Sometimes the real crime consists of activities considered "legal," despite the damage they cause. That adage has never been more apt than when applied to the termination of pension funds by U.S. employers large, midsize and small. Over and over, loyal, deserving employees with modest incomes have watched their planned retirement savings disappear because of corporate managers and pension industry consultants.
Journalist Ellen Schultz has been writing about such shameful behavior for a long time, mostly in The Wall Street Journal. Now she has pulled together the copious, irrefutable evidence between the covers of a book. It is shocking, and demoralizing. But will members of Congress and federal agency regulators stop what Schultz calls "retirement heists"? Probably not, unless voters make it clear the incumbents will lose their jobs unless something changes. Unfortunately, voters are rarely if ever that organized, no matter how much they have been cheated by corporate chieftains.
The book is crammed with heartbreaking anecdotes of retirees suffering (and in some cases probably dying) because of pension-related corporate greed. But the perpetrators have not been charged with any crimes. In most cases documented by Schultz, the perpetrators have escaped widespread blame — except in her investigative pieces and now in this book.
Schultz opens the book with a look at the December 2010 annual outlook investor meeting sponsored by General Electric and CEO Jeffrey Immelt. (She could have focused on another corporation and another chief executive just as effectively, because the pension heists are so numerous.)
Immelt spoke about the problems for the corporation's profitability caused by the pension plan and medical benefits, announcing those benefits would be closed to newly hired employees.
Immelt and other corporate spokespeople have suggested that pension plan shortfalls are caused by out-of-control factors such as the large number of retirees, declining stock market investment returns and competition from foreign competitors that eschew good benefits for laborers.
Schultz knows better from her extensive research. She is a reporter who has become an expert in a relatively narrow subject matter. As she writes, "What Immelt didn't mention was that, far from being a burden, GE's pension and retiree plans had contributed billions of dollars to the company's bottom line over the past decade and a half, and were responsible for a chunk of the earnings that the executives had taken credit for. Nor were these retirement programs — even with GE's 230,000 retirees — bleeding the company of cash. In fact, GE hadn't contributed a cent to the workers' pension plans since 1987 but still had enough money to cover all the current and future retirees."
Then Schultz delivers the clincher: GE was indeed burdened by a pension plan — the plan for top executives. The obligations of that plan, for a minuscule number of individuals compared with the 230,000 lower-level retirees, totaled $4.4 billion and had drained about $573 million from the corporate treasury over the past three years.
http://www.usatoday.com/money/books/reviews/story/2011-10-14/retirement-heist-book/50795990/1
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(747 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
