......... IMO they're simply choosing to pay more to reduce the risk to FS staff by putting that risk on a contractor. It is not just the FS, nor other Feds that are doing it. I've seen states, counties, and cities, all doing the same thing.
Private industry is doing the same thing. It's just not open to the public to see. Yet, some see that as bad management when it is a governmental agency.
Employers have liability for forcing employees to do things that can expose them to COVID risks. It's not clear if those work-related COVID claims will be covered by worker's compensation or will become the uncovered liability of the employer. Thus the reason business is asking for clarification, even exemption from such.
I would suggests Congress and state legislatures get off their collective asses and start providing legislation that clarifies the scope of that liability. That would be a huge benefit to employers and employees. Those are the "Gubmit" folks who need to get their bells rung and get some work done. Give employers clarity of how much risk they are responsible for. Regardless of the outcome, until clarification is provided, private industry is handling the risks by hiring contractors for things their employees might otherwise do.
Managing this employee v. employer job-related risk is even more complicated in collectively bargained situations, such as large employers or government employers. Unions aren't going to let employees bear the burden of illness from these employment situations. These collective bargained arrangements limit the risk mitigation options for employers, in this case the Federal Government.
In non-union situations, employees are likely bearing the initial risk, with employers being the backstop to that risk via lawsuits by employees. Some employers are asking for liability waivers from employees. Some employees need work or are at risk of losing health insurance benefits, so they agree to assume the risk that comes with their daily work. Some employees won't sign such. Some employers accept the risk and require employees to do their tasks, knowing they may be held accountable for risk related to employee exposure. Some employers assess the risk and decide to hire outside contractors who will absorb the risk, albeit at a premium. Risk management has costs, whether in private industry or government agencies.
It is interesting that this thread starts because the government is doing what a lot of private industry employers are doing - managing risk. In private industry someone gets a bonus for smart ideas and good risk management (isolating the risk), yet when a governmental agency adopts the same risk management tool they are criticized. And Hunt Talk gets to have a discussion about such through what will likely become a game of Team Red v. Team Blue political football.
There's a reason I am still not requiring my employees to work at the office and why masks and 10' of separation are required if multiple people are in the office - unknown liability to me if they were exposed to a situation without proper precautions. It is why I view a case of Lysol desktop cleaner as a good investment toward my risk mitigation. Why remote collaboration software is a good investment in productivity that mitigates the unknown risk I might be exposed to by cramming either employees in an office building. But if the government exercises them same precautions they are considered at best, inept, at worst, collaborators in some dark conspiracy.
I own my own business. I've built and sold two others. I advise a lot of business clients. I've had to manage risk my entire business owning career. It is not always easy and always comes with cost or disruption. None of my businesses had collective bargained employees, so my options have always been far greater than those with union employees. It is curious to me that we are in such a hyper state of criticism that when good business practices are adopted by government agencies (or non-profit corporations), within the restricted confines of collective bargained arrangements, the action taken gets spun as a new point of attack for all that is wrong in our world.
) because I'm actually commenting it was it a good experience. I'd still prefer to stay in forest service hands but I could see how this would be an option to reduce financial burdens on the Forest Service.
