Roger Toussaint of the transit workers is making it clearer by the hour that one of the reasons he called this illegal strike is pensions. He told New York 1,”If it were not for the pension piece, we would not be out on strike.” And of the mayor, he said, “Bloomberg has an agenda with respect to pensions.” Which is something for New Yorkers to contemplate as they sit in traffic jams or find themselves stuck at home or unable to get to the hospital or school. Anyone between the ages of 55 and 65 who is walking to work today should know that striking subway workers can, if they have 25 years on the job, already retire at age 55 on half pay. Most private employers’ pensions vest at an average age of 59.5, and full Social Security benefits don’t kick in until age 65, or age 67 for those born in 1960 or later.

This is the world of public employee pensions. Not only did the transit union rebuff the MTA’s efforts to increase the retirement age to 62, the union actually had the temerity to push to reduce the age yet further, to 50. This demand even after the MTA says pension costs tripled during the three-year life of the recently expired contract; the agency’s unfunded pension liability was more than $1 billion. Young New Yorkers who labor in the private sector and make payroll contributions to save for retirement may be surprised to learn that the strikers pay only up to 2% of their salaries toward their pensions; one of their grievances is the MTA’s desire to have new employees bump that contribution up to 6%. And if these pensions should happen to bankrupt the state, no worry – under state law, the benefits survive despite the financial condition of the government that has to pay them.

Those benefits, incidentally, are based on average wages calculated with a formula that includes overtime instead of base pay, inflating payouts. Before anyone is tempted to think that the union has accepted lower wages today in return for generous pensions tomorrow, a common bargain in industries like the airlines, that person will also remember that rookie subway drivers already earn more than $52,000 a year.

A recent New York Times report described how municipalities across the country are fighting to bring even the health care components of their pension plans alone under control. When an actuary pored over the books in Duluth, Minn., she discovered that the city had liabilities of $178 million, more than twice the city’s annual operating budget, just for the health care portion of its pension plan. Last spring, the state of Alaska discovered a total retirement liability – both pensions and retiree health care – of $5.7 billion.

In California, Governor Schwarzenegger attempted earlier this year to shift new public employees into a 401(k)-style defined contribution plan, but his effort floundered in the face of strong union opposition. Here in New York, the picture has been somewhat less rosy. Governor Pataki’s version of public pension reform in 2000 consisted of guaranteeing a cost of living adjustment (read: increase) and reducing employee contributions into the system. The MTA’s program in which retirees partially vest at 55 is the rule for state employees, not the exception, according to a report issued last spring by the Citizens Budget Commission. The same report also found that the benefits formula that counts overtime when calculating payouts is also widespread.

At least some gubernatorial candidates understand the need for reform. When he stopped by our offices yesterday, William Weld made a point of calling public pension reform a “big enchilada” for the state. Aside from the implications for the state’s coffers, he noted that a shift toward defined contribution plans for new workers would benefit the employees themselves, who would finally own their pensions and even be able to take the pensions with them if they opted to work in the private sector. Which raises a question about whether the transit union’s radical leadership is really looking out for the best interests of its members in this strike.

The mayor is one of the politicians who sees through all this, which is no doubt why Mr. Toussaint singled him out in his remarks. We have the sense that if the union was hoping that the public would side with it against intransigent management, it is discovering that what this strike is going to do is educate the public as to how plusher than most New Yorkers the strikers had it under the old contract. If the transit workers find the MTA’s pension reforms so onerous, they’re free to quit and find work elsewhere. They won’t do any better, and tens of thousands are lined up for their jobs.