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."
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 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
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.
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.
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.
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."
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.
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.
I currently work for the private sector, and while I concur that this sector is more cutthroat, and likely to fire me, after the bubble burst (and a un-connected disillusionment) I've not worked extra hours.
My bosses require me to be in for 8 hours (+1hr lunch) so I stay for 8 hours. If anyone complains, I say that the company seems to be paying me for being here 8 hours, not doing my work. Bye.
Granted, I've been getting my work done. Still nobody's ever been able to argue, because they know I'm right. People should get paid for doing work, not for wasting their time.