Reply to: MoD Security Clearance

[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

[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.

[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.

[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

[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?

[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.

[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.

[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.

[George Parr]

In these lean times should the government waste money clearing people when there's plenty about already?

I for one would be more than happy to pay for my own clearance but of course I cannot.

Perhaps I should get a permie job with the Government to get clearance then leave, really wasting their time and money

I don't think there is plenty of cleared candidates about already, I have been refused contracts for which I am perfectly qualified because of this, jobs that I see continually re-advertised at above market rates.

The government has a responsibility to get the best people for the job, not the best from a subsection of the talent pool. Artificially restricting the market is in no-one's interest, other than those holding clearence already.

Clearance should be a right for those who are eligible and willing to pay a fee to cover the costs involved, the same as getting a passport or a driving license is a right. At the very least, evidence of being denied a role due to lack of clearance should be reason enough to process an application from a Contractor's own Ltd Co.

Staff shortages at the DVA is a tulip excuse as additional posts could be funded by the fees generated. Compare this with the vast number of waste of space public sector jobs this Government has created that achive nothing for the economy.

The shortage of cleared contractors also leads to the strange setup where SC and DV cleared individuals use their clearance as a marketing advantage and can be searched for in a CV database, how crazy is that form a national security perspective?

Well done Malvolio BTW, keep up the good work

[gingerjedi]

Life is full of barriers why pick on this instance?

I know the score with SC and made it a priority to use it at least once within every 12 month period. I'm a bit peeved that I was knocked back for a DV role despite being a perfect fit and knowing the the network manager but I understand why.

In these lean times should the government waste money clearing people when there's plenty about already?

[SuperZ]

You guys are missing the whole point.

Clearly if there are two candidates with roughly similar qualifications and experience in the role, nobody would choose the uncleared over the cleared. Who neds the extra hassle?

However, if there is someone out there who is better qualified and/or more experienced and most likely worth the hassle to get him on board, nobody will ever know, because he would not be allowed to apply.

Now tell me that's fair. Or even reasonable

I don`t think they really care though, they just want someone to do the job now and it doesn`t have to be the best person on the market hence why contract interviews are less formal. The same is also the case for other sectors. A friend has worked with investment banks and admits himself he`s not the best around yet the big paying contracts land on his doorstep constantly! I`m better qualified, due to my past I have a keen interest in finance, more enthusiastic and even my friend admits I`m the better candidate but I`ve never got a look in, due to no recent experience in the sector.

With public sector people can complain, not much can be done with the private sector. It`s life, life isn`t always fair, focus on sectors where you can get a look in.

If clients wanted the best candidates, we all probably agree that using agencies probably isn`t the best way to do that anyway. Last time I looked for a contract one agency played the game of "okay, I`ll put you forward but I can`t tell you who the client is, but if anyone calls you about a contract in surrey don`t apply for it because I will have put you forward already". I could havebeen the best candidate but that agency tried to stop me applying via another agency. In fact that`s probably why he called me because he knew I was a strong candidate but he had probably already used up his quota

I`ve been told to move into fiance I should go permie. Maybe you should consider the same? If I want SC again in the future I would consider going permie to get it. As a permanent employee you may get 10 years instead of just 5

So what does a government org do when the need someone to start quickly for a SC related project of x months length, be up and running quickly, used to the civil service ways, likely to be less risky and totally trust worthy, and simply less hassle(no escorting), with zero chance of them being pulled off the project because they have failed the clearance process? They hire someone already SC .cleared, simples. They may not be the very best for the job, but they`re good enough to get the job done, which is often the case for most contracts.

Anyway, good luck

[Mr.Whippy]

Clearance is entirely subjective mate, you can't base how long it took Joe Bloggs to get cleared on how long it will take Fred Smith.

I know mate, my comparison wasn't Joe Bloggs v A.N.Other, but of a full DV in 14 weeks against an SC that is still in progress after 9 months. He must be a right dodgy.....

[malvolio]

You guys are missing the whole point.

Clearly if there are two candidates with roughly similar qualifications and experience in the role, nobody would choose the uncleared over the cleared. Who neds the extra hassle?

However, if there is someone out there who is better qualified and/or more experienced and most likely worth the hassle to get him on board, nobody will ever know, because he would not be allowed to apply.

Now tell me that's fair. Or even reasonable

[SuperZ]

Malv seems a decent enough fella but his SC related posts to reek a bit of "me me me", and he ruined it a little when talking about paying his taxes and therefore entitled to a role in public sector although it wasn`t quite put like that .

I understand where he is coming from also though. However, I know lots of people who have got themselves re-cleared in the past, even after leaving the public sector for a while. As Malv seems to have an long term ongoing cross to bear,maybe it is a case of the skills not matching what the public sector wants or there isn`t a big enough demand and therefore they`re just not willing to sponsor clearance for the type of position Malv wants.

As mentioned in my other post, some clients that used to clear people no longer do it and it`s not down to the current economy as this happened a few years ago. There are now more candidiates SC cleared than five years ago. Even if everything is changed to match what Malv recommends, it`s still aeasier to pluck a candidates out of the pool of candidates already with SC clearance, it`s simply less hassle and always will be. People are getting cleared though, a few on here only recently I believe went through the process, so it`s not as cut off as it seems to some.

[Incognito]

That's what you do, is it? I only worked on DII Implementation planning (not that that's anything to be proud of since EDS got hold of it) and had a lead role on assorted minor service implementations, like CAPITAL. You don't know my work history so stop with the cheap jibes.


As for the rest, (a) I do know the rules, having recruited both Civil Servants and contractors into MOD and other places and (b) if you'd stop talking like a spoiled 10 year old I might listen.

Bye bye.

It wasn't a jibe at you, it was using an example of 2 roles where the skill sets clearly don't match. One commercial, one defence using the example of programme management and Service Delivery. This was not a discussion on why you in particular can't seem to get a role within the sector, although I suspect this is more the reason why you have your cross to bear.

Sure you know the rules, just as I pointed out in my post.

And I'm not the spoiled 10 year old, you see I have a job in the sector, I'm not the one whining about the rules.

Bye Bye.