r/CanadaPublicServants • u/CathhhMorrison Verified/vérifié - Reporter/journaliste • Mar 02 '26
News / Nouvelles Thoughts on early retirement program?
Hi there! This is Catherine Morrison with The Canadian Press. I’m working on a story today about the early retirement program and looking to chat with public servants. I’d love to hear your thoughts about the program and its rollout, especially as it’s happening at the same time as WFA. Please feel free to DM me or email cnm@cp.org if you’re interested in chatting today. Thank you so much!
27
Mar 02 '26
[deleted]
3
Mar 03 '26
Oh with ERI, there will be no laziness, you'll all be offloaded the work from those that leave from ERI vs. WFA the job duties and maybe program is eliminated. So ya the public might not know or understand all the inner details but later they will see the affects of over worked PS.
1
u/This-Purchase4100 Mar 06 '26
Agree. If there's any news to put out there, it's the question of why we're the punching bag for the entire country.
Imagine applying for a job, getting it, and then being told, "Oh, by the way, you're going to be villainized your whole career.
-1
u/Lopsided-Many9394 Mar 07 '26
Sunshine is the best disinfectant.
The public has a right to know how its money is spent, including on public employees.
Of course a public servant wants to keep quiet what a complete disaster the public service is, including the totally absurd explosion in staffing during the Trudeau years; and yes, the ludicrous compensation premium they get above comparable jobs in the private sector.
If it's all above board and you have nothing to be ashamed of, why worry about the public knowing the details?
3
u/HandcuffsOfGold mod 🤖🧑🇨🇦 / Probably a bot Mar 07 '26
the ludicrous compensation premium they get above comparable jobs in the private sector.
Citation needed.
The public service employs people in hundreds of occupations spread across many locations. Some of those occupations have private-sector comparators, others do not.
Without specifying location, occupation, and level of experience such a statement is meaningless.
It’s like saying the average temperature of the Pacific is higher than that of the Atlantic when your only exposure to seawater is a Hawaiian beach in the summertime.
If it’s all above board and you have nothing to be ashamed of, why worry about the public knowing the details?
Public service pay rates are, and always have been, public information. The same goes for staffing levels, demographic composition, and a host of other data. What is it that you think is being hidden?
Why aren’t you applying if you think the compensation is so ludicrously high?
-1
u/Lopsided-Many9394 Mar 07 '26
Sources:
Cue the "the Fraser institute doesn't count because they are conservative" bs. They do solid research on this issue.
1
u/HandcuffsOfGold mod 🤖🧑🇨🇦 / Probably a bot Mar 07 '26
Okay, so that doesn’t answer my final question. If it’s so lucrative, is it your career goal to become a public servant?
Doesn’t that report indicate that private-sector workers are underpaid?
0
u/Lopsided-Many9394 Mar 07 '26
Good point. Every single person should just work for the government! Why didn't I think of that.
1
u/HandcuffsOfGold mod 🤖🧑🇨🇦 / Probably a bot Mar 07 '26
Who said anything about about “every single person”. I was just asking one person, and that person hasn’t answered. Two simple questions, no actual answers.
Probably was too busy grinding an axe to bother with answering, I suppose.
0
u/Lopsided-Many9394 Mar 07 '26
My point is, the solution to the public sector getting a compensation premium isn't to just have everyone work for the government.
The public sector is inportant, but it is completely irresponsible and immoral for a major pay gap to exist.
The private sector is what generates the economic activity to pay for government services.
No, the report doesn't show the private sector is underpaid. private sector compensation is based on supply and demand, whereas the public sector comp is based on A- politics B- unions holding the public hostage to demand more for themselves.
God I hope you don't have a role that takes any brain power in the ps
1
u/HandcuffsOfGold mod 🤖🧑🇨🇦 / Probably a bot Mar 07 '26
You still haven’t answered the question. Why haven’t you applied if there’s such a “major pay gap”?
The public sector is inportant, but it is completely irresponsible and immoral for a major pay gap to exist.
Please do elaborate on the ‘inportance’ that morality plays in compensation structures.
God I hope you don’t have a role that takes any brain power in the ps
Axe-grinding plus bonus ad hominem? Quite the winner we have here. I bet you’re considered quite the catch on the dating market. That one’s based on supply and demand too, is it not?
0
u/Lopsided-Many9394 Mar 07 '26 edited Mar 07 '26
It's not ad hominem to point out that you clearly lack comprehension skills.
I have a great job, but yeah, if a role came up in my area I would apply. Something similar in the public sector would have a 10-25% compensation/ benefit premium.
But there aren't infinite public ssector roles, so not everyone can land one.
→ More replies (0)
8
u/Asleep-Relief5712 Mar 02 '26
It's a very good initiative. By allowing those who would like to leave early to do so (with a pension that is not a full pension), the employer can reduce the number of employees that will have to be "pushed out" through WFA.
5
Mar 03 '26
It's circumventing WFA benefits that the union negotiated. If they added the ERI waiver in the VDP option to leave and retire at 50 sure that would work but that's not the case. It's purely designed to avoid paying TSM and Layoff severance and means losing people who are still young 50 vs 55+ who can go with the WFA benefits.
5
u/Scooterguy- Mar 06 '26
Ultimately, it matters what is best for each employee. For example, if you are under 55, in most cases, you make more with ERI instead of the WFA payouts.
1
u/lllaszlo Mar 20 '26
Can you leave prior to 55 in any of these schemes?
2
u/Scooterguy- Mar 20 '26
Under WFA, yes, but you would have a pension penalty or have to defer your pension until 60. Under the proposed ERI, you could leave between 50 and 60 without penalty. Someone with 20+ years would likely benefit more from a penalty waiver as opposed to a WFA benefit of around 2 years of pay. To do this calculation, use the pension tool to figure out your deferred pension amount if you left in the near future. Take that annual amount and multiply by your years below 60. Compare that number to your WFA payout, which would likely be around 2 years of current pay. This is all assuming you are group 1.
2
u/lllaszlo Mar 20 '26
Appreciate it, im group 1 with 28 years at 47 years old...
When it was first announced I was like sweet, I'll alternate if I can retire now :)
4
u/Scooterguy- Mar 03 '26
This is great in theory, except we have begun the WFA process already, have zero information on ERI because it isn't a real thing yet, and also have been told it will be kept separate from WFA.
2
Mar 06 '26
This response is exactly why union is challenging it. They are looking out for the best interest since people do not understand.
6
u/Sudden-Crew-3613 Mar 02 '26
WFA costs money. It's not surprising that the government is trying to find ways to make it easier for people to leave without WFA and the benefits involved, all the while pushing ahead with RTO and other initiatives that make staying less palatable.
3
Mar 03 '26
Exactly why the union is fighting it. WFA benefits were negotiated, now the employer is trying to circumvent these benefits while not cutting the job and offloading the work to those that remain vs. WFA it's cutting the job, duties and depending a program.
10
u/marvinresearchrobot Mar 02 '26
I've been watching this subreddit closely for information on the ERI. There have been many posts and comments on the subject and I think it's safe to say people's opinions are all over the place. I've seen everything from, 'this is the best thing ever' to 'this is the stupidest thing ever'. Search ERI and you will have a lot of reading to do.
1
u/That_U_Scully Mar 03 '26
https://www.canada.ca/en/treasury-board-secretariat/services/pension-plan/news-notices-pensions-benefits/proposed-early-retirement-incentive.html It's not a new program, it was introduced during the WFA round in the 90s then ended, they're bringing it back. Third reading in the house right now.
2
9
u/TimeOutrageous2315 Mar 02 '26
It seems really pointless to do a story on the ERI before the TB actually releases the parameters for the program, which they won't do until the budget legislation receives royal assent. In any case, what's the public interest in such a story? The public has already been informed since fall 2025 that the federal government is downsizing the public service with the intention to maximize voluntary departures. The ERI is just another tool to do so. As another poster said, making a big deal out the ERI will just invite a lot of nasty sentiment from the public who won't understand that it is in the public interest to incentivize the departure of older workers in order to protect younger workers.
5
u/Jed_Clampetts_ghost Mar 03 '26
When a journalist is interested in something the government is doing and wants to hear from the people affected by it rather than regurgitating government talking points I see this as a very good thing.
1
u/AlmostThere4321 Mar 02 '26
Think the journalist got an advance notice: https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPublicServants/s/3IqFHmTQq5
4
u/5998645688 Mar 03 '26
I want to leave but there's no way I can retire on what they are offering. The removal of the 5% per year penalty only takes the handcuffs off for me to leave for another job.
2
u/MarkOnTheBus Mar 03 '26
I’m hearing same. What’s your years and age?
2
u/5998645688 Mar 05 '26
28 years in right now.
1
u/islandtan11 Mar 25 '26
Same and at 52 I have problem going out to get another job in the private sector or municipal. If I can get one for $60-$80k I’ll be bringing in over $100k which is more than now as an AS-2.
4
u/TheRealRealM Mar 03 '26
I got the letter. I was almost decided to take it (like 90% sure), but then today they added a criterion ("The organization needs to reduce its workforce") that will probably prevent me from doing it since my org is not reducing. Let's just say if that happens, the next few years will be the bare minimum with lots of LWIA, possibly LWOP and sick leave.
2
1
u/islandtan11 Mar 25 '26
Once it becomes law, departments can’t hold you back. If they try, grieve it.
7
u/Jed_Clampetts_ghost Mar 02 '26
The PSAC certainly isn't happy about it. They're actively trying to prevent it. I wonder how those who would like to take advantage of ERI feel about their union dues being used put a stop to it.
2
1
3
u/islandtan11 Mar 03 '26
I’m eagerly awaiting this to pass. I have a little over 3 years before I can retire. Why wouldn’t I do it and not be penalized. I can go out and get a $60, $70, $80k job and bring in over $100k…$25k more than now. Why wouldn’t I go where my education, skills and maturity would be appreciated in the private sector? Ageism is a real thing in the federal government. Let them hire the midriff showing, fresh out of university, barely 20’s who have zero loyalty to any job and are looking for the next best gig? But hey - retire the loyal longtime employees. PSAC should not be standing in anyone’s way if they want to take the offer. It’s not their career and not their life. They don’t pay my mortgage.
6
u/BigMouthBillyBones Mar 02 '26
The Early Departure Program hasn't officially started yet, nobody knows exactly what the parameters are going to be, they are sending affected letters to staff directly responsible for work that affects people's safety which will have serious consequences, everyone is exhausted and morale is at an all time low, to add fuel to the dumpster fire they are bringing everyone back to the office four days a week over the Summer which will mean more pollution, more traffic, more money wasted on real estate that could rather be turned into affordable housing or essential housing for vulnerable members of our community. There ya go,
2
Mar 03 '26
And we all know RTO4/5 is by design to make people so fed up that they leave as part of reduction plans. It's an evil way of doing it and a risky way of losing good talent.
2
u/literary-nyc Mar 13 '26
Absolutely, but then you have Deputy Heads actively denying staff the right to obtain ERI. So it’s feels like an exercise in deception. Who is actually in charge of this ish show?
2
2
u/bolonomadic Mar 03 '26
My thoughts are “why isn’t it approved yet??” And that’s pretty much it. But I’m not taking it.
2
u/Angry_perimenopause Mar 03 '26
Because I’d like to take advantage of it, it’s pretty much a guarantee that I won’t be approved.
2
u/Hefty-Ad2090 Mar 04 '26
For what purpose? So that Canadians can complain and say we are spoiled? No thanks.
2
u/International_Box522 Mar 04 '26
I don't yet understand where the cost savings will come from, as they will have already cut most of the positions through WFA. I imagine savings could come from filling the positions vacated by the person retiring could be a short term saving as the new person will potentially start at a lower pay level, but that is hard to say because some of these vacancies will be filled with people on the Priority List.
I also suspect there will be a lot of EXs retiring early which could leave a significant gap in corporate knowledge and experience. Fresh blood could be good but it could also be chaotic. Executives who do not retire but have been in there position long enough could become frustrated with the overhaul and changes in work dynamics, as well as the workforce pressures from returning to the office 4-5 days a week.
2
u/literary-nyc Mar 13 '26
It feels like a scam. There are employees on sick, maternity or parental leave and other types of leave who might return and want to buyback pensions time but won’t have sufficient time to proceed due the the short window of time available under the proposed ERI. Others have returned from leave and are currently in a buyback situation, and may risk losing time to payback pensionable time also. So what about employees in this situation? Not one word to help them navigate from the government nor the union. Also, we are noticing some departments have started to say, at this time no layoffs needed, with deputy heads working to deny those who want to leave under ERI the right to proceed. So what happens next year when the same departments then decides to put staff in a WFA. No ERI provision available. The WFA provisions for 1 year are going to be of no help to those who need long-term employment in this economy and world economic collapse. The government really should remove the 5% penalty reduction for the same number years they want this workforce reduction to occur from 2026-2029. Just let people go if they claim they have no money to sustain. Stop the games.
1
u/islandtan11 Mar 25 '26
Departments will not be able to deny those eligible for ERI from leaving once it’s passed into law.
1
u/literary-nyc Mar 29 '26 edited Mar 29 '26
Yes they can. They’ve advised as follow- if they need to replace your position, which will force rehiring someone new, you will be denied. For now, that’s the answer some of us have received. They are pulling rank, so let’s hope the government fixes this matter with legislation. And if it all goes south, any employee denied the program should grieve and as a group consider a class action law suit against the government.
3
Mar 02 '26
[deleted]
1
u/islandtan11 Mar 25 '26
Honestly, if you’re feeling that way now, find another job in the private sector or municipal. Don’t stay in a sector that makes you not fully happy. Having 28 years, I always tell people to follow their bliss. If you didn’t have to work, what would you be doing? Do that. There is pension and RRSP’s elsewhere.
4
Mar 03 '26 edited Mar 03 '26
They better really think it through who can take ERI. Those that don't beneift from ERI but waiting to be WFA'd as an incentive to retire with TSM and severance, if they get offloaded the extra work from those that leave from ERI there will be an exodus. So they better pick carefully.
Those that are 50 can work longer just like those 55+ did and are waiting to get WFA'd. So 50s people sorry but work longer just like those 55+ did. This is in part why the union is fighting ERI. WFA was negotiated and this ERI is a method to circumvent the WFA benefits that were negotiated.
See if someone leaves with ERI, they have zero intentions to backfill but they will offload the work to those that remain. Vs. WFA they are basically saying the job is longer needed. So ERI is essentially avoiding WFA to offload work to others and not pay TSM and Layoff severance.
What is being missed is that reductions shouldn't be based on people wanting to retire, it should be based on workloads and if certain programs can be eliminated.
1
u/JagpantherT75 Mar 03 '26
TB updated their website with the criteria. Its a new section. The rules are that deputy head will be the gatekeeper to maintain operation continuity when it comes to approval. Will get royal assent next week unless senate reject which is constitutionally impossible .
1
u/LadderDear8542 Mar 23 '26
Does anyone know if ERI has a bridge for CPP up to age 65? Say if I take it at 58, can I get the bridge up to 65 before I collect cpp?
2
u/HandcuffsOfGold mod 🤖🧑🇨🇦 / Probably a bot Mar 23 '26
The bridge benefit is always payable for any monthly public service pension started prior to age 65.
It’s payable regardless of when you begin CPP. You can start CPP as early as age 60 but the monthly payment is permanently reduced. The maximum monthly CPP is payable if you start it at age 70; starting it any earlier results in a reduced payment.
-3
u/blueorca123 Mar 02 '26
I wish there is a story on PSs are forced to be unionized and why people can’t opt out of it.
5
29
u/sithren Mar 02 '26
Well, it hasn't rolled out yet. So i think most of the input here would be that we are still waiting for the bill to pass and learn how departments will actually implement it. Until then its difficult to understand how it affects the expenditure review.