Letters

Delicate Balance

"Hard Labor" (June 15) states that the Bush administration is union-busting. It's not for me to support that perspective, but there is reason to ask why the push is on to change the government's civil service workforce to be more responsive to the needs of the administration. Senior government officials say there is a need to shift workers to where the work is and to ensure national security.

Unions contend that the problem is not with workers, but with those at the top of the civilian workforce. They feel that the good-old-boy system will still be in place after the change to pay for performance in the National Security Personnel System. Unions see it as a way to further separate the employees from those in management positions.

Some people believe that the NSPS would allow supervisors to order people to perform controversial tasks. It is feared that workers could easily be fired if they refused or performed poorly in areas where they have not been properly trained.

Unions say they are the voice of the people. Some feel that the NSPS would take that voice away, forcing workers who want to speak up for their rights to resort to federal court. That is expensive, and most people just don't have that kind of money for legal fees.

Workers and unions do not see how there would be any change in management or leadership. But they fear losing their right to free speech and the ability to speak in opposition to management. This also could stifle creative or innovative thinking.

Like every industry, government wishes to operate more effectively and efficiently. Industry and government look at improving the bottom line, but people must understand the differences. The bottom line for industry is to increase profits. The bottom line for government is to advance the people.

It is the duty of elected officials to serve the people without regard to self-interest. But there is a human side. As one in government moves to higher and higher positions, money and power become motivators. Are government officials then working for self-interest or for the people?

Loud and Clear

As a leader in citizen contact interaction and management with more than 25 years' experience, Pearson Government Solutions was pleased to be included in "Good Calls" (May 15) as an example of a government partner dedicated to improving customer service at call centers.

However, Pearson was disappointed with how our services for the Citizen and Immigration Services bureau and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid call centers were characterized. For example, the article mentioned a survey by the American Immigration Lawyers Association that cited "unsatisfactory" and "slow" service.

Unfortunately, the article neglected to include an important decision by CIS not to grant access by Pearson call center employees to databases frequently requested by immigration lawyers. This decision is central to AILA members' dissatisfaction with the service at the CIS call center.

It is important to note that at the time the article was published, CIS and CMS extended their contracts with Pearson-a strong indication of their satisfaction with our company and our services.

Pearson is proud of the work we are doing. We continue to focus on delivering the best possible solutions for our customers and their constituents.