05-24-2006, 09:07 PM
I would like to address an issue that I have heard being discussed amongst employees of the SSO. Let me start by saying that I do not frequently post on this site. I feel that some legitimate issues do come up but many posts are simply gossip and hurtful to our coworkers. I do feel the subject I am about to address needs to have some attention paid to it before it causes more problems, not just at the SSO but for the entire pension system. For clarification purposes, I am in the twilight of my career. I doubt I will get another promotion. I refuse to do my time and then come back just because there is a legal loophole that would let me.
HIGH RISK RETIREES SHOULD NOT BECOME REHIREES!
We have had a few retirees return to work after retirement and several more state their intentions to do the same. This will continue to be a trend unless it is stopped by legislation or departmental policy. The legislation that was at the state level died in committee and did not come to a vote on the floor. Let’s forget the politics of why it died and look at the problem. Let us not even address the topic of “is the rehire capable of doing the job.” That is the kind of hurtful talk I want to avoid. It makes it personal and that should not be a public debate.
1) Upward mobility will be limited. As 25, 30 or 35 year veterans who have reached the height of their careers retire and return to the same position, same rank and same pay; it will stymie the rest of the employees from advancement. Remember, it takes six years to re-vest in the pension fund for a rehired retiree. A 30 year veteran will turn into a 36 year veteran at a minimum and occupy that position and lock it up for many years from the time they were first promoted to that rank. It prevents others from advancing in a career that normally would run a course in 25 years. Face it, most of us will never get promoted past the rank of sergeant when we are at 25 plus years of service when the 35 – 40 year lieutenant has locked it up since 15 or 20 years in his career.
2) Fresh ideas will be locked out as the senior staff occupies the decision making positions for 5 to 10 years past the normal retirement age. Stagnation in the upper ranks will turn a progressive agency into a very stagnant regressive agency. This will cause mid-management to retire in a mid-level position and a large experience gap will exist between first line and upper level management when upper management finally retires the second time.
3) There is a reason the State Legislature gave us a High Risk 25 year pension at 3% - we tend to die earlier than the regular risk pension persons. Much research, hard work and lobbying went into getting the high risk pension to where it is today. We fought to get the benefits we have and convinced the state legislature that we not only deserved but needed the high risk pension. What do you think the legislature will do when they see high risk pensioners putting in 30 plus years, retiring and getting rehired for another 6 years to collect a second state high risk pension? My thought is that they will come to the conclusion that a high risk pension is not such a necessary thing. We will lose the high risk pension if the state legislature thinks we are abusing it.
4) Medical abuse issues. Let’s face it, as we get older we have a greater potential for medical problems. We get hurt easier and don’t heal as fast or as well. So take a 30 year retiree – rehiree as an example. Lets say this person is at the rank of captain (as we have one who is getting ready to retire – rehire) making about $95,000 per year. He retires with a $70,000 per year pension benefit. He comes back 30 days later at the age of 55 or 60. Two years into his rehire he develops a heart condition (covered by the heart-lung bill) and is told he must retire. Hmmmm... 64% disability pension on what is now a $105,000 per year salary and he is now collecting two state pensions for a total of about $133,000 per year, tax free. Do you think maybe the state legislature might have a problem with this and decide perhaps we don’t need a high risk pension?
Now don’t get me wrong. I don’t think we have many who would intentionally do this. But we do have greater medical problems as we age. This is a real possibility when we rehire.
Finally – I ask the staff members who read this to give some real consideration to what I have said. I am not a genius and perhaps I am even been mistaken about how the pension system works with regards to high risk 2nd pensions and disabilities. It has not happened yet and therefore we don’t know for sure how it will work. The arguments are real, the situations are real, and the negative morale impact is real. Please talk with the Sheriff and convince him this retiree – rehiring policy is flawed.
HIGH RISK RETIREES SHOULD NOT BECOME REHIREES!
We have had a few retirees return to work after retirement and several more state their intentions to do the same. This will continue to be a trend unless it is stopped by legislation or departmental policy. The legislation that was at the state level died in committee and did not come to a vote on the floor. Let’s forget the politics of why it died and look at the problem. Let us not even address the topic of “is the rehire capable of doing the job.” That is the kind of hurtful talk I want to avoid. It makes it personal and that should not be a public debate.
1) Upward mobility will be limited. As 25, 30 or 35 year veterans who have reached the height of their careers retire and return to the same position, same rank and same pay; it will stymie the rest of the employees from advancement. Remember, it takes six years to re-vest in the pension fund for a rehired retiree. A 30 year veteran will turn into a 36 year veteran at a minimum and occupy that position and lock it up for many years from the time they were first promoted to that rank. It prevents others from advancing in a career that normally would run a course in 25 years. Face it, most of us will never get promoted past the rank of sergeant when we are at 25 plus years of service when the 35 – 40 year lieutenant has locked it up since 15 or 20 years in his career.
2) Fresh ideas will be locked out as the senior staff occupies the decision making positions for 5 to 10 years past the normal retirement age. Stagnation in the upper ranks will turn a progressive agency into a very stagnant regressive agency. This will cause mid-management to retire in a mid-level position and a large experience gap will exist between first line and upper level management when upper management finally retires the second time.
3) There is a reason the State Legislature gave us a High Risk 25 year pension at 3% - we tend to die earlier than the regular risk pension persons. Much research, hard work and lobbying went into getting the high risk pension to where it is today. We fought to get the benefits we have and convinced the state legislature that we not only deserved but needed the high risk pension. What do you think the legislature will do when they see high risk pensioners putting in 30 plus years, retiring and getting rehired for another 6 years to collect a second state high risk pension? My thought is that they will come to the conclusion that a high risk pension is not such a necessary thing. We will lose the high risk pension if the state legislature thinks we are abusing it.
4) Medical abuse issues. Let’s face it, as we get older we have a greater potential for medical problems. We get hurt easier and don’t heal as fast or as well. So take a 30 year retiree – rehiree as an example. Lets say this person is at the rank of captain (as we have one who is getting ready to retire – rehire) making about $95,000 per year. He retires with a $70,000 per year pension benefit. He comes back 30 days later at the age of 55 or 60. Two years into his rehire he develops a heart condition (covered by the heart-lung bill) and is told he must retire. Hmmmm... 64% disability pension on what is now a $105,000 per year salary and he is now collecting two state pensions for a total of about $133,000 per year, tax free. Do you think maybe the state legislature might have a problem with this and decide perhaps we don’t need a high risk pension?
Now don’t get me wrong. I don’t think we have many who would intentionally do this. But we do have greater medical problems as we age. This is a real possibility when we rehire.
Finally – I ask the staff members who read this to give some real consideration to what I have said. I am not a genius and perhaps I am even been mistaken about how the pension system works with regards to high risk 2nd pensions and disabilities. It has not happened yet and therefore we don’t know for sure how it will work. The arguments are real, the situations are real, and the negative morale impact is real. Please talk with the Sheriff and convince him this retiree – rehiring policy is flawed.