Legislation watch
Mackinac Center for Public Policy
Capitol Building

2009 House Bill 4248: Allow "double dipping" for corrections pensioners

Public Act 54 of 2010

  1. Introduced by Rep. Alma Smith (D) on February 11, 2009, to allow "retired" state prison health care employees to collect a pension while also getting paid to do Corrections work if the job is temporary, paid on a per-diem basis, and has no (additional) benefits.
    • Referred to the House Judiciary Committee on February 11, 2009.
    • Reported in the House on March 4, 2009, without amendment and with the recommendation that the bill pass.
  2. Passed 98 to 6 in the House on March 5, 2009.
    Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No"

  3. Received in the Senate on March 10, 2009.
    • Referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee on March 10, 2009.
      • Reported in the Senate on March 11, 2010, with the recommendation that the bill pass.
    • Substitute offered in the Senate on March 16, 2010, to replace the previous version of the bill with one that revises details but does not change the substance as previously described. The substitute passed by voice vote in the Senate on March 16, 2010.
  4. Passed 37 to 1 in the Senate on March 17, 2010, to allow "retired" state prison health care employees to collect a pension while also getting paid to do Corrections work if the job is temporary, paid on a per-diem basis, and has no (additional) benefits.
    Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No"

  5. Received in the House on March 17, 2010.
  6. Passed 100 to 7 in the House on April 13, 2010, to concur with the Senate-passed version of the bill.
    Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No"

  7. Signed by Gov. Jennifer Granholm on April 22, 2010.


Re: 2009 House Bill 4248 (Limit employment restriction for corrections pensioners )  by Admin003 on March 17, 2010 


Senator Switalski, under his constitutional right of protest (Art. 4, Sec. 18), protested against the passage of House Bill No. 4248 and moved that the statement he made during the discussion of the bill be printed as his reasons for voting "no."

The motion prevailed.

Senator Switalski’s statement is as follows:

I must rise in opposition to this bill, although by itself it might be an acceptable bill with a few changes. It is an example of a growing practice that is bad policy. It is a growing practice that is incompatible with what should be our No. 1 public policy goal because our biggest problem in the state is jobs and unemployment.

This bill does not create new jobs for people who are laid off or unemployed. This bill changes the law to allow workers already drawing a public pension to draw a second paycheck. It gives the lucky ones two checks while the unemployed get none. Regrettably, this practice is growing. It is an element in the Governor’s retirement reform package. Current employees could retire and return part-time to do the same job. We have a growing number of contract employees in state government who too often are retired state employees who walk through a revolving door and return doing the same job at twice the pay; while low-seniority state employees are laid off to free up funds to pay the contractors.

Then we have the worse abuse, the DROP program that allows State Police to collect their pension without ever retiring for five years. We laid off troopers last year while we were providing others a chance to double dip. This hurts the solvency of the retirement fund and wastes the money we spend on a troopers school.

These practices in this bill are incompatible with our goals of reducing unemployment in Michigan. The policy must change.

Re: 2009 House Bill 4248 (Limit employment restriction for corrections pensioners )  by SaneMichigander on February 19, 2009 

Cajun, it is patently obvious here that you are quibbling
over BS in order to justify your anti-competition stance in opposing this bill.  You are right in league with unions on
this, trying to keep qualified people out of the workforce unless you can
directly profit your own enterprise from their labor.  Your stance is completely self-serving and
anti-taxpayer.  Shame on you.


I endorse this bill because it represents an economical way
for the State to provide services it is committed to provide.

Re: 2009 House Bill 4248 (Limit employment restriction for corrections pensioners )  by crazycajun on February 18, 2009 

[quote user="SaneMichigander"]

[quote user="crazycajun"]

by the way... i'm ANTI-UNION. i don't hire guards, and my employees do not go back to work for me, or anybody else in this line of work after they retire. it's part of a confidentiality agreement. it's also part of good ethics.

if a retired employee has a good idea for a system upgrade or improvement, and wants to sell me the rights to it, i'll buy it at fair market value, but he will not be an employee. nor will he be a contractor. he will be a supplier. an independent businessman. he is also free to sell it to anyone else he wishes.

so much for your conspiracy theory,


First of all, for a guy who proclaims himself to be "anti-union," you sure take a union-typical stance on this bill.  Methinks you are one confused, or profoundly hypocritical puppy.  

<which union-typical stance is that? that i don't have unions in my place of business. or that i don't re-hire my retired employees? or perhaps it's becuse i disagree with paying someone twice to do the job once.>

Moreover, your statement reads like it comes from somebody who thinks he owns employees -- a slaveowner mentality.  If I am not mistaken, slavery -- the owning of other people so their labor can be exploited -- was outlawed in the United States in thye 1860s.  We currently live in the year 2009.   

<oh, but you are mistaken. i don't own anything except the business and several dozen of the patents for the equipment and processes which we use to do business. my employees are just that. MY EMPLOYEES, they are also my friends. i care for them not because i hold title to them, but because they mean something to me other than just people who will work for money. they have a stake in the business just like i do. they invest in my company and i invest in them. you are indeed mistaken.>

A retired employee contracting his services to the state on a per diem basis, with no additional fringe benefits is an independent businessman.

<i'd say his ability to continue to collect his pension makes him a double dipper, not an independent businessman. if he had to give up his pension, like every other retiree, THEN he would be an independent businessman. >

  You simply want to stifle the potential competition for the services you claim to provide.

<once again, you are mistaken. sadly so.>

It has been my experience and observation that self-proclaimed libertarian free-marketeer types who tout the wonders of competition quickly become nanny statist activists who advocate trade restrictions that will cripple potential competitors when actual competition looms at the horizon.

<so, why, nanny stater, do you have a law that discriminates FOR a person who provides medical services and AGAINST a person who provides much more critical security services? aren't all guard jobs ALIKE? aren't all of them guards? if you have a law that says ONE must give up his pension, why not have ALL of them give up their pension and be TRUE independent businessmen? >

And, by the way your description of a retiree on pension who returns to work as an independent contractor receiving two paychecks is a dishonest representation of the situation.

<how so?>

 Pension checks represent deferred income for work performed in the past, paid under a contractual agreement between employer and employee.

<so, why does work performed in a medical facility allow you to KEEP GETTING YOUR PENSION, and work provided out in the hallways DOES NOT ALLOW YOU TO KEEP YOUR PENSION? wouldn't it be fair to let ALL retirees keep their pension? or force all retirees to give up their pension if they come back? make up your mind... which will it be? you can't have it both ways.>

  It is no different from a retiree receiving income from an annuity, IRA or 401K program.  Paychecks represent compensation for work performed in the present.  

<so, again, why does ONE guard have to give up HIS pension to get re-hired, and not another? i protest the UNFAIRNESS.>

The only opposition for bills like this -- which stand to save the taxpayers of Michigan dollars they have provided to run state government -- comes from people who wish to stifle competition in the services market, be they private contractors (or rubber glove salesmen) themselves, or union types, or those expressing unbridled envy.  In any and every case, opposition to bills like this one is anti-taxpayer because it opposes government operating cost efficiency.

<again, how is paying someone twice EFFICIENT?>



 I KNOW you won't answer these questions either, but i put them out there to show your ignorance, hipocracy, and hatred.

View pre-2013 Comments.
Your new comments should be made in the box below.