FCW Insider

Blog archive

Does insourcing lead to 'theft' of contractor employees?

All the talk about government insourcing—that is, redirecting contractor work to federal employees—is missing a key issue, according to one reader: Where, exactly, are agencies finding staff to handle all that work?

The anonymous reader, responding to an FCW article about the Army’s plans to insource core functions now being handled by contractors, points out agencies are likely to expand their staffs at the expense of the contractors.

“Whether inherently a governmental-only function or not, what does that say for the contractor that invested time [and] money on that individual, sourced him to fulfill the customers mission, and the customer is now hiring that individual off from the contractor?” the reader commented “And, of course, no finder’s fee [will be paid].”

The theft of talent weakens companies that are already struggling to deal with financial instability, the reader believes, putting the administration’s insourcing policy at odds with its economic policies.

(As an aside: The question of finder’s fees was raised last summer when the administration officials first began talking up insourcing. But numerous government readers noted that agencies never see a dime when contractors hire away government employees.)

What do you say?

Posted by John Stein Monroe on Mar 24, 2010 at 12:18 PM


The Fed 100

Save the date for 28th annual Federal 100 Awards Gala.

Featured

  • computer network

    How Einstein changes the way government does business

    The Department of Commerce is revising its confidentiality agreement for statistical data survey respondents to reflect the fact that the Department of Homeland Security could see some of that data if it is captured by the Einstein system.

  • Defense Secretary Jim Mattis. Army photo by Monica King. Jan. 26, 2017.

    Mattis mulls consolidation in IT, cyber

    In a Feb. 17 memo, Defense Secretary Jim Mattis told senior leadership to establish teams to look for duplication across the armed services in business operations, including in IT and cybersecurity.

  • Image from Shutterstock.com

    DHS vague on rules for election aid, say states

    State election officials had more questions than answers after a Department of Homeland Security presentation on the designation of election systems as critical U.S. infrastructure.

  • Org Chart Stock Art - Shutterstock

    How the hiring freeze targets millennials

    The government desperately needs younger talent to replace an aging workforce, and experts say that a freeze on hiring doesn't help.

  • Shutterstock image: healthcare digital interface.

    VA moves ahead with homegrown scheduling IT

    The Department of Veterans Affairs will test an internally developed scheduling module at primary care sites nationwide to see if it's ready to service the entire agency.

  • Shutterstock images (honglouwawa & 0beron): Bitcoin image overlay replaced with a dollar sign on a hardware circuit.

    MGT Act poised for a comeback

    After missing in the last Congress, drafters of a bill to encourage cloud adoption are looking for a new plan.

Reader comments

Thu, Apr 1, 2010

Stealing - Yes. At least in the old days it was bsased on a competiiton. This insourcing movement is all about federal employees building their offices and government jobs. If it were really avout capabilities we would hear more about full cost and qualifications.

Fri, Mar 26, 2010

I think for years, under the last administration, contract companies were making large profits from government contracts and now they want to complain about this. What about losing employees to other contractors?

Thu, Mar 25, 2010

I am a manager for a federal government contractor providing services. I have hired more than 60 employees. I can only present my personal and simple scorecard for the past 8 years: Federal Employees Hired - 2 (their stated reason for accepting offer: they were not being advanced fast enough) Company Employees Hired by Federal Government - 18; of which 15 did not change work desk nor work phone number (their stated reasons for accepting offer: less risk of being laid-off, better benefits, and/or higher pay)

Thu, Mar 25, 2010 tuomoks

As all(?) have already said - what's the fuss? "Investment of Time and Money" - last seen maybe in 90's - since then there has been zero investments on individuals, it's all up to a person today. Please, I'm from time when 2-3 months a year was company paid for further education - not training, totally different thing! - since then it has gone to zero and any further education has to taken on own time, don't waste company time and / or money?

Thu, Mar 25, 2010 William Carter Austin, Texas

The same argument has been made for decades where contractor employees have poached government employees who, obviously, were trained at taxpayer expense. Get over it!

Show All Comments

Please post your comments here. Comments are moderated, so they may not appear immediately after submitting. We will not post comments that we consider abusive or off-topic.

Please type the letters/numbers you see above

More from 1105 Public Sector Media Group