Michigan Votes

2007 Senate Bill 689 (State employment early retirement )

[Comments on this legislation] [Text and Analysis] [Add to Watch List]
[Previous] [Next]

  • Introduced by Sen. Mike Bishop on August 22, 2007, to increase the pension benefits of state employees whose age and years of employment add up to at least 75 and who retire between Nov. 1, 2007 and Dec. 31, 2007 (or later for some employees). The bill would increase the multiplier used to calculate the retirement benefits of these employees from 1.5 percent to 1.75 percent, which would increase the cash portion of their pension benefits by 16.7 percent. Reportedly, some 14,000 of 52,000 current state employees would be eligible, and the plan would be to realize budget savings by only replacing 25 percent of them. See also Senate Bill 691.
    • Referred to the Senate Appropriations Committee on August 22, 2007.
      • Reported in the Senate on August 30, 2007, with the recommendation that the substitute (S-1) be adopted and that the bill then pass.
    • Substitute offered in the Senate on August 30, 2007, to replace the previous version of the bill with one that revises details but does not change the substance of the bill as previously described. The substitute passed in the Senate by voice vote on August 30, 2007.
  • Passed in the Senate (21 to 16) on August 30, 2007, to increase the pension benefits of state employees whose age and years of employment add up to at least 75 and who retire between Nov. 1, 2007 and Dec. 31, 2007 (or later for some employees). The bill would increase the multiplier used to calculate the retirement benefits of these employees from 1.5 percent to 1.75 percent, which would increase the cash portion of their pension benefits by 16.7 percent. [Vote Details and Comments]
  • Received in the House on August 30, 2007.
    • Referred to the House Government Operations Committee on August 30, 2007.

Line

Comments

Introduced by Sen. Mike Bishop on August 22, 2007. Passed in the Senate (21 to 16) on August 30, 2007. New Comment

1) Early-out for all state employees [by Anonymous Citizen on May 9, 2008]
Early retirement and supplemental pensions would be an option for some workers in the Department of Human Service's Bureau of Juvenile Justice under legislation considered by the House Labor Committee on Tuesday.


The legislation is intended to offset a budget decision made in the current fiscal year that resulted in the closure 80 medium security beds and 131 workers laid off at the W.J. Maxey Boys Training School. Money from those savings was then spent on adding 150 field staff positions within DHS, as well as adding 138 foster care and 138 child welfare positions.


HB 5944 and HB 5966 would apply to bureau employees laid off or displaced on or after October 1, 2007 and on or before September 30, 2008. Displaced workers would be considered those active employees who have to move from their assignment location due to layoffs, workforce reductions or facility closures.


Those people would be offered two options for early out: if the person's age and service years are equal to or more than 70 years they could receive a retirement based on number of years worked multiplied by 1.5 percent of their average salary or if a person's age and service years are equal to or more than 75 years they could receive a retirement allowance based on a multiplier of 1.75 percent.


The legislation also would designate bureau employees after October 1, 2007 as "covered positions" under the State Employees Retirement Act. Currently, that designation is given to Department of Corrections employees.


The bill would then make bureau employees with the last three years of their position designated as "covered" eligible for supplemental pension at age 51 if they had 25 years of service, or at age 56 if they had worked for 10 years.


An official with the local AFSCME said the bills could affect approximately 50 employees at Maxey.


The bill sponsors, Rep. Shanelle Jackson (D-Detroit) and Rep. Paul Opsommer (R-DeWitt), said the legislation is intended to help those who have "served the state diligently," who have been affected by the budget cut, and who because of the physical nature of the job need to have the same benefits as those state employees who work with prisoners.


The AFL-CIO, Michigan Association of Government Employees, AFSCME and Michigan State Employees Association support the legislation.


Nick Ciarimitaro, legislation and public policy director for AFSCME Council 25, said his group has opposed other early out proposals for state employees because of the strain created on the remaining workforce, but in the Maxey case, the workforce reduction already has been mandated. He said many employees with 20 or more years of service are being lost or have to go through significant retraining because of the budgetary decision (which the group had opposed).


Mr. Ciarimitaro added that while many jobs do produce stress, the bureau jobs are much more difficult because the facility is housing more violent offenders.


But Rep. Lorence Wenke (R-Richland) repeatedly challenged proponents of the bills that most private sector employees who lose their jobs aren't offered these types of benefits and the cost for doing so would be paid for by business and individual taxpayers.


Mr. Opsommer countered that as companies in the private sector have downsized, they have offered buyouts, particularly for Michigan's own Big Three automakers.


"Is everybody (getting buyouts)? No. Can we make it better for everybody? No. I wish we could," he said.


And Todd Tennis, representing the Michigan State Employees Association, said lawmakers shouldn't argue for the reduction in worker benefits simply because workers in other sectors aren't receiving them.


"Let's save the ones we can," Ms. Jackson said.


Mr. Tennis added that the legislation boils down to allowing some workers to retire before 80 years of age and years of service without penalty. He said that will get older workers off the rolls and bring in new people who will be paid less and will be under the defined contribution retirement plan, not the pension system.


Rep. Rick Jones (R-Grand Ledge) said he supports the legislation, but wished bills providing an early out program for all state employees would be acted on as well.


The committee did not take a vote on the bills as HB 5966 actually needs to be formally re-referred from the House Retiree Health Care Reforms Committee. The panel is expected to take further testimony next week.


Reply New Comment

Line

2) I KNOW WHO YOU ARE.... [by Anonymous Citizen on May 2, 2008]
I can't believe you are still alive. I saw the lightning strik. It was hard to believe. There was no wind, no rain, no storm nothing. If you remember we was high up near the base of the clouds when you got zapped. None of us could believe you survived.

When you got hit by the car I was farther up the highway about 5 or six blocks with the surveyor. This young gal stopped crien her heart out claiming she had just killed a surveyor. The guys later said you used the rod to vault the car slammed the feet down as it passed under. You sure wrecked her car. her top air intakes and windshield wipers were broke all to heck. The surveyor radioed to your crew who said youd been hit but were still working. To look at the car he couldn't believe it. I couldnt believe it. He bet the lead worker $10 the girl would file a claim for damage to her car but she never did. Only bet he ever lost.

That was a construction crew with the sand pile after a co-op student came in early and forced you off our crew. I never figureed that one out. But we have a mutual accuaintence that was on your crew. He told me a third of the hill just broke off and disapeaered down the slope. He ran round back of the hill on the build road and there was this eye and hand just stickin out of the sand about 50 feet from the bottom. he claimed it was a one in a million survival and couldn't believe you all got the reprimand.

Good to see your still alive and still working for the state to. At least we get our monies worth out of somebody there. I'm retired now but glad to know somebody there still works for a living. I know you gotta be jsut 2 or three years from 60 so just do your work and the time will fly by to where the penaltys end. Hang in there and the best to you.
Reply New Comment

Line

3) I don't get no respect!!!!! [by Anonymous Citizen on May 2, 2008]

Haven't checked this board in a long time as dates for the legislation SB 689 expired. I just read all the recent posts.

Wow!!!! Ohio and Indiana have permanent 85 points and out without penalty? And Michigan has 90 and out if you live, plus that's with a lesser retirement multiplier than the other states. Well, thank you Legislature and Governor. Nothing you can do to fix the system to allow retirement of expensive senior state employees? Until reading the posts here, I kinda believed you. Now I don't.

I confess. I'm a State employee, but I have a unique viewpoint regarding who Michigan has allowed to early retire versus who neighboring states allow to retire every day. If the info in the posts here is accurate, I'm feeling hurt.

The unique viewpoint I have is injuries suffered working for the people of this State. Maybe the wussies posting here that say they are State Policemen, human services workers, corrections workers and the lot would like to trade places with me? So you think you've gotten no respect?

So working with a survey crew getting level shots on the black and white line separating lanes going the same direction, the following happened. We had 10 signs out, 5 per side, but facing the same direction. Men working, survey crew ahead, do not pass, do not pass, do not pass. One of our "customers" decided this would be a delightful place to pass and with solid traffic in both lanes going 45MPH, she whipped out to pass a big truck. She center-punched me so hard the impact knocked me higher than the truck and 100 feet down the road. After being knocked 3 times head over heals I landed on the black and white line running like an Olympic sprinter as speed of the car hadn't worn off yet. Yes, I still had your 15 foot survey rod mainly because I did'nt have the $150 to replace it. After walking about 50 feet back up the line, setting the rod on the paint mark, and turning towards the gun, the instrument man growled, "You gotta go back up where you were hit, we already got that one". So I went another 100 feet and continued working the rest of the shift from 2PM until 5:30PM. Time lost: None (except for the time of the flight).

So working with the same survey crew at a high elevation for Michigan, we were witnessing section corners in the middle of the state highway for upcoming construction. After popping the top of a survey marker box, I was searching for the 6 foot long 1 inch rod marking the section corner. When the huge stainless survey spoon hit it, lightning struck me in the head. My hat burned up, gloves blew into little peices, my clothes were singed, my whole body was burned, all hair was burned off, on the inside I was cooked medium-well, I was blind, and my heart had stopped. I was instantly 30 years older. Other than that, I guess I didn't have any problems other than being knelt down on the centerline of an active state highway. After a few minutes the heart began to tick somewhat, another crew member coaxed me to crawl towards the shoulder. Once I felt gravel I kept right on crawling until it felt like grass and just set down. I'm told it was 10 or 15 minutes later until sight returned enough to see the outline of the survey vehicle. I crawled over there, crawled in, and hid. Yeah I'm still ashamed of this, but was so scared at the time. The rest of the crew abandoned the steel measuring tape beside the road, jumped in the survey vehicle, and we went back to the field trailer looking for something to do that didn't have to be done in the clouds. After striking me, the lightning bolt was still so hot, the stainless spoon had melted to a 45 degree angle. Time lost: None(except for except for that necessary to get back to the vehicle)

So working on a construction survey crew, we set out to cross section the largest pile of sand ever made by the local producer. And it was a monster. The idea was, the State buys the pile of sand, figures the volume of sand before and after the project, and pays for the difference. It was earliest spring and I was on the top of the pile right on the edge to give a level shot. All of a sudden I felt a disturbance in the force. I looked back over my shoulder at the fella measuring me off the base line at the top of the pile and he looked scared. The pile had broken off about 25 to 30 feet from me and I was going down. With the 15 foot survey rod, I kayaked for my life on the surface of the collapsing pile. Right third of rod broke away and I kayaked with what was left. Left third broke away, I gave the State back the middle portion, and swam the breast and every other part stroke inside the collapsing pile of sand. When everything ground to a halt, it felt like half a building was crushing me. All that stuck out was my nose, right eye, and right hand. I had ended up about 80% of the distance down the pile. It was cold as the pile had just thawed out. The crew member that had been at the top ran down to me and uncovered my pie hole. I was really glad to see him even with one eye as my nose was full of sand and couldn't breathe. He, the other crew member tried to get me out but the pile just kept collapsing. Finally two truckers who showed up to start the project had a big piece of plywood. They hammered it into the pile just above me and dug me out. Total time trapped was about an hour. My arms snapped tight to my chest and legs slammed up beneath me as the temperature had nearly frozen me. One crew member and one truck driver grabbed me like a suitcase and bounded down off the pile. We had just cleared it when there was another disurbance in the force. The rest of the pile came down and covered the spot we all just were with about 10 to 15 foot of sand. The truck driver said "Crap, I knew I'd lose my plywood". After being stuffed in the survey vehicle we hauled over to the local restaurant. I was brushed off the best they could and carried in again like a suitcase. The instrument man ordered several pots of coffee which they poured down me for about 2 hours. As we were expected back at the office at noon, the guys helped me to the vehicle and they took me home and helped me in the house. They said even though we only had a half hour lunch, they would try to stretch it to an hour and stay late at night to make it up. The crew showed up an hour later and I walked slowly to the vehicle. The instrument man said, "I'm sorry but we have to go back to the office as the project engineer has to talk to you". I thought I was fired for sure. We all went in his office and he read the riot act to us. One of our "customers" had reported that we were at the restaurant for 2 hours. Instrument man got a written reprimand and us other two crewmen got a verbal reprimand. We had went out early that morning before starting time, completely cross sectioned the sand pile (as the pile collapsed on the last shot which the instrumentman had just gotten), darned near all been killed, crewman dug out and warmed up by noon plus the project had started at 10 o'clock. Somehow the Project Engineer and "customers" thought the State had been screwed. Oh well!! I was not charged $150 for the survey rod as the State still had it. The pieces were in that pile somewheres. Lost time: None(except for that necessary for employee extraction and warming)

Okay. That's three of em. There were two others that should of for sure killed me too, but I just hate to lose. Anybody that wants to try the three trials by fire above and can successfully do so, we'll switch jobs. Please post on this board. If not successful, don't bother posting.

With 85 points I can't retire without penalty so maybe just a transfer out would be good enough. SB689 shouldn't be dead either, but it is. The Legislature and Governor would rather release the inmates to prey upon us versus retire senior employees to save budget money. Too bad. I read in one of the previous posts here that the last early out in December of 2002 was 65 points and out but only for Governor's, Legislator's, and Judge's employees. OH MY!!! THEY MUST HAVE HAD A REALLY VICIOUS PAPER CUT I SUPPOSE!!!!!!!!!

Reply New Comment

Line

4) BwaHahahaha [by Anonymous Citizen on May 2, 2008]
"We had went out early that morning before starting time"

State workers starting early????
I have a bridge to sell you.
Reply New Comment

Line

5) New fiction Writer... [by Anonymous Citizen on May 2, 2008]
"the impact knocked me higher than the truck and 100 feet down the road"
"After walking about 50 feet back up the line,"
"and continued working the rest of the shift from 2PM until 5:30PM. Time lost: None (except for the time of the flight)."
"lightning struck me in the head. My hat burned up, gloves blew into little peices, my clothes were singed, my whole body was burned, all hair was burned off, on the inside I was cooked medium-well, I was blind, and my heart had stopped. I was instantly 30 years older. Other than that, I guess I didn't have any problems other than being knelt down on the centerline of an active state highway. After a few minutes the heart began to tick somewhat, another crew member coaxed me to crawl towards the shoulder."

I thought I was reading the National Enquirer.
These kind of lies and garbage is what makes folks have such a high opinion of state employees. You have suckled at the public teat so long you don't have any idea of reality.
Please seek help, and get back to work.
Reply New Comment

Line

6) SPEAKER DILLON = MOTHER MAY I?... [by Anonymous Citizen on April 20, 2008]

On the subject of early retirement, we should above all remember SB689 was passed by the Senate in August 2007 and sent to the House. Then somebody referred it to the Government Operations Committee to die a slow sure death. And who was that somebody you ask?? Well, that was Speaker Andrew Dillon. And why was SB689 not worth serious consideration in the House?? Well, that one was because Mr. Dillon's Mother Jenny said it was not to be considered.

WHEN ENOUGH PEOPLE IN MICHIGAN VOTED FOR GOVERNOR JENNIFER GRANHOLM'S RE-ELECTION, I'LL BET THEY HAD NO IDEA THEY WERE VOTING HER IN AS THE HEAD OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, A LEGISLATIVE BRANCH, AS WELL.

Okay...now why would the House hold out for and approve a huge income tax increase on broke taxpayers and 22% surcharge on struggling business in Michigan?? Why would the House insist on increasing year-to-year spending levels?? Why would the House not reduce the size of Michigan government with SB689 along with other obviously needed budget cuts in our time of recession?? Why was the one budget cut the House backed to unleash hoards of prisinors upon us?? Well, the reason for the above was MOTHER JENNY told Speaker Dillion that's the way it was gonna be.

IT'S NOT CLEAR AT THIS POINT IF SPEAKER DILLON IS AUTHORIZED TO WIPE WITHOUT SAYING "MOTHER MAY I?". WHAT'S CLEAR IS SPEAKER DILLON HAS FORGOTTEN WHO HE IS, WHAT HE IS, WHO ELECTED HIM AS REPRESENTATIVE, WHO ELECTED HIM AS SPEAKER, AND WHAT HIS RESPONSIBILITIES MOST CERTAINLY ARE.

Our Speaker was a man of respect and principle. Now, he has been turned to the dark side as Mother Jenny's puppet and speaking head. His constituents elected him to represent their interests. Speaker Dillon now represents the interests of Mother Jenny's supporters in her past elections PERIOD. His fellow Democrats in the caucus thought they had voted for Representative Dillon as Speaker to lead a Legislative Branch of the State of Michigan. Speaker Dillon now represents the interests of Mother Jenny's supporters PERIOD. Speaker Dillon operates as if he has no responsibilities except to obey Mother Jenny, and that's to the letter.

WELL, AUGUST MAY PROVIDE SPEAKER DILLON'S CONSTITUENTS THE OPPORTUNITY TO CHANGE THEIR YES MAN RIGHT OUT OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.

Do you recall why August is important?? It's because this select group of voters will most likely have the opportunity to recall Mr. Dillon effective upon certification of the primary vote. Also they have the opportunity to choose a new candidate for Representative that might represent them.

EVERY STATE EMPLOYEE VOTING IN THIS ELECTION SHOULD REMEMBER THE RESPECT AND APPRECIATION AFFORDED THEM BY SPEAKER DILLON AND HIS MOTHER JENNY.

When Speaker Dillon had to choose between the interests of taxpayers and state employees versus prison inmates and various unions' dues collection machines, how did he choose? He sided with the inmates and union dues collection. He sided with huge tax increase for taxpayers and continued imprisonment for state employees to pay high-rate union dues for another five years putting a smile on the face of Mother Jenny's union buddies. SB689 never had a chance.

THOSE STATE EMPLOYEES IN SPEAKER DILLON'S DISTRICT SHOULD REMEMBER ALL OF THE ABOVE. THEY SHOULD ADVISE ALL THEIR RELATIVES AND FRIENDS A REAL REPRESENTATIVE IS NEEDED. THE RECALL AND NOMINATING VOTES MAY WELL BE CLOSE SO EVERY VOTE COUNTS. IF RECALL IS SUCCESSFUL, MAYBE SB689 WILL BECOME A REALITY RATHER THAN A JOKE. YOU ARE OUR ONLY HOPE OBI-WAN KENOBI. WE ARE ALL COUNTING ON YOU. MAY THE FORCE BE WITH YOU!!!!!!!!!!




Reply New Comment

Line

7) DON'T GET YOUR TAIL IN A KNOT [by Anonymous Citizen on April 13, 2008]

I just checked Senate Bill 689 out. I've drawn five interesting conclusions due to timing if effective 2008 instead of 2007 as introduced.

The first is the November 1st effective date is the end of a pay period in 2008 and not in 2007. This would make processing an early out real cheap and easy for the state if put off until 2008.

The second is there was a two percent state raise effective October 1st 2007 but NO STATE RAISE was authorized effective October 1st 2008. This would save the state money on benefit payoffs if put off until 2008.

The third is the bill was introduced and passed at the Senate in 2007 but will live on thru 2008 giving the House the opportunity to act.

The fourth conclusion is no legislator was up for re-election or term limited in 2007 but 3/4 of the legislature faces these prospects in 2008. SB 689 lists August 1st for sign-up necessitating passage a couple months earlier to gear up processing at Retirement Services. Saving the state money, reducing staff, and clobbering the structual deficit would be nice to campaign on ONLY IN 2008.

The fifth and perhaps personal reason for legislators to support an early out occurs only in 2008. It would offer a plain cotton parachute to the staff of legislators who are unseated due to term limits or voters who have had enough of the tax increases plus smoke and mirrors our legislators have used to rescue a dying economy in our state. On SB 689 the date allowed to withdraw an early-out application is thru December 15th allowing employees of election winning legislators relief. The effective dates are between November 1st and December 31st. PERFECT...PERFECT...PERFECT.

INSTEAD OF WHINING ON THIS BOARD, JUST GIVE THE LEGISLATURE A COUPLE OF MONTHS WHERE THE HOUSE PLACES 2008 STICKERS OVER 2007 ON SB 689, THE SENATE CONCURS WITH THE CHANGE, AND IT'S PRESENTED TO THE GOVERNOR WITH A VETO PROOF MAJORITY. AT THIS POINT SHE WILL CLAIM IT'S HER IDEA. So much for no early-out on my watch!!!
Reply New Comment

Line

8) NOBODY SAID NOTHIN [by Anonymous Citizen on March 30, 2008]
At our rare union meetings it looks like all we get is a free meal? If our union had our interest at heart instead of their wallet they could have said 'indiana and ohio have a rule of 85 do you think we should try to get that for you?' I just googled the indiana and ohio retirement sites and they truly do have a rule of 85 so their state employees can retire without penalty.

If we had a rule of 85 retirement section in Michigan we wouldn't keep wishing for an early retirement bill. The sad part is we provide more and more dues so our unions to see it won't happen.

Does anybody know how we go about setting up decertification votes for our unions? Please post. Thanks.
Reply New Comment

Line

9) I called union rep yesterday [by Anonymous Citizen on March 29, 2008]

I also am a member of a union for state employees. I called my union rep yesterday about the posting here on 3-28 called RULE OF 85 IN INDIANA & OHIO. He checked the facts and phoned me back to say those are the facts exactly. He also agreed with me we've been had. Today we're working another 3 or 4 years at the end of our careers just to fatten the union's coffers. That figures. Every union member should call their unions office Monday morning to ask what gives.
Reply New Comment

Line

10) good point - where is my union? [by Anonymous Citizen on March 29, 2008]

I belong to a state employees union. now you mention it all it has been any good at is collecting dues. if the facts in the previous posts check out I'll be phoning my unions office monday morning. bet I won't be alone. alot of people I work with watch the board here in hopes of an early out. what has just been posted will really get their attention.
Reply New Comment

Line

11) WHERE'S THEIR FAMOUS UNIONS? [by Anonymous Citizen on March 29, 2008]

I hope you are not jerking our chain saying that a state of michigan employee can't retire with the 85 you spoke of. I've heard of the various state employee unions plead for a permanent 80 and out and told their members "I'm sorry, we couldn't get it for you". Why on earth would the employee unions perpetually want the state to go from 90 and out to 80 and out without ever considering 85 and out? Why would the michigan press, if any, not point this little oversite out? Why would the state, when asked for 80 and out, not say "How about 85 and out like Ohio and Indiana"?

Something stinks here. Instead of asking for 85 and out, the employee unions are obviously protecting their dues base by only asking for permanent 80 and out which they know won't be approved. Meanwhile they do what they do best, collect dues, while strokin their members with the "We tried" routine. The "michigan press" would have to be looking the other way big time not to point this little scam out, so the members and general public could see what's going on. As the state never pointed this little scam out, it's apparent the state does not care about the employees that were forced into the so-called unions.

All of the above would have to happen to fit your facts regarding Michigan, Indiana, Ohio, and 85 and out rules. Be advised, I'll be checking it out and will re-post on this board if you're wrong. It sounds so bizzare.


Reply New Comment

Line

12) RULE OF 85 IN INDIANA & OHIO [by Anonymous Citizen on March 28, 2008]

I agree. When you refer to disrespect for state employees in Michigan, you only have to look south of the border for proof.

Indiana has a higher retirement factor and a rule of 85 years of service and age to retire without penalty.

Ohio has a higher retirement factor and a rule of 85 years of service and age to retire without penalty.

Michigan has a lower retirement factor yielding smaller pensions plus the state employee in Michigan cannot retire at age 57 with 28 years service totaling 85 without penalty as there is no rule of 85 such as Indiana and Ohio have. There are penalties of 6% for each year shy of 60 years old unless the state employee in Michigan has 30 years service.

Of the three states mentioned above, only Michigan has no rule of 85 and Ohio and Indiana have and have had such a rule for years. It only makes sense.

And the Governor and Democrat controlled House in Michigan say there is nothing they can do to fix state employee retirement requirements. YEAH, RIGHT....
Reply New Comment

Line

13) Retiring in place [by Anonymous Citizen on March 28, 2008]

Good postings. I didn't know anybody followed this board since the timing for effect of SB 689 has passed. It seems the truth that has no place in the papers, on TV, or in state government has found it's way onto this board.

While we're on the subject of truth, has anybody else heard of the state employee's answer to no early retirement bill thanks to the governor? It's called retiring in place. It seems the senior employees that would exit under such a bill have many things in common. They are:

at top of their carrear ladder

at top of their pay scale

super high annual leave(vacation) accrual

super high annual leave balance

super high sick leave balance

many even have their banked leave time balances still available from years ago

all get 12 or 13 paid state holidays per year

all belong to the expensive pre 1997 defined benefits retirement plan


The governor, thru her speaking heads, has said an early-out would cost the state money instead of save it. Well OK...good enough. The senior state employees are seeing that the governor's statement comes true without an early-out. Be careful what you ask for because you might get it, and in this case it's called retiring in place.

Retiring in place is based on heavy leave accrual rates, state holidays, and huge leave balances. The leave usage combined with state holidays, combined with showing up for "work" once in a while, is leveraged out into the future to accumulate more retirement credit, more annual leave accrual, more sick leave accrual, more retirement credit, and higher pay rate making their future pension checks hard for the state to swallow. And all this time they are in full pay status with full benefits too. They are taking more vacations than a retiree takes and we're footing the bill while they take our state treasure out of state to spend it. An immediate early-out would stop all this in it's tracks, but I digress.

I guess the principle at work here is the senior employees feel or know the governor and legislature have no regard for them and are just returning the favor. State house and senate sessions are live on the internet at the legislature's site. If you've ever watched, you already know where the senior state employees' lack of confidence comes from. Sessions are a combination of fluff, filings, fluff, welcoming children to the chamber to watch them do nothing, fluff, and then a recess while they discuss where they're going on their next extended break in session. The people's business is rarely if ever conducted in the light of day. If this doesn't give you a feeling of complete hopelessness, I don't know what will.

Retiring in place used to practiced by a very very few crappy employees the state should never have hired in the first place. Now it appears it's going to be the norm for many years to come as these senior employees put it to the state the only way that's left to them. The funny part? The governor and legislature doesn't care how much it costs due to their actions and inactions. We the taxpayer will be picking up the tab so open wide. BON APPETITE!!!!!!!!!!!!
Reply New Comment

Line

14) New wind blowing with Governor.... [by Anonymous Citizen on March 28, 2008]

There's a new wind blowing with Governor Granholm's apparent hatred of our state employees, and there ain't any turbines involved either. She sends out gushy "appreciation" messages and says they're a team, but there ain't no such thing anymore.

The Governor is dead set against any early retirement as it would cut the number of members and dues collected by her precious unions forced upon state employees years ago. She seems to think this supports her party's slate of stooges, but she's wrong. From what I have heard from all state employees recently, is the fact their union doesn't vote, but the members do, which is something the Democrats will find out the hard way this fall. There will be no release of state employess thru any early retirement bill no matter how much money it will save.

Instead, The Governor's plan to cut the structual built-in deficit and "save money" is to release and/or unleash scads of prisoners into our communities. These rascals were imprisoned at great public expense and for a good reason. Now the Governor has decided to let them out, the economy's in the crapper, there are no jobs for them, our homes and businesses are being broken into at ever increasing rates, and the Governor is saving money. WAY TO GO!!!! Let's see, that's keep state employees penned up with no money saving early-out, and at the same time, release the prisoners costing the general population their security, possessions, and possibly their life.

The last couple posts on this board have gotten it about right. Our so called Legislature is far from innocent while they rubber stamp every idiotic idea the governor can dream up for us. They are no more than puppets on strings. And who pulls their strings do you ask. Why it's our all-caring Governor. Nothin can go wrong now folks. THEY SHOULD ALL BE ASHAMED.

I'm sure Canada has thought of annexing our state, as run properly, it could be a great province. But what would they do with their garbage??????

Reply New Comment

Line

15) this is how she [by Anonymous Citizen on March 28, 2008]
plans on BLOWING US AWAY...

the best we can hope for now is a quick death at the hands of the criminals she has already released on us.

first the inmate will 'keep an eye on our wallets' then they will 'blow us away'.
Reply New Comment

Line

16) Wow, Feb revenues were down 2.4% [by Anonymous Citizen on March 23, 2008]

Great post DOCTOR DETROIT. You're right, our legislature argues about politics and the h*ll with our state. Our governor comes up with one hairbrained idea after another. So last fall's big tax rate increase has resulted in even more revenue shortfalls. Didn't even know about the laffer curve, so thanks for Ed Ucatin me, as you would say.

Obviously, where we sit is between a rock and a hard place. As I understand it, a bill has already been passed, to place any newly hired state employees in a retirement system that costs us half as much as that the senior employees continue to rack up benefits in. Another bill already passed prevents employees taking early retirement offers from working for the state again without losing their retirement checks for that month. By the way, a state employee told me, before any future early out offers, all they had to do was lower starting wages for every class by 30% and provide raises over a 10 year period instead of 4 years to get to the top pay of that class. My friend is a low paid state employee whose thoughts apparently are not worthy of consideration as I have not heard of this suggestion before, but I like it!!!!!!!!!!!

Reading other posts on this board, I note folks think laying off state employees is the way to go. That just increases the structual deficit. Yes, it's mean but not an option.

I agree with DOCTOR DETROIT'S prescription for, and reasons supporting an early retirement for senior state employees, but include reducing starting level wage rates with 10 years of steps to the top as suggested above before any replacements are authorized. Only allow 1 to 5 replacement ratio as our fine state has hired a boatload of new people in the last 3 months. Thought we wouldn't notice didn't you.

Early out retirement offers to combat revenue shortfalls have worked at GM, Ford, Chrysler, many other companies, many other states, many counties, and all over the United States. Good enough for them, good enough for us.
Reply New Comment

Line

17) OK, I'LL TELL YOU WHAT [by DOCTOR DETROIT on March 22, 2008]
Regarding February state revenues, the State of Michigan did it's usual ole soft shoe. That data usually comes out of the Senate Fiscal Agency about the 11th of the month following. Well, was it released around March 11th??? HECK NO!!! It was withheld from us and the "media" until March 22nd. And why was this you ask?? It was because state revenues were down for February. They waited for Easter weekend when "media watchdogs" would be "off duty" and our "Legislature" would be on a two week recess. Revenues plumeting would receive no notice in the "Michigan press". If you want to see the February revenues, go to the Senate Fiscal Agency's link below:

http://www.senate.michigan.gov/sfa/Publications/MonthRev/monthrev.html

Year-to-year revenues for February were supposed to be up 1/28 or 3.6% as there were 29 days in February to produce revenue this year. Those revenues were also "supposed to be higher" due to the best men money can buy voting the largest combined tax increase ever on Michigan businesses and individuals last October. This was at the insistence of their Mama Jenny who shut herself off regarding budget cuts, and refused to function without tax rate increases. I'll not remind you here of what part of the body does the same thing making the brains feverish.

So what happened???? State revenues were down 2.4% for February. And why was this? Was it the soft national economy?? Was it a further unengineered softening of the Michigan economy??? Nope. It was Mama Jenny and the best men money can buy, running our state revenue collections right squarely into the laffer curve which they collectively know nothing about. Who'd a thunk???????? Go ahead...I dare ya....Google "laffer curve" and see what you get. Well, the short explanation of the Laffer Curve theory would be, there is a point you can jack tax burden up to, that will result in LOWER tax collections due to diminished business activity. It's similar to taking the working capital out of a business, which immediately suffers reduced revenues as it can no longer operate effectivly.

Like a previous poster on this board said on March 1st, "MICHIGAN WILL EXPERIENCE A HUGE DEFICIT THIS FISCAL YEAR". We really won't have to wait until next fiscal year starting in October to see a state budget way out of balance. As in the above, you can't tax your way out of this predicament as this would be a laugher (Laffer). You can't cut monies going to Mama Jenny's supporters. You can't lay off Ed Ucation as that would cause one heck of an uproar(Yes Toto, the "Michigan press" would be up for that one). You can't touch the First Gentlemen and his entourage. You can't reverse the "take Michigan Employees pension money to get even more wind out of Lansing". What to do, What to do. Oh my!!!!

Well, what to do is what the Legislature should have done in the first place. If these rascals stopped playing Democrat and Republican long enough to play State Senator and State Representative, they would realize THE LEGISLATURE COULD OVERRIDE ANY VETO MAMA JENNY CAN COOK UP!!!!!!! She's not going up for re-election as she's term limited thank God and will excape with the most golden of parachutes most likely. But the Legislators are not that lucky. They have to run for re-election or continue on with their life elsewhere, hard to do if labled a loser. It's time for our Legislators to stand up, execute their oath of office, and do what's best for their constiuants and State.

Folks, you're faced with a massive layoff of State employees that would result in paying much unemployment compensation and getting nothing in return. Then there's the much caos factor as employee bumping employee bumping employee plays out for an extended period of time. AS LAYOFF GOES BY INVERSE SENORITY, NOT EVEN A DENT WOULD BE MADE IN OUR STRUCTURAL DEFICIT PROBLEM.

Well, the Doctor's prescription for this problem is to reduece State staff, but do so in a way to allow State departments to function, avoid incurring unemployment compensation payments, reduce the expensive senior State employees instead of the recently hired employees costing half as much, and attack this structual deficit instead of continually letting it attack us.

GET CRACKING!!!! The Legislature should get it's House in order and Senate too. Consolidate "early" retirement bills to one that best matches the size of our State government to our declining revenues and population. Achieve the goals in the Doctor's presription above and tell the Governor....well, tell her whatever you want but TAKE CARE OF BUSINESS THIS TIME!!!

TOO BAD THIS IS THE ONLY PLACE YOU'LL BE ADVISED OF THESE FACTS AS THE "MICHIGAN PRESS" S..L...E....E.....P......ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
Reply New Comment

Line

18) What? [by Anonymous Citizen on March 4, 2008]
I don't know about you but, If I do a bad job at my J.O.B., I get fired. Not let go with benefits. It is high time we start taking back the money we have paid to these people. They have screwed us, screwed our state. And we want to let our executive branch be held unaccountable for her actions. Forget that. Thats like giving Timmy an A just for showing up to class. They have to have some accountability for their actions.

If they cost us money - no pension
If they screwed up your child support case - No pension.
If they overcharged you at the Secretary of State - NO pension.
If they made more of a mess than there was when the got elected - NO PENSION
IF YOU WERE BORN IN CANADA AND RAN THIS STATE INTO THE GROUND, JUST BEFORE HILLARY PROMISED YOU A SEAT IN HER CABINET - NO PENSION!
IF YOU JACKED UP OUR TAXES DURING YOUR TIME IN OFFICEAND LEFT THE STATE SO YOU WOULDN'T HAVE TO DEAL WITH THE MESS YOU MADE - NO PENSION!
Reply New Comment

Line

19) STATE REVENUES DOWN 4.9% IN JANUARY - EARLY-OUT JUST MATTER OF TIME [by Anonymous Citizen on March 1, 2008]
Media ain't carryin' it. State govt is hush hush. About 2 weeks ago, the Michigan Senate Fiscal Agency released the news State revenues were down 4.9% for the month on a year-to-year basis. Kinda tells us you can only disregard the health of the Michian economy just so long by scewering it with higher and higher taxes without shooting it right in the arse. Last October, our all-seeing brain-trust in Lansing put it to the Michigan economy with the largest combination tax hike on record. Personal income tax rate was jacked up plus higher taxes on businesses also, when the higher sales tax scewer fell through. And just at a time when the National economy toiletizes. WAY TO GO!!!!

Well, with State revenues collapsing, Michigan economy collapsing, National economy collapsing, and both individuals and businesses taxed up the wazoo as per DOCTOR DETROIT'S posting on this board on January 20th, MICHIGAN WILL EXPERIENCE A HUGE DEFICIT THIS FISCAL YEAR. Yeah folks, you won't have to wait till next year at all. And our Lansing intelligencia can't cure the deficit with even higher taxes on the economy which would pound a stake right through it's heart. The ole pound a stake through the heart routine only works with vampires and the Michigan economy is just the opposite as THE BLOOD HAS ALREADY BEEN SUCKED OUT OF IT!!!!!!!!

Back on the subject on the need for some way to reduce the gamongous size our State government, AN EARLY-OUT RETIREMENT FOR STATE EMPLOYEES MAY BE ONE OF THE FEW OPTIONS AVAILABLE TO OUR NOW-FAMOUS LEGISLATORS AND EXECUTIVE BRANCH. Other budget cuts would take spine and would be catagorically out as EVERYBODY IN THE NATION KNOWS AFTER LAST YEAR'S DEBACLE.

An early-out is needed as the efficiencies of computerization have never been factored in the State work force. Instead, the intelligencia we have hired in supposed management "capacities" have created layer-upon-layer of red tape creators and red tape pushers, all with very limited benefit to Michigan residents and no benefit to Michigan taxpayers. State government ranks are bloated and need cleaned out. AN EARLY-OUT WOULD DO IT TOGETHER WITH OVERSITE OF THE STATE DEPARTMENTS TO PREVENT RE-ENTRY OF MEANINGLESS TASKS. We pay thousands of managers in state government, so let's cut the ranks and break down the barriers allowing the managers that are left to manage getting the work done that needs to bo done. RESULTS WOULD BE TO CUT THE CURRENT BUDGET DEFICIT, CUT NEXT YEAR'S PROJECTED DEFICIT, CUT STRUCTURAL DEFICIT PRESSURES, INCREASE EFFICIENCY, REDUCE PAYROLL COSTS DUE TO REDUCED RATES AND NEW RETIREMENT SYSTEM, PROVIDE SOME ASSURANCE TO BUSINESS THAT WOULD LOCATE OR EXPAND HERE MICHIGAN KNOWS WHAT IT'S DOING, AND PROVIDE TAXPAYER RELIEF VERSUS THE TAX-AND-SPEND THEORY THAT SADDLES THE LAST TAXPAYER LEFT IN THE STATE WITH A 236,406% TAX RATE.

As stated in the beginning of this post, neither media nor State Government is addressing the plumeting state revenue problem. Oh, I'm sorry. My bad. From what they've done so far, I guess they are lifting a finger to help us after all. GUESS WHICH ONE!!!!!!!!!
Reply New Comment

Line

20) New Early Out [by Anonymous Citizen on February 13, 2008]
What the Govenor is really waiting for is her "Early Out". Wait until November when the Democrats get elected in Washington and she gets offered a job in Washington---Do you think will stay? Why should she? She is in a dead end position much like we are ----she moves on and doesnt have to worry about us any more. Just like Engler!!! He doesnt worry --- he just collects Michigan pension dollars and lives in another state!!
Reply New Comment

Line

21) USE SB689 OR HB4005 TO SAVE STATE SOME MONEY [by Anonymous Citizen on January 26, 2008]

The previous two posts were pretty much to the point, but there are other early out retirement bills available for use as well. There's HB4005 which is an 80 and out. There's HB 4075 which is a 75 and out.

There are a few good reasons for an early out at this point. I give you my TOP TEN list. First would be to reduce one of the big causes of structural deficit plaguing our budget today that would save money big time for taxpayers. Second would be to restructure state government and adjust the state employee work force to the level needed to serve our declining population. Third would be to lessen the pressure on the legislature to continually increase taxes and red tape on businesses which then move out-of-state or expand out-of-state. Fourth would be to eliminate the layers and layers of state bureaucracy which has resulted in supervisors at muliple levels with only 3 or 4 subordinates to supervise. Fifth would be to reap the benefits of taxpayers payment for the best computerized state operation in the nation, because in the private sector, you wouldn't have the same number of employees before and after such expenditure and computerization. Sixth would be closure of the State Liquor Stores, State Mental Hospitals, plus other privatization already undertaken, has resulted in a much reduced number of employees needed which has not materialized. Seventh would be the State forced the present staff of employees watch other state employees and michigan employees in the private sector retire in their 40s or on 70 and out's had to endure the ridicule of not even getting raises at the cost of living for many years now. Eighth would be the constant disrespect shown current state employees by Governor and Legislature has resulted in low morale throughout the ranks and reduced what the State gets for every taxpayer dollar paid as wages. Ninth is that I didn't realize there is no routine 85 and out for State Employees until the previous post pointed that out, which obviously should be rectified. AND TENTH, THE NATIONAL ECONOMY IS RIGHT NOW GETTING READY TO TAKE A VERY LARGE...WELL...AH...FALL, SO WE BETTER GET AHEAD OF THE CURVE ON THIS ONE.


An early out should be cost benefit effective for the State with characteristics below:

BILL SPONSERS OF EARLY-OUTS IN THE LEGISLATURE SHOULD GET TOGETHER AND DEVELOP A COMPROMISE AS TO WHAT IS BEST FOR THE STATE YIELDING ONE EARLY-OUT BILL AND WITHDRAW THE OTHERS ALREADY INTRODUCED ELIMINATING CONFUSION.

LEGISLATURE MUST DETERMINE HOW MANY EMPLOYEES TO REDUCE IN STATE RANKS.

REMEMBER POINTS REQUIRED TO EFFECT ABOVE MAY NOT BE EXACTLY 75 OR 80, BUT COULD BE 77 OR 78 POINTS OF AGE AND SERVICE. REMEMBER, IF YOU USE A HIGH ENOUGH POINT LEVEL, YOU'LL NEED NEITHER A SPECIFIC AGE OR SPECIFIC SERVICE REQUIREMENT.

EVEN THOUGH EMPLOYEES WOULD WANT IMMEDIATE PAYMENT OF LEAVE BALANCES, MAKE SURE ALL LEAVE BALANCES OF 200 HOURS OR MORE WHEN TOTALED TOGETHER ARE PAID OUT OVER A PERIOD THAT HAS BEEN TRADITIONALLY FIVE YEARS BUT COULD BE SIX OR SEVEN, WHATEVER IS IN THE STATE'S INTEREST.

TO ALLEVIATE PRESSURE ON THE CURRENT YEAR BUDGET, MAKE SIGN-UP REQUIREMENTS TO BE ASAP WITH EFFECTIVE DATE OF EARLY-OUT A MONTH AFTER SIGN-UP STARTS.

ONLY GIVE A PERIOD OF 2 OR 3 MONTHS FOR EMPLOYEES TO ACTUALLY LEAVE TO GET A MORE IMMEDIATE BENEFIT FOR THE STATE.

REVIEW CURRENT LAW TO DO WHAT IS IN THE STATE'S INTEREST AND PREVENT THESE EARLY-OUT RETIREES FROM COMING BACK IN ANY CAPACITY OR AGENCY TO DO WORK FOR THE STATE PREVENTING THE DOUBLE AND TRIPLE DIPPING WE HAVE SEEN IN THE PAST.

lEGISLATURE MUST DECIDE IF THERE WILL BE A SWEETENER NEEDED TO MAKE EMPLOYEES DECIDE TO RETIRE RIGHT NOW. IN PAST EARLY-OUTS WE HAVE RAISED THE 1.5% FACTOR TO 1.75% TO POSSIBLY BE THE DECIDER FOR THE EMPLOYEE, BUT THERE ARE NUMBERS BETWEEN 1.5 AND 1.75 THAT COULD BE USED FOR THIS PURPOSE.

ALL PREVIOUS EARLY-OUTS HAVE DISABLED THE PENALTY OF 1/2 PERCENT A MONTH ON THEIR PENSION FOR EACH MONTH SHORT OF 60 YEARS OF AGE. THIS IS A TRADITION THAT SHOULD CONTINUE BECAUSE WE REALLY DO WANT THE TARGET NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES TO RETIRE.

PREVIOUS EARLY-OUTS HAVE ALLOWED EXTENSIONS FOR DELAYED DATE OF EARLY RETIREMENT TO BE APPLIED FOR BUT FORGET THIS PROVISION AND DO WHAT'S BEST FOR THE STATE WHICH WILL SURVIVE NO MATTER WHAT DATE IS ON ANY PARTICULAR RETIREE'S RETRIEMENT APPLICATION.


After any early-out is effected, the Legislature itself must oversee the necessary restructuring as below:

MAKE SURE THE MANY LAYERS OF STATE HIERARCHY ARE COMPRESSED TO A DEGREE THAT A SUPERVISOR MANAGES 10 TO 15 SUBORDINATES MUCH LIKE IN THE PRIVATE SECTOR.

MAKE SURE THE NUMBER OF LAYERS OF EMPLOYEES ARE NO MORE THAN NEEDED TO EFFECT THE NECESSARY TASKS OF THE VARIOUS DEPARTMENTS.

ELIMINATE THE DO-NOTHING DETAILS PLUS MAKE-WORK REGULATIONS AND POLICIES THAT HAVE BUILT THE NEEDLESS COUNTERPRODUCTIVE KINGDOMS IN THIS STATE'S PRESENT GOVERNMENT.

IT'S NICE THE GOVERNOR, DMB, AND CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION GAURENTEE THE LEGISLATURE ALL IS WELL...BUT...IT'S IMPERITIVE THERE BE A PERMENANT JOINT HOUSE-SENATE COMMITTEE TO MONITOR VARIOUS STATE AGENCIES. ALL POLICY AND PROCEDURE CHANGES SHOULD BE REVIEWED, PROPOSED OBJECTIVES WEIGHED TO DETERMINE IF ANYONE NEEDS THEM. MAKE SURE HIRING, PROMOTION, LATERAL TRANSFER, OR CLASSIFICATION BARRIERS ARE NOT SET UP AGAIN. EMPIRE BUILDING ON THE STATE TAXPAYERS' NICKEL SHOULD BE A THING OF THE PAST.


I was born and raised in this State and there are a bunch of us folks that love Michigan. It's time for the Legislators and Governor to show that you at least like the state. Please pass an early-out retirement bill that is in the best interest of the people of the State of Michigan, and permanently restructure our government to serve the residents of the state instead of being a burden on them.


THAT'S ALL I HAVE TO SAY ABOUT THAT!!!!

Reply New Comment

Line

22) HOLY MOLY - DOCTOR DETROIT IS RIGHT!!!!!!!!!! [by Anonymous Citizen on January 21, 2008]
Thank you for the link Doctor Detroit.

So, an early-out retirement for state employees in Michigan will save no money for our budget, but an early out in Ohio will be used to close their budget gap.

Now let's see....70 and out's were offered to State Employees in Michigan from 1984 thru 1997....but in July of 2002 State Employees were offered only an 80 and out BUT WITH NO AGE LIMIT allowing workers in their 40's to retire....although in the last early out IN DECEMBER OF 2002, it was offered only to employees of the legislature, judiciary, or Governor's office AND IT WAS A 65 AND OUT!!!!!!

Kinda brings us into the present here in 2008. Let's see....despite huge budget deficits, perpetuating built-in structual deficits, plus hurting businesses and individual taxpayers, the present State Employees don't deserve:

1. a 65 and out with 1.75% multiplier

2. a 65 and out with 1.5% multiplier

3. a 70 and out with 1.75% multiplier

4. a 70 and out with 1.5% multiplier

5. a 75 and out with 1.75% multiplier

6. a 75 and out with 1.5% multiplier

7. an 80 and out with 1.75% multiplier

8. an 80 and out with 1.5% multiplier

9. an 85 and out with 1.75% multiplier

or

10. an 85 and out with 1.5% multiplier

Yeah, that's right, a State of Michigan Employee with 28 years of service and 58 years of age totaling 86 points cannot retire at the usual 1.5% rate without penalty....and for the reasons suggested by Doctor Detroit in his post yesterday.

We have a Governor who thinks she has also been elected State Senate and House of Representatives as well. I can't imagine where she thinks she has the right to TELL THE LEADERS OF THE SENATE AND HOUSE WHAT TO DO...BUT SHE DOES IT...AND THEY DO EXACTLY WHAT SHE SAYS!!!!!!!!!!!

The disgegard shown to the Taxayers of Michigan and State Employees as well, should be remembered next November to cleanse both Senate and House. Our Governor is term limited or else we could clean out that office as well seeing that ALL VOTERS OF BOTH PARTIES know her true colors now.

Sorry, you Legislators who are up for re-election will not be able to hide behind the Governor's skirts, the union's attack ads, or the non-critical "PRESS" parroting your press releases word-for-word. WE'RE ON TO YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Reply New Comment

Line

23) WHAT WOULD OHIO DO??? [by DOCTOR DETROIT on January 20, 2008]
If funding ran short in Ohio what would Governor Strickland do???

Would he tax the businesses up the wazoo??

Would he tax individuals up the wazoo??

Would he have his wazoos say an early-out retirement for state employees is impossible due to "brain drain", the unions that supported the Governor in past elections would lose members, or the best one of all being replacing some of the early-retirees with employees costing half as much would save no money for the State??

For the answer from our neighbor to the south as of January 15th, go to:

http://www.ohio.com/news/top_stories/13790007.html?page=1&c=y

Have a nice day!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Reply New Comment

Line

24) SB 689 [by drumcoach on January 17, 2008]
I have heard that the estimates on money saved from and early retirement is about 190 million a year, however the Democrats say it would actually cost money to have an early out.
I'm not sure how they figure it would cost more, if sick and vacation time were to be paid out over 5 years the money saved on entry level wages and on the new pension system would be substantial.
If the early out didn't save money there would never have been more than one, not the five or six we've had over the last twenty plus years.
I still believe that the reason Granholm doesn't want an early out is that we would discover just how much they have been skimming off the pension payments they are required to make.

Drumcoach
Reply New Comment

Line

25) Dead On Arrival Again [by Anonymous Citizen on January 4, 2008]
She won't let us early out so let's stay until we drop! Not something I ever thought I'd say, but I'm learning how to pace myself. Just 8 years to go to.
Reply New Comment

Line

26) Concerned Michigan Citizen [by Anonymous Citizen on December 12, 2007]
I absolutly agree with this comment. The State has way to many managers. We could save alot of money if we cut some of these managers. My husband works for GM and has 40 people that he is responsible for. My current manager has (4) there is something wrong with this picture in State Government!!!
Reply New Comment

Line

27) Don't be silly [by Anonymous Citizen on October 31, 2007]
Do you really think they will not replace workers who retire early, sure they will with higher paid people. Remember government doesn't have a bottome line on the check book every time they run short of money they just create another tax. As in private business there is much dead wood I'm sure we can find MANY on the payroll.
Reply New Comment

Line

28) HOW NICE!!!! [by Anonymous Citizen on October 26, 2007]
All the senator's voting no on this Bill, are stating" We can't cut Employees". Well I fell much better now, knowing I'm not going to loose my job with the State, because we don't want to cut any employees!!!!! Awesome, now I can go back to a normal life, and not have to worrying about losing my Job everytime the State has a Budget Crisis. Thank you Sen. Cherry and others.
Reply New Comment

Line

29) early out/layoffs [by Anonymous Citizen on October 27, 2007]
I hate to be negative, however, I went through 4 layoffs from 81-93! Trust me, your job is NEVER secure! I dread the thought, but if they don't offer an early out,how do you think they will cut spending....? I has happened too many times before.

You may be one of the lucky ones that has just enough time to be safe and for your sake, I hope so.

Hang in there and hang on to your seat!!
Reply New Comment

Line

30) NOT STATE EMPLOYEES..AGAIN [by Anonymous Citizen on October 29, 2007]
I AGREE, THE CUTS WILL BE MADE AT THE EXPENSE OF STATE EMPLOYEES..ISN'T ENOUGH, ENOUGH..WE HAVE FAMILIIES, MORTAGES AND FOOD TO PUT ON THE TABLE...
Reply New Comment

Line

31) To the state worker who is worried about putting food on their table [by Jennybegone on February 3, 2008]
Explain to me why so many of the state employees are so rude, especially in the Department of Human Services? I have dealt with so many rude state employees that I say get rid of them and start over again with those who will take their clients seriously.

I recently attended a seminar in Frankenmuth about world-class customer service, and this seminar should have been mandatory for all state employees and our lawmakers. I hate to say this, but courteous, caring customer service is sorely lacking among our state employees. And there are no excuses whatsoever.

I also want to go on record as saying not all state employees are this way, and I have mentioned cases that merited praise. However, the vast majority of ones I have dealt with are a total waste of time. And yes, they should be held accountable legally when they go wayward on customer service. You should be able to sue the state for things like this. There is no excuse for rude behavior from state employees, just like anyone else.

I once had someone from Michigan Works suggest to me that I consider working for the state, but since I had so many bad experiences with state employees, I told him no. Guess what his rude response was? Suit yourself.
Reply New Comment

Line

32) You Know, [by Anonymous Citizen on February 3, 2008]

I've been reading your comments about rude public employees and your desire to sue and otherwise punish them for several weeks. It is becoming tiresome.

It dawns on me that the problem may not actually be rude public employees so much as it is a snotty and antagonistic attitude you approach them with. One tends to get what one gives. My guess is that you also have frequent problems with restaurant employees and other services workers.

Of course, you probably don't see your own attitude in that light. But perhaps you should examine it a little more closely.

Reply New Comment

Line

33) Let's get one thing stratght [by Jennybegone on February 4, 2008]
The reason I have taken the attitude I have with public employees is because yes, I have been treated very unkindly by them for almost my entire lifetime. And I'm not alone on this. And yes, customer service is for the most part lacking. And you wonder why I have this attitude? If you want me to take a better attitude towards state employees, then they need to stop being rude towards me.

As the old saying goes, the customer is always right.

But, in all fairness, I did praise the mental health worker who wanted to retire after 30 years. They have a very thankless job, and unfortunately, the mentally ill get short shrift from the state. I also had one who was really good at helping me with some tutoring. And, I have a sister working for the state. I don't care what you think, but I do not enjoy having to take the stand I have taken. Until the sense of entitlement some of them have is removed, a lot of people will be upset with them besides me.

I don't believe all state employees are rude and inconsiderate. However, I do believe they should be held legally responsible for their actions, just like any other person. If I were rude to one of my web design clients, they would not be with me very long.
Reply New Comment

Line

34) And let's not forget... [by Jennybegone on February 4, 2008]
I also praised the cop who had the guts to come on here and denounce the "driver responsibility fee" as being unfair in terms of enforcement and application.
Reply New Comment

Line

35) Re: You Know [by Anonymous Citizen on February 4, 2008]
Most public employees are rude and nasty. They think they are entitled to their job and don't have to earn it. This goes for everyone from cops to sec of state. Firemen seem to be better.

Reply New Comment

Line

36) Thank you, thank you, thank you [by Jennybegone on February 4, 2008]
For agreeing with me.
Reply New Comment

Line

37) how nice [by Anonymous Citizen on October 29, 2007]
"How Nice" was written with tongue in cheek. I'm not stupid!!!!
Reply New Comment

Line

38) early retirement supporter [by Anonymous Citizen on October 24, 2007]
Why would the Governor and Legislators think that an early out for State Employees would not be a good thing. They have to cut every department. Do they really think the economy could handle more people laid off. So why not have an earyl out retirement bill pass so our young people can find jobs in this, once beautiful state of Michigan. My son graduated with a Bachelors degree in Businness and Administration last spring and has yet to find a job in this state and has started searching out of State. This is sad that your young people, our future, cannot find work. My husband is laid off and is out of unemployement benefits and insurance. Being unable to draw unemployment means he is not counted in the number of people drawing, because he's not drawing. I'm positive he is not the only person in this situation in this state. Therefore, there are a lot more people out of work than what people really think. The number they publish are again, only those people drawing a check, not the ones that have exhausted there benefits and still cannot find work. People cannot not survive on minimum wages jobs. The State would save almost $200,000.00 if they passed the early retirement bill, and hired 1 out of every 4 position available. There are also a lot of middle management positions that could be abolished, saving the State a lot more money. When the State hires, they don't hire the little people that actually do the work, they hire more managers. I see it happen all the time at DMB. We cannot be taxed more and we need new business to want to come to this state, not leave this state. The Governor and the legislators must do something, and laying off more people, closing state parks, and such are not going to market Michigan as a place where business', tourist or anyone for that matter what to come here to Michigan or stay here. I have lived in Michigan all my life and cannot believe how back the economy has gotten in 50 years. So I urge everyone to vote for the early out retirement bill to pass, then those of us that can retirement can work part time and the minimum wages jobs and let our young people have the better paying jobs and become able to stay in this State and have a normal decent life, marriage, children and a home.
Reply New Comment

Line

39) anonymous employee [by Anonymous Citizen on October 28, 2007]
Well said.
I wish the democrats wern't so affraid of our governor so they could do the right thing. She said she would not approve an early out because of brain drain. I don't think that really matters much when you have to lay people off. I alos don't feel that we are the same state that we were when she originally said that.
"In five years. You're going to be blown away." More like in five years you'll either be laid off or on medical leave from being overworked. Then she'll just take her pension, her husband's contracts and leave.
So, sad.
Reply New Comment

Line

40) Dead Bill [by Anonymous Citizen on October 26, 2007]
Talked with my legislators today ---EARLY RETIREMENT IS PROBABLY DEAD. The Democrats and the governor will not pursue it either in committee or individually. I dont think we even have a wing or a prayer to hold on to.
Reply New Comment

Line

41) Early Retirement Worthy [by Gatesm2 on October 17, 2007]
Some of us have been working hard for over 25yrs in situations that require us to take physical and mental abuse from our clients on a daily basis. We are dropping like flies and I personally almost died after an altercation with residents. It was a miracle that I could be resuscitated.
Do we have to come to near death before we can get the release our over 50 year old bodies need? Please give us the reward we deserve for our service to the state by allowing us an early retirement.
Reply New Comment

Line

42) WE ARE WORTHY [by Anonymous Citizen on October 31, 2007]
WE AS STATE EMPLOYEES ARE VERY MUCH SO WORTHY OF AN EARLY RETIREMENT PACKAGE. WE HAVE DEDICATED OURSELVES FOR 25 OR MORE YEARS TO PROVIDE CARE TO THE MENTALLY AND PHYSICALLY DISABLED, OVERSEEN AND PROTECTED THE RIGHTS OF THE PUBLIC THROUGH OUR PRISON SYSTEM, OUR HIGHWAYS, WELFARE AND CHILD PROTECTIVE SERVICES. WE HAVE PROVIDED SERVICES THROUGH OUR SECRETARY OF STATES OFFICES,PARKS AND RECREATIONAL FACILITIES AND NOT TO FORGET OUR STATE LEGISLATURE. WE ALL ARE TO BE COMMENDED ON A JOB WELL DONE AND FOR BEING LOYAL AND DEDEICATED EMPLOYEES. IT IS TIME FOR US TO MOVE ASIDE AND GIVE OUR YOUTHS AN OPPORTUNITY TO BECOME THE SAME LOYAL AND DEDICATED EMPLOYEES. GIVE US THIS EARLY RETIREMENT PACKAGE THAT WE DESERVE. IF YOU CANNOT APPROVE A SEVENTY-FIVE AND OUT THEN INCREASE IT TO AN EIGHTY OUT PACKAGE TO PREVENT A DEVASTATING LOSS TO THE STATE SYSTEM. WE ALL WILL APPRECIATE THIS IN THE LONG RUN OF THINGS. OUR YOUNG ADULTS DO NEED THESE OPPORTUNIES. A DEDICATED STATE EMPLOYEE.
Reply New Comment

Line

43) disengenous? [by Anonymous Citizen on October 16, 2007]
Only one type a person can come up with words such as this and repubichair?---ONE WHO IS NOT RIGHT--- why don't you find something else to do
Reply New Comment

Line

44) Call/Write [by Anonymous Citizen on October 15, 2007]
You are a disengenous turd. Probably a repubichair plant. There is nothing that state employee calls/emails gonna do. Got that turd! You've known it all along.
Reply New Comment

Line

45) CALL/WRITE YOUR REP AND NEWSPAPER [by rdjactor on October 14, 2007]
The others are correct. We must contact our legislative representatives. Mine are Condino and Jacobs. Both know my position of support.
Also refer your Representatives to this site and the comments.
Bottom line is it does save money.
Also write the editor of any local papers. It needs to get press soon.
Lastly, not only state employees support this move. Many of my friends from all walks of life consider this fiscally wise for our state. The threat that so many would take the offer is unfounded. Remember there is a large pay decrease if this is taken. No one gets rich and many of those eligible would not be able to take such a pay reduction. So the scare tactic of 8000 employees leaving is a non-issue. Also the fact that there would be a reduction in services is an argument with a thin curtain of deceit. The Governor, Legislature, Civil Service, and Department heads are currently working on layoff and work reduction plans. Do not fool yourself into thinking there will not be a large negative impact on services due to "balancing the budget".
This bill makes sense!! If my legislators do not approve it and we are asked for further cuts and sacrifices, my vote will show my displeasure.

Reply New Comment

Line

46) Another Dead Early-Out? [by Anonymous Citizen on October 11, 2007]
Haven't heard anything about SB 689 recently. Is it currently dying in the House? Another one to bury on 1/1/08?
Reply New Comment

Line

47) Dead Bill??? [by Anonymous Citizen on October 11, 2007]
You can count on it being dead if you have not contacted your Senator & Representative in legislature. My Discussions with Lansing and the initiators of the bill indicate that NOT ENOUGH STATE EMPLOYEES HAVE PRESSURED LANSING for passage. THIS MUST BE DONE AND SOON I am told or this bill WILL DIE!!! What will you do to help it pass? It is up to you!!
Reply New Comment

Line

48) Alive [by Anonymous Citizen on October 11, 2007]
My legislator told me that we need to cut about $400 - $500 million from the budget in order to balance it before November. This bill could account for about 25% - 50% of that amount if passed. Passage he tells me depends on the amount of pressure from State Employees. Otherwise department cuts would have to occur.
Reply New Comment

Line

49) hdcg doayipgf [by Anonymous Citizen on March 19, 2008]
ujaih mexanhzgr xzky qtkwzrcb eugy ukzpvfi rpglod [URL]http://www.vuqzsf.tbre.com[/URL] ezjposk vsuzcf
Reply New Comment

Line

50) ioeprwk qlhp [by Anonymous Citizen on March 19, 2008]
iwrpba higbavtzd yewzxlhk tibepfkjm vaswmr xwrfvn lenarwj [URL=http://www.xunlpvih.tfep.com]xskn bvhzqdwm[/URL]
Reply New Comment

Line

51) sehgoq bzwldisx [by Anonymous Citizen on March 19, 2008]
sqwxr qgmxrjdif xjnomeyt faskhi ipyf lygzdmru axghkdnjf http://www.hejakuibg.wloj.com
Reply New Comment

Line

52) xjgfu kuoiwxft [by Anonymous Citizen on March 19, 2008]
ecpwjst idtjqnhuz lmwpyiac cqgdsvkb mdxibunw uxhrofpid kjysrvi
Reply New Comment

Line

53) Dead bill [by Anonymous Citizen on October 11, 2007]
You are very correct not enough pressure from state employees. This bill is "still alive" and contact your Senator and Representative in the Legislature if you have any interest in this bill passing.
Reply New Comment

Line

54) state employee/early retirement [by Anonymous Citizen on October 13, 2007]

I, for one, did write both my representitive and senator on this bill (0689). Apparently, they both opposed it when it was introduced. That would be Mr. J. Barcia and Mr. T. Brown.

I want others to know who they are so maybe others can write them,too!! Come on now, you are supposed to be backing and supporting what WE want.....not Granholm!!

Can't help but feel they do not have our young people's future in mind. Why not open the door for our youth to STAY HERE??!!
Reply New Comment

Line

55) sluggs [by Anonymous Citizen on October 6, 2007]
let's just go to the juggler on this.
the bottom line is let's keep michigan going in the upward direction.[our kid's of tommorow need job's.the stat offer's good pay along with benifit's.why not open up a slot for the young by allowing old timer's a chance to retire.again their are way's to train the new young the in's and out's to doing this state job.it's a win win for everybody....
Reply New Comment

Line

56) Mrs. Johnson [by mjohn on October 5, 2007]
I am a loyal democrat and yet am distrubed by my parties vote on this issue. There comes a time to step up and lead and make the difficult decisions that we sent you to Lansing for. Bill 689 has the potential to save the State a great deal of money. New hires will come in at a lower pay rate and will be greatful for the opportunity to work for the State of Michigan. If the concern is that too many will leave at once, than adjust the formula, but pass the bill.
Reply New Comment

Line

57) Red Herring [by Anonymous Citizen on September 21, 2007]
0689 is dead. The republicans who want to take the state employees' meager raise propose such a bill only to laugh as the democrats try to explain the why-nots. A waste of time and paper. Politics as usual.
Reply New Comment

Line

58) response [by Anonymous Citizen on September 28, 2007]
what??
Reply New Comment

Line

59) balancing act [by Anonymous Citizen on September 21, 2007]
I hope our legislators are still considering this bill, which hasn't been discussed much in the media. Obviously the budget is a mess. But if one single state employee is laid off without first offering to let old-timers leave voluntarily, I hope every rep in the state is recalled. The democrats have let us all down.
Reply New Comment

Line

60) Pride [by Early on September 19, 2007]
Pride comes before the fall, hopefully, not the fall of the whole state.
Reply New Comment

Line

61) alternative? [by Anonymous Citizen on September 19, 2007]
If a voluntary early out is not offered, it will likely mean that many younger workers will be laid off agains their wishes with little notice due to department budget cuts. This bill might not be an ideal solution, but we are between a rock and a hard place. This presents, at worst, a lessor evil as we try to balance the budget. I would far rather see employees leave by choice than see employees with young families forced to leave!
Reply New Comment

Line

62) concerned [by Anonymous Citizen on September 17, 2007]
Why would the legislature approve an enhanced retirement when you have almost 25% of the work force already eligible? Why not left those folks leave over the next few years by normal attrition and then "save" the state money by systematically determining whether the position should be filled or not?
Reply New Comment

Line

63) early retirement [by drumcoach on September 17, 2007]
Most people who complain about overpaid and underworked state employees have no idea what most of us do or what we make.
As a worker in the Mental Health Department for over 30 years, I have worked 6 days in a row, worked most weekends and Holidays, worked different shifts and suffered through several shifts of mandatory overtime when there were insufficient workers for the oncoming shift.
Out hourly wages have lagged behind the private sector for most of my career with the state. During the 80's and 90's when wages were rising in the private sector, our wages remained stagnant, with nominal 1 or 2% raises.
Now we are considered more well paid, not because out wages have increased, but due to the wages of other workers being slashed and then dropping down to my level.
I have never made over $50,000, even with overtime and Holiday pay. My base wage is in the mid $30,000 range.
I have missed many family functions such as weddings and reunions because of having to work weekends. Christmas with my own family was seldom on Christmas, because I usually had to work.
Yet state employees are spoiled? I don't think so, maybe anyone who wants to critize state workers should have applied for a state job years ago, and had the opportunity to take a job very few people wanted or could do.
Now an early retirement would be welcome if you worked with me, that is if you would have lasted 30 years.

Drumcoach (Jack)

Reply New Comment

Line

64) Jack - kudos to you for being one of the hard-working ones [by Jennybegone on January 12, 2008]
Jack:

Kudos to you for being one of the hard-working ones. And your willingness to work with mentally ill people should be commended. Your job is not an easy one.

The only thing that bothers me, and this is not directed to you, Jack, is that many of the other state employees I have dealt with are very rude to me, and don't even want to consider respecting my right to be treated with dignity and respect. That's why I believe the state should be held accountable for this behavior, even to the point of suing. That is a basic First Amendment Right in the US Constitution, to petition the government with my grievances. I have had so many bad dealings with many state employees that it is difficult for me to separate the good ones from the bad ones. People like you, Jack, are what the state employees should be, and you deserve compliments. I wish there were more like you. Then I wouldn't be so upset about many of the other employees the state has. Customer service should be the watchword, not an afterthought.
Reply New Comment

Line

65) Jack - kudos to you for being one of the hard-working ones [by Jennybegone on January 12, 2008]
Jack:

Kudos to you for being one of the hard-working ones. And your willingness to work with mentally ill people should be commended. Your job is not an easy one.

The only thing that bothers me, and this is not directed to you, Jack, is that many of the other state employees I have dealt with are very rude to me, and don't even want to consider respecting my right to be treated with dignity and respect. That's why I believe the state should be held accountable for this behavior, even to the point of suing. That is a basic First Amendment Right in the US Constitution, to petition the government with my grievances. I have had so many bad dealings with many state employees that it is difficult for me to separate the good ones from the bad ones. People like you, Jack, are what the state employees should be, and you deserve compliments. I wish there were more like you. Then I wouldn't be so upset about many of the other employees the state has. Customer service should be the watchword, not an afterthought.
Reply New Comment

Line

66) Amen, Jack [by Anonymous Citizen on September 18, 2007]
You said it. We deserve it.
Reply New Comment

Line

67) Why On Earth Would You Stay? [by Anonymous Citizen on September 18, 2007]
If you had saleable skills you should have left years ago.
Reply New Comment

Line

68) response [by Anonymous Citizen on October 23, 2007]
your unable to do the dedicated work of a civil SERVANT!! shame on you for cutting someone down that does want to help others BUT not be ridicule. sales???? lol i know about sales I have been licensed in that field since 1983. i just wonder HOW much income tax you pay!! no i prefer to be honest NOT dishonest to make a buck...
Reply New Comment

Line

69) From What I See [by Anonymous Citizen on October 23, 2007]
If you are working for me (a taxpayer) and this post is what you are capable of then I want to fire you. You wouldn't be able to cut it at McDonalds with your third grade education and now you want an early out. I'll give you an early out, go, go now. You should shut up and be happy that your uncle got you into the governments employ before you starved to death.
Reply New Comment

Line

70) Why Would I stay? [by drumcoach on September 19, 2007]
First of all, I have enjoyed my job, and yes the security it provided over the years. I also believe I have made a difference in some small way with individuals I have taken care of.
But now it is getting harder to keep up with the physical demands and I am looking forward to getting a part time job where I won't be required to work six days in a row, and almost every weekend.
Most of the residents we still have now are very challenging individuals, several have explosive behavior issues that require they be in a setting that is safer for themselves and the public.
As far as being responsible for putting the current leadership in power, I didn't vote for Granholm or many of the Democrats. I am a union member, but I vote for whom I think will be the best lawmaker, not who my union supports.
As far as the sweetheart retirement deal state employees get, I would gladly trade my retirement plan for one from GM or Ford.
Jack (Drumcoach)

Reply New Comment

Line

71) Let's Be Careful ... [by Anonymous Citizen on September 18, 2007]

>If you had saleable skills you should have left years ago.<

The assertion by innuendo that public (state) employees do not have salable skills is absurd. Of course they have salable skills,. Their skills just happen to meet the needs of various government operations.

Directing personal insults like that at state employees is mean-spirited. You and I don’t have to like government, or approve of government operations, and should feel free to criticize those things as we wish. But it is wrong-headed to bash people who are trying to make a living simply because they work for agencies (or even private business organizations) we dislike.

It is every bit as wrong-headed to delight in the elimination of some government employee’s job – and livelihood – as it is to delight in the elimination of someone’s private sector job and livelihood. We can understand the necessity and the reasons why jobs are eliminated, but we never should celebrate the pain that necessity and reasons why inflict.

Reply New Comment

Line

72) pearls from swine. [by Anonymous Citizen on September 18, 2007]
a word twisting liberal posted these words. let's look carefully at them.

"It is every bit as wrong-headed to delight in the elimination of some government employee’s job – and livelihood – as it is to delight in the elimination of someone’s private sector job and livelihood. We can understand the necessity and the reasons why jobs are eliminated, but we never should celebrate the pain that necessity and reasons why inflict."

liberals have eliminated private sector jobs for decades, and continue to do so on a daily basis. i thank you for labeling them for what they are, wrong headed.


Reply New Comment

Line

73) Clarification [by Anonymous Citizen on September 18, 2007]
I wasn't trying to be mean spirited, I was just wondering why you would stay in a government job if you could make more in the private sector.
I was also would not delighted to see folks lose jobs but the fact of the matter is that most of the government employees vote for the folks that cause jobs to be lost. The dems that they keep voting in to protect their government jobs are killing private business. Trying to run a business here is a joke, everyday they want to tell me how to run my business. The problem is is that they have never ran a business and regard us that do as the ewil rich to be plundered from. If we don't wake up soon there won't be a Michigan. It has just about become a banana republic already.
Reply New Comment

Line

74) Sorry, But ... [by Anonymous Citizen on September 18, 2007]

Your "clarification" really isn't.

It is a disingenuous disclaimer followed immediately with a bunch of excuse making for the personal slashes you take at public (state) employees.

As stated before, you and I don't have to like or approve of government, or government agencies, and we should feel to voice our criticisms of the institutions. I might add, also, that we should feel free to voice our criticisms of the policy-makers who set the direction for those institutions -- that would be elected officials and high-level political appointees.

But we ought refrain from translating our disapproval of the institution into personal criticism directed at the general run of its employees in broad-brush fashion. That is just mean-spirited, and it is not at all constructive.

Reply New Comment

Line

75) You Are reading More Into It [by Anonymous Citizen on September 18, 2007]
than I meant. The state is broken. It is being destroyed by taxes, fees, regulations, too much government and a general nannyism that a vast majority of government workers want more of.
When the government, that creates nothing, sells nothing, improves nothing becomes your largest employer there is a problem.
Reply New Comment

Line

76) No ... [by Anonymous Citizen on September 18, 2007]

I am not reading more into what you say than what you mean. You clearly mean to say that state government workers are to blame for the state's fiscal and economic problems. You have repeated that assertion in several different ways, directly and otherwise.

Your blaming is misplaced. Government employees are not resoponsible for having created the bureaucracy within which they work. That is like blaming assembly line workers for the terrible marketing and manufacturing policy decisions that have put the Big Three automakers on the ropes.

If you wish to criticize, hang it opn the elected policy-makers in the legislative and executive branches of government, and their political appoiuntee operatives. It is patently unfair and unjust to criticize and blame the ordinary government worker for simply doing a job in echange for a paycheck, just like any ordinary private sector emplotyee does.

Reply New Comment

Line

77) Hey Word Twisting Lib Boy [by Anonymous Citizen on September 18, 2007]
"You clearly mean to say that state government workers are to blame for the state's fiscal and economic problems"

That is not what I said at all. I said that the government workers are a big part of who vote the big government/more government jobs/handout folks into office. Please don't twist my words.

"If you wish to criticize, hang it opn the elected policy-makers in the legislative and executive branches of government, and their political appoiuntee operatives."

You Betcha, and the folks that vote them in aren't innocent.
And these government workers almost always vote for the dem/socialist that promises more of the same.

"It is patently unfair and unjust to criticize and blame the ordinary government worker for simply doing a job in echange for a paycheck, just like any ordinary private sector emplotyee does"

This is where I will state an opinion..most government workers that I know stay there because it's easier than the private sector.If you work for the county on the roads you generally have about 3 people to do every job. Private business doesn't have this option because market forces would put them out of business very quickly. The government just taxes more and more until we get to where we are today.
Soon we will be at the point where there are more takers than earners and just like any socialist country we will collapse.
Government runs a monopoly with the iron fist of the law behind it. Private business has to compete in the real world. Let's enact a school voucher plan and see how the government does in that competition.
Econ 101 would have taught you this.
Reply New Comment

Line

78) Thanks [by Anonymous Citizen on September 18, 2007]

For verifying exactly what I have said about your posts. You do mean to personally assail government workers.

Have a nice day trying to justify your mean-spirited attitude toward working people.

Reply New Comment

Line

79) Correct [by Anonymous Citizen on September 18, 2007]
You haven't shot down any of the multitude of points that he made.
Reply New Comment

Line

80) Typical [by Anonymous Citizen on September 18, 2007]
I didn't hear you refute one single thing.....
Reply New Comment

Line

81) The "Points" [by Anonymous Citizen on September 18, 2007]

Made by the state employee basher need no refutation. They are simply pointless and mean. That's all.

Grow up and aim your criticisms at people who really are responsible -- have real authority over -- what you object to in government. That would be your elected representatives in the legislature and your elected executive branch officials, and their high level political appointees. Leave the working stiffs alone.

Reply New Comment

Line

82) Sorry, but I won't back off one bit [by Jennybegone on February 7, 2008]
What happens when an employee in the private sector treats clients badly? Either the client goes elsewhere or the employee gets fired, especially if there are numerous complaints against him or her.

Tell me for the life of me why state and other government employees are any more special than anyone else? And, yes, they should be held accountable just like anyone else. If you are rude and disrespectful to me, I will let you know about it in no uncertain terms, and hold you accountable for it.
Reply New Comment

Line

83) Hey There, [by Anonymous Citizen on February 7, 2008]

You With The Chip On Your Shoulder …

Reflect on your own words:

“If you are rude and disrespectful to me, I will let you know about it in no uncertain terms, and hold you accountable for it.”

Perhaps you only are receiving the treatment from public employees that you are giving them. In fact, based on your posts here, the probability of that seem very high.



Reply New Comment

Line

84) I treat people the way they treat me [by Jennybegone on February 7, 2008]
I treat people the way they treat me - and that's the way it is. I don't dance unless there's music, I don't scratch unless I itch.

If the state employees I had contact with had treated me with respect, I would have treated them with the same respect.

You see, what comes around goes around. There is no excuse whatsoever for poor customer service. And that includes state employees.
Reply New Comment

Line

85) Ol' Chip-On-The-Shoulder [by Anonymous Citizen on February 7, 2008]

Lectures us:

“You see, what comes around goes around.”

Maybe, then, if you started treating public employees with a little respect, and quit treating them as if they were supposed to be your hand servants you would get more respect and cordiality in return.

“I treat people the way they treat me - and that's the way it is.”

Ever hear of the Golden Rule? The one that says, “Treat others as you would have them treat you.”

There's nothing in the Golden Rule about turnabout being fair play, or treating others the way you imagine they treat you, or paybacks being Hell.

You might try the Golden Rule. It actually works.


Reply New Comment

Line

86) Your Entitlement Attitude [by Anonymous Citizen on February 7, 2008]
is showing. Most of us out here in the real world believe that you earn respect, nobody owes you a thing. The free market is great at taking care of crabby employees like the state hires but the monopoly of the iron fisted government means that all us serfs are at you mercy.
Reply New Comment

Line

87) Actually, [by Anonymous Citizen on February 7, 2008]

You entitlement attitude is showing. You think you should be entitled to personally discipline public employees because they react poorly to your snotty attitude.

You're the one who preaches about getting back what you give. Maybe you should grow up and attend to your own sermons.



Reply New Comment

Line

88) You just don't get it, do you [by Jennybegone on February 7, 2008]
I need to clear the air on something once and for all. I do not go out of my way to treat state employees rudely. If you don't believe me, I don't care. You don't know me. Now that this is out of the way, I want everyone to know that out in the REAL WORLD (and that included government), if you are rude to your clients, you deserve to lose your job. I am very annoyed that public service employees and those defending their behavior cannot see this. And yes, I have endured a lifetime of poor treatment and service at the hands of many state employees. And there are countless others who have endured the same fate. I don't think I would feel the same way if they were courteous and respectful of people.

And again, I need to remind everyone of the fact that not all state employees are bad. And I have made it a point to praise those who merit it.

I don't believe holding state employees to the same standards that everyone else has to live up to is a bad thing.

They are no more special than anyone else.
Reply New Comment

Line

89) Hey, Ol' Chip-On-The-Shoulder [by Anonymous Citizen on February 7, 2008]

You claim:

"I have endured a lifetime of poor treatment and service at the hands of many state employees."

Poor baby.

You probably believe that.

It's fairly obvious you have a snotty attitude.

Maybe you have been getting back what you give. Aren't you the one who suggested that's how the real world works?

Reply New Comment

Line

90) I don't think so [by Jennybegone on February 7, 2008]
Apparently, you don't like anyone who dares to speak out and say what's really going on with the state.

Anyone who dares to say that they have had lots of problems with the state, you call a baby.

It looks like you cannot see two feet past your nose. I guess we are going to have to agree to disagree.

I will not stop my comments until the people running this forum tell me to stop.


Reply New Comment

Line

91) Message To Ol' Chip-On-The-Shoulder [by Anonymous Citizen on February 8, 2008]

“Apparently, you don't like anyone who dares to speak out and say what's really going on with the state.”

Let’s put it this way: I don’t like snotty whiners who express an exaggerated sense of personal entitlement. If that description fits you, then I probably don’t like you as a person.

“Anyone who dares to say that they have had lots of problems with the state, you call a baby.”

No. I call snotty whiners who express an exaggerated sense of their personal entitlements “babies.” That’s how they behave. I believe in truth in labeling.

“It looks like you cannot see two feet past your nose. I guess we are going to have to agree to disagree.”

It is true that I am nearsighted. But my eyeglasses correct my vision to 20/20, and I see the world quite clearly.

I especially see your attitude quite clearly, through your remarks here. It is obvious that your exaggerated sense of entitlement is what leaves you feeling short-changed by what you call “rude” public employees. Poor baby.

“I will not stop my comments until the people running this forum tell me to stop.”

Oh, good for you. Puff yourself right up and comment all you want.

Just like those “rude” public employees, I’ll give you back what you dish out. Have a nice day.


Reply New Comment

Line

92) I've had my say on state employees [by Jennybegone on February 10, 2008]
I've had my say on state employees, so I'm going to drop it now.

At least most of the people in the state agree with me. So I don't have to justify my stance any longer to anyone.
Reply New Comment

Line

93) Still No Answers [by Anonymous Citizen on September 18, 2007]
I elect folks that want smaller government, less intrusion and less of a nanny state. The ones on the government dole vote for more spending, more taxes, more regulation. it's not bashing when you state facts...you should try it sometime.
Reply New Comment

Line

94) reply to concerned [by Anonymous Citizen on September 17, 2007]
I think the answer lies in your sentence, "Why not left those folks leave over the next few years by normal attrition..."
"Next few years" won't work. The state needs the money now. The incentive hopefully inspires people to retire who...
...are eligible now......those who are close to eligibility and wish to buy time to become eligible....workers who are eligible but can't retire because of some financial need, and the 1.75 helps them retire....if most of these workers retire, the old state-paid pension system will be a thing of the past because these workers will be gone. Talk about saving money!!!
Reply New Comment

Line

95) How About Doing What Business Does [by Anonymous Citizen on September 18, 2007]
layoff the people that you don't need anymore. Maybe if more of those that feed at the public teat were booted out they would quit voting for socialists like the one running the state into the ground now.
Reply New Comment

Line

96) It Makes Sense [by rdjactor on September 17, 2007]
In my first comment, I asked for anyone who opposes this legislation to provide the hard financial data supporting their position. To date no one has done so. The truth is this will save us money and jobs. The alternative is lay-offs, pay reductions, and bank leave hours for future pay. Each of these has a far greater detrimental effect on our state employees and services than an early out. If this did not make fiscal sense then why do other companies faced with decreased profits and failing sales find it to be such a wonderful solution?
Every legislator who does not support this and then comes to us asking for a pay-cut, reduced benefits, or lay-offs should be re-called.
As for the argument that state employees are at an all time low levels and make too much anyway. Well I say come stand in our shoes for a week and see what it looks like from the other side. In addition, we, as residents and tax payers must admit we can no longer afford the level of services and state employees we currently have, even if we are at all time low levels.
Lastly, this is only one of the many actions that must be taken to bring us back to financial health. The next big step is a truthful and honest inventory of every department, position, service, and its necessity. In my division alone we could save over $250,000 by eliminating politically appointees, their friends, duplicate job functions, and a hierarchy that is top heavy with administration and management versus the actual staff that provides critical services to our States residents.

Reply New Comment

Line

97) Reservist and MDOC employee [by Anonymous Citizen on September 16, 2007]
Yes, for many selfish reasons I support the early out. As a parole and probation officer for almost 30 years in the job is at least five years to many. Between the job stress and the lack of appreciation from the politicians and taxpayers I am no longer committed to this field or support anyone going into public service. All politicians like to have their picture taken with law enforcement and firefighters etc. during the elections but we are just a bunch of donut eaters if we ask for a raise or benefits. I would leave now but at age 53 but would have to wait until age 60 to collect, so I am locked into waiting until I am 55, eventhough I have 29 years of service. I still care about the job and place the public safety 1st above all, to include my own health at time to say nothing of the stress on my family. While I support the governor on most issues. On this point let us retire, the state can hire new workers and I will find a job with a little less stress. Further, not many people can be involved and effective in the Parole and Probation field over 20 or 25 years, after that I beleive you get diminishing returns.
Reply New Comment

Line

98) Early Out [by DJackson on September 14, 2007]
I am suggesting that the early out be extended over a period of 2-3 years. Allowing employees with the highest seniority to leave first, then after a period of 6 months to 1 year, have another group retire and so on. This would alleviate the burden on the State, of having all 14,000 employees, that are eligible, from exhausting the retirement fund at one time. It would assure that all employees under the old contract, would be eliminated from the regular budget. I would appreciate any response to my suggestion.
Reply New Comment

Line

99) Think of the MONEY [by Anonymous Citizen on September 15, 2007]
Think of the money save when state employees get to retire.
~ New employees simply are paid less.
~ New employees pay into their own retirement fund.
~ New employees are younger employees, willing to work overtime and glad for it, again, less money.
~ New employees get less vacation time, costing the state less because their often higher-paid stand-ins will be retired.
~ Retired employees DO often get a job, full or part time and contribute to society and the economy without the state further financing their vacations, their longevity checks, and their mandated whopping overtime.
~ I could go on and on. These older employees should already be gone no matter what Lansing says about "Brain Drains." When it comes down to the dollar, early retirement is the way. Maybe not a "Mass exodus" all at once, but whatever the lawmakers can figure out. They're good at that.
Reply New Comment

Line

100) perfect [by Anonymous Citizen on September 15, 2007]
This is a perfect idea. A friend from work (we are state employees) met up with our rep and he said there'd be no early out because the pension fund had to be built up. Your idea seems perfect, there are many employees here hoping for early retirement. Non state employees reading this, please understand, we deserve this, we work six days a week, not 5. We don't get to do normal things like others because we work weekends, sometimes the work conditons are life threatening and it's hard to get a vacation. When we get a measley 7 or 10 dollar a check raise, the whole state hollers. Our personal business has been posted by the Lansing State Journal, the governor paid us in the past with a few hours of vacation time instead of money, we are constantly mandated to work all or some of another shift and we cannot refuse. We are tired, worn out, and deserve to retire. And just so you know, the retirement isn't THAT great no matter what you've heard.
Reply New Comment

Line

101) Yes, but [by civilserpent on September 15, 2007]
Yes. This is a great idea. I am an old timer who would be eligible now but if I weren't, I'd want to go if I were under the original pension system. It makes perfect sense, and much savings for the state I think. For those who don't want to retire but are eligible, I don't know.
Reply New Comment

Line

102) not sure [by Anonymous Citizen on September 15, 2007]
I'm not actually sure about how that would happen for those state workers. If they would loose any funds already allocated to them from being under the old contract. They shouldn't,that fund should still be there for them when they decide to retire. Now, when they are put under the new contract it would be up to them to allocate funds in their 401 or 457 etc.
Reply New Comment

Line

103) early out [by Anonymous Citizen on September 12, 2007]
special thanks to Mike Bishop for introducing this bill. If early outs "don't save any real money in the end" as the Gov says, then why does big business offer such incentives regularily to scale down their work force and become leaner and more competitive. It is tim