IBJNews

More than 500 employees take Purdue early-retirement plan

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

More than 500 Purdue University employees have opted for early retirement after being offered a one-time incentive package.

Purdue announced Tuesday that 509 employees out of 1,644 who were eligible—about 30 percent—submitted requests for the package.

The plan, approved by Purdue's Board of Trustees on Aug. 30, was designed to reduce payroll costs and avoid involuntary layoffs.

System-wide, 440 who took the incentive are from the West Lafayette campus; 26 are from Purdue Calumet; 29 from Indiana University-Purdue University Fort Wayne; and 14 are from Purdue North Central.

Luis Lewin, Purdue’s vice president for human resources, said those numbers match his office's projection concerning the overall percentage of those eligible who would apply.  

The applicants include 89 faculty; six non-tenure track faculty; 123 administrative or professional staff; and 291 clerical, service and operations/technical assistants staff.

All tenured faculty who turned 60 on or before June 30 and all other faculty and staff who will be 60 on or before Jan. 31 were eligible if they had been employed in a benefits-eligible position for at least 10 years. All

The retirees will receive $7,000 a year up to a total of $35,000 over five years that can be used to pay health premiums or other allowable medical expenses. Tenured faculty also will receive one-time separation pay equal to one-half their final year's base salary. Others will receive a quarter of their final year's base salary.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

  • Is there a plan in place?
    Is there a plan in place to insure none of these exiting employees are replaced? If so, who would know; and, how will the public be kept informed?

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
 
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. I am not by any means judging whether this is a good or bad project. It's pretty simple, the developers are not showing a hardship or need for this economic incentive. It is a vacant field, the easiest for development, and the developer already has the money to invest $26 million for construction. If they can afford that, they can afford to pay property taxes just like the rest of the residents do. As well, an average of $15/hour is an absolute joke in terms of economic development. Get in high paying jobs and maybe there's a different story. But that's the problem with this ask, it is speculative and users are just not known.

  2. Shouldn't this be a museum

  3. I don't have a problem with higher taxes, since it is obvious that our city is not adequately funded. And Ballard doesn't want to admit it, but he has increased taxes indirectly by 1) selling assets and spending the money, 2) letting now private entities increase user fees which were previously capped, 3) by spending reserves, and 4) by heavy dependence on TIFs. At the end, these are all indirect tax increases since someone will eventually have to pay for them. It's mathematics. You put property tax caps ("tax cut"), but you don't cut expenditures (justifiably so), so you increase taxes indirectly.

  4. Marijuana is the safest natural drug grown. Addiction is never physical. Marijuana health benefits are far more reaching then synthesized drugs. Abbott, Lilly, and the thousands of others create poisons and label them as medication. There is no current manufactured drug on the market that does not pose immediate and long term threat to the human anatomy. Certainly the potency of marijuana has increased by hybrids and growing techniques. However, Alcohol has been proven to destroy more families, relationships, cause more deaths and injuries in addition to the damage done to the body. Many confrontations such as domestic violence and other crimes can be attributed to alcohol. The criminal activities and injustices that surround marijuana exists because it is illegal in much of the world. If legalized throughout the world you would see a dramatic decrease in such activities and a savings to many countries for legal prosecutions, incarceration etc in regards to marijuana. It indeed can create wealth for the government by collecting taxes, creating jobs, etc.... I personally do not partake. I do hope it is legalized throughout the world.

  5. Build the resevoir. If built this will provide jobs and a reason to visit Anderson. The city needs to do something to differentiate itself from other cities in the area. Kudos to people with vision that are backing this project.

ADVERTISEMENT