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."
It may not be true, but the wording they've chosen is saying that the $55/hr includes the cost of benefits -- not that the cost is $55/hr plus benefits. So you're comparing hourly cost including benefits to hourly cost including benefits.
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."
That's only one of the three assertions in your post that are factually incorrect. Except for those three false items, you're right about everything else.
It's actually the pensions that are causing so much trouble for the states. And the reason that the pensions are so high is because starting about 30 years ago, management thought they could safely screw workers by offering them high pension benefits instead of higher pay. Then, when people starting living longer than the actuarials were predicting at the time, management realized its error and started demonizing the very contracts that they pushed.
In every single case that I've looked at, the unions were actually looking for higher pay and went with the pension benefits when management stonewalled. If management hadn't tried to screw workers to begin with, this wouldn't have been such a problem.
This goes for public employee unions as well as automobile companies and other large employers.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Yea, like those socialist countries don't have some serious problems..... Socialism sucks
You know, in the 21st century, using supposedly negative terms like "socialist" are pretty tired. The USA is one of the most 'socialist' nation-states going. The USA spends more per-capita on health care than bogey-man "socialist" countries like Canada and spends billions (trillions?) buying banks, car manufacturers, you name it.
In the USA, the government sticks its nose into who can marry who, spends billions of your dollars saying what drugs people can use, asks me at age 43 for ID when I try to buy a bud lite, posts stupid useless warnings on foods & menus, has ridiculous zero-tolerance policies at schools, goes crazy if Janet Jackson's tit 'slips out'... (think of the children!) and on and on. You won't find many more socialist nanny-states in the world than the USA...