Originally Posted by
WillCAD
Since you're describing the document, I think we can assume that it's not SSI, so could you answer me this - does the explanation of the designation emergency/essential employee position include an explicit statement that such personnel will be required to work with delayed pay during a partial government shutdown?
Keeping the screener force working at full strength during a shutdown is certainly a point in favor of privatization, since contractors typically invoice the government at 30 or 45 day intervals, rather than the 15-day intervals of the federal pay cycle. Contractors are set up to get their money from the gubment with longer lag times than individual federal employees.
Still, a long shutdown can still screw up the budget of a contractor if the shutdown happens to intersect with a scheduled invoice date and delays the invoice.
There are other factors to consider when discussing privatization, too. I'm on the fence about it myself.
With full privatization of the airport screening, local airport owners/operators could way more easily pay for replacement screeners or pay already employeed screeners quickly and more directly for continuing the work than having to endure a substantial workforce reduction that they don’t find to be in their commercial or political economic interests.
The current POTUS has just indicated that he’s fine with the current state of affairs continuing for a long time. It seems like those still in support of federalized workforce for routine airport security screenings
at US airports are going to have a chance to realize what the economic risk was of federalizing the screener role.