6 ms·

Ultimately, it seems, the compensation was just always lower than industry norms.

kuschku 9y ago
The fact that the current administration put a full hiring stop, and that 18F had everyone on 2 year contracts, seems to have been much more important. If everyone’s contracts run out after 24 months, and you can’t re-hire them, of course you’ll lose 50% of employees in 12 months.
chrisseaton 9y ago
I thought it was done as a kind of 'tour of duty' equivalent in public services, where you'd leave your company for a few years, and then go back, so you only took a salary hit for a short time?
- tonystubblebine 9y ago
  Exactly. The attrition rate part of the article is wrong. 18F hires on two year terms renewable for a second two years. At the end then, you are required to leave. So by definition the minimum attrition rate is 25%.
  - s73v3r_ 9y ago
    But during the Obama administration, they were backfilling. It sounds like a lot of people are electing not to do that second term, and they're not backfilling open positions.
    - tonystubblebine 9y ago
      Are you sure you mean to use the word "but" here. What you're saying, true or not, does not contradict what I said.
      - s73v3r_ 9y ago
        I did mean to use the word "but". Like I said, during the Obama administration, they were hiring to replace the people who were termed out, or simply did not renew for a 2nd term. That's not happening now.
smacktoward 9y ago
Compensation in government jobs is almost always lower than what the same person could make in the private sector. 18F's problem is that the appeal of government work is in benefits other than salary: solid health coverage, a pension, job security. But those are really only of interest if you're planning on staying there long term, and 18F's pitch has always been "take a year or two off from your real job and come work with us." It's the Peace Corps for techies, and nobody joins the Peace Corps for the retirement plan.
- verst 9y ago
  You cannot stay at 18F for the long term. These are limited term, 'non-competitive service' positions. * Job security only for your 2 year term (unless you renew by another 2 for a max of 4 years). After that, you need to leave government service * Health care coverage was similar to major tech companies in the Bay Area. However, vision / dental benefits were worse. * Pension benefits only start after 3 years of government service, so most working for 18F will likely not receive these. But I agree that for other government positions these are good perks.
grepthisab 9y ago
GS-15 is more than many pay, maybe not bay area or top, top companies. But I had friends there who made $160k-ish and had a hard time moving back to SF to mid-size startups because he would have had to take a pay cut (but with equity filling the gap). Plus it was pretty high impact work, and the ability to work remote on demand, so was hard to find something comparable if you're very mission driven or want a more "relaxed" lifestyle.
- toomuchtodo 9y ago
  It's not a bad deal if you're young and single. It wasn't tenable for me to bring my wife and daughter to share a townhouse with a bunch of other USDS [+] staff making $130k/year. [+] I'm aware that USDS and 18F are independent branches.
  - grepthisab 9y ago
    Yeah that probably depends on your personal situation of course. But I met many 18F'ers and USDS'ers through my friends, lots of people coming on between startups for a few months, some staying for years. They seem to match your current salary up to the federal civilian max, which appears to be $161,900. So that's not exactly a small amount, especially considering the additional benefits like excellent health care and blameless vacation-taking. Though you won't be getting catered lunches or free drinks/swag. Really just seems to depend on what you value. I've considered joining myself.
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
    - vostok 9y ago
      It's not bad if you're just comparing base salaries, but it's hundreds of thousands lower than quite a few private sector jobs if you compare total compensation. Of course given the compensation and maximum length of tenure I imagine that most people are not doing it for the money.
      - 9y ago

The fact that the current administration put a full hiring stop, and that 18F had everyone on 2 year contracts, seems to have been much more important. If everyone’s contracts run out after 24 months, and you can’t re-hire them, of course you’ll lose 50% of employees in 12 months.

chrisseaton 9y ago

I thought it was done as a kind of 'tour of duty' equivalent in public services, where you'd leave your company for a few years, and then go back, so you only took a salary hit for a short time?

tonystubblebine 9y ago
Exactly. The attrition rate part of the article is wrong. 18F hires on two year terms renewable for a second two years. At the end then, you are required to leave. So by definition the minimum attrition rate is 25%.
- s73v3r_ 9y ago
  But during the Obama administration, they were backfilling. It sounds like a lot of people are electing not to do that second term, and they're not backfilling open positions.
  - tonystubblebine 9y ago
    Are you sure you mean to use the word "but" here. What you're saying, true or not, does not contradict what I said.
    - s73v3r_ 9y ago
      I did mean to use the word "but". Like I said, during the Obama administration, they were hiring to replace the people who were termed out, or simply did not renew for a 2nd term. That's not happening now.

smacktoward 9y ago

Compensation in government jobs is almost always lower than what the same person could make in the private sector. 18F's problem is that the appeal of government work is in benefits other than salary: solid health coverage, a pension, job security. But those are really only of interest if you're planning on staying there long term, and 18F's pitch has always been "take a year or two off from your real job and come work with us." It's the Peace Corps for techies, and nobody joins the Peace Corps for the retirement plan.

verst 9y ago
You cannot stay at 18F for the long term. These are limited term, 'non-competitive service' positions. * Job security only for your 2 year term (unless you renew by another 2 for a max of 4 years). After that, you need to leave government service * Health care coverage was similar to major tech companies in the Bay Area. However, vision / dental benefits were worse. * Pension benefits only start after 3 years of government service, so most working for 18F will likely not receive these. But I agree that for other government positions these are good perks.

grepthisab 9y ago

GS-15 is more than many pay, maybe not bay area or top, top companies. But I had friends there who made $160k-ish and had a hard time moving back to SF to mid-size startups because he would have had to take a pay cut (but with equity filling the gap). Plus it was pretty high impact work, and the ability to work remote on demand, so was hard to find something comparable if you're very mission driven or want a more "relaxed" lifestyle.

toomuchtodo 9y ago
It's not a bad deal if you're young and single. It wasn't tenable for me to bring my wife and daughter to share a townhouse with a bunch of other USDS [+] staff making $130k/year. [+] I'm aware that USDS and 18F are independent branches.
- grepthisab 9y ago
  Yeah that probably depends on your personal situation of course. But I met many 18F'ers and USDS'ers through my friends, lots of people coming on between startups for a few months, some staying for years. They seem to match your current salary up to the federal civilian max, which appears to be $161,900. So that's not exactly a small amount, especially considering the additional benefits like excellent health care and blameless vacation-taking. Though you won't be getting catered lunches or free drinks/swag. Really just seems to depend on what you value. I've considered joining myself.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - vostok 9y ago
    It's not bad if you're just comparing base salaries, but it's hundreds of thousands lower than quite a few private sector jobs if you compare total compensation. Of course given the compensation and maximum length of tenure I imagine that most people are not doing it for the money.
    - 9y ago