# Holding two full-time jobs, parental leave, and doubling up of pensions



## SilentWonder (Oct 6, 2011)

I am wondering if anyone has any comment on a possible scenario I have come up with. I am interested in comments about the legalities of it, the ethics of it, and whether or not it can be done.

Here is the scenario: I currently work in public service and therefore I have a pension plan with the government. I am going to be applying for another job in public service with a different pension plan in the future. Originally my plan was to quit my current job once hired at the other job, like any normal person would do. However, my wife and I are going to be having children and we plan to have them fairly quick one after another.

My current job allows me up to 52 weeks of unpaid parental leave per child. *HOWEVER* by law, they must maintain all benefits and also must maintain their portion of my pension. So my idea was, why quit my current job when I could just time it so that I stay there but go on parental leave for 52 weeks? If we had a child every 52 weeks, or close to it, I could be on parental leave for 3-4 years (we plan for 3 or 4 children). I could also work around it using vacation time from my other job if needed.

After doing this for 5 years, I could then quit my current job and transfer all the pensionable service to my other job. The end result would be an early retirement for me because I would have 10 years of pensionable service in a 5 year span.

I have looked into the CRA implications... the only negative I can see is I would require RRSP room for the 5 years of parental leave, because I'd still generate PA's (pension adjustments), around $8,000 each, but I have enough RRSP room and also the govt allows up to $8,000 negative for pensions.

Any thoughts?


----------



## MoneyGal (Apr 24, 2009)

I'm guessing you are male, and likely do not have any children. :chuncky:


----------



## Sampson (Apr 3, 2009)

Several comments.

Having children isn't automatic, so assuming you will magically have a child every 52 weeks is an assumption.

Second, staying home with 4 children, while sounds fantastic is beyond any sort of stress you will have probably experienced in your working life. After my 2.5 weeks at home during Christmas, I was more than happy to go BACK to work.

Third, you are exploiting your employer (and in this case, the tax payer). The assurance of employment after taking parental leave is probably meant to ensure employers do not take advantage of new or future parents. In your case, you have no intention of going back to the job, simply collecting a public benefit. In my eyes, this is ethical wrong.


----------



## GoldStone (Mar 6, 2011)

As I understand it, your plan is to double-dip into public pensions. I think it's very unethical.


----------



## HaroldCrump (Jun 10, 2009)

OMG, this is actually possible?
This is what is wrong with the public sector.
And _we_ are the ones being accused with _pension envy_.


----------



## piano mom (Jan 18, 2012)

This is pure GREED


----------



## thebomb (Feb 3, 2012)

I'm confused. Where will your income come from? As a male you would only be entitled to 17 weeks of paid parental leave through EI and even then you will still need enough hours of ensurable earnings to qualify year over year. So assuming your wife is eligible for EI and will then take maternity leave (which you as a man are not entitled to) given the fact that you cant double dip on the parental leave with your wife, I guess I am wondering how you will live with day to day expenses? Did I miss something?


----------



## jcgd (Oct 30, 2011)

Assuming it's legal, and within the benefits package I don't see what's unethical about it. The OP didn't make the rules, he/she is just playing the game.

My issue with it is that if you are a male, have you told your wife about this yet? I'm assuming no, and she will probably crack you over the head for thinking she's going to product a kid once per year. Unless she wants to do this you are asking a lot for her to get pregnant again a couple months after she delivers. Poor girl.

If you are a female, well, you've got a body of steel and this plan will likely run you into the ground. Unless you are very lucky I don't see how your body will ever recover from the abuse of having four kids in four years as well as the stress of raising four newborns in four years. Whatever floats your boat though...


----------



## bgc_fan (Apr 5, 2009)

I'm not an HR guy, but there is an issue about being on pata/mata leave and working on a second job. 
There are certain provisions where you can essentially take leave without pay and work in another department for a year or so, but I do not believe that your pension time would accumulate x2 as you are expecting.
Quite frankly, I doubt that this (essentially holding two jobs simultaneously in the public sector) can actually done, i.e. if you are taking pata/mata leave, you are not expected to be working. If you are, it is essentially fraud. This is really the wrong forum to ask, it is an HR issue that you should check with your HR department. Personally, I do not think this would fly, and it would be fairly easy to find out through the system that you are trying to hold a second public sector job.


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

bgc_fan said:


> ...Quite frankly, I doubt that this (essentially holding two jobs simultaneously in the public sector) can actually done, ...


Oh it's been done ... but when someone from the other ministry walked by the contractor sitting at his desk at his second job - questions were raised with an investigation following. In short order, the contractor was fired from both jobs as well as blacklisted.


Cheers


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Most employment contracts require you to ask permission to work for another employer. Seems to me that this would put you in breach of contract.


----------



## SilentWonder (Oct 6, 2011)

Thanks for all the replies. I will answer each one.



MoneyGal said:


> I'm guessing you are male, and likely do not have any children. :chuncky:


Yes, male, 28 years old, no children.



Sampson said:


> Several comments.
> 
> Having children isn't automatic, so assuming you will magically have a child every 52 weeks is an assumption.
> 
> ...


Yes, children isn't automatic, but for various reasons I am assuming it won't be a problem.

As for staying home with 4 children, I guess this is where some confusion happened in this thread. I won't be home with 4 children - I will be working! Remember, I will have two jobs. My plan is to take 52 weeks parental leave at ONE job, and work the other job full-time during the parental leave. As for exploiting my employer... I am not sure, and it's what I am interested in opinions on. You make a good point about no intention of returning to work, and it being potential unethical. However, there is no law requiring someone to go back to work after parental leave, and how many people across Canada every year take parental leave and EI knowing full well they won't be going back, and plan to be a stay at home mom, etc.?



GoldStone said:


> As I understand it, your plan is to double-dip into public pensions. I think it's very unethical.


I'd be paying into each one still. I would need to pay my employee portion for the parental leave pension. But I am considering the ethics of it.



HaroldCrump said:


> OMG, this is actually possible?
> This is what is wrong with the public sector.
> And _we_ are the ones being accused with _pension envy_.


It's possible, with some work though. Pensions require RRSP room. Usually RRSP room is generated by the salary you make, so it's a moot point. But since I will be buying 2 pensions with only 1 salary, it means I will be short RRSP room to the tune of around $8,000 a year. So I couldn't do this forever, unless I actually worked both jobs, or if I worked a ton of overtime at one job while on parental leave at the other, which I may do.



thebomb said:


> I'm confused. Where will your income come from? As a male you would only be entitled to 17 weeks of paid parental leave through EI and even then you will still need enough hours of ensurable earnings to qualify year over year. So assuming your wife is eligible for EI and will then take maternity leave (which you as a man are not entitled to) given the fact that you cant double dip on the parental leave with your wife, I guess I am wondering how you will live with day to day expenses? Did I miss something?


My fault for the confusion. As I mentioned above, my income will come from working 1 full-time job, while taking parental leave on the other. I won't be taking 52 weeks of parental leave for both jobs, as I need some income. I may also mix up the 52 weeks, e.g., take 26 weeks at one job, 26 weeks at the other job. I will still be earning a full-time salary. And EI... I won't be collecting it at all, my wife is going to collect the entire 52 weeks of mat leave/parental leave herself, then she will go back to work for 22 weeks required to collect EI again. So we will actually be looking at a baby every 74 weeks or so. The 22 weeks that overlap I will use up banked OT days, vacation time, etc. I will figure out a way to make it work... At least that's the plan.



jcgd said:


> Assuming it's legal, and within the benefits package I don't see what's unethical about it. The OP didn't make the rules, he/she is just playing the game.
> 
> My issue with it is that if you are a male, have you told your wife about this yet? I'm assuming no, and she will probably crack you over the head for thinking she's going to product a kid once per year. Unless she wants to do this you are asking a lot for her to get pregnant again a couple months after she delivers. Poor girl.
> 
> If you are a female, well, you've got a body of steel and this plan will likely run you into the ground. Unless you are very lucky I don't see how your body will ever recover from the abuse of having four kids in four years as well as the stress of raising four newborns in four years. Whatever floats your boat though...


Wife and I have talked about it. It's actually a baby every 70'ish weeks as said above, not 52 weeks. You are right, she would kill me. That being said, she's been told time and time again she is a baby making machine by her OBGYN (based on hips, uterus, etc.).



bgc_fan said:


> I'm not an HR guy, *but there is an issue about being on pata/mata leave and working on a second job*.
> There are certain provisions where you can essentially take leave without pay and work in another department for a year or so, but I do not believe that your pension time would accumulate x2 as you are expecting.
> Quite frankly, I doubt that this (essentially holding two jobs simultaneously in the public sector) can actually done, i.e. if you are taking pata/mata leave, you are not expected to be working. If you are, it is essentially fraud. This is really the wrong forum to ask, it is an HR issue that you should check with your HR department. Personally, I do not think this would fly, and it would be fairly easy to find out through the system that you are trying to hold a second public sector job.


This is really what I am interested in knowing. The bolded part. Do you know this for fact? The thought has crossed my mind that my employer will likely find out. But I don't see how they can get upset. For instance, my employer might say to me "We gave you parental leave to use for parental purposes, not to work another job"... but what I would tell them in reply is "I normally work 2 jobs, or 70 hours a week. I took parental leave so I could only work 35 hours a week and spend the other 35 hours taking care of my baby". Parental leave doesn't mean you can't do anything else... there is no restriction about working (except for EI, which I won't be collecting). This is definitely not fraud. And it's not an HR issue, good luck with that. I'd have zero luck from them. I don't want to raise attention to this obviously. Why? Because employers could choose to make my life difficult, or even worse the media could pick it up and make my life hell. The media loves to bash public sector workers. Even if I am doing nothing illegal, the media should spin it as being unethical and I'd be in for some stressful times.



Eclectic12 said:


> Oh it's been done ... but when someone from the other ministry walked by the contractor sitting at his desk at his second job - questions were raised with an investigation following. In short order, the contractor was fired from both jobs as well as blacklisted.
> 
> 
> Cheers


I would need to hear more about this. The only reason he could have been fired is it he called in sick to one job, and worked the second job on the same day, or something like that. Or if his contract had a clause saying he couldn't work elsewhere. People are allowed to hold second jobs... many people at my work hold other jobs.



andrewf said:


> Most employment contracts require you to ask permission to work for another employer. Seems to me that this would put you in breach of contract.


Nothing in my contract about that. Both jobs have comprehensive collective agreements (public sector union jobs) and nothing in either one about other jobs.


----------



## bgc_fan (Apr 5, 2009)

Eclectic12 said:


> Oh it's been done ... but when someone from the other ministry walked by the contractor sitting at his desk at his second job - questions were raised with an investigation following. In short order, the contractor was fired from both jobs as well as blacklisted.
> 
> Cheers


Interesting story. It confirms that it cannot be done long-term and sanctioned by the public service through some loophole or policy.


----------



## Charlie (May 20, 2011)

I'm not sure you can get more than one year's pensionable service for a particular calendar year regardless of how may jobs you hold (since your plan involves rolling both entitlements to the same pension).

I also suspect you'll be in breach of your parental leave provisions if you accept another job. This isn't a general leave of absence. Maybe you could work in another industry and get away with it, but a salaried job with the public sector while on a specific leave with benefits from another public sector job seems like it would be a breach that would be immediately uncovered. You seem to be trying to milk the employer portion of the pension benefit -- and that's generally not a benefit granted except for specific kinds of leaves. 

You may also be required to have a certain amount of hours between parental leaves to qualify for benefits again -- even assuming your wife is a baby making machine. Sometimes employees have the option of buying back pension service (and paying both the employer and employee bits) but that usually requires going back to work -- and since you'd be buying back the pension yourself you're worse off then just accepting the pension service at the new gig.

So I think you plan may not be doable. Even setting aside the logistics of offsetting leaves and biology. And I strongly suspect it would set you up for being dismissed at any rate.


----------



## jgood76 (Apr 3, 2009)

A male can collect 35 weeks of EI parental benefits (a female can get 50), both having to serve a 2 week waiting period. The main problem with your plan is that to collect supplementary parental leave payments from your employer (top-up to 90% for a federal gov't employee), you have to prove you are collecting EI parental benefits. If you start working a 2nd job, you're EI parental benefits will be stopped, and thus your supplementary parental leave payments will be stopped, thus the discussion above is moot.

Basically your only way to scam the system, is to work a 2nd job (while off on parental leave) that is paid in cash (ie. under the table). Or you could attempt to creat some type of legitimate sole proprietorship (where you do all the work), but file your taxes as if it is actually your spouse's business.


----------



## Four Pillars (Apr 5, 2009)

jgood76 said:


> A male can collect 35 weeks of EI parental benefits (a female can get 50), both having to serve a 2 week waiting period. The main problem with your plan is that to collect supplementary parental leave payments from your employer (top-up to 90% for a federal gov't employee), you have to prove you are collecting EI parental benefits. If you start working a 2nd job, you're EI parental benefits will be stopped, and thus your supplementary parental leave payments will be stopped, thus the discussion above is moot.


This wasn't true for me. My company paid a topup amount based on how much EI I would be getting even if I didn't get any.


----------



## Charlie (May 20, 2011)

I don't think he's trying to get double paid. The parental leave would be unpaid. No top-up. No EI. He's trying to game pensionable service so he get's two years credit for each year worked.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

This strikes me as highly unethical and liable to get one fired. I wouldn't recommend this course of action. Risk/reward doesn't justify it.


----------



## Charlie (May 20, 2011)

Double dipping's been a a high profile issue for a while with the public sector -- so I'd be really really surprised if this hasn't been addressed already. And I'm doubtful his scheme was ever really possible.


----------



## jgood76 (Apr 3, 2009)

He mentioned he works for the public service, so he'll need to prove he is collecting EI to collect supplementary parental leave payments. Also, you need to return to your job for at least as long as you were receiving the supplementary parental leave payments, or you have to repay the money. Thus if he were to quit one of the jobs and not return after the parental leave, he would have to repay any supplemetary parental leave payments.

He also mentioned that the 2nd job he was going to work was also in the public service. There is no way he could double up his pensionable service, if both jobs are with the same government (though may be technically possible if one is with the feds and one is with the province).


----------



## none (Jan 15, 2013)

This is unethical but more importantly likely illegal - the idea isn't terribly novel and has undoubtedly been tried before. I suspect not only would this result in termination for the first job but could also result in a criminal charge of fraud.

I would high suggest consulting a lawyer (rather than an internet forum) for advice on this.


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

this is a sendup, right ?



> Yes, children isn't automatic, but for various reasons I am assuming it won't be a problem ... It's actually a baby every 70'ish weeks as said above, not 52 weeks ... she's been told time and time again she is a baby making machine by her OBGYN (based on hips, uterus, etc.)


or else you're an alien from pluto ?
a rare hydrocephalic that survived infancy but part of brain is missing ?



> The thought has crossed my mind that my employer will likely find out [that he's working another job while on paternity leave.] But I don't see how they can get upset.


why bother having a baby in the 1st place ? just apply for the paternity leaves & fake the story. You sound totally capable of this.

another plus reason for faking the story is that you don't seem cut out to be a father, so this will spare some little tyke or several little tykes horrible childhoods of parental neglect.


----------



## HaroldCrump (Jun 10, 2009)

SilentWonder said:


> she's been told time and time again *she is a baby making machine* by her OBGYN (based on hips, uterus, etc.).


There is something about that term that is highly distasteful. I wonder if the women on the forum here feel that way.
I would never refer to my wife/GF that way, even in an anonymous forum.

And this Ob.Gyn - is he/she supportive of this baby producing factory plan?
He/she is willing to sign up to deliver a baby every 70 or so weeks?


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

it's the all-new Manti Te'o paternity leave. An emerging trend to cheer up the hearts of HR professionals everywhere.

how it goes: secretly get a new job, then don't quit the old one but apply for paternity leave w pension benefits instead. Fake a pregnancy story. If necessary, fake a wife.


----------



## Four Pillars (Apr 5, 2009)

Meh. One more name for the ignore list.


----------



## SilentWonder (Oct 6, 2011)

Charlie said:


> I don't think he's trying to get double paid. The parental leave would be unpaid. No top-up. No EI. He's trying to game pensionable service so he get's two years credit for each year worked.


This is correct. Most posts so far seem to suggest I am trying to collect EI, or that I need to collect EI in order to get parental leave. I do not need to collect EI to get parental leave - that is only if I want the supplemental "top up", which I do not, since my wife is going to collect the full 52 weeks of mat/parental leave combined. I can still take unpaid parental leave though.

As for those saying I'd need to return to the job, that is only if I had supplementary benefits (which I'd need to repay). But I won't be getting them and there's no law from me quitting my job.


----------



## SilentWonder (Oct 6, 2011)

Charlie said:


> I don't think he's trying to get double paid. The parental leave would be unpaid. No top-up. No EI. He's trying to game pensionable service so he get's two years credit for each year worked.





humble_pie said:


> this is a sendup, right ?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I don't appreciate being called names and told I'll be a terrible father. It's inappropriate and you should attempt to conduct yourself in a more mature manner. If you have something intelligent to say, then say it.


----------



## SilentWonder (Oct 6, 2011)

I find it fascinating how much hatred this topic has got. Maybe it's easier for people to write this off as someone trolling, but it's definitely not. Perhaps jealousy mixed in here??? I'm not entirely sure. But this is a real request and I am quite surprised by the reaction of this forum. I had spent a long time reading this forum and noticed the level of maturity was quite high, so it's disappointing to see this thread turn out like this.

I'll get my information elsewhere, and mods can shut/delete this thread. Not interested in being bashed and called names. Thanks to the few who provided insightful comments.


----------



## SilentWonder (Oct 6, 2011)

And let me add, the comprehension here was poor. Here is what I asking. It is not fraudulent or illegal.

I was basically asking if, while taking a 52 week parental leave, I could work at another full-time job. EI has nothing to do with it, I won't be collecting EI.

Many people do this... they work another job while on unpaid parental leave, where part-time or full-time. Nothing unethical about that.

Then when I go back to work, I have the option to purchase that 52 week parental leave as pensionable time, nothing illegal about it. Just like if you held two seperate jobs, you can collect two pensions. Disgusting how small minded some people are to insist I would be a bad father because I want to focus on getting a good pension, which is intended to take care of my family.

So anyone in this thread who has suggested fraud/illegal, BACK IT UP WITH FACTS, otherwise you're just a joke.

The main reason I was interested in this thread was to find out the tax ramifications of it, and see if anyone had done this.


----------



## marina628 (Dec 14, 2010)

I know nothing about this subject but assuming you have benefits at your existing job and you want to take parental leave then do so.But I am fairly certain you have to be back to work for a minimum amount of time before you can do parental leave again.I think my niece had to be back to work a full year before she could go off leave again.
I am unsure how it is even possible for them to find out if you were working during your 12 month leave.
You do not have children and assume your wife does not have any either?Getting pregnant is one things but carrying to full term is another .My plan was to have many children and my first pregnancy was text book that followed by 2 miscarriages and it took us 10 years to have our second child.
Also most of us with kids remember how it was having a infant and probably pissing ourselves at the idea to be first time parents and trying to carry on two full time jobs.No need to be rude about is but this is a HORRIBLE idea ,best way to find out is walk into HR ask them if you can take a parental leave then go work elsewhere for a year.If you cannot do that then you already know it is not a good idea.
Marina


----------



## GoldStone (Mar 6, 2011)

SilentWonder said:


> It is not fraudulent or illegal.


If so, why not do the following:

1. Put your plan in writing.
2. Send it to both HR departments and both Pension administrators.
3. Ask them for an advance ruling.

You have no plans to do this, don't you?

You are afraid they will shut you down based on an obscure rule you are not familiar with. You hope to fly under the radar and not get caught.


----------



## marina628 (Dec 14, 2010)

+1


----------



## Toronto.gal (Jan 8, 2010)

SilentWonder said:


> And let me add, *the comprehension here was poor..... It is not fraudulent or illegal.*


The comprehension/help of members here is rather impressive, but the thing is, that this forum has little patience/tolerance for corruption, which is the very issue you yourself were wondering about. Your opening paragraph: *
"I am interested in comments about the legalities of it, the ethics of it, and whether or not it can be done." 
*
So the wife has good hips and uterus, that's great! How about the quality of your own gametes, ie: your reproductive cell? Is the count/morphology/motility & volume of the sperm all Grade A, ie: baby making ready?


----------



## Sampson (Apr 3, 2009)

I think most do understand the intention.

Let me rephrase why I think this is unethical.

You wish to take advantage of the parental benefit that an employer must have a job for you while you return. You gain pensionable service years because the employer assumes you will return. you have no intention of this. Therefore you are exploiting the nature of the leave.

What makes this even worse and inspires the condemnation is that you work for the public sector. Those "free" years of pensionable service mean WE pay for extra years of your retirement and you do not provide public service in return.

Not insulting, but my take on what this type of decision means to us taxpayers.


----------



## bgc_fan (Apr 5, 2009)

SilentWonder said:


> And let me add, the comprehension here was poor. Here is what I asking. It is not fraudulent or illegal.
> 
> I was basically asking if, while taking a 52 week parental leave, I could work at another full-time job. EI has nothing to do with it, I won't be collecting EI.
> 
> Many people do this... they work another job while on unpaid parental leave, where part-time or full-time. Nothing unethical about that.


I'd say that the comprehension is quite good. You say that other people do that, so why don't you ask them instead of asking an anonymous forum? Also if you really want the real facts you check with your HR department as we have already suggested, since they are the subject matter experts.


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

apart from the issue of whether double-dipping on pensions is or is not a shady activity, what was dismaying to see was the callous indifference to the well-being of the mother & the infants. 

parenting is not machining out product every 70 weeks in a robotized fab. Parenting is not running far away from one's kids to work clandestine jobs when one is supposed to be home looking after them. Preparing for parenthood is not slinking on anonymous internet forums to find out how one can double-dip a few extra $$ as pension or other benefits.

thank goodness there are plenty fine parents in this forum. There have been plenty fine threads discussing childbirth & child-rearing in a healthy way, everything from the gleam in the eye to grandparenting.

i've known maybe 2-3 fathers who took extended parental or paternity leave. They loved it. They worshipped their infants, took care of their wives, bonded with their babies, had a special glow, never talked about money. To me, they were heroes.


----------



## HaroldCrump (Jun 10, 2009)

I am convinced the OP is going to follow through with this plan.
He came here, not looking for advice on tax implications etc., but simply to seek confirmation and corroboration for this plan.
His mind is already made up and no amount of criticism here will change it.


----------



## MoneyGal (Apr 24, 2009)

And! He's got his MACHINE ready to go! (I'm still kind of chuckling at that.)


----------



## Plugging Along (Jan 3, 2011)

I find this thread rather 'interesting'.

I work in public sector right now, and I am stunned that the OP would even consider this. As a public servent, I was told from day one that anything that was even remotely viewed as a conflict of interest must be avoided. 

I am allowed to do my other consulting work, as it was disclosed and negotiated when I first accepted the job. However, it's very casual, I take my regular vacation time to do it, and it helps me in my regular day job. There was even the case that another area in my corporation wanted to hire me out at my consulting job and offered me my consulting rate. My boss checked in with HR, and they said that since it was within the same corporation and it would be considered a not arms length transaction, that I couldn't do with my vacation, because that was a benefit. HR and my boss suggested that I take an unpaid leave (with no benefits) for the one week, and that would be okay as it was helping the corporation, and my third party won the contract fairly.

After all of this, I still felt there was a possibility that it would be perceived unethical, and turned down the job.

My point is, if you can't get your HR department to support you (that should be the minimum requirement), then you probably shouldn't be doing it.


----------



## Toronto.gal (Jan 8, 2010)

It's clear why he's been the *'Silent-Wonder'* since he joined in 2011, but even silent types get caught sooner or later for something or other. With this mentality at 28, there's more to come, I'm sure of that, too!


----------



## marina628 (Dec 14, 2010)

This is relevant to OP plan ,I got an email this morning from my Friend , her baby died on Saturday she was 32 weeks pregnant.Life is not as you plan and you should plan for children but not all children are planned.My husband took time off without pay when both of our kids were born because these first days and weeks are the most precious.Even if my gynecologist said I had a great Uterus and hips ,I don't think I would be bragging about it.This sounds more like a Vet when you are shopping for Cattle to breed than human beings.


----------



## Karen (Jul 24, 2010)

I don't understand what all the controversy is about. OP's plan is either acceptable to the employer or it is not; if it's acceptable, he has the right to take advantage of it, whether we approve or not. However, as a retired federal public servant whose duties included staffing support positions, my personal opinion is that he would not be allowed to pay into his federal pension plan twice for the same time period. When someone is hired by the federal government, they are assigned an employee identification number; that number remains with the employee throughout their career, no matter how many different departments they might work for over the years. Even if they leave the public service and are re-hired later on, they still keep that same number. So, in my opinion, that would make it impossible for the OP to conceal the fact that he was already a member of a public service pension plan. (The employee identification number replaced the SIN number as an ID number for employees after PSAC - the federal government employees' union - objected to the employer using SIN numbers as identification.)


----------



## Khlark (Nov 4, 2012)

Having worked in the PS in the past, I can tell you that you absolutely need to return to work in between your mat leave periods to get the full benefits. You can't simply keep popping kids and not come back in between (well, you can, but you'll be on unpaid leave).


----------



## Toronto.gal (Jan 8, 2010)

Karen said:


> OP's plan is either acceptable to the employer or it is not; if it's acceptable, he has the right to take advantage of it, whether we approve or not.


Sure, but he did not ask the employer for a reason.

Many things are technically legal in this world Karen, though not necessarily ethical. But like you mentioned above, we can disapprove all we like, and that's exactly what we did here.

This world is also full of people, who take advantage of whatever they can.


----------



## Karen (Jul 24, 2010)

Toronto.gal said:


> ...Many things are technically legal in this world Karen, though not necessarily ethical. But like you mentioned above, we can disapprove all we like, and that's exactly what we did here.
> 
> This world is also full of people, who take advantage of whatever they can.


I completely agree with your comments, Toronto.gal, but my point is that no matter what you and I consider to be unethical, if it's allowed by the "system" the OP would have the right to proceed with his plans. That being said, as I explained in my previous post, I feel quite certain that he would not be allowed to double up on his pension contributions for any given period so, if I'm right about that, it becomes a moot point.

The question has led to an interesting discussion, and I was glad that most of us would consider it unethical.


----------



## Toronto.gal (Jan 8, 2010)

Speaking of 'parental leave' [not sure why this thread was posted under the retirement section].

*Parents Of Twins Lose Appeal For Double Benefits*

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2013/0...tchley-twins-benefits-parental_n_2543210.html


----------



## HaroldCrump (Jun 10, 2009)

Toronto.gal said:


> Speaking of 'parental leave' [not sure why this thread was posted under the retirement section].


Because the OP wanted to leverage this opportunity for "early retirement".
Look at the 4th para in his first post.
This whole game was to double up the years of pensionable service and retire early.


----------



## Toronto.gal (Jan 8, 2010)

I know, I was just being sarcastic HC, as I had a better name for such a topic. 

Speaking of retirement, remember the guy that wanted to retire at 27 or so, after working for only 5 years following graduation. And starting with near $0 funds at year 1? :rolleyes2:


----------



## marina628 (Dec 14, 2010)

I think we all wanted to retire at 27 lol.I said I was going to retire at 50 which is only 4 years away but I can't imagine it now.


----------



## MoneyGal (Apr 24, 2009)

I do understand the motivation for wondering if there are other, better ways to reach your goals. I do think some of these schemes verge on too much "cleverness" (by the way, the OP needs to check the "dual employment" provisions in the unpaid leave provisions of the PS pension plan; this way to approach this situation is already covered off, actually) -- but I understand the urge to ask, "is the advice I've been getting true? Are there other ways to operate? Is there a loophole I've overlooked?"

A guy I know, when faced with a difficult task, will often ask himself, "how would a lazy person do this?" because he's very interested in efficiency.  I do think there is tremendous value in challenging accepted ways of doing things and I know I am far from alone on this forum for saying that.


----------



## MoneyGal (Apr 24, 2009)

Also apparently I like saying "I do." :encouragement:


----------



## Toronto.gal (Jan 8, 2010)

marina628 said:


> I think we all wanted to retire at 27 lol.


I think you're wrong! At that age, most young people are, and/or should be full of anticipation/ambition/drive, dreams, etc., etc..


----------



## HaroldCrump (Jun 10, 2009)

^ yeah, agreed, retire from _what_?
At 27, an individual has been in the adult workforce for barely 5 years, possibly less.

So, retire from _what_ into _what_?
Typically, folks retire from work/business/skilled trade into 100% leisure, or part-time work, or charity work, etc.


----------

