In a message dated 8/2/2003 5:26:01 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
[log in to unmask] writes:

<< I'm still not clear, when it is government policy to privatize suitable
jobs
 and reduce the size of government, what exactly the arguments in this case
 are for keeping the Park Service archaeologists as government employees -
 other than the broad general arguments against any kind of privatization of
 "government work"? >>

I think that what Tim calls "government policy" is really the policy of
recent administrations, which has often been politically motivated.  The notion of
downsizing government is usually popular with voters, whether or not it is
truly warranted or feasible.  Downsizing government through privatizing is not
necessarily the preference of the people who have to run the individual agencies
and the separate departments within the agencies.  Agency and department
heads always have the obligation to find and implement the most cost-effective
ways of doing their jobs, but political pressure to privatize is a mixed
blessing: it can keep administrators on their toes, but it can also force unwise
changes which do more harm than good and may be more expensive in the long run.

The option to privatize is a useful management tool, but it needs to be
handled with good, informed judgment.  Tim hits the nail on the head when he talks
about privatizing "suitable" jobs: the issue isn't a question of pro- or
anti-employee vs. pro-or anti-privatizing, it's a question of determining which
jobs are the most suitable for employment or private contracting.

I think the responses in this thread have explained beautifully some of the
advantages of government employees over private contractors, including such
difficult to quantify factors as institutional memory, continuity, personal
investment, and direct control.  The issues are often complex, and politicians are
not necessarily in a good position to determine precisely which jobs are
"suitable" for privatization.  Broad-brush, knee-jerk, uninformed decisions handed
down from on high in selecting jobs for privatization can cause great damage.
In any event, the issue of outsourcing jobs is not unique to governments:
private industry also has to determine which jobs produce the best results when
performed by employees and which can be outsourced.

I'm certainly no expert on National Park Service archaeology, although I have
heard some cogent arguments for retaining the archaeologists as employees.
My suspicion is that some specific projects might be suitable for
privatization, but that a core of employees should be retained.  The idea that outsiders
can determine which job categories and which specific positions should be
privatized merely because they sound appropriate for the axe is repugnant.

Finally, using the canard that ineffective civil service employees are too
difficult to fire as a rationale for a rush to privatize is illogical; that's an
argument for modifying civil service rules.

David Haberstich

=========================================================
Important Subscriber Information:

The Museum-L FAQ file is located at http://www.finalchapter.com/museum-l-faq/ . You may obtain detailed information about the listserv commands by sending a one line e-mail message to [log in to unmask] . The body of the message should read "help" (without the quotes).

If you decide to leave Museum-L, please send a one line e-mail message to [log in to unmask] . The body of the message should read "Signoff Museum-L" (without the quotes).