Thursday, March 23, 2006
Garbage Savings Trashed?
Part of the Act 47 recovery plan called for the City to explore using private haulers to collect garbage in the southern neighborhoods. There are a lot of places—from big cities to small towns—who routinely use a private company to collect garbage. Not surprisingly, this idea has long been met with resistance from the City workforce.
But what has transpired with what the Act 47 plan intended and what the City’s Request for Proposals carried out shows the lengths the City will go to protect its union members’ monopoly in garbage collection.
There can be no other explanation than wanting to keep garbage collection a City enterprise. The Act 47 plan envisioned two separate bidding stages: the first would be for 10 percent of the City’s households and was to be open to private bidders only “in order to provide an opportunity to evaluate contracted services”. In the subsequent phase, an area encompassing one-third of the households was to be bid, with the City allowed to propose a plan to compete against the private sector.
That’s not how it turned out. Instead of two subsequent phases, the City RFP instructed bidders to bid simultaneously for both options, even though only one option would be awarded. And who did the judging?: an evaluation committee appointed by the City, and City Council held the ultimate position of awarding the contract. Talk about a case of the fox in charge of the henhouse.
So the City workers did win the contract, presumably, in part, because they were able to use the City’s fleet of trucks whereas others had to provide their own equipment. That, along with an attitude on the part of the City that a switch to a private hauler would be considered “a major disruption” certainly put private players on the defensive from the start.
Predictably, the refuse handling union wants to use its “efficiency” to bankroll a wage increase for its members. More moves like this will ensure oversight for the City for a long time, and delay permanently any real financial recovery.
But what has transpired with what the Act 47 plan intended and what the City’s Request for Proposals carried out shows the lengths the City will go to protect its union members’ monopoly in garbage collection.
There can be no other explanation than wanting to keep garbage collection a City enterprise. The Act 47 plan envisioned two separate bidding stages: the first would be for 10 percent of the City’s households and was to be open to private bidders only “in order to provide an opportunity to evaluate contracted services”. In the subsequent phase, an area encompassing one-third of the households was to be bid, with the City allowed to propose a plan to compete against the private sector.
That’s not how it turned out. Instead of two subsequent phases, the City RFP instructed bidders to bid simultaneously for both options, even though only one option would be awarded. And who did the judging?: an evaluation committee appointed by the City, and City Council held the ultimate position of awarding the contract. Talk about a case of the fox in charge of the henhouse.
So the City workers did win the contract, presumably, in part, because they were able to use the City’s fleet of trucks whereas others had to provide their own equipment. That, along with an attitude on the part of the City that a switch to a private hauler would be considered “a major disruption” certainly put private players on the defensive from the start.
Predictably, the refuse handling union wants to use its “efficiency” to bankroll a wage increase for its members. More moves like this will ensure oversight for the City for a long time, and delay permanently any real financial recovery.
