GovernmentExecutive.com

Return to Article: OPM director pushes part-time work in lieu of retirement

• 16047
  

  I would love to see a proposal that would allow for a "partially retired" employee to work only part of the year, say six or nine months. This would be far more attractive to me than a continuous shorter work week because a main reason for retiring is to be able to do more traveling. One way to do this would be to allow folks eligible for full retirement to go on periodic "leave without pay" status without having it affect their high three calculations. Does anyone else like this idea?

  GovExec.com reader Posted April 10, 2006 9:33 AM
• 15618
  

  Working part time could be a lot more than just a transition easing program for senior workers. For a lot of us in the wonderful FERS retirement plan it might be an alternative to joining the impoverished when/if we retire.

  Vince

  Vince Posted March 23, 2006 12:12 PM
• 15606
  

  Since Springer apparently wants to ensure retired federal civil servants have a part-time job when they retire, perhaps she could tell the military community why many of them, with service-connected disabilities, have never been able to find a permanent job in the federal work force because of their disabilities. Many like me were refused full-time employment years ago and even now because of our disabilities. This is nothing but discrimination by Bush and OPM against the disabled veterans of this country, many of whom have had no job for years. It is blatant discrimination by Springer and this government by reserving part-time positions for those who retire from civil service.

  Charlie (retired military) Posted March 22, 2006 7:47 PM
• 15582
  

  Miss Shaw, you may be in for a big surprise as a military retiree. You would probably find that if you applied for a full-time position after a military career, all you are going to get anyway is a "part-time" position through the government, because most part-time employment is reserved for military retirees and disabled veterans. The OPM is a lousy organization and you can take it from another retiree who also started in the government at 17 -- right out of high school. You ask any disabled vets about OPM and see what they have to tell you. Whether you realize it or not, the government (OPM included) doesn't like military retirees, especially those with a disability, to join its little country clubs. I have been at this game for over 25 years and that is what it is -- a game. That is after 21 years of military service.

  Charlie Posted March 21, 2006 9:33 PM
• 15580
  

  Thanks for the opportunity to comment. I like Michael Parsons' comments shown below. I am 34 years of service when my expected retirement date arrives sometime early next year. I would be willing and able (prayerfully) to receive full annuity check, while receiving a part-time (second job after life with IRS) check without any penalties. If OPM can arrange or make that happen, those of us in this area would be just pleased as pie.

  L&E - ESCP Posted March 21, 2006 8:43 PM
• 15566
  

  Pam nailed it, no question. No sarcasm intended, but keeping A-76 and privatization in mind, let me see: (1) retire and come back Monday as a contractor for the same money or more than my government salary? Or (2) continue to bear the full amount of all the tangible and intangible costs and burdens of commuting while working fewer hours in my most profitable (per hour) years when I might accumulate savings at an accelerated rate and increase my retirement annuity.

  Richard Tedrow Posted March 21, 2006 7:55 AM
• 15543
  

  Way to go Pam. It shouldn't have taken a rocket scientist to figure out that this proposal is nonsensical unless there's some important details missing from the article. But then again I wouldn't go looking for rocket scientists at OPM.

  GovExec.com reader Posted March 20, 2006 12:10 PM
• 15523
  

  Unless OPM is willing to let someone retire and come back part time, and still collect their full retirement, one might question the wisdom of this kind of deal. In most cases, one can earn much more by being retired (an employee of the OPM, paid not to work) than if they worked part time. Perhaps the whole deal has not been conveyed here. With 33 years in CSRS, I can get 62 percent of my high three. Why would I work 20 hours/week, get 50 percent of my pay and have the costs of working (commuting, lunch, clothing, etc.), when I can get paid 62 percent to not work for my agency?

  Pam Posted March 20, 2006 6:58 AM
• 15513
  

  Did I miss something in this article or did everyone else? I think Ms. Springer is talking about older folks going to part-time work before retirement. That means working 1, 2, maybe 3 days a week, therefore getting a much smaller paycheck; retirement pay will be lower because the high 3 will be lower; annual and sick leave won't accrue as quickly, so forget that nice lump-sum check for unused annual leave when you do retire; and this will benefit those of us close to retirement ... how? The government can currently rehire those who retire as reemployed annuitants. If they really need the skills of the retired, and I'm betting they do, then make a fair offer for our skills that does not penalize our retirement for coming back and helping out.

  GovExec.com reader Posted March 18, 2006 2:47 PM
• 15493
  

  Huh ... what did I miss?? I thought there was ample evidence of plenty of slaves, err human capital. Anyone else remember all the talk about "no retirement wave," plenty of replacements and even more to come with the new pay systems. Why would they want to have us back? Don't we cost too much? Ergo, the stingy administration tradition of offering federal employees "low-ball" COLA's/raises/annual pay increase. Let all those big-brained devils running the show do the work! Oh yeah, I forgot -- all they know how to do is run their mouths.

  Cracked & Wired Posted March 17, 2006 10:12 AM
• 15431
  

  If the OPM director wants people not to retire, she needs to convince a lot of other agencies to stop treating their employees like dirt. Morale in my agency is the lowest in years and management does not care. Most people I talk to cannot wait to retire!

  GovExec.com reader Posted March 15, 2006 10:09 AM
• 15430
  

  Not only is this good news, it is smart business! As we continue to lose experienced personnel and critical skill sets, we need to implement a system that meets demands of workers and agencies. Boomers are able and willing to work but our focus is quality of life. Working part time for an agency we dedicated 20 years or more to is just the answer. This is also an industry best practice that government can emulate and one that will reap huge dividends. OPM has it right! Stay vigilant in making headway on this initiative!

  Elizabeth Smith Posted March 15, 2006 9:20 AM
• 15429
  

  I will be retiring (age 64) May 31, 2006, and would love to find a part time position with the government (say 20 hours a week or less -- even open to more on occasion). I think that this is a great idea, and only wish it would happen sooner. There should be a program/office to marry these desires with making it happen. For example, I would love to work with the Coast Guard in Curtis Bay, Baltimore. I could even continue in my existing job. This would marry my passion with my background.

  Jim Rosenthal Posted March 15, 2006 8:43 AM
• 15427
  

  A wonderful idea that would allow agencies to utilize the knowledge of their "senior" employees.

  Ned Bunn Posted March 15, 2006 7:41 AM
• 15424
  

  My God, a reasonable thought out of OPM! Now if they only could adopt it immediately. Many of us are in the process of leaving government for the private sector to achieve just this proposed position concerning hours. Even if the government adopts the proposal someone will have to force the DoD to follow the practice. The services cannot handle flex time today and laughs out loud at proposals for teleworking. Rep Wolf should look squarely at DoD and force them to adopt flex time and telework, as well as this part time proposal for all civilian workers. We didn't even get metro passes for three years after all other government agencies got them because that was DoD's way of forcing the subsidy for military. Because military is on 24-hour call they think that civilians should be also.

  Taxpayer Posted March 15, 2006 7:17 AM
• 15421
  

  I believe a fundamental point is being missed. Even though statistics may support federal employees returning to work shortly after retiring, it is driven primarily by the money-carrot being dangled by Defense Contractors. If Ms. Springer is serious about making any kind of legislative change, why not look at the aspect of supporting the employee in the decision to retire with full benefits (when eligible) and offer that same employee a part-time position to return to the workplace without the contractor? The employee collects his/her retirement check and works part-time to earn another income. Many leave so they can earn two incomes, the government could capitalize on that allowing the employee to return without all the overhead a contractor charges. This approach would dramatically reduce the overall cost and allow the government to sustain a percentage of its experienced workforce at a reduced rate.

  Michael R. Parsons Posted March 15, 2006 6:05 AM
• 15420
  

  Kudos. I, being on the front end of baby boomers, think that this is a great idea. I have 30 years in the government -- started right out of high school -- but am still young enough to keep working. I would love the opportunity to have part-time work available to transition into the world of retirement. I hope this is approved and plenty of jobs will be made available to take advantage of this. I submit my 100 percent vote to OPM and applaud you for taking the stance.

  Carole Shaw Posted March 15, 2006 2:37 AM
• 15418
  

  You would have to be an idiot to do this, especially if you are a military retiree. The only way would be a "guarantee of retirement" once you reach retirement age. This would protect the "boomers" from those supervisors and managers who have a despicable dislike for both older workers and military retirees. However, I seriously doubt that OPM is looking for older workers from the military retiree community; they have fought so hard in the government to deny even the veterans fair employment, they sure aren't going to encourage these people to remain. This will prove to be another "scam" on the older folks, and many will lose their retirement if they are not careful. Beware and remember the old saying that if it sounds to good too good to be true, it probably is. Don't look for protection from the MSPB -- remember, 95 percent of discrimination cases rules on by them go for the agency.

  Charlie (retired military) Posted March 14, 2006 8:29 PM