Quote:
Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Look, either what United did up to its bankruptcy was OK under law, in which case we need to change the law to require companies to fund their pensions so that people get the benefits they were promised, or what United did was not OK, in which case we need to enforce those rules better. Is it not that simple?
|
So you are not upset about the pension system in general, but just about United?
Damn activist bankruptcy judges. I'm actually not sure what the standard is for dumping a plan on the PBGC, but I don't think it generally happens in a reorg/bailout.
There's no way to guarantee full funding in any absolute way -- even if you want to say that companies that can't keep trusts fully funded even when the market falls have to liquidate, and the pension fund is the first creditor to get anything, there may be a shortfall in the fund post-liquidation. Plus that would seem to create other problems. It's already pretty high priority, I think. Should it have higher or lower priority than, say, payroll? Secured debt? Unpaid payroll taxes? Unpaid other taxes?
