If you are older and have a small pension, then indeed the PBGC will (theoretically) be (relatively) nice to you.
I agree.
My FIL/BIL were both union workers in two different large companies of which both went under. They had very good contracted benefits and mucho OT which bumped up their retirement benefits over many years.
FIL was already retired, and his pension (already receiving for a few years, transfered to the PBGC) was cut.
BIL was nearing retirement (+35 years in) and his expected pension was cut quite severly. That's why he's still wor*ing 25-30 hours a week, when approaching 70 years of age.
For a higher than average salary and expected pension, there is a loss. OTOH, it could be worse. They could possibly not get anything, depending on the pension reserves.
Then you have trucking, which retirement benefits are managed by the union, not the respective company. In this case, the Teamsters manage the pension.
I retired from a large multi-national that (in the U.S.) production workers belonged to the UAW, but the pension was/is paid by the company in the U.S. The foreign/Euro/GB/Australia/Far East retirees fall under the respective countries government retirement schemes - not the company.
Of course, I didn't/don't have a pension (white collar) so while it might have been nice to get one (our's was eliminated in the early 80's) it's something that I don't have to worry about - either covered by the PBGC or taxpayers in the public sector.