My understanding of the McKinsey deal (from across the Hudson - but with friends who work as contractors with companies for City agencies, just fyi), is that they were brought in because the City literally couldn't afford to hire the best people for whatever roles they needed. Plus, there were a pile of lawsuits that really made them leery of bringing on more employees in certain areas. Morally I agree with you that paying people less isn't the best goal - but the city taxes are murder and reducing personnel costs to one lump sum for a part of the City was a way to save money for the taxpayers. And same with the oversight, but in this case it's not about power having oversight or not. These are generally (as I understand it) workers and functionaries, the 'butts-in-seats' people in the office that make things work while the big guys do whatever it is they're doing. Sometimes they're the idea folks, but not often. Every lawsuit where NYC isn't potentially liable means less time and money spent to employ counsel for the city. Every HR dispute that's between an employee and their private employer is something that can't be thrown into the Post or the Journal to propagandize.
The group was also brought in with goals and expectations of results. Like reducing costs and violence at the named prisons (Rikers, etc) - they've failed. They were brought in to help streamline and support the Board of Health, and update their systems. They've so far failed and would be in worse shape if they hadn't subcontracted to smaller firms. The City finance department, they haven't made audits smoother either. Essentially, they promised results and skilled workers that the City couldn't afford to employ directly, and lied. So what started with a good value proposition to the City has turned into a nightmare, and decisive action is needed.
I suggest that there's no meaningful benefit to be gained by looking backward rather than forward. If you want to move to a different paradigm, that's fine, but condemnation of the past is performative compared to putting forward laws and resolutions to benefit others. The Bill of Human Rights was forward-looking, this condemnation is backward-looking. Emphasize where we want to go and why we want to be there, rather than where we were and the mistakes we made as a society.
Slavery was evil, so was the destruction of indigenous peoples across the world. But we can't yet change the past. We should reinforce that we will work to eliminate slavery (chattel and indenture), human trafficking, and the abuses related to it. Focus on what we can improve today and how we can improve things.
I understand where you're coming from, but the value proposition is pretty enticing to groups like NYC government. A consulting group reduces their legal liability (if something happens, the consulting firm is at fault, or the consultant themselves). It sharply reduces ongoing payroll on the books. It reduces the need for HR departments, because that's the job of the consulting firm. And hopefully, if you're smart when you make the contract, you get more workers and more skilled workers for the money you spent than you could get by direct hire. Now, obviously in this case, the workers that were provided were unskilled and failed at their tasks, so cancelling makes sense. And if the consulting firm isn't a bunch of scumbags, it's good for everyone. The City gets tasks completed and doesn't have to maintain a pension or the like, the consulting firm makes a huge pile of money and can parlay their learnings and platforms into providing other services to the city or local governments, and the contractors/consultants get to have control over their employment and a wide range of experience across cases.
Obviously the moment one group gets too greedy without the others responding (as has happened), you get situations like this.
Cool, cool. How much will it end up costing the City to replace those workers and the tasks they were doing? The need for people and services done isn't going away. The reason the City first started employing private firms is because the taxpayers wouldn't have to be on the hook for those salaries, and more importantly, those pensions. Insourcing for the city just shifts the burden from a contract fee now to having to fund another pension in a few years.
I'm not saying it's a bad thing. I like the idea of NYC actually employing people again. It helps build confidence in the city government that it won't collapse if a single contract negotiation falls through. It means the whole City isn't held hostage by a private corp that can raise rates whenever it chooses. There's positives to direct hire. But it will be a bite in the hindquarters when the pensions come due, and the salaries may well exceed the consulting contract.
If I spend that money and it's not worth the cost, either I'll try to get it comp'ed or something like that. And if it's really that bad, I put it on a credit card and then call the company to reverse the charge. Worst comes to worst it goes on debit and I dispute it with the bank.
Now if only the company was willing to make the licensing terms a little friendlier for individual use, or even create an open-core version. We have 9Front and Haiku (and ReactOS), why can't we have a FOSS OS/2?
So, I guess I'm never touching anything by Square Enix again. That includes Taito & Gangan, and I'll probably also just personally extend it to IO Interactive and anything they touch, and Crystal Dynamics and everything they touch. And I don't just mean buying. I won't even consider pirating LLM stuff from the slophouse.
That's what it is then.I just don't want to deal with the arbitrary nonsense like age-verification and software install limitations. Then again, I only have a phone at all because of my wife. If it were just me, I'd just keep a featurephone in a drawer and maybe check that it's charged once a month. As it stands, I may end up having to give up the small amount of morality I have and just give up on Android and pay a ridiculous amount of money just for phone service.
House and CJ, thanks. Both of them basically just want to chill. But frankly with the way that plane is going to be, I'd leave the airport and take a train or a bus.
My understanding of the McKinsey deal (from across the Hudson - but with friends who work as contractors with companies for City agencies, just fyi), is that they were brought in because the City literally couldn't afford to hire the best people for whatever roles they needed. Plus, there were a pile of lawsuits that really made them leery of bringing on more employees in certain areas. Morally I agree with you that paying people less isn't the best goal - but the city taxes are murder and reducing personnel costs to one lump sum for a part of the City was a way to save money for the taxpayers. And same with the oversight, but in this case it's not about power having oversight or not. These are generally (as I understand it) workers and functionaries, the 'butts-in-seats' people in the office that make things work while the big guys do whatever it is they're doing. Sometimes they're the idea folks, but not often. Every lawsuit where NYC isn't potentially liable means less time and money spent to employ counsel for the city. Every HR dispute that's between an employee and their private employer is something that can't be thrown into the Post or the Journal to propagandize.
The group was also brought in with goals and expectations of results. Like reducing costs and violence at the named prisons (Rikers, etc) - they've failed. They were brought in to help streamline and support the Board of Health, and update their systems. They've so far failed and would be in worse shape if they hadn't subcontracted to smaller firms. The City finance department, they haven't made audits smoother either. Essentially, they promised results and skilled workers that the City couldn't afford to employ directly, and lied. So what started with a good value proposition to the City has turned into a nightmare, and decisive action is needed.