The FSEU Director of Human Resources states several reasons why the State should not be able to privatize the Department of Transportation Information Systems management department. After analyzing this passage and applying critical thinking, I am able to breakdown the eleven steps used in the book “Asking the Right Questions. To an average thinker, there is ample information within this document that could be used to agree with Ms. Glenn’s’ point of view. To a critical thinker, the information and reasoning must be analyzed as to whether it is considered valid enough to call a “reason”. This document is a perceptive issue because it discusses whether or not something should be opposed, and if this matter is considered right or wrong. Just because this document is a perceptive issue, it does not mean that there are not descriptive assumptions associated. The first step in deciding to agree with the author’s argument is to locate the issue and then find the conclusion.
The conclusion in any article, essay or document, is the premise to any other information provided. All facts and reasoning should be based off the conclusion. In finding the conclusion a critical thinker must ask what is Ms. Barbara Glenn trying to prove and what is the main issue? She stated “We must oppose to this act now or we do a disservice to our members and will regret it later.” ( ) this statement helps me narrow down the main issue which leads me to the conclusion. Ms. Glenn is stating a demand which should draw attention to the reader. The issue of this document is if privatizing the Department of Transportation Information Systems Function should be allowed. The conclusion is no, privatizing the DoT’s Information system is not fair, it should not be allowed, the FSEU local No. 343 should challenge the governor’s proposed privatization of the DoT information system management practice. Now that the conclusion has been established I will use it to focus on reasoning. “Reasons are beliefs, evidence, metaphors, analogies, and other statements offered to support or justify conclusions. Ms. Glenn stated several reasons of why privatizing the DoT information system management function should be opposed. “Foreign agents will bid for this privatization contract and accept wages lower than our members receive, this will set the stage for State Government to decrease employee wages in the future.” Foreign agents are direct competition. If foreign agents lower their wages then there is a possibility that our Government will have to lower wages as well. This is a reason that directly supports the conclusion because lowering wages will not benefit the employees in a positive manner. “By dispersing our members to other departments, the Governor is just trying to demonstrate that management controls the union.” This statement is a reason that does not directly support the conclusion. Although this statement is a reason, it would more so support a conclusion based on the management being in control of unions. Since the conclusion of this document is about privatizing the DoT’s I.S. function, supporting facts of this conclusion will be needed. “Employees will be forced to learn new jobs, or “relearn” their jobs in a new environment. This is an attempt to drive out experienced older workers who won’t want to learn new jobs at this stage of their lives.” This is a reason supporting the conclusion. Older employees who will be forced to learn new jobs, or “relearn,” their jobs will not be motivated. This is a discouragement for older employees and seems to be a way of pushing them out. “Management uses a promise for rehire to gain union support for outsourcing and 80% of the time they don’t keep their promise.” Although this is a direct quote from Ms. Barbara Glenn’s brother-in-law, it still supports the conclusion. This seems to be misleading and unfair for the employees.
“According to Wikipedia, privatization is a potential violation of the Pendleton Act of 1883 which curbed arbitrary and capricious acts of management and established that civil servants will be hired and retained on the basis of merit.” Privatization being a violation of the Pendleton Act is a direct reason of why this act should be opposed. “And it doesn’t save money, according to a recent article posted in a prestigious Wall Street Newspaper, the additional cost of over-seeing third-party contractors adds 20% of hidden cost to the price of each Government outsourcing contract.” This statement is proving that if privatization is approved then it would not save money, it would actually be more expensive, which proves that this should be opposed. “Customer service outsourced overseas knows, if the contract goes to a foreign country, we will have to deal with communication and culture clash problems as well, which will add further costs.” This is a good reason to oppose because communication issues can become expensive if translators need to be hired.
There are several other reasons that Ms. Glenn uses to support her conclusion. These additional reasons are ambiguous. These statements have multiple meaning and are not clear. When looking for reasons I ask myself the question why, and I looked to see if the reason is supported by additional information. If the reason is not supported then it is considered ambiguous. “Outsourcing is the cause of the current recession.” How is outsourcing the cause of the current recession? What information is provided to prove that this is true? “Privatization of public sector responsibilities is a bad idea, not just for the union, but for the citizens of our state.”
This is a very broad statement. Although there are several reasons supporting why privatizing public sectors is bad for the union there is not concise information supporting why privatization is a “bad idea” for citizens, how so?“The state will lose control of information systems and data will be compromised. How will the state lose control? There are several different ways the state could “lose control,” which is not thoroughly explained. “This proposed privatization is an assault on our union” The word “assault” can mean several things. Barbara Glenn is the Director of Human Resources for the Federal State Employee Union. The consequences of this matter are extremely personal to her, and may affect her position as well as other devoted employees. Competition vs. cooperation is the type of value conflict used in this document. Ms. Barbara Glenn does not support privatizing the DoT’s Information Systems function; therefore cooperation is valued over competition. Ms. Glenn is trying to get her fellow co-workers and any others to petition this act. She is stating that loyalty is more important than competing. It seems as if the Governor values competition over cooperation. The Governor seems to be more interested in gaining profits then having the cooperation and satisfaction of his employees. By taking a role opposite of the author, for instance the Governor will allow me to identify any other value assumptions. The Governor’s values should not be intended to harm the company in any way. I am sure he thinks allowing the I.S. function to be privatized is the best thing. A key descriptive assumption in this document is when Ms. Glenn discusses if we allow this sector to be privatized then all the other sectors will eventually become privatized as well. There is a possibility that other functions may want to privatize but to say “all,” is a broad assumption. There is no evidence that proves that this will occur. “Most likely,” is a key term in not being sure of, or assuming. Ms. Glenn stated, “Most likely it will mean that our members will be out on the street with no jobs at all.” There is no absolute truth to this statement so it is a descriptive assumption as well. “Therefore, if you rebut the governor’s proposal, you will win the admiration of all our members. “ Does Ms. Glenn know that all members are against privatizing this act? She did not state in this document that all members are opposed to this, so therefore this is perceived to be an assumption. “If we give in to this proposal, the government will also not respect our power in future negotiations of any kind. We have to be strong and show no weakness. This statement can also be viewed as an assumption. Who is to say that the Government will not agree with them, or they may disagree but respect them for fighting for what they believed in. Descriptive Assumption assists in finding fallacies throughout this document. Like descriptive assumptions, fallacies are used to persuade the reader into agreeing with the writer’s conclusion; fallacies are incorrect assumption. Ms. Glenn stated in her document, “The Governor is a bully,” this is an Ad Homien fallacy. An attack was used to try and persuade the reader to believe her argument. Ad Homien fallacies are usually signs to reject the conclusion. Ms. Glen also used a Red Herring fallacy. She changed the topic by discussing how allowing the state to privatize the DoTs Information System is just a way of showing how management controls the union. To many it could seem as if Ms. Glenn has a personal issue with the Governor, and is using her personal opinions to persuade the readers to oppose.
In order to determine if there is dependability, I will use six questions. Is there proof? Where’s the evidence? Are you sure that’s true? How do you know it’s true, why do you believe that, and can you prove it? Ms. Glenn states, “This proposed privatization is an assault on our union.” When seeing this statement and reading the rest of the document I have to ask myself all of the above questions. There is no supportive evidence proving that the proposed privatization is an “assault.” Nor is there proof, evidence or truth in saying “It is anti-American.” There are several other statement within this document where evidence is not provided such as
“by dispersing our members to other departments, the governor is just trying to demonstrate that management controls the union. The governor is a bully. If we allow this to happen in the Department of Transportation, it will happen in all departments everywhere. The stage will be set. We must oppose this action now, or we do a disservice to our members and will regret it later.” However there are some statements that provide proof and evidence. “According to the online website Wikipedia, privatization is a potential violation of the Pendleton Act of 1883 which curbed arbitrary and capricious acts of management and established that civil servants will be hired and retained on the basis of merit. This statement is direct proof that supports the conclusion. Should privatization of the Dot’s information system be allowed? No because there the Pendleton Act of 1983 states this as a violation. The author has also backed up her information by appealing to authority. She uses a Wall Street journal to back up her argument. “According to a recent article posted in a prestigious Wall Street newspaper, the additional cost of overseeing third-party contractors adds 20% of hidden costs to the price of each government outsourcing contract.” This appeal is from a prestigious newspaper, and therefore should be taken serious. Personal Observation, Research Studies, case examples and analogies is the ninth step in critically analyzing an argument. After carefully reviewing this document there was not personal observation that stood out. Ms. Glenn does us research evidence, the quote stated earlier from the Wall Street newspaper. Ms. Glenn then tries to use another research study which was confusing. She stated that her brother in law found that, “management uses a promise for rehire to gain union support for outsourcing and 80% of the time they don’t keep their promise.” Where did her brother in law get this information? How do we know if it is true? That is when a critical thinker is suppose to research to see if this information was just added to persuade the reader into believing their argument. Of course this information would not be posted on the web as factual because it is negative information therefore I did not use this as research study information. There were no case studies or analogies used in this document to support the author’s argument. Are there any plausible causes when reading this document? After assessing this document there could possibly be other reasons to support Ms. Glenn’s argument. I am sure she stated the reasons that were most important to her and her value. In searching for plausible causes I really had to identify if this article is based on Ms. Glenn’s personal issue, and her favored causes. In trying to detect rival causes I asked myself several questions. Could the employees in this department be insubordinate? Are employees not compliant with their roles, is their job completion issues. Is the Governor just trying to find solutions to improve the company as a whole? None of this information is discussed. Is Ms. Glenn just worried about losing her job that she has had for several years? These are all questions I had to ask myself to see if there is any other possible explanation or could there be any other outcome. Casual Oversimplification was used by Ms. Glenn calling the Governor a bully, and saying the privatizing this function is “anti-American.” Ms. Glenn used generalizations like these quotes above. These quotes not only were not only misleading to the reader but the Governor being a bully is not the cause of the Information Systems function being privatized. Some of the information can be deceptive therefore it is critical to pay attention to anything that can be misleading or does not have factual information to support the argument made. There was one statement made in this document that seemed to be deceptive. “According to him, management uses a promise for rehire to gain union support for outsourcing and 80% of the time they don’t keep their promise.” This quote was provided by Ms. Glenn’s brother in law. It does not state where he got his actual information from so how would the reader know if this is actually factual? I tried to look up any information pertaining to this matter and nothing came up proving this statement. Statistical information that would have been helpful would be if she stated info about how many companies suffered from privatizing against companies who had a positive outcome. Statistical information about former employees being rehired would have been helpful as well. Ms. Glenn also states that if you oppose this privatization then “all” member will vote for you, then she goes into how she had lunch with a “few” members the other day and that everyone agreed to this. By saying “all” leads the reader to think that she has already gotten proof that everyone is opposed to this privatization where in the article there is no proof stating that everyone is opposed. In searching to see if information was omitted I must ask myself several questions. Did the author want to keep the document short to keep readers attention? was there a lack of knowledge on her part?, or was she omitting information simply to be deceiving? Since Ms. Glenn is trying to persuade readers into agreeing with her argument I am sure she left out any positive effects of privatizing this function. Several statements are made throughout this document but many fail to have supportive information to make me agree with what she is saying. It is important how you start a document as well. Ms. Glenn makes strong remarks and allegations at the beginning of this document but does not use examples as to why these statements are believable. If you call someone a bully it is important to make the reader believe so, not just by saying his intention is to show the managers control the union, how so? After thoroughly reading this article I looked over several statements that could possibly be conclusions. The great thing about this document is that the discussion, and the conclusion are listed before they are discussed, which makes it easier for readers to identify. There are several statements that could possibly be considered the conclusion. A lot of her statements are very general and had no supportive evidence. The conclusion had supportive information, and was not dichotomous. Although you could say yes or no to the conclusion after reading the supportive facts, there was also information that supported why one should agree. In examining whether or not there were multiple conclusions, I asked myself why? For instance I could not choose that privatization should not be approved because there is a possibility that all the former employees would end up jobless, what information within this document supports that statement. Before I read “Asking the Right Questions, by Browne, and Kelley I would have read this document and assumed that all of the key information was provided in order to agree with the author’s conclusion. Using the eleven steps to become a critical thinker definitely changed my thinking. It allowed me to break down this document, eliminate erroneous information and most importantly it assisted me in finding the conclusion, which is the most important step in this process. Without the conclusion, the reasoning or evidence in this article would be irrelevant.

* Type the conclusion * Review * Add proper citation information * Reference page * Front Page