Michigan Votes Forum

Introduced in the House on January 22, 2007

Click here to view bill details.

No way will this bill have a hope with a window that extends to retirees until 2010. Why not try to write a bill that has a chance of passing and is more realistic. This is a "lip service" bill!

Its about time michigan realizes they need to offer the same early out opportunities as the privat sector. The retirement plan is ridiculous. How is it that someone that is 48 years old and has 30 years of work for the state cannot be eligible? The age limit need to be dropped! Under the current system, someone in this position will have to work until they are 55 and that will give them 37 years of service. This is unacceptable. Thirty years is more than enough time to put in to State Service. If an early out was offered it would allow for downsizing as well as paying new hires at a lower rate minus all of the old benefits that have been stripped from State employees over the years.

"Thirty years is more than enough time to put in to State Service." Most state "workers" need 60 years working to actually put in 30. They already have all the benifits they need, no golden handshakes.

You obviously have not walked in the shoes of some of our State workers. Try being a Social Worker or a Probation/Parole for a day. Now this would be an eye-opening experience. All the State workers I know pack 60 hours into a 40-hour paycheck. By the way, I'm a teacher, and at the end of my 50-60 hour work week, I have no patience or tolerance for uneducated responses like yours. I teach my high school students to think and research and not assume before blabbing out some lame response.

You obviously have not walked in the shoes of some of our State workers. Try being a Social Worker or a Probation/Parole agent for a day. Now this would be an eye-opening experience. All the State workers I know pack 60 hours into a 40-hour paycheck. By the way, I'm a teacher, and at the end of my 50-60 hour work week, I have no patience or tolerance for uneducated responses like yours. I teach my high school students to think and research and not assume before blabbing out some lame response.

we get to put up with the students who failed. we get to put up with the ones who never went to school. we get to put up with the ones who never learned better. most have both parents present. some even come from very good (rich) families. at least your kids don't take pot shots at you. the one's i worked with did.

"I'm a teacher, and at the end of my 50-60 hour work week" I know lots of teachers and none put in 60 hour weeks. If you do, maybe you should talk to some of your peers. I'm sure they can show you how to cut that back a little.

"You obviously have not walked in the shoes of some of our State workers" No, but I have dealt with state agencies, sec of state, "friend" of the court, etc. Mostly I see about 4 people doing every job and it still doesn't work as good as most private enterprise. Most seem to be annoyed at customers for interupting their day.

Does that include doing dishes at home and talking to your neighbors over coffee. You, like most state workers, I'm a retired one, have no idea about the real world, none, nothing, no concept. Nuff Said, Don't even try to understand, that's what no concept means.

You can fire half the state workers right now and it would have no effect. They don't work. Why do you still have secretaries. Are you all crazy. Taxation is directly and inversely proportional to productivity. You waste, waste, waste. Look at the schools, they all suck; especially in the cities, all democrats, for 40 years or more; CLUELESS; No investment from real money with so many taxes, cut taxes, cut spending, watch what happens.

state employees are like all others -- some work, some don't, some are competent and some are not. The important thing here is that allowing the higher paid/higher benefit employees to retire would both provide new jobs and save the state money. This is a good thing.

You can't balance the budget on the backs of State employees. There are many departments that couldn't hire enough people after the first early retirement in 2002 and are running very inefficiently because of it. In the office where I work, we are 6 people down and can barely keep up. And we can't hire anyone because of the state hiring freeze due to the budget crisis. Getting rid of more state workers will only harm the government more and the services the state provides will be in extreme disarray.

into the black. it's a lament we hear all to often from those who are about to be cut. cutting WASTE in state government is the best first step that can be taken. cutting the number of incarcerated individuals in the prison system is NOT. it's unfortunate that the state thinks that it is. it's amazing that our governor first cut two things, policemen and the amount of inmates in jail. two of the things that are THE PROPER ROLE OF GOVERNMENT. she will NOT cut the rest of the fluff and pork that ISN'T.

In Michigan State Employee Association June 2007 News, Gov. Jennifer M. Granholm new excuse for being against an early-out retirement ligislation is that employee one time benefit payouts at retirement will cost the state of Michigan to much money. Personally i'm tired of politician half truths. In recent estimates are correct 8,000 state employees could retire in the next two years. If an early-out retirement bill was passed its estimated 11,000 employees could retire. Past early-out retirement programs paid out benits over a 5 year period (60 monthly payments). So in reality Governor Granholm way of thinking will increase employee retirement payout costs during the next two years. The early-out legislation would spread benefit payout costs over a 5 year period. I've been a Michigan employee since July 1971 been layed off during bad times and been rehired. When you here the Union line the State has went from 68,000 employees down to less than 55,000 today they fail to tell you Michigan closed the Licquor Stores laying off 1,600 employees plus closed 24 Mental Hospitals/Centers laying off 14,000 employees plus closed a couple youth homes 1,000 employees this roughly totals 16,600 layoffs from 68,000 equals 51,400 or the state has an extra 3,600 new employees in the rest of the remaining state agencies. Ha! Ha! the 3,600 employees most likely are in Department of information Technology. There is no real employee shortages.

Gee, you've been on the job for 36 years and you favor an enhanced pension benefit if you retire now (rather than sometime relatively soon anyway.) How many private sector workers can expect the kind of pension and post-retirement health benefits that you will receive even under the un-enhanced pension? Not many, let me tell you. The state has fewer workers? Why is it that technology has allowed the private sector to do so much more with less, but it's used as an excuse for the public sector to just spend more? Also, those 14,000 mental hospital workers have been replaced by tens of thousands of community mental health care workers and contract employees, so state and federal taxpayers are still paying. I'm not complaining necessarily, just sayin' - there's been less downsizing than the gov and her friends pretend.

 I have worked hard for 25 years.  Just because we are in a crunch does not give anyone the right to take our retirement from us.  State employees and to have banked leave days, (making our pay check short).  Now we have to have furlough days (without pay).  We have been punished everytime there is a need for money.  We are tired of making things up for the rest of the state.

Personally i'm tired of politician half truths. In recent estimates are correct 8,000 state employees could retire in the next two years. If an early-out retirement bill was passed its estimated 11,000 employees could retire. Past early-out retirement programs paid out benits over a 5 year period (60 monthly payments)  pelleting press