By Sheilah

December 8, 2011 2:30 PM | Link to this

I am a liberal and I I expect to retire under a PERS pension. Like most government workers with some higher education, my salary is less than I would make in the private sector, but the benefits offset that (and are cheaper for the local government to provide than higher salaries, since wages cost the government more in extra pension, medicare, and workers comp payments that they do not have to pay on benefits.) That siad, I think that there is some sense in this bill, depending on how it is done. There are some positions, such as in police and fire, in which a 50something person with 30 years of service may very well not be up to the physical demands of their original job any longer, but retiring at such a young age significantly reduces their pensions, below what many persons would consider a livable wage. Age discrimination laws notwithstanding, it is not easy these days to start a whole new career in your 50s. So, some retired police officers here take less strenuous law enforcement related part-time jobs as bailiffs or security screeners for courts, and with that supplement to their incomes, they make a decent but not extravagant living. Those kinds of issues need to be thought through carefully. But for jobs in which there are not such physical demands, there certainly have been some abuses, so adjust the retirement age and deductions for earned income up to the standards of Social Security.

By No Doubles

December 7, 2011 11:50 AM | Link to this

The fraudulent “retirements” and instant rehires are a fraud and crime against the taxpayers. If the stories about “cant find” people to do the jobs were true why aren’t the jobs offered publicly and candidate searches done? I and many others would happily do these administrative tasks for 1/3 the money these criminals are stealing from hard working tax payers!

By Reich Prifogle

December 7, 2011 7:37 AM | Link to this

I am a conservative but believe their are more important things to focus on than public employees retirement/double dipping. Obama is out there with a billion dollars going about his campaign as a monster on a mission. Obama must be stopped this next year. I am mad as a hornet about his treatment and attitude toward Israel. I believe we should recognize Israel as the Jewish State and defend them over the Palestinians. Obama is quite partial to the Islamists and I believe they are his own people. I plan to vote him out next year. I want the bussing of liberals from Illinois, Detroit and other areas to vote multiple times. We need to put these people in jail for voting more than once.

By Average Private Worker

December 5, 2011 2:39 PM | Link to this

No pension envy here. I have carefully planned and saved in my 401K for decades. My private employers have matched my contributions (when their business could afford it) and I now have a respectable nest egg for retirement. Unlike public employees, I have had to kick in a LOT more than 10% of my salary to meet my retirement goals. Oh…I’m also doing this while the Federal Government FORCES me to pay into Social Security…a system which will fail by the time I retire. Unlike Government employees, I also assume ALL of the risk for my future. The taxpayers of this state won’t be there to prop up my retirement if my 401K value goes down. Unlike Government employees, I also won’t be able to extract more money from my 401K than I have in it. Few (if any) government workers can contribute only 10% of their salary into a pension for 30 years and have it come anywhere close to covering the cost of collecting that pension for another 30-40 years after retirement. This is just ONE reason why pension funds all across this country are in serious trouble (please google “PENSION REFORM”). Look…most of us are OK with cops and some firefighters retiring after 30 years. But for the majority of public employees who DON’T put their azz on the line everyday, retiring after 30 years in this day and age is a complete farce. People with “normal” jobs (NOT cops, etc) should not be retiring with taxpayer-backed pensions after only 30 years of service. Sorry…this isn’t 1950 any more. Pension reforms must happen NOW before some of these funds collapse. I tried to explain this to a GM worker friend of mine 20 years ago. I don’t think he understood the problem until GM finally declared bankruptcy.

By Truth hurts

December 5, 2011 9:58 AM | Link to this

To all of you people with pension envy: how many of have 401 retirement accounts? How many of your employers do a match of your contributions? Have you ever considered where that money comes from? The people who purchase your product or service, right? Do you your employers give that money to you out of the goodness of their heart, forsaking their profits margin? No…they work it into the price of their goods and the consumer/customer pays it for them. Basically, I help pay for your retirement every time I buy something. I think they should pass a law outlawing employer funded 401 k contributions. Also, after you start collecting your 401 k, you should not be able to work at all. Like the one schmuck said, retire means retire, right?

By Truth hurts

December 5, 2011 9:55 AM | Link to this

To all of the haters out there: when the economy was good, I was constantly told by people who worked in the private sector “I could not do your job…They could not pay me enough to do your job, etc, etc, etc” Now that the private sector has gone to @#$ I have learned a new term: pension envy. All I hear is people whining about paying for the retirements of cops and firefighters. (Hint: I will have paid a little less than half it myself…10.1% per check) I have spent damn near 21 years of my life serving the Dayton area putting my @## on the line every time I strap on the vest and gun belt. By the time I am done, I will have spent over 30 years of my life protecting the citizens. I know every day I go into work that I might get murdered, but yet I do it anyways.

By Livin' da thug life

December 5, 2011 9:50 AM | Link to this

It seems that the conservative folks are mostly the ones in favor of this bill. Being a conservative means being in favor of economic freedom, etc. Where is the economic freedom for all of these people who work for 30 or 35 years, qualify for the retirement, and decide to better their economic situations by working another job after they start taking their pensions. It sounds like there is a lot of “pension envy” going around. If you are in support of this bill and call yourself a conservative, look at yourself in the mirror and say “I am thinking like a liberal, I am thinking like a liberal” Limiting what a retired government worker can make after he/she starts collecting their retirement goes too far. Reeks of too much government, a conservative concept I might add.

By Not So

December 5, 2011 8:35 AM | Link to this

If it saves the taxpayer money why wouldn’t you want to do it? Goverment is not an employment agency, they should hire the best people to get the job done at the cheapest cost! We all pay each other… I buy you products that fund your pay, you pay taxes that funds my pay. No matter what you do we all pay each other unless your getting money for nothing… ie welfare, disability.

By JZ

December 5, 2011 8:01 AM | Link to this

Solution: Get rid of the mandatory retirement age.

By 2much

December 5, 2011 5:35 AM | Link to this

Hallelujah

By 2much

December 5, 2011 5:35 AM | Link to this

Hallelujah

By JohnB2

December 4, 2011 10:12 AM | Link to this

I have mixed feelings about this. If a person qualifies for a pension, retires, and the employer hires a replacement, what’s the difference in outlay? OTOH it galls me that Speaker Batchelder collects over $94K at his legislative job while collecting over $100K from PERS. Any bets on whether this bill will cover legislators?

By John_in_Cincy

December 4, 2011 10:09 AM | Link to this

I have mixed feelings about this. If a person qualifies for a pension, retires, and the employer hires a replacement, what’s the difference in outlay? OTOH it galls me that Speaker Batchelder collects over $94K at his legislative job while collecting over $100K from PERS. Any bets on whether this bill will cover legislators?

By Triclyde

December 3, 2011 3:40 PM | Link to this

I sure hope the people who say that double dipping is wrong holds their state politicans to the same standards as the other state employees. My guess is that if a politicans is recommending it, they will be excluded. I wonder how many of them are already double dipping?

By cd

December 3, 2011 12:52 PM | Link to this

@Gabe,sorry but you are “wrong” only because this stop’s any new teacher from learning the skill’s that are needed to get to the position that the retired teacher are @.These retired teachers could be used as sub’s only when the sub list is used up. One of the big problem in the school “union system” is they take care of there own.!

By cd

December 3, 2011 12:42 PM | Link to this

@JJ,JJ some how you must have skipped the class in “Public School System” that taught you that every dollar earned by public employee’s is a dollar of Tax for the Private/Public Tax Payers.So we don’t care about the “small” amount of Tax dollar’s you pay compared to the larger amount the Private sector as to pay to makes sure you still have a job.I would suggest that you might “not” want to blog many more times on this subject as “most” private sector Tax Payers would like to do “away” with “ALL” OF you!

By Gabe

December 3, 2011 12:35 PM | Link to this

It is hard to see why double dipping is wrong. It doesn’t cost the government any more money and sometimes it saves them money as in the case where an experienced teacher can be employed at a beginning teacher’s salary.

By paulie

December 3, 2011 11:35 AM | Link to this

A lot of “public Servants” pull over $200k a year at this game—Ken Betz, Jim Davis (retired again)Greg Horn, etc.

By herbie

December 3, 2011 11:29 AM | Link to this

Greg Horn, Centerville City Manager, won’t allow any city employees to “double dip” because it’s just wrong——Except HE is a double dipper himself ! I looked up hypocrite in the dictionary and there was Greg’s picture.

By Leslie

December 3, 2011 11:27 AM | Link to this

Obama stated, “..at some point I think you’ve made enough money.” Clinton looked at taking some of people’s 401Ks because they felt some people had more money than they needed. Basically democrats believe all money is the governments and we are lucky for what they let us keep. They would prefer all paychecks go to them and then they hand out to us what they think we need. Except of course for them they are the elite that deserve their money it is theirs not the governments. Yet it comes from us. Public employees like to scream about how they pay taxes too. What they fail to realize is that they don’t pay those taxes until someone in the private sector pays the taxes to pay the tax funded salary of the public employee for the public employee to pay taxes. Makes you head spin!

By clr

December 3, 2011 11:00 AM | Link to this

I am a retired teacher who chose not to retire/rehire (double-dip). Teachers at my former school who were allowed to rehire were dropped back to the bottom of the salary schedule where they stay for the duration of their employment and they get one year contracts only, no tenure. So, the school gets a highly experienced teacher, who can be fired at any time, for the same salary as a beginning teacher. Good deal for the school, but not for the teacher, in my opinion. On the other hand, when the superintendent retired, he received an eight year contract with full salary and benefits while he was drawing his retirement pension. The superintendent’s annual income is in the range of $160,000-$180,000. The school has no more than 825 students in K-12 and a staff of about 50-60 employees. School superintendents across the State are the ones getting these sweetheart double-dipping deals because Boards of Education are guilty of dereliction duty and are more often than not incompetent. Citizens need to attend school board meetings and demand that boards members do their sworn duties.

By joe

December 3, 2011 10:36 AM | Link to this

Notice that those that whine the most are the retired state employees who didn’t pay for their retirement to begin with. All 5 of Ohio State pensions are underfunded. The worse being the cops and fireman who have just 40 cents for every dollar to be paid out! I don’t want to pay for these guys, let them pay for themself. Some get 2nd jobs while on the payroll too, maybe that 2nd job income should go to pay for their retirement so that tax payers don’t. are these guys paying for non state employee retirement?? NOOOOOOOOO

By zapperz

December 3, 2011 10:35 AM | Link to this

Notice that those that whine the most are the retired state employees who didn’t pay for their retirement to begin with. All 5 of Ohio State pensions are underfunded. The worse being the cops and fireman who have just 40 cents for every dollar to be paid out! I don’t want to pay for these guys, let them pay for themself. Some get 2nd jobs while on the payroll too, maybe that 2nd job income should go to pay for their retirement so that tax payers don’t. are these guys paying for non state employee retirement?? NOOOOOOOOO

By JohnnyLaw

December 3, 2011 10:05 AM | Link to this

All I can say is there are a lot of know it all’s posting here.

By Rehires

December 3, 2011 9:37 AM | Link to this

Gee, there are a lot of HR experts posting here. If public employee A is burned out, and has spent the last few years of employment doing nothing but looking forward to retirement, why on earth would that person be rehired? Would this law apply to people who served their communities, retired and then took an elected position in the state house?

By NlMadog

December 3, 2011 9:26 AM | Link to this

Sorry,double dipping needs to go.Give way to new hires,retreads need to go out and experience the real world.For the cry babies saying a rule change is not fair grab a tissue.Seems any attemp to regulate abuses against tax payers is met with how bad Repubs are. The Unions lied and bought the the vote on Issue 2 ,at some point the average working person should get a break.I worked for government and have seen first hand the out right entitled workers putting it to the taxpayer everyday.Take your skills and go make more money in the private sector,a rude surprise is waiting for you !

By Les Howard

December 3, 2011 8:22 AM | Link to this

I should be allowed to make what I want too after retirement.I paid into the system when I worked and now I work to make additional many now because i choose to.Imagine all the coroner investigators that would walk away if this passed.The rules allowed me to work after retirement when I signed up!

By Steve

December 3, 2011 8:11 AM | Link to this

I really see no problem with it if it would include all workers and all retirements systems. What is the difference working for 35 years at a public business and draw retirement and then go work for a different company. Aren’t they ripping off SS so to speak?

By Stece

December 3, 2011 8:10 AM | Link to this

I really see no problem with it if it would include all workers and all retirements systems. What is the difference working for 35 years at a public business and draw retirement and then go work for a different company. Aren’t they ripping off SS so to speak?

By Prophet Hound

December 3, 2011 12:00 AM | Link to this

Many of the comments from the government worker reinforces the stereotypes: union Democrats who hate every Republican reform, that taxpayers are the stockholders, and that taxes are the equivalent of a loss not a profit to the “company”. If 66% of your salary is not enough to live with try the Federal Employee Retirement System which combines Social Security, a 401K type Thrift Savings Plan, and a small supplemental pension which doesn’t all kick in until age 62. The Feds prevent double dipping by reducing the salary of a re-employed annuitant or terminating the retirement pension. Only in the DoD, as allowed by law in 2004, can you keep both salary and pension. However your are not allowed back into the Fed retirement system. The defeat of government union reforms only means ever increasing property taxes and income taxes. This is why companies like NCR are leaving and why this state will continue its economic decline.

By Bill

December 2, 2011 11:17 PM | Link to this

Sorry, that should be $620 per month for my wife’s health insurance and not per year. I wish it was per year.

By Bill

December 2, 2011 11:15 PM | Link to this

I retired Four years ago after 32 years of state service.Four years is not like today. The money I had for retirement doesn’t go as far. I now work in private industry to get a little more income. Since retirement, PERS has removed my wife from the health care requiring me to pay $620 a month for individual health insurance. That is half of my monthly private work income. Does that sound like double dipping?

By Bill

December 2, 2011 11:04 PM | Link to this

People are saying if you retire then stay retired and stop working. You assume you are going back to the same job which is not always true. I retired after 32 years of state service but am working now in private industry. Things are not always the same later after retirement. PERS no longer keeps my wife on their health care since she is under 55 years old so I ended up paying $620 per year for individual insurance. Don’t assume everyone is living high on the hog after government retirement and don’t classify regular government employees with politicians and high level ones.

By Person

December 2, 2011 10:58 PM | Link to this

The big savings for school districts was because the double dipper took his health insurance out of the retirement system (depleting that fund for others) and the school dropped him/her from their health insurance, hence saving that premium. They saved money at the expense of other retirees.

By Patrick

December 2, 2011 10:43 PM | Link to this

Well it’s a start. We need to open up jobs for those coming out of college. Way too many just sitting around waiting to retire, and then what, going right back in to do little or nothing again. It might save the government or school some money, but you are getting retreads, not fresh energetic workers with new ideas. All those near retirement think about is retiring! No matter how you try to justify it, it looks bad to the taxpayers and they vote accordingly for the districts that employ these tactics.

By retcop

December 2, 2011 10:32 PM | Link to this

I retired through Police and Fire pension system and only receive 60% of my base income. I don’t know where people are coming up with 80%…I’ve never seen it or heard of anyone I have worked with get that much. I now work for the county and I am in OPERS retirement system. I will never have a second pension as Ohio State law prohibits that. I pay the same amount as I would if I were to receive a pension into OPERS each month but will never get any benefits when leave employment…only the money that I put into the pension plus interest. There is way too much false information coming from the republicans on this. This is only an another attempt by the repubs to punish the working class of Ohio. Send all of the repubs packing in the next election!

By Warren

December 2, 2011 9:37 PM | Link to this

It’s about time. I don’t care if it’s a public employee or a private sector employee, it’s just wrong. Retire should mean retire. And yes, a substitute can and will be found. Great bill. Now let’s see if we can get this done without the unions getting involved.

By Mike

December 2, 2011 8:47 PM | Link to this

Let’s just post a bill saying only one job per married couple too, that would open up lots of jobs also. As a public worker I’m tired of this “shot gun” style of dealing with public workers. Get off our backs.

By Calvin

December 2, 2011 8:42 PM | Link to this

Take a look at the retirement for our state representatives and senators and other elected officials. Can’t seem to find out what they retire on and what they have to pay: remember they are a part time job Tues-Thurs for $60,000 per year. … … . … . … … . . … 2. We need a recall right for elected representatives and governors in this state. Most states have it—HOW ABOUT A RECALL LEGISLATION REFERENDUM to get that legislation just like

By retgov

December 2, 2011 8:24 PM | Link to this

I retired from the county 2 years ago after 30 years of service and receive nowhere near the 80% benefit people are talking about. Think 66% with a 3% annual increase based on my first year’s benefit. No COLA in our retirement system. I ALSO paid MORE into OPERS than I would have paid into Social Security to receive this benefit. So if you want to complain about people going back to work for the state/local government system, then be willing to say that once you receive your SS benefits, you will never be allowed to go back to work under that system again. I can see reducing the retirement benefit while working the second stint under OPERS (like Social Security does) but don’t ban re-employment. By the way, because I receive this OPERS benefit, any SS benefit I am eligible for will be cut 66%, no matter how long I worked to receive my SS or how much I paid in. So, my SS contributions are paying for YOUR retirement…in essence,I’m subsidizing you!

By Howard

December 2, 2011 8:19 PM | Link to this

“Let say someone work’s and makes $ 122,000.00 per year and retires and makes 80% of that money of $ 97,670.00 per year” what public worker is retiring at 97K? Thats BS

By A teacher

December 2, 2011 7:57 PM | Link to this

For those of you who are unaware, “double-dipping” in public educations saves the taxpayer (of which I am one) a significant amount of money. In most districts, a retire/rehire receives her well-earned retirement pay but does NOT earn a second retirement. The district pays ONLY her salary, no retirement and no benefits. This means she must pay several hundred dollars a month for her own health insurance, more if her husband or children are on her policy. The retire/rehire does NOT come back in at the top of the pay scale, but at the ten years- experience level. She may stay in that position, never going any higher in the pay scale than that, for several years. She does not come into work at 7:00 am, teach 100+ kids in 6 classes a day, and spend many hours on evenings and weekends doing paperwork for no additional pay because she is “burned out.” She does it because she is passionate about teaching.

By Justme

December 2, 2011 7:39 PM | Link to this

When our school district was hurting for money, several teachers were asked to retire/rehire. It saved the district about $30,000 for each teacher. It kept the district from having to RIF. They earned that retirement money and are now earning first year teacher pay. And they certainly are not burned out- they are AWESOME!

By gary

December 2, 2011 6:24 PM | Link to this

Take another look at your Postman. They retire from the military with that pension there go to work at the post office that hires mostly retired military, Some double or triple dip while there.

By icwhy

December 2, 2011 6:23 PM | Link to this

“House Speaker William Batchelder, R-Medina, had no immediate reaction to the proposal” I’m sure he wants to see if it effects him since he is a double dipper! Most of those that are double dipping are getting higher paying government positions take a look at the AG’s Office. Ex Prosecutor’s Judges Sheriffs etc. All appointed positions that pay in six figures! The AG himself is retired!

By debbie miller

December 2, 2011 6:17 PM | Link to this

I am 61 yrs. old, raised in the old school. If you decided to retire that meant you no longer choose or needed to work, so get up move along and give the job to someone who really needs it and get these kids off the system and get some money back where it belongs.

By JJ

December 2, 2011 6:16 PM | Link to this

@jimmie - Most of those government workers take a wage far less than what they could make in the private sector doing a similar job. This is a fact as the wage rates for public workers are published for anyone to see. So to make up for the lagging wages the employer kicks in a little more on the pension. This is very fair. Again, you are just jealous of the system. Nobody seems to mind government workers and their wages when times are good. But let the economy go south for a couple of years and all of the sudden they are all overpaid! Oh, and by the way, government workers pay taxes too…so I guess they are sucking themselves dry?

By cd

December 2, 2011 6:07 PM | Link to this

Let say someone work’s and makes $ 122,000.00 per year and retires and makes 80% of that money of $ 97,670.00 per year in retirement and takes the same job back and let say could work until 70 year old. They could make $ One Million dollar’s this person makes NO-PRODUCT and work’s for no Private Company but COST the Tax payers $ 0ne Million’s if he does that!

By truth

December 2, 2011 6:00 PM | Link to this

There are a few problems with double dippers. They are typically burned out and when they come back they are lazy and do less work. Also, they are hired in at the same pay they left at (topped out). Instead of hiring a new employee who would bust their butt to do a good job at 1/2 the cost, they bring back the lazy “good ‘ol boys” for full pay. Broken system

By cd

December 2, 2011 5:59 PM | Link to this

Let’s take the famous Union leader who just retired and see what he would make under the “double-dip” system. What’s the going rate 80% of wages X $ 122,000.00= $ 97,600.00 per year pension plus he turn around and when back to work @ same Rate of $ 122,000.00 per year. He would make $210,000.00 per year for a Union job where he makes “NO PRODUCT” @ ALL and if he did this for 10 more year that would be $ 2 million dollar’s for Nothing. Do you think WE have a problem in the USA!

By Calvin

December 2, 2011 5:21 PM | Link to this

Let’s admit it: the idea of double-dipping in public pensions while it goes on in Soc Sec all the time with the public workers paying for the Soc Sec for everyone else is JUST A TECHNIQUE OF THE REPUBLICANS TO “HATE ON THE PUBLIC WORKERS.” … . … . … … …It is the same tactic they tried in Senate Bill 5. Yes I voted for Kasuck. I won’t make that mistake again voting for my local RepublicTEA party guy either. He was new this year but all he did was rubber stamp everything—just like the Dems in DC in 2009/2010 with OSama.

By Willy

December 2, 2011 5:18 PM | Link to this

Jealous of the public employees pay and retirement benefits, I probably am. 34 years with NCR before they moved out of Dayton and I have to wait until I am 62 to draw 100% of my NCR retirement. NCR retirement plus my Social Security which I have to wait until I am 66 to draw 100% still does not come close to what I know many people in the public sector are getting in retirement. Shame we all can’t work for the government but then there would be no one to pay taxes to support the public sector pay and retirement plans.

By Mike

December 2, 2011 5:18 PM | Link to this

Exactly WHAT is the problem with so called “double dipping”? The pension money was earned BEFORE retirement, and the current earnings are being earned AFTER retirement. If the retiree doesn’t come back to work after retirement, isn’t the state STILL going to pay them their pension and pay someone else to do the job they didn’t take? They aren’t “double dipping”. They are taking a benefit that they already earned, and they are earning additional income. As long as all of it is earned, they aren’t cheating the state or the taxpayers. Leave them alone.

By theshawn

December 2, 2011 5:00 PM | Link to this

Yes, this needs to be stopped now. To equate it to working and collecting SS is baloney. If state employees only received $24-30K per year in pensions at age 65 then fine, but to retire at 50-55 then get rehired at their already bloated state salary is crap.

By Comeon

December 2, 2011 4:47 PM | Link to this

Raoul, this comment is false - “As I see it, reigning in government waste and abuse is good for government workers and taxpayers alike.” Government workers are taxpayers too. Unfortunately there is corruption and misappropriations in all types of business. There are also bad people who cheat the system. Let’s stop them, instead of placing a blanket statement or regulation on all government workers. If every person put 3.8% of their income (at least) into a retirement vehicle, they would supplement their SS to a “fair” level. Instead of arguing over a good retirement program, why not discuss what is wrong with SS or how other systems are actually broken. Ohio PERS is not broke… let’s focus on things that are.

By me

December 2, 2011 4:41 PM | Link to this

I think the writer and most of the people posting here miss what the biggest point is with double dipping, the additional pension it creates. Retired, collecting a pension while working on building a second pension. THAT is the double dipping and the biggest waste of money. You people wanna whine about those working 1 job and drawing 2 incomes? Wait until they aren’t working and still drawing 2 incomes. Or those that spend their career at a low or mid level, get promoted as a thank you by someone for their last few months of work and retire based on that last position. If they are going to fix the loopholes, by God fix them ALL.

By D. Carter

December 2, 2011 4:05 PM | Link to this

Ok, so this means that folks retiring on social security should not be allowed to return to work either, right? Public employees that have worked under social security and earned a public retirement get greatly penalized on what they can draw from social security-yet private workers can work and pay into a pension and draw their full social security benefits. What exactly is fair about any of this?

By Bubbles

December 2, 2011 4:01 PM | Link to this

Double dipping is so unfair the state of our economy and the future of jobs for those who need one. We build up these benefits to retire and they use them as a second income. Too many are jobless while others are collecting 2 incomes.

By Raoul

December 2, 2011 3:57 PM | Link to this

Government workers should not take these initiatives personally, as they are not an attack against anyone. But the system needs reforming. And yes, I have close friends as healthy as can be receiving long-term disability for extremely vague reasons, and yes, they play golf, jog, you name it. The truth is we all know folks milking the system and who can blame them? It’s been too easy to get away with it and anyone who disputes it is lying to us and themselves. We should not be pitting ourselves against each other, we should act like grown ups and do what’s needed to re-calibrate from the days of endless economic growth and prosperity. As I see it, reigning in government waste and abuse is good for government workers and taxpayers alike. The bottom line is that reforming the system will serve to protect government workers in the long run. Or is that too much common sense to understand?

By real story

December 2, 2011 3:42 PM | Link to this

bottom line…double dipping has little to do with retaining or obtaining the best employee it is just another way to reward croonies, reward campaign contributors, poltical friends, family, and allow politicians to cut deals with one another. Look at butler county double dippers and you will easily connect the dots.

By howard

December 2, 2011 3:40 PM | Link to this

Why don’t lawmakers spend as much time trying to fix real problems as they do fake problems.

By ZONK

December 2, 2011 3:36 PM | Link to this

“Retire means retire-give the next guy a piece of the pie”?? Tell Newt that, retired Speaker of the House, now Pres candidate - Oh my oh my - how unfair that he wants to “double dip” and get another public service job. Enough said.

By DD

December 2, 2011 3:35 PM | Link to this

I taught high school for 35 years and retired at age 57. I have worked for 18 years as a seasonal employee for our city rec program making $1.50 over minimum wage with no benefits. I am a bargain. I guess that makes me a double dipper and the object of this ridiculous proposed legislation.

By Person

December 2, 2011 3:17 PM | Link to this

Bottom line is that public double dipping only seems like a beneficial to society/good idea to those who have or already or could someday benefit from it. Pretty much says it all.

By Buddy

December 2, 2011 3:15 PM | Link to this

Usually this is a win-win for everyone involved. The retiree makes as much or more than he was making before, and the city or school official pays less. This seems like bad/unnecessary legislation to me

By gary

December 2, 2011 3:12 PM | Link to this

retirement means stop working give the next person a chance to get a piece of the pie.

By DA

December 2, 2011 2:59 PM | Link to this

It is too bad people are so stupid. Retiring from the military and then taking a postal job is not double dipping. Retiring from your job and then going back to do it at contractors pay is double dipping. WTF people. Read and comprehend!

By Teej

December 2, 2011 2:58 PM | Link to this

The police chief of the township I live in just retired, for the second time. Yep, double dipped for YEARS. What a freaking joke. About time this was brought to light. I have worked in corporate america my whole career and will retire with only what I have socked away - no pension…this sucking at the public teat needs to end…

By Main Street

December 2, 2011 2:54 PM | Link to this

As the price of government labor (including pension costs) continues to climb, there will simply be fewer public jobs in the future. Middletown just laid off 9 firefighters a few days ago because the city can’t afford to pay them an more…

By ZONK

December 2, 2011 2:49 PM | Link to this

And here I thought Republicans wanted less regulation. Whatever happened to free enterprise, freedom of choice, this guy is NUTS. Telling people you will take away their money if they work. They earned what they are getting, so, get off their backs.

By Livin' da thug life

December 2, 2011 2:30 PM | Link to this

Can you say, “Pension envy”?

By hey you, the one in the shirt

December 2, 2011 2:25 PM | Link to this

@Gibby, now why would they include themselves? The opted not too include themselves in SB5, had they included themselves, this non-union goverment worker would have voted yes for it. I hear no bitching and complaining about the average Ohio Senator makes $100,000 plus free healthcare for life and their pension payments are made for them, not by them amongst other benes…wanna stop goverment waste, start at the top—the policymakers instead of the policy workers. The city I work for has a policy against double dipping in any capacity, so why does the state feel the need to waste more money tackling an issue that could be handled by your city council and school boards. Wasting more freaking money, like the license plate design change or DMHA changing its name it GDPM or what ever. Hold your ELECTED OFFICALS to a higher standard and quit beating on the public employees who MOST do their jobs everyday to an exceptional standard without hesitation.

By NotaPuppet

December 2, 2011 2:14 PM | Link to this

I was against SB5. It was an unjust, unwarranted and not constructive piece poorly drafted legislation by a cowardly pack of self-serving ideologues. But, I am in favor of eliminating the practice of double-dipping. It virtually doubles the salary of workers at a certain point, it is a needless drain on the budget that limits opportunities for the common good.

By Big C

December 2, 2011 2:13 PM | Link to this

Some of you really need to find better things to do with your day. First of all the private sector has excellent opportunities for retirement if you plan accordingly with many companies matching their employees 401k contributions. Social security was intended as a retirement INSURANCE program. No one is supposed to rely on it. If you planned poorly blame yourself, but don’t blame public employees!

By null

December 2, 2011 2:10 PM | Link to this

So someone who starts work at 20 works for the gov.until they have 20 or 25 yrs in retires shouldn’t find another public job? I guess that rules out military retirees also.

By Gabrielle Symes

December 2, 2011 1:53 PM | Link to this

Hm. I wonder how many people who are complaining about govt employees and wasted tax payers dollars went out and voted against union reform at the last election?

By me

December 2, 2011 1:47 PM | Link to this

And another thing… It should not be the State Legislature’s position to impose this rule with such a broad stroke. If the state wants to impose this rule, then let it do so for STATE employment. It should be up to the individual Home Rule jurisdictions if they want to allow this practice. At this point, why doesn’t the Republican Legislature just repeal any reference to Home Rule and just take jurisdiction over the entire state. It was always my impression that the Republican party was the party of “federalism”. Push the decision-making down to the lowest level (not push the costs, as Kasich has done and now claims to have saved the state from bankruptcy - while bankrupting local governments with the added cost burdens). However, with the SB 5 affair as well as the repeal of the Residency rule (I did not agree with the rule, but felt it should be left up to the individual jurisdications), the Republicans are really starting to confuse everybody!

By Tucker

December 2, 2011 1:38 PM | Link to this

This is a prime example of why our country is in the shapes it’s in Our parents wanted better lives for us they worked hard and GAVE us things and we did not to work as hard. Then we GAVE our children so much that most of them don’t work have no work ethic or live in our basements and feel like the GOVERNMENT owes them a living along with a car and a house. Same thing with municipal employees, glad I am in my twilight years I wont have to see how messed up society will be I am however scared for my grandchildren having any kind of lives

By ohiodale

December 2, 2011 1:36 PM | Link to this

Ex government workers are so greedy. I have not heard a single argument that justifies why a public workers should get to retire after 20 years, recieve a pension, and still work full-time on a similar or exact same job. Everyone of the people against this bill are probablly double dippers. I wish I could retires after 45 years, recieve full social security, and still work full-time. Wouldn’t that be nice. Government workers retire after 20-30 years and have 20 extra years to earn a pension plus a salary.

By me

December 2, 2011 1:33 PM | Link to this

So, when this bill is shot down, what issue will arise so you all can band together again to bi&^h and moan about public employees some more??? It is about to snow, maybe you can find fault in how the plows are not getting all the snow… As far as the double dipping goes… I work in an environment where we utilize “seasonal” folks to help with things like year end financial close-outs, filling in for long-term absences, income tax collections during tax season, etc. By utilizing former employees who have retired, for a fraction of the pay they received while working here and no costs for retirement or health-care, and who require little to no additional training, the City is saving tons of money on salaries, training and are maintaining a wealth of institutional knowledge. I am aware that there are those instances where “double-dipping” (not an accurate description)is questionable, but lets not throw the baby out with the bathwater…

By hello

December 2, 2011 1:32 PM | Link to this

thank god! and think of how many job openings might open if we stop this practice, hmmm can we say job creation

By afastdriver

December 2, 2011 1:28 PM | Link to this

WOW…do people whine much. This is a basic money saving concept, hire top flite talent at cheaper prices. Who cares if the have retirement income or another part time job?

By Duh

December 2, 2011 1:26 PM | Link to this

Yes, because our government elected officials NEVER earn any money when they “retire” I mean not get elected. People have lost their minds, what happened to freedom? You should not tell any employee they can’t retire and make more money????

By me

December 2, 2011 1:18 PM | Link to this

Gee, Raoul, sorry that our “whining” is not helping anything, unlike your wise and insightful remarks!!!

By Dave

December 2, 2011 1:17 PM | Link to this

@Jimmie - I agree with you that the retirement age for non-hazardous government service should be the same as anybody else. But when a person puts their life on the line, either through military service, police work, or running into burning buildings, they deserve some extra consideration. Especially when you consider that the average person in the military makes far less than their civilian counterparts. Granted, they get good benefits. But at the end of the day, they still have to put food on the table.

By jimmie

December 2, 2011 12:58 PM | Link to this

@JJ- in response to your question to me - I care because it is my tax dollars paying for these outlandish pensions and early retirements. The only way to sustain them is to raise the contributions - just suck the taxpayers dry. Keep in mind these public employees contribute much less than half (about 10% of their earnings) of what their employers contribute (14-17% of earnings).

By RU Kidding Me

December 2, 2011 12:45 PM | Link to this

Public employees are afforded luxuries the private sector never gets. They get retirement pay well above SS standards. Their salaries are now higher than comparable jobs in the private sector. “Public service” now means swilling like hogs at the public till. If rehire/retire is such a fair, cost-effective and wonderful thing why do most governmental agencies keep it as quiet as they can? In the interest of full disclosure why shouldn’t every level of governement from the universities to grade schools and the federal govt to the township governments post on line the current salary and current retirement of every double dipper. FOLKS - INSURRECTION IS COMING!

By Dave

December 2, 2011 12:41 PM | Link to this

The term “double-dipping” is often misunderstood. If a person serves 20 years in the military, they are eligible for retirement. Small price for 20 years of low pay and defending this nation. But if they retire at the age of 38 and take a job at the Post Office or any government position, that’s considered double-dipping. Are they supposed to just sit around the house and try to live on half of their previous pay for the next thirty years? I certainly hope not.

By Elvis

December 2, 2011 12:38 PM | Link to this

Public employees in Ohio State retirement systems are forced to work after retirement, they pay $1,500/month for their health insurance and receive no social security, not much left when the average retirement, BEFORE taxes is ONLY $2500/MONTH…

By Junkyard Dog

December 2, 2011 12:32 PM | Link to this

In the REAL world (aka the private sector) nobody can afford to retire in their 50s like government employees. The “30 and out” pension system devised 50 years ago needs to be completely overhauled. It’s not sustainable to have people retire on a government pension and live almost another 40 years on a taxpayer funded gravytrain. Few (if any) public employees will ever contribute enough to their own retirement to cover drawing a 30+ year pension.

By boboh

December 2, 2011 12:29 PM | Link to this

To the poster of JJ….It is impossible to get a job with the government because of all the dbl dipping that is taking place. And to the people that do not agree with this bill; at least you get to vote on issues like this. Try working in the private sector, things like this are mandated to us and if we don’t like it, our only option is to quit.

By 99%

December 2, 2011 12:21 PM | Link to this

No one should be able to “retire” and work the same job on a full-time basis. If you’re not ready to pull the plug then don’t “retire” and game the system.

By balphus

December 2, 2011 12:14 PM | Link to this

Then they need to ban people on Social Security working and receiving their money also.

By concerned

December 2, 2011 11:52 AM | Link to this

Like the Montgomery County person that is double dipping, yet there is no money and he has abolished the special needs programs for toddlers and preschool aged children. Yeah get rid of it!

By faithfull civil servant

December 2, 2011 11:49 AM | Link to this

I have been in civil service for over 20yrs. The term “double dipping” is misleading, it is really A working retirement and because the city does not have to pay into the retirement plan for these employees and most end up coming back for less money, it saves money for the tax payers. The time and money it saves to train some positions can make it worth it if you can get a few more good years out of them or have them train thier replacements.

By strawny49

December 2, 2011 11:29 AM | Link to this

Double dipping does not cost tax payers anymore money. Are you all saying that once a person retires he is not allowed to work anymore.

By Jo

December 2, 2011 8:47 AM | Link to this

To rrtechno, you are right all these laws NEVER apply to the politicians. They should have to be included in every bill they pass, but their not. We pay taxes for them too. And I say start at the top and freeze their raises and use the same insurance they push on us. And cut the congress in half, they don’t need all of them and they can’t make decisions anyway. Whe they start cutting at the top then they can come after the little guys.

By Rubber Biscuit

December 2, 2011 8:39 AM | Link to this

This is a good idea. I just wish they would implement it at the FEDERAL level, too. Come out to the base and it’s a free-for-all of federal double-dippers.

By rrtechno

December 2, 2011 8:37 AM | Link to this

“A) “Public employee” means: (1) Any person holding an office, not elective, ,,,” So, who is NOT included in this ban?

By jane cracked corn

December 2, 2011 8:37 AM | Link to this

@ raoul: do you actually know what % of your taxes goes to the public employees retirement ? there are far better examples of taxes being used unwisely or unfairly, or cheating within the worker’s comp system, which issues are far more deserving of taxpayers’ criticism and griping. with that said, double dipping is wrong and and legislation should be drafted to fix this problem. retire and return to the same job? sounds boring

By Jo

December 2, 2011 8:27 AM | Link to this

To Raoul:Show me prove of “golf playing long-term disability retirees, and do nothing paper shuffling beaurocrats getting fat off the system”. And the reason they re-hire these people are because they are already trained and have the expertise. I know a few people that retired and figured out they couldn’t afford their insurance or were just plain bored. And since when are politicians looking out for taxpayers interest (what planet do you live on). Therefore maybe you should shut up and listen or better yet don’t post if you don’t know what your talking about. I voted out ALL incumbents and will do it again as they have proved to me they aren’t working for the people or by the people. Or maybe your just jealous. Maybe you should complain about some of the welfare people doing drugs that we pay for, and yes I could get prove of that. Just go to Springfield and checkout the low income apartments and you’ll see it

By cent21

December 2, 2011 8:15 AM | Link to this

when i think of double dipping, it is not of the person who retires and then goes back to work. it’s the bakers and dwyers who go back to the exact same job they retired from.

By Enough, already

December 2, 2011 8:12 AM | Link to this

…retirement, then employment in the PRIVATE sector.

By Pat McGroinagin

December 2, 2011 8:06 AM | Link to this

Raoul….you are right on the mark. Its funny that posters like History rationalizes it by saying elected officials do it too. I guess to them that makes it OK.

By Enough

December 2, 2011 8:03 AM | Link to this

To the government employees affected by this bill: This bill doesn’t prohibit public sector retirement, then employment in the public sector. You are welcome to use your skill sets in the private sector to make the larger income and benefits you chose to forego as a public servant,if you can. Give the young people a chance to get in the game. If you must return (emergency only), taxpayers should not pay for a second retirement or piggyback medical benefits.

By History

December 2, 2011 7:15 AM | Link to this

All the elected officals our Senate and House are double dipping. They all have a business or work for someone else,or drawing a pension/401k and being paid money outside thier elected position. If elected, make them give up their other income/business and not be exempt from their own law making discrimination.

By Raoul

December 2, 2011 7:08 AM | Link to this

Republicans keep introducing these measures because they are looking out for the interests of taxpayers. When they do, they get demonized, insulted, and shouted down by the seemingly endless number of government workers and retirees. I would like to remind all government workers and retirees we taxpayers pay for it all. Therefore, we would appreciate it if you shut up and listened to what we have to say. Your endless whining makes you all look like greedy gluttons. The system needs fixed. Do’t think we don’t notice the huge numbers of double dippers, golf playing long-term disability retirees, and do nothing paper shuffling beaurocrats getting fat off the system. We do. All of your whining will not close our eyes to it.

By JJ

December 2, 2011 4:19 AM | Link to this

@jimmie - You argument that the rule is needed because public service workers can retire long before “normal” folks is ridiculous. It proves the point that people are just jealous of the public retirement system. Public employees have their own retirement system, as long as it can sustain the early retirements why should you or anybody else care?

By null

December 2, 2011 2:21 AM | Link to this

who makes 6000.00 amonth in retirement!

By cd2

December 2, 2011 12:06 AM | Link to this

Elected officials are not exempted under the bill

By george

December 1, 2011 11:29 PM | Link to this

What will be next? Telling a public employee they cannot have a second part-time job because they would make too much? People earn their retirement and they deserve to get it regardless of whether or not they become re-employed.

By Paul

December 1, 2011 11:12 PM | Link to this

“Municipal Millionnaires” these are public employees, part of the 1%. With their pension plans they can “retire” with $60,000/yr. pension. I think we should raise taxes on the “Municipal Millionnaires” since we pay their salaries, pensions, benefits… let them pay EXTRA TAXES.

By laura

December 1, 2011 10:42 PM | Link to this

Once again, our legislators are trying to push a bill through that applies only to a select few public employees and once again it exempts them from the same policy. Why should legislators be exempt from the policies they expect for other public employees? When will all of you who think public workers receive such great plans actually look into what we get. Just as RetCop said, many of us have HAD to return to work because we couldn’t afford the healthcare premiums. Contrary to what has been published we do not get free lifetime healthcare. My family plan would have cost $1400 a month plus $2500 yearly deductible. Hardly free.

By jimmie

December 1, 2011 9:38 PM | Link to this

Finally, someone willing to do something about this outrageous practice. Schoenlein in Kettering may be one of the worst offenders. @JJ - The reason this rule is needed is because these folks can retire long before normal folks. Another solution would be to raise the public employee retirement age to match the social security retirement age - now about 66. That would pretty much solve the problem as well.

By SUPERFLY

December 1, 2011 9:15 PM | Link to this

WOW, THIS MEANS FAIRBORN WILL HAVE TO CUT MANY OF THE OVERPAID SERVANTS ON WHITTIER AVE. WHAT WILL SCARBUTT DO WITH ALL OF THE SNIFFERS GONE ?

By JJ

December 1, 2011 8:44 PM | Link to this

OK, let’s stop people in the private sector from retiring and working another job or else: no 401K draws, no social security, etc. If people think government jobs pay so much then what aren’t they trying to get one?

By Wake up, the board meeting is over

December 1, 2011 8:12 PM | Link to this

The poster boy for shameless double dipping is Joe Szoke.

By RetCop

December 1, 2011 7:35 PM | Link to this

This is a ridiculous bill that will never pass in Ohio. I noticed all 3 sponsors are republicans…first termer’s that won’t be re-elected after trying to slide this one through. Well, I’ll just bet this will go the way of issue 2…it ain’t going nowhere. I’m sure our one term Govenor Kasick is hiding behind his cronies on this one as well. I am a retired cop with a disability that had to go back to work to be able afford medical insurance for my family as my pension medical costs $1100 a month for family plan and its not even a Cadillac plan. Why are people just so D**N jealous for trying to better oneself. I am working for a local gov’t so I can provide for my family. What’s next, the gov’t telling us what jobs we can have? Please wake up sheeple!

By Tucker

December 1, 2011 7:31 PM | Link to this

Policy that is long over due

By It's about time

December 1, 2011 6:51 PM | Link to this

Hip Hip Hooray! Start grooming a new superintendant in Kettering, school board.

By NoDouble Dipping

December 1, 2011 6:38 PM | Link to this

There are plenty capable people in the pipeline to take over these jobs when top executives retire. And for those organizations who don’t have those quality people-in-waiting in their organizations I say shame on you for not having put a succession plan in place.

By Gibby

December 1, 2011 6:38 PM | Link to this

Gee I hope this will also apply to politicians who double and triple dip

By nra4ever

December 1, 2011 5:35 PM | Link to this

You are right on the money on this. practice should be stopped ASAP.