Lol, this is SOP for the British state. There has been a revolving door between the civil service and the private sector for decades. You cannot conceive of how many billions have been wasted on "consultancy" contracts with the big four, IT projects that lasted for years and delivered nothing, etc.
A friend of mine recently got headhunted by a "defense" company called, and I won't even post the link, it's a website which sounds a bit like Van Helsing with some AI thrown in as a twist. He got an offer of 50k EUR more than his current already ridiculous salary.
I had to say that it's up to you, but don't expect me to still be your friend and still talk to you if you go for that.
I really do love the American "but the veterans!" script, despite only them being a minority of the people involved:
> Of [the 32], 14 no longer work for, or with, us, some of whom stopped as long as five years ago. Six are ex-armed forces veterans whose public sector experience involved serving and protecting their country.
> Not only do we entirely reject claims of an alleged ‘revolving door’ strategy, but we also believe it is inappropriate to include veterans in a report alleging such a strategy. Aside from the immense value of their experience, there is rightly an undertaking by government and society to ensure they are afforded the opportunity to build a career outside the armed forces when the time is right for them.
“Not only do we entirely reject claims of an alleged ‘revolving door’ strategy, but we also believe it is inappropriate to include veterans in a report alleging such a strategy. Aside from the immense value of their experience, there is rightly an undertaking by government and society to ensure they are afforded the opportunity to build a career outside the armed forces when the time is right for them. Characterising this as part of a ‘revolving door strategy’ does them, and all veterans, a disservice.”
Why should people who been in the army be exempt when talking about a company in defence ?
Lol, this is SOP for the British state. There has been a revolving door between the civil service and the private sector for decades. You cannot conceive of how many billions have been wasted on "consultancy" contracts with the big four, IT projects that lasted for years and delivered nothing, etc.
A friend of mine recently got headhunted by a "defense" company called, and I won't even post the link, it's a website which sounds a bit like Van Helsing with some AI thrown in as a twist. He got an offer of 50k EUR more than his current already ridiculous salary.
I had to say that it's up to you, but don't expect me to still be your friend and still talk to you if you go for that.
"defense"
Out of curiosity, would you do this to family members accepting a job you don’t approve of too, or just friends?
I really do love the American "but the veterans!" script, despite only them being a minority of the people involved:
> Of [the 32], 14 no longer work for, or with, us, some of whom stopped as long as five years ago. Six are ex-armed forces veterans whose public sector experience involved serving and protecting their country.
> Not only do we entirely reject claims of an alleged ‘revolving door’ strategy, but we also believe it is inappropriate to include veterans in a report alleging such a strategy. Aside from the immense value of their experience, there is rightly an undertaking by government and society to ensure they are afforded the opportunity to build a career outside the armed forces when the time is right for them.
“Not only do we entirely reject claims of an alleged ‘revolving door’ strategy, but we also believe it is inappropriate to include veterans in a report alleging such a strategy. Aside from the immense value of their experience, there is rightly an undertaking by government and society to ensure they are afforded the opportunity to build a career outside the armed forces when the time is right for them. Characterising this as part of a ‘revolving door strategy’ does them, and all veterans, a disservice.”
Why should people who been in the army be exempt when talking about a company in defence ?
Because it’s devastating to their defense.
Notice they think it’s inappropriate to include them for negative conclusions but its appropriate to talk about the positive conclusions.
Only 30? Those guys need to get their act together.
https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/congr...