I think there are several factors to consider. The
least important to me is any savings the Company MAY realize. Stay with me for a minute.
This falls into a category I touched on in the Union Debate days. When there is a benefit that can be provided by the Company, with a lower actual cost to them (Tax benefit/group scale, etc.) than the value of the benefit to me/us, we should push for that. The term "negotiate" was used then, but "encourage" fits just as well, today. We have encouraged this type of change for some time. It seems they have listened. The fact that we have the option makes even better, IMHO.
Now on the surface the potential Co. savings seems obvious. Up to 9.5% vs up to 8%. Key words being "up to". Think about how long it takes to reach the max on pension credits.
http://i.imgur.com/rknR8pW.jpg Many will NEVER see that. If they ever do, most of their time will accrue at much lower rates.
Equally significant: The 401k match starts almost right away. Year 1. So the
potential Co. cost is much higher, BUT typically participation is NEVER 100%. So, that lowers the actual cost.
Bottom line: I'm not here to maximize the cost to the Company, but rather maximize the benefit to me. If I can increase my return, even while the Company lowers their cost overall, THAT is a win/win.
Keeping it as short as possible,
we can look at strategy later. I'm sure we will. But the shortest version,
it seems to me, is...
If you are fairly close to retirement (and at max on pension), stay put. Absolutely.
If you have a long way to go before retirement, take the higher 401k. Absolutely.
Those somewhere in the middle? A lot depends on risk tolerance and where you'd actually put that $$.