Drop the ‘double-dipping’ term — think of the many public workers who give more than get Report raises questions on public retirees’ work

Re “Little to prevent retiree double dip: State relies on the honor system for those back at work and over cap” (Page A1, March 27): There was some important information I would like to have seen included in Matt Stout’s article on a critical report from the state inspector general’s office.

For example, communities save money by hiring experienced public sector retirees since those retirees already collect health benefits and many work on a contract basis. Those in the private sector, once they reach their full retirement age under Social Security, have no salary cap. They may return to work and could receive a higher Social Security benefit later. Those returning to a public sector job cannot do any of this.

What’s more, many public employees are penalized because they collect a public pension. The Globe article did not mention the Windfall Elimination Provision, a penalty on almost 93,000 people collecting a Massachusetts public pension who lose up to half of the Social Security benefits they would otherwise be entitled to receive. Under the Government Pension Offset, more than 42,000 people collecting a Massachusetts pension would get little or none of the spousal/beneficiary amount due them. More than 19,000 people in that group are widows or widowers.

I find the term “double-dipping” offensive. Officials already struggle to fill many public sector positions, and that’s likely to become more difficult. We often wait for an emergency or tragedy to show our support for our first responders and other public employees. Support them now by recognizing that most of them are giving more than they are getting.