Michigan Votes Forum

 I think this is a bill that should be addressed for the state employees that are willing to make an different in the down slope of unemployment.  I think this bill will allow the employees that are in a position to retire will give them an incentive to move out the way for the next guy.  I hope that this bill is being taken seriously by the house and the senate.  I do believe that this will elimate some portions of the unemployed individuals.    Regina

 I would like to know if House Bill 5449 still in effect?  If so can you tell when will it be viewed by the committee for a vote.  Earlene

I would like to know if House Bill 5449 still in effect and if so when will the committee meet to vote on it?

Would you please include in this Bill state employees who meet the "80 and out" requirement who had deferred their retirement for the following reasons:

a) was initially furloughed as Permanent Intermittent (PIs), were later laid off and, after three (3) years were removed from the

layoff rolls;

b) Left state government to pursue entrepreneurship and now qualifies for retirement under this bill, and/or

c) cannot find a job due to age or lack of necessary experience or training to compete with the global contestants

on the information superhighway.

If we are not included, we will have to wait five to ten years longer to retire or get any retirement benefits.

In other words, please expand the definition of "80 and out" to include those who deferred their retirement and now qualify;

what ever equals "80"  (55 years and 25 years of service, etc).  Thank you.

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.

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.

With genuine sincerity and curiosity, why?

gypsy:

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.

With genuine sincerity and curiosity, why?

Because buyouts of this sort produce no real savings.

FreeSpeaker:

gypsy:

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.

With genuine sincerity and curiosity, why?

Because buyouts of this sort produce no real savings.

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?

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?

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.

I 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.