Am I reading this comment correctly - don’t US workers get pensions that aren’t tied to their employers?
Social Security is relative generous by the standards of the industrialized world. For example, I will receive $3600/month from the government at the standard retirement age, in addition to any other retirement savings I may have. Similarly, the government will pay for my healthcare when I reach retirement age.
That amount is near the max, and not typical at all.[0] You must have had at least 35 high-earning years in your wage/earnings record.
Also, the government only pays for part of your healthcare (Medicare Part A = hospitalization), you still pay for all the rest (routine checkups, treatment not requiring hospitalization, preventive care, prescription drugs). You don't get any coverage at all unless you enroll and pay your share of the premiums.
Almost half of those years were the opposite of high-earning, and I don’t have 35 years yet. If it is near the max then it is because the fraction of years that are high-earning are carrying a lot of weight. I have been quite poor for a large fraction of my working life.
In general, private sector companies have switched to defined-contribution schemes like 401Ks, which are tied to an employer but can be (and generally should be) rolled over to IRAs when you leave the company.
Social Security is something else again that comes from the government but isn't usually called a pension.
When a company eliminates pensions, it applies to new hires and perhaps future contributions but does not retroactively eliminate benefits already accrued.