As a baby boomer, my
interest in pension plans has grown as I approach the magic age when
"mailbox money" will appear in my bank account every month.
When I entered the workforce in the late 1970s, pension plans were a
foundation of every employment contract along with a monthly salary and health
insurance. We were led to believe that our employer was contributing to a
guaranteed benefit on our behalf, a benefit that we would have access to once
we reached the requisite pensionable age. Unfortunately, as the decades
passed, pension plans changed and employers, realizing that there was no way
that their defined benefit plans were sustainable over the long-term, switched
to some form of defined contribution plans by offering employees a one-time
cash payment/buyout. As we now know, pension income is going to be far
different for baby boomers than it was for our parents.
According to the Pension
Rights Center (PRC) and the Center for Retirement Research at Boston College,
the relatively recent Multiemployer Pension Reform Act of 2014 has been a
game-changer for a significant part of the American pension system.
Multiemployer Pension Plans or MEPPs are employee benefit plans that have
been maintained under one or more union collective bargaining agreements to
which more than one employer contributes. These agreements generally
involve one or more local unions that are part of the same national or
international labour union and also involve more than a single employer. According
to the International Foundation of Employee Benefit Plans,
there are/were significant benefits to MEPPs as follows:
“Workers: Multiemployer plans provide benefit security for participants
and beneficiaries through pooling of risk and economies of scale for employees
in a unionized workforce covered by the plan. They also provide portability of
certain benefits and eligibility for those employees who move from employer to
employer within the industry covered by the plan. As a result, multiemployer
plans often enable eligibility to be transferred from employer to employer or
job to job which can avoid interruptions in coverage that would apply without
this portability.
Employers: Multiemployer plans also help employers with a
union workforce in the affected area and industry by making available coverages
on a more economical basis due to a pooling of risk and economies of scale.”
That sounds pretty good,
doesn't it? The assurance of pension security has always been one of the
key foundation stones of a Multiemployer Pension Plan.”
Unfortunately, the 2015
Omnibus spending bill (H.R. 83) which was signed into law by
President Obama in December 2014 included various provisions that allowed
trustees of MEPPs to cut retirees' pension plan payments as shown here:
1
“The
legislation permits deep pension cuts to retirees in certain
financially-troubled multiemployer plans. Financially-troubled plans are plans
expected to not have enough money to pay 100% of benefits within 15 and, in
some cases, 20 years. There are instances where the cuts could be more
than 60% of a participant’s benefits.
2
The
decision to cut benefits is made by plan trustees, who are typically more
aligned with active workers and employers than with retirees.
3
Retirees
who are age 80 or over, or who are receiving a disability pension, are not
subject to benefit cuts. Retirees ages 75-79 are subject to smaller cuts than
retirees under age 75.
4
How big or
small the cuts are for those under age 75 is determined by the trustees. The
cuts are subject to certain legal limits, the most important of which is that
benefits cannot be cut below 110% of the amounts that the federal pension
insurance agency guarantees.
5
Plan trustees
decide how to allocate the cuts. For example, they can cut retirees’ benefits
more than those of active workers, and they can decide whether and how much to
reduce survivors’ benefits.
6
Plan
trustees are required to reduce the benefits of participants whose employers
went out of business (or withdrew from the plan for other reasons without
paying all of their obligations) first, before they reduce the benefits of any
other plan participants. This will mean that those retirees whose companies went
bankrupt will have greater reductions than other retirees.
7
Even if all
participants vote against cuts, the Treasury Department, in consultation with
the Department of Labor and the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC, the
federal pension insurance program) can override the vote and uphold the
trustees’ decision to make cuts if it concludes that the plan’s insolvency
would increase the PBGC’s projected liabilities by $1 billion or more.
8
The
insurance premiums that multiemployer plans pay to the PBGC are increased from
$13 to $26 per participant per year. In contrast, premiums paid to the
single-employer plan program are between $57 and $475 per participant per
year.
9
Retirees,
widows, and widowers whose benefits are reduced cannot bring a lawsuit under
the federal private pension law, ERISA, to challenge the legality of the
reductions."
Obviously,
pension plans are in big trouble, particularly those Multiemployer plans that
were put in place to ensure pension security.
The Center
for Retirement Research at Boston College has compiled a partial list of 100
MEPPs that may be permitted to cut benefits as a result of the new law.
Here is an alphabetical list of the plans:
Note the
high ratio of inactive members to active members (i.e. the number of members
that are funding each retiree), the very low funded ratios and the fact that
some plans are expected to be insolvent in less than five years. In the worst case scenario, the Southern California, Arizona, Colorado and Southern Nevada Glaziers, Architectural Metal and Glass Workers Pension Plan has one year to insolvency and has a funding rain of only 5.3 percent. There are 4580 members of this pension plan. The largest pension plan (in terms of membership) in the list, the Central States, Southeast and Southwest Areas Pension Plan has 411,238 members. It is only 53.9 percent funded and has 12 years until insolvency.
According
to the new law, pension plans that are projected to run out of money within 20
years can cut benefits if their are twice as many retirees as their are active
workers in the plan or if the plan does not have enough money to pay more than
80 percent of future "promised" benefits. Plans are not allowed
to cut benefits unless the benefit cuts are projected to restore the plan to a
solvent state.
As we can
see, pension plans have turned out to be a gigantic Ponzi scheme where
employees who will reach pensionable age later this century will find
it increasingly unlikely that they will receive benefits of any
significant amount.
No comments:
Post a Comment