Posted on Oct 22, 2015
Bridging the pay gap and DOD cost reduction. Thoughts?
9.59K
27
14
5
4
1
As we continue to evolve our army maybe it's time to consider some real changes. To often we (Soldiers) tell ourselves that something is right because that's the way it has always been. There are a few changes I would like to get some senior enlisted and field grade thoughts on.
1. An E-9 with 20 years makes less than an O-4 with twelve years. Do you think targeted pay raises are due again to bridge the gaps between enlisted and commissioned ranks? (Not since 2007 have Defense Department officials or lawmakers worked to amend the pay charts to halt the growing pay gap. The gap grows every year the military receives a pay raise across the ranks.)
2. With growing budgetary constraints we have to consider ways of cutting cost across the DOD. The Senate Armed Services Committee has already proposed a change to dual military couples BAH, but let's take this one step further. What are your thoughts on eliminating BAH for single O-1 through O-3 until they take a company command or it's equivalent? There would obviously be some associated cost with having to build Officers quarters, but without any means at my level to run the exact numbers I would be willing to bet that the DOD would save a substantial amount of money.
Thanks for your time and I look forward to your responses!
1. An E-9 with 20 years makes less than an O-4 with twelve years. Do you think targeted pay raises are due again to bridge the gaps between enlisted and commissioned ranks? (Not since 2007 have Defense Department officials or lawmakers worked to amend the pay charts to halt the growing pay gap. The gap grows every year the military receives a pay raise across the ranks.)
2. With growing budgetary constraints we have to consider ways of cutting cost across the DOD. The Senate Armed Services Committee has already proposed a change to dual military couples BAH, but let's take this one step further. What are your thoughts on eliminating BAH for single O-1 through O-3 until they take a company command or it's equivalent? There would obviously be some associated cost with having to build Officers quarters, but without any means at my level to run the exact numbers I would be willing to bet that the DOD would save a substantial amount of money.
Thanks for your time and I look forward to your responses!
Enlisted
BAH
Military Pay
CSM
COL
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 6
5
5
0
1) Until we create a rank structure that eliminates officer and enlisted ranks, there should be a pay differential between officers and enlisted. Officers are generally put in charge of enlisted and NCO ranks; generally have higher levels of education attainment; and generally are given higher levels of responsibility; and thus should be paid more. Do I agree with the current rank structure---yes and no. Could we establish a rank structure where everyone is free to compete for jobs vs. the current NCO v. officer structure? Sure. (One could argue this system already exists, and that if NCOs want to make more money, they could compete for OCS).
2) Run the numbers. Pre-command lts and captains account for something like six or seven percent of the Army; unmarried ones account for something like three percent. Probably not as large of a cost savings as you imagine. If we went with your suggestion, we'd have to apply this to all ranks, just to be fair, so let's say no BAH for single enlisted until they complete their PSG time. Ridiculous, you say? I'd agree, just like the idea of not paying BAH to single officers is ridiculous. Oh, and likely illegal, as even the Services aren't allowed to discriminate on the basis of marital status. So, to implement your idea, we'd need to apply it to all ranks and all marital statuses. So, no BAH for anyone until they reached a certain time in service or rank or accomplishment. There's some cost savings there!
2) Run the numbers. Pre-command lts and captains account for something like six or seven percent of the Army; unmarried ones account for something like three percent. Probably not as large of a cost savings as you imagine. If we went with your suggestion, we'd have to apply this to all ranks, just to be fair, so let's say no BAH for single enlisted until they complete their PSG time. Ridiculous, you say? I'd agree, just like the idea of not paying BAH to single officers is ridiculous. Oh, and likely illegal, as even the Services aren't allowed to discriminate on the basis of marital status. So, to implement your idea, we'd need to apply it to all ranks and all marital statuses. So, no BAH for anyone until they reached a certain time in service or rank or accomplishment. There's some cost savings there!
(5)
(0)
SSG (Join to see)
Sir, I appreciate your response. I would have to argue a couple of your points though.
1. I agree that someone in a position of higher responsibility should be paid more. The problem arises from what you may consider responsibility. A 1LT may be in charge of a platoon of 20 personnel or so and an Enlisted Career Counselor in an Infantry Battalion is responsible for force allignment, transfer of education benefits, personal and professional growth, and assignment diversity for up to 700 Soldiers. It's all a matter of perspective. If you have a gold bar and i have a steak, you are the rich one. If you put us both on a stranded island now i am rich....again perspective. The point I was trying to make is not that Officers should be payed less, but possibly having different annual pay increase percentages assigned to different ranks over the course of several years to bridge the gap. When we assign a blanket percentage annual the gap will continue to grow exponentially.
2. I would be curious to see where your percentages came from or if there is a definitive way to accurately show them. ".....no BAH for Enlisted until they complete their PSG time", although this is not exactly the current state, single E1-E5 with no dependants are required to stay in the barracks and do not receive BAH. This is the same type of concept I was suggesting for single O1-O3's.
1. I agree that someone in a position of higher responsibility should be paid more. The problem arises from what you may consider responsibility. A 1LT may be in charge of a platoon of 20 personnel or so and an Enlisted Career Counselor in an Infantry Battalion is responsible for force allignment, transfer of education benefits, personal and professional growth, and assignment diversity for up to 700 Soldiers. It's all a matter of perspective. If you have a gold bar and i have a steak, you are the rich one. If you put us both on a stranded island now i am rich....again perspective. The point I was trying to make is not that Officers should be payed less, but possibly having different annual pay increase percentages assigned to different ranks over the course of several years to bridge the gap. When we assign a blanket percentage annual the gap will continue to grow exponentially.
2. I would be curious to see where your percentages came from or if there is a definitive way to accurately show them. ".....no BAH for Enlisted until they complete their PSG time", although this is not exactly the current state, single E1-E5 with no dependants are required to stay in the barracks and do not receive BAH. This is the same type of concept I was suggesting for single O1-O3's.
(1)
(0)
SSG (Join to see)
I would add that most E9's that I have worked for have had at least a masters degree which is about the same as most O4's, and under the 2016 pay chart with the 1.3 percent pay raise a Brigade CSM with 20 years of service will make 19.82% less than a Battalion S3 O4 with eight years less service/experience to offer and the same level of education. In 2009 that separation was only 19.80%. The separation is not increasing at an extremely fast rate but if we continue with blanket raises the separation will grow larger faster with each passing year.
(1)
(0)
Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS
SSG (Join to see) - I need to point out that your anecdotal experience of "most E9" can easily be countered. I was "anecdotally" attending college with the MCPON this year in April. He was on his final class for his BS after 32~ years in the Navy. Now the USAF has different standards, and I believe the Army is working towards it, but the Naval Services don't (as current). We're very PME centric, but not formal education.
(0)
(0)
MAJ (Join to see)
I'd challenge you to go find the numbers and data to support your argument. DMDC is a great place to start. For example, the percentages I mention. DMDC gives great breakdowns of rank structure by all sorts of demographics. It probably also provides data on the percentage of E-9s with masters degrees (I'd guess that the percentage of E-9's with masters degrees is exceptionally low). Your point on perspective is well said. The difference in the CSM v. O-4 example you give is that the CSM is (in all actuality and legally) responsible for nothing, while the O-4 S-3 is third in command of the battalion, and legally and in actuality responsible. I'm not trying to downplay the importance of NCOs; but after the squad leader level, NCOs are no longer part of the chain of command. That legal responsibility falls on officers, which is why they should be paid more. I do agree that we should maybe give pay raises that at least keep up with inflation. But I reject outright any notion that we aren't paid enough, across the board. We are paid exceptionally well, considering the total compensation package, and generally more than our peers in e civilian world based on experience and education.
(1)
(0)
4
4
0
I think there always will (and should) be a gap between Officer and Enlisted sides of the house. However, I think the gap is a bit too wide at the moment. I'm not in favor of equalizing, but I do think that the lower enlisted could use a few more $$ in their pockets. I'd support no raises for O-4 and up for three years with increased raises for E-1 - E-5 for the same time period and see where we stand.
(4)
(0)
SSG (Join to see)
Sir,
Thanks for your response! I think your on the right track. The specifics on how something like this would be accomplished at the very top but I am glad to see your adaptability and willingness to accept change! Especially when it would directly affect you.
Thanks for your response! I think your on the right track. The specifics on how something like this would be accomplished at the very top but I am glad to see your adaptability and willingness to accept change! Especially when it would directly affect you.
(0)
(0)
3
3
0
I know that there are plenty of other ways to cut spending bit unfortunately I don't think that this "hurry up and spend 200k by Friday or we won't get the same funding next year" mentality will ever go away.
(3)
(0)
SGT David T.
This isn't about mentality it's about complying with Federal law. Funds have expiration dates and do not roll over. They must spend the funds or risk having their budgets slashed by the unspent portion for the next year. This will only change if Congress changes the appropriations laws to allow funds to carry over.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google