It got complicated when the steel mills went bankrupt and the pensions were taken over by federal agencies. The bankrupt company, in this case, was paying more for pensioners than what the federal agencies paid.

I'm not entirely clear on why this was, but it may have been that they were not fully insured or that promises made by the steel mills were not backed by anything. In these cases, some pensioners actually had to give money back [1].

This happened to my grandfather, who worked in the steel mills in western Pennsylvania. If you ever wanted to see him red-faced mad, this was the topic to discuss.

1. https://www.mcall.com/news/all-retirees1118-story.html

PBGC, government body that back stops is mentioned.

Yes, the backstop isn’t 100% and has a cap, but the pension is will never go “broke”.

I believe the coverage is something like 60% up to $64k/yr.

That doesn't mean you will get what you were promised if the pension was underfunded[1]:

> If you look at multiemployer plans, those people worked in coal mines, driving trucks, in bakeries — typically physical, difficult jobs, and they certainly earned the pension they were promised by their union. Now, some of them are 70-years-old and in retirement and have the terrible prospect of having their pension cut.

> There’s a government backstop for private pensions, but the government backstop for multiemployer plans is very modest

[1]: https://ideas.darden.virginia.edu/underfunded-pensions

Do you have a source? I wonder if that covers all pensions or just public pensions? Or if that requirement is newer and didn't exist when the companies went under 50 or so years ago.

Even taxpayer funded DB pension recipients have had to accept benefit cuts, such as former employees of Detroit and Rhode Island.

If the entity that owes you does not have the power to print money, then there is always a risk of non payment. And how much of a bailout you get depends on your political weight.

PBGC is “insurance” for pension plans.

Looks like their site says there was little protection for pensions before 1974. So it sounds like there wasn't any protection before that. Their wording around "insured pensions" also seems to indicate that some pensions may not be insured (no requirement to insure them).