Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
News

Gov't Wants Techies to Play Musical Chairs 161

Posted by CmdrTaco from the government-chairs-cost-five-figures dept.
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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Gov't Wants Techies to Play Musical Chairs More

Gov't Wants Techies to Play Musical Chairs

Comments Filter:

  • Hm... (Score:2, Insightful)

    by NeoSkandranon ( 515696 )
    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.

  • UK perspective (Score:2, Insightful)

    by alnapp ( 321260 )
    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.
    • Yes, but some U.S. government tech jobs still do have good benefits and a nice pay package. And don't forget those mandatory promotions to a higher GS grade.

      Kierthos

  • 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 agree, as I sit at my desk eating my cold chicken fried rice, well on my way to the 10th consecutive 65 hour week, I wonder, can a Government Issued clock-puncher take my job. Can a government job provide the minimum FDA required serving of stress required to prevent insanity via boredom.
      • As a state employee, I can say for me the answer is yes. We do data warehousing, and there are plenty of little details involved in converting source system data to Oracle 8i, and joining separate feeds into a single table. The wages are below industry averages, but the benefits are great, and overtime is actually frowned upon (because you are contractually required to be reimbursed for it).
  • 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?
    • 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.
      • Only bonus I can think of is that government work isn't seasonal like the tech sector has been the past few years. Paid less, but there's a certain value in job security especially if you're starting or already have a family.

      • Re:April 1st is long past (Score:5, Insightful)

        by lynx_user_abroad ( 323975 ) on Thursday April 11, 2002 @09:00AM (#3322609) Homepage Journal
        This is not for you and me. This is not about exposing some of us to FORTRAN and the others to C++. The program is aimed at giving IT executives a chance to switch places.

        The idea is to take someone with a large government budget to spend and indoctrinate them for 6 month or a year in some IT corporation, while at the same time giving a senior IT executive from the same company a chance to spend a half year or so meeting the players inside the government, learning what problems they face and recommending the best possible solution ("...which our company just happens to sell...") for those problems.

        This is nothing more than legalized influence peddling. If I ran an IT company, I'd pay good money to get this program running, too.

    • 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.
    • Govt jobs are great for the lazy or no talent. the unions and bizzare setup propagates it. I worked for 7 years in a government run water filtration plant (Fresh water not sweage) and I'll tell you that they follow a simple hiring practice.. either hire the mentally handicapped or promote the most ineffective employee to management positions. If you are innovative that is a fireable offense (I'm serious! i saw the most innovative employee there get ridden like a horse and then fired because he was working smart and not the asenine way the supevisor wanted him to.)

      Choose a govt job as your last resort. it is not worth it if you are a thinker or like to work and live logically. Logic is frowned upon in govt jobs.

      I fled my career as a microbiologist to IS/IT because of it.
    • I've known several people who worked for the gov't and from their stories I certainly wouldn't leave my job.

      Everyone who works in gov't jobs wants you to think everything is terrible. Don't believe it for a second. The pay may not be spectacular, but it is very difficult to get fired from a gov't job and this allows for a less than vigorous approach to your task.

      In addition, the retirement benefits blow away anything any private company can offer. You just have to stick with the gov't for a long enough period (not much of a problem -- see above).

      Compare:

      Private firm -- must get money from people willing to pay or go out of business, no guaranteed source of revenue.

      Government -- gets money from people whether they want to give it or not, almost sure money.

      Private firm -- you have little say over who your boss is.

      Government -- employees are voters too. Make things to hard (use words like efficient) and you suffer the political consequences.

      Private firm -- fire a employee for anti-semitic remarks

      Government -- if he is a professor, he tell's you have no choice but to keep him, otherwise you're violating "academic freedom." So he sits getting paid while he is on administrative leave. Instead of being a servant of the people of the state of Florida, he insists that they be forced to continue paying him, despite that fact that a vast majority disagree with his positions. Who works for who?

      The relationship between employer and employee is fundamentally different when in comes to government jobs and the employees know it. They bitch and moan to the 'outsiders' because they don't want to admit how easy they have it. The fact is, you have to bust your hump in the private sector. Government jobs are easy street.

      I have worked in both situations and work in a gov't position now. It makes my blood boil when I hear all these slackers bitch about not getting a raise this year while people I know are getting kicked to the curb (they don't count the cost of living increase they got as a raise, btw). The sense of entitlement is astounding.

      The number of government workers is really its own class and they live off the sweat of the private sector.

  • 34 percent of the government workforce becomes eligible to retire in the next few years, and little has been done to prepare for that loss of IT workers

    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.

    • 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.
    • As a recently laid-off bastard, I can say that I'd LOVE a gov't IT hiring spree. My first employer no longer exists at all. My second employer is a shell of it's former self, whose management effectively ignores it's only successful product, considering it a sideline. My last employer is 50% the size that it was when I got hired, and it's still shrinking.

      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.

  • 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:)

  • Greener Grass? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by cleetus ( 123553 ) on Thursday April 11, 2002 @08:36AM (#3322499) Homepage

    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

    • Re:Greener Grass? (Score:5, Informative)

      by Raleel ( 30913 ) on Thursday April 11, 2002 @08:59AM (#3322602)
      I know those are reasons I work for the gov't. Gov't employees get paid the same amount whereveer you go, so pick a place where your money will go father.

      Unlike some IT places in gov't, I actually go on call (aka pager duty)....once every 4 months. Then I have it for a week. How may pager calls have I gotten? 2...in 3 years.

      Gov't IT jobs will not put you in the hospital young. They are about reasonable amounts of work, using big hardware, and helping out whoever is spending the tax dollars to make something good happen.
    • Or you could be like me--I was laid off in the private industry in one of the cities hit hardest by layoffs. Searched in the private industry for almost 3 months for another position with no results. Finally, through a friend, gained access to a government job. The pay is literally 33% less than what I made in the private industry, and the work is quite menial compared to what I used to do. However, I now have almost no job related stress whatsoever, which equates to no ulcers, sleepless nights, e.t.c. The already mentioned strict 8 hour max days are nice as well, in addition to having much more time to spend with my family. So while I was extremely disappointed to take the pay cut, I have through time come to realize the benefit of being where I am.
    • Want to know another benefit to gov't work? I can go to school and still work full time without any headaches. I'm currently working full time for a university and going to school half time at the same university. I can take off from work for a couple hours each day with no problems.

      Have a late night working on a project for school and have to come into work late? No big deal. My boss has literally no idea what time I come into work or what time I leave, all that matters is that I'm getting my work done. Also since I'm a computer science major I can usually work on homework while at work and of course get paid for it. Absolutely wonderful.
    • What? For the same levels of education, private sector jobs pay consistantly higher. I have worked as a contractor working mostly with the government for 7 years. They pay assloads on new equipment they dont need, then they dont pay any salary so the people that are there suck and dont know anything. Private sector has better people that have to work with less equipment. Sure you might have to work more than 40 hours a week once in a while, but lots of other people in lots of other fields have to do that also. Doctors, Engineers of all types, non computer technicians. I never hear of any of those other fields whine about long hours like I hear computer people bitch. I personally dont mind working a little harder for a lot more money.


      linux

  • by what criteria? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Xzzy ( 111297 ) <sether@tru7h. o r g> on Thursday April 11, 2002 @08:36AM (#3322500) Homepage
    > 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. ;)
    • I work in the private sector and I can't begin to tell you about the bureaucratic headaches, recursive reporting structures, and on and on.

      I miss the job I had at the local state University. Totally laid back, a real "campus" setting with trees, grass and places to go outside -- not that poured concrete and crabgrass around a drainage slough that passes for a corporate campus or the brick-and-glass downtown corporate scene.

      The advantages of a corporate job though seem to be MUCH better money both in terms of pay and in budgets. I also get to travel to class-A cities on the man's dime, which often means $100 meals, luxury hotels and limo rides.

      It gets stressful at times, but a lot of the stress is internal -- the desire to do a great job despite a high workload. You get thrown into the deep end of the pool and management isn't afraid to replace you if you can't swim. If you *can* swim, they don't mind giving you more in your pay packet and more to spend.

      I'm getting to the point though where I've travelled enough, ate enough, drank enough and achieved enough "stuff" financially that a government job on less pay with less stress to finish of my next 20 years sounds pretty good. I'd rather have the time to travel on my own.
    • and when they say 9-5 on a government job, they MEAN 9-5.


      The Fed gov't has an interesting way of doing math when it comes to hours, BTW. For every 4 hours worked, you earn a 15-minute break... which comes out of the 4 hours worked. As a result, an 8-hour day starting at 9:00 ends at 5:30.

      Additionally, some places have alternate work schedule (AWS) where, if you work eight 9-hour days and one 8-hour day in a 2-week (40-hour) pay period, you get the tenth day off. My 9-hour day goes from 7:30 - 5:00.
      • Those 15 minute breaks are considered "on the clock", and therefore paid. You have to stay "on the premesis" (defined by your employer, traditionally, the building, and parking lot area) The same act that enacted overtime, and minimum wage, is responsable for that (I don't remember the name of the actual law).

        Lunch, however, is not paid, and therefore your time. You could go home, get a haircut, buy a car, it doesn't matter, but you have to be back by the time lunch is up.
        • I think you are actually agreeing with the original poster. Here is how I understand it.

          For every four hours worked you earn a 15 minute use-it-or-lose-it break. But you can leave the premises if you want during those fifteen minutes, that's why so many government workers can still maintain a smoking habit in smoke-free buildings, they can take an outside five minute smoke break three times in the morning and three times in the afternoon. You can't however save up these breaks and take off a half hour early at the end of the day.

          The 8.5 hour day that the original poster was talking about is the eaight hour workday, plus the 30 minute UNPAID lunch hour. In the agency where I work, most people (non-smokers anyway) take 10 minutes in the morning, ten minutes in the afternoon, and a 40 minute combined break/lunch in the middle of the day.

          As to this new bill, one point no-one has brought-up is that most people doing IT work for the government already work in the private sector as contractors. And a good percentage of those 'IT workers' in the government do nothing more than monitor the contractors. In my agency of about 4,000 staff, 500 of whom have IT responsibility, there are likely only 100 that can explain the difference between a client and a server, or between a server and a mainframe. If you sent one of them to private industry, you will likely lose them for good. If you sent one of the remaining 400, likely the company would send them back within the first two weeks.

          AS to any benefit from the private company worker coming to the government for 6-12 months, that already happens as new hires are put to work on government contracts until they prove themselves, in which case they might be given reposinibility to work as contractor outside of government.

      • 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.

    • Re:by what criteria? (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Telastyn ( 206146 ) on Thursday April 11, 2002 @11:28AM (#3323621)
      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.

  • Max $52k/year? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Brento ( 26177 ) <brento@@@brentozar...com> on Thursday April 11, 2002 @08:38AM (#3322509) Homepage
    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.
    • I think they mean "above and beyond their current Federal salaries". I'm not sure, but I believe that they mean the Fed is going to _pay_ for these employees when they are in the private sector. The private sector will then _supplement_ their salaries.

      C//

  • State worker (Score:3, Informative)

    by AppyPappy ( 64817 ) on Thursday April 11, 2002 @08:38AM (#3322513)
    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.

  • Greener on the other side of the fence? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by goldspider ( 445116 ) on Thursday April 11, 2002 @08:38AM (#3322514) Homepage
    As I've posted before, I'm a government IT employee. My brother just so happens to be on the corporate side of that fence.

    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.


    • There's a big difference in the corporate world between working for a .com start up, and being a faceless IT employee in the depths of General Motors or SBC.

      K-12 Education is a sector you'd NEVER want to work IT in.
      • Why do you say "K-12 Education is a sector you'd NEVER want to work IT in."?

        I'm looking into a position at a charter school, and while it would mean a 1/3 pay cut, I'm very excited about education in general, and losing my 10-12 hour days and hours of commuting. Besides, the whole summer break thing is compelling.

    • Re:Greener on the other side of the fence? (Score:1)

      by Anonymous Coward
      I'd agree with this comment. My flatmate & I both graduated with Comp. Sci degrees last year - at the same level & from the same university in Scotland.

      She went off to work in industry for a large international and has so far had two rounds of wage reductions, big budget cuts and is generally stressed constantly from having unrealistic work loads, risk of down sizing and unpaid overtime.

      I went to work for the government as a sponsored PhD student. I get a tax free income which is about the same as her's after tax. While she has a nice little cubicle I've done conference trips to the US, Canada and Switzerland since the start of the year and have a million dollar+ budget to play with and 8 weeks paid holiday each year which I have no chance of using up as I get comp. time for all the travel I have to do.

      2 more years and I'll have spent 12-18 months at a US National Lab, got a PhD, published a load of papersand can take up job offers in 5 different countries through the contacts I'm making now.

      Corporate life sucks unless your senior management - which I wont be for another decade at least.

      Which raises the question why does anyone go work for industry in the first place?
    • As the poster of the article, I often wonder if the grass is greener on the other side. My friends who left for "real jobs" seem to think I'm nuts for staying in a small town, sticking to my gov't job. Of course, some of them have pretty fantastic government jobs - but the National Labs are an exception (now there's the green grass I really keep gazing towards). I love my job -- flexitime, flexiplace, flexishoes, few meetings, and lots of creative control. I live in a small town -- 10 mintute commute, little pollution, and great lifestyle.

      On the other hand, I'm working in an environment where a lot of people are still working on PIII 500's, and using Fortran and vi. I make less than half what my friends do in the Big City (with cost of living taken into account). I don't think the benefits make up for the disparity in pay, but it helps. We can't afford all the corporate perks -- up-to-date workstations, yearly conferences, expensive seminars. Oh, and the 40 hour a week thing? That's a myth. When the server goes down or the deadline's coming up, late nights are seen by all. Many of us take work or studying home in an effort to keep up.

      Staffing is an issue, and the government knows it. OPM gave IT folks a raise a while ago -- it doesn't come close private salaries, but at least they tried, and it did make a difference on whether or not I stuck with my job. Many of us are doing the jobs of several people -- spread too thin and suffering the "jack of all trades" syndrome. Keep up with the "times"? It's just not that easy.

      Of course, my brother is a cushy corporate type, and is amazed we don't have a dress code, and can't fathom that if I want a day or week off I simply announce I won't be in the office and off I go.
      • While I have little first-hand experience in the corporate IT world, I would expect that many private-sector employees are faced with the same difficulties you described: substandard hardware, long workdays. Let's not forget the seemingly constant corporate downsizing that must present its own staffing issues to those spared by the axe, and the added stress of fearing you may be next.

        I believe you and I are on the same side here, but the headline implied that government jobs were far inferior to private sector jobs. In terms of raw salary, you're probably right. But until the private sector can offer the same job security and benefits I'm getting from the government, I have no intention of hopping the fence to the grass that might be greener, but more likely to turn brown and die in the event of another economic drought.

  • migration of the pointy haired (Score:4, Funny)

    by ashultz ( 141393 ) on Thursday April 11, 2002 @08:39AM (#3322516)

    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.

  • ok let's see WHO they will be working for!!!!! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by stopbit ( 444789 ) on Thursday April 11, 2002 @08:41AM (#3322523)
    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!!!!!
    • Kind of makes me sick.....he is going to have PKI crammed down his throat then take it back to the military!

      Don't knock PKI [pki.com] until you've tried it. I still consider The Beast to be the best coaster around this part of the world.
    • 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!

      That's ok, I've got a friend in the Army that is doing most of the admin work for the buildings he is stuck in right now. (Not sure the exact Army term for the unit size.)
      He's a smart enough guy, but the fact that he had never even added RAM to his own machine before he got shipped out there kinda indicates his level of computer knowledge, a.k.a. not even enough to really be dangerous. Now, to his credit, he is picking it up fast, and knows to ask for help before doing something collosally stupid. But, if this is the type of admins the Army has running around in it, I'm glad most of their stuff runs windows. Ya, as a real OS its pretty bad, but its easy to install, and fix. (Reboot or Reload, that's about it.)

    • 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!
      Well, we all wondered when Microsoft would break away and create their own state complete with armed forces. Sounds as if they decided to just acquire one ready-made!

      sPh

  • hmm (Score:1)

    by SnAzBaZ ( 572456 )
    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...
    • Yeah, but who's paying for that? With this "techie exchange program" the governement gets the private sector to bear the costs.

  • Grass is greener on both sides (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Enry ( 630 ) <enry@noSpaM.wayga.net> on Thursday April 11, 2002 @08:43AM (#3322537) Journal
    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.
    • [A negative for working for the government] - 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). Sounds just like the (large) private sector outfit I work for...
    • VERY hard to get laid off/fired.

      This should probably be in the -Govt column instead/as well. It means you're working with idiots (Speaking from experience here). For example, the guy with a PhD in Spanish working tech support who could not plug in a computer.

      • VERY hard to get laid off/fired.
        This should probably be in the -Govt column instead/as well. It means you're working with idiots (Speaking from experience here). For example, the guy with a PhD in Spanish working tech support who could not plug in a computer.

        This is easily one of the most enticing reasons to leave my federal government job, actually. There are so many completely clueless and dangerous IT people around here that it can be tough to get things done right. Lots of people who think they know what they're doing, but really don't, and routinely break everything. And then there's the (also clueless) IT guy who was abusing his government credit card for personal computer items, but even that wasn't enough to get him fired. He's still breaking things, just in another agency.

        And, yeah, I could be making a lot more in the private sector also, of course. On the other hand, as mentioned before, it's very stable. The workload varies from very light to moderate. We don't have the huge budgets that everyone else seems to be talking about (e.g., CD burners in 1992) but we have enough to fly us to interesting conferences about once a year. My hours are incredibly flexible (some days 8-4:30, some days noon to 8:30) but I work no more than 40 hours a week. I have a cell phone that they call me on regularly outside of work hours, but I hardly ever wind up having to come in to fix something (ahh, the power of VNC and SSH.) Oh, and lots of spare bandwidth sitting there unused after hours.

        My quasi-automatic yearly pay increases are probably almost over, and the bullshit paperwork is getting worse, which is getting me more interested in the private sector, but who knows. I'm also probably done with living in D.C., and that's probably what'll push me over to the Other Side.

        Umm, I seem to be just rambling now. Sorry. I think the lack of cluefull people here have caused my brain to atrophy slightly, too.

      • Not necessarily _idiots_, but sometimes pretty lazy. Government IT research facilities aren't filled with _idiots_. But after a while, even the "moderately intelligent" can get complacent.

        C//
    • ...you would have stayed with the feds, but money talks, no matter what anyone says about all these other benefits that are supposedly worth taking pay cuts for.

      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 [unc.edu].

      • It was more than that. I couldn't take the management structure that was overhead. I've been in small companies since, so it's hard to compare to a large company.

        Lack of accountability is a double-edged sword. I've been laid off twice in 12 months. For some people, the stability of knowing you've got a job for as long as you want it is a comforting thought. The people I worked with were all pretty competent, so I didn't have a problem with people stuck in the wrong job.

  • What is the goal? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by jhines0042 ( 184217 ) on Thursday April 11, 2002 @08:44AM (#3322541) Journal
    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?
  • 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.
    • Well on the government side:

      (1) works in the field of information technology management;
      (2) is considered an exceptional performer by the individual's current employer; and
      (3) is expected to assume increased information technology management responsibilities in the future.

      An employee of an agency shall be eligible to participate in this program only if the employee is employed at the GS-11 level or above (or equivalent) and is serving under a career or career-conditional appointment or an appointment of equivalent tenure in the excepted service.

      This describes a group of people who, in my experience, have actually worked for their positions. You don't get a GS-11 without a Ph.D. or equivilant experience.

      Of course, getting a manager to go with "new technology" is often a fight. Maybe after seeing a bit of the "real world" they'll be more open to accepting and using new technologies.

  • Working for Uncle (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    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.
  • 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
    • This may be a good idea.

      I've worked with alot of good/qualified people who have come into the private sector from the military.

      My last job was at a high-volume dot-com -- my manager was the head of operations & the majority of his background was working in Naval Intelligence. He knew his shit, and was a good guy to work for.

      -Turkey
    • Don't believe everything the glossy pages tell you - going reserves does not guarantee you an exit strategy from the corporate world. Is it somewhat more likely? Sure. NOTHING IS A GUARANTEE. If you read it in a brochure or hear it from a recruitment office, get independent confirmation from someone who's been around for a while (5-10 years is a good window - not the new active duty guy/gal and DEFINITELY not a ROTC or military academy cadet. They don't have a clue how the "real military" works - I sure as heck didn't.)
      There's a whole slew of bureaucratic crap that is involved with this. Reserves are cool, but it's not a guaranteed paycheck. Also, you are more likely to have an unexpected deployment schedule as a reservist... Civilian employers are not permitted to fire you because you are activated in the reserves, but it's definitely a hiring hurdle...

  • As a fedtech (Score:2, Interesting)

    by blankmange ( 571591 )
    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....

  • Just a bandaid. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by laetus ( 45131 ) on Thursday April 11, 2002 @09:00AM (#3322603)
    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.
    • Boy, are you right about 3) ! As a sysadmin working for a university in the Netherlands it's the one thing that causes me a lot of stress and headaches!

      That and the impossibly tight budgets (think: nothing to spend, actually) tend to drive me right up the wall at times...
    • hmmm. at the FAA, the pay is pretty good (I contract there). Many of the contractors are trying to get on as Fed employees. I agree that allowing underperforming staff to be fired is the #1 thing. There are some employees who are worthless and, in my case, I depend on these people for server administration. Favorite quote from one NT server admin: "Me (Looking over his shoulder, restraining the urge to pick up the mouse, bludgeon him to death with it, and drive the damn thing myself). Let's look at the event log... (seeing the look of confusion on his face)... with the event viewer" him: "the event what?"...

      Is he honestly saying he has been a "server administrator" for years (this guy is older) and he's NEVER used the NT event viewer? or heard of it?!?!?! I had to walk out of the cube.

      • Re:Just a bandaid. (Score:2, Insightful)

        by JThaddeus ( 531998 )
        Amen to that! But this is a problem faced by all government workers, not just those in the technology sector. My wife teaches high school and is daily faced with teachers that aren't worth a tinker's damn but who, because of seniority, draw higher salaries. In fact, in our county (Fauquier, Virginia) these teachers lobbied to have the pay differential for those with masters and PhDs cut and, instead, put the money into paying for logevity. That's not at all the smartest way to get young, qualified people into the teaching profession.

        Government workers are gonna have to face the fact that, if they want better pay and more respect, they have to get rid of the dead weight in their ranks. Untill they do, the tax payers (their bosses) will continue to cut government budgets.
    • Don't forget:

      4) management that sucks even worse than that encountered in the private industry. Incompetence in management is par for the course, and since poor performance won't get a manager fired in government service this tends to result in the promotion of other poor performers so that the current management isn't threatened or embarrassed by new additions to the administrative team.

      Max
  • 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...
  • Why not a couple of years National Service in IT for all CS Students?
  • 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.

  • duh gubment vs private industry (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    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
    • I think your take on the situation is quite jaded and scornful.

      Do you have it in for the government...

      or are you afraid?

      Coward :)
    • 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.

      You say that like it's a bad thing. This is exactly the attitude I want in the corporate executives of any company in which I have invested.

      I'm not quite sure how "drink employee blood" can maximize shareholder value, but I wouldn't be too suprised to see it in certain people's DayPlanner.

  • This should be interesting.

    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 $ :) They're more likely to higher you too if you have experience in the government.. it's a nice fallback plan.

    yup, I'd take it :)
  • 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..........

  • 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....
  • OK... so, it seems to me that you'd want your valuable gov't IT workers to take part in the the cross-pollenation.

    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?

  • Bit of an identity crisis (Score:3, Funny)

    by Daniel Dvorkin ( 106857 ) on Thursday April 11, 2002 @09:19AM (#3322703) Homepage Journal

    Early in the article, it says:

    "... would create an exchange of mid-level information technology executives between the public and private sectors ..."

    But then in the next paragraph, it says:

    "... would allow private-sector IT experts to work for the federal government and federal employees to work for private companies ..."

    So which is it -- are they going to be trading "executives", or "experts"? Because you can't have it both ways ...

  • 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.
  • 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?
  • 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!
  • Who do you think Corporate Manager's are going to send to work for the Gov't? They are going to get rid of the most incompetent buffoons they have in their organization - whether they are techies, managers or project managers. Corporate Managers would love to be rid of some of these people that cause daily headaches!

    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).
  • 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).

  • 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?

  • 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.
    • Have you ever tried to make it better? I did and all I got was grief - after my ideas were stolen and implemented by others, who took credit for everything I did or thought of for themselves.

      Government isn't kind to folks who want to change things for the better. Government is especially unkind to those who're brighter than their managers (and thus are a threat to them), or who suggest that perhaps current policy isn't best serving the public. Government gets downright ugly if you discover management engaged in illegal or unethical practices and have the gall to speak out against these things.

      Go ahead and try to make a difference. I did. I have nothing to show for it but years of wasted labor and a bitterness over public service that goes right to the bone.

      Max

  • The net result of "musical chairs" (Score:4, Interesting)

    by dcavanaugh ( 248349 ) on Thursday April 11, 2002 @10:12AM (#3323099) Homepage
    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.
  • 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
  • Work for a Government contractor. There are several, Raytheon, TRW, MITRE, MITRETEK, or in just about any aerospace firm for starters. The contractors act as independant entities (they are) that are funded by the government (although indrectly sometimes). There is where you will find the smart people (contractors don't have as many weird pay-ceiling rules that the government employees have) working on problems that nobody else is doing. (If someone else IS doing it, the government tends to prefer to buy it off the shelf instead of hiring those expensive contractors to reinvent the wheel).

    Bonuses:
    • Stable income
    • Good working hours (they're still on government time)
    • Upward mobility
    • Chance to work on problem (extending the Inernet to Mars for instance) that nobody else is even thinking about yet.
    • Smart people
    • Friendly towards post-graduate education. Most of the people I work with are Masters or PHDs
    • Can get you a security clearance, which makes you worth your weight in gold in the government sector, especially if you have a PHD

    Negatives:
    • Government sponsers can be easily destracted. You must constantly reaffirm your importance to them.
    • Easier to get fired than a pure government job (especially for incompetence).
    • Lots of ex-military types, especially in the managerial positions. Many programers (and Slashdot types) would probably have at least some personality conflict. This is pretty minor as most of the people are good guys
    • Older more professional workforce, most of the people have familys and are settled down. It's not a .com where you don't trust anyone over 30. This is considered a bonus by many people.
    • You'll never get into Fortune magazine or on the news (unless you REALLY screw up).
  • ... 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....?

  • 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.

    .

Slashdot Top Deals

Sentient plasmoids are a gas.

Close