AUGUSTA, Maine — A Maine state senator has proposed changing the rules that restrict educators and other state workers from collecting retirement benefits at the same time they are getting a full paycheck.
Cape Neddick Democrat Dawn Hill says a money-saving law passed last year restricting so-called “double dipping” missed the mark because while it was aimed at superintendents and principals it ends up hurting classroom teachers and state workers.
Hill’s bill specifically states that the restrictions are to apply to superintendents and principals, not state employees or teachers.
Chris Galgay, president of the Maine Education Association, tells MaineToday Media that the current restrictions prevent local school boards from rehiring good teachers and teacher assistants. He says teachers sometimes need to return to work out of financial necessity.
I hope this bill includes state legislators who are collecting a retirement check from another state government job and also getting salary for their current job. And no more retired department heads coming back as “interim” directors while keeping both salaries.
Well said, but I bet it doesn’t. Look for instance at former senate leader and current house member Paul Davis, a retired MSP officer? As Bangorian, I don’t have a problem with retirees getting another job, but I do have a problem when their former job was tax payer based, and their other job is the same, it’s as if he went from one pool of general fund money to another, and still collects a full retirement benefit.
I hear you and was thinking myself that moving from one state job to another is much like moving from one location or department within a private company, if you’re still working for the company you’re not retired.
But what about a part-time state legislator? Is that the same? I have mixed feelings on that. As much as I’m not impressed by our legislators as a group, Maine’s system is based on part time legislators which seems ideal for a retired person with time available to devote to it. So what do we do then?
A state legislator, irregardless of session or not, will still receive state benefits and compensation. Part of the allure about being a state representative is the benefits, after a state rep has been their for 10 years or more, they are treated as a vested state employee, and are allowed all of the benefits pertinent to a state employee.
I suggest that any former state employee, now serving as a legislator needs to indicate as such and either reduce the monthly retirement payments in relation to his or her legislative pay, OR, not be allowed to claim legislative travel, and expenses, and receive a reduced legislative paycheck.
This is EXACTLY what double dipping is! Warden’s, educators, state cops, prosecutor’s, many have done it. If they are targeting one set of state employee, then they need to target ALL.
Not the same issue – I have no problem with people drawing a pension and then getting another job. I do have a problem with people pretending to retire and then keeping their job, so that they are being twice for the same thing. That makes no sense and shouldn’t happen.
They are not being paid twice for the same work. A pension is compensation for services rendered in the past.
OK – then they’re being paid twice for services rendered in the past. Its only a matter of time before these public pensions dry up anyhow – nobody in the private sector still gets a pension.
How are they being paid twice for services rendered in the past? The pension is for services already rendered; the salary is for services currently rendered.
Why do you think this never happens in the private sector? Because it costs the company (in this case the taxpayers) more. If you retire then go work in the private sector no problem, but paying people 50% ( and sometimes even more) more for doing the same job is crazy. I swear that the government class has no idea where money comes from.
you are not making any sense.
They’re not “pensions”, this is in lieu of SS retirement income. Not a pension at all, just misleading terminology.
They are referred to as pensions so I don’t understand why you say they’re not pensions. you are right that the pension is in lieu of SS
Oh, no one gets Social Security? State workers & teachers pay into the state of ME pension system. they are not allowed to pay into Social Security. Their pension is their retirement, just as most people pay into SS and draw it in retirement.
They are not being paid for services previously rendered, they are getting paid based on what they have contributed, of their previous earnings, into a retirement system.
Do you have a source for that? From what I read on the Maine state retirement pages, the pension is the result of employer contributions, not employee, although the employee can supplant those contributions with additional contributions if he or she opts to do so. The payout of the employer contribution is based on years of service.
state employees and teachers most certainly contribute to their retirement, just as some1 pays into Social Security. This is not an option for them but a requirement. The amount of the pension is based on an average of the 3 highest year’s pay and # of yrs the person was an employee, the person’s age at retirement, what the rules are for the person’s “normal” retirement age (for some it is 60, others 62, others 65) and what option is chosen at retirement to provide for a spouse. It is much more complicated than you make it seem.
Usually I agree with you, Bangorian. But with politics as they are, I don’t think state government should pay both retirement and another salary to the same person. They are free to get a job in the private sector.
Isn’t there a cost savings to state taxpayers associated with this practice? A state retiree who is 65 or older shifts from the state’s health plan to Medicare. If someone retires, then stays on the job, it is no longer state government that is responsible for that employee’s health care but Medicare, which would have assumed responsibility anyway.
Um, I don’t think state workers qualify for Medicare since they have been paying into the Maine retirement system instead. But I could be wrong.
The state retirement system does not administer health benefits. Its participants are eligible to buy a Medicare supplement at a group rate. Their primary health care after age 65 is Medicare, which is open to virtually anyone at that point regardless of whether they’ve paid into a system.
State retirees are eligible for BC/BS at the state’s expense (this is a benefit promised for many yrs). Medicare is not open to virtually anyone at a certain point regardless of whether they’ve paid into a system. Please get your facts straight. In order to qualify for medicare people have to meet specific requirements. It is not just given to every1 Flag
depends, they may have worked some under Social Security and qualify for medicare or may qualify for medicare thru a spouse or as a widow/widower
not all state employees are eligible for medicare. if the person always worked for the state and isn’t married so is not eligible for medicare as a spouse the person still qualifies to get his/her insurance thru the state.
if the state or agency is going to pay someone to do the job, what difference does it make if the person is drawing his state pension or not. I know a Supt. who is drawing his state pension and working at the job he did before. it is a great deal for the school. they are paying for someone with his experience but not having to pay into his state retirement or pay for his health insurance.
I hope you can look at what the forestry pilots do -retire and come back as contractors
Im retired an if i go back to work if i make over 13,000 i will lose 2 dollars for every dollar i make over 13,000 . But if i have stocks or bonds i can make all the money i want an will lose nothing on my pension.
What is your point? That having stocks and bonds is unethical? Or that your retirement scheme sucks?
No im just stating facts. The railroad retirement board said i can have bonds earn all the intrest i want an no reduction on my pension
Railroad retirement? That explains so much. Let me guess, you were an oiler on a diesel locomotive, right.
wrong agen try something else
Obviously not an english teacher. On second thought, given the state of public education, it’s not unlikely that you were.
try agen
Otay Panky. I kin sur tri agen.
You are not even close i did work for the railroad
Wait. contracting is always cheaper than employing people. Corporations do it all the time. Force a retirement or severance package, then contract the job for a little more hourly pay but no benefits or long term liabilities. In highly skilled trades, such at pilots with a specific background, that is better than hiring a freshly minted college grad looking for a career.
However, when the government is contracting out wholesale to corporations, the cost never really goes down i.e. Halliburton/KBR doing services for triple the price of an enlisted soldier.
The reality is that many superintendents had a heads up on the change that was coming and a ton of them resigned and then were re hired after MS Retirement started under the SS system. They re charaterized expense reimbursement to earned income to increase their final pay calculations. School boards sat by not doing anything. Here they are not contributing to the system they abused. Really sad . The abuse in the public sector continues to show its ugly head…
when did MS Retirement start under the SS system??? There seems to be a great deal of misinformation out there. Maybe BDN could shed some light on this. calling reimbursements income sounds fraudulent to me, if people were doing this.
Geez, wouldn’t you think since we are paying these DOO-DOO birds in Augusta to make laws, they would get it RIGHT the FIRST TIME!!!
Come on now…only corporate CEOs, and state and federal legislators can double dip…For anyone else it is VERBOTEN!
Principals and Superintendents typically sign up for a expected 3 year hitch.. then resign that district for another in-state or out-of-state district with a large salary boost kicker and a new increased base level pension benefits .. and repeat that cycle for 8 or 12 times. It’s a scam that been in place for decades since the local school boards have lost all control due to state intervention and primary funding. This seems to be what the voters want by looking at the ballot returns.
I don’t know why you call it a scam. Professional people move up the career ladder and expect to make more money as they do so. What’s wrong with that? Don’t drs, lawyers and Indian chiefs all do the same thing?
Anyone may have an illness in the family and need to return back to work for financial necessity.
If someone is working the same amount of hours as before, then I do not think they should be able to collect retirement. If someone is working part time hours, they should be able to receive some retirement benefits.
Read my post below
When I was in the military, you could not retire after 20 years, take another government job, and collect full pay for both. Your retirement pay was subtracted out of the second job’s salary. This seems fair.
State employees can no longer retire after 20 years and expect to receive a full retirement benefit. Those who did not have 10 years of service as of 1993 may retire at age 62, provided they have either 10 years of service at that age or have been employed by the state for at least one year immediately preceding retirement. State employees may also retire after 25 years of service, but if they are not at least 62 upon retirement, their pension is reduced. As for subtracing retirement pay from a second government job’s salary, that hardly seems fair. Retirement pay is compensation for services already rendered.
I don’t believe state employees have ever been able to retire after 20 yrs & receive a full retirement (the exception maybe being state cops). People could retire after 25 and take a cut in their pension based on how many yrs there were under their normal retirement age.
some people if there have been around long enough can retire at age 60, not every1 has to be 62.
Simple solution. No more state pensions for future government employees. They get a defined contribution plan like the rest of us in the DPS.
Do you also want to stop your social security? State employees and teachers do not receive social security. The only reason we have a state retirement system for public employees is because it costs the state less money than they would have to pay for social security.
If the state were to move to a defined benefit plan as I suggest, government employees would pay and could then receive Social Security. I agree that it might cost the state more in the short term. I’m OK with that.
With defined benefit plans, the employer (state) has known current costs. They remit their portion of SS to the Feds, and deposit their matching portion in the employees’ defined contribution plans. No more pension plan to raid, or defer payments to. No more unfunded future liabilities. No concerns about double dipping. All clean and simple.
Tell me you prefer the shenanigans that the state has played with your retirement plan?
the state should never have been allowed to raid the MSRS but it did. The state doesn’t know its’ current cost? That’s a pretty stupid statement. look at the books, check the paperwork. what about when the stock market goes south??
A defined benefit plan (state pension) is difficult to manage and plan for because you have to decide how much to set aside now in order to achieve the future payout. You have to make all sorts of assumptions, not the least of which is a rate of return on the investments. One way the state can cook the books is to make rosy predictions about the rate of return. Therefore you can put less money into the plan. Of course, when shortages arise, you suddenly have to dump more money into the plan.
With a defined contribution plan, everything is much simpler for the employer. You know what your contribution is (2% of employee’s salary, for example) and you deposit it into the account. Your obligation is now complete. No need to make nebulous calculations about the future, no need for actuaries to figure out how many of your employees will live to retirement and how they are likely to pull a pension, no cooking the books with assumed rates of return, and no sudden needs to infuse the plan with cash.
Ant those of us who worked in both the private sector and then went into teaching find a substantial reduction in our SS, even though we paid into it at the same rate as other private sector employees. I still find it distasteful to have that kind of theft made legal, for it certainly is not morally correct.
you are so right, I know some who are really getting “screwed” by those rules.
It costs the state three times as much as social security. And why wouldn’t it? The benefits are significantly better.
State workers and teachers now contribute 7.65 percent to retirement; the Social Security employee contribution paid by private sector workers is only 6.2 percent. State government now contributes 5.5 percent; Social Security employer contribution is 6.2 percent. Last year LePage proposed an increase in employee contributions and a decrease in state contributions.
then why are we told it would cost the state more to switch to SS? Also, the state’s contribution to SS would be higher that it is to MSRS
Because 6.2 is greater than 5.5.
Every job posting quotes the states share of employees retirement as between 15% and 25%.
AMEN. Thank you
DPS?
Dreaded private sector.
No clarification is needed. The rules are quite clear and apply to all without preference, no double dipping at the public trough. What is also clear is that this is a transparent ploy pandering to that loyal liberal constituency, public sector employees . After all, elections are just 8 months away. Ms. Hill should be ashamed of herself and should her district’s voters.
I’d be pretty upset if the money I earned was suddenly claimed to be “unfair” or something. My retirement is my money.
Thank God. Start with Presque Isle. Six teachers now being laid off, just starting their lives and the superintendent makes (rumor) over 400,000.00 from double dipping. What’s fair about that. He retired and went back.
Oh, come on. Do you really think he earns $400,000?
Heard it from more than one source. Not sure if it’s on Maine.gov or not. That’s why I said it was a “rumor.” Dipping from the retirement pension and then rehired, 200,000 plus 200,000 makes 400,000.
Subject: [bdn] Re: Bill would clarify rules on double dipping by state workers
That would be quite a feat. The salary listed for the superintendent of SAD 1 in 2010 was just over $101,000.
Then maybe it is just a rumor. He also oversees Ashland and Nashville Plantation, possibly Washburn. Don’t care enough to delve into it that much, just think it’s a bit ridulous to double-dip for anyone.
Subject: [bdn] Re: Bill would clarify rules on double dipping by state workers
last I knew Washburn came under the same school system as New Sweden.
I can’t believe he earns $200,000 annually as the Supt for starters
I would check those figures. I don’t see how he is bringing in $400,000 annually.
I am on 100% VA disability adn I am banned by law from working. This should apply to all or apply to none.We cannot even be a greeter for wally world.
If you are 100% disabled, it is assumed you can not work. I would agree with you if you were declared 99.999% disabled, but at 100% you are out of the work-force.
These people in this story earned a retirement benefit. Then they went back to work. The benefit should continue because it was part of their original contract. Retirement income has absolutely NOTHING to do with a person’s ability to work.
I wouldn’t call this “double dipping” I’d call it good planning. BTW after my father retired from Standard Oil of New York (Mobil) he went back to work for them (at their request) and earned an income as a consultant. This did not effect his retirement benefit which continued.
Do you folks want “public employment” to be more like private employment? If so you will oppose this bill.
Are you saying I adn otehrs like me didnt earn this disability? Yes we are 100% but we do have skills that could add a stipend to the poverty level we are at. I can’t even sit at home and make money on the internet, and other tricvial forms of earning a few extra bucks. I am combat disabled, but I am not a vegetable, and could use a littel self esteem. Give your life away Harry for this country. Harry, it is obvious you never served in combat or the military.
no 1 is saying you didn’t earn your disability income. I know it won’t bring in money but if you want self esteem volunteer in your community. I am sure you have much to contribute.
If someone is 100% disabled, how can he work?
“Double Dipping” is a negative term for a practice that most of us would like to take advantage of. If a person works for x number of years and is eligible to retire and has paid into that system for the duration of their working career, then they are ELIGIBLE to claim those funds.
What they do once they retire is UNRELATED to what they did for work. You don’t have a problem if they go take a job in the private sector, and you don’t seem to find a problem if the state/town hires someone to replace them. Why do folks have a problem if someone takes a new job (or even their old job) to help fill a shortage?
If you are not familiar with how most retirement systems work, then you should understand that if a person takes retirement at, lets say 63 years of age, then they will usually receive LESS per year than if they wait until they are 68 years. Most pensions/retirement systems/social security have a sliding scale that adjusts for the age when someone retires and starts making claims against their PAID FOR benefits.
To adjust rules for political rhetoric when folks have already paid into those systems and have EARNED benefits is no different than if someone came up to you at your paid for house and said, “oh buy the way, you still have 5 more years you have to pay on your mortgage” and when you ask why, they simply tell you “because I have more years on my mortgage, so you should too”. Or where you planning on refunding, with interest, the payments these folks paid into the retirement system while you prevent them from collecting these benefits?
And before you rant at me, I’m not a public employee, don’t collect and never will anything but social security and IRAs, but I detest having a separate set of rules for public workers than we have for private workers.
if the people put the time in and are eligible what gives anyone the right to say you can’t collect your pension from your past employer while you are working for us.
How about new teachers that can not get a job because they hire the older ones back.
Where do you stand on “merit pay?”
That could be an interesting question. Though the simple fact is as with any public employee we pay them a rate and benefits. The problem with merit pay is paying some more for doing the job they are getting paid for already. Then do we with other public employees give merit pay? Say for instance police officers for bringing in more criminals? Though I don’t agree with all the hoops they teachers have to go through..
Finally, this bill makes long overdue sence as long as it includes all.
Thousands of former state employees have lost their jobs because of government downsizing. Would it not make more sense to disallow those who volunteer or opt to retire from state government from being rehired to state government whether it be their previous or other state job and instead give the vacated positions to those who had their jobs taken away unvoluntarily? It is devastating enough forpeople and the families of those who lose their jobs and the devastation is only exacerbated by the retirees who return to government jobs. Saving money is one thing but saving families should take priority.
I don’t have a problem with people working and building a retirement. That’s what it’s all about right? But what I have a problem with is this trend of “retire, and re-hire” that I see. People playing the system to draw their retirement, while never stopping work, and getting their full salary too. so they are “retired” and also getting a full salary for the job they never left. Maybe I’m way off, but that doesn’t settle well with me.