I agreeto Idea Insourcing Body Shop Jobs
Voting is Disabled

-2 votes

I disagree

Rank3379

Idea#322

This idea is active.
Hiring & Recruitment »

Insourcing Body Shop Jobs

Why Is This Idea Important?: I've worked in the D.C. area for a while. And what I find appaling is the amount of government workers whose jobs have been outsourced to body shops for pure profit. This "outsourcing" was a Bush initiative meant to make government run like a business. But all it did was make individuals and companies rich off of the taxpayers without any added value or benefit. All of sudden you have body shop companies that provide no value, yet are taking profit and overhead on an employee that has a desk at an agency performing the job of a government employee. For some agencies, the percentage of outsourced employees is outrageous. Some three letter agencies have 85% of employees outsourced. How is it better for national security to have a person have two desks, two phones and two computers - one in a secure facility and another in a non-secure facility? The most outrageous is the outsourcing of the govt's role on FCS. This definitely cost the tax payer billions - but politically speaking was a necessary consolidation prize for the losing bidder of FCS, the Boeing corporation. Cheers to the Obama administration and the secretary of defense in their attempts to seal up this money pit. Now if they could just fix Deepwater and JTRS...

Insource government jobs currently performed by "body shop" contractors. This will save the government 10's of billions a year. Pay the worker a little bit more and get rid of the zero value add "body shop" company / contract.

This idea goes hand-in-hand with streamlining the government's hiring practices. These civil servant exams are great, but if you are looking for an Electrical Engineer or a Computer Programmer, just take a resume and hire the guy! You do it anyway with the body shops and pay twice as much.

Submitted by Unsubscribed User 3 years ago

Vote Activity Show

Similar Ideas Show

Comments (1)

  1. Unsubscribed User

    Correction to the above - LMT was the "willing" losing bidder of FCS (because they avoided a costly (to their cash flow) protest launched by Boeing on JSF). Boeing was the losing bidder of JSF and FCS was their consolation prize. Everyone is angry about Haliburton and sole source contracts. Well, Boeing has Haliburton beat on FCS - a ~ 200 B contract.

    3 years ago
    0
    0