Chicagoist: Outsourcing the City

guest

Mon, 09 Jul 2007 21:03:46 -0600

I agree, #9, I actually tried to register, but never received the confirmation email. Nothing personal, Chicagoist, but I'm not about to spend more than a few moments of my time dealing with a registration system. It would appear that a small group of fucktard commenters at Gothamist ruined it for the rest of us... oh, well, "guest" it is then.

guest

Mon, 09 Jul 2007 17:27:05 -0600

Side note: You Chicagoist people need to get over this registration fixation, and you need to quit saying it makes things more fun. There's nothing fun about it. Seeing a made-up name at the end of a post doesn't make me feel more zippy. The funny thing is I always used to sign my posts with an actual first name before the registration system came along. From now on, though, I intend to just be a guest.

guest

Mon, 09 Jul 2007 15:03:39 -0600

I don't have the degrees you do, Kevin, but I can tell you I've talked in-depth with scores of city officials from various parts of the country over the last decade or so about various issues, including privitization of city services. Whether I register or not under a fake name would give most people little clue about my credentials in any case, and the IP address likely would mislead you. I trust your experience, though, if not always your conclusions. I never meant to imply you are all union, all the time. Rather, I meant to say you seem to looking at this issue mainly through a union angle--that is, what does it mean for unions--which makes you miss some of the other aspects of this story that I think are important. That's all. My apologies for any lack of clarity on my part. As I said, it is still a good post.

guest

Mon, 09 Jul 2007 14:31:02 -0600

Doesn't the government have some policy against blogging from work? I am glad to see my tax dollars at work.

guest

Mon, 09 Jul 2007 12:40:27 -0600

I'm sure you do work in government. And, I'm sure you enjoy your position because it affords you the time to comment about others work progress. I'd mindful of your time sheets if I were you.

Kevin Robinson

Mon, 09 Jul 2007 12:22:48 -0600

guest #3: Since I don't know who you are (everyone should get a Chicagoist identity - it makes commenting easier and more fun, and we don't do anything with your email address - no spam, we will never sell your email address), I can't challenge your credentials as someone that knows city managers. I can tell you a little bit about my credentials, however. My degrees are in public administration, with concentrations in organizational theory and practice, and public management, and I work in government. So I probably talk to my fair share of city managers and aldermen, as well as staff - both political and professional. As for my "narrow, union-centric view" I am unabashedly pro-union. But I don't lie to myself, and this post is hardly union-centric.

guest

Mon, 09 Jul 2007 11:55:21 -0600

Kevin: Thanks for the clarification. Part of it was my fault, and part of it was your continued unclear writing. But I will pay attention to the news if you do also: The desire for privitization is growing, no matter how well established it is. Perhaps "trend" was too vague. One reason is that govt officials, rightly or wrongly, think they can save money by contracting out services. Unions are not the only reason--not even under Daley--though I sense you often see the world exclusively through union lenses. Trust me on this one. How many city managers and city council people and other assorted local government people outside of Chicago and Illinois have you actually talked to lately? I would guess it's a bit less than my record, based on your writings here. You need more context on this issue. Will Daley use such a scheme to his advantage? Yes, he likely will, and you are correct about that point at least. Actually, except for your narrow, union-centric view, this is a good, vital post that citizens should pay attention to.

guest

Mon, 09 Jul 2007 11:54:36 -0600

Huh, I think we just got a vision of what Eminem is going to look like in 20 years.

Kevin Robinson

Mon, 09 Jul 2007 11:08:25 -0600

guest #1: Privatization is hardly a growing trend. It is an establish method of government management. As for Daley's desire to retaliate against Chicago unions, I think that desire is real. Pay attention to the news these next four years; construction unions (the building trades) will get decent treatment by the mayor, having largely left him alone in the last election, and not bothered to fight with his aldermen too much. Public and service sector unions will bear the brunt of his force, having been the core groups that challeneged his power in the last election. As for your second question, I think you are misunderstanding my point. I'm not arguning that unions are or are not more efficient. The government doesn't contract work out to unions, it contracts work out to businesses, who'c workers may or may not be represented by unions. As I mentioned in my post the private sector can do many things more efficiently and effectively than the government (such as janitorial and landscaping services). The real issue is whether or not the city (or any governmental body, really) is going to start portioning it's work out to the lowest bidder, or to the best value to the taxpayer. I would argue that when companies compete for government work on who has the best managed business and mot efficient processes, rather than who has the lowet-paid workers, we're all better off. Lastly, I am aruging in this post that contracting out hiring services for the City of Chicago isn't about solving the problems of patronage and rigged hiring; it's about creating another level to obfuscate the process from public scrutinty. All in all, a pretty clever contracting game by the Daley administration.

guest

Mon, 09 Jul 2007 09:37:53 -0600

Kevin: A few problems with your otherwise interesting post. First, you ignore the context. Daley is by no means the first city official to pursue the supposed utopia of privitization, a growing trend in even small cities all around the country. I doubt all his desires for privatization, wrong or right, have to do with breaking unions. Framing this as mainly a union-related measure, as you seem to do, is misleading, I think. Second, you seem to contradict yourself. You state, "While privatization can be the death knell for many of the public sector unions, making sure that taxpayer-financed contracts go to unionized firms not only means that people working to serve the public are paid a fair wage, it also ensures that companies are competing for business not with the lowest wages (which Universal appears to have done), but with the most efficient processes, the whole point of contracting out government work." Then, in the next paragraph, you state, "There is no question that the private sector can do many things more efficiently and effectively that the government ..." Well, are unions more efficient or not? I doubt they are an automatic guarantee of efficiency, as you seem to claim in the earlier paragraph.