[CALUG] [JOB OPENING] System Administrator at Intelesys Corp

[James Ewing Cottrell 3rd]

John Szakmeister wrote:
> James Ewing Cottrell 3rd wrote:
> 
>>Yeah, right! Like there are actually TS/SI cleared people out there
>>without jobs.
> 
> 
> There are some out there who may not be happy with their current position.

Of course. But given that they can write their own ticket, they will get 
snapped up quickly.

>><flame>
>>
>>Any company doing cleared word had better be willing to clear everybody.
>>Otherwise, that company is not qualified to be doing cleared work.
> 
> That was useful.  I'm glad you judged our company like that based off of
> one line in one job requirement that we have. :-/  We do clear people.

Good. Mostly.

> However, for this job, we'd rather have someone *this year*. :-)  You
> can't always predict a need in advance.  Waiting a year for something
> you need today is just bad business sense.

It makes bad business sense in the short term. It is up to your company 
to make it pay in the long term.

If you can't get someone cleared in time, then your company is simply 
not qualified to bid on that contract.

>>Finding someone who already has a clearance is just gravy. You cannot
>>expect it. Otherwise, there will be no people left with clearances.
> 
> ...which is the current situation. :-)  We're always on the lookout for
> good people, whether they're cleared or not.

That's good to hear. And if they are not cleared, you

>>Companies who will not spend the time, effort, and money to clear people
>>are just Stealing from the companies that are willing to do it.
>>
>>Yes, we all know that it takes lots of time, money and effort to clear
>>someone. This is why traditionally only the bigger companies could
>>afford to do it, or they had non-cleared contracts as well.

Thanks for echoing what I said. And those companies have their own 
tricks as well. While you are working on uncleared contract N, they 
submit you as a worker on cleared contract N+1, hoping that you will be 
available for cleared contract N+2. They try and get as many people in 
the pipeline as possible.

> If a company had to clear every person themselves, then a small business
> could not exist.

No, a small business doing only cleared work could not exist. I have no 
problem with that. That is what I am saying, that a company has to be 
big enough or diverse enough to weather the delay in getting people cleared.

> Also, dealing with government contracts is
> fundamentally different than dealing with commercial entities.

I'll accept that.

> A
> company geared towards doing commercial contracts--which they'd have to
> be in order to be competitive and still meet your requirement of
> clearing people themselves--would have to change their business model
> entirely to cope with the government (not an easy feat, and it's hard to
> be competitive if you have to incur all that overhead of changing
> business models).

Yes, they would. Or more likely, they would either have to have two 
separate business units of be able to switch gears when dealing with the 
different environments.

In other words, you have to be either Big or Nimble. If you are neither 
one you are unqualified to do cleared work.

> In the commercial world, you don't have to deal with
> fiscal years, and the fact that the budget doesn't get approved on time.
>  And, you'd expect a commercial entity to be responsive when it comes to
> changing the terms of the agreement because their requirements have
> changed.  The government doesn't operate nearly that efficiently.  It's
> hard enough on small business without throwing the fact that we need to
> clear every person ourselves as a requirement on top of everything else.

My point is that the system is Unsustainable if everybody expects to 
hire cleared people rather than clearing them themselves. That should be 
Obvious.

My "requirement" that companies be ready to clear Everybody is overly 
severe, given that there is a certain amount of movement of cleared 
people between companies.

Or maybe it's not. For every cleared person you gain from your 
competitors, one of your people leave and go to them, on the average. So 
the gain is largely an illusion.

> I'll submit that large companies put out a lot of requirements where
> they need someone already cleared.  It's not like small businesses are
> the only ones in town hiring already cleared people.  And from what I've
> seen, big business is just as likely to "Steal" people as anyone else.

Yes, they are NOW. But that's not how it used to be. I optained a Top 
Secret clearance 1/2/79 which I held off and on until some time in 1984. 
While I was awaiting clearances, I did uncleared work.

I am tired of having companies tell me that they won't hire me because 
they will have to start clearances at the beginning, and that they have 
no uncleared work to keep me busy.

At least I *am* clearable!

>></flame>
> 
> 
> Not everyone is out to be malicious. :-)  I've grown tired of
> administering the networks myself, and I see plenty of opportunity for
> someone else to come in, help us out, and learn a lot of new stuff along
> the way.  I'm not trying to commit theft, but rather offer an
> opportunity to someone interested in learning more about administration,
> Linux, networking and even web development, that a person wouldn't
> otherwise have.  I can't say that there are too many companies out there
> in the cleared community who are willing to teach and train people, much
> less have opportunities that allow you to make use of the world's best
> OS: Linux. :-)

OK, fine. Stealing is such a harsh word. And your company does sound 
more enlightened than most. It's just the practice I hate, and your 
posting was just the one that I responded to.

But you are still missing the point:

[1] companies must be willing to clear Everyone who needs a clearance
[2] companies must be willing to provide all necessary training

The argument that people get trained and leave is bogus because people 
get trained elsewhere and come to you as well. It all evens out.

The difference is that people can train themselves at home by reading 
books (and coding), but they can't clear themselves.

> Let's get back to the regularly scheduled program. :-)  Speaking of
> which, I've just set up a couple of servers as a high-availability pair
> using heartbeat and drbd.  Looking at the past events, no one has done
> such a talk... would people be interested in a talk on that?

Yes, that would be good.

> -John

JIM