WHEN SPOKANE COUNTY officials announced they were facing an $11 million budget shortfall for 2010, employees shuddered. They knew that the shortfall, which demanded cuts of around 11 percent in most departments, could affect their jobs.
They knew, too, that one size would not fit all; groups in each department would have to make their own decisions in attempting to reach agreements with management and so avoid layoffs.
“There is a lot of variance among departments,” explains Staff Representative Gordon Smith. “Some could absorb the cuts without a loss of jobs, some would face having one or two jobs at risk, others stand to lose as many as 30 jobs. So we are engaged with each union in exploring the possibility of layoffs and how they can be avoided.”
So far four groups, all within Local 1553 — building and planning, auditors and treasurers — have reached agreements for 2010, saving a total of 15 jobs, Smith says.
“We are still in negotiations on other groups in Local 1553 as well as in another five locals.”
To help each group make informed choices, Council 2 staffers identified questions that they should address in reaching their decisions.
• Have we obtained budget numbers from the county that are verifiable and believable?
• What are the implications of doing nothing and staying with the bargaining agreements that are in place for 2010?
• Will the county confirm that any concessions made would be temporary and would apply only to 2010, after which matters would return to “normal”?
• Do we have the assurance that, if concessions are made, a definite number of jobs will be saved?
• Are middle and upper management prepared to share the pain? (If they step up to the plate employees are more likely to do so as well.)
• Will management try to save money in every way possible before they consider laying off people?
Union members in each department need to answer these questions for their own members, Smith says. He adds that every union is under a contract negotiated through 2010, but doing nothing and staying with the contracts could have consequences, which includes a loss of jobs.
In considering alternatives in an attempt to avoid layoffs, Smith adds, the benefit of furloughs is that they do not affect retirement calculations and can be fashioned for each department, some taking more furlough days than others. Other solutions, such as cutting cost-of-living allowances or reducing medical benefit payments are less feasible, but in some cases may be a better option than furloughs because of the large number of furlough days that would have to be taken.
“For example, in the treasurer’s department only two furlough days in 2010 would save one job. In the auditor’s department, six furlough days would save two jobs. In other departments, 29 days would save nine positions.
“But in some departments the degree of furloughing would be so extreme it cannot be considered a feasible way to go.
“Other complications involve deficits relating to the general fund, whereas other departments are funded by the enterprise fund. Cutting costs in those funded by the enterprise fund would not save jobs in the general fund; the two do not mingle.”
In some cases, layoffs might be inevitable. “We are looking at potentially losing nine deputy prosecutors,” Smith says. “If that happens, some crimes are not going to be prosecuted. Also, programs such as electronic home monitoring might have to be cut, resulting in more criminals on the streets and more in jail, which is more expensive.”
