$165 Billion Bailout of Union Pension Plans?

[rambone]

Create Jobs and Save Benefits Act of 2010,

The second time in a year, a Dem has proposed payback to the unions that elected them. Thats right, they want to put the taxpayers on the hook for billions in mismanaged union pension benefits.

By bailing out the plans, Congress would compromise the remedial provisions of the Pension Protection Act of 2006. The Act requires underfunded pension plans to put their houses in order by raising retirement ages; increasing contributions by employers, workers, or both; and lowering benefits. A bailout would remove any incentive for multiemployer pension plans to reorganize their plans responsibly, says Furchtgott-Roth:

Neither bill has been voted out of committee and reached the floor of the House or the Senate, nor have hearings been held, however, the bills have generated support from unions and employers.

Unions want to be free of pension obligations so that they can focus on higher wages in future contracts; employers seek to avoid higher contributions.

With deficits stifling the economy, making the taxpayers already in trouble themselves, pay for underfunded pensions is manifestly unfair. Yes, Casey's Create Jobs and Save Benefits Act would save benefits for workers and retirees. But spending billions of taxpayer funds on failed pensions would swell the deficit still further, harming the economy and destroying jobs rather than creating them, says Furchtgott-Roth.


DECRYING THE UNION PENSION BAILOUT BILL

 

[smoking357]

I hear you, but governments bail out police pension plans, all the time, to the roaring approval of so-called "conservatives." How is some loom worker any less deserving of public money than a cop? When cops (and the military) lose their pensions and go to 401k accounts, I'll believe conservative opposition to unions and other taxpayer largesse.

 

[9lock]

Yeah pizz on the unions, ALL of us should work for 1970 wages ($10.00 an hour) that is more than enough to cover everything these days.

 

[Expat]

That was one of the driving forces for the single payer health care that Obama wanted to get through. The unions cannot keep funding the health care and pension plans when they contribute hundreds of millions to the Democrats. In their eyes that is a better use of the money. The unions announced they are spending $100M in this off year election to get Dems elected. They ought to be keeping that money to benefit their members instead.

 

[Bendrx]

I hear you, but governments bail out police pension plans, all the time, to the roaring approval of so-called "conservatives." How is some loom worker any less deserving of public money than a cop? When cops (and the military) lose their pensions and go to 401k accounts, I'll believe conservative opposition to unions and other taxpayer largesse.

So two wrongs make a right?

It isn't that the loom worker is less deserving, it's that they are not deserving of my retirement. Military, should be taken care of, they work for the Federal Gov. The loom worker can take care of themselves or take it up with thier employer (which goes with the Fed covering for the military). It may be harsh, and someday I may be in their shoes, but that wouldn't make me deserving of another persons money because I failed to take care of myself and relied on my company to take care of me.

 

[smoking357]

So two wrongs make a right?

It isn't that the loom worker is less deserving, it's that they are not deserving of my retirement. Military, should be taken care of, they work for the Federal Gov. The loom worker can take care of themselves or take it up with thier employer (which goes with the Fed covering for the military). It may be harsh, and someday I may be in their shoes, but that wouldn't make me deserving of another persons money because I failed to take care of myself and relied on my company to take care of me.

How did it ever get to be the responsibility of an employer to pay for an employee's retirement?

No person is permitted to extract a pension from an employer, any more than a military member is entitled to extract a retirement from a taxpayer.

I'm not talking about wounded soldiers, to whom we owe a duty, just those whose career was the military instead of working in private industry.

 

[hoosiertriangle]

It became the employer's responsibility when they provided that benefit as a term in the employment agreement.

How did it ever get to be the responsibility of an employer to pay for an employee's retirement?

 

[jason conley]

All I can say is this, I have worked really hard for the last five years, I could have found other work, but I stuck with it to get some form of pension from teamsters. I am finally going to get some form of bailout and you guys are indifferent. It doesn't matter I will die before I retire.

 

[irishfan]

It became the employer's responsibility when they provided that benefit as a term in the employment agreement.

You are exactly right but many here will try and tell you how wrong that is. It seems that most people don't like to accept the fact that the company or management negotiators agree on the terms of the contract and sign off on it.

 

[hornadylnl]

You are exactly right but many here will try and tell you how wrong that is. It seems that most people don't like to accept the fact that the company or management negotiators agree on the terms of the contract and sign off on it.

You left out a small snippet of the contract process. Either the company agrees to the union demands or the union uses thuggish mob tactics to coerce the company to agree.

 

[level.eleven]

You are exactly right but many here will try and tell you how wrong that is. It seems that most people don't like to accept the fact that the company or management negotiators agree on the terms of the contract and sign off on it.

I don't think anyone would disagree with two parties voluntarily contracting. However, my name isn't mentioned anywhere in that contract, but I am being asked to be liable for its shortcomings. Sell off assets, restructure, whatever...don't take money out of the pockets of others to cover your failed business model. How many more times can "too big to fail" be used to justify government encouraged, poor business practices? I don't think anyone has the political capital to bailout unions at the moment.

Morally, at least for me, this is about as corrupt as a government/business collusion can be.

 

[Fletch]

I don't think anyone would disagree with two parties voluntarily contracting. However, my name isn't mentioned anywhere in that contract, but I am being asked to be liable for its shortcomings. Sell off assets, restructure, whatever...don't take money out of the pockets of others to cover your failed business model. How many more times can "too big to fail" be used to justify government encouraged, poor business practices? I don't think anyone has the political capital to bailout unions at the moment.

Morally, at least for me, this is about as corrupt as a government/business collusion can be.

This is like me going to Home Depot, buying a mower, then demanding that my next door neighbor service the warranty.

 

[BIG TIM]

You also forgot to mention that employers prefer to offer "deferred benefits", such as old age pensions because accounting rules did not require them to show the true cost of these in the year they were promised, allowing the fat-cat-employers to show a false profit on their balance sheet so that they could reward themselves with lavish bonuses and multi-million dollar pay packages. These employers knew from the time these benefits were promised that they were lieing to their stock holders and their employee's. Now they want, as usual, to blame their employee's!

 

[smoking357]

It became the employer's responsibility when they provided that benefit as a term in the employment agreement.

You're exactly right, but I was referring to America's practice of turning the employer into the Great Parent. Where did we come to see an employer as anything but a paycheck?

 

[level.eleven]

You're exactly right, but I was referring to America's practice of turning the employer into the Great Parent. Where did we come to see an employer as anything but a paycheck?

WWII federal wage locks? Employers needed something else to entice skilled labor so health insurance was put on the table. My guess pensions were introduced by unions as an alternative to other, more costly benefits like direct compensation. Only a guess, really.

 

[irishfan]

I don't think anyone would disagree with two parties voluntarily contracting. However, my name isn't mentioned anywhere in that contract, but I am being asked to be liable for its shortcomings. Sell off assets, restructure, whatever...don't take money out of the pockets of others to cover your failed business model. How many more times can "too big to fail" be used to justify government encouraged, poor business practices? I don't think anyone has the political capital to bailout unions at the moment.

Morally, at least for me, this is about as corrupt as a government/business collusion can be.

I am not disputing that the government should not bail them out. I am saying that many will blame this on the union people when it is not directly their fault. Yes it is the fault of the people in charge and whoever is running these accounts along with the management people who set it up. The government should not be bailing them out and I think pensions are a thing of the past but those who already have them and are retired on them need some protection. It is not right to think that all people need to bail out these pension plans but the company who is the original backer should have its money completely liquidated to pay the plans off before any tax payer money is ever considered.

 

[T-rav]

Thomas Jefferson once said "If it neither breaks my leg nor picks my pocket, what difference does it make to me?"

A federal bailout of UNION pensions is picking our pockets. It is not our fault that the companies made deals they cant uphold due to bad agreements, poor managing of funds, or just a downright loss in business revenue. The last contract we had with my company we lost the pension. I dont depend on a company taking care of me I depend on myself. Im sure some will argue that if a person spends their life with one company they are entitled to a pension, I disagree. No one held a gun to your head and forced you to work for someone for 30+ years that was your choice.

On a good note you could demand you get your pension, get it, then the company downsizes due to costs and then your out of a job.

 

[dhnorris]

You left out a small snippet of the contract process. Either the company agrees to the union demands or the union uses thuggish mob tactics to coerce the company to agree.

man, I signed up to be part of the thuggish mob last contract and didn't get picked. I think I'll just go over to the heartless oppressor side for a while.