The Rehire Geezer Feds Act
By David S. Orr
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
By now you have probably heard of a bill pending in the Senate (S.629), the "Part-Time Reemployment of Annuitants Act of 2009." (See FedSmith for Ralph Smith's article of May 26, 2009) This bill, if passed, would essentially eliminate the annuity salary offset, with some restrictions and conditions - obviously a potential boon for retirees who want to come back and make a contribution, or just make a few bucks.
FULL DISCLOSURE
First of all, let me invoke the principle of "Full Disclosure" — I am a retiree, since 2003, now a contractor-consultant. Gee, it seems like only yesterday, getting up at 6, fighting the traffic to a probably-full Metro parking lot, squeezing onto a subway car, standing during the 45-minute trip downtown, dealing with the drama of being a federal manager for 9-10 hours and then doing it all over again in the evening - yes, I want to do THAT again!
But assuming I do. . .
S.629 would permit agencies to rehire, on a limited basis, retirees without offsetting their annuity payment. (Certain agencies, like DHS, already have similar authority, but this would be government-wide.) The thinking behind this bill, at least publicly, is that the imminent "retirement tsunami" is going to create such knowledge and skill gaps that rehiring these kinds of folks will fill critical needs. Don't get me wrong, I like the idea, but first let me say something about this stupid "tsunami" idea. . .
TSUNAMI OR RIPPLE?
As a human resources (HR) director for the last twenty-two years of my career, I've been hearing about a retirement tsunami for as long as I can remember, which admittedly is not very far back in some instances. I've gone to conferences about it; I've heard "futurists" lecture about it (talk about a great scam - call yourself a "futurist" and government agencies and private companies will actually PAY you large sums of money to tell them what you think is going to happen in twenty years or so - where were all these bozos in 1989 when they should have predicted the recession?); I've read official memos and studies from OPM about it - and you know what? I'm still dry. No tsunami; maybe just a ripple.
There's no question that the retirement of many "boomers" (who were CSRS!!) has caused skill shortages in certain professions in many agencies. HR is one of those fields - my consultant comrades and I could be working full-time if we wanted, but many of us, not mentioning any names, would rather spend the bulk of our time at the beach, playing golf and sipping dry martinis. The tsunami may eventually come, but right now, with all those retirement-eligibles who didn't diversify their FERS accounts, it just ain't happening.
NARFE SAYS "YES"
The National Active and Retired Federal Employees Association (NARFE), the federal counterpart to AARP, is pushing the bill - it would obviously benefit many of their constituents. And it would provide agencies who need it a way to meet their specialty needs without hiring expensive contractors (wait a minute, I thought I FAVORED this Bill!).
SO WHAT'S THE PROBLEM?
You may have heard that there was an election last November - a labor union-friendly administration is now running things (so, genius, if they're so labor-friendly, where's that new Executive Order I predicted a few months ago in a FedSmith article? - but that's another story.) Anyway, so what? The "So what" is that federal unions oppose the Bill.
Unlike the Bush era, now when federal unions talk, people in Congress, and presumably the White House, listen. But why would unions oppose something that might help the Government do its job and at the same time get them some new dues-payers? They say it's because this kind of non-competitive hiring authority would subvert the merit system and veterans preference.
I don't have any inside information about the unions' strategy, but they've also probably figured out that retirees are notoriously CHEAP! Why on earth should we want to pay union dues? If we don't like the way things are going, we're not going to have the union file a useless grievance - we'll just quit! There's nothing in it for us, simply put. And there's nothing in it for the unions. The bottom line is, just like the National Football League Players Association (NFLPA) asserted during last year's sometimes ugly struggle over medical care for retired football players, the union represents EMPLOYEES, not retirees. They may negotiate benefits that eventually apply to retirees, but that's not their constituency. Nor are a bunch of geezer temporary employees on part-time schedules who would rather be on the golf course. It's just not where the money is. Unions want agencies to hire new, permanent, full-time career employees. And I don't blame them.
SO WILL IT PASS?
I think the Bill has a tough journey ahead — even if it passes the Senate, the House may be a different story. It might eventually pass with additional conditions. As an HR guy, I generally favor anything that gives managers additional tools to accomplish their missions. But what I call an additional tool, the unions call a subversion of the merit system. It's an honest disagreement — I guess it just depends on where you're sitting.
© 2009 David S. Orr. All rights reserved. This article may not be reproduced without express written consent from David S. Orr.
|
Readers' Comments
Posted: October 29, 2009 5:06 AM
Posted: October 27, 2009 9:05 AM
Posted: October 26, 2009 11:44 AM
View All Comments »