Army hopes higher bonuses will attract recruits

[Kyobanim]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10897030/

WASHINGTON - After falling well short of its recruiting goals last year, the Army has set even higher monthly targets for this summer, hoping that bonuses as high as $90,000 will encourage soldiers to re-enlist and recent graduates to join.


A new law will allow the Army to give larger financial bonuses for enlistments and re-enlistments — doubling the maximum payment to new active duty recruits from $20,000 to $40,000, and from $10,000 to $20,000 for reservists. It also will let older recruits sign on by raising the top age from 35 to 42. And the top re-enlistment bonus for active duty soldiers would increase from $60,000 to $90,000.

[Goggles Pizano]

Originally Posted by Kyobanim

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10897030/

WASHINGTON - After falling well short of its recruiting goals last year, the Army has set even higher monthly targets for this summer, hoping that bonuses as high as $90,000 will encourage soldiers to re-enlist and recent graduates to join.


A new law will allow the Army to give larger financial bonuses for enlistments and re-enlistments — doubling the maximum payment to new active duty recruits from $20,000 to $40,000, and from $10,000 to $20,000 for reservists. It also will let older recruits sign on by raising the top age from 35 to 42. And the top re-enlistment bonus for active duty soldiers would increase from $60,000 to $90,000.

Perhaps it's not only my view but why believe throwing money at the problem will solve it? There will always be patriotic people to step up to the plate to defend this nation. Perhaps if the upper echelon personnel did a bit more legwork and took an honest look at policies that have driven good soldiers to take early exits they could solve this issue?

[Roguish Lawyer]

Originally Posted by Goggles Pizano

Perhaps it's not only my view but why believe throwing money at the problem will solve it? There will always be patriotic people to step up to the plate to defend this nation. Perhaps if the upper echelon personnel did a bit more legwork and took an honest look at policies that have driven good soldiers to take early exits they could solve this issue?

If you were correct, there wouldn't be a recruiting shortfall. How many AD guys have left for private contractor jobs? Nothing unpatriotic about providing for your family. We should pay soldiers better and provide strong incentives for reenlistment.

[Kyobanim]

Originally Posted by Roguish Lawyer

If you were correct, there wouldn't be a recruiting shortfall. How many AD guys have left for private contractor jobs? Nothing unpatriotic about providing for your family. We should pay soldiers better and provide strong incentives for reenlistment.

This is one of the reasons my son is getting out after 10 years. The other reason is they won't let him leave Ft. Bliss, (he's been there for 2.5 years) and get back to the 82nd or any place else for that matter. His next re-enlistment is an indef. You'd think that they would do what they could to retain good people. Maybe the money will help.

[CoLawman]

Originally Posted by Goggles Pizano

Perhaps it's not only my view but why believe throwing money at the problem will solve it? There will always be patriotic people to step up to the plate to defend this nation. Perhaps if the upper echelon personnel did a bit more legwork and took an honest look at policies that have driven good soldiers to take early exits they could solve this issue?

I am for any means to increase the pay for those serving their country. I would prefer the base pays be addressed, rather than the bonuses. I assume it is cheaper for the govt to give bonuses rather than pay increases. It is probably that "compounding" issue that scares the govt..........we have dealt with that on a regular basis during contract negotiations.

I agree that there would be plenty of people willing to step up if we were attacked on our shores...........but question whether the same can be said about the current war.

Just my opinion.

[VelociMorte]

I think that if we as a society are willing to pay someone FIVE MILLION DOLLARS a year to hit a ball with a stick, or throw a ball through a hoop, we should certainly be able to pay someone who is defending our way of life a decent wage.

[CPTAUSRET]

Out troops deserve a salary commensurate with putting their lives on the line.

Probably won't happen.

I didn't stay because of the money, or bonuses! Just about unheard of in my day.

Terry

[Roguish Lawyer]

Originally Posted by CPTAUSRET

I didn't stay because of the money, or bonuses! Just about unheard of in my day.

That was only because they weren't paying any more at the buggy whip factory.

[CPTAUSRET]

Originally Posted by Roguish Lawyer

That was only because they weren't paying any more at the buggy whip factory.

Yup, and we can blame Henry Ford for that.

Terry

[Goggles Pizano]

Originally Posted by VelociMorte

I think that if we as a society are willing to pay someone FIVE MILLION DOLLARS a year to hit a ball with a stick, or throw a ball through a hoop, we should certainly be able to pay someone who is defending our way of life a decent wage.

I agree with you. My opinion is why use money in bonuses to attract and then leave the soldiers to wither on the vine of low pay, spartan housing, and low prospect of advancement (school availability, choice of base transfers, changing an MOS without having to ETS, etc.)? Is morale not better served when soldiers pay increases go toward retirement rather than a "c'mon in!" up front/one time bonus? I believe that should answer your question RL.

[J-Dub]

Before I went in to talk with the recruiter I happened across an article about the bonus increase. I did quite a bit of research and tracked the bill through Congress last November and December. I knew I was going to sign up anyway, but I thought that some extra money would be nice. I finally got tired of them putting off the bill so I sat down and calculated up how much more money it would actually be. Ultimately, I came up with a $1,750 per year difference based on a 4 year College degree, Airborne and a 5 year 18x contract ($27,000). I know that they have seasonal bonuses as well, but I calculated what I knew at the time.

$ 8,000 - Hi Grad +
$ 3,000 - Airborne +
$16,000 - 5 yr 18x
$27,000 - $10,000 (Completed MOS) = $17,000

$17,000/4 yr = $4,250
$10,000/4 yr = $2,500

Difference = $1,750 per year

To me $1,750 wasn't worth waiting for when I had no idea when they would even implement it.

Let me know if I calculated any of that wrong or if I missed something.

JwB

[lrd]

My link won't work, so here's the article:

Philadelphia Inquirer
January 19, 2006

More Soldiers Are Signing Up For Another Tour

The Army said reenlistments in 2005 hit a five-year high. But recruiting was its lowest since 1999.

By Drew Brown, Inquirer Washington Bureau

WASHINGTON - Reenlistments for the Army in fiscal 2005 were the highest they have been in five years, nearly enough to make up for a shortfall of about 7,000 new recruits last year, Army Secretary Francis J. Harvey said yesterday.

More than 69,500 soldiers reenlisted in the 12 months that ended in September, Harvey said. But last year also was the Army's worst for recruiting since 1999, the last time it failed to meet its annual goal. A study produced for the service in 2004 indicated that a high chance of being sent to Iraq or Afghanistan was keeping many young people away.

Harvey said he believed new recruiting and referral bonuses and other perks would help.

"We've now made our recruiting objectives for the last seven months, and the future looks promising," he said.

New measures signed into law this month include a $40,000 enlistment bonus, a $1,000 referral fee for soldiers who encourage new recruits to join, and down-payment assistance for soldiers who are first-time home buyers.

The Army has already recruited 25 percent more new troops this year than at the same point in fiscal 2005, Harvey said.

The recruiting shortfall in 2005 is one of several factors that have caused some analysts and retired military officials to worry that the Army may again be "broken," a reference to the late 1970s post-Vietnam era, when the service experienced an exodus of seasoned enlisted men and officers and was chronically short of recruits and new equipment. The critics worry that the Army may be about to repeat that experience partly because of the strains produced by the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Harvey said reenlistment by troops in Iraq "was the best measure" of the Army's health. For example, he said, the Third Infantry Division, now in Iraq, recently exceeded its reenlistment goal by 36 percent.

David Segal, director of the Center for Research on Military Organization, said many young soldiers joined the Army after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, and many reenlisted because "they want to stay until the job is done."

Another reason to reenlist, Segal said, is the bonus, which is tax-free for troops in the war zone.

New recruits also will be attracted by today's record enlistment bonuses and other perks, he said.

The Army needs to sign up about 80,000 new recruits each year to maintain its current strength of 492,000 active-duty personnel. Last year, the service fell short of that goal by roughly 6,600 troops, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

To stay on track for this year, the Army needed to sign up 11,000 recruits by mid-January, but recruiters had already signed up 11,522 by the end of December, said S. Douglas Smith, a spokesman for Army Recruiting Command.

Last year the Army doubled the number of its recruiters and began to offer $5,000 to everyone who joined. It also offered a 15-month enlistment, compared with the standard three to four years.

[CPTAUSRET]

lrd:

I wasn't aware of the 15 month enlistment, sounds worthless to me...By the time you get someone trained up, you have to let him go.

Not to mention the specialized mos's which themselves require more than 15 months.

Hope you guys are doing well.

Terry

[HOLLiS]

During the Clintoon administration a Marine General, mention that many of his troops qualified for food stamps. Because it is a patriotic act to serve it does not mean a person should NOT be REASONABLY compensated. Look at the monster salaries congress people get and what their retirement is like.

GOOD for the Army in helping their people get a little more remuneration for the duty they are doing. I would like to see them get better pay. A E 4 over 4 should be able to provide for their family on E 4 wages. Young married soldiers with dependents should have a reasonable dependent allowance and should NOT have to be on food stamps or have a second job. The military is naturally hard on married life, a second job will only add greatly to problems of a married life. The kids need their parents when mom or dad is not on duty.

Look at the deterioration of PX/BX benefits. The Civie store owners whined over and over so congress has restricted how low PX prices can be. It would be good to see the restoration of benefits and salaries more in line to the duties performed and inherent risk involved in military life.

[lrd]

Originally Posted by CPTAUSRET

lrd:

I wasn't aware of the 15 month enlistment, sounds worthless to me...By the time you get someone trained up, you have to let him go.

Not to mention the specialized mos's which themselves require more than 15 months.

Hope you guys are doing well.

Terry

Terry,

I remember us discussing the 15-month enlistment when it was proposed, but I don't remember reading anything about how it has affected cost or performance. Seems like double the work...

I can't remember if the 15-month term is just for re-enlistments, or if it applies to new recruits as well.

(We are doing great!)