King County must adjust labor costs to dire economic times

FEW among us scoff at the idea of useful data that brings about informed change. But labor leaders are mistaken if they think a compensation comparison study can stave off the inevitable. County employee costs must be reduced. The budget is unsustainable.

The county cannot continue with current levels of compensation and benefits, no matter what a carefully constructed study says.

Last week, the King County Coalition of Labor Unions said it understands the grim budget outlook and that changes are necessary to ensure the county's financial stability.

Yet leaders would not agree to more concessions in wages and benefits until a county study is completed, perhaps by early fall.

The statement was notable for its olive-branch nature. It shows employees are beginning to understand financial reality.

But the study also presents problems. Governments have a tendency to study matters to death. A study feels like a delay tactic, a way of hoping healthier revenues return and the heat vanishes from the need to reduce worker costs.

The other matter, and it is a big one, is if results aren't available until fall, how is a voter pondering a possible two-tenths of a cent per dollar sales-tax increase supposed to make an informed decision?

This page supports the boost because of devastating cuts to public safety and major steps by the county to become a leaner government — but only if the county is serious about reducing labor costs.

The big question for any voter facing the tax question on an August or even November ballot is this: Have county employees done enough to make the county as lean as possible?

It's a matter of credibility — or a lack of it.