Private vs. Government defense employers
Private vs. Government defense employers
(OP)
Hi guys. I wanted to get your opinions on what are the advantages and disadvantages of working for a private defense company as opposed to a government defense company. From what I know, the private ones pay roughly 10 grand more for entry level guys like me than Government ones. Are there any benefits that government companies have that private don't? Thanks guys.





RE: Private vs. Government defense employers
Navair IS the government and not a company
Navair is on a 9/80 schedule, which might be appealling.
Government pensions are usually pretty good.
TTFN
RE: Private vs. Government defense employers
Here's my 5-cents, staring with: I consider three company types, not two:
(1) Manufacturer
(2) Private support services contractor
(3) Government Agency
Salary: entry level nowadays is significantly lower for the gov't, but the retirement and benefits are typically better (especially "how many days/year you are paid to stay home" - vacation, sick, gov't shut down, etc). However, advancement and salary increases in the gov't will be rapid (if you're good), and I'd say salaries are probably equal with about 5 years experience. With greater than 5 years experience, the edge goes to the gov't. BTW, my main "competitor" who I lose employees to is the gov't. This hasn't always been the case, but it is today.
Type of Work: This is extremely dependent on specific examples, but IN GENERAL: A manufacturer will provide the opportunity to do hard-core detailed engineering, often have good training programs, but you'll be one of a very large team, and can easily get pidgeon holed. Private service contractors can only offer you opportunity based on current contracts and taskings, and typically very little to no funding for training. The right gov't agency (such as NAVAIR for aviation, or NAVSEA for ships) will not typically provide the opportunity for significant hands-on detailed engineering, but will provide great opportunity for getting a wide range of experience not-quite hands-on. Additionally, the gov't usually has decent funding for training programs and similar expenses that a contractor has difficulty supporting.
The last item: it's often very dependent on the specific employee, the specifc office, and even the work that is a high priority that year for that office.
Hope this makes sense; if not, I can try to clarify it "next time".
RE: Private vs. Government defense employers
We have the choice of either standard 40 hour work week or 9/80 schedule. I can atest that my starting salary was well above the national average as an entry level engineer. NO mandated overtime. Paid christmas holday off (1-2) weeks paid on top of our normal vacations.
Since we are a small company the big three provide us with training, classes and equipment. Several of the Engineers here have went through 6sigma and lean classes.On a sidenote my company was once part of the DOE. The oldtimers tell of stories if they need training, equipment, anything to get the job done the Government would make sure they had them
RE: Private vs. Government defense employers
RE: Private vs. Government defense employers
RE: Private vs. Government defense employers
TTFN
RE: Private vs. Government defense employers
Government does give you, in general, more leave time. Of my 4 positions since college, one company had more holiday time than the government (had 13 and was oil company). The government wins on leave time hands down. As a new employee you get 13 vacation days, 13 sick days, and 5 days of family friendly leave. After 3 years this goes to 20-20-5(? I think still 5). The benefits are the worst I ever had as far as medical and dental (virtually no dental insurance). The coverage is good but its spendy. They also have retirement (which most companies dont any more).
The government job is definately more secure. Ahh, but the wages (non defense) are terrible in my opinion. Its hard to work somewhere where the secretary might be making as much as you. Engineering wages are bad in the government. I wish they would make our wages as good compared to the private sector as their secretaries. And one other thing before I go, there seems to be a bad taste concerning government workers from private companies (moving from govey job to private is difficult if your an engineer which has been with government more than 5 years, say).
The defense side of things are probably totally different.
The training in government is much better. Probably too good. When you can go to training on how to take care of your aging parents AND get paid for it, something is wrong.
RE: Private vs. Government defense employers
as a new guy, if you plan on being in the industry long term then i would strongly recommend starting out in the gov't, stay for at lesat 1.5 - 3 years. there are several reasons you would want to do this: 1. it's good to be the customer 2. you will eventually get a secret clearnace (hard to come by) 3. you will get a better understanding of the industry how eveything works. as a defense contractor you might not get exposed to things like dealing with the warfighers (the users), and going to various design reviews. 4. profit is not the bottom line so you are rewarded for doing the right things (although this is going away...) 5. in some gov't agencies, entry level will get bumped up significantly after 1.5 - 2 years and it will be higher than what other entry level engineers are making. 6. because of 1-5 you will be a really attractive candidate should you decide to get a job in the private sector.
if you don't plan on staying in the industry for long (my personal opinion is the aero industry is only good for another 3-5 years before *SEVERE* budget cutbacks, then jump into the private sector and take the higher starting pay because it might not be there in 3-5 years.
my two cents.
RE: Private vs. Government defense employers
depending on where you go you will mostly like have to wait a looong time before advancing, and the pay raises will kind of level off.
the gov't is showing a tendency to do a way with permanent employees and repalce them with contract workers and that is the future my friend... there will be less and less job security.
RE: Private vs. Government defense employers
As Nevil Shute he wrote the novels "A Town Like Alice", "Trustee from the toolroom"
As Nevil Shute Norway he started Airspeed Ltd (with others) which later became part of De Havilland.
Early on in his career as an engineer he worked on the R100 airship. It appears that the R100 was a private sector project while the R101, which crashed and burned in France, was designed and built by the Air Ministry; both to the same target specification.
This may be dated but I wonder just how many of his comments are still relevant.
He makes a comparsion between the two operations which adresses just this question. It would seem that it wasn't just chance that the R101 crashed and burned and the R100 didn't.
JMW
www.ViscoAnalyser.com
RE: Private vs. Government defense employers
RE: Private vs. Government defense employers
i think there are a lot of experienced, knowledgeable engineers on the US Gov't side and the same can be said in the private sector. no matter where you go you are going to have good and bad engineers.
i don't know if you can compare the two directly, because it is almost like apples and oranges. for instance here in the US the gov't aero/EE engineers does 99% test & evaluation work, while the private sector is usually responsible for developing airframes or systems.
as a gov't engineer i have seen sloppy work done by well known aero corporations when they developed the airplane 30-40 years ago.
it *seems* like nowadays the gov't and the private sectors have both adopted this corporation(business) approach to everything. as a result, the whole aero engineering industry is just on a downward spiral.
maybe some of the more experienced engineers in this forum can chime in.
RE: Private vs. Government defense employers
With the low wages (at least for EEs), most of the younger ones (15 yrs exp or less) are bailing because of this and the fact that govey workers are/have a reputation amongst some private companies.
RE: Private vs. Government defense employers
RE: Private vs. Government defense employers
"To be a little more specific, a 9 8 0 schedule is in a two (business)week period you work 9 hours a day for 8 days, 8 hours on the 9th day and you are off the tenth day. The net effect is you get every other Friday off. That is the schedule I work in the private sector and I must say I love it. Not too many people working less than 9 hours a day anyway here in the US, so it is nice to get every other Friday off."
My boss told me a 9/80 was nine 80 hour weeks, then a day off!
RE: Private vs. Government defense employers
Sometimes most of the effort goes into writing reports and preparing presentations. Insufficient time is spent on the product and the program falls behind with the same result.
9/80? Never heard of it but I had a job that was 4 tens, 6:00-4:30, then a 3 day weekend. I was great but didn't last because some of the people had trouble getting up early. I think that most people find it easier to work late than to start early.
RE: Private vs. Government defense employers
We in the government call that quality assurance, and really wish (a) we had the time and resoures to do more of it (we don't, since we do have "much more to do") (b) quality was such that it wasn't necessary.
Hg
RE: Private vs. Government defense employers
in the aerospace sector, from the gov't side, all contractors are referred to as "the slimey contractors." i guess this reputation came from over-zealous project (sales/marketing) managers making bogus claims or taking excessive profit from the gov't. this is why gov't engineers have to look over the contractor's shoulder to make sure the data is correct.
personally i have enjoyed working with contractor engineers, as they are usually honest and dedicated to their job. i don't think i can say the same for the business people...
RE: Private vs. Government defense employers
Although there are some slackers in govt, I agree that the inspectors are necessary. I also believe they are honest. I have seen inspectors refuse gifts and some even insisted on paying for their own cups of coffee.
RE: Private vs. Government defense employers
Then the other half of the contractors do good work and follow all the guidlines but then the government workers let if fall through the cracks. Example, contracting officer gets submittals (dwgs, data sheets, etc) at the right time but fail to pass them on to the correct technical reviewer. Contracting is a nightmare for the facility or whoever, is going to use the design or equipment. Ultimately, these people want things to work right but generally have very little to do with how the contract is fulfilled. The other government people involved really have no reason to care other than their own drive to take care of the facility that is using the equipment.
I am hoping this is changing but the only real solution is to put technical contracts in the hands of technical people and not contracting officers. And can all the contracts that are not followed to a 'T' until the easy money reputation of the government goes away (after 20 years or so).
RE: Private vs. Government defense employers
at our facility, busienss people have 19" LCD flat panels,while engineers have 15", 17" monitors. business people use theirc omptuer to play solitaire, while engineers use theirs for actual work...
RE: Private vs. Government defense employers
become an officer and go active duty military. The Air Force "developmental engineer" career field is probably the most accessible if you want to do straight up engineering work as a junior officer. I think that most of the Army and Navy engineering jobs are for field grade officers.
Anyhow, you'll get free housing, and some good operational experience to go along with the engineering and management work you'll do. The pace of promotions can be slower than in the DoD civil service, but being the real deal definitely has its benefits. On the other hand, there are plenty of obvious drawbacks to being in the mil.
Just thought I'd pass that along in case that was something you hadn't considered.
RE: Private vs. Government defense employers
RE: Private vs. Government defense employers
RE: Private vs. Government defense employers
http://www.washingtontechnology.com/top-100/2004/
TTFN
RE: Private vs. Government defense employers
I am not in a position to comment beyond showing this example of the Airship disaster as an example.
Firstly, this happened in the 1930's.
Its relevance to today's environment is probably extremely limited though for things to be different today we woul have to make some assumptions about human nature (including that of engineers, we're just people like everyone else) and the ability of governments to learn.
The interesting questions to be asked are: how many similar projects are there today i.e. where a government funded (unlimited) and controlled team, with the best engineers at its disposal, and a private sector team with limited respources both compete to complete a project to the same definition, specification and time scale? and what are the comparisons?
It seemed to me that R100 and R101 represented a case almost designed to exactly test this situation.
Nevil Shute, despite the Darwinian extiction of most of the Government team in its airship when it crashed in France, seemed to me to be struggling to be fair and balanced in his comments and i suspected he would probably have said much more and in stronger language in private.
He portrays an almost Faustian situation where he belives the Government engineers were working under severe pressure and constraints that corrupted their judgement. This was not a critisism of the engineers but of the system.
Incidentally, he makes very good comments about the professionalism of the inspectors with regard to their treatment of the private company project despite the fact that they were actually part of the Government team (their competence within that team is open to question when one realises that the R101 was given a certificate that enabled it to fly to France despite having had no flight testing following a major change to the airship, to cut it in half to insert an extra as cell).
JMW
www.ViscoAnalyser.com
RE: Private vs. Government defense employers
darpa jobs can be found at www.darpa.mil
RE: Private vs. Government defense employers
There are definately some advantages to working for the government, some have already been mentioned. Time off is good, 10 holiday days a year; new employee, 13 days of sick and annual leave a year, afer 3 years 13 days sick, 20 days annual, after 15 years 13 and 26. Overtime is paid, the ammount is capped (currently $33.06 per hour, or your regular hourly rate) but better than nothing. I don't have a reference to compair health insurance to, but whoever said practically no dental was right (practacally no vision either).
I don't know anything about the demo projects that are now arround, but under the GS system, the starting pay is not great, but regular raises are good until you reach your "working level", then level off some. Under this system raises are based only on tenure. There is a new system in the works, but I am not sure how much confidence I have in it.
Retirement is better than most, a 401K type plan (called thrift savings) with matching essintally 1:1 up to 5%, and a pension plan that pays 1% of the average of your high 3 years salary for each year of service, and social security.
Job security is better than average, but nothing is for sure, and with base closure a topic now jobs are subject to move.
There are bad/lazy engineers and they are very hard to get rid of, this adds some frustration. Where I work we actually do quite a bit of engineering, so government doesn't necessarily mean "contract moniter" I work with contractors quite a bit and they are generally good, hard working people who want to do good, same as us. We have more work than we can do and don't spend much time watching the contractors.
I don't know about the Army or Airforce, but there are very few Naval officers who do any engineering.
Hope this adds to your understanding of civil service.
SWhit