Who Retires ,Collects A Pension, And Then Goes back To Work?

I don't see anything wrong with retired people keeping busy! Do you?
Work special: paid twice for one job


OUR OPINION: State lawmakers botched the chance to end double dipping


For the second consecutive year, Florida lawmakers have rejected a bill that would have banned public employees from ''double dipping,'' or collecting both a pension and a paycheck at the same time. Lawmakers have until the end of session on May 1 to change their minds, but that seems unlikely.
So Floridians are stuck with a system that is legally questionable, but ethically wrong. The bill was rejected, 5-3, in the Senate Government Oversight and Accountability Committee. It faces long odds of being revived.
Sen. Mike Fasano, R-New Port Richey, who sponsored the legislation, said continuing the practice during the recession is especially odious. ''Thousands of people will be losing their jobs in the next few months -- school teachers, corrections officers, school bus drivers,'' he said. ''It's shameful that we will be keeping the double dippers while others lose their jobs.'' This highlights the timing of the bill's defeat, but the practice should be discontinued no matter the economic climate. The state, in effect, is endorsing a convenient deceit -- or, to be blunt, an outright lie.

http://www.miamiherald.com/opinion/editorials/story/1007889.html?mi_pluck_action=comment_submitted&qwxq=2688359#Comments_Container

Not at all! They worked years for that pension, and if they wish to draw it while still working, so what?

Those school teachers, corrections officers, school bus drivers should learn to do something else while they're young!

It is likely a situation where the bureaucracy "downsized" by pensioning off some staff then hiring them back. That is the height of stupidity.

Nothing should prevent anyone on a pension from working while collecting. Nothing.

grumpy old man wrote:It is likely a situation where the bureaucracy "downsized" by pensioning off some staff then hiring them back. That is the height of stupidity.

Why is that stupid? Isn't that just like saying, we can't give you a raise, but we can allow you to start drawing from your pension?

In answer to the OP's question many of the expats i know down 'south' wind up starting micro businesses.....

They should work if they want and pay no penality for it .

I think that there are a lot of retired men working 4 hour shifts at Rona, etc. When you go in and need some help, you won't get any help from 20 year olds, they don't have the experience regarding building things. The young certainly can mix paint, help you with finding stuff, but experience is pretty valuable in so many areas!
When I am out and see who is working, there are plently of old timers, out working!

How is drawing a pension any different from withdrawing funds from your RRSP? The money for those pensions would have been put away years ago wether it be by the individual, the state, or their employer or any combination of the above.

If they want to start drawing off those funds and keep working, more power to them. It's their money, and they earned it. Stupid article.

Keep your eye on the ball folks, the Florida article refers to public employees.

I find the practice objectionable when it comes to public employees. We, the taxpayer, are paying twice. Contrary to what some may think, much of what is paid out in a pension comes from the employer contributions, which in the case of public employees, is us the taxpayer.

If and when I retire (which appears to be along time from now), I can see myself getting a part time job (being the most miserable greeter that WalMart has ever had, or a small business) while I draw my pension from a non public employer and taking some income from my RRSP's which only I contributed to.

I will also join WalMart so that we can compete in the miserable greeter category. I wonder who will win?

What difference does it make who contributed to your pension fund? Those funds are allocated for your pension, period. If you want to continue working and collecting your pension at the same time, how does it hurt the tax payer? Regardless on wether or not you go back to work, your pension is owed to you and the public empoyer still has to pay someone to do the job. No net difference in cost to the taxpayer.

I suspect the argument is early pension payouts. If paid out at full pension it will cost the company (municipality...) more. Not sure if remaining employees contribute to that though. Not likely.

So, someone has been employed in the public sector to earn their "Magic 80", decides to retire, but is hired back. No fricking wonder the public service is a disaster. Even when you try to get rid of some of the flotsam, they hire them back.

grumpy old man wrote:I will also join WalMart so that we can compete in the miserable greeter category. I wonder who will win?

Do it at Rona then I won,t get or have to put up with as many idiots . Just filter them out for me .

I do not see that their is anything to complain about! If the person is eligible for a LEGAL , agreed on pension, why wouldn't he/she apply for it?
I receive a few dollars every month from my Canadian pension, which is available since I turned 60.
It seemed to me a good idea, and someone that I knew had asked me if I was receiving it, when I had not even heard of it!
I get some extra crown royal money for my disability, which certainly is appreciated because I cannot walk without pain, and that has really made things very depressing.If I didn't have this forum to spend some time at, I would be lying flat on my back reading my book "Waiting for Godot" !

Freeman wrote:So, someone has been employed in the public sector to earn their "Magic 80", decides to retire, but is hired back. No fricking wonder the public service is a disaster. Even when you try to get rid of some of the flotsam, they hire them back.

But how is this increasing the cost to the taxpayer? If they take their "Magic 80" as you call it and walk away, the public employer still has to hire someone to do that job. What difference does it make wether that person is a new hire or a returning retiree? The only difference I can see is that the new hire would start at the bottom of the pay scale which would account for some minor savings for the first few years. After that the cost savings would be negligable.

Your also failing to take into account training costs for new hires, as well as learning curves. With a returning retiree you'd assume that neither of those would apply.

I think the whole point is to reduce staff. If someone is retired early as part of a cost reduction process but is immediately hired back, even at entry level wages, what cost reduction is there?

But to hire a retiree back at a later date when genuine openings exist? Sure good idea. Provided they don't bring previous seniority with them.

The point is that they do indeed bring their senority with them...that's what drives up the costs of the bureaucracy.

They are usually hired on a contract basis and the contracts are quite lucrative, at least the ones that I've been aware of.

I think that may be the genesis of this story.

The reporting always seem to leave out all the details. If a retired person is hired, but at lower entry level wages than that should be a big plus to the business. If these are government , bureaucratic jobs, then I think we wouls all expect a person becomes eligible for a pension, takes it, and then his/her buddies rehires the person based on his/her experience at her/his previous salary, and the taxpayer takes the hit! Completely legal, and only the losers would complain that this person is benefitting by double dipping. If I retired from a company upon becoming eligible, why wouldn't I re-apply for any job , anywhere?