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

[McG]

I still can't see any "Double Dippers" taking up any of your suggestions.  Why would they give up a pension. take a reduced wage and reduced pension, or any of your ideas, if they could keep the pension and work a second job anywhere else, including the Public Service, not requiring to take 35 days unpaid Annuitant's Leave.

Are you still not reading George or are you just pretending that  I've not addressed these statements of yours?
[list type=decimal]
[*]I have stated that would be grandfathering for existing double-dippers.  They would not need to give-up a pension.

If the change were to come, current annuitants should be allowed to continue on their double-dipping ways. 

[*]The 35 day unpaid leave is not a factor against my proposal as I have stated it would be gone (TB could be sold on this as members would not be collecting the full pension)

The 35 day break requirement would also disappear.  So the limited obligation TOS would be a full 12 months' pay and with pension top-up for eligible service personnel. 

[*]You are completely off the mark suggesting this would send people to the Public Service before limited obligation service because I have proposed that the same pension-top up would apply for PS employment.

Nobody should be simultaneously collecting two full incomes from the governemt (so no full-time employee/service person simultaneously getting pension payments). 

...allow the pension to top-up pay for anyone that moves over to a lower paying position in the public service.

[*]I have also addressed the option of going somewhere else to make more money.  That is done through better harmonization witht he rest of the federal government pensions.  If you want to see any of your entitlements prior to reaching CRA, you need to continue working somewhere in the government (military or PS).

Once a service member has enough years of pensionable service, they could convert to limited obligation TOS and receive top-up money, they could switch to the PS and (if in a lower paying job) receive top-up money, they could continue to serve under full obligation TOS and build the pension, or they they could leave the Federal Government and wait until CRA before seeing any pension money.

[/list]

MCG may be looking at one type of member, while I am thinking of the member who has done twenty-five plus years in the CF, has planned and saved for his/her retirement, and has chosen to still serve his/her nation as a Reservist.  They have done their time.  They still have something to contribute.

We are looking at different types of member, but not as you have laid it out.  You are focused on the members that have already made the jump and are double dipping.  I am focused on those who have not made the decision.  Your arguments are focused on protecting the double-dip for those who have it, but I have already conceded that protection through grandfathering. 

I'm still wondering how anyone thinks, that in the long run, the Reg F guy who "double-dips" has it better than the RegF guy who doesn't.

Stats presented by those "anti-double dippers" over in this thread clearly show that the guy who stays Reg F costs more money from the taxpayers coffers than those who don't:

Vern, I did present a few more factors that never were put into that income model and scew it back toward the double-dipper  ... and I suspect things would ge even more strongly infavour of the double-dipper if you had a finance guy do it all in net-present value.

• ... and of course, this model does not account for the the Pension deductions that come out of the still regular pay vs the absence of the deduction in the double-dipper pay.  It also doesn't account for the Reserve Travel Allowance that the full-time reservist is entitled.  Apparently the NCR has a case or two where guys are collecting an extra $21.06 for every day they come into the office comuting from Arnprior ... over the years, that's a lot of money that the Reg F guy does not get ... and I've heard pricier examples than this.

In any case, more money now (even if it is less agregated years down the road) is still a financial incentive and it will poach people who otherwise may have continued full obligation service.  We should be providing financial incetives that encourage providing maximum utility to the CF and not incentives that make reducing one's utility more attractive.

Whatever you may be missing (and I certainly can't see what it is), the "anti-double-dippers" have also missed the fact that people who get out of the Reg F to go class "B" generally do it for stability - that is, they're not taking postings away from home.

That was not missed.  Providing an option for stability as a retention tool is the reason for including limited obligation Reg F TOS in my proposal.

 

[421_434_226]

All I know right now is that I have 242 days till I retire and am looking into taking one of those "B" positions here and doing some "double dipping" which actually will only be about the same as I am being paid now. Just feel that I have had enough of moving (7 times) besides my kids and grand kids are here and we like it here too.
Don't know if that makes me evil for "double dipping" or not also don't really care, if the position is not available I am sure that there is other work out there.

 

[Jed]

Exactly Gizmo, You and many folks looking at Class B feel this way. It sends shivers down my spine when the Bean Counters start sharpening their pencils and spend many hours of effort screwing up a process that works in order to save a few pennies.

I think there are are far better areas to tinker with to save a Budget Buck. Persuing this small pot of money will only effect the influx of capable people working for the CF.

 

[armyvern]

Vern, I did present a few more factors that never were put into that income model and scew it back toward the double-dipper  ... and I suspect things would ge even more strongly infavour of the double-dipper if you had a finance guy do it all in net-present value.

Where did you post those factors? And, did you consider the PLD, posting allowances, costs for moves etc that Hamiltongs brought up?

So, here's me under your "new proposed way".

Pensionable, I retire, I go Class B at 85% wages and get topped up to max 100% of what I would have earned as pay had I stayed in. Even though, if I stayed RegF you'd be outpaying me longer in the long run?

OR ... I take my pension and go to work somewhere else (civ world) with my skillset while collecting my pension PLUS my new employers 100% wages and, as an added bonus, my hazmat quals etc would earn me more on civvie street with a civvie job than I'm currently making ... AND I get to work towards another pension!! That'll be two!!

Guess where I'm going to work all because I'm sick of moving and I can't double-dip anymore?? The correct option to me is pretty obvious.

What has the CF, ResF or RegF gained now? Well, they've just lost my skillsets and expertize, and much needed staffing still remains unfilled and I've gained a pension, a job at 100% wages and a possible second pension. Good on me and who could fault me for doing anything different?

Be careful what you wish for ... you just might get it.

Please stop making double-dippers out to be some financial drain that they aren't. The long-term pension facts and the figures do not seem to be backing up that arguement. No matter what other factors are added, the double-dipper & the guy who stayed RegF will achieve "Wage Pariety" at "year X" (whatever year that may be after they both retire), but that "pariety" will last only for that "Year X" --- then it's all about the guy who stayed in pulling handsomely into the lead ...

 

[PPCLI Guy]

My concern with double-dipping lies mostly with the fact that it has allowed the CF (and the Army in particular) to grow the full-time workforce in an unchallenged, ungoverned, and unsustainable way. 

I have less concern with the individual decision to do (in many cases) the same job for substantially more money and less than universal service, although it does irk me somewhat. 

I have great concern for those in senior positions who use their influence to fashion (or more charitably fall into) a golden parachute.

On a personal note, I intend to serve until I am ready to retire - and then retire and move on to other things.

My two Sheckels

 

[armyvern]

My concern with double-dipping lies mostly with the fact that it has allowed the CF (and the Army in particular) to grow the full-time workforce in an unchallenged, ungoverned, and unsustainable way. 

100% agree. We need to get a grip on B Class posns to ensure both their usefullness and sustainability.

 

[Petard]

Perhaps all this is a moot point considering the sharp reduction in Class B positions ongoing; with fewer opportunities to draw pay as reservists, more of these potential "double dippers' will take their skill sets to the private sector and not publc service, in which case there would be no grounds to modify their pension terms anyway.

 

[Journeyman]

My concern with double-dipping lies mostly with the fact that it has allowed the CF (and the Army in particular) to grow the full-time workforce in an unchallenged, ungoverned, and unsustainable way. 

I have great concern for those in senior positions who use their influence to fashion (or more charitably fall into) a golden parachute.

Imagine holding accountable "those in senior positions." Nahhh.....it's easier to just punt all the Cl B troops.

I'll just have another bitter cup of Labbe 

 

[Monsoon]

100% agree. We need to get a grip on B Class posns to ensure both their usefullness and sustainability.

At the same time, this "tooth-to-tail" problem is endemic throughout the public service, which has grown considerably out of proportion to the CF. I would posit that the Financial Administration Act of 1985 is a big part of the problem: the dollar amounts requiring high-level approval are unchanged since 1985 while inflation has continued apace. So, for instance, s.41(1)e requiring full disclosure of contracts over $10k now applies to contracts of about half the real size that it did back in 1985. This means that a greatly increased number of analysts at all levels are required to generate, review and approve any expense leading to the bizarre situation of people getting paid $25K in salary to manage a $10K "project". I'm talking about financial administration, but the same goes for any number of admin overhead procedures.

The CF has responded to this in part by drawing on the class "B" labour pool (or using Reg F folks who are replaced in the jobs they would be doing by class "B"ers). Obviously it's ridiculous and untenable, but it's far from a CF-specific problem. And if DND is the first department to "get a grip" on it then that just means that we'll have less impact at the Treasury Board level and less ability to get our job done.

As military people we can recognize this as a problem in need of rectification. I can assure you that the boys over at HRSDC, PWGSC, Canada Post, DFAIT, etc, etc, etc have far fewer scruples about it.

 

[dapaterson]

The CF and DND do not adequate capture the true costs of class B service.  For example:  Employers of full-time Reservists do not pay for health care.  But each full-time CF member costs, roughly $5K per year in incremental health care costs to the CF.  Imagine if each employer in CNC had to pony up an additional $5K per full-time Reservist - I suspect the number of offers would shrink dramatically.

There are other problems as well - all due to a large bureaucratic organization that doesn't track expenditures or expenditure drivers well.  A good review of the current system would show the true costs to both the department and the Government - and see some radical changes.

(Side note: In the early 1970s the OAG reviewed and identified the double-dipping as a problem - thus the regs that permitted 180 days were drafted.  It was in the late '90s/ early '00s that the 330/35 rule was expanded from service with the Cadets to everywhere.)

We need to get past the "we're so screwed up that we can't change" mentality, and move to a "How can we make things work within our means" mindset - which will mean some hard decisions.  We're mandated to have a Reg F of 67K and a Reserve Force of 28K - the 8K (+/-) of full-time reservists are a blip caused by a departmental unwillingness to make decisions - and a refusal to follow through on other decisions.  Living within our means is not only $$$ but also FTEs.  Permanent, standing tasks are not part of the mandate of the Reserve Force in the NDA.  Should we choose to obey the law, that's going to mean tough choices for the senior and junior services.

Favorite quote:  At the national Recruiting conference a few years ago, from the CAS rep:  "We have no Reserve in the Air Force.".

Reserve.  noun  a resource not normally called upon but available if needed.

 

[McG]

Where did you post those factors?

If you click the link just above a quote box it takes you to where the post was made.

I think there are are far better areas to tinker with to save a Budget Buck. Persuing this small pot of money will only effect the influx of capable people working for the CF.

Your concern is not relevant here and a red herring in the argument.  This proposal has absolutely nothing to do with saving the government or DND money.

... did you consider the PLD, posting allowances, costs for moves etc that Hamiltongs brought up?

There are Class B positions that pay PLD so this is still a potential benefit to the double-dipper.  The expenses associated with a move are costs to the crown and not benefits to the individual, so (because my goal is not about saving the system money) I am not really concerned.

However, if people want to consider costs to the system then it needs to be done at a higher level than just contrasting hypothetical individuals from Class B and Reg F service.  A Class B guy can sit fat & happy in a position that is of negligable significance to the CF while at the same time the system is forced to pay cost moves to regularly rotate Reg F pers through a nationally important possition in the same building.

How much does it cost the CF when higher priorety positions go empty while lower priorety Class B possitions are filled in the very same geographic location?  This is not only dollar value costs but opportunity costs & the cost of reduced effectiveness where it is needed.

How much does it cost to maintain and staff the various PRLs in existance to administer the various full time reservists (and we have threads full of people calling for more & larger PRLs to get career Class B pers out of PRes unit establishemts)?  Sure, converting all of these full time positions to Limited Obligation Reg F would require a little more manpower in the careers shop, but not as much manpower as is currently consumed in manageing PRLs.

So, here's me under your "new proposed way".

Pensionable, I retire, I go Class B at 85% wages and get topped up to max 100% of what I would have earned as pay had I stayed in. Even though, if I stayed RegF you'd be outpaying me longer in the long run?

OR ... I take my pension and go to work somewhere else (civ world) with my skillset while collecting my pension PLUS my new employers 100% wages and, as an added bonus, my hazmat quals etc would earn me more on civvie street with a civvie job than I'm currently making ... AND I get to work towards another pension!! That'll be two!!

You've only half got it.  You could retire,  go Class B at 85% wages and get topped up to max 100% of what you would have earned as pay had you stayed in.  You could retier, go PS at whatever wage and get toppedup to max 100% of what you would have earned as pay had you stayed in.  OR, you could retier, get a job in the private sector and see absolutely nothing of your pension until reach CRA.

My concern with double-dipping lies mostly with the fact that it has allowed the CF (and the Army in particular) to grow the full-time workforce in an unchallenged, ungoverned, and unsustainable way. 

I have less concern with the individual decision to do (in many cases) the same job for substantially more money and less than universal service, although it does irk me somewhat. 

I have great concern for those in senior positions who use their influence to fashion (or more charitably fall into) a golden parachute.

Exactly.  Those who have followed my comments (in this thread and the three I linked in the first post) will know that this is also my concern.  We don't need a bloated structure of Class B untouchables growing on the CF and poaching regular force soldiers of higher utility to the CF.

 

[Loachman]

Nobody should be simultaneously collecting two full incomes from the governemt (so no full-time employee/service person simultaneously getting pension payments).

Why not?

Really, what is the difference between somebody collecting a pension and working fulltime for another company? They're still collecting a pension and salary.

Is it merely that the employer and pension-payer is the same entity? So what?

By ending evil double-dipping, the government would be paying out the evil double-dipper's pension (to which he/she contributed over their career), while losing his/her knowledge, skill, and experience and still paying somebody - just a different somebody - to do his/her military job.

The cost of paying a pension and reduced (Class B) salary to one person is less than the cost of paying a pension to one person plus a higher salary (Reg Force) to a second person plus the cost of training that second person, moving them, possible PLD etcetera.

Regardless, there's still a pension and a salary going out.

Any perceived gain is illusory.

Yes, there may be individual abuses of the system which should be corrected, but beyond that I see no benefit from screwing with the status quo.

In time, when we get past the Decade of Darkness/FRP/minimal recruiting legacy (and perhaps the DotComs) and achieve a stable population across all age/rank/seniority/experience levels there will be a natural drop in the number of Class B positions. Until then, a lot of them, at least the ones that I see, are keeping us going.

 

[armyvern]

You've only half got it.  You could retire,  go Class B at 85% wages and get topped up to max 100% of what you would have earned as pay had you stayed in.  You could retier, go PS at whatever wage and get toppedup to max 100% of what you would have earned as pay had you stayed in.  OR, you could retier, get a job in the public sector and see absolutely nothing of your pension until reach CRA.
Exactly.  Those who have followed my comments (in this thread and the three I linked in the first post) will know that this is also my concern.  We don't need a bloated structure of Class B untouchables growing on the CF and poaching regular force soldiers of higher utility to the CF.

No, you've only got me half right --- when I say go work in the "civ world" I mean privately ... and taking my pension with me. And making at least 100% of what I'm making now with those quals.

 

[McG]

... what is the difference between somebody collecting a pension and working fulltime for another company? They're still collecting a pension and salary.

There really is not a difference, and if you have read what I have wrote, you are aware that I've said no pension money for that person who goes and works for another company until that person reaches CRA.

By ending evil double-dipping, the government would be paying out the evil double-dipper's pension (to which he/she contributed over their career), while losing his/her knowledge, skill, and experience and still paying somebody - just a different somebody - to do his/her military job.

Absolutely not.  If the member leaves with all his/her knowledge, skill, and experience then he still does not see a penny until CRA.

Why not?

Because (as I have stated many times already) it is retarded to offer service personel a financial incentive to reduce thier utility to the CF.  It is more money in the individual's pocket right now, there is no more risk of being deployed to Afghanistan, there is no risk of an unrequested posting, you cannot even be moved from your current job to one down the hall in the same building regardless of the relative priorety of the two positions.

Until then, a lot of them [double=dippers], at least the ones that I see, are keeping us going.

But it is a rediculous system.  We are short experienced regluar force personel to get work done so we create new Class B possitions and fill them by enticing pers out of the Reg F with the incentive of double dipping.  This does not solve the manning shortfall (we are just skimming pers from one pool and dumping them into another) but it does increase the impacts of the manning shortfall because now fewer people can be transfered to the work that is prioretized higher.  It is analogous to eating yourself to sustain yourself - it might work for a little while but it is not sustainable in the long term.

My position has largely been stated in a nutshell already:

... you want a full time career join the Regs.  You want a part time job join the Reserves ...

I think it is fair to provide that option for reduced obligation (in that postings are only within the geographic area and there are no more obligatory deployments).  That is a reasonable retention tool, and if you've already gotten enough TI to have a pension entitlement then it also seems fair to top-up your pay as further incentive to keep your experience in the CF.

If you want to get out entirely, that is fine too but the annuitant payments should wait until you reach the age of retirement ... just like pretty much most other pensions out there.

No, you've only got me half right --- when I say go work in the "civ world" I mean privately ... and taking my pension with me. And making at least 100% of what I'm making now with those quals.

And what I propose is that if you go work in pirvat sector, you don't see a dime of pension until you reach CRA.  You could earn a second pension in a private job, but you would not simultaneoulsy collect the geverment pension until CRA.  Just like how the Public Service pension is defered until 55 or 60.

 

[old fart]

MCG:

I have run my own numbers and it is clear to me that the only loser in the long run is me if I had accepted the Class B carrot then serving my last 4 years to 35 years on Class B.....My loss of lifetime earnings is as follows:

If I die at 65, by that age I will have earned 255K more with a full pension for 35 years vice serving the 4 years on Class B. 

At 65, I will have earned 255K more
At 75, I will have earned 405K more.
At 85, the difference is still 272K more if I stay Reg Force.

If you component transfer for financial reasons make sure you run your numbers....the CF certainly has.

I will PM you these numbers if you would like to see them. 

In closing what you advocate will never work here, and it would be costly for the CF to go that way......I think our bean counters know it.  At the end of the day, I believe the annuitant who hops the fence looses and looses big time in the long run.  I don't think reservists who serve that way realize the impact either, but if that is what they want and the system allows it...so be it.

All the best, old fart 

 

[Kat Stevens]

So we put in our 20+ plus years, say goodbye to the CF and make our way in the civy world until CRA.  At CRA we get our CF pension, minus of course the clawback from CPP.  Wow, you really don't want us retirees to get ahead at all, do you?  As an aside, just how many of us get live to a ripe old pension drawing age after 20-30 years of CF life?  Every year I get to put more and more old friends in the ground who never make it to CRA.

 

[old fart]

As an aside, just how many of us get live to a ripe old pension drawing age after 20-30 years of CF life?  Every year I get to put more and more old friends in the ground who never make it to CRA.

Ain't that the truth....that being said....still no Class B for me, at least until I reach the big 70%....at age 52...well 51 years 10 months but who's counting.

Happy New Year...West Ham Man....

 

[observor 69]

As an aside, just how many of us get live to a ripe old pension drawing age after 20-30 years of CF life?  Every year I get to put more and more old friends in the ground who never make it to CRA.

Me.  ;D

And FYI, CFSA + CPP+ OAS = more than my previous full CFSA.
To maximize my CPP I didn't take it until I was 65.

 

[Kat Stevens]

I'm glad you made it.  I'm going to assume you received a CFSA pension cheque every month since release?  What would your financial situation look like if you had to wait for CPP and CFSA to kick in on the same day, as is being proposed?

 

[Jed]

There seems to be considerable effort being brought to bear on the 'Evil Double Dipper problem'. To me this effort is worse than mere wasted effort as it will swiftly effect morale and potential employment of needed qualified people working on key tasks for the CF.

Yes it is a problem that needs resolving as you need to control the staffing of the Class B resource but you do not need to over control it. This should resolve itself in time; put the effort into sorting out the larger Reserve issues and having Reserves and Public Servants or Contractors not do work that should be done by a Regular soldier, primarily fulfilling some sp task.

When the greater public service begins to get a grip on some of their issues and , Joe or Jane Public Service employee starts functioning as a part of a productive team again, maybe it is time to rip ourselves apart and an expose every small flaw in our CF systems so we can save that last bean to be put towards some much needed kit like the Leopard II.