Deseret News | Double-dippers save money

Reader comments
Readers' forum: Double-dippers save money

well... | 6:45 a.m. Nov. 16, 2009

teaching without pay is not double dipping, so you are not part of the conversation in that case. The conversation is about those who collect retirement checks (when the retirement system is going bankrupt) and still collect a decent full paycheck. IF they want to come out of retirement and work, that's great with me---but stop the retirement checks. It's that simple. Retirement checks should be for retirement, especially when faced with scary possibilities that the retirement system will go bankrupt. Then there won't be funds for anyone!

C'Mon | 6:49 a.m. Nov. 16, 2009

It's all about jealousy and control from people who really don't care about you or I. They only care about themselves.

The accounting is flawed and frankly, it is biased.

Congrats on making money that is closer to your worth as a teacher than what it was before you retired.

Confused | 8:25 a.m. Nov. 16, 2009

Well.
You really need to do some homework before you post. Instead of following blindly what the republicans are telling you, do some research.

First, The retirement system sustained a hugh down turn, however, it does not mean that they are bankrupt. That is the spin the legislature is spinning. There has been several studies that state that the fund will rebound and sustain the retirement.

Second, I feel that they are deprving me of a right to work (which Utah is) because I fullfilled my commitment to them by working between 25-30 years for them.

Third, When you do come back to work for the state in some capacity, they do not place money in the retirement system, they put it in your 401K.

Comments continue below

Anonymous | 8:44 a.m. Nov. 16, 2009

Great letter. The double dippers as you call them (I prefer to see them as reentering the workforce) are a great deal. the situation in this letter is far more common than those who prearrange their continued employment in the same position prior to retirement.

We need to be careful that we don't solve one problem by creating three more.

There is a real teacher shortage in Utah. Eliminating some of your best qualified and most experienced teachers from the field because you are worried about an accounting problem is not wise policy. They have earned their retirement benefit according to the rules, and that should not eliminate them from the pool of potential teachers in the future.

The real problem is that fund managers panicked and sold low, thus locking in the losses. Blaming the reentry workers now is a bit disingenuous.

Anonymous | 8:45 a.m. Nov. 16, 2009

Exactly.

They are calling it double dipping but they would hire a teacher at the same salary anyway. This way you get experience at a bargain price.

As far as education goes, rehiring an experienced teacher does NOT cost the state anything extra. In fact it probably saves money because they won't be paying the same benefits to the rehired teacher.

As for police and fire, I don't know enough about their system to be able to answer if it is different there.

Bogus | 9:09 a.m. Nov. 16, 2009

The legislature is using scare tactics again. The retirement system is not going bankrupt. If they start a new retirement system, everybody will be worse off than they are now. It will also cost more money to contribute to two retirement programs. What does the legislature have against our educators?

deadwood | 11:13 a.m. Nov. 16, 2009

There is not a lack of people applying for a job, as a teacher.
It is natural, when you work with people for a long time, for you to want to keep them, or bring them back.
It is not however, always the best thing for the students.
I know my own experience, was that many teachers close to retiring were burnouts.
They had lost their spark, and really did not care one way or another.
The newer teachers, who had not been teaching for as long, had more energy, and were better teachers.
Sometimes the best thing to do is get new blood in, and the deadwood out.
If we really cared about experience, then why do we not hire retired professionals, who have actually worked in the fields being taught.
The education field protects their turf, by requiring a licence, and classes which a professional will not do (why would they bother jumping through some hoops)

2 bits | 11:18 a.m. Nov. 16, 2009

I agree that these double-dippers CAN be a good deal for the State.

They give the State the opportunity to bring in some VETERAN, proven talent usually at the price of an entry level employee. That's a good deal.

These double-dippers are usually willing to work for less on their second job because they are already collecting income from the retirement setup in their first job. Most of them are working mostly for benefits (healthcare) and service to the community (I think).

At least I HOPE the State is getting a VERY great bargain by hiring these retired workers. If they are, it seems like a great deal for the State. If the State is paying permium wages to bring back these retired workers... I'd hope they re-evaluate doing that and start investing in younger workers and training new employees for the jobs. There are too many unemployed young workers now days to be filling the positions that would be open to them with retired workers.

G.S. | 11:40 a.m. Nov. 16, 2009

While the legislature is at it, be sure to stop all the double dipper workers who are getting a retirement from the Military yet are getting a paycheck from a 2nd career or job.

If you think about it | 12:30 p.m. Nov. 16, 2009

If you think about it, aren't all Legislators "double-dippers"?

We have a lay-legislature. So these guys obviously have Other jobs, or are retired, or have some Other source of income to support their families.

Legislators don't get paid enough in the few months they spend in session to support a family.

Do we need to outlaw THEM working second jobs, or comming out of retirement to work for the State?

Which double dippers | 12:41 p.m. Nov. 16, 2009

It seems this teacher is not the double dipper that causes problems. As I remember the real complaints a few years ago, were the managers of agencies retiring then being hired back at an increase in pay, not a decrease as the teacher is experiencing.

Normally the benefit of a person retiring after x number of years is that they are replaced with someone new, who theoretically going to be at a lower pay scale than someone who had been in the job for 30 years. The thought of them retiring and then being hired back at a higher salary does not seem that beneficial. Just goes to show, if you are at the top end it works out for you, if you are a mear employee, you get the shaft.

Oh Please | 12:49 p.m. Nov. 16, 2009

Excuse me . . . didn't these folks earn their retirement fair and square? so if the state is going to pay someone to do their jobs anyway, how is it double dipping if they come back to do them? We pay either way!

All good points, | 1:51 p.m. Nov. 16, 2009

However, the fact still remains that we are in a bad economy and it seems that it would help the economy if employed people did not also get retirement checks - assuming that their employment check is greater than their retirement check. That money could be used to raise wages for other teachers.

deadwood | 11:13 a.m. Nov. 16, 2 | 2:31 p.m. Nov. 16, 2009

A little over-generalization in your post. The retired teachers who are burned out and lazy are not the ones wanting to keep working, nor are they the ones being hired back..

The Districts know who are the good and bad ones. They talk to each other. They don't hire the bad ones back./

They go to Charter Schools : -) (Joke)

Double dippers in sports | 2:46 p.m. Nov. 16, 2009

I wish we would have had a law about double-dipping when Fisher retired from the NBA (to get out of his contract with the Jazz without his new employer having to trade anyone to get him or to match his salary).

But it was good for SOMEONE! At least LA got a veteran guard with playoff experience at a VERY cheep price and they didn't even have to trade anyone or worry about the salary cap to get him. That sounds like THEY got a GREAT deal!

Double Dippers Can Save $$ | 3:07 p.m. Nov. 16, 2009

The way I understand it, if you retire you have to wait a year to be re-hired. Even then you start at the bottom of the pay scale. Also, you are no longer accruing retirement (pension) benefits since they are frozen at your retirement point. So...mathematically speaking, a double dipper costs the system less. They have a lower salary and do not accrue new retirement. This makes them even less expensive to hire than a new hire...who would have the salary plus the retirement.

Speaking of Sports | 3:12 p.m. Nov. 16, 2009

Double dippers are the Greg Ostertag of the workforce. They negotiated a salary from a strong position and then everyone gets mad at them for it. Greg was overpaid most of his career because he re-negotiated when centers were getting paid outrageous salaries. Don't ge mad at him for being smart. Don't be mad at double-dippers for smart negotiating...especially after a lifetime of working for less than they probably were worth.

The Least We Can Do | 9:05 p.m. Nov. 16, 2009

Teachers make such pathetic wages. The least we can do is allow them to "double dip." I know David Judd quite well and know what a great teacher he is. Any parent would be thrilled to have him teacher their kids. This new legislation would prevent quality teachers from returning to do what they love and what they do so well. It allows principals to bring back the very BEST teachers!

All Knowing | 11:49 p.m. Nov. 16, 2009

@G.S. 11:40 a.m.:

"While the legislature is at it, be sure to stop all the double dipper workers who are getting a retirement from the Military yet are getting a paycheck from a 2nd career or job."

But when the military retires he will get his military retirement plus his social security.

Not so for a civilian government (federal) employee who will get either his civil service or social security cut. The government will not allow you to get full benefits from both even though you paid in to both.

re: the least we can do | 9:10 a.m. Nov. 17, 2009

Actually teachers make pretty good money if you consider hours worked, and benefits.
Lets be honest, if they could make more money doing something else, most of them would work somewhere else.
Its a trade off for teachers, the direct pay is not as high (although it is pretty good), but the benefits are really good.
Who else has an actual pension retirement program anymore?
There is also alot of job security, once they pass their probationary period, it is very hard for them to be fired.
Ten weeks vacation is pretty sweet.
Anyone with a child can tell you how much time they get off during the year.
They make more money then most people in the social service field, both have an equal level of education.
For every teacher, there is a social worker that works more hours, for less money.
I know social workers that left the field to go teach, because the pay was more,the job less stressful, and they did not have to work as much.
I would remind any teacher that wants to complain that there is a big line of people who want your job.

Add your comment

Comments are monitored. Any comments found to be abusive, offensive, off-topic, misrepresentative, more than 200 words or containing URLs will not be posted.

Words Remaining

E-mail address: For internal use only. We may want to contact you to publish your comment (not your e-mail address) in the newspaper or for a separate story idea.