Comments on: Civil Service strikes rattle Government http://www.voxpolis.com/2007/civil-service-strikes-rattles-government/ Politics, culture, surrealism... Sat, 22 Nov 2008 20:56:16 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.1 By: cat daddy and dr squeeky http://www.voxpolis.com/2007/civil-service-strikes-rattles-government/#comment-1764 cat daddy and dr squeeky Sun, 07 Jan 2007 14:17:54 +0000 http://www.voxpolis.com/2007/civil-service-strikes-rattles-government/#comment-1764 Greetings from across the pond, where privatization is the name of the game and people getting paid less and less makes it all the more lame... there, how's that for a rhyme... Anyway, privatization is a double edge sword. Yes, the government saves money by having private companies compete for contracts. However, those holding the contracts are affected, mainly the lowest in the totem poll, since it is very easy for the government to put the contract out for bid and change contractors if the current vendor begins to ask for too much money... For example, I work for such a company that contracts for a certain state agency in the state in which I work. We won the contract about four years ago and took it from another company that had held it for about nine years. We provide more services than they did, since the population we served has increased since they were involved. Well, when we took over, the agency immediately cut our budget by 10% (after the contract was signed by the way). The result? We provide more services than the previous vendor, yet we get paid 10% less than what they were making in 1996 (the contract is flat funded for 9-11 years!). So, think about it, everything is more expensive than ten years ago and we do more than what the previous people did, yet we get paid less. We recently raised the issue to needing more resources... The first answer we got? Well, if you want more money we'll need put the contract out for bid again (They do that automatically is the vendor asks for and increase of 33% or more, which we were not doing). Funny, isn't it... You don't do all they want, they put the contract out for bid. You ask for more money so that you can breathe a little, they put the contract out for bid. Meanwhile, we're so overwhelmed trying to hire people (since the salary stinks) for a very stressful job in a stressful environment... Then we have to spend much time training them because we can only afford people right out of school. Do you think we provide the best service we could be providing? Ha! Ha! Ha! There has to be a middle-of-the-road answer between having anybody in a 100% secure job who does nothing all they long because they won't be fired and the situation depicted above... There has to be... so, for those economic types out there, if you have an answer, please let me know Greetings from across the pond, where privatization is the name of the game and people getting paid less and less makes it all the more lame… there, how’s that for a rhyme…

Anyway, privatization is a double edge sword. Yes, the government saves money by having private companies compete for contracts. However, those holding the contracts are affected, mainly the lowest in the totem poll, since it is very easy for the government to put the contract out for bid and change contractors if the current vendor begins to ask for too much money… For example, I work for such a company that contracts for a certain state agency in the state in which I work. We won the contract about four years ago and took it from another company that had held it for about nine years. We provide more services than they did, since the population we served has increased since they were involved. Well, when we took over, the agency immediately cut our budget by 10% (after the contract was signed by the way). The result? We provide more services than the previous vendor, yet we get paid 10% less than what they were making in 1996 (the contract is flat funded for 9-11 years!). So, think about it, everything is more expensive than ten years ago and we do more than what the previous people did, yet we get paid less. We recently raised the issue to needing more resources… The first answer we got? Well, if you want more money we’ll need put the contract out for bid again (They do that automatically is the vendor asks for and increase of 33% or more, which we were not doing). Funny, isn’t it… You don’t do all they want, they put the contract out for bid. You ask for more money so that you can breathe a little, they put the contract out for bid. Meanwhile, we’re so overwhelmed trying to hire people (since the salary stinks) for a very stressful job in a stressful environment… Then we have to spend much time training them because we can only afford people right out of school. Do you think we provide the best service we could be providing? Ha! Ha! Ha!

There has to be a middle-of-the-road answer between having anybody in a 100% secure job who does nothing all they long because they won’t be fired and the situation depicted above… There has to be… so, for those economic types out there, if you have an answer, please let me know

]]>