Really doesn't matter private or govt, if the pension is set up counting on retirement at 65, with caveats for retiring earlier, and most retire at 58, the company's contributions to the pension were based on 7 more years...and it all comes crashing down..
It really helps if you understand how a pension works. If an employee retires prior to full vesting in the pension, they receive less.
As for Gilligan's post, it would help if one understands the pension landscape. The two pensions that were mentioned in the first paragraph of the typical Gilligan type article are outliers not the norm. While unfunded pensions are a problem, they are not the problem as made out in the article. First off, most public pensions have been reformulated going all the way back to the late 80s (Fed employees under CSRS know how much better their benefit is than those under FERS). MD increased employee contributions 5 or so years ago.
There are underfunded pensions but they are not of the sort that create a systematic danger to the economy as the idiotic author implied with his asinine "next bubble to burst" comment.
This isn't just a union problem, as the idiotic article also implied. Retirees are living longer and we had a financial crisis that impacted pension funds initially and continues due to the low interest rate environment.
Having said that, public employee unions should be barred from political activity. They should be banned from campaigning or contributing to campaigns...they should be banned from endorsing candidates. It is not in the public interest for the union to help pick those who will negotiate contracts on the publics behalf.
