The Columbian | Serving Clark County, Washington

While the Washington Federation of State Employees does its best to ignore reality, perhaps it should heed an appropriate mantra for these times: It could be worse.

In accordance with a recently signed law, some state employees are facing mandatory furloughs. The plan, designed to save $73 million by idling one-third of the state’s workforce for a total of 10 days over the next year, is scheduled to begin taking effect next week.

It’s a stark reminder of the economic times in which we live and work. A stark reminder that the public trough is not a bottomless well.

Yet the state public employees’ union is fighting the plan in court. It has filed a grievance and an unfair labor practice complaint with the state. Last week, Thurston County Superior Court judge Richard Hicks rejected the union’s request for an injunction, ruling that the furloughs may begin while the lawsuit continues to move forward.

And as it mucks up the waters of what seems to be a reasonable approach to a drastic state budget shortfall, perhaps the Washington Federation of State Employees should consider the impact of some of the alternatives — such as unemployment.

Or, such as reopening the public employee contracts and renegotiating salaries, benefits and health care expenditures — just as many private companies have been forced to do.

Certainly, unpaid furloughs are difficult for employees. Just like workers in the private sector who have faced similar situations over the past couple years, employees must deal with a loss of income as well as an uncertain employment future.

But as the union uses the dues it receives from workers to fight the action in court, the guess here is that most employees realize that taking a forced day off today can help ensure that they have a job tomorrow. The guess here is that most employees recognize that times are difficult, and that being a public employee does not insulate them from the situations that private employees are faced with.

As Randy Dorn, state Superintendent of Public Instruction, said: “I wish we didn’t have to do this. We’ve made a lot of cuts during the past two years, but now we need to make more. And given a choice between cutting staff and taking a furlough day, I chose the furlough day.”

Yes, it could be worse.

We could be living in California, where Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger attempted to reduce the salaries of state employees to the level of the federal minimum wage. This followed the California Legislature’s inability to solve the state’s $19 billion budget deficit before the start of a new fiscal year.

Schwarzenegger’s plan was upheld by a state appellate court, but it was scuttled when the state Controller determined that California’s computer system couldn’t handle the technological challenge of restating paychecks to $7.25 an hour.

A plan to save billions of dollars was done in by an antiquated computer system.

Meanwhile, the state of Washington and much of the nation continues to limp toward economic recovery. According to a story in The News Tribune of Tacoma, 22 states have used furloughs for public employees in the past year, although many states are now eschewing that practice in favor of layoffs.

This would seem to point out the importance of saving jobs at any cost, even if it requires the use of creative solutions to keep people employed. Furloughs are just such a solution. They aren’t ideal, but they are better than the alternative.

Not that the furloughs come without a cost to the public. According to The Olympian newspaper, the bill that instituted the furloughs included an additional $65 million in general fund subsidies for employee health care for state workers.

Funny, but we wonder why the Washington Federation of State Employees isn’t fighting that one in court. Sometimes, apparently, it’s in their best interest to ignore reality.

Print this article