We already have problems with corrupt insiders finding ways to hire their personal connections and business allies into contracts and government contracts. Why would anyone want to go backwards to a system that was more corrupt other than corrupt bad actors?
Wagner-Peyser Act Employment Service Staffing – A Proposed Rule by the Employment and Training Administration on 07/01/2025 Comments must be received on or before September 2, 2025. SUMMARY: The Department of Labor (Department) is proposing to remove the requirement that States use State merit staff to provide Wagner-Peyser Employment Service (ES) services. This deregulatory action would allow States to use the staffing model that provides the required services with the most efficient model for their State. This summary can be found at www.regulations.gov by searching by the RIN: 1205-AC22.
Privatization of government services is never more efficient by the simple fact that private contractors have to make a profit and that profit is drained away from the the people paying for and receiving those services. .
My public comment:
Nobody genuine and honest likes corruption, and deregulating in job services will lead to more corruption, not less. Without stringent guardrails, privatizing public services will lead to harm where public services are supposed to help. It will lead to more fraud, not less. The Wagner-Peyser Act was made to stop fraud and repugnant favouritism. There is no evidence to support the claim that deregulation will be a cost savings, that’s for sure. Congress can intervene again like they have in the past to block nonsensical business crony grab privatization attempts that are abhorrent to constituents and cause people to show up at congressional offices angry and demanding help with dealing with corrupted government offices. And 25 years ago a court decision upheld merit-based staffing Wagner-Peyser Act, so just revisiting this and re-litigating this issue is waste of government resources. It’s pointless for the Department of Labor to push forward with this with no evidence of the purported motivation, and with ample evidence that it will actually create inefficiencies. It seems more like the actual goal here could possibly be to grease the wheels for cronies to get contracts where for example, counterproductive compensation structures are all too likely to reward easy low hanging fruit over helping disabled Americans who are “harder to place” into jobs. I say no to this deregulatory action.
Please feel free to use my talking points, but it’s best if you put it in your own words and voice when submitting a comment rather than copying previous comments verbatim in total.