Masonry Magazine April 1982 Page. 32
MAYCO
THE ONLY WAY TO PLACE GROUT ON MULTI-STORY, LOAD BEARING MASONRY CONSTRUCTION
HEAVY DUTY DRIVE
MAYCO C30HD
SMALL LINE GROUT & CONCRETE PUMP
...THE 'WORK HORSE' OF THE INDUSTRY
• Handles mixes with up to 12" aggregate.
• Remote Control
Flow of material controlled at point of pour.
• 3-Speed volume selector.
• Will pump in excess of 100' vertically and 400 to 500' horizontally.
• Versatile
Can also be used for pumping slabs, footings, foundations, light weight cellular concrete floors, high lift grouting and shotcreting.
ASK ABOUT OUR PROGRAM FOR STARTING A CONCRETE PUMPING SERVICE -A DYNAMIC WAY TO DIVERSIFY.
For information & location of your local Mayco distributor, Contact:
MAYCO PUMP CORP.
4640 Sperry Street/Los Angeles, CA 90039
Phone: (213)240-7070
PENSION LIABILITY
continued from page 31
Here were some of the difficulties with the old law:
1. The trustees of a plan or the parties to it could simply decide to terminate the plan. That decision would push the plan onto the government's Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation. It would pay the unfunded benefits and pass the cost through to all other multiemployer plans by way of increased premiums.
2. On a plan termination, the contributing employers, and to some extent those who contributed within the preceding 5 years, would have contingent liability they would owe a lump sum amount immediately to the PBGC, up to 30 percent of their net worth.
3. Parties that were struggling with a plan that had become expensive (because, for example, the trade or industry had declined) would have a financial incentive to "dump" the plan by termination, at the cost of the contingent liability, but getting out from under the rest of the cost.
4. The premium could escalate to many times its original level because of these incentives for termination.
5. If an employer got out of a plan at least 5 years before termination, it was free and clear of any obligations. This raised the specter of a "last man's club" the employers who were left would find the plan increasingly expensive and at termination would be billed for contingent liability. The employers who had left earlier would have had free exit, and no further liability.
The legislation of September 1980 made some fundamental changes
First, it made guarantees automatic but at less than the full amount so as to discourage any movement by the active employees to terminate a plan.
Second, it changed the concept of termination. Under the amended law, the furthest a plan can go is to freeze benefits and any further vesting.
Third, the lump sum contingent liability was eliminated. The obligation of the employers participating in a frozen plan was changed to the obligation to continue to pay on the basis of negotiated contribution rates in order to finish the funding of the plan's frozen vested benefits.
Fourth, the premium was increased from 50€ per capita to what is now $1.40 and will by 1989 be $2.60 per capita.
Fifth, multiemployer pension plans are required to fund their benefits more rapidly, particularly those that have high vested liabilities in relation to their assets.
Sixth, withdrawal liability was imposed on an employer that breaks away from a multiemployer plan. The purpose was to cut off free exit so as to eliminate the dangers of a "last man's club" for those who remained with the plan and ultimate plan insolvency.
All of this has obviously involved a good deal of change, on which the dust has not yet settled. There will be interpretations, regulations, and court decisions; it will be a while before all of this is sorted out.
Clearly it is not something that happened overnight and the end result is something that goes back to a practically unanimous decision by Congress in 1974 to establish termination insurance for all defined benefit pension plans. It also means that down the line the employers will no doubt be taking a greater interest than they have in the past in the pension plan decisions beyond the old question of the contribution rate under the existing contract.