Anyone know what the red-tape / pay is like there? It seems like government organisations are just at such a disadvantage in terms of red-tape and large pay gap between the private sector. I know some have more discretion in their hiring ability, particularly in the defence space, but does it come close to private sector? You're probably better off working for a contractor working for the US Digital Corps than for them directly.
My experience is working with the Canadian Federal gov at a few national research labs. It was amazing work but joining the private sector is a major culture shock in that you can pretty much do anything and get paid 4x.
Sleeping well at night when you're older knowing you helped Grandma get her social security checks, your cousin in the Marines got the surgery he needed, the Post Office trucks got the maintenance they needed. A good career doesn't need any public service, but most great careers probably do.
Yeah, there is definitely something to be said for that. There is also the feeling though of knowing you afford a house, have a family with kids, and put them through college. So, there is sort of a balance here. Realistically, I guess you can have both, spend a few years there building your career then jump over to the private sector.
I tried to apply about 5 years ago and the process looked like it was going to take longer than a full set of Google interviews and it was going to be a big pay cut so I dropped out.
EDIT* It seems I was thinking of the United States Digital Service, which is a different thing.
Unless this side-steps the GS payscale then no, it won't be remotely competitive with private-sector. GSA basically tops out at the salary of the average senior developer and doesn't even start at the payscale of entry-level FAANG.
Plus you also will have to plan for the reality of regular shutdowns during republican congress/democratic presidency situations - this occurs frequently, the federal employees always get paid (or at least have so far) but bridge loans from credit unions (USAA, DFCU, etc) only go so far and you really need some cash savings as a federal employee.
Benefits aren't great anymore, and it's hard to see how benefits won't be trimmed further in the future for younger employees. It's just too tempting a pot of money for lawmakers.
Plus yes, red tape. Digital Corps and 18f and so on are attempts to remediate this, but it's just an uphill battle all the way, it's not an environment where you're going to change the world in a year, or even show meaningful progress in a year.
And all the other "culture fit" issues. Smoke pot? Thanks for applying. Even if you don't, hope you like some dude staring at your dick a couple times a year as you pee in a cup to keep your job.
Again, Digital Service, 18F, and Digital Corps are an attempt to remediate all this, but there is still absolutely no reason to work for the federal government outside patriotism. Like game development, they know they are free to continue the negative practices because there is an endless supply of patriotic bodies waiting outside for the chance to serve.
I worked for a company that subcontracted on a ton of federal work and the federal-adjacent stuff (non-military) was the biggest waste of time there. One project was software support for addressing medicare requirements, that was shelved after it was finished, and the other was remediating a failed project from a big-name contractor that never worked properly due to keycloak issues, that was also shelved after we were done (but we did get it working). It took over a year of fighting to even get the software we were supposed to be remediating. The federal agency had no idea why we would want a copy of the software "for ourselves" when we were supposed to be helping states deploy it in their environment. What's a dev env precious? That's the level of competence the feds generally have.
If you own the contracting entity (prime contractor is particularly juicy) federal is profitable, because you're drinking from the river as it flows by. Otherwise, as an employee, you are far far better working for a contractor that is federal-adjacent, to insulate you from "government work" issues as much as possible. And obviously as you can see from above - even that experience is not pleasant and you will have to drag them every step of the way justifying why standard engineering practices are standard.
A few inaccuracies here, but one thing that's hilariously wrong:
> Even if you don't, hope you like some dude staring at your dick a couple times a year as you pee in a cup to keep your job.
That's for the military. Civil service gets to go into a stall and shut the door. Also, unless you've got a TS clearance, you can go years between drug tests. Even with a TS, it's very random, some people getting tested nearly monthly, and others every 2-3 years.
True, it depends on what you're doing. If you have a security clearance (which, importantly, is not true for all federal employees) then you are in a drug testing position. Otherwise, it depends on what you're working on/with. Like many jobs involving heavy machinery, wage grade employees without clearances are going to get drug tested, while a clerk in an office probably won't be in a drug testing position. Finance stuff? Probably a drug testing position, whether with a clearance or not.
My experience is working with the Canadian Federal gov at a few national research labs. It was amazing work but joining the private sector is a major culture shock in that you can pretty much do anything and get paid 4x.
So, what's the incentive to work there?