Transporter said:
I think this thread was initially started more as a discussion of concern for the gradual erosion of the benefits/entitlements/remuneration that we already have, or had, versus a b**** session for wanting more... or that's how I saw it at least. Personally, I'd be happy just to have back the things that we've already lost and to not lose any more (or have any more contribution/payment increases). I'm not advocating for more, just no less.
Forget fighting over spec pay, here's what we should all be very, very concerned about. And the real disturbing thing is, as usual, we will have no say or input in the process, and will end up being handed whatever the PS unions can manage to salvage (and I don't mean that as a disparaging comment towards PS unions).
http://www.canada.com/News/canada/Government+seeks+funding+policy+pensions+with+funds/10106938/story.html
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Government seeks funding policy for pensions with no funds
By Kathryn May, Ottawa Citizen August 10, 2014
The Conservative government is developing a funding policy for the pension plans of Canada’s public servants, military and RCMP, a move that baffles experts because the plans have no real funds and own no assets.
A funding policy typically sets the framework for how to cope with risk and manage any gains and losses by adjusting the contributions paid into pension plans.
But the policy, to be crafted by consultants, would cover years of pensionable service in accounts that are nothing more than ledger records with no real assets. Pension benefits are guaranteed by law and paid from government’s main bank account — the consolidated revenue fund.
Pension expert Malcolm Hamilton said he’s puzzled why the government is charging ahead with a funding policy for the “least funded parts” of its unfunded pension plans.
“Funding is about setting money aside to pay benefits and they don’t pay benefits from those accounts, so why do they need a funding policy?” he added.
“What, if anything, does it mean to fund a pension plan that, by the government’s own admission, has no fund in which assets are held and from which benefits are paid? Beats me. This might make sense if the government was proposing to change the way its handles the pension funds but there’s no suggestion that is the case.”
The public service pension plans are like no other. They aren’t governed by the Pension Benefits Standards Act, the assets aren’t in trust or managed by a trustee, and there is no segregated pension fund owned by the plan in which pension assets are held and invested and from which pension benefits are paid to retirees.
Treasury Board is hiring consultants to come up with a “funding policy,” as recommended by Auditor-General Michael Ferguson in his recent report on the sustainability of the three plans. Bidders have until Tuesday to submit proposals for the two-phase project, which must be completed six months.
The policy is being specifically drafted for the public service pension plan but it must be “flexible enough” to be adapted for the other plans. Consultants will provide a research report, followed by a second phase of weekly consultations on proposals developed for the final policy.
A funding policy sets the framework for funding a defined benefit pension plan, including factors such as workforce demographics, stability and affordability of contributions, and the handling of surpluses or deficits. It takes into account the employer’s — in this case the government’s — financial position and risk tolerance.
Without a policy, Ferguson said the Public Sector Pension Investment Board, which manages the plans’ assets, is forced to make assumptions about the government’s tolerance for risk and funding preferences when targeting rates of return in its investment strategy.
The bid documents, however, indicate the funding policy is for the pension assets and liabilities accrued before 2000, which aren’t managed by the investment board. All the pensionable service built up before 2000 is considered unfunded.
Treasury Board officials offered no explanation on why the policy is for the pre-2000 plan other than it would “provide additional guidance” for funding and financing decisions while also “strengthening” its guidance to the investment board on investment strategies and risk management.
Hamilton, the pension expert, said a funding policy also won’t resolve the major problems critics have with the way the government records the cost of the plans on the books.
The C.D. Howe Institute has long argued the plans are not fully funded and the government is grossly understating the size of Canada’s debt and deficit — and how much it pays thousands of bureaucrats, military and RCMP.
It argues the government should adopt “fair-value” accounting like the private sector, which uses current market prices to value assets and liabilities as a means to ensure plans are fully funded in the event they are liquidated or wound down.
The timing of the proposal has also raised eyebrows, particularly among unions locked in a testy round of collective bargaining with the government over its plan to replace the existing sick leave regime with a new short-term disability plan.
Ian Lee, a professor at Carleton University’s Sprott School of Business, said the project, which includes a sweeping report on the latest trends and best practices in the pension industry, will set the stage for Conservatives to make compensation reform, including a pension overhaul, a campaign promise in the 2015 election.
“I think this report is the first step in that journey,” he said. “They will run as the party with the courage, conviction and ability to reform the largest employer in Canada by modernizing its sick leave, pay, benefits and pensions. These are fundamental changes and they will seek a mandate from Canadians to do it.“
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
) ect ect ect. 
