On an 8-3 vote that signaled growing impatience with labor battles in the face of a fiscal crisis, the San Jose City Council on Tuesday imposed 10 percent pay and benefit cuts on four unions representing more than half the city’s workforce.

The unions had resisted across-the-board concession requests that six other unions had accepted to reduce layoffs as city officials try to close a $115 million budget deficit.

Labor leaders characterized the council vote as a “heavy-handed” power grab. And council members said they were making plans in case workers strike.

City officials say that without the $38 million saved through the 10 percent pay cuts from all the city’s workers, some 200 to 300 more employees would have to be axed. The firefighters’ union and five others have already reached agreements with the city accepting the 10 percent cuts.

“I’m very much interested in not laying people off,” Mayor Chuck Reed said in urging fellow council members to impose the cuts.

But council members Xavier Campos, Ash Kalra and Kansen Chu balked, arguing that forcing instead of negotiating cuts would discourage talented people from working for the city.

“I think it’s just the wrong message to send — and it’s disrespectful,” Campos said.

Ben Field of the South Bay AFL-CIO Labor Council agreed: “Imposition has little to do with money and everything to do with power.”

With San Jose facing its 10th straight year of budget deficits, city leaders insisted that the cuts be permanent rather than temporary, meaning salaries would not be restored to former levels in a year.

The city will already face a shortfall of more than $78 million next year even after closing this year’s massive gap.

The 8-3 vote was a stark contrast to similar council battles over imposing concessions on city employee unions in recent years. Last year, a sharply divided council threatened to impose concessions on five unions but delayed budget approval late into June to secure agreements from them.

Kalra urged the council to hold off on imposing the cuts and again seek a last-minute deal.

“There was a small opportunity last year, and it ended up being a lot better,” Kalra said, adding that the negotiated deal made it “easier for employees to take what was asked of them.”

But other council members, including some long sympathetic to employee unions, signaled their growing agitation with union brinkmanship during a fiscal meltdown that will require the elimination of 600 positions — about a tenth of the city’s workforce — and hundreds of layoffs, even with the 10 percent pay concessions.

Nancy Pyle was among several council members who noted that the city had successfully negotiated deals for similar concessions from six other employee unions.

“Everyone had an opportunity to work things out,” Pyle said. “I’m sorry things didn’t work to everyone’s satisfaction. But I was put into this job by constituents, and I need to put constituents first.”

The city has yet to resolve concession requests with one other major employee union — the San Jose Police Officers’ Association. The cops had offered 10 percent concessions, but for just one year.

Because police and firefighters have the right to settle pay disputes through arbitration, the council cannot impose salary cuts on the 1,220 officers.

The council imposed salary cuts on two unions affiliated with the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees that represent librarians, planners, code enforcers and administrative assistants. On top of the 10 percent salary cut, the city clawed back 2 percent raises those workers received last year while other employees took pay cuts.

The council also imposed cuts on an electricians’ union and another representing maintenance workers, park rangers and parking control officers. Members of that union had rejected a negotiated agreement.

The four unions represent more than 2,800 of San Jose’s 5,446 employees. City officials said they have made plans to deal with a possible strike, though they said they have not been notified that any job action is pending.

The council Tuesday approved deals reached with small unions representing building inspectors and city lawyers on a 10-1 vote. Councilman Sam Liccardo was opposed, as he was in votes on other union agreements. He argued that the city should focus instead on reforming pensions, the key driver of the city’s money woes.

The city’s deals with the unions include agreements to talk about reforming pensions and other perks such as sick-leave cash-outs, which cost the city $10 million a year.

Leaders of unions the city imposed terms on insisted they would consider the 10 percent pay cuts. But talks faltered on agreeing to discuss pensions, sick-leave cash-outs and other issues.

As they have in recent years, union leaders accused city officials of being overly rigid at the bargaining table. LaVerne Washington, president of the AFSCME-affiliated Confidential Employees’ Organization of administrative assistants, called the bargaining talks “sham negotiations.”

But council members noted that other unions were able to work with the city.

Said Councilman Don Rocha: “We have six other units who heard our call and stepped up.”

Contact John Woolfolk at 408-975-9346.