'Double-dipping' by state workers in the spotlight

The Capital Times ^ | October 14, 2011 5:30 am | JESSICA VANEGEREN AND TODD FINKELMEYER

[knittnmom]

A longstanding practice that allows public workers to simultaneously collect their pension and a state paycheck has caught the attention of state lawmakers and top UW-Madison officials.

[SpaceBar]

Tip of the iceberg. It’s well known inside public servant circles (police, fire etc) that when nearing retirement you see a doctor who will wink, wink, nudge, nudge, diagnose that crick in your back to be a work related debilitation that qualifies you for generous retirement benefits. Everyone’s on the take.

[EGPWS]

simultaneously collect their pension and a state paycheck

One would think that such a practice would lead to the loss of both and prison time to boot for thievery.

[OldNavyVet]

My father, an older Navy man, worked for the Federal government before WW_II and before he was recalled into active duty service for WW-II.

During the war, he hit the 20 year mark ... but remained in service for the duration.

After the war, he couldn’t return to his Federal Civil Service job without losing his retirement pay.

He continued working, but not for the Federal government.

[afraidfortherepublic]

Duey Stroebel is my State Rep — a good man. He also happens to be a member of the Cedarburg School Board. I wonder if Cedarburg employs this practice?

I know that Mequon rehired 6 retired teachers this last school year, despite numerous applications for those jobs.

It isn’t just stae and school employees who are doing this, it is also municipal employees. The Head of Mequon’s Public Works double dipped, as well as the Police Chief of Grafton.

[knittnmom]

Happy Friday!

[Mortrey]

“...has caught the attention of state lawmakers...”

I hope state lawmakers in EVERY state start investigating this scam.
College professors do this, as well. They “retire”, then come back and continue teaching.

[ilovesarah2012]

Why? If you are legally allowed to “retire” and collect your pension, what is wrong with also working? If the employee worked at another job, would they still be eligible to receive their monthly pension? Most people who have been working for many years have earned their pension. Why are you against that?

[afraidfortherepublic]

Because it prevents jobs opening for younger, (perhaps) more energetic workers. There is nothing wrong with working after retirement, but the retirees should go find a job elsewhare, or the open market, not monopolize one institution ad nauseum.

Many of the people pulling this are the most highly paid in their departments. They collect full pensions plus a full salary on top of that. It prevents those under them from being promoted and is an obstacle for new blood comng in. Furthermore, it is really raising the costs for government and public schools.

[ilovesarah2012]

So are you saying it isn’t fair?

[afraidfortherepublic]

I’m saying that it is too costly for government and school districts. And it usually operates on a plane of favoritism. Not all retiring employees get to walk right back into their offices and classrooms — just the ones who have curried favor with the powers that be. I am saying that it is a bad practice because fresh ideas seldom enter the marketlace if the same old people keep running the same old jobs. I’m saying that it is discouraging to underlings because they see no chance of rising in the ranks, short of their bosses suffering a stroke, or accident.

[ExTxMarine]

If the employee worked at another job, would they still be eligible to receive their monthly pension?

Yes; however, they would not be hired into "another job" at the same pay and benefits as they left after working for 20+ years at their LAST company. More importantly, MOST private companies do not allow you to retire after only 20 years only to turn around and work another 20 years and get what? Another retirement check?

When these high-paid public-service retirees return, they are paid the same high-pay and benefits as when they left! That is ridiculous - PERIOD! If you retired from your current employer and went to work for a different company, you probably wouldn't be given the exact same pay and benefits from your current job. With these people, they are truly, actually DOUBLE-DIPPING from the tax payers. That is NOT acceptable.

[ilovesarah2012]

Okay - an employee who retires gets their pension, which they are legally entitled to receive. The employer (state, local, muni) hires another employee to fill the job, has to pay to train them, give them time to catch up with their responsibilities, which drags down productivity, and pay this person who may or may not work out. Or they can re-hire a proven employee who knows the job inside and out and is loyal and dependable. I don’t see the problem. As for young people being “fresh”, both of my daughters are in their 20s and work. Both of them always tell me stories of other 20-somethings calling in sick when everyone knows they aren’t or just not showing up or showing up late. There is a lot of turnover as well with the young ones.

I think it’s smart to rehire proven people and it rewards those who have dedicated their working lives to the employer.

[ilovesarah2012]

So you’re against people being paid well and receiving benefits because they have worked a long time? And most civil services jobs that I am aware of require 30 years before retirement. I see nothing wrong with it.

[ExTxMarine]

So you’re against people being paid well and receiving benefits because they have worked a long time?
Not what I said, but good attempt at deflecting my point. Starting your retort with a blatant lie doesn't bode well with me, so please show where I said people should not have benefits and retirement.

And most civil services jobs that I am aware of require 30 years before retirement.
Many state civil service jobs are allowed to retire at 20 to 25 years of service. And even it it were 30 years, these "retirees" return with the same pay, the same benefits and too often, the same POSITION as when they left. So, why did they retire? So that they could double-dip from the tax payer. I see PLENTY wrong with it!

The American tax payer should not be a piggy bank for these "civil servants." I do believe the definition of retiree is "one who has retired from active working life." In a very loose interpretation by these people, it means stopped actively working, until I come back next work day to continue working doing the same thing which I retired from doing. But, if you "see nothing wrong" with that, then OBVIOUSLY you and I don't see eye-to-eye on the problems in America!

[ilovesarah2012]

I think retirement should be after 30 years. But I really have no complaints about people “retiring” and going back to work. I just don’t see the big deal.

[cherry]

govt workers that retire should NOT be immediately rehired for the same job and get the exact same high wages.

..that is the problem..

..we're paying the highest tier of wages an benefits when we could be hiring a newbie who would start out at a lower tier....

its a big scam and everyone knows it.....

by all means, go back to work even for same govt entity, but you get paid beginners pay and beginners benefits...period...

[ExTxMarine]

The employer (state, local, muni) hires another employee to fill the job, has to pay to train them, give them time to catch up with their responsibilities, which drags down productivity, and pay this person who may or may not work out.

I think you have a skewed view if you think working for the government is about "productivity." Heck, MOST government work is about paperwork and making your position look important enough to keep. I know! I have worked for the military and I have served on many city and school board committees concerning benefits, programs and such.

I am not talking about the guy actually out delivering the mail or actually printing and mailing the title to your vehicle, because the majority of THOSE people do not have the seniority to "retire." We are typically talking about top and middle managers which could be replaced with EXPERIENCED lower managers who are ready to move up into the position, so "training" is minimal, at best.

In the education arena, TYPICALLY you have teachers who have been in the classroom too long, they don't understand the current students and can't relate to them. Again, in many cases, they should have been gone a long time ago, but due to retention and union requirements they are not only still there, they come back after "retirement" because they don't rock the boat for the Administration! I have seen every single one of these situations!

[cherry]

no....the experience myth only goes so far....

if you retire from outlandishly pay and benefits from the govt, you should be prohibited from going back to that same job and getting the same pay and benefits....

a Clerk in town here retired from working in the courst, got her retirement and then went back to work immediately getting her same old pay....&70,000......FORGET IT!

[cherry]

spoken like someone who has gone back to work after "retiring"....

its a pure scam...its killing the tax payers....we can't afford to retire people and hire them back at very high wages and benefits....it must stop....

go back to work...sure....but you start at the lowest beginner tier....but that is not what they are doing...they are grabbing two full paychecks....CHEATERS!