The Legislature will debate a resolution that would encourage state agencies to use furloughs -- rather than layoffs -- for budget reductions, if needed.

The Government, Military and Veterans Affairs Committee forwarded the resolution (LR4), introduced by Lincoln Sen. Bill Avery, on Tuesday afternoon.

The impact of layoffs on workers and their families would be far greater than furloughs, Avery said.

Furloughs allow workers to continue to get benefits and keep their jobs. LR4, which is nonbinding on agencies, was introduced by Avery.

A five-day furlough for all 18,600 employees -- not including employees of universities, state colleges and community colleges -- could save the state $15.2 million, Avery said.

For example, a five-day furlough of Department of Health and Human Services workers could save $4.7 million.

"It's a far better way to go about it," he said.

Avery would expect agencies to stagger furloughs, rather than have a five-day government shutdown.

In the end, he said, he hopes furloughs would not be necessary, and that agencies could manage budget cuts through attrition.

The committee voted 5-0 to send the resolution out for debate, with committee members Sen. Charlie Janssen of Fremont and Sen. Scott Price of Bellevue present but not voting.

Legislative hearing on budget cuts

Janssen said his objective was to lessen and streamline government. Furloughs just prolong the pain, he said.

He'd rather see "surgical cuts" in some areas.

Price said he was concerned the Legislature was encouraging a single solution, and such decisions are complex.

One person spoke in support of the resolution. Julie Dake Abel, executive director of NAPE/AFSCME, the state's largest union, said her experience is that people who are laid off rarely, if ever, have their jobs restored.

After 24 months, former employees are not called back.

The Business and Labor Committee also sent a bill (LB8) to the full Legislature Tuesday that would prohibit transfers from the job training cash fund to the general fund. Omaha Sen. Brenda Council introduced that bill.

The committee voted 6-1, with Sen. Tom Carlson of Holdrege the lone no vote. Carlson said he didn't disagree with the purpose of the bill, but disagreed with prohibiting the transfer of a fund in which the source was general funds.

"It's not like a commodities fund ... not like taking someone else's money," he said.

Reach JoAnne Young at 473-7228 or jyoung@journalstar.com.