Topeka — Gov. Sam Brownback's administration is considering an early retirement incentive proposal for state employees.
The Kansas Organization of State Employees is surveying its members to get feedback from members regarding any early retirement incentive.
Jane Carter, head of KOSE, said Wednesday that rules stipulate that negotiations with the state are closed.
"There is not an agreement yet, so I cannot comment on support or disagreement. When we have a tentative agreement and the members ratify the agreement, then I can comment," she said.
The governor's office has not responded to questions about an early retirement plan.
Early retirement plans are usually established to reduce payroll. Typically they offer incentives to older more high-paid employees to retire. Those incentives could include one-time bonuses or extension of health insurance coverage.
The Kansas Legislative Division of Post Audit is currently conducting a study to determine whether offering an early retirement incentive program would save state government any money. Kansas spent nearly $2.5 billion in 2010 on state employee salaries and fringe benefits, according to a statement by Post Audit.
Comments
LJWorld.com doesn’t necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Read our full policy. Also, read about banned accounts and harassing comments.
tolawdjk (anonymous) says…
"Retire and we won't fire you."
ResQd (anonymous) replies…
They won't fire you, they'll call it a layoff!
jhawkinsf (anonymous) says…
Retire and we'll replace you with a person with less experience and less seniority. You get early retirement and we get a lower wage employee. It's a common tactic in the business world when that business is in trouble. The auto industry did this a few years ago.
jafs (anonymous) replies…
Ok.
But the retiring folks will add to the financial burden on the state right away, since the state's paying that retirement, and especially if they're offering financial incentives to do so.
And, the new folks will be less experienced, as you mention, and probably not as good.
Sounds like a lose-lose situation to me.
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (anonymous) replies…
See my post below
bd (anonymous) replies…
but it does put someone else to work.
globehead (anonymous) replies…
Nope! The draft proposal I've seen indicates the employee leaving will never be able to work for the state again and the agency from which they leave cannot refill the position for three years. I do not know if this is an agency or state draft. There is no indication anywhere that the vacated position will be refilled anytime soon.
jhawkinsf (anonymous) replies…
I'm not a bean counter by trade, but I'm guessing that if very large private businesses are doing it, there is probably a sound financial reason for doing it.
jafs (anonymous) replies…
Large private businesses aren't offering a guaranteed benefit pension plan any more, while the state is.
That's a major difference between the two financially.
notanota (anonymous) replies…
Not if they replace those workers with new ones entering into the system and paying at the higher KPERS rate. They'll get inflow into the system and can afford to pay some out. They're kicking the can down the road, and I'm ok with them doing that until there's some rational people in charge....
That said, if they bait and switch the system for Brownie's beloved 401k, that will really screw up the finances.
jafs (anonymous) replies…
Older employees with higher salaries may very well be paying more per paycheck, even at a lower rate, than new ones with lower salaries will be.
And, they're not currently taking any retirement benefits.
So, the new employees may pay less into the system, and the retired folks are taking benefits out of it.
Really doesn't seem like a good idea to me - and if the poster above is correct, they won't be filling those jobs for several years, which would make it even worse.
JayhawkFan1985 (anonymous) replies…
The state is NOT paying the retirement. The state legislature appropriates funds for compensating state employees. Part of state employee compensation is the retirement plan. State employees have been required to contribute 4% of their gross earnings into KPERS for decades. In recent years, new employees havebeen required to contribute 6% of gross earnings. In both cases, the employees pay state income taxes on that income even though they don't see that income for perhaps decades. Interestingly, federal income taxes are not paid until after benefits are received during retirement. My point is that this is employee money that is being paid to employees, not state money. The problem is that the state legislature failed for decades to contribute their contractual share into the KPERS fund.
jafs (anonymous) replies…
I understand the system.
It is not true that employee contributions make up the benefits paid out.
If that were the case, there'd be no need for any state contributions.
Which would mean that it doesn't matter if the state's been paying into the fund or not, which is clearly not the case.
tanzer (anonymous) replies…
they are considering a hiring freeze on those positions for several years.
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (anonymous) says…
And after they take the early retirement bait, they'll get hit with the switch of greatly reduced retirement benefits-- after all, the rich say we're broke, so retirees (especially govt. ones) must pay.
notanota (anonymous) replies…
See my comment above, but the idea is actually sound on paper. IF Brownie doesn't bait and switch for a 401k plan. You get new workers paying the higher KPERS rate, old workers retiring at an age where they'd be screwed if they tried to look for another job, but some of them might start a side business (demographically, they're the most likely group to do so) and that generates a bit of activity. Meanwhile, they're still fit and have time to volunteer or spend money on nearby leisure activities and hobbies.
If Brownie proved in any way shape or form that he could be trusted, the only downside to this is the loss of high level experience, and considering the alternative, that isn't so bad. However, Brownie can't be trusted. That's the problem.
jafs (anonymous) replies…
See my response above.
bd (anonymous) says…
most of the employees that may be able to retire early will not because of the high cost of health insurance!
lawrenceks66 (anonymous) replies…
AND they've screwed up our KPERS retirement funds ...
merrill (anonymous) says…
Brownback wants to privatize Kansas government so he can give corporations our tax dollars under the guise of saving money. There is no hard evidence to support that thinking.
There is plenty of hard evidence that documents the most dependable source of fraud against taxpayers is private industry.
Of course neocons believe fraud is a reputable form of employment:
For openers...
1. TABOR is Coming by Grover Norquist and Koch Bros.
http://www.dollarsandsense.org/archiv...
2. The Reagan/Bush Savings and Loan Heist(Cost taxpayers $1.4 trillion)
http://rationalrevolution0.tripod.com...
3. Wall Street Bank Fraud on Consumers under Bush/Cheney
http://www.dollarsandsense.org/archiv...
4. Bush and Henry Paulson blew the $700 billion of bail out money?
http://www.democracynow.org/2009/9/10...
And that tax cuts do nothing to make an economy strong or produce jobs.
5. Still A Bad Idea – Bush Tax Cuts - The entitlement program for the wealthy at the expense of the middle class
http://www.dollarsandsense.org/archiv...
In the end big debt and super duper bailouts were the results which does not seem to bother Republicans, as long as they are in power.
In fact, by the time the second Bush left office, the national debt had grown to $12.1 trillion:
* Over half of that amount had been created by Bush’s tax cuts for the very wealthy.
* Another 30% of the national debt had been created by the tax cuts for the wealthy under Presidents Reagan and George H.W. Bush.
• Fully 81% of the national debt was created by just these three Republican Presidents.
http://www.dollarsandsense.org/archiv...
snap_pop_no_crackle (anonymous) replies…
How many times this week have you posted this same set of links, merrill? How many times total have you cluttered up this award-winning website with this same drivel? You don't even keep track, do you?
merrill (anonymous) says…
HealthWave is in the final process of being "privatized" so we're told. Which means the medical insurance industry is jumping up and down with joy. So much for saving tax dollars.
Private insurance requires more money to operate not to mention the CEO salaries,shareholders,golden parachutes and campaign contributions OUR tax dollars will now be supporting.
When the private insurance provider wants more tax dollars for their services it will just happen to be in the budget. Have no fear the cost will increase and medical care will be become more difficult to obtain.
Corporate welfare aka socialism really stinks!
Is there fraud ever in the medical insurance industry?
Example:
Is there an FBI investigation under way? A Grand Jury investigation underway?
Why you ask?
Thursday, June 25, 2009
Health insurers have forced consumers to pay billions of dollars in medical bills that the insurers themselves should have paid, according to a report released yesterday by the staff of the Senate Commerce Committee.
At a committee hearing yesterday, three health-care specialists testified that insurers go to great lengths to avoid responsibility for sick people, use deliberately incomprehensible documents to mislead consumers about their benefits, and sell "junk" policies that do not cover needed care. Rockefeller said he was exploring "why consumers get such a raw deal from their insurance companies."
The star witness at the hearing was a former public relations executive for major health insurers whose testimony boiled down to this: Don't trust the insurers.
"The industry and its backers are using fear tactics, as they did in 1994, to tar a transparent and accountable -- publicly accountable -- health-care option," said Wendell Potter, who until early last year was vice president for corporate communications at the big insurer Cigna.
Insurers make paperwork confusing because "they realize that people will just simply give up and not pursue it" if they think they have been shortchanged, Potter said.
More on this story:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/...
merrill (anonymous) says…
His early retirement plan is a way to flush out all of those who do not subscribe to his way of thinking ...... been going in D.C. for some time.
It is a back door way of not enforcing laws, regulations etc etc due lack of employees. It worked for Reagan,Bush and Bush. Defacto deregulation.
bevy (anonymous) says…
By the way, to the poster far above who commented about "State-paid pensions." KPERS retirees are drawing down the funds that they paid IN over their years of employment, plus their employer matched funds. No different than a private sector worker who has a 401K with an employer match. It is not a handout - it's part of our EARNED compensation.
KRichards (anonymous) replies…
wrong!
kpers is much different than a private sector 401k. I would try to explain it to you, but obviously you wouldn't understand.
jafs (anonymous) replies…
It's not a handout, but it's not funded the way you claim.
It's a guaranteed benefits program, not a guaranteed contribution one, and the state's contribution is significant, which is why it's a problem that the state hasn't been contributing their share to the program.
Benefits come from a combination of employee/employer contributions and state funding for the program, and are guaranteed based on years of employment and salary.
A 401K plan is a guaranteed contribution plan, meaning that you and your employer contribute a certain amount, and your benefits are not guaranteed.
jafs (anonymous) replies…
The point about the state paying out benefits was just part of a cost/benefit analysis of this early retirement idea, not a judgment that the benefits weren't earned.