SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
Retired members of the United Auto Workers (UAW) listen to details of their retirement accounts while they attend a monthly benefits meeting at the UAW Local 22 meeting Hall on November 20, 2008 in Detroit, Michigan.
(Photo by Spencer Platt/Getty Images)
UAW Fails to Win Back Pension Plans for Newer Workers
Amid other impressive gains, this one got away. But organized labor must keep up the fight for defined pension benefits.
Nov 16, 2023
The UAW strike against Big Auto succeeded in winning impressive wage gains, but it failed to obtain a little-reported demand: that the auto companies reinstate defined benefit pension plans for new employees that had been suspended as a concession during the 2008 Great Recession.
Instead, as a consolation prize the auto companies offered and the unions took larger company payments to employee 401(k) plans.
This was a significant loss for newer workers who were not grandfathered into the preexisting pension plans. They will receive employer contributions that will rise to ten percent of salary. While that is significantly higher than what most 401(k) plan participants receive from their employers, it will fall far short of what would be needed to provide retirement income equivalent to that of a pension plan. That would require contributions of 25 to 30 percent of salary. Put differently, they will receive one-third to one-half of what workers with equivalent careers received from pension plans.
Pension plans also produce more income because they minimize drainage of fees and profit-taking to the financial services industry which gains much more from managing 401(k) plans.
Defined benefit pension plans produce much more income for retirees because they incorporate risk sharing among participants while 401(k)s shift all the risks to individuals. If the market tanks, it’s the employer’s problem with pension plans, the worker’s problem with 401(k)s. Pension plans guarantee set amounts of life income according to sizes of employee salaries and lengths of time worked. 401(k) retirement incomes depend on sizes of accumulated individual investments. These in turn depend on amounts invested and the skill or luck of the investors.
Pension plans also produce more income because they minimize drainage of fees and profit-taking to the financial services industry which gains much more from managing 401(k) plans.
Many people have been led to believe by the financial services industry and conservative think tanks that pension plans are old fashioned, impractical, and unsustainable. This is simply not true. The country has over 50,000 healthy pension plans covering over 60 million active and retired workers. Most public employees have pension plans. And, the largest source of retirement income for most retirees comes from a pension plan: Social Security.
Private employers don’t like pension plans because they don’t want the responsibility and risk involved in sponsoring them. Yet, if an employer is worried about providing adequate retirement income for his workers, it is much cheaper to do so by investing in a pension plan than by providing enough payments to 401(k) accounts. A dollar invested in a pension plan will produce far more retirement income than one contributed to a 401(k).
Private employers don’t like pension plans because they don’t want the responsibility and risk involved in sponsoring them.
It was a victory that the UAW raised the demand to allow newer workers into the pension plans. It challenged the belief that the loss of pension plans was irreversible with 401(k)s being the only alternative. The UAW should not abandon that demand for future contract negotiations.
In the meantime, UAW workers should hold onto their 401(k) accumulations with the hope that in the future they can be rolled into a pension plan for credit for time worked. That is all possible actuarily and there are precedents for it.
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
James W. Russell
James W. Russell is the author of The Labor Guide to Retirement Plans (Monthly Review Press).
The UAW strike against Big Auto succeeded in winning impressive wage gains, but it failed to obtain a little-reported demand: that the auto companies reinstate defined benefit pension plans for new employees that had been suspended as a concession during the 2008 Great Recession.
Instead, as a consolation prize the auto companies offered and the unions took larger company payments to employee 401(k) plans.
This was a significant loss for newer workers who were not grandfathered into the preexisting pension plans. They will receive employer contributions that will rise to ten percent of salary. While that is significantly higher than what most 401(k) plan participants receive from their employers, it will fall far short of what would be needed to provide retirement income equivalent to that of a pension plan. That would require contributions of 25 to 30 percent of salary. Put differently, they will receive one-third to one-half of what workers with equivalent careers received from pension plans.
Pension plans also produce more income because they minimize drainage of fees and profit-taking to the financial services industry which gains much more from managing 401(k) plans.
Defined benefit pension plans produce much more income for retirees because they incorporate risk sharing among participants while 401(k)s shift all the risks to individuals. If the market tanks, it’s the employer’s problem with pension plans, the worker’s problem with 401(k)s. Pension plans guarantee set amounts of life income according to sizes of employee salaries and lengths of time worked. 401(k) retirement incomes depend on sizes of accumulated individual investments. These in turn depend on amounts invested and the skill or luck of the investors.
Pension plans also produce more income because they minimize drainage of fees and profit-taking to the financial services industry which gains much more from managing 401(k) plans.
Many people have been led to believe by the financial services industry and conservative think tanks that pension plans are old fashioned, impractical, and unsustainable. This is simply not true. The country has over 50,000 healthy pension plans covering over 60 million active and retired workers. Most public employees have pension plans. And, the largest source of retirement income for most retirees comes from a pension plan: Social Security.
Private employers don’t like pension plans because they don’t want the responsibility and risk involved in sponsoring them. Yet, if an employer is worried about providing adequate retirement income for his workers, it is much cheaper to do so by investing in a pension plan than by providing enough payments to 401(k) accounts. A dollar invested in a pension plan will produce far more retirement income than one contributed to a 401(k).
Private employers don’t like pension plans because they don’t want the responsibility and risk involved in sponsoring them.
It was a victory that the UAW raised the demand to allow newer workers into the pension plans. It challenged the belief that the loss of pension plans was irreversible with 401(k)s being the only alternative. The UAW should not abandon that demand for future contract negotiations.
In the meantime, UAW workers should hold onto their 401(k) accumulations with the hope that in the future they can be rolled into a pension plan for credit for time worked. That is all possible actuarily and there are precedents for it.
James W. Russell
James W. Russell is the author of The Labor Guide to Retirement Plans (Monthly Review Press).
The UAW strike against Big Auto succeeded in winning impressive wage gains, but it failed to obtain a little-reported demand: that the auto companies reinstate defined benefit pension plans for new employees that had been suspended as a concession during the 2008 Great Recession.
Instead, as a consolation prize the auto companies offered and the unions took larger company payments to employee 401(k) plans.
This was a significant loss for newer workers who were not grandfathered into the preexisting pension plans. They will receive employer contributions that will rise to ten percent of salary. While that is significantly higher than what most 401(k) plan participants receive from their employers, it will fall far short of what would be needed to provide retirement income equivalent to that of a pension plan. That would require contributions of 25 to 30 percent of salary. Put differently, they will receive one-third to one-half of what workers with equivalent careers received from pension plans.
Pension plans also produce more income because they minimize drainage of fees and profit-taking to the financial services industry which gains much more from managing 401(k) plans.
Defined benefit pension plans produce much more income for retirees because they incorporate risk sharing among participants while 401(k)s shift all the risks to individuals. If the market tanks, it’s the employer’s problem with pension plans, the worker’s problem with 401(k)s. Pension plans guarantee set amounts of life income according to sizes of employee salaries and lengths of time worked. 401(k) retirement incomes depend on sizes of accumulated individual investments. These in turn depend on amounts invested and the skill or luck of the investors.
Pension plans also produce more income because they minimize drainage of fees and profit-taking to the financial services industry which gains much more from managing 401(k) plans.
Many people have been led to believe by the financial services industry and conservative think tanks that pension plans are old fashioned, impractical, and unsustainable. This is simply not true. The country has over 50,000 healthy pension plans covering over 60 million active and retired workers. Most public employees have pension plans. And, the largest source of retirement income for most retirees comes from a pension plan: Social Security.
Private employers don’t like pension plans because they don’t want the responsibility and risk involved in sponsoring them. Yet, if an employer is worried about providing adequate retirement income for his workers, it is much cheaper to do so by investing in a pension plan than by providing enough payments to 401(k) accounts. A dollar invested in a pension plan will produce far more retirement income than one contributed to a 401(k).
Private employers don’t like pension plans because they don’t want the responsibility and risk involved in sponsoring them.
It was a victory that the UAW raised the demand to allow newer workers into the pension plans. It challenged the belief that the loss of pension plans was irreversible with 401(k)s being the only alternative. The UAW should not abandon that demand for future contract negotiations.
In the meantime, UAW workers should hold onto their 401(k) accumulations with the hope that in the future they can be rolled into a pension plan for credit for time worked. That is all possible actuarily and there are precedents for it.
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.