3 ms·
To clarify, Yellow has ~$2.1B in assets and ~$2.6B in debts. The Teamsters Union claims Yellow owes the pension fund ~ $6.5 billion (which works out to about $3
by legitster 2y ago
To clarify, Yellow has ~$2.1B in assets and ~$2.6B in debts. The Teamsters Union claims Yellow owes the pension fund ~ $6.5 billion (which works out to about $300k for each Teamster who worked at Yellow when it shut down). But the actual numbers here are mostly made up and don't matter.
> The funds asked Goldblatt to rule that billions of dollars in federal grant money they received from the US last year should be ignored when that liability is calculated.
The wording here is unclear. But the grant money mentioned here is the relief provided by the American Rescue Plan - the federal government dumped nearly a trillion dollars in guarantees that all qualifying pensions are going to pay out at 100%. So what the pensions lawyers are are arguing is that it doesn't matter that the pension is funded or not, they still have a senior claim on the debt.
> The Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp., which regulates retirements funds like those set up for Yellow’s union workers, argued that other companies with traditional pension plans would have an incentive to cancel their retirement benefits if Yellow won since shareholders wouldnt be forced to pay a hefty penalty.
More specifically, if every company made the same argument, they would all dump their pension funds and now they would all be the government's problem. It would not be a great precedent.
- gotoeleven 2y agoThe moral hazard is already in place: unions will push for more and more generous benefits, even when they know the employer cannot afford it, because they're pretty sure the government will come and bail it out. Why does only the union get to benefit from this largess? Debts held by favored and disfavored political groups have increasingly different values and this difference can only get so large before something has to break.
- nurtbo 2y agoIf the company has to pay out pensions before shareholders in bankruptcy, that would incentivize shareholders and debt holders to push company to reduce or manage pension obligations.
- PaulDavisThe1st 2y agothus, so the theory goes, nicely balancing the incentives on the part of an energized, enabled and active union. "and they all lived happily ever after"
- bryanlarsen 2y agoIf the company cannot afford the pensions, the company goes bankrupt and then the government covers the pensions. If the company is bankrupt the shareholders are screwed. Companies do not make plans that involve zeroing out shareholders so I don't see what moral hazard there is.