<p>Whining is okay.</p>
<p>Not sure who asked but I’m private sector and didn’t contribute anything to my pension. </p>
<p>We actually all get x amount put into a 401k for us even if we don’t contribute. That way everyone is saving at least something. Then after that they match what you put in to a certain point.</p>
<p>One other question… What is the standard number of years one must work somewhere to be fully vested in their contributions? I feel like a lot of people jump around and change jobs left and right and I have to wonder if this I’d something employees just forget about when switching jobs… Or maybe even something employers bank on when determining their benefits package?</p>
<p>Sent from my DROID BIONIC using CC</p>
<p>Tom1944, you are not whining.</p>
<p>I appreciate your factual posts.</p>
<p>Your argument that the pensions could have been funded but weren’t because of politics or other priorities is persuasive to me.</p>
<p>[Christie</a> proposes new tax-cut plan as he seeks re-election | NJ.com](<a href=“http://www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf/2013/04/christie_revives_tax_cut_and.html]Christie”>Christie proposes new tax-cut plan as he seeks re-election - nj.com)</p>
<p>
The legal maximum is 3 years for “cliff-vesting”, 6 years for incremental vesting.</p>
<p>Cliff-vesting is where 100% of the employer contribution vests after a certain time.</p>
<p>I’ve never worked for a company that did cliff vesting, and every company I’ve worked for used 3 or 4 year vesting.</p>
<p>Were fully vested after three years… So would that be cliff it sounds?</p>
<p>Sent from my DROID BIONIC using CC</p>
<p>A coalition of unions and employers is proposing changes to the federal law that governs the pension plans of about 10 million people, including reducing benefits paid to retirees, the first time in four decades that such cuts would be allowed.</p>
<p>The proposal, which would undo guarantees put in place by federal law in 1974, is already stirring controversy among pension-rights advocates and rank-and-file union members. It was developed by some of the nation’s biggest unions, including the Teamsters and United Food and Commercial Workers, and industry trade groups such as the Associated General Contractors of America. </p>
<p>[Pension-law</a> proposal would hit some retirees - MarketWatch](<a href=“Pension-law proposal would hit some retirees - MarketWatch”>Pension-law proposal would hit some retirees - MarketWatch)</p>
<p>I have to read this. Talk about excitement for a day.</p>
<p>This proposal is for multiemployer plans (plans that cover pensions for multiple companies) but it provides a scary precedent for pensions in general. It appears that many of these multiemployer pension plans are in worse shape than other private and public pensions if union and management are willing to agree to the radical concept of changing promises (I think that they are contracts) down the road. I guess this is a Congress-level thing where they could break those contracts.</p>
<p>I thought the country runs on contract law and this is one of the factors that makes the US a great place to do business.</p>
<p>Contracts are always subject to the legal environment and I think that retroactive laws are rare but it seems that there is more support for the retroactive stuff these days. I think that CA passed something that’s retroactive. It kind of smacks of desperation as legislatures are gridlocked.</p>
<p>I imagine that the multiemployer thing is going to be followed very, very closely. I was aware of it because I read an article about it a week or two ago (it caught my eye for some reason). There is so much stuff going on these days that it’s hard to keep up.</p>
<p>
If you vested 1/3 after year 1, 1/3 after year 2, 1/3 after year 3 that is regular vesting with a three year period.</p>
<p>If you were 0% vested after 2 years and 364 days, and 100% vested after 3 years, that is cliff vesting.</p>
<p>
It sounds like an intermediate measure between fully funded and going bankrupt resulting in pushing the pensions into the PBGC.</p>
<p>Which on the face of it sounds like a good deal for workers, but if it opens the door to employers being able to manipulate benefits, then that’s bad news.</p>
<p>I think that it depends on what you’re getting for workers. I think that workers under the PBGC limit would do better based on one of the examples in that article.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>I definitely agree.</p>
<p>Fendergirl, it used to be pretty standard that one had to work 5 years to be vested. Now, I think for my company, it’s three. I’ve often wondered about this, as young people these days are far more likely to job jump frequently. How will this ultimately affect retirement for them if they don’t settle with one company until they are, say, 50 years old.</p>
<p>VA - That’s kind of what i’m wondering. My company is three. I’m pretty sure we go from zero to fully vested at 3 years but I could be wrong on that. It’s been awhile. </p>
<p>I just feel like many of my friends job hop all the time with seemingly little regard to this. I guess if they don’t stay at one place too long the amount their employer wold be contributing is not very large anyway to consider forfeiting but this adds up over time. I have enough in my retirement funds that if liquidated could pay off a big chunk of my mortgage. A large majority of that was given by my company. I’m guessing my friends are behind… though I could be wrong on this.</p>
<p>Hayden,
Notricheneough mentions many good factors to consider when deciding whether to have just your independent pensions or having a survivor benefit on each pension. In our case, it was much simpler, because I have no pension, only H does. I am also considerably younger than him and my family often lives to their 90s and 100+. When H dies, I will end up with 55% of his pension and it costs us 10% of his pension to get this benefit.</p>
<p>One other good thing to consider is how well funded the pension has been and whether it’s likely that either employer may at some point default. If that is somewhat likely with one or both employers, you may wish to hedge your bets by thinking a bit more about getting the survivor benefit.</p>
<p>Hmm, just reading what people are writing, I think the survivor plan in our pension program is not a good deal. We both will have exactly the same pension when retiring, and probably will retire at the same time, same age. Husband is very healthy, family lives a long time, same with mine, so we could have similar life expectancies.</p>
<p>Our survivor benefits take away about 9.2% from the full payment of the plan, but only pay out 50% after death. One full pension is well enough to live on anyways. I don’t know that this is a good deal, unless the person getting the pension realizes they are very unhealthy. And I fall on the side of getting the max pension before the fund goes bust anyways.</p>
<p>I will take the amount that leaves my wife the maximum amount. Everyone’s situation is different but for us this makes sense. I will just work a few extra years to make up the difference. Our plan cuts cut about 12% from the max to take that option.</p>
<p>HImom, that’s an excellent point - having the spousal benefit hedges our bets against the possibility that my employer might go under or somehow change the pension. I doubt his will go under since he doesn’t work in the private sector.</p>