Today’s Wall Street Journal discusses the federal government’s own contribution to the problem of the uninsured through it’s use of contract employees who do not receive health benefits even when they function as pseudo-full time workers:
Covering the uninsured is a central issue in this year’s political campaign. Yet while politicians debate how best to cover the growing ranks of the uninsured, the federal government — by outsourcing service jobs — quietly is adding to those numbers. “As federal employees, we get great insurance,” says Dr. Rogers … “People who work as contractors often don’t enjoy those benefits.”
Federal contract employees, including cafeteria workers, security guards and cleaning crews, work on Capitol Hill and in federal agencies across the country. Under a 1965 law, called the McNamara-O’Hara Service Contract Act, most contractors with service contracts of more than $2,500 are required to pay locally prevailing wages, plus fringe benefits or the cash equivalent — $3.16 an hour this year, under a government formula.
Yet some contract employees don’t get either the health insurance or the extra cash. Under the law, employers in industries where health insurance typically isn’t offered are exempt. Other employers don’t comply with the law because they don’t understand it or assume they won’t get caught, say lawyers and consultants who work in the field. The law doesn’t allow contract workers to sue employers over alleged violations, but they can file a complaint with the Labor Department, which may investigate the claim. …
Outsourcing of federal-government jobs reflects the same cost-cutting imperatives that drive private businesses to outsource. The U.S. government keeps tabs on how much it pays contractors, but no government agency keeps a tally of the workers who are employed or how many have health insurance. Paul Light, a political scientist at New York University’s Wagner School of Public Service and a specialist on government employees, estimates that in 2005, there were 5.4 million federal service-contract workers, double the number in 1990.
This is also an issue in Massachusetts where a large number of full time state workers are classified as “03 consultants” and do not receive any benefits. One regular commentator on this and the WBUR Commonhealth blog, Ron Norton – a passionate critic of Chapter 58 — works full time teaching radiologic technology at Quinsigamond Community College, and gets no benefits for his labors.
This is one reason why the Commonwealth of Massachusetts (and the University of Mass.)shows up on its own report/list of employers with more than 50 workers accessing MassHealth or the Uncompensated Care Pool. It’s time for the Commonwealth to take a fresh look at some of its own employment practices.
Not only do they not recieve the health benifits. They are segregated when we have work functions such as a Christmas party. They are not invited and are put somewhere else if we have the function at the office. They also are required to come in if we have training holidays and work even though everyone else is let go. If we are allowed to go home 2 hours early they are not allowed to leave. They must stay until the end of the day. Its horrible treatment.. and I am wondering if this kind of treatment is leagal? Anyone out there have an answer to that?
John,
Thanks for helping to shine a light on this shameful, and apparently pervasive, practice. It is unconscionable that government should treat two groups of workers doing the same job so differently. Care to comment Governor Patrick? How about you President Murray? Speaker DiMasi?
In that respect, stewie, I agree with you- the gov’t should be labeled a hypocrite.
But what I don’t like is employers being criticized for employing someone, and not paying health insurance. An unemployed person without insurance is in no better stead that an individual employed by an entity which doesn’t provide insurance.
If I had health problems, I would rather have a paycheck coming than none at all.
I apologize for not getting my point across.
tom, i’m confused by your logic.
i think the point of the posting (and the comments) is to demonstrate that the gov’t (let’s take MA state gov’t as an example here) may TALK about insuring everyone and try to encourage employers to provide health insurance as a benefit… yet the gov’t as an employer tries to circumvent providing this benefit!
And if the federal government didn’t hire these people, then they would be certain of getting insurance, right?
This is akin to saying that I deprived the American Red Cross of a $1000 donation, by sending them only $100 last year.
PLONK!
Yes, the Massachusetts Department of Public Health is one of the worst offenders of this employee classification. 03 contractors work full-time, side by side full-time state employees doing exactly the same duties and they get no health benefits, no sick time, no holidays, and no paid leave. This is a VERY large percentage of the people employed by DPH.
and the MA state DPH hires mainly contract workers in my experience. the DPH!!