Return to Article: Contractor workforce grows as civil service shrinks
-
3920
This administration is simply lining the pockets of the big defense contractors at the expense of taxpayers. These contracted out jobs should not by any means be considered new jobs created by the Bush administration, rather a welfare program for the rich.
-
1611
The more I read about outsourcing, the more it seems our President does not care for federal employees. I have put in almost 19 years into federal service and for the first time in my career, I feel as though I am as disposable as yesterday's newspaper. Mr. President, doesn't integrity and hard work count for anything any more?
-
1577
I found your article very interesting. I have been involved in conducting A-76 studies since 1997 and even though we have won our competitions, our mission has suffered because of the impact from the studies. We have lost employees with many years of experience and still have to face the budget attacks that try to eat away at the available funding.
One thing lost in the discussions concerning A-76 studies in the flexibility in budget controls that are lost when a function is contracted out. Traditionally the first place managers look for extra money when the budget gets tight is civilian personnel costs. Over the years we have faced hiring freezes where fewer people have to do the work of more people, elimination of overtime pay and being forced to accept comp time and threats of furlough. Civilian employees have been expected to accomplish the same amount of production in spite of all of these conditions.
Now as we contract out more functions we no longer have the ability to impose these conditions without having to modify the contracts and removing some requirements. Those requirements that are removed are then transferred to any available government workers who are then expected to accept the additional workload without any additional compensation. Even if functions are retained in house with an MEO workforce, the positions in the MEO and workload in the PWS and management plan are must fund items or the government violates the A-76 process.
It is my opinion that contracting out does not result in any savings to the government whatsoever. Once a function is lost to a commercial entity the government is at their mercy on future years' costs as the government surrenders its ability to perform that function. What may be more important it that the government also loses its ability to control the budget as more and more items become must funds.
-
1570
I've worked for the Air Force for over 20 years and am appalled at the ever-increasing trend (and emphasis from the President) to hire contractors rather than govt workers. It may be appropriate for areas where it's not cost-effective to hire/train civil servants, or skills are not available, but contractors are being hired to perform standard tasks like logistics, financial, and program management, at 50-100% more than it would cost for a govt worker! No wonder the cost of military hardware is rising so fast. Moreover, a number of these contractors do NOT have the skills or experience required and have to be taught by govt employees !
-
1553
Thank you to Mr. Light for the first useful article relating to the 'real' government workforce. It appears that the rhetoric most frequently endorsed by this current administration has been exposed as 'smoke & mirrors.' This isn't really a surprise to federal employees.
I note that Mr. Clay Johnson entered the fray, defending the outcome forced by the current administration, and specifically defending the contracted employees. Something to the effect that, it doesn't matter how many contractors, as long as they are performing the jobs.
Hmmm, this isn't quite the reasoning used by Mitch Daniels, Sean O'Keefe and company, to demean the civil service. I sincerely hope that Mr. Johnson maintains the same level of enthusiasm to defend government workers, in many instances his own staff, when they are in the firing line.
-
1551
I think it is obvious that Mr. Bush represents big business and not the American people. A co-worker and I were talking at lunch the other day about the state of things right now and he said something that made me wonder. "I think that the president is out to bankrupt the government and then 'they' would be able to contract out all services." Have to wonder. I didn't vote for Mr. Bush in the last election nor will I in the upcoming election. He and his cronies are only about the bottom line when it applies to their businesses or their friends businesses. I'm proud to be an American, a veteran, and thank God we have the freedom of choice to elect someone or several that have our great country's interest at heart....not the bottom line. Thanks.
-
1550
So all you "complaining" civil servants no longer believe in a free enterprise system? I am a contractor at a federally-funded site. I am only used because my skill set is not available within the employee ranks. I can be cut without notice or cause (risk versus reward), so yes, my pay is more. But if I don't keep the client happy, I'm out. The government, like any organization, should only hire the most competent employees, otherwise everyone's tax dollars are wasted. I've worked with some fantastic civil servants and some whose efforts are not worth the paper their checks are written on. It's a free country, start your own contracting firm and compete with the rest of us.
-
1547
No one has yet commented on the fact that the only group of "government employees" that faced reductions is civil servants. Every other group either remained the same or grew. That is because civil servants are easy targets for our elected political animals. Please remember this at election time, we as a group have to stand up strong for what we believe we bring to the government and our country.
As a civil servant, I have for several years observed the increase in contractor support, the higher salaries paid to contract employees and now I have numbers to prove that there are more workers collecting what I am willing to bet is more government dollars than it takes to pay a civilian workforce. Can someone give us those numbers - - how much money was spent for each group of "Government employees" in prior years and what the bottom line change has really been for the government budget. The idea that it is cheaper to contract out is really a question that should be being analyzed and the information reported back to our politicians and the American public. The data may show that any budget savings achieved has been more from "program" cuts than from a reduced staff.
Also, the idea that it is cheaper and better for the government has always been a very thin argument for contracting out, but now this type of data shows that we as civil servants are not as nuts, ill informed or as gullible as we are made out to be and that the only real reason for taking some of these actions is purely for political reasons that allow politicians to blow smoke to taxpayers while using Government funding to support a corporate welfare program for their campaign contributors.
Good article.
-
1541
A good question to be asked, in all the contracts with private companies being given out, how many of the jobs created by these contracts are give to american workers, (I mean they don't need green cards)? It seems all our jobs by these contractors are given to workers who are not U.S. citizens. I see it around our hometown they hire them at minimum wage and no benefits, that is if they keep the plants in the U.S. Usually they close the American plants and move to Mexico or some other foreign land where they can pay even less than minimum wage. This has to stop. Now the President doesn't want to give us our cost-of-living adjustment raises and he wants to give our jobs away. Who does the President represent, the people of the U.S. or big business?
-
1540
So it seems that it takes many more contract employees to do the work that previously was done by federal workers. How is that more efficient?
-
1536
The figures are staggering, with the natural progression of attrition Mr. Bush should be satisfied that job functions are being contracted out, and we are doing it on our own without his help. As a manager I prefer to contract out jobs in a low impact environment. When federal employees retire, I don't hire feds to do the job function. I enlist contract help in the best interest of the government. The A76 initiative sucks, and as a manager I can accomplish the same outcome without hurting dedicated public servants.
-
1529
This proves that it takes more contractors to do a civil servant's work. Contractors take over the jobs, then the cost increases.
Why?
Because you don't get any freebies from for-profit companies. They need to satisfy stockholders so we have to pay for each and every service rendered.
All of the extra effort, loyalty, and hours donated by Civil Servants do not A-76 easily.
-
1527
Excellent article! I had no idea there were so many more jobs done by contractors than civil servants. This type of information is so helpful to the understanding of what is really going on in government. With this knowledge in hand, how can those who are so adamant about opening government jobs to competitiion not support opening contractor positions to competition by government agencies? Isn't there a double standard here?
-
1522
So basically what is being said is that it takes two contractors to replace one effective civil servant. I believe this is true as I have spent many hours trying to explain to contractors and political appointees what the agency does. So civil servants who could be performing the work, spend scarce resources to teach how to do the job when we could have done it faster and more efficiently.
PROMO RIGHT: EVENTS
UPCOMING WEBINARS
NOVEMBER 18
Speed bumps for Teleworking: What are they and how to avoid them?
DECEMBER 3
Achieve Program Success: Unlock the Management Information in Your Data
DECEMBER 10
Practical Transparency: Applying Exchange Networks for Mission Results
PROMO RIGHT: DIRECTORIES
Post a Comment
To post a comment, you must provide a name and a valid e-mail address. Messages must be limited to 400 words. By using this Service you agree not to post material that is obscene, harassing, defamatory, or otherwise objectionable. Although Government Executive does not monitor comments posted to this site (and has no obligation to), it reserves the right to delete, edit, or move any material that it deems to be in violation of this rule.