Topic: "Double Dippers" Mega Thread

[Colin P]

Shortage of Instructors is a Force wide problem.  Perhaps the TOP should come up with a plan for experienced Instructors leaving the CF to have an option of becoming "Double Dippers" and stay in uniform as Reservists.  They can even keep their hatbadges, as they would be in the Schools, or perhaps still in their Regiments, as Training Cadre on PRL.  That would mean that no Reserve Unit would be responsible for their administration, even though they were Reservists.  They could beef up the Regular Force Trg system as well as open up opportunities to run crses for the Reserves.

.....But we know that will never happen......eh!  They would rather become Civvies and work for Calian or GD Land Systems.

George I think a lot of people would take part in such a scheme. It would mean that much of that hard learned lessons could be passed on to the next generation. It would be a good place for some of the wounded who can no longer serve, but want to. Perhaps some of the money to pay them could come from a pot outside of DND?

We had some old WO who served in Korea when i joined, they were the wise grandads of the unit passing on wisdom and stopping young officers and NCO's from making asses of themselves.

[MCG]

I'm not too sure that I agree this would be such a great idea.  I do think the Army likes to invent wonderful ways to resolve manpower shortages, and then these ways come back and start poaching from the limited manpower pool that we were try to protect or make-up for.

There already is a healthy flow of regular force into double-dipper career Class B.  If we were to start pro-actively recruiting from the regular force, then we would start drawing people.  Think about it, you can make more money drawing a pension & still working in uniform, you get to pick your job, and you are never posted again (unless you search-out & ask for it).  Unfortunately, the net gain in manpower would be zero while at the same time we would be loosing significant flexibility to post people where they are needed.

Rather than recruit for double-dipping, we should improve regular force retention. 

... and if we are not actively recruiting but rather mentioning the option with a list of current employment opportunities during a members release .... well, already do that kind of thing.

[dapaterson]

What we do poorly if at all is encourage retiring Reg F to look for part-time service with units.  Bringing that knowledge back to units could be a treasure trove; when I made a quick and dirty staff check a few years ago the number of Reg F joining units part time was about equal to the number going on to double-dip.

The double-dip, as we do it now, is also problematic if you take a legalistic view of the National Defence Act.  Hiring folks for three years full-time is Reg Force if they're brought in on a BE; why would another three year period not be Reg F?  "Continuing full-time service" is the legal definition of the Reg F; if WO Bloggins transfers to the P Res in Gagetown to work there full-time for six years as a Reservist, isn't that continuing full-time service?

The rules are already being strained and stretched by our interpretations; if we're not careful we may break the whole system.

[TCBF]

- It isn't full time service because there is a 'statutory' break after each eleven months.

- Right now, Canada is operating under the benefits of partial mobilization. Would the politicians be willing to scale back our international commitments to stop this? I doubt it.

[Haggis]

There is considerable concern "at the TOP" about the continued and uncontrolled Class B growth (particularly in HQs) and the longer term effects of this.  It's definitely on the radar.

[dapaterson]

- It isn't full time service because there is a 'statutory' break after each eleven months.

Regulatory, not statutory.  And as Reg F members can take leave without pay and remain enrolled in the Reg F, hardly convincing.  We're clearly playing games within the NDA - and sometime, we'll get caught.  (Question:  If an Act of Parliament deems a Reserve Force member to be a Regular Force member, what are they?)

- Right now, Canada is operating under the benefits of partial mobilization. Would the politicians be willing to scale back our international commitments to stop this? I doubt it.

We could easily sustain current deployments with about half the pers - and do a better job to boot. There's just a lack of will in the pers mgt side fo the Army to consider anything except the method we've used since Cyprus.  With a Reg F Army of 20K keeping 2500 in the field indefinitely should not be a problem.

[Colin P]

I was thinking more of people with specialist knowledge, senior NCO’s/Officers with wounds making them undeployable or retiring members with years of experience. It is a way to assist in the passing of knowledge to the next generation of soldiers. In recent years the military has gained a vast reservoir of experience, knowledge and lessons learned. However the reservoir will drain fairly quickly and you want to be able to pass it on to the maximum number of people possible in the timeframe that you have. The program could have a sunset clause requiring a review in 10 years to determine whether it is still needed. It could also be a mix of some people working fulltime and others part-time depending on the various needs and skill sets.   

[Dennis Ruhl]

I'm not sure how it works today but years ago some militia colonels were very reluctant to have people do Class B or C service outside the unit.  Typically they never saw them again.  I remember one captain who transferred to an English Montreal unit to take a job 50 miles from his former home unit in the west.  The Montreal unit must have wanted any numbers while the western unit wanted soldiers working in the unit.  Overseas postings were encouraged but half of those were never seen again.

[NFLD Sapper]

I'm not sure how it works today but years ago some militia colonels were very reluctant to have people do Class B or C service outside the unit.  Typically they never saw them again.  I remember one captain who transferred to an English Montreal unit to take a job 50 miles from his former home unit in the west.  The Montreal unit must have wanted any numbers while the western unit wanted soldiers working in the unit.  Overseas postings were encouraged but half of those were never seen again.

Things have changed, I spend more time away from my unit than at it.

[George Wallace]

If you are not parading at your Home Unit, while on Class B or C, then you should opt for the option of going PRL and be administered by the establishment that is employing you.  This way your Unit does not have a Posn Number tied up by a person who is not there, and they can recruit to fill those vacant posns.

Double Dippers don't have to belong to a Reserve Regt.  They can still keep their Regimental Affiliation on PRL.  As a Reservist, they can fill a spot in an organization, freeing up a Regular Force person for deployments.  This is an ideal situation for a Annuitant, who now has settled down and doesn't want to be Posted again, at the same time, if they want to volunteer for a Deployment, they are easily accessible.

The only drawbacks with Annuitants, as dapaterson points out, are the Rules and Regulations dictating they can not work more than 360 days a year.  They can plan a 35 day Unpaid Leave of Absence and collect EI, or break that 35 days up into smaller chunks (and perhaps not be eligible to collect EI).  It is manageable if one so wishes.

[NFLD Sapper]

If you are not parading at your Home Unit, while on Class B or C, then you should opt for the option of going PRL and be administered by the establishment that is employing you.  This way your Unit does not have a Posn Number tied up by a person who is not there, and they can recruit to fill those vacant posns.

Good idea George but my position number is one that can't be filled by joe recruit.....

[Eye In The Sky]

Good idea George but my position number is one that can't be filled by joe recruit.....

BUT your unit could train/promote somone into that position.  The "domino effect" could mean the unit would be able to recruit 1 new Spr when all is said and done (if they are already at 100% of the ARE establishment for your unit).

[3VP Highlander]

...

[LGen Leslie] identified that 9,000 reservists are employed full time, and that 50 per cent should be demobilized to return to their former part-time service with their reserve units. Cost savings could also come from reducing the number of military and civilian personnel by 3,500 each and reinvesting the funds elsewhere.

...

   My question ref the above is "How many of the above 9,000 reservists employed full time are actually annuitants who are double dipping?"  How many have a unit to go to?  I honestly believe that annuitants should be released or re-enrolled in the Forces.  Too many are taking advantage of a system which grants them a 35 day break, 22 days leave per year. 

    Finally, how many of these individuals just left their full time job and came back the next day as a "so called reservist".  It is my understanding that we have over 200 LCols / Cols who are back as reservists. 



[Edit to insert quote prior to thread split]

[D3]

The problem with getting rid of the double dippers is who will be picking up the work that they are doing.  If the answer is nobody, we have a problem.  Reducing he size of HQs without changing the processes that necessitated the larger establishments will just bring everything to a stand still.

We always talk about the lack of Project Management resources to push the capital program forward, however this could be also done by making the process more manageable and responsive.  While some of these processes are not internal to DND and are mandated by other government entities (Treasury Board, Industry Canada) we have many internal hoops that we jump though that could be streamlined.  While the current trend is towards downsizing, the "process monster" is still getting bigger.  Internal changes to the capital project approval process made this summer will add an additional 2-4 months to getting a Ministerial level project (one that does not have to go outside of DND for approval) approved.

We are about to get the worst of both worlds: more cumbersome processes and less staff that can work through them.  The cynic in me thinks that we are doing this to our selves on purpose, to effectively cutting the budget without actually cutting it.

[Michael O'Leary]

The problem with getting rid of the double dippers is who will be picking up the work that they are doing. If the answer is nobody, we have a problem.  Reducing he size of HQs without changing the processes that necessitated the larger establishments will just bring everything to a stand still.

There is the question no-one has been addressing. Even after rationalizing processes, assuming the bureaucracy is capable of that form of self-mutilation, we come back to the highlighted question.

Pick whatever pony you want to ride for who you don't think should be in those headquarters. Want to get rid of the double-dippers, the bad-back bad-knees brigade, the over 50s? Who steps up to fill the empty cubicles that are still required jobs? The resulting effect is that we pull people out of line unit jobs even faster, first to fill the holes, and then to maintain the increased attrition because we have shortened everyones' potential career by limiting who can push paper in the back ground for us.

[George Wallace]

   My question ref the above is "How many of the above 9,000 reservists employed full time are actually annuitants who are double dipping?"  How many have a unit to go to?  I honestly believe that annuitants should be released or re-enrolled in the Forces.  Too many are taking advantage of a system which grants them a 35 day break, 22 days leave per year. 

    Finally, how many of these individuals just left their full time job and came back the next day as a "so called reservist".  It is my understanding that we have over 200 LCols / Cols who are back as reservists.

I was one of those "Double Dippers" and hope to be again before I reach the latest CRA.  I was Released at the end of a five year CE.  No option to stay in.   I can still serve in the Reserves and pass on my experience and knowledge to others. 

Many Double Dippers realize that they are not 18 anymore, but can still fill a valued function within the CF or DND.  They have the proven loyalty, often the required Security Clearances, the knowledge of how the CF works, and most importantly "experience".  Hiring Civilians as Civil Servants or Consultants, who have no CF experience, does not provide you those qualifications.

If I had not joined the Reserves, but had joined as a Civil Servant, would you have been happier?




As for those LCols and other officers, I do feel your pain on that matter.   You will have to admit though, if you had the opportunity later in your life, would you not also become a "Double Dipper"

[The Anti-Royal]

  My question ref the above is "How many of the above 9,000 reservists employed full time are actually annuitants who are double dipping?"  How many have a unit to go to?  I honestly believe that annuitants should be released or re-enrolled in the Forces.  Too many are taking advantage of a system which grants them a 35 day break, 22 days leave per year.

I spent 28 of my 30 years of service as a Reg F officer.  With my qualifications and experience I'm as valuable as my Reg F peers at my rank, and the CF gets me at 85% of the salary I was being paid a year ago.  So that makes me a bargain, right?

My pension does not come from the CF operations and maintenance or pay envelopes.

And the 35-day break that you seem to equate with leave, isn't.  It's better known as unemployment.

[Crantor]

I've always had an issue with the 85%.  Despite doing the same work you get paid less.

However I have seen first hand what the lure of double dipping can do.  I know several people who had their 20 or 25, were being posted and opted out for a reserve class b.  I think that retention is an issue and double dipping does nothing to help that.

[dapaterson]

I've always had an issue with the 85%.  Despite doing the same work you get paid less.

However I have seen first hand what the lure of double dipping can do.  I know several people who had their 20 or 25, were being posted and opted out for a reserve class b.  I think that retention is an issue and double dipping does nothing to help that.

Double edged sword, though: did the ability to double dip keep them in the family, where otherwise they would have left at 20 or 25 anyways?

That being said, our departmental accouting is horrific, in that anyone working class B has their pay deemed to be an expense in support of the Reserves.  Thus grossly inflating the cost of the Reserves.

[Staff Weenie]

I am not sure how well we could continue to provide services if we were to eliminate the double-dippers. While I am sure that there's a few on this site who could provide better info, I have been told that a double-dipping PA or GDMO still makes less than what they could in a pure civilian position. They stay because they like the work, they like the CF, and they like the hours.

I've had a number of PA tell me over the years that they would go elsewhere if the practice was stopped. Hiring them back as Calian employees would not be cheaper.

As for the report of 9,000 Cl B in the CF - I'm not sure it's accurate info at all. How many Res F members are there in total in the CF - about 45,000 or less? Does anybody really believe that 20% of the Res F is currently on Cl B? Looking at my troops in my unit, I know it's not true. I think there was significant double-counting of positions.

[Jim Seggie]

I'm a double dipper and so is my OC.

These positions may not have been filled if PRes had not been available...or double dippers were excluded.

[dapaterson]

As for the report of 9,000 Cl B in the CF - I'm not sure it's accurate info at all. How many Res F members are there in total in the CF - about 45,000 or less? Does anybody really believe that 20% of the Res F is currently on Cl B? Looking at my troops in my unit, I know it's not true. I think there was significant double-counting of positions.

The number was of full-time pers; it therefore includes class C.  The number is entirely plausible; before the full-on bow wave hit the Army was averaging over 4K on full-time service in a given month.  Some were for short-term periods, but there were many being hired on for a year or longer.  Add to that 1K on the NDHQ PRL, 2K in the Air Reserve, and another 1.5K in the NavRes (or is it the RCNVR?) and you're up to 8.5K - before considering the HS Reserve or any of the other organizations that employ full-time Reservists.

[Haggis]

The number was of full-time pers; it therefore includes class C.  The number is entirely plausible; before the full-on bow wave hit the Army was averaging over 4K on full-time service in a given month.  Some were for short-term periods, but there were many being hired on for a year or longer.  Add to that 1K on the NDHQ PRL, 2K in the Air Reserve, and another 1.5K in the NavRes (or is it the RCNVR?) and you're up to 8.5K - before considering the HS Reserve or any of the other organizations that employ full-time Reservists.

If the double dipper sword is swung too blindly or broadly, the impact on the RCAF and RCN Reserves will be far more drastic than anything the Army Reserve will suffer.

[dapaterson]

There is no RCAF Reserve.  There is a holding organization for full-time personnel in the Reserve component.  A "reserve" implies a group that is uncommitted and able to be used to reinforce to meet a commander's plan.

The RCN has assigned continuing full-time tasks to the Reserve component.  This has lead to the creation of de facto two groups in the RCN reserve: the full-time sailors on the MCDVs and the part-time sailors at the stone frigates across the country.  The tensions between those groups are not being well managed.

The CA is probably in the worst place - they permtited wholesale growth of full-time positions inthe absence of any solid plan - anyone with a fin code could and did hire full0-time personnel, without a strong central vision or priorities.


Note that this is not a critique of any individuals.  The organizations have decided to fill gaps and holes with full-time military pers, rather than, at any time, stand up and say that they had been assigned tasks without adequate resoruces to accomplish them.

[Pusser]

I really wish people would stop using the term"double-dipping" in reference to ex-Regular Force annuitants now serving in Reserve positions.  It is not correct and frankly, insulting.  To "double-dip" is to receive two salaries for the same work and is a reprehensible practice.  This is not what ex-Regular Force annuitants are doing when they serve in a Reserve capacity.

To receive an annuity under the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act (CFSA), you must serve for specified period of time and pay into the plan.  When you leave, you receive an annuity that you have earned and paid for.  The fact that you continue to serve the Crown in another component of the CF is irrelevant.  As a Reservist you now receive a salary for what you are currently doing, but your annuity is for what you have done.  These are two different things and so two different payments are warranted and reasonable.  No one would accuse an annuitant who went to work for IBM of double-dipping, so why do they accuse annuitants of it when they join the Reserve?

The only real question is whether these full time Reserve positions should exist in the first place.