Government lawyers in San Francisco were scheduled to vote Tuesday and today on whether to take a 2 percent pay cut for the coming fiscal year in an effort to ease the burden on the city's strained budget.

The lawyers approved the same cut a year ago after initially rejecting it. The decision they face now is whether to effectively extend that 2 percent giveback by another year. Officials in the lawyers' union, the Municipal Attorney's Association, said they expect a close vote.

"I think the union is conflicted about it," said union Vice President Elliot Beckelman, an assistant district attorney. "I think people very much care about the economic viability of the city, on the other hand we're concerned that whatever we do won't really make a big effect at all upon the money."

With a $438 million deficit hanging over their heads, city negotiators had in recent months asked the MAA to give back a contractually guaranteed 3.75 percent raise that went into effect in April. That giveback may have saved the city $2.96 million, but it's off the table now.

Still, not every union member is happy with the possibility of a 2 percent reduction, which could be worth between $1.8 and $2 million.

MAA representative Sean Connolly, a deputy city attorney, said the union feels pressured by the city and the economic climate.

"I think there's a lot of pressure that if the union doesn't give back, the city's going to cast the union as greedy high-earners ... but from my perspective ... we always get the same old speech from the city," Connolly said.

He said the 2 percent giveback is largely symbolic, since the money will benefit the city's general fund, not the district attorney, city attorney or public defender.

But others say that if the union takes a cut now, it will help them negotiate next year.

Beckelman said "there is such a concept of good faith," and that he expects the MAA's willingness to play ball during this budget cycle will be noticed a year from now.

Connolly said he doesn't put much faith in that argument.

"The city is in a crisis mode and it always is, it's all business, looking at figures, it's all black and white," he said. "They look at it through numbers."

The giveback this year lacks two factors that made it at least somewhat more attractive the last time around.

There is no guarantee that the 2 percent pay cut will prevent layoffs. The union had that expectation last year, though District Attorney Kamala Harris still had to cut some attorneys.

There is also no promise from the city that the money saved through the pay cut will be used to fund the three MAA offices. When the last budget was being negotiated, Beckelman said, he and two other union representatives met with several county supervisors and received an informal commitment that the giveback would be credited to the DA, city attorney and public defender.

But the city's finances weren't as bad then, Beckelman noted.

The MAA's nine officers, who make up its executive board, agreed to a tentative memorandum of understanding with the city during the final weekend in May. Connolly said the city pressured the board to make a decision, saying that municipal law required an answer by June 1, when the mayor's budget proposal was due.

The vote was 7-2 in favor of the giveback, according to Connolly and union representative Douglas Welch, a deputy public defender. Connolly said he and Beckelman were the ones voting no, though Beckelman, in an interview, declined to say how he'd voted, saying he didn't want to sway union members.

"The general thinking was that in an economic environment like this, the option of giving something back should be given to the lawyers in the MAA," Welch said. "My personal feeling is just that with critical health and human services being completely cut, that sometimes everybody has to step up to the plate to some degree."