10% pay cut. Apparently they've already cut other city workers' pay 10%.
Comments ... #
Excellent idea. Note my post on the OCSEA contract approved pending ratification this week. It is the first contract approved through collective bargaining since SB5 was tossed out and calls for NO wage hikes for the three year duration.The city unions could learn from that perhaps.
Anyone in current administrative positions who are double dippers should work for 50% of current salaries. I find it offensive that you can retire one day and be rehired the next.
If I retire and my company decides to hire be back, how is that a bad thing?
because your retirement and your new salary would come out of the company till. Municipalities dont create anything so the extra $$ comes out of the taxpayers.
There's nothing wrong with that Sensor because that is a private company. I think what people get mad about is that these folks are getting a public pension and still getting occupying a government job. I think if you are full time employed by a public entity, you shouldn't be able to draw your pension. Yeah, I know that the cost is the same if they quit working and we have to pay someone to do the job. But at least that makes room for more people to move up. If Bell, Navarre, et al think they will be bored in retirement because they are still in their 50's, then they should either keep working and defer their pensions or change the rules so it isn't feasible to retire until at least age 60 (like the rest of us, if we are lucky).
Also, there are plenty of folks who retire from Jeep or whatever at age 55, get bored and then decide to get a job somewhere. They don't need the money, it is just something to get them out of the house. Let me suggest that if you are wondering what to fill your days with in retirement, there are plenty of organizations that would love to have you volunteer. Leave the paid jobs for those younger than you that are scraping by trying to make ends meet.
Anyone who is eligible and able to double dip would be a fool not to, otherwise they are just walking away from money. Now if Navarre had just retired would any money be saved, no, because he would be collecting his retirement and someone else would be collecting as the new police chief (of Toledo, and of Oregon). His retirement opened up a position so there is no net loss of jobs (sure you could argue that there would have been two open jobs had he not taken the Oregon job, but Oregon hired the best person they could, and should not factor into it what his other financial arrangements are. No one complains about all the people who retire and take social security, and then work another job, or get hired back in the same job they had before (and yes it does happen in the private sector). An odd example is my Father who retired from the government after 30 years, and started collecting his pension, was bored and started working at an assisted living facility, and worked there long enough to start collecting a pension from them when he finally actually quit working. So unless we are willing to say that once you retire from any job, public or private sector, you may no longer work for any income any where else, there is nothing else to argue about.
No one complains about all the people who retire and take social security, and then work another job
Isn't a person's social security benefit reduced if they are employed and earning a wage?
sensor - was that a serious question? i have found i generally agree with you on most things you write here. i would be very discouraged if you don't recognize the inherent conflicts that arise from double dipping and the way that the current rules and contracts create unsustainable legacy costs that are now bancrupting the city... leading to loss of services and layoffs for the last people in.
all of the conflicts between "A" team and "B" team democrats over the last couple decades comes down largely to who gets to appoint friends to high paying administrative posts so that their 3 highest paid years (which PERS is based upon) maxes their retirement benefits.
if a private company did that, they would have to justify it to their shareholders (who would be angry) or, if privately held, be able to sustain nearly doubling employee costs, which would put them at a severe disadvantage with competitors. i have heard of similar situations but the employer almost always drops medical or some other benefits which makes it more feasible.
jackie, I agree with you. What I find offensive is the idea that a job opening in the government sector gets filled instantly without anyone else being able to apply for the position. Was the job vacancy posted, were applications solicited or accepted from internal candidates (or, later, opened up for external candidates)? Is there any sort of hiring process in place, or do they hire for all positions that way -- making decisions behind closed doors, with a couple of phone calls?
I look at the fact that the employees earned their pensions. Itís not my money, itís theirs. Just like my company pension and 401k are mine and note my employer or stock holders. Is the system abused? Sure it is, but in the case of Bell and Navarre, they retired and got THEIR pensions, that THEY earned. Now just because they want to get go back in into the work force, shouldnít mean they have to give up their pensions.
I know several people in the military that retired and now work for the government. Should they be forced to give up their military pensions that they earned over 25-30 years because they still want to work? Iím with roygbiv on this one.
for me it comes down to the provisions of the contracts they work under that are overly generous:
- no contribution to retirement; all picked up by the citizens
- no medical contribution
- no minimum retirement age; they can easily live 30 - 35 years after leaving
it is a measure of how overly generous the benefits are that once employed by the city, employees never leave for the private sector. no matter how nasty the mayor gets ;)
enjoyeverysandwich- and are you saying if offered the same benefits you would turn them down. I Know someone who was a manager for Ameritech some years ago, took early retirement with a very nice package, and then was hired to consult doing pretty much the same job he had left. My thing is no one should be punished or blamed for taking advantage of an existing contract (in terms of pay, and benefits, they received what was negotiated) now that doesn't mean that the details can't change thru negotiations, and probably should. However the ability to double dip should not be touched, unless you are going to stop everyone from all forms of employment after they retire. And enjoyeverysandwich I left a government job (not by retirement, and I can't double dip) and went into the public sector, mostly because of the idiots in management.
enjoyeverysandwich you make an excellent point.
Retired public workers should not be allowed to live 30-35 yeras after leaving. Perhaps we can pass a law limiting their retirment years to ..... lets say 22 years. Once they reach that point then we'll find a humane way to exterminate them.
This thread has taken an intriguing twist. There are many numerous categories which could be added to the list. Allow me to work myself up into a real rage and frenzy and will get back with enumeration of the targets.
roy - no, i probably would not turn them down if offered. but my point is the government should have comparable and competitive benefits to the private sector, not way way better.
sham - obviously the point is people do live to ripe old ages and NOT that they should be killed. the longer they live the more it costs taxpayers -and those costs have to be built into the projections of tax revenue. allowing people to retire as early as 50 instead of a minimum age of something reasonable like 62 maybe even 65 is a responsible thing for government to do. very few people outside of government have the ability to retire that early yet have to fund government people who get that benefit.
in fact, most people FUND their retirements all by themselves or at least largely on their own as opposed to city employees who have their retirements funded fully by tax dollars. the city has been in turmoil for 5 or 6 years now because the pols did not look at actuary tables and the obligations they were taking on.
if we can find a way for all people to retire earlier with gauranteed benefits paid for by government, that would be great. but serious answers to these on-going problems require answers that address the real issues.
how would you pursue getting revenues and obligations to balance while providing service levels needed by citizens? the options are few - raise revenue? cut services? get benefits in line with pervailing trends in the private sector? other? none of it is fun.
dbw - soylent green and planet of the apes; charleton heston at his best! "soylent green is people!!"
enjoyeverysandwich,I totally agree with everything you have written.The vast majority of workers out there can't do what these public workers can do.If I were to have retired from the company I work for at age 56 like Navarre did,my pension would have been reduced 4% per year for every year that I was below 62.Also,I could not draw any social security until age 62 and that would also be reduced because I took it before age 66.Another factor would be health care.I would have to pay the full amount of my health care premium until I could draw medicare at age 65.Then if I decided to go back to work at age 62 I would be restricted to how much money I could make or I could lose my social security benefit.I would have to wait to 66 in order to make as much as I wanted to without worring about losing S.S. benefits.I also have earned what I have worked for,but cannot double dip without consequences.What rubs me the wrong way is the I am funding the early retirement of these public employees through my tax dollars and also funding my own through S.S. payments and contributions to a 401k.These same public employees do not pay one penny to my retirement.Why shouldn't I be upset with the excessive benefits they receive while I am pretty much stuck working until age 65 to even consider retiring.
I think there are a few examples that tend to boil people's blood more than anything...
Remember, Sheriff Telb retired for one day. After that one day, he returned to his job, only now is drawing a OPERS pension and his pay. That is nowhere near a true retirement, and to my mind, is a prime example of why we need to change the OPERS guidelines.
Personally, I don't have a problem with Navarre retiring and taking the job in Oregon. Now if he had "retired" and taken back his old job in Toledo, I would have an issue with that.
I agree with Anniecksi. It is the "fake" retirements that bother me in terms of double-dippers.
Someone who retires for only one day just to generate pension eligibility, and then goes back to the same or similar job with the same employer.
I think that the public pension rules could be re-written to prevent abuse of the system without penalizing the individuals who have earned a pension, truly retired, and then decide to return to work at some point.
Also, there are plenty of folks who retire from Jeep or whatever at age 55, get bored and then decide to get a job somewhere.
I believe the UAW contract was changed in 2005 and new hires will receive 401k instead of defined-benefit type pensions.
If You would Check OPERS web site You will find that once Your Retire from Public Service and have Paid into OPERS . You have to wait TWO (2) Months before You can return to work in the Public Sector or Your benefits are effected. This is OPERS, I can't speak for the other Ohio retirement systems.
If You choose to come back to work in the Public sector You must notify OPERS. If not, it effects your pension benefit.
You can return to work and work in the private sector with no problems.
One final note the Ohio Legislature has brought a bill to the floor concerning "Double Dippers" I don't know all the facts of the bill, but it does limit what You can make and also reduces Your Pension. The bill has not made it's way to floor of the Ohio House or Senate Yet for a vote. But they are looking at changing things.