Comments on this legislation Post new comment Text and Analysis Add to Watch List
Previous Next
- Introduced by Rep. Rick Jones (R) on September 22, 2009, to pay $40,000 in a lump sum to state employees who retire between April 1 and Sept. 30, 2010. This would apply to employees whose years on the job plus their age equals 80 or more.
- Referred to the House Labor Committee on September 22, 2009.
Comments
1) Re: 2009 House Bill 5449 (Give $40,000 to state employees who retire early ) by gypsy on March 13, 2010I agree, a poorly planned buyout probably would not save money, say if the positions bought out would still need to be filled. The state would be paying wages and pension for the same position. On the other hand, if a well planned and executed program of buyouts is done, only buying out positions that would not need to be filled, and only buying out those close to retirement, the savings are obvious.
[quote user="gypsy"]
I was looking for a more detailed answer. Buyouts "of this sort" have been used by many private corporations to rid themselves of unneeded vested employees with whom they have either a union or personal employment contract. This is done of course in the name of saving money by not having to pay the worker wages or salary. Why is this any different? [/quote]
There is no more detailed answer necessary, in reality. The fact is, that while employee buyouts in a corporate setting may produce some savings, they seldom do in public agency settings. Take a look at the true experiences of public school districts in Michigan that have gone the buyout route, for example.
[quote user="FreeSpeaker"]
[quote user="gypsy"]
[quote user="FreeSpeaker"]This bill is a an expensive, wasteful and bad idea. It should die at the bottom of the bills pile in committee without ever seeing the light of day.[/quote]
With genuine sincerity and curiosity, why?
[/quote]
Because buyouts of this sort produce no real savings.
[/quote]
I was looking for a more detailed answer. Buyouts "of this sort" have been used by many private corporations to rid themselves of unneeded vested employees with whom they have either a union or personal employment contract. This is done of course in the name of saving money by not having to pay the worker wages or salary. Why is this any different?
Your new comments should be made in the box below.
