Outsourcing

californiaIn California and elsewhere the trend toward outsourcing, or contracting-out, has been growing at an alarming rate.

For public schools, there is an outside company available for virtually every classified service. While it makes good public rhetoric to proclaim cost-savings for cash strapped schools, outsourcing brings with it a host of problems—and in many cases, it produces little or no cost-savings at all.

Classified employees have become a target
Everyday, California’s school employees – instructional assistants, school security guards, school bus drivers and others – work hard to educate and serve our children.

In tight budget times many of these dedicated employees have become a target for outsourcing. Sometimes called “privatization,” school districts are exploring ways to hand over important public service jobs to huge, private corporations who pay their employees lower wages and provide few, if any, health benefits.

We should not sacrifice the jobs of hard working public employees to help the profits of big corporations, eliminating the laws that require them to justify cost savings and guarantee quality, so they can engage in unregulated contracts and increase their profits at the taxpayers’ expense.

courtSB 1419 provides contracting safeguards
In 2002, California passed SB 1419, a law that established reasonable safeguards for school districts to follow prior to contracting-out classified services. The law doesn’t prohibit outsourcing, it simply establishes common-sense requirements—such as competitive bidding, fingerprinting and background checks, and proof of cost savings—to protect our students and taxpayers.

Advertisements

7 Responses to Outsourcing

  1. Anonymous says:

    We have contracted gardeners do the work at our school – why wouldn’t we dismiss our contractors first, before laying off our own employees?

  2. Parent/Employee says:

    Are contractors pre-screened, fingerprinted, and checked before working in our district?

  3. Aydin L. says:

    Our department outsources electrical jobs to SECO (2 – 3 guys), and computer repair to MICROLINK (6 guys full time). If District cancelled these contracts would they hire people first or would we bring back anyone that is being layed off or reduced in hours? Would the changes take effect immediately or would we have enough time to adjust (ex. hire people, reduce what we support, etc)?

  4. Anonymous says:

    Very good to know, thank you for posting this.

  5. Lisa Duffield says:

    Who is held responsible if a contracted helper that hasn’t had a background check touches a child inappropriately?

    Does the District pay for the background checks and do they monitor and follow through to make sure the person should continue to work at the school?

  6. Allyson Holt says:

    Honestly i am not sure who is legally responsible, But I don’t want to find out. I think the District is at least MORALLY responsible.
    And I Paid for my background check when I was hired, But ?
    I do not believe that there is nearly the over site, monitoring screening ect… that the regular employee has to go through.
    However I is CSEA’s position, that there be NO contractors on site unless for a LEGITIMATE EMERGENCY, one we can’t handle ourselves.

  7. Parent and Employee says:

    Background Checks; just another reason why I’d rather we hired full time staff instead of temporary contractors – this isn’t a business, its education = our kids are here and we owe it to their safety that we know who’s on our school campuses.

%d bloggers like this: