If you would like to sign your name to this petition please press the button below and send us and email.  Inform us if you would like to become involved further or if you would want updates on this issue.  Your email address will not be disclosed to any other agency.  Your name, as copied from your email, will be the only information released. 

American Federation of Government Employees

 Affiliated with AFL-CIO

 April 22, 2002

This letter is a request for your help from the 11,675 Federal Employees in Alaska.  Attached is a list of some of these longtime Alaskans, who would appreciate your support on this issue as their jobs and benefits are at risk!

 The truth is what we are asking from our government.  We’re asking that the American people be told the truth about the contracting out of government work!  The Bush Administration’s proposal to contract out 425,000 federal jobs is not about saving the taxpayers’ money.  It is about giving billions of the public’s tax dollars to private corporations, at the expense of hard-working civil service men and women’s jobs, without a fair study of the economics of such a change. Why?  Is it merely a political reward to private corporations for their support of the current administration and certain members of congress?  This quota set by the administration is arbitrary and is potentially damaging to the security of this country.

 Federal employees are a vital part of this Nation’s defense, but we are being told that more contracting out is needed to save money.  The Bush administration has called for the ultimate outsourcing of half of all federal employees currently performing commercial jobs as listed on the FY 2002 Federal Activities Inventory Reform Act lists, by the year 2004.  President Bush established this quota without the use of any identified supporting data as testified to by OMB director Angela Styles in a Senate Governmental Affairs Committee hearing March 6, 2002 on S 1152.  The facts show that the contracting out of 225,000 federal jobs under the Clinton Administration was a failure and produced no significant savings.  Why would President Bush follow a failed policy of the Clinton administration and call for doubling the contracting out of government jobs?

 Over the past eight years, DOD employees were informed that contracting-out was to save money for new weapons systems (the F-22 fighter).  If that was true, why did Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld state to officials on April 15, 2002 that the Pentagon now needs to cut major weapons systems to finance new “transformational technologies.”  Where did all the money that was “saved” after the Clinton administration contracted out 225,000 DOD jobs to pay for these weapons systems go?  A reasonable person would question these Enronic accounting practices.

 Congress responded to the voice of the American people after that tragic day, September 11, with converting airport screeners to federal employees. The fact is that awarding work to the

lowest bid, to a corporation that is profit motivated, is not in the best interest of the American public.  It’s important to have a highly trained workforce, with years of experience in protecting the public.  A workforce with these high standards should be given fair wages and benefits. You get what you pay for!

 Why is the Bush administration’s goal to contract out 50% of our federal workforce and replace it with low paying jobs with few benefit? This policy could be recognized as threatening to the security of America.  What person in their right mind would continue to pursue this failed agenda?  How can the government expect to attract the best and brightest young people to join its workforce and remain a faithful employee under these conditions?

How will this affect Alaska?  Let’s do the math.  Since 1996, Elmendorf Air Force Base alone has lost 397 jobs with an annual wage loss of $16,036,944 to the Anchorage economy.  If the Bush administration’s quotas stand then using historical figures, 5,837 Alaskan federal employee’s jobs will be studied with 57% of those remaining in house.  (Note: even if a function remains in house there is a loss of jobs.)  Approximately 2,510 jobs would be contracted out, resulting in jobs with less pay and fewer, if any, benefits.  Often the contract workers are the same federal employees performing the exact job as before but at reduced pay and benefits.  The short-term savings to the Agencies comes directly out of the pockets of the workers, and the increased cost of lost benefits comes out of the local economy.

If it were true that contractors perform the work more efficiently, then why are the contractor’s lobbyists fighting so hard to ensure there is no legislation in place to track their numbers and rising costs?  The estimated cost of work annually given to contractors exceeds $115 billion. What’s the true cost of this corporate welfare considering the costs to the communities impacted with reduced worker wages and benefits?  Remember that private corporations are profit driven, not service driven.  Maybe the real truth is that it’s not in the best interest of the American people

to give 425,000 federal employee jobs to corporations motivated by profit.

Sincerely ,

David J. Owens

President Local 1101

Top