Interesting to see different takes on the deal reached in Los Angeles for city workers’ contracts. First, the LATimes:

Unions representing 6,300 L.A. workers reject Villaraigosa’s labor deal

Four out of 18 labor groups at Los Angeles City Hall have rejected Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa’s proposal for reducing the city’s budget shortfall by scaling back the cost of the workforce, setting the stage for a possible new round of furloughs for workers in those units.

City officials said bargaining units representing more than 6,300 full-time workers — airport security officers, 911 operators, traffic officers, deputy city attorneys, clerical workers and others — voted against the agreement negotiated last month by the mayor and leaders of the Coalition of L.A. City Unions. That number represents nearly a third of the coalition’s 19,000 members. [emphasis added]

   And, then, The Wall Street Journal: [more after the fold]

With City in Crisis, Most L.A. Unions Endorse Pact

Trying to close a likely budget gap, Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa won the support of most civilian city workers Wednesday for a labor deal that will boost wages but also require workers to contribute toward costly retiree health care for the first time.

The agreement came as the nation’s second-largest city struggles to shake off the lingering effects of the national recession, including double-digit unemployment and a battered housing market.

With the city facing a possible $500 million shortfall next year, unions had a stark choice: Agree to concessions or see jobs eliminated. Already, Los Angeles has slashed library hours, reduced park maintenance and cut loose employees to save money.

   The headlines give a different message–one is of opposition, the other is of caving in. And the Journal makes no mention that fully a third of the workers said no way to the deal.