Retirement Blog

Finance Blogs » Retirement Blog » Multiemployer pensions need help

Multiemployer pensions need help

By Jennie L. Phipps ·
Friday, April 4, 2014
Posted: 3 pm ET

At the end of this year, some aspects of the Pension Protection Act of 2006 are going to end -- "sunset," as they say in legislative jargon. The American Academy of Actuaries, which advises on the stability of pension plans, is particularly concerned about the impact of sunset on the solvency of multiemployer pension plans.

Multiemployer pension plans are a holdover from the days when most workers in industries like trucking and mining were unionized. The plans required all union employers to pay a small amount into a group pension fund, covering union workers for all companies. As the businesses have changed and fewer workers are unionized, some of these plans have been increasingly underfunded. A few of them are in big trouble, threatening the retirement planning of millions.

Companies that are still participating in the plans are being asked to pay more -- so much more in some cases, the survival of some businesses is threatened. If these companies seek exit plans -- because their owners are planning retirement themselves or their businesses have changed -- they are often faced with enormous pension liabilities that scare away potential buyers. Meanwhile, the number of union employees continues to shrink.

The trucking trade magazine Logistics Management pointed to the International Brotherhood of Teamsters' Central States pension plan as a particularly dire example. It said that there is only one active worker contributing to the plan for every four retired workers collecting benefits. The Central States plan is underfunded by at least $24 billion. Some of its retired members with 30 years of seniority are able to draw as much as $36,000 a year each -- more than double what the Pension Benefit Guarantee Corp, or PBGC, guarantees.

The PBGC, a quasi-government organization that guarantees corporate pensions, treats multiemployer plans differently than it does single employer plans. The maximum guarantee for a multiemployer participant with 30 years of service is $12,870 per year without an index for inflation. In contrast, the maximum guarantee set by law for single-employer participants at age 65 is $59,320 in 2014. Because that amount is indexed for inflation, it rises every year.

In a March letter to both houses of Congress, the chair of the Pension Practice Council Eli Greenblum asked Congress to act promptly so the PBGC, union officials and employers jointly have the tools to continue to develop solutions to this problem. Greenblum pointed out that if key parts of the rule actually sunset and the PBGC depletes current assets, "Participants in these plans could see their benefits reduced to less than $125 per month."

"The system as it stands now can't continue," Greenblum says. "Serious proposals have been made, and we are encouraging Congress to start to focus on this."

Meanwhile, Sanford Rich, chief of negotiations and restructuring for the PBGC, told Logistics Management, "The only thing that will help (multiemployer plans) is funds -- dollars."

Read more about multiemployer pension plan problems.

Bankrate wants to hear from you and encourages comments. We ask that you stay on topic, respect other people's opinions, and avoid profanity, offensive statements, and illegal content. Please keep in mind that we reserve the right to (but are not obligated to) edit or delete your comments. Please avoid posting private or confidential information, and also keep in mind that anything you post may be disclosed, published, transmitted or reused.

By submitting a post, you agree to be bound by Bankrate's terms of use. Please refer to Bankrate's privacy policy for more information regarding Bankrate's privacy practices.
1 Comment
April 29, 2014 at 2:28 pm

No surprise that a "negotiator" for a Government Sponsored Enterprise (for lack of a better term) would want what appears to be a bail out and not a solution - they get to keep their job and maybe even hire more people - and still not get the job done.

Lets look at the players who run the Multiemployer Funds:
The Unions - they have no liability for any of this, so why should the unions care.

Companies - have liability but can always go bankrupt and get out of paying anything- this has happened many times

Workers - increasingly companies are reducing pay to workers if they are in Multiemployer pension funds as part of thier collective bargaining agreements - the workers get less pay and reduced pensions (due to he-habilitation of the Pension funds because of mis-management by those in charge) and have to pay more dues - the workers are the real losers.