Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

White House Wants To Borrow Tech Workers From Google and Amazon, Says Report (cnet.com)

Posted by BeauHD on from the tours-of-duty dept.

"According to CNET, TechCrunch and others, the Trump administration reportedly wants tech giants to make it easy for workers to take leaves of absence to help the government modernize," writes Slashdot reader kimanaw. From a report: White House officials on Monday planned to meet with tech giants including Google, Microsoft, Amazon and IBM, to discuss ways to make it easier for employees to take leaves of absence to help with government projects, according to The Washington Post. The administration reportedly hopes tech industry workers will be able to help modernize state and federal agencies and tackle challenges such as upgrading the veterans' health care system. Attracting tech talent may prove difficult for the Trump administration, which hasn't always seen eye to eye with Silicon Valley on issues such as the president's ban on travel from predominantly Muslim countries. However, White House officials believe tech workers are willing to "put politics aside." "This event on Monday is not just about our efforts, it's about our successor, and their successor after that," said one unnamed official, according to the Post. The White House didn't respond to a request for comment.

104 of 208 comments (clear)

  1. Shouldn't be a problem by olsmeister · · Score: 2

    Since Silicon Valley uses so many contract workers, it shouldn't be a big deal to just poach a few away for a year or two, right?

    1. Re: Shouldn't be a problem by schure · · Score: 1

      I actually thought the White House wanted to create jobs..

    2. Re:Shouldn't be a problem by tmshort · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Trump doesn't pay contractors, though...

    3. Re:Shouldn't be a problem by Sir_Eptishous · · Score: 1, Funny

      Trump doesn't pay contractors, though...

      In Soviet Trumpistan, contractors pay you!

      --
      We play the game with the bravery of being out of range
    4. Re:Shouldn't be a problem by hey! · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The myth that the private sector is made up of wonderfully efficient and capable people is easily disproved. Look at your private sector coworkers, and consider the private sector coworkers you've had in the past. Most likely they were not all paragons of efficiency and virtue.

      Still, it's likely that they are able to adapt to change more readily than their government sector counterparts, but it's not because they're fundamentally better; they just operate under less restrictive rules and expectations.

      Now it can be a good to bring in outside expertise, but the idea that bringing in private sector people will magically fix things is naive, because that expertise will operate under all the same constraints as their government employee counterparts except one: contributing to politicians who oversee the program. That's why privatization's track record of making government cheap and efficient is so un-magical.

      It can be a good thing to bring in outside experts and contractors, or it can be a bad one, depending on your plan. If your plan is to shove money at them and sit back while they solve your problems, well that's a bad plan. All things equal a vendor would rather your problems be interminable and expensive, and if he has to give you a job after you retire from public office, that's a small price to pay.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    5. Re:Shouldn't be a problem by Penguinisto · · Score: 1, Troll

      The myth that the private sector is made up of wonderfully efficient and capable people is easily disproved. Look at your private sector coworkers, and consider the private sector coworkers you've had in the past. Most likely they were not all paragons of efficiency and virtue.

      ...compared to most government/civil-service workers? In that light, hell yes they're paragons of efficiency and virtue. :/

      I do agree that you can't simply toss money at a group of people and expect them to crap out a perfect vision or solution. Takes a lot of guidance and clear communication along the way. It also takes the removal of the shit-ton of regulatory barriers that most governmental institutions are weighed down with (for even the most trivial of things...)

      --
      Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
    6. Re:Shouldn't be a problem by CaptainDork · · Score: 2

      Not so fast.

      The government (taxes) doesn't pay well "in house." The high-paying jobs go to contractors who are not always patriotic, like Manning, Snowden, and Winner.

      This latest move tells us a few things:

      The gubmint doesn't have the chops to do this. Private sector, apparently, does.

      The feds have tried to use these same resources to weaponize software like drones, face recognition, and AI.

      That failed, so the next iteration is to get that same work force by providing the carrot on a stick labeled, "patriotism."

      It's the same song with a different title.

      --
      It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
    7. Re:Shouldn't be a problem by hey! · · Score: 5, Insightful

      ...compared to most government/civil-service workers? In that light, hell yes they're paragons of efficiency and virtue. :/

      I'm curious how you know this. I worked in the private sector for decades, but at least half that work was for public sector agencies (well over a hundred in all) at all levels of government and in every part of the country except Alaska. I'd say on average public employees are about the same as private sector employees, but the variance is greater.

      That's because on one hand you've got rules that makes it hard to get rid of underperformers. But the other hand, you get people who are genuinely dedicated to the mission of their agency in a way that would be downright bizarre in a private sector employee. These are the kind of people who are really bullish about promoting the state's agricultural products, or getting the next generation into hunting and fishing. I once had a trip to the CDC's Fort Collins office when news of a hemorrhagic fever outbreak in Africa came through. It was like being in a suit-up scene in some cheesy action movie because those guys were going to war -- with a virus that made you bleed out of your eyeballs.

      The work of those kinds of employees goes largely unnoticed. When we had the Boston Marathon bombing up here, two bombs went off in the middle of crowds and 267 people were hurt, 14 requiring amputations, but only 3 died. First responders justifiably got a lot of credit for that, but the low death rate was also the result of planners having a procedure in place which rapidly activated trauma teams at 27 hospitals, so that on average each hospital had to triage on average fewer than ten patients. Imagine if they'd all gone to the nearest hospital instead. As far as I know whoever prevented that from happening never got any media pats on the back.

      The kind of government employees that make those kinds of things happen are found everywhere, and everywhere they're weighed down by deadwood coworkers and bosses. The problem is worse, however, in places where the public is fatalistic about bad government employees. Texas is the worst I've seen. One of the hardware vendors we sometimes worked with landed a bunch of contracts there by procuring prostitutes for public officials. But even in Texas there's a core of good people who make things work; they're just not the ones getting blow jobs.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    8. Re:Shouldn't be a problem by hey! · · Score: 1

      Oh, the chops exist somewhere in the private sector, that is certain. Whether they'll bid on any contracts is less certain, and whether they'd win is even less certain than that.

      hat failed, so the next iteration is to get that same work force by providing the carrot on a stick labeled, "patriotism."

      People willing to work for patriotism rather than money already work for the government. The problem is that they report to politicians.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    9. Re:Shouldn't be a problem by anegg · · Score: 1

      Personally, I think it will be a disaster. The government has its own entrenched IT risk management practices, not the least of which is their security certification and accreditation process, which will be completely opaque to the outsiders. The failure to successfully navigate security C&A is a significant potential point of failure for government projects, and using outsiders won't change that unless they are brought up to speed in the process before starting development.

    10. Re: Shouldn't be a problem by CaptainDork · · Score: 1

      How is he patriotic?

      --
      It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
    11. Re:Shouldn't be a problem by CaptainDork · · Score: 1

      And most can't find decent work outside the military.

      Which, by the way, what with super low unemployment, has changed just recently.

      I'm seeing an increase in adverts for signing up.

      I was in Uncle Sam's Yacht Club for 9 years. In 1965, the oil patch dried up here.

      In 1968, it was still that way. Then, in 1974 the refineries announced preferential hire for veterans.

      I bailed for that reason. I'm proud of my time of service but I don't claim to have ever done it out of patriotism.

      --
      It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
    12. Re:Shouldn't be a problem by Major+Blud · · Score: 1

      That's because on one hand you've got rules that makes it hard to get rid of underperformers

      This is the real difference that people fail to see. I've worked in both private companies and public government offices, and both can have gross inefficiencies and lackluster employees. The difference is that it's much more difficult to get rid of a terrible employee at a government office, so more of them tend to stick around. Promotion also tends to lean towards seniority as opposed to merit.

      The private industry also has situations like promotions based off of favoritism which lead to a terrible employee that sticks around, but at least the option of terminating this person is usually on the table and much easier to carry through with.

      --
      If you post as Anonymous Coward, don't expect a reply.
    13. Re: Shouldn't be a problem by CaptainDork · · Score: 1

      TL;DR because:

      Do you not know what he did?

      I'm covering the fucking story.

      Please resubmit and and answer the question in a single sentence. Thanks.

      --
      It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
  2. Who in Silicon Valley wants to work for Trump? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Great way to get black listed by the community at large.

    1. Re:Who in Silicon Valley wants to work for Trump? by dcw3 · · Score: 1

      Sure, as if it's not hard enough to find talent. You think these companies are going to collaborate on who worked for the government? Hell, most of them already have government contracts.

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
  3. Pay them? by Henriok · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Or.. they could just pay the corporations to use their workers? Say like.. contract work? You know.. how capitalism work, and not, dare I say it.. communism?

    --

    - Henrik

    - when the Shadows descend -
    1. Re:Pay them? by houghi · · Score: 1

      The advantage of borrowing them is that the people who pay them can influence them, as they are not under contract of POTUS.
      This way they do not have to pay the White House via bank transfers, but do the things they want directly.

      Banks are Wallstreet, so he is avoiding influence of Wallstreet. He is following up on his promises.

      And communism was people getting paid. WORKERS of the world unite. Just a pity there never was any country with communism as it was intended.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    2. Re:Pay them? by vtcodger · · Score: 1

      "Or.. they could just pay the corporations to use their workers?"

      I expect that's what they have in mind. I think they are troubled that a lot of government in house IT projects have large cost and schedule overruns. They presumably want to tap into Silicon Valley's vast skills at doing something or other -- ignoring the fact that large cost and schedule overruns by tech companies are not unknown or even uncommon.

      This may or may not be exacerbated by the fact that the current administration has relatively few folks at any level who are anything other than completely clueless about how governments actually work.

      Anyway, I think they are hoping to avoid things like the 2014 healthcare.gov debacle. If borrowing folks from Google, et.al. can help with that, it's probably not a bad idea.

      My first question would be what, if anything, the GAO thinks about this notion. The second would be whether the Federally Funded Research and Development Centers (FFDRCs) -- Thats, Rand Corp, MITRE labs, Lawrence-Livermore, etc can do the job or whether perhaps a new FFRDC is needed specifically for government IT.

      Anyway, my take is -- nowhere near as crazed as much of what goes on in Washington nowadays. But still, I'd like to know a lot more about it and the alternatives before I bought into it.

      --
      You can't see ANYTHING from a car, You've got to get out of the goddamned contraption and walk...Edward Abbey
    3. Re: Pay them? by hey! · · Score: 2

      Actually, according to Hannah Arendt, the real problem with fascists is that they don't have any real commitment to any belief or principle:

      In an ever-changing, incomprehensible world the masses had reached the point where they would, at the same time, believe everything and nothing, think that everything was possible and nothing was true... The totalitarian mass leaders based their propaganda on the correct psychological assumption that, under such conditions, one could make people believe the most fantastic statements one day, and trust that if the next day they were given irrefutable proof of their falsehood, they would take refuge in cynicism; instead of deserting the leaders who had lied to them, they would protest that they had known all along that the statement was a lie and would admire the leaders for their superior tactical cleverness.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    4. Re:Pay them? by CaptainDork · · Score: 1

      How'd that go with Manning, Snowden, and Winner?

      Also, let's look closely at the contractor idea as applied to the war in Afghanistan.

      We have a goddam shit load of contractors over there.

      How's that been working for us the last 17 years?

      --
      It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
    5. Re:Pay them? by grahamsz · · Score: 1

      I've known a few people that have done software and it roles in government. Those jobs may not have great basic salary, but they have a degree of stability that some people look for and coupled with comparatively generous retirement they can be attractive to competent individuals.

      The issue, I suspect, on large government IT projects is probably not much to do with technical vision or project management but rather of ill-defined or ever-changing requirements coming from above. When you have a fixed budget & timeline and requirements change then quality has to suffer, our political environment generally doesn't permit anything else to give.

      The only advantage to an outside contractor coming in would be that it would be much easier for them to announce to everyone that "shit's fucked up" and that the project isn't set up for success.

    6. Re:Pay them? by CaptainDork · · Score: 1

      ... say the least ...

      Try that.

      --
      It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
    7. Re:Pay them? by dcw3 · · Score: 1

      So, you're attempting to color all contractors with what these individuals did? And btw, Manning wasn't a contractor. Are there shitty contractors?...sure. You think we could do the job w/o them?...you're delusional.

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
    8. Re:Pay them? by CaptainDork · · Score: 1

      So, you're attempting to color all contractors ...

      Did I post the names of all contractors?

      --
      It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
  4. McCarthyism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Funny,
    I remember in school learning how evil it was to black list actors based on their political views. So now IT and Hollywood brag about black listing based on political views.

    Interesting.

    1. Re: McCarthyism by muffen · · Score: 1

      Not even a little bit interesting, times change, Donald freaking Trumpet is president!

    2. Re:McCarthyism by cascadingstylesheet · · Score: 1, Troll

      Funny, I remember in school learning how evil it was to black list actors based on their political views. So now IT and Hollywood brag about black listing based on political views.

      Interesting.

      Silly, it's OK when we do it!

    3. Re:McCarthyism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

      You don't have to work with anybody in hollywood. It is a choice. You have no choice but to have Trump as president. Very big difference.

    4. Re: McCarthyism by ganjadude · · Score: 1, Troll

      thankfully

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    5. Re:McCarthyism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      OK, I guess you should go edit this article.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood_blacklist

      delete the whole thing, and replace it with "me herd blacklissting wuz made up by duh meanie conspearasee!"

      because that's how you sound, grasshopper.

    6. Re: McCarthyism by ArylAkamov · · Score: 1

      So?
      "Rules for thee but not for me"

    7. Re:McCarthyism by pgmrdlm · · Score: 1

      https://www.bloomberg.com/news...

      âoeSheâ(TM)s a person of some dichotomy. On the one hand, she was on the board of the ACLU and fights for many individual rights,â says Neel Chatterjee, a San Francisco lawyer whoâ(TM)s known Dhillon since the 1980s âoeOn the other hand, sheâ(TM)s a staunch Republican Trump supporter.â And as Chatterjee notes: âoeShe likes fighting political fights.â

      --
      Anonymous comments are as pathetic as the anonymous "sources" that contaminate gutless journalism from the New York Time
    8. Re:McCarthyism by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      McCarthy's claim was that the listed individuals wanted to overthrow the USA gov't (or hung out with those who did), not merely vote for left-leaning policies.

      --
      Table-ized A.I.
    9. Re:McCarthyism by dcw3 · · Score: 1

      Exactly why one of them labeled you Troll. Morons.

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
  5. 18F anyone? by Amezick · · Score: 1

    I was shocked to hear the Obama era idea get some traction with the Trump Admin. Hasn't anyone heard of https://18f.gsa.gov/?

    1. Re:18F anyone? by ganjadude · · Score: 1

      exactly why he sees the good things being done

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    2. Re:18F anyone? by mcvos · · Score: 3, Insightful

      What great things has Trump done exactly?

      Fiscal? The deficit is larger than ever.

      Economy? Stockmarket is down.

      He mostly accomplished tax cuts for his buddies, cruel treatment of children, discrediting the US internationally, cozying up to all sorts of dictators and other authoritarians, and he's made DC even more corrupt than it was before. Really great things he has accomplished.

    3. Re:18F anyone? by mcvos · · Score: 1

      The economy has been on a rocket sled upward since two years after Obama's election. You need to ignore most of the data to credit Trump for that.

    4. Re:18F anyone? by dcw3 · · Score: 1

      Nothing you just stated has anything to do with my correction to your factually incorrect OP. No, the economy had been on the slowest recovery from recession ever, which was one of the biggest criticisms of Obama policies. The economy was actually starting to recover prior to Obama taking office.

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
    5. Re:18F anyone? by mcvos · · Score: 2

      The economy was starting to recover prior to Obama taking office? I suggest you take another look at the data, because that is completely false.

      You are claiming three contradictory things now: Trump is responsible for the recovery, Bush is responsible for the recovery, and Obama is responsible for the recovery being so slow. You are desperate to blame something, anything on Obama, while claiming credit for anyone who is not Obama, thought preferably Trump, no matter how undeserved.

      I understand facts have gone out of fashion with Trump's election, but that doesn't make anything you say correct. Stick with your "alternative facts" if you must, but don't expect anyone else to believe them.

  6. Raise taxes and pay competitive rates by sjbe · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Trump administration reportedly wants tech giants to make it easy for workers to take leaves of absence to help the government modernize

    The easy way to do this is to pay the workers you want to utilize wages and benefits competitive with the private sector. This might require raising taxes to cover the cost. I cannot imagine the tech companies have much incentive to loan out any workers who are any good. I'm also dubious a lot of tech workers will be super enthusiastic about working on highly bureaucratic and low paying and likely boring government IT plumbing projects unless the government is willing to back up a dump truck of money. Even then it's not clear they would get the best and brightest.

    However, White House officials believe tech workers are willing to "put politics aside."

    HAHAHAHAHAAAA.... For this administration? I doubt they'll get any sort of wide spread enthusiasm as long as Trump is in office. I think it would be a tough sell for any administration but this one in particular seems rather unlikely.

    1. Re:Raise taxes and pay competitive rates by FearTheDonut · · Score: 3, Insightful

      However, White House officials believe tech workers are willing to "put politics aside."

      As partisan as our current political climate is, the idea of people putting politics aside is optimistic at best.....

    2. Re:Raise taxes and pay competitive rates by cascadingstylesheet · · Score: 4, Funny

      However, White House officials believe tech workers are willing to "put politics aside."

      As partisan as our current political climate is, the idea of people putting politics aside is optimistic at best.....

      No, it's simple. Put politics aside and just agree with the obvious goodness and rightness of what I believe! ;)

    3. Re:Raise taxes and pay competitive rates by houghi · · Score: 5, Funny

      So should the Whitehouse use VI or Emacs?

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    4. Re:Raise taxes and pay competitive rates by lactose99 · · Score: 1

      Current Whitehouse would be lucky if they got nano working

      --
      Fully licensed blockchain psychiatrist
    5. Re:Raise taxes and pay competitive rates by Sir_Eptishous · · Score: 1

      So should the Whitehouse use VI or Emacs?

      Our current Whitehouse would think this means either:

      Village Inn
      or
      A new breakfast sandwich at Carls Jr

      --
      We play the game with the bravery of being out of range
    6. Re:Raise taxes and pay competitive rates by DivineKnight · · Score: 1

      Nano.

    7. Re:Raise taxes and pay competitive rates by Miser · · Score: 1

      If you back up that dump truck of money to my house, I don't care about your politics. :)

      Everyone has a price.

    8. Re:Raise taxes and pay competitive rates by dcw3 · · Score: 1

      So, if you had the opportunity to help fix social security, or the VA hospitals, or make government more cost efficient, you would say no just because of who's in the White House? Got it, you're a piece of shit.

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
  7. Silly government executives. by xxxJonBoyxxx · · Score: 3, Informative

    >> administration reportedly hopes tech industry workers will be able to help modernize state and federal agencies and tackle challenges such as upgrading the veterans' health care system

    The point of government IT contracts isn't to fix or improve anything, but to extract hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars from government coffers without providing anything tangible or useful. See also: IBM, Oracle and/or Epic.

    1. Re:Silly government executives. by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      I thought that was the whole point of government jobs, do as little as possible and get paid for it.

      That's the goal of pretty much all workers, isn't it? What individual wants to work more for less money?

      --
      Table-ized A.I.
  8. Amazon?! YES! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    With Amazon workers involved, maybe it'll make it easier to buy our government!

    Let's see:

    Senator - add to cart. Two Congressmen - add to cart. Oh, and a FCC administrator - add to cart.

    Arrrrghhhh, just one more and I have enough to get the add-on item of a HUD admin.

  9. its a matter of funding, not silicon valley morals by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I have an idea: fund agencies at a high enough level to hire developers and procure software themselves. The reason the government can't attract talent is because IT is not the "core business" of most government agencies, so when they are defunded, IT is always one of the first things to get cut.

  10. Blame the federal rules procurement by MikeRT · · Score: 5, Informative

    You know a few technical guys and a decent manager and want to bid on a contract? Not so fast!

    1. First you must figure out what contract vehicle it's on.
    2. Then you must spend money getting onto that vehicle by bidding.
    3. Then you must bid to get that contract.

    All the while going up against incumbents that have better contacts and decades of experience wording things just right, with the particular jargon needed to win in the government space.

    Oh and as a small company, you will also need to find some way to game the 8A system so that you aren't overlooked as a small business for purely political reasons beyond the agency's control.

    Simple suggestion:

    1. Abolish these processes and replace with a bond.
    2. If your bid is unrealistic and plain bullshit, you get sent to arbitration to decide on whether the contract office sends the bond to the Treasury or not.
    3. If you appeal for bullshit reasons, see #2.

    1. Re:Blame the federal rules procurement by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You know a few technical guys and a decent manager and want to bid on a contract? Not so fast!

      1. First you must figure out what contract vehicle it's on.

      2. Then you must spend money getting onto that vehicle by bidding.

      3. Then you must bid to get that contract.

      You missed one step...

      4. You must pay someone to hand out the appropriate bribe ^H^H^H^ baksheesh, errrm contribution to the appropriate guardians of democracy.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    2. Re:Blame the federal rules procurement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      And if you do manage to get the contract, you must hire a full time employee to make sure you are in compliance and get paid in a timely manner.

    3. Re:Blame the federal rules procurement by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      Nope, That doesn't happen. The system is way, way to protective to allow that to happen. The corruption is baked into the federal acquisition regulations, not in back channel dealings.

      Not certain if Poeing me or serious. Smiling just the same.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    4. Re:Blame the federal rules procurement by vtcodger · · Score: 2

      You're absolutely correct that bidding on a government contract is complex and difficult. The last government bid proposal I worked on decades ago required that we promise compliance with many millions of words of procurement specifications and about 60 pages of pro forma promising not to pollute the environment, subcontract to foreign companies, discriminate in any way in hiring, etc,etc, etc. I would guess that things have only gotten more complicated.

      A bond might work in some cases, but overall, I'm skeptical. In my experience, government Requests For Proposal (RFPs) for complex items are far from perfect and by the time all the discrepancies and major flaws are ironed out, it's pretty hazy to what degree apparent non-performance is due to contractor ineptitude/malfeasance and what is due to the government asking for the wrong thing.

      --
      You can't see ANYTHING from a car, You've got to get out of the goddamned contraption and walk...Edward Abbey
    5. Re:Blame the federal rules procurement by StevenMaurer · · Score: 2

      He is correct. You are utterly wrong. You're actually putting forward a macro-conspiracy theory, though you're also clearly too ignorant to be aware of it. There are far too many controls in place for that kind of self-dealing to occur in federal procurement. Absolutely everything is reviewed by hundreds of people before it is approved; that's the major reason why the Federal government is so slow and bureaucratic.

      The real "corruption" is how major employers garnering Federal contracts have their local Congressman in their pocket. It leads to the Pentagon telling Congress to stop buying it equipment that it doesn't need. But even with this, it's a matter of votes, not money.

      It is a mark of how far Slashdot has fallen that ignorance like yours is upvoted to +5, with nary a supporting statement on your side.

    6. Re:Blame the federal rules procurement by hey! · · Score: 1

      The first rule of getting a non-trivial federal government is to hire a good lobbyist, even if you have to skimp on the people who will actually do the work.

      After 9/11 and especially the anthrax scare, the small company I worked for was courted to be part of some responses to Homeland Security RFPs. I was uncomfortable about the misleading way our technology was presented as being just what was needed, but in fact the winning proposals had even less substance, just teams of dirt cheap contractors with a track record of absorbing large quantities of government money for very little in return. But they had simply amazingly good lobbyists.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    7. Re:Blame the federal rules procurement by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      He is correct. You are utterly wrong.

      Oh hell yess. Every statement I make is wrong.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    8. Re:Blame the federal rules procurement by Mike+Van+Pelt · · Score: 1

      This ...

      Years ago, I read a fascinating article by a small businessman who made dock floats. Basically, big chunks of styrofoam covered with fiberglass.

      He sold them retail for $50 each.

      For a government contract, he looked at the paperwork involved and bid $500 each.

      He was underbid by another company, and the contract ended up nearly bankrupting them. In retrospect, he was glad he lost the bid, because at 10x the retail cost, he figured he would have lost money.

    9. Re:Blame the federal rules procurement by dcw3 · · Score: 1

      Most recent RFPs that I'm seeing already include a carve out for small business to get a percentage of the work. Which is why my company is teaming with about a dozen of them on an upcoming effort. No, you're not likely to be the prime on a major contract until you've got history, because that's taken into consideration in awarding the contracts...you need to show that you've got a track record. It's kinda like graduating from college and getting your foot in the door the first time. It's much easier the next.

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
    10. Re:Blame the federal rules procurement by dcw3 · · Score: 1

      This.

      And people wonder why government contractors charge so much. The amount of compliance related stuff we do is amazing, and god forbid you fuck it up because you can be banned from future proposals...more likely just fined, and I'm not talking slap on the wrist. It's also why most small businesses can't afford to be the prime on a large contract. They need to team up with a large experienced contracting company just to get their foot in the door.

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
  11. You are working for the Country not Trump by drnb · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Who in Silicon Valley wants to work for Trump?

    Idiots. You are working for the Country, the American people, not for Trump. We are not talking about working on his campaign, we are talking about working on the software infrastructure for the nation.

    1. Re:You are working for the Country not Trump by pgmrdlm · · Score: 1

      The problem is that the Trump administration will get the credit for the modernization, which will increase their odds of getting re-elected. I don't want to see that happen. D
      Fuck the country, only your political agenda counts., Even though modernizing the goverment would save money and help all citizens. THAT DOESN'T COUNT BECAUSE YOU ARE SO FULL OF FUCKING HATE.
      There has NEVER been a president I hated to the point that I didn't want to see a good idea of theirs go forward. Jesus, what a mother fucking piece of shit.

      --
      Anonymous comments are as pathetic as the anonymous "sources" that contaminate gutless journalism from the New York Time
  12. What exactly are they asking? by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 1

    Because it sounds like a number of these companies already have policies which allow exactly this sort of thing. So I suspect the current administration may be more interested in compelling participation rather than “allowing” it.

    --
    #DeleteChrome
  13. Politics aside by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    "White House officials believe tech workers are willing to "put politics aside.""

    Politics, yes, But not rabid nationalism, raping the environment for personal gain, hating on different cultures/religions/sexual orientations, dumping on women and setting the world on a war footing –NO!

    1. Re:Politics aside by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 2, Informative

      Loving one's country is rabid nationalism now? Well I never.

      Number of wars started by Trump: 0. How many did Obama start? Was it more than seven?

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
  14. here's a crazy idea: by Thud457 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Why not pay market competitive rates and not be a toxic, obsolescent, career-killing place to work?

    "Oh no, we wouldn't want to do that. Let's just borrow some villeins from their lords Google and Amazon." Who BTW are really onboard with the whole divisive racism, hate and fearmongering agenda. This is what they really think about you.

    --

    the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

    1. Re: here's a crazy idea: by Type44Q · · Score: 1

      Which words did you think were big??

    2. Re: here's a crazy idea: by pgmrdlm · · Score: 1

      Not smart enough are you to just click the link to the actual definition of the word you used incorrectly I see

      --
      Anonymous comments are as pathetic as the anonymous "sources" that contaminate gutless journalism from the New York Time
  15. So they can spend the money by franblets · · Score: 1

    on more atomic bombs and missiles (NPR this morning). Tell me... If the Trump conglomerate had tech staff would he loan them? Hell, he wasn't even making the charitable donations he was boasting about.

  16. Naive by sjbe · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Idiots. You are working for the Country, the American people, not for Trump.

    When Trump accepts that reality then I will too.

    We are not talking about working on his campaign, we are talking about working on the software infrastructure for the nation.

    So what? If it is important to the richest nation on earth then the richest nation on earth can damn well pay market rates for it. Buy fewer bombers if they need to find the money in the budget. The military is ridiculously over funded as it is.

    1. Re:Naive by nateman1352 · · Score: 1

      If it is important to the richest nation on earth then the richest nation on earth can damn well pay market rates for it.

      I think for a lot of the younger tech talent, its about more than just pay. As an employee of Facebook/Google/Amazon/etc. you can go in to work at 10pm wearing a T-Shirt and sandals, not fill in a time card, and often have a good lunch paid for by the company, and usually have admin access to your own personal development machine... the culture in a government office could not be further from this.

      Giving this same level of pay and benefits to a government employee would be seen as egregious waste of taxpayer money and it would end up plastered all over Fox News/CNN/MSNBC/etc. as an example of gross government excess. Uncle Sam can't be seen as wasting the people's hard-earned money, so the best accommodations for a government employee are equivalent to the typical dingy DMV office. The government can't compete with private employers purely based on our social expectations of them.

  17. My boss already sent his resume in by paiute · · Score: 1

    He's great. Thomas J. Watson's the name.

    --
    If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
  18. Probably just a backhanded way by rsilvergun · · Score: 1, Insightful

    to funnel cheap foreign workers into government contracts they normally wouldn't be allowed into. That would be my guess. I'll remind everyone we're 2 years into this administration and Trump hasn't recinded the Obama era rule that allows the spouses of H1-bs to work in the country (effectively doubling the number of work visas issued).

    Also it would let Google and Amazon function as contracting agencies. Basically free money for them.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  19. Re:Leave of absence rather than quitting by Chatterton · · Score: 1

    Like a woman taking a pareental leave to take care of her newborn and comming back to see that she was fired in the meantime... We know how it work :/

  20. Clueless by sjbe · · Score: 4, Insightful

    So you are a denier of reality, politics trumps the truth in your mind. Good to know.

    Denier of reality? Quite the opposite. I'm WELL aware that our current president likes to think we all work for him and that he doesn't work for us. How is it that you missed that fact? Once he actually starts working for the American people (ALL of them) then we can have this discussion about my motivations.

    Wow, you truly are an idiot. The administration is not asking for free labor. They are asking for employees to be able to take a leave of absence rather than having to quit their jobs and hope to get rehired later.

    Yes they are asking for a discount on labor. If they were willing to pay market rates then they wouldn't have to go begging the private sector for talent. Hell they could just hire the company to do the work if they need the person or win the person away from the private sector outright by paying them competitively. There is no point to such a discussion unless they are trying to get labor at a discount.

    Try to take off your political lens for a moment and at least read the summary: "discuss ways to make it easier for employees to take leaves of absence to help with government projects"

    Grow up and learn to read what that really means. Politics is ALWAYS involved and to think otherwise is dangerously naive.

    1. Re:Clueless by CaptainDork · · Score: 1

      This, and I think the proposal is subterfuge anyway.

      Hell they could just hire the company to do the work ...

      Recall the attempt to do just that.

      "Say, if you're not interested in writing killing code, how 'bout you just lend some of your workers? We got free beer with a decal of the American flag on the cans."

      --
      It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
    2. Re:Clueless by CaptainDork · · Score: 1

      You're new here, right?

      Workers at Google, Amazon, and Microsoft are demanding input on the impact of the technology they build.

      --
      It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
  21. Classic Trump by alternative_right · · Score: 1

    "I know we don't see eye-to-eye, but if we work together, you'll understand where I'm coming from." Then they will also depend on him, and be more loyal, instead of dissident critics.

    Good thinking on his part.

    --
    Alternative Right.
  22. Editor wars by sjbe · · Score: 1

    So should the Whitehouse use VI or Emacs?

    Neither and they should send anyone who wastes government resources arguing about it to Guantanamo.

  23. Nope... by Arkham · · Score: 1, Troll

    However, White House officials believe tech workers are willing to "put politics aside."

    Nope. No way in hell I'd do anything to support that evil bastard or anything in his agenda, whether it's good or bad.

    --
    - Vincit qui patitur.
    1. Re:Nope... by dcw3 · · Score: 1

      Funny, I've had no problem supporting the evil bastard before him, or the one before him, or the one before him, going all the way back into the early 70s. I do what I do, not for who's in the office. I do it for my country. And even when I disagree with a president, I hope he/she succeeds, in winning wars, fixing the economy, etc., because if they do, it's good for us all.

      How about if you could help fix Social Security, or the screwed up VA Hospitals? You wouldn't work on those because of who's in the WH? If that's the case, you're just a worthless POS.

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
  24. New Visa Program by registrations_suck · · Score: 1

    Why doesn't the government just create a new visa program? Say...the HIB Visa. Open to anyone with mAd sKilLz who wants to come to the U.S. and work for the U.S. Government and get its technical shit together?

    Should work great. Opens opportunities for deserving brown people around the world (and by around the world, I mean India), and gets the government technical workers for a fraction of market rates - should be win win for everyone.

    And no, I'm not serious.

  25. Window dressing by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1, Informative

    This is only for the election. After the election, the White House will just go back to getting their tech workers from Russia, Israel, and Saudi Arabia.

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
  26. H1B's get time off to go home USC work 80 hours by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

    H1B's get time off to go home USC work 80 hours a week with no time off

  27. LOL.... No. by SvnLyrBrto · · Score: 1

    I worked for a government contractor my first job out of college. And no. Just... no. I'm never going to make that mistake again... not for 45, not for Clinton, not for Obama if they were to amend the constitution so he could run again, not for Kennedy or Lincoln if they could raise the dead. It's just awful in every conceivable way.

    The culture is toxic. You're a tiny cog in a gigantic machine without any way for your own contributions to be meaningful. It's cubes as far as the eye can see in warehouse-sized buildings. It's super-political. And I don't mean R vs D. I mean every single little person who attains the slightest bit of power is king of his little hill and will require tribute if you need access to any resource in their domain, productivity be damned. It's like those old adventure games where you might be tasked with saving the kingdom, world, or galaxy. But every... single... NPC wants you to do stupid shit before they'll aid you in the smallest way. Tasked with going to person A to get item X? Before A will give you access to X, he will require you to goto person B to get item Y. B will require you to get Z from C before giving you Y. And C will make you go out and grind, killing orcs or boars or womprats or something similarly stupid and pick up 100 item drops before giving you Z. And a task that should take no more than a day winds up taking up two weeks. And there'd better actually be a god to help you if you need to deal with procurement to get something from a vendor.

    And all of the even remotely interesting work is reserved for people with security clearances. These force you to submit to being investigated and treated like a criminal before-the-fact. And they take anywhere between 6-18 months to attain, depending on how backed-up the government is, and how hard your employer is inclined to push for you. And until then, you're stuck doing boring scut-work that builds neither your skill set nor your resume.

    That's government work.

    No.
    Thank.
    You.

    --
    Imagine all the people...
  28. White House wants to "borrow" tech workers by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 1

    White House officials on Monday planned to meet with tech giants including Google, Microsoft, Amazon and IBM, to discuss ways to make it easier for employees to take leaves of absence to help with government projects, according to The Washington Post.

    "Rest assured that we will totally not replace those persons with government-controlled doppelgängers."

    --
    #DeleteFacebook
  29. Or they could just let a realistic RFP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    which isn't low cost, technically acceptable, and which lowers some of the corporate requirements to allow for smaller companies to bid. As for patriotism, I did my years in a windowless building, where I had no contact with the outside world while on duty, where I settled for 40% under market pay in the name of service to my country, where my personal life was monitored 24 hours a day, where I had restrictions placed on where I could travel for vacation, who I could talk with, what sites I could visit online, and my level of political involvement. If the government fixed some of these issues, maybe they would be able to fill those vacant cyber spots. Seriously though, let a realistic RFP that targets smalls for the work, and you will get your workers.

  30. Politicians playing the ... by CaptainDork · · Score: 1

    ... "long-term" card?

    Would have worked better if they had played the, "Better dead than red," propaganda card that appeals to fear, patriotism and nationalism ...

    --
    It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
  31. Putting the politics aside by dkone · · Score: 1

    Let's assume that we as individuals could 'politics aside'. That still doesn't change the fact the most sane people will avoid government work because of:

    Low comparative pay (most gov. workers are doing the long term pension game)
    Entrenched bureaucrats
    Incompetent project scoping (this is putting it mildly)
    RED TAPE/PAPERWORK

    Not to mention the questions about the plans details. Would these 'temp tech' workers be implementing a project? Designing a project? Designing and implementing? Specing out a RFP for a bid? When the 'temp tech' is done with his stint in hell, who takes over the project? This plan just sounds like a disaster, democrat or republican.
     

  32. "... brief tours of duty ..." by CaptainDork · · Score: 1

    ... as in 17 years (and counting) in Afghanistan.

    --
    It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
  33. Manning, Snowden, and Winner ... by CaptainDork · · Score: 1

    ... 2.0.

    --
    It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
  34. Help a guy out ... by CaptainDork · · Score: 1

    ... by explaining the the money, please.

    These IT peeps go on "leaves of absence" ... What is the pay structure? Do they continue to get paid by the mother ship, or do they take a serious pay cut because patriotism?

    Thanks.

    --
    It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
  35. Fixing Veteran Affairs system not to do with Trump by drnb · · Score: 1

    So you are a denier of reality, politics trumps the truth in your mind. Good to know.

    Denier of reality? Quite the opposite. I'm WELL aware that our current president likes to think we all work for him and that he doesn't work for us. How is it that you missed that fact? Once he actually starts working for the American people (ALL of them) then we can have this discussion about my motivations.

    Wow, you are doubling down on your idiocy. The work is not for trump, it is for national infrastructure. From the summary: "... hopes tech industry workers will be able to help modernize state and federal agencies and tackle challenges such as upgrading the veterans' health care system ...". What the f*ck does fixing the software mess at the VA and other departments have to do with Trump?

    Wow, you truly are an idiot. The administration is not asking for free labor. They are asking for employees to be able to take a leave of absence rather than having to quit their jobs and hope to get rehired later.

    Yes they are asking for a discount on labor. If they were willing to pay market rates then they wouldn't have to go begging the private sector for talent. Hell they could just hire the company to do the work if they need the person or win the person away from the private sector outright by paying them competitively. There is no point to such a discussion unless they are trying to get labor at a discount.

    Your offer a foolish red herring to hide your ignorance. No one is requiring anyone to work for the government. The summary, CNet and TechCrunch citations mention no wage dispute. The summary and cited articles mention two things. (1) Leave of absences. (2) National infrastructure that is beyond politics and is for the common good, things that past wanted fixed and that future administrations will need.

    Try to take off your political lens for a moment and at least read the summary: "discuss ways to make it easier for employees to take leaves of absence to help with government projects"

    Grow up and learn to read what that really means. Politics is ALWAYS involved and to think otherwise is dangerously naive.

    The projects are not political. The request for leaves of absences are not political. What is political are fools like you that would rather throw your childlike tantrum than see national infrastructure fixed.

  36. I'm pretty sure one AC on /. by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    doesn't speak for Hollywood.

    Now, do you support laws making it illegal to discriminate on the basis of political views? How about sexuality? After all, if you're against political discrimination you'd pretty much be stuck being against sexuality discrimination, since they're both a choice. Of course, you can argue that folks are born gay, but then that falls under the same logic as being white. You're born white, so should I be able to discriminate against you for being white?

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  37. You buried the lede by pohl · · Score: 1

    This is the first indication that the Manchurian Combover administration intends to have successors.

    --

    The "cue the foo posts in 3, 2, 1..." posts will commence with no subsequent foo posts in 3, 2, 1...

  38. The US Gov't doesn't pay market rates for anything by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    we pay 2x-5x market rates. That's how we do socialism in America. I'd rather see us cut out the middle man and do UBI, but that doesn't seem like it's happening. We can always afford another $1 billion dollar bomber but Medicare for All is "Pie in the Sky", even when right wing think tanks say it's $2 trillion cheaper...

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  39. great way to lose talent by originalGMC · · Score: 1

    sounds like a great way to make people quit their jobs.

  40. confusion by bigdavex · · Score: 1

    Trump thinks he is CEO of America, and everyone reports up to him.

    --
    -Dave
  41. It's all about playing power games. by Guppy · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Or.. they could just pay the corporations to use their workers? Say like.. contract work? You know.. how capitalism work, and not, dare I say it.. communism?

    So the question is... why isn't Trump pushing for a way to make it easier to temporarily hire engineers from Boeing and Lockheed-Martin, instead of having NASA hand out contracts to those companies? Or perhaps maybe grab some workers directly from Halliburton, instead of signing a contract that goes through their entire company?

    Short answer -- because he personally has a beef with Amazon and Google, seeing that their corporate culture is hostile to his agenda. So in one stroke he seeks to find a way to forgo handing out lucrative government contracts to those companies, while simultaneously weakening them by leeching away talent.