Browne and S. Keeley What

¶ … Browne and S. Keeley

What are the issue and the conclusion?

The memorandum from Ms. Barbara Glenn intends to provide guidance to a pending decision to either support or reject the proposed privatization of the Department of Transportation (DoT) information management system. It addresses the issue on what ought to be done with Governor Sally Bernstein's proposal to privatize the DoT's information management system. Ms. Glenn recommends opposition to the purported action. Based on the author's assertions, it can be inferred that the governor's decision to outsource a service currently performed by 75 state employees, more than half of which are members of the Federated State Employees Union (FSEU) Local 343, is a threat to the union and its members' job security, and should be opposed and rejected.

What are the reasons?

This conclusion is based on the following reasons:

That the move is an assault on the FSEU.

That privatization of the DoT's information management system is anti-American.

3. That the privatization of the system will serve as a precursor to the lowering of wages not only in the privatized branch of the department, but also will result to a subsequent reducing wages as a matter of state policy.

4. That displaced workers will be forced to learn new skills or adjust in their new working environment in the event that they will be re-hired.

5. That the proposal is a violation of the Pendleton Act of 1883, which stipulates that hiring and firing of workers are based on merit (or demerit).

6. That agreeing to the proposal would mean a loss of bargaining power for the union in future negotiations with the state if they allow this to happen.

7. That privatization is bad because of:

a. Loss of state control over the information system and data;

b. Profit as the sole of objective of the private sector, which will create instability as decision to pursue or terminate the contract will be based solely on whether the project is still profitable or not, regardless of who gets affected (displacement of workers, stoppage of service, etc.);

c. The additional hidden costs for the state in overseeing a third-party contractor;

d. Outsourcing is the cause of the recession; and,

e. Communications and culture clash problems resulting from outsourcing.

The subsequent section will further analyze the reasons and other assertions in the document to determine whether these will provide a strong basis for the conclusion.

3. Which word or phrases are ambiguous?

a. "This proposed privatization is an assault on our union."

The statement exposes an adversarial stance but does not necessarily expound on how the proposal can be an attack on the union. This statement can be interpreted in two ways: Is it an attack against the union itself or its members? The first interpretation can read as the dissolution of the union as an organized entity as a result of privatization. The second interpretation means that privatization may result in the dismissal of union members from service as a result of their association in the union.

b. "It is anti-American."

The term "anti-American" is not defined and carries loaded emotional language that does not provide strong objective justification to support the conclusion. Anti-Americanism as a manifestation of being anti-American is a much more complex phenomenon. According to Hollander (2002), "anti-Americanism is not easy to study given its diffuseness, varieties, endless sources, and the difficulty in locating it on the spectrum of political attitudes and positions." Likewise, anti-Americanism scholar Brendan O'Connor asserts that "anti-Americanism is not a comprehensive or coherent belief system or ideology, but rather a series of criticisms and prejudices regarding America that have haphazardly been labeled anti-Americanism." How can the action be anti-American? The statement likewise begs a definition what is pro-American or anti-American? Does provision of service by a foreign entity or the private demonstrate anti-Americanism? Thus, simplifying the term does not provide a solid verifiable explanation to justify the conclusion.

c. "Foreign agents will bid for this privatization contract…"

Who are these "foreign agents"? Does this mean foreigners from outside the United States (U.S.)? Or actors who are within the U.S. But are considered foreign because they do not belong to the public sector? Does this mean citizenship or nationality or ethnicity? One can consider, for instance, an ethnic Chinese who lives and grew up in the U.S., and is a citizen of the U.S. Ethnically, s/he is a foreigner but is legally an American by virtue of his/her citizenship?

d. "…we do a disservice to our members… "

How can the proposed privatization be a disservice to union members? What does "disservice" mean? The term can be construed in different ways. It assumes that all union members reject the proposal, thus, agreeing to it would mean that members' stand are sidestepped, thus resulting to a disservice to them. Another way of looking at the statement is that agreeing to the contract would put union members at a disadvantage, which could be loss of their jobs, slashed benefits, retrenchment, among many other situations that may be considered as a disservice to union members.

e. "I speak for truth and common sense…"

What is "truth"? What is "common sense"? Who defines what is truth and common sense? For whom does the author speak the truth?

f. "We have to be strong and show no weakness."

Being strong or weak can be contextual. How is union strength or weakness defined in the context of privatization? As the text Asking the Right Questions remarks, "multiple meanings can create serious problems in determining the worth of an argument" (Browne & Keeley, 2010, p. 52).

4. What are the value conflicts and assumptions?

Two major assumptions are put forward as a basis of the recommendation to reject the proposal to privatize the information management system of the DoT. First, it is presupposed that employees' job security, particularly of union members, is more important than the savings the state will be making and providing efficient service from the private sector. Another assumption is that the state is a better provider of service than the private sector.

The assumptions expose value conflicts between protection of American interests, in this case represented by union members' stakes, as against the opportunity for the private sector to participate in providing "state-of-the-art information systems hardware, software, and professional expertise." In addition, there is also value conflict on job security and service efficiency. What if the reader or listener believes that service efficiency and state savings are more important than retaining a service that bites into the government's coffers, which can be used for other social services such as education, health, etc. There is also conflict in placing value on retaining existing skills of workers vs. The possibility of upgrading the skills of the workforce as a result of a private-sector take over of the management. The idea of a more skilled workforce than manpower that is reluctant to learn new skills may be more agreeable to the reader of the piece. Assertions such as "[I]f you opposed this measure, they would vote for you," likewise show a contradiction between exercising objectivity in making the decision vs. relying on emotion and ambition to influence decision.

5. What are the descriptive assumptions?

To identify the descriptive assumptions in the text, let us take the statement:

"This proposed privatization is an assault on our union. It is anti-American. Foreign agents will bid for this privatization contract and accept wages lower than our members receive. This will set the stage for state government to decrease employee wages in the future."

The statement reveals that privatization that has been implemented in other services provided by the public sector has demonstrated that it is inimical to the welfare of union members in particular and workers in general, specifically on the prospect of the depression of wages. If this assumption is true and supports the reason that privatization is bad and, thus, supports the conclusion to reject the proposal to privatize the DoT's information management system. Another descriptive assumption would be with the service being provided by the state is pro-American, and that foreigners will not do any good to any undertaking as a result of privatization.

6. Are there fallacies in the reasoning?

The memorandum contains reasoning fallacies that weakens the substance of the arguments. The fallacy of ad hominem is committed when a claim "[t]he governor is a bully" is made. The attack is made on the proponent of an opposed proposition instead of confronting the policy. Secondly, in stating that a group of union members endorse the opposition to the privatization efforts of the states is pursuing a fallacious reasoning, ad populum. The claim that, "This will set the stage for state government to decrease employee wages in the future…. If we allow this to happen in the Department of Transportation, it will happen in all departments everywhere. The stage will be set," can be classified as slippery slope fallacy. In many instances, appeals are made to the reader's emotions. Among these statements include:

1. "We must oppose this action now, or we do a disservice to our members and will regret it later."

2. "I had lunch the other day with a group of members, and everyone was in agreement that if you opposed this measure, they would vote for you…. This will set the stage for your re-election next year at the end of your present term." The lace of threat of a negative consequence for the decision maker is also palpable in this statement, as it appeals to self-preservation.

3. "I speak for truth and common sense…" is also a shot at arguing based on the fallacy of glittering generality.

While statistics are used to support the arguments, questionable authority on the matter are used such as the case of the brother-in-law, who has not demonstrated as an expert on the issue at hand, and Wikipedia, which is a helpful tool but whose contents are not an entirely credible source of value-free information. Lastly, the fallacy of red herring is committed as in the statement: "If the Governor wants to save money, she should abandon that wasteful convention center project, and leave our Union alone."

7. How good is the evidence?

The substantial information is omitted when citing cases such as the author's brother-in-law's experience to support the argument that outsourcing is the cause for the recession that resulted to his dismissal from service. Why was the brother-in-law laid off? Was it based on his performance? What was the management's policy on dismissing employees from service? These important information were completely absent in the entire text. In citing the brother-in-law's statement that "management uses a promise for rehire to gain union support for outsourcing and 80% of the time they don't keep their promise," what was the basis for this assertion? Are there any studies that support this? Instead of citing Wikipedia and another person's experience, legal cases and other objective and readily verifiable public data could have been used to support the conclusion. Referring to a Wall Street newspaper to claim that additional costs will be incurred as a result of "overseeing third-party contractors" without plainly identifying which broadsheet falls short of providing a credible source for such a potentially publicly verifiable data. Studies may be referenced from the U.S. Office of Management and Budget, which oversees the implementation of the Federal Activities Inventory Reform Act of 1998, as well as studies on privatization and outsourcing of purportedly sensitive services such as defense (see Taibl, 1997).

8. Are there rival causes?

Privatization and the subsequent outsourcing are presented as the threat to union members' job security, which is used as a basis of opposing the proposal. Little is said, however, about the contents of the governor's proposal itself. Causal oversimplification is committed by presenting privatization and outsourcing as the primary source of threat to union members' job security and other supposedly negative repercussions. Because of the paucity of plausible arguments in the memorandum, it makes it particularly challenging to pinpoint rival causes to the author's conclusion. In presenting the case of another person (brother-in-law's dismissal from service and continued unemployment), a rival cause may be poor performance and lack of effort to grab other employment opportunities. Privatization and outsourcing in the cases cited by the author may have created instability, for instance, because of several reasons such as peace and order situation in a particular locality, the liquidity of the company undertaking the contract, or the failure on the part even of the state in implementing regulatory measures of privatization and outsourcing contracts. Communication problems and culture clash resulting from outsourcing may be brought about by poor training of human resources in terms of providing adequate information on the client country.