Originally Posted by djplong

There's more to the headlines than you know.

I'm a perfect case. My job is changing. It's the stated policy (as of last year) that my job, which is currently contracted out to a defense contractor (this is for the Air Force), is going to "go organic". This means the loss of one private sector job - mine, and the addition of one public sector job - mine. The only thing I don't know is WHEN this will happen. The current contract can be extended, re-competed, etc. There are several factors weighing into this.

Now, here's the part behind the headline. If I'm hired by the government at the exact same salary I'm making now (and I make a decent living) the government will save quite a bit of money. When I started this job, I worked for a contracting house who contracted me to the defense contractor who had the contract with the USAF. In the eyes of the defense contractor, I was a "temp to perm" and, after 6 months, I converted and was hired full-time by the defense contractor. I took a pay cut to take the job largely for the benefits and security.

The defense contractor now got to keep the portion between what I was being paid and what the temp agency was being paid.

When/if I'm hired by the Air Force, even if I'm making the same money I'm making now, the government will save a LARGE amount of money.

The headlines, however, will count me as a private sector job loss and a public sector job gain.

I can't speak for how many jobs in those headlines are situations like mine, but I know there are a lot of them.

So the next time you see those statistics, think for a moment. Yeah, public employees may be getting paid more for those jobs than private sector employees, but it may cost the government less because the salary for a public sector employee doesn't have the overhead that the private sector has - there's no Board of Directors, CEO, CFO or shareholders to pay off.

I don't like these facts one bit. I don't like the fact that the government may be paying more money towards 'management' and the shareholders than the person actually holding the job - and that the inefficiencies of government overhead may actually be the better of two choices.