Public sector unions are strongly against that sort of arrangement. They prefer that the taxpayer guarantee them a defined level of pension benefit (no matter what the investment markets do).
In other words, it seems that public sector unions want the taxpayer to insulate them from the real world shocks which the other 80% of people have to endure. It's a very valuable benefit and it's understandable that they fight for it. But it is super expensive for the cities and states.
In LA there was an attempt about 5 years ago to gather signatures just to put a measure on the ballot to transition city workers from defined benefit to a 401K style defined contribution pension plan.
But certain public sector unions made it known that they planned to send their people out to sign those petitions with unverifiable, fake names and addresses. This would increase the likelihood of a failed signature verification process, meaning that the petition would probably not succeed at getting the measure on the ballot. So they dropped the whole effort.
A pension is the only chance you have of a decent life when you get old. There is nothing else.
You won't see any of that cash unless you're involved in the building industry.
And don't most most jobs still include a pension as a standard benefit? I'd say you were in the minority if you're a full time tech worker and have no pension at all.
In the private sector, pensions have been going away -- I've worked for about nine employers in the last 20 years or so, only one had a pension plan, a public school district. (I wasn't eligible to participate because I held a part time position)
Many (most?) private sector employers offer participation in defined contribution retirement plans such as 401(k), some with employer contributions -- those are much simpler to manage, today's work gets paid for today. There are some government plans of this type, and taxpayers don't get upset about them, generally.
A 401k and other defined contribution pensions are still a pension.
Assuring that the people who serve society don't spend their final years in poverty is the least we can do.
Also, the reason you assure pension to government employees is because they tend to be stable and dependable workers over the long term.
I bet you would lose your shit if government employees in your town had the turnover of a McDonald's. Higher turnover costs mean higher taxes and much worse/less dependable service.
I'm unconvinced. I believe they get special treatment only because they are a large lobby group.
In 2014 federal civilian workers had an average wage of $84,153, according the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis [1].5 By comparison, the average wage for the nation's 111 million private-sector workers was $56,350.
In Las Vegas, the average salary and benefits package for firefighter union employees was $199,678 (in 2009, I think) [2]. The average salary alone was $128,026.
Please also note that federal government pensions are in a league of its own - 80% of your last year salary - and there are stories in newspapers every year about, for example, street cops working overtime and making $120K+ in their last year.
[1] http://www.bea.gov/iTable/iTable.cfm?ReqID=9&step=1#reqid=9&...
[2] http://lasvegassun.com/news/2009/dec/30/cost-cutting-ideas-c...
You are also wrong about federal pensions, they aren't as a rule 80% of your final year salary. The normal FERS formula is 0.01 * high-3 * years of service (full months of service less than a year count as fractional years). The "high-3" is the highest annual pay of any 3 consecutive years of service. To get 80% of the high-3 (which, with increasing salary, is still less than 80% of last service year) you'd have to have 80 years of service.
This was under the old retirement system called CSRS. If you entered service after 1987 you are under FERS where 20 years of service gets you 20% pension, and you get additional 1% for every additional year. So 40 years you get 40% pension, not great.
Also, pensions are not controlled by the individual. The money is pooled and managed by the pension fund. This is of course subject to corruption and bloated fees as we have seen. The 401k program is not perfect, and in fact needs to be totally reformed, but they at least offer more choice and competition and do not promise guaranteed returns.
"It was intended to allow taxpayers a break on taxes on deferred income. In 1980, a benefits consultant named Ted Benna took note of the previously obscure provision and figured out that it could be used to create a simple, tax-advantaged way to save for retirement. The client for whom he was working at the time chose not to create a 401(k) plan."
Government doesn't even pay a reasonable salary + benefits for many positions including pensions, in overall monetary value, and the public and politicians aren't generally interested in fixing that.
Now, if we think government employees should pay into and get social security when they retired thats a debate that might be worthwhile to have. However, in the meantime the trade off has been lower salary and no social security in the public sector vs private sector but you do get a pension in the end.
Governments tend not to go out of business, or get acquired. Governments rarely have the finances to buy out a pension (if they did, they would fund their pension obligations). Governments have a much harder time implementing a dual class workforce where newer employees don't get a pension, because they will often see public pressure when terms of employment are unequal -- a private employer may get pressured too, it can ignore it.