There's an important difference. If IBM can't pay the pensions that it promised, IBM pensioners take the hit. If San Jose can't pay the pensions that it promised, I take the hit via taxes.
For whom? Not for me.
> Not only can IBM screw its pensioners, but the pensioners have no recourse
They made a bet. Since they were willing to take the winnings, they should take the loss.
Have you heard of the Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation?
Yes, I have. It's largely funded by companies that offer pensions - it's a huge problem that it isn't completely funded that way. That's not an argument for increasing its taxpayer funding.
Also, the first thing that it does is cut pension benefits.
I'm the only one who is going to pay for my retirement, so I've little sympathy for folks who think that I should pay for theirs.
If you're in a giving mood, feel free to kick in some money for me. If you're not willing to do that, what's the argument that I should pay for someone else's?