Sounds to me like this "hybrid model is how it should have been all along?
Maybe, but most participating employers don't plan on leaving so delaying expenses is attractive.
Did Hostess not make their pension contributions while in business?
Hostess quit contributing to plans in August and closed operations end of November (in most areas) while paying no withdrawal liability. They also stole 401K contributions from BCT members and made no reparations through bankruptcy. Their employees took two rounds of cuts prior to this. Now back in business after screwing over thousands of workers, they're celebrated as a success story as a leaner meaner company. Pitiful.
Could it be this" hook" you speak of is precisely what makes these pension plans legal ponzi schemes?
Is it the fault of the pension plan when companies default on their legal promised obligations and hide under bankruptcy law as Hostess did?
Are insurance companies legal ponzi schemes? Bank accounts? Annuities?
You disservice the efforts of hard working trustees in thousands of sustainable pension plans by those ridiculous statements. Calling a pension plan a ponzi scheme shows ignorance of a true rip off scheme.
Why would any Company who made all pension contributions while in business, have "continuing liability" when they close the doors?
Every participating employer gets a yearly unfunded liability statement. They know what they owe and choose to delay the pay. Additionally actuarial forecasts (among other factors) change with mortality tables adjustments so when members live longer, the plan needs more funding.
.....yet we're told our healthcare contributions are segregated?
They are and bringing that up is apples and fruitcakes.
We're "told" a lot of things, but the earth is not flat. I try to correct some inaccuracies but when my answers don't fit your preconceived notions, you struggle with the factual info and hang with the BS. That's OK.
There's plenty of room on the Vote No on reality bus.