GovernmentExecutive.com

Return to Article: Cost of CSRS retirement fix pegged at $40 million over 10 years

• 91141
  

  How does the change to CSRS part-time retirement annuity affect me who worked part-time early in career, 1982 - 1993? I switched to full time in 1993 to present. I am 60 years old and had planned to retire 1/2/2010. Is this change adversely affecting my retirement annuity? Our Personnel Dept. could not answer.

  Vickie Shively Posted November 3, 2009 6:43 PM
• 88815
  

  I work for the gov now and a correction to my retirement pay would only be $4000/ year where are those 2500 workers I only know of 3.

  SNuanes Posted October 8, 2009 11:55 AM
• 82864
  

  People who worked part time during the first few years of service to the government get cheated too. We take a part time position because that is all we are offered and then we work hard to climb the ladder just to be told during the first retirement seminar that we can't expect to get a full retirement since we started as part time. I've worked my way up for a GS 3 to a GS 11 and should have a good retirement but I will lose some because of not being told upfront what will happen with the part time service.

  p Posted July 17, 2009 4:12 PM
• 82723
  

  i would gladly go back part-time to work. retired folks can provide quick help when needed and due to the economy, many may need to work but can't find a job. This could help both the govt and the person who wants to work, but not full time

  alan m clancy Posted July 16, 2009 5:54 PM
• 82673
  

  If a full-time position (40 hours per week) were converted to a part-time position (say 32 hours a week), the government could certainly save a lot of money. And this is what I would like for my own job,..... Also, the fix in the retirement calculation is not "costing the government more", it is "fixing the calculation that has gyped / will gyp people who work / will work part-time in the past three years of the federal worklife. The current calculation uses an unbelievably dishonest calculation.

  Anne Posted July 16, 2009 10:55 AM
• 81892
  

  It sounds neutral, but actually if the retiree is rehired for an extended period of time, they may be entitled to earn a retirement supplement.

  Victoria Heckman Posted July 6, 2009 9:58 AM
• 81850
  

  what i would like to know is WHEN will there be an early out for the people under CSRS like myself who has 30 years but not the age. i am ready to leave.

  crissy Posted July 4, 2009 8:40 PM
• 81037
  

  "The current Congress is very budget-conscious,"

  Since when?

  robert Posted June 23, 2009 1:47 PM
• 81009
  

  What is the fuss! Our agency brings back retirees as sole source contractors and pay them big bucks. Of course most retirees are CSRS or FERS under 62 this way they avoid the Social Security reduction. Spend the time to really look at the appropriation bills and get something accomplished.

  DrB Posted June 23, 2009 10:31 AM
• 80969
  

  I agree with Buffalo. I'm Retired, in excellent physical health, can probably do more pushups, shoot better, run longer, and get more cases done than any FNG.....but do you think I could get a position as a rehired annuitant? After many applications with outstanding ratings - while the fat ass good ol buddy boys were rehired instead. Not only age discrimmination, but the good ol boy system is alive and well in the govt. I'm still buying my lotto tickets too, Bro, Semper Fi

  Badboy Posted June 22, 2009 4:58 PM
• 80964
  

  As to age discrimination (I'm over 60), I get my resume sent as qualified and the job never gets filled - nor do I get an interview. This has happened many times over the past few years. I don't lodge a complaint as this is the best way never to get selected for anything these days. If you aren't invited to drink and play with the big boys you can be sure you won't be promoted. I'd give up but I'm a hopeless optimist - I buy lottery tickets too!

  Buffalo Posted June 22, 2009 3:38 PM
• 80961
  

  As a career CSRS employee adversely affected by current regulations on part-time annuity calculations, this is good news. I have nearly 20 years of fulltime work history before opting to work part-time for worklife reasons. Now, with 29+ years of service,I am stuck as a part-time employee looking at my last three years as my annuity retirement. Between recent TSP losses and a part-time annuity,I simply can't afford to retire. My 20 years of full-time service means nothing,and my part-time status is more of a penalty than a benefit.

  Pamela Heimuller Posted June 22, 2009 2:23 PM
• 80958
  

  I was "downsized" over two years ago and forced to retire from the DoD. I receive an annuity of less than $10,000 p/a. At the time, I volunteered to give up the annuity but was told that it didn't matter. I have applied for almost 40 positions since that time. My application was rated as "BQ" and forwarded to over 90% of the selecting officials. My evals were all outstanding with lots of performance awards. The jobs were jobs with DoD where there is a "waiver" in effect to allow the re-employment of annuitants under any one of four conditions.

  I think that there is a touch of age discrimination in effect here. By their very nature, annuitants are at least 40 years of age! Since when did an appliant's age become a BFOQ?? Many private employers hire their retired employees because they have the experience and maturity to do the job. They feel lucky to find these individuals and have no problem paying them a salary and an annuity.

  CSRS in Texas

  midge Posted June 22, 2009 1:24 PM
• 80951
  

  Could it be that the so called union (AFGE) is really worried that they would lose money since fewer part time personel would be inclined or be eligible to join the union.

  SATOS Posted June 22, 2009 1:08 PM
• 80947
  

  This should be funded by reducing CRS cola each year to pay for the increased benefit

  dan m ketter Posted June 22, 2009 12:47 PM
• 80943
  

  I agree with PT Barnum, the bill should be passed immediately as it costs practically nothing. This includes the rehiring of annuitants who are more experienced than a newbie. They may work a bit slower than a younger employee, but their experience can more than make up the difference. At worst this might be a wash for the government because either way the government is paying a pension plus a salary.

  dukesfriend Posted June 22, 2009 12:16 PM
• 80936
  

  Leave the annuitant rehiring regs as is. You need OPM to grant the waivers to prevent "friends and family" rehiring of management in jobs (after the one year wait) who are CSRS who want easy Social Security credits to double-dip. OPM approved one year a summer rehire of a claim rep but the following summer rejected it. OPM acts as a necessary check and balance. You only need to rehire highly technical people like scientist or computer programers- not managers and run of the mill claims processors. Leave the jobs for new younger people seeking work - not the same deadheads that the public scorns.

  George Sincavage Posted June 22, 2009 11:12 AM
• 80924
  

  How does this bill affect annuitents who re-enter the workforce by joining the FEMA Disaster Assistance Employee program? This program currently hires experienced employees in a reservist status to work in emergency situations. Will there be a reduction in a retired CSRS employees annuities while participating in the program?

  Richard Deir Posted June 22, 2009 10:25 AM
• 80905
  

  If Congress is so budget concious, why did the House just vote themselves an 8% raise in funds for "expenses"?

  jfb Posted June 22, 2009 8:45 AM
• 80898
  

  "The current Congress is very budget-conscious," said Jessica Klement, government affairs director for the Federal Managers Association. <--- what is this woman smoking? The Congress is very budget consciious??? If they were, they wouldn't even allow these exhorbatant benefit bills on the floor when the rest of the country is struggling to even have a job, much less fatter retirement benefits.

  Joe Posted June 22, 2009 7:56 AM
• 80897
  

  The sick leave change costs $600 million. Hasn't anyone figured out that there would be an offsetting savings in productive time caused by the incentive to save the leave?

  Gnatman Posted June 22, 2009 7:50 AM
• 80861
  

  Pass the bill now. Why is Congress wasting their time holding up this bill. In government terms this bill will cost pennies to implement. Congress is not taking into account that they will not have to pay full time salaries while the Feds are working part time. Also these Feds would not be collecting their pensions. These cost savings will more than pay for the $40M projected cost. Congress should rush to pass this bill ASAP if they want to save money.

  P T Barnum Posted June 19, 2009 8:50 PM