Retirements Increase Need For State Worker ‘Double Dipping’
by Hugh McQuaid | Oct 7, 2011 7:02pm
(17) Comments | Commenting has expired
Posted to: Labor, State Budget
With employees retiring at a quicker than expected rate, the state will be contracting more retirees to fill vacancies, according the governor’s budget director. Those workers will collect a paycheck on top of their pensions.
Office of Policy and Management Secretary Ben Barnes said his office has already approved a number temporary worker retirees, or TWRs, to fill critical positions left vacant by retirements.
“I anticipate there will be some use of TWRs, given that there were 650 retirements in one day and they were all senior people,” he said. “With a lot of people walking out the door at one time it sometimes make sense to keep somebody for a month or two while they work to find a replacement.”
The labor concessions agreement passed in August anticipated about 1,000 vacancies created by retirements to achieve $65 million of savings. But since the beginning of the year, more than 2,700 have retired. Barnes said there are currently about 3,500 vacancies in state government.
The flood of retirements is likely driven by concessions in the labor deal that made changes to the retirement benefits of state employees. The changes reduce their cost of living increases and increase the penalty for retiring early.
Barnes said the administration is still hoping to leave “well more than 1,000” positions open but said many need to be filled. State agencies have submitted re-fill plans to Barnes’ office and he said that given the current 9 percent unemployment rate it probably won’t take long to fill the necessary vacancies.
While agencies work to recruit new employees for critical positions, it’s unclear how many retirees will be contracted. Barnes acknowledged the idea of state employees “double dipping” doesn’t sit well with some people.
“I appreciate that it doesn’t make sense to let someone retire and bring them back in perpetuity as a temporary worker, they should just continue working if that’s what they want to do,” he said.
However, in limited circumstances it makes sense in many ways, he said. It’s relatively cost effective because retirees work for only 75 percent of their salaries and since the state is already required to pay their benefits there is no additional cost there, he said.
“For transition or seasonal workforce needs it’s a great way to bring experienced people who we know and we know what their capable of, and their knowledge,” he said.
A 2009 executive order by Gov. M. Jodi Rell limits the use of retired workers to no more than two 120 day contracts. Barnes said he imagines very few will be necessary beyond the first 120 days.
State employee unions are generally critical of the use of temporary retirees to fill permanent positions.
“It clearly makes more sense to fill vacancies with full-time public service workers,” said Matt O’Connor, spokesman with CSEA/SEIU Local 2001.
However in the interest of maintaining service continuity in the midst of mass retirements the temporary workers policy may be practical so long as the arrangement is very brief, he said.
“In some cases it makes sense. Often it doesn’t. We would like to be part of the discussion determining when it makes sense” he said.
O’Connor said that to his knowledge the unions have not yet been consulted about where temporary workers are appropriate. He said he hoped that will be an issue tackled during labor savings meetings with Gov. Dannel P. Malloy’s administration.
AFSCME Council 4 spokesman Larry Dorman agreed, saying that TWR contracts perpetuate the “culture of well-paid consultants and management temps.”
“We expect the Malloy administration to work with us to transform government. That means flattening the bureaucracy, driving more resources to front-line workers and implementing the cost savings ideas put forward by state workers,” he said.
Tags: state employees, retirement, Ben Barnes, Hugh McQuaid
(17) Comments
posted by: perturbed | October 7, 2011 8:01pm
State employee unions are generally critical of the use of temporary retirees to fill permanent positions.
“It clearly makes more sense to fill vacancies with full-time public service workers,” said Matt O’Connor, spokesman with CSEA/SEIU Local 2001.
Hmmmm. I wonder if TWRs pay any union dues.
Sorry to tell you, Matty-O, you’ll be losing a few thousand more dues paying members in the coming months, unless you slimy, greedy, dishonest thugs can manage to thwart the will of the membership even more than you already have.
Seems like the only thing that gets your attention is losing union dues.
As far as Barnes’ only targeting to leave only 1,000 or so positions open, doesn’t it kind of suggest that the threatened layoff numbers during the vote-ramming process were phony? What did the SEBAC/Malloy team get up to at the height of their frenzy, 15,000 layoffs? (And yes, SEBAC, Matty-O and company waived that club at us every bit as violently as Malloy ever did.)
You people are disgusting.
—perturbed
posted by: perturbed | October 7, 2011 8:24pm
Oh, silly me, I forgot: we can afford more state employees now because our suggestion box will yield far more cost saving ideas now. Being beaten into submission really inspires us to be our creative best for the team. So does knowing our suggestions would have been refused if we didn’t agree to forfeit our future benefits first.
“Stand up and wipe that blood off your skull! Now, what was your idea again? We’re ready to listen now. Spit those teeth out if they’re getting in the way. You’re mumbling!”
The deceit that came out of that SEBAC/Malloy team is staggering.
—perturbed
posted by: Noteworthy | October 8, 2011 6:08am
Memo to Barnes:
The state doesn’t save any money if you allow double dipping. Second, you don’t save any money if you replace these people who walked out the door. The taxpayers don’t want or need most of these people to be replaced. We are a state run by nitwits and ninnies.
posted by: soldoutbytheunion | October 8, 2011 6:51am
Dorman and O’Connor prove just how naive and short-sighted they are. After selling out organized labor to the Malloy administration they’re now griping about the unintended (yet entirely predictable) consequneces of their malfeasance. What did these knuckleheads expect? Typically the upper end employees who’ve retired will collect pensions AND a paycheck…all while provided half of the service they once did to the State….good job guys.
Wonder if these two will speak out about the bills currently in the legislature targetting health care benefits and collective bargaining? I’d say not…..
posted by: friedrich5 | October 8, 2011 12:57pm
Hello…..Ben !
We have a large unemployment problem. Don’t you think it is about time and we stop this double dipping nonsense? Go to a temp agency and hire some temps and get some “new blood” in the government. Maybe you can find some better ways of doing things !!!....or how about not hiring anyone and save some money !
posted by: sickofit | October 8, 2011 7:27pm
Clearly the Unions have been played. After all the kow-towing to Malloy, the Unions are in complete disarray with thousands of dues payers trying to defect and now we find out that Management and non-union workers will get their longevity payments because Ojakian & his buddies removed wording from the 2nd “unchanged” agreement that would have taken management longevity too. It’s nice to know that Ojakian will get his longevity - no conflict of interest there.
Now many of the Tier 1 retirees will come back as 120 Day Wonders, that is, those that aren’t hired as consultants and try to take our jobs away out right. Way to go SEBAC, Way to go Patrice and Sal. How can you sleep at night?
posted by: Upset.Citizen | October 9, 2011 8:21am
@perturbed - You know where the suggestion box is? I’ve been looking for it but nothing is advertised anywhere. No emails outlining how to submit one or who to submit it to, nothing on the bulletin boards, no paper memos… nothing!
I have a suggestion: Tell us how we can make a suggestion! (After that I’ll have a few more!)
posted by: ... | October 9, 2011 9:52am
Memo to Noteworthy: You should consider asking the 9.1% of people unemployed before assuming nobody wants those jobs (since people laid off and still unemployed still pay state/local taxes).
TWRs are temporary because they are in a hiring process and need cover time. So they already have demand, and CT has plenty of supply that could use some diminishing. I’m for slimmer government and reduction of agencies, but if the state is hiring and we’re at 9.1%, I’m gonna go with helping people who need to feed themselves and their families.
posted by: Not that Michael Brown | October 9, 2011 12:16pm
“Double-dipping” is an intentionally derogatory term. Payments to government workers after they retire from the job is actually deferred pay. It is due to them. Please stop using this term.
posted by: state_employee | October 10, 2011 8:20am
To upset citizen; lol. I have never seen a suggestion box either…
posted by: ASTANVET | October 10, 2011 8:28am
this is a SCAM!! First they operate on the premise that you cannot shrink the number of positions in the state. I.e, through attrition - isn’t that what the budget called for. Secondly they say that the “only” people who can fill it are the people who just retired and “know” the job. As others have indicated, we have plenty of unemployed people to fill needs, however, i don’t think we should be substituting their unemployment state check, with a state employment check… either way we are paying their salary with tax dollars. So, while the prospect of offering these people jobs is better than giving it to the retirees, it is not the solution that will reduce our state spending.
posted by: perturbed | October 10, 2011 10:17am
On the suggestion box—IIRC, the solicitation came around suddenly just before or as the clandestine SEBAC/Malloy team meetings began. So they’ve had our suggestions all along. It doesn’t appear to be an ongoing offer to listen to our ideas. One-and-done. One of the things that infuriated me during the wielding of the layoff club was that the team, SEBAC included, was perfectly willing to disregard any of the $180 Million (!!) in cost savings if the rank-and-file didn’t first give in to the team’s demands. They would only add up to $180 Million if Tier II and IIa gave up our pensions. By rights, those $180 Million should have been counted to reduce the threatened layoff numbers, but SEBAC was only too happy to let the threats get more and more fictitious.
On TWR’s—our agency has been operating on a skeleton crew for many, many years. The loss of so many truly experienced and talented senior employees is having a drastic impact on our basic level of functioning. If TWRs ever made any sense, this is one time that they clearly do. However, the fact that we are so short-staffed as to be on the verge of dysfunction only serves to show how ridiculous the threatened layoff numbers were. Believe me, most agencies would become completely dysfunctional with the unrealistic layoff numbers threatened.
On the union elite—those few that were involved in the clandestine meetings—they deserve to lose their jobs. At the very least they deserve to lose their members. They will lose some state employee members, unless their corruption has empowered them to block our escape.
Where do the rank-and-file turn when they need protection from their own union?
—perturbed
posted by: sickofit | October 10, 2011 10:51am
Just to clarify a misconception; several people have mentioned that there are plenty of unemployed people that can fill these spots. The positions being filled require experience, most are supervisory positions that can’t be filled with inexperienced people off of the streets. These are not truck driver or maintenance positions etc. Having said that, don’t misunderstand me, I think it’s outrageous too. The State knew this was coming a long time ago and could have been training people for months. But when you freeze promotions or don’t bring people up to fill positions, then you can’t be preemptive, you get stuck with this situation. This terrible, forced “agreement” forced out a lot of very experienced people in the mid fifties that were not really ready to retire but felt like they had to in order to preserve their retirement and health benefits. The numbers and name in my dept. are staggering. We lost an incredible amount of good people and institutional knowledge. This whole “agreement” and the way it was handled was ill conceived and botched by Malloy and SEBAC. The repercussions will be felt for several years to come, though most people won’t realize that it was a direct result of this terrible “agreement,” they will just mark it up to “spoiled, lazy State Workers” though we were handcuffed by the bad decisions of others.
posted by: malvi | October 10, 2011 11:41am
In today’s society specially in the public sector unions ONLY role is to protect the dead wood (people who deserve to be fired) line the pockets of the corrupt union leaders who screw members, and help elect corrupt politicians (both sides of the eisle) who are sure to continue the cycle. ONLY you, the workers can stop the unions. DEMAND A REFUND of all non - union related dues AND demand RIGHT TO WORK LEGISLATION
posted by: ASTANVET | October 10, 2011 5:05pm
Come on man, don’t you think that we can do with a few less administrators in the state??? you don’t think current employees could be made to learn new skills and take on new responsibilities?? Oh, right they are unionized labor, that would require a stipulated agreement… I forgot that this is how the unions are helping solve the fiscal crisis and make us more competitive. The rest of us have had to make adjustments… why not state employees… it goes back to a post that Jonessac12 said on another post - we have a lazy generation who doesn’t like to work hard.
posted by: friedrich5 | October 10, 2011 8:31pm
To: sickofit
It appears obvious that you are a state worker affected by the retirements. From a business prospective, the fact that “managers” have resigned does not mean you can’t hire outside temporary employees. All major temp agencies have people of varying capabilities up to CEO level. There is no reason why outside people cannot fill the positions. But other reason may prevail..unfortunately.
posted by: sickofit | October 11, 2011 8:03pm
Yes, I am a State Worker, but I was not affected by the retirements other than saying goodbye to some close friends that I made at work. I also spent 27 yrs. in the private sector prior to being hired by the State. In and out of Unions.
Malvi: Your first sentence is just plain ignorant and insulting. You have no idea what goes on in State service, yet you are willing to loudly proclaim your ignorance. In my 19 yrs. with the State, I have encountered far less “deadwood” than I did in the private sector. 99% of the people that I work with are intelligent and motivated workers. One of the only positive things about having too much supervision (admittedly) is that you really don’t get away with much. We have in-depth yearly service ratings that go down in your personnel file. There is always someone to watch over you.
Astanvet: Yes, we can certainly do without some administrators, especially the upper, political appointees that have not clue about the job. However, many are essential and though people can be trained to replace them, it can’t be done overnight. You can’t train someone in a few months to replace someone with 25 yrs. of experience.
Friedrich5: It’s not that easy to fill some of those position that take a special skill or field. Sometimes searches are done throughout the country for, say railroad experts, or hospital administrators. It can take months for a search, you CAN NOT just got to some temp agency and say send me over a bridge construction manager to manage a $50,000,000 bridge rehabilitation project. And if these people were so qualified, what the hell are they doing at a temp agency? Good people are hard to find, that’s why there are headhunters who get paid just to find qualified people.
There are so many misconceptions about State Workers that people are all too willing to accept without question and join in in the criticism. A State Worker is the guy/woman that lives 2 doors down from you and whose kids go to the same school and play in the same little league as your kinds.
Sorry for being so long-winded, but I’ve had to listen to this crapola for 19 yrs. now and it gets tiring.