Now Off Topic: Re: [at-l] Bush Outsources Forestry Jobs

[gwbrown1 at gmail.com (Greg Brown)]

"Without a doubt" in terms of pure dollars.  I still don't like the idea and
would prefer to recoup the costs of the deficit somewhere else (and I have
plenty of ideas there).

But you raise good points.  Now I need some more if I'm going to write a
letter to my elected officials.  What else can you think of?  I like the
thoughts so far.

Greg

On 3/14/06, Bob C <ellen@clinic.net> wrote:
>
> "Without a doubt?" I have considerable doubts. There are too many
> unknowns. What are the comparable pay scales, profits, learning curves,
> secondary benefits from having career people living in a community,.... the
> list is long.?
>
> Weary
>
> > ------------Original Message------------
> > From: "Greg Brown" <gwbrown1@gmail.com>
> ''Regarding the outsourcing.. without a doubt, costs could be reduced by
> > outsourcing.  By handing the work to private employers you could, in
> > the
> > long term, reduce the Government retirement payroll, if the Forest
> > Service
> > employees are eligible for Gov. retirement, and I am 99.9% FS employees
> > are.
> >
> > Taking it a step further the outsourcing company could then make the
> > bulk of
> > the labor contractors thus reducing cost by eliminating many benefits,
> > such
> > as retirement, medical, etc.  But they may not take it that far, but I
> > am
> > sure the jobs in question could be done for less cost.
> >
> > Sometimes the Government isn't the most cost effective, but there can
> > still
> > be arguments made that particular functions of running the country
> > should be
> > kept centralized.  And I'm not sure if this is one of those functions
> > or
> > not.  I'm leaning towards "yes" but if I keep bitching about deficit
> > and
> > this is a demonstrable savings to the Government it makes it hard thing
> > for
> > me to stand against if it is a true reduction of expense.  I still
> > don't
> > "like" it though.  There is just something that feels wrong about it.
> >
> > Greg
> >
> >
> > On 3/14/06, Bror8588@aol.com <Bror8588@aol.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >  Great!  So, about the outsourcing of jobs:  I would say that it
> > could be
> > > a good thing for the companies that take on these jobs may be more
> > > productive overall than government employees.  I say this only
> > because there
> > > is more leverage in a private company to steamline the work-force and
> > get
> > > things done with a minimal of expense.  Of course, the company wants
> > to make
> > > a profit and so the profit will come at the expense of the workers
> > who may
> > > not receive the salaries that they might have over time with the
> > government
> > > as their employer.  The overhead, without Unions interfering, will be
> > less
> > > and those that profit will be concerned to not endanger their margin
> > by
> > > allowing poor conditions, etc., whereas now the condition of a
> > camping area
> > > or a forest can be blamed on cutbacks by the government.
> > >
> > > Just my opinion.
> > >
> > > Jack
> > > Skylander
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > AT-L Mailing List.
> >
> > Go here to unsubscribe or change your options:
> >
> > http://mailman.backcountry.net/mailman/listinfo/at-l
> >
> >
>
>
>