Alaska Darin Posted January 24, 2006 Author Share Posted January 24, 2006 Regardless of who is receiving the checks, government is responsible for the oversight. If the contractor isn't doing their job and nothing is done about it, then it falls on the government. Screeners didn't suddenly become more competent because the government took over their benefits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted January 26, 2006 Share Posted January 26, 2006 Regardless of who is receiving the checks, government is responsible for the oversight. If the contractor isn't doing their job and nothing is done about it, then it falls on the government. Screeners didn't suddenly become more competent because the government took over their benefits. 581093[/snapback] The contractor will only do what is written in the contract. Can they do more without having to re-write the contract? Screeners didn't suddenly become more competent because the government took over. The screeners may have become more efficient in doing anything that the law will permit... Not just the contract. Why would you want a "middleman" in this situation?... Too many entities of contractors being under the oversight of the government. This really shouldn't be about money and the lowest bidder... It should be about who can manage the job efficiently without any complicated channels to the government. It should be done by one company OR the government. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted January 26, 2006 Share Posted January 26, 2006 The contractor will only do what is written in the contract. Can they do more without having to re-write the contract? 584620[/snapback] Government employees aren't typically models of initiative, either. Not that I want to get into this argument much at all...I just wanted to say that that particular statement probably isn't a useful distinction in the context. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted January 26, 2006 Share Posted January 26, 2006 Government employees aren't typically models of initiative, either. Not that I want to get into this argument much at all...I just wanted to say that that particular statement probably isn't a useful distinction in the context. 584622[/snapback] Maybe I am old school... Different agencies run differently. Maybe the government needs less Chiefs and more Indians? What the governement needs is more people WILLING TO WORK and get their hands dirty... It will run effciently. What we need is not more oversight on a thousand different entities. As a homeowner, would you contract out things that you can do yourself (which is mostly everything)? As a federal employee, I do everything and anything... Again, maybe I am old school... Why not do EVERYTHING "in house?" "All duties as assigned" is directly written into my job description... No messy contract to get in the way... Just whatever is permitted by law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted January 27, 2006 Author Share Posted January 27, 2006 Why would you want a "middleman" in this situation?... Too many entities of contractors being under the oversight of the government. 584620[/snapback] Because firing government workers is virtually impossible and hiring them is nearly as bad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted January 27, 2006 Share Posted January 27, 2006 Because firing government workers is virtually impossible and hiring them is nearly as bad. 585063[/snapback] No it is not... Like I said, not all agencies work the same. Stereotypes are hard to break. I can tell you stories where it wasn't or hasn't been a problem. But, if you want to keep on using the tagline: Government Bad! Go right ahead. Remember, not enough indians and too many chiefs. Just ask me what I did today, it probably won't fit your stereotype. Oh, well. Carry on! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted January 28, 2006 Author Share Posted January 28, 2006 No it is not... Like I said, not all agencies work the same. Stereotypes are hard to break. I can tell you stories where it wasn't or hasn't been a problem. But, if you want to keep on using the tagline: Government Bad! Go right ahead. Remember, not enough indians and too many chiefs. Just ask me what I did today, it probably won't fit your stereotype. Oh, well. Carry on! 586109[/snapback] Yes, it is. Perhaps it isn't where you work but I've worked all over the country with all facets of government and it is very difficult to get rid of incompetent people. More often than not, they are moved on to become someone else's problem - because it's infinitely easier. I'm in agreement with your "too many cheifs.." and have stated the same thing numerous times. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SDS Posted January 28, 2006 Share Posted January 28, 2006 Yes, it is. Perhaps it isn't where you work but I've worked all over the country with all facets of government and it is very difficult to get rid of incompetent people. More often than not, they are moved on to become someone else's problem - because it's infinitely easier. I'm in agreement with your "too many cheifs.." and have stated the same thing numerous times. 586357[/snapback] We had a guy working in our branch in DoD who literally did nothing but stare at a wall all day. No assignments, he did nothing. Why? Because everyone was afraid of him going postal. He had a bit of a temper problem. So, they kept giving him good reviews in hopes that some day he would just go away, but he didn't. Over 10 years pass by and they finally decided that he needed to go, but the paper trail said otherwise. So, they had to document every instance of his inappropriate behavior. When he finally told his boss that he could kill him, they had enough evidence. My only interaction with him, was NOT saying hi to him one day... to which he repeatedly called me on the phone to say FU and hang up. He then obessed over me in his office with his officemate... He was one wacked dude and getting rid of him was very difficult. We were also audited and many employees were found to be showing up 10 hours/week, etc... but getting paid 40. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted January 28, 2006 Share Posted January 28, 2006 Yes, it is. Perhaps it isn't where you work but I've worked all over the country with all facets of government and it is very difficult to get rid of incompetent people. More often than not, they are moved on to become someone else's problem - because it's infinitely easier. I'm in agreement with your "too many cheifs.." and have stated the same thing numerous times. 586357[/snapback] I understand your point. Then it has to boil down to one of the "chiefs"... Somebody who needs to "shake the tree." It will happen in the private sector also. Too often a guy will flunk a piss test with one of the towing outfits and end up with another one. I think with TSA, the point is standardizing the process. It is a pscyh thing also... People may want a direct link to the governement then say the lowest bidder contract. Who would the average competent worker want to be working for? I bet they are happier not with the contractor? Just as their is more pride and prestige being a American soldier than a paid mercernary... Except in this case, pay is reversed (contractors offer less pay and benefits than the governement would). Also again... Is it actually an "inherently governemental" job?... It does effect all of us across the country in regards to safety and economy... Just as the federal waterways are "jobbed" out. There is big debate going on now and how certain areas compete with privatization. Again... We need government that works... Not just and oversight entity... If people begin to see this, IMO I think atitudes will begin to change. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted January 28, 2006 Author Share Posted January 28, 2006 It will happen in the private sector also. Too often a guy will flunk a piss test with one of the towing outfits and end up with another one. 586383[/snapback] I know it does but my tax money (threoretically anyway) doesn't prop up private companies and eventually the poorly managed ones should fail. Our government doesn't fail, it simply starts another expensive program that my grand children's grand children will be responsible to actually pay for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts