Granholm's retirement plan reeks of desperation
(Last updated: 02/01/10 7:54pm)In an extremely uncharacteristic move, Gov. Jennifer Granholm actually is proposing real and radical steps to address Michigan’s staggering budget deficit. The proposal is a big, dramatic plan and although we appreciate the effort, we wish Granholm would have taken such action earlier in her term. Instead, it appears to be a last-ditch effort from a lame duck governor.
Granholm proposed several changes to retirement plans to encourage nearly 39,000 public school and 7,000 state employees to retire by the end of this year. The plan would cut vision and dental coverage if employees don’t retire by Oct. 1. Granholm estimated that the plan could save about $450 million in the first year. Michigan’s budget deficit for the fiscal year starting Oct. 1 will be at least $1.6 billion.
Although it is a good thing the governor finally is doing something substantial to fix the deficit, it’s too little, too late. After eight years of a less-than-stellar gubernatorial run by Granholm, this appears to be a weak effort to leave a lasting mark on Michigan.
Granholm is doing the right thing by getting aggressive toward the budget deficit, but it would have been nice to see her implement such a plan more gradually, earlier in her term or targeting a different group than public school employees.
We understand the benefits that can come from these actions, but to virtually force employees with 30 years or more of experience to retire in order to receive their full benefits is not the way to close the deficit, especially on such short notice.
It takes time to plan for retirement — usually more than eight months. These employees have persevered through many tough times and have stayed in Michigan through a rough financial period. To ask them to leave or risk losing key benefits is not the way they should be rewarded for their work.
It might not be wise to go after public school employees at this time, especially when the state consistently emphasizes the importance of public education. For instance, replacing older teachers with younger teachers can be a good thing, but not all at once.
If the best plan that Granholm and her aides could conceive of after eight years in office was to force public employees to retire, they could have at least implemented it several years ago, giving employees time to decide.
In addition to the legislative hurdles the plan quickly must pass, it also must find a way around another potent force: teachers unions. There is no way the budget recommendation will make its way quietly through the unions. Teachers are aggressive when it comes to dealings with their rights and benefits — rightfully so — and it would be unusual to see them curl up and let these changes slip by.
The plan might not be as effective as officials believe it will be, as it is completely dependent on the decisions of the people Granholm is asking to retire. It is highly unlikely the employees all will comply with the request and end their careers. For the most part, these are hard workers who have spent their lives doing what they love, and many probably would enjoy teaching in the future.
Granholm might be trying to force thousands of state employees to stop working, but it’s doubtful they will lie down and watch it happen.
After all, just because Granholm’s leaving her job soon doesn’t mean she should force thousands of state employees to follow suit.
Originally Published: 02/01/10 7:54pm
Di
02/02/10 9:56amAs a state employee being forced to retire before I am ready, financially and mentally, I appreciate your comments that the Governor should have offered something earlier, but your symathy seems to be directed only at the teachers and not state employees who are equally dedicated to public service. This is a Governor who preached making Michigan an employer of choice and living by her alleged “values” of inclusion, excellence, teamwork, and ingrity. What a liar she is.
Ed Bryant
02/02/10 10:19amGee; Anyone remember the battle between MSU and Econ Prof. Lash Larrowe (RIP). Nothing like leading employees down the path with promises and then taking care of yourself only.
kev
02/02/10 11:55amI agree completly with promoting the reirement of the more experienced/expensive work class whom are past their prime. But promoting it only, not indirectly mandating it.
bree
02/02/10 1:15pmYou write that Granholm is doing the right thing in getting aggressive toward balancing the budget, however, it would have been “nice” if she did so gradually, or if she targeted a group other than public school employees. Your statement implies that if the option of âbenefit cuts vs. retirementâ were gradual, then public school employees would be an appropriate group in which to target.
...View full comment »
MaximumBob
02/02/10 2:01pmAs much as I loathe Granholm, she’s probably on the right track with this. For decades, private companies and institutions have scaled-back their workforces by offering the early retirement option.
The dirty little secret is that IT WORKS.
Starting with education may be controversial, but not as long as she moves this plan towards other sectors of public employment.
Yooper
02/02/10 3:06pmThe one thing people are missing here is the work of State Employees has exploded with all other job losses. If you want to cut the state work force – Create Jobs! Stop tax incentives for those companies who’ve decided to employ children to make their products. Stop importing poisoned products from other countries and buy things made in this Country.
Kristin
02/03/10 12:50amThis is not just an early retirement option, or even an incentive to retire. It is the threat of cutting benefits if employees do not retire. Various school districts have been offering incentives to retire for years, in the form of buyouts. In most districts, the older teachers who were dissatisfied with their jobs and ineffective are already long gone. The older teachers who are left are the good ones, the ones who are mentors to the young teachers, the ones who run the school.
...View full comment »
Marie
02/08/10 2:55pmLack of jobs has forced many of our young workers to relocate to other states for jobs. Hasn’t anyone in the Granholm’s office figured out that when you force another group into retirement, many of them will leave the state as well? Already, many of us are updating our resumes and have started to look at other states for jobs. Many of us are not ready to retire financially or emotionally. Who will fund this state when another large group leaves? Hasn’t anyone noticed what happened when GM took the hit? Be creative….don’t do things that are only a short term fix.