Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

DavidDvorkin

(19,465 posts)
Wed Mar 20, 2019, 12:52 PM Mar 2019

It just became easier for employers to dump retirees' pensions

Source: CNN

Traditional pensions are disappearing in America, and the federal government just made it easier for employers to get rid of them.

With no fanfare in early March, the Treasury Department issued a notice that allows employers to buy out current retirees from their pensions with a one-time lump sum payment. The decision reverses Obama-era guidance, issued in 2015, that had effectively banned the practice after officials determined that lump-sum payments often shortchanged seniors.

Read more: https://www.wpsdlocal6.com/2019/03/20/it-just-became-easier-for-employers-to-dump-retirees-pensions/



It's voluntary. At this point.
32 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
It just became easier for employers to dump retirees' pensions (Original Post) DavidDvorkin Mar 2019 OP
Wonder what the kickback percentage is ..... donkeypoofed Mar 2019 #1
What does Treasury have to do with pensions? mahatmakanejeeves Mar 2019 #2
I have airline pension under the PBGC.....................Mnuchin doesn't know the rules turbinetree Mar 2019 #3
I was at the Treasury website looking for more info. mahatmakanejeeves Mar 2019 #4
Posted something here BumRushDaShow Mar 2019 #6
Check this out.......................... turbinetree Mar 2019 #10
I likewise have an airline pension under the PBGC. PoindexterOglethorpe Mar 2019 #8
Looks like they are talking about the amendment to an IRS rule BumRushDaShow Mar 2019 #5
Treasury is the primary regulator for pensions FBaggins Mar 2019 #9
No input from EBSA? Let me see. mahatmakanejeeves Mar 2019 #23
Not "no input" just that Treasury is primary in this case FBaggins Mar 2019 #25
Thank you for the explanation. That helps. NT mahatmakanejeeves Mar 2019 #32
Thanks for posting this helpful information to be aware of. More pitfalls to be aware of. NT SWBTATTReg Mar 2019 #7
A deceptive title FBaggins Mar 2019 #11
Yeah when I read the documents that the OP article linked to BumRushDaShow Mar 2019 #17
It was previously an option FBaggins Mar 2019 #27
Just another surprise waiting duforsure Mar 2019 #12
Why do pensioners still support this president? IronLionZion Mar 2019 #13
The Reagan Adminstration greased the skids on this Wellstone ruled Mar 2019 #14
Why not all of us on Social Security? rickyhall Mar 2019 #15
If they could, they would DavidDvorkin Mar 2019 #19
So, how long before they start dumping the military and federal worker's pensions? Farmer-Rick Mar 2019 #16
They won't go after the military (at least at first) TheRealNorth Mar 2019 #29
Is this only for the private sector? SHRED Mar 2019 #18
I think so. DavidDvorkin Mar 2019 #20
Lump sum might be tempting but it too damn tempting to spend freely, once its gone its gone Historic NY Mar 2019 #21
Which is exactly what often happens, according to the article. DavidDvorkin Mar 2019 #28
Betcha that the Delphi salaried retirees or Central States Teamsters wish they had taken a lump sum MichMan Mar 2019 #30
This has been going on for years....... TechNerd Mar 2019 #22
My Beloved (former) employer The Mouth Mar 2019 #24
Mine Did Too RobinA Mar 2019 #31
Nothing surprises me about the current admin. The middle class will disappear... Honeycombe8 Mar 2019 #26

mahatmakanejeeves

(57,283 posts)
2. What does Treasury have to do with pensions?
Wed Mar 20, 2019, 12:57 PM
Mar 2019
US Department of Labor

Click on Agencies

Click on Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC)

About the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation

Welcome to PBGC! Since 1974, we’ve protected retirement security, and the retirement incomes of nearly 37 million American workers, retirees and their families in private-sector defined benefit pension plans. If you are here, chances are, you’re either new to PBGC or received a letter from us. Rest assured, we’re committed to helping our customers during this important time. We’re passionate about delivering the highest level of customer service, providing financial support, ensuring our information is accurate and up-to-date, and protecting your information. We’re passionate about securing your tomorrow, today.

turbinetree

(24,683 posts)
3. I have airline pension under the PBGC.....................Mnuchin doesn't know the rules
Wed Mar 20, 2019, 01:06 PM
Mar 2019

unless he gets Acosta to make up some rule...................and then Congress gets involved, since this is and was created by Congress (PBGC)......................

mahatmakanejeeves

(57,283 posts)
4. I was at the Treasury website looking for more info.
Wed Mar 20, 2019, 01:10 PM
Mar 2019

I've got some things to do today. C'mon: I know I'm at work, but they expect me to do all these things for them???????

I'll look some more later.

turbinetree

(24,683 posts)
10. Check this out..........................
Wed Mar 20, 2019, 01:18 PM
Mar 2019
http://www.pensionrights.org/blog/treasury-notice-puts-retirees-pensions-risk

and this is how Treasury is trying to do this...........................

https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-drop/n-19-18.pdf


Time to make some calls to Washington.................

United States Capitol switchboard at (202) 224-3121

PoindexterOglethorpe

(25,811 posts)
8. I likewise have an airline pension under the PBGC.
Wed Mar 20, 2019, 01:16 PM
Mar 2019

I worked for my airline starting some fifty years ago, and worked for ten years. I was just vested in the plan when I left. The good thing is that I always assumed my pension would be a trivial amount. I have paperwork from before I started taking it showing what the amount should have been, and a couple of years later the airline declared bankruptcy, abrogated their pension obligation, and my pension dropped. Luckily I never thought it would be much, but boy, that higher amount would make my life better.

The ones who were really screwed were the ones who worked for thirty or more years and assumed the pension would be a significant part of their retirement income.

Companies and government bodies have been systematically underfunding their pension obligations for decades now. It is only going to get worse.

FBaggins

(26,714 posts)
9. Treasury is the primary regulator for pensions
Wed Mar 20, 2019, 01:18 PM
Mar 2019

Labor's role (through PBGC) is to backstop programs that go under - but insuring a portion of the payments.

mahatmakanejeeves

(57,283 posts)
23. No input from EBSA? Let me see.
Wed Mar 20, 2019, 03:41 PM
Mar 2019
Employee Benefits Security Administration

Click through "About EBSA," and eventually you get here:

History of EBSA and ERISA

The Employee Benefits Security Administration (EBSA) is responsible for administering and enforcing the fiduciary, reporting and disclosure provisions of Title I of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA). Until February 2003, EBSA was known as the Pension and Welfare Benefits Administration (PWBA). Prior to January 1986, PWBA was known as the Pension and Welfare Benefits Program. At the time of this name change, the Agency was upgraded to a sub-cabinet position with the establishment of Assistant Secretary and Deputy Assistant Secretary positions.

The provisions of Title I of ERISA, which are administered by the U.S. Department of Labor, were enacted to address public concern that funds of private pension plans were being mismanaged and abused. ERISA was the culmination of a long line of legislation concerned with the labor and tax aspects of employee benefit plans. Since its enactment in 1974, ERISA has been amended to meet the changing retirement and health care needs of employees and their families. The role of EBSA has also evolved to meet these challenges.

The administration of ERISA is divided among the U.S. Department of Labor, the Internal Revenue Service of the Department of the Treasury (IRS), and the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC). Title I, which contains rules for reporting and disclosure, vesting, participation, funding, fiduciary conduct, and civil enforcement, is administered by the U.S. Department of Labor. Title II of ERISA, which amended the Internal Revenue Code to parallel many of the Title I rules, is administered by the IRS. Title III is concerned with jurisdictional matters and with coordination of enforcement and regulatory activities by the U.S. Department of Labor and the IRS. Title IV covers the insurance of defined benefit pension plans and is administered by the PBGC.

Prior to a 1978 reorganization, there was overlapping responsibility for administration of the parallel provisions of Title I of ERISA and the tax code by the U.S. Department of Labor and the IRS, respectively. As a result of this reorganization, the U.S. Department of Labor has primary responsibility for reporting, disclosure and fiduciary requirements; and the IRS has primary responsibility for participation, vesting and funding issues. However, the U.S. Department of Labor may intervene in any matters that materially affect the rights of participants, regardless of primary responsibility.

As a result of the enactment of the Federal Employees' Retirement System Act of 1986 (FERSA), EBSA has fiduciary and auditing oversight of the Thrift Savings Plan that was established by this Act.

Pre-ERISA Legislation

Initially, the IRS was the primary regulator of private pension plans. The Revenue Acts of 1921 and 1926 allowed employers to deduct pension contributions from corporate income, and allowed for the income of the pension fund's portfolio to accumulate tax free. The participant in the plan realized no income until monies were distributed to the participant, provided the plan was tax qualified. To qualify for such favorable tax treatment, the plans had to meet certain minimum employee coverage and employer contribution requirements. The Revenue Act of 1942 provided stricter participation requirements and, for the first time, disclosure requirements.

The U.S. Department of Labor became involved in the regulation of employee benefits plans upon passage of the Welfare and Pension Plans Disclosure Act in 1959 (WPPDA). Plan sponsors (e.g., employers and labor unions) were required to file plan descriptions and annual financial reports with the government; these materials were also available to plan participants and beneficiaries. This legislation was intended to provide employees with enough information regarding plans so that they could monitor their plans to prevent mismanagement and abuse of plan funds. The WPPDA was amended in 1962, at which time the Secretary of Labor was given enforcement, interpretative, and investigatory powers over employee benefit plans to prevent mismanagement and abuse of plan funds. Compared to ERISA, the WPPDA had a very limited scope.

ERISA

The goal of Title I of ERISA is to protect the interests of participants and their beneficiaries in employee benefit plans. Among other things, ERISA requires that sponsors of private employee benefit plans provide participants and beneficiaries with adequate information regarding their plans. Also, those individuals who manage plans (and other fiduciaries) must meet certain standards of conduct, derived from the common law of trusts and made applicable (with certain modifications) to all fiduciaries. The law also contains detailed provisions for reporting to the government and disclosure to participants. Furthermore, there are civil enforcement provisions aimed at assuring that plan funds are protected and that participants who qualify receive their benefits.

ERISA covers retirement plans (including traditional defined benefit pension plans and individual account plans such as 401(k) plans) and welfare benefit plans (e.g., employment based medical and hospitalization benefits, apprenticeship plans, and other plans described in section 3(1) of Title I). Plan sponsors must design and administer their plans in accordance with ERISA. Title II of ERISA contains standards that must be met by employee retirement benefit plans in order to qualify for favorable tax treatment. Noncompliance with these tax qualification requirements of ERISA may result in disqualification of a plan and/or other penalties.

Important legislation has amended ERISA and increased the responsibilities of EBSA. For example, the Retirement Equity Act of 1984 reduced the maximum age that an employer may require for participation in a retirement plan; lengthened the period of time a participant could be absent from work without losing credit towards the plan's vesting rules for pre-break years of service; and created spousal rights to retirement benefits through qualified domestic relations orders (QDROs) in the event of divorce, and through pre-retirement survivor annuities. The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1986 eliminated the ability of employers to limit participation in their retirement plans for new employees who are close to retirement and the ability to freeze benefits for participants over age 65. The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1989 requires the Secretary of Labor to assess a civil penalty equal to 20% of any amount recovered for violations of fiduciary responsibility. The Pension Protection Act of 2006 made many changes to ERISA, including expanding the availability of fiduciary investment advice to participants in 401(k)-type plans and individual retirement accounts (IRAs), removing impediments to automatic enrollment through qualified default investment alternatives, and increasing the transparency of pension plan funding through new notice requirements.

The department's responsibilities under ERISA have also been expanded by health care legislation. The Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 (COBRA) added a new part 6 to Title I of ERISA which provides for the continuation of health care coverage for employees and their beneficiaries (for a limited period of time) if certain events would otherwise result in a reduction in benefits. The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) added a new Part 7 to Title I of ERISA aimed at making health care coverage more portable and secure for employees, and gave the department broad additional responsibilities with respect to private health plans. These responsibilities were increased further with the enactment of the Newborns' and Mothers' Health Protection Act of 1996, the Mental Health Parity Act of 1996, the Women's Health and Cancer Rights Act of 1998, the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008, the Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act of 2008, and the Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act. Most recently, the 2010 passage of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) brought widespread health care reform. In addition to the ACA's market reform provisions, significant changes impact dependent coverage, lifetime and annual benefit limits, coverage of preventative services, preexisting condition exclusions for minors, disclosures to plan participants, claims procedures and external review, and many other areas. The ACA also provided EBSA with additional enforcement authority to protect workers and employers whose health benefits are provided through Multiple Employer Welfare Arrangements. As the ACA phases in to full implementation in 2014, EBSA and the Department of Health and Human Services, the Department of the Treasury and the Internal Revenue Service will continue to work to issue guidance on the law's many provisions.

FBaggins

(26,714 posts)
25. Not "no input" just that Treasury is primary in this case
Wed Mar 20, 2019, 04:55 PM
Mar 2019

This isn’t a reporting/disclosure etc. issue.

Your original question was why Treasury would even be involved. The answer is that they’re the ones responsible in this case (as they were when this rule was initially made, then changed a few years back, and now changed again.

FBaggins

(26,714 posts)
11. A deceptive title
Wed Mar 20, 2019, 01:21 PM
Mar 2019

All that changes is whether or not those with defined-benefit plans have an easy option to accept a lump sum in lieu of a string of payments.

In some cases, the lump sum is better... in others the string of payments is better. I have no problem with giving people that choice.

BumRushDaShow

(128,372 posts)
17. Yeah when I read the documents that the OP article linked to
Wed Mar 20, 2019, 02:41 PM
Mar 2019

it didn't seem to make sense regarding what the article headline and content was asserting and what the proposals were showing.

I *think* the Obama guidance was to require offering it as an either/or option vs the current proposal removing the requirement and I guess letting the chips fall where they may (letting the company decide), which is probably why the angst. I.e., assuming companies would immediately start switching to lump-sum only.

FBaggins

(26,714 posts)
27. It was previously an option
Wed Mar 20, 2019, 05:01 PM
Mar 2019

The Obama-era change was either to restrict or eliminate that choice.

My guess is that they worried that too many people would take the lump sum and would either squander it (endangering their retirement security) or not invest it well enough to replace the income they would have had if fully annuitized.

In neither case did the company have the option of forcing the lump sum (though they could pay an insurance company for an annuity and transfer the risk to them). Not sure how that is impacted here

duforsure

(11,884 posts)
12. Just another surprise waiting
Wed Mar 20, 2019, 01:30 PM
Mar 2019

For the ones supporting this nightmare , and like their tax cuts they realized now were the opposite , and now have to pay more taxes so the wealthy can get more. When they get more money taken from their pockets , again , maybe they'll wise up to what he's really doing to them. You know he's not to ever be trusted if the banks won't go near him. Business man, lol. He's a liar and a crook.

 

Wellstone ruled

(34,661 posts)
14. The Reagan Adminstration greased the skids on this
Wed Mar 20, 2019, 01:57 PM
Mar 2019

Pension Dumping. In the Seventies,Reagan and his cohorts took aim at the Teamster's as a example on how to break the Union via denying pension rights or as we had negotiated what is know as Survial Rights when a company is sold the Union Contract becomes the rule of the day when the new owner takes over. Reagan's Labor Department allowed Companies to seek Bankruptcy as a method to void Contracts as well as capturing Pensions and Payrolls for their asset Recovery by allowing Companies to back date their BK's ninety days.

My Shop was a test case in the Upper Mid West Federal Court in Mpls-StP when a leverage Buy Out Group raided our Company and took us into BK Court in a effort to seize our Pension as well as any Payroll due at filing.

Fortunately,the Court ruled in our favor but,there were exceptions. And these exceptions seemed to be driving this Pension Dumping today. Out of the 200 plus eligible Bargaining Unit Members,only those with a court specified Seniority at the time of the BK filing would be eligible for full rights and a handful would be covered at a percentage discount to full rights. Since our Teamster Local ran our own Pension Plan,we were not protected by the International Pension Fund when it came to any type of Employer attempt at raiding the fund for their own purpose .

And only 13 people received full Pension Rights and the remainder where dumped into the newly created Federal Pension Guarantee Corp. Again,only 5 members made the cut and their Pay out is at 75% . So what we are seeing originally started with the Reagan Administration and the GOP is just juicing the issue in order to please their Corporate Donors.

Farmer-Rick

(10,134 posts)
16. So, how long before they start dumping the military and federal worker's pensions?
Wed Mar 20, 2019, 02:30 PM
Mar 2019

The military have contracts but so did the Unions. They tried to dump military health benefits in the 1990s claiming Medicare would meet the stated obligation of health care for life but the military associations took them to court and forced them to cover it all.

When the military start losing their pensions under Trump you can bet they wont be voting for him again.

TheRealNorth

(9,462 posts)
29. They won't go after the military (at least at first)
Wed Mar 20, 2019, 05:55 PM
Mar 2019

They will "Divide and Conquer" like Snotty Walker did when he gutted the union rights of all the public unions except police and fire. After that, he went for the private unions with RTW.

MichMan

(11,864 posts)
30. Betcha that the Delphi salaried retirees or Central States Teamsters wish they had taken a lump sum
Wed Mar 20, 2019, 07:34 PM
Mar 2019

TechNerd

(13 posts)
22. This has been going on for years.......
Wed Mar 20, 2019, 03:34 PM
Mar 2019

The traditional pension is long since dead. My 2 previous employers ended their pension programs long ago. They didn't cash you out until you left the company but no longer contributed toward the pension.

The Mouth

(3,143 posts)
24. My Beloved (former) employer
Wed Mar 20, 2019, 04:21 PM
Mar 2019

offered to buy out my pension.

I did the math, their offer sucked.

Fortunately it's completely funded (an annuity).

I don't have any problem with them offering; I can think of some situations where that would be the better deal, for example if I did not have long to live, or a super investment opportunity.

It always behooves one to do the math, or hire someone to do it for you, with regard to the big financial choices.

RobinA

(9,884 posts)
31. Mine Did Too
Wed Mar 20, 2019, 10:30 PM
Mar 2019

My financial advisor thought I should take it and reinvest it, which could have worked. The operative word being “could.” I did the math and figured out that with the amount of money I would have gotten I would have broken even at age 74 and after that they’d be saving 300+ a month. No thanks. My Grandmother lived to be hundred and one and that company laid me off the day I got back from vacation. Now, that worked out for the better and I will end up with a pension payment considerably higher then $300, but I’ll gamble on making it past 74 and pocket their money. My motto with any employer, specifically that mess if a company is that if they want me to do something, it doesn’t benefit me. I told my advisor that if they wanted to buy me out they’d have to make worth my while.

Honeycombe8

(37,648 posts)
26. Nothing surprises me about the current admin. The middle class will disappear...
Wed Mar 20, 2019, 04:58 PM
Mar 2019

If things keep going this way, the middle class will disappear, and the oligarchy will be in almost total control of everything, getting more powerful by the day.

I was watching some British Medieval Monarchy and country documentaries recently. I was reminded of what the monarchy was like back then, and the so-called noblemen. The country was ruled by both the Monarchy and the Noblemen, while the "common people" were peasants (serfs who were little more than slaves, not allowed to move away, and tied to the work on the land). They tried protesting and revolting against the unfairness, and every time they were slaughtered. The Noblemen and the Monarchy owned all the land. There reached a point where the aristocracy actually got to be as powerful, and more powerful in some ways, than the Monarchy, as a result of owning so much land and all the wealth that came pouring in because of it.

That vision is what I think Trump and some other mega-wealthy people wouldn't mind existing here. An oligarchy of the very wealthy who control almost everything, even the politicians. While the little people work longer and harder for less and less. The elections are rigged, protests are crushed or ignored, demands for health care are scoffed at, more and more tax cuts for the wealthy are passed while taxes for the little people are increased.....

Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»It just became easier for...