[quote=pri_dk][quote=bearishgurl]Agreed, but it would stand to reason that for a worker who works for an employer without a “defined benefit plan,” that there isn’t as much incentive to stay on the payroll […][/quote]
I’m pretty sure that an incentive to stay on the payroll..would be the payroll.
Forrest and the trees, eh?[/quote]
I was referring to “staying on the payroll” when a particular employee should probably be on FML or other “unpaid” leave. I used “sick” employees for an example (who very possibly could have run out of both sick and annual leave). When an hourly public employee is trying to earn service credits for retirement and needs to vest or hit a particular pension amount and/or age in order to be able to afford to “retire,” he/she often works when they have run out of sick and annual leave. In this case, it’s very possible that healthwise, they would be MUCH better off taking FML or retiring.
For a public employee who is a member of a defined-benefit retirement system and expects to eventually recover from their illness, paid hours are the only thing that matters …. yes, even if technically “sick.”
edit: Lots of employees have 30+ years of service in and are still working. Why, when at 30+ years of service, they can collect 100% of their base pay as a pension?? Because they are not yet old enough to be eligible for Medicare and a health plan in retirement would cost them $500 – $1200 mo. It’s not always about the paycheck.
