According to the JS the retired public worker who decides to unretire and go back to work can decide whether they want to continue to collect their pension or have the employer pick up the costs of their other benefits such as health insurance. I would think also the state would save money by hiring a new employee at less wages than the experienced worker which would mean less FICA, etc. Anyway why go back to the same job you wanted to retire from?

The the district is ONLY paying them their salary. They are NOT paying them their benefits. The pension they are drawing from are from contributions to the retirement system over their previous years of service. The district would not longer be paying into that for them.

Feduptaxpayer - How hard is it to understand that a state, city, county, or school district saves money if they don't have to pay into the pension fund of an employee or have to pay health benefits to an employee? I don't recall anyone on this chat bring up "the kids". But since you did, if a school district can save money by hiring someone they don't have to pay retirement or health benefits to, then that money can be put back into classrooms or into afterschool reading programs to help kids learn. Or to satify your selfish needs, the district can decide to lower the tax levy and save you an extra case of beer per year.

There ought to be a law against single dipping.
Taking money and pretending to be a legislator or governor.

Give it a rest mouse!

My union retirement plan has the same rules.

If I hire on and work for any company that employs union carpenters, the pension stops. I believe the reason is the union has younger carpenters that pay into the plan, and I would be taking a union job away from another union member while they contribute to my monthly pension.

Donnaw....very simple. If I retire, my position needs to be filled with someone else. That person has to be paid a salary, benefits and a pension. If I am hired back on to fill that spot on a temporary or limited basis they do not have to pay me benefits or pay into my pension. This happens often with positions that are hard to fill.

John..how does it save the state money?

You are right retiredairforce....as far as that goes.

If they don't follow the rules...pay the consequences.

BUT, if they follow the thirty day rule..."double dipping" actually saves the state money.

In the end, it's not about saving money...

It's about the clueless commenters feeling that if they can't have it....no one should.

No, freedomfighter...Illinois' "problem" is completely different.

Please do your homework before you comment.

Funny how people like to pick and choose laws they want to follow. Everyone screamed about taking away the law that allowed some barganing for some public workers yet members of this same group also choose not to follow the 30day law in place now; requires an employee be removed (retired in this case) 30 days before ANY talk of retuning. Yet in countless examples arrangments have been made for retired employees to be rehired before they even retire.

If they want to stay working there why retire? Whe break the law?

Illinois has the same problem, but with union leaders double dipping.

Mouse: You are right on, and it will happen. Can't be soon enough.

focused like a laser on jobs. oops, got a ton of other right wing social engineering laws to pass first. Special session? oops, coincides with regular session.

helge1939: This will include any PUBLIC EMPLOYEE.

Do not be surprised if in the future the bill comes up that pertains to private employees as well.

NOTHING is beyond the limits of this governor.

People, please wake up soon.

If walker won't let them work in their old job's after retirement then he can say he has added jobs

I still fail to understand the problem with this so called "double dipping". It actually saves tax money. I think this is just a way for the ruling party in Wisconsin to give one more middle finger to public sector employees. What else would be an explanation for this?

walkerfan, I did not say anything about changing one position for another. I said "If they work less than 1040 hours a year they can recieve benifits and keep the job they have". And yes it is a LTE position with benifits.

Tenacious--I was talking about 6 month LTE positions. I think that very few LTEs go beyond that. Maybe a few people parlay one LTE position after another, but if the jobs go on "for years" they are not Limited Time Positions. If they move from one LTE position to another for years, then perhaps they SHOULD be considered not retired.

wakerfan, YES LTE's are eligable to recieve benefits. If they work less than 1040 hours a year they can work for as many years as they want. They can get 1/2 their health insurance paid for, dental, pension and other benifits as long as they have been LTE for a year or a year and a half. I can't remember which one it is that qualifies them for benifits.

I should have added, Dwight, that they also cannot add these earnings to their retirement earnings, so it does not increase their pension.

Dwight--No, they're not.

Will this includ police also?

wakerfan - are LTE employees eligible for benefits?

The state and the county often hire LTE (Limited Term Employees) for up to six months at a time. They prefer to hire retired workers who already know how to perform the job because it can take three months to train new workers how to do the job. If they have to hire new workers and train them, the LTE position is half over before the workers are prepared to begin doing it, and everyone's time and money is wasted. It only makes sense, both logically and economically, to bring back the retirees for these positions.

This is a practice many school districts use to save money since they do not have to contribute to that employee's pension. Also, many times, the school district would be paying for that person's health insurance after their retirement anyways (often earned through accumulation of sick days over years of service) so it saves them money because they would have to pay for health insurance for that retiree's replacement as well. I fail to see the logic in passing legislation to make this practice come to an end. If a district can save money (taxpayer money) by hiring back or hiring retirees from other districts then more power to them.

PJGncy, exactly. Many jobs in the public sector do not have a private sector counterpart. What about a Judge? He/she retires and the appointment or election process takes another 6 - 8 months. That county has to do without a Judge or pay one from a surrounding county to drive over a day or two a month? The Judge who retired cannot come back ever? Not even when it would be clearly less expensive for him to preside over a single lengthy trial than disrupt all the other court hearings on the Judge's docket. This is a dumb/short cited law and will cost the State more and drive people away from public service. When this same thing happens in the private sector, they call it consulting and private companies are grateful to get very experienced people for short term bargain prices.

PJ - "state workers." Your father is safe!

So, my retired father, who collects his retirement benefit (after working 40+ years in a private hospital) and collects social security benefits, is still working for a car dealership somewhere in WI. Should it be illegal for him to collect a pay check and all his assorted retirement funds--or is this only going to apply to the so-called 'public worker'?

Ah, yes, now saving the state money is a crime. Quite naturally.