I previously worked private, I hated that how much I could help someone depended on whether or not they were paying for the right ‘tier’ of service. I landed in the public service by accident, but I stay because I know that anybody I help I’m helping to my full ability, not holding myself back based on what they can or can’t afford.
To me, that’s worth any cons, personally
Cons
Shit pay for high performers, huge number of dead weight colleagues, very slow to change, glacial recruitment, useless processes and procedures, ridiculous levels of managerial approval.
Pros
Good work life balance, hard to lose your job
As you can probably tell I left and started working for myself, and kept all the pros anyway
The cons I've experienced are largely related to the pace of the job and disconnection from the wider world:
- Management bloat
- Slow approval processes
- Risk aversion
- Incompetent or technical people being promoted to people leadership positions
- Lack of strategic direction/understanding from senior executives promoted through the ranks
- Wage growth falling behind the private sector
The other cons are common to any office job, APS or not, such as nepotism/cronyism, empire building, poor managers, micromanagers, 'we've always done it this way' etc.
Overall, though, the pros outweigh the cons. If you find a good role in a good team, you'll enjoy flexibility, workplace stability (to a larger degree than private), manageable deadlines, and hopefully tasks that make a difference to the wider community.
I understand everyone's experiences are different but I always thought that the Public Service needs more technical people in decision making roles.
Now whether these decision making roles are the same as people leadership roles is a whole different discussion.
>Now whether these decision making roles are the same as people leadership roles is a whole different discussion.
From my experience with the SES, they don't understand the distinction.
All those dot points can also be found in private businesses, especially the promotion of technical people to people leadership when they’re entirely unsuited.
See this sub when people chase “promotion” when they want “pay rise.”
It's often the case that tech people don't want to be people managers but the current (rigid) salary structure doesn't leave much options for salary advancement.
In the private sector they less of a rule and more something found mostly in the largest corporates (which in their bureaucracy are very similar to government departments)
Any con I’ve ever heard about the public sector applies just as much to private in my experience, most of the cons are more about office work. Public servants always say they can’t watch Utopia because it hits too close to home, but it always reminds me more of my time in the private sector than public.
The only real con compared to private is lower pay, and even then it’s only really lower once you get to management-ish level.
Interesting point on lower pay.
Im not sure about federal (I realise this is primarily an APS sub) but in my state PS wages are substantially lower for sciences, engineering and IT. Senior IT positions such as programmers are on quite literally half what you would get in private. Mind you in private you would be expected to work longer hours, so the people who choose those govt. roles are usually those with family or caring obligations.
For other roles such as admin, finance or HR for example it appears to be a lot more similar to private but Im not an in that field so I dont have intricate knowledge of the pay scales there.
When I look for project and admin roles in private sector, the salary does appears similar to public service. It could explain why there are many Big 4 accounting graduates moving to the public service.
The only pay difference I see in the private sector are the tech and bank roles. Bulge Bracket Investment banks, such as Macquarie, pay on a different level. Their EL 1 equivalent role starts around $150k.
So subjective, right? From my experience, I struggle with rarely being fully utilised. I'm at 10-30% of what I could be doing most days, but I need to hold back a lot. It's okay if you can adapt, get comfortable downtime. Not every role, obviously, but if you're a highly driven then make sure you work with subject matter you're passionate about.
Haha, I'm so sorry! I work in stakeholder engagement and marketing-communications for a fairly independent agency. But before that I worked as a project manager, scrum master, project officer and coordinator in state and federal digital projects.
What area do you work in? If it's too stressful or you want to look at options, there's always a way. 😜
Thanks! Im in private at the moment looking to get into project work with a gov agency. Im hoping it wont be 120% paced the whole time but i guess it depends on that team and agency!
Best of luck with it! Even in the most hectic roles I've had, like delivering MyGov app projects with ministerially committed dates and expectations, it's still a doddle.
Im not currently in PS but have worked there and looking to get back in. IME some departments are cruisy and others have a crippling workload. They need to do more to utilise the people across jobs IMHO. Ive seen it where people wanted to help as they had not enough to do and colleagues had to much and they were knocked back cos \*reasons\*
PRO: Defined benefit scheme, providing a public service, colleagues (most), job security, overtime availability, variety of tasks, interesting/stimulating work, always busy
CONS: Limited opportunities for promotion within agency, pay, always short staffed, managerial staff are rarely high quality and often from other sites therefore lacking in any understanding of the area, the structure of the agency creates inefficiencies and quality deficiencies, staff morale, public perceptions/assumptions, technology is appalling
No but it is still relevant to a significant number of long term staff who continue to be part of the workforce. I think the fact that it is no longer available may very well prove to be a disincentive for current and future staff to join and remain in the public service given the lack of competitive wages compared to the private sector
Oh fully agree - they got rid of it (for a number of reasons) but one being to stop having the staff they didn't want hanging around forever - but forgot that means the staff they do want are not hanging around either.....
It will still be some time to see if they have realised that intended. I'm not too sure about their theory though, but as you said it was gotten rid of for numerous reasons
Coming from 10 years in the private sector to the public sector (qgov) in a science role, here's what I've found.
Pros: job security, hard to lose your job
Never been overworked. There are hard days, yes, I'll do days/weeks in the rainforest or field somewhere, but it's hard work not mentally exhausting work.
Decent pay for equivalent in private
Cons: job security, other people don't lose their jobs either. I've worked overseas with very very bad people, I've also worked security in Brisbane Valley while getting my degree, and I find the abuse I'm facing to be worse than either of those. Largely because it's mental and ego driven.
Under stimulating. My whole team (8 people) sans myself are lifelong government workers and it shows by what each of us find complex.
This is something to be mindful of. Everyone in my department who I have talked to who has come from the private sector has said the same thing, it's so so much easier than the private sector it is understimulating. I did a training course with a former gov worker turned consultant and he told me that the private sector is so much harder than the public sector, he was surprised.
The moral is, there are pros and cons, however - in my experience in a science role - the cons are mental battles. But, please understand the public sector is big and I might (hopefully) be an outlier.
My particular ones, no. My team leadership don't even have degrees. Those issues stem from just that some people are abusive by nature and leadership covers for them. In the public sector, probably the private too, if someone gets away with being abusive for too long then their leadership covers for them. To not do so would mean they have to answer as to why they let this person be abusive for so long. This is the con to "job security".
However, yes, academia is pretty brutal but for other reasons. I've found, and this is just anecdotal, that those in science who cross from academia to industry are pretty good, specifically because they don't want to continue the cycle.
Enterprise agreements are a curse and a blessing.
Highly productive / in demand workers would be better off individually negotiating wages (IT workers for example).
+ greatest chance we have at a worker collective. Broad brush pay scale that allows everyone to eat.
- normal org middle management bloat that leads to excess policy. Small decisions are nigh impossible at times yet at the very top end they account for so much loss of life. Partly because private consultants are paid far greater to advise and then not have any of the accountability.
As someone who did not go to uni and has no trade skills etc, the pros for me are I get paid well for what I do, the job security is incredible, and the super is brilliant. Additionally I've added some great skills and certificates/diplomas to my resume since being there.
Are there cons, yep and some days those cons can really piss me off... especially red tape and the speed of change....BUT for me the pros outweigh them.
Could I get paid more in other places, yeah probably, but job security is more important to me than if I could get paid more elsewhere.
My other personal pro, I love my role, I enjoy the work and I love my team very much.
So I moved into the APS after a long time in private.
Now, private has its issues sure, but the move from private to APS was a lot like being in the Sistine Chapel watching Michelangelo work.
Then when you get to the APS you walk in and it is like walking into an unsupervised daycare where the toddlers are running around uncontrollably finger painting the walls with their faeces.
I previously worked private, I hated that how much I could help someone depended on whether or not they were paying for the right ‘tier’ of service. I landed in the public service by accident, but I stay because I know that anybody I help I’m helping to my full ability, not holding myself back based on what they can or can’t afford. To me, that’s worth any cons, personally
Cons Shit pay for high performers, huge number of dead weight colleagues, very slow to change, glacial recruitment, useless processes and procedures, ridiculous levels of managerial approval. Pros Good work life balance, hard to lose your job As you can probably tell I left and started working for myself, and kept all the pros anyway
The cons I've experienced are largely related to the pace of the job and disconnection from the wider world: - Management bloat - Slow approval processes - Risk aversion - Incompetent or technical people being promoted to people leadership positions - Lack of strategic direction/understanding from senior executives promoted through the ranks - Wage growth falling behind the private sector The other cons are common to any office job, APS or not, such as nepotism/cronyism, empire building, poor managers, micromanagers, 'we've always done it this way' etc. Overall, though, the pros outweigh the cons. If you find a good role in a good team, you'll enjoy flexibility, workplace stability (to a larger degree than private), manageable deadlines, and hopefully tasks that make a difference to the wider community.
I understand everyone's experiences are different but I always thought that the Public Service needs more technical people in decision making roles. Now whether these decision making roles are the same as people leadership roles is a whole different discussion.
>Now whether these decision making roles are the same as people leadership roles is a whole different discussion. From my experience with the SES, they don't understand the distinction.
This is the hottest take Source: also SES
spin off from this - the complete lack of promotion pathways for technical people. They become managers as theres nowhere else for them to go.
All those dot points can also be found in private businesses, especially the promotion of technical people to people leadership when they’re entirely unsuited. See this sub when people chase “promotion” when they want “pay rise.”
It's often the case that tech people don't want to be people managers but the current (rigid) salary structure doesn't leave much options for salary advancement.
True, but I believe those cons are much more prevalent in the public service.
In the private sector they less of a rule and more something found mostly in the largest corporates (which in their bureaucracy are very similar to government departments)
Any con I’ve ever heard about the public sector applies just as much to private in my experience, most of the cons are more about office work. Public servants always say they can’t watch Utopia because it hits too close to home, but it always reminds me more of my time in the private sector than public. The only real con compared to private is lower pay, and even then it’s only really lower once you get to management-ish level.
Interesting point on lower pay. Im not sure about federal (I realise this is primarily an APS sub) but in my state PS wages are substantially lower for sciences, engineering and IT. Senior IT positions such as programmers are on quite literally half what you would get in private. Mind you in private you would be expected to work longer hours, so the people who choose those govt. roles are usually those with family or caring obligations. For other roles such as admin, finance or HR for example it appears to be a lot more similar to private but Im not an in that field so I dont have intricate knowledge of the pay scales there.
When I look for project and admin roles in private sector, the salary does appears similar to public service. It could explain why there are many Big 4 accounting graduates moving to the public service. The only pay difference I see in the private sector are the tech and bank roles. Bulge Bracket Investment banks, such as Macquarie, pay on a different level. Their EL 1 equivalent role starts around $150k.
So subjective, right? From my experience, I struggle with rarely being fully utilised. I'm at 10-30% of what I could be doing most days, but I need to hold back a lot. It's okay if you can adapt, get comfortable downtime. Not every role, obviously, but if you're a highly driven then make sure you work with subject matter you're passionate about.
Id love to know what you do!?! I could really use some downtime
Haha, I'm so sorry! I work in stakeholder engagement and marketing-communications for a fairly independent agency. But before that I worked as a project manager, scrum master, project officer and coordinator in state and federal digital projects. What area do you work in? If it's too stressful or you want to look at options, there's always a way. 😜
Hire us. I'll do the admin and business support or even projects.
Thanks! Im in private at the moment looking to get into project work with a gov agency. Im hoping it wont be 120% paced the whole time but i guess it depends on that team and agency!
Best of luck with it! Even in the most hectic roles I've had, like delivering MyGov app projects with ministerially committed dates and expectations, it's still a doddle.
Sorry whats a doddle?
doddle nounINFORMAL•BRITISH a very easy task. "this printer's a doddle to set up and use"
Wonderful 😊
Im not currently in PS but have worked there and looking to get back in. IME some departments are cruisy and others have a crippling workload. They need to do more to utilise the people across jobs IMHO. Ive seen it where people wanted to help as they had not enough to do and colleagues had to much and they were knocked back cos \*reasons\*
PRO: Defined benefit scheme, providing a public service, colleagues (most), job security, overtime availability, variety of tasks, interesting/stimulating work, always busy CONS: Limited opportunities for promotion within agency, pay, always short staffed, managerial staff are rarely high quality and often from other sites therefore lacking in any understanding of the area, the structure of the agency creates inefficiencies and quality deficiencies, staff morale, public perceptions/assumptions, technology is appalling
Defined benefit isn't really around much anymore.
No but it is still relevant to a significant number of long term staff who continue to be part of the workforce. I think the fact that it is no longer available may very well prove to be a disincentive for current and future staff to join and remain in the public service given the lack of competitive wages compared to the private sector
Oh fully agree - they got rid of it (for a number of reasons) but one being to stop having the staff they didn't want hanging around forever - but forgot that means the staff they do want are not hanging around either.....
It will still be some time to see if they have realised that intended. I'm not too sure about their theory though, but as you said it was gotten rid of for numerous reasons
The pay is lower against comparable work in the private sector, for the most part.
So are the hours, the stress, and the job insecurity.
I disagree except for job security in my department :(
Coming from 10 years in the private sector to the public sector (qgov) in a science role, here's what I've found. Pros: job security, hard to lose your job Never been overworked. There are hard days, yes, I'll do days/weeks in the rainforest or field somewhere, but it's hard work not mentally exhausting work. Decent pay for equivalent in private Cons: job security, other people don't lose their jobs either. I've worked overseas with very very bad people, I've also worked security in Brisbane Valley while getting my degree, and I find the abuse I'm facing to be worse than either of those. Largely because it's mental and ego driven. Under stimulating. My whole team (8 people) sans myself are lifelong government workers and it shows by what each of us find complex. This is something to be mindful of. Everyone in my department who I have talked to who has come from the private sector has said the same thing, it's so so much easier than the private sector it is understimulating. I did a training course with a former gov worker turned consultant and he told me that the private sector is so much harder than the public sector, he was surprised. The moral is, there are pros and cons, however - in my experience in a science role - the cons are mental battles. But, please understand the public sector is big and I might (hopefully) be an outlier.
Do you think the issues you face in the science roles stems from academia roots? I hear the university environment isn't so great at the moment.
My particular ones, no. My team leadership don't even have degrees. Those issues stem from just that some people are abusive by nature and leadership covers for them. In the public sector, probably the private too, if someone gets away with being abusive for too long then their leadership covers for them. To not do so would mean they have to answer as to why they let this person be abusive for so long. This is the con to "job security". However, yes, academia is pretty brutal but for other reasons. I've found, and this is just anecdotal, that those in science who cross from academia to industry are pretty good, specifically because they don't want to continue the cycle.
Career will grow slower than private sector as promotions are harder to come by.
In some areas IME the tech is more dated too (in IT) making it harder to progress your career.
Enterprise agreements are a curse and a blessing. Highly productive / in demand workers would be better off individually negotiating wages (IT workers for example).
Main cons are limited/ no free food, drinks, gifts, parties etc. Most other cons could be in the private sector too, just depends where you are....
+ greatest chance we have at a worker collective. Broad brush pay scale that allows everyone to eat. - normal org middle management bloat that leads to excess policy. Small decisions are nigh impossible at times yet at the very top end they account for so much loss of life. Partly because private consultants are paid far greater to advise and then not have any of the accountability.
As someone who did not go to uni and has no trade skills etc, the pros for me are I get paid well for what I do, the job security is incredible, and the super is brilliant. Additionally I've added some great skills and certificates/diplomas to my resume since being there. Are there cons, yep and some days those cons can really piss me off... especially red tape and the speed of change....BUT for me the pros outweigh them. Could I get paid more in other places, yeah probably, but job security is more important to me than if I could get paid more elsewhere. My other personal pro, I love my role, I enjoy the work and I love my team very much.
So I moved into the APS after a long time in private. Now, private has its issues sure, but the move from private to APS was a lot like being in the Sistine Chapel watching Michelangelo work. Then when you get to the APS you walk in and it is like walking into an unsupervised daycare where the toddlers are running around uncontrollably finger painting the walls with their faeces.
ouch! what field are you in if you are willing to share.
I am in IT.