Add your comments
This page has been viewed 173 times
Follow-up Work Session: GASB 45
Board Docs - Charles County Commissioners’ Meeting - Tuesday, May 13, 2008
2.07 [10:15 a.m.] Follow-up Work Session: GASB 45 (Ms. Deborah Hudson, Fiscal & Administrative Services/Mr. Steve Brayman, Human Resources)
Posted by: Sammy on 05/12 at 09:15 AM
- 1 · I had no idea what this was at first and as I read I saw it is about changes contemplated for COunty Retirement system for regular employees.
Needless to say it is NOT very good news or ideas for any current employee, at least as I read it.
Not that the retirement was great anyway- at least in comparision with others, but this has been so secretaive and just so unexpected.
We have to reconsider everything.
A man must learn to understand the motives of human beings, their illusions, and their sufferings. einstein
Comment by BJGoodwin on 05/12 at 07:34 PM | Back to Top - 2 · I have no problem with them making any changes in the retirement system for future employees. They, then, would be knowing what they'd be getting from day one.
Making reductions in net benefits in a retirement now, for employees who have been promised at least a certain benefit from their first day of service, is wrong. If the Commissioners implement any reduced retirement benefit, increase in health insurance cost, higher retirement age/years of service, or anything else that takes away from what current employees currently have, they won't have to worry about a RIF -- they'll have a mass exodus. The County's retirement may not be the best as it is now, but it is better than many "rural" municipalities around our area, and is one of the few benefits that attracts prospective employees to work for the County.
Comment by The Quack on 05/13 at 06:41 PM | Back to Top - 3 · News on retirement that I bet most dont know- and this is before any changes...this is current policy and I wonder if others see the same policy in other government jobs or private employers?
A worker in Charles County has say 20 years of service. If he or she started working at 20- that would make them 40. If they started at 42 it would make them 62.
Now remember the ages 42 or 62.
Now remember they both have worked for 20 years with the COunty.
Could they both retire at the same level of retirement from the COunty? Same amount of years> different ages.
NOPE.
If you are younger than 62, they subtract how many years you have to reach that age. In this example its extreme.
AGE 62- 20 years, full retirement salary that is for 20 years service.
AGE 42 +20 years= age 62. SO...
20 years service- oops, 20 years to age 62.
20-20= nada.
extreme I know- this is worst case. But thats why so many in their late 40-50's want to hang on.
They have the years of service to retire. But once they start subtracting, you dont qualify for the years anymore. So what are you going to do? take 1/2 or 1/3 of what you really should receive or try to hang in their to get your full amount?
Its quite a decision.
I agree they shouldnt do it after the employee has worked for years- the employees essentially have fulfilled there part of the stated agreement at hire- to change it is just screwing them more.
You know the elected officials get 80% (of their salary) retirement after 16 years of "work". Nomatter their age.
The county employees must work 25 years to qualify for 60% (of their salary) . But remember, only if they are 62 or older.
A man must learn to understand the motives of human beings, their illusions, and their sufferings. einstein
Comment by BJGoodwin on 05/13 at 09:05 PM | Back to Top
Page 1 of 1 pages
Page 1 of 1 pages
Next entry: Work Session: Proposed Snow Removal Policy
Previous entry: Follow-up Work Session: 2008 Water & Sewer Amendment Cycle