Main Menu

CAP pensions

Started by RiverAux, November 29, 2008, 03:01:32 PM

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

RiverAux

CAP has no pension system itself and CAP members aren't allowed access to any federal or military pension system based solely on their CAP service.  Many probably feel that this is appropriate since we are a volunteer organization.  However, it isn't uncommon at all for state police and fire retirement systems to have some provisions to provide pensions (with lower benefits, obviously) to volunteer police or firefighters.  One example I saw recently had a pension for volunteers that calculated monthly benefits at about $5 X Years of Service. 

Would you be in favor of having CAP lobby the feds to get some form of reduced benefit pension program for volunteers?

The obvious sticking point would be the fact that CAP is a membership organization and we would want to limit pension plan participation to members who were actively contributing to the organization and not just those who paid their dues.  I DO NOT want to discuss various methods of determining who is an active CAP member. 

Instead, I would propose that CAP pensions be limited to senior members who at least maintain current qualifications to participate in Air Force Assigned Missions.  This would limit the pensions to those actually directing aiding the Air Force.  Yes, yes, all CAP work could generally be considered to be aiding the AF, but AFAMs are recognized by the feds as different in that we can get federal workers comp if injured (and over the age of 18) while on an AFAM and the AF provides much more oversight of AFAMs than they do other CAP work. 

So, under this proposal, obviously ES qualified members would be included (may want to exclude those who only have GES), but would also include CD qualified members and O-ride pilots. 

Now, I would take it a bit further beyond those who just maintain currency and limit it to those who participate in a minimum number of AFAMs every year.  I think a good number would be 12 as it would be easier to sell it if you could say "the pensions would be limited to those who are participating in AFAMS once a month on average".   

I would also limit it to AF-assigned, AF-reimbursed missions again so as to have the strongest possible connection to support provided directly to the federal government.   

It might also be wise to not allow partipation in the program until someone has been in CAP for 5 years.  Otherwise we'd have to start a whole bunch of paperwork to get people in the system when they join, just to have them drop out after a few years. 

Following the guidance for workers comp which only allows it for CAP members over 18, we would probably want to limit the pension program the same way. 

Now, if such a system were set up with the limitations I propose, CAP would obviously need to set up a way to track member participation so that they could certify on an annual basis which members should get pension credit for that year and provide documentation to the member and the feds for that service.

One thorny issue would be when you would start receiving the pension since a lot of our members are older.  Someone may not join CAP until they're 60 and they may not leave until their 70s or until they die.  In other words, many CAP members would likely still be earning service credit long after those in other pension plans have retired and are collecting their benefits.  Would they not be eligible to get the pension until they left CAP?  That would be a disincentive to stay in the organization.

RiverAux

As mentioned in the thread I just started on CAP pensions, at least some states have pension plans that are open to volunteer firefighters and cops.  Does anyone know of any states that have pension plans open to volunteer SAR team members that might also apply to CAP members in that state?

MIKE

Merged.  No need for two threads on this.
Mike Johnston

Pumbaa

We have quite a number of volunteer fire squads in the boonies of NY.  They are actually quite good. We could model the plan after that. I would agree with the comments above that something should be offered for CAP.

I would think  that active members who are attending meetings AND are participating in SAREX/Training missions would of course be a requirement. So tracking should not be a major issue.

In regards to age I think there needs to be a minimum amount of service years.  Ie if you join at age 60 you still have to wait 10 years. (or whatever)  65 would be the base.


JohnKachenmeister

As the lawyers say, "Let us assume, in arguendo, that such a program was actually considered."

The proposal of the initiator fails to take into account the very valid contributions to the Air Force as represented by the AE and CP programs of CAP.

And, what's wrong with "Just paying your dues?"  I had squadron members who NEVER showed up, except when I desperately needed them.  While their participation was minimal, that minimum participation saved the day more than once.

If you want to do something like this, why re-invent the wheel?  We already have a point system for reserve participation.  We can develop a modified point system for CAP.

But just a word of advice... Don't try to fund this through investments on Wall Street.
Another former CAP officer

RiverAux

#5
QuoteThe proposal of the initiator fails to take into account the very valid contributions to the Air Force as represented by the AE and CP programs of CAP.
There is absolutely no way to accurately track participation in these programs by senior members in any way that doesn't come down to somebody saying "hes a good guy...give him a pension".

Keep in mind that convincing the feds to allow CAP participation in a existing or new pension program is going to be almost impossible to do.  That being the case, we have to be able to show them in as strong a way as possible that the persons getting the pension have been directly supporting the federal government.  While the AE and cadet programs do that, it is only in a very, very indirect manner.  Trying to include folks who only do that would sink the whole idea.

In order to illustrate how hard it might be to make this happen, just recall that CAP members who flew active combat missions during WWII have never received any sort of benefits....


RiverAux

Quote from: MIKE on November 29, 2008, 03:31:45 PM
Merged.  No need for two threads on this.
actually, these are two very separate issues...
1.  Whether or not to start a federal-based pension system for CAP.
2.  A straight-out information question about whether CAP could currently qualify for any state pension systems that have benefits for SAR team members. 

RADIOMAN015

This sends the wrong message for wanting to volunteer.  It would be an administrative nightmare for recording & reporting & the potential for fraud would be overwhelming.   CAP has no problem in getting volunteers.  It isn't the same challenges that are faced with staffing the volunteer fire department service in many small communities.   I also think fundamentally that "volunteering" means you derive a personal satisfaction in helping others in need & has nothing to do about long term monetary compensation for your efforts.  Perhaps a better approach would be to improve reimbursement for current out of pocket expense (e.g. food purchase, choice of standard cost per miles verus actual gas expense, etc) during AF (or state) authorized missions.  I also personally would like to see the federal tax regulation change to allow a percentage of total out of pocket/unreimbursed volunteer expense become a direct tax credit OR be an "above the line" dollar for dollar deduction from income (rather than requring itemization).      
RADIOMAN  

Duke Dillio

While I am all for the idea of pension (solely for my financial self benefit), I don't know how you would track those that are active.  The idea of limiting it to people who participate actively in AFAM's only isn't, in my mind, a good option because there are some of us who don't get called for that many missions every year.  I can only recall one AFAM this year in my area.  There have been lots of missions this year but most have been in the southern portion of the state.  There are probably some states where they don't get that many missions each year.  I'm sure that someone out there would probably say "where is the money going to come from?"  Again, I am not opposed to the idea.  I just don't think that I will ever see it as a reality.

Major Carrales

I'd imagine there would have to be some standard for active participation in CAP.  Unless you just wanted a whole bunch of people gathing together for retirement insurance.  That is more like a frateral organization (Woodsmen of the World, Knights of Columbus et al.) than a service organization like CAP.

Still, it might be a way to offer long time members something that much more meaningful for old age along withthe meaningful feelings of service once feels in the present. 
"We have been given the power to change CAP, let's keep the momentum going!"

Major Joe Ely "Sparky" Carrales, CAP
Commander
Coastal Bend Cadet Squadron
SWR-TX-454

isuhawkeye

I would love to hear form a CAP member in Maryland, or Pennsylvania.  Both of those states have VERY active volunteer fire/rescue departments with pension programs for service. 

RiverAux

QuoteThis sends the wrong message for wanting to volunteer.  

Gee, all those volunteer firefighters and policemen participating in pension programs must be doing it for the wrong reasons as well....

QuoteThe idea of limiting it to people who participate actively in AFAM's only isn't, in my mind, a good option because there are some of us who don't get called for that many missions every year.
Remember, doing o-flights and CD missions are also AFAMs and would count.  But, you're right, in that it would make it be more difficult for those in some areas to qualify.  But those who have done more missions have done more for the feds, and so should be rewarded.  I

ts sort of tough luck for some, but there isn't really any way at all to tell apart the guy who just maintains currency by doing a SAREX once a year but will never come on an actual mission from the guy who would go every time he is called but never gets the call.  

Eclipse

Quote from: RiverAux on November 29, 2008, 03:01:32 PM
Would you be in favor of having CAP lobby the feds to get some form of reduced benefit pension program for volunteers?

No.

"That Others May Zoom"

arajca

As a retired (1/2 pension) volunteer firefighter, you need to have a baseline standard. In any volunteer service you'll have those who exceed the minimums by a great deal (I did early on as a FF), those who just meet the minimums (I did at the end), and those who don't meet the minimums (I retired before reaching that point). As long as the member meets the minimums - which need to be realistic (IMHO, 12 AFAM's annually is not realistic, due to a lack of AFAM's) - don't worry about how far they may exceed the minimums. I would add a requirement that members actually retire (file the appropriate paperwork) and not just quit or stop renewing.

You may have some folks at the end staying to reach pension eligibility, but for most members, it won't be an issue until the end.

As for details of my pension plan - I paid $0.00 into it. I will get $400/month (full pension is $800) starting at age 50 (not there yet). The Fire District paid into the fund, which covers many vol. fd's in CO.

Ned

Perhaps we should start with a clear statement of the problem or issue that we are trying to solve with some sort of pension.


That would help guide us while we craft the pension "solution" to the "problem" we are trying to solve.


For example, I imagine that the volunteer firefighters have a significant problem with volunteers becoming injured or perhaps even disabled while on duty.  Obviously, anyone with family responsibilities would hesitate to volunteer for hazardous duties if there was a non-negligable  chance that they could be disabled to the extent that their family might be affected.

Fortunately, CAP members on AFAM already are covered by FECA that provides benefits.  (Sure, it is only based on GS-9 step 1, but that is far easier to fix than inventing a whole new persion program.)


And although I understand that you are attempting to exclude CP and AE folks from the discussion, could you clarify why we should do this?  After all, members who perform primarily ES are a minority of the membership, and if we -- as you suggest -- further limit the discussion to just members performing AFAM, then we are only talking about a benefit for a very, very tiny percentage of the membership


So what is the "problem" we are solving here?




isuhawkeye

I would disagree that the fire service uses pensions as a solution to injuries.  In my fire service experience I am covered under the department's work comp program, and They will even cover lost wage for missed time from my primary employer. 

Pension programs are a thank you for volunteering.  They are a recruiting tool, and an incentive.

My pension is paid in by my city, and it is the same pension program that I get for working for the state (IPERS) its nice getting that extra padding into my retirement portfolio

RiverAux

QuoteAnd although I understand that you are attempting to exclude CP and AE folks from the discussion, could you clarify why we should do this?  After all, members who perform primarily ES are a minority of the membership, and if we -- as you suggest -- further limit the discussion to just members performing AFAM, then we are only talking about a benefit for a very, very tiny percentage of the membership
Because quite frankly, it is those participating in AFAMS who put themselves most at personal risk of death or injury.  CP and AE are worthy programs, but there are probably tens of thousands of volunteers in federal government programs that do more or less equivalent work that have little or no personal risk but yet have a bigger direct benefit to the feds than those CAP members in those programs. 

The risk associated with AFAMs that is not associated with other CAP activities is  the difference. 

Ned

Quote from: RiverAux on November 29, 2008, 06:09:43 PMBecause quite frankly, it is those participating in AFAMS who put themselves most at personal risk of death or injury. 

Some do, some don't. 

I suspect GTMs and aircrew are probably at a measurably higher risk, but folks sitting doing other important work at the search base-- like ICs, PAOs, and logisticians --  not so much. 



And does this response indicate that the "problem" we are trying to solve is compensating members for risk?

If so, isn't that kinda the whole point of our FECA coverage?

And if the "problem" is more like a "recruiting tool and incentive" , as suggested above, what is the rationale for excluding CP and AE?


But rather than have us guess what problem we are trying to solve, let me repeat my request for a clear statement of the problem.  That would certainly make this discussion more focussed.

Ned Lee


lordmonar

Does anyone know how much a pension program would cost?

I'd rather by ISR balls for our 182's.
PATRICK M. HARRIS, SMSgt, CAP

RiverAux

QuoteI suspect GTMs and aircrew are probably at a measurably higher risk, but folks sitting doing other important work at the search base-- like ICs, PAOs, and logisticians --  not so much. 
As I was at the gym I was thinking that I probably wouldn't mind limiting the pension program to aircrew members since that is where the most risk of death seems to be.  On the other hand, the highest risk of injury is pretty obviously on the ground, but not having any info on the number of minor vs serious AFAM-related ground accidents, can't really go any further down that road. 

QuoteDoes anyone know how much a pension program would cost?
There are way too many factors that would have to be decided in regards to exactly how the program would be run for me to give an good estimate.  But if you want I'll take a stab at it......
1.  Go with the volunteer firefighter benefit I mentioned at the top of $5/month X years of service.
2.  Limit it to those who have actual retired from CAP service (requires 20 years) and assume all participants have only the minimum years == Participant benefits would then be $100 per month = $1,200/year.
3.  Assume that 7% of CAP seniors stay in long enough to retire (not out of line based on a quick look at the number of people in my wing who have been in over 20 years).  == 7% of 35K = 2,450 people
4.  For the sake of argument assume that 25% of all seniors who reach CAP retirement have been aircrew qualified for that whole period and are eligible (probably not a bad estimate based on what is shown on the Homeland Security page).  2,450 people X .25 = 613
5.  So, we're at 613 CAP senior members who would be eligible to get the pension. 
6.  Assume that half of all eligible retired and started getting benefits right now.  307 eligible X $1,200 per year = 1st year cost of $368,400 + 10% admin = $405,240. 

Obviously, the number of people getting benefits would grow and probably would be encouraged by this program, so the ongoing costs once everything got going in 5-10 years would be higher. 

By the way, I wouldn't be adverse to this being a program where the particpant would have to make some of the contributions themselves in order to get the benefit.  So, the actual costs to the feds would probably be lower if we assume that is the route chosen.

I"m not terribly familiar with federal pension programs, but I bet there is an option out there like that that would be appropriate for us to get into.  Wouldn't advocate having our own stand-alone program -- not enough people to justify the admin. 





Pumbaa

It would seem the simplest thing to do would be to set up a matching 401K type plan.  I believe that is a 403b in the non profit arena.  You contribute and CAP matches a percentage.  The percentage match could be based on years of active service.

This way it is a voluntary program.  If the person does not contribute no matching funds.

Simple...

Ned

Although we still don't have a idea of the "problem" we are trying to solve, some of the math is sort of interesting.

There are a bunch of financial calculators available on the web.

If we start with the notion that a "retired CAP AFAM mission guy pension" should be something like $5/mo after 20 years service, that sounds like about $1,200 a month or so.

I found a couple of companies that would sell an annuity that would guarentee a 60 year old guy $1,200 a month for life for only $187,000 or so.

And using a 401k calculator, I learned that if you put only a little over $500 a month/$6,000 a year into a 401k for that 20 years, and assume a return of 4% a year, you can come pretty close to the $187,000.


So, using the figure provided above of approx 2,400 folks that might qualify for such a thing times the $6,000  in yearly contributions that would be required comes out to something like 14 million dollars a year.

Or something like three to four times the entire amount of dues paid every year by all the members combined.

Just to fund the pensions.


Maybe it's just me, but that sounds like a little to much for a recruiting incentive.

And you guys thought the race car was a bad idea. . .

RiverAux

QuoteIf we start with the notion that a "retired CAP AFAM mission guy pension" should be something like $5/mo after 20 years service, that sounds like about $1,200 a month or so.
Well, maybe I didn't phrase it as clearly as I should.  For every year of service you get $5 per month.  So, 20 years of service would be $100 per month (The program I used as a model has a $200/month cap for volunteers -- 40 years service).  Recalculate using the right figures and see what you get.

Ned

Much better.

To reach your $200/yr after 40 years figure, a 60 year old guy would need to purchase an annuity for a little over $30,000.

A 401k would need contributions of little under $400 per year to get there after 40 years.

And you do know that $200 a year works out to the princely sum of 54 cents a day, right?

So, our hypothetcial 2,400 pension-earning ES gods would only need a hair under a half million dollars a year in funding to pay for  their 54 cents a day for life.

Another way to look at it would be to assume that about it takes the dues of about 7 other members to support the pension funding for our "AFAM ES guy", so she/he could get their 54 cents a day after 40 years.



You were right, the numbers scrub out much better that way. ::)

RiverAux

Even better if we assume that most participants would only have 20-30 years of service and if we assume the participant has to kick in a little as well. 

Sure, the pension isn't amounting to a ton of money, but it might help.  I looked at my 2008 Social Security statement and if I stopped contributing today and retired  at 62, I would get $1,200 per month.  A $100/month on top of that would be a 8% increase in my monthly income -- not bad.  Heck, in my current real job if I got promoted I couldn't get that big an increase in my monthly income. 

lordmonar

Quote from: RiverAux on November 29, 2008, 10:44:43 PM1.  Go with the volunteer firefighter benefit I mentioned at the top of $5/month X years of service.
2.  Limit it to those who have actual retired from CAP service (requires 20 years) and assume all participants have only the minimum years == Participant benefits would then be $100 per month = $1,200/year.
3.  Assume that 7% of CAP seniors stay in long enough to retire (not out of line based on a quick look at the number of people in my wing who have been in over 20 years).  == 7% of 35K = 2,450 people
4.  For the sake of argument assume that 25% of all seniors who reach CAP retirement have been aircrew qualified for that whole period and are eligible (probably not a bad estimate based on what is shown on the Homeland Security page).  2,450 people X .25 = 613
5.  So, we're at 613 CAP senior members who would be eligible to get the pension. 
6.  Assume that half of all eligible retired and started getting benefits right now.  307 eligible X $1,200 per year = 1st year cost of $368,400 + 10% admin = $405,240.

So basically you are talking about one new air plane a year..... 

Also....if you give a monitary benifit you can expect a higher retention rate and more people getting and keeping rateings that make them eligible for the pension.

I vote we just buy the plane.
PATRICK M. HARRIS, SMSgt, CAP

D2SK

Lighten up, Francis.

Climbnsink

No new taxes.  Geez we are volunteers, not employees.  Leave the taxpayers money alone.   I feel guilty enough flying stuff subsidized by the poor taxpayers. 

RiverAux

QuoteAlso....if you give a monitary benifit you can expect a higher retention rate and more people getting and keeping rateings that make them eligible for the pension.
Yes, I would probably expect it to help in those areas to some extent, and it might also help in recruitment of younger senior members (Someone that is already 60 isn't going to get excited about a benefit that they wouldn't be eligible for until they're 80).   Even if we restrict it to aircrew members, I suspect it would help us in retention of mid and high-level mission staff since many members who are in CAP that long also advance up the ES chain.  One could argue that the side benefit of keeping those people around might outweight the benefit of retaining aircrew members since it is a lot easier to train a new scanner than a new AOBD. 

It would be interesting to see some stats on average length of service in volunteer fire departments with pension plans vs those without them to see what kind of effect it has in those areas. 

However, I would still look at it primarily as a reward for faithful service to the federal government. 


BillB

If you gave "pensions" to air ctews, why would anyone work groundteams, or mission base? Or if you're going to gibe it to air crews and ground teams what do you do about the cadets who normally comprise 50% of a ground team Seems like you are creating a class structure for a very small number of members.
Gil Robb Wilson # 19
Gil Robb Wilson # 104

A.Member

#30
Quote from: RiverAux on November 29, 2008, 03:01:32 PM
Would you be in favor of having CAP lobby the feds to get some form of reduced benefit pension program for volunteers?
No, and I find the idea rather bizarre.  

As noted, as volunteers we do not earn monetary compensation in this organization, this is just one significant difference from volunteer police/fire organizations.
"For once you have tasted flight you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards, for there you have been and there you will long to return."

A.Member

Quote from: Climbnsink on November 30, 2008, 06:21:58 AM
No new taxes.  Geez we are volunteers, not employees.  Leave the taxpayers money alone.   I feel guilty enough flying stuff subsidized by the poor taxpayers. 
:clap:
"For once you have tasted flight you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards, for there you have been and there you will long to return."

A.Member

Quote from: RiverAux on November 30, 2008, 01:39:32 PM
However, I would still look at it primarily as a reward for faithful service to the federal government. 
The reward is knowing that you've served your community and country while hopefully making a positive impact on a few lives along the way.
"For once you have tasted flight you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards, for there you have been and there you will long to return."

RiverAux

#33
Quote from: BillB on November 30, 2008, 02:52:01 PM
If you gave "pensions" to air ctews, why would anyone work groundteams, or mission base? Or if you're going to gibe it to air crews and ground teams what do you do about the cadets who normally comprise 50% of a ground team Seems like you are creating a class structure for a very small number of members.
Well, as discussed earlier, those who are risking the most in service of CAP and the federal government are the aircrews.  Recognition of the risks of flying as "hazardous duty" in many government agencies and I don't know if it is still the case, but I think that at one time this happened in the military as well.  Along with that recognition came extra benefits.

I don't think we have to worry about all our hard core ground team members dropping that in order to fly so that they can participate in a pension program. 

All that being said, I'm not opposed to having such a program open to all CAP members, its just that I don't think we would be able to get it approved if we did.  The justification would be weaker and the costs would be higher. 

QuoteAs noted, as volunteers we do not earn monetary compensation in this organization, this is just one significant difference from volunteer police/fire organizations.
Volunteer firefighters and policemen are no different than CAP members in that they are not paid.  So the comment above doesn't make any sense to me.

A.Member

#34
Quote from: RiverAux on November 30, 2008, 03:33:31 PM
Volunteer firefighters and policemen are no different than CAP members in that they are not paid.  So the comment above doesn't make any sense to me.
I'll admit I'm no expert on the topic but this is not the case for the ones I know of in my area.  Certainly, they won't get rich (that's not why people volunteer anyway) but they are paid either on an per call or on-call basis.  It's possible that the source of payment may come from areas outside the city but they do receive some compensation; even if the payment is in the form of a pension and/or other benefits.  It's my understanding that there are only a handfull of true full-time (paid), firefighters in my state.  This may not be the case nationwide, I don't know, but it's been the case here.
"For once you have tasted flight you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards, for there you have been and there you will long to return."

Climbnsink

Just because some volunteer firefighters get pensions doesn't mean that all volunteers should get pensions.   I hope that Vol. FF pensions are voted on and paid entirely by the local community.  Otherwise it's another taxpayer ripoff/redistribution nonsense.   Just one more tax for a worthy cause- no thanks. 

RiverAux

QuoteI'll admit I'm no expert on the topic but this is not the case for the ones I know of in my area.  Certainly, they won't get rich (that's not why people volunteer anyway) but they are paid either on an per call or on-call basis. 
Well then they are part-time firefighters, not volunteers.  There is a difference. 

PaulR

Quote from: Climbnsink on November 30, 2008, 06:21:58 AM
No new taxes.  Geez we are volunteers, not employees.  Leave the taxpayers money alone.   I feel guilty enough flying stuff subsidized by the poor taxpayers. 

Amen!!  Next thing we all know, the Coast Guard Auxiliary, the Boy/Girl Scouts, and the Police Explorers will want some sort of similar deal.  No way.  From what I understand, our new Leader wants to raise our taxes more as it is... >:D 

Ned

Quote from: RiverAux on November 30, 2008, 06:35:01 PM]Well then they are part-time firefighters, not volunteers.  There is a difference. 

You will find that there is no "bright-line" definition between volunteers and part-time.

Many receive no pay at all and have to buy their own equipment.

Some receive uniform allowances that allow them to buy their own uniforms and equipment.

Some receive nominal fees for each month or even each call-out.  This is often done to help establish that they are "employees" for workmens comp coverage, but the fees are in the $10 a month/call out category.

Some receive a little more -- perhaps $2-3 per hour to compensate for uniform and equipment cleaning and maintenance.

FWIW, when I was a reserve cop, we were required to volunteer at least one shift a month, but could also work the same outside pay jobs (directing traffic at construction sites, school dances, concerts, etc) that the regulars could.  Some guys worked essentially full time as "reserve cops" and made a good living.

So, in the real world it can be a little fuzzy when drawing the line between "volunteer" and "part time."

Fortunately, in CAP we are pretty clearly volunteers under almost anyone's definition.

RiverAux

I think we're straying a bit, so won't respond beyond to say that there are similar gray areas involving CAP volunteers as well. 

Johnny Yuma

#40
Quote from: Ned on November 29, 2008, 05:14:09 PM
Perhaps we should start with a clear statement of the problem or issue that we are trying to solve with some sort of pension.


That would help guide us while we craft the pension "solution" to the "problem" we are trying to solve.


For example, I imagine that the volunteer firefighters have a significant problem with volunteers becoming injured or perhaps even disabled while on duty.  Obviously, anyone with family responsibilities would hesitate to volunteer for hazardous duties if there was a non-negligable  chance that they could be disabled to the extent that their family might be affected.

Fortunately, CAP members on AFAM already are covered by FECA that provides benefits.  (Sure, it is only based on GS-9 step 1, but that is far easier to fix than inventing a whole new persion program.)


And although I understand that you are attempting to exclude CP and AE folks from the discussion, could you clarify why we should do this?  After all, members who perform primarily ES are a minority of the membership, and if we -- as you suggest -- further limit the discussion to just members performing AFAM, then we are only talking about a benefit for a very, very tiny percentage of the membership


So what is the "problem" we are solving here?

I wouldn't trust FECA to cover anything on an AFAM. I kow of a member here in KSWG whom FECA has yet to cover all the bills and the collection agencies are hounding him. His injury, BTW, was almost 2 years ago.

Oh, you can forget temporary disablilty. FECA doesn't cover that. Dead or permanently injured, maybe, if the USAF doesn't decertify the mission #.

I didn't sign up for CAP for a pension. Either way we pay for it either in member dues and/or tax dollars. Besides, do you really trust CAP, Inc. or the .gov with your pension dollars???
"And Saint Attila raised the Holy Hand Grenade up on high saying, "Oh Lord, Bless us this Holy Hand Grenade, and with it smash our enemies to tiny bits. And the Lord did grin, and the people did feast upon the lambs, and stoats, and orangutans, and breakfast cereals, and lima bean-"

" Skip a bit, brother."

"And then the Lord spake, saying: "First, shalt thou take out the holy pin. Then shalt thou count to three. No more, no less. "Three" shall be the number of the counting, and the number of the counting shall be three. "Four" shalt thou not count, and neither count thou two, execpting that thou then goest on to three. Five is RIGHT OUT. Once the number three, being the third number be reached, then lobbest thou thy Holy Hand Grenade to-wards thy foe, who, being naughty in my sight, shall snuffit. Amen."

Armaments Chapter One, verses nine through twenty-seven:

JayT

Quote from: RiverAux on November 30, 2008, 07:27:52 PM
I think we're straying a bit, so won't respond beyond to say that there are similar gray areas involving CAP volunteers as well. 

No, there's not. Not even a little.

When have you ever been paid for CAP service, much less paid enough to make a living?
"Eagerness and thrill seeking in others' misery is psychologically corrosive, and is also rampant in EMS. It's a natural danger of the job. It will be something to keep under control, something to fight against."

Flying Pig

Quote from: RiverAux on November 30, 2008, 07:27:52 PM
I think we're straying a bit, so won't respond beyond to say that there are similar gray areas involving CAP volunteers as well. 

Sorry, dude.  No grey areas in CAP.  Im not sure exactly what yuo are reaching for.  Between this Pension thread and your comparing mortality rates of CAP members to Law Enforcement, Im getting the idea your looking for CAP to provide some sort of career change for you.  Where CAP gets themselves in trouble is when its members take CAP beyond what it is. 

Timbo

No on CAP Pensions.  The reasons are numerous and have already been brought up in posts before this one. 

If by chance we were to grant pensions.......can you imagine how in DEBT the organization would be with all the 90 year old Lt Col's submitting for their pension.


PORed

I agree no CAP pensions, yes there is inherent danger in CAP; but in the same respect there is much more danger in being a volunteer Fire Fighter then a CAP member. Also if there where to be a CAP pension it should be across the board, not just for Airdales. But to reiterate I feel that no pensions are need or required.

RiverAux

Quote from: PORed on December 03, 2008, 01:38:29 PM
but in the same respect there is much more danger in being a volunteer Fire Fighter then a CAP member.
Not really - as addressed in a different thread. 

SJFedor

Quote from: RiverAux on December 03, 2008, 11:16:22 PM
Quote from: PORed on December 03, 2008, 01:38:29 PM
but in the same respect there is much more danger in being a volunteer Fire Fighter then a CAP member.
Not really - as addressed in a different thread. 

River, I don't know your background, but do you have any experience as a volly FF?

Friends of mine that are volly FF's put their lives on the line an awful lot more times then the amount of times I step in a CAP aircraft, regardless of the purpose (AFAM, training, o-flights, etc).

There's a lot more inherent danger, you're comparing apples and grenades.

Steven Fedor, NREMT-P
Master Ambulance Driver
Former Capt, MP, MCPE, MO, MS, GTL, and various other 3-and-4 letter combinations
NESA MAS Instructor, 2008-2010 (#479)

lordmonar

It does not have anything to do with putting our lives on the line, how much service we give, or our impact on our community.

It has everything to do with money.

It would be nice to get a pension....but I can think of 100 better things to spend a $400K/year on.

We could send every cadet to encampment for free with that kind of money. 
We could by an extra air plane.
We could by an IR sensor suit for our airplanes.
We could pay for some full-time professionals to integrated and modernise our IT stuff (E-service, IMU, WMU, WRMS and sims).

Much better then giving some retired guy $100/month.
PATRICK M. HARRIS, SMSgt, CAP

Flying Pig

River......you think abotu CAP way to much bro.

JayT

Quote from: RiverAux on December 03, 2008, 11:16:22 PM
Quote from: PORed on December 03, 2008, 01:38:29 PM
but in the same respect there is much more danger in being a volunteer Fire Fighter then a CAP member.
Not really - as addressed in a different thread. 

How dare you make that statement.

How can you possibly believe that CAP membership is even slightly as dangerious as being a fireman?

It's that sort of attitude that will prevent CAP from ever reaching it's full potiential.
"Eagerness and thrill seeking in others' misery is psychologically corrosive, and is also rampant in EMS. It's a natural danger of the job. It will be something to keep under control, something to fight against."

PORed

What we do in CAP is voulenteer work, if you follow River's train of though then the Candy Stripers at the hospital should recive a pension as well. What I do in the Military merits a pension. Is CAP important, Yes. Is it a actvity that merits a pension, No.

JayT

Quote from: PORed on December 11, 2008, 07:23:47 PM
What we do in CAP is voulenteer work, if you follow River's train of though then the Candy Stripers at the hospital should recive a pension as well. What I do in the Military merits a pension. Is CAP important, Yes. Is it a actvity that merits a pension, No.

Amen.
"Eagerness and thrill seeking in others' misery is psychologically corrosive, and is also rampant in EMS. It's a natural danger of the job. It will be something to keep under control, something to fight against."

RiverAux

Quote from: SJFedor on December 04, 2008, 02:23:51 AM
Quote from: RiverAux on December 03, 2008, 11:16:22 PM
Quote from: PORed on December 03, 2008, 01:38:29 PM
but in the same respect there is much more danger in being a volunteer Fire Fighter then a CAP member.
Not really - as addressed in a different thread. 

River, I don't know your background, but do you have any experience as a volly FF?here's a lot more inherent danger, you're comparing apples and grenades.
Not as a volunteer, but at various times in my life I have trained and served as a wildland firefighter. 

heliodoc

So have I, River

10 years plus on the wildland fireline

But like the fireline and the Federal age 57 rule, I would take a complete rewrite of CFR's, OMB rulings, etc.

CAP has its own inherent gobbledegook rules to plow thru, that I would really believe CAP pensions would need a complete possibel Congressional and rewrite of how CAP is chartered.

Don't think CAP pensions are happening in my lifetime and I am nearing a half century old.

I would say like the old saying goes.... "Contact your Congressman"  In these times of the economy, there will be NO traction to get CAP pensions on anyones docket anytime soon

Gunner C

One thing that hasn't been addressed here is corruption.  As much as I hate to admit it CAP has a tremendous problem with it.  On the lower end we have goofballs who wear bling they haven't earned - reference something as small as wearing unit citations not earned.  On the upper end, we have a region commander who was bounced for overspending her budget by thousands of dollars.  How many others do we know of?

When we throw awards or money into the mix, things get dicey and frankly crooked.  When you talk about pensions (money), then records will be doctored, secret handshakes will be traded, and it will turn into another horrible black eye for the organization.

That said, I think that any money reward for volunteer service is a very bad idea.

Gunner

lordmonar

And all of this goes back to 'what problem does it solve'?

Do we really have a problem of not retaining personnel to their 20 year mark?

The proablem we need to address is the number of people we loose between their 1 year and 5 year mark.
PATRICK M. HARRIS, SMSgt, CAP

RiverAux

QuoteOne thing that hasn't been addressed here is corruption.
If anything there are many more controls on cheating this sort of system in CAP than there are in volunteer fire departments.  After all, we do have fairly involved oversight by the AF while there are tons of podunk vol departments out there operating totally independently.  But, I wouldn't argue that any sort of pension program would need very close monitoring just as a matter of general principle. 

Quote from: lordmonar on December 12, 2008, 05:52:06 PM
Do we really have a problem of not retaining personnel to their 20 year mark?
Yes, I believe I gave an estimate based on my wing earlier. 

QuoteThe proablem we need to address is the number of people we loose between their 1 year and 5 year mark.
Not really.  Many organizations function quite well with having high turnover at the lowest level.  Would it be better to retain 25% more of our new pilots than we are now?  Sure, but I don't believe pensions would keep in somebody that is already inclined to leave after only being in a year or two.  Those folks are gone anyway.

A lot of our problems in CAP relate back to the low to middle management levels.  Part of that problem is not having a large number of people available to choose from to install in leadership positions.  How many times have we heard about units where no one wanted to become squadron commander because they know that if they did, they would be stuck in that position for a long time because finding replacements is so hard?

So, if we had a larger core of people with 10-20 years of experience we would have more folks to choose from for leadership positions, hopefully making it easier to put a higher quality person in that job. 

No matter what we do we cannot expect to have a huge retention rate of brand new senior members.  Every club loses a lot of their recruits because they figure out that the organization isn't a good fit for them. 

The possibility of obtaining a pension is going to help in retention middle to high-level mission staff members who have been around for a while and of which I believe we barely have enough to accomplish our routine missions, much less handle the biggest ones. 

And I am not arguing that it would solve all our leadership problems, but it could certainly help nibble around the edges. 

roxysox

RiverAUX - what you are talking about doing is moving CAP from a volunteer organization to a partially professional organization. I know volunteer firefighters are considered volunteer but really they are semiprofessional receiving around 50 dollars a call they respond to, at least where I am from. My second issue is more a personal one. While I value what Civil Air Patrol does, and what it did for me in my teenage life, someone who works with cadets once a week for 3 hours or does the occasional ES mission does not deserve taxpayers money for their services. Trust me when I say this, as a medically retired Marine, there a veterans out there who did a MASSIVE amount of more service then that and are getting next to nothing for it in return.

RiverAux

QuoteRiverAUX - what you are talking about doing is moving CAP from a volunteer organization to a partially professional organization.
We are professionals now, we are just not paid. 

Quotesomeone who works with cadets once a week for 3 hours or does the occasional ES mission does not deserve taxpayers money for their services
I think you will find mention earlier in the thread that I supported being pretty restrictive about which members would be eligible and have no problem with there being a pretty high bar. 

PORed

#59
The only time I could see a CAP pension being issued is when the CAP member is injured in a CAP mission in such a way that they can no longer continue life in the capacity they had before the accident. That is really the only time I could justify a pension, and those individuals would deserve it. As it is I know of plenty of other military servicemembers injured or maimed during their time in, that their original lifestyle is not possible and they are getting a faction of what they deserve. I just want to see the already scarce DOD/DHS money for such things go to the right places.

Timbo

Instead of pensions......perhaps some more money needs to start being set aside each year by NHQ for those members who give their life while performing CAP duties.  I would rather see the family get hundreds of thousands of dollars upfront than see anyone ever get a pension.  Like Police and Fire associations that raise money for fallen firefighters and paramedics and police officers, we need a similar organization.  Raise money for our fallen heroes.  I would even include Cadets!!!  Shame on the USAF and the Federal Government for not including Cadets under 18 for dieing while performing an AF assigned mission.  (Because of that they need to stop counting all Cadets under the age of 18 as mission assets for AFAM's at CAP-USAF each year.  I could not with ethically send an under 18 Cadet on an AFAM knowing if he got hurt or worse, got killed he or his family would get no Federal Compensation)

RiverAux

#61
QuoteI just want to see the already scarce DOD/DHS money for such things go to the right places.
I also suggested that it wouldn't be bad for participating members to provide some of the funding themselves as is common in many pension systems today. 

Timbo -- you might want to read 900-5.  Cadets under 18 aren't eligible for federal workmen's comp, but they are eligible for benefits under CAP's insurance program.  $10K for accidental death, $8000 for medical.  This is for costs in excess of what their other insurance pays.  Its not great, but they do get some coverage. 

Timbo

Quote from: RiverAux on December 18, 2008, 02:32:53 AM
QuoteI just want to see the already scarce DOD/DHS money for such things go to the right places.
I also suggested that it wouldn't be bad for participating members to provide some of the funding themselves as is common in many pension systems today. 

Timbo -- you might want to read 900-5.  Cadets under 18 aren't eligible for federal workmen's comp, but they are eligible for benefits under CAP's insurance program.  $10K for accidental death, $8000 for medical.  This is for costs in excess of what their other insurance pays.  Its not great, but they do get some coverage. 

Thanks River......that issue was not making sense to me, now it does.  They still get no federal benefit though, right?  Only Corporate payout??

RiverAux

Yep, no federal.  Personally, I think they should ask for the federal law to be changed to allow cadet coverage, but on AFAMs we're not really asking them to do anything that is any more dangerous than they would do in any other youth organization that probably has no medical benefits at all for its members. 

PORed

River you are absolutely right, it doesn't matter whether cadets are supposed to safe or not, if the situation arises that a cadet is put in danger or dies. The family should be able to buy into a better death benefit or injury benefit for their cadets.

PaulR

Quote from: Timbo on December 18, 2008, 01:09:24 AM
Instead of pensions......perhaps some more money needs to start being set aside each year by NHQ for those members who give their life while performing CAP duties.  I would rather see the family get hundreds of thousands of dollars upfront than see anyone ever get a pension.  Like Police and Fire associations that raise money for fallen firefighters and paramedics and police officers, we need a similar organization.  Raise money for our fallen heroes.  I would even include Cadets!!!  Shame on the USAF and the Federal Government for not including Cadets under 18 for dieing while performing an AF assigned mission.  (Because of that they need to stop counting all Cadets under the age of 18 as mission assets for AFAM's at CAP-USAF each year.  I could not with ethically send an under 18 Cadet on an AFAM knowing if he got hurt or worse, got killed he or his family would get no Federal Compensation)

Now this I agree with 100%!  I would support this idea in a heartbeat!

Gunner C

Quote from: PaulR on December 18, 2008, 05:18:46 PM
Quote from: Timbo on December 18, 2008, 01:09:24 AM
Instead of pensions......perhaps some more money needs to start being set aside each year by NHQ for those members who give their life while performing CAP duties.  I would rather see the family get hundreds of thousands of dollars upfront than see anyone ever get a pension.  Like Police and Fire associations that raise money for fallen firefighters and paramedics and police officers, we need a similar organization.  Raise money for our fallen heroes.  I would even include Cadets!!!  Shame on the USAF and the Federal Government for not including Cadets under 18 for dieing while performing an AF assigned mission.  (Because of that they need to stop counting all Cadets under the age of 18 as mission assets for AFAM's at CAP-USAF each year.  I could not with ethically send an under 18 Cadet on an AFAM knowing if he got hurt or worse, got killed he or his family would get no Federal Compensation)

Now this I agree with 100%!  I would support this idea in a heartbeat!
That's a winning idea.  :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:

Ned

Quote from: Gunner C on December 19, 2008, 07:04:32 AM
Quote

Now this I agree with 100%!  I would support this idea in a heartbeat!
That's a winning idea.  :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:

That's odd.

Are you guys saying that you would make decisions that could possibly affect the lives of innocent victims (availability of cadet "manpower" on AFAM) based on whether or not you think the cadet's family should be entitled to money from the Federal Government?

I would have thought your role was to explain the situation to the cadet and her/his parents and let them decide what is best for them.

But that's just me.

Flying Pig

I would hope compensation or no compensation would affect any decisions. 

Timbo

Quote from: Ned on December 19, 2008, 06:39:48 PM

Are you guys saying that you would make decisions that could possibly affect the lives of innocent victims (availability of cadet "manpower" on AFAM) based on whether or not you think the cadet's family should be entitled to money from the Federal Government?

I would have thought your role was to explain the situation to the cadet and her/his parents and let them decide what is best for them.

But that's just me.

Ya......I hope you never have to tell a parent "little Suzie died while searching for a missing hiker who was really just extending his vacation in the woods without telling his relatives, oh and by the way, here is just enough money from CAP to bury your daughter, and don't ever think about getting any Cash from the US Government, even though she was 1 day away from her 18th birthday, and could have got more if she were in fact 18". 

Not to exclude Cadets under 18 is sinful, and I hope you would follow suit, to in fact exclude them, even though it may mean instead of 30 people searching for a missing -whatever-, now there are only 27. 

Short Field

Make sure the cadets and their parents know the rules, categories of compensation, and then let them make an informed decision.   

If you are denying them the opportunity to participate in CAP activities based on them not getting FECA benefits, you might need to expand your denial to all CAP activities.   This would also apply to senior members participating in a C mission.
SAR/DR MP, ARCHOP, AOBD, GTM1, GBD, LSC, FASC, LO, PIO, MSO(T), & IC2
Wilson #2640

N Harmon

#71
Quote from: Timbo on December 19, 2008, 07:53:06 PMNot to exclude Cadets under 18 is sinful, and I hope you would follow suit, to in fact exclude them, even though it may mean instead of 30 people searching for a missing -whatever-, now there are only 27.

First, it would not be only 27 instead of 30. It would probably be more like 15. And of those; 6 would likely be aircrew and 5 in mission base staff/IC. Which might leave just enough qualified seniors for a single ground team.

Sorry, but we couldn't run a lot of our missions without cadets. And while I agree that they should be treated better than they are, I don't like the idea of us jeopardizing our missions to make that point. I think we're a lot more professional than that. At least, we should be.

Also, are you basing this on real data? How many cadets have been killed on ES missions? Any? I have a feeling the number is pretty insignificant to justify what you're proposing. But I could be wrong.
NATHAN A. HARMON, Capt, CAP
Monroe Composite Squadron

Eclipse

Quote from: Timbo on December 19, 2008, 07:53:06 PM
Not to exclude Cadets under 18 is sinful,

You're kidding right?

The ability for cadets to function in a meaningful role in ES is a tenant of the entire program and a key differentiation of
us versus similar programs.

"That Others May Zoom"

Hawk200

Pensions for CAP members? I would say no. CAP is not a career, and shouldn't try to include the trappings of one.

I seriously doubt that a pension would be anywhere near as beneficial as anyone might think, or solve any problems at all. Compensation for injuries sustained on legitimate missions I agree with and would whole heartedly support. But not for a program where people don't show up regularly, or have the option of saying "Forget this, I quit."

A lot would have to change before I would even consider a pension system as anywhere near appropriate. No, solve some of our issues first, before trying to make CAP a part of a retirement plan.

SAR-EMT1

My two cents:

I was a certified GTM for several years.
I remain a UDF and FLM member and UDF instructor.

Problem is: I've been in CAP a decade and havent had a single mission in my AO in the entire decade.

On the other hand, I'm a Squadron Commander and in the decade I've been in CAP have been absent at less then a dozen meetings.

So saying that a pension program is limited to active ES people is wrong.
There just isnt a call for it here, but I do work with cadets and AE.

YMMV
C. A. Edgar
AUX USCG Flotilla 8-8
Former CC / GLR-IL-328
Firefighter, Paramedic, Grad Student

RiverAux

Just another thought on this --- CAP-RAP personnel volunteer their time (most of the time) to oversee CAP activities and in return get retirement points.  In effect the volunteer program that they participate in allows them to retire earlier than they would otherwise be able to.  One CAP-RAP that I know will get to retire with full benefits about 8 years earlier than they would have if they weren't doing CAP-RAP. 

So, in effect the feds already are spending money on volunteers working with CAP -- they just aren't CAP members. 

lordmonar

Okay...but the feds were going to pay those retirement costs anyway.....You still have not come up with a good way to pay for this retirement system.
PATRICK M. HARRIS, SMSgt, CAP

RiverAux

Actually they're losing the use of people who otherwise would still be contributing full Reserve service a lot earlier than they would have otherwise.  In the example I provided, they will provide full retirement for somebody 8 years early -- thats not insignificant.  And remember, there is no guarantee that anybody is going to serve long enough to get full-retirement.  So, this is not a free program by any stretch. 

Several different options have been presented on how it could be done, but it just isn't going to be possible to give anything specific here. 

wingnut55

I use to be critical of some of my mis-perceived ideas about CAPs lack of coverage (insurance Etc). However, as I began to do research I realized that many volunteer fireman around the country get ZIP, they do not have liability insurance driving to a fire. Some states do have a minimal pension but it is really complicated. I believe that we do provide a huge service to our country I do not think we need the pain of a pension plan mathematical equation.

I do believe we need more transparency in death benefits, a corporate $10,000 policy is so pitiful, I am ashamed of NHQ for not at least making it $50,000. I also think the Wings have been doing a crappy job investigating the benefits allowed under State Laws for emergency workers. We are almost always left out in the Cold.

I hate to say this but I honestly believe that there is very little real concern for the guys in the trenches, after all NHQ pays little attention to us unless we screw up, and because they are acting like a corporation maybe we need a CAP Union

>:D    >:D    >:D    :clap: 

FW

Um.... saying NHQ doesn't pay attention to "us" unless we screw up is a bit extreme.  NHQ pays attention to the NB and NEC and the BOG.  It is the job of these bodies to pay attention to the membership.  However, that's my opinion; YMMV.

Now, as to CAP-RAP and points.  Yes however, the CAP-RAP members work for the USAF; not CAP.  Their job is to provide CAP-USAF support (I know this is a technicality but, it's true).

As for CAP death/disability benefits,  the money comes from our membership dues.  We can increase the maximum payment.  Let's see; another $100k per year (an average of 2 maximum member payouts/year) would mean about a $2 annual increase in member dues.  If that's ok with the members, it would be ok with the NB and, it can be done.  

"Membership has its rewards".  We try to make the experience more rewarding as time goes by and, as we get more money to spend.  Even in these trying times we haven't had to worry (too much) about cutting back.  If there is ever a day I need to "retire" from CAP, my "pension" will be a lifetime of great memories, friends and experiences.

RiverAux

QuoteNow, as to CAP-RAP and points.  Yes however, the CAP-RAP members work for the USAF; not CAP.  Their job is to provide CAP-USAF support (I know this is a technicality but, it's true).
Yep, its true that the AF is giving them pension benefits based on volunteer service to CAP-USAF and the AF.  CAP members provide volunteer service to the AF.  Just pointing out that the volunteer-barrier has already been busted here. 

It is true that benefits (if any) can vary widely among volunteer fire departments and other volunteer agencies.  Some don't get squat and others get quite a bit.

As to death benefits, I think the AF should pony up the same death benefits to CAP members that they provide to any civilian employee killed while on duty.  I've got no clue as to what they might be though, but it is probably higher than CAP.

As to providing specifically benefits to CAP members through the states, that is going to be a tough sell.  Better to frame it as benefits available to all emergency service volunteers as the obvioius and legitimate question they would have is why is it their duty to provide benefits to the auxiliary of a federal military service. 

SarDragon

The CAP-RAP may accrue his retirement points earlier, but he still doesn't get paid retirement until he turns 60.
Dave Bowles
Maj, CAP
AT1, USN Retired
50 Year Member
Mitchell Award (unnumbered)
C/WO, CAP, Ret

Cecil DP

Quote from: SarDragon on February 03, 2009, 04:01:57 AM
The CAP-RAP may accrue his retirement points earlier, but he still doesn't get paid retirement until he turns 60.

And he still has to have a minimum of 20 years of service.
Michael P. McEleney
LtCol CAP
MSG  USA Retired
GRW#436 Feb 85

wingnut55


Excellent Point, I totally forgot about the Hundreds of USAF officers getting retirement points, they do what??

Now what is it they exactly do??
not the full time people, I fail to see what they do either??

O-Rex

Quote from: wingnut55 on February 03, 2009, 10:55:32 AM

Excellent Point, I totally forgot about the Hundreds of USAF officers getting retirement points, they do what??

They put their names in the raffle to get called into the sandbox, I know of a few that did....

I don't need a CAP pension, just discount my membership at regular intervals: 10% after 10 years, 25% after 20 years, etc.

RiverAux

Quote from: SarDragon on February 03, 2009, 04:01:57 AM
The CAP-RAP may accrue his retirement points earlier, but he still doesn't get paid retirement until he turns 60.
Doesn't negate the fact that he/she is getting credit for time served as a volunteer.  In fact what it does is take their name out of the hat for the sandbox years earlier than it would otherwise while they get credit as if they were in that lottery.

By the way, I'm all for the CAP-RAP program and these benefits for those participating in it. 

Ned

Quote from: RiverAux on February 03, 2009, 02:53:11 PMDoesn't negate the fact that he/she is getting credit for time served as a volunteer.  In fact what it does is take their name out of the hat for the sandbox years earlier than it would otherwise while they get credit as if they were in that lottery.

Hmmm.  As a member of the retired reserve, I am still eligible for recall to the sandbox until I actually retire at age 60.  So I'm not sure why you think the CAP RAP folks are somehow "getting over" on their mobilization status.

Many, if not most, of the CAP RAP folks I have met would probably just be sitting in their "IRR" pool doing nothing except correspondence courses to earn points if they were not helping out CAP.

Also, I'm not sure I would call would they do "volunteering."  I agree that they don't get paid for some of their work, but their are a significant number of paid mandays distributed through CAP RAP channels for things like SAR EVALs, SAVs, etc.  From what I've seen, these days typically go toward the more active CAP RAPS, so a lot of unpaid time leads to some paid time. 

And even if all they get are "points" for a given CAP duty, that is fairly valuable.  All those points add up and turn into cash when the officer hits 60 and draws her/his reserve retirement.

What they do is invaluable for CAP.  There are some things we couldn't do without them.  But they are professional military officers, not volunteers, their pay status notwithstanding.

gistek

Rather than pension benefits, I'd like to see CAP offer group discounts wherever possible. The medical insurance is a start. Perhaps CAP could negotiate reductions for life, auto, homeowners, and renter's with some insurance companies.

An unmatched, tax-deferred fund (Roth, 401K) for retirement or education would be nice. I know investment is a dirty word these days, but I'd rather have rolled my 401K into a CAP fund for small transfer fee than the $500 I paid to set up my personal fund after I was laid off.

It's even possible for the fund to pay its own costs by offering lower interest/dividends for the first few years, permitting loans, and charging a maintenance fee (reduce % earned) on accounts held by people who let their membership lapse.

RiverAux

QuoteHmmm.  As a member of the retired reserve, I am still eligible for recall to the sandbox until I actually retire at age 60
True, but you've got to admit that the chances of you getting recalled from retirement are much less than that of somebody who would have continued to be a drilling Reservist if they hadn't gotten to retire early because of their CAPRAP service. 

QuoteBut they are professional military officers, not volunteers, their pay status notwithstanding.
Mostly true (some CAP-RAPs are NCOs), but many CAP members are professionals in their own right and also happen to volunteer some of their time to the Air Force through CAP. 

QuoteAnd even if all they get are "points" for a given CAP duty, that is fairly valuable.  All those points add up and turn into cash when the officer hits 60 and draws her/his reserve retirement.
That is exactly what I've been saying -- they are getting a valuable benefit for time spent as a volunteer.  I bring this up because one of the primary reasons people have said that they don't like this idea is that they believe volunteer service should not come without any financial incentives.  Thanks to my late-to-the-ballgame CAP-RAP example, I have successfully pointed out that the AF is already giving financial benefits for volunteering your time to work with CAP so there is no logical reason that they couldn't do the same for CAP members.

Now, the only remaining problem would be paying for it -- and I by no means believe that this would be a small hurdle. 

QuoteRather than pension benefits, I'd like to see CAP offer group discounts wherever possible. The medical insurance is a start. Perhaps CAP could negotiate reductions for life, auto, homeowners, and renter's with some insurance companies.
CAP has been doing this sort of thing for a while, but for the most part I've been unimpressed with what they've come up with.