View Full Version : Compensation experts: Give troops more cash, reduce in-kind benefits
BMT (RIP)
11-06-2013, 07:18
http://www.militarytimes.com/article/20131105/BENEFITS/311050032/
BMT
"...David Chu, a former Pentagon personnel chief, said the military’s current pay structure is flawed because many troops underestimate or don’t fully appreciate the value of long-term and deferred elements of their benefits package..."
Flawed? Flawed because the troops don't understand it?
Well, the politicians understand it - that's why they want to change it.
When they claim they can save something like $480,000 per average retiree - folks that's coming out of the retiree's pocket.
Dangle a few dollars up front and the first term re-enlistee is more than happy to sell their soul to the devil.
Changing to a 401k type retirement will kill "going career 20 +" for most smart folks. Do 20 years and walk away with nothing until you're in your 60's? No house (for many), no job, kids starting college and you're going to walk away with no paycheck?
I am curious about current retention numbers etc. Just like the article claims to worry that we are being "too paternalistic" by worrying about our younger generation and its ability to plan for the future, maybe the same can be said in the other direction.
...maybe our Soldiers, Sailors, Marines, and Airmen are NOT bound by cash. Maybe if retention is down the possibility exists that they are not HAPPY with the job. Radical, forced changes to the military culture as well as the constant snide remarks from congress about the "abuses" by service members levied against the poor peace loving civilians in Iraq or Afghanistan has simply sent the "money hungry" service members in search of a leadership chain that sincerely treats them with respect.
Declaring an order to accept gays, women in combat, religious beliefs as long as it doesn’t upset anyone etc. etc. and DECLARING that we espouse dignity and respect IS NOT the same thing as treating your force with dignity and respect.
"Treat people with dignity and respect or I will fucking destroy you"
...is not dignity and respect. Our troops are intelligent and motivated; they are not stupid and greedy and they see through hollow leadership.
In fact, they see the faults in their leaders FASTER than most leaders become self-aware that there is a problem.
It ain’t about the money Mrs. Wilensky. I also doubt that Mr. Chu has his head completely around what troops do and DO NOT value. Our troops have spent ten years at war while their contemporaries are at the mall.
Yes Mr. Chu, our soldiers understand "value".
Retired Army Gen. Peter Chiarelli seems to get it...
13 years of this shit and people aren't running out in droves over pay. They never do. It’s the very nature of the word "service"
That’s what "service members" do.
We serve.
...and you're welcome.
Changing to a 401k type retirement will kill "going career 20 +" for most smart folks. Do 20 years and walk away with nothing until you're in your 60's? No house (for many), no job, kids starting college and you're going to walk away with no paycheck?
And why was retirement set at 20 - maybe because before the 90's, many service retirees did not live to see age 60.
Retired Army Gen. Peter Chiarelli seems to get it...
13 years of this shit and people aren't runing out in droves over pay. They never do. Its the very nature of the word "service"
Thats what "servicemembers" do.
We serve.
...and you're welcome.
Spot on Billy, spot on. And Thank You!
Very few people seem to understand that the medical benefits and retirement pension are what retain combat arms NCOs to 20 years. At the 8-10 year mark the adventure has worn off, and guys start to see their job skills they are acquiring largely don't transfer to the outside world. They stay to 20 and leave because there is a good deal of financial security associated with it. If not, why would a bright SF NCO with plenty of other options in life stay? Especially with his family reminding him of the drawbacks of staying?
Take that away, and you are actively discouraging them from remaining past 10 years. I firmly believe that killing the 20 year retirement benefit will crush SOF as we know it, and lead to a less capable and experienced force overall.
After 10-12 years of adventure, your body reminds you that you are ten years older than you were as a "kid" when you signed up for this shit. Thats abut the same time you realize that it better to "walk down the hill and fuck all the cows". Its also the time you start trying to teach that concept to the younger bulls. (even though we all have to learn that on our own)
...add another 3-5 years to that and you become invested with trying to help set your replacements up for success. A real warrior is not worried about going from organizer to bureaucrat, to sycophant, to lecture circuit. A real warrior worries about 'his' warriors. Before you know it, a quarter of a century has gone by and you realize that you've been taking care of everyone but yourself.
Everyone needs a battle buddy that watches out for them. Its not because we can't take care of ourselves; its because we spend so much time looking out for someone else. Its nice to know that there's always someone watching your back.
...well, we have plenty of folks in DC watching our back these days. Sadly, some of them have a dagger in one hand and are just waiting until no one is watching to stick it in you.
Not all of them are wearing suits and power ties either. Some of them are dressed just like you and I. Sadly what is worn as a uniform by some is worn as a disguise by others.
BMT (RIP)
11-08-2013, 08:26
http://www.military.com/benefits/2013/11/07/dods-balk-on-compensation-reform-irks-commission.html?ESRC=eb.nl
BMT
Last year's defense authorization act directed that not later than nine months after it established the commission, which meant Nov. 1, the secretary of defense "shall transmit" recommendations for modernizing compensation and retirement.
OK, modernizing compensation. Let's see, we could create a web app for the soldiers, we could create I-phone/tablet apps to allow soldiers to see the status of payroll / retirement / special duty pays, etc.
We could change the current leave policy of "use it or lose it" (limited buyback) to: "unused leave is added to length of service for retirement pay calculations and other length of service requirements," a procedure often followed in the modern state government employment sector.
But I suspect that "modernize" is supposed to mean "cut" "eliminate" "reduce" or some variation thereof.
The Reaper
11-08-2013, 12:26
This is the price of the volunteer military, as briefed back in the '70s by the military leadership when the concept was being discussed.
If they want a cheaper, albeit less effective military, let them register our sons and daughters and impartially take a percentage of them to serve their country for a few years and put their lives on the line for a pittance, say, $500 per month.
There is a recommendation for you.
The current force, from where I see it, is overtasked, overregulated, micromanaged, underresourced, and undercompensated.
This will shortly result in either a hollow military, or one which requires large bonuses to get people to enlist, and to continue to serve.
And best of luck with the next war, because the warriors with current battlefield experience and the warrior spirit are going to be exiting this politically correct train wreck stage right at their earliest opportunity.
TR