Excerpts from abc7chicago.com:
Police officers and firefighters would no longer be forced to retire at age 63 under a proposal that’s being considered by a Chicago City Council committee. Supporters say it could save the city money and would help with staffing levels.
The proposal is still in the planning stages at this point, but the chairman of the Committee on Police and Fire said there are a lot of good reasons to consider it, despite concerns about the job of police officer and firefighter perhaps being better suited for younger people.
Police officer retention has been a big concern in recent years, with retirements outpacing the city’s ability to hire and train new recruits and staffing levels falling far below ideal numbers.
The union representing the rank and file is renewing a two-year-old push to extend the retirement age from 63 to 65.
Police and Fire Committee Chair Chris Taliaferro said there would financial benefits for the struggling police pension system with the department down, he said, about 2,000 positions.
One alderman who is a former firefighter said the demands of the job can be tough, even on younger members of the department. But, others say keeping older police officers and firefighters on duty provides leadership, wisdom and experience that is invaluable for both departments.
The committee did not take up the issue on Monday. It is now expected to be addressed at the next meeting on Dec. 18.
#1 by Bob dreyer on December 9, 2023 - 6:47 PM
Tried this in the early 80s when retirement age was pushed to 70,it did not last,I remember there was something with physicals before they would let you continue,???,long time ago don’t remember the details
#2 by Chuck on December 8, 2023 - 7:38 PM
Dennis, I’m aware the City does not pay their matching contributions until you retire. This was not the case until Richie Junior got into office. This is probably the one defining reason the Fireman’s Annuity and Benefit Fund is in the 20% funded shape it’s in. And contributing those extra two years doesn’t mean squat. You max out at 29 years and a day. You could work 40 years and your pension doesn’t increase past your KMA day. I don’t think cities or pension funds adequately forecasted the explosion in public safety employee salaries (and other governmental employees as well,) and some serious thought needs to be put forth going forward, not just kicking the can down the road. And it’s extremely easy for municipalities to point the finger at policemen and firemen for their financial miscues. I think the end of service funding tactic is used elsewhere too, not just in Chicago.
#3 by Andy on December 8, 2023 - 5:19 PM
The change from 63 to 65 also mirrors the Article 4 Firefighter’s Pension.
#4 by Matt C on December 8, 2023 - 1:30 PM
I can see why the union would support the age change from an insurance standpoint. It fills the Medicare gap. If you have to go at 62, to give up almost 1/3 of your pension for insurance is a healthy chunk. The downside is I could see the work. comp going up. Might be to the city’s advantage to offer a real good insurance incentive.
#5 by Pat on December 8, 2023 - 12:27 PM
Technically it is good for the pension if people stay longer. More of them paying into the pension and less time they withdrawing from it as a retired member.
#6 by Dennis on December 8, 2023 - 9:36 AM
Chuck there is not a federal law to require firefighters/police officers to retire at 63, unless they are FEDERAL employees. This is a city of Chicago ordinance which also allows medics to stay on as long as they want. This is nothing but a way for the city to not pay into the pension. (The city doesn’t pay its portion of the pension contribution until you file your paperwork to retire, the pension board then calculates the cities portion and sends them a bill)
#7 by Mike on December 7, 2023 - 10:06 PM
Chuck this is such a stupid idea. No wonder the city wants to do it. 2 more years of working means 2 less years of collecting and they hope you die soon after you leave. Anyone working with half a brain that is eligible for the 55 and out with insurance should take that deal and go. Enjoy your pension, and enjoy your retirement.
#8 by Chuck on December 7, 2023 - 8:44 PM
How do they expect that this local ordinance is going to trump (no pun intended,) Federal law? That retirement age is set into law. And why add two more years of pension payments they’re already decades behind on already? This isn’t going anywhere. Despite what Local 2 and the City think.