Reading Julie Scharper's article on the city's pension system and its problems made me wonder what the unions expect of the city on a long-term basis ("Consultants praise plan to fix pension burden," June 10). They complain that their members might have to work until they are 50 or 55 years old at a time when the trend seems to be to have people work until 70 or older. Is it more important to have these union members continue retire at 38 or 40 years old than to keep the city on sound fiscal footing?

I live in the City, unlike many, many of these union members, so I wonder how they can expect us to support their unwillingness to compromise while they support workers in the counties where they live with their property and other taxes. I understand the importance of unions, but I question the actions currently being taken.

Alma T., Baltimore