Report: MLB looking to cut pensions for non-uniformed personnel

http://www.cbssports.com/mlb/blog/ey...rmed-personnel





From the article:

"MLB is an $8 billion industry, and revenue streams are going nowhere but up. Cutting the pension plan for non-uniformed personnel -- many of whom earn less than $40,000 per year -- comes off as incredibly greedy on the part of owners."

Geez, they could at least do a 401(k) with an employer match or discretionary profit sharing (which they have complete control over how much they contribute) and share some of the wealth with non-players. Penny wise, pound foolish thinking, which means that the "unnamed small market owner" is probably not doing well for a reason.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by traderumor

Geez, they could at least do a 401(k) with an employer match or discretionary profit sharing (which they have complete control over how much they contribute) and share some of the wealth with non-players. Penny wise, pound foolish thinking, which means that the "unnamed small market owner" is probably not doing well for a reason.

---

I will say it first -- those that have want to keep it that way.

Looks like Bud is 20 years behind the rest of the industries.. Not many companies have pensions anymore lol

Of course it's greed, baseball is yet another cooporation that wants more profitability at the expense of the lower paid workers.

No surprise, the Lords had to be dragged kicking and screaming into the 20th century in the 70's, looks like they want to gain back ground and undercut the less powerful part of their work force.

Why didn't Marge think of this? :dunno:

Just because they want to stop offering pensions doesn't mean franchises are greedy and want to screw their employees. Very few companies offer pensions anymore. 401k is how companies help their employees fund their retirements in the modern world and I am sure this is what the teams will do in the future. This is better for the workers as they are not compelled to stay with a single employer for decades if they want a comfortable retirement. 401k funds can be transferred wherever you go and make your future much less dependent on the good will and financial stability of your employer.

I agree that there is a trend away from pensions in many businesses.

That being said, what the heck? MLB is doing very well. The owners and players are thriving, and this strikes me as just plain greedy.

I have nothing against a well matched 401(k) plan. But the truth is that this a money saving move, period. Sure, there are some advantages (like portability) with 401(k) plans, but the real reason employers like them is that total responsibility for how the plan does is placed on the employees back. There is no hidden liability for the company should life expectancies lengthen or the markets crash.

Many young employees opt out completely (which is dumb), and many others cash out their plans when they switch jobs (also dumb, but sometimes necessary).

The long range problem will be that with fewer people on defined benefit pensions, older people will eventually be less affluent and more likely to need public assistance in their golden years (tax burden for younger folks). Smart and careful people (like AD) will do well with 401(k) plans. Dumb people(like me) will be buying Apple at $600 and losing their shirts.... I'm glad to be vested in a pension. MLB should offer at least that option to their employees as well.

If this were isolated to MLB I'd be outraged but there are many 8 billion dollar (revenue) companies doing very well that don't offer pensions. No sense busting MLB's chops too hard over this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mbgrayson

I agree that there is a trend away from pensions in many businesses.

That being said, what the heck? MLB is doing very well. The owners and players are thriving, and this strikes me as just plain greedy.

I have nothing against a well matched 401(k) plan. But the truth is that this a money saving move, period. Sure, there are some advantages (like portability) with 401(k) plans, but the real reason employers like them is that total responsibility for how the plan does is placed on the employees back. There is no hidden liability for the company should life expectancies lengthen or the markets crash.

Many young employees opt out completely (which is dumb), and many others cash out their plans when they switch jobs (also dumb, but sometimes necessary).

The long range problem will be that with fewer people on defined benefit pensions, older people will eventually be less affluent and more likely to need public assistance in their golden years (tax burden for younger folks). Smart and careful people (like AD) will do well with 401(k) plans. Dumb people(like me) will be buying Apple at $600 and losing their shirts.... I'm glad to be vested in a pension. MLB should offer at least that option to their employees as well.

---

Don't want to worry about your retirement being backed on the market? Then don't opt in to the 401K and handle your own retirement.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dougdirt

Don't want to worry about your retirement being backed on the market? Then don't opt in to the 401K and handle your own retirement.

---

I believe you are confused on what is what

A 401k is not a traditional pension plan, a pension is funded by the employer and traditionally used as part of an employees compensation package

Lots of companies do offer the 401k as opposed to a pension but in MLBs case a pension is a pension in the traditional sense

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by westofyou

I believe you are confused on what is what

A 401k is not a traditional pension plan, a pension is funded by the employer and traditionally used as part of an employees compensation package

Lots of companies do offer the 401k as opposed to a pension but in MLBs case a pension is a pension in the traditional sense

---

I am not confused by it. The poster said that some people aren't happy with their 401K because it relies on things outside of their control (market crashing was an example used).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dougdirt

I am not confused by it. The poster said that some people aren't happy with their 401K because it relies on things outside of their control (market crashing was an example used).

---

Missed that, didn't see that seque...anyway as far as MLB

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports...onnel/2001513/

Quote:

---

"It's inaccurate,'' Manfred told USA TODAY Sports. "There has been no discussion of eliminating employee pension plan

"The clubs would be given the flexibility to design a plan appropriate for their workplace,'' Manfred said. "They wouldn't be mandated by a defined pension plan. This has been talked about for years.''

---

After 2008, I know a lot of folks who are thinking twice about the idea of a 401K. In an ideal world, it would be a better solution than a traditional pension since it tracks more closely with the market and doesn't depend on the solvency of the employer. Unfortunately, we are in far from an ideal world.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kaldaniels

If this were isolated to MLB I'd be outraged but there are many 8 billion dollar (revenue) companies doing very well that don't offer pensions. No sense busting MLB's chops too hard over this.

---

Frog in the kettle effect. While I agree that "well everyone else did away with those dinosaurs years ago," it doesn't make it the right option necessarily.

I am an accountant by trade, but also wear an HR hat in my current position. As an accountant, pensions are horrible for employers. Put on my HR hat, and it is an employee friendly perk. I see both sides, that's why a 401(k) with an employer match or a discretionary profit sharing setup (for a cyclical company that has inconsistent bottom lines from year to year) is a nice compromise for the company that does not want to expose itself to a pension liability. Perhaps MLB already has that in place, but it is a bit cheesy at this stage. Pensions could return if healthcare costs get under control, but probably not until that area of employee benefits stabilizes.