Fully funded pension plans are assets that a PE firm uses as collateral for the loan to do a hostile takeover of the firm.
FWIW this is exactly how it works in the UK. After employer and employee contributions are made my employer has nothing to do with what it's invested in etc.
With a pension, you own a promise from the employer to pay you a fixed amount. How it does that is (theoretically) none of your concern.
Some consider pensions to be more pro-worker because you're entitled to the same payout regardless of market performance. But it seems to be turning out that the 401k is more worker-friendly, as there's no promise to be reneged.
I'm mostly in the dark about the US pension system, so forgive me if the question is a silly one: How is this 'promise' not a legally binding debt, to be repaid as much as possible by the selling of assets during bankruptcy?
a) The entity never had enough assets to begin with (public pensions).
b) The assets have lost their value (business failure).
c) The assets were directed elsewhere by management (private equity takeover).