In a WaPo article on the labor tensions around the company that makes Peeps, they mention pensions:
The pension, which is administered by a group of labor officials and corporate executives from the 200 participating companies, has sued the company, alleging it improperly tried to stop enrolling new employees in the pension without paying the withdrawal fee. The company has sued the union, demanding “monetary damages” and alleging the strike was illegal.
Companies, labor leaders and retirees are watching closely, because the multi-employer pension that Peeps workers depend on is one of close to 1,300 around the country.
In total, 10 million current and retired workers participate in multi-employer pensions, according to the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation. These pensions allow employees to move from one job to another within the same pension and carry their retirement benefits with them.
Many of these multi-employer pensions are on track to run out of money. If the pension runs out of money, retired workers might only get a small percent of the money they thought they had earned through decades of work.
I know that pensions are one of the pet projects of unions and the left, one of those things you automatically get behind if you’re on the political left. Corporate America doesn’t like them, on the other hand, and has been getting rid of them as they can.
In my mind, I wonder about the stability and advisability of a financial institution where the income is known and limited, while the outgo is effectively neither. In the middle is, of course, the investments the pension fund can make – but investments can go belly up, too, so depending on them to make up the difference seems a mugs’ game.
And I wonder if UBI (Unconditional Basic Income) would ease the pressure on pension funds – or if the possible increase in taxes to pay a meaningful UBI would increase the pressure. Not an economist, am I.
