"When city leaders talk about privatization," says the Reason article, "that is almost invariably what they mean: a government contract, not an open marketplace. If you aren't satisfied with the way the local trash collection agency does its job—or if you are reasonably satisfied, but still think you could get a better deal from someone else; or if you have no plans to switch yourself, but would like the company to face the spine-tickling prospect that you might —then you have no more recourse than you would if your garbagemen worked directly for the city."

It reminds me of when my former co-workers used to bitch about their employer provided health benefits. Their complaints and customer service inquiries often fell on the deaf ears of a Pakistani call center. Why? Because the health care provider’s customer was the company not the individual client. As long as the cost was low the company didn’t really care that much about the individual client being happy. See the customer was the company not us clients. That is whom they had the contract with and whom they got their check from.

So if you think municipal workers with their unions and their civil service protection makes for obnoxious and uncaring employees, what about privatization would make this case any better? Where is the sanction for poor service or reward for good service that a free market naturally provides? I don’t see it working that way here, but I am going to keep an eye on this situation.

Posted by Ali Massoud at January 4, 2006 08:53 AM

Comments

Post a comment