Live data from Hacker News

NSA’s top talent is leaving because of low pay, flagging morale, unpopular reorg

washingtonpost.com

431–440 of 547 posts

Re: NSA’s top talent is leaving because of low pay, flagging morale, unpopular reorg

#431
post #418
post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From Wikipedia[1]: CIA, NSA/CSS, NRO, DIA, NGA, intelligence elements of the five armed forces (Air Force, Army, Navy, Marines, and Coast Guard), and intelligence elements of the State Department, Department of Energy, DHS, Treasury, DEA, FBI, and finally overseeing them all, ODNI. Each specializes in collecting a different kind of intelligence or in a different focus for analysis. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/…

Why do the DoE and Treasury need intelligence elements?

DoE handles the nuclear arsenal. Treasury contains the Secret Service.

Re: NSA’s top talent is leaving because of low pay, flagging morale, unpopular reorg

#432
post #391
post #315

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually, this stability and security was another big reason I chose not to join Government. I had done a few internships in the public service, and what I saw horrified me. When you have job security and low expectations placed on you, it's wonderful. When everyone does, it's horrible. There is relatively little room for the lazy and useless in the private sector.

Again, I ask that you refrain from characterizing everyone as lazy and useless. I know a lot of women friends who choose to join Government service because of its long term stability which is important for them as they raise a family. They are some of the hardest working and smartest people I know. Sure bad apples are harder to eliminate, but that doesn't mean everyone is bad.

I agree that my choice of words implies everyone is- and that is not true.

What I saw in government was a lot of dead weight adding little value and taking home paychecks, being carried by a small group of people working their asses off to keep everything afloat. The dead weight couldn't be fired short of them doing something crazy, like sneaking into the office over the weekend and drinking half the wine set aside for the Christmas party (so the story went of the only guy who got fired from that office). The heavy lifters felt unable to even take a vacation because they know nothing would get done if they left- example, a boss I had who wasn't sure she could go to her sister's wedding in Jamaica for two weeks because the office wouldn't manage without her.

My own wife is an engineer in municipal government. She's a superhero as far as I can tell. The dead weight on her team can't be fired, and she does many times the work they do for a smaller salary- they've been here longer, you see, so they make more money.

Perhaps my perspective on public sector jobs is skewed, but I've yet to hear a compelling reason I would want to have one.

Re: NSA’s top talent is leaving because of low pay, flagging morale, unpopular reorg

#433
Government work also suffers from over regulation. A friend of mine who works for a major defense contractor as an electrical engineer is literally not allowed to use a screwdriver driver. He must requisition a union worker for jobs involving a screwdriver. This takes tons of time and the simple job may ultimately never get done. In practice, he and his colleagues wait until after 5pm, when the union guys have gone, to use screwdrivers.

I told this story to my Uncle who worked for 30 years at a national lab. He said they had a similar problem and solution for using a broom to sweep up a mess in their work area. These stories sound unbelievable but I believe they are common and that situations like this regularly cripple and demoralize government work.

Re: NSA’s top talent is leaving because of low pay, flagging morale, unpopular reorg

#434
post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is that we can (and should!) raise government pay scales, but we must also make it easier to fire people (or manage them downwards) for incompetence. Government work is for two types of people (and there's some overlap on the Euler diagram): patriots, and folks who can't hack it in civilian life. It's not just a 'perception of gov't incompetence': it's a widespread phenomenon. Government employees tend to…

It's popular to say things like some government employees are "folks who can't hack it in civilian life," but there's basically no evidence this is true. First of all, let's make sure we look at the full scope of civilian life with a sober eye. Anyone working the counter at your local Post Office could easily work the register at any grocery store in your town. And any medium to large company has plenty of internal p…

>It's popular to say things like some government employees are "folks who can't hack it in civilian life," but there's basically no evidence this is true.

I'm not aware of any scientific studies, but I spent a decade on active duty, and seven years as a reservist so far. When it came to technical jobs, almost everyone was terrible at their job, which was usually an incredibly narrow and overly simplified version of what the job would actually be in the civilian world. Everything is compartmentalized to the point where even if you excel at your individual responsibilities, you would still be terrible in the broader field. Almost every marketable skill I learned during my time in the military was something I did on my own time that was completely unrelated to my day job.

After I left the military and transferred into a different kind of technical role, eventually I started helping with interviews. 15-20-year government service veterans with incredible resumes and sr. titles are regularly found to be unfit for even an entry level job.

There are exceptions, but the rule in the military is incompetence. Its not that there's something inherently wrong with people, its just that the military recruits intelligent people, trains them very poorly, and then never lets them do anything remotely interesting or challenging. They just follow whatever steps they were told to complete in training over and over again for the rest of their careers.

As with anything, there are exceptions. Some tiny parts of the military do interesting work and have developed a culture that's reasonably conducive to innovation and fostering talent. From what I've heard, parts of the NSA used to be like this, but the lack of ethics among the organization's senior leadership ended up being partially responsible for the reorganization. Additionally, there are other people that manage to become really good at something in spite of being constantly strangled by the government's attempts to hold them back. Some of the most brilliant people I've ever met started out in the military, but the overwhelming majority of people that serve in technical roles are unfit to do anything besides put asses in seats for the defense contracting industry (which 95% of the time isn't any more capable of specialized technical work than the military).

Re: NSA’s top talent is leaving because of low pay, flagging morale, unpopular reorg

#435
post #366

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you think that some of the hiring practices are out of whack as well? I've heard it claimed that sometimes the government treats hiring as welfare employment programs - which adds a whole new spin on this.

I've never heard it phrased like this specifically but there is absolutely a mindset during interviews that the applicant gets the job unless you can find a specific reason not to give it to them. To @dragonwriter's point the rules surrounding Civil Service are even more extreme. Here is a real world example of CS hiring procedures: 0. CS Commission sets a minimum written score for oral interviews. Score is arbitrary…

You'd be hard pressed to convince me that someone who fought for their country in the military should not be preferred as a civil servant. It seems like a very strong qualification for these jobs.

Re: NSA’s top talent is leaving because of low pay, flagging morale, unpopular reorg

#436
post #414
post #370

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pensions just don't make sense mathematically. If they're solvent based on the state's investments, then the employee is getting a raw deal compared to having just invested the money themselves. If they're not, then I as a taxpayer am getting a raw deal by helping to pay for someone's retirement because they worked for a state agency decades ago. My state starts doling out pensions at 5 years. A friend of mine worked…

Pensions make a lot of sense mathematically. If I personally fund my retirement I have to save enough for the "worst" case scenario of living many years longer than average. A pension on the other hand only has to invest enough for the average lifespan because the person who dies a week before retirement and collects nothing helps fund the person who lives to be 105. State pensions are in trouble because govt pension…

If you're worried about living too long you can buy an annuity. It makes no sense for employers or the government to make that choice for you.

Re: NSA’s top talent is leaving because of low pay, flagging morale, unpopular reorg

#437
post #419
post #352

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Anyone who works in intelligence is evil and should leave and find a career in the private sector, but I won't hire them because they're evil and previously worked in intelligence! Thankfully resume sorting is effectively already an entirely random process, so I hope this comment doesn't bother anyone too much.

Should we have no intelligence agencies? A better approach is to populate our intelligence agencies with good people, instead of leaving it up to incompetent/bad people.

>Should we have no intelligence agencies?

Why not? It would get rid of a big excuse for governments to conceal things from their citizens, who supposedly oversee them. If someone in the government needs to find something out, they could always just pay someone to do it on a contract basis.

Re: NSA’s top talent is leaving because of low pay, flagging morale, unpopular reorg

#438

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The Post Office? Nope! During busy times, I've seen the line go beyond 15 or 20, and there's this only 1 slow clerk taking his time, chit-chatting, in no hurry at all. > At my local grocery store (Safeway), they'll add a new cashier if the line becomes long. The Post Office? Nope! During busy times, I've seen the line go beyond 15 or 20, and there's this only 1 slow clerk taking his time, chit-chatting, in no hurry…

> Because Safeway has enough manpower to do that. I can assure you, the cashiers at Safeway make significantly less money than the USPS staff. And accounting for guaranteed pensions, even more so. Most are minimum wage employees with no job security. And to answer your speculation: there are employees at the Post Office. You can see them through the doors. And finally: why isn't the office staffed properly, given tha…

I suspect a lot of this has little to do with government vs. private sector and a lot to do with the APWU [1]. There are unions in the private sector too.

I'm personally just fine with paying the postal workers a living wage, even if it means the lines are a bit longer.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Postal_Workers_Union

Re: NSA’s top talent is leaving because of low pay, flagging morale, unpopular reorg

#439
post #420
post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> if you're going to invade privacy on a massive scale, you better be ready for the consequences. Like a job at Google/Facebook, where you'll continue invading privacy on a massive scale?

This always gets me, too. Everyone targets the NSA, while freely giving away all their private email and internet activity (and now meatspace activity) to private companies without any of the oversight that NSA is subjected to. We really have no idea what G/F do with it all, and have no way to find out. Whereas with the NSA there exist many avenues to make sure it is not abused.

I've always seen those companies as the commercial wing of the NSA/CIA. I view them as one and the same.

Re: NSA’s top talent is leaving because of low pay, flagging morale, unpopular reorg

#440

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Payroll is the number 1 expense for government agencies. Easier firing would make a world of difference. I think the root cause is pensions. When people are tied to pensions for a retirement, firing people becomes a much bigger deal. Just pay a match into a retirement account and then when people can go, they go. Private sector pensions are for the most part long gone. Why should public sector keep them.

> Private sector pensions are for the most part long gone. Why should public sector keep them. Because we don't want a race to the bottom?

Because they're a way to compensate highly skilled government workers for the fact that their salaries aren't competitive.
Post reply on HN