|
|
Post by Volunteer on Feb 25, 2011 14:19:08 GMT -5
SSA announced today that they will offer Early Out Retirement to all employees, which would include anyone at ODAR. Employees must separate by June 3, 2011.
|
|
|
|
Post by aljenvy on Feb 26, 2011 20:58:57 GMT -5
I know it's purely speculative- but what do you think this means for hiring in 2011, if anything?
|
|
|
|
Post by southeastalj on Feb 27, 2011 19:15:20 GMT -5
At least according to some of the older judges in my office, this is the first time they can remember an early retirement being offered to ALJs. Apparently, in the past they have been excluded from being eligible. Clearly the agency is trying to clear as much payroll as possible to avoid having to do any furlough days. A lot of people think that the fighting over the rest of FY11's budget will be a picnic as compared to what the FY12 budget process will be like.
I suppose though one could see the silver lining that a newly hired ALJ costs about $40k in salary less than an ALJ who would be eligible for retirement. So there would be some cost advantage for the agency to have ALJ's retire and be replaced with new hires
|
|
|
|
Post by aljenvy on Feb 27, 2011 21:40:20 GMT -5
Are you getting any feedback as to whether people are interested in early retirement?
|
|
|
|
Post by factfinder on Feb 28, 2011 7:13:16 GMT -5
Presuming this is a VERA/V . . .
Early out really only makes sense to folks who have another job lined up or who are old enough to retire anyway (my 2 Cents).
Moreover, early out makes even less sense to non CSRS employees who are less than age 62, unless they have a job.
All the early out gets an employee is 25K, which has not changed forever. So, for most judges, it is not much. It just might make some retire in June who was thinking about December.
Anyone who takes a decreased annuity is nuts (again IMHO) because you can never get that back.
Another thing - technically, when you loose someone to an early out, you do not get to fill behind the job -but maybe they have a way around that.
|
|
sta
Full Member
Posts: 82
|
Post by sta on Feb 28, 2011 8:48:25 GMT -5
There was an early out offered to ALJs in 2008 (the first in many years) and there was no 25K bonus connected to the early out.
|
|
|
|
Post by aljsouth on Feb 28, 2011 11:13:09 GMT -5
Presuming this is a VERA/V . . . Early out really only makes sense to folks who have another job lined up or who are old enough to retire anyway (my 2 Cents). Moreover, early out makes even less sense to non CSRS employees who are less than age 62, unless they have a job. All the early out gets an employee is 25K, which has not changed forever. So, for most judges, it is not much. It just might make some retire in June who was thinking about December. Anyone who takes a decreased annuity is nuts (again IMHO) because you can never get that back. Another thing - technically, when you loose someone to an early out, you do not get to fill behind the job -but maybe they have a way around that. I saw nothing in the announcement about any $25K bonus. Basically SSA is graciously allowing you to retire if you already qualify -- except for some minor issues on health insurance which most people who qualify already meet. |
|
|
|
Post by alj on Feb 28, 2011 20:36:47 GMT -5
Today at 11:13am, aljsouth wrote:
"I saw nothing in the announcement about any $25K bonus. Basically SSA is graciously allowing you to retire if you already qualify -- except for some minor issues on health insurance which most people who qualify already meet."
____________________________________________________
That's the way I saw it too.
|
|
|
|
Post by factfinder on Mar 1, 2011 6:55:54 GMT -5
Normally, when an agency offers VERA/ it does so in combination with a VISIP - the 25K or 26 weeks. If, as my colleagues point out (and it looks like they are right) that SSA is so cheap and miserly (also unrealistic) not to offer an incentive, then I modify my opinion as follows: "There is no reason or advantage to accept this VERA."
In any event, while I have heard of an agency not offering an incentive, such an event is not the norm. I mean, realistically, why bother??
|
|
|
|
Post by eyre44 on Mar 1, 2011 13:11:53 GMT -5
In any event, while I have heard of an agency not offering an incentive, such an event is not the norm. I mean, realistically, why bother?? Because it allows you to retire much earlier than you might normally be able to retire, and if you are in FERS, you can do so without any early retirement penalty. That is an incentive to some people. |
|
|
|
Post by 71stretch on Mar 1, 2011 13:33:42 GMT -5
In any event, while I have heard of an agency not offering an incentive, such an event is not the norm. I mean, realistically, why bother?? Because it allows you to retire much earlier than you might normally be able to retire, and if you are in FERS, you can do so without any early retirement penalty. That is an incentive to some people. But, normally your benefits are significantly higher if you stay longer (I don't have experience with FERS, only a state system). So, are they saying they will pay you now the same amount you would get if you stayed until X date or X years of service, or  There has to be some tangible incentive to leave early, I would think. Otherwise, I would think it's only going to impact those who were thinking about retiring by the end of the year or so. |
|
|
|
Post by eyre44 on Mar 1, 2011 13:45:36 GMT -5
Because it allows you to retire much earlier than you might normally be able to retire, and if you are in FERS, you can do so without any early retirement penalty. That is an incentive to some people. But, normally your benefits are significantly higher if you stay longer (I don't have experience with FERS, only a state system). So, are they saying they will pay you now the same amount you would get if you stayed until X date or X years of service, or There has to be some tangible incentive to leave early, I would think. Otherwise, I would think it's only going to impact those who were thinking about retiring by the end of the year or so. Yes, sort of for FERS. If you take an early out retirement you will receive a full pension based on your current salary. Normally in FERS if you retire before a certain age, say 60 you have a penalty, your pension is reduced 5 percent or so for each year you are early. So if you retire at 57 and your normal retirement age is 60, that is a 15 percent reduction in your pension. The early out eliminates that penalty. You almost certainly get a larger pension if you stay longer, both because your salary would probably be higher and you would have more years of service. But if you are relatively happy with the pension based on the early out, getting to retire early (in my case 8 years earlier), is a big incentive. |
|
|
|
Post by arkstfan on Mar 1, 2011 22:27:46 GMT -5
. You almost certainly get a larger pension if you stay longer, both because your salary would probably be higher and you would have more years of service. But if you are relatively happy with the pension based on the early out, getting to retire early (in my case 8 years earlier), is a big incentive. Humm, a good deal for people who planned to go out in a year or two and don't get a salary bump due to the pay freeze. |
|
|
|
Post by counselor95 on Mar 15, 2011 22:46:38 GMT -5
Early out was also offered to SSA ALJs in 2010, but no dollar incentive.
|
|
|
|
Post by nonamouse on Mar 16, 2011 0:32:45 GMT -5
Don't forget that in the not so distant past, most ALJs hired into SSA had a substantial number of years under their belts and likely eligibility for a full pension either from the military or some state government. I know of at least one ALJ who is now talking about taking the latest "early out" who did fully retire from the military prior to accepting the ALJ position off the old register. This person may not be at full Social Security retirement age, but since they have a working spouse who could pay all of their bills alone it may not matter as much as getting the heck out of ODAR. If I were in the same circumstances I think I might head for the door myself and not look back. The crack of the whip for "more, faster" no matter how well you produce can get old for some ALJs who were not used to producing at super high volume with less than adequate resources and little to no appreciation at their former positions. It can also be exhausting trying to get work done when the ALJ is not the "supervisor" of the support staff that is supposed to be keeping the cases moving and the actual supervisors don't have good control of things. Some offices are so bad in that regard that it could be an incentive to head for the door.
|
|
|
|
Post by aljenvy on Mar 16, 2011 8:33:55 GMT -5
Somewhat related - this is from the federal news radio website:
Social Security Administration workers are saying goodbye to overtime pay. SSA says it is cancelling overtime for most employees, effective immediately. Federal Times reports the message comes from the agency's top finance official, deputy commissioner Michael Gallagher. The only exception, Gallagher says, is overtime directly related to life, safety or preservation of property. The agency's 2011 budget remains in limbo, and officials did not say how long the freeze could last. The American Federation of Government Employees says the decision cancels both paid overtime and comp time, and could mean more claims backlogs and longer wait times for the public.
|
|
|
|
Post by kimsoon on Mar 14, 2013 2:41:40 GMT -5
Retirement in US is in hot topic today. We think of the United States as a progressive leader among countries. However, typically thought of a first-world nation, is rapidly losing its standing if one considers the security and life-style of its average citizens after retiring from the work force. According to a brand new survey, the United States ranks low in terms of retirement security and even lower in healthcare. Source for this article: Retirement Security |
|
|
|
Post by bartleby on Mar 14, 2013 7:33:03 GMT -5
I had a friend who took the early out in 2010. She was on FERS. I was surprised to hear that the Agency gave her a subsidy until she reaches 62, that matches 80% of what she will recieve from Social Security at age 62 in addition to her Agency retirement pension. This makes a great difference and is a good incentive to take an early out. However, in January of 2014, the Agency will begin to pay 100% for accrued sick leave, whereas it pays 50% now. That will be a huge incentive for some long term employees and could amount to a great deal of money for high salary employees. This could discourage them from doing the early out, especially if they are already over 62, and retiring after January of 2014.
|
|
|
|
Post by goodoleboy47 on Mar 14, 2013 9:20:28 GMT -5
You probably said this in a different way but there is no actual cash payout involved with the FERS sick leave credit. Sick leave time is simply added to your length of service which will increase retirement benefits. Many FERS employees were burning their sick leave before retiring so this incentive was added. CSRS employees already had the full benefit. It really doesn't amount to much in additional retirement payments but many judges are putting off retirement until 2014 to get the credit. It will add about 6 months to my length of service. I will receive 1.1% per year of service of my high five upon retirement so 6 months of sick leave service would actually add .55% of high five salary per annum about $76.00 per month. I'm not a math wizard or even close so read these numbers with that in mind.
|
|
|
|
Post by chinook on Mar 14, 2013 9:46:59 GMT -5
bartleby, there is no cash payment under FERS for accrued sick leave. It does get included in the calculation of retirement pay by adding the unused sick leave to the amount of service time for the calculation.
|
|
There has to be some tangible incentive to leave early, I would think. Otherwise, I would think it's only going to impact those who were thinking about retiring by the end of the year or so.
