My concern is the reverse, in a sense. It's not that this act would override somebody's pension, but we were trying to deem benefit from an accident, earlier. We were trying to say that under this act, if somebody loses wages due to the fact of the accident, if they don't work at the plant itself, there's compensation made available to them. There was a question mark about people who actually happen to work at the plant, whether they too are available to get compensation. I think in the end we said no, they're not.
If somebody works outside of the plant and has their work affected by this, they will receive wages, they will receive compensation on wages, which then affects their pensions—that's how pensions work; you pay into them through your wages. If somebody loses their job and is unable to go back—the plant doesn't reopen or something happens—they also, in effect, would lose their pensions. It seems as if it's a double hit on the folks who are directly involved. Am I chasing the wrong truck here?