Lifeguard Fired After Saving Man’s Life

[John Cuthber]

Every single company outsources (probably), and it is cheaper for them to do so than to do it in house. Car manufacturers buy steel, they don't make it themselves. They outsource the office cleaners. It is usually cheaper to outsource software development than to do it in house in the US. Who makes their own office supplies? McDonalds outsources some of their order taking to a company in Colorado. As in, 'welcome to McDonalds, can I take your order?'. Often times the person asking you that is not in the store you are at but is in a call center in CO. Pfizer outsources their help desk to the Dominican Republic. My job got outsourced to two guys in India. When IBM came out with their first PC the only hardware they manufactured was the keyboard and the 'IBM' logo. The US Navy does not make their own ships. The Airforce does not make its own planes or satellites. NASA didn't build the optics for Hubble.

 

 

So what do you think happened? According to the link in the OP:

What I think is that they paid less: they got less: someone nearly died.

[zapatos]

Since there is no proof that public services (healthcare, safety issues) are cheaper when outsourced, I just don't see the point of giving away the control to a company. Sure, companies can do certain things better than the government, but there are limits.

Just for clarification are you saying there is no proof that public services are cheaper when outsourced, or are you saying that you are not aware of proof that public services are cheaper when outsourced?

 

According to the link in the OP, Hallendale Beach found it cheaper to outsource. Do you have reason to doubt them?

 

In the municipality I live in we outsourced our police department (albeit to another government run police department). We now pay less for police protection, we get better service, and the department we outsourced to makes a profit (which is the reason they wanted to take on our policing duties).

 

What I think is that they paid less: they got less: someone nearly died.

Possibly. I'm sure groups often pay less and get less. I'm also sure that groups often pay less and get the same or more. In this case we simply don't have enough data to make that call.

 

When they outsourced did the number of lifeguards change? When it was government run, what was their policy on lifeguards leaving their zone? Did outsourcing result in a change in the number of hours of coverage? Until we know this kind of information it is not possible to reach a conclusion.

[John Cuthber]

They say they made the change to save money so I don't see a lot of wriggle room with the idea that they paid less.

The fact that they mentioned the change in the way in which the service was delivered strongly suggests that the change was relevant (though I grant that with modern reporting there's no guarantee of that).

That rather implies that, before 2003 this event wouldn't have happened.

So they pay less and end up with a state of affairs where a lifeguard gets sacked for saving someone.

In my book, that's they paid less and got less.

[JMJones0424]

Regarding the question about outsourcing to a company or not, my opinion is simple: it's a public beach, and the risk of drowning is a public risk (i.e. it can happen to everyone), so risk mitigation should be done with public money.

This is the case. Local taxes were being used to secure lifeguards for the beach and public swimming pools, presumably in the manner deemed most appropriate by the local officials.

 

Since there is no proof that public services (healthcare, safety issues) are cheaper when outsourced, I just don't see the point of giving away the control to a company. Sure, companies can do certain things better than the government, but there are limits.

I can easily envision a situation where a local government has a need for a few lifeguards, but does not already have the expertise required to identify, train, and manage those lifeguards at a level of quality expected by the public. This is precisely why any agency, public or private, may choose to contract out particular services.

 

So, my preferred solution: use tax payers' money to hire lifeguards, and make them government employees, thereby keeping it under direct government control.

I am not convinced that government control would have necessarily prevented this situation. At a basic level, this appears to me to be a failure of management, from which government agencies are certainly not immune. At a larger level, I would claim that the original fault lies with the local government in failing to ensure that the public's desire was correctly executed. The company providing the lifeguard service claimed that liability issues prevented on-duty lifeguards from leaving their area of responsibility. Assuming this is accurate, had a government agency been under the same restrictions, I wouldn't expect a different outcome.

 

Actually, in the Netherlands, the lifeguards and the coastguard work together a lot. That means that our entire coastline is guarded, and any lifeguard can quickly call in even helicopter support if needed.

The Netherlands and the US are two vastly different countries, with vastly different situations. Your solution, that local lifeguards work closely with the coastguard, is neither practical nor possible for the US.

 

To the supporters of privatization, I would like to ask: how far can privatization go? Would you also consider outsourcing the coastguard? Police? Firefighters? Army? Airforce? The government itself?

 

Contracting out of house for particular services should be done by any agency, public or private, when that agency believes it can more efficiently reach its goals using external resources. Obvious exceptions to this would include special situations like defense, police, prisons (which are frequently, incorrectly in my opinion, privatized in my area), and other areas where a private entity should not be entrusted with the authority necessary to carry out these duties, particularly in fields where the use of force or enforcement of the law is concerned. You may claim lifeguards belong in this special group as well, and if so, we will have to agree to disagree. But I do not accept the argument that the failure here was specifically dut to the fact that lifeguarding services were contracted to a private entity.

Edited July 6, 2012 by JMJones0424