Anonymous wrote:So if I were to pivot from a Fed role to a contractor like SAIC, Leidos, Aerospace, Lockheed, etc — would I be less vulnerable to layoff or more? My spouse things I should make the leap since my agency is not popular with administration, but I think contractors are just a different set of problems.

This actually made me chuckle. You're definitely vulnerable (more) to layoff. Employment is "at will" and you can and will be let go for any number of reasons with no notice.



--over twenty years with NG and SAIC.

I left DOD to a DOD contractor 5 weeks ago.

Some people have been furloughed because of this shutdown, but I’m in an overhead position. So far so good but it’s still worrisome.

My old coworkers at DOD are home and the paychecks were 3 days short. I’m glad I left. There will be a budget crisis twice a year with this admin. Not worth it to me.

I switched to a defense contractor and it has been fine. Nice company, better benefits, less bureaucracy but I know I could still be laid off- just like my federal role. But I am making way more money so that helps

Anonymous wrote:I had the option of being a fed or a contractor. I picked being a contractor because I thought there would be less drama, and there has been. For instance, I'm still getting paid. But there's no job security.

In the event of a stop work order, though, contractors can be furloughed, and the companies are less likely to offer back pay when work resumes.

Anonymous wrote:My agency has mostly avoided RIFs, but contracts are being cut left and right. There have been large layoffs and hour reductions at the contracting companies we use, and it's just going to get worse.

This—you’re better off staying where you are!

My agency has mostly avoided RIFs, but contracts are being cut left and right. There have been large layoffs and hour reductions at the contracting companies we use, and it's just going to get worse.

Who do you think funds those contractors OP?

Not safer and much more precarious. I am a fed contractor and when this admin decides it’s time for a contract to be cut, our folks will be laid off within days. There’s no recourse and no warning. Don’t do it.

Anonymous wrote:If your fed job is vulnerable, a contracting role isn’t any safer.

I would only leave for a DOD contract from another agency that admin has spoke bad about. Would that be safer?

I had the option of being a fed or a contractor. I picked being a contractor because I thought there would be less drama, and there has been. For instance, I'm still getting paid. But there's no job security.

The supposed point of contractors is that they're easy to fire. It's really common to have to change employers every couple years, either because your contract ended or because that's the only way to get a raise. If you're not on a billable contract, you are in danger. I've also seen contractors get fired because the government manager didn't like them.

On the positive side, job hopping is common and relatively straightforward.

I work for one of those companies mentioned.

In this market, you need to be on a contract to be employed. We used to offer long bench time, to give employees time to find a new contract if your contract ended. Not anymore.

If going private, get on a contract with long term funding. However, this doesn’t mean the current government isn’t going to cut funding in the future. This has never happened before this administration (without a reason, like poor performance).

Nope. In my agency we haven’t even really looked at the contracts yet, they’re too busy winnowing out the staff. If you survive as a Fed after these rounds, stay put. Much safer than contracting.

If your fed job is vulnerable, a contracting role isn’t any safer.

So if I were to pivot from a Fed role to a contractor like SAIC, Leidos, Aerospace, Lockheed, etc — would I be less vulnerable to layoff or more? My spouse things I should make the leap since my agency is not popular with administration, but I think contractors are just a different set of problems.