Union Dues, a first cousin of:
House Lawmakers Near Deal on Multiemployer
Pension Plans Dow Jones Institutional News, Thursday, 04 December 2014,
23:29 GMT,
By John D. McKinnon And Dan Fitzpatrick
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., 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
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.
No comments:
Post a Comment