Today's New York Daily News posted an article on unions and pension funds. In the article, they cite the U. S. Labor Department statistics on pension funds and their funding. The article points out that in 2006 (the last year that data is available) only 17% of union-negotiated plans were fully funded, compared with 35% of nonunion plans. According to the article:
"Under the Pension Protection Act of 2006, funds with less than 80% of assets are in "endangered" status. In 2006, 41% of union funds were "endangered," compared with 14% of nonunion funds.
"Thirteen percent of union funds had less than 65% of required assets, also called "critical" status by the Labor Department, while only 1% of nonunion plans were in critical shape."
The figures also show that in a sampling of the largest union retirement plans, the collectively bargained plans had 70 % of the money to meet their obligations, while the officers plan had 93 %. The SEIU (Service Employees International Union) was 74 % funded in 2007 and in 2009 filed under critical status with the US Labor Department. Meanwhile, there is a separate fund for the unions staff and officers. The staff pensions are 85% funded and the officers' pensions are 102 % funded. The article points out that all three of the SEIU funds are managed within a single trust, separately, but by the same people.
The union workers pay into their pension funds. They are promised their pensions, yet the only people who can be sure of those pensions are the officers. In my opinion, this seems to go against the whole reason unions were started. If the unions can manage to fund pensions for their officers (with rank and file money), why can't they fund the pensions for their workers with the same kind of security? I would also like to point out that the SEIU is one of many unions who will receive a cash windfall if the Obama healthcare passes (see yesterday's post).
Leave a comment