So too, is your agenda quite clear. I worked in both sectors for a total of 24 years. Now, that I work in neither doesn't mean I don't keep up with them. As public policy goes, private prisons are a very bad idea. I was not a disgruntled company employee. I simply did not like how they did their business, so I left with my integrity intact. I was a corporate officer who had to constantly do end runs around a vice-president who was brain dead when it came to obeying the law. He was not one who believed you had to spend money to make money. Words in a contract meant absolutely nothing to him. Having been there, done that, my analysis of the industry from the top is one that all (having witnessed how they do their business) companies give an off-brand kind of service. It's difficult to imagine that a for-profit company has any altruistic motive to rehabilitate an offender. Rehabilitation is not conducive to profit. Now, I would be the first to say that there are some companies who offer comparable if not better services such as drug abuse programming and the like. I would certainly clarify my position that I am against private companies warehousing inmates. I will never change my position on that even if the government has a monitor in every dorm or cell block. My position has nothing to do with unions. Yes, as you know (as we have both worked in the Texas system) public prisons are a mass of screwups. There are wardens who are wet behind the ears and you have to wonder how on God's green earth did these idiots make it to the top. Not a bit of snap to them and would and could not learn how to "convict." Well, according to the Peter Principle, "Sour cream rises to the top."
Your defense of the privates is that they hire experienced wardens. For what they pay them, they should. That's where it stops, though. You know as well as I do that pay for the supervisors and line staff is barely a liveable wage. Insurance benefits, little that they are, don't kick in until 3-6 months down the road. Yeah, it's about the bottom line at the expense of your employees, alright. So, any defense of the employees to earn a livable wage makes a person a liberal union hack? Have I missed something in your eloquence that companies should take care of their employees? Aren't they the backbone? You blast unions (which I have no need for because if you're taking care of your employees, there's no need) because they represent employees? What's the difference in a company lobbying a legislator for business and someone representing the employees before a politician? So, what kind of person do you attract to this kind of job? A county boy or girl who'll get eaten alive by a well-seasoned thug? People are not leaving state service in droves to go to work for the privates. I'm trying to find the logic in your argument that a state employee would quit for lower pay and minimal benefits. You think that it might be because of less stress and the requirements that private companies just want warm bodies and no expectations? It is well documented, in a good economy or bad economy, that ALL companies have a hard time recruiting and retaining their employees. That makes it a public safety issue. If a company can walk away from a contract because they can't staff it, what integrity does the company have?
Remember, the state is the customer and regardless of what happens in their own backyard, they are still the customer.
You said you did audits for state agencies. I only hope your written reports were nothing like your posts on this board. I'm sorry. That was cold-blooded. I apologize. You have a good day and I mean that. You're a likable fellow even if you're pro-privatization.