Moving forward, many governments are doing away with or reducing pensions for newer employees (for example, in Washington State where I work, the old PERS 1 pen

Moving forward, many governments are doing away with or reducing pensions for newer employees (for example, in Washington State where I work, the old PERS 1 pension was replaced with a choice of a lesser pension or a 401(k) style plan instead). Only "grandfathered in" employees have PERS 1 pension. However, I think the promises made to that generation must be considered. In many cases, working for the government is less cash salary in exchange for other benefits. For example, I make $87k working for the state but was offered $110k+bonus at Microsoft. Why the difference? The state can compensate me in additional non-monetary ways, which make up the difference of the value proposition. If that ceases to be true, so be it, and I will seek employment else; but don't try to go back in time and retroactively revoke something earned. If those promised, contracted benefits are taken away with the swipe of a pen, why should that be a legal or moral thing to do? I'm ok with saying "moving forward, we won't be offering pensions to anyone new", but to go back in time and invalidate the contracted benefit from past work? It's like if you contract with someone and say "work for a month and I will pay for $5000." Then at the end of the month, you say "Well, I don't have the money. That's too bad." Of course that would be a violation and the courts would step in. Should it be any different with the state?