Anonymously contributed:
I thought I recognized the new business MO.
http://www.pbs.org/frontlineworld/stories/bolivia/timeline.html
Yes, corporate efficiency is a strict taskmaster, and, yes, privatization is a difficult process, but it's better for everyone in the long run! It's change we can believe in, right?
8 comments:
Kind of looks like what's happening to LLNL. Monkey see, monkey do, but obviously never learned; until we're not a world power anymore. Mission accomplished.Privatization Is Wonderful
Privatization is better when you are developing something for a profit. Private companies that run government faculties are only interested in making a profit in managing these facilities. LLNS was awarded the operating contract for LLNL to shut down the weapons work, for the most part, and reduce the work force without incident. There are incentives that will provide additional profits to LLNS if they succeed in achieving these objectives within the required time period. To this end LLNS or any for profit corporations will probably perform this better than a government entity. However, when a for profit company operates a government facility, they are still under the direction and governing rule of a government agency, such as DOE or NNSA, which is not the same as a for profit company that sets its own agenda and, for the most part, its own direction. Simply, private companies that manage DOE facilities only profit by their management of these facilities not by their efficiencies in reducing operating cost of these facilities or the programs they support. They do, for the most part, exactly what DOE or NNSA want them to do; no more, no less.
United States government should be in the business of studying and developing things that are not necessarily profitable, but would be a benefit to mankind or the cause of freedom. Private or for profit companies are not a charity for the people; they are here to simply make money. This is not a bad thing, but it does not work in places where the end product is not a profit.
"Simply, private companies that manage DOE facilities only profit by their management of these facilities not by their efficiencies in reducing operating cost of these facilities or the programs they support"
Wrong! Congress's reason for moving ahead was to cut cost!
Congress knew going in that no private corporation would manage LLNL or LANL for the measly few million UC did it for. The initial congressional driver was frustration with UC over the continuing safety and security lapses at LANL. It simply strains credulity to think that anyone would believe that a for-profit manager would be cheaper than a not-for-profit one.
Ok, once more...
I know of one NWC site that in the mid 80’s accomplished the largest ever workload in their history with ~3000 employees. Today, they accomplish ~20% of that peak workload with ~4000 employees.
Can you dig it?
The basic mission is science. A metric that might give us a clue is Nobel Prize winners. How many came from a for profit company in the past?
All I see is employees are caused pain and it costs the Government more for getting less.
February 17, 2010 7:23 AM
7 at Bell Labs, while Ma Bell was still making a profit.
"All I see is employees are caused pain and it costs the Government more for getting less." - 7:23 AM
Yes, but at the same time, a very select group of people is using the for-profit contract status to get rich without putting any of their capital at risk.
What a sweet deal the lab LLCs are for the 1% at the top of the food chain!
Post a Comment