Just found it interesting that the Chicago pension plan is being compared to the Teamsters and is in even more trouble.
Before the Christmas holidays, I focused extensively on the problems facing Taft-Hartley multi-employer pensions and the PBGC multi-employer pension fund. Although I'll be returning to the topic, with a Chicago mayoral election coming up soon (February 26th, no incumbent candidate, 15 candidates, April 2 runoff election if needed), I am taking some time to address the pension issues that next mayor will have to face.

To begin with a comparison:

The Teamsters/Central States' pension plan, projected to become insolvent in 2025, is 38% funded at a 5.5% valuation interest rate.

The four city of Chicago-controlled pension plans, in total, are funded at a rate of 27%, using a valuation rate of 7% (which, as a reminder, means that on an apples-to-apples basis, they'd be even more poorly funded). (An Illinois Policy Institute article from October 2018 gives an overview of the numbers; there are additional Chicago pension funds for teachers, park district and transit workers that are not included as city of Chicago funds.)

Of course, one might say that Chicago has the ability to tax its residents, and the Teamsters do not. But in the same way as the Teamsters cannot simply increase the contributions required of its participating employers without creating genuinely intolerable burdens, so too, Chicago can't readily solve its troubles with taxation. In 2018, Chicago's contribution to these funds totaled $1.02 billion and that figure is scheduled to increase to $1.2 billion in 2019 based on a contribution schedule agreed on in 2017. For reference, the city's total 2019 spending plan is $10.7 billion. Do the math: that's 10% of the city budget being spent on pensions.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/ebauer/.../#da02e61728ca