By James A. Kimble, The Eagle-Tribune, North Andover, Mass.
MONTPELIER, Vt. — Lawmakers are considering raising the retirement age of newly hired firefighters and police officers by five years, to age 50.
House Bill 590, which heads to the House floor next week, would also require workers to have 25 years of service, instead of 20, before becoming eligible for retirement.
A similar bill passed the House last year, but was killed in the Senate.
The latest proposal comes at a time when cities and towns are looking to slash budgets to deal with revenue shortfalls during a sagging economy.
“Certainly, that’s the thing that’s motivating the timing,” Rep. Neal Kurk, R-Weare said. “This has tried to be done for a number of years. It’s bad public policy.”
Kurk, a co-sponsor of the bill, said the state retirement system has been overly generous in allowing Group II employees to retire at age 45 after 20 years of service. Police and firefighters have the shortest period in which they contribute to the system, he said.
Group II employees also include state police and corrections officers. The retirement system is funded by three sources: worker contributions, employer contributions and investment returns.
The bill would only apply to employees hired after July 1. It would not have a retroactive effect on those currently in the system.
Critics of the bill say jobs such as firefighting and police work are largely a young person’s game, and lawmakers haven’t done enough to study the long-term effects of increasing the retirement age.
James Foley, a Pelham firefighter and paramedic who is a union president, said changing the system for newer employees would create an unfair balance in pay scales for people doing the same job.
“It sets two different standards for people who are going to be working side by side,” he said. “I’m going to be on the job with one set of benefits, and another guy is going to be on that same job and have a different set of benefits. How is that fair?”
Local police and firefighters also say pushing employees to work into their late 40s could wind up being more expensive if it drives up the number of workers who leave on disability.
“A lot of guys do stay on past 45, but it’s easier if you do have the choice to stay on,” Salem police Sgt. Joel Dolan said. “To be a patrol guy, to be in that cruiser, with that gun belt, and being asked to stay a lot longer, I think you’re going to create a situation that’s going to lead to more injuries. You’re dealing with younger criminals, faster criminals. The disability is more expensive than going out on a pension, If a guy is 48 or 49 years old wrestling with a 23-year-old guy on drugs, you could have more situations like that end up that way.”
Salem police Capt. Shawn Patten said the majority of the town’s patrol division is now under the age of 30, after a wave of retirements hit the department within the last two years.
“The advantage New Hampshire has to attract good, solid, quality candidates is decent pay and retirement benefits,” he said. “Most of the time, public service does not compete with the private sector. This is one thing that attracts good candidates.”
Supporters of the bill say as workers age, they generally take on leadership roles that draw them away from the front line.
Dolan, a union vice president, pointed out that despite concerns about a higher mandated age for retirement, there are several older men and women who do the job well. But age, he said, doesn’t exactly move them away from the front lines, especially in small towns where there are few supervisory positions.
“New Hampshire has a lot of departments where that’s not really an option,” he said. “So you have a lot of guys still doing shift work, or having to work holidays and weekends.”
Local managers and department heads say increasing the retirement age is only a knee-jerk reaction in attempt to make the system more solvent.
Salem fire Chief Kevin Breen, who is in his 23rd year as a firefighter, said he worries changing the retirement system could have unforeseen consequences for the long-term makeup of departments.
“The retirement system, in general, has suffered like all investments,” he said. “There’s a tendency out there to correct what’s clearly a downturn in the economy. The solvency of the actual system positively needs to be addressed. I absolutely and positively think there needs to be some reform, but the knee-jerk reaction is to raise the age and make significant changes. I think the impact needs to be carefully evaluated before that happens.”
Copyright 2009, The Eagle-Tribune (North Andover, Massachusetts)