The Washington Post has announced changes to its pension plans. Current employees will have to find some way to fund their retirements. What’s worse is what will happen to those who already have retired. Steven Mufson of The Washington Post writes: “The changes will hit hardest at employees hired before 2009 who could plan on receiving pension payments based on their income and years of service. Each of those employees could see scores — or hundreds — of thousands of dollars less over the course of a retirement. More recent hires do not have traditional pension plans.”
I understand that the newspaper business, like other industries, has to adapt to being smaller. A friend of mine who worked for the Chicago Sun-Times had his pension cut. However, if a pension fund was properly funded, why are such cuts necessary? Every time a company or unit of government cuts benefits to retired people, the excuse is one of necessity. What happened to the money that the employees and the company contributed to the fund? Why do retired employees pay the price instead of executives and stockholders? We need to start asking such questions.
Three cheers to Laura Clawson of Daily Kos for informing her readers of this story, which for retirees is more than a story – it’s a tragedy.