The issues in the strike by Teamsters against Waste Management may be a bit obscure, but the consequences are not. Many people in southeastern Wisconsin had garbage uncollected and, although residential complaints seem to have subsided, some commercial accounts still have waste bins that are overflowing or close to it. What is clear is that much of the dispute between Waste Management and Teamsters Local 200 revolves around pensions, and that it's time for some outside perspective.

Waste Management says it wants to protect itself from liability and other problems by withdrawing from the Teamsters' Central States Pension Fund. That's quite understandable, given that union pension funds have been troubled for years by charges of corruption and underfunding. The company's solution is to create a 401(k) plan for employees. Union workers want nothing to do with that. That's quite understandable, because under a 401(k) workers assume responsibility for deciding the amount of their contributions and also what to invest in. Simply put, they assume investment risk. Pick the wrong investment, and retirement won't be very golden.

This is far from a new issue. In 2006, Waste Management workers in Prince George's County, Md., held a two-week strike over exactly the same issue. Union information states that its offer to Waste Management in the Wisconsin case includes a retirement plan like that reached with UPS. In that settlement last fall, UPS was allowed to withdraw from Central States after it paid to shore up the plan, and then it and the Teamsters were to set up a new, jointly administered pension plan.

Although the Wisconsin situation is between two private entities, it isn't because of the direct effect on citizens and thus on municipal government. It may, therefore, help if the governmental customers of Waste Management provided some mediation assistance as Mayor Gary Becker recently did in the dispute between the Belle Urban System and its drivers. People may be able to make do for a while on transportation, but buildups of trash can very quickly produce serious consequences for public health.

Now it appears we're in the punishment phase of contract talks, with Waste Management about to hire permanent replacements and the union standing firm. It would behoove both sides to accept help, because the alternative isn't pretty.

Service will suffer as Waste Management hires replacement workers who need training, and service may continue to suffer if they don't stay long on the job. Union workers are about to lose their jobs entirely, not good in a rough economy. Municipalities aren't bound to one provider. Neither Sturtevant nor Mount Pleasant, for example, have had collection problems because they don't contract with Waste Management, and the company may find present customers seeking more reliable service from others. If both sides cannot be convinced to bend, no one wins.