a lawyer for Professional Institute of Public Service of Canada, one of the unions appealing the lower court ruling, told CBC News the union was disappointed.

Cavalluzzo said the federal government built the surplus on the backs of the people who contributed to the pension, so it is unfair that the funds can be used for purposes other than pension benefits.

With files from CBC's Meagan Fitzpatrick

 

[PPCLI Guy]

Looks as if Paul Martin's stick up will not be rectified.  We've lost in the final decision of the Supremes. 

Lost what?  We have a defined benefit pension, and the benefit has not changed.  Nothing was stolen from you.

Speaking as a taxpayer as well as a soldier, I think we need to get over ourselves a bit here.

 

[dapaterson]

Lost what?  We have a defined benefit pension, and the benefit has not changed.  Nothing was stolen from you.

Speaking as a taxpayer as well as a soldier, I think we need to get over ourselves a bit here.

+1


Too often CF members and public servants seem to channel their inner Dingwalls and proclaim that they are entitled to their entitlements.

The significant value of their benefits package is assumed away in their indignation; lots of folks walk out the door in a huff and are then in a hurry to get back in once they see the Real World out there.

 

[McG]

Throwing this in here as it will have and effect on future pensions.  Shared under the fair dealings provisions of the copyright act. 

Looks as if Paul Martin's stick up will not be rectified.  We've lost in the final decision of the Supremes. 

As stated, it is a defined benefit.  The government assumes all the risk; if there is a shortfall then the government pays it.  It is only fair and appropriate that the government also receive the benefit when there is a surplus.

 

[The Bread Guy]

As stated, it is a defined benefit.  The government assumes all the risk; if there is a shortfall then the government pays it ....

.... unless it decides to collect more?  Am I wrong, or with an extra $28B in the pension kitty, government could have looked elsewhere for ways to "(keep) taxes low and (return) to a balanced federal budget"?

 

[brihard]

.... unless it decides to collect more?  Am I wrong, or with an extra $28B in the pension kitty, government could have looked elsewhere for ways to "(keep) taxes low and (return) to a balanced federal budget"?

Speaking as a taxpayer, for a second, and not as a military member- why should they not seek more equitable contributions from C.F. members, public servants, and RCMP?

The pensions we take for granted just don't exist anywhere else. The taxpayer outside of the public sector for whom defined benefit will never again be a reality is perfectly justified in at least expecting us to foot an equitable portion of the bill.

This is exactly the kind of crap that makes the rest of the public sneer at us as whiny and entitled. There are some occasions where we need to look at the contextual reality, shrug, nod, and say 'fair enough'. This is one of them.

 

[The Bread Guy]

I know public servants have a good great pension plan, and I don't mind paying more for a very good plan, but it's hard to tell taxpayers we have to make changes to make the plan more sustainable while being able to, at any time, take big chunks of money out (maybe also affecting its sustainability?).

As for "defined benefit", for now, anyway  :Tin-Foil-Hat:?

 

[dapaterson]

Unfortunately, the unions never adequately explained (or perhaps understood) the issue.

"It's our money! Give it to us and improve benefits!" was the messaging that came across - and, if that is what was asserted in court, it was justifiably punted.

However, "It's the plan's money, removed in a time of plenty, and creating actuarial pressures now that are requiring increased contributions from current and future contributors" is a more valid concern.

As someone obliged by law to fund a union, I would hope that in future negotiations that PS unions will point out the increase in contributions as a factor to consider in overall compensation.  Given how quickly PSAC folded last time and looked after its senior members at the expense of its younger members, though, I have no real optimism that they will.

 

[The Bread Guy]

"It's our money! Give it to us and improve benefits!" was the messaging that came across - and, if that is what was asserted in court, it was justifiably punted.

However, "It's the plan's money, removed in a time of plenty, and creating actuarial pressures now that are requiring increased contributions from current and future contributors" is a more valid concern.

Good point - VERY different messages there (and interesting choice of which one is used).

As someone obliged by law to fund a union, I would hope that in future negotiations that PS unions will point out the increase in contributions as a factor to consider in overall compensation.  Given how quickly PSAC folded last time and looked after its senior members at the expense of its younger members, though, I have no real optimism that they will.

True dat....

 

[jollyjacktar]

However, "It's the plan's money, removed in a time of plenty, and creating actuarial pressures now that are requiring increased contributions from current and future contributors" is a more valid concern.

And that, was what I was given to understand was the situation at the time it was removed from the plan.  That it would cause future concerns on it's viability and longevity.  If I'm in err, then please do correct me.

 

[Stoker]

So its been a number of months when annuitants were told that they were only able to work up to a point in the reserves before they had to stop receiving their pension and pay in. So what are people doing, has anyone decided to cease their pension and pay in or have people just quit?
I know in my neck of the woods most if not all up and up quit and all secured jobs in the private sector.

 

[OldSolduer]

So its been a number of months when annuitants were told that they were only able to work up to a point in the reserves before they had to stop receiving their pension and pay in. So what are people doing, has anyone decided to cease their pension and pay in or have people just quit?
I know in my neck of the woods most if not all up and up quit and all secured jobs in the private sector.

I packed in the Class B on 26 May. I know of a few others that have done the same. In effect, the CLass B fiasco gutted the unit.

 

[ArmyRick]

The unit I used to work for, almost all class b annuitants have quit, a few got back in the reg force and one or two are hanging on for now.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Regarding the federal pension "clawback", one perspective is that all of the money paid into a pension fund - employee and employer contributions - represents part of the sum of employee compensation (ie. it is all really the employees' money).  With a DC pension it is easy to draw that line; with a DB plan it is difficult to do so.

The decision is in one way favourable to employees: I think it remarkably increases the strength of the moral claim that the government is obligated to carry through on its payouts irrespective of future fiscal stress short of Mad Max. 

 

[jollyjacktar]

I have a ponderance.  Upon my retirement, should it take some (months or longer) to recieve my first pension payment retroactive back to the first month following my release or what? 

 

[MJP]

So its been a number of months when annuitants were told that they were only able to work up to a point in the reserves before they had to stop receiving their pension and pay in. So what are people doing, has anyone decided to cease their pension and pay in or have people just quit?
I know in my neck of the woods most if not all up and up quit and all secured jobs in the private sector.

I know of a few others that have done the same. In effect, the CLass B fiasco gutted the unit.

Strangely enough despite the gloom and doom neither the loss of double dippers nor the Mayan calender have brought about the end of the world.

Have some units suffered?  I have no doubt.  Have we lost some great institutional knowledge?  Again yes.  Will it impinge our abilities to do our jobs?  I don't think so.  Turnover happens, good/bad people leave and organizations just carry on. 

 

[Remius]

Where I am at civy side, there is a military component.  The admin was a class B annuitant who opted out.  The organisation here did the leg work and got a reg force member posted to the position as it should be.  It is a reg force unit not a reserve force one.

I know of one former colleague who will also opt out.  A recruiter.  They will be able to train someone else to do the job just like they do every three to five years with reg force recruiters.

You are correct.  The world hasn't ended.  Just changed.

 

[Stoker]

Strangely enough despite the gloom and doom neither the loss of double dippers nor the Mayan calender have brought about the end of the world.

Have some units suffered?  I have no doubt.  Have we lost some great institutional knowledge?  Again yes.  Will it impinge our abilities to do our jobs?  I don't think so.  Turnover happens, good/bad people leave and organizations just carry on.

Considering the amount of emails that went out on this in MARLANT we're sitting in a relatively good position here. Quite a few annuitants burned their bridges when they left and there was a lot of hard feelings by some however all knew this could dry up at any time. There was a period of readjustment but everything worked out. We still have a number of shore based billets we can't fill right now, but as time goes by they will get filled.

 

[MJP]

Considering the amount of emails that went out on this in MARLANT we're sitting in a relatively good position here. Quite a few annuitants burned their bridges when they left and there was a lot of hard feelings by some however all knew this could dry up at any time. There was a period of readjustment but everything worked out. We still have a number of shore based billets we can't fill right now, but as time goes by they will get filled.

Good to hear.  I am sure it was expected.  Any adjustment like this take time for all parties to get back in the groove.  Hey who knows maybe it will even make people make hard decisions rather than hiring problems away.