The Mayor-elect’s plan to rid his pending administration of employees he does not want has seemingly run aground and stalled for the time being. This plan involved offering early retirement packages for 136 employees who meet the criterion of age plus years of service equal to or greater than 70. But it has received a cool reception from some important people. For one, the head of the ICA (oversight board) has indicated the plan violates restrictions in the Act 47 recovery scheme for the City put in place several years ago and the ICA will not approve the early retirement package. Second, the incumbent Mayor has pronounced the proposal as fiscally unsound and that he will veto the measure if it gets to his desk.
That’s for starters–powerful, if not insurmountable obstacles to getting the plan in place early in the new year.
But there are other concerns. Why a plan to get rid of employees the incoming Mayor does not want? If the employees he wants to be rid of are “at will” employees he simply need ask for their resignations. Then he can put his own people in place. It is done as a matter of routine when new chief executives are sworn in. It is not necessary to “ease” the transition as the incoming mayor’s chief of staff has said is one of the reasons to offer the enhance retirement package.
If on the other hand these are City employees of long standing, not considered “at will” and whose work performances are and have been satisfactory, efforts to get rid of them by offering retirement enhancements are questionable. Employees who have poor performance records do not deserve a reward of an enhanced retirement option. How does the proposed plan distinguish between the two groups?
Further, why is the plan limited to non-union employees? Surely, if the plan is adopted by Council and signed into law, there will be immediate court challenges.
Some guidelines for the new mayor to consider:
- Early retirement packages are offered to reduce staff, especially older, high cost staff. Any early retirement schemes must be aimed at reducing staff costs by reducing staff count. One does not try to get rid of underperforming or trouble making employees by rewarding them. What if they don’t take your sweetened deal? Then you have to fire them anyway.
- If egregious enough, their performance and behavior will warrant dismissal. If borderline, then strong warnings to improve or face dismissal should be given.
- A better plan to reduce employment long term is to institute a hiring freeze with Mayoral approval required for any new hire.
- Finally, think through and thoroughly research the ramifications and consequences of any legislation one intends to propose.
