Not trying to make any points, just trying to understand the concept:-
Having seen a couple of stories in the news relating to people leaving employment in Pensylvania Avenue and seen a recent comment in a thread here on PM, it seems that it's possible for an (ex) employee to lose their pension rights if they leave on sufficiently bad terms with the employer.
Is this because US company pensions are regarded as pay that comes from the employer in some way, rather than as savings that belong to the employee? or is there something else that a Brit has missed in understanding the system?
It is not common, but has been applied in the UK as well. C&W Plc. formerly a Crown Corporation, even. Generally, it is risky - for retired Executives especially - to be seen to be acting to maliciously damage their former employer, etc.
Any major corp, OLD corp HR/pensions guru IN the UK who was on-deck as several changes evolved, OR their online "trade" magazines, are far the better source than PM.
UK tabloids actually don't do a half-bad job of coverage. Guess it is easier to stick to the facts when no one is interested in naked bodies by the age of most pensioners?
As to the nature of the scheme and its funding? If it can be conceived, it has probably been done. Plan architectures are all over the lot. Few major firms will have any fewer than two running at the same time. Five and more can easily co-exist. Seniour staff are usually on "personalized" schemes, even in the UK and overseas UK firms.
"What might happen" to affect such staff is equally "personalized", seldom has any bearing, nor sets any precedent for anyone below a "Director of" level, if even at THAT level. Lawsuits are not unheard of, but their outcomes are also rarely of relevance as to general precedent setting.
Even in US Federal employment under our by-the-book civil service rules, there exist "supergrades" where the (mostly) political-appointee heads of bureaus and such are slotted. Those, too can have a measure of "flexibility". You did say "Pennsylvania Avenue", yah?
Do your own
current diligence. Waste not a lot of time on firms as do not affect you, now, or upcoming. ONE company is a full-time job for more than one person.
Dealing with all of that was for some years a major element of "day job" for Director, Systems, Administration, and Control, Cable & Wireless Americas, Inc, both US terms staff, and UK terms staff, and in more than one of those parallel categories, before moving off to bigger boots, London HQ. I had a dedicated person in London for the UK expat staff on my US payroll. Well. Not exclusively. They COULD, and some DID qualify for
both retirement schemes. Plus an IRA with company contribution. And stock options...and..
But it was a long time ago by now!
HTH
Bill