In the case of privatization at the USPS, the latest GAO report reads more like a big April Fool's joke than reality and contains such ludicrous excuses for privatization that any competent person would be embarrassed to make them.
crossposted from unbossed
Next time you complain that your mail delivery was messed up, ask yourself: "Was that a US Postal employee or a private company's employee who made the mess?" Chances are it was not a USPS employee. So practice saying: "Damned private companies. They can't do anything right."
It sure feels that way when you follow privatization news and see report after report of important work poorly done or undone or even real malfeasance by the private company's workers.
But enough dissing privatization in general, let's diss the way it's done at the USPS.
Here in a nutshell is what GAO found is going on with the managers at the USPS:
- Privatizing USPS jobs is such an important strategy for saving money that there is no need to check whether it actually saves money
- In order to bargain about privatization with its unions, the USPS should figure out what are the privatizaiton issues that should be on the table, but unfortunately, all that seems to be on the table is the USPS unsubstantiated belief that privatization saves money.
- Congress is supposed to excercise oversight over the USPS, and in order to excercise that oversight, Congress needs to have information about results and effectiveness of the USPS work that has been privatized. Unfortunately for Congress, the USPS is not willing to give Congress any information about results and whether privatizing has been effective or saved money.
- The USPS might be willing to start measuring cost and effectiveness of privatization, but it is NOT willing to measure impacts of privatization, such as on service, customers, or employees.
- Congress is considering new legislation that will bar the USPS from privatizing postal work, so if the USPS wants to be able to continue to privatize postal work, it must show Congress that it is cost-effective to privatize. Despite this, the USPS will not provide Congress information, leaving Congress with no evidence that privatization is a good idea.
No, it really is not April Fool's Day, and although the way the USPS is treating privatization sounds like a joke, it is, unfortunately, the reality of the true believer who knows private is always better and does not want to waste time on proving what must be true.
So here are key excepts from the GAO report, with some added emphasis and line breaks for easier reading . . . and to make it easier to find your place once you stop guffawing.
The Service views outsourcing as an important strategy for achieving the cost savings it needs to operate successfully under a regulatory price cap.
But because the Service does not track, and therefore cannot quantify, the actual results of its outsourcing activities, it cannot document the effectiveness of its outsourcing results for Service managers, stakeholders, and Congress. As a result, information to assess the risk and value of outsourcing and accountability for results is limited.
. . .
To improve management decision-making and accountability in this area, the Postmaster General should, first, establish a process to measure the results and effectiveness of Service outsourcing activities that are subject to collective bargaining. This process should include tracking actual costs and any savings, and comparing them with estimated costs and savings.
Second, to support congressional oversight, the Postmaster General should include information on the results and effectiveness of these ongoing outsourcing activities in its annual operations report (Comprehensive Statement on Postal Operations) to Congress.
The Service generally agreed with our finding that it does not separately track the results of its outsourcing activities and with our first recommendation that a process should be established to measure the results and effectiveness of Service outsourcing initiatives that are subject to collective bargaining agreements, including tracking actual costs and any savings.
However, the Service did not agree to implement our second recommendation to provide information on the results and effectiveness of these ongoing outsourcing initiatives in its annual operations report to Congress.
The Service agreed to establish a process, for future national-level outsourcing initiatives approved after July 2008, to compare the final financial comparative analysis assumptions with actual contract award data 1 year after project implementation. This step is commendable to begin assessing the impact and effectiveness of outsourcing efforts, specifically the cost savings achieved after 1 year.
Our recommendation was not limited to costs and savings associated with outsourcing, but the Service did not commit to measuring other impacts, such as on service, customers, or employees. We continue to believe these are also important in a comprehensive assessment of the outsourcing efforts.
The Service did not agree to implement our second recommendation and proposed instead to retain information it collects on its outsourcing efforts internally.
However, in order for the Service to effectively make its case to use outsourcing as a mechanism to contain costs, we believe that the Service must keep its stakeholders, including Members of Congress, customers, employees, and the public-at-large, fully informed of the merits, potential impacts, and the results of outsourcing.
Several bills are pending before Congress that would affect the Service’s ability to outsource. In conducting oversight and making its decisions, Congress would benefit from more data about the results and effectiveness of the Service’s outsourcing activities that are subject to collective bargaining.
Without transparency regarding its outsourcing initiatives, postal management, stakeholders and Congress are not able to assess the risk and value of outsourcing and accountability for results is limited. Thus, we believe that the Service should annually provide Congress with information about the results of outsourcing activities as discussed previously.
And here is the GAO's overall conclusion
The Service does not have a comprehensive mechanism for measuring results, including any actual savings; therefore, it could not provide information on the effectiveness of its outsourcing. Without cost-savings data, postal managers, stakeholders and Congress cannot assess the risk and value of outsourcing. Also, accountability for results is limited.
The Service has stated that it will explore outsourcing opportunities, and postal unions are concerned that the Service’s use of contractors for delivery service is growing as shown below.
Proposed legislation to limit the Service’s outsourcing is pending in Congress, which the Service says could limit its ability to contain costs.
Key challenges include whether the Service and its unions can reach agreement on outsourcing issues through collective bargaining and whether the Service can provide analysis to substantiate the benefits of outsourcing.
Now, let me get this straight.
- The USPS claims that it knows that privatization saves money.
- Congress says they are not convinced this is true and plans to enact legislation barring privatizing USPS jobs . . . unless the USPS shows Congress facts that support the USPS's claims.
- Yet, despite this threat to its ability to save us money, the USPS will NOT show Congress what it has to support its belief in privatization.
- Or! Maybe it has.
Baby! When you got nothin' you got nothin' to show Congress.
And now that you know the competence with which the USPS MANAGERS manages our mail, who do you really think is behind any problems with our mail?
I say: Stop blaming the workers and demand that the managers remember that it's the United States Postal Service.
The report is U.S. Postal Service: Data Needed to Assess the Effectiveness of Outsourcing GAO-08-787
And background on USPS privatization here and here and here.