White House Wants To Borrow Tech Workers From Google and Amazon, Says Report (cnet.com) 208
"According to CNET, TechCrunch and others, the Trump administration reportedly wants tech giants to make it easy for workers to take leaves of absence to help the government modernize," writes Slashdot reader kimanaw. From a report: White House officials on Monday planned to meet with tech giants including Google, Microsoft, Amazon and IBM, to discuss ways to make it easier for employees to take leaves of absence to help with government projects, according to The Washington Post. The administration reportedly hopes tech industry workers will be able to help modernize state and federal agencies and tackle challenges such as upgrading the veterans' health care system. Attracting tech talent may prove difficult for the Trump administration, which hasn't always seen eye to eye with Silicon Valley on issues such as the president's ban on travel from predominantly Muslim countries. However, White House officials believe tech workers are willing to "put politics aside." "This event on Monday is not just about our efforts, it's about our successor, and their successor after that," said one unnamed official, according to the Post. The White House didn't respond to a request for comment.
Shouldn't be a problem (Score:2)
Re:Shouldn't be a problem (Score:5, Insightful)
Trump doesn't pay contractors, though...
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Trump doesn't pay contractors, though...
In Soviet Trumpistan, contractors pay you!
here's a crazy idea: (Score:3, Insightful)
"Oh no, we wouldn't want to do that. Let's just borrow some villeins from their lords Google and Amazon." Who BTW are really onboard with the whole divisive racism, hate and fearmongering agenda. This is what they really think about you.
Re: here's a crazy idea: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: Shouldn't be a problem (Score:1)
Re:Shouldn't be a problem (Score:4, Insightful)
The myth that the private sector is made up of wonderfully efficient and capable people is easily disproved. Look at your private sector coworkers, and consider the private sector coworkers you've had in the past. Most likely they were not all paragons of efficiency and virtue.
Still, it's likely that they are able to adapt to change more readily than their government sector counterparts, but it's not because they're fundamentally better; they just operate under less restrictive rules and expectations.
Now it can be a good to bring in outside expertise, but the idea that bringing in private sector people will magically fix things is naive, because that expertise will operate under all the same constraints as their government employee counterparts except one: contributing to politicians who oversee the program. That's why privatization's track record of making government cheap and efficient is so un-magical.
It can be a good thing to bring in outside experts and contractors, or it can be a bad one, depending on your plan. If your plan is to shove money at them and sit back while they solve your problems, well that's a bad plan. All things equal a vendor would rather your problems be interminable and expensive, and if he has to give you a job after you retire from public office, that's a small price to pay.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
The myth that the private sector is made up of wonderfully efficient and capable people is easily disproved. Look at your private sector coworkers, and consider the private sector coworkers you've had in the past. Most likely they were not all paragons of efficiency and virtue.
...compared to most government/civil-service workers? In that light, hell yes they're paragons of efficiency and virtue. :/
I do agree that you can't simply toss money at a group of people and expect them to crap out a perfect vision or solution. Takes a lot of guidance and clear communication along the way. It also takes the removal of the shit-ton of regulatory barriers that most governmental institutions are weighed down with (for even the most trivial of things...)
Re:Shouldn't be a problem (Score:5, Insightful)
...compared to most government/civil-service workers? In that light, hell yes they're paragons of efficiency and virtue. :/
I'm curious how you know this. I worked in the private sector for decades, but at least half that work was for public sector agencies (well over a hundred in all) at all levels of government and in every part of the country except Alaska. I'd say on average public employees are about the same as private sector employees, but the variance is greater.
That's because on one hand you've got rules that makes it hard to get rid of underperformers. But the other hand, you get people who are genuinely dedicated to the mission of their agency in a way that would be downright bizarre in a private sector employee. These are the kind of people who are really bullish about promoting the state's agricultural products, or getting the next generation into hunting and fishing. I once had a trip to the CDC's Fort Collins office when news of a hemorrhagic fever outbreak in Africa came through. It was like being in a suit-up scene in some cheesy action movie because those guys were going to war -- with a virus that made you bleed out of your eyeballs.
The work of those kinds of employees goes largely unnoticed. When we had the Boston Marathon bombing up here, two bombs went off in the middle of crowds and 267 people were hurt, 14 requiring amputations, but only 3 died. First responders justifiably got a lot of credit for that, but the low death rate was also the result of planners having a procedure in place which rapidly activated trauma teams at 27 hospitals, so that on average each hospital had to triage on average fewer than ten patients. Imagine if they'd all gone to the nearest hospital instead. As far as I know whoever prevented that from happening never got any media pats on the back.
The kind of government employees that make those kinds of things happen are found everywhere, and everywhere they're weighed down by deadwood coworkers and bosses. The problem is worse, however, in places where the public is fatalistic about bad government employees. Texas is the worst I've seen. One of the hardware vendors we sometimes worked with landed a bunch of contracts there by procuring prostitutes for public officials. But even in Texas there's a core of good people who make things work; they're just not the ones getting blow jobs.
Re: (Score:2)
That's because on one hand you've got rules that makes it hard to get rid of underperformers
This is the real difference that people fail to see. I've worked in both private companies and public government offices, and both can have gross inefficiencies and lackluster employees. The difference is that it's much more difficult to get rid of a terrible employee at a government office, so more of them tend to stick around. Promotion also tends to lean towards seniority as opposed to merit.
The private industry also has situations like promotions based off of favoritism which lead to a terrible emplo
Re: (Score:3)
Not so fast.
The government (taxes) doesn't pay well "in house." The high-paying jobs go to contractors who are not always patriotic, like Manning, Snowden, and Winner.
This latest move tells us a few things:
The gubmint doesn't have the chops to do this. Private sector, apparently, does.
The feds have tried to use these same resources to weaponize software like drones, face recognition, and AI.
That failed, so the next iteration is to get that same work force by providing the carrot on a stick labeled, "patriot
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, the chops exist somewhere in the private sector, that is certain. Whether they'll bid on any contracts is less certain, and whether they'd win is even less certain than that.
hat failed, so the next iteration is to get that same work force by providing the carrot on a stick labeled, "patriotism."
People willing to work for patriotism rather than money already work for the government. The problem is that they report to politicians.
Re: (Score:2)
And most can't find decent work outside the military.
Which, by the way, what with super low unemployment, has changed just recently.
I'm seeing an increase in adverts for signing up.
I was in Uncle Sam's Yacht Club for 9 years. In 1965, the oil patch dried up here.
In 1968, it was still that way. Then, in 1974 the refineries announced preferential hire for veterans.
I bailed for that reason. I'm proud of my time of service but I don't claim to have ever done it out of patriotism.
Re: (Score:2)
How is he patriotic?
Re: (Score:2)
TL;DR because:
Do you not know what he did?
I'm covering the fucking story.
Please resubmit and and answer the question in a single sentence. Thanks.
Re: (Score:2)
Who in Silicon Valley wants to work for Trump? (Score:2, Interesting)
Great way to get black listed by the community at large.
McCarthyism (Score:5, Insightful)
Funny,
I remember in school learning how evil it was to black list actors based on their political views. So now IT and Hollywood brag about black listing based on political views.
Interesting.
Re: McCarthyism (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Funny, I remember in school learning how evil it was to black list actors based on their political views. So now IT and Hollywood brag about black listing based on political views.
Interesting.
Silly, it's OK when we do it!
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly why one of them labeled you Troll. Morons.
Re: (Score:2)
You don't have to work with anybody in hollywood. It is a choice. You have no choice but to have Trump as president. Very big difference.
I'm pretty sure one AC on /. (Score:2)
Now, do you support laws making it illegal to discriminate on the basis of political views? How about sexuality? After all, if you're against political discrimination you'd pretty much be stuck being against sexuality discrimination, since they're both a choice. Of course, you can argue that folks are born gay, but then that falls under the same logic as being white. You're born white, so should I be able to discriminate against you for being white?
Re: (Score:1)
OK, I guess you should go edit this article.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood_blacklist
delete the whole thing, and replace it with "me herd blacklissting wuz made up by duh meanie conspearasee!"
because that's how you sound, grasshopper.
You are working for the Country not Trump (Score:1, Insightful)
Who in Silicon Valley wants to work for Trump?
Idiots. You are working for the Country, the American people, not for Trump. We are not talking about working on his campaign, we are talking about working on the software infrastructure for the nation.
Naive (Score:5, Insightful)
Idiots. You are working for the Country, the American people, not for Trump.
When Trump accepts that reality then I will too.
We are not talking about working on his campaign, we are talking about working on the software infrastructure for the nation.
So what? If it is important to the richest nation on earth then the richest nation on earth can damn well pay market rates for it. Buy fewer bombers if they need to find the money in the budget. The military is ridiculously over funded as it is.
Leave of absence rather than quitting (Score:1)
Idiots. You are working for the Country, the American people, not for Trump.
When Trump accepts that reality then I will too.
So you are a denier of reality, politics trumps the truth in your mind. Good to know.
We are not talking about working on his campaign, we are talking about working on the software infrastructure for the nation.
So what? If it is important to the richest nation on earth then the richest nation on earth can damn well pay market rates for it. Buy fewer bombers if they need to find the money in the budget. The military is ridiculously over funded as it is.
Wow, you truly are an idiot. The administration is not asking for free labor. They are asking for employees to be able to take a leave of absence rather than having to quit their jobs and hope to get rehired later.
Try to take off your political lens for a moment and at least read the summary: "discuss ways to make it easier for employees to take leaves of absence to help with government projects"
Re: (Score:2)
Like a woman taking a pareental leave to take care of her newborn and comming back to see that she was fired in the meantime... We know how it work :/
Clueless (Score:5, Insightful)
So you are a denier of reality, politics trumps the truth in your mind. Good to know.
Denier of reality? Quite the opposite. I'm WELL aware that our current president likes to think we all work for him and that he doesn't work for us. How is it that you missed that fact? Once he actually starts working for the American people (ALL of them) then we can have this discussion about my motivations.
Wow, you truly are an idiot. The administration is not asking for free labor. They are asking for employees to be able to take a leave of absence rather than having to quit their jobs and hope to get rehired later.
Yes they are asking for a discount on labor. If they were willing to pay market rates then they wouldn't have to go begging the private sector for talent. Hell they could just hire the company to do the work if they need the person or win the person away from the private sector outright by paying them competitively. There is no point to such a discussion unless they are trying to get labor at a discount.
Try to take off your political lens for a moment and at least read the summary: "discuss ways to make it easier for employees to take leaves of absence to help with government projects"
Grow up and learn to read what that really means. Politics is ALWAYS involved and to think otherwise is dangerously naive.
Re: (Score:2)
This, and I think the proposal is subterfuge anyway.
Hell they could just hire the company to do the work ...
Recall the attempt to do just that.
"Say, if you're not interested in writing killing code, how 'bout you just lend some of your workers? We got free beer with a decal of the American flag on the cans."
Re: (Score:2)
You're new here [vox.com], right?
Workers at Google, Amazon, and Microsoft are demanding input on the impact of the technology they build.
Fixing Veteran Affairs system not to do with Trump (Score:2)
So you are a denier of reality, politics trumps the truth in your mind. Good to know.
Denier of reality? Quite the opposite. I'm WELL aware that our current president likes to think we all work for him and that he doesn't work for us. How is it that you missed that fact? Once he actually starts working for the American people (ALL of them) then we can have this discussion about my motivations.
Wow, you are doubling down on your idiocy. The work is not for trump, it is for national infrastructure. From the summary: "... hopes tech industry workers will be able to help modernize state and federal agencies and tackle challenges such as upgrading the veterans' health care system ...". What the f*ck does fixing the software mess at the VA and other departments have to do with Trump?
Wow, you truly are an idiot. The administration is not asking for free labor. They are asking for employees to be able to take a leave of absence rather than having to quit their jobs and hope to get rehired later.
Yes they are asking for a discount on labor. If they were willing to pay market rates then they wouldn't have to go begging the private sector for talent. Hell they could just hire the company to do the work if they need the person or win the person away from the private sector outright by paying them competitively. There is no point to such a discussion unless they are trying to get labor at a discount.
Your offer a foolish red herring to hide your ignorance. No one is requiring anyone to work for the government. The summa
Re: (Score:2)
If it is important to the richest nation on earth then the richest nation on earth can damn well pay market rates for it.
I think for a lot of the younger tech talent, its about more than just pay. As an employee of Facebook/Google/Amazon/etc. you can go in to work at 10pm wearing a T-Shirt and sandals, not fill in a time card, and often have a good lunch paid for by the company, and usually have admin access to your own personal development machine... the culture in a government office could not be further from this.
Giving this same level of pay and benefits to a government employee would be seen as egregious waste of taxpaye
The US Gov't doesn't pay market rates for anything (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, as if it's not hard enough to find talent. You think these companies are going to collaborate on who worked for the government? Hell, most of them already have government contracts.
Pay them? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"Or.. they could just pay the corporations to use their workers?"
I expect that's what they have in mind. I think they are troubled that a lot of government in house IT projects have large cost and schedule overruns. They presumably want to tap into Silicon Valley's vast skills at doing something or other -- ignoring the fact that large cost and schedule overruns by tech companies are not unknown or even uncommon.
This may or may not be exacerbated by the fact that the current administration has relatively
Re: (Score:2)
I've known a few people that have done software and it roles in government. Those jobs may not have great basic salary, but they have a degree of stability that some people look for and coupled with comparatively generous retirement they can be attractive to competent individuals.
The issue, I suspect, on large government IT projects is probably not much to do with technical vision or project management but rather of ill-defined or ever-changing requirements coming from above. When you have a fixed budget
Re: (Score:2)
How'd that go with Manning, Snowden, and Winner?
Also, let's look closely at the contractor idea as applied to the war in Afghanistan.
We have a goddam shit load of contractors over there.
How's that been working for us the last 17 years?
Re: (Score:2)
So, you're attempting to color all contractors with what these individuals did? And btw, Manning wasn't a contractor. Are there shitty contractors?...sure. You think we could do the job w/o them?...you're delusional.
Re: (Score:2)
So, you're attempting to color all contractors ...
Did I post the names of all contractors?
Re: (Score:2)
... say the least ...
Try that.
It's all about playing power games. (Score:4, Insightful)
Or.. they could just pay the corporations to use their workers? Say like.. contract work? You know.. how capitalism work, and not, dare I say it.. communism?
So the question is... why isn't Trump pushing for a way to make it easier to temporarily hire engineers from Boeing and Lockheed-Martin, instead of having NASA hand out contracts to those companies? Or perhaps maybe grab some workers directly from Halliburton, instead of signing a contract that goes through their entire company?
Short answer -- because he personally has a beef with Amazon and Google, seeing that their corporate culture is hostile to his agenda. So in one stroke he seeks to find a way to forgo handing out lucrative government contracts to those companies, while simultaneously weakening them by leeching away talent.
Re: (Score:3)
Actually, according to Hannah Arendt, the real problem with fascists is that they don't have any real commitment to any belief or principle:
18F anyone? (Score:1)
I was shocked to hear the Obama era idea get some traction with the Trump Admin. Hasn't anyone heard of https://18f.gsa.gov/?
Re:18F anyone? (Score:4, Insightful)
What great things has Trump done exactly?
Fiscal? The deficit is larger than ever.
Economy? Stockmarket is down.
He mostly accomplished tax cuts for his buddies, cruel treatment of children, discrediting the US internationally, cozying up to all sorts of dictators and other authoritarians, and he's made DC even more corrupt than it was before. Really great things he has accomplished.
Re: (Score:2)
The economy has been on a rocket sled upward since two years after Obama's election. You need to ignore most of the data to credit Trump for that.
Re: (Score:2)
Nothing you just stated has anything to do with my correction to your factually incorrect OP. No, the economy had been on the slowest recovery from recession ever, which was one of the biggest criticisms of Obama policies. The economy was actually starting to recover prior to Obama taking office.
Re: (Score:3)
The economy was starting to recover prior to Obama taking office? I suggest you take another look at the data, because that is completely false.
You are claiming three contradictory things now: Trump is responsible for the recovery, Bush is responsible for the recovery, and Obama is responsible for the recovery being so slow. You are desperate to blame something, anything on Obama, while claiming credit for anyone who is not Obama, thought preferably Trump, no matter how undeserved.
I understand facts have go
Re: (Score:2)
Raise taxes and pay competitive rates (Score:5, Insightful)
Trump administration reportedly wants tech giants to make it easy for workers to take leaves of absence to help the government modernize
The easy way to do this is to pay the workers you want to utilize wages and benefits competitive with the private sector. This might require raising taxes to cover the cost. I cannot imagine the tech companies have much incentive to loan out any workers who are any good. I'm also dubious a lot of tech workers will be super enthusiastic about working on highly bureaucratic and low paying and likely boring government IT plumbing projects unless the government is willing to back up a dump truck of money. Even then it's not clear they would get the best and brightest.
However, White House officials believe tech workers are willing to "put politics aside."
HAHAHAHAHAAAA.... For this administration? I doubt they'll get any sort of wide spread enthusiasm as long as Trump is in office. I think it would be a tough sell for any administration but this one in particular seems rather unlikely.
Re:Raise taxes and pay competitive rates (Score:4, Insightful)
However, White House officials believe tech workers are willing to "put politics aside."
As partisan as our current political climate is, the idea of people putting politics aside is optimistic at best.....
Re:Raise taxes and pay competitive rates (Score:5, Funny)
However, White House officials believe tech workers are willing to "put politics aside."
As partisan as our current political climate is, the idea of people putting politics aside is optimistic at best.....
No, it's simple. Put politics aside and just agree with the obvious goodness and rightness of what I believe! ;)
Comment removed (Score:5, Funny)
Editor wars (Score:2)
So should the Whitehouse use VI or Emacs?
Neither and they should send anyone who wastes government resources arguing about it to Guantanamo.
Re: (Score:2)
Current Whitehouse would be lucky if they got nano working
Re: (Score:2)
So should the Whitehouse use VI or Emacs?
Our current Whitehouse would think this means either:
Village Inn
or
A new breakfast sandwich at Carls Jr
Re: (Score:2)
Nano.
Re: (Score:2)
If you back up that dump truck of money to my house, I don't care about your politics. :)
Everyone has a price.
Re: (Score:2)
So, if you had the opportunity to help fix social security, or the VA hospitals, or make government more cost efficient, you would say no just because of who's in the White House? Got it, you're a piece of shit.
Silly government executives. (Score:4, Informative)
The point of government IT contracts isn't to fix or improve anything, but to extract hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars from government coffers without providing anything tangible or useful. See also: IBM, Oracle and/or Epic.
Amazon?! YES! (Score:1)
With Amazon workers involved, maybe it'll make it easier to buy our government!
Let's see:
Senator - add to cart. Two Congressmen - add to cart. Oh, and a FCC administrator - add to cart.
Arrrrghhhh, just one more and I have enough to get the add-on item of a HUD admin.
its a matter of funding, not silicon valley morals (Score:2, Insightful)
I have an idea: fund agencies at a high enough level to hire developers and procure software themselves. The reason the government can't attract talent is because IT is not the "core business" of most government agencies, so when they are defunded, IT is always one of the first things to get cut.
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You know a few technical guys and a decent manager and want to bid on a contract? Not so fast!
1. First you must figure out what contract vehicle it's on.
2. Then you must spend money getting onto that vehicle by bidding.
3. Then you must bid to get that contract.
You missed one step...
4. You must pay someone to hand out the appropriate bribe ^H^H^H^ baksheesh, errrm contribution to the appropriate guardians of democracy.
Re: (Score:2)
Nope, That doesn't happen. The system is way, way to protective to allow that to happen. The corruption is baked into the federal acquisition regulations, not in back channel dealings.
Not certain if Poeing me or serious. Smiling just the same.
Re: (Score:3)
He is correct. You are utterly wrong. You're actually putting forward a macro-conspiracy theory, though you're also clearly too ignorant to be aware of it. There are far too many controls in place for that kind of self-dealing to occur in federal procurement. Absolutely everything is reviewed by hundreds of people before it is approved; that's the major reason why the Federal government is so slow and bureaucratic.
The real "corruption" is how major employers garnering Federal contracts have their local Cong
Re: (Score:2)
He is correct. You are utterly wrong.
Oh hell yess. Every statement I make is wrong.
Re: (Score:1)
And if you do manage to get the contract, you must hire a full time employee to make sure you are in compliance and get paid in a timely manner.
Re: (Score:3)
You're absolutely correct that bidding on a government contract is complex and difficult. The last government bid proposal I worked on decades ago required that we promise compliance with many millions of words of procurement specifications and about 60 pages of pro forma promising not to pollute the environment, subcontract to foreign companies, discriminate in any way in hiring, etc,etc, etc. I would guess that things have only gotten more complicated.
A bond might work in some cases, but overall, I'm sk
Re: (Score:2)
This.
And people wonder why government contractors charge so much. The amount of compliance related stuff we do is amazing, and god forbid you fuck it up because you can be banned from future proposals...more likely just fined, and I'm not talking slap on the wrist. It's also why most small businesses can't afford to be the prime on a large contract. They need to team up with a large experienced contracting company just to get their foot in the door.
Re: (Score:2)
The first rule of getting a non-trivial federal government is to hire a good lobbyist, even if you have to skimp on the people who will actually do the work.
After 9/11 and especially the anthrax scare, the small company I worked for was courted to be part of some responses to Homeland Security RFPs. I was uncomfortable about the misleading way our technology was presented as being just what was needed, but in fact the winning proposals had even less substance, just teams of dirt cheap contractors with a tr
Re: (Score:2)
This ...
Years ago, I read a fascinating article by a small businessman who made dock floats. Basically, big chunks of styrofoam covered with fiberglass.
He sold them retail for $50 each.
For a government contract, he looked at the paperwork involved and bid $500 each.
He was underbid by another company, and the contract ended up nearly bankrupting them. In retrospect, he was glad he lost the bid, because at 10x the retail cost, he figured he would have lost money.
Re: (Score:2)
Most recent RFPs that I'm seeing already include a carve out for small business to get a percentage of the work. Which is why my company is teaming with about a dozen of them on an upcoming effort. No, you're not likely to be the prime on a major contract until you've got history, because that's taken into consideration in awarding the contracts...you need to show that you've got a track record. It's kinda like graduating from college and getting your foot in the door the first time. It's much easier th
What exactly are they asking? (Score:2)
Because it sounds like a number of these companies already have policies which allow exactly this sort of thing. So I suspect the current administration may be more interested in compelling participation rather than “allowing” it.
Politics aside (Score:2, Insightful)
"White House officials believe tech workers are willing to "put politics aside.""
Politics, yes, But not rabid nationalism, raping the environment for personal gain, hating on different cultures/religions/sexual orientations, dumping on women and setting the world on a war footing –NO!
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
"White House officials believe tech workers are willing to "put politics aside.""
Politics, yes, But not rabid nationalism, raping the environment for personal gain, hating on different cultures/religions/sexual orientations, dumping on women and setting the world on a war footing –NO!
You are 1. assuming what you are trying to prove, and 2. literally engaging in politics.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Loving one's country is rabid nationalism now? Well I never.
Number of wars started by Trump: 0. How many did Obama start? Was it more than seven?
So they can spend the money (Score:1)
My boss already sent his resume in (Score:2)
Probably just a backhanded way (Score:2, Insightful)
Also it would let Google and Amazon function as contracting agencies. Basically free money for them.
Classic Trump (Score:2)
"I know we don't see eye-to-eye, but if we work together, you'll understand where I'm coming from." Then they will also depend on him, and be more loyal, instead of dissident critics.
Good thinking on his part.
Nope... (Score:2, Troll)
However, White House officials believe tech workers are willing to "put politics aside."
Nope. No way in hell I'd do anything to support that evil bastard or anything in his agenda, whether it's good or bad.
Re: (Score:2)
Funny, I've had no problem supporting the evil bastard before him, or the one before him, or the one before him, going all the way back into the early 70s. I do what I do, not for who's in the office. I do it for my country. And even when I disagree with a president, I hope he/she succeeds, in winning wars, fixing the economy, etc., because if they do, it's good for us all.
How about if you could help fix Social Security, or the screwed up VA Hospitals? You wouldn't work on those because of who's in the
New Visa Program (Score:2)
Why doesn't the government just create a new visa program? Say...the HIB Visa. Open to anyone with mAd sKilLz who wants to come to the U.S. and work for the U.S. Government and get its technical shit together?
Should work great. Opens opportunities for deserving brown people around the world (and by around the world, I mean India), and gets the government technical workers for a fraction of market rates - should be win win for everyone.
And no, I'm not serious.
Window dressing (Score:2, Informative)
This is only for the election. After the election, the White House will just go back to getting their tech workers from Russia, Israel, and Saudi Arabia.
H1B's get time off to go home USC work 80 hours (Score:2)
H1B's get time off to go home USC work 80 hours a week with no time off
LOL.... No. (Score:2)
I worked for a government contractor my first job out of college. And no. Just... no. I'm never going to make that mistake again... not for 45, not for Clinton, not for Obama if they were to amend the constitution so he could run again, not for Kennedy or Lincoln if they could raise the dead. It's just awful in every conceivable way.
The culture is toxic. You're a tiny cog in a gigantic machine without any way for your own contributions to be meaningful. It's cubes as far as the eye can see in warehous
White House wants to "borrow" tech workers (Score:2)
"Rest assured that we will totally not replace those persons with government-controlled doppelgängers."
Or they could just let a realistic RFP (Score:2, Informative)
which isn't low cost, technically acceptable, and which lowers some of the corporate requirements to allow for smaller companies to bid. As for patriotism, I did my years in a windowless building, where I had no contact with the outside world while on duty, where I settled for 40% under market pay in the name of service to my country, where my personal life was monitored 24 hours a day, where I had restrictions placed on where I could travel for vacation, who I could talk with, what sites I could visit onl
Politicians playing the ... (Score:2)
... "long-term" card?
Would have worked better if they had played the, "Better dead than red," propaganda card that appeals to fear, patriotism and nationalism ...
Putting the politics aside (Score:2)
Let's assume that we as individuals could 'politics aside'. That still doesn't change the fact the most sane people will avoid government work because of:
Low comparative pay (most gov. workers are doing the long term pension game)
Entrenched bureaucrats
Incompetent project scoping (this is putting it mildly)
RED TAPE/PAPERWORK
Not to mention the questions about the plans details. Would these 'temp tech' workers be implementing a project? Designing a project? Designing and implementing? Specing out a RFP for
"... brief tours of duty ..." (Score:2)
... as in 17 years (and counting) in Afghanistan.
Manning, Snowden, and Winner ... (Score:2)
... 2.0.
Help a guy out ... (Score:2)
... by explaining the the money, please.
These IT peeps go on "leaves of absence" ... What is the pay structure? Do they continue to get paid by the mother ship, or do they take a serious pay cut because patriotism?
Thanks.
confusion (Score:2)
Trump thinks he is CEO of America, and everyone reports up to him.