Return to Article: Bill would allow retirees to return with full pay
-
40548
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.
-
36892
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?
-
36585
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!
-
36153
In some cases someone who has hit the pay cap ceiling, they no longer get raises. In retirement they would recieve 2-3% increase per year. They could then continue to work part time aloowing their TSP to grow. Seems a good deal to me.
-
35295
Why retire at all...we should do away with retirement all together and just work till we drop!! Yeah Right!! Come on people!! Retire and STAY RETIRED!
-
32880
Retired Social Security Administration employees would save the federal govt. millions of dollars working part time answering the toll free number 1-800-772-1213. All Contact Representatives (SR) and Claims Representatives with their expertise would not have to be trained. You could report to the Social Security office where you previously worked or even answer the phone from your home. Would not need Teleservice Units nationwide. PASS THE BILL AND CALL ALL CONTACT REPRESENTATIVES AND CLAIMS REPRESENTATIVES TO ANSWER TOLL FREE NUMBER OR PROCESS SOCIAL SECURITY CARDS AND FIND OUT HOW MUCH MONEY IT WOULD SAVE THE FEDERAL GOVT.
-
32363
Why do you folks want to retire and come back doing the same work??? Isn't retirement a time to dosomething meaningful and/or enjoyable? My Gov. job offers little of either.
-
32200
Retired 2002 - worked for SSA 31 yrs - wanted to return to work and could not get rehired - have excellent work record - received awards every year - SSA Public Service Award - Employee of the yr. A Federal law should protect retirees - think of how much money the Federal Govt. could save by hiring experienced retirees. By the way, I have NEVER come across a person who can use a computer with the speed I have at 90 to 100 words a minute.
-
31931
to "retired". It's even worse than that. Not only do you have to give back the whole $25K, but this also is in spite of the fact that you paid taxes on that, and received only $16 to $18k after deductions for Social Security, and Federal and State Taxes. The taxes paid are not recoverable as far as I know.
-
31449
Two years ago I gladly took an early retirement with voluntary separation incentive of $25000. If I return to the gov't now not only will it affect my paltry retirement pay, but I'll have to return the entire 25K. It's bad enough that govt service has gone down the tubes, but what moron in their right mind would go back under these circumstances?!
-
31343
"This Bill would help agencies resolve their "brain drain" issues." If it were only that simple. Although there may be many examples when agencies genuinely require the temporary services of bon-a-fide experts (i.e., scientists, physicians, researchers, select lawyers, etc.), true experts who may have recently retired from civil service, does anyone really believe, really believe that the aforementioned above is and will forever be the exception and not the rule. The rule is that there are legions of administrative support staff, including 'managers' who have and will continue to put self-interest into their hiring decisions under the guise of promoting organizational continuity. Again, believing that the obvious personal financial gain that would accrue to returning recent retirees has no play here is tatamount to believing in Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy. The unvarnished truth of the matter is that retired admin support military members have been using/abusing the federal hiring process for years to "double dip" for personal financial gain. This program/policy change will simply open the door for many GS staff to do the same. The taxpayer simply deserves better.
-
31326
This is a much needed change in personnel rules. Currently, if an employee wants to work part-time for a Federal agency they must forfeit, dollar for dollar, the amount of their salary from their retirement annuity. The only alternative to that offset is obtaining a waiver from OPM, a lengthy, paper-intensive process. This Bill would eliminate that process. If a retiree wants or needs to work part-time, and the agency wants he/she to do so, then the retiree could do so without loss of annuity. Federal retirees would no longer be penalized for working for the Federal Government in retirement years and agencies could have the expertise of those individuals as they work to resolve their "brain drain" issues. The union's concern that it is going to harm promotion opportunities for full-time employees is weak.
-
31309
I think it is unfair to retiring civil servants to equate reemployment laws to performance problems. The laws in my opinion should retired civil service employees to return to work and keep the full pension. They have earned it. It's easy for younger workers to critical of their older workers after all talk is effortless. It takes a 30 years of work to qualify for a pension. Keep in mind that a lot of us have given up our home of records pursuing a government career. Not all of us spend 30 years in Washington warming chairs. There is absolutely no need to get emotional over the issue. If military retirees are allowed to keep the pensions and draw full salary so should retired civil service employees. Keep in mind that any way you look at it the work must get done and someone is going to get paid. Id rather see the government paying retired federal employees than expensive contractors. Our well paid senior staff should do what they are paid to do and that is manage,train mentor and retain a civil service staff.
-
30865
As Close-to-Retirement mentioned OPM penalizes your retirement calculation if you work PT in the last year or so of employment. DOD currently has the authority to rehire annuitants at full salary so I looked into this option. Unfortunately during the time I would be reemployed all of my premiums, leave, etc. would be prorated. The biggest hit in this is FEHB, I have Blue Cross. The bi-weekly premium for BCBS is $456.19 of which DOD pays $321.89. As explained to me, since I would be re-employed by DOD my activity is responsible for my FEHB and if I am PT the premium is prorated. So at half-time I pay 50%, DoD pays 50% (NOT OPM). Now I would pay $228.10 or $93.80 more bi-weekly, $2438.80 annually. No bargain. I am going contractor. I don't need their retirement or other benefits so I should be able to get at least my current hourly rate.
The bill limits re-employment to PT. Unless it addresses these PT issues people need to rethink this offer.
-
30831
I'm experiencing a mixture of everything on this issue. My agency is doing all it can to rid itself (as politically correct as it can think to do) of Boomers no matter what their job, job title, or how well they're performing. VSIP/VERA: In 2005 my agency earmarked 66 positions with specific employees in mind giving these folks roughly 6 weeks to make a critical decision with no foreknowledge. This suprise move came in blue folders with pre-calculated personal data accompanied by an official "threatening" agency memorandum that basically said take this offer or else. Forty-three "old birds" were interested in the or else portion and decided to stick around. The 2007 version of comes with more cunning and planning - more political correctness. Its an INTEREST option allowing "certain employees" to decide to retire over a 6-month period. Supervisors are putting (politically correct) screws to "certain employees".
THE BILL: By the sound of this recently proposed Bill, some retirees may opt to return to their former work place temporarily and with full pay. I'm wondering why there isn't a program in place to assist employees (who want assistance) into retirement by allowing part time work (for a set period of time) prior to retirement. Maybe this is something some agency's have and others don't. By all appearances my agency seems to find no value in the now retiring Boomers. My agency seems to be actively making every possible attempting to rid itself of all federal hires in its IT group replacing them with contractors. My agency appears to be doing everything it can to rid itself of "certain employees," alienating the possibility of any retired employee returning.
-
30830
Military officers can retire with full retainer pay and enter the civilian civil service workforce "full time" without a decrease in pay. Why can't a retired annuitant do the same regardless of what agency he/she is re-emloyed with? Please don't give me a song and dance about serving our country, because there are plenty of civilian civil servants whom served in Viet Nam, Desert Shield/Storm, Iraqi Freedon, etc., who were on the front lines whom have retired and would love to come back into civil service "full time" but don't want to have their salaries docked based on their annuity.
-
30715
I fully support the bill to allow retired federal employees to come back and work part time without suffering a loss to their annuity check. Only the best and brightest will be hired as part time employees and this will preserve the knowledge needed to treat our veterans. It's a win/win scenario for management and the annuitant. Why hire a full time employee when a part time one will do the job. oftentimes in a 24/7 operation, full time employees are not needed every day of the week; staffing for days off is sufficient. I look forward to returning to work part time to share the tricks of my trade with newer employees.
-
30631
There are a number of job positions in a post 9/11 world in which those that served can "stand at the ready " as in assist , support and NOT take away from active members
I agree with the retired USCS Inspector why return . However , there is a drain on many critical positions ,in which those that have the years of knowledge may be of service . Folks WE ARE STILL THINKING IN A 9/10 way . It's not about unions , positions for the younger worker its about needing all hands in an emergency . Plan now for what may be another national emergency ...I worked at 6 WTC in NYC and will never forget 9/11 !!
-
30515
WOW-I had to come back after reading all the comments to say that in some cases those of you who wrote in are right doest things do change, not every agency is the same, not every manager is going to hire their buddies, not every retiree is out of step, not every young person has what it takes or doesn't have what it takes, etc.
We could go on and on and probably come up with as many negatives as positives for retirees to come back. Every situation is different, even for the people in Maine. Just because the law is passed does not mean that would be the only law that is applied when hiring personnel. Not all departments, agencies have the funds for training, nor do they have staff with the right knowledge needed today to train. In my 34 years and about 20 different offices, there were those who felt knowledge was power; those who would train others, those that were anal and you had to do it their way; but the one thing I saw as a GS 2 to my SES is it depends on who, what, where you work. Some of my positions were wonderful, some pure hell, some of the managers were smart, forward thinking, some still in the 1920s. Things do change, and it is people like us, and those of you out there who can make the changes within your organizations, laws just give you a tool to use or not use.
-
30512
It boggles the mind! Outside of some well-connected execs in federal civil service, who in their right mind would want to return? President Shrub has done a great job of gutting the civil service system, with Congress's connivance, so why return? Again, as I've stated before, most retirees are "in the last 30" years or so, with declining health and other problems. If you still haven't managed to save for retirement, stay where you are. Certainly working for a contractor is better financially than going back to the same old office you left. Question: Do you have to return all the presents from your retirement party?
-
30451
This is the only way the FAA will be able to save itself from totally collapsing. Let the retired controllers come back part time on a temporary basis. There is only one question: will they come back under the current working conditions ?
-
30326
The problem is called in government-speak "double dipping." The agency is supposed to ensure that they have trained people to take over for retiring or deceased (!) employees when necessary on an ongoing basis. This would require cross-training, and is encouraged by the GAO Yellow Book, and agencies that display a lack of adherence to these tenets receiv audit findings, but apparently don't care. Rather than cross train and redeploy people, the "managers" would rather those jobs/tasks go unfulfilled until the "right" person comes along, often a political appointee.
-
30311
I retired in 2006 from the DOT after 30 years of federal service and have just been hired by a contractor in the same field of work. I do not receive a double salary. My retirement is approximately 50% of my federal salary. My current salary is not 3 times my federal salary but approximately the same.
I would have rather stayed in my federal position but I had been forced to a facility that was full of mold and numerous other allergens that required me to take three medications. After two years of doctors records and requests to transfer, the agency offered an early out and I decided to leave. I was only 52 with many years left in me.
I now hear that management realizes they made a mistake at eliminating my previous position and they are considering advertising to fill it again.
I would love to return to my previous position where I had earned numerous awards for my outstanding service. This Bill would provide me that opportunity.
-
30307
The bill does not appear to limit the possibilities to management. I work in a Regional Office and I see many of the long-time analysts who are experts in their areas retiring without staffing to fill their positions. At 40 years I also want to retire but have been postponing it because there is no one to pick up the projects and committees I have been running. This appears to be a unique solution where I could send a definite message to management that I am leaving, maintain my projects, and train someone to replace me.
-
30288
The retiree has already earned his persion. If he takes a job he should be paid for it. I don't see a relationship between the retirement and the new job.
-
30272
Great, all the retired beauracrats who often worked the federal agencies into their current state of disrepair will be encouraged to return for even more money. Isn't it bad enough they stole from the goernment once already? If agencies and the federal government are going to emerge from the dreadful hole they've dug for themselves, its going to take people with initiative, perseverence, and doing things dramatically different then they have been done the past 25 years. It will also take a lot more time than some retiree looking for a little extra cash has to offer.
-
30262
This is getting interesting. And to those participants who opt to traverse the well traveled road of penning ill informed personal attacks instead of sharing reasoned dialogue and counterpoint, well, and for the record, in addition to my earned PMF tenure, I worked for 12+ years as a journeyman pipefitter in the shipyard industry (private and public). And before that, I was in the Navy for 5 years as an enlisted member serving as the ship's principle welder and leader of its firefighting crew. I'll take no back seat to anyone about knowledge of or experience in the work-a-day world (blue or white collar) in federal service or anywhere else. With that clarification being stated, let's get back to the real issue -changing public policy. Of course, in the general sense, it makes sense for an agency to gain and develop needed expertise wherever it resides. That is not the point. But to accept the notion that self-serving motivations are not present when staff, and especially so with admin support staff, who retire on Friday and then return to their literal very same desks and very same chairs performing the very same duties on the following Monday morning (or shortly thereafter), and in doing so are effectively doubling their US taxpayer funded incomes, that concocting such a scheme is not at least partially if not fully motivated by self-interest, well, all I can say to those that wish to hold such pollyannish views, there are still active members within the Flat Earth Society as well. Let's be real! I've seen far too many 'managers,' and yes, most notably those within DoD, who systemically use and abuse the federal hiring system to hire cronies and toadies and sycophants and prior and just retired military 'buddies' (at US taxpayer expense) under the pretense, of organizational need and continuity. This program would heretofore allow these very same 'managers' just another mechanism to achieve self-interest under the very same pretense of organizational need and betterment. Sure, the manangers would re-hire recent retirees so they too (down the road) would similarly benefit from their own Friday-to-Monday retired/re-employed conversions. This 'program' represents a literal 500 foot Sequoia towering in the fast lane on I-495 for those that care to open their eyes and see it!
-
30260
Well I would rather pay for what you are calling "double" dipping than have a retired military officer go for a government job, retire and then go to work for a contractor (getting paid 3 times what he did in the government job for which we (government) pays for) so therefore TRIPLE dips.
-
30256
Oh, a PMF on the thread - I feel better already. Thank God the smart folks are on deck rather than the dummies who actually do the work for years. Why waste managerial positions on them. That must be why things are going so well these days. Can't let somebody who worked for low wages make a little extra in their declining years so they can get health care and other luxuries. That might get other people interested in good treatment at work.
-
30255
I always questioned if the concept of double dipping was correctly or narrowly enough defined. If someone recieves 100% retirement from private industry and then gets a wage from the Federal Gov't, do we restrict either their wage or pension? Is a Federal retiree restricted from earning a competitive private salary? Why shouldn't some one who earns a Federal pension through years of service get paid a full market wage for any Federal work they can perform as long as it is not the same position? I am only concerned when the same hours or credit/years apply for two seperate systems. Let a retiree compete fairly and earn the going rate without restrictions. If you want them in their current positon longer, provide proper incentive.
-
30254
Mr. Smith, there are numerous occupations that require not only knowledge and wisdom but also youth, vigor, and stamina. The US military just happens to be one. Much of our "Thin Blue Line" also has positions that are best filled with the young and fit, such as the S.W.A.T. I will not deny that some people can continue on in these very demanding jobs well past most other folks' prime. There are always exceptions to the rule.
But to berate military personnel retiring from a career that has components more physically demanding than most civilian jobs, due to an understandable breakdown in the body, for signing up to do the same non-physical portion of that job verges on the ridiculous. Please know our retirements are insufficient to sit on the porch and just rock. Most of us must find work somewhere.
Please understand that all military clerks (as one example) of all persuasions must be prepared to hump that next hill, unlike their civilian counterpart. After a time, and it comes at different times for each, that hill just gets too high and rough. That soldier can still clerk with the best of them. As a matter of fact, since the military is one career you can have and never do the same job twice, the soldier/airman/sailor is often better prepared than most entry level applicants to civil service, including much crisis management and supervisory experience. We also have some of the highest educated personnel today.
And you would deny these new applicants for what reason? They cost the government less to train, hit the ground running, and MOST have a "can do" attitude. I will not deny that there are always exceptions, if you will not deny my facts.
Perhaps this may be fit your "double dipping" definition, my military experience tells me it's a wise use of resources. We could always go work elsewhere; we just prefer serving. How about you?
-
30250
Michael, et. al: I'm very surprised by the amount of opposition to this bill reflected in the comments so far. I too came into government (foreign service) through a PMI-type program in 1970. Family circumstances forced me to leave after 5 years. After a year's hiatus, I worked mainly for the same agency at a nonprofit firm under various contracts for 23 years before returning to government in a domestic agency, from which I expect to "retire" next year as a GS 14/15 equivalent unless I can phase into part time employment without reducing my federal pension, which is the effect of the current law. This is because, in pension calculations, OPM must use actual earnings in the final years of service rather than the rate of earning. This is a significant disincentive to leave government for full retirement rather than phase into part time work as my agency would prefer me to do, rather than lose me altogether. The fact is, applications for government jobs by highly qualified younger people are down and agencies face serious shortages. This bill offers my agency a chance to retain people they need and let the others go their merry way to the golf course or whatever. (FYI, like the rest of you, I haven't seen anything more than reports of the law, since THOMAS hasn't published the actual text of the bill yet. I'm hoping it addresses no only reemployment but also the part time issue.)
Incidentally, Michael, I hope you'll look up the difference between "troth" and "trough". The cliché you used requires the latter.
-
30243
I'm an active federal government employee for 30 years, and fully agree with Michael Smith's argument and thanks to him for presenting a balanced analytical perspective. Without belaboring the points in his commentary, there is no other name to call this measure but "double dipping" which could only overburden the country's drained budget and the American tax payer including MYSELF.
-
30242
It is not logical to assume that this program costs the taxpayers even a penny more. If anyone in the country, other than a federal annuitant, were hired to fill the positions in question, without question the employer would be required to pay them the full salary of the position. It would be thus regardless of any other sources of income that employee had. There is no reason to treat the federal annuitant differently. As long as an agency has a legitimate need for the services of these employees and budget authority to support the costs, this practice should be encouraged. The alternative is to discourage annuitants seeking temporary employment from looking to the government and going to private industry where they would not be forced to forfit any of their earned pension.
-
30238
Barry,
Double dipping is not my phrase. It is a concept and an unfortunate truth that has been around for many, many decades. It is when someone takes two defacto salaries from the same salary provider. And in this case it is the US taxpayer. And yes, when someone purportedly retires on Friday but then returns on Monday in the same office and same desk and same chair and essentially doubles his/her 100% US taxpayer funded income in the process, well, maybe it's just me (and millions of others who are analytic and not pollyannish or selfish) but there at least appears to be a hint, just a hint mind you of self-serving motiviations that are plainly apparent. Doubling one's US taxpayer funded income via abusing the federal hiring process speaks manifestly for itself. And no, I have not had a failed federal career. In fact, unlike you, I was a Presidential Management Fellow - the federal government's genuine merit-based and most selective and prestigious management program. It is just that I and many others actually care about issues beyond ouselves and our individual US taxpayer funded incomes. Many of us actually care about public policy. And yes, Barry, this is all about public policy. The US taxpayer siimply deserves better that the rampant self-serving feeding that this program will surely instill at the public troth.
-
30237
Great! It's about time. It's good for the government, savings on benefits that have to be paid to unqualified new hires. Also knowledge that can help make a workforce better. And working in a temporary position is what the retiree needs.
-
30235
I,m having a problem here understanding why someone would call this double dipping. The way I see it is if someone works for thirty years and earns a retirement and then wants to come back to work for the government or private industry, I'd call that ambitious. Anyone making negative comments on this bill obviously has had a negative career with the government. I have thirty two years with the Department of Defense and have been mentoring new employees for some time, but there comes a time when you reach a point that you are working for pennies and it's just not worth it to stay.
-
30233
This is really a complex issue. I was just forced to retire after 35 years of service because I hit the mandatory age (57) for a GS-1811. So folks like me could not likely go back and be a criminal investigator. I would think the same would apply to Air Traffic Controllers, Technicians in the Reserve and Guard, and aircraft pilots, among others. We would have to go back as something else.
One of the big problems for HR planners, is the wave effect that is often created by binge hiring and long periods of non-hiring, usually as a false budgeting device. This creates massive future problems. I would really be opposed to anything that retards the steady regular hiring of new employees. Wave hiring, such as what recently happened at the FBI, has severe qualitative effects. If an agency was faced with a short term emergency or the nation faced a crisis (Although we always seem to have one.) then prior employees should be able to be brought back for discrete periods, with perhaps a life time total of 60 months. In DHS there is recurring talk about creating a reserve officer corps. DHS probably really needs one, as other than insanely optimistic people like me, get out as soon as they can. That will likely continue for a long time. Emergency expansion for certain DHS and other agencies could be really important.
-
30232
Recently there has been an increased need to pull the retired individual back for their knowledge and expertise. The Government has had a recent push in promoting the younger interns out of college and pushing aside the more seasoned, experienced and knowledgeable employees, which leaves the government with a lack of historical expertise to train the younger new comers. I say promote the older employees so that they can provide training for the youth and leave the federal government with a more knowledgable and well seasoned work force. The young ones just don't come out of college having what it takes, they may be smart, but they are not seasoned, and don't come out of college with the knowlegde of government accounting. They have to be trainied and taught and if we push all of our experience out the door, who is going to provide the new comers with that much needed knowledge?
-
30223
I agree with the poster about breeding stagnation, an inbred workforce, resulting groupthink, and the ameriorating need to maintain a balance between hiring fresh, educated minds and just recycled older staff. But let's not be pollyannish and overlook the obvious. There are self-serving issues here, and in particular double dipping, meaning gaining (and earning) a full retirement annuity on a Friday and then coming right back on Monday morning and being paid a full salary for doing the same job in the same office in the literal same chair. DoD agencies have legions and legions (pun intended) of staff who purportedly 'retire,' administrative support staff who retire from active duty and then are so-called 'coverted' (via sham external recruitments/'compeptitions') into GS positions at full GS salary post retirement. Many of these just retired military members then sit, come Monday morning, in the very same offices and desks and chairs that they occupied on the preceeding Friday. It is an insult to one's intelligence to overlook the fact that the literal doubling of one's US taxpayer furnished income does not lead to self-serving actions. This program, unless heavily regulated and limited and overseen, will just equalize the 'opportunites' to double dip between the militarty retireees and the pure civil service staff. But it will no doubt, and almost my very definition, lead to further massive organizational inbreeding and self-serving financial 'double dipping' at the US taxpayer funded public feeding troth.
-
30220
The Federal Government continually looses sight of "Getting The Job Done" as effectively and efficiently as possible and saving taxpayer's dollars in the process. If a government organization has a hard working employee that gets it done retiring and they can be brought back to continue the job, the government will automatically save 38% on the rehire by not having to pay for a benefits package the employee is already receiving. This keeps a quality employee in place getting the job done and saves the government a full third on salaries. I'm too sorry if this limits promotion potential to individuals who are not productive.
-
30218
Not familiar with other agencies, but in USFS - Fire and that includes other fire agencies, it is mostly good old boy hiring .(We already have system where you can get retirees at their rate, at certain fire conditions.) In fire, no matter what the boys and some girls tell you, it is not about passing on knowledge, but making $$$$. Reality is , they could have passed on their knowledge before retiring, if that would be the case. If we are looking at retirees mentoring, it should be NTE two years mentoring out of retirement and then pass the torch on to younger generation. There is a lot of young bright people waiting to get up bit higher. PS Just to clarify, I have almost 30 years with fire, so I am one of those "old Farts"
-
30214
There are areas where this would be beneficial for the gov. and retirees. Its a real win win. With the parameters set forth in the bill, it is hightly unlikely that retirees would take anyones job or promotion potential away from them.
-
30213
I see more +'s than -'s with this proposal. For example, a rehired part time employee can be removed from service much more easily for non-performance than a career CSRS or FERS employee. This proposal is only good business sense.
-
30209
Gee, thanks a lot, Susan Collins. Count on me voting for Tom Allen in 2008 when he runs against you, just for this act of stupidity.
Except for low grade entry level jobs, federal jobs are hard to come by, particularly here in Maine. When you do something like this, you screw the rest of us of ALL ages. The ME economy sucks, and some of the best paying and most secure jobs here are federal. Thanks so much for effectively delegating us non status candidates to the trash bin so former status employees can be rehired. Not only do tax payer dollars pay their pensions but you are allowing them to chow down at the pubic trough again.
It should be the goal of civil service to get new blood in the fed agencies, not have the die-hard bureaucrats return. When I say "new," I'm not necessarily talking "young." I've worked fed on term appointments and have seen how some workers just sit on their hunkers, biding time and not extending themselves.
-
30206
I certainly agree that retirees have a wealth of knowledge to share with younger federal employees. However, as a younger federal employee, it has been my experience (at two separate agencies) that agencies are hiring re-employed annuitants without first exhausting the pool of current federal employees eligible to fill the vacancy. If no current federal employee can be found to fill a vacancy, then I defeinitely agree that a retired annuitant can more than fill that role. We must really consider the morale impact such decisions have on younger employees who see higher graded positions being filled by retirees instead of qualified younger employees.
-
30201
Chris is right,however,on the other side of that coin, I have seen many young employees waste time, live on the phone and socialize all day. There will always be those who do not put in a full days work, whether older or younger. I would expect only those who are known to do good work and get the job done would be hired back if they retired. Having a retirement check and a second full time paycheck would be much more attractive than adding on another 2%. Contracting out is costing more than z new FERS employee who is under social security. A retired person rehired as an employee, would come under social security, have their clearances and be able to jump right in with no downtime. There are always two sides.
-
30200
On January 31st I am being forced to retire due to age limit of 60. I am not ready and do not desire to retire. I have been told I am the top pay technician in my brigade and I have a lot to give to newly hired civilians. I consider this top be an unfair law and should be done away with. I have looked the law up on the internet and do not agree with the reason that the UA should be a mobilization asset. For mobilized soldiers and their families I am the main contact for information and assistance. They know me and trust me, they don't want to contact a person they don't know. I will debate this issue with anyone at any time.
-
30199
After reading the comments, I'm now aware more than ever age discrimination is alive and well.
-
30198
From what I've seen, these employees return to work because the pay is phenomenal. They retire with the idea that they will come back re-employed and make all that extra money. I have not talked with one person who really wants to "share" his/her knowledge with anyone, especially with a younger employee. If they don't share their knowledge before they retire they surely aren't going to share it when they come back. In some cases these re-employed people are not the subject experts either.
-
30196
If middle managers were not so paranoid about the experience and knowledge that older workers continue to bring to the office, the experienced workers would not be retiring so soon. In the last three years my organization has bullied and pushed out workers with 15+ years of valuable experience and knowledge, because the managers don't want to deal with workers who don't join their cheering squads (i.e., younger, more 'conforming' workers).
-
30194
I would expect (and hope) that agencies would only hire the retirees who have a great performance record and attitude. Those who "retired on the job" for years before actually retiring can stay retired. But let's not forget that some would be an asset. And it would be great to leave an agency that does not value its employees, be retired for a while, and then go back to work. I can see the benefits of that arrangement.
-
30193
If the brain drain is a real issue it seems that strategies for retention of eligibles are in order. One would be removing pay caps so the senior employees don't see money they've earned, not paid by law.
-
30192
As we become retirement age, many of us do not want to quit working competely. Working 2.5 days per week (or 4 hours per day) would allow us time to slow down and ease into complete retirement. Working part time would allow us to train others, mentor, or take up the slack caused by previous Government downsizing.
-
30191
This is a great idea for many reasons. It would allow for a smoother transition, bridge the gap until the retiree's replacement was hired and allow for proper training of the new employee. In many agencies there are situations where critical projects take place only once or twice a year and usually those projects cause an excessive burden on employees, especially when agencies are being forced to "do more with less." If retirees could be hired back during those periods, it would allow agencies to benefit from their experience, ease the workload and provide guidance to new or younger employees.
-
30190
I am retired military and civil service. This is a difficult question. Nothing should be done in this area that would disturb the carreer ladder for younger employees. The federal government needs to attract highly qualified people in the entry level position. The only way to do this is to develop carrer paths that allow them to excel. Retirees are good at what they do, but do not bring the enthusiasm and motivation as well as a fresh view towards the solution to the many problems facing government. Government for years was stagnant and ran on cruise control. This is a tecnically oriented world moving at a fast pace. The future is in new fresh ideas looking at the problem not constrained by the rote and politics of the past.
-
30189
Considering the future budget shortfall how are they doing this. In my AF office they are projecting cutting 65 people to balance the budget. Now they are saying bring back the retired at full pay. I must be missing something. I know it is different pots of money but sometime somewhere the taxpayer is getting shorted.
-
30186
A fundamental management responsibility is to train and recruit a skilled workforce. Rehiring retirees is a costly double-payment crutch for those managers who have failed to plan and manage their training and recruitment efforts for the future. If the retiree was an effective mentor, the mentoring could have been done prior to retirement--without double pay.
-
30183
That's fine but what about the bill HR 1939 (FERS Redeposit Act)? The bill was sponsored by Rep James Moran in 107th Congress and is still on the table. It allows separated FERS employees that withdrew their retirement for whatever reason to receive full credit for retirement after repaying the funds with interest.
-
30182
I am within four months of my planned retirement date. At the moment, I am pretty much burnt out from 40+ years of working in the public sector. I doubt I would return, but I do think that after a few months, retired workers are probably rested and could return as productive workers. However, there are many young college graduates looking to break into government service and if OPM would loosen up the red tape, I am confident they would find quality people to replace the aging baby boomers approaching retirement age. I helped my Son apply for a job on the USA Jobs website and it was horrible. If they want to take action that will help, let local managers recruit and hire workers.
-
30180
For myself, this appears to have both positives and negatives.
The positives are that we now have options where as before we did not and I've seen some great folks walk out the door due to circumstances beyond their control. After a time, and getting such circumstances resolved, they now have the option of returning to that which they know and love; contributing to society. Mentoring is an established means of transferring knowledge, if such individuals are willing to cough up the knowledge. I've also seen many folks parsimony with information; in the vain belief that while knowledge is power, rationing it may preserve their worth.
Some of the negatives have been stated previously. Over dependence on retirees may block younger workers' progression and actually stifle learning, since that baptism-under-fire many experience in new jobs will be mitigated. Additionally, this may encourage the government to extend even further the retirement ages and foster a work-till-you-drop mentality.
This is probably a stop-gap measure at best. If this is undertaken with no corresponding effort to rotate those positions to new blood and breaking the cycle, we will only be hurting ourselves and possibly future generations by delaying the inevitable.
-
30178
Yup. All you poster's with the "good riddance" sentiments are potentially nothing more than the proverbial donkey found alone, going round in circle's out in the field. Perhaps you can acknowledge, at least to yourself, that you continue working in part, because you have no life.
-
30176
Good luck trying to convince DHS' retirees to come back. We left because we didn't want to be part of that big white elephant in the first place.
-
30175
I think this is a great idea. There are lots of times where a project would benefit by having expereienced workers lending a hand. Once the project is over, the retiree would return to retirement until another project comes up that he/she is interested in and is willing to help on. That way, he/she doesn't have to stay on as p curley suggested, the Government saves some money by not paying full salary, while at the same time, the project benefits. If the worker is "retired in place" before they go, the supervisor doesn't have to bring them back for the part-time work.
-
30171
Temporary needs to be defined, with exact limits due to the GOOD Olde Boy System of taking care of your buddies. The abuse of this program is wide spread, seeing the same individuals rehired year after year. Funny how it seems that they only rehire men, when there are equally qualified retired women. I think Senator Collins can be easily convinced on this need without doing her homework with the specific agencies. This would include review of each rehired individual from inception to date. I believe she would be extremely suprised. It would seem that agencies change the wording in these programs to give the appearance that it is NEW, just to "take care of the chosen few!"
-
30157
Comment to Mr. Curley: your figures might be right for those who retire under CSRS, but under FERS retirees are only increasing their retirement by 1% per year. Also, note that getting your retirement plus your old salary means an immediate increase in take-home pay. You might be bringing home 150% (just a rough guess) of what you were taking home. This might help the employee as they transition to full retirement.
-
30144
Why should a retiree be penalized for coming back to work?
They wouldn't be penalized if they went to work for a contractor or a different business.
If the retiree's experience is needed for a short term, then they should be treated like anyone else.
Besides, with a re-employed annuitant, there is less cost to the government since the retiree's health and life insurance is already paid for.
-
30136
Good riddance. If you retire, please leave. No one will miss you.
-
30135
I have a better solution. Why not encourage these employees to not retire in the first place? It seems to me that if they want to come back, they should have not left in the first place. If they stayed on, they would continue to improve their pension (additional 2% of high three up to max of 80%), increasing high three due to salary increases, possible within grades). From what I understand, any returning retiree does not get their service time recalculated, unless they are back for at least 5 more years.
-
30130
I would like to see this research. From my experiences in the Federal Government for the past 4 years, overall I have seen much more enthusiasm, hard work, and teamwork put forth from the younger crowd, those with 0-10 yrs of experience. I hope that the older workers do pursue mentoring, because there are a lot of quality folks retiring, and there needs to be knowledge sharing so that we can grow future leaders, but there are also some older workers I've seen who are just on the job for a paycheck. Performance has a lot to do with experience but it also takes effort and attitude.
PROMO RIGHT: EVENTS
UPCOMING WEBINARS
NOVEMBER 18
Speed bumps for Teleworking: What are they and how to avoid them?
DECEMBER 3
Achieve Program Success: Unlock the Management Information in Your Data
DECEMBER 10
Practical Transparency: Applying Exchange Networks for Mission Results
PROMO RIGHT: DIRECTORIES
Post a Comment
To post a comment, you must provide a name and a valid e-mail address. Messages must be limited to 400 words. By using this Service you agree not to post material that is obscene, harassing, defamatory, or otherwise objectionable. Although Government Executive does not monitor comments posted to this site (and has no obligation to), it reserves the right to delete, edit, or move any material that it deems to be in violation of this rule.