Short answer: any such bill must be bipartisan. Published by Jane the Actuary View all posts by Jane the Actuary
8 thoughts on “Forbes post, “Does Multi-Employer Pension Reform Belong In A ‘Phase Four’ Coronavirus Bill?””
being a Forbes writer, it is no surprise to see the writer talk about dumping the multi-employer pension from any new stimulus blll as it does not relate to the pandemic. As if the billions thrown at Wall Street, with no oversight, is perfectly normal, but should multi-employer (read; UNION) pensions come up, well, let’s step back and make sure that is not included. Forget the trillions ($4.6 I believe) that was handed out to Wall Street along with the $500 billion in the stimulus bill, so we will never know how it was used, as the Prez fired the Inspector General who was to alert us if Wall Street used that money to buy back their stocks and increase their executive pay and their payouts to their investors. We shouldn’t worry since , Goldman Sachs Treasury Secretary will oversee its disbursement. All that is absolutely fine with the writer, but god forbid we should help those Union retirees out and the millions of workers who, through no fault of their own, are about to lose a huge part of their family’s income when that pension disappears in less than five years. Yeah, fuck them. Right? After all, corporations are people and they are more important than a bunch of blue-collar workers, right?
Why don’t we Forget About American Workers and their hard earned pensions. I want to see how the governments going to handle the revenue lose. We’ve bailed out everything, but we can’t help AMERICAN WORKERS so they can retire with dignity. Don’t forget how these workers will vote in the upcoming election. Sincerly James Bovy
Based on the public discussion of the multi-employer pension crisis, one gets the impression that no such pension fund ever had a retroactive pension increase. That all any worker in any of those pension funds ever was able to receive was the pensions they were promised when they were hired.
Is that true? If not, there are two injustices here. Making those in poorer, later born generations who don’t even get pensions to become even worse off to pay for the longer and richer retirements of those who came before. And lying to them about it.
“God forbid we should help those Union retirees out and the millions of workers who, through no fault of their own, are about to lose a huge part of their family’s income when that pension disappears in less than five years.”
The average Millennial is paid 25 percent less than the average Baby Boomer had been at the same age.
When you say “we” should help those who get both Social Security (with higher benefit levels than later-born generations will get) plus a pension get a larger pension than they otherwise would, who is included in the “we” to be made worse off to pay for it? How, specifically, should those currently age 62 and over sacrifice to pay for this? Or should the money be borrowed, and the costs deferred, so that only those born later — whose live expectancy is already falling — end up paying?
As for Goldman Sachs distributing largess to corporations, more and more people across the ideological spectrum believe mass bankruptcy — wiping out shareholders, and bondholders in part — is the only way forward for this country. Across the board. Cutting not only future executive pay, but also past, unearned, undeserved past executive pay. Followed by a reboot with lower stock and housing prices for later-born investors.
What that would mean for pensions you could imagine. Basically, Generation Greed wants to further sell its progeny into semi-slavery to pay for everything it promised itself but refused to pay for. Multi-employer pensions, public pensions, the wealth of the wealthy, and the capital of the financial sector all consist of pieces of paper that represent not actual income producing assets, but rather promises to make someone else poorer and poorer.
Can you comment of the latest garbage they are going to try and attach to any stimulus bill that is presented. It is labeled the “Emergency Pension Plan Relief Act of 2020”.
Despite the Teamster cult called the NUCPP claims it was created by Senate Democrats in my opinion it is the work of the NCCMP.Oddly some of the language is word for word form the last Union attempt for a bailout. The 2010 Casey Pomeroy Bill. It is a complete taxpayer bailout of Union funds ‘(2) NO REPAYMENT OBLIGATION.—A plan receiving partition assistance pursuant to this section shall not be subject to repayment obligations under section 4261(b)(2).NO REPAYMENT OBLIGATION
It also give them an open ended bailout check book since ever three years they can get more money and the 30 clock restarts….‘
‘(g) ADJUSTMENT OF PARTITION ASSISTANCE.—
‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—Every 3 years the corporation shall adjust the partition assistance described in subsection (d) as necessary for the eligible multiemployer plan to satisfy the funding goal described in
subsection (e), with the year of the adjustment serving as the first year of the 30-year period for the funding goal
You can find a copy here…https://nccmp.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/OTT20222-.pdf?fbclid=IwAR2NrxVm6ft6nGPGukg-iQo5tOyAlG_mgBG_HLbGSK2T0WkU9XAGSNZuVQU
…‘‘(2) NO CAP.—Liabilities assumed by the corporation pursuant to a partition order under this section shall not be capped by the guarantee under section 4022A. The corporation shall have discretion on how liabilities of the plan are partitioned.
“may elect to apply this paragraph by substituting ‘February 29, 2020’ for ‘August 31, 2008’ each place it appears in subparagraphs (A)(i), (B)(i)(I), and (B)(i)(II)”
SEC. 6. ADJUSTMENTS TO FUNDING STANDARD ACCOUNT
(a) ADJUSTMENTS.—‘‘(F) RELIEF FOR 2020 AND 2021.—A multiemployer plan with respect to which the solvency test under subparagraph (C) is met as of February 29, 2020, may elect to apply this paragraph by substituting ‘February 29, 2020’ for ‘August 31, 2008’ each place it appears in subparagraphs (A)(i), (B)(i)(I), and (B)(i)(II)(without regard to whether such plan previously elected the application of this paragraph). The preceding sentence shall not apply to a plan with respect to which a partition order is in effect under section 4233A.’’.
‘‘(l) APPLICATION OF EXCISE TAX.—During the period that a plan is subject to a partition order under this section, the plan shall not be subject to section 4971 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.’’.
Thanks for flagging this for me; this is indeed relevant.
Sorry for the typos I was a hurry.Thank you in advance for your work..