Employer’s Arguments Favoring Subcontracting You can’t hide the FACTS! Countering arguments that support subcontracting Subcontracting saves MONEY!!! • Underestimating or “lowballing” of first-year operating costs is common among contractors. Fees for services in subsequent years will increase as the need for profit increases. These increases often exceed inflation. • Costs associated with transferring authority from the local level to private contractors are often overlooked when calculating so-called savings. (Legal fees, contracts) • Training subcontractor’s employees and correcting their mistakes is costly and unanticipated. • Boards of education may incur costs associated with contractor employee termination, such as: unemployment, severance, accrued sick-leave payment. • Subcontracting cuts jobs of local residents, increasing local unemployment & putting less money into the community. • Subcontractors must make profit and pay taxes. In order to maximize profits, companies look to “cut corners,” resulting in decreased quality & quantity of services. Educational Support Professional’s (ESP) Counterarguments Subcontractors provide specialized skills that are unavailable in the public sector. • Workers who choose public service tend to be more 102 – AR Handbook experienced, more skilled, and interested in providing personalized services. • Accommodating the special needs of teachers and students requires flexibility and teamwork. ESP staff are aware that the students’ welfare & education always come first. Private employees of the subcontractor owe their allegiance to the company at any cost, not the district or students. • Little is gained when an additional level of red tape, such as the subcontractor, is placed between the teacher, the student, and those individuals providing daily support services. Subcontractors offer a more flexible – therefore, a more cost-effective – workforce. • Local ESP staffers are more sensitive to the needs of students and teachers because they share a common goal of providing an environment where students can grow socially, emotionally, and academically. • Boards of education frequently fail to provide the subcontractor with a thorough description of the work done by ESP members. Tasks not written into the subcontractor’s contract require additional compensation. • Formulating contracts that ensure a Board will get what it wants is extremely difficult. Loopholes that favor the subcontractor, resulting in decreased services for the school district, are the outcome of poorly written performance contracts. Frequently, the subtle details of the job are not known by the Board. Subcontractors are more accountable because of the threat of competition. • Threat of competition ends when the contract is signed. • School districts that subcontract frequently sell off valuable equipment at a fraction of its original purchase price. Remaining equipment becomes outdated or poorly maintained. Districts lacking equipment and personnel are not in a position to terminate subcontractors with poor performance. The subcontractor has the upper hand! • Concerns of parents, teachers, and administrators regarding subcontracted employees are difficult to communicate due to the “red tape” of having to deal with the supervisors representing the subcontractor. Home rule is greatly diminished. Contracting out allows for rapid initiation of new projects. • A subcontracted employee being paid minimum wage is seldom “RAPID TO INITIATE” any Project! • Quality control, formerly the domain of the local Board of education, is diminished. School districts are at the mercy of the subcontractors’ quality standards. These standards may not meet even the minimum previously held by the Board. • Additional monitoring, training, and supervision by the local district becomes necessary to enforce minimum requirements for performance.
20333FG
To see the actual publication please follow the link above