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

[Jed]

But, De Chastelaine was CIL at the last. (not guaranteed for sure on this)

 

[Remius]

I don't know if a majority are senior types.  That might just be the popular thing to say or assume.  I do know that there are some cases.  And some for valid reasons.  I have heard of one that had his position changed to a class B (or created one in the same place he worked as a reg) then had a civy position created after he reached CRA.  Seems abusive but I don't have the details to know the justification.  neither is it 1st hand knowledge (His wife was the one who talked about it at a briefing)  ie it isn't info worth anything.

Most annuitants I have known or know are Snr NCOs and Captains.  Most switched when they reached 20 or 25 years.  Some of those got out to avoid postings and went straight to class B.  And some got out for other reasons (wives careers, kids etc).  I only know one that is on class B (in a reg force establishment) and parades with a reserve unit.  ther rest are either PRL or work on class B for their unit.

 

[Monsoon]

I don't know if a majority are senior types.

I'll come right out and say that I believe that they represent a tiny minority. But they're the ones that make people raise eyebrows, and they're exactly the ones who can get whatever set of rules is put in place "gamed" in their favour.

 

[armyvern]

...

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.

What is not supportable or sustainable is the failure of some to recognize the fact (and it is a fact) that the training system would collapse without B Class augmentation - in the same numbers that currently exist. Unless, and until, Ottawa gets off it's ass and reassigns dotcom officer positions in the RegF back out to the boots on the ground positions within priority 6 units and training locations, B Class is a necessary and critical component to making the RegF (and ResF pers training at RegF establishments) training system work. Without it, the branch will fall off the tree.

The NDA can be amended as well. You keep toting out "the rules" etc which is fine with me, but the system has worked for years just as it is now and will not work with the proposed changes to B Class that are being bantied about. Who's to say that it isn't the NDA that needs fixing because the proposed change certainly isn't going to fix anything; it will break it futher.

Again, one only needs to look at courses getting canned NOW because of lack of instructors and the inability to forecast even the most basic of a training cycle schedule (and, no way in hell they could actually stick to one!) at CTC ... and realize that this utopian proposal only waxes over the actual issue. This proposal does nothing but "fix" the effect, but does not address or fix the cause of that effect.

I wish all the army guys well in getting courses if this goes through; they can't seem to get them now with any reliability.

Additionally, if you think that the system will be "fixed" by retraining a new Class B guy every year to do an essential job rather than utilizing 3 year contracts, you drain the system even more as that guy would be leaving just as he knows the job and would further drain services by the other guy who could be instructing being required to continuously train the new B Class guy every year.

How many courses (I'll just consider Army) are being cancelled these days due to lack of instructors? How many Captains does it take to work in Ottawa when Sgts and WOs can do the same jobs for less pay thereby freeing up SWE that could go towards more boots on the ground Reg F guys to employ in boots on the ground jobs? The ratio of Captains to troops these days is astonishing and the amount of these types employed in dotcom empires is indeed what is affecting the ability to man pri 6 and training locations. The Reg F needs to sort that type of issue first, THEN a lot of the other issues simply won't 'be' anymore.

And please, do not propose that we hire ResF Sup techs that are not annuitants; they are neither trained nor qualified to do the wide variety of critical tasks required.

 

[Edward Campbell]

I think Vern is on to something:

1. The system is broken ~ one symptom is bloated, over ranked HQs that, despite too many people are unable to manage necessary training. In my opinion the CF is badly organized, the super-structure may be appropriate for a "million-man army" but it is unnecessary and, indeed, counter-productive for a force of one hundred thousand;

2. The CF needs the talent - and labour pool - provided by the full time reservists. I agree that one should not "double dip" by drawing a pension for CF uniformed service while still wearing a (paid) CF uniform ... except CIL, but maybe we need to revisit the foundations of the system, the NDA, to make it do what we clearly need. The CF, especially, the reserve component, has evolved (consider the existence of full time reserve manned KINGSTON class warships ~ not what the NDA envisions but what successive governments have mandated) maybe the NDA needs to evolve, too; and

3. Training, for ALL CF members, needs to be a high priority ~ the best people should want to go to schools because the schools need the best, and good performance in a school should be a big step up the promotion ladder. Further, schools should be freed from some of the bureaucratic swamp that was created circa 1965 - schools should be managed, directly, by the heads of services/branches using, mostly, a staff at the school. It may seem a bit strange but such a system worked for the Canadian Army for generations and works, today, in some other armies where schools are senior units that do training, doctrine development, tests and trials and, and, and ... properly staffed (lots of the best people) schools can be an efficient, effective resource, not a burden.

 

[McG]

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).

As a matter of fact, I'm not bluffing and could name a number...

I'll come right out and say that I believe that they represent a tiny minority. But they're the ones that make people raise eyebrows, and they're exactly the ones who can get whatever set of rules is put in place "gamed" in their favour.

You are using some pretty strong language with "egregious abusers" who "gamed" [I read "manipulate"/"exploit"] the system to build themselves superflous jobs for double-dipping.  If you are not exagerating to embelish your position, then you are duty bound to name names - maybe not here, but to our internal ethics oversight.

However, I suspect these unnamed Col and Gen are just doing what most other Cl B annuitants are doing - they are taking advantage of an opportunity foolishly offered by the system.  The problem with the double dip is not the people that take it, the problem is in the system that enables and encourages it.  As stated in other places, a very large number of double-dippers are members that just did not want anymore postings.  Instead of the double dip, we should be looking at things like geographic accomodation to keep these members in the Reg F.

What is not supportable or sustainable is the failure of some to recognize the fact (and it is a fact) that the training system would collapse without B Class augmentation - in the same numbers that currently exist.

My observations, limited to a few of the schools, is that the majority of Cl B augmentation is the "Cl B lifer" who is not an annuitant - there are annuitants out there in the schools, but the system will not collapse.

How many courses (I'll just consider Army) are being cancelled these days due to lack of instructors?

By large, it is reserve courses that I see being cancelled due to lack of instructors.  It seems the Reserve Force is not getting its value from all the Cl B stuffed through Reg F establishments.

The NDA can be amended as well. You keep toting out "the rules" etc which is fine with me, but the system has worked for years just as it is ...

We need to live within our means.  You are exactly right that the CF has many places of bloat.  I understand 10% of our numbers are in NDHQ.  We need to fix the structure, and to live within our means.  The laws can be amended, but we cannot expect the politicians will change the laws every time we over extend ourselves.

... and realize that this utopian proposal only waxes over the actual issue. This proposal does nothing but "fix" the effect, but does not address or fix the cause of that effect. 

Fixing the double-dip and fixing our structural excesses are two different problems.  We should not close our eyes to the problems of the double-dip because correcting that will exacerbate the problem of our operating beyond our means.  Both problems need to be addressed.  The HQ and structure bloat already has a separate thread:  http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/97262/post-984784.html#msg984784

 

[Jed]

I will send ArmyVern some milpoints. She has nailed the problem on the head. I especially appreciate her comments that point out that if we continue down this path wrt strict adherance to the NDA rules, the military, especially the Army, just dramatically increases the work burden on the remaining staff.

 

[Remius]

I will send ArmyVern some milpoints. She has nailed the problem on the head. I especially appreciate her comments that point out that if we continue down this path wrt strict adherance to the NDA rules, the military, especially the Army, just dramatically increases the work burden on the remaining staff.

It is exactly because the CF did not adhere to the intended rules that we are where we are today.

 

[Jed]

It is exactly because the CF did not adhere to the intended rules that we are where we are today.

No sh!t sherlock. You do what you have to do to get on with it. Did anyone die because of these decisions made years ago? Sometimes there are no win/win solutions.

 

[Remius]

No sh!t sherlock. You do what you have to do to get on with it. Did anyone die because of these decisions made years ago? Sometimes there are no win/win solutions.

Thanks Watson.  But sometimes you have to fix the problems created years ago that have gotten out of hand.  Normally that requires painful decisons especially when they get to where they are now.

 

[armyvern]

...  We should not close our eyes to the problems of the double-dip because correcting that will exacerbate the problem of our operating beyond our means.  Both problems need to be addressed.  The HQ and structure bloat already has a separate thread:  http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/97262/post-984784.html#msg984784

You're due for a posting to Gagetown, if only for the eye-opening and a dose of reality.

Start with fixing the problem; most of the other stuff will then sort itself out. I don't expect politicians to sort out the CFs excesses', but I DO expect that Ottawa can recognize the fact that it is they who cause the "effect" of B Class employment within the trg system and they should fix their errors before expecting the boots on the ground to suffer even more.

I've always been taught that if it isn't broken, do not fix it. If they'd fix the structure and put SWE back to where it is required there wouldn't be a problem. Time for them to look in the mirror and start sorting themselves out: doing it the other way around - won't fix it, but will earn someone kudos and a great PER.  :

I'm no optimist these days: I really don't see Ottawa and the dotcoms slashing themselves before they cut the outsiders throats.

 

[armyvern]

It is exactly because the CF did not adhere to the intended rules that we are where we are today.

Sure, it is because boots on the ground jobs were converted into staff officer jobs and moved into dotcom empires during the height of building.

No, the CF didn't adhere to the rules, but it wasn't us troops, the schools, and the locations who will suffer that caused this mess. It was the exact offices who will now stomp down even further, pull B Class augmentation and break the training system because of their lack of clarity as to how it is in the real world of training outside of their towers. They will save their new-era past-decade positions and SWE at the expense of putting them back out to us peons so that we can recruit RegF troops to do critical tasks and jobs instead of requiring huge assistance to accomplish our tasks from B Class well-trained, well-experienced and capable double-dippers.

They indeed picked their own poison. The rest of us will pay.

 

[NavyShooter]

My boss just went to a meeting yesterday (brief from an Admiral type person) and one of the subjects that came up was Severance....has anyone else heard a rumble that Severance pay (1 week pay per year of service) is on the chopping block? 

Rumble being that those of us serving prior to 01 Apr 2012 will be entitled, anyone joining after that date will no longer be eligible?

NS

 

[dapaterson]

"The fault lies not with our stars, but with ourselves".  We've bred a generation of military managers (not leaders) unwilling to tell their commanders "Based on the resources you have given me, I can deliver A and B, but not C".  That's at every level.

It's not insubordination to tell a superior that something is impossible.  Finding clever work-arounds that rely on gaming the system is not a solution. 

The biggest problem I have seen in the Army CSS community is a decidedly risk-averse culture.  Decisions are delayed until perfect information is available.  And, by the time that perfect information comes around, the situation has changed or the environment has changed, so the information is no longer perfect, and so the cycle of indecision begins anew.


Those problems contributed to the growth of full-time Reserve personnel (annuitants or otherwise).  Temporary measures that became institutionalized by inertia that now will fall apart.

But reliance on temporary fixes do not mean the system isn't broken.  The reliance on full-time reservists is a symptom of a broken system.  Removing them isn't what causes the system to break - it's just exposing the festering wound that's been there all along.

 

[dapaterson]

My boss just went to a meeting yesterday (brief from an Admiral type person) and one of the subjects that came up was Severance....has anyone else heard a rumble that Severance pay (1 week pay per year of service) is on the chopping block? 

Rumble being that those of us serving prior to 01 Apr 2012 will be entitled, anyone joining after that date will no longer be eligible?

NS

As a pubic servant who went through something similar,here's how it went down for us:

As of a specified date, we received our inflationary pay increase (1.75%).  The day after, we stopped accumulating severance pay.  Severance pay does remain on the books for anyone laid off in the future, but not for retirements.  We were then presented with three options: 1.  Take all the severance pay at our current rate of pay; 2.  Take none of it until we reitre, at our rate of pay on retirement; or 3. Take some now and some at retirement.

There is the ability to flip some over to an RRSP (provided you have contribution room).


If the government were to do something similar to severance pay and the RFRG I suspect it would follow the same general outline.

 

[CountDC]

Name them

I could name a CWO that did go directly from Reg F to P Res in the exact same job.  I could also name a WO that went directly from full time (class B/A) P Res to civilian in the exact same job.  I won't name either one as it is really no ones business the names, just that it did happen.  I know of other cases too where members went from Reg F to P Res, wore the same uniform, did the same job at the same desk.  Can't recall the names though. It does (or at least did) happen but I do not believe it is a rampant problem.  More an exception to the case.

 

[armyvern]

My boss just went to a meeting yesterday (brief from an Admiral type person) and one of the subjects that came up was Severance....has anyone else heard a rumble that Severance pay (1 week pay per year of service) is on the chopping block? 

Rumble being that those of us serving prior to 01 Apr 2012 will be entitled, anyone joining after that date will no longer be eligible?

NS

I have; recently.

There were also thoughts of that occuring to us CF folks on this site way back when the union gave up theirs for a raise instead ... I believe we thanked them.  :  Will go search for a link ...

Edited to add link:

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/97867/post-996699.html#msg996699

 

[Jed]

"The fault lies not with our stars, but with ourselves".  We've bred a generation of military managers (not leaders) unwilling to tell their commanders "Based on the resources you have given me, I can deliver A and B, but not C".  That's at every level.

It's not insubordination to tell a superior that something is impossible.  Finding clever work-arounds that rely on gaming the system is not a solution. 

The biggest problem I have seen in the Army CSS community is a decidedly risk-averse culture.  Decisions are delayed until perfect information is available.  And, by the time that perfect information comes around, the situation has changed or the environment has changed, so the information is no longer perfect, and so the cycle of indecision begins anew.


Those problems contributed to the growth of full-time Reserve personnel (annuitants or otherwise).  Temporary measures that became institutionalized by inertia that now will fall apart.

But reliance on temporary fixes do not mean the system isn't broken.  The reliance on full-time reservists is a symptom of a broken system.  Removing them isn't what causes the system to break - it's just exposing the festering wound that's been there all along.

Telling your superior the facts may be the right thing to do but it is often career adverse. Hense all the adverse aftermath.

 

[The Anti-Royal]

A few quotes from NDHQ 5323-1 (D Res), signed by the CDS on 5 March 2012 (sorry, would post a link but have only hard copy):

". . . one policy which . . . was discussed at [Armed Forces Council on 3 February 2012] was the . . . employment of CFSA annuitants in Reserve Force positions."

"The revised policy [effective 1 April 2012] will establish a more restrictive practice for the employment of Regular Force annuitants . . . and will introduce a centralized tracking process . . .".

"This change in no way impacts Reserve Force members who serve on a part-time basis or those who serve for shorter, task-based full-time employment of less than 365 days."

"I fully understand that this transition . . . may present challenges for operations and personnel management over the next year."

"The details related to the introduction of the new policy as well as details regarding a transition period will be forthcoming from the VCDS and CMP."

Have a nice day.

 

[armyvern]

"The fault lies not with our stars, but with ourselves".  We've bred a generation of military managers (not leaders) unwilling to tell their commanders "Based on the resources you have given me, I can deliver A and B, but not C".  That's at every level.

It's not insubordination to tell a superior that something is impossible.  Finding clever work-arounds that rely on gaming the system is not a solution. 
...

This is absolutely untrue. It is simply your perspective based upon the location you work in, but I am not about to sit here while you wax eloquently about my responsibility as a "leader" to say no when I have done and seen many "nos" sent all the way to Ottawa only to be fired back with a "oh yes you will".

At Gagetown, I experienced the exact opposite. We constantly fed back up the chain that we could NOT support tasks, requests, training, deploying staff without a backfill etc ... only to be told by that puzzle palace , "No, you are pri 6 and thus you WILL support the task, make it happen etc"; we then let the support to training suffer or worked 12-14 hour days and came in on weekends as a norm because we were ordered to make it happen by centre (and that is not a manifestly unlawful order). We worked our butts off attempting to get reassigned as a higher priority listed Unit only to have that shut down by centre too.

Absolutely everything was a higher pri than pri 6. We said no and we tried to change it. Ottawa was NOT OK with that. Another mirror check for them.

Guess what else? Courses at CTC are getting canned precisely because other Units etc are saying, "No, we can not support a request to augment your staff". Courses thus cancelled and more guys backlogged on BTL, PAT, over two years for their "mandatory" leadership courses etc. And, it goes on and on and on.

There's a whole lot of people and Units saying, "No." Those who can't hear those that may have missed the forest for the trees.

What you get to see in Ottawa, is not necessarily indicative of the state of affairs outside of your window and pan-CF.