GovernmentExecutive.com

Legislation introduced in the Senate late last week would allow federal retirees to return to government service without taking pay cuts.

The bill, unveiled by Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, on Friday is a top priority of Office of Personnel Management Director Linda Springer, and is backed by a range of retiree and good government groups. Some labor union officials have expressed concern about its potential implications for current federal workers.

Now, the salaries of federal retirees who re-enter the workforce are cut by the amount of their pensions. Collins' bill would allow them to earn full salaries if they returned on a temporary basis.

"Human resources research has repeatedly shown that . . . older workers equal or outperform younger workers" in a number of areas, including mentoring, Collins said. "Making good use of their talents is . . . not charity. It is common sense and sound management."

"It is crucial that we take measures to minimize the effects of this 'brain drain'" caused by retirements, said Max Stier, president and chief executive officer of the nonprofit Partnership for Public Service, in a letter expressing support for Collins' legislation. "Your legislation . . . will encourage seasoned employees to continue their service to government and allow agencies to tap a needed source of talent."

The National Active and Retired Federal Employees Association, the Federal Managers Association and the Council for Excellence in Government also have signaled their support.

But during an Aug. 2 hearing before the House Oversight and Government Reform Subcommittee on the Federal Workforce, Postal Service and the District of Columbia, J. David Cox, national secretary-treasurer of the American Federation of Government Employees, expressed concerns that allowing retirees to return to the workforce might block promotion opportunities for younger employees. Cox did agree with supporters that retirees could play a valuable role in training and mentoring a new generation of federal workers.

Collins' bill, which is co-sponsored by Sens. George Voinovich, R-Ohio, and John Warner, R.-Va., would place limits on the number of hours returning retirees could work. They would be capped at 68 days in the first six months after their pension payments began, 130 days in the first year and 780 days total. Collins said 4,500 retirees already have returned to the workforce under waiver provisions, and her bill would allow more to return to targeted projects.

COMMENTS

• I can think of better ways to spen our tax $'s besides allowing FAT federal employess a even larger golden parachute. Does not make sense and defeats the purpose of having a retirement system. exp2ex Posted December 31, 2007 6:59 AM
• A US Citizen applies for government opening in DOD meeting all the prerequisite, their application is accepted, they meet all the critical elements, and are referred to the selecting official, interviewed with exceptional results. The selecting official makes a tentative offer, which is accepted. The applicant is asked to provide only (1) proof of US Citizenship, and/or (2) DD-214, and subjected to a drug test, and physical examine. When salary range is negotiated, previous highest grade and annuitant status identified; it is at this point the DOD policy that regulates how an annuitant is re-employed is tabled as a matter of discussion. The selecting official is required to exhaust the option of selecting all other qualified candidates before offering the position to an annuitant. Only then could an annuitant be offered a position after an approval from a higher authority with a rather lengthy justification. When a position is advertised-- “Who May Apply” US Citizens, annuitants are US Citizens. And as such-- Question. What stature dictates that an annuitant is prohibited from equal access to a Federal job, especially when it is opened to all other US Citizens meeting this prerequisite? Question. Has senior officials the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission examined the contents of this legislation as it is written, and determined that it is not an age discriminatory policy? After all, are we not talking about policy that has an impact on the “senior” members of our society? In order to be an “annuitant, you must meet a certain “age” criteria and certain number of years of federal service. Every Federal Agency should embrace every element of our society employing all qualified applicants based solely on the qualifications that match the required skill set highlighted in their resume. Numerous Agencies already provide incentives such as student loan repayment programs, offer recruitment bonuses, retention bonuses, and other programs to entice the younger generation to join the Federal workforce, and others to stay. The same types of incentives should be afforded to older Americans that have retired from Government service who display the desire to return to the ranks. Question. Why haven these types of incentives been offered in legislation to Annuitants? Bill Posted November 8, 2007 12:51 PM
• The American Federation of Government Employeees didn't seem to mind that Patient population were allowed to be trained by individuals working in the crafts to gain enough skills and knowledge to attain positions in the shops, when openings became availlable. I am aware that the mental health division had no investigatory branch so all that was required was the disire to be something more. I don,t see what is the problem with retirees returning to the work force. How is this any different? The fact that these are former employees, shouldn't be percieved to be problematic, and start looking at the benefits a expierienced employee can provide the facility. Not to mention the fact that the former retired employee was more likely to be a current or former union member. Unlike the more recent employees that are hired at this facility, "Ridin' the Gravey Train" due to the open shop environment. I'm for it! Ed Chenette Posted November 5, 2007 3:12 PM