The magnitude of taxpayer dollars involved underpins the importance of examining double dipping. We focus this study on certified staff because most double dippers come from this category of employees as it requires the highest level of skill sets and thus absent skill sets when these school district professionals retire.
Although working in retirement is not unusual in the public and private sectors, the practice of double dipping in the public sector is questioned when it occurs in a single state system that is funded by taxpayers.
New York State has seen its fair share of double dipping controversy.
As awareness of the prevalence and financial and social impact of double dipping increases, state lawmakers have implemented measures to curb the practice of exploiting pension systems.
New York State has also taken steps to address the issue of double dipping. In 2008, bill S.8669 was signed into law.
At the root of the double dipping issue is the fundamental definition of retirement.
Proponents of double dipping argue that property taxpayers benefit when a retirees are rehired because the experienced retiree fills an immediate critical personnel need at a lower cost, saving on health and retirement benefits, which are not part of the rehiree's compensation package.
Opponents of double dipping view it as an unethical "gaming" of the system to increase compensation for the same level of productive output.
The double dipping debate goes far beyond the differences discussed thus far.
The practice of double dipping is essentially nonexistent in the private sector, whereby private-sector employees also pay taxes but do not have the same kind of benefits as the public sector (Gartner, 2011).
According to the TRS Active Members Handbook for future retirees, double dipping is encouraged by stating, "While working in retirement may seem like a contradiction, it can be a rewarding and profitable experience.