Two scoops are better than one, at least if you are a public employee…
Those whipping up public angst about the pay, benefits and pensions government employees receive are on a new harangue – government employees who are eligible to retire, do so and then go to work in another job for government, drawing pay and benefits for the new job. The sensationalistic approach to reporting cases such as this is to add the retirement pay of these retirees to the pay of the new job they have, and to make it appear even worse throw in the cost of non-taxable fringe benefits.
For high level jobs, such as the Orange County Sheriff or CEO, the total is over $400,000 a year. Many taxpayers that read about such combined compensation packages get angry, feeling taxpayers are being ripped off. But is this the case, or is it shallow analysis, purposeful incomplete reporting, jealousy, or just what?
Take our Sheriff. According to news reports she is drawing $ 138,007 in annual retirement pay from the County of Los Angeles, and her compensation package here (including benefits that are not taxable income) is reported to be $ 354,236 a year, for a combined total of $ 492,243 per year. A tidy sum, but where is the taxpayer rip-off?
If Sheriff Hutchens was not the Orange County Sheriff, she would still draw her LA County retirement pay. And the Orange County Board of Supervisors would have appointed someone else to be Sheriff at the pay Hutchens is earning here. Bottom line, taxpayers would have the same costs – $ 492,243 a year (For the sake of this argument I am accepting the premise that Hutchens’ LA retirement is “taxpayer money” but that itself is an arguable point.)
Such is the case when any vacant government job is filled by someone who is drawing a retirement from a government agency. Filling a job with a so called double-dipper does not cost the taxpayer any more than if filled by someone who is not yet a government retiree.
Why the attack on double dipping then? With unemployment in the 10% range it galls people to hear of such income levels. There is much envy, jealousy, and anger. Unions fight the practice for unionized government jobs because a job temporarily filled by a retired government worker does not bring in monthly dues to the union. And anti-government media and special interests have found many in the public can be steered to a backlash movement by telling only part of the story.
Here is the rest of that story.
There is much to be said for hiring experienced executives for the toughest jobs in government. Many times the most experienced have had a government career some place and have retired from that job. Recruiting them, and yes sometimes begging them, to take tough jobs like Orange County Sheriff or CEO obtains the best experienced talent available. The taxpayers are not being ripped off but are being well served. There is no taxpayer rip-off here. The costs are the same.
Are you joking? You must be! Of course you realize a smart management team can replace the departing Sheriff Hutchens or any other retiring talent, with a junior up and comer, and you don’t have to pay them at the same salary which the outgoing retiree-soon-to-be-double-dipper was earning when she left. That would just be so dumb to do. You’re so funny! There’s got to be other people out there with the right character, temperament, and qualities, and she grow into and develop the skills just like Hutchens did.
No. 1 – if there is such alternative talent out there I would hope they can string a few words and sentences together that display better grammar than you do! Ability to communicate effectively in writing should be a consideration. As to the pay of the Sheriff – an elected position – I believe it is pretty much set at that level regardless of who fills the job. Could be wrong on that, but I don’t think so. There is also a requirement in State law that a person seeking that office must have a law enforcement background and experience at the management level. Thus field of capable, qualified applicants may be a lot smaller than you would think.
No. 1 – if there is such alternative talent out there I would hope they can string a few words and sentences together that display better grammar than you do! Ability to communicate effectively in writing should be a consideration. As to the pay of the Sheriff – an elected position – I believe it is pretty much set at that level regardless of who fills the job. Could be wrong on that, but I don’t think so. There is also a requirement in State law that a person seeking that office must have a law enforcement background and experience at the management level. Thus the field of capable, qualified applicants may be a lot smaller than you would think.
no double dipping Costanza
Older than, you smug, self righteous priss, you must be a member of the new aristocracy, the public employees, with your inflated salaries, early retirements and Cadillac work and retirement benefits, ’cause in your little elitist brain, we’re so damn lucky to have you and your A+ spelling prowess and haughtiness.
No. 2 and 5 – my my aren’t we angry? (Though I do have to admit that is a pretty good retort). Get off your duff and do something about it then. As for your assumption of my background, you have it wrong, but I am sure that will not change your non-analytic perspective. Cool off, look at the facts absent the anger, and reach a conclusion based on the facts, not emotion. I think I have done that on this issue. My analysis is in agreement with this blog post – that though the total compensation to a few of the 17,000 county employees who are retired and working also is a shocker to many, the cost to the taxpayers is not different by hiring a non-retiree vs. a retiree. Here is an example I am familiar with – until the current budget cut atmosphere of the public school districts a large portion of those willing to do substitute teaching were retired teachers willing to come back and work as sub’s. That practice saved the day for school districts as there was a shortage of teachers. Should that have been banned? Unfortunately today most substitutes are teachers who were full time until budget cut reductions laid them off. What really troubles me about issues like this is that the impact to taxpayers is mis-characterized to help mount campaigns of anger that just might lead to even greater mediocracy at the upper echelons of government, in the classroom, and elsewhere. As for your suggestion that people can be hired who would develop the necessary skills, these top jobs are not for trainees. Succession planning would be nice, but when you have something like the Carona scandal that is out the window. Some say the existance of double dippers means the system is broken – in my opinion that kind of broad-brush characterization needs to be challenged by demanding good fiscal analysis. One of the reasons government in California is such a mess is that it has so often been driven by theme vs. analysis, including at the ballot box. If you still feel this is a problem that needs to be fixed, I am interested in reading your recommendation on how to fix it.