Don - another double dipper

[dagwud]

The way I see it Don is that we tax payers are paying the wages of public employees so in a round about way we are their employers.  I also think it is up to our government to ensure that when they negotiate with public employee unions that they represent us tax payers at the bargaining table as opposed to simply rolling over like Culver and quickly excepting the unions very first proposal.  I can not recall ever hearing of this happening before. 

 I think public employees like all workers should be paid a fair and reasonable wage but not one that is far superior to similar jobs in the private sector.  The weird thing is that if you are highly educated you make less working as a public employee such as a county attorney or engineer.  However if you have have little or no secondary education you can generally make more money working in the public sector then in private.  There are very few private sector jobs that fund their employees retirement programs and  health insurance like the way most public employee jobs do.  There are also few private sector jobs compared to public sector jobs that allow you to retire, start drawing a pension and then return to work and double dip. 

I simply can not agree that allowing double dipping does not cost the state more money especially when we already have over 7000 double dippers and growing.  You guys scream and holler (correctly I might add) that Haliburton be given a no bid government contract yet that is basically what Culver did with the state employees.  There is an important reason we require our elected officials who are in charge of managing our tax dollars to negotiate and let out bids so as to get the most bang for our tax dollars.

[kraft-t]

How does double dipping cost the state more money?  The state employee earns his pension, and he draws on it. $40 K per year

The same employee is hired for that job or another for $50K per year. Total cost to the state $90K per year.

The state employee earns his pension and draws on it. $40K per year.

A differnt employee is hired for the second job at a salary of $50k per year. Total cost to the state $90k per year.

You are suggesting that his pension should be discounted if he takes another state job. So what you are saying is that the retiree doesn't deserve his full pension if he takes his old job or a new government job. You want to discriminate against former employees for some particular reason.

I fail to understand that logic, Dag. It can only be explained that you think state employees are over paid or the pensions are to generous or you think it is retirees responsibility to give back to the state.

[schnurrbart]

I've talked about this before but will again.  Public sector vs private.  Example:  USPS vs UPS are probably pretty equal in job description as far as the companies are concerned.  They both engage in delivery of mailed goods from house to house.  Ups makes about the same wage as USPS.  When the UPS guy retires with 26 years service, he gets $100/mo for each of the 26 years he worked.  The USPS guy retires after the same 26 years and he gets 42%of his ending salary, which in my case was $50K.  I don't know what the rest of the "benefits" package the UPS guy gets but I would imagine it is similar to mine.  I could keep my insurance but had to pay a lot more for it and when I started Medicare, I paid for Medicare AND the same amount I was paying for my post office insurance but got far less coverage so I dropped it.  Also, do you know that most retirees from the federal job who go back, go back as part-time?

[dagwud]

"How does double dipping cost the state more money?  The state employee earns his pension, and he draws on it. $40 K per year. The same employee is hired for that job or another for $50K per year. Total cost to the state $90K per year."

I'm betting Don that if the double dipping was not so easy now days that most of those doing it would not have retired since they did not intend on actually retiring but were simply using a loop hole to get two pay checks at the same time.  The state would then be paying 7000 workers one check as opposed to two.  That would save them money.

I have no trouble with government workers or any others getting a pension but just think they should get it when they actually retire. 

Definition for pension: A sum paid regularly to a person following retirement. 

As for teachers I think most fall into two groups.  One group is not paid nearly enough and the other group is vastly over paid and in the wrong profession.

[kraft-t]

Two paychecks that are earned and deserved. You don't like government workers to much and think they are over paid. I can't agree with any part of that.