Quote from recent budget meeting

To quote "an executive" at a recent budget meeting in Tallahassee. "I thinks it only appropriate that we start encouraging agents that have hired on in the last four years to start applying elsewhere."

Problem with this is....there's no where to go...locals are not filling positions and cutting as well! Hope Wal-Mart and Lowe's is hiring....

From what I am hearing lately, it may extend beyond 4 years to 6 or 7 years. I assume this is due to the drastic underestimation of how much the state really is in the hole financially. How can you underestimate our defecit by almost half of what it really is? Sounds to me like there are some issues with the number crunchers in Tallahassee. Don't worry about it, the governor is going to fix everything as soon as he gets back from his honeymoon.

Listen, let's be realistic here.....the only thing FDLE needs to keep is the Crime Lab - they can do away with everything else. Locals have investigators and don't need us anyway. Oh, I forgot, we need a few to run investigations on politicians so the sheriffs don't get their hands dirty.

Spoken like a real lab rat :shock:

Listen, let's be realistic here.....the only thing FDLE needs to keep is the Crime Lab - they can do away with everything else. Locals have investigators and don't need us anyway. Oh, I forgot, we need a few to run investigations on politicians so the sheriffs don't get their hands dirty.

Listen, let's be realistic here.....the only thing FDLE needs to keep is the Crime Lab - they can do away with everything else. Locals have investigators and don't need us anyway. Oh, I forgot, we need a few to run investigations on politicians so the sheriffs don't get their hands dirty.

This is obviously spoken by someone who never worked for a local law enforcement agency and apparently doesn't have enough to do....

Listen, let's be realistic here.....the only thing FDLE needs to keep is the Crime Lab - they can do away with everything else. Locals have investigators and don't need us anyway. Oh, I forgot, we need a few to run investigations on politicians so the sheriffs don't get their hands dirty.

This is obviously spoken by someone who never worked for a local law enforcement agency and apparently doesn't have enough to do....

Typical FDLE attitude - better than thou...if they only knew how the sheriffs offices and PD's really felt about them. All they'll do is really screw up an investigation...but their windbreakers look good on TV.

Considering 80% of FDLE Agents worked for SO's and Municipal PDs prior to coming here, your statement is ignorant at best. Most (not all) of FDLE's investigations are multi-jurisdictional and long term, something the SO and locals can't do with their ever growing caseloads and jurisdictional boundaries. Also, a number of our responsibilities are statutory, another thing the locals can't perform.

I work with my local agencies just fine as they come to us when they need asistance on certain type cases and we gladly help them. We also have a farther reach than they do regarding jurisdiction and they appreciate that benefit as well when their cases cross those county and city limit lines.

Regardless of what you read here and the issues with the budget, FDLE Agents are not going anywhere. We may get smaller (which might be a good thing in some ways) but we will always be here and none of us are on welfare....yet!!!! :wink:

That's all great but I believe it has now been determined as to what percentage we are cutting and I can promise you this. THERE WILL BE AGENT LAYOFFS

When are they going to start laying agents off?

That's all great but I believe it has now been determined as to what percentage we are cutting and I can promise you this. THERE WILL BE AGENT LAYOFFS

As I stated in my post from a couple above, yes we are going to get smaller and this will happen through some layoffs...it is inevitable (and sad) due to the budget crisis. My main response was how the sworn side of FDLE was not needed and should be eliminated and how local agencies hate to work with us....all ignorant statements at best.

I agree that if I was hired in one of the last 3 classes, I would be applying elsewhere just to be prepared for the worst. I also think we should not run around with our heads cut off until after session or hopefully a special session. At that point, we will KNOW what is really going to happen and what will be required for SLEO agencies and state workers.

There is also a lot of talk of consolidation of numerous agencies from everywhere and this could also be a good thing as FDLE could merge with a couple of other agncies. Who knows what the future holds, but I agree, FDLE may get smaller but it is here to stay!!!

Not to debate anyone on such an negative subject, God knows the last thing we really need right now is more tension from within...that said, the most economical path is not to lay-off the new hires. To the contrary, more money is saved by buying-out those close to retirement (say within 3 years); eliminating the higher paying agents and keeping the lower paid would make much more sense...ask any economist.

Not to debate anyone on such an negative subject, God knows the last thing we really need right now is more tension from within...that said, the most economical path is not to lay-off the new hires. To the contrary, more money is saved by buying-out those close to retirement (say within 3 years); eliminating the higher paying agents and keeping the lower paid would make much more sense...ask any economist.

It would actually cost more money to get rid of those close to retirement. A lot of agents with 20+ years have a lot of comp time and vacation time saved up (that’s a lot of $$ out of pocket for the state). Also for those that have 33+ years of service (and they're out there) will actually be getting paid more annually upon retirement since they rate the annual 3% cola adjustment on the pension. But, even if a 20-25 year agent retires, his/her annual retirement is about what the state pays a new agent. Basically, if the state gets rid of new hires they don't have to worry about them having a lot of time saved up nor do they have to worry about paying them retirement upon letting them go. Trust me, if it was more cost effective to get rid of older agents such as myself, the state would do it.

A lot of agents with 20+ years have a lot of comp time and vacation time saved up (that’s a lot of $$ out of pocket for the state). Also for those that have 33+ years of service (and they're out there) will actually be getting paid more annually upon retirement since they rate the annual 3% cola adjustment on the pension. But, even if a 20-25 year agent retires, his/her annual retirement is about what the state pays a new agent.


You did not mention the cost for health insurance for retirees under 62---the 3% and the insurance subsidy will not cover the cost of health insurance.

A lot of agents with 20+ years have a lot of comp time and vacation time saved up (that’s a lot of $$ out of pocket for the state). Also for those that have 33+ years of service (and they're out there) will actually be getting paid more annually upon retirement since they rate the annual 3% cola adjustment on the pension. But, even if a 20-25 year agent retires, his/her annual retirement is about what the state pays a new agent.


You did not mention the cost for health insurance for retirees under 62---the 3% and the insurance subsidy will not cover the cost of health insurance.

You're right, it won't. I was only commenting on the amount of money the state will have to fork out for a retiree. I wish we had a retirement health ins. program.

The health insurance cost (currently about $1,065 a month for family coverage) after retirement is the biggest reason people hang on after 25 years. There are many departments and agencies that cover their retired employees until Medicare kicks in. It's called GAP insurance and it plays a big part in the retirement equation. Think about it - such a benefit would effectively give you another 1K a month. While this is a wrong that won't be corrected in my career, the one that really frosts me over is free insurance. That's right - more than 16,000 state employees don't pay anything at all!!! Did you if two state employees marry, they get free insurance?? That is one I really don't get. I do have to say there are some cuties running loose - that is one way to get a pay raise!!!!

The way I understand it about the health insurance if two state employees are married, and I was told this by someone with state insurance, is that it's actually cheaper for the state to do this than it is for them to make contributions to two individual plans or a family plan. If you don't believe me, just call them yourself and ask.

Here's a big question I have about drop and double dippers....are we gonna let certain people who occupy certain senior positions come back after they complete their five years??? I hope the legislature changes this loophole before then...

Now let's don't get started on retirement and saving money; if I were the State and truly wanted to save big buck, I could have those in FRA contribute toward their own retirement. Nowhere else, even in law enforcement, does employees enjoy the benefits that those in FRA receive. A pension with no contributions? Be real, even a 5% contribution would result in significant savings when you weigh it across all lines; and the realized impact on agent/teachers/administrators/etc. would be insignificant since it's pre-taxed. Would you pay 5% to save the jobs of agents that may be facing lay-offs? Is the increased work and duties that we would incur if we lose those agents really worth it?

Now let's don't get started on retirement and saving money; if I were the State and truly wanted to save big buck, I could have those in FRA contribute toward their own retirement. Nowhere else, even in law enforcement, does employees enjoy the benefits that those in FRA receive. A pension with no contributions? Be real, even a 5% contribution would result in significant savings when you weigh it across all lines; and the realized impact on agent/teachers/administrators/etc. would be insignificant since it's pre-taxed. Would you pay 5% to save the jobs of agents that may be facing lay-offs? Is the increased work and duties that we would incur if we lose those agents really worth it?
I do agree with you on every point except the "increased work and duties" observation. If you are already working at max cap now, how can you do anything more? I suspect many are showing 160 on the sheet, but working much more than that. How long can that continue? If cutting positions is the answer, then cutting duties and responsibiloties must logically follow.
The Great State of Florida cannot expect any more mileage out of the "doing more with less" mantra.

Now let's don't get started on retirement and saving money; if I were the State and truly wanted to save big buck, I could have those in FRA contribute toward their own retirement. Nowhere else, even in law enforcement, does employees enjoy the benefits that those in FRA receive. A pension with no contributions? Be real, even a 5% contribution would result in significant savings when you weigh it across all lines; and the realized impact on agent/teachers/administrators/etc. would be insignificant since it's pre-taxed. Would you pay 5% to save the jobs of agents that may be facing lay-offs? Is the increased work and duties that we would incur if we lose those agents really worth it?
I do agree with you on every point except the "increased work and duties" observation. If you are already working at max cap now, how can you do anything more? I suspect many are showing 160 on the sheet, but working much more than that. How long can that continue? If cutting positions is the answer, then cutting duties and responsibiloties must logically follow.
The Great State of Florida cannot expect any more mileage out of the "doing more with less" mantra.

c'mon now, we all know you guys are not that busy....get real.

Now let's don't get started on retirement and saving money; if I were the State and truly wanted to save big buck, I could have those in FRA contribute toward their own retirement. Nowhere else, even in law enforcement, does employees enjoy the benefits that those in FRA receive. A pension with no contributions? Be real, even a 5% contribution would result in significant savings when you weigh it across all lines; and the realized impact on agent/teachers/administrators/etc. would be insignificant since it's pre-taxed. Would you pay 5% to save the jobs of agents that may be facing lay-offs? Is the increased work and duties that we would incur if we lose those agents really worth it?
I do agree with you on every point except the "increased work and duties" observation. If you are already working at max cap now, how can you do anything more? I suspect many are showing 160 on the sheet, but working much more than that. How long can that continue? If cutting positions is the answer, then cutting duties and responsibiloties must logically follow.
The Great State of Florida cannot expect any more mileage out of the "doing more with less" mantra.

c'mon now, we all know you guys are not that busy....get real.

The state could actually do away with FDLE and you would not be missed.

If you do away with FDLE then you do away with giving money to Dade County's crime lab and let them foot the whole bill! If you check more than 50% of that bill is paid thur FDLE. And yes FDLE should completely pull out of Miami, we’re not needed there anyway and refocus those agents in smaller counties were we could make a difference!





Now let's don't get started on retirement and saving money; if I were the State and truly wanted to save big buck, I could have those in FRA contribute toward their own retirement. Nowhere else, even in law enforcement, does employees enjoy the benefits that those in FRA receive. A pension with no contributions? Be real, even a 5% contribution would result in significant savings when you weigh it across all lines; and the realized impact on agent/teachers/administrators/etc. would be insignificant since it's pre-taxed. Would you pay 5% to save the jobs of agents that may be facing lay-offs? Is the increased work and duties that we would incur if we lose those agents really worth it?
I do agree with you on every point except the "increased work and duties" observation. If you are already working at max cap now, how can you do anything more? I suspect many are showing 160 on the sheet, but working much more than that. How long can that continue? If cutting positions is the answer, then cutting duties and responsibiloties must logically follow.
The Great State of Florida cannot expect any more mileage out of the "doing more with less" mantra.

c'mon now, we all know you guys are not that busy....get real.

The state could actually do away with FDLE and you would not be missed.