Bringing back "Double Dipping"
- Thread starter Ignatius
- Start date
Halifax Tar
Army.ca Fixture
- Reaction score
- 9,869
- Points
- 1,260
What about the COATs Program ? Still Class B and can collect your pension for years and years and years.....
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
‘tour pension’. What is that? COATS can’t go on tour can they?Halifax Tar said:
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
- Reaction score
- 290
- Points
- 980
kev994 said:
"Offering" is easy. How many are taking?
It depends what conditions are attached to the big, fat, juicy, wigggling worm on the hook. It depends upon the tax hit incurred.
The last time the CF tried that, a little over two decades ago, there were few takers - partially due to the five years' obligatory service that came with it, with no possibility of paying the money back and bailing should one be suddenly posted to CFB Buttfucknowhere for the full five years, and partially due to the fact that one third would be paid on or close to the date of acceptance, and the remaining two thirds would be paid on the following first and second anniversaries rather than speading it out over the full five years, meaning that more of it would be taxed back.
I was eligible for the full max $75000.00, yet was right on pension eligibility's doorstep with one foot lifting and was not willing to give up that freedom for that price (actually the dual prices of money and loss of freedom and security).
Any measures taken have to be sincere rather than sneaky and directed towards actually solving problems and dissatisfiers. I'm sure that there are a few twisted souls who love spending the bulk of their careers in Cold Lake, and it would be expensive to build a new base in a more civilised location and reducing Cold Lake to an exercise deployment base, but that might reduce the bleeding. Posting bonuses and improving opportunities for dependents might be a more palatable (to the CF and government) alternative option. Buying an actual CF18 replacement instead of used cast-offs that will just sit in hangars (or worse, have a lot of money and effort invested in them while already-operational CF aircraft get pushed aside instead) because we lack the people to maintain the additional numbers might help as well.
Nothing boosts morale like a government that displays its respect to irreplaceable people who've had a lot of time, effort, and money invested in them and who are, therefore, attractive to employers who pay more and provide genuinely better working conditions in nicer places.
I got a taste of that during the two Police helicopter trials that I flew; we went in for our ten-hour shifts, and I checked weather, planned each of the three two-hour patrols per shift, and flew them. The environments were challenging, but that was fine. The money was pretty good - $325.00 per shift in 1999 and 2000. No nitnoid secondary duties was delightful beyond imagination.
I have no faith that any of the measures that will be implemented will have any positive effect. I have no faith that anybody in a position to really change anything actually understands - or maybe can understand - the reasons why people leave when they do. I have no faith that the government would permit any potentially effective measures to be implemented, even if the CF endorsed them, mainly due to cost (and "precedent"), even if the cost was lower than the cost of the cumulative lost investments. I have no faith that the investments put into people are seen as investments.
"Our people are our biggest asset" is easy to say. Acting as if that was taken seriously...?
- Reaction score
- 290
- Points
- 980
A couple more suggestions:
Instead of one huge, heavily-taxed lump with an attached multi-year set of manacles and legirons, offer annual, renewable amounts that would be paid out as an allowance with one's regular pay. This would reduce the likelihood of somebody being scrwed by posting, reduce the taxation loss, and might become addictive. It should also reduce the double whammy of losing one's aircrew allowance when being posted to an undesirable ground job. It would be scalable, of course, based upon the recipient's experience level, and should probably be boosted each anniversary.
Make a real effort to provide useful and satisfying employment to dependents in isolated environments. That was done for dependents in Germany - there were teachers, medical people, secretaries, and others with useful skills, and many were employed in the Canex (which was a huge operation there) and in security functions (initially gate pass-checkers, but were actually armed with pistols in the final few years). That may be happening now in places like Cold Lake, but I do not know. Provincial licences, for dependents who hold such, should be made transferrable between provinces as well.
Instead of one huge, heavily-taxed lump with an attached multi-year set of manacles and legirons, offer annual, renewable amounts that would be paid out as an allowance with one's regular pay. This would reduce the likelihood of somebody being scrwed by posting, reduce the taxation loss, and might become addictive. It should also reduce the double whammy of losing one's aircrew allowance when being posted to an undesirable ground job. It would be scalable, of course, based upon the recipient's experience level, and should probably be boosted each anniversary.
Make a real effort to provide useful and satisfying employment to dependents in isolated environments. That was done for dependents in Germany - there were teachers, medical people, secretaries, and others with useful skills, and many were employed in the Canex (which was a huge operation there) and in security functions (initially gate pass-checkers, but were actually armed with pistols in the final few years). That may be happening now in places like Cold Lake, but I do not know. Provincial licences, for dependents who hold such, should be made transferrable between provinces as well.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
Ha ha. Typo got meChief Engineer said:
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
- Reaction score
- 1,534
- Points
- 1,140
Remius said:
Here’s a mind-blowing idea: why not allow people to draw a pension AND keep working in their position in the Reg Force? Instead, people draw a pension, CAF loses the experience and people make 1.5X their CAF salary.
- Reaction score
- 5,617
- Points
- 1,360
And fresh new young blood can get a job.....the way it should be.
Blackadder1916
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 2,175
- Points
- 1,160
Loachman said:
The arming of the civilian security guards in CFE didn't last long. Due to increasing terrorist threat they were issued pistols (depending on their job) beginning in 1987 and then in 1990 (or maybe 1991) the weapons were withdrawn after a few incidents of unsafe handling; one in particular being an armed stand-off between two guards with drawn weapons in the gatehouse at the airfield having a heated dispute about adulterous relationships with spouses.
https://www.cmpa-apmc.org/uploads/7/1/9/7/71970193/gate-guard-pistol-cropped-small_orig.jpg (there is no suggestion that the individual in the photo had any involvement in such unsafe handling episodes and simply provided as an illustration of the arming of civilian guards)
- Reaction score
- 1,534
- Points
- 1,140
Bruce Monkhouse said:
We have an experience problem (and it will get worse as the Baby Boomers are forced to retirement) and you want to have an influx of new people? Our experience/new ratio is 1:2.5 now when it should be 2:1. You want more experienced people to get out to be replaced by innexperience?!
We're setting up initiatives to bring those experienced people back in. This would be a good way to keep people in and bring some back in at 0 cost to DND or the government. In fact, we would save on the training bill.
- Reaction score
- 290
- Points
- 980
Bruce Monkhouse said:
No, it can't. It takes seven plus years to get somebody through RMC and the flying training programme, and then several years on Squadron to become useful, and then a few more years to qualify as a Flight Commander, more to become a Squadron Operations Officer, several courses of various duration. Those are the people that we are losing.
Time, effort, and many hours of expensive flight time are required. Driving them out wastes all of that. Squadrons cannot function adequately on "young blood" alone.
And inexperience often leads to tragic and even more expensive consequences.
I've seen that before, too many times. And I was almost one, myself.
No civilian company could survive by what we are currently doing. We might not, either.
- Reaction score
- 290
- Points
- 980
Blackadder1916 said:
The soldiers went back into the steel guard boxes for a bit in early 1988, I think it was, when a couple of disgruntled Amoured guys cut a hole in the external fence from the inside and blew up and burnt some of their own vehicles and a load of full jerry cans, then vanished again once it was realized that the fence hole was just a diversion.
None of us thought that arming senior daughters was a good idea. Would they shoot when they should? Would they shoot when they shouldn't? And nobody was covering them when they stuck their heads in through car windows to check I cards in the back seat.
The SIU commander told me once that nobody would crash the gate anyway. They'd have complete uniforms, from any NATO nation, gathered piece-by-piece, over many years, along with I cards.
But the Security Guard course that Commissionaires take is done online within a thirty-day limit, followed by a course test, a provincial test, and an online licence application, and no armament is carried.
SupersonicMax said:
I think the RCMP reserve program is somewhat similar to what you are proposing. Retired officers can serve three year contracts and still draw their pensions. The difference is that the RCMP has a cap on how many reserve officers it can employ and they use them where they need them, ie isolated posts and hard to fill postings. I am not 100% sure about the inn and outs though so I am happy to be corrected.
- Reaction score
- 1,380
- Points
- 1,260
Remius said:
Looks like they expanded the "cap" on part-timers.
"Hard to fill postings" are not unique to the RCMP. That's where members with low seniority get sent. Most are happy just to be on the job.
So, if you retire from the RCMP, you are not guaranteed a part-time job. They could choose a retired member from another service ahead of you.
I can't imagine the Toronto Police Association ever allowing retired RCMP officers in as part-timers. Or, even their own retired members for that matter.
- Reaction score
- 1,534
- Points
- 1,140
Remius said:
Except with what I propose, you’d serve in the Ref Force vs the Res Force.
- Reaction score
- 1,658
- Points
- 1,190
Loachman said:
Just what jobs are people getting out for? I'm honestly curious. I talked about getting out with my wife so that we could have some more stability, but financial it just made no sense.
Between the pay, the pension, the medical and dental benefits, the 7 weeks of vacation a year (that only counting stat holidays and short days at Christmas. all other stats and short days just add to this 7 weeks), we could not come up with any other job that I would be eligible for that would come anywhere close to comparing to the pay and benefit package that the CAF offers.
So, if you guys have any examples of jobs for which people left the CAF, and who provided comparable, or better, compensation... feel free to let me know!
SupersonicMax said:
Most annuitants at the time were for all intents and purposes serving in Reg force establishments and contributed very little to the actual reserve force. Even though they were technically reservists.
So under your proposal would those same people be ok with being posted where they were needed most? A lot of people I know got out, not because of pay, it was lifestyle and where they were going to be posted next. if they can take their pension and make more civy side and live a better lifestyle why would they opt for that?
Similar threads
