|
RCBJ-Audible (Listen For Free)
 |
401(k) Options Provide Valuable Flexibility For Union Workers Who Want To Save More Or Diversify Their Retirement Planning
By David Carlucci
When Congress passed SECURE 2.0, the goal was straightforward and widely supported: make it easier for Americans to save for retirement by automatically enrolling workers in 401(k) plans.
For many workplaces, that approach works. However, for union workers covered by multiemployer (Taft-Hartley) benefit plans, one part of the law is having an unintended, and potentially harmful, effect.
Here’s why.
In many union industries, workers don’t have just one employer. A construction worker, electrician, or painter may work for several companies in a short period, often moving from job site to job site. Their retirement benefits are negotiated through collective bargaining, and it is common for such workers to have access to a 401(k) feature as an additional option.
That system has worked well for decades, but SECURE 2.0’s automatic enrollment rules assume something different: one employer, one payroll system, and one place to track employee elections.
That assumption doesn’t hold in the multiemployer world.
Under the law, new 401(k) plans generally must automatically enroll workers at 3% of pay and then increase that amount over time. In a single-employer setting, it’s manageable. In a multiemployer setting, where contributions are often fixed-dollar amounts, workers may have multiple employers, and payroll systems don’t coordinate, it quickly becomes unworkable.
The result? Many multiemployer plans will be highly unlikely to add a new 401(k) option.
That’s the opposite of what SECURE 2.0 was intended to do.
Why this matters
For many union workers, a traditional pension is still the foundation of retirement security. However, a 401(k) option can provide valuable flexibility, especially for workers who want to save more or diversify their retirement planning.
If plans stop offering that option because the rules are too complex, workers lose choices, employers lose a competitive benefit, and the local economy feels it, especially in regions like Rockland County and the Hudson Valley, where skilled union labor plays a major role in construction, infrastructure, and development.
The solution: MPAERA: The Multiemployer Plan Relief Act (H.R. 6685), or MPRA, offers a simple, bipartisan fix.
It doesn’t roll back SECURE 2.0 or weaken retirement savings policy. Instead, it recognizes that multiemployer plans are different and should not be forced into a one-size-fits-all rule that was never designed for them.
MPRA would exempt multiemployer plans from the automatic enrollment mandate, allowing them to continue offering voluntary 401(k) options without taking on impossible administrative burdens.
Put simply, the bill preserves retirement savings options instead of unintentionally eliminating them.
Why you should care
Even if you’re not personally enrolled in a union plan, this issue matters. Multiemployer benefit plans are a core part of how many industries attract and retain skilled workers. Clear, workable rules help employers plan, bid, and grow. Unworkable mandates create risk and uncertainty.
MPRA is a common-sense adjustment that protects workers, respects how union benefit plans actually function, and keeps the focus where it belongs, helping people save for retirement in ways that work in the real world.
