- This topic has 9 replies, 9 voices, and was last updated 11 years, 8 months ago by CDMA ENG.
September 13, 2011 at 10:44 PM #19128September 14, 2011 at 5:45 AM #728988The-ShovelerParticipant
Walking away it’s more complicated than a lot of people want to admit to.
That’s why you won’t be seeing people walking way in mass anytime soon, most people who are underwater will just ride it out.
300K under or so it gets easier to decide, 100K under it’s probably not wise.
It is not as easy as some have tried to say it is.September 14, 2011 at 7:55 AM #728991DomoArigatoParticipant
This is a good move by the government. The U.S. government should try to eliminate as much government contracting as possible as it costs tons more for a contractor to do the same work as a government employee:
Despite 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.
Obama mentioned in his recent speech that he was going to speed up payments to government contractors. Instead of doing that, he should be freezing payments to government contractors, cutting them loose wholesale, and hiring more federal employees.September 14, 2011 at 8:19 AM #728994scaredyclassicParticipant
I don’t know. Seems a littly nutty. Shouldn’t workers be judged on productivity? Why not fire them for adultery too?September 14, 2011 at 8:23 AM #728996UCGalParticipant
I work for a company that is NOT a government contractor. I fully expect layoffs en masse within the next 6 months. We’ve already been hit hard. Vacancies are NOT being filled in our group. So of someone leaves due to job change or retirement… our group is short handed.
I’ve got almost 17 years with this employer (although the name has changed due to aquisitions and splits) – but that doesn’t matter. I might be on the chopping block. Such is life.
Dual citizenship has always been an issue for security clearances above the very basic ones. It’s a factor I considered when I put together the application for my husband and sons dual citizenship. It might effect my sons’ future job prospects.
I guess I don’t understand why defense contractors should be any different than any other employer. We’re ALL screwed in this economy.September 14, 2011 at 8:36 AM #728998poorgradstudentParticipant
Considering the scope of cuts the Federal Government is expected to make in the next 6-12 months, it’s not shocking that companies that do a lot of contracting are cutting back. I think most of us know that a lot of companies cut stupid when they cut, at best using a club when a scapel would be better and at worst cutting productive members of effective departments because someone higher up the chain screwed up and the company is in trouble.
Moving away from contracting is a great opportunity for the government to cut budgets without sacrificing services. As noted in this thread, contractors tend to be much more expensive than employees.September 14, 2011 at 9:52 AM #729003NotCrankyParticipant
This is all wrong, what we really need to do is get more and better lobbyists and keep throwing money down rat holes of all kinds. Who will pay for our houses if we don’t? I don’t think it really should be a question of contractor or federal government at all. Let’s quit this petty,”throwing money down my rat hole is better than throwing money down your rat hole” bickering and spend. Give the rich more give, the poor more, prop up unions. Make more non-profits and endless grant money. Subsidize more farms and stockpile weapons. Start more wars and give money to churches too.September 14, 2011 at 9:59 AM #729004NotCrankyParticipant
Back on topic, All this foreclosure/bailout stuff is pretty arbitrary. It will be all the more so if it keeps happening. That in itself seems like a accelerator of morale hazard. In this case, does someone get to keep their job if they got a kick the can down the road loan mod on their liar loan?
The policy Ricechex described also seems like it could be an tactic to control strategic defaults. Something short of debtors prison but serious and maybe unconstitutional?September 14, 2011 at 11:06 AM #729006AKParticipant
I’d guess it’s the cheapest way for your employer to downsize, though it’s a pretty crappy way to treat people. Either that or it’s a way for another contractor/agency to look busy and avoid their own downsizing.
I kinda question bankruptcy/foreclosure as reasons to pull someone’s clearance. I’d guess that someone trying to avoid bankruptcy or foreclosure would be more vulnerable/susceptible to blackmail or bribery, in the same way that an openly gay person would be a better security risk than someone who resorts to secret assignations in park restrooms.September 14, 2011 at 11:19 AM #729008CDMA ENGParticipant
Why is it surprising that someone in the Goverment Sector being foreclosed on is being laid-off?
People with fiancial problems have always been considered a security risk. Whether foreclosure consitutes an actual risk, many people just walk away with little debt, this is one of the benchmarks that the goverment looks at as to your employabilty (previous and current).
The goverment simply does not want you in a position where your loyality could be comprised by finacial gain.
This is not new news and is standard policy since at least the 50s.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.