SPD blue

You’re 50 years old. For the past 30 years, you’ve been learning your trade, and now you’re at the top of your game. You have the knowledge and skills to get the job done right. You also have the experience to be a manager or run a department. Then the people you work for offer you a deal that other workers don’t get. Retire early, they say, and with the pension we’re providing, you’ll make almost as much as you’re making now.

Sounds like an offer you can’t refuse, right?

It did to 42 Sacramento Police Department officers, who took the department’s recent early retirement offer seriously. The offer, arbitrated by the city and the Sacramento Police Officers Association, pays officers over the age of 50 three percent of their final annual salary times the number of years of service. A senior officer making $50,000 who has been on the job 30 years is eligible for a pension that nearly matches his top annual salary. Why not bail at the taxpayers’ expense?

Early retirement arrangements are by no means unusual for police, firefighters, prison guards and other workers charged with protecting the public safety. Such occupations can be stressful and worthy of a reasonable fringe benefits package. But is it really reasonable to expect taxpayers to pay for the training, salaries and pensions of public employees who are currently being encouraged to leave their jobs at the peak of their careers?

We don’t think so. Name one corporation in the private sector that offers a deal so sweet. Most workers, outside of government jobs, have to stay past 60. In fact, in the private sector, companies have to be extremely careful when offering employees early retirement packages, at the risk of being charged with age discrimination, thanks to laws that recognize the valuable contribution older employees make in the workforce. Too bad the Sacramento Police Department’s early retirement package doesn’t seem to recognize this.

Some might still argue that police officers are not ordinary public employees and deserve special treatment. We agree, to a point. That point was reached when 42 officers chose to retire early, leaving the department with a gaping hole it is still trying to fill and the public’s safety in doubt. We don’t blame the officers for taking the deal; it was, after all, an offer they couldn’t refuse. But maybe it’s time for taxpayers to refuse to cut such deals. What needs to happen is this: The Sacramento Police Department, along with the Sacramento Police Officers Association, needs to take this back to the drawing board. We suggest they start by creating incentives that encourage our most skilled and experienced officers to stay on the force, not leave and have us pay.