Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Custodial Outsourcing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Union representative urges Carver County not to outsource custodial jobs
Summary
Max Forrester, an AFSCME Council 65 labor representative, told the Carver County Board public comments that eliminating vacant custodian positions and outsourcing custodial services would harm service quality, security and the local economy. He urged the board to avoid workforce reductions as a budget strategy.
Max Forrester, labor representative for AFSCME Council 65, told the Carver County Board during public comment that the county’s recommendation to eliminate vacant custodian positions would amount to partial outsourcing of custodial services and harm county operations and workers.
“For a county to replace a good county job with a minimum-wage employee willing to work for next-to-zero benefits is short‑sighted,” Forrester said, summarizing a survey of county custodial staff. He warned that subcontracted workers often have higher turnover, weaker institutional knowledge and inconsistent access to required security clearances for sensitive areas such as courts and the jail.
Forrester laid out four principal concerns his survey respondents raised: reduced quality and commitment, weaker security and training, high turnover among subcontracted staff and negative local economic impact when contractors do not hire locally. He also said the union would meet this week to discuss effects on remaining custodial staff and asked the board not to approve any measures that would cut those jobs.
The board did not take formal action on outsourcing during the public comment period; staff told commissioners the proposed changes to custodian positions were under review and that any contract would be returned to the board for later deliberation. Administrator-level presentation later in the meeting noted custodial positions listed among vacant roles proposed for elimination and said a proposed contract would be brought back to the board.
The exchange framed the staffing item as an operational decision the board will revisit in a future contract-approval packet rather than an immediate vote.
