My own view: carried to an extreme, outsourcing destroys the capacity of a government to carry out its functions effectively. The present proposals in the US will have such an effect. There is a political agenda behind this, and it reflects honor on no one> The Republicans see this as a way of shrinking the government. The civil service (government employees) labor unions see this as a way to take away their overly-cushy and protected jobs. The Republicans say this is the only way to introduce labor efficiencies into government (and they may be right); the labor unions essentially agree.
Lost in this is the need for a productive government that reserves functions to itself and an employee force that works for the good of the country, rather than the good of a profit-oriented corporation. What SHOULD happen is that the labor unions should be stripped of their authority in matters of job protection (it is virtually impossible to fire a government employee for incompetence), and the administration should build up the skill and expertise of the civil service to the point where it once again a civil service that we can be proud of. For what it is worth: I have been involved in several government outsourcing decisions and implementations in the last 5 years, and have seen first hand these dynamics at work. Best regards Lawry > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Sally Lerner > Sent: Mon, January 27, 2003 11:37 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: [Futurework] Outsourcing Government Jobs > > > *From The Jobs Letter > > BUSH PLANS UNPRECEDENTED CHANGE TO GOVERNMENT JOBS > * In America, President George W. Bush has announced unprecedented > plans to shift almost half of government jobs to outside contractors. > Bush argues that this large-scale privatisation will reduce > government costs and improve services, and lead "a market-based > government unafraid of competition, innovation, and choice." > > Business leaders say the new initiative will revitalize the entire > "outsourcing industry", which has been hit over the past year by > sluggish growth and overcapacity. Peter Bendor-Samuel, CEO of the > Everest consulting group in Dallas: "The scale of this is beyond > anything that's been contemplated before ... this is a quantum leap > forward in the size of the outsourcing market." > > * US labour groups are upset by the plans and Bobby Harnage, the > president of the American Federation of Government Employees, says > Bush has "declared all-out war on federal employees." He says the > initiative will strip government workers of civil service protections. > > Harnage sees the new policy as a major expansion of a trend that has > been taking place in US government at all levels for the last two > decades. State and local governments as well as Washington have been > hiring private companies to pick up trash, run prisons, collect > traffic tickets and do much of the other mundane business of > government. He argues that federal employees have almost always had > more expertise and experience than outside contractors did in the > jobs that are put up for bid. And there have been many cases in which > private contractors either drove up the costs to the government or > failed to do the job well. > > * President Bush's administration is vague about how much money this > initiative might save. The President's Budget puts the savings in the > order of 20% and other officials say 30% - enough to save many > billions of dollars a year in a $2 trillion Federal Budget. But Paul > C. Light, an expert on the federal bureaucracy at New York > University, says that firm evidence of savings in the long run is > sketchy, in part because private contractors sometimes won the > business with low bids and then pushed their prices up after the > government work force has been disbanded. > > Other US academics point out that while there can be some real > short-term gains from privatisation, research shows that this is > usually only true for relatively simple goods and services. Professor > Robert Jensen, from the University of Texas, says that the savings do > not hold true in the majority of cases. Jensen: "Often short-term > savings evaporate quickly once competitors drop out. Contractors who > underbid to win a contract are free to raise rates later, often > leaving governments with little choice but to accept. For complex > contracts, oversight costs are high, or inadequate oversight leads to > corruption. State and local experience suggests that in services such > as vehicle and highway maintenance, privatisation may end up costing > taxpayers more..." > Source - New York Times 15 November 2002 "Government Plan May Make > Private Up to 850,000 Jobs" by Richard Stevenson; Philadelphia > Inquirer 24 November 2002 "President Bush plans an unprecedented > shift" by Prof. Robert Jensen of University of Texas at Austin; USA > Today 25 November 2002 "White House plan could give boost to > outsourcing" by Stephanie Armour and Del Jones > > > _______________________________________________ > Futurework mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://scribe.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework > _______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://scribe.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
