with the threat of lay-offs still hanging around in the background.
One thing about it, in the private sector, the concept of a furlough instead of an outright layoff and reorganization is foreign. I realize that City employees are going to be mad about losing a day's pay, but it sure beats the alternative. An alternative that should not be the last option on the table. Nobody wants to see anyone lose their job (with a wife that's currently only partially employed due to a lay-off I'm sympathetic) but it's been a while since government at any level went through a fat-cutting process as far as payroll is concerned.
There's a fair question circling around the InterLeft, "What level of Government Services are we willing to tolerate?" The idea being that the starve the beast tactics of Republicans is doomed to fail because people really do want the safety net. I don't disagree. I believe people do want the safety net and should be able to have it available at a reasonable cost. Part of maintaining a reasonable cost structure involves constant workforce analysis.
During a down time the City, County and all layers of Government should take a long, hard look at staffing levels and efficiencies to see where improvements and savings (yes, head count reduction) can be found. I'm sure every department head and every worker will tell you that they are over-worked and can't get by with less. In almost every case I've found this to be nothing remotely like the truth. There are always inefficiencies and redundancies to be found.