>executives who weren't union members, it has nothing to do with unions.

http://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/show_story.php?id=24566

Link describes one-time payouts upon retirement, not recurring pensions.

"Denson also earned $407,908 in total wages in 2011, according to city data, making him the highest paid city worker in 2011. Of this sum, $212,738 consisted of "cash out" pay, which accounts for such factors as vacations, holidays and unused sick pay. His regular salary was $195,169."

it describes his last salary, so if you know the formula, 3% at 55, and his years of service - 31 - stated in the article, it also allows to calculate his pension - 180K+

So what you're saying is that their pensions aren't "200-300K/year"?

if you look at the original link (http://www.mercurynews.com/salaries/pensions), you'll see these "3% @ 60 Formula for Local Miscellaneous Members", "2% @ 55 State and School Miscellaneous" and "3% @ 55 Formula for State Peace Officer/Firefighter or Local Safety Member" - these formulas are mainly from union contracts.

> these formulas are mainly from union contracts.

All defined benefit pensions -- whether set by union contract or not -- use these kind of formulas. But the high pensions are not the product of the formula alone -- even if you work long enough at one of the formulas to get near (or over) 100%, you still aren't going to get 200-300K per year pension unless you have a last/highest/(average of last three)/etc. years salary (which ever is the base for the particular formula you have) high enough to push the pension that high.

Surprisingly enough, almost no rank-and-file workers have that kind of salary. The people with 200K and higher pensions are mostly people that are retiring from executive positions.