these people working after they retire, should be limited to X number of hours or loose their pension for x number of months for exceeding the hours, set by the pension board.

If you are going to retire, retire. Then get the hell out of the way so another person can fill the job. Double dipping is just what it says, getting paid twice(salary and retirement pay), benefits nonwithstanding.

Andrew
.
Teaching two classes would be an increased load for many UW department chairs.

:)

Not sure about all state employees, but prison guards do not get insurance as part of retirement. They have to pay $1400 per month for health insurance until reaching Medicare age. Just thought I'd share that fact.

This practice goes on all over the country. It is a good ole boy practice, and from what I have seen (working in the school system) abused by all groups/cliches, not a particular party. For the most part, that is.

The jobs should be going to individuals that are trying to climb the career ladder. Not retirees that milk the system dry.

Is going back to work (re-hired) while collecting full retirement benefits considered "double dipping"? I thought double dipping was when government employees retired to collect their full benefits but then procured a "civil" job in order to rack up benefits to qualify for collecting Social Security in addition to their pensions?

It should be also noted that 55 is the minimum age you can retire but you still need your years in before you can get your full benefit.

Another point to be brought up that was not mentioned in the article is how many people from the UW system retired from an administration position and returned as a part time professor. I work in the UW System and this is actually very common where a professor or department head will retire and return to only teach one or two classes a year, they do not in most cases receive benefits.

JoyM, excellent point about the ages of the retirees and what they are receiving separate from their rehire wages.

Link to report summary: http://legis.wisconsin.gov/lab/reports/1...

While I am certainly against wasteful spending, the problem is not that they were rehired...it's that they were allowed to retire with full pensions before the rest of the world can (probably at 55). If they had retired at 65 and then went back to work, I would gripe less. Not sure if they qualify for SS and Medicare (some civil servants don't), but if not then they are guaranteed health insurance as retirees. That said, if they did retire and start pulling their pension as permitted by law, then one of two things would have had to happen to fill the open position: Hire a new person, very possibly at a lower wage but then have to cover health insurance premiums or other benefits for the new hire (while paying the pension and retiree benefits to the retiree) OR hire back the retiree, probably at their full salary (probably higher than that for a new hire) but not have to cover the benefits for an active employee (while paying the same pension and retiree benefits to the retiree than you would have had to if there was a new hire). So the real question is not about the double-dipping. The real question is: would the salary and benefits for a new hire be more or less than the salary alone for the retiree?

Too many questions not answered in this short article. How many are double dipping? How many were rehired at same salary?

Old folks earn more money anyway. They should be a part of the work force as long as possible to help maintain fair wages.