Your Thoughts On Re-employment of Retirees.

Interesting item was on the agenda this last council meeting Draft – For Discussion Purposes.

Sec. 2-270 Re-employment of Retiree.

Sec.2-234 Rehired Employees

You can find it here pg. 78 I would like to hear all your thoughts on this.

Advertisements

10 thoughts on “Your Thoughts On Re-employment of Retirees.”

  1. I would like to see the vesting schedule for our city pension. $5-6k per month sounds very excessive unless someone was here in public service over the course of 30-40 years. That’s $1.5m over 25 years, pretty big numbers. I would think it would be based on your total average annual earnings during your service, not just your last 5 years, and be vested at say 2% per year for the first 20 years, and 3% per year thereafter. I’m guessing that is laughable compared to the actual plan, but I don’t have anything to compare it to, not having a pension myself.
    As for retirees returning to service, that’s great, and I would be in favor of them continuing to accrue vesting in their pension, but under no circumstance should someone be allowed to both work and collect their pension at the same time, no exceptions. That goes for Wayne County, too.

    Like

  2. drheights48127,

    It does not seem right, but it has been like this for years. I have heard that R.Canfield has a pension of over $6,000 per month for her time on council and time as mayor.

    Like

  3. The way it stands now and the way it was explained to me yes that is the case. If there were two different pensions he might be getting 600.00 for council around 2,000.00 for time as Mayor. Right now from what I’ve been told he would get around 5,000.00 to 6,000.00 a month. All from the general fund all at will employees and elected officials have their pensions paid from the general pension.

    Like

  4. So the mayor will get credit years on his pension for time on the council to be paid at the rate he is getting for being the mayor. Whoever is responsible for the way benefits are paid to employees is truly their best friend.

    Like

  5. That’s exactly what there is right now based on what I was told today. Imagine if any of the council members that are entitled to a pension Bob Brown comes to mind ran for Mayor, Or Clerk and was elected. His pension now from the city is minimal based on council salary, but if elected based on the rule would be much more.

    Let’s not forget these are general fund pensions they are not the same as fire and police who put their own money in. These pensions are pad strictly from the general fund.

    Like

  6. Violet:
    You’re entitled to your opinion but your pension doesn’t and shouldn’t have anything to do with coming back. I receive a pension and if I got a job, my pension payments would continue. So should the city’s employees. What incentive would they have to come back if they were losing their pension payments? But once again, why are we re-hiring?

    Like

  7. I would think in that case the first pension would remain and you would get an additional pension for the higher salary, but that’s my guess. I would think that if you had been collecting a pension you would still receive it. It would sort of be like retiring from one job with a pension and then starting another and staying at that job long enough to receive another pension. That’s about what you said but now I’m wondering if what you’re really saying is that if you worked for the city for 20 years at $20,000 and then was elected mayor and stayed at that job for 4 years, you would be able to collect a pension for 24 years of service based on $80,000. Is that what you’re saying? Please clarify.

    Like

  8. That’s just the way I read it and think the same way as you just don’t hire them if they don’t sign the waiver. I did not write to council but did talk with one and said the same thing. What I did find very interesting was the way it is now there is what I would call a loop hole for lack of a better word.
    For example let’s say your a clerk typist you earn 20,000.00 a year. You retire from the city and are getting your pension. You decide to run for Mayor and are elected your now earning 80,000.00 a year. You are vested after 5 years now the way it is now you can base your pension on 80,000.00 a year. Instead of the 20,000.00 a year you retired with. What would save us money give one pension for the 20,000.00 a year and one for the 80,000.00.
    There is an even better example of this that I will write about later.

    Like

  9. Kathy,

    I think a worker should have their pension benefits suspended if they return to work for the city for more than 15 days. They could be reinstated when the assignment expires.

    Like

  10. For those of you who don’t want to take the time to read this, here’s what it says:

    The pension benefits of any employee retired under the plan shall be continued to be paid during any period in which the retiree returns to active service with the city (i.e., re-employed), so long as the retiree signs a waiver of entitlement to any additional accrual of service credits towards their pension during the period of re-employment. The pension benefits of any re-employed retiree shall be suspended during the period of re-employment of that re-employed retiree does not sign a waiver of entitlement to any additional accrual of service credit towards their pension.

    What that sounds like to me is that IF the re-employed retiree signs a waiver saying he is not entitled to any additional accrual of service credits towards his/her pension (more money added to his now standing pension amount) his current pension payments will continued even though he is again working for the city.

    If he REFUSES to sign that waiver, he can again work for the city but his current pension payments will be stopped. When this re-employed retiree is no longer working for the city, his pension payments will again be paid BUT the hours he accrued with the re-hire will be added to his current pension payment, thereby increasing it.

    If I’m wrong, please correct me.

    As to what I think, if they won’t sign the waiver, DON’T RE-HIRE THEM. Who comes up with these ideas anyway? God, Almighty. The Big 3 don’t do this. They re-hire them as contract employees. Do we have more money than the Big 3? Pay them their current pension payments even though you’ve re-hired them and leave it at that. Numbskulls in this city voted in the HO so now we have more money. To do what with? To re-hire employees we retired so that we can pay them more money to come back and work? I thought we were supposed to be cutting costs? How is re-hiring people cutting costs? How is increasing their current pension payments cutting costs? How is keeping the Eton Center open cutting costs? What the hell, Mr.Mayor. Where are the big ideas to cut costs?

    By the way, I’ve sent this to the council and the mayor.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s