This story should repulse both liberal and conservative. These retired school personnel have been rehired into the school system with waivers which are suppose to be issued when they can’t find anyone else to hire. Isn’t unemployment high, does every teacher and school administrator in the state have a job already?
We are talking serious money too. Top earners made $277K, $246K, 227K, $218K and on and on… which will increase their retirement benefits as well.
Nearly 100 retired educators in the Commonwealth were allowed to earn their full salaries while collecting full pensions in the past school year, a growing practice critics call state-sanctioned “double dipping.”
The retirees collectively made more than $5 million on the job while taking home $5.5 million in pension payments, according to information obtained by the Globe.
Can we all agree that this is totally wrong? Every single dollar going into these double dipper’s pockets is coming out of budgets which are already strained. Budgets which are cutting needed programs and teachers while these people are screwing us. I don’t blame the people as much as I blame the system which was created by the union.
State law strictly limits how much public retirees can earn if they return to a government job, barring them from earning more, pension and salary combined, than they would receive if they had not retired. But in 2000, the Legislature created an exemption for certain educators, because of concerns that an early-retirement incentive program would send hundreds of teachers into retirement and create widespread shortages – an exodus that never came to pass.
Our Governer and Legislature need to address this ASAP. Much like the Police Detail program, this problem is burning money which is needed for legitimate programs.
I’ve only been aware of people like Chemistry teachers doing this – in other words, only in subject areas that are incredibly difficult to find qualified teachers. If you’re at or near the number of years to make a full pension, why bother continuing to teach in public schools? You’re only losing money by doing that. This is a way to keep some of the talent in the system if it’s otherwise unavailable.
<
p>I’d agree that we should be careful such things aren’t abused, but you’ve provided no such statistics to indicate that. Logically, I can’t see any teachers hiring these ‘double dippers’ if it’s going to cost them significantly more, unless there just aren’t enough qualified teachers applying for the positions.
not teachers. Grr no edit buttons!
story
<
p>This is just an article and not ll the facts though. I have problems even with the example of a chemistry teacher in areas that are hard to find. Realize some of these people are school administrators and principals making over $100K in addition to their retirement. Are you saying they can’t find anyone who wants to be the principal making over $100K, sometimes well over $100K?
<
p>Plus, as the story points out, many of these waivers were granted with no ecord of any search for a qualified person.
You never really addressed my critics, so I’m going to point them out again. If there schools can’t find enough qualified people, then no, I don’t have a problem with a chemistry teacher, for example, making a 3 figure salary when combined with their pension – again, if there’s no other people around. It’s obviously a temporary measure, but it could be a band aid that allows a school to truly find the permanent chemistry teacher they really want. They may not have found that person on the first go, but could find them if they had another year to look.
<
p>Furthermore, as Johnk mentioned, yes, they’re earning pensions in addition to salary, but they were already entitled to that. They’d be getting that anyway. How is this any different than teachers who retire on their pensions going to work in the private sector or for private schools after they retire? My dad (a teacher) can’t wait to retire because he’ll be ‘double dipping’ in the private sector.
<
p>So, if we have needs that can’t be filled because of a lack of qualified candidates during a particular year – and there’s one of these well qualified, veteran teachers available for a year or so, I don’t see why we shouldn’t allow them a salary in addition to their pension. There’s no way you can get them to work for a year or two otherwise, because they’d be losing tens of thousands of dollars if they went back to teaching and didn’t collect on their pensions… and there aren’t many people willing to do that (and those who would I’m sure would be much more likely to find a private school, so they could keep their pensions anyway).
I doubt very much that your dad, or anyone else, gets to be paid for a job that he is pretend-retired from, while collecting a pension for such retirement.
work as a teacher at a private school while collecting your pension after working 25+ years at a public school. Or you could leave the teaching profession altogether and do something else. The point is that a great many retired teachers are more than happy to retire, because it offers them a few years of being able to earn a pension in addition to their regular wage. I think that’s perfectly fair, especially given the fact that pensioned teachers don’t have access to social security, even in the cases where they’ve worked in other fields for the necessary years and have paid their dues for it.
There’s nothing worse than a bitter retired teacher who won’t shut up about the ‘social security that Regan took away from him.’
<
p>
<
p>Just so you have all the facts on the table, back in the 60s or 70s certain government employees who work a requisite amount of time could retire on full pension, then go to the private sector and work to retirment to receive SS.
<
p>The problem was that said person took home a combined pension that exceed the pension of a worker who spent his entire work career in the private sector. It also exceed the pension of a person who spent his entire career in the public sector.
<
p>I think in ’74 or thereabouts the Fed and many States fixed this ‘double dip’. Fair? Unfair? You decide.
<
p>However, if it’s your position that a retiree should get SS because he paid into it, then we agree that SS should have a private contribution aspect to it, and you are well on your way to understanding the Privatize SS position.
you should get the rewards. Isn’t that basic conservative ideology? Getting paid what you deserve? Sure, it’s a sweet retirement package, but private sector employees make more and, hypothetically, should have saved enough to make up what would be the difference. Plus, people could have chosen to work long enough in the public sector to get a pension.
<
p>No, the principal is that if you give money to the government for your retirement, the government should return your money to you.
<
p>But, you sidestepped my point. Under prior law,
<
p>1: Joe1 works 35 years with government; qualifies for max Retirement of $2000 per month; quits work and goes to private for 10 years and receives Max SS of $1894 per month, in addition to the $2000 he receives.
<
p>2: Joe2 works for 45 years with private sector and receives $1894.
<
p>3: Joe3 works for government for 45 years and receives $2000 per month.
<
p>Is it your position that this was a fair result?
<
p>Further your sweeping statement that ‘private sector employees make more’ is either overbroad, or undersubstantiated.
because if Joe2’s only bringing home 1894, he obviously had the wrong priorities and it’s his own god damn fault. More conservative ideology!
<
p>$1,894 is currently the highest SS benefit paid at retirement.
<
p>You actually think the dichotomy of the three Joes is fair? I’m surprised.
ever hear of private investments? Work in the private sector, be prepared to invest some money on your own, because you don’t get a pension. I ABSOLUTELY think that’s fair and, honestly, if conservatives were consistent, they would too.
That’s not double dipping. Working at the job from which you retired is double dipping.
I certainly didn’t.
<
p>What I said was that it’s sometimes necessary and can be used to a town’s advantage, providing them with qualified candidates where none would otherwise exist, or giving them time to find a qualified candidate – especially if a position opens up midway through the year.
<
p>Public education is ultimately about making sure kids know their stuff. Putting people in charge of school system before they’re ready, or finding the only half-brain teacher available a good way to make sure the kids don’t know their left from their right. Sometimes, to avoid all that, we may just have to double dip. Get over it.
I have a sneaking suspician that the searches consist of “Gee, no one has applied to teach chemistry now that Mr. Schmucklefuck has retired. Let’s call Mr. Schmucklefuck and see if he wants to teach again.”
verifiable evidence that that’s largely the case, then I’d say it was time for some healthy reform. However, given that most of these teachers are in their late 50s/early 60s, there’s only so many years we can call Mr. Schmucklefuck back anyway, so I guess I’m just not terrified of the situation. I am generally a skeptical person, at least post 2006…
a whole nother issue.
<
p>Maybe a good way to address this problem is to make the defined benefit pay out only when the teacher reaches 65 AND is no longer working full time.
For years, the state has been creating policy to get teachers to retire earlier, not later.
<
p>Plus, I’m opposed to the idea that people should basically have to work until they die, or 4-5 years beforehand. Heaven forbid people actually get to enjoy their golden years!
aren’t schools just paying salary? The issue is double dipping, pension and salary. Taxpayers overall are getting the hit, but the schools that hire them aren’t. This waiver process does seem to need a review. Everyone in this article kind of says so. I think there’s a problem here that needs to be addressed.
I’m not crazy about double dipping, and I don’t know why the legislature structured this the way they did. On the other hand, while it’s possible that the Globe’s assertion that retirements did not create a shortage
, I believe there is a nationwide teacher shortage affecting a range of geographic areas and subject areas. The wave of baby-boomer teachers was retiring whether the incentives created the shortage or not.
<
p>I was on a search committee for a new superintendent for our school district this year. Without getting into a lot of personal details, we had slim pickins. Some candidates did not fill out the application correctly or completely. One told us he was interested in the job because he had maxed out his pension in a neighboring state and needed to commute to Massachusetts now.
<
p>The school committee had to waive the requirement that the search committee forward the names of at least five qualified candidates. We forwarded three names and one dropped out (for good reason) before the school committee could open their interviewing process.
<
p>We didn’t hire a retiree this time, but I can see why some school districts do. Our district has temporarily brought back retirees for posts ranging from principal to deputy superintendent. This has been a godsend in cases where a newhire left an administrative post after a year or less on the job, or when someone left at a time in the school year when few applicants would be likely to apply.
<
p>If you are actually interested in some background, here is one link that explains one aspect of the problem (the shortage of principals). I don’t believe this is a
When you consider that school executives could have chosen careers as private sector executives, that may put some of your compensation concerns in perspective.
This story just screams “wrong” on many levels – while I can see the need for an occasional arrangement of this nature, it certainly seems to be getting out of hand.
<
p>One paragraph on page 2 of the article pretty much sums up why this happened:
<
p>
<
p>Perhaps the exodus never came to pass because this lucrative program was in place? It’s hard to tell for certain – but this needs to be cut back or eliminated entirely, at the very least the same limits as for other public retirees need to be applied…
…that the top earners you cite are all Superintendents? They are the only ones I know of in the public school hierarchy making six-figures to begin with. I don’t even think principals make 100K in my town. While this does seem a bit odd, I believe that teacher salaries should be high five-figures anyway, so if a teacher is supposed to make $40,000 and is “double-dipping” to the tune of $80,000, I’m not going to complain too loudly. They also should be allowed to collect both Social Security and MA retirement if they paid into both over the course of their career, which in my understanding is currently illegal.
Think it through.
<
p>This is the scenario.
<
p>A teacher has worked for many years, and retired. They receive a pension. This pension was budgeted for many years ago, when they were first hired, and funded by contributions made to an account every year while the teacher worked. From that fund, they now receive a pension.
<
p>A school district searched far and wide, but could find no one to fill a spot for a teacher. The school district has money budgeted to pay a teacher the salary to teach for a year.
<
p>The options are:
<
p>A) Not hire anyone.
or
B) Hire the only available option – a retired teacher.
<
p>Choice seems pretty clear to me.
<
p>Think it through differently.
<
p>Suppose you worked 35 years for Coca-Cola (insert any major corporation’s name here). Over those 35 years, the company paid into a retirement fund for you. You retire, and begin collecting benefits from the retirement fund. After a year or two, you get bored, and go get a job at another company (or even Coca-Cola, again). Should Coca-Cola stop paying your pension? I think not, since the pension was part of your contract with them … you work so many years, and they pay you a pension when you retire from them.
<
p>Seems simple to me.
…the sticking point is that in many cases, the district didn’t search “far and wide”, but grabbed a local face.
<
p>Now as been said elsewhere, good talent (particularly for principal and superintendent) is hard to find. The job just isn’t worth it in most eyes. I’ve only this problem — districts are ignoring the first half of a reasonable policy (search first, hire retirees second) and the DoE doesn’t mind.
Searching far and wide can mean many things, and requires even more. First, how far is this search? How much money and effort is the system willing to put into it? Are you going to fly people in from all over the country for an interview? How are you going to advertise for the position – and what’s the budget on that? I can only imagine people complaining about school systems placing ads all over the net and in major newspapers across the country.
<
p>More importantly, finding the right person for the right job at the right salary all requires time. Therefore, hiring a ‘local face’ for a year or two can have benefits – it’s not necessarily a hackish thing to do. If all you want is a year or two to find and interview a few truly good candidates, instead of trying to make a decision over the course of just a few months, then why not hire someone who’s either done the job before or at least knows the town well and could truly address its needs?
Districts were required to show they advertised the position, supply a list of candidates, and explain why each was not fit for the job. Hardly an onerous requirement.
<
p>I don’t disagree that a retiree may be the right person for a job, but I think it’s not too much to ask that districts follow regulations.
Seems to me, that if someone has put in their time, retired, and then is called back due to a shortage of qualified applicants, there is nothing wrong with with them earning another paycheck – whether in the public, or in the dreaded private sectors.
<
p>This post smacks of enoughness.
“Every single dollar going into these double dipper’s pockets is coming out of budgets which are already strained”
<
p>Pensions have been paid for already, so “every single dollar” is not right.
<
p>But, this practice needs to be used rarely if at all.
<
p>When we re-hire retirees we are missing the chance bring new educators into the system, who will be adding value to it for decades to come.
but often times it’s tough to find strong candidates for difficult jobs. It’s better to take a band aid that will be able to do the job well for a year or two, giving you a better chance to find a permanent replacement. Strong examples being if someone goes out midway through the year, when many of the best are all locked up already, etc.
How can you nickel and dime teachers when politicians on the state dole routinely continue law practices, private consultancies and various other forms of ‘double dipping’? Where’s the outrage over that?
<
p>How do you justify your fucked-up outrage at teachers when soldiers retire from the US and, while collecting their pensions, are hired by BLACKWATER to do THE EXACT SAME THINGS THEY DID IN THE MILITARY? Huh?
<
p>It can, and does, happen in nearly every field: Cops, doctors, politicians, athletes. Why, alla sudden we gotta get our knickers in a bunch over teachers?
<
p>Far more egregious sins are committed in plain site everyday… BUT NOOOOOO…. Let’s go after the TEACHERS! Let’s let them deal with those often unruly and unwilling kids AND do so under extra-ordinarily strict scrutiny NOT APPLIED to others. Horray for us! We get bonus points for making their job harder!!
<
p>This is so utterly bullshit. Utterly.
Pensions – the new third rail of Massachusetts politics. This thread, as far as I’m concerned, is no exception.
The fundamental problem is that there is inadequate state funding of our local schools. Because our schools have to rely excessively on the property tax, rather than the income tax, they have real limits on their ability to compensate and attract teachers and administrators that are in short supply.
<
p>As a result, from a local school district perspective, if the going rate is 80-110K for a job and it only has 80K in its budget, it will not find a candidate who will accept the job at the low end of the range, but can find a candidate who is double dipping who will fill the job. Because the pension is paid by the state, not by local property tax revenue, it is, from a local district perspective a way to increase state aid.
<
p>If the state wants to fix the problem, and fix our schools they need to increase state aid by increasing the income tax 0.5% and sharing the $1B in extra revenue on a per child per district basis so that all schools can have the funding they need to run their schools while reducing their reliance on their property tax burden. This would result in an increase of about $1000 per child in state aid and do more than all the Project Readiness proposals to improve our schools while retaining local control. It would also reduce the need to rely on double dipping to hire scarce teachers and administrators.
<
p>Bruce Leicher
Let’s not start a whole new subject in this thread. Increasing the income tax is a great idea but has a small connection to the double dipping. People getting angry and cursing doesn’t help much. It undermines any beneficial points you may have. No one started off condemning teachers as a whole. The article clearly indicates that well connected individuals are the big beneficiaries of this.
<
p>The basic problem is that the school sytems are not following the rules. The DOE isn’t enforcing the rules. If the school sytems don’t follow the rules they should be sanctioned, fined and not be allowed to use this process. The DOE should also clean up it’s act. They actually are promoting this as a reirement option.
<
p>If you look at the form, http://www.doe.mass.edu/educat… , it is a request to hire a retired teacher, not a principal or superintendant. That is where the rubber meets the road. These principals and superintendants shouldn’t be allowed to participate unless they come back as a teacher at the teacher salary. If school districts can’t find a suitable principal or superintendant, they should either leave that position unfilled or promote from within on an interim basis and then hire a teacher to take take the promoted teachers spot.