Employees whose companies switch from traditional pension plans to an increasingly adopted alternative generally lose benefits, congressional...
WASHINGTON — Employees whose companies switch from traditional pension plans to an increasingly adopted alternative generally lose benefits, congressional auditors have found.
The report by Congress’ Government Accountability Office (GAO), released Friday, adds to the debate over the nation’s private pension system. For months, lawmakers have been grappling with an overhaul of the rules governing company pension plans as a number of big companies dump their troubled plans on the financially strapped federal agency that insures them.
Democratic lawmakers, who last year asked the GAO to examine the matter, seized on the report as fresh evidence that the so-called cash-balance pension plans hurt workers. Under the plans, companies set aside money each year for employees with a guarantee that it will grow at a specific rate — unlike traditional pension plans, which promise workers a specific monthly benefit.
With cash-balance plans, employees generally receive one lump-sum payment when they retire or leave the company.
Most Read Stories
- Seattle No. 1 in home-price growth again; starter homes require half of income
- Costco is testing a new burger in Seattle, and it might remind you of Shake Shack
- Elizabeth Warren: ‘The next step is single-payer’ health care
- UW study finds Seattle’s minimum wage is costing jobs
- Zillow vs. McMansion Hell: Seattle company not backing off fight with blog despite PR fiasco
The plans resemble 401(k) retirement plans in that they let workers track the growth of their money in a hypothetical individual account. Unlike 401(k) plans, however, employees in a cash-balance plan can’t allot part of their salary toward the plan or decide how it is invested.
Traditional pension plans reward workers for staying with a company; often it is in their last years in a job that their pension benefits increase the most. The cash-balance plans usually save companies money because they can contribute less than they would under a traditional pension plan.
Critics of the plans maintain that they unfairly discriminate against older workers.
Many companies, including IBM and AT&T, have converted from traditional defined-benefit pension plans to cash-balance plans in the last 15 years, and employees have taken some of the companies to court over it.
The GAO auditors, who examined 31 large company pension plans and 102 smaller ones, found that when employers switch from defined-benefit pension plans to cash-balance plans, “most workers, regardless of age, would have received greater benefits under the (defined-benefit) plan.”
The agency said its analysis “illustrates one of the difficult choices facing the Congress in crafting comprehensive … pension reform legislation.”
Democrats want to mandate protections for employees whose companies convert to cash-balance plans. Business groups want Congress to mandate that firms already using cash-balance plans can’t be challenged.