Double-dipping didn’t work then and won’t work now

In theory, it makes sense: Allow retirees to keep receiving their full pension, but come back to work to fill the front-line ranks of everything from police officers to social workers. In practice, it simply doesn’t shake out that way. New Mexico found that out the hard way two decades ago: Double-dipping encourages experienced people to leave (exacerbating staffing shortages); those who do return to work go back to their higher-up positions, not to the empty front-line jobs (a successful EEOC complaint filed years ago ensured Albuquerque police retirees landed behind desks, not on the streets); and the next generation of employee leaders end up discouraged with no way to advance.

In 2010, our House and Senate repealed double-dipping, 65-3 and 35-6, respectively. The Fiscal Impact Report from that year’s successful Senate Bill 207 said that, under double-dipping, “unemployment remains high in the state” and “state employees may feel low morale and perceive a ceiling for advancement because retirees return to top-level positions.”

The policy is also a budget-buster. The FIR in 2010 projected the repeal would save millions for state employers, as well as the general and PERA pension funds.

Senate Bill 124, House Bills 64, 65, 227 and other doubledipping legislation are well-intentioned, wrong-headed attempts that will reduce, not shore up, staffing. Our public employers and lawmakers would do better to incentivize delayed retirement, publicize the availability of such things as the Law Enforcement Protection Fund for longevity and retention bonuses, and finally establish pipelines with our universities and colleges for next-generation employees.