Quote:
Originally Posted by J8127
It is my understanding that civilians and contractors are much cheaper than an equivalent AD soldier, is this correct? Even when Blackwater types were bringing in $1,000 a day that was still cheaper than training, equipping, deploying, and then caring for an SF Soldier and his family, or paying KBR to run DFACs was cheaper than having military units run it, etc...
How many redundant and useless jobs are there really that could be cut? Even if things were made more efficient? I can only speak from the experience at my squadron but we are begging for civilians because all of us spend the vast majority of our duty day doing additional duties like training managers, operating the simulator, or doing scheduling instead of training. Do other units face a similar problem?
|
Many different perspectives on this issue. "Cheaper" is a relative term and dependent upon the full package required to have an individual perform a duty. If I am looking at Salary and Benefits for an individual within the organization it does not end there. Then there is the administrative cycle that must be supported in order to have that employee. Personnel records must be maintained, pay records, transmittal etc. Yes, there is a lot of overhead with having employees. For contractors you don't have to be concerned so much with those issues, although contract management and supervision is still a necessity.
On the other hand, contract awards are not permanent. When re-competed, there is no guarantee that the same contractor will win the award. Then there is the associated cost of transition along with the potential for reduced performance while a new firm is spinning up. Long-term that can become a bit of a burden with fits and stops. For government organizations in current fiscal times it becomes a question of whether funding will be available to maintain any contract staff at the previous level of performance.
Are there inefficiencies? Yes, simply because the government does an exceptionally bad job of re-purposing the workforce when plans change. Human resources makes it difficult as well when the mission shifts under an incumbent employee it is sometimes a challenge to get the employee to willingly become proficient in the new task area. A contractor can simply fill the position with someone having the proper skill set. The government is required to make every effort to find a home for the employees, even if their expertise is in buggy-whip manufacturing.
Core mission, complex, long-term programmatic type work, I think an "employee" is the better choice provided they are properly motivated and able to adapt over time. Short term, or non-technical more project or product oriented, then contractors make more sense. YOMV
Also, understand that the Pentagon is a funnel for pumping money into the economy. And it is a pretty big pipe. Attempts to meter the flow impact more than just the military.