I am not a hundred percent sure. But what I think it´s that the Boss is from one of the companies that insures its employees, and there was a time when some companies couldn´t afford it anymore.http://www.polyphonic.org/article/shoul ... l-you-why/I also learned something else from the PBGC. Presently, there are 1,500 multi-employer funds that it insures. (The AFM Pension Fund is one of them.) Only 40 of them are insolvent. That means that less than 3 percent of multi-employer funds have gone under. That is an extremely small number compared to the number of single-employer pension funds that the PBGC has been required to take over.
In other words, if there was a rush to the pension funds (a "panic pension" rush), such rushes that the English PM Gordon Brown said he "refused to be forced" (that is, the people that under the pretext someday, very soon, they would have to tax on companies, so they would have money to pay the pensioners). http://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/archiv ... _/?ref=arcChancellor Gordon Brown said today he would not be be forced into panic pension increases and fuel tax cuts the country cannot afford.
He said the Government would not take short term taxation decisions on "wildly fluctuating" world oil prices - neither would it link pensions to increases in wages which could lay down a future financial minefield.
So, the Boss in our present case was wary of giving a raise, and then having to pay increased taxes or any other kind of economical tool the government could think of. That is, to give a raise, and then be left to foot the tab in the near future.
Or "panic pension" could be the "scare" of pension funds going bankrupt, and then they (companies) having to foot the tab (taxes etc).