Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : A US National Health Care System? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Road Walker who wrote (13608)	2/26/2010 12:39:37 PM
From: Lane3	Respond to of 42652

you think government is the same size when it outsources as when it does stuff in house with it's own supervisors and human resources payroll benefits etc etc etc. So you are not for outsourcing? Gosh, no. I don't think I said or implied that. Outsourcing, as I think I mentioned, is done for cost savings or for getting around FTE limitations. Contract employees are cheaper and employers have more flexibility with them. I think there are plenty of situations where contract employees make more sense than government employees. Other cases where it doesn't. I have a lot of experience in cases where it doesn't. I did a lot of policy work. In those cases working with contractors was not cost effective, way more trouble than it was worth. It's really hard to avoid contract violations. You can't just tell a contract employee to, say, turn some document into a PDF or a slide show. You have to go through the agency contract manager who goes through the contractor manager who then tells the employee what to do. It's annoying when the contract employee is sitting right there in your office with you and the other two are somewhere else. And you have to do a lot of documentation for all of this. But for more discrete processes, like mowing lawns, I think it's fine.