Fight Over Pay Cuts Escalating : Government: The union representing 40,000 county workers begins mapping strike strategy. Supervisors stand firm in their effort to balance the $13.5-billion budget.

In a Los Angeles County budget that dwindled by millions here and increased by millions there before it was adopted, one figure remained constant: $215 million to be accrued by slapping county employees with an 8.25% pay cut.

The county has never wavered in its determination to secure the pay cut; it is already calculated into the county’s $13.5-billion budget. The unions, for their part, have remained equally unmoved, refusing to give in to the demand.

The standoff will soon come to a head as the contract with the biggest employee union--representing about 40,000 county workers--expires Sept. 30.

The county and its residents may be in for a volatile time. This evening, union leaders will gather at the Department of Water and Power to begin mapping their last resort: a general strike that would be the first in county history and that, if supported by the rank and file, would be likely to cripple services.

Union leaders say they will put the issue to a vote by the end of this month if no progress has been made.

The union--Local 660 of the Service Employees International Union--is following a carefully laid strategy and has begun a series of work actions, starting with mass walkouts during break periods, that will escalate in the coming weeks to include work stoppages.

“A strike is something we approach very soberly,” said Local 660 General Manager Gilbert Cedillo. “We would hope it would not come to that, but we will employ any tactic that will move us forward.”

County officials last week declared an impasse, a technical term signaling that they believe that, for now, no agreement is possible. Negotiations have been suspended until a mediator is brought in, which is expected by the end of the week.

Elliot Marcus, the county’s director of labor relations and its chief negotiator, said all county departments have been alerted to the possibility of a strike and advised to update contingency plans, a standard procedure during any negotiation, he said.

“We are always hopeful of an agreement,” Marcus said. “But the fact of the matter is we don’t see any viable alternatives. We have to maintain a level of service. . . . The choice is to reduce everyone’s compensation or to reduce some more people’s compensation to zero by laying them off. If they have a viable alternative, let them bring it to the table.”

In adopting its position, the county is playing a game of chance. The salary reduction has been an integral part of its budget plans since last January, when former Chief Administrative Officer Richard B. Dixon included it as one part of a three-pronged approach to balance the budget: service cuts, revenue increases and payroll reductions.

The Board of Supervisors subsequently decided against increasing the taxes over which it has authority, expanding utility and business license taxes and imposing a levy on amusement-park gate receipts. It also passed on refinancing facilities that it owns, which would have produced a one-time saving of $100 million.

What was left was cuts to services and pay--and hoped-for relief through several pieces of state legislation. As it stands, the budget calls for deep cuts in health and welfare programs and for about 2,000 layoffs, most of which would occur among employees at four comprehensive health centers and 29 health clinics that are scheduled to close Sept. 1.

The county hopes to persuade the state Legislature to release about $73 million in matching funds that would be used to keep the health clinics open.

But the salary reduction remains the biggest and riskiest question mark. County officials argue that acquiescing on the pay cut would render state help of little avail, forcing them to go ahead with the clinic closures and to make even deeper cuts in other programs.

Supervisor Mike Antonovich defended the decision to include in the final budget $215 million that the county does not yet have.

“The devastation of the state’s confiscation of property taxes left us . . . no choice,” Antonovich said. “I have received overwhelming support from employees who are willing to share the pain.”

Marcus cautioned that should the union decide to strike, it may find the public in an unsympathetic mood.

“The public generally sees these as hard times . . . and here are people who are demanding status quo,” he said.

But union officials are in a confident mood, emboldened by a heightened level of activism and past success. After a breakdown in contract talks in 1991, the union inaugurated what it dubbed “rolling thunder,” a strategy of rotating strikes over several months that included walkouts by nurses, welfare workers and clerks before a favorable agreement was reached.

Union leaders say the county’s declaration of an impasse is “premature and irresponsible.” They argue that the pay cut will fall hardest on those who can least afford it, noting that 50% of the county’s workers are women and the county is the single largest employer of minority workers.

For many, 8.25% of their income is the difference between making ends meet and financial disaster, Cedillo said.

As an alternative to a pay cut, Local 660 has offered to have its workers give up overtime pay this year, at a savings of an estimated $90 million, Cedillo said. Under the plan, workers would have an option of converting overtime into compensatory time off or waiting until July 1, 1994, to be paid, presuming the county would be in better financial shape.

County officials have not formally responded to the proposal but have indicated that simply delaying payment of overtime would not solve the problem.

As the two sides have hardened their positions, the rhetoric has clearly heated up and has begun to concern leaders on both sides. Any resumption of negotiations is likely to be clouded by an increasing sense of indignity that can be detected among workers. Several petitions have circulated opposing the pay cuts. One, bearing the signatures of 200 Department of Children’s Services employees, cites the “enormous salaries of the Board of Supervisors and . . . the irresponsible spending of county funds” and proposes that supervisors take a 16.5% pay cut and their deputies an 8.25% cut.

Another petition submitted to the board by about 40 clerical employees states that most of them earn less than $25,000, “meager enough to meet the basic necessities of shelter, food and clothing” and appeals to the board to spare them from the pay cut.

Dan Savage, another Local 660 representative, said, “A month ago you couldn’t get five supervisors to take a stand on taking an 8.25% cut in their own pay.”

However, the board subsequently approved a motion to take a pay cut equivalent to whatever the workers take.