State government contracting debate back at California's Capitol

The debate over whether government runs best with civil service workers or privately contracted help is re-igniting in the Capitol over legislation that, among other things, would give state workers first dibs whenever the state has work to do.

Assemblyman Roger Dickinson, D-Sacramento, contends the civil service-first provision in his "Public Employees Bill of Rights" would produce better and cheaper government. Unions backing the measure agree.

Critics say the bill reads like a union wish list and could make government more expensive.

"If your goal is for the state to provide the best services and do it most efficiently, you shortchange yourself by limiting the ability of qualified individuals to compete for and earn the job," said Mitch Zak, a Republican strategist whose firm, Randle Communications, works with a number of trade organizations.

This reminds me of a case a couple of years ago. A town let go a number of employees. Park maintenance suffered. A local Boy Scout organized a service project for his Eagle service project to do improvements in a local park. This of course used volunteer labor. The head of the municipal employee union raised an objection on the basis that those jobs belonged to the union employees and that the town should have hired some of them back to do the job rather than let volunteers perform them.

Civil service workers have no rights to a job if the government decides that it either doesn’t want the job done or that it thinks it can do it cheaper by contracting it outside. The union should have no more privilege to challenge such a move than any private citizen.

A separate Bill of Rights for public employees? Must be nice. Maybe they'll pull from a Soviet charter on centrally planned economies, because that's what it is.

The typical Californian Dingo wouldn't know a communist from an Obama supporter- because they are one in the same, so forgive them.

The State Parasite is the gift that keeps on taking. A fundamental flaw in socialism is that they don't know when to quit sucking the life out of their host- allowing the 'host' time to recover- so they can begin sucking them dry, again. In a state this rich, there is no excuse for running a deficit, ever.

But the Dems have done it year after year. What does that tell you? They're either stupid or communist, take your pick- there is no wrong answer. But it is a damning testimony as to their stewardship.

Trying to contract with the state as a private contractor is as easy as the Rubix Cube is simple. Unless you're a minority-owned business. That's the second fatal flaw with socialism- they don't know where the best butter is made and will actually steer clear of it in a pursuit of 'fairness'. If it were only butter, it might be funny, but it isn't.

That People Who Can't Be Fired (PWCBF) might gravitate to state jobs is a given. Certainty trumps risk everytime. Yet, when the PWCBF demand greater benefits and salaries than exists outside public employment, you have a greed factor that hastens it's demise.(Sounds a bit 'capitalistic, doesn't it?)

So, there you have it- greedy, selfish, individuals working for a monopoly(the State) with no regard for those who 'pay' their 'salaries'- when these traits might have served them better in the private sector- but they were too pussy to compete.

However, there's still a way to avoid total collapse but I doubt they'll undertake it. They should demand less pay and benefits, cut all waste and job destroying regulations immediately. Then, they should get a prayer rug and pray everyday to Gaia that they haven't killed capitalism. They can point their butts to Mecca or Monterey for all I care, but time's-a-wastin'.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.