Terrific article -- amazingly comprehensive analysis (too wonky for most) of the courts journey through these cases involving pension guarantees. I am not optimistic that the government-run courts will change their pro-government union worker slant. What this legal quandary emphasizes is that -- whenever possible -- governments should contract out every possible function -- EVEN IF IT DOESNT SAVE TAXPAYERS SHORT TERM. The almost universal public employee unfunded pension and retiree health care costs are -- as my liberal enviro friends are fond of saying -- unsustainable. Not if we want these governments to continue to provide vital services without massive tax increases. Contracting out eliminates future unfunded liability problems -- and is a way to get rid of grandfathered public employees that currently are guaranteed absurd pensions while paying only a fraction of the cost. Yes, they will still get their pensions up to the time they are laid off, but the future underfunded increases stop piling up. And I know of no court rulings that guarantee lifetime government employment when the jobs have been contracted out (aside from seniority rules). Dont get me wrong -- most of the time, contracting out WILL save IMMEDIATE, significant costs -- if honest accounting is employed. And such outsourcing puts government-paid services back on a performance-based contract standard -- as opposed to the featherbed-encouraging union work rules coupled with civil service protections. We cant contract everything out. Police would be LEGALLY difficult to outsouce. Firefighting would be POLITICALLY difficult to do. But most other state and local functions should be at least reviewed for contracting out. Contracting out government services is not a panacea -- government can screw anything up. But compared to our current doomed scenario? Its the only viable alternative.
Posted on: Wed, 05 Feb 2014 18:17:01 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015