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.