National President Open Letter to members - PDSP
National President Open Letter
July 6, 2010
Fellow members of FSNA,
On June 1st, the President of the Treasury Board (TB) of Canada announced that pensioners’ contributions to the Pensioners’ Dental Services Plan (PDSP) will increase from their current rate, beginning with the deduction from the pension payment for September 2010.
The then National President of the FSNA, Stan Hrabarchuk, as well as the Executive Director, Sylvia Ceacero, and the Research and Communications Officer, Charlotte Roy, were informed of this news via teleconference a few hours prior to the public announcement by the President of TB, Stockwell Day.
July 8th, 2010 at 10:26 pm
I find it hard to understand why “increased membership” is being cited by TB as a reason to make members shoulder a larger percentage of cost. For each new member there is one additional monthly contribution. Actually, increased membership should lower costs by reason of scale. The fixed costs can be spread over a larger number of members. Bottom line: I don’t buy the “increased membership” excuse!
July 10th, 2010 at 9:55 am
This action by Treasury Board is pure Stockwell Day. He has been appointed to the Treasury Board position to further this governments agenda, that is to cut whever possible, especially if the expenditure concerns public servants. We can only hope that this government can be defeated soon rather than later, before any further damage is done to our benefits.
July 13th, 2010 at 11:08 am
One would think that any proposed increases to pensioners’ dental-plan costs would enter into the government’s equation to abscond with the pension surplus. It seems as if they want to take with both hands.
July 13th, 2010 at 6:58 pm
Treasury Board’s failure to involve FSNA in discussions concerning possible changes to the PDSP is one more example of the dysfunctional relationship that has existed between the federal government and its employees - active or retired - for the past few decades.
More outrageous is TB’s decision to not even bother to provide FSNA with any advance notice of a 25 - 33% increase in premiums for pensioners’ dental coverage - surely an issue that strikes directly at FSNA’s raison d’etre.
It’s yet another sign of the disrespect - contempt is more accurate - which the federal government has for its employees and, especially, for the organizations ostensibly representing employee and retiree interests: PSAC, PIPS, etc., FSNA and APSAR.
Stockwell Day is simply the latest in a long line of Treasury Board presidents who seem to relish “sticking it” to the public service. Emasculating employee bargaining power with a draconian maze of legislation isn’t enough; every now and then TB likes to thumb their nose at employees, and now, retirees. That’s what their failure to notify FSNA represents.
There, I feel a lot better.
I have several questions.
1. Why do pensioners have to pay for their dental coverage, when employees, earning twice as much or more, get the same coverage free?
2. It’s safe to say that the average pensioner would have less dependants than an active employee. In other words, costs to administer the plan for active employees must be substantially higher then it is for retirees. Since employees get the plan free, are pensioners, in effect, subsidizing the employee plan?
(NOTE: With some exceptions, such as retirees caring for dependant parents or, through circumstances, having to raise their grandchildren, few retirees would be expected to have a dependant other than a spouse. These brave folks caring for elderly parents or grandchildren face the highest increase in PDSP premiums; 33%.
3. What explanation did TB provide in April/06, when they actually reduced PDSP pensioner premiums and increased benefits? What has happened since then to justify increasing premiums? As noted by a poster above, an increase in the number of retirees as justification for increasing premiums doesn’t make sense.
4. Given Treasury Board’s behavior towards FSNA on this PDSP premium increase, what does FSNA intend to do to establish itself as a credible representative of federal retirees? Can pensioners expect additional unopposed reductions in benefits or pensions?
One final point. I quote from the 6 July/10 open letter from FSNA’s National President:
“FSNA has proposed candidates for appointment to the Board of Management (of PDSP) but, otherwise, FSNA does not participate in the management of the Plan.”
In response to the premium increase, I wrote to John Gordon, President of the Public Service Alliance of Canada, expressing my regrets that PSAC chose not to get involved in public service pensioners’ affairs. He replied:
July 8, 2010
Dear Brother Rollins:
I can sympathize with your frustration about the rise in premium rates for the Retirees Dental Care Plan. Unfortunately, PSAC has no involvement with this Plan and no status on its Board of Management. The Retirees are represented on the Board by the Federal Superannuates National Association (FSNA).
They can be reached at 613-745-2559 and their website is www.fsna.com.
I encourage you to communicate with them and raise your concerns, as they will be able to provide further assistance.
In Solidarity,
John Gordon National President
5. Does FSNA presently sit on the Board of Management of PDSP or not?
6. What’s the point of sitting on the Board of Management if FSNA won’t participate in the management of the Plan?
July 13th, 2010 at 9:32 pm
Once again the “Conservative” government has made a unilateral decision without discussion with those affected or regard to the consequences of such a decision.
July 14th, 2010 at 8:48 am
At one time, I would have been furious re this increase. But, as I don’t require dental insurance any longer, I couldn’t care less with this or any other Government’s unilateral decision. It can be a ‘let them eat cake’ attitude for all I care! Bottom line? Will always be about money and nothing about the people!
July 14th, 2010 at 2:46 pm
The government has decided to drop their share in the cost sharing ratio from 60% to 50%, which they say is more in line with other employers. So, if the government has dropped their share by 10%, how come our premiums are being increased by 25-32/5% ??
In my mind, the government is lowering their standard for Canadians and should instead be setting the standard. Why aren’t there more affordable health and dental plans out there for pensioners? Oh, I forgot, there are still awesome post-retirement benefits for CEO’s and senior/special civil servants.
Whatever happened to “of the people, by the people, for the people!” I believe in free enterprize but not “Greedy free enterprize.” This is where the government has to take charge and show that Canadian people are the focus, not just free enterprize.
If our premiums are increasing due to costs (certainly not due to dental costs because the $1500 cap per person has been in place for the past 5 years AND we’re still running a SURPLUS in the pension fund)… then it must be due to administration costs.
For so much costing information about the dental plan NOT to be available to the public, tells that there’s a big cover-up going on for some bad management practices and improper handling of pensioners funds.
July 23rd, 2010 at 10:29 am
I’m just happy that I have the opportunity to belong to a dental plan now that I am retired.
My husband worked in private industry for 34 years and never had dental coverage. Non-government retirees pay hefty prices for dental plans.
The only thing I don’t like is that it comes at a time when the cost of everything, in Ontario, has gone up.
August 4th, 2010 at 12:50 pm
This blog posting has been made by FSNA in response to the many questions that were raised in a previous blog posting from Don Rollins dated July 14, 2010.
Further to our National President’s open letter to FSNA members regarding the PDSP changes, FSNA has had subsequent meetings with Treasury Board (TB) officials seeking further clarification on the recently announced premium increases. During these meetings we asked TB to address the specifics of the PDSP increase and provide us with their analytical information to justify these changes. As of yet we have not received such information but once we do any further action will depend on what we learn.
1. Why do pensioners have to pay for their dental coverage, when employees, earning twice as much or more, get the same coverage free?
In today’s financial climate many employers have chosen not to provide their retirees with dental benefits. The PDSP was implemented in 2001 after much advocating by FSNA over the previous 10 years. Having the federal government contribute 50% of the PDSP cost is a key benefit for all federal pensioners. Today’s financial climate sees many private sector pensioners without a plan or paying a greater proportion of the cost of their plan.
2. It’s safe to say that the average pensioner would have less dependants than an active employee. In other words, costs to administer the plan for active employees must be substantially higher then it is for retirees. Since employees get the plan free, are pensioners, in effect, subsidizing the employee plan? (NOTE: With some exceptions, such as retirees caring for dependant parents or, through circumstances, having to raise their grandchildren, few retirees would be expected to have a dependant other than a spouse. These brave folks caring for elderly parents or grandchildren face the highest increase in PDSP premiums; 33%.
One must remember that federal pensioners have had access to a pensioners’ dental plan since January 1, 2001, thanks to the efforts of FSNA. Since that time the federal government and pensioners have shared the cost of this dental plan on a 60/40 basis respectively.
3. What explanation did TB provide in April/06, when they actually reduced PDSP pensioner premiums and increased benefits? What has happened since then to justify increasing premiums? As noted by a poster above, an increase in the number of retirees as justification for increasing premiums doesn’t make sense.
4. Given Treasury Board’s behaviour towards FSNA on this PDSP premium increase, what does FSNA intend to do to establish itself as a credible representative of federal retirees? Can pensioners expect additional unopposed reductions in benefits or pensions?
FSNA has raised these questions with Treasury Board senior officials and is awaiting a response. No employer is compelled to sponsor a dental services plan for its pensioners. It is important to note that the Pensioners Dental Services Plan is not a negotiated agreement. It is a plan that the government put into place for federal retirees, in January 2001, following years of advocating by FSNA. The PDSP is funded by the Government of Canada and by federal retirees who participate in the plan voluntarily and pay the required monthly contributions.
5. Does FSNA presently sit on the Board of Management of PDSP or not?
6. What’s the point of sitting on the Board of Management if FSNA won’t participate in the management of the Plan?
FSNA nominates a pensioners’ representative on the PDSP Management Board. This pensioners’ representative represents all pensioners (not only FSNA members) covered by the PDSP. Although the pensioners’ representative is expected to maintain confidentiality on matters that come before the PDSP Board of Management, this pensioners’ representative is also expected to act in the best interest of federal pensioners. It should be noted that the PDSP Management Board deals with the administration of the PDSP but it does not set the broad policies for that plan.
Despite its past successes, FSNA is not a bargaining agent, nor are federal pensioners eligible to form a certified bargaining unit under federal labour legislation. FSNA represents federal pensioners within the Advisory Committees on the federal pension plans and in the governance of the Public Service Health Care plan. Through these bodies and otherwise, representatives of the Association are informed and consulted by senior government officials about changes to pensioners’ benefits.
FSNA advocates on behalf of pensioners for better benefits for federal retirees, and it succeeds only through open discussion based on sound, reliable research. Further, the results of such efforts are subject to the government’s judgment of its interest in increasing federal pensioners’ benefits and the government’s assessment of the willingness of Canadian taxpayers to fund these benefits in some measure.
As well, efforts need to be deployed to assess the immediate and future costs of any improvements FSNA may seek. In this respect, FSNA has sought and will continue to seek a more open exchange of information from the President of the Treasury Board of Canada about the costs of the PDSP and the factors that affect PDSP costs.
Further, to succeed in improving pensioners’ dental benefits or in keeping costs low, FSNA needs to find allies who will support its efforts in this regard. Such allies might be found among Canada’s political parties, bargaining agents for the public sector or other interested Canadians. Establishing and cultivating these relationships will require a sustained effort over time.