Only if the contracts automatically follow profits. Profits are not a ratchet, while contracts typically are.
Also they are asking for more than pay raises and shortened work week. They're also demanding health benefits for retirees and defined benefit pensions among other things.
The only defined benefit plan left is social security , which is fast going into insolvency in exactly a decade, and where it will automatically be cut 25% once that happens!
“contrary to a common misunderstanding. In 2035, if nothing else is done, the program could pay 80 percent of scheduled benefits, mostly out of workers’ ongoing contributions, a figure that would slip to 74 percent in 2096”
Thanks for the 5% correction. I'd have to research more to be sure, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.
My point remains, to be in support of defined benefits, you must not be OK with unilaterally changing the de-facto definion of defined-benefit for SS?
How is it OK to literally pull the rug under people that paid - all their lifes - with the promise to get X on retirement, and will now get X-Y instead ?
> Only if the contracts automatically follow profits. Profits are not a ratchet, while contracts typically are.
Are they? When concessions are given they should also be removed: there are some elements in the contracts that date back to the hard times of 2008 that the unions are still putting up with.
GM had $10b in earnings, but I think Ford is still in the hole with a $2b loss last reported in 2023. I'm not going to even try to figure out Chrysler's health, since it is mixed in with a bunch of European auto makers (Fiat among others).
