Bringing back "Double Dipping"

[Ignatius]

Any new word that they might be bringing back double dipping for the Reserves? I've been hearing some strong talk from my WO and a Capt at Admin OR that it is a good possibility, but have anyone on here heard anything more concrete or good source talk as well? I hate to use the words "double dipping" as I would rather say "Contract extensions" instead. Bring this back would be great for us Class A Reservists who can only work up to 6 months full time on a Class B top up and it would be also highly beneficial for someone like myself who is working two jobs including Class A Reserve. If this policy was brought back, I would be easily able to give up my main civilian job and just work Class B, and making life and work more normalcy. Anyways, just using myself as a good example on how better it would be for double dipping again as a Class A Reservist and wondering if anyone heard of it coming back?

Thank you

 

[brihard]

Any new word that they might be bringing back double dipping for the Reserves? I've been hearing some strong talk from my WO and a Capt at Admin OR that it is a good possibility, but have anyone on here heard anything more concrete or good source talk as well? I hate to use the words "double dipping" as I would rather say "Contract extensions" instead. Bring this back would be great for us Class A Reservists who can only work up to 6 months full time on a Class B top up and it would be also highly beneficial for someone like myself who is working two jobs including Class A Reserve. If this policy was brought back, I would be easily able to give up my main civilian job and just work Class B, and making life and work more normalcy. Anyways, just using myself as a good example on how better it would be for double dipping again as a Class A Reservist and wondering if anyone heard of it coming back?

Thank you

Do you mean ‘double dipping’ as in you have a reg Force pension and want to be able to work Cl B while drawing it? That one’s already been beaten to death. If you want financial certainty from the military, don’t be counting on that from being a reservist. It sounds like perhaps civilian life might not have been your best financial move.

But no, I’ve heard absolutely nothing about a move back to allowing ‘double dipping’ by RegF annuitants who then go PRes.

 

[mariomike]

Do you mean ‘double dipping’ as in you have a reg Force pension and want to be able to work Cl B while drawing it? That one’s already been beaten to death.

For reference to the discussion,

"Double Dippers" Mega Thread 
https://navy.ca/forums/threads/87805.50

 

[SupersonicMax]

Here’s a novel idea.  We are losing pensionable people to the private sector because people want to be able to draw a pension while working at a salary that was equivalent to what they were making in the military, effectively adding 50+% to their gross income.  Why not allow this while working in thr Reg Force?  Allow someone to draw a pension when they become eligible but allow them the keep serving.  They would stop contributing to their pension plan and their pension would stop increasing.  That would help retain experience people, save training money while not increasing the net salary cost.

 

[Remius]

All I have heard is RUMINT.

That maybe they might be modifying the terms in which an annuitant can continue to work from what it currently is but it is very doubtful that there will be a return to the golden age of double dipping.

They may have been talking about reserve annuitants going back to work for the reserves (I know of one case but not sure of all of the details).

link to a cbc article on this (from 2017): 

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/military-reserves-double-dipping-1.4234285

If the Liberals stay in power maybe we'll see a change.  But if not who knows. 

A link to the defence policy from that year: 

http://dgpaapp.forces.gc.ca/en/canada-defence-policy/docs/canada-defence-policy-report.pdf


Not sure how they would avoid incentivising double dipping especially now that the pay gap is closer between reg and res.



 

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

I've never really understood what the issue was with double dipping? 

You've got a person who has been in the Regular Force for 20+ years, they probably have some skills, you let them in to the Reserve Force and they can continue to give to the organization.

It would certainly be useful for specific trades .... like pilots 

 

[Remius]

I've never really understood what the issue was with double dipping? 

You've got a person who has been in the Regular Force for 20+ years, they probably have some skills, you let them in to the Reserve Force and they can continue to give to the organization.

It would certainly be useful for specific trades .... like pilots 

Double dipping itself wasn't the issue.  It was how it was being abused that was.

 

[SupersonicMax]

Double dipping itself wasn't the issue.  It was how it was being abused that was.

How can this be abused?  You earn a pension and keep contributing as someone with experience in your trade.  Win-win, no?

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

How can this be abused?  You earn a pension and keep contributing as someone with experience in your trade.  Win-win, no?

I'm with you on this one Max. If you do your twenty five years and retire and are entitled to an immediate annuity, you have every right to collect that annuity.

If the CAF then wants to re-employ you in some capacity as a Reservist, you should be allowed to collect that pension you've rightfully earned and continue to be paid while opting out of any further pension contributions.

 

[dapaterson]

There is one CAF.  I question the mental acrobatics required to say "I am a retired member of the CAF drawing a pension.  I therefore want to be a full-time member of the CAF while also a retired member of the CAF at the same time."

 

[ballz]

A pension is just a financial benefit. I don't see the mental gymnastics in saying "I want to exercise this financial benefit now, at 50%, instead of 10 years from now, at 70%."

Viewing this as "you can't be collecting your pension and drawing a salary too" is basically like factoring in sunk costs into your decisions going forward. For the employer, the pension is gone, it's sunk costs. The contributions have been made, the value is set, etc. If anything, having someone switch from Reg Force to Class B to do the same job was saving the government incremental costs.

That's not mental gymnastics. I think the idea is that a pension, which is simply an annuity, needs to be tied to "retirement" is an outdated / narrow definition, and limiting yourself to that causes you to make bad decisions like factoring in sunk costs.

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

There is one CAF.  I question the mental acrobatics required to say "I am a retired member of the CAF drawing a pension.  I therefore want to be a full-time member of the CAF while also a retired member of the CAF at the same time."

But there isn't one CAF, if there were, I would have only one MPRR.  The whole "one CAF" thing is one of those slogans that only exists when it is convenient.

I digress though and I think ballz hit the nail on the head with this:

A pension is just a financial benefit. I don't see the mental gymnastics in saying "I want to exercise this financial benefit now, at 50%, instead of 10 years from now, at 70%."

Viewing this as "you can't be collecting your pension and drawing a salary too" is basically like factoring in sunk costs into your decisions going forward. For the employer, the pension is gone, it's sunk costs. The contributions have been made, the value is set, etc. If anything, having someone switch from Reg Force to Class B to do the same job was saving the government incremental costs.

That's not mental gymnastics. I think the idea is that a pension, which is simply an annuity, needs to be tied to "retirement" is an outdated / narrow definition, and limiting yourself to that causes you to make bad decisions like factoring in sunk costs.

I like how my wife's pension works, she works for the Toronto Dominion Bank and has the option of opting in to a pension plan which she has.  TD has an excellent Defined Benefit Pension Plan that you can opt in to or opt out of at your discretion, you can also contribute money in to an RRSP or Non-registered RSP where a portion of your paycheque goes towards buying shares in TD.  TD will match your contribution 100% on the first $250 dollars and 50% up to a maximum of $2000.  You buy $4250.00 a year in shares of TD, TD will give you an additional $2250.00 in shares for free.  You can opt out of these at any time, collect your money and leave, it is your choice.  You later come back to TD and/or want to opt back in?  No problem.  It is your money after all.

That's the problem with the CAF Pension, it is treated like it isn't our money.  The only reason there is even money in a fund is because I took a hit on my salary and contributed to a fund.  If I had a choice to opt out of contributing to a pension for after 25 years, collecting the annuity right then and there while continuing to work for another 18 years until CRA 60, I would.

 

[Navy_Pete]

I don't get the issue people have with this.  Taking off the uniform all together, drawing the annuity, and working somewhere else is fine, but dropping down to a Class B (on a term contract with a loss of some benefits and career advancement) and drawing an annuity is somehow wrong?

I don't think the CAF is out of pocket here, and probably some cost savings if they are no longer contributing to a pension for an employee, so if it works for the member, and fills a need the CAF has, who cares?  If we can't fill it with a RegF body, and you don't have a PRes doing it, then your next option is contractor, and that probably costs us a lot more than a double dipping CAF member.

People creating BS PRes positions for their buddy is a separate problem, but maybe you should punish the offenders instead of killing the system?  :dunno:

I'm sure we spend far more in manpower in the travel claims process now than was ever lost to abuse.  If there were actual punishments for the individuals(ie losing section 32/34 authority leading to loss of ability to do position) then this would maybe not be an issue requiring punishment of the masses.

 

[Halifax Tar]

I don't get the issue people have with this.  Taking off the uniform all together, drawing the annuity, and working somewhere else is fine, but dropping down to a Class B (on a term contract with a loss of some benefits and career advancement) and drawing an annuity is somehow wrong?

I don't think the CAF is out of pocket here, and probably some cost savings if they are no longer contributing to a pension for an employee, so if it works for the member, and fills a need the CAF has, who cares?  If we can't fill it with a RegF body, and you don't have a PRes doing it, then your next option is contractor, and that probably costs us a lot more than a double dipping CAF member.

People creating BS PRes positions for their buddy is a separate problem, but maybe you should punish the offenders instead of killing the system?  :dunno1)

I'm sure we spend far more in manpower in the travel claims process now than was ever lost to abuse.  If there were actual punishments for the individuals(ie losing section 32/34 authority leading to loss of ability to do position) then this would maybe not be an issue requiring punishment of the masses.(2)

(1) We do this all the time.  I am surprised a program like IR has lasted this long.  Look at beers at sea.

(2) Holding people accountable ?  Heresy. 

 

[TCM621]

The issue, IIRC, had little to do with drawing a pension and a salary at the same time. It was senior people creating class B jobs for them to retire into doing the same thing they did as Reg force. Basically, the government would end up paying 1.5x for the same person.

Just like IR/SE, just like the retirement move, just like so many other things, a relative few (predominantly senior officers and MWO/CWO) were abusing the system, typically in Ottawa or other headquarters. So rather than deal with the root causes, they changed the benefits which ended up hurting the troops and line units. I lost 1000 dollars a month when the SE benefits changed. That isn't to much to a Col or a CWO but it was a lot for me.

 

[Remius]

How can this be abused?  You earn a pension and keep contributing as someone with experience in your trade.  Win-win, no?

In theory yes. In practice no.

Many people would create class b positions for early retirement.  Convert reg force positions then even worse then transfer that to a civy position when they hit CRA.  And in many instances they didn’t really bring their experience to anything.  A pilot on class B doing staff work at NDHQ for ADM IM  isn’t really helping our pilot shortage is it...

 

[McG]

But there isn't one CAF, if there were, I would have only one MPRR. 

You should have had only on MPRR since the role out of Guardian.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

How about we don't need more old guys hanging around collecting dust?
In fast and hard,  serve fast and hard,  get out a little slower and softer,  but still fast enough for a second civilian job.

And don't give me the "CF can't fill the position" BS.  Yes they could if someone would just fix the whole damn thing. ...

 

[Stoker]

Did reserves for 30 years, most of it full time B and C and some class A. Was offered a CT at rank with spec pay, signing bonus and took it recently The selling point was the ability to go back to the res when retired and do Class A for a few years until CRA. Could never understand why in the res when I retired I couldn't do Class A like a reg could. So much talent wasted.  Having dealt over the years with many "double dippers" I hated it when they took their break at Christmas or whenever it was convenient to them and everyone had to pick up the slack for them for duty watches and the like. I'm all for the skills they bring to the table but not at the expense of a reserve that did it for years.

 

[Loachman]

How about we don't need more old guys hanging around collecting dust?
In fast and hard,  serve fast and hard,  get out a little slower and softer,  but still fast enough for a second civilian job.

And don't give me the "CF can't fill the position" BS.  Yes they could if someone would just fix the whole damn thing. ...

"They"  have been "trying" to fix the Pilot shortage for over two decades now, and it's definitely not getting better.

My position still has not been filled since I was punted over three years ago, which is why I continue to sit in the same desk doing the same job but now in clothes that I purchase myself. I am not exactly just "hanging around collecting dust".

The alternative would have been to take an experienced* Captain out of a cockpit, and, given the demands upon our community, we cannot afford to do that. I'd still be collecting my pension either way, but wasting an uncommon and still-useful set of knowledge and experience.

Nor can I see the current situation changing for, well, nobody has a clue, regarding either solutions or duration.

And the Pilot occupation is not the only one short of people and experience.

Filling vacant positions, where practicable, with Class B Reservists, ex-Military Public Servants, or ex-Military Contractors makes a lot of sense.

* A relative term, and generally way lower than it should be.