[babble-on]

That is a helpful distinction, thanks for pointing it out.

So the single employer plans are basically solvent, because they’re probably managed by the company, farming out the actual asset management to a professional fund manager.

The multi-employer plans have likely been pillaged by corrupt unions over the years to enrich the union leadership. Is that plausible? Or, just simply a case of chronically underfunding the plans and hoping for a bailout WTSHTF.

[cyclotic]

My company offers a pension, a single company plan. Every year we get a statement in the mail. Although I barely look at it, it seems quite solvent. In reality, whenever I think about my retirement plan, I forget to include it.

Last I looked, if I hang around another 10 years and retire, I get $1200 a month from my pension.

Based on what I have in my retirement now, I think we’re gonna be pretty comfortable.

[trad_anglican]

The funding rules for single employer plans are different, and more stringent, than those for multiemployer plans (the rules are even looser for public plans which is why so many state plans are in trouble). It's certainly plausible that some union sponsors may have looted their pans, and some may have played fast and loose with their actuarial assumptions.

The companies that contribute to these plans (The Fords, GMs, etc) carry some portion of blame by "giving away" pension increases in lieu of wage increases as a way of avoiding strikes and avoiding costs in the short run and kicking the can down the road in terms of paying the piper.