Why can't teachers/cops live with 401(k)'s instead of pensions?

[Jim in CT]

OK, in my town, both the police and teacher contracts are up for renewal. I went to the first meting for each, and asked why these public servants (and that's what they are) cannot live with 401(k)'s instead of pensions.

I used to work as a pension actuary, and my job was telling companies how much they'd save by switching to 401(k)s. The savings is enormous, which is why the entire non-unionized private sector made the switch 15-20 years ago. And we all survived.

At the teachers meeting, the union rep accused me of not caring about children. At the police meeting, the union rep actually asked me "have you ever had to tell a parent that his child was killed?" For the reciord, when I told him yes (from my time in the USMC), he was more than a bit suprised, as his question was meant to stop the conversation.

Here is my take on this. In the private sector, we have to make people want to buy our products/services, and we all know that pensions are so expensive, that there is no way we can pass that cost on to our customers.

In the case of public unionized employees, they don't have that burden. They tell us, buy our product (pay your property taxes) or we seize your house. So they pass on (what to me are) unreasonable expenses.

I have no problem paying taxes so that cops and teachers can get reasonable benefits. I have a huge problem paying exorbitant taxes so that they can cling to insane, antiquated benefits that dwarf anything available to the public which they claim to serve.