If I'm understanding you correctly, it seems like those conflicts could be mitigated by better regulations around company pension contributions. Plus, you could probably align the c-level manager's incentives by regulating that their pensions have less priority than those of regular employees, so if pension cuts have to be made, they'll feel the hit harder and faster. Power should come with responsibility.
Defined contribution is not "a much better system" for employees. It just moves risk from the company onto them. IIRC, there's not actually much "employer credit risk" to employees because pensions have to participate in a mandatory government insurance program.
Defined contribution plans are better positioned for today's employment reality in which people switch jobs much more frequently. Pensions give employers more power to keep employees when it would otherwise be beneficial for them to leave for better pay.
Pay of the problem with DB Sachems is a few years ago accountants pushed though changes that overstate the liabilities.
In the uk you have to account for pension liabilities as if tomorrow 100% of your scheme members became liabilities which is only likely to happen if there is a zombie Apocalypse.
One has to ask who benefits from this dodgy change to acounting rules.
Defined contribution is not "a much better system" for employees. It just moves risk from the company onto them. IIRC, there's not actually much "employer credit risk" to employees because pensions have to participate in a mandatory government insurance program.