Will the courts save us from the baby boomers?

There are two different types of pension plans that are popular these days. Defined benefit plans and defined contribution plans. I will briefly explain the difference:

1. Defined Benefit: The benefits of the plan are fixed, and are usually based upon years of service to the company. Usually these type of pension plans require some sort of public or private insurance just in case there are any unexpected shortfalls. These type of plans are very nice for baby boomers because they can contribute very little to the plan and then sock it to the next generation when they retire. The kids have to make up any shortfall in the pension that came about due to insufficient funding by the boomers.
2. Defined Contributions: The contributions to the plan are fixed, but the benefits are not. This type of plan can never have a shortfall because the pensions can just be cut to match the amount of money available. This sucks for the baby boomers who like to get things without actually paying for them. Under this plan, if they don't contribute enough, they simply won't get a nice pension.

Obviously, for our generation, defined benefits plans are one last big "screw you" from the baby boomers. However, a recent court ruling might be putting those type of plans in jeopardy:

Given the huge headaches and costs that may result from the ruling, many predicted employers will increasingly move to defined contribution plans or abandon pension plans altogether

Who cares about the reasoning behind the ruling and that the unions scored a victory. If the end result is the demise of the screw you pension plans, then that can only be a good thing.