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.

 

[TheTick]

Actually, a stint with the government can open many doors for you. There are many opportunities in the private sector for people who know how to navigate through government red tape.

I may make you feel, but I can't make you think.

 

[dig1]

Rhodie,

I was in a similar situation. After about 10 years I had the chance to become take the #2 spot in my county's public works department. The money was less and benefits not as good as where I was.

However, this job would give me management experience over field and engineering staff as well as the office, budget and department planning, project staffing, etc. My boss dealt with the politians and inter-municipal items and I handled day-day (we obviously crossed so each other knew what was going on).

During that time I handled budgets, manpower, union grievences, worked on contract negotiations, did some design, construction issues, project scheduling, hiring (and firing), etc.

It was a pretty good sized dept w/ 100+ people and a USD 11,000,000 budget.

My hours dropped from 60 to 40 (hence actually hourly rate went up) plus I still did consulting for my old employer.

However, my old employer offered me to come back at alot more than when I left so after 1-1/2 years I went back (I've been back 2-1/2 years). It was tough decision because there were many things I wanted to accomplish that were not finished and I really loved the job. If the #1 position were to open up there (or local similar) I would definitely apply because I know at that level I could learn more, have greater responsibility, and make myself a better employee no matter where I worked.

Now to address your concerns:

Overall, I did not find the environment dynamic or energetic. It was tough going from a &quot;we need to do it now&quot; attitude to &quot;we have to wait for ......&quot;

You will need to keep your energy up and be positive. Don't get drawn into co-worker complaints which I found are greater in a government workforce than in a private workforce.

Find like minded people and push for changes. They will come slowly and be prepared to be pushed back by some loving the status quo.

My last day the senior engineer (20+ years there, 35 years overall experience and holding on for 3 more years to retirement) said to me that I was smart to get out before I became &quot;one of them&quot; (less dynamic person).

I don't believe you will blacklist yourself with a government job if you keep your energy up (have a good reputation in the job).

In terms of cutback threats -- we had them constantly. Since specific levels of highway and solid waste spending/mainteneance/etc were not mandated by the state government, the local politians, in a rural county, threatened to cut manpower, equipment, bridge repair, paving, the entire solid waste department, etc. My job and my bosses were mandated positions so it didn't directly impact me but there was a constant justification of staff levels, material and equipment expenditures then answering complaints why the roads/bridges were not better in the same meeting.

My final comment is this. If you can see yourself learning a new skill set, improve an existing skill set, and maintain your professional drive take the job. You don't have to retire from there and learn everday from your job (you should do that anyway no matter where you are).

 

[shipelec]

I have only worked for the federal gov't, rhodie, but I know people who have worked for state gov't. About your concerns:

&quot;lazy bums&quot; vs. &quot;dynamic and energetic&quot;
- The pace depends A LOT on the position. If you are only one or two engineers of your &quot;type&quot; there you will probably have a lot of different things to do. If you expected to go home at 5 every night, and not have to travel or work weekends, you might be surprised.
- You will certainly have to be more careful with regulations, etc. If you are the type of person who can't stand red tape, probably you won't want to work with the state.
- You also may have to work with lots of non-engineers and the public.

&quot;blacklist&quot; by being &quot;government worker&quot;
- I agree with what The Tick said. Gov't experience may make you more attractive as a future employer due to familiarity with gov't regulations and procedures.
- Your disadvantage (in looking for a private industry job later) may be that working for gov't has given you specialized experience that is not transferrable to non-gov't jobs.

&quot;stability&quot;
- Even gov't jobs are subject to cutbacks nowadays. But it's not quite as likely. You ARE, however, much more likely to get a lot of advance notice than in industry.

I can't say more with what you have said about the position.

 

[Binary]

Here's my take:

1) Lazy bums - depends very much on the department you're in. My brother is a CPA and left a big 6 firm to work in our state auditor's office. He says his office is very much like the the big 6, though the hours are more reasonable.

Other offices, though, are much more, errr laid back, shall we say?

2) Blacklist - In some segments you might get a stigma but that would depend to a large degree on you and what you accomplish. As stated above, the experience could be invaluable. I think it depends a lot on what kind of work you might want to do after leaving the gov't.

3) Stability - I'd say it's way, way more stable. Yeah, there's no guarantee but even here in CA where our budget problems are insane they're only talking about a 5% reduction - all of whom get to come back later if things get better. When's the last time you heard of a company having only a 5% reduction in force?

Also, from what I've seen, the gov't bennies are much better than anything in the private sector. The pay *might* not be as good but that, too, is dependent on who you are. If you're not a superstar (or are but don't want to work like a dog) you're not likely to earn much more in pvt sector than in public, at least after you've been there for awhile.

I dunno - to me, the gov't life looks pretty good. I've got several family members and friends working for the state in various capacities and I think I've got a realistic picture of what it's like.

I'd only do it if the experience is going to grow you professionally, which it sounds like this will.

Oh yeah, WRT lazy bums - even if you join an office with lazy bums perhaps you could become the role model to drive change.

 

[buzzp]

I worked in the private industry for most of my career and have been with the federal government now for only a short time. There are some differences-
1. The government works at a slower pace because of the red tape items
2. I feel that people are much more satisifed in the federal government because most, not all, are well paid (except for engineers-hehe). This keeps morale high.
3. Layoffs are not as much of a concern as the private sector. If you do get laid off they keep your head above water for longer than any private job and the ability yo transfer is better than a private company.
4. I have found that people are much more laid back and not in a hurry to do anything. However, I am like you and do not want to be bored. I have plenty to keep me busy.
5. The federal training program is outstanding and they will train you for everything and anything so continuing education is great.
6. Time off is excellent with not so good health insurance (as far as cost).
I would not say that a state government is the same as the federal government. At least in my state, the engineers are paid ridiculously low with pay freezes for two years. I absolutely would not work for my state government. However, I think there are many states that would be great to work for. Blacklist-concern of mine too but have not talked to anyone directly that thought that government workers were automatically discounted for a potential position in a private company.
In my case, comparing the federal government to a state government job is difficult and I would absolutely not work for my states government. Keep in mind, I live in one of the poorest states in the nation in the Rocky Mountain region (price you pay I guess for the mountains). Anyway good luck.

 

[RDK]

My experience was government for 15 years then private sector.

The pace is slower. In private work the goal is to get the job done. Excuses are seen as just that. If you don’t have the parts then it’s your fault that you don’t have them. If you are waiting on someone else then it’s your fault that they haven’t done their task. In government the emphasis is to do things by the book. If you don’t have the parts then it’s the fault of the supply system and purchasing department. (Meanwhile the purchasing department is waiting for finance who is waiting for the IT department to install new computers who is waiting for …)

This is not necessarily a fault of government but is due to the fact that the results are far removed form today’s actions. In private industry, especially smaller companies and work units, the results of today’s efforts are plain to see on the bottom line. Everyone knows who is contributing and who is not. In government and big firms this linkage is not so obvious.

This allows for the slackers to float along and eventually pull down the norms of the workplace to some low level where no one gets any real work done.

This is not always true in all situations. There are some small companies full of deadwood and some government agencies where some real work gets done. A lot depends on the attitude of senior management, will they accept the excuses or not, will they push for excellence or not.

All too often however the senior management is a product of the workplace and is often unable to recognize the situation.

After my 15 years in government, I was faced with the issue of being a government know nothing who was unable to operate in the real world. Eleven years out of government this still haunts me. A couple of years might not have been harmful but don’t leave it too long.

The real decision points are not my experiences and views but your own. Are you a risk taker? If so then government might not be for you. Are the lower hours and more stable work environment more important to you or not?

What sort of government job is it? Is it in a public works department where you will be doing some real work or is it a regulatory department where all you will be is a watchdog over others being productive? (Not that watchdogs are not needed but its not very exciting or satisfying). In a real work situation you will get some exposure to budgets and work control practices that you might not see in private industry until you are at a senior level.

You might want to consider taking the position, seeing if its what you want and if necessary get out in a year or so or stay in if it suits you.




Rick Kitson MBA P.Eng

Construction Project Management
From conception to completion

http://www.kitsonengineering.com

 

[HB2U]

TAKE THE GOVERNMENT JOB. Work it for a few years. You'll establish a network of connections that will open doors for you later in the private sector, you'll establish a salary history that is higher than what you'll establish in the private sector, you'll be working your way toward pension benefits and you'll likely have better hours which leads to better quality of life.

When you make the jump back into the private sector, you'll find that you'll land in a better position on the ladder than you would've been able to climb to had you stayed.

A government position is not a black mark on your resume unless you've done something like leave engineering to become a mailman for a few years, in which case it may be hard to explain the logic of such a move during a job interview.

Besides, Gov't employees work with the private sector a lot and you may come to find that jobs are easier to find through this relationship than through the classified ads.

 

[KRSServices]

Take it from me, either position is going to be what you make of it. The Government job however, will introduce you to the brotherhood of bureaucracy, regulatory enforcement/application and politics. Depending on the level of government, these brotherhoods will increase the higher and more senoir level you become. Some people hate it intensely, some people love it as equally intensely. I used my 17 years as an opportunity to learn, and now I try to use my experience to the private sector's benefit.

It can be frustrating if you are a mover and shaker though.

KRS Services

http://www.krs-services.com

 

[electricpete]

When I think of government engineers I usually think of project managers providing some degree of oversight over contracts. Affords an opportunity to hae some influence over a bigger scope (more people, $) then what you might reach at similar experience level in private industry.

 

[rhodie]

Well, last week my state instituted a hiring freeze. I think that pretty much takes care of the decision for me.

Needless to say, however, when the opportunity to take this job presents itself again (and it will, within the year), I'll be more satisifed in making my decision.

I think after reading everyone's replies, I'd do better in, and even prefer, the private sector for now, but I could quickly adapt to &quot;government operations&quot; style if I were presented with the opportunity. The two areas are probably not as much different as I have percived in the past.

-------------------
As a sidenote:

When I was a green engineer, I felt the blind panic of just getting a job. As long as I was employed, I figured I'd be just fine, and I'd best just keep whatever job I hired with for the long term, move up the ladder, and tough it out. (I didn't apply this strategy to marriage, thankfully!)
I had that type of job for two years, then I moved on.

Now, however, I've discovered that professional satisfaction and validation is nearly as strong of an emotional pull. I feel the need to make a difference more strongly than I feel the need to make big bucks. I'd do what I'm doing now for less money (don't tell the employer that, though!) just because I feel like what I am doing matters. It's weird, but true.

I could put up with plenty of Red Tape, bullcrap, and foot draging if the end result of my effort validates the work and hassle in some manner.

Being that there is always room for improvement in our positions, I'd think that the latter criteria will be the determining factor in my career movement from now on. This thread kind of helped to formulate that concept in my head, and I am tankful for that.

 

[RDK]

As I see it there are really three types of government jobs. The first would be not unlike normal private practice work, with the added complications of working for a large organization where rules count more than actual results.

This would be for example in a public works department where you were actually responsible for producing some product. Here you can actually produce some work product and see it being built. The politics are the least in these types of positions.

The second type would be a regulatory or watchdog type of position. Here you would be responsible for reviewing the work of others and ensuring that the designs or studies meet some predefined criteria. Here all you can do is say no and stop a project. You cannot take any proactive role and make anything happen, all you can be is a roadblock. (See my other post concerning a watchdog in thread765-60811 ) Red tape and bureaucratic behaviours are significant in these types of positions.

The third is the policy development sort of areas. Here you could have potentially the greatest impact across a wide area, especially if it’s a senior policy position for the federal government. However in this type of position organizational politics play the biggest part. In order to get anything accomplished, it will not be strictly on its merits, but on what you are willing to trade and who is supporting and opposing any particular position.

Any individual position may have components of all three types. Needless to say I would only consider the first type of position. However since government does not value these positions as highly they tend to be lower pay scale than the other sort of positions and lower in internal prestige. They have the disadvantage of tagging you with the government mark. They will also be the first on the chopping block when government goes through a periodic restructuring. (That’s how I ended up in the private sector.)

You can always get the same sort of work experience in private sector, without the red tape and potential interference from the political levels and at higher pay scales in private practice.




Rick Kitson MBA P.Eng

Construction Project Management
From conception to completion

http://www.kitsonengineering.com

 

[ChiralMan]

I do work for a watchdog type of government agency. Although the work can be boring, I have managed to stay active and I do seek challenges where I can.
From my experience the following can be the most negtaive I can say about gov. work:
1. Since the office structure is interdependent within few offices, you might get hit with few employees with &quot; do not bother me attitutde&quot;. This can be frustrating.

2. For few middle managers, their only job is to project authority. You might get kicked around for only this purpose.

3. No design work.
My advise is to stay no more than 4 years and move on.

 

[ietech]

It disturbs me to read or hear that civil service workers are &quot;A Bunch of Lazies&quot;

I worked in Federal Civil Service, Dept of the Air Force, for 29 years. My work was challenging, fast paced, rewarding, and there was always plenty of work to dive into. Never worked with a &quot;LAZY&quot;. My career was highly structured with rules, regulations, training, and guidance whenever necessary. Waivers to regs were possible if they could be justified thourouhly. Red tape is a necessary evil to protect the taxpayers interest from unscrupulous private corporations who would deliver inferior products and services either intentionally or un-intentionally.

I retired from civil service in 1993 (sorry I did) and have been in the private sector since then. So far I have been very dissapointed. I have found the folks I work with to be self serving, egotistical, and for the most part not very skilled or talented. They generally do have one good skill, the ability to BS their way to the top. There are a lot of loose canons working without regulation, policies and procedures, ethics, or basic human consideration for fellow employees. There is no company loyalty to the employee. I have seen folks fired just because the BOSS didn't like them.

I HIGHLY recommend civil service especially Federal. There is a level of honesty and integrity I have not yet found in the private sector. I will continue to try to find something rewarding --- Im sure there are many good companies to work for I just haven't found them yet.

 

[dpa]

I worked for the Navy for about 19 years. With military time combined I had enough time to take an early out during a period of cutbacks. I had both good and bad experiences depending on where I happened to be assigned at the time. My last organization was very good when I first joined but a combination of circumstances (wrong people promoted for one) caused the organization to deteriorate to the point of uselessness. I was always busy largely because I let it be known that I wanted to be. I learned CAD on that job and a lot of other computer related skills, became a qualified drydocking engineer, with written certification to back it up, and took on hydraulic machinery design in addition to my normal structural job.

The reason I was able to do so many jobs - the people who normally did them were DRONES. We had two mechanical engineers who were absolutely worthless at hydraulics and one of them cost the Navy tens of thousands of dollars with a screwed up design where he mixed open and closed circuit components in a system that ran throughout the ship. The system actually got installed and then had to be replaced.

When we were sent to six weeks of training on drydocks every single Naval Architect in the organization flunked the midterm and the final. So I, the structural guy, did all of the drydocking after that. I learned a lot. There were a lot of tremendiously interesting projects and I got a fairly good retirement considering the early out. In the end though I could barely stand to go to work and began to come in late. It was time to bail and luckily the opportunity was there.

 

[5791]

Govt jobs are best.I m working with govt from last 5 yrs and happy,tension free and enjoying my work.

 

[ERaymond]

I agree with ietech. I have been working for the Navy as a flight test engineer for about three years, and I am currently one of a few test team leads for a USD $15 million project. The trick with (federal) government engineering work is that you can be as busy, dynamic, and progressive as YOU make yourself.

In my first year, I had the opportunity to perform a structural analysis, learn a stores separation simulator (and fix some of the code in the process), take three training classes, get some flight time in a P-3, and learn the overall flight test process from proposal through report writing. That being said, we do have a three inch thick binder of regulations for weapons tests, but that is because of the nature of the work.

When I received my BSAE, I had Helicopter Aerodynamics as an elective. Because of this, I have been able to do some aerodynamic analyses that would normally be reserved for a different &quot;branch&quot;. Again, I have been able to do this because I asked for it.

My supervisor is tremendous. He is very comitted to developing all his employees as engineers and as future leaders in the government. We see first hand the mistakes made by poor decisions by our management (usually the &quot;customer&quot; of an aerospace firm), so he has a strong desire to see us move on and make sound decisions.

I will caveat my opinion with one thing; I enjoy being involved in the big picture as well as diving into detail when possible. I personally cannot spend too much time in either realm without feeling like I am missing something.

I have had a chance to work with several engineering managers and program managers in aerospace and defense firms for my projects. They consistenly say that understanding the government process makes someone a very strong candidate for their mid-level positions because that insight offers far more perspective on successfully completing a program that similar work in a private firm. A company always wants to understand the customer.

Hopefully the cutbacks will soon be reversed and you can take that position. Good luck!

 

[corgum]

I once managed a very large Navy program for my company. It was valued at hundreds of millions of dollars. Upon delivering everything required by contract, the Navy refused to pay because the using command never liked what the procuring command had bought. The Navy's contract administrator simply refused to pay until my company modified (at its own expense) every contract deliverable, regardless of the fact that none of the changes were in the contract. Nor would the Navy's contract administrator issue the required contract changes.

The Navy's program office had one answer to all of our letters protesting this treatment: &quot;So sue us.&quot;

We did. It took twelve years to work around all the Navy's legalistic roadblocks, but we finally got paid in full, plus interest. The Navy, having lost several other court battles for the same reasons, finally closed down the NAVAIR program office that had so flagrantly mismanaged those contracts.

I know, those of you in the govt contracting business will say that such a thing can’t happen. But it did, and not just to my company.

Now my point:

Not once, not ever, never -- did I find a Navy employee in that entire experience with the knowledge, skills, experience, integrity, courage, or determination to do the obviously right thing for the program. Some (not all, by any means) of those in the user command had integrity, which gave me a high regard for the fighting men and women of the Navy, but not one soul above the rank of Commander and no one at any level in NAVAIR showed a shred of principle, from the top Admiral on down to the lowest engineer. According to the Navy, the entire job of developing, building, delivering, and operating a system that they refused to define (“We’ll tell you when we like it.”), without any payment for twelve years, was the sole responsibility of my company. We stuck with it through desperate times and managed to do it.

There may be some parts of government employment that allow an engineer to work in an ethical environment and actually do engineering, along the lines that ERaymond and others above mention; but the risks of being stuck in a political environment where real engineering is neither allowed nor tolerated, and where turf battles and position-taking consume far more time than actual engineering, is too high. I notice that some of the above posts favoring government work emphasize the easy workload and generous benefits. That isn’t a professional attitude; it’s an hourly attitude.

As a result of the above experience, as well as a few experiences with the Air Force procurement and logistics commands, I have written Corgum’s Law:

If the government crawls 100 miles over broken glass on bare hands and knees to beg me for something off the shelf in my excess inventory and will unquestioningly pay ten times the fair market value for it, as is, with no changes of any kind, no warranty or guarantee of any kind, and no paperwork of any kind, I will consider it; but I still won’t do it.

I am sure to be reviled for relating what I have learned from firsthand experience with government engineers and program mismanagers. So have at it, but you won’t change my mind. Corgum’s Law prevails.

By the way, for those of you who protest that all your experiences with government work have been glorious, Corgum’s Second Law is:

There are two kinds of government contractors, those who have been badly treated and those who will be.[/]

 

[ERaymond]

Corgum's post is unfortunately true - there are those program &quot;managers&quot; who are more concerned with their career path and looking good to Congress than procuring a product the users actually want. I am currently on one program that feels like a textbook example. However, I am also working on two other programs that are the polar opposite. This turn-around may be related to the fiasco cogrum's program was unfortunately part of (if I am guessing the right program). I have found that the key to successful programs is in three elements:

1) The program managers or Integrated Product Team leads are current or ex-fleet guys who know EXACTLY what they want; and they communicate it.

2) They make sure real, current user input is there in EVERY step of the process to make sure the relevance of the program is maintained.

3) They maintain personal contact with all the contracting officers, engineers, and contractors, so everyone knows what the goal is.

I have severe stresses working with the textbook program like cogrum mentioned, but the other two really make being here worth it. I may be slanted because I value working on something that directly benefits aviators and Marines instead of an investment board; however, I can still be young and idealistic, right? ;-)

As for the benefits/work schedule comment; I do know two or three people in my division that care about their schedule a little too much; however, the vast majority are people who wouldn't think twice about staying 24 hours a day getting problems solved, and some have done so - war time is a great example.

I am curious what the general opinion is on this question. Which is worse; a few lazy people in a group, or dealing with a union? I have only dealt with unions during my co-op, but they did some truly unporfessional things in the name of job security and guaranteed raises. Which is the lesser evil?

 

[ERaymond]

BTW, I meant to keep writing &quot;corgum&quot; and I wrote &quot;cogrum&quot; instead - sorry!!!!!