Webster’s seventh collegiate dictionary defines a bargain as “ an agreement between parties setting what each gives or receives in a transaction between them or what course of action or policy each pursues in respect to the other.” Bargaining might be considered the process by which parties reach an agreement on a mutual course of action or policy. Bargaining may also result in one side’s overwhelming dominance, which is what has happened with the DCTU. The City of Portland has managed to stick to their agenda with few modifications. Now the City can’t think of anything to discuss since their goals have been reached, at least for this contract. The lack of a cost of living increase for DCTU employees was the first big win for the City. This was always non?negotiable in their view and was expressed with great fanfare in the press prior to any discussions about salary at the bargaining table. A failing economy and possible outrage from an over?stressed public served as a strong motivation for the City to forgo the COLA.

Another item on the City’s wish list concerns contracting out. There is a desire for more “flexibility” in this area. Mainly, they want to make their decisions without any input from the union. The idea is to move employees about at will like so many chess pieces. In and out of classification supplemented by “temporary employees” and the “flexibility” to contract out if the City indicates that this will result in reduced costs. This will supposedly give the City the tools to deal with the economic situation should it become worse.

Contracting out jobs or work can eventually result in a host of problems which are unforeseen by officials who a searching for a way to save money. It out can result in higher costs, poorer service, and it can actually diminish government flexibility, control, and accountability. Decent jobs with benefits are replaced with low?wage jobs with no benefits. Often the providing companies are not local and can even be located overseas. The costs are greater than advertised and can include extra fees for contract monitoring and administration as well as charges for extra work. Contractors are motivated by profit and often cut corners while using public equipment and facilities. Public employees often perform extra tasks with the motivation being public service. In the contractor’s view, extra tasks cost money and cuts into their profits. The public managers lose flexibility and the ability to get things done when the tasks are not in the contract specifications. The impact is especially adverse when the outside contractor is from another country. Good jobs are replaced with low?wage jobs performed by poorly trained unskilled workers. Profits leave the community and flow overseas, never to return. As the in?house expertise is eliminated, the contractors can start raising their prices. The first bid may look attractive but contractors often use a low bid at first to eliminate the competition. Once that has been achieved, prices go up.

Government entities are required to operate in an open arena. Private companies are not subject to the same public scrutiny. This is an ideal environment for corruption. Complaints from citizens cannot be directly addressed and as a result, public accountability decreases. Contracting out is a risky business and managers and elected officials would be well advised to recognize that workers are a valuable resource. They are not simply a cost to be cut.