Martin Hawver

By Martin Hawver

Every now and again, a good idea pops up that, on second thought, seems a dab unfair. That’s what the Legislature is here to fix ... or at least consider fixing.

The good idea? That was last summer’s program to encourage long-tenured state employees to retire early so that their job slots could be eliminated or if the retirees’ jobs still need to be done, replaced with new, probably younger workers who would make less money.

If you were close to retirement, the state offered a little bonus for you to go ahead and get off the payroll – either $6,500 in cash or the employee’s single health insurance would be paid for five years or 42 months for family coverage, presumably until he or she qualified for Medicare.

That’s not a bad little buyout deal. And, it worked pretty well, with more than 1,000 state employees retiring early, taking their choice of the cash (A retirement cruise? A down payment on a Harley to ride into the sunset?). Or, the five years of health insurance, worth probably $30,000 over the five years.

The state saved about $9 million (difference between salary for employees and the buyout costs) this year and figures to save about $25 million in the fiscal year that starts July 1.

Key was that the deal was announced in mid-July and state employees had to retire before Oct. 1.

Well, at least one legislator, Rep. Bob Grant (D-Frontenac), quickly heard from constituents who retired on or before July 1 last year, or weren’t eligible to retire until after Oct. 1 last year. They didn’t get the buyout deal.

Hmmm ... Most ring-wise state employees know that July 1 is the date that most state laws take effect, and some retired a dab early just so that nothing the Legislature did in its last days would reduce their pensions. That makes sense for state employees.

At least one guy told a House committee last week he retired early on July 1 just to make sure that the Legislature didn’t reduce his pension, and when he returned from a trip for the birth of a granddaughter, read in the papers about the buyout deal.  As you’d imagine, he felt a dab ... well, tricked.

Grant’s bill?  Go ahead and let everyone who retired during calendar year 2011 get the buyout deal. The state would still come out fiscally ahead, and, well, it just sounds pretty fair.

Now, nobody really minds being in a store when the management announces an “unadvertised special” on slabs of ribs you were hankering for anyway.

But, does a similar offer of an “unadvertised special” on retirement have a little different feel to it? 

Not sure what happens, and chances probably don’t look good for Grant’s bill. After all, the whole point of the deal was to save the state money and reduce payroll costs; why dilute the savings by spreading the benefit to those who were timed-out on accepting the buyout?

We’ll see what happens here ...