Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
"Since the start of 2009, the Army has completed at least one review of 24 of its 26 commands and headquarters organizations and identified 2,357 contractor employees performing inherently governmental functions, the [GAO] report said. Examples of inherently governmental activities include awarding and administering contracts, determining budget priorities, and hiring or firing federal employees. Another 1,877 contractors were identified as providing unauthorized personal services that federal employees should be performing. Personal services contracts are contracts that make private sector personnel appear, in effect, as government employees. In both the inherently governmental and unauthorized personal services contracts, the department would typically be required to bring the functions back in-house."
And this is just Army commands and headquarters. If GAO looked into other non-defense department agencies (especially their headquarters operations) they would find the same thing. My point isn't that contractors are doing the jobs civilian federal employees should be doing. My point is when they hire these contractors to do federal employee jobs, they don't lay off the federal employees they just shift them around so there is no cost-savings. My point is one or the other should be employed by the federal government to do these kind of everyman jobs. There is no reason why people already in the government can't do them. Look at the jobs the contractors are doing. It's not rocket science. And it's not just in this administration, either.
Location: In a Galaxy far, far away called Germany
4,300 posts, read 4,409,483 times
Reputation: 2394
Quote:
Originally Posted by LauraC
"Since the start of 2009, the Army has completed at least one review of 24 of its 26 commands and headquarters organizations and identified 2,357 contractor employees performing inherently governmental functions, the [GAO] report said. Examples of inherently governmental activities include awarding and administering contracts, determining budget priorities, and hiring or firing federal employees. Another 1,877 contractors were identified as providing unauthorized personal services that federal employees should be performing. Personal services contracts are contracts that make private sector personnel appear, in effect, as government employees. In both the inherently governmental and unauthorized personal services contracts, the department would typically be required to bring the functions back in-house."
And this is just Army commands and headquarters. If GAO looked into other non-defense department agencies (especially their headquarters operations) they would find the same thing. My point isn't that contractors are doing the jobs civilian federal employees should be doing. My point is when they hire these contractors to do federal employee jobs, they don't lay off the federal employees they just shift them around so there is no cost-savings. My point is one or the other should be employed by the federal government to do these kind of everyman jobs. There is no reason why people already in the government can't do them. Look at the jobs the contractors are doing. It's not rocket science. And it's not just in this administration, either.
Depends on which contractors you are talking about when stating "Look at the jobs the contractors are doing. It's not rocket science." NASA does employ contractors who are, in fact, rocket scientists. In the defense contracting arena, we have electrical engineers, telecom specialists, Information Security specialists, and even PhD's/Dr.s working as contractors. I have a Master's degree (although, I'm not a rocket scientist) working in IT.
Outsourcing Federal jobs has been one of the reasons government expenditures have risen so drastically in the last couple of decades. The simple reason is the government pays the contractors far more per man-hour for a worker than a similar federal employee or the contracted employee. This scam has been one of the primary ways of paying off, mostly by the Republicans, political and ideological supporters. The company formerly known as Blackwater is one of the most egregious examples. Another is the Forest Service using labor contractors to get around the rules forbidding the government hiring illegal immigrants. These companies are effectively nothing but slavers.
I believe the Federal, State and Local government should hire all employees directly and utilize contractors build public works. The government employees will cost the taxpayers less while paying the employees more. This is a far better policy than using defacto slave labor.
Making sure the private enterprise plays a role in all government activities is not a new idea. It is also why we don't have a national bank. Instead we've the feds, that masquerades as a federal agency (and enough people believe that it is their government that is "the fed").
But, let us say government started employing people to construct roads, highways and bridges instead of using contractors. What kind of person will it take to complain about that?
Here in Texas, it works better because the government uses tax money to pay for highway construction, via contracting, and then hands it over to a private corporation to set up toll booths and toll rates.
In almost every case where one compares the same work between the private sector and the government, the private sector almost always does a better job at less of the cost than a government employee. We need MORE competition for government work, not less. Government monopolies like AMTRAK, Bus service, and the Post Office, operate at deficits year after year and show no sign of ever breaking even to justify their costs. Competition in both of these areas would have companies bidding against each other which would save the government money, create better service, and not cost the taxpayers increasing deficits year after year.
This is an excellent study in comparison between government workers and workers in the private sector:
Conclusions
While the recent study from the Center for State & Local Government Excellence and the National Institute on Retirement Security comparing public sector and private sector compensation levels correctly notes that aggregate comparisons of average public and private wages and benefits can be misleading, its conclusion that state and local government employees are undercompensated, compared to private-sector employees, is suspect at best. The analysis ignores the value of virtually ironclad job security and certainty of pension benefits, features that are notably absent in the private sector. It also overlooks the greater efficiency and productivity of private sector workers, which is a result of competitive pressures not experienced in government agencies. The conclusion that public-sector workers are more highly educated than comparable private sector workers, upon which higher pay and benefit levels is justified, is called into question by the fact that not all college degrees are equal (and may vary between public and private sector employees) and the possibility that governments are hiring overqualified workers because they face looser budget constraints than private companies (i.e., governments are overpaying for their labor).
There are other considerations outside the scope of the report that affect discussions of the cost of government services. Since retiree health care costs are expected to continue to rise rapidly, and public employees' retiree health care benefits are significantly greater than those of private sector employees, this will increase government workers' total compensation relative to comparable private sector employee compensation. Furthermore, even if we assume that public employees are underpaid, or at least not overpaid, that does not mean that the number of government workers is necessary or desirable, or that the cost and scope of government is not excessive.
The fact is that state and local government labor costs are continuing to escalate drastically. There is a reason why the City of Vallejo, California, cited skyrocketing pension costs as the chief cause of its fall into municipal bankruptcy, and why many other local governments in California and elsewhere are on the brink of bankruptcy. There is a reason why California's pension costs have been described as unsustainable by everyone from the chief actuary of the California Public Employees' Retirement System to Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, to Democratic State Treasurer Bill Lockyer.
There is a reason that governments at the federal, state, and local levels achieve significant cost savings by contracting with private sector businesses to provide a wide variety of services previously performed by government workers. State and local governments in California and across the nation must address public employee compensation levels if they are to maintain any sense of fiscal responsibility, particularly in these difficult economic times.
Outsourcing Federal jobs has been one of the reasons government expenditures have risen so drastically in the last couple of decades. The simple reason is the government pays the contractors far more per man-hour for a worker than a similar federal employee or the contracted employee. This scam has been one of the primary ways of paying off, mostly by the Republicans, political and ideological supporters. The company formerly known as Blackwater is one of the most egregious examples. Another is the Forest Service using labor contractors to get around the rules forbidding the government hiring illegal immigrants. These companies are effectively nothing but slavers.
I believe the Federal, State and Local government should hire all employees directly and utilize contractors build public works. The government employees will cost the taxpayers less while paying the employees more. This is a far better policy than using defacto slave labor.
While the recent study from the Center for State & Local Government Excellence and the National Institute on Retirement Security comparing public sector and private sector compensation levels correctly notes that aggregate comparisons of average public and private wages and benefits can be misleading, its conclusion that state and local government employees are undercompensated, compared to private-sector employees, is suspect at best. The analysis ignores the value of virtually ironclad job security and certainty of pension benefits, features that are notably absent in the private sector. It also overlooks the greater efficiency and productivity of private sector workers, which is a result of competitive pressures not experienced in government agencies. The conclusion that public-sector workers are more highly educated than comparable private sector workers, upon which higher pay and benefit levels is justified, is called into question by the fact that not all college degrees are equal (and may vary between public and private sector employees) and the possibility that governments are hiring overqualified workers because they face looser budget constraints than private companies (i.e., governments are overpaying for their labor).
There are other considerations outside the scope of the report that affect discussions of the cost of government services. Since retiree health care costs are expected to continue to rise rapidly, and public employees' retiree health care benefits are significantly greater than those of private sector employees, this will increase government workers' total compensation relative to comparable private sector employee compensation. Furthermore, even if we assume that public employees are underpaid, or at least not overpaid, that does not mean that the number of government workers is necessary or desirable, or that the cost and scope of government is not excessive.
The fact is that state and local government labor costs are continuing to escalate drastically. There is a reason why the City of Vallejo, California, cited skyrocketing pension costs as the chief cause of its fall into municipal bankruptcy, and why many other local governments in California and elsewhere are on the brink of bankruptcy. There is a reason why California's pension costs have been described as unsustainable by everyone from the chief actuary of the California Public Employees' Retirement System to Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, to Democratic State Treasurer Bill Lockyer.
There is a reason that governments at the federal, state, and local levels achieve significant cost savings by contracting with private sector businesses to provide a wide variety of services previously performed by government workers. State and local governments in California and across the nation must address public employee compensation levels if they are to maintain any sense of fiscal responsibility, particularly in these difficult economic times.
Outsourcing Federal jobs has been one of the reasons government expenditures have risen so drastically in the last couple of decades. . This scam has been one of the primary ways of paying off, mostly by the Republicans, political and ideological supporters. The company formerly known as Blackwater is one of the most egregious examples. Another is the Forest Service using labor contractors to get around the rules forbidding the government hiring illegal immigrants. These companies are effectively nothing but slavers.
I believe the Federal, State and Local government should hire all employees directly and utilize contractors build public works. The government employees will cost the taxpayers less while paying the employees more. This is a far better policy than using defacto slave labor.
"The simple reason is the government pays the contractors far more per man-hour for a worker than a similar federal employee or the contracted employee".
This not always the case. When you take in account the gov't employee usually gets a cost of living raise, step increases and the gov't benefits (health plan, retirement etc.), that last a lifetime, sometimes it is cheaper to use a contractor and when the task or contract expires you don't have those costs anymore.
"This scam has been one of the primary ways of paying off, mostly by the Republicans.". Then as usual you never miss an opportunity to blast the repubs. I worked as a fed in the Clinton admin and we had plenty of contractors then.
And lastly, Blackwater, you're favorite company to blast. The company that got its first no-bid contract from , Oh no, Clinton.
There are many things contractors can and should do and things they should n ot do. There are strict rules about contracting and it looks like the Inspector Generals are not doing their jobs. Tighter Oversight is always a good thing.
Depends on which contractors you are talking about when stating "Look at the jobs the contractors are doing. It's not rocket science." NASA does employ contractors who are, in fact, rocket scientists. In the defense contracting arena, we have electrical engineers, telecom specialists, Information Security specialists, and even PhD's/Dr.s working as contractors. I have a Master's degree (although, I'm not a rocket scientist) working in IT.
The basis of the GAO report was that the "inherently government functions" were paper pusher jobs not technical jobs. Did everyone ignore that part?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
