Thread: ESPN.com: MLB owners to remove pension plan?

Major League Baseball is discussing doing away with a pension fund for team’s non-uniformed personnel, including the scouts and front office members, writes Adam Rubin for ESPNNewYork.com.

According the website’s sources, owners attempted to revoke this pension plan last year but it was voted down. This year, however, owners will have a second vote, intended to be kept secret, at an owners meeting in May. Interestingly enough, this will not affect employees of the Minnesota Twins, as the ballclub was one of four MLB teams to opt out of the plan.

While this may seem galling for an industry making over $8 billion annually to put the screw job to scouts who average less than $40,000 a year, this is the tread with the private sector. In 1979, the article cites, more than 28 percent of private-sector worker received defined-benefit pension plans. That number has declined to less than 3 percent in 2012.

Welcome to the 21st century.

The article makes it sound like the Tigers and White Sox ownerships are against revoking pensions. I wonder what the Twins "comparable" plan is? Probably your average 401K? I can't see the banker Pohlad's being on the generous side of this equation.

I'm getting tired of the other teams in the AL Central coming across as a champion of the fans and employees while our Twins do the opposite.

And yet there are people out there who say that unions are outdated and unnecessary.
Isnt it great how a corporation can just vote to do away with a benefit that people were promised when they were hired.

why are we not surprised the Twins opted out of the pension plan to begin with?

Company 401k Plans - Minnesota Twins Pension Plan

I'm sure a large part of the reason they opted out initially (although it's not clear when they actually opted out) is that Pohlad probably felt they could run things more efficiently and better for the whole organization by doing their own thing rather than letting the League dictate things.

While we all may have our gripes about how the team spends money on it's athletes, they really do take good care of their people. There's a reason why it's really hard to get a foot in the door with the Twins, and a reason why most people stick around with the organization for a very long time.

Also: Company 401k Plans - Minnesota Twins Profit Sharing/401k Plan

Originally Posted by spideyo

Company 401k Plans - Minnesota Twins Pension Plan

I'm sure a large part of the reason they opted out initially (although it's not clear when they actually opted out) is that Pohlad probably felt they could run things more efficiently and better for the whole organization by doing their own thing rather than letting the League dictate things.

While we all may have our gripes about how the team spends money on it's athletes, they really do take good care of their people. There's a reason why it's really hard to get a foot in the door with the Twins, and a reason why most people stick around with the organization for a very long time.

Nice research to find this link! It would be interesting to find out what percentage of compensation the Twins are contributing.

Originally Posted by Mr. Brooks

And yet there are people out there who say that unions are outdated and unnecessary.
Isnt it great how a corporation can just vote to do away with a benefit that people were promised when they were hired.

This is something that fascinates me with modern conservatism. In a free market, unions should be embraced with open arms. They are a private organization to fight for workers' rights... In a truly free market, they are the only organization capable of fighting for workers' rights.

I don't like a lot of the things unions do and have done over the years, but without government intervention into the free market (which we all know is bad, right? RIGHT?), it's the only logical solution to combat corporate control over workplace conditions.

Originally Posted by Brock Beauchamp

This is something that fascinates me with modern conservatism. In a free market, unions should be embraced with open arms. They are a private organization to fight for workers' rights... In a truly free market, they are the only organization capable of fighting for workers' rights.

I don't like a lot of the things unions do and have done over the years, but without government intervention into the free market (which we all know is bad, right? RIGHT?), it's the only logical solution to combat corporate control over workplace conditions.

I believe you are correct in that it is the existence of corporations that makes unions necessary. Classical capitalism never conceived of corporations - most suppliers and producers were small and interchangeable, so workers could move from one to another in response to work conditions. When corporations changed the employment environment, giving fewer options and less mobility, there needed to be a counterbalance, which is what unions provided.

In a capitalistic system, what's wrong with an organization that seeks the best interests of it's members? That's what capitalism is all about - seeking to advance yourselves. That's Adam Smith's invisible hand - the idea that when all participants put their own best interests first, it works for the betterment of all society.

Not to take this too far political. But, I'm sure the classic answer from someone who is anti union would be, "the great thing about capitalism is that if employers treat their employees unfairly, there will always be competition that will offer them better 'x' (pay, benefits,conditions, etc.)
And I'm fine with that, if they go with some kind of grandfather rule. But, if they dont, then the point that that person would be ignoring is: what about all the current employees who were promised a pension when they were hired?

Originally Posted by sbknudson

I believe you are correct in that it is the existence of corporations that makes unions necessary. Classical capitalism never conceived of corporations - most suppliers and producers were small and interchangeable, so workers could move from one to another in response to work conditions. When corporations changed the employment environment, giving fewer options and less mobility, there needed to be a counterbalance, which is what unions provided.

In a capitalistic system, what's wrong with an organization that seeks the best interests of it's members? That's what capitalism is all about - seeking to advance yourselves. That's Adam Smith's invisible hand - the idea that when all participants put their own best interests first, it works for the betterment of all society.

Exactly. Before the industrial revolution, unions were needed (obviously), but not nearly to the extent they were after corporate behemoths began to dominate the landscape. Once a few large players could control such a large portion of the workforce, it was only logical that worker-based organizations would rise up to combat them and fight for their own interests.

Just one of the fallacies of modern conservatism that I can't wrap my head around. There are so many opposing viewpoints in conservatism that, when compared to one another, don't add up to a cohesive view of the world. Free markets without unions, end government welfare but make no attempt to control unwanted pregnancies, marginalize the middle class in favor of the wealthy, continue ad nauseum.

This is not a union vs non union issue. MLB is taking away pensions earned in the past. It is simply choosing to further fund 401K's instead of a pension in the future.

If I ran a business there would be absolutely no way that I would include a pension plan. It's a scary business model and I definitely don't fault MLB for switching to a 401K.

Unions had their place and were instrumental in significant improvements in workers in the early 20th century but they abused their power. The UAW and some of their workers took things to absolutely ridiculous levels.

Originally Posted by Mr. Brooks

Not to take this too far political. But, I'm sure the classic answer from someone who is anti union would be, "the great thing about capitalism is that if employers treat their employees unfairly, there will always be competition that will offer them better 'x' (pay, benefits,conditions, etc.)
And I'm fine with that, if they go with some kind of grandfather rule. But, if they dont, then the point that that person would be ignoring is: what about all the current employees who were promised a pension when they were hired?

They still get a pension.

Originally Posted by Mr. Brooks

Not to take this too far political. But, I'm sure the classic answer from someone who is anti union would be, "the great thing about capitalism is that if employers treat their employees unfairly, there will always be competition that will offer them better 'x' (pay, benefits,conditions, etc.)
And I'm fine with that, if they go with some kind of grandfather rule. But, if they dont, then the point that that person would be ignoring is: what about all the current employees who were promised a pension when they were hired?

Which is fine if you ignore the fact that the best way for workers to fight for their rights is to get together, collectively agree upon terms, and fight for their own self-interest.

After all, isn't capitalism based on protecting our own self-interest? That's the logical fallacy that bothers me most. Some are supposed to fight for self-interest as an entity (corporations), but others are not (unions). It doesn't make sense.

Originally Posted by kab21

This is not a union vs non union issue. MLB is taking away pensions earned in the past. It is simply choosing to further fund 401K's instead of a pension in the future.

If I ran a business there would be absolutely no way that I would include a pension plan. It's a scary business model and I definitely don't fault MLB for switching to a 401K.

Unions had their place and were instrumental in significant improvements in workers in the early 20th century but they abused their power. The UAW and some of their workers took things to absolutely ridiculous levels.

Pensions are definitely an awful idea. After a time, it creates built-in expenses that can drive a company into the ground and reduces production per dollar spent.

I'm not saying unions are always right, just talking about the oddities that define modern conservatism. I guess I kind of highjacked the thread...

To me what gets lost on so many is that, except for owners of large corporations, we ALL make more money because of the gains unions have made for their members.

One need not read a lot of history to see that.

But this isn't necessarily a bad thing for the owners or employees going forward.
Hopefully whatever change the owners make works for everybody.

When I had a dozen employees I had a 401k option. No business size increase would have convinced me to change that to a pension.

I understand the change that is going on in the workplace concerning retirement savings/security, and the reasons for the shift from defined-benefit to defined-contribution plans. The danger is that too many Americans don't have a good enough understanding about personal finance to know how to save for retirement, and too many don't make enough to be able to save for retirement. Even managing the asset allocation of a 401k is a skill that many in this country don't have - such as not keeping all your assets in company stock (think Enron).

We are heading to a time when retirement will become a thing of the past - people will work until they are no longer able to work, and then they'll have to depend on the grace of friends and family to survive - that's the system we had before the social safety net was created. And, of course, people being forced to work longer and postpone (or cancel) retirement creates more pressure on the job market, pushing up unemployment, particularly for younger workers trying to make a start.

At least there is Twins baseball to take our mind off this bleak picture!

Originally Posted by kab21

They still get a pension.

No, it said in the article that they were CONSIDERING grandfathering in current employees, but had not yet decided if they would.

Originally Posted by Mr. Brooks

No, it said in the article that they were CONSIDERING grandfathering in current employees, but had not yet decided if they would.

I'm guessing the article is a bit imprecise. Most pensions have some benefits which are vested and some which are not vested, usually determined by time in plan. Benefits which are vested would be guaranteed, by the government (funded by pension providers) if not by the company, and the employee would not lose any pension credits already earned. MLB could, however, stop issuing new credits to those already in the plan, i.e. they wouldn't lose the pension they have but the amount of the benefit would not increase any further from this point on, no matter how much longer they worked.