Slashdot Mirror


NY To Replace IT Vendors With State Workers

dcblogs writes "New York state plans to replace as many as 500 IT contract workers with a new type of temporary state worker. The state estimates it can save $25,000 annually for each contracting position that is in-sourced. This is the result of a new law creating 'term appointments,' which strip away some hiring and firing rules that apply to permanent state workers. These term appointment workers are employed 'at will.' Term appointments can be up to five years and workers get state benefits. Proponents of this change said a state IT worker might earn an average of $55 an hour, including benefits, while the state pays its contractors an average of $128 an hour for workers in similar jobs."

6 of 178 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Anti-Union by geekoid · · Score: 4, Insightful

    yes, because instead of creating an environment of 40 hours being the norm, lets make everyone work 70 hours a week. That's a win~

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  2. Substandard help ahoy! by assemblerex · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If they hire IT workers who match the quality of most NY state workers, they will wind up hiring contractors in the end anyways...

  3. Re:Anti-Union by JDAustin · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The fact remains that unionized government employees are paid 10-20% higher then private sector counterparts and have 4x the benefits package (about $9500 annual in the private sector vs 38k in a fed gov job). Many of the states who are bankrupt are so due to escalated costs of state employees.

  4. Re:Wow by natehoy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    How so?

    If they were taking full-timers and laying them off then rehiring them as contractors (with no benefits) that's clearly illegal - it's a process called "conversion".

    But they are simply saying that jobs that are currently filled with a contractor will be filled with full-time "at will" employees now. Contractors are already "at will", and the contracting firm is (in theory) paid a lot extra because they can rapidly add or subtract resources as needed. You pay extra for the flexibility. Flexibility which, in this case, the state doesn't need as much.

    Now the state is saying "we have people that we know we'll need for 5 years or so. We can't hire them full-time under existing State terms because we cannot eliminate their positions when we don't need them any more, but it's terribly expensive to hire them for 5 years at about triple what they actually get paid." That $128/hr contractor MIGHT be getting paid $45 an hour with benefits. Their firm takes the rest.

    I can't even see the State union getting upset about this, these employees will likely be Union members, with the only exception being they have a fixed term of employment rather than "employed until retired or dead" like most State jobs. But it beats working for the contracting firm.

    About the only people I can see getting upset about this is, well, contracting houses.

    But the State is large enough that it really doesn't need the assistance finding talent, and the employment terms are long enough that people will still jump at the chance. I mean, c'mon, how many people in "real world" IT last more than 5 years in a given job? My record, after over 20 years in the field, is 4 years 10 months, ending in a layoff. I'm really hoping my current employer is "the one I retire from", because they are really nice folks to work for. But lifetime employment is nearly unheard of nowadays.

    --
    "This post contains words, known to the State of California to cause thought. Wash brain thoroughly after reading."
  5. Same old story by surfcow · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Management: IT is expensive - we can save money by OUTsourcing.
    5 years later...

    Management: IT is expensive - we can save money by INsourcing.
    5 years later, Go to line 1 ...

    Those of us who've been in IT for a while have seen this cycle through a few times. After much reflection, I conclude that there is no such thing as competent management.

  6. Re:Anti-Union by hazem · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Ever worked for a consulting company?

    If you go in and see that a company has a centralized structure, you try to sell them on decentralization. If they're decentralized, you try to sell them on centralization. If they out-source, preach in-sourcing; if they in-source, preach out-sourcing.

    Oh, and in both cases, we have just the products and the consulting teams to help you achieve a synergistic paradigm shift to streamline your enterprise and facilitate a win-win situation with end-to-end empowerment for your core team.