OK, I haven't read the article, so I could be off base...wouldn't be the first time.
Is it possible that some of the union members figure that it is better to lay off some workers and maintain their wage increases rather than allow the cost of deputies to drop? IMO, it's not a new thought, and it does have some legitimate arguments, especially when those who hold the purse strings have a history of fighting wage increases.
I'm not taking sides...but it is possible that the cut-back is partially self-inflicted.