$1 Billion to NJ Double-Dippers

New Jersey has updated their listing of retirees in  the state pension system. As of June, 2017 there were 328,932 retirees getting annualized benefits of $10,562,840,926. There is also a listing of participants in the pension system as of March 31, 2017 who are still working and not yet receiving benefits. Adding those 400,257 participants making annualized salaries of $24,788,234,410 into a spreadsheet with the retirees and sorting through the data we found several entries that had the same last name, first name, and year of birth. Some worked two or more jobs, a few got two pensions, and many had both a pension and a salary. Total annual take: $586,475,721 in salaries and $407,554,553 in pensions.

Here is a spreadsheet of those participants sorted alphabetically for your review. Since there were no assigned participant numbers there may have been different people who happened to have the same name and year of birth (especially among the Smiths) so keep that in mind when searching through the spreadsheets.* After some more sorting these retirees topped the list:

.

.

.

* These spreadsheets are intended as a general reference and research needs to be done to confirm that everyone included is indeed a double-dipper. Even the list above might include two different people counted as one though I am positive that the Andrew Moran above is the same person as I saw him yesterday at the Union County freeholder meeting. However someone else who made the list (James Doran of Harrison) was featured on nj.com yesterday for his multiple jobs and there are three James Dorans born in 1960 listed in the spreadsheets though only two entries (at the time) are for the James Doran in the article.

DORAN JAMES 1960 $55,880 GLEN RIDGE BD OF ED
DORAN JAMES 1960 $1,500 HARRISON TOWN (HUDSON)
DORAN JAMES 1960 $260,026 HARRISON TOWN BD OF ED(HUDSON)

 

36 responses to this post.

  1. Posted by Seesaw Junior on August 18, 2017 at 3:44 am

    Shameful. $100K+ pensions AND $100K+ in salary at the same time. This is why the social fabric and moral code of society has completely broken down, the government is a giant scam and fraud.

    Reply

    • Posted by bpaterson on August 18, 2017 at 10:55 am

      and they expect and demand what they say is legally theirs. screw the residents and taxpayers who have to foot the onerous bill. The system is broken, the beast is hungry.

      Reply

  2. Posted by Anonymous on August 18, 2017 at 11:42 am

    It’s ridiculous and needs to retroactively stop BUT I think the moderator would agree either way it’s not the cause or the cure of the unfunded pension problem?

    Reply

    • Posted by S Moderation Honestly on August 20, 2017 at 5:54 pm

      I think Mary Pat Campbell would agree… not the cause or the cure, but bad optics.

      And it may even be good business (with the obvious exception of the opportunity for abuse). Bureaucracies are funny. The rules can be crippling, but wise managers can often find a workaround. (Unfortunately, crooks can often find even better work-arounds.)

      If one has a very exceptional employee, you are limited on what you can offer in salary to keep him/her on board. Loopholes (legal ones, hopefully) can sometimes be found. It’s much easier for the private sector employer to just offer a raise or bonus.

      SMH

      Reply

  3. Posted by Tough Love on August 18, 2017 at 12:09 pm

    John,

    This (receiving a pension & a salary from the same employer) happens only minimally in the Private Sector because (a) you have to work many MORE years to get a substantive pension, and hence you are likely already into your 60s, and (b) retiring early enough to begin collecting a single-employer Corporate-sponsored pension and start a new job typically means very large reductions in the payout due to application of early retirement factors.

    however, it might be helpful for your readers to understand the IRS rules that restrict Private Sector workers from receiving a salary and a pension at the same time, and how gov’t workers get around this.

    Would you provide a brief summary?

    Reply

    • Posted by Anonymous on August 18, 2017 at 1:16 pm

      Overruled, leading the blog mister, maybe a please next time…..

      Reply

    • There are no such rules. Not only is the IRS OK with people taking their pension money at age 59-1/2 even if you are still working but, for principals, they even demand you take your pension at 70-1/2 even if working.

      Reply

      • Posted by Tough Love on August 18, 2017 at 6:21 pm

        I recall a restriction that if you retire from a company with a DB pension, problems for the employer and/or employee kick-in if you work more than 1000 hr/yr.

        Are you aware of any such “problems”?

        Reply

        • Posted by Tough Love on August 18, 2017 at 6:23 pm

          That was working 1000/hrs ….with the SAME employer from whom you are collecting that DB pension..

          Reply

  4. Posted by S Moderation Honestly on August 18, 2017 at 2:58 pm

    Sticker Shock…

    For context, we need a source for private sector incomes. Not talking just about the infamous multi-million dollar CEOs of major corporations. The city manager in our city makes over $200,000 a year salary, plus benefits, and some people call that “egregious”. I would bet a dollar to a barrel of peas that there are thousands of private sector workers in this city (population 200,000) who make more in cash wages, and hundreds who make twice as much, or more. Doctors, lawyers, executives in mid size companies, salesmen, real estate, insurance, etc. Someone is buying those multi-million dollar homes, and it’s not the city manager. (Or the Sheriff.)

    I know the bookkeeper for a mid size local company (150-200 employees). The three highest paid managers make over $400,000 in wages and bonuses. Unknown more in benefits. There are at least six others over $200,000 wages and commissions. The head of the accounting department makes over $100,000 wages. I had assumed she was CPA, but found she worked her way up with a few community college classes, no degree. Nothing wrong with that, but if public sector workers earned as much as those in this company (not rocket science, it’s wholesale produce) they would be excoriated.

    That is just one small, low tech company out of thousands of companies of various sizes. I get it… the average wage in this city is $45,000 a year (inland valley in California, “over-the-hill” from the Bay area) so WTH does a damn public sector worker make over $200,000 of “taxpayer money”? “It’s not fair!”

    In the same city…
    The average CEO makes $190,000.
    The average marketing manager makes $117,000.
    The average purchasing manager makes $112,000.
    The average IT manager makes $130,000.
    The average financial manager makes $110,000.
    The average doctor makes $244,000.
    The average attorney makes $130,000.

    Those are averages, clearly there are many who make much (much) more. And they are wages only. According to BLS, only 70% of average private sector compensation is wages, the other 30% is benefits. Who knows how much more managers at this level make in benefits?
    Why should we care? It ain’t taxpayer money.

    But it is the market. If that produce company needs to buy a pick-up truck, they will pay the market price. If the city needs a pick-up, guess what? They will pay the same market price.
    But, they will not pay the same wages. They will on average pay lower wages… and offer a more secure retirement.

    $200,000+ salaries and pensions are a red herring… one observer calls them “sticker shock”. And man, does it work! (See “NCPERS Progagandizing”, and look at BOTH sides.) They are the exception, not the rule. For every $200,000 public employee, there are hundreds who earn less than the “average” private sector wage*

    *The ultimate irony is that, according to most economic studies, many (not all) of these highest paid employees, even with their “egregious” benefits, are under-compensated compared to equivalent private sector workers. Conversely, of course, most of those above mentioned “hundreds who earn less than the “average” private sector wage”, are, when benefits are included, compensated well over their private sector peers.

    SMH

    Reply

    • Posted by Tough Love on August 18, 2017 at 3:15 pm

      SMH, You sound like Trump …there a “fine people” on both sides.

      No there aren’t.

      The productivity of the Private Sector supports the entire Public Sector. and …..

      Public Sector Unions are a CANCER inflicted upon civilized society.

      Reply

      • Posted by Tough Love on August 18, 2017 at 3:18 pm

        By the way, that wasn’t to imply that there aren’t fine Public Sector “workers”, but that the greed, and taxpayer-be-damned attitude of many, AND their Unions is NOT “fine”.

        Reply

      • Posted by Anonymous on August 18, 2017 at 6:11 pm

        That’s funny and actually classic Trump, twisting other’s opinions to suit his own purposeless agenda – more $ for Trump’s circle of family and freinds.

        Reply

    • Posted by S Moderation Honestly on August 18, 2017 at 4:46 pm

      But as a new Gallup study indicates, many government jurisdictions are saddled with a preponderance of unhappy, indifferent and generally unproductive workers who are costing taxpayers billions of dollars in lost productivity.

      http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/2016/07/07/Apathetic-Workers-State-and-Local-Government-Are-Costing-Taxpayers-Billions

      Wow… that sucks.

      But…

      “More broadly, employee disengagement across the economy costs the U.S. economy roughly $500 billion a year, which suggests that the problem is just as prevalent — or more so — within the private sector.”

      “…the problem is just as prevalent — or more so — within the private sector.”
      …………………..

      But wait! SMH…Why dint youse add the quote from the SAME article?

      “But while private corporations and businesses are accountable to their investors, state and local government workers and officials are accountable to the taxpayers. And that carries with it an added obligation for government workers to excel at what they do.”

      Good question… Why dint I just copy/paste the whole article? (I did supply the URL.)

      But mainly, you’re objection is just your bias and stereotypes. Private and public sectors hire from the same pool of potential employees, and bureaucracies, private or public, have more in common than they do difference. If you think you are not paying (dearly) for “waste, fraud, and abuse” in private sector corporations…

      “Perhaps you’re not a “liar and serial scumbag”…… just hopelessly delusional.”

      SMH

      Reply

      • Posted by Tough Love on August 18, 2017 at 6:31 pm

        SMH. The taxpayers don’t pay the salaries, pensions, and benefits of Private Sector workers (the company’s shareholders and customers do). If the company’s owners are “ok” with “employee disengagement”, they are very foolish.

        The Taxpayers DO pay for the … “many government jurisdictions are saddled with a preponderance of unhappy, indifferent and generally unproductive workers ”

        That’s the problem.

        Yesterday, I called you delusional ………. if you don’t see the difference, clearly I was correct.

        Reply

      • Posted by PS Drone on August 18, 2017 at 9:52 pm

        “A preponderance of unhappy, indifferent and generally unproductive workers…” That basically describes the entire public sector. And you can add “greedy” to the list.

        Reply

        • Posted by S Moderation Honestly on August 18, 2017 at 11:38 pm

          And “just as prevalent — or more so — within the private sector.”

          SM

          Reply

          • Posted by Tough Love on August 19, 2017 at 12:40 am

            SMH,

            Every time you comment, I can’t help wishing that John would introduce a “dumb-ass” filter.

          • Posted by Eartb. on August 19, 2017 at 2:18 am

            Earth to ToughLove:

            1) Do not shoot the messenger. The quote was from Fiscal Times, .the data from Gallup.

            AND

            B) Be careful what you wish for.

          • Posted by Anonymous on August 19, 2017 at 2:58 pm

            TL ur the *sshole in the sea of unregistered drones……
            You and yours keep throwing the *hit against the wall and eventually something will stick…..

            Tough Love on August 18, 2017 at 12:09 pm
            John,

            This (receiving a pension & a salary from the same employer) happens only minimally in the Private Sector because (a) you have to work many MORE years to get a substantive pension, and hence you are likely already into your 60s, and (b) retiring early enough to begin collecting a single-employer Corporate-sponsored pension and start a new job typically means very large reductions in the payout due to application of early retirement factors.

            however, it might be helpful for your readers to understand the IRS rules that restrict Private Sector workers from receiving a salary and a pension at the same time, and how gov’t workers get around this.

            Would you provide a brief summary?

            burypensions on August 18, 2017 at 4:21 pm
            There are no such rules. Not only is the IRS OK with people taking their pension money at age 59-1/2 even if you are still working but, for principals, they even demand you take your pension at 70-1/2 even if working.

          • Posted by Tough Love on August 19, 2017 at 4:02 pm

            Anon,

            In a follow-up response to John, I replied …

            “I recall a restriction that if you retire from a company with a DB pension, problems for the employer and/or employee kick-in if you work more than 1000 hr/yr.

            Are you aware of any such “problems”?”

            **********************************************

            John didn’t reply to that but shortly thereafter I did recall what I was referring to………

            Private Sector Corporate-sponsored Plans usually elect an IRS code provisions that requires then to credit a year of pension service only if the employee works 1000 or more hrs in a year, and once the employee does so, the Plan MUST credit that year of service.

            Many such Plans also calculate pensionable compensation as the highest 3 years (sometime highest CONSECUTIVE 3 years) within the last 10 years.

            In such cases, if a retiree returns to work for the same employer and works 1000 or more hrs in one year, not only does the employee collect his pension and his pay in that year, but his company must now recalculate his pension using this new additional year of service credit. It may or may not increase depending on the wages earned in this last year compared to the 3 years of compensation used in the original pension determination. Of course it’s more likely that the pension will increase if his re-deployment after retirement is full-time.

            Because employers must pay for pensions with THEIR money ……. and with no ability to force and 3-rd party (such as the Taxpayers) to pay for it ……. they will limit any re-employment to less than 1000 hrs/yr.

            ************************************

            P. S. Anon … You qualify as are one of the “dumb-asses” that my suggested filter would eliminate.

          • Posted by Anonymous on August 19, 2017 at 5:53 pm

            Private sector workaround, if retired DB employee is reemployed as an independent contractor and not on employer’s ‘regular payroll’ Besides what kind of jerk throws the question out there waiting for a reply when they THINK they already know the answer.

            That’s simple YOU!

            Filter that, Love stinks hell yeah!

          • Posted by Tough Love on August 19, 2017 at 10:08 pm

            You’ll rarely find a Private Sector employer stupid enough to go with that because there are VERY tough rules to be classified as an independent contractor vs an “employee” and someone hired as such could later challenge that himself/herself suing (or going to the IRS) to be re-classified as an employee specifically to force a re-calculation of their pension.

            ***********************

            And no, as I stated above ….. “John didn’t reply to that but shortly thereafter I did recall what I was referring to………”

            **************************

            Dumb-ass

          • Posted by Unanimous on August 20, 2017 at 1:28 am

          • Posted by Anonymous on August 20, 2017 at 9:15 am

            I can imagine your gums flapping but you ain’t saying much you can back up. Not to mention going through a head hunter employment agency – freaking idiot….

  5. Posted by S Moderation Honestly on August 18, 2017 at 7:31 pm

    Au contraire mon frère. You may choose to drive cross town to get a better price or better service for a tank of fuel or bag of groceries, but at the manufacturing, production, transportation, and financing level of fuel and food, the customer (that’s you and me) ultimately pays for the waste, fraud, and abuse.

    “What’s good for the country is good for General Motors, and vice versa.” (Charles E. Wilson while president of the General Motors Corporation)

    Corollary… “What’s bad for General Motors is bad for the country.” (SMH)

    And you and I pay, directly and/or indirectly. When Gallup says “employee disengagement … costs the U.S. economy roughly $500 billion a year”, that’s us… “the economy”. There is no refuge, unless you live in a cave, you pay. Like the man said: “We have met the enemy, and he is us.”
    ……………..
    If that is not depressing enough, as taxpayers we are directly paying the pensions of many profitable private sector companies, including paying extra to compensate for “unfunded liabilities” due to market losses in their pension system….

    “Taxpayers may be surprised to learn that they are currently bankrolling the retirement plans of profitable, private sector companies.”

    https://www.cagw.org/media/wastewatcher/federal-contractor-pensions-protected-taxpayers’-expense

    SMH

    Reply

  6. Posted by Anonymous on August 19, 2017 at 3:03 pm

  7. Posted by MJ on August 20, 2017 at 12:26 pm

    John, Does your list include former school employees collecting pensions and having second salaries? Is there a reference list for these double dippers?

    Reply

    • Everyone should be on there but lots of data issues. For example, the last employer for some pensioners is ‘Multiple’ so you don’t know where they came from.
      I am paring the list down now to Union County related members, from those related to the county, municipalities, and including those multiple people.

      Reply

  8. Posted by Anonymous on August 20, 2017 at 3:52 pm

    I thought this already was out of style in the public sector but the private sector just won’t let go of the past – go figure, maybe it’s time for the public sector to follow suit!

    https://www.ft.com/content/46ce7bfe-8444-11e7-94e2-c5b903247afd

    Reply

    • Posted by Anonymous on August 20, 2017 at 5:21 pm

      You need a subscription to see the article.

      If you provide the article title we MAY be able to get in via a Google search.

      Reply

      • Posted by S Moderation Honestly on August 20, 2017 at 5:33 pm

        Not a web expert, but with this, and many WSJ articles, I “copy” the URL…
        Then bring up Google in a separate tab, and paste the URL in the search line. Click on the first choice that has the same URL.

        I normally use Chrome browser, and if this doesn’t work, I open an “incognito” tab and paste it in there.

        It worked for me on this article this morning.

        (incognito is also hand when you are limited to five free articles a month. Their computer doesn’t see the same user.)

        SMH

        Reply

  9. Posted by S Moderation Honestly on August 20, 2017 at 5:38 pm

    title…

    More companies sell bonds to fund pension obligations

    Reply

    • Posted by Tough Love on August 20, 2017 at 8:40 pm

      Private Sector companies do it for the tax benefits and the financial benefits of borrowing at low interest rates, They RARELY do so because they can’t “afford” to make the required payments (noting that the bond interest rates would be a lot higher if that was the case), but because of the tax/financial benefits and because by doing so, they free up internal capital for investments in company operations/expansion. etc.

      In the Public Sector they typically do so because they don’t have sufficient revenue to fund BOTH the cost of normal public services and also make their required pension contributions. So effectively, they don’t have the political “stomach” to make the politically difficult (and perhaps career-ending) choices that truly address the STRUCTURAL problems that are the root cause of the inability to fund their pensions ….. most often the ludicrously generous pension & benefit promises.

      Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: