Federal workers, take a look at this

[baby_bear]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A42885-2003Jul24.html?referrer=emailarticlepg

OMB to Drop Quotas For Outsourcing of Jobs


By Christopher Lee
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, July 25, 2003;

<snip>
The Bush administration announced yesterday that it will no longer require federal agencies to meet government-wide quotas as part of the president's drive to open up more government work to private contractors.

The administration has said that 850,000 federal jobs -- out of a civilian federal workforce of 1.8 million -- are "commercial" in nature and could be performed by nongovernment workers. Bush says forcing many of those workers to compete with the private sector for their jobs promotes efficiency, even if the positions ultimately stay in-house.
...
Bush had set an ultimate goal of opening 50 percent of those jobs, or 425,000, to competition from private contractors.
...
Under the revised policy, agencies will have to meet benchmarks, such as completing a certain number of their planned job competitions or doing them within a specific time frame, to earn high marks on the OMB scorecard.

</snip>

I'be been following this very closely. I'm skeptical. What happened and why? I know the administration was sensitive to the criticism of imposing quotas, since it blasts that concept for affirmative action. But is this just a back-door effort to accomplish the same thing, i.e., starve the government, first by underfunding and second by destroying the morale and mission of agencies and department by giving away their jobs to contractors who make less money, have fewer benefits (and that's going some given our dwindling benefits now) but lets contract managers skim off a profit?

s_m

[TreasonousBastard]

1. This idea has been kicking around for while.

The Feds, of course, have always contracted work out. This seems like an acceleration of that.

Here at the state level, they have been dumping jobs off on contractors for years. At the Meadowlands, for instance, union electricians, maintenance crews, etc, have all been fired and private contractors brought in.

It's part of modern mnagment practices all over, and fits in with Shrub's imaginary CEO prowess. IBM and a number of other private companies have been operating this way for years. Rather than just assign projects in-house, the in-house facilities had to compete with outsiders to see who can "best" get the job done.

Defining "best" is always a problem. Usually it means cheapest, but once in a while higher quality sneaks its head in.

And, yes, it often means that even with the contractor's profit factored in, the main savings comes from the reduced pay and benefits of the workers.

[Bandit]

2. " Usually it means cheapest," ~~And it almost never is ~cost overruns etc.

The bids come in cheaper but by the time the job is complete there are "Always" cost overruns and the end results are always much more than originally projected. There are "Never" cost overruns within house. Never

[Philosophy]

3. Competition my ass

Bush* only wants to be able to replace federal workers with hand-picked cronies. That's their new version of the American Dream - success is no longer due to opportunity, hard work, and entrepreneurship; now it's only about who you know.

[newyawker99]

4. I am glad that I no longer work for Uncle Sam!!

They have been talking about doing this for years. Hire less employees and overwork the employees who remain. What they really want to do is get rid of the Unions.

:argh: :puke:

[baby_bear]

5. Yes, fewer union jobs

...and more contracts for Halliburton et al.

Plus -- at agencies like EPA, you get rid of career scientists and engineers who truly have the "intended" mission of the agency at heart.

s_m