Gov't job vs. Private sector job 10

[rhodie]

I've recently been presented with a opportunity to work for my local state government on a full-time basis. I am a younger engineer (<6yrs. experience), and all of my previous jobs (err... job) have been in the private sector.

I've heard people talk about the &quot;different pace&quot; that gov't jobs tend to have, i.e. people are lazy, and I'm really not into that. The pay would be slightly less, but I'm not too concerned about that because the raises would come quicker. The benefits are great, the pension is solid, and I would get 3 more vacation days a year. The job itself is interesting, unique, and could very well lead to a niche' expertise. Foreign competition is not a factor in this job. (Whew!)

My concerns:

* I don't want to work with a bunch of lazy bums, or eventually become one of them. I would die after 2 yrs due to boredom. Is the working environment in a gov't position dynamic and energetic?

* I don't want to &quot;blacklist&quot; myself from ever being able to work in the private sector again by puttting &quot;gov't worker&quot; on my resume. If fact, if I thought a gov't job would do this, I'd refuse the job for this very reason.
Will a gov't job ruin my reputation in the private sector?

* What is the stability of a gov't engineering job like? Is the threat of a cutback always looming over your head?

Please, please, please give me advice here. I thank all of you in advance.

 

[buzzp]

I hope your view of government engineers is based on more than one experience. It sounds like you had to deal with contracting officers and not engineers. In any case, the government does and will continue to have multi-million, billion dollar contracts. I am not saying that government engineers are better off than private. In the right agency they maybe. I am still working on forming my opinion while I work for the government.
One question on the time off (bennies) issue: Do you think your company can survive without you? Do you think they will be there when you need support for whatever ales you? If you answered yes and then no, why be proud to spend all your waking hours working for someone that could give a rip less whether you are there or not. This may not fit into the stereotypical definition of professional but I do not care. It is the sensible approach. I happen to love my work but I love my family more. Is all the extra time worth it? If you want to look good then start getting on your knees you will find your way to the top a heck of a lot quicker than staying late every night.
As far as unions, I am for them in most cases. Yes there crooked but so are the people you work for. So you make a choice, am I going to get burnt by the company or am I going to burn the company? Easy decision.

 

[Sparweb]

My work is often held up by regulatory officials who are &quot;away&quot;. The engineers that I try to work with in the government enjoy benefits and training that I dream of and dread simultaneously. The bigger the project, the more we have to keep regulatory officials on track, but when they disappear for a week and a half to audit somebody, we're left in the lurch for someone to stamp things like flight manual supplements (something that nobody outside Transport Canada can stamp).
My (wildly inaccurate) estimation of time-at-work for some of these guys is 75-80%. If you're looking for a job where you can take every Friday off, get lots of extra &quot;training&quot; on the side, and not actually have to design, analyze, fabricate, or test anything, meanwhile still calling yourself an engineer, then I know a spot for you.


STF

 

[corgum]

Oh well, I didn't mean to start open season on government engineers. buzzp is right that my main issues on the Navy program were with the program people. Still, I remember the Navy's engineers on that program being continually frustrated by the direction they were getting. ERaymond gives some feel for what it was like for them as he describes one of his assignments.

It seems that most contractors have a &quot;Navy&quot; story to tell. On the program that I mentioned above, I hired a retiring Lt. Commander who had worked his way up from the ranks and had a phenomenally productive Navy career. He managed the flight operations base for our program. I asked him how the Navy could continue to run its contracts with such endless and transparent conniving.

His answer was that when the Continental Congress first commissioned the Navy on Oct 13, 1775, there were only enough funds to buy two ships. So the Congress instructed Commodore Esek Hopkins, the first commander in chief of the Navy, to go out and capture British and private ships, and steal whatever else he needed to make a Navy.

Though not considered much of a naval tactician, Hopkins was an able pirate. He did as he was told. The Navy's fleet grew to 50 ships -- and not much has changed in the procurement process since then.

Some of which is actually true. By the way -- Happy Birthday to the Navy!

On unions: There is a long thread titled “Unions” in the “Overcoming Obstacles Getting My Work Done Forum”. There seems to be a general agreement that unions have accomplished some good things, historically; but are now too strong, exist largely to enrich the union bosses, and are usually very difficult to work with. I will add one thought. Unionized public employees should not be allowed to vote in elections that affect their work or compensation. For example: teachers voting on a school bond issue or school tax rates. This is a conflict of interest. Wouldn’t we all like to vote ourselves a raise?

I would never accuse the people I work for of being crooked; first, because they have never given me a reason to think so; and second, because if they did, I'd be out of there. Even so, I'd rather work for a productive crook than with an unproductive union.

Boeing engineers are (partly) unionized,and I've never seen such a bunch of turf-conscious people. You need twenty of them in a room to discuss anything.

 

[ERaymond]

Not to harp on Boeing engineers further, but I've seen a great example of that turf-consciousness. One of the program managers I knew asked if a new system could be installed on an aircraft structure. Their response was they knew it couldn't, but it would take $200,000 for them to explain why!

 

[buzzp]

I am a little premature in my position to make any real summations. However, there are 'things' that have shocked me about the government (no need to reveal them now because I know some visit this site).
I must say that the group of engineers I work with every day are by far the hardest working group in this area. I have not had the pleasure(?) of working with some of the other engineers but have been forwarned about their sluff time. Oh, we are in a union here, which I thought a little strange.

 

[PM]

Anyone interested in a general discourse on the differences between government and private sector cultures should read:

&quot;Systems of Survival: A Dialogue on the Moral Foundations of Commerce and Politics&quot;, Jane Jacobs, published by Vintage Books. For 10 or 12 bucks, it's an excellent read to better understand the moral mind sets of people working in each sector.

As to being lazy, I respectfully suggest you may be a little unfair. I've worked for decades in each sector and found sloth in both.

A few impressions:

- lower average pay in government, but profitable over a full career,
- much broader experience in public practice, but generally more specialization in private practice,
- better job security in public career, quicker promotions in private practice.

I could prattle on, but the bottom line is that any ambitious engineer is well advised to start a career in public practice, but would benefit greatly by shifting to private sector after about ten years.

There are skills that you just don't get developed unless you're in government (and vice versa).

Regards,