Good News for Government Workers Interested in Cybersecurity

A task-force report recommended that DHS has to reserve its coolest cybersecurity jobs for federal workers, not contractors:

Task Force Tells DHS to Offer 'Cool' Cybersecurity Jobs to Gov. Workers and Test Them Like Pilots | Threat Level | Wired.com

Find more posts tagged with

Save $250 on 2025 certification boot camps from Infosec!

Book now with code EOY2025

Button

Comments

vanquish23

Good read. I'm going to ponder this article before I comment. Plus, there is a lot of great debate in the comments below.

ptilsen

It had me up until the part about money. I think lots of great people will work for the government at a decrease in pay, but within reason. In other professions, the public sector pays 10-30% less than private sector "equivalents". For IT security, the government is paying 50-70% less. Would I take a pay cut to work for DHS or NSA as opposed to a bank or defense contractor? Absolutely. Would I take a $50,000 pay cut? Probably not. I don't think I'm alone in this.

jesseou812

Government is "supposed" to pay less than the private sector. Why? Because the government is not supposed to compete with private industry for talent as it drains the private economy. A few at the top did not get that memo.

In return for a guberment job, one gets more job security, benefits, all holidays off, generous vacation, and a retirement in 30 years that the typical private sector employee could only dream of. Even better, once you get your foot in the door, you can become totally incompetent after the initiation period and still get paid. Good work if you can get it.

jesseou812

Not to mention the bennies of the cool $800K a pop parties in Vegas, Florida, California, et. al. on the tax payer dime to keep you happy and motivated. It would not be good if anyone became unhappy working in security.

Roguetadhg

I was going to repeat everything Jesseou812 stated. I've seen government employees and I'll tell ya. To not really work and still get paid. Awesome.

But then again, meh. If they're looking for the "Best" and "Brightest" I think they need to up their pay ante. From the way they're talking they want to attract the few percent that want to stay motivated.

the_Grinch

Having been in government service before the pay really isn't that bad. Plus depending on the agency, there are fringe benefits that you would be hard pressed to get in the private sector. That being said they do need to offer some incentives, such as education and allowing government workers to actually do the job. It's a catch-22 though because just as in the private sector you have a need to fill and often don't have time to train someone up. As far as having more then just a certification I can agree with that. When I was with ICE we had to qualify with our firearms quarterly and if we didn't we were benched. Top down, everyone who carried qualified and there were guys who literally only drew their weapons on qualification day.

This isn't an issue that will be solved overnight and there is a lot they need to do. Flexible schedules, flexible dress code, and better educational benefits would make a world of difference in the public sector if you ask me.

Everyone

Meh, keeps me employed. I've worked both side of the fence (and now I sort of ride it). I like getting the best of both worlds. I work FOR the private sector IN the public sector, and I'm not a contractor.

Doesn't matter if it is a government employee, or a contractor. When they break something and can't fix it themselves, or they just need some guidance (or training), I get to provide it.

kiki162

Yeah that's GSA you are referring to jesseou812. It also depending on who you are working for.

kiki162

Grinch...I can confirm what you are saying on the whole gov't thing. Depending on where you work at, you get a lot of people who basically "ride the train" until they retire. There are plenty of people who care about there job, but the unfortunate thing that they don't really tell you about is that you have to keep the "status quo" unless something major happens. I have a lot of appreciate for some of the agencies and bases that follow a very strict path and have the same settings (for the most part) across the board. Where other agencies that have higher ups that want to keep things the way they are and don't give a **** about what you say or think to convince them otherwise. (i.e.: password complexity, length and changes as an example)

The other problem is hiring outside people. If this is an Excepted Service type of position, it's easier for the general public that have no preference to get it. Where a General Service like people that are prior miliary, government employees get the preference and have to be hired over external applicants regardless of experience.

kiki162

I agree with the fact that they need to be paying more, however most of these types of jobs will start on the lower end of the pay scale.

I believe that the NSA has a couple of different programs where they start you out on the low end, so long as you can get through the clearance and application process. A lot of that stuff starts around $40K on up, with most starting on the low end. It's good for students or people who can work with $40K a year. There's an extensive training program for a few years, then you have the opp to get into a lot of cool stuff.

the_Grinch

I get what people are saying about riding the train to retirement, but it's not like this only occurs in the public sector. I've been in the private sector now for three years and have seen just as many people riding the train. Lazy people are everywhere not just government service. I'll agree every agency is different and that needs to change (at least as far as computer security goes).

ptilsen

Yeah, I'm not buying the idea that public sector employees are by far lazier than private-sector counterparts. People are lazy everywhere. Why go take a pay cut to work for the government, likely doing more "important" work, if you will, just to be lazy? Most people are lazy in the private sector unless there is a performance incentive, in my opinion. In the public sector, I think a lot of people are going to be working there out of a sense of civic duty, because again, I don't see a lot of government jobs as paying comparably to the private sector, so why work there? A couple extra weeks of vacation doesn't seem worth strict salary limitations. Working for the public sector, at least some people might feel inclined to do good work out of patriotism. Most private-sector jobs are ultimately about making your employer more money, which is not exactly compelling unless there are good stock options, profit-sharing, etc.

As far as perks and everything else goes, there aren't any federal, state, or local government jobs out there that are realistically going to match the perks I've experienced in the private sector, and I know for a fact they don't match the pay. I obviously can't speak for all government positions across all fields, but as far as IT and IT security in particular go, the government doesn't pay enough and the benefits and other perks do not make up for the pay cut. For IT security and related fields, the stakes really can't be higher, so whatever's necessary to attract and retain top talent should be done.

AlexNguyen

The salary is not the only thing to consider for a job. Government jobs give you job security and good retirement plan. I knew many co-workers went to the private sector for many years, and then come back because they now have a wife and kids and need a security.

I've met a few folks that work for government agencies on my last training class in Dulles. They are very smart people in IT security. They don't want to work in the private sector because they like what they're doing in the government and have job securitty + healthcare benefits.

With my current employer (provincial government owned company), I can take up to 2 years leave to work for another company and come back without losing any benefits. A lot of my co-workwers did that, one to follow her husband in the US, one to travel around the world, one to prepare for a sporting competition, etc.

ptilsen

I don't think anyone here has said or somehow implied salary is the only factor to consider. It clearly isn't, but it is almost always a factor.

I'm not seeing job security, benefits, or perks these as legitimate benefits for working in the public sector in our field. In others, absolutely (see: teaching). I get some others might, but I think that's unrealistic for most of us. I've yet to work in a private-sector IT job where I thought job security was at all an issue. For my employers, IT has always been a necessity and the IT departments have usually been understaffed and overworked. Every organization has had reasonable PTO plans, covered at least half of health & dental, matched at least 50% on 401(K) for up to at least 3% of salary, and covered STD or LTD or both. Even if the entire company goes under, there will always be other jobs for me. Short of financial Armageddon, I don't see any improved job security in the public sector for this field. Even there, finance would be more secure than government.

Regardless of all this, salary is still a huge concern. Even if government IT security jobs have much more time off, much better benefits and perks, are much more fun and exciting and have much better job security, the salary difference for higher-level positions still negates those differences, IMO. We're talking about government jobs that pay $60,000 vs. $90,000 in the private sector, $80 vs $120, $100 vs $200+, and so on. Money isn't everything and you can't buy happiness, but an extra $30,000 gross annual income sure doesn't hurt.

higherho

AlexNguyen wrote: »

The salary is not the only thing to consider for a job. Government jobs give you job security and good retirement plan. I knew many co-workers went to the private sector for many years, and then come back because they now have a wife and kids and need a security.

I've met a few folks that work for government agencies on my last training class in Dulles. They are very smart people in IT security. They don't want to work in the private sector because they like what they're doing in the government and have job securitty + healthcare benefits.

With my current employer (provincial government owned company), I can take up to 2 years leave to work for another company and come back without losing any benefits. A lot of my co-workwers did that, one to follow her husband in the US, one to travel around the world, one to prepare for a sporting competition, etc.

I want to quote this because of the retirement comment. Their was a study recently and roughly half of the government is eligable to retire by 2025. The government cannot afford the retirement benefits for how big the government is.

Imo, when you reach a certain senior level in the technical world within the government then jump ship and go private sector because you will make a lot more money and work for some great companies.

AlexNguyen

Here, in Montreal, the IT consultants that make big money are those that are self-employed or subcontractor of a consulting firm. The employees of a consulting firm don't get high payroll. I know it because I was a consultant working for a firm before.

When you work for a private firm, you get a bit higher salary but you work more hours. Some companies don't pay overtime and your salary is annual. When you work for a government, you work less hours (35 hours per week). Your salary is paid by hour, not annually. Your overtime is paid. You have an union. When you start your job, you have 4 weeks paid of holiday. When you retire, you have a pension for life.

higherho

^
Thats true, but I would watch our with all the upcoming and future government cuts. 5 trillion is going to get cut sooner or later and I'm sure they will shrink and consolated agencies. There a lot of people in the government that take advantage of their union and the fact that its very hard to fire someone (you can fire a govy its just really tough to do) allows people to be to lax. This is one reason why contractors are needed because the government cannot perform the needed work. I've seen an individaul who gets paid 73k a year for just taking care of printers and erasing HDD's. You would't see this in the private sector (or very rarely).

Also, I tend to feel kinda bad because your salaries and pensions are coming from tax payers.

ptilsen

Everything you're saying here applies to Canada, not the US, which is fine except the article you posted is about IT security jobs with the US Department of Homeland Security, not any aspect of Canadian government. The conversation is in that context, not in some sort of universal public-vs-private context.

Government employees here are paid by annual salary or hourly based on their roles, and it tends to be the same as the private industry. Working hours tend to be similar as well. Union varies from position to position, though most federal government positions are not union, as I understand it.

Here are a few anecdotes:
I interviewed for a position as a senior systems engineer (or some title of the generalist sysadmin nature) with a branch of the Minnesota state government simultaneously with my current role. One of the interviewers actually told me flat out he works over 50 hours a week on average. The pay for that role was capped at the low end of my salary range. I took a job with private company that had an almost identical job description. The hours are better, the benefits are better, and the pay is almost $20,000 higher.

My father works for the federal government, let's just say in a position that requires a graduate or professional degree. While he does get six weeks of vacation plus ten holidays (keep in mind, he has been there for 40 years) and other great benefits, he makes less than half what he would in the private sector and he probably works more hours than most of his private sector colleagues. He does it because of the importance of the role in society, not because of the benefits or pay.

Every federal position for IT infrastructure or IT security I've looked at requires a combination of more education, certifications, and/or experience than I have yet pays a little bit less than I make now. Those that pay a more than I make now still pay much, much less than I can reasonably expect to make by the time I have the required qualifications. An again, this is anecdotal and from my perspective, but I really don't see myself as somehow unique in this regard. When translating my own skills and qualifications to expected pay and benefits, I'm generally not going to be far off other people of similar skills and qualifications in my field.

Again, not all jobs across all sectors of government in the United States are going to have the same differences with private industry, but the jobs in question -- high-level IT security jobs -- are just not payi, or even a security consultancy, doesn't really feel much less cool or noble than working for DHS, and is going to pay $30,000 to $100,000 more a year, provide similar benefits, and not require relocation to less desirable locations.

the_Grinch

I love when people point out vacation time as a perk in the federal government. As ptilsen pointed out, his father has been in 40 years and has six weeks. It takes time to max out to that point so please do not apply thinking there will be a ton of vacation for you get. The pay does eventually catch up with you as most positions will journey to at least GS-11. While raises might get frozen, you will still gain your step for each year of service after you max out your grade.

tpatt100

You worried about government employees and pensions? Read up on the US military pension budget problem that is about to become a huge issue. I get a military pension and health benefits but the military/government is really trying to switch to a retirement fund and do away with retirement pensions. Proposals for government matches every year and you don't have to do 20 to keep it, you can leave when your contract is up.

I think people want to see government employees as lazy and they will see it. I don't see it as "lazy" what I see is the problem of being employed one place too long. The government jobs should not be "more secure" that is a myth not a labor law for the government. That is the problem with government employment is the idea that the government can't and won't lay off which during times of economic growth that is the time for the government to downsize because employees have better chances of finding replacement work.

As far as government employees getting security positions. From "my experience" good luck. Every position I have had with DOD was contractors did the technical stuff and government employees got "security titles" but did very little mostly it was retired military people who got the jobs and sit on conference calls. Unions push for training for new roles but most don't retain the information and push it off to the contractor.

neo9006

It depends on who you work and what you do. I have worked at the state level for over 17 years, and like others have said the private sector does make more money than us. It is true you can do your 30 years and retire early on a cushy deal, but when you are getting small raises and not making much money, it sucks. I know I am on the bottom end of where I work, there are secretaries making more money than me which tells you how far on the bottom I am. But the benefits are great, the retirement is good if you make good money and do the 30 years in, the vacation time is off the chart, I have too many hours of vacation time to be honest but we carry over a maximum amount of vacation time and it moves over to sick leave if you have hours left over. But I look at this way the last 6 years we really have not gotten much raises period so there is a downsize and I am sure others probably have not either, but its not all its cracked up to be. If you want to work the government, I hope your in a good position, I can not say that yet, and reason I will probably look for something else down the road possibly. Like Alex pointed out there have been people who worked here before come back near retirement.