Over the past two years, the Obama Administration constructed a labyrinthine maze of executive orders, directives, regulations and findings all for the purpose of reversing more than a decade of outsourcing government work to the private sector and instead insourcing, which is the replacement of private sector workers with government employees. The overall effect is that tens of thousands, maybe even hundreds of thousands, of jobs that were once in the private sector have migrated into the public domain with all the attendant disruption of ongoing work and additional costs.<\/p>\n
In 2009, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates went well beyond the administration\u2019s campaign to protect work deemed inherently governmental when he announced a major policy shift that sought to reduce the department\u2019s reliance on private contractors and increase the number of government employees involved in oversight, management and planning of defense activities and procurement programs. One stated objective of the Secretary\u2019s program was to save money by shifting work done by the private sector into the public defense industrial base. DoD components used the Secretary\u2019s directives on insourcing to bring work successfully performed by the private sector or by collaborative public-private teams back within the government. This campaign reversed more than a decade of outsourcing work to the private sector that was once managed and performed exclusively by a government workforce.<\/p>\n
Central to the logic that underpinned DoD\u2019s insourcing campaign was the assertion that such work could be performed more cheaply by the public defense industrial base. DoD sources estimated an average savings of $44,000 a year for every contractor it replaces with full-time federal personnel.i<\/sup> One government insourcing directive asserted that the public defense industrial base was 40 percent cheaper than the comparable private sector.ii<\/sup> Business case analyses conducted by DoD before insource maintenance and support work appeared to confirm the assertion of a cost differential in favor of the public workforce.<\/p>\n Yet, readily available public data strongly refutes DoD\u2019s assertions that the public sector workforce is cheaper than its private sector counterparts. A study by the Cato Institute using federal government data concluded that in 2009, the average federal civilian wage was $81,258 per year, compared with $50,462 in the private sector.iii<\/sup> Using similar data, USA Today<\/i> also reported a significant gap between public and private sector workers. Moreover, the gap between average federal salaries and those in the private sector is widening.iv<\/sup> In 2000, federal workers earned $51,518 compared to the private sector\u2019s $38,862 or a differential of approximately 40 percent. By 2009, that gap had widened to more than 60 percent.<\/p>\n Not only do federal workers receive higher salaries than their private sector counterparts, they also receive more in benefits. A recent article in USA Today<\/i> reported that based on data from the Bureau of Economic Analysis, federal workers \u201cearned average pay and benefits of $123,049 in 2009 while private workers made $61,051 in total compensation.\u201d In addition, \u201cthe federal compensation advantage has grown from $30,415 in 2000 to $61,998 last year.\u201dv<\/sup> According to the Center for Data Analysis, the average private-sector employer pays $9,882 per employee in annual benefits, while the federal government pays an average of $32,115 per employee.vi<\/sup><\/p>\n Federal workers enjoy a range of benefits far in excess qualitatively as well as quantitatively as compared to their private sector counterparts. For example, the typical government employee gets a guaranteed defined benefit pension under very generous terms, while the private sector norm is a 401(K) defined contribution plan that is subject to the ups and downs of the economy. Federal workers also have access to an array of benefits rarely matched in the private sector. These include:<\/p>\n A 2007 study of the federal workforce by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) provides at least a partial explanation why it is on average more expensive than the comparable private sector workforce. According to the CBO, the federal workforce had a \u201chigher concentration –relative to the private sector — of jobs among management, professional, and related occupational categories. Correspondingly, because people in such occupations tend to be older, more experienced, and more highly educated, the average age and educational attainment of federal workers are higher than those of private-sector workers.\u201d Given the structure of the federal pay system and the rewards that accrue to individuals based on seniority, time in service and educational attainment, it is not surprising that average salaries exceed those in the private sector.vii<\/sup> It is also worth noting that since the CBO report was written, the characteristics to which it referred and that caused the average salaries of government workers to exceed those of the private sector have become even more pronounced.<\/p>\n However, the differential between public and private wage rates exists across multiple occupations. This includes blue collar and skilled artisan trades where education and age differences matter little, if at all, to actual performance. According to USA Today<\/i> the federal pay premium cut across all job categories — white-collar, blue-collar, management, professional, technical and low-skill. In all, 180 job categories paid better average salaries in the federal government (83%) while only 36 job categories paid better in the private sector (17%).viii<\/sup> The Cato Institute\u2019s study confirmed the advantage federal workers had across salary categories. \u201cIn 2008, federal civilian workers had the seventh-highest average compensation level of the 72 industries. The federal workforce had a higher average compensation level than such high-skill industries as computer systems design, chemical products, and legal services.\u201d<\/p>\n The cost differential between private sector workers and active duty military personnel performing commercial functions is even more dramatic than that between public and private sector civilians. According to the Congressional Research Service, the average total annual cost for military personnel is $160,000 and the total bill for uniform personnel performing commercial functions is some $54 billion a year.ix<\/sup><\/p>\n Even DoD is beginning to recognize the reality that the federal workforce, both civilian and military components, is extremely expensive. There is also a growing realization in OSD that traditional labor force cost estimating procedures do not adequately reflect the true costs of federal workers. According to a 2010 memorandum by the office of Cost Estimation and Program Evaluation on estimating the full cost of civilian and military manpower:<\/p>\n The DoD composite rates, as published by the USD(C)\/CFO, used to calculate manpower costs for program and budget submissions do not account for the full costs of military or DoD civilian personnel. For example, the outlays for compensation costs and for retirement and medical accrual accounts for active duty (AD) military personnel represent only a fraction of total Federal outlays<\/i>.x<\/sup><\/p>\n The huge differential between public and private sector workers\u2019 wages and benefits is one major reason why the cost of government is so high. It also makes it impossible to give credence to DoD claims that insourcing will save money. The private defense industrial base sector clearly has a labor price advantage over its public sector counterpart, particularly when wages and benefits both are included in the comparison. In addition, private companies have repeatedly demonstrated that they also can save money in others ways such as through astute management of their supply chains, predictive maintenance techniques and the application of principles of performance-based logistics.<\/p>\n __________________________________________________________________<\/p>\n i<\/sup>Walter Pincus \u201cPentagon Sees Big Savings in replacing Contractors,\u201d The Washington Post<\/i>, December 24, 2009<\/p>\n ii<\/sup>Air Force Material Command, In-Sourcing Implementation Guidance<\/i>, Resource Management Decision (RMD) 802, April 13, 2010<\/p>\n iii<\/sup>Chris Edwards, Overpaid Federal Workers<\/i>, Cato Institute, June 2010<\/p>\n iv<\/sup>Dennis Cauchon, \u201cFederal Pay Ahead of Private Industry,\u201d USA Today<\/i>, March 8, 2010<\/p>\n v<\/sup>Dennis Cauchon, \u201cFederal workers earning double their private counterparts,\u201d USA Today<\/i>, August 13, 2010<\/p>\n vi<\/sup>James Sherk, \u201cInflated Federal Pay: How Americans Are Overtaxed to Overpay the Civil Service,\u201d Center for Data Analysis Report #10-05, July 7, 2010<\/p>\n vii<\/sup>Congressional Budget Office, Characteristics and Pay of Federal Civilian Employees<\/i>, March 2007, p. 2<\/p>\n viii<\/sup>Dennis Cauchon, \u201cFederal Pay Ahead of Private Industry,\u201d op. cit<\/i>.<\/p>\n ix<\/sup>Defense Business Board, Reducing Overhead and Improving Business Operations: Initial Observations<\/i>, Department of Defense, July 22, 2010<\/p>\n x<\/sup>Office of Cost Estimation and Program Evaluation, \u201cEstimating and Comparing the Full Costs of Civilian and Military Manpower and Contract Support,\u201d Directive-Type Memorandum (DTM) 09-007<\/i>, January 29, 2010, p. 6<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Over the past two years, the Obama Administration constructed a labyrinthine maze of executive orders, directives, regulations and findings all for the purpose of reversing more than a decade of outsourcing . . . <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[4],"tags":[],"yoast_head":"\n\n