MoD Security Clearance

[SuperZ]

Whatever, but you`ll still suffer from having no prior or recent government experience, even if the clearance becomes easier to obtain. That will be used to narrow down the candidates instead of the clearance requirement . For example, there are more ex-forces retrained to IT working in cleared positions than there are in the private sector, and their be a reason for that.

I know for a fact there is NO shortage of cleared folks at the moment and even in 2007 before the current economic issues there was a big pool of SC candidates. I helped recruit for a cleared position back in early 2007 and the CV`s flooded in and we had to put a stop to CV`s as the candidates were all very good.

THing is also, if you`re allowed to fund it as is everyone else, the rates will suddenly become unattractive anyway then you`ll be saying "I have to pay £1000 for clearance for a position that actually pays below market rate anyway".

I can`t help but see green eyes monsters.
I reckon those complaining about this are that type that would do this - if during the good times in a sector you specialise in, if you found out that I had landed a contract in your sector instead of you and you found out I had no experience in that sector, I bet you`d go ape-sh** about it. Same kinda story.

If you can`t get into governemtn contracts, I think there are other reasons than just the clearance hurdle personally. You`re blaming it on something that may hold less relevance than you think, but easier to do that than for example recognising that your skills, position or whatever aren`t just that sought after in the public sector.

Okay, Malvios crusade has ministerial recognition but I think they`ll see another picture also. I kinda feel sorry for someone on such a crusade however, nearly 7 years so far? I bet he wouldn`t mention that some have a different opinion than his, the other side of the argument is valid.

[swamp]

Whatever, but you`ll still suffer from having no prior or recent government experience, even if the clearance becomes easier to obtain. That will be used to narrow down the candidates instead of the clearance requirement

I know for a fact there is NO shortage of cleared folks at the moment and even in 2007 before the current economic issues there was a big pool of SC candidates. I helped recruit for a cleared position back in early 2007 and the CV`s flooded in and we had to put a stop to CV`s as the candidates were all very good.

THing is also, if you`re allowed to fund it as is everyone else, the rates will suddenly become unattractive anyway then you`ll be saying "I have to pay £1000 for clearance for a position that actually pays below market rate anyway".

I can`t help but see green eyes monsters.
I reckon those complaining about this are that type that would do this - if during the good times in a sector you specialise in, if you found out that I had landed a contract in your sector instead of you and you found out I had no experience in that sector, I bet you`d go ape-sh** about it. Same kinda story.

If you can`t get into governemtn contracts, I think there are other reasons than just the clearance hurdle personally.

WHS

Imagine if candidates could pay for DV vetting, say. All the contractors who live near big DV contract sites would 'invest' £10K and get picked for every role that came up, effectively having a job for life on their doorstep. Meanwhile other talented contractors further afield would not bother with expensive clearance unless it would be required for the majority of their work.

Result: even smaller pool of talent than at present.

[Incognito]

I think a big problem is some peoples over inflated opinion of their own abilities. Lets face it, if you're from a project management, testing, or wintel background the chances are you're not that special compared to the huge pool of cleared people out there. Face it, most MS applications are the same, a GUI in front of a database. Wintel isn't hard, you learn pretty quick in the contracting game that square pegs will fit in round holes.

If you're in a niche product set, whether that be Oracle / SAP / Business Objects etc, then the chances are you'll get a sniff at a security cleared role with no clearance.

Why should projects factor in the risk of clearing someone if it isn't absolutely neccessary.

If you people really want your clearance, go join the TA, they'll clear you if you're in a signals unit or similar trade. If you're that desperate you'll pay for your own clearance, why not get them to do it and pay you for it at the same time.

[malvolio]

OK, OK, OK, I bow to the superior knowledge of those inside the fence. We'll put ignorance of the clearance rules in the same tin as IR35, unnecessary ID checking, onshoring Indians replacing local workers and investment banking specialists being the only ones to work in IB and get the big money jobs. No point trying to change anything, there's no problems, everything's rosy.

BTW, I'm not working and not that fussed about it; if a contract comes along then fine. But I believe in points of principle. Or does that not fit your world view?

[SuperZ]

There are other issues in the world I would fight for than something relatively self-centred. As I said, there are more likely other reasons for not getting the govvie jobs.

On the topic of principles. Well, I`ve walked out on a client(after serving my notice period however) because they treated foreign contractors badly, despite being treated very well myself. As my poisiton was important to the project and I was well liked, I was also offered a £100 a day pay increase if I stayed but I still left. By leaving the client, I also threw away another level of government clearance. I don`t think many people would do that. I`m professional in my contracting life but I won`t break my principles just for money and a job

[George Parr]

Whatever, but you`ll still suffer from having no prior or recent government experience, even if the clearance becomes easier to obtain. That will be used to narrow down the candidates instead of the clearance requirement . For example, there are more ex-forces retrained to IT working in cleared positions than there are in the private sector, and their be a reason for that.

I have no problem with that, I am happy to compete based on sensible criteria (and I have Government experience).

I know for a fact there is NO shortage of cleared folks at the moment and even in 2007 before the current economic issues there was a big pool of SC candidates. I helped recruit for a cleared position back in early 2007 and the CV`s flooded in and we had to put a stop to CV`s as the candidates were all very good.

Well we'll agree to disagree there, it is not my experience and agents tell me otherwise (so it must be true )

THing is also, if you`re allowed to fund it as is everyone else, the rates will suddenly become unattractive anyway then you`ll be saying "I have to pay £1000 for clearance for a position that actually pays below market rate anyway".

I don't belive that a cleared position would pay below the market rate as there will still be a restricted supply as not everyone will meet the requirements to be cleared. It is entirely fair and reasonable to pay above the market rate to employ those proven trustworthy. It is merely the inability for the majority of contractors to prove themselves trustworthy that I take issue with.

I can`t help but see green eyes monsters.

I can't help but see those with a vested interest wanting to keep the playing field tilted heavily in their favour.

I reckon those complaining about this are that type that would do this - if during the good times in a sector you specialise in, if you found out that I had landed a contract in your sector instead of you and you found out I had no experience in that sector, I bet you`d go ape-sh** about it. Same kinda story.

Not at all, my point is that all should be free to compete on fair and equal terms whatever the sector.

If you got the job
If you can`t get into governemtn contracts, I think there are other reasons than just the clearance hurdle personally. You`re blaming it on something that may hold less relevance than you think, but easier to do that than for example recognising that your skills, position or whatever aren`t just that sought after in the public sector.

Well, to be told on many occasions that I am a perfect match if not for the clearance leads me to believe that it is the clearance that is the issue here.

[swamp]

If clearance could be purchased then it could be subverted. It's not a perfect process, even DV I'm sure. So a Bad Organisation could simply fund enough applications for its spies until one of them gets cleared.

The DVA employs the Hollywood Principle for good reason.

[SuperZ]

Some fair points
Just a few quick comments as I`m tired of these SC posts.

I can't help but see those with a vested interest wanting to keep the playing field tilted heavily in their favour

Maybe in some cases, but I don`t care either way. I prefer working in the private sector. Having said that, with clearance it is easily for someone to lose a lot dosh because of the process. For example, where you could just jump into another contract tomorrow if offered, cleared candidates can`t and it can take 2-4 weeks each time a new position is started to be allowed on site. So in that respect there has to be some benefit to having it than not

Well, to be told on many occasions that I am a perfect match if not for the clearance leads me to believe that it is the clearance that is the issue here.

But then agian some agents will tell you what you want to hear. THere is usually always someone as good as you out there already with the clearance.

THrough a friend I know of a number of Indians who were cleared last year. One of them can hardly speak English. Yet all of them had skills required by the client that were not easy to find.

As a side note. WHen/if the pool of cleared candidates diminishes then I`m sure the doors will again be open for others to become cleared for a position. THey won`t just hire numptes because of clearnace, if they can`t find what they want they will of course consider clearing people for positions.
Put yourself on the other side of the hiring fence. Imagine you need someone to start quickly for a project. They must be SC cleared, trustworthy, with government experience because it isn`t for everyone. You can`t run the risk of waiting 8 weeks only forthem to fail the clearance. What doyou do? YOu try to find someone with government experience and SC first. If you can`t, you widen your search