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

[Monsoon]

Institute a guideline that states once retired and collecting a pension, no Class B for three years. Class A only, unless exceptional circumstances exist.

So 220 days a year of class "A" would be fine, but 15 days of class "B" would be out of the question?

This leads down a deep, dark rabbit hole.

 

[Remius]

Except that you can't work 220 days of class A a year unless you get special permission.

 

[Pusser]

So 220 days a year of class "A" would be fine, but 15 days of class "B" would be out of the question?

This leads down a deep, dark rabbit hole.

Actually, I think Jim makes a good point.  The bottom line is that some parties seem to want to eliminate or reduce the "double-dipping" (for lack of a better term).  Without going into a full discussion on the merits of Regular Force vs Full-time Reservist, what we really need to look at is where annuitants fall into this mix.  I think we can all agree that we don't want to lose the expertise that annuitants bring to the organization, but I think that this is best used in Reserve units (i.e. on a Class A basis) as it can help raise the professionalism bar, simply by the infusion of new experiences.  Using annuitants to fill full-time Class B billets that do not support the Reserve, do nothing in this regard.

I have to admit that I am being somewhat self-centred in this.  Once I retire from the Regular Force, I have no desire to take on a full-time Class B or C billet.  Frankly, I want to do something completely different with my life.  However, I would be very interested in going to a Reserve unit on a Class A basis.  Naturally, I would think that most people would want to do as me  ;D.  My only concern would be whether I would be restricted in working in the Reserve because of a broad-brush restriction on Class B/C service that would prevent me from completing any kind of training course,  prevent me from going on exercise or make me undeployable.  In other words, I would support restrictions on long-term Class B/C service for annuitants provided that short-term Class B service (i.e. courses, exercises, etc)and Class C deployments are not prohibited.

It is worth noting that this is not the first time that the Department has tried to deal with this issue.  Years ago, they tried applying sever restrictions on Class B/C employment for anyone who was ex-Regular Force (i.e. not necessarily annuitants).  My office saw cases where young Reservists were losing their Class B positions because they has had the misfortune of spending a short time in the Regular Force, but had never earned or drawn a pension.

 

[Brasidas]

Actually, I think Jim makes a good point.  The bottom line is that some parties seem to want to eliminate or reduce the "double-dipping" (for lack of a better term).  Without going into a full discussion on the merits of Regular Force vs Full-time Reservist, what we really need to look at is where annuitants fall into this mix.  I think we can all agree that we don't want to lose the expertise that annuitants bring to the organization, but I think that this is best used in Reserve units (i.e. on a Class A basis) as it can help raise the professionalism bar, simply by the infusion of new experiences.

Agreed that bringing annutiants into the unit brings experience in there, and that that's a positive thing.

Using annuitants to fill full-time Class B billets that do not support the Reserve, do nothing in this regard.

Agreed. A class B annuitant in NDHQ, or any reg force unit, does nothing to support the reserve.

However, I don't see a need to keep them out of an RSS/class B reserve unit position, such as Ops WO, Trg NCO, or CC.

If DND actually fills these positions with experienced RegForce staff, great. If not, class B annuitants are a good fit.

I have to admit that I am being somewhat self-centred in this.  Once I retire from the Regular Force, I have no desire to take on a full-time Class B or C billet.  Frankly, I want to do something completely different with my life.  However, I would be very interested in going to a Reserve unit on a Class A basis.  Naturally, I would think that most people would want to do as me  ;D.  My only concern would be whether I would be restricted in working in the Reserve because of a broad-brush restriction on Class B/C service that would prevent me from completing any kind of training course,  prevent me from going on exercise or make me undeployable.  In other words, I would support restrictions on long-term Class B/C service for annuitants provided that short-term Class B service (i.e. courses, exercises, etc)and Class C deployments are not prohibited.

If that were the case, we're back to less experienced reserve personnel being the ones shoved into those positions at the reserve unit; in many cases, those aren't going to be your best guys, its going to be whoever doesn't have an established job.

If they don't fulfill the role, we're down to maxing out class A days, having annuitants work 5 days a week, instead of giving the a class B contract. I've seen this happen in cases where necessary class B's don't get backfilled.

I agree that having experienced regforce personnel, annuitant and otherwise, on class A is a benefit to the unit. And at the very least, allowing an annuitant to support summer courses as senior staff without penalty is a good thing. I don't think that cutting them out of the permanent unit support staff is a good thing.

 

[CountDC]

If they don't fulfill the role, we're down to maxing out class A days, having annuitants work 5 days a week, instead of giving the a class B contract. I've seen this happen in cases where necessary class B's don't get backfilled.

Seen it tried until I pointed out it is against regulations.  You can not employ someone 5 days a week every week.  Trying to remember and I believe it is/was 12 days a month max for cl A and you couldn't do a mon to fri routine with weekends off to avoid the cl b.  I use to do a lot of volunteer days at the unit just to ensure the pay was done every month. 

Quote from: Pusser on Today at 12:33:32

"It is worth noting that this is not the first time that the Department has tried to deal with this issue.  Years ago, they tried applying sever restrictions on Class B/C employment for anyone who was ex-Regular Force (i.e. not necessarily annuitants).  My office saw cases where young Reservists were losing their Class B positions because they has had the misfortune of spending a short time in the Regular Force, but had never earned or drawn a pension."

I remember that - it was in the early 90's but I don't understand why they were losing their jobs.  We had a pte that tried the reg f life and didn't like it.  He only lasted a year and came back to us but that was long enough to get stung by the policy.  The only requirement was that they had to take the break the same as an annuitant.  Can't recall if it was the 30 day or 1 day break that was required.

Lot's of interesting points and arguments.

How about this - if it is a reg f job that needs to be filled and the reg f can't then instead of giving a cl b to an annuitant give a Fixed Period of Service contract to a p res that is not an annuitant.  Employ the annuitants at the units instead where they can pass on their valuable information to the p res mbrs.  Seems to be a good way to win all around.  The p res have full time jobs that give them a taste of the reg f life along with valuable work experience. The annuitant gets a full time job and the military benefits in that we not only retain the reg f mbrs skills but have them passed on.

Not perfect, doesn't solve the double-dip but it does deal with one of the large arguments used when dealing with the double-dip.

 

[aesop081]

Agreed. A class B annuitant in NDHQ, or any reg force unit, does nothing to support the reserve.

So, how does this translate to an organization like the air reserve. Class B annuitants do not "support the reserves", they serve along side their RegF counterparts in integrated units. There are essentialy no Air reserve units.

 

[dapaterson]

So, how does this translate to an organization like the air reserve. Class B annuitants do not "support the reserves", they serve along side their RegF counterparts in integrated units. There are essentialy no Air reserve units.

There is no "Air Reserve".  If the pers are all committed to regular, full-time ongoing responsibilities, there's nothing left in the closet for surge or unexpected situations.  That means there is no reserve; it's been committed.  Rather than, at some point, saying "Troops to task doesn't work now" they muddled on as best they could.

Air Command got rid of any traditional part-time reservists a decade and a half ago (perhaps more).  The RCAF has now inherited that problem.

 

[George Wallace]

OK.  Pusser is looking at a Naval Reserve perspective.  The PRes has no Class C positions that I know of, except for those Reservists who have actually gotten onto the plane and departed on Tour.  A good majority of them have been Class B up until such time as their departure dates or there abouts. 

If you really think that a Reserve unit can operate on Class A alone, you are on hallucinogens.  There is a lot of day to day administration required to keep a Reserve unit functional or as functional as possible as not to become totally ineffective.  Not every Reservist parades on the same evenings and weekends.  Higher HQs do not often work those evenings and weekends.  Administration has to be done, pay approved, courses created, courses loaded, Route Letters and Claims processed, facilities and equipment maintained, etc.  The IT Help Desk is closed when most Reservists work, so any IT related problems would never be corrected. 

The Reg Force Support Staff are often overwhelmed in trying to keep a Reserve unit functioning without the help of full-time Reservists to assist them.  Orderly Rooms need to be manned to ensure Admin is done.  A QM must be manned to ensure the unit stores, kit, wpns, etc. are all maintained,  items repaired/ordered/reordered/replaced, etc.  Tpt Sections have to ensure vehicles are in running condition, properly dispatched, follow their Sevicing/Maint schedules, etc.  One Reg Force Capt, WO and MCpl Chief Clerk (Airforce Cpl acting lacking with only Reg Force RMS background - no idea of Reserve Pay or Admin differences) can not majically ensure that this is all done efficiently.  They do need help and Class As do help, but do not provide the continuity and corportate knowledge to the extent that a Class B may. 

I overlooked the Annuitant having to be on Class B for the purpose of attending a course or going on an Exercise or Tasking.  That does present an interesting problem.  Why should the Annuitant loose a pension to do one of these? 

 

[dapaterson]

Question:  Everyone on here ranting and raving:  Who has read the NDA?  Who has read the CFSA and its regulations?

They make for an interesting read, and for interesting logical conclusions based on the legislation and related regulations (all of which are superior to any DAOD, CFAO, Command Order, Area directive or other admin fluff generated internal to the CF).

 

[OldSolduer]

Question:  Everyone on here ranting and raving:  Who has read the NDA?  Who has read the CFSA and its regulations?

They make for an interesting read, and for interesting logical conclusions based on the legislation and related regulations (all of which are superior to any DAOD, CFAO, Command Order, Area directive or other admin fluff generated internal to the CF).

Good point....well taken. Thank you.

 

[Monsoon]

Except that you can't work 220 days of class A a year unless you get special permission.

Sure, but the most egregious abusers of the Reg F retirement-cum-reservist class "B" guys are the full-bird Colonels/BGens who "retire" and then immediately assume their exact same function within the Reg F unit they were at on class "B" without every actually doing any time in the reserve organizations (a unit, or NAVRES). These are the only guys I'd characterize as "double-dippers". And these are exactly the guys who can get permission to work 220/300/364 days a year of class "A".

Differentiating between class "A" and "B" service for annuitants will only hurt the WO/Capts who retire, join the local unit and want to teach a PLQ course in the summer (and are desperately needed).

 

[PPCLI Guy]

Sure, but the most egregious abusers of the Reg F retirement-cum-reservist class "B" guys are the full-bird Colonels/BGens who "retire" and then immediately assume their exact same function within the Reg F unit they were at on class "B" without every actually doing any time in the reserve organizations (a unit, or NAVRES). These are the only guys I'd characterize as "double-dippers". And these are exactly the guys who can get permission to work 220/300/364 days a year of class "A".

Differentiating between class "A" and "B" service for annuitants will only hurt the WO/Capts who retire, join the local unit and want to teach a PLQ course in the summer (and are desperately needed).

Name them

 

[The Anti-Royal]

I've been around for 30 years and can't think of anyone who fits your description.  Can you name two of "those guys"?

D'oh . . . PPCLI Guy beat me to it.

 

[dapaterson]

Differentiating between class "A" and "B" service for annuitants will only hurt the WO/Capts who retire, join the local unit and want to teach a PLQ course in the summer (and are desperately needed).

From what has been posted, this proposal would only affect those working full time for a year or more - so the WO or Capt covering off a PLQ in the summer would see no change from the current status quo.

That would be consistent with the NDA definition of the Reserve Force and with the CFSA parameters defining re-enrolment.

 

[Kat Stevens]

I served 23 years and never saw a full bird colonel in a Canadian uniform, Res or Reg.

 

[Monsoon]

I've been around for 30 years and can't think of anyone who fits your description.  Can you name two of "those guys"?

D'oh . . . PPCLI Guy beat me to it.

As a matter of fact, I'm not bluffing and could name a number... and obviously won't on a public forum (and no, I'm not going to breech their right to privacy by messaging their names to you either). If you're not aware of them, it's because their employment status isn't widely advertised. But Maurice Baril was certainly the most prominent example.

I served 23 years and never saw a full bird colonel in a Canadian uniform, Res or Reg.

Ho-ho. You've heard of a figure of speech, I take it?

But getting back to the original topic, do the three guys who jumped down my neck on this support or oppose so-called "double-dipping"? Because I certainly support it; I'm just opposed to ham-fisted efforts to reign it in.

From what has been posted, this proposal would only affect those working full time for a year or more - so the WO or Capt covering off a PLQ in the summer would see no change from the current status quo.

Well, annuitants already don't work more than a year of class "B": they're obliged to take a service break of 35 days each year. Re-implementing exactly the same thing by saying, "Okay guys, we can only put you on an 11 month contract. After a one-month break we'll 'consider' employing you in the same position for another 11 months [wink-wink]", isn't going to change the effective status quo.

 

[dapaterson]

As a matter of fact, I'm not bluffing and could name a number... and obviously won't on a public forum (and no, I'm not going to breech their right to privacy by messaging their names to you either). If you're not aware of them, it's because their employment status isn't widely advertised. But Maurice Baril was certainly the most prominent example.

de Chastelain, perhaps, but not Baril.  Baril had less than 33 years of service when appointed CDS; flipping over would have kept him from reaching 35 years of servce, and would have removed several top-earning years from the average of his best five.

Well, annuitants already don't work more than a year of class "B": they're obliged to take a service break of 35 days each year. Re-implementing exactly the same thing by saying, "Okay guys, we can only put you on an 11 month contract. After a one-month break we'll 'consider' employing you in the same position for another 11 months [wink-wink]", isn't going to change the effective status quo.

Right now annuitants do work more than one year - they accept three year positions with several blocks of leave without pay.  Calling it a break in service when they return to the same job is misleading at best.

I expect that any policy will make it clear that dodges such as successive short-term employment in the same position are unacceptable.  Again, the CFSA and NDA are valuable resources in defining the left and right of arc.  Prefacing comments with "Regardless of what the NDA may say..." (which I have heard) may be entertaining, but are neither supportable nor sustainable.

 

[Monsoon]

de Chastelain, perhaps, but not Baril.  Baril had less than 33 years of service when appointed CDS; flipping over would have kept him from reaching 35 years of servce, and would have removed several top-earning years from the average of his best five.

Baril too was over 55 in his final couple of years as CDS and prior to the implementation of CRA 60. He retired, transferred to the CIC Reserve (where retirement at 55 was not obligatory) and served out his last couple as a dreaded "double-dipper". Didn't realize De Chastelain had done the same thing.

Right now annuitants do work more than one year - they accept three year positions with several blocks of leave without pay.  Calling it a break in service when they return to the same job is misleading at best.

May be formation-dependent. In my experience, I've seen contracts are cut to start and end around the service breaks, which is what would be done elsewhere if a no-contracts-over-a-year policy were implemented generally.

I expect that any policy will make it clear that dodges such as successive short-term employment in the same position are unacceptable.  Again, the CFSA and NDA are valuable resources in defining the left and right of arc.  Prefacing comments with "Regardless of what the NDA may say..." (which I have heard) may be entertaining, but are neither supportable nor sustainable.

But that won't stop some clever staff officers from figuring out a way to make it work if they have to (desk-swapping, etc). To my mind, all it would do is add admin burden in implementing the work-around, but goodness knows that hasn't ever stopped well-intentioned and ill-considered policies from being brought in. And on that note, I'm ducking out to do some "green" procurement.

 

[Pusser]

Baril too was over 55 in his final couple of years as CDS and prior to the implementation of CRA 60. He retired, transferred to the CIC Reserve (where retirement at 55 was not obligatory) and served out his last couple as a dreaded "double-dipper". Didn't realize De Chastelain had done the same thing.

This oft cited "fact" is a fallacy.  Gen Baril was never a member of the CIC, nor was there any reason to be.  There are procedures in place to extend periods of service beyond CRA if requried.

 

[Monsoon]

This oft cited "fact" is a fallacy.  Gen Baril was never a member of the CIC, nor was there any reason to be.  There are procedures in place to extend periods of service beyond CRA if requried.

If you say so. But given your element and place of employment, you do know exactly who I had in mind, right?