Reference no: EM131165079

According to the text privatization is "arranging for private companies to on certain jobs and functions formerly done by government." (Burger, 15) Many of these private companies save money by hiring non union workers. These private companies do this because they can pay these employees a lower salary and offer little to no benefits, such as health insurance, than union workers. I don't believe that hiring non union workers to save money and cut costs is always happening with these private companies. I also don't believe that it is a bad thing to do these strategies depending on the situation. Jobs in which the worker is not necessarily in danger or could be put into a potentially dangerous situation, I don't see the problem with privatization. I don't see why hospital housekeepers and hospital food service workers need to be run by the government. On the other hand I do see issues with a private company running halfway houses, recovery homes and prisons. I think these workers need to be fully trained and that's not a guarantee with privatization. In these situations I would rather have a fully trained employee with a higher salary than cut costs and hire someone who isn't fully aware of the situation. From my point of view the text book has a more conservative point of view regarding privatization. The text book doesn't really focus on the positive effects of privatization.