Nearly every day, the news brings stories of job cuts, layoffs and wage freezes. The struggling economy has every entity with a payroll—from big and small companies to nonprofits and state governments—struggling to keep costs down.

It is in that context that the early bird contract announced by the Butler School District last month can only be seen as a mistake. The school board and negotiators for the teachers' union reached an agreement that would increase teachers' pay 4.38 percent in the 2011-12 fiscal year, 4.54 percent in 2012-13; and 4.52 percent in 2013-14. The contract, which was approved by a 464-24 vote by teachers, also leaves unchanged the contributions for health care coverage— $30 per month for family coverage and $20 a month for coverage for a single person.

Such generous pay increases and such minimal employee contributions for health care create a stark contrast with the realities of today.

Last week, it was reported that GE Transportation in Erie will be laying off 1,550 workers, and General Motors Corp. will be cutting 10,000 salaried positions. And these are only the latest.

In Butler County, Penn United has had layoffs and II-VI has had to furlough 70 workers. At Butler Memorial Hospital, 34 positions were eliminated, some through attrition. And NAPCO's parent company announced that 60 workers will lose their jobs at the Valencia plant.

A national survey of U.S. businesses conducted recently found that one in four companies has imposed a pay freeze.

In just about all industries and in nearly all parts of the country, times are tough. Everyone is feeling it.

Many school districts realize that they cannot be immune to these economic realities.

The Manheim Central School District in Pennsylvania proposed earlier this month to freeze the pay of teachers, or delay their pay increases.

In late January, the Loudoun County School Board in Virginia approved a budget that would freeze teacher salaries. That plan would mean no cost-of-living increases as well as no pay increases triggered by seniority or so-called step changes.

The district also announced it was looking at cutting positions.

Fairfax County, Va., schools plan to freeze teacher salaries next year, but the teachers there already did receive a recent cost-of-living raise. In Montgomery County, also near Washington,D.C., teachers will receive their step increases, but no cost-of-living increases.

In Burlington, Iowa, the school district is proposing a wage freeze for teachers as well as staff members for the 2009-10 school year.

Based on these developments, the Butler School District's January contract deal was a mistake. The contract, for which discussions might have begun before the current economic crisis became clear, does not reflect reality. Even if the contract talks did start before the economy was showing real signs of trouble, the vote happened at a time when it was widely known that the nation had slipped into a serious recession.

Yet the contract offered — and approved — by Butler officials reflects none of that reality.

Members of the school board, the administration, and even the teachers, must recognize their mistake —and try to undo the damage. Looking at details of employment contracts being negotiated or settled just about anywhere else in the country exposes the Butler agreement as clearly out of line.

Many economic experts are predicting financial tough times to persist for years. The board should explore the legal options for reopening the contract, or delaying its implementation.

Butler's school board members have done a disservice to taxpayers by not proposing a contract that reflects current economic troubles, and for not requiring a more reasonable contribution for health care coverage.

In other parts of the country, school boards are addressing the financial realities with pay freezes or other cost-containment measures. Why should school districts here not do the same?

Butler's negotiation and approval of a contract two years before the current contract expires also has to be questioned, given the economic uncertainties of today. Finalizing an offer a few months before a contract expires might have been reasonable. But two years early? How can board members pretend to know the economic circumstances of 2012, 2013 and 2014? And why not have teachers pay something close to what most others pay for health coverage?

If the board felt it necessary to start working on a new contract this early, the public should have been asked to provide input on the wisdom of that effort and on expectations for wage or benefit changes.

Though the odds of undoing the ill-advised contract are slim, Butler officials should look into the legal options. Otherwise, voters and taxpayers must remember this indefensible deal —both at election time and at the time of the next contract negotiations.