Wisconsin Assembly Bill AB671

Wisconsin 2023-2024 Regular Session

• Introduced: 11/27/23
• Refer: 11/27/23
• Report Pass: 2/15/24
• Refer: 2/15/24
• Engrossed: 2/20/24
• Refer: 2/26/24
• Failed: 4/15/24

Caption

Protective occupation annuitants in the Wisconsin Retirement System who are rehired by a participating employer. (FE)

Impact

The bill introduces a significant exception to the existing requirements, allowing annuitants who retired as protective occupation participants to be rehired without losing their annuity benefits, provided certain conditions are met. This would include circumstances where the individual does not have a prior agreement to return to employment, thus supporting those who chose to retire yet wish to re-enter the workforce under the right conditions. This provision could lead to increased flexibility for both retired individuals and the employers seeking experienced personnel.

Summary

Assembly Bill 671 addresses the provisions concerning protective occupation annuitants within the Wisconsin Retirement System (WRS) who are rehired by participating employers. The current regulations require that individuals who receive a retirement or disability annuity from the WRS must suspend those payments upon reemployment with a participating employer. This can create a financial burden on retirees who wish to return to work, especially in protective occupations where former employees' experience and expertise can benefit public service roles.

Contention

Debate surrounding Assembly Bill 671 may include discussions on its implications for the integrity and sustainability of the WRS. Supporters argue that allowing protective occupation participants to maintain their annuity benefits while reentering the workforce can help fill critical staffing needs in the public sector. Opponents might raise concerns regarding broader impacts on the retirement system’s financial health and the potential for encouraging premature retirements if employees view rehiring as an option that won't affect their annuity payments. Subsequently, such changes could prompt additional scrutiny and debate on long-term retirement policy reforms in the state.