Calls for bipartisan action to address the problems facing multiemployer pension plans highlighted a March 7 hearing of the House Education and Labor Committee’s Subcommittee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions.
The crisis facing multiemployer pension plans “Is not years away, it is happening right now” for some employers, said Subcommittee Chair Rep. Federica Wilson (D-FL). Ranking member Tim Walberg (R-MI), concurred, remarking that the “extreme levels of underfunding are an urgent concern.”
Witnesses who testified at the hearing emphasized the immediacy of the problem as well. “These problems are manifesting themselves today, not in 2025,” said Mary Moorkamp, Chief Legal Officer of Schnuck Markets, Inc. “Multiemployer pensions do indeed face an urgent problem,” said Dr. Charles Blahous, J. Fish and Lillian F. Smith Chair and Senior Research Strategist at the Mercatus Center of George Mason University.
The Scope of the Problem
Wilson and Walberg painted a stark picture concerning what’s at stake. “Think about what would happen” if there were a widespread failure, said Wilson; and “the real-life consequences of this problem are real and vast,” Walberg asserted. “It’s a human problem,” he added.
One of the witnesses gave the subcommittee a look at the human aspects of the problems facing multiemployer pension plans. James Morgan, who had worked at Hostess for 33 years, outlined for members what it meant for him when the company went bankrupt. Hostess “walked away” from its pension liability, he said, detailing the consequences for former employees. “We are not asking for a handout. All we are asking for is fairness,” Morgan said of those whose pension funds were affected.
Glenn Spencer, Senior Vice President of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and Mariah Becker, Director of Research and Education for the National Coordinating Committee for Multiemployer Plans, testified that the effects that Morgan feels can be even more widespread. Spencer, for instance, warned of the “contagion effect”: if an employer becomes insolvent, it could lead to a “cascade” of bankruptcies and insolvency — with a destructive ripple effect for any multiemployer plans of which such employers are a part. “Multiemployer plans are very interconnected,” said Becker, adding that an impact on one employer and multiemployer plan will have an effect on others.
Multiemployer plans face challenges and circumstances that their single employer counterparts, which are largely solvent and not in crisis, do not, Blahous observed. While single-employer plans faced the same economic shocks as multiemployer plans, he said, multiemployer plans did not respond as did single employer plans regarding economic rebuilding. They did not increase funding, Blahous said; instead, their funding level continued to drop. In addition, he noted, single employer plans don’t have to contend with the problem orphan plans pose.
Subcommittee Chair Wilson went even further in calling for action, suggesting that the impact of the matter even extends beyond multiemployer plan participants and beneficiaries, saying, “We should be mindful of the cost to taxpayers if Congress fails to act to address the multiemployer pension crisis.”
Call to Action
“Congress must recognize that action is urgently needed,” said Joshua Shapiro, Vice President, Pensions, at the American Academy of Actuaries, one of the witnesses who testified before the subcommittee. And subcommittee members and witnesses also evinced a view that the matter transcends partisan and narrow interests. Moorkamp argued that a bipartisan, bicameral solution was needed and remarked, “This is not a Republican or Democratic issue, nor is it a union vs. non-union issue.” Walberg concurred, saying that he “can’t stress enough” the need for bipartisan action. “It’s essential that that we work together,” said Walberg.
Wilson urged that the Congress keep the big picture in mind. “The fundamental question for Congress is not how much it will cost to fix the multiemployer pension problem, but what it will cost retirees,” she said. “
What to Do
“I believe it is our utmost goal to protect the employees who paid into the plans,” said Rep. Joseph Morelle (D-NY). There clearly are structural issues with employers in certain industries, he added.
“Congress faces a dual challenge,” said Shapiro, arguing that underfunding is not the only issue facing multiemployer plans and that the system “also needs to be reformed” and that a solution should make sure that the system “does not fall into crisis again.”
But there was not universal agreement on what should be done. Blahous said that he “respectfully disagrees” with those who argue that the answer is to provide money to fund plans first, and then reform the system later; he argues that the order of response should be the reverse of that.
Pensions “are not charity; they own it; it belongs to them,” said Rep. Andy Levin (D-MI). “Shame on us if we don’t act” to make their money available to their retirement, he added. Rep. Lori Trahan (D-MA) sounded the alarm as well, remarking, “The worst thing we can do is nothing. We are on the hook.” Rep. Donald Norcross (D-NJ) expressed a similar sentiment: “If we do nothing, the system crashes. We don’t have the option to do nothing.” He added, “We’re all in this together.”
- Log in to post comments