House lawmakers were nearing a deal Thursday to avert a potential pension crisis that threatens hundreds of thousands of retirees from trucking, mining and other industries.
The measure to shore up so-called multiemployer pension plans still faces numerous political obstacles and could be derailed. It was generating opposition on Capitol Hill this week from some unions and advocates for seniors, who said it could lead to retiree benefit cuts.
The legislation could raise insurance premiums on many businesses that participate in multiemployer plans, possibly by setting higher rates or creating a process that could lead to higher rates. Some businesses, notably trucking giant United Parcel Service Inc., UPS +0.50% worried it also could require them to contribute more for some of their retirees.
But recent reports showing funding shortfalls in several large multiemployer plans, and in the federal safety net that backs them, have helped motivate lawmakers to try to reach agreement during the current lame-duck session of Congress. Failure of any of the big troubled plans would quickly drain the relatively meager funds of the backstop federal Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp., leaving as many as one million people virtually without benefits.
The PBGC said in its annual report last month that the projected long-term deficit in its insurance program for troubled multiemployer plans had risen to $42.4 billion, compared with $8.3 billion in last year’s report. The huge increase was due to the fact that several large multiemployer plans now are expected to run out of money within the next decade. Two of the plans have been identified as a United Mine Workers plan and a Teamsters Central States plan.
Multiemployer plans number about 1,400 and cover about 10 million people in the U.S. They typically are jointly managed by employers and unions.
This week, House lawmakers, led by Reps. John Kline (R., Minn.) and George Miller (D., Calif.) were nearing agreement on a deal aimed at easing the funding crunch.
According to a summary, the measure would give deeply troubled plans the ability to reduce benefits for current retirees, enabling the plans to survive without a federal bailout. It would provide safeguards for the most vulnerable retirees, including those 75 and older.
The measure also would give plan participants the right to vote to block benefit cuts. But it would give PBGC the ability to override participants for plans that pose a systemic risk to the pension safety net.
The legislation also would raise PBGC premiums for multiemployer plans, although the levels weren’t clear.
The proposal appeared to be dividing big labor.
The director of the nation’s second-largest multiemployer plan said he supports the proposed changes. “The fact is, benefits will be cut,” said Thomas Nyhan, executive director of the Teamsters’ Central States Southeast and Southwest Areas Pension Fund, which has more than $18 billion in assets. “The question is when, and how much.”
The United Mine Workers of America was taking no position on the legislation, according to a spokesman.
Other labor unions were opposing the measure. AARP, the big seniors group, has been among the most vocal critics this week. The group said the proposal would create a dangerous precedent by eroding legal protections against pension benefit cuts, particularly in the landmark 1974 Employee Retirement Income Security Act.
“The one fundamental point of ERISA is, when you’ve earned and vested your benefits, they can’t be taken away,” said David Certner, AARP’s legislative policy director. “You’re talking about benefit cuts for people who’ve retired and have no idea it’s coming.”
Another hurdle to a final deal is opposition from UPS, which is concerned that the legislation could force it to subsidize pension payments from the Teamsters’ Central States Fund.
The company paid $6.1 billion to exit the plan in 2007. But in its master contract with the union, UPS agreed to make up the difference if the Central States plan benefits are “reduced as permitted or required by law.”
Meanwhile, some influential lawmakers worried they won’t have time to understand the complex legislation.
—Theo Francis and Laura Stevens contributed to this article.