Slashdot Mirror
Gov't Wants Techies to Play Musical Chairs
dsoltesz writes "Legislation that's been in the works to put a program in place to allow government techies to trade places with private sector counterparts for six to twelve month stints, just passed in the House. The government seems to be on the winning end of the Digital Tech Corps Act, until perhaps, the government IT workers realize the grass really is greener on the corporate side of the fence... If the bill makes it, it will be interesting to see if the concept actually gets implemented."
What happens to the last one standing when the music stops?
I can see it now, a gov't tech switches, and then gets a letter from his boss saying not to come back, they like the other guy better.
If you can't see the value in jet powered ants you should turn in your nerd card. - Dunbal (464142)
Good grief, if they tried that in the UK, no-one would come back. There was a time when the government posts at least had job security, but now they don't even offer that long term.
Get the EULA T-shirt
Yeah, we want them in our IT Shops.
On the other hand, maybe I can get a cushy job with the State this way!
I've known several people who worked for the gov't and from their stories I certainly wouldn't leave my job. I'm curious, what incentive would the gov't give private sector people to come work for them?
abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz
I know there are a lot of computer people who are currently unemployed or underemployed. The upcoming government hiring "spree" may be a small start to what is needed to rejuvenate the tech economy.
this is really just job placement for us techies:)
we get a govt job, work there for a couple of years to get experience(busts out laughing)... then they show us what we COULD be doing, and bam! we get new jobs:)
Looking for Book Reviews? Check out Literary Escapism.
I don't think this is always the case. Perhaps government IT workers chose their employer based on their desire to work *only* 40 hours a week, job security, and a salary paid in American Dollars (instead of NASDAQ shares). For some, those things might be worth the tradeoff of a lower salary than the private sector offers.
cleetus
> grass really is greener on the corporate side
;)
> of the fence
I happen to hold a government job, and after the four years prior to that holding a private sector job, I find it refreshing.
The atmosphere is laid back, there's no constant fears of being bought up or laid off, there's some truly brilliant people to learn things from, the benefits and pay is quite competitive, and when they say 9-5 on a government job, they MEAN 9-5. 7 months here and I haven't worked overtime once. I carry a pager, and it's never been used.. once.
The workload varies between very light to decently busy to keep me interested, but I'm still left with enough time that I can do pretty much anything I want with any piece of hardware/software we own and teach myself something.
They have tuition reimbursement, *frequently* have guest speakers talking about various unix topics, and so on.
Now obviously there's some bureaucratic headaches, but if you want my opinion, the grass is greener on the *governmen* side.
Why would anyone with a high-paying corporate job want to work for a large, inadequately-funded government agency?
I'd go if they gave me some new toys to play with.
I see how the government is benefiting from this. They get more skilled workers with the private sector footing the bill for the salaries. Also, the government has strict non-disclosure agreements for the techies, but what about the information the government will gather from this?
I don't see why any business would choose to participate in this program or why any techie would want to go work for The Man.
I was not touched there by an angel.
probably not a good idea to switch government workers and employees from the private sector, as the working conditions are completely different. govt=relaxed, private=hurried.
The complete change in work environments is enough to reduce productivity. Keep employees where they are happy.
He also noted that under the program, government workers could be paid up to $200 a day while working for private companies.
UP TO?!? Hmm, guess they're just talking about Windows admins, maybe? Setting the ceiling at $52k won't get you the cream of the crop, even in this market.
What's your damage, Heather?
I work for the state and I was a corporate flunky for 18 years. The corporate types won't be able to handle the workload and the state types won't be able to handle the bullshit. Corporate life is one meeting after another followed by terror-coding until the deadline. State life is more work for less money. The corporate types will sit in empty conference rooms wondering where everyone is meeting. The state types will wonder why they are working overtime when they spent the previous month doing nothing.
If you aren't part of the solution, there is good money to be made prolonging the problem
I have a stable job, get paid regularly, and have a decent benefits package. My brother, on the other hand, got shafted on a stock option package, is owed several weeks' pay (with little promise of ever getting it), and works for a company that is on the edge of bankruptcy.
When the author of the headline says "until perhaps, the government IT workers realize the grass really is greener on the corporate side of the fence..." he obviously is very ignorant of the current private sector conditions.
"Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
I was about to post that this was incredibly stupid. But then I realized that having mid level IT bosses rotate about wouldn't actually change much. They'd just go from being clueless in one place to being clueless in another. In fact, it might improve things because they'd have to admit total ignorance (instead of having it but not admitting it.)
But who am I kidding, the pointy haired never admit ignorance. Engineers on the ground probably won't even notice that their new bungee boss isn't from their company.
I have a friend in the Army who is a CIo for a military hospital [he has a basic understanding of technology]. He has been told that he will be working for Microsoft next year!
Kind of makes me sick.....he is going to have PKI crammed down his throat then take it back to the military!
Didn't the government have those folks in court for some reason????? Holy conflict of interest!!!!!
~insert tech sarcasm here~
Why don't they just send the gov techies on some super duper training programmes instead? Dropping them in at the deep end is likely to cause more hassle and unproductivy than it's worth...
Having worked for the govt (Dept. of VA) and the private sector, there really are good sides to each.
(my memory of govt work may be fuzzy, since it's been 6 years since I worked there)
+Govt:
Real retirement, usually after 20 yrs of service
Pay raises based on years of service (plus yearly Cost Of Living Adjustments)
VERY hard to get laid off/fired.
Chance to play with new gear (I was burning CD-ROMs in 1992, also got to use optical cards about a year later)
Lots of holidays, good amount of vacation time.
Good training. Since the code I was writing was going into 170+ hospitals, there was a lot of focus on good coding techniques, peer reviews, etc. It's helped a lot since then.
No petty "is so-and-so making more than me?". The pay schedule covers everyone, so (for example) I knew what my boss made versus what I made.
-Govt:
Paperwork, paperwork, paperwork
In order for the budgets to work, our group pretty much couldn't buy anything from Oct->about August, then a mad buying frenzy from Aug->Oct 1 to use up the budget. The feds work on Oct->Oct fiscal year, and all the money is "use it or lose it". This often results in very strange purchasing habits (like 21" PC monitors in 1992).
Low pay, but promotions are pretty automatic up to a point, then it gets competitive.
Lots of management. As a result, there were reorganizations every 6 months or so. Also new ideas of management, so there was often times more time spent in meetings than actually working (sigh).
I would have stayed with the feds, but I wanted more money, and wanted a reason to move to an area with a bit more high-tech, so I went private-sector.
What is the goal of this bill? To send highly specialized government IT "manatees" into the "shark" pit feeding frenzy that is the public companies IT department? To put ties on techies and send them to government jobs so they can help their country?
Has anyone figured out the impact of training these swapped IT folks. Sure, they already have skilz, but they won't know the environment, the human protocols of who to call when the shtuff hits the fan. Not to mention that they will have to be re-trained when they get back to their old job a year later.
How does this improve the situation?
42 - So long and thanks for all the fish.
If that's the case, I am very glad to be graduating in the next few years. I wonder if all the un/underemployed + new hires will be able to cover that 34 percent? Or will we all just have to do more work?
Another interesting note that I can speak about from personal observation is that many factory workers are approaching retirement now as well. This isn't just an IT problem, all over Baby Boomer people are retiring and there are a whole lot more of them retiring than there are us young folk coming in to take their places.
What?
Who decides what companies participate in this? Why would a private company want to do this? I know I wouldn't want to, unless of course I had no choice.
I have never worked directly for a government agency, but I did work for a government contractor on a short term job for the Veterans Benefits Administration. I can definitely see how this could benefit the agencies and their workers, but the private sector exchangees(?) would not really benefit. Other than appreciating their jobs more.
My experience with government IT people, at least the ones at the VBA were that most were former military folks with no real training or experience. IOW, grunts that had no war to fight, so hey, give them a 2 week crash course in systems and send them to work.
Another thing is this only mentions mid-level executives. These people, especially in government have no technical knowledge whatsoever. They read an article on some technology and think it's great from the hype and demand it be done.
until perhaps, the government IT workers realize the grass really is greener on the corporate side of the fence...
Yeah right, once they are expected to work 12-14 hour days they will be running back to Uncle. I know I did.
Yeah, I might not make as much money at the gov't, but I could give a flying fuck about that. I'd just like it if i could get into a position where if I lost my job it was due to something I did wrong, at least a little.
The real poblem with goverment imployes is a difference on the reward/punishment system. In most Comerical companies people get rewarded for what they did right, In goverment it is what you did wrong gets you punnished. In this mantality the goverment will not be able to keep up with Comerical Enterprise becuase of the risk of doing something new. How many goverment agencies have old Mainframes that are from a company that is out of buisness (say Prime) that are still their main server and they dont want to switch off of them because they are fear of being held responcible switching to a system that may have some problems. And by brinning comerical people into the goverment jobs doing the same thing we will just go to the bosses, "Hey get rid of this junk before I can do something", then no doing anything because the bosses are of goverment mantality. Nothing will happen except comerical IT staff loosing their commessions.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
Well, as a Gov't Techie(tm), I stay because, while I don't make as much cash, my benefits are unreal, I've got near-total job security, and very little stress.
In other words, I get to sit on my big fat lazy ass and do nothing all day at the expense of someone who actually works for a living.
Moderator tip: -9999999999999999, Uncomfortable Fact
I'm strongly considering going into ROTC or getting a scholarship from a branch that doesn't have ROTC at my university. What's being missed here is that it doesn't have to be one or the other. You can do military IT service active duty for four years and then go into the reserves if you want to keep your foot in the door. Thus you can go active duty again if your company goes bankrupt IIRC
Having worked for a dot-com that went bust, I can definitely speak about the long hours, insecurity, bs financial plans, etc... However, looking back, it was one of the best jobs I had because of the level of responsibility I had, and I was working with some very bright and hardworking people. The company didn't survive, but we technologists there accomplished and learned a lot.
I've been working for the gov't for about two months now. Unfortunately, perhaps the only good thing about it is that I am getting paid (though about 50% less than I was). My coworkers here who are in charge think that installing workstations is DIFFICULT, and are completely resistant to any outside (i.e., good) ideas. I've gone from making large financial institutions happy with network and application security to being asked if I have ever changed a password on and win2k workstation before. I can't quit because I need the income, and no better offers are exactly beating down my door. So, like many others, I'll just do what I can to learn to navigate the system, and hope that all of my brain cells don't atrophy before I get a better opportunity. Anyone have other experiences?
I beg to differ with the statement that 'the grass is greener' in the private sector. Granted, we don't get the bleeding edge products, we don't play as much with R&D, and we don't have the informal/laid-back image that many private corps do. What we do have is this: as close to employment-for-life in today's economy, adequate budgets that do not rely on the corp's stock performance from yesterday, benefits packages that shame most private corps, and I can transfer pretty much anywhere we have a site (read: all 50 states and most of the US territories). I don't know if I would want to participate other than just the fun of it/change of pace type of thing -- but I definitely know that I would want to come back to my gov't job....
...we are from the government - we are here to help...
Clocking in at 10+ years with the Feds, I can assure you this is just a bandaid to the problem of information technology management in the government. Why?
1) Many (but not all) government IT staff and IT managers are the last ones left behind. That is, much of the good IT and IT management staff moves on to the private sector, leaving behind the mediocre staff. That mediocre staff is what's left to rise to the top of government management. Why? Pay. Government refuses to compensate public sector IT workers what they're actually worth because (see #2).
2) Personnel management. It is virtually impossible inside the Federal government to get rid of IT staff that underperform. That is why Congress is so reluctant to raise pay rates because there ARE so many underperformers on the government IT payroll. If Congress would reform the civil service system so that a) under and non-performers could be fired, and b) managers could pay their good IT staff comparable private sector salaries, nearly 50% of the government's IT problems would evaporate. Don't believe me? We have one woman who didn't show up for work for 4-5 weeks!, rarely called in, and is still working for us. The government union is holding up her firing.
3) Procurement. If you've ever worked for the government and tried to get something major procured quickly for a fast turnaround project, you know the true meaning of irresistable force meets unmovable object. Procurement for IT managers needs to be streamlined so that they can get the hardware, software, and contract resources they need WHEN they need them.
My two cents. The problem is much deeper than staff rotation.
"We're sorry, but the website you're trying to reach has been disconnected."
I was just about to point out the benefits of working for a government institution, but I get here when there's only 6 +3 comments and see that 4 of them are already saying it! :)
;)
Please moderate me -1 Redundant. Thankyou.
Ps. I work at the JET project in the UK and we've got much cooler toys here than you're going to find in any private company I can think of.
Hands up who works at a site with the world's largest experimental Tokamak fusion reactor?
Sounds like Nice Work, one of David Lodge's British "academic romances." A deconstructionist critic and a businessman visit each other's respective places of work once a week, with unfortunate consequences. Not that the public and private sectors would mess each other up, oh no...
He was a verray parfit gentil knight.
Why not a couple of years National Service in IT for all CS Students?
And as for the alleged benefits, how is lack of accountability ("VERY hard to get laid off/fired.") a good thing? It means the morons you work with will be rewarded for being morons and you're stuck with them. What self respecting techie would want that? Being stuck surrounded by ineptitude is too high a price to pay, no matter what the benefit.
And we won't even talk about 'lots of management' and how rewarding and satisfying *that* makes a job. You're arguing how nice it is to be put out to pasture and not have much asked of you, but dear God I hope most of us don't need that yet. And when we do someday, no need for the feds - there is always SAS Institute.
is competition good, or is duplication of effort bad?
Great!! Just what we need, more frustration. The difference between govt techies and commercial techies is pay, paper work and management. I know about so many govt projects that get canned 2 years and $30 million into it that I could write a small novel. I know about projects where the process isnt fully thought out: "We can automate this, put it on the web! Yeah, and then we have someone take that information, print it out and then re enter it into the mainframe!" They are effectively doubling the workload. If this happened in the corporate world all of the companies would go out of business...
Oh wait, that is what happened to all of the dot bombs. They didn't deliver what was promised or they didn't think through what they really wanted to do. What needs to be traded are the managers. Govt leadership needs to start looking at the bottom line the way corporate America does or America is going to be in bad bad bad shape in the future.
Social Security isn't in trouble because the govt continues to steal from their pot, SSA is in trouble because they blow millions upon millions of dollars on throw away projects. The bad part about this, is that not a single statesman will TOUCH SSA because it means death to future advancement.
Trade the managers out, you will get a bigger bang for your buck.
This is not the sig you are looking for...
i used to contract as a network engineer for a government chartered finacial institution. i ultimately came to the conclusion that their business plan was to provide jobs for the feeble minded, as they exclusively employed brain dead half wits. some of their mouth breathing primate workers verged on requiring retard helmets and drool bibs. so, if you're in your late 30's and want to check out of the world of thinking beings to spend the next 35 years coasting downhill to retirement while you go bald, your ass gets fat, and your intellect atrophies : have i got the place for YOU!
on the other hand, most of the private companies i have worked at were run by borderline sociopaths who wouldn't think twice about slitting your throat and drinking your blood if they thought it would improve profitability.
in short, i think we're all fucked.
rduke
This should be interesting.
:) They're more likely to higher you too if you have experience in the government.. it's a nice fallback plan.
:)
My father worked for the government.. and I got to take a peak at their offices several times..
I have to say, if I was in the IT industry (heh, i am, but not in this case) and had this opportunity..
Why the hell not. In today's unstable IT world, this can be a very good thing.
Once you work for the government for these 12months or whatever it may be.. you're established. Chances are, they'll be asking you to work for them.
Makes sense. The government wants fresh workers working for them. Maybe take a new idea/view towards things. Afterall, shouldn't our government be the ones best up on all the latest and greatest? I'm sure the idea is that they want to snatch the really good admins up, and use em to their benifit, and hopefully they'll stick with the government.
Consider our current status:
We're *sort of* at war with another country. The biggest talks of terrorist attacks are in the Internetworking issues, and that's where everyone predicts will get hit next. Wouldn't you think that the government wants to tighten up security all around..
The Job security might proove to be a good thing for the average IT worker. Especially since once you get established in the government as a worker.. you'll have a rating, which is your level of work in the government. I don't recall exactly how the levels go, but the higher the level.. the more $
yup, I'd take it
------------
Sase
"It's the opposite of that."
Yea... because IT businesses are happy to share.
Give me a break. This is an obvious lie, look, has anyone reading this not ever signed a confidentiality agreement? THIS IS THE TECH INDUSTRY SILLY! What's the real story here?
Is this (on the private sector end) compulsory ?
:)
If the feds say we want you to take our IT guy for a Year ? Do you have to ?
If it is, it is quite simply unconstitutional, a federal employee could be rejected under the soldier quartering provisions, if its no mandatory, what I just said is all moot
But fcol, who would WANT a Federal employee, most are worse than union workers, could this person be "fired" from their position if they slack ?
Working in a private sector company with and significant amount of responsiblity is NOTHING like working govt jobs. Lunch ? Yeah right twice a week if Im luck, my choice, but I have a life after work.
Is it just me or does this sound wrong all the way around, good for only one entity the Govt., Private sector is years ahead in most IT, hell you know how many RBASE programmers the Govt still has on staff..........
Sig went tro...aahemmm.....fishing........
I'm guessing that they haven't figred the fact that this could easily create some big security holes, as well as give businesses advantages.
I'm also pretty sure that the businesses aren't going to be happy with having to bear the cost as the article states they will have to. Especially that it seems like this benefits the gov't better than it benefits private industry....
I don't know... something just doesn't smell right with this bill....
[Something witty and intelligent should have appeared here.]
{Traicovn}
That being the case, shouldn't that mean that the higher-profile (and higher-clearance) folks are the ones to trade places?
so, doesn't that imply that you either have to swap with private-sector folks with clearances, or go through the process of getting clearance for the private-sector folks?
meaning, of course, that this'll create a high-cost, lengthy approval process for (many) of the swaps?
mmm... yeah... You see, we're putting the cover sheets on all TPS reports now before they go out...
Early in the article, it says:
But then in the next paragraph, it says:
So which is it -- are they going to be trading "executives", or "experts"? Because you can't have it both ways ...
The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
Ummm, does anyone else see this as window dressing? I mean, look, we're seeing layoffs in the private sector of loads of experienced techies.
Why do we need a bill to encourage government agencies to hire these people? Certainly if there's a need for tech folks some of these unemployed techies will take a job, any job, in their field.
Sure, not all folks are willing to work for government-sector wages, but this bill doesn't even address that.
Furthermore, with all the overseas outsourcing that U.S. companies are using more and more, the government may be the ONLY employer hiring techies in a lot of communities.
"In other words, I get to sit on my big fat lazy ass and do nothing all day at the expense of someone who actually works for a living."
Um,no. I'm a government engineer (NOT IT staff, most of which are contractors where i work). The pay is quite good (51k to start, promotion 6 months later to next gs grade, 1 year after that for next gs grade for 3 years), you can make 6 figures in 6-10 years from when you start. NOT ALLOWED TO WORK OVERTIME basically for first year, payed overtime after that, only 40 hours a week, 10 federal holidays, 13 days vacation (goes to 20 after 2 years), excellent health benefits, relaxed dress, flextime, work at home, 100% graduate tuition payed for etc
benefits rock. for those of you that don't know, you can get fired without cause during your first year of employment with the government. after that it is difficult to fire you, but it does give a chance to weed out poor workers.
I work for the department of commerce. we do have deadlines and work quotas. the work quotas are managible but you dont have time to slack off all day.
You don't find to many slackers in the enginering world in the government but plenty in adminstrative staff.
When I served as a missionary for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, we actually had something similar going in my mission (France Bordeaux), though of course not for the same length of time.
Missionaries always work two by two. You're usually transferred from one area to another every four to six months, which also means the guy you're working with changes every two months or so. In some areas where missions are geographically small, you might be transferred to the other side of town. In my mission, transfers were usually from one city to another.
However, you usually stay a bit longer with your first missionary companion (your "trainer"). There was a policy in place under our second mission president, where new missionaries would spend a week or two working in a different city, with a different companion, after they'd been with their trainers about a month. Mostly, this was so they could see that the grass *wasn't* greener on the other side of the fence. =) Some guys got impatient when they were assigned a trainer who'd been out for 22 months (out of a two year mission) and was slowing down a little bit. Most of them, by the halfway mark of their missions, were saying things like "I thought I knew so much more than he did... boy was I wrong!"
Maybe the motivation here is similar -- a morale issue?
Christ, the gov't can't even keep their computer networks straight without farking everything up. Like I am going to trade places with one and let them mess up my network. Not to mention if I were to trade place that they the real reason for the trade is to have someone with knowledge and skill fix their problems sine their own guys are dipshits.
http://www.opm.gov/oca/02tables/indexGS.htm
Most jobs get some sort of adjustment (i.e. extra pay on top as well), some jobs get signing bonus's as well.
Bring back the old version of slashdot.
Let me guess... each government techie will come complete with his own, uh, "workstation" that for "national security reasons which we cannot disclose to you" needs to be installed between the T3 mail servers.
Welcome to Trading Cubes, the show where two techies trade jobs for one year to see who can make a bigger mess out of their respective employers! Today we have Rashib Akalam of InterCorp and John Williams of the Department of Defense. Rashib has been struggling lately with his new widget inventory project, and is hoping that John can come in and make sense of the tangled lines of Ada code. John has been having a lot of troubles lately with his missile guidance system, and is hoping that Rashib can prevent another "oopsy".
Will John get his widgets straight? Will Rashib blow up China? Let's trade cubes!
Josh Woodward
Same may also be true if there is any truth to the feeling I get when reading other posts - that the Gov't IT workforce is possibly a bunch of slackers anyhow.
Private industry and Gov't are just going to trade their least successful people!
This is mainly going to benefit (if you can call it that) the Oracle's and Microsoft's of the world, ie., those companies that already have an inside line on government contracts. I fail to see how this would help anyone's situation who is in a company that doesn't list in the Fortune 1000.
Besides, this is a middle-management switchover, not a pit crew kind of thing. The bright people in government (there are a few) won't go because their departments need them and they already get the outside involvment that they need, and the turtles of the Government IT sector won't go because they like it where they are.
This isn't a jobs program - very few of those that are out of work now will enter the program, since they don't have a current corporate job. All this is is a wage slave swap (your plantation workers for my plantation workers).
To celebrate the occasion of my 1000th post, I will post no more forever on Slashdot. Goodbye.
This is so obvious to me. This is a creative (and I must admit, ingenious) way to kickstart the tech sector. Heres how it works:
Corporate IT person gets to go work for government and gets exposed to government spending habits for six months. He leaves, goes back to private sector and keeps on blowing through cash. Tech sector rebounds and everyone (read Wall Street investors) is happy.
Meanwhile, the government IT people get exposed to tight-fisted corporate budgets, where they are held accountable for ROI. They come back to the government with the "make-do" mentality and help the government stay in budget (for once).
Do you want to remove linux?
The government has great benefit plans like tax breaks, educational reimbursement, medical and life insurance, not to mention that you get every national holiday off.
They basically just want to train spys to steal your work.
How do we do technology X? Well lets train a spy intern to work with them. His mission is to download the technlogy onto a CD within 6 months.
God spoke to me
Maybe this is just sloppy writing, but in the first paragraph, the author says this bill "would create an exchange of mid-level information technology executives between the public and private sectors." Everywhere else in the article, he says IT workers, tech workers, etc.
I'm curious now if this bill is meant to swap workers or just managers?
If all you have are silver bullets, everything looks like a werewolf.
This is something that I am throwing in there, I know that money seems to be the biggest reason why techies woulld work one place or another or more specifically in the private sector instead of the goverment, but what ever happened to working to benefit the country, the term I think is "a sense of patriotism".
I am guilty of this also so don't think that I don't feel guilty about it. But it seems that our generation (post WW2 and post Vietnam) only talks about government when it's time to blame it but never to embrace it and to make it better.
I guess what I am trying to say is that techies whould not be thinking only about the grass being greener in the corporate world but that they can be in a position (working for the goverment) to try to make a difference.
If the government salary scales were competitive, they wouldn't be seeking to borrow workers from private industry. This problem of non-competitiveness will only get worse. At the end of the day, the private companies will pick and choose which government employees to keep and which of their own workers to take back from government service. In the end, smart people will get real money working for private industry and the government will get the rest.
Having worked in government, I will take this opportunity to challenge the theory that government employment == job security. During my years in state government, there were several proposed departmental mergers and outsourcing proposals that were systematically shot down like incoming missiles. While the odds of a layoff may have been low, the odds of having my career derailed were high enough to get my attention.
Myth number two is that government service means a "normal" work week and a country club atmosphere. Far from it. Nowhere else on earth is the staffing level quite so out of line with management's idea of the proper level of service. The easy hours are for the people who cheerfully accept the miniscule salaries. To me, the best government career path is to latch onto some mission-critical function, work crazy hours, and allow the early retirements and turnover to create promotion opportunities. I did this for 13 years (5 promotions) -- it was fun and eventually profitable.
By the way, does the government intend to include HB-1's in the mix? Now that would make it interesting.
Before the crash of the Dot Coms, startup-companies were the ones paying the great salaries and thus forcing the government to reluctantly match them. Now, with all the new government contracts stemming from the war on terrorism, the reverse has occurred.
Everybody gets a break every four hours - it's a matter of federal law. The reson the day ends at 5.30 is because they don't pay you for your lunch break.
Did anyone actually read the article?
"The House overcame security concerns on Wednesday to pass a bill that would create an exchange of mid-level information technology EXECUTIVES between the public and private sectors."
Heh let em trade the executives. They don't do the actual work anyhow.
I'm not a govt employee, but an IT Contractor working on a govt account. I've been here two years. In those two years, I've gotten the opportunity to work with technologies that I may or may not have seen in the private sector. Am I going to get rich? No. Do I get paid fairly? Yes, very much so. I'm also reasonably layoff-proof because my position is mandated by the contract we work on. I rarely work more than 40hrs a week. My work is rewarding because I know it's being used and taken seriously (it's not work done at the whim of a idiot client or clueless PHB).
There are negatives. The govt has a serious case of "hurry up and wait" (they want your part done "now" so they can shelve it for 2 months while they decide on the next move). They also fail to realize that companies must make a profit (they will ask for discounts until something is free).
Overall, my skills and career have benefited from working with the govt. I also have more time for a life.
Chris
WHO are they kidding?
I slobbered after MANY gov't jobs that I was qualified for and always got shot down at the
"security clearance" stage. The catch22 of
that situation vis-a-vis the govt has totally
soured me on working for them.
If they blow me nicely I'll think about it.
If I get a comparative salary and government benefits, sure why not. I think it would be cool to work for the government.
Bonuses:
Negatives:
I read the internet for the articles.
Government engineer? What products does the Commerce Dept. produce? My initial assessment stands.
BTW, what college (even engineering majors) allow students to graduate when they can't even spell "payed?" The correct spelling is "paid."
Explain to me what part is more refreshing: The fact that nobody expects much of you, or the fact that nobody is willing to pay much for your 'non-work' environment?
"The atmosphere is laid back, there's no constant fears of being bought up or laid off ... "
This is great to know. We've gotten so used to citizen funded projects that are STUPID, you actually have no fear of NOT working hard. (Great work ethic, by the way ... I really want my kids to grow up admiring you).
" ... there's some truly brilliant people to learn things from ... ",
I've got to disagree with you there. So far, I've never met someone that works for the government that falls into the 'brilliant' category. (Where brilliant = very large quantities of intelligence bestowed upon the masses).
" ... the benefits and pay is quite competitive, and when they say 9-5 on a government job, they MEAN 9-5. 7 months here and I haven't worked overtime once. I carry a pager, and it's never been used.. once."
Great. I'm glad to know that you'll be leaving before the work is done, and not using equipment that I have (unknowingly) paid for. It's nice to know that even though I've paid for it, if I can't use it -- nobody will.
"The workload varies between very light to decently busy to keep me interested, but I'm still left with enough time that I can do pretty much anything I want with any piece of hardware/software we own and teach myself something."
Again, great to know that I'm actually PAYING you to NOT do your job. Explain to me why you're not in fear of losing your job, even though you just explained that you're not actually doing your job? Oh, that's right -- I'm paying for it.
As a federal government employee, of course you have job stability. You have the federal government taxing the American people to the tune of 2 trillion dollars a year so that you don't have to worry about losing your job (or actually having to work hard).
... employees to work for private companies for six to 12 months, with a one-year option. ...
Hmmm, 6 to 12 Months, with a One Year Option - can someone remind me just how many months there are in a year?? Does the Government work off the Lunar calendar or something....?
Disclaimer: I meant what I thought, not what I wrote! What? You can't read my Mind? Oh dear!
Only Congress could come up with something this absurd.
How do these bozos expect to induce private sector IT managers to do time in the government? Voluntarily? Hahahaha, that's funny. Thanks, but I'd rather spend my time breaking rocks in a Texan chain gang.
So we're supposed to put our careers on hold for the glory of dealing with totally unmotivated lifers we can't fire ( or lay off ), reams of red tape, hellish purchasing and budgeting, and manglement coworkers who whine and moan bloody murder if someone even suggests they put in a real professionals work week?
And how does congress expect to induce corps, other than the obvious conflict of interest kinds, to take on these same slacker manglers from the government? By force mejure?
Congress: You can keep your lifer 40-hour week working slacker managers, thank you very much. In fact, please increase your hiring! Keep these unproductive malcontents off our payrolls and let us focus on the real business of America: business.
Aghast,
A DC-metro area private sector IT manager
Quite honestly I understand what they are trying to do, keep goverment tech employees up to par with the rest of the industry since they are generally at least a couple steps behind the curl.
Problem #1: most goverment employees are not current in their skill sets, and are generally sub par in their abilities (hence the reason they work for the government, this isn't meant to apply to all government employees or be a flame, it is mearly a observation from my personal experiance). Suffice to say as a commercial company why would I want to hire (even temporarly) a sub par person with outdated knowledge who I am expected to train and then get rid of?
Problem #2: The goverment employees who are knowledgeable will probably not want to stay in their government jobs once they see what it is like to get paid more, work on new equipment and not deal with government buercarcy? Any decent people will probably not want to stay with the government for long after seeing greener pastures
Solution: Maybe the government should restructure itself, clean out the human refuse and bueracrcy and send people to training and become compeative, pay competive salaries, user modern equipment etc etc, rather then expect industry to train its people.
.Hmmm. Your ideas are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.
the government IT workers realize the grass really is greener on the corporate side of the fence
Grass is probably greener on the corporate side for workers. But don't forget that a lot of government employees don't actually do any work. For them, the grass is definitely greener with the government - any company that planned to stay in business would fire them.
I spent six months of my life working as a contractor at a postal data center in California (right across the street from Conectix of all places).
:)
:)
It was interesting. I do not plan to work on-site at a government site ever again (besides, I would rather not have to piss in a cup again).
The software developers at this facility had very little interest in actually developing and completing software, which was a good thing, since most of them could not program their way out of a paper bag.
The developers were unionized and advancement was based almost solely on seniority, not ability. The people who were competent would quit to get 30-50% more money in the private sector.
The people who stuck around and actually got these promotions into positions of power were the ones who wouldn't stand a chance of survival in the "real world" and had about as much software development knowledge as my Rottweiler does from watching me every day.
As far as the hours were concerned, that was one of the good points (from the worker's perspective). I was a contractor and was paid for every moment on their campus, so it didn't really matter to me. Under rules instituted in the union's bargaining agreement virtually nobody was allowed to be in the building after 6 PM (there were some exceptions for a few mission critical staff).
Personally, I found being escorted out by security at 6 PM to be almost degrading. Other than that they were six-to-six flex time (work any eight hours between 6 AM and 6 PM). I took advantage of that to work 6->2:30 (with a 30 minute "terminal lunch"
I wouldn't do it again, at least not on-site. At that time (early '95) the bay area market for SQL/VB/C++/ORACLE/NETWARE people was fairly good. Most of the contractors they got in there were people who had just moved to the area (such as myself). They worked until something better came up in the private sector, a lot of them didn't even finish out their six month contract.
I left after five months. When the start of my fifth month rolled around I started sending out Resume's. Within a few days I had an offer on the table for 80% more money so I took it and never looked back.
Irony of all ironies, I am working on a government project right now. This time around I am telecommuting for a firm that actually holds the contract (with a large agency in one of the more populated counties in California). I have never met the end client and hope it stays that way; I just sit here in my cave writing code, just as it should be
Oh, and incidentally. We used private delivery services all the time due to the unreliability of sending stuff from data center to data center. Anything that we did send on the postal trucks would always be marked in such a way as to not indicate that it was computer equipment. Workers would often damage or steal the equipment because stealing postal property was treated as an employment issue and the union would fight to death for these thieves. On the other hand stealing or damaging packages destined for the private sector was turned over for criminal proceedings.
I don't know where these other "Gov't" employees work, but I work for DFAS (Defense Finance and Accounting Service). On average I work 10 hours of overtime per week, I am on call 24/7 and we go through "seat management" (down sizing). We don't have a guaranteed job, like some of these people have stated. I work on W2K, Exchange 2000, Novell, Oracle, Cisco equipment as well as dealing with inside and outside plant. I feel challenged on a regular basis and have no idea where these people get their info from. If there are other Gov't agencies being run with employees they can't fire they need to read the regulations, it's not that hard to get rid of the worthless. I've worked in the private sector (nation wide corp. and as a consultant/contractor). I just found that if I wanted to travel and see other countries it is better to work for the Gov't. I currently reside in Tokyo, Japan and in a year or so I will head on over to Germany. So think what you will about Gov't employees, but until you have walked a mile in both sets of shoes you really are just guessing about the facts, aren't you.
(* But after a while, even the "moderately intelligent" can get complacent. *)
This is why I don't recommend somebody go into the gov early in their career. It will "ruin" them to non-gov work. It is better for your later years when you start to think about stability, retirement, and avoiding burnout.
However, the flip side is that many gov institutions (at least local gov) indirectly descriminate against the more experienced. This is because the unions want to protect the existing employees from outside competition. Thus, it is relatively easy for an intern to "get into the loop", but harder for older, more experienced people.
They will argue that the older people can take the entry-level jobs if they want to "get in", but in reality, few are going to hire somebody who is way overqualified. Plus, most don't want the low pay that comes with it.
I am surprised that there has not be a huge class-action age-bias lawsuit about this. Every other event generates lawsuits. Seems like a prime, legitamate target if I ever saw one.
Table-ized A.I.
The US Military has been doing this for quite a while- it's called "education with industry". It's for junior level officers and should result in their coming back to the military with a deeper appreciation for the difficulty of implementing systems, some improved though system-specific technical skills and some industry contacts.
The companies get more sympathetic government counterparts, some more or less free though less productive help and of course brownie points for helping out Uncle Sam. It's not just the traditional defense companies that receive these EWI slots though- they are in many unexpected companies and specialties. Now that our labs are emasculated it's about the only way young officers can get any hands on experience with new technology.
It's probably of no real, quantifiable benefit to either party but it sounds good and the people who've gone through it seem to have enjoyed the experience.
Despite this being rambling and sometimes going off at a tangent it does highlight some interesting points on human behaviour and makes some disturbingly shrewd comparisons. I am curious as to why it scored -1.
You dare to hit ME! JOHNNY PASCAULLY!!