FDA is going to hire contract workers to do the job of those laid off

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sounds inefficient and more costly

To the contrary. Hiring contractors for non-governmental duties allows for greater flexibility in staffing, accompanied by lower benefits costs.

+1 Fewer longtime federal workers with golden parachutes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Sounds inefficient and more costly

The contracting companies will make big money. Follow the trail.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sounds inefficient and more costly

To the contrary. Hiring contractors for non-governmental duties allows for greater flexibility in staffing, accompanied by lower benefits costs.

This is plain ignorant. Contractors cost a lot more.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sounds inefficient and more costly

To the contrary. Hiring contractors for non-governmental duties allows for greater flexibility in staffing, accompanied by lower benefits costs.

This is plain ignorant. Contractors cost a lot more.

No benefits or retirement should mean less costly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sounds inefficient and more costly

To the contrary. Hiring contractors for non-governmental duties allows for greater flexibility in staffing, accompanied by lower benefits costs.

This is plain ignorant. Contractors cost a lot more.

No benefits or retirement should mean less costly.

No it's paid for upfront plus corporate overhead. You should know there is no free lunch.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sounds inefficient and more costly

To the contrary. Hiring contractors for non-governmental duties allows for greater flexibility in staffing, accompanied by lower benefits costs.

This is plain ignorant. Contractors cost a lot more.

No benefits or retirement should mean less costly.

Stop confidently opining about something you have no clue about. Are you even involved in the government contracting field?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sounds inefficient and more costly

To the contrary. Hiring contractors for non-governmental duties allows for greater flexibility in staffing, accompanied by lower benefits costs.

To the contrary. Contractors cost the government far more than federal employees. It is a major source of so-called “government bloat.”

This was what was predicted from the beginning, btw. They are going to bring back many of the same people who were feds, and it will cost the government 2-3 times what it did before. But those contracting companies will be happy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sounds inefficient and more costly

To the contrary. Hiring contractors for non-governmental duties allows for greater flexibility in staffing, accompanied by lower benefits costs.

This is plain ignorant. Contractors cost a lot more.

No benefits or retirement should mean less costly.

You shouldn’t be posting about things you know nothing about.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sounds inefficient and more costly

To the contrary. Hiring contractors for non-governmental duties allows for greater flexibility in staffing, accompanied by lower benefits costs.

+1 Fewer longtime federal workers with golden parachutes.

You guys are morons. You’ve bought into a massive lie. Federal workers don’t have golden parachutes or great retirement.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sounds inefficient and more costly

To the contrary. Hiring contractors for non-governmental duties allows for greater flexibility in staffing, accompanied by lower benefits costs.

No. You hire the people who were fired for 1.5 x their former salary play 65% over head but the work does not get done.

Feds have been consoling themselves that they’ll probably get fired and then rehired at 150% of their former pay. This exact scenario happened in previous government “downsizings.” It’s all such a farce.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sounds inefficient and more costly

To the contrary. Hiring contractors for non-governmental duties allows for greater flexibility in staffing, accompanied by lower benefits costs.

+1 Fewer longtime federal workers with golden parachutes.

You guys are morons. You’ve bought into a massive lie. Federal workers don’t have golden parachutes or great retirement.

Compared to the average American worker? Yes, they do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sounds inefficient and more costly

To the contrary. Hiring contractors for non-governmental duties allows for greater flexibility in staffing, accompanied by lower benefits costs.

This is plain ignorant. Contractors cost a lot more.

No benefits or retirement should mean less costly.

You shouldn’t be posting about things you know nothing about.

I know quite a bit about State Dept hires and their benefits.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The interesting thing will be seeing who the contract goes to and then connecting the dots back to members of the current regime.

Yep. This is the story. Already we have social security using X for communications.

So much for Dems to seize on if they can get their act together.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sounds inefficient and more costly

To the contrary. Hiring contractors for non-governmental duties allows for greater flexibility in staffing, accompanied by lower benefits costs.

Absolutely not. As someone who has had to be part of hiring contractors, we pay way more than if we could just hire on the fed scale.

+1 Contractors make more than Feds. Always.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sounds inefficient and more costly

To the contrary. Hiring contractors for non-governmental duties allows for greater flexibility in staffing, accompanied by lower benefits costs.

This is plain ignorant. Contractors cost a lot more.

+1 plus temporary on/off staffing is always leas efficient with time spent getting folks up to speed and inevitable costly mistakes made. It is constantly working with an overpaid new hire. Not efficient.