3 ms·
Yeah, definitely that and not making sure their members have security when it's time to retire.
by schwartzworld 5y ago
Yeah, definitely that and not making sure their members have security when it's time to retire.
- MattGaiser 5y agoYou can get the same security from investing the money taken from your paycheck in a diverse way. That is all the company is doing.
- baron816 5y agoCorrect. I have a 401(k) that I put my own money into and choose the funds I invest in. If I leave my job, I can take that money with me. Companies should auto enroll and fund employees 401(k)s, which most don't do now. But they should not require 40 years of employment to be eligible to receive ANY retirement funds. We've been talking about non-competes on HN lately. What could be more anti-competitive than having a 40 year cliff on a major chunk of your compensation? Tech companies have a 1 year cliff on equity, and even that is outrageous.
- PhantomGremlin 5y agoBut they should not require 40 years of employment to be eligible to receive ANY retirement funds. I don't know how you got confused about this. In the USA pensions must vest at 100% after 3 to 7 years of work (depending on details). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employee_Retirement_Income_Security_Act_of_1974#Pension_vesting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employee_Retirement_Income_Sec... What's likely in this case is that the employee can't start drawing on his pension until he's 62 years old.