DAILY MEMO: COUNTY GOVERNMENT:

Competition for county work worth a look?

Commissioners say maybe, but they raise several questions

Wednesday, Nov. 4, 2009 | 2 a.m.

Pay increase is only for some under DA (11-3-2009)
Employees get OK to switch unions — and 3% raises (10-25-2009)

State lawmakers raided Clark County coffers this year because they believed the county had more money than it really needed.

That belief was fueled by the relatively high pay enjoyed by the county’s 10,000-plus unionized employees — and the various raises those employees were lined up for at a time when private industry was laying people off, cutting pay and paring benefits.

The “runaway” costs of unionized employees have municipalities across the nation considering “managed competition,” which forces public employee unions to compete for their public jobs.

The city of San Diego, for example, is trying to follow in the footsteps of San Diego County, which instituted managed competition in the mid-1990s. Today, roughly 20 percent of its $4.1 billion budget is outsourced. That doesn’t mean, though, that public employees are losing out. From 1996 to 2006, 13 of 17 competitions for public work were awarded to county work crews.

Nevada’s year-old Spending and Government Efficiency Commission likes the managed competition concept, too. Commission member Carole Vilardo, lobbyist for the Nevada Taxpayers Association, said managed competition, or outsourcing with the added proviso that public employees could bid for jobs against private industry, has arisen from the question: What’s the motivation for government to do better?

“Motivation comes from a bit more competition,” she said. “Who can perform in the most cost-effective manner? And if it’s a group of public employees, that’s great. If it’s not, then you go outside the public employees.”

Frank Partlow, SAGE commission executive director, said managed competition also forces public employees to figure realistic costs of services, including overhead that wouldn’t normally figure into an agency’s overall expense.

Managed competition has saved Charlotte, N.C., about $10 million since that city started using it in 1994, said David Elmore, Charlotte’s business process improvement manager. Areas that have been outsourced include animal licensing, maintenance of squad car laptops and janitorial and maintenance services.

But on top of the money savings, the process has resulted in immeasurable changes in the work standards of both public employees and private bidders, Elmore said.

“This really isn’t about outsourcing, it’s about trying to make them work more efficiently,” and the long-term savings from that attitude adjustment are almost impossible to calculate, he said.

The process doesn’t always result in the lowest bidder getting the job. “We’re looking for the best solution to a problem, which is performance-based contracting,” he said.

In Charlotte, however, unions aren’t very strong, so managed competition was instituted more easily there than in San Diego, where the City Council’s six Democrats, traditional union supporters, last week voted no and two Republicans voted yes. The city’s mayor is a Republican and is continuing to push for it, bolstered by voters’ approval of the concept three years ago. In Clark County, such a proposition has never gone before voters, the unions are a powerhouse, and all the county commissioners are Democrats.

Even so, five of the seven commissioners said they’d at least be open to considering the idea. The other two, Rory Reid and Larry Brown, could not be reached for comment.

Commissioner Chris Giunchigliani, a pro-labor stalwart, said she wants to know whether county staff can develop guidelines to say when something is eligible to be put out for bid by both private industry and public employees.

Commissioner Lawrence Weekly said he’s open to talking about it but cautioned that simply hiring the lowest bidder is not his aim because “many variables” should go into deciding who wins or loses a job.

Commissioners Tom Collins and Steve Sisolak echoed Weekly’s concern, both noting that they would want companies bidding against county employees to provide comparable health care to their employees, for starters.

Commissioner Susan Brager added that she is “not looking to put people out of work — there’s a very fine line to walk when talking about something like this.”

But on the proverbial level playing field, managed competition “would provide a lot of possibilities and options” for the county, Sisolak noted.

“It’s definitely something to view as a potential county plan. I think it would make us more fiscally prudent and make us realize where we’re out of whack and where we’re doing OK.”

Discussion: 6 comments so far…

By dwms

11/4/09 at 2:17 a.m.

Comment removed by staff. Off topic.
By its2hot

11/4/09 at 4:21 a.m.

Suggest removal

Use the City of Federal Way, Washington as a starting point and you will find that it is cheaper to use contractors to maintain the City. The City bid their Annual Maintenance and instantly realized savings.

Collins and Sisolak, your stupidity is coming out again, The Davis Bacon Act and the NRS Prevailing Wage statue dictate the level compensation paid to the employee that includes medical insurance and all other fringe benefits.

I believe what your two lunatics are referring to is you want the employer to become a Union Member which actually hurts the employee, not help. Unions require the employee to become vested into their program before they can draw funds the employee paid; if they don't become vested they lose it. When you two state "Commissioners Tom Collins and Steve Sisolak echoed Weekly's concern, both noting that they would want companies bidding against county employees to provide comparable health care to their employees, for starters." I take this as you are demanding the employer to sign a union contract thus the insurance is comparable to the City employee's.

We'll go back to the issues at hand, "The "runaway" costs of unionized employees have municipalities across the nation considering "managed competition," which forces public employee unions to compete for their public jobs." Again, the Unions are not what they use to be, they're taking money away from the employee's these days and many employees are crossing the line and working non-union. This is real simple math, if you're not sure to calculate the employee loses, try this, non-union the employee is paid $13.50 an hour more and they manage their destiny and family or the employer deducts that amount and give to the union plus the employee pays the union a monthly dues, here is the hitch, the employee must be vested to draw off the deductions paid to the union. End result, the employee is screwed and union coffer grows.

If the unions want to get a stronghold for the trade they service then they need to go back in time and provide the low interest rate financing to the developers and make that project strictly union. Back in the days the unions did this and when they stopped, they became a dying breed. They want their cake and ice cream without having made contributions. If their members are that important to them they need to step up to the plate and open up their deep pockets and they are deep and put their members too work.

In closing, whatever the motive is to force employers to sign union agreements or project labor agreements are a thing of the past and whatever contributions made to your campaign or some political action committee should not include making employees losing their hard earned money. Put your selfish greed aside and start looking out the worker, not your pocketbooks.
By gmag39

11/4/09 at 5:55 a.m.

Suggest removal

Id be concerned about projects being done on the cheap with sub-standard labor and materials, no matter what the contract would stipulate.
Competition is great, cheaper is better, but QUALITY lasts longer, works better, and is cheaper in the long-run. The notion that "private can do better than public" is entirely rooted in cost. Quality takes a back seat. Pay me now, or pay me later.
By neiman1

11/4/09 at 9:16 a.m.

Suggest removal

Reid cannot back this plan, he and his Dad rely too much on union money for their seats at the table.
By bdover

11/4/09 at 10:40 a.m.

Suggest removal

You are right, gmag39, "quality" is so important. Gee, who built the Clark County courthouse? Union "craftsmen", that's who. And the project turned into a disgraceful joke. And City Center? Maybe there were so many deaths because the craftsmen got sh*tfaced at lunch, as reported by the Sun..

But all is good. Work is leaving town, and pretty soon, Collins and Sisolak won't be receiving any comps from the Unions. So we're talking a moot point-No work, no Union loafers. Somehow, I think "quality" won't be an issue. It never was.
By boftx

11/4/09 at 10:42 a.m.

Suggest removal

How do the Commisioners expect to avoid "[t]he "runaway" costs of unionized employees ..." while at the same saying "... they would want companies bidding against county employees to provide comparable health care to their employees ..."?

Again I say, it is ludricous to allow public employees to have a union. That is a horrible mis-use of our tax dollars to line the pockets of union bosses.

« Previous Ten Next Ten »

Live chat: Tuesday, noon PST; Chat with Krista Creelman; Problem Gambling Center executive director Krista Creelman will answer questions about gambling addiction from Las Vegas Sun readers from noon to 1 p.m. Tuesday, Nov. ... Submit question