In a massive change that could affect today’s troops, the plan calls for a corporate-style benefits program that would contribute money to troops’ retirement savings account rather than the promise of a future monthly pension, according to a new proposal from an influential Pentagon advisory board.
An overdue overhaul, in my opinion. If it’s done correctly I think it save money and provide a better retirement benefit.
Hmm, not sure if I like it or not. If it’s done correctly I can see it being a good thing, especially for those who don’t stay the full 20. At the same time, we’re talking about not just a government program but a military program. They have enough issues paying GIBill payments on time, and that system is far less complex than this one would be.
Also, since it’s based on the annual pay of the troop, and it’s only 16.5% of their annual pay, that is a LOT less that they’ll be getting for retirement. I’d be more inclined to go with 50% of your average pay for the last 10 than to have it reduced to just 16.5% of your total pay over your career.
Don’t take this the wrong way sir, if they wanted to save money in the military they should standardize either officer pay to a level more inline with enlisted ranks (O-1 equal to an E-4/5 and go from there) and let them keep the increased BAH/BAS, or make officer BAH/BAS equal to their equivalent enlisted rank (E-1 and 0-1, etc). An O-1 just in makes as much as an E-5 that’s been in for 8 years, it’d make more sense to me for an O-1 to make as much as the pay chart lists an E-5 with 4 years in. The responsibility level being offset by the lack of experience a new officer generally has. Then you just adjust the rest of the pay chart to follow, and maybe add additional pay based on your job (more for Doctors and those with high deployment rates, etc).
I definitely agree that officers should make more than enlisted since they are held responsible for everyone under them (though I’ve had officers that throw their guys under the bus the minute they might get in trouble), but I think they make just a bit too much more. Can even add in paying off the officer’s college loans.
For standardizing the BAH/BAS you just reduce the BAS payments to be the same for an E-1 and O-1, and continue on up. Wouldn’t be a ton per person, only about $300 give or take (depending on the region), but it would still add up to a pretty big chunk of change.
Hey guys it’s all bullshit. Think about it. Your in for 20 years and you only get 16 percent. I’d rather do my 8 and go contract somewhere. This is just another thing for them to use as a scapegoat. Why not lower the pay on congressman senators they make much more than us but we risk our lives everyday. Funny how that works
There is a Facebook page as well as a petition started to tell Congress that it’s a bunch of BS to make those military who have been in for a substantial amount of time already that they are going from 50% to 16.5%! It’s ridiculous! If the change needs to be implemented, it should be for newly enlisted service people after a particular date. Those already serving deserve to keep their 50%!!!! Go to Facebook and search No To Military 401K. You can also find a link to the petition.
you’re an idiot. The gap between the difference of an E1 and O1 is so large that placing them on the same pay scale even for just BAH is insulting. The difference in the baseline education of an E1 and O1 is drastice. You can’t ask a college graduate to accept pay equivilant to an E1 as far as BAH is concerned and base pay equivilant to an E4 or E5. It won’t work, no one would to take that deal. Your “fix” surpasses all commen sense logic. Its rediculous and would not work. In what world do you live in to where you believe a platoon leader should work for the same pay as his SAW gunner or one of his team leaders? In no corporation in the world does a manager work for the same money as one of his workers. I can tell you’re one of those enlisted guys who base their opinion about officers solely on your bad experience with an officer. If I based my sole opinion of all enlisted soldiers solely on the shitbags I see everyday I would quit the Army. You need to pull your head out of your 3rd point of contact and look at this maturely. Not all officers are idiots and not all enlisted are the perfect “experienced” genius soldiers that you imply them all to be. We all posess different qualities and different levels of responsibility both of which are currently reflected in our pay scales. And the majority of our savings can be found in our health care system and weapons purchasing programs. Defense contracts scream fraud waste and abuse. Our personnel are a precious resource that needs to be retained.
You are the blooming idiot. It is your FOURTH point of contact, not your third. The five points of contact for a parachute landing fall (PLF) are as follows: balls of your feet, calf, thigh, ASS and pull up muscle. If you had been to Airborne School and not a dirty nasty leg you would know this. I can tell you are one of the officers who sit on their asses and feel a sense of entitlement because you managed to cheat your way through college while the enlisted guys learned the work ethic in the ranks.
4 years of collage doesn’t make you any more qualified to lead than four years of service. “I never let my schooling interfere with my education” – Mark Twain. Your degree in underwater basket weaving is trumped by my 4 years of on the job training. I’ve met great officers and great enlisted. I’ve also meet total shit bags in both departments and you know what the final conclusion is, you’re either a good marine or you’re not. Officer or enlisted has nothing to do with it. If they were smart they wouldn’t require a 4 year degree to be an 0-1 to 0-3, but would require one to move past that. take your best NCO’s and give them a chance to lead as officers, not some dumb ass collage kid who failed his internship and turned to the military. And stop contracting everything out!! They are raping the DOD
A college degree isn’t required for a commission. My OpsO (aka XO) got his degree before going to the Advanced Course.
Are you arguing for a balanced approach (non-commissioned officer to officer) or an unbalanced approach (non-commissioned officer)?
And, technically, it’s not rape when the client pays you for the pleasure.
Please tell me how to get commissioned without one.
I am arguing for a balance approach, who’s more-fit to lead a platoon, an NCO with several years of experience or someone who just finished 4 years of art history?
It’s always rape when you don’t have a choice. The name of the game is “find the politician catching the kickback”.
Dave Hoyt,
My OpsO went to OCS.
Define “fitness” as in fitness to lead a platoon.
Is a platoon a single-celled organism, or one of many cells in an organism called a battalion, or a brigade? This is a rhetorical question because ‘art history’ has no meaning when the professional education of a lieutenant (in the Army Infantry) is 6 months of tactics, followed by Airborne followed by Ranger School, followed by train up and deployment. It’s not the lieutenant’s degree, but whether s/he excelled at their PME. And Art History isn’t so bad. Easiest “A” in a final I ever made, when Major B nearly succeeded in electrocuting himself.
The government makes choices every day. Today’s choice is to get rid of contractors and beef up GS. Of course, they have to pull from the contractors in order to get the experience, education, and experties to accomplish the mission. The problem is the coming RIF in GS and officer numbers – last hired/first fired. This means the services will be stuck with a work force that lacks the experience, education, and expertise to accomplish the mission. Which means they’ll have to pay contractors to pull the collective tuckuses of servicemembers out of the fire.
If you’re looking to save money, you could look at retaining only those GS with decision-making power. You’d downsize the civilian force by over 75%, increase accountability by several thousands of percentage points, and like improve efficiency exponentially. Seriously.
DaveO,
Actually, it is not possible to get a commission without a degree anymore. The XO you were referring to must have come in a few years ago, because the degree completion option for OCS has been eliminated. For a while when the Army was extremely short handed on junior officers, they allowed Soldiers with 90 hours or more to go to OCS and get commissioned, but with the stipulation that they have to complete their bachelors degree prior to pinning CPT. That option is no more, and they have also tightened up on age waivers, TIS waivers, moral waivers, etc.
I think a more level pay scale between officers & enlisted is a great idea. Over the past 10 years, I have personally seen numerous officers (especially in field artillery) not know anything about what they were doing, and had to be trained by NCO’s. How is it fair that an O3 makes more than the E5 (with 4 yrs of service) that is made to train him?
Oh, and another issue with it being put into a TSP-style program… if the stock market tanks, so does your retirement pay.
I’ve been reading through Coburn’s “Back In Black” proposal, along with the Quadrennial Defense Compensation Review he cites. There are two irritants with this plan: this military-401K will be taxed – essentially opening up your retirement today to be raided for who’s knows what political patronage. The second irritant is that this was proposed before with Social Security and was shot down as racism – so what’s the difference now?
If the government can keep its hands off my retirement – I’ll support it. Otherwise: oh hell no.
When a military individual retires after twenty years of being prepared to defend his country, they receive 50% of their base pay. They also receive medical benefits under the Tri-Care program. When they turn 65 they fall under medicare and have to pay for their medicare with Tri-Care becoming their supplemental. When Congressmen and Senators leave office they receive 100% of their pay and total medical coverage for life. When they turn 65 they don’t have to pay for medicare. The majority of these Congressmen and Senators do not put twenty years in. If a military man puts in 30 years he still only receives 75% of his base pay. I will go along with changing our military retirement system when the politicians are held to the same standards as the military is. And don’t forget they are not being asked to put their lives on the line.
Two things:
1. Only citizens who’ve served on Active Duty (Regulars, AGR) get 50-75% of base pay upon retirement. Traditional reservists and guardsmen have to wait until age 60; unless they served after… 2007(?) in Iraq or A-stan and then they can draw pay at 55. Think Lt Col P falls into that category.
2. You’re arguing the relative value of groups. One can make the same argument about CEO pay and perks versus the Mail Clerk’s. Members of Congress, the SCOTUS, and the President are more valuable to the US of A than I am.
I would like the insider trading, and the patronage-kickbacks to cease.
Reservists draw at 60 or 3 months earlier for every 90 day period served on OEF/OIF orders after 2007. Each 90 day period has to fall within the same FY. For example, I was mobilized July 7, 2008, for one year. Since July 7-Sept 30 is less than 90 days, I can collect at the age of 59 and 3 months. What a ridiculous rule.
I believe the law states you cannot collect prior to 55 no matter how many deployments you have. However, the law applies only to active duty performed after 2007-they did not grandfather in earlier deployments, although the subject has been raised every year.
There are a whole slew of things they could do with the Congresscritters to lower the budget (though admittedly it wouldn’t be a LOT, which is why they get away with not doing it), I was originally trying to stay on topic. BUT since it’s been raised and I can link them together…
The lowest salary I could find listed for the House was $175k a year, before additional pay for each board or commission they are a part of. There are seats for 435 Representatives, and 100 Senators (currently only 97). That equals $93,625,000 per year for congressional salaries alone, not including their staff. Their health insurance costs them approximately $400 a month, the government paying the other $800, under the Federal Employees Health Insurance Benefits program. This is the same health program that covers the majority of federal employees.
To clear up some rumors regarding their pay and benefits after they leave office… As far as their healthcare, once a member of FEHB the individual is able to continue coverage with the medical program, but they must pay the entire premium themselves (so about $1200/month). It’s not free, they do pay for it. The average yearly annuities collected by those congressman that have been in (or left) office prior to 1984 collect is about $64k/yr, and those since collect an average of $40k (a lot more one-term guys than I was expecting for sure). This is of course the average, and seems to include the years they don’t collect after they leave office until they are eligible; any of those that served for 20-24 years can collect their retirement at age 50, and receive 80% of their pay during their time in office. Serving 25 or more years nets them 80% immediately upon exiting office and those who serve less than 20 cannot collect until 62, and receive a % of their base pay based on the number of years of service.
Now that all of that is out of the way (and hopefully this next part gets read BEFORE the flaming starts), I do NOT agree with this method. It is my opinion that one of three things should occur in regards to the paychecks of those in Congress before they ever try to mess with the DODs budget:
1) Reduce all Congressional salaries to be in-line with the yearly base pay of an E-6 in the US Military, with pay raises on the same basis as everyone else (increases every year for your first 4, and then once every 2 years). Pay them BAH/BAS, also at the E-6 level, for their Home of Record (i.e. back in their home state, not in D.C.). Their pay then STAYS at that rate, they want a raise, the entire military gets a raise as well; and the entire pay scale needs to be adjusted by an equal amount, they can’t just give it to the E-6 rate. They would also receive healthcare via Tricare as if on active duty, which means they’d be seen at a military facility if available before a civilian doctor. As with everything else, their retirement would follow exactly with whatever the military receives.
This puts their average yearly income at around $46k/yr. That’s a savings of $129k/yr PER congressman, or about $68,987,000 a year in pay alone.
2) Completely remove pay for all members of Congress and start over. The basis for Congressional members being paid is due to the time it took to travel from one end of the country to the other before airplanes were in common use. By the time they got home from D.C. by car/wagon/train they had to turn right back around and go back, giving the ones with exceptional travel distances no time to have a normal job. Well, thanks to the awesome power of flight, that is no longer true, so here is what you do:
First, their travel is paid out of the federal budget, they get business class tickets (they’re travelling on official business, I’ll be nice), not First Class, and they sure as heck don’t need a private plane. Second, they receive per diem pay at the same rate as a military member on orders away from home station, and a daily amount equal to an E-6 in the military as above, however ONLY during the times that Congress is in session. By the 20th Amendment of the Constitution they are only required to meet ONCE each year, and the length is not specified. The Constitution itself states that the meeting times will be from the first Monday in December to April or May for their first year, and then December to March thereafter. This was in addition to being there for swearing in of new members, inaugurations, and organization.
Both the House and Senate have been known to have /pro forma/ meetings, only minutes long, every three days (the maximum length they can wait without meeting during session times) in order to avoid the need to obtain consent from the other body to adjourn. That’s fine by me, but they don’t get paid during those days off, just like everybody else. The military gets paid for weekends off true, but they can also be called back at any time.
So now we are only paying them for the 4-6 months out of the year they are actually in D.C. doing their jobs, the rest of the time they’re going to need to work just like the rest of us. Treat them like deployed Reservists so they can’t be fired while fulfilling their federal obligations.
3) Stop paying them with federal funds period (I favor this one the most). Their pay is determined, and paid for, by their state of origin. They want a raise, they can put it to a vote in that state, and it applies only so long as they are in office before defaulting to a base rate when a new person is voted in. This means that each state can determine the base pay, and yearly increases, retirement benefits, etc. that their Congressman receive. No more of this voting themselves raises bull.
Combining #2 and 3 together would actually be the best way to go about it.
Of course, the actual budget impact for the above would be minimal in comparison to anything the DOD can do, but that is beside the point. If these were private sector jobs they could get paid to talk all they wanted, but these are federal jobs, and they are paid by the taxpayers. They treat federal money like it is theirs to waste and act like they are above the people who voted them into office. The easiest way to make them come back to earth is to force them to be treated like everyone else, and not above them.
One thing that would help lower costs is for the states to buy homes for their senators and representatives. Currently, the law requires congresscritters to maintain a residence in his or her home state (& district for Representative); but the nature of legislative and political optempo requires congresscritters to maintain another residence in the D.C. area.
The other thing: pro-rate congresscritter salary: most are millionaires – and whatever money remains in the coffers following an election campaign is property of the candidate – so only pay those that are truly in need. Mrs. Pelosi and a number of others make more in income off the interest on their wealth that most readers here see in a number of years.
Which is another thing that needs to change. Donations for campaign funds should not be kept for personal use. They want to hold it for their next campaign that’s just fine, otherwise they should be required to donate remaining funds to charity, or at the least to their Party’s coffers. Even if they lose most of them end up with enough money to live off of for years.
I’d recommend them giving it all (of the remaining funds) to Soldier’s Angels or other charity group, and start all over again the next day campaigning for cash.
It would have to be a charity group with very low overhead (usually due to not paying the people who run it exhoribant amounts of cash), and the charity should have to prove that it has no political affiliation.
Give it to the VA to fun new equipment and facility maintenance. Specifically the VA hospitals in the states the candidates are from.
Shall require a constitutional amendment to require the states to pay for their salaries; see Article 1 Section 6
Section 6 – Compensation
(The Senators and Representatives shall receive a Compensation for their Services, to be ascertained by Law, and paid out of the Treasury of the United States.) (The preceding words in parentheses were modified by the 27th Amendment.) They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.
Amendment 27 – Limiting Changes to Congressional Pay. Ratified 5/7/1992. History
No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of Representatives shall have intervened.
No Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil Office under the Authority of the United States which shall have been created, or the Emoluments whereof shall have been increased during such time; and no Person holding any Office under the United States, shall be a Member of either House during his Continuance in Office.
Oh I’m aware that it would require an Amendment regardless of how it was adjusted. Doesn’t mean it shouldn’t happen.
Treason and Felony have no cachet any more. Because of the clause exempted members from arrest and questioning, congressscritters can say and do most anything and get away with it. However, I did see a recent pic of Mrs. Pelosi and my Peace was Breached. Does that count?
This is becoming an altogether Other Argument about restoring trust in the branches of government.
They are going to shoot themselves in the foot with this policy.They just have it good for now with the “Economic Draft” but it won’t last forever . Soon the SHTF with china or some other power and they will need everyone . Stop playing games DC traitors and obummer traitor get your acts together or the American people will take charge and vote all of you dirtbags out!.Time for term limits in congress and put a leash on their pork and back table deals. We the American people are really sick of your political games all of you in DC!. Obummer has no leadership and i don’t know who the hell is blowing smoke up his azz? but they are telling him the wrong things. Oh! i know george soros i alomost forgot. DC stop being lame or you will see a change. They can can push the American people around and not think for a moment of cutting their own pay checks???.
Wow, guess you didn’t pass you English Grammar class!
Must have thought he was replying to a text message from a “tween.” But don’t ignore the point (also raised by Mr. Salchow)- why should a single term senator receive more than a career soldier in terms of retirement? Any lawyer can wiggle his way into congress, but it takes dedication and resolve to maintain a military career for 20 years. what say you?
JPP
You and I agree on this one, although if Dave O is correct about some of the disadvantages of Senator Coburn’s plan, that would have to be worked on. Here are two table that I have worked on over the years regarding retired pay:
The first one raises the % of credit you get for each year of service up to 30, with one difference from today you do not start off earning 2.5%; not shown is computation that would allow you to get the cumulative total of you service (percentage) X you cumulative salary for the last three years as either a lump sum to be put into a private 401K or if you go into the RC to be credited towards your reserve retired pay. In this particular COA you would reach 50% at year 24 and 75% at year 30; there would an incentive for those who were permitted to serve to their MRD or Required Enlisted Separation.
Year Percent “Cum
Total”
1 1.0% 1.0%
2 1.0% 2.0%
3 1.5% 3.5%
4 1.5% 5.0%
5 1.5% 6.5%
6 1.5% 8.0%
7 1.5% 9.5%
8 1.5% 11.0%
9 2.0% 13.0%
10 2.0% 15.0%
11 2.5% 17.5%
12 2.5% 20.0%
13 2.5% 22.5%
14 2.5% 25.0%
15 2.5% 27.5%
16 2.5% 30.0%
17 2.5% 32.5%
18 2.5% 35.0%
19 2.5% 37.5%
20 2.5% 40.0%
21 2.5% 42.5%
22 2.5% 45.0%
23 3% 48%
24 3% 51%
25 3% 54%
26 3% 57%
27 3% 60%
28 5% 65%
29 5% 70%
30 5% 75%
31 2.5% 77.5%
32 2.5% 80.0%
33 2.5% 82.5%
34 2.5% 85.0%
35 2.5% 87.5%
36 2.5% 90.0%
37 2.5% 92.5%
38 2.5% 95.0%
39 2.5% 97.5%
40 2.5% 100.0%
The Second COA: the difference in this COA is the computation of separation pay. Both COA assumes the current personnel statues remain in effect.
1 1.0% 1.0% Cum % Total x Cum Salary Total
2 1.0% 2.0% Cum % Total x Cum Salary Total
3 1.0% 3.0% Cum % Total x Cum Salary Total
4 1.0% 4.0% Cum % Total x Cum Salary Total
5 1.5% 5.5% Cum % Total x Cum Salary Total
6 1.5% 7.0% Cum % Total x Cum Salary Total
7 1.5% 8.5% Cum % Total x Cum Salary Total
8 2.0% 10.5% Cum % Total x Cum Salary Total
9 2.0% 12.5% Cum % Total x Cum Salary Total
10 2.5% 15.0% Cum % Total x Cum Salary Total
11 2.5% 17.5% Cum % Total x Cum Salary Total
12 2.5% 20.0% Cum % Total x Cum Salary Total
13 2.5% 22.5% Cum % Total x Cum Salary Total
14 2.5% 25.0% Cum % Total x Cum Salary Total
15 2.5% 27.5% Cum % Total x Cum Salary Total
16 2.5% 30.0% Cum % Total x Cum Salary Total
17 2.5% 32.5% Cum % Total x Cum Salary Total
18 2.5% 35.0% Eligible for Retired Pay at 20 years because of 18 yr lock in.
19 2.5% 37.5%
20 2.5% 40.0% Retired Pay
21 2.5% 42.5% Retired Pay
22 2.5% 45.0% Retired Pay
23 3% 48% Retired Pay
24 3% 51% Retired Pay
25 3% 54% Retired Pay
26 3% 57% Retired Pay
27 3% 60% Retired Pay
28 5% 65% Retired Pay
29 5% 70% Retired Pay
30 5% 75%
31 2.5% 77.5% Retired Pay
32 2.5% 80.0%
33 2.5% 82.5% Retired Pay
34 2.5% 85.0% Retired Pay
35 2.5% 87.5%
36 2.5% 90.0% Retired Pay
37 2.5% 92.5% Retired Pay
38 2.5% 95.0% Retired Pay
39 2.5% 97.5% Retired Pay
40 2.5% 100.0% Retired Pay
Townie: by “Salary Total” are you meaning full base pay, or the High-3 formula or ???
dave,
I will leave that open for debate, it could be cul total; or it could be the high three or high five.
Revamping the benefits plan may well be needed, but should only apply to those who enlist after the changes go into effect. To apply them to current service members/retirees is a breach of contract or at least a breach of faith.
I got out with 15 years in…it would have been nice to have had something for that like the new plan would allow. But it shouldn’t be forced on anyone in now.
As far as pay disparity, I had a discussion about this when I was a young 2LT. Noticing that my pay was about 2X what a PVT made, it didn’t seem fair when the PVTs did all the grunt work. I mentioned this to one of my squad leaders, an E-5 who had been a CPT and rifle company commander in VietNam (long story about his trip from O3 to E5, but he was a good man). He told me that while it didn’t seem fair now, if we ever went to war, I would earn every red cent I was being paid and understand why I was paid more.
11 years later I was in Iraq and understood exactly what he meant. I’ve never felt “overpaid” since.
I’ll admit I’ve never been in the thick of things, I’ve always been in a support position, so my knowledge of what goes on up there is limited. But from the outside it seems to me that enlisted folks that ARE in the thick would be in the same situations, no?
Like I said, I have no issue with officers being paid more, just that the difference is too great in my opinion. Creating a more specific list for pay increases (smiliar but more specific than Hazard pay, Sea Pay, etc) might be a better way to deal with this for when troops are in theater rather than having the base pay difference be as great as it is.
Townie 76 . Your wife doesn’t seem to mind
Every change they make is to save money.. if THEY are saving money it is COSTING YOU money.
even the dimist of light bulbs surely can see the difference between 20% deposits per year for 20 years.. and 50% retirement pay for life?. Just since i have retired.. they have been chipping away at waht retiree’s get..
from 50% of full base pay (which as a percentage of all pay has been dropping since the 70′s)
to x years average of high pay (so your not getting what you retired at but an average)
to 40% of high pay average…
now.. they wanna get rid of it all together.. give u a few dollars now as incentive to stay in the service.. but when you hit your 20 .. bye bye your on your own..
not to mention when i joined .. and when my father was in the service (also 20 years) health care was space a.. for life free.. .. now.. one time in 15 years i go to a nav hosp cus my eye’s going bad.. i am kept from ANY health care by an army of civilan insurance agents.. who’s job is to keep me from getting heath care so their private corporatins can profit more.. and also.. so uncle same can get out of paying anything for retiree’s.
so.. relish your changes.. historically the changes are to screw you .. not help you.. there is no reason to expect anythign different.. the entire trend has been to reward you more while in service.. and to kick you out the door with less.. much much less.
I’m an E-8 with 16 years in. I have worked 55-60 hours a week for the last 4 years because of the various missions my unit supports. I’ve deployed 4 times and I have a small savings account I’ve managed to keep with all the moves and changes I have had to endure in my career. I’ve been counting on my military retirement at 20 years. I would never have stayed in if there were not a light at the end of the tunnel.
I’m nobody to the politicians, but I am everyone in the military today. We are not rich, matter of fact; most are just trying to get by. LEAVE OUR RETIREMENT ALONE!!!!
The only way this plan would have any chance of working is if any type of government invasion of it is absolutely verboten!
I have been in the Navy for 10 years, and my plan was to retire at 20 years. You can throw that out the window if they get rid of the current retirement plan. I have spoken to many of my shipmates, and they feel the same. The main problem that they will incur is that many of the senior enlisted will get out, and the new people that fall into the new plan will not want to stay in because why do that?
I am a nuclear engineer, and it takes about 2 years to get through our training, and actually get to the fleet and support the mission, which is why our enlistment is 6 years initially. If you go on the new plan the incentive to stay and do 20 is going to be gone, and people will get in and do their 6 years and get out with some money in their 401K, the MGIB, and a small initial signing bonus with the opportunity to make significantly more money on the outside where they match what you put into your 401K. The ONLY reason that I have not left the military yet is because of the retirement. I work 70-90 hours a week of rotating shift work on my shore command, and the NUKES are always the last ones off the ship when we pull into port. The bonuses and retirement is the only incentive to stay in.
I would like to see a congressman do my job for 10 years, and then let me tell him that the retirement that was promised at the beginning of his enlistment is gone.
The time that I have spent protecting my country has been great, and I have met some really good people. I have worked next to some of the smartest people I have ever met. I have seen places that I will never forget, and most people will never see (Spain, Italy, Greece, Turkey). However, if the new plan goes into effect I will not finish my CAREER in the Navy, but will start a new one in a civilian power plant.
The military is a uniquely separate component of American society that is authorized by the Constitution and common sense. It is not a civilian workforce and carries a much bigger burden in the DOD than its civilian counterparts and it seems we’re more intent on sustaining a bloated bureaucracy and “supporting” activities than the actual warfighter. These “supporting” elements are definitely intent on slitting our throats to support their careers and paychecks. Now I’m gonna slam the DOD civilian side as I just finished a year in Afghanistan where the average contractor was being paid double or triple what we are paid (and there were lots!) only to return to my current job which is 75% civilian. I keep being denigrated by these GS/contractor folks who according to a federal ranking scale technically outrank me (E7/16 years active)…..however in my dealings with them which I have done everyday for the last 2 years all I see are what would be considered equivalent to an E-4 mentality with them both responsibility and performance-wise. They don’t move unless they want to, deploy for long periods of time unless there is big money in it, are free to quit or look for employment elsewhere anytime, are able to go home EVERY NIGHT to their family, can focus solely on one job or task while having little professional requirements/standards other than their job description, have high tolerance for incompetence and aren’t required to DIE as part of their deal. All this while being slowly sidled up more and more to the military in all the “nice” spots so they can be jealous of a 20-year retirement pension which is subject to individual service stipulations and possible recall to duty. Not Fair??? The service takes a toll on its members that it seems some people just aren’t understanding so I say to all civilians who see fit to examine the military from their cubicle: GET YOUR A*& TO THE FRONT, DO IT FOR 20 YEARS AND THEN TELL ME YOUR OPINION OR PROPOSED PLAN
I am just reading everything, and this post about the civilians holding federal jobs, really got me going. I don’t mind all the civilians that are working for the government. They were brought in to free up more servicemembers to hit the front lines. But many of them do not give a S**t about the military members they are supposed to be serving. One day in the chow hall, this woman (contractor) told a Marine to pick up something SHE had dropped. The poor guy was just standing in line, waiting to get some food in his stomach. But this woman was too lazy, and felt ENTITLED to tell this Marine, to pick up something that she had dropped. I don’t think so. Not only that, but many of the civilian employees I have met are retired military members that slid straight from retirement into their nice, cushy job, courtesy of the US Government. And for some strange reason, many of them are grumpy as I don’t know what. I would think that retired military members who are now GS employees would be happy and almost bend over backwards to help out their fellow Soldier, Airman, or what have you. Apparently not. And how is it, that a GS 13 (equivalent to a Maj/LtCol I suppose) can write performance evaluations. I knew of one man who was a GS 13, who could NOT figure out how to attach a file into email. Explaining to him the process literally everyday was annoying, especially when I realized he could write my performance evaluation. But I agree, it is ridiculous that the civilians that work with us, have the nerve to complain, and criticize, and push off responsibility on others (typically military personnel) and are responsible for absolutely nothing if they just don’t feel like it.
GS-12 requires a Ph.D. GS-11 requires a Master’s Degree. GS-5 requires a HS diploma, but above that one needs a BA/BS. GS-13 and above has no educational requirements, but can split atoms with their minds.
DaveO, the info you put out as far as degree requirements for GS jobs is a bit misleading. You actually can get a GS-12 or even 13 job with only a HS diploma if you have work experience in a field related to the job being applied for. I know many military retirees that went right in to GS-11 and 12 jobs with only a HS diploma. The requirements you are listing are for applicants straight out of school with no prior work experience.
I apologize for this dirty and cowardly attack on my civilian counterparts. You are our teammates as well and I’m going to man up and admit my post was inappropriate and uncalled for. Please accept my humble apologies as it was a misdirected post…you guys are awesome and we couldn’t do without you.
Many of us in the Air Force feel the same way. Why on earth would we continue to be underpaid, receive raises below the yearly inflation, and possibly die in the line of duty to get a civilian retirement at 60? Many of us will terminate our service with the end of our enlistments and find a better paying job to at least make more to invest more. Seems that at 11 years in, I have given up so much to gain so little. Very disappointed we fight for the freedom for our representatives to pull the rug out from us….yet again.
That’s one of the things that proved to me how much the Federal government is in bed with public sector unions. They downsize the military only to replace them with contractors that get paid quite a bit more than the people that were in those positions. How exactly does that reduce costs again?
Four points to consider, and yes I’m a contractor in my other life:
1. Office of Professional Management does not know the education and KSA to look for in hiring folks. The Disabled Vet preference is the biggest horsecrap out there. I could be doing the job I do as a GS-13 for about half what I make now, but I never learned punch cards, COBOL and FORTRAN. Never mind the other education, 8 years direct experience, and allegedly-favorable disability rating.
– the system works this way: primary search of resume is done via robot-word-search. Many folks will advise to you to simply copy and paste whatever job you want onto your resume, change the pronouns, and submit the resume. This gets you beyond the first line of defense.
– HR folks don’t understand what is taught in academia, and what is expected in industry – these should be aligned, with academia and the R&D wizards informing each other of the latest and greatest. But, if you ask HR the difference between Excel, C#, and an airbus, you’ll get a dirty look.
2. GS are managers, contractors are technicians. About 90% of the GS staff in any office has little to no direct experience performing the necessary tasks and activities that are requirements for their job. I learned to empathize with NCO who endure the Eternal Lieutenant, who, once broken in properly, leaves. Met too many GS who idolize Custer, and think the Kasserine Pass is a tactic one employs playing bridge.
3. Contractors stay current educationally, and up-to-date on the all the trends. GS, after their probational year is up, stay current on their union dues and voting record. And they read the latest rag out of the Wharton for another gee-whiz idea.
4. When it comes to decision-making, initiative, and other leadership necessary to run an organization, the GSers play the rank game tighter than any uniform. All decisions are centralized, usually in an SES where decisions can take an entire FY or more as each angle (political, financial) is scrutinized with the most intense forms of skroot.
Bottom Line: when it comes to manning, remember the Iron Law of Bureaucracies: there are those who to accomplish the goals of the organization, and those who work to further the organization. You can’t get around it.
What a joke…
I’ve spent the last 12 years 8 months getting underpaid and overworked… I’ve got 7 years 4 months till retirement and the politicians are trying to screw me out of it! Something’s gonna happen if they do this… you watch…
LT COL P,
How dare you sir. If they change the retirement system for new recruits, fine. If Congress change’s the retirement package for those currently serving, myself and every Soldier, Sailor, Airman, and Marine I know will initiate a class action lawsuit for breach of contract. If that fails to protect the retirement that we bled and died for, we will march on Washington DC. Who will congress call to protect them then? The police? Lots of ex-military retirees in law enforcement so that’s out. Private rent-a-cops? LOL. I’d like to see them try against experienced combat veterans. They would turn and run with their tails between their legs no matter how much you payed them. The federal government wastes billions of dollars a year on pork barrel spending for Congress’ local constituency. DOD wastes billions of dollars every year on weapons systems, programs, and bases we don’t need because they provide jobs for Congress’ local constituency. DO NOT F@#K WITH OUR RETIREMENT BENEFITS! Fair warning sir, do what’s right or you will be forced to do what’s right.
Who dares, wins.
Combat Medic – your post reminds me of the Bonus Army.
I have 18 years in right now. The day that it is approved I will exit the military. So will 80% of others with 10 years and higher.