That's a situation created by Congress, not federal agencies. Federal agencies with dire needs for high demand/high pay skills would love nothing more than to be able to hire full-time employees at market rates but it is very difficult for them to do so because of the federal pay scale and hiring guidelines.
It's part of the whole charade of smaller government. The number of actual government employees is reduced but then the government pays contracting companies 2x or 3x (or more) for contractors and ends up with same number of butts in seats.
The same "they" you are referring to. The ones writing the checks. I don't care about the precise technicality that enables wage suppression. I literally don't care. The constitution also says no spying on Americans, but somehow that precise word of law was elided. The bottom line is: they have billions, they suppress wages for employees, and they enrich billion dollar contracting firms. Nothing I claim is untrue.
No, it shows that unfortunately you don't know what you're talking about. Federal employee salaries are set by legislation and may not be changed. They can't get bonuses or anything else. Contracts are bid and are paid out of completely different budgets.
Yes, we actually can get yearly bonuses though they are minimal and tied to the performance rating process and tenure to the agency (at least at my agency). For those that are interested, I’d check out the General Schedule pay scales on the Office of Personnel Management’s (OPM) website. OPM is the agency responsible for providing guidance to federal agencies on all matters related to HR. OPM’s pay scales: https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/pay-leave/salaries...
However, some agencies have gotten special permission from Congress to use another pay scale which was designed to allow agencies to pay for performance rather than guaranteed raises over time. Though I’ve heard that it doesn’t always work the way it was intended. I was actually initially offered a lot lower salary at another agency that used the pay for performance than my current agency that uses the General Schedule scale.
For general reference: GS-7: B.A./B.S. and GS-9: Master’s.
For all intelligence positions, you are required to pass and maintain a Top Secret/Special Compartmented Information clearance which takes about a year these days due to backlog. This hinders the agencies ability to recruit top talent. I recommend checking out the SF-86 Questionnaire for National Security Positions if you want to see what all is asked.
Right now, I could switch to the private sector and make a lot more than I am making now. But I stay because I believe in the mission and work of my agency. I get to do things that I would never get to do in the private sector. Maybe one day I will switch but for right now I am staying.
"I get to do things that I would never get to do in the private sector" well I know people who switched from NSA to private sector and pretty much keep doing the same things :)
So I guess it depends :)
I’ve been on both sides of the coin so to speak (contractor and Fed). I felt when I was working on site as a contractor, I was walking a delicate tight rope balancing allegiances between my contract company who paid me and the agency I actually did the work for. I only met my contract company supervisor twice for the entire year I supported that contract (1. Interview; 2. Dropping me off at my office) and technically Feds can’t fill that role so I was essentially my own boss. This sounds great but I didn’t have any support or advocate to help me progress in my career. As a Fed, I have opportunities to push my organization’s boundaries in ways I wouldn’t be able to do as a contractor because I can be frank and outspoken about issues. I am also not tied to a statement of work so I can pursue interests outside my daily tasks/assignments. The contract company I worked for was very stingy on training, but in my current position the government offers me a lot of training opportunities in my field. For me, being a Fed is a better fit at least for now.
The government has the money. As evidenced by their defense budget.
The government does not pay the money to their employees. As evidenced by NSA employees making less than high-grade truck drivers.
The government does pay billions to corporations such as Lockheed or Booz, etc.
SO let's recap: they have the money, they just choose not to pay it to their employees. But instead it inexplicably gets rerouted to rent-seeking gatekeepers.
Saying you don't know what you're talking about is not a personal attack when you seem to be going out of your way to prove me right.
"The government" is not a gigantic neolithic behemoth doing whatever it wants whenever it wants. You might be surprised to learn that there are in fact three branches of government in the United States. Congress has passed more than one law detailing the manner in which federal employees can be paid, and limiting how much each given position may be paid.[0] Similarly, Congress sets the budget for the Executive agencies. Because the Pentagon get billions of dollars does not mean that it's trivial to raise the salary of everyone at the Food & Drug Administration.
USG employees make significantly less than their private sector counterparts (usually) because they get quite a few benefits unavailable to the private sector:
* Generous paid leave in the form of sick time, vacation time, comp time, and scheduled holidays
* Accrued paid leave is paid out when you leave government employment
* Government pension
Ignoring the completely nonsensical "rent-seeking gatekeepers" comment, Lockheed and BAH receive government contracts through open bid procurement processes. You'll get no argument from me that often times these bids are written so only 1-3 firms in the world even qualify, but that's sort of the nature of the beast when the bid is to develop a new missile or something.
let's recap who are they? The Congress passed the pay caps if you show me any evidence that there is a broad voter support for removing those caps the "they" claim might have some merit otherwise "they"="we"
