New Haven Independent

Posted by: Julie | March 17, 2009 8:39 AM

I really wish these people would put this issue to rest. 1st of all the pension fund are not being paid for from The City. Second these people are highly educated and would cost the taxpayer big buck if there were full time. Let's put something into prospective here on who what is costing the City.

Example
19 Hour Retiree who has no Benefits
Or
Part-time Union workers working 20 hours a week with full Medical, Dental, Eye, Pension ETC. People want to complain but your part-time union worker is costing us taxpayer well over $50,000. a year for part- time job. Just because don't see these cost in there checks they need to someone is paying.

I ask you to ask yourself?
Do you think there a lot of jobs out there that offer these benefits?
(The retiree with a Masters can certainly find a job, but can the part-time workers with full benefits, doubt it!) Stop complaining about things you know nothing about!!!

Posted by: robn | March 17, 2009 9:03 AM

After all of the moaning and groaning on this site about double dippers in city hall, we find that their number is 16 ?!?!
I appreciate the BOA trying to protect taxpayers interests, but this sounds like a relativley small issue.

Posted by: jay | March 17, 2009 9:47 AM

why not ask the question, are these 19 hour people adding value to the City? if they are truly adding value, then we all win. I want the best person doing the job, period.

Posted by: Hood Rebel | March 17, 2009 12:00 PM

This sounds like typical political theatrics during the normal course of the silly season.

Posted by: Beasnie's Mom | March 17, 2009 1:36 PM

The tax payers of New Haven, paid into those pensions thru the salary and benefits that we've doled out over the years to the CITY Employees. How many city employees actually live in the city?

Of course it makes sense to pay people who continue to live outside of NEW HAVEN to come back in for under 20 hours because they have experience. Right, sure. It may save cents but it lacks common sense. It makes more sense to offer monies to people committed to living and working in our CITY. That's how a young community activist could afford to pay for city taxes on that second car.

Nineteen hours, and when you consider coffee breaks and lunch time, how much actually work is done?

It pisses me off that Lt. William Whyte is still entitled to his pension because he paid into it.

All municipal and state workers should get over the concept that they are entitled to Full pension, health, dental, etc benefits.

The majority of working class stiffs in this state are just glad to still have a job.

Posted by: Chris O | March 17, 2009 1:43 PM

Great point Robn- Lets focus on some real reform. Don't allow the city to conduct business with "bad actor" businesses and individuals. This will strengthen our weak enforcement of zoning, assesor, and ordinance violating businesses. Its rediculous that a company flagrantly violates becasuse the City is lawsuit shy. Its shamefull that the City then cuts deals that benefit these companies. Whats been normal and "the way its always been" has got to change. Come on lets get pasionate about New Haven.

Posted by: cedarhillresident | March 17, 2009 1:49 PM

Question...are the list of double dippers including people in the BOE???

Posted by: Verdad | March 17, 2009 2:39 PM

How deliciously ironic! Just look at that beatifically self righteous smile on AJB's face (one of many faces). How quickly they forget her dipping into public funds in 1998. That was the year the mayor's hard drives were confiscated by the Feds to see who dipped where.

Posted by: Bob | March 17, 2009 3:32 PM

Makes perfect sense. Somebody works for twenty to thirty years, contributing to a pension. Once they retire, they decide to get another job, and because they go out and get another job (for the city), theyre not entitled to their pension. Who do these people think they are, working for a living. The nerve of them.

Posted by: BBorist | March 17, 2009 6:12 PM

Bob you must be one of the mayors boys, the fact of the matter is they already raised a family in the city, give somebody else a chance to make aliving.These part timers comeback to help the principles for instance when the city hired them and ther making over $100.000 a year what do we need two people doing the same job for.Stop this smoke and mirrors game Mr hibbson.

Posted by: thinkagain | March 17, 2009 6:46 PM

I do think that bringing the issue to light is a good idea. There are many reasons a manager would want to keep experienced people in their department to facilitate a transition, to mentor a new staffer and perhaps to even follow through on projects. The BOE is where this may make a great deal of sense. But not keep them year after year. Where do the entry level people in this region get a job if all of the jobs are filled with those that are double dippers? How many residents paying the taxes in this city are double dippers? How many live elsewhere?

Shouldn't these 19 hour a week employees have a limit on the amount of time they can extend their employment? Seasonal workers can work half a year or less. At what rate of pay do these 19 hour people get, 25-30 an hour? More? You could hire a full time person for 40 hours a week for what retiree's demand. I would rather have a young person, or a parent returning to work, or a laid off worker with skills and put them back to work 40 hours at a much more modest hourly rate than to keep someone who already collects pension and benefits. Or better, how about 2 people who work 20 hours? At least they get a job referral on their resume and have a chance. Filling the city with returning retirees has a function in a limited way - the word limited means exactly that - put a limit on it when justified and if not, give someone else a chance to have a job.

Posted by: Chris O | March 17, 2009 7:53 PM

Lets get some terms right- double dipping is collecting two salaries for concurrent jobs at the same time- that is a wrong. But collecting a pension and working - no problem. With this economy, most of us will be working with retirement income coming in too. I say hire more part time professionals so the taxpayers can get more services for their dollars. These part timers have accountability- poor work= quickly dismissed. Until Unions embrace performance based accountability I won't support them.

Posted by: morris cover | March 17, 2009 10:48 PM

do the math. ask for how MUCH these people make an hour, THAT is the issue. No one cares if you retire and work 19 hours for $12.00 an hour - but the salaries go up to $75.00 an hour!

That is ridiculous! ASK FOR A LIST UNDER FREEDOM OF INFORMATION of who is making what and the solutions will be self evident.

"Second, Hibson argued that there's a value to having a part-time workforce -- especially at a time when the city can no longer afford to support as many full-time jobs. "

If that were true it would be fine - but again, some people are making $75.00 an hour I bet. Add that up and it FAR surpasses the cost for a part time employee. Also they work more than 19 hours a week.

Don't listen to Hispbon he doesn't know what he is talking about.

Posted by: morris cover | March 17, 2009 10:53 PM

cedarhillresident

Yes, BOE as well as City side.

The Union is absolutely right and they will fill with the State. Then once that happens people are paid to come back to work if they drop their claim.

Remember some of the "part-timers" hold authority over full time union people. They most certainly are doing union work.

Double dippers you want? Ask for a list of who is getting paid under TWO TITLES AT THE SAME TIME. That also is not allowed but happens.

Continue to suffer or vote for anyone but destefano.

Hey, what a good idea!
www.anyonebutdestefano.com

Posted by: cedarhillresident | March 18, 2009 12:11 PM

morris cover
thanks for the info
and love the web page :)

Posted by: John Dattilo | March 20, 2009 4:12 AM

Hibson is correct. Just the cost savings in medical benefits alone justifies hiring retirees to preform certain functions.
Highly trained Retired Police Officers & Firefighters could be hired part-time to perform many functions in their respective departments that are currently held by sworn personnel who then could be reassigned to front line duties.
John Dattilo, NHPD, Ret.

Posted by: Disgusted with All | March 20, 2009 8:43 AM

The people that retire and come back to work part time making 10.00 - 15.00 per hour is not the big problem. The "Consultants" that are brought back with large salaries after they have hired someone to take their place is the problem. Sure it is wise to keep them on to train someone, but when the new person can't (or won't) do the job, the "Consultant" is doing it for him then you have 2 people in the same job. "THAT'S A BIG PROBLEM" The new person or the consultant is a "friend" of the Mayor or Dr. Mayo and are not going to go away. So now you have double, double salaries going out. If someone is not replaced, I can understand them bringing back the person who retired for a short time to help out until someone is hired. But that is not what happens. Even though the retirement is being paid out of the retirement fund, the salary that they are making now is still city funds. And Morris Cover is right, they are making over 60,000 a year for their "expertise" for under 20 hours a week. And the new person is also making a full time salary. How do these people justify themselves. When you bring back a clerical worker to help out part time, they make 10.00 per hour. They are not getting paid the rate they were making when they left. You're using their expertise, knowledge just as well. Why aren't they making a better salary? They are not getting the benefits, or paid time off. They should be making at least the houry salary they were getting before they retired. But they're not, What's fair is fair. They use people where and when they want, and help their friends out more. The new set of layoffs should be very interesting. Another hit list!!!