http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/13/us...ml?_r=2&ref=usDespite a widespread belief that contracting out services to the private sector saves the federal government money, a new study suggests just the opposite — that the government actually pays more when it farms out work.
The study found that in 33 of 35 occupations, the government actually paid billions of dollars more to hire contractors than it would have cost government employees to perform comparable services. On average, the study found that contractors charged the federal government more than twice the amount it pays federal workers.
---ooops--- double post on spelling error correction edit...
Is this suppose to be new news?
This has been known for decades, but the politicians can claim they cut the government, military, etc.
Remember when I complained about president Clinton making military cuts, after the military was already properly cut by president Bush 41?
Aspects like supply, food services, and any thing else that goes "tactical" should have never been contracted out to Halliburton like president Clinton did.
But he cut the military! Very big political points!
Contractors cost more than ANY workers doing the same job.
Not really a valid comparison when it doesn't take into account the health and retirement benefits paid to the federal workers.
That's a fair point.
When you have "prevailing wage" standards for awarding contracts, that also means a nice benefits package. Most military people never stay in for the 20 years for retirement. More people stay in jobs like contracting services than the military.
But that prevailing wage is only paid for the duration of the contract, not the rest of their life.
Look at what percentage of military people stay 20 years. It's a very small number compared to those who serve.
Besides, prevailing wage is always there. As the employees of the contractor come and go, the government is still contracting the cost for the company to pay prevailing wages, and enough that the sock holders get fat and happy.
I'm talking more about civil service positions and not the military. I do a lot of contracting with the government and deal with them all the time.
Yes, they have nice deals. 30 years for 1/2 retirement of their base salary.
This needs to be done away with and replace with a 401k like system only. As it is, they have CSR or FERS depending on when they started, and a TSP (401k equivalent). Even Social Security... Damn triple dippers...
I can see contracting these types of services out. Just not any of the military that goes tactical.
Don't federal workers pay no SS but all of their retirement contributions?
They have health insurance like any other (mostly professional level) large org employees.
And they all go on Medicare at 65 like any other citizen (or military retired).
I've seen reports of govt employees making $25/hour having their work contracted out for sometimes well over $100/hour. and not temp work (like war mercenaries), but full time and forever.
The real contracting scam is when a (full benefit) govt employee's work is contracted out and the contractor in turn hires (no benefit) contractors, and then charges 4+ times/hour what the govt employee would cost.
Hyper-wealthy, abusive monopolist Microsoft got caught a few years ago for hiring contractors long-term (no benefits) to avoid employer's payroll taxes. MS contractors had same long hours, responsibilities, etc as full-benefit employees, and for years.
IIRC, the govt found that abusive and made MS stop (at least pro forma stop)
Agree, but then again you would need to argue that makes it twice as much. I don't think that's the case at all.
I don't know how that works exactly. The system has changed over the years. Today, they do pay SS and medicare, but I don't think they did under the CSR system that was done away with some time ago. The rate to replace the 6.2% SS was 7% to 8% starting in 1969. remember, in 1969, SS was only 4.2% and SS has increased but the CSR rate wasn't. What I didn't find on a quick search was when CSR was replaced by FERS. I think that was 1982. With FERS, employees pay SS/medicare. I did see the maximum CSR pays is 80% of base salary.
When I worked for the Treasury Department, I paid the same payroll tax as everyone else. I had a 401k where I could contribute up to 8% with a 75% employer match (my subsequent private sector job was up to 6% with a 100% employer match).
My health insurance was 100% paid for and I was granted $500 into a flex account at the beginning of every year (use it or lose it). My subsequent private sector job I was given an allowance to buy my health insurance (from their list of options) and I could put the remainder into a flex account or take it into my paycheck (usually came out to about $500/year with the options I chose).
All I'm trying to demonstrate is that the US Treasury's benefit's package was about the same as the one I had at my subsequent private sector job (well, except for the bonus and stock options I got in the private sector).
lol no.
what year are you living in?
It's some place in one or more of the Iraq War threads. People kept complaining about the Halliburton contracts, many of which were already in place doing the supply work and mess hall operations. When the war hit, these civilians didn't want to go to Iraq. There were even some soldiers in some locations that had to live on a ration 1 MRE a day for a few weeks.
LOL...
No !
I had some pretty nice bonuses at two different private sector jobs.
why is it that in a post mentioning Halliburton contracts that you are trying to blame Clinton.........and you don't mention Cheney at all.
Stupid partisan hack job, imo.
and the contractors don't pocket the difference, the company does
Well, duh.
GS levels always make more than government employees. That's what contracting is about.
I'm surprised nobody chimed in with the "but contractors get the job done!"
I was in the military under President Bush (41) when the 5 year reduction of forces was started. It did not include combat support jobs being replaced by civilian contract. If I recall right, the plan under President Bush removed two complete combat divisions from the Army and made other defense cuts. It took fixed station jobs like mine (29V), and replaced them with civilian contracts. Stratigic Air Command was either dissolved, or their mission changed. With the fall of the wall, and the cold war over, our communications was no longer as sensitive, and deemed civilians could take it over. was It was under president Clinton that he decided he had to make even more military cuts. To do so, he replaced tactical support units like Supply and Food services with civilian contract, which if we never go to war if fine. Problem is, we went to war, and were forced to go with the military we didn't have.
That's why I blame president Clinton.
There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
