Private vs. Government defense employers 3

[wangus]

Hi guys. I wanted to get your opinions on what are the advantages and disadvantages of working for a private defense company as opposed to a government defense company. From what I know, the private ones pay roughly 10 grand more for entry level guys like me than Government ones. Are there any benefits that government companies have that private don't? Thanks guys.

 

[IRstuff]

"government defense company"????

Navair IS the government and not a company

Navair is on a 9/80 schedule, which might be appealling.
Government pensions are usually pretty good.

TTFN

 

[mshimko]

You've got good timing; I'm retired military and now work for a contractor. My daughter's an aero engineer who worked for NAVAIR as an intern and now for a contractor (and we've extensively discussed opportunies). I've also compared salaries for entry level, and typical mid level positions.

Here's my 5-cents, staring with: I consider three company types, not two:
(1) Manufacturer
(2) Private support services contractor
(3) Government Agency

Salary: entry level nowadays is significantly lower for the gov't, but the retirement and benefits are typically better (especially "how many days/year you are paid to stay home" - vacation, sick, gov't shut down, etc). However, advancement and salary increases in the gov't will be rapid (if you're good), and I'd say salaries are probably equal with about 5 years experience. With greater than 5 years experience, the edge goes to the gov't. BTW, my main "competitor" who I lose employees to is the gov't. This hasn't always been the case, but it is today.

Type of Work: This is extremely dependent on specific examples, but IN GENERAL: A manufacturer will provide the opportunity to do hard-core detailed engineering, often have good training programs, but you'll be one of a very large team, and can easily get pidgeon holed. Private service contractors can only offer you opportunity based on current contracts and taskings, and typically very little to no funding for training. The right gov't agency (such as NAVAIR for aviation, or NAVSEA for ships) will not typically provide the opportunity for significant hands-on detailed engineering, but will provide great opportunity for getting a wide range of experience not-quite hands-on. Additionally, the gov't usually has decent funding for training programs and similar expenses that a contractor has difficulty supporting.

The last item: it's often very dependent on the specific employee, the specifc office, and even the work that is a high priority that year for that office.

Hope this makes sense; if not, I can try to clarify it "next time".

 

[sunthorn]

Let me tell you of my current employer with a private defense manufacturer. I work for a small private defense manufacturing company. We make a only one product, a critical componet that is used by all three of the big guys (Rayheon, Boeing and Lockhead).

We have the choice of either standard 40 hour work week or 9/80 schedule. I can atest that my starting salary was well above the national average as an entry level engineer. NO mandated overtime. Paid christmas holday off (1-2) weeks paid on top of our normal vacations.

Since we are a small company the big three provide us with training, classes and equipment. Several of the Engineers here have went through 6sigma and lean classes.On a sidenote my company was once part of the DOE. The oldtimers tell of stories if they need training, equipment, anything to get the job done the Government would make sure they had them

 

[ARenko]

My experience in this is indirect - I have several friends who work for a government agency and several who work for various contractors supporting that agency. Seems to me that while the ones working for the government are paid less, they are more happy. They get twice the vacation and seem to spend all there time learning at symposiums, conferences, etc... instead of actually doing "real work." The ones working for the contractors are busting their arses - working lots of overtime, getting less vacation, and receiving worse benefits. I'm sure it depends on the company though (sunthorn seems to have found a nice situation).

 

[ajack1]

Sorry to go off topic but what is a 9/80 schedule?

 

[IRstuff]

9 days of work every 2 weeks = 8o hrs

TTFN

 

[buzzp]

Not speaking from a defense government job vs private defense job, only government vs private in my experience.
Government does give you, in general, more leave time. Of my 4 positions since college, one company had more holiday time than the government (had 13 and was oil company). The government wins on leave time hands down. As a new employee you get 13 vacation days, 13 sick days, and 5 days of family friendly leave. After 3 years this goes to 20-20-5(? I think still 5). The benefits are the worst I ever had as far as medical and dental (virtually no dental insurance). The coverage is good but its spendy. They also have retirement (which most companies dont any more).

The government job is definately more secure. Ahh, but the wages (non defense) are terrible in my opinion. Its hard to work somewhere where the secretary might be making as much as you. Engineering wages are bad in the government. I wish they would make our wages as good compared to the private sector as their secretaries. And one other thing before I go, there seems to be a bad taste concerning government workers from private companies (moving from govey job to private is difficult if your an engineer which has been with government more than 5 years, say).

The defense side of things are probably totally different.

The training in government is much better. Probably too good. When you can go to training on how to take care of your aging parents AND get paid for it, something is wrong.

 

[AeroEng33]

i'm working for DoD doing aero stuff right now...

as a new guy, if you plan on being in the industry long term then i would strongly recommend starting out in the gov't, stay for at lesat 1.5 - 3 years. there are several reasons you would want to do this: 1. it's good to be the customer 2. you will eventually get a secret clearnace (hard to come by) 3. you will get a better understanding of the industry how eveything works. as a defense contractor you might not get exposed to things like dealing with the warfighers (the users), and going to various design reviews. 4. profit is not the bottom line so you are rewarded for doing the right things (although this is going away...) 5. in some gov't agencies, entry level will get bumped up significantly after 1.5 - 2 years and it will be higher than what other entry level engineers are making. 6. because of 1-5 you will be a really attractive candidate should you decide to get a job in the private sector.

if you don't plan on staying in the industry for long (my personal opinion is the aero industry is only good for another 3-5 years before *SEVERE* budget cutbacks, then jump into the private sector and take the higher starting pay because it might not be there in 3-5 years.

my two cents.

 

[AeroEng33]

by the way, all the stuff about gov't employees enjoys more time off (takeoff anytime you want), crappier insurance plan, more training opportunities, more symposiums, more leisure lifestyle are all very true.

depending on where you go you will mostly like have to wait a looong time before advancing, and the pay raises will kind of level off.

the gov't is showing a tendency to do a way with permanent employees and repalce them with contract workers and that is the future my friend... there will be less and less job security.

 

[jmw]

I just finished reading the engineer Nevil Norway's autobiography "Slide Rule" (written in about 1954, I guess).
As Nevil Shute he wrote the novels "A Town Like Alice", "Trustee from the toolroom"
As Nevil Shute Norway he started Airspeed Ltd (with others) which later became part of De Havilland.
Early on in his career as an engineer he worked on the R100 airship. It appears that the R100 was a private sector project while the R101, which crashed and burned in France, was designed and built by the Air Ministry; both to the same target specification.
This may be dated but I wonder just how many of his comments are still relevant.
He makes a comparsion between the two operations which adresses just this question. It would seem that it wasn't just chance that the R101 crashed and burned and the R100 didn't.

JMW

http://www.ViscoAnalyser.com

 

[buzzp]

Aero has some really good points. Ex-government employees who held certain positions within the government are gold to alot of private companies. I know contracting officers, who have direct government experience, can pretty much write their own check in the right private company. This is very similar to what Aero was saying about defense positions.

 

[AeroEng33]

jmw,

i think there are a lot of experienced, knowledgeable engineers on the US Gov't side and the same can be said in the private sector. no matter where you go you are going to have good and bad engineers.

i don't know if you can compare the two directly, because it is almost like apples and oranges. for instance here in the US the gov't aero/EE engineers does 99% test & evaluation work, while the private sector is usually responsible for developing airframes or systems.

as a gov't engineer i have seen sloppy work done by well known aero corporations when they developed the airplane 30-40 years ago.

it *seems* like nowadays the gov't and the private sectors have both adopted this corporation(business) approach to everything. as a result, the whole aero engineering industry is just on a downward spiral.

maybe some of the more experienced engineers in this forum can chime in.

 

[buzzp]

Not speaking about the defense industry, the government better make some changes to keep the engineers they do have. After the nineties and all the early retirements (RIF), all the old timers left. With them, went a lot of knowledge.
With the low wages (at least for EEs), most of the younger ones (15 yrs exp or less) are bailing because of this and the fact that govey workers are/have a reputation amongst some private companies.

 

[sms]

To be a little more specific, a 9 8 0 schedule is in a two (business)week period you work 9 hours a day for 8 days, 8 hours on the 9th day and you are off the tenth day. The net effect is you get every other Friday off. That is the schedule I work in the private sector and I must say I love it. Not too many people working less than 9 hours a day anyway here in the US, so it is nice to get every other Friday off.

 

[monkeydog]

WHAT?

"To be a little more specific, a 9 8 0 schedule is in a two (business)week period you work 9 hours a day for 8 days, 8 hours on the 9th day and you are off the tenth day. The net effect is you get every other Friday off. That is the schedule I work in the private sector and I must say I love it. Not too many people working less than 9 hours a day anyway here in the US, so it is nice to get every other Friday off."

My boss told me a 9/80 was nine 80 hour weeks, then a day off!
;-)

 

[EngJW]

One thing to look out for if you are working on govt contracts- the govt agency may have plenty of people with not much more to do than to look over your shoulder. The private company may not have enough people to do the job or may not commit the resources, thus the programs always fall behind. Eventually heads will roll, and someone is usually designated the scape goat, usually with a title like project engineer with no authority but all the responsibility.

Sometimes most of the effort goes into writing reports and preparing presentations. Insufficient time is spent on the product and the program falls behind with the same result.

9/80? Never heard of it but I had a job that was 4 tens, 6:00-4:30, then a 3 day weekend. I was great but didn't last because some of the people had trouble getting up early. I think that most people find it easier to work late than to start early.

 

[HgTX]

"the govt agency may have plenty of people with not much more to do than to look over your shoulder"

We in the government call that quality assurance, and really wish (a) we had the time and resoures to do more of it (we don't, since we do have "much more to do") (b) quality was such that it wasn't necessary.

Hg

 

[AeroEng33]

"the govt agency may have plenty of people with not much more to do than to look over your shoulder"

in the aerospace sector, from the gov't side, all contractors are referred to as "the slimey contractors." i guess this reputation came from over-zealous project (sales/marketing) managers making bogus claims or taking excessive profit from the gov't. this is why gov't engineers have to look over the contractor's shoulder to make sure the data is correct.

personally i have enjoyed working with contractor engineers, as they are usually honest and dedicated to their job. i don't think i can say the same for the business people...

 

[EngJW]

My comments above are based on 2 companies that had a track record of making promises they could not keep, and one of them went so far as to cheat on some contracts and got caught. I was told by one manager that they intended to offer an unrealistic proposal, then renegotiate it when they missed the due date. I left because they put me at the top of the chart as the project engineer when I was just a plain design engineer, and I knew I would be sacrificed instead of the management. Within a year, everyone involved in the program either quit or got fired.

Although there are some slackers in govt, I agree that the inspectors are necessary. I also believe they are honest. I have seen inspectors refuse gifts and some even insisted on paying for their own cups of coffee.