City Employees Should Not Be Irreplaceable



This is in response to the Tuesday, June 22 article on the above subject. Although I am a new Payson resident, I am not new to the above scenario.

According to the article, it appears that this “rehiring as private contractors” is being done for cost savings and because the two employees are irreplaceable — at least on a short-term basis.

I can understand the cost savings part. That’s why municipalities do buyout programs. If the two employees are truly irreplaceable (kind of hard to believe from their job descriptions), that is a fundamental problem with the Payson government. No one is irreplaceable, and part of (the two employees’) jobs (should be) to train someone within their respective departments that can take over their positions, at minimum, on a temporary basis.

I also believe there is a lot of misinformation and unanswered question regarding this scenario — “private contractors.” It, unfortunately, is the nature of private contracts. There will always be much room for interpretation — and also abuse.

It will also have a negative effect on employee morale. The government I worked for — for 31 years, four times the size of Payson — tried this about five years ago in their police department. After four years, they dropped the program. I believe employee morale was one of the major problems.

I’m sure there were other problems that I was not aware of. If Payson is looking to privatize those positions, than they should do so on an open contractual basis. Not because those employees are irreplaceable.

John Cailey


Jimi Alexander 6 years, 7 months ago

What's this? Dan Varnes breaking away from conservative orthodoxy? Did you wake up on the wrong side of the bed this morning?


Requires free registration

Posting comments requires a free account and verification.