Michigan Votes Forum

Isn't this double-dipping at the private sector taxpayers expense?

 Introduced by Rep. Alma Smith (D) on February 11, 2009, to revise the law which suspends the pension payments of a retired state prison employee who goes back to work for the Department of Corrections. The bill would allow a person to collect his or her pension while also getting paid to do Corrections work if the job is to provide health care to prisoners, is temporary, is paid on a per-diem basis, and has no benefits.

• Referred to the House Judiciary Committee on February 11, 2009.

of course it's double dipping... it's sponsored by a demcorat, isn't it?

This is not double-dipping -- doing and receiving pay for work that already has been done and paid for.  This is new work that somebody will be paid to do.  Since the work done by State retirees would have to be done on a temporary hire basis, paid on a per-diem basis, and provide no benefits, it is an economical alternative to adding costly new regular hires. 

This is free market, private contracting of specialized services, employing people with established credentials to do the job.  That makes it good business for the State and Michigan taxpayers.

The only people who don’t like arrangements of this sort are those who want to suppress competition in the marketplace, or union operatives. 

I endorse the passage of bills like this to make efficient use of proven talent.

 according to this bill, if the retiree is 'employed' to provide healthcare to inmates, such as guarding a hospital ward, he gets to collect his pension and a paycheck. this is a special circumstance that DOES prove to be DOUBLE-DIPPING.

either hire all retirees on a per-diem basis for all work after suspending their retirement benefits, or don't hire any of them. don't have a special circumstance that will allow a pensioner to double dip.

it isn't ethical. nor is it legal. nor is it the right thing to do.

crazycajun:

 according to this bill, if the retiree is 'employed' to provide healthcare to inmates, such as guarding a hospital ward, he gets to collect his pension and a paycheck. this is a special circumstance that DOES prove to be DOUBLE-DIPPING.

That is moronic prattling.

The pension was earned as part of the pay for work performed during the retiree's active career.  Call it "deferred compensation," if you will.  

Pay earned through new temporary employment, given in exchange for new work performed on a per-diem basis with no fringe benefits cannot possibly be double dipping.  It is earned, earned, earned -- an honest exchange of money in return for new services rendered.

Arrangements of this sort save money in operating the taxpayer-funded State government.  This represents an excellent bargain for Michigan taxpayers. 

The only opposition to arrangements like this is from parties who wish to stifle competition for their own purposes.  

The rubber glove salesman here who opposes this legislation has crowed extensively about how he/she provides contract services involving prisons in Michigan.  One must wonder if the crower, who now objects to this cost-saving measure for the State senses competition that he would rather not have.  Yes, that certainly is it.  There is no other good explanation, when you look at the crower's frequent posts calling for cost-cutting in the prison system.  

There is no other real reason to oppose this legislation, unless one is a union operative seeking to make sure that prison employees will have to pay union dues.  Either way, it is simple greed.  The only other explanation for opposing ideas like this is unbridled envy. 

 i don't hire guards, so guards can be no competition for me.

i do provide solutions.

my people CANNOT and DO NOT double dip. most guards don't want to either. they either want to stay retired, or stay employed.

allowing a retired employee to retain his retirement and his benefits, plus earn a separate paycheck is double dipping. why can't ALL employees do it, not just those that provide medical attention? why the discrimination? why the difference? shouldn't all retired guards be treated equally? shouldn't all temporary hires be treated equally?

Retired employees in all sorts of occupations go back to work for former employers (and others) as independent contractors if there is a need for their special qualifications.  It is not double dipping.  For the employee it is earning money honestly in a new job under a new arrangement.  For the employer, it is an way to get necessary work accomplished and produce a bigger bang for the buck that's paid out.  It works well in the private sector and it works well in government.

In this case, retired Michigan Corrections Department employees would be providing prisoner health care solutions to the Department. 

Objections to this are only self serving.  Objections are either intended to stifle competition for government dollars, as in the case of the guy who posts here and claims to contract to the State of Michigan to provide prison "solutions" (sell rubber gloves?), or they are intended to protect employee union interests.  A third possibility is plain, unbridled envy.

As a Michigan taxpayer I welcome state government services solutions that actually stand to save money.  Opposition to this bill, in my view, is a prescription for waste and is anti-taxpayer.   

I'd be willing to bet my social security check crazy doesn't hire or provide solutions, and the only double dipping he does is in the chip dip.

 you'd lose.

 how is giving a man two paychecks SAVING MONEY?

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,

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.  

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.   

A retired employee contracting his services to the state on a per diem basis, with no additional fringe benefits is an independent businessman.  You simply want to stifle the potential competition for the services you claim to provide.

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.

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

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.

SaneMichigander:

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.

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.

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.