Federal Contractors losing jobs

[Anonymous]

They never had a job in first place.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am working as a contractor at a Federal agency (FINREG), and my employer is hiring A LOT of IT people. I was hired three months ago and the salary is 220K/yr.

Which FinReg is hiring?

+1 give names please

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:America is sucking balls.

Do you think it’s fiscally healthy to have the USG as the nation’s largest employer? It’s not sustainable.

The largest number of USG employees (as well as waste, fraud and abuse) is the military/DoD. Last I checked, they are getting a large increase in funding.

If they were ever even remotely serious about cutting government waste they would have started with DoD.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:America is sucking balls.

Do you think it’s fiscally healthy to have the USG as the nation’s largest employer? It’s not sustainable.

The largest number of USG employees (as well as waste, fraud and abuse) is the military/DoD. Last I checked, they are getting a large increase in funding.

If they were ever even remotely serious about cutting government waste they would have started with DoD.

DoD is cutting all the stuff that tries to prevent waste, which may or may not actually be a good thing. But in the past, we've had bad outcomes in the long run. And throwing money at acquisition... ugh. We'll see what happens.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am working as a contractor at a Federal agency (FINREG), and my employer is hiring A LOT of IT people. I was hired three months ago and the salary is 220K/yr.

Which FinReg is hiring?

+1 give names please

I had an awesome IT person who was let go in our probationary purge, would love the names of any companies that are hiring to pass along!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am working as a contractor at a Federal agency (FINREG), and my employer is hiring A LOT of IT people. I was hired three months ago and the salary is 220K/yr.

Which FinReg is hiring?

+1 give names please

I had an awesome IT person who was let go in our probationary purge, would love the names of any companies that are hiring to pass along!

It would be great if everyone that has jobs or knows of jobs, got in touch somehow with those who know of great fed workers that were let go. Like a subreddit or something on LinkedIn? Anyone know of such a thing?

(I know two fabulous project managers who were probationary because of a promotion)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This to me is a joke. This is not at all what I'm seeing. Contractors handle way more of the work load at my agency than the feds. And I agree with a PP here they're not treated well at all. They are each currently taking the burden of 3-4 fed employees that they already let go. They keep dumping more and more work onto the contractors.

lol no.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Never answer the question asked. Deflect.

Original question was whether civil service employees are more cost-effective.

People have truthfully answered directly that civil service people are the lowest cost and most cost effective in the majority of cases. No deflection. Straight answers with detailed explanations of how the contractor costs work. (And fwiw I am NOT in the civil service.)

+1
But need to consider value and long term. They become very expensive if they are complacent dead weight and the contractors are actually doing the work. Then it's a redundant expense, as cost effective as it is.

Long term, using civil service people are normally lowest cost and best value. This is especially true in STEM fields, where feds are significantly underpaid vs jobs in the non-governmental sector if the economy.

Any organization with 50k employees will have some dead wood. Any. Fixing that needs a scalpel to cut the dead wood only, not a chain saw that mostly cuts down the high value and low cost live wood -- and only gets rid a little bit of the dead wood.

Most civil service folks I know would have agreed with some sort of annual approach where the bottom 1% or bottom 5% get RIF'd or PIP'd each year.

That thoughtful cut targeting bottom feeders is not what happened this year -- and Congress has not yet proposed such a change. Congress still could enact legislation mandating this - and I'd bet the President would gladly sign it. My guess, however, is that the chain saw was just marketing and that no real long-term change will happen.

(I am not in the civil service.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Contractors are used when the government wants the flexibility to staff up for finite or indeterminate periods of time, but not indefinitely. Normally, a caveat which wouldn't have been necessary in years past, government employees have considerable job security; once hired, they are (were) rarely terminated involuntarily before retirement eligibility. These days, things are obviously different, but contracting still offers the government a way to hire people for what are anticipated to be temporary needs. Contracting is also a way to hire SMEs at higher salaries than allowed by the government's pay scales.

In the past (when govenment jobs were stable), can government employees be terminated involuntarily without cause if they reach retirement eligibility?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:America is sucking balls.

Do you think it’s fiscally healthy to have the USG as the nation’s largest employer? It’s not sustainable.

We are not going to listen to a lecture on fiscal responsibility from the party that just blew up the deficit. You don’t have a leg to stand on so off with you and your nonsense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:As a fed it’s always more cost effective to hire federal employees. Contractors are expensive and I don’t think they’re always treated well. The reason I see contractors hired is because federal hiring is so convoluted and we can’t pay enough.

It’s a lot more complex than this. Do you have any idea how much training feds are put through every year? Who do you think pays for that? What about the effective overhead for each Fed? Retirement/healthcare?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This to me is a joke. This is not at all what I'm seeing. Contractors handle way more of the work load at my agency than the feds. And I agree with a PP here they're not treated well at all. They are each currently taking the burden of 3-4 fed employees that they already let go. They keep dumping more and more work onto the contractors.

lol no.

lol YES.

Don't be a jerk!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:America is sucking balls.

Do you think it’s fiscally healthy to have the USG as the nation’s largest employer? It’s not sustainable.

Why shouldn't the federal government be the US's largest employer? What private company do you suggest should be the nation's largest employer?

The USG covers a vast range of functions that cover the dirt your food is grown in to outer space. What private company can replicate that range of functions without the need to turn a profit? That's right, none.

That's not to say that I think the USG should employ people as a jobs program, but the idea that there's something inherently wrong with the entirety of the USG employing the most people when you look at everything it does is totally illogical.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Didn’t 2000 NASA staff just up and quit? Who’s gonna do these contractor jobs? Same with state department, saw a crap ton lost their jobs this week.

2000 took the DRP, but that’s not just up and quitting. They are looking to downsize NASA by like 45%, so yes, lots of contractors getting cut as well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As a fed it’s always more cost effective to hire federal employees. Contractors are expensive and I don’t think they’re always treated well. The reason I see contractors hired is because federal hiring is so convoluted and we can’t pay enough.

It’s a lot more complex than this. Do you have any idea how much training feds are put through every year? Who do you think pays for that? What about the effective overhead for each Fed? Retirement/healthcare?

It’s actually not more complicated. Direct employees are less expensive than contractors, but Congress has mandated contracts because their donors get a cut of the contract. Sorry you’ve been duped since Reagan.