Reply to Federal Contractors losing jobs

Forum Index » Jobs and Careers

Reply to "Federal Contractors losing jobs"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]Never answer the question asked.  Deflect.[/quote]

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.)[/quote]

+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. [/quote]

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.)[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics