[JViello]

Latest from the Hartford courant. This type of corruption needs to be stopped. I'm surprised more current state employees are not outraged as it ultimately hurts them as well.

Hundreds of state employees who accepted a retirement-incentive package in 2009 remain on the state's payroll, even as officials strive to limit "double-dipping" by workers who collect both a pension and a paycheck, an analysis of state records shows.

Nearly 4,000 workers retired in June and July of 2009, the vast majority under an incentive program that boosted annual pensions by as much as 12 percent. But more than one in five continued to earn income from the state beyond their retirement, and more than 200 are still collecting a paycheck, nearly two years after they began receiving a pension, a review by the Courant shows.

Double-Dipping: Many Retired State Employees Still Collect Pensions And Paychecks - Courant.com

[Tetto]

I heard a caller this morning into Brad Davis' showcomment on this and it kind of made sense. His frame of reference was UTC where it is common for someone to retire on a Friday and go back to work in the same job (practically...) on a Monday. Since they are consultant/contractors, the claim is that it reduces the headcount of the employer and their outlay for bennies, insurance, etc...All saving $$$.

It may work that way for UTC, but if the state is trying to do that, they'll screw it up for sure.

[JViello]

Originally Posted by Tetto

I heard a caller this morning into Brad Davis' showcomment on this and it kind of made sense. His frame of reference was UTC where it is common for someone to retire on a Friday and go back to work in the same job (practically...) on a Monday. Since they are consultant/contractors, the claim is that it reduces the headcount of the employer and their outlay for bennies, insurance, etc...All saving $$$.

It may work that way for UTC, but if the state is trying to do that, they'll screw it up for sure.

Early retirement packages at the state level are short sighted stop gaps IMO. Sure it's easy to think that a $100K worker is going to be replaced by a 60K worker, but the reality is after pension payouts, healthcare benefits and the fact that the new worker will likely retire before the replaced worker passes on all make it more expensive in the end.

When you add in the employees coming back to work for the state after retiring from the state...Ah, no.

Hey, who wouldn't take a 12% pension hike for early retirement, and keep on working at the same pay rate? Must be nice to sock away and extra $100,000 or whatever your pension payments were over the last two years. The problem is, we pay for it.

My MIL is a two pension double dipper. Yes, she has two government pensions. Took the early retirement, went back into the job pool and put 15 years in, and just retired from that with two pensions. Nuts.

[hartford_renter]

Originally Posted by JViello

Latest from the Hartford courant. This type of corruption needs to be stopped. I'm surprised more current state employees are not outraged as it ultimately hurts them as well.

Hundreds of state employees who accepted a retirement-incentive package in 2009 remain on the state's payroll, even as officials strive to limit "double-dipping" by workers who collect both a pension and a paycheck, an analysis of state records shows.

Nearly 4,000 workers retired in June and July of 2009, the vast majority under an incentive program that boosted annual pensions by as much as 12 percent. But more than one in five continued to earn income from the state beyond their retirement, and more than 200 are still collecting a paycheck, nearly two years after they began receiving a pension, a review by the Courant shows.

Double-Dipping: Many Retired State Employees Still Collect Pensions And Paychecks - Courant.com

Jay, while I mostly agree with your intent, when you run the numbers you save money by allowing double dipping.

The state saves money by doing this, because they can pay a worker and not contribute to their pension in their extra job. Otherwise they would have to hire another employee.

You don't save any money.

[JayCT]

I agree with Hartford Renter on this. The Courant is agai trying to drum up newspaper sales. what usually happens is a person decides they are going to retire from the state and when they leave the agency can not find someone qualified within their agency to replace them. The state has had a moritorium on new hires for a long time now so it is easier and cheaper to hire back the old employee as a contractor. The unions hate this because they say it takes work away from their members. Jay

[JViello]

Well, I appreciate the replies...but it was my understanding that these early retirments were supposed to "reduce the number of state employees"...so why would they hire someone else in place of the person they gave a package too to leave?

And, many of these people are in the end, earning more than they were when they were regular state employees.

Example:

Dr. Perlini, super of Newington board of ed, is getting a $143,000 a year pension ( ) and just took a new position as the Super in Windsor making $180,000 per year. WTF?

Seriously?

[hartford_renter]

Originally Posted by JViello

Well, I appreciate the replies...but it was my understanding that these early retirments were supposed to "reduce the number of state employees"...so why would they hire someone else in place of the person they gave a package too to leave?

And, many of these people are in the end, earning more than they were when they were regular state employees.

Example:

Dr. Perlini, super of Newington board of ed, is getting a $143,000 a year pension ( ) and just took a new position as the Super in Windsor making $180,000 per year. WTF?

Seriously?

\

If they are double dipping in the same job then it saves money, otherwise it costs more if they could hire someone with less experience.

So if you are a professor and you retire, but get hired back for temporary work, you could potentially save money by not having to hire a whole nother professor.

I guess it depends in your example they should hire a new super and pay them 100K.

[Tetto]

Originally Posted by JViello

Well, I appreciate the replies...but it was my understanding that these early retirments were supposed to "reduce the number of state employees"...so why would they hire someone else in place of the person they gave a package too to leave?

And, many of these people are in the end, earning more than they were when they were regular state employees.

Example:

Dr. Perlini, super of Newington board of ed, is getting a $143,000 a year pension ( ) and just took a new position as the Super in Windsor making $180,000 per year. WTF?

Seriously?

It's crazy, but I think I'd like about 10 years worth of that crazy stuff...I know, I know thats the problem, but who can blame them? My dad did it when he retired from UTC. He left for two years and traveled around then went back making big consultant $$$ while collecting a pension. But thats a private company.

[bobtn]

JV, Reduce the headcount, not with that union, unless one elects a courageous governor who does not care if doing the right thing is politically costly. NJ & NY have shown those people exist.

That's the reason I wish my state had one like the Democrat who was term limited out, Bredesen. Since he made more in private industry, and had enormous power in those roles, he combined business acumen with a "take no prisoners" approach, much like Christie and Cuomo so far.
In Malloy, it appears the AFSCME sent their proxy to the capitol.

Advocate is reporting he is considering taking the billion per year as a straight 35.8% reduction to aid to all municipalities.