Details of Governor’s Proposed Retirement Plan Unveiled
Over the weekend Governor M. Jodi Rell announced she would submit a plan for retirement incentives for state employees to legislative leaders and hoped to have it acted on this week. It appears that legislative leaders have declined to act quickly, opting instead to visit matter in a February 25th session. While there are important differences, the proposal is not unlike the Early Retirement Incentive Package (ERIP) proposed by House Republicans back in April of 2008. Details of the Governor’s proposal were released by her office today. For a state employee to qualify for the program they would have to be a member of the State Employee Retirement System (SERS) and be a full-time employee aged 55 or older on or before March 31, 2009 and must elect to retire by such date. They must also have 10 or more years of actual, credited state service in SERS, which must consist of time worked and may not include purchased service credits transferred from another employer. They must be on active status on the payroll March 1, 2009.
Individuals looking to retire under the provision will be awarded with three extra years of service added to their service under SERS.
Employees seeking the early retirment must work 35 or more hours a week, and actual wages, not projected wages, will be used to calculate benefits.
The Governor has estimated that her plan will be available to 9,000 state employees, and it is estimated that 3,000 of them would participate.
The House Republican ERIP proposal from last April would have been offered to 11,600 state employees and saved $163 million.
Loading ...
33 Responses to “Details of Governor’s Proposed Retirement Plan Unveiled”
FYI - It is not physically possible or realistic for the State to be able to process 3,000 employees who elect to reitre by March 31st and print out retirement checks by the end of April.
How are they going to handle the enormous amount of paperwork involved. It will be a clerical horror show!
The incentive should be made available thru June 30th; then all who take the incentive would be off the books for the new fiscal year.
Comment made on February 10th, 2009 at 3:27 pmIt’s a good point, that is an awful lot of retirements to process.
The intention of the Governor is to realize savings this fiscal year through the retirements, which is why she is setting such an early deadline. The savings would naturally carry over into the next fiscal year as well.
Comment made on February 10th, 2009 at 3:47 pmIt would be more cost effective to allow employees to use the 3 year chip for age. that would not increase the retirement benefit. using the 3 years for services will add to the total cost. also, mmw is right. the retirement division is backlogged now! they will need to be on 24/7. what are they goinmg to do with accrued leave? pay it all at once or spread it out over a number of years?
Comment made on February 10th, 2009 at 7:27 pmWake up governor Rell and get rid of as many state employees as possible with an early retirement incentive package. And only fill those positions that are necessary. This is the most sound plan for the future of our state. Smaller state workforce will benefit everyone.
Comment made on February 10th, 2009 at 9:11 pmHave an Early Retirement 5 chips and all years used toward age have employees continue to pay union dues so the unions can not complain about union dues
Comment made on February 10th, 2009 at 9:44 pmSome employees normally have limits to how much time (vacation, holiday, etc.) they can carry to retirement. These limits need to be waived with such an aggressive deadline.
Comment made on February 11th, 2009 at 12:41 pm….I agree with Mary D. Why not let the three year incentive be applied towards age ????? I feel that it is unfair for those of us who have 33 plus years of service but have not reached the 55 age group. Hopefully this will be something that can be included in this early incentive proposal.Governor Rell are you listening??? I hope so.
Ready to retire….you bet!
Comment made on February 11th, 2009 at 7:20 pmRetirement should also be offered to employees age 50 with 25 years service. There would be no monetary incentive involved.
Comment made on February 11th, 2009 at 10:06 pmWhy not save the state more money and include part-time state employees who work less than 35 hours a week, meet all the other criteria of the Governor’s proposed ERIP and are willing to retire by March 31,2009. Many are in the state’s Tier I retirement system, as well as Tier II.
Comment made on February 12th, 2009 at 12:31 pmSome older employees have a 4 day work week; that is 4/5 time or 32 hours. What is the sense of requiring 35 hours a week. Why not just figure their time based on 5/5 or 4/5 and add on the 3 years..
Comment made on February 12th, 2009 at 6:26 pmState government is top-heavy! There is also duplication of services. Reduce work force enough to see substantial savings through ERIP and PLEASE don’t re-hire for all positions vacated. Remaining employees will re-distribute work and help each other get it done. Allow 3 year chip toward age up to 55 and/or service time! Let’s call for an ERIP similar to those in the past and make it work this time!
Comment made on February 12th, 2009 at 6:55 pmIt’s better reduce the work force by retirement first. It is far more humane and it won’t throw people over into the already overloaded unemployment lines.
Comment made on February 12th, 2009 at 7:12 pmWhy not save the state more money and include part-time state employees who work less than 35 hours a week, meet all the other criteria of the Governor’s proposed ERIP and are willing to retire by March 31, 2009. Many are in the state’s Tier I retirement system, as well as Tier II.
Speak for Part-time Employees, as well as, Full Time!!
Comment made on February 12th, 2009 at 10:28 pmSomething is wrong.
A tier I employee can retire at age 55. So folks aged 52-54 with over 30 years of service are not eligible for the Governor’s erip.
Employees aged 55 with ten years of service in the Tier II systems can retire at 62. The proposed erip would give them the opportunity to retire 7 years early. Wow!
Comment made on February 13th, 2009 at 7:05 pmThis early retirement plan takes care of employees in the Tier 2 retirement. Do they pay into the retirement system?
Comment made on February 14th, 2009 at 9:16 pmI agree with the above comments. Tier I employees with over 30 years should be given consideration in the Governor’s erip plan.
Comment made on February 15th, 2009 at 5:07 pmThe early erip should take into consideration, tier 1 employee’s ages 52 to 54 with over 30 yrs of state time. They should be able to have the time added to there age or service depending on the circumstance’s.
Comment made on February 15th, 2009 at 9:36 pmThis sounds too much like previous appointees that were given states jobs now want to run with their free benefits.
Be transparent and open and give give a fair offer toward years and age and let it be first come, first served. When you hit a number that works then shut the door.
The current proposal is an insult to existing contracts and to employees that have earned a handshake.
Comment made on February 15th, 2009 at 10:45 pmThis sounds too much like previous appointees that were given states jobs now want to run with their free benefits.
Be transparent and open and give give a fair offer toward years and age and let it be first come, first served. When you hit a number that works then shut the door.
The current proposal is an insult to existing contracts and to employees that have earned a handshake.
Comment made on February 15th, 2009 at 11:03 pmWhy not save the state more money and include part-time state employees who work less than 35 hours a week, meet all the other criteria of the Governor’s proposed ERIP and are willing to retire by March 31, 2009. Many are in the state’s Tier I retirement system, as well as Tier II.
Comment made on February 16th, 2009 at 4:32 pmtier 2 employees do pay into their retirement system. why is the age limit 55? there should be a stipulation for hazardous duty employees who are eligible to retire after 20 years at any age. why do we have to be 55? it makes no sense.our pension doesnt call for us to be 55 to collect retirement benefits like non hazardous employees. so why does this arbitrary age of 55 apply to the hazardous duty employee? it seems unfair to give an incentive to a person based on age when another person a few years younger is also eligible to collect benefits.
Comment made on February 17th, 2009 at 12:10 amWhy is the State excluding all the part time employees? There are many state employees who have worked here for 25 to 30 years or more and are being left out. Obviously, many in this group are Tier 1 and many of them have “significant” accrual of sick time which in some unions is “not” payable to the employee in any form at the end of their employment. If the part time employee is willing to retire by the Mar. 31st deadline, they should be included.
Comment made on February 17th, 2009 at 2:53 pmPlease republicans and democrats consider lowering the age. I am 54.3 years with 34 years of service.
Comment made on February 19th, 2009 at 11:13 amI would be willing to help out and retire! It is a critical time in the state and by allowing more to retire would help doing any layoffs and possibly more furloughs (which I took)! We are taxpayers too and our families. In the past 3 years were given to age and years of service. Now I feel this is discrimantory towards people that miss the 3/31 deadline. What about people that turn 55 in April - how do you think they feel and the part-timers as well! They wanted full time positions and could not get them. The part timers have been doing their part all these years!
Tier I employees could do their part by retiring early. The Federal Government has done this why not the State? Please remember us at 54 we would like to do our part! Please!
I totally agree with Deb! I was able to retire from the Federal Government with over 30 years at age 53.
Comment made on February 19th, 2009 at 11:17 amState employees should be given the right to retire early by giving them the age it does not cost anything.
I agree. State employees should be given the right to retire from age 52-55. I believe this would allow for an additional 1500 people to make that choice and would increase the savings to the state! What else can we do to get this point across? I’ve called most everyone I thought could help.
Comment made on February 19th, 2009 at 11:00 pmHave you considered a retirement incentive that includes state employees working less than 35 hours per week? There are probably many part-time workers in Tier I or II that are of retirement age, drawing benefits and working close to the 35 hour threshold (and meet the other ERIP requirements). Perhaps a pro-rata formula based on hours worked per week or some other equitable factor could apply for these employees.
Comment made on February 20th, 2009 at 1:02 amI agree. State employees should be given the right to retire from age 52-55. I believe this would allow for an additional 1500 people to make that choice and would increase the savings to the state!
Comment made on February 23rd, 2009 at 12:32 pmObviously the governor is low-balling on the RIP. She wants it to be effective 3/31 and 3 YOS for over 55. It is not likely this will be the actual offer. You can’t blame her for trying though.
A reasonable offer would be something more like 3 chips (YOS/age) offered over a 3-18 month period. A 3 year RIP doesn’t actually look so attractive especially when you figure out that you can reach the same effective retirement income by continuing to work another 1.5 years. Do the math people. Don’t get caught on a fixed income in a hyper-inflation economy - it’s coming. We’re printing money like crazy for the stimulus package so your (retirement or not) buck isn’t going to be worth nearly as much in the near future.
Comment made on February 25th, 2009 at 1:58 amBTW - whoever manages this blog really should change the time from Greenwich mean time to the real time in Hartford (-5 hours).
Comment made on February 25th, 2009 at 2:00 amI hope the 3 year chip is coming. The economy is bad, let older State Employee help- 52-55 start with 55, then go 54. Include part time. Get rid of contract Personal Services Contract) employees high paid - come and go and don’t do alot!
Comment made on February 25th, 2009 at 10:15 amThe state should publish their demands of state employees’ waiting on sebac for any answers is a slow process how can we make informed decisions without knowing whats expected.
Comment made on March 22nd, 2009 at 10:56 pmE.R.I.P COMING?………Connecticut employee’s have given a very large amount of give backs ,thus doing there part in this crisis. BUT will it be enough? Will enough be saved by the RIP…….? Come July 1 st open the ERIP to 52-54 year old State employee’s…….Now is the time to decrease state government………Do it in one sweep……..
Comment made on May 10th, 2009 at 5:11 pmE-MAIL THE GOVERNOR and/or your STATE REPRESENTITIVE ask to OPEN UP THE ERIP AND SAVE CONN. Millions More during this economic crisis.
Does anyone have reason to believe the R.I.P. will become an E.R.I.P.? I’m hoping for this also.
Comment made on June 3rd, 2009 at 3:43 amLeave a Comment