Friday, April 02, 2004
Zigging Where Others Zag
Many of my brother and sister milbloggers are waxing enthusiastic over a proposed bill that would punish corporations who discriminate against mobilized Guardsmen and reservists by debarring them from participating in government contracts.
It sounds good, but beware the Law of Unintended Consequences.
Suppose, for the sake of argument, that a returning Guardsman has an employment dispute with Maryland Advanced Development Labratory, which makes the Viper Antisniper System--a piece of equipment really just coming into its own now, which has the potential to save US lives in Iraq (mostly by killing the bad guys before they have a chance to get off a second shot.)
Suppose further the Army needs Maryland Advanced Development Lab technicians in the field to advise local commanders how to best employ and maintain the systems, or even just install it. And postulate further that the Army has just ordered dozens of these things, at an outrageous unit cost to the taxpayer.
Now, the reservist, or the Department of Labor, can take his case to court. If MAD Labs loses, they're out. Which means the technicians don't get their contracts renewed. Which means the systems--already purchased--don't get properly maintained, if they get installed at all.
Who really loses? US Troops in Iraq.
Suppose it isn't MAD Labs. What happens if Kellog, Brown and Root--who run almost every chow hall in country--lose? What if it's General Motors? Raytheon? Halliburton? AT&T?
Should we dismantle the phone calling centers--the ones hundreds of thousands of deployed soldiers rely upon in order to stay in touch with their families and civilian employers?
Should we stop distributing phone cards?
I'd rather see us keep our contracting options open. There's no reason we need to craft a law that will eventually have us painting ourselves into a corner, legally commiting the government to a stupid course of action.
If reemployment laws need to be strengthened, let's do it by increasing potential fines, by holding managers guilty of USERRA violations personally liable, alongside the companies.
But let's not craft a law that forces judges to compromise the war effort--to compromise the interests of thousands of soldiers who need good, well maintained equipment and quality MWR, and who rely on thousands of government contractors to provide them--in order to satisfy the letter of the law with respect to the reemployment rights of a single soldier.
Contracts should be awarded, and retained, based on who can provide the best service at the best price. Let the contract and procurement process proceed according to its own logic. Let's not contaminate it with well-meaning but counterproductive "Feel Good" legislation.
Splash, out
Jason
It sounds good, but beware the Law of Unintended Consequences.
Suppose, for the sake of argument, that a returning Guardsman has an employment dispute with Maryland Advanced Development Labratory, which makes the Viper Antisniper System--a piece of equipment really just coming into its own now, which has the potential to save US lives in Iraq (mostly by killing the bad guys before they have a chance to get off a second shot.)
Suppose further the Army needs Maryland Advanced Development Lab technicians in the field to advise local commanders how to best employ and maintain the systems, or even just install it. And postulate further that the Army has just ordered dozens of these things, at an outrageous unit cost to the taxpayer.
Now, the reservist, or the Department of Labor, can take his case to court. If
Who really loses? US Troops in Iraq.
Suppose it isn't MAD Labs. What happens if Kellog, Brown and Root--who run almost every chow hall in country--lose? What if it's General Motors? Raytheon? Halliburton? AT&T?
Should we dismantle the phone calling centers--the ones hundreds of thousands of deployed soldiers rely upon in order to stay in touch with their families and civilian employers?
Should we stop distributing phone cards?
I'd rather see us keep our contracting options open. There's no reason we need to craft a law that will eventually have us painting ourselves into a corner, legally commiting the government to a stupid course of action.
If reemployment laws need to be strengthened, let's do it by increasing potential fines, by holding managers guilty of USERRA violations personally liable, alongside the companies.
But let's not craft a law that forces judges to compromise the war effort--to compromise the interests of thousands of soldiers who need good, well maintained equipment and quality MWR, and who rely on thousands of government contractors to provide them--in order to satisfy the letter of the law with respect to the reemployment rights of a single soldier.
Contracts should be awarded, and retained, based on who can provide the best service at the best price. Let the contract and procurement process proceed according to its own logic. Let's not contaminate it with well-meaning but counterproductive "Feel Good" legislation.
Splash, out
Jason
Comments:
Post a Comment
