Unlike many teachers' unions, which have staunchly opposed contract proposals stipulating that teachers share the cost of health care coverage, it's encouraging — from taxpayers' perspective, at least — that bargaining units representing Butler County workers understand that union employees will be making health care contributions under their new contracts.

The county faces the task this fall of negotiating new contracts covering about 500 county workers.

The realization of the need for employees to contribute toward their health care, like many, if not most, workers in the private sector, should help negotiations to proceed more smoothly. However, the probable snag in sharing health coverage costs is how big of a contribution is right.

Most teachers' contributions are minuscule when compared with their salaries and the costs of their health care. Average county workers, who generally make less than teachers, are likely to feel a bigger bite from whatever they ultimately contribute.

But private-sector workers have learned to deal with that bite, and county employees will learn to make adjustments to their household budgets as well.

While the county is busy negotiating contracts with its rank-and-file workers, it also would be a positive gesture for the county commissioners to implement health care contributions for themselves, other row officers and supervisors whose salaries are paid with county funds, rather than state money, and for people like the county's chief clerk and solicitor.

Taxpayers should demand that county leaders not consider themselves above such contributions, despite their managerial roles.

That the rank-and-file employees' bargaining units recognize the inevitability of health care contributions under the upcoming contract was confirmed by Rick Grejda, business agent for Local 668, Service Employees International Union. SEIU 668 represents about 300 workers in the government center and courthouse.

He said, "There's no doubt in the employees' minds they'll have to contribute. The question is: How much?"

Grejda expressed a legitimate concern about county workers having less buying power as a result of national economic conditions. However, that's not new to employees in the private sector, many of whom face the additional uneasiness of whether they'll even have a job in six months or a year.

Working for the county generally has been a stable work environment. Minus a severe financial crisis, county governments raise taxes rather than furlough workers to ensure that there will be enough money on hand.

"We're working on how to address the increase in benefits costs," said Bill O'Donnell, county chief clerk.

O'Donnell said the union understands that the county is rare in terms of paying all health care costs. County workers probably would be even more understanding if the commissioners pledged to extend the contributions requirement to themselves, row officers and other supervisors.

The other important issue on the bargaining table is, of course, salaries. Employees no doubt realize that there are limits about what they can expect under their new pact, but they aren't wrong about hoping for a pay increase to help them deal with rising expenses.

So, there are reasons for optimism that negotiations will remain amicable. Hopefully nothing will occur to sidetrack that optimism.